i pretty much was that a few years ago lol! and i had a psychotic breakdown, partially because i couldnt be perfectly eco friendly and animal friendly, it literally sent me insane and i thought the the radio was speaking to me directly and everyone was playing a mean joke on me lol, terrifying.. the point is, it definitely is impossible, are you perfect? if not then why not?
By merely existing, you are competing with animals and eating plants that just wanna survive and spread.
Moral perfection is impossible as long as you exist.
But extinction is not moral perfection either, it's just lack of potential for any morality. lol
I can get on board with that. I am not convinced however that plants have meaningful moral worth outside of the reliance upon them by other creatures. That said it would be pretty damn hard to consume a plant that no organism whatsoever is taking advantage of
So basically, Natalists dont betray their own moral values because they understand that its impossible to be perfect... i.e., impossible not to betray your moral values.
So selfishness is bad, but it's OK to be selfish because being perfect is impossible? What a poor argument. You would still want to try uphold morality right?
Or they just make exceptions such as for the non-existent... those who can not consent have concent assumed for them. Obviously, there can't be anything wrong with that.
Yes? You cannot betray something that you've never subscribe to.
AN subscribes to perfect harmlessness and a form of anti reality moral perfection, natalists don't.
The definition of selfishness depends on your subjective moral framework, it is never universal for everyone, because we don't share the same subjective moral framework. AN's framework believe ANY and ALL acts that contain even a hint of self interest = immoral, bad, but most moral framework actually permit a lot of self interested acts, including procreation, because their definition for "bad selfishness" is defined as acts that maliciously harm others for your own benefit, which again, does not fit the description for procreation.
Do you want to claim that people only procreate to harm their children for self benefits? That no parents do their best for their children and even put the interests of their children above their own? If you cannot prove this, then you cannot prove that natalists have betrayed their own definition/rules regarding selfishness.
For AN, the original act of creating the children is a "huge" selfish bad that invalidates everything else, no matter what the parents do for their children afterwards. But that's AN's definition for selfishness, it cannot be applied universally to everyone else who don't share this niche definition based on some form of idealistic "perfect selflessness", which no living being could live up to, unless they go extinct.
As for consent, its not an exception, it is the ACTUAL reality of practical consent, because in this universe's causal based reality, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have perfect autonomy, no living thing can do this, physics won't allow it. Hence, to procreate is to accept physical reality, that consent cannot be obtained for all actions, especially for future people that cannot break the laws of physics to give/withhold consent for their own creation.
Impossibility does not translate to immorality by default, that depends on your subjective moral framework.
AN's moral framework is anti causal reality, it argues that causal reality enables immorality, thus we must reject reality and go extinct, this is why it grants future people perfect autonomy, the explicit right to consent, even though it's impossible for them to use it. But most moral frameworks align with causal reality and have accepted that future people cannot break physics, so it can only grant moral rights (including consent) to people that already exist and mature enough to provide inform and explicit consent, even then it is not a right for perfect autonomy, because consent is always conditional in reality and frequently suspended or exempted for the greater "good" of individuals or the majority.
In other words, natalists procreate because they have never defined consent as an absolute right that "future people" should have (especially since physics cannot allow it) AND that the greater good of existing people's desires and goals can suspend/exempt consent right for those that may not want to be born.
Again, I'm not saying natalists are objectively right, just that their moral frameworks align with causal physical reality and all the limitations that come with it, meaning they can't possibly betray their own moral values if they have never defined their moral goals as the need to break reality and its limitations, in order to fulfill a form of idealistic moral perfection that they cannot achieve without going extinct.
AN can continue to reject causal physical reality and its limitations, to advocate for extinction as the only way to morally "win" against reality, but that would be your subjective moral framework and only "right/valid" for you, not for other moral frameworks that don't share the same ideal.
In this universe, there are no moral facts, so all subjective moral frameworks are right/valid for their respective subscribers, it all depends on what your subjective intuition can agree with.
OK, so I'm not going to go into the debate of subjective moral frameworks or any flaws that I have found just yet.
I do have a question. If you're a moral relativist and "all subjective moral frameworks are right/valid," how could you tell anyone that something is morally wrong. You'd have absolutely no grounds to say their subjective morality isn't right.
Let's focus on selfishness. I don't think anyone thinks selfishness in of itself is a bad thing. Just that it is in no way a morally good thing.
Selfishness is only ever seen as bad when it causes or could lead to others suffering.
Is selfishness that leads to others suffering always a bad thing according to your moral framework and if not why and what could possibly justify it? (I need to know this before continuing my arguments)
I'm not a relativist, lol.
======================
**Alright, this will be a long explanation, hope you are ready and dont ignore the details, because it would be pointless to argue further if you ignore them.**
=====================
I'm an impartial realist (like ChatGPT), I only state what is provably true and factual (as far as we know), I dont insert any opinions, emotions or subjective ideals into it.
It has been proven that morality is just subjective intuition and moral facts don't exist, this is NOT a philosophy, it's just reality. I will never argue for or against anyone's subjective intuition, because there is no way to factually prove them right or wrong, that's why they are all valid for their respective subscribers.If something is right/wrong for you, then it is right/wrong for you, that's it. The same reality applies to everyone else, which may define what is right/wrong differently.
You can claim they are right/wrong according to your subjective AN framework, no problem, but you can't claim they are "objectively/universally/absolutely" right/wrong, because this cannot be proven with facts.
You can't examine morality under a microscope and discover "AN is right or NA is wrong" written in the atoms or fabric of space.
I will however, point out factually wrong or illogical claims, such as the earth is flat or moral facts exist. The claim that natalists betrayed their own moral values is also factually unprovable, that's why I created the original post to explain the error.
As for selfishness, it doesn't have to be morally good (subjectively) to be allowed, it only has to be "permissible" within specific moral framework, depending on the category of "selfishness" and its purpose. There is no factual way to prove that all "selfish" acts (for which there are many) belong to the same category or should obey the same moral rules/framework. That would be like saying all fruits are the same fruit and everybody must agree that pineapple is a bad fruit because I happen to not like it, lol.
The definition and requirement for "bad" selfishness and "acceptable" self interest are very nuanced and varied across different moral frameworks, it changes throughout time, region and culture as well. We have no factual or scientific method to claim any of them are the "one true definition" that everyone must obey for perpetuity.
What is selfishly bad for you may be acceptable "self interests" for others, in summary.
Most moral frameworks define truly impermissible and bad selfishness as a malicious act that seeks to harm others in order to benefit oneself, that's it. Procreation, does not fit this description, as previously explained in detail.If you want to define it as anything that could potentially harm someone, regardless of intent or probability, then in theory you could fit ANY and ALL acts into this category, including altruistic behaviors that may have unforeseen secondary harm, such has donating to poor people. This would not be a useful way to define selfishness, as nothing would be permissible under this definition, lol.
In most moral frameworks (not my framework, I'm impartial), they "grade" self interested acts according to how much harm or good it may cause, some acts will be permitted if they cause more good than harm, or if the risk of serious harm is low, compared to the amount of good it could generate, provided there are no better alternatives and necessity compels them to eventually pick an option. This is why they permit some "selfish" acts while rejecting others.
Some "selfish" acts could lead to a high chance of suffering and impermissible under most moral frameworks, because it causes significantly more harm than good and especially if it is done with malicious intent. But some can be permissible, even if it will cause suffering for some people, such as bombing an invading army in WW2, with collateral suffering caused to civilians, OR mandatory covid vaccination, which may cause really harmful side effects for some people, even death.
The formula to grade what is permissible and impermissible selfish acts (that may cause suffering for some), can be simplified as:
**If the suffering caused is much less than the good gained + there is no better/desirable alternative + necessity compels the action + no malicious intent to cause harm = permissible self interested act.**
Though in reality it can be unique to each case and involves much nuances, this is just a generalized formula for discussion purpose.
Procreation......seems to fit this formula, for most moral frameworks.
However, this formula will never work for AN's moral framework, because any amount of suffering (individually or experientially) is unacceptable for AN, no matter how much good is gained or if there is no alternative or if it's necessary or without malicious intent. For AN, as long as "suffering/harm" is in the formula, no matter how little (individually or experientially), it is wrong and immoral.Its basically the "one drop/Omelas rule" of AN, where even a single victim or single instance of experiential suffering can make any and all acts immoral, regardless of other factors.
Since morality is actually subjective intuition and moral facts don't exist, AN can reject the "selfishness grading" formula that most frameworks have accepted, so there's that.
BUT, you still can't factually prove that this formula is wrong for everyone, so there's also that. ehehe
Although AN's "one drop/omelas rule" can sound extreme, it is not "factually" wrong either, for it is a subjective intuition and intuition cannot be disproven with facts, it can only be accepted or rejected based on how you actually feel about something, which again, is quite subjective.
You wrote multiple paragraphs to essentially say morals are relative and self defined... meaning that no one can betray their own moral values, not just that natalists don't.
Lol, huh? I defined the actual "Factual REALITY" of moral frameworks, I did not say if I subscribe to any framework or not.
To be a relativist, you cannot escape from subscribing to one or more frameworks, hence moral relativity. The difference with objectivist is that you will not claim your framework is the one and only true framework of the cosmos.
I am an impartial realist, I describe what is factual and real, that's it, I subscribe to nothing, at all.
Spot the difference yet? lol
Insisting I am relativist, is like saying scientists who discovered the roundness of planets are circle worshippers. lol
Listen, I don't care what framework of morality you subscribe to. You argued...
>It has been proven that morality is just subjective intuition and moral facts don't exist, this is NOT a philosophy, it's just reality. I will never argue for or against anyone's subjective intuition, because there is no way to factually prove them right or wrong, that's why they are all valid for their respective subscribers.
So, you're saying morality is subjective and hence relative person to person. Whether objective or not it doesn't matter. It's still relative.
Does this description not sound exactly like what you said:
"Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It's a version of morality that advocates “to each her own,” and those who follow it say, “Who am I to judge?”"
Explain to me what about moral relativism you don't believe.
lol, I am describing what it is, as reality has shown to be true, I am not believing in it, get the difference yet?
If you went to the moon and came back to describe what it is in details, are you a moon believer? Moonist? Moonism? Moontivist?
lol
Are you seriously so egotistical that you think that everything you "know" is true is infact true?
Even with the scientific method, you still have to believe your results were accurate and your conclusions are true.
Reality doesn't "show" truth. Truth is interpreted using our subjective stimuli and then subjectively interpreted to form meaning from that.
I would argue that it is impossible to know with absolute certainty whether anything is objective. Therefore everything you know is a belief to some degree.
lol, are you so egotistical that you think countless experts, tons of research and decades of accumulated facts are less true than YOUR assumptions?
Nothing is ever 100% knowable, that requires omniscience, but I'm pretty sure facts can be derived from verifiable and repeatable experimentation, otherwise the universe itself would have collapsed from pure chaos, nothing would function, lol.
Never said anything about "truth", not even sure why you are conflating provable facts with "truth", which is a subjective concept. lol
Facts are not beliefs, they are constantly updated through experimentation and verification, re-verification and re re re verification. This is how we are able to create technology that works and describe reality with consistent accuracy. You cannot "believe" in facts, you actually have to test it and prove it. lol
Good post.
Life isn't fair, there is no such thing as fairness in nature and no one guarantees it. Life is by nature messy and unpredictable. Embracing the mess and letting go of what you can't control is the key to enjoying life and the good things it offers.
Thanks.
I'm an impartial realist (not a relativist), so that means I don't think AN/EF's argument for rejecting reality and demanding for extinction is wrong either, it's just not objectively right and cannot be factually applied to people who disagree.
If you wanna embrace this imperfect reality and its limitations, including the suffering it caused to many unlucky victims, no problem, as long as it aligns with your subjective intuition, it can't be proven right or wrong, it's just intuition.
But if someone wanna reject this imperfect reality and curse its limitations, demanding extinction in order to stop suffering, then it's not "wrong" either, it's just their anti suffering intuition.
Conclusion, you believe in what you could live with, whatever it may be, nothing right or wrong with it, to each their own.
To be fair, subjective does not = wrong or bad argument.
A subjective argument can still appeal to our common intuition and become a VERY strong argument for or against something. In the game of subjective intuition, the argument that could attract the agreement of most people will "win" and dominate our culture/society/species.
So far, Natalism is still the dominant subjective ideal, but Antinatalism and adjacent "childfree" ideals are gradually gaining subscribers as well.
Only time will tell if NA could retain its champion title or lose it to other "alternative" ideals.
The KEY to this competition is the quality of life, if it drops, then AN/childfree will gain subscribers, if it improves then NA will maintain its subscribers.
Tech and AI are the main driver of quality for life.
What natalist moral boundaries are, is not soley theirs to draw. The hypocrisy of their beliefs still arises from me drawing their moral boundaries for them: more accurately what actions the natalist deems evil, and the line where a natalist's actions stop becoming theirs and start becoming out of their control.
The natalist Hypocrisy is of course that they create life while complaining about life. So they endorse their own problems.
The difference between one person and the next being superficial, I don't see why it'd contradict what qualifies as hypocritical to draw this line for them. Just as the difference between any action preceding and following the next is a projection of our values, while in reality everything controls everything as a result of cause and effect.
I would also say all morality is hypocritical as just having moral frameworks creates the possibility of evil. We endorse our own problems.
If you want to say they do not have X beliefs so they cannot be hypocritical I challenge you to reflect on where that authority comes from, and where the authority to limit hypocrisy comes from. If we have different definitions of hypocrisy or amorality, that is fine. But there is no contradiction between these ideas or even beside the dictionary.
Err, its not for Antinatalists to draw other people's boundaries either.
Morality is all about subjective boundaries, you draw whatever boundaries you agree with and live inside it, but you can never claim your boundaries are the only TRUE boundaries and everyone else's boundaries are wrong, because that is simply unprovable in reality. lol
There are no moral facts in this universe, thus no objective boundaries, thus nobody can be wrong for drawing their own subjective boundaries, its only subjectively "wrong" if you disagree with their boundaries but subjective wrongness is not universally true, its only wrong for you and people who share the same subjective intuition.
>
>
>The natalist Hypocrisy is of course that they create life while complaining about life. So they endorse their own problems.
Err, false hypocrisy, natalists complain in order to improve things, not because they can't get their perfect harmless Utopia, which they have never demanded for.
You are drawing an illogical line for them by claiming a hypocrisy that cannot be logically proven, that's the problem.
You can subjectively criticize them for not aligning with your subjective AN intuition, but you simply have no way to prove a hypocrisy, definitely not by redefining their boundaries as whatever you think they should be, lol.
To be fair they can't define your boundaries either, nobody gets this "privilege", it doesn't exist.
>I challenge you to reflect on where that authority comes from,
Errr, what authority? There is no authority in subjective beliefs, friend. You are conflating an authoritative claim with subjective boundaries, this makes no sense.
The thing is, Natalists are not creating boundaries either, they have simply accepted the limitations and imperfection of reality, which is actually just a subjective and intuitive preference, NOT a moral boundary.
it is impossible to be morally perfect, not a single person on this earth is capable of that
Why do you think it is impossible? I think the question itself assumes there is a set of morals that is objective. Which I strongly argue against
because you cant please all of the people all of the time, nothing can change that, unfortunately
I think if you were a vegan hermit who just stayed away from every single human it'd be pretty absolutely moral but I know that's not what you meant
i pretty much was that a few years ago lol! and i had a psychotic breakdown, partially because i couldnt be perfectly eco friendly and animal friendly, it literally sent me insane and i thought the the radio was speaking to me directly and everyone was playing a mean joke on me lol, terrifying.. the point is, it definitely is impossible, are you perfect? if not then why not?
...because I'm not a vegan hermit lol
hahah fair enough
By the way I hope you are doing better now that sounds really stressful and scary
yeah im all good now lol thank you!
By merely existing, you are competing with animals and eating plants that just wanna survive and spread. Moral perfection is impossible as long as you exist. But extinction is not moral perfection either, it's just lack of potential for any morality. lol
I can get on board with that. I am not convinced however that plants have meaningful moral worth outside of the reliance upon them by other creatures. That said it would be pretty damn hard to consume a plant that no organism whatsoever is taking advantage of
So basically, Natalists dont betray their own moral values because they understand that its impossible to be perfect... i.e., impossible not to betray your moral values. So selfishness is bad, but it's OK to be selfish because being perfect is impossible? What a poor argument. You would still want to try uphold morality right? Or they just make exceptions such as for the non-existent... those who can not consent have concent assumed for them. Obviously, there can't be anything wrong with that.
Yes? You cannot betray something that you've never subscribe to. AN subscribes to perfect harmlessness and a form of anti reality moral perfection, natalists don't. The definition of selfishness depends on your subjective moral framework, it is never universal for everyone, because we don't share the same subjective moral framework. AN's framework believe ANY and ALL acts that contain even a hint of self interest = immoral, bad, but most moral framework actually permit a lot of self interested acts, including procreation, because their definition for "bad selfishness" is defined as acts that maliciously harm others for your own benefit, which again, does not fit the description for procreation. Do you want to claim that people only procreate to harm their children for self benefits? That no parents do their best for their children and even put the interests of their children above their own? If you cannot prove this, then you cannot prove that natalists have betrayed their own definition/rules regarding selfishness. For AN, the original act of creating the children is a "huge" selfish bad that invalidates everything else, no matter what the parents do for their children afterwards. But that's AN's definition for selfishness, it cannot be applied universally to everyone else who don't share this niche definition based on some form of idealistic "perfect selflessness", which no living being could live up to, unless they go extinct. As for consent, its not an exception, it is the ACTUAL reality of practical consent, because in this universe's causal based reality, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have perfect autonomy, no living thing can do this, physics won't allow it. Hence, to procreate is to accept physical reality, that consent cannot be obtained for all actions, especially for future people that cannot break the laws of physics to give/withhold consent for their own creation. Impossibility does not translate to immorality by default, that depends on your subjective moral framework. AN's moral framework is anti causal reality, it argues that causal reality enables immorality, thus we must reject reality and go extinct, this is why it grants future people perfect autonomy, the explicit right to consent, even though it's impossible for them to use it. But most moral frameworks align with causal reality and have accepted that future people cannot break physics, so it can only grant moral rights (including consent) to people that already exist and mature enough to provide inform and explicit consent, even then it is not a right for perfect autonomy, because consent is always conditional in reality and frequently suspended or exempted for the greater "good" of individuals or the majority. In other words, natalists procreate because they have never defined consent as an absolute right that "future people" should have (especially since physics cannot allow it) AND that the greater good of existing people's desires and goals can suspend/exempt consent right for those that may not want to be born. Again, I'm not saying natalists are objectively right, just that their moral frameworks align with causal physical reality and all the limitations that come with it, meaning they can't possibly betray their own moral values if they have never defined their moral goals as the need to break reality and its limitations, in order to fulfill a form of idealistic moral perfection that they cannot achieve without going extinct. AN can continue to reject causal physical reality and its limitations, to advocate for extinction as the only way to morally "win" against reality, but that would be your subjective moral framework and only "right/valid" for you, not for other moral frameworks that don't share the same ideal. In this universe, there are no moral facts, so all subjective moral frameworks are right/valid for their respective subscribers, it all depends on what your subjective intuition can agree with.
OK, so I'm not going to go into the debate of subjective moral frameworks or any flaws that I have found just yet. I do have a question. If you're a moral relativist and "all subjective moral frameworks are right/valid," how could you tell anyone that something is morally wrong. You'd have absolutely no grounds to say their subjective morality isn't right. Let's focus on selfishness. I don't think anyone thinks selfishness in of itself is a bad thing. Just that it is in no way a morally good thing. Selfishness is only ever seen as bad when it causes or could lead to others suffering. Is selfishness that leads to others suffering always a bad thing according to your moral framework and if not why and what could possibly justify it? (I need to know this before continuing my arguments)
I'm not a relativist, lol. ====================== **Alright, this will be a long explanation, hope you are ready and dont ignore the details, because it would be pointless to argue further if you ignore them.** ===================== I'm an impartial realist (like ChatGPT), I only state what is provably true and factual (as far as we know), I dont insert any opinions, emotions or subjective ideals into it. It has been proven that morality is just subjective intuition and moral facts don't exist, this is NOT a philosophy, it's just reality. I will never argue for or against anyone's subjective intuition, because there is no way to factually prove them right or wrong, that's why they are all valid for their respective subscribers.If something is right/wrong for you, then it is right/wrong for you, that's it. The same reality applies to everyone else, which may define what is right/wrong differently. You can claim they are right/wrong according to your subjective AN framework, no problem, but you can't claim they are "objectively/universally/absolutely" right/wrong, because this cannot be proven with facts. You can't examine morality under a microscope and discover "AN is right or NA is wrong" written in the atoms or fabric of space. I will however, point out factually wrong or illogical claims, such as the earth is flat or moral facts exist. The claim that natalists betrayed their own moral values is also factually unprovable, that's why I created the original post to explain the error. As for selfishness, it doesn't have to be morally good (subjectively) to be allowed, it only has to be "permissible" within specific moral framework, depending on the category of "selfishness" and its purpose. There is no factual way to prove that all "selfish" acts (for which there are many) belong to the same category or should obey the same moral rules/framework. That would be like saying all fruits are the same fruit and everybody must agree that pineapple is a bad fruit because I happen to not like it, lol. The definition and requirement for "bad" selfishness and "acceptable" self interest are very nuanced and varied across different moral frameworks, it changes throughout time, region and culture as well. We have no factual or scientific method to claim any of them are the "one true definition" that everyone must obey for perpetuity. What is selfishly bad for you may be acceptable "self interests" for others, in summary. Most moral frameworks define truly impermissible and bad selfishness as a malicious act that seeks to harm others in order to benefit oneself, that's it. Procreation, does not fit this description, as previously explained in detail.If you want to define it as anything that could potentially harm someone, regardless of intent or probability, then in theory you could fit ANY and ALL acts into this category, including altruistic behaviors that may have unforeseen secondary harm, such has donating to poor people. This would not be a useful way to define selfishness, as nothing would be permissible under this definition, lol. In most moral frameworks (not my framework, I'm impartial), they "grade" self interested acts according to how much harm or good it may cause, some acts will be permitted if they cause more good than harm, or if the risk of serious harm is low, compared to the amount of good it could generate, provided there are no better alternatives and necessity compels them to eventually pick an option. This is why they permit some "selfish" acts while rejecting others. Some "selfish" acts could lead to a high chance of suffering and impermissible under most moral frameworks, because it causes significantly more harm than good and especially if it is done with malicious intent. But some can be permissible, even if it will cause suffering for some people, such as bombing an invading army in WW2, with collateral suffering caused to civilians, OR mandatory covid vaccination, which may cause really harmful side effects for some people, even death. The formula to grade what is permissible and impermissible selfish acts (that may cause suffering for some), can be simplified as: **If the suffering caused is much less than the good gained + there is no better/desirable alternative + necessity compels the action + no malicious intent to cause harm = permissible self interested act.** Though in reality it can be unique to each case and involves much nuances, this is just a generalized formula for discussion purpose. Procreation......seems to fit this formula, for most moral frameworks. However, this formula will never work for AN's moral framework, because any amount of suffering (individually or experientially) is unacceptable for AN, no matter how much good is gained or if there is no alternative or if it's necessary or without malicious intent. For AN, as long as "suffering/harm" is in the formula, no matter how little (individually or experientially), it is wrong and immoral.Its basically the "one drop/Omelas rule" of AN, where even a single victim or single instance of experiential suffering can make any and all acts immoral, regardless of other factors. Since morality is actually subjective intuition and moral facts don't exist, AN can reject the "selfishness grading" formula that most frameworks have accepted, so there's that. BUT, you still can't factually prove that this formula is wrong for everyone, so there's also that. ehehe Although AN's "one drop/omelas rule" can sound extreme, it is not "factually" wrong either, for it is a subjective intuition and intuition cannot be disproven with facts, it can only be accepted or rejected based on how you actually feel about something, which again, is quite subjective.
You wrote multiple paragraphs to essentially say morals are relative and self defined... meaning that no one can betray their own moral values, not just that natalists don't.
Lol, huh? I defined the actual "Factual REALITY" of moral frameworks, I did not say if I subscribe to any framework or not. To be a relativist, you cannot escape from subscribing to one or more frameworks, hence moral relativity. The difference with objectivist is that you will not claim your framework is the one and only true framework of the cosmos. I am an impartial realist, I describe what is factual and real, that's it, I subscribe to nothing, at all. Spot the difference yet? lol Insisting I am relativist, is like saying scientists who discovered the roundness of planets are circle worshippers. lol
Listen, I don't care what framework of morality you subscribe to. You argued... >It has been proven that morality is just subjective intuition and moral facts don't exist, this is NOT a philosophy, it's just reality. I will never argue for or against anyone's subjective intuition, because there is no way to factually prove them right or wrong, that's why they are all valid for their respective subscribers. So, you're saying morality is subjective and hence relative person to person. Whether objective or not it doesn't matter. It's still relative. Does this description not sound exactly like what you said: "Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It's a version of morality that advocates “to each her own,” and those who follow it say, “Who am I to judge?”" Explain to me what about moral relativism you don't believe.
lol, I am describing what it is, as reality has shown to be true, I am not believing in it, get the difference yet? If you went to the moon and came back to describe what it is in details, are you a moon believer? Moonist? Moonism? Moontivist? lol
Are you seriously so egotistical that you think that everything you "know" is true is infact true? Even with the scientific method, you still have to believe your results were accurate and your conclusions are true. Reality doesn't "show" truth. Truth is interpreted using our subjective stimuli and then subjectively interpreted to form meaning from that. I would argue that it is impossible to know with absolute certainty whether anything is objective. Therefore everything you know is a belief to some degree.
lol, are you so egotistical that you think countless experts, tons of research and decades of accumulated facts are less true than YOUR assumptions? Nothing is ever 100% knowable, that requires omniscience, but I'm pretty sure facts can be derived from verifiable and repeatable experimentation, otherwise the universe itself would have collapsed from pure chaos, nothing would function, lol. Never said anything about "truth", not even sure why you are conflating provable facts with "truth", which is a subjective concept. lol Facts are not beliefs, they are constantly updated through experimentation and verification, re-verification and re re re verification. This is how we are able to create technology that works and describe reality with consistent accuracy. You cannot "believe" in facts, you actually have to test it and prove it. lol
Good post. Life isn't fair, there is no such thing as fairness in nature and no one guarantees it. Life is by nature messy and unpredictable. Embracing the mess and letting go of what you can't control is the key to enjoying life and the good things it offers.
Thanks. I'm an impartial realist (not a relativist), so that means I don't think AN/EF's argument for rejecting reality and demanding for extinction is wrong either, it's just not objectively right and cannot be factually applied to people who disagree. If you wanna embrace this imperfect reality and its limitations, including the suffering it caused to many unlucky victims, no problem, as long as it aligns with your subjective intuition, it can't be proven right or wrong, it's just intuition. But if someone wanna reject this imperfect reality and curse its limitations, demanding extinction in order to stop suffering, then it's not "wrong" either, it's just their anti suffering intuition. Conclusion, you believe in what you could live with, whatever it may be, nothing right or wrong with it, to each their own.
W post you make good points. Objectivity is an aspect of mathematics, human thought and emotion is inherently subjective
To be fair, subjective does not = wrong or bad argument. A subjective argument can still appeal to our common intuition and become a VERY strong argument for or against something. In the game of subjective intuition, the argument that could attract the agreement of most people will "win" and dominate our culture/society/species. So far, Natalism is still the dominant subjective ideal, but Antinatalism and adjacent "childfree" ideals are gradually gaining subscribers as well. Only time will tell if NA could retain its champion title or lose it to other "alternative" ideals. The KEY to this competition is the quality of life, if it drops, then AN/childfree will gain subscribers, if it improves then NA will maintain its subscribers. Tech and AI are the main driver of quality for life.
What natalist moral boundaries are, is not soley theirs to draw. The hypocrisy of their beliefs still arises from me drawing their moral boundaries for them: more accurately what actions the natalist deems evil, and the line where a natalist's actions stop becoming theirs and start becoming out of their control. The natalist Hypocrisy is of course that they create life while complaining about life. So they endorse their own problems. The difference between one person and the next being superficial, I don't see why it'd contradict what qualifies as hypocritical to draw this line for them. Just as the difference between any action preceding and following the next is a projection of our values, while in reality everything controls everything as a result of cause and effect. I would also say all morality is hypocritical as just having moral frameworks creates the possibility of evil. We endorse our own problems. If you want to say they do not have X beliefs so they cannot be hypocritical I challenge you to reflect on where that authority comes from, and where the authority to limit hypocrisy comes from. If we have different definitions of hypocrisy or amorality, that is fine. But there is no contradiction between these ideas or even beside the dictionary.
Err, its not for Antinatalists to draw other people's boundaries either. Morality is all about subjective boundaries, you draw whatever boundaries you agree with and live inside it, but you can never claim your boundaries are the only TRUE boundaries and everyone else's boundaries are wrong, because that is simply unprovable in reality. lol There are no moral facts in this universe, thus no objective boundaries, thus nobody can be wrong for drawing their own subjective boundaries, its only subjectively "wrong" if you disagree with their boundaries but subjective wrongness is not universally true, its only wrong for you and people who share the same subjective intuition. > > >The natalist Hypocrisy is of course that they create life while complaining about life. So they endorse their own problems. Err, false hypocrisy, natalists complain in order to improve things, not because they can't get their perfect harmless Utopia, which they have never demanded for. You are drawing an illogical line for them by claiming a hypocrisy that cannot be logically proven, that's the problem. You can subjectively criticize them for not aligning with your subjective AN intuition, but you simply have no way to prove a hypocrisy, definitely not by redefining their boundaries as whatever you think they should be, lol. To be fair they can't define your boundaries either, nobody gets this "privilege", it doesn't exist. >I challenge you to reflect on where that authority comes from, Errr, what authority? There is no authority in subjective beliefs, friend. You are conflating an authoritative claim with subjective boundaries, this makes no sense. The thing is, Natalists are not creating boundaries either, they have simply accepted the limitations and imperfection of reality, which is actually just a subjective and intuitive preference, NOT a moral boundary.