If we’re going to entertain non-existent people who don’t want to exist, we are obligated to consider non-existent people who do want to exist.
People who are happy to be alive does not “pay” for bringing someone unhappy into existence. In fact if you really think that you can justify all sorts of morally reprehensible things.
But that isn’t precisely my point.
Let me repeat: No one consents to being born. You cannot ask someone ahead of time if they’d like to be born. Any person born owes absolutely nothing to their parents and almost nothing to everyone else other than basic respect. Until of course they themselves give birth, and then they owe an infinite and unpayable debt to their children.
Even if your child is perfectly content being alive throughout their life, they did not choose to be here. You brought them here and thus you still owe them a debt.
People who are happy to be alive does not “pay” for bringing someone unhappy into existence.
How are you evaluating happiness absent existence? Hell, how are you evaluating happiness, period?
Even if your child is perfectly content being alive throughout their life, they did not choose to be here.
How do you reach that conclusion? We’re all just bits of matter, assembled in various shapes and configurations.
He was here before he was born as matter. He’ll be here after he’s dead as matter. All life has given him is senses to perceive his surroundings and agency to affect them.
Are you arguing a given child would be better off inert? Are blindness, deafness, and paralysis virtues?
Sorry for the late response, I only have access to this account at work.
Why is that good?
Its in opposition to bad. Its better as a result.
The claim is that people who experience unhappiness shouldn’t exist.
The claim is that unhappy people are not morally compensated by there being happy people.
Why would I accept a precisionless “unhappy” on these terms?
Because precision measurement of the amount of it doesn’t matter. If you know what unhappiness is that’s all you need.
They would still exist as something. Children don’t appear ex nihilio.
Like, the atoms that would eventually come to make up their body exist? I legitimately don’t understand what you are trying to say. Do you believe in souls or something?
Your argument isn’t for non-existence. It is for non-sentience.
Sure? If you don’t exist you aren’t sentient, because you need to exist for that.
The claim is that unhappy people are not morally compensated by there being happy people.
If the only thing you care about is the volume of dopamine bouncing around your brain, eliminating all the dopamine (via non-existence) would presumably only maximize unhappiness.
If you know what unhappiness is that’s all you need.
Depriving people of their existence because you refuse to believe they can be happy on their own terms isn’t liberating, it is patronizing. Denying existence to whole swaths of people on the grounds that you can’t conceive of them being happy is outright genocidal. Anti-natalism on these terms fundamentally just Yimby Eugenics
If the only thing you care about is the volume of dopamine bouncing around your brain, eliminating all the dopamine (via non-existence) would presumably only maximize unhappiness.
If we’re talking about the chemistry of the brain, you also need to keep in mind the chemistry of unhappiness and pain. Cortisol, GABA, substance P, and CGRP. Technically, dopamine is not strictly a “happiness” chemical. It is also used for pain signals.
So non-existence would also remove those, thus reducing unhappiness.
Depriving people of their existence because you refuse to believe they can be happy on their own terms isn’t liberating, it is patronizing.
I never brought up liberation. Further, I do not believe in free will.
Denying existence to whole swaths of people on the grounds that you can’t conceive of them being happy is outright genocidal. Anti-natalism on these terms fundamentally just Yimby Eugenics
This is stepping into virtue ethics, and virtue ethics are nonsense. What you think of my personal moral worth isn’t what I’m interested in discussing.
If we’re talking about the chemistry of the brain, you also need to keep in mind the chemistry of unhappiness and pain.
Unhappiness and pain are tools the brain uses in order to avoid conditions the body finds intolerable. Taking away the sensation does not eliminate the harm. It only eliminates the ability to recognize its source.
So non-existence would also remove those
All non-existence does is eliminate agency. It does nothing to eliminate sources of harm.
I never brought up liberation.
You have, repeatedly. Liberation from pain. Liberation from emotion. Liberation from understanding.
This is stepping into virtue ethics, and virtue ethics are nonsense.
Thanks for proving my point.
What you think of my personal moral worth isn’t what I’m interested in discussing.
You’re arguing the personal moral worth of others. You could engage in a modicum of self-reflection.
Unhappiness and pain are tools the brain uses in order to avoid conditions the body finds intolerable. Taking away the sensation does not eliminate the harm. It only eliminates the ability to recognize its source.
OK, but if you aren’t “taking the sensation away” if it was never there to begin with. I’m still not clear on where this line in your argument is going.
All non-existence does is eliminate agency. It does nothing to eliminate sources of harm.
I don’t believe in free will. So agency isn’t really something that I see as intrinsically morally valuable, at least when we are discussing the ethics of existentialist philosophy.
Agency is an important moral consideration in interpersonal ethics and media representation, but that is not what we are discussing.
Thanks for proving my point.
What point?
You’re arguing the personal moral worth of others.
I’m arguing about the ethics of using the power to reproduce as having an unethical result. That’s not “personal moral worth”, its consequentialism.
You could engage in a modicum of self-reflection.
I do.
I’m not the specific subject of this conversation and I don’t find the prospect of discussing that with you worth while. The only reason you’d go that route in this discussion is if you are arguing in bad faith or want to be able to dismiss my assertions on the basis of my character without actually considering those assertions. Notice how I’ve never called you selfish or narcissistic for wanting a “mini me” or whatever.
Maybe its actually you who should do some self reflection and consider whether maybe you are protecting yourself from cognitive dissonance by undermining the character of the person you are arguing with.
People who are happy to be alive does not “pay” for bringing someone unhappy into existence. In fact if you really think that you can justify all sorts of morally reprehensible things.
But that isn’t precisely my point.
Let me repeat: No one consents to being born. You cannot ask someone ahead of time if they’d like to be born. Any person born owes absolutely nothing to their parents and almost nothing to everyone else other than basic respect. Until of course they themselves give birth, and then they owe an infinite and unpayable debt to their children.
Even if your child is perfectly content being alive throughout their life, they did not choose to be here. You brought them here and thus you still owe them a debt.
How are you evaluating happiness absent existence? Hell, how are you evaluating happiness, period?
How do you reach that conclusion? We’re all just bits of matter, assembled in various shapes and configurations.
He was here before he was born as matter. He’ll be here after he’s dead as matter. All life has given him is senses to perceive his surroundings and agency to affect them.
Are you arguing a given child would be better off inert? Are blindness, deafness, and paralysis virtues?
Because… inert matter doesn’t make decisions…
As long as you accept the premise that some people are happy and some people are unhappy, I don’t think measuring it for precision matters.
They wouldn’t be a child if they were never born to begin with.
Why is that good?
The claim is that people who experience unhappiness shouldn’t exist. Why would I accept a precisionless “unhappy” on these terms?
They would still exist as something. Children don’t appear ex nihilio.
Your argument isn’t for non-existence. It is for non-sentience.
Sorry for the late response, I only have access to this account at work.
Its in opposition to bad. Its better as a result.
The claim is that unhappy people are not morally compensated by there being happy people.
Because precision measurement of the amount of it doesn’t matter. If you know what unhappiness is that’s all you need.
Like, the atoms that would eventually come to make up their body exist? I legitimately don’t understand what you are trying to say. Do you believe in souls or something?
Sure? If you don’t exist you aren’t sentient, because you need to exist for that.
Well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
If the only thing you care about is the volume of dopamine bouncing around your brain, eliminating all the dopamine (via non-existence) would presumably only maximize unhappiness.
Depriving people of their existence because you refuse to believe they can be happy on their own terms isn’t liberating, it is patronizing. Denying existence to whole swaths of people on the grounds that you can’t conceive of them being happy is outright genocidal. Anti-natalism on these terms fundamentally just Yimby Eugenics
If we’re talking about the chemistry of the brain, you also need to keep in mind the chemistry of unhappiness and pain. Cortisol, GABA, substance P, and CGRP. Technically, dopamine is not strictly a “happiness” chemical. It is also used for pain signals.
So non-existence would also remove those, thus reducing unhappiness.
I never brought up liberation. Further, I do not believe in free will.
This is stepping into virtue ethics, and virtue ethics are nonsense. What you think of my personal moral worth isn’t what I’m interested in discussing.
Unhappiness and pain are tools the brain uses in order to avoid conditions the body finds intolerable. Taking away the sensation does not eliminate the harm. It only eliminates the ability to recognize its source.
All non-existence does is eliminate agency. It does nothing to eliminate sources of harm.
You have, repeatedly. Liberation from pain. Liberation from emotion. Liberation from understanding.
Thanks for proving my point.
You’re arguing the personal moral worth of others. You could engage in a modicum of self-reflection.
OK, but if you aren’t “taking the sensation away” if it was never there to begin with. I’m still not clear on where this line in your argument is going.
I don’t believe in free will. So agency isn’t really something that I see as intrinsically morally valuable, at least when we are discussing the ethics of existentialist philosophy.
Agency is an important moral consideration in interpersonal ethics and media representation, but that is not what we are discussing.
What point?
I’m arguing about the ethics of using the power to reproduce as having an unethical result. That’s not “personal moral worth”, its consequentialism.
I do.
I’m not the specific subject of this conversation and I don’t find the prospect of discussing that with you worth while. The only reason you’d go that route in this discussion is if you are arguing in bad faith or want to be able to dismiss my assertions on the basis of my character without actually considering those assertions. Notice how I’ve never called you selfish or narcissistic for wanting a “mini me” or whatever.
Maybe its actually you who should do some self reflection and consider whether maybe you are protecting yourself from cognitive dissonance by undermining the character of the person you are arguing with.