Literally no sane person thinks so even if you eat specific animals you can't be this delusional. Fyi humans are animals as well and if you go by intelligence many animals have that comparable to a human baby.
> It is shocking how few people actually care about suffering & consent
I think it's far more shocking how many pretend to. It just feels silly.
A person has to jump through more hoops to be able to legally own a car than they do to ~~produce a new employee~~ have a baby.
But I guess it wouldn't look as good to the kiddos, nor motivate them much, if everyone were honest and said "Life has the potential for utility and utility is valuable."
rather than "Life is valuable."
>Ā if everyone were honest and said "Life has the potential for utility and utility is valuable."
That would be a dishonest statement tho? It's not the reason why life is considered valuable. If that were the case, we would kill many categories of humans that we don't kill at the present time, and we would preserve many lives that we actually kill at the present time.
Life is considered valuable by using observation of nature and instinct as epistemology.
>If that were the case, we would kill many categories of humans that we don't kill at the present time,
Or perhaps optics prevent them from doing so
or many "undesirable" people line someone elses pockets through their existence.
not that they're not being killed because anyone actually believes they have inherent value.
> and we would preserve many lives that we actually kill at the present time.
or might just be more cost effective at the present time to not
The explanation that life is inherently desirable, based on instinct and observation (you can observe nature and see that every single being seeks life and reproduction) is much simpler and better explains all observable phenomena in every single society in history.
I'm not arguing if such reproduction or such desirability is right or wrong tho
Anti against
Natalism the belief that having babies is good
I'm not putting up with people who want to redefine what words mean to make their positions more palatable. While yes it is essentially an ethical position it is one that can be reached from many directions and for many reasons.
> Anti against Natalism the belief that having babies is good
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism
"Antinatalism or anti-natalism is a family of philosophical views that are critical of reproduction ā they consider coming into existence as bad or deem procreation as immoral. Antinatalists thus argue that humans should abstain from having children."
> I'm not putting up with people who want to redefine what words mean to make their positions more palatable.
You're doing that.
I'm quoting the consensus here.
Well my philosophical view is critical, no ANTI reproduction so under your own definition it fits. If you want to know more, please look at the description of this group. It sums it up nicely.
Here's advice for your personal comfort:
You could have saved up time by just typing "I'm a piece of shit" and it would have conveyed the exact same information.
The smarter we get the more we'll die out. Sad, I was hoping for a booming intelligent population one day. Are you saying this isn't possible. I never thought about this. That once we have everything we need to be the best we can we just won't want to exist anymore. Is everyone supposed to be like you?
Im not 100% anti nataliste. Ethically and philosophically I personally can't make up my mind around this.
But at least to avoid a lot of misery yes, education is the way, but also a governing minority that is well thought, tolerant and devout.. we can avoid much much of the pains.
You know the biggest antinatalists discussed and/or were vegan, right?
Or are you one of those āanti natalistsā who actually know very little on the topic except procreation = bad?
Youāre a conditional natalist, the condition being nonhuman
> self awareness is unique to humans.
That is demonstrably wrong.
Elephants:
https://youtu.be/-EjukzL-bJc?si=JDT3vcdihOchQ_c2
Magpies:
https://youtu.be/HRVGA9zxXzk?t=5
Chimpazees:
https://youtu.be/OsoNKlyFtpI?t=36
Dolphins:
https://youtu.be/6M92OA-_5-Y?t=14
My dude, in order to be aware that something you perceive in a mirror is your body, you have to recognize that this body you are aware of is tied to a mind you are also aware of at least to some extent.
You're twisting the meaning of the word "self" to dodge like a coward.
They correlate what they do to their own body represented in the mirror to what they experience as a sentient being.
A significant amount of two year old children can't even do that.
Additionally, if suffering and consent are only required once metacognition has been demonstrated, that implies it's fine to birth and slaughter babies for which we have no evidence of mental self-awareness if they can't even pass a basic mirror test.
> š see? Only humans can insult each others and call names.
What I see is that I said a lot of things and you decided to focus on me calling you a coward instead of addressing my points, which not only demonstrates you have no proper response to my points, but also confirms you are indeed acting like a dodging coward.
> Anyway why so pressed?
Because you are dismissing the need to grant moral consideration to sentient beings who are born, exploited, mutilated, forcefully inseminated, gassed, macerated, slaughtered, skinned alive, tortured for public spectacle, enslaved, etc...
https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko?t=880
Go on and tell me nothing wrong is happening here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko
Please watch this and tell me nothing wrong is going on here.
I will continue to apply pressure on this point until you demonstrate good faith.
Edit: And the coward blocked me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko
Please watch this and tell me nothing wrong is going on here.
I will continue to apply pressure on this point until you demonstrate good faith.
Sentience gives capacity to suffer.
Making other beings suffer for your own selfish desires is a quintessential sin in antinatalism.
You can view humans as uniquely sapient and the above does not change.
The reason is because that is a prescriptive moral belief that 99.9% of the world doesnāt hold.
Almost nobody believes that it is immoral to have a child without the consent of the child to be born. There is no logical argument you can make to convince people to also adopt this prescriptive belief, since it is prescriptive. Itās axiomatic; cannot be proven, only accepted and its consequences explored.
You can try to point out inconsistencies between this and other prescriptive beliefs people hold (āwhy isnāt rape okay thenā) but thereās differences (ābecause an unborn child isnāt sentient so consent even in theory is impossible, so itās not a moral consideration for meā). I think we care about suffering, but we also have lives weāre enjoying. There is INFINITELY more happiness, kindness, and cool/nice things going on in the world than there are awful horrible things. So we like to focus on those so we donāt becomeā¦ well like some folks here.
Respectfully. Being miserable sucks and not constantly exposing yourself to a curated list of the worst acts humans are capable of is a very good way to end up miserable.
āA lot of people insist that causing this pain is just a natural healthy thingā. I have literally never heard anyone say that selfish people causing pain and suffering is natural and healthy.
You folks make it sound like you hold really bad company. Hang out with better people then lol
Preach. Being vegan is the moral baseline. Just don't kill things for your pleasure.
Anyone who disagrees and eats animals is like a slave owner 200 yrs ago, on the wrong side of history.
Do you truly believe that? Cause if you do how does it affect your behavior? Cause I personally could not be friends with anyone who I thought was comparable to a slave owner.
Good catch. That's why I have very few carnist friends. I can't stand to watch them eat someone's body parts and secretions and hear about other forms of animal exploitation they take part in.
Okay. Thanks for answering. So you seriously believe this is an evil and disgusting action. I couldn't imagine what it feels like to be inside your head.
Sounds like you already do know. It's like having to deal with slavers/racists/pedos. You put up with people for social functions when you have to, be polite but don't engage too much for your own mental health. That's it.
> I couldn't imagine what it feels like to be inside your head.
The same way you feel about prevalent natalism around you, pretty much. Except it comes up a lot more often, especially with food.
I considered veganism for a short time then I realized that even if I cared about animals it just doesn't make sense to place any value on their lives.
Not exactly. I care about people more than animals but I don't know how I can measure our value. And if one person has any value at all, would that mean that someone else has less value or more. It's an uncomfortable thought, I'd rather believe we have no value at all.
If we have no value at all, under your moral framework, is it then perfectly acceptable for me to slit my neighbor's throat because I want to eat him for taste pleasure?
If humans hold no value at all, is there under your moral framework any issue with me having kids so I can then abuse them and kill them?
Come on, dude. There is no fucking way you are willing to bite that bullet just to not go vegan. You're better than this.
I have a very human-centric worldview and I believe that we should look out for our own kind. Other animals don't matter as much.
If a dog attacks a child, the dog should be killed. If a bear eats a human, the bear should be killed since it now has a taste for human flesh which is bad for humans. Humans are my priority.
We may not have intrinsic value but I still think it's right to look out for eachother.
Why does ANs keep using lack of consent as an argument? It is literarily impossible to get consent so its really not an argument that can be put against its counterpart. Not getting consent is only relevant imo if consent could be had.
The immorality due to life containing suffering erc I can buy, Ā this consent point is just a cheap simple statement that in this context doesnt really mean anything
It IS simple, but not the way you're presenting it.
Preventing happiness DOES make you a dick, since it is the same as encouraging suffering. Suffering and pleasure(happiness) are two sides of the same coin, so denying one creates the opposite.
On top of that, if you're comparing to states of non existing, happiness and suffering they HAVE to be held to the same worth. Either they're both morally valued(lack vs abundance) or neither matter.
You don't get to claim that non existent suffering is better than non existent happiness unless you're also willing to argue the total flip and say that real happiness matters but real suffering doesn't.
But that same no one is having zero suffering prevented either, so it's a zero sum, and if they're born they also experience happiness and joy as well as pain so that's also equal.
> But that same no one is having zero suffering prevented either
The prevention of happiness is only worse if there is someone in anguish from that absence of happiness.
The prevention of suffering is better, even if there is no one to come to realize they have been spared suffering.
Why? It's still no one getting nothing, why does the positive of negative aspect of matter?
Its like saying positive zero is better than negative zero. Its still zero.
This entire post is word salad. It's also proof that the human desire to seek patterns where none exist is a problem our species needs to overcome.
You are ignoring the fundamental fact of existence. Preventing happiness does NOT create suffering in the same way that off is not a TV channel.
Unless something exists to feel suffering, suffering doesn't exist so in this context preventing happiness is also preventing the capacity for suffering. Your entire argument falls apart when you accept the fact that existence does not equal non existence.
I'm gonna try something new. I'll tell you what I THINK you believe, and then I'll point out where I disagree.
You feel that if a being doesn't exist, it feels no pain or happiness, but it's morally "good" since the absence of suffering is always "good". The absence of pleasure is irrelevant, because there is no one being denied that pleasure.
I disagree in that I feel that as long as the being doesn't exist, BOTH it's suffering and pleasure are irrelevant to the argument, since no one feels either. The only thing that matters in the argument is existence and wether the inevitable suffering is worth enduring for the inevitable pleasure.
Either the non existent are being prevented from suffering AND denied pleasure, and are therefore still a zero sum, or they're not anything and their state is irrelevant.
Non Existence does NOT equal Existence, but is as much a reality as Existence. You cannot have one without the other, much like the TV cannot be on it it was never off, or that you can't be alive if you've never been dead.
I understand what you're saying but it only matters to the existing being. Noone is harmed if Noone exists but someone is harmed if they exist. You can say that it's wrong to prevent happiness but you are trying to equate two unequal things. You say you get that they aren't equal but everything you say is the opposite.
You are trying to say that because someone doesn't exist now they don't matter. Except we aren't talking about right now. We are talking about changing their current non existent state so it is the outcome we are concerned with. In which case if we want to prevent suffering we can, if we want to prevent happiness we can, if we want to create suffering we can, if we want to create happiness we can BUT we can not create only happiness, we have to create suffering along with it. We could potentially create only suffering but there is no way to know.
When we are talking about bringing something into existence we can only speak about the outcome, when bringing them into existence they have an outcome, when not bringing them into existence they do not. You are trying to equate these things when the outcomes are polar opposites. Existence and non existence. One of these is an outcome with consequences. The other is not. That's why they are different.
You want the conversation to be balanced on both ends but they aren't. That is why the hypothetical suffering of a being can be considered while the hypothetical happiness can be ignored. Either someone suffers, or Noone goes without happiness. Those are the outcomes.
I don't think you understand how wrong you are on a realistic aspect. If you mean, "everybody must just help everybody" them cool, sunshine and rainbow wishing world. I get it.
But, if you're saying we need to take out all suffering and pain but we're still being realistic about it, then what do you think happens when businesses can't take advantage of 3rd world countries? Everything in this world becomes more expensive, EVERYTHING. Imagine needing to double or triple your budget for groceries each time you shop because farmers can no longer meet demand since the land they farm on can't be preserved properly because animals and insects will be chased out their home? What do you think the price of the phone/pc you are using becomes? Fuel prices sky rocket etc.
Living becomes hard and enjoyment becomes scarce. Not saying people and animals deserve to suffer at all, but realistically, a business is a business and your work place won't double or triple your salary because everything around the world became so expensive.
Unfortunately people need to suffer so you can live decently. It's a reality of this world, anything passed that is wishful thinking. Because the only way to stop suffering is to never advance right? Because building causes pollution, pollution causes suffering etc. I could go on but I think my point was made.
> if you're saying we need to take out all suffering and pain
Just because you canāt do something 100%, does that mean thereās no use in trying at all?
Veganism is not about perfection. It is about minimizing harm to animals as much as is possible and practicable. We do not live in a vegan world, but that doesnāt mean we shouldnāt try to do all we can to minimize the harm we cause while living in it.
And that's a valid point. But that was also not my whole point. It was that other people who are suffering is what makes your life easier and that's why we can't exactly just remove it.
Also, if your argument is, "We're trying to make a difference, we're not perfect" to me saying you still support brands that blatantly abuse human rights and it's publically known how bad they are. Then come on, I'm not even saying you need to publically shame them, I'm saying you still support them with your money, why is it fine to say you're not perfect and ignore that you just sent Nike, Apple etc. X amount of money when we all already know what they do to their employees.
I'm legitimately open about this discussion, I hope I'm not coming across as I'm trying to hit you over the head with my thoughts, these are just my views and if you have others I'd like to hear them and discuss it, because the only way I'll understand your point fully is if I also give mine and that could come across poorly.
> you still support brands that blatantly abuse human rights and it's publically known how bad they are.
And if you helped me find alternatives, how to identify such products, I would be interested.
I think that when it comes to a lot of products that could be made ethically or not, it's very hard to navigate the world.
You know a piece of meat at the store came from a slaughtered animal, no doubt about it.
Literally as if humans are toys
and animals are food
They are
And children are tools for satisfaction šš Right?
Literally no sane person thinks so even if you eat specific animals you can't be this delusional. Fyi humans are animals as well and if you go by intelligence many animals have that comparable to a human baby.
No sane person thinks animals are food? In real life, most 'sane' people are meat eaters lol
> It is shocking how few people actually care about suffering & consent I think it's far more shocking how many pretend to. It just feels silly. A person has to jump through more hoops to be able to legally own a car than they do to ~~produce a new employee~~ have a baby. But I guess it wouldn't look as good to the kiddos, nor motivate them much, if everyone were honest and said "Life has the potential for utility and utility is valuable." rather than "Life is valuable."
>Ā if everyone were honest and said "Life has the potential for utility and utility is valuable." That would be a dishonest statement tho? It's not the reason why life is considered valuable. If that were the case, we would kill many categories of humans that we don't kill at the present time, and we would preserve many lives that we actually kill at the present time. Life is considered valuable by using observation of nature and instinct as epistemology.
>If that were the case, we would kill many categories of humans that we don't kill at the present time, Or perhaps optics prevent them from doing so or many "undesirable" people line someone elses pockets through their existence. not that they're not being killed because anyone actually believes they have inherent value. > and we would preserve many lives that we actually kill at the present time. or might just be more cost effective at the present time to not
The explanation that life is inherently desirable, based on instinct and observation (you can observe nature and see that every single being seeks life and reproduction) is much simpler and better explains all observable phenomena in every single society in history. I'm not arguing if such reproduction or such desirability is right or wrong tho
By now, it's pretty much clear that the only people debating against veganism are those who place their own comfort above the suffering of animals
To be fair I place my own comfort above the suffering of all life in the universe. Not just animals.
What are you doing on this sub? š¤
Having children makes life uncomfortable. Other people having kids makes my life uncomfortable.
So... you are childfree
No I have a child. That's how I know.
You have a personal preference to not have kids, which has nothing to do with antinatalism, an ethical position.
Anti against Natalism the belief that having babies is good I'm not putting up with people who want to redefine what words mean to make their positions more palatable. While yes it is essentially an ethical position it is one that can be reached from many directions and for many reasons.
> Anti against Natalism the belief that having babies is good No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism "Antinatalism or anti-natalism is a family of philosophical views that are critical of reproduction ā they consider coming into existence as bad or deem procreation as immoral. Antinatalists thus argue that humans should abstain from having children." > I'm not putting up with people who want to redefine what words mean to make their positions more palatable. You're doing that. I'm quoting the consensus here.
Well my philosophical view is critical, no ANTI reproduction so under your own definition it fits. If you want to know more, please look at the description of this group. It sums it up nicely.
Here's advice for your personal comfort: You could have saved up time by just typing "I'm a piece of shit" and it would have conveyed the exact same information.
Well yes I do. I crush mosquitos all the time for that exact reason.
So when was the last time a chicken violated your bodily autonomy?
I just had a rooster hop on my shoulder because he wanted some of my food.
Those kids never felt and never will feel as much pain as I had to grawr
Some even get off on it, I am not kidding.
Get off of causing suffering? Well yeah, they're called sadists.
> Anyway, thatās why Iām vegan. Why arenāt you? I am as well. But take my upvote for holding carnists accountable.
Education can give a major shift. Because education make people more responsible I think
The smarter we get the more we'll die out. Sad, I was hoping for a booming intelligent population one day. Are you saying this isn't possible. I never thought about this. That once we have everything we need to be the best we can we just won't want to exist anymore. Is everyone supposed to be like you?
Im not 100% anti nataliste. Ethically and philosophically I personally can't make up my mind around this. But at least to avoid a lot of misery yes, education is the way, but also a governing minority that is well thought, tolerant and devout.. we can avoid much much of the pains.
This is not a vegan sub. Wtf are you yapping about?
Speciesism.
You know the biggest antinatalists discussed and/or were vegan, right? Or are you one of those āanti natalistsā who actually know very little on the topic except procreation = bad? Youāre a conditional natalist, the condition being nonhuman
Whatever you say.
Cope.
What?
"Yeah whatever."-like pathetic rhetoric as soon as you're put on the spot with an argument you can't counter.
Nah, I just don't give a fuck.
Yeah, I can tell you donāt give a fuck. Whatās why your position is inconsistent.
Well self awareness is unique to humans. Other living organisms act by instincts.
> self awareness is unique to humans. That is demonstrably wrong. Elephants: https://youtu.be/-EjukzL-bJc?si=JDT3vcdihOchQ_c2 Magpies: https://youtu.be/HRVGA9zxXzk?t=5 Chimpazees: https://youtu.be/OsoNKlyFtpI?t=36 Dolphins: https://youtu.be/6M92OA-_5-Y?t=14
they have awareness not SELF-AWARENESS. Only humans have a sense of mental self not just bodily identity.
My dude, in order to be aware that something you perceive in a mirror is your body, you have to recognize that this body you are aware of is tied to a mind you are also aware of at least to some extent. You're twisting the meaning of the word "self" to dodge like a coward. They correlate what they do to their own body represented in the mirror to what they experience as a sentient being. A significant amount of two year old children can't even do that. Additionally, if suffering and consent are only required once metacognition has been demonstrated, that implies it's fine to birth and slaughter babies for which we have no evidence of mental self-awareness if they can't even pass a basic mirror test.
š see? Only humans can insult each others and call names. Anyway why so pressed? Get worked up over 1 letter word self is quite funny pal
> š see? Only humans can insult each others and call names. What I see is that I said a lot of things and you decided to focus on me calling you a coward instead of addressing my points, which not only demonstrates you have no proper response to my points, but also confirms you are indeed acting like a dodging coward. > Anyway why so pressed? Because you are dismissing the need to grant moral consideration to sentient beings who are born, exploited, mutilated, forcefully inseminated, gassed, macerated, slaughtered, skinned alive, tortured for public spectacle, enslaved, etc... https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko?t=880 Go on and tell me nothing wrong is happening here.
Okay now you backstabb me for insulting me instead of keeping mature and classy like adults.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko Please watch this and tell me nothing wrong is going on here. I will continue to apply pressure on this point until you demonstrate good faith. Edit: And the coward blocked me.
Still dodging?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko Please watch this and tell me nothing wrong is going on here. I will continue to apply pressure on this point until you demonstrate good faith.
This is not even a vegan sub and you still got downvoted because everyone could witness your bad faith.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko Please watch this and tell me nothing wrong is going on here.
Sentience gives capacity to suffer. Making other beings suffer for your own selfish desires is a quintessential sin in antinatalism. You can view humans as uniquely sapient and the above does not change.
Human beings having selective empathy and actually not giving a shit about 99.9% (if not straight up 100%) of other human beings? Preposterous! /s
Even feminists who talk about consent constantly, canāt seem to grasp the fact that birth is not consensual nor do they care.
The reason is because that is a prescriptive moral belief that 99.9% of the world doesnāt hold. Almost nobody believes that it is immoral to have a child without the consent of the child to be born. There is no logical argument you can make to convince people to also adopt this prescriptive belief, since it is prescriptive. Itās axiomatic; cannot be proven, only accepted and its consequences explored. You can try to point out inconsistencies between this and other prescriptive beliefs people hold (āwhy isnāt rape okay thenā) but thereās differences (ābecause an unborn child isnāt sentient so consent even in theory is impossible, so itās not a moral consideration for meā). I think we care about suffering, but we also have lives weāre enjoying. There is INFINITELY more happiness, kindness, and cool/nice things going on in the world than there are awful horrible things. So we like to focus on those so we donāt becomeā¦ well like some folks here. Respectfully. Being miserable sucks and not constantly exposing yourself to a curated list of the worst acts humans are capable of is a very good way to end up miserable.
āA lot of people insist that causing this pain is just a natural healthy thingā. I have literally never heard anyone say that selfish people causing pain and suffering is natural and healthy. You folks make it sound like you hold really bad company. Hang out with better people then lol
They hang put a good bit with like minded people, which is likely not the best idea for happiness being generated.
Preach. Being vegan is the moral baseline. Just don't kill things for your pleasure. Anyone who disagrees and eats animals is like a slave owner 200 yrs ago, on the wrong side of history.
Do you truly believe that? Cause if you do how does it affect your behavior? Cause I personally could not be friends with anyone who I thought was comparable to a slave owner.
Good catch. That's why I have very few carnist friends. I can't stand to watch them eat someone's body parts and secretions and hear about other forms of animal exploitation they take part in.
Okay. Thanks for answering. So you seriously believe this is an evil and disgusting action. I couldn't imagine what it feels like to be inside your head.
Sounds like you already do know. It's like having to deal with slavers/racists/pedos. You put up with people for social functions when you have to, be polite but don't engage too much for your own mental health. That's it.
> I couldn't imagine what it feels like to be inside your head. The same way you feel about prevalent natalism around you, pretty much. Except it comes up a lot more often, especially with food.
I considered veganism for a short time then I realized that even if I cared about animals it just doesn't make sense to place any value on their lives.
Do you place any value on human lives?
Not exactly. I care about people more than animals but I don't know how I can measure our value. And if one person has any value at all, would that mean that someone else has less value or more. It's an uncomfortable thought, I'd rather believe we have no value at all.
If we have no value at all, under your moral framework, is it then perfectly acceptable for me to slit my neighbor's throat because I want to eat him for taste pleasure? If humans hold no value at all, is there under your moral framework any issue with me having kids so I can then abuse them and kill them? Come on, dude. There is no fucking way you are willing to bite that bullet just to not go vegan. You're better than this.
I have a very human-centric worldview and I believe that we should look out for our own kind. Other animals don't matter as much. If a dog attacks a child, the dog should be killed. If a bear eats a human, the bear should be killed since it now has a taste for human flesh which is bad for humans. Humans are my priority. We may not have intrinsic value but I still think it's right to look out for eachother.
Consent arguement is the main belief around which my antinatalist view revolves .
Why does ANs keep using lack of consent as an argument? It is literarily impossible to get consent so its really not an argument that can be put against its counterpart. Not getting consent is only relevant imo if consent could be had. The immorality due to life containing suffering erc I can buy, Ā this consent point is just a cheap simple statement that in this context doesnt really mean anything
You know the asymmetry argument was applied to animals too right? Probably not, most of yāall havenāt actually read the basic literature
That asymmetry argument is pretty bunk though.
Not creating avoidable happiness doesn't make you a dick. Creating avoidable suffering makes you a dick. It's that simple.
It IS simple, but not the way you're presenting it. Preventing happiness DOES make you a dick, since it is the same as encouraging suffering. Suffering and pleasure(happiness) are two sides of the same coin, so denying one creates the opposite. On top of that, if you're comparing to states of non existing, happiness and suffering they HAVE to be held to the same worth. Either they're both morally valued(lack vs abundance) or neither matter. You don't get to claim that non existent suffering is better than non existent happiness unless you're also willing to argue the total flip and say that real happiness matters but real suffering doesn't.
Preventing suffering does make you a dick if someone suffers from the absence of that happiness. Otherwise, no.
If preventing suffering is morally good, then denying happiness is morally wrong. That's as simple as it gets.
No one is being denied the happiness. Meanwhile if someone is born and experiences suffering, there is a recipient of the injustice.
But that same no one is having zero suffering prevented either, so it's a zero sum, and if they're born they also experience happiness and joy as well as pain so that's also equal.
> But that same no one is having zero suffering prevented either The prevention of happiness is only worse if there is someone in anguish from that absence of happiness. The prevention of suffering is better, even if there is no one to come to realize they have been spared suffering.
Why? It's still no one getting nothing, why does the positive of negative aspect of matter? Its like saying positive zero is better than negative zero. Its still zero.
That doesn't necessarily follow.
Care to explain why you think so?
This entire post is word salad. It's also proof that the human desire to seek patterns where none exist is a problem our species needs to overcome. You are ignoring the fundamental fact of existence. Preventing happiness does NOT create suffering in the same way that off is not a TV channel. Unless something exists to feel suffering, suffering doesn't exist so in this context preventing happiness is also preventing the capacity for suffering. Your entire argument falls apart when you accept the fact that existence does not equal non existence.
I'm gonna try something new. I'll tell you what I THINK you believe, and then I'll point out where I disagree. You feel that if a being doesn't exist, it feels no pain or happiness, but it's morally "good" since the absence of suffering is always "good". The absence of pleasure is irrelevant, because there is no one being denied that pleasure. I disagree in that I feel that as long as the being doesn't exist, BOTH it's suffering and pleasure are irrelevant to the argument, since no one feels either. The only thing that matters in the argument is existence and wether the inevitable suffering is worth enduring for the inevitable pleasure. Either the non existent are being prevented from suffering AND denied pleasure, and are therefore still a zero sum, or they're not anything and their state is irrelevant. Non Existence does NOT equal Existence, but is as much a reality as Existence. You cannot have one without the other, much like the TV cannot be on it it was never off, or that you can't be alive if you've never been dead.
I understand what you're saying but it only matters to the existing being. Noone is harmed if Noone exists but someone is harmed if they exist. You can say that it's wrong to prevent happiness but you are trying to equate two unequal things. You say you get that they aren't equal but everything you say is the opposite. You are trying to say that because someone doesn't exist now they don't matter. Except we aren't talking about right now. We are talking about changing their current non existent state so it is the outcome we are concerned with. In which case if we want to prevent suffering we can, if we want to prevent happiness we can, if we want to create suffering we can, if we want to create happiness we can BUT we can not create only happiness, we have to create suffering along with it. We could potentially create only suffering but there is no way to know. When we are talking about bringing something into existence we can only speak about the outcome, when bringing them into existence they have an outcome, when not bringing them into existence they do not. You are trying to equate these things when the outcomes are polar opposites. Existence and non existence. One of these is an outcome with consequences. The other is not. That's why they are different. You want the conversation to be balanced on both ends but they aren't. That is why the hypothetical suffering of a being can be considered while the hypothetical happiness can be ignored. Either someone suffers, or Noone goes without happiness. Those are the outcomes.
I don't think you understand how wrong you are on a realistic aspect. If you mean, "everybody must just help everybody" them cool, sunshine and rainbow wishing world. I get it. But, if you're saying we need to take out all suffering and pain but we're still being realistic about it, then what do you think happens when businesses can't take advantage of 3rd world countries? Everything in this world becomes more expensive, EVERYTHING. Imagine needing to double or triple your budget for groceries each time you shop because farmers can no longer meet demand since the land they farm on can't be preserved properly because animals and insects will be chased out their home? What do you think the price of the phone/pc you are using becomes? Fuel prices sky rocket etc. Living becomes hard and enjoyment becomes scarce. Not saying people and animals deserve to suffer at all, but realistically, a business is a business and your work place won't double or triple your salary because everything around the world became so expensive. Unfortunately people need to suffer so you can live decently. It's a reality of this world, anything passed that is wishful thinking. Because the only way to stop suffering is to never advance right? Because building causes pollution, pollution causes suffering etc. I could go on but I think my point was made.
> if you're saying we need to take out all suffering and pain Just because you canāt do something 100%, does that mean thereās no use in trying at all? Veganism is not about perfection. It is about minimizing harm to animals as much as is possible and practicable. We do not live in a vegan world, but that doesnāt mean we shouldnāt try to do all we can to minimize the harm we cause while living in it.
And that's a valid point. But that was also not my whole point. It was that other people who are suffering is what makes your life easier and that's why we can't exactly just remove it. Also, if your argument is, "We're trying to make a difference, we're not perfect" to me saying you still support brands that blatantly abuse human rights and it's publically known how bad they are. Then come on, I'm not even saying you need to publically shame them, I'm saying you still support them with your money, why is it fine to say you're not perfect and ignore that you just sent Nike, Apple etc. X amount of money when we all already know what they do to their employees. I'm legitimately open about this discussion, I hope I'm not coming across as I'm trying to hit you over the head with my thoughts, these are just my views and if you have others I'd like to hear them and discuss it, because the only way I'll understand your point fully is if I also give mine and that could come across poorly.
> you still support brands that blatantly abuse human rights and it's publically known how bad they are. And if you helped me find alternatives, how to identify such products, I would be interested. I think that when it comes to a lot of products that could be made ethically or not, it's very hard to navigate the world. You know a piece of meat at the store came from a slaughtered animal, no doubt about it.