Posts
Given that antinatalism deals in the realm of moral philosophy, I think it is important to dive into what defines morality. Morality basically deals with what human beings should and shouldn't do, with certain actions being held as good/right and others as bad/wrong. Taking this further, what is considered good or bad comes down to one's Values, and unlike many people, I believe values are entirely subjective.
To illustrate the subjectivity of values (moral or otherwise), let's examine the tastiness of ice cream. If I proclaimed that ice cream is the best frozen treat in all of existence, is this a fact? I would argue that it is simply an opinion based on how much I value ice cream. And even if every person agreed with my proclamation, this would still only amount to everyone sharing a common value, not an objective fact that ice cream is the best frozen treat. I would also state that ideas of good or bad do not exist independent of people's opinions, and are in no way in the realm of facts. It's a fact that things exist, how good or bad these things are is a matter of opinion.
Applying this back to morality, no action is good or bad independent of what a value-attributing being thinks of it. However, IF one has certain values, then their is a logical route one SHOULD go. And bringing this back to antinatalism, if one values acting on their empathy and preventing needless suffering, then becoming an antinatalist is the correct position to take. But, antinatalism is ultimately an opinion on what one should do given the facts of existence.
Why do you think values are subjective? The nature of our bodies alone creates a great number of objective biological and mental values.
ReplyDeleteI would say that what an individual deems to be valuable or valueless is rooted in their own value system, which makes values subjective (subject to the individual). I would agree that it's a fact (objective) that most people share common values rooted in biology. But what amounts to pure opinion (subjective) are the actual values held on what is good/bad, right/wrong, or significant/insignificant. As I wrote, "It's a fact that things exist, how good or bad these things are is a matter of opinion." Sorry for the length, but I felt your question deserved appropriate explanation.
DeleteYou seem to be assuming that "value" is a morally neutral term. The way I use it, it is not. A value necessarily compels us to act within certain parameters, i.e. being hungry compels me to eat in order to come back to a biological state of my well-being. Hunger, like most forms of suffering, is a signal from the body that something is going haywire and must be fixed. It is wrong to act in ways that go counter to those signals, because we are animals and depend on things like food, shelter, all the way up to "act fairly and don't hurt other people unnecessarily."
DeleteIf you assume that "value" is morally neutral, then yes I would say that there's no obvious way to go from there to any moral principle, because of the is-ought problem. But we're born with the moral principles, not with the facts.
I agree that values have a moral dimension, but I have a little different take. I acknowledge the is-ought problem, but IF a person holds a certain moral value (innate or learned) then there are ways that person OUGHT to act. However, that moral value they hold is not objectively true or false, it is an opinion, making moral values like other values subjective.
DeleteAnd in applying this to hunger, going against it is not good or bad independent of one's values. IF a person values not being hungry, then they SHOULD quell their hunger, and if they don't then they shouldn't. And many people do value other things more than not being hungry (just look at hunger strikes for political purposes).
So to summarize, all values in my view(moral or otherwise) are subjective, as they are all opinions an individual holds on facts of existence. And just because they're opinions does not mean one can't act in accordance with them. (Again, sorry for the length)
I don't understand what you're saying in that first paragraph there. Are you saying that hunger is an opinion? Or that thinking that one ought to eat is an opinion?
DeleteBTW, is there any way you can disable the captchas? Some of them are just absolutely impossible to get. I tried an audio one and it was even worse.
I hold the existence of hunger to be a fact, but thinking that one ought to eat is an opinion. And that opinion is based on certain values that individual attributes to eating.
DeleteAlso, those captchas should be gone now, but just let me know if there's any problem.
You can formulate it as an opinion, but hunger creates a compulsion, not a proposition. You can argue that the proposition is subjective, but you can't argue that the compulsion is subjective.
DeleteUnless someone is forced to act by an imposing force(biology, etc.) rather than their will, there's a choice. The fact that many people have starved themselves purposefully for political reasons shows that hunger can create a proposition (satisfy hunger vs. political agenda).
DeleteAlso, what one is compelled to do is also subjective(based on the individual), as all people are not compelled to do the same things. For example, many people are compelled to live no matter what their circumstances are, while others decide that certain circumstances in life are not worth enduring, and end it. Sorry if this got depressing, but I thought this was relevant.
All right, not sure what happened there but I was totally unable to reply yesterday. Now it seems to be working.
DeleteAs I told you on Google+, I agree with all that you said here (except for your use of the word "choice," but it's not really a necessary term in this case anyway), but I fail to understand what that has do with anything we've said.