Consent and Antinatalism

Hey Know one has kill themselves with an atomic bomb have they. ? 

You wouldn't.

See even thats funny to think about. 

Someones always hiding in a bunker somewhere. "Factor" kicks in. 

The existence of humans as a part of a progressive universe may or may not be necessary.

Though as far as we are able to know, we are the only intelligent species that can manipulate matter  in a way that surpasses non-interventional development.

This may or may not be necessary, but we must assume the alternatives even if we don't personally run with one of them.

I believe neither alternative, but just accept that one is correct and the other isn't.

You can pick one if you like.

But you won't be able to substantiate it.

I just like to run with the idea of a purposeful universe these days. No God  necessary by the way.....As in a magical being. Though you might catch me referring to a GOD principle.

As I clearly stated, I do not believe.

I Run with Ideas.

GOD principle represents a purpose relative to material development.

GOD principle could still be applicable in a non-purposeful material development scenario.

Coming to a conclusion, or conclusions, or variable conclusions is just an internal electro-chemical processing trait.

So Kaitlyn appears to affirmatively conclude that everything has no purpose....So how do they come by this conclusion?

Why run with these ideas.

Nope. No faith

I accept equally, the idea that everything could be purposeless.

In so much as everything that occurs has no greater purpose.

Why run with these ideas.

Why indeed.

Isn't that just what we do, especially here on Debateart.

Though 95% of my time is spent either  thinking about mundane day to day stuff or asleep.

As for life.

Well, I would suggest that biological function generally provides us with purpose whether we like it or not.

There's no higher purpose in biological function.

Consent is morally relevant on the principle of liberty. Liberty is morally relevant because of the universal value of self-determination in volitional intelligence.

No intelligence, no liberty, no consent. For instance it doesn't matter if a tree can't consent to being climbed. There is no discerning will to contradict.

Imagine the tree gains sentience during your climb (and also that you do the climb blindfolded -- much like we can't see who will be birthed before they are). Some big trees won't feel anything and will be fine, and perhaps they might even enjoy the climb as back-scratching or tickling. Some smaller trees may warp a bit under your weight, causing them a fair amount of suffering. Other smaller trees might snap in half and die horribly. 

You don't know how much pain/suffering/discomfit you are going to cause the tree beforehand (because you are blindfolded). You don't know whether your climb is too heavy for the tree. You just do it blind with dire consequences at stake. 

We can also take an extreme example of someone who is unconscious after a serious motorcycle accident and has no legal guardian/spokesperson to speak for his/her best interests. This person is unable to consent, both literally and legally. This person will simply die if nothing is done. If we apply your logic of "can't consent" and "no discerning will to contradict", we could justify bashing this person to death, or putting him/her atop a large waterslide just to see how he/she would ragdoll down? Does that seem reasonable to you?

Of course I don't know.

I merely suggest that because I don't know, it is therefore impossible to rule anything out.

There's no higher purpose in biological function.

You don't know that.

It's just an idea that you run with.

Meta-physics....Abstract theory....Interesting philosophical concept.

Isn't all theory abstract to a degree?

To theorise requires imagination.

That is, the assessment and modification of acquired and stored data, some factual and some not......Output is wholly suppositional, and may or may not be proven to be correct.

A biological function and process that seeks to further understanding....Purposeful even if it serves no greater necessity.

Consent is morally relevant on the principle of liberty. Liberty is morally relevant because of the universal value of self-determination in volitional intelligence.

No intelligence, no liberty, no consent. For instance it doesn't matter if a tree can't consent to being climbed. There is no discerning will to contradict.

Imagine the tree gains sentience during your climb (and also that you do the climb blindfolded -- much like we can't see who will be birthed before they are). Some big trees won't feel anything and will be fine, and perhaps they might even enjoy the climb as back-scratching or tickling. Some smaller trees may warp a bit under your weight, causing them a fair amount of suffering. Other smaller trees might snap in half and die horribly. 

Sorry for the delay, I congratulate you on being able to grasp and modify an analogy. Many can't seem to.

You don't know how much pain/suffering/discomfit you are going to cause the tree beforehand (because you are blindfolded). You don't know whether your climb is too heavy for the tree. You just do it blind with dire consequences at stake. 

Yet even here it is the pain and suffering that may have moral consequence. Not the lack of consent while no mind existed to consent.

Now if it was possible for the mind to look back on its life and send information to the past that consent could absolve people before the mind existed of responsibility in their role. That is not possible however.

So we can agree that those who choose to behave in such a way that may cause harm to a potential being cannot be absolved by means of consent. That does not mean that any risk of harm is unacceptable or that the predicted ratio of utility cannot be considered.

We can also take an extreme example of someone who is unconscious after a serious motorcycle accident and has no legal guardian/spokesperson to speak for his/her best interests. This person is unable to consent, both literally and legally. This person will simply die if nothing is done. If we apply your logic of "can't consent" and "no discerning will to contradict", we could justify bashing this person to death, or putting him/her atop a large waterslide just to see how he/she would ragdoll down? Does that seem reasonable to you?

Of course not. It's your theory (from what I can tell) that would claim that the person must be left to die. As you say, they can't consent to anything.

That is not my theory, my theory is that there was a discernible will as established by the previous actions of the person. So much so that even if they are dead on arrival their body is still their property and must be disposed of in accordance with their last wishes.

My theory is that there is an enormous difference in many contexts (such as this one) between "unable to consent due to temporary condition or language barrier" and "unable to consent due to not existing".

And indication is a word that you introduced, but not a word that is particularly relative to the discussion.

The appropriate word is suggestion.

Basically suggesting an indefinite purpose, brought about by the very fact of existence.

Idea and purpose generated by intelligence and communicated through language, which is what we both do.

"Not objectively bestowed upon us via the author of existence" for example. ......Nice 

And magical beings......Although just as likely as unlikely, have not previously been suggestively bestowed upon you by this author.

So Kaitlyn, can you unequivocally prove that everything has no purpose at all?

I certainly cannot prove the opposite, and I'm also certain that you cannot unequivocally disprove the opposite.

And it's been 47 years since I attended High School, but I'm still sure that I don't know for sure.

And I'm also sure with equal certainty that you do not know for sure.

There are certainly no nth degrees relative to this particular topic.

No I can't.

Focussing on what is substantially more likely.

So in one breath you admit.

No I can't.

And in the next you're,

Focusing on what is substantially more likely.

If you cannot prove something, then you have no basis to suggest or indicate that something is substantially more likely or less likely.

Come sit on the fence with me Kaitlyn.

And purpose is simply  an alternative idea to purposelessness.

Whereas, I would suggest that "higher purpose" is perhaps an unnecessary over-dramatization of the idea of purpose.

Though interestingly, your reference to a higher purpose indicates to me that you do acknowledge the idea of a lower purpose.

Freudian slip perhaps.

For sure.

I don't live my life worrying about flipping coins.

Nor do I worry about purposefulness or purposelessness....And I certainly don't believe either.

As for lower and higher purpose.

I was thinking more a deistic GOD scenario  (higher)...... In comparison to an evolutionary system of material processes and development of which humanity is a part. (lower).

Not that I would disagree with the idea of innate human purpose. Which in itself is contradictory to the abstract concept of antinatalism.

Which of course is not to say that intellectually derived conclusions and subsequent actions in themselves are not purposeful.

From which we could infer that antinatalism might also be purposeful within that context.

Nice discussing with you.

You're just not being unreasonable.

You're free to believe.