General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:41 pm
Do you agree that, normally anyway, it is wrong to impose something significant on someone else without their prior consent? Or at least that this is normally a wrong-making feature of those acts that have it?
No, not normally. I could think up about a dozen examples of situations in which things have been imposed on me without my consent and I have benefited from it. And in fact, one of those examples would be my very birth.
I mean, come on, are you really telling me that it is wrong for humans to breed? What about the parents of Einstein? What about the parents of Newton? What about the parents of Beethoven? What about the parents of Mozart? What about the parents of Mandela? You seriously think that none of them should have been born?
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:41 pm
Do you agree that, normally anyway, it is wrong to impose something significant on someone else without their prior consent? Or at least that this is normally a wrong-making feature of those acts that have it?
No, not normally. I could think up about a dozen examples of situations in which things have been imposed on me without my consent and I have benefited from it. And in fact, one of those examples would be my very birth.
I mean, come on, are you really telling me that it is wrong for humans to breed? What about the parents of Einstein? What about the parents of Newton? What about the parents of Beethoven? What about the parents of Mozart? What about the parents of Mandela? You seriously think that none of them should have been born?
I didn't ask you whether you could think of lots of cases in which something has been imposed and the act is overall justified. I too can think of lots and lots of examples in which things have been imposed on me without my consent and it has not been wrong to do so. I asked you whether the fact something has been imposed on someone without their consent typically operates as a wrong-maker.
Take a case where something was imposed on me without my consent yet the act is clearly overall justified - such as, for example, my childhood vaccinations. Now, though it was overall right for my parents to make me get vaccinated, it was nevertheless regrettable that I could not, and did not, consent, yes?
JReg wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:49 pmI mean, come on, are you really telling me that it is wrong for humans to breed? What about the parents of Einstein? What about the parents of Newton? What about the parents of Beethoven? What about the parents of Mozart? What about the parents of Mandela? You seriously think that none of them should have been born?
Yes. Are you sure you're a philosopher? It's just that expressing incredulity at a view doesn't, last time I checked, constitute a refutation of it. And it's coming a bit early too.
JReg wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:49 pmI mean, come on, are you really telling me that it is wrong for humans to breed? What about the parents of Einstein? What about the parents of Newton? What about the parents of Beethoven? What about the parents of Mozart? What about the parents of Mandela? You seriously think that none of them should have been born?
Imagine that Einstein was a product of rape. Now, was the act of rape that brought him into being right or wrong?
If I judge it wrong - and I do - would you reply "oh come on! You seriously think it would have been better had Einstein not been born!"
We can judge an activity wrong even if we think its consequences good.
And speaking of rape, what's wrong with it? Is it the pain and suffering that the act causes to its victim? Well, no doubt that counts for a lot, but we can imagine a rape that has no pain and suffering associated with it and it still seems wrong, yes? So, if rape is wrong even if it causes its victim no physical or mental harm, then we need to look elsewhere for that feature which made it wrong.
What is it? Well, plausibly it is the fact that its victim did not consent to it. You know - the feature that typically makes acts that have it wrong; the feature that you think 'doesn't' typically make acts that possess it wrong.
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:12 pm
I didn't ask you whether you could think of lots of cases in which something has been imposed and the act is overall justified. I too can think of lots and lots of examples in which things have been imposed on me without my consent and it has not been wrong to do so. I asked you whether the fact something has been imposed on someone without their consent typically operates as a wrong-maker.
And I said no.
Take a case where something was imposed on me without my consent yet the act is clearly overall justified - such as, for example, my childhood vaccinations. Now, though it was overall right for my parents to make me get vaccinated, it was nevertheless regrettable that I could not, and did not, consent, yes?
Not really, no. What makes you say that it is regrettable?
Yes. Are you sure you're a philosopher?.
Yes. Now how about you address the points that I made?
Imagine that Einstein was a product of rape. Now, was the act of rape that brought him into being right or wrong?
So you're going to compare consenting adults having children to rape?
What is it? Well, plausibly it is the fact that its victim did not consent to it. You know - the feature that typically makes acts that have it wrong.
I honestly have a hard time understanding how you can believe yourself to be a philosopher whilst saying something like this. Before I respond to it, can you please tell me what your credentials are?
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:12 pm
I didn't ask you whether you could think of lots of cases in which something has been imposed and the act is overall justified. I too can think of lots and lots of examples in which things have been imposed on me without my consent and it has not been wrong to do so. I asked you whether the fact something has been imposed on someone without their consent typically operates as a wrong-maker.
And I said no.
Take a case where something was imposed on me without my consent yet the act is clearly overall justified - such as, for example, my childhood vaccinations. Now, though it was overall right for my parents to make me get vaccinated, it was nevertheless regrettable that I could not, and did not, consent, yes?
Not really, no. What makes you say that it is regrettable?
Yes. Are you sure you're a philosopher?.
Yes. Now how about you address the points that I made?
Imagine that Einstein was a product of rape. Now, was the act of rape that brought him into being right or wrong?
So you're going to compare consenting adults having children to rape?
What is it? Well, plausibly it is the fact that its victim did not consent to it. You know - the feature that typically makes acts that have it wrong.
I honestly have a hard time understanding how you can believe yourself to be a philosopher whilst saying something like this. Before I respond to it, can you please tell me what your credentials are?
You're not a philosopher. I never said I was a philosopher. You said you were.
But if you're a philosopher, then you'll be employed by a university, yes? And you'll have access to peer review journal articles that are behind paywalls for the public -yes? So we can perform a very quick and easy test of your claim. Although on reflection even undergrads would have that access - but it would at least establish that you are in an educational establishment of some kind in some capacity.
Last edited by Sunflowers on Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:40 pm
You're not a philosopher. I never said I was a philosopher. You said you were.
You just said that you are now.
But if you're a philosopher, then you'll be employed by a university, yes? And you'll have access to peer review journal articles that are behind paywalls for the public -yes? So we can perform a very quick and easy test of your claim.
Sunflowers wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:40 pm
You're not a philosopher. I never said I was a philosopher. You said you were.
You just said that you are now.
But if you're a philosopher, then you'll be employed by a university, yes? And you'll have access to peer review journal articles that are behind paywalls for the public -yes? So we can perform a very quick and easy test of your claim.
Are you employed by a university?
Let's stick with you shall we - are you a philosopher?
