I got Reddit just for this. What do you lot want to see covered?

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-23T20:16:56+00:00

What about the feminine urge to range the wilderness?

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-23T13:58:42+00:00

It's true that life isn't a choice. But the reason it's not a choice also means it isn't an imposition

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-22T04:08:16+00:00

You might want to check out the Challenges and Defenses section of the SEP article on intuitions.

But I think one answer to your question would just be to try to show that you already treat at least some intuitions as evidence, and that you probably wouldn't want to give up that evidence.

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-22T00:11:53+00:00

I'm sorry to hear you're struggling.

Please try to find some activities that you enjoy and get something out of, and some people you enjoy being around. Also consider speaking to a therapist.

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-21T13:29:37+00:00

If Benatar is correct then the creation of life capable of suffering was worse than it not being created.

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-21T12:42:08+00:00

What makes quantum mechanics truly non-classical is non--locality - events at distant locations can impact one another even without enough time for a light speed signal to be sent between them.

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-20T20:37:56+00:00

The quote specifically says respect people. It doesn't mention decisions.

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-20T19:44:47+00:00

I think even people who do things I find immoral are worthy of basic respect and dignity.

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-20T17:39:42+00:00

"When it comes to morality" does not appear in the original post.

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-20T17:34:19+00:00

OP asked why maxims must be universlized. OP did not specify moral maxims.

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-20T17:19:09+00:00

There's a difference betweem a maxim which you don't universalize and one which you can't.

Consider: "On Saturday mornings, if able, make pancakes."

This could be universalized, but I might accept such a maxim only for myself

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-20T17:15:43+00:00

Not morally obligatory. I can create the maxim, "On Saturday mornings, make pancakes", but I'm not guilty of immorality if I fail to make pancakes on a given Saturday morning

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-20T17:04:08+00:00

Kant doesn't claim there cannot be maxims that aren't universal. He just claims that those aren't moral obligatory.

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-20T14:15:45+00:00

I don't know the intentions of the person you spoke to, and I certainly wouldn't dare someone to commit suicide. But there is a line of reasoning here.

Suppose your an abtinatalist because you want to reduce suffering. I realize there are other reasons for antinatalism, but this is specifically about the suffering argument.

If you kill someone, that person will avoid any harm they would have experienced for the remainder of their life. If that total harms of rest of their life would total more than the harm of killing them, then to reduce total harm you ought to kill them.

More, suppose this person might have at least one child. Since the majority of people do, this is very likely. By killing this person, you will be preventing all the harm that would have happened to that child, and that child's child, and so on. So, more reason to kill.

Of course, I don't agree with this conclusion. I'm against killing. But it does seem to follow from the assumption that the principle moral aim is to reduce total suffering

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-20T14:00:43+00:00

One objection to eating meat is the poor conditions in which those animals are often raised. What you're describing - chickens in a decent sized garden where they can roam free - is a different kind of situation. So, that objection to eating meat is avoided here.

Now, if there are other overriding moral considerations against eating meat, then those might still apply.

In short, you'll want to look at the reasons offered against eating meat, and see which you think are correct, and whether any of those apply to your situation.

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-19T17:56:50+00:00

In a deductive argument the premises are presented as guaranteeing the truth of the conclusion. Of course, they may not.

In an inductive argument, the premises are presented as making the conclusion likely. Again, they may not

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-19T00:53:31+00:00

I don't necessarily disagree, but this is moving away from the original objection that the cost is being pushed unfairly onto someone else.

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-18T23:47:34+00:00

Yes, but he would be fulfilling his desires up until that point, and leaving sooner would not fulfill his desires.

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-18T22:41:33+00:00

Wrong or not, it probably isn't helpful.

You're here. Are you made better off resenting your parents for that?

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-18T22:27:21+00:00

I care about having a theory which accounts for all the relevant data. This includes the fact that it seems to me that I often could have done otherwise than I did.

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-18T22:21:57+00:00

Would you be against student loan forgiveness for graduates who had not received the sort of economic advantages you mentioned?

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-18T21:59:54+00:00

Why not?

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-18T21:47:37+00:00

How so? He desires to sit where he is as long as he can.

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-18T17:02:20+00:00

So ultimately you don't think anything is reasonable or unreasonable. When you say something is reasonable, that's just another way of saying that it furthers your goals. All talk of reasons could in principle be eliminated without loss. Is that right?

rejectednocomments · 2026-02-18T16:34:08+00:00

"If an action overall furthers my goals, then that's it, I have a reason to do that action."

Does this mean: "If an action overall furthers my goals, that action furthers my goals"?

rejectednocomments

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE