zurew

Yes, but if we go with his position (that non-existence is better than existence), then that should necessarily lead to everyone killing themselves. But thats not the case, so either people don't recognize, that non-existence is better than existence, or the claim isn't true or I don't see something here, that I should.

@Leo Gura Very good stuff!

I don't have any , and I don't need any. You were the one who tried to use reincarnation as a reason for this question: Why would anyone be afraid of death, if according to you, non-existence is objectively better than existence? You need to find a different answer other than the assumption of reincarnation.

If we assume that existence is beyond the physical realm, then your whole position should automatically fall apart, because at that point, we also have to assume that life doesn't start in the physical realm.

@Someone here I don't know what data you saw about suicide, but it seems what you said about suicide being the 2nd most common cause of death, isn't true.

Yes, but to say that the reason is because they were born, is just way too vague of an explanation for that. Again, If what you say would be true (that non-existence is objectively better, than existence),then why would anyone want to continue their life? If what you say would be true, then suicide would be the 1st common cause of death Why would anyone be afraid of death, if according to you, non-existence is objectively better than existence?

@Someone here None of your reasoning is applied in practice, because you don't truly believe in your own morality. If this would be objectively true, we would have killed ourselves a long time ago.

Its only evil if you start with the 'minimization of suffering' axiom. That axiom necessarily leads to anti life positions, and to killing everyone, but it seems to me , that you don't truly want to live up to that , because if you would truly believe in that moral axiom, you would have already murdered some people. So because of your axiom, you basically have a position where you don't consider the mass murder of the entire human race as evil, but you consider creating life as evil.

I think thats not the right question, because you can't stop survival and the fights in nature, even if you kill all humans. I also think that humans being alive doesn't necessarily implies, that we have to cause more suffering than if we weren't alive. I think you can't use permission and consent as an argument, where there is none. This argument could go both ways, maybe they would want to have a life but maybe they don't, the point is that you don't know, and you can't make your moral argument based on the assumption, that maybe they wouldn't want to live. You are basically the decision maker here no matter what you do: If you want to have a child you make the decision them coming to life without their consent If you don't want to have a child you make the decision them not having a life at all (and this is also your deicison) You are responsible in both cases, and you make a choice without the child's permission or consent.

@Someone here Schopenhauer doesn't argue in favour of the minimanization of suffering there. Nature and peace being in the same statement is strange , because nature with or without humans is a fucking battlefield.

So why should we value the minimization of suffering over the maximization of happiness?

Why do you put more weight on potential suffering compared to potential happiness here?

You need to choose between the 'minimization of suffering' and the 'maximization of happiness', because when it comes to choosing between the two, you can't make your choice. You need to find a fundamental axiom here. Sometimes those two are mutually exclusive.

Ohh , okay, then I am sorry, I misunderstood your post. I agree with you then.

With reasoning like this, we are going to end up with reasons to kill all humans, I don't think we want to have a moral system where we end up killing everyone.

I assumed, you tried to make a point, that you are less selfish or a better person in general if you want to have children. When I say "you are a better person" I am talking about people in general.

@Someone here Why are you an anti natalist ,what is the main reason? The avoidance of suffering, or what other principle(s) are you using here? Creation of life doesn't change the selfish aspect though. I would argue that in 99.9999% of the cases, people want to have children because of selfish reasons.

Sure, and he should hop on some TRT and some steroids too - to get the real viking looks.

@Kksd74628 Give us your argument(s), where you demonstrate, that dictionary use is better than any other tool. Whatever argument(s) you will give, dictionary use will be a minority compared to the other tools.

Its not that everyone has totally differing definitions. some people have less and some people have more differing definitions, but again we can quckly and easily settle that problem with explaining our own definitions. I thought, that you were suggesting here that we must use dictionaries when we communicate, or when we have a disagreement. I still don't agree with that , because in most of that cases disagreements and misunderstandings can be settled with other tools. We can agree on basic definitions without reaching for a dictionary.

Yeah this is a good point, but we still don't need to use a dictionary definition. We can just give our own clear definition, that way people will know and understand why we use the way we use it, and what we mean by it. Again, one of the biggest problem with the dicitionary use, is that the person who use it, need to change his/her way of thinking and talking about a particular subject, because that meaning now will slightly or totally differ from his/her original use of it.

Yes, but we can settle this problem by asking for definitions, that way we can clearly see how the other person is using that definition, so we will understand their thought process better, but if we are quickly jumping on a dictionary, then both of us will probably need to rethink our thoughtprocess, because the word that is used has a totally or slightly different meaning now. None of your arguments are suggesting or strengthening the point, that we should use a dictionary to settle disagreements or to elevate our ability to understand the other person. - So it seems to me, that you agree with me at least on that point.

Can you explain why do we need to use a dictionary here in order to understand each other? I am suggesting here, that there are better tools to clear things up and to understand each other, other than using a fucking dictionary every time.

How is that most intellectuals, debaters, normal people can understand each other clearly and fine and settle disagreements, without ever [or very rarely] having the need to use a dictionary?

? ? ? ?, Very much appreciate your serious effort - that you are so willing to have a serious discussion with dumb people like us. So you had to look up the definition in a dictionary ,because you couldnt desribe and summarize the concept on your own. You implied it yourself - that there is only one right meaning to everything , so the conclusion is that you didn't learn the definition of communism beforehand. - so who is the uneducated here? This wasnt even the thing that we were disagreeing on. What is your steelman version of mine and what is your steelman version of Carl's position.