Jamie_L

Another thought:

The same line of reasoning (immortality = fewer children in future generations) can be used to argue against things we take for granted now:

Industrialized nations with high standards of living have much lower birth rates than third world countries. In fact, if you factor out immigration, the populations in most industrialized countries are decreasing. Some projections show the world population stabilizing in the not-to-distant future and starting to decline.

Well, is this an arguement that we should not try to bring the thrid world into the modern age? By raising their standard of living, we will encourage fewer children to be born. Is it immoral to deny these potential people the oppotunity to exist just to improve the lives of those who are alive now?

I think not.

Jamie

Theli

Jamie_L...
Making a decision shouldn't be based on one factor alone, the livingstandard of the future human's life should ofcourse be considered. As for having alot of children in very poor countries plauged by deceases, hunger and even war it cannot be morally justifiable. The lives of those future children could only be called a cruel joke. But that's one of the flaws in our society, even though we have started to we don't act in full regards to our unborn children.

I agree, but.
The question wasn't about increasing the standard of our lives at the cost of our future possible childrens lives, but simply increasing our lifespan (through genetic manipulation), halt aging if you like.

Noone said that you did. And BTW, you cannot give unborn identities (not even X or Y).

1. Once again you are applying identities to nonexistent people.
2. I have never suggested any practical sollution, I have only presented a problem.

Tronvillian...
Isn't it? If you murder a person you take away his future life, if you steal money from a person you take away his chance of using it in the future. The way I see it, that is the only thing you take from him (apart from trust). The only real difference is that the person who gets murdered has had a chance to live before you murdered him plus the possible pain and discomfort he feels before death. Dead people do not miss their lives more than unborn does, so the only loss to them is what he would have had. All crimes against a person doesn't include pain or discomfort for the victim.

In what sense? There are aspects of murder that differ alot, but from a moral perspective they are shallow. And also, are you dismissing the premises to my argument because you don't like the conclution? It sounds like it. I never said that this had a practical solution, just that a huge contradiction does exist in our moral sense. That is murder, and why it is wrong.
If you commit an act against a person, the "wrongness" of that act should correlate to the loss of the victim, am I right? And what is loss for a murdervictim?

So, every action that you would take in the future you would now consider justifiable. And greed justifies murder? I have a question, can you act wrongfully? There doesn't seem to be any basis for a moral sense in your response.

This is a concept I'm interested in, why do you feel sympathy for someone getting murdered? Is it because of the expression on his face, the pain you imagine he feels or is it what he never gets to have: his future life?

The problem is that most people probably don't even know why, but are contempt with "Because it IS wrong!".

Is inflicting pain the only wrong action you can take towards a person? And if a person falls victim to an accident, who violated his rights then? If noone did, then should the dead person be happier than if he got killed (before he dies that is)?

Aaaand finally, a question to end this post:
Do murdered people exist?

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Jamie_L

Along these lines, immortality has many benefits. The individual may gain much happiness from the extra time on earth. Others will not suffer his loss. In the world you envision with a much lower birth rate, there is much less death and less corresponding grief. It seems this world is much better for the living.

I find this comment very interesting in light of the "problem" you are concerned about. You are worried about denying the existence of future persons. Those potential people WOULD all have identities if they were conceived. So, it is perfectly valid to talk about their potential identities. If we're not concerned about specific potential people, then the "problem" of immortality seems to evaporate.

There are all kinds of "potential" people whose existences are contingent upon choices. We can't pick and choose some to assign moral value to and some not to.

And even if I don't assign them an identity, my question can still stand. If my wife and I decide to have no children, we are denying the existence of potential people. You have argued this is tantamount to murder in the immortality problem. Why is it not murder when it is on a more mundane scale?

Well, I don't see that there is any problem at all. Potential people are not people. In effect, they are choices (oh no, now this sounds like an abortion debate). People make choices every day that result in more or less potential people coming into existence, or in certain specific people coming into existence instead of others. There's nothing immoral about making decisions that result in fewer human beings being born.

Otherwise, it would be less moral to have two children than three.

Jamie

tronvillain

Theli:
You have pointed out the fundamental difference between ending an existence and preventing an existence: dead people do not miss their lives more than the unborn do, so the only loss to them is what they would have had. Of course, "them" and "they" refers not to the dead, but to those who died - the living. Loss is for the existent.

I have always denied your premises, but I will point out that reaching a conclusion that appears false is an excellent reason for attempting to reject one or more of the premises in an argument. If you commit an act against a person, should the "wrongness" of that act correlate to the loss of the victim? No. Well, it is a highly contingent question, so perhaps.

Well, every action I will take in the future I will consider justifiable to myself at the time. I did not say "greed justified murder" - I say that it could justify murder by me to me, but that is not the same as saying "greed justifies murder." Can I act wrongfully? No. There are of course countless things I would do differently if I had more accurate knowledge about the world, but nothing I ever do is wrong at the time.

*chuckle* Asking why I feel sympathy for someone getting murdered is like asking why I find sugar sweet - I just do.

Ah, but is the fact that people are content with that actually a problem? I am an emotivist, so I see it as comparable to complaining that most people don't even know why they like chocolate.

Since I made no specific mention of pain, I am unsure where you are getting all of this. What I actually said was "our actions can be morally justified because there is no victim - no one's rights are ever violated, no one is ever harmed."

A person who falls victim to an unforseeable accident has no rights violated, but there is no inherent reason that a person should be happier about being killed in an accident than about being murdered (though they might be). The difference between the two deaths is that in one a person is responsible and in the other a person is not responsible.

No, murdered people do not exist. Well, they do not currently exist, but they did exist in the past.

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>