Total posts: 910
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Being that it is not certain that one can say a child's life could be overall positive or negative, it is not definitely a right or wrong choice for any parent to have or not have a child.Would you be okay with someone taking your money (without your permission) and gambling with it in a casino?It would depend if the alternative was having no money ever by never existing. If I had the chance to exist with the money or not exist at all I would say go ahead and do it.Even now you are asking my consent to be brought into existence. Therefore, the best thing we can do is make the assumption of what the individual would want.Okay, let's assume that you did have the chance to exist, and that this money was placed in a trust fund for you to eventually use (i.e. it's effectively yours). Once you're born and 18 years old, is there any question as to whether you'd be okay with someone taking and using this money to gamble in a casino?Obviously, the potential human wouldn't be okay (once they exist) with you using their money to gamble in a casino (you're more than likely going to lose and you didn't get their consent). So, it's obvious that a potential human, once they're born, wouldn't be okay with you gambling with their quality of existence (if life is, overall, a net negative in terms of instances of negative affect *and* the total value of those instances. You also didn't get their consent).This is a different example as it uses an individual who is already born, and you are gambling with the money so I'm not sure whether my example or your example correlates to the example of bringing someone's life into existence. However, if the money was given to me, I suppose I would not want the money to be gambled but I would also keep in mind that this was not rightfully my money to begin with rather it was a gift. It's wrong to take a gift back once you have given it, But I still don't see a clear relation between your example and bringing someone into existence.Nonetheless we are still basing it upon the child's consent and by never bringing that child into existence they don't have much to say against being brought into existence. Therefore, the child can say nothing until it has existed about its will to be non-existent.It is a different example, but it's about a person yet to be born (who we can guess will be born), and that's the reason I changed it (it's more similar than my original example because it talks about someone yet to be born, rather than someone already born).The analogy here is that, without the future person's permission, you're gambling with his/her money (analogous to his/her quality of life).Money gifted to you is your money, otherwise it's a loan. There's no expectation for the money to be paid back. Analogously, your quality of life is your own, and in both scenarios this analogy sets up, both are gambled with without consent.We know that the child can't currently say anything, but are we assuming that any future person would be okay with having their money gambled with like that, all without their permission? Similarly, if life is overall a negative experience, are we assuming that any future person would be okay with having their quality of life gambled with like that, all without their permission?
I suppose it all comes down to whether life is more negative than positive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Moreover, it is possible for a person to meet progression often, and even if not often, still occasionally, and even if occasionally, it means that negativity is not always a predecessor of positivity. Your claim is that negativity is always a predecessor of positivity and above you say what if a person makes no progression that is a form of negativity. I would agree it is a form of negativity to make no progression, but I would also say what if they do make progression and therefore negativity is not always a predecessor of positivity. Therefore, I can prove that negativity is not always a predecessor of positivity.We agree that "it is a form of negativity to make no progression". Having not achieved any progress always comes before achieving progress. Achieving progress is not guaranteed, but entering a state of having yet achieved progress is. Therefore, negativity is always a predecessor of positivity.
This would be true; however, you make one mistake. Making no progression is only a negative if you put effort into it. An individual who puts no effort into something will make no progress and so no progress is always a predecessor of progress but it's not negative if you didn't put effort into nothing. On the contrary if an individual puts effort into progress there is quite a chance that they will make progress. Therefore, it is possible to experience positivity without the predecessor of negativity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
You are also correct that losing even if expected is never a positive experience, but it also isn't always a negative one. A clear example of how someone could lose and still feel positive is by progression. Progression is a sense of accomplishment and seeing yourself lose by less and less gives you the motivation to trudge forward and eventually accomplish victory.Losing is always a negative experience. You can draw positive or mitigating lessons from it, but the act of losing (separate from those lesson) is 100% always negative.Again, what if you make no progression? It's just a negative state that wasn't met with any "progression".Do you see how the negative is always coming before the positive? It's critical to understanding my argument.It is not always the case that a person does not meet progression, it is almost always a certainty. The human mind was made to develop more, given more life experience and as time moves forward everyone develops more life experience so it is almost a certainty that progression will be made if determined and focused on one's goals.No, it's not almost always a certainly. People don't always remain "determined and focused". I could agree that progression towards goals is frequent, but sometimes people give up, sometimes people go backwards, sometimes people just die.
In that case, it would be determined by the individual's mindset if they are focused and determined they will make progress if they stray from their goals and give up hope then they have no chance of progression. Ultimately, whether an individual makes progress or experiences positivity from the relation to where they were is determined by the individual's mindset and focus, thus making this a subjective resolve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
I must agree that certain obstacles are less of a challenge to overcome and more of a tragedy of life. Such as your example of an infant dying from heart disease right after birth. However for most individuals this is not the case and I still believe that if the child and parents were unaware that this would happen the child would have wanted to take the chance of being the majority who don't get the disease and potentially if raised properly view life through a positive lens and therefore live a happy life.It's possible that some people would want to take the chance, but we don't know for sure because there is no consent (my OP's argument 2). So, you're just gambling with someone's life without asking them first.There's plenty of other horrible things that can go wrong in life, particularly towards the backend of life. Various cancers are quite common and often devastating. Chronic illnesses can pop up, too. It's not just dying from heart disease in infancy that is the only serious problem. The chances of you making it through life without something terrible happening can't be too high (and you're guaranteed to die at the end, too).Also, unless you think that 100% of people would be fine taking this gamble, you're imposing this gamble on people without their consent *and* without thinking they would accept it -- that's morally problematic.
You mention 100% of people must be willing to accept it, what if 99% of people would have been grateful and experienced a good life. Are you to say that we are to deny those 99% of people the chance or human right to experience life? It's a give and take, you argue it's wrong to bring a person into existence if there is an even a small chance they will dislike it, but you don't mention about denying the many people who would have been grateful and glad to have it. How is this justifiable without their consent for the denial of life?
I assume you would respond this is not a valid question because they are not humans, only humans have human rights and therefore the rights of an individual to life without yet being a human are invalid. Then my response would be, so are the people who have not yet been brought into existence. Therefore, you do not need their consent to be brought into existence because they are not a person. But then you would argue but they are now a person. Then I would say, well you're not bringing them into life now, you did it before they were human and had human rights. What do you think?
It is certain that looking back from an adult standpoint of the infant they would be disappointed possibly even angry with the concept of life that they got the unlucky small percentage, but this is not the child or the parent's fault but rather a tragedy of life, And I believe the child again with a positive lens of life would have been willing to take the risk.It is the parents' fault because they chose to bring the child into existence. We're not forced to have children. Parents are the ones imposing these risks on a future human.
Should I hold you morally accountable for going to work every day because you know that there is a chance someone could jump in front of your car you are aware that it's possible? You know it's a possibility, you know it's a small percentage, you still consistently do it every single day. How is this justifiable?
What I'm trying to say is that anyone who truly believes the stance of anti-natalism wouldn't be alive to argue it. This is because in order to have a coherent mindset the thoughts that are consistent with anti-natalism relate to the many things a person does through their life that are contrary to their belief. Do you acknowledge that you being alive is actively living out against the belief of anti-natalism principles? Are you aware that your very existence, however small the possibility, might bring a negative experience to another individual that you have forcefully imposed on them by being alive?
I mean this respectfully and wish the best for you, I am only trying to bring to light the contradictions within your actions and your beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Again, it is based on the mentality of the individual. My mentality of a being defeated by an obstacle, or a challenge is that I will always come back stronger, and I acknowledge I may never be the world champion of whatever I try to accomplish but then again positive effect is subjective as it's met by the individual's preferences and desires of what they consider success. for myself it is always being better than I was previously and that progression is what I value as positive. For another individual they may not feel positive unless they are the world champion and for them, I can't say much. Ultimately the feeling of positive or negative comes down to what makes the individual feel satisfied and that is subjective and varies. If we're going to support the concept of anti-natalism upon a subjective varying factor, our conclusion will be varying upon the individual and therefore is not a concrete or definitive answer.The mentality of the individual is certainly a factor, but human affect isn't based on that.It's actually based on the fact that humans universally view pain/suffering/discomfort/negative affect as something undesirable. Humans enter these universally agreed upon negative states through various ways (or vice versa), and THEN we take into account the mentality factor. So, mentality is a mitigating/amplifying factor, and certainly not what all this is based on.For example, being told that you have cancer will produce negative affect. Someone with a weak mentality will be crippled with depression. Someone with a strong mentality will still be upset but determined to beat it. One person experiences a lot of negative affect; the other person feels minimal negative affect, but the basis is the initial negative affect felt from the event, not the mentality in response to it.You can say things like, "I will always come back stronger" and other positive platitudes, but that positive attitude isn't guaranteed, and people might not even be capable of it (what if people aren't genetically capable of a positive mindset?). Those people are still part of the equation as to whether human life is desirable, so you can't hand wave their lives away with, "I can't say much". Unless you want to argue that everyone is capable of this "I will always come back stronger" mentality for all scenarios (or even most), there will be people who are sacrificed on the altar of human continuation.
I believe you're confusing obstacles with tragedies.
Obstacles refer to difficulties or barriers that we encounter in pursuit of our goals or desired outcomes. They are typically seen as challenges or setbacks that require effort, problem-solving, and perseverance to overcome. Obstacles can be external, such as financial constraints, time constraints, or resource limitations. They can also be internal, such as self-doubt, fear, or lack of motivation. The key characteristic of obstacles is that they present hurdles that need to be tackled or circumvented to move forward. On the other hand, tragedies are events or circumstances that bring immense pain, suffering, and often irreversible loss. Tragedies are typically associated with significant negative impact on individuals or communities, such as the loss of a loved one, natural disasters, serious accidents, or major health crises. Tragedies can be deeply distressing and can have long-lasting emotional, psychological, and sometimes physical consequences. Unlike obstacles, tragedies are often unexpected and uncontrollable, and they can profoundly alter the course of a person's life.
While both obstacles and tragedies can be challenging and bring adversity, their nature and impact differ. Obstacles are part of life's regular challenges that require problem-solving and perseverance, while tragedies represent more profound and often devastating events that can cause profound emotional and psychological distress.
We're talking about overcoming obstacles of life, however at the same time I would like to acknowledge the tragedies of life. Meanwhile, it is also important to keep in mind the good fortune in life, along with the rewards in life in order to come to an accurate conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
You are correct, positive feelings of accomplishment are expensive in terms of time and effort but that's what makes them so valuable. The moment that the time and effort required to obtain the positive feeling of accomplishment ceases so does its value of accomplishment.And I'm saying that this valuation results in more instances of negative affect than positive affect. The expenses are guaranteed and aren't always met with a paycheck.I do agree that the effort put into accomplishment isn't always met with success. It is also possible that an individual may feel defeated and that they are never able to achieve their goals and therefore feel negative.Right. You're basically agreeing with my argument 1a at this point.
Again, this is not quite true. I said it is possible for an individual to feel defeated, and you are saying: Therefore, everyone's lives are more negative than positive.
I'm not saying it isn't possible for an individual to have more negative than positive in their life, but I am saying that it's subjective to the individual and that individual's mindset and how they react with the world. You cannot just say life is more negative than positive given this information.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
I value challenges and obstacles because they provide a means to a better life than just being the neutral individual. Sure it's work, but that is what makes it such an accomplishment to achieve. Without the work it wouldn't be much of an accomplishment and as I've said before without accomplishment there is no sincere value for overcoming it.No, you don't value challenges or obstacles. You value the result of overcoming those challenges/obstacles.If we suddenly dumped 50 obstacles in your life right now, you wouldn't so, "finally, more obstacles," you would instead be overwhelmed.
That is subjective, one individual may feel one obstacle is overwhelming while another may take 50. Again, this is based on the mentality of the individual whether or not they are going to take on the challenge. My mindset is that if you can't avoid a challenge then deal with it straight on, the same can be said with your fears, this is one of the many things clinical psychologists have clients do to overcome their fears. You cannot escape your fears, they will always find you, but you can defeat them if you face them head on. This has been demonstrated in about every movie made where the protagonist has a fear at the beginning of the movie, by the end of the movie one way or another they were caught up to by their fears and had to either give up or face them. Typically, the film will portray the protagonist gaining courage and facing their fears and conquering them but not forever, they cannot defeat them from existence. This is why in many movies the hero will never kill the villain, the characters in the movie are people who embody the spirit or ideas of life. Evil and fears will always lurk, but you can still become an eternal victor of your fears.
You're correct, I value the feeling of overcoming obstacles, but I am not defeated when I fail to overcome an obstacle. By definition, it's an obstacle, if it didn't stop me, it wouldn't be much of an obstacle. Therefore, by being defeated by obstacles I do not feel mentally defeated, but rather challenged, and then by conquering the obstacle and overcoming the challenge I feel positive. This is how the mindset of the individual determines whether or not they feel negative or positive when they are faced with an obstacle, do they have the mindset of a coward or a conqueror?
Ultimately, it again proves that obstacles are not negative or positive but rather the individual subjectively determines whether or not the obstacle affects them negatively, neutrally, or positively. Therefore, the question of Anti-Natalism is a matter of subjective opinion, one individual may feel overall negative and therefore anti-natalism would be correct for that individual, while for another feels they can cope with life's challenges and therefore anti-natalism would be incorrect for that individual, there is no one size fits all.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm trying to demonstrate that work is not negative or positive, rather it sets the stage to become a champion and without it no one could become a champion.Even if it does set the stage to "become a champion", it's still negative in itself. That's why we have phrases like 'motivated to work': work is a negative state to be in that requires mental discipline and endurance to come out the other side of (hopefully a champion).Also, the concept of 'champion' is often a zero-sum game that produces far more losers than it does winners. Not everyone can win gold at the Olympics. Not everyone can lift their sport's world cup. It might even be a universal: people have to lose so that winners (i.e. champions) can be made. Thus, having the concept and implementation of 'champions' should actually be avoided, due to the overall harm it causes (and often unnecessary in things like sport).
Positive does not mean to win, just as negative does not mean to lose. Positive and negative are both words that are relative to an instance in which most cases it is used to reference the point of oneself. To be negative would be to be negative from where you were at, to be positive would be to be positive from where you were at. If I'm at 10th place and I score my best time ever and I get 9th place that is positive even if I'm not a winner. Similarly, if I was in 1st place and I made a blunder becoming 2nd place, I am not in last place and therefore not the loser, but it is still a negative. Therefore, to say that there are more losers than winners in the Olympics means that there is more negative than positive is inaccurate. If first place went to last place and everyone else went up one there would be more positive individuals the negative ones. You could argue that the sum of the impact between the individuals is still zero sum, but I would argue that more individuals went up than down.
Imagine a world where everyone was average, it would be pretty pathetic.Not objectively, and this is yet another argument for antinatalism -- there's just no world for humans in which everyone can win. If everyone had 130 I.Q. and was strong enough to bench 500 lbs, then that would be "average" and would be deemed "pretty pathetic". People would feel better if they had 115 I.Q. and could only bench 375 lbs, if everyone else only had 100 I.Q. and bench 280 lbs, even if they're objectively worse numbers.We all live in an age of prosperity that people 2000 years ago couldn't dream of, yet a lot of people are still unhappy with their lives. Even in the most backwards part of Africa, they're still living at a far higher standard than most people in human history.Objective improvements that cost real world resources don't impress the human mind for long -- it's a faulty psychology.
I agree that many people feel unsatisfied with their lives even though they have much better living conditions than 2000 years ago. This is a result of them comparing themselves to others rather than to themselves. It is not right or wrong to compare yourself to yourself or to others, they are different reference points in which you can acknowledge your place. In our galaxy of outer space, we could measure where the Earth is moving in a reference to the sun or in a reference to the moon or in reference to a star one is not more accurate than the other, they are all just additional ways of acknowledging one point moving from another. Similarly, referencing our dance compared to others in the same time and era is a valid comparison just as comparing oneself with themselves. A person can do either and that is what makes it subjective, one person may feel positive because they have accomplished something they could never do before by referencing their past self, another individual may feel negative because they have not accomplished world dominance because they are referencing the world champion.
Ultimately, to say that the Olympics is a negative because there are not many winners is not true. It is true there are not many winners in the Olympics but it is also true that a winner is not a positive just as a loser is not a negative a person who references a stance and moves from a positive or negative direction determines whether it is positive or negative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
It really depends on the person's mentality. If a person believes they deserve something that they don't have they will feel as if they are being robbed by life of something they are owed, implying a negative emotion. If a person believes that they don't deserve something even if they value it, they will not feel as though they've earned it. Therefore, out of the necessity of work will they only genuinely believe they deserve it and therefore enjoy it.I understand the functionality of mentality and how it can vary outcomes, but that's not at all the point of contention.I'm arguing (in 1a) that this functionality produces more negatives than positives, and you're helping me to further make my case here.You've shown that's it possible to have people achieves their goals, yet not experience positive affect because they feel it wasn't earned -- that increases the number of instances wherein negative affect exists.You're also agreeing with that work is a "necessity" to achieve positive affect, hence the negative affect (found in work) proceeds the positive affect (feeling like they deserved the reward). Again, seeing that in this instance, the negative affect comes before the positive, this biological mechanism makes negative affect guaranteed but positive affect not -- zero-sum at best.Not quite. You claim that I'm demonstrating by people achieving their goals they can still lack positive feeling. However, being given something with no effort is not an achievement, therefore I am not claiming that someone can make an achievement and not feel a positive outcome. Rather by someone robbing them of that achievement they can feel no positive outcome.The person still reached their goal, even if the feeling of achievement was robbed of them. But again, this only strengthens my antinatalist argument (1a) as someone can reach their goal (something not guaranteed), and yet still be unsatisfied because of the way in which it was reached. You're just arguing for more instances wherein the person won't reach their goal (hence not be in a state of positive affect).I can agree with everything you've said in your paragraph and that would strengthen my case.
I don't believe so, your argument is that there is always equal or more negative in the world. I'm pointing out that by someone taking away someone's obstacles of accomplishment that they can have no accomplishment and you're saying that they still made a positive but that's not a positive they were given it with no effort or obstacles which is not an accomplishment which is not rewardable by joy or satisfaction.
Additionally, your argument requires negativity to always precede positivity. If you agreed with my argument, you would agree that people can move from a neutral state which is not dislikable but rather neutral as negative would be dislikable and they move from that neutral to a positive state in which the positive state they are drawn towards because it is a surplus and desirable more so than the absence of positive or negativity. It is evidence that positivity can exist without the predecessor of negativity. This disproves the foundation of the argument that there is always more negative in the world. This is not much of a new question, but it is another way of expressing the belief of the negative, neutral, and positive state of beings. Only once we have established that can we begin to answer the question of whether negativity always precedes positivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Humans have decided that it's a negative because they want to move away from those neutral or absence states. It's almost impossible to imagine a human, lying in bed with no desires and no goals, being totally okay with doing that for most of the day (obviously, the person will need to eat, drink and relieve themselves).Your example suggests that because someone desires to move from a neutral state to a positive state then the neutral state must be negative, but this is incorrect. It rather implies that people value something positive over nothing at all, nothing at all, which is not necessarily negative. They value positive as better than neutral, not neutral as negative. Therefore, the absence of something positive is not necessarily a negative. In essence they're not leaving neutral because they dislike it in the sense that they leave something negative because they dislike it. Rather, they are moving from the neutral to the positive because they like where they're going more than where they're at.I know what you're saying but it's just not true.Let's exaggerate to the extreme to see the exact value of having goals: If a person had a myriad of goals in life and never achieved any of them, would that be a life lived in a neutral state? Would that person be totally indifferent to the fact that they achieved zero of their goals?Also, states of hunger, thirst and relieving oneself are super clearly states of deprivation. Not attending to those goals very obviously creates negative affect.
I suppose whether a person would feel indifferent would be determined on whether the person had any goals or accomplishment that they wanted to achieve, which would then fall back to the mentality of the individual and not become anything more than a subjective answer to the question of anti-natalism. Hunger and thirst are not accurate ways of depicting a neutral state because our bodies naturally digest and dissolve what's inside, therefore, we are constantly moving towards the negative state within and therefore it is necessary to eat. On the other hand, not having anything does not continue to make us have less and less in the sense that our stomach would, this is why it is not an accurate depiction.
I believe that there are three states of being consisting of negative, neutral, and positive; It is quite similar to the laws of electrical engineering. A person moves from the negative to the neutral because they dislike the negative circumstance, they can also move from the neutral to the positive because they like the positive. It does not make sense to move from neutral because you dislike it as it is neutral not negative by definition it is not negative but neutral. In the same way, one does not move away from the positive, they move towards it because they move towards it because it is positive, they don't dislike the neutral, because it is just neutral, they like the positive so they move towards it by definition. It does not make sense to say that positive is positive, negative is negative and neutral is negative, because neutral is neutral.
An example would be having enough money to make a means of living in a decent house to that person's standards. A neutral state would be having the basic necessities of life which are subjective to the individual so keep that in mind. A negative state would be having an absence of what would be considered neutral and people dislike this because it is negative. Meanwhile people are more than happy to have an abundance surpassing the basic necessities because that is a positive. They are not trying to have an abundance because they dislike having the basic necessities, they are grateful for the basic necessities. It would make no sense to consider the neutral state of having the basic necessities as a negative. Rather having an absence of the basic necessities is negative and dislikable, while having the basic necessities is acceptable and a neutral state, while having an abundance surpassing the basic necessities is a positive and more desirable than having a neutral state of the basic necessities. The point here is that having the basic necessities or a neutral state is not a negative, people are grateful to have the basic necessities which is a neutral state of being, but they are drawn towards an abundance or positive state, not out of dislike from the neutral, but out of desire for the surplus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I still don't see how it's related to the topic of anti-natalism. Nonetheless, new tools and new frontiers that are opening up to us lead to new solutions, but they also lead to new problems. This is all merely speculation, but I don't believe the only working class will become redundant; it is possible people might. At that point, there would be massive changes in the way that a society is run, and I could provide many theoretical examples of how it could turn for the better, but also many for the worst. I believe that history will repeat itself and we will overcome these changes and challenges and on the other side things will be for the better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Is it morally permissible to deprive a person the human right of life without their consent?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
What is the real problem of being born without consent? I'm not acting stupid; this is a genuine question.
Is it because they didn't give consent?
Is it because we are to believe there is more negative in the world than positive?
Is it okay to not bring them into existence without their consent, and what makes this different?
Is it because we want to remove humans from the earth so other species can develop without our existence, and is this a result of personal guilt?
What is the root of the issue that makes anti-natalism seem like a reasonable solution, and what makes people think there is a problem at all?
What is the absolute rock bottom foundation to your claim of anti-natalism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
We must also consider what morals are. Morals are the collective agreement of what is permissible for a civil society. A clear example of this is if there was no society, we would need no morals. This is because no one would be affected. Therefore, morals are created to form a coherent and successful society. The moment we attempt to use morals to imply that the existence of society is wrong, we are using the concept of morality to prove its purpose as wrong. This is an illogical flaw, as morals are meant to promote societal wellbeing, and by using morals to destroy that is the opposite of their purpose. It's similar to using a tool for construction for destruction, it's not correct usage of the tool. Therefore, if you create a reason society shouldn't exist, you aren't using morals, but something else.I don't agree with that specific definition of morals. Morals can simply be a standard of human behavior; it doesn't have to be about what is permissible for a civil society.If we are granted the axiom that suffering/pain/discomfort/negative affect is bad for humans, and human life has more negatives than positives, then avoiding bringing more humans into existence should be the ideal standard of human behavior.
It is fine that you do not agree with my specific definition of morals, though you don't provide any stance by which you oppose it. Additionally, I have provided a stance in which I believe my case to be true. I will try my best to explain my idea more definitively.
imagine there is a group of many individuals and individually they could not form a society in which they could build iPhone and houses and there were no specialists but rather everyone was a general survivor and hunter gatherer. I believe most people would agree that it is better that we live within a city and society in which we can reap the benefits of many of the luxuries that consists of one. In order to have societies we must have a general code of conduct or what is permissible in order to make everyone feel safe and want to be a part of that society. If there was no moral standard for a society, it would be dangerous, and many individuals would not want to participate and therefore the society would not be highly successful the only alternative to creating a moral standard in order to run a society is tyranny and as history has provided us evidence tyranny is a temporary and most destructive means of running a society. Therefore, the most beneficial way to create a successful and thriving society is to create a moral standard in which everyone willingly participates. as I've said before there is no need for morals if you are an individual living on your own in the jungle with no one but yourself there is no need for morals there is no standard. Therefore, morals were created to allow a society to thrive. My argument is that because morals were created for society to thrive then by using morals to destroy society would be the opposite of their intended purpose. This is why I claimed that you were using a tool for the opposition of its intended purpose. Therefore, I don't believe it's correct to use morals in such a way.
I still want to discuss with you whether life is more negative than positive and if it truly is harmful to individuals to bring them into existence but nonetheless, I wanted to point out that by using morality in this way it is an incorrect use of its purpose upon creation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Being that it is not certain that one can say a child's life could be overall positive or negative, it is not definitely a right or wrong choice for any parent to have or not have a child.Would you be okay with someone taking your money (without your permission) and gambling with it in a casino?It would depend if the alternative was having no money ever by never existing. If I had the chance to exist with the money or not exist at all I would say go ahead and do it.Even now you are asking my consent to be brought into existence. Therefore, the best thing we can do is make the assumption of what the individual would want.Okay, let's assume that you did have the chance to exist, and that this money was placed in a trust fund for you to eventually use (i.e. it's effectively yours). Once you're born and 18 years old, is there any question as to whether you'd be okay with someone taking and using this money to gamble in a casino?Obviously, the potential human wouldn't be okay (once they exist) with you using their money to gamble in a casino (you're more than likely going to lose and you didn't get their consent). So, it's obvious that a potential human, once they're born, wouldn't be okay with you gambling with their quality of existence (if life is, overall, a net negative in terms of instances of negative affect *and* the total value of those instances. You also didn't get their consent).
This is a different example as it uses an individual who is already born, and you are gambling with the money so I'm not sure whether my example or your example correlates to the example of bringing someone's life into existence. However, if the money was given to me, I suppose I would not want the money to be gambled but I would also keep in mind that this was not rightfully my money to begin with rather it was a gift. It's wrong to take a gift back once you have given it, But I still don't see a clear relation between your example and bringing someone into existence.
Nonetheless we are still basing it upon the child's consent and by never bringing that child into existence they don't have much to say against being brought into existence. Therefore, the child can say nothing until it has existed about its will to be non-existent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Yes, they're typically not, but Sidewalker and IwantRooseveltagain are trolls. Best Korea doesn't understand the antinatalism argument at all. Badger is a snowflake SJW with an inability to debate properly, hence his tendency towards violence.Not everyone is worth responding to.I agree, I typically only respond to coherent arguments. However, sometimes others truly don't understand what one is saying. Therfore, I often attempt in expressing myself better before assuming it is their incompetence.When these types of people immediately resort to personal insults (not really Best Korea, but certainly the others), you know that your expression of your argument isn't the issue.Even in this thread, you can see this. Sidewalker calls me a "white supremacist" in a thread that has nothing to do with it: Antinatalism is theoretically correct (debateart.com)Badger's is kinda on topic but it's still a personal attack that doesn't address the content of the OP: Antinatalism is theoretically correct (debateart.com)
It is a tragedy when people let their emotions get the better of their logical judgment. I do wish people could separate their feelings from their logic but unfortunately it is very difficult for some people. I would say I'm quite reasonable and do an excellent job at separating my feelings from my logical judgment but keep in mind it is myself saying this so it is potentially a bias of my own personal opinion but I do try my best to avoid my personal biases so make of that what you will.
Ultimately, I enjoy searching out the people who are more logical and mentally stimulating rather than resulting to swearing and verbal assaults. I personally don't like to use swearing because the words themselves are quite valueless and vague because they are used in so many different situations and circumstances. If in the event I was to become frustrated with another person's incompetence I still would not swear I would more than likely use accurate and definitive words and statements such as impotence which is quite an accurate description of what is being demonstrated by Individuals who let their emotions get in the way of their judgment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
You are also correct that losing even if expected is never a positive experience, but it also isn't always a negative one. A clear example of how someone could lose and still feel positive is by progression. Progression is a sense of accomplishment and seeing yourself lose by less and less gives you the motivation to trudge forward and eventually accomplish victory.Losing is always a negative experience. You can draw positive or mitigating lessons from it, but the act of losing (separate from those lesson) is 100% always negative.Again, what if you make no progression? It's just a negative state that wasn't met with any "progression".Do you see how the negative is always coming before the positive? It's critical to understanding my argument.
It is not always the case that a person does not meet progression, it is almost always a certainty. The human mind was made to develop more, given more life experience and as time moves forward everyone develops more life experience so it is almost a certainty that progression will be made if determined and focused on one's goals. Moreover, it is possible for a person to meet progression often, and even if not often, still occasionally, and even if occasionally, it means that negativity is not always a predecessor of positivity. Your claim is that negativity is always a predecessor of positivity and above you say what if a person makes no progression that is a form of negativity. I would agree it is a form of negativity to make no progression, but I would also say what if they do make progression and therefore negativity is not always a predecessor of positivity. Therefore, I can prove that negativity is not always a predecessor of positivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
You are correct, positive feelings of accomplishment are expensive in terms of time and effort but that's what makes them so valuable. The moment that the time and effort required to obtain the positive feeling of accomplishment ceases so does its value of accomplishment.And I'm saying that this valuation results in more instances of negative affect than positive affect. The expenses are guaranteed and aren't always met with a paycheck.
I do agree that the effort put into accomplishment isn't always met with success. It is also possible that an individual may feel defeated and that they are never able to achieve their goals and therefore feel negative. Again, it is based on the mentality of the individual. My mentality of a being defeated by an obstacle, or a challenge is that I will always come back stronger, and I acknowledge I may never be the world champion of whatever I try to accomplish but then again positive effect is subjective as it's met by the individual's preferences and desires of what they consider success. for myself it is always being better than I was previously and that progression is what I value as positive. For another individual they may not feel positive unless they are the world champion and for them, I can't say much. Ultimately the feeling of positive or negative comes down to what makes the individual feel satisfied and that is subjective and varies. If we're going to support the concept of anti-natalism upon a subjective varying factor, our conclusion will be varying upon the individual and therefore is not a concrete or definitive answer.
Ultimately, obstacles are a necessary part of life, and I am grateful to have them. So many aspects of life would become valueless if obstacles ceased to exist.They're a necessary part of biological human life, and that makes them bad. You being grateful for them is just nonsense. Again, nobody wants more obstacles in their lives. You really don't want 50 pedestrians flying out in front of you on your way to work, of which would test your driving ability. You really don't want to get Covid, Measels, AIDS, cancer and the flu all at the same time, even if it would bring obstacles to your life for you to overcome.It's fine to say that obstacles are the way in which humans generate value in their lives, but nobody actually wants obstacles (they want the positive affect after plowing through them).
I must agree that certain obstacles are less of a challenge to overcome and more of a tragedy of life. Such as your example of an infant dying from heart disease right after birth. However for most individuals this is not the case and I still believe that if the child and parents were unaware that this would happen the child would have wanted to take the chance of being the majority who don't get the disease and potentially if raised properly view life through a positive lens and therefore live a happy life. It is certain that looking back from an adult standpoint of the infant they would be disappointed possibly even angry with the concept of life that they got the unlucky small percentage, but this is not the child or the parent's fault but rather a tragedy of life, And I believe the child again with a positive lens of life would have been willing to take the risk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
It's now easy to understand that without these obstacles many values in life would be lost. Therefore, I don't see obstacles as negative but rather the platform to becoming a champion.People want the positive effect that results from overcoming the obstacles; they do not want the obstacles themselves.Again, it is a net negative when goals are guaranteed in life, but fulfillment of those goals (in a satisfactory way) is not.
I agree with you that people want the positive effect and not the obstacles themselves. However, that is how the world works. To base your claim of anti-natalism on the foundation of a hypothetical world where positive effects could be obtained without the obstacles of life is not a suitable foundation for your argument. Rather to make a case for anti-natalism in our universe we should base it on our universe as principles and not a hypothetical one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
It really depends on the person's mentality. If a person believes they deserve something that they don't have they will feel as if they are being robbed by life of something they are owed, implying a negative emotion. If a person believes that they don't deserve something even if they value it, they will not feel as though they've earned it. Therefore, out of the necessity of work will they only genuinely believe they deserve it and therefore enjoy it.I understand the functionality of mentality and how it can vary outcomes, but that's not at all the point of contention.I'm arguing (in 1a) that this functionality produces more negatives than positives, and you're helping me to further make my case here.You've shown that's it possible to have people achieves their goals, yet not experience positive affect because they feel it wasn't earned -- that increases the number of instances wherein negative affect exists.You're also agreeing with that work is a "necessity" to achieve positive affect, hence the negative affect (found in work) proceeds the positive affect (feeling like they deserved the reward). Again, seeing that in this instance, the negative affect comes before the positive, this biological mechanism makes negative affect guaranteed but positive affect not -- zero-sum at best.
Not quite. You claim that I'm demonstrating by people achieving their goals they can still lack positive feeling. However, being given something with no effort is not an achievement, therefore I am not claiming that someone can make an achievement and not feel a positive outcome. Rather by someone robbing them of that achievement they can feel no positive outcome.
I'm trying to demonstrate that work is not negative or positive, rather it sets the stage to become a champion and without it no one could become a champion. Imagine a world where everyone was average, it would be pretty pathetic. I value challenges and obstacles because they provide a means to a better life than just being the neutral individual. Sure it's work, but that is what makes it such an accomplishment to achieve. Without the work it wouldn't be much of an accomplishment and as I've said before without accomplishment there is no sincere value for overcoming it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Humans have decided that it's a negative because they want to move away from those neutral or absence states. It's almost impossible to imagine a human, lying in bed with no desires and no goals, being totally okay with doing that for most of the day (obviously, the person will need to eat, drink and relieve themselves).
Your example suggests that because someone desires to move from a neutral state to a positive state then the neutral state must be negative, but this is incorrect. It rather implies that people value something positive over nothing at all, nothing at all, which is not necessarily negative. They value positive as better than neutral, not neutral as negative. Therefore, the absence of something positive is not necessarily a negative. In essence they're not leaving neutral because they dislike it in the sense that they leave something negative because they dislike it. Rather, they are moving from the neutral to the positive because they like where they're going more than where they're at.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Let's refer to it as social guidance then.Though it is nonetheless the imposition of one's ideology upon another's.Which I suppose is the basis of species evolution and it's material achievements.Do you think that the labouring under-class is becoming redundant?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by your question. Would you mind being a little more specific and potentially provide an example to further clarify.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Being that it is not certain that one can say a child's life could be overall positive or negative, it is not definitely a right or wrong choice for any parent to have or not have a child.Would you be okay with someone taking you money (without your permission) and gambling with it in a casino?
It would depend if the alternative was having no money ever by never existing. If I had the chance to exist with the money or not exist at all I would say go ahead and do it.
Even now you are asking my consent to be brought into existence. Therefore, the best thing we can do is make the assumption of what the individual would want.
We must also consider what morals are. Morals are the collective agreement of what is permissible for a civil society. A clear example of this is if there was no society, we would need no morals. This is because no one would be affected. Therefore, morals are created to form a coherent and successful society. The moment we attempt to use morals to imply that existence of society is wrong, we are using the concept of morality to prove its purpose as wrong. This is an illogical flaw, as morals are ment to promote societal well being, and by using morals to destroy that is the opposite of their purpose. It's similar to using a tool for construction for destruction, it's not correct usage of the tool. Therefore if you create a reason society shouldn't exist, you aren't using morals, but something else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Yes, they're typically not, but Sidewalker and IwantRooseveltagain are trolls. Best Korea doesn't understand the antinatalism argument at all. Badger is a snowflake SJW with an inability to debate properly, hence his tendency towards violence.Not everyone is worth responding to.
I agree, I typically only respond to coherent arguments. However, sometimes others truly don't understand what one is saying. Therfore, I often attempt in expressing myself better before assuming it is their incompetence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
I would like to focus on 1a in my response so I can be more coherent with my thoughts. We can focus on 1b after finishing 1a.
Positive effects can arise from various sources, including accomplishments, negative experiences, neutral states, or even in the absence of something they value becoming theirs. An example of this would be someone who does not have a 2023 Corvette, is this a negative emotion or merely not a positive one I would say this is not a positive or negative effect as people recognize this is a difficult wish to be fulfilled. However, being given the Corvette would have a substantial positive effect on your attitude and view of life, you would instantly be grateful and happy that someone would be willing to give you such a gift. Perhaps even you have accomplished tons of work in your new business and have finally worked up to the revenue provided by your business to finally purchase the car in which you would also have an incredible sense of accomplishment from overcoming such a large obstacle.Accomplishments have a goal before them, hence a negative state wherein the person is working towards a goal (because they don't like their non-goal state of being, so we should consider that being to exist in a state of negative affect). Negative experiences obviously come before positive ones, so that's a given. Neutral states result in boredom if lingered in for too long, of which is itself a negative state. I don't know how an "absence of something they value" results in a positive state.Not having a Corvette, in this scenario, results in a negative emotion and that's proven negative by the fact that someone would work for the Corvette. If people were neutral towards the Corvette (or not feeling a positive emotion towards the thought of having it), then they wouldn't be willing to exert effort and invest time (i.e. work) into it. In other words, they are willing to sacrifice effort and time to own a Corvette because not having a Corvette result in a negative state of being.
I never implied that the neutral state or the absence of something valuable was positive, but I am implying absence isn't necessarily negative. It really depends on the person's mentality. If a person believes they deserve something that they don't have they will feel as if they are being robbed by life of something they are owed, implying a negative emotion. If a person believes that they don't deserve something even if they value it, they will not feel as though they've earned it. Therefore, out of the necessity of work will they only genuinely believe they deserve it and therefore enjoy it. This is quite a common thing to understand, parents are always teaching their kids that ice cream tastes better when you worked hard for it. It may seem absurd at first but after you consider all the value and effort put into receiving, it makes it all the more rewarding and thus enjoyable. A clear example of this is if someone gave you a Football championship trophy. In the first scenario you have been training for over a decade and put your blood sweat and tears into the hard labor and finally come out the champion of the world. In the second scenario someone gave it to you as a gift freely, it wasn't even on your birthday, just a normal everyday gift. It is obvious that the one where you worked in put your hard dedication to overcoming the obstacles that you were able to obtain such an ecstasy of joy as it represents much dedication and history, on the other hand you would find little to know joy out of receiving this gift that has no value behind it because it represents nothing.
It's now easy to understand that without these obstacles many values in life would be lost. Therefore, I don't see obstacles as negative but rather the platform to becoming a champion.
If you could beat a toddler at tic-tac-toe, you would not feel very accomplished and therefore there was not much of an obstacle to overcoming your goal of beating them. However, if your goal was to beat the world champion at chess and you were able to do so you would feel amazing accomplishment as you overcame such an enormous obstacle. This is also keeping in mind that your acknowledgement that if you did not beat the world champion does not necessarily imply a negative effect as you would have expected this.This amplifies the problem of existence because that positive feeling of accomplishment is expensive in terms of time and effort. It would be better if we could experience genuine accomplish in beating a toddler.Losing, even if expected, is never a positive experience. The negative feelings found in losing could be mitigated if you don't expect to beat the world champ, but this is not positive in the slightest.
You are correct, positive feelings of accomplishment are expensive in terms of time and effort but that's what makes them so valuable. The moment that the time and effort required to obtain the positive feeling of accomplishment ceases so does its value of accomplishment.
You are also correct that losing even if expected is never a positive experience, but it also isn't always a negative one. A clear example of how someone could lose and still feel positive is by progression. Progression is a sense of accomplishment and seeing yourself lose by less and less gives you the motivation to trudge forward and eventually accomplish victory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, obstacles are a necessary part of life, and I am grateful to have them. So many aspects of life would become valueless if obstacles ceased to exist. I do not want someone to give me the trophy for the international soccer championship, I want to earn it by conquering all of the challenges and obstacles it can hurdle at me. If someone took obstacles away for me, that would truly be negative. Therefore, obstacles are not negative, they set the stage for becoming a champion and feeling only what you could from an incredibly difficult challenge and finally accomplishment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The problem with "society" deciding a "societal standard".Is that it is rarely society that decides.Usually just a handful of Academics and/or influential people.Who want to tell us what we should decide.Intellectual tyranny as it were.
I agree that societal influence often comes from influential individuals like movie stars rather than society as a whole. However, I believe it is a mistake to label this phenomenon as "intellectual tyranny." Tyranny typically involves ruling over others and controlling their choices, which is different from the situation you described. In this case, individuals who follow influential figures may be mentally incapable of leading or thinking for themselves, or they willingly choose to follow because they lack the desire to think for themselves. This distinction is important to make, as it distinguishes between being controlled and lacking the capacity or willingness for self-leadership. Therefore, I would argue that it is not accurate to refer to this phenomenon as "intellectual tyranny."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't believe that it would change much if society decided Antinatalism was morally wrong based on the societal standard. I believe it would reveal the apparent flaw in our moral system that we believe that it's morally wrong to preserve life and that there must be a flaw with how we view the world, rather than implicating that giving birth is wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I agree, it is necessary to conceive an idea before it is created, written down, and then transmitted to others. I believe it's also important to acknowledge that morals vary between culture and timeline.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
a pure illusion is impossibleeven an illusion must be rooted in substance
I agree, even if life was an illusion, there must be something for it to illude for there to be an illusion. Additionally, there must be a different real view of the world to be seen that the thing that is being illuded from in order to be an illusion.
Ultimately, for there to be an illusion there must both be the real existence of the thing that is perceiving, and a correct view of the circumstances that are being distracted by the illusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Kaitlyn
Please correct me if I'm wrong Zed, but I believe Zed used a poor choice of words in what they were trying to express, and I'm in agreement. It was not that morals don't exist or aren't real, but rather they aren't inherent or within the thing itself, rather they are based upon the individual. In other words, acknowledging the necessity of a moral standard for a civil foundation, but at the same time recognizing they do not exist within the thing itself, but rather created by a group of individuals. Moreover, if no one values a diamond, it has no value. This is why in the desert one could trade money for water, but in the city, you could trade water for money. This implies that the things themselves have no value because it is subject to the individual's experiences and circumstances, which means that value is not an inherent thing but rather created by how much the people who value it do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
I find people who come together on a public debate platform in an attempt to solve problems are typically not trolls. Trolls are all on social media.
I appreciate your views, and willingness to share them reasonably.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
I apologize for coming to the conversation a bit late and thank you for addressing the initial post, I should have read over it before stating my opinion. Yes, I would like to address it.
1a) There is always a negative affect before a positive affect, in regards to all humans as a whole (not necessarily to individual humans -- one person's gain can come at the expense of others). Happiness, pleasure, joy etc. (positive affect) are the result of relieving oneself/people of sadness, pain, sorrow etc. (negative affect).
Positive effects can arise from various sources, including accomplishments, negative experiences, neutral states, or even in the absence of something they value becoming theirs. An example of this would be someone who does not have a 2023 Corvette, is this a negative emotion or merely not a positive one I would say this is not a positive or negative effect as people recognize this is a difficult wish to be fulfilled. However, being given the Corvette would have a substantial positive effect on your attitude and view of life, you would instantly be grateful and happy that someone would be willing to give you such a gift. Perhaps even you have accomplished tons of work in your new business and have finally worked up to the revenue provided by your business to finally purchase the car in which you would also have an incredible sense of accomplishment from overcoming such a large obstacle. Obstacles are not necessarily bad, but their existence makes good things all the greater. If you could beat a toddler at tic-tac-toe, you would not feel very accomplished and therefore there was not much of an obstacle to overcoming your goal of beating them. However, if your goal was to beat the world champion at chess and you were able to do so you would feel amazing accomplishment as you overcame such an enormous obstacle. This is also keeping in mind that your acknowledgement that if you did not beat the world champion does not necessarily imply a negative effect as you would have expected this. In other words, you had nothing to lose by attempting to beat the world champion, and everything to gain. This is a clear example of how positive effects can emerge from neutral or negative ones along with the absence of positive or how positive can arise out of obstacles. In your first case you're implying that happiness which has a positive effect arises only out of negativity. Yet, as demonstrated here, that is not the case.
1b) Per unit, negative affect outweighs positive affectWhat do you think of drinking water? If you could flip a coin to (heads) experience your quenched thirst or (tails) to experience dehydration, would you flip the coin? According to current loss aversion theories, people would prefer not to flip the coin because they don't like risking their status quo Higgins_et_al-2018-Journal_of_Consumer_Psychology.pdf (columbia.edu) . In fact, people would be far more willing to take risks to avoid dehydration, than they would to gain a more pleasant drinking experience (perhaps a sugary beverage instead of water). Hence, we have the backing of research to suggest that per unit, negative affect outweighs positive affect.
I believe you're misinterpreting the research that was done here. Your argument is that because people would not be willing to gamble for a potentially positive or negative position from what they have, then they must be more afraid of negative. I could make the claim that a person in a overall positive position would not be willing to take the chance for a positive or negative place being that they've worked so hard to accomplish the positive in which they're at whereas a person who has a terribly negative life or perhaps has given up on life would be much more willing to gamble for a better one since they have practically nothing to lose. In other words, I see this research as an implication that people value what they have which demonstrates that they are grateful for their accomplishment and not willing to hastily waste or gamble them. Ultimately, I don't see this research as evidence that negative Things outweigh the positive ones but rather people value what they have and believe it should not be gambled, thus demonstrating their positive value towards it.
What happens if they child dies at age 4 from sickle cell anemia? Is that bad "parenting" or dependent on "upbringing?"
You're correct, it is not entirely dependent on upbringing. I failed to accurately express my words, as I was trying to emphasize the massive dependency of parenting that contributes to the morality of childbirth. I do acknowledge that there are tragedies in life that affect people in terribly negative ways. However, if a person views life positively which is dependent on the child's upbringing and parenting then that child would be willing to risk the potential negative tragedies of life in order to have the chance to experience the world. An amazing film that depicts this is on Netflix called "Bubble" which is a 2022 Japanese Anime. It demonstrates that if people view the world through a positive lens, they are more than willing to accept the negative tragedies in life in order to have the chance to experience the many positive ones. (It made me cry, LOL) this brings us full circle that it is dependent on how the child would view the world in their adulthood that would determine whether they would risk the negative tragedies of life to have a potential to experience the positive ones. This would be dependent on the parenting.
To directly answer the question, I would say it is dependent on the child's parenting. if the child's parenting would have provided the child a positive view of the world in which they would have been glad to take on the risk in order to experience life, then I believe the child would have been grateful for the opportunity but of course disappointed that it turned out they were unable to experience it. Ultimately, the morality of bringing a child into existence without their consent would be dependent on what the child would have said in their adulthood, And the child was raised in a way that views the world positively overall or is more grateful for the things that are taken for granted every day then they would have been grateful for the chance of experiencing life. Therefore, dependent on parenting and the way that the child would have viewed the world in their adulthood would depend on whether or not it is moral for them to be brought into existence and accepting the potential for the tragedies of life. Your attempt would be to do what the child would have wanted you to do. This would vary among individuals based on how they view the world and most likely a genetically similar child would have similar views of life, assuming they were raised similar to how their parents were raised.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't believe that one person's life will predict another's after birth therefore I don't think it is with certainty that one could say bringing them into existence would have an overall negative effect. This is a possibility but it's also possible that they could become incredibly happy with life and value it.
Being that it is not certain that one can say a child's life could be overall positive or negative, it is not definitely a right or wrong choice for any parent to have or not have a child. It's dependent on whether the child views life positively or negatively that determines whether or not it had a positive or negative impact on the child for being born. The perspective development that the child views the world through is entirely dependent on its upbringing and parenting. Therefore, I do not believe that it is negative or positive that a parent bring a child into the world but rather it is dependent on how they raise the child to react with the world and how to view the world positively and then through the child's development of a positive outlook on life the child can live life happy and responsibly, and this is the ideal goal for a parent.
Ultimately, if a parent fails at raising their child to view the world positively and productively then it was the right choice to have a child. However, if they fail at raising the child with a positive outlook on life, then they should not have had a child. Noticeably, you cannot know if it is the right or wrong choice to have a child until you have raised them, and this is why having or not having a child is not inherently right or wrong, but rather dependent on how the child develops its view of life.
Created:
Posted in:
I think it is important to recognize morals are not valued because they have value, but because someone values them.
I accept morals to be subjective and relative to the individual and culture, but I also recognize morals are a necessary component of a society. Without them, we would not be living in as civil a society as we do today. While I recognize the importance of a moral standard, I also recognize there is no moral standard that is set in stone, rather it is constructed by society. This will change and morph over cultures and generations, and not one standard is more right than the other, but rather we can measure the utility of a moral standard based upon how it affects society.
Ultimately, I see the necessity of a moral standard, but recognize there is not an inherent moral standard, rather it is created by society, which is relative to the culture and generation.
Created:
Posted in:
Here is a past article I wrote on the motivations of the abolition of slavery, being that many people labeled this as the act of modern progression to a less archaic form of morals and that it was the age of progress as we reveal morals we just weren't aware of in the past.
When considering the Civil War and the debate over slave abolition, it is notable that most people in the Southern states supported slavery while most people in the Northern states were abolitionists, despite not owning slaves themselves. This is a complex issue with many factors at play, but one possible explanation is the tension and competition that arose during colonization, as many people hoped to become wealthy slave owners but failed. This could have led to resentment and frustration, which may have contributed to the "if I can't be a rich slaveholder, then no one can" mentality. In other words, since they could not achieve wealth through owning slaves, some may have sought to tear down the hierarchy of the rich in a vengeful manner, rather than from a moral standpoint. It's important to note that people can have multiple motives for their actions. It's possible that some individuals sought the destruction of wealthy slave owners from both a moral standpoint and a vengeful one. My point is that abolitionists have often been portrayed as having superior moral standards when in reality, there are many reasons why someone might support the abolition of slavery, some of which have nothing to do with morality. I'm not trying to dismiss or deny the existence of moral motivations for abolition, but rather to emphasize that there are various perspectives and reasons behind the push for slave abolition beyond just morality, and that just because someone wanted to abolish slavery didn't make them a person of higher moral standards. Furthermore, I believe that the majority of people who supported the abolition of slavery did so not for moral reasons. This is evidenced by the fact that wealthy slave owners were not advocating for abolition. History has shown that people often prioritize money over morals. However, when individuals lack wealth, they may claim to have moral values therefore justifying their deficiency, and some may even attempt to seek revenge against the wealthy. Alexander Solzhenitsyn's book, "The Gulag Archipelago," echoes this sentiment, demonstrating that individuals will compromise their morals when motivated by financial gain. In summary, if all Americans during the time of slavery were wealthy slave owners, there would have been no abolition for
the sake of morality. This is evidenced by the fact that it was only non-cash crop states that sought abolition, suggesting that the desire for abolition was driven not by a newfound conscience, but rather by a desire to dismantle the wealthy. If you doubt that people aren't aiming to destroy the rich, which they've desired since colonization, for the sake of their morals, let me clarify. The biblical story of Cain and Abel illustrates how Cain becomes envious and resentful of Abel, his younger brother, because God favored Abel's offerings over his own. This favor implies success, blessings, and wealth - the traits of the rich and slaveholders. The northern settlers couldn't obtain plantations with slaves and wealth due to climatic differences. The story of Cain
shows that when one can't live up to their ideal, they may feel inferior and envious of those who embody it. In Cain's case, this led to him killing Abel and destroying his ideal. Similarly, the northern states wanted to abolish slavery and destroy their ideal of being like the rich since colonization. I am arguing that the mindset of the individuals who were involved in the abolition of slavery was not characterized by righteousness or higher morals but an envious mentality, and the morals of the choice was a side effect, not a reason for the abolishing of slavery.
I'm hoping this article emphasizes my position of moral relativism.
Created:
Posted in:
I believe a person's inner voice comes down to what they feel is right. For one person it may be the present, for another it may be the future, for another it may be the greater mass, and yet another the best thing for the lest well off. These feelings are very dependent on your culture and upbringing. For instance, if your a successful business person you'll most certainly value hierarchical benefit, where you believe everyone should receive how much they put in. If your not successful, or even below average, you'll believe it's important that everyone benefits based on the effort they put into it and not base it on their actual contribution. This is because fundamentally everyone deep down only cares for themselves, even those who say care about others. This is why their is no fixed set of moral values but rather they are formed by cultural upbringing, and by social status and success levels of the individual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@John00
From a physical view, it makes more sense there was a physical world before the age of consciousness. This is because if something physical exists, then it must have existed, this is known by the conservation of energy within the universe.
From a metaphysical view, Solipsism posits the idea that we cannot know if anything exists outside the mind, for the concept of knowing is to conceptualize, and to conceptualize is to grasp within the mind. Therefore, if we cannot conceptualize it, we cannot know it exists.
We cannot use something metaphysical to prove something physical, and we cannot use something physical to prove something metaphysical. In the same way we cannot use either to disprove the other. They are entirely different aspects of the universe. Think of the metaphysical and physical as light and solids, we cannot measure light as we would a block of wood, neither can we test the brightness of wood if there is no light. The two are entirely independent of one another and cannot be used in any correlation to one another. In essence using the physical past which is a physical evolutionary aspect of the world that there was a time of no consciousness to attempted either proving or disproving the idea of a metaphysical nonexistence or existence is invalid. Ultimately both can be true or false, or contradicting one another while both remain true. Just as we can know that light exists without wood and wood exists without light, there may be no light or wood, and there may be both light and wood, they are entirely independent of one another.
The question I believe you would ask me now is whether or not the past exists. I would tell you from a physical view the past would make sense the past had existed, while at the same time from a metaphysical view, I cannot say for certain if it had existed since I have no consciousness remembrance before my consciousness emerged.
This brings an interesting concept to the table. Something physical must have come from something physical, but someone's consciousness or metaphysical existence can come from an age before there was consciousness, in other words something metaphysical can come from metaphysical nothingness. As you can see, the two are distinct and have quite different properties.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@John00
It just occurred to me what you are trying to say.
If solipsism posits the idea that nothing can be known to exist outside the mind, how does this correlate to the age of preconsciousness?
I will need some time to think about this since this is not an easy question, nor have I already considered the answer. I will respond when I have a strong enough solution, as this gives me much to think about. Thank you for presenting such a mentally stimulating question as this one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@John00
so given what's been discussed could it be said that the only real 'Truth' in the universe is that it all comes from nothing.
I wouldn't say that the only real truth is the universe comes from nothing. I don't believe Solipsism proves or disproves that the universe came from nothing or from something or even that there is anything outside the mind. It merely questions commonly accepted physical means of proof by invalidating them.
Everything else would be subjective to the perceiver but nothingness cannot be perceived as their is no perceiver, but in order for the perceiver to exists a state of nothingness must be present as a pre cursor to existence.
If I understand you accurately you were saying that everything else in the universe is subjective and dependent on the perception of the individual. However, nothingness itself cannot be perceived because there is no perceiver present. I believe that you're describing the preexistence of consciousness and how if nothing could be conceptualized before Consciousness then we could consider the preconscious age as the age of nothingness. I would say this is an accurate estimation assuming that we understand nothingness as the age of non-conceptualization.
could it then not also be said that a state of nothing is no real or credible barrier to existence emerging from it as evidenced by our collective perception of existence to be existent rather than non existent.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the universe's existence must have come from something, and if the age of pre-consciousness is nothingness, this cannot be true since the universe could not have come to exist from nothing. This is one of the hardest parts of this philosophical concept. Where do we draw the line between the objective and subjective, and the physical and metaphysical? The way the universe now exists is not from the metaphysical nonexistence of the past but from the physical existence from the past. The metaphysical concept of existence and nonexistence is the conceptualization of an idea. We must be sure to separate ideas based on their metaphysical or physical aspects. In the past, before consciousness, we can assume that there was an age of metaphysical nothingness. However, this does not mean there was an age of physical nothingness. These are two separate ideas and confusing them as one and the same will lead to many contradictions.
in the above scenario how can death exist if we know nothingness cant block existence from emerging, isn't nothingness the ultimate idea of what it means to be dead? yet it cant really hold us in that state can it?
This is making the assumption that nothingness can't block the existence from emerging which is not a held assumption in my case. However, if you have a proof, I would be more than glad to hear it, but currently I don't have this assumption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@zedvictor4
@John00
I don't quite see how free will and solipsism correlate. However, a common misconception is that the universe either consists of free will, or determinism. This is not accurate because determinism and free will are independent and not interconnected.
Determinism means everything that will happen in the future is fixed and cannot be changed.
Free will means people are free to act upon their will or feelings.
I must start with saying I accept determinism since we live in a deterministic universe. This is evident by electronics. They consistently operate on the physical evidence that things work based on a set of given rules. However, this doesn't mean I don't believe in free will. I must also adress different people have different levels of free will. Given the description above that free will is the ability to act upon one's will, I can say some people are more capable of acting upon what they know they should do over chosing their present emotions such as laziness or present pleasure over future preparation. Additionally, people aren't free to act upon their will to fly without a machine, or the will to change who they are. Therefore, there is an extent to free will where all are limited, and past that certain people are more free to act upon their will than others.
If anyone is interested I could go in-depth in a separate forum and discuss how people exist with two mindsets or two selves within the mind. The physiological who deals with present emotions and satisfaction, and the conscious self which deals with future preparations. I could also discuss how different people have different balances between the two, and how hippies are more physiologically dominant, while business men who work 80 hours a week are more consciously dominant. It is also important to note one is not better than the other, and that it is necessary to have a balance between the two. One who always acts on their present emotions will never have a better future, while someone who always prepares will never enjoy their preparations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Probably best to run with what you think you know.
Your statement is correct but it doesn't include the whole idea. While it is true to run with what you believe to be true, it is also important to acknowledge nothing you know can be known for certain. This creates an adaptable mindset that can evolve faster and more effectively, it also allows you to move past old ideas and concepts to more accurate and complex understandings of the world.
So while I agree it is important to act upon what you either know or have reason to believe, it is important to keep an open mind that is ready to adapt with deeper and more accurate concepts and ideas as your understanding of the world evolves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@John00
Does Nothing exist?if not where did Something come from?if Nothing does exist then how can it be called nothing?if it exists it has to be something right?This is the philosophy section right?
Your kind of getting the idea. Solipsism doesn't prove or disprove and external reality. Rather, it proves nothing but the existence of consciousness can be proven to exist outside the mind.
It demonstrates that everything we know to be true it known to be true within the mind, and the mind itself is subjective and relies on one's perception to understand the world. If we acknowledge that everything we believe to be true is merely our perception of the world, and that we can never truly experience an objective reality, it builds not only a more accurate understanding of why things are valued differently by others. But it cultivates an open mind and the readiness to learn from the subjective experience of others. We know that no person can understand the world through a objective means, but if we accept this we can build a more adaptable mindset to learn from humanities collective subjectivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I don't believe this is a stalemate. This is the process of identifying the communication breakdown, which is necessary in any debate to make a conclusive agreement. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the debate, perhaps you could be useful rather than using fancy alterations to mask the uselessness of your comment towards a productive means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
In the realm of philosophy, it is evident we already have all the knowledge necessary to find the answers, we only have to look. The study of philosophy is less about the physical or scientific aspect and more about the metaphysical aspect of the world. Being this is true and the metaphysical is within the mind, it is possible to understand the realm of philosophy through introspection. The idea of saying research or progress in the empirical, scientific, or physical world must be done to progress in philosophy is absurd; this is because philosophy is found within the metaphysical, which is within your mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(Me) "but rather dependent on whether it correlates with the reference" (You) "and whether or not something correlates with the reference must be verifiable either through observation or by logical necessity"
What make you believe that referencing an empirical aspect must be a necessary requirement of truth.
With that logic, if something cannot be proven empirically true then it is not true. However, this is not the case. If something cannot be proven true empirically it doesn't make it true or false but rather an unknown as we cannot validify its correlation to a subjective reference. Therefore, if something cannot be validated through empirical means it doesn't necessarily deem it true or false but rather non-objectively verifiable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
that's why i am rigorously defining REAL-TRUE-FACT
I understand that you are attempting to define truth as objective reality, this is for the most part a useful way to define truth for general purposes. However, it is not objective reality that defines truth but rather whether the words correlate with objective reality that makes them true, just as words that correlate with subjective reality (someone's feelings) makes them true. Make no mistake, I am not prioritising emotions over objective reality, however I do recognize that truth is not inherently objective or subjective but rather dependent on whether it correlates with the reference. In your case you are referencing objective reality so if something is in alignment with objective reality it is objectively true. However, choose can also be subjective as explained the above comment which in that case would be defined as subjectively true.
In summary, there is no ultimate truth or one single truth reference, rather truth is not inherent within anything but rather a means of correlation between two systems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
i disagreeonly facts are trueopinions cannot be true
If a person does not like a movie and then says they do they have not told the truth, as it is not true with their subjective experience. However, if a person does like a movie and they say that they like the movie, their words are true with their subjective experience.
This is a clear demonstration of how opinions and subjective experiences can both be true and false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
My quote:The idea is founded upon the concept that anything a person can conceive must be conceived within their mind and any idea within a person's mind is subjective to interpretation or perception. Therefore, nothing a person can conceptualize can be known as objective but rather their subjective interpretation. Ultimately, it denotes the idea that objective reality is rather an illusion as it rests upon the concept of a collective subjective reality. As we know, when many people believe in something it doesn't make it true but rather known.
I cannot hope to express this more advanced idea until you grasp the difference between known and truth along with objectivity and subjectivity as this is a more complex philosophy. However, I would like to revisit it once we have established the rudimentary concepts required to understand solipsism. Only then can we finally reach where I was hoping to start, which is further understanding solipsism along with its consequences of acceptance being both positive and negative. Therefore, reaching a more definitive grasp of objective and subjective reality and better understanding the world through an existence of being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
REAL TRUE FACT = EMPIRICALLY VERIFIABLE (WITH A CONFIDENCE OF AT LEAST 2 SIGMA) AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARYEVERYTHING ELSE IS OPINION
I thought I did a rather splendid job at explaining myself, but you clearly don't understand what I'm trying to say.
"To know means to believe with certainty, to be true means to correlate with."
I am trying to tell you that there is no such thing as truth itself but rather truth is transitive, it must have something to reference. Your example you are referencing objective reality or empirically verifiable facts in which case you would be speaking of objective truths. However, this does not mean that there are not subjective truths and metaphorical truths and various other metaphysical truths. I would agree with you for the most part that objective truths are the most common and most useful in everyday life, though I wouldn't go as far to say that the other truths are without utility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Best.Korea
I believe you're both misunderstanding what it is to know and what it is to be true. My act of responding does not prove your existence, it merely proves I either believe in your existence or that my time is worthwhile. I spend time chatting with AI that I know not to exist the same as I would with you so my act of responding to you does not prove my belief in your existence, but merely that it is intriguing to me, or worth my time.
To know means to believe with certainty, to be true means to correlate with.
Example:
When I read a thermometer, I can say I know that it's 70 degrees outside, but then the thermometer turns out to be broken and it's actually 68, I knew it was 70 degrees outside, but I was still incorrect.
The word true on the other hand means to correlate with. For instance, if we were to say it is objectively 68 degrees outside, we would be correlating objective reality with the temperature and therefore it is true with objectivity. Similarly, we could say it feels 80 degrees outside and that could be subjectively true and might differ between the individual whether or not it feels 80 degrees outside; one person may say it feels 75, while another says 85, and both can be true subjectively.
Created: