retrieval4558

joined 1 year ago
[–] retrieval4558@mander.xyz 2 points 4 months ago

Very first was probably Inuyasha, Dragonball Z, or some Gundam way back on adult swim as a kid. My first real one that I engaged with as a semi-adult was probably Death Note.

[–] retrieval4558@mander.xyz 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Smarttube next has a fix for now

[–] retrieval4558@mander.xyz 1 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] retrieval4558@mander.xyz 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Because the typical standard of consent is that in order to do something to someone, you should have informed consent. If you cannot obtain that, then you do not do the thing. Something that does not exist cannot give informed consent, therefore you should not do the thing.

[–] retrieval4558@mander.xyz 5 points 4 months ago

If living organisms are predisposed to prefer existence, this would imply existence is an inherently preferable state.

It usually is- to a living organism, which is not what we're talking about.

Prove it

Come on bro you can't be serious about this.

[–] retrieval4558@mander.xyz 1 points 4 months ago

We agree there

[–] retrieval4558@mander.xyz 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] retrieval4558@mander.xyz 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

And how does that relate to angels?

[–] retrieval4558@mander.xyz 4 points 4 months ago

Just to clarify, I'm not advocating for any baby to be taken off life support, that's a pretty abhorrent thing to accuse me of, if that's what you meant.

I work in critical care and routinely bring people back from the brink of death. With a living being, unless otherwise stated, their consent to life saving treatment is implied, and I'm happy to give it.

Philosophically, I'm just not convinced that there is such a thing as an implied consent to "make me exist when I don't exist already".

[–] retrieval4558@mander.xyz 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children)

That's just how evolution works- something that already exists and is driven to stay alive is more likely to pass on its genetics than something that is not driven to stay alive. This fact has nothing to do with the philosophy of consenting to exist in the first place.

Edit: missed your first question. Something that does not exist cannot desire.

[–] retrieval4558@mander.xyz 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (11 children)

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.

[–] retrieval4558@mander.xyz 4 points 4 months ago (4 children)

I'm not sure what your point is here

view more: ‹ prev next ›