418

submitted 4 months ago by BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

308 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] retrieval4558@mander.xyz 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That's just how evolution works- something that already exists and is driven to stay alive is more likely to pass on its genetics than something that is not driven to stay alive. This fact has nothing to do with the philosophy of consenting to exist in the first place.

Edit: missed your first question. Something that does not exist cannot desire.

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 6 points 4 months ago

But how can something that doesn't exist have the capability of consent being violated?

[-] retrieval4558@mander.xyz 2 points 4 months ago

Because the typical standard of consent is that in order to do something to someone, you should have informed consent. If you cannot obtain that, then you do not do the thing. Something that does not exist cannot give informed consent, therefore you should not do the thing.

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 5 points 4 months ago

I knowhow consent works, but existence is the precondition for anything constent-related, including violationg consent.

[-] KombatWombat@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Non-interference is a good default position to have, but we are capable of acting on behalf of others when we have a certain threshold of confidence for what they would want in a situation. Otherwise, we would consider it wrong to give CPR to an unconscious person.

When it comes to life, people overwhelmingly prefer to continue existing when they have the power to choose. So it makes sense for us to presume that a hypothetical person would choose to be born given the opportunity.