The relationship between evil and stupidity
For the purpose of this discussion I'll try to consistently use a definition of 'evil' that corresponds to 'induces suffering' in some loose sense. Similarly, I'll use 'stupid' in loose correspondence with 'ignorant of the state of the world/the logical implications of their actions'. I hope these choices of vocabulary are to taste.
I want to question the (apparently common) position that people who breed are evil because they are stupid. The causal connection is key: I don't really doubt that people generally do very little correct ethical reasoning or analysis of the consequences of their actions, similarly I don't doubt that most people are applying moral systems where the minimization of suffering is a non-primitive principle, and thus are willing to induce suffering in many circumstances.
For someone to be evil because of stupidity, that they would have to have some moral values that they are failing to apply correctly to drive their actions, and if their ignorance were cleared up, they would behave "correctly". The idea that most people fall into this camp is dubious, but appears (perhaps erroneously) to be a common sentiment in this forum.
Further, I'm not entirely convinced that 'ignorant of implications' is a fitting description for individuals who are tacitly working with a value system that conditionally requires suffering: 'inarticulate' might be a more appropriate descriptor. Arguably, due to the sheer prevalence of breeders over non-breeders, any sentiment of the form "I want to minimize suffering" can be taken with the tacit clause "only up to obstructing breeding". This would explain the response to antinatalist positions formally resembling the response to pedantry: confusion in response to being confronted with the hidden assumptions behind one's statements.
Those who believe most people would turn out to share your values if only they were rational, why do you think this?
For those who don't accept the is-ought barrier, the answer to the above question is probably trivial. For those people: how do you get your oughts from your is's (or is it the other way around 😮)?
Posted Jan 14, 2020, 4:33 PM UTC
this isn't true of everyone, I take my antinatilism into all my actions and try to act accordingly. not breeding is just the biggest and best thing one can not do to reduce suffering.
what's the difference?
I've said it before, I think it takes a few things to be antinatilist usually an empathetic nature or experience with suffering firsthand and education on the matter. if it were the social norm to be taught to think philosophically then we can assume that this would lead to more rational and morally aligned humans. we can assume a much larger portion would be antinatilist. the things holding back many (in your words) 'stupid' people (I personally prefer the term selfish) is societal norms around birth including propaganda, and also lack of education.
at the end of the day a person can still just slap an 'ethical egoist' identifier on themselves, revel in their selfishness and shit out a bunch of kids. at least they wouldn't be lying to themselves or the masses anymore. They, by and large aren't stupid. They're selfish.
Sorry! I had that in mind as I wrote it, but thought that the text would read a bit clunky if I added "excepting antinatalists" or something like that.
I suppose a person is ignorant of the implications of their actions if they act in a way that is inconsistent with their goals, and they're inarticulate if they act in a way that is inconsistent with their stated goals. You can only really tell the difference after the fact of the person altering their position/behavior, since you can't easily tell a person's goals apart from their stated goals.
I see why the thought is appealing, but why can we assume that this would result in "morally aligned" individuals? How do you exclude the possibility that most people are just "ethical egoists" who fail to identify themselves as such due to lack of philosophical background?
I will say I wish we had more discussion on this sub about other forms of antinatilism in every day life other than veganism or not reproducing.
I think comes down to selfishness again. why we see so many proclaimed animal lovers eating meat. their desire to help is always secondary to their desire to eat meat. cognitive dissonance there to make them feel good doing both. I have no idea how to deal with it other than calling them out on it as I see fit. I don't know why some of us are better at shedding cognitive dissonance than others. I would like to pose that it is because we choose to educate ourselves, and are also empathetic of course.
true that. the only counter argument I could make would be that many people simply follow societal norms so by educating masses, and hopefully changing societal norms to shame breeding, many would simply not breed for fear of being pariahs. we can see inklings of this with the climate birth strikes. I do agree that many people are unaware egoists.
We seem to be mostly in agreement about the facts of the matter.
I will point out though that I'm not sure you're using the term "cognitive dissonance" in its usual meaning.
If they had loads of cognitive dissonance, they'd have a lot of trouble doing both while feeling good about it, and would likely be driven to abandon one or the other. If they have no cognitive dissonance, then there is no friction inherent to doing both, so they'd have no reason to stop.
I suppose so. I see it used in this way to describe things all the time. I'm not sure of a better term to describe people acting contrary to what they say they believe.