Discussion Issues with Pro-life philosophy

[Fallen Angle]

I would like to address 2 problems that I see with pro-life/anti-choice philosophy and arguments. There are 2 main set of arguments that pro-lifers have against CTB. The first is the consequentialist argument these are argument such as "it will get better soon" and the second are the rights arguments where the pro-lifers assert that individuals should not have the right to take their own lives. The second set of arguments from my experience is rarely made however I believe it is the common belief of most pro-lifers. I recently encountered this when I watched a BBC clip posted on exit(you can find it if you go to the website, scroll through the homepage gallery until you find PN BBC clip titled 'Why suicide should be a human right'). The way the host talks about right to die gives me the impression that she actually believes that humans should not have the right to CTB.

Rights Argument:
There are certain statements that I believe are self evident(some of these may be directly derived from definition):
1. A human is not a slave if and only if that human has exclusive ownership over his own body.
2. A human(H) is an exclusive owner of an object(O) if and only if H has the exclusive right to determine the fate of O.
3. The destruction of O is a fate of O.

Conclusions:
4. From 2 and 3: H is an exclusive owner of O if and only if H has the exclusive right to destroy O.
5. From 1, 2, and 4: H is not a slave if and only if H has the exclusive right to destroy (the body of H).
6. From 5: If H is not a slave then H has the exclusive right to destroy (the body of H).
7. From 6: if H does not have the right to destroy (the body of H) then H is a slave.

From what I understand Pro-lifers believe that humans do not have the right to destroy their own bodies. This indicates that they believe that humans do not own their own bodies and thus they must believe that humans are slaves. So who is our owner? Not all Pro-lifers are religious.

Even many Pro-life philosophers believed that slavery was an undignified existence and that slaves should CTB.

Consequentialist argument:
One of the most common arguments in favor of inhibiting CTB is that we(the pro-lifers) are doing what is in the best interest of the suicidal individual. Since the state of death is unknown it is impossible to determine its value relative to the state of life. So how can Pro-lifers assert that they are doing what is in the best interest of the individual?

Another common argument in favor of inhibiting CTB is "it will get better". Even assuming that this assertion is correct it still doesn't address the fact of whether the state of death is superior to the state of life and thus doesn't even answer the question of whether an individual should CTB from a consequentialist perspective.

Another common argument is that suicidal thoughts are temporary. This is similar to the above argument and has the same issues.

Overall my point is that since the state of death is unknown it is impossible for anyone to determine whether the state of life is superior to the state of death. Thus all consequentialist arguments proposed by pro-lifers are invalid. Furthermore this yields the conclusion that life and death are equivalent in terms of goodness(which one is better). Thus they should be treated equally.

This results in many interesting conclusions one of which is:
If it is considered an atrocity to kill(force death upon) an arbitrary individual then it must also be an atrocity to force life upon an arbitrary individual.

 

[ClonesAnnoyMe]

You have really thought this through and I can see the correlation and I am not a prolifer but why do you plan on ctb?

I like to help people see the good in themselves

 

[a.n.kirillov]

I
This results in many interesting conclusions one of which is:
If it is considered an atrocity to kill(force death upon) an arbitrary individual then it must also be an atrocity to force life upon an arbitrary individual.

Yes, correct, assuming that existence and non-existence actually have the same value. You could argue though that a non-existent being can't possibly have any rights and thus, commiting an atrocity towards a non-existing being is impossible.

The wrong doing in killing someone/ possibly in creating new life as well is in the act of taking away the person's freedom over the continuation/ cessation of their own life. But I believe that's what you said.


One argument you didn't mention is in claiming someone is incapable of acting rationally, i.e. proclaiming them mad. This is how they can on the one hand grant euthanasia to terminally or chronically ill people and on the other hand dispute the claim that mentally ill people should have the same right.

Following from your first argument of course, it should be a basic human right and thus also healthy people should be free to kill themselves. But then you could make that same argument for any paternalistic behaviour of the state (drugs, driving without a seatbelt and so on).


By the way, it's pretty easy to attack the premises of your first argument.

For the first one: I could claim that a particular person is unable to think rationally because they are 'mentally ill'. I could also claim that while, yes your body belongs to you in part, it also belongs to the state/ the church/ God/ your family/ your society and so on.... Also your assumption hinges on free will somewhat; couldn't I make the argument that, as far as we are determined in our actions and desires, we are in reality always 'slaves' to circumstances? and me stopping you from ending your own life would be no impingement on your freedom since you have no real freedom in the first place?

For the second one: just because you own something, that doesn't necessarily mean you're allowed to destroy it; this is basically the same argument as the first one, because it is mostly things which are, at least in part, also owned by a collective of people (like owning part of a forest for example - you aren't allowed to burn it down just because you own it) but it also possibly applies to animals (I don't know whether you're allowed to kill your dog in most countries??)

I have to go to bed now. Maybe I will have to delete this tomorrow because it was total BS

 

[ClonesAnnoyMe]

There are too many reasons. Most of which can only be understood by me. But one of them is the fact that I am surrounded by individuals who believe they have the right to stop me from CTB. These same people would torture me if I attempt to CTB and fail. I don't wish to live in a world like this. A world where the majority of people treat me like a slave.

I understand
Life does suck but personally drugs have really helped me
Yes I may be dependant but it helps so much day to day

 

[Fallen Angle]

Yes, correct, assuming that existence and non-existence actually have the same value. You could argue though that a non-existent being can't possibly have any rights and thus, commiting an atrocity towards a non-existing being is impossible.

Perhaps I worded it badly, but when I stated forcing life I also meant to encompass forcing continued life upon an individual which includes inhibiting CTB. Perhaps this makes the logic weaker. It requires some further consideration. Also for non existing individuals(first you are assuming that before life you don't exist which leads to its own set of conclusions)(but assuming this is correct) the atrocity would be conducted because you are bringing a sapient individual into existence thus you have forced life upon an individual that now exists. Thus the atrocity was conducted on the individual that now exists. The process of forcing life is not completed until the individual exists and thus an atrocity does occur within the process of forcing life. At some point in the process(towards the end) the individual becomes alive and at this point the atrocity has been conducted.

One argument you didn't mention is in claiming someone is incapable of acting rationally, i.e. proclaiming them mad. This is how they can on the one hand grant euthanasia to terminally or chronically ill people and on the other hand dispute the claim that mentally ill people should have the same right.

I do not believe that humans have the ability to determine if an other human is mentally competent. I believe that the rationals that are currently used to make such a determination are flawed because if we are conservative in terms of assumptions then it is very hard to prove anything about the physical world even if we are lax and accepting of many assumptions which can not be proven I still believe that the rationales used by mental health professionals are flawed and often times utilize cyclical logic. It is a wonder no one has asked mental health professionals to prove that a particular individual is mentally ill or incompetent ect. at a fundamental level. I know this is vague but it is very easy to dismiss/disprove particular arguments which supposedly prove the mental incompetence of an individual.
In my experience such determinations are used to prevent suicide rather than justify euthanasia. Yes a conclusion of the argument is that any individual has the right to take their own life.

By the way, it's pretty easy to attack the premises of your first argument.

For the first one: I could claim that a particular person is unable to think rationally because they are 'mentally ill'. I could also claim that while, yes your body belongs to you in part, it also belongs to the state/ the church/ God/ your family/ your society and so on.... Also your assumption hinges on free will somewhat; couldn't I make the argument that, as far as we are determined in our actions and desires, we are in reality always 'slaves' to circumstances? and me stopping you from ending your own life would be no impingement on your freedom since you have no real freedom in the first place?

For the second one: just because you own something, that doesn't necessarily mean you're allowed to destroy it; this is basically the same argument as the first one, because it is mostly things which are, at least in part, also owned by a collective of people (like owning part of a forest for example - you aren't allowed to burn it down just because you own it) but it also possibly applies to animals (I don't know whether you're allowed to kill your dog in most countries??)

I have to go to bed now. Maybe I will have to delete this tomorrow because it was total BS

You have some very good points here. The existence of freewill is undetermined but I don't know if any pro-lifers are asserting that freewill does not exist. If freewill did not exist then we would have to create another argument altogether but I don't think that the non-existence of freewill would support any pro-life philosophy in fact it would do the contrary. Furthermore we would have to define freewill.

For the attack on the first premise I would ask you to define what mental illness is, ask you to prove its existence, and ask you to prove the existence of an algorithm that would correctly classify individuals as mentally ill or not mentally ill. As for the body belonging to other individuals/groups I would state that if this is the case then we are indeed slaves.

For the attack on the second premise I would state that if you are not a slave then you are the exclusive owner of your body(from the first premise). Then I would state that you have the right to destroy any object that you are the exclusive owner of(the second premise is an iff statement so this follows).

I should note that I am not commenting on whether we are slaves or not just what the consequences are of each possibility.

Also I am sorry for the slow response TOR is a difficult browser to deal with.

 

[Indieblue]

I see many sentiments like these on anti natalism forum. Are you also an anti natalist? I am and i agree with you.

 

[Fallen Angle]

You said:
"Yes, correct, assuming that existence and non-existence actually have the same value. "
In my opinion non-existence is superior to existence well for me anyway.
When i didn't exist for 13.8 billion years i had no problems , no pain , no disease. But with existing i have all those horrible
problems and more.
To live i have to constantly feed, shelter, this body.To live i have to work hard all week,fix things solve problems, clean, buy groceries ,shower a million hassles ad infinitum, you know life right? then i get the flu, girl i like has a bf, people target me for scams etc. . Ok that's just some problems then there are the bigger threats like cancer , or what happened to christopher Reev, Robin Williams, Steve Jobs(cancer), accidents ,strokes, homlessness, lawsuits.

Suppose an individual is in a lot of pain physical or mental. Suppose that individual has no prospects to get a good job and will be homeless soon. so taking away all easy methods to commit suicide would be forcing that individual to suffer extreme torture? Yes. being homeles is torture because a homeless person has to starve, and doesn't have the basic human needs of shelter and food. so those restricting and prohibiting suicide are sentencing that person to torture even though that person has done nothing wrong committed no crime.

You are absolutely correct. Furthermore when an individual does try to improve their situation in the only way possible the Pro-Lifers decide to torture the individual by imprisoning him, subjecting him to mind altering drugs, and treating him as if he has less rights then individuals that commit actual violent crimes. We should remember that we are the righteous ones here. We are not the ones that are forcing our ideology on others it is rather the Pro-lifers that are forcing their ideology onto us. They are committing crimes and atrocities against us every day while we have not even committed any crimes. They recognize that we have committed no crimes and yet they still torture us. They are moral criminals who force their ideology onto us through the use of violence and more specifically state violence. This is especially bad because we have no method by which we can reasonably defend ourselves. We truly are victims of pro-lifers.

I see many sentiments like these on anti natalism forum. Are you also an anti natalist? I am and i agree with you.

Yes I do believe in anti-natalism however I have no desire to force my ideology onto anyone else. I do not believe in the use of violent force to compel others to follow my ideology. I also subscribe to Efilism.

 

[Backwood_tilt]

I like to help people see the good in themselves

Oh look, someone with a messiah complex.

 

[Partial-Elf]

...my point is that since the state of death is unknown it is impossible for anyone to determine whether the state of life is superior to the state of death. Thus all consequentialist arguments proposed by pro-lifers are invalid. Furthermore this yields the conclusion that life and death are equivalent in terms of goodness(which one is better). Thus they should be treated equally.

This is where I disagree with you. I would say the state of death is adequately known–it's just the absence of being. The only reason people think otherwise is religious bullshit or feel-good bullshit.

Going from the reliable premise that death is the complete absence of consciousness and the permanent destruction of the self, people can then reasonably make a decision between death and continued existence.

And they alone should be able to make that choice.

You're not going to find rational reasons. Most people aren't rational. People don't want others to suicide because:

• If they're part of the bourgeoisie, they can still profit off of you
• It's a taboo... probably a hold-over from early tribal times. Then reinforced by religion over thousands of years. At that time the death of a tribe member probably had a big impact on the group's ability to survive
• It's a rule and people don't like questioning rules
• It pokes a hole in the reality people are comfortable with... pulls back the curtain so to speak

 

[Fallen Angle]

This is where I disagree with you. I would say the state of death is adequately known–it's just the absence of being. The only reason people think otherwise is religious bullshit or feel-good bullshit.

There is no way to prove that death will result in absence of being. There are infinitely many possibilities about the true nature of our existence. That being said I sincerely hope that the state of death is just the absence of being but that doesn't change the existence of other possibilities.

You're not going to find rational reasons. Most people aren't rational. People don't want others to suicide because:

• If they're part of the bourgeoisie, they can still profit off of you
• It's a taboo... probably a hold-over from early tribal times. Then reinforced by religion over thousands of years. At that time the death of a tribe member probably had a big impact on the group's ability to survive
• It's a rule and people don't like questioning rules
• It pokes a hole in the reality people are comfortable with... pulls back the curtain so to speak

Perhaps there is no rational reason to inhibit CTB. If this is the case then we should bring this to the attention of the general population. Many Pro-life arguments on suicide rely on the suicidal individual not being rational if we could turn the tables on the pro-lifers CTB may begin to be more widely accepted. My objective thus is to demonstrate the irrational nature of CTB inhibition.

 

[Partial-Elf]

There is no way to prove that death will result in absence of being. There are infinitely many possibilities about the true nature of our existence. That being said I sincerely hope that the state of death is just the absence of being but that doesn't change the existence of other possibilities.


Perhaps there is no rational reason to inhibit CTB. If this is the case then we should bring this to the attention of the general population. Many Pro-life arguments on suicide rely on the suicidal individual not being rational if we could turn the tables on the pro-lifers CTB may begin to be more widely accepted. My objective thus is to demonstrate the irrational nature of CTB inhibition.

Isn't it proof enough that:
A. Our consciousness is a product of our living body and brain
B. Death is the cessation of our living body and brain

Therefore, cessation of B (the body) is cessation of A (consciousness).

If your want to talk about "proof," I'd say looking at a dead person and testing whether they have consciousness is all the proof you need. What you are asking for is based on the false notion that consciousness is separate from the body, which it isn't. Once again, that concept is a remnant of antiquated religious thinking.

All signs point to this being the case about consciousness and death. If people want to suggest something else happens, it's on them to provide evidence for that. You can't prove that there's not a pink elephant floating above your head, but does that mean it should be given equal weight to the claim that there IS a pink elephant floating above your head?

As for the general population: many more are becoming irreligious, which is great news. If advocacy were to be done, the first step would be to push for the right to die for those with terminal illness (which is a huge hurdle in and of itself). Once that's achieved, it could be built upon but I doubt suicide will ever be accepted by the masses

 

[waterbottleman]

Oh look, someone with a messiah complex.

Please don't be negative to others on here. We're all here because we are suffering

I don't think it's right to say something like that to someone who is struggling with suicidal thoughts. Be kind to users on here and i invite you to abide by the rule that if you have nothing kind to say it's best to say nothing at all.

 

[alizee]

Isn't it proof enough that:
A. Our consciousness is a product of our living body and brain
B. Death is the cessation of our living body and brain

Therefore, cessation of B (the body) is cessation of A (consciousness).

If your want to talk about "proof," I'd say looking at a dead person and testing whether they have consciousness is all the proof you need. What youasking for is based on the false notion that consciousness is separate from the body, which it isn't. Once again, that concept is a remnant of antiquated religious thinking.

All signs point to this being the case about consciousness and death. If people want to suggest something else happens, it's on them to provide evidence for that. You can't prove that there's not a pink elephant floating above your head, but does that mean it should be given equal weight to the claim that there IS a pink elephant floating above your head?

As for the general population: many more are becoming irreligious, which is great news. If advocacy were to be done, the first step would be to push for the right to die for those with terminal illness (which is a huge hurdle in and of itself). Once that's achieved, it could be built upon but I doubt suicide will ever be accepted by the masses

Some scientists have argued that consciousness isn't provable or "what we think of having a consciousness" isn't actually real.

The thoughts we have aren't under our control in the real sense and it helps if you understand how free will is an illusion. Determinism (cause & effect) can help you learn that topic if you don't already know about it.

So back to the original point. We don't necessarily have a consciousness. What we do know happens is that our brain is a system and is being influenced by external forces, genetics, environmental factors and all the "memories" of past recorded events influence the "now" of what you experience. After death the universe can repeat because of infinity is forever and where whatever made the earth exactly the same as before for having life will happen again for infinity and where it's exactly the same as before (this is named eternal reoccurrence in philosophy).

Theoretically the above is more probable than nothing for me when observing the physical laws of the universe.

 

[alizee]

I have free will. I choose to suicide . To do that I go against Billions of years of evolution and decades of brainwashing and subconscious mind programming from society, culture, religions, the media , family,friends , schools etc all of which programmed me with pro-life absurdities such as that we hear like "suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem" . I choose to suicide I go against the survival instinct, billion of years of evolution, against my reptilian brain.

I choose to . I can . I will suicide even though the whole world has been Telling me for years don't commit suicide . I go against the whole world . Only here have I found some people that I agree with on some points .irl the mind numbed drones continue to act out their programming not realizing they are puppets

No, you don't in fact choose to commit suicide.

Whether you successfully commit suicide or not is predestined and also known as fate. All events are factored from the preceding events. So your "will of committing suicide" is made of all the previous events that lead up to the moment of having a will to commit suicide.

Think about how you didn't choose to be born. A person is born into a life they didn't choose and what comes after isn't different but we're influenced to believe otherwise because the majority of society doesn't educate people on what I'm describing. Every moment factors from the previous causes in a chain like manner.

 

[alizee]

Where is the proof that fate is real ? So you're saying that all actions I can take are predetermined?

The free will ideology you're proposing has never had any research following the scientific method that illustrates how a person can have free will. The free will belief is just an assumption from assuming you can choose differently or there could have been a different outcome than the one that happened.

Think about if you flip a coin. You understand there is 50/50 odds for heads or tails. But the reasoning why that's the case is because the variables needed to have a coin flip just heads 100% of the time are not replicable by humans. We can get the coin toss to always land heads if we use a robot that uses the same force, with precisely aligning the coin to how it landed heads previously and making sure the air pressure in the room is the same. Basically, just replicating all the variables that result in the previous coin toss where it landed heads.

Now think of a person at birth. We have unique genetics, environmental factors, and external forces exerted upon us. We have no control about what anything is happening to us and specifically this is understandable during the period of us being an infant. We're taking in information around us that we have no control about and that information is altering how we approach things (differently or similar to others) and genetics play into that equation. Well eventually you should be able to realize that all the previous events/memories are altering the current moment and where we think we're deciding or choosing.

So yes when we commit suicide it was destined to happen and similar to every "choice or decision" we think we made but in the real sense no. You can google "determinism" and there are many papers on explaining it. Neuroscience can go into it, same as psychology and even physics. After understanding the logic, you can even realize how randomness isn't possible in the universe but some scientists assume quantum physics is truly random. Well, quantum physics is just assuming it until someone (if possible) can prove that what's being observed is in fact deterministic like everything else. Anyway, my point is leading up to that even with true randomness there cannot be free will because getting a random thought that effects you isn't making us have free will.

 

[alizee]

...

I would like to continue this discussion. However this do we have free will or not discussion seems to be imo not the main topic of this thread nor of the OP's intention. If want to we can keep discussing this in maybe another thread or PM?

How about discord? Otherwise please PM me and we can discuss it. I know what you just wrote and I think you're not getting what I wrote because it doesn't conflict with how scientists view the universe was created. Also it might take awhile for me respond because I'm on work.

 

[a.n.kirillov]

Isn't it proof enough that:
A. Our consciousness is a product of our living body and brain
B. Death is the cessation of our living body and brain

I think the whole point of somehow determining the value of existence vs non-existence universally is impossible and thus useless anyway, so, but to get to your point, it isn't really proof enough. It's as of today unfalsifiable and thus scientifically it is a valid working hypothesis. So as far as science goes, yes, we have to assume for now that individual consciousness ceases with the death of the body. But the whole question is irrelevant to the topic at hand anyway.

I would argue it is always the percieved quality of an individuals life that should determine whether or not it is worth living. It's possible of course that, in some cases, an outside person can predict with some certainty that the individuals life will in the near future become worthwhile for them again (through having some knowledge the individual lacks for example); then we get to OPs first (libertarian) argument again; i.e. it should always and under (almost) all circumstances be a person's right to decide on the continuation or cessation of his own life. We could still ask the question though: if someone is under the influence of drugs, i.e. is heavily intoxicated and suddenly, without prior to this moment ever having stated suicidal intentions etc, should be allowed to do so? Certainly we would have to formulate some requirements, for example that the intention has had to be present for at least a certain amount of time, that the person should be relatively sober and so on.

But this opens the door again for the 'mentally ill', 'irrationality' argument from the other side; there's no easy way out it seems.

Perhaps I worded it badly, but when I stated forcing life I also meant to encompass forcing continued life upon an individual which includes inhibiting CTB. Perhaps this makes the logic weaker. It requires some further consideration. Also for non existing individuals(first you are assuming that before life you don't exist which leads to its own set of conclusions)(but assuming this is correct) the atrocity would be conducted because you are bringing a sapient individual into existence thus you have forced life upon an individual that now exists. Thus the atrocity was conducted on the individual that now exists. The process of forcing life is not completed until the individual exists and thus an atrocity does occur within the process of forcing life. At some point in the process(towards the end) the individual becomes alive and at this point the atrocity has been conducted.

Since I am also an antinatalist I agree with you. To someone who isn't though, arguing that murder=procreation will seem like an outrageous claim :-)

I do not believe that humans have the ability to determine if an other human is mentally competent. I believe that the rationals that are currently used to make such a determination are flawed because if we are conservative in terms of assumptions then it is very hard to prove anything about the physical world even if we are lax and accepting of many assumptions which can not be proven I still believe that the rationales used by mental health professionals are flawed and often times utilize cyclical logic. It is a wonder no one has asked mental health professionals to prove that a particular individual is mentally ill or incompetent ect. at a fundamental level. I know this is vague but it is very easy to dismiss/disprove particular arguments which supposedly prove the mental incompetence of an individual.
In my experience such determinations are used to prevent suicide rather than justify euthanasia. Yes a conclusion of the argument is that any individual has the right to take their own life.

Yes, I also agree. Declaring people mad definitely is a technique of asserting power over individuals. It is also worth asking, why, fundamentally, a rational decision should be preferred over an 'irrational' one; also it is very hard to determine what an irrational decision even is, because there are so many factors to consider, not least of all that a rational decision depends on some value to orient yourself towards. That's how people who place an unconditionally positive value on human life can claim that any decision to end it would be irrational. Then suffering is hard to quantity, especially from the outside, and so on...

I think @Partial-Elf has summarized the pro lifer motives pretty well a few posts earlier.

You have some very good points here. The existence of freewill is undetermined but I don't know if any pro-lifers are asserting that freewill does not exist. If freewill did not exist then we would have to create another argument altogether but I don't think that the non-existence of freewill would support any pro-life philosophy in fact it would do the contrary. Furthermore we would have to define freewill.

For the attack on the first premise I would ask you to define what mental illness is, ask you to prove its existence, and ask you to prove the existence of an algorithm that would correctly classify individuals as mentally ill or not mentally ill. As for the body belonging to other individuals/groups I would state that if this is the case then we are indeed slaves.

For the attack on the second premise I would state that if you are not a slave then you are the exclusive owner of your body(from the first premise). Then I would state that you have the right to destroy any object that you are the exclusive owner of(the second premise is an iff statement so this follows).

Yes it is also not clear to me whether determinism would really change the situation. Intuitively I would say no, but I haven't really thought it through yet. Why do you think determinism would support the right-to-die argument?

I made the point about 'collective ownership' because there are indeed many societies and cultures who would most likely percieve it that way. But also in ours: we think it immoral sometimes for example for a parent of a young child to kill themselves because they have a responsibility to care for it (i.e. the parent is 'owned' in part by the child, the child as a claim on the parents care).

How about discord? Otherwise please PM me and we can discuss it. I know what you just wrote and I think you're not getting what I wrote because it doesn't conflict with how scientists view the universe was created. Also it might take awhile for me respond because I'm on work.

Yeah the the thread really wasn't about free will. Maybe we should move the discussion. I agree with Alizee; free will stands on really shaky grounds in philosophy; I don't know about the science angle to it. I was under the impression that the debate was mostly settled by now in favor of determinism (ignoring the imo ridiculous compatibilism argument for a second).
.


By the way for anyone who hasn't seen it yet; there's a great 20+ long lecture series by Professor of Philosophy Sehlly Keagan of Yalenon YouTube about Death, the value of life, rationality of suicide and so on. It's quite dense and long but I can only recommend it.

 

[Jean4]

There is no argument. A stranger who I never met should not decide what I do with my life.

A stranger has way too much time on their hands if they even care what strangers do with their lives.

Simple solution. If you don't want to CTB. Don't. Isn't that easy? Don't impose your beliefs of strangers.

 

[Fallen Angle]

Some scientists have argued that consciousness isn't provable or "what we think of having a consciousness" isn't actually real.

The thoughts we have aren't under our control in the real sense and it helps if you understand how free will is an illusion. Determinism (cause & effect) can help you learn that topic if you don't already know about it.

So back to the original point. We don't necessarily have a consciousness. What we do know happens is that our brain is a system and is being influenced by external forces, genetics, environmental factors and all the "memories" of past recorded events influence the "now" of what you experience. After death the universe can repeat because of infinity is forever and where whatever made the earth exactly the same as before for having life will happen again for infinity and where it's exactly the same as before (this is named eternal reoccurrence in philosophy).

Theoretically the above is more probable than nothing for me when observing the physical laws of the universe.

@alizee The existence of Freewill is undetermined. Furthermore in order to have a reasonable debate about its existence we first must understand what exactly it is. For determinism if we use science and physical observations as the basis of our argument we know that the universe is not deterministic and the physical system which is our body is not either. Quantum Mechanics suggests as much. Now this is current understanding but your argument relies heavily on current scientific understanding so I feel justified in using these assumptions.

 

[TAW122]

I like your reasoning and well done on debunking the pro-life philosophy. Sadly, most people lack the self-awareness and introspection to think deeply or even question their own beliefs. They simply go and accept the status quo as well as forcing their beliefs and the status quo on dissenters. It's sad that even with such sound reasoning and logic, pro-lifers and mainstream society will never accept it or recognize how flawed their thinking is.. Instead they try to silence us (especially the recent events and news media outlets). However, as long as we continue to fight (those that are still here and those that aren't but passed the torch down), I believe we may see a change in the future. I can't say when (if ever) mainstream society or government will change their ways but there is always a chance that may happen even if it takes decades.

@Jean4 100% agreed and sadly, pro-lifers are hypocrites because they preach and parade about how much freedom there is while denying the ultimate freedom, which is the choice of deciding one's own fate, whether it is life or death. There are even some pro-lifers who argue that in order for rights to exist there must be life, such that without life there cannot be an exercising or experiencing of 'rights', which means that they believe that life is a pre-requisite to rights, but I digress... It sucks that we (people on here) have to hide our intentions in the real world and also put on a mask (and lie) to the people around us IRL so that we don't get persecuted, bullied, preached against, or worse detained and forced treatment against our will. In an ideal world, people should be able to decide when, where, and how they die, or choose to live if they wish to.

 

[Jean Améry]

From a legal perspective it's true that ownership implies complete control over the object including the right to destroy it. That's the idea/theory behind it: in reality there are quite a few limitations to the right of ownership including expropriation by the state for the common good or the duty not to cause a nuisance to one's neighbours.

The classical rebuttal to the libertarian 'ownership argument' is that a) people aren't objects that can be 'owned' (which is why slavery was abolished) and b) that position would imply that it's perfectly allright to sell oneself into slavery (an owner of an object can sell it at will) which would negate the very ownership which libertarians consider to be absolute.

To avoid this conondrum I'd approach this issue in terms of personal autonomy and freedom, not ownership which is intellectually problematic. Which still raises the question whether selling oneself into slavery which in terms of complete personal autonomy would or at least should be acceptable (if one considers the individual to be completely autonomous it logically follows said individual should be able to do whatever he or she wants, at the very least aslong as it doesn't harm others, up to and included selling oneself into slavery) while slavery by definition means complete surrender of personal autonomy but at least it avoids the hairy issue of having to consider humans as objects.

 

[alizee]

@alizee The existence of Freewill is undetermined. Furthermore in order to have a reasonable debate about its existence we first must understand what exactly it is. For determinism if we use science and physical observations as the basis of our argument we know that the universe is not deterministic and the physical system which is our body is not either. Quantum Mechanics suggests as much. Now this is current understanding but your argument relies heavily on current scientific understanding so I feel justified in using these assumptions.

That argument you're making "current science from quantum mechanics suggests the universe isn't deterministic" isn't what scientists consider as a counter argument to having the universe be deterministic.

See https://www.nature.com/articles/439392d and https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.06462 on superdeterminism if you're interested.

Most people don't understand what the word "random" really denotes because it's used a lot such as in computer science like a random number generator but that's not true randomness but just an algorithm that fakes randomness from an cryptographic equation.

Lastly, your assumptions are being used for what? Having randomness added to the equation doesn't make a person have free will.

 

[Fallen Angle]

That argument you're making "current science from quantum mechanics suggests the universe isn't deterministic" isn't what scientists consider as a counter argument to having the universe be deterministic.

See https://www.nature.com/articles/439392d and https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.06462 on superdeterminism if you're interested.

Most people don't understand what the word "random" really denotes because it's used a lot such as in computer science like a random number generator but that's not true randomness but just an algorithm that fakes randomness from an cryptographic equation.

Lastly, your assumptions are being used for what? Having randomness added to the equation doesn't make a person have free will.

There are ways to explain quantum entanglement and other quantum phenomena(QP) which seem to violate locality in a manner that does not violate locality and does not assume determinism for example ER=EPR. Furthermore non-locality is another possible explanation for such phenomena. The assumptions of superdeterminism violate assumptions made throughout all of science and violate assumptions that are made in the scientific methodology itself. Moreover it should be noted that it is just one possible explanations of such phenomena.

Furthermore QP are widely believed to contribute true randomness to the universe thus making the universe non-deterministic(Copenhagen interpretation is widely accepted and if you reject this claim you must accept that it is still a prominent interpretation of QP). Quantum random number generators(which are considered true random number generators) currently exist and are utilized actively for cryptographic application. This demonstrates that there is wide spread acceptance that quantum phenomena contribute true randomness to the universe and thus make it non deterministic.

See https://www.idquantique.com/random-number-generation/products/quantis-random-number-generator/, https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03304, https://qrng.anu.edu.au, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.3.054004 if you are interested.

I don't see what pseudo random number generators have to do with this topic.

I did not make any real claim regarding freewill and yes it is true that if we accept that QP contributes true randomness and makes the universe non deterministic it does not really impact the debate on freewill however it is still an important consideration since you addressed determinism in your argument. (Maybe I will make a claim regarding freewill later when I have more time).

 

[a.n.kirillov]

Really though, if you have to appeal to our more than shaky knowledge about quantum theory to attempt to save free will (which I don't think you manage to do very effectively anyway, although I might just not understand enough about it), doesn't that show how overwhelming the evidence against it is? The way some people point to quantum physics to argue for free will reminds me somewhat of theists who have to employ ridiculous sophisms to somehow prove the existence of God (like the ontological argument and so on).

I mean wouldn't it be more appearent if we had free will? Tbh I can't even tell what free will is supposed to mean, I can't wrap my head around it; since every free choice I supposedly make will always be motivated by something; in absence of motives it would indeed be random.


@Jean Améry I agree with you. Kagan, at the end if his lecture series, bases the morality of suicide on a notion of moderate consent, i.e. under certain circumstances, if a person consents to be hurt by someone else, which includes murder, or indeed by himself, which includes suicide, it is morally justifiable to let them take their own life. But it is impossible to boil it down to one or two factors, since consent (even a moderate notion, i.e. a rational, sober adult who can give good reasons) still wouldn't make slavery morally justifiable. - On the other hand, you could argue SM practices d o allow for a form of slavery and ownership, as long as both parties have consented and for as long as their consent holds true, so...

 

[Fallen Angle]

Really though, if you have to appeal to our more than shaky knowledge about quantum theory to attempt to save free will (which I don't think you manage to do very effectively anyway, although I might just not understand enough about it), doesn't that show how overwhelming the evidence against it is? The way some people point to quantum physics to argue for free will reminds me somewhat of theists who have to employ ridiculous sophisms to somehow prove the existence of God (like the ontological argument and so on).

I mean wouldn't it be more appearent if we had free will? Tbh I can't even tell what free will is supposed to mean, I can't wrap my head around it; since every free choice I supposedly make will always be motives by something; in absence of motives it would indeed be random.

My point was not to try to argue for freewill but rather point out flaws in that particular argument against freewill. I take the stance that the existence of freewill is undetermined. There are many philosophical papers on this topic that you can look into if you are interested.

 

[a.n.kirillov]

My point was not to try to argue for freewill but rather point out flaws in that particular argument against freewill. I take the stance that the existence of freewill is undetermined. There are many philosophical papers on this topic that you can look into if you are interested.

Yeah I haven't engaged enough with the particular arguments against determinism. Are you studying/ did you study philosophy in university?

 

[heheb27595]

Exactly my thought. They think I am there property.
Using fear and control.
Well, they can screw themself. I am already over 40 and shit are not going to get better.

 

[Jean Améry]

Tbh I can't even tell what free will is supposed to mean, I can't wrap my head around it; since every free choice I supposedly make will always be motivated by something; in absence of motives it would indeed be random.

I agree. Free will could be construed to mean 'free from external influences' which is impossible. Even if it wasn't there'd still be internal influences which one has limited or no control over. How can one ever be free from the chain of causality?

Conceptual analysis aside I read somewhere before a conscious thought arises there's brain activity in certain areas known for processing thoughts. That would seem like a strong argument in favour of determinism.

It would seem to me this is a purely philosophical topic which can be argued every which way. I don't think it matters on a practical level: we have the idea we're free agents, a notion which can be doubted and certain evidence would suggest it's just an illusion but to my knowledge it can't either be conclusively proven or disproven. With that in mind: why bother with topics about which we in all likelihood will never have definite knowledge?

Somehow I doubt a person who's about to kill themselves would agonize over whether they'd do it out of free will or not.

 

[a.n.kirillov]

Somehow I doubt a person who's about to kill themselves would agonize over whether they'd do it out of free will or not.

Haha we should found out own philosophical school

 

[Fallen Angle]

Yeah I haven't engaged enough with the particular arguments against determinism. Are you studying/ did you study philosophy in university?

I took a few classes about philosophy. We read a lot of papers on freewill, determinism, ect.
How about you? Did you take any philosophy classes?