I don't do anything of real consequence without properly basing my decision. I am most certainly not "anti-environment," but YOU are the one being lazy.Originally Posted by daybreaker2
|
|
|
|
|
I don't do anything of real consequence without properly basing my decision. I am most certainly not "anti-environment," but YOU are the one being lazy.
How can they NOT be the same being??? Why is it two different beings? Me having a child in the future, regardless of my actions either way, is still me having a child. Me not having a child in the future, regardless of my actions either way, is still me not having a child.
And even with the two-being sceneraio, how is it possible to not affect both with your actions?
Quality of life, to me, is giving someone a chance to have a better life than myself.
The child is clearly different. You are introducing your self-interested values into the mix, which is causing the confusion. To YOU, it is a child. It's impossible to distinguish the would-have-been from the will-be-now (other than theoretically). You wanted to have a child, and now you have a child.
If you could have carried out both scenarios, you would see that the children would in fact be much different. If you were to ask the child from the inaction scenario if they wanted you to take action, knowing that they would never come to be, they would tell you NO. Likewise, if you were to ask the child that will-be-now if they wanted you to take the action, they would say YES. But it is existence/never coming into existence that is the basis, not some quality of life difference. And my argument is absolutely that there is no moral obligation to CREATE life.
It is not possible to affect the quality of life of either because it is a cut-and-dry existence/never coming into existence issue.
A child turning out differently because of my actions for or against them, doesn't mean it's affecting two different children, beyond their personalities. I don't think it's cut-and-dry like your saying it is because of that.
No moral obligation to create, unless your religious, but creating is too much fun to pass up...
here, randerizer:
suppose you have been locked in a room with a timed remote detonator. the madman that has locked you in there has strapped one of your arms to your side, and has straped a wii controller to your other hand. you cannot break free of either of those straps. he also tells you that he has placed a bomb on a remote control car that is being controlled by the wii controller, and has dropped the car off in a crowded city. so every move you make changes the direction of that car, thus changing which people will be blown up when the timer goes off. it just so happens that you are skilled at disarming timed detonators. do you have the obligation to disarm the detonator to save the people that will inevitably be blown up by the bomb, even though the act of disarming the bomb changes which people will be saved?
I do not have a moral obligation to disarm the detonator, but I would probably choose to try to do so. (Unless I did something to willfully get involved moreso than what has been told to me).
It's not similar at all to what I've been talking about, though.
A child turning out differently because of my actions for or against them, doesn't mean it's affecting two different children, beyond their personalities. I don't think it's cut-and-dry like your saying it is because of that.
No moral obligation to create, unless your religious, but creating is too much fun to pass up...
It's chaos theory mixed with the statistics of conception. However different the 2 prospective children would be in behavior, etc., they are nonetheless 2 quite different prospective children.
This argument also goes against all the "I wish my father did this differently way back when..." kind of thinking. No child should EVER think something like this, unless the child would have preferred to not exist.. The makeup of a future generation is causally dependent on the actions of the present! If your father made a change, YOU would have never been born.
But doing the opposite will cause Group B to never have the world at all. So youre just being a douchebag for douchebaggery's sake.
But how is trying to be environmentally friendly vs. environmentally irresponsible any different from my coke vs water example? Because what if drinking coke vs water *did* make a difference. ANY thing we do causes an outcome which could have been different had we done just one little thing differently. So there's a Group A all the way Group infinity of children who were never born. That's not what matters though. All that matters is leaving the group that IS born with a better situation. because living irresponsibly for our own happiness at THEIR cost is incredibly greedy and selfish.
So while Group A will never have the world, their have been an infinite number of groups that havent either. Unless you believe in parallel universe theory, which means ALL groups ARE born. In which case, why shouldnt I want MY universe to have a good environmental situation for MY Group's kids? Why should I just be like "Oh, in some universe, somewhere, some Group will have a great environment"? I want MY KIDS to have a great planet. I want MY GRANDKIDS to have a great planet. I dont give a shit about the groups that never were, just the groups that ARE. Just like Schrodinger's Cat Theory (which I know applies to something different, but still), the group that is born isnt group A or B, they are just The Group, because while it's possible that Group A or B *could* occur, only one will.
So your whole Group A vs B thing is completely idiotic. The sooner you drop it, the sooner you will stop looking like a giant asshole who has no clue what he's talking about (although almost ALL your posts portray you that way, so I dont think youre going to stop anytime soon).
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt
Sure, but my argument is that there can be no obligation to CREATE a new life.
Nah, this just illustrates why your brand of forward-looking, future generation spinning environmentalism is stupid. Looking towards the future generation with an obligation is like signing up for a promise that you will never be able to fulfill.
"All that matters" -- bullshit. Spin. There is NO ethical base to that argument.
As long as we get out of this "obligation" to future generations, you can base your decision on whatever you damn well want. There is a moral flaw in wanting to change something for "your grandkids", which I've highlighted. But ultimately, you are now on an "I WANT" -- that's the way the debate should be properly framed. Using future generations as an argument is morally misleading -- that is my WHOLE point!
what he said...
give you green if I could (already did recently)
OK, but you are disregarding causality with respect to your actions. Our actions will certainly determine the makeup of the group. Precisely, that means exactly what I have argued.
Doesn't change the fact the Group is still the Group. Nothing else matters beyond what is.
OK, the future IS NOT. So it doesn't matter.
So if there is no future, why worry about global warming? Give me a big Ford - F-350 to drive back and forth 1 mile!OK, the future IS NOT. So it doesn't matter.
Well, I argue that there is no moral basis for placing value on the future lives of the nonliving. There might be other reasons not to drive a Ford F-350, but global warming is one of them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
