| I came up with the idea for this thread after having a discussion with a group of friends, and I thought it was an interesting topic so I decided to post a thread about it. The idea came up when I was discussing whether or not prostitution should be legalised with some friends. My friend said he was against it on moral grounds, and for that reason it should be illegal. The discussion went on beyond that and other points were made but I thought discussing this one in greater detail would be interesting. My own view is that it should not be the state's duty to enforce morality on citizens, but that's largely because I don't consider it to be feasible; just because you make something illegal does not mean that people will immediately stop doing it. At the same time, it will put a number of people off doing something. If the government is elected in democratic elections and includes a 'moral' policy in their manifesto, does that mean they have every right to make moral judgements as to what is and what is not acceptable behaviour? Laws based on morality could include a number of things, including drugs, prostitution, pornography, indecent exposure... I'd like you to focus on the morality of these issues when discussing them, rather than on the implications they might have either way. I am only really concerned with the question at hand. That question, as stated in the title, is this: Should the Law be used to Enforce Morality? I'm looking forward to reading everyone's thoughts on this, and I shall respond or elaborate on my own views as the discussion goes on. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| Just a quick post, since I've got to rush off in 5: The law already does enforce morality to a certain degree. Think about most criminal offences you know: murder, theft, ABH/GBH etc. etc. They've been criminalised because they're deemed immoral to society at large. Indeed, any law introduced, it can be argued, enforces a certain morality to a certain degree; I think it's impossible for the law not to reflect morality at all. The question should then be to what extent should the law be used to enforce morality? That's where it gets a little more difficult, obviously. Although, in my opinion, the minimum interference with the what-may-be-termed 'difficult' issues of morality would certainly be the ideal. I don't think many would disagree that murder is immoral, for example, but issues concerning cannabis use, censorship etc might be viewed as more difficult and so less certain that the law should interfere at all. |
 |
| Which moral values enforced? You know, people have different views on what is and what is not moral. This sounds more like religion. Getting rid of religious bigots and having birth control, as well educating our kids about drugs, etc would help a lot more than a law. |
| LUL |
| like allowing polygamy and adultery |
| I see you point Jack, but when it comes to things like murder, theft, fraud, rape and similar crimes I don't think it is just a question as to whether they are moral, because they also involve directly harming other people or other persons. I was thinking of crimes that are not directly harmful to someone else but might be made illegal because they are considered by some people to be immoral, for the purposes of this discussion. Morality is an awfully broad term and it encompases a lot of things, but I was unsure of a better way to distinguish the issues I am talking about from other crimes, other than perhaps to say that these crimes are considered illegal not because of the direct harm they cause, but because they are widely considered to be morally wrong. Of course you might disagree that they are not just morally wrong, but I was more concerned with the concept than with specific cases. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
one-more-time said: Which moral values enforced? You know, people have different views on what is and what is not moral. This sounds more like religion. Getting rid of religious bigots and having birth control, as well educating our kids about drugs, etc would help a lot more than a law. Thing about religion is that it's hardly enforced; it's more like a powerful suggestion |
| I find having children to be immoral, eating meat to be immoral and many, many other things to be immoral as well. But should that be enforced by law? Educating people on such issues would work much better. Slurpentine said: Thing about religion is that it's hardly enforced; it's more like a powerful suggestion Having laws against gay-marriage, being put in jail for taking a critique look on your religion, etc, is just powerful suggestion. Mkay. |
| LUL |
| That is just too broad of a question. Some acts are viewed to be more immoral than others. For example there is a huge difference between the morality of cannibalism and say the morality of pornography. Most of us can agree cannibalism is pretty immoral, however, pornography is a bit of a grey area. You need to be specific as to what kind of acts you are asking about. |
LittleCaesarsMay 30, 2012 11:53 AM
 |
one-more-time said: I find having children to be immoral, eating meat to be immoral and many, many other things to be immoral as well. But should that be enforced by law? Educating people on such issues would work much better. Slurpentine said: Thing about religion is that it's hardly enforced; it's more like a powerful suggestion Having laws against gay-marriage, being put in jail for taking a critique look on your religion, etc, is just powerful suggestion. Mkay. So we should not enforce laws on moral grounds, because what is considered to be moral is subjective, and because it would be oppresive to enforce things like that in law? You know it doesn't have to be things like outright bans or prison sentences for those who break the laws. We could implement taxes on such activities to discourage such behaviour. In fact, your suggestion of educating people about these people, assuming it is provided in state schools, would also be an example of the government enforcing morality on the citizens. Well, perhaps not so much enforcing as encouraging, but it is still state involvement. DrunkenBlowfish said: That is just too broad of a question. Some acts are viewed to be more immoral than others. For example there is a huge difference between the morality of cannibalism and say the morality of pornography. Most of us can agree cannibalism is pretty immoral, however, pornography is a bit of a grey area. You need to be specific as to what kind of acts you are asking about. The whole point of the topic is that I am asking it as a broad question without talking about specific examples. However, as far as cannibalism is concerned I thought my response to Jack_Rav clarified that I was exempting those kind of crimes. I am asking the question broadly because it is the fundamental principle that I am interested in. People may have specific views on certain issues within the sphere but to try and examine them all would be time consuming and has been done in numerous threads before. By asking people to look at the idea in principle we can challenge them we can also force people to look at the subject without being swayed by personal interest and look at it fundamentally. |
AnnoKanoMay 30, 2012 12:01 PM
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| Government isn't supposed to express or lead by any form of morality as it ostracises those who don't ascribe to what's being exampled. And as Nietzsche and Turgenev have expressed, morality is merely a contrived attempt to justify one's actions. There's no objective way to live, so anyone in a leadership position, even political monopolies, shouldn't act as if there is. |
 |
| Forcing anyone else to do something they don't want to do should be illegal. (This would include Rape, Murder, Genocide, assault, etc, due to the fact the victim would not 'want' these things) Wrecking or taking other people's property should be illegal. Other than that, do what you want, IMO. |
hotd1989 said: Forcing anyone else to do something they don't want to do should be illegal. (This would include Rape, Murder, Genocide, assault, etc, due to the fact the victim would not 'want' these things) Wrecking or taking other people's property should be illegal. Other than that, do what you want, IMO. What about taxes? Such as income taxes? Lots of people don't want to pay those, but the government forces them to. |
|
lucjan said: What about taxes? Such as income taxes? Lots of people don't want to pay those, but the government forces them to. Finally, we get to the issue. (Have we discussed CLASS yet?) "I don't want *my* money helping poor dark people!" ... "I don't want *my* money dropping science on poor dark people!" Resolve this :p Money or the masses. |
AnnoKano said: You know it doesn't have to be things like outright bans or prison sentences for those who break the laws. We could implement taxes on such activities to discourage such behaviour. Depends what kind of activities. There's huge range. Let's take marijuana. Sure, legalize and tax it. But I find that it's not enough, there is a need to educate people about such things. Marijuana smokers think, not all, that there is no negative effect smoking pot. We need a rational basis for moral values we are enforcing, not "Oh so you like it? No, you cannot do that." or shit like that. When it comes to rational moral values, we have to remember that imposing a life and imposing unneccesarry suffering is immoral as well. I'd have hard time obeying the law which says otherwise or does not mention these things. In fact, your suggestion of educating people about these people, assuming it is provided in state schools, would also be an example of the government enforcing morality on the citizens. Well, perhaps not so much enforcing as encouraging, but it is still state involvement. Can education be considered as enforcement? Not really. Yes, encouraging and raising awareness, making them think, having a rational discussion on what and why is right or wrong. Should the law be used? Any sketch for such law, like a few moral values it'd enforce? |
| LUL |
one-more-time said: Educate people about smoking cigarettes too while you're at it.But I find that it's not enough, there is a need to educate people about such things. Marijuana smokers think, not all, that there is no negative effect smoking pot. |
  |
AnnoKano said: I am asking the question broadly because it is the fundamental principle that I am interested in. People may have specific views on certain issues within the sphere but to try and examine them all would be time consuming and has been done in numerous threads before. By asking people to look at the idea in principle we can challenge them we can also force people to look at the subject without being swayed by personal interest and look at it fundamentally. The world doesn't work like that though. Life is too complex to be looked at in absolutes and can't be boiled down to a simple yes/no answer. |
|
| No, it should not. |
| Law is nothing but institutionalized morality. What part of it do you think isn't based on one moral precept or another? It's impossible to seperate them. DrunkenBlowfish said: The world doesn't work like that though. Life is too complex to be looked at in absolutes and can't be boiled down to a simple yes/no answer. That's fluffy nothingspeak. Nobody asked you to answer only in binary. Absoluteness does not have anything to do with complexity or binary truth values, anyway. It just means a lack of relevance of a frame of reference. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
| It should be illegal to smoke. And sorry, you made "enjoy it", but if I ever get into power, it's getting banned. |
| "If you love someone Follow your heart Cause love comes once If you’re lucky enough" |
Gogetters said: one-more-time said: Educate people about smoking cigarettes too while you're at it.But I find that it's not enough, there is a need to educate people about such things. Marijuana smokers think, not all, that there is no negative effect smoking pot. I have nothing to back this up, but I think you'll agree that pot smokers will deny that marijuana has negative effects while cigarette smokers understand the risk. |
| LUL |
one-more-time said: I find having children to be immoral, eating meat to be immoral and many, many other things to be immoral as well. But should that be enforced by law? Educating people on such issues would work much better. Slurpentine said: Thing about religion is that it's hardly enforced; it's more like a powerful suggestion Having laws against gay-marriage, being put in jail for taking a critique look on your religion, etc, is just powerful suggestion. Mkay. My point is still valid because those are religiously-driven law decisions but they're not necessarily exclusive to religion and I'd even go so far as to say that you could make the case that they're a misinterpretation of the religious texts that inspire them I know Christianity stresses obeying the law of the land rather than forcing legislation on citizens and this is a good case of that religious ideal being flouted |
NicoleB said: It should be illegal to smoke. And sorry, you made "enjoy it", but if I ever get into power, it's getting banned. wait why as long as people smoke outside it's cool one-more-time said: I find having children to be immoral this thread is nuts |
Jack_Rav said: Just a quick post, since I've got to rush off in 5: The law already does enforce morality to a certain degree. Think about most criminal offences you know: murder, theft, ABH/GBH etc. etc. They've been criminalised because they're deemed immoral to society at large. Indeed, any law introduced, it can be argued, enforces a certain morality to a certain degree; I think it's impossible for the law not to reflect morality at all. The question should then be to what extent should the law be used to enforce morality? That's where it gets a little more difficult, obviously. Although, in my opinion, the minimum interference with the what-may-be-termed 'difficult' issues of morality would certainly be the ideal. I don't think many would disagree that murder is immoral, for example, but issues concerning cannabis use, censorship etc might be viewed as more difficult and so less certain that the law should interfere at all. I disagree, anything that causes great harm to others like murder, theft, rape, violence etc isn't just about morality. Is because if those where not illegal then a society can't faction. A place where anyone could kill, rape or steal from another will become a wild jungle. No progress, no piece in general or as a person, people wouldn't even be able to sleep at night. It will be the absolute chaos. So you see moral or not is irrelevant. You can't have a law if it doesn't at least prohibits the actions that create chaos and stop the existence of an environment that stops law from even excising. |
Monad said: Is because if those where not illegal then a society can't faction. Of course it can. And even if it cannot, it is still a moral stance - "a functioning society is a moral good/necessity". There is nothing necessary about it. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
| Agreed with Monad. Those basic ones are about property rights. You gotta have property rights. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Kaiserpingvin said: Monad said: Is because if those where not illegal then a society can't faction. Of course it can. And even if it cannot, it is still a moral stance - "a functioning society is a moral good/necessity". There is nothing necessary about it. now we're getting into the ontology of morality hint: it's supernatural! |
Kaiserpingvin said: And even if it cannot, it is still a moral stance - "a functioning society is a moral good/necessity". There is nothing necessary about it. This is just arguing semantics. If we can't all agree that a functioning society is "necessary", then there is no point in this discussion whatsoever. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| just what i thought was about to happen we are now getting into the root of ethics you guys have a good conversation I'm hungry |
Slurpentine said: one-more-time said: I find having children to be immoral this thread is nuts How imposing life on one is a good thing? There is none in the Void of Nothingless thinking "Oh, I dream about my first birthday." |
one-more-timeMay 30, 2012 3:41 PM
| LUL |
| Go on one-more-time. I completely disagree, but I'm interested in seeing how you back your opinion. That is, if we are allowed to, God forbid, go off topic. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Post-Josh said: This is just arguing semantics. If we can't all agree that a functioning society is "necessary", then there is no point in this discussion whatsoever. Most people agree. It's still a moral claim. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
one-more-time said: Slurpentine said: one-more-time said: I find having children to be immoral this thread is nuts How imposing life on one is a good thing? There is none in the Void of Nothingless thinking "Oh, I dream about my first birthday." "Imposing life" There's nothing about this that sounds off to you? |
Kaiserpingvin said: Monad said: Is because if those where not illegal then a society can't faction. Of course it can. And even if it cannot, it is still a moral stance - "a functioning society is a moral good/necessity". There is nothing necessary about it. Is not a moral necessity. It's pretty much a living necessity. No one will have even the slightness of decent life in a crazy world where everyone is a beast and you have to sleep with one eye open. Hell our species as a whole might have died because the only reason we are more powerful than wild animals is because we form rules and groups that lead to a society structure that allows to support each other. Even if we didn't became food we might as well have turned back into monkeys since our brain will be useless in a chaos environment where knowledge can't find piece to be implemented. |
MonadMay 30, 2012 3:47 PM
| That's funny, actually, because I kind of see childbirth as the exact opposite. You know, furthering the species etc. |
|
Monad said: 'Is not a moral necessity. It's pretty much a living necessity. No one will have even the slightness of decent life in a crazy world where everyone is a beast and you have to sleep with one eye open. Hell our species as a whole might have died because the only reason we are more powerful than wild animals is because we form rules and groups that lead to a society structure that allows to support each other. Even if we didn't became food we might as well have turned back into monkeys since our brain will be useless in a chaos environment where knowledge can find piece to be implemented. So? Even granting something as ridiculous as the lack of laws would lead to total extinction, to hold the perpetuation of our species as a good thing is a moral fucking claim. How hard is this to get? |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
Kaiserpingvin said: Post-Josh said: This is just arguing semantics. If we can't all agree that a functioning society is "necessary", then there is no point in this discussion whatsoever. Most people agree. It's still a moral claim. Yeah, although it could also be a logical claim. Upon thinking about it, what I'm considering logical here could also boil down to moral or emotional value, so I suppose moral encompasses it all. Aside: I just realized you're kaiser. I guess you're a mod, haha. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Slurpentine said: "Imposing life" There's nothing about this that sounds off to you? Giving birth is imposing life on one, without asking. And very often not even considering the risks. Having babies is selfish act, nothing more, or you want to argue that it's not? I guess you're unfamiliar with Benatar Asymmetry. My point is still valid because those are religiously-driven law decisions but they're not necessarily exclusive to religion and I'd even go so far as to say that you could make the case that they're a misinterpretation of the religious texts that inspire them I want to facepalm so much. |
one-more-timeMay 30, 2012 3:56 PM
| LUL |
| Some laws are used to protect basic rights or "guide" a society in a direction and others are used because of said society's view on what is good, basically morale. It all really comes down to who can argue which way better and how the person/people listening understand. Basically saying what others already have. And there are pieces to each users posts that answer the question but I must agree with Post-Josh, if we can't agree on that basic fact than this was a waste of time, that I could have used to watch a cat play the piano. Back to question: Now should it, no and yes. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
one-more-time said: I must agree...weed has no ill effects while a cig does- is how its seen here. I have nothing to back this up, but I think you'll agree that pot smokers will deny that marijuana has negative effects while cigarette smokers understand the risk. NicoleB said: It gets tricky when you want to ban something like that. I agree that people that smoke should not smoke in areas that are public but when I walk through an area that smokers are at and can be, don't walk that way or hold your breath. They have a right to enjoy the substance they bought (legally).It should be illegal to smoke. And sorry, you made "enjoy it", but if I ever get into power, it's getting banned. lucjan said: Some laws are made like I said earlier to guide. In the US, the tax laws are an example.hotd1989 said: Forcing anyone else to do something they don't want to do should be illegal. (This would include Rape, Murder, Genocide, assault, etc, due to the fact the victim would not 'want' these things) Wrecking or taking other people's property should be illegal. Other than that, do what you want, IMO. What about taxes? Such as income taxes? Lots of people don't want to pay those, but the government forces them to. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
one-more-time said: Slurpentine said: "Imposing life" There's nothing about this that sounds off to you? Giving birth is imposing life on one, without asking. And very often not even considering the risks. Having babies is selfish act, nothing more, or you want to argue that it's not? I guess you're unfamiliar with Benatar Asymmetry. "Without asking" is an illogical argument. Not considering the risks is a generalization. Having a child is only always selfish if you believe every single thought and act is selfish, which I understand is a viable viewpoint. If that's what you believe, then saying something is selfish is meaningless anyway. Edit: I just read a brief summary of Benatar Asymmetry. Not sure if it was a publicity stunt, but his argument is definitely not sufficient (as far as I understand it) to make such an implication. |
JoshMay 30, 2012 4:01 PM
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
one-more-time said: Slurpentine said: "Imposing life" There's nothing about this that sounds off to you? Giving birth is imposing life on one, without asking. And very often not even considering the risks. Having babies is selfish act, nothing more, or you want to argue that it's not? I guess you're unfamiliar with Benatar Asymmetry. This is one of the silliest things I've ever read I don't even know where to begin? I think the biggest problem is that you're introducing, to the moral dimension, what is essentially an amoral act? and hell, it's an act that allows us to keep our species goin' so I guess you could actually make the argument that it's a good act? But then (and your idea is guilty of this too) it assumes a little too much about the actions that will be taken by the child and a host of other factors involved in their new life Can I ask you how you feel about death? |
AnnoKano said: I came up with the idea for this thread after having a discussion with a group of friends, and I thought it was an interesting topic so I decided to post a thread about it. The idea came up when I was discussing whether or not prostitution should be legalised with some friends. My friend said he was against it on moral grounds, and for that reason it should be illegal. The discussion went on beyond that and other points were made but I thought discussing this one in greater detail would be interesting. My own view is that it should not be the state's duty to enforce morality on citizens, but that's largely because I don't consider it to be feasible; just because you make something illegal does not mean that people will immediately stop doing it. At the same time, it will put a number of people off doing something. If the government is elected in democratic elections and includes a 'moral' policy in their manifesto, does that mean they have every right to make moral judgements as to what is and what is not acceptable behaviour? Laws based on morality could include a number of things, including drugs, prostitution, pornography, indecent exposure... I'd like you to focus on the morality of these issues when discussing them, rather than on the implications they might have either way. I am only really concerned with the question at hand. That question, as stated in the title, is this: Should the Law be used to Enforce Morality? I'm looking forward to reading everyone's thoughts on this, and I shall respond or elaborate on my own views as the discussion goes on. Morality is what is considered right.Of course everyone has a different idea of right and wrong.but all laws are based on morality. |
Post-Josh said: "Without asking" is an illogical argument. Imposing, without the other sides consent. Or you want to argue that it is not imposing YOUR will? Children are not asking to be born. None is screaming on the other side "Please have me! Please, I want to write symphony, I want to be a football player!". You're gambling with others welfare. Not considering the risks is a generalization. I really don't think that many parents think further than their "Oh, how wonderful it will be when we have a child, the first steps, the first birthday". Then it turns out that child has some disorder, some illness, what if the kid dies in a horrible, horrible way? Oh right, that is kids problem. Have a child is only always selfish if you believe every single thought and act is selfish, which I understand is a viable viewpoint. If that's what you believe, then saying something is selfish is meaningless anyway. There is no need when it's not existing. I just read a brief summary of Benatar Asymmetry. Not sure if it was a publicity stunt, but his argument is definitely not sufficient (as far as I understand it) to make such an implication. Benatar asymmetry, we know that the suffering is a minus, only way to prevent the minus is to not to create the living thing that can feel or create the minus. Now, positives, they only exists also if something exists but there is no negative in not making the thing you're calling a positive. That's basically the asymmetry argument, Benatar. Slurpentine said: This is one of the silliest things I've ever read I don't even know where to begin? I think the biggest problem is that you're introducing, to the moral dimension, what is essentially an amoral act? Answer a simple question - how is imposing life, without other sides consent a good thing. and hell, it's an act that allows us to keep our species goin' so I guess you could actually make the argument that it's a good act? But then (and your idea is guilty of this too) it assumes a little too much about the actions that will be taken by the child and a host of other factors involved in their new life So, your argument basically is that we have to procreate for the sake of it? Be the DNA slave, do what it tells. We serve no purpose, there is no need for you nor me, no final destination. Can I ask you how you feel about death? What do you mean? Death is death, it's Game Over. |
| LUL |
one-more-time said: and hell, it's an act that allows us to keep our species goin' so I guess you could actually make the argument that it's a good act? But then (and your idea is guilty of this too) it assumes a little too much about the actions that will be taken by the child and a host of other factors involved in their new life So, your argument basically is that we have to procreate for the sake of it? Be the DNA slave, do what it tells. We serve no purpose, there is no need for you nor me, no final destination. Can I ask you how you feel about death? What do you mean? Death is death, it's Game Over. 1. That's the point; it's not good or bad 2. We're genetically predisposed to procreation, yes. It's not about being a slave; if there is any "purpose to humans" it's to procreate. It's not even an end-all be-all case; we're the only beings we know of capable of advanced cognition so the sky is the limit really and hell, people can have whatever "purpose" they like. Also, why are you, an obvious nihilist, so concerned with morality? 3. That's an interesting point. |
one-more-time said: Post-Josh said: "Without asking" is an illogical argument. Imposing, without the other sides consent. Or you want to argue that it is not imposing YOUR will? Children are not asking to be born. None is screaming on the other side "Please have me! Please, I want to write symphony, I want to be a football player!". You're gambling with others welfare. Of course it is imposing your will, of course the non-existent child cannot provide consent, of course they are not asking to be born (nor do they reject the thought of being born), and of course it's a gamble, everything is. None of those things making bringing a child into this world immoral. You should have a child because you are willing to bet with confidence that you will be able to provide him/her with a "good" life. You could be wrong, but your life has led you to believe that existing (as you see it occurring for your child) is worth it. You believe that it is something someone deserves to have, under your care, which you believe to be "sufficient". Not considering the risks is a generalization. I really don't think that many parents think further than their "Oh, how wonderful it will be when we have a child, the first steps, the first birthday". Then it turns out that child has some disorder, some illness, what if the kid dies in a horrible, horrible way? Oh right, that is kids problem. It's the kid's problem? You think most people would think that? No, people would say "it's no one's fault" ie. it's chance. You could argue it's the parents fault, but that would be unproductive (in terms of human existence) if it was a widespread belief. Obviously you believe we should die out as a species though, so we're at odds again. Have a child is only always selfish if you believe every single thought and act is selfish, which I understand is a viable viewpoint. If that's what you believe, then saying something is selfish is meaningless anyway. There is no need when it's not existing. There is no need to do anything. I just read a brief summary of Benatar Asymmetry. Not sure if it was a publicity stunt, but his argument is definitely not sufficient (as far as I understand it) to make such an implication. Benatar asymmetry, we know that the suffering is a minus, only way to prevent the minus is to not to create the living thing that can feel or create the minus. Now, positives, they only exists also if something exists but there is no negative in not making the thing you're calling a positive. That's basically the asymmetry argument, Benatar. Yeah, basically what I read. I don't buy it. Pain and pleasure are not binary opposites that exist separately. You can not argue that speculative beings have an overall neutral level of "happiness" that can only go down in existence, because speculative beings do not have a level to begin with. How can you do something immoral to something that doesn't exist? You can't. Children are not born at a higher or lower level of happiness than when they did not exist, they are given a level for the first time. It does not necessarily go strictly downwards from there. Basically, you can't measure things that don't exist. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| Laws are mostly made to enforce order rather than any sense of morality or at least they should be. Government and laws are meant to simply enforce things that keep order and benefit people as a whole and then let individuals choose what they think is morally correct. Forcing any type of morals often end badly, look at prohibition in the U.S., encouraging a positive morality often works better. |
Slurpentine said: 1. That's the point; it's not good or bad Giving birth to a child, without his consent, in-to this fucked-up world. Do you understand what "gambling with others welfare" means? 2. We're genetically predisposed to procreation, yes. It's not about being a slave; So, basically do what you are programmed to do. What a pile of bullshit. if there is any "purpose to humans" it's to procreate. It's not even an end-all be-all case; Procreate for the sake of nothing! we're the only beings we know of capable of advanced cognition so the sky is the limit really and hell, people can have whatever "purpose" they like. I don't care for your silly delusions. Also, why are you, an obvious nihilist, so concerned with morality? I'm not a nihilist, what is pretty obvious. Post-Josh said: None of those things making bringing a child into this world immoral. You should have a child because you are willing to bet with confidence that you will be able to provide him/her with a "good" life. You could be wrong, but your life has led you to believe that existing (as you see it occurring for your child) is worth it. You believe that it is something someone deserves to have, under your care, which you believe to be "sufficient". I look at the world and say "Yeah, 9 lion cubs will die before their first birthday", that is 9 out of 10, do the simple math, the negative impact is so substantial that it doesn't justify the one lion, which is going to live and do the fucking thing and all the other little joy joys. I'm not the one making the "cake", you're the one has to explain "making the cake", lets call the "cake" what it is - the nuclear power plant, or some other kind of thing that has the risk. You're saying "Create the risk", I'm saying "Do something that has no risk". There is no risk becoming a Marsians, Plutonians or Saturnites, right, all of those civilizations do not exist and there is no evidence of any horror because they don't exist. So for us to become "them" there is no risk in that equation, there is no downside in that equation, you're the one who wants to maintain the experiment, we have the planet, we have the experiment - you wan't to keep it running. No, you explain to me what your ethics are for keeping it running, why do you get to tell something that will suffer, that might pronounce the words "I'd rather not have been", why should you tell them they will be again, you will make new ones, you will make more of us, things just like us, more frankenstain mongsters will come out of your palace, you tell us why you have the authority to do that, why should your judgement override my judgement which says "I wish to never be awakened again", "I wish to never zombie on this planet again". I cannot not zombie on this planet ever again as long as you people keep making the zombies. You explain it, you're the aggressor, you're the one wanting to take the risk, you explain it and justify it to me why you should have that authority, because you will not be pulling straws not for yourself but for someone else. Obviously you believe we should die out as a species though, so we're at odds again. Yes and not only. If I had a big red button, which made Planet Earth explode - I'd smash it, with love. Yeah, basically what I read. I don't buy it. Pain and pleasure are not binary opposites that exist separately. You can not argue that speculative beings have an overall neutral level of "happiness" that can only go down in existence, because speculative beings do not have a level to begin with. How can you do something immoral to something that doesn't exist? You can't. Children are not born at a higher or lower level of happiness than when they did not exist, they are given a level for the first time. It does not necessarily go strictly downwards from there. Basically, you can't measure things that don't exist. My previous post is one part of the argument, it is a need equation, your pleasures are drived through the function of needs, you need first, you have to be deprecated, first you have to be put in a negative state and basically unwind the negative state to create the positive. You have to be discomforted before you can be comforted. And that is why the suffering wins. Suffering is real, satisfactions are an illusion of our psychology, illusion of "put in the negative state and climb your way out and think you've gotten somewhere positive" when all you've done is eliminated the negative, you've gotten rid of your affirmaties, your deprivation, but you have not accomplished anything positive, there is no positive to compensate for any negative. EDIT: Basically, you can't measure things that don't exist. Like we all can't imagine that the future will exist, there will be people in it and that we could be concerned with their welfare, like somehow we have to strangle the philosophy to be able to figure out that something has a future potential implication, no I don't think that we need to do that, I really don't think that we need to strangle philosophy to figure out that future has people in it. |
one-more-timeMay 30, 2012 5:28 PM
| LUL |
| Lol, how nihilistic. No risk, no reward, my friend. @ the red button thing, how arrogant. |
JoshMay 30, 2012 5:22 PM
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| 1. Personal attacks 2. Moral affirmations despite professed nihilism 3. Flouting the closest thing to a "purpose" humans have on the basis that it's demeaning despite my reasoning that it's also not an "end-all be-all" case and not exclusive to humans I think we're done here gentlemen |
Slurpentine said: 1. Personal attacks 2. Moral affirmations despite professed nihilism 3. Flouting the closest thing to a "purpose" humans have on the basis that it's demeaning despite my reasoning that it's also not an "end-all be-all" case and not exclusive to humans I think we're done here gentlemen |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |