Non-existence ensures no pleasure, no beauty, no progress, no interaction, no science, no insight, no growth, and nothing valuable whatsoever.
The most important 'social justice' issue is justice towards future generations -- trillions of potential people across millions of years. Maybe ensuring their existence is a higher ethical priority than intersectionalizing our identities.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
- 2 more replies
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
We don't act according to Parfitian ideals because we're evolved social primates, not because they're the wrong ideals. 'Repugnance' is just
#feelz, and doesn't carry any ethical weight. - 5 more replies
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I like that argument, all else being equal.
End of conversation
-
-
-
"Ensuring their existence" is a weird way to phrase it. There is a "potential person" who will exist only if you go, uh, procreate with someone *right now*. I don't think you're treating that potential person unjustly by preventing their existence.
-
I'm on board with extinction being *really* bad. But I think it's philosophically tricky to explain how bad it is in terms of the injustice done to potential persons
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I will leave this here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/ …
-
Yes, I'm aware of this, and I'm totally willing to accept the 'repugnant conclusion'.
- 6 more replies
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.