quote
follow
|
25-11-2015 @Meme Well, I think you are getting all twisty around definitions and such. Prevention involves considering things that haven't happened yet, that don't exist. I get a vaccination for the polio I don't want to contract, buy fire insurance for the fire I hope never happens, lock my doors for the thief I hope doesn't exist.That's about all I can say. Whatever way you conclude that AN is the right thing to do, go for it! There is a Chinese story about the master who is petitioned by several students to be trained. The first arrives and sits for tea but has not brought a teacup. The master dismisses him for being unprepared. The second arrives and serves himself tea straightaway. The master dismisses him for being rude. The third arrives but presents his cup upside-down for tea, and he is dismissed for being insufficiently intelligent. The fourth presents his cup, but it has not been washed, and he is dismissed for wanting to use his training for nefarious purposes. The fifth puts forth his cup, but it is already full, and he is dismissed for having a closed mind. The sixth's cup has a hole in the bottom, he will not retain anything he is taught. Only the last begins his training with the master, as his cup has none of these defects. Which one are you? --- > Edited 25-11-2015 07:21:40 |
|
25-11-2015 Yes, I see Kirk, you don’t have any demand for proper reasoning. Sloppy thinking and that something 'just feels right' seems to be good enough for you. Well then, go for it! I don’t see that you even tried to grasp the problem that I am pointing out here. Seriously, when I reason that including non-existent people in comparative moral reasoning is problematic (but not for moral objectivists), that’s somehow 'getting twisty around definitions'? I see, you must be an engineer or something: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1879quote:I get a vaccination for the polio I don't want to contract, buy fire insurance for the fire I hope never happens, lock my doors for the thief I hope doesn't exist. For valid reasoning you compare health status/monetary status/.. of an existing person under consideration of a risk/benefit ratio witch status of the an existing person in scenario A (something bad happens), with the status of an existing person in scenario B (something bad does not happen). No problem there. quote:Which one are you? Uhhm, are you trying to tell me that you want to be my master? Now you seem to be more a teacher then an engineer. That’s confusing. --- > Edited 25-11-2015 12:55:39 |
|
25-11-2015 But ok, maybe it’s my fault and I made it just sound complicated or confusing. So I will try to explain it again, by example, slowly and step by step. When someone says something is better then something else. That’s a comparison. Right? In order to compare a thing with another thing you need to compare certain aspects/properties/attributes of it. Right? So let’s take for example that you close your door to prevent thievery. When I ask you why, you may answer: because getting my stuff not stolen is better than my stuff gets stolen. But that’s just a sloppy way of talking, you don’t compare properties of anything here. Because of that sloppy way of talking you seem to assume that you are directly comparing the existence of theft with the nonexistence of theft. But that’s wrong. What you are implicitly doing, is that you compare a property stuffThatIOwn in scenario A (theft happened) with a property stuffThatIOwn scenario B (theft doesn’t happen). You aren’t comparing any properties of the 'event of theft'. Ok? And you may even give me the correct answer if I ask you, why is that better? Then you may answer: Because I own less stuff (property stuffThatIOwn) in the case of theft than in the case that the theft not does not happen (you actually make a comparison, and now you can say that’s better) So far, so good? So what matters here, is what properties of which entity you are really comparing. Don’t get fooled by language here.So then, you might say, a person suffers greatly and this person is better off being dead. Saying so, requires a comparison of an aspect/property of that person. Right? Now, lets call this property sufferingAmount and let’s just assume this property is quantifiable. So in Scenario A (person lives), let’s say this person has a sufferingAmount of 10. In Scenario B (person is dead) has a sufferingAmount of … See? Death means that person doesn’t exist anymore, with death it’s properties stop existing too (even if you may be tempted assign a 0 to sufferingAmount), so you can’t really compare (and say this is better than that) a person who exists with and non-existing one. So far, so good? If you don’t have any problems with that, I can continue to reason what properties of which entity we are actually need to compare (hint: it cant be the person), and why this is not much of problem for moral objectivists, next time. So I hope you dont just dismiss that as too complicated, or claim that I am twisting things. Point out specifics and I will clarify things, or if you are correct I will say 'That’s true man, haven’t thought of that'. Just a knee-jerk rejection, without to even say why, well, that’s just annoying. --- > Edited 25-11-2015 19:43:20 |
|
26-11-2015 @Meme I can handle complicated things, I have done it my entire life as an engineer and teacher, and many other things. But you make assumptions about having to compare things, or confuse something simple by complicating it. Whether you can or shouldn't compare NULL to 1 or 0 or whatever to arrive at a decision isn't really important. We aren't building a database.Nevertheless, to take your better off dead scenario, why don't you try thinking about it this way…Contrast a STATE of suffering of some amount to a STATE of not being able to suffer. Compare their states, not attributes, if that makes more sense to you. It doesn't matter if you want to make comparison mean this or that, call it what you will. A state of non-existence precludes suffering, a state of existence includes it. I present the story as an analogy, not a direct relationship between the two of us. Take whatever meaning from it as you are able. To give you a fair shot, explain in simple and short terms how one *cannot* contrast the two states, one being the state of having this conversation and the suffering it causes, and the other being never having had the conversation, and the subsequent lack of suffering. Are you saying that that is impossible, that we can't say one is possibly better than the other, or draw any conclusions, because we cannot contrast something that exists with something that doesn't exist? Even though Zeno seem to say that the runner can never overtake the turtle, we know it happens. So developing the language and logic etc. to explain why the paradox isn't one is an interesting and sometimes difficult task. But the runner and the turtle don't have to work out the reason, they know the possible results and can be pragmatic about it, win or lose! |
|
26-11-2015
quote:
you make assumptions about having to compare things Aha, when I say "this better/worse then something else", such a statement doesn't imply a comparison? that's just complicating things? Ha ha. quote:
confuse something simple by complicating it Point out something specific and I can address that. I don't think that these things are complicated. Unless you think, that thinking about something accurately and unambiguously is an unnecessary complication. quote:
Whether you can or shouldn't compare NULL to 1 or 0 Which you shouldn't. Just saying. Null is semantically different from 0. But that you even think that this even could be an option, is very telling.. quote:
Contrast a STATE of suffering of some amount to a STATE of not being able to suffer. Compare their states, not attributes So you are thinking of STATE as a sort of an universal? Ok, our differences seem to metaphysical then. That's why i am saying such things are not much of a problem for some forms of moral realism. Then it would be allowed to formulate in an -impersonal- way, and assign a 0 to STATE, when the person does not exist anymore. But if you argue that from a person-centric perspective, than good luck with that. quote:
To give you a fair shot, explain in simple and short terms how one *cannot* contrast the two states, one being the state of having this conversation and the suffering it causes, and the other being never having had the conversation, and the subsequent lack of suffering. Are you saying that that is impossible, that we can't say one is possibly better than the other, or draw any conclusions, because we cannot contrast something that exists with something that doesn't exist? Then I ask you, which criteria do we use to decide, to be able to say which is possibly is better then the other? And you partly already said so: the suffering that it causes. So we don't really compare directly the existence of the conversation but the 'amount of Suffering'. Or what would be your criteria? Unless of course, you define, having a conversation is 'always worse' then having none. And when you say that having a conversation in intrinsically bad, the state of conversation would be comparable. Right? |
|
27-11-2015 @Meme Since I am not writing a dissertation I usually keep my language friendly and street-wise. I have degrees in mathematics, physics, and computer science, so don't make me pull out technical jargon in some sort of verbal vomit competition and other BS just to prove my superior-rated IQ. That is neither entertaining nor productive.Yes, to keep this simple, the amount of suffering. No suffering is better than some suffering. Easy. Having to have a conversation to decide or learn something is worse than not having to have a conversation due to its irrelevancy. Having to fulfill needs vs. not having to, etc. Lack of existence better than existence. Easy. Compare states, attributes, whatever, choosing to put someone at risk who wouldn't suffer otherwise, regardless of *why* they wouldn't suffer, non-existence, whatever, is an easy peasy conclusion for me, and should be for you, too, IMO. The rest can become mental masturbation and just gets in the way of understanding and execution. I have had martial arts students that have this problem, trying to over-analyze productive and effective movements. You wouldn't want to bet on them in a fight. The theoretically imperfect strike that they analyze and decide should never have been thrown knocks them out in less than a second. Although AN stands up to easy analysis, you can also just intuit the right action if you have trained yourself to do so using love and basic logic. Either way, if you don't procreate, you're generally good, no matter how convoluted your decision-making process is. What I *do* have a little concern about, though my life certainly has many struggles and ups and downs and days right on the edge, is how Irina is doing. I haven't heard a peep from her for many weeks, and yet this blog remains. All I know to consider are huge demands on her time due to work or other concerns, social or political upheaval including questionable internet access, illness, disinterest, a very smart, educated, and handsome boyfriend, suicide, or death. Does anyone know about Irina's goings on at this time? |
|
27-11-2015 @Kirk
quote:
I usually keep my language friendly and street-wise. Then actually -be- friendly! Respond to actual arguments, and at least -try- to grasp what I am saying. Instead you throw out all sorts of general nonsense, and even try to show me your dick (Ohh you have 3 science degrees, Whoa...sooo impressive). WTF? That's disrespectful. Using nice and friendly language doesn't make you friendly. But, ok, youre US-American, brainwashed to believe that super-friendly-happy fake smiling and using some nice language, is what constitutes a friendly person. So you probably just can't help yourself. quote:
so don't make me pull out technical jargon in some sort of verbal vomit competition I wouldn't even know how to discuss some at least some of the more advanced topics in math or computer science (you have degrees there? how have you achieved that, with your disrespect for exact thinking?) without using at least -some-terminology and without loosing a lot of precision or becoming overly lengthy in my arguments, because I had to explain a lot of other things first. But I am not using any fancy terms here, at least nothing that someone who has even bothered to inform oneself with at least some basics of moral philosophy. But obviously you haven't. Your laziness to inform yourself and think things trough, is not my fault. Sorry. quote:
Yes, to keep this simple, the amount of suffering The amount of suffering of what? Of someone who doesn't exist? Or the total amount of suffering of the world or in some other universal sense. But I see these things don't matter to you anyway, that would be just too analytical, mental masturbation...Why I am even trying to discuss something with someone who is obviously unwilling to do so? I am just wasting my time with you here.. |
|
27-11-2015 @Meme Yep, I agree. You are like some bad bosses I have had in the past, only see what they want to see, only looking for a fight. I am not confused about AN, but it seems you are, and you are the one that needs to work out whatever arguments you have in your head about it, not me!I can't explain it well enough for you, you don't have a feel for the topic, and you can't understand simple suffering, in whatever form, is generally pointless and uninvited. I do recommend Sarah Perry's book Every Cradle is a Grave, it will have footnotes and and somewhat drawn-out explanation of AN and the right to suicide, as I believe she was a lawyer, and that might suit you just fine. Another book, which I haven't read completely, is Benetar's Better to Never Have Been. Maybe these two books will help you bridge whatever gap you have to cross to understand suffering and AN. Or maybe you will have a personal experience or sudden inspiration that will make it clear, I can't say. Either way, that is about all I can do, and I apologize to Irina for filling up her blog with unproductive overchatter. I sure hope she is well, we have disagreed partially on some topics, but the exchange was fruitful and pleasant, and I haven't changed so… |
|
27-11-2015 @Meme Ah, two more things, another book which I have only read the synopsis and reviews for, The Baby Matrix, might help you, and you might consider posing your questions to the AN group, once you are accepted, and you will have access to thousands of people who you can bounce your ideas off of. Also there is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, which has closer to 10,000 members, last I knew, who handle AN-style topics, as well. If you have an "acceptable" FB profile, whatever that is, there is also Stop Making Babies group that may be helpful. Good luck resolving your confusion and addressing your logic path difficulties. |
|
28-11-2015 @KirkMy frustration stems from the fact that you don't seem to get what I am trying to argue here. I am talking about the Nonidentity Problem in moral philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonidentity-problem/ Even for Benetar to say something like: "Someone can be worse/better off non-existing" is in no way sufficient reasoning. Why do you think he is even try to use an Asymmetry? Just to complicate things? Though I don't think, this is an satisfying solution, at least he is trying. But I first read the Book "The Non-Identity Problem and the Ethics of Future People" (https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-non-identity-problem-and-the-ethics-of-future-people-9780199682935?cc=at&lang=en&#) before i decide if such an approach is worth bothering with, or if that's hopeless. I tried to argue why this is, and why it might not been solvable in a person-centric way and if so (I might be wrong) it would be better to use a moral realist and/or deontological aproach towards non-existent people. You just sayed: NO! I am too analytical or whatever... This is not AN specific. Somehow you seem to have the fixed idea that I am trying to argue against AN (at least your book and website recommendations tell me so). Even if such an approach is not working, there a plenty of other good reasons why someone should not procreate. |
|
28-11-2015 @Meme The important thing to me is AN, everything else drops off. Putting energy into a philosophical discussion that has no real effect on anything isn't in my purview now. I am still considering free will vs. determinism, but stick with my conclusion that it doesn't make any real difference anyway, but have found two good sources on each side, or rather one gives the possibility, that I am working through.If you can manage it, give this a whirl and see if you can help me understand the conclusion that involves quantum mechanics and complexity theory to arrive at a way that free will is possible, an uncaused event, so to speak, that isn't "random". I am close, but I can't explain it, and if I can't explain it, it means I don't really grasp it entirely yet. This is the best paper I have read on the subject. http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=philosophy_articles As a countering set of arguments, though I haven't placed them both side by side yet, is Slattery's book on the Free Will illusion, a fairly well written book. Beyond that, the approach to argue AN is just easy for me and I don't see a need to complicate. To prevent someone from suffering, without having to kill them, they need to never have existed. Bam. That's all I need to know, and wish my parents had done that for me. |
|
29-11-2015 @Brick I don't want to bother Irina, and maybe she is just busy or on vacation or is bored with us, but do you know if she is well and safe? Have you guys eloped and not told me? |
Comments to La Rochefoucauld on death