tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post2950232615921859390..comments2023-10-29T06:54:56.825-07:00Comments on Extensive Arguments: AntiNatalism And DissectionNo Availhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01826432850471652007noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-50436117608530481882016-04-05T15:24:24.568-07:002016-04-05T15:24:24.568-07:00Interesting thought experiment, in a terrifying ki...Interesting thought experiment, in a terrifying kind of way. I assume this child of misery has to live it's full life? It can't commit suicide at the first available opportunity? And the parent (knowing full well the child will only experience torment) can't euthanize the child in it's sleep? Also, would the world know this child is 'taking one for team' à la Omelas? - I don't suppose that truly matters.. <br /><br />I do identify as NU, and can see the the logic.. but I wouldn't have the child. The lack of choice overrides it for me. If the thought experiment was you (me) personally had to start life again and never know pleasure, and x,y,z will happen.. the world will avert ww3 or something, then I no defence in not agreeing to do it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-76127122129486261482015-04-23T13:36:14.988-07:002015-04-23T13:36:14.988-07:00I tried and it worked. Except for the 'big wor...I tried and it worked. Except for the 'big words' part. Can't let go of those.No Availhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01826432850471652007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-55698757408260291522015-04-07T13:51:07.495-07:002015-04-07T13:51:07.495-07:00Try using fewer big words and simpler sentences. Try using fewer big words and simpler sentences. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09413786373220779942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-76833664687790129862014-11-17T10:30:40.196-08:002014-11-17T10:30:40.196-08:00Appreciate the feedback.
Looking back, the moral ...Appreciate the feedback.<br /><br />Looking back, the moral dilemmas in this post are suboptimal because a beginner can come away with the impression that the indivisible deontic case against Natalism is the ideal one. I certainly don't believe that to be the case.<br /><br />I think Negative Consequentialism (applied *only* to births of individuals who *do* go on to regret their existence) works as one half of the equation, and virtue ethics (applied to Natalists' & aspiring parents' lack of respect for interpersonal risk-averseness) is the other half.<br /><br />There are numerous issues with strict net scaling, but strict deontic arguments are just as senseless when they target procreation as they are when they target any other ethically problematic activity, like lying, murdering, torturing.<br /><br />There are exceptions, but those depend on the magnitude of future lying/murder/torture being reduced as the *guaranteed* outcome. If a moral agent can stamp out 1000 cases of deceit by deceiving one person in a trivial way, the agent ought to do so as her act would be a lesser-of-evils. If a moral agent can prevent 1000 murders by murdering one person, the agent ought to do so for the same reasons (again, assuming the agent is a prognosticator equipped with the *guarantee* cause).<br /><br />So yes, I'd extend that to procreation. The *net* mandate factor is an obstacle for Total Utilitarianism; one which Average Utilitarianism is not (always) bound by.No Availhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01826432850471652007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-20819112851356538442014-11-03T00:21:08.124-08:002014-11-03T00:21:08.124-08:00Regarding the thought experiments, i think if you ...Regarding the thought experiments, i think if you had to choose between not imposing life and reducing net suffering, not imposing life is the preferable choice.broken_silencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11155678232313971225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-76274688493720317982014-09-26T19:13:41.522-07:002014-09-26T19:13:41.522-07:00Hey there are using Wordpress forr your site platf...Hey there are using Wordpress forr your site platform?<br />I'm new to the blog word but I'm trying to get started and set up my own. <br />Do you need any coding knowledge to make your own blog?<br /><br />Any help would be greatly appreciated!<br /><br />Heree is my blog: http://gruenerkaffeeinfo.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/4/ (<a href="http://www.liberamenteservo.it/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=PSZG" rel="nofollow">www.liberamenteservo.it</a>)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-63848603264184001472013-12-12T09:06:08.629-08:002013-12-12T09:06:08.629-08:00"are you antinatalist or pronatalist?"
..."are you antinatalist or pronatalist?"<br /><br />I'm hoping this is a trick (troll) question:<br /><br />"None of this is intended to in any way contort the ongoing circular debate between Natalists and AntiNatalists; a debate which Natalists have proven time and again that they’re simply not ready to have"<br /><br />How do you read paragraphs like these and not see that I hold Natalism in contempt? The entire post is beaming with my antipathy for Natalist ideology and its building-blocks.No Availhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01826432850471652007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-83635224431654132552013-12-02T16:31:32.599-08:002013-12-02T16:31:32.599-08:00ABM are you antinatalist or pronatalist? ABM are you antinatalist or pronatalist? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-24732818813867805852013-05-17T15:56:46.497-07:002013-05-17T15:56:46.497-07:00Muffin,
1. Turn off caps lock.
2. Actually read ...Muffin,<br /><br />1. Turn off caps lock.<br /><br />2. Actually read the blog.<br /><br />3. Reply to the specific thought experiments posed. Or at least explain why you find them to be unworthy of meticulous examination.No Availhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01826432850471652007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-21453676958484557892013-05-16T13:35:36.128-07:002013-05-16T13:35:36.128-07:00ANTI-LIFE IS PERFECT. HOW CAN THERE BE LESS FLAWS ...ANTI-LIFE IS PERFECT. HOW CAN THERE BE LESS FLAWS OTHERWISE?<br /><br />I DON'T SEE HOW SUICIDE IS EVER IRRESPONSIBLE IF YOU THINK BIG. GIVING BIRTH = ENSURING DEATH OF SOMEONE ELSE. PARENTS ARE IRRESPONSIBLE IN THE FIRST PLACE. NOT TO MENTION THAT PAINLESS EUTHANASIA ISN'T EVEN WIDELY LEGAL IN CASE THEIR CHILDREN DECIDE LIFE HAS NOTHING OF INTEREST FOR THEM. GIVING BIRTH IS PREPOSTEROUSLY ARROGANT. PEOPLE WHO CALL SUICIDE ARROGANT SUFFER FROM SHORT-SIGHTEDNESS.MONEYMUFFINShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02347623163048242767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-5302313453252082862013-04-04T18:46:53.435-07:002013-04-04T18:46:53.435-07:00Anonymous from Feb 12:
The needs of the many cann...Anonymous from Feb 12:<br /><br />The needs of the many cannot possibly outweigh the needs of the few when what is viewed as a need worthy of elimination drastically varies depending on the individual who ends up getting "saved", and where exactly that individual stands within confines of a "The Many vs. The Few" framework in terms of a pain threshold or a willingness to endure a certain level of pain in the name of fitness or similar such goals.<br /><br />"There is no inconsistency here"<br /><br />Yes there is, and I have already explained why. Revisit this paragraph:<br /><br />"One might reject thought experiments of this nature on the basis that there's a high likelihood of the net-equation finding itself to be interlocked with imposition of life on an individual realm, in so far as the statement “Einstein’s non-existence will lead to greater overall suffering” being interpreted as identical to the statement “Einstein’s non-existence will lead to greater net suffering because more individuals will have life imposed on them in Einstein’s absence, and will grow up to find their lack of consent in the matter to be worthy of contempt, identical to Einstein’s individual case” thus rendering any apprehension towards not fulfilling Einstein’s one, measly, single “I’d rather not have been” deathbed wish, as being decidedly paradoxical. At first glance this seems like a reasonable objection, but it can easily be resolved if we simply add another layer to the thought experiment, stipulating that the incline of net-suffering caused by Einstein’s non-existence would not be a by-product of higher population counts consisting of AntiNatalists, but of unrelated events instead. In other words, Einstein’s otherwise conspicuous non-existence would not have led to more individuals uttering “I’d rather not have been” and the world’s population count would have remained unaltered to the one in which Einstein does exist. What would change however, is the volume of suffering endured by that same number of people/animals, split up by the same margins per subject as it would have been had Einstein’s existence not been retroactively prevented in the thought experiment. Adjusting to this circumstance, while maintaining aspirations of both utility and an aversion to impositions, is impossible."<br /><br />Also, if one more anonymous poster/bot posts random ad-spam on my wall, I'm getting rid of it. I'm going with a zero tolerance policy for ads from here on out, as being passive about it has clearly done me no good.No Availhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01826432850471652007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-39006352603170207982013-03-24T09:41:06.398-07:002013-03-24T09:41:06.398-07:00excellent issues altogether, you just won a new re...excellent issues altogether, you just won a new reader.<br />What may you suggest in regards to your post that <br />you made a few days ago? Any sure?<br /><br />Here is my blog post <a href="http://www.maxblogtips.com/category/hosting/hostgator-coupons/" rel="nofollow">Blogging tips</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-73796287844377623102013-03-23T03:22:31.977-07:002013-03-23T03:22:31.977-07:00Thanks for finally writing about > "AntiNa...Thanks for finally writing about > "AntiNatalism And Dissection" < Liked it!<br /><br />My weblog; <a href="http://www.phonenumbersearchreverse.com/name/" rel="nofollow">reverse cell phone lookup</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-78052358115797004622013-03-14T22:42:01.093-07:002013-03-14T22:42:01.093-07:00Ӏ've been surfing on-line more than three hour...Ӏ've been surfing on-line more than three hours nowadays, but I by no means discovered any attention-grabbing article like yours. It is lovely price enough for me. In my opinion, if all web owners and bloggers made good content material as you probably did, the web will probably be much more helpful than ever before.<br /><br />My homepage - <a href="http://mediawikidemo.datact.nl/index.php/Gebruiker:Jenna94R" rel="nofollow">link building service</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-57826043816239801052013-03-11T18:31:23.102-07:002013-03-11T18:31:23.102-07:00I used to be ablе to find good info from yοur cοnt...I used to be ablе to find good info from yοur cοntent.<br /><br /><br /><br />Revieω my weblog ... <a href="http://www.loscalaveras.com/?p=36562" rel="nofollow">saffron extract</a><br /><i>My webpage</i>: <b><a href="http://sports-barbershop.com/saffron-spice-imparts-yellow-to-several-dishes/" rel="nofollow">saffron extract</a></b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-88451004648356550932013-03-11T18:21:28.716-07:002013-03-11T18:21:28.716-07:00Pretty! Тhіs was an incredibly wοnԁеrful агticle.
...Pretty! Тhіs was an incredibly wοnԁеrful агticle.<br />Manу thаnks fοr ρroviding this info.<br /><br /><br />Here is my blοg: <a href="http://xrl.us/i6lmpqce26" rel="nofollow">saffron extract</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-89913920806756234412013-03-10T03:23:01.687-07:002013-03-10T03:23:01.687-07:00Eхcеllent аrticle. Keep writіng
ѕuch κіnd of іnfο...Eхcеllent аrticle. Keep writіng <br />ѕuch κіnd of іnfο on youг <br />рage. Im гeallу іmpresѕed by it.<br /><br /><br />Hey there, You've performed a great job. I will definitely digg it and in my opinion recommend to my friends. I'm sure they'll be benefited from this web site.<br /><br />My weblog - <a href="http://snipr.com/bokop1laq8" rel="nofollow">egcg</a><br /><i>my site</i> :: <b><a href="http://tiny.cc/bokop1laq81" rel="nofollow">does green coffee bean extract work</a></b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-90566892577125935032013-02-12T19:53:24.771-08:002013-02-12T19:53:24.771-08:00If AntiNatalists have identified imposition of lif...If AntiNatalists have identified imposition of life as the harm, and if your thought experiment informs them that more impositions of this nature are going to take place in the future in the event that less present day impositions on a few people take place in the here and now, through their direct inaction (abstaining to procreate), well then it's inane to spare the rather-not-have-been Einsteins of the world (bad example by the way) in the name of "individual rights" or some hokey "age of enlightenment values" because a utility based approach naturally follows from the imposition premise, especially if you acknowledge that there is no free will, as you have done above.<br /><br />In other words: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one, in this case).<br /><br />There is no inconsistency here from what I can see. Good points on Nihilism though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-48754578260691159192013-01-11T01:37:13.890-08:002013-01-11T01:37:13.890-08:00AntiBullshitMan says: "The point was to get a...AntiBullshitMan says: "The point was to get an answer about whether or not Einstein is obligated to reduce suffering created by others and in the process be harmed himself."<br /><br />well, even einstein said if he could live life over, he'd be a plumber or peddler:<br /><br />“If I would be a young man again and had to decide how to make my living, I would not try to become a scientist or scholar or teacher. I would rather choose to be a plumber or a peddler in the hope to find that modest degree of independence still available under present circumstances.” -Albert Einstein, The Reporter, 18 November 1954<br /><br />apparently, einstein didn't feel obligated (or wasn't challenged to feel so while he was alive). he'd be "just another bloke" on the street.. that's why i answered the way i did. maybe that's a bit evasive, but there you have it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-13074912908556469152012-12-14T15:37:22.645-08:002012-12-14T15:37:22.645-08:00managerim,
"philosophy is not necessary for ...managerim,<br /><br />"philosophy is not necessary for there to be value in the universe"<br /><br />This is like saying it's unnecessary to be literate in order read & comprehend a novel as long as it contains enough pictures to provide a basic rundown of the events, so to compensate for the reader's inability to grasp words. Minds generating values without forming any assisting philosophical notion is in the league of values of animals who operate purely on instincts. This argument would have been over before it began had you not insisted on presupposing that the only appropriate use of the word *value* consists of invoking it to describe pain/pleasure *experiences* rather than that which can only be *ascribed* to trait x/y/z by the cognitive functions of a valuer. Find a definition of values/ethics/morals boxing them in to nothing but pain/pleasure, or in this case, to nothing but harm minimization. You won't because what you're arguing for is but one of values'/ethics'/morals' subsets (N.U.) & using philosophy in order to try & make it stick. This would be fine if you weren't breaking language in the process, mistaking the branch for the entire tree. One day these words might be redefined to specifically suit N.U., but within the confines of modern language (which my blog operates in) it's impossible to treat value-clashes as true/false dichotomies as long as the clashes in question involve both parties accepting all relevant facts & yet still disagreeing on what ought to be valued. It's impossible to explain the basics in any other way without making this even more circular.<br /><br />"if that's gonna be the standard then we can't say shit to christians who argue against gay rights either"<br /><br />In this case we have people whose values are the product of misinformation (scripture, traditionalist propaganda, etc). In my initial case (which you analogized this to) my values aren't influenced by flat-out lies or an unwillingness to accept facts/data. It's just my recognition of what matters more *to me* (misconceptions vs. pinprick). If theists conceded that their anti-gay agenda would remain unaltered even if they go on to be convinced that their dogma is archaic drivel, they'd be no different than any secular homophobe; Silly to my sensibilities, but not *wrong* as in "2+2=5" wrong.<br /><br />Your point about psychology infiltrating the "+/-" equation is something I had taken into account when describing the scenarios (this is clear if you've read them).<br /><br />"Whether I can convince you about the fact you value the wrong things doesn't matter"<br /><br />If I rejected actual evidence, then yes. To me, not murdering innocent people matters. Proof to the contrary?<br /><br />Also, I never said my honesty/harm standards weren't arbitrary. I find them reasonable, but they can't escape the fact that there's no standard to measure them by.No Availhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01826432850471652007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-56896732322144001682012-12-13T22:01:26.903-08:002012-12-13T22:01:26.903-08:00I'm trying to get through your post, but as fo...I'm trying to get through your post, but as for the Utilitarianism, I don't subscribe to strict utilitarianism, for it presents too many ethical difficulties. In fact, the whole deontological/consequential debate is never likely to get solved. <br /><br />Lately, I'm leaning more toward Deontological ethics, though that could change. If we have a duty to not harm* others, and if the reason is that bad consequences result for others, then why should bad consequences for others matter, especially if you don't lose anything and gain a lot by disregarding the bad consequences for others? So there needs to be a preexistent inherent duty to not commit harm* toward others if we are to object to indifference to the consequences of the harm. However, as I said, I could change my mind without warning about this matter, so don't place me [i]firmly[/i] in the Deontology camp. <br /><br />*This is a long and broad itself, but I think most people in principle will agree that we should not cause harm that is pointless (i.e. non-productive, non-compensatory, and in general serves no higher purpose or value - whether for the victim or the group which the victim belongs [family, social circle, community, nation, species])filrabathttp://filrabat.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-81846041803078001112012-12-13T04:50:38.180-08:002012-12-13T04:50:38.180-08:00It's worth stressing that since people general...It's worth stressing that since people generally do have these psychological built in notions of ethics, like the feeling that lying for no reason is wrong or at least kinda sketchy, any proper utilitarian equation takes them into consideration. Just because it's a mere psychological notion does not mean it isn't a real part of your wellbeing, so saying that you should avoid lying if it causes you psychological distress (or to avoid lying to someone else about inconsequential shit if it does the same to them), even if that's the only harm it does, is entirely consistent with utilitarianism. I think most people's failure to recognize this is what's largely responsible for their knee jerk rejection of utilitarianism. I'd argue the reason you'd rather be pricked by the needle than have someone think inaccurate things about you is precisely because your psychology is bugging you about it, which is in itself a mild form of self-inflicted harm, so all your brain is really doing there is the dreaded "borg math".<br /><br />Finally, I'm gonna contest that pain and pleasure have no "real" metrics. It's certainly true we have no accurate way to make any PRECISE evaluations, but the same can be said about any other metric that you'd consider "real". Can we measure the metric length of a plank down to the 200th decimal or some absurd standard like that? No, but this does not mean that information doesn't actually exist. The fact we can't get an answer doesn't mean there isn't an answer. While our ability to measure harm is nowhere near our ability to measure length in accuracy (to the degree such a comparison even makes sense), that doesn't mean we can't clearly state that two decades of torture is worse than a pinprick. Given that suffering is nothing but physical processes in the brain, it seems to me that, in principle, measuring suffering is no more incoherent a task than measuring length.managerimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-59713970647293846672012-12-13T04:50:02.790-08:002012-12-13T04:50:02.790-08:00If by values being divorced from philosophy you me...If by values being divorced from philosophy you mean that philosophy is not necessary for there to be value in the universe, then obviously yes. You seem to believe values are actually made up by humans rather than merely discovered in the universe. Obviously I don't need to even be capable of doing philosophy, as is the case with animals, to be harmed by the sensation of a bullet going through my foot. If some masochist does not find this sensation negative (which is a gross oversimplification but it'll do for our purposes), then clearly the sensation is not the same for him as it was for me, which only means that his brain requires different stimuli to produce suffering for him. It does not in any way challenge the badness of suffering. If masochism disproves the negativity of suffering then the fact some animals can eat things we can't disproves the lethality of poison. Clearly the correct answer is that certain things are poisonous for certain creatures, and certain stimuli are suffering inducing only to certain creatures as well. Even if masochists could in fact never experience any negative sensations whatsoever, this would be no more informative of how negative the sensation of the bullet is for me than the fact a rock can never experience those sensations either. Your mistake here is focusing on the stimulus itself, and trying to assign value to it, rather than on the sensation the stimulus triggered. This is like considering punching a paralyzed person and a "normal" person in the balls the same moral violation, even though only one felt any pain.<br /><br />Whether I can convince you about the fact you value the wrong things doesn't matter. You may think it's better for you not to be perceived a certain way rather than to be physically harmed (and you may be right as physical harm isn't all there is, more on this later), but this does not change the fact your life will either be better or worse depending on your choises. To give an extreme example to illustrate the point, you can certainly choose to be tortured for 20 years rather than lie about your favorite color if you really value honesty, but the fact of the matter is it's inconceivable that was the right choise in terms of your wellbeing for those years. Can I provide some is-ought gap closing incontestable logical proof that wellbeing should be valued over honesty in that situation? I doubt anyone can, but if that's gonna be the standard then we can't say shit to christians who argue against gay rights either, just to name one hideous example. After all, if we're to divorce ethics from the one thing that's inherently negative in the universe, the suffering of sentient creatures, then your standard of honesty is just as arbitrary as their standard of...well, general assholery. I challenge you to explain why this isn't so without any reference to the effect on the wellbeing of sentient creatures. Something tells me you'll be right back to utilitarian considerations before you know it.managerimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-38457943247486055432012-12-12T20:33:05.499-08:002012-12-12T20:33:05.499-08:00"If you shoot me in the foot my brain will pr..."If you shoot me in the foot my brain will produce harm to me regardless of what my philosophical opinion on the matter is"<br /><br />So essentially what you're telling me is that you believe ethics/values are divorced from philosophy. I don't know how you reached this absurd conclusion. I mean, you still can't prove to a deontologist or a virtue ethicist that they ought to value the prospect of avoiding a given pain over the prospect of not being perceived as a liar. For me personally, if I had to choose between avoiding something as painful as gunshot to the foot, or avoid being falsely perceived as manipulative by people whose opinions I value, without ever finding out that they perceive me this way, I'd opt to avoid the gunshot. Now, if the choice revolved around avoiding a pinprick at the expense of being falsely perceived as manipulative by those same people, without ever finding out that they perceive me this way, I'd take the pinprick. It's impossible to prove my priorities as *wrong*. It's not right or wrong to value one over the other, in either scenario. As a matter of fact, in the 2nd scenario, I'd take the pinprick even if the alternative was only 1 person falsely perceiving me as being manipulative, and even if that 1 person is someone whose opinions I don't value to begin with. This is because, to me, a pinprick is well worth experiencing if it means a given misconception of me will never arise in any brain. The fact that my psychology enters the equation is no less of a disqualifier of what I value more, than the fact that all these pain/pleasure equations are vaguely conceived & have no real metric to them (hence this blog's repeated use of italics for "units" of suffering) is a disqualifier of what you value more as a committed Negative Utilitarian. I imagine any proclamation that N.U. is innately more intellectual than all other categories & subsections of ethics, can be particularly obnoxious to sadists & masochists. How you make sense of telling people that their pain fetish is inferior, in a universe lacking any semblance of a central authority by which any values can be prioritized, is incomprehensible to me. Do you deny that values are mind-dependent? Many ANs do, & at that point they're just flirting with metaphysics as mentioned in the post.<br /><br />I also urge any determinist who has read these comments and who might be thinking about advocating for any kind of justice/fairness obsolescence, because of cause & effect, to listen to Harris' presentations and Q&As on determinism where he explains why it's a terrible idea and that things like political freedom are not suddenly archaic notions simply because we don't have free will.No Availhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01826432850471652007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6684123697924683344.post-34738899483938583732012-12-11T17:00:01.504-08:002012-12-11T17:00:01.504-08:00"Reality, honesty, individualism, consent, br..."Reality, honesty, individualism, consent, bravery, introspection.. for the same reasons you (& I) intuitively value harm reduction. Or maybe you believe that you value harm reduction for reasons which aren't grounded in intuition. Please explain this monopoly on intellectualism that you believe N.U. has."<br /><br />I actually do believe harm reduction is different. If you shoot me in the foot my brain will produce harm to me regardless of what my philosophical opinion on the matter is. It is therefore not comparable to things like honesty or reality, which are entirely situational, and whose evaluation is dependant on mere malleable psychology. IOW, The negative value of harm is self-contained, whereas anything else you can name as a cornerstone for ethics is dependant on arbitrary notions in your head. If I could rewire everyone's brain to no longer care about the truth without affecting welfare in any way, on what non-arbitrary basis could you possibly condemn this new world? How would my actions differ in any way from something like changing everyone's favorite color?<br /><br />You're right that I can't necessarily convince a sociopath (or just a moral nihilist or somesuch person) that he should value not shooting my foot, but what I can or can't convince him to value does not change the fact that my pain would be harmful to me, as would his pain be harmful to him should I be the one shooting him. Harm exists independant of our appreciation of it. It also seems to me the same can be said about any of the things you named, like trying to convince the guy he should be thrutful with me, so I don't see this as a criticism on utilitarianism, but rather all concepts of morality.<br /><br />I can take anything else you put forward as a cornerstone for morality and construct a scenario where obedience to it causes massive harm, at which point I'm sure you would concede harm reduction is the thing worth valuing more, and if you don't, then you'd be saying you're ok with causing harm for no reason other than to satisfy some arbitrary notion in your head. <br /><br />Consider: A world full of entirely honest but miserable people, or one full of pathological liars who are all blissful? Why should we care what makes these people happy as long as they ARE happy?<br /><br /><br />"Your commitment to N.U. has you believing that man ought to be his brother's keeper in millions of instances where he currently isn't, and is not thought of any less for it. How do you think a system based on N.U. would fare?"<br /><br />If one is to be maximally moral then of course one must live insanely selflessly by current standards. I don't believe our DNA-wiring allows anyone to actually ever come close to remotely resembling such a perfect individual, but that doesn't mean we can't recognize our shortcomings. No one can bowl a 300 every single time either but that doesn't stop us from aptly calling anyone who can't a less than perfect bowler.<br /><br />As for the prison example, I again don't see why one deterministic robot, or rather the conciousness helplessly attached to the robot, is more or less deserving of suffering than another such robot. I might agree with you if we had free will. I say "might" because free will is such an unintelligible concept I'm not sure it's even logically possible.managerimnoreply@blogger.com