We begin with a metaethic. I claim ethnics must be based on a material, objective standard, and any ethical standard that is based in subjectivity such as Kantianism fails.
1: Subjectivity requires some objective way to measure whether one is "approving" or "disapproving" of some standard. For example, if violating my right to autonomy is wrong, only I can tell you if something has violated my autonomy, but we have to agree on basic linguisitic standards of "I don't like this". Thus, our ability to construct a subjective ethnic fails telologically.
2: Subjectively defined ethnics implies everything is morally permissible. Every action (or inaction) you take has a justification. You take a step to go forward. Even if you constrain such actions contractually (you work to avoid violations of your practical reason, such it only makes logical sense to universalize this standard)
a) such a need to universalize is unwarrented. I can value my reason but not yours.
b) Such contractual ethnics fall to an ad absurdum paradox. If I agree that you punching me is bad, and thus agreeing that me punching you is bad, there needs to be a third party to observe such a contract is valid. Otherwise, such a "contract" only exists for my subjective gain, and isn't actually a constrain on my actions as morality should be..
Therefore, Morality must be defined objectively.
Only pleasure and pain is objective drivers of action. From a biological perspectives, all other things valued are a race to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Therefore, is morality is a constraint on action, this must be a maxim to be observed. This follows that basic utilitarianism is correct.
We must therefore value *future* pleasure as well. It doesn't make sense to say that feeding a starving man isn't morally correct simply because "the pleasure is only potential and therefore not measurable". In fact, all actions are measured on potential, as there is a nonzero amount of time between stimulus and physical action.
If future pleasure is valued, then there is no reason to differentiate between generations. These are merely physical distinctions, something we already ignore with a utilitarian ethic as we are only concerned about an aggregation of pleasure vs pain.
Therefore, if it can be shown that lives in the future will experience greater pleasure than those in the past, then having children is morally obligatory. Empirically, evidence show that life is improving
Additionally, if it can be argued that future generations can create *simulated lives* that experience the same sensation of pleasure and pain, then the obligation to maximize the number of future generations increases exponentially.
But, if even a single family lineage is snuffed out, we can argue that the potential loss of future life is nearly INFINITE, because an potentially endless chain of reproduction is forever broken. This in fact implies that the *variety* of continued generations has value. The more genetically distinct men that reproduce, the greater pool of subsequent pairing in the next generation. Therefore, when a woman rejects a man who would otherwise never reproduce, they have potentially snuffed out TENS OF TRILLIONS of lives. In other words, rejecting an incel is murder.
QED.
1: Subjectivity requires some objective way to measure whether one is "approving" or "disapproving" of some standard. For example, if violating my right to autonomy is wrong, only I can tell you if something has violated my autonomy, but we have to agree on basic linguisitic standards of "I don't like this". Thus, our ability to construct a subjective ethnic fails telologically.
2: Subjectively defined ethnics implies everything is morally permissible. Every action (or inaction) you take has a justification. You take a step to go forward. Even if you constrain such actions contractually (you work to avoid violations of your practical reason, such it only makes logical sense to universalize this standard)
a) such a need to universalize is unwarrented. I can value my reason but not yours.
b) Such contractual ethnics fall to an ad absurdum paradox. If I agree that you punching me is bad, and thus agreeing that me punching you is bad, there needs to be a third party to observe such a contract is valid. Otherwise, such a "contract" only exists for my subjective gain, and isn't actually a constrain on my actions as morality should be..
Therefore, Morality must be defined objectively.
Only pleasure and pain is objective drivers of action. From a biological perspectives, all other things valued are a race to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Therefore, is morality is a constraint on action, this must be a maxim to be observed. This follows that basic utilitarianism is correct.
We must therefore value *future* pleasure as well. It doesn't make sense to say that feeding a starving man isn't morally correct simply because "the pleasure is only potential and therefore not measurable". In fact, all actions are measured on potential, as there is a nonzero amount of time between stimulus and physical action.
If future pleasure is valued, then there is no reason to differentiate between generations. These are merely physical distinctions, something we already ignore with a utilitarian ethic as we are only concerned about an aggregation of pleasure vs pain.
Therefore, if it can be shown that lives in the future will experience greater pleasure than those in the past, then having children is morally obligatory. Empirically, evidence show that life is improving
Additionally, if it can be argued that future generations can create *simulated lives* that experience the same sensation of pleasure and pain, then the obligation to maximize the number of future generations increases exponentially.
But, if even a single family lineage is snuffed out, we can argue that the potential loss of future life is nearly INFINITE, because an potentially endless chain of reproduction is forever broken. This in fact implies that the *variety* of continued generations has value. The more genetically distinct men that reproduce, the greater pool of subsequent pairing in the next generation. Therefore, when a woman rejects a man who would otherwise never reproduce, they have potentially snuffed out TENS OF TRILLIONS of lives. In other words, rejecting an incel is murder.
QED.
Math and examples can't saves us from the world....because we are the ones who belive in the power they have. And we see the real world as it is.
