PlantBasedStriker


























  1. There are lots of things that cause harm that people overlook. Some people don't make the connection or don't fully grasp how harmful they are. It's possible that the vegans you are addressing aren't aware of the issues with buying illegal drugs. If they are fully aware, then it would be fair to say they are acting hypocritically.

  2. that also seems to depend on the kind of illegal drug, i.e. there are vast differences

  3. Okay m8. You know the books you can't even make reference to. Lets end this now. It is rather tedious

  4. So Rand knew Kant well and Peikoff did his masters thesis on him.

  5. Thanks for explaining his point a little further, i think this is a very cool take! Also a much simpler point to be made is that daoism stresses the value of inaction, this idea can be applied to birthing children, meaning it’s in our best to not have children

  6. I dont think this is what is meant by nonaction, but then again I might be wrong

  7. Inaction definitely isn't the same as flow state.

  8. I think the reply you just wrote me above is good progress compared to the OP. Those questions sound really interesting. I've only seen a little bit about it, so I won't have much to say, but you could even make a new post with just with that second paragraph.

  9. I sounds like bramble is talking about utilitarian conclusions and invoking a demandingness objection, which I think is valid, but im not sure if it disproves that making happy people can in some sense be good.

  10. yeah, if they have those intuitions simply because of motivated reasoning, and this is in some way clear, lets point them out.

  11. Generally speaking, a lot of french existentialists seem to believe that searching for meaning, or in other words, freedom, are worthwhile goals to focus on, and would probably accept them to be adequate ways to deal with suffering. As far as I understood sartre and de beavuoir tho, they wouldnt say that subjective meaning justifies our lifes tho. Camus project could be seen in part as a response to such a view, as his main point seems to be that this problem isnt detrimental to our lives, by the way he deals with absurdity.

  12. Yeah, especially that Benatar’s conclusion seems to possibly be too much and too little, namely that it seems like some people do have good reason to think their kids will live good lives and that, if he’s right, it seems like it’s hard to resist that conclusion that most of us ought to kill ourselves. (I also think he’s wrong for other reasons.)

  13. it is often critized (also by benatar) that harman stated that one can logically state that the absence of pleasure is bad, but that benatar in fact acknowledged this in his book and based his asymmetry of the 4 axiological support asymmetries.

  14. I think you’re reading something that isn’t there. The claim of the non-identity problem isn’t that it’s better for the potential life to not exist if the potential life is unavoidably flawed. But that it simply seems that it is better to create a non flawed life over a flawed life. Even if it’s a different life altogether being created. Notice here that there’s no claim about who or what it’s better for, just that it is better. There’s no relativism built in here like you’re trying to build in. It’s not better for the non flawed life to exist nor is it better for the flawed life to not exist. But that it seems that creating a non-flawed life seems better than creating a flawed, even if it’s totally different people being created in each case.

  15. okay, I understand, but it seems that you described a solution to the nonidentity problem (or the general underlying intution) that we can impersonally assess things like "better", or "worse".

  16. Pretty much yeah. Although benatar wouldn’t say the absence of pleasure is good. It’s the absence of pain that is good. For beneatar the absence of pleasure is only bad if it amounts to a deprivation, otherwise it’s neutral.

  17. oh haha I messed that up. What you said was actually what I tried to say, i.e. that the absence of pain is good for benatar, and for cabrera the absence of pleasure is bad as well.

  18. people here generally are obsessed with calling others pathethic over singular actions or beliefs, probably because there is some fragile masculinity around here

  19. generally speaking the counterarguments are underestimated/not even acknowledged, even in this thread and in the argument guide.

  20. Three clarificatory points before I present some readings.

  21. just wanted to add rosalind hursthouse "virtue ethics and our treatment of the other animals"

  22. No, that is also a use of the term “valid” that I don’t quite understand. I’d recommend just trying to use a different word or words to express the idea you’re trying to get across.

  23. I meant valid in the sense of "non fallacious", or "a coherent and relevant argument".

  24. I wonder if maybe you are using “valid” in a non-technical way. In logic, validity refers to certain formal features of purely deductive arguments and has nothing to do with whether or not premises are true. Validity isn’t very helpful for most practical matters where deduction is very hard and/or what really matters is the likelihood of the conclusion.

  25. ahh okay, so you would say that ad hominems are valid when they are used to assess the likelyhood of a conclusion but not (or less so) in deductive reasoning? Is this a correct understanding?

  26. Brought up once that we need to lean more on antinatalism being a philosophical idea, and not just a baby and parent bashing shit show. Down to join something that doesn't make me or others feel like it's a cult.

  27. got 80 downvotes for saying that some people who claim stuff like "all counterarguments are just X" probably didnt carefully engage with counterarguments.

  28. No, it's not sufficient reason to disregard philosophical expertise or consensus. But it is problematic.

  29. that was a wonderful response. I appealed to consensus also in regards to a question within the bounds of euro-american philosophy, i.e. most philosophers being unconvinced by some arguments and the accusation was that these institutions shouldnt be listened to at all since they are racist..

  30. yeah, I think some people who claim philosophy is racist are more about which thinkers we use and cite, and which we dont recognize as much (i.e.african and indian thinkers).

  31. most studies/polls on happiness dont publish the personal data of the participants and operate with privacy.

  32. It's a question loaded with social pressure - if you express you are not happy to be alive it's treated as an illness.

  33. Most people think that we are obligated to reduce suffering but not to increase goodness, eg. you are obligated to not show up to a party uninvited but you are not obligated to show up to a party you are invited to.

  34. I think a lot of people think that weshould also promote goodness, or at least that goodness can outweigh suffering, and sometimes some amount of good can outweigh bad.

  35. Creating new life does cause preventable suffering because the world is, to a degree, bad. So it is a fine justification for not procreating.

  36. its not clear that causing suffering is always wrong, and only negative utilitarians would believe that afaik.

  37. If you think you can convince a kid to be a good person, adopt. At least right now, there’s still no point in creating more humans.

  38. im quite surprised how often people mischaracterize the situation around adoption.

  39. Sorry. Here in America, at least, there are lots of kids in “the system” and most of the barriers that exist to make adoption more difficult are nonsense that needs to be cleaned up.

  40. dont apologize! yeah I assmued a lot of people with that point are from the US!

  41. Governments pay parents financial incentives for having kids to combat declining birth rates. They pay people to have babies for population growth. That's what the government wants. A growing population. In short - that's how you compete.

  42. it benefits the people of said country, generally speaking, if the birth rates are not declining so much. Its not just about competition but general society, social security,retirement checks etc. As the government should represent the people, its clear that incentivizing stable birthrates is a reasonable thing to do

  43. non - antinatalists dont laugh their ass off about suffering of people. Maybe some do, but those are assholes. The suffering is valid. Its just that there is a lot of very bad philosophy here, intentional ignorance to counterarguments, shaming of people with different views and a circlejerk on being miserable instead of actually helping people to live better lives, which all is laughable and sad at the same time when you think about it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin