this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
414 points (98.6% liked)
196
16501 readers
2381 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What's consent to a being that doesn't exist?
Nothing, unless they start existing.
So, how does the concept make any sense? Can I get consent from an angel, too?
I'm not sure what your point is here
My point is that the whole premise of "consent for existing" is bogus.
And how does that relate to angels?
They don't exist either.
We agree there
When you force it into existence, literally everything
I fail to see how the mere concept makes sense right now. That's the same flawed logic as longtermists use.
If my understanding of longtermism is correct, it's more of a function of utilitarianism. If one wants to do the most good for the most people, then it makes some amount of sense to focus on the far future where presumably there will be more people. Their consent is irrelevant, which is kind of the opposite of what I'm saying, which is that consent is relevant.
It's the other side of the same coin. They both argue about the well-being/bad-being of hypothetical humans. It's bogus, either way.
They are not related because you have to exist to experience well-being or "bad-being". What I'm talking about is consenting to exist.
Longtermists try to justify their actions by invoking potential, future generations. Those don't exist either.
They're presuming that people will exist, which is not a wild assumption
But that's not a philosophy I particularly subscribe to so I don't feel compelled to explain or defend it further.
I think you make a great point. Have you read about the problems with "person-affecting views"? It's admittedly a bit harder to grasp, but doesn't seem less problematic to me.
Nope
Highly recommend. It's easy to dismiss as weird bullshit initially but enlightening when you put in the effort to understand.
To be clear, I am no longer strongly convinced of or against person affecting views and take both seriously.
This is a good starting point:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/c6ZYCpq2L46AxSJNy/my-favourite-arguments-against-person-affecting-views
I'm not sure if I should feel sad for you, or envious. To be so certain of your own point of view and take pride in not taking other ideas seriously. It must give some sense of calm but at the same time, you miss out on so much. I won't ask or recommend you anything though, I read the thing. Enjoy your wall staring. Let's hope it will make the world a better place.
Dude, get off your high horse. If I read every little thing some rando on the internet threw at me, I would never leave the toilet!
I don't find these EA thought experiments interesting. That's no reason to try to shame me for it.
I made a decision, please respect that.
I'm sorry, it seems I misinterpreted your comment by a lot.
I read about Slavoy Zizek's philosophy and ideas and in that context, "I would prefer not to" is the ultimate rejection of capitalism and some sort of super-resistance, if I understood correctly.
I thought you meant to dismiss the whole group of ideas without reading them based on how convinced you are of Zizek's ideas, and were blaming me for "supporting the system". That's why I reacted so aggressively, I'm sorry, that was bullshit.
P.S. I do tend to get stuck in these rabbit holes of philosophy.