5 ms·

Why? Don't we reason about these things exactly to arrive at conclusions that go against our intuitions or feelings? If we decide that the reasoning is flawed

Why? Don't we reason about these things exactly to arrive at conclusions that go against our intuitions or feelings? If we decide that the reasoning is flawed merely because we don't like the conclusion, we might as well not reason at all.

ycombinete 2y ago
Agreed. Bertrand Russel wrote of the Sophist Georgias, “We do not know what his arguments were, but I can well imagine that they had a logical force which compelled his opponents to take refuge in edification.” Positions that make me feel indignant, or viscerally repulsed, are often ones that I simultaneously don’t like and also have no argument against. (Moral Relativism, for example.)
setsewerd 2y ago
We reason these things not simply to contradict our feelings (though that is often a side effect), but to draw conclusions of how best to improve society and our species as a whole. If human procreation is immoral simply because it creates suffering for "sentient" beings, then it's this particular line of ethics that needs to go extinct, rather than humanity itself. "The rules we invented for ourselves say that we shouldn't continue existing" seems like a mindset that natural selection will handle by itself though.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  >If human procreation is immoral simply because it creates suffering for "sentient" beings, then it's this particular line of ethics that needs to go extinct You're not accurately describing the argument the linked article is making, but even so, is the argument you're making that creating suffering for sentient beings is not morally wrong? >"The rules we invented for ourselves say that we shouldn't continue existing" seems like a mindset that natural selection will handle by itself though. This is completely orthogonal to whether the argument is correct. Natural selection isn't moral; it just is.
  - setsewerd 2y ago
    > You're not accurately describing the argument the linked article is making Page quote: "Benatar's antinatalist philosophy: sentient beings are harmed when they are brought into existence, and it is therefore wrong to procreate." The absolutism and anthropocentrism inherent in that statement renders his whole argument kind of silly. The existence of life itself is inevitably going to cause harm, regardless of how self-aware that particular life form is. It might be smaller degrees of harm, or more indirect, but harm nonetheless. Sure we should try to minimize the harm we cause others, within reason, on a case-by-case basis, but if your best solution to that is self-imposed specicide, what is the point of ethics? (Also the comment about natural selection was a half-joke, not a stance on the argument, but your final sentence seems to agree with me anyway.)
    - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
      As far as I can ascertain, the argument being made in the article is this: 1. The absence of good is not bad because nobody is around to lament it 2. The existence of bad is bad In other words, because it doesn't yet exist, you can't hurt a being by not bringing it into existence. You can't hurt non-existent beings. But you can hurt a being by bringing it into existence because it can and will be harmed once it exists. The argument is not "simply because it creates suffering for sentient beings." If you disagree with the argument, you have to explain why it is incorrect. In particular, why is the absence of good bad even if nobody is around to experience that absence? This is difficult to argue, in my opinion, even if I subjectively feel like it has to be wrong. One argument I can think of is that we want to maximize the average goodness, so we should bring conscious beings into existence if we expect them to experience more good than bad. However, philosophers don't tend to make that argument because the implications are horrific.
DennisP 2y ago
If reasoning is based on verifiable facts and logic, sure. But in this case, the starting point for his reasoning appears to be our own intuitions and feelings: "The reason why we do not lament our failure to bring somebody into existence is because absent pleasures are not bad." But we also don't lament bringing somebody into existence; in fact we tend to celebrate it. So we could just as well conclude that absent pleasures really are bad, or turn it around and say that pleasurable existence is good.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  Why do you think this statement is based on feelings? It seems axiomatic. Non-existent beings can't be harmed.
  - DennisP 2y ago
    But that wasn't the statement. The statement was that "absent pleasures are not bad." Whether something is good or bad is a value judgement, just like "procreation is bad" (or good). I countered with another value judgment: "pleasurable existence is good." This seems trivially true as well but Benatar ignores it. Whether the good of existence outweighs the bad of existence is yet another value judgment, and also depends on particular experience.
    - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
      The point is that a person who isn't born cannot make a value judgment about whether something is bad.
      - DennisP 2y ago
        Nor can they make a judgement about whether the good outweighs the bad. So that's up to us. I'm saying it makes no sense to make that decision solely based on the bad while ignoring all that's good; if you do, then of course it follows that it's bad to procreate, but that's because you left out half of the equation. In my personal life, I feel that the good far outweighs the bad, and existence is far better than nonexistence. So it doesn't make sense to me to assume that another person who doesn't happen to exist yet won't feel the same way.
phkahler 2y ago
>> Why Because that notion is stupid on its face. If there is an ethical code that transcends human existence then nature itself violated that code by letting life evolve into humans. If some jackass wants to claim to know better than the forces of nature well... I'm not sure what else to say about that.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  Nature doesn't care about ethics.

ycombinete 2y ago

Agreed. Bertrand Russel wrote of the Sophist Georgias, “We do not know what his arguments were, but I can well imagine that they had a logical force which compelled his opponents to take refuge in edification.” Positions that make me feel indignant, or viscerally repulsed, are often ones that I simultaneously don’t like and also have no argument against. (Moral Relativism, for example.)

setsewerd 2y ago

We reason these things not simply to contradict our feelings (though that is often a side effect), but to draw conclusions of how best to improve society and our species as a whole. If human procreation is immoral simply because it creates suffering for "sentient" beings, then it's this particular line of ethics that needs to go extinct, rather than humanity itself. "The rules we invented for ourselves say that we shouldn't continue existing" seems like a mindset that natural selection will handle by itself though.

InsideOutSanta 2y ago
>If human procreation is immoral simply because it creates suffering for "sentient" beings, then it's this particular line of ethics that needs to go extinct You're not accurately describing the argument the linked article is making, but even so, is the argument you're making that creating suffering for sentient beings is not morally wrong? >"The rules we invented for ourselves say that we shouldn't continue existing" seems like a mindset that natural selection will handle by itself though. This is completely orthogonal to whether the argument is correct. Natural selection isn't moral; it just is.
- setsewerd 2y ago
  > You're not accurately describing the argument the linked article is making Page quote: "Benatar's antinatalist philosophy: sentient beings are harmed when they are brought into existence, and it is therefore wrong to procreate." The absolutism and anthropocentrism inherent in that statement renders his whole argument kind of silly. The existence of life itself is inevitably going to cause harm, regardless of how self-aware that particular life form is. It might be smaller degrees of harm, or more indirect, but harm nonetheless. Sure we should try to minimize the harm we cause others, within reason, on a case-by-case basis, but if your best solution to that is self-imposed specicide, what is the point of ethics? (Also the comment about natural selection was a half-joke, not a stance on the argument, but your final sentence seems to agree with me anyway.)
  - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
    As far as I can ascertain, the argument being made in the article is this: 1. The absence of good is not bad because nobody is around to lament it 2. The existence of bad is bad In other words, because it doesn't yet exist, you can't hurt a being by not bringing it into existence. You can't hurt non-existent beings. But you can hurt a being by bringing it into existence because it can and will be harmed once it exists. The argument is not "simply because it creates suffering for sentient beings." If you disagree with the argument, you have to explain why it is incorrect. In particular, why is the absence of good bad even if nobody is around to experience that absence? This is difficult to argue, in my opinion, even if I subjectively feel like it has to be wrong. One argument I can think of is that we want to maximize the average goodness, so we should bring conscious beings into existence if we expect them to experience more good than bad. However, philosophers don't tend to make that argument because the implications are horrific.

DennisP 2y ago

If reasoning is based on verifiable facts and logic, sure. But in this case, the starting point for his reasoning appears to be our own intuitions and feelings: "The reason why we do not lament our failure to bring somebody into existence is because absent pleasures are not bad." But we also don't lament bringing somebody into existence; in fact we tend to celebrate it. So we could just as well conclude that absent pleasures really are bad, or turn it around and say that pleasurable existence is good.

InsideOutSanta 2y ago
Why do you think this statement is based on feelings? It seems axiomatic. Non-existent beings can't be harmed.
- DennisP 2y ago
  But that wasn't the statement. The statement was that "absent pleasures are not bad." Whether something is good or bad is a value judgement, just like "procreation is bad" (or good). I countered with another value judgment: "pleasurable existence is good." This seems trivially true as well but Benatar ignores it. Whether the good of existence outweighs the bad of existence is yet another value judgment, and also depends on particular experience.
  - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
    The point is that a person who isn't born cannot make a value judgment about whether something is bad.
    - DennisP 2y ago
      Nor can they make a judgement about whether the good outweighs the bad. So that's up to us. I'm saying it makes no sense to make that decision solely based on the bad while ignoring all that's good; if you do, then of course it follows that it's bad to procreate, but that's because you left out half of the equation. In my personal life, I feel that the good far outweighs the bad, and existence is far better than nonexistence. So it doesn't make sense to me to assume that another person who doesn't happen to exist yet won't feel the same way.

phkahler 2y ago

>> Why Because that notion is stupid on its face. If there is an ethical code that transcends human existence then nature itself violated that code by letting life evolve into humans. If some jackass wants to claim to know better than the forces of nature well... I'm not sure what else to say about that.

InsideOutSanta 2y ago
Nature doesn't care about ethics.