User Controls
Regarding my son
-
2018-01-17 at 7:41 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice What about the cost of bringing beings into existence? The risk you force unto then, those that will suffer, those that will regret having been born and will still suffer from death? There’s no need for this cost. Any level of harm is unacceptable.
The "cost of bringing beings into existence" can be justified if we can reasonably expect that the utility experienced by that agent will outstrip the suffering it will experience (i.e. it has a life worth living). Things which regret being born probably don't have lives worth living (unless that regret is sufficiently transient is nature) and typically can't be justified.
You keep saying "there's no need" but again, this misses the point. It's not about needing to be born, it's about standing to gain more by birth than it costs one. -
2018-01-17 at 7:47 AM UTCi haven't even had what one would call a hard life, and this is literally hell for me
you would have to be extremely selfish to bring another human into this worldThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-01-17 at 7:51 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny The "cost of bringing beings into existence" can be justified if we can reasonably expect that the utility experienced by that agent will outstrip the suffering it will experience (i.e. it has a life worth living). Things which regret being born probably don't have lives worth living (unless that regret is sufficiently transient is nature) and typically can't be justified.
You keep saying "there's no need" but again, this misses the point. It's not about needing to be born, it's about standing to gain more by birth than it costs one.
You are a moral monstrosity and have a robotic thinking style. -
2018-01-17 at 7:52 AM UTCEvery post of Lanny's that I see only worsens my opinion of him.
-
2018-01-17 at 8:22 AM UTC
-
2018-01-17 at 10:35 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-01-17 at 11:03 AM UTCI honestly do believe that with the world the way it is now, bringing another life into existence betting that it will have a life worth living is like betting all of your assets on one number in roulette:
Yeah, you might give someone a life worth living, but the chances of it working out are very very slimThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-01-17 at 11:05 AM UTCAlso, if people want kids, why can't they just adopt? You're passing on making a huge difference in an orphan's life because "it's not mine"
If that's not selfish, I don't know what isThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-01-17 at 11:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by Kolokol-1 Also, if people want kids, why can't they just adopt? You're passing on making a huge difference in an orphan's life because "it's not mine"
If that's not selfish, I don't know what is
Because humans are fucking selfish. They don't want to give a child a good life, they just want a child of their own. Disgusting. -
2018-01-17 at 11:10 AM UTCI think it's mostly people getting pregnant by accident, then saying "oh we wanted kids, of course they were planned!" to save face
-
2018-01-17 at 12:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by Malice You are a moral monstrosity and have a robotic thinking style.
Aren't you a proponent of superhuman AI? I seem to recall you really really wanting that.
How is bringing superhuman AI into this world significantly different than brining regular humans into this world?
Do we get the AI's consent?
Wouldn't it experience a super human level of suffering?
What about the cost?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-01-17 at 1:23 PM UTCMalice, rather than parroting the same shit you read like a retard, then going for the personal attack when your canned argument is rekt, use your brain: attack Lanny's appeal to utility. Utilitarianism itself is ripe for criticism.
I'm not going to enter the argument but goddamn, use your fucking head. -
2018-01-17 at 3:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by Kolokol-1 Also, if people want kids, why can't they just adopt?
becos its programmed into peoples instinct to not be a genetic cuck. taking care and raising a copy of others genetic material runs contrary to the purposes
the hollowed purposes of reproduction bestowed upon us by the great gott that is nature and the universe.
only the infirm ... the mentally and physically feeble, degenerated souls and those who nature had decided to be not fit to reproduce would and should ever consider the prospect of being a genetic cuck. -
2018-01-17 at 5:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by Kolokol-1 I honestly do believe that with the world the way it is now, bringing another life into existence betting that it will have a life worth living is like betting all of your assets on one number in roulette:
Yeah, you might give someone a life worth living, but the chances of it working out are very very slim
Seems like it depends on the parents no? Like sure, I could see the argument that most children born today are not going to have lives worth living (given the majority of the human population is living in poverty, under either adverse environmental or political conditions, or both) but the child of well adjusted parents living in a stable first world country can be expected to have a reasonably fulfilling existence, free from poverty or excessive survival stresses, with reasonable opportunities to form meaningful relationships and pursue personal goals.
I guess Enter's middle class crude, unresolved existential angst poses something of a problem but it seems like a significant minority of the population has this affliction, ergo it is not the expected result. -
2018-01-18 at 12:38 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Malice, rather than parroting the same shit you read like a retard, then going for the personal attack when your canned argument is rekt, use your brain: attack Lanny's appeal to utility. Utilitarianism itself is ripe for criticism.
I'm not going to enter the argument but goddamn, use your fucking head.
Oh, that reminded me. Lanny, how do you deal with the repugnant conclusion? I swear to god you're probably going to embrace it. -
2018-01-18 at 12:55 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Oh, that reminded me. Lanny, how do you deal with the repugnant conclusion? I swear to god you're probably going to embrace it.
Essentially yes, I would affirm the conclusion in a rigorous formulation.
I think in its treatment people tend to equivocate on the meaning of "life barely worth living". In colloquial usage 'a life barely worth living' denotes an existence we typically imagine as poor. We might say the life of a impoverished coal miner is 'barely worth living' because the miner lives in terrible conditions but does not commit suicide. There is, however, no reason we have to draw the sufficiency line of "lives worth living" just above "bad enough to kill yourself". We might even deem reasonably happy people as not have lives worth living if they are missing some critical element of a sufficient experience (maybe you think some sort of spirituality is necessary for a life worth living).
We yes, I'd give that for a population well above the sufficiency line there exists another population that's somewhat less happy/fulfilled but more populous (but still sufficient) that's "better" or which experiences greater net utility. But this doesn't imply that injecting more people just barely happy enough with their existence to continue living into an existing population is morally justifiable. -
2018-01-18 at 12:57 AM UTCITT: Philosophy majors
-
2018-01-18 at 1:18 AM UTCSo in accordance with your view, should people have as many children as possible?
-
2018-01-18 at 1:22 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Seems like it depends on the parents no? Like sure, I could see the argument that most children born today are not going to have lives worth living (given the majority of the human population is living in poverty, under either adverse environmental or political conditions, or both) but the child of well adjusted parents living in a stable first world country can be expected to have a reasonably fulfilling existence, free from poverty or excessive survival stresses, with reasonable opportunities to form meaningful relationships and pursue personal goals.
I guess Enter's middle class crude, unresolved existential angst poses something of a problem but it seems like a significant minority of the population has this affliction, ergo it is not the expected result.
I guess the difference between us is what we consider "a life worth living" and what we think the probability of it happening is
You most likely have a far more positive outlook on life than I do -
2018-01-18 at 1:37 AM UTCImagine a world where lives were born with equal levels of positive and negative utility. One life wholly worth living, one life that counters that. Would you want to prevent the child who suffers from coming into existence? What if it increased so that the happy lives averaged out to +.1% net positive utility. At what point does it become immoral and is utility all that matters? Why should the happy lives be lamented if non-existent beings aren't harmed by not being brought into existence? There's no point where needlessly gambling with potential lives stops being immoral, there's always some level of risk.
Aversion to death and the will to leave are both strongly biologically mediated and vary between individuals. The fear of death is one of the greatest fears there is. If people were modified so that it was even stronger, to the point where they may state they want to live regardless of how much suffering they experience and the probability of a positive outcome, when would it be considered inhumane to not intervene and cease their suffering?
