...it's a "mugging". Singer's core thesis is that the core determinant of an act's morality is whether it is done with the goal of increasing global net utility. He uses the drowning child example of as a sort of high energy gotcha. "Oh you don't want to increase global net utility? I bet you're the sort of monster who would just stand by and watch a child drown".
The logic is airtight. The objections are some variation of "that's not realistic!" which isn't really an objection. It's just plain true there is no moral difference between a child drowning in front of you and a child starving across the globe, and all the objections I've heard are weak.
Calling a correct argument a "mugging" because you are compelled by reason and intellectual honesty to accept it doesn't really change anything.
I don't see any contradictions between Singer & Benatar. Both are trying to limit suffering. Antinatalism makes good sense to me.
HlynkaCG
old man yelling at clouds
fozz 2yr ago·Edited 2yr ago
The logic is airtight.
and?
...Why do you think that an act being logical would make it moral? Or vice versa for that matter?
The objection is simple, regardless of whether it is logical or not, the sort of universalist utilitarianism espoused by Singer and others is fundamentally inimical to human flourishing due to it's tendency to promote sociopathic and self-destructive behavior. Now as an anti-natalist you might find that objection weak because you don't put a whole lot of stock in the value human flourishing, but if that's the case I'm afraid that I am just going to have to cite irreconcilable differences. Do you want to reduce suffering, or do you want to increase flourishing?
The thing is that I am being intellectually honest, and that is exactly why I do not feel compelled to accept Singer's, Benatar's, or your arguments. I know what my goals and standards are, and the standard I try to hold myself to is "don't say anything you don't mean". Absolute sincerity even (perhaps especially) in the face of Armageddon. hat-tip to @DaseindustriesLtdup-thread
...Why do you think that an act being logical would make it moral? Or vice versa for that matter?
If you want to participate in "morality", which is inextricably meshed with the experience of conscious beings, then the logic is airtight. If you choose not to participate in morality, none of this will concern you.
Do you want to reduce suffering, or do you want to increase flourishing?
You can do both, though the reduction of gratuitous suffering is more urgent.
The objection is simple, regardless of whether it is logical or not, the sort of universalist utilitarianism espoused by Singer and others is fundamentally inimical to human flourishing due to it's tendency to promote sociopathic and self-destructive behavior
Yes, "self" destructive behavior is absolutely necessary. (Sociopathic behavior has nothing to do with it.)
Self-destructive behavior is a dramatic way of saying selflessness, or the lack of selfishness. And normalizing this is a way forward.
If you want to participate in "morality", which is inextricably meshed with the experience of conscious beings, then the logic is airtight.
No, no it is not. It's only "inextricable" and "airtight" if you are a strict utilitarian.
You can do both, though the reduction of gratuitous suffering is more urgent.
Yes you can do both, but you can only have one "top priority", and there in lies the problem.
If you're curtailing other people's flourishing to aviod suffering you're a sociopath. You claim that they are not related but I don't see how they could be anything but.
As the old saw goes, everyone is equal when they are dead. Accordingly the most effective way to achieve equality is genocide. Ditto "preventing suffering". If you're going to go down the Tomasik route I'm going to call you what you are.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The logic is airtight. The objections are some variation of "that's not realistic!" which isn't really an objection. It's just plain true there is no moral difference between a child drowning in front of you and a child starving across the globe, and all the objections I've heard are weak.
Calling a correct argument a "mugging" because you are compelled by reason and intellectual honesty to accept it doesn't really change anything.
I don't see any contradictions between Singer & Benatar. Both are trying to limit suffering. Antinatalism makes good sense to me.
and?
...Why do you think that an act being logical would make it moral? Or vice versa for that matter?
The objection is simple, regardless of whether it is logical or not, the sort of universalist utilitarianism espoused by Singer and others is fundamentally inimical to human flourishing due to it's tendency to promote sociopathic and self-destructive behavior. Now as an anti-natalist you might find that objection weak because you don't put a whole lot of stock in the value human flourishing, but if that's the case I'm afraid that I am just going to have to cite irreconcilable differences. Do you want to reduce suffering, or do you want to increase flourishing?
The thing is that I am being intellectually honest, and that is exactly why I do not feel compelled to accept Singer's, Benatar's, or your arguments. I know what my goals and standards are, and the standard I try to hold myself to is "don't say anything you don't mean". Absolute sincerity even (perhaps especially) in the face of Armageddon. hat-tip to @DaseindustriesLtd up-thread
Edit: a word
If you want to participate in "morality", which is inextricably meshed with the experience of conscious beings, then the logic is airtight. If you choose not to participate in morality, none of this will concern you.
You can do both, though the reduction of gratuitous suffering is more urgent.
Yes, "self" destructive behavior is absolutely necessary. (Sociopathic behavior has nothing to do with it.)
Self-destructive behavior is a dramatic way of saying selflessness, or the lack of selfishness. And normalizing this is a way forward.
Addiction to self is a big part of the problem.
No, no it is not. It's only "inextricable" and "airtight" if you are a strict utilitarian.
Yes you can do both, but you can only have one "top priority", and there in lies the problem.
If you're curtailing other people's flourishing to aviod suffering you're a sociopath. You claim that they are not related but I don't see how they could be anything but.
What do you mean?
As the old saw goes, everyone is equal when they are dead. Accordingly the most effective way to achieve equality is genocide. Ditto "preventing suffering". If you're going to go down the Tomasik route I'm going to call you what you are.
Asking people to choose to forgo unnecessary luxuries so that starving children can eat has nothing to do with being a sociopath.
A narcissistic sociopath might try to pretend this was an unreasonable request for whatever reasons a mind like that might manufacture.
Why do you personally think it's more important for a person to have unnecessary luxuries than for a starving child to eat?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link