Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-28-2013, 10:29 AM
 
41 posts, read 45,221 times
Reputation: 73

Advertisements

"I disagree, and it is a fundamental and unreconcilable philosophical disagreement broken down in the statements I made, above. I believe that defining the universe is more important than avoiding suffering. You do not. You should try to recognize that my opinion is valid, and may be held by other people."

I can't see how self-conscious sentient beings defining the universe make it inherently meaningful. Meaning and value only exist to the subject. If humans value the universe as being good, the universe doesn't become inherently good. It just means the universe is good for humans.

It's just illusory.

The universe isn't dependant on humans for anything and it need evaluation nordefinition. I can't see how the universe becomes "less meaningful"every time a human being dies because meaning only exist for humans.

"I think the root of these beliefs stem from personal experience and disposition. That is why I proposed that a person who believes avoiding suffering is more important than defining the world (and experiencing joy and suffering as part of this process) may have suffered or be suffering (due to depression or actual hardship) more than someone who believes human life should continue to self-perpetrate. This might be a mistake or the result of my inabilty to understand this different mindset."

It's easy to talk that the avoidance of suffering hasn't the highest value when you are not the one experiencing extreme suffering. Your suffering matters to you. Certainly the most important thing for all of us is avoidance of our suffering. You just need to empathise with people on this planet who are experiencing the dark side of existence. If you were one of them you wouldn't be glad to suffer extremely and be sacrificed for the sake of sensual gratification of others.You would agree that this the most cruel and absurd act imaginable. You'd place the highest value on the prevention of your suffering.

The core of the problem is selfishness. People just want to live to gratify their senses and don't care if it's happening at the expense of suffering of others. Suffering doesn't matter to people until it affects them personally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-28-2013, 10:31 AM
 
878 posts, read 944,716 times
Reputation: 893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaye Star View Post
I never said I think other people shouldn't have children. I said I think it's humane not to.
I ALWAYS say I think other people should not have children. NO ONE should have children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2013, 10:41 AM
 
6,039 posts, read 6,078,775 times
Reputation: 16753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorees View Post
It's easy to talk that the avoidance of suffering hasn't the highest value when you are not the one experiencing extreme suffering. Your suffering matters to you. Certainly the most important thing for all of us is avoidance of our suffering. You just need to empathise with people on this planet who are experiencing the dark side of existence. If you were one of them you wouldn't be glad to suffer extremely and be sacrificed for the sake of sensual gratification of others.You would agree that this the most cruel and absurd act imaginable. You'd place the highest value on the prevention of your suffering.[/font]
It's far from certain that the most important thing for "all of us" is is avoidance of suffering. What a narrow view. People deal with suffering in myriad ways. Some actually don't view it as suffering. Some strive to recognize the balance.

If one wants to assume their suffering is somehow so unique or so persuasive as to lead them to believe that's how the entire world operates, such a person would be in for a rude awakening if they could see how millions of people have lives many magnitudes worse on the suffering chart. I guarantee that on your self-diagnosed extreme suffering chart you'd probably be shocked how may people were on either side of you. Then again, I choose not to focus on suffering as a concept.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2013, 10:53 AM
 
30 posts, read 29,004 times
Reputation: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by elhelmete View Post
"Potential children"? At the risk of being crude...I've got millions of potential children and my wife a bunch too...I think we've done pretty ethically eschewing 99.99999999999% of our potential children.

If I wasn't concerned about my children's welfare my life would be 80% different than it is now, maybe more.

It's cool not to have kids, just silly to couch that very basic reasonable choice in a weak ethics argument.
Good. Even if you only had one child you are still being unethical.


I don't doubt you are concerned about your children's welfare now that they are born. You are raising your children.
I am talking that when parents have children, they aren't concerned if their children will suffer and regret existence because they are gambling. They are aware of all possibilities of failure and still choose to have a kid to please themselves. Thus they put their own interests first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2013, 11:21 AM
 
30 posts, read 29,004 times
Reputation: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
This is not true either. It's for the sake of the parent and the child. I also think calling non-actions ethical or not is worthless. I don't eat birds and mammals, but that doesn't mean I'm doing anything worthy of praise for animals.
The parent always consider his own interests first. If a child will benefit later is another question.

The selfish and unethical part, is risking an innocent life to have self-gratification. All parent in the world is aware of the possibility of suffering. The parent chooses to gamble putting his own desires above the "well-being" of his children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2013, 11:29 AM
 
Location: southern california
61,286 posts, read 87,624,769 times
Reputation: 55570
for many of us that have no kids or dogs or r not married but r successful its not greed its not selfishness
its fear
if u know no rotten kids if u have never seen a bad marriage and divorce or never been sued for a dog attack this post makes no sense
I took care of my very sick parents for the last 23 years they were my kids
show me in KJV where it says dump your parents marry a stinker and go have a bunch of rotten kids enough evil in the world already don't need to add
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2013, 11:36 AM
 
6,039 posts, read 6,078,775 times
Reputation: 16753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lira2 View Post
They are aware of all possibilities of failure and still choose to have a kid to please themselves.
Or we don't focus on failure as if that's the only outcome.

Although you say it's "gambling" you never call out the wins, just the losses. Interesting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2013, 01:36 PM
 
Location: Bike to Surf!
3,078 posts, read 11,085,288 times
Reputation: 3023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorees View Post
I can't see how self-conscious sentient beings defining the universe make it inherently meaningful. Meaning and value only exist to the subject. If humans value the universe as being good, the universe doesn't become inherently good. It just means the universe is good for humans.

It's just illusory.

The universe isn't dependant on humans for anything and it need evaluation nordefinition. I can't see how the universe becomes "less meaningful"every time a human being dies because meaning only exist for humans.
The universe doesn't lose meaning until there is not a single sentient mind left to define it. So as long as there is one human, the universe retains all the meaning it is going to have. However, life doesn't work that we. We need a minimum of hundreds of thousands of humans to make up a (barely) functioning society, and billions to support our current society. So a reduction in birth rate is fine, for everyone to stop having children is not.

Quote:
It's easy to talk that the avoidance of suffering hasn't the highest value when you are not the one experiencing extreme suffering. Your suffering matters to you. Certainly the most important thing for all of us is avoidance of our suffering. You just need to empathise with people on this planet who are experiencing the dark side of existence. If you were one of them you wouldn't be glad to suffer extremely and be sacrificed for the sake of sensual gratification of others.You would agree that this the most cruel and absurd act imaginable. You'd place the highest value on the prevention of your suffering.

The core of the problem is selfishness. People just want to live to gratify their senses and don't care if it's happening at the expense of suffering of others. Suffering doesn't matter to people until it affects them personally.
You are basically repeating what I have said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2013, 03:01 PM
 
19,046 posts, read 25,248,541 times
Reputation: 13486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lira2 View Post
The parent always consider his own interests first. If a child will benefit later is another question.

The selfish and unethical part, is risking an innocent life to have self-gratification. All parent in the world is aware of the possibility of suffering. The parent chooses to gamble putting his own desires above the "well-being" of his children.
Wrong. We do genetic counseling, genetic testing, ultrasounds, prenatal screening because we do care. There are a lot of things we don't care about, but that's not one of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2013, 03:04 PM
 
19,046 posts, read 25,248,541 times
Reputation: 13486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tele-Cat View Post
I ALWAYS say I think other people should not have children. NO ONE should have children.
You and your life sucks, therefore nobody should exist. This forum is like the freak show at a carnival.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:34 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top