(Not being utilitarians is fine, btw. But someone else could be).
-
... Am I misunderstanding the anti-natalist position? I thought that it was the life is of net-negative utility. Otherwise not sure what we've been arguing about.
oh no it’s that suffering and joy/pleasure/etc. aren’t commensurable and don’t trade off
-
-
for it to be net-negative it would have to be a calculator quantity and so would joy, on some balance scale?
-
On this topic: the harm/benefit distinction + Benatar's treatment of the existent vs. nonexistent distinction seem a fast shuffle, as Seth Baum pointed out. Why credit potential harms to the non-existent but not potential benefits?pic.twitter.com/iGHTePCzvp
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
In this conception, a thousand years of joy wouldn't justify a minute of suffering, which 1) I reject wholely and inherently 2) ... Is still just saying that suffering "outweighs" joy. It's still a calculation even if you're making it with bizarre weights
-
it doesn’t seem bizarre that “don’t make people who will suffer” is ahead of “make people who will thrive”
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.