Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 12:09:28 GMT
Antinatalism is an idiotic philosophy, IMO. I've never seen anybody make anything approaching a decent case for it. Pessimism? Meh. Be pessimistic if you like. Pessimistic people seem to enjoy their pessimism at least as much as optimistic people enjoy their optimism, so more power to them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 12:59:57 GMT
The rigorous definition of suffering is anything that a sentient being endures that creates unpleasant and unwelcome sensations. Anything that you are forced to endure that you do not want to endure is suffering. By bringing new life into the world, you force that individual to endure experiences that they would prefer not to endure. How are you quantifying: (a) the degree of pleasant/unpleasant or wanted/unwanted experiences, (b) the frequency of unpleasant or unwanted experiences versus pleasant or wanted experiences? And what are the metrics or algorithms for (a) relative frequency tempered by degree, and (b) generalized conclusions about this given the wide variance there's going to be among individuals? I'm not quantifying those things, nor do I have metrics nor algorithms. I know that grievous suffering is highly prevalent, even in developed nations, but as you well know, there is no way of numerically quantifying the degree of suffering. All I have to demonstrate is that a) suffering exists, b) there is no way of guaranteeing that any given individual will not encounter suffering that they deem to be unacceptable, c) this suffering does not befall non-existent people and that to take this risk with someone's wellbeing is a violation of the non-aggression principle, given that it was an act of imposition of risk without consent. Then it would be your job, as a natalist, to explain why you think that the importance of bringing new life into the world takes priority over observance of the non aggression principle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 13:02:14 GMT
Antinatalism is an idiotic philosophy, IMO. I've never seen anybody make anything approaching a decent case for it. Pessimism? Meh. Be pessimistic if you like. Pessimistic people seem to enjoy their pessimism at least as much as optimistic people enjoy their optimism, so more power to them. Funny that, I've seldom seen anyone debate antinatalism without personal insults and deliberately misquoting or otherwise distorting the points being made by the antinalism. Or, as terrapin station is doing, asserting that suffering isn't real or it can't be demonstrated that suffering is ever a bad or unpleasant experience. If antinatalism really had nothing going for it, then I wonder why people need to distort the antinatalist argument, attack the strawman argument that they've constructed, and then refuse to pass any further comment on the matter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 13:30:18 GMT
Funny that, I've seldom seen anyone debate antinatalism without personal insults and deliberately misquoting or otherwise distorting the points being made by the antinalism. Actually you have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 13:35:30 GMT
Funny that, I've seldom seen anyone debate antinatalism without personal insults and deliberately misquoting or otherwise distorting the points being made by the antinalism. Actually you have. Keira is the only person who has debated the subject on IMDb/IMDb 2 without resorting to insults and/or strawman arguments. There was also one guy on another forum who was fairly civil and didn't distort any of my points, and one guy on Reddit who was somewhat convinced by antinatalism, but still wanted to be excused to have 1 child. That's why I edited my post from "never" to "seldom".
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 17, 2017 14:16:12 GMT
How are you quantifying: (a) the degree of pleasant/unpleasant or wanted/unwanted experiences, (b) the frequency of unpleasant or unwanted experiences versus pleasant or wanted experiences? And what are the metrics or algorithms for (a) relative frequency tempered by degree, and (b) generalized conclusions about this given the wide variance there's going to be among individuals? I'm not quantifying those things, nor do I have metrics nor algorithms. I know that grievous suffering is highly prevalent, even in developed nations, but as you well know, there is no way of numerically quantifying the degree of suffering. All I have to demonstrate is that a) suffering exists, b) there is no way of guaranteeing that any given individual will not encounter suffering that they deem to be unacceptable, c) this suffering does not befall non-existent people and that to take this risk with someone's wellbeing is a violation of the non-aggression principle, given that it was an act of imposition of risk without consent. Then it would be your job, as a natalist, to explain why you think that the importance of bringing new life into the world takes priority over observance of the non aggression principle. First, I'm laissez-faire regarding whether people want to have kids or not, that's up to them. What is the "non-aggression principle" ontologically? Note that I'm not asking you to relay the principle. I'm asking you what it is in terms of what sort of thing is it? Where does it exist? Etc. So in other words, it's something you agree with. Well, so what? Why would that have any implication other than the fact that you (and whoever else) agree with it? Is the non-aggression principle anything other than a way that the people who agree with it feel about what should be the case?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 17, 2017 16:03:07 GMT
tpfkar Keira is the only person who has debated the subject on IMDb/IMDb 2 without resorting to insults and/or strawman arguments. There was also one guy on another forum who was fairly civil and didn't distort any of my points, and one guy on Reddit who was somewhat convinced by antinatalism, but still wanted to be excused to have 1 child. That's why I edited my post from "never" to "seldom". You start off with the insults when people disagree with you and then bawl when people don't shy from pointing out your manifest irrationality and crass dishonesty. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 16:59:58 GMT
Keira is the only person who has debated the subject on IMDb/IMDb 2 without resorting to insults and/or strawman arguments. There was also one guy on another forum who was fairly civil and didn't distort any of my points, and one guy on Reddit who was somewhat convinced by antinatalism, but still wanted to be excused to have 1 child. That's why I edited my post from "never" to "seldom". Your arguments have been utterly debunked. I did it myself. I saw others do it. You just refuse to accept the debunking because it doesn't align with what you want to be true. It's a common mistake.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 18:15:51 GMT
That's actually fairly loaded, but let's say this is true Why would the evo-psych purpose override the human-decided purpose for it- like some of the stuff Cactus listed in a post above? You would have to grant greater authority to one over the other. Let's say that there are some people who don't mind suffering; that still means that you are imposing the risk of suffering on people who categorically DON'T want to endure it (myself, for one), and nobody can seem to come up with a good reason for why it is necessary to do so. And even the vast majority of those who can see a positive aspect to suffering would likely balk at prolonged and severe suffering with no abatement (like what is experienced by those with certain illnesses). We're also not exclusively talking about human lives, and it seems unlikely that animals come up with any of those rationalisations for why suffering is actually a good thing. I was more wanting to talk about the objective purpose, and how an evolutionary purpose would override the one people decide for it. A quick thought experiment: Say the human menopause came about through natural selection to reduce the number of older women. Hot flashes make you faint and make you more susceptible to predators. (So it is something deadly). Modern science discovers a way to prevent it. However certain societies/individuals decide to keep it because it constrains them to be better grandmothers, form closer social circles ect. After that point is its purpose its original evolutionary one, or the one decided for by society? I actually agree with your views on suicide because the odds are against you being sucessful. (The odds are currently 100 and 200 to 1 against). So in the same way it should be one's right to take a pill to prevent menopause (or any suffering) it should be their right to have a safe way to opt out of life. Afaik, only living sentient beings can have some form of (subjective) purpose so I disagree they are having something imposed on them before they are born because they are by default non-existent. I disagree that suffering is by default the worst thing ever that should never happen because of the reason below in ii: ii. to reply to your new post. If you're stating it's a numbers thing then you have the problem that not everyone is committing mass suicide or curling up not doing anything as if to avoid being shocked by whatever comes their way. So suffering must be in fact less efficacious/prolific than the other traits/qualia. So it's either less than the positive traits or suffering is being reworked in such a way that it becomes something positive for the individual. iii. I also think you're taking "suffering being the ultimate bad" as an a priori (a self evident truth). That's fine. I think Sam Harris does something similar and anyone who disagrees he can't relate to. I recall he was shocked when Dennett asked him "why? (Ayn Randian traits should be removed from the brain to reduce suffering)" on his podcast. The problem is others won't agree because for most people it is not a self evident truth. So the debate will just go in circles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 18:30:22 GMT
Keira is the only person who has debated the subject on IMDb/IMDb 2 without resorting to insults and/or strawman arguments. There was also one guy on another forum who was fairly civil and didn't distort any of my points, and one guy on Reddit who was somewhat convinced by antinatalism, but still wanted to be excused to have 1 child. That's why I edited my post from "never" to "seldom". Your arguments have been utterly debunked. I did it myself. I saw others do it. You just refuse to accept the debunking because it doesn't align with what you want to be true. It's a common mistake. No, all you did was distort the point that I made by putting words in my mouth (or on my fingertips) then refuse to account for why you needed to lie if my argument was so easily refutible. There is no debunking of the fact that people have no choice in their existence, or that non-existent people feel no deprivation and crave existence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 18:39:35 GMT
I'm not quantifying those things, nor do I have metrics nor algorithms. I know that grievous suffering is highly prevalent, even in developed nations, but as you well know, there is no way of numerically quantifying the degree of suffering. All I have to demonstrate is that a) suffering exists, b) there is no way of guaranteeing that any given individual will not encounter suffering that they deem to be unacceptable, c) this suffering does not befall non-existent people and that to take this risk with someone's wellbeing is a violation of the non-aggression principle, given that it was an act of imposition of risk without consent. Then it would be your job, as a natalist, to explain why you think that the importance of bringing new life into the world takes priority over observance of the non aggression principle. First, I'm laissez-faire regarding whether people want to have kids or not, that's up to them. What is the "non-aggression principle" ontologically? Note that I'm not asking you to relay the principle. I'm asking you what it is in terms of what sort of thing is it? Where does it exist? Etc. So in other words, it's something you agree with. Well, so what? Why would that have any implication other than the fact that you (and whoever else) agree with it? Is the non-aggression principle anything other than a way that the people who agree with it feel about what should be the case? So even in cases where there is a high likelihood of severe disability, you don't think that the welfare of the future child would warrant being taken into consideration? There is no physically observable 'non-aggression principle', but then if you go down that line of reasoning we also cannot condemn the holocaust, given that 'the holocaust was bad' is a statement that cannot be supported by science. The point of the antinatalist philosophy is only to try and convince people that it is unethical to bring children into the world. To do this, I call upon almost universally shared (at least amongst civilised societies) ethical principles. The non-aggression principle (i.e. you don't harm another person unless they've harmed someone, or at least unless it is in the service of some greater goal) is one of those ideas which is broadly shared and makes ethical sense. If you disagree with antinatalism on the basis that 'there's no way of proving that suffering is a bad thing', then can be no response to that kind of nihilism. But your line of argument could be used to justify the holocaust, or raping young children. I'm trying to reach people who aren't completely nihilistic and do feel that suffering and harm are important and should not be inflicted unless necessary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 18:49:18 GMT
Let's say that there are some people who don't mind suffering; that still means that you are imposing the risk of suffering on people who categorically DON'T want to endure it (myself, for one), and nobody can seem to come up with a good reason for why it is necessary to do so. And even the vast majority of those who can see a positive aspect to suffering would likely balk at prolonged and severe suffering with no abatement (like what is experienced by those with certain illnesses). We're also not exclusively talking about human lives, and it seems unlikely that animals come up with any of those rationalisations for why suffering is actually a good thing. I was more wanting to talk about the objective purpose, and how an evolutionary purpose would override the one people decide for it. A quick thought experiment: Say the human menopause came about through natural selection to reduce the number of older women. Hot flashes make you faint and make you more susceptible to predators. (So it is something deadly). Modern science discovers a way to prevent it. However certain societies/individuals decide to keep it because it constrains them to be better grandmothers, form closer social circles ect. After that point is its purpose its original evolutionary one, or the one decided for by society? I actually agree with your views on suicide because the odds are against you being sucessful. (The odds are currently 100 and 200 to 1 against). So in the same way it should be one's right to take a pill to prevent menopause (or any suffering) it should be their right to have a safe way to opt out of life. Afaik, only living sentient beings can have some form of (subjective) purpose so I disagree they are having something imposed on them before they are born because they are by default non-existent. I disagree that suffering is by default the worst thing ever that should never happen because of the reason below in ii: ii. to reply to your new post. If you're stating it's a numbers thing then you have the problem that not everyone is committing mass suicide or curling up not doing anything as if to avoid being shocked by whatever comes their way. So suffering must be in fact less efficacious/prolific than the other traits/qualia. So it's either less than the positive traits or suffering is being reworked in such a way that it becomes something positive for the individual. iii. I also think you're taking "suffering being the ultimate bad" as an a priori (a self evident truth). That's fine. I think Sam Harris does something similar and anyone who disagrees he can't relate to. I recall he was shocked when Dennett asked him "why? (Ayn Randian traits should be removed from the brain to reduce suffering)" on his podcast. The problem is others won't agree because for most people it is not a self evident truth. So the debate will just go in circles. i) I think that each individual ought to be able to decide whether or not they want the menopause. Women should not be forced to suffer through it because it is valued in their cultural milieu, but if they want to be menopausal, then it should be within their rights to refuse the preventative treatment. ii)I'm glad that you're in favour of having the right to die. Unfortunately, that simply is not the world that we are bringing more children in to, and it only seems more likely that society is going to become ever more aggressive in eliminating suicide as an option for those in suffering. I'm not saying that the majority of people hate their lives, although I would arguing that life is usually more 'tolerable' than it is 'enjoyable'. My point really is that some people are always going to end up with the shitty end of the stick and are going to experience truly appalling suffering throughout their life. There is no fairness built in to the system, so we can't ensure that everyone ends up with the same amount of suffering, or only the amount of suffering that they are capable of tolerating. Therefore, even if you could say that only 1 person out of 100 absolutely hated their existence, that means that you're excusing the suffering of the 1% as acceptable collateral damage in pursuit of a goal that is not necessarily shared by them. And my point is that individuals ought not to be forced to contribute to a shared goal with which they do not agree, or be collateral damage that is caused in the process of pursuing that goal. iii)If suffering isn't the ultimate bad, then I don't know what else could be the ultimate bad. Death isn't, because death is just the cessation of experience and is qualitatively no different than the state before birth. Nobody laments the lack of life on Pluto, and for a very good reason; non-existent organisms do not feel deprivation. Consciousness is the source of all value in the universe (a completely barren universe is one without values), and suffering is the one unpleasant and undesirable side effect of consciousness. As far as I can tell, everything that we deem to be 'bad' is only bad because it entails suffering. Even with death (which is an absence of suffering), we mainly deem this to be bad because of how it makes those of us still living feel.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 17, 2017 18:54:49 GMT
First, I'm laissez-faire regarding whether people want to have kids or not, that's up to them. What is the "non-aggression principle" ontologically? Note that I'm not asking you to relay the principle. I'm asking you what it is in terms of what sort of thing is it? Where does it exist? Etc. So in other words, it's something you agree with. Well, so what? Why would that have any implication other than the fact that you (and whoever else) agree with it? Is the non-aggression principle anything other than a way that the people who agree with it feel about what should be the case? So even in cases where there is a high likelihood of severe disability, you don't think that the welfare of the future child would warrant being taken into consideration? There is no physically observable 'non-aggression principle', but then if you go down that line of reasoning we also cannot condemn the holocaust, given that 'the holocaust was bad' is a statement that cannot be supported by science. The point of the antinatalist philosophy is only to try and convince people that it is unethical to bring children into the world. To do this, I call upon almost universally shared (at least amongst civilised societies) ethical principles. The non-aggression principle (i.e. you don't harm another person unless they've harmed someone, or at least unless it is in the service of some greater goal) is one of those ideas which is broadly shared and makes ethical sense. If you disagree with antinatalism on the basis that 'there's no way of proving that suffering is a bad thing', then can be no response to that kind of nihilism. But your line of argument could be used to justify the holocaust, or raping young children. I'm trying to reach people who aren't completely nihilistic and do feel that suffering and harm are important and should not be inflicted unless necessary. Moral noncognitivism is a fact. It's a fact that no moral statement is true or false, objectively correct or incorrect. Moral nihilism, in this sense, is a fact. I'm not saying anything about "proof." Empirical claims are not provable period. And logical and mathematical claims are only provable relative to the system we've set up. So proof, pro or con, is a moot point. And I'm not saying anything about whether you can condemn anything or make any moral judgment you want about anything. Of course you can do that. But it's simply a way that you, as an individual, feel, and that's all it is. (And that includes people who feel that rape, genocide, etc. are morally permissible. They're not objectively wrong in that, because there is no objective wrong in this realm. That would simply be how they feel, just like every moral stance is.) Hence why anti-natalist arguments are ridiculous, and why they seem to always hinge on objectivism (on ethics/morality). Ethical/moral subjectivism is a fact. It's what the world is like independent of our beliefs about it. Hinging an argument on a wishful fiction doesn't work. There are no universally shared ethical principles, and societies don't think per se--individuals do. That some principle is widely shared doesn't imply anything. And the belief that it does is simply the argumentum ad populum fallacy. I don't agree with the non-aggression principle, by the way. It's way too vague. Maybe you're just forwarding something rhetorical, something that's more or less propaganda meant to persuade people who can be persuaded to agree with you, so you can make the world more like you'd personally prefer it to be. That's fine for what it is, but it doesn't make your argument work as anything other than propaganda.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 19:06:19 GMT
So even in cases where there is a high likelihood of severe disability, you don't think that the welfare of the future child would warrant being taken into consideration? There is no physically observable 'non-aggression principle', but then if you go down that line of reasoning we also cannot condemn the holocaust, given that 'the holocaust was bad' is a statement that cannot be supported by science. The point of the antinatalist philosophy is only to try and convince people that it is unethical to bring children into the world. To do this, I call upon almost universally shared (at least amongst civilised societies) ethical principles. The non-aggression principle (i.e. you don't harm another person unless they've harmed someone, or at least unless it is in the service of some greater goal) is one of those ideas which is broadly shared and makes ethical sense. If you disagree with antinatalism on the basis that 'there's no way of proving that suffering is a bad thing', then can be no response to that kind of nihilism. But your line of argument could be used to justify the holocaust, or raping young children. I'm trying to reach people who aren't completely nihilistic and do feel that suffering and harm are important and should not be inflicted unless necessary. Moral noncognitivism is a fact. It's a fact that no moral statement is true or false, objectively correct or incorrect. Moral nihilism, in this sense, is a fact. I'm not saying anything about "proof." Empirical claims are not provable period. And logical and mathematical claims are only provable relative to the system we've set up. So proof, pro or con, is a moot point. And I'm not saying anything about whether you can condemn anything or make any moral judgement you want about anything. Of course you can do that. But it's simply a way that you, as an individual, feel, and that's all it is. Hence why anti-natalist arguments are ridiculous, and why they seem to always hinge on objectivism (on ethics/morality). Ethical/moral subjectivism is a fact. It's what the world is like independent of our beliefs about it. Hinging an argument on a wishful fiction doesn't work. There are no universally shared ethical principles, and societies don't think per se--individuals do. OK, it's a fact then. But it's also a fact that a barren universe is one without values, and therefore the only way that we can make value judgements is in relation to how it affects conscious beings. I'm not trying to convince the universe not to create more children; I'm trying to convince people not to create more children. Therefore I think that your argument is pure sophistry. Antinatalism is about ethics and is grounded in the intuitive logic of 'suffering = bad; pleasure = good', not in mathematics. Based on moral nihilism, it would also be impossible to conclude that the holocaust or child molestation is 'wrong' or 'bad'; so if 'suffering isn't bad' is the best that can be said against antinatalism, then I'm quite happy with that.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 17, 2017 19:10:30 GMT
Moral noncognitivism is a fact. It's a fact that no moral statement is true or false, objectively correct or incorrect. Moral nihilism, in this sense, is a fact. I'm not saying anything about "proof." Empirical claims are not provable period. And logical and mathematical claims are only provable relative to the system we've set up. So proof, pro or con, is a moot point. And I'm not saying anything about whether you can condemn anything or make any moral judgement you want about anything. Of course you can do that. But it's simply a way that you, as an individual, feel, and that's all it is. Hence why anti-natalist arguments are ridiculous, and why they seem to always hinge on objectivism (on ethics/morality). Ethical/moral subjectivism is a fact. It's what the world is like independent of our beliefs about it. Hinging an argument on a wishful fiction doesn't work. There are no universally shared ethical principles, and societies don't think per se--individuals do. OK, it's a fact then. But it's also a fact that a barren universe is one without values, and therefore the only way that we can make value judgements is in relation to how it affects conscious beings. I'm not trying to convince the universe not to create more children; I'm trying to convince people not to create more children. Therefore I think that your argument is pure sophistry. Antinatalism is about ethics and is grounded in the intuitive logic of 'suffering = bad; pleasure = good', not in mathematics. Based on moral nihilism, it would also be impossible to conclude that the holocaust or child molestation is 'wrong' or 'bad'; so if 'suffering isn't bad' is the best that can be said against antinatalism, then I'm quite happy with that. Talk about sophistry. "suffering = bad; pleasure = good'" has fuck-all to do with logic. That suggests that you don't even know what logic is. You're an objectivist. But objectivism is ignorant. That's not what the world is like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 19:19:51 GMT
OK, it's a fact then. But it's also a fact that a barren universe is one without values, and therefore the only way that we can make value judgements is in relation to how it affects conscious beings. I'm not trying to convince the universe not to create more children; I'm trying to convince people not to create more children. Therefore I think that your argument is pure sophistry. Antinatalism is about ethics and is grounded in the intuitive logic of 'suffering = bad; pleasure = good', not in mathematics. Based on moral nihilism, it would also be impossible to conclude that the holocaust or child molestation is 'wrong' or 'bad'; so if 'suffering isn't bad' is the best that can be said against antinatalism, then I'm quite happy with that. Talk about sophistry. "suffering = bad; pleasure = good'" has fuck-all to do with logic. That suggests that you don't even know what logic is. You're an objectivist. But objectivism is ignorant. That's not what the world is like. It is what the world, from the everyday perspective of a sentient being, is like. I can't convince the universe of anything, and that is not the goal. "Suffering = bad" because suffering has only negative connotations such as 'pain', 'torture', 'ordeal', etc. In other words, if you aren't experiencing anything unpleasant, then you are not suffering. If you are experiencing a condition that is unpleasant and you wish it would stop, then you are suffering.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 17, 2017 19:23:23 GMT
Talk about sophistry. "suffering = bad; pleasure = good'" has fuck-all to do with logic. That suggests that you don't even know what logic is. You're an objectivist. But objectivism is ignorant. That's not what the world is like. It is what the world, from the everyday perspective of a sentient being, is like. I can't convince the universe of anything, and that is not the goal. "Suffering = bad" because suffering has only negative connotations such as 'pain', 'torture', 'ordeal', etc. In other words, if you aren't experiencing anything unpleasant, then you are not suffering. If you are experiencing a condition that is unpleasant and you wish it would stop, then you are suffering. Meaning is not objective, either. Any term, x, only has the connotations that some individual assigns to it. You can say that "unpleasant = unpleasant," as otherwise we'd be equivocating, but "pain = bad" only works when we're talking about an individual who assigns "bad" to all pain, and not everyone does that. We could say that most people do that (even though I doubt that's true), but that most people do anything has no implicational value, and to claim that it does is to commit an argumentum ad populum. This is an annoying conversation by the way, because you don't meet the objection of even one thing I bring up. So it's just you glossing over stuff and moving on with rhetoric while I point out more problems for you to essentially ignore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 19:58:24 GMT
It is what the world, from the everyday perspective of a sentient being, is like. I can't convince the universe of anything, and that is not the goal. "Suffering = bad" because suffering has only negative connotations such as 'pain', 'torture', 'ordeal', etc. In other words, if you aren't experiencing anything unpleasant, then you are not suffering. If you are experiencing a condition that is unpleasant and you wish it would stop, then you are suffering. Meaning is not objective, either. Any term, x, only has the connotations that some individual assigns to it. You can say that "unpleasant = unpleasant," as otherwise we'd be equivocating, but "pain = bad" only works when we're talking about an individual who assigns "bad" to all pain, and not everyone does that. We could say that most people do that (even though I doubt that's true), but that most people do anything has no implicational value, and to claim that it does is to commit an argumentum ad populum. This is an annoying conversation by the way, because you don't meet the objection of even one thing I bring up. So it's just you glossing over stuff and moving on with rhetoric while I point out more problems for you to essentially ignore. "Suffering" is always bad, even if "pain" isn't. For example, someone could have you chained and gagged to your bed while they whip you. Most people would be suffering in that situation, but if you are into S&M, then you are probably not suffering and therefore we cannot assign a negative value to that scenario. Suffering cannot be accurately used in association with any thing that is not bad. I also find it an annoying conversation, because your argument doesn't have any real world application to anything. It could be used to justify literally anything from the holocaust to animal torture. It could be used by a torture killer to justify their crimes. So in real world scenarios, it is useless and therefore none of what you have brought up is a 'problem' for antinatalism. And if that's the only weak spot that the philosophy of antinatalism has, then I'm happy to accept that.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 17, 2017 20:04:43 GMT
Meaning is not objective, either. Any term, x, only has the connotations that some individual assigns to it. You can say that "unpleasant = unpleasant," as otherwise we'd be equivocating, but "pain = bad" only works when we're talking about an individual who assigns "bad" to all pain, and not everyone does that. We could say that most people do that (even though I doubt that's true), but that most people do anything has no implicational value, and to claim that it does is to commit an argumentum ad populum. This is an annoying conversation by the way, because you don't meet the objection of even one thing I bring up. So it's just you glossing over stuff and moving on with rhetoric while I point out more problems for you to essentially ignore. "Suffering" is always bad, even if "pain" isn't. For example, someone could have you chained and gagged to your bed while they whip you. Most people would be suffering in that situation, but if you are into S&M, then you are probably not suffering and therefore we cannot assign a negative value to that scenario. Suffering cannot be accurately used in association with any thing that is not bad. I also find it an annoying conversation, because your argument doesn't have any real world application to anything. It could be used to justify literally anything from the holocaust to animal torture. It could be used by a torture killer to justify their crimes. So in real world scenarios, it is useless and therefore none of what you have brought up is a 'problem' for antinatalism. And if that's the only weak spot that the philosophy of antinatalism has, then I'm happy to accept that. There is no accurate usage of words, and it's a fact that anyone can justify anything. Denying that fact is simply ignorant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 20:08:48 GMT
"Suffering" is always bad, even if "pain" isn't. For example, someone could have you chained and gagged to your bed while they whip you. Most people would be suffering in that situation, but if you are into S&M, then you are probably not suffering and therefore we cannot assign a negative value to that scenario. Suffering cannot be accurately used in association with any thing that is not bad. I also find it an annoying conversation, because your argument doesn't have any real world application to anything. It could be used to justify literally anything from the holocaust to animal torture. It could be used by a torture killer to justify their crimes. So in real world scenarios, it is useless and therefore none of what you have brought up is a 'problem' for antinatalism. And if that's the only weak spot that the philosophy of antinatalism has, then I'm happy to accept that. There is no accurate usage of words, and it's a fact that anyone can justify anything. Denying that fact is simply ignorant. The concept of suffering always related to negative experiences and sensations. Suffering is always pain (either physical or mental), but not all pain is suffering. And your nihilistic logic is equally as unfalsifiable when used to justify slavery, genocide or torture as it is when justifying bringing new life into the world. That ought to be your hint that it's not a very good justification.
|
|