Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Future generations aren't being denied anything, nor missing anything, because they don't exist, and don't expect to. What a load of romantic crap notion that is, uwot.

Fair enough. If, as you suggest to others, you want a rational discussion, I think you have to accept that it will be based on aesthetic or ethical premises. Somewhere you are going to have to can get an is from an ought, or prove that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. Meanwhile, I'm with Henry on this one, doesn't always happen, but I like life, and I think it would be a terrible waste of a universe if there were no one to appreciate it.
From what I can gather, part of your argument is that some people are nasty: let's give up. I'd rather stay and fight.

Sorry uwot, totally missed your reply. I've given the ethics behind antinatalism, but I'll give it again for your clarity. First, a lack of choice, and next, an ethical imperative not to put others in harms way. You can't avoid that by creating a conciousness. As well, whilst the imperative is to do no harm to others, there is no ethical imperative to cause pleasure. Please do keep in mind that we are not discussing those who currently exist. Only the ones who don't yet. So this isn't about you or me, or any kids you currently may have. And let me know if I can elucidate further on anything. I'm happy to engage in real discussion here, not the nonsense others have been giving me, save Henry and you, who are at least asking questions. It's appreciated.

Anyways marjoram, if you decide to peek in, would you explain how the universe would be harmed by the absence of consciousness contained therein, as it seems important enough for you to bring it up repeatedly?

Dalek Prime wrote:Sorry uwot, totally missed your reply. I've given the ethics behind antinatalism, but I'll give it again for your clarity. First, a lack of choice, and next, an ethical imperative not to put others in harms way. You can't avoid that by creating a conciousness. As well, whilst the imperative is to do no harm to others, there is no ethical imperative to cause pleasure. Please do keep in mind that we are not discussing those who currently exist. Only the ones who don't yet. So this isn't about you or me, or any kids you currently may have.

I think it is. I agree that some imperative not to cause harm is the foundation of ethics, and while any life is likely to experience some harm, and inevitably, death, it isn't usually the intention of parents to inflict harm.
Further to that, we know that consciousness can evolve, so there is no reason to believe that, short of obliterating all life on Earth, it won't happen again, making the whole project futile. Then there is the issue of the aging and dwindling population, many of whom would die lonely, and unnecessarily painful deaths.

Dalek Prime wrote:Anyways marjoram, if you decide to peek in, would you explain how the universe would be harmed by the absence of consciousness contained therein, as it seems important enough for you to bring it up repeatedly?

I don't need to explain anything. It is a logical possibility. My reminders to you were a result of your avoiding - or missing - my earlier response.

uwot wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Sorry uwot, totally missed your reply. I've given the ethics behind antinatalism, but I'll give it again for your clarity. First, a lack of choice, and next, an ethical imperative not to put others in harms way. You can't avoid that by creating a conciousness. As well, whilst the imperative is to do no harm to others, there is no ethical imperatproject tocause pleasure. Please do keep in mind that we are not discussing those who currently exist. Only the ones who don't yet. So this isn't about you or me, or any kids you currently may have.

I think it is. I agree that some imperative not to cause harm is the foundation of ethics, and while any life is likely to experience some harm, and inevitably, death, it isn't usually the intention of parents to inflict harm.
Further to that, we know that consciousness can evolve, so there is no reason to believe that, short of obliterating all life on Earth, it won't happen again, making the whole project futile. Then there is the issue of the aging and dwindling population, many of whom would die lonely, and unnecessarily painful deaths.

Totally agree with the futility of the project to aim for non existence of beings/consciousness so as to avoid future suffering.
Also holding such a negative overall aim constantly in mind, trying to persuade others to believe; wishing absolute control where none is possible - it raises questions as to consequences on mental health.

Such a philosophy, in my view, is less than convincing with a confused morality, leading to more harm than good. Quite simply it's a miserable failure in achieving credibility and sensible people see that.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Lacewing wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Yes, as an existent, you would prefer something over nothing. But if you never were, you wouldn't know the difference, and wouldn't miss it. You also couldn't suffer.

But if I could know that I could have been (suffering and all) but wasn't because of your campaigning, I would be pissed... and want to kick your ass in the spirit realm. If you really care about someone, don't you want them to be free to be JUST IN CASE they might enjoy it or get something out of it? Aren't you being overly protective of all beings by wishing them not to be? If you were god, there would be nothing, right? How clever is that?

God in the Bible had no intention of mankind breeding until much later. Adam and Eve were supposed to be the only ones. The Judaeo-Christian God didn't decide for them. They did. So, I wouldn't be so far off from what God intended, initially.

And this God has what exactly to do with your chosen philosophy? You find support for your view in the Bible?

"You are completely missing the point"

No, I think I get your point perfectly. I just disagree with you, is all.

#

"there is an imperative not to cause harm"

Based on what? I can and do argue that folks ought to each mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves, but this is not an ethical position, only a practical one. What's your foundation for an imperative to not cause harm?

#

"there is no ethical imperative to cause pleasure"

Mebbe not, but I can argue there is an imperative to allow choice, and little Joe can't choose till he exists, so...

Dalek, here are some questions I feel inspired to ask you...

Why do you think consciousness deserves a choice? (...or am I misunderstanding your position?)

Why can't consciousness simply be one of many attributes/degrees (i.e. not a big deal) scattered throughout a much larger system that naturally grows and continues exploring possibilities... without any need for choice at any level or junction? The built-in directive, rather, being to explore and expand?

How can we know that our human "consciousness" ranks very high at all on the scale of all types of awareness? Perhaps the process of human life/experience is a way for us to transition/progress through the sleep-state that we currently consider so brilliantly conscious? Maybe it's a very natural process that consciousness fucks itself up before learning not to. Should we prevent that?

Lacewing wrote: Maybe it's a very natural process that consciousness fucks itself up before learning not to.

It's a rather prosaic way of putting it but that's exactly what evolution is and the process of consciousness is an evolutionary process. In the case of human consciousness this evolutionary process of trial and error begins in utero and doesn't stop until the grim reaper makes his final move but it means that the meaning of one's personal existence must always lie in the journey and never in the destination. It also means that the cumulative effect of every individual's personal journey leads to the further evolution of our species as a whole, a perspective which accords perfectly with the evidence. The universe cannot be said to have a purpose but the self-causal mechanism of such an evolving and dynamic reality means that the minds which reality brings forth are free to define a purpose for themselves. In this way the universe mandates its own comprehensibility in a non-teleological fashion, a truth which Spinoza defined as bigger then god.

Dalek Prime wrote:

henry quirk wrote:Okay, I get it now.

And: I agree, future folks aren't neccessary (in an objective sense).

Not sure what use our agreement is to either of us, or to any one else.

Animals are gonna keep on, keepin' on with the baby-makin', neccessary or not.

That is: other than being a descriptive assessment, what good is antinatalism?

What good is any idea in the long run, if no one cares about it. But I care about it from an ethical standpoint, because I care about suffering. And that which doesn't exist can't suffer.

That which does not exist, cannot enjoy.
You say your own life is worth living, but not the life of a potential child.
I assume you have no children?
You'd understand your own contradiction if you did.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

henry quirk wrote:Okay, I get it now.

And: I agree, future folks aren't neccessary (in an objective sense).

Not sure what use our agreement is to either of us, or to any one else.

Animals are gonna keep on, keepin' on with the baby-makin', neccessary or not.

That is: other than being a descriptive assessment, what good is antinatalism?

What good is any idea in the long run, if no one cares about it. But I care about it from an ethical standpoint, because I care about suffering. And that which doesn't exist can't suffer.

That which does not exist, cannot enjoy.
You say your own life is worth living, but not the life of a potential child.
I assume you have no children?
You'd understand your own contradiction if you did.

I'm getting sick of everyone here not understanding how this works, so I'm here one last time to say it, again, ad nauseum, like you have the wherewithal to get it...

That which does not exist yet does not know of, or miss, joy or pleasure. It is you who cannot step outside your own bias of existence, and thus project your own desire for these joys onto things that dont desire them, because there is no consciousness to desire or know of these things.

Now, to Henry, you are full of shit. You merely replaced my stated imperative of doing no harm with one of your own; that of giving choice. Choice isn't necessary to that which cannot make choices, nor desires them. You and others are conflating what an actual child wants or needs, with that of something which has no desires or needs, preconception. Although you either won't or cannot, you have to stop confusing the two states. They are completely distinct. That's the non-identity problem, which I've explained often is not a problem at all. It's merely your conceptual confusion that you keep muddling the two states of existence and non-existence in your heads.

To uwot. I don't care if you want to believe that I'm talking about extants. I'm not, so give it a rest and stop putting words in my mouth when I've clarified otherwise.

Okay, I'm done here wasting my time. Full stop. Go enjoy the forum, and bicker among yourselves about petty philosophical disagreements that don't make one iota of difference to your lives, or anyone else's, save for the minor stimulation your brains feel doing so.

You've all made me realise that I shouldn't waste one bit of care about beings that are so willing to sacrifice other consciousnesses, that don't need to be, all because you think it's a great idea to make more, and to pad your own lonely retirements with people to look after you, and pay into your pension coffers, only to be abandoned by you when you die.

Life, though it can be good, is mostly drudgery. You do the same things over everyday. Get up, go to work, come back from work, watch tv, go to bed, and do it all again til you die. That's all you are giving your kids by having them. Drudgery mixed with bits of pleasure. Big whoop favour that is.

Now get off my lawn, the lot of you.

*shrug*

henry quirk wrote:*shrug*

Who gives a fuck, you brainless twit.

For marjoram.

http://palmstroem.blogspot.ca/2016/01/n ... brain.html

Dalek Prime wrote:.

..
I'm getting sick of everyone here not understanding how this works, so I'm here one last time to say it, again, ad nauseum, like you have the wherewithal to get it...
..

Now get off my lawn, the lot of you.

When the whole world is telling you that you are wrong; you are either wrong or a genius.
Ahem!
I don't think you are a genius when you can't even answer a simple question: do you have children?