summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/content
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorNicholas Johnson <nick@nicholasjohnson.ch>2023-10-15 00:00:00 +0000
committerNicholas Johnson <nick@nicholasjohnson.ch>2023-10-15 00:00:00 +0000
commit10cd48c3e37deb2202d69e26bc0769965bb31e6a7f03b634462bbcc67520482d (patch)
tree85535dfb04329fc35350d0c8c394cd88371bd23dabda0cca8d8356db34728cb2 /content
parent46f2a2384861bdacdb0dc3a54c5eed3d452d3fe90d3fe4a2e60299776c1cec35 (diff)
downloadjournal-10cd48c3e37deb2202d69e26bc0769965bb31e6a7f03b634462bbcc67520482d.tar.gz
journal-10cd48c3e37deb2202d69e26bc0769965bb31e6a7f03b634462bbcc67520482d.zip
Fix typo
Diffstat (limited to 'content')
-rw-r--r--content/entry/antinatalism.md2
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/content/entry/antinatalism.md b/content/entry/antinatalism.md
index 14e0e14..ed45131 100644
--- a/content/entry/antinatalism.md
+++ b/content/entry/antinatalism.md
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ According to Benatar, one way to arrive at antinatalism is through his asymmetry
> Regarding procreation, the argument follows that coming into existence generates both good and bad experiences, pain and pleasure, whereas not coming into existence entails neither pain nor pleasure. The absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure is not bad. Therefore, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation.
-Since I consider objective morality to be incoherent, I'm going to convert Benatar's asymmetry into the language hypothetical imperatives to make it more coherent. If you want more explanation on this, I recommend reading my post on [metaethics](/2020/10/11/metaethics/). I'm also going to make a few other modifications that he wouldn't object to which will make his argument easier to understand:
+Since I consider objective morality to be incoherent, I'm going to convert Benatar's asymmetry into the language of hypothetical imperatives to make it more coherent. If you want more explanation on this, I recommend reading my post on [metaethics](/2020/10/11/metaethics/). I'm also going to make a few other modifications that he wouldn't object to which will make his argument easier to understand:
1. I value pain negatively
2. I value pleasure positively