Timeline for What are the arguments against thesis of injustice of antinatalism?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 25, 2022 at 8:33 | comment | added | AnoE | @RodolfoAP, I didn't say anything about absolute/relative morals. I intended exactly what I wrote - simply as a courtesy so you get feedback on a downvote. My primary reason (aside of plainly disagreeing with several points you write as "fact") is that your answer contains neither sources or justifications for the statements you give; nor a disclaimer that it's your opinion. In conjunction, that would be quite misleading for readers who find your accepted answer. If you sure this is the answer you want to give, then I'm happy to agree to disagree, no worries. | |
| Mar 24, 2022 at 23:37 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | @ZOMVID-21 "There is plenty of rational, moral and ethical arguments in favor of laying down arms and adapting versus dying for a national identity" - if we're talking about Ukraine, then I don't see it as dying for a national identity as much as it's dying for the right to live free and not under the oppression of a dictator. Let's not forget about all the people who were never armed, but who Putin killed anyway. Most wars are fought between kings and armies, but the line between armies and civilian populations is blurry, and gets a lot more blurry when people are fighting for their freedom. | |
| Mar 24, 2022 at 19:22 | comment | added | Therac | There is plenty of rational, moral and ethical arguments in favor of laying down arms and adapting versus dying for a national identity. From the Dark Ages till the 19th century, most wars were fought between kings and armies, and the civilian population just kept living on with whoever was in charge. | |
| Mar 24, 2022 at 17:09 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | "That would imply that, for example, in 03/2022, people in Ukraine should surrender to Russians ... which is completely illogical, since it breaks any goal of morals/ethics/law" - that's not all that illogical if your goal is to simply avoid causing harm to others yourself, and it fits perfectly well into deontological ethics. You seem to be arguing more from a consequentialist point of view (do a bad thing because not doing it would lead to a worse result), which is valid, but it's not the only valid ethical system. Although it seems like you may not be too well-versed on ethical frameworks | |
| Mar 24, 2022 at 16:36 | comment | added | RodolfoAP | @AnoE, the most common mistake when addressing morals is the belief that morals define the rules for ABSOLUTE "good"/"right" (your words). The "good" or "right" you mention are always relative (good for something, right for something), never absolute (nothing can be good from absolutely ALL perspectives): e.g. poison is bad for survival, good for suicide; God is good for nuns, bad for demons, etc. Morals can't search ABSOLUTE good/right because it just doesn't exist. Morals define rules for implicit goals we all share, which can be, for example, living a good life, or living in peace. | |
| Mar 24, 2022 at 16:32 | comment | added | gerrit | That would imply that, for example, in 03/2022, people in Ukraine should surrender to Russians and just die without using weapons, because Russians are people and it is immoral to kill people — I have seen exactly that argument being made (and in the same text: it's better to be alive and non-free under Russian rule than not be alive at all). | |
| Mar 24, 2022 at 15:11 | comment | added | R. Romero | Informative answer, but doesn't it only tell part of the story? I'd think "Rules to enforce a goal" as a definition of what is moral presupposes teleology as opposed to deontology? By that definition, Kant's ethics wouldn't qualify. Also ,while Egoism has its flaws, it's at least a self-consistent principle. The Virtue Ethics of Aristotle or Buddhism seems an interesting hybrid. | |
| Mar 24, 2022 at 13:54 | comment | added | AnoE |
Since SE asks to post a comment when downvoting: Morals are sets of rules that enforce a goal. That doesn't sound right to me. Morality seems to be about all kinds of deliberation about good/evil, right/wrong etc. i.e. attributes or properties of acts; not sets of rules, and not in practice something to enforce a goal. Also the rest of the answer sounds very opinionated to me - nothing wrong with that, but could be clarified more that this is an opinion. It is formulated as fact instead.
|
|
| Mar 24, 2022 at 13:27 | vote | accept | Dark Knight | ||
| Apr 16, 2022 at 6:26 | |||||
| Mar 24, 2022 at 6:48 | history | edited | RodolfoAP | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 583 characters in body
|
| Mar 24, 2022 at 4:13 | history | answered | RodolfoAP | CC BY-SA 4.0 |