Neko the gamer@sh.itjust.works to me_irl@lemmy.world · 2 days agome_irlsh.itjust.worksexternal-linkmessage-square108fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10file-text
arrow-up11arrow-down1external-linkme_irlsh.itjust.worksNeko the gamer@sh.itjust.works to me_irl@lemmy.world · 2 days agomessage-square108fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareUnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·1 day ago Because… inert matter doesn’t make decisions… Why is that good? As long as you accept the premise that some people are happy and some people are unhappy, I don’t think measuring it for precision matters. The claim is that people who experience unhappiness shouldn’t exist. Why would I accept a precisionless “unhappy” on these terms? They wouldn’t be a child if they were never born to begin with. They would still exist as something. Children don’t appear ex nihilio. Your argument isn’t for non-existence. It is for non-sentience.
Why is that good?
The claim is that people who experience unhappiness shouldn’t exist. Why would I accept a precisionless “unhappy” on these terms?
They would still exist as something. Children don’t appear ex nihilio.
Your argument isn’t for non-existence. It is for non-sentience.