I'm a big fan of B's rambling posts - albeit not in a way he appreciates. So I'm not defending his OP. But in this particular narrow case it looks to me your critique is misplaced.
If you were to set up a standard truth table of the 4 permutations then of course you are correct, but here B is also asserting that P or Q = True. I.e. it is an axiom.
Of course, as the OP clearly states, all of this is imaginary:
B is also asserting that P or Q = True. I.e. it is an axiom.
Of course, as the OP clearly states, all of this is imaginary:
Imagine there is an omnipotent, omniscient person.
— Bartricks
It seems to me that you agree that bar tricks is positing the musings of his imagination and trying to pass them off as valid proposals by conflating them with propositional logic.
I would think that it's his burden to clearly state what he intends with P or Q. If he intended P or Q = True, then that's what he should have typed, which would be equivalent to the 'exclusive or.' I think this should be written as P ? Q not P or Q.
Anyway, it matters not, as
1. P or Q
2. Not P
3. Therefore Q
cannot be applied to completely illogical posits such as non-existent Omnis having human style desires.
Bar tricks is all smoke and mirrors, but he is quite capable of further damaging those people who are already depressives but lack the ability to see through his BS. I am just trying to help redress that balance.
It seems to me that you agree that bar tricks is positing the musings of his imagination and trying to pass them off as valid proposals by conflating them with propositional logic.
but he is quite capable of further damaging those people who are already depressives but lack the ability to see through his BS.
I wouldn't be overly concerned about this - just my 2 cents . . . :smirk:
EDIT EDIT:
Now that I'm thinking about it some more, B is not even asserting POR Q, it seems that he is asserting (sort of) P OR ~P
where P is "leave world as it is & do not introduce sentient beings" and ~P is "change world so it is safe & introduce sentient life". Yeah, yeah P is actually two propositions, but I think you get the basic idea.
schopenhauer1October 25, 2022 at 21:51#7515660 likes
Not a good reply. You don't know me, nor what I do in order to improve things.
I mentioned nothing about you improving things so you’re hurt over your own red herring reaction. What I said was against the idea that a person being contented means there aren’t structural problems with life.
What I said was against the idea that a person being contented means there aren’t structural problems with life.
And we can work to remove them. That's unless one is a pessimist.
universenessOctober 25, 2022 at 22:26#7515770 likes
Reply to EricH
You are trying to 'patch' the inaccuracies in the sophistry employed by bar tricks when you would do better to pull back the curtain and expose his sophistry.
Agree- but sometimes it's fun to embed oneself in his imaginary world and see where it goes.
I am glad you can garnish entertainment from antinatalism and antinatalists but I personally see them as a more destructive and pernicious group than you do. For example, they exist as a particularly nasty organised group in America. Footage from this group has already been posted on TPF and I don't take such organised nasty groups, lightly.
but he is quite capable of further damaging those people who are already depressives but lack the ability to see through his BS.
— universeness
I wouldn't be overly concerned about this - just my 2 cents . . . :smirk:
Easy for you to type but I think you are wrong and that there is a very real and very valid concern involved.
universenessOctober 25, 2022 at 22:28#7515780 likes
HILARIOUS :rofl:. You are one of the smuggiest passive aggressiviest posters on here. You know it too. You cannot be that un-selfaware.. Or you are being super ironic. Either way, pot calling kettle black.
And we can work to remove them. That's unless one is a pessimist.
But that is precisely what a Pessimist does.. He sees the intractable, pervasive, necessary harms that are structural. Even contingent harms that are consistently pervasive can look quite necessary as to structural. But though you're being tongue-in-cheek with your use of pessimism here, how your using it here is precisely what a philosophical pessimist is not. A philosophical pessimist does not just think things can't get better, but rather that the fact that there are structural negatives in the first place is something to explore, and to explore what those are and reveal them. The "optimist" in this regard is not just someone who "sees the glass full" but is someone who is overlooking what is structurally the case. Perhaps just to make their case about this and that project (like discussing analytic philosophy and logic on a philosophy forum) being important.
So if She is not bound by LNC, then She can satisfy both desires. Since we frail/fallible human beings are bound by LNC we cannot fathom/understand how this is possible - we simply have to accept it.
Yes, but that's irrelevant to the case I am making. For I am not trying to shed light on what an omnipotent person is capable of doing. Rather, I am trying to shed light on the morality of procreation. I am simply using the example of God and the problem of evil to do that, for there we find much more agreement than we do on the issue of antinatalism.
When it comes to the problem of evil, there is widespread - though not universal - agreement that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person would not invest a world like this one with innocent life.
Those who think that is not true can simply ignore the rest of what I say. The majority - certainly the majority of contemporary philosophers - will agree that it is true.
These folk will agree to the truth of this claim:
Either ensure that the sensible world does not visit horrendous evils on any innocents living in it, or do not introduce innocent life into it.
For if that claim is not true, then there is no problem of evil. And they think there is.
God has the ability to do the former, but we do not. But that's irrelevant. For all it means is that we must accept that we cannot ensure that the sensible world does not visit horrendous evils on any innocents living in it. Thus, what follows is that we ought not to introduce innocent life into it.
Pointing out that God can do all manner of things that we cannot - including, if she so wishes, making the LNC untrue - misses the point. The LNC is actually true and we gain insight into moral matters by employing our reason. It is what is actually moral - not what could be - that I am interested in.
And it would seem that this is a sound argument, or at least that a proponent of the problem of evil seems bound to accept it is.
1. Either ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that you plan on making live in it, or do not make innocent persons live in it. (P or Q)
2. We cannot ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that we plan on making live in it. (Not P)
3. therefore, do not make innocent persons live in it. (Therefore, Q)
Reply to schopenhauer1 I think supercilious is more accurate than smug. But, as you say, the pot speaks to the kettle. That you've been unable to advance your position without vindictive reinforces my point.
schopenhauer1October 26, 2022 at 01:14#7516020 likes
That you've been unable to advance your position without vindictive reinforces my point.
Isn't that the name of your game? I mean you can retreat into what I predicted you would.. "That you are posing as ironic" all you want. Smug is smug. You can say Socrates was smug then.. but wooohee.. then you are comparing yourself to Socrates.. and maybe he was indeed a smuggy.
1. Either ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that you plan on making live in it, or do not make innocent persons live in it. (P or Q)
2. We cannot ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that we plan on making live in it. (Not P)
3. therefore, do not make innocent persons live in it. (Therefore, Q)
Now, you have had long enough to read up on disjunctive syllogisms and research how they can fail such that you can then wearily tell me that the one above fails in one of those ways and then refuse to clarify in the hope that others will charitably assume that you do know, even though you and I know that you don't.
So, come along. Say where the argument goes wrong. You are sure it does go wrong, for no better reason than that I have made it. Yes? If Bartricks makes an argument, that argument is rubbish. So, now try and explain why it is rubbish. Do so without quoting yourself as if your pronouncements constitute pieces of evidence. And do so without any squiggling and squoggling.
I mean, if the omnipotent, omniscient person ought not to introduce sentient life into the sensible world if they are not going to change the sensible world, then your inability to change the sensible world should also mean that you ought not to introduce sentient life into it.
In other words, if She cannot satisfy both desires, then neither should you. But as you have stated, since She is omnipotent She can do both.
Reply to EricH That's irrelevant. All that is relevant here is whether this principle is true:
1. Either ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that you plan on making live in it, or do not make innocent persons live in it. (P or Q)
Which it is. Or at least, proponents of the problem of evil must accept it is.
To challenge me you would need to argue that a proponent of the problem of evil can reject that principle. It's not about what abilities God has. Nor is it about what I can deny or affirm. It's about what a proponent of the problem of evil can do. Can they deny that principle? No, not and be consistent.
Perhaps someone might object that in order for this principle - Either ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that you plan on making live in it, or do not make innocent persons live in it - to apply to a person, the person in question must have the ability to fulfil either of the disjuncts. That is, it only applies to you if you have the ability to alter the world in the required manner, and the ability to invest it with life.
But that seems false. At most one only needs the ability to fulfil one of the disjuncts. For instance, that is all that 'ought implies can' requires. So long as one can fulfil one of the disjuncts, one is able to comply with the directive.
And imagine a god who is unable to prevent herself from introducing new life into the world, but who does the ability to ensure that the world will not visit any horrendous evils on that new life. Well, clearly she ought to exercise that ability. That is, her inability to fulfil one of the disjuncts does not mean the principle does not apply to her. Likewise then, the fact we can't fulfil one of the disjuncts does not mean the principle does not apply to us.
That's irrelevant. All that is relevant here is whether this principle is true:
1. Either ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that you plan on making live in it, or do not make innocent persons live in it. (P or Q)
Which it is. Or at least, proponents of the problem of evil must accept it is.
Hilariously illogical.
These kind of [s]brainf[/s] thought constructs tell something about when actually the "me-myself-and-I" attitude is mixed with over protected lives we live now. The idea of our world now being so cruel... as if it wasn't more cruel before.
Reply to Bartricks
Well, it looks like we're stuck here :angry: :grimace: For clarity's sake I am re-posting your OP:
I[i]magine there is an omnipotent, omniscient person.
Imagine as well that there is a sensible world, exactly like this one.
And imagine that this omnipotent omniscient person really likes the sensible world, and likes how it operates and does not want to interfere with its operations, with one exception: they want to introduce life into it.
So, they have two desires: a desire to leave the sensible world to operate in its own manner, but also a desire to introduce sentient life into the sensible world.
Morally what ought they to do? Should they frustrate their desire to introduce sentient life into the sensible world? Or should they frustrate their desire to leave the sensible world alone and instead alter it so that it does not pose the risks to the welfare of the innocent life they plan on introducing into it? Or should they satisfy both desires?
I take it to be obvious that they should not satisfy both desires. So, that means that they should either adjust the world so as to make it a safer place, or they should refrain from introducing sentient life into it.
Now turn your attention to yourself. You are not omnipotent, but you do have the power to introduce new sentient life into this sensible world. And you are not omniscient, but you know that this sensible world is an incredibly dangerous place, full of all manner of dangers and just about every conceivable harm.
If the omnipotent, omniscient person wants to keep the world as it is, then they ought to frustrate their desire it invest it with sentient life.
If you are unable to change the world, then you ought to frustrate your desire to introduce new sentient life into it. Yes?
I mean, if the omnipotent, omniscient person ought not to introduce sentient life into the sensible world if they are not going to change the sensible world, then your inability to change the sensible world should also mean that you ought not to introduce sentient life into it. Agree?[/i]
- - - - - - - -
Now you say this (I boldfaced the most pertinent part): Quoting Bartricks
For I am not trying to shed light on what an omnipotent person is capable of doing. Rather, I am trying to shed light on the morality of procreation. I am simply using the example of God and the problem of evil to do that,
And here is the point I am trying to convey: If you are using your omnipotent, omniscient person (OO-P) as an example/template to possibly emulate - as the OP clearly states - then your discussion of the properties & behavior of the OO-P is subject to debate - since that is the foundation on which you construct your Ps & Qs. And it is this foundation that doesn't make any sense to me. Just for example (and again from the OP):
So, that means that they [God] should either adjust the world so as to make it a safer place, or they should refrain from introducing sentient life into it.
But as you have clearly stated, the sensible world is neither of these things. So clearly, since the OO-P has done neither of these things, then clearly the OO-P is fine with introducing sentient beings into a sensible world filled with pain & evil. And since the OO-P is fine with this, then (following your reasoning) so should we frail human beings be.
And this is begging the whole LNC thing I mentioned a while back.
So again, your OP has set the basis for this discussion, and I'm sticking with it.
But there is one other alternative. Perhaps the OO-P is not essential to your P & Qs (as you seem to be saying). Then perhaps (ironically at this point) you might open up a new discussion and leave out the OO-P - so the discussion can be focused on your Ps & Qs.
Well, it looks like we're stuck here :angry: :grimace: For clarity's sake I am re-posting your OP
Yes, another fantastically prejudicial judgement by Mickie/Xtrix. This argument:
1. Either ensure that the sensible world does not visit horrendous evils on any innocents you plan on making live in it, or do not make any innocents live in it (P or Q)
2.We are not going to ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that we plan on making live in it. (Not P)
3.Therefore, we ought not to make any innocents live in it. (Therefore Q)
Is a 'life sucks' argument, apparently. Which means all discussion of the problem of evil should also be moved to this thread too.
If you are using your omnipotent, omniscient person (OO-P) as an example/template to possibly emulate - as the OP clearly states - then your discussion of the properties & behavior of the OO-P is subject to debate - since that is the foundation on which you construct your Ps & Qs.
What I was trying to do is show how a proponent of the problem of evil is committed to affirming the truth of a disjunctive moral principle.
1. Either ensure that the sensible world does not visit horrendous evils on any innocents you plan on making live in it, or do not make any innocents live in it (P or Q)
The omnipotent, omniscient person is dispensable insofar as it is the truth of that principle - if true it be - that gets one to the antinatalist conclusion. But as I was trying to show how those who run the problem of evil are, on pain of inconsistency, committed to affirming it - or seem to be, anyway - that was why I mentioned such a creature.
One could argue the other way - that is, one could take the moral permissibility of procreation as one's starting point and argue that it implies that there is no problem of evil.
To go back to my dinner invite examples. Jane wants to invite James over for dinner, but she only has ingredients for spaghetti bolognaise in her cupboard. But that's fine - there's nothing impermissible about inviting someone over for dinner if you're going to serve them spaghetti bolognaise (provided there's enough of it). For James does not dislike it and it's a meal of the kind a guest is entitled to expect.
But then surely it is fine for Marjorie - who is capable of cooking all manner of things for James, but just wants to cook spaghetti bolognaise - to invite James over and serve him spaghetti bolognaise too? SHe will not be doing James an injustice if she does that. She could serve him something better. But he's not entitled to anything better and so he is being done no wrong by Marjorie if she serves him spaghetti bolognaise.
That applies now to God. If it is morally permissible for us to procreate, despite the fact we'll thereby be subjecting an innocent to the risk of suffering horrendous evils - so, if we do no wrong to that person - then it is also morally permissible for God to subject innocents to life in this world despite the risk of them suffering horrendous evils. God is like Marjorie and creating life is like serving spaghetti bolognaise to a guest.
As is now obvious, this is clearly a life-sucks argument through and through and definitely belongs here.
Existential HopeOctober 28, 2022 at 02:12#7521060 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Behind the resignation lies an approbation. The only pertinent point is whether it is always good for all individuals at all points of existence. I am not convinced that it is. For some, Shiva pervades the universe (or is synonymous with it!), which is, as wise people would know, true (satya) and beautiful (in its highest form). Many perspectives are out there—a hint that a broader approach is necessary when it comes to judging the value of existence.
What I was trying to do is show how a proponent of the problem of evil is committed to affirming the truth of a disjunctive moral principle.
I'm not following you here. By "proponent" do you mean a believer in God - and how they attempt to resolve the discrepancy between an omnibenevolent god and the existence of evil? Or are you referring to a non-believer and how they use the discrepancy to dispute/refute the existence of God?
BTW - I acknowledge that this is a dramatically simplified description of a highly complex set of philosophical/religious beliefs/opinions.
I'm guessing that you're referring to believers - but perhaps I'm missing something?
Reply to EricH By a proponent of the problem of evil I mean someone who thinks that the evils of the world imply God's non-existence. So, they are those who argue that God does not exist on the basis of the evils of the world.
I am not one of those. I think God exists. I think there is no problem of evil.
But most philosophers think there is a problem of evil. They think the evils of the world provide us with good evidence (most would say decisive) that God does not exist.
Those philosophers ought to be antinatalists. That is what I am arguing.
That's not why I am an antinatalist. I am an antinatalist for a whole host of reasons.
My point, though, is that an argument - the problem of evil - that the vast majority of philosophers think is a very powerful one against God, implies the truth of antinatalism.
So, 'if' the problem of evil provides good evidence that God does not exist, then there is good evidence that it is wrong for us to procreate.
If P, then Q.
However, it does not follow that if Q then P.
So, although I am an antinatalist, this does not commit me to thinking that the problem of evil provides good evidence that God does not exist.
I think the problem of evil fails. But most think it succeeds. They are inconsistent if they are not also antinatalists.
It is entirely consistent to be an antinatalist and to believe the problem of evil fails to show God's non existence. For there is nothing inconsistent in being a theist antinatalist.
It is entirely consistent to think procreation is morally permissible and that there is no problem of evil. False. But consistent.
It is inconsistent, however, to think that there is a problem of evil and that it is morally ok for us to procreate.
The absurdity of the procreator proponent of the problem of evil's position is becoming increasingly apparent to me.
Jane wants to invite James over for dinner. She doesn't have to. She just wants to. But all she has in her cupboard is some spaghetti and a smashed jar of ragu. So all she is capable of serving James is spaghetti with sauce that has bits of glass in it. And she has no pudding to offer.
Well, I'd have thought it was obvious that she ought to refrain from inviting James over, given all she can serve him is a meal of glassy ragu and spaghetti. A guest deserves better - much better - than that.
But let's imagine that you think - bizarrely - that no, it is absolutely fine for Jane to invite James over and serve him glassy spaghetti and sauce.
Well, Marjorie wants to invite James over for dinner too. She doesn't have to either. SHe just wants to. But she has lots of things in her cupboard, including a smashed glass of ragu and some spaghetti. And she wants to serve James that. However, she is going to give him a great pudding.
Now, aren't you mega-bizarre if you think that it would be wrong for Marjorie needlessly to subject James to an evening of glassy spaghetti and sauce followed by a nice pudding, but not at all wrong for Jane needlessly to subject James to an evening of glassy spaghetti and sauce?
I think so. Yet that is analogous to the view of the person who thinks it would have been wrong for God needlessly to make innocent persons live in this world with all its evils, yet not wrong for them to do so.
God could have gotten rid of the evils - just as Marjorie could have served James something other than spaghetti and glassy ragu. But he is, it is supposed, going to provide a great pudding (an afterlife in heaven).
You, however, could only have served spaghetti and glassy ragu, for that is all you had. You didn't have to invite James to dinner, of course. And you can offer no pudding. If God did wrong, you did worse! I mean, whose invite would James prefer to receive?
Reply to Bartricks The bigger issue that looms on James' mind is not what's for dinner, but are they going to make babies after? Few people will let the problems of the world make an argument against getting laid.
My position on antinatalism is that I agree with it as being the epitome of a philosophical idea: where thought becomes greater than the life that gives it existence. People are unlike other creatures in that we can appreciate our suffering. Animals in nature accept their lot. Our nature to think, or to like thinking, can lead us to favor heady ideals over material existence. However, most people are not philosophical. Thoughts can occur to any of us, but only in an insignificant number will thinking interfere with basic functions like eating (animals), procreating, and working. Nevertheless, as I said, I agree with philosophy at its apex. This is where thought becomes greater than the material world. Mind there is not at a subservient level to matter as in science, but transcends actuality to create nothing. This is the spirit that I favor in antinatalism.
schopenhauer1October 31, 2022 at 11:32#7528160 likes
Mind there is not at a subservient level to matter as in science, but transcends actuality to create nothing. This is the spirit that I favor in antinatalism.
Existence before essence is the case for humans in many ways that human pretend isn’t. Bad faith. :up:.
Thoughts can occur to any of us, but only in an insignificant number will thinking interfere with basic functions like eating (animals), procreating, and working.
The desire for sexual pleasure doesn’t seem the same as procreation, as we have divorced the two. Therefore, I consider procreation not a basic instinct. It is simply a culturally reinforced preference to want to reproduce. It could be out of any number of things including ones as banal as boredom, fear of missing out and a host of other complex socially derived, non instinctual reasons that have no discernible basis in an instinctual drive to “procreate”.
Reply to Bartricks Before continuing I just wanted to say that I'm glad that we have had an invective free conversation. I believe very strongly (that whenever possible) it is ideas that should be criticized, not people. I hope that we can continue in that vein.
Yet that is analogous to the view of the person who thinks it would have been wrong for God needlessly to make innocent persons live in this world with all its evils, yet not wrong for them to do so.
I think I finally understand what you're getting at - and here is where we disagree. I am not seeing any connection between being a PPE and your Ps & Qs. Being a PPE does not imply that one should have any opinion on how God should act, let alone that it is wrong of God.
To illustrate, let's take a specific hypothetical example. Let's say there's a person - call him Mr. X - who is an atheist and Mr. X thinks that the problem of evil is proof that She does not exist and that "God" is an imaginary character in various religious books. So what is Mr. X's opinion of AN? Is there any connection between Mr. Xs atheism and AN?
Not that I'm seeing.
Mr. X could be an AN - maybe he feels that there are too many people on the planet and we need to reduce the human population to keep a sustainable civilization.
Or maybe Mr. X is anti-AN. Mr. X loves children (he has 2 kids) and he is confident that humanity will eventually solve these problems.
Or maybe Mr. X has no opinion at all. He's a nihilist and thinks humanity is doomed no matter what happens.
Etc, etc.
- - - - - - - - - - -
As far as Jane inviting James over? Why does she have to serve the glassy sauce? She could serve the spaghetti plain - maybe with a bit of olive oil, a dash of salt, and some parmigiana cheese. Yum. Oh, her cupboard is empty? She can go out to the store and buy some. Oh, she's broke? She could call James and say "Hey James, I'm so sorry, all I have is plain spaghetti but I'd still like you to come over". Or she could call up James and say "Hey lover boy, would mind picking up a jar of ragu on your way over?"
As far as Jane inviting James over? Why does she have to serve the glassy sauce? She could serve the spaghetti plain - maybe with a bit of olive oil, a dash of salt, and some parmigiana cheese. Yum. Oh, her cupboard is empty? She can go out to the store and buy some. Oh, she's broke? She could call James and say "Hey James, I'm so sorry, all I have is plain spaghetti but I'd still like you to come over". Or she could call up James and say "Hey lover boy, would mind picking up a jar of ragu on your way over?"
Please don't give him any more ideas about how to adapted his theories, they are weird enough already.
Before continuing I just wanted to say that I'm glad that we have had an invective free conversation. I believe very strongly (that whenever possible) it is ideas that should be criticized, not people. I hope that we can continue in that vein
Oh, I very much doubt it, vicar. For you just criticized me there, didn't you? Tut tut.
I think I finally understand what you're getting at - and here is where we disagree. I am not seeing any connection between being a PPE and your Ps & Qs. Being a PPE does not imply that one should have any opinion on how God should act, let alone that it is wrong of God.
Yes it does. How doesn't it? A proponent of the problem of evil believes that it would be wrong for God to invest a world such as this one with innocent life. They point to the evils of the world and conclude that God would have prevented those. That's the basis upon which they believe God does not exist. They believe that God would either have altered how the sensible world operates so that it doesn't visit any horrendous evils on the innocents he puts in it, or he would not have put innocent persons into it.
So what is Mr. X's opinion of AN? Is there any connection between Mr. Xs atheism and AN?
Yes, clearly. Mr X believes this principle is true:
1. Either alter how the sensible world operates so that it does not visit horrendous evils on any innocents you plan on introducing into it, or do not introduce innocents into it. (Either p or q)
And this premise is clearly true:
2. We cannot alter how the sensible world operates so that it does not visit horrendous evils on any innocents we plan on introducing into it (not P)
3. Therefore, do not introduce innocents into it (antinatalism) (therefore, q)
As far as Jane inviting James over? Why does she have to serve the glassy sauce? She could serve the spaghetti plain - maybe with a bit of olive oil, a dash of salt, and some parmigiana cheese. Yum. Oh, her cupboard is empty? She can go out to the store and buy some. Oh, she's broke? She could call James and say "Hey James, I'm so sorry, all I have is plain spaghetti but I'd still like you to come over". Or she could call up James and say "Hey lover boy, would mind picking up a jar of ragu on your way over?"
You don't seem to understand the example.
schopenhauer1November 01, 2022 at 11:55#7530360 likes
We cannot alter how the sensible world operates so that it does not visit horrendous evils on any innocents we plan on introducing into it (not P)
Does it have to be even as far as horrendous evil? I’d think any non-individualized version of a person’s utopia would do. If it’s a god, you’d think this could at least be in consideration of one of the avenues he could have chosen for his creation.
Another thing to consider is, the parent is only thinking about their child, not all children , like a god presumably would. The parents think their child will live a “good enough” life and find something like 95% of it just peachy and fine. This is why some of my recent AN arguments revolve around the notion of aggressive paternalism. You shouldn’t assume for another that this life’s set of limited choices is what another would want. You shouldn’t assume others would want to deal with this life’s known, foreseeable harms (foreseeable from the parents experiences and predictions), and you shouldn’t assume to expose others to harms that are extreme that you may not even have expected but are known that it could happen. All these assumptions on behalf of others amounts to an aggressively paternalistic mindset and actions.
Reply to schopenhauer1 As my argument here is directed at proponents of the problem of evil, it would depend on whether milder evils are considered by them to be incompatible with God.
It is generally thought that the quality and quantity of the harms that befall people here are such that God, if he existed, would surely prevent.
Antinatalists, such as myself, are persuaded by a variety of arguments.
The argument I am making here is not directed at antinatalists, for we are already persuaded by other arguments. This argument is directed at those who think the problem of evil provides good evidence that God does not exist. That's most philosophers. But most philosophers are not antinatalists. This argument shows them that they should be.
schopenhauer1November 01, 2022 at 14:47#7530740 likes
Reply to Bartricks
Fair enough. I simply liken it to a game players are forced to play lest they kill themselves. Seems like such a bargain is prime facie unfair.
Your argument is that if problem of evil is unfair, then so are the billions of instances of procreations humans enact everyday bringing humans into what can be an evil world (and in my view always is).
I understand your example. I was trying to use some gentle humor to illustrate that your analogy lacks a certain rigor. But your example is irrelevant to the larger point I'm trying to get across.
Let me try once more to recap what I think you're saying (and what I'm trying to communicate). I'll do this in a conversation between you & Mr. X:
1. [Bartricks]: Imagine there's an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient entity. 2. [Mr. X]: That doesn't make any sense. An omnibenevolent entity would not allow evil & suffering to exist. Until you can resolve this inconsistency I have no reason to believe in such an entity. I might have other good reasons as well, but this is a sufficient reason in of itself. 3. [Bartricks]: Clearly your pointing out this inconsistency in my imaginary entity logically requires that you must have a certain moral position. 4. [Mr. X]: Huh? You're not making any sense. All I'm doing is simply pointing out that you are contradicting yourself back in #1. Why should your errors in basic logic have anything to do with how I live my life? I live by my own morality that has nothing to do with your imaginary entity.
They believe that God would either have altered how the sensible world operates so that it doesn't visit any horrendous evils on the innocents he puts in it, or he would not have put innocent persons into it.
Mr. X does not believe this - he is simply pointing out the inconsistency in the definition of God.. Mr. X is an atheist and he does not incorporate any definition of any imaginary entity or entities into his beliefs.
schopenhauer1November 01, 2022 at 15:41#7530940 likes
Mr. X does not believe this principal. Mr. X is an atheist and he does not incorporate any definition of any imaginary entity or entities into his beliefs.
I don’t get Bartricks using god as some thought experiment. I think a good analogy is rather a game that I think is good enough that I force other people to play it. I gaslight them and say, well now that I forced you into this game, if you don’t like ir, you can’t escape to a better game with different setup and initial conditions you can only play in the confines of this game. You can only imagine a different game but you can’t play it. However, if you are ungrateful for being exposed to this game, you can always kill yourself! If this sounds outrageously unfair as a game analogy, it really is not much different than procreation.
The problem is people will defend by appeals to majority practice and tradition which justifies only itself and not morality which in almost every other situation outside of procreation we’d consider unethical. This becomes special pleading due to long held cultural pressures and preferences.
And you don't seem to understand what a proponent of the problem of evil believes either.
My argument is addressed to those who believe that the evils of the world constitute evidence that God does not exist.
It is not addressed to those fools who think the concept of God does not make sense.
So, step one: try and focus on the relevant parties. I am addressing procreator (or natalist - by which I mean those who believe procreation is typically permissible) proponents of the problem of evil
If you think God can't exist, then you're not someone I am addressing.
I am addressing procreator proponents of the problem of evil.
Now, in order to help those who find it difficulty to follow a line of argument focus on the relevant issue - totally and utterly pointless in a context like this, I know - in my original example I asked you to imagine an omnipotent, omniscient person. Not God. Just an omnipotent omniscient person., Now, I know a little voice is saying 'ooo, but that ain't makking no sense'. Shut that voice up and focus.
And what did I then do? I then asked you to notice that a proponent of the problem of evil thinks a person like that morally ought not to invest a world like this with sentient life unless he was going to alter how it operates.
So, a 'good' omnipotent, omniscient person would either alter how the world operates so as to eliminate the risk of horrendous evils, or they would not invest the world with innocent life.
Forget whether you agree. This is to do with what a proponent of the problem of evil will agree to. And they'll have to agree to what I just said otherwise there is no problem of evil.
And that principle - either ensure the world will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents you make live in it, or do not make innocents live in it - has this form 'Either p or q'
And we are not able to ensure that the world will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents we make live in it.
That means 'not p' is true for us.
From which it follows. as a matter of basic logic, that q. That is, that we ought not to invest the world with innocent life.
1. Either p or q
2. Not p
3. Therefore q
is a deductively valid argument
Jesus!
Now, because that argument is deductively valid, anyone who wishes to deny its conclusion must deny a premise.
The second is clearly undeniable.
So it all hangs on the first.
And note, the question here is not whether you agree with 1, but whether a proponent of the problem of evil agrees with it.
if you think they do not have to agree with it, then explain how such a person could argue that the evils of the world imply God's non existence without appeal to that principle.
Reply to EricH When it came to my dinner invite examples, I wouldn't be surprised if you thought that the thing to focus on is how nice pasta and ragu is.
Shall we go through it again?
No one has to invite James to dinner. No wrong is done if James is not invited to dinner (don't question that. Don't say 'but what if James is really hungry' or something tediously stupid like that. That'd be thicker than a thick thing on thick day. So don't.)
Jane wants to invite James to dinner. But she only has ingredients for meal X. Pssst, it doesn't matter what the meal is. Don't ask about the meal. Don't ask why she only has those ingredients and didn't work harder and acquire more ingredients. That's irrelevant.
Now, given that Jane can only serve James meal x if she invites him for dinner, is it morally ok for her to invite James to dinner?
Depends what x is. A dinner guest is entitled to a meal of a certain quantity and quality.
Let's imagine it is morally ok for her to invite James to dinner.
Well, if it is ok for her to invite James to dinner given she can only serve him x, then it is surely also ok for Marjorie to invite James to dinner and serve him x, even though she is capable of serving him something better.
Now, inviting James to dinner is playing the role of procreation in the above analogy. The meal x is life here in the sensible world as it is.
Jane is us. Marjorie is God. If it is morally ok for us to subject a person to life here in the sensible world as it is, then it is morally ok for God too as well. That is, if it is morally permissible for us to procreate, then there is no problem of evil.
But a proponent of the problem of evil thinks Marjorie did wrong in serving James X. If that was what she was going to serve, she should not have invited him.
So, a proponent of the problem of evil thinks it wrong for Marjorie to invite James over for dinner if all she is going to serve him is meal X.
But that now means that Jane would also be doing wrong if she invites James over for dinner given she can only serve him meal X.
In other words, if God would have been doing wrong if he introduced innocent life into this world as it is, then we too are doing wrong if we introduce innocent llfe into this world as it is.
See?
If it is wrong for Marjorie to serve James X, then it is wrong for Jane to invite James over given she can only serve him x.
If it is ok for Jane to invite James over given she can only serve him x, then it is ok for Marjorie to serve James x (even though she has the ability to serve him something better).
Thus, if it would be wrong for an omnipotent omniscient person to subject innocent persons to life in a world such as this, then it would be wrong for us to as well, given all we can offer is life in a world such as this.
And if it would be morally permissible for a person who can only offer life in world such as this to subject an innocent person to a lifetime in it, then it is morally ok for an omnipotent, omniscient person to do so as well, even though he has the ability to alter how the world operates.
So, if there is a problem of evil for God - and virtually everyone thinks there is (mistakenly, as it happens), then procreation is immoral.
If procreation is not immoral, then there is no problem of evil for God.
They are fair questions. Is God not unjust in allowing millions to suffer? Were my parents not wrong to bring me into this vale of tears? Even if I can get my parents off the hook it may not absolve God. And even if God can get in the clear my parents may still be culpable. They seem to be separate cases. At any rate it distracts attention from any blame that I might carry for making the world a worse place or distressing my parents.
universenessNovember 02, 2022 at 10:41#7532230 likes
:lol: Those who connect anti-life posits with omni god posits, have to muse on why a superhero god does not end the experiment the anti-life people exclaim is a complete failure, based on the evidence of human suffering or/and the futility of human existence. If you believe this supernatural omni exists, then your disagreement is with it. So, you should spend all the time you can, communicating your complaints with it, and not those of us that are mere dots on this universal petri dish, created by your omni god.
We need to leave the god BS in the dirt, like any empty vessel no longer of any use to a progressive intelligent species.
Tell me Universeness what god should we leave in the dirt as BS? Bobs god? Sharon's? John's? Emily's? I wasn't aware you knew every single concept of/interpretation of god possible?
Whatever god you reject is your own personal concept of such an thing. And only that one thing. Which is fine, reject it at will. But perhaps don't pretend you understand everyone else's beliefs/interpretation of reality or what it means to them, whether they term it god, logic, reason, ethics, fundamental principle, etc.
We must maintain everyone's free will to admire and pursue a true meaning of reality with respect to them personally, otherwise we are some autocratic dictator enforcing our beliefs on others whether they want to accept them or not. Hardly justifiable.
Everyone worships something - maybe money, maybe fame, maybe knowledge, maybe humanitarism, maybe a person, maybe a god, maybe an idea, concept or thing. For us to shoot down eachothers beliefs is to damage them/to insult them by ripping their core values to shreds - hardly ethical. All we can do is debate and discuss. And those who have a good command of argument will likely convince others of the errors in their beliefs through reasoning. But none of this comes about with brute force and no explanation.
Nothing is BS, it is simply a belief we disagree with on either reasoned or ethical principles. When you express those issues people are free to agree or disagree and offer an alternative explanation.
No one can determine what is absolutely BS unless they know what is absolutely true by contrast - somehow omniscient, a "know it all."
Are you universeness prepared to proclaim yourself a "know it all" or are you receptive to other peoples ideas/concepts?
universenessNovember 02, 2022 at 19:46#7533190 likes
Tell me Universeness what god should we leave in the dirt as BS? Bobs god? Sharon's? John's? Emily's? I wasn't aware you knew every single concept of/interpretation of god possible?
All gods. I have no problem with someone's personal woo woo regarding their personal god.
They are welcome to it but if you preach it to me as something supernatural and real then have the evidence to support it or expect me to treat it as nothing more than your own personal coping mechanism. I am interested in that which is evidence based only.
Whatever god you reject is your own personal concept of such an thing. And only that one thing. Which is fine, reject it at will. But perhaps don't pretend you understand everyone else's beliefs/interpretation of reality or what it means to them, whether they term it god, logic, reason, ethics, fundamental principle, etc.
You can choose to give mindspace to the woo woo beliefs of others if you wish, it's your brain space.
I am not pretending anything, I just don't assign the same credence to concepts like god, logic, reason, human ethics or human fundamental principle. But you can, if you want to. Good luck with that.
Everyone worships something - maybe money, maybe fame, maybe knowledge, maybe humanitarism, maybe a person, maybe a god, maybe an idea, concept or thing.
That seems to be your analysis and employment of the word 'worship,' but it's certainly not mine.
I can experience heights of emotion, yes, as all humans can but I have never applied such a manic term as 'worship,' to any of my drivers or goals in life.
For us to shoot down eachothers beliefs is to damage them/to insult them by ripping their core values to shreds - hardly ethical. All we can do is debate and discuss. And those who have a good command of argument will likely convince others of the errors in their beliefs through reasoning. But none of this comes about with brute force and no explanation.
If that is an analysis of my posting on TPF then I reject it completely and I would suggest that certainly on this thread, I have provided as much evidence for my position as any of the anti-life posters.
If you think I am being a bit harsh towards the anti-life posters, then fine but perhaps that's just because I am not as tender a foot as you. You reveal your own conceit with "And those who have a good command of argument will likely convince others of the errors in their beliefs through reasoning." as I assume you are attempting to disguise a compliment to yourself.
Nothing is BS, it is simply a belief we disagree with on either reasoned or ethical principles. When you express those issues people are free to agree or disagree and offer an alternative explanation.
No one can determine what is absolutely BS unless they know what is absolutely true by contrast - somehow omniscient, a "know it all."
Are you universeness prepared to proclaim yourself a "know it all" or are you receptive to other peoples ideas/concepts?
Yes, I am completely open to the ideas of others but not when they type BS.
Donald Trump is the most intelligent man on the planet earth today!
I saw god's face in my cornflakes this morning!
Napoleon was actually a lizard alien from an exoplanet in the Vega star system!
I can tell you all the major events in your future!
I can speak to dead people.
Any of these seem like BS to you Mr Benj?
They are welcome to it but if you preach it to me as something supernatural and real then have the evidence to support it or expect me to treat it as nothing more than your own personal coping mechanism. I am interested in that which is evidence based
Happy to explain. Bring it on. Give me all you got.
I am not pretending anything, I just don't assign the same credence to concepts like god, logic, reason, human ethics or human fundamental principle. But you can, if you want to. Good luck with that.
You don't give the same credence in concepts like logic, reason, human ethics? You don't believe these things are not worth credence? (belief). Tell me then what do you believe in place of ethics, reason logic etc? Surely something you deem more enlightening I'm eager to hear all about it. I'm not one bit intimidated or afraid of having such an argument. Let it all be put out there.
And those who have a good command of argument will likely convince others of the errors in their beliefs through reasoning." as I assume you are attempting to disguise a compliment to yourself.
You assume incorrectly. I need not do any such thing. I don't compliment myself beyond anyone else's personal values. I value discussion above all. The verdict is up to others to decide. I simply have confidence that my views aren't intended to purposefully aggravate and harm others for the sake of it.
Yes, I am completely open to the ideas of others but not when they type BS.
And I suppose you're the be all and end all déterminer of what is BS? That's quite the claim. I hope it holds up to rigorous discourse, not simply because "you said so".
Of course they do. I have common sense and so do you. But citing extreme examples to highlight absurdity is hardly useful as we both already know they're easily contradicted.
What is truly valuable/useful is arguing those beliefs you genuinely believe in and don't wish to be contradicted. Which I'm happy to oblige in doing if they seem unreasonable.
As I said before and will repeat for clarity, I'm not perturbed by the prospect of arguing my points against yours to establish what the actual case is. Do your very worst. Let reason pervade /determine who has the reigns here.
universenessNovember 02, 2022 at 20:23#7533230 likes
You don't give the same credence in concepts like logic, reason, human ethcis?
I don't give the same credence to posits about the supernatural compared to the credence I give to posits which are based on logic or reason or human ethical imperatives etc. I hope that clears up your confusion about what I am actually typing.
Of course they do. I have common sense and so do you. But citing extreme examples to highlight absurdity is hardly useful as we both already know they're easily contradicted.
Ok let's try a less extreme example.
An omnipotent being can exist and yet not be responsible for evil or what humans label evil.
To me that's just BS because its illogical. If a creature is omnipotent, then it has full control over suffering. What do you think?
don't give the same credence to posits about the supernatural than the credence I give to posits which are based on logic or reason or human ethical imperatives etc. I hope that clears up your confusion about what I am actually typing.
And what do you believe is "supernatural"? Please clarify.
An omnipotent being can exist and yet not be responsible for evil or what humans label evil.
An omnipotent object (person) cannot exist based on physics and thermodynamics. A single object cannot overcome the restriction of its own minute objectivity - a person cannot physically move mountains for example. It (a person) however, can choose to take responsibility for evil by not ignoring it in the world around them. A person can choose not to contribute to evil by figuring out what exactly it is (defining it) and taking the opposite course.
The universe as a whole unit on the other hand - containing all energy and thus degrees of potency, is omnipotent, but as a system of opposites which are neccesary and internal to its system cannot address the concept of evil. What is "evil" is relative to conscious entities within the universe - objects (people).
universenessNovember 02, 2022 at 20:48#7533290 likes
It (a person) however, can choose to take responsibility for evil by not ignoring it in the world around them. A person can choose not to contribute to evil by figuring out what exactly it is (defining it) and taking the opposite course.
What has that got to do with whether or not an omnipotent creature can exist?
he universe as a whole unit on the other hand - containing all energy and thus degrees of potency, is omnipotent, but as a system of opposites which are neccesary and internal to its system cannot address the concept of evil. What is "evil" is relative to conscious entities within the universe - objects (people).
The universe may be one of many so you have no compelling evidence that any singular universe can be perceived as omnipotent. The universe may also be cyclical, so again cannot be perceived as omni anything. As you type, the concept of evil is a human concept, its relevance to the universe is not understood and it is BS to suggest otherwise. Is your basic complaint here that I think the term BS is warranted at times and you don't? I have already suggested that perhaps you are simply more tenderfooted than I. You are not offering much reasoning for your distaste towards me and I don't really care if its just that, your particular taste, when involved in discourse with others. You can hold hands with the anti-life posters if you want, as you try to reason with them that they are wrong. I choose to apply the term BS towards them when they type BS. If you think there are no occasions where you would employ the term BS then that's up to you. Go for it, let anyone who wants to cover you in BS, do so. You don't seem to mind.
It exists as a concept no? A concept/idea in your mind right now or how else would you be speaking of it? How can someone (something that exists) describe something that doesn't exist in any format - imagined or otherwise. Unless you are saying that concepts/beliefs/imagination doesn't exist which we can extend to basically all of the content of a mind. Therefore you would be suggesting "the mind" doesn't exist.
So you agree with me then. If you insist that an omnipotent creature can exist, then you are in BS territory. yes?
Yes I agree with you that an omnipotent "creature" (object/living thing) doesnt exist. I do think on the other hand that an omnipotent system exists (the universe).
The universe may be one of many so you have no compelling evidence that any singular universe can be perceived as omnipotent
You have no compelling evidence that multiple universes exist. And by the "universe" I mean "everything that exists" which would thus still be the full set, other universes would merely be a subset of "thee universe" (entirety) in that case.
Just as the infinity of numbers between 0 and 1 is a subset of the infinity of real numbers (1,2,3,4 etc) on the number line.
The universe may also be cyclical, so again cannot be perceived as omni anything
I don't really understand how the universe being cyclical negates the idea of it being omnipotent. If energy cannot be created or destroyed (first law of thermodynamics) then it is finite in quantity (yet still omnipotent as it is "all energy" available to the system).
Whether that sum of energy is arranged in a cycle or not seems irrelevant/incoherent with the argument.
You are not offering much reasoning for your distaste towards me and I don't really care
Whoa cowboy. I have no distaste towards you - someone engaging in philosophocal argument is harmless. I don't know you. We are merely in the process of discourse, you have your views and I have mine, I see no space for personal attack only challenging beliefs. Doesn't seem reasonably to me to have distaste for a person as people are not equal to/defined by the beliefs they hold. Beliefs and opinions change.
If you think there are no occasions where you would employ the term BS then that's up to you.
Well as far as I know the term "BS" is used mostly a quick, informal, sharp, derogative and aggressive term used to disable other people's beliefs more by intimidation and blunt hostility than welcome discourse. More formal academic terms for "BS" would be "falsity", "contradiction", "deception", "deceit", "paradox", "illogicality" or "irrationality". Many synonyms indeed, a bit less emotionally charged and personal than the word "BS" but I guess that's up to the person.
universenessNovember 02, 2022 at 21:31#7533400 likes
It exists as a concept no? A concept/idea in your mind right now or how else would you be speaking of it?
So do fairies and orcs and a race of omnipotent beings called the Q in Star Trek. But none of them have any existent either and to suggest they have is BS.
How can someone (something that exists) describe something that doesn't exist in any formt - imagined or otherwise. Unless you are saying that concepts/beliefs/imagination doesn't exist which we can extend to basically all of the content of a mind. Therefore you would be suggesting "the mind" doesn't exist.
By imposition of that which is existent, ME or YOU. What is the beginning or end of a circle? The same place on the circle, I can choose where it is, so can you. This allows me to separate real from imagined.
I think therefore I am, and solipsism is BS nonsense.
Just as the infinity of numbers between 0 and 1 is a subset of the infinity of real numbers (1,2,3,4 etc) on the number line.
Infinity is not a measure, it is a concept just like paradox is not a state of propositional logic, it is also just a concept. We are unable to take such concepts any further than we have taken them in the past 100 years or more. We probably need another million years of scientific effort before we can garnish any real meaning from such concepts.
I don't really understand how the universe being cyclical negates the idea of it being omnipotent.
How can an omnipotent system be entropic? Chaos-order-chaos, or singularity-expansion-singularity-expansion, with no ability to apply intent is not omnipotent.
Paint your wagon anyway you want! I judge by what you type not what you think you typed. You obviously disapprove of the way I engage in discourse with others, I would call that distaste.
It's ok, you don't have to tenderfoot around me. I am very resilient.
So do fairies and orcs and a race of omnipotent beings called the Q in Star Trek. But none of them have any existent either and to suggest they have is BS.
But they are information that can be shared/communicated right? And elicit emotions, new ideas, articulation etc?
Tell me if your family member told you they felt sad would you believe that was BS too as it has no existent outside themselves? Or would you assume their emotions exist and are thus valid and due consideration? Is this not the basis of empathy? Believing in what others say about themselves without objective proof external to them?
By imposition of that which is existent, ME or YOU. What is the beginning or end of a circle? The same place on the circle, I can choose where it is, so can you. This allows me to separate real from imagined.
I think therefore I am, and solipsism is BS nonsense.
Can you explain how your circle analogy links with the mind or the existence of you and I. I seem unable to make the leap between the two concepts and perhaps more elaboration would help
How can an omnipotent system be entropic? Chaos-order-chaos, or singularity-expansion-singularity-expansion, with no ability to apply intent is not omnipotent.
Are conscious beings like us not the part of the universe that demonstrates intent? If we have no intent/desire/agency then we wouldn't have free will would we?
I think entropy - the tendency for energy to spread away from itself is countered by negentropy - the ability of systems to self organise through gravity, then self assembly of prebiotic chemicals, then life as a strictly regulated system then evolution of that system into conscious awareness which further organises knowledge into strictly categorised information and relationships etc - the external system becoming more chaotic and spread out but the internal system (self) becoming more organised and coalesced.
You obviously disapprove of the way I engage in discourse with others, I would call that distaste.
It's ok, you don't have to tenderfoot around me. I am very resilient.
To project "obviousness" on other people's minds/intent suggests you somehow understand them better than they do themselves. Perhaps my challenging of your beliefs/views came across as distaste but that was not my intention. And in such a case I'm sorry. I didn't mean to come across as distasteful.
Any viewpoint - agreeable or not to me - is insightful, it holds informative value.
But they are information that can be shared/communicated right? And elicit emotions, new ideas, articulation etc?
I am most interested in information that has empirical support not the musings of entertaining authors of human fiction. I place fairy in a different category of information, don't you?
Tell me if your family member told you they felt sad would you believe that was BS too as it has no existent outside themselves? Or would you assume their emotions exist and are thus valid and due consideration? Is this not the basis of empathy? Believing in what others say about themselves without objective proof?
You seem to depend too much on generalised conceptualisations rather than paying attention to the much more interesting, and reliable detailed case by case approach.
The family member may be a person who has cried wolf many times before or they may be sad, that's a judgement call based on your relationship. What has that got to do with whether human emotions actually exist. There is biological and neurological evidence that human emotions exist along with an enormous amount of observational evidence. What more proof do you need? Do you agree that you may show empathy and believe what another says about themselves, let them into your house and then watch them kill your family? Perhaps you need to be careful when you judge the intentions of others.
Can you explain how your circle analogy links with the mind or the existence of you and I. I seem unable to make the leap between the two concepts and perhaps more elaboration would help
I will try, The universe has no intent that we are aware of. We are not a networked consciousness, we experience individuality. There is me, myself and I (triune brain system) and everyone else.
I/WE demonstrate intent, so this could be conceived in its totality, as the intent of the universe.
My circle example can demonstrate this through individual choice of where a particular circle begins and ends (same place). Individually we can all choose any position we like on the circle. Every position on the circle is on offer, in this way the universe can be 'investigated' by creatures such as us. The fact that we can perform such investigations in the individual way we can (but we can also communicate our findings to each other), is evidence that there IS a YOU and an I. It is a demonstrable way to support 'I think therefore I am.'
Are conscious beings like us not the part of the universe that demonstrates intent?
Yes. But the intent is individual, not universal, although there may be some concept of totality that we can suggest is some kind of emerging panpsychism but based on current evidence ...... meh!
universenessNovember 02, 2022 at 22:07#7533510 likes
To project "obviousness" on other people's minds/intent suggests you somehow understand them better than they do themselves. Perhaps my challenging of your beliefs/views came across as distaste but that was not my intention. And in such a case I'm sorry. I didn't mean to come across as distasteful.
Apology accepted and appreciated.
universenessNovember 02, 2022 at 22:15#7533550 likes
Can somebody sum up just why anti-natalism is such a popular topic?
Same reason why so many humans are still attracted to the 'freak show,' imo.
Finding out why some members of a species would vote for not just terminating themselves, but would vote for the termination of all life that is capable of suffering is fascinating, especially when it is based on free choice and not any law of nature. No amount of happiness can compensate for any amount of suffering it seems. Is there any cut off percentage for the anti-life people? If the average amount of human suffering against human happiness was 45% suffering and 55% happiness would that be good enough or do they want something like 5% suffering and 95% happiness?
I am most interested in information that has empirical support not the musings of entertaining authors of human fiction. I place fairy in a different category of information, don't you?
What do you mean by "empirical" support? Do you mean objectively measurable by scientific method? And if so how do you go about objectively measuring/proving empirically the existence of ethics? Or the existence of the observer that applies empirical method/scientific method for that matter.
If you cannot prove empirically ethics then I suppose we have no use for it as it doesn't exist. And we must open the doors of science to all avenues and cut up living people to collect the empirical evidence we can't collect when theyre dead. Maybe the empirical evidence pertaining to chemicals/ neurotransmitters released during pain, suffering, fear and murder.
Or perhaps there are things beyond the grasp of empirical collection? Things we should consider not to commit atrocities in pursuit of all empirical evidences.
There is biological and neurological evidence that human emotions exist along with an enormous amount of observational evidence. What more proof do you need?
In order for there to be neurological evidence that humans have emotions the hard problem of consciousness would have to have already been resolved. Which it hasn't. So I'm calling your bluff on this one..
As for requiring evidence I don't need objective evidence that others have emotions. I have them. And thus I believe others also have them in their likeness to me as being human.
I use subjective evidence (trust) not objective scientifically proven evidence that they have emotions.
You said you only believe in things upheld by empirical evidence and yet naturally assume people have emotions. Which definition of empirical do you use then exactly and can it be applied both to physical objects through scientific standardised measurement and also unique individuals with there individual experiences, feeling and emotions simultaneously? I think you contradicted yourself in your previous arguments and didn't spot the contradiction.
What do you mean by "empirical" support? Do you mean objectively measurable by scientific method?
Well yes, especially for 'important information,' about the structure and workings of the universe but I also consider as empirical, my own empirical evidence for such information as 'She can be trusted,' 'He is a good guy,' etc. My empirical evidence would be my own observation of what they do and say. No doubt you apply a similar approach yourself, yes?
And if so how do you go about objectively measuring/proving empirically the existence of ethics? Or the existence of the observer that applies empirical method/scientific method for that matter.
Ethics are memorialised as words on paper and you measure by observing attempts to apply them.
I can act as an observer which convinces me that observers exist. I already typed to you that I think solipsism is nonsense.
If you cannot prove empirically ethics then I suppose we have no use for it as it doesn't exist. And we must open the doors of science to all avenues and cut up living people to collect the empirical evidence we can't collect when theyre dead. Maybe the empirical evidence pertaining to chemicals/ neurotransmitters released during pain, suffering, fear and murder.
This sound like a theistic viewpoint that posits morality can only come from a god.
Human morality and human ethics would not allow such behaviour. I would not vote for cutting up living people to collect some perceived evidence we can't collect when they are dead, would you?
Your statement is a bit mad, is it not?
Or perhaps there are things beyond the grasp of empirical collection? Things we should consider not to commit atrocities in pursuit of all empirical evidences.
I don't follow your logic here, Perhaps you could reword it. The last sentence makes little sense.
universenessNovember 02, 2022 at 22:48#7533650 likes
In order for there to be neurological evidence that humans have emotions the hard problem of consciousness would have to have already been resolved. Which it hasn't. So I'm calling your bluff on this one..
No bluff involved, I am only reffering to my basic understanding of what neuroscience has and is investigating. A very basic example from wiki:
Jenny sees a snake.
Jenny cognitively assesses the snake in her presence. Cognition allows her to understand it as a danger.
Her brain activates the adrenal glands which pump adrenaline through her blood stream, resulting in increased heartbeat.
Jenny screams and runs away.
There has been a lot more detailed work done in the field of neuroscience to identify which parts of the brain light up during certain emotions and then much more detailed work on what is going on in those particular brain regions etc. I have only a laymans knowledge of the area but they have made a lot of progress. Have a look at my thread https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13222/consciousness-microtubules-and-the-physics-of-the-brain
You said you only believe in things upheld by empirical evidence and yet naturally assume people have emotions.
No, I typed that I give more credence to information backed by empirical evidence than I do to information not supported by such. There is plenty of evidence that people have emotions.
universenessNovember 02, 2022 at 22:55#7533680 likes
Which definition of empirical do you use then exactly and can it be applied both to physical objects through scientific standardised measurement and also unique individuals with there individual experiences, feeling and emotions simultaneously? I think you contradicted yourself in your previous arguments and didn't spot the contradiction.
Empirical in that it can be tested/investigated by experiment.
Yes, you can test the emotional responses of individuals, either in a lab or even personally in a social environment. We do it every day in our relationships, do we not? I still don't see the contradiction you are suggesting I have made. I am sure you can clearly highlight it more convincingly.
Can somebody sum up just why anti-natalism is such a popular topic?
It's so boring and vacuous that, by becoming obsessed with it, it reinforces the adherents beloved notion that life is.tout court, boring and empty. Because it's a kind of constant complaint it delights those who love to constantly complain, and attracts others who love to call the complainers out for being whimps and whingers.
schopenhauer1November 03, 2022 at 07:15#7534300 likes
While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged.
While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged.
While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged.
Is antinatalism the answer?
Perhaps the lure is the provocative nature of this absurd idea. After all, if everyone believed in antinatalism, we as a human race would be wiped out of the Earth. Too bad for all of our domesticated animals.
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 09:56#7534530 likes
While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged.
Why do you think so many people work so hard to alleviate suffering? Such as the whole medical profession and those involved in medical research and why do you think so many people get involved in protest, political movements, philosophy, debate about how we might live better lives? Is it not to reduce the number of lives of unbearable suffering?
Empirical in that it can be tested/investigated by experiment.
Yes, you can test the emotional responses of individuals, either in a lab or even personally in a social environment. We do it every day in our relationships, do we not? I still don't see the contradiction you are suggesting I have made. I am sure you can clearly highlight it more convincingly.
Ah okay yes it was just confusing as scientists base their empirical evidence on objectively measurable/replicable/repeatable results that can be performed by any other scientist and get the same outcome.
Whilst individuals base their empirical evidence on their own individual observations and beliefs about one another. So it seems the criteria (subjective) or (objective) to be empirical differs depending on who you ask. That's why I wasn't sure exactly what you meant by your use of the term.
Well yes, especially for 'important information,' about the structure and workings of the universe but I also consider as empirical, my own empirical evidence for such information as 'She can be trusted,' 'He is a good guy,' etc. My empirical evidence would be my own observation of what they do and say. No doubt you apply a similar approach yourself, yes?
Yes you're right. That was the confusion I had, I needed clarification that you used the 2 forms depending on situational context.
. I already typed to you that I think solipsism is nonsense.
On the contrary I think consciousness is fundamentally possible to occur because of how physics is set up (quantum and Newtonian). Especially the quantum phenomenon of determination of a result through observation.
I don't think any one single observer (you or I) are the only minds that exist. That's totally absurd. But I think the consciousness that underlies our ability to have minds is innate to nature itself. You're free to disagree.
This sound like a theistic viewpoint that posits morality can only come from a god.
Human morality and human ethics would not allow such behaviour. I would not vote for cutting up living people to collect some perceived evidence we can't collect when they are dead, would you?
Your statement is a bit mad, is it not?
It may "sound theistic" to you but that's your interpretation. Your words not mine. I don't really know why you're suggesting I meant morality can only come from a god.
What I actually said is scientific method is limited - in that it cannot pervade our innate ethical principles. We are human. They're human ethics. If a scientist did experiments like that the very great majority of humanity woukd agree that its unethical/immoral. We don't need to be theistic in that regard.
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 10:53#7534600 likes
Reply to Benj96
Empirical is defined as:
[b]based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic:
"they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"
synonyms:
observed · seen · factual · actual · real · verifiable · first-hand · experimental · experiential · practical · pragmatic · hands-on · applied · heuristic · empiric[/b]
So, empirical evidence is not exclusively tethered to the rigor demonstrated in the scientific method. We also have the ability to apply a 'credence level,' or error margins etc.
Ah okay yes it was just confusing as scientists base their empirical evidence on objectively measurable/replicable/repeatable results that can be performed by any other scientist and get the same outcome.
So, if we consider the application of rigor in the scientific method and the broader range that may be applied in general terms for the label 'empirical evidence.' When posters like @bartricks try to employ propositional logic, to help posit the existence of an omnipotent, which either has a desire to create lifeforms which can suffer horribly (akin to the problem of evil) or he posits, it cannot have such a desire, as it is also omnibenevolent. He then suggests that his conflation of logic actually proves that any theist who considers the problem of evil, a challenge to their theism, MUST declare themselves antinatalist because such an omni god would not create this world. So therefore, they MUST vote for our extinction as he would.
You are moaning at me for calling his proposal and the logic he is using, bullshit. I think I am quite justified in using that term as an emotive way of emphasising how intensely I think he is wrong. Why does my need to express that emotional intensity, warrant your, in my opinion, over the top response to it. You felt that it was valid to express your own emotive reactions, such as; Quoting Benj96
I wasn't aware you knew every single concept of/interpretation of god possible?
And I suppose you're the be all and end all déterminer of what is BS? That's quite the claim. I hope it holds up to rigorous discourse, not simply because "you said so".
I accept that you did apologise for some of the above attacks, but I just list them to highlight your own choice of 'turn of phrase' when you feel incensed and yet your annoyance is based on displeasure at my use of the term BS and that you think I pose as an arrogant 'know it all.'
Can you see the contradiction here?
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 10:54#7534610 likes
I don't think any one single observer (you or I) are the only minds that exist. That's totally absurd. But I think the consciousness that underlies our ability to have minds is innate to nature itself. You're free to disagree.
Is 'totally absurd' merely your polite version of BS? :naughty: So you agree with me that solipsism is nonsense? Are you declaring yourself a panpsychist?
It may "sound theistic" to you but that's your interpretation. Your words not mine. I don't really know why you're suggesting I meant morality can only come from a god.
Ok, I accept that my interpretation of what you typed did not suggest you were a secret theist.
I fully accept my status as a fallible mind, after all, if I don't admit to being wrong at times then you will continue to label me an arrogant prick who thinks he 'knows it all.' :grin:
See these two terms many people would argue can be contradictions. For example "Anna observes John and determines he is upset. She says his sadness is fact because she observed it.
Others observe John and determine that he is not upset. They say his lack of sadness is fact because they have observed it.
They may determine that because the vast majority determined that John is not sad then Anna must be wrong. However this cannot be proven as absolute. What we are missing is John's input as he is the only one that knows johns internal mood/mindstate. And furthermore everyone is observing based on preconceived ideas - of the relationship between observed behaviour and emotional state. None of which are considering addressing their own preconceptions instead of making a judgement about John.
All of them are using the same empirical approach with differing conclusions.
Ok, I accept that my interpretation of what you typed did not suggest you were a secret theist.
I fully accept my status as a fallible mind, after all, if I don't admit to being wrong at times then you will continue to label me an arrogant prick who thinks he 'knows it all.' :grin:
We are all fallible in this way. I have already made erroneous assumptions about what you meant by the words you used in this thread. But you clarified then well and then I understood. So I can totally relate.
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 11:17#7534670 likes
What I actually said is scientific method is limited - in that it cannot pervade our innate ethical principles. We are human. They're human ethics. If a scientist did experiments like that the very great majority of humanity woukd agree that its unethical/immoral. We don't need to be theistic in that regard.
It probably suffices to type that we both agree that the word 'perfect' (as in perfect method/system/person etc) is another one of those concepts, it is not a measure.
What is the most accurate measurement of the speed of light in a vacuum?
Is it 299,792,458 metres per second?
Surely we can get much much more accuracy that that!
Given another million years of science, will we get the 'perfect' measure?
What would be the significance if we did?
My current answer? YEP, you guessed it, I have absolutely no f****** idea but I certainly wont use that to suggest that the fact that it seems that the human race cannot reach any perfections, depite the fact the concept exists means that we are forced to slot in an omni god of the gaps, declare that humans will always be imperfect and will suffer for being so and therefore we should surrender to the BS peddled by the anti-life posters. Hah! Those pessimists can take a running jump off the highest cliff on Earth along with any other mindless lemmings. Sorry, if you find my 'turn of phrase' pressing.
My intentions was to highlight that nothing is BS in the dynamic of "ALL" opinions and their interrelation with one another. Beliefs are believed to be true by the people who hold them otherwise they wouldnt be held.
That is a matter of demonstrating patience and empathy for people with what one thinks are BS beliefs. Because just saying "that is BS" is pretty useless in resolving the contradiction.
To dismiss them as BS without going to the effort of examining and arguing them is naturally not going to lead to understanding by the other as to why you think the belief is erroneous. If anything they will just consider the person touting BS as being inconsiderate and invalidating others without reasoning it. They will think such a person is arrogant and rude.
And I suppose you're the be all and end all déterminer of what is BS? That's quite the claim. I hope it holds up to rigorous discourse, not simply because "you said so".
It wasn't designed as a personal attack but a device to implore you to explain. As only through discourse do we elicit whether we are on board with one anothers ideas or not.
Being resolutely sure of your opinion, confirming your own reasoning without sharing it with others. Without speaking your mind leaves nothing left for others to do but to define you by your own certainty - as some sort of god (know it all) and one they have no access to because they will not demonstrate this reasoning as to why they know it all. A good omniscient being would share that knowledge with others instead of stomping on the ground and just reiterating that they know it all. Claim is there, but no evidence.
Surely we can get much much more accuracy that that!
The same goes for irrational numbers like Pi, Phi, and e. We can always improve the accuracy but because they never repeat themselves we can never make that accuracy discrete and full/complete. It would have to go on to infinity. So the accuracy we have for irrational things will never be perfect.
Perfection is for the discrete. It is something that can be applied to limited finite things that cannot get any better. But not systems of constant change or infinities.
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 11:38#7534700 likes
See these two terms many people would argue can be contradictions. For example "Anna observes John and determines he is upset. She says his sadness is fact because she observed it.
Well no, as Anna's output can be incorrect despite her input having a measure of validity when described as empirical. John does look upset/sad but perhaps he just ate something that didnt agree with him and he is not actually mentally sad, just physically compromised. John can provide verbal conformation either way. We know about observational relativity, and we consider it when dealing with empirical evidence. We know observers in space can report CORRECTLY, different results for the same observation such as the particle was observed or there was no particle based on their frame of reference.
We are all fallible in this way. I have already made erroneously assumptions about what you meant by the words you used in this thread. So I can totally relate.
But to dismiss them as BS without going to the effort of examining and arguing them is naturally not going to lead to understanding by the other as to why you think the belief is erroneous. If anything they will just consider the person touting BS as being inconsiderate and invalidating others without reasoning it. They will think such a person is arrogant and rude.
The problem here is that you are assuming that your interlocuters always have honourable intentions and that is just not the case. If you were debating Donald Trump in front of a mixed ability audience. You would leave yourself almost defenceless, if you are unwilling to attack him. His fake news and conflated logic would defeat you in the minds of many of the audience because you were too busy making sure you were not 'inconsiderate' towards him and meantime so many minds are being poisoned by his BS.
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 11:41#7534710 likes
Perfection is for the discrete. It is something that can be applied to limited finite things that cannot get any better. But not systems of constant change or infinities.
But do you agree that it is concept areas such as infinity, paradox, perfection, the omnis etc which are the few remaining places that characters such as antinatalists and theists still find their pulpits.
The problem here is that you are assuming that your interlocuters always have honourable intentions and that is just not the case
Well I am an optimist. You can call it naive if you wish. But its just in my nature. I assume the best until shown the worst. I also think people can and do often change their views when faced with well reasoned discourse - they can become more or less honourable. That's their perogative. Mine, is to present the arguments I have available to me.
Anna's conclusion could be wrong yes. John may be perfectly fine.
But Anna's conclusion could be the only correct one (if John felt comfortable around only Anna and expressed his sadness, but then saved face in front of everyone else because of not feeling comfortable to express his true feelings, lying about Anna claiming he was sad the the larger group to Anna's disbelief.
The verifiability of the true nature of the situation from the perspective of any of the participants within the situation is difficult and limited by what each person is willing to explain.
Not all of the information is accessible to each person.
Only us the audience, third observers - have the details of each of their beliefs and their behaviours. And even then still we can only hypothesise the possible choices they may make, but we won't know which until they do.
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 11:57#7534750 likes
Reply to Benj96
I too am an optimist but look what can happen if you don't combat the nonsense peddled by others as truth and fact. Recent examples include the storming of the congress building, personal attack on the family of politicians (Nancy Pelosi's husband) or on the politicians themselves such as the killing of MP Jo Cox in the UK. I could start to list historical assassinations and talk about the rise of fascism in the lead up to WW II but suffice to quote the old favourite. 'Evil thrives when good people do nothing.'
I personally consider antinatalism to be an evil trope which does nothing but attempt to dismiss all human attempts to improve themselves. I will forever combat it.
Very creditable. But if it ever takes over then it will soon die out. Because we will soon die out. And there's no replacement plan aside from more babies. It's a self-limiting theory.
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 12:07#7534780 likes
Reply to Benj96
Yes, but in your Scenario, it turns out that Anna actually did find out the truth of Johns situation because he trusted only her as his confessor.
So, to me, you are suggesting that 'the truth is out there,' but you have to approach with a sceptical mind. Just because YOU THINK an anti-life poster is making logical posits about antinatalism. Do your own dissection of every word they type and their combinatorial interrelationships. If you cannot tear their argument to pieces, then look at the attempts of others to do so. If you still find their arguments compelling, then join them. I suspect this process is the reason why they continue to have a tiny number of convinced followers.
I too am an optimist but look what can happen if you don't combat the nonsense peddled by others as truth and fact.
Yes I agree. Hence why I discuss things with people (big things, trivial things, personal ones, political ones). Arguing for what's right/ideals is activism despite people's use of the term "actions speak louder than words". They forgot that speaking is action. I try to raise awareness through discussion of both my own fallability (wherever the flaw in my thinning exists now) and that of others.
I also dislike antinatalism. I did a whole discussion with someone earlier not sure which thread where I expressly disagreed with it.
What I do believe though us that it's not going anywhere. That's why I said no beliefs are BS, in the sense that they exist for a reason - even if the only reason is to stand as an unreasonable thing to think. Just as evil isn't going anywhere as a concept. As without it we don't really have free will and good woukd be meaningless.
People drift towards antinatalism and people drift away from it again based on the persuasion of others.
schopenhauer1November 03, 2022 at 12:08#7534800 likes
I also dislike antinatalism. I did a whole discussion with someone earlier not sure which thread where I expressly disagreed with it.
What I do believe though us that it's not going anywhere. That's why I said no beliefs are BS, in the sense that they exist for a reason - even if the only reason is to stand as an unreasonable thing to think. Just as evil isn't going anywhere as a concept. As without it we don't really have free will and good woukd be meaningless.
People drift towards antinatalism and people drift away from it again based on the persuasion of others.
Casually associating AN with evil, whilst ironically, no one has to experience evil in the first place with AN. It’s a political position with ANs against paternalistic assumptions about unnecessarily creating unnecessary harms for others, and assuming for others that they must like this game or kill themsemves (a hard thing to go through with).
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 12:18#7534860 likes
Casually associating AN with evil, whilst ironically, no one has to experience evil in the first place with AN
No one gets to experience anything good then either do they? Would you be satisfied taking away all the people in love (with eachother, with their kids, with their jobs, with food, entertainment friends etc, people living their life the best they can and enjoying it) just for the sake of not existing at all? Just so that two opposites can be neutralised and nothing can or ever occurs again.
Sounds super boring tbh.
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 12:21#7534880 likes
Reply to Benj96 To me the central question of antinatalism isn't whether people should or shouldn't experience all of those things, but whether an individual should get to decide on another's behalf that they should.
Impositions, even small ones, are generally regarded as immoral. Birth is one giant imposition.
Does it matter whether the imposition is made with the individual's best interest at heart? I don't think so.
schopenhauer1November 03, 2022 at 12:28#7534920 likes
Would you be satisfied taking away all the people in love (with eachother, with their kids, with their jobs, with food, entertainment friends etc, people living their life the best they can and enjoying it) just for the sake of not existing at all?
I’m not taking away anything from anyone. But if you explore that implication you would be facing problems of using peoples suffering for personal gains. That’s your arguments problem though, not ANs.
Impositions, even small ones, are generally regarded as immoral. Birth is one giant imposition.
Does it matter whether the imposition is made with the individual's best interest at heart? I don't think so.
Exactly!
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 12:29#7534940 likes
Reply to Benj96
Thanks for the interesting exchange. I'm away offline for a while to do some other stuff and lick all those wounds you inflicted on me. :joke:
To me the central question of antinatalism isn't whether people should or shouldn't experience all of those things, but whether an individual should get to decide on another's behalf that they should.
Yes that's why we have a moral imperative if we want to exist to help eachother. Then you're not deciding to exist instead of someone else but through them, with them
Impositions, even small ones, are generally regarded as immoral. Birth is one giant imposition.
Yes you can't impose on anyone. But a baby is born and its existence somehow already imposes on others through no fault of their own. So the best they can do is grow up, help others and in that way try to mitigate the blame, shame, guilt etc that comes with ignoring others that exist and are in need
And yet it's merely hypothetical because you're not omnipotent - you don't have the ability to make antinatalism come to fruition. So we should probably just settle for what we do have - the fact that we are here already.
Sentient beings that have such dilemmas and philosophical arguments would be sure to evolve again to occupy the niche currently occupied by humans in nature if all of humanity were to self annihilate. Maybe some other primate over millions of years would go through the same processes of adaptation under the same pressures exerted by nature and re-emerge.
Re-emergence of species is well documented by biologists. So the argument would just be postponed until next time wouldnt it
I’m not taking away anything from anyone. But if you explore that implication you would be facing problems of using peoples suffering for personal gains. That’s your arguments problem though, not ANs.
I'm merely saying that existence is polarised. Non-existence is neutral. If one wants to exist they must contend with navigating those opposites - the good, the bad. Etc
But they have a choice in that case dont they. To improve or worsen the situation.
You can have Good, co-operative humanitarian systems where evil is maximised to the most conceptual idea possible and minimised in the most physically acted way.
That's what entertainment is. When we indulge the thought of good and evil at war with one another without ever manifesting actual criminal things/evil acts against eachother.
That way both evil and good can exist (evil as a concept) and good as the physical world. And a good physically world is an acceptable reason to want to exist. Its our choice whether we do that.
schopenhauer1November 03, 2022 at 13:05#7535030 likes
Yes that's why we have a moral imperative if we want to exist to help eachother. Then you're not deciding to exist instead of someone else but through them, with them
That does not change the nature of an imposition.
If I impose something on you, with the intention of "helping you through it", that doesn't suddenly make my act of imposing any less immoral.
But a baby is born and its existence somehow already imposes on others through no fault of their own.
The baby bears no blame, of course. The parents do. To me, antinatalism is about the choice to have children, not about what to do when the child is already there.
schopenhauer1November 03, 2022 at 13:15#7535060 likes
The baby bears no blame, of course. The parents do. To me, antinatalism is about the choice to have children, not about what to do when the child is already there.
No not an issue of antinatalism as a concept. But it is a "you as a person" issue no? I mean im sure you go about living your life, enjoying things, taking care of your loved ones, watching TV etc. Because all these things are good right? You desire them.
How then do you reconcile you antinatalist ideal with your current life? It doesn't make sense to me. Everyone who continues to brave it in the world, to strive forward and survive, has hope. They have to. People who lose almost all hope and fall into the deepest pits of depression are vulnerable to violating their own right to life.
So as far as i know everyone who lives has a reason to. They believe there is something worthwhile, something good to hold onto right? That's why I disgree with antinatalism as anything esle than just a concept.
I think people who live want to continue living. And there's nothing wrong with that we shouldn't be guilty for being born when we can inspire happiness in others or at least try.
I don't think offering people ideas, suggestions, possibilities of new ways of thinking is imposing. You don't have to accept anything im saying. You're free to believe whatever you want. I just want to try to do right by others if I can and if they'll allow me.
We can leave it at that and just agree to disagree if you want.
How is it imposing to make suggestions? They're just suggestions. You can choose whether to take it on board or not. That's your call, ball in your court. Imposing would be to force you to agree or accept something.
I won't do that. You cant offer anything to someone who doesn't want it. All I can do is give my perspective and be ignored, or maybe if someone decides, listened to.
The baby bears no blame, of course. The parents do. To me, antinatalism is about the choice to have children, not about what to do when the child is already there.
24m
Parents were babies once too. So at what point does the blameless/innocent baby become guilty and shameful?
For me: People have evolved the means to reproduce as its biological and natural. All of nature seems to agree that reproduction is not only permissible but necessary.
As for whether two loving parents want to bring a lovely little baby into their happy lives or not, that's their business.
I don't dare impose on anyone's right to or not to have children as they have their own rights and autonomy.
I don't think anyone should have that sort of autocratic power over whether others live or die. We are equals.
I do enjoy living but personally I don't want my own child. I'm happy to be an uncle.
As for whether two loving parents want to bring a lovely little baby into their happy lives or not, that's their business.
Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma.
So people are innocent in their entire life all the way up to the point that they procreate and then they're criminal/deserve shame and guilt etc?
So during their whole life even if they don't have children and they go around committing the most heinous atrocities they're not guilty because they didn't have children? Or perhaps is having children not as evil as I dunno, raping pillaging and plundering, mass genocides etc.
If you had the choice between having a child or having Hitler exist in the world again... Which would you pick?
Again, I'm coming at this from an angle that is only concerned with the choice of the parents to create a child, and whether that is a moral action.
Well what I'm trying to point out is I think it's a moral fixation that is overshadowed by quite frankly much worse things that could and are happening right now in the world that does exist and does have people in it.
To believe its immoral to have children is to believe you're incapable of being a good parent no? And raising them to be outstanding citizens. A lack of self belief the I suspect.
To believe its immoral to have children is to believe you're incapable of being a good parent no?
No.
Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma.
Well perhaps elaborate more so I can understand exactly what you believe? I don't want to make assumptions but I will follow the logic of what you present in your arguments.
Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma.
It's not a really a dilemma because we can't "consult nature" and ask if we can have a chat with our non existent child as to whether it wants to be born before it is. How would something non existent know what existing is like to make an informed decision?.
People don't ask the stories they imagine if they would like to written down as a novel. We create, in good faith, as an exercise in trust that we can bring into existence something that offers good purpose - more beauty, more knowledge, more understanding, more benefit.
If a parent is certain their child will be an awful monster for whatever reason then yes it's likely they wouldn't procreate. But how on earth can a parent know that in foresight? I doubt Hitlers parents knew what they would be creating when they reproduced. So we can't blame the act of being born inherently. We can only blame the environment, teachings and beliefs we instill in our children. We can teach them to be racists, we can teach them to be selfish, to manipulate etc or other people could teach them that if we are too passive in our role. Parents do their best. Sometimes it's enough. Sometimes it's not. Because what they've made is another agent - with their own agenda and self determination, decisions to make, responsibilities to take on. But never is that a reason not to exist at all.
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 16:15#7535400 likes
Reply to Tzeentch
Asexual reproduction is a type of reproduction that does not involve the fusion of gametes or change in the number of chromosomes. The offspring that arise by asexual reproduction from either unicellular or multicellular organisms inherit the full set of genes of their single parent. Asexual reproduction is the primary form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such as archaea and bacteria. Many eukaryotic organisms including plants, animals, and fungi can also reproduce asexually. In vertebrates, the most common form of asexual reproduction is parthenogenesis, which is typically used as an alternative to sexual reproduction in times when reproductive opportunities are limited.
While all prokaryotes reproduce without the formation and fusion of gametes, mechanisms for lateral gene transfer such as conjugation, transformation and transduction can be likened to sexual reproduction in the sense of genetic recombination in meiosis.
Animals that reproduce asexually:
The Komodo dragon, the Whiptail lizard, Bees, Wasps, Starfish and many more, even some Shark species reproduce through parthenogenesis.
Where would your antinatalism argument be if we developed a tech that allowed transhumans to reproduce asexually? How about a sentient alien species that reproduces asexually? If antinatalism is based on any natural imperative the why does asexual reproduction exist?
Would the burden of blame for procreation be lifted if a human could reproduce asexually?
If so then perhaps all you antinatalists should be compelled to pool your intellect and study biology and see if you can offer asexual reproduction to humans of the future and then you would have helped humans remove some of that guilt for reproducing that you feel so happy about trying to impose on them.
If humans go extinct and the next sentient species to dominate the Earth reproduces asexually, then that would be the termination point for anti-natalist BS, yes?
Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma.
It's not a really a dilemma because we can't "consult nature" and ask if we can have a chat with our non existent child as to whether it wants to be born before it is. How would something non existent know what existing is like to make an informed decision?.
It's not a dilemma to you that you don't know whether someone consents before making a monumental decision on their behalf?
We create, in good faith, as an exercise in trust that we can bring into existence something that offers good purpose - more beauty, more knowledge, more understanding, more benefit.
And there are many things one could create that don't involve imposing monumental decisions and possibly a lifetime of suffering on another.
Also, good faith is not an excuse. Many atrocities were committed by individuals who thought they were doing good, and tragically many unhappy people are born from well-intentioned parents. Ignorance is not an excuse.
If a parent is certain their child will be an awful monster for whatever reason then yes it's likely they wouldn't procreate. But how on earth can a parent know that in foresight?
They can't. Sounds like a darn good reason not to make such a decision on someone else's behalf.
We can only blame the environment, teachings and beliefs we instill in our children. We can teach them to be racists, we can teach them to be selfish, to manipulate etc or other people could teach them that if we are too passive in our role. Parents do their best. Sometimes it's enough. Sometimes it's not.
No, we can blame the hubris of the parents who voluntarily hurled someone into life's crucible - into conditions over which they had little control and of which they had little knowledge.
It's not a dilemma to you that you don't know whether someone consents before making a monumental decision on their behalf?
Who? Who is the someone? The yet to be born? How do I talk them what's their number? Email? Perhaps WhatsApp?
Dilemmas apply to conscious agents that "already" exist and can make decisions. They don't apply to non existing possibilities. You can't ask all your future possible children who wants to be alive? Therefore you cannot treat them as already existing agents. Only potential ones. They don't have a say because they aren't alive. Just as I cannot ask my dead great great grandmother whats her ethical attitude towards Facebook, or climate change, or autocracies.
You as the the one who is capable of creating living agents (assuming you have a partner and you're both fertile) have the option to make them or not. You do not however that that option for all peoples will - everyone else's personal choice as to whether they want to reproduce.
If you want to abstain from fathering children, if you want to remove your own genetics from the constant competing evolution of life, that's fine. No one is going to judge you for your decision to not procreate.
They would kindly ask you to respect their own autonomy of choice in a likewise manner.
The reason antinatalism isn't the predominant belief already, the reason we haven't all purposely gone extinct by now, probably means that antinatalism doesn't nor has it ever nor will it ever make much sense to the majority.
If an infertile couple approached me devastated by their inability to have kids, I think telling them "well you shouldnt have kids anyways" is not particularly empathetic.
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 16:46#7535510 likes
It would be exactly the same, with the same critical questions asked to whomever decides another being should be thrown into the crucible of life.
Based on what argument? Humans would have no choice regarding reproduction, if it was asexual.
Some living species do reproduce asexually, no intelligent species does so yet but if humans went extinct then who knows what species will fill the gap. How can an antinatalist posit that its immoral for a parent to reproduce, if it's a natural imposition via parthenogenesis. No choice involved!
"Possibly" being the key word. We don't know the future so we don't know if it will be all suffering or actually pleasant and doable. We can't make the world perfect for our future chindren. No generation has ever managed that. We can however educate them and give them the tools to combat adversity themselves. A perfect utopia would be as pointless as a hell. It would have no purpose to improve or change anything, people wouldnt know what to do with themselves as all knowledge, all innovations, all challenges would be already complete. Someone could be like hey let's do this (and everyone would say oh its already done sorry. You've been beaten to the punchline). We would have no free will. Nothing left to do except twiddle our thumbs and wait for death.
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 16:55#7535560 likes
A perfect utopia would be as pointless as a hell. It would have no purpose to improve or change anything m, people woukdnt know what to do with themselves as all knowledge, all innovations, all challenges would be already complete. Nothing left to do except twiddle our thumbs and wait for death.
I think Christians and Muslims call that heaven, but you don't even have the possibility of escape via death!
The person who the parents know will come to be as a direct result of their actions.
Who do future parents make a children's room for, or buy clothes for?
I assumed that taking into account logical consequences of one's actions was a given before going into a debate about moral action, but I guess I'm wrong?
And a parent will never have anything other than "possibly", whether they envision a pleasant or unpleasant life for their child. In other words, their actions will never amount to more than a gamble with someone else's well-being.
Ah I see so we must be omniscient before bringing anything into existence. No room for any answers being still unknown? How's that pursuit of omniscience going for you?
One more question: if you think it's immoral for parents to ever bring children into the world do you therefore resent your own parents? Do you despise them? Or do you think they are good people just trying to do their best? Is it fair to blame everything on one/two people? Do you believe that's a mature or grown up approach to make parents suffer endlessly because you're not having a good time? Or maybe perhaps we can take control of our own narrative and create our own happiness and self fulfillment?
In other words, their actions will never amount to more than a gamble with someone else's well-being.
It's also a gamble with their own well being. They could soon find themselves the scapegoat for any and all of the problems ever faced by their child. Dragged through the mud and tortured relentlessly by someone that resents them.
How can an antinatalist posit that its immoral for a parent to reproduce, if it's a natural imposition via parthenogenesis.
It would be the responsibility of whomever brings such a situation about, and after that just a very unfortunate state of affairs, I suppose, with people not only being born involuntarily but also giving birth involuntarily.
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 17:09#7535660 likes
Reply to Tzeentch
So you would consider all species on the earth such as starfish, komodo dragons, bees, wasps and many plant and microbial species to be in your revered judgement, unfortunate species?
I think Christians and Muslims call that heaven, but you don't even have the possibility of escape via death!
Yes I think we can agree that a physically manifested heaven/utopia would be temporally enjoyable but the novelty would soon wear off and become dull and unfulfilling.
Stress can lead to post traumatic growth. For example I got hit by a car a few months ago. Surely an adverse event that wouldnt occur in a utopia. Whilst the immediacy was very unpleasant, the hindsight was very motivating for me to use the time I have on earth more wisely/constructively. I became more dedicated in my career and relationships with friends. What didn't kill me did indeed in this case make me stronger and more resilient.
It seems then that many "bad things" have silver linings in the end. I don't think I would like to be "bubble wrapped" in heaven where there is no threat, therefore no means to learn, navigate, overcome and feel proud for it.
I do think heaven exists. As a concept. But only an ideal in our minds. Its something lucrative at a distance, from which ambition, inspiration, innovation, knowledge, all the good/virtuous/idealistic characteristics of humanity can be extracted in pieces throughout time to bolster progress and evolve culture.
But we should not ever arrive at the destination for then the journey is over. And usually the journey offers a longer hit of dopamine than the final brief reward.
But we should not ever arrive at the destination for then the journey is over. And usually the journey offers a longer hit of dopamine than the final brief reward.
To me, that's where Plato and Aristotle went a little skewed. I think the concept of Platonic perfect forms and Aristotelian ideals are an almost natural progression of the thinking of the atomists such as Democritus. The concept of infinite variety in infinite combination would obviously result in projection towards some idealised, perfect form. But we have to be existents to progress towards such. The omnis and the god posits are no more that human projections of what humans think they may one day achieve as a totality or a networked collective. But they probably never will as the universe will probably end first.
The antinatalists just want to terminate the human story early for the most selfish of reasons it's possible to conceive and that reason, is because they can't come to terms with their own oblivion.
If they could then they would have already gone.
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 17:47#7535810 likes
Well, if they are the unfortunate species then those species that are able to employ sexual reproduction, must be, if we follow that logic, the fortunate species as they have choice to reproduce or not.
So, you hold your anti-natalism viewpoint, despite the fact that the method of reproduction for humans, evolved through natural selection, which science has shown HAS NO INHERENT INTENT.
Do you blame the first 'spark of life,' for want of a better phrase for happening? Parent can blame parents who can blame parents for the immorality of their existence all the way back to that first vital spark of life.
Do your antinatalism musings enable you to follow your logic back to that question?
Do you think the fact that the universe experienced a moment when life became an existent was a moment of immorality. Is that what you are trying to sell?
The omnis and the god posits are no more that human projections of what humans think they may one day achieve as a totality or a networked collective. But they probably never will as the universe will probably end first
I agree with you on the Plato - Aristotle point of digression with one another. But this remark really interests me. Because I'm going to introduce a line of commentary.
I do definitely agree that the omnis/God's posits are a human projection of untenable but desirable ideals. However I also believe that "God" is a rare but possible mind state. A sort of manic, euphoria. A "Eureka!" moment when something major and groundbreaking clicks in one's mind and they're overcome by an acute and intense revelation of new meanings, new insights, new predictive value based on their discovery. This intense "rapture" or "ecstasy" may have been written about in many forms through many disciplines (science. =eureka), (religion =revelation), (psychiatry = mania).
Im not saying they are all the same thing. Perhaps not. Merely suggesting a link. That in a moment of blissful euphoria, overwhelmed by confidence and a sense of knowledge .. One feels like a God.
The danger is not in feeling a godly bliss, perhaps you did discover something authentic, impactful and useful to society. The danger is that in feeling this sensation you make the jump to the assumption that you are infallible thereafter. And that you can commit no harm. And such a sense of entitlement and surity is extremely precarious, likely to do harm indeed.
Well, if they are the unfortunate species then those species that are able to employ sexual reproduction, must be, if we follow that logic, the fortunate species as they have choice to reproduce or not.
So, you hold your anti-natalism viewpoint, despite the fact that the method of reproduction for humans, evolved through natural selection, which science has shown HAS NO INHERENT INTENT.
Sure. I don't think nature is an excuse for immoral action.
Do you think the fact that the universe experienced a moment when life became an existent was a moment of immorality. Is that what you are trying to sell?
I don't even know what that means, so I'm going with another "no".
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 18:14#7535940 likes
Reply to Benj96
You are just travelling through the human psyche like the rest of us, trying to apply reason, logic, sense whilst taking into account history, primal fear, origins, emotions, mental illness etc etc.
If you are good enough at that stuff then you can become a 'head doctor' etc. YOU the almighty, ME the immortal, US the creators, they are all part of the human psyche which we project onto a manifestation of some divinity either a mono god or a whole pantheon of gods. Human create god stories. God has no existent, if it did, it would confirm its existence easily and irrefutably.
We progress from generation to generation when we correct the errors made in previous generations. That's the only way forward that I can perceive.
God has no existent, if it did, it would confirm its existence easily and irrefutably
All agreeable statements you've made. One question though. Is that not possible, for God to have an existent? A channel of its ideals through a person, a conduit.
Suppose someone channelled an ultimate ideal, described their truth (this ideal) to others in hope that they agree, and because their truth is so blindingly convincing others took it on board and spread the notion of such an ideal. Then, naturally it would come to a point when that truth is spread far enough, wide enough ("spread the word so to speak") that it encounters rebuttal, abject denial and Intolerance, perhaps by those that can't imagine their own existence in a world where that ideal prevails (antinatalists perhaps, or something worse) , and thus they do everything in their power to stop it. They would ask "who said this?! Who is responsible for infecting everyone with this intolerable belief?!"
Of course this person channeling their truth, knowing its power of persuasion, its ability to gather a following, would already know this and know that by spreading it they are putting themselves on the line, in harms way.
They would have to accept their fate, that spreading something ideal will bring the wrath of the non-ideal against them. And probably they will be assassinated for what they believe in, but in doing so they demonstrated the highest level of integrity, not shying away or resorting to lying or violence in order to speak their mind.
The killing of such a person ties up the loose ends. If their belief is based on benevolence and unwillingness to put themselves before others, to be selfless, their death is the final proof that their truth was the truth. A good one. A beneficial one.
It would be a demonstration of pure goodness being destroyed by hatred because good will never destroy anything for its own purposes, only offer choice. Such a person would be immortalised through legacy. Considered a god only after they proved their belief by being murdered for it.
Haven't we seen this before? Who has done such things? History has shown us many martyrs which were condemned or assassinated because their beliefs were too dangerous for the most self interested of us, to the false gods amongst men, to condone.
A criminal offence that was unjust. Forbidden fruit.
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 18:45#7536010 likes
Well, if they are the unfortunate species then those species that are able to employ sexual reproduction, must be, if we follow that logic, the fortunate species as they have choice to reproduce or not.
— universeness
Maybe? That's not a question of antinatalism.
Yes it is, as it establishes that only those who reproduce sexually as opposite genders have the CHOICE to reproduce or not and that is what antinatalism pivots on. The execution of that choice is the prime focus of antinatalism, is it not?
Sure. I don't think nature is an excuse for immoral action.
But the point is that the origin of the reproduction choice a human has, had no inherent intent, so any moral question you impose based on the existence of that choice is a purely human construct and has no natural imperative. Yet all species on Earth demonstrate the natural imperative of reproduction even to the extent of the removal of that choice, as is the case for asexual species so surely you see the power of the natural imperative to reproduce as a defence against extinction regardless of any human constructed moral imperative you think has value.
No, morality is about individuals, their intentions and their actions. That's what I am talking about.
But you are ignoring the result of your imposed moral imperative. EXTINCTION, which as I have already suggested is contrary to the much more significant natural imperative of reproduction as a defence AGAINST EXTINCTION. Evidenced further because of the existence of asexual reproduction, which as already stated, REMOVES THE CHOICE that antinatalism depends upon.
No, because that question is not relevant to my take on antinatalism.
It is very relevant, you just don't want to admit it is because it destroys the foundation your antinatalism is based on, human choice to reproduce. It shows that choosing antinatalism would result in extinction and extinction is against the natural imperative. If we went extinct and there was no other intelligent life in the universe, then combinatorial biology would just reproduce it in time. Can you not understand that this makes your antinatalism futile and pointless.
Do you think the fact that the universe experienced a moment when life became an existent was a moment of immorality. Is that what you are trying to sell?
— universeness
I don't even know what that means, so I'm going with another "no".
It's simply a statement about the concept of morality/immorality being merely a human construct.
Before life became existent there can be no issue of morality. Every happenstance before life in the past 13.8 billion years has no moral aspect to it. So, life in its infancy has no moral aspect to it. Do you think that early hominid species such as Neandertals should not have engaged in reproduction? Did they really have a choice? Most humans can never support antinatalism as it is contrary to the natural imperative to be an existent and continue our species. The alternative is a return to an earlier state of the universe that has already been, and if there was a return to that earlier point, we would just progress to this point again in some variety of what currently is. Antinatalism is therefore utterly futile.
Using our time and effort to reduce all human suffering is the more sensible choice.
Try to think about it a little deeper and you might arrive at the same correct conclusion or stay fogged. Your choice.
Sentient beings that have such dilemmas and philosophical arguments would be sure to evolve again to occupy the niche currently occupied by humans in nature if all of humanity were to self annihilate. Maybe some other primate over millions of years would go through the same processes of adaptation under the same pressures exerted by nature and re-emerge.
Re-emergence of species is well documented by biologists. So the argument would just be postponed until next time wouldnt it
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 19:07#7536140 likes
One question though. Is that not possible, for God to have an existent? A channel of its ideals through a person, a conduit.
A god which is shy? and needs to communicate by proxy? Not a description of a god which inspires much respect from me. I seem to be more self-assured than this god you describe. Such a channel/conduit would not be a god existent it would simply be nothing more than a communications relay. Even if you decided to be nice and call it a prophet it's still not an actual god incarnated into an existent.
Suppose someone channelled an ultimate ideal, described their truth (this ideal) to others in hope that they agree, and because their truth is so blindingly convincing others took it on board and spread the notion of such an ideal.
Many have done so yes, from Plato to Hitler to Martin Luther King.
Then, naturally it would come to a point when that truth is spread far enough, wide enough ("spread the word so to speak") that it encounters rebuttal, abject denial and Intolerance, perhaps by those that can't imagine their own existence in a world where that ideal prevails (antinatalists perhaps, or something worse) , and thus they do everything in their power to stop it. They would ask "who said this?! Who is responsible for infecting everyone with this intolerable belief?!"
Absolutely, especially if the ideas being communicated will prove to be to the detriment of those who hold power.
You go on to describe people who have died rather than speak contrary to what they believe is truth. A rendition of what is called 'martyrdom' yes but such is just an aspect of the human psyche. I see nothing in what you type that supports your initial question: Quoting Benj96
s that not possible, for God to have an existent?
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 19:10#7536150 likes
. Even if you decided to be nice and call it a prophet it's still not an actual god incarnated into an existent.
It is a prophet indeed. You're quite right. Because for actual god to exist as a person it would require the entire universe to condense into a singular person, what external reality then would such a person exist in? The universe as a system cannot be the whole unit and also be within itself.
But a prophet is no mere lay person though. They have a deep knowledge of the relationship of them and others (fractions of a whole) to the actual whole (god/the universe).
Through that deep understanding, they would inherit the highest degree of empathy and patience for others who don't understand their own relationship to the universe as it actually is, and would naturally go about illuminating that knowledge in them so they can appreciate in full their true relationship to reality, as he/she does.
As I said they would be the fourth condition of a god worth pursuing - the benevolent aspect of the entire system. The part that can't imbue a sense of connectedness and belonging.
A god which is shy? and needs to communicate by proxy? Not a description of a god which inspires much respect from me. I seem to be more self-assured than this god you describe. Such a channel/conduit would not be a god existent it would simply be nothing more than a communications relay.
Not a shy god, a god that presents its true nature as the whole/the everything, in a means/format understandable and accesible to humans, a human voice, a human that beholds and shares the true nature of reality.
Absolutely, especially if the ideas being communicated will prove to be to the detriment of those who hold power
Precisely, it would be to the detriment of those that hold power, fame, recognition, authority, beauty, knowledge, révérence in all its formats. It would pose a threat to those that fancy themselves as gods and others as beneath them by proxy.
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 19:35#7536310 likes
But a prophet is no mere lay person though. They have a deep knowledge of the relationship of them and others (fractions of a whole) to the actual whole (god/the universe).
For me, a prophet is just a human who is trying to dupe others that god speaks through him/her.
It's an old ruse, first used to establish the divine right of kings to rule over the masses. A prophet is the biggest bullshitter there is. Especially a political prophet.
But a prophet is no mere lay person though. They have a deep knowledge of the relationship of them and others (fractions of a whole) to the actual whole (god/the universe).
Are you going to admit you are a panpsychist Mr Benj or am I totally off the mark?
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 19:38#7536330 likes
Not a shy god, a god that presents its true nature as the whole/the everything, in a means/format understandable and accesible to humans, a human voice, a human that beholds and shares the true nature of reality.
Perhaps even a panpsychist who believes that some humans are more 'in touch' with the 'universal mind' than others are?
Precisely, it would be to the detriment of those that hold power, fame, recognition, authority, beauty, knowledge, révérence in all its formats. It would pose a threat to those that fancy themselves as gods and others as beneath them by proxy.
You go on to describe people who have died rather than speak contrary to what they believe is truth. A rendition of what is called 'martyrdom' yes but such is just an aspect of the human psyche. I see nothing in what you type that supports your initial question:
s that not possible, for God to have an existent?
Well, we worship noble people and the noble acts they do. And we condone the most intense demonstrations of evil that have existed amongst us. (Both may know the truth - god/reality)
The difference is what they choose to do with it.
If you have the entire truth but withold it entirely from others you have no choice other than to lie - the opposite of truth. You can be utterly convincing, manipulative and appear as a noble person but you intentions (to withold the truth but use its power, to take no responsibility) is an evil act. I believe this is why Hitler came to power. Anyone who understands how the mind works can either empathise with it and inform it (Martin Luther king, ghandi, jfk, Joan of arc, all the revered martyrs) or manipulate it (Hitler, perhaps Putin nowadays).
Those who don't know the truth of things are vulnerable. Children don't know much at all and are therfore vulnerable to the teachings (good or bad) of those that know the truth. Right? So the choice when faced with reality is do I choose to benefit myself by manipulating others, or do I choose to share it and empower them to be more informed and therefore less likely to be swayed by manipulation.
Perhaps even a panpsychist who believes that some humans are more 'in touch' with the 'universal mind' than others are?
Well I believe you are more in touch with reason and ethics than many others. As you showed me you were. Is it not then possible that there is an ultimate reason and ultimate ethics that are one and the same? A maximum we can reach through discourse. And have done so many times in the past.
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 19:45#7536370 likes
So the choice when faced with reality is do I choose to benefit myself by manipulating others, or do I choose to share it and empower them to be more informed and therefore less likely to be swayed by manipulation.
Yep its akin to the two questions we must always ask ourselves.
1. Who am I.
2. What do I want.
Yep is akin to the two questions we must always ask ourselves.
1. Who am I.
2. What do I want.
Precisely. They are much the same.
I think the borders of self are created by our beliefs, not definitive and discrete. So if we want to maximise our self awareness, if we want to extend those borders to the maximum, we are ever increasingly responsible for others and thus their suffering or happiness.
If on the other hand, we minimise our borders to just our body. Reduce it to simply me, then all we have to consider is "what's in it for me". A selfish stance.
The only difference between "them" and "I" (boundary of self) is to what degree I am prepared to see likeness, to believe I am the same as others, to empathise and thus take on board their suffering and delight as if it were me own.
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 19:54#7536400 likes
Is it not then possible that there is an ultimate reason and ultimate ethics that are one and the same? A maximum we can reach through discourse. And have done so many times in the past.
I can only place such a question into the same file as the one that holds questions such as. How close will we get to KNOWING the actual speed of light in a vacuum with complete accuracy? Which piece of info, if known by the human race, would mean a human could completely transcend human existence and 'become' or 'ascend, ' to ........... (to be filled in when we know what should go here :naughty: )
'Ultimate' is another one of those 'concept' words. I think we are still a lot closer to the early hominid species that we are to the omnis Mr Benj.
I see what you mean. I think irrationality must exist in commune with the rational. For without eachother neither would exist. Irrational numbers for example will never be complete as they are endless and not repetitive (not predictable). They can thus never fully be known.
And on the other hand the rational and predictable can be known and thus is discrete.
So here we have two opposing forces, one that is erratic, changeable, unpredictable, inaccurate, and one that follows a rule, is clear and known and finite/discrete.
Nature always creates such opposites. That which is pure chaos and that which is pure order.
Their interaction and dynamic with one another, is the basis for evolution, for the struggle between control and lack thereof, between life (ordered systems) and death (dissolution into the chaos).
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 20:12#7536460 likes
Reply to Benj96
Your typings remind me again of a dilemma dramatised in an episode of Babylon 5.
A student 'warrior of light' (a Minbari Ranger) is having a crisis about what he thinks is worth dying for.
His mentor asks him;
'If I tasked you to climb to the top of a mountain to retrieve a rare flower that grew only there, and I told you that you would be successful, but you would die, would you do it?'
'No' was the reply.
When asked why? The student said, 'because it would be a futile way to lose my life.'
The mentor said, 'well if I now revealed to you that this flower is the worshipped symbol of a subjugated people and the sight of this flower will inspire them to revolt against their oppressors and free millions of them from abject slavery and horrific suffering, would you do it then?'
'Yes' was the humble response.
We just don't know what effects our actions and our words may have on others, that's why we have to think about our actions and our words deeply and carefully.
Something I don't think antinatalists are very good at.
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 20:19#7536480 likes
Nature always creates such opposites. That which is pure chaos and that which is pure order.
Their interaction and dynamic with one another, is the basis for evolution, for the struggle between control and lack thereof
So, perhaps we are indeed natures/the universes best attempt so far, to be able to figure out what and why it is existent. Another reason why we can't vote to end our story, as the antinatalists request, as the universe may never know what or why it is other than through the efforts of a species like us. I am not a panpsychist, but do I think that some kind of emerging panpsychism is happening within the linear time we experience? ....... meh!
We just don't know what effects our actions and our words may have on others, that's why we have to think about our actions and our words deeply and carefully.
Something I don't think antinatalists are very good at.
I think this story from Babylon 5 holds a deep, endearing message. I'm glad you shared it with me, I had never come across it before. It's really nice and quite apt to our conversation.
We do definitely need to consider our words and actions carefully. Words are very often underestimated in place of action. But words are mighty. They have huge power when used rationally and ethically. They shape and influence eachother beyond what physical bodily action could ever do.
To use your body to enforce your ideals, to be intensely active, is often a source of aggression, imposition and intimidation. To use words on the other hand is to suggest/impart meanings and beliefs without laying a finger on the other person. It allows choice.
So, perhaps we are indeed natures/the universes best attempt so far, to be able to figure out what and why it is existent. Another reason why we can't vote to end our story, as the antinatalists request, as the universe may never know what or why it is other than through the efforts of a species like us. I am not a panpsychist, but do I think that some kind of emerging panpsychism is happening within the linear time we experience? ....... meh!
Agreed. We may be nature's most recent prize, its latest pride and joy, the current best effort. And we (as parts of nature) may create on its behalf something more durable, more long lasting, and imbue it with our nature, the product of nature itself, so that it may extend this awareness beyond the boundaries of what is capable by the human body. The next frontier.
But if we birth something human in mind but not in body, something metallic perhaps, then we need to tread carefully, not to assume that because it is different to us in appearance, it is not the same as us in spirit.
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 20:36#7536580 likes
Reply to Benj96
Here is an even tougher one from Babylon 5.
Your death in certain circumstances will be the action that will improve the lives of millions, permanently. But you will never be credited. In fact, your memory will be despised, as the circumstances mean that you will have to seem to be the traitor, the judas, the evil one. You will be forever damned. No one will ever know that you were in fact the saviour. Would you do it? no martyrdom, no credit, no memorial other than as one who is hated and utterly damned?
universenessNovember 03, 2022 at 20:42#7536610 likes
But if we birth something human in mind but not in body, something metallic perhaps, then we need to tread carefully, not to assume that because it is different to us in appearance, it is not the same as us in sprit.
In the timescale laid out by the cosmic calendar we are still an infant species. 10000 years of significant human cooperation and civilisation, is a few seconds in the cosmic calendar. Many humans still suffer horrendously from generation to generation but we have improved things since the days of the first cities, Jericho, Uruk, Ur etc. So I would say to the antinatalists that before we vote for our own extinction. GIVE US A F****** CHANCE! Say another few million years (which is less than the dinos had) before you offer us antinatalism again.
Down The Rabbit HoleNovember 03, 2022 at 21:02#7536730 likes
While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged.
Perhaps the lure is the provocative nature of this absurd idea. After all, if everyone believed in antinatalism, we as a human race would be wiped out of the Earth. Too bad for all of our domesticated animals.
Save for editing our biology to remove the ability to suffer (as promoted by David Pearce) there is only antinatalism. Everything else is mitigation of suffering.
Alternatively, one could say the hundreds of millions living in torture are a price worth paying for all of the happy lives/
Down The Rabbit HoleNovember 03, 2022 at 21:32#7536880 likes
While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged.
I don't believe there are right and wrong answers to moral questions. It could be argued, we ought to do what we feel is right. Thus, if one feels the sacrifice is wrong, then they should discourage it. If one feels the price is worth paying, they ought not.
It has been suggested on here before by pronatalists that because of their miserable lives, antinatalists are looking at the world through excrement-tinted glasses. I can't say this is true of all antinatalists, but I believe this accounts for a significant number. Of-course the opposite is also true - if you're living a pleasant life, the sacrifice is worth it - why would you throw all the wonders we experience away, just because some people suffer.
It has been suggested on here before by pronatalists that because of their miserable lives, antinatalists are looking at the world through excrement-tinted glasses. I can't say this is true of all antinatalists, but I believe this accounts for a significant number. Of-course the opposite is also true - if you're living a pleasant life, the sacrifice is worth it - why would you throw all the wonders we experience away, just because some people suffer.
Yeah, I think all that is true, but there's a third option which I think is more significant, which is those who see the world as a bad place and see children as means of fixing that - ie ensuring there's a next generation, better than the last, to help those who still remain to live more pleasant lives.
Contrary to the archetypal antinatalist, we're not all selfish sociopaths. It's not always about me, me, me sometimes people spare a thought for their community as a whole and consider themselves (and others) to have a duty toward it.
But the point is that the origin of the reproduction choice a human has, had no inherent intent, so any moral question you impose based on the existence of that choice is a purely human construct and has no natural imperative.
I don't see how that would inhibit a moral discussion, which is also a human construct.
... so surely you see the power of the natural imperative to reproduce as a defence against extinction regardless of any human constructed moral imperative you think has value.
But you are ignoring the result of your imposed moral imperative. EXTINCTION, which as I have already suggested is contrary to the much more significant natural imperative of reproduction as a defence AGAINST EXTINCTION. Evidenced further because of the existence of asexual reproduction, which as already stated, REMOVES THE CHOICE that antinatalism depends upon.
There is no natural imperative, other than perhaps instinctual drives, which, again, I do not view as an excuse for immoral action. Appeals to instinct are no more than the individual admitting they're but a mindless beast, and what's the point of discussing morality with mindless beasts?
The individual is in no way obliged to care about "the species". It's not even rational for the individual to care, since they have no tangible control over whether the species survives. Nor do they have a stake in it, since they won't be around to witness an extinction if it does take place.
Additionally, even if one were to care, ends do not justify means.
It shows that choosing antinatalism would result in extinction and extinction is against the natural imperative.
Extinction is nothing more than an excuse to give in to instinctual drives. No individual reproduces because they are afraid the species might go extinct otherwise. They reproduce because they want to - because it satisfies some instinctual need.
It's simply a statement about the concept of morality/immorality being merely a human construct.
Before life became existent there can be no issue of morality. Every happenstance before life in the past 13.8 billion years has no moral aspect to it. So, life in its infancy has no moral aspect to it. Do you think that early hominid species such as Neandertals should not have engaged in reproduction? Did they really have a choice? Most humans can never support antinatalism as it is contrary to the natural imperative to be an existent and continue our species. The alternative is a return to an earlier state of the universe that has already been, and if there was a return to that earlier point, we would just progress to this point again in some variety of what currently is. Antinatalism is therefore utterly futile.
Using our time and effort to reduce all human suffering is the more sensible choice.
Try to think about it a little deeper and you might arrive at the same correct conclusion or stay fogged. Your choice.
I don't care about Neandertals, or reducing human suffering.
I care about the morality of individual human actions (which is the only rational way to approach morality - individuals and their individual choices). In this case the choice of individuals to reproduce. If that choice cannot make moral sense in their individual context, it will not make sense in any wider context.
universenessNovember 04, 2022 at 10:43#7538330 likes
I don't see how that would inhibit a moral discussion, which is also a human construct.
It does not inhibit a moral discussion but your antinatalism solution ignores and hand waves away the very powerful natural imperative for continuation of the human species and the natural imperative to continue all species, including those produced asexually. All you are trying to do is squirm past that point by hand waving it away because you know its fact and it is strong evidence against the validity of an antinatalist viewpoint.
There is no natural imperative, other than perhaps instinctual drives, which, again, I do not view as an excuse for immoral action.
Based on what evidence? Give me an example of another species that has made itself extinct through the choice of all of its members to stop reproducing, thus showing there is no natural imperative to continue species. The Instinctive compulsion to reproduce is an example of the natural imperative but its not the only aspect. Humans wish to continue the story/bloodline/legacy of their family through reproduction this is also a natural imperative. Where is your evidence that if antinatalism was applied, it would be successful in the extinction of the immorality it is supposed to prevent? Intelligent life would simply continue elsewhere or reform elsewhere. You can't guarantee your fake immorality concern wont return again, and again and again. Your invalid immorality excuse is just your poor reasoning for a solution which won't work and is futile and is just based on your own inability to find balance in your own life.
The individual is in no way obliged to care about "the species". It's not even rational for the individual to care, since they have no tangible control over whether the species survives. Nor do they have a stake in it, since they won't be around to witness an extinction if it does take place.
Additionally, even if one were to care, ends do not justify means.
These are just your irrational opinions and exemplify/reveal your inability to find balance in your life.
It's up to you to solve this problem for yourself or seek outside help to do so. It's immoral for you to attempt to demand company for your imbalance.
Extinction is nothing more than an excuse to give in to instinctual drives. No individual reproduces because they are afraid the species might go extinct otherwise. They reproduce because they want to - because it satisfies some instinctual need.
That's not a basis for moral decision-making.
Instinctual drives are not immoral just because you think there is something immoral about the concept of instinct. Human morality guides instinct. People do reproduce for many reasons, including a wish to contribute to continuing the species through their familial bloodline. That is a moral act not an immoral one. Do you think that human instinct has no input to offer when humans are considering an area of human morality? Are all human instincts just 'dirty, base and evil,' to you? Are images in your head of 'dirty evil human instincts,' the basis of your antinatalism?
I don't care about Neandertals, or reducing human suffering.
The fact that you have just admitted you don't care about reducing human suffering is a very important admission for anyone reading this thread to cognise regarding someone who fly's the flag for antinatalism. Human suffering is put forward by antinatalists as the main reason for their adherence to it.
I care about the morality of individual human actions (which is the only rational way to approach morality - individuals and their individual choices). In this case the choice of individuals to reproduce. If that choice cannot make moral sense in their individual context, it will not make sense in any wider context.
But the decision to reproduce is problematic for antinatalists because they suggest this is an innocent self-aware lifeform, who was not consulted (impossible to do anyway) that MAY now experience UNACCEPTABLE levels of suffering, but YOU have just admitted YOU DONT CARE ABOUT REDUCING HUMAN SUFFERING. Can you really not see the contradiction?
schopenhauer1November 04, 2022 at 10:46#7538340 likes
Where is your evidence that if antinatalism was applied, it would be successful in the extinction of the immorality it is supposed to prevent? Intelligent life would simply continue elsewhere or reform elsewhere. You can't guarantee your fake immorality concern wont return again, and again and again. Your invalid immorality excuse is just your poor reasoning for a solution which won't work and is futile and is just based on your own ability to find balance in your own life.
You’re not even paying attention to his argument at this point. Frothing at mouth.
universenessNovember 04, 2022 at 10:52#7538350 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1
The attention I am paying to 'his argument,' is simply shaking your little room. If you want to help him then make your points or concentrate on wiping the slabbers from your own mouth.
. Many humans still suffer horrendously from generation to generation but we have improved things since the days of the first cities, Jericho, Uruk, Ur etc. So I would say to the antinatalists that before we vote for our own extinction. GIVE US A F****** CHANCE! Say another few million years (which is less than the dinos had) before you offer us antinatalism again.
I agree. Consider what a middle class person has available to them at this current moment: global communication at the touch of a button (internet), global foods and luxuries of all exotic sorts (chocolate, coffee, avocado's in frigid North regions where they historically were impossible to ever expect to eat for dinner). We have a mini Arctic climate in a little box in our kitchen able to preserve food as long as we please, we have an ever more complex and refined immune system (legal constitution) we can seek aid from for when others commit crimes against us.
We can travel at great speeds never before believable, be across the world in less than a day. We have all these tools and appliances that make previously arduous time consuming tasks fast, efficient and effortless.
Are these all things we should be amazed by, grateful for and happy thus? Yes I think so. Is everyone happy about it? No. A shame really.
To our ancient ancestors we seem like gods of unfathomable knowledge, power and abilities. And likely we would look like simpletons to the humans of hundreds of years in the future, our current methods appearing barbaric in their better refined modernity.
Antinatalism will probably still fixate on their future problems while ignoring the immense progress we have made and will continue to make at ever accelerating rates.
schopenhauer1November 04, 2022 at 11:15#7538410 likes
The attention I am paying to 'his argument,' is simply shaking your little room. If you want to help him then make your points or concentrate on wiping the slabbers from your own mouth.
Not at all. You’re simply missing his points and/or ignoring them. He’s doing a fine job. Can’t help if you’re like a child with fingers in his ears.
universenessNovember 04, 2022 at 11:19#7538420 likes
Antinatalism will probably still fixate on their future problems while ignoring the immense progress we have made and will continue to make at ever accelerating rates.
Well said sir! From a google search: In his 2011 book, “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,” Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker argued that despite common assumptions, violence has dropped dramatically from biblical times to the present. His new book, “Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress,” picks up on that theme, exploring how other threats to human well-being have been in similar retreat.
This is the kind of evidence that shows humans HAVE significantly progressed in their goal to make the human experience a better one for all stakeholders including the flora and fauna of the Earth itself.
Things are still very worrying, I dont want to dilute that one bit, but they have been even more worrying in the past. Can you imagine being in or around Pompeii when Vesuvius erupted? You really would have thought armaggedon had arrived. How about living during the black death plagues. I think even I would have called out 'we are doomed, doomed, WE ARE ALL DOOMED!,' as my neighbours and family died all around me. But we survived and we continued to progress.
Your death in certain circumstances will be the action that will improve the lives of millions, permanently. But you will never be credited. In fact, your memory will be despised, as the circumstances mean that you will have to seem to be the traitor, the judas, the evil one. You will be forever damned. No one will ever know that you were in fact the saviour. Would you do it? no martyrdom, no credit, no memorial other than as one who is hated and utterly damned?
It would be sad to imagine helping others and nobody appreciating it. People like to be appreciated for the good things they do. Positive reinforcement and all.
For me this would seem like an unlikely scenario. It would mean humanity would have to be totally and completely blind to what's good for them, to lack all sense of what is good. Which sounds suspiciously like antinatalism again.
I think at most, if you really were a saviour of humanity and died for their benefit, you would be a great source of controversy, but not universally hated.
Some would hail your efforts as mighty and wonderful, others would say you were an anarchist trying to ruin everyone's lives by disrupting and upheaving the systems in place (even if you did so by simply by highlighting their flaws and trying to prevent their demise through that flaw. ).
Most martyrs or assassinated leaders are very controversial indeed. History books tend to polarise those that cause a great change or Copernican revolution of seismic proportions, as history writers are undecided towards either one of two arguments (he/she was good and saved us) or (he/she was bad and trying to destroy us) so they record both.
In the case that you believe you were a saviour yet every single person things you are horrible, evil, incorrect and deserve to be hated, I think one ought to assume that their judgement is severely misplaced. If no one is on your side then why believe you're actually doing something good. It's a matter of whether you respect others ability to appreciate good acts or believe you are the only one who knows what they're talking about and totally superior, everyone else just meer simpletons.
I don't think someone hated by everyone has any power to influence them, so thus unlikely to be the saviour of anything at all.
I don't think Hitler did much good for anyone. He probably believed he was a saviour blessing humanity with his efforts and simply ignoring anyone who contradicted this belief. Good leaders, actual saviours, entertain others thoughts and navigate them not by ignorance but by explanation (revelation).
Good leaders leave the choices to be made by others. They merely offer their wisdom and ask that others might accept it (democracy). Bad leaders make the choices despite what anyone else might think or say (dictatorships).
universenessNovember 04, 2022 at 11:24#7538450 likes
Not at all. You’re simply missing his points and/or ignoring them. He’s doing a fine job. Can’t help if you’re like a child with fingers in his ears.
All you do is throw another toy from your pram! around about 200 of them so far, according to the moderators. Make you antinatalist points, stop trying to throw your pelters at me, your efforts are completely benign.
It does not inhibit a moral discussion but your antinatalism solution ignores and hand waves away the very powerful natural imperative for continuation of the human species and the natural imperative to continue all species, including those produced asexually. All you are trying to do is squirm past that point by hand waving it away because you know its fact and it is strong evidence against the validity of an antinatalist viewpoint.
I'm handwaving it, because there is no reason whatsoever for an individual to feel any natural imperative. I don't feel any natural imperative. Simultaneously seeing that people using this "natural imperative" are using an irrational "end justify the means" argument (I explained why it is irrational) to excuse their individual actions.
Give me an example of another species that has made itself extinct through the choice of all of its members to stop reproducing, ...
Morality is about individuals and individual choices. I can point to many individuals who made the conscious decision not to reproduce, thus disproving - yes, disproving - any allusions to the existence of a "natural imperative" that we are somehow all magically subjected to.
Are images in your head of 'dirty evil human instincts,' the basis of your antinatalism?
No, really what I'm doing is applying a very common moral principle - do not impose on others - consistently, and I view your position as special pleading to excuse your inconsistency.
Human suffering is put forward by antinatalists as the main reason for their adherence to it.
Not by/for me.
To use human suffering as the reason for antinatalism would imply utilitarianism, which is another type of "ends justify the means" argument that I am principally against.
It would be sad to imagine helping others and nobody appreciating it. People like to be appreciated for the good things they do.
Based on your response, I think you agree that dilemma's such as the two I highlighted from Babylon 5, at least demonstrate that figuring complicated stuff out, can be really really tough.
I know that's a very 'no shit Sherlock,' observation to make, but I do think it's important to think deeply when faced with such irrational and impractical people as antinatalists.
I think they may be just people who are crying out for help and recognition.
I know that's a very 'no shit Sherlock,' observation to make, but I do think it's important to think deeply when faced with such irrational and impractical people as antinatalists.
I think they may be just people who are crying out for help and recognition.
Haha sometimes the "No shit sherlock observations" are the most profound and useful. We often forget the basics on such a hectic and changeable life.
For me Antinatalists are:
1). People with a fundamentally good intention (to address suffering, to find an ultimate ethical/moral solution for suffering).
2). Lack any coherent good reasoning for that intention (because from their ideal concept: no one would exist - and then oops! Suffering doesn't exist, hence what ethical intention would they have to even suppose the ideal in the first place, as they wouldn't exist to have intention. Duh. ).
In this way it is a paradoxic cycle alternating from subjectivity (concept of an ideal), to the implications of that ideal if it was objective (actually the case). In which case the intent (ideal) violates its own existence if it were to be real (objective).
You cannot have an ethical principle (existence without suffering) that destroys the assumptions (suffering) required to formulate that principle.
And that's why they feel helpless and sad. Because they don't contribute in action to mitigating suffering. Like starting a charity or educating people or doing a humanitarian aid trip. They only articulate a pointless contradictory principle and flounder helplessly by fixating on it. One needs to identify their ability to act (their agency, the fact that their life can and does matter, and they can make a positive differenve against suffering) rather than just talk about sufferings inability to be abolished entirely.
Being someone who exists (but has an ideal of not existing) signals serious concern to me for their wellbeing. Because to me it sounds like a state of helplessness and impotency - inability to reconcile their purpose (core ideal) with the fact that they exist as a person. So the only other option is to project the need for non existence onto others (in other words make it everyone elses problem).
In short, a last ditch effort to cope by denying the fact that they're severely depressed/utterly miserable and have little joy left to feel.
But that's hopeful in the sense that the only other choice available to them is to stop coping, make it their own problem to deal with, which as you can probably anticipate, doesn't end well. And that's something we don't want for them. Hence why I try to explain and help.
The challenge is to imbue an Antinatalist with a reason to live that is better than just telling everyone else they should die. Because that's entirely ineffective as an argument strategy. No one who wants to live, enjoys living, wants to agree that they should die. That's obvious. And so all an Antinatalist will ever get in return is fierce rejection from happy, more hopeful, more omtimistic people or agreement from others that are severely depressed.
There is proof in the argument itself that others want to help an antinatalist to feel happy. Because if we didn't we wouldn't argue with them about it. We would just ignore them even though we know they're helpless and vulnerable. And that wouldnt be very ethical of us. The only way to derail someone's helplessness is to educate them through conversation and help them identify their depression in themselves and try to empower them to make the right decision to save themselves. As none of us can save them without their consent.
Whether one chooses to accept help from someone who is trying to show them an interest in life, to show them some positivity, is entirely up to them. But from the point of view of their ideal any help offered is interpreted as the greatest imposition. It feels like theyre being forced by everyone to participate in life because they still hold onto that part of them that doesn't want to allow them to be happy despite suffering.
You don't have to give up the intention to reduce suffering to be happy. You can satisfy both (recognition of suffering and the desire to reduce it) by getting your happiness and fulfillment in life through helping others to feel happy, but it requires letting go of a fixation on a contradiction, by finally accepting that it is a contradiction, and living anyways to fight another day. Together.
universenessNovember 04, 2022 at 12:49#7538580 likes
I'm handwaving it, because there is no reason whatsoever for an individual to feel any natural imperative. I don't feel any natural imperative.
You have simply decided to supress it, but it is still part of you, and it will revisit you at times. I have no children and imo, I am now too late in life at 58 to have any. You will see family units, having joyous interactions, especially parents and small infants, you will hear a parent talk about how their children are more important to them than their own lives. You will hear people talk about their long historical family legacy and such will make you think for a moment, and you will have to reinforce your suppression.
Even drama scenes like:
Demonstrate the 'natural imperative' and the suffering that can be caused by not reproducing.
Some people who cannot have children suffer very badly. Antinatalists also handwave that away as well with 'it's immoral to alleviate your own suffering by bringing new life into the world which can also suffer.' Which of course suggests that suffering is all that is on offer for newborns or any joys will be irrelevent because of the sufferings you will experience. Again, totally irrational thinking.
Simultaneously seeing that people using this "natural imperative" are using an irrational "end justify the means" argument (I explained why it is irrational) to excuse their individual actions.
So is asexual reproduction, in your mind, irrational, as well as 'unfortunate?'
You can't guarantee your fake immorality concern wont return again, and again and again.
— universeness
I don't need to guarantee anything. The only thing I'm concerned with is the morality of the act of reproducing.
So, you have no interest in consequentials then? Even if those consequentials mean that the original goal of your protest remains unfulfilled and the issue is never solved because it returns again and again, ad infinitum?
Morality is about individuals and individual choices. I can point to many individuals who made the conscious decision not to reproduce, thus disproving - yes, disproving - any allusions to the existence of a "natural imperative" that we are somehow all magically subjected to.
I can point to such people as well and their decision is not normally an antinatalist one and is more likely to be an economic or lifestyle choice or even a 'not until the world becomes a better place,' or 'the world is overpopulated' choice which is also not necessarily based on an antinatalist viewpoint.
I have no idea what is in your head that connects the natural imperative to reproduce with the word 'magic.'
Clearly this is not the case. Humans have many instincts, violent ones, sexual ones, etc. that are clearly not moral.
And when these 'unpalatable thoughts' surface in you, is your established morality able to cope and ensure you dismiss such thoughts as just the mere random musings of your mind that are based on your primal fears, formed from the fact that our species came through a 'jungle rules' phase?
In what way is the human potential for random, controllable, suppressible, immoral thought an aspect of humanity that warrants antinatalism and the extinction of our species?
No, really what I'm doing is applying a very common moral principle - do not impose on others - consistently, and I view your position as special pleading to excuse your inconsistency.
But you are trying to constantly impose your antinatalism on others, consistently! Why is that not special pleading and immoral?
No I can't, because clearly you're responding to some generalized idea you have about antinatalism, and not reading what I am typing to you.
Oh, I am reading exactly what you are typing, and I understand every word, as your thinking is not exactly complicated. I find the very few, different flavours of antinatalism, typed about on this thread to be equal only in how irrational they are.
So, you are not an antinatalist, based on the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority (utilitarianism). You are an antinatalist because you think it's immoral not to be such, as you think reproduction is an imposition on those who are born, as you did not have their consent. You choose to ignore the fact that obtaining such consent is not possible and that simply means, by default, we must not reproduce and anything that reproduces asexually now or after our extinction is just unfortunate. It that basically you position? Is that the antinatalism you want to sell to everyone? Which includes people like me? What estimate do you place on your chances of success?
Do you in fact need the buzz you get from the incredulity you receive?
universenessNovember 04, 2022 at 13:18#7538640 likes
1). People with a fundamentally good intention (to address suffering, to find an ultimate ethical/moral solution for suffering).
But the antinatalist @Tzeentch has just posted that he does not care about reducing human suffering so does your number 1 here apply to his/her flavour of antinatalism?
In this way it is a paradoxic cycle alternating from subjectivity (concept of an ideal), to the implications of that ideal if it was objective (actually the case). In which case the intent (ideal) violates its own existence if it were to be real (objective).
They only articulate a pointless contradictory principle and flounder helplessly by fixating on it. One needs to identify their ability to act (their agency, the fact that their life can and does matter, and they can make a positive differenve against suffering) rather than just talk about sufferings inability to be abolished entirely.
Being someone who exists (but has an ideal of not existing) signals serious concern to me for their wellbeing. Because to me it sounds like a state of helplessness and impotency - inability to reconcile their purpose (core ideal) with the fact that they exist as a person. So the only other option is to project the need for non existence onto others (in other words make it everyone elses problem).
In short, a last ditch effort to cope by denying the fact that they're severely depressed/utterly miserable and have little joy left to feel.
It certainly seems that way but perhaps some of them do get an actual buzz out of the incredulous responses they get. Attention seekers? Some dishonest interlocuters live on the buzz of contoversy.
Look at characters like Alex Jones (recently fined a billion dollars for his BS about the horrific Sandy Hook school attack), Ben Shapiro, who loves and lives off being controversial, Piers Morgan is exactly the same as is Donald Trump.
There is a horrible organised group in America called the ANI(Antinatalism International). To me even their name seems backwards. I won't post any of their nonsense here, but they should not be merely ignored. TPF member @DA671 already posted some awful but relevant footage from organised American antinatalists and it is material that should raise flags of concern. Having typed that, I do think that antinatalism remains gnat sized in the big human picture.
I hope the anti-life posters appreciate the olive branch you offer them.
I would just still watch who you invite into your world.
schopenhauer1November 04, 2022 at 13:19#7538650 likes
Which of course suggests that suffering is all that is on offer for newborns or any joys will be irrelevent because of the sufferings you will experience. Again, totally irrational thinking.
So is asexual reproduction, in your mind, irrational, as well as 'unfortunate?'
Red herring. Applying morality to things that by definition can't be moral is a category error, including most animals. Not only is it a category error, it is simply besides the point he is making.
So, you have no interest in consequentials then? Even if those consequentials mean that the original goal of your protest remains unfulfilled and the issue is never solved because it returns again and again, ad infinitum?
Yes, that is part of his central ethical argument. It's deontological, not consequential. Unnecessarily imposing on others for X reason, is wrong he is saying. Thus, obviously, imposing on many people EVEN in the hopes of preventing unnecessary impositions would by logic, also be wrong.
I have no idea what is in your head that connects the natural imperative to reproduce with the word 'magic.'
That's because there is no "natural imperative to reproduce" in HUMANS. We are a creature that has "reasons" that are shaped by a multitude of things, and are generally shaped by the general culture around us and simply personal preferences- anything from not wanting to miss out, to simply boredom with life, loneliness, and a host of other non-instinctual reasons.
In what way is the human potential for random, controllable, suppressible, immoral thought an aspect of humanity that warrants antinatalism and the extinction of our species?
You choose to ignore the fact that obtaining such consent is not possible and that simply means, by default, we must not reproduce and anything that reproduces asexually now or after our extinction is just unfortunate. It that basically you position? Is that the antinatalism you want to sell to everyone? Which includes people like me? What estimate do you place on your chances of success?
Do you in fact need the buzz you get from the incredulity you receive?
A truth isn't how successful it sells to an audience. People often don't see "truth" at all, and certainly not right away.
So, you have no interest in consequentials then? Even if those consequentials mean that the original goal of your protest remains unfulfilled and the issue is never solved because it returns again and again, ad infinitum?
If the means are flawed the ends won't justify them, so my interest is consequences is secondary.
And what exactly do you believe my "original goal" and or "protest" consist of?
I can point to such people as well and their decision is not normally an antinatalist one and is more likely to be an economic or lifestyle choice or even a 'not until the world becomes a better place,' or 'the world is overpopulated' choice which is also not necessarily based on an antinatalist viewpoint.
Seems like these individuals were able to put rational considerations before instinct - excellent.
In what way is the human potential for random, controllable, suppressible, immoral thought an aspect of humanity that warrants antinatalism and the extinction of our species?
It is not. It reveals your appeal to "natural imperatives" as simply an act of cherry-picking.
You are choosing to ignore the fact that obtaining such consent is not possible ...
I have actually pointed that out specifically as the focal point of the dilemma.
All I'm doing is pointing out that procreation violates a common moral principle, and waiting patiently for a weighty argumentation as to why that should be ok.
You gave extinction as a reason, to which I replied:
- I am highly skeptical of individuals who profess the prolongation of the human race as their reason for procreating.
- Ends do not justify means.
You haven't really moved beyond this, and instead are seeking refuge in personal attacks.
But the antinatalist Tzeentch has just posted that he does not care about reducing human suffering so does your number 1 here apply to his/her flavour of antinatalism?
Well it wouldnt be true antinatalism then, if that's actually the case. If he doesn't care to reduce human suffering he doesn't behold an ultimate ethical principle for ending all suffering.
But if he believes all people should not reproduce that contradicts him claiming he doesn't care about reducing suffering because if people don't reproduce we go extinct and suffering cannot occur. So it would just lead back to the actual true antinatalist belief that we shouldn't exist to prevent suffering.
If he really doesn't care for reducing suffering perhaps he has let go of his antinatalist absolutism/fundamentalism and believes he deserves to exist despite the existence of suffering. Which is good as we can only fight suffering through existing, I think though that we ought to care a bit about suffering and not totally disregard it as doing so disregards ethics altogether.
I would see that this new view as an improvement on just repeatedly reiterating antinatalist idealogy in its endless contradictory cycle, but can be further improved by establishing a balance between one's worthiness to exist and an ethical imperative to minimise suffering.
In otherwords having the wisdom to acknowledge yourself as worthy and just do your best to fight suffering in a capacity that doesn't deny your own right to exist. That is harmony and balance.
It certainly seems that way but perhaps some of them do get an actual buzz out of the incredulous responses they get. Attention seekers?
I wouldnt say buzz so much as a minute "hope" that their belief is valid - the antinatalist one that is. The controversy in itself serves to validate their "hope-rock" that they're clinging to to justify their existence. As engaging in debate about it validates its worthiness of debate in the first place.
The buzz is the same buzz as all the buzzes in life that maintains our hope, ambition, satisfaction, enjoyment, a reason to like living. And so that buzz is not something we should extinguish in someone, as to take away someone else's last shred of hope is to condemn to their own self annihilation.
All we can merely offer is a change in the quality of the buzz - how someone gets their pleasure in life, a step away from something absurd/toxic/dangerous and towards something worthwhile, meaningful and wholesome.
universenessNovember 04, 2022 at 13:43#7538800 likes
Yes, that is part of his central ethical argument. It's deontological, not consequential. Unnecessarily imposing on others for X reason, is wrong he is saying. Thus, obviously, imposing on many people EVEN in the hopes of preventing unnecessary impositions would by logic, also be wrong.
Oh sure, let's go Kant. I think the clue might be in his name!
A normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules and principles, rather than based on the consequences of the action, is a very poor methodology to apply to the issue of species survival and progression.
Perhaps you need to switch your methodology to one which does consider consequences and by doing so you might finally see that the natural imperative to reproduce and continue the human story is a better choice that pausing the story, returning to the beginning and starting the process again to arrive at the same point with perhaps a different sexual reproduction method such as parthenogenesis.
That's because there is no "natural imperative to reproduce" in HUMANS. We are a creature that has "reasons" that are shaped by a multitude of things, and are generally shaped by the general culture around us and simply personal preferences- anything from not wanting to miss out, to simply boredom with life, loneliness, and a host of other non-instinctual reasons.
Not true, based on the examples I have already given. If you are correct that humans do not experience a natural imperative to reproduce, then why do so many humans feel unfulfilled if they don't?
I agree it can be suppressed but you have to work at that and maintain it. If someone claims they can suppress the natural imperative to reproduce with no effort at all, with no conflict arising ever, in their mind and body then I say they are lying.
I hope the anti-life posters appreciate the olive branch you offer them.
I would just still watch who you invite into your world.
I appreciate your concern for my wellbeing really. Its very kind of you. I think that they have good reason to accept the olive branch and perhaps they do. It's hard to tell other than observing a change in their attitude and what beliefs they support and propagate.
If you fight antinatalism and suddenly they are suggesting more rational, reasonable arguments that are harder and harder for you to reason against (because they are less extreme and contradictory) then chances are you were successful in your goal, to steer them away from that vicious cyclical contradiction. You may feel defeated, but in actual fact that's only because you had a great effect - they accepted the beliefs you offered them and are now using them as their rock - a healthier one, in which to continue discourse.
You've tipped the balance back to the middle.
Given them your insights as a tool to defend themselves against the tendency to drift back towards antinatalism (depression). No longer then do you have the upper hand because you gave it away to help them.
"it's equally important to know when the fight is already won than to continue arguing beyond the point at which you already helped, for the sake of it, because you run the risk of role reversal where you yourself drift towards antinatalism.
At some point we must leave the table of argument knowing we instilled what we needed to in others, wisdom is knowing when the point was taken on-board, and you can then move onto the next crisis in need of your insights and help them out of that nosedive the same way you did previously. "
A job well done is just that - done.
You should feel proud of that fact, and move on.
universenessNovember 04, 2022 at 14:36#7538930 likes
If there is no decision being made, then it is not irrational. It just "is".
Unfortunate, yes, because now individuals don't have a say in whether they reproduce, and they still have no say in whether they are born.
So, do you agree that if an intelligent species reproduced asexually then antinatalism as an option dies?
So, would the morality issue you champion. Does that not give 'nature, evolution, natural selection,' the upper hand over your morality issue? Natural selection can and has produced asexual species showing that antinatalism, as irrational as it is, is only applicable to species who reproduce through sex or through some future transhuman process. We also have the evidence that the universe has already passed the event of life creation. This, to me, makes antinatalism very unlikely to succeed even if we were imbalanced enough to all vote for it.
You are an antinatalist because you think it's immoral not to be such, as you think reproduction is an imposition on those who are born, as you did not have their consent. You choose to ignore the fact that obtaining such consent is not possible and that simply means, by default, we must not reproduce and anything that reproduces asexually now or after our extinction is just unfortunate. It that basically you position? I
Seems like these individuals were able to put rational considerations before instinct - excellent.
I agree, but we are not currently in danger of extinction due to lack of reproduction, so they are able to make such choices and overrule the natural imperative to reproduce but they may have to experience some suffering due to having to make that choice. Is it moral that the rich and powerful have more choice over reproduction that the poor? The poor used to have lots of kids as they believed the more kids you have the more chance you will be looked after when your are old. That didnt work out well either, it mostly failed. Desperate, poorly conceived solutions like antinatalism or having 20 kids will normally fail.
If you feel threatened by a philosophical discussion to the point it feels like people are imposing on you, maybe discussion forums are not for you.
Right back at you, I can confirm to you that your antinatalism is no threat to me, but it is perhaps a threat to any here who are more mentally vulnerable than I.
I have actually pointed that out specifically as the focal point of the dilemma.
All I'm doing is pointing out that procreation violates a common moral principle, and waiting patiently for a weighty argumentation as to why that should be ok.
You gave extinction as a reason, to which I replied:
- I am highly skeptical of individuals who profess the prolongation of the human race as their reason for procreating.
- Ends do not justify means.
You haven't really moved beyond this, and instead are seeking refuge in personal attacks.
Skeptical in what way? 'Ends do not justify means' is not an objective universal truth!
If I break the law and kill a killer who was planning to kill you and your loved ones.
If I killed that killer by breaking into their house and killing them before they carried out their plan to kill you then I would most likely be convicted and jailed for it. Well OK! That's the price I may have to pay under the law/rules of human morality. But perhaps many would feel that the Ends I achieved DID justify the means I employed. You and your family might indeed feel that way! Such is personally subjective, yes?
universenessNovember 04, 2022 at 14:47#7538960 likes
Well it wouldnt be true antinatalism then, if that's actually the case. If he doesn't care to reduce human suffering he doesn't behold an ultimate ethical principle for ending all suffering.
I dont know if you have read through his recent posts on this page regarding his flavour of antinatalism.
It is based on a moral dilemma, not the issue of human suffering. I think his main posit is simply that it is immoral to bring a newborn into this existence without its consent and as its impossible to obtain its consent, the moral default position must be applied which MUST be, the decision not to procreate.
That's my attempt to 'steelman' his bizarre logic.
universenessNovember 04, 2022 at 14:50#7538970 likes
All we can merely offer is a change in the quality of the buzz - how someone gets their pleasure in life, a step away from something absurd/toxic/dangerous and towards something worthwhile, meaningful and wholesome.
We can but try! :strong:
universenessNovember 04, 2022 at 14:58#7538990 likes
A job well done is just that - done.
You should feel proud of that fact, and move on.
I do appreciate what you are saying and I broadly agree with your advice, BUT when you are dealing with those who post in an evanhellical style then they will not desist as long as they have a platform, and we cannot remove all their platforms because that would suggest we cannot deal with them in a civilised manner and still defeat them. If the antinatalist fountain keeps spouting, then I for one will keep trying to bail out our ship. Better that, than trying to save some if we all end up in the water as I can't swim and would be too busy drowning to help save anyone else.
I do appreciate what you are saying and I broadly agree with your advice, BUT when you are dealing with those who post in an evanhellical style then they will not desist as long as they have a platform, and we cannot remove all their platforms because that would suggest we cannot deal with them in a civilised manner and still defeat them. If the antinatalist fountain keeps spouting, then I for one will keep trying to bail out our ship. Better that, than trying to save some if we all end up in the water as I can't swim and would be too busy drowning to help save anyone else
Quite right Universeness, we must continue bailing that ship. Its a noble act of you to do so.
However we must recognise the point when one stops pumping the fountain and instead picks up a bailor and bails the ship with us. For then they're on our side. We can only do our best to convince the fountainists to become bailors. The rest is up to the fates.
I dont know if you have read through his recent posts on this page regarding his flavour of antinatalism.
It is based on a moral dilemma, not the issue of human suffering. I think his main posit is simply that it is immoral to bring a newborn into this existence without its consent and as its impossible to obtain its consent, the moral default position must be applied which MUST be, the decision not to procreate.
That's my attempt to 'steelman' his bizarre logic.
2h
Well one can only say that the default to not procreate as we cannot ask the unborn if they'd like to be born is merely based on the belief that we don't think we can raise that potential child to be good and to fight suffering. If we can raise such a child then we ought to (morally speaking).
If we are sure we would create a monster instead then we ought not to (again morally speaking). It speaks to a direct reflection on one's own capacity to be good and thus train their children/teach them to do the same.
But as we cannot know for certain how our children will turn out we do take a chance by procreating. But we do know ourselves - as parents - we may be sure that we have the best intentions to do right by our children. That is usually enough to convince them (their agency) to be good because our children usually respect us as parents, as the ones that brought them into the world.
universenessNovember 05, 2022 at 09:07#7540650 likes
But as we cannot know for certain how our children will turn out we do take a chance by procreating. But we do know ourselves - as parents - we may be sure that we have the best intentions to do right by our children. That is usually enough to convince them (their agency) to be good because our children usually respect us as parents, as the ones that brought them into the world.
Yes, you summarise the moral issue quite well. But my argument regarding the moral dilemma peddled by @Tzeentch is that his issue of 'common morality' is extensively overblown by him and it does not have the force behind it that he is trying to peddle. Human morality is not as significant as the natural imperative to procreate, as a defence against extinction. The natural development of asexuality in many flora and fauna species is evidence for this, as is the fact that natural selection will maintain those aspects of a species which best equips it for survival within the environment it finds itself in, regardless of any issue of what humans label, morality. In fact, evolution through natural selection will even alter species over evolutionary time to assist a species to survive in its environment, regardless of any issue related to the human concept of morality. I think these biological facts, push the comparative human morality issue peddled by Tzeentch, towards a gnat sized concern. I think it does the same to schopenhauer1's human suffering flavour. The theistic antinatalism flavours and propositional logic conflations used by Bartricks are just too ridiculous to need much effort to combat. He can only get the fountain to slightly drip onto the deck of the ship.
One bailer could put his pail down for most of his/her life before having to take a moment to bail bartricks out of our progressive human ship.
as is the fact that natural selection will maintain those aspects of a species which best equips it for survival within the environment it finds itself in, regardless of any issue of what humans label, morality
Could natural selection not also operate on a cultural, linguistic and neurological level? I fail to see how the process is limited to biology and cannot be extended to other things like concepts, the words that represent them and the cultures that use them.
For example if a concept is useful (logical and or ethical) in explanation of something it will be used by an individual to articulate themselves (articulation being the spreading of that concept to others).
Similarly such new concepts require new words right? To condense their meaning into something useful - a short hand explanation for quicker/more efficient spreading of the information.
For example: Instead of saying "we should like totally be friends with that four legged animal that seems pretty nice and does stuff for us in return for food" we can just call it a "dog" and refer to it as "man's best friend". The information is the same, the number of words is condensed.
Languages evolve out of usefulness. Slang and tech words are the new most useful terms accepted to describe ideas and that's why they gain popularity.
I can now "Google it". It's now a verb in the dictionary. Instead of before where I had to say "I can now search for the information using the digital world wide network". A mouthful for sure.
universenessNovember 05, 2022 at 10:09#7540800 likes
Reply to Benj96
There is clear space between natural selection (no intent) and human selection (intent).
Human selection is directly responsible for the evolutionary direction of almost every dog/cat/domesticated animal species alive today. This is also true for many flora/plant species.
I think you are referring to human selection rather than any aspect of natural selection.
I think you are referring to human selection rather than any aspect of natural selection.
In that sense you outlined, yes I'm referring to human selection. However humans are natural - born of nature itself. At what point does natural selection convert into human selection? And how arbitrary or definitive is this boundary?
I suppose based on your distinction of "intent" and "no intent" you're referring to "choice" which pertains to agents/that which is conscious.
So the difference then between natural selection and human selection would be the emergence of conscious agents with intent right?
Does that mean then that humans are the only conscious agents with intent? Or is it perhaps a continuum graduating stepwise from a system with no agency or choice towards one that does have agency and control. And where would other animals, plants and life fall on this continuum of emergent "intent"?
universenessNovember 05, 2022 at 10:36#7540870 likes
In that sense yes in referring to human selection. However humans are natural - born of nature itself. At what point does natural selection convert into human selection?
Natural selection still affects humans, humans continue to evolve related to their environment, but human science will have a far more significant effect and far faster effect on human physiology/biology than evolution through natural selection. So human intent via human science creates human selection but it does not replace evolution and natural selection, that will continue until universal entropy, returns the Universe to nothing but energy.
I suppose based on your distinction of "intent" and "no intent" you're referring to "choice" which pertains to agents/that which is conscious. So the difference then between natural selection and human selection would be the emergence of conscious agents with intent right?
Yes, but I think it's more important here, to use a concept of intent, akin to 'the imposition of an individual or group human will.'
Does that mean then that humans are the only conscious agents with intent? Or is it perhaps a continuum graduating stepwise from a system with no agency or choice towards one that does have agency and control. And where would other animals, plants and life fall on this continuum of emergent "intent"?
No, I think many animals demonstrate intent. Even instinct can have an aspect of intent imo.
We don't know if extra-terrestrial intelligent life exists, if it does, then we are not even the only conscious agents with intent at our level of intellect. So, absolutely yes, there is a gradation or range of ability to demonstrate and impose intent, within all living entities.
Down The Rabbit HoleNovember 05, 2022 at 11:15#7540930 likes
Why do you think so many people work so hard to alleviate suffering? Such as the whole medical profession and those involved in medical research and why do you think so many people get involved in protest, political movements, philosophy, debate about how we might live better lives? Is it not to reduce the number of lives of unbearable suffering?
It would be science as opposed to antinatalism that beats lives of unbearable suffering. Although this is likely to take hundreds of years.
I wouldn't say people get involved in politics etc with the goal of reducing the number of lives of unbearable suffering. Many people have other goals that take precedence, and there are those that take a deontological approach, preferring personal freedom etc, despite the consequences. Look at America electing Trump, and Brits voting overwhelmingly for the Tories who cut the NHS killing tens of thousands in only a few years, according to the Royal Society of Medicine.
I wouldn't say people get involved in politics etc with the goal of reducing the number of lives of unbearable suffering.
Martin Luther King got involved in politics, to reduce or stop minority groups living lives of unbearable suffering, due to racism and a lack of human/civil rights.
Gandhi got involved in politics to free the people in his subjugated nation from the unbearable suffering being imposed apon them, due to British imperialism.
I could cite many more examples.
Many people have other goals that take precedence, and there are those that take a deontological approach, preferring personal freedom etc, despite the consequences. Look at America electing Trump, and Brits voting overwhelmingly for the Tories who cut the NHS killing tens of thousands in only a few years, according to the Royal Society of Medicine.
I broadly agree, but the people you describe above are the ones I continue to combat, by trying to convince their supporters, through reasoned debate/dialogue/discourse, to stop supporting such nefarious, narcissistic and in some examples, evil people who peddle evil policies and evil ideas, which in political examples, have the hidden agenda of gaining new or maintaining the current wealth and power of the nefarious few.
Agent SmithNovember 05, 2022 at 15:47#7541510 likes
@schopenhauer1, do you really think it's the pain/the anguish/the suffering/the agony (dukkha) that's our enemy #1?
schopenhauer1November 05, 2022 at 15:51#7541530 likes
do you think it's really the pain/the anguish/the suffering/the agony (dukkha) that's our enemy #1?
I think yes, there is an inherent kind suffering (like dukkha) that is very much the heart of the whole enterprise of life. There is a sort of lack-of-something that motivates. The goal (trick) of societies is to try to harness this motivation for "productive" purposes. I simply see it as not "being" and succumbing to becoming. We can't help it. It is self-aware angst, projected as "reasons" in the name of survival, comfort, and entertainment.
Agent SmithNovember 05, 2022 at 16:05#7541550 likes
In that case, on what grounds are you judging the argument 'fair'? What would an unfair argument look like in this context?
That is a good question. How can we judge an argument, when there can be no correct answer.
For one, I would say ability to convince. I don't know how far you would agree on this point, but in my view the vast majority of people don't consider the philosophy of procreation, and having and raising kids is so engrained in society it would take some serious persuasion to remove their status quo bias. However, if presented with the question within The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, a fair number of people would opt to walk away. It feels wrong to them that people's happiness is contingent on others suffering. In the context I was using fair, unfair wouldn't make a lot of sense as an antonym, but would mean not fairly convincing.
Yeah, I think all that is true, but there's a third option which I think is more significant, which is those who see the world as a bad place and see children as means of fixing that - ie ensuring there's a next generation, better than the last, to help those who still remain to live more pleasant lives.
Contrary to the archetypal antinatalist, we're not all selfish sociopaths. It's not always about me, me, me sometimes people spare a thought for their community as a whole and consider themselves (and others) to have a duty toward it.
Yes, that's a third option. A factual case that procreation is a better way to cut down on suffering than antinatalism. This is different to the other two in that there is a right and wrong answer to it.
Agent SmithNovember 05, 2022 at 17:19#7541850 likes
Don't want to get @schopenhauer1 banned but their posts helped encourage me to join. I was already familiar with the literature but didn't know the topic was so widely discussed.
Agent SmithNovember 06, 2022 at 01:35#7542640 likes
Don't want to get schopenhauer1 banned but their posts helped encourage me to join. I was already familiar with the literature but didn't know the topic was so widely discussed.
Quite the opposite for me - I know the topic's widely discussed (at least on this forum) but I didn't know so much work had been done on it!
... in my view the vast majority of people don't consider the philosophy of procreation, and having and raising kids is so engrained in society it would take some serious persuasion to remove their status quo bias.
I agree with this point, and I was hoping that by pointing out some of the moral dilemmas associated with procreation I could coax some of this philosophy out of the its defenders, but I've gotten little in the way of that.
here is a sort of lack-of-something that motivates.
A lack of perfection perhaps (whatever that entails for the individual), motivated by a need to improve circumstances from the imperfect towards to perfect, addressing flaws - in science, in philosophical thinking, in politics, economics etc one by one as they arise?
We can't help it. It is self-aware angst, projected as "reasons" in the name of survival, comfort, and entertainment.
There is always angst to survival I think. Very apt/poignant of you to point out. We have instincts - built in searching and evaluation of threats to our survival, "critical thinking" in a sense. Perhaps this is what society takes advantage of, to pursue improvement as a collective, each having a role in maintaining the stability of society.
What angst we cannot ameliorate through productivity in society we project/invest into entertainment. A sort of escapism so it were, to entertain catastrophe and the ongoing battle against adversity conceptually through media: film, literature, music, art etc it's an outlet for personal angst.
That being said, I think we are doing an alright job, we have the institutions in place to combat existential angst and each one is usually undergoing constant revision, ammendments and improvement.
It may not be perfect, far from it, but it certainly is motoring on towards a slow steady progress towards a future idealised as getter than the past we came from.
schopenhauer1November 06, 2022 at 16:00#7543940 likes
A lack of perfection perhaps (whatever that entails for the individual), motivated by a need to improve circumstances from the imperfect towards to perfect, addressing flaws - in science, in philosophical thinking, in politics, economics etc one by one as they arise?
Nah man, it doesn't go away. That is the point of the perennialism of Schopenhauer. it's a reason he was very opposed to Hegel's upward spiral notion.
There is always angst to survival I think. Very apt/poignant of you to point out. We have instincts - built in searching and evaluation of threats to our survival, "critical thinking" in a sense. Perhaps this is what society takes advantage of, to pursue improvement as a collective, each having a role in maintaining the stability of society.
It starts with two people who decide on behalf of someone else, that a new person needs to deal with the world and deal with survival, comfort-seeking, and entertainment. They are creating another source of angst, in other words. The social institutions are like a pyramid scheme.. It can't be gotten rid of or changed easily as it's all the society has to allow the forced contestants to survive, find comfort, and entertainment.
What angst we cannot ameliorate through productivity in society we project/invest into entertainment. A sort of escapism so it were, to entertain catastrophe and the ongoing battle against adversity conceptually through media: film, literature, music, art etc it's an outlet for personal angst.
People used to call some of that sublimation. But basically I consider entertainment anything that isn't survival or comfort seeking. Meditation and reading philosophy for pleasure can be entertainment. It doesn't matter what it is, as long as it's something you are doing outside of working to survive or finding ways to get more comfortable with your environment.
That being said, I think we are doing an alright job, we have the institutions in place to combat existential angst and each one is usually undergoing constant revision, ammendments and improvement.
But YOUR preference for X institutions shouldn't become someone else's burden to bear, simply because YOU think this is the case.
It may not be perfect, far from it, but it certainly is motoring on towards a slow steady progress towards a future idealised as getter than the past we came from.
We are far from a utopia. Rather, we are a mediocre universe doing mediocre things. The main problem is we keep putting more contestants in the game, and thinking we are doing them a favor. It's just starting yet another game on behalf of someone else, because YOU like something. I never heard of something where MY preference requires OTHERS to be forced into a game that cannot be changed. Where MY preference for what choices are meaningful or good (e.g. working to survive apparently people must love because they keep putting more laboring units into the workforce and shoving the drivel that work is meaningful so don't despair) are what OTHER people should experience.. Somehow the limited choices that life offers of survival and comfort, somehow the intendant harms of existing are what OTHERS should experience. OR, guess what they can do if they don't like it? You know (kill themselves!)...Real gaslighting if you ask me.
. I never heard of something where MY preference requires OTHERS to be forced into a game that cannot be changed.
This is where our agreement departs. We are assuming the rules of such a game are fixed. Those rules being that the game cannot be changed, we must then flounder helplessly, and we must suffer/be of inherent angst thus. I think any game player can change the status quo if they want to. Not an easy pursuit by any means but a possible one.
Otherwise why bother with politics or accruing any power whatsoever - If that power cannot change circumstances in any meaningful way?
It's equivalent to outlining a game where the rigid/fixed rules are "the climate will change to such a point where earth will be uninhabitable and you will all die".
Naturally a player will ask "well in such a game is it possible to navigate away from climate doom". If the answer is "No" then the game is pretty pointless isn't it?
Except that is not the game we play in real life. The rules are changeable en masse. Science tells us "here is the path away from these rules and towards a new set of more optimistic ones where the game-play can continue".
Any sensible game player would opt for that path.
So the actual rules of the gameplay of humanity are not as rigid as you believe. Just as the gameplay was previously changed from combating infectious diseases without antibiotics/vaccines to one where they are permissable in the game.
Fundamentally it reduces to pessimism vs. Optimism. You're free to choose which game format you choose. But you're not allowed to choose on behalf of other players.
schopenhauer1November 06, 2022 at 16:27#7544000 likes
This is where our agreement departs. We are assuming the rules of such a game are fixed. Those rules being that the game cannot be changed, we must then flounder helplessly, a
I CANNOT in good conscience FORCE you to start a game because I think there is some chance you can change the rules (which is extremely hard), and this doesn't address the point that the rules are already in place, and they are simply ACCEPTED (or kill yourself.. a shitty bargain).
I think any game player can change the status quo if they want to. Not an easy pursuit by any means but a possible one
Not good enough to FORCE OTHERS into a game because YOU like it.. Still not fair. Not just. Not right. Etc. I realize that isn't how people understand things because they never had it framed that way. Re-framing perhaps is most what I am after. Perhaps that's what @Down The Rabbit Hole found intriguing.
Naturally a player will ask "well in such a game is it possible to navigate away from climate doom". If the answer is "Np" then the game is pretty pointless isn't it?
I'm not talking about climate change or things such as that, though it is an example of a greater understanding that there are only a LIMITED amount of choices this universe allows for the human. The parent thinks that these choices are "good" and thus must be lived out by yet another person as well. That's what I am speaking to.
So the actual rules of the gameplay of humanity are not as rigid as you believe. Just as the gameplay was previously changed from combating infectious diseases without antibiotics/vaccines to one where they are permissible in the game.
Fundamentally it reduces to pessimism vs. Optimism. You're free to choose which game format you choose. But you're not allowed to choose on behalf of other players.
Yeah, I am not talking about the onward march of scientific phenomena.
Not good enough to FORCE OTHERS into a game because YOU like it.. Still not fair. Not just. Not right. Etc. I realize that isn't how people understand things because they never had it framed that way. Re-framing perhaps is most what I am after. Perhaps that's what Down The Rabbit Hole found intriguing.
What if I force someone into a game that they enjoy? They have a great time and vibe despite the fact I gave them no choice but to play? What would you say then?
What harm was done when they turn around and say "so I know you forced me into this game without my consent but I'm actually really glad you did as I didn't realise how much I would enjoy it, so thank you for taking that initial decision for me."
What if I force someone into a game that they enjoy?
The best you'll get out of this line of argument is something along the lines of "There's a higher chance that they'll enjoy it than that they will not enjoy it," and ultimately amounts to little more than playing a gamble with someone else's life.
If you believe that's a sufficient justification for procreation, then have at it.
The problem with this argument in my opinion, is that the parents do not have any knowledge of what they're about to impose. The life of a new person is a complete unknown. Nor do they have much influence over the outcome - that is determined by many other factors than the parents' goodwill and expertise.
The best you'll get out of this line of argument is something along the lines of "There's a higher chance that they'll enjoy it than that they will not enjoy it," and ultimately amounts to little more than playing a gamble with someone else's life.
No it doesn't. I just outlined the conditions. Person A forced person B into existence and they happened to love it and be grateful to person A for forcing them to participate.
With respect to those exact conditions what would you say?
Instead of re-writing it to a position in time when person A hasn't yet forced B to participate as I clearly did not outline. Its not a speculation or gamble when it has already happened.
So ill repeat myself, in the case that we assume person A has already committed person B to existing. And person B LOVES IT. And is happy, and grateful for being born. (as is the case currently with many parent child dynamics)
In that case... What argument do you have exactly?
What if I force someone into a game that they enjoy? They have a great time and vibe despite the fact I gave them no choice but to play? What would you say then?
A good state of affairs, but the result of a bad moral choice.
This.
But I have some more to add, and I'm wondering what Tzeentch thinks of these ideas.
First off, I think that life is way more nuanced than the binary "Good life, bad life". It is much more analog than digital. The problem is a "gift" as you are implying here about life, is not a gift if it comes with burdens one would have not asked for or wanted. If I gave you a "gift" that lasted a lifetime, you could not get rid of unless you kill yourself, is pervasive, and has many burdensome impositions that you would have not wanted, BUT it comes with some good stuff too.. You have every right to say that this is not a gift, this is an imposition DESPITE any good aspects that go along with it. Again, just because I like a game, doesn't mean OTHERS must play it and like it too. Liking it "enough" isn't an EXCUSE to go ahead and force others to play it. It was NOT NECESSARY to start yet another contestant.
You would only have a point if the life you are starting is perfectly aligned with what the contestant wanted.. it was easy to move to a different option if you didn't like the game, etc. That is not the case.. It is comply with the already set-up universe we have (go to work to survive, go homeless, live off others, consume, find entertainment, find relationships, etc.) or kill yourself.
So my point is saying that the game is "good enough" is not enough reason to go ahead and impose on others because YOU deem it to be good enough. It is the disconnect between what you like and what others SHOULD like. Do not PRESUME for others regarding an inescapable imposition. That is aggressively paternalistic.
If anything about my posts on Pessimism, they are to reveal what are pervasive and intractable negatives that go along with life. You can look back on any of my previous posts on the matter. Overlooking this with a simple line of "But what if they say life is good!" is wishful folly that doesn't take into account the full story. One does not have a right to impose such significant things on another. One is perpetuating suffering needlessly for another. Saying that life is a statistical phenomena of degrees of good and bad doesn't negate that there are negative aspects to life that are not what people would have wanted and are entailed with life. It is not unnecessarily starting THESE negatives for another that is the problem. This is what is being overlooked.
It is now up to the "pronatalists" to argue why procreation is a special case that deserves special logic.
There is no 'special case of logic' involved or required, that's just another fake claim you make.
Life was formed in the universe without intent and without any 'permission' or 'consent.' This was the original natural happenstance. Evolution and natural selection has demonstrated the reproduction system as the means by which a species may continue to exist whether or not that reproduction is asexual or sexual.
These systems were established, regardless of any aspect of human morality. Antinatalists may make as many appeals to their own conflated notions of human morality as they like. You are the ones making special pleads to a logic that is only valid in your own heads.
I am not a pronatalist, I don't think such a term has much important meaning behind it. Any intelligent person understands the danger of over population. I am pro species survival. I am for continuing the human species, as I know that we give a significance and purpose to the universe that it would not have if we (or our like,) did not exist. A significance which is so fundamental to the universe that it would be ever recreated by means of evolution, if events caused a return to a lifeless universal phase.
It is now up to the antinatalists to prove that their suggested solution would work and to also prove that humans are incapable of reducing human suffering to an acceptable level, no matter how much time they have to increase their knowledge of the structure and workings of the universe and their tech.
I don't care about antinatalists who use such words as 'that's not good enough.' My answer to such is the same one as I would give a child, constantly pestering for more candy.
'Well, that's all you're getting for now, you will just have to wait under we have more knowledge and better tech.'
Person B dodged a bullet, because person A took a gamble with B's life and it happened to turn out ok.
A good state of affairs, but the result of a bad moral choice.
Who says they dodged a bullet? This assumes person B is completely vulnerable and helpless in the world. And person A is equally vulnerable and helpless and inept at parenting.
But actually they have a great father/mother (Person A) one that protects them when they're infants, teaches them to be wise as they grow up, gives them exceptional tools to combat adversity and call out the BS of people trying to make them suffer (perhaps those suggesting they ought to die or never have children) and instills in them a sense of pride at being able to fend for themselves, to be independent, masters of navigating a world of suffering without allowing it to impact their happiness, their purpose being a moral one - teach others to do as their own parents did for them.
This person B:
1). Doesn't blame/despise their parents for creating them, doesn't see themselves as the victim of some horrible "forced" thing.
2).Experienced just enough suffering to know what it is and by contrast what happiness is. To learn a valuable lesson.
3). Were given the tools by their parent to maximise the stability of their own happiness/find fulfilment in life.
4). Cannot be made feel ashamed or guilty for living by others because the fulfillment they found was helping others mitigate their own suffering. Their intention is to reduce the suffering of others so they can polite ignore any attempt of someone to punish them for that as that woukd be irrational. Why should someone suffering punish someone who clearly demonstrates the skills to be happy and the willingness to show how its done?
That...... is why Person A didn't gamble with Person Bs life.
They knew they were good people (wise, kind, resourceful etc - many a virtue) , thus knew they would be good parents (applying those virtues/skills) and thus knew they would be able to raise good children (despite experience disagreements, arguments and a bit of suffering in the learning curve of growing up, they turned out as their parents did - grateful, appreciative and accepting of those skills passed down to them).
These systems were established, regardless of any aspect of human morality.
This won't do.
There are many behaviors that have existed prior to notions of morality, and many of such behaviors are universally regarded as immoral now, regardless of their prior existence.
You are the ones making special pleads to a logic that is only valid in your own heads.
"Don't impose (unless there are pressing reasons to do so)," is a common, almost universal moral principle.
You may claim this is not a moral principle, and that imposing is perfectly fine. Probably you realise that would lead you down a slippery slope. So what you have left is explaining why there is a pressing reason to impose in this particular instance - special pleading.
It's the procreators who are behaving inconsistently.
Why? It's not something you have power over, nor have a stake in. Whether the human race survives for another thousand years or another hundred thousand, you won't be around to witness it.
Besides, do you expect me to believe there is even a single person on this globe that procreates not for the simple reason that they want to have children, but because they so selflessly care about the survival of the human race?
But actually they have a great father/mother (Person A) one that protects them when they're infants, teaches them to be wise as they grow up, gives them exceptional tools to combat adversity and call out the BS of people trying to make them suffer (perhaps those suggesting they ought to die or never have children) and instills in them a sense of pride at being able to fend for themselves, to be independent, masters of navigating a world of suffering without allowing it to impact their happiness, their purpose being a moral one - teach others to do as their own parents did for them.
Whether someone has a great or terrible life is not solely a product of parenting. It's also a product of the environment, and a good amount of luck. There are many things the parents have no influence over, thus it is still a gamble, no matter how capable and well-intentioned the parents are.
If you believe that's a sufficient justification for procreation, then have at it.
I do. I believe in myself as a caretaker. I had very good parents to teach me how.
The only possible reason I can imagine for an anitnatalist ideology is that the person who holds it - just hates life. Simple as.
The idealogy is literally about desire to not procreate/self annihilation/end of humanity and everything that comes with it.
Just an abject denial that joy can ever be more suffering in one's life.
And if antinatalist logic is perfectly sound from your point of view and the other is nonsense. And if our (pronatalist) logic is perfectly sound from our point of view and the other is nonsense.
I guess pronatalists still win. Because we have the opportunity to do whatever we want in life, a diversity of things and feel good about it so long as we have the intention to improve things/help sufferers. While antinatalists are reduced to only one thing - begging everyone to stop living because its so pointless and worthless and awful. Torturing themselves and attempting to (and failing) to torture the rest of society which literally would never ever commit a mass suicide or sterilisation.
Whether someone has a great or terrible life is not solely a product of parenting. It's also a product of the environment, and a good amount of luck. There are many things the parents have no influence over, thus it is still a gamble, no matter how capable and well-intentioned the parents are
All down to a lack of potency. Lack of intelligence/wisdom/resourcefulness/lack of initiative/lack of creativity etc etc.
Put a parent and their child in the worst environment you can think of - famine, war, poverty etc and if that parent is extremely strong willed/intelligent/resourceful etc (all part of what it means to be "Good" (virtuous/highly adaptable/skilled etc), all the things opposite of what's outlined above...
... And I guarantee you they will turn a bad situation around. Whether that means escaping it spatially, moving to a better location with better lifestyle (refugees), hitting the problem head on (leadership, local politics, for example ghandi liberating India from oppression), or engineering a solution (all the very resourceful inventors eg.tesla many of which I'm sure were parents also.)
You just don't get it. You don't see the big picture. Luck exists for people who don't now how to make it themselves.
It's not random that some people seem to make the world happen for them.
Its not random that some people start with nothing and become successful and happy and have a family.
Bad environments only exist for those that are complacent and accept it as it is instead of finding a way, any way, to improve it. All of these things are excuses.
Take the excuses away, as a good parent is driven to do in order to protect the ones they love - their children, and you remove the whole basis for this pointless, floundering helpless, victim revolving antinatalist idealogy.
Just get on with it. Every other adult has to roll up their sleeves and work hard to make a good life for their family and friends. No one said combating suffering was a walk in the park but it's certainly worth the effort.
I've said what I have to say on the matter of antinatalism. You're free to disassemble and pick away at any and all parts of my argument if that's what you feel is going to get you places. In the meantime, I'll be vibing, and loving life with my friends and family and colleagues. Let us know if you fancy joining.
Happy to lend a hand if it's accepted (ie if you actually take on board and accept that maybe my points are valid and move away from antinatalism and towards the infinitely more interesting and useful discussions, otherwise, good luck with it I guess).
I won't ever agree with someone that wants me and my family and the rest the world dead. Simples :)
Put a parent and their child in the worst environment you can think of - famine, war, poverty etc and if that parent is extremely strong willed/intelligent/resourceful etc (all part of what it means to be "Good" (virtuous/highly adaptable/skilled etc), all the things opposite of what's outlined above...
... And I guarantee you they will turn a bad situation around.
You can't make such a guarantee, and while I like the positive outlook, it is not rational.
I'm glad I'm wrong then and you finally accept we are on the same side and both don't hate life. You made a good choice to re-evaluate and depart from the extreme.
It's not an ideology - at least not for me. It's about observing an inconsistency in human behavior and asking for an explanation.
Great again! Glad youre no longer fundamentalist and don't see it as an ideology but rather prefer to be open minded and discuss what issues we ought to, to clear up these inconsistencies. It's prudent to formulate an explanation to navigate such inconsistencies in a productive/constructive manner.
You can't make such a guarantee, and while I like the positive outlook, it is not rational.
I like my positive outlook too. I believe in it so it's rational for me. Just as everyone's personal concept of rationality is based on the beliefs they hold to be true.
Welcome back Tzeentech :)
Glad youre no longer fundamentalist and don't see it as an ideology but rather prefer to be open minded and discuss what issues we ought to discuss to clear up these inconsistencies.
I'm not sure what you think I've been doing this whole time.
and feel good about it so long as we have the intention to improve things/help sufferers
You cannot just do anything in the name above. Having "good intentions" isn't license to do what you want to someone else. You probably know this though.
Imagine my defense being "good intentions" to do any X act that causes someone else an imposition of harms and limitations.
When did I say do "anything? "
In case you weren't aware, helping someone out of suffering is a mutual effort. It takes both the hand offered and the hand accepted.
It takes agreement. Not force.
If someone decides they don't want anyone's help they just want to be miserable alone. There's not much we can do for them is there?
As I said, helping is a two-person dynamic. I can't help or reason with a wall so there is no imposition of anything. It's either ignored, actively told to go way, or accepted.
So yes "intention" is a license to approach someone you think is in need of assistance. If they tell you to leave them be, you leave them be. If theyre willing to discuss, you discuss, if they're will to agree on a course of action, you agree on a course of action.
That is a harmless process respecting their autonomy. You seem to obsess over the idea of "imposition".
And no you can't "impose" on a non existent potential that currently reside in your left nut. They have no personhood, no human rights, and no say in being born.
None of us ever had a say in being born, some of us were born intentionally and some by accident,
And some of us like the fact that we were.
That's how life works. Don't ask me ask mother nature.
universenessNovember 07, 2022 at 14:54#7547140 likes
This won't do.
There are many behaviors that have existed prior to notions of morality, and many of such behaviors are universally regarded as immoral now, regardless of their prior existence.
I have already asked you this before. Do you consider a universe without intent to start life but life started through happenstance to be immoral? If your answer is yes, then you are suggesting the universe had intent, as intent is a fundamental aspect of morality. If your answer is no, then you accept that this happenstance is beyond the jurisdiction of any notion of human morality. It is therefore way beyond YOUR mere opinion that 'this won't do.'
"Don't impose (unless there are pressing reasons to do so)," is a common, almost universal moral principle.
You may claim this is not a moral principle, and that imposing is perfectly fine. Probably you realise that would lead you down a slippery slope. So what you have left is explaining why there is a pressing reason to impose in this particular instance - special pleading.
It's the procreators who are behaving inconsistently.
A universal 'don't impose' is an illogical and unsustainable edict in human reality. Benevolent imposition is moral in the human world, such as preventing someone from fighting or imposing to break up a fight. If you would stand by and watch then, imo, YOU are immoral.
Imposition, which is immoral, can only be judged based on established moral guidelines, and by those involved on a case-by-case basis. I might impose suffering to remove an impaled limb to free a person, depending on the situation. I may have children to continue the experience of life and living. YOU have no right or power to judge me immoral as such a judgement would itself be immoral as you are not supported by any universal fact, BUT I AM, the fact that life started in this universe WITHOUT ANY PERMISSION OR CONSENT. You are the inconsistent special pleader with no answer to the natural happenstance of life creation. IT ALREADY HAPPENED.
I am pro species survival.
— universeness
Why? It's not something you have power over, nor have a stake in. Whether the human race survives for another thousand years or another hundred thousand, you won't be around to witness it.
Besides, do you expect me to believe there is even a single person on this globe that procreates not for the simple reason that they want to have children, but because they so selflessly care about the survival of the human race?
I do have power over the survival of my species, we all do, as we can reproduce! That's the whole point!
I don't need to be around to witness it, my like being around to witness it, is absolutely good enough for me. Only a narcissist or sociopath would deny life a future just because they themselves must die and enter oblivion. Yes, everyday people do exactly that, as the 'want to have children' IS an act which results in the survival of the human race, regardless of the fact that you are unable to grasp the connection.
I'm not suggesting any solution. I'm pointing out an inconsistency in your behavior and asking for an explanation
Why are you preaching antinatalism then? As a solution to what? You claim you have identified a moral crisis and you then suggest that you are not suggesting any solution, so why are you pushing the antinatalist nonsense? I have explained my position to you quite clearly, its simply you who (panto style), claims I have not. So, to reflect back to you in equal panto style, your position on antinatalism is the position that 'just won't do.'
universenessNovember 07, 2022 at 14:58#7547150 likes
It is therefore way beyond YOUR mere opinion that 'this won't do.'
It's a matter of rational scrutiny - to demand a consistent argument from someone who chooses to impose on others. You've failed to provide that, and that's why it won't do.
Yes, everyday people do exactly that as the 'want to have children' IS an act which results in the survival of the human race, regardless of the fact that you are unable to grasp the connection.
And it's irrational for the reasons I've already given you, and I won't accept irrational reasoning as a moral basis for imposition.
It's a matter of rational scrutiny - to demand a consistent argument from someone who chooses to impose on others. You've failed to provide that, and that's why it won't do.
I accept your opinion that I have failed to provide such for you, and I have so far been unable to wipe the antinatalism fog from your mind. You claim it is due to the fact that my points towards you are inconsistent but you have not demosntrated where that inconsistency exists. I have consistently made the same points to you.
1. The natural imperative of reproduction as a method of species survival.
2. Life started in the universe without intent, consent or permission and therefore is immune to any human constructed moral crisis you may personally be having.
3. Evolution through natural selection is still happening and still has no intent and seeks no permission or consent from humans to do what it does.
4. Humans have intent and intelligence and can alleviate, reduce and possibly even remove all forms of human suffering.
These are some of my consistent points, where is this inconsistency you are complaining about.
I accept you dont find my 4 points above compelling reasons for you to abandon your antinatalist stance but hey ho, such is life. Some folks just prefer their misery to finding the strength to join us optimists.
Or they just can't conquer their pride! They can't admit they have been so wrong for so long.
Once again, I don't see any explaining going on here.
Why don't you start with coming up for a logically consistent argument as to why imposing is acceptable in this case?
I already have.
1. Life happened (was imposed if you prefer).
2. Some life became intelligent life.
3. Intelligent life is able to ask questions.
4. To understand the what, how and why of the universe, life that is self-aware and has intent and can ask questions is necessary.
5. The survival of such intent and ability to ask questions and discover answers is necessary.
6. A universe with no life has no purpose.
7. IF you accept 1 to 6 then imposing life on the universe is moral, If you don't accept 1 to 6 then you are probably an antinatalist who bizarrely does not wish to be an existent who can choose to label themselves an antinatalist. Antinatalism is self-defeating in every way you posit it.
I'm not preaching anything. I'm pointing out your inconsistency and waiting for an explanation.
You are not an honest interlocuter. You have preached antinatalism, as you have stated that it's the only logical solution to the 'common moral dilemma,' of immoral imposition through procreation. It's preaching because you have no evidence. My evidence starts with the fact that LIFE HAPPENED in this universe and that happenstance CANNOT be logically judged as immoral. Where is this inconsistency you claim is forcing you to 'wait for an explanation?'
You are simply refusing to accept any explanation you are offered in the same way a convinced theist will never accept there is no god or supernatural woo woo.
universenessNovember 07, 2022 at 15:51#7547280 likes
Reply to Tzeentch
Do you think a tsunami, or an earthquake is an immoral imposition?
2. Life started in the universe without intent, consent or permission and therefore is immune to any human contracted moral crisis you may personally be having.
Unless you wish to reject morality altogether, this is more nonsense.
If you do wish to reject morality, then what are you doing in a thread that's unmistakenly about a moral question?
My evidence starts with the fact that LIFE HAPPENED in this universe and that happenstance CANNOT be logically judged as immoral.
The choices of moral agents can be judged, which is what we're doing right here.
I'm getting the sense that you have some rather subjective views about man's purpose in the universe, and are willing to resort to imposition to press gang new people into this project - an "ends justify the means" type argument and a common moral pitfall.
Unless you wish to reject morality altogether, this is more nonsense.
If you do wish to reject morality, then what are you doing in a thread that's unmistakenly about a moral question?
You think in extremes! Why would I have to reject morality altogether? What utter nonsense!
I typed the word intent YOU decided that was synonomous with the term 'good intentions.' You further evidence your tendency to invent and attempt to misrepresent and misdirect when you are frustrated that you have no valid response.
The choices of moral agents can be judged, which is what we're doing right here.
I'm getting the sense that you have some rather subjective views about man's purpose in the universe, and are willing to resort to imposition to press gang new people into this project - an "ends justify the means" type argument and a common moral pitfall.
If you are living a purposeless life and have no sense of purpose in your life, then you have reaped what you sowed. If you believe that life and lifeforms have no purpose then you are left with time as your enemy and oblivion as your saviour. How sad. If you do have purpose in your life, then you are contradicting your own words that suggest you believe HUmans have no purpose in this universe.
universenessNovember 07, 2022 at 17:46#7547680 likes
Based on common understanding of human psychology.
But since you're the one claiming humans reproduce not out of personal motivations but some selfless act for the survival of mankind the burden of proof is on you.
If you are living a purposeless life and have no sense of purpose in your life, then you have reaped what you sowed. If you believe that life and lifeforms have no purpose then you are left with time as your enemy and oblivion as your saviour. How sad. If you do have purpose in your life, then you are contradicting your own words that suggest you believe HUmans have no purpose in this universe.
A thinly-veiled attempt at a personal attack, and not remotely related to what I said.
universenessNovember 08, 2022 at 11:59#7549730 likes
Based on common understanding of human psychology.
But since you're the one claiming humans reproduce not out of personal motivations but some selfless act for the survival of mankind the burden of proof is on you.
You are the one preaching antinatalism as a solution to your conflated moral issue, so the burden of proof is yours. I did not suggest that a couple looks into each other's eyes and discuss having children to ensure that the human race survives but they do exchange such comments as 'It would be great to have something that is of me and you that will carry on the bloodlines.' Especially in amongst the rich dynastic families or in the families of celebrity etc. But it happens in almost every family. It is the concept of legacy which just seems unable to penetrate through your fog. Even though the historical evidence for it is irrefutable. This is synonymous with the idea of reproducing to ensure the survival of the species as the end result of the compulsion to pass on legacy has the exact same result.
If you are living a purposeless life and have no sense of purpose in your life, then you have reaped what you sowed. If you believe that life and lifeforms have no purpose then you are left with time as your enemy and oblivion as your saviour. How sad. If you do have purpose in your life, then you are contradicting your own words that suggest you believe HUmans have no purpose in this universe.
— universeness
A thinly-veiled attempt at a personal attack, and not remotely related to what I said.
But the point is that the origin of the reproduction choice a human has, had no inherent intent, so any moral question you impose based on the existence of that choice is a purely human construct and has no natural imperative.
You sought to dismiss my moral dilemma on the basis that the choice is purely a human construct.
All morality is a human construct.
So you're either consistent and dismiss morality altogether, or start cherry-picking (which is what you're doing) and are inconsistent, ergo a hypocrite.
No, I call it out for what it is: irrational ego-driven vanity.
You won't have a leg to stand on if your argument doesn't involve the well-being of the person you just forced to participate in your project, so I would suggest starting there.
universenessNovember 08, 2022 at 15:51#7550280 likes
You sought to dismiss my moral dilemma on the basis that the choice is purely a human construct.
All morality is a human construct.
So you're either consistent and dismiss morality altogether, or start cherry-picking (which is what you're doing) and are inconsistent, ergo a hypocrite.
Fogged logic. My main point is that life started in the universe without consent or permission and that is the evidence that defeats your moral dilemma. It has no relevance to the existence of life in this universe or its continuation.
No, I call it out for what it is: irrational ego-driven vanity.
You won't have a leg to stand on if your argument doesn't involve the well-being of the person you just forced to participate in your project, so I would suggest starting there.
So, was the moment life formed in the universe immoral? Is an earthquake or a tsunami or a rainbow immoral according to your logic? I would suggest you start there and then move towards the well-being and sustaining of the life which arrived in the universe regardless of permission or consent from any source.
And you don't seem to understand what a proponent of the problem of evil believes either.
You're right, I don't understand much of what you're saying. I'm trying, but there are many things which are not making sense to me.
Let's start with the definition of The Problem of Evil - I'm going to echo back to you in my own words what I think you're saying. You can tell me if I'm understanding you or not.
Here is your original: Imagine there is an omnipotent, omniscient, person.
and here is how I would phrase this: Imagine there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. [OOO-Being]
Omnibenevolent was not in your original OP, I think we both agree that your argument requires this - otherwise the "person" could be evil. I also prefer using the word "being" to "person, your use of the word "person" is far afield of any other definition I know of. And I can't imagine any proponent of the problem of evil using the word "person" - they would use the word "God". I don't think this alters what you're saying, but if "person" is essential to your argument, then I need some more details to understand it.
Otherwise, for purposes of this particular discussion I am assuming that the definition/concept of an OOP Being is well formed and makes sense.
Next we have this:
[b]Imagine as well that there is a sensible world, exactly like this one.
this sensible world is an incredibly dangerous place, full of all manner of dangers and just about every conceivable harm.
[/b]Well said, I'll go with that. Quoting Bartricks
My argument is addressed to those who believe that the evils of the world constitute evidence that God does not exist.
A proponent of the problem of evil [PPE] believes that it would be wrong for God to invest a world such as this one with innocent life. They point to the evils of the world and conclude that God would have prevented those. That's the basis upon which they believe God does not exist.
It seems like you're using the word "God" interchangeably with OOO Being, I'm OK with either, but if there is some specific context in which you use one over the other I'll need some more details.
Otherwise, I agree with this definition of the Problem of Eveil and what a PPE believes. However I want to expand a bit on this, just to make sure that my understanding is correct. Let's convert this into Ps & Qs.
Let P be the statement "God (an OOP Being) exists."
For purposes of this particular discussion I am assuming that this sentence makes sense and is either true or false.
Let Q be the sentence "The sensible world is free from all evil & violence"
So a PPE says this:
IF P THEN NECESSARILY Q.
NOT Q
Therefore NOT P
Here I'm assuming that P means the same thing as P IS TRUE
This could also be expressed as
IF NOT Q THEN NOT P
NOT Q
Therefore NOT P
Furthermore, there are countless numbers of religious people who acknowledge the evils of the world but still believe in God. These folks have numerous "hacks" to work around this contradiction, e.g., "We cannot understand the workings of God, what appears to be evil is just our mis-understanding the nature of God's goodness", etc, etc.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Before I move on, have I so far described your thinking with reasonable accuracy?
Reply to EricH No, you stumbled right at the first hurdle.
Why do you think I asked about an omnipotent and omniscient person and left off omnibenevolent?
Do you think it was a mistake? It wasn't.
Do you think you can understand me by deciding to change what I said rather than trying to understand why I said it?
If you want to understand someone, do not assume they don't know what they are saying. I mean, you'll never understand anyone if you do that.
I am not you. I do not think like you do. So try and understand why I left off omnibenevolent. Don't assume it was a mistake. Assume I knew exactly what I was doing
If an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being exists then we live in a utopia correct? (because they have all the knowledge and all the power to be good/establish goodness.)
But that is temporal in dynamic. No? So in theory such a being could exist in a world lacking knowledge (ignorance) therefore lacking potency (power) and therfore lacking benevolence (the choice to use knowledge and power for Good).
If this omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being just discovered their power, or was just born today, would it not take time for them to convince others (omniscience and omnipotence) to choose good (omnibenevolece).
As any good argument relies on omnipotency (irrefutable ethical imperative - no one can/ought to deny what's in their own best interests) and omniscience (irréfutable logic/reason- no one can/ought to deny what makes sense/is rational).
So really omnipotence and omniscience can be synthesised with one another into the statement "what's good for you to believe (ethics) and what's logical/rational for you to believe (reason) is harmless to you (benevolent).
I did not include omnibenevolence simply because the question was about how this person ought to behave. But I could have included it, it just would have meant rephrasing things.
OK, maybe I made a false assumption there.
But without omnibenevolence there is no Problem of Evil. It could simply be that your your omniscient omnipotent person allows evil to exist for her own reasons which are beyond our powers of comprehension.
Reply to EricH Look, this isn't hard. Ought an omnipotent, omniscient person do X?
if the answer is 'no'. then that means that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person wouldn't do it.
See?
Now, this is so basic - so simple - that I think you are just willfully misunderstanding as you find it amusing or something.
This is a valid argument form:
1. Either p or q
2. Not p
3. Therefore q
1. Either change the world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on innocents, or do not introduce innocent life into it.
Do you see how that says 'either p or q'?
do you also see how a proponent (that means defender) of the problem of evil must endorse it?
And do you see how this premise is true in respect of us:
2. We are not going to change the world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on innocents?
And do you see how it now follows that
3. Therefore, do not introduce innocent life into it?
3 is antinatalism.
So, to deny 3 you need to deny 2 or 1.
2 is obviously undeniable
So you have to deny 1.
If you deny 1, then there's no problem of evil. For there would be nothing wrong in introducing life into the world as it is. There would be no obligation on God to change it.
So, if - if - there is a problem of evil for belief in God, then there is also a problem of evil for the belief that procreation is morally persmissible.
On the other hand, if procreation is morally permissible, then there is no problem of evil for GOd.
Now, if at this point you still do not understand me - if the above just sounds like gibberish - then I'm afraid you need to work with your hands for a living and stop trying to do this thinking business: it's not for you.
change the world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on innocents
Mr. X is a proponent of the Problem of Evil. Mr X is a person who says that an OOO Being (God) does not exist. But there is nothing inherit in The Problem of Evil that states (or even implies) that Mr X should or must have certain moral beliefs. Mr. X has no opinion as to how this imaginary creature should behave.
Now this is not to say that Mr X is not an anti-natalist. He may or may not be. But his being a proponent of the Problem of Evil has no bearing on his decision.
In other words, your "p" above is false/wrong/incorrect before you even plug it into your equation. You are saying either p must be true or q must be true. And this is simply not the case. As several other people have already noted, both your p and your q are false.
Now, if at this point you still do not understand me - if the above just sounds like gibberish - then I'm afraid you need to work with your hands for a living and stop trying to do this thinking business: it's not for you.
And I also give you the last word in this particular discussion - should you want it.
So, was the moment life formed in the universe immoral? Is an earthquake or a tsunami or a rainbow immoral according to your logic?
Only individuals are moral agents. Life starting in the universe is not a moral question. The individual choosing to perpetuate it is.
Violence and many other "natural" tendencies have been around long before humans evolved. Does that mean that humans perpetrating violent acts are beyond moral scrutiny? I think not.
universenessNovember 10, 2022 at 10:34#7553960 likes
Life starting in the universe is not a moral question.
So, by what logic do you suggest that an antinatalist viewpoint, that would have the final effect of ending all life in the universe (as you claim all reproduction is immoral without consent, which must include asexual reproduction) is warranted, based on a human constructed morality issue, when you have just accepted that the origin of life, is not a moral issue of consent?
Violence and many other "natural" tendencies have been around long before humans evolved. Does that mean that humans perpetrating violent acts are beyond moral scrutiny? I think not.
Such issues are within the jurisdiction of 'human morality.' The existence of human life in the universe is not within the jurisdiction of human morality. That is the natural imperative you cannot reconcile with your fogged antinatalist thinking.
Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to kill and eat a baby deer?
So, by what logic do you suggest that an antinatalist viewpoint, that would have the final effect of ending all life in the universe is warranted, based on a human constructed morality issue, when you have just accepted that the origin of life, is not a moral issue of consent?
I'm a supporter of "ending all life in the universe" now? You're starting to sound a bit like a clown.
The origin of life is not a moral issue. It's not even related to this discussion.
When individuals (in this case parents) make choices that have major consequences for other individuals (in this case children) that becomes a moral question.
Try to be clearer than mud in what you are claiming then.
Which forms of reproduction do you think are moral without the consent of the life which is created?
I'm a supporter of "ending all life in the universe" now? You're starting to sound a bit like a clown.
The origin of life is not a moral issue. It's not even related to this discussion.
When individuals (in this case parents) make choices that have major consequences for other individuals (in this case children) that becomes a moral question.
I'm discussing that moral question.
Maybe you need to calm down a little.
Typed by the person who uses clown logic regularly. If no life reproduces then the universe would have no life. YOU stated that newlife must be consulted before being born. You further stated that such consent is not possible, so, by default human morality, human reproduction is immoral. BUT this must also refer to all unconsulted life Sherlock, or else YOU are cherry-picking, and you have already stated that you disapprove of cherry-picking.
The origin of life is very much related to this discussion as you wish to terminate it, although you seem to not understand that would be the final result of your antinatalist stance.
The moral question you wish to discuss does not exist in the small bubble you are trying to push it into. Antinatalism in all of it's unpalatable flavours, has many implications for all life in this universe. Try to travel outside of your bubble musings now and again. You will encounter much more depth of thought if you do.
You have not typed anything exciting yet, so I remain perfectly calm. Don't confuse my incredulity at your logic with any kind of emotive turbulence you imagine you are causing.
Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to kill and eat a baby deer?
— universeness
No.
Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to reproduce?
If your answer is no, then what intelligence rating would you apply before your antinatalist radar/morality issue kicks in and you ban a particular lifeform from reproduction and cause it to go extinct in time?
Are dolphins safe from your antinatalism proclamations? How about chimpanzees or dogs or cats?
Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to reproduce?
If your answer is no, then what intelligence rating would you apply before your antinatalist radar/morality issue kicks in and you ban a particular lifeform from reproduction and cause it to go extinct in time?
Are dolphins safe from your antinatalism proclamations? How about chimpanzees or dogs or cats?
Humans are the only moral actors.
This is starting to sound a lot like that rejection of morality that I predicted.
I never stated that. You need to read more carefully, and stop the great strawman game.
Ok then state your position, clearly, now. You can't get the consent of a life not born yet, to be born. You have therefore suggested that the act of having a child is an unacceptable, immoral imposition on the child. You have proclaimed antinatalism as your imperative for solving this terrible injustice. Quoting Tzeentch
Impositions, even small ones, are generally regarded as immoral. Birth is one giant imposition.
Does it matter whether the imposition is made with the individual's best interest at heart? I don't think so.
Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma.
Now you refuse to admit to, take responsibility for, and follow the logic of your own argument. If this imposition is fully founded on the fact that you cannot get consent from that which is to be born, then this must apply to all life. No lifeform can obtain such consent, so, your 'no consent, so unacceptable imposition,' morality issue must apply to all life, Including the original appearance of life in this universe.
All you are doing now is trying to squirm away from following your own logic.
I've stated that impositions - 'to force one's will upon another' - are generally regarded as immoral, following common moral principles. Procreation is an imposition.
Procreation seems to be at odds with this principle, and over the last couple of pages I have patiently waited for an logically coherent explanation as to why this should be ok.
So far you have tried:
- It is not a moral question, to which I replied: it certainly is. I don't see how individuals acting in ways that significantly impact other individuals is not a moral question.
- It is moral because if man would not procreate, man would go exitinct - an 'ends justify the means'-type argument.
- It is moral because the individual cares about their "legacy" and "bloodline" - in this argument new humans are instrumentalized to suit individuals' ego-driven vanity projects.
Neither of these mention the well-being of said new humans, which is odd to say the least.
Both arguments instrumentalize the individual for ulterior goals.
Both the second and third arguments are irrational.
The second argument is a moot point, since no human reproduces "for the survival of the species", and even if people did, they have no control over whether the species survives nor do they have a stake in what happens to the species in X years from now since they won't be around to witness it, ergo their preoccupation with the "survival of the species" is irrational. Additionally, it excuses imposition based solely on the idea that the outcome is desirable, which, without any type of explanation, implies that imposition can be excused whenever the imposer considers it would lead to a desirable outcome - 'the ends justify the means' is a notoriously slippery and hypocritical slope.
The third argument about legacy and bloodlines is similarly an 'ends justify the means'-type argument, but in this case the ends are completely selfish - vain ego fantasy. A preoccupation with illusory things like "legacies" and "bloodlines" as though they have some objective value is similarly irrational. Needless to say, that will not do as a basis to attempt to justify imposition.
I have patiently waited for an logically coherent explanation as to why this should be ok.
Do you not see how arrogant your words here are? You are not waiting for a logically coherent argument as to why this should be ok, as posters, including me, have already given you many. How about something like 'You have not found any of the logically coherent arguments presented to you so far, on this issue, compelling.' That would make you appear much less arrogant.
- It is not a moral question, to which I replied: it certainly is. I don't see how individuals acting in ways that significantly impact other individuals is not a moral question.
- It is moral because if man would not procreate, man would go exitinct - an 'ends justify the means'-type argument.
- It is moral because the individual cares about their "legacy" and "bloodline" - in this argument new humans are instrumentalized to suit individuals' ego-driven vanity projects.
You removed the issue of human suffering from your flavour of antinatalism, so what is the imposition you are concerned about?
Your 'end justifies the means complaint,' suggests that the means is something bad and immoral, which is what we are debating, so you are merely attempting to label the process of human procreation as immoral from the outset, which reveals that your approach is bias from the outset.
You are judging every human couple who decides to have children as ego driven and vain and you want others to consider such an argument as rational and I don't think such a position is in any way rational or logical.
You are trying to give precedence to YOUR interpretation of human morality over billions of years of happenstance since the big bang. Which leads to what is, imo, an irrational antinatalist viewpoint.
Human reproduction has a natural imperative which is NOT ONLY to do with mere ego or personal vanity but is more importantly to continue a species and prevent it going extinct.
You can try to handwave that away as much as you like, but you will be, as you have been, unsuccessful.
Neither of these mention the well-being of said new humans, which is odd to say the least.
Neither do you, you removed human suffering from your argument so the issue of individual well-being is not under consideration in your antinatalism flavour. YOU took it out. Your concern is about CONSENT (I capitalise here for the value of emphasis rather than as a rebellious act against common netiquette, so try not to feel attacked again, I know that can be a tender spot for you.)
The second argument is a moot point, since no human reproduces "for the survival of the species", and even if people did, they have no control over whether the species survives nor do they have a stake in what happens to the species in X years from now since they won't be around to witness it, ergo their preoccupation with the "survival of the species" is irrational.
This comes across as a cold almost narcissistic viewpoint which I think very few human beings agree with. Most people do care about the future of their own species, regardless of their own oblivion.
This is not a logical argument, it is just a manifestation of your personal misanthropy.
(Btw: Analysis of the psychology of an interlocuter is common in probably all examples of human discourse.)
Additionally, it excuses imposition based solely on the idea that the outcome is desirable, which, without any type of explanation, implies that imposition can be excused whenever the imposer considers it would lead to a desirable outcome - 'the ends justify the means' is a notoriously slippery and hypocritical slope.
You are just repeating the same arguments over and over again and they dont get any better each time you repeat them. I can do that to, as you have probably noticed. Anyone can do that.
Evolution through natural selection established the 'survival of a species imperative' and there is no intent behind it. Humans did not establish the natural imperative of species survival; they are simply compelled to comply with it. They can overrule it, yes, but there will be prices to pay, including extinction, if they employ something as destructive as antinatalism to their entire species.
The third argument about legacy and bloodlines is similarly an 'ends justify the means'-type argument, but in this case the ends are completely selfish - vain ego fantasy. A preoccupation with illusory things like "legacies" and "bloodlines" as though they have some objective value is similarly irrational. Needless to say, that will not do as a basis to attempt to justify imposition.
Again, you just repeat, and I have already responded to the content of the quote above, many times. Others have even offered other varied logical angles against the logic you are employing, but you only respond by repeating your arguments and making very poor attempts to dispel the counter points put to you. That is irrational.
Another restatement, which I have already given my opinion on. Shallow and arrogant!
No, but it has helped confirm and further exemplify your irrationality (not a personal insult, just an opinion on your brain fog regarding antinatalism).
Reply to universeness Hey universeness, I've been censored again. :( Baden had my last topic of discussion removed a second time because I didn't ask him if it was okay to repost.
What do you make of the situation? Any more insights on offer brother?
universenessNovember 10, 2022 at 17:00#7554850 likes
Best to have a chat by PM with Baden and see if you can understand his reasons. Overall, I have found the Moderators/administrator's very reasonable people. An administrator such as @jamal can talk to a moderator, if you are not happy with a decision they have made, but if the administrator backs the moderator, then there is nothing you can do except to accept their decision. But you can still moan at them a little.
1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. 2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. 3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. 4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. 5. Evil exists. 6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil. 7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
This is my understanding of what a proponent of The Problem of Evil believes. And as far as I can tell step #4 requires omnibenevolence (or some equivalent) - and step #4 is essential to the arguement.
But you are asserting that your person/being is NOT omnibenevolent. Quoting Bartricks
Why do you think I asked about an omnipotent and omniscient person and left off omnibenevolent?
Do you think it was a mistake? It wasn't.
I have been trying to work within your conceptual framework - to figure out what exactly you are saying. Up to now I have not succeeded at this task.
So before going any further, you have to explain how The Problem of Evil works when your person/being is NOT omnibenevolent. It would be helpful if you could supply any references or links.
Best to have a chat by PM with Baden and see if you can understand his reasons. Overall, I have found the Moderators/administrator's very reasonable people. An administrator such as jamal can talk to a moderator, if you are not happy with a decision they have made, but if the administrator backs the moderator, then there is nothing you can do except to accept their decision. But you can still moan at them a little.
Thanks Universeness. You're precious. That's exactly what I did and exactly what happened. Oh well, it seems some questions are un-questionable.
I guess we just have to live in a world where all questions are not permissible.
Who knew!?
Onwards with hope I say. There's many ways to "skin a cat" so to speak.
Thanks for your support and suggestions
universenessNovember 10, 2022 at 18:05#7555050 likes
:up: Nae bother. I'm not sure I am comparable with Gollum's ring of power and its evil source, Sauron. :joke: and you type too many balanced words obout life and living to be going around skinning cats by various methods! :scream:
If I don't agree with the mods, I sometimes send their favourite song lyrics to them along with a related picture:
We arra mods
We arra mods
We are, We are, We arra mods!
universenessNovember 10, 2022 at 18:10#7555070 likes
Reply to Benj96
What's life without whimsy?
Without a wee giggle now and again, we could all turn antinatalist :scream:
Live, Love, Laugh Brother Ben!
universenessNovember 10, 2022 at 21:36#7555410 likes
Reply to Benj96
Btw, I stole the combination of those three words 'Live, Love, Laugh, from a line in an Al Jolson song from 1926! This song was part of the legacy his life left to people alive almost a hundred years after he recorded this. A great wee song.
Evolution through natural selection established the 'survival of a species imperative' and there is no intent behind it.
It's irrelevant. Individuals have intentions, and individuals aren't subjected to evolution, natural selection or any "natural imperatives". Your issue is that you're attempting to have a moral discussion about "the human species", but the "human species" as a whole is not a moral agent, and not part of a moral discussion.
universenessNovember 11, 2022 at 10:52#7556470 likes
It's irrelevant. Individuals have intentions, and individuals aren't subjected to evolution, natural selection or any "natural imperatives".
Yes, they do, and they can, and do, use that intent to reproduce for many reasons, all of which serve the natural imperative of the survival of species. Your moral objection and the consent reason you give for it are not compelling. How many support your position on this thread so far? Maybe you should take a poll.
Your issue is that you're attempting to have a moral discussion about "the human species", but the "human species" as a whole is not a moral agent, and not part of a moral discussion.
Perhaps you should make yourself clearer here. The human species is made up of individual humans who are moral agents, but you now suggest that they have no moral agency as a totality.
The universe applied no discernible morality or intent towards creating humans. It is from that angle that I refer to the immorality you assign to your lineage of immoral parents, all the way back to the point where life formed in this universe. The logic of your 'blame game' fails miserably as you journey back along that path. In what way does this also suggest that the human species as a totality, has no moral agency?
The human species is made up of individual humans who are moral agents, but you now suggest that they have no moral agency as a totality.
Precisely so. Since "the human species" cannot act, intend, etc.; it is not a moral agent. To claim as much is to personify an abstract representation of what is actually a conglomerate of individuals.
What makes you think I care? :chin:
I'm not here to convince anyone.
Then you admit you just enjoy preaching; you don't accept the burden of trying to convince others of viewpoints that you think will help them in their lives?
No, it's interpreted by YOUR logic. National and International laws are informed by human past and present political debate, which certainly includes morality issues. If we ever unite as a single global species and establish a world government, then planetary law will be informed by human morality.
This would then represent the agency of the entire species. I agree that there would be very few, if any, global laws or moral standpoints which would be fully accepted by every human alive but I think we can still label the likes of a global human law, as having human species agency.
I also think the national or international laws we have now, hold up as examples of the representation of the morality of our species as a totality. 'It is immoral to rape,' for example or 'child abuse is unacceptable and immoral.' These are pretty close to being aspects of the current moral agency of our entire species.
No, it's interpreted by YOUR logic. National and International laws are informed by human past and present political debate, which certainly includes morality issues. If we ever unite as a single global species and establish a world government, then planetary law will be informed by human morality.
This would then represent the agency of the entire species. I agree that there would be very few, if any, global laws or moral standpoints which would be fully accepted by every human alive but I think we can still label the likes of a global human law, as having human species agency.
I also think the national or international laws we have now, hold up as examples of the representation of the morality of our species as a totality. 'It is immoral to rape,' for example or 'child abuse is unacceptable and immoral.' These are pretty close to being aspects of the current moral agency of our entire species.
In philosophy it is of great importance to use accurate language.
All of what you just wrote is generalized (inaccurate) language - shortcuts to convey practical ideas. Useful as practical tools for every day conversation, but not for philosophy.
"The human species" does not think with one mind or acts with one body. It is never a moral agent. Speaking of what "the human species" does or thinks is a gross oversimplification of the huge variety of thoughts and actions by individuals.
universenessNovember 11, 2022 at 12:05#7556540 likes
In philosophy it is of great importance to use accurate language.
All of what you just wrote is generalized (inaccurate) language - shortcuts to convey practical ideas. Useful as practical tools for everyday conversation, but not for philosophy.
I agree with your comments about the importance of the accuracy of language and I have the language skills I have. I have not found your use of language, demonstrates a higher skill level in accuracy that I have. I was a teacher of Computing Science for 30+ years. Philosophy has been around since we came out of the wilds, people philosophise in pubs, clubs and taxis as well as the Egyptian or Greek philosophers every did. I think you might gain more access to the thinking of a wider range of humans, if you stopped trying to paint such an aloof portrait of YOUR interpretation of what philosophy is and who is qualified to engage in it.
"The human species" does not think with one mind or acts with one body. It is never a moral agent. Speaking of what "the human species" does or thinks is a gross oversimplification of the huge variety of thoughts and actions by individuals.
I think this example of your philosophy is shallow and rather misanthropic. Humans are quite capable of networking and thinking as one, close enough to act as one, in mimicry, of how a single mind might think and act and who knows what future networking level humans might achieve, as we enhance longevity and ability through transhuman technologies.
universenessNovember 11, 2022 at 14:36#7556850 likes
Some human efforts to improve the human experience and reduce human suffering.
Posted by another member in the shoutbox, copied and pasted here by me, as I thought they were good examples, relevant to this thread.
Some human efforts to improve the human experience and reduce human suffering.
Posted by another member in the shoutbox, copied and pasted here by me, as I thought they were good examples, relevant to this thread.
I will always be in awe of such people: applying their intelligence and talents to revolutionising our fight against suffering. I will always commend them, their courage and persistence. Long live the good amongst us.
schopenhauer1November 12, 2022 at 21:46#7559320 likes
I will always be in awe of such people: applying their intelligence and talents to revolutionising our fight against suffering. I will always commend them, their courage and persistence. Long live the good amongst us.
That's not @Tzeentch argument at all in this current argument. In fact, it wouldn't matter what people do or don't do in terms of technological breakthroughs with his argument about impositions.
universenessNovember 12, 2022 at 22:20#7559400 likes
Reply to Benj96
The antinatalist viewpoint is a weak jelly, in comparison with such people. Past, present and future.
schopenhauer1November 12, 2022 at 22:29#7559430 likes
But you are asserting that your person/being is NOT omnibenevolent.
Why do you think I asked about an omnipotent and omniscient person and left off omnibenevolent?
Do you think it was a mistake? It wasn't.
— Bartricks
I have been trying to work within your conceptual framework - to figure out what exactly you are saying. Up to now I have not succeeded at this task.
I think the problem here is twofold; a) you are a bad faith interlocutor and b) IQ
If we reflect on what an omnipotent, omniscient person ought to do in circumstances X, we then learn what an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person would do in those circumstances.
I will repeat things I've said in the past. You're a smart person and you are obviously well educated in many aspects of philosophy. You are not a troll. I find your ideas bizarrely fantastical and illogical, but I keep trying to figure out what (if any) logic is underlying your posts. This is why I take this step by step approach to try to echo back to you what I think you're saying.
If we reflect on what an omnipotent, omniscient person ought to do in circumstances X
And here's where you are just not making any sense. In the absence of omnibenevolence there are no constraints on the actions of your person. There is no aught for such a person. Your person is free to do whatever she pleases.
You have not given any explanation or description of (in the absence of omnibenevolence) what an omnipotent, omniscient person ought to do in any circumstance.
I have given you an account of my understanding of The Problem Of Evil and what it means to be a proponent of this problem. You have not done so.
I find it hard to believe that you can re-formulate The Problem of Evil without omnibenevolence, but I keep an open mind. Maybe you have some unique approach. But in the absence of any explanation your argument fails.
If there is no problem of evil then you never even get to your Ps and Qs.
If we reflect on what an omnipotent, omniscient person ought to do in circumstances X
So one last time, if your argument is to succeed you have to successfully resolve this issue.In the absence of omnibenevolence, how does an omnipotent, omniscient person decide what to do? What ought she do?
And here's where you are just not making any sense. In the absence of omnibenevolence there are no constraints on the actions of your person. There is no aught for such a person. Your person is free to do whatever she pleases.
I don't understand your reasoning. I think you are confusing descriptive claims with normative ones.
Moral constraints do not prevent you from doing things. If it is immoral for me to do X, that doesn't mean I am being somehow prevented from doing it.
Now, again, try and understand the point: if an omnipotent, omniscient person 'ought' to do x, then an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenvolent person 'would' do x. Not because they have do, but because they're omnibenevolent.
So, if an omnipotent, omniscient person ought not to introduce innocent life into a dangerous world without first removing the dangers, then that's what an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person would do.
It really doesn't matter if an omnipotent, omniscient person will, by dint of being omnipotent, also be omnibenevolent, for the same point would apply
I find it hard to believe that you can re-formulate The Problem of Evil without omnibenevolence, but I keep an open mind. Maybe you have some unique approach. But in the absence of any explanation your argument fails.
Again, you're just saying stuff. You have not explained why my argument fails. You have just stated that it does, though you admit that you don't actually understand what I am saying. You don't understasnd why premise 1 of my argument is a premise that any proponent of the problem of evil must endorse, do you?
Now, do you think I don't know what I am talking about? Just out of interest. Do you think I know a lot about the problem of evil, or not much at all?
Reply to EricH Perhaps you should explain your reasoning.
Premise 1 of my argument states:
Either remove the evils from the world before subjecting innocent persons to live in it, or do not subject innocent persons to live in it.
Now, my claim is that a defender of the problem of evil - so, someone who thinks the evils of the world imply God's non-existence - has to endorse premise 1.
In the Muslim and Jewish traditions God is not omni-benevolent. Yet theodicy still exists; see book of Job. One can be good without omni-benevolence. God lays down the law but he is fundamentally beyond us.
I like sushiNovember 14, 2022 at 00:00#7561210 likes
@Bartricks The ‘confusion’ yiu talk about is likely due to struggling to take on some completely intangible alien position and then stating ‘aught to’ as if it is a given.
I like sushiNovember 14, 2022 at 04:56#7561420 likes
You will find there is more relation to asking ‘What an Ant aught to do?’ and any answer from such a hypothetical is just as relevant as from an omnipotent being (who we cannot relate to as much as an ant).
If you just ask if a human had the choice to end all suffering by stopping procreation in some fashion or another then ‘aught they’ do so? Then there is the question of how this would be done.
Antinatalism is merely a thought to ponder not a realistic position to take as we are not omnipotent nor if any being omnipotent ‘exists’ can we shoehorn in human sensibilities.
In the Muslim and Jewish traditions God is not omni-benevolent. Yet theodicy still exists; see book of Job. One can be good without omni-benevolence. God lays down the law but he is fundamentally beyond us.
I've read Job, and I while I am not an expert in these matters I get the basics. But AFAICT that's not what B is saying.
If B had said that a person who believes in God in spite of the problem of evil (either via theodicy or some other explanation) should be an anti-natalist, then that would have made some sense.
In fact that was my initial assumption as to what he was saying, since simply denying God's existence due to the problem of evil does not oblige one to take any moral position about how an imaginary God/person aught to behave. But AFAICT that's not what B is saying. B is saying that by virtue being a proponent of the problem of evil (one who denies God's existence) it logically follows that such a person must also be an antinatalist.
However, as if that weren't illogical enough, B goes one step further and asserts that the problem of evil does not require omnibenevolence. I have asked B to explain this, but he keeps repeating that it's obvious and that I'm not getting it.
This week's homework assignment in Philosophy 101 was to explain the problem of evil. I went back to the primary sources and here is my understanding of the standard definition:
1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is omnibenevolent, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
Please grade my homework. If I have gotten anything wrong, please correct me.
Now, my claim is that a defender of the problem of evil - so, someone who thinks the evils of the world imply God's non-existence - has to endorse premise 1.
If you think they don't, explain why.
I cannot answer your question set until you explain how YOU define/explain the problem of evil (POE) and what it means to be a proponent of this problem.
Just to recap where we are in this discussion:-
- You have stated that omnibenevolence is not required for the POE.
- This does not even remotely correspond with any standard definition of the POE.
Now maybe there is some formulation of the problem within the writings of one of the medieval philosophers about which you are highly knowledgeable - or - maybe you have your own explanation.
But either way, you need to clarify your question before it can be answered.
1) How do you define/explain the POE without omnibenevolence?
2) What does it mean to be a proponent of this problem?
3) In what way does your definition require that a proponent of the POE must agree with AN?
In the course of our conversation I have asked you these same questions multiple times in a variety of different ways, but for some reason you choose not to answer them. This I do not understand, but I am still trying.
BTW - if you are realizing that you made a mistake and you now agree that the POE does require omnibenevolence, I will not hold it against you to change your mind.
Either remove the evils from the world before subjecting innocent persons to live in it, or do not subject innocent persons to live in it.
Then I'm afraid I consider you the intellectual equal of the crow that is currently strutting about on the lawn outside. I think you're just trying to be annoying.
You can't begin to explain, can you, why you think a proponent of the problem of evil does not have to endorse that principle? Like I say, you haven't a clue - not a clue - what you're talking about. You don't understand the problem of evil or anything I have said. It's just noise, yes?
if you can't understand why a proponent of the problem of evil has to accept this principle
If you can't understand that without omnibenevolence there is no problem of evil, then I'm afraid I consider you the intellectual equal of the crow that is currently strutting about on the lawn outside. I think you're just trying to be annoying.
You can't begin to explain, can you, how the problem of evil requires omnibenevolence? Like I say, you haven't a clue - not a clue - what you're talking about. You don't understand the problem of evil or anything I have said. It's just noise, yes?
You have failed. Like I say, you're a bad faith interlocutor and then there's the IQ thing.
This is my last exchange to you on this topic. It's been most revealing.
It has revealed that you do not understand the problem of evil. Or how to reason.
You think that there is no inconsistency in thinking that God could have introduced innocent life into this world without removing any of its evils and not thereby have done anything wrong and also thinking that God would not introduce innocent life into a world like this without first removing some or all of its evils as that'd be wrong. That's quite something. Good job! What an excellent thinker you are.
Again: someone who thinks that the problem of evil is a problem is someone who thinks that principle is true:
Either remove the evils from the world before subjecting innocent persons to live in it, or do not subject innocent persons to live in it.
You can't see why. That's somewhat astonishing, given how blindingly obvious it is. But it doesn't affect the matter.
I like sushiNovember 15, 2022 at 07:41#7563610 likes
Reply to Bartricks The question remains how we are meant to relate to some hypothetical omnipotent, omniscient person when we are neither.
You can pretend to know what you do not know but I do not see how such is at all relevant as a foundation to build a argument from. As a place to explore from and create new ideas … maybe there is something there for someone with an extremely open mind and/or a more fluid interpretation of the terms used.
People often get offended by antinatalism, as a position, rather than antinatalism as an idea. The former appears as a personal dogma whereas the later is merely a place to think about what it means to bring life into the world, how we were brought into the world and how we can apply/should/might apply terms such as ‘responsibility,’ ‘ethics’ and ‘innocence’.
This has all been pointed out to you before though and remains unanswered, ignored and/or attacked with vitriol.
Antinatalism is certainly an idea worthy of contemplation. As a doctrine to be applied to a humanitarian lived life it has no foundation. Believing that procreation is not the best idea is fine too. Trying to provide ‘ethical’ evidence for it is complete nonsense though.
It may or may not be ‘better’ not to live a life (assuming such can be judged by some hypothetical omnipotent being) but we as mere human beings have sparing insight into that we cannot do more than attach a highly sceptical and unrealised concept to - the concept of ‘omnipotence’.
universenessNovember 15, 2022 at 10:30#7563830 likes
Antinatalism is certainly an idea worthy of contemplation. As a doctrine to be applied to a humanitarian lived life it has no foundation. Believing that procreation is not the best idea is fine too. Trying to provide ‘ethical’ evidence for it is complete nonsense though.
Antinatalism IS an ethical idea that that is what is being contemplated. There are many arguments of various takes on the matter. Why wouldn't it be any different than other human behavior in its evaluation as an ethical question?
I like sushiNovember 15, 2022 at 18:07#7564770 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 I never once said it was not an ethical idea. Do not bother quoting my words back at me just read them in the context written.
An ethical idea can be turned over without it being taken as wholly applicable to real lived lives - like with the trolly problem.
There are no real ethical arguments. They are just positions to consider and jostle with because there is no way of drawing a clear line under some item that is universally right or wrong. Antinatalism as an idea is on par with the trolley problem it is just dressed up differently.
universenessNovember 15, 2022 at 18:16#7564790 likes
Reply to EricH
It's fair play to fire some arrows back in the direction they are coming from towards yourself or towards others unjustly.
A proponent of the problem of evil must believe this disjunctive moral principle is true:
1. Either remove the evils from the world before subjecting innocent persons to live in it, or do not subject innocent persons to live in it.
EricH can't understand why this is, but that's why he has to eat everything with a plastic spoon.
Now, in respect of us this premise is also true:
2. We are unable to remove the evils from the world before subjecting innocent persons to live in it
From which it follows:
3. Therefore do not subject innocent persons to live in it.
Now totally ignore the argument and say some stuff that occurred to you while you looked at it. That seems to be the policy of most around here.
It's a highly significant argument. Why? Because loads and loads of philosophers - probably the bulk - would agree that the problem of evil is a significant problem for the existence of God.
Yet none of them have noticed that this commits them to affirming antinatalism.
One could run the argument in the other direction of course. One could argue that as it is clearly morally permissible for us to procreate despite our inability to rid the world of its evils, then it is not wrong for God to subject innocents to life in it either.
But either way, we have something of an earthquake: either most philosophers have to accept that the strongest objection to theism fails, or most philosophers have to accept that antinatalism is true.
I like sushiNovember 16, 2022 at 06:42#7566170 likes
Reply to Bartricks I can only assume you frame ‘evil’ as ‘suffering’. If life exists therefore ‘evil’ must exist. So then, should all life be exterminated so rid the world of ‘evil’/‘suffering’ or does committing such an act (that many would label as ‘evil’) okay if the end result is the complete annihilation of ‘evil’?
I know that people overtly fond of the antinatalist idea do not wish death and extinction on the human race, but at the same time they effectively are shifting towards that result if procreation itself is regarded as propagating ‘evil’.
The ‘buddhist’ belief is more or less that it is a lie that life must contain some suffering … this is perhaps partially true but it depends exclusively on how one defines and delineates ‘suffering’ and ‘evil’.
If the base argument you are offering up is simply that people born will inevitably ‘suffer’ to some degree then I cannot disagree. I would also add that ‘suffering’ is tied into learning, change and growth so one either opts for change, learning and potential growth or they opt for oblivion and death … that is where any serious dogmatic application of antinatalism falls down.
As a means of questioning our existence it is a worthy idea to ponder on and see where our personal sense of responsibility lies.
It is not at all clear cut to everyone what the difference between ending a life, taking a life or even defining what ‘life’ is in the first place. That is why there is so much contention around items such as abortion and euthanasia.
Surely you know what I am on about now and why it is an intrinsic part of what antinatalism is bringing into question. What can we do about suffering? Yet, why not ask if we should look to eradicate suffering completely if the price paid is effectively the end of all life now and in the future? Clearly there is a wide area of middle ground that for some reason is difficult for us to realise and explore.
schopenhauer1November 16, 2022 at 12:43#7566550 likes
Clearly there is a wide area of middle ground that for some reason is difficult for us to realise and explore.
Depends on a lot more than you are saying. First off, many arguments being made here are ones about impositions. What kind of impositions are acceptable if at all? Procreation is problematic as it isn’t just a gift but comes with many burdens and can never be consented. One cannot get out of this universe’s setup to some better one, and even if one thinks they’d rather not comply with this world’s standards, limited choices of how to survive, and harms one must endure, self-harm/suicide is still a big enough fear that it’s not a realistic option as just a casual and accessible alternative. It would be gaslighting to and wrong to even use that as an excuse for why life “must be good then”.
At the end of the day, is it acceptable to create impositions onto others unnecessarily that are significant and not easily escaped? The only way out is ITSELF a significant traumatic harm to the person (death) or the only way out is to comply. Comply or die seems to then be the only two alternatives.
If this world always ended up being a utopia, individualized for every individual- where even the “boredom” of everything being good was not in the equation, we’d perhaps be having a different argument. Then truly it was purely a gift with no burdens or other agendas. But life isn’t just that and so there’s always some excuse as to why someone else needs to be burdened.
I like sushiNovember 16, 2022 at 13:04#7566620 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 I believe it is an error to talk about ‘consent’ for a force of nature. Not consenting to live is like not consenting that gravity keeps my feet on the ground.
The question of whether it is better to abstain from procreation may have some credit to it but even then I cannot fathom how we can say one way or another given that our scope and understanding of life is rather limited.
To argue not to have have children is an action that may or may not reduce ‘suffering’. We are in no position to say with any real authority what is ‘better’ only to make personal judgements that sit well with us as an individual among other individuals.
We do not consent to breath, nor do we think about breathing every second of the day, yet this does not necessarily mean we are forced to ‘comply’. There are certain situations where the term ‘comply’ can be readily applied but I cannot see how you can bring me to agree that ‘comply’ applies to living a life. It just does not make sense to use that term here. I can understand why you can, with some force, make it appear as wholly applicable to ‘living’ but it is just a term used loosely and no matter how hard it is forced it does not hold up for me.
schopenhauer1November 16, 2022 at 15:29#7567050 likes
Not consenting to live is like not consenting that gravity keeps my feet on the ground.
Just wrong/error in thinking because this isn’t addressing that consent cannot be had. That doesn’t negate this fact. Just because it’s post facto also doesn’t negate it. It is the non ANs that have to address the issue. it’s not simply handwave it away as inevitable. Someone ELSE made the decision on behalf of someone. That is the fact of the matter.
To argue not to have have children is an action that may or may not reduce ‘suffering’. We are in no position to say with any real authority what is ‘better’ only to make personal judgements that sit well with us as an individual among other individuals.
This is not addressing the argument from imposition that @Tzeentch and I have been presenting.
It just does not make sense to use that term here. I can understand why you can, with some force, make it appear as wholly applicable to ‘living’ but it is just a term used loosely and no matter how hard it is forced it does not hold up for me.
Comply means here, having to do the actions necessary to survive in a social setting. You cannot live by simply being, you must do certain things you might otherwise not have wanted to do. Your only recourse if you don’t like ANY of the options is to kill your self- hence comply or die.
I like sushiNovember 16, 2022 at 15:41#7567100 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 Given that these threads have been thrown into one thread (mistakenly/stupidly imo) I cannot readily see the propositions laid out.
Your definition of what is means to ‘live’ simply does not fit with my understanding of what ‘life’ is. This cannot be resolved so any disagreement is moot because they do not even start on the same footing because neither of us is willing to give up such key terms and neither see enough flexibility, in terms of being generous with these terms, to make much headway.
If we can at least agree that the conflict between our views is due to having almost entirely oppositional uses of terms like ‘life,’ ‘living’ and ‘comply’ then that is good enough for me. That is how I see it.
Antinatalism is an interesting item to explore. I wish the mods would not be so silly and lump several completely differing points together making it more than difficult to tease out what each person is trying to communicate.
Thanks for your responses :)
Andrew4HandelNovember 17, 2022 at 15:46#7571030 likes
I think choosing to have children is a denial of causality.
I don't think parents believe they are responsible for the things they are causing.
I don't think parents believe they are responsible for the things they are causing
Scary. Either they think they are responsible for things they haven't caused or they think they aren't responsible for anything at all. Glad I'm not a parent.
schopenhauer1November 25, 2022 at 15:07#7586640 likes
Reply to Cuthbert
There’s always a starting point from which one is trying to overcome. Buddhists and mystics will say this life is an illusion. Yet why is there an overcoming of the illusion in the first place? At that point it’s word games. The overcoming points to a real situation. That situation (the supposed illusion) came about through a cause- reproduction.
L'éléphantNovember 27, 2022 at 18:33#7589100 likes
I guess some people oppose anti-natalism because the followers of anti-natalism explain their reason as if it's universal or true of all people. The choice to not reproduce is still only accepted so long as the reason is personal, rather than universal moral claim. Some people shouldn't have children simply because they're too young, too poor, or too irresponsible, or addicted to drugs and alcohol.
Andrew4HandelNovember 28, 2022 at 11:30#7590680 likes
I was thinking about the validity of an argument I wanted to make concerning antinatalism and it made me think how I could frame an argument in the most coherent or formal way to examine it for flaws.
Here is one way of framing the argument I was going to make.
Premise 1: You cannot be responsible for something you didn't cause
Premise 2: You didn't cause your own existence
Premise 3: Your actions are caused by what caused your existence
Conclusion your parents are responsible for your actions because they caused you existence
However this leads to the ad absurdum that no one is responsible for their actions because of their parents actions.
We are all not here by consent. But I want to differentiate between the responsibility of the person creating human life and the person who never creates another human life.
I usually resort to a notion of causal responsibility. Your parents caused you which caused your actions. It might not be a moral responsibility but they were a causal necessity for your actions. Nevertheless in a purely causal deterministic world their actions were forced by their parents actions.
Is there a way to frame all this to something beneath the concepts involved like a mathematical equation?
Andrew4HandelNovember 28, 2022 at 11:38#7590700 likes
In response to my own post I think you can have the belief in free will and blame people for all their actions but the parents actions have added weight because different actions have differing degrees of harm or potential harm attached.
universenessNovember 28, 2022 at 17:04#7591250 likes
AnsiktsburkDecember 02, 2022 at 10:32#7601010 likes
Two kids maximum is my policy, my wife raised havoc going for a third. But it seems probable that the world´s population should decrease nicely if you had a maximum of 2. A lot of gus would go for 0 or 1.
Any reasoning on whether people should live or not per se is beyond me. Sometimes I hate myselt and humanity and sometimes i love those two groups. Cant make up my mind. But 2, thats a good sound limit.
schopenhauer1December 02, 2022 at 14:08#7601430 likes
By imposition vis-à-vis life do you mean no one was/is/will be asked whether s/he wishes to be born?
I mean the following:
A) Imposition- foisting one's will onto another.
B) Imposition- creating a burden for another.
Both of these definitions can apply here. In the case of the utopia example, the absence of B makes the the case a bit murkier, but this existence never has a case where there is not B, it it wouldn't matter. In my argument I had three things here:
1) The range of choices are limited to the physical-cultural arrangements of this existence and circumstances of time and place. This was assumed to be an appropriate set of choices for another.
2) Known harms are assumed to be enough for others to endure.
3) Unknown harms are simply had by a person through collateral damage of being born. The parent knows there are unknowns but they can't say what they are.
2 and 3 are certainly a violation of B.
1 may seem to not be a violation of B, but besides just the fact one is imposing one's own will (A), the fact that the choices are limited to what existence currently has to offer, B is still relevant too in that the choices may not be wanted if otherwise one could choose so. A and B are violated in all three parts of the argument.
schopenhauer1December 02, 2022 at 14:09#7601450 likes
Parents have a responsibility; true, they're imposing themselves on their kids. A reasonable person wouldn't bring children into the world. Why start families at all?
Agent SmithDecember 02, 2022 at 16:54#7601970 likes
It doesn't matter as far as I am concerned, towards the imposition (comply or die) argument.
Are you sure?
schopenhauer1December 02, 2022 at 17:04#7602000 likes
Reply to Agent Smith
You tell me. As long as life is non utopian for that individual, the question becomes irrelevant as to whether it is objective or subjective. I am not making an argument of good or bad, but whether someone should create an imposition on others. I refer you then back to my previous response
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/760143
Agent SmithDecember 02, 2022 at 17:13#7602040 likes
that the issues brought up by pessimists do seem true, yet life is getting better because of these truths and the work our forefathers and science and the new age positivists are making the world better off.
I agree that life on Earth is not an idylic Garden of Eden, but as you implied, we human care-takers are assiduously working to improve a less-than-perfect situation. We haven't eradicated suffering and unequal distribution of benefits, but Philosophical Pessimism is not going to produce a Utopia. On another thread, I've been engaged with pessimists in a Science vs Religion debate. Whereas most Religions put their faith in all-powerful gods or nature spirits to alleviate their suffering, modern Science is learning to control the vicissitudes of nature directly via Technology. Even so, some posters remain pessimistic in the face of implacable & all-powerful thermodynamic Entropy driving the world toward destruction. However, I am endorsing Enformy*1 as an inherent positive counter-agent to Entropy.
I'm not sure who you are referring to as "new age positivists", but most New Age religions are still relying on Nature to fix its own shortcomings in human relations. On the other hand, modern ecologists, both science-based and religiously-motivated, are espousing a return to human caretakers working hand-in-hand with Nature to keep the Garden and its inhabitants healthy. Unlike the anthro-morphic gods who supposedly answer prayers, Nature/Entropy seems to be deaf to human pleas. However, impassive Nature is inherently balanced between positive & negative forces as it evolves toward more complexity and intelligence. So, you could say that Nature has bred its own race of gardeners. :smile:
*1. Enformy : "My own interpretation of Enformed history is not based on divine revelation. Yet I remain somewhat optimistic that the self-organizing natural force of Enformy will prevail over disorganizing Entropy in the end (Omega Point)."
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13862/the-self-under-materialism
*2. Ecologist : a person who studies the relationship between living things and their environment.
Reply to Shawn Life is getting better for whom? Whose pessimism is being overcome but at what cost and to whom? "Progress" – if there's such a thing – is just not evenly distributed yet (W. Gibson). The Epicureans and Stoics, Cynics and Pyrrhonians, as examples, strove against the tragedy of daily life as existentialists and absurdists have in our time. And yet dukkha remains despite the high-tech hedonic treadmill of modern mass consumerism and televangelism. "Sisyphus" is still our promethean avatar. Existential dread, my friend, of which pessimism is an expression, is the ineluctable condition to be endured and not a (technoscientific or psychiatric) problem to be solved (by "progress").
Well, I just wanted to raise the issue of positivism as the antithesis of Philosophical Pessimism. In that positivists seem to have a strong desire to alter brute suffering and lack that some of us have experienced in our daily lives.
The new age positivists label was directed at entrepreneurship and huge stores of money in Silicon Valley to alleviate said lack and suffering, through technology.
Whose pessimism is being overcome but at what cost and to whom?
The question seems incoherent. As I posted elsewhere, pessimism is an attitude. So, for some pessimists who view reality with dukkha and all the suffering of the world or even the senseless samsara that we undergo, until we break through the karmic cycle, then no matter what kind of progress technology has to provide they probably wouldn't change their attitude. I say it is an attitude because Buddhists don't fall into that mood for example. Furthermore, it also seems that if what the Philosophical Pessimists profess as hard truths or brute facts about reality, then doesn't that make their point universal?
And yet dukkha remains despite the high-tech hedonic treadmill of modern mass consumerism and televangelism.
Yet, the Buddhists didn't just advocate complacency with dukkha, they professed non-attachment to desiring things or goods that we hear from self-help gurus from the Eastern tradition.
Existential dread, my friend, of which pessimism is an expression, is the ineluctable condition to be endured and not a (technoscientific) problem to be solved (by "progress").
Progress, as defined wouldn't solve the issue but alleviate the degree to which it is apparent in ones condition.
But as you well know, some people aren't born with "reality-agreeing" lenses and choose the "rosy-picture" one instead and remain with them.
My intuition is that pessimism (which I share many sympathies with) is very much person dependent. Some people are more predisposed to such views, others are not.
And in the latter case, existential dread is at most covered by an hour long visit to the church on Sundays - if that.
My intuition is that pessimism (which I share many sympathies with) is very much person dependent. Some people are more predisposed to such views, others are not.
Interesting. Probably right. I sometimes wonder if there is intellectual pessimism and emotional pessimism. Personally I have usually taken pessimism for a disposition. Generally my answer to existential angst has been the same as Pablo Casals', "The situation is hopeless, we must take the next step.' Is this just a version of Camus' insistence that we must see Sisyphus as happy? Even pessimism comes with choices.
I'd guess that it depends on how hard-wired the pessimism is on that particular person. If it's not too deep, then surely Sisyphus could simply go up the mountain and enjoy the view and forget about the bolder for a while.
If it's more deep-seated, you still have options, but they're drastically reduced. Which further feeds into the whole pessimistic scenario. It has its own logic and lived experience can be a very powerful force in terms of how deeply felt such feelings are held.
Agent SmithJanuary 16, 2023 at 11:25#7731240 likes
Read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page on philosophical pessimism. All in all, to ascribe a negative value to life; in vernacular, the game ain't worth the candle.
Reasons for philosophical pessimism
1. Suffering (greatly) exceeds happiness
2. The universe on the whole and even our dear ol' planet earth is on the whole anti-life; imagine having to navigate a boobytrapped übercomplex maze.
3. Life is meaningless
As the OP correctly identifies, these hard facts mirror the Buddha's distillation of what life is in the 4 Noble Truths (dukkha). It's quite odd that the pessimism that prevailed in 500 bC ancient India rang true in 17[sup]th[/sup] century Europe and that it still makes sense to be pessimistic in the 21[sup]st[/sup] century. Not much has changed then, oui?
This, however, may be a mistake, one that is all too easy to make. There's been a sea change in our circumstances - science and technology have drastically reduced suffering and that's not all, the duo has promised even greater prizes such as ... :zip: not a word, ya hear! ... resurrection, immortality, mind uploading, etc.
To get right to the point then, there are problems, but a few of them if not all at some point seem remediable. Pessimism then is a defeatist attitude - it fails to take into account the subtleties and nuances of the problem of suffering and also the solutions.
schopenhauer1January 16, 2023 at 12:05#7731330 likes
To get right to the point then, there are problems, but a few of them if not all at some point seem remediable. Pessimism then is a defeatist attitude - it fails to take into account the subtleties and nuances of the problem of suffering and also the solutions.
The problem of burdens in the first place. Forced situations that one would otherwise not have wanted to deal with. We are always put in a deprivation to get out of. That doesn't go away due to economic circumstances. Also, if this is considered "ideal" state of being, then maybe we should reassess how we are measuring the situation at hand.
. @Shawn why do you bring this topic of philosophical pessimism up every so often in this forum? I am the only one who identifies as one here so it is oddly pointed, even if broadcast to "everyone".
@Baden if you want to be consistent, you should probably throw this in the Antinatalist thread bin where you merged the "Life Sucks" thread. If you are going to be thorough about the more recent policies against philosophical pessimism and antinatalism threads, do it consistently.
Agent SmithJanuary 16, 2023 at 13:33#7731440 likes
Gracias, I was finding it difficult to explain pessimism in the modern world after what I wrote in my last post. Suffering is no longer a viable reason, it has lost its force as a convincing justification, for pessimism as the OP suggests and I concur (statistics clearly show an upward trend in overall well-being).
This, to me, weakens your forced-to-play-the-game argument. The game is (going to be a whole lot of) fun! Who wouldn't want to play; nevertheless, choice is a basic sentient right. Even if I were to be taken to paradise, I would prefer to be asked "paradise, yes/no? A quick question though: Would you rather be offered a cake even when you don't want it or would you prefer not to be asked at all, whether you would like some cake?
schopenhauer1January 16, 2023 at 13:58#7731470 likes
A quick question though: Would you rather be offered a cake even when you don't want it or would you prefer not to be asked at all, whether you would like some cake?
I’d rather the option to decline the cake, and if the cake came with limiting choices to just cake and then causing a plethora of harms…not even ethical to give that cake.
schopenhauer1January 16, 2023 at 14:00#7731480 likes
@Baden@Jamal@Hanover, just put this in the Life Sucks thread please. Remember, we don’t tolerate speech about philosophical pessimism. Or is that only for arguments defending it?
These don’t deserve independent threads remember?
Agent SmithJanuary 16, 2023 at 16:52#7731760 likes
I agree this - what we have here at the moment - is for sure not paradise. You forgot to mention progress with regard to the problem of suffering - life expectancy for example went up from, what?, 40s to now 70s (global average) and how long you live is a pretty good measure of well-being if you ask me. You shouldn't ignore this proven fact if you base your argument on dukkha, oui?
Like I admitted, it's hard to disagree with your forced-to-play-the-game argument. It is, how shall I put it?, the little fly in the ointment, the David that brings Goliath down. However, it just dawned on me, pessimists/antinatlists, for the exact same reason, can't advocate for abstaining from having children. They, in this case, are being forced-not-to-play-the-game, oui monsieur? It seems we're at an impasse. The card you've always been playing is not exactly to your advantage.
schopenhauer1January 16, 2023 at 17:39#7731830 likes
They, in this case, are being forced-not-to-play-the-game, oui monsieur? It seems we're at an impasse. The card you've always been playing is not exactly to your advantage.
There is no “they” prior to existence being forced into anything. The parent is deciding to impose something and that is what is relevant.
Agent SmithJanuary 16, 2023 at 17:47#7731860 likes
The new age positivists label was directed at entrepreneurship and huge stores of money in Silicon Valley to alleviate said lack and suffering, through technology.
The innovative & pioneering & super-rich entrepreneurs (go-getters), including Elon Musk, do indeed seem to be optimistic about their technological innovations improving life conditions for all of mankind. But their risk-taking positive attitude may be based on a "trickle down" economic theory, in which the rich get richer and the poor get less-poor. But, in practice the 1 or 2% at the top get richer faster than the 98%, upon whose shoulders they are standing . That's why political progressives are impatient with the long wait for signs of progress at the bottom of the pyramid.
Regarding the question of "better for whom", abstract statistics seem to tell a different story from emotional politics. Gradual natural evolution took 13 billion years to get us to the point of primitive human culture. Since then, various technologies have been incrementally chipping away at the inequities of the economic pyramid. However, because human societies seem to be inherently hierarchical*1, instead of egalitarian, we may never reach the ideal of total eradication of poverty & suffering. But, we should be grateful for any changes that put more power in the hands of people-in-general to control their own conditions of life.
The site linked below*2 provides statistics on progress using various measures : economic status, literacy, health, mortality, etc. Unfortunately, the charts are typically based on raw population numbers, instead of percentages of the global community. Also, Steven Pinker's Skeptical Inquirer article, Progressophobia*3, provides lots of reasons for informed optimism, instead of news headline pessimism regarding social progress.
Admittedly, it's mostly those near the peak of the socio-economic pyramid who feel optimistic about their own future, and for the trickle-down improvement for all of mankind : "better living through technology"*4. Those near the bottom typically require some kind of supernatural promises, or a turtle-shell shield like meditation. So, it may be up to us philosophically-inclined thinkers to focus on the long-term evolution of human culture, and for short-term Stoicism, to keep us keeping-on toward the goal of improvement in living conditions for our fellow men. :smile:
*1. Human Hierarchy : The presence of a drive for dominance is clearly present in humans and has been documented through various psychological constructs.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/dominance-hierarchy
*2. STATISTICAL EVIDENCE FOR PROGRESS ON POVERTY
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/12/23/14062168/history-global-conditions-charts-life-span-poverty
*3. Progressophobia : Why Things Are Better Than You Think They Are
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/05/progressophobia-why-things-are-better-than-you-think-they-are/
*4. Better living through technology :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Living_Through_Chemistry
schopenhauer1January 16, 2023 at 19:10#7731940 likes
The word has been explained in recent times as a derivation from Aryan terminology for an axle hole, referring to an axle hole which is not in the center and leads to a bumpy, uncomfortable ride. According to Winthrop Sargeant,
The ancient Aryans who brought the Sanskrit language to India were a nomadic, horse- and cattle-breeding people who travelled in horse- or ox-drawn vehicles. Su and dus are prefixes indicating good or bad. The word kha, in later Sanskrit meaning "sky," "ether," or "space," was originally the word for "hole," particularly an axle hole of one of the Aryan's vehicles. Thus sukha ... meant, originally, "having a good axle hole," while duhkha meant "having a poor axle hole," leading to discomfort.[5]
The philosophical up-shot of dukkha is that off-center axel holes can be fixed.
Philosophical pessimists, riding (not trudging along with the peasants and cattle) would rather complain about the annoying thud which accompanies every turn of the wheel then get the fuck off the wagon and fix the damned axel hole.
Pragmatists have a positive, practical view that bad axel holes can be fixed.
technogurus in Silicon Valley, Stanford, and Caltech who seem to be the positivists of our day and are creating new gadgets and devices that sustain and improve our daily lives.
Hey, I like a Mac, iPhone, or iPad as much as the next consumer, but let's not get carried away with paeans to Silicon Valley. [paean = song of praise] Technogurus are hired hotshots who think of things to sell, NOT sustain and improve our lives.
I like the Economist; it's a good source of information, but it isn't the Oracle of Delphi. Of course it takes an upbeat tone when talking about Silicon Valley. It's pro-capitalism. Surprise, surprise.
And yet, what occured to me as rather peculiar about humanity is that we do not submit to this pessimism about life or not all of us at least.
Unlike the funny characters in a Monte Python sketch, digging in the mud who pause to discuss political philosophy. we are more or less programmed to keep on keeping on. It's the needs of the organism that drive us onward, not philosophy--that comes after we have made it to a safe harbor and can pause to philosophize.
Shawn why do you bring this topic of philosophical pessimism up every so often in this forum? I am the only one who identifies as one here so it is oddly pointed, even if broadcast to "everyone".
As you say, the topic was directed at everyone and didn't have anything to do with antinatalism, go figure.
I honestly do not think life is getting worse. Progress, is a difficult measure to calculate and there doesn't seem to be a lack of it. I also doubt that trickle-down economics works by any measure. Elon Musk is addressing some hard problems nowadays, with neuroimplats that will possibly enable a person to walk again or solve depression for the depressed
Regarding progressives, I live in a highly progressive state that is handing out money to build shelter for homeless people, and direct funding for the bottom of the economic spectrum. So, I have no doubt that things are getting better for those who are most in need in my corner of the world.
I might start a thread inspired by your post regarding, How do we define progress? I hope you can join.
I might start a thread inspired by your post regarding, How do we define progress? I hope you can join.
My personal philosophical worldview, Enformationism, is not exactly Pollyanna optimism, but it does have a positive outlook, based on the evidence for upward-trending cosmic complexification, due to the self-organizing ability of Nature. Moreover, one offspring of Nature : human Culture, in modern times, is accelerating the progression of life-sustaining organization -- even as it creates more ways to dominate each other.
From that pragmatic perspective, things are looking-up. But, for me personally, my economic status varies with the general economy of the US, and in step with worldwide recessions and booms. So, my Stoic attitude gets me by whenever I'm scraping the bottom of the economic middle class. Compared to the "huddled masses", though, I have no reason to complain. :smile:
PS__I just noticed the new heading for this thread. So, I see that some on this forum don't share my Stoic optimism that, if we learn to control our unruly emotions, Reason will forge a path to a better life. But, some of us seem to be so depressed by life's imperfections that species suicide is an attractive option.
Agent SmithJanuary 17, 2023 at 02:30#7733440 likes
Reply to rossii Focus on things that you enjoy in life. Good food, good movies/TV shows, good books, et cetera. Try deriving as much joy from these things as possible.
Also, go on anti-depressants if necessary because a lot of times people unfortunately can't will themselves to stop being depressed due to it apparently involving biological factors in their brain or something like that.
Reply to Baden Frankly, anti-natalism for high-IQ people has struck me as being rather stupid since this would only contribute to dysgenics for future generations. If future generations will, on average, become duller, than this would be worse for humanity as a whole. Even the people who want to curb their fertility for the sake of the planet are being stupid IMHO because this would simply mean that there would be fewer people in future generations who will intensely care about this topic because such people will simply be weeding themselves and their own political views out of the future gene pool.
Even if one doesn't want to personally raise children, one can still have them and then give them up for adoption in the form of an open adoption. But of course this is easier to do for women than for men. A man would need to hire a surrogate and use an egg donor for this (in order to be the child's sole legal parent so that he could subsequently unilaterally give the resulting child(ren) up for adoption), and even Mexican surrogates cost a lot of money for Americans. One would be expected to spend tens of thousands of one's own money in order to improve the future human gene pool, and that's too altruistic to expect from most anti-natalist/childfree people. I myself might not mind doing this if I actually had the money for this, though. I'm a huge fan of *voluntary* eugenics.
Frankly, anti-natalism for high-IQ people has struck me as being rather stupid since this would only contribute to dysgenics for future generations. If future generations will, on average, become duller, than this would be worse for humanity as a whole. Even the people who want to curb their fertility for the sake of the planet are being stupid IMHO because this would simply mean that there would be fewer people in future generations who will intensely care about this topic because such people will simply be weeding themselves and their own political views out of the future gene pool.
Totally missing the point of most antinatalists' stance against creating suffering for future generations. Also, a lot of ANs aren't even consequentialists. There is something about being aggressively paternalistic and creating suffering and choices on behalf of others for X cause that violates deontological principles.
Reply to schopenhauer1 There's suffering but there's also a lot of joy. A lot of people consider the suffering to be worth it due to the joy.
And are a lot of anti-natalists from financially well-off backgrounds? If so, then that means that their kids are likely to suffer less than normal children. Unless I suppose the anti-natalists just beat them up to a bloody pulp or something, but that would be against anti-natalists' ethical code since anti-natalists want to *prevent* suffering.
schopenhauer1February 16, 2023 at 09:35#7814950 likes
There's suffering but there's also a lot of joy. A lot of people consider the suffering to be worth it due to the joy.
From at least two perspectives, this is not a good moral justification. One reason it’s not is that not being born means no person experienced the collateral damage of “no joy”. No one is sitting in nothingness regretting no joy. However, collateral damage is created the other way. When someone is born there is always at least some regrettable harms that will befall people- sometimes (and not infrequently) quite burdensome for that person.
It is also simply a violation and an insensitivity to the dignity and worth of the person you are procreating to assume on behalf of another person, that they need to live the X number of years of limited choices that this game of life offers and that they need to experience known and unknown harms. It assumes this game (the limited survival game of this life) is what another person must experience and play. This stance is “aggressively paternalistic” in that it assumes one can and should create unnecessary harms and assumes choices for other people. Rather, prior to the potential child’s birth, is one time when one can perfectly follow the non-harm principle, and not have to mitigate greater violations of harm for lesser ones. One can perfectly follow the duty to not unnecessarily cause harm to others.
One would be using the other person and violating their dignity by indeed causing unnecessary harm, and for x cause (even to see the possibility of a happy child). The overlooking of the harm caused, for X result is indeed violation of someone’s dignity in this situation where no one needed to be caused harm in the first place and where no one needed to assume for another what set of choices is appropriately “good” for others to have. With this last point I might elaborate that perhaps this life’s set of choices is not one they would have chosen. Perhaps this games limited ways of surviving of being in the world would have been less optimal than their preference. The assumption that other self-reflective beings would agree that the parameters of this world are what they would have chosen is aggressively paternalistic. Indeed even if someone experiences joy (whether frequently/deeply or not) might still regret many aspects of this particular setup. They may have preferred a world where survival through work/labor (or otherwise destitution, free-riding, hacking it in wilderness, and death) are not the de facto parameters.
Reply to Agent Smith What progress do you speak of? A lot of the progress I see is in the ability to support more and more sentient beings. But I'm not sure if that's justifiably progress for the individual. We're still largely the same animal. Not to mention the horrors of prolonged life. Which if considered to be fun to impose on a person by another person would mean that imposer is a psychopath.
Thanks, I guess there is some value in asking the question at the same time.
A little history for you—The moderators here on the forum decided to lump all anti-natalism discussions into this one thread because they annoy some people. I mean the threads annoy some people, not the moderators. Well, the moderators annoy people too. So, anyway, you might find yourself responding to posts that are really old. Also—if you start a new anti-natalism thread, the moderators will likely move it here without telling you.
For your information—@schopenhauer1 is our resident anti-natalism expert.
schopenhauer1March 12, 2023 at 17:36#7884580 likes
This argument strikes me as at best indentured servitude to a hypothetical or slavery to a hypothetical at worst. Am I off the mark?
"You must exist and suffer because some hypothetical beings might have it better as a result."
Slave owners had it better than their slaves.
Yeah I think I agree here. The argument was: Quoting Xanatos
There's suffering but there's also a lot of joy. A lot of people consider the suffering to be worth it due to the joy.
My response was basically:
It is immoral to be aggressively paternalistic- that is to say, to assume
a) others should experience a certain existential arrangement that you deem as good (like having to survive in this universe in some socio-economic way)
b) causing known harms (you know this is part of almost all human lives)
c) causing unknown harms (you know of harms that you cannot predict)
All of these assumptions would be violating the dignity of the person, as forced choices and forced, unnecessary (avoidable) harm was caused on behalf of someone else when this situation could have been avoided (by not procreating).
So my argument rests on deontological considerations of duties towards others not to violate their dignity or use them.
Xanatos also implied that it is okay to do X negative to someone (that could have been avoided) as long as it is with the intention or the hunch that the person being harmed would appreciate it post-facto. Using someone, by causing avoidable harms unto someone, EVEN with the intention that they will have positive experiences from it as well, is still a violation of dignity, the violation of not using people, and a violation of the principle of doing no harm.
Once born, the situation changes whereby there is no WAY to both live and avoid harm and pursue interests. It would in fact be a violation to prevent certain goals and such that might cause harm because the person born now has interests, values, and such. At that post-birth stage, it becomes using heuristics whereby one respects the goals, values, and worth of others while still trying best to exercise ones own will.
However, prior to birth, this is the only time someone (a potential parent) can avoid doing harm 100% towards someone else (by not procreating a child that will be forced and harmed). Thus, really, the decision to not procreate is one of the only ethical decisions where someone can "perfectly" follow the rule of not causing avoidable harm, not using someone, and not violating someone else's dignity by forcing your will on their behalf.
It’s nice to be in such a diverse environment where some wanna die whilst others wanna live forever.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 12:28#7886950 likes
Reply to universeness Your characteristic generosity is greatly appreciated. However, with all due respect, I don't think that I possess either the eloquence or the breadth of knowledge that S1 does. I can only hope to present the other side of the coin.
Reply to DA671
Good people have such thrusted upon them. Your judgement of yourself is often not as important as how others might judge you. In my opinion your views are far far more balanced, and show more insight, into the very fringe issue of anti-life(natalism), compared to posters such as schopenhauer1.
Existential HopeMarch 13, 2023 at 12:53#7887040 likes
schopenhauer1March 13, 2023 at 14:19#7887270 likes
Done patting yourselves on the back? I find it funny that some styles of debate here are to be very unpleasant, but then use that to say how pleasant life is. Demonstrating unpleasantness as a way to justify life's pleasantness seems a bit more than odd to me.
Anti-natalism is pointless. It's not like mother earth wouldn't reestablish life if it was snuffed out, as it has many times before. Mass extinctions occur. But life as a whole, persists.
I have made a similar point many times when discussing antinatalism. Life existing in the universe is, has, and always will be, a natural consequence of very large variety in every combination possible and my main evidence, is the fact that it has already happened that way.
The antinatalists on TPF don't seem to be concerned with the general existence of 'life' in the universe, they just think that the best cure for human suffering, is no more humans, it's as banal and irrational as that.
Antinatalism preaches that we are all better off dead than alive because it avoids suffering.
I don't think so. Assuming that the occasional joys of life do not justify or compensate for life's inexorable and useless suffering, antinatalism proposes that it's better not to be born in the first place, and failing that, therefore, we who are already born and suffer should not breed any more generations of 'innocents' who will uselessly suffer as we have and do. For the antinatalist, it's (hypothetical) never-borns which are "better off", not "the dead" (especially since the prospect of an 'afterlife' remains an open question – perhaps the dead can suffer?! (which is, for some, another precautionary / paranoid reason not to breed)).
Btw, I'm an antinatalist in principle – at least until a viable mode of Abolitionism is invented – but not by policy (i.e. ideology). I am far more concerned with reducing the suffering of actualalready-borns (naturalized ethics) than preserving the 'hypothetical bliss' of never-borns (speculative inexistence).
To make it a bit easier to respond, here was the original post by Benj96:
Antinatalism preaches that we are all better off dead than alive because it avoids suffering.
However the dead cannot suffer. Nor have they any agency, choice, power, authority or intellect to subvert suffering. So the goal of antinatalism is one of irrelevance and impotence.
Secondly, life, albeit harmful and treacherous indeed at times, is also full of beneficial/benevolent phenomena like love, nurturing, support, care, joy, peace, prosperity, triumph, opportunity, optimism, kindness/generosity, control, choice and agency.
Antinatalism declares that life is the greatest of impositions. But to the living, and especially to those that enjoy life, antinatalism is the greatest of impositions. Not to mention that the state of livinghood was imposed on all by abiogenesis. The universe brought about life whether one likes it or not. This imposition applies to everyone, and yet not everyone feels "imposed" upon by that fact. Many indeed feel grateful instead. Myself included.
Who has more choice? The living or the dead? And thus who has the most authority and capacity to engage and diminish suffering; the living or the dead?
The dead do not impose, control nor have a say. The living do. And because the living are the only faction that can suffer, perhaps the decision to endure it or opt for an escape, is for the living not the dead.
The final statement, is that the living are the only faction that can be antinatalist. There are two things their views must be reconciled with: a). Why do they continue to live if their sole objective in argument is total mass anhilation?This seems hypocritical. You're living to tell people not to.
And secondly, how do they reconcile those that enjoy their lives, and wish to be benevolent, or contribute benefit to the living status, with their beliefs that everyone is better off dead, just in case any suffering should occur.
This gives little to know autonomy to those that accept a bit of suffering in their endeavours to improve and progress the condition of living towards a state of diminished harm.
Anti-natalism is pointless. It's not like mother earth wouldn't reestablish life if it was snuffed out, as it has many times before. Mass extinctions occur. But life as a whole, persists.
Antinatalism preaches that we are all better off dead than alive because it avoids suffering.
However the dead cannot suffer. Nor have they any agency, choice, power, authority or intellect to subvert suffering. So the goal of antinatalism is one of irrelevance and impotence.
Well that's a strawman based on a mischaracterization of the argument. I believe 180 Proof already addressed this though.
Secondly, life, albeit harmful and treacherous indeed at times, is also full of beneficial/benevolent phenomena like love, nurturing, support, care, joy, peace, prosperity, triumph, opportunity, optimism, kindness/generosity, control, choice and agency.
You are bringing up every anti-antinatalist fallacy there is and that I have dismantled over the years. The latest argument is here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14291/the-ethics-of-burdening-others-in-the-name-of-personal-growth-when-is-it-justified/p1
Antinatalism declares that life is the greatest of impositions. But to the living, and especially to those that enjoy life, antinatalism is the greatest of impositions.
If I do something that burdens you but also brings you joy, that doesn't excuse burdening you, especially when I can't get your consent, de facto. It’s breaking a deontological principle of making burdens for other people, and deciding for another what burdens another person should endure. It’s creating the problem that another person has to solve but it did not have to be made in the first place.
Who has more choice? The living or the dead? And thus who has the most authority and capacity to engage and diminish suffering; the living or the dead?
This argument is specious and a strawman. It is not about "living or dead" but living and "not yet born", huge difference. One has a potential to actually come into existence, and that choice is indeed made by those who are already born. And what of it? This seems like a red herring point. The people already alive are deciding for others what kind of burdens they should endure. See my response above. Also, gambling with people's lives is not so great either. Not existing hurts nobody. No one is obligated to create joy, preventing harm however, is something. Also, creating joy with incumbent burdens is not a purely good act, and creates harm on top of the intended good. See my thread about creating burdens unnecessarily, with no mitigating reason for that person being affected.
Why do they continue to live if their sole objective in argument is total mass anhilation?This seems hypocritical. You're living to tell people not to.
This might be the worst argument when debating antinatalism. Not starting a life and preventing harm for a future person, and not killing yourself are two separate things. Just because upon birth, people don't immediately jump off a cliff, doesn't mean that one is caused harm. Fear of death, etc. are a very real thing. This is the worst strawman.
And secondly, how do they reconcile those that enjoy their lives, and wish to be benevolent, or contribute benefit to the living status, with their beliefs that everyone is better off dead, just in case any suffering should occur.
Is this a joke? This is like a parody of a bad natalist argument. Antinatalists don't believe people should be kill themselves! So uncharitable I'm not even going to take this further. Go back and read what antinatalism really believes. Read some proper philosophers like David Benatar even or Gerald Harrison! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#:~:text=Antinatalism%20or%20anti%2Dnatalism%20is,humans%20should%20abstain%20from%20procreating. Come back when you at least know what you are debating.
This gives little to know autonomy to those that accept a bit of suffering in their endeavours to improve and progress the condition of living towards a state of diminished harm.
It is about causing suffering/harm/negatives on behalf of others. This can be both negative utilitarian and deontological for NOT violating the principle of harm and autonomy. But also creating the least amount of harms, with no consequences to an ACTUAL person (see Benatar).
Anti-natalism is pointless. It's not like mother earth wouldn't reestablish life if it was snuffed out, as it has many times before. Mass extinctions occur. But life as a whole, persists.
This is the naturalistic fallacy. "Mother Earth" does a lot of things that don't fall into the ethical realm.
My suggestion is at least to read some of my past discussions on this. You can look them up in my profile if you'd like. They go back pretty far. I've seen every argument you can think of, so be careful what you want to rehash. It's been said, believe me.
Reply to Benj96
"that I have dismantled over the years."
This is how delusional some antinatalists are.
You are attempting to use rational argument against fundamentalist style ossification.
The continued existence of humanity and it's future expansion into space, is the best answer to antinatalists. The best aspect of the antinatalist position, is if the human race ever does go extinct, for whatever reason, we wont have to ever endure their exclamations of 'we told you so,' as they will all be extinct.
They are an utter irrelevance, to the vast vast majority of people deciding whether or not to have children.
I have NEVER heard any young couple say 'well we chose to not have children, because of the global power of the antinatalist movement.' :lol: I don't think I ever will hear such!
They are an utter irrelevance, to the vast vast majority of people deciding whether or not to have children.
I have NEVER heard any young couple say 'well we chose to not have children, because of the global power of the antinatalist movement.' :lol: I don't think I ever will hear such!
This topic is meant for you since you display an example of it here so well.
Reply to schopenhauer1
Yeah sure, I will click on YOUR recommendations. :lol:
I am seeking more wisdom and enlightenment so, no thanks, I have no such spare time to waste.
I think that creating children is the source of all human harm. It is the only way human harms can enter the world and creating a new child is not a solution. People will always die and experience an array of harms they didn't consent to before hand.
It would be good if there was somekind of positive afterlife to reward struggling through this.
No children equals no genocides,wars, murder,famine misogyny, slavery, racism, cancer deaths, MS, inequality and so on. It is a positive philosophy that says no to suffering and false hope.
I think that creating children is the source of all human harm.
When is a human a human? In the sense of gradual slight changes over evolution?
Presumably if we have a strict set of conditions that determine us as homo sapien, then there was a point in time in which a predecessor homo species that failed to meet this criterion gave rise to the first sapien that did meet it. The parents = not sapiens, the offspring = sapiens.
In that case if there is "harm" in giving birth to children. The harm is not human. But from other animals that "imposed our humanness on us". Should we then go out and blame all human hardship on australopithicus?
Maybe we take it back further and blame everything on LUCA (last universal common ancestor).
If we are to take this sharp delineation, then creating human children was not harm done by humans. As the parents were originally not human. But rather pre-human animals. Should we then blame all the primates or extinct homo genus groups for harming us in their contribution to birthing us?
You can blame away if it helps you have peace of mind. But it seems totally pointless.
The universe gave rise to life. It imposed living on itself. Through biogenesis, evolution and speciation.
Should we just blame the entire universe then? And if we do, what comes of it? The universe doesn't give a rats ass. Nature operates the way it does. Nothing will change this.
Is there any point in exterminating life in a universe hellbent on its emergence? What is to stop life from rekindling. It is the law of chemistry and physics that dictates the emergence of biology. You cannot swim against that tide.
It is a positive philosophy that says no to suffering and false hope.
Just like many a tyrant has claimed on the past. Ironically they pursue obliteration and/or various forms and extensions of human suffering rather than tempering them. An aim with an absolute solution is always fanatical and often antithetical to its proposed purpose.
I have a lot of anecdotes about my life but they are usually relevant so excuse me if I seem to overshare. I am a frank person.
I think philosophy should be based on real life and lived experience and not exist in a closed off abstract domain.
My dad worked in hospitals and I once asked my mum if he ever worked on a children's ward and she said something like "No because he doesn't have an affinity with children" I asked if she knew that before she married him and she replied yes.
She then went on to have six children with him. Neither of them were good parents and he was particularly unreasonable.
For example when my late oldest brother left the Plymouth Brethren for a Pentecostal church he soon after developed MS and my dad told him he developed MS as a punishment from God for leaving the Brethren. My mother also told me that her cousin died in a bike car collision because he left the brethren and had a career in music. My aunt later told me an open bible was found next to the bed in my deceased cousins bedroom.
The church we grew up in focused on original sin and hell and damnation so like a lot of Christians my parents believed in the principal of total depravity and that they were giving birth to children cursed from birth and heading for hell unless they become religious drones.
So I don't see how you can justify having children with someone that doesn't like them and like a lot of religious people under the premise they are cursed from the outset. The bible and other religions also have a built in narrative to justify human such as the Adam and Eve story.
As a child I asked my mum why brambles had prickles on them that could hurt humans and animals and she said it was all to do with the fall of man. That any suffering and problem in nature was to blame on Adam and Eve.
So parents do give rationalisations for having children that can be and examined and are not just like animals in the wild spontaneously procreating.
Just like many a tyrant has claimed on the past. Ironically they pursue obliteration and/or various forms and extensions of human suffering rather than tempering them. An aim with an absolute solution is always fanatical and often antithetical to its proposed purpose.
It should be a personal choice not to create a child based on conscience. I don't know which tyrants tried to obliterate suffering. A lot of current western governments claim to want to end human suffering in contradiction to their policies. The same with the general public who's actions go against their alleged moral stances.
You can have a (transhuman?) policy of ending human suffering without advocating antinatalism. We just know it is not working and is unlikely to work. It also flies in the face of the natural cycle of change and decay - call it entropy if you will.
I don't see why people get angry about antinatalism considering it is a minority held position that is having no impact as far as I can see and their are billions of humans a live to day and many more being born all the time.
In that case if there is "harm" in giving birth to children. The harm is not human. But from other animals that "imposed our humanness on us". Should we then go out and blame all human hardship on australopithicus?
I believe in free will based on my own experience and as I have pointed out in one of my last posts humans give reasons for having children and have stated beliefs that can be examined unlike any other animal.
Human society is built on reason not on blindly responding to natural urges. I am gay so I am not going to accidentally impregnate a woman whilst drunk or in a fit of lust so I can sympathise with heterosexuals maybe succumbing to wild lust. But strangely most humans are successful at controlling family size ( and even some species restrict population size).
Parents are causally responsible for harm because they are a necessary component in human harm occurring what ever their intentions.
However much I am enjoying an aspect of life (Like the music of Handel or a takeaway) It doesn't make me consider forcing it on someone else. I know most people don't listen to baroque music and I don't like sport and don't like that being forced on me. Having some niche tastes and viewpoints and cognitive issues like ASD and ADHD I can see how one size does not fit all. I cannot just assume other people are like me and replicate that.
We are all going to die anyway and barring an afterlife scenario go extinct and be unaware that we ever existed. I am personally frightened of suddenly ceasing to exist. But when you are in the thick of life it is hard to imagine nothingness and having no concerns and never seeing anyone again. This is one area where I think the religious and other believers in an afterlife have an advantage. They are offering their children eternal life. But unfortunately I see no evidence for the major religions claims.
Reply to Andrew4Handel I think people have problems with it due to low resolution understanding and/or because fanatics of antinatalism also possess low resolution views.
As a thought experiment it has value. As an ethical template it is both irrelevant and contrary.
If you had the ability to give the gift of the following to a friend:
Creating or experiencing art and music that inspires and moves you.
Accomplishing personal goals and achievements.
Falling in love and experiencing deep emotional connections.
Building meaningful relationships with family and friends.
Exploring new cultures and traveling to different parts of the world.
Embracing adventure and taking risks
Appreciating nature
Reading/writing good literature
Learning X thing and mastering Y ability
Experiencing technological innovations
Flow states
Games and hobbies
But then, in order to gift the above positives to a friend you also definitely had to give that person at least several of these things below:
Chronic illness - cancer, disease, mental illness, breakdowns, etc.
Acute illness- bed bugs, disease, mental illness, parasites, food poising etc.
Accidents and misadventures (everything from broken limbs and car accidents, to getting eaten by a lion)
Disasters
Betrayal
Loneliness
Anxiety
Trauma
Addiction
Financial hardships
Poverty
Loss
Practically unavoidable, unwanted and tedious situations
Abuse
Discomforts of great and small variety that adds up when combined (everything from mistreatment by others in small ways, to traffic jams, to stubbed toes, to uncomfortable situations, to embarrassment, etc.)
Would you feel comfortable and moral providing the group of positives if you knew you will 100% also be giving some variation of the group of negatives?
I think you would not feel comfortable nor think that this was moral. But procreation is not seen this way. And here lies the misguided and wrong-headed thinking regarding procreation. It's no different.
Existential HopeJuly 08, 2023 at 09:08#8209850 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1@Tzeentch@plaque flag Many of these positives do exist at the same time with a number of the negatives enumerated here. There is heartbreak , and yet there is a spirit of adventure that can lift one from it.
If one is absolutely sure that the harms would be outweighed by the good, then it would indeed be better to focus on the latter. However, procreation is certainly different because one's actions are not affecting an already existing person who may have interests that diverge from our perspective and who may not require the positives for living a life they value. In this case, one's purportedly benevolent act would either be unnecessary (if the person is already in a state they cherish) or downright detrimental (if it carries overwhelming risks that would destroy the good that is present). When it comes to procreation, there isn't pure knowledge about the future, which is why one has to think about the risks as well as the opportunities. Universal anti-natalism is, I think, obstinately misconceived.
Reply to Existential Hope
This makes no sense. There is no difference in the scenario I provided except one is a friend that exists. The form is the same for both. You give one you give the other.
The point is that you would not be comfortable in one of them, but it should be both because they are essentially doing the same thing. A gift is not truly a gift if you burden someone. Thinking it is would be its own problematic idea of gifts and/or one’s megalomaniac idea that you are the bearer of someone’s burdens because you think this is somehow good to cause for someone else. Again, problematic.
Existential HopeJuly 08, 2023 at 09:38#8209880 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 It makes all the difference. For a friend (a sentient being with a well-being that deserves protection), one has to act in a way that they do not experience any loss of a good that they never needed to bring sufficient value to their lives. It would be problematic to make someone run a marathon so that they can experience the relief of sitting. The struggle becomes acceptable if the good (like the bliss of relaxing) is absent. Only when we can establish that the benefit would actually be greater than the harms and would not put the person in a worse state than they were before does the action become justifiable. It is evident that non-existence helps (or hinders) nobody. But if preventing suffering is good in an impersonal sense, then providing happiness is also important.
benefit would actually be greater than the harms and would not put the person in a worse state than they were before does the action become justifiable.
This is still wrong. If I give my friend a car and they might get into an accident is a different calculation than if I give my friend a car but they will get various pains and woes of life. I would never make that trade off on behalf of a friend,
But if preventing suffering is good in an impersonal sense, then providing happiness is also important.
Happiness giving is not ethical but supererogatory. If I don’t give someone happiness in my daily life but don’t cause suffering I have done nothing wrong. If I cause suffering, at least potentially I have. Circumstances matter.
Existential HopeJuly 08, 2023 at 09:48#8209930 likes
This is still wrong. If I give my friend a car and they might get into an accident is a different calculation than if I give my friend a car but they will get various pains and woes of life.
An accident would qualify as a woe, but the car can also save one's life as one is attempting to reach the hospital or enable one to spend time with their significant other, even if they live far away. Unless all the concomitant pleasant aspects of existence are sitting in the car alongside the woes, it would undoubtedly be immoral. And it's not as if the benefits alone are adequate. What also matters is whether these positives would put the person in a preferable state to the one they would have found themselves in without them.
Happiness giving is not ethical but supererogatory. If I don’t give someone happiness in my daily life but don’t cause suffering I have done nothing wrong. If I cause suffering, at least potentially I have.
A society where people were constantly being bombarded for gifting happiness would be sawing off the branch it was sitting on. For most existing people, not directly harming them is surely enough for them to live lives that they find worth living. However, when one is creating people (a state which nobody prefers), the positives matter as much as the negatives.
Unless all the concomitant pleasant aspects of existence are sitting in the car alongside the woes, it would undoubtedly be immoral. And it's not as if the benefits alone are adequate. What also matters is whether these positives would put the person in a preferable state to the one they would have found themselves in without them.
It’s not ethical to judge for someone else the amount of harms is appropriate for the “treat” of goods. In fact, that’s perverse. You are playing god of misery and pleasure on behalf of someone. Remember this “gift” is given, it’s not requested. And they can’t “tweak” it beforehand to their liking or predict what it is.
A society where people were constantly being bombarded for gifting happiness would be sawing off the branch it was sitting on. For most existing people, not directly harming them is surely enough for them to live lives that they find worth living. However, when one is creating people (a state which nobody prefers), the positives matter as much as the negatives.
Not understanding so no comment.
Existential HopeJuly 08, 2023 at 10:04#8209950 likes
It’s not ethical to judge for someone else the amount of harms is appropriate for the “treat” of goods. In fact, that’s perverse. You are playing god of misery and pleasure on behalf of someone. Remember this “gift” is given, it’s not requested. And they can’t “tweak” it beforehand to their liking or predict what it is.
It is not ethical to judge for someone else that a good they could be deeply grateful for should not be bestowed because one has been tempted by the religion of pessimism. Gifting something that cannot be requested is not unethical.
This literally is the scenario on both cases . Future conditional in both cases. You’re non-identify argument is weak and special pleading. I’d drop it.
It isn't. In one case, one's actions are affecting a real person. In the other, nobody is being left in a more desirable or less desirable state as a result of what we have done. And if the prevention of harms can be good without a person being there, the prevention of happiness is also bad, even if there is no experience of hankering for the positives. Consistency and consideration for the range of applicability should not be hastily dropped. Although, their robustness is not something to be trifled with.
Fair enough (and apologies for possible equivocation). All I meant was that the nature of giving happiness differs to existing beings who already have varying levels of well-being differs from those who are yet to exist.
It is not ethical to judge for someone else that a good they could be deeply grateful for should not be bestowed because one has been tempted by the religion of pessimism. Gifting something that cannot be requested is not unethical.
I'm sorry it doesn't work that way. I can't assume someone wants me to do a "happy" thing for them. But I can safely assume, and in fact am morally obligated not to purposefully harm someone when I don't have to. Certainly, not because I think the pain intendent with whatever happiness I bestow will be "worth it" in my own estimation. You can't keep doing this reverse role and think it comes out the same. It doesn't.
When that person is born, it will be real. That is how the future works. Do you believe in a state called "the future"? Sounds like you don't. I wonder why :roll:.
nobody is being left in a more desirable or less desirable state as a result of what we have done.
Future conditionals exist. If you do X, then Y will happen. You are preventing Y from happening. You don't need someone for the statement "Y will happen" to be true, because there will be a person who exists. Get over this argument. It's not a good look. It really shows special pleading and lack of common language usage.
And if the prevention of harms can be good without a person being there, the prevention of happiness is also bad,
No because as stated earlier, happiness-giving is not an ethical act but a supererogatory one. Not causing avoidable suffering is ethical though. Even more so, willingly wanting to cause suffering because it brings about good is more than negligent, and certainly misguided.
Fair enough (and apologies for possible equivocation). All I meant was that the nature of giving happiness differs to existing beings who already have varying levels of well-being differs from those who are yet to exist.
I don't think so on any substantive level. The person presumably to be born will have varying amounts of happiness just as your friend. The scenario is the same for each so it's not even considering individual levels, just broad experiences like "appreciating friends, art, achievements, etc.".
Existential HopeJuly 08, 2023 at 16:11#8210380 likes
I'm sorry it doesn't work that way. I can't assume someone wants me to do a "happy" thing for them. But I can safely assume, and in fact am morally obligated not to purposefully harm someone when I don't have to. Certainly, not because I think the pain intendent with whatever happiness I bestow will be "worth it" in my own estimation. You can't keep doing this reverse role and think it comes out the same. It doesn't.
I am sorry, but I am afraid that it does. No matter how many times it is repudiated by some, the fact that the good is relevant is inescapable. Just as one may choose to rescue someone based upon their judgement of the perspective of that person and then find out that they wanted an end without making their action wrong when it occurred, one can also decide to do the right thing for someone else when they cannot attain the positive themselves. In the end, your worldview is far too narrow due to the pessimistic biased that fuel it and restrict it to risks and burdens, not opportunities and gifts. And, once again, for those who exist, not directly harming them can, usually, be enough. This is not a about reversal; it is about not being obsessed with one dimension of life. I think that it is far too deficient of a worldview.
When that person is born, it will be real. That is how the future works. Do you believe in a state called "the future"? Sounds like you don't. I wonder why :roll:.
And then, when they do possess the capacity to be harmed and benefitted, we will hopefully behave in an ethical way. I have little time for imaginary goodness or inconsistent ideas.
Future conditionals exist. If you do X, then Y will happen. You are preventing Y from happening. You don't need someone for the statement "Y will happen" to be true, because there will be a person who exists. Get over this argument. It's not a good look. It really shows special pleading and lack of common language usage.
They certainly do, but this does not automatically lead to the manifestation of value for someone. If X does not happen, then Y will have absolutely no significance for anybody who is absent. "Common language" and intuitions can be wrong. It is not a good look to arbitrarily argue that the absence of harms can be good sans true benefits, but the lack of happiness is not a worse state of affairs simply because nobody can ask for it.
No because as stated earlier, happiness-giving is not an ethical act but a supererogatory one. Not causing avoidable suffering is ethical though. Even more so, willingly wanting to cause suffering because it brings about good is more than negligent, and certainly misguided.
Giving happiness is an ethical act. If you do not cause me pain, you have allowed me to live a happy life, which is good (though, admittedly, it isn't the same as actively doing something for others). The mere fact of practical limitations of providing happiness does not diminish its worth. Not creating positives is unethical. Willingly wanting to prevent all of it because one is unable to look beyond their obstructed perspective is even more wrong-headed.
I don't think so on any substantive level. The person presumably to be born will have varying amounts of happiness just as your friend. The scenario is the same for each so it's not even considering individual levels, just broad experiences like "appreciating friends, art, achievements, etc.".
However, I think otherwise and believe that you are mistaken here. It isn't the reality of happiness that is pertinent. Rather, the point is that there is a non-trivial difference between doing good for one who already exists and has a particular state of well-being, and someone who does not. In the former case, current positives should compel us to rethink the necessity of risks, whereas in the latter case, the dearth of any existing level of happiness and interests put the harms and the benefits on equal footing.
one can also decide to do the right thing for someone else when they cannot attain the positive themselves
Getting someone a traditional gift, and handing someone a box of gifts with tremendous burdens are two very different things, and to equivocate the two is rhetorical obfuscation.
Only totalitarian regimes would force people into opportunities and post-facto justify it. It is totalitarian thinking to think that one forces another's hand in the name of "opportunities" and then say, "Well, let's get the suicide machines out" as a consolation prize. Cringey.
And then, when they do possess the capacity to be harmed and benefitted, we will hopefully behave in an ethical way. I have little time for imaginary goodness or inconsistent ideas.
That capacity exists as a real state of affairs. Again, that is what we mean by "future conditionals". It's not inconsistent to understand how future conditionals work. You are denying a whole range of states of affairs don't exist.
It is not a good look to arbitrarily argue that the absence of harms can be good sans true benefits, but the lack of happiness is not a worse state of affairs simply because nobody can ask for it.
You are confusing how epistemology works. Future conditionals are only understood by someone who exists to know "If then statements". It is from the POV of someone who can comprehend "If then statements" that we know this to be true.
If you do not cause me pain, you have allowed me to live a happy life, which is good (though, admittedly, it isn't the same as actively doing something for others).
Oddly, this is just bolstering the AN point. This is how it works when someone is born (they just live their life without your negative interference). However, from the future conditional perspective, you are not going to start negatives for another. It is not letting known harms occur (that could have).
Willingly wanting to prevent all of it because one is unable to look beyond their obstructed perspective is even more wrong-headed.
But we are not talking about unmitigated good are we. Perhaps if a paradise only universe existed and guaranteed you might have some argument. So hey, at least I'm giving you that point! But alas, we know this world is not that. But I'd even argue, EVEN in that scenario, though it is perfectly permissible to go ahead and start that life, not starting it isn't unethical. As you admit, not starting something does nothing for no one. Nothingness doesn't "hurt" anyone.
Existential HopeJuly 08, 2023 at 16:46#8210440 likes
Getting someone a traditional gift, and handing someone a box of gifts with tremendous burdens are two very different things, and to equivocate the two is rhetorical obfuscation.
Receiving a pointless burden that stands in the way of a free and happy life is quite different from being given the very ability to experience the positives (and not by dragging inexistent souls from a superior state of existence). Evasion resides on many territories.
Only totalitarian regimes would force people into opportunities and post-facto justify it. It is totalitarian thinking to think that one forces another's hand in the name of "opportunities" and then say, "Well, let's get the suicide machines out" as a consolation prize. Cringey.
Your usage of the word "force" despite the absence of any evidence that demonstrates the desire of non-existent beings to avoid existence is indicative of your excessive faith in the negative. Only dictatorial dispensations would seek to eradicate all potential good due to their failure to observe value in it. It's myopic to think, "Well, I can see that you sincerely love your life, but since you were not there to ask for it, they ultimately mean nothing and, if given the chance, I would have prevented your existence." Is it "cringey"? I cannot answer that. Nevertheless, I believe that it is unfortunate. It's also not as frivolous as getting the machines out. It is undeniably tragic that people have to go through terrible afflictions. Our efforts to address this have to be incessant and multifaceted (without annihilating the good). If no other option remains, being able to find a graceful exit should not be an unconscionable demand.
That capacity exists as a real state of affairs. Again, that is what we mean by "future conditionals". It's not inconsistent to understand how future conditionals work. You are denying a whole range of states of affairs don't exist.
I am denying that the absence of states of affairs can be better/worse in any meaningful way without a being. More importantly, I reject the double standard that attempts to devalue that which is positive.
That's the point. Don't bring about X so Y doesn't happen. Cause and effect. Future conditional. If this, then that could happen. Don't do this.
X not happening results in A happening instead, which is good for Z. When Z is not there in the first place, the absence of X or A means nothing to Z. However, if it does in one case, I don't see any good reason to think that it doesn't in the other.
You are confusing how epistemology works. Future conditionals are only understood by someone who exists to know "If then statements". It is from the POV of someone who can comprehend "If then statements" that we know this to be true.
Not really. It is you, I think, who is projecting value judgements onto nothingness by conflating the absence of a being and the presence of some good that supposedly comes from it. Also, if/them statements stretch beyond the negative.
Existential HopeJuly 08, 2023 at 16:54#8210510 likes
Oddly, this is just bolstering the AN point. This is how it works when someone is born (they just live their life without your negative interference). However, from the future conditional perspective, you are not going to start negatives for another. It is not letting known harms occur (that could have).
Which is a mirage. Negative interference and positive intervention both have a role to play. The only thing is that an existing person can live a decent life without the latter, whereas there is no life at all before birth.
But we are not talking about unmitigated good are we. Perhaps if a paradise only universe existed and guaranteed you might have some argument. So hey, at least I'm giving you that point! But alas, we know this world is not that. But I'd even argue, EVEN in that scenario, though it is perfectly permissible to go ahead and start that life, not starting it isn't unethical. As you admit, not starting something does nothing for no one. Nothingness doesn't "hurt" anyone.
I am thankful to you for your magnanimous attitude. However, I cannot but continue to disagree. If, hypothetically, we lived in a hellish landscape devoid of all love and beauty without any hope, your view would have had immense worth. But as we are not discussing boundless harms, ignoring the good cannot be ethically justifiable. Your next statement about that possible utopia further reflects your deep-rooted pessimistic bias by forgetting about the fact that procreation can also have unimaginable value for those who exist. Finally, not starting anything benefits nobody either.
I'm reposting part of my question from another thread here, since it was one of the questions that "started" this thread. I still cannot answer myself - why (and how) should an antinatalist live?
I came across this article, and the following is an excerpt from the linked article:
... Jiwoon Hwang, Rafe McGregor, and Ema Sullivan-Bissett (last two are not antinatalists) have all persuasively argued that promortalism is the core of antinatalism. ... For all three individuals, if you accept that life is suffering, it is reasonable not only to want to cease the propagation of life but to end life. Sullivan-Bissett and McGregor offer the analogy of smoking — if you think smoking causes harm, you don’t only think people shouldn’t start smoking. You believe that people should stop if they already smoke ...
So, is there really no reason for an antinatalist to live
That is answered from where the premises are being framed. Most AN arguments are about notions of starting or imposing suffering onto others. Not starting does not necessarily entail thus ending one’s life once born. Indeed part of the suffering and imposition to begin with is even being put in a position where once must decide if life is worth living, and thus where Cioran’s quote encapsulates a sort of resigned mindset of the living pessimist:
Cioran:It is not worth the bother of killing yourself, since you always kill yourself too late.
Meaning, suicide is an impossible wish of undoing the suffering that has already occurred. What we really want is to never have suffered in the first place. Annihilation after the fact doesn’t negate this.
ChristofferDecember 31, 2023 at 12:45#8668470 likes
What we really want is to never have suffered in the first place. Annihilation after the fact doesn’t negate this.
Doesn't non-existence in the first place leave the equation absurd? To not have existed is to never have had a will to not suffer. The relief from suffering cannot exist for something that does not exist. We have to exist with suffering in order to want to be free from suffering. This paradox makes the will to never have existed an essentially meaningless yearning. Since it is with even less meaning in its fundamental emptiness than a meaningless existence that actually exist.
schopenhauer1December 31, 2023 at 15:34#8668880 likes
Not quite. Too clean cut and dry, people commit suicide for all sorts of reasons not because they "never really wanted to have suffered." The one subject Camus is actually worth reading for.
Can you explain your objection? At the end of the day my point is antinatalism doesn’t entail promortalism, whatever the reasons great or small for suicide. Camus asked if we should kill ourselves if life has no meaning and of course his answer was live rebelliously with the absurdity. Not causing suffering for others, by imposing life doesn’t mean one ought to not choose to continue with the burdens foisted upon them by continuing to live.
schopenhauer1December 31, 2023 at 15:37#8668910 likes
We have to exist with suffering in order to want to be free from suffering. This paradox makes the will to never have existed an essentially meaningless yearning. Since it is with even less meaning in its fundamental emptiness than a meaningless existence that actually exist.
That strengthens Ciorans point in suicide. We are put in an impossible situation. The nostalgia for “unbirth” can never be attained. It doesn’t negate choosing not to impose the very dilemma on another.
schopenhauer1December 31, 2023 at 15:49#8668990 likes
That strengthens Ciorans point in suicide. We are put in an impossible situation. The nostalgia for “unbirth” can never be attained. It doesn’t negate choosing not to impose the very dilemma on another.
But we do impose the dilemma on others by acknowledging that the suffering of existence exists, putting a spotlight on ideas that in themselves lead to the suffering. And we also need to interact with the ideas in order to process suffering and find a way past it. To interact with the ideas require interaction with others over these ideas.
I think that when adding our biological drives into the mix, people find social bonds meaningful, regardless of their meaninglessness intellectually. We have this vague feeling of meaning when with others. So in that sense, imposing the ideas that lead to suffering on others is impossible to avoid, but equally required for us in order to find meaning and a will to exist. So we can't be free from imposing these things on others because we need to interact with the ideas about our suffering to process it through our social bonds.
schopenhauer1December 31, 2023 at 16:14#8669200 likes
I just happen to see that as a bit of a reductionist way of viewing suicide.
Suicide is multifaceted. My point was how it’s not entailed with antinatslism. We can discuss peoples reasons for suicide but the quote was to point the paradoxes associated with it. It ends suffering, but for whom? The suffering has already occurred by the time it is committed. I believe life to entail suffering, both necessary and contingent. Suicide in some way is a response to this in some way, whether philosophically driven regarding meaning or acute reasons like specific circumstances.
schopenhauer1December 31, 2023 at 16:16#8669210 likes
So we can't be free from imposing these things on others because we need to interact with the ideas about our suffering to process it through our social bonds.
Not sure what this means.
Deleted userDecember 31, 2023 at 16:47#8669330 likes
If we hold an evolutionary view of truth, antinatalism is false :razz:
Yes what fdrake said, please. Evolutionary as in truth is evolutionary? In what way? how does it fit in that schema of truth? Evolutionary as in the biological mechanism of change via natural selection and adaptation over time for an ecological niche?
Deleted userDecember 31, 2023 at 17:10#8669540 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1Reply to fdrake I recall reading somewhere that for some, truth comes to be by evolution, where X is true because we would not survive by believing non-X — I cannot for the life of me find anything on it online however.
Adopting that view, antinatalism has to be false, at least after a few generations.
I am not here to argue that view of truth by the way :100:
schopenhauer1December 31, 2023 at 17:18#8669630 likes
Adopting that view, antinatalism has to be false, at least after a few generations.
I am not here to argue that view of truth by the way :100:
Ok got it, you meant the latter definition I asked about- evolution, the biological mechanism. Well, this to me just stinks of the naturalistic fallacy. We evolved a lot of things, and culture has shaped our beliefs in ways that perhaps, originally, it was not physically intended for. I type here on this keyboard, not because my ancestors 100,000 years ago needed it, but because human biological makeup allows for tremendous general learning capacities (as compared with other animals), we can often reason out logical, moral/psychological, and empirical conclusions that are wildly varying "contradictory" to the if/then programming of other animals where things like, "Is it okay to kill?" or "Is it okay to impose suffering by procreation" is not even amenable to their psychological programming.
That is to say, just because "it's in nature", doesn't mean it is morally right, simply. And there are thousands of examples to speak against this naturalistic fallacy thinking. And also, contrary to this view, humans being so culturally "plastic", are naturally able to pose and try to answer various moral questions, so what of that fact?
Deleted userDecember 31, 2023 at 17:22#8669680 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 It seems to me you are making a moral argument, where that was not my intention.
My point was more of, if we accept that truth is determined by the universally held views of the surviving group, antinatalism will soon enough become false, and it will do so every time, as the holders of that view will eventually extinguish themselves.
schopenhauer1December 31, 2023 at 18:11#8670270 likes
My point was more of, if we accept that truth is determined by the universally held views of the surviving group, antinatalism will soon enough become false, and it will do so every time, as the holders of that view will eventually extinguish themselves.
Ok, so you are trying to pose a hypothetical scenario and treat it like a "meme" that gets phased out. But the problem is the same as the naturalistic fallacy as applied to humans.. Humans are so plastic that it is possible that humans have the ability to refrain from procreation and discontinue humans for ethical reasons, like suffering (that those future humans might face if born). Humans are not if/then enough to count out those possibilities. Granted, the likelihood is low, that is not due to some fixed law, simply people's preferences which rather than fixed by physical or innate mechanisms, are largely social, personal, and existential depending on how you look at it.
Deleted userDecember 31, 2023 at 20:11#8670880 likes
Ok, so you are trying to pose a hypothetical scenario and treat it like a "meme" that gets phased out. But the problem is the same as the naturalistic fallacy as applied to humans.. Humans are so plastic that it is possible that humans have the ability to refrain from procreation and discontinue humans for ethical reasons, like suffering (that those future humans might face if born).
Right, but even then, under evolutionary truth, antinatalism turns out to be false, even if there are no humans around anymore — especially when there are not more humans around. The truth value of something does not depend on whether there is someone there to state it.
That is to say, just because "it's in nature", doesn't mean it is morally right, simply.
Of course, but I will not pretend that the moral argument works either. Antinatalism can be rejected by default in frameworks such as virtue ethics and deontology, as well as ethical egotism. Being that AN works under the premise that suffering outweights joy in life, it could also be rejected within consequentialism, as most people would reject that premise.
schopenhauer1January 01, 2024 at 01:23#8671890 likes
Right, but even then, under evolutionary truth, antinatalism turns out to be false, even if there are no humans around anymore — especially when there are not more humans around. The truth value of something does not depend on whether there is someone there to state it.
What makes it “truth”? It seems a category error to apply “truth” to a process. You haven’t explained how this term is meant to be used in this context. It seems like a misuse.
Of course, but I will not pretend that the moral argument works either. Antinatalism can be rejected by default in frameworks such as virtue ethics and deontology, as well as ethical egotism. Being that AN works under the premise that suffering outweights joy in life, it could also be rejected within consequentialism, as most people would reject that premise.
This is all false. Antinatalism can be supported in almost any normative theory, including deontology.
Deleted userJanuary 01, 2024 at 01:39#8671930 likes
What makes it “truth”? It seems a category error to apply “truth” to a process. You haven’t explained how this term is meant to be used in this context. It seems like a misuse.
schopenhauer1January 01, 2024 at 02:18#8672020 likes
Reply to Deleted user
The pragmatist theory of truth is about practical consequences based on their success in solving a problem, and thus is an argument for pluralism for methods that lead to an outcome. As far as I see, it has nothing to do with what outcome is deemed as successful. If we are going for someone not suffering in the future, that would be antinatalism.
Deleted userJanuary 01, 2024 at 15:00#8673560 likes
Right, but if we are going for survival, which was my initial premise, natalism would be the answer.
Sure. But obviously one could contend that "survival" is some moral mission, especially above and beyond that of imposing the conditions of suffering for a future person.
Deleted userJanuary 01, 2024 at 19:51#8674840 likes
But obviously one could contend that "survival" is some moral mission, especially above and beyond that of imposing the conditions of suffering for a future person.
Well, everything can be contended in ethics, which is why I use more common sense than a philosophical approach when I am faced with a dilemma in real life — not my intellectual topic of interest.
But to talk about, the future conditions of suffering are an unknown, which is an argument against suicide. Not only that, but the conditions of suffering are also relative. A young adult athlete might end up killing himself after a tragit accident that puts him on a wheelchair. People born without movement in their legs do not kill themselves over being on a wheelchair, because that is all they have known, and they make do without being able to walk, and sometimes they make do wonderfully. Of course, there is a limit to this, such as Harlequin disease or glass bones, but we do put down Harlequin disease patients and always have — they end up dying shortly after birth anyway.
schopenhauer1January 01, 2024 at 19:55#8674860 likes
But to talk about, the future conditions of suffering are an unknown, which is an argument against suicide. Not only that, but the conditions of suffering are also relative. A young adult athlete might end up killing himself after a tragit accident that puts him on a wheelchair. People born without movement in their legs do not kill themselves over being on a wheelchair, because that is all they have known, and they make do without being able to walk, and sometimes they make do wonderfully. Of course, there is a limit to this, such as Harlequin disease or glass bones, but we do put down Harlequin disease patients and always have — they end up dying shortly after birth anyway.
My response is not based on the empirical per se, but the empirical can be added to it. Rather, it is contra the paternalistic idea that imposing the limitation of life's choices (as life can only provide a range of choices one may have ultimately never wanted to choose from), known suffering (one knows of suffering but is willing to expose others to it anyways), and unknown suffering (one doesn't know ALL the forms of suffering), is acceptable. Rather, it indicates that procreation is in fact a violation of a deontological sort against the person who is so affected by this decision (the child born).
In Kantian terms, it is violating the principles of non-malfeasance which ultimately has its basis in not using people for a means to your ends.
Deleted userJanuary 01, 2024 at 20:03#8674900 likes
As I said before, I don't think that most people would accept that the duty of sparing the person of suffering trumps the duty of bringing someone to life and not depriving them of all joys.
In any case, my original comment was mostly playful. As a personal dogma, I don't think antinatalism is a serious idea that has to be debated. So I will just hide this thread. Cheers.
QuixoticAgnosticFebruary 23, 2024 at 07:32#8831350 likes
What are antinatalist counterarguments to a more stoic perspective on life? I.e., one that values self-improvement and a sort of indifference to suffering, such that avoiding suffering isn't necessarily a primary tenet of living a good life. In general, antinatalism seems to focus so heavily on the aspect of inevitable suffering, but if one doesn't think suffering is necessarily bad, what leg do they have to stand on?
And the argument would go like this: you are delusional.
QuixoticAgnosticFebruary 23, 2024 at 10:14#8831500 likes
Reply to AmadeusD A bad (negatively feeling) experience =/= badness overall. It's kind of the whole point of resiliency and growth: you fight through temporary displeasure to become a stronger person. You seemed to gloss over the argument I was making to nitpick a mostly semantic issue. Plus, it's kind of ironic that you seem to dismiss discussion right after ridiculing someone else for the same thing.
Reply to QuixoticAgnostic in reverse, I did no such thing. Please don’t make accusations like that up.
I didn’t miss anything. I agree, but that’s not what suffering consist in. Suffering is not a “bad feeling”. It is the state of being emotionally perturbed by an experience to the point you cannot integrate it. It precludes a silver lining type framing, without further fact.
Negative experiences can be sublimated. Suffering is the end state of failing to sublimate an experience. Most people choose to do this first, unfortunately. But nevertheless I am not nitpicking at all. Suffering and “having a bad time” are not synonymous and can be separate in some sense
schopenhauer1February 24, 2024 at 16:58#8833490 likes
Negative experiences can be sublimated. Suffering is the end state of failing to sublimate an experience. Most people choose to do this first, unfortunately. But nevertheless I am not nitpicking at all. Suffering and “having a bad time” are not synonymous and can be separate in some sense
I must begrudgingly comment that you make a good point here.
schopenhauer1February 24, 2024 at 17:04#8833510 likes
A bad (negatively feeling) experience =/= badness overall. It's kind of the whole point of resiliency and growth: you fight through temporary displeasure to become a stronger person. You seemed to gloss over the argument I was making to nitpick a mostly semantic issue. Plus, it's kind of ironic that you seem to dismiss discussion right after ridiculing someone else for the same thing.
So there are a lot of points to make, that it is hard for me to distill it in a concise way. However, I'll try from the perspective of deontology...
So deontologically, if one believes that others should not be used as means to an ends, it would be wrong to put others in a situation whereby they have to be put in harms way in order to "grow". Thus, knowingly putting someone in harms way so that they can grow, when that situation could have been avoided, is still wrong, even if they "grow" from it.
Of course, there are mitigating factors for this. If someone is already in a situation where it is judged they will be harmed if you do not take care to mitigate the harm in some way with a less harm, then this is permissible. For example, it is better to give children shots to immunize them against disease. It is better to put children in some form of education so they an survive well in society etc. However, that is only due to the fact that the children were put in that situation in the first place. It is a different question whether they should even be put in the situation for which one must mitigate greater harms with possibly lesser negative experiences/harms/suffering.
See this thread for more detail as it is almost exactly to do with this discussion of purposefully putting people in harms way for "growth":
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14291/the-ethics-of-burdening-others-in-the-name-of-personal-growth-when-is-it-justified
LeontiskosFebruary 28, 2024 at 00:01#8841120 likes
(I will use your term "burden" rather than "harm's way")
So deontologically, if one believes that others should not be used as means to an ends, it would be wrong to put others in a situation whereby they have to be put in harms way in order to "grow".
The Kantian deontological maxim is something like, "Do not use others as a means to your own ends." If a parent teaches a child a skill, then arguably, according to your ideas, they are "burdening" the child. So when Honest John teaches and forces Pinocchio to perform, he is taking advantage of him and using him as a means for his own selfish ends. But suppose that Geppetto teaches Pinocchio to make toys in order that Pinocchio might make a living. In this case he is using Pinocchio as a means to Pinocchio's own ends, and it is actually a parent's duty to educate their children in this manner. A relation between a parent and child is different from a relation between two adults. Thus your means/ends analysis is flawed.
Your distinction between example 1 and example 2 does not hold water given the fact that example 2 also fits your definition of "necessity" (Reply to schopenhauer1). In example 2 the burden was not created "just to see that person overcome the burden," but rather to provide the child with skills of survival and independence. Further, the duty of the parent to educate includes more than helping the child survive. If a parent teaches their child to dance for the sake of the child's happiness, they are not violating Kant's morality. It doesn't matter that dancing is not necessary for survival.
Kant's maxim does not include a dispensation for cases where the end is necessary for survival. The maxim is not, "Do not treat others as a means to an end unless the end is their own survival." Your Kantian argument and your survival argument are therefore two different arguments, but neither one succeeds.
(Another odd presupposition here is that everything a parent subjects their child to is necessarily a burden.)
Reply to Leontiskos No need to overthink it mate - nothing is factually less of a burden than something. How you feel about that could be considered depraved. But I didn't say how I felt :)
LeontiskosFebruary 29, 2024 at 02:48#8844360 likes
"Nothing" excludes boredom or stasis. Clearly. So, not sure how you think I would respond, but im laughing.
QuixoticAgnosticMarch 05, 2024 at 05:01#8854800 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 I regrettably can't argue too strongly against the imposition of will against potential humans argument. The only way I can logically get around it is if the parents had altruistic motivations for creating a child, like wanting to allow a child to experience the joys of existing, and if existence itself wasn't inherently burdensome, as it seems to be, even by the most optimistic of folks. I suppose I'll continue to hold the stance that anti-natalism is a rational position, but one that I simply don't feel compelled enough to act in accordance with. Although, now that I think of it, I think I may agree for the previous reason that natalism is ethically questionable, but that life and existence isn't inherently bad or suffering, because I think suffering can be overcome, even if it isn't right to impose it on a potential human.
schopenhauer1March 08, 2024 at 15:15#8863440 likes
My argument against antinatalists -- you're still here, so you think Life is worth living. The end. Just a bunch a weak individuals who don't want to hold themselves accountable for their life sucking.
Antinatalism is not promortalism. It's a strawman. Antinatalism is about not creating new life, not about whether, once born, it is moral or "worth it" to continue.
schopenhauer1March 08, 2024 at 15:48#8863530 likes
It's about "whaa my parents had no right to give birth to me." Well, they did, get over it.
That can be said about literally any moral topic- not well-thought out or philosophical. Very internet trolling though, so not surprised on an internet forum...
And they drone on and on about how shitty life is, fact is they're just cowards who actually can't embrace nothing, once they've already tasted life. They want life to end AFTER theirs runs to completion. Like a Last Man. Pathetically dissonant.
Fear of death/dying is not cowardly, nor again, has it to do with antinatalism. Think of better arguments.
schopenhauer1March 08, 2024 at 16:06#8863570 likes
Dude, saying "Well they did it get over" can be inserted against any claim against an ethical rule. Someone murders someone or steals.. "Well get over it" is not an answer to whether it was ethical to murder or steal. You don't get that?
It can, but equating them as the same would obviously be a fallacy of equivocation.
That doesn't make sense and you are just arguing to argue now. Do you have an actual argument or is that it? Because I already said why that can be said about anything, and it can, so what specifically do you have other than hyperbole and ad hominem?
... suffering is the crucible in which all great things are born, through overcoming that suffering. Not by avoiding it.
I've neither claimed or implied otherwise. Obviously, as an existential fact, suffering is not avoidable; morally, however, suffering is a reducible exigency, the reason, in fact, for flourishing (i.e. overcoming) by non-reciprocally – non-instrumentally – helping others to reduce, not "avoid", suffering. Of "all great things", human flourishing comes first and last, otherwise the rest (including "great things") are merely decadent detritus. Easy sleep is not proposed by me as a "virtue" but as the daily reward for and restorative of strivings to flourish – even as a measure of good health: eine Ja-sagen zu Leiben. :fire:
The eternally recurring choice: blue pill (passivity) or red pill (actively affirming there is no ultimate choice: amor fati – what Spinoza calls blessedness) ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/726159
A person can also not want to reproduce without being an Antinatalist, and for several reasons. I find antinatalist as people who want to deflect from reasons why they can't actually have kids because it would bring THEM more suffering. They don't want to hold themselves accountable for how they feel. So they say it's immoral instead.
Its the same, I'd say, for every person who considers themselves 'moral' or having fulfilled their moral duties as proven by some 'justification' so that they can take a break to 'live life' as they so desire it (most every person including you and me). Its an ad hoc excuse being masked in rational language to seem more palatable and less emotionally weak as it really is. At least, I speculate as much.
schopenhauer1March 09, 2024 at 16:00#8865460 likes
But then, this belies the very point that one even should be in a place where they should be overcoming. One is simply descriptive. Every day is a sort of overcoming of death, if nothing else. But to force others to conform to this system of overcoming- the problem of initiating (this whole system OF) harms on others, is the one at hand.
Someone ELSE deemed it, that this is "good" (and God said "it was good"). People want to be gods in their decisions that others should even BE overcoming.
But more likely, people don't think that grandiosely. Rather, if they are benevolent (and not just capricious or cruel), they are thinking of some positive outcomes, usually selfish vision of future familial X. If it is for someone else's "sake" (the future person born), it might be simply thinking of the good things that might occur. The negatives get downplayed. At worst, it is used as an excuse as it is seen as necessary for the good. Even if we were to say that is a true statement, "That good comes from struggle", that belies the question of whether one should force others to endure the struggle. That will always recenter the question, and not let the issue at hand slip away.
QuixoticAgnosticMarch 09, 2024 at 22:29#8866440 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 Surprised you engaged with him as long as you did. But also, do you mind giving your opinion on this point I made earlier: Even though it may be wrong to introduce life, because you are forcing them to bear the burden of suffering, that doesn't imply that life itself is inherently suffering. Perhaps thats a strawman though to say the antinatalist claims life is just or predominantly suffering. In fact, this may be in favor of your point that, for the people living, there's no urgency to end your own life because there is still value to be had in it. But just because there is value, that may not outweigh the prevalence of suffering, nor the nonconsensual thrusting of children into potential suffering.
I think Vaskane is in a trough at the moment. Regularly devolving into a pissing match with himself. Last time he did this he apologised directly to me.
In the original position, you are asked to consider which principles you would select for the basic structure of society, but you must select as if you had no knowledge ahead of time what position you would end up having in that society. This choice is made from behind a "veil of ignorance", which prevents you from knowing your ethnicity, social status, gender and, crucially in Rawls' formulation, your or anyone else's idea of how to lead a good life. Ideally, this would force participants to select principles impartially and rationally.
If this was applied to antinatalism, imagine a prospective parent/society is behind the veil of ignorance. They would not know what position any potential child will occupy, what their quality of life will be, their potential for suffering or happiness, or their genetic/biological predispositions.
Rawls' Veil of Ignorance (aka Original Position) asks us to consider the full range of possible lives a new person could lead. This includes the best possible scenarios as well as the worst- thus extreme suffering, disabilities, mental illness, or life in poverty and conflict, amongst a whole host of other negatively balanced lives.
Since behind the veil, individuals do not know if their offspring will be born into a life of mostly joy or mostly suffering, they must weigh the potential risks of severe harm and suffering against potential benefits of a good life.
Combining this with Benatar's asymmetry, it may be rational to view the prevention of harm as a greater moral priority than the creation of happiness, especially when consent cannot be obtained.
Thus, under the veil of ignorance, where the outcomes of a new life are unknown, the ethical priority of avoiding potential harm and respecting the impossibility of obtaining consent presents a strong argument against procreation.
An inversion is occurring where consent becomes more fundamental than life. A similar inversion occurs where the justification of society displaces Rawls' question of how best to order society. The problem is that life is the precondition for consent, and is therefore prior to consent. Making consent the summum bonum is therefore misguided from the start. Either God or Nature proves that consent does not deserve the highest place, for it simply does not occupy the highest place. These sorts of arguments look to be a critique of reality, and are incompatible with an acceptance of reality. I suppose one could argue that consent should precede life, but at the end of the day the simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't.
The variant on Rawls' argument is somewhat interesting: negative utilitarianism in the service of antinatalism. "I should not have a child if they will suffer much." Meh. I don't think life is ultimately about the avoidance of suffering any more than I think life is ultimately about consent, and I have found that those who are excessively focused on such things tend to lead impoverished lives. I'd say life is bigger than suffering or consent.
An inversion is occurring where consent becomes more fundamental than life. A similar inversion occurs where the justification of society displaces Rawls' question of how best to order society. The problem is that life is the precondition for consent, and is therefore prior to consent. Making consent the summum bonum is therefore misguided from the start.
I never understand these kind of criticisms. It reminds me of "If a tree falls in the woods.." arguments. One can say this about ANY moral claim. For example, if no humans were around, there would be no need for morality regarding murder. THUS, how can murder be wrong (whether through consent, rights, dignity of the human, or other normative ethic) if the norms behind "Murder is wrong" do not exist prior to the existence of humans?
Obviously this is fallacious thinking. Rather, we can simply say that "Once humans DO exist, then 'Murder is wrong' comes into play". The same with procreation. Once humans DO exist, then "Procreation is wrong" comes into play. I don't see it being more complicated than that. ALL moral claims presuppose "life" (people) exist(!) in the first place.
These sorts of arguments look to be a critique of reality, and are incompatible with an acceptance of reality. I suppose one could argue that consent should precede life, but at the end of the day the simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't.
The variant on Rawls' argument is somewhat interesting: negative utilitarianism in the service of antinatalism. "I should not have a child if they will suffer much." Meh. I don't think life is ultimately about the avoidance of suffering any more than I think life is ultimately about consent, and I have found that those who are excessively focused on such things tend to lead impoverished lives. I'd say life is bigger than suffering or consent.
I think this is throwing out a lot of important values we hold in other arenas. For example, if as a consenting adult I force you into a game you don't want to play because I think the game is bigger than any one individual's refusal, that seems mighty suspicious. And I am talking personal ethics here, which procreation (should) fall under. I do believe there is a discontinuity with the State/political ethics, but that is a different argument, which I can bring in if you want to make the category error of using laws like the draft, education compliance, and inoculations.
I also think it is a bit of a red herring to compare it to parental care of children under a certain age (often 18 yo). That is because usually the care is about preventing more harm in the future for that child, where this very specific/unique kind of decision is creating all of the potential harm in the first place. These are two different types of decisions regarding consent. At this point since someone DOES exist, it would be more harmful NOT to take care of them, as now you are not recognizing the rights of the child who does exist already, to be cared for, being that they have not fully developed into fully functioning adults yet, and had no say to be born in the first place. Presumably babies and children have a right not to be abandoned, neglected, or abused, for example, which is a different (positive/must do ethics) consideration rather than the (negative/NOT doing) ethics of simply not causing harm in the first place. One is palliative (as someone already exists and is exposed to great harms), and one is preventative (in the absolutist terms).
If this was applied to antinatalism, imagine a prospective parent/society is behind the veil of ignorance.
This doesn't make sense. How could I have a child without knowing the social conditions into which it would be born? If I were the King of Philosophy, I would outlaw thought experiments.
This doesn't make sense. How could I have a child without knowing the social conditions into which it would be born? If I were the King of Philosophy, I would outlaw thought experiments.
Just curious, do you know of Rawls' Veil of Ignorance regarding justice and rights? If so, can you see how there can be a direct analogy between the use in the equality sense for a moderate social democracy to understanding that a person's life could be of any condition?
Also, just factually speaking, no person's life can be predicted through simply contemplating it, or taking one's own circumstance as the template for how other people will live.
Imagine if I were to predict all sorts of things based on my understanding of what I think you would like.. But I forced it on you forever lest you kill yourself. Such an odd position to defend. But you will say the same for mine, simply because it is not widely considered or understood, not because it isn't sound.
do you know of Rawls' Veil of Ignorance regarding justice and rights?
I've heard of it only in the quote and link you provided. As described there, as I noted, it does not apply to antinatalism, since when I choose to have a child I do know the kind of life it is likely to live. My wife and I wouldn't have had children if we didn't think we could give them a good life.
I've heard of it only in the quote and link you provided. As described there, as I noted, it does not apply to antinatalism, since when I choose to have a child I do know the kind of life it is likely to live. My wife and I wouldn't have had children if we didn't think we could give them a good life.
As I said earlier, it is just factually the case you can never know the kind of life your child will have accurately. That is epitome of hubristic thinking. Any number of factors including health issues, accidents, societal/environmental changes can effect a person negatively and was not accounted for in the prediction. It has been well-documented how when we are in our "happiest states" (which is often the case of young couples who start developing a long-term relationship, or simply sexual relations leading to accidental pregnancy), we are often at our worst state of predicting all the negative things that can occur (Pollyannaism).
Also, personal decision-making process of a single couple is presented here as a rebuttal to a broader philosophical position. This is a case of confirmation bias and overconfidence in predictive ability of a complex situation (every single experience of a lifetime's worth of experiences of a person).
We all have to be born and have to live before we can stumble upon the idea of anti-natalism. Seems self-defeating to think much of it. Trying to subvert the nature that brought us to this idea.
If life is ever good enough to allow one to ponder whether to have a child, life must be good enough for the child just the same.
If life is so bad to ponder whether to have a child, don’t have a child. But should no one be allowed to have a child? Death is still coming for all so what does it matter if you do or do not have a child? No one, not even your children (if you have any) are going to be there long enough to justify any judgment of it.
We all have to be born and have to live before we can stumble upon the idea of anti-natalism. Seems self-defeating to think much of it. Trying to subvert the nature that brought us to this idea.
I never understand these kind of criticisms. It reminds me of "If a tree falls in the woods.." arguments. One can say this about ANY moral claim. For example, if no humans were around, there would be no need for morality regarding murder. THUS, how can murder be wrong (whether through consent, rights, dignity of the human, or other normative ethic) if the norms behind "Murder is wrong" do not exist prior to the existence of humans?
Obviously this is fallacious thinking. Rather, we can simply say that "Once humans DO exist, then 'Murder is wrong' comes into play". The same with procreation. Once humans DO exist, then "Procreation is wrong" comes into play. I don't see it being more complicated than that. ALL moral claims presuppose "life" (people) exist(!) in the first place.
If life is ever good enough to allow one to ponder whether to have a child, life must be good enough for the child just the same.
How does that logic follow? What happens if life was really bad but one still pondered whether to have a child.. Someone in a terrible circumstance let's say. It is simply false that all circumstances thinking of procreation entails one is in a good place. Also, even if one was in a good place whilst thinking about procreation, why would that effect the morality of the decision of creating suffering for another person?
But should no one be allowed to have a child? Death is still coming for all so what does it matter if you do or do not have a child? No one, not even your children (if you have any) are going to be there long enough to justify any judgment of it.
That makes no sense. For example, if someone is suffering in agony, that person isn't going have such a carefree outlook. However, one doesn't even need to go to the worst outcomes, just the fact that you are making a decision for someone else who will live out the burdens, is enough to give pause.
just the fact that you are making a decision for someone else
Having a child, feeding a child, etc. are as much making a decision for someone else as deciding not to have a child, or aborting a child.
If it is good to have no children because life is suffering, than life isn’t all bad since we get to make this good decision to have no children. Aren’t we brave and honest and considerate. Such wonderful compassion for the suffering of future generations - we should build ourselves some statues for thinking so compassionately and reasonably so that all future generations will remember our sacrifices. Oh wait.
If it is good to have no children because life is suffering, than life isn’t all bad since we get to make this good decision to have no children. Aren’t we brave and honest and considerate. Such wonderful compassion for the suffering of future generations - we should build ourselves some statues for thinking so compassionately and reasonably so that all future generations will remember our sacrifices. Oh wait.
I see your attempt at irony. Nice, I like irony. But since it really doesn't have an impact on the argument, I don't have much more to say to it. If no one was around to gain the benefits of non-existence, shall we create sufferers so that they can see how they would have benefited from non-existence? That would also be ironically wrong.
From a more practical standpoint, if a prospective parent is either 1) so depressed that they (incorrectly) view their life (since they have no true knowledge of the subjective assessment of life by others) as pure suffering or 2) their is actually so materially terrible that it is in reality pure suffering, then neither of those situations is optimal for childrearing, thus that individual or couple definitely should not have children. However, that individual's situation is absolutely not a reason for anyone else to not have children.
it is just factually the case you can never know the kind of life your child will have accurately.
That's very different from a "Veil of Ignorance." If it only means that the we can't predict the future perfectly accurately, then it's kind of a useless concept.
Also, personal decision-making process of a single couple is presented here as a rebuttal to a broader philosophical position.
No, it's not just a single couple. It's reasonable to say that any prospective parent can know their future child's ethnicity, social status, and their idea of how to lead a good life with reasonable accuracy.
To be clear, I'm not arguing against anti-natalism here, although you know I find the idea repugnant. I'm only arguing that your logic is flawed.
I never understand these kind of criticisms. It reminds me of "If a tree falls in the woods.." arguments. One can say this about ANY moral claim. For example, if no humans were around, there would be no need for morality regarding murder. THUS, how can murder be wrong (whether through consent, rights, dignity of the human, or other normative ethic) if the norms behind "Murder is wrong" do not exist prior to the existence of humans?
Obviously this is fallacious thinking. Rather, we can simply say that "Once humans DO exist, then 'Murder is wrong' comes into play". The same with procreation. Once humans DO exist, then "Procreation is wrong" comes into play. I don't see it being more complicated than that. ALL moral claims presuppose "life" (people) exist(!) in the first place.
No, that's not what I am saying. Your premise is . Your conclusion follows, . This precedence is both temporal and ontological. It is that premise that I am targeting. Consent doesn't precede birth. Birth precedes consent. That's how reality works. What you are doing is asking for or wishing for a different reality. The ontological principle of reality is that we receive before we give. Your alternative principle would have us give (consent) before receiving (existence).
Antinatalism reminds me of Gnosticism, where nature and the material world were created by an evil god and one is thus supposed to escape this entire order of being. Or in modern terms, something like The Matrix. The true god is represented by Consent, and in the alternative, non-evil universe, Consent reigns. Given our gnostic situation, the best we can do is escape the material order by ceasing all procreation. Historically gnostics really did tend to eschew procreation.
(Edit: I now see you have authored a thread, "If there is a god, is he more evil than not?" :razz:)
I think this is throwing out a lot of important values we hold in other arenas. For example, if as a consenting adult I force you into a game you don't want to play because I think the game is bigger than any one individual's refusal, that seems mighty suspicious. And I am talking personal ethics here, which procreation (should) fall under.
I think consent has a place, but not the highest place. It does not trump everything else.
That's very different from a "Veil of Ignorance." If it only means that the we can't predict the future perfectly accurately, then it's kind of a useless concept.
No, it means that from a position of ignorance we should do the LEAST amount of harm. And our disagreement is over how ignorant we truly are over a complex situation like a person's psychological, physical, interpersonal, and emotional well-being over the course of a lifetime.
No, it's not just a single couple. It's reasonable to say that any prospective parent can know their future child's ethnicity, social status, and their idea of how to lead a good life with reasonable accuracy.
It is true that many decisions are made based on prevailing social norms, but this does not elevate these norms to the status of ethical imperatives. The is/ought problem remains central here: the fact that something is commonly done does not mean it ought to be done. The ethical implications of bringing a child into the world must be scrutinized independently of societal conventions, and this scrutiny reveals the inadequacy of current norms in addressing the potential for harm and suffering.
To be clear, I'm not arguing against anti-natalism here, although you know I find the idea repugnant. I'm only arguing that your logic is flawed.
When it comes to making decisions for another person, procreation is unlike any other decision. It imposes an irreversible existence and all its accompanying burdens onto another being without their consent. This is different from other decisions we might make for someone else’s perceived benefit, as those typically allow for some form of redress or agency by the affected individual. Comparing it to a gift is illustrative: a gift can be accepted, rejected, or discarded with minimal consequence. Procreation, however, imposes life, with all its inherent suffering and challenges, making it a decision of an entirely different kind AND magnitude.
We are not ignorant that suffering will occur- but we are ignorant as to the manner it will take shape.
Hubris is a source of a lot of well-intentioned but misguided ideas.
This precedence is both temporal and ontological. It is that premise that I am targeting. Consent doesn't precede birth. Birth precedes consent. That's how reality works. What you are doing is asking for or wishing for a different reality. The ontological principle of reality is that we receive before we give. Your alternative principle would have us give (consent) before receiving (existence).
This all follows from a faulty view of my premise.
Antinatalism reminds me of Gnosticism, where nature and the material world were created by an evil god and one is thus supposed to escape this entire order of being. Or in modern terms, something like The Matrix. The true god is represented by Consent, and in the alternative, non-evil universe, Consent reigns. Given our gnostic situation, the best we can do is escape the material order by ceasing all procreation. Historically gnostics really did tend to eschew procreation.
I kind of like this notion, though I don't hold "Consent" to be independent of humans, simply entailed in humanity. If there is no humanity, consent disappears as well.
Also, this particular argument is a bit different than just consent. Rather, it is saying that since we are IGNORANT as to how any person's life truly will play out in the course of their lifetime, AND we cannot get consent otherwise, we should do the option that is with the intention of the LEAST harm, which is of course, not even procreating that person who will be harmed to X degree.
That they will be harmed is generally not questioned. To what extent, and by what right is what is at stake here.
(Edit: I now see you have authored a thread, "If there is a god, is he more evil than not?" :razz:)
Ha, well, look at my profile for a better understanding of my overall philosophical position. And Gnosticism is mentioned, but as an analogy to Philosophical Pessimism, not, obviously, as a belief in it as a wholesale mystical/ontological belief system.
I think consent has a place, but not the highest place. It does not trump everything else.
But this also relies on what "the good" is, and defines it in "negative" terms (what not to do). Suffering is weighted more heavily in this conception such that, causing negative/suffering unnecessarily on someone else's behalf is weighted as a bigger moral consideration than any of the positives that result from causing the suffering. Not causing great distress to someone is a bigger ethical consideration than say, buying them cake.
There's another argument here to be made from this, but I am not making that case right now. Though all of it basically can be tied together to make for a compelling set of arguments from various angles contra procreation.
You didn't respond to my argument. The argument you make here is your usual one and has nothing to do with a veil of ignorance. No reason to take this any further.
You didn't respond to my argument. The argument you make here is your usual one and has nothing to do with a veil of ignorance. No reason to take this any further.
What isn’t answering your supposed objection of my use of VOI?
Also, this particular argument is a bit different than just consent. Rather, it is saying that since we are IGNORANT as to how any person's life truly will play out in the course of their lifetime, AND we cannot get consent otherwise, we should do the option that is with the intention of the LEAST harm, which is of course, not even procreating that person who will be harmed to X degree.
I kind of like this notion, though I don't hold "Consent" to be independent of humans, simply entailed in humanity. If there is no humanity, consent disappears as well.
But this also relies on what "the good" is, and defines it in "negative" terms (what not to do). Suffering is weighted more heavily in this conception such that, causing negative/suffering unnecessarily on someone else's behalf is weighted as a bigger moral consideration than any of the positives that result from causing the suffering. Not causing great distress to someone is a bigger ethical consideration than say, buying them cake.
Okay, so maybe something like this?
Do not cause suffering, absent consent
Procreation causes suffering, and does not admit of consent
Therefore, do not procreate
Thus consent functions as an exception to the prohibition on suffering, but does not apply in the case of procreation.
I would appeal to a similar "inversion" argument to the one I already gave, but focusing on suffering rather than consent. Just as consent does not constitute an absolute principle, neither does suffering-avoidance. "I'd say life is bigger than suffering or consent."
The key here is that birth/existence is qualitatively different from, and ontologically prior to, consent and/or suffering. More directly: life is more than the avoidance of suffering, and therefore the desire to avoid suffering is not a sufficient reason to nix life.
Regarding the moral maxim of (1), I think it would apply to procreation in a very dire apocalyptic scenario, but I don't think it applies more generally throughout history. I don't know... There are a lot of different ways one could go with this.
Reply to Leontiskos There's a problem with (1). People found guilty of crimes have a lot of suffering inflicted on them without their consent, so sometimes it's OK to cause suffering absent consent. Or did the prisoner consent to his punishment by virtue of living in a society with laws, maybe?
ChatGPT is pretty impressive:
[hide="Reveal"]Can you think of any counterexamples to the maxim "Do not cause suffering, absent consent"
ChatGPT
The maxim "Do not cause suffering, absent consent" is a foundational principle in ethics and moral philosophy, often associated with the concept of autonomy and the importance of respecting individuals' rights and choices. However, there are situations where this maxim may face challenges or counterexamples:
Emergency Situations: In cases of emergency where immediate action is necessary to prevent harm, such as administering medical treatment to an unconscious person, causing temporary suffering without explicit consent may be justified to save their life or prevent further harm.
Parental Authority: Parents often make decisions on behalf of their children, such as vaccinations or medical procedures, without their explicit consent. While parents are expected to act in their child's best interest, these actions may cause temporary suffering.
Paternalism: In some cases, individuals may act in what they perceive as the best interest of others, even if it causes temporary suffering, without obtaining explicit consent. This concept, known as paternalism, can be controversial as it overrides individual autonomy.
Legal Punishment: In the context of legal punishment, individuals may experience suffering as a consequence of their actions, such as imprisonment or fines, without their explicit consent. This raises questions about the balance between justice and the prevention of suffering.
Animal Welfare: The maxim primarily focuses on human suffering but may not directly address the suffering of non-human animals. Actions that cause suffering to animals for purposes such as scientific research or food production may occur without their consent.[/hide]
There's a problem with (1). People found guilty of crimes have a lot of suffering inflicted on them without their consent, so sometimes it's OK to cause suffering absent consent.
The question is then whether these exceptions to (1) apply to the case of procreation. For example, we can cause suffering absent consent when punishment is due, but is punishment due in the case of procreation?
Anti-natalism doesn’t save anyone in particular from suffering. We are not doing anyone any good by not procreating. There has to be a someone to prevent someone from suffering. Life is ontologically prior as Leontiskos said.
The question is then whether these exceptions to (1) apply to the case of procreation. For example, we can cause suffering absent consent when punishment is due, but is punishment due in the case of procreation?
It depends on what kind of life you expect your kid to have. If there's a 99% chance your child will die an excruciating death by the time they're ten, then you probably have a duty not to have a kid.
I would appeal to a similar "inversion" argument to the one I already gave, but focusing on suffering rather than consent. Just as consent does not constitute an absolute principle, neither does suffering-avoidance. "I'd say life is bigger than suffering or consent."
The key here is that birth/existence is qualitatively different from, and ontologically prior to, consent and/or suffering. More directly: life is more than the avoidance of suffering, and therefore the desire to avoid suffering is not a sufficient reason to nix life.
Regarding the moral maxim of (1), I think it would apply to procreation in a very dire apocalyptic scenario, but I don't think it applies more generally throughout history. I don't know... There are a lot of different ways one could go with this.
So the case is really best exemplified by David Benatar's asymmetry argument that is now more widely known than when I used to discuss it.
However, I don't want to get caught in the weeds of that particular version of the argument. I think it is best reformulated clearly as this:
Preventing happiness is less a moral obligation than preventing suffering. All things being equal, in the case of non-consent, and ignorance (like this Veil of Ignorance argument is saying), it is always best to prevent suffering, even on the behest of preventing happiness.
The fact is, this is from the perspective of the decision-maker. That SOMEONE exists who can understand what will result is all that matters, not that the subject of the action exists.
Anti-natalism doesn’t save anyone in particular from suffering. We are not doing anyone any good by not procreating. There has to be a someone to prevent someone from suffering. Life is ontologically prior as Leontiskos said.
But I think I answered that objection from @Leontiskos. That is to say, all that matters is that humans exist for this to take place. No humanity, no need for antinatalism or any other normative ethical principle. The principle doesn't come first. IF humanity exists, the morality of being human applies. IF people exist, and the decision is about making another suffer or preventing it, then this applies.
I think this is throwing out a lot of important values we hold in other arenas. For example, if as a consenting adult I force you into a game you don't want to play because I think the game is bigger than any one individual's refusal, that seems mighty suspicious. And I am talking personal ethics here, which procreation (should) fall under. I do believe there is a discontinuity with the State/political ethics, but that is a different argument, which I can bring in if you want to make the category error of using laws like the draft, education compliance, and inoculations.
I also think it is a bit of a red herring to compare it to parental care of children under a certain age (often 18 yo). That is because usually the care is about preventing more harm in the future for that child, where this very specific/unique kind of decision is creating all of the potential harm in the first place. These are two different types of decisions regarding consent. At this point since someone DOES exist, it would be more harmful NOT to take care of them, as now you are not recognizing the rights of the child who does exist already, to be cared for, being that they have not fully developed into fully functioning adults yet, and had no say to be born in the first place. Presumably babies and children have a right not to be abandoned, neglected, or abused, for example, which is a different (positive/must do ethics) consideration rather than the (negative/NOT doing) ethics of simply not causing harm in the first place. One is palliative (as someone already exists and is exposed to great harms), and one is preventative (in the absolutist terms).
See about the difference between palliative and preventative ethics. Procreation is in the realm of preventative ethics, not palliative. AND it would be wrong to make a preventative situation turn purposefully into a palliative one.. I can prevent harm, but I cause it, so that you now need to mitigate it.. That isn't right...
No humanity, no need for antinatalism or any other normative ethical principle.
But if the reason to promote antinatalism now while there is humanity is that It is the ethical thing, and its goal is no humans, then “No humanity, no need for antinatalism or any other normative ethical principle.”
Meaning, what is the point of being ethical towards beings that aren’t born yet, if ethics itself is not to be? Why would we humans uphold any ethics above upholding the procreation of more humans, if upholding that ethics means that humans and ethics both equally should no longer be?
Why would we humans uphold any ethics above upholding the procreation of more humans, if upholding that ethics means that humans and ethics both equally should no longer be?
Antinatalism is just as much an anti-ethicalism.
Ethics simply is entailed if humans exist. We aren't living to carry out ethics, ethics is carried out because we are living. It is actually precisely CONTRA a notion that we are obligated in some "positive" (must do) sense. That is to say, there is more obligation to prevent suffering (a negative ethic), than to promote happiness or any X "other" beholden reason. That is to say, if there was a case whereby my action results in an unknown amount of suffering, and I can't get consent beforehand, and the effect is not only trivial, but major (though this part is not even necessary to state), that is more relevant than the unknown amount of happiness that might result as well from this action.
Preventing happiness is less a moral obligation than preventing suffering. All things being equal, in the case of non-consent, and ignorance (like this Veil of Ignorance argument is saying), it is always best to prevent suffering, even on the behest of preventing happiness.
There persists the conflation between the ontological and the "moral" (in the modern sense). It is the difference between preventing something and preventing the potential/potency for that something. To prevent the potential for X will also prevent X, but it is not the same thing as simply preventing X. One could prevent their child from getting smallpox by having no children or by vaccinating the children they do have, but these two options are not parallel. The obligations with respect to each are somewhat different.
Is Thanos from The Avengers a good example of an antinatalist? Specifically, a Thanos who snaps his fingers and everyone disappears without pain, not just half of them? No suffering + no potential for suffering = perfection. The theological gnosticism crops up its head again here, for the gist is that it would have been better for nothing at all to exist. I don't think the theological or metaphysical shift is avoidable given that your argument pertains to ontological realities and sheer potencies, rather than only to mere "moral" realities. To weigh suffering against life or existence will go beyond the "moral" insofar as evaluations of life and existence do not fall within the "moral" (in the modern sense).
But the Christian and Platonist traditions have been saying that being and goodness are convertible for thousands of years, and given that the argument does not recognize this seems to imply that it is weighed down by a specifically modern context. Yet to make an argument against life per se or existence per se is to move beyond that modern context.
I think the argument avoids the question of whether life or existence is good.
I am not sure what this is supposed to translate to, ethically speaking. It becomes irrelevant given the considerations of suffering prevention being more ethically an obligation than happiness promotion, all things being equal. In fact, if what you are implying here is correct, it is your notion that has some template that people must adhere to assumed to be there prior to birth "The Good". But I am not sure completely what you are implying, so I'd hold judgement. "Life is good" seems a theological statement of some sort.
There persists the conflation between the ontological and the "moral" (in the modern sense). It is the difference between preventing something and preventing the potential/potency for that something. To prevent the potential for X will also prevent X, but it is not the same thing as simply preventing X. One could prevent their child from getting smallpox by vaccinating them or by having no children, but these two options are not parallel. The obligations with respect to each are somewhat different.
So as with TClark, this will be a case of how we parse the facts of life. That is to say, I believe it to be the case that it is empirically evident that life has X amount of suffering. Charmed lives don't exist, except in perhaps imagination or thought experiments. And with this particular argument, it is precisely because we are ignorant of what that X entails that we take the route of causing minimum suffering.
I also see the thread about fate and determinism there is discussion of agency. Clearly, the child did not have to experience any suffering. And this is why Is ay that it is never good to turn a preventative into a palliative purposefully. I don't cause (the conditions for) suffering so that you can take X, Y, Z palliative actions from it. And then I don't gaslight the situation and say that "It is what it is", or that "This is just not a growth mindset". We know that at least certain amounts of suffering, often well-known can and do occur.
Is Thanos from The Avengers a good example of an antinatalist? Specifically, a Thanos who snaps his fingers and everyone disappears without pain, not just half of them. No suffering + no potential for suffering = perfection. The theological gnosticism crops up its head again here, for the gist is that it would have been better for nothing at all to exist. I don't think the theological shift is avoidable given that your argument pertains to ontological realities and sheer potencies, rather than only to mere "moral" realities. To weigh suffering against life or existence will go beyond the "moral" insofar as evaluations of life and existence do not fall within the "moral" (in the modern sense).
But the Christian and Platonist traditions have been saying that being and goodness are convertible for thousands of years, and given that the argument does not recognize this seems to imply that it is weighed down by a specifically modern context. Yet to make an argument against life per se or existence per se is to move beyond that modern context.
So you are conflating two arguments into one here. It is precisely because people cannot be consented that this Thanos argument is wrong. Also, once people exist, taking their existence away, is not the same question as bringing people into existence, so should probably be thrown out as some sort of counterpoint. There's too many differences.
As to the Christian/Platonist idea of being and goodness, or nothingness and perfection, I do find it intriguing. This is actually touching upon Schopenhauer's notion that we are NOT actually "being" in some rested/Platonic way, but because we are in the world of Maya, we are in the world of "becoming" which by default is always in some way "suffering" as it is a world of dissatisfaction, or lack, or "what we do not have presently and fades away", a world of "vanity", and all such notions. Indeed, there is an argument is precisely this world that we experience that is NOT goodness in any Platonic/completed/perfected sense. And interestingly, mysticism tries to work around this problem by saying that we are trying to "perfect" the world by giving it value and moral meaning (usually by way of enacting various commandments or divine actions upon the world).
However, though I am glad to discuss these notions, it is tangential to the argument itself which doesn't need the world to have any inherent value per se. Rather, as long as there is suffering (in any sense of that word), and the decision is there, that the moral weight is to prevent suffering more than any other one, including promoting (what one believes to be) good experiences for a person. It creates a baseline set of boundaries, as what people can end up doing is any such harm to a person and justify it in the name of X positive value that they think will result. Rather, if people have inherent dignity and worth, that respect for this boundary would seem to be necessary, otherwise people are perpetual pawns that are to be treated as such.
We are not living for ethics. Ethics is present because humans are around.
Being human (or maybe any being with senses) entails suffering.
Human beings are inherently ethical beings - the beings whereby ethics exist in the universe.
And in order for human beings to act according to this ethics that they are, one thing they cannot do is inflict suffering without consent.
Since we cannot get consent from the unborn, and being born human entails suffering, we should be, we ought to be, anti-natalist. As a result of us currently living, suffering, ethical beings acting as ethical anti-natalists, there will be no more humans, but also no more human suffering inflicted unethically, without consent.
Am I with you so far?
However, with no more humans, there will be no more ethics either. As you said “ethics is present because humans are present.” So humans not present (unless some other beings are ethical) means ethics is not present. With anti-natalism, we not only avoid inflicting suffering without consent, we void the ethics that told us such inflictions are wrong.
So the anti-natalist is saying, in order to abide by the ethical rule now, we must create the conditions where this ethical rule will no longer exist, since humans are the presence of ethics and no more humans will be present. The anti-natalist is saying we should eliminate the existence of the ethical rule for the sake of following the ethical rule. Just like they are saying we should eliminate the possibility of human procreation (end all future humans) for the sake of abiding by an ethical rule that is only found in existing humans. The anti-natalist gets to be the last ethical man standing, and the last instance of ethical behavior anywhere in the known universe.
The anti-natalist must admit we’ve evolved to a point where we humans inherently posit “should” and “ought” only to take this power and say “I should not have evolved at all because my consent to suffer was not obtained. And since ethics comes to be only through me, a human, ethics ought not to have evolved in the universe either. But then if ethics didn’t exist until I did, how could it have been unethical for me to be born?”
The fact that the ethics summarized as anti-natalism arises in the human race means the human race must exist for the rule to not inflict suffering to exist, AND the human race should NOT exist because none of our consent to suffering could be obtained.
(It’s not quite a paradox because it holds “is” together with “ought not”, as opposed to paradoxically joining “is” to “is not” or “ought” to “ought not”, but it is certainly absurd.)
Anti-natalism is either a self-defeating way of saying, because of human suffering, it would have been better if humans never existed. Or it is simply passing judgment on God, saying God, a being whose mere existence entails ethics (like humans) was wrong to create humans and inflict suffering on them without their consent.
Absurd or Satanic. Better to rule without humans or their ethics in hell, than to consent posthumously to suffering in heaven.
So the anti-natalist is saying, in order to abide by the ethical rule now, we must create the conditions where this ethical rule will no longer exist, since humans are the presence of ethics and no more humans will be present. The anti-natalist is saying we should eliminate the existence of the ethical rule for the sake of following the ethical rule. Just like they are saying we should eliminate the possibility of human procreation (end all future humans) for the sake of abiding by an ethical rule that is only found in existing humans. The anti-natalist gets to be the last ethical man standing, and the last instance of ethical behavior anywhere in the known universe.
Why should it matter if the ethical rule disappears though? What needs to preserve the ethical rule? The rule comes into play when more than one human is around, and the potential to procreate is there. If there is no potential to procreate, it no longer applies. Why would it matter that the rule gets rid of the application of itself? I don't see the problem.
Water by itself has no value. But when an animal relies on it, water then obtains some "value" for that creature. If there are no humans, there is no ethics. If there are no humans, there is no thirst either. Thirst exists because humans exist, we don't exist because thirst would cease without humans. That makes no sense.
But then if ethics didn’t exist until I did, how could it have been unethical for me to be born?”
I don't get what you are saying. A lot of people believe honor killing is ethical. Does that mean the first person to question this was wrong because it was a novel idea? Also, before you were born, there was the potential for you to be born. You didn't need to be born for the ethics to be relevant, just the potential for "someone" to be born.
The fact that the ethics summarized as anti-natalism arises in the human race means the human race must exist for the rule to not inflict suffering to exist, AND the human race should NOT exist because none of our consent to suffering could be obtained.
(It’s not quite a paradox because it holds “is” together with “ought not”, as opposed to paradoxically joining “is” to “is not” or “ought” to “ought not”, but it is certainly absurd.)
But it isn't absurd. You are already finding out that your own objection seems to have no impetus. All this is saying is humans can self-reflect which is different than other animals.
Anti-natalism is either a self-defeating way of saying, because of human suffering, it would have been better if humans never existed. Or it is simply passing judgment on God, saying God, a being whose mere existence entails ethics (like humans) was wrong to create humans and inflict suffering on them without their consent.
Absurd or Satanic. Better to rule without humans or their ethics in hell, than to consent posthumously to suffering in heaven.
I have no idea what you're getting at. If humans don't exist, there are simply no people, not some hell. Also, I don't think anyone has called existence "heaven" in any non-ironic way. So, not sure what that's getting at. If you have some unspoken religious biases that you would like to bring up, go ahead.. Your notions start becoming clearer to me if you have some theological reasoning, but it doesn't become more accurate, just explains your frustration perhaps. The "Existence must exist so that we can fulfill whatever X mission" explains some of your implicit confusions and objections and it turns into the old debate of the problem of evil.
Interesting enough, antinatalism SOLVES a Christian problem by bypassing it. Souls cannot be sent to hell if you do not bear them into existence in the first place. If you didn't do this, of course, you would violate the "be fruitful and multiply", but let's say it was carried out to its logical conclusion and no one existed.. Would more people just be created like Adam and Eve so that they go through this game? Why have the game? What is important about the game? Doesn't it seem a bit anthropocentric? If aliens exist, would their religion reflect a god that has them as the main characters in their own Moral Play? Perhaps they have a similar but not quite the same salvation mythology.. One that precludes humans? :chin:
Given all agree that antinatalism applies uniquely to humans, and the unique human condition (that there is a "condition" most seem to agree; the nature or structure of that condition seems to be in contention) it seems like most people think, once again, that Ethics is the path to the "answer" (to be or not to be). Further, it seems most would say, albeit applying varying degrees of standard of proof, that if adjudged "unethical" antinatalism might be justified.
But I think ethics is either irrelevant, or is not being applied far enough. From my perspective, if a person, or a generation, is even grossly unethical, the organism and species should not be punished. Antinatalism is unethical itself; a patent example of the arrogance that our constructions have led "us" to. That we are considering sterilization of a living organism, because we can't seem to simply change our ways. Many even blame the body for that: craving, drive, aggression. As if much of the animal kingdom isn't basically variations of us. Our condition; our immoral condition, if that's what we're settled at, is not because our organism is naturally immoral. We constructed immoral in that uniquely human condition, Mind. And we can deconstruct it. We don't have to end an entire species to do so.
“The fact that the ethics, summarized as anti-natalism, [only] arises in the human race means the human race must exist for the rule to not inflict suffering to exist, AND the human race should NOT exist because none of our consent to suffering could be obtained, [must both be true and ethical, is absurd.]
— Fire Ologist”
The two sides of the “AND” above defeat each other. So we must exist in order to not exist, by enacting a rule that must not exist unless I exist. This is impossible to live by. I am making a rule that says I should not be making rules.
Why should it matter if the ethical rule disappears though?
Because it undermines its enactment in the first place when it results in no ethical beings.
If humans disappear because all humans follow the rule, and with humans the rule disappears, then such humans would be being ethical for sake of a world without ethics.
Maybe it is because of my own limitations that I am suffering to make my point and why I can’t logically show why antinatalist ethics is absurd, but that is because this really boils down to the amount and depth of suffering in the world. If we all thought life was only suffering, and unfulfillable, longing desire, without any satiation or anything else, we would be inventing ethical rules to justify not only antinatalism, but mass suicide, after wars to enforce the ethical rule once and for all (if we weren’t too incapacitated by suffering to act at all).
But life is not only suffering. We generally don’t think that. At least most of us. Often.
And some suffering is good (like right now I’m starving and soon I will be eating). “Hunger is the best sauce. The poor always eat well.” - Sancho Panza, Don Quixote.
It boils down to whether it is absolute that inflicting suffering without consent is always and only wrong. Life is not only the suffering of being wronged, it is also forgiveness. You really can suffer and move away from suffering. There really are both. I will be done eating today. You can give consent after the fact, after you’ve suffered without consent and say “oh well, life goes on.” Because there is not only suffering.
And it is worth some suffering to force a new life to be hungry once in a while, to work hard once in a while, to struggle and fail, in order to also have bread and achieve success, or just sit down and relax.
Most real suffering is self-inflicted. We break our own rules all of the time, and shoot ourselves in the foot, just so we can say “see, life is only suffering” to ourselves, regardless of those around us.
But some of us can sometimes just live life, accepting the suffering, forgiving the inflicters, and see that inflicting this life on another without consent is like giving them a gift, an unexpected, un-consented gift.
I just disagree it is moral or ethical that we should only focus on the suffering when deciding what world is better for any other people, such as any future generation. We need to see what is good in life just as well before we make out ethics and enact it.
Antinatalism upholds ethics high above the life and suffering of the human beings it is designed to promote, and this is absurd to me. If there is to be some grandiose place for any such high and mighty ethical laws, such as “thou shalt not inflict suffering without consent,” then there must be humans there to uphold it in that place. Ending humans ends any good ethical laws protect.
Following our disappearing ethical laws isn’t the only good that is done in the world; life has its own goods just as well.
Because it undermines its enactment in the first place when it results in no ethical beings.
Why I don't see the problem. "What" is being undermined if there are no ethical beings? You are making it as if ethical beings are necessary to exist in the first place.
If humans disappear because all humans follow the rule, and with humans the rule disappears, then such humans would be being ethical for sake of a world without ethics.
we would be inventing ethical rules to justify not only antinatalism, but mass suicide, after wars to enforce the ethical rule once and for all (if we weren’t too incapacitated by suffering to act at all).
But life is not only suffering. We generally don’t think that. At least most of us. Often.
I can say that the potential of suffering is always on the table, but that the world isn't constant suffering might be a different standard for things like suicide. Rather, the case isn't being born and leaving, but putting other people into the situation in the first place. I think the AN argument has presented a cogent case against this decision.
And some suffering is good (like right now I’m starving and soon I will be eating). “Hunger is the best sauce. The poor always eat well.” - Sancho Panza, Don Quixote.
Yeah, but this indeed highlights the underlying tension between positive and negative ethics. It would be wrong of me to make you suffer just to overcome the suffering. Rather, it was better you didn't suffer at all. And then when you inevitably tell me, "But the suffering is where the meaning is!" Then I would say that this is misguided. If meaning entails suffering, there are a few things going on:
1) YOU should not be the arbiter of the suffering. Even if suffering is supposedly "good", it is not ethically encumbent on someone to take it upon themselves to be the executioner of the suffering onto someone else, violating the dignity, consent, autonomy, of a person, and violating the basic principle of "non-malfeasance" towards fellow humans.
2) Perhaps a world where "meaning" entails suffering, isn't one where it is best to bring someone into in the first place.
2a) Even more salient, and related to this Veil of Ignorance, we don't even KNOW how much suffering one's life might entail. Let's say you think that 22 is the threshold of suffering any average life should have to endure, because that is the number for "growing".. Well, if someone lives a 47 life, you can never predict that, where the suffering has now exceeded the amount necessary for a balanced, happy life. It is now excessive.
3) It is aggressively paternalistic to assume for someone else that THEY need to suffer because YOU think there is some "good" to it. Again, it's the ugly side of "positive ethics". We MUST save blank from certain death is a different situation than we MUST create beings that MIGHT experience happy lives. And you add to this that the cost of this is a lifetime of negative experiences, in unknown quantities, enacted without consent, this simply does not have much merit for its assumptions.
It boils down to whether it is absolute that inflicting suffering without consent is always and only wrong. Life is not only the suffering of being wronged, it is also forgiveness. You really can suffer and move away from suffering. There really are both. I will be done eating today. You can give consent after the fact, after you’ve suffered without consent and say “oh well, life goes on.” Because there is not only suffering.
The problem again is with preventative and palliative ethics. In almost every other situation in life, it is a palliative measure.. You temporarily cause discomfort for a child because they need to learn to survive. But not procreating is simply preventing all suffering, period. All things being considered, not causing harm is the ethic that has no need to be violated. There is no one that needs "palliative harm". Rather you are CREATING THE VERY NEED for palliative harm. This is now in the realm of preventative ethics.
Most real suffering is self-inflicted. We break our own rules all of the time, and shoot ourselves in the foot, just so we can say “see, life is only suffering” to ourselves, regardless of those around us.
The point is we need not put other people in this situation in the first place. I don't throw you into a game and say "Tough luck, bitch" and then gaslight you by saying, "Hey it's your fault. I tried to give you tools!". It is actually quite manipulative, what you are suggesting.
I just disagree it is moral or ethical that we should only focus on the suffering when deciding what world is better for any other people, such as any future generation. We need to see what is good in life just as well before we make out ethics and enact it.
Actually, no we don't. Let's say for the sake of argument that both absolute hellish lives and absolute charmed lives are not really existent (though there is way more evidence for more hellish lives).. Even if there was some mix, the "happiness creating" aspect has no bearing if that happiness is also coming with the "gift" of unknown amounts of burdens. There is no amount of paternalistic ethics that can be justified for such hubris.
Antinatalism upholds ethics high above the life and suffering of the human beings it is designed to promote, and this is absurd to me. If there is to be some grandiose place for any such high and mighty ethical laws, such as “thou shalt not inflict suffering without consent,” then there must be humans there to uphold it in that place. Ending humans ends any good ethical laws protect.
You keep claiming this, but for no good reason. Why must there be humans there to uphold it in place?
Your argument is something like this:
"If there are no humans, the ethic cannot be followed".
No. My argument is if there are no humans around there are no ethics around. Your argument is if the ethics is antinatalism, there would be no humans around. You just just don’t see the absurdity of keeping the ethics in place without the humans to place it there.
. Your argument is if the ethics is antinatalism, there would be no humans around. You just just don’t see the absurdity of keeping the ethics in place without the humans to place it there.
Huh? I am not following.
If there is no potential for procreation, there is no need for the ethic. Similarly, if there is only one person in existence, there is no need for ethics against murder.
I am not sure what this is supposed to translate to, ethically speaking. It becomes irrelevant given the considerations of suffering prevention being more ethically an obligation than happiness promotion, all things being equal. In fact, if what you are implying here is correct, it is your notion that has some template that people must adhere to assumed to be there prior to birth "The Good". But I am not sure completely what you are implying, so I'd hold judgement. "Life is good" seems a theological statement of some sort.
I think that what is primarily at stake is a "theological" question, namely the question of whether life itself is good or bad, and therefore my response here would be "tu quoque." Your position passes beyond the mere ethical when it comes to depend upon the proposition . When I respond by saying that life is good, this is not the introduction of a theological proposition, but is rather a theological response to your own theological proposition.
Now it seems to me that you are committed to the proposition either via the argument that life has a greater proportion of suffering than happiness, or else via Benatar's argument (or some variant thereof). I don't think it matters a great deal which argument is in play, and therefore whether the evil is conceived of as absolute or relative. Either way the conclusion is . The shift from a merely ethical frame to a theological frame occurs as soon as life itself comes to bear the property "evil" (or bad, or undesirable). The ethical frame (again, in the modern sense) has to do with choices and ends which prescind from opinions about the goodness or badness of ontological realities themselves, such as life.
Clearly, the child did not have to experience any suffering.
This is a good example of the ethical/theological or act/potency equivocation. The more precise statement is, "Clearly the child did not have to exist, and therefore did not need to experience suffering." To conflate the situation where the child does not have to experience suffering with the situation where the child does not have to experience suffering because there is no existing child to suffer is part of the problematic equivocation. You are not merely proposing removing suffering from a child, you are proposing removing the existence of the child as a means to avoiding that suffering.
So you are conflating two arguments into one here. It is precisely because people cannot be consented that this Thanos argument is wrong. Also, once people exist, taking their existence away, is not the same question as bringing people into existence, so should probably be thrown out as some sort of counterpoint. There's too many differences.
No, not at all, for you have already denied that consent plays a central role in your argument. The Thanos example is apparently apropos. If suffering is the real problem, and life has no intrinsic value, then if Thanos can remove suffering by removing life—without causing suffering in the process—then on your principles he should do so. You relegated consent to a caveat, <1. Do not cause suffering, absent consent>. Because Thanos is not causing suffering consent cannot be relevant. If you reject the Thanos comparison then consent must play a more central role than your defensive argument permits.
Coming at this from a different angle, if Thanos attempted to obtain consent before snapping each individual out of existence, do you think this attempt would be rationally sound? Does it follow from your argument that consensual euthanization of the entire race is the ideal and rational solution?
This is actually touching upon Schopenhauer's notion that we are NOT actually "being" in some rested/Platonic way, but because we are in the world of Maya, we are in the world of "becoming" which by default is always in some way "suffering" as it is a world of dissatisfaction, or lack, or "what we do not have presently and fades away", a world of "vanity", and all such notions.
Okay, interesting. I will leave this to the side for the sake of time, but it is worth noting that Platonist and Christian schemes allow for a fallen world of cave-shadows.
However, though I am glad to discuss these notions, it is tangential to the argument itself which doesn't need the world to have any inherent value per se. Rather, as long as there is suffering (in any sense of that word), and the decision is there, that the moral weight is to prevent suffering more than any other one, including promoting (what one believes to be) good experiences for a person.
So again, your argument here is bound up with the claim that the world has inherent negative value. More precisely, it is bound up with the claim that human existence has negative value (i.e. is evil). This is in no way tangential. If we remove that premise then your argument disintegrates, does it not?
It creates a baseline set of boundaries, as what people can end up doing is any such harm to a person and justify it in the name of X positive value that they think will result. Rather, if people have inherent dignity and worth, that respect for this boundary would seem to be necessary, otherwise people are perpetual pawns that are to be treated as such.
It's not at all clear to me that your position is the one that favors inherent dignity and worth. To nix life on account of suffering seems to be contrary to notions of inherent dignity. If humans have inherent dignity, then they have it regardless of negative attributes or accidents such as suffering, disability, etc. That is basically the heart of what we mean by dignity, "Even in spite of your inadequacies, your life still has intrinsic value." Suffering is merely one form of inadequacy.
That is to say, I believe it to be the case that it is empirically evident that life has X amount of suffering. Charmed lives don't exist, except in perhaps imagination or thought experiments.
There is the danger here of an argument which proves far too much. Imagine a world where every person suffers a pinprick but no more, and the remainder of their life is pure happiness. Why wouldn't your or Benatar's argument also prohibit procreation in this world? The pinprick of suffering seems to fuel your arguments just as well as extreme suffering. Benatar's asymmetry holds just as well in that case.
To conflate the situation where the child does not have to experience suffering with the situation where the child does not have to experience suffering because there is no existing child to suffer is part of the problematic equivocation. You are not merely proposing removing suffering from a child, you are proposing removing the existence of the child as a means to avoiding that suffering.
This seems to be the same problem as Fire Ologist, but a variation. The ethic is on the part of the person enacting the suffering onto the other. At this point, it is not about the "other".
Let me walk you through some situations. Will you grant me that instead of an existing "person", I can instead use an existing "state of affairs"?
If you allow me that, we can use the following analogy...
There is a state of affairs whereby I can put someone in harms way by X action (it need not be procreation).
The state of affairs does not exist yet, however. You can always say, "How can you prevent a state of affairs that is not existent! That situation has not come about yet.. In fact, we don't even KNOW which person might be harmed by the situation, but we know that in all likelihood, a person WILL be harmed, if YOU (the person who is doing the action) does X".
In this state of affairs scenario, it is doubtful you will find this thinking absurd. That is to say, just because there isn't a particular person that this state of affairs will affect, doesn't mean we are not incumbent to prevent the situation. All the more so, the more important the harm that will occur, that it can be prevented reasonably easily, etc. etc. So no, I don't see this situation applying.
If suffering is the real problem, and life has no intrinsic value, then if Thanos can remove suffering by removing life—without causing suffering in the process—then on your principles he should do so. You relegated consent to a caveat, <1. Do not cause suffering, absent consent>. Because Thanos is not causing suffering consent cannot be relevant. If you reject the Thanos comparison then consent must play a more central role than your defensive argument permits.
I didn't say consent was ONLY necessary when doing harm to someone. In fact, I didn't even mention whether ONCE ALREADY EXISTING, non-existence is or is not considered a harm. You cannot put the genie back. Where as with birth, there is no one that can get consent, NOW someone exists.. The very basis for this kind of deontological basis of ethics (respect, dignity, autonomy, etc.) now applies to a person.
Coming at this from a different angle, if Thanos attempted to obtain consent before snapping each individual out of existence, do you think this attempt would be rationally sound? Does it follow from your argument that consensual euthanization of the entire race is the ideal and rational solution?
Well, now you've changed it. If he asked, and everyone consented, ethically speaking, this isn't violating an ethic. Whether this is the right "solution", I don't know, because I don't believe already-existing to be symmetrical for never-existing. In modal thinking, never-existing is simply the potential of something to exist, and the already-existing is the factuality of someone's actual existence. Can it be that once existing, different priorities are considered in regards to harms and goods? Perhaps. For example, I wouldn't recommend forcing X upon someone. But once someone has X done upon them, if it means that they have abc experiences, and they value them, I see no need to get rid of them, unless indeed they thought they were were worthless. So perhaps nothing should have been done to that person, but once it's done, it doesn't take away the value they might have gotten. They do not have to be mutually exclusive. This is a trap many anti-AN arguments fall under. If there is good from a bad, then the bad must not be that bad. That is faulty logic.
I think also what you are struggling with is that antinatalism tends to be void of a positive value that we must live for. You can try putting in the value of "not suffering", but that doesn't get at it. Rather, we are NOT LIVING for that value, but rather, preventing that negative state of affairs from befalling someone. On the flip side, any other reason to have a child that is not purely a selfish reason by the parent, is one whereby you want the child to LIVE FOR some value, thus violating the non-harm prevention SO THAT they can live out this value. And it would indeed be on the anti-AN to prove that this violation is fine and dandy without just resorting to "It has always been done this way and thus appeal to tradition, yadayada".
So again, your argument here is bound up with the claim that the world has inherent negative value. More precisely, it is bound up with the claim that human existence has negative value (i.e. is evil). This is in no way tangential. If we remove that premise then your argument disintegrates, does it not?
No, because you don't need to view the world as evil for this argument, just that preventing suffering is a priority. Tangentially, the world might have inherently suffering, adding to the evidence FOR the suffering of the world though. I refrain from using "evil" though as it sounds like the world is "out to get you", when it could just be an inherent factor of our condition.
It's not at all clear to me that your position is the one that favors inherent dignity and worth. To nix life on account of suffering seems to be contrary to notions of inherent dignity. If humans have inherent dignity, then they have it regardless of negative attributes or accidents such as suffering, disability, etc. That is basically the heart of what we mean by dignity, "Even in spite of your inadequacies, your life still has intrinsic value." Suffering is merely one form of inadequacy.
So whilst I agree with what you have said there, the point is that paternalistically making a decision on behalf of someone to not prevent them from suffering, and thus basically forcing the conditions of suffering onto them, would not be respecting the dignity, as this becomes aggressive paternalism. You can probably think of your own scenarios where aggressive paternalism would be violating this dignity, other than procreation.
. . . There is the danger here of an argument which proves far too much. Imagine a world where every person suffers a pinprick but no more, and the remainder of their life is pure happiness. Why wouldn't your or Benatar's argument also prohibit procreation in this world? The pinprick of suffering seems to fuel your arguments just as well as extreme suffering. Benatar's asymmetry holds just as well in that case.
My point was that empirically-speaking, in the real world, there are no such charmed lives, so it is de facto out of the question other than a thought experiment. Supposing only a pin-prick was the suffering, I guess the scenario could be reconsidered. But I just want you to know, every single ethical consideration can be reconfigured if you change the conditions for which ethics plays out... So for example.. What if when you stab someone, they reanimate every time you do it instantly.. would that be wrong? I don't know, but that's not the world we generally live in..
But ok, let me take your bait for taking the strongest position just for the sake of argument..
Benatar thinks indeed, being that no one being deprived of this "almost charmed life", there is no foul. No person harmed, no foul. Rather, the violation still takes place in this scenario. It's not like the child is being "saved" from non-existence, so this isn't a palliative situation either.
Leontiskos methodically demonstrates that antinatalism turns on the premise that, if there is any human suffering, there is enough suffering to justify ending the human race.
When thinking ahead for the unborn-yet-to-be-procreated persons, the potential ones antinatalism is trying be ethical toward, couldn’t we just as easily instead think of those unborn persons and make the rule “one cannot deprive someone of happiness without their consent.”
Is there no happiness in the world?
If that is our new rule, it becomes ethical to ask everyone to procreate as much as possible. Which would also be absurd as it would tend to deprive everyone of happiness if everyone was cranking out and trying to manage babies all of the time.
This highlights something else. There is not really any duty one way or the other to non-existing potential people. Antinatalism is good for potential people who will by design never exist. Ethics arises between two existing, actualized people. We can act today thinking of its impact on future people, but until those future people are actual, our present actions can’t be seen as ethical, or not ethical. The ethics of the actions only arises where the people arise, actually.
Also highlighted and not addressed in antinatalism, the world isn’t just suffering, or even enough suffering to contemplate a need to end all human beings. It’s just not compelling.
We don’t need to solve the problem of any suffering. We will want to solve the problem of the individual actual person who is actually suffering greatly. But because of that person’s existence, and because other people experience happiness at times, we don’t need to end all people.
The state of affairs does not exist yet, however. You can always say, "How can you prevent a state of affairs that is not existent! That situation has not come about yet.. In fact, we don't even KNOW which person might be harmed by the situation, but we know that in all likelihood, a person WILL be harmed, if YOU (the person who is doing the action) does X".
This is different than the theoretical potential person that is discussed pre-procreation. In the above scenario, not knowing the identity of the particular person who will be put in harms way doesn’t mean the present existing state of affairs does not include already existing people who are actually putting people in harms way and actually going to be harmed.
When thinking ahead for the unborn-yet-to-be-procreated persons, the potential ones antinatalism is trying be ethical toward, couldn’t we just as easily instead think of those unborn persons and make the rule “one cannot deprive someone of happiness without their consent.”
No because that's the point, that in matters of ethics, preventing suffering is weighted more important than promoting happiness. And indeed, causing suffering in the hopes that one promotes happiness would thus be a violation therewith.
If that is our new rule, it becomes ethical to ask everyone to procreate as much as possible. Which would also be absurd as it would tend to deprive everyone of happiness if everyone was cranking out and trying to manage babies all of the time.
But you point out the absurdity indeed of defending certain forms of utilitarianism. In fact, you have stumbled on the repugnant conclusion.
This highlights something else. There is not really any duty one way or the other to non-existing potential people. Antinatalism is good for potential people who will by design never exist. Ethics arises between two existing, actualized people. We can act today thinking of its impact on future people, but until those future people are actual, our present actions can’t be seen as ethical, or not ethical. The ethics of the actions only arises where the people arise, actually.
Let me walk you through some situations. Will you grant me that instead of an existing "person", I can instead use an existing "state of affairs"?
If you allow me that, we can use the following analogy...
There is a state of affairs whereby I can put someone in harms way by X action (it need not be procreation).
The state of affairs does not exist yet, however. You can always say, "How can you prevent a state of affairs that is not existent! That situation has not come about yet.. In fact, we don't even KNOW which person might be harmed by the situation, but we know that in all likelihood, a person WILL be harmed, if YOU (the person who is doing the action) does X".
In this state of affairs scenario, it is doubtful you will find this thinking absurd. That is to say, just because there isn't a particular person that this state of affairs will affect, doesn't mean we are not incumbent to prevent the situation. All the more so, the more important the harm that will occur, that it can be prevented reasonably easily, etc. etc. So no, I don't see this situation applying.
Also highlighted and not addressed in antinatalism, the world isn’t just suffering, or even enough suffering to contemplate a need to end all human beings. It’s just not compelling.
How is it not compelling to prevent suffering when one can?
We don’t need to solve the problem of any suffering. We will want to solve the problem of the individual actual person who is actually suffering greatly. But because of that person’s existence, and because other people experience happiness at times, we don’t need to end all people.
But this is exactly the misguided thinking I explain between the tension of preventative and palliative ethics. You don't CREATE the situation of palliative ethics by bypassing the preventative part. I don't CREATE your suffering so that I can help you fix it.
in matters of ethics, preventing suffering is weighted more important
That is not absolute. I’m not a utilitarian for instance. And antinatalism isn’t tailored to preventing suffering, it prevents everything, including weighting the importance of suffering over happiness.
If you allow me that, we can use the following analogy...
There is a state of affairs whereby I can put someone in harms way by X action (it need not be procreation).
I don’t see this as analogous here, because you are dealing here with existing people who are put in specific harms way and existing people who are putting them there. Antinstalism is dealing with existing people who are potentially putting people in harms way, and non-existing potential people. The scenarios are too far apart. It’s not close enough of an analogy to be instructive.
How is it not compelling to prevent suffering when one can?
In a world of suffering and happiness, it is not compelling to prevent suffering by eliminating all people and all happiness as well. We don’t all agree that “in matters of ethics, preventing suffering is weighted more important.”
Many would agree that disallowing procreation would cause great suffering in existing people. Some people are born moms and dads and they know it. Is their suffering as they live our antinatalism worth the good of a future world without humans to you? Antinatalism also causes suffering of existing people now who want kids and whose kids will love them.
You don't CREATE the situation of palliative ethics by bypassing the preventative part. I don't CREATE your suffering so that I can help you fix it.
You don’t prevent MY suffering if I never exist either.
It is ethical to prevent actual suffering in actual beings. It is wishful thinking to prevent potential suffering in non-existing beings. You might also be preventing the evolution of bliss and paradise on earth. You will never know if antinatalism was the right prescription for suffering, because they will be no one who could thank you for your ethics.
So now I have three problems with antinatalism.
1. There is no ethical way to treat non-existing people, so an ethics that is called good for its treatment of non-existing people is misguided at best if not non-ethics. Its resource management policy - not enough happiness to go around so let’s eliminate the number of suffering people.
2. Suffering is not enough a reason to eliminate all humanity. My guess is the vast majority of people suffer 33% of their conscious time. The vast majority would rather live this life than no life at all. The suffering in the world still isn’t enough to justify ending the world.
3. Antinatalism is not directed at preventing suffering, as it prevents everything. It’s an over broad solution to a narrower problem
Imagine you have a magic wand that allows you to prevent procreation. People In two neighboring villages are constantly inflicting suffering on each other. You can’t solve so many disputes and you see that the suffering will never end, so instead you make it so those people can’t procreate and just let them live out their lives suffering. Soon there will be no more suffering inflicting going on in those villages because there will be no more people there. In another two neighboring villages, the people are always stealing from each other and bullying each other. There are times when the people are back in their homes laughing and relaxing, but at some point, everyone is stealing and bullying so at some point everyone is a victim of theft and bullying. No way to address the stealing and bullying, so you wave the wand and solve the problem eventually.
Antinatalism isn’t tailored to the specific problem it is trying to prevent, and is way overboard of a response to just suffering.
1. There is no ethical way to treat non-existing people,
The ethics are to do with our actions now. Not unborn people. The potential suffering itself is not hte moral crux. The action that (on the balance of probabilities) will make it come about, are. This is a gross oversimplication (or, overcomplexification, depending where you stand) of the point of antinatalism. That said, this is just another notch in my belt of Emotivism. Only your emotional response to that potential suffering could inform any decision around it. There is no ethical, normative principle which could entail either having, or not having children in the strict sense of those statements.
Suffering is not enough a reason to eliminate all humanity.
This is, again, an emotive position. To some people it is. There isn't a way to argue for one or the other, really, other than Benatar's clearly apt a-symmetry argument. Accept, or don't.
Antinatalism is not directed at preventing suffering, as it prevents everything.
This is a non sequitur. It prevents the imposition of human life and nought else. The suffering goes with it. I can't quite grasp why you'd make such a wildly overt overstatement of the position. Another below.. Quoting Fire Ologist
The suffering in the world still isn’t enough to justify ending the world.
It is wishful thinking to prevent potential suffering in non-existing beings.
Then it would stand to reason you are an anti-abortionist? Someone who would not look twice pulling out in the road? Wouldn't remove broken glass from a playground? These are all potential harms to no one in particular (the A-symmetry argument beats this anyway). A starker example is, why keep NICU's sterile? Hehehe.
The vast majority would rather live this life than no life at all.
Benatar, particularly, addresses this issue. It is far more likely the figure is closer to 80% (this is interpolation based on my thoughts along with his arguments around it). Polly-Anna syndrome is rife. Most people are genuinely mistaken about how often they suffer. That said, I'm unsure this is a particularly strong anti-natalist argument anyway. I don't care what living people think about their lives. The vast majority of anti-natalists hold that the living have a deep interest in continuing to live. Perhaps there are situations in whcih this isn't the case, but overall, its hard to find examples of that.
Your earlier two objections are to stronger arguments, and I think your objections are just your taste. They aren't logic objections or reasonable ways around the claims made. They just illustrate that you do not accept htem, prima facie. That's fine. None of that has to do with the strength or weakness of hte anti-natalist position other than how it strikes you (weakly, it seems).
No, because you don't need to view the world as evil for this argument, just that preventing suffering is a priority.
The argument holds that human life is evil (or bad) on account of suffering, and therefore we should not further human life by procreation. The proposition that flows from your claim about suffering, but it still seems to me obvious that this is a crucial proposition in your argument, and that it is "theological."
So whilst I agree with what you have said there, the point is that paternalistically making a decision on behalf of someone to not prevent them from suffering, and thus basically forcing the conditions of suffering onto them, would not be respecting the dignity, as this becomes aggressive paternalism.
We force a decision upon them either way. I don't see how only one direction is paternalistic.
In this state of affairs scenario, it is doubtful you will find this thinking absurd. That is to say, just because there isn't a particular person that this state of affairs will affect, doesn't mean we are not incumbent to prevent the situation.
The problem is that your argument is a form of metabasis, . I don't say that it is necessarily unsound, but it is not a clean syllogism. There is a quasi-equivocation on "persons."
Our obligation is to prevent the suffering of persons, not to prevent persons for the sake of suffering. Our primary suffering-obligation is to prevent existing persons from suffering. Additional argument is required to show that this means that we should prevent persons from existing. Your aversion to suffering is overwhelming, and out of sync with common intuitions. Common intuitions merely say that suffering should be mitigated, not expunged at all costs. ...but maybe I would be better off directly addressing Benatar's argument... (and I do so at the end)
In fact, I didn't even mention whether ONCE ALREADY EXISTING, non-existence is or is not considered a harm. You cannot put the genie back.
Why not? Does existence suddenly become a non-harm once someone is born? Is life bad before we are born and good after we are born? So that we must avoid it before we are born and embrace it after we are born?
Let's move to the consensual variant, which seems to me more fruitful:
Well, now you've changed it. If he asked, and everyone consented, ethically speaking, this isn't violating an ethic. Whether this is the right "solution", I don't know, because I don't believe already-existing to be symmetrical for never-existing.
Again, why are they not symmetrical? I am guessing that unhappy people correlate to antinatalism and happy people correlate to "pronatalism," because there is symmetricity. Again, the whole thing is based on the question of whether life is good or bad, and that determination should hold steady. So if you really think life is bad then you should think that other people should think that life is bad, and that other people should consent to painless euthanization. If euthanization is not the rational choice for living persons, then why would you promote antinatalism? (Note that when I talk about the "rational position," what I mean is that this is the choice that the rational person ought to freely choose for themselves.")
But once someone has X done upon them, if it means that they have abc experiences, and they value them, I see no need to get rid of them, unless indeed they thought they were were worthless.
If X doesn't want to be euthanized because they find life beautiful and valuable, then either they are irrational or else the antinatalism thesis suffers a blow. That person would literally resent your antinatalism, because it sought to "paternalistically" prevent their fulfilling life. These two realities are directly opposed. It is not faulty logic.
Rather, we are NOT LIVING for that value, but rather, preventing that negative state of affairs from befalling someone.
It seems to me like a rationalization of pusillanimity: fear of life for fear of suffering. The antinatalist would apparently counsel the unborn to opt out of life for fear of suffering.
Do you agree that, one way or another, we must make a choice for the unborn? That to give birth is to choose life for them, and that to abstain from procreation is to choose non-existence for them? (Really "them," as I am now swimming in the metabasis). I don't accept the purported neutrality of the antinatalist position, as if so-called "paternalism" is not inevitable.
My point was that empirically-speaking, in the real world, there are no such charmed lives, so it is de facto out of the question other than a thought experiment. Supposing only a pin-prick was the suffering, I guess the scenario could be reconsidered.
Reconsidered on what basis? I am offering a reductio, and if your argument succumbs then the argument itself is problematic, as it "proves too much."
So for example.. What if when you stab someone, they reanimate every time you do it instantly.. would that be wrong?
It wouldn't be wrong in the same way as it is now. But your theoretical does not function as a reductio to any argument that I have offered, and that is the primary difference.
Benatar thinks indeed, being that no one being deprived of this "almost charmed life", there is no foul. No person harmed, no foul. Rather, the violation still takes place in this scenario.
The problem occurs if this is a valid argument:
Suppose every living human being is guaranteed a pinprick of pain followed by 80 years of pure happiness.
[Insert Benatar's antinatalist argument here]
Therefore, we should never procreate
Are you starting to see the reductio? The reductio has force because we know that any (2) that can get you from (1) to (3) is faulty argumentation.
I wouldn’t argue with you that I’ve made arguments based on emotion in here. But there is a basic premise that suffering qua suffering is only bad, so inflicting suffering on another is only bad, and inflicting suffering on another is unethical. These notions arise out of emotion, and raw experience (unless there is some heretofore 11th commandment that the antinatalists dug up.). Suffering itself involves emotions, physical states and psychological reactions to those states, so bringing emotion into it isn’t a non-sequitor.
But, true, I’m not just building analytic proofs here.
Then it would stand to reason you are an anti-abortionist? Someone who would not look twice pulling out in the road? Wouldn't remove broken glass from a playground? These are all potential harms to no one in particular
Schop said, and I agree, that ethics only exist where people and exist, and in particular, where more than one person exists. The ethical rule at issue is: it is always wrong to inflict suffering on others and/or to do so without consent. And the ethical solution is to stop making people.
While I disagree with the rule (and I don’t thereby think inflicting suffering is good, just that it is not universally always wrong to inflict any suffering without consent), leaving the rule as is anyway, there is a distinction between an ethical rule that prevents harm to people you don’t know in particular, and a rule that prevents harm in people people that don’t exist.
It is true that, if all suffering infliction is wrong, the unethical behavior is “to do with our actions now” and the unethical person is the one who exists, inflicting the suffering. But in all of the above scenarios, in your quote, there are already existing victims of the harm. The antinatalist isn’t looking out for the fetus who will be a person; the antinatalist is urging no one gets pregnant. There is no person existing that is the one towards whom the ethical act is directed. There is only the antinatalist claiming ethical treatment of the beneficiaries of that ethical treatment, namely beings (I guess you can call them human beings) that never come to be. There is not only no particular subject of the antinatalists actions, there is no potential ethical subject.
Too leave the glass on the playground is potentially inflicting harm (not necessarily, whereas necessary suffering is part of the antinatalist solution) on anyone who plays there. The people who might or might not play there actually exist while I consider whether or not to remove the glass. The non-procreated are not beings at all. So if two ethical beings must exist for there to be an ethics between them, those beings exist in the playground scenario but do not exist in the antinatalist world. We can’t prevent suffering in someone until someone exists, at least any reason we would have to prevent further existence is not a matter of ethics towards that further existing being, because there is no one or thing there to be ethical towards.
If I use the playground analogy, the antinatalist reasoning to me would lead to solutions like “there should be no playgrounds” or “because children at play can cut themselves on glass, there should be no children.”
Truth is antinatalism solves every math problem, every philosophical conundrum, every imperfection - all of gone to history. Problem is, people like playgrounds, despite the glass. All ethics and logic and suffering be damned when there is good sliding board around.
Antinatalism isn’t tailored to the specific problem it is trying to prevent, and is way overboard of a response to just suffering.
And, if you don't mind, add: and, a response directed at the wrong party. If you want to end suffering, end mind's constructions, and attachments thereto. Why end a species?
The ethics are to do with our actions now. Not unborn people. The potential suffering itself is not hte moral crux. The action that (on the balance of probabilities) will make it come about, are. This is a gross oversimplication (or, overcomplexification, depending where you stand) of the point of antinatalism.
Then it would stand to reason you are an anti-abortionist? Someone who would not look twice pulling out in the road? Wouldn't remove broken glass from a playground? These are all potential harms to no one in particular (the A-symmetry argument beats this anyway). A starker example is, why keep NICU's sterile? Hehehe.
Yep/.. I am not sure why @Fire Ologist isn't quite getting this.
Benatar, particularly, addresses this issue. It is far more likely the figure is closer to 80% (this is interpolation based on my thoughts along with his arguments around it). Polly-Anna syndrome is rife. Most people are genuinely mistaken about how often they suffer. That said, I'm unsure this is a particularly strong anti-natalist argument anyway. I don't care what living people think about their lives. The vast majority of anti-natalists hold that the living have a deep interest in continuing to live. Perhaps there are situations in whcih this isn't the case, but overall, its hard to find examples of that.
Your earlier two objections are to stronger arguments, and I think your objections are just your taste. They aren't logic objections or reasonable ways around the claims made. They just illustrate that you do not accept htem, prima facie. That's fine. None of that has to do with the strength or weakness of hte anti-natalist position other than how it strikes you (weakly, it seems).
Antinatalism isn’t tailored to the specific problem it is trying to prevent, and is way overboard of a response to just suffering.
Again, you ignore what it means to cause suffering and back-filling the justification after-the-fact with palliative ethics. You don't intentionally cause the situation for which you think you then have the remedy. And since you really ignored my argument, and simply show your distaste, I don't know what else to say other than you have failed to show any meaningful objections other than indeed your distaste for the logic.
When thinking ahead for the unborn-yet-to-be-procreated persons, the potential ones antinatalism is trying be ethical toward, couldn’t we just as easily instead think of those unborn persons and make the rule “one cannot deprive someone of happiness without their consent.”
No, causing happiness is not an obligation in the way NOT causing harm is. Causing pain in order for them to also have happiness is still a violation of non-malfeasance.
Happiness-promoting is not obligatory, and especially so if to promote happiness you knowingly create the conditions for someone else to be harmed. Procreation creates the very need for palliative measures to mitigate suffering. Preventing harm by not procreating avoids creating this need altogether.
and, a response directed at the wrong party. If you want to end suffering, end mind's constructions, and attachments thereto. Why end a species?
See, that reads to me like a breath of new air in the conversation. Sort of procreates some breathing space.
Reminds me that we are talking about making a rule that must guide my actions. It’s not just an analytic exercise with suffering and ethical rules as its parts. The argument for antinatalism is also about my response, like where you said it was a response directed at the wrong people.
After we’re done with the logical analysis, antinatalism is a call to action. It says if we work hard enough together, maybe in a few generations, we will finally all do the ethical thing and choose to be antinatalists, then, the human species will be gone, and with it, gone is all suffering, and those last people can say “we, now the most ethical generation, the ones who have inflicted the least suffering on others, we bid to those who discovered antinatalism our humble gratitude for showing us the ethic, and bid everyone else, including ourselves, I guess, good riddance.”
While I think we mean different things when you say “end mind’s constructions and attachments thereto”, I would use those same words to point to the fact that all ethics is in our heads. Ethics is about what we physically do when we interact with other people in the world, but the ethical parts of those actions exist only in my head, in our heads. We must construct all of this, and together for it to be ethics. I would also instead use some of your words to say, “while we are always attaching and detaching from constructions, to be ethical is to take care of what you attach to and detach from.”
But we need both the analytic approach, and this raw, more contextual (aware of aware-ing) view to find an ethical norm.
My attempt at the analytic syllogism:
[b]Life is suffering.
No one should intentionally cause suffering.
Procreating is intentional infliction of suffering…
Therefore, antinatalism.
Negatively put, we should not inflict suffering, so we should not procreate. Or more positively put, it is right not to procreate, or else you would intentionally cause suffering.[/b]
We’ve constructed out of suffering this new ethic. (It had to be new because people had to be here first to construct it, it is newer than us at least.)
Now of course antimatalism is more that. And granting the premises, it’s a sound argument. That may be enough for many intuitions.
But what can we know and say about this syllogism?
P1: Life is suffering.
Maybe. Maybe because of life, we have something to compare suffering with in order to identify that life includes suffering. Without something good in life to compare to, how would we recognize suffering. We had to have a happy finger first before we could say that on prick was suffering. But then, does that mean the good and happy finger is a cause of the suffering too?
But maybe life is living. And living is many things, with the many things we live with. One of them is suffering. One of them is ecstasy. One of them is sleeping. One of them is a pin-prick, or reading. Life is reading, right now.
Also, this premise is where we assume a sub premise “suffering is only bad.” Suffering is bad, but it is not only bad. Some suffering is called work. Some called really hard work. Some called loving. Some called longing. Some longing is suffering deeply. Some longing is not.
I think many are willing to say there is enough suffering assured in life that it’s not worth breaking it down into how much or how little there is that it would start to change the calculus of the syllogism. Many would argue life pivots from suffering too much to suffering enough, and therefore “Life is suffering” is a valid premise, period, end of discussion.
So we’ll move on, under protest.
P2: No one should intentionally cause suffering.
Sounds like a nice sentiment from the start. But it depends on your view of what suffering is from P1 if you would make this an absolute. If all suffering is bad, then yeah, absolutely no one should inflict it on anyone else. But many of us have had suffering inflicted upon us without our consent, at great cost, causing deep suffering, only to later count the experience as a a good one. That’s the constant life of a child. Some suffering can lead to tremendous things that would not have been what they are without the suffering. So if not all suffering is bad, what is wrong with causing it in another?
So this premise only works if all suffering is bad. So my protest from P1 is rearing its head.
That means to me I should try to tailor P2 to keep the argument flowing.
How about new P2: “No one should intentionally harm or injure another for the sole purpose of causing them to suffer.”
Sounds stronger, and accounts for the good of inflicting valuable suffering, but this will be a problem when it comes time to choose whether to procreate. Now with new premise 2 we have to have a baby already born who we can physically “harm and injure” before we might unethically do so for “the sole purpose of causing them to suffer.”
I just disagree that intentionally causing suffering, the heart of this ethical rule, is necessarily something that should never be done, it’s not clearly a universal. It’s not self-evident.
It needs work, as does my argument against it, but let’s press on.
P3: Procreating is intentional infliction of suffering.
This conflates begetting, or giving new life, with infliction on a subject. When we inflict, we inflict upon. There must be an object that we inflict something specific like suffering upon. But that object is missing in the syllogism. Take the antinatalist negative approach and flip it, and you see the hole, the missing object when one tries to inflict something onto the unborn, the non-existent.
If we do not procreate we will not inflict suffering upon……..who? (I get it, the answer is: on the possible child that would have been had you gotten pregnant.). But really, who benefits when I do not have a kid so I can not inflict suffering? Can I say I benefited 10 babies because I was going to have at least 10 kids, but now since I’m an antinatalist, I benefited 10 people? That seems really odd. But if making up some number of never-existing people as beneficiaries of my good antinatalist deeds is odd at all, so is saying I benefitted one person. There is no one person who benefits if you conflate the Infliction of suffering with procreation and respond by not procreating. I’m just procreating. There is no one there to enjoy my mon-procreation with, as there is no one to say “thanks for not inflicting suffering on me” because I didn’t create any such life.
Secondly, there is a bias in the word “inflict”. We don’t inflict levity and happiness. We inflict pain and suffering. To procreate need not be an “infliction” of anything at all. Maybe it is another place to reword the premise better.
But thirdly, premise three is kind of premise 1 reworded. To say procreation is inflicting suffering is like saying life is suffering. Life, the tug and pull of being and becoming, or just the becoming of being, or just the “ing” of suffering. If life is suffering procreating is building new suffering or inflicting suffering.
This just goes back to the arguments against premise 1, that life can’t only be suffering for suffering to be distinguishable as a feature of life at all - life is more than suffering, and more than enough good to enable appropriate attachment to other features of life besides suffering. And suffering isn’t so bad that you must never cause it in another.
But, Conclusion: Antinatalism.
Logically flows from the premises as they are meant by the antinatalist. Suffering is truly excruciating and life is suffering, so since procreating makes new lives of suffering, we should not procreate. Certinly uses logic.
But only compelling if you think suffering is so bad, that suffering is the definer of becoming a human being, that we can’t see any good in suffering, that we can’t see other things besides suffering more valuable to us, that we can’t use our suffering to construct other things, and that if we inflict suffering it is never for good, it is always an unethical act. I just disagree with all of those observations. Together they mean an end to procreation is wildly inappropriate a response. It’s an emotional response to suffering, not something clear enough to construct an ethical norm.
It’s a slap in the face of the Dionysian. Mother Nature inflicted humanity on the universe, why would we judge her so harshly and end her creation, for the sake of each other not having each other?
I don’t see wisdom in turning against life itself because of suffering.
We should turn against the suffering, not the life that begets it or not even the ones who inflict it.
The law should be, because life involves suffering, we should give relief and kinship, so that others can know life with less suffering, but others can know life.
My arguments don’t seem compelling enough yet either. But that just means I need to keep searching for the words, suffering through the birth of better words, constructing something to attach to that accounts for more than the last attachment.
Without something good in life to compare to, how would we recognize suffering. We had to have a happy finger first before we could say that on prick was suffering. But then, does that mean the good and happy finger is a cause of the suffering too?
Suffering is intrinsically negative and harmful regardless of comparative happiness. The existence of suffering is ethically significant on its own, as it involves harm and distress that should be prevented when possible.
But maybe life is living. And living is many things, with the many things we live with. One of them is suffering. One of them is ecstasy. One of them is sleeping. One of them is a pin-prick, or reading. Life is reading, right now.
Promoting happiness at the expense of causing harm violates the principle of non-malfeasance by justifying harmful actions for potential positive outcomes. It involves using individuals as means to an end, imposing projects on them without their consent, and treating them as tools for achieving broader goals. Ethical consistency requires prioritizing the avoidance of harm and respecting individuals' autonomy and dignity, rather than foisting known and unknown conditions of harm upon them, for the sake of some positive-ethical external objectives.
Also, this premise is where we assume a sub premise “suffering is only bad.” Suffering is bad, but it is not only bad. Some suffering is called work. Some called really hard work. Some called loving. Some called longing. Some longing is suffering deeply. Some longing is not.
While some people argue that suffering isn't all bad and can lead to growth, this idea falls short when you look at the bigger picture. First off, suffering is inherently harmful. Even if it might lead to some positive outcomes, the immediate distress and pain it causes shouldn't be ignored or justified. The principle of "do no harm" should always come first, and causing suffering to potentially promote happiness just doesn't cut it ethically. Plus, making someone else suffer because you believe it's good for them totally disregards their right to make their own choices. It's like deciding for them that the end justifies the means, which is a huge overstep.
Treating people as tools for achieving a goal (like personal growth through suffering) is another major issue. People aren’t just instruments for projects we believe in. Everyone has different ways of dealing with and understanding suffering. What might be a meaningful struggle for one person could be devastating for another. This unpredictability means you can't assume suffering will lead to positive outcomes for everyone.
Respecting personal autonomy is crucial. Everyone should have the right to decide whether they want to endure suffering for a potential benefit. Foisting this decision on someone else is ethically wrong and incredibly paternalistic. It’s like saying, "I know what's best for you," which often isn't the case. Growth and fulfillment can happen through positive experiences and challenges that don't involve suffering.
Finally, there's a big difference between preventing harm (preventative ethics) and trying to fix it after the fact (palliative ethics). Creating situations where suffering occurs and then trying to justify it with potential benefits is backwards. It’s better to avoid causing harm in the first place. All in all, assuming that suffering is valuable and imposing it on others without their consent is unethical and dismissive of individual autonomy and well-being.
After reviewing your P2, that last response answers that as well, so moving on...
This conflates begetting, or giving new life, with infliction on a subject. When we inflict, we inflict upon. There must be an object that we inflict something specific like suffering upon. But that object is missing in the syllogism. Take the antinatalist negative approach and flip it, and you see the hole, the missing object when one tries to inflict something onto the unborn, the non-existent.
If we do not procreate we will not inflict suffering upon……..who? (I get it, the answer is: on the possible child that would have been had you gotten pregnant.). But really, who benefits when I do not have a kid so I can not inflict suffering? Can I say I benefited 10 babies because I was going to have at least 10 kids, but now since I’m an antinatalist, I benefited 10 people? That seems really odd. But if making up some number of never-existing people as beneficiaries of my good antinatalist deeds is odd at all, so is saying I benefitted one person. There is no one person who benefits if you conflate the Infliction of suffering with procreation and respond by not procreating. I’m just procreating. There is no one there to enjoy my mon-procreation with, as there is no one to say “thanks for not inflicting suffering on me” because I didn’t create any such life.
This principle doesn't need to be about a specific person who benefits or says thanks. It's about the ethical stance of the decision-maker to prevent harm. The decision not to have children because you want to avoid causing potential suffering is about maintaining an ethical standard. Saying "who benefits?" misses the point because it’s not about imaginary future people celebrating your decision. It's about your commitment to an ethical choice that avoids creating a scenario where suffering is possible. It’s not about benefiting non-existent beings; it’s about making a responsible and ethical decision based on the understanding that creating life inevitably involves creating suffering, and the ethical imperative to avoid this suffering outweighs other considerations, and the recognition that not doing so, is a paternalistic overstep in foisting one's projects onto another, using them. So, this strawman argument oversimplifies and misrepresents (this particular) antinatalist position.
But maybe life is living. And living is many things,
Is this not the long and the short of it?
With a Bricolage of logic and reasoning, a skilled artist can construct complex hypotheses to justify many things in ethics. As much as we like to think ethics transcends us, that thought too, emerged because it is functional to view ethics that way. Contra Descartes et. al., the only thing this organism can claim with certainty is that this organism is. Period. The same cannot be said of any of its constructions from "I" to "all life is Dukkha," to "thou shalt not x".
So does it not boil down to: life is living. We humans make the distinction suffering/no suffering. These, and like distinctions are how our world turns. But with antinatalism we are clearly going too far. People think asceticism a radical approach; how much more is extinction?
Even practically. If you can mobilize an entire species to eliminate one of the three strongest drives--to perpetuate living, and to bond with one's offspring--you might as well exhaust first, all other efforts to change the conditions. If the livestock are suffering under our current conditions, the solution is to change the conditions, not to sterilize the cattle.
As much as I have been turned on to Schopenhauer. This is the corrupted truth which emerges out of the insistence that the will is both the seat off the suffering and our essential human nature. The will constructs suffering. Our human nature may experience pain, the absence of pleasure, but it does not construct anything out of that; it responds to it, just as it responds to pleasure.
The so called will is the name we give to those dynamics of Mind. Difficult to escape, but actually malleable.
Our obligation is to prevent the suffering of persons, not to prevent persons for the sake of suffering. Our primary suffering-obligation is to prevent existing persons from suffering. Additional argument is required to show that this means that we should prevent persons from existing. Your aversion to suffering is overwhelming, and out of sync with common intuitions. Common intuitions merely say that suffering should be mitigated, not expunged at all costs. ...but maybe I would be better off directly addressing Benatar's argument... (and I do so at the end)
No, going back to the Kant thread, not preventing all counts of suffering BECAUSE (X reason that parent has), IS using as means to an ends, overlooking dignity. It is this crux of dignity that you are missing. It was unnecessary, other than promoting some cause.. That project is done on behalf of the child- hence aggressive paternalism.
Why not? Does existence suddenly become a non-harm once someone is born? Is life bad before we are born and good after we are born? So that we must avoid it before we are born and embrace it after we are born?
No, because again, one could have been prevented, one violated and justified with mitigation or because of X conflicting reason of the parent, to be carried out for the child, but can never be the child.. there was no child to begin with to even need happiness.. nor to need the suffering which ultimately comes along with it... And again, "merely" becomes a cover for everything. I merely let that thing hurt you because in the future, it could be in your interest. There is an reductio for ya.
Again, why are they not symmetrical? I am guessing that unhappy people correlate to antinatalism and happy people correlate to "pronatalism," because there is symmetricity. Again, the whole thing is based on the question of whether life is good or bad, and that determination should hold steady. So if you really think life is bad then you should think that other people should think that life is bad, and that other people should consent to painless euthanization. If euthanization is not the rational choice for living persons, then why would you promote antinatalism? (Note that when I talk about the "rational position," what I mean is that this is the choice that the rational person ought to freely choose for themselves.")
I've already answered and you conveniently ignored and cherry picked so I will present it again: Quoting schopenhauer1
Can it be that once existing, different priorities are considered in regards to harms and goods? Perhaps. For example, I wouldn't recommend forcing X upon someone. But once someone has X done upon them, if it means that they have abc experiences, and they value them, I see no need to get rid of them, unless indeed they thought they were were worthless. So perhaps nothing should have been done to that person, but once it's done, it doesn't take away the value they might have gotten. They do not have to be mutually exclusive. This is a trap many anti-AN arguments fall under. If there is good from a bad, then the bad must not be that bad. That is faulty logic.
If X doesn't want to be euthanized because they find life beautiful and valuable, then either they are irrational or else the antinatalism thesis suffers a blow. That person would literally resent your antinatalism, because it sought to "paternalistically" prevent their fulfilling life. These two realities are directly opposed. It is not faulty logic.
Actually, if we want to use Benatar here, that matters not. If no ONE is deprived of the good, then the decision does no good or bad that "no benefits" took place for someone. The onus is on the creating the bad "for someone". I might even argue that creating bad "for no one" is not good or bad either. It can only be formulated as a maxim for someone making the decision.
And yes, the ethic assumes that creating suffering is more important ethically than promoting happiness. And hence why even the pinprick argument is a sort of shrug because due to the non-existing people to not care about it, it becomes moot. It's only YOU the person existing crying on the sidelines over non-existent spilt milk.
Do you agree that, one way or another, we must make a choice for the unborn? That to give birth is to choose life for them, and that to abstain from procreation is to choose non-existence for them? (Really "them," as I am now swimming in the metabasis). I don't accept the purported neutrality of the antinatalist position, as if so-called "paternalism" is not inevitable.
No it's precisely this kind of formulation I am against. The only scenario where something would happen for/to them is the one where a person results, none of the others. At this point, it might be helpful to draw a table...
Reconsidered on what basis? I am offering a reductio, and if your argument succumbs then the argument itself is problematic, as it "proves too much."
No, not really. When you create a fantasy world and that changes the very terms of how existence works, I don't see that as proving anything. What if gravity didn't exist? How would that change ethics? What if time and space could be changed so that we can redo actions? Again, none of this is this world. We can argue facts, but then at least we are arguing what is the case, and not hypotheticals that change how ethics would work because circumstances of the very conditions for ethics have changed.
It wouldn't be wrong in the same way as it is now. But your theoretical does not function as a reductio to any argument that I have offered, and that is the primary difference.
It's to show an illustration of what is going on when you change things to a certain extent.
No, not really. When you create a fantasy world and that changes the very terms of how existence works, I don't see that as proving anything. What if gravity didn't exist? How would that change ethics? What if time and space could be changed so that we can redo actions? Again, none of this is this world. We can argue facts, but then at least we are arguing what is the case, and not hypotheticals that change how ethics would work because circumstances of the very conditions for ethics have changed.
Er, I think antinatalism is dead in the water due to this argument:
Procreation is permissible in an all but perfect world
Benatar's argument excludes procreation even in an all but perfect world
Therefore, Benatar's argument is unsound
What is your counter supposed to be? "No, because counterfactual analyses aren't allowed"? I would suggest reading about the fallacy of "proving too much." Benatar's argument cannot account for the fact that procreation is obviously permissible in an all but perfect world. Benatar would not allow procreation before removing that pinprick. That's crazy. Benatar is irrationally opposed to life, and he would be irrationally opposed to life even in the best of circumstances. Indeed, his irrational argument opposes life even in the best of circumstances!
I think antinatalism is inherently bound up with Gnosticism. This is because it opposes the natural order, and to oppose the natural order requires appealing to some vantage point outside of the natural order. “You shouldn't procreate because the world is evil, addled by suffering.” But how do we know that the world or nature is evil? Surely nature did not tell us such a thing, nor cognitive faculties formed by nature. So then how would we know that it is evil? As the Gnostic says, it must be knowledge received from some god who is opposed to the god of this world (and the nature of the world it created). So again, antinatalism is theological in the sense that it presupposes nature-transcending knowledge.
For example, given that Benatar’s argument opposes the natural order, it cannot have been derived from the natural order. So if Benatar really thinks his argument holds good, then he must hold that his own mind and the knowledge it has come to know is super-natural, transcending nature. If we are limited to nature then we cannot contradict nature. Where does such a mind or such knowledge come from, if not from nature? Either the Gnostics are correct and it comes from the true god, or Christians are correct and it comes from demons. Or else it is just hopelessly mistaken and a product of merely human irrationality.
This is definitely the most arguable aspect of the whole thing. I actually do sometimes swing on this one, but as a living person it hits me as patent that I'm off the rails at that point. I am not important to my own considerations here. It is whether or not causing people to exist is ethical. If you are (as I would put it) deluded into thinking your life is, on balance, purposeful and happy, you will reject this premise and (whether erroneously or not) be fine with procreation. The other premises don't seem to be shakeable in this way.
Suffering itself involves emotions, physical states and psychological reactions to those states, so bringing emotion into it isn’t a non-sequitor.
This is true, but where we are dealing with non-existent people this is not relevant other than to assign a position to oneself as a result of their emotional reaction to whatever proposition..
But in all of the above scenarios, in your quote, there are already existing victims of the harm.
There are clearly not. There are potential victims. This is why the analogy holds, for the most part. And taking this straight to your conclusion of "no playgrounds", yes, that's right, but antinatalists don't confuse the issue:
No humans. Not not playgrounds. Let the people who exist use hte playground, for reasons your point out that would make the "no playgrounds" conclusion stupid as heck. That said, it seems fairly clear that's not hte intention. THe intention is to leave the playground (world)as is, and remove the potential sufferer as it is (on this account) an unavoidable consequence of being one. We're not trying to get rid of oceans to avoid drownings - we're trying to stop people swimming where drowning is a clearly likely consequence (very shaky analogy, but there you go - can refine later if needed).
Yes. But "many things" includes many things one would not trade non-existence in for, if the choice were at all a coherent one. If someone is "many things" but in there is psychopathic sexual deviant, we aren't inclined to let it roll.
For example, given that Benatar’s argument opposes the natural order, it cannot have been derived from the natural order. So if Benatar really thinks his argument holds good, then he must hold that his own mind and the knowledge it has come to know is super-natural, transcending nature.
Simply put, what? Total non sequitur. Sorry to say, but this just hits as red herring designed to impugn the logic of an argument on a naturalistic basis. Who gives a flying toss if its "against the natural order"? You'd need to establish what that is, and how it is derived (in light of hte extremely novel consciousness humans currently enjoy (see what i did there..)) in a way which could logically make Benatar's points untenable. You can't support these claims - only make them. I do smell the overwhelming aroma of religiosity coming through here... where did the evil bit come in?
Either, you have that knowledge, or his arguments are as good as yours. One for thee, one for me. Though, if you've simply been overzealous and mean only to posit that his arguments are inadequate and not that his position is wrong due to other arguments, sure. It reads as if you're trying to present a logical basis for rejecting his arguments. But, they literally boil down to your tastes regarding epistemology it seems. And I'd say your comments there are.. bizarre... That said, you'd very much enjoy prof. Tim Mulgan's Ananthropocentric Purposivism.
I think antinatalism is inherently bound up with Gnosticism. This is because it opposes the natural order, and to oppose the natural order requires appealing to some vantage point outside of the natural order. “You shouldn't procreate because the world is evil, addled by suffering.” But how do we know that the world or nature is evil? Surely nature did not tell us such a thing, nor cognitive faculties formed by nature. So then how would we know that it is evil? As the Gnostic says, it must be knowledge received from some god who is opposed to the god of this world (and the nature of the world it created). So again, antinatalism is theological in the sense that it presupposes nature-transcending knowledge.
Antinatalism need not be synonymous with philosophical pessimism, though the two concepts are often related. Antinatalism only requires certain logical principles to be true. If we believe in a negative ethics where it's best not to cause suffering, harm, or use others, it is imperative not to overlook the consequences of procreation, even if motivated by a positive ethical cause, like promoting happiness.
Everything follows from this principle. There are no non-existent people who benefit from being born; rather, it is about preventing the suffering, harm, and violation of existing people, if they are born.
Gnostic-like elements can be used to justify why suffering is as bad or worse than people initially think. While these more theoretical notions of suffering can be indulged, antinatalism does not hinge on them. If we do take these aspects seriously, there is an argument, that it appears that once born, we are trapped in a cycle of unfulfilled desires with little chance for genuine repose. We can only mitigate this through psychological and physical means, such as fulfilling needs and wants or using mental exercises to manage angst, but this will never satiate, as Schopenhauer noted in detail.
Beyond the inherent suffering of existence, life imposes contingent suffering based on situations and circumstances beyond one's control. These include diseases, natural disasters, social injustices, and personal losses. The world subjects individuals to random and often severe hardships, from debilitating illnesses to the trauma of losing loved ones, and the cruelty of societal inequalities. Even small daily annoyances—everything from traffic jams, minor illnesses, interpersonal conflicts—accumulate over time, adding to white noise baseline of human suffering. By choosing to procreate, we are subjecting new individuals to these unpredictable and uncontrollable harms. This contingent suffering exacerbates the moral issue of procreation, as it means bringing someone into a world where their well-being can be drastically compromised by forces they cannot influence or evade.
While there are inherent goods in life, claiming that these justify causing harm oversteps a deontological point. The inherent goods can be summarized as follows:
-Physical pleasure: The simple joys of sensory experiences.
-Human or animal connections: Friendships, romance, group activities, bonding, nurturing, etc.
-Flow states: Getting "caught up" in something challenging and engaging.
-Aesthetic pleasures: Enjoying art, humor, nature, music, literature, etc.
-Learning: Gaining new concepts or skills, engaging in hobbies.
-Achievement: Accomplishing goals and feeling a sense of accomplishment.
These goods add value to life. But to assert that these goods justify the creation of life, with its inevitable suffering and harm, oversteps a fundamental deontological principle. This principle maintains that we should not unnecessarily cause harm for people (i.e don’t create circumstances of harm for someone that did not need existing harm reduced with a lesser harm)- this is regardless of potential positive outcomes. Procreation involves deciding that potential pleasure and meaning for new beings outweigh the certain suffering they will encounter, which is a significant and hubristic ethical assumption.
Humans are unique in their self-reflection. Unlike other animals that live in the moment, generally absent existential or moral considerations, humans do and can make self-consciously deliberate choices. Other animals exist within the simplicity of their instincts, unburdened by the weight of self-awareness. In contrast, humans have been metaphorically kicked out of paradise because we possess the knowledge of good and evil, the capacity for existential contemplation.
Choosing to bring someone into existence means deciding that they should live out the challenges and issues we deem meaningful. This is a profound choice, not a natural inevitability. People seek pleasure and meaning in various ways, but deciding for others what is meaningful or subjecting them to a lifetime of issues is something that is paternalistically assumed to be imposed for another.
You claim that the antinatalist is secretly religious, but even the most atheistic person promoting having kids is really the pseudo-religious because they see life as something necessary for someone to live out. Indeed the project of life becomes more important than the harms that that person would experience. It is this overlooking of suffering for the project of life that I am concerned with. It is this idea that is the crux of the dignity violation. It’s no “mere” here, it’s full stop.
There are clearly not. There are potential victims. This is why the analogy holds, for the most part. And taking this straight to your conclusion of "no playgrounds", yes, that's right, but antinatalists don't confuse the issue:
No humans. Not not playgrounds. Let the people who exist use hte playground, for reasons your point out that would make the "no playgrounds" conclusion stupid as heck. That said, it seems fairly clear that's not hte intention. THe intention is to leave the playground (world)as is, and remove the potential sufferer as it is (on this account) an unavoidable consequence of being one. We're not trying to get rid of oceans to avoid drownings - we're trying to stop people swimming where drowning is a clearly likely consequence (very shaky analogy, but there you go - can refine later if needed).
It is whether or not causing people to exist is ethical.
Yes.
But there’s no reasonable quarrel with “procreating is inflicting, and inflicting suffering because it inflicts life which is suffering?” Seems subject to scrutiny, and potentially analogous to “feeding is inflicting suffering, and opening a window to let in some fresh air is inflicting suffering”, because all of these promote life, like procreation promotes life which is suffering. I might not only have to be an antinatalist, I might have to be an anti-hydrationist, because giving a thirsty person a glass of water, is like giving birth to a new person.
And no need to consider what other things we cause by not procreating? As long as we don’t inflict suffering we will be doing good in this world, be good for this world - not arguable?
If you are (as I would put it) deluded into thinking your life is, on balance, purposeful and happy, you will reject this premise
Getting a little emotive here, which you criticized me for above. You mean, one person who would reject this would be someone satisfied with experiences of purpose and happiness instead of suffering. You can call this one person deluded. Maybe they are. But then who is anyone to judge someone else’s self delusions and their effect on the balance of their own suffering? Must we stop the delusional thoughts of others with our own better thoughts? Like the wonderful thought of antinatalism?
And why are happiness and/or purpose, as you frame the delusion, the only counters to suffering? If you are (as I would put it) deluded into thinking life is, on balance, suffering, then you would reject anyone who viewed any life as on balance, not suffering. Screw purpose. I’m enjoying just trying to argue with you here.
Maybe you are right that the suffering in life is the most arguable premise, but the other premises utterly rely on suffering and can be shown almost as anrguable even granting that life is suffering.
We're not trying to get rid of oceans to avoid drownings - we're trying to stop people swimming
Antinatalism analogized to, ironically, a life guard, keeping people out of the dangerous waters. That’s backwards. Antinatalism would eliminate the lives to guard, not merely keep lives on the land to live safely. A lifeguard would inflict a riddance of the ocean to those safely on land, not a riddance of living, like antinatalism would.
Living is simply different than suffering and cannot be summarized as only suffering.
Bottom line to me, in a raw, physicalist sense, life is prior to suffering, and life is more than this conversation about suffering and what to do about it. Procreating, consuming, growing, secreting, growing some more, always dying as newness is always born in each living moment - these are the experiences of living, not just suffering. And now life is thinking and writing or reading, not only suffering. Antinatalism isn’t just a tidy little syllogism categorized as ethics. It’s an act in the world, and an against life, which is procreative. Against suffering on paper, but inflicted upon all human life in action.
Antinatalism, might simply be something psychological, a justification for suicidal tendancy applied on a universal scale.
Mother Nature made use of suffering to fashion we species of ethical monkeys, only so that we could end the infliction of Her suffering on us and call it “good ethics.” Seems potentially delusional to have out smarted Mother Nature and her sufffering ways called “life.” With our “ethics” no less.
Then it would stand to reason you are an anti-abortionist?
That’s interesting.
Antinatalism promotes no more babies because making a baby is the infliction of suffering on that baby. No one wants to inflict suffering on a baby, because it is just wrong. If that is the right way to live, and someone gets pregnant, the pregnant couple would have done wrong and inflicted suffering on another (or be in the act of inflicting suffering on another growing into such person).
What can the antinatalist do with the new fetus? Can they abort it?
If they can abort it, it must not be a person, because I would think the rule is that it is not ethical to kill another innocent person. That’s worse than inflicting suffering.
But this is interesting. The antinataliat who doesn’t think a fetus is a person and who supports abortion would have to agree with the following: it is unethical to cause a sperm and an egg to form a fetus because that would be inflicting suffering on another person, but is it ok to kill the fetus after it is formed because a newly conceived fetus isn’t a person.
Doesn’t an antinataliat have to be an anti-abortionist to lay out a consistent treatment of future people we do not want to inflict things upon?
I might not only have to be an antinatalist, I might have to be an anti-hydrationist, because giving a thirsty person a glass of water, is like giving birth to a new person.
You still haven’t paid attention to preventative vs mitigative. One you’re already existing and now mitigation measures are appropriate. The other, you prevent the harm in the first place, as putting them in a situation in the first place which must be mitigated, is the ethical consideration in question. Hence, unique in moral choices.
Bottom line to me, in a raw, physicalist sense, life is prior to suffering, and life is more than this conversation about suffering and what to do about it. Procreating, consuming, growing, secreting, growing some more, always dying as newness is always born in each living moment - these are the experiences of living, not just suffering. And now life is thinking and writing or reading, not only suffering. Antinatalism isn’t just a tidy little syllogism categorized as ethics. It’s an act in the world, and an against life, which is procreative. Against suffering on paper, but inflicted upon all human life in action.
In existential terms this is bad faith. You are assuming the role of arbiter of life. Rather this is simply something you chose to take on, it is not some robotic imperative. We are deliberative and can choose non life by choice, so prima facie, this appeal to the species or life is a false narrative.
Mother Nature made use of suffering to fashion we species of ethical monkeys, only so that we could end the infliction of Her suffering on us and call it “good ethics.” Seems potentially delusional to have out smarted Mother Nature and her sufffering ways called “life.” With our “ethics” no less.
But ethical monkeys like us have ideas of antinatalism and choosing no suffering for others. You are anthropomorphizing nature. Nature doesn’t care whether the species dies or you or I fell off a cliff.
You still haven’t paid attention to preventative vs mitigative.
It get it, antinatalism is a preventative act in your mind. Analogies to mitigative acts don’t impress you. These distinctions don’t impress my view of antinatalism.
You still don’t pay attention to much else I’ve written as well.
Nature doesn’t care whether the species dies or you or I fell off a cliff.
Neither does nature care about any ethics at all, be it telling you to have 20 babies or 0. Neither does an unborn baby care what you inflict on it or not. Neither will anything care that there once were these ethical creatures who were so ethical they wouldn’t wantonly inflict their ethicalness on life anymore.
I disagree that life is suffering. False premise.
I disagree that procreating is an act upon a person - we don’t “inflict” anything when we participate willingly in the natural act of procreation. We aren’t acting for or against any particular human being when we procreate. The particular human being comes afterwards because life is prior to all of this ethical speak and life is prior to the harm of inflicting suffering by anyone or any process. Procreation is a choice to accept new life - not a choice to make nature do nature’s thing. Nature does the procreating - we accept it. We don’t inflict it (even in vitro).
I disagree that it is always wrong to inflict suffering on another person. Just not a solid, clear, ethical basis to wipe out procreation. Inflicting suffering can be the most ethical thing to do.
It is wrong to take what you are given and squander it, waste it, hoard it, and wrong to not share it, to not give it freely to others.
Don’t have children if you think life is so terrible that no one should be forced to exist.
Look down on people who do have children for their breaches of your ethics if you want.
But Antinatalism is unethical. It misses the point of ethics entirely, which is good human life.
Neither does nature care about any ethics at all, be it telling you to have 20 babies or 0. Neither does an unborn baby care what you inflict on it or not. Neither will anything care that there once were these ethical creatures who were so ethical they wouldn’t wantonly inflict their ethicalness on life anymore.
So again, for another time, the point is about the act of the parent, not the child. Do YOU (the potential parent) want to prevent suffering for another, if you can? It doesn't matter one wit, whether the child exists to KNOW this. It is about what YOU should do as the already existing person with the agency and means to do so.
Now, the obvious response to this is something like what you are saying here: Quoting Fire Ologist
I disagree that procreating is an act upon a person - we don’t “inflict” anything when we participate willingly in the natural act of procreation. We aren’t acting for or against any particular human being when we procreate. The particular human being comes afterwards because life is prior to all of this ethical speak and life is prior to the harm of inflicting suffering by anyone or any process. Procreation is a choice to accept new life - not a choice to make nature do nature’s thing. Nature does the procreating - we accept it. We don’t inflict it (even in vitro).
But you will "inflict" something to "someone". It again, is a bad faith argument to understand what procreation is (leads to a new person), and then say that "because we don't know the exact person who will be born, that they don't exist yet, that the act has no affect/effect to someone". That is just patently false. Any future situation by definition, doesn't occur yet, that doesn't mean people don't have agency now that would lead to various known outcomes in the future. This is just rhetorically hollow argument, and a poor one that lands flat just on the face of it based on the nature of what procreation entails, what even the concept of "future" entails, and what human agency entails.
But let's have a mind-journey here...
Me: Once born, we know that people will die. Is this acceptable?
Interlocutor: "Yes, death isn't bad in and of itself. It's the price we should pay for life".
Me: Ok, some people think this is a harm, but let's grant that this is acceptable..
Me: Once born, we are exposed to all kinds of illnesses and unfortunate circumstances including but not limited to:
Accidents, addiction, aging, allergies, Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, arthritis, asthma, bankruptcy, bereavement, betrayal, birth defects, blindness, broken bones, bullying, burns, cancer, car accidents, chronic pain, chronic illnesses, cognitive decline, crime victimization, cystic fibrosis, depression, divorce, domestic violence, drowning, eating disorders, economic hardship, environmental disasters, epilepsy, eviction, falls, family conflict, financial instability, food poisoning, fraud, genetic disorders, grief, harassment, heart disease, homelessness, hunger, hurricanes, identity theft, imprisonment, infections, infertility, influenza, insomnia, job loss, kidnapping, loneliness, loss of a loved one, malaria, malnutrition, mental illness, migraines, natural disasters, neglect, neurological disorders, obesity, pandemics, Parkinson's disease, personal injury, pest infestations, physical abuse, poverty, pregnancy complications, PTSD, racial discrimination, respiratory infections, rheumatism, robbery, schizophrenia, school shootings, self-harm, separation, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, skin diseases, social isolation, stalking, starvation, stroke, substance abuse, suicidal thoughts, terminal illness, terrorism, theft, trauma, unemployment, violence, vision loss, war, water contamination, workplace accidents, xenophobia, yeast infections, zoonotic diseases, abandonment, abduction, abuse, acid attacks, acne, ADHD, aging parents, agricultural accidents, alcohol poisoning, amputation, anorexia, anxiety disorders, aphasia, appendicitis, asbestos exposure, asthma attacks, autoimmune diseases, avalanches, bed bugs, bedwetting, binge eating, bipolar disorder, blizzards, blood disorders, broken heart, bullying at work, burnout, cancer recurrence, carbon monoxide poisoning, carpal tunnel syndrome, cataracts, child labor, chronic fatigue syndrome, cluster headaches, colon cancer, communicable diseases, concussions, congenital heart defects, contagious diseases, COPD, Crohn's disease, cyberbullying, cystitis, debt, defamation, dental problems, dermatitis, developmental disorders, discrimination, dissociative disorders, drowning incidents, dyslexia, eclampsia, elder abuse, elephantiasis, emotional abuse, embezzlement, endometriosis, environmental pollution, eviction from home, explosive accidents, extortion, eye infections, famine, family estrangement, famine, farsightedness, fecal impaction, female genital mutilation, fibromyalgia, floods, flu pandemics, food allergies, foodborne illnesses, forced displacement, foreclosure, frostbite, gambling addiction, gas leaks, gastroenteritis, gender-based violence, genocide, glaucoma, global warming, gout, hangovers, hate crimes, head injuries, hearing loss, heatstroke, heavy metal poisoning, hepatitis, heroin addiction, high blood pressure, house fires, human trafficking, hurricanes, hyperthyroidism, hypothermia, hysterectomy complications, identity crises, illiteracy, incarceration, industrial accidents, influenza outbreaks, insect bites, interstitial cystitis, involuntary unemployment, irritable bowel syndrome, jaundice, jet lag, joint dislocations, judicial errors, kidney disease, landslides, language barriers, lead poisoning, leukemia, lice infestations, liver disease, lupus, Lyme disease, macular degeneration, malaria outbreaks, marital problems, measles, meningitis, meningococcal disease, mental breakdowns, migraines, mining accidents, miscarriage, mood disorders, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, narcissistic abuse, narcolepsy, neck injuries, neurodegenerative diseases, neurofibromatosis, neuropathy, obesity-related complications, occupational hazards, obsessive-compulsive disorder, organ failure, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, pancreatitis, panic attacks, paraplegia, parental neglect, parasitic infections, peptic ulcers, peripheral artery disease, pesticide exposure, phobias, physical deformities, pink eye, plagiarism, pneumonia, police brutality, post-natal depression, premature birth, prostate cancer, psoriasis, psychosis, radiation exposure, radon poisoning, rape, respiratory failure, restless leg syndrome, retaliation, rickets, road rage incidents, roof collapses, salmonella poisoning, sanctions, SARS, scabies, schizophrenia episodes, scoliosis, seasonal affective disorder, seizures, septicemia, severe weather conditions, sexual exploitation, shingles, sinkholes, skin cancer, sleep apnea, sleep deprivation, smoking addiction, social anxiety disorder, soil erosion, speech disorders, spinal cord injuries, stalking incidents, stillbirth, stomach cancer, stress, stroke recovery, sudden infant death syndrome, suicidal ideation, surgical complications, swine flu, tax evasion charges, terrorism threats, thyroid cancer, ticks, tornadoes, toxic relationships, traffic congestion, trafficking in persons, transphobia, traumatic brain injuries, trench foot, tuberculosis, typhoid fever, ulcers, underemployment, unemployment, urban decay, uterine cancer, vandalism, vehicle theft, venomous bites, viral infections, volcanic eruptions, war injuries, wasting syndrome, water scarcity, whiplash, whooping cough, wildfires, withdrawal symptoms, workplace harassment, workplace stress, worms, wrist injuries, wrongful accusations, wrongful death, yellow fever, zoonotic infections, noise pollution, office politics, unreasonable bosses, misunderstandings, broken friendships, peer pressure, unrealistic societal expectations, cultural alienation, discrimination, traffic accidents, loneliness in a crowd, missed opportunities, creative blocks, existential crises, dealing with bureaucracy, feeling unfulfilled, high cost of living, technology failures, power outages, scarcity of resources, environmental degradation, emotional exhaustion, systemic corruption, loss of cultural heritage, internet addiction, digital divide, cyberattacks, data breaches, peer rejection, public speaking anxiety, negative body image, climate anxiety, overwork, burnout, imposter syndrome, midlife crisis, family obligations, cultural expectations, aging infrastructure, housing shortages, inaccessible healthcare, poor work-life balance, stigma of illness, fear of aging, generational conflict, substance dependencies, cyberstalking, deforestation, plastic pollution, extreme weather, droughts, heatwaves, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, social media harassment, self-esteem issues, fear of failure, infertility treatments, invasive medical procedures, chronic stress, overpopulation, resource wars, political instability, societal unrest, ideological conflicts, legal battles, copyright infringement, loss of reputation, deteriorating mental health, peer pressure, unfulfilled potential, financial scams, ergonomic injuries, urban sprawl, toxic friendships, loss of tradition, dealing with dementia in family members, balancing career and family, navigating personal identity, confronting mortality, technological obsolescence, scarcity of natural resources, global economic shifts, cultural misappropriation, fear of public places, imposter syndrome, financial market crashes, fear of flying, language extinction, misinformation, corporate espionage, loss of biodiversity, noise pollution, space junk, invasive species, soil depletion, and burnout.
Now, you may say that this is contingent and we don't know what people will really endure. And I would say, that i correct, and why I would call them "contingent/circumstantial harms". And thus, the beginning of this particular argument was showing that the Veil of Ignorance applies here, because (contra other posters here like TClark), we do not have even imperfect knowledge of what types and degrees of harms people will endure once born.
Then you will tell me, "No we do know to some degree the amount of harms, based on what we've experienced". But then, I would say the crux of the issue regarding dignity pops up. That is to say, what are you willing to allow another person to be exposed to in your pursuit of X? In this case, it looks like your X is an impersonal idea of "Life" or "Mother Nature". None of these things are entities that deserve the category of ethical consideration. The only people that matter are the people that might be born who will be affected. Those are the loci of actual pain and suffering.
Then you can tell me that the "goods" outweigh the pain.. That "Mother Nature" and "Life" deserves such-and-such. Besides being an impersonal concept, and thus a category error for ethical consideration that deserves absolutely nothing, being "deserves" doesn't even apply to such impersonal concepts.. We have to understand what it is about suffering that makes it weighted as more important to prevent than promoting-good/happiness. This goes to the notion of aggressive paternalism.
Don’t have children if you think life is so terrible that no one should be forced to exist.
Look down on people who do have children for their breaches of your ethics if you want.
Acknowledging that people have a right to their own estimation of things...
It is not just/fair to estimate for others, a whole lifetime of what various harms and suffering is acceptable. In fact, not considering suffering when they are not in a scenario where they need help (already exist), is purely using someone, because precisely because that person doesn't exist yet, any move to create that person, would always be one whereby one is inflicting that suffering upon them when it did not need to be inflicted so. Thus it is always the case that this is using someone as a means.
Adding Benatar's asymmetry (reformulated and tweaked a bit), this is no debate.
Preventing procreation prevents suffering and happiness. Preventing suffering is the obligation, preventing happiness matters not. And no "thing" will cry over spilt milk, not Mother Nature, not Life.
It is aggressively paternalistic to assume that your unhappiness for other people not experiencing X positive value, is the reason why people should thus suffer. And as I explained, certainly, Mother Nature and Life, abstract and reified ideas, have no say in the matter.
So again, for another time, the point is about the act of the parent, not the child. Do YOU (the potential parent) want to prevent suffering for another, if you can?
Wrong. YOU are still talking about the child too. You should be saying something like this: Do you, the potential parent want to be a person who inflicts suffering, do you want to walk around being an unethical person who inflicts suffering, or do you want to be be ethical? Takes the child out of the equation. If it’s not about the child then it is not about preventing suffering “for another”.
You can’t make your arguments without committing the same error you accuse me of making.
It’s not an error. You need two existing subjects before you can judge the actions of one upon the other as ethical or not. The best you can say is the present world would be a better place if it was filled with people who acted according to principle and and acted according to ethical principle. If one of those principles happens to mean all people will cease to exist, the world is still better today because all of us principled antinatalists inhabit it.
That’s your argument. But you said “for another” anyway.
Almost as hollow as thinking we humans, the sole source of ethics, came to be this way by a natural process that was unethical all along.
Don’t you think there is as long a list of great things that happen to people as your laundry list of dirty laundry? You need the clean clothes first before you can get stuck with the dirty laundry. You need life first, apart from suffering, free from suffering, to later suffer anything.
what are you willing to allow another person to be exposed to in your pursuit of X? "
What are you willing to take away from another person in your pursuit of your ethical ideals? Take away parenting? Take away loving your children. Take away pride in how those children endure and learn from suffering and are charitable with their sacrifices?
Life does include suffering. Everyday to some extent, for everyone and every creature who lives, there is suffering.
I also don’t want to inflict any more suffering on anyone to make matters worse for them.
But, what is the point of being ethical when being ethical means there will no longer be beings being ethical?
Antinatalism is anti-ethics.
Which is why earlier I said antinatalism puts ethical principals above the people who are being ethical, and does so having the effect of there no longer being any people. So what is the point of being ethical when ethics itself is being used to destroy is, to harm the species, to inflict upon the world a world without any ethics (without people)?
It’s all backwards and confused. Like murdering someone for their own good.
You claim that the antinatalist is secretly religious...
No, I am saying that antinatalism is non-naturalistic. I wrote out responses to all of your claims, but then I shelved that post because it was so long. Instead I focused on the simple argument (Reply to Leontiskos) and the foundational Gnosticism (Reply to Leontiskos).
Regarding the simple argument, I will ask you a simple question: Is it true that we should not procreate in a world where everyone receives one pinprick of pain followed by 80 years of pure happiness? Yes or no? Presumably some have ambitions of achieving such a world someday.
Here is an easier way to envision the foundational Gnosticism problem. The evolutionary naturalist says:
Reasoning, including moral reasoning, is a result of evolutionary adaptation
Evolutionary adaptation is ordered to survival
Therefore, moral reasoning is ordered to survival
The argument which says we should cease procreating would lead to extinction
Therefore this argument is unsound; contrary to evolutionary adaptation ordered to survival
This argument is a microcosm of the anti-Gnosticism argument, for the Gnostic must reject naturalistic premises akin to (1). For the naturalist, antinatalism is by definition irrational, as it is directly contrary to nature. Your arguments are all dubious, but one of the fundamental reasons they are all dubious is because you are essentially importing knowledge from a different "god," a god that is foreign to our nature, culture, religions, etc. In denying moral naturalism you must necessarily be appealing to some form of supernaturalism. Think of it in terms of the microcosm: if your ethic is directly contrary to evolutionary survival, then it must be coming from something above and beyond evolutionary survival.
Wrong. YOU are still talking about the child too. You should be saying something like this: Do you, the potential parent want to be a person who inflicts suffering, do you want to walk around being an unethical person who inflicts suffering, or do you want to be be ethical? Takes the child out of the equation. If it’s not about the child then it is not about preventing suffering “for another”.
Don't look now, but you are making my arguments...
Yeah reformulate it to take the child out of the equation. It's about the parent.
However, I am not opposed to talking in "potentials" or "future children". What I AM opposed to is talking AS IF the future child will feel "deprived" of not existing. So I think it's fine to say, "You can prevent future suffering", because it is the NOT SUFFERING that matters. That someone DOES NOT exist to suffer is the ethically good outcome. That someone DOES NOT EXIST TO BE HAPPY matters not one wit..
Almost as hollow as thinking we humans, the sole source of ethics, came to be this way by a natural process that was unethical all along.
Again, category error to input ANY ethical thing to nature. Humans are too plastic for this kind of thinking. Did nature intend us to have computers? No, nature intended nothing. Nature has nothing to say on nothing. Once you have degrees of freedom of deliberation, it is up to us to figure shit out and not go bad faith and say, "What did nature want?". As nature a) isn't something that can confer morality and b) nature doesn't tell us about morality. And any use of "appeal to nature" can be to justify anything because we are brutes and we do ethical things as well.. it is up to us to deliberate on what to sus out as the correct view and action. There is nothing to fall back on. Even if we did, it would be your interpretation of it. Or at best using descriptive ethics to justify normative ethics.
Don’t you think there is as long a list of great things that happen to people as your laundry list of dirty laundry? You need the clean clothes first before you can get stuck with the dirty laundry. You need life first, apart from suffering, free from suffering, to later suffer anything.
And that is my point, when not under mitigating circumstances, but preventative choices, mitigating circumstances don't matter. If you allow/inflict/not prevent suffering even with the intent on someone enjoying the good, but knowing you are allowing the bad, that doesn't mean that there wasn't a violation. Causing suffering that was not necessary to cause because you have an agenda is the height of paternalism and means-using.
What are you willing to take away from another person in your pursuit of your ethical ideals? Take away parenting? Take away loving your children. Take away pride in how those children endure and learn from suffering and are charitable with their sacrifices?
None of these things are ethical. In Kantian terms, they are simply "inclinations" or ends that people might want to pursue. They aren't moral onto themselves like suffering prevention is.
But, what is the point of being ethical when being ethical means there will no longer be beings being ethical?
Because ethics is around because there are humans around, humans aren't around to keep ethics going, for the nth time. In fact, it would be immoral to keep people around to keep some ethical framework going, as that is exactly the reason it is unethical in the first place- it is discounting the causation of someone else's lifetime of suffering for the promotion of some X ethical project that you conceive of!
It’s all backwards and confused. Like murdering someone for their own good.
Actually, quite the opposite. Death comes from being born in the first place. All the sufferings of life, including being murdered come from one's choice to overlook suffering for one's project. And since no one is exists to feel the "deprivation" of good, go back to the spilt milk argument. Quoting Leontiskos
Regarding the simple argument, I will ask you a simple question: Is it true that we should not procreate in a world where everyone receives one pinprick of pain followed by 80 years of pure happiness? Yes or no? Presumably some have ambitions of achieving such a world someday.
And I gave you my answer....
Also, about "someday", I wouldn't make people in the meantime become grist for this goal.
Reasoning, including moral reasoning, is a result of evolutionary adaptation
This is not fact. Moral reasoning isn't necessarily evolved for from evolutionary reasons, but could be a secondary byproduct of other reasons. I do know that whole fields like evolutionary psychology exist, but it's often contested certain methodologies being it's near impossible to know the original environment conditions of our ancestors, and what particular traits were evolved for versus simply having large brains with a degree of plasticity. For examples, presumably making computers wasn't "evolved for", but perhaps basic numeracy was. It would be bad faith arguing to presume you are going to get from basic structures to complex ones without it being a "just so" story. And spare me any articles, I understand that these theories exist.. Doesn't mean they are hard facts.
Evolutionary adaptation isn't "ordered" per se, but rather, is a shotgun approach of genetic variation against environmental factors. It prunes away variations not fit for the environment reproduction. The order is simply our way of organizing the "real time" of this happening in nature. The "order" is not like some "logos", just how we humans are understanding the variations that cause change in species fitting into environmental niches.
Again, not necessarily the case. Moral reasoning might be even a more modern thing really. It could have been traditional understanding based on tribal traditions. I wouldn't call that reasoning as an appeal to tradition. For example, let us say there is a culture with a history of some heinous act, but the heinous act allowed them to survive. I wouldn't say this is "moral reasoning". There are blood feuds and slavery and honor killings, and all such things that have kept people in line. This doesn't mean it's moral. There may be stuff that helped to survive that is actually immoral.
The argument which says we should cease procreating would lead to extinction
Therefore this argument is unsound; contrary to evolutionary adaptation ordered to survival
This is the same problem as Fire Ologist. Evolution has nothing to say about morality, and anything we glean from it is from post-facto reasoning, not because it is inbuilt. It is cultural, personal, existential, but not necessarily instinctual. There can arguments that basic empathy and fairness are seen in small children, but this is so general as to not be an actual ethical basis. I can say it is compassionate and fair to not procreate, and it just took being an adult with a certain amount of reasoning abilities to understand this, using my "evolutionary" traits of compassion and fairness.
This argument is a microcosm of the anti-Gnosticism argument, for the Gnostic must reject naturalistic premises akin to (1). For the naturalist, antinatalism is by definition irrational, as it is directly contrary to nature. Your arguments are all dubious, but one of the fundamental reasons they are all dubious is because you are essentially importing knowledge from a different "god," a god that is foreign to our nature, culture, religions, etc. In denying moral naturalism you must necessarily be appealing to some form of supernaturalism. Think of it in terms of the microcosm: if your ethic is directly contrary to evolutionary survival, then it must be coming from something above and beyond evolutionary survival.
Again, as far as I am willing to entertain Gnosticism, it is as a metaphor that existence has some inherent suffering aspects to it merely by being something with becoming and is not fully being. I can go into it more, but it would be Schopenhauer's idea of boredom being a sort of proof of the negative nature of happiness, as a repose rather than something that actually satiates. It is the treadmill rather than the peace of fully being.. Schopenhauer might say that "higher realm" is some sort of non-willing peacefulness of nirvana. I don't necessarily believe that is possible. @Wayfarer has called this belief "nihilistic" because there is no soteriology whereby one can escape the cycle of suffering.
Let me bring you through a series of questions:
What are you intending a new person born to get out of life? Why must there be someone versus no one that isn't selfish from the start (remember, no person exists prior to you to care)?
Once born, let's say the thing you envision is some sort of happiness conceived of in whatever way (religious, social, personal, hedonistic, virtue, etc.). What if they fail on most of those ways?
If your answer is that "They just have to figure out a better way".. how is this not paternalistically assuming that people "must do" this project that you had for them? It's forcing a set of (de facto) choices that these new people will have to pursue. Once "in the game", there is no way out of having to make these choices, and sometimes they lead to no good outcome for the player. It is then quite gaslighting to blame the player for not following the plan well enough the way you want it, or to say that it didn't work out in their favor, or to say if they "just did this or they would be better". I can't emphasize enough the kind of hubristic paternalism necessary in deciding for another that this project is what needs to be played out be a person that is someone that is not you simply because you have the power to create that person.
In denying moral naturalism you must necessarily be appealing to some form of supernaturalism. Think of it in terms of the microcosm: if your ethic is directly contrary to evolutionary survival, then it must be coming from something above and beyond evolutionary survival.
Interesting point.
An attack from a different flank.
I’ve been pointing out that if the ethic was indeed a product of nature, it would be nature developing an ethic that led to the demise of all ethic agents and so the demise of ethics itself; the ethic that was naturally born would then have to turn and destroy itself to be an antinatalist ethic. I’ve been trying to show it is internally self-defeating - living things using their lives to end living things that use their lives ethically.
But destroying itself is not what life naturally does. It’s just the opposite. Living things may devour their surroundings and destroy things, but life does so to live and to endure destructive forces from outside nature.
This all just further supports your argument that antinatalism is not natural.
That someone DOES NOT exist to suffer is the ethically good outcome.
This is two parts: 1. That SOMEONE does not exist. And 2. “Exist to suffer”.
You are talking about the child as if actual, not potential. You did a much worse job of making this about the parent. The ethically good outcome has to be about the parent, the ethical person acting ethically. Not someone else. Be they “not exist” as a potential child or “exist to suffer” as an actual child.
Again, category error to input ANY ethical thing to nature. Humans are too plastic for this kind of thinking. Did nature intend us to have computers? No, nature intended nothing. Nature has nothing to say on nothing. Once you have degrees of freedom of deliberation, it is up to us to figure shit out and not go bad faith and say, "What did nature want?". As nature a) isn't something that can confer morality and b) nature doesn't tell us about morality. And any use of "appeal to nature" can be to justify anything because we are brutes and we do ethical things as well.. it is up to us to deliberate on what to sus out as the correct view and action. There is nothing to fall back on. Even if we did, it would be your interpretation of it. Or at best using descriptive ethics to justify normative ethics.
Don’t really need to reply here. I’m not talking about nature like it’s intentional. It’s causal. Mother Nature is a metaphor for causality, or natural necessity. Like a biological function. Like procreation. Like, in the case of humans, ethics. Ethics came from humans and humans came from natural processes so ethics sits directly in nature in us humans. Antinatalism would be nature’s human ethics that requires by natural necessity humans unnaturally stop procreation, which ends the ethics that sits only in humans which formerly sat in nature. Total mess.
They aren't moral onto themselves like suffering prevention is.
Suffering prevention. Is this the highest ethic, the only ethic, a foundational ethic to all that are built on it? Or just another ethic where someone might hold some other ethic higher while keeping suffering prevention close, just not central?
I think you have to say it is up there pretty close to your highest ethic. All other ethics might add some suffering to the world.
Antinatalism sort of is a one size solution fits all human immorality solution.
And I know you don’t care about this but it means ethics is as meaningless as your suffering, your life, and your precious preventative sentiments. Why be ethical? It’s a different question, but antinatalism does not promote a good sense of meaning and purpose behind being ethical. It rids the world of the life out in place that would do the preventing of procreation.
What are you intending a new person born to get out of life?
Who knows? No one can influence what a person gets for themselves out of this life. That’s up to them to get out of it what they can. To the ones who are born to us we can only give them things out of life - it is up to them and their intentions to take these and get things out of life. All we can intend is the same thing we can physically provide - an opportunity. It’s called procreation.
There’s nothing paternalistic by banning all babies? It is an ironic use of the term “paternal” but “thou shalt prevent suffering and never have children.” Just as wide open to derision for “paternalism”.
Antinatalism promotes no more babies because making a baby is the infliction of suffering on that baby. No one wants to inflict suffering on a baby, because it is just wrong. If that is the right way to live, and someone gets pregnant, the pregnant couple would have done wrong and inflicted suffering on another (or be in the act of inflicting suffering on another growing into such person).
What can the antinatalist do with the new fetus? Can they abort it?
If they can abort it, it must not be a person, because I would think the rule is that it is not ethical to kill another innocent person. That’s worse than inflicting suffering.
But this is interesting. The antinataliat who doesn’t think a fetus is a person and who supports abortion would have to agree with the following: [b]it is unethical to cause a sperm and an egg to form a fetus because that would be inflicting suffering on another person, but is it ok to kill the fetus after it is formed because a newly conceived fetus isn’t a person.
Doesn’t an antinataliat have to be an anti-abortionist to lay out a consistent treatment of future people we do not want to inflict things upon?[/b]
I don't see this as a knock on his position. Birth control isn't natural, but it's not immoral.
It’s a more clear blow than my same point about it being unnatural. It just means you can’t be a naturalist if you want to be an antinatalist. You couldn’t have drawn the ethic from nature. Some other influence, like a god as an easy example whispered “no more babies lest you cause all their suffering.” If the antinatalist doesnt want to have a deity, fine then - but where did they get the idea of a universal morality that wipes out procreation was a good?
I still say it makes no sense to prevent suffering in another by eliminating the other (through never making the other). You never have the prevention if you never have the other to prevent from something.
This is two parts: 1. That SOMEONE does not exist. And 2. “Exist to suffer”.
You are talking about the child as if actual, not potential. You did a much worse job of making this about the parent. The ethically good outcome has to be about the parent, the ethical person acting ethically. Not someone else. Be they “not exist” as a potential child or “exist to suffer” as an actual child.
No. Again, it IS from the perspective of the parent. You CAN project onto the future and see hypotheticals. Someone DID NOT SUFFER (that could have). There is no actual "someone", but from the perspective of the parent, this prevention was what was the ethical decision, and being a negative ethic, it is good that it DID NOT occur. And again, the ethic, being a negative ethic, was about NOT allowing the suffering. The asymmetry is when you project to the other way, "Happiness did NOT occur". This is not a violation; it's not obligatory to promote happiness, only prevent the situation where an ACTUAL someone would suffer. The ACTUAL someone did not suffer. Violation did not take place.
As an aside, you can certainly disagree with the formulation and reformulate it. That is fine. The nature of the ethic doesn't change, just the language used for hypothetical scenarios. But oddly enough, however you formulate the language, we actually agree it is from the perspective of the person making the decision.
Don’t really need to reply here. I’m not talking about nature like it’s intentional. It’s causal. Mother Nature is a metaphor for causality, or natural necessity. Like a biological function. Like procreation. Like, in the case of humans, ethics. Ethics came from humans and humans came from natural processes so ethics sits directly in nature in us humans. Antinatalism would be nature’s human ethics that requires by natural necessity humans unnaturally stop procreation, which ends the ethics that sits only in humans which formerly sat in nature. Total mess.
Natural necessity? This is all bad faith arguing. You are arguing as if humans cannot deliberate for themselves, or that there are directives from nature that force us to decide a certain way. Calling your argument by another name "causality/natural necessity", doesn't change the incoherent nature of the argument, thus everything imputed on your idea of "Mother Nature" remains for this new term, that also matters not to moral decisions. There is no logos, no natural necessity to fall back on.
Suffering prevention. Is this the highest ethic, the only ethic, a foundational ethic to all that are built on it? Or just another ethic where someone might hold some other ethic higher while keeping suffering prevention close, just not central?
I think you have to say it is up there pretty close to your highest ethic. All other ethics might add some suffering to the world.
Antinatalism sort of is a one size solution fits all human immorality solution.
Indeed negative ethics, like not violating rights, or making people suffer unduly, would be pretty high up there, yes. The basis could be several things, but it is based on a deontology of not using people in this case. YOUR positive projects shouldn't be at the behest of SOMEONE ELSE'S negative violation. The right not to be used/rights violated/negative ethics violated is above someone else's notion of what is best to occur in the world.
And I know you don’t care about this but it means ethics is as meaningless as your suffering, your life, and your precious preventative sentiments. Why be ethical? It’s a different question, but antinatalism does not promote a good sense of meaning and purpose behind being ethical. It rids the world of the life out in place that would do the preventing of procreation.
No, I am not sure why this phrase or concept is so puzzling to you. Let's say instead of ethics, it was "Make plastic". Would it make sense that humans need to be around so plastic exists? That makes no sense. Nothing "needs to be around", including ethics. It's a byproduct of what humans face when making decisions. If there is no potential for ethical considerations (like procreation, murder, theft, etc.) to exist, then there are no need for ethics. It's not much more complicated than that.
Who knows? No one can influence what a person gets for themselves out of this life. That’s up to them to get out of it what they can. To the ones who are born to us we can only give them things out of life - it is up to them and their intentions to take these and get things out of life. All we can intend is the same thing we can physically provide - an opportunity. It’s called procreation.
Right..so this speaks to exactly my point about the intent versus reality, Veil of Ignorance, and creating projects for someone else. I know you don't see anything wrong here, and that is part of our miscommunication/disagreement. I at least want you to understand where the disagreement is, even if you disagree. I don't know if you see it here with your answers to these questions..
There’s nothing paternalistic by banning all babies? It is an ironic use of the term “paternal” but “thou shalt prevent suffering and never have children.” Just as wide open to derision for “paternalism”.
No, that would mean all ethics that say "Don't do X" is paternalistic. That would be absurd as any action that is an "ought" would be this, and we would be abusing language. "Don't murder" is not paternalistic. Rather, unlike the antinatalist ethic, which PREVENTS a paternalistic scenario from happening, procreation WILL cause another person to be affected, to be born for X reason/project. THAT is paternalistic to think another person should be allowed to suffer because you have a notion of X. No one is affected by anything by not procreating/antinatalist argument. So by definition and applying it to the outcome, antinatalism cannot be paternalistic like procreation would indeed be. Also, being that almost no antinatalist philosophies entail being "forced" to not have children, but rather provide an ethical reason not to, there is no problem here either. The person can freely choose what they think is right.
But this is interesting. The antinataliat who doesn’t think a fetus is a person and who supports abortion would have to agree with the following: it is unethical to cause a sperm and an egg to form a fetus because that would be inflicting suffering on another person, but is it ok to kill the fetus after it is formed because a newly conceived fetus isn’t a person.
Doesn’t an antinataliat have to be an anti-abortionist to lay out a consistent treatment of future people we do not want to inflict things upon?
I didn't answer because it's a non-sequitur. This isn't a debate about abortion. An antinatalist is not entailed to believe anything regarding abortion, but certainly, one who believes that the fetus (qualified perhaps by a certain time period of gestation), is not a person yet, would think that abortion is permissible.
I didn't answer because it's a non-sequitur. This isn't a debate about abortion. An antinatalist is not entailed to believe anything regarding abortion, but certainly, one who believes that the fetus (qualified perhaps by a certain time period of gestation), is not a person yet, would think that abortion is permissible.
So an antinatalist can say it is impermissible to procreate, to create a new fetus, in order to prevent suffering, but it is ok to kill a human fetus.
I didn't read entire thread and don't know if this was discussed already but isn't anti-natalism perfect solution to overpopulation?
It's not new that overpopulation is a problem, and killing off billions of people is unacceptable, but Anti-natalism would solve that problem in only 50 years without anyone suffering.
I didn't read entire thread and don't know if this was discussed already but isn't anti-natalism perfect solution to overpopulation?
It's not new that overpopulation is a problem, and killing off billions of people is unacceptable, but Anti-natalism would solve that problem in only 50 years without anyone suffering.
Antinatalism can take many forms, but most antinatalism is not about preventing various environmental or population outcomes but due to not wanting to allow suffering for a future person. Indeed, a result would be a reduced people born, which would in fact reduce the population, but that is generally not the position of most philanthropic or misanthropic antinatalists. Once the population levels off to a "correct" level, the environmental/population "antinatalist" would no longer be so, and thus was a contingent natalist, really.
Interestingly, in the US, countries in Western Europe, Japan, Korea, Russia, and even China (even AFTER the one child policy restrictions) the population has gone to below replacement levels which makes economists and social conservatives uneasy. They need little units of labor to keep the pyramid scheme going, and this "lower than replacement level" gives them pause for alarm. Here are some recent stories on this:
Now I'd love to think this worldwide decline in fertility rate is because everyone realizes that bringing more people into the world means bringing more suffering into the world, and they want to prevent this in a noble ethical way, as good antinatalists.. But that is not the reason. The reason of course is mainly due to the fact that the more educated a population, and higher the standard of living, the harder it is to raise a child. People also end up living more individualistic lifestyles that tend to skew child-free over family-type living. So it is more about lifestyle choice, the cost of raising a child, and a more individualistic, less traditional view of goals in life.
Of course in poorer, less educated (for women especially), and more traditional societies like the Middle East, parts of South America, Africa, and Asia, the fertility rate is still fairly high and so in those areas you will continue to see growth, and the overall growth will continue being that there's simply more people on the planet in general, but it will slow.
Either way, no, population decline is generally not the goal of antinatalists. Since population reduction is context dependent (as presumably it would be permissible to have children again once sustainable levels are reached) we maybe can call it "context-dependent antinatalism". I guess in theory as well, "misanthropic" antinatalism falls under this (rather than philanthropic ... or "to prevent suffering").. That is to say, people think that humans are ruining the environment, other animals, habitats, and the current living conditions and thus need to stop breeding until such time as these recover. Usually these people are simply for fewer children, not absolutely no children.
Reply to schopenhauer1
Well said, I have no counter arguments but will add to your comment that using this kind of antinatalism to reduce population would also create economic issues.
Most likely various adversary countries would see it (or already see it) as opportunity to expand population by settling low fertility areas or areas that would introduce such antinatalism.
Suffering itself involves emotions, physical states and psychological reactions to those states, so bringing emotion into it isn’t a non-sequitor.
This is true, but where we are dealing with non-existent people this is not relevant other than to assign a position to oneself as a result of their emotional reaction to whatever proposition..
But in all of the above scenarios, in your quote, there are already existing victims of the harm.
There are clearly not. There are potential victims. This is why the analogy holds, for the most part. And taking this straight to your conclusion of "no playgrounds", yes, that's right, but antinatalists don't confuse the issue:
No humans. Not not playgrounds. Let the people who exist use hte playground, for reasons your point out that would make the "no playgrounds" conclusion stupid as heck. That said, it seems fairly clear that's not hte intention. THe intention is to leave the playground (world)as is, and remove the potential sufferer as it is (on this account) an unavoidable consequence of being one.
I might not only have to be an antinatalist, I might have to be an anti-hydrationist, because giving a thirsty person a glass of water, is like giving birth to a new person.
While i understand the avenue you're taking here, it's not apt.
Procreating is not analogous to maintainence of life. If someone is alive, there's a consequence to doing nothing. Not so around procreation. There is a neutral, or a positive (i.e nothing, or a new person (capable of suffering)).
And no need to consider what other things we cause by not procreating? As long as we don’t inflict suffering we will be doing good in this world, be good for this world - not arguable?
No. This isn't relevant in any way. We're starting at zero. If the position is that people must procreate I can only laugh. I don't see another conclusion there, if you want to establish a 'wrong' in not procreating.
Getting a little emotive here, which you criticized me for above.
Not at all. I would guess if it's making you uncomfortable, i could repeat those comments :P
The point here, is that most people are "wrong" about hte quality of their life. Do you seriously think that isn't a reasonable inference, ignoring emotionality?
And why are happiness and/or purpose, as you frame the delusion, the only counters to suffering? If you are (as I would put it) deluded into thinking life is, on balance, suffering, then you would reject anyone who viewed any life as on balance, not suffering. Screw purpose. I’m enjoying just trying to argue with you here.
Here's some meat. IFF I am deluded in that way, then yes I would. I, currently, have zero reason to think so and plenty of good reason to think the opposite. I can note all the happiness and purpose in my life without having to ignore what I think is a good, logical conclusion about my life. It is, overall, a waste of time.
Antinatalism analogized to, ironically, a life guard, keeping people out of the dangerous waters. That’s backwards. Antinatalism would eliminate the lives to guard, not merely keep lives on the land to live safely. A lifeguard would inflict a riddance of the ocean to those safely on land, not a riddance of living, like antinatalism would.
That is not the analogy at all. The analogy would be to God if anything. God removing people because they suffer too much in the face of his arguably more important creation - the Ocean. But this is a little silly. An Antinatalist would call both analogies dumb and just say "Why can't you take the metaphor as the metaphor instead of reading other things into it?"
Antinatalism isn’t just a tidy little syllogism categorized as ethics. It’s an act in the world, and an against life, which is procreative. Against suffering on paper, but inflicted upon all human life in action.
I really don't know what you could mean here. Life is plenty of things - overwhelmingly: suffering. It is not right to procreate in the face of that fact (on my account). It goes no deeper than that. All of the other fluff obviously exists. It has nothing to do with the arguments, as i see them.
Mother Nature made use of suffering to fashion we species of ethical monkeys, only so that we could end the infliction of Her suffering on us and call it “good ethics.” Seems potentially delusional to have out smarted Mother Nature and her sufffering ways called “life.” With our “ethics” no less.
This anthropomorphizing of nature seems delusional to me. I'm unsure how to approach it, given that take. There is no 'intention' behind nature. We're not acting 'against' anything by not having children. We have a choice, and to me, it's a clear one. To you, either not so, or the 'other' choice.
What can the antinatalist do with the new fetus? Can they abort it?
If they can abort it, it must not be a person, because I would think the rule is that it is not ethical to kill another innocent person. That’s worse than inflicting suffering.
This is very interesting and you've picked up on a couple of conceptual issues that I think probably sort of float around among antinatalists without any real answers. For me, the antinatalist can abort. Should abort. But this is in line with most other reasonable takes on abortion: Up to a point. I'm not willing to commit to a timeframe, but its obvious at some stage a fetus can 'experience' and prior to that, go for gold.
The antinataliat who doesn’t think a fetus is a person and who supports abortion would have to agree with the following: it is unethical to cause a sperm and an egg to form a fetus because that would be inflicting suffering on another person, but is it ok to kill the fetus after it is formed because a newly conceived fetus isn’t a person.
Doesn’t an antinataliat have to be an anti-abortionist to lay out a consistent treatment of future people we do not want to inflict things upon?
Few points here:
1. They would not have to agree. A zygote is not a person. The coming together of a sperm and an egg is not what leads to suffering. Though, most antinatalists probably would recommnd avoiding this.
2. To - some - degree, i get what you're saying. But 'future people' is a bit ambiguous here. A fetus which could survive outside the womb is probably already a person. Prior to that, you're still int he realm of "whether or not" in terms of making a choice, to my mind.
This anthropomorphizing of nature seems delusional
Really? You don’t use metaphors to make the text more interesting? Ok if you think that’s “delusional” of me how about simply:
Arising by the necessity of chemistry on earth, life began. This led to animals, which by the natural necessity of evolution led to animals on land, which by necessity led to humans, which by necessity led to logic and ethics, which by necessity led to antinatalism, which, if practiced well, necessarily leads to the end of all of this living necessity (at least of the ethical kind). The natural evolution of ethics in the world was necessary so that ethics could be ended by these ethical animals.
Basically, all the rest of the living things by necessity procreate, as procreation is part of the very life that has now spit out ethics, and our ethics is to end life itself, unlike every other natural, necessitated living thing. Seems like natural necessity gone astray because of our “ethics”. Or, justQuoting AmadeusD
overwhelmingly: suffering.
seems like it’s based on a preoccupation with suffering too much maybe?
The analogy would be to God if anything. God removing people because they suffer too much in the face of his arguably more important creation - the Ocean.
most people are "wrong" about hte quality of their life.
Wow. Philosopher king hath spoken to the little suffering people. Is anyone ever “wrong” when they judge what is right or wrong about the quality of OTHER PEOPLE’s lives? Maybe wrong anbout some of the “most people”? Isn’t it THEIR lives? It’s none of my business to say your life is suffering, just like it’s none of your business to say my life is anything. Maybe “most antinataliats are wrong about the quality of their lives.” Possible? Killing off all procreation might be a little rash?
The coming together of a sperm and an egg is not what leads to suffering. Though, most antinatalists probably would recommnd avoiding this.
So by procreation, you have to mean conceiving, growing the fetus, giving birth and feeding/caring for a new person. So it is wrong to “procreate” in this sense because only after some or all of these steps has suffering been inflicted on a person. Not just conception. This way, conceiving a fetus isn’t yet procreating, and we can kill the fetus if we want, without inflicting suffering. But then, a man could have sex and conceive many fetuses and never brake the rule of antinatalism. It is only the woman alone who can complete the steps it takes to inflict the suffering of procreation. The man inflicts a fetus that can be killed on a woman (or maybe inflicts is harsh, but antinatalists know how to read “inflicts” between the lines), but only the woman chooses not to kill it and inflicts suffering on a new person, eventually. Right? To be consistent with the notion procreation inflicts suffering, much harder for men to break the antinatalist rules? If ever?
Arising by the necessity of chemistry on earth, life began. This led to animals, which by the natural necessity of evolution led to animals on land, which by necessity led to humans, which by necessity led to logic and ethics, which by necessity led to antinatalism, which, if practiced well, necessarily leads to the end of all of this living necessity (at least of the ethical kind). The natural evolution of ethics in the world was necessary so that ethics could be ended by these ethical animals.
Basically, all the rest of the living things by necessity procreate, as procreation is part of the very life that has now spit out ethics, and our ethics is to end life itself, unlike every other natural, necessitated living thing. Seems like natural necessity gone astray because of our “ethics”. Or, just
Don't know what the other person would say, but your use of "necessity" here is the problem. Necessity is being used in some ethical fashion. We aren't "necessitated" in an ethical way by any natural logos or impulse. Meta-ethically, we at least act as if we have the freedom of deliberation, so I am not sure your point. We have no fidelity to "evolution", "the chemistry on earth" or anything else. That is a weird reification to me.
Maybe wrong anbout some of the “most people”? Isn’t it THEIR lives? It’s none of my business to say your life is suffering, just like it’s none of your business to say my life is anything.
Interesting enough, this is partly the basis for deontologically, why it would be wrong to decide for another that they should suffer. It isn't your business to determine that for someone else :D.
But besides this, empirically-speaking there is solid ground to stand on in regards to Pollyannaism. That is to say, we often have very unpleasant experiences in the present that we often smooth away later with our cherry-picked and more subdued memories of the unpleasant experience. This leads to a false estimation of each event in the moment as opposed to the events in hindsight which throws off later reported evaluations of good and bad. Or, even worse, trying to compress all experiences in an evaluation later on, not pulling apart each individual events negative experience as lived.
we often have very unpleasant experiences in the present that we often smooth away later with our cherry-picked and more subdued memories of the unpleasant experience.
Then we often have pleasant experiences in the present that we rough up later with our cherry-picked and more subdued memories of the pleasant experience. That’s all psychology.
All of this interestingly points out that no one can judge another’s suffering, or that they are suffering at all.
It is false to say life is insufferable. Just way too much whining about the day you stubbed your toe. Way too much discounting of the day you saw someone you love happy and laughing, or laughter itself.
It is false to say we are never right to inflict suffering. Just not a tailored ethic anyone could ever follow. We can follow a rule to not steal. We can not lie or murder. But never inflict any suffering?? We would need to not ask anyone to ever do anything. We couldn’t tell someone we loved them for fear this would burden them and increase their suffering. Teaching someone about antinatalism could inflict tremendous suffering on them - the meaning of life and all their plans dashed because they involved a family and kids. It is NOT true that “Happiness is not obligatory, whereas preventing suffering is.” Neither happiness nor preventing suffering are obligatory. You reify your ability to reduce suffering, and the ethical rule that tells you this is the highest good.
Antinatalism is a weird reification of being ethical, of the “good” as in a good choice being choosing not to inflict life with its suffering.
That's not reification. Reification is this:
Vocabulary.com:Reification is when you think of or treat something abstract as a physical thing. Reification is a complex idea for when you treat something immaterial — like happiness, fear, or evil — as a material thing.
In your case, you were treating nature/necessity as something which we need to have fidelity for.
In the case of AN, there is no necessity of nature being appealed to. The ethic itself isn't a reification, simply a weighted value (against causing suffering). You can question that value, but that is not reifying an abstract thing into something more concrete. Nature's evolutionary aspect has no ethical component to it, and to pretend it does, would be a reification. Similarly, if you said "good exists in the world like a chair exists in the world", some might accuse that kind of thinking as a "reification" of good. You are doing this to necessity.
Then we often have pleasant experiences in the present that we rough up later with our cherry-picked and more subdued memories of the pleasant experience. That’s all psychology.
Indeed it is psychology. Either way looks pretty poor for evaluation then. Interestingly enough, the negative biased people that have mild depression have been seen as "depressive realists".. That is to say they may have a more accurate view of things. This doesn't seem to be the norm as the average person doesn't have mild depression (aka dysthymia).
It is false to say we are never right to inflict suffering. Just not a tailored ethic anyone could ever follow. We can follow a rule to not steal. We can not lie or murder. But never inflict any suffering?? We would need to not ask anyone to ever do anything. We couldn’t tell someone we loved them for fear this would burden them and increase their suffering. Teaching someone about antinatalism could inflict tremendous suffering on them - the meaning of life and all their plans dashed because they involved a family and kids. It is NOT true that “Happiness is not obligatory, whereas preventing suffering is.” Neither happiness nor preventing suffering are obligatory. You reify your ability to reduce suffering, and the ethical rule that tells you this is the highest good.
So again, for the nth time, the unique thing about procreation is it is completely preventative.. It prevents the cause of all suffering. Every other instance has an aspect of not only prevention but mediation. I see your other arguments as not mattering because of the difference between positive and negative ethics. As you yourself stated in the last post, just because YOU have a project you want to see carried out, that doesn't mean others need to be inflicted with suffering as a result of this. And being that no one is forcing antinatalism, no one is forcing you live out the AN ethic, if it pains you so. It is up to you whether you want to decide for another that they should suffer because you think that some X positive project overrides this consideration. That is the whole crux of the argument.. Is allowing the conditions for someone else's suffering with X positive ethical consideration you might have? The AN would always claim that no, it is not. No need to cause suffering, if it was unnecessary.
the unique thing about procreation is it is completely preventative
So we are allowed to inflict lots of suffering throughout our lives, but the rule not to inflict suffering is super important when looking to consent to the naturally produced function of procreation. Got it.
It’s completely preventative of ethics too. No more ethics along with no more suffering that the ethical ones couldn’t stomach inflicting on others (except they could stomach the risk of inflicting suffering by every other act they take besides procreation).
So we are allowed to inflict lots of suffering throughout our lives, but the rule not to inflict suffering is super important when looking to consent to the naturally produced function of procreation. Got it.
Are you willfully ignoring what I am saying between preventative and mitigative? Mitigating is only needed once you have to trade a greater harm for a lesser harm because there is no other way out of the harm. It is already happening.
It’s completely preventative of ethics too. No more ethics along with no more suffering that the ethical ones couldn’t stomach inflicting on others (except they could stomach the risk of inflicting suffering by every other act they take besides procreation).
Yeah and again, no humans, no ethics needed. No problem.
Also, no one is saying one should try to inflict or to not prevent suffering other than procreation. Not sure where that comes from. I just said procreation is unique in terms of prevention. It doesn't mean anything else.
Yeah and again, no humans, no ethics needed. No problem.
But humans came here naturally. So ethics, which tells you how to live good and rightly, came here naturally.
We kill all humans off, and ethics is gone, who’s to say nature won’t evolve a new species of sentient, ethical beings. By ending humans you are leaving the world empty of ethical beings who could have prevented nature from spitting out more sentient suffering. Totally irresponsible of you.
But humans came here naturally. So ethics, which tells you how to live good and rightly, came here naturally.
That premise is misguided or misleading in either one of two ways:
1) If humans came here naturally, then anything can be justified as it came about from humans, which came here naturally so anything we do is technically "from nature".. reductio.
and
2) Descriptive ethics is not normative ethics. There is no directive from nature. This is as existentialists say as "bad faith".. Or it is a smokescreen as you can say that "Nature tells us this", and I can say "Nature tells us that". "Nature tells us clearly that we need to procreate because animals procreate". That is literally the definition of the naturalistic fallacy.
1) If humans came here naturally, then anything can be justified as it came about from humans, which came here naturally so anything we do is technically "from nature".. reductio.
So do antinatalists believe we humans came here UNnaturally? What did ethics come from then?
Look, I think we are talking past each other.
My wife was just scratching our dog’s neck telling him how good he was with my daughter’s dog who he hates who just spent a few days over the house. Finally went home today and my dog is happier than ever. My dog of course had no idea what my wife was saying just that it sounded soothing as she massaged his neck and ears. All he knew was all of his suffering was gone, he was master of his house once again and feeling at peace staring into my wife’s eyes as she gently petted him. That happy 30 seconds was worth hours of suffering (which of course it took to build), and was just a dog’s life.
Happiness is so much more than suffering; moments are worth a lifetime of suffering. Moments of human happiness are worth millions of years of evolutionary struggle for survival.
We show this in our choices and lives all of the time. We don’t suffer only because of life. We suffer because of what we want, we suffer on purpose when we work towards something we suffer to achieve, we struggle to realize, we wish we knew before but we know now and we are glad we at least know this at all. All for those fleeting moments where now is joyous, where our work is done, when we’ve achieved our goal, as we realize our vision and know enough to say “good”.
We all say “good” everyday. I defy you to get through one day without saying “good”.
Life is suffering? How could you know this if life was not good?
I agree that life includes suffering, but I don’t agree suffering is bad.
Like the antinatalist just asserts as a given that life is suffering and suffering is bad, I simply assert life is a series of joyous moments and these things are good, and good enough, not at all like suffering, and not bad at all.
Don’t you see that at all? If not, can’t you let someone else wish that joy upon everyone, wish that they get to experience a moment of joy that would fill a hundred lives? Uou really think no one could feel this way in this life, this life is so bad?? Can’t you let someone have that? Let them have their joy along with their suffering?
Now back to the syllogism.
If the suffeting in life is what counts most for you, then fine, find your ethics in the prohibition of suffering, and build your ethical behavior out of ceasing procreation.
But if suffering is just one of those things, a stumbling block to a lifetime understanding even the concept of “bliss”, where suffering is just a challenge you’ve beaten so many times by simply living, if you can make a trifle of all the suffering in the world when compared to the good life also brings, then the whole antinatalist argument fails. It is a syllogism in which “life is suffering” is the main premise, linking procreation with unethical failure to prevent suffering, so if you just don’t care about life’s suffering to the point where it’s prevention is the highest good, the whole argument fails.
That’s my starting point - life is good. Suffering is a part of life, but so what? Life was good first and still good now that I suffer while living my life.
Even though without this first premise the antinatalist argument fails, I recognize that I haven’t proven that life is NOT suffering, or given you any reason to abandon your position that life is basically suffering. That’s up to you to prove your premise is valid. You also haven’t proven to me that life is NOT good, or its goodness cannot dwarf its suffering.
But now you know, if you want to convince me of the soundness and validity of the antinatalist argument, you should be convincing me that life sucks. Otherwise the rest of the argument will fail for me.
If you did convince me that life sucked so bad it was worth considering an ethic that held “all suffering that can be prevented in others should be prevented in others”, you would still have to convince me that preventing procreation is preventing suffering. Suffering only has a chance to be suffering after there is a person who suffers. The person in whom you might prevent suffering, therefore had to exist before one can prevent suffering, because suffering doesn’t exist until after the person suffers. So never procreating is not preventing suffering, it is preventing a person. Period. Unless preventing a person is some other good ethic, nothing good is done by preventing a person from existing. They haven’t existed yet; you haven’t prevented suffering yet. You may have a rule “all suffering that can be prevented in others should be prevented” but you can’t apply that rule to any actions that do not involve other existing beings who actually exist and therefore can actually suffer (if not prevented). Potential, future beings do not actually suffer; so if you prevent a potential future being from existing, you prevent no suffering at all, since there is no actual suffering that could possibly be prevented, as there is no actual person who could possibly suffer.
I know you don’t like this argument but it sits in the bigger question: why would anyone even care to be ethical in their treatment of other people, if procreating other people is not a good? Who are we being ethical for? Ourselves? Will we suffer any less as we go on living? All that we’ve done if we stop procreating is we assert our judgment that the existence of people doesn’t matter as much as the ethical rule “all suffering that can be prevented in others should be prevented.” But ethics is for people (which you have said), not people for ethics.
Lastly, even if you could convince me that the suffering outshines the joy as the essential feature of life, and even if you could convince me that by procreating, we are doing anything specific toward any specific person, let alone by not procreating we are preventing anything specific in any specific thing (like a person), you still could t convince me that the rule “all suffering that can be prevented should be prevented.”
I’m not going to go into it again but suffering isn’t what is bad in life to me. Evil and sin are. Unethical choices are. Suffering is a consequence, not a raw material, of life, but not always a consequence, and sometimes non-existent in life (for moments, many moments).
So there is no need to convince me that I am wrong. You can if you want, but then you would have to show me I don’t really mind the suffering enough to justify discarding the joyousness.
I admit I have been focused on the logic to try to convince you that you are wrong. Beat up the premises to snap you out of the conclusions. But it’s up to you to see for yourself.
I can’t make you see the good that is life and how suffering can be minimized and defeated. All I can ask is that you honestly answer this: if someone thought life was good, in fact amazing, would they be immoral to want to share this with as many people as they could, including by hoping for children and doing everything they could to raise children?
Or if someone thought ethics only applies between existing moral/ethical agents, that ethics can’t apply to the dead or the uncreated, then wouldn’t an ethical rule forbidding procreation because of its infliction of suffering be misapplied? Or Maybe even unethical in its ignorance towards actual people as opposed to potential people?
Or if someone thought suffering could be something so important in the shaping of who one actually is in this life, that suffering was sometimes good in itself as something not only to be accepted, but embraced and promoted at times, wouldn’t a rule that ended all suffering by ending all people seem opposite of the good one sees in other people, in other lives, and in life itself?
If you grant me my premises, am I still wrong to think procreation is a great good?
And I think I’ve said my peace. Antinatalism seems unneccesssry if it be based on simply suffering, seems anti-ethics while it puts ethics above ethical people, and simply ignores the joy in life.
And the boredom. Life is boredom - we should all kill each other in a final bloodbath just for sake of some excitement in these otherwise insufferably boring lives. Ridiculous? Not if life is only boredom.
Life is way more than suffering. Maybe only human beings can recognize this. Why kill ourselves off because of a little suffering?
And I think I’ve said my peace. Antinatalism seems unneccesssry if it be based on simply suffering, seems anti-ethics while it puts ethics above ethical people, and simply ignores the joy in life.
It is a useful to consider antinatalism if you are planning to have children. The reason being it requires you to look at your inner motives and understand the kind of responsibility you are taking on.
Other than that, it is fairly limited in my view for the reasons you articulated (and many more).
Life is way more than suffering. Maybe only human beings can recognize this. Why kill ourselves off because of a little suffering?
Because the AN basically believes that not suffering trumps not existing. It is certainly a factual claim that if you do not exist you do not suffer. It is not a factual claim to state that something is better than something else. It is also not a factual claim that suffering is bad unless you have outlined some specific example of the kind of suffering being offered up for discussion.
The arguments for and against the AN position are dependent upon personal views, experiences and metaphysic (The non-identity of possible people is an example of the kind of metaphysics argument used by ANs).
I think it is fair to say that it is an extreme kind of negative utilitarianism if taken as universal law, as the end goal drives towards something like net zero suffering (so net zero existence).
In a more favourable light it is act utilitarianism hyper-focused on a specific aspect of the human experience.
But isn't it ironic the AN is only able to prevent said suffering, by in fact, making full use and utility of the alleged eventual path (or in their mind, cursed tool) that is existence?
Reply to Outlander Well, you kind of have to understand that position as framed in isolation. ANs are not against existence per se, but there is certainly a disjoint if we project their views as a universal law (which none really seem to do).
It is a moral preference. Of course, if said person believes in moral absolutes then the matter is quite different.
As a means of exploring the responsibility of being a parent I regard the AN position as worthy of serious attention.
Let's reframe the mindset here. Not ""against" anything, simply the acknowledgement (belief, rather) that creating human life is more likely to incur negative experience than positive and such should either be avoided altogether or at least such factual information or likelihood (whether true or not) should be made present in the minds of all men or women capable of childbirth?
Can we agree on that as being the anti natailist creed? Or do you have a different definition in mind?
To further say, there is a war (or framed binary belief or "footing") between so called "anti-natalists."
That life, regardless of change or possible omission of what is currently held in the antinatalist mindset as "suffering" or "negative", creation of new life either, is intrinsically a negative, whether that conviction is held based on the likelihood of even, say, a perfect utopia naturally always reverting to a negative state, or some other generally non-evidential belief.
That is to say there are two camps so to speak, whose divisions are defined not of anti-natality at all but greater reason itself: possibility of change and rigidity of current state of affairs. Is this not correct?
Existing = Suffering < Neutral < Pleasure
Not Existing = No Suffering/Neutral/ No Pleasure
Only the latter guarantees No Suffering.
Obviously because ANs exist they are prone to argue against bringing life into the world.
From this there is the argumentation of having the Right to bring people into existence. Then we enter into the non-identity problem and metaphysics.
Of course there is much more nuance to it than this but this is the basic frame work. Its proponents will vary depending on other moral stances (including items like moral absolutism, moral naturalism and logical positivism).
That life, regardless of change or possible omission of what is currently held in the antinatalist mindset as "suffering" or "negative", creation of new life either, is intrinsically a negative, whether that conviction is held based on the likelihood of even, say, a perfect utopia naturally always reverting to a negative state, or some other generally non-evidential belief.
I think this more or less aligned with the Right of the living to bring life into existence.
Basically what makes the anti-natalist so sure? What specifically do they hold their ground on?
Is it, say as if one were a prisoner, who is given the option to father a child, knowing said child will also in turn become a prisoner and experience more suffering then pleasure? And is this the root of all AN argument: if more pleasure cannot be "guaranteed" prior to the creation of life, such action, which would apparently likely result in more negative than positive is to be avoided.
Is this not the AN dogma or decree? I apologize, for it is me who is now asking for you for information or clarity!
It is certainly a factual claim that if you do not exist you do not suffer.
Hmmm. Seems to me if something doesn’t exist then any reference to this non-existent thing makes the thing some theoretical thing. It’s not a real thing (because it doesn’t exist).
So the new ethics of AN demands we be ethical towards future potential beings who actually don’t particularly exist; and in the meantime we suck at being ethical now (not for the future) towards actual human being who actually exist.
Or, I wonder “if you do not exist, what do you do?” Obviously you do nothing, nor can you do anything because “you” in the first place are a fiction, a possibility at best. Why would a fiction suffer or certainly not suffer, or do anything?
It’s not a language game. Who or what is relieved of suffering but our imaginary friends who we spare from living in the first place?
If I, who now exist, died, it can be said that I do not suffer. I’ll accept that (although there are various ways to dispute that as well, including my own argument against un-procreated beings). But you can say I don’t eat chicken anymore either, or play music, or stub my toe, or have a toe. You can say lots of things about me that are over now. That’s because I existed, and knew suffering and had all of these things about me to lose with my life. There is an “I” from which things that go along with this “I” can be removed, like my suffering, or my toe.
But if there is no one there to exist, no “you” as in a “you never existed”, there is no one saved from suffering. No procreation ends human life, and no human life means no humans suffering (or playing tennis); but you cannot particularize this and say “YOU or HE or even IT never suffered” about a “you” who never existed.
Because you cannot particularize this prevention of suffering in a particular “you” who doesn’t suffer, AN is acting ethical towards no one, no one who ever exists.
Because you cannot particularize this prevention of suffering in a particular “you” who doesn’t suffer, AN is acting ethical towards no one, no one who ever exists.
You can guarantee less suffering by not bringing someone into the world. This is also underlined by the metaphysical problem of non-identity. Much like our responsibility for considering the kind of world we leave behind for future generations (which we speculate about quite often without arguing about their non-existence).
This is also underlined by the metaphysical problem of non-identity.
The problem of identity is a real problem, but if we admit this problem to the equation, then there may be no “me” who could fail to prevent suffering either.
We need to assume an agent, identify many agents, to build an ethic among them.
That’s not the issue, or we can never say anyone exists to suffer or more to the point, never say anyone exists to prevent suffering.
The problem of identity is a real problem, but if we admit this problem to the equation, then there may be no “me” who could fail to prevent suffering either.
Well, not really because you exist.
I think we have to insist any AN statement adheres to their moral stance regarding nonidentity of possible future people, as well as their moral claim that no suffering is good and no pleasure is neutral.
It is a utilitarian position in essence, so when questioning the AN this should also be kept in mind and pointed out where we feel necessary.
The AN view is asking what right anyone has to create life if they know it will suffer.
I'm sure you're correct in most instances. Of course we have yet to meet or question an actual practicing anti-natalist (not counting the obvious resident one, joyous and pleasant to know him as he is..., of course, a bit or irony but that's beside the point, for now)
I fee it important to note the overwhelming drive in which spurred my recent response to you, was to assert, rather question, anti-natalist is poorly defined as is. That is to say, there are two (at minimum I argue) driving forms of rationale that define such an idea. With no shyness of immodesty, I believe one could ascertain the driving consistent ideology of anti-natalism is: life is more likely to incur negative outcome than positive, and so, in respect to culmination of man's efforts of reason, that which is likely to produce negative result, is best avoided. However, this may be true. All well and good. But there remains a blockage, a failure of inquiry, I believe. As to whether or not said belief is based on circumstance that is changeable, or remains a hopeless illusion of changeability. That is to say, in simple terms, yes, if something is likely to be negative, it is to be avoided. But whether or not this negativity can be changed, resolved, eliminated, defeated, or perhaps lessened by introduction of a greater dynamic thus making said negativity trivial, is my, question. Basically.
So. I believe there are two types of anti-natalists. Those who are such rationally, and those who are perhaps confused and only in such respective minds of thinking due to circumstance that is in fact, false.
That is to say, those who are truly not anti-natalists but consequentialists, or best said, the current state of being ie. the status quo produces adequate evidence procreation is more harmful than positive, as in, perhaps things could be changed, whether easily or throughout much if not impossible levels of difficulty, to alter such a reality. This is the divide I think is neglected in the majority. Hence me reason for replying.
So. Yes, ":the way things are, that can be changed, but do not seem likely to be changed, creates the factual inarguable reality that, creation of new life is more likely to incur suffering on the innocent then immediate and observable positive outcome and so, procreation is to be avoided"
Versus "No, even if everything were to be perfect, either eventually, or in some intrinsic yet unobservable way, creation of new life is likely, eventually, to be of worse outcome than not"
Essentially. There is a divide that those who fail to acknowledge simply refute the soundness of the anti-natalism argument. Is my suggestion.
I'm sure you're correct in most instances. Of course we have yet to meet or question an actual practicing anti-natalist (not counting the obvious resident one, joyous and pleasant to know him as he is..., of course, a bit or irony but that's beside the point, for now)
I'm just watching as you all wildly miss the mark on antinatalism. I do love it when others try to argue it, but I also cringe at the misguided notions when they inevitably misunderstand it. It also seems no one pays attention to my previous arguments, so every time I argue something it is like all the arguments made previously are put on reset and wiped clean, and then people take other arguments that are not correct, and replace those as strawmen instead. I refer everyone to my last several posts and interactions in this thread, starting with the Veil of Ignorance as a starting point, and then once you have caught up to the relevant arguments, rather than misrepresenting them so as to knockdown poor strawmen, I can reenter the chat. Otherwise, please keep arguing misguided points for misguided notions.
I as referring to the general AN positions not your personal ones.
What I said outlined a couple of the main points AN puts forwards. I said no more than that.
There’s a lot of AN positions so it’s easy to pick and choose strawmen. What “general ones”? Even Benatar, the most well known proponent, is misconstrued terribly.
Reply to schopenhauer1I was merely pointing out the gist not giving a thorough analysis.
I pointed to the issue of non-identity (about which there are many positions) and about asymmetry (about which there is more to say too in terms of its implications). Pointing out to those asking that looking at one without considering the other is kind of futile.
You can provide links for them if you wish. I have read, and listened, extensively to the AN position.
My position is that it is VERY useful to look at for anyone considering having children - but not because I believe it will, or should, stop them.
I have read, and listened, extensively to the AN position.
Again with the THE. It's not ONE position. The "gist" is not having children. The arguments are numerous and nuanced. To lump it in as "the" position would be misleading.
My position is that it is VERY useful to look at for anyone considering having children - but not because I believe it will, or should, stop them.
What you said there are very different things. Let's say Kant's CI or Aristotle's virtue ethics is correct, that wouldn't necessarily mean people "will" stop people from X, Y, Z or promote people to do X, Y, Z. The soundness on the argument doesn't rely on whether it affects a lot of people. I can try to show tens of millions of people that someone like Trump is a conman liar that doesn't have your interests in mind, and that doesn't mean it will affect them, even if there is plenty of evidence it is the case.
I pointed to the issue of non-identity (about which there are many positions) and about asymmetry (about which there is more to say too in terms of its implications). Pointing out to those asking that looking at one without considering the other is kind of futile.
Right there are many positions, but you lump despite this. Anyways, the "non-identity" issue works AGAINST natalism. That is to say, if we believe in not violating dignity/autonomy etc. The violation only happens when someone is born, not when someone is not born.
If we had a set of beliefs about an event, even as big as "life itself", ranging from really like, disappointed with, frustrated by, not happy with, etc. None of that becomes so much a moral issue insofar as it is someone's own personal reaction. The minute that "I like X, so SOMEONE ELSE SHOULD LIKE X", it becomes a problem, as now someone ELSE will be affected by YOUR evaluation.
But again, this is my argument, not all of AN. So don't misconstrue that even though I am continuing the debate.
Nonidentity is neither for nor against (it is not specific to AN either). It is the question of whether, or how, ethics can be applied to people who do not as yet exist.
The main positions are:
- We have no right to bring life into existence (nonidentity issue involved here in part).
- No harm is better than no pleasure.
I have found nothing much outside of these primary ethical issues worthy of much attention (existential threats, state of society etc.,.) because all of them orbit the two positions I gave the gist of above.
Nonidentity is neither for nor against (it is not specific to AN either). It is the question of whether, or how, ethics can be applied to people who do not as yet exist.
I responded to people asking about the AN position is in general. I did that. What your personal position is is your business to explain.
People were responding to my last comments generally, then you swooped in there like you owned the place.. Please.
We've discussed this before. We've discussed this before. Again, swipe clean. Last time you were tag-teaming my argument with some other poster.. I forget which of the handful of anti-antinatalists that like to join..but they'll probably pop in too. Your friend perhaps.
Also, I'd like to add to your 'No harm is better than no pleasure" summation that it's not as simple as that, as nothing is. It is also the fact that one is pursuing a positive ethic by breaking a negative ethic, or justifying breaking the negative ethic (don't harm), by pursuing a positive ethic (promote X, Y, Z outcome.. happiness or whatnot). One would have to get past this notion that one should force a new person into an intended goal by breaking the negative ethic of no-harm, no-autonomy, etc.
Yeah the non-identity thing is then thrown out like a poor defense because "Who is harmed?" "Who is violated?" And of course this is supposed to justify doing any number of things that could potentially harm a future person.. It's obvious that any number of other scenarios that might happen to a "potential child" would be considered wrong, even if a person isn't actually born yet. It's the weakest of the anti-AN defenses, and not even clever.
People were responding to my last comments generally, then you swooped in there like you owned the place.. Please.
Because you were wrong. I will not interact with you any more. My post was directed at the others who failed to understand the AN position. I tried to guide them towards a better understanding that is all.
Because you were wrong. I will not interact with you any more. My post was directed at the others who failed to understand the AN position. I tried to guide them towards a better understanding that is all.
Bye
Wrong about what? Wrong about THE AN position..Right.
I truly think there are two widely and generally-held ideological "camps" as far as AN.
Perhaps it's an over-simplification or some misaligned understanding (which surely you could correct emphatically and with a smile), those two camps being:
Circumstantial:
Things (be it poverty, the state of the world, wars, overpopulation, prejudices, natural greed* [though that one gets interesting because it hints at an absolute, "unfixable" dynamic that will forever be present which belongs to the second camp]) as they are (and are foreseeable to be in either perpetuity or any reasonable foreseeable future) formulate a moral non-favorability towards procreation,
Intrinsic:
Due to Original Position, even if Earth was transformed into a Utopia, a hypothetical almost "alien world" where suffering is so rare and unheard of it now requires true and intense effort to create (versus the current dynamic where suffering seems to be the default and likely outcome without large [and for some non-accomplishable] levels of planning, effort, and perhaps luck), procreation is still responsible because a person did not choose to be born, and inevitably will face some restriction as a result, such restriction amounting to enslavement (ie. follow the moral laws, be a good neighbor, feed oneself, manage stress in a socially-acceptable way lest one be punished by physical incarceration, etc, etc. that one never "asked" or was even involved in being placed in). Something like that?
--
I take it to mean, in short, one is simply not true AN. True AN is, in a sentence, based on the truth one can never truly guarantee a net positive in performing an action (whether it's procreation, or even something more general such as ordering a dish at an unfamiliar restaurant or a new special at a familiar one, it should not be taken. That is to say, the reasons for avoidance are self-evident. Is this correct? Simply because we, rightfully so, consider creating new life more substantial and important than ordering food, doesn't change the underlying principle or truths of the comparative example, I think can be argued.
Due to Original Position, even if Earth was transformed into a Utopia, a hypothetical almost "alien world" where suffering is so rare and unheard of it now requires true and intense effort to create (versus the current dynamic where suffering seems to be the default and likely outcome without large [and for some non-accomplishable] levels of planning, effort, and perhaps luck), procreation is still responsible because a person did not choose to be born, and inevitably will face some restriction as a result, such restriction amounting to enslavement (ie. follow the moral laws, be a good neighbor, feed oneself, manage stress in a socially-acceptable way lest one be punished by physical incarceration, etc, etc. that one never "asked" or was even involved in being placed in). Something like that?
Yes. So, as you just pointed out, life has a limited set of choices. We tend to look at life as the degrees of freedom of choice, rather than the degrees of limitations. That is to say, you can't choose what is not available- a world or circumstance that cannot or does not exist, for example. THESE are the set you can choose from. But what if I don't want these set of choices? You are shit out of luck. Some people might have some mitigation, or even say to just go kill yourself you ungrateful bastard. But you see, there's something callously and unjustly wrong with this kind of response to the forced set of choices, once born. Once a person is born, there is only what life offers, with a brain that can understand there are undesirable things about life. And if you need to mitigate and change your mindset, or whatever else you're going to throw as a palliative, you have already conceded the original violation of forcing a limited set of choices.
Edit: And thus, why I say one should not violate the negative ethics of non-harm, forcing someone into YOUR project, for the positive ethic of X, Y, Z (usually along the lines of promoting happiness, a value of some sort, virtue, and then we can go down the litany of purely selfish personal projects).
If I value X, Y, Z about a project and think it is good, this does not mean I should affect other people to be forced to also be part of the project.
Yes. So, as you just pointed out, life has a limited set of choices. We tend to look at life as the degrees of freedom of choice, rather than the degrees of limitations.
So, at the end of the day, it requires respect of life to allow one to be in a position to create, let's say a bomb, to end all intelligent life, on Earth? Since life will exist otherwise. And the AN argument is, this is pure suffering.
Where do we go from here? What about possibility of life on other planets? Should life be respected long enough to ensure our entire universe is destroyed or rather "made incapable" of supporting life in perpetuity? We're not at that state, currently. So surely, the irony or at least unacknowledged (at least at present) reality which requires such a truth to become actualized is ignored?
That is to say, life (the true AN equates with suffering?) will still exist until more life is created that allows greater potential to prevent itself? Do you understand this is what you're saying?
So, at the end of the day, it requires respect of life to allow one to be in a position to create, let's say a bomb, to end all intelligent life, on Earth? Since life will exist otherwise. And the AN argument is, this is pure suffering.
Huh? Why make strawmen? You don't "fix" a violation (non-harm, no autonomy) with another violation (non-autonomy at the least, and non-harm in certain forms of hedonism/utilitarianism).
Where do we go from here? What about possibility of life on other planets? Should life be respected long enough to ensure our entire universe is destroyed or rather "made incapable" of supporting life in perpetuity? We're not at that state, currently. So surely, the irony or at least unacknowledged (at least at present) reality which requires such a truth to become actualized is ignored?
That is to say, life (the true AN equates with suffering?) will still exist until more life is created that allows greater potential to prevent itself? Do you understand this is what you're saying?
I don't understand what it is YOU'RE rambling on about. Killing people to "save" them is not what AN is saying. It is a ridiculous straw man.
Ironically, the only way death occurs is being born in the first place, so try again.
No one is an AN to that degree at all. That is not AN. I lost my 3000+ word essay on this subject unfortunately (not that I think you would have enjoyed reading it anyway!) :D
Made a brief summary here:
Antinatalism is based on a two main areas of contention. That is the philosophical problem of nonidentity and application metaphysical valuations.
NONIDENTITY
Firstly, the nonidentity problem is outlined quite simply in ethical terms as how and if we can claim to pass moral judgements that have consequences on persons who do not, as yet, exist. An instance of this would be akin to how we attend our environment with the thought to hand as to how it can effect future generations.
For instance, a culture that prioritises trees, viewing them as sacred perhaps, may also use them to build housing. This would disrupt future generations if they neglected the native forests by effectively destroying them all to build more houses or for use in other sacred ceremonies.
Here we can see a clear neglect of persons who do not yet exist (nonidentity). In contemporary terms this is often equated to how humans have damaged the natural world, thus leaving future generations with future problems to solve they had no direct hand in causing.
Here one antinatalist (AN) argument ensues. This is that we have no right to bring life into the world that will suffer due to none of its own doing. The new life is not responsible for its own coming into being, yet it does come into being. How can this be considered in light of those making the moral decision to have children? Is this morally irresponsible or not? If so to some degree each way, then to what degree and how can we rightly measure this?
Regardless of any personal analysis of this situation we can understand that given certain beliefs about this scenario we can come to see the reasoning behind someone siding with the AN argument.
Some will see justification in talking about the rights of nonidentity persons while others may find this too difficult, or impossible, to hold. The degree to which this can or cannot be justified is tied up in other initial ethics/moral stances (be this deontological, utilitarian, nihilistic, etc.,.).
THE METAPHYSIC OF ASYMMETRY
This perspective is an interesting one regarding moral axiology. Let us assume that measuring such values of human experience can be made in a meaningful way to begin with. This argument puts forward the proposition the probable chance of ‘harm’ and ‘benefit’ (let us use these terms as positive and negative aspects of human experience).
A) If someone (nonidentity) does not come into existence then there is No Harm and No Benefit.
B) If someone does come into existence then Harm is guaranteed (on some level) and so is Benefit (to some degree).
The argument goes as follows …
For A, No Harm is Good and No Benefit is Not Bad.
For B, Harm is Bad and Benefit is Good.
Looking at instance A), not existing is Better than existing because there is an asymmetry between Harm and Benefit, where lack of harm is strove for and peaks in Good in its negation, lack of Benefit is Not Bad and so neutral. No Harm either way.
Looking at instance B), existing is guaranteed to cause Harms and Benefits are not guaranteed to outweigh Harms, even though in some cases they may.
Conclusion: Not existing guarantees No Harm caused. Existing guarantees Harm caused AND cannot guarantee Benefits outweighing guaranteed Harms.
If then the goal is to reduce Harm then it is effectively a gamble when we create new life. The nonidentity person may have a Good OR Bad life, whereas if such a person never came to be no more Harm will be caused to such a person for obvious reasons.
Now to return to the problem of nonidentity …
MORAL RESPONSIBILITY
The question is now how anyone has the moral right to procreate given a belief in reducing Harm following from the principle outlined in the argument of asymmetry?
No one asked to be born (obviously!), but someone did choose to bring life into the world. It is a solid argument for AN to say no to procreation here if they believe in the reduction of Harm as a priority. It is not faulty thinking following that particular line of reasoning with those particular views.
There are numerous other AN arguments that are basically little more than weighing the scales regarding future benefits and detriments to living being (and nonidentity potentials too) that add different themes to the argument. The common ones are Overpopulation, Dystopian World, Inequality, etc.,. These are more or less decoration to the core elements of the AN position I have laid out.
There is certainly weight to argument. Like every other ethical position though it does not present a convincing absolute moral law, but creates dilemmas for those serious about having children who wish to explore the ethical implications of doing so, for their child, other children, their community and surroundings, and all other manner of issues too.
NOTE: There was a another major point I had in the essay regarding ethics in general and Self-interest Vs Common good. Way more involved for that though so omitted it. Hopefully the above helps you see the weight, and use, of the argument presented by the AN position (whether you follow it or not).
Really? You don’t use metaphors to make the text more interesting?
This is a bit sleight-of-handy. That's not what's happening here. They are informing the interpretation of the argument. That, to me, is bad form in the sense that you are in la-la land if you anthropomorphize nature to support a factual or logical argument because you think its relevant - and really not contacting the argument if you think it addresses it. I understand flowery language for engagement, but this isn't hte place.
The natural evolution of ethics in the world was necessary so that ethics could be ended by these ethical animals.
Your use of 'necessity' in this paragraph is perplexing. None of it necessary. That invokes a (whats called) cosmic level of intent which simply doesn't exist. But, for the sake of discussion, let's grant it - why is this conclusion at all a problem? Things are cyclical as best we can tell and don't adhere to much in terms of form (over such long periods, that is).
Seems like natural necessity gone astray because of our “ethics”
I would say to some degree, this one gets a bit of traction. I think its worth discussing why Ethics even matters to this discussion beyond whether or not one feels that having children is ethical. I don't. I can explain why and see where other's are lets say not making sense, but if someone simply rejects that suffering is ethically relevant to whether or not life obtains I can't argue with that. That's their view, and IMO ethics its nothing but personal emotional response - if you're a fairly logical person, you can get further but that's all. But again, 'necessity' is not a good word here. These things didn't have to happen. The natural necessity you invoke didn't see the Dinosaur asteroid coming, that's for sure.
seems like it’s based on a preoccupation with suffering too much maybe?
If you suffer too much, whether you're preoccupied with it isn't relevant. Those who aren't have the 'polly anna syndrome' and those who are are simply in touch with reality (this being a take - not my position on every human's psyche lol)
Hard to know what you're not getting. Swap humans for God. God's decision to remove the ocean. Human's decision not to procreate. They are diametrically opposed in the two stories we've told. If you can be clearer about what's not landing, I'd be happy to draw more parallels.
Wow. Philosopher king hath spoken to the little suffering people. Is anyone ever “wrong” when they judge what is right or wrong about the quality of OTHER PEOPLE’s lives?
Sly digs aside, you have entirely misunderstood what is being said here. If someone tells me they have a good life, yet all they ever do is complain to me about their life.... *shrug*. I don't have to even explain why they are wrong there. They are lying to themselves. "quality of life" is subjective, where a count of suffering is not. Don't conflate the two. Quoting Fire Ologist
Maybe “most antinataliats are wrong about the quality of their lives.” Possible? Killing off all procreation might be a little rash?
Possibly, for sure.. but i see absolutely no argument that gets anywhere near the realm of getting that off the ground. Antinatalists don't claim their lives are horrible, and you've got to stop insinuating there's some personal judgment going on. It's not relevant to me whether someone claims they have a good life individually - the argument is about lives to come. Those who are currently living aren't relevant, personally, but in aggregate. Most people are flat-out delusional about how good their life is because evolution has provided us with several incredible illusions to keep us procreating. Which is arbitrary, unnecessary and IMO bad for all involved. We do not need to procreate, other than to procreate, whcih is tautological crap. And even more importantly, most people are completely ignorant to the suffering of others. This is partially why polly-anna syndrome is so rife. Most people don't have a fucking clue how bad the majority of people's lives are - and this obviously a sliding scale. People are getting more ignorant about others over time, which the strict number of people suffering at the extremes comes down. But the number of people not majoratively suffering is vanishing. More slaves than ever, more concentrated wealth, authority and power than at most points in history (though, this is to do with population booms as much as form).
The man inflicts a fetus that can be killed on a woman
Accepting the over-simplification, yes. This does fall to women at some stage of hte analysis (careful of the alphabet soup). I see no issue there. That's just a fact of how humans procreate (the woman chooses, essentially, whether it comes to fruition). But, I think this is a bit dull of a version of the discussion. Whoever makes the choice is the culpable one. It's not all that interesting that at some stage the woman has the ultimate say (also, that's not always true anyway - men are larger and stronger on average and can physically force a woman to carry to term - which, obviously, is unethical already so we're fine heh).
we can kill the fetus if we want, without inflicting suffering
We can. Yet, those alive will suffer for it, almost invariably. Yet another reason not to procreate - the possibility of having to go through an abortion.
To be consistent with the notion procreation inflicts suffering, much harder for men to break the antinatalist rules? If ever?
Not in any way whatsoever, and I have to say I do not think your run up to this illustrated a support for this conclusion.
Men choose to have children. If men never chose to have children and women were surreptitiously getting pregnant, or carrying to term then this gets some truck, but hte fact is men choose to have children and in fact have been the prime drivers behind procreation for hte majority of history. Only in the last seventy years or so have women had any control over when to conceive, carry and birth children with any lets call it accuracy.
Men actually seem more likely to break antinatalist 'rules' by breaking several other deontological rules.
This all said, perhaps it would make more sense to make an evolutionary argument:
Evolution wants you procreate. It will delude you to this end. This doesn't make your life better. It is a parasitic kind of manipulation of you body by your genes, to have more, and less happy, children (that is biased, and its illustrative, to be clear - not trying to sneak it in). This functions the exact same way drug-seeking behaviour functions in addicts. You have to break the cycle to avoid the hurt.
Antinatalists don't claim their lives are horrible, and you've got to stop insinuating there's some personal judgment going on. It's not relevant to me whether someone claims they have a good life individually - the argument is about lives to come.
But the argument is that the lives to come will be full of suffering, and the evidence that the lives to come will be full of suffering is gleaned from those living now, who are suffering. So the judgment: "my life and those of others, are full of suffering," IS relevant. The argument is made FOR lives to come (or for NO lives to come more precisely), but the personal experience of lives now is one of the premises of the argument.
If you suffer too much, whether you're preoccupied with it isn't relevant. Those who aren't have the 'polly anna syndrome' and those who are are simply in touch with reality (this being a take - not my position on every human's psyche lol)
Seems like you are basically saying either you know your life is full of suffering, or you are living in LaLa land. I don't know why we would speak so generally about billions of lives in such simplistic terms, especially to support a logic that ends procreation as if it was just some other behavior.
Look, I agree that suffering is everywhere that there is a living conscious being. I disagree the suffering is all of the time for every living being. And I think the non-suffering is well worth the suffering, for the vast majority of living beings. So I would need to be tortured and watch my family tortured for a few days at least before I would throw away all of human history and its future. I know there are those who have been tortured for years. I know for many, anxiety and depression are worse than physical pain - mental illness may be the deepest and sharpest of all suffering there is (and it can be accompanied by physical pain and physical sickness).
But still, for most, much of the time, life is worth it. It's not LaLa land to take your suffering medicine like a badge of honor and greet each new day, each new birth, as something better, again, and again and again.
But the argument is that the lives to come will be full of suffering, and the evidence that the lives to come will be full of suffering is gleaned from those living now, who are suffering. So the judgment: "my life and those of others, are full of suffering," IS relevant.
I agree, but I see that as entirely impersonal. Each individual arguing about the merits of their lives doesn't really touch the discussion too deeply. Its aggregation that matters because we're talking chances. And when speaking about this, in aggregate, that most people are wrong(or right) about how 'good' their lives are becomes highly relevant. A birds-eye could count up the good moments vs bad moments (by their own lights) and most people would come out in the negative yet claim the positive. This is unfortunately, true for myself and every person i've ever pressed on the subject.
I should say, I take this position, but its not "mine". This is an age-old position that I think some of the more recent antinatalists have just tried to quantify. I think it works. Its just hard to accept without becoming cynical, which i've not. It's an 'on average' claim, which results in a x chances in x that one would have a life balanced toward not suffering. That chance is vanishingly slim.
the personal experience of lives now is one of the premises of the argument.
Not really, no. The chance of a particular kind of experience is relevant, and we can aggregate extant experiences to calculate chances of more or less of that kind of experience. Ones where suffering isn't the overall flavour are rare. I wouldn't even consider doing the vast majority of things with a risk of a lifetime of suffering, without a 75+% chance of that not being the outcome. And even then, i'd most likely not do it. This rises to 99.9999999% when it has to do with my children's experience, which is telling, and may give some insight into the antinatalist thinking.
Seems like you are basically saying either you know your life is full of suffering, or you are living in LaLa land.
in aggregate yes. Maybe 1/100,000 people would be right making the claim. Or living in lala land, yep.
Nought wrong with that other than that it blinds you to the fact you're deluding yourself and hey presto having kids looks good to you. *sigh*. If these people were not having children, and increasing the sheer number of sufferers on the planet, I don't think this argument would any weight as one's delusion becomes one's reality internally.
And I think the non-suffering is well worth the suffering
There are ways I can get to this position, but I can't only do so in light of a fully-conscious being at the level humans are making an informed decision. Inflicting this on those unborn is horrid.
So I would need to be tortured and watch my family tortured for a few days at least before I would throw away all of human history and its future
This seems extremely, extremely selfish imo. Why is your experience the tell-all for humanity? (this being said while I fully get your point. This just seems a more fun way to take it).
But still, for most, much of the time, life is worth it.
I think they are deluded that this is hte case, for sure. For most people, evolution has provided a rather handy mechanism for dismissing the almost inevitable future of mostly suffering to allows to go forth and fuck, basically. I'm unsure this can be gotten around without some kind of spiritual invocation and I'm unsure what that would look like for you. Peterson'eqsue perhaps?
It’s not. I’m saying, to convince me of the premise that my life is mostly suffering, you will have to add some suffering to my life.
I’m not fashioning any new law based on my experience of suffering or happiness, or my judgement of how other people should rationally balance the scales of suffering and joy in their experience, in their lives.
AN is fashioning a new law. AN says to me “because your life is mostly suffering, you should not procreate.” AN is the tell all.
I’m just saying to Mr. AN enthusiast, “procreate if you want or don’t procreate if you don’t want, but telling all of us, including me, not to procreate based on the fact that all life, including mine, is on balance over full of suffering, doesn’t make sense to me at all.” My kids love life too much. One’s a nurse (surrounded by suffering), one is a welder (gets burned everyday), and one is a struggling artist (who needs a job). They are all glad I “inflicted” life on them.
There is no aggregate until there are individuals to pile up into that aggregate. An aggregate construction doesn’t get off the ground without constructing all of its individual stories first.
most people would come out in the negative yet claim the positive.
Two things: 1. I think most people overlook the positives and would errantly come out with mostly negatives. So I personally think most people would be wrong about their own lives too - if they said their lives were over full of pointless overwhelming suffering. But 2. What does it matter what anyone else thinks about anyone else’s lives but their own? I can’t tell you what pink looks like to you, or what hot feels like to you, and I can’t tell you how much you should be suffering or how much you should think you are suffering, or what you are feeling when you suffer painful feelings. So unless we all of our own wills each agree that “life is basically suffering” none of us should be basing a law on this premise. Who is anyone to tell me or anyone else but themselves, how much they suffer - that is not possible.
What happens here is that, even if objectively speaking “life is mostly suffering”, we can only test that by asking each person, and the vast majority of people will say (as you said above), on balance, life is worth all of the suffering. Suffering, like the qualia of any experience, can’t be determined or imposed from without, and the value of that suffering in developing laws like AN, should not be imposed either.
AN is fashioning a new law. AN says to me “because your life is mostly suffering, you should not procreate.” AN is the tell all.
I’m just saying to Mr. AN enthusiast, “procreate if you want or don’t procreate if you don’t want, but telling all of us, including me, not to procreate based on the fact that all life, including mine, is on balance over full of suffering, doesn’t make sense to me at all.” My kids love life too much. One’s a nurse (surrounded by suffering), one is a welder (gets burned everyday), and one is a struggling artist (who needs a job). They are all glad I “inflicted” life on them.
The AN position is not this. Some idiots may think they have an unshakable argument, but in truth it is just one of many arguments and has valid points to consider.
If anyone here is such an Extreme AN (to the point where they would enforce this by law) then they are not really understanding the point regular ANs make.
I summed up the main points someone trying to understand the AN position need to understand. The AN position is perfectly reasonable and does raise some intriguing questions about personal responsibility and how we measure the value of life (which is clearly quite a subjective matter!).
You're all missing the mark to some degree. The main argument is not about "How much suffering" per se. That can be a dimension, but only after the core of the argument is understood.
The argument relies on the asymmetry of preventing suffering and not preventing suffering. You already have to have as an ethic something "pinning" suffering to ethics. In my case, I am "pinning" via common notions of deontology about the dignity of people, and how they aren't to be used or "messed with". For example, non-harm, and autonomy seem to be pretty essential to the dignity of a person. All things that would be violated by having children. [It matters not that they "can't" be consented either, simply that they wouldn't be.]
Not preventing suffering via procreation, will lead to the violation of this ethic (non-harm, autonomy). Procreation leads to harm/suffering.
And again, if you want to parse out "suffering" and throw out categorical errors and strawman for examples, you can save it, as like in previous posts, I have provided the distinction between preventative actions (prevent the harm if possible, especially if it is unnecessary to let the harm happen in the first place!) versus remediative harm (the harm is already taking place, now a set of actions is needed to remediate it!).
It also becomes a problem of aggressive paternalism, as no procreation leads to no person being affected, and thus nothing caused to be affected ("forced" in shorthand colloquial speak), whereas procreation does lead to harm. Thus the aggressive paternalism only leads one way, that of the decision to procreate.
What do I mean by aggressive paternalism? That is what I was explaining in many of these posts, the simple idea that you shouldn't violate a negative ethic (such as non-harm, autonomy) to promote a positive ethic. That is to say, you should not force recruit people who will be harmed, and profoundly, because YOU deem the game necessary for someone else to play based on your personal estimation.
Now here is where perhaps we can discuss the dimension of: "HOW MUCH suffering?"- and I did bring up the Veil of Ignorance as we can never truly know, what the world beholds for someone else. But more than a primitive harm/benefit analysis, it is just a fact that the world has many known and unknown/unanticipated harms that will befall someone. That alone is enough to preclude life from being something one should "inflict" for another. Perhaps if we were indeed living in a parallel universe where there were very little suffering considerations, it would be more on the level of an ACTUAL gift. What do I mean here? I mean that (unlike life), an ACTUAL gift is something that would not impose an overriding set of inescapable BURDENS onto someone else, along with the "positives" of the gift being given. So even though this ethic doesn't need the dimension of "how much suffering", it still doesn't pass the test, even on this front.
Call me an idiot but I thought we were talking about ethics, a moral law.
If all the people who were thinking about procreating asked “what ought I do? What’s the right thing to do? Should I procreate?” The AN believer would say to everyone “You shouldn’t procreate because that would cause suffering.”
No one is talking about “enforcement” of some criminal statute or something. Missed my point.
No one is talking about “enforcement” of some criminal statute or something. Missed my point.
But a lot of people argue, oddly enough, passionately against AN as if it were being proposed as law. it seems to me, weirdly misplaced hostility. If it’s not worth consideration, you don’t even have to think about it. But often being angry about something means there is something of consideration that you find worthy of having to be addressed. It’s causing you a disturbance in some way that you can’t let it go. It’s not even popular enough that you can say it’s all over so you can’t avoid it. It’s a small minority position in philosophy, an already small subset.
If all the people who were thinking about procreating asked “what ought I do? What’s the right thing to do? Should I procreate?” The AN believer would say to everyone “You shouldn’t procreate because that would cause suffering.”
Yes, but they are entitled to their opinions and it makes sense to listen to their arguments for what they are not you think they are.
It is not really all that complicated you just have to break it down and understand that they have particular views on responsibility to future beings. You may not hold these views but you can consider them as if you did to some degree and come to a reasonable understanding of them.
As something of a comparison let us assume we all agree that polluting rivers is a bad thing. If some factory manager dumped toxins into the river (il)legally knowing the potential effect on the offspring of people who happen to drink this water we would regard this as a pretty terrible thing. The AN extends this further, but at least you can begin to understand why we want to STOP the factory manager from doing what they did, yet we would not decide to BAN the construction of all factories that could potentially pollute the river.
Understanding the general direction of the argument does not mean you need to adhere to it nor agree with it. You can still follow the path and see what is of use.
People who talk about AN from a radical position are obviously radicals, and radicals tend not to listen. I do not really waste my time on them as they do a good enough job of pushing others away from themselves to the point I see no point in engaging directly.
NOTE: To anyone jumping down my throat saying I am misrepresenting AN. No, sorry. This is not what I am doing. I am, and have, broken it down to the CORE elements that those not familiar with AN need to understand. I have no intention of exhibiting every possibility because they ALL come down to no 'suffering' being good where no 'pleasure' is not bad (asymmetry argument and the surrounding issues of utilitarianism/consequentialism and metaphysical values) and nonidentity (surrounding items like individual rights, responsibility and in particular whether or not we can say we have a 'Right' to procreate regarding potential beings combined with inevitability of 'suffering').
common notions of deontology about the dignity of people, and how they aren't to be used or "messed with". For example, non-harm, and autonomy seem to be pretty essential to the dignity of a person
Not preventing suffering via procreation, will lead to the violation of this ethic (non-harm, autonomy). Procreation leads to harm/suffering.
I get it.
Dignity is preserved in the person who prevents suffering by not procreating.
I get it.
You dont get that I’m still not persuaded by the logic.
If I go to Chicago, there’s a chance I cause somebody in Chicago to suffer. So if I never go to Chicago I have prevented all of that possible, likely (because life is so full of suffering) suffering. Therefore, I should never go to Chicago.
These aren’t strawmen. These are individual lives living out their free moral choices, using logic and judgement. In the judgement of AN, all human procreation is worth ending balanced against all human suffering.
The main argument is not about "How much suffering" per se. That can be a dimension, but only after the core
Suffering is close to the core of the argument. Very close. The AN person is not preventing happiness, or boredom, they are preventing suffering, and suffering caused by one person to another person is the thing that goes against human. Suffering is really bad, bad enough to prompt moral laws and new choices. According to the AN position.
It’s not convincing to keep saying discussions about the suffering prong of the argument are strawman arguments.
you should not force recruit people who will be harmed
So what if you come from a long line of procreators, all of your parents and grandparents were all procreators (weird how that works) and all you want to do is spread a little love and joy and hope for a better future around like your mother did….. Don’t you think you will cause fresh new suffering to make this person doubt procreation? You are saying “it’s for your own good, despite all the people on your family tree who love and admire, for your own ethical good you should not cause suffering, so you should not procreate.” The rule itself as a thought causes suffering too, to someone who had long plans of a family and grandkids one day. It’s nice that no one is talking about actually forcing people not to procreate, but that’s not the point; even asking (most) people to reconsider any more procreation, is going to cause suffering. How do you answer that without being paternalistic, and without: Quoting schopenhauer1
YOU deem the game necessary for someone else to play based on your personal estimation.
The game in your estimation is never causing suffering. But you never entertain thoughts of suffering being not just tolerable, but able to be made part of our dignity.
Not causing suffering isn’t strong enough of a moral code versus the chance at bringing about a human good through that suffering.
Suffering matters greatly to your argument and you take it for granted that everyone should know this suffering, and that no one could dignify this suffering, and instead call it a strawman.
It’s a small minority position in philosophy, an already small subset.
I can’t believe it’s even a small subset, because it’s illogical to me to promote an ethic that defeats the existence of all ethical subjects.
I’m just talking to you. I’m not trying to save the world. I know nature will never give AN much traction. Maybe it’s not a good thought, despite the goodness of trying not to cause harm. AN defeats it’s own good, which are ethical human beings.
Reply to Fire Ologist In the sociopolitical sphere I think a decent part of this idea stemmed from a staunch opposition to 'Pro Lifers'. I think there are many more fundamentalists at the Pro end of the spectrum though! :D
Reply to Fire Ologist No one does over any reasonable extension of time. The point is to understand that someone else 'measures' the valuation between 'pain' and 'no pain' as a meaningful point in this kind of argument (which it is).
No one has explained how it is logical for an AN person to say “thou shalt not procreate” but, after a person breaks that rule and gets pregnant, how they can also say “it is permissible to get an abortion.” That would mean, it is wrong to create a newly conceived fetus, because that causes suffering, but once you create one, you can still kill it. Where is the internal logic there?
Unless AN’s define procreation as bringing a baby to viability. In such case, another sub rule under the AN ethic is that “if you are newly found pregnant, you should always get an abortion, or you will fail to prevent suffering.” See, I answered it for the AN enthusiast. More abortions to save world from all those mothers and fathers who don’t seem to care about all of the suffering they failed to prevent.
measures' the valuation between 'pain' and 'no pain' as a meaningful point
So if life only had a little bit of suffering in it, for everyone, the AN argument would fail? That’s not what Schop is saying. And it opens the whole AN argument up to attacks regarding the value of suffering.
Which to me shows its weakness.
If I leave my house tomorrow and go driving, I’ll accidentally cut someone off, or miss a green light and cause someone to be late for work, or maybe hit someone, so in order to prevent suffering, shouldn’t I never leave my house? Isn’t that the same logic being applied to procreation?
No one has explained how it is logical for an AN person to say “thou shalt not procreate” but, after a person breaks that rule and gets pregnant, how they can also say “it is permissible to get an abortion.” That would mean, it is wrong to create a newly conceived fetus, because that causes suffering, but once you create one, you can still kill it. Where is the internal logic there?
This is precisely the kind of problem looked at in the issue of nonidentity. I do not know of any good argument as to when an abortion should or should not happen - but that is a separate but interesting comparison to consider when untangling the differences in such positions.
Reply to Fire Ologist I am not going to put words in their mouth only give an honest reply to your point.
So if life only had a little bit of suffering in it, for everyone, the AN argument would fail? That’s not what Schop is saying. And it opens the whole AN argument up to attacks regarding the value of suffering.
It would still not address the issue of nonidentity and your 'Right' to bring someone into the world who may or may not suffer to some larger or smaller degree.
This is because the valuation attached to existence put forward by the AN is that of 'asymmetry'. The absence of 'suffering' is GOOD while the absence of 'pleasure' is NOT BAD (rather than GOOD). It is a basic aggregation aligned with the unpredictability of how a human's life will be. This is why an AN may say 'Why gamble?' because to them it is a little like this scenario:
1) You do not care about money AT ALL.
2) You are given money and then have to gamble with it.
3) Two possible outcomes:
A) You GAIN more money.
OR
B) You LOSE the money.
All you then have to do is replace MONEY with 'Pain' and then 'Pleasure' to see how there is an imbalance. Not having either to begin with is more satisfactory than gambling.
If you could guarantee that every lived life would be basically full of 'pleasure' to an optimal level for everyone then I cannot see how an AN could argue against such a scenario. If there is LITERALLY no scenario they or you can present that is for procreation then they are stuck.
On the flip side can you imagine certain extreme scenarios where you would look more favorably on the AN position?
can you imagine certain extreme scenarios where you would look more favorably on the AN position
By favorably you mean see the logic, because AN is all gloom and doom about all of life and what is the best thing to do about it - doesn’t do any of us any favors. But If this world was a living hell, I and all I could see around me was great suffering, and I knew my child would have it as bad or worse, with no hope for anything worth all the pain and suffering, then maybe.
You didn’t answer my scenario about leaving the house being likely to cause additional suffering in the world. How am I any less immoral by having a baby or leaving the house? If I leave, I am likely to cause some suffering to some potential person, just like if I take steps to procreate I am likely to cause some suffering, therefore yo prevent suffering and be an ethical person, I shouldn’t leave the house or procreate.
How am I any less immoral by having a baby or leaving the house? If I leave, I am likely to cause some suffering to some potential person, just like if I take steps to procreate I am likely to cause some suffering, therefore yo prevent suffering and be an ethical person, I shouldn’t leave the house or procreate.
I believe such a person would do their best not to cause more harm either by leaving or not leaving their house. Once we exist it cannot be undone.
Again, the point of focus would be the nonidentity and what right you have to bring someone into the world in the first place.
You may as well ask something like why not wipe out the entire human race over night BUT that is not what AN is saying. They are concerned with the Rights of potential people and our justification for viewing having children as a human right in and of itself (without considering the rights of a human that never asked to exist in the first place).
Being born into an idealistic world still begs the question of why we do it and whether we really should. I imagine everyone has a number of reasons for having children and an even greater number of people never even really think about it at all.
what right you have to bring someone into the world in the first place.
What right do I have to make someone else late for work by driving too slow? What right do I have to cause a car accident? None. So if preventing suffering in some possible scenario is the highest ethical ideal, then I shouldn’t leave the house.
You didn’t answer the question.
I can have a baby and “do my best” not to cause any harm to that baby. So if merely having the baby sets up the conditions where I didn’t prevent suffering, so does leaving the house and involving anyone else in my actions.
What right do I have to make someone else late for work by driving too slow? What right do I have to cause a car accident? None. So if preventing suffering in some possible scenario is the highest ethical ideal, then I shouldn’t leave the house.
I can have a baby and “do my best” not to cause any harm to that baby. So if meeely having the baby sets up the conditions where I didn’t prevent suffering, so does leaving the house and involving anyone else in my actions.
I answered by saying if 'suffering' was not an issue there is still the issue of questioning the intrinsic right of of having a child (the nonidentity problem).
Do not get me wrong I understand the kind of comparison you are making, but it is not an AN position to argue about things such as the right to punch someone in the face, be late for an appointment or such items surrounding the usual ethical concerns of existing humans. It is about looking at the ethical issues surrounding the reasons, and 'human rights' involved in procreation.
The 'suffering' part is A factor not THE defining factor of the AN position. This is why I have stated multiple times that both need to be considered when viewing the AN position.
The 'suffering' part is A factor not THE defining facto
It’s THE defining factor. Take out that life is suffering, you take out that procreation causes life which causes suffering, AND you take out the ethical ideal that it is wrong to inflict suffering and good to prevent suffering.
Take out Suffering, and the whole AN argument collapses.
Take out Suffering, and the whole AN argument collapses.
So does life. There is no life without suffering so you would effectively be achieving nothing by making a claim that suffering is absent.
The 'suffering' is part of the argument involved with the presumed Right to bring life into the world going unquestioned. It is a very subtle part of the AN position but nevertheless essential to it - just like the Right to have an abortion for some women.
There is the claim to a Right to act in a certain manner (create/negate) potential life, and the issue of 'suffering' too (which is inevitable for any living creature).
To repeat, you have absolutely no need to agree with the AN argument only to understand the inner workings of it. The issue of nonidentity might not be much of an issue for you either, but it is for many. You just have to accept this and say "okay, but no thanks," and take what you can away from the discussion.
Just like someone believing in a god you have to listen to them, throw in some questions and then see if you can make some kind of sense of it all as best you can. Ultimately there is no conclusive answer as we cannot measure such things as yet.
There is a point in my mind where having an abortion is the right way to go and in my mind there is also the point where AN is the way to go. I have a far less murky picture of former than the latter.
Reply to Fire Ologist Also, consider the very problem of measuring 'suffering' against 'pleasure' even if you did not buy into the whole asymmetry argument.
In terms of nonidentity I have already shown how we can have care and concerns for future generations, so this is involved in the argumentation too.
That is it. If you understand this you understand the AN position and the problems it poses (regardless of its 'rightness' or 'wrongness').
If I go to Chicago, there’s a chance I cause somebody in Chicago to suffer. So if I never go to Chicago I have prevented all of that possible, likely (because life is so full of suffering) suffering. Therefore, I should never go to Chicago.
Reply to Fire Ologist
Again, you have failed to interpret the arguments, by mischaritable reading or just outright failure to tackle what I am saying.
You are now wearing out my patience with this kind of thing. Either debate the points, or don't. But stop misconstruing and strawmanning it.
Let's look at your responses... Quoting Fire Ologist
I get it.
Dignity is preserved in the person who prevents suffering by not procreating.
I get it.
No, you don't get it then. It's NOT about the dignity of the PARENTS. Rather, it's about the dignity of the (future) child. Dignity is not violated by NOT allowing the suffering to carry forward (i.e. non-harm/non-autonomy principles are not violated). That is say, no person exists to be violated prior to procreation. The violation only takes place once procreation occurs.
And again, if you want to parse out "suffering" and throw out categorical errors and strawman for examples, you can save it, as like in previous posts, I have provided the distinction between preventative actions (prevent the harm if possible, especially if it is unnecessary to let the harm happen in the first place!) versus remediative harm (the harm is already taking place, now a set of actions is needed to remediate it!).
Once born, the person is in remediation ethics. They have interests and goals, and these are weighed against other interests and goals. It would be indeed, an indignity to NOT allow people to pursue their goals within reason, once actually existing. This doesn't mean that they then get to FORCE others, unnecessarily into harmful projects of their personal preferences (as this would be unnecessary violation.. it didn't need to happen). Rather, it means you have to learn to live together and respect each other's rights. Needing to survive in a given context of a society means having to move about in public spaces- in the situatedness of a social sphere. This means, inevitably you will cause unintentional harm. You try to be careful to avoid violations, but it cannot be prevented (unlike in the case of procreation), and thus why it always falls under remediation whereas procreation falls under preventative. Positive ethics DOES matter in the sphere of existing to some extent, as long as it doesn't unnecessarily violate others. Remember the bridge argument? The fishermen want to catch the biggest fish of their life. It's blocking YOUR right to go to your car. Whatever pleasure they get from fishing and the collateral damage of causing your harm, it was unnecessary to "recruit" you into their project. This is different than being one car of many in traffic "recruiting" you into traffic. With the road situation, it is tacitly accepted that this is part of how roads worked. However, if a car wanted to stop traffic so they can look out the side of the road at some attraction, that is now falling into unnecessary "recruiting" territory.
It’s not convincing to keep saying discussions about the suffering prong of the argument are strawman arguments.
Some people believe the world is flat. They are UNCONVINCED. Some people think Donald Trump doesn't pose a threat to the democratic order. They are UNCONVINCED. Some people think the world is 6,000 years old. They are UNCONVINCED. It's not my job to try to convince every Harry, Dick, and Jane of their intransigent, unsound beliefs. I can only present the argument faithfully and to the best of my ability and they can do whatever they want. They can handle snakes, pray to their god, say their holy Hosannas, spout out nonsense, red herring non-sequitors on an internet forum, do whatever.
So what if you come from a long line of procreators, all of your parents and grandparents were all procreators (weird how that works) and all you want to do is spread a little love and joy and hope for a better future around like your mother did….. Don’t you think you will cause fresh new suffering to make this person doubt procreation? You are saying “it’s for your own good, despite all the people on your family tree who love and admire, for your own ethical good you should not cause suffering, so you should not procreate.” The rule itself as a thought causes suffering too, to someone who had long plans of a family and grandkids one day. It’s nice that no one is talking about actually forcing people not to procreate, but that’s not the point; even asking (most) people to reconsider any more procreation, is going to cause suffering. How do you answer that without being paternalistic, and without:
YOU deem the game necessary for someone else to play based on your personal estimation.
— schopenhauer1
This is actually the thing I am saddest about when arguing the case. I am not a Spock-like figure. I think people can be great parents, and are good people, but that procreation is still wrong. The two can be separated out. No one is doubting that certain people are very good at parenting and raising kids and I feel for the idea that they feel they are missing out on something. But this is a classic case of "inclination" versus "moral". The inclination is to want to fulfill this desire to raise a child. The ethic is to not unnecessarily create more people that suffer, and to force people into a world based on one's own estimation of how much suffering is good (especially since the amount and kind of suffering for another is unknown as just a fact of the matter). It's then the inclination that must be re-educated, not the ethic.
Everything seems counterintuitive until it becomes the norm. How do you explain people who value being "child-free"? These people don't even have the inclination to have children. They rather live a non-child lifestyle. They don't want to raise them, some don't even like kids (though many do, they just don't want them). This isn't even a small segment of the population. Child-free people aren't antinatalists usually, but they are a growing trend in society, and it grows with each generation, leading to a decline in fertility rates in most developed and highly educated nations. These people simply don't have this "inclination". This is just one of many proofs that the desire for procreation (literally the desire to want kids) is not a function of "instinct" so much as nurture/personal preference. In traditional societies, families are seen as paramount. Religious/tribal notions often reinforce this familial pressure. Family, society, and tradition, reinforces it with enculturated expectations. Many times, especially in atomistic societies (such as this "modern" one), it's a function of existential angst. "What is my purpose without a family"? And it gives at least 20 or so years of solid "something" to pay attention and attend to for parents. It becomes its own reason for existing.. Why work? To help raise a family! Why go on vacation? To take your (or alternatively to get away from) family!. Why do anything? Because of family. It becomes its own built in purpose. But I am not giving justification for causing suffering, unnecessarily (because it gives YOU purpose), only providing some reasons for the procreation inclination. Again, I don't look down on or castigate parents, or people that want kids. They are generally good people, trying to do the right thing, generally. Though of course, there are also plenty of horrible parents as well, but all of this is besides the point. I am just addressing this idea that AN is cold-hearted or doesn't understand that perspective. Most thoughtful ANs do, they just don't think it is relevant in countering or addressing the issue at hand in the ethical consideration.
Not causing suffering isn’t strong enough of a moral code versus the chance at bringing about a human good through that suffering.
Suffering matters greatly to your argument and you take it for granted that everyone should know this suffering, and that no one could dignify this suffering, and instead call it a strawman.
So this isn't quite true. It is more than just suffering. If it was just suffering, I would consider myself a hedonic utilitarian or some such. It is rather about not using people by force recruiting them into projects that will harm them. Suffering matters here, but it is the particular nature of preventing suffering absolutely in the case of procreation that makes it exceptionally different than already-existing scenarios, where we are simply remediating suffering (doing the best with what we have, trading greater with lesser harms, negotiating our interests, etc.). Raising a child, forcing education, etc. then can be justified due to remediation measures for preventing greater suffering later on, it is argued. The prevention is not in play anymore. Since someone is born, they DO have interests, goals, etc. It would be wise to trade long terms harms for short term harms in some cases.
It's not my job to try to convince every Harry, Dick, and Jane of their intransigent, unsound beliefs.
It’s not my job to demonstrate that the suffering that exists in life is only animating factor of ethics. That’s your job as an AN proponent. By simply avoiding the issue you sound like a flat-earther.
The earth isn’t flat. I can argue that, point.
Life is waaay more than suffering. I argued that. You don’t respond.
Preventing suffering is NOT the highest good of ethics. I argued that, you failed to respond.
If you are frustrated with me, I think it’s because you cherish suffering too much.
That’s your job as an AN proponent. By simply avoiding the issue you sound like a flat-earther.
I made a whole post, for the Nth TIME, laying out my case, in a pretty lengthy detailed way. This is so uncharitable and untrue as to be laughable at this point. This is the kind of thing where I can respond with a million different lengthy treatises, and you will just dismiss them (without actually addressing the points) so as to constantly make me repeat my points. It's a argumentative overextension. At some point, in debates like these, you acknowledge that the points have been addressed, and you either need to think more on it, or you simply disagree an lay out your counter-arguments.
If you are frustrated with me, I think it’s because you cherish suffering too much.
Life is suffering is your strawman.
No I'm frustrated with you because you have not actually understood what I have written, you are uncharitable, and you are making straw man arguments of my points. I think that's pretty good reasons to be frustrated! You can stop arguing now, because it looks like this is just turning into bad faith ones. This last post has now proven it for me at least. You can say you're bad faith response to this, but that would just be proving it more now. I'll entertain good faith arguments, but in these last posts, I have now seen I am arguing with someone who doesn't care to actually debate, just antagonize, so good day.
Schop,
I’m not trying to be uncharitable. I’ve told you that anyone who wants to prevent suffering has their heart in the right place.
Answer me one question, is the fact that life is suffering a key premise to your argument or not?
Or better is the fact that some degree of suffering is entailed in every life a key premise to your argument or not?
Frankly don’t know why this is antagonizing. I’m trying to debate the logic of AN. It’s all so clear to you that you think I’m acting in bad faith because I’m not just following along the path that follows from the premise “life is suffering” but “ethics are good for people” and “preventing suffering is good ethics” so “never procreating is living ethically.”
To me it seems you are saying “there is enough suffering in every life that it is not debatable to evaluate that suffering as anything other than bad, harmful, fruitless, and unethical to inflict on another to any degree.
I’m trying to debate that. You think that’s bad faith for some reason.
It's NOT about the dignity of the PARENTS. Rather, it's about the dignity of the (future) child.
When I was arguing that we can’t be ethical towards a future person who does not exist, you went on and on about how it was not about the child. You said it was about the parent who was not inflicting suffering and preventing suffering and the non-presence of the child as recipient of the ethical behavior was irrelevant.
Now when I argue that (because there is no child) the human dignity AN ethics is trying to preserve has to exist in the living person who acts ethically (by preventing suffering and not procreating) you say it’s about the dignity of the future child.
I could level accusations of bad faith around too, but I’m just trying to point out the logical inconsistencies and am open to reasonable opposing views.
For instance, instead of thinking I know how the never going to Chicago scenario is so different than the never having children scenario, why don’t you lay it out? I think they are similar.
And instead of thinking I am fully aware of what I’m saying and acting in bad faith, show me how what I’m saying is not reasonable. Don’t just say it’s bad, show me.
I don’t think you are acting in bad faith towards me - I think you are being illogical and I’m trying as many ways as I can to show you why it’s illogical. I could be wrong about what AN really is, or I could be wrong about how my arguments are unsound or invalid in themselves. But you haven’t shown me otherwise. And instead like calling me a bad faith straw man builder. Over and over.
Are you really going to leave this conversation without showing me MORE CLEARLY how I am wrong?
How do you explain people who value being "child-free"?
There is no need to. We are are discussing the logic of ending procreation to make the world more ethical and prevent future suffering.
There is a law that murder is wrong. The fact that I am never inclined to murder and likely never will be makes it easy for me to follow that law. That’s a different conversation than whether “murder is wrong” is a good law, is something universal everyone should follow, and something we should teach all to understand. Even if we logically showed “murder is good” I still wouldn’t murder.
I can only present the argument faithfully and to the best of my ability and they can do whatever they want. They can handle snakes, pray to their god, say their holy Hosannas, spout out nonsense, red herring non-sequitors on an internet forum
I am trying to use logic only. I never raised any of these non-sequitors. You did, which makes it a non-sequitor to the conversation I’m having.
I only point this out to show you how much I’m trying to avoid bad faith. I’m sticking to the text and bringing up logical issues with it and new premises (like suffering is of less import and less valuable than the life of the one who suffers). I’m not resorting to anything else but my observations and wits - no insulting references to religious practices.
I’m not belittling the AN person - I’m attacking the logic behind the conclusion that in order to be ethical, we should not procreate.
If AN is an issue of personal faith, like other “holy hosannas and spouting out other nonsense, then I wouldn’t be arguing the way I am. But it’s a logical, ethical stance. One that doesn’t seem sound to me.
Frankly don’t know why this is antagonizing. I’m trying to debate the logic of AN.
Because I had a long post and you ignored it. Yes it's about suffering. Duh. But it's not suffering "tout court" in this case. It's about what surrounds it. The context. In this case the context that occurs when deciding to procreate.
To me it seems you are saying “there is enough suffering in every life that it is not debatable to evaluate that suffering as anything other than bad, harmful, fruitless, and unethical to inflict on another to any degree.
Nope, I am not saying that at all really because again, this is not my argument.
Are you really going to leave this conversation without showing me MORE CLEARLY how I am wrong?
Yeah I am ready to do just that because as with even this last post, you misconstrue it, make it into your own version of an argument (straw man), and then ask why I'm pissed.
I could level accusations of bad faith around too, but I’m just trying to point out the logical inconsistencies and am open to reasonable opposing views.
And instead of thinking I am fully aware of what I’m saying and acting in bad faith, show me how what I’m saying is not reasonable. Don’t just say it’s bad, show me.
I had a whole freakn' post with a bunch of detail you ignored.
There is no need to. We are are discussing the logic of ending procreation to make the world more ethical and prevent future suffering.
There is a law that murder is wrong. The fact that I am never inclined to murder and likely never will be makes it easy for me to follow that law. That’s a different conversation than whether “murder is wrong” is a good law, is something universal everyone should follow, and something we should teach all to understand. Even if we logically showed “murder is good” I still wouldn’t murder.
Wow, you are so far from what the point of that was to prove. Try again.
I am trying to use logic only. I never raised any of these non-sequitors. You did, which makes it a non-sequitor to the conversation I’m having.
I only point this out to show you how much I’m trying to avoid bad faith. I’m sticking to the text and bringing up logical issues with it and new premises (like suffering is of less import and less valuable than the life of the one who suffers). I’m not resorting to anything else but my observations and wits - no insulting references to religious practices.
I’m not belittling the AN person - I’m attacking the logic behind the conclusion that in order to be ethical, we should not procreate.
If AN is an issue of personal faith, like other “holy hosannas and spouting out other nonsense, then I wouldn’t be arguing the way I am. But it’s a logical, ethical stance. One that doesn’t seem sound to me.
Link to a post where you think I’m not responding to you. The clear “here is the AN argument and here is why it is the most logical ethic” post or posts.
I don’t see why you think the things I’m saying are not relevant or in bad faith. Spell it out or give up.
I keep rephrasing what I think you are saying to show you clearly what I think you are saying, and then I post my objections.
I’m playing as fair as I can despite your accusations.
You just respond to my objections by calling me names.
How about laying out your argument, or linking to something you already said the for Nth time.
I’ll try it again anyway.
Is this AN??:
1. Living entails suffering.
2. Causing someone else to suffer (without their consent?) is bad (immoral, unethical), and preventing suffering or future suffering is good.
3. Procreation brings about new life, and the suffering entailed in that new life.
Therefore, procreation is a violation of the ethical rule stated in 2, procreation causes unconsented future suffering, and AN is the more ethical stance.
Is that AN? I am not sure whether consent is needed in the ethical rule of 2.
And instead of jabbing at wherever I have it wrong, show me where it is wrong, incomplete, unclear, but leave in the parts where it is right or clear (if any) so this can be a discussion that builds on prior assertions we’ve made. Lay it out so that I say “Wow, I did sound like I was in bad faith. I did have it all wrong.” Or really the point of any conversation, show me so I say “Schop was right, AN makes sense.”
Work in the asymmetry. I’m sure I would screw that up if I tried. Maybe it’s not essential to sure up the argument.
Work in the fact that specific future people do not matter to take the AN ethical stance towards them (as you said to correct me), but that the dignity of future people is the point of AN (as you said to correct me). And maybe address the issue of these two seeming (to me) to be incompatible.
Yes it's about suffering. Duh. But it's not suffering "tout court" in this case. It's about what surrounds it. The context. In this case the context that occurs when deciding to procreate.
Suffering itself is a physical, mental lived experience.
The context around suffering, to me, would be the body and its environment, or the psychology - both interacting between the suffering subject.
The deciding to procreate doesn’t make sense to me as the context surrounding the suffering. You need to be more precise.
Do you mean some suffering is neutral, not good or bad, but other suffering, like future suffering cause by procreating is good or bad, and in the CAE of AN, bad?
Don’t follow needing to think of the context of suffering to understand the arguments.
It’s not. I’m saying, to convince me of the premise that my life is mostly suffering, you will have to add some suffering to my life.
Right, somewhat fair. In this case, I think it would take that accounting exercise though. Again, in the individual circumstance your delusion(Trademark - lol) is a + for your experience but I'm unsure why this matters. I also suffer the above-noted delusion but I'm still aware of all the suffering outside myself - with the addition of my being relatively sure I'm wrong about my own life. The former aspect is far more important than the suffering I actually acknowledge in my own life, as I see it. Forgive the somewhat combative nature of that approach too - it was tongue-in-cheek.
“because [s]your[/s] life is mostly suffering, you should not procreate.”
No, no. Let me be clear. This is wrong. I have struck through the erroneous word that I think is doing a lot of lifting. Without that word, it becomes as described in the first response paragraph in this post. Its actually pretty damn key to remember that zooming in on a specific life is the wrong method here, and I just don't see it as relevant in the wider discussion because of the potential that you're just simply wrong about your quality of life - despite that wrongness improving your quality of life hehe (though, noting that almost no antinatalists think suicide is a reasonable response to any of life, once it gets going).
Because they are alive. You're doing the wrong calculation. Suffice to say, your point here stands but your reasons for it are simply not at all relevant to coming to conclusions on whether to have more children versus what you think about your existing children, or what they think of you. They are already alive. Not in the discussion, as individuals.
There is no aggregate until there are individuals to pile up into that aggregate. An aggregate construction doesn’t get off the ground without constructing all of its individual stories first.
And yet, the individual stories aren't relevant and the aggregates are. *shrug*. Not an uncommon reality.
That wasn't really asserted. I've been very clear that what I think about any particular life isn't relevant (nor is what you think, for that matter). I'm unsure how better to explain that?
Your position seems to result in the notion that it is never permissible to require behaviours from people who are ignorant of the harm those behaviours cause, because they don't report the harm. IF you're consistent in that, I can't really fault your reasoning But i think you're wrong about the states of affairs. If we all accept that life is on balance, a shit experience, having kids would be morally wrong ipso facto - no law needed. Having kids at 80 (males) is in this box. No one thinks Al Pacino isn't all hunky dory for being a father to his newborn at his age. Most agree it's wrong.
This is somewhat false. Many antinatalists would prefer there were restrictions on procreation on ethical grounds. Otherwise, your description is good.
The argument relies on the asymmetry of preventing suffering and not preventing suffering.
Not quite. This is what supports it. It relies on the state of affairs being that suffering is the overwhelming mode of experience for humans.
The a-symmetry simply supports the ethical solution of not procreating. Not the position itself.
But often being angry about something means there is something of consideration that you find worthy of having to be addressed.
This is why I have a semi-constant smirk on. Every time I've been pressed on this by non-philosophers they get quite angry at their inability to find fault. I think people assume i'm telling them their choice to have children makes them worse people in my eyes
AN defeats it’s own good, which are ethical human beings.
I think this is wrong. If the goal is to reduce suffering in humans, eliminating humans is its ultimate good. The fact that Ethics then cease to exists doesn't say anything about it. No humans is a success.
A further comment on the a-symmetry being leaned on here: It is a crucial part of hte position, but you can actually jettison this and still hold AN views. This is why you can see it supports the action rather htan the position. A lot of people will say "Ok, but why would that mean I shouldn't have kids?" and the a-symmetry comes in.
But this also, and it needs to be clearly understood, makes it obvious that the AN accepts that nearly every living person should continue living as death causes a large proportion of the suffering being calculated.
And yet, the individual stories aren't relevant and the aggregates are. *shrug*. Not an uncommon reality
The individual stories aren’t relevant individually, but in order for the aggregate to display more or less suffering, you can’t gather individual stories about wood-working - you need individual stories that provide some insight into suffering levels.
f the goal is to reduce suffering in humans, eliminating humans is its ultimate good. The fact that Ethics then cease to exists doesn't say anything about it. No humans is a success.
This sounds more pragmatic or utilitarian. Which may be the best spin on AN. If we treat humans like any other animal and for whatever reason want to reduce the suffering of humans, we could end procreation and let it all fade out.
I’m just saying if we humans think our ethics and morals are so important that we must live by them and uphold them above our own instincts and choose not to procreate for the sake of being moral and “good”, then we are defeating the seat of ethics in the world along with the lives that could have otherwise recognized and lived ethically; “because it is wrong to inflict suffering” is an ethic, and if this ethic is the reason we act, and our actions are to never procreate, then we are not only removing all of the suffering humans from the universe, but the ethics that inspired their removal in the first place.
No one has explained how it is logical for an AN person to say “thou shalt not procreate” but, after a person breaks that rule and gets pregnant, how they can also say “it is permissible to get an abortion.” That would mean, it is wrong to create a newly conceived fetus, because that causes suffering, but once you create one, you can still kill it. Where is the internal logic there?
I missed this, so will give my response here, and then add responses to your most recent below:
Ah, but this is entirely fine and there's nothing wrong with those two positions. It is wrong to bring a fetus to term because thence begins suffering. Being pregnant, per se, isn't an issue. If you were 100% sure to miscarry every child you ever had implanted in your womb - go for gold, but get a therapist.
An abortion prevents the human life entering the pool of suffering. There's no failure in logic that i can see unless there's some underlying imports i'm not grasping.
you need individual stories that provide some insight into suffering levels.
I agree, and in the process of getting to the 'data set' these are meaningful, just not to antinatalism. It's the contour of the aggregation that's used in this discussion, rather than the fine-grain you're at(or were before).
If we treat humans like any other animal and for whatever reason want to reduce the suffering of humans, we could end procreation and let it all fade out.
I think, in a poetic sense, this is more or less where most antinatalists lie. Just don't do anything to increase the number of people. The rest can take care of itself, if we dodge an asteroid in the meantime. Quoting Fire Ologist
we are not only removing all of the suffering humans from the universe, but the ethics that inspired their removal in the first place.
Yes. I see no issue, though. The ethic which leads us to remove bigotry would be defeated by a defeat (removal) of all bigotry in the world. This is an oddity of most ethical views, but they are about how to act. If we can't act, its not up for consideration I think.
Reply to Fire Ologist
Read this more carefully. Then re-read it. Make sure you can summarize the main points to yourself. Then when you answer, probably best to go paragraph by paragraph and ask a question if you don't understand, or raise an objection to discrete points, but don't lose track of the bigger picture each point is trying to paint. Here it is again:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/915425
Not quite. This is what supports it. It relies on the state of affairs being that suffering is the overwhelming mode of experience for humans.
The a-symmetry simply supports the ethical solution of not procreating. Not the position itself.
So the initial asymmetry is presented by Benatar as the following:
3 the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone;
4. the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
So I further explain this asymmetry by reformulating it a bit. The reason is because people often think that 3 runs into the "non-identity" issue because it is an impersonal "good". In other words, "Who" is benefiting from the absence of pain? And if no one, then how is it in any sense "good"?
Now, I think this is easily defeated in modal understanding of future conditionals. That is to say, we just say "It is a good state of affairs" that no one was harmed, WHEN THERE VERY WELL COULD HAVE BEEN SOMEONE HARMED. That's all that is needed to defeat this point.
However, even if someone had a weird metaphysics that denies future conditional states of affairs, you can rephrase the asymmetry as this:
1) Having a person will cause the harm/cause the breaking of some principle. This is a bad situation.
2) Not having a person will not cause the harm/cause the breaking of some principle. This can be either good or neutral situation, it doesn't matter.
All that matters in this is 1 (the bad situation) doesn't obtain.
This is somewhat false. Many antinatalists would prefer there were restrictions on procreation on ethical grounds. Otherwise, your description is good.
Explain what kind of "restrictions" you are talking about here. You might be correct as a great many of people with a shallow understanding of the principles involved would encourage this quite strongly (people who watched a youtube video and decided it sounded about right). Anyone with a more thorough understanding in favour of enforcing such ideas by law are extreme radicals and should probably be treated with contempt by everyone else (they will be by me for sure).
Rather, it's about the dignity of the (future) child. […] That is say, no person exists to be violated prior to procreation. The violation only takes place once procreation occurs.
Ok, the violation occurs when procreation happens. But you didn’t say the rule that’s violated (and I’m not going to dare to assume anything). The violation of what rule specifically in your words for me to parse out?
But I got this rule is violated once procreation occurs.
prevent the harm if possible, especially if it is unnecessary to let the harm happen in the first place!) versus remediative harm (the harm is already taking place, now a set of actions is needed to remediate it!).
That sounds like a rule in there. The rule seems to be to “prevent harm when possible, especially when unnecessary.” Then, once procreation happens and the rule has been violated, you move to a different rule where, if there is harm already done “a set of actions is needed to remediate it.”
I think you said before AN has nothing to do with remediative actions. Which makes sense since AN is a pre-procreation moral guidance.
in a given context of a society means having to move about in public spaces- in the situatedness of a social sphere. This means, inevitably you will cause unintentional harm.
This seems to be about a wider moral position, and has stepped outside of a narrow focus on AN. The above all talks about how to treat other currently living people. In this context, and if I got the rule right, the rule being: “prevent harm when possible, especially when unnecessary”, in the wider context of other living people we still must try to prevent harm, especially when unnecessary, but there can be harmed caused that is “unintentional harm.” And any step we take is towards remediation, not prevention first.
[Could negligent behavior blur the line between preventative and remediative acts? Is there a duty to try to prevent negligence, and while some acts are purely unintentional, others are wanton and grossly negligent sorts that we all have a duty to prevent? This is a tangent - forget the question.]
Positive ethics DOES matter in the sphere of existing to some extent, as long as it doesn't unnecessarily violate others. Remember the bridge argument? The fishermen want to catch the biggest fish of their life. It's blocking YOUR right to go to your car. Whatever pleasure they get from fishing and the collateral damage of causing your harm, it was unnecessary to "recruit" you into their project. This is different than being one car of many in traffic "recruiting" you into traffic. With the road situation, it is tacitly accepted that this is part of how roads worked. However, if a car wanted to stop traffic so they can look out the side of the road at some attraction, that is now falling into unnecessary "recruiting" territory.
I sum this up as making the point that what is wrong about procreation is that we are recruiting a future person into a life of suffering, and failing to prevent obviously unnecessary suffering.
I can only present the argument faithfully and to the best of my ability
I think you are making me do all the work and judging by your abilities you could do it way better, and tighter. You just don’t want to waste your time on a bad faith opponent - well you’re judging me harshly. I’m doing my best too.
The ethic is to not unnecessarily create more people that suffer, and to force people into a world based on one's own estimation of how much suffering is good (especially since the amount and kind of suffering for another is unknown as just a fact of the matter). It's then the inclination that must be re-educated, not the ethic.
You said “especially since the amount of suffering is unknown.” That adds an interesting element. “Amount of suffering” as a concept, plus this amount being “unknown.”
I don’t think the amount of suffering matters, and I don’t think the fact of suffering is unknown. We know every time we procreate we are recruiting someone into suffering. Period. Right?
As far as the re-education, I agree it would be in the face of inclinations and old habits. But I’m still trying to parse out the content of the education. That is a 2.0 discussion about inclinations and where they come from and why someone might resist AN. I’m just sticking to what AN is.
You even said yourself after talking about people who aren’t inclined to have kids, about religion and family as urging kids, as existential need for purpose.. “…Though of course, there are also plenty of horrible parents as well, but all of this is besides the point.”
So I don’t think I need to parse that part out yet to focus on what AN is.
I’m not intending to mischaracterize anything you are trying to explain, so if I do, that wasn’t my intent, so don’t accuse me of bad faith anymore, please. (If something is wrong, clarify it for me. Nothing wrong with wiping the blackboard clean and laying out a tight argument from the top again.)
It is more than just suffering. If it was just suffering, I would consider myself a hedonic utilitarian or some such. It is rather about not using people by force recruiting them into projects that will harm them. Suffering matters here, but it is the particular nature of preventing suffering absolutely in the case of procreation that makes it exceptionally different than already-existing scenarios,
So it is more about not forcing someone to be born at all, regardless of any suffering; it is about how “recruiting them into projects” is wrong. The fact that it is a project “that will harm them” makes it all the worse, but “it is more than just suffering. […] It is rather about not using people by force.”
This is why you don’t like my arguments about the amount of suffering. Suffering in life is a part of what is wrong about procreation, but it is the involuntary recruitment that might be the real heart of the rule that is violated.
So I had the rule as (trying to quote you) “ prevent the harm if possible, especially if it is unnecessary to let the harm happen in the first place.” But there is a second rule or complication to the rule (again that I hope you will clarify) something like (as tight as I can make to build less room for misinterpretation): “do not impose harm, especially when it can be avoided.”
So this confuses “prevent” with “not impose”. But I am seeing AN as more saying “do not impose” in order to get the involuntary recruitment aspect into it.
But that undermines all of the time spent parsing out “prevent” from “remediate”. That wasn’t really the issue. And that issue was related to the suffering, where first you must prevent suffering, but then once procreation happens and you are with the currently living you are following a rule relating to remediating suffering. But we also said that the suffering isn’t the heart of the issue.
So I think all of the arguments over prevent versus remediate and suffering and amounts of suffering, were off the mark (or at least my objections and rebuttals to those aspects of the arguments were off the mark). Because that wasn’t the real heart of the problem. That’s why it can be ok to cause some suffering in living people, because they can consent to that suffering.
The mark for AN has to do with the lack of consent to live at all.
It is wrong to force a being into existence when no such being could give its consent, therefore one should not procreate.
Suffering matters here, but it is the particular nature of preventing suffering absolutely in the case of procreation that makes it exceptionally different than already-existing scenarios, where we are simply remediating suffering (doing the best with what we have, trading greater with lesser harms, negotiating our interests, etc.).
It is right. It sounds right to me. I still don’t think I’m mischaracterizing anything you are saying.
And I also still think it can all be summed up in a tighter argument where every word counts better than I’ve done here. I’m not sure if the best formulation of the rule involved ( “prevent harm” or “not imposing harm”).
There are holes that I can’t seem to fill, and that I’m afraid to fill for fear of “strawmanning”!!
There is an apparent vacillation on the place of the future non-existing baby that is both prevented from existing (as a future possible baby), and in which suffering is prevented from existing. I know that the baby never exists when the rule is followed and no violation occurs. But the rule itself seems to invoke the existence of a baby that cannot give its consent, to whom life is being imposed involuntarily; there’s a tension there that you (not me) introduce into the text. The existence of the baby seems to matter (actual) and not matter (potential) to the world this ethic describes.
And I still see a hole in the value of suffering to the AN argument. Something needs further clarity here. Does AN hold its ground regardless of any suffering or not?
But I’ve gone too far astray from the text.
Before you respond to all of the things I got wrong, can you at least admit how far I DO seem to understand it? Most of this whole post was me trying to restate you without causing any cringing.
Before you respond to all of the things I got wrong, can you at least admit how far I DO seem to understand it? Most of this whole post was me trying to restate you without causing any cringing.
Yes, thank you for actually trying to analyze and parse out the arguments. I appreciate that, and now we can have a much more interesting discussion :clap: because we are not talking so past each other, but seriously engaged in the content. This was actually very good, along the lines I was looking for.
That sounds like a rule in there. The rule seems to be to “prevent harm when possible, especially when unnecessary.” Then, once procreation happens and the rule has been violated, you move to a different rule where, if there is harm already done “a set of actions is needed to remediate it.”
This seems to be about a wider moral position, and has stepped outside of a narrow focus on AN. The above all talks about how to treat other currently living people. In this context, and if I got the rule right, the rule being: “prevent harm when possible, especially when unnecessary”, in the wider context of other living people we still must try to prevent harm, especially when unnecessary, but there can be harmed caused that is “unintentional harm.” And any step we take is towards remediation, not prevention first.
[Could negligent behavior blur the line between preventative and remediative acts? Is there a duty to try to prevent negligence, and while some acts are purely unintentional, others are wanton and grossly negligent sorts that we all have a duty to prevent? This is a tangent - forget the question.]
Absolutely, but as further down it discusses that once born, "positive ethics" does come into play (people's interests, goals), complete avoidance of harm, and to what point negligence matters is a sticky situation. But correct, at this point tangential so can be tabled for another thread/discussion. AN does not matter for these cases being that it's still remediation, and then a matter of "To what degree?"
I sum this up as making the point that what is wrong about procreation is that we are recruiting a future person into a life of suffering, and failing to prevent obviously unnecessary suffering.
Correct. There are multiple violations here having to do with violating someone's dignity, encapsulated with "Don't harm" and Don't violate people's autonomy" (both of them being further grouped as types of the principle "Don't use/mess with people", but I'll explain that later).
You said “especially since the amount of suffering is unknown.” That adds an interesting element. “Amount of suffering” as a concept, plus this amount being “unknown.”
I don’t think the amount of suffering matters, and I don’t think the fact of suffering is unknown. We know every time we procreate we are recruiting someone into suffering. Period. Right?
Correct, but with a caveat. The non-harm/autonomy principles were violated, and it was unnecessary (no remediative reason for it), so in an absolute sense, always wrong. However, I don't discount that the extent of suffering is in play. But it is in play to the detriment of the pro-natalist argument, not the other way around. Whereas, if no one was born, literally no one would be deprived (non-identity issue) of the goods of life, once born there will be suffering/harm as a fact. And it is empirically true that this world holds a great deal of it in known and unknown quantities. That adds to the antinatalist case. It also leads into the idea that if we distill down the (six or so to my estimation) goods of life, causing people suffering so they can experience the goods is problematic itself in breaking the ethic of "not using people" (by unnecessarily harming them, and "messing" with them/violating other people's autonomy).
As far as the re-education, I agree it would be in the face of inclinations and old habits. But I’m still trying to parse out the content of the education. That is a 2.0 discussion about inclinations and where they come from and why someone might resist AN. I’m just sticking to what AN is.
You even said yourself after talking about people who aren’t inclined to have kids, about religion and family as urging kids, as existential need for purpose.. “…Though of course, there are also plenty of horrible parents as well, but all of this is besides the point.”
So I don’t think I need to parse that part out yet to focus on what AN is.
Yes, my point to bring that in the discussion was many people, and I believe earlier you did as well, try to invoke some procreative/natural "necessity" into the human psyche. But I am encountering with empirical evidence that humans don't even work that way. Rather, we are very much learned/cultural/existential/deliberative creatures, and less so "instinctual". This gets into a lot of side avenues of discussion but generally what I was getting at is that "Wanting to procreate" or "Wanting to have kids" is not an instinct but a (very culturally weighted) preference. Childfree-people and their GROWTH as societies get more educated (that is, away from familial and tribal and religious pressures), they tend to become more individualistic, and PREFER to procreate less over time. That to me indicates that "wanting kids" is not instinctual but very much contingent on social and existential pressures. I also mentioned that it's simply a personal preference one takes on because for many, it seems like an ultimate "purpose" because it is so all-encompassing. Also, I am acknowledging that this is a hard decision and a powerful "inclination" for many people. I am explaining possible origins, but also disregarding that any of it is relevant to the moral considerations at hand. Thus it's a classic case of "inclination" vs. "morality". You feel a "loss", but what if I told you that this feeling of "loss" can be transferred to any number of things that one might miss out on? (trips, experiences, rights of passage, etc.). This is a bit outlandish, but imagine a young Spartan who was all prepared to do all sorts of horrible things to their helot slaves. It was a right of passage they were looking forward to, but Athens takes over Sparta (this didn't happen) and forces Sparta to stop the practice of killing helots as a right of passage. Does the young Spartan have a right to feel a sense of loss? That's all he's ever known or looked forward to. Obviously, I recognize procreation is so integral to society as to be a matter of course and thus deemed as irrevocably different than the "obvious" example of inclination and preference I provided. But isn't this the point of these debates on this topic? That perhaps our normative understanding IS incorrect, and we must re-evaluate?
So it is more about not forcing someone to be born at all, regardless of any suffering; it is about how “recruiting them into projects” is wrong. The fact that it is a project “that will harm them” makes it all the worse, but “it is more than just suffering. […] It is rather about not using people by force.”
This is why you don’t like my arguments about the amount of suffering. Suffering in life is a part of what is wrong about procreation, but it is the involuntary recruitment that might be the real heart of the rule that is violated.
So I had the rule as (trying to quote you) “ prevent the harm if possible, especially if it is unnecessary to let the harm happen in the first place.” But there is a second rule or complication to the rule (again that I hope you will clarify) something like (as tight as I can make to build less room for misinterpretation): “do not impose harm, especially when it can be avoided.”
Yes good catch on the two themes/points of violation here. Roughly they correspond to non-harm principle violation (don't unnecessarily cause harm), and autonomy principle (don't unnecessarily mess with people/ violate their autonomy). And thus, as you state, the extent of suffering is not the crux of the position, but it can inform it. Why? Because part of the "non-harm" principle entails two things:
1) Known harm
2) Unknown harm
So the violation happens because you know there is harm, but you choose to impose it anyways. And you know that you cannot know "unknown harm" that might befall someone- so you are gambling with other people (again all these are principles of using someone.. harm/autonomy, etc.).
And this brings me to another point, that of the notion of "aggressive paternalism". This is the stance one takes when they deem that it is OK to violate these deontological principles of non-harm/autonomy (to use people). That is where this notion of "Your positive ethics does NOT justify violating someone else's negative ethics".
So I think all of the arguments over prevent versus remediate and suffering and amounts of suffering, were off the mark (or at least my objections and rebuttals to those aspects of the arguments were off the mark). Because that wasn’t the real heart of the problem. That’s why it can be ok to cause some suffering in living people, because they can consent to that suffering.
Nice takeaway, and good example of walking through the dialectic and how it relates to the arguments and seeing where some errors could be on initial interpretations and arguments.
The mark for AN has to do with the lack of consent to live at all.
It is wrong to force a being into existence when no such being could give its consent, therefore one should not procreate.
Is this right?
Yes, but I don't think the rule relies solely on consent. There is definitely the principle of non-harm, so you can combine it with what you were getting at earlier, "One should not cause unnecessary harm, or violate someone's autonomy (consent)" This is an example of the more basic principle of "Do not use people". And to violate this would be to take a stance of "aggressive paternalism" where you deem "Ok to violate other people's negative ethics for the cause of one's own positive ethics". In other words, "You deem what is best for others, even if that brings with it harms/suffering for others."
And I also still think it can all be summed up in a tighter argument where every word counts better than I’ve done here. I’m not sure if the best formulation of the rule involved ( “prevent harm” or “not imposing harm”).
Indeed, I also wonder this because, as you stated, they both convey different but related ideas. You are preventing harm AND imposing harm. In the negative sense, you are not violating non-harm. In the positive sense, you WILL be imposing harm, presumably for some positive ethic. You are IMPOSING a project, creating unnecessary harm (aggressive paternalism- feelings that one has the right to violate negative ethics for one's own estimation of what should be/positive ethics).
But the rule itself seems to invoke the existence of a baby that cannot give its consent, to whom life is being imposed involuntarily; there’s a tension there that you (not me) introduce into the text. The existence of the baby seems to matter (actual) and not matter (potential) to the world this ethic describes.
This is why I reformulate the general "asymmetry" here. Even though I might say that a potential child not born is "good" for not suffering. You might say that it is neutral. And I am willing to say that I am okay with this. We can say in fact, that prior to procreation, no ethical thing is happening good or bad. It is only one way that it is bad, the scenario of procreation. There may not be an equivalent "good", just "not bad".
And I still see a hole in the value of suffering to the AN argument. Something needs further clarity here. Does AN hold its ground regardless of any suffering or not?
This is indeed a whole discussion in itself. But to be brief, this is answered by being contra the "aggressive paternalism" stance. That is to say, it is hubris to assume for others that there is a certain amount of suffering that is acceptable or even "good for someone" to take place, even if it doesn't have to. You are indeed violating someone's dignity (using them) because you deem a certain set of positive principles as above and beyond the violation of someone else's negative principles.
Thank you for taking the time to do this "close/charitable" read! Now we can have productive conversations around the same set of ideas rather than talking past each other. Even if we disagree, we are at least doing it on the correct set of ideas, or at least near close to it (I'm sure we will still talk past each other).
Does adoption/taking guardianship over children abandoned by their genitors prolong suffering according to AN? Is it the fault of those that adopted him, who've abetted & aided in introducing him to a potentially painful existence within society? Or the fault of those who brought him into this world, the mother who gave birth to him, the father who inseminated?
Or an asexual who adopts a kid, though never brought the child into existence through procreation. Yet, similarly, the child will expect to experience immense suffering within his societal upbringing, is this the fault of the biological parents who are completely absent in this regard?
So you are introducing a bunch of strawman scenarios into the AN argument, as it looks like you are not understanding the domain of antinatalism. Antinatalism is purely about the decision to procreate a person. In the current world we live in, this is by the usual biological methods, though with fertilization technology I guess it can involve several participants. But the question for antinatalism is strictly "Is it okay to procreate someone who will be harmed/suffer once they are born?". The antinatalist answer is an emphatic "NO!".
The same ethic that wants to prevent future suffering of a person might also be at work in various other ethical applications, but that wouldn't be the domain of antinatalism- this includes the upbringing of a child once already born.
There may be several possible normative ethical foundations for a person's particular version of antinatalism. For example, mine might include the idea that procreation violates negative ethics (the non-harm/autonomy principles), and even if there is a positive project you might want from it (meaning in your life, heritage, legacy, etc.), that positive project doesn't override another person's negative right not to be harmed unnecessarily.
I have seen discussions where I've leant toward this not being the case. I.e not being sufficient to support the position entirely. The non-identity problem does get its day, essentially. But I think it can be defeated, regardless. I would have to revisit those discussions (i believe one was on an Antinatalist podcast with a very irking woman presenting, tbh, but Benatar as guest) to get to it, though, so feel free to disregard that.
I think its not entirely wrong to require that a lack of harm is pursuant to an individual. But, if its true for *insert any considered future person* then it is true for every other considered future person. These are, to the degree it matters here, individuals in consideration. So, you can take an individual who does not exist, yet is on the other side of the Yes/No choice being made (determinists shhh) - it's clearly wrong to create something which will primarily suffer.
But this actually gives us an even clearer formulation - "Inducing suffering is wrong".
Explain what kind of "restrictions" you are talking about here.
(to be clear, I personally don't really think these restrictions are apt responses to the AN position, but other ethical considerations to be discussed elsewhere). One possible route would be licensing for parentage. Another would be restrictions on how many children can be part of any given (defined) genetic circle. Quoting I like sushi
Anyone with a more thorough understanding in favour of enforcing such ideas by law are extreme radicals and should probably be treated with contempt by everyone else (they will be by me for sure).
I'm unsure contempt would be my response, as opposed to incredulity.
Reply to gadzooks All of your points have to do with individuals already living, and so are irrelevant.
schopenhauer1August 06, 2024 at 22:48#9233950 likes
I think its not entirely wrong to require that a lack of harm is pursuant to an individual. But, if its true for *insert any considered future person* then it is true for every other considered future person. These are, to the degree it matters here, individuals in consideration. So, you can take an individual who does not exist, yet is on the other side of the Yes/No choice being made (determinists shhh) - it's clearly wrong to create something which will primarily suffer.
I feel my post you quoted from sufficiently goes over reasons why the non-identity issue is a red herring. It's an abuse of language to reason that future conditionals are not in moral considerations. Also I gave some restatements of the Benatarian asymmetry that can change it to "states of affairs" language. The state of affairs of suffering can obtain (BAD), or it does not (good or at least NOT BAD). Obviously select the NOT BAD over BAD.
Reply to schopenhauer1 You have entirely missed that your arguments support action, while what I'm outlining supports the position.
I do not feel you post does what you've described. It's possible you missed that your arguments support action, while what I'm outlining supports the position. Maybe?
schopenhauer1August 07, 2024 at 03:23#9234560 likes
You have entirely missed that your arguments support action, while what I'm outlining supports the position.
I do not feel you post does what you've described. It's possible you missed that your arguments support action, while what I'm outlining supports the position. Maybe?
I really don't know what you're getting at here about action and position in regards to the non-identity issue.
I like sushiAugust 07, 2024 at 05:12#9234680 likes
One possible route would be licensing for parentage.
I have mentioned this before. That is not exactly something I would favour but it falls far away from the kind of of extreme I was talking about - an essential ban on procreation - which is not really what AN is about.
It's possible you missed that your arguments support action, while what I'm outlining supports the position. Maybe?
I have a feeling this is parallel to something I have tried to mention before on the subject of AN.
Often what is ethical is used synonymously with what is moral. With AN we are really talking about a 'moral' view (individual conscience) whereas as an 'ethical' view (general rule for society) it is something quite different.
The lack of common distinction with these terms causes discussions about AN to become fractious. This is why you see so many people believing that others are condoning the extinction of the human species - they see the 'ethical' stance as saying this is better for society (the destruction of society is better for society).
schopenhauer1August 07, 2024 at 06:18#9234790 likes
I have a feeling this is parallel to something I have tried to mention before on the subject of AN.
Often what is ethical is used synonymously with what is moral. With AN we are really talking about a 'moral' view (individual conscience) whereas as an 'ethical' view (general rule for society) it is something quite different.
The lack of common distinction with these terms causes discussions about AN to become fractious. This is why you see so many people believing that others are condoning the extinction of the human species - they see the 'ethical' stance as saying this is better for society (the destruction of society is better for society).
How did you derive this from position and action? Am I not understanding the common usage of those words?
I like sushiAugust 07, 2024 at 06:29#9234810 likes
This is why you see so many people believing that others are condoning the extinction of the human species - they see the 'ethical' stance as saying this is better for society (the destruction of society is better for society).
ANs do believe in the extinction of society being the ethically correct outcome of hte near-middle future. But, not by genocide. Not it's better 'for society'. It 'is better'. Full stop.
Reply to schopenhauer1 This is as regards the Asymmetry. The asymmetry supports acting to prevent more people. Not the position that more people is an unethical course of action. One pre, one proscriptive.
schopenhauer1August 07, 2024 at 21:07#9236200 likes
This is as regards the Asymmetry. The asymmetry supports acting to prevent more people. Not the position that more people is an unethical course of action. One pre, one proscriptive.
I'd give a slight rebuttal to this that it depends if you are a utilitarian or a deontologist about it. A utilitarian would say that it is about the outcome of suffering that needs to be prevented (negative utilitarianism), the deontologist would say it is the principle of not causing harm.
ANs do believe in the extinction of society being the ethically correct outcome of hte near-middle future. But, not by genocide. Not it's better 'for society'. It 'is better'. Full stop.
No they do not. Only if they proclaim AN as an 'ethical' paradigm that must be followed by others. When it comes to believing that it should be followed the same would not apply if should is framed as a suggestion rather than am order based on irrefutable reasoning.
You are a believer in AN? If so I am curious what your views are. I know already know well enough what Schopenhauer believes what about you? Even if you are one of those I said I would have 'contempt' for I would still like to try and understand why you think what you think :)
Reply to I like sushi As one, I can say confidently this is not the case. It is a clear entailment of AN thinking that the eventual non-existence of humans is preferable and an ethically correct outcome. They do believe people should not procreate. This is as prescriptive as one can be conceptually speaking.
My views are odd - because I am conceptually in line with AN entirely (including the above prescriptive thinking and hte delineation between living and potential persons) but I don't take anything seriously enough to think this is a view I could enforce. And nor would I want to. I have better things to do. Thsi is an intellectual position that I do believe in, but as with all of my positions, I think they apply to me. I can simply think one has their reasoning wrong without impugning htem intellectually.
Hell, I have two kids. That doesn't mean I don't feel guilt every moment of my life for that.
I like sushiAugust 08, 2024 at 01:48#9236770 likes
Reply to AmadeusD So in light of what I said you are framing yourself as 'moral' not 'ethical' in regards to AN? I say this because of the following:
My views are odd - because I am conceptually in line with AN entirely (including the above prescriptive thinking and hte delineation between living and potential persons) but I don't take anything seriously enough to think this is a view I could enforce. And nor would I want to. I have better things to do. Thsi is an intellectual position that I do believe in, but as with all of my positions, I think they apply to me. I can simply think one has their reasoning wrong without impugning htem intellectually.
This is directly in line with what I outlined as 'moral' and almost entirely opposed to the 'ethical'. Do you agree that what you say here aligns with what I stated as being a 'moral' stance rather than what I stated as an 'ethical' stance? If not why? (Note: I used these terms fairly loosely so there is wiggle room).
schopenhauer1August 08, 2024 at 02:16#9236850 likes
This is directly in line with what I outlined as 'moral' and almost entirely opposed to the 'ethical'. Do you agree that what you say here aligns with what I stated as being a 'moral' stance rather than what I stated as an 'ethical' stance? If not why? (Note: I used these terms fairly loosely so there is wiggle room).
As an aside, based on @AmadeusD's position, he doesn't want to do the following:
1) Impose antinatalism
2) Impugn others who don't believe in the rightness of antinatalism
Number 1 is simply a given being that antinatalism is properly an ethic and not a political policy. One can make it into one perhaps, but then that is antinatalist policy, not antinatalist ethics, which for all intents and purposes is what people generally refer to when they say "antinatalism". Generally antinatalists do not advocate imposing/forcing others to follow antinatalism. This is similar to veganism.
Number 2 seems a non-sequitur or self-refuting. Simply don't debate it on a philosophy forum then if you don't want to "impugn" others' stances. If he meant that in public life he doesn't do this, that is one thing. Most antinatalists don't usually go around advocating for it, though there are some that do this. It is not incumbent to be a missionary for antinatalism. However, being on a philosophy forum, and defending the position, would in a minor way be "impugning" those who are objecting, if one engages with it. So I am not sure if this is sort of tu quoque fallacy Amadeus is unintentionally making on himself by even arguing anything related to AN, given 2.
This is directly in line with what I outlined as 'moral' and almost entirely opposed to the 'ethical'.
Not quite, no. I do think it would be better if people were ANs to the point that I believe people should not have children. This is proscriptive, and is an ethical position.
Perhaps I need to be clearer: I have ethical positions I never intend to enforce on others. If you look at all the arguments and conclude "Not good enough", fine, but I'll think you're wrong and would try to persuade you otherwise. I do not have to commit myself to arguing with everyone who has kids to hold an ethical position such as AN. Practically speaking, what is the point in that? Just Stop Oil are a joke for a reason.
) Impugn others who don't believe in the rightness of antinatalism
Impugn "intellectually". Very different to impugning their ethics in my view. I think other people should not have children. Would I purposefully insinuate this to people? No. I'd prefer to suffer in silence on this issue unless asked. I wouldn't assert someone's mind was wrong (in terms of some kind of retardation(in the strict sense)) for not agreeing with my ethical position. Please keep in mind, though, I am an emotivist to the degree that i have an actual Ethical view.
I don't believe my ethical framework can be enforced. It should should be followed by me. No, this is not morality, but it is a bit of a get-out-of-jail card because it basically is a meta-ethical theory that asserts there is no objective morality. Moral theories in general don't make any sense in this light.
If you look at all the arguments and conclude "Not good enough", fine, but I'll think you're wrong and would try to persuade you otherwise.
You do this actively or only when questioned about your AN beliefs?
I do think it can be quite problematic to argue about moral positions unless you adhere to some kind of moral realism. I am assuming you are a moral realist? If not how does this fit into your views on AN?
Impugn "intellectually". Very different to impugning their ethics in my view. I think other people should not have children. Would I purposefully insinuate this to people? No. I'd prefer to suffer in silence on this issue unless asked. I wouldn't assert someone's mind was wrong (in terms of some kind of retardation(in the strict sense)) for not agreeing with my ethical position. Please keep in mind, though, I am an emotivist to the degree that i have an actual Ethical view.
I don't believe my ethical framework can be enforced. It should should be followed by me. No, this is not morality, but it is a bit of a get-out-of-jail card because it basically is a meta-ethical theory that asserts there is no objective morality. Moral theories in general don't make any sense in this light.
A sideline to this: it seems to me that most antinatalist arguments apply to animals as well (possibly even more strongly, given the amount of suffering).
If you're unwilling to enforce your framework or even really convince people, what about animals? Would you spay/neuter as many animals as possible, given the chance? Perhaps avoid their procreation in other ways?
Reply to Echarmion Largely, the suffering the AN refers to is a result of hte higher consciousness of humans. Though, some ANs absolutely go as far as to insist we should look at reducing wild populations of most animals. I think that's a bit of an 'unofficial' position some take though. It's not one for me for two reasons:
1. My current understanding of (most) animal psychology is either not good enough to assume, or leads me to believe that hte relevant animals do not 'suffer' the way humans do, but experience an aversion; and
2. I don't think we will ever have a very clear understanding of the above issue outside of some higher animals and fish.
If I could clearly understand 1. above to indicate that animals, on the whole, suffer the same way humans do, I would probably assent to your point.
You do this actively or only when questioned about your AN beliefs?
Not always directly on-point to AN stuff, but whereever it seems applicable to the discussion (several versions of a vague 'ethical' discussion would do this and hten, yes) and whenever I'm specifically prodded on the issue.
I am assuming you are a moral realist? If not how does this fit into your views on AN?
I am a pretty staunch moral antirealist (hence noting I am an Emotivist, to the degree that I will commit to an existing label). I don't think this has any affect or effect on my AN positions beyond noting that they are 'my' ethical beliefs. My meta-ethical position doesn't really give me any room to pretend i'm the arbiter of truth, no matter how sure I am that I have the 'right' idea.
I like sushiAugust 12, 2024 at 08:02#9246310 likes
You deem 'suffering' as 'bad' (or rather "Boo!") knowing it is your subjective emotions talking.
How then can you state, in any serious way, that something is 'right' or 'wrong'. The whole point of AN is to state that natalism is wrong. But you seem to be saying "it is 'wrong' (boo!) for me" not that it is out and out wrong (Boo!) for everyone or that there is anything dictating what is objectively viewed as 'right; or 'wrong' other than commonality of emotional expressions.
It is interesting how this, in part, appears similar to moral naturalism rather than moral scepticism.
Following this lien of questioning I find myself framing you as what I previously expressed as harbouring a 'Moral' stance of AN rather than an 'Ethical' stance of AN. I made this particular distinction in an essay I wrote on AN to highlight the flaw in some who make claims to both 'Moral' and 'Ethical' stances on AN as to do so is to hold contradictory positions.
Anyway, thanks for your replies. I think we could argue back and forth a bit more but it may be mostly a semantic issue given that emotivism is hard to articulate (a serious flaw of emotivism).
But you seem to be saying "it is 'wrong' (boo!) for me" not that it is out and out wrong (Boo!) for everyone or that there is anything dictating what is objectively viewed as 'right; or 'wrong' other than commonality of emotional expressions.
A lot here.
It is wrong for anyone(currently, anyhow) as far as I am concerned. Enforcement of that policy can only apply to me based on my ethical views.
(my view is that..)There is nothing that could even begin to dictate what is objectively right or wrong (in the meta-ethical sense of the term "objective"). Those words don't have objective bases.
The basis is necessarily one's emotional disposition (maybe predisposition? This could in a very weird and unsatisfying way open the door to a more-objective ethic) as there is nothing else which could inform us.
The commonality of emotional expression is probably hte best way (:optimal) to work toward policy. I don't take this to indicate anything truly ethical. But it does indicate the overall moral vibe of a society/culture.
It is interesting how this, in part, appears similar to moral naturalism rather than moral scepticism.
Could you expand? My understanding of Moral Naturalism is that it more or less indicates that morals are evolutionarily-required aspects of human development, which I don't agree with.
...what I previously expressed as harbouring a 'Moral' stance of AN rather than an 'Ethical' stance of AN...I think we could argue back and forth a bit more but it may be mostly a semantic issue given that emotivism is hard to articulate (a serious flaw of emotivism).
Hmm. Pretty hard disagree. I think in these exchanges I have navigated through that suggestion pretty well. The fact that I don't think I should be forcing other people to adopt my view doesn't make it less ethically-driven. Not doing much about it is a dispositional fact of my mind or, to be a bit more sanguine, a practical necessity to not hating my life and hte world I live in.
I disagree that Emotivism is either hard to articulate, or flawed in any meaningful way (beyond causing discomfort, that is - but that's baked into the position so LOL). But that would make sense if it's my position, so just noting this for thoroughness.
I like sushiAugust 13, 2024 at 01:42#9249180 likes
Reply to AmadeusD I think it is hard to articulate - hence the problem of vagueness. It is something some people struggle to fully grasp. Emotivism that is!
The fact that I don't think I should be forcing other people to adopt my view doesn't make it less ethically-driven.
In common parse, yes. In the framing I made for 'Moral' and 'Ethical' I am satisfied with how you have responded. If you had said some other things then I would have pulled you up about them. This is because AN only makes rational sense if it is either 'Moral' OR 'Ethical' in the way I framed those terms.
Could you expand? My understanding of Moral Naturalism is that it more or less indicates that morals are evolutionarily-required aspects of human development, which I don't agree with.
It just seemed that you were framing emotional dispositions as the grounding for moral choices rather than there being no moral choices. I made the leap from biological necessity to emotional dispositions. That is clearly not what you meant though.
What is Right For You (Emotivism) is not deemed Objectively Right. Ergo, your claim is Subjectively Led not Objectively Led - for emphasis this is what I meant in my distinction between Moral (Right for Your Perspective) and Ethical (The Right Objective Implementation).
It just seemed that you were framing emotional dispositions as the grounding for moral choices rather than there being no moral choices.
Oh, okay, I see what you mean. That might be a language issue - Emotional dispositions are the only possible grounding for moral choices. But that lives within the vagueries of "moral decision" so probably cannot be adequately defined (in either direction).
Moral (Right for Your Perspective) and Ethical (The Right Objective Implementation).
But this misses that Emotivism is a meta-ethical position. It says that human Ethics are dispositional. That framing Ethics as something objective, under which we must argue for our chosen source (God, Ayn Rand, deontology, utilitarian calc etc...) is wrong ethically. Ethics inform morals - so this ethical position means that all moral choices are in response to one's emotional state which is in turn in response to a moral proposition. You can't have a meta-moral system to explain this, because that's just ethics. And the "ethics" is that it is right to ascribe moral positions to their underlying emotional states. I'm unsure more needs to be said here, but feel free to pick it apart.
For what it's worth, I think people are ethically wrong to enforce their ethical position if their position entails an objective moral outcome. Strange, I know.
I like sushiAugust 13, 2024 at 01:52#9249240 likes
Reply to AmadeusD It was from a meta-ethical standpoint I said this. That is why I reframed 'Moral' and 'Ethical'. Anyway, I think we mostly understand each other here even if we disagree about AN :)
schopenhauer1August 25, 2024 at 19:01#9279190 likes
I thought this was a thoughtful, respectful, conversation with two more-or-less differing views on antinatalism. It's weird to listen to a debate without the vitriol you generally see on forums like this.
schopenhauer1August 25, 2024 at 19:21#9279230 likes
Just my thoughts on the above video language discussion on the word "better". The question was basically, "Who is it "better" for not to exist, if "they" don't exist to be better?". My response to that would be that it is simply from the perspective of someone already existing. I've had that conversation on here many times before. If there are no humans in the world, or ethical agents at the least, there is no need for ethics. As long as there is at least one person who has a "perspective" for lack of better terms, they can still fathom what better means from their actions. As long as an ethical perspective is around at all, then "better" exists, and thus ethics come into play such as, "This state of affairs will be better". That's how I would have answered that part of the debate.
Reply to schopenhauer1 I think, for me, it's a bit simpler: Not needing ethics would be a goal in this context. No human seems to be the only possible way for that to obtain. Therefore, antinatalism leads to the ultimate ethical goal of never needing ethics.
Fire OlogistAugust 27, 2024 at 23:24#9284980 likes
Therefore, antinatalism leads to the ultimate ethical goal of never needing ethics.
Which is another way AN harms itself as a reasonable ethical system.
If the goal of ethics is to eliminate ethics, we could just ignore any pangs of morality now instead. Like ignoring pangs of procreation when trying to be an ethical AN.
If It’s all pang manipulation, why base the manipulations on any ethics, let alone an ethics that seeks to undo its application anywhere?
Sure, pain and suffering suck and sex feels good and so does a cheeseburger when you are hungry, but using scales of ethics and motality to help decide one’s way forward for sake of eliminating ethics is a bit like using math to show how numbers can’t exist (or in this case shouldn’t exist).
Which is another way AN harms itself as a reasonable ethical system.
I'll try to sort out your comments below, but I do not see how that, in any way, harms itself. If the ethical goal is to no longer require ethical systems (because the world is perfectly ethical) then it is precisely, as an ethical system, that AN succeeds (obviously if you disagree with it then success is subjective, but I hope you get the sense in which I mean this).
we could just ignore any pangs of morality now instead
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but this seems to violate the former idea: If we're ignoring moral pangs (though, I couldn't give a shit what your moral pangs are. Show me the results of your behaviour) then ethics would say this is unethical, in some sense. You are not attended to ethics in this case. The case I'm, at least superficially, putting forward as a goal of AN would be that there are no ethics to attend. I think there is a clear distinction, myself, because you're right - the conception you've described here is inapt, and probably self-defeating.
using scales of ethics and motality to help decide one’s way forward for sake of eliminating ethics is a bit like using math to show how numbers can’t exist (or in this case shouldn’t exist).
I do not see this at all, unfortunately. They are not the same thing, or comparable. To be fair, morality would likely only pertain to the acts of hte living. Ethics are to do with the effect of those acts so there can be a difference between the two 'scales' being considered, I think - though, I ahve written this on the fly while editing a settlement statement so go easy LOL
Fire OlogistAugust 28, 2024 at 03:15#9285380 likes
Don’t you mean because the world is perfectly non-ethical?
LOL, Yes, I suppose so. May not non-ethical, but ethically bereft/empty/inapt. I hope you groked what I was getting at though... Simply that there is no need for ethical thinking (and no humans would be just that). In fact, it may be that it's not possible in that scenario. But probably that leads into some kind of exegesis which isn't my bag. I say that because, having re-read my passage it would require a "view from nowhere". Speculatively, I don't see an issue though - we're not in that world :P
@Baden Anti natalism is such a broad subject. Why squash all the conversations that can be had on the subject in to one thread? It's messy and isn't really conducive to a nice flow of different conversations that would be better suited apart from one another, not mingled altogether.
Anti natalism is such a broad subject. Why squash all the conversations that can be had on the subject in to one thread? It's messy and isn't really conducive to a nice flow of different conversations that would be better suited apart from one another, not mingled altogether.
Your observations are correct. I used to have posts that dealt with various aspects that are disparate enough to warrant their own topic.
Reply to Baden
I wonder, would it be possible to have a subforum within Ethics just for antinatalism topics? If not that, is there some middle ground whereby topics can be clearly delineated within the same thread? I think this category has enough demand to not confine it to the ghetto of a monolithic Antinatalism thread whereby individual topics are hard to discern on a broad and multifaceted issue.
I think this category has enough demand to not confine it to the ghetto of a monolithic Antinatalism thread whereby individual topics are hard to discern on a broad and multifaceted issue.
1. Discuss amongst ourselves (i.e those holders of the view, or sympathetic to the view); or
2. Put up with people who clearly misunderstand hte position, can't put together coherent objections and consistently insult us on the basis of a view we're not forcing on them.
I would hazard a guess neither is actually worth the time. That said, 180 is a never-ending fountain of bad replies which certainly help to elucidate the wrongness of some objections, so maybe there's that.
I like sushiAugust 29, 2024 at 03:22#9287640 likes
Reply to ShadowRajul It really doesn't warrant anything like that. I dedicated sub forum for Kant or various other philosophers/philosophical ideas would make more sense.
Antinatalism is fringe. SO fringe the word is not even recognised by spellcheck yet :D
I like sushiAugust 29, 2024 at 03:35#9287670 likes
Reply to AmadeusD I did. The guy in the video is holding two contrary views and had this pointed out to him (he probably won't listen though because I have heard some of his youtube stuff before and it is pretty close-minded stuff).
He showed an "Ethic" and "Moral" stance simultaneously (with the meanings I gave you some weeks back) and these are contrary.
It should also be stated that just because someone disagrees it does not mean that they do not understand. If that is the place you leap too maybe you should question your own understanding of what they are saying otherwise you are essentially claiming your position is correct and anyone who does not agree simply does not understand. Wrong. Either they do not understand you fully or you do not understand them fully; but most likely an admixture of the two.
Personally I am some kind of moral sceptic so the whole matter for me is pretty moot at its core. The AN position is Anti-Ethical as pointed out by the guy in the video if your position in in the sphere of what I coined "Ethic" rather than "Moral". As a Moral stance it has more apparent validity.
Reply to I like sushi I'm not sure what "I did" pertains to, or what video you're specifically referring to so shan't comment, but your conclusion here tells me you don't quite understand, so I'm not sure where to take that. I don't particularly care either, I'm just responding as I see fit.. A small remark, based on our exchanges, is that you did not present me any reason to think this AN position is not ethical. You might say "anti-ethical" but that must be on an ethical scale, so not sure its doing the job you think.
your position is correct and anyone who does not agree simply does not understand
No, not at all. I think, again, you have seriously (and uncharitably) misunderstood the point. I do not care whether 180 agrees. He doesn't make any sense to me msot of the time, so why would i care? The point is his constant misrepresentation, trolling remarks, insults and pure ignorance of what's been put to him.
It is genuinely fun. But, do not get it twisted: "you don't understand", for me, has absoltely nothing to do with agreement or disagreement :)
I like sushiAugust 29, 2024 at 03:49#9287690 likes
Reply to AmadeusD 180? I was referring to the video posted recently AND your post.
1. Discuss amongst ourselves (i.e those holders of the view, or sympathetic to the view); or
2. Put up with people who clearly misunderstand hte position, can't put together coherent objections and consistently insult us on the basis of a view we're not forcing on them.
I like sushiAugust 29, 2024 at 03:50#9287700 likes
Reply to Baden - My two cents - I think the decision that was made was the right one. It's not ideal, but I don't see a better option given the current constraints of PlushForums.
Leontiskos: Benatar's argument for anti-natalism would hold good even in a world where everyone received a pinprick of pain followed by 80 years of pure happiness. Therefore the argument is not reasonable; it proves too much.
Schopenhauer1: Supposing only a pin-prick was the suffering, I guess the question could be reconsidered.
Leontiskos: Reconsidered in what way? If Benatar's argument is sound then it would hold good in that world. If it would not hold good in that world then it is not sound.
The fact that you admitted to reconsideration shows that you do see the force of the reductio, but you failed to follow through and actually do the hard work of reconsidering Benatar's argument and your position.
I like sushiAugust 29, 2024 at 03:55#9287720 likes
The point is his constant misrepresentation, trolling remarks, insults and pure ignorance of what's been put to him.
From your perspectives maybe. Have you considered that what you see as 'trolling' others see as valid points that are not addressed by the argumentation.
I like sushiAugust 29, 2024 at 03:59#9287730 likes
@AmadeusD This video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osfgpM4uCVw&t=1s
Have you considered that what you see as 'trolling' others see as valid points that are not addressed by the argumentation.
Of course. This is now coming across as fairly bad faith (i know it isn't but please note what you're doing - telling me I'm not intellectually in the game, as it were). Assuming i've not considered the points adequately is a bit weird if you're getting at me for pointing out others have clearly not done the same (and even self-admitted they don't care to?) These are very different scenarios. Though, I don't fault you. You're doing roughly hte same as me.
Several people clearly don't, and yes, that's from my perspective. I have no other. All you can actually do is disagree with me, but it doesn't even seem that you're doing so.
Whether they(interlocutors) agree is a totally different issue - one which doesn't matter if they clearly don't understand my views. I would be the only person in a position to know whether you have understood them.
That said, in terms of the wider issue you're point out, given there are three or four usual suspects in this respect, I don't find an issue with my take. I accept lots of people wont like it, and lots of people wont agree or understand. That's how life works.
Thank you for the link. When my current assignment is over, it might be something to go over with you.
schopenhauer1August 29, 2024 at 04:25#9287790 likes
My two cents - I think the decision that was made was the right one. It's not ideal, but I don't see a better option given the current constraints of PlushForums.
Funny you defend this ghettoizing of the topic of antinatalism (something you vociferously disagree with), and yet you bring up a topic we discussed way back.. Something which I can't easily look up BECAUSE of this ghettoization whereby EVERYTHING related to antinatalism, no matter what thread/topic is squished into one long thread. So perhaps it is the limitations of PlushForums, but I am proposing a way to give people the ability to create new threads on the topic, so that conversations can be logically viewed.
The fact that you admitted to reconsideration shows that you do see the force of the reductio, but you failed to follow through and actually do the hard work of reconsidering Benatar's argument and your position.
Oh fuck no, because I don't see this world as ever being just a pinprick. Did you find my response? It came right after: Quoting schopenhauer1
My point was that empirically-speaking, in the real world, there are no such charmed lives, so it is de facto out of the question other than a thought experiment. Supposing only a pin-prick was the suffering, I guess the scenario could be reconsidered. But I just want you to know, every single ethical consideration can be reconfigured if you change the conditions for which ethics plays out... So for example.. What if when you stab someone, they reanimate every time you do it instantly.. would that be wrong? I don't know, but that's not the world we generally live in..
But ok, let me take your bait for taking the strongest position just for the sake of argument..
Benatar thinks indeed, being that no one being deprived of this "almost charmed life", there is no foul. No person harmed, no foul. Rather, the violation still takes place in this scenario. It's not like the child is being "saved" from non-existence, so this isn't a palliative situation either.
schopenhauer1August 29, 2024 at 04:31#9287800 likes
Put up with people who clearly misunderstand hte position, can't put together coherent objections and consistently insult us on the basis of a view we're not forcing on them.
I would hazard a guess neither is actually worth the time. That said, 180 is a never-ending fountain of bad replies which certainly help to elucidate the wrongness of some objections, so maybe there's that.
It seems to be the case that general decorum for debate in this forum has long ago been deemed as unnecessary.. people like to pull out the roots rather than prune the branches. Robust debate is replaced with "getting one's goat". It's obnoxious and un-philosophical. It is certainly sophistic, but I thought philosophy was trying to veer away from such tactics and stick to substantial issues. This I guess is why philosophers snipe at each other's beliefs, not in real time, but over the course of many years in journal articles. We are playing speed chess, academic philosophy is playing a much longer game, so they can afford to "stick to the topics" more-or-less, in their paid positions to do so in ivory towers. But, this forum doesn't have to resort to gutter tactics. I simply do so when it's necessary to meet in kind, when I sense that people are dodging, uncharitable, rude, or strawmanning my position with sweeping generalizations that don't address the issues.
Funny you defend this ghettoizing of the topic of antinatalism (something you vociferously disagree with), and yet you bring up a topic we discussed way back.. Something which I can't easily look up BECAUSE of this ghettoization whereby EVERYTHING related to antinatalism, no matter what thread/topic is squished into one long thread. So perhaps it is the limitations of PlushForums, but I am proposing a way to give people the ability to create new threads on the topic, so that conversations can be logically viewed.
Use the link I already gave you, which makes it super easy to navigate the discussion. You can make such a search more precise by searching for "schopenhauer1" instead of "." In that case it will only display the posts of mine within this thread that include your username. You can also reverse the search to see a chronological list of your posts to me within this thread. Problem solved. :wink:
Oh fuck no, because I don't see this world as ever being just a pinprick. Did you find my response?
By burying your head in the sand in this way you prove yourself unserious.
Suppose we lived in that world. And suppose Benatar came along and gave the same argument you think is so great. What would you say to him? Would you "shh!" him and sweep him under the rug!? "Don't give that argument in this world! I like birth in this world! Arguments aren't about what's true, they are about what I want, and we don't talk about the arguments that don't suit what I want!"
You're doing the same basic thing when you bury your head in the sand. You recognize that the argument proves too much but you want to believe its conclusion so you refuse to address the objection. This is precisely the sort of irrational motive I spoke about in the other thread. It's like playing soccer with a guy who uses his hands whenever he starts losing. My solution is to find someone else, who is actually interested in playing soccer. Or find a game in which the person is not irrationally devoted to a predetermined outcome. For whatever reason you show yourself unable to play by the rules of rational argument when it comes to anti-natalism.
schopenhauer1August 29, 2024 at 04:50#9287830 likes
Nah, we can just do that for any topic right? The instant you make your 30th post on Kant, you should have its own thread to wade through in the Search. Let's do that with every topic:
Meaning of life
Plato
Kant
Aristotle
Systems Theory/Semiosis
Theoretical Physics etc. etc.
Let's ghettoize all the topics equally then and make it similarly as many unnecessary steps to search for it. Quoting Leontiskos
By burying your head in the sand in this way you prove yourself unserious.
So AGAIN, you ignore the answer I gave you? That is twice you ignored my answer. Why didn't you quote what I quoted you??
Would you "shh!" him and sweep him under the rug!? "Don't give that argument in this world! I like birth in this world! Arguments aren't about what's true, they are about what I want, and we don't talk about the arguments that don't suit what I want!"
What are you talking about? I would listen and see if he had a point that indeed, in that world even a pinprick is not worth it. In fact, if you ACTUALLY read his book (don't have it in front me, but if you want to do a chapter by chapter reading, I suppose we could), he DOES cover this. So, let's get at it then.
You're doing the same basic thing when you bury your head in the sand. You recognize that the argument proves too much but you want to believe its conclusion so you refuse to address the objection. This is precisely the sort of irrational motive I spoke about in the other thread. It's like playing soccer with a guy who uses his hands whenever he starts losing. My solution is to find someone else, who is actually interested in playing soccer. Or find a game in which the person is not irrationally devoted to a predetermined outcome. For whatever reason you show yourself unable to play by the rules of rational argument when it comes to anti-natalism.
This is rhetorical blather. First off, I DON"T EVEN USE Benatar wholesale. His asymmetry, if I do mention it, is a way to jump off but I have my own variations of it, which I have taken painstaking time to outline over the course of MANY threads over MANY years.. To have you pin me to one line of reasoning, like that is a subtle but malicious form of uncharitable reading.. But keep mistaking me for Benatar.
But the funny thing is, EVEN if I defend Benatar qua Benatar (not my variation of him), I STILL defended him sufficiently, and you IGNORED my actual response to make rhetorical blather.
So AGAIN, you ignore the answer I gave you? That is twice you ignored my answer. Why didn't you quote what I quoted you??
Because your quote was a dodge. I asked you why you would reconsider in that world and you pulled the escape hatch and refused to answer, instead changing the subject. I answered your red herring in the thread:
It wouldn't be wrong in the same way as it is now. But your theoretical does not function as a reductio to any argument that I have offered, and that is the primary difference.
1. Suppose every living human being is guaranteed a pinprick of pain followed by 80 years of pure happiness.
2. [Insert Benatar's antinatalist argument here]
3. Therefore, we should never procreate
Are you starting to see the reductio? The reductio has force because we know that any (2) that can get you from (1) to (3) is faulty argumentation.
What is your parallel supposed to be?
1a. Suppose one is reanimated whenever they are stabbed.
2a. [Insert anti-stabbing argument here].
3a. Therefore, we should not stab.
4a. (Any 2a that can get you from 1a to 3a is faulty argumentation.)
This fails because we have no reason to believe either 3a or 4a. There is no parity between these two approaches. It's an ad hoc dodge.
This is rhetorical blather. First off, I DON"T EVEN USE Benatar wholesale. His asymmetry, if I do mention it, is a way to jump off but I have my own variations of it, which I have taken painstaking time to outline over the course of MANY threads over MANY years.. To have you pin me to one line of reasoning, like that is a subtle but malicious form of uncharitable reading.. But keep mistaking me for Benatar.
You are drawing up more escape hatches because you see your argument failing. You are the one who brought up Benatar, not me. It isn't courageous or rational to give your arguments conditionally, such that if they succeed then your position is vindicated but if they fail then you're none the worse for wear.
schopenhauer1August 29, 2024 at 05:15#9287890 likes
It wouldn't be wrong in the same way as it is now. But your theoretical does not function as a reductio to any argument that I have offered, and that is the primary difference.
Now what you did not quote nor did you actually address was this: Quoting schopenhauer1
But I just want you to know, every single ethical consideration can be reconfigured if you change the conditions for which ethics plays out... So for example.. What if when you stab someone, they reanimate every time you do it instantly.. would that be wrong? I don't know, but that's not the world we generally live in..
1. Suppose every living human being is guaranteed a pinprick of pain followed by 80 years of pure happiness.
2. [Insert Benatar's antinatalist argument here]
3. Therefore, we should never procreate
This is rhetorical blather. First off, I DON"T EVEN USE Benatar wholesale. His asymmetry, if I do mention it, is a way to jump off but I have my own variations of it, which I have taken painstaking time to outline over the course of MANY threads over MANY years.. To have you pin me to one line of reasoning, like that is a subtle but malicious form of uncharitable reading.. But keep mistaking me for Benatar.
SO you are still arguing against your own arguments.. ones cleverly concocted to make you win an argument against yourself.. as they are YOUR contrived arguments (uninformed version of Benatar and my own individual philosophy), not mine.
1a. Suppose one is reanimated whenever they are stabbed.
2a. [Insert anti-stabbing argument here].
3a. Therefore, we should not stab.
4a. (Any 2a that can get you from 1a to 3a is faulty argumentation.)
This fails because we have no reason to believe either 3a or 4a. There is no parity between these two approaches. It's an ad hoc dodge.
Not at all.. If one is reanimated when stabbed, that changes the very conditions of the world itself. Death is not really death. It's something else. Just as a pinprick world might not be the kind of suffering we are used to. This is the most uninteresting argument I've seen in a while. You haven't even incorporated Schopenhaueran suffering/pessimism in there, something that would come into play in my understanding of suffering (look at my profile if you need to understand that), but you reduced to some kind of hedonoistic/common version all in one swoop because you think you can win some rhetorical points -> NEXT!
However, I don't want to get caught in the weeds of that particular version of the argument. I think it is best reformulated clearly as this:
Preventing happiness is less a moral obligation than preventing suffering. All things being equal, in the case of non-consent, and ignorance (like this Veil of Ignorance argument is saying), it is always best to prevent suffering, even on the behest of preventing happiness.
The fact is, this is from the perspective of the decision-maker. That SOMEONE exists who can understand what will result is all that matters, not that the subject of the action exists.
Oh so where I even said right in your quote "reformulated as" and went into MY OWN version?
Not at all.. If one is reanimated when stabbed, that changes the very conditions of the world itself.
Why should I believe 3a or 4a?
The other problem here is that most 2a's presuppose the falsity of 1a, whereas 2 does not presuppose the falsity of 1. Or in other words, Benatar's argument contains no implicit logical clause, "...Unless the world is situated such that happiness far outweighs suffering for all." That's the very problem with his argument that is being highlighted.
Contrariwise, prohibitions against stabbing are premised on pain, injury, and mortality, and therefore the sort of world you suggest logically invalidates the prohibitions (and hence 3a). This is completely different from Benatar's argument, for the case I gave clearly does not invalidate his prohibition. That's why, in a fit of honesty, you told me that the question may need to be reconsidered in light of such new circumstances. So if you want to pull your head out of the sand you will answer the question: What would you say to Benatar in that scenario? Why trust an argument in our world that you would not trust in that world? The argument by its very nature cannot be invalidated by the minimization of suffering, and yet this is what you are committed to.
I like sushiAugust 29, 2024 at 06:30#9287990 likes
Of course. This is now coming across as fairly bad faith (i know it isn't but please note what you're doing - telling me I'm not intellectually in the game, as it were). Assuming i've not considered the points adequately is a bit weird if you're getting at me for pointing out others have clearly not done the same (and even self-admitted they don't care to?) These are very different scenarios. Though, I don't fault you. You're doing roughly hte same as me.
Well, right back at you. This is my point. If you are stating that you can only speak to people who understand and that anyone who does not is a waste of time that speaks volumes for the position you are favouring.
Of course, it may have just been poor wording. Nevertheless am I somehow acting in bad faith by pointing out how one-sided it sounded. I do not think so. We basically understood each other in a discussion here pretty well and it is quite clear to me that you are happy to disagree and you know I am.
Anyway, think we are sort of saying the same thing again and understand each other :D
I can, and maybe will, point out when I think you or anyone else has said something a little one-sided or poorly expressed AND I will consider the fault can be with me too in appreciation of what is said too. This is just me flexing my writing muscles now and hoping to improve so will shut up :D
Whether they(interlocutors) agree is a totally different issue - one which doesn't matter if they clearly don't understand my views. I would be the only person in a position to know whether you have understood them.
Well, the vast majority of the time this is probably true enough for everyone. I am well aware that we can easily hoodwink ourselves too. But yeah, probably, for the most part.
That said, in terms of the wider issue you're point out, given there are three or four usual suspects in this respect, I don't find an issue with my take. I accept lots of people wont like it, and lots of people wont agree or understand. That's how life works.
I do not find an issue with it either as what you seem to say falls on what I coined the "Moral" for the most part. From what Schopenhauer has said in the past too I would say he does too (unless he has changed his views a little since then), so I have no issue with the positions you both hold. I do not agree with them though and neither has put forward a proof because a proof cannot be put forward, only expressed opinions - as is the nature of most of Ethics dealing with obligations.
The strongest argument IMO for antinatalism (AN) seems to be the one from deontological ethics, i.e. that if we are not sure that life will be a good for the future human being, it's ethically questionable to 'take the risk', especially due to the impossibility of any consent from the future human being ('I cannot chose for others'...).
1) My first question is (especially for those who do not beleive in some 'objective ethics'): what is the foundation of ethics for an antinatalist? It seems that in AN there is a very strong ethical component but if 'ethics' is reduced to some kind of social contract or something 'natural', it seems that AN doens't have a strong justification to be 'better' than others.
2) Also, if one accepts that we also have a 'deontological duty' for others, for the whole human community and if one agrees that 'extinction' of humanity is bad for the whole community then it seems that what the 'deontological' argument for AN leads to is not AN itself but an 'ethical dilemma', i.e. we arrive at a situation where we have two contradictory duties, i.e. we shouldn't decide to 'give life' due to the ignorance/lack of certainty of what that will entail (if we assume that life might be bad in some cases) and the impossibility of consent and at the same time we should, among other things, continue to sustain the whole human community. If all of this is true, why antinatalists think that AN is the best choice?
what is the foundation of ethics for an antinatalist?
The ethics are simple self-preservation.
Antinatalism spares you from a future in which you will be making hefty child-support payments for children that you barely see and over whom you have no authority anyway.
Consequently, antinatalism spares you from the absolutely most stupid hobby ever.
In that sense, antinatalism is a naturally emergent property of the country's legal system.
Antinatalism is the 3rd part of the "4 no's" policy as a reaction to the country's legal system:
No civil marriage, no cohabitation, no children, and preferably no sex.
The only way in which the individual can defeat antinatalism consists in physically moving to another jurisdiction. Otherwise, antinatalism is just common sense.
Last night I had a dream that I was back in elementary school and on this day we were taking standardized tests. There was an oppressive seriousness and nervousness about the whole thing, as if 5th graders were sitting for the SAT. On top of this, due to some sort of funding problem the test questions were poorly written and the test booklets included copy errors and print deficiencies, which added a deciphering element to the testing. In the grand scheme of things the whole endeavor was a bit ridiculous, and there was the sense that if one of the 5th graders had started giggling the whole room would have broken out in laughter, popping the bubble of faux seriousness.
This seems reflective of antinatalism. It is Harry Potter exorcising the Boggart with the charge, "Riddikulus!" That is the correct response to Benatar, and the reductio is meant to aid one in seeing it. The entire paradigm is warped and corrupted, and the argument is bizarrely indifferent to the very moral nuances that it ought to be self-consciously attentive to. Such an argument is like a necessitarian Magic 8-Ball with only one response, "Therefore, antinatalism," which response is given regardless of the circumstances.
A lot of this comes back to the wisdom of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. A key to unlocking that text is the idea that the foundation of practical ethics is identifying and emulating the virtuous man. Much of Aristotle text is just drawing out what we already know about the virtuous man, and part of this is the fact that the virtuous man possesses liberality or generousness. When we simply set the generous man alongside the stingy man we know indubitably that the generous man is to be emulated and the stingy man is ridiculous. The virtue of liberality has to do with one's fundamental orientation towards life, and this is inevitably related to one's fundamental orientation towards posterity.
When a child cuts their finger and collapses into hysteria the witty parent will take them in their lap, study the finger carefully and seriously, and then pronounce the judgment, "There's nothing for it. We need to amputate!" The child cannot help but laugh, and in laughing their whole demeanor is changed. The parent's playful humor makes the child generous and overcomes their stinginess and self-centered gravity.
In fact I was recently at my cousin's wedding, and the food at our table was extremely late, arriving about 90 minutes after dinner was supposed to begin. At about 30 minutes into the dinner my nephew received his kid's meal: chicken strips, mac and cheese, and cauliflower. Everyone was gratified to see that at least someone had received their meal, and it looked to be the ideal meal for a hungry toddler. But to everyone's surprise he lost his shit and had a complete meltdown. This caused the whole table to erupt in laughter and festivity. We later learned that his mother had been misinforming him for weeks that the wedding would be wonderful and he would have a delicious meal of chicken strips and French fries - oops! I don't know that he even prefers French fries to mac and cheese, but the expectation threw him. It was a teaching moment for him where he learned that life is bigger than his misplaced French fries, and in time he will learn that life is bigger than many other disappointments, too. As Eichendorff said, "Thou art He who gently breaks about our heads what we build, so that we can see the sky—therefore I have no complaint." (The irony here is that children solve the problem of antinatalism, for it is hard to believe that anyone with the task of parenting a child could subscribe to antinatalism.)
It seems that all the opposed are agreed that antinatalism will not be cured by more of the overly serious, self-centered gravity of analytical argument. Such is not its cause and such is not its cure. What the antinatalist lacks is the subtle virtuous demeanor that Aristotle attempts to paint, and such a thing cannot be bought and sold with mere arguments. The cure for the ridiculousness of antinatalism is laughter, for like the child on the parent's lap we cannot help but laugh at the prognosis. You need only join in and we will be laughing with you and not at you. :wink:
schopenhauer1August 29, 2024 at 13:59#9288490 likes
1) My first question is (especially for those who do not beleive in some 'objective ethics'): what is the foundation of ethics for an antinatalist? It seems that in AN there is a very strong ethical component but if 'ethics' is reduced to some kind of social contract or something 'natural', it seems that AN doens't have a strong justification to be 'better' than others.
You'd have to qualify "foundation" but there are MANY foundational ethical frameworks for which AN conclusions have been drawn or at least "fit into", such as deontological ones (which I hold). Many fall under a negative utilitarian variety. Others are vaguely consequential (environmental ones, probably ones least like the ones I hold). One can even argue for a virtue theory version, that can correspond with Schopenhauer's notion of compassion being THE only real moral sentiment (because it sees everyone as what they truly are.. fellow-sufferers). In this theory, anti-procreation would be a natural course of a virtuous (i.e. compassionate) person. They see what befalls man, and wants to prevent it. In this sense, AN can also be philosophical pessimistic in its foundation. That is to say, there is something INHERENTLY negative about existence that makes it fundamentally never redeemable through social, personal, or political actions. This goes to a vaguely existential understanding of the situation.
2) Also, if one accepts that we also have a 'deontological duty' for others, for the whole human community and if one agrees that 'extinction' of humanity is bad for the whole community then it seems that what the 'deontological' argument for AN leads to is not AN itself but an 'ethical dilemma', i.e. we arrive at a situation where we have two contradictory duties, i.e. we shouldn't decide to 'give life' due to the ignorance/lack of certainty of what that will entail (if we assume that life might be bad in some cases) and the impossibility of consent and at the same time we should, among other things, continue to sustain the whole human community. If all of this is true, why antinatalists think that AN is the best choice?
So deontology generally puts the locus of ethics at the individual level (not all the time, but most.. things like rights/duties). To me, the outcome doesn't matter. That is to say, we don't have a duty towards the outcome of "preserving humanity". Humanity isn't a subject for ethical concern. Rather, we have ethical considerations of individuals and their suffering, or right thereof not to be unnecessarily and non-consentingly caused the situations/conditions wherewith (ALL!) suffering takes place. That is not your right to confer for someone else. And there is no symmetrical duties/obligations for creating happiness, especially with understanding that there is no one who exists to be deprived of happiness you would not be thus conferring.
schopenhauer1August 29, 2024 at 14:06#9288530 likes
The other problem here is that most 2a's presuppose the falsity of 1a, whereas 2 does not presuppose the falsity of 1. Or in other words, Benatar's argument contains no implicit logical clause, "...Unless the world is situated such that happiness far outweighs suffering for all." That's the very problem with his argument that is being highlighted.
So this is why we shouldn't debate Benatar's full position here without actually having Benatar's full positions available to us. I am not going to defend Benatar with my vague memories of some ideas he had or piecing together from secondary sources. If you want, let's agree to actually obtain a copy of Better Never to Have Been, and we can start looking for how he defends it and critique from there. We would be foolish to make half truths about positions he may not even hold or already addressed and we are ignoring.
Contrariwise, prohibitions against stabbing are premised on pain, injury, and mortality, and therefore the sort of world you suggest logically invalidates the prohibitions (and hence 3a). This is completely different from Benatar's argument, for the case I gave clearly does not invalidate his prohibition. That's why, in a fit of honesty, you told me that the question may need to be reconsidered in light of such new circumstances. So if you want to pull your head out of the sand you will answer the question: What would you say to Benatar in that scenario? Why trust an argument in our world that you would not trust in that world? The argument by its very nature cannot be invalidated by the minimization of suffering, and yet this is what you are committed to.
Same as above. Let's see what Benatar says himself! I think his book actually goes over this and if I remember, he said that the asymmetry didn't necessarily hold on its own, but rather was bolstered by various other asymmetries that needed to also be true to support it, such as psychological phenomenon, etc.
If you want, there seems to be a preview of the audio version here.. I guess this is a good start, but still isn't enough:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DuLJMhbzZM
Funny you defend this ghettoizing of the topic of antinatalism (something you vociferously disagree with),
I don't vociferously disagree with it actually. Depending on how "it" is presented. E.g. If someone said to me, "I don't want to have children because the world is a dangerous and corrupted place and I don't want them to suffer", I'd say "makes sense". But as we discussed before, you were creating literally dozens of threads on the same theme, and it is a niche topic, hence this is the solution.
schopenhauer1August 29, 2024 at 14:20#9288570 likes
ristotle text is just drawing out what we already know about the virtuous man
This has a lot of unjustified assumptions.. such as, why should virtuous men matter? If you say that because the know how to live a "good life", AN always knows that starting a life for someone else means you have a project for them to follow. But here belies an actual UNVIRTUOUS thing- the forcing of someone else into the burdens of life to live out the project of X (the virtuous man!.. cue marble statue staring into the horizon clutching robe!!). It reeks of an aggressive paternalism and assumption (for someone else), that their negative rights should be violated (and that is indeed part of the debate, is it a violation), because you think "someone living out a virtuous life" is okay to go head and be aggressively paternalistic to allow for a deontological violation to take place.
The Lord of the Rings, obviously, an author and work who would be against my philosophy or antinatalism, however, does have themes that I am getting at. The Ring itself can represent the controlling nature of humans- the ability to want to control people, destiny, the world. Wanting to see X thing from another person, even if it means burdening them is perhaps one of these unconscious factors that we hold. The Ring seems to be a good idea.. it seems to have the answers, but in fact, it is simply the human desire to control things, to see their projects carried out by way of using other people, even their sufferings to make this happen. '
You will claim "NO! LOTR was talking about unrestrained control- like Sauron wanting to enslave everyone!". But there is indeed where the debate lies. "Does procreation represent an aggressive paternalism.. does this too go too far in how we want to control people, even violate ethical principles, to see our project carried out?". And I get the impulse to defend it.. It's the very basis for which our whole society has operated. But perhaps it isn't as unassailable as you might think. And for millennium, as long as there has been societies that had the abilities to reason beyond the tribal unit, there have been lifestyles of ascetics who eschewed the worldly projects. I am not necessarily advocating that, however, but just showing that this difference in notions of established familial traditions exist.
In fact I was recently at my cousin's wedding, and the food at our table was extremely late, arriving about 90 minutes after dinner was supposed to begin. At about 30 minutes into the dinner my nephew received his kid's meal: chicken strips, mac and cheese, and cauliflower. Everyone was gratified to see that at least someone had received their meal, and it looked to be the ideal meal for a hungry toddler. But to everyone's surprise he lost his shit and had a complete meltdown. This caused the whole table to erupt in laughter and festivity. We later learned that his mother had been misinforming him for weeks that the wedding would be wonderful and he would have a delicious meal of chicken strips and French fries - oops! I don't know that he even prefers French fries to mac and cheese, but the expectation threw him. It was a teaching moment for him where he learned that life is bigger than his misplaced French fries, and in time he will learn that life is bigger than many other disappointments, too. As Eichendorff said, "Thou art He who gently breaks about our heads what we build, so that we can see the sky—therefore I have no complaint." (The irony here is that children solve the problem of antinatalism, for it is hard to believe that anyone with the task of parenting a child could subscribe to antinatalism.)
It seems that all the opposed are agreed that antinatalism will not be cured by more of the overly serious, self-centered gravity of analytical argument. Such is not its cause and such is not its cure. What the antinatalist lacks is the subtle virtuous demeanor that Aristotle attempts to paint, and such a thing cannot be bought and sold with mere arguments. The cure for the ridiculousness of antinatalism is laughter, for like the child on the parent's lap we cannot help but laugh at the prognosis. You need only join in and we will be laughing with you and not at you. :wink:
Far be it from me to begrudge anyone laughter. But as I indicated with the Lord of the Rings analogy above, there is a bit of a weird aggressive paternalism in the notion that you need to teach someone, and see your project carried out... I have wants and desires, but do I have the right to unnecessarily and non-consentingly burden you with them? Well, no I don't have that right. But somehow a blind eye is seen in the case of procreation because of the romantic notions of learning and virtue of the philosophies you describe here. Don't get me wrong, go have fun.. don't be a dour asshole to your children, but my point is perhaps we may even question the impetus for control and wanting to see projects carried out from others, rather than assume that this is what is right. The doting grandfather laughing at his grandchildren in merriment as they work through the small problems of life gradually being raised to become productive members of society, etc. But what of this? I question this project, its motives, and what we are wanting from other people.
schopenhauer1August 29, 2024 at 14:22#9288580 likes
I don't vociferously disagree with it actually. Depending on how "it" is presented. E.g. If someone said to me, "I don't want to have children because the world is a dangerous and corrupted place and I don't want them to suffer", I'd say "makes sense". But as we discussed before, you were creating literally dozens of threads on the same theme, and it is a niche topic, hence this is the solution.
I get that, but how does one differentiate between all the threads of argument dealing with the subject?
That difficulty is the trade-off. 58 pages of continued effort to discuss the issue suggest, that while the context is not ideal, the results have not been fruitless.
only you know if there is anyway to close the rifts in your own family.
Aging can help. I should leave each individual in my family a personal letter they can read when I die and hopefully keep to read again when they are old and enter the purgatory of old age. That time when our lives are behind us and all that is left is the memories and a need to make peace with our lives.
I appreciate my grandmother so much more today than when I was young and rushed away from home to have my own life. I kept in touch with family but lived far from family.
I get that, but how does one differentiate between all the threads of argument dealing with the subject?
Loose one's memory, then each time is the first time and new things can be discovered. I just called old age purgatory but I am also enjoying, thinking, and rethinking things and noticing changes and new awareness. What really matters is if am enjoying the moment.
New people are constantly coming into the arguments and really can't we treat each day as a new day? It really sucks to be enjoying a thread and then reading the subject has already been covered and a grumpy demand that the discussion end. If someone doesn't want to cover the subject again, just stay out of the discussion but there is no reason to ruin everyone else's fun. Especially not a newcomer's first-time experience of the subject. We can not be a part of the past discussions, only the present ones.
Anti-life discussions (personal or otherwise) will be merged below. Please join this discussion rather than starting any new threads on this theme.
That really bites! I usually avoid threads that are too long. I really don't care what all the important people here have to say about anything. If I want to participate in a discussion of something, I want that to be my experience, not your only spoken thoughts. My thoughts and your reaction to them is what makes being here fun. If all I want is knowledge, I will buy a book that is highly recommended and read that. I do not come to forums and look for subjects to read that were closed discussions 5 years ago. If any of you have written books I should read, let me know.
schopenhauer1August 29, 2024 at 16:23#9288750 likes
Reply to Athena
I do wish there was a middle ground whereby the AN topic can be cogently discussed in separate threads without "cluttering" the main forum. The only other way would be to banish it to The Lounge, but then that doesn't show up on the main feed, so I'm opposed to that too. I also think, as loathsome as it might be to some sensibilities, it is squarely philosophical (generally in the realm of ethics), and should be discussed robustly and openly in the main forum.
So this is why we shouldn't debate Benatar's full position here without actually having Benatar's full positions available to us.
Whenever we are considering a position on TPF we are considering a determinate and static position. Thus "Benatar's position" within our conversation denotes the argument you attributed to Benatar early in our conversation (link). You used a Wikipedia article and a personal gloss to represent the argument. That is what I am referring to.
Now it seems that you recognize that his argument cannot meet my objection, and the logical thing for you to do is to say, "Okay, I see the problem. I will have to get back to you on this. Maybe I will look at my Benatar books and see if he has anything to say to this."
It is not a legitimate move to say, "No, that objection doesn't count because you haven't read his book(s) on the topic." If we had to read a book on TPF every time we made an argument there would only be a few posts each week. You presented a version of Benatar's argument, I responded to it, and now the onus is on you to respond in your own words. Take your time and review Benatar's books if you like, but don't say that my objection is null because I haven't read a book. Besides, the first you've spoken about his books addressing this objection was yesterday.
schopenhauer1August 29, 2024 at 18:45#9289070 likes
Take your time and review Benatar's books if you like, but don't say that my objection is null because I haven't read a book. Besides, the first you've spoken about his books addressing this objection was yesterday.
No bro, you haven't answered my objections and we seem to be at an impasse, as I have answered you about the stabbing that reanimates. That's my answer to it if we are talking about the "statistical approximation of Benatar" and not Benatar himself.
schopenhauer1August 29, 2024 at 18:47#9289090 likes
Reply to Leontiskos Also to add, yet again, when I mentioned Benatar, it was to bring up AN (not THE ONE AND ONLY) asymmetry that I then elucidated on, as my take on it. It wasn't to introduce Benatar simpliciter.
as I have answered you about the stabbing that reanimates
No you haven't. You haven't answered <the most recent post> on the so-called "stabbing counterargument." You just pointed to Benatar's book hopefully without engaging any of the points.
Also to add, yet again, when I mentioned Benatar, [...] It wasn't to introduce Benatar simpliciter.
Well it sounds like you were not talking about Benatar simpliciter and I was not talking about Benatar simpliciter. So we can stop talking about Benatar simpliciter and instead talk about the determinate and static argument that we have associated with him.
schopenhauer1August 29, 2024 at 19:02#9289130 likes
The other problem here is that most 2a's presuppose the falsity of 1a, whereas 2 does not presuppose the falsity of 1. Or in other words, Benatar's argument contains no implicit logical clause, "...Unless the world is situated such that happiness far outweighs suffering for all." That's the very problem with his argument that is being highlighted.
Contrariwise, prohibitions against stabbing are premised on pain, injury, and mortality, and therefore the sort of world you suggest logically invalidates the prohibitions (and hence 3a). This is completely different from Benatar's argument, for the case I gave clearly does not invalidate his prohibition. That's why, in a fit of honesty, you told me that the question may need to be reconsidered in light of such new circumstances. So if you want to pull your head out of the sand you will answer the question: What would you say to Benatar in that scenario? Why trust an argument in our world that you would not trust in that world? The argument by its very nature cannot be invalidated by the minimization of suffering, and yet this is what you are committed to.
So I said way back that a world where pain was ONLY comprised of a pinprick is NOT OUR WORLD. That is an interesting one, but not this one. I present to you this world is the following, as taken from my profile:
Life has necessary and contingent suffering. Necessary suffering is often considered "Eastern", similar to how Buddhism defines it. That is to say it is a general dissatisfaction stemming from a general lack in what is present. Relief is temporary and unstable. If life was fully positive without this lack, it would be satisfactory without any needs or wants.
Contingent harms are the classic ones people think of. It is the physical harms, the emotional anguish, the annoyances great and small. It is the pandemics, the disasters, the daily grind of a tedious work day. It is the hunger we feel, and the pain of a stubbed toe. It is any negative harm. It is contingent as it is contextual in time/place, and situation. It is based on historical trajectories and situatedness. It is based on the "throwness" (in Existentialism terminology). It varies in individuals in varying amounts and intensity, but happens to everyone nonetheless.
With that being said, does Pinprick World have the necessary suffering in it? Is it the case that ALL contingent harms are reduced to a single pinprick at one instance in time? If so, none of that resembles the NATURE OF SUFFERING as it pertains to this world. Thus, how am I going to compare morality when it is centers on suffering in such a world where suffering is so redefined and the realities of the situation thus so radically different? This world would have no suffering due to feelings of dissatisfaction, lack, boredom. It would have no force social situations like doing tasks and work one would rather not do, or come into contact with anything negative whatsoever. How can I speak to such a world without all that is the reality of the situation when suffering is so redefined into one instance of a pinprick and nothing else?
If so, none of that resembles the NATURE OF SUFFERING as it pertains to this world.
So you have at last provided a shadow of a counter-argument. You are effectively claiming that an equivocation is occurring such that the "pinprick of pain" in premise (1) is an equivocation on the suffering in Benatar's (2). Your argument requires that the pinprick of pain is not a legitimate instance of Benatar's "presence of pain" or the "suffering" that you say one is morally obligated to prevent. You are saying, "Ah, but that pinprick isn't the sort of suffering that Benatar and I think need be prevented." Thus you deny that premises (1) and (2) imply conclusion (3).
Congratulations on finally making a counterargument, though I'm not sure it is a very good one. It certainly opens the can of worms as to which sorts of suffering need to be prevented and which sorts don't, and that is a can of worms that antinatalists take many precautions to keep closed.
1. Suppose every living human being is guaranteed a pinprick of pain followed by 80 years of pure happiness.
2. [Insert Benatar's antinatalist argument here]
3. Therefore, we should never procreate
I think this is more-or-less the discussion ANs have (and honestly, the one whcih is usually attempted cross-positionally). The type though doesn't seem that interesting - it's the balance (ironic, given apokrisis' objections in the other thrad) between suffering and other considerations. The position is that suffering always wins out
I think this is more-or-less the discussion ANs have
I can't remember who I have all spoken to about antinatalism on this forum (and therefore who has shaped my understanding of it), but I can say that schopenhauer1 has been my primary interlocutor, and that I have not seen him engaging in this discussion of balancing suffering with other considerations. Perhaps there are different approaches than his.
The position of antinatalism? If the position of antinatalism is that suffering always wins out then how could there ever be a balance between suffering and other considerations?
schopenhauer1August 29, 2024 at 21:15#9289420 likes
Congratulations on finally making a counterargument, though I'm not sure it is a very good one. It certainly opens the can of worms as to which sorts of suffering need to be prevented and which sorts don't, and that is a can of worms that antinatalists take many precautions to keep closed.
That is to say, what is the asymmetry about? It's about the following:
3. the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone;
4. the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
That is to say, the thrust of the argument is the obligations we have towards adding happiness to the world versus adding suffering/harm/pain into the world in the case of non-existent but potential people (that is someone who could exist if X, Y, Z actions are taken). The antinatalist will always say that in the case of future people, we have no obligation to add happiness for them, but ALL the obligation to prevent the harm.
Thus, I generally make sure to qualify the notion that "One should not cause unnecessary suffering unto another if it can be prevented. Why do I add "unnecessary"? Because a "potential future person" (one in consideration of whether it should exist or not), would suffer without any need for this to happen to them. At least in the case of the "procreational decision", we are in a unique vantage point, where we can prevent ANY suffering for another person, by simply not doing something, full stop. After someone is already born into the world, then we must play the game of "mitigation ethics" whereby we now start dealing not in digital but analog whereby we cannot avoid suffering, and in some cases it might be incumbent to cause it to prevent greater harm (e.g. raising children, education, inoculations, all sorts of learning experiences and enculturation). But the idea that one should cause suffering SUCH THAT we can THEN LATER MITIGATE IT (i.e. favoring OUR positive projects over SOMEONE ELSE'S negative ethics), is what is the violation going on here.
schopenhauer1August 29, 2024 at 21:16#9289430 likes
The antinatalist will always say that in the case of future people, we have no obligation to add happiness for them, but ALL the obligation to prevent the harm.
Yes, and because of this the "balancing suffering with other considerations" evaporates into thin air and you are placed into the same quandary where you began. If the pinprick is acceptable for posterity in the pinprick world then it cannot be true that one has "all the obligation to prevent the (future) harm," for if one had "all the obligation" in this sense then there could be no balance between suffering and other considerations for posterity.
I think you're overlooking the simple fact that premise (1) was already about posterity. If mitigation and balancing considerations can only be applied to the current generation and not to posterity, then Benatar's argument succumbs once again to the reductio.
schopenhauer1August 29, 2024 at 21:31#9289470 likes
I think you're overlooking the simple fact that premise (1) was already about posterity. If mitigation and balancing considerations can only be applied to the current generation and not to posterity, then Benatar's argument succumbs once again to the reductio.
So I am offering two arguments:
1) Suffering in Pinprick World isn't "suffering" as we know it, and thus disqualifies for 2 in the asymmetry.
2) Since there is no one to miss out on the "good", no obligation was intendent on the missed opportunity. In other words, your world could be COMPLETELY all BLISS.. and if you did not create someone into that world, you are still NOT in the wrong by preventing that birth.
2) Since there is no one to miss out on the "good", no obligation was intendent on the missed opportunity. In other words, your world could be COMPLETELY all BLISS.. and if you did not create someone into that world, you are still NOT in the wrong by preventing that birth.
Put differently, "If we omit the pinprick from (1) then (3) does not follow from (2)." I agree and I have not said otherwise.
Because I see apokrisis' objections as apt I see it as inevitable that questions of balance must emerge.
Yep. I don't see them as apt at all given they were responding to me making that point.
It seems like your position is that there must be balance - not "carry out a balancing exercise". That is not reasonable at all, if that;'s the take. And if it's not then you've missed that ANs do the balancing exercise, and suffering tips the scales. Given this is the case across the board in relation to procreation then the exercise has been carried out and the answer is clear. I'm not sure what else you could want? To deny the result of hte exercise (on their account, that is?)
how could there ever be a balance between suffering and other considerations
There is no need for one, unless for some strange metaphysical reason you believe this is hte state of things, arbitrarily. That seemed to be apokrisis' position. I found it funny, and a not just a little silly.
ANs do the balancing exercise, and suffering tips the scales.
Ah, okay, I see what you are saying.
The question then is this: Why does the suffering of the pinprick do nothing to tip the scale?
I see two possible answers. Either the suffering of the pinprick is for some reason not counted as suffering; or else the antinatalist is in fact balancing suffering with some other consideration, in which case suffering does not always tip the scales.
schopenhauer1August 29, 2024 at 23:45#9289810 likes
Either the suffering of the pinprick is for some reason not counted as suffering; or else the antinatalist is in fact balancing suffering with some other consideration, in which case suffering does not always tip the scales.
Generally, AN is about suffering AND consent- that is to say, the deontological principles of non-harm and non-autonomy are both broken in regards to procreation. So there is that, and one can go down that line of reasoning as well.
However, keeping it just to suffering, for the sake of this particular argument, the consideration is that there are no people deprived of good and that is not bad. Therefore, in the decision for procreation, at least, the balance is always against causing the violation of the non-harm principle because it was unnecessary to cause to another individual. It is undisputed that, in this actual world, at least there will be suffering, and therefore a state of affairs will occur which violates the principle and someone will suffer. This should be prevented of course.
It is undisputed that in this world, at least there will be suffering
I would say that it is also undisputed that in the pinprick world there will be suffering, at least until you give an actual explanation for why a pinprick does not count as suffering. The prima facie answer is that it does count as suffering.
schopenhauer1August 29, 2024 at 23:51#9289840 likes
I would say that it is also undisputed that in the pinprick world there will be suffering, at least until you give an actual explanation for why a pinprick does not count as suffering.
And I answered you. If you want to attempt again to read it charitably, have a go.
I think this is more-or-less the discussion ANs have (and honestly, the one whcih is usually attempted cross-positionally). The type though doesn't seem that interesting - it's the balance (ironic, given apokrisis' objections in the other thrad) between suffering and other considerations. The position is that suffering always wins out
@schopenhauer1 seems to assume that "other considerations" could only be positive experiences, which I was not assuming.
That said, I don't really understand Amadeus' post here. This is how I read it:
Interpretation:I think the discussion of which sorts of suffering need to be prevented is more or less the discussion that antinatalists have among themselves (and it is also the discussion that others wish to have with antinatalists). The type of suffering doesn't seem that interesting - it's the balance between suffering and other considerations that is interesting. The antinatalist position is that suffering always trumps any other consideration.
You haven't. Getting answers out of you is like pulling teeth. It literally took three months to get a real answer to my reductio, and that was the simplest argument on offer by design. Even then I had to draw out the argument you were intimating. Answers are not forthcoming, and you fall into petitio principii at the drop of a hat. :roll:
Reply to Leontiskos It's certainly possible I'm not quite groking the question, so if this doesn't seem apt - that'll be why lol.
Prima facie, I would say it doesn't tip the scales because other pleasures out weight a pinprick (scratching a decent itch would be enough v a pinprick). But the suffering of life is vastly more intense, prolonged and intractable than a pin prick.
That said, I don't really understand Amadeus' post here. This is how I read it:
Ill try to re-word your interp. to see if it gets you anywhere..
I think the discussion of what level of suffering need be prevented is more or less the discussion that antinatalists have among themselves (and it is also the discussion that others wish to have with antinatalists). The type of suffering doesn't seem that interesting - it's the balance between the "intensity, length and meaningfulness of the suffering" and other considerations* that is interesting. The antinatalist position is that suffering always trumps any other consideration.
As a clarifying point, to me, 'other considerations' could be positive experiences, bare pleasure (in an abstract sense), character-building, the achievement of some life-long goal etc.. etc.. But the problem with all of this is it's speculation. We're only talking about unborn people - in this way, we can see that suffering is ensured (by the journey to Death) but positive experience is not vouchsafed by being born. One could have an all-in-all 'good' life, but that's highly unlikely on the view of the world and life ANs take, and at any rate, the suffering which comes with one's death (ones anxiety, fear etc.. and the pain of those around us) would usually trump that possibly-good life. Only religion can break that loop, and I think that's a poor way to gt around it myself.
schopenhauer1August 30, 2024 at 01:14#9290040 likes
As a clarifying point, to me, 'other considerations' could be positive experiences, bare pleasure (in an abstract sense), character-building, the achievement of some life-long goal etc.. etc.. But the problem with all of this is it's speculation. We're only talking about unborn people - in this way, we can see that suffering is ensured (by the journey to Death) but positive experience is not vouchsafed by being born. One could have an all-in-all 'good' life, but that's highly unlikely on the view of the world and life ANs take, and at any rate, the suffering which comes with one's death (ones anxiety, fear etc.. and the pain of those around us) would usually trump that possibly-good life. Only religion can break that loop, and I think that's a poor way to gt around it myself.
But the idea that one should cause suffering SUCH THAT we can THEN LATER MITIGATE IT (i.e. favoring OUR positive projects over SOMEONE ELSE'S negative ethics), is what is the violation going on here.
Projects is a good word IMO as it captures exactly what is hoped for or tacitly desired- character-building, someone to learn through trial and error, achievement, the “goods” of life. It need not be bare “pleasure”. But it’s the parents’ positive project, overriding (“I want X to happen) over the child’s negative ethic (right for non-harm and non-consent to be unnecessarily violated).
Prima facie, I would say it doesn't tip the scales because other pleasures out weight a pinprick (scratching a decent itch would be enough v a pinprick).
Okay, so are you saying that a pinprick (or small amount) of suffering would not suffice for antinatalism? There must be more suffering before the arguments in favor of antinatalism become plausible. Is that right?
But if it is right then it seems like suffering does not always trump any other consideration, for the suffering of the pinprick does not trump the consideration of other pleasures.
Ill try to re-word your interp. to see if it gets you anywhere..
Good, this is my main concern: If suffering always trumps any other consideration, then how is it that the balance between suffering and other considerations constitutes an interesting discussion? How could one be talking about balancing suffering with some other consideration if suffering always outweighs any other consideration?
As a clarifying point, to me, 'other considerations' could be positive experiences, bare pleasure (in an abstract sense), character-building, the achievement of some life-long goal etc.. etc..
Okay. Well at first blush it seems like you may be willing to balance suffering and other considerations in a way that schopenhauer1 is not.
schopenhauer1August 30, 2024 at 01:20#9290060 likes
Okay. Well at first blush it seems like you may be willing to balance suffering and other considerations in a way that schopenhauer1 is not.
As I saw it, he was saying something very similar to me. He was saying those other considerations (not just purely pleasure) matter not against the one consideration that matters- suffering.
There must be more suffering before the arguments in favor of antinatalism become plausible. Is that right?
But if it is right then it seems like suffering does not always trump any other consideration, for the suffering of the pinprick does not trump the consideration of other pleasures.
I think it would clearer to say that "the sum total of suffering ensured by living a human life outweights any version of hte calculus a ANist can provide".
I.e, on our understanding of suffering, pleasure and how to balance them (those terms are obviously lacking nuance) we cannot find a reason to risk the most likely outcome - that one's sum total of suffering vastly out-weights the other considerations in one's life. To bring a person into existence when there is a very high - almost inescapable - chance their life will be, on balance, bad for them, is wrong. (i would think that statement stands to reason - you need not agree, but it explains the position I think).
Being an AN is a result of running the calc, and never coming out with 'life' as the winner. Not that its pre-decided. Obviously, that would be stupid. But if its a 2/98 chance, i'm going to force someone into the race.
If suffering always trumps any other consideration
It only does so once the calc is run. The statement is not meant to be a position of it's own. It's more "I've run this calc 60,000 times and zero came up on the side of procreation". Again, disagree, sure, but it's wrong to take this as a position rather than what causes the position to be taken up.
you may be willing to balance suffering and other considerations in a way that schopenhauer1 is not.
Possibly. Reading down just this page I get the feeling he's just being imprecise in a way that sort of hides what I'm saying about in some more let's say confident language.
schopenhauer1August 30, 2024 at 01:32#9290120 likes
Reply to AmadeusD
Fair enough, slightly different than what I meant but in the ballpark. My way of interpreting the balancing is more deontological I think than your approach which is more perhaps consequential but this just shows the diversity of AN whilst basically agreeing on the same foundation @Leontiskos
It only does so once the calc is run. The statement is not meant to be a position of it's own. It's more "I've run this calc 60,000 times and zero came up on the side of procreation".
And I see this as substantially different from schopenhauer1. This is something like consequentialist antinatalism as opposed to deontological antinatalism, and it does seem more rational and plausible to me. It certainly does not fall victim to the two counterarguments I formulated for schopenhauer1's position.
And I see this as substantially different from schopenhauer1. This is something like consequentialist antinatalism as opposed to deontological antinatalism, and it does seem more rational and plausible to me. It certainly does not fall victim to the two counterarguments I formulated for schopenhauer1's position.
This would I would think fall more into those objections as presumably, some condition of life would simply need it to be 51% good to procreate when you run the calculus. To me that’s a limited natalism. That’s actually a weaker/more conservative position than negative utilitarianism. A negative utilitarian would say for example, to cause the least amount of preventable harm the situation, especially because it’s very doable, unlike post-birth scenarios. I just don’t think the aggregate approach is amenable to certain ethics- even NU should be geared towards individuals. Not using people for a great calculus machine aggregating all suffering from everywhere seems to be a good start. [but a calculus for preventing an individuals suffering makes sense].
I like sushiAugust 30, 2024 at 02:28#9290440 likes
I would say that it is also undisputed that in the pinprick world there will be suffering, at least until you give an actual explanation for why a pinprick does not count as suffering. The prima facie answer is that it does count as suffering.
Learning is also a kind of 'suffering' too. The impossibility of clarity for the term 'suffering' makes AN a particular kind of subjective view. Like most items in ethics it is more or less opinion.
Reply to schopenhauer1 Personally, I see that version (deontastic!) as inapt. It essentially says
"there's a risk, so don't" which I can't quite see as a good enough reason not to procreate. The A-symmetry seems to rely on the consequentialist concept, even if the actual justification is more broad (i.e to live is to suffer. We shouldn't cause others to suffer. Don't have kids). I think I see why Leontiskos had a problem with this. It's more-or-less arbitrarily nihilistic. I think the consequentialist description overcomes some objections that are in concept, rather than execution. I wouldn't say life simply is suffering. I would say it is most likely the vast, vast, vast (perhaps 99.85%) of people born will, on balance, suffer more than they enjoy their life. Therefore, the possibility (0.15%) of a life worth living tells us not to create lives, on balance rather than because life is awful prima facie.
And I see this as substantially different from schopenhauer1. This is something like consequentialist antinatalism as opposed to deontological antinatalism, and it does seem more rational and plausible to me. It certainly does not fall victim to the two counterarguments I formulated for schopenhauer1's position.
This would I would think fall more into those objections...
Nah. Note, for example, that the reductio objection that we have been considering recently simply has no force at all against Amadeus' position. Amadeus' position does not support the conclusion (3) as Benatar's does.
This also conveniently shows that the objection is not ad hoc, it is not superfluous, and it does not prove too much. Instead it is tailor-fit to your own account in a way that does not necessarily fit alternative antinatalist accounts.
You'd have to qualify "foundation" but there are MANY foundational ethical frameworks for which AN conclusions have been drawn or at least "fit into", such as deontological ones (which I hold). Many fall under a negative utilitarian variety. Others are vaguely consequential (environmental ones, probably ones least like the ones I hold). One can even argue for a virtue theory version, that can correspond with Schopenhauer's notion of compassion being THE only real moral sentiment (because it sees everyone as what they truly are.. fellow-sufferers). In this theory, anti-procreation would be a natural course of a virtuous (i.e. compassionate) person. They see what befalls man, and wants to prevent it. In this sense, AN can also be philosophical pessimistic in its foundation. That is to say, there is something INHERENTLY negative about existence that makes it fundamentally never redeemable through social, personal, or political actions. This goes to a vaguely existential understanding of the situation.
Well, I see what you mean, but AN makes the claim that 'giving birth is intrinsically bad'. This is an ethical evaluation and quite clearly is incompatible with a 'subjectivist' view of ethics, for instance. Viirtue ethics is probably the best 'foundation' of ethics in general. We might assume that, say, a good action is both good for the recipient of the action and for the agent himself/herself. So, yes, compassion is a good ground for ethics and I agree with Schopenhauer.
It's also compatible IMO with a 'deontological' view: being compassionate is also a duty to both oneself and to others - one should/must seek the good for oneself and others.
'Giving birth' is tricky here because the 'human being' doesn't exist (unless one believes in some kind of existence before birth*, but let's assume that this is not the case). Let's say that we cannot know the 'final outcome'** of the future person life (i.e. if that individual will be satisfied with life or irreversibily unhappy), in this case, clearly we must admit that, after all, we can't say that 'giving birth' is a good act. In this sense I agree with the antinatalists. However, I am not sure if 'giving birth' qualifies as a 'bad' act, even when one considers the future individual.
So deontology generally puts the locus of ethics at the individual level (not all the time, but most.. things like rights/duties). To me, the outcome doesn't matter. That is to say, we don't have a duty towards the outcome of "preserving humanity". Humanity isn't a subject for ethical concern. Rather, we have ethical considerations of individuals and their suffering, or right thereof not to be unnecessarily and non-consentingly caused the situations/conditions wherewith (ALL!) suffering takes place. That is not your right to confer for someone else. And there is no symmetrical duties/obligations for creating happiness, especially with understanding that there is no one who exists to be deprived of happiness you would not be thus conferring.
Probably, 'deontological' was the wrong word. I believe, however, that ethics itself is intrinsically social. Ethical agency doens't seem to me to make sense without a community. In other words, if, say, 'I act in order to bring the good to myself and to others', then I cannot 'ignore' the presently existent human beings and the human community in general. If one accepts that seeking the 'good' is also a social 'enterprise', then trying to preserve society seems, after all, a 'good' act. If one believes that, clearly there is a contrast with AN.
*For instance, Hindu, Jain and Buddhists believers in reincarnation/rebirth see the 'birth as a human' as something good, precisely because it gives the chance to get better rebirths and liberation. So, if this belief were true, then antinatalism would be wrong.
**As in the other thread, if one believes (as say Christian universalists) that in the 'end' 'all will be well', then of course IMO life would be good for everyone (ultimately).
Well, not sure of your point. If, say, one has no economical problems, would you still think that 'giving birth' is morally wrong?
Also, generally antinatalists argue that 'giving birth' is wrong becuase it is a choice that affects others (in unknown ways) not becuase it undermines our 'self-preservation'. At best your argument is for a personal choice of not giving birth.
Well, not sure of your point. If, say, one has no economical problems, would you still think that 'giving birth' is morally wrong?
It is not about economic problems but legal ones. You are very likely to end up at some point becoming the noncustodial parent of the child. That is a stupid hobby.
Above a certain national divorce rate, it looks like a bad decision to have children with a person of that particular nationality:
It is preferable to pick a country with a much lower divorce rate, choose a romantic interest there, and have children there instead.
I ruthlessly discriminate against anybody from a high divorce rate country. So, yes, I consider it to be morally wrong to have children with these people. Better safe than sorry.
schopenhauer1August 30, 2024 at 09:13#9290910 likes
Nah. Note, for example, that the reductio objection that we have been considering recently simply has no force at all against Amadeus' position. Amadeus' position does not support the conclusion (3) as Benatar's does.
What are you talking about? It’s either effectively the same (a threshold needs to be met, but empirically, this seems to never be the case..and this always wrong de facto) or its premises are wrong (that the threshold is met or can at some point be met).
Also your non sequitur tying 3 has no support. If the threshold is never met, 3 effectively always stands (it’s good no one suffers..as the threshold represents “suffers” here or “pain”). True it’s not as digital as deontology, but the aggregate amount of “too much pain that this life holds” seems to be his definition of suffering.
But this isn't an argument for antinatalism. Antinatalism is the view that is morally wrong to give birth. You are merely saying that in some circustances one might choose to not have children.
I would say it is most likely the vast, vast, vast (perhaps 99.85%) of people born will, on balance, suffer more than they enjoy their life.
Why not check rather than pulling numbers out your arse?
Two thirds of adults globally (64%) report being happy: 14% very much so and 50% rather so. Countries with the highest proportion of adults considering themselves as very happy are Canada (29%), Australia, Saudi Arabia and India (28% each), Great Britain and the United States (27% each).
schopenhauer1August 30, 2024 at 14:51#9291390 likes
Reply to apokrisis Can I do anything I want to you based on percentages, or do you have a right to not be so callously violated, disregarding your autonomy and the principle of non-harm? That's also why I bring in the idea of "unnecessary suffering." There was no mitigation—if you're going to spin it in some political aggregate way, that government force X, or parents force X. In this decision, no mitigation was needed because it was completely unnecessary to cause the harm in the first place. And obviously, even if you try to give me parenting/government examples, I can just give you slippery slope arguments about causing harm that statistically has positive outcomes but violates individual non-harm and autonomy principles.
Down The Rabbit HoleAugust 30, 2024 at 15:42#9291530 likes
This average happiness is potentially overshadowed by life's inevitable suffering - "Nearly 1 in 2 people born in the UK in 1961 will be diagnosed with some form of cancer during their lifetime", "12.7% of all deaths registered in the UK in 2018 were from dementia and Alzheimer disease".
What are you talking about? It’s either effectively the same (a threshold needs to be met...
What are you talking about? The reductio objection has nothing at all to do with a threshold, and that is the problem. For Benatar's argument even a pinprick suffices to trigger antinatalism—ad hoc counterarguments aside. The objection requires only the presence of suffering, not a threshold. The whole premise of the objection is that Benatar's argument absurdly greenlights antinatalism even when suffering is outstripped by happiness by 1,000 miles.
Amadeus rightly notes that any position which assumes antinatalism before considering the balance between suffering and other considerations "would be stupid":
Being an AN is a result of running the calc, and never coming out with 'life' as the winner. Not that its pre-decided. Obviously, that would be stupid.
His key distinction is between suffering trumping other considerations before a balance-analysis, and suffering outweighing other considerations after a balance-analysis. The deontological antinatalist is committed to the former, which Amadeus disagrees with.
This average happiness is potentially overshadowed by life's inevitable suffering - "Nearly 1 in 2 people born in the UK in 1961 will be diagnosed with some form of cancer during their lifetime"
Apokrisis' statistic already included such folks. It was baked in.
The consequentialist antinatalist apparently thinks that if we polled everyone on their deathbed and asked them if life was worth living or they wished they had never been born, the vast majority* would wish they had never been born.
* For Amadeus this is something like "99.85%"
Down The Rabbit HoleAugust 30, 2024 at 17:36#9291820 likes
Your second paragraph suggests you understand what I was getting at. Of those polled only a fraction would have been people experiencing the suffering at the end of life.
99.85% does seem rather high, but I don't think it unreasonable to determine the majority of people have net bad lives.
Amadeus rightly notes that any position which assumes antinatalism before considering the balance between suffering and other considerations "would be stupid":
But then thinking that nothing in this actual world does or ever will meet that threshold, effectively makes this a nonissue.
The deontological antinatalist is committed to the former, which Amadeus disagrees with.
I am fine with that. But I gave my thoughts on pinprick world. It’s either not suffering as we normally define it, or indeed, since no one is obligated to bring happiness only prevent suffering in this instance, it can be defended. Why would it matter if no one existed in the first place? The problem is using Benatar as if he’s purely doing hedonic calculus and not explaining the difference of good and bad in respect to non-existence. Not existing hurts no actual person, only existing does.
Either way, Benatar goes out of the way tgat even if you don’t bite the bullet in pinprick scenario, THIS world is not that world hence he has a litany of follow-up empirical evidence of how we are often mistaken psychologically and empirically just how bad it is in regards to present pain and pain reflected or projected.
Down The Rabbit HoleAugust 30, 2024 at 21:18#9292150 likes
If you are talking about a poll like the one that showed 64% happy - 36% unhappy, ostensibly, the percentage of people that would rather they had never been born would be lower than the unhappy 36%, when considering things like unhappy people that prefer to have been born "otherwise they wouldn't have had their children" etc.
My same objection to the happiness poll would apply to the birth preference one though. I don't know how many of those suffering at end of life wish they had never been born.
Further, I would rather prevent a life of suffering in spite of a future person's preference. There are many people that hurt themselves, and society determines it just to thwart their preference.
99.85% does seem rather high, but I don't think it unreasonable to determine the majority of people have net bad lives.
The case against antinatalism is not about its logic. That is all too easy to dismiss. It is about people confirming themselves in the social role of being victims of life itself. It is about the nonsense of forming a communal identity around a justification for not feeling better about their world.
Suffering can't be avoided so one can't be criticised for not even trying.
This thought used to be framed as existentialism and nihilism. Now it is framed in this really bullshit legalism of existence being an unconsented fact. Of no person having a right to impose a burden on another.
Systems of laws arise out of the need to organise successful human communities and not the other way around. If you think there is a problem, changing the system is what you should strive for.
But systems of laws recognise rights and responsibilities. They are based on a pragmatic balance between individual wants and communal needs. Burdens will be imposed. All that is asked is that they are reasonable.
"Nearly 1 in 2 people born in the UK in 1961 will be diagnosed with some form of cancer during their lifetime", "12.7% of all deaths registered in the UK in 2018 were from dementia and Alzheimer disease".
In modern society, what are we truly the victim of? The industrial food industry. Big pharma. The banking industry. The atomising effects of neo-liberal economics and social policy.
If you live a healthy life, the odds of metabolic diseases are greatly cut. We can live in ways that avoid cancer and dementia. But also a lot of that is down to the fact we now all live so long.
What are the actual death bed regrets of people? They are about not doing more to be part of a personally meaningful community. About not getting out and living life more.
So from a moral philosophy point of view, there are some real issues to be addressed. The modern world has many pluses compared to other times, but also plenty of questionable economic and political settings.
You know something has to be out of balance when most folk are more familiar with Kim Kardashian's intimate life than they are with their next door neighbour's.
In this context – life as something to be lived – antinatalism is just whiny bullshit. A wet legalistic self-justification.
Sure, the decision to be a parent ought to be taken with a clear-eyed view of the risk/reward balance. Studies show that 10% of parents in developed countries wished their kids had never been born. :grin:
But taking a rational view of life is the habit we would want to encourage. People who can cope with balancing complex risk/reward decisions and so likely to make the best of their lives as well as of their communities.
Fire OlogistAugust 31, 2024 at 01:32#9292490 likes
Ethical agency doens't seem to me to make sense without a community. In other words, if, say, 'I act in order to bring the good to myself and to others', then I cannot 'ignore' the presently existent human beings and the human community in general.
I agree with that. Ethics is born, or created, in between, or out of, two or more people.
To me, the outcome doesn't matter. That is to say, we don't have a duty towards the outcome of "preserving humanity". Humanity isn't a subject for ethical concern.
In my view, saying “ethics” is to call up a community, such as “humanity.” So it doesn’t make sense (to me) to talk about AN without talking about both humanity and the individual; otherwise we aren’t doing ethics (or even psychology).
Humanity can be limited to all of those humans alive now, but this humanity is where any ethic is inflicted upon the universe. This ethics only emerges among humans (at least emerges as a topic of discussion only humans currently call “ethics”).
We, here on this thread, are building an ethical discussion. This is where ethics lives. Both within each individual as you read, and among us now exchanging these words of ethical wisdom.
Ethics itself, like this thread, is particular to humans, and out of this, the ANist shows that consent and suffering are paramount considerations, and out of these that we (humanity as each individual) must not procreate.
I still find AN difficult to fully grasp in its use of ethical reasoning to promote a world bereft of ethical reasoning, a world bereft of human procreation (humans being the creatures who use “ethical reasoning” as a thing).
I agree we are broken. I agree suffering is unavoidable and ubiquitous. And I agree compasssion is essential to ethics, a good, a virtue to be cultivated. And I agree it is “good” not to inflict suffering without consent. But I don’t see anything reasonable about eliminating the infliction of suffering by eliminating the ethics and compassion (along with the human species) that show us suffering is something to be compassionate about in the first place. It makes ethics itself potentially unethical, or non-sensical. It is either suicidal or nihilistic, not simply “good” anymore as “good” is no longer good.
When we end human procreation, we end the existence of compassion in the same universe that led us to be “ethical” and not procreate in the first place.
It’s like this: we all get together write a rule down and all sign it with full consent and the rule is “all of those who make rules must not procreate.” There need be no “good” in the rule or “reason” why the rule is written, because all “good” and “reason” will cease to provide account of anything at all where all those who make rules do not procreate.
I like sushiAugust 31, 2024 at 02:05#9292550 likes
Reply to Down The Rabbit Hole Anyone actually bothering to take such a poll must be bored. It is surprising that that many say they are happy :D
I like sushiAugust 31, 2024 at 02:08#9292570 likes
@Leontiskos You might want to quiz them regarding their views on their views becoming legally binding or not. You will probably find another disparity there.
I agree with that. Ethics is born, or created, in between, or out of, two or more people.
Right. Also IMO human beings are, so to speak, essentially social. Ethics, in particular, seems to me based on how an individual relates to other individuals. Making an ethical claim by 'abstracting' oneself or another person from the social context seems to me a contradiction.
BTW, I don't think that we must have kids. But I think that the antinatalist ethical 'prohibition' to have kids is wrong. One can choose to not have kids and making arguments for that choices, sure. But saying that it is always ethically wrong to give birth is a different matter.
I see the consequentialist antinatalist rationale as something like this:
1. If we polled everyone on their deathbed, X% would wish they had never been born
2. Therefore, X% of potential future persons would not want to be born
3. Therefore, we should not give birth to new human beings
Further, I would rather prevent a life of suffering in spite of a future person's preference. There are many people that hurt themselves, and society determines it just to thwart their preference.
You seem to be saying, "It looks like X isn't going to be high enough to justify (3), therefore we can't give them a choice." This is a bit like the father at the theme park who reasons, "My daughter wants to go on this ride, and if she goes on it she will probably enjoy it, so I can't let her go on it." This is reminiscent of the "paternalism" that schopenhauer1 claims to oppose.
My same objection to the happiness poll would apply to the birth preference one though. I don't know how many of those suffering at end of life wish they had never been born.
The consequentialist antinatalist apparently thinks that if we polled everyone on their deathbed and asked them if life was worth living or they wished they had never been born, the vast majority* would wish they had never been born.
It certainly opens the can of worms as to which sorts of suffering need to be prevented and which sorts don't, and that is a can of worms that antinatalists take many precautions to keep closed.
The problem is using Benatar as if he’s purely doing hedonic calculus
Again, there is nothing about balancing or hedonic calculus involved in the objection. At this point your reading comprehension is coming into question.
What would you say to Benatar in that scenario? Why trust an argument in our world that you would not trust in that world? The argument by its very nature cannot be invalidated by the minimization of suffering, and yet this is what you are committed to.
The point can be rephrased in any number of ways. "The woman learns that any children she has will inherit her extremely painful disease. Should she bear children?" "The antinatalist learns that any child she has will experience a pinprick of pain. Is this sufficient to exclude children?" To be blunt, the idea here is that your argument is stupid because it justifies stupid decisions. It makes no sense to say, "Ah well the advice does justify stupid decisions, but it is still good and reasonable advice."
he has a litany of follow-up empirical evidence of how we are often mistaken psychologically and empirically just how bad it is in regards to present pain and pain reflected or projected.
...and paternalistic gaslighting is the icing on the cake. "Humans think life is good even in spite of the pain, but they're wrong so we're going to exterminate the race through lack of births." What is the difference between this and genocidal insanity?
schopenhauer1August 31, 2024 at 21:49#9293990 likes
Pain isn't suffering? This is ad hoc, and it brings with it more problems:
It certainly opens the can of worms as to which sorts of suffering need to be prevented and which sorts don't, and that is a can of worms that antinatalists take many precautions to keep closed.
Pain vs. Suffering certainly does bring on debate. Does a pinprick followed by no other suffering (necessary or contingent) count as suffering? Well, interestingly, one can argue that the pinprick being the ONLY version of suffering, as the mark-for-what-suffering-is revolves solely on that, might be considered the worst thing ever because it literally is in that world. So, perhaps from the perspective of Pinprick World, this threshold itself would be suffering, and thus indefensible to enact upon on another.
Of course I can cut all this short and just go with my #2 response which is that people should not be unnecessarily harmed and non-consented under any circumstance. Nothing wrong with that. And you can make a whole incredulous response to this, but then you never really addressed how it is that non-existence hurts anyone.
But, even if that sort of response seems off to you because it is so rigid, all you need is as I said, that the "Threshold never reaches the level of pinprick world". And you may say that a future point would lead there, but then you are using people in the meantime to get there- and indeed, it would be generations to get there. Notice, you can say two pinpricks, three... and increase it, but even if you were to increase it by a factor of 100s but still less suffering than our world, that isn't currently our world, and using people to get there would nullify it.
The point can be rephrased in any number of ways. "The woman learns that any children she has will inherit her extremely painful disease. Should she bear children?" "The antinatalist learns that any child she has will experience a pinprick of pain. Is this sufficient to exclude children?" To be blunt, the idea here is that your argument is stupid because it justifies stupid decisions. It makes no sense to say, "Ah well the advice does justify stupid decisions, but it is still good and reasonable advice."
No you are assuming some baseline "common sense" sensibility beyond the violation. This just Kant-objections redux. There's a reason why 1st degree murder and 2nd degree and 3rd degree murder is considered murder yet have different blameworthiness/punishment aspects to them. There's a difference between murder and manslaughter as well. So is pinprick world akin to manslaughter as opposed to murder? Perhaps, the situation might be "wrong" in some very abstract sense, but there can be allowed degrees of it. In your world, which is a ridiculous reduction. For example, in your world there is no gambling with lives aspect, whereby there can be varying amounts of pains and pleasures. It's all the same amount of pain and all the same outcomes. That drastically changes how that world operates compared to ours. Yet you claim that it's a "reductio" rather than being so irrevocably different that they count as different kinds, not just degrees. I am pushing back on that. At some point, for example, murder is no longer murder, though someone might have died, and someone was involved.
...and paternalistic gaslighting is the icing on the cake. "Humans think life is good even in spite of the pain, but they're wrong so we're going to exterminate the race through lack of births." What is the difference between this and genocidal insanity?
Yeah this is certainly strawmanning the argument to a laughable level. "We are going to exterminate the through lack of births..." sounds like the goal of AN is to exterminate the race rather than prevent a violation of suffering/non-consent.
I can think of my own thought experiments for you here:
I have a game that I think is worthwhile for other people to play. I enter you into the game without your consent. In the game, you may have good moments, but there are also some tragic ones, harmful ones, and throughout the game, you are put through a lots of negative experiences. In order to escape the game, the person can only kill themselves. They are in it permanently. Are you justified to put someone through that game because you think it is good for them?
schopenhauer1August 31, 2024 at 21:55#9294000 likes
Systems of laws arise out of the need to organise successful human communities and not the other way around. If you think there is a problem, changing the system is what you should strive for.
But systems of laws recognise rights and responsibilities. They are based on a pragmatic balance between individual wants and communal needs. Burdens will be imposed. All that is asked is that they are reasonable.
It might be this assumed stance that I most vehemently reject as being moral. It is circular reasoning. Why should burdens be imposed? You will use your systems theory to justify it. However, being that we are counterfactual-acting creatures, we could always choose not to burden someone, so the system itself can produce people that can choose the counterfactual than what you claim the "system" wants to have happen. Yet, hypothetically, all people could choose to not procreate. What you are tacitly suggesting is that there is some instinct or logos, or necessary aspect to procreation. But with deliberative creatures, there is no necessity to procreation. Thus, saying that "Burdens WILL be imposed" is just wrong. Burdens NEED NOT BE imposed.
schopenhauer1August 31, 2024 at 22:02#9294010 likes
Probably, 'deontological' was the wrong word. I believe, however, that ethics itself is intrinsically social. Ethical agency doens't seem to me to make sense without a community. In other words, if, say, 'I act in order to bring the good to myself and to others', then I cannot 'ignore' the presently existent human beings and the human community in general. If one accepts that seeking the 'good' is also a social 'enterprise', then trying to preserve society seems, after all, a 'good' act. If one believes that, clearly there is a contrast with AN.
No, "society" doesn't suffer, individuals with POVs do. I make a distinction between mitigation ethics and preventative ethics. Once born, we are in mitigation ethics mode where indeed, we may have to trade greater harms for lesser harms. Uniquely for the procreational decision, we can be in preventative ethics, where absolutely/purely we can make a decision to prevent ALL harm to a future person whereby no drawback (lesser harm) is had for that person. No ONE is deprived. And ANs generally all agree that (unlike your definition of ethics), positive ethics (other people's projects.. like continuing humanity, wanting to take care of a new person, etc.), should not override individuals' negative ethics (rights not to be harmed, non-consented).
Edit: Notice also the pyramid scheme aspect to this. By society existing, it becomes self-perpetuating as you can throw another person in the fray, burden them, cause them to eventually deal with life/suffering, and you can always justify it by saying, "If we don't sacrifice the rights of individuals not to suffer, our society will collapse!". And this to me, is just a justification for doing harm, not an actual answer to the problem that exists.
schopenhauer1August 31, 2024 at 22:07#9294020 likes
I agree we are broken. I agree suffering is unavoidable and ubiquitous. And I agree compasssion is essential to ethics, a good, a virtue to be cultivated. And I agree it is “good” not to inflict suffering without consent. But I don’t see anything reasonable about eliminating the infliction of suffering by eliminating the ethics and compassion (along with the human species) that show us suffering is something to be compassionate about in the first place. It makes ethics itself potentially unethical, or non-sensical. It is either suicidal or nihilistic, not simply “good” anymore as “good” is no longer good.
When we end human procreation, we end the existence of compassion in the same universe that led us to be “ethical” and not procreate in the first place.
It’s like this: we all get together write a rule down and all sign it with full consent and the rule is “all of those who make rules must not procreate.” There need be no “good” in the rule or “reason” why the rule is written, because all “good” and “reason” will cease to provide account of anything at all where all those who make rules do not procreate.
Again, this doesn't make sense to me, as we discussed in earlier discussions. Ethics only exist because humans exist. Once there are no more humans, ethics need not exist. We don't exist SO THAT ethics can persist, but rather ethics exists because humans exist.
Down The Rabbit HoleAugust 31, 2024 at 22:17#9294060 likes
You seem to be saying, "It looks like X isn't going to be high enough to justify (3), therefore we can't give them a choice." This is a bit like the father at the theme park who reasons, "My daughter wants to go on this ride, and if she goes on it she will probably enjoy it, so I can't let her go on it." This is reminiscent of the "paternalism" that schopenhauer1 claims to oppose.
No, I'm not convinced that the majority of people end up preferring they had been born. On top of the people that already wish they had never been born you have those suffering at the end of life wishing they had never been born.
Considering my view that most people are likely to live net bad lives, it would be more like the daughter wanting to go on the ride (after eating lots of candyfloss), and if you let her go on it will make her sick.
It would actually be worse than this, you would be putting her on the ride and making her sick before she even had a preference on it. @schopenhauer1 was the master of these thought experiments. Forcing people onto rides, Willy Wonka World etc :smile:
schopenhauer1August 31, 2024 at 22:28#9294080 likes
schopenhauer1:Let's say I am Willy Wonka..
I have created this world and will force others to enter it... My only rule is people have the options of either working at various occupations which I have lovingly created many varieties of, free-riding (which can only be done by a few and has to be done selectively lest one get caught, it is also considered no good in this world), or living day-to-day homelessly. The last option is a suicide pill if people don't like the arrangement. Is Willy Wonka moral? I mean he is giving many options for work, and even allowing you to test your luck at homelessness and free riding. Also, hey if you don't want to be in his arrangement, you can always kill yourself! See how beneficial and good I am to all my contestants?
There are lots of ways to feel strife and anxiety in my world.. There is generalized boredom, there are pressures from coworkers, there is pressure of joblessness, there are pressures of disease, disasters, mental illness, annoyances, malicious acts, accidents, and so much more that I have built into the world..
I have also created many people who will encourage everyone to also find my world loving so as to not have too many dropouts.
schopenhauer1August 31, 2024 at 22:30#9294090 likes
I like sushiSeptember 01, 2024 at 02:26#9294450 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 So ethics is just a matter of opinion. Moral Scepticism. Which begs the question what kind of moral sceptic are you? If you are not then your position is contrary as you believe ethics is a human thing not an universal thing.
apokrisisSeptember 01, 2024 at 03:00#9294490 likes
It is the dialectical reasoning of the systems science view. The complexity of a system arises from the fruitful balancing of its contrary impulses. Rights and responsibilities are one such way of capturing the essence of modern social structure.
I only used your emotive jargon - burdens - to make the connection to your own reductionist position. You can see that burdens are really just the global responsibilities that can justify a person also having their particular local rights.
Speaking more generically, a system is a hierarchical balance of the dichotomy that is constraints and freedoms.
So at every level of natural order, we have the same general idea of a balancing of top-down long-run constraints and bottom-up constructive or creative freedoms.
What you call burdens are in fact the constraints that shape up a society as a collection of individuals with their freedoms. The freedoms that are meaningful and pragmatic as they are how the society can continually renew its own globally persisting being.
But you don’t seem to have an understanding of nature as a developmental or self-organising system. This is why your logic is so broken.
boundlessSeptember 01, 2024 at 09:52#9294850 likes
No, "society" doesn't suffer, individuals with POVs do. I make a distinction between mitigation ethics and preventative ethics. Once born, we are in mitigation ethics mode where indeed, we may have to trade greater harms for lesser harms. Uniquely for the procreational decision, we can be in preventative ethics, where absolutely/purely we can make a decision to prevent ALL harm to a future person whereby no drawback (lesser harm) is had for that person. No ONE is deprived. And ANs generally all agree that (unlike your definition of ethics), positive ethics (other people's projects.. like continuing humanity, wanting to take care of a new person, etc.), should not override individuals' negative ethics (rights not to be harmed, non-consented).
I agree that 'society' doesn't suffer but individuals do. And I also agree that we should avoid to cause unnecessary suffering, especially when there is no possibility of consent. 'Not intentionally causing unnecessary harm' seems to be a 'regulative ideal' that we should follow.
And yet, I think that as an ethical duty, if you want, we also have a moral obligation to act for the benefit of others. In fact, I think we should act with the benefit of everyone in sight, although of course we cannot directly benefit to everyone due to our finitude - hence I see this as a 'regulative ideal'. The fact that ethics seems to work only when a community of ethical agents is present seems to me that this second regulative ideal is necessary.
It seems to me that these two 'ideals' give us an ethical dilemma, if we accept both as ethical regulative ideals. Of course, if we give the prominence to the first one, it seems that, unless one holds to some kind of religious/metaphysical beliefs, antinatalism would be right. I'm not convinced, however, that the second 'ideal' is 'lesser' than the first. So, it seems to me that antinatalism isn't the 'best' ethical position for both the 'single individual' and 'all individuals'. I would like to find a way to avoid giving 'prominence' to one ideal over the other. But I admit that at least until now, I never found a solution.
Fire OlogistSeptember 03, 2024 at 15:30#9297900 likes
We don't exist SO THAT ethics can persist, but rather ethics exists because humans exist.
I agree - we don’t exist for ethics.
But AN is the ethical system that places the ethics above the humans.
For the ANist, the ethical principal is a higher good than the agent, because the ANist is willing to destroy the possibility of all future ethical agents for sake of upholding its ethical principal.
But if ethics tells me ethics should not exist, why would I think I should be ethical?
I exist, then ethics exists. If the ethics exists because of me, but this ethics tells me I should not exist, then the ethics should not exist either. So what is “wrong” about inflicting suffering without consent again? I was wrong to exist then so is my ethics wrong to exist. So why do a fabricate this whole ethical dilemma? Why not let the Forrest fire burn, the earthquake crumble, the storm drown, and the human procreate? Why not, if our ethics is nothing and for nothing?
The AN position upholds ethics above the ethical agent, in order to eliminate the agent and so eliminate the ethics.
That is what makes no sense to me.
There is nothing good about being ethical in a world that should not have ethics in it because it should not have humans in it.
schopenhauer1September 03, 2024 at 15:51#9297930 likes
But AN is the ethical system that places the ethics above the humans.
I'm not sure how you get this. Placing ethics before humans would be the opposite. For example, some forms of utilitarianism would have it that you should violate people's basic rights if it helps the greater community. One example might be, having a set of people secretly tested for scientific experiments without consent (this did happen to a group of Tuskegee Airmen in the American South, for example) .. But there are many many examples of this kind of thinking.
For the ANist, the ethical principal is a higher good than the agent, because the ANist is willing to destroy the possibility of all future ethical agents for sake of upholding its ethical principal.
So this fails to be an example of "placing ethics above the human", as "the possibility of all future ethical agents" is not an actual human, but a reified concept (the possibility of a human). Quite the opposite, whereas creating suffering because we prefer to keep "Humanity and civilization going" would be using real people for an ethical principle (i.e. some positive project such as "humanity and civilization"), AN is actually ABOUT preventing suffering and non-consent of an ethical agent who will so be affected by that.
I exist, then ethics exists. If the ethics exists because of me, but this ethics tells me I should not exist, then the ethics should not exist either. So what is “wrong” about inflicting suffering without consent again? I was wrong to exist then so is my ethics wrong to exist. So why do a fabricate this whole ethical dilemma? Why not let the Forrest fire burn, the earthquake crumble, the storm drown, and the human procreate? Why not, if our ethics is nothing and for nothing?
Your conclusion does not follow at all from the premise. The ethics isn't "You should not exist". Rather, the ethic is, "Do not cause unnecessary harm". All else you are saying is thus misguided and confused. Once you exist, it is incumbent to not cause unnecessary harm. The purest form of this is in the procreational decision which can prevent ALL harm with no cost to an actual person, and thus, to follow this ethic, at least in its purest action, would be to not procreate.
The AN position upholds ethics above the ethical agent, in order to eliminate the agent and so eliminate the ethics.
Your first part is wrong as I've explained above. The ethics is not "above the agent". Rather, the ethics is incumbent on humans that already exist to follow in regards to future ethical agents (by preventing a future person's birth). The principle is all about how we are NOT to treat a (possible) ethical agent from the perspective of one who already exists.
There is nothing good about being ethical in a world that should not have ethics in it because it should not have humans in it.
This actually makes no sense. If humans exist, ethics towards other agents exist. If humans don't exist, this ethic is no longer needed. No humans = no ethics. If there are humans, then the ethic (of not procreating) remains.
Fire OlogistSeptember 03, 2024 at 16:59#9298010 likes
the possibility of all future ethical agents" is not an actual human, but a reified concept
And the concept of "no consent" and the concept of "inflicted suffering on another" and the concepts of "good" and "ethics" are reified concepts. Not actual humans. No difference.
Rather, the ethics is incumbent on humans that already exist to follow in regards to future ethical agents.
You can't discard my reference to "the possibility of future ethical agents" as a mere reified concept, and then say ethics is incumbent on current people "in regards to future ethical agents."
This is the problem with the logic. You need certain things be in place as premises and principals, in order to demonstrate a world where none of these premises or principals need exist.
You need human civilization to exist for any human preference to exist at all. The ANist is using a preference to base a conclusion that preferences should not exist. If preferences should not exist, why prefer not to inflict harm? Unless you uphold the principal over the person.
Rather, the ethic is, "Do not cause unnecessary harm".
There is more to ethics than principles. Ethical principles are calls to action, prescriptions for behavior impacting other ethical agents - they are guides for physical, actual behavior in a society. AN ethical behavior based on principals (do not cause harm; procreation causes harm without consent) is for the sake and goal of eliminating all ethical action by eliminating all ethical actors. On principle, the ANist doesn't want any creatures that would have or construct principals to exist at all. On principle, principles should not drive action. That makes no sense.
So I ask, why would we use ethical principles (don't inflict harm) to make the world better if that better world doesn't need or have any ethical principals in it (because no ethical agents)? Why would I think it is good to follow any ethical principal that had the goal of building a society that had no need or place for ethics?
Rather, the ethics is incumbent on humans that already exist to follow in regards to future ethical agents.
What drives the notion "ethics is incumbent"? Why would you say that? We choose our ethics just as we choose our actions according to our ethics. If choosing and choosing ethically are so good they are "incumbent", why would we destroy the presence of these goods by building a world that had no ethical agents in it? Choosing must therefore be bad.
If humans exist, ethics towards other agents exist. If humans don't exist, this ethic is no longer needed. No humans = no ethics. If there are humans, then the ethic (of not procreating) remains.
If humans exist, ethics is possible, but need not exist - we are the only creatures who construct ethics, but before we construct it, ethics does not exist. AN is constructing ethics to construct a world without humans, as if the ethics of "not inflicting harm" was more important than the human that constructed this ethic. And all with the outcome of world where no creature could reconstruct this ethic and recognize how good all of those humans who did not procreate were back when they were living, ethical agents.
schopenhauer1September 03, 2024 at 17:16#9298060 likes
And the concept of "no consent" and the concept of "inflicted suffering on another" and the concepts of "good" and "ethics" are reified concepts. Not actual humans. No difference.
No, you are misconstruing my argument. The "no consent" and "inflicting suffering", if violated, WILL affect the person involved. "No humanity/civilization" would be [s]inflicting suffering/non-consent[/s] doing something FOR a reified concept.
You can't discard my reference to "the possibility of future ethical agents" as a mere reified concept, and then say ethics is incumbent on current people "in regards to future ethical agents."
This is the problem with the logic. You need certain things be in place as premises and principals, in order to demonstrate a world where none of these premises or principals need exist.
All that's needed is actual people with a perspective that exist to know that a future person would be so affected if they violated these principles.
You need human civilization to exist for any human preference to exist at all. The ANist is using a preference to base a conclusion that preferences should not exist. If preferences should not exist, why prefer not to inflict harm? Unless you uphold the principal over the person.
Again, this seems like muddled thinking. The "preference" is based on following a principle of non-harm/non-consent. That principle exists because humans exist. Once humans no longer exist, no need for preferences. I am not sure why this is so hard.
There is more to ethics than principles. Ethical principles are calls to action, prescriptions for behavior impacting other ethical agents - they are guides for physical, actual behavior in a society. AN ethical behavior based on principals (do not cause harm; procreation causes harm without consent) is for the sake and goal of eliminating all ethical action by eliminating all ethical actors. On principle, the ANist doesn't want any creatures that would have or construct principals to exist at all. On principle, principles should not drive action. That makes no sense.
So I ask, why would we use ethical principles (don't inflict harm) to make the world better if that better world doesn't need or have any ethical principals in it (because no ethical agents)? Why would I think it is good to follow any ethical principal that had the goal of building a society that had no need or place for ethics?
This question makes no ethical matter. In a way, you are undermining your own accusations of me. It seems you have a hidden agenda in your ethical principles (i.e. that they need to have some sort of "goal" that is above and beyond not inflicting suffering/not violating consent to an individual). No one is talking about "building a society" here. That is not this ethic, which is negative (nothing about building). In fact, as I've explained previously, no positive ethic in this case, where there is no tradeoff to an existing person, would matter when it violates a negative ethic. Your right to "build X, Y, Z" shouldn't override unnecessarily harming/violating consent, especially as there is no person who "loses out" on you doing so (i.e. preventative vs. mitigation ethics).
What drives the notion "ethics is incumbent"? Why would you say that? We choose our ethics just as we choose our actions according to our ethics. If choosing and choosing ethically are so good they are "incumbent", why would we destroy the presence of these goods by building a world that had no ethical agents in it? Choosing must therefore be bad.
The "presence of these goods".. This sounds like people are instruments for "goods" to take place, precisely the thinking that I think is UNETHICAL... people should not be used (caused to be harm) so that your vision of a positive project is carried out ("these goods of life"). At some point, it is up to the individual to "choose" what they think is ethical. I am presenting the case that unnecessarily harming people (causing to suffer for no reason), is unethical- it doesn't matter if you had a positive vision in mind in doing so (when there is no need to have actually caused the harm in the first place).
AN is constructing ethics to construct a world without humans, as if the ethics of "not inflicting harm" was more important than the human that constructed this ethic. And all with the outcome of world where no creature could reconstruct this ethic and recognize how good all of those humans who did not procreate were back when they were living, ethical agents.
Why does this matter that there would be no one to "recognize" that good was done or to "reconstruct this ethic" (whatever that means)?
Fire OlogistSeptember 03, 2024 at 18:13#9298230 likes
That principle exists because humans exist. Once humans no longer exist, no need for preferences. I am not sure why this is so hard.
But what is wrong with inflicting suffering? Why is it wrong to torture babies to death and make more babies to torture them?
You need an ethics to argue torturing babies is wrong. It’s not obvious. Otherwise, like an orca teaching its young, torturing babies to death is just another motion in space, like any other, neither good nor bad.
WE say it is bad to inflict suffering without consent. WE create this rule, this ethic. Now that it’s created, WE can choose to act on it. And the ANist can determine that to not-procreate is to act on this new rule we created. And what is the good of this act?? What is the good of the rule? In the end, what is the reason there were humans once but are no longer any humans? The reason would be because of the ethics we created. Not any other reason.
So the ethics itself, the principle itself, for the ANist, is the higher goal than some condition or state in the ethical human being.
We create a problem (inflicting suffering without consent) to create a solution (not procreating) for sake of….
…upholding the principle, NOT for sake of any person. All things people are, to the ANist, something that SHOULD NOT persist, should not have come to be.
So AN upholds ethics to defeat ethics. It is literally for the sake of nothing.
In that case, it is legitimate to ask Why be ethical at all?
Instead of killing off the human race, we could all choose to kill off ethics. We could fight our instinct towards compassion (fight the pangs that arise when suffering is inflicted on another) instead of fighting our instinct to procreate?
Why must our response to compassion be the creation of ethics? If the answer involves humans (an individual, a community, possible future humans…) than antinatalist ethics make no sense as its goal is “no more humans is a good.”
schopenhauer1September 03, 2024 at 20:46#9298610 likes
But what is wrong with inflicting suffering? Why is it wrong to torture babies to death and make more babies to torture them?
You need an ethics to argue torturing babies is wrong. It’s not obvious. Otherwise, like an orca teaching its young, torturing babies to death is just another motion in space, like any other, neither good nor bad.
I base the deontology as rooted in the idea that people have inherent dignity and should not be used as a means to an ends. I agree, if you don't agree with this basis for morality, that either people do not have inherent dignity and thus they should not be used, then none of this would matter. Some people think instrumentally, for example. I think that basis is wrong, precisely because it denies the individual worth of the individual. I also think that this entails that preventing things like suffering and non-consent are more important than whatever machinations you had in mind for a person that would violate those basic principles. Thus I say, your positive ethics doesn't override someone's negative ethics, if it need not be the case (you can prevent versus putting someone in mitigation mode where they must have some suffering but now trade greater for lesser, etc.).
And what is the good of this act?? What is the good of the rule? In the end, what is the reason there were humans once but are no longer any humans? The reason would be because of the ethics we created. Not any other reason.
Notice you said "any other reason". Well yeah, there would be a "reason" nonetheless. Some "reasons" are ethical and some are not. That's the debate here. It just so happens, the ethical ones ends in no human being procreated. Again, I see no problem with that. Your argument seems to be something akin to credulity but with no force behind it. You are essentially saying, "But look at this outcome! But look!"
So the ethics itself, the principle itself, for the ANist, is the higher goal than some condition or state in the ethical human being.
If you mean by this that ANs generally don't prioritize positive projects over negative ethics, then yes. For example, a positive project from a philosopher might say they want to see, "The flourishing of a virtuous person" (which may or may not be the outcome, but even that point is irrelevant here, though can be the basis for weaker arguments like the "gambling with other lives" arguments, which are also valid). A less philosophically inclined person might just say they want "A person they can raise and do family stuff with". It's all positive projects though, whatever it is.
We create a problem (inflicting suffering without consent) to create a solution (not procreating) for sake of….
…upholding the principle, NOT for sake of any person. All things people are, to the ANist, something that SHOULD NOT persist, should not have come to be.
So AN upholds ethics to defeat ethics. It is literally for the sake of nothing.
You are phrasing it so that it comes out this way. Rather, a violation of a person will take place, you are preventing that violation of a person. It doesn't matter if someone is not benefiting from this, rather a PERSON will not suffer and be non-consented. It is for the sake of the person not suffering and being non-consented, that WILL BE SO AFFECTED.
1 There is a null state (no person), and
2 there is a state with some bad
3 and some good.
2 is the only one that has moral relevance here.
That there is a null state is not morally wrong...
That some good happens (3) is not morally relevant.
All that matters is 2 does not occur, as THAT is the morally relevant/bad/wrong state of affairs.
Instead of killing off the human race, we could all choose to kill off ethics. We could fight our instinct towards compassion (fight the pangs that arise when suffering is inflicted on another) instead of fighting our instinct to procreate?
Why must our response to compassion be the creation of ethics? If the answer involves humans (an individual, a community, possible future humans…) than antinatalist ethics make no sense as its goal is “no more humans is a good.”
See, you are caught up in the "no more humans". It is precisely this thinking that I question. Why is this project important to you other than incredulity or appeal to tradition? And you are going to say a whole bunch of statements about civilization, the wonder of a sunset, love, and all this, and all the "goods" of life, but if you go back to 1, 2, and 3. Why are we forcing suffering unto others so that X, Y, Z happens? Why does X, Y, Z matter? That people need to experience "goods of life", seems oddly messianic, and aggressively paternalistic. What makes you believe that these projects of "good life" or "positive experience" mean you get the right to make people suffer? Indeed, this would be using people's suffering for your messianic/paternalistic notion of what "MUST happen FOR them" or simply "What MUST HAPPEN" in general. If suffering isn't the paramount thing, then there is something that is not ethics going on here.. Perhaps ego? Perhaps forcing one's vision of "the good" on others? Perhaps, misplaced messianism (YOU know what's good, and YOU must be the one to carry that out). But as I've stated more eloquently here:
This has a lot of unjustified assumptions.. such as, why should virtuous men matter? If you say that because the know how to live a "good life", AN always knows that starting a life for someone else means you have a project for them to follow. But here belies an actual UNVIRTUOUS thing- the forcing of someone else into the burdens of life to live out the project of X (the virtuous man!.. cue marble statue staring into the horizon clutching robe!!). It reeks of an aggressive paternalism and assumption (for someone else), that their negative rights should be violated (and that is indeed part of the debate, is it a violation), because you think "someone living out a virtuous life" is okay to go head and be aggressively paternalistic to allow for a deontological violation to take place.
The Lord of the Rings, obviously, an author and work who would be against my philosophy or antinatalism, however, does have themes that I am getting at. The Ring itself can represent the controlling nature of humans- the ability to want to control people, destiny, the world. Wanting to see X thing from another person, even if it means burdening them is perhaps one of these unconscious factors that we hold. The Ring seems to be a good idea.. it seems to have the answers, but in fact, it is simply the human desire to control things, to see their projects carried out by way of using other people, even their sufferings to make this happen. '
You will claim "NO! LOTR was talking about unrestrained control- like Sauron wanting to enslave everyone!". But there is indeed where the debate lies. "Does procreation represent an aggressive paternalism.. does this too go too far in how we want to control people, even violate ethical principles, to see our project carried out?". And I get the impulse to defend it.. It's the very basis for which our whole society has operated. But perhaps it isn't as unassailable as you might think. And for millennium, as long as there has been societies that had the abilities to reason beyond the tribal unit, there have been lifestyles of ascetics who eschewed the worldly projects. I am not necessarily advocating that, however, but just showing that this difference in notions of established familial traditions exist.
Far be it from me to begrudge anyone laughter. But as I indicated with the Lord of the Rings analogy above, there is a bit of a weird aggressive paternalism in the notion that you need to teach someone, and see your project carried out... I have wants and desires, but do I have the right to unnecessarily and non-consentingly burden you with them? Well, no I don't have that right. But somehow a blind eye is seen in the case of procreation because of the romantic notions of learning and virtue of the philosophies you describe here. Don't get me wrong, go have fun.. don't be a dour asshole to your children, but my point is perhaps we may even question the impetus for control and wanting to see projects carried out from others, rather than assume that this is what is right. The doting grandfather laughing at his grandchildren in merriment as they work through the small problems of life gradually being raised to become productive members of society, etc. But what of this? I question this project, its motives, and what we are wanting from other people.
Comments (1785)
I'm a big fan of B's rambling posts - albeit not in a way he appreciates. So I'm not defending his OP. But in this particular narrow case it looks to me your critique is misplaced.
Quoting universeness
If you were to set up a standard truth table of the 4 permutations then of course you are correct, but here B is also asserting that P or Q = True. I.e. it is an axiom.
Of course, as the OP clearly states, all of this is imaginary:
Quoting Bartricks
It seems to me that you agree that bar tricks is positing the musings of his imagination and trying to pass them off as valid proposals by conflating them with propositional logic.
I would think that it's his burden to clearly state what he intends with P or Q. If he intended P or Q = True, then that's what he should have typed, which would be equivalent to the 'exclusive or.' I think this should be written as P ? Q not P or Q.
Anyway, it matters not, as
1. P or Q
2. Not P
3. Therefore Q
cannot be applied to completely illogical posits such as non-existent Omnis having human style desires.
Bar tricks is all smoke and mirrors, but he is quite capable of further damaging those people who are already depressives but lack the ability to see through his BS. I am just trying to help redress that balance.
Agree
Quoting universeness
To me, given the full context, it was clear that this was his intention.
Quoting universeness
Agree- but sometimes it's fun to embed oneself in his imaginary world and see where it goes.
Quoting universeness
I wouldn't be overly concerned about this - just my 2 cents . . . :smirk:
EDIT EDIT:
Now that I'm thinking about it some more, B is not even asserting POR Q, it seems that he is asserting (sort of) P OR ~P
where P is "leave world as it is & do not introduce sentient beings" and ~P is "change world so it is safe & introduce sentient life". Yeah, yeah P is actually two propositions, but I think you get the basic idea.
I mentioned nothing about you improving things so you’re hurt over your own red herring reaction. What I said was against the idea that a person being contented means there aren’t structural problems with life.
Back to passive aggressive shite. Twerp.
Quoting schopenhauer1
And we can work to remove them. That's unless one is a pessimist.
You are trying to 'patch' the inaccuracies in the sophistry employed by bar tricks when you would do better to pull back the curtain and expose his sophistry.
Quoting EricH
I am glad you can garnish entertainment from antinatalism and antinatalists but I personally see them as a more destructive and pernicious group than you do. For example, they exist as a particularly nasty organised group in America. Footage from this group has already been posted on TPF and I don't take such organised nasty groups, lightly.
Quoting EricH
Easy for you to type but I think you are wrong and that there is a very real and very valid concern involved.
:clap:
HILARIOUS :rofl:. You are one of the smuggiest passive aggressiviest posters on here. You know it too. You cannot be that un-selfaware.. Or you are being super ironic. Either way, pot calling kettle black.
Quoting Banno
But that is precisely what a Pessimist does.. He sees the intractable, pervasive, necessary harms that are structural. Even contingent harms that are consistently pervasive can look quite necessary as to structural. But though you're being tongue-in-cheek with your use of pessimism here, how your using it here is precisely what a philosophical pessimist is not. A philosophical pessimist does not just think things can't get better, but rather that the fact that there are structural negatives in the first place is something to explore, and to explore what those are and reveal them. The "optimist" in this regard is not just someone who "sees the glass full" but is someone who is overlooking what is structurally the case. Perhaps just to make their case about this and that project (like discussing analytic philosophy and logic on a philosophy forum) being important.
Yes, but that's irrelevant to the case I am making. For I am not trying to shed light on what an omnipotent person is capable of doing. Rather, I am trying to shed light on the morality of procreation. I am simply using the example of God and the problem of evil to do that, for there we find much more agreement than we do on the issue of antinatalism.
When it comes to the problem of evil, there is widespread - though not universal - agreement that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person would not invest a world like this one with innocent life.
Those who think that is not true can simply ignore the rest of what I say. The majority - certainly the majority of contemporary philosophers - will agree that it is true.
These folk will agree to the truth of this claim:
Either ensure that the sensible world does not visit horrendous evils on any innocents living in it, or do not introduce innocent life into it.
For if that claim is not true, then there is no problem of evil. And they think there is.
God has the ability to do the former, but we do not. But that's irrelevant. For all it means is that we must accept that we cannot ensure that the sensible world does not visit horrendous evils on any innocents living in it. Thus, what follows is that we ought not to introduce innocent life into it.
Pointing out that God can do all manner of things that we cannot - including, if she so wishes, making the LNC untrue - misses the point. The LNC is actually true and we gain insight into moral matters by employing our reason. It is what is actually moral - not what could be - that I am interested in.
And it would seem that this is a sound argument, or at least that a proponent of the problem of evil seems bound to accept it is.
1. Either ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that you plan on making live in it, or do not make innocent persons live in it. (P or Q)
2. We cannot ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that we plan on making live in it. (Not P)
3. therefore, do not make innocent persons live in it. (Therefore, Q)
No problem. Love telling smugs why the be smugs.
Isn't that the name of your game? I mean you can retreat into what I predicted you would.. "That you are posing as ironic" all you want. Smug is smug. You can say Socrates was smug then.. but wooohee.. then you are comparing yourself to Socrates.. and maybe he was indeed a smuggy.
Ok.
1. Either ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that you plan on making live in it, or do not make innocent persons live in it. (P or Q)
2. We cannot ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that we plan on making live in it. (Not P)
3. therefore, do not make innocent persons live in it. (Therefore, Q)
Now, you have had long enough to read up on disjunctive syllogisms and research how they can fail such that you can then wearily tell me that the one above fails in one of those ways and then refuse to clarify in the hope that others will charitably assume that you do know, even though you and I know that you don't.
So, come along. Say where the argument goes wrong. You are sure it does go wrong, for no better reason than that I have made it. Yes? If Bartricks makes an argument, that argument is rubbish. So, now try and explain why it is rubbish. Do so without quoting yourself as if your pronouncements constitute pieces of evidence. And do so without any squiggling and squoggling.
Quoting Bartricks
But that is exactly what you did in your OP. Right here:
Quoting Bartricks
In other words, if She cannot satisfy both desires, then neither should you. But as you have stated, since She is omnipotent She can do both.
Quoting Bartricks
1. Either ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that you plan on making live in it, or do not make innocent persons live in it. (P or Q)
Which it is. Or at least, proponents of the problem of evil must accept it is.
To challenge me you would need to argue that a proponent of the problem of evil can reject that principle. It's not about what abilities God has. Nor is it about what I can deny or affirm. It's about what a proponent of the problem of evil can do. Can they deny that principle? No, not and be consistent.
But that seems false. At most one only needs the ability to fulfil one of the disjuncts. For instance, that is all that 'ought implies can' requires. So long as one can fulfil one of the disjuncts, one is able to comply with the directive.
And imagine a god who is unable to prevent herself from introducing new life into the world, but who does the ability to ensure that the world will not visit any horrendous evils on that new life. Well, clearly she ought to exercise that ability. That is, her inability to fulfil one of the disjuncts does not mean the principle does not apply to her. Likewise then, the fact we can't fulfil one of the disjuncts does not mean the principle does not apply to us.
But he is not the "number one". :lol:
Hilariously illogical.
These kind of [s]brainf[/s] thought constructs tell something about when actually the "me-myself-and-I" attitude is mixed with over protected lives we live now. The idea of our world now being so cruel... as if it wasn't more cruel before.
Well, it looks like we're stuck here :angry: :grimace: For clarity's sake I am re-posting your OP:
I[i]magine there is an omnipotent, omniscient person.
Imagine as well that there is a sensible world, exactly like this one.
And imagine that this omnipotent omniscient person really likes the sensible world, and likes how it operates and does not want to interfere with its operations, with one exception: they want to introduce life into it.
So, they have two desires: a desire to leave the sensible world to operate in its own manner, but also a desire to introduce sentient life into the sensible world.
Morally what ought they to do? Should they frustrate their desire to introduce sentient life into the sensible world? Or should they frustrate their desire to leave the sensible world alone and instead alter it so that it does not pose the risks to the welfare of the innocent life they plan on introducing into it? Or should they satisfy both desires?
I take it to be obvious that they should not satisfy both desires. So, that means that they should either adjust the world so as to make it a safer place, or they should refrain from introducing sentient life into it.
Now turn your attention to yourself. You are not omnipotent, but you do have the power to introduce new sentient life into this sensible world. And you are not omniscient, but you know that this sensible world is an incredibly dangerous place, full of all manner of dangers and just about every conceivable harm.
If the omnipotent, omniscient person wants to keep the world as it is, then they ought to frustrate their desire it invest it with sentient life.
If you are unable to change the world, then you ought to frustrate your desire to introduce new sentient life into it. Yes?
I mean, if the omnipotent, omniscient person ought not to introduce sentient life into the sensible world if they are not going to change the sensible world, then your inability to change the sensible world should also mean that you ought not to introduce sentient life into it. Agree?[/i]
- - - - - - - -
Now you say this (I boldfaced the most pertinent part):
Quoting Bartricks
And here is the point I am trying to convey: If you are using your omnipotent, omniscient person (OO-P) as an example/template to possibly emulate - as the OP clearly states - then your discussion of the properties & behavior of the OO-P is subject to debate - since that is the foundation on which you construct your Ps & Qs. And it is this foundation that doesn't make any sense to me. Just for example (and again from the OP):
So, that means that they [God] should either adjust the world so as to make it a safer place, or they should refrain from introducing sentient life into it.
But as you have clearly stated, the sensible world is neither of these things. So clearly, since the OO-P has done neither of these things, then clearly the OO-P is fine with introducing sentient beings into a sensible world filled with pain & evil. And since the OO-P is fine with this, then (following your reasoning) so should we frail human beings be.
And this is begging the whole LNC thing I mentioned a while back.
So again, your OP has set the basis for this discussion, and I'm sticking with it.
But there is one other alternative. Perhaps the OO-P is not essential to your P & Qs (as you seem to be saying). Then perhaps (ironically at this point) you might open up a new discussion and leave out the OO-P - so the discussion can be focused on your Ps & Qs.
Yes, another fantastically prejudicial judgement by Mickie/Xtrix. This argument:
1. Either ensure that the sensible world does not visit horrendous evils on any innocents you plan on making live in it, or do not make any innocents live in it (P or Q)
2.We are not going to ensure that the sensible world is such that it will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents that we plan on making live in it. (Not P)
3.Therefore, we ought not to make any innocents live in it. (Therefore Q)
Is a 'life sucks' argument, apparently. Which means all discussion of the problem of evil should also be moved to this thread too.
Quoting EricH
What I was trying to do is show how a proponent of the problem of evil is committed to affirming the truth of a disjunctive moral principle.
1. Either ensure that the sensible world does not visit horrendous evils on any innocents you plan on making live in it, or do not make any innocents live in it (P or Q)
The omnipotent, omniscient person is dispensable insofar as it is the truth of that principle - if true it be - that gets one to the antinatalist conclusion. But as I was trying to show how those who run the problem of evil are, on pain of inconsistency, committed to affirming it - or seem to be, anyway - that was why I mentioned such a creature.
One could argue the other way - that is, one could take the moral permissibility of procreation as one's starting point and argue that it implies that there is no problem of evil.
To go back to my dinner invite examples. Jane wants to invite James over for dinner, but she only has ingredients for spaghetti bolognaise in her cupboard. But that's fine - there's nothing impermissible about inviting someone over for dinner if you're going to serve them spaghetti bolognaise (provided there's enough of it). For James does not dislike it and it's a meal of the kind a guest is entitled to expect.
But then surely it is fine for Marjorie - who is capable of cooking all manner of things for James, but just wants to cook spaghetti bolognaise - to invite James over and serve him spaghetti bolognaise too? SHe will not be doing James an injustice if she does that. She could serve him something better. But he's not entitled to anything better and so he is being done no wrong by Marjorie if she serves him spaghetti bolognaise.
That applies now to God. If it is morally permissible for us to procreate, despite the fact we'll thereby be subjecting an innocent to the risk of suffering horrendous evils - so, if we do no wrong to that person - then it is also morally permissible for God to subject innocents to life in this world despite the risk of them suffering horrendous evils. God is like Marjorie and creating life is like serving spaghetti bolognaise to a guest.
As is now obvious, this is clearly a life-sucks argument through and through and definitely belongs here.
I appreciate you starting a new thread with a more respectful name.
@Baden
:up: :sparkle:
I am agree with Clark. Thanks for taking the unbiased solution. I think all the sides win here.
As a philosophy - humane and inspiring. In this context - a grotesque and self-serving justification for prejudice and censorship.
I really have no idea what you're talking about.
[deleted]
Just for the record, I (T Clark) did not delete this post.
I'm not following you here. By "proponent" do you mean a believer in God - and how they attempt to resolve the discrepancy between an omnibenevolent god and the existence of evil? Or are you referring to a non-believer and how they use the discrepancy to dispute/refute the existence of God?
BTW - I acknowledge that this is a dramatically simplified description of a highly complex set of philosophical/religious beliefs/opinions.
I'm guessing that you're referring to believers - but perhaps I'm missing something?
I am not one of those. I think God exists. I think there is no problem of evil.
But most philosophers think there is a problem of evil. They think the evils of the world provide us with good evidence (most would say decisive) that God does not exist.
Those philosophers ought to be antinatalists. That is what I am arguing.
That's not why I am an antinatalist. I am an antinatalist for a whole host of reasons.
My point, though, is that an argument - the problem of evil - that the vast majority of philosophers think is a very powerful one against God, implies the truth of antinatalism.
So, 'if' the problem of evil provides good evidence that God does not exist, then there is good evidence that it is wrong for us to procreate.
If P, then Q.
However, it does not follow that if Q then P.
So, although I am an antinatalist, this does not commit me to thinking that the problem of evil provides good evidence that God does not exist.
I think the problem of evil fails. But most think it succeeds. They are inconsistent if they are not also antinatalists.
It is entirely consistent to be an antinatalist and to believe the problem of evil fails to show God's non existence. For there is nothing inconsistent in being a theist antinatalist.
It is entirely consistent to think procreation is morally permissible and that there is no problem of evil. False. But consistent.
It is inconsistent, however, to think that there is a problem of evil and that it is morally ok for us to procreate.
Jane wants to invite James over for dinner. She doesn't have to. She just wants to. But all she has in her cupboard is some spaghetti and a smashed jar of ragu. So all she is capable of serving James is spaghetti with sauce that has bits of glass in it. And she has no pudding to offer.
Well, I'd have thought it was obvious that she ought to refrain from inviting James over, given all she can serve him is a meal of glassy ragu and spaghetti. A guest deserves better - much better - than that.
But let's imagine that you think - bizarrely - that no, it is absolutely fine for Jane to invite James over and serve him glassy spaghetti and sauce.
Well, Marjorie wants to invite James over for dinner too. She doesn't have to either. SHe just wants to. But she has lots of things in her cupboard, including a smashed glass of ragu and some spaghetti. And she wants to serve James that. However, she is going to give him a great pudding.
Now, aren't you mega-bizarre if you think that it would be wrong for Marjorie needlessly to subject James to an evening of glassy spaghetti and sauce followed by a nice pudding, but not at all wrong for Jane needlessly to subject James to an evening of glassy spaghetti and sauce?
I think so. Yet that is analogous to the view of the person who thinks it would have been wrong for God needlessly to make innocent persons live in this world with all its evils, yet not wrong for them to do so.
God could have gotten rid of the evils - just as Marjorie could have served James something other than spaghetti and glassy ragu. But he is, it is supposed, going to provide a great pudding (an afterlife in heaven).
You, however, could only have served spaghetti and glassy ragu, for that is all you had. You didn't have to invite James to dinner, of course. And you can offer no pudding. If God did wrong, you did worse! I mean, whose invite would James prefer to receive?
My position on antinatalism is that I agree with it as being the epitome of a philosophical idea: where thought becomes greater than the life that gives it existence. People are unlike other creatures in that we can appreciate our suffering. Animals in nature accept their lot. Our nature to think, or to like thinking, can lead us to favor heady ideals over material existence. However, most people are not philosophical. Thoughts can occur to any of us, but only in an insignificant number will thinking interfere with basic functions like eating (animals), procreating, and working. Nevertheless, as I said, I agree with philosophy at its apex. This is where thought becomes greater than the material world. Mind there is not at a subservient level to matter as in science, but transcends actuality to create nothing. This is the spirit that I favor in antinatalism.
Existence before essence is the case for humans in many ways that human pretend isn’t. Bad faith. :up:.
Quoting introbert
The desire for sexual pleasure doesn’t seem the same as procreation, as we have divorced the two. Therefore, I consider procreation not a basic instinct. It is simply a culturally reinforced preference to want to reproduce. It could be out of any number of things including ones as banal as boredom, fear of missing out and a host of other complex socially derived, non instinctual reasons that have no discernible basis in an instinctual drive to “procreate”.
That said . . .
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
I think I finally understand what you're getting at - and here is where we disagree. I am not seeing any connection between being a PPE and your Ps & Qs. Being a PPE does not imply that one should have any opinion on how God should act, let alone that it is wrong of God.
To illustrate, let's take a specific hypothetical example. Let's say there's a person - call him Mr. X - who is an atheist and Mr. X thinks that the problem of evil is proof that She does not exist and that "God" is an imaginary character in various religious books. So what is Mr. X's opinion of AN? Is there any connection between Mr. Xs atheism and AN?
Not that I'm seeing.
Mr. X could be an AN - maybe he feels that there are too many people on the planet and we need to reduce the human population to keep a sustainable civilization.
Or maybe Mr. X is anti-AN. Mr. X loves children (he has 2 kids) and he is confident that humanity will eventually solve these problems.
Or maybe Mr. X has no opinion at all. He's a nihilist and thinks humanity is doomed no matter what happens.
Etc, etc.
- - - - - - - - - - -
As far as Jane inviting James over? Why does she have to serve the glassy sauce? She could serve the spaghetti plain - maybe with a bit of olive oil, a dash of salt, and some parmigiana cheese. Yum. Oh, her cupboard is empty? She can go out to the store and buy some. Oh, she's broke? She could call James and say "Hey James, I'm so sorry, all I have is plain spaghetti but I'd still like you to come over". Or she could call up James and say "Hey lover boy, would mind picking up a jar of ragu on your way over?"
Please don't give him any more ideas about how to adapted his theories, they are weird enough already.
Oh, I very much doubt it, vicar. For you just criticized me there, didn't you? Tut tut.
Quoting EricH
Yes it does. How doesn't it? A proponent of the problem of evil believes that it would be wrong for God to invest a world such as this one with innocent life. They point to the evils of the world and conclude that God would have prevented those. That's the basis upon which they believe God does not exist. They believe that God would either have altered how the sensible world operates so that it doesn't visit any horrendous evils on the innocents he puts in it, or he would not have put innocent persons into it.
Quoting EricH
Yes, clearly. Mr X believes this principle is true:
1. Either alter how the sensible world operates so that it does not visit horrendous evils on any innocents you plan on introducing into it, or do not introduce innocents into it. (Either p or q)
And this premise is clearly true:
2. We cannot alter how the sensible world operates so that it does not visit horrendous evils on any innocents we plan on introducing into it (not P)
3. Therefore, do not introduce innocents into it (antinatalism) (therefore, q)
You don't seem to understand the example.
Does it have to be even as far as horrendous evil? I’d think any non-individualized version of a person’s utopia would do. If it’s a god, you’d think this could at least be in consideration of one of the avenues he could have chosen for his creation.
Another thing to consider is, the parent is only thinking about their child, not all children , like a god presumably would. The parents think their child will live a “good enough” life and find something like 95% of it just peachy and fine. This is why some of my recent AN arguments revolve around the notion of aggressive paternalism. You shouldn’t assume for another that this life’s set of limited choices is what another would want. You shouldn’t assume others would want to deal with this life’s known, foreseeable harms (foreseeable from the parents experiences and predictions), and you shouldn’t assume to expose others to harms that are extreme that you may not even have expected but are known that it could happen. All these assumptions on behalf of others amounts to an aggressively paternalistic mindset and actions.
It is generally thought that the quality and quantity of the harms that befall people here are such that God, if he existed, would surely prevent.
Antinatalists, such as myself, are persuaded by a variety of arguments.
The argument I am making here is not directed at antinatalists, for we are already persuaded by other arguments. This argument is directed at those who think the problem of evil provides good evidence that God does not exist. That's most philosophers. But most philosophers are not antinatalists. This argument shows them that they should be.
Fair enough. I simply liken it to a game players are forced to play lest they kill themselves. Seems like such a bargain is prime facie unfair.
Your argument is that if problem of evil is unfair, then so are the billions of instances of procreations humans enact everyday bringing humans into what can be an evil world (and in my view always is).
Quoting Bartricks
I understand your example. I was trying to use some gentle humor to illustrate that your analogy lacks a certain rigor. But your example is irrelevant to the larger point I'm trying to get across.
Let me try once more to recap what I think you're saying (and what I'm trying to communicate). I'll do this in a conversation between you & Mr. X:
1. [Bartricks]: Imagine there's an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient entity.
2. [Mr. X]: That doesn't make any sense. An omnibenevolent entity would not allow evil & suffering to exist. Until you can resolve this inconsistency I have no reason to believe in such an entity. I might have other good reasons as well, but this is a sufficient reason in of itself.
3. [Bartricks]: Clearly your pointing out this inconsistency in my imaginary entity logically requires that you must have a certain moral position.
4. [Mr. X]: Huh? You're not making any sense. All I'm doing is simply pointing out that you are contradicting yourself back in #1. Why should your errors in basic logic have anything to do with how I live my life? I live by my own morality that has nothing to do with your imaginary entity.
Quoting Bartricks
Mr. X does not believe this - he is simply pointing out the inconsistency in the definition of God.. Mr. X is an atheist and he does not incorporate any definition of any imaginary entity or entities into his beliefs.
I don’t get Bartricks using god as some thought experiment. I think a good analogy is rather a game that I think is good enough that I force other people to play it. I gaslight them and say, well now that I forced you into this game, if you don’t like ir, you can’t escape to a better game with different setup and initial conditions you can only play in the confines of this game. You can only imagine a different game but you can’t play it. However, if you are ungrateful for being exposed to this game, you can always kill yourself! If this sounds outrageously unfair as a game analogy, it really is not much different than procreation.
The problem is people will defend by appeals to majority practice and tradition which justifies only itself and not morality which in almost every other situation outside of procreation we’d consider unethical. This becomes special pleading due to long held cultural pressures and preferences.
And you don't seem to understand what a proponent of the problem of evil believes either.
My argument is addressed to those who believe that the evils of the world constitute evidence that God does not exist.
It is not addressed to those fools who think the concept of God does not make sense.
So, step one: try and focus on the relevant parties. I am addressing procreator (or natalist - by which I mean those who believe procreation is typically permissible) proponents of the problem of evil
If you think God can't exist, then you're not someone I am addressing.
I am addressing procreator proponents of the problem of evil.
Now, in order to help those who find it difficulty to follow a line of argument focus on the relevant issue - totally and utterly pointless in a context like this, I know - in my original example I asked you to imagine an omnipotent, omniscient person. Not God. Just an omnipotent omniscient person., Now, I know a little voice is saying 'ooo, but that ain't makking no sense'. Shut that voice up and focus.
And what did I then do? I then asked you to notice that a proponent of the problem of evil thinks a person like that morally ought not to invest a world like this with sentient life unless he was going to alter how it operates.
So, a 'good' omnipotent, omniscient person would either alter how the world operates so as to eliminate the risk of horrendous evils, or they would not invest the world with innocent life.
Forget whether you agree. This is to do with what a proponent of the problem of evil will agree to. And they'll have to agree to what I just said otherwise there is no problem of evil.
And that principle - either ensure the world will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents you make live in it, or do not make innocents live in it - has this form 'Either p or q'
And we are not able to ensure that the world will not visit horrendous evils on any innocents we make live in it.
That means 'not p' is true for us.
From which it follows. as a matter of basic logic, that q. That is, that we ought not to invest the world with innocent life.
1. Either p or q
2. Not p
3. Therefore q
is a deductively valid argument
Jesus!
Now, because that argument is deductively valid, anyone who wishes to deny its conclusion must deny a premise.
The second is clearly undeniable.
So it all hangs on the first.
And note, the question here is not whether you agree with 1, but whether a proponent of the problem of evil agrees with it.
if you think they do not have to agree with it, then explain how such a person could argue that the evils of the world imply God's non existence without appeal to that principle.
Shall we go through it again?
No one has to invite James to dinner. No wrong is done if James is not invited to dinner (don't question that. Don't say 'but what if James is really hungry' or something tediously stupid like that. That'd be thicker than a thick thing on thick day. So don't.)
Jane wants to invite James to dinner. But she only has ingredients for meal X. Pssst, it doesn't matter what the meal is. Don't ask about the meal. Don't ask why she only has those ingredients and didn't work harder and acquire more ingredients. That's irrelevant.
Now, given that Jane can only serve James meal x if she invites him for dinner, is it morally ok for her to invite James to dinner?
Depends what x is. A dinner guest is entitled to a meal of a certain quantity and quality.
Let's imagine it is morally ok for her to invite James to dinner.
Well, if it is ok for her to invite James to dinner given she can only serve him x, then it is surely also ok for Marjorie to invite James to dinner and serve him x, even though she is capable of serving him something better.
Now, inviting James to dinner is playing the role of procreation in the above analogy. The meal x is life here in the sensible world as it is.
Jane is us. Marjorie is God. If it is morally ok for us to subject a person to life here in the sensible world as it is, then it is morally ok for God too as well. That is, if it is morally permissible for us to procreate, then there is no problem of evil.
But a proponent of the problem of evil thinks Marjorie did wrong in serving James X. If that was what she was going to serve, she should not have invited him.
So, a proponent of the problem of evil thinks it wrong for Marjorie to invite James over for dinner if all she is going to serve him is meal X.
But that now means that Jane would also be doing wrong if she invites James over for dinner given she can only serve him meal X.
In other words, if God would have been doing wrong if he introduced innocent life into this world as it is, then we too are doing wrong if we introduce innocent llfe into this world as it is.
See?
If it is wrong for Marjorie to serve James X, then it is wrong for Jane to invite James over given she can only serve him x.
If it is ok for Jane to invite James over given she can only serve him x, then it is ok for Marjorie to serve James x (even though she has the ability to serve him something better).
Thus, if it would be wrong for an omnipotent omniscient person to subject innocent persons to life in a world such as this, then it would be wrong for us to as well, given all we can offer is life in a world such as this.
And if it would be morally permissible for a person who can only offer life in world such as this to subject an innocent person to a lifetime in it, then it is morally ok for an omnipotent, omniscient person to do so as well, even though he has the ability to alter how the world operates.
So, if there is a problem of evil for God - and virtually everyone thinks there is (mistakenly, as it happens), then procreation is immoral.
If procreation is not immoral, then there is no problem of evil for God.
Tell me Universeness what god should we leave in the dirt as BS? Bobs god? Sharon's? John's? Emily's? I wasn't aware you knew every single concept of/interpretation of god possible?
Whatever god you reject is your own personal concept of such an thing. And only that one thing. Which is fine, reject it at will. But perhaps don't pretend you understand everyone else's beliefs/interpretation of reality or what it means to them, whether they term it god, logic, reason, ethics, fundamental principle, etc.
We must maintain everyone's free will to admire and pursue a true meaning of reality with respect to them personally, otherwise we are some autocratic dictator enforcing our beliefs on others whether they want to accept them or not. Hardly justifiable.
Everyone worships something - maybe money, maybe fame, maybe knowledge, maybe humanitarism, maybe a person, maybe a god, maybe an idea, concept or thing. For us to shoot down eachothers beliefs is to damage them/to insult them by ripping their core values to shreds - hardly ethical. All we can do is debate and discuss. And those who have a good command of argument will likely convince others of the errors in their beliefs through reasoning. But none of this comes about with brute force and no explanation.
Nothing is BS, it is simply a belief we disagree with on either reasoned or ethical principles. When you express those issues people are free to agree or disagree and offer an alternative explanation.
No one can determine what is absolutely BS unless they know what is absolutely true by contrast - somehow omniscient, a "know it all."
Are you universeness prepared to proclaim yourself a "know it all" or are you receptive to other peoples ideas/concepts?
All gods. I have no problem with someone's personal woo woo regarding their personal god.
They are welcome to it but if you preach it to me as something supernatural and real then have the evidence to support it or expect me to treat it as nothing more than your own personal coping mechanism. I am interested in that which is evidence based only.
Quoting Benj96
You can choose to give mindspace to the woo woo beliefs of others if you wish, it's your brain space.
I am not pretending anything, I just don't assign the same credence to concepts like god, logic, reason, human ethics or human fundamental principle. But you can, if you want to. Good luck with that.
Quoting Benj96
That seems to be your analysis and employment of the word 'worship,' but it's certainly not mine.
I can experience heights of emotion, yes, as all humans can but I have never applied such a manic term as 'worship,' to any of my drivers or goals in life.
Quoting Benj96
If that is an analysis of my posting on TPF then I reject it completely and I would suggest that certainly on this thread, I have provided as much evidence for my position as any of the anti-life posters.
If you think I am being a bit harsh towards the anti-life posters, then fine but perhaps that's just because I am not as tender a foot as you. You reveal your own conceit with "And those who have a good command of argument will likely convince others of the errors in their beliefs through reasoning." as I assume you are attempting to disguise a compliment to yourself.
Quoting Benj96
Yes, I am completely open to the ideas of others but not when they type BS.
Donald Trump is the most intelligent man on the planet earth today!
I saw god's face in my cornflakes this morning!
Napoleon was actually a lizard alien from an exoplanet in the Vega star system!
I can tell you all the major events in your future!
I can speak to dead people.
Any of these seem like BS to you Mr Benj?
Happy to explain. Bring it on. Give me all you got.
Quoting universeness
You don't give the same credence in concepts like logic, reason, human ethics? You don't believe these things are not worth credence? (belief). Tell me then what do you believe in place of ethics, reason logic etc? Surely something you deem more enlightening I'm eager to hear all about it. I'm not one bit intimidated or afraid of having such an argument. Let it all be put out there.
Quoting universeness
You assume incorrectly. I need not do any such thing. I don't compliment myself beyond anyone else's personal values. I value discussion above all. The verdict is up to others to decide. I simply have confidence that my views aren't intended to purposefully aggravate and harm others for the sake of it.
Quoting universeness
And I suppose you're the be all and end all déterminer of what is BS? That's quite the claim. I hope it holds up to rigorous discourse, not simply because "you said so".
Quoting universeness
Of course they do. I have common sense and so do you. But citing extreme examples to highlight absurdity is hardly useful as we both already know they're easily contradicted.
What is truly valuable/useful is arguing those beliefs you genuinely believe in and don't wish to be contradicted. Which I'm happy to oblige in doing if they seem unreasonable.
As I said before and will repeat for clarity, I'm not perturbed by the prospect of arguing my points against yours to establish what the actual case is. Do your very worst. Let reason pervade /determine who has the reigns here.
Go ahead, explain!
Quoting Benj96
I don't give the same credence to posits about the supernatural compared to the credence I give to posits which are based on logic or reason or human ethical imperatives etc. I hope that clears up your confusion about what I am actually typing.
Quoting Benj96
No , you are getting too excited! I am just able to recognise BS. I am sure you can do it to.
Quoting Benj96
Ok let's try a less extreme example.
An omnipotent being can exist and yet not be responsible for evil or what humans label evil.
To me that's just BS because its illogical. If a creature is omnipotent, then it has full control over suffering. What do you think?
What would you like to start with?
Quoting universeness
And what do you believe is "supernatural"? Please clarify.
Quoting universeness
I can indeed. :)
Quoting universeness
An omnipotent object (person) cannot exist based on physics and thermodynamics. A single object cannot overcome the restriction of its own minute objectivity - a person cannot physically move mountains for example. It (a person) however, can choose to take responsibility for evil by not ignoring it in the world around them. A person can choose not to contribute to evil by figuring out what exactly it is (defining it) and taking the opposite course.
The universe as a whole unit on the other hand - containing all energy and thus degrees of potency, is omnipotent, but as a system of opposites which are neccesary and internal to its system cannot address the concept of evil. What is "evil" is relative to conscious entities within the universe - objects (people).
Supernatural has no existent.
Quoting Benj96
So you agree with me then. If you insist that an omnipotent creature can exist, then you are in BS territory. yes?
Quoting Benj96
What has that got to do with whether or not an omnipotent creature can exist?
Quoting Benj96
The universe may be one of many so you have no compelling evidence that any singular universe can be perceived as omnipotent. The universe may also be cyclical, so again cannot be perceived as omni anything. As you type, the concept of evil is a human concept, its relevance to the universe is not understood and it is BS to suggest otherwise. Is your basic complaint here that I think the term BS is warranted at times and you don't? I have already suggested that perhaps you are simply more tenderfooted than I. You are not offering much reasoning for your distaste towards me and I don't really care if its just that, your particular taste, when involved in discourse with others. You can hold hands with the anti-life posters if you want, as you try to reason with them that they are wrong. I choose to apply the term BS towards them when they type BS. If you think there are no occasions where you would employ the term BS then that's up to you. Go for it, let anyone who wants to cover you in BS, do so. You don't seem to mind.
Quoting Benj96
We started a while ago.
Addition: The universe has no known intent so are you positing the universe as an omnipotent wiith no intent?
It exists as a concept no? A concept/idea in your mind right now or how else would you be speaking of it? How can someone (something that exists) describe something that doesn't exist in any format - imagined or otherwise. Unless you are saying that concepts/beliefs/imagination doesn't exist which we can extend to basically all of the content of a mind. Therefore you would be suggesting "the mind" doesn't exist.
Quoting universeness
Yes I agree with you that an omnipotent "creature" (object/living thing) doesnt exist. I do think on the other hand that an omnipotent system exists (the universe).
Quoting universeness
You have no compelling evidence that multiple universes exist. And by the "universe" I mean "everything that exists" which would thus still be the full set, other universes would merely be a subset of "thee universe" (entirety) in that case.
Just as the infinity of numbers between 0 and 1 is a subset of the infinity of real numbers (1,2,3,4 etc) on the number line.
Quoting universeness
I don't really understand how the universe being cyclical negates the idea of it being omnipotent. If energy cannot be created or destroyed (first law of thermodynamics) then it is finite in quantity (yet still omnipotent as it is "all energy" available to the system).
Whether that sum of energy is arranged in a cycle or not seems irrelevant/incoherent with the argument.
Quoting universeness
Whoa cowboy. I have no distaste towards you - someone engaging in philosophocal argument is harmless. I don't know you. We are merely in the process of discourse, you have your views and I have mine, I see no space for personal attack only challenging beliefs. Doesn't seem reasonably to me to have distaste for a person as people are not equal to/defined by the beliefs they hold. Beliefs and opinions change.
Quoting universeness
Well as far as I know the term "BS" is used mostly a quick, informal, sharp, derogative and aggressive term used to disable other people's beliefs more by intimidation and blunt hostility than welcome discourse. More formal academic terms for "BS" would be "falsity", "contradiction", "deception", "deceit", "paradox", "illogicality" or "irrationality". Many synonyms indeed, a bit less emotionally charged and personal than the word "BS" but I guess that's up to the person.
So do fairies and orcs and a race of omnipotent beings called the Q in Star Trek. But none of them have any existent either and to suggest they have is BS.
Quoting Benj96
By imposition of that which is existent, ME or YOU. What is the beginning or end of a circle? The same place on the circle, I can choose where it is, so can you. This allows me to separate real from imagined.
I think therefore I am, and solipsism is BS nonsense.
Quoting Benj96
Stalemate then!
Quoting Benj96
Infinity is not a measure, it is a concept just like paradox is not a state of propositional logic, it is also just a concept. We are unable to take such concepts any further than we have taken them in the past 100 years or more. We probably need another million years of scientific effort before we can garnish any real meaning from such concepts.
Quoting Benj96
How can an omnipotent system be entropic? Chaos-order-chaos, or singularity-expansion-singularity-expansion, with no ability to apply intent is not omnipotent.
Quoting Benj96
Paint your wagon anyway you want! I judge by what you type not what you think you typed. You obviously disapprove of the way I engage in discourse with others, I would call that distaste.
It's ok, you don't have to tenderfoot around me. I am very resilient.
Quoting Benj96
Yes, it is!
But they are information that can be shared/communicated right? And elicit emotions, new ideas, articulation etc?
Tell me if your family member told you they felt sad would you believe that was BS too as it has no existent outside themselves? Or would you assume their emotions exist and are thus valid and due consideration? Is this not the basis of empathy? Believing in what others say about themselves without objective proof external to them?
Can you explain how your circle analogy links with the mind or the existence of you and I. I seem unable to make the leap between the two concepts and perhaps more elaboration would help
Are conscious beings like us not the part of the universe that demonstrates intent? If we have no intent/desire/agency then we wouldn't have free will would we?
I think entropy - the tendency for energy to spread away from itself is countered by negentropy - the ability of systems to self organise through gravity, then self assembly of prebiotic chemicals, then life as a strictly regulated system then evolution of that system into conscious awareness which further organises knowledge into strictly categorised information and relationships etc - the external system becoming more chaotic and spread out but the internal system (self) becoming more organised and coalesced.
To project "obviousness" on other people's minds/intent suggests you somehow understand them better than they do themselves. Perhaps my challenging of your beliefs/views came across as distaste but that was not my intention. And in such a case I'm sorry. I didn't mean to come across as distasteful.
Any viewpoint - agreeable or not to me - is insightful, it holds informative value.
I am most interested in information that has empirical support not the musings of entertaining authors of human fiction. I place fairy in a different category of information, don't you?
Quoting Benj96
You seem to depend too much on generalised conceptualisations rather than paying attention to the much more interesting, and reliable detailed case by case approach.
The family member may be a person who has cried wolf many times before or they may be sad, that's a judgement call based on your relationship. What has that got to do with whether human emotions actually exist. There is biological and neurological evidence that human emotions exist along with an enormous amount of observational evidence. What more proof do you need? Do you agree that you may show empathy and believe what another says about themselves, let them into your house and then watch them kill your family? Perhaps you need to be careful when you judge the intentions of others.
Quoting Benj96
I will try, The universe has no intent that we are aware of. We are not a networked consciousness, we experience individuality. There is me, myself and I (triune brain system) and everyone else.
I/WE demonstrate intent, so this could be conceived in its totality, as the intent of the universe.
My circle example can demonstrate this through individual choice of where a particular circle begins and ends (same place). Individually we can all choose any position we like on the circle. Every position on the circle is on offer, in this way the universe can be 'investigated' by creatures such as us. The fact that we can perform such investigations in the individual way we can (but we can also communicate our findings to each other), is evidence that there IS a YOU and an I. It is a demonstrable way to support 'I think therefore I am.'
Quoting Benj96
Yes. But the intent is individual, not universal, although there may be some concept of totality that we can suggest is some kind of emerging panpsychism but based on current evidence ...... meh!
Apology accepted and appreciated.
Same reason why so many humans are still attracted to the 'freak show,' imo.
Finding out why some members of a species would vote for not just terminating themselves, but would vote for the termination of all life that is capable of suffering is fascinating, especially when it is based on free choice and not any law of nature. No amount of happiness can compensate for any amount of suffering it seems. Is there any cut off percentage for the anti-life people? If the average amount of human suffering against human happiness was 45% suffering and 55% happiness would that be good enough or do they want something like 5% suffering and 95% happiness?
What do you mean by "empirical" support? Do you mean objectively measurable by scientific method? And if so how do you go about objectively measuring/proving empirically the existence of ethics? Or the existence of the observer that applies empirical method/scientific method for that matter.
If you cannot prove empirically ethics then I suppose we have no use for it as it doesn't exist. And we must open the doors of science to all avenues and cut up living people to collect the empirical evidence we can't collect when theyre dead. Maybe the empirical evidence pertaining to chemicals/ neurotransmitters released during pain, suffering, fear and murder.
Or perhaps there are things beyond the grasp of empirical collection? Things we should consider not to commit atrocities in pursuit of all empirical evidences.
In order for there to be neurological evidence that humans have emotions the hard problem of consciousness would have to have already been resolved. Which it hasn't. So I'm calling your bluff on this one..
As for requiring evidence I don't need objective evidence that others have emotions. I have them. And thus I believe others also have them in their likeness to me as being human.
I use subjective evidence (trust) not objective scientifically proven evidence that they have emotions.
You said you only believe in things upheld by empirical evidence and yet naturally assume people have emotions. Which definition of empirical do you use then exactly and can it be applied both to physical objects through scientific standardised measurement and also unique individuals with there individual experiences, feeling and emotions simultaneously? I think you contradicted yourself in your previous arguments and didn't spot the contradiction.
Thank you. You're more than welcome.
Well yes, especially for 'important information,' about the structure and workings of the universe but I also consider as empirical, my own empirical evidence for such information as 'She can be trusted,' 'He is a good guy,' etc. My empirical evidence would be my own observation of what they do and say. No doubt you apply a similar approach yourself, yes?
Quoting Benj96
Ethics are memorialised as words on paper and you measure by observing attempts to apply them.
I can act as an observer which convinces me that observers exist. I already typed to you that I think solipsism is nonsense.
Quoting Benj96
This sound like a theistic viewpoint that posits morality can only come from a god.
Human morality and human ethics would not allow such behaviour. I would not vote for cutting up living people to collect some perceived evidence we can't collect when they are dead, would you?
Your statement is a bit mad, is it not?
Quoting Benj96
I don't follow your logic here, Perhaps you could reword it. The last sentence makes little sense.
No bluff involved, I am only reffering to my basic understanding of what neuroscience has and is investigating. A very basic example from wiki:
Jenny sees a snake.
Jenny cognitively assesses the snake in her presence. Cognition allows her to understand it as a danger.
Her brain activates the adrenal glands which pump adrenaline through her blood stream, resulting in increased heartbeat.
Jenny screams and runs away.
There has been a lot more detailed work done in the field of neuroscience to identify which parts of the brain light up during certain emotions and then much more detailed work on what is going on in those particular brain regions etc. I have only a laymans knowledge of the area but they have made a lot of progress. Have a look at my thread https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13222/consciousness-microtubules-and-the-physics-of-the-brain
Quoting Benj96
No, I typed that I give more credence to information backed by empirical evidence than I do to information not supported by such. There is plenty of evidence that people have emotions.
Empirical in that it can be tested/investigated by experiment.
Yes, you can test the emotional responses of individuals, either in a lab or even personally in a social environment. We do it every day in our relationships, do we not? I still don't see the contradiction you are suggesting I have made. I am sure you can clearly highlight it more convincingly.
It's so boring and vacuous that, by becoming obsessed with it, it reinforces the adherents beloved notion that life is.tout court, boring and empty. Because it's a kind of constant complaint it delights those who love to constantly complain, and attracts others who love to call the complainers out for being whimps and whingers.
When the world stops becoming something to complain about…
Quoting Janus
These I don’t get.
While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged.
Go on...
Why ought we discourage that?
Is antinatalism the answer?
Perhaps the lure is the provocative nature of this absurd idea. After all, if everyone believed in antinatalism, we as a human race would be wiped out of the Earth. Too bad for all of our domesticated animals.
Why do you think so many people work so hard to alleviate suffering? Such as the whole medical profession and those involved in medical research and why do you think so many people get involved in protest, political movements, philosophy, debate about how we might live better lives? Is it not to reduce the number of lives of unbearable suffering?
Ah okay yes it was just confusing as scientists base their empirical evidence on objectively measurable/replicable/repeatable results that can be performed by any other scientist and get the same outcome.
Whilst individuals base their empirical evidence on their own individual observations and beliefs about one another. So it seems the criteria (subjective) or (objective) to be empirical differs depending on who you ask. That's why I wasn't sure exactly what you meant by your use of the term.
Yes you're right. That was the confusion I had, I needed clarification that you used the 2 forms depending on situational context.
On the contrary I think consciousness is fundamentally possible to occur because of how physics is set up (quantum and Newtonian). Especially the quantum phenomenon of determination of a result through observation.
I don't think any one single observer (you or I) are the only minds that exist. That's totally absurd. But I think the consciousness that underlies our ability to have minds is innate to nature itself. You're free to disagree.
Quoting universeness
It may "sound theistic" to you but that's your interpretation. Your words not mine. I don't really know why you're suggesting I meant morality can only come from a god.
What I actually said is scientific method is limited - in that it cannot pervade our innate ethical principles. We are human. They're human ethics. If a scientist did experiments like that the very great majority of humanity woukd agree that its unethical/immoral. We don't need to be theistic in that regard.
Empirical is defined as:
[b]based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic:
"they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"
synonyms:
observed · seen · factual · actual · real · verifiable · first-hand · experimental · experiential · practical · pragmatic · hands-on · applied · heuristic · empiric[/b]
So, empirical evidence is not exclusively tethered to the rigor demonstrated in the scientific method. We also have the ability to apply a 'credence level,' or error margins etc.
Quoting Benj96
So, if we consider the application of rigor in the scientific method and the broader range that may be applied in general terms for the label 'empirical evidence.' When posters like @bartricks try to employ propositional logic, to help posit the existence of an omnipotent, which either has a desire to create lifeforms which can suffer horribly (akin to the problem of evil) or he posits, it cannot have such a desire, as it is also omnibenevolent. He then suggests that his conflation of logic actually proves that any theist who considers the problem of evil, a challenge to their theism, MUST declare themselves antinatalist because such an omni god would not create this world. So therefore, they MUST vote for our extinction as he would.
You are moaning at me for calling his proposal and the logic he is using, bullshit. I think I am quite justified in using that term as an emotive way of emphasising how intensely I think he is wrong. Why does my need to express that emotional intensity, warrant your, in my opinion, over the top response to it. You felt that it was valid to express your own emotive reactions, such as;
Quoting Benj96
Quoting Benj96Quoting Benj96
Quoting Benj96
Quoting Benj96
Quoting Benj96
I accept that you did apologise for some of the above attacks, but I just list them to highlight your own choice of 'turn of phrase' when you feel incensed and yet your annoyance is based on displeasure at my use of the term BS and that you think I pose as an arrogant 'know it all.'
Can you see the contradiction here?
:up:
Is 'totally absurd' merely your polite version of BS? :naughty: So you agree with me that solipsism is nonsense? Are you declaring yourself a panpsychist?
Quoting Benj96
Ok, I accept that my interpretation of what you typed did not suggest you were a secret theist.
I fully accept my status as a fallible mind, after all, if I don't admit to being wrong at times then you will continue to label me an arrogant prick who thinks he 'knows it all.' :grin:
Quoting universeness
See these two terms many people would argue can be contradictions. For example "Anna observes John and determines he is upset. She says his sadness is fact because she observed it.
Others observe John and determine that he is not upset. They say his lack of sadness is fact because they have observed it.
They may determine that because the vast majority determined that John is not sad then Anna must be wrong. However this cannot be proven as absolute. What we are missing is John's input as he is the only one that knows johns internal mood/mindstate. And furthermore everyone is observing based on preconceived ideas - of the relationship between observed behaviour and emotional state. None of which are considering addressing their own preconceptions instead of making a judgement about John.
All of them are using the same empirical approach with differing conclusions.
Haha I like your humour. Yes I suppose its the formal academic equivalent.
We are all fallible in this way. I have already made erroneous assumptions about what you meant by the words you used in this thread. But you clarified then well and then I understood. So I can totally relate.
It probably suffices to type that we both agree that the word 'perfect' (as in perfect method/system/person etc) is another one of those concepts, it is not a measure.
What is the most accurate measurement of the speed of light in a vacuum?
Is it 299,792,458 metres per second?
Surely we can get much much more accuracy that that!
Given another million years of science, will we get the 'perfect' measure?
What would be the significance if we did?
My current answer? YEP, you guessed it, I have absolutely no f****** idea but I certainly wont use that to suggest that the fact that it seems that the human race cannot reach any perfections, depite the fact the concept exists means that we are forced to slot in an omni god of the gaps, declare that humans will always be imperfect and will suffer for being so and therefore we should surrender to the BS peddled by the anti-life posters. Hah! Those pessimists can take a running jump off the highest cliff on Earth along with any other mindless lemmings. Sorry, if you find my 'turn of phrase' pressing.
That is a matter of demonstrating patience and empathy for people with what one thinks are BS beliefs. Because just saying "that is BS" is pretty useless in resolving the contradiction.
To dismiss them as BS without going to the effort of examining and arguing them is naturally not going to lead to understanding by the other as to why you think the belief is erroneous. If anything they will just consider the person touting BS as being inconsiderate and invalidating others without reasoning it. They will think such a person is arrogant and rude.
Hence/thus exemplified by what I said here:
Quoting Benj96
It wasn't designed as a personal attack but a device to implore you to explain. As only through discourse do we elicit whether we are on board with one anothers ideas or not.
Being resolutely sure of your opinion, confirming your own reasoning without sharing it with others. Without speaking your mind leaves nothing left for others to do but to define you by your own certainty - as some sort of god (know it all) and one they have no access to because they will not demonstrate this reasoning as to why they know it all. A good omniscient being would share that knowledge with others instead of stomping on the ground and just reiterating that they know it all. Claim is there, but no evidence.
The same goes for irrational numbers like Pi, Phi, and e. We can always improve the accuracy but because they never repeat themselves we can never make that accuracy discrete and full/complete. It would have to go on to infinity. So the accuracy we have for irrational things will never be perfect.
Perfection is for the discrete. It is something that can be applied to limited finite things that cannot get any better. But not systems of constant change or infinities.
Well no, as Anna's output can be incorrect despite her input having a measure of validity when described as empirical. John does look upset/sad but perhaps he just ate something that didnt agree with him and he is not actually mentally sad, just physically compromised. John can provide verbal conformation either way. We know about observational relativity, and we consider it when dealing with empirical evidence. We know observers in space can report CORRECTLY, different results for the same observation such as the particle was observed or there was no particle based on their frame of reference.
Quoting Benj96
:up:
Quoting Benj96
:up:
Quoting Benj96
The problem here is that you are assuming that your interlocuters always have honourable intentions and that is just not the case. If you were debating Donald Trump in front of a mixed ability audience. You would leave yourself almost defenceless, if you are unwilling to attack him. His fake news and conflated logic would defeat you in the minds of many of the audience because you were too busy making sure you were not 'inconsiderate' towards him and meantime so many minds are being poisoned by his BS.
But do you agree that it is concept areas such as infinity, paradox, perfection, the omnis etc which are the few remaining places that characters such as antinatalists and theists still find their pulpits.
Well I am an optimist. You can call it naive if you wish. But its just in my nature. I assume the best until shown the worst. I also think people can and do often change their views when faced with well reasoned discourse - they can become more or less honourable. That's their perogative. Mine, is to present the arguments I have available to me.
Anna's conclusion could be wrong yes. John may be perfectly fine.
But Anna's conclusion could be the only correct one (if John felt comfortable around only Anna and expressed his sadness, but then saved face in front of everyone else because of not feeling comfortable to express his true feelings, lying about Anna claiming he was sad the the larger group to Anna's disbelief.
The verifiability of the true nature of the situation from the perspective of any of the participants within the situation is difficult and limited by what each person is willing to explain.
Not all of the information is accessible to each person.
Only us the audience, third observers - have the details of each of their beliefs and their behaviours. And even then still we can only hypothesise the possible choices they may make, but we won't know which until they do.
I too am an optimist but look what can happen if you don't combat the nonsense peddled by others as truth and fact. Recent examples include the storming of the congress building, personal attack on the family of politicians (Nancy Pelosi's husband) or on the politicians themselves such as the killing of MP Jo Cox in the UK. I could start to list historical assassinations and talk about the rise of fascism in the lead up to WW II but suffice to quote the old favourite. 'Evil thrives when good people do nothing.'
I personally consider antinatalism to be an evil trope which does nothing but attempt to dismiss all human attempts to improve themselves. I will forever combat it.
Very creditable. But if it ever takes over then it will soon die out. Because we will soon die out. And there's no replacement plan aside from more babies. It's a self-limiting theory.
Yes, but in your Scenario, it turns out that Anna actually did find out the truth of Johns situation because he trusted only her as his confessor.
So, to me, you are suggesting that 'the truth is out there,' but you have to approach with a sceptical mind. Just because YOU THINK an anti-life poster is making logical posits about antinatalism. Do your own dissection of every word they type and their combinatorial interrelationships. If you cannot tear their argument to pieces, then look at the attempts of others to do so. If you still find their arguments compelling, then join them. I suspect this process is the reason why they continue to have a tiny number of convinced followers.
Yes I agree. Hence why I discuss things with people (big things, trivial things, personal ones, political ones). Arguing for what's right/ideals is activism despite people's use of the term "actions speak louder than words". They forgot that speaking is action. I try to raise awareness through discussion of both my own fallability (wherever the flaw in my thinning exists now) and that of others.
I also dislike antinatalism. I did a whole discussion with someone earlier not sure which thread where I expressly disagreed with it.
What I do believe though us that it's not going anywhere. That's why I said no beliefs are BS, in the sense that they exist for a reason - even if the only reason is to stand as an unreasonable thing to think. Just as evil isn't going anywhere as a concept. As without it we don't really have free will and good woukd be meaningless.
People drift towards antinatalism and people drift away from it again based on the persuasion of others.
:up:
Yep, no life, no anti-life people to complain about their self-awareness.
I sure did.
I quite like living tbh. Despite what they may say.
Casually associating AN with evil, whilst ironically, no one has to experience evil in the first place with AN. It’s a political position with ANs against paternalistic assumptions about unnecessarily creating unnecessary harms for others, and assuming for others that they must like this game or kill themsemves (a hard thing to go through with).
I think you summarise the situation correctly, regarding the anti-life topic.
No one gets to experience anything good then either do they? Would you be satisfied taking away all the people in love (with eachother, with their kids, with their jobs, with food, entertainment friends etc, people living their life the best they can and enjoying it) just for the sake of not existing at all? Just so that two opposites can be neutralised and nothing can or ever occurs again.
Sounds super boring tbh.
Looks like the aim is at you. Enjoy the spotlight. I think you can easily handle it.
I'll do my best.
Remember! You are not allowed any exclamation of BS or your more polite 'Totally absurd!'
Impositions, even small ones, are generally regarded as immoral. Birth is one giant imposition.
Does it matter whether the imposition is made with the individual's best interest at heart? I don't think so.
Not a problem for anyone, literally, is it?
Quoting Benj96
I’m not taking away anything from anyone. But if you explore that implication you would be facing problems of using peoples suffering for personal gains. That’s your arguments problem though, not ANs.
Quoting Benj96
Boring universes aren’t a reason to this make them less boring by introducing X negative unnecessarily.
Exactly!
Thanks for the interesting exchange. I'm away offline for a while to do some other stuff and lick all those wounds you inflicted on me. :joke:
Good luck with it.
Yes that's why we have a moral imperative if we want to exist to help eachother. Then you're not deciding to exist instead of someone else but through them, with them
Yes you can't impose on anyone. But a baby is born and its existence somehow already imposes on others through no fault of their own. So the best they can do is grow up, help others and in that way try to mitigate the blame, shame, guilt etc that comes with ignoring others that exist and are in need
And yet it's merely hypothetical because you're not omnipotent - you don't have the ability to make antinatalism come to fruition. So we should probably just settle for what we do have - the fact that we are here already.
Sentient beings that have such dilemmas and philosophical arguments would be sure to evolve again to occupy the niche currently occupied by humans in nature if all of humanity were to self annihilate. Maybe some other primate over millions of years would go through the same processes of adaptation under the same pressures exerted by nature and re-emerge.
Re-emergence of species is well documented by biologists. So the argument would just be postponed until next time wouldnt it
I'm merely saying that existence is polarised. Non-existence is neutral. If one wants to exist they must contend with navigating those opposites - the good, the bad. Etc
But they have a choice in that case dont they. To improve or worsen the situation.
You can have Good, co-operative humanitarian systems where evil is maximised to the most conceptual idea possible and minimised in the most physically acted way.
That's what entertainment is. When we indulge the thought of good and evil at war with one another without ever manifesting actual criminal things/evil acts against eachother.
That way both evil and good can exist (evil as a concept) and good as the physical world. And a good physically world is an acceptable reason to want to exist. Its our choice whether we do that.
As you say, I’m not responsible for what I can’t know. I do know how birth is a major imposition and can be prevented so moot point.
Not the AN issue.
Quoting Benj96
Your reasons shouldn’t become another’s issue/problem/burden to overcome/imposition.
That does not change the nature of an imposition.
If I impose something on you, with the intention of "helping you through it", that doesn't suddenly make my act of imposing any less immoral.
Quoting Benj96
The baby bears no blame, of course. The parents do. To me, antinatalism is about the choice to have children, not about what to do when the child is already there.
Yep
Quoting Tzeentch
Yep
No not an issue of antinatalism as a concept. But it is a "you as a person" issue no? I mean im sure you go about living your life, enjoying things, taking care of your loved ones, watching TV etc. Because all these things are good right? You desire them.
How then do you reconcile you antinatalist ideal with your current life? It doesn't make sense to me. Everyone who continues to brave it in the world, to strive forward and survive, has hope. They have to. People who lose almost all hope and fall into the deepest pits of depression are vulnerable to violating their own right to life.
So as far as i know everyone who lives has a reason to. They believe there is something worthwhile, something good to hold onto right? That's why I disgree with antinatalism as anything esle than just a concept.
I think people who live want to continue living. And there's nothing wrong with that we shouldn't be guilty for being born when we can inspire happiness in others or at least try.
I don't think offering people ideas, suggestions, possibilities of new ways of thinking is imposing. You don't have to accept anything im saying. You're free to believe whatever you want. I just want to try to do right by others if I can and if they'll allow me.
We can leave it at that and just agree to disagree if you want.
How is it imposing to make suggestions? They're just suggestions. You can choose whether to take it on board or not. That's your call, ball in your court. Imposing would be to force you to agree or accept something.
I won't do that. You cant offer anything to someone who doesn't want it. All I can do is give my perspective and be ignored, or maybe if someone decides, listened to.
Parents were babies once too. So at what point does the blameless/innocent baby become guilty and shameful?
For me: People have evolved the means to reproduce as its biological and natural. All of nature seems to agree that reproduction is not only permissible but necessary.
As for whether two loving parents want to bring a lovely little baby into their happy lives or not, that's their business.
I don't dare impose on anyone's right to or not to have children as they have their own rights and autonomy.
I don't think anyone should have that sort of autocratic power over whether others live or die. We are equals.
I do enjoy living but personally I don't want my own child. I'm happy to be an uncle.
The point at which they decide to have children.
Again, I'm coming at this from an angle that is only concerned with the choice of the parents to create a child, and whether that is a moral action.
Quoting Benj96
I wasn't aware that nature was ever consulted on this issue. What did it say?
Quoting Benj96
Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma.
Quoting Benj96
That's exactly the type of power parents exercise over their children, though.
So people are innocent in their entire life all the way up to the point that they procreate and then they're criminal/deserve shame and guilt etc?
So during their whole life even if they don't have children and they go around committing the most heinous atrocities they're not guilty because they didn't have children? Or perhaps is having children not as evil as I dunno, raping pillaging and plundering, mass genocides etc.
If you had the choice between having a child or having Hitler exist in the world again... Which would you pick?
Well what I'm trying to point out is I think it's a moral fixation that is overshadowed by quite frankly much worse things that could and are happening right now in the world that does exist and does have people in it.
To believe its immoral to have children is to believe you're incapable of being a good parent no? And raising them to be outstanding citizens. A lack of self belief the I suspect.
That's obviously not what I'm saying.
Quoting Benj96
No.
Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma.
Well perhaps elaborate more so I can understand exactly what you believe? I don't want to make assumptions but I will follow the logic of what you present in your arguments.
It's not a really a dilemma because we can't "consult nature" and ask if we can have a chat with our non existent child as to whether it wants to be born before it is. How would something non existent know what existing is like to make an informed decision?.
People don't ask the stories they imagine if they would like to written down as a novel. We create, in good faith, as an exercise in trust that we can bring into existence something that offers good purpose - more beauty, more knowledge, more understanding, more benefit.
If a parent is certain their child will be an awful monster for whatever reason then yes it's likely they wouldn't procreate. But how on earth can a parent know that in foresight? I doubt Hitlers parents knew what they would be creating when they reproduced. So we can't blame the act of being born inherently. We can only blame the environment, teachings and beliefs we instill in our children. We can teach them to be racists, we can teach them to be selfish, to manipulate etc or other people could teach them that if we are too passive in our role. Parents do their best. Sometimes it's enough. Sometimes it's not. Because what they've made is another agent - with their own agenda and self determination, decisions to make, responsibilities to take on. But never is that a reason not to exist at all.
Asexual reproduction is a type of reproduction that does not involve the fusion of gametes or change in the number of chromosomes. The offspring that arise by asexual reproduction from either unicellular or multicellular organisms inherit the full set of genes of their single parent. Asexual reproduction is the primary form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such as archaea and bacteria. Many eukaryotic organisms including plants, animals, and fungi can also reproduce asexually. In vertebrates, the most common form of asexual reproduction is parthenogenesis, which is typically used as an alternative to sexual reproduction in times when reproductive opportunities are limited.
While all prokaryotes reproduce without the formation and fusion of gametes, mechanisms for lateral gene transfer such as conjugation, transformation and transduction can be likened to sexual reproduction in the sense of genetic recombination in meiosis.
Animals that reproduce asexually:
The Komodo dragon, the Whiptail lizard, Bees, Wasps, Starfish and many more, even some Shark species reproduce through parthenogenesis.
Where would your antinatalism argument be if we developed a tech that allowed transhumans to reproduce asexually? How about a sentient alien species that reproduces asexually? If antinatalism is based on any natural imperative the why does asexual reproduction exist?
Would the burden of blame for procreation be lifted if a human could reproduce asexually?
If so then perhaps all you antinatalists should be compelled to pool your intellect and study biology and see if you can offer asexual reproduction to humans of the future and then you would have helped humans remove some of that guilt for reproducing that you feel so happy about trying to impose on them.
If humans go extinct and the next sentient species to dominate the Earth reproduces asexually, then that would be the termination point for anti-natalist BS, yes?
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
___________________
Quoting Benj96
It's not a dilemma to you that you don't know whether someone consents before making a monumental decision on their behalf?
Quoting Benj96
And there are many things one could create that don't involve imposing monumental decisions and possibly a lifetime of suffering on another.
Also, good faith is not an excuse. Many atrocities were committed by individuals who thought they were doing good, and tragically many unhappy people are born from well-intentioned parents. Ignorance is not an excuse.
Quoting Benj96
They can't. Sounds like a darn good reason not to make such a decision on someone else's behalf.
Quoting Benj96
No, we can blame the hubris of the parents who voluntarily hurled someone into life's crucible - into conditions over which they had little control and of which they had little knowledge.
Quoting universeness
It would be exactly the same, with the same critical questions asked to whomever decides another being should be thrown into the crucible of life.
Who? Who is the someone? The yet to be born? How do I talk them what's their number? Email? Perhaps WhatsApp?
Dilemmas apply to conscious agents that "already" exist and can make decisions. They don't apply to non existing possibilities. You can't ask all your future possible children who wants to be alive? Therefore you cannot treat them as already existing agents. Only potential ones. They don't have a say because they aren't alive. Just as I cannot ask my dead great great grandmother whats her ethical attitude towards Facebook, or climate change, or autocracies.
You as the the one who is capable of creating living agents (assuming you have a partner and you're both fertile) have the option to make them or not. You do not however that that option for all peoples will - everyone else's personal choice as to whether they want to reproduce.
If you want to abstain from fathering children, if you want to remove your own genetics from the constant competing evolution of life, that's fine. No one is going to judge you for your decision to not procreate.
They would kindly ask you to respect their own autonomy of choice in a likewise manner.
The reason antinatalism isn't the predominant belief already, the reason we haven't all purposely gone extinct by now, probably means that antinatalism doesn't nor has it ever nor will it ever make much sense to the majority.
If an infertile couple approached me devastated by their inability to have kids, I think telling them "well you shouldnt have kids anyways" is not particularly empathetic.
Based on what argument? Humans would have no choice regarding reproduction, if it was asexual.
Some living species do reproduce asexually, no intelligent species does so yet but if humans went extinct then who knows what species will fill the gap. How can an antinatalist posit that its immoral for a parent to reproduce, if it's a natural imposition via parthenogenesis. No choice involved!
"Possibly" being the key word. We don't know the future so we don't know if it will be all suffering or actually pleasant and doable. We can't make the world perfect for our future chindren. No generation has ever managed that. We can however educate them and give them the tools to combat adversity themselves. A perfect utopia would be as pointless as a hell. It would have no purpose to improve or change anything, people wouldnt know what to do with themselves as all knowledge, all innovations, all challenges would be already complete. Someone could be like hey let's do this (and everyone would say oh its already done sorry. You've been beaten to the punchline). We would have no free will. Nothing left to do except twiddle our thumbs and wait for death.
I think Christians and Muslims call that heaven, but you don't even have the possibility of escape via death!
The person who the parents know will come to be as a direct result of their actions.
Who do future parents make a children's room for, or buy clothes for?
I assumed that taking into account logical consequences of one's actions was a given before going into a debate about moral action, but I guess I'm wrong?
Quoting Benj96
And a parent will never have anything other than "possibly", whether they envision a pleasant or unpleasant life for their child. In other words, their actions will never amount to more than a gamble with someone else's well-being.
Ah I see so we must be omniscient before bringing anything into existence. No room for any answers being still unknown? How's that pursuit of omniscience going for you?
One more question: if you think it's immoral for parents to ever bring children into the world do you therefore resent your own parents? Do you despise them? Or do you think they are good people just trying to do their best? Is it fair to blame everything on one/two people? Do you believe that's a mature or grown up approach to make parents suffer endlessly because you're not having a good time? Or maybe perhaps we can take control of our own narrative and create our own happiness and self fulfillment?
It's also a gamble with their own well being. They could soon find themselves the scapegoat for any and all of the problems ever faced by their child. Dragged through the mud and tortured relentlessly by someone that resents them.
It would be the responsibility of whomever brings such a situation about, and after that just a very unfortunate state of affairs, I suppose, with people not only being born involuntarily but also giving birth involuntarily.
So you would consider all species on the earth such as starfish, komodo dragons, bees, wasps and many plant and microbial species to be in your revered judgement, unfortunate species?
Yes I think we can agree that a physically manifested heaven/utopia would be temporally enjoyable but the novelty would soon wear off and become dull and unfulfilling.
Stress can lead to post traumatic growth. For example I got hit by a car a few months ago. Surely an adverse event that wouldnt occur in a utopia. Whilst the immediacy was very unpleasant, the hindsight was very motivating for me to use the time I have on earth more wisely/constructively. I became more dedicated in my career and relationships with friends. What didn't kill me did indeed in this case make me stronger and more resilient.
It seems then that many "bad things" have silver linings in the end. I don't think I would like to be "bubble wrapped" in heaven where there is no threat, therefore no means to learn, navigate, overcome and feel proud for it.
I do think heaven exists. As a concept. But only an ideal in our minds. Its something lucrative at a distance, from which ambition, inspiration, innovation, knowledge, all the good/virtuous/idealistic characteristics of humanity can be extracted in pieces throughout time to bolster progress and evolve culture.
But we should not ever arrive at the destination for then the journey is over. And usually the journey offers a longer hit of dopamine than the final brief reward.
To me, that's where Plato and Aristotle went a little skewed. I think the concept of Platonic perfect forms and Aristotelian ideals are an almost natural progression of the thinking of the atomists such as Democritus. The concept of infinite variety in infinite combination would obviously result in projection towards some idealised, perfect form. But we have to be existents to progress towards such. The omnis and the god posits are no more that human projections of what humans think they may one day achieve as a totality or a networked collective. But they probably never will as the universe will probably end first.
The antinatalists just want to terminate the human story early for the most selfish of reasons it's possible to conceive and that reason, is because they can't come to terms with their own oblivion.
If they could then they would have already gone.
Well, if they are the unfortunate species then those species that are able to employ sexual reproduction, must be, if we follow that logic, the fortunate species as they have choice to reproduce or not.
So, you hold your anti-natalism viewpoint, despite the fact that the method of reproduction for humans, evolved through natural selection, which science has shown HAS NO INHERENT INTENT.
Do you blame the first 'spark of life,' for want of a better phrase for happening? Parent can blame parents who can blame parents for the immorality of their existence all the way back to that first vital spark of life.
Do your antinatalism musings enable you to follow your logic back to that question?
Do you think the fact that the universe experienced a moment when life became an existent was a moment of immorality. Is that what you are trying to sell?
I agree with you on the Plato - Aristotle point of digression with one another. But this remark really interests me. Because I'm going to introduce a line of commentary.
I do definitely agree that the omnis/God's posits are a human projection of untenable but desirable ideals. However I also believe that "God" is a rare but possible mind state. A sort of manic, euphoria. A "Eureka!" moment when something major and groundbreaking clicks in one's mind and they're overcome by an acute and intense revelation of new meanings, new insights, new predictive value based on their discovery. This intense "rapture" or "ecstasy" may have been written about in many forms through many disciplines (science. =eureka), (religion =revelation), (psychiatry = mania).
Im not saying they are all the same thing. Perhaps not. Merely suggesting a link. That in a moment of blissful euphoria, overwhelmed by confidence and a sense of knowledge .. One feels like a God.
The danger is not in feeling a godly bliss, perhaps you did discover something authentic, impactful and useful to society. The danger is that in feeling this sensation you make the jump to the assumption that you are infallible thereafter. And that you can commit no harm. And such a sense of entitlement and surity is extremely precarious, likely to do harm indeed.
Maybe? That's not a question of antinatalism.
Quoting universeness
Sure. I don't think nature is an excuse for immoral action.
Quoting universeness
No, morality is about individuals, their intentions and their actions. That's what I am talking about.
Quoting universeness
No, because that question is not relevant to my take on antinatalism.
Quoting universeness
I don't even know what that means, so I'm going with another "no".
You are just travelling through the human psyche like the rest of us, trying to apply reason, logic, sense whilst taking into account history, primal fear, origins, emotions, mental illness etc etc.
If you are good enough at that stuff then you can become a 'head doctor' etc. YOU the almighty, ME the immortal, US the creators, they are all part of the human psyche which we project onto a manifestation of some divinity either a mono god or a whole pantheon of gods. Human create god stories. God has no existent, if it did, it would confirm its existence easily and irrefutably.
We progress from generation to generation when we correct the errors made in previous generations. That's the only way forward that I can perceive.
All agreeable statements you've made. One question though. Is that not possible, for God to have an existent? A channel of its ideals through a person, a conduit.
Suppose someone channelled an ultimate ideal, described their truth (this ideal) to others in hope that they agree, and because their truth is so blindingly convincing others took it on board and spread the notion of such an ideal. Then, naturally it would come to a point when that truth is spread far enough, wide enough ("spread the word so to speak") that it encounters rebuttal, abject denial and Intolerance, perhaps by those that can't imagine their own existence in a world where that ideal prevails (antinatalists perhaps, or something worse) , and thus they do everything in their power to stop it. They would ask "who said this?! Who is responsible for infecting everyone with this intolerable belief?!"
Of course this person channeling their truth, knowing its power of persuasion, its ability to gather a following, would already know this and know that by spreading it they are putting themselves on the line, in harms way.
They would have to accept their fate, that spreading something ideal will bring the wrath of the non-ideal against them. And probably they will be assassinated for what they believe in, but in doing so they demonstrated the highest level of integrity, not shying away or resorting to lying or violence in order to speak their mind.
The killing of such a person ties up the loose ends. If their belief is based on benevolence and unwillingness to put themselves before others, to be selfless, their death is the final proof that their truth was the truth. A good one. A beneficial one.
It would be a demonstration of pure goodness being destroyed by hatred because good will never destroy anything for its own purposes, only offer choice. Such a person would be immortalised through legacy. Considered a god only after they proved their belief by being murdered for it.
Haven't we seen this before? Who has done such things? History has shown us many martyrs which were condemned or assassinated because their beliefs were too dangerous for the most self interested of us, to the false gods amongst men, to condone.
A criminal offence that was unjust. Forbidden fruit.
Yes it is, as it establishes that only those who reproduce sexually as opposite genders have the CHOICE to reproduce or not and that is what antinatalism pivots on. The execution of that choice is the prime focus of antinatalism, is it not?
Quoting Tzeentch
But the point is that the origin of the reproduction choice a human has, had no inherent intent, so any moral question you impose based on the existence of that choice is a purely human construct and has no natural imperative. Yet all species on Earth demonstrate the natural imperative of reproduction even to the extent of the removal of that choice, as is the case for asexual species so surely you see the power of the natural imperative to reproduce as a defence against extinction regardless of any human constructed moral imperative you think has value.
Quoting Tzeentch
But you are ignoring the result of your imposed moral imperative. EXTINCTION, which as I have already suggested is contrary to the much more significant natural imperative of reproduction as a defence AGAINST EXTINCTION. Evidenced further because of the existence of asexual reproduction, which as already stated, REMOVES THE CHOICE that antinatalism depends upon.
Quoting Tzeentch
It is very relevant, you just don't want to admit it is because it destroys the foundation your antinatalism is based on, human choice to reproduce. It shows that choosing antinatalism would result in extinction and extinction is against the natural imperative. If we went extinct and there was no other intelligent life in the universe, then combinatorial biology would just reproduce it in time. Can you not understand that this makes your antinatalism futile and pointless.
Quoting Tzeentch
It's simply a statement about the concept of morality/immorality being merely a human construct.
Before life became existent there can be no issue of morality. Every happenstance before life in the past 13.8 billion years has no moral aspect to it. So, life in its infancy has no moral aspect to it. Do you think that early hominid species such as Neandertals should not have engaged in reproduction? Did they really have a choice? Most humans can never support antinatalism as it is contrary to the natural imperative to be an existent and continue our species. The alternative is a return to an earlier state of the universe that has already been, and if there was a return to that earlier point, we would just progress to this point again in some variety of what currently is. Antinatalism is therefore utterly futile.
Using our time and effort to reduce all human suffering is the more sensible choice.
Try to think about it a little deeper and you might arrive at the same correct conclusion or stay fogged. Your choice.
Exactly what i said earlier! You're right Universeness.
Quoting Benj96
A god which is shy? and needs to communicate by proxy? Not a description of a god which inspires much respect from me. I seem to be more self-assured than this god you describe. Such a channel/conduit would not be a god existent it would simply be nothing more than a communications relay. Even if you decided to be nice and call it a prophet it's still not an actual god incarnated into an existent.
Quoting Benj96
Many have done so yes, from Plato to Hitler to Martin Luther King.
Quoting Benj96
Absolutely, especially if the ideas being communicated will prove to be to the detriment of those who hold power.
You go on to describe people who have died rather than speak contrary to what they believe is truth. A rendition of what is called 'martyrdom' yes but such is just an aspect of the human psyche. I see nothing in what you type that supports your initial question: Quoting Benj96
Yep, we agree on that one!
It is a prophet indeed. You're quite right. Because for actual god to exist as a person it would require the entire universe to condense into a singular person, what external reality then would such a person exist in? The universe as a system cannot be the whole unit and also be within itself.
But a prophet is no mere lay person though. They have a deep knowledge of the relationship of them and others (fractions of a whole) to the actual whole (god/the universe).
Through that deep understanding, they would inherit the highest degree of empathy and patience for others who don't understand their own relationship to the universe as it actually is, and would naturally go about illuminating that knowledge in them so they can appreciate in full their true relationship to reality, as he/she does.
As I said they would be the fourth condition of a god worth pursuing - the benevolent aspect of the entire system. The part that can't imbue a sense of connectedness and belonging.
Not a shy god, a god that presents its true nature as the whole/the everything, in a means/format understandable and accesible to humans, a human voice, a human that beholds and shares the true nature of reality.
Precisely, it would be to the detriment of those that hold power, fame, recognition, authority, beauty, knowledge, révérence in all its formats. It would pose a threat to those that fancy themselves as gods and others as beneath them by proxy.
For me, a prophet is just a human who is trying to dupe others that god speaks through him/her.
It's an old ruse, first used to establish the divine right of kings to rule over the masses. A prophet is the biggest bullshitter there is. Especially a political prophet.
Quoting Benj96
Are you going to admit you are a panpsychist Mr Benj or am I totally off the mark?
Perhaps even a panpsychist who believes that some humans are more 'in touch' with the 'universal mind' than others are?
Quoting Benj96
Well, we worship noble people and the noble acts they do. And we condone the most intense demonstrations of evil that have existed amongst us. (Both may know the truth - god/reality)
The difference is what they choose to do with it.
If you have the entire truth but withold it entirely from others you have no choice other than to lie - the opposite of truth. You can be utterly convincing, manipulative and appear as a noble person but you intentions (to withold the truth but use its power, to take no responsibility) is an evil act. I believe this is why Hitler came to power. Anyone who understands how the mind works can either empathise with it and inform it (Martin Luther king, ghandi, jfk, Joan of arc, all the revered martyrs) or manipulate it (Hitler, perhaps Putin nowadays).
Those who don't know the truth of things are vulnerable. Children don't know much at all and are therfore vulnerable to the teachings (good or bad) of those that know the truth. Right? So the choice when faced with reality is do I choose to benefit myself by manipulating others, or do I choose to share it and empower them to be more informed and therefore less likely to be swayed by manipulation.
Well I believe you are more in touch with reason and ethics than many others. As you showed me you were. Is it not then possible that there is an ultimate reason and ultimate ethics that are one and the same? A maximum we can reach through discourse. And have done so many times in the past.
Yep its akin to the two questions we must always ask ourselves.
1. Who am I.
2. What do I want.
Precisely. They are much the same.
I think the borders of self are created by our beliefs, not definitive and discrete. So if we want to maximise our self awareness, if we want to extend those borders to the maximum, we are ever increasingly responsible for others and thus their suffering or happiness.
If on the other hand, we minimise our borders to just our body. Reduce it to simply me, then all we have to consider is "what's in it for me". A selfish stance.
The only difference between "them" and "I" (boundary of self) is to what degree I am prepared to see likeness, to believe I am the same as others, to empathise and thus take on board their suffering and delight as if it were me own.
I can only place such a question into the same file as the one that holds questions such as. How close will we get to KNOWING the actual speed of light in a vacuum with complete accuracy? Which piece of info, if known by the human race, would mean a human could completely transcend human existence and 'become' or 'ascend, ' to ........... (to be filled in when we know what should go here :naughty: )
'Ultimate' is another one of those 'concept' words. I think we are still a lot closer to the early hominid species that we are to the omnis Mr Benj.
I see what you mean. I think irrationality must exist in commune with the rational. For without eachother neither would exist. Irrational numbers for example will never be complete as they are endless and not repetitive (not predictable). They can thus never fully be known.
And on the other hand the rational and predictable can be known and thus is discrete.
So here we have two opposing forces, one that is erratic, changeable, unpredictable, inaccurate, and one that follows a rule, is clear and known and finite/discrete.
Nature always creates such opposites. That which is pure chaos and that which is pure order.
Their interaction and dynamic with one another, is the basis for evolution, for the struggle between control and lack thereof, between life (ordered systems) and death (dissolution into the chaos).
Your typings remind me again of a dilemma dramatised in an episode of Babylon 5.
A student 'warrior of light' (a Minbari Ranger) is having a crisis about what he thinks is worth dying for.
His mentor asks him;
'If I tasked you to climb to the top of a mountain to retrieve a rare flower that grew only there, and I told you that you would be successful, but you would die, would you do it?'
'No' was the reply.
When asked why? The student said, 'because it would be a futile way to lose my life.'
The mentor said, 'well if I now revealed to you that this flower is the worshipped symbol of a subjugated people and the sight of this flower will inspire them to revolt against their oppressors and free millions of them from abject slavery and horrific suffering, would you do it then?'
'Yes' was the humble response.
We just don't know what effects our actions and our words may have on others, that's why we have to think about our actions and our words deeply and carefully.
Something I don't think antinatalists are very good at.
So, perhaps we are indeed natures/the universes best attempt so far, to be able to figure out what and why it is existent. Another reason why we can't vote to end our story, as the antinatalists request, as the universe may never know what or why it is other than through the efforts of a species like us. I am not a panpsychist, but do I think that some kind of emerging panpsychism is happening within the linear time we experience? ....... meh!
I think this story from Babylon 5 holds a deep, endearing message. I'm glad you shared it with me, I had never come across it before. It's really nice and quite apt to our conversation.
We do definitely need to consider our words and actions carefully. Words are very often underestimated in place of action. But words are mighty. They have huge power when used rationally and ethically. They shape and influence eachother beyond what physical bodily action could ever do.
To use your body to enforce your ideals, to be intensely active, is often a source of aggression, imposition and intimidation. To use words on the other hand is to suggest/impart meanings and beliefs without laying a finger on the other person. It allows choice.
Agreed. We may be nature's most recent prize, its latest pride and joy, the current best effort. And we (as parts of nature) may create on its behalf something more durable, more long lasting, and imbue it with our nature, the product of nature itself, so that it may extend this awareness beyond the boundaries of what is capable by the human body. The next frontier.
But if we birth something human in mind but not in body, something metallic perhaps, then we need to tread carefully, not to assume that because it is different to us in appearance, it is not the same as us in spirit.
Here is an even tougher one from Babylon 5.
Your death in certain circumstances will be the action that will improve the lives of millions, permanently. But you will never be credited. In fact, your memory will be despised, as the circumstances mean that you will have to seem to be the traitor, the judas, the evil one. You will be forever damned. No one will ever know that you were in fact the saviour. Would you do it? no martyrdom, no credit, no memorial other than as one who is hated and utterly damned?
In the timescale laid out by the cosmic calendar we are still an infant species. 10000 years of significant human cooperation and civilisation, is a few seconds in the cosmic calendar. Many humans still suffer horrendously from generation to generation but we have improved things since the days of the first cities, Jericho, Uruk, Ur etc. So I would say to the antinatalists that before we vote for our own extinction. GIVE US A F****** CHANCE! Say another few million years (which is less than the dinos had) before you offer us antinatalism again.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting ssu
Save for editing our biology to remove the ability to suffer (as promoted by David Pearce) there is only antinatalism. Everything else is mitigation of suffering.
Alternatively, one could say the hundreds of millions living in torture are a price worth paying for all of the happy lives/
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting Isaac
I don't believe there are right and wrong answers to moral questions. It could be argued, we ought to do what we feel is right. Thus, if one feels the sacrifice is wrong, then they should discourage it. If one feels the price is worth paying, they ought not.
It has been suggested on here before by pronatalists that because of their miserable lives, antinatalists are looking at the world through excrement-tinted glasses. I can't say this is true of all antinatalists, but I believe this accounts for a significant number. Of-course the opposite is also true - if you're living a pleasant life, the sacrifice is worth it - why would you throw all the wonders we experience away, just because some people suffer.
It was never something to complain about in the first place.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Nor do I; some people have strange ideas about sport.
You realize anything can by fiat be called absurd right?
In that case, on what grounds are you judging the argument 'fair'? What would an unfair argument look like in this context?
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Yeah, I think all that is true, but there's a third option which I think is more significant, which is those who see the world as a bad place and see children as means of fixing that - ie ensuring there's a next generation, better than the last, to help those who still remain to live more pleasant lives.
Contrary to the archetypal antinatalist, we're not all selfish sociopaths. It's not always about me, me, me sometimes people spare a thought for their community as a whole and consider themselves (and others) to have a duty toward it.
Sure, but not the question of whoever is a fortunate or unfortunate species.
Quoting universeness
I don't see how that would inhibit a moral discussion, which is also a human construct.
Quoting universeness
Quoting universeness
There is no natural imperative, other than perhaps instinctual drives, which, again, I do not view as an excuse for immoral action. Appeals to instinct are no more than the individual admitting they're but a mindless beast, and what's the point of discussing morality with mindless beasts?
The individual is in no way obliged to care about "the species". It's not even rational for the individual to care, since they have no tangible control over whether the species survives. Nor do they have a stake in it, since they won't be around to witness an extinction if it does take place.
Additionally, even if one were to care, ends do not justify means.
Quoting universeness
Extinction is nothing more than an excuse to give in to instinctual drives. No individual reproduces because they are afraid the species might go extinct otherwise. They reproduce because they want to - because it satisfies some instinctual need.
That's not a basis for moral decision-making.
Quoting universeness
I don't care about Neandertals, or reducing human suffering.
I care about the morality of individual human actions (which is the only rational way to approach morality - individuals and their individual choices). In this case the choice of individuals to reproduce. If that choice cannot make moral sense in their individual context, it will not make sense in any wider context.
That was just a method of exemplifying your 'logic trail,' and how that trail leads to your irrational antinatalism solution.
Quoting Tzeentch
It does not inhibit a moral discussion but your antinatalism solution ignores and hand waves away the very powerful natural imperative for continuation of the human species and the natural imperative to continue all species, including those produced asexually. All you are trying to do is squirm past that point by hand waving it away because you know its fact and it is strong evidence against the validity of an antinatalist viewpoint.
Quoting Tzeentch
Based on what evidence? Give me an example of another species that has made itself extinct through the choice of all of its members to stop reproducing, thus showing there is no natural imperative to continue species. The Instinctive compulsion to reproduce is an example of the natural imperative but its not the only aspect. Humans wish to continue the story/bloodline/legacy of their family through reproduction this is also a natural imperative. Where is your evidence that if antinatalism was applied, it would be successful in the extinction of the immorality it is supposed to prevent? Intelligent life would simply continue elsewhere or reform elsewhere. You can't guarantee your fake immorality concern wont return again, and again and again. Your invalid immorality excuse is just your poor reasoning for a solution which won't work and is futile and is just based on your own inability to find balance in your own life.
Quoting Tzeentch
These are just your irrational opinions and exemplify/reveal your inability to find balance in your life.
It's up to you to solve this problem for yourself or seek outside help to do so. It's immoral for you to attempt to demand company for your imbalance.
Quoting Tzeentch
Instinctual drives are not immoral just because you think there is something immoral about the concept of instinct. Human morality guides instinct. People do reproduce for many reasons, including a wish to contribute to continuing the species through their familial bloodline. That is a moral act not an immoral one. Do you think that human instinct has no input to offer when humans are considering an area of human morality? Are all human instincts just 'dirty, base and evil,' to you? Are images in your head of 'dirty evil human instincts,' the basis of your antinatalism?
Quoting Tzeentch
The fact that you have just admitted you don't care about reducing human suffering is a very important admission for anyone reading this thread to cognise regarding someone who fly's the flag for antinatalism. Human suffering is put forward by antinatalists as the main reason for their adherence to it.
Quoting Tzeentch
But the decision to reproduce is problematic for antinatalists because they suggest this is an innocent self-aware lifeform, who was not consulted (impossible to do anyway) that MAY now experience UNACCEPTABLE levels of suffering, but YOU have just admitted YOU DONT CARE ABOUT REDUCING HUMAN SUFFERING. Can you really not see the contradiction?
You’re not even paying attention to his argument at this point. Frothing at mouth.
The attention I am paying to 'his argument,' is simply shaking your little room. If you want to help him then make your points or concentrate on wiping the slabbers from your own mouth.
I agree. Consider what a middle class person has available to them at this current moment: global communication at the touch of a button (internet), global foods and luxuries of all exotic sorts (chocolate, coffee, avocado's in frigid North regions where they historically were impossible to ever expect to eat for dinner). We have a mini Arctic climate in a little box in our kitchen able to preserve food as long as we please, we have an ever more complex and refined immune system (legal constitution) we can seek aid from for when others commit crimes against us.
We can travel at great speeds never before believable, be across the world in less than a day. We have all these tools and appliances that make previously arduous time consuming tasks fast, efficient and effortless.
Are these all things we should be amazed by, grateful for and happy thus? Yes I think so. Is everyone happy about it? No. A shame really.
To our ancient ancestors we seem like gods of unfathomable knowledge, power and abilities. And likely we would look like simpletons to the humans of hundreds of years in the future, our current methods appearing barbaric in their better refined modernity.
Antinatalism will probably still fixate on their future problems while ignoring the immense progress we have made and will continue to make at ever accelerating rates.
Not at all. You’re simply missing his points and/or ignoring them. He’s doing a fine job. Can’t help if you’re like a child with fingers in his ears.
Well said sir! From a google search:
In his 2011 book, “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,” Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker argued that despite common assumptions, violence has dropped dramatically from biblical times to the present. His new book, “Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress,” picks up on that theme, exploring how other threats to human well-being have been in similar retreat.
This is the kind of evidence that shows humans HAVE significantly progressed in their goal to make the human experience a better one for all stakeholders including the flora and fauna of the Earth itself.
Things are still very worrying, I dont want to dilute that one bit, but they have been even more worrying in the past. Can you imagine being in or around Pompeii when Vesuvius erupted? You really would have thought armaggedon had arrived. How about living during the black death plagues. I think even I would have called out 'we are doomed, doomed, WE ARE ALL DOOMED!,' as my neighbours and family died all around me. But we survived and we continued to progress.
It would be sad to imagine helping others and nobody appreciating it. People like to be appreciated for the good things they do. Positive reinforcement and all.
For me this would seem like an unlikely scenario. It would mean humanity would have to be totally and completely blind to what's good for them, to lack all sense of what is good. Which sounds suspiciously like antinatalism again.
I think at most, if you really were a saviour of humanity and died for their benefit, you would be a great source of controversy, but not universally hated.
Some would hail your efforts as mighty and wonderful, others would say you were an anarchist trying to ruin everyone's lives by disrupting and upheaving the systems in place (even if you did so by simply by highlighting their flaws and trying to prevent their demise through that flaw. ).
Most martyrs or assassinated leaders are very controversial indeed. History books tend to polarise those that cause a great change or Copernican revolution of seismic proportions, as history writers are undecided towards either one of two arguments (he/she was good and saved us) or (he/she was bad and trying to destroy us) so they record both.
In the case that you believe you were a saviour yet every single person things you are horrible, evil, incorrect and deserve to be hated, I think one ought to assume that their judgement is severely misplaced. If no one is on your side then why believe you're actually doing something good. It's a matter of whether you respect others ability to appreciate good acts or believe you are the only one who knows what they're talking about and totally superior, everyone else just meer simpletons.
I don't think someone hated by everyone has any power to influence them, so thus unlikely to be the saviour of anything at all.
I don't think Hitler did much good for anyone. He probably believed he was a saviour blessing humanity with his efforts and simply ignoring anyone who contradicted this belief. Good leaders, actual saviours, entertain others thoughts and navigate them not by ignorance but by explanation (revelation).
Good leaders leave the choices to be made by others. They merely offer their wisdom and ask that others might accept it (democracy). Bad leaders make the choices despite what anyone else might think or say (dictatorships).
All you do is throw another toy from your pram! around about 200 of them so far, according to the moderators. Make you antinatalist points, stop trying to throw your pelters at me, your efforts are completely benign.
I'm handwaving it, because there is no reason whatsoever for an individual to feel any natural imperative. I don't feel any natural imperative. Simultaneously seeing that people using this "natural imperative" are using an irrational "end justify the means" argument (I explained why it is irrational) to excuse their individual actions.
Quoting universeness
I don't need to guarantee anything. The only thing I'm concerned with is the morality of the act of reproducing.
Quoting universeness
Morality is about individuals and individual choices. I can point to many individuals who made the conscious decision not to reproduce, thus disproving - yes, disproving - any allusions to the existence of a "natural imperative" that we are somehow all magically subjected to.
Quoting universeness
They're rational arguments, which you'll have to refute using your own rational arguments.
Quoting universeness
Clearly this is not the case. Humans have many instincts, violent ones, sexual ones, etc. that are clearly not moral.
Quoting universeness
No, really what I'm doing is applying a very common moral principle - do not impose on others - consistently, and I view your position as special pleading to excuse your inconsistency.
Quoting universeness
Not by/for me.
To use human suffering as the reason for antinatalism would imply utilitarianism, which is another type of "ends justify the means" argument that I am principally against.
Quoting universeness
No I can't, because clearly you're responding to some generalized idea you have about antinatalism, and not reading what I am typing to you.
Based on your response, I think you agree that dilemma's such as the two I highlighted from Babylon 5, at least demonstrate that figuring complicated stuff out, can be really really tough.
I know that's a very 'no shit Sherlock,' observation to make, but I do think it's important to think deeply when faced with such irrational and impractical people as antinatalists.
I think they may be just people who are crying out for help and recognition.
Haha sometimes the "No shit sherlock observations" are the most profound and useful. We often forget the basics on such a hectic and changeable life.
For me Antinatalists are:
1). People with a fundamentally good intention (to address suffering, to find an ultimate ethical/moral solution for suffering).
2). Lack any coherent good reasoning for that intention (because from their ideal concept: no one would exist - and then oops! Suffering doesn't exist, hence what ethical intention would they have to even suppose the ideal in the first place, as they wouldn't exist to have intention. Duh. ).
In this way it is a paradoxic cycle alternating from subjectivity (concept of an ideal), to the implications of that ideal if it was objective (actually the case). In which case the intent (ideal) violates its own existence if it were to be real (objective).
You cannot have an ethical principle (existence without suffering) that destroys the assumptions (suffering) required to formulate that principle.
And that's why they feel helpless and sad. Because they don't contribute in action to mitigating suffering. Like starting a charity or educating people or doing a humanitarian aid trip. They only articulate a pointless contradictory principle and flounder helplessly by fixating on it. One needs to identify their ability to act (their agency, the fact that their life can and does matter, and they can make a positive differenve against suffering) rather than just talk about sufferings inability to be abolished entirely.
Being someone who exists (but has an ideal of not existing) signals serious concern to me for their wellbeing. Because to me it sounds like a state of helplessness and impotency - inability to reconcile their purpose (core ideal) with the fact that they exist as a person. So the only other option is to project the need for non existence onto others (in other words make it everyone elses problem).
In short, a last ditch effort to cope by denying the fact that they're severely depressed/utterly miserable and have little joy left to feel.
But that's hopeful in the sense that the only other choice available to them is to stop coping, make it their own problem to deal with, which as you can probably anticipate, doesn't end well. And that's something we don't want for them. Hence why I try to explain and help.
The challenge is to imbue an Antinatalist with a reason to live that is better than just telling everyone else they should die. Because that's entirely ineffective as an argument strategy. No one who wants to live, enjoys living, wants to agree that they should die. That's obvious. And so all an Antinatalist will ever get in return is fierce rejection from happy, more hopeful, more omtimistic people or agreement from others that are severely depressed.
There is proof in the argument itself that others want to help an antinatalist to feel happy. Because if we didn't we wouldn't argue with them about it. We would just ignore them even though we know they're helpless and vulnerable. And that wouldnt be very ethical of us. The only way to derail someone's helplessness is to educate them through conversation and help them identify their depression in themselves and try to empower them to make the right decision to save themselves. As none of us can save them without their consent.
Whether one chooses to accept help from someone who is trying to show them an interest in life, to show them some positivity, is entirely up to them. But from the point of view of their ideal any help offered is interpreted as the greatest imposition. It feels like theyre being forced by everyone to participate in life because they still hold onto that part of them that doesn't want to allow them to be happy despite suffering.
You don't have to give up the intention to reduce suffering to be happy. You can satisfy both (recognition of suffering and the desire to reduce it) by getting your happiness and fulfillment in life through helping others to feel happy, but it requires letting go of a fixation on a contradiction, by finally accepting that it is a contradiction, and living anyways to fight another day. Together.
You have simply decided to supress it, but it is still part of you, and it will revisit you at times. I have no children and imo, I am now too late in life at 58 to have any. You will see family units, having joyous interactions, especially parents and small infants, you will hear a parent talk about how their children are more important to them than their own lives. You will hear people talk about their long historical family legacy and such will make you think for a moment, and you will have to reinforce your suppression.
Even drama scenes like:
Demonstrate the 'natural imperative' and the suffering that can be caused by not reproducing.
Some people who cannot have children suffer very badly. Antinatalists also handwave that away as well with 'it's immoral to alleviate your own suffering by bringing new life into the world which can also suffer.' Which of course suggests that suffering is all that is on offer for newborns or any joys will be irrelevent because of the sufferings you will experience. Again, totally irrational thinking.
Quoting Tzeentch
So is asexual reproduction, in your mind, irrational, as well as 'unfortunate?'
Quoting Tzeentch
So, you have no interest in consequentials then? Even if those consequentials mean that the original goal of your protest remains unfulfilled and the issue is never solved because it returns again and again, ad infinitum?
Quoting Tzeentch
I can point to such people as well and their decision is not normally an antinatalist one and is more likely to be an economic or lifestyle choice or even a 'not until the world becomes a better place,' or 'the world is overpopulated' choice which is also not necessarily based on an antinatalist viewpoint.
I have no idea what is in your head that connects the natural imperative to reproduce with the word 'magic.'
Quoting Tzeentch
And when these 'unpalatable thoughts' surface in you, is your established morality able to cope and ensure you dismiss such thoughts as just the mere random musings of your mind that are based on your primal fears, formed from the fact that our species came through a 'jungle rules' phase?
In what way is the human potential for random, controllable, suppressible, immoral thought an aspect of humanity that warrants antinatalism and the extinction of our species?
Quoting Tzeentch
But you are trying to constantly impose your antinatalism on others, consistently! Why is that not special pleading and immoral?
Quoting Tzeentch
Oh, I am reading exactly what you are typing, and I understand every word, as your thinking is not exactly complicated. I find the very few, different flavours of antinatalism, typed about on this thread to be equal only in how irrational they are.
So, you are not an antinatalist, based on the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority (utilitarianism). You are an antinatalist because you think it's immoral not to be such, as you think reproduction is an imposition on those who are born, as you did not have their consent. You choose to ignore the fact that obtaining such consent is not possible and that simply means, by default, we must not reproduce and anything that reproduces asexually now or after our extinction is just unfortunate. It that basically you position? Is that the antinatalism you want to sell to everyone? Which includes people like me? What estimate do you place on your chances of success?
Do you in fact need the buzz you get from the incredulity you receive?
But the antinatalist @Tzeentch has just posted that he does not care about reducing human suffering so does your number 1 here apply to his/her flavour of antinatalism?
Quoting Benj96
Yeah, I agree, antinatalism is contradictory.
Quoting Benj96
Agreed!
Quoting Benj96
Agreed!
Quoting Benj96
It certainly seems that way but perhaps some of them do get an actual buzz out of the incredulous responses they get. Attention seekers? Some dishonest interlocuters live on the buzz of contoversy.
Look at characters like Alex Jones (recently fined a billion dollars for his BS about the horrific Sandy Hook school attack), Ben Shapiro, who loves and lives off being controversial, Piers Morgan is exactly the same as is Donald Trump.
There is a horrible organised group in America called the ANI(Antinatalism International). To me even their name seems backwards. I won't post any of their nonsense here, but they should not be merely ignored. TPF member @DA671 already posted some awful but relevant footage from organised American antinatalists and it is material that should raise flags of concern. Having typed that, I do think that antinatalism remains gnat sized in the big human picture.
I hope the anti-life posters appreciate the olive branch you offer them.
I would just still watch who you invite into your world.
Not addressing his argument.
Quoting universeness
Red herring. Applying morality to things that by definition can't be moral is a category error, including most animals. Not only is it a category error, it is simply besides the point he is making.
Quoting universeness
Yes, that is part of his central ethical argument. It's deontological, not consequential. Unnecessarily imposing on others for X reason, is wrong he is saying. Thus, obviously, imposing on many people EVEN in the hopes of preventing unnecessary impositions would by logic, also be wrong.
Quoting universeness
That's because there is no "natural imperative to reproduce" in HUMANS. We are a creature that has "reasons" that are shaped by a multitude of things, and are generally shaped by the general culture around us and simply personal preferences- anything from not wanting to miss out, to simply boredom with life, loneliness, and a host of other non-instinctual reasons.
Quoting universeness
Huh? Not even the argument. Another red herring.
Quoting universeness
Assertion that adds nothing to the argument. Rhetorical filler.
Quoting universeness
A truth isn't how successful it sells to an audience. People often don't see "truth" at all, and certainly not right away.
If there is no decision being made, then it is not irrational. It just "is".
Unfortunate, yes, because now individuals don't have a say in whether they reproduce, and they still have no say in whether they are born.
Quoting universeness
If the means are flawed the ends won't justify them, so my interest is consequences is secondary.
And what exactly do you believe my "original goal" and or "protest" consist of?
Quoting universeness
Seems like these individuals were able to put rational considerations before instinct - excellent.
Quoting universeness
It is not. It reveals your appeal to "natural imperatives" as simply an act of cherry-picking.
Quoting universeness
I'm not.
If you feel threatened by a philosophical discussion to the point it feels like people are imposing on you, maybe discussion forums are not for you.
Quoting universeness
I have actually pointed that out specifically as the focal point of the dilemma.
All I'm doing is pointing out that procreation violates a common moral principle, and waiting patiently for a weighty argumentation as to why that should be ok.
You gave extinction as a reason, to which I replied:
- I am highly skeptical of individuals who profess the prolongation of the human race as their reason for procreating.
- Ends do not justify means.
You haven't really moved beyond this, and instead are seeking refuge in personal attacks.
Well it wouldnt be true antinatalism then, if that's actually the case. If he doesn't care to reduce human suffering he doesn't behold an ultimate ethical principle for ending all suffering.
But if he believes all people should not reproduce that contradicts him claiming he doesn't care about reducing suffering because if people don't reproduce we go extinct and suffering cannot occur. So it would just lead back to the actual true antinatalist belief that we shouldn't exist to prevent suffering.
If he really doesn't care for reducing suffering perhaps he has let go of his antinatalist absolutism/fundamentalism and believes he deserves to exist despite the existence of suffering. Which is good as we can only fight suffering through existing, I think though that we ought to care a bit about suffering and not totally disregard it as doing so disregards ethics altogether.
I would see that this new view as an improvement on just repeatedly reiterating antinatalist idealogy in its endless contradictory cycle, but can be further improved by establishing a balance between one's worthiness to exist and an ethical imperative to minimise suffering.
In otherwords having the wisdom to acknowledge yourself as worthy and just do your best to fight suffering in a capacity that doesn't deny your own right to exist. That is harmony and balance.
I wouldnt say buzz so much as a minute "hope" that their belief is valid - the antinatalist one that is. The controversy in itself serves to validate their "hope-rock" that they're clinging to to justify their existence. As engaging in debate about it validates its worthiness of debate in the first place.
The buzz is the same buzz as all the buzzes in life that maintains our hope, ambition, satisfaction, enjoyment, a reason to like living. And so that buzz is not something we should extinguish in someone, as to take away someone else's last shred of hope is to condemn to their own self annihilation.
All we can merely offer is a change in the quality of the buzz - how someone gets their pleasure in life, a step away from something absurd/toxic/dangerous and towards something worthwhile, meaningful and wholesome.
Oh sure, let's go Kant. I think the clue might be in his name!
A normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules and principles, rather than based on the consequences of the action, is a very poor methodology to apply to the issue of species survival and progression.
Perhaps you need to switch your methodology to one which does consider consequences and by doing so you might finally see that the natural imperative to reproduce and continue the human story is a better choice that pausing the story, returning to the beginning and starting the process again to arrive at the same point with perhaps a different sexual reproduction method such as parthenogenesis.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not true, based on the examples I have already given. If you are correct that humans do not experience a natural imperative to reproduce, then why do so many humans feel unfulfilled if they don't?
I agree it can be suppressed but you have to work at that and maintain it. If someone claims they can suppress the natural imperative to reproduce with no effort at all, with no conflict arising ever, in their mind and body then I say they are lying.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yeah, just keep 'phishing' and keep deluding yourself that you're catching anything, never mind actual red herrings.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Typed by you as a rhetorical filler!
Quoting schopenhauer1
I know, you have demonstrated that 200 times on TPF apparently. Come on son, your audience needs more convincing. Keep schoppin!
I appreciate your concern for my wellbeing really. Its very kind of you. I think that they have good reason to accept the olive branch and perhaps they do. It's hard to tell other than observing a change in their attitude and what beliefs they support and propagate.
If you fight antinatalism and suddenly they are suggesting more rational, reasonable arguments that are harder and harder for you to reason against (because they are less extreme and contradictory) then chances are you were successful in your goal, to steer them away from that vicious cyclical contradiction. You may feel defeated, but in actual fact that's only because you had a great effect - they accepted the beliefs you offered them and are now using them as their rock - a healthier one, in which to continue discourse.
You've tipped the balance back to the middle.
Given them your insights as a tool to defend themselves against the tendency to drift back towards antinatalism (depression). No longer then do you have the upper hand because you gave it away to help them.
"it's equally important to know when the fight is already won than to continue arguing beyond the point at which you already helped, for the sake of it, because you run the risk of role reversal where you yourself drift towards antinatalism.
At some point we must leave the table of argument knowing we instilled what we needed to in others, wisdom is knowing when the point was taken on-board, and you can then move onto the next crisis in need of your insights and help them out of that nosedive the same way you did previously. "
A job well done is just that - done.
You should feel proud of that fact, and move on.
So, do you agree that if an intelligent species reproduced asexually then antinatalism as an option dies?
So, would the morality issue you champion. Does that not give 'nature, evolution, natural selection,' the upper hand over your morality issue? Natural selection can and has produced asexual species showing that antinatalism, as irrational as it is, is only applicable to species who reproduce through sex or through some future transhuman process. We also have the evidence that the universe has already passed the event of life creation. This, to me, makes antinatalism very unlikely to succeed even if we were imbalanced enough to all vote for it.
Quoting Tzeentch
I answered this at the end of my last post to you:Quoting universeness
Quoting Tzeentch
I agree, but we are not currently in danger of extinction due to lack of reproduction, so they are able to make such choices and overrule the natural imperative to reproduce but they may have to experience some suffering due to having to make that choice. Is it moral that the rich and powerful have more choice over reproduction that the poor? The poor used to have lots of kids as they believed the more kids you have the more chance you will be looked after when your are old. That didnt work out well either, it mostly failed. Desperate, poorly conceived solutions like antinatalism or having 20 kids will normally fail.
Quoting Tzeentch
Hah! this from someone who cherry-picks from aspects of human constructions of morality to peddle an antinatalist stance. :roll:
Quoting Tzeentch
I dont want to get all panto on you but Oh yes you are!
Quoting Tzeentch
Right back at you, I can confirm to you that your antinatalism is no threat to me, but it is perhaps a threat to any here who are more mentally vulnerable than I.
Quoting Tzeentch
Skeptical in what way? 'Ends do not justify means' is not an objective universal truth!
If I break the law and kill a killer who was planning to kill you and your loved ones.
If I killed that killer by breaking into their house and killing them before they carried out their plan to kill you then I would most likely be convicted and jailed for it. Well OK! That's the price I may have to pay under the law/rules of human morality. But perhaps many would feel that the Ends I achieved DID justify the means I employed. You and your family might indeed feel that way! Such is personally subjective, yes?
I dont know if you have read through his recent posts on this page regarding his flavour of antinatalism.
It is based on a moral dilemma, not the issue of human suffering. I think his main posit is simply that it is immoral to bring a newborn into this existence without its consent and as its impossible to obtain its consent, the moral default position must be applied which MUST be, the decision not to procreate.
That's my attempt to 'steelman' his bizarre logic.
We can but try! :strong:
I do appreciate what you are saying and I broadly agree with your advice, BUT when you are dealing with those who post in an evanhellical style then they will not desist as long as they have a platform, and we cannot remove all their platforms because that would suggest we cannot deal with them in a civilised manner and still defeat them. If the antinatalist fountain keeps spouting, then I for one will keep trying to bail out our ship. Better that, than trying to save some if we all end up in the water as I can't swim and would be too busy drowning to help save anyone else.
Quite right Universeness, we must continue bailing that ship. Its a noble act of you to do so.
However we must recognise the point when one stops pumping the fountain and instead picks up a bailor and bails the ship with us. For then they're on our side. We can only do our best to convince the fountainists to become bailors. The rest is up to the fates.
Well one can only say that the default to not procreate as we cannot ask the unborn if they'd like to be born is merely based on the belief that we don't think we can raise that potential child to be good and to fight suffering. If we can raise such a child then we ought to (morally speaking).
If we are sure we would create a monster instead then we ought not to (again morally speaking). It speaks to a direct reflection on one's own capacity to be good and thus train their children/teach them to do the same.
But as we cannot know for certain how our children will turn out we do take a chance by procreating. But we do know ourselves - as parents - we may be sure that we have the best intentions to do right by our children. That is usually enough to convince them (their agency) to be good because our children usually respect us as parents, as the ones that brought them into the world.
You can concentrate on that, and I will try to help stop any bailers switch to maintaining the spouting fountain. I think you have the tougher task!
Yes, you summarise the moral issue quite well. But my argument regarding the moral dilemma peddled by @Tzeentch is that his issue of 'common morality' is extensively overblown by him and it does not have the force behind it that he is trying to peddle. Human morality is not as significant as the natural imperative to procreate, as a defence against extinction. The natural development of asexuality in many flora and fauna species is evidence for this, as is the fact that natural selection will maintain those aspects of a species which best equips it for survival within the environment it finds itself in, regardless of any issue of what humans label, morality. In fact, evolution through natural selection will even alter species over evolutionary time to assist a species to survive in its environment, regardless of any issue related to the human concept of morality. I think these biological facts, push the comparative human morality issue peddled by Tzeentch, towards a gnat sized concern. I think it does the same to schopenhauer1's human suffering flavour. The theistic antinatalism flavours and propositional logic conflations used by Bartricks are just too ridiculous to need much effort to combat. He can only get the fountain to slightly drip onto the deck of the ship.
One bailer could put his pail down for most of his/her life before having to take a moment to bail bartricks out of our progressive human ship.
Could natural selection not also operate on a cultural, linguistic and neurological level? I fail to see how the process is limited to biology and cannot be extended to other things like concepts, the words that represent them and the cultures that use them.
For example if a concept is useful (logical and or ethical) in explanation of something it will be used by an individual to articulate themselves (articulation being the spreading of that concept to others).
Similarly such new concepts require new words right? To condense their meaning into something useful - a short hand explanation for quicker/more efficient spreading of the information.
For example: Instead of saying "we should like totally be friends with that four legged animal that seems pretty nice and does stuff for us in return for food" we can just call it a "dog" and refer to it as "man's best friend". The information is the same, the number of words is condensed.
Languages evolve out of usefulness. Slang and tech words are the new most useful terms accepted to describe ideas and that's why they gain popularity.
I can now "Google it". It's now a verb in the dictionary. Instead of before where I had to say "I can now search for the information using the digital world wide network". A mouthful for sure.
There is clear space between natural selection (no intent) and human selection (intent).
Human selection is directly responsible for the evolutionary direction of almost every dog/cat/domesticated animal species alive today. This is also true for many flora/plant species.
I think you are referring to human selection rather than any aspect of natural selection.
In that sense you outlined, yes I'm referring to human selection. However humans are natural - born of nature itself. At what point does natural selection convert into human selection? And how arbitrary or definitive is this boundary?
I suppose based on your distinction of "intent" and "no intent" you're referring to "choice" which pertains to agents/that which is conscious.
So the difference then between natural selection and human selection would be the emergence of conscious agents with intent right?
Does that mean then that humans are the only conscious agents with intent? Or is it perhaps a continuum graduating stepwise from a system with no agency or choice towards one that does have agency and control. And where would other animals, plants and life fall on this continuum of emergent "intent"?
Natural selection still affects humans, humans continue to evolve related to their environment, but human science will have a far more significant effect and far faster effect on human physiology/biology than evolution through natural selection. So human intent via human science creates human selection but it does not replace evolution and natural selection, that will continue until universal entropy, returns the Universe to nothing but energy.
Quoting Benj96
Yes, but I think it's more important here, to use a concept of intent, akin to 'the imposition of an individual or group human will.'
Quoting Benj96
No, I think many animals demonstrate intent. Even instinct can have an aspect of intent imo.
We don't know if extra-terrestrial intelligent life exists, if it does, then we are not even the only conscious agents with intent at our level of intellect. So, absolutely yes, there is a gradation or range of ability to demonstrate and impose intent, within all living entities.
Quoting universeness
It would be science as opposed to antinatalism that beats lives of unbearable suffering. Although this is likely to take hundreds of years.
I wouldn't say people get involved in politics etc with the goal of reducing the number of lives of unbearable suffering. Many people have other goals that take precedence, and there are those that take a deontological approach, preferring personal freedom etc, despite the consequences. Look at America electing Trump, and Brits voting overwhelmingly for the Tories who cut the NHS killing tens of thousands in only a few years, according to the Royal Society of Medicine.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/nhs-cuts-excess-deaths-30000-study-research-royal-society-medicine-london-school-hygiene-martin-mckee-jeremy-hunt-a7585001.html
I agree.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Martin Luther King got involved in politics, to reduce or stop minority groups living lives of unbearable suffering, due to racism and a lack of human/civil rights.
Gandhi got involved in politics to free the people in his subjugated nation from the unbearable suffering being imposed apon them, due to British imperialism.
I could cite many more examples.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
I broadly agree, but the people you describe above are the ones I continue to combat, by trying to convince their supporters, through reasoned debate/dialogue/discourse, to stop supporting such nefarious, narcissistic and in some examples, evil people who peddle evil policies and evil ideas, which in political examples, have the hidden agenda of gaining new or maintaining the current wealth and power of the nefarious few.
I think yes, there is an inherent kind suffering (like dukkha) that is very much the heart of the whole enterprise of life. There is a sort of lack-of-something that motivates. The goal (trick) of societies is to try to harness this motivation for "productive" purposes. I simply see it as not "being" and succumbing to becoming. We can't help it. It is self-aware angst, projected as "reasons" in the name of survival, comfort, and entertainment.
I feel you're right on the money.
Quoting Isaac
That is a good question. How can we judge an argument, when there can be no correct answer.
For one, I would say ability to convince. I don't know how far you would agree on this point, but in my view the vast majority of people don't consider the philosophy of procreation, and having and raising kids is so engrained in society it would take some serious persuasion to remove their status quo bias. However, if presented with the question within The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, a fair number of people would opt to walk away. It feels wrong to them that people's happiness is contingent on others suffering. In the context I was using fair, unfair wouldn't make a lot of sense as an antonym, but would mean not fairly convincing.
Quoting Isaac
Yes, that's a third option. A factual case that procreation is a better way to cut down on suffering than antinatalism. This is different to the other two in that there is a right and wrong answer to it.
Down the lagomorphian hole it is! Isn't there a 1% rule?
Don't want to get @schopenhauer1 banned but their posts helped encourage me to join. I was already familiar with the literature but didn't know the topic was so widely discussed.
Quite the opposite for me - I know the topic's widely discussed (at least on this forum) but I didn't know so much work had been done on it!
I agree with this point, and I was hoping that by pointing out some of the moral dilemmas associated with procreation I could coax some of this philosophy out of the its defenders, but I've gotten little in the way of that.
A lack of perfection perhaps (whatever that entails for the individual), motivated by a need to improve circumstances from the imperfect towards to perfect, addressing flaws - in science, in philosophical thinking, in politics, economics etc one by one as they arise?
Quoting schopenhauer1
There is always angst to survival I think. Very apt/poignant of you to point out. We have instincts - built in searching and evaluation of threats to our survival, "critical thinking" in a sense. Perhaps this is what society takes advantage of, to pursue improvement as a collective, each having a role in maintaining the stability of society.
What angst we cannot ameliorate through productivity in society we project/invest into entertainment. A sort of escapism so it were, to entertain catastrophe and the ongoing battle against adversity conceptually through media: film, literature, music, art etc it's an outlet for personal angst.
That being said, I think we are doing an alright job, we have the institutions in place to combat existential angst and each one is usually undergoing constant revision, ammendments and improvement.
It may not be perfect, far from it, but it certainly is motoring on towards a slow steady progress towards a future idealised as getter than the past we came from.
Nah man, it doesn't go away. That is the point of the perennialism of Schopenhauer. it's a reason he was very opposed to Hegel's upward spiral notion.
Quoting Benj96
It starts with two people who decide on behalf of someone else, that a new person needs to deal with the world and deal with survival, comfort-seeking, and entertainment. They are creating another source of angst, in other words. The social institutions are like a pyramid scheme.. It can't be gotten rid of or changed easily as it's all the society has to allow the forced contestants to survive, find comfort, and entertainment.
Quoting Benj96
People used to call some of that sublimation. But basically I consider entertainment anything that isn't survival or comfort seeking. Meditation and reading philosophy for pleasure can be entertainment. It doesn't matter what it is, as long as it's something you are doing outside of working to survive or finding ways to get more comfortable with your environment.
Quoting Benj96
But YOUR preference for X institutions shouldn't become someone else's burden to bear, simply because YOU think this is the case.
Quoting Benj96
We are far from a utopia. Rather, we are a mediocre universe doing mediocre things. The main problem is we keep putting more contestants in the game, and thinking we are doing them a favor. It's just starting yet another game on behalf of someone else, because YOU like something. I never heard of something where MY preference requires OTHERS to be forced into a game that cannot be changed. Where MY preference for what choices are meaningful or good (e.g. working to survive apparently people must love because they keep putting more laboring units into the workforce and shoving the drivel that work is meaningful so don't despair) are what OTHER people should experience.. Somehow the limited choices that life offers of survival and comfort, somehow the intendant harms of existing are what OTHERS should experience. OR, guess what they can do if they don't like it? You know (kill themselves!)...Real gaslighting if you ask me.
Agreed. It's their choice, not mine.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Absolutely. I agree.
Quoting schopenhauer1
This is where our agreement departs. We are assuming the rules of such a game are fixed. Those rules being that the game cannot be changed, we must then flounder helplessly, and we must suffer/be of inherent angst thus. I think any game player can change the status quo if they want to. Not an easy pursuit by any means but a possible one.
Otherwise why bother with politics or accruing any power whatsoever - If that power cannot change circumstances in any meaningful way?
It's equivalent to outlining a game where the rigid/fixed rules are "the climate will change to such a point where earth will be uninhabitable and you will all die".
Naturally a player will ask "well in such a game is it possible to navigate away from climate doom". If the answer is "No" then the game is pretty pointless isn't it?
Except that is not the game we play in real life. The rules are changeable en masse. Science tells us "here is the path away from these rules and towards a new set of more optimistic ones where the game-play can continue".
Any sensible game player would opt for that path.
So the actual rules of the gameplay of humanity are not as rigid as you believe. Just as the gameplay was previously changed from combating infectious diseases without antibiotics/vaccines to one where they are permissable in the game.
Fundamentally it reduces to pessimism vs. Optimism. You're free to choose which game format you choose. But you're not allowed to choose on behalf of other players.
I CANNOT in good conscience FORCE you to start a game because I think there is some chance you can change the rules (which is extremely hard), and this doesn't address the point that the rules are already in place, and they are simply ACCEPTED (or kill yourself.. a shitty bargain).
Quoting Benj96
Not good enough to FORCE OTHERS into a game because YOU like it.. Still not fair. Not just. Not right. Etc. I realize that isn't how people understand things because they never had it framed that way. Re-framing perhaps is most what I am after. Perhaps that's what @Down The Rabbit Hole found intriguing.
Quoting Benj96
Politics is not what I am talking about. It is the very foundational needs and wants of the angst-human being.
Quoting Benj96
I'm not talking about climate change or things such as that, though it is an example of a greater understanding that there are only a LIMITED amount of choices this universe allows for the human. The parent thinks that these choices are "good" and thus must be lived out by yet another person as well. That's what I am speaking to.
Quoting Benj96
Yeah, I am not talking about the onward march of scientific phenomena.
What if I force someone into a game that they enjoy? They have a great time and vibe despite the fact I gave them no choice but to play? What would you say then?
What harm was done when they turn around and say "so I know you forced me into this game without my consent but I'm actually really glad you did as I didn't realise how much I would enjoy it, so thank you for taking that initial decision for me."
The best you'll get out of this line of argument is something along the lines of "There's a higher chance that they'll enjoy it than that they will not enjoy it," and ultimately amounts to little more than playing a gamble with someone else's life.
If you believe that's a sufficient justification for procreation, then have at it.
The problem with this argument in my opinion, is that the parents do not have any knowledge of what they're about to impose. The life of a new person is a complete unknown. Nor do they have much influence over the outcome - that is determined by many other factors than the parents' goodwill and expertise.
No it doesn't. I just outlined the conditions. Person A forced person B into existence and they happened to love it and be grateful to person A for forcing them to participate.
With respect to those exact conditions what would you say?
Instead of re-writing it to a position in time when person A hasn't yet forced B to participate as I clearly did not outline. Its not a speculation or gamble when it has already happened.
So ill repeat myself, in the case that we assume person A has already committed person B to existing. And person B LOVES IT. And is happy, and grateful for being born. (as is the case currently with many parent child dynamics)
In that case... What argument do you have exactly?
Person B dodged a bullet, because person A took a gamble with B's life and it happened to turn out ok.
A good state of affairs, but the result of a bad moral choice.
Quoting Tzeentch
This.
But I have some more to add, and I'm wondering what Tzeentch thinks of these ideas.
First off, I think that life is way more nuanced than the binary "Good life, bad life". It is much more analog than digital. The problem is a "gift" as you are implying here about life, is not a gift if it comes with burdens one would have not asked for or wanted. If I gave you a "gift" that lasted a lifetime, you could not get rid of unless you kill yourself, is pervasive, and has many burdensome impositions that you would have not wanted, BUT it comes with some good stuff too.. You have every right to say that this is not a gift, this is an imposition DESPITE any good aspects that go along with it. Again, just because I like a game, doesn't mean OTHERS must play it and like it too. Liking it "enough" isn't an EXCUSE to go ahead and force others to play it. It was NOT NECESSARY to start yet another contestant.
You would only have a point if the life you are starting is perfectly aligned with what the contestant wanted.. it was easy to move to a different option if you didn't like the game, etc. That is not the case.. It is comply with the already set-up universe we have (go to work to survive, go homeless, live off others, consume, find entertainment, find relationships, etc.) or kill yourself.
So my point is saying that the game is "good enough" is not enough reason to go ahead and impose on others because YOU deem it to be good enough. It is the disconnect between what you like and what others SHOULD like. Do not PRESUME for others regarding an inescapable imposition. That is aggressively paternalistic.
If anything about my posts on Pessimism, they are to reveal what are pervasive and intractable negatives that go along with life. You can look back on any of my previous posts on the matter. Overlooking this with a simple line of "But what if they say life is good!" is wishful folly that doesn't take into account the full story. One does not have a right to impose such significant things on another. One is perpetuating suffering needlessly for another. Saying that life is a statistical phenomena of degrees of good and bad doesn't negate that there are negative aspects to life that are not what people would have wanted and are entailed with life. It is not unnecessarily starting THESE negatives for another that is the problem. This is what is being overlooked.
I think we have made a clear case that the common logic to justify procreation would not work in any other example of moral human interaction.
It is now up to the "pronatalists" to argue why procreation is a special case that deserves special logic.
[quote=180 Proof]The rest follows.[/quote]
There is no 'special case of logic' involved or required, that's just another fake claim you make.
Life was formed in the universe without intent and without any 'permission' or 'consent.' This was the original natural happenstance. Evolution and natural selection has demonstrated the reproduction system as the means by which a species may continue to exist whether or not that reproduction is asexual or sexual.
These systems were established, regardless of any aspect of human morality. Antinatalists may make as many appeals to their own conflated notions of human morality as they like. You are the ones making special pleads to a logic that is only valid in your own heads.
I am not a pronatalist, I don't think such a term has much important meaning behind it. Any intelligent person understands the danger of over population. I am pro species survival. I am for continuing the human species, as I know that we give a significance and purpose to the universe that it would not have if we (or our like,) did not exist. A significance which is so fundamental to the universe that it would be ever recreated by means of evolution, if events caused a return to a lifeless universal phase.
It is now up to the antinatalists to prove that their suggested solution would work and to also prove that humans are incapable of reducing human suffering to an acceptable level, no matter how much time they have to increase their knowledge of the structure and workings of the universe and their tech.
I don't care about antinatalists who use such words as 'that's not good enough.' My answer to such is the same one as I would give a child, constantly pestering for more candy.
'Well, that's all you're getting for now, you will just have to wait under we have more knowledge and better tech.'
Who says they dodged a bullet? This assumes person B is completely vulnerable and helpless in the world. And person A is equally vulnerable and helpless and inept at parenting.
But actually they have a great father/mother (Person A) one that protects them when they're infants, teaches them to be wise as they grow up, gives them exceptional tools to combat adversity and call out the BS of people trying to make them suffer (perhaps those suggesting they ought to die or never have children) and instills in them a sense of pride at being able to fend for themselves, to be independent, masters of navigating a world of suffering without allowing it to impact their happiness, their purpose being a moral one - teach others to do as their own parents did for them.
This person B:
1). Doesn't blame/despise their parents for creating them, doesn't see themselves as the victim of some horrible "forced" thing.
2).Experienced just enough suffering to know what it is and by contrast what happiness is. To learn a valuable lesson.
3). Were given the tools by their parent to maximise the stability of their own happiness/find fulfilment in life.
4). Cannot be made feel ashamed or guilty for living by others because the fulfillment they found was helping others mitigate their own suffering. Their intention is to reduce the suffering of others so they can polite ignore any attempt of someone to punish them for that as that woukd be irrational. Why should someone suffering punish someone who clearly demonstrates the skills to be happy and the willingness to show how its done?
That...... is why Person A didn't gamble with Person Bs life.
They knew they were good people (wise, kind, resourceful etc - many a virtue) , thus knew they would be good parents (applying those virtues/skills) and thus knew they would be able to raise good children (despite experience disagreements, arguments and a bit of suffering in the learning curve of growing up, they turned out as their parents did - grateful, appreciative and accepting of those skills passed down to them).
Quoting universeness
This won't do.
There are many behaviors that have existed prior to notions of morality, and many of such behaviors are universally regarded as immoral now, regardless of their prior existence.
Quoting universeness
"Don't impose (unless there are pressing reasons to do so)," is a common, almost universal moral principle.
You may claim this is not a moral principle, and that imposing is perfectly fine. Probably you realise that would lead you down a slippery slope. So what you have left is explaining why there is a pressing reason to impose in this particular instance - special pleading.
It's the procreators who are behaving inconsistently.
Quoting universeness
Why? It's not something you have power over, nor have a stake in. Whether the human race survives for another thousand years or another hundred thousand, you won't be around to witness it.
Besides, do you expect me to believe there is even a single person on this globe that procreates not for the simple reason that they want to have children, but because they so selflessly care about the survival of the human race?
Quoting universeness
I'm not suggesting any solution. I'm pointing out an inconsistency in your behavior and asking for an explanation.
Quoting Benj96
Whether someone has a great or terrible life is not solely a product of parenting. It's also a product of the environment, and a good amount of luck. There are many things the parents have no influence over, thus it is still a gamble, no matter how capable and well-intentioned the parents are.
I do. I believe in myself as a caretaker. I had very good parents to teach me how.
The only possible reason I can imagine for an anitnatalist ideology is that the person who holds it - just hates life. Simple as.
The idealogy is literally about desire to not procreate/self annihilation/end of humanity and everything that comes with it.
Just an abject denial that joy can ever be more suffering in one's life.
And if antinatalist logic is perfectly sound from your point of view and the other is nonsense. And if our (pronatalist) logic is perfectly sound from our point of view and the other is nonsense.
I guess pronatalists still win. Because we have the opportunity to do whatever we want in life, a diversity of things and feel good about it so long as we have the intention to improve things/help sufferers. While antinatalists are reduced to only one thing - begging everyone to stop living because its so pointless and worthless and awful. Torturing themselves and attempting to (and failing) to torture the rest of society which literally would never ever commit a mass suicide or sterilisation.
Ever.
All down to a lack of potency. Lack of intelligence/wisdom/resourcefulness/lack of initiative/lack of creativity etc etc.
Put a parent and their child in the worst environment you can think of - famine, war, poverty etc and if that parent is extremely strong willed/intelligent/resourceful etc (all part of what it means to be "Good" (virtuous/highly adaptable/skilled etc), all the things opposite of what's outlined above...
... And I guarantee you they will turn a bad situation around. Whether that means escaping it spatially, moving to a better location with better lifestyle (refugees), hitting the problem head on (leadership, local politics, for example ghandi liberating India from oppression), or engineering a solution (all the very resourceful inventors eg.tesla many of which I'm sure were parents also.)
You just don't get it. You don't see the big picture. Luck exists for people who don't now how to make it themselves.
It's not random that some people seem to make the world happen for them.
Its not random that some people start with nothing and become successful and happy and have a family.
Bad environments only exist for those that are complacent and accept it as it is instead of finding a way, any way, to improve it. All of these things are excuses.
Take the excuses away, as a good parent is driven to do in order to protect the ones they love - their children, and you remove the whole basis for this pointless, floundering helpless, victim revolving antinatalist idealogy.
Just get on with it. Every other adult has to roll up their sleeves and work hard to make a good life for their family and friends. No one said combating suffering was a walk in the park but it's certainly worth the effort.
I've said what I have to say on the matter of antinatalism. You're free to disassemble and pick away at any and all parts of my argument if that's what you feel is going to get you places. In the meantime, I'll be vibing, and loving life with my friends and family and colleagues. Let us know if you fancy joining.
Happy to lend a hand if it's accepted (ie if you actually take on board and accept that maybe my points are valid and move away from antinatalism and towards the infinitely more interesting and useful discussions, otherwise, good luck with it I guess).
I won't ever agree with someone that wants me and my family and the rest the world dead. Simples :)
Well, you'd be wrong.
Quoting Benj96
It's not an ideology - at least not for me. It's about observing an inconsistency in human behavior and asking for an explanation.
Quoting Benj96
You can't make such a guarantee, and while I like the positive outlook, it is not rational.
Oh good. Finally.
I'm glad I'm wrong then and you finally accept we are on the same side and both don't hate life. You made a good choice to re-evaluate and depart from the extreme.
Quoting Tzeentch
Great again! Glad youre no longer fundamentalist and don't see it as an ideology but rather prefer to be open minded and discuss what issues we ought to, to clear up these inconsistencies. It's prudent to formulate an explanation to navigate such inconsistencies in a productive/constructive manner.
Quoting Tzeentch
I like my positive outlook too. I believe in it so it's rational for me. Just as everyone's personal concept of rationality is based on the beliefs they hold to be true.
Welcome back Tzeentech :)
Now we are truly making progress.
I'm not sure what you think I've been doing this whole time.
Looking for an explanation while already having a predefined answer (no procreation for anyone) I suppose.
You cannot just do anything in the name above. Having "good intentions" isn't license to do what you want to someone else. You probably know this though.
Imagine my defense being "good intentions" to do any X act that causes someone else an imposition of harms and limitations.
When did I say do "anything? "
In case you weren't aware, helping someone out of suffering is a mutual effort. It takes both the hand offered and the hand accepted.
It takes agreement. Not force.
If someone decides they don't want anyone's help they just want to be miserable alone. There's not much we can do for them is there?
As I said, helping is a two-person dynamic. I can't help or reason with a wall so there is no imposition of anything. It's either ignored, actively told to go way, or accepted.
So yes "intention" is a license to approach someone you think is in need of assistance. If they tell you to leave them be, you leave them be. If theyre willing to discuss, you discuss, if they're will to agree on a course of action, you agree on a course of action.
That is a harmless process respecting their autonomy. You seem to obsess over the idea of "imposition".
And no you can't "impose" on a non existent potential that currently reside in your left nut. They have no personhood, no human rights, and no say in being born.
None of us ever had a say in being born, some of us were born intentionally and some by accident,
And some of us like the fact that we were.
That's how life works. Don't ask me ask mother nature.
I have already asked you this before. Do you consider a universe without intent to start life but life started through happenstance to be immoral? If your answer is yes, then you are suggesting the universe had intent, as intent is a fundamental aspect of morality. If your answer is no, then you accept that this happenstance is beyond the jurisdiction of any notion of human morality. It is therefore way beyond YOUR mere opinion that 'this won't do.'
Quoting Tzeentch
A universal 'don't impose' is an illogical and unsustainable edict in human reality. Benevolent imposition is moral in the human world, such as preventing someone from fighting or imposing to break up a fight. If you would stand by and watch then, imo, YOU are immoral.
Imposition, which is immoral, can only be judged based on established moral guidelines, and by those involved on a case-by-case basis. I might impose suffering to remove an impaled limb to free a person, depending on the situation. I may have children to continue the experience of life and living. YOU have no right or power to judge me immoral as such a judgement would itself be immoral as you are not supported by any universal fact, BUT I AM, the fact that life started in this universe WITHOUT ANY PERMISSION OR CONSENT. You are the inconsistent special pleader with no answer to the natural happenstance of life creation. IT ALREADY HAPPENED.
Quoting Tzeentch
I do have power over the survival of my species, we all do, as we can reproduce! That's the whole point!
I don't need to be around to witness it, my like being around to witness it, is absolutely good enough for me. Only a narcissist or sociopath would deny life a future just because they themselves must die and enter oblivion. Yes, everyday people do exactly that, as the 'want to have children' IS an act which results in the survival of the human race, regardless of the fact that you are unable to grasp the connection.
Quoting Tzeentch
Why are you preaching antinatalism then? As a solution to what? You claim you have identified a moral crisis and you then suggest that you are not suggesting any solution, so why are you pushing the antinatalist nonsense? I have explained my position to you quite clearly, its simply you who (panto style), claims I have not. So, to reflect back to you in equal panto style, your position on antinatalism is the position that 'just won't do.'
:lol: Welcome brother, to those of us who will 'call out the BS of people.' :flower: :flower: :flower:
It's a matter of rational scrutiny - to demand a consistent argument from someone who chooses to impose on others. You've failed to provide that, and that's why it won't do.
Quoting universeness
Once again, I don't see any explaining going on here.
Why don't you start with coming up with a logically consistent argument as to why imposing is acceptable in this case?
Quoting universeness
And it's irrational for the reasons I've already given you, and I won't accept irrational reasoning as a moral basis for imposition.
Quoting universeness
I'm not preaching anything. I'm pointing out your inconsistency and waiting for an explanation.
I accept your opinion that I have failed to provide such for you, and I have so far been unable to wipe the antinatalism fog from your mind. You claim it is due to the fact that my points towards you are inconsistent but you have not demosntrated where that inconsistency exists. I have consistently made the same points to you.
1. The natural imperative of reproduction as a method of species survival.
2. Life started in the universe without intent, consent or permission and therefore is immune to any human constructed moral crisis you may personally be having.
3. Evolution through natural selection is still happening and still has no intent and seeks no permission or consent from humans to do what it does.
4. Humans have intent and intelligence and can alleviate, reduce and possibly even remove all forms of human suffering.
These are some of my consistent points, where is this inconsistency you are complaining about.
I accept you dont find my 4 points above compelling reasons for you to abandon your antinatalist stance but hey ho, such is life. Some folks just prefer their misery to finding the strength to join us optimists.
Or they just can't conquer their pride! They can't admit they have been so wrong for so long.
Quoting Tzeentch
I already have.
1. Life happened (was imposed if you prefer).
2. Some life became intelligent life.
3. Intelligent life is able to ask questions.
4. To understand the what, how and why of the universe, life that is self-aware and has intent and can ask questions is necessary.
5. The survival of such intent and ability to ask questions and discover answers is necessary.
6. A universe with no life has no purpose.
7. IF you accept 1 to 6 then imposing life on the universe is moral, If you don't accept 1 to 6 then you are probably an antinatalist who bizarrely does not wish to be an existent who can choose to label themselves an antinatalist. Antinatalism is self-defeating in every way you posit it.
Quoting Tzeentch
You are not an honest interlocuter. You have preached antinatalism, as you have stated that it's the only logical solution to the 'common moral dilemma,' of immoral imposition through procreation. It's preaching because you have no evidence. My evidence starts with the fact that LIFE HAPPENED in this universe and that happenstance CANNOT be logically judged as immoral. Where is this inconsistency you claim is forcing you to 'wait for an explanation?'
You are simply refusing to accept any explanation you are offered in the same way a convinced theist will never accept there is no god or supernatural woo woo.
Do you think a tsunami, or an earthquake is an immoral imposition?
People don't reproduce for the sake of the species' survival. This is just nonsense.
Quoting universeness
Unless you wish to reject morality altogether, this is more nonsense.
If you do wish to reject morality, then what are you doing in a thread that's unmistakenly about a moral question?
Quoting universeness
Evolution is irrelevant to this question.
Morality is about individuals, their choices, intentions and actions.
Quoting universeness
Good intentions don't excuse immoral actions.
Quoting universeness
Quoting universeness
Necessary, why? To whom?
Sounds like a load of New Age hooey to me.
Quoting universeness
The choices of moral agents can be judged, which is what we're doing right here.
I'm getting the sense that you have some rather subjective views about man's purpose in the universe, and are willing to resort to imposition to press gang new people into this project - an "ends justify the means" type argument and a common moral pitfall.
Oops I used your word. Lol. Touché brother.
Based on what evidence?
Quoting Tzeentch
You think in extremes! Why would I have to reject morality altogether? What utter nonsense!
Quoting Tzeentch
I typed the word intent YOU decided that was synonomous with the term 'good intentions.' You further evidence your tendency to invent and attempt to misrepresent and misdirect when you are frustrated that you have no valid response.
Quoting Tzeentch
Necessary to intelligent lifeforms who value legacy.
Quoting Tzeentch
If you are living a purposeless life and have no sense of purpose in your life, then you have reaped what you sowed. If you believe that life and lifeforms have no purpose then you are left with time as your enemy and oblivion as your saviour. How sad. If you do have purpose in your life, then you are contradicting your own words that suggest you believe HUmans have no purpose in this universe.
:wink: :up:
Quoting universeness
Based on common understanding of human psychology.
But since you're the one claiming humans reproduce not out of personal motivations but some selfless act for the survival of mankind the burden of proof is on you.
Quoting universeness
It's either that or be a hypocrite.
Quoting universeness
Because you like "legacy" you get to press gang everybody into your vanity project?
Is that your threshold for imposition then? If you like something you get to force it on others?
Quoting universeness
A thinly-veiled attempt at a personal attack, and not remotely related to what I said.
You are the one preaching antinatalism as a solution to your conflated moral issue, so the burden of proof is yours. I did not suggest that a couple looks into each other's eyes and discuss having children to ensure that the human race survives but they do exchange such comments as 'It would be great to have something that is of me and you that will carry on the bloodlines.' Especially in amongst the rich dynastic families or in the families of celebrity etc. But it happens in almost every family. It is the concept of legacy which just seems unable to penetrate through your fog. Even though the historical evidence for it is irrefutable. This is synonymous with the idea of reproducing to ensure the survival of the species as the end result of the compulsion to pass on legacy has the exact same result.
Quoting Tzeentch
Based on what logic? Try actually answering a question instead of just responding with obvious and tedious obfuscations.
Quoting Tzeentch
Your attempt to ignore legacy just because it's an inconvenient fact that defeats your antinatalist viewpoint is pernicious.
Quoting Tzeentch
The truth hurts you?
This is plainly false. I am not preaching or proposing anything.
I'm pointing out an inconsistency in the reasoning of those who choose to reproduce.
Quoting universeness
The offspring shall serve the parents' ego, then?
Quoting universeness
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting universeness
You stated:
Quoting universeness
You sought to dismiss my moral dilemma on the basis that the choice is purely a human construct.
All morality is a human construct.
So you're either consistent and dismiss morality altogether, or start cherry-picking (which is what you're doing) and are inconsistent, ergo a hypocrite.
Quoting universeness
No, I call it out for what it is: irrational ego-driven vanity.
You won't have a leg to stand on if your argument doesn't involve the well-being of the person you just forced to participate in your project, so I would suggest starting there.
No the offspring shall help to continue the species and the parent's legacy.
Quoting Tzeentch
Fogged logic. My main point is that life started in the universe without consent or permission and that is the evidence that defeats your moral dilemma. It has no relevance to the existence of life in this universe or its continuation.
Quoting Tzeentch
So, was the moment life formed in the universe immoral? Is an earthquake or a tsunami or a rainbow immoral according to your logic? I would suggest you start there and then move towards the well-being and sustaining of the life which arrived in the universe regardless of permission or consent from any source.
You're right, I don't understand much of what you're saying. I'm trying, but there are many things which are not making sense to me.
Let's start with the definition of The Problem of Evil - I'm going to echo back to you in my own words what I think you're saying. You can tell me if I'm understanding you or not.
Here is your original:
Imagine there is an omnipotent, omniscient, person.
and here is how I would phrase this:
Imagine there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. [OOO-Being]
Omnibenevolent was not in your original OP, I think we both agree that your argument requires this - otherwise the "person" could be evil. I also prefer using the word "being" to "person, your use of the word "person" is far afield of any other definition I know of. And I can't imagine any proponent of the problem of evil using the word "person" - they would use the word "God". I don't think this alters what you're saying, but if "person" is essential to your argument, then I need some more details to understand it.
Otherwise, for purposes of this particular discussion I am assuming that the definition/concept of an OOP Being is well formed and makes sense.
Next we have this:
[b]Imagine as well that there is a sensible world, exactly like this one.
this sensible world is an incredibly dangerous place, full of all manner of dangers and just about every conceivable harm.
[/b]Well said, I'll go with that.
Quoting Bartricks
Quoting Bartricks
It seems like you're using the word "God" interchangeably with OOO Being, I'm OK with either, but if there is some specific context in which you use one over the other I'll need some more details.
Otherwise, I agree with this definition of the Problem of Eveil and what a PPE believes. However I want to expand a bit on this, just to make sure that my understanding is correct. Let's convert this into Ps & Qs.
Let P be the statement "God (an OOP Being) exists."
For purposes of this particular discussion I am assuming that this sentence makes sense and is either true or false.
Let Q be the sentence "The sensible world is free from all evil & violence"
So a PPE says this:
IF P THEN NECESSARILY Q.
NOT Q
Therefore NOT P
Here I'm assuming that P means the same thing as P IS TRUE
This could also be expressed as
IF NOT Q THEN NOT P
NOT Q
Therefore NOT P
Furthermore, there are countless numbers of religious people who acknowledge the evils of the world but still believe in God. These folks have numerous "hacks" to work around this contradiction, e.g., "We cannot understand the workings of God, what appears to be evil is just our mis-understanding the nature of God's goodness", etc, etc.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Before I move on, have I so far described your thinking with reasonable accuracy?
Why do you think I asked about an omnipotent and omniscient person and left off omnibenevolent?
Do you think it was a mistake? It wasn't.
Do you think you can understand me by deciding to change what I said rather than trying to understand why I said it?
If you want to understand someone, do not assume they don't know what they are saying. I mean, you'll never understand anyone if you do that.
I am not you. I do not think like you do. So try and understand why I left off omnibenevolent. Don't assume it was a mistake. Assume I knew exactly what I was doing
If an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being exists then we live in a utopia correct? (because they have all the knowledge and all the power to be good/establish goodness.)
But that is temporal in dynamic. No? So in theory such a being could exist in a world lacking knowledge (ignorance) therefore lacking potency (power) and therfore lacking benevolence (the choice to use knowledge and power for Good).
If this omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being just discovered their power, or was just born today, would it not take time for them to convince others (omniscience and omnipotence) to choose good (omnibenevolece).
As any good argument relies on omnipotency (irrefutable ethical imperative - no one can/ought to deny what's in their own best interests) and omniscience (irréfutable logic/reason- no one can/ought to deny what makes sense/is rational).
So really omnipotence and omniscience can be synthesised with one another into the statement "what's good for you to believe (ethics) and what's logical/rational for you to believe (reason) is harmless to you (benevolent).
That would satisfy all three conditions.
I am only saying these things to work within Bartrick's conceptual definitions. I don't take any of this seriously.
I get your intent now. Carry on haha my bad.
OK, maybe I made a false assumption there.
But without omnibenevolence there is no Problem of Evil. It could simply be that your your omniscient omnipotent person allows evil to exist for her own reasons which are beyond our powers of comprehension.
if the answer is 'no'. then that means that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person wouldn't do it.
See?
Now, this is so basic - so simple - that I think you are just willfully misunderstanding as you find it amusing or something.
This is a valid argument form:
1. Either p or q
2. Not p
3. Therefore q
1. Either change the world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on innocents, or do not introduce innocent life into it.
Do you see how that says 'either p or q'?
do you also see how a proponent (that means defender) of the problem of evil must endorse it?
And do you see how this premise is true in respect of us:
2. We are not going to change the world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on innocents?
And do you see how it now follows that
3. Therefore, do not introduce innocent life into it?
3 is antinatalism.
So, to deny 3 you need to deny 2 or 1.
2 is obviously undeniable
So you have to deny 1.
If you deny 1, then there's no problem of evil. For there would be nothing wrong in introducing life into the world as it is. There would be no obligation on God to change it.
So, if - if - there is a problem of evil for belief in God, then there is also a problem of evil for the belief that procreation is morally persmissible.
On the other hand, if procreation is morally permissible, then there is no problem of evil for GOd.
Now, if at this point you still do not understand me - if the above just sounds like gibberish - then I'm afraid you need to work with your hands for a living and stop trying to do this thinking business: it's not for you.
And right here is where you are going astray. Here is your "p"
Quoting Bartricks
Mr. X is a proponent of the Problem of Evil. Mr X is a person who says that an OOO Being (God) does not exist. But there is nothing inherit in The Problem of Evil that states (or even implies) that Mr X should or must have certain moral beliefs. Mr. X has no opinion as to how this imaginary creature should behave.
Now this is not to say that Mr X is not an anti-natalist. He may or may not be. But his being a proponent of the Problem of Evil has no bearing on his decision.
In other words, your "p" above is false/wrong/incorrect before you even plug it into your equation. You are saying either p must be true or q must be true. And this is simply not the case. As several other people have already noted, both your p and your q are false.
Now, if at this point you still do not understand me - if the above just sounds like gibberish - then I'm afraid you need to work with your hands for a living and stop trying to do this thinking business: it's not for you.
And I also give you the last word in this particular discussion - should you want it.
Do you know what a proponent of the problem of evil is? Do you actually know what you're talking about?
Only individuals are moral agents. Life starting in the universe is not a moral question. The individual choosing to perpetuate it is.
Violence and many other "natural" tendencies have been around long before humans evolved. Does that mean that humans perpetrating violent acts are beyond moral scrutiny? I think not.
So, by what logic do you suggest that an antinatalist viewpoint, that would have the final effect of ending all life in the universe (as you claim all reproduction is immoral without consent, which must include asexual reproduction) is warranted, based on a human constructed morality issue, when you have just accepted that the origin of life, is not a moral issue of consent?
Quoting Tzeentch
Such issues are within the jurisdiction of 'human morality.' The existence of human life in the universe is not within the jurisdiction of human morality. That is the natural imperative you cannot reconcile with your fogged antinatalist thinking.
Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to kill and eat a baby deer?
That is not something I claim.
Quoting universeness
I'm a supporter of "ending all life in the universe" now? You're starting to sound a bit like a clown.
The origin of life is not a moral issue. It's not even related to this discussion.
When individuals (in this case parents) make choices that have major consequences for other individuals (in this case children) that becomes a moral question.
I'm discussing that moral question.
Maybe you need to calm down a little.
Quoting universeness
Nor is it the object of my argument.
Quoting universeness
No.
Do I think it's immoral for a human to kill and eat a baby human?
Yes.
Apparently we hold humans and animals to different standards. Shocking, I know.
Try to be clearer than mud in what you are claiming then.
Which forms of reproduction do you think are moral without the consent of the life which is created?
Quoting Tzeentch
Typed by the person who uses clown logic regularly. If no life reproduces then the universe would have no life. YOU stated that newlife must be consulted before being born. You further stated that such consent is not possible, so, by default human morality, human reproduction is immoral. BUT this must also refer to all unconsulted life Sherlock, or else YOU are cherry-picking, and you have already stated that you disapprove of cherry-picking.
The origin of life is very much related to this discussion as you wish to terminate it, although you seem to not understand that would be the final result of your antinatalist stance.
The moral question you wish to discuss does not exist in the small bubble you are trying to push it into. Antinatalism in all of it's unpalatable flavours, has many implications for all life in this universe. Try to travel outside of your bubble musings now and again. You will encounter much more depth of thought if you do.
You have not typed anything exciting yet, so I remain perfectly calm. Don't confuse my incredulity at your logic with any kind of emotive turbulence you imagine you are causing.
Quoting Tzeentch
Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to reproduce?
If your answer is no, then what intelligence rating would you apply before your antinatalist radar/morality issue kicks in and you ban a particular lifeform from reproduction and cause it to go extinct in time?
Are dolphins safe from your antinatalism proclamations? How about chimpanzees or dogs or cats?
Quoting universeness
I never stated that. You need to read more carefully, and stop the great strawman game.
Quoting universeness
I can do no such thing, nor do I wish it.
Also, how does one terminate something which has already taken place?
Got any more strawmans for us?
Quoting universeness
Humans are the only moral actors.
This is starting to sound a lot like that rejection of morality that I predicted.
Quoting universeness
Then why are you capitalizing every other word, resorting to constant strawmanning, personal attacks and pseudo-psychoanalyzing?
Those are not the actions of a calm person.
Ok then state your position, clearly, now. You can't get the consent of a life not born yet, to be born. You have therefore suggested that the act of having a child is an unacceptable, immoral imposition on the child. You have proclaimed antinatalism as your imperative for solving this terrible injustice.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
Now you refuse to admit to, take responsibility for, and follow the logic of your own argument. If this imposition is fully founded on the fact that you cannot get consent from that which is to be born, then this must apply to all life. No lifeform can obtain such consent, so, your 'no consent, so unacceptable imposition,' morality issue must apply to all life, Including the original appearance of life in this universe.
All you are doing now is trying to squirm away from following your own logic.
Quoting Tzeentch
How shallow of you. Again, I recommend you read Carl Sagan's words about the great demotions.
Quoting Tzeentch
How surprising? YOU, EXAGGERATING!
Quoting Tzeentch
I am responding to your illogical typings. You assign yourself too much personal significance.
I've stated that impositions - 'to force one's will upon another' - are generally regarded as immoral, following common moral principles. Procreation is an imposition.
Procreation seems to be at odds with this principle, and over the last couple of pages I have patiently waited for an logically coherent explanation as to why this should be ok.
So far you have tried:
- It is not a moral question, to which I replied: it certainly is. I don't see how individuals acting in ways that significantly impact other individuals is not a moral question.
- It is moral because if man would not procreate, man would go exitinct - an 'ends justify the means'-type argument.
- It is moral because the individual cares about their "legacy" and "bloodline" - in this argument new humans are instrumentalized to suit individuals' ego-driven vanity projects.
Neither of these mention the well-being of said new humans, which is odd to say the least.
Both arguments instrumentalize the individual for ulterior goals.
Both the second and third arguments are irrational.
The second argument is a moot point, since no human reproduces "for the survival of the species", and even if people did, they have no control over whether the species survives nor do they have a stake in what happens to the species in X years from now since they won't be around to witness it, ergo their preoccupation with the "survival of the species" is irrational. Additionally, it excuses imposition based solely on the idea that the outcome is desirable, which, without any type of explanation, implies that imposition can be excused whenever the imposer considers it would lead to a desirable outcome - 'the ends justify the means' is a notoriously slippery and hypocritical slope.
The third argument about legacy and bloodlines is similarly an 'ends justify the means'-type argument, but in this case the ends are completely selfish - vain ego fantasy. A preoccupation with illusory things like "legacies" and "bloodlines" as though they have some objective value is similarly irrational. Needless to say, that will not do as a basis to attempt to justify imposition.
Quoting universeness
Only human beings are moral actors.
I hope that clears things up.
You get that I totally disagree with this, yes?
Quoting Tzeentch
Do you not see how arrogant your words here are? You are not waiting for a logically coherent argument as to why this should be ok, as posters, including me, have already given you many. How about something like 'You have not found any of the logically coherent arguments presented to you so far, on this issue, compelling.' That would make you appear much less arrogant.
Quoting Tzeentch
You removed the issue of human suffering from your flavour of antinatalism, so what is the imposition you are concerned about?
Your 'end justifies the means complaint,' suggests that the means is something bad and immoral, which is what we are debating, so you are merely attempting to label the process of human procreation as immoral from the outset, which reveals that your approach is bias from the outset.
You are judging every human couple who decides to have children as ego driven and vain and you want others to consider such an argument as rational and I don't think such a position is in any way rational or logical.
You are trying to give precedence to YOUR interpretation of human morality over billions of years of happenstance since the big bang. Which leads to what is, imo, an irrational antinatalist viewpoint.
Human reproduction has a natural imperative which is NOT ONLY to do with mere ego or personal vanity but is more importantly to continue a species and prevent it going extinct.
You can try to handwave that away as much as you like, but you will be, as you have been, unsuccessful.
Quoting Tzeentch
Neither do you, you removed human suffering from your argument so the issue of individual well-being is not under consideration in your antinatalism flavour. YOU took it out. Your concern is about CONSENT (I capitalise here for the value of emphasis rather than as a rebellious act against common netiquette, so try not to feel attacked again, I know that can be a tender spot for you.)
Quoting Tzeentch
This comes across as a cold almost narcissistic viewpoint which I think very few human beings agree with. Most people do care about the future of their own species, regardless of their own oblivion.
This is not a logical argument, it is just a manifestation of your personal misanthropy.
(Btw: Analysis of the psychology of an interlocuter is common in probably all examples of human discourse.)
Quoting Tzeentch
You are just repeating the same arguments over and over again and they dont get any better each time you repeat them. I can do that to, as you have probably noticed. Anyone can do that.
Evolution through natural selection established the 'survival of a species imperative' and there is no intent behind it. Humans did not establish the natural imperative of species survival; they are simply compelled to comply with it. They can overrule it, yes, but there will be prices to pay, including extinction, if they employ something as destructive as antinatalism to their entire species.
Quoting Tzeentch
Again, you just repeat, and I have already responded to the content of the quote above, many times. Others have even offered other varied logical angles against the logic you are employing, but you only respond by repeating your arguments and making very poor attempts to dispel the counter points put to you. That is irrational.
Quoting Tzeentch
Another restatement, which I have already given my opinion on. Shallow and arrogant!
No, but it has helped confirm and further exemplify your irrationality (not a personal insult, just an opinion on your brain fog regarding antinatalism).
What do you make of the situation? Any more insights on offer brother?
Quoting Bartricks
The standard definition of the Problem of Evil requires omnibenevolence. Here is from Wikipedia:
The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God
And here is from Stanford:
God must be a person who, at the very least, is very powerful, very knowledgeable, and morally very good
Stanford is using "morally very good" instead of omnibenevolent, but this does not alter the definition of The Problem of Evil. So starting with this definition, Stanford continues thusly:
This is my understanding of what a proponent of The Problem of Evil believes. And as far as I can tell step #4 requires omnibenevolence (or some equivalent) - and step #4 is essential to the arguement.
But you are asserting that your person/being is NOT omnibenevolent.
Quoting Bartricks
I have been trying to work within your conceptual framework - to figure out what exactly you are saying. Up to now I have not succeeded at this task.
So before going any further, you have to explain how The Problem of Evil works when your person/being is NOT omnibenevolent. It would be helpful if you could supply any references or links.
Thanks Universeness. You're precious. That's exactly what I did and exactly what happened. Oh well, it seems some questions are un-questionable.
I guess we just have to live in a world where all questions are not permissible.
Who knew!?
Onwards with hope I say. There's many ways to "skin a cat" so to speak.
Thanks for your support and suggestions
If I don't agree with the mods, I sometimes send their favourite song lyrics to them along with a related picture:
We arra mods
We arra mods
We are, We are, We arra mods!
!
What's life without whimsy?
Without a wee giggle now and again, we could all turn antinatalist :scream:
Live, Love, Laugh Brother Ben!
Btw, I stole the combination of those three words 'Live, Love, Laugh, from a line in an Al Jolson song from 1926! This song was part of the legacy his life left to people alive almost a hundred years after he recorded this. A great wee song.
Oh, that's rich.
Maybe you should take a look in the mirror sometime.
Quoting universeness
It's irrelevant. Individuals have intentions, and individuals aren't subjected to evolution, natural selection or any "natural imperatives". Your issue is that you're attempting to have a moral discussion about "the human species", but the "human species" as a whole is not a moral agent, and not part of a moral discussion.
I would, if I could get past you hogging all the available space in front of it, admiring yourself.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, they do, and they can, and do, use that intent to reproduce for many reasons, all of which serve the natural imperative of the survival of species. Your moral objection and the consent reason you give for it are not compelling. How many support your position on this thread so far? Maybe you should take a poll.
Quoting Tzeentch
Perhaps you should make yourself clearer here. The human species is made up of individual humans who are moral agents, but you now suggest that they have no moral agency as a totality.
The universe applied no discernible morality or intent towards creating humans. It is from that angle that I refer to the immorality you assign to your lineage of immoral parents, all the way back to the point where life formed in this universe. The logic of your 'blame game' fails miserably as you journey back along that path. In what way does this also suggest that the human species as a totality, has no moral agency?
What makes you think I care? :chin:
I'm not here to convince anyone.
Quoting universeness
Precisely so. Since "the human species" cannot act, intend, etc.; it is not a moral agent. To claim as much is to personify an abstract representation of what is actually a conglomerate of individuals.
Quoting universeness
But individuals do.
Quoting universeness
That's just dictated by logic.
Then you admit you just enjoy preaching; you don't accept the burden of trying to convince others of viewpoints that you think will help them in their lives?
Quoting Tzeentch
No, it's interpreted by YOUR logic. National and International laws are informed by human past and present political debate, which certainly includes morality issues. If we ever unite as a single global species and establish a world government, then planetary law will be informed by human morality.
This would then represent the agency of the entire species. I agree that there would be very few, if any, global laws or moral standpoints which would be fully accepted by every human alive but I think we can still label the likes of a global human law, as having human species agency.
I also think the national or international laws we have now, hold up as examples of the representation of the morality of our species as a totality. 'It is immoral to rape,' for example or 'child abuse is unacceptable and immoral.' These are pretty close to being aspects of the current moral agency of our entire species.
I enjoy testing my ideas. That's the only reason I am here.
Quoting universeness
No, and especially not on a forum filled with strangers. I know nothing of their lives. Imagine the hubris.
Quoting universeness
In philosophy it is of great importance to use accurate language.
All of what you just wrote is generalized (inaccurate) language - shortcuts to convey practical ideas. Useful as practical tools for every day conversation, but not for philosophy.
"The human species" does not think with one mind or acts with one body. It is never a moral agent. Speaking of what "the human species" does or thinks is a gross oversimplification of the huge variety of thoughts and actions by individuals.
Ok, enjoy analysing the feedback.
Quoting Tzeentch
Your choice.
Quoting Tzeentch
I agree with your comments about the importance of the accuracy of language and I have the language skills I have. I have not found your use of language, demonstrates a higher skill level in accuracy that I have. I was a teacher of Computing Science for 30+ years. Philosophy has been around since we came out of the wilds, people philosophise in pubs, clubs and taxis as well as the Egyptian or Greek philosophers every did. I think you might gain more access to the thinking of a wider range of humans, if you stopped trying to paint such an aloof portrait of YOUR interpretation of what philosophy is and who is qualified to engage in it.
Quoting Tzeentch
I think this example of your philosophy is shallow and rather misanthropic. Humans are quite capable of networking and thinking as one, close enough to act as one, in mimicry, of how a single mind might think and act and who knows what future networking level humans might achieve, as we enhance longevity and ability through transhuman technologies.
Posted by another member in the shoutbox, copied and pasted here by me, as I thought they were good examples, relevant to this thread.
In Utero Enzyme-Replacement Therapy for Infantile-Onset Pompe’s Disease
— New England Journal of Medicine; Nov 9, 2022
Rare, deadly genetic disease successfully treated in utero for first time
— Avis Favaro; CTV; Nov 9, 2022
In a First, Doctors Treat a Fatal Genetic Disease Before Birth
— Jonel Aleccia; Time; Nov 10, 2022
Another one
I will always be in awe of such people: applying their intelligence and talents to revolutionising our fight against suffering. I will always commend them, their courage and persistence. Long live the good amongst us.
That's not @Tzeentch argument at all in this current argument. In fact, it wouldn't matter what people do or don't do in terms of technological breakthroughs with his argument about impositions.
The antinatalist viewpoint is a weak jelly, in comparison with such people. Past, present and future.
That doesn't even mean anything.
Don't worry about it, such can never be for you.
I think the problem here is twofold; a) you are a bad faith interlocutor and b) IQ
If we reflect on what an omnipotent, omniscient person ought to do in circumstances X, we then learn what an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person would do in those circumstances.
I will repeat things I've said in the past. You're a smart person and you are obviously well educated in many aspects of philosophy. You are not a troll. I find your ideas bizarrely fantastical and illogical, but I keep trying to figure out what (if any) logic is underlying your posts. This is why I take this step by step approach to try to echo back to you what I think you're saying.
Quoting Bartricks
And here's where you are just not making any sense. In the absence of omnibenevolence there are no constraints on the actions of your person. There is no aught for such a person. Your person is free to do whatever she pleases.
You have not given any explanation or description of (in the absence of omnibenevolence) what an omnipotent, omniscient person ought to do in any circumstance.
I have given you an account of my understanding of The Problem Of Evil and what it means to be a proponent of this problem. You have not done so.
I find it hard to believe that you can re-formulate The Problem of Evil without omnibenevolence, but I keep an open mind. Maybe you have some unique approach. But in the absence of any explanation your argument fails.
If there is no problem of evil then you never even get to your Ps and Qs.
Quoting Bartricks
So one last time, if your argument is to succeed you have to successfully resolve this issue.In the absence of omnibenevolence, how does an omnipotent, omniscient person decide what to do? What ought she do?
Please show us your reasoning.
I don't understand your reasoning. I think you are confusing descriptive claims with normative ones.
Moral constraints do not prevent you from doing things. If it is immoral for me to do X, that doesn't mean I am being somehow prevented from doing it.
Now, again, try and understand the point: if an omnipotent, omniscient person 'ought' to do x, then an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenvolent person 'would' do x. Not because they have do, but because they're omnibenevolent.
So, if an omnipotent, omniscient person ought not to introduce innocent life into a dangerous world without first removing the dangers, then that's what an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person would do.
It really doesn't matter if an omnipotent, omniscient person will, by dint of being omnipotent, also be omnibenevolent, for the same point would apply
Anyway, you seem very confused to me.
Quoting EricH
Again, you're just saying stuff. You have not explained why my argument fails. You have just stated that it does, though you admit that you don't actually understand what I am saying. You don't understasnd why premise 1 of my argument is a premise that any proponent of the problem of evil must endorse, do you?
Now, do you think I don't know what I am talking about? Just out of interest. Do you think I know a lot about the problem of evil, or not much at all?
Premise 1 of my argument states:
Either remove the evils from the world before subjecting innocent persons to live in it, or do not subject innocent persons to live in it.
Now, my claim is that a defender of the problem of evil - so, someone who thinks the evils of the world imply God's non-existence - has to endorse premise 1.
If you think they don't, explain why.
In the Muslim and Jewish traditions God is not omni-benevolent. Yet theodicy still exists; see book of Job. One can be good without omni-benevolence. God lays down the law but he is fundamentally beyond us.
If you just ask if a human had the choice to end all suffering by stopping procreation in some fashion or another then ‘aught they’ do so? Then there is the question of how this would be done.
Antinatalism is merely a thought to ponder not a realistic position to take as we are not omnipotent nor if any being omnipotent ‘exists’ can we shoehorn in human sensibilities.
I've read Job, and I while I am not an expert in these matters I get the basics. But AFAICT that's not what B is saying.
If B had said that a person who believes in God in spite of the problem of evil (either via theodicy or some other explanation) should be an anti-natalist, then that would have made some sense.
In fact that was my initial assumption as to what he was saying, since simply denying God's existence due to the problem of evil does not oblige one to take any moral position about how an imaginary God/person aught to behave. But AFAICT that's not what B is saying. B is saying that by virtue being a proponent of the problem of evil (one who denies God's existence) it logically follows that such a person must also be an antinatalist.
However, as if that weren't illogical enough, B goes one step further and asserts that the problem of evil does not require omnibenevolence. I have asked B to explain this, but he keeps repeating that it's obvious and that I'm not getting it.
Dear Professor B,
This week's homework assignment in Philosophy 101 was to explain the problem of evil. I went back to the primary sources and here is my understanding of the standard definition:
1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is omnibenevolent, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
Please grade my homework. If I have gotten anything wrong, please correct me.
Your humble student,
EricH
Write out hundred times: I will answer the question set and not an easy one of my own invention.
Then answer the actual question. You are not a promising student.
I cannot answer your question set until you explain how YOU define/explain the problem of evil (POE) and what it means to be a proponent of this problem.
Just to recap where we are in this discussion:-
- You have stated that omnibenevolence is not required for the POE.
- This does not even remotely correspond with any standard definition of the POE.
Now maybe there is some formulation of the problem within the writings of one of the medieval philosophers about which you are highly knowledgeable - or - maybe you have your own explanation.
But either way, you need to clarify your question before it can be answered.
1) How do you define/explain the POE without omnibenevolence?
2) What does it mean to be a proponent of this problem?
3) In what way does your definition require that a proponent of the POE must agree with AN?
In the course of our conversation I have asked you these same questions multiple times in a variety of different ways, but for some reason you choose not to answer them. This I do not understand, but I am still trying.
BTW - if you are realizing that you made a mistake and you now agree that the POE does require omnibenevolence, I will not hold it against you to change your mind.
if you can't understand why a proponent of the problem of evil has to accept this principle
Quoting Bartricks
Then I'm afraid I consider you the intellectual equal of the crow that is currently strutting about on the lawn outside. I think you're just trying to be annoying.
You can't begin to explain, can you, why you think a proponent of the problem of evil does not have to endorse that principle? Like I say, you haven't a clue - not a clue - what you're talking about. You don't understand the problem of evil or anything I have said. It's just noise, yes?
If you can't understand that without omnibenevolence there is no problem of evil, then I'm afraid I consider you the intellectual equal of the crow that is currently strutting about on the lawn outside. I think you're just trying to be annoying.
You can't begin to explain, can you, how the problem of evil requires omnibenevolence? Like I say, you haven't a clue - not a clue - what you're talking about. You don't understand the problem of evil or anything I have said. It's just noise, yes?
You have failed. Like I say, you're a bad faith interlocutor and then there's the IQ thing.
This is my last exchange to you on this topic. It's been most revealing.
It has revealed that you do not understand the problem of evil. Or how to reason.
You think that there is no inconsistency in thinking that God could have introduced innocent life into this world without removing any of its evils and not thereby have done anything wrong and also thinking that God would not introduce innocent life into a world like this without first removing some or all of its evils as that'd be wrong. That's quite something. Good job! What an excellent thinker you are.
Again: someone who thinks that the problem of evil is a problem is someone who thinks that principle is true:
Quoting Bartricks
You can't see why. That's somewhat astonishing, given how blindingly obvious it is. But it doesn't affect the matter.
You can pretend to know what you do not know but I do not see how such is at all relevant as a foundation to build a argument from. As a place to explore from and create new ideas … maybe there is something there for someone with an extremely open mind and/or a more fluid interpretation of the terms used.
People often get offended by antinatalism, as a position, rather than antinatalism as an idea. The former appears as a personal dogma whereas the later is merely a place to think about what it means to bring life into the world, how we were brought into the world and how we can apply/should/might apply terms such as ‘responsibility,’ ‘ethics’ and ‘innocence’.
This has all been pointed out to you before though and remains unanswered, ignored and/or attacked with vitriol.
Antinatalism is certainly an idea worthy of contemplation. As a doctrine to be applied to a humanitarian lived life it has no foundation. Believing that procreation is not the best idea is fine too. Trying to provide ‘ethical’ evidence for it is complete nonsense though.
It may or may not be ‘better’ not to live a life (assuming such can be judged by some hypothetical omnipotent being) but we as mere human beings have sparing insight into that we cannot do more than attach a highly sceptical and unrealised concept to - the concept of ‘omnipotence’.
Would you enjoy having bar tricks as one of your teachers?
:scream: Perhaps why many decided to skip certain classes!
Antinatalism IS an ethical idea that that is what is being contemplated. There are many arguments of various takes on the matter. Why wouldn't it be any different than other human behavior in its evaluation as an ethical question?
An ethical idea can be turned over without it being taken as wholly applicable to real lived lives - like with the trolly problem.
There are no real ethical arguments. They are just positions to consider and jostle with because there is no way of drawing a clear line under some item that is universally right or wrong. Antinatalism as an idea is on par with the trolley problem it is just dressed up differently.
It's fair play to fire some arrows back in the direction they are coming from towards yourself or towards others unjustly.
But thanks for the support. :pray:
:up:
A proponent of the problem of evil must believe this disjunctive moral principle is true:
1. Either remove the evils from the world before subjecting innocent persons to live in it, or do not subject innocent persons to live in it.
EricH can't understand why this is, but that's why he has to eat everything with a plastic spoon.
Now, in respect of us this premise is also true:
2. We are unable to remove the evils from the world before subjecting innocent persons to live in it
From which it follows:
3. Therefore do not subject innocent persons to live in it.
Now totally ignore the argument and say some stuff that occurred to you while you looked at it. That seems to be the policy of most around here.
It's a highly significant argument. Why? Because loads and loads of philosophers - probably the bulk - would agree that the problem of evil is a significant problem for the existence of God.
Yet none of them have noticed that this commits them to affirming antinatalism.
One could run the argument in the other direction of course. One could argue that as it is clearly morally permissible for us to procreate despite our inability to rid the world of its evils, then it is not wrong for God to subject innocents to life in it either.
But either way, we have something of an earthquake: either most philosophers have to accept that the strongest objection to theism fails, or most philosophers have to accept that antinatalism is true.
I know that people overtly fond of the antinatalist idea do not wish death and extinction on the human race, but at the same time they effectively are shifting towards that result if procreation itself is regarded as propagating ‘evil’.
The ‘buddhist’ belief is more or less that it is a lie that life must contain some suffering … this is perhaps partially true but it depends exclusively on how one defines and delineates ‘suffering’ and ‘evil’.
If the base argument you are offering up is simply that people born will inevitably ‘suffer’ to some degree then I cannot disagree. I would also add that ‘suffering’ is tied into learning, change and growth so one either opts for change, learning and potential growth or they opt for oblivion and death … that is where any serious dogmatic application of antinatalism falls down.
As a means of questioning our existence it is a worthy idea to ponder on and see where our personal sense of responsibility lies.
It is not at all clear cut to everyone what the difference between ending a life, taking a life or even defining what ‘life’ is in the first place. That is why there is so much contention around items such as abortion and euthanasia.
Surely you know what I am on about now and why it is an intrinsic part of what antinatalism is bringing into question. What can we do about suffering? Yet, why not ask if we should look to eradicate suffering completely if the price paid is effectively the end of all life now and in the future? Clearly there is a wide area of middle ground that for some reason is difficult for us to realise and explore.
Depends on a lot more than you are saying. First off, many arguments being made here are ones about impositions. What kind of impositions are acceptable if at all? Procreation is problematic as it isn’t just a gift but comes with many burdens and can never be consented. One cannot get out of this universe’s setup to some better one, and even if one thinks they’d rather not comply with this world’s standards, limited choices of how to survive, and harms one must endure, self-harm/suicide is still a big enough fear that it’s not a realistic option as just a casual and accessible alternative. It would be gaslighting to and wrong to even use that as an excuse for why life “must be good then”.
At the end of the day, is it acceptable to create impositions onto others unnecessarily that are significant and not easily escaped? The only way out is ITSELF a significant traumatic harm to the person (death) or the only way out is to comply. Comply or die seems to then be the only two alternatives.
If this world always ended up being a utopia, individualized for every individual- where even the “boredom” of everything being good was not in the equation, we’d perhaps be having a different argument. Then truly it was purely a gift with no burdens or other agendas. But life isn’t just that and so there’s always some excuse as to why someone else needs to be burdened.
The question of whether it is better to abstain from procreation may have some credit to it but even then I cannot fathom how we can say one way or another given that our scope and understanding of life is rather limited.
To argue not to have have children is an action that may or may not reduce ‘suffering’. We are in no position to say with any real authority what is ‘better’ only to make personal judgements that sit well with us as an individual among other individuals.
We do not consent to breath, nor do we think about breathing every second of the day, yet this does not necessarily mean we are forced to ‘comply’. There are certain situations where the term ‘comply’ can be readily applied but I cannot see how you can bring me to agree that ‘comply’ applies to living a life. It just does not make sense to use that term here. I can understand why you can, with some force, make it appear as wholly applicable to ‘living’ but it is just a term used loosely and no matter how hard it is forced it does not hold up for me.
Just wrong/error in thinking because this isn’t addressing that consent cannot be had. That doesn’t negate this fact. Just because it’s post facto also doesn’t negate it. It is the non ANs that have to address the issue. it’s not simply handwave it away as inevitable. Someone ELSE made the decision on behalf of someone. That is the fact of the matter.
Quoting I like sushi
This is not addressing the argument from imposition that @Tzeentch and I have been presenting.
Quoting I like sushi
Comply means here, having to do the actions necessary to survive in a social setting. You cannot live by simply being, you must do certain things you might otherwise not have wanted to do. Your only recourse if you don’t like ANY of the options is to kill your self- hence comply or die.
Your definition of what is means to ‘live’ simply does not fit with my understanding of what ‘life’ is. This cannot be resolved so any disagreement is moot because they do not even start on the same footing because neither of us is willing to give up such key terms and neither see enough flexibility, in terms of being generous with these terms, to make much headway.
If we can at least agree that the conflict between our views is due to having almost entirely oppositional uses of terms like ‘life,’ ‘living’ and ‘comply’ then that is good enough for me. That is how I see it.
Antinatalism is an interesting item to explore. I wish the mods would not be so silly and lump several completely differing points together making it more than difficult to tease out what each person is trying to communicate.
Thanks for your responses :)
I don't think parents believe they are responsible for the things they are causing.
Scary. Either they think they are responsible for things they haven't caused or they think they aren't responsible for anything at all. Glad I'm not a parent.
There’s always a starting point from which one is trying to overcome. Buddhists and mystics will say this life is an illusion. Yet why is there an overcoming of the illusion in the first place? At that point it’s word games. The overcoming points to a real situation. That situation (the supposed illusion) came about through a cause- reproduction.
Here is one way of framing the argument I was going to make.
Premise 1: You cannot be responsible for something you didn't cause
Premise 2: You didn't cause your own existence
Premise 3: Your actions are caused by what caused your existence
Conclusion your parents are responsible for your actions because they caused you existence
However this leads to the ad absurdum that no one is responsible for their actions because of their parents actions.
We are all not here by consent. But I want to differentiate between the responsibility of the person creating human life and the person who never creates another human life.
I usually resort to a notion of causal responsibility. Your parents caused you which caused your actions. It might not be a moral responsibility but they were a causal necessity for your actions. Nevertheless in a purely causal deterministic world their actions were forced by their parents actions.
Is there a way to frame all this to something beneath the concepts involved like a mathematical equation?
Yes, life happened in this universe without intent, so that happenstance has no moral component.
By imposition vis-à-vis life do you mean no one was/is/will be asked whether s/he wishes to be born?
It is impossible indeed.
Yep, that be impossibile!
I was wondering @schopenhauer1, how subjective is pain & pleasure?
Good question :up:
Any reasoning on whether people should live or not per se is beyond me. Sometimes I hate myselt and humanity and sometimes i love those two groups. Cant make up my mind. But 2, thats a good sound limit.
I mean the following:
A) Imposition- foisting one's will onto another.
B) Imposition- creating a burden for another.
Both of these definitions can apply here. In the case of the utopia example, the absence of B makes the the case a bit murkier, but this existence never has a case where there is not B, it it wouldn't matter. In my argument I had three things here:
1) The range of choices are limited to the physical-cultural arrangements of this existence and circumstances of time and place. This was assumed to be an appropriate set of choices for another.
2) Known harms are assumed to be enough for others to endure.
3) Unknown harms are simply had by a person through collateral damage of being born. The parent knows there are unknowns but they can't say what they are.
2 and 3 are certainly a violation of B.
1 may seem to not be a violation of B, but besides just the fact one is imposing one's own will (A), the fact that the choices are limited to what existence currently has to offer, B is still relevant too in that the choices may not be wanted if otherwise one could choose so. A and B are violated in all three parts of the argument.
It doesn't matter as far as I am concerned, towards the imposition (comply or die) argument.
Parents have a responsibility; true, they're imposing themselves on their kids. A reasonable person wouldn't bring children into the world. Why start families at all?
Are you sure?
You tell me. As long as life is non utopian for that individual, the question becomes irrelevant as to whether it is objective or subjective. I am not making an argument of good or bad, but whether someone should create an imposition on others. I refer you then back to my previous response
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/760143
I agree that life on Earth is not an idylic Garden of Eden, but as you implied, we human care-takers are assiduously working to improve a less-than-perfect situation. We haven't eradicated suffering and unequal distribution of benefits, but Philosophical Pessimism is not going to produce a Utopia. On another thread, I've been engaged with pessimists in a Science vs Religion debate. Whereas most Religions put their faith in all-powerful gods or nature spirits to alleviate their suffering, modern Science is learning to control the vicissitudes of nature directly via Technology. Even so, some posters remain pessimistic in the face of implacable & all-powerful thermodynamic Entropy driving the world toward destruction. However, I am endorsing Enformy*1 as an inherent positive counter-agent to Entropy.
I'm not sure who you are referring to as "new age positivists", but most New Age religions are still relying on Nature to fix its own shortcomings in human relations. On the other hand, modern ecologists, both science-based and religiously-motivated, are espousing a return to human caretakers working hand-in-hand with Nature to keep the Garden and its inhabitants healthy. Unlike the anthro-morphic gods who supposedly answer prayers, Nature/Entropy seems to be deaf to human pleas. However, impassive Nature is inherently balanced between positive & negative forces as it evolves toward more complexity and intelligence. So, you could say that Nature has bred its own race of gardeners. :smile:
*1. Enformy :
"My own interpretation of Enformed history is not based on divine revelation. Yet I remain somewhat optimistic that the self-organizing natural force of Enformy will prevail over disorganizing Entropy in the end (Omega Point)."
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13862/the-self-under-materialism
*2. Ecologist :
a person who studies the relationship between living things and their environment.
Well, I just wanted to raise the issue of positivism as the antithesis of Philosophical Pessimism. In that positivists seem to have a strong desire to alter brute suffering and lack that some of us have experienced in our daily lives.
The new age positivists label was directed at entrepreneurship and huge stores of money in Silicon Valley to alleviate said lack and suffering, through technology.
Quoting 180 Proof
The question seems incoherent. As I posted elsewhere, pessimism is an attitude. So, for some pessimists who view reality with dukkha and all the suffering of the world or even the senseless samsara that we undergo, until we break through the karmic cycle, then no matter what kind of progress technology has to provide they probably wouldn't change their attitude. I say it is an attitude because Buddhists don't fall into that mood for example. Furthermore, it also seems that if what the Philosophical Pessimists profess as hard truths or brute facts about reality, then doesn't that make their point universal?
Quoting 180 Proof
Yet, the Buddhists didn't just advocate complacency with dukkha, they professed non-attachment to desiring things or goods that we hear from self-help gurus from the Eastern tradition.
Quoting 180 Proof
Progress, as defined wouldn't solve the issue but alleviate the degree to which it is apparent in ones condition.
I mean, I agree.
But as you well know, some people aren't born with "reality-agreeing" lenses and choose the "rosy-picture" one instead and remain with them.
My intuition is that pessimism (which I share many sympathies with) is very much person dependent. Some people are more predisposed to such views, others are not.
And in the latter case, existential dread is at most covered by an hour long visit to the church on Sundays - if that.
Interesting. Probably right. I sometimes wonder if there is intellectual pessimism and emotional pessimism. Personally I have usually taken pessimism for a disposition. Generally my answer to existential angst has been the same as Pablo Casals', "The situation is hopeless, we must take the next step.' Is this just a version of Camus' insistence that we must see Sisyphus as happy? Even pessimism comes with choices.
I'd guess that it depends on how hard-wired the pessimism is on that particular person. If it's not too deep, then surely Sisyphus could simply go up the mountain and enjoy the view and forget about the bolder for a while.
If it's more deep-seated, you still have options, but they're drastically reduced. Which further feeds into the whole pessimistic scenario. It has its own logic and lived experience can be a very powerful force in terms of how deeply felt such feelings are held.
True that.
Reasons for philosophical pessimism
1. Suffering (greatly) exceeds happiness
2. The universe on the whole and even our dear ol' planet earth is on the whole anti-life; imagine having to navigate a boobytrapped übercomplex maze.
3. Life is meaningless
As the OP correctly identifies, these hard facts mirror the Buddha's distillation of what life is in the 4 Noble Truths (dukkha). It's quite odd that the pessimism that prevailed in 500 bC ancient India rang true in 17[sup]th[/sup] century Europe and that it still makes sense to be pessimistic in the 21[sup]st[/sup] century. Not much has changed then, oui?
This, however, may be a mistake, one that is all too easy to make. There's been a sea change in our circumstances - science and technology have drastically reduced suffering and that's not all, the duo has promised even greater prizes such as ... :zip: not a word, ya hear! ... resurrection, immortality, mind uploading, etc.
To get right to the point then, there are problems, but a few of them if not all at some point seem remediable. Pessimism then is a defeatist attitude - it fails to take into account the subtleties and nuances of the problem of suffering and also the solutions.
The problem of burdens in the first place. Forced situations that one would otherwise not have wanted to deal with. We are always put in a deprivation to get out of. That doesn't go away due to economic circumstances. Also, if this is considered "ideal" state of being, then maybe we should reassess how we are measuring the situation at hand.
.
@Shawn why do you bring this topic of philosophical pessimism up every so often in this forum? I am the only one who identifies as one here so it is oddly pointed, even if broadcast to "everyone".
@Baden if you want to be consistent, you should probably throw this in the Antinatalist thread bin where you merged the "Life Sucks" thread. If you are going to be thorough about the more recent policies against philosophical pessimism and antinatalism threads, do it consistently.
Gracias, I was finding it difficult to explain pessimism in the modern world after what I wrote in my last post. Suffering is no longer a viable reason, it has lost its force as a convincing justification, for pessimism as the OP suggests and I concur (statistics clearly show an upward trend in overall well-being).
This, to me, weakens your forced-to-play-the-game argument. The game is (going to be a whole lot of) fun! Who wouldn't want to play; nevertheless, choice is a basic sentient right. Even if I were to be taken to paradise, I would prefer to be asked "paradise, yes/no? A quick question though: Would you rather be offered a cake even when you don't want it or would you prefer not to be asked at all, whether you would like some cake?
How is this either empirically or ethically justified?
Quoting Agent Smith
Having X amount of technology doesn’t a paradise make.
Quoting Agent Smith
I’d rather the option to decline the cake, and if the cake came with limiting choices to just cake and then causing a plethora of harms…not even ethical to give that cake.
These don’t deserve independent threads remember?
I agree this - what we have here at the moment - is for sure not paradise. You forgot to mention progress with regard to the problem of suffering - life expectancy for example went up from, what?, 40s to now 70s (global average) and how long you live is a pretty good measure of well-being if you ask me. You shouldn't ignore this proven fact if you base your argument on dukkha, oui?
Like I admitted, it's hard to disagree with your forced-to-play-the-game argument. It is, how shall I put it?, the little fly in the ointment, the David that brings Goliath down. However, it just dawned on me, pessimists/antinatlists, for the exact same reason, can't advocate for abstaining from having children. They, in this case, are being forced-not-to-play-the-game, oui monsieur? It seems we're at an impasse. The card you've always been playing is not exactly to your advantage.
Not really. It’s a measure of something but not what is the case with human suffering.
Quoting Agent Smith
There is no “they” prior to existence being forced into anything. The parent is deciding to impose something and that is what is relevant.
There was also no one there to ask for consent to life. Just as there is no one there for consent to non-life.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What would be a good measure of human suffering then?
The innovative & pioneering & super-rich entrepreneurs (go-getters), including Elon Musk, do indeed seem to be optimistic about their technological innovations improving life conditions for all of mankind. But their risk-taking positive attitude may be based on a "trickle down" economic theory, in which the rich get richer and the poor get less-poor. But, in practice the 1 or 2% at the top get richer faster than the 98%, upon whose shoulders they are standing . That's why political progressives are impatient with the long wait for signs of progress at the bottom of the pyramid.
Regarding the question of "better for whom", abstract statistics seem to tell a different story from emotional politics. Gradual natural evolution took 13 billion years to get us to the point of primitive human culture. Since then, various technologies have been incrementally chipping away at the inequities of the economic pyramid. However, because human societies seem to be inherently hierarchical*1, instead of egalitarian, we may never reach the ideal of total eradication of poverty & suffering. But, we should be grateful for any changes that put more power in the hands of people-in-general to control their own conditions of life.
The site linked below*2 provides statistics on progress using various measures : economic status, literacy, health, mortality, etc. Unfortunately, the charts are typically based on raw population numbers, instead of percentages of the global community. Also, Steven Pinker's Skeptical Inquirer article, Progressophobia*3, provides lots of reasons for informed optimism, instead of news headline pessimism regarding social progress.
Admittedly, it's mostly those near the peak of the socio-economic pyramid who feel optimistic about their own future, and for the trickle-down improvement for all of mankind : "better living through technology"*4. Those near the bottom typically require some kind of supernatural promises, or a turtle-shell shield like meditation. So, it may be up to us philosophically-inclined thinkers to focus on the long-term evolution of human culture, and for short-term Stoicism, to keep us keeping-on toward the goal of improvement in living conditions for our fellow men. :smile:
*1. Human Hierarchy :
The presence of a drive for dominance is clearly present in humans and has been documented through various psychological constructs.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/dominance-hierarchy
*2. STATISTICAL EVIDENCE FOR PROGRESS ON POVERTY
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/12/23/14062168/history-global-conditions-charts-life-span-poverty
*3. Progressophobia :
Why Things Are Better Than You Think They Are
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/05/progressophobia-why-things-are-better-than-you-think-they-are/
*4. Better living through technology :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Living_Through_Chemistry
Are you familiar with any of Schopenhauer’s philosophy?
A Sanskrit word meaning 'axel hole'.
The philosophical up-shot of dukkha is that off-center axel holes can be fixed.
Philosophical pessimists, riding (not trudging along with the peasants and cattle) would rather complain about the annoying thud which accompanies every turn of the wheel then get the fuck off the wagon and fix the damned axel hole.
Pragmatists have a positive, practical view that bad axel holes can be fixed.
Quoting Shawn
WTF?
Quoting Shawn
Hey, I like a Mac, iPhone, or iPad as much as the next consumer, but let's not get carried away with paeans to Silicon Valley. [paean = song of praise] Technogurus are hired hotshots who think of things to sell, NOT sustain and improve our lives.
I like the Economist; it's a good source of information, but it isn't the Oracle of Delphi. Of course it takes an upbeat tone when talking about Silicon Valley. It's pro-capitalism. Surprise, surprise.
Quoting Shawn
Unlike the funny characters in a Monte Python sketch, digging in the mud who pause to discuss political philosophy. we are more or less programmed to keep on keeping on. It's the needs of the organism that drive us onward, not philosophy--that comes after we have made it to a safe harbor and can pause to philosophize.
Thanks for the report. I'll look into it. Next time you can send a PM though.
As you say, the topic was directed at everyone and didn't have anything to do with antinatalism, go figure.
We put his "series on pessimism" in here, so you are the sacrificial lamb of consistency.
I honestly do not think life is getting worse. Progress, is a difficult measure to calculate and there doesn't seem to be a lack of it. I also doubt that trickle-down economics works by any measure. Elon Musk is addressing some hard problems nowadays, with neuroimplats that will possibly enable a person to walk again or solve depression for the depressed
Regarding progressives, I live in a highly progressive state that is handing out money to build shelter for homeless people, and direct funding for the bottom of the economic spectrum. So, I have no doubt that things are getting better for those who are most in need in my corner of the world.
I might start a thread inspired by your post regarding, How do we define progress? I hope you can join.
Sorry to hear about that. He must be angry.
My personal philosophical worldview, Enformationism, is not exactly Pollyanna optimism, but it does have a positive outlook, based on the evidence for upward-trending cosmic complexification, due to the self-organizing ability of Nature. Moreover, one offspring of Nature : human Culture, in modern times, is accelerating the progression of life-sustaining organization -- even as it creates more ways to dominate each other.
From that pragmatic perspective, things are looking-up. But, for me personally, my economic status varies with the general economy of the US, and in step with worldwide recessions and booms. So, my Stoic attitude gets me by whenever I'm scraping the bottom of the economic middle class. Compared to the "huddled masses", though, I have no reason to complain. :smile:
PS__I just noticed the new heading for this thread. So, I see that some on this forum don't share my Stoic optimism that, if we learn to control our unruly emotions, Reason will forge a path to a better life. But, some of us seem to be so depressed by life's imperfections that species suicide is an attractive option.
Doe it not include suffering & (premature) death in reasons why life sucks?
Also, go on anti-depressants if necessary because a lot of times people unfortunately can't will themselves to stop being depressed due to it apparently involving biological factors in their brain or something like that.
Even if one doesn't want to personally raise children, one can still have them and then give them up for adoption in the form of an open adoption. But of course this is easier to do for women than for men. A man would need to hire a surrogate and use an egg donor for this (in order to be the child's sole legal parent so that he could subsequently unilaterally give the resulting child(ren) up for adoption), and even Mexican surrogates cost a lot of money for Americans. One would be expected to spend tens of thousands of one's own money in order to improve the future human gene pool, and that's too altruistic to expect from most anti-natalist/childfree people. I myself might not mind doing this if I actually had the money for this, though. I'm a huge fan of *voluntary* eugenics.
Idiocracy
Totally missing the point of most antinatalists' stance against creating suffering for future generations. Also, a lot of ANs aren't even consequentialists. There is something about being aggressively paternalistic and creating suffering and choices on behalf of others for X cause that violates deontological principles.
And are a lot of anti-natalists from financially well-off backgrounds? If so, then that means that their kids are likely to suffer less than normal children. Unless I suppose the anti-natalists just beat them up to a bloody pulp or something, but that would be against anti-natalists' ethical code since anti-natalists want to *prevent* suffering.
From at least two perspectives, this is not a good moral justification. One reason it’s not is that not being born means no person experienced the collateral damage of “no joy”. No one is sitting in nothingness regretting no joy. However, collateral damage is created the other way. When someone is born there is always at least some regrettable harms that will befall people- sometimes (and not infrequently) quite burdensome for that person.
It is also simply a violation and an insensitivity to the dignity and worth of the person you are procreating to assume on behalf of another person, that they need to live the X number of years of limited choices that this game of life offers and that they need to experience known and unknown harms. It assumes this game (the limited survival game of this life) is what another person must experience and play. This stance is “aggressively paternalistic” in that it assumes one can and should create unnecessary harms and assumes choices for other people. Rather, prior to the potential child’s birth, is one time when one can perfectly follow the non-harm principle, and not have to mitigate greater violations of harm for lesser ones. One can perfectly follow the duty to not unnecessarily cause harm to others.
One would be using the other person and violating their dignity by indeed causing unnecessary harm, and for x cause (even to see the possibility of a happy child). The overlooking of the harm caused, for X result is indeed violation of someone’s dignity in this situation where no one needed to be caused harm in the first place and where no one needed to assume for another what set of choices is appropriately “good” for others to have. With this last point I might elaborate that perhaps this life’s set of choices is not one they would have chosen. Perhaps this games limited ways of surviving of being in the world would have been less optimal than their preference. The assumption that other self-reflective beings would agree that the parameters of this world are what they would have chosen is aggressively paternalistic. Indeed even if someone experiences joy (whether frequently/deeply or not) might still regret many aspects of this particular setup. They may have preferred a world where survival through work/labor (or otherwise destitution, free-riding, hacking it in wilderness, and death) are not the de facto parameters.
This argument strikes me as at best indentured servitude to a hypothetical or slavery to a hypothetical at worst. Am I off the mark?
"You must exist and suffer because some hypothetical beings might have it better as a result."
Slave owners had it better than their slaves.
Hi. Welcome to the forum. Agent Smith is no longer on the forum, so you won't get a response from him.
A little history for you—The moderators here on the forum decided to lump all anti-natalism discussions into this one thread because they annoy some people. I mean the threads annoy some people, not the moderators. Well, the moderators annoy people too. So, anyway, you might find yourself responding to posts that are really old. Also—if you start a new anti-natalism thread, the moderators will likely move it here without telling you.
For your information—@schopenhauer1 is our resident anti-natalism expert.
Yeah I think I agree here. The argument was:
Quoting Xanatos
My response was basically:
It is immoral to be aggressively paternalistic- that is to say, to assume
a) others should experience a certain existential arrangement that you deem as good (like having to survive in this universe in some socio-economic way)
b) causing known harms (you know this is part of almost all human lives)
c) causing unknown harms (you know of harms that you cannot predict)
All of these assumptions would be violating the dignity of the person, as forced choices and forced, unnecessary (avoidable) harm was caused on behalf of someone else when this situation could have been avoided (by not procreating).
So my argument rests on deontological considerations of duties towards others not to violate their dignity or use them.
Xanatos also implied that it is okay to do X negative to someone (that could have been avoided) as long as it is with the intention or the hunch that the person being harmed would appreciate it post-facto. Using someone, by causing avoidable harms unto someone, EVEN with the intention that they will have positive experiences from it as well, is still a violation of dignity, the violation of not using people, and a violation of the principle of doing no harm.
Once born, the situation changes whereby there is no WAY to both live and avoid harm and pursue interests. It would in fact be a violation to prevent certain goals and such that might cause harm because the person born now has interests, values, and such. At that post-birth stage, it becomes using heuristics whereby one respects the goals, values, and worth of others while still trying best to exercise ones own will.
However, prior to birth, this is the only time someone (a potential parent) can avoid doing harm 100% towards someone else (by not procreating a child that will be forced and harmed). Thus, really, the decision to not procreate is one of the only ethical decisions where someone can "perfectly" follow the rule of not causing avoidable harm, not using someone, and not violating someone else's dignity by forcing your will on their behalf.
I could not disagree more, and suggest you read more of the posts of @DA671
Good people have such thrusted upon them. Your judgement of yourself is often not as important as how others might judge you. In my opinion your views are far far more balanced, and show more insight, into the very fringe issue of anti-life(natalism), compared to posters such as schopenhauer1.
Now you're just looking to start an argument. Let's share a meat pie instead.
:grin: Forfar or Killie?
Mull.
:roll: Another non-existent who's followers you pander to! Only Kiddin! Put down the gun/Killie pie, and walk away slowly! :fear:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13310/antinatalism-arguments/p1
I think Mr Schop1 has been able to sneak in a few new antinatalist threads since the move the mods made to put them all under 1 title.
Quoting Benj96
I have made a similar point many times when discussing antinatalism. Life existing in the universe is, has, and always will be, a natural consequence of very large variety in every combination possible and my main evidence, is the fact that it has already happened that way.
The antinatalists on TPF don't seem to be concerned with the general existence of 'life' in the universe, they just think that the best cure for human suffering, is no more humans, it's as banal and irrational as that.
In the words of Winston Churchill, "Eat it raw, fuzz nuts."
I don't think so. Assuming that the occasional joys of life do not justify or compensate for life's inexorable and useless suffering, antinatalism proposes that it's better not to be born in the first place, and failing that, therefore, we who are already born and suffer should not breed any more generations of 'innocents' who will uselessly suffer as we have and do. For the antinatalist, it's (hypothetical) never-borns which are "better off", not "the dead" (especially since the prospect of an 'afterlife' remains an open question – perhaps the dead can suffer?! (which is, for some, another precautionary / paranoid reason not to breed)).
Btw, I'm an antinatalist in principle – at least until a viable mode of Abolitionism is invented – but not by policy (i.e. ideology). I am far more concerned with reducing the suffering of actual already-borns (naturalized ethics) than preserving the 'hypothetical bliss' of never-borns (speculative inexistence).
Don't get over-excited auld yin! :lol: Yer nuts will shrivel even mair than they already huv!
I understand. You never have been one to speak out about what's fair and what's not.
One topic, only needs one soap box.
Well that's a strawman based on a mischaracterization of the argument. I believe 180 Proof already addressed this though.
You are bringing up every anti-antinatalist fallacy there is and that I have dismantled over the years. The latest argument is here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14291/the-ethics-of-burdening-others-in-the-name-of-personal-growth-when-is-it-justified/p1
If I do something that burdens you but also brings you joy, that doesn't excuse burdening you, especially when I can't get your consent, de facto. It’s breaking a deontological principle of making burdens for other people, and deciding for another what burdens another person should endure. It’s creating the problem that another person has to solve but it did not have to be made in the first place.
This argument is specious and a strawman. It is not about "living or dead" but living and "not yet born", huge difference. One has a potential to actually come into existence, and that choice is indeed made by those who are already born. And what of it? This seems like a red herring point. The people already alive are deciding for others what kind of burdens they should endure. See my response above. Also, gambling with people's lives is not so great either. Not existing hurts nobody. No one is obligated to create joy, preventing harm however, is something. Also, creating joy with incumbent burdens is not a purely good act, and creates harm on top of the intended good. See my thread about creating burdens unnecessarily, with no mitigating reason for that person being affected.
This might be the worst argument when debating antinatalism. Not starting a life and preventing harm for a future person, and not killing yourself are two separate things. Just because upon birth, people don't immediately jump off a cliff, doesn't mean that one is caused harm. Fear of death, etc. are a very real thing. This is the worst strawman.
Is this a joke? This is like a parody of a bad natalist argument. Antinatalists don't believe people should be kill themselves! So uncharitable I'm not even going to take this further. Go back and read what antinatalism really believes. Read some proper philosophers like David Benatar even or Gerald Harrison! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#:~:text=Antinatalism%20or%20anti%2Dnatalism%20is,humans%20should%20abstain%20from%20procreating. Come back when you at least know what you are debating.
It is about causing suffering/harm/negatives on behalf of others. This can be both negative utilitarian and deontological for NOT violating the principle of harm and autonomy. But also creating the least amount of harms, with no consequences to an ACTUAL person (see Benatar).
This is the naturalistic fallacy. "Mother Earth" does a lot of things that don't fall into the ethical realm.
My suggestion is at least to read some of my past discussions on this. You can look them up in my profile if you'd like. They go back pretty far. I've seen every argument you can think of, so be careful what you want to rehash. It's been said, believe me.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13246/trouble-with-impositions
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13574/series-in-pessimism-you-can-resign-a-game-and-move-on
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13543/series-in-pessimism-we-can-never-know-what-sustains-us
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13118/marxism-and-antinatalism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12594/pessimisms-ultimate-insight
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13027/this-existence-entails-being-morally-disqualifying
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11847/what-would-be-considered-a-forced-situation
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11469/the-most-people-defense
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10842/willy-wonkas-forced-game
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7092/what-justifies-a-positive-ethics-as-opposed-to-a-negative-one
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5981/schopenhauers-deprivationalism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5098/procreation-and-its-central-role-in-political-theory
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4121/reproduction-is-a-political-act
There is a significant use in contemplating how your actions effect others and your personal motivations for having children.
"that I have dismantled over the years."
This is how delusional some antinatalists are.
You are attempting to use rational argument against fundamentalist style ossification.
The continued existence of humanity and it's future expansion into space, is the best answer to antinatalists. The best aspect of the antinatalist position, is if the human race ever does go extinct, for whatever reason, we wont have to ever endure their exclamations of 'we told you so,' as they will all be extinct.
They are an utter irrelevance, to the vast vast majority of people deciding whether or not to have children.
I have NEVER heard any young couple say 'well we chose to not have children, because of the global power of the antinatalist movement.' :lol: I don't think I ever will hear such!
This topic is meant for you since you display an example of it here so well.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14307/ad-populum-indicator-of-a-moral-intuition/p1
Yeah sure, I will click on YOUR recommendations. :lol:
I am seeking more wisdom and enlightenment so, no thanks, I have no such spare time to waste.
It would be good if there was somekind of positive afterlife to reward struggling through this.
No children equals no genocides,wars, murder,famine misogyny, slavery, racism, cancer deaths, MS, inequality and so on. It is a positive philosophy that says no to suffering and false hope.
I disagree. I think scarcity is the source of (all) human harm and that "not having children" doesn't solve anything ...
... as I pointed out in this old (antinatalism?) thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/505320
When is a human a human? In the sense of gradual slight changes over evolution?
Presumably if we have a strict set of conditions that determine us as homo sapien, then there was a point in time in which a predecessor homo species that failed to meet this criterion gave rise to the first sapien that did meet it. The parents = not sapiens, the offspring = sapiens.
In that case if there is "harm" in giving birth to children. The harm is not human. But from other animals that "imposed our humanness on us". Should we then go out and blame all human hardship on australopithicus?
Maybe we take it back further and blame everything on LUCA (last universal common ancestor).
If we are to take this sharp delineation, then creating human children was not harm done by humans. As the parents were originally not human. But rather pre-human animals. Should we then blame all the primates or extinct homo genus groups for harming us in their contribution to birthing us?
You can blame away if it helps you have peace of mind. But it seems totally pointless.
The universe gave rise to life. It imposed living on itself. Through biogenesis, evolution and speciation.
Should we just blame the entire universe then? And if we do, what comes of it? The universe doesn't give a rats ass. Nature operates the way it does. Nothing will change this.
Is there any point in exterminating life in a universe hellbent on its emergence? What is to stop life from rekindling. It is the law of chemistry and physics that dictates the emergence of biology. You cannot swim against that tide.
Just like many a tyrant has claimed on the past. Ironically they pursue obliteration and/or various forms and extensions of human suffering rather than tempering them. An aim with an absolute solution is always fanatical and often antithetical to its proposed purpose.
I think philosophy should be based on real life and lived experience and not exist in a closed off abstract domain.
My dad worked in hospitals and I once asked my mum if he ever worked on a children's ward and she said something like "No because he doesn't have an affinity with children" I asked if she knew that before she married him and she replied yes.
She then went on to have six children with him. Neither of them were good parents and he was particularly unreasonable.
For example when my late oldest brother left the Plymouth Brethren for a Pentecostal church he soon after developed MS and my dad told him he developed MS as a punishment from God for leaving the Brethren. My mother also told me that her cousin died in a bike car collision because he left the brethren and had a career in music. My aunt later told me an open bible was found next to the bed in my deceased cousins bedroom.
The church we grew up in focused on original sin and hell and damnation so like a lot of Christians my parents believed in the principal of total depravity and that they were giving birth to children cursed from birth and heading for hell unless they become religious drones.
So I don't see how you can justify having children with someone that doesn't like them and like a lot of religious people under the premise they are cursed from the outset. The bible and other religions also have a built in narrative to justify human such as the Adam and Eve story.
As a child I asked my mum why brambles had prickles on them that could hurt humans and animals and she said it was all to do with the fall of man. That any suffering and problem in nature was to blame on Adam and Eve.
So parents do give rationalisations for having children that can be and examined and are not just like animals in the wild spontaneously procreating.
It should be a personal choice not to create a child based on conscience. I don't know which tyrants tried to obliterate suffering. A lot of current western governments claim to want to end human suffering in contradiction to their policies. The same with the general public who's actions go against their alleged moral stances.
You can have a (transhuman?) policy of ending human suffering without advocating antinatalism. We just know it is not working and is unlikely to work. It also flies in the face of the natural cycle of change and decay - call it entropy if you will.
I don't see why people get angry about antinatalism considering it is a minority held position that is having no impact as far as I can see and their are billions of humans a live to day and many more being born all the time.
I believe in free will based on my own experience and as I have pointed out in one of my last posts humans give reasons for having children and have stated beliefs that can be examined unlike any other animal.
Human society is built on reason not on blindly responding to natural urges. I am gay so I am not going to accidentally impregnate a woman whilst drunk or in a fit of lust so I can sympathise with heterosexuals maybe succumbing to wild lust. But strangely most humans are successful at controlling family size ( and even some species restrict population size).
Parents are causally responsible for harm because they are a necessary component in human harm occurring what ever their intentions.
However much I am enjoying an aspect of life (Like the music of Handel or a takeaway) It doesn't make me consider forcing it on someone else. I know most people don't listen to baroque music and I don't like sport and don't like that being forced on me. Having some niche tastes and viewpoints and cognitive issues like ASD and ADHD I can see how one size does not fit all. I cannot just assume other people are like me and replicate that.
We are all going to die anyway and barring an afterlife scenario go extinct and be unaware that we ever existed. I am personally frightened of suddenly ceasing to exist. But when you are in the thick of life it is hard to imagine nothingness and having no concerns and never seeing anyone again. This is one area where I think the religious and other believers in an afterlife have an advantage. They are offering their children eternal life. But unfortunately I see no evidence for the major religions claims.
As a thought experiment it has value. As an ethical template it is both irrelevant and contrary.
If you had the ability to give the gift of the following to a friend:
But then, in order to gift the above positives to a friend you also definitely had to give that person at least several of these things below:
Would you feel comfortable and moral providing the group of positives if you knew you will 100% also be giving some variation of the group of negatives?
I think you would not feel comfortable nor think that this was moral. But procreation is not seen this way. And here lies the misguided and wrong-headed thinking regarding procreation. It's no different.
If one is absolutely sure that the harms would be outweighed by the good, then it would indeed be better to focus on the latter. However, procreation is certainly different because one's actions are not affecting an already existing person who may have interests that diverge from our perspective and who may not require the positives for living a life they value. In this case, one's purportedly benevolent act would either be unnecessary (if the person is already in a state they cherish) or downright detrimental (if it carries overwhelming risks that would destroy the good that is present). When it comes to procreation, there isn't pure knowledge about the future, which is why one has to think about the risks as well as the opportunities. Universal anti-natalism is, I think, obstinately misconceived.
This makes no sense. There is no difference in the scenario I provided except one is a friend that exists. The form is the same for both. You give one you give the other.
The point is that you would not be comfortable in one of them, but it should be both because they are essentially doing the same thing. A gift is not truly a gift if you burden someone. Thinking it is would be its own problematic idea of gifts and/or one’s megalomaniac idea that you are the bearer of someone’s burdens because you think this is somehow good to cause for someone else. Again, problematic.
This is still wrong. If I give my friend a car and they might get into an accident is a different calculation than if I give my friend a car but they will get various pains and woes of life. I would never make that trade off on behalf of a friend,
The action isn’t about an existing person, it’s about a future person that could exist. In lingistics this is the future conditional tense.
Happiness giving is not ethical but supererogatory. If I don’t give someone happiness in my daily life but don’t cause suffering I have done nothing wrong. If I cause suffering, at least potentially I have. Circumstances matter.
An accident would qualify as a woe, but the car can also save one's life as one is attempting to reach the hospital or enable one to spend time with their significant other, even if they live far away. Unless all the concomitant pleasant aspects of existence are sitting in the car alongside the woes, it would undoubtedly be immoral. And it's not as if the benefits alone are adequate. What also matters is whether these positives would put the person in a preferable state to the one they would have found themselves in without them.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Which is why it has no value. If it can be bad, then the condition is that it can also be good.
Quoting schopenhauer1
A society where people were constantly being bombarded for gifting happiness would be sawing off the branch it was sitting on. For most existing people, not directly harming them is surely enough for them to live lives that they find worth living. However, when one is creating people (a state which nobody prefers), the positives matter as much as the negatives.
It’s not ethical to judge for someone else the amount of harms is appropriate for the “treat” of goods. In fact, that’s perverse. You are playing god of misery and pleasure on behalf of someone. Remember this “gift” is given, it’s not requested. And they can’t “tweak” it beforehand to their liking or predict what it is.
Quoting Existential Hope
This literally is the scenario in both cases . Future conditional in both cases. Your non-identify argument is weak and special pleading. I’d drop it.
Quoting Existential Hope
Not understanding so no comment.
It is not ethical to judge for someone else that a good they could be deeply grateful for should not be bestowed because one has been tempted by the religion of pessimism. Gifting something that cannot be requested is not unethical.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It isn't. In one case, one's actions are affecting a real person. In the other, nobody is being left in a more desirable or less desirable state as a result of what we have done. And if the prevention of harms can be good without a person being there, the prevention of happiness is also bad, even if there is no experience of hankering for the positives. Consistency and consideration for the range of applicability should not be hastily dropped. Although, their robustness is not something to be trifled with.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Fair enough (and apologies for possible equivocation). All I meant was that the nature of giving happiness differs to existing beings who already have varying levels of well-being differs from those who are yet to exist.
I'm sorry it doesn't work that way. I can't assume someone wants me to do a "happy" thing for them. But I can safely assume, and in fact am morally obligated not to purposefully harm someone when I don't have to. Certainly, not because I think the pain intendent with whatever happiness I bestow will be "worth it" in my own estimation. You can't keep doing this reverse role and think it comes out the same. It doesn't.
Quoting Existential Hope
When that person is born, it will be real. That is how the future works. Do you believe in a state called "the future"? Sounds like you don't. I wonder why :roll:.
Quoting Existential Hope
Future conditionals exist. If you do X, then Y will happen. You are preventing Y from happening. You don't need someone for the statement "Y will happen" to be true, because there will be a person who exists. Get over this argument. It's not a good look. It really shows special pleading and lack of common language usage.
Quoting Existential Hope
No because as stated earlier, happiness-giving is not an ethical act but a supererogatory one. Not causing avoidable suffering is ethical though. Even more so, willingly wanting to cause suffering because it brings about good is more than negligent, and certainly misguided.
Quoting Existential Hope
I don't think so on any substantive level. The person presumably to be born will have varying amounts of happiness just as your friend. The scenario is the same for each so it's not even considering individual levels, just broad experiences like "appreciating friends, art, achievements, etc.".
I am sorry, but I am afraid that it does. No matter how many times it is repudiated by some, the fact that the good is relevant is inescapable. Just as one may choose to rescue someone based upon their judgement of the perspective of that person and then find out that they wanted an end without making their action wrong when it occurred, one can also decide to do the right thing for someone else when they cannot attain the positive themselves. In the end, your worldview is far too narrow due to the pessimistic biased that fuel it and restrict it to risks and burdens, not opportunities and gifts. And, once again, for those who exist, not directly harming them can, usually, be enough. This is not a about reversal; it is about not being obsessed with one dimension of life. I think that it is far too deficient of a worldview.
Quoting schopenhauer1
And then, when they do possess the capacity to be harmed and benefitted, we will hopefully behave in an ethical way. I have little time for imaginary goodness or inconsistent ideas.
Quoting schopenhauer1
They certainly do, but this does not automatically lead to the manifestation of value for someone. If X does not happen, then Y will have absolutely no significance for anybody who is absent. "Common language" and intuitions can be wrong. It is not a good look to arbitrarily argue that the absence of harms can be good sans true benefits, but the lack of happiness is not a worse state of affairs simply because nobody can ask for it.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Giving happiness is an ethical act. If you do not cause me pain, you have allowed me to live a happy life, which is good (though, admittedly, it isn't the same as actively doing something for others). The mere fact of practical limitations of providing happiness does not diminish its worth. Not creating positives is unethical. Willingly wanting to prevent all of it because one is unable to look beyond their obstructed perspective is even more wrong-headed.
Quoting schopenhauer1
However, I think otherwise and believe that you are mistaken here. It isn't the reality of happiness that is pertinent. Rather, the point is that there is a non-trivial difference between doing good for one who already exists and has a particular state of well-being, and someone who does not. In the former case, current positives should compel us to rethink the necessity of risks, whereas in the latter case, the dearth of any existing level of happiness and interests put the harms and the benefits on equal footing.
Getting someone a traditional gift, and handing someone a box of gifts with tremendous burdens are two very different things, and to equivocate the two is rhetorical obfuscation.
Quoting Existential Hope
Only totalitarian regimes would force people into opportunities and post-facto justify it. It is totalitarian thinking to think that one forces another's hand in the name of "opportunities" and then say, "Well, let's get the suicide machines out" as a consolation prize. Cringey.
Quoting Existential Hope
That capacity exists as a real state of affairs. Again, that is what we mean by "future conditionals". It's not inconsistent to understand how future conditionals work. You are denying a whole range of states of affairs don't exist.
Quoting Existential Hope
That's the point. Don't bring about X so Y doesn't happen. Cause and effect. Future conditional. If this, then that could happen. Don't do this.
Quoting Existential Hope
You are confusing how epistemology works. Future conditionals are only understood by someone who exists to know "If then statements". It is from the POV of someone who can comprehend "If then statements" that we know this to be true.
Quoting Existential Hope
Oddly, this is just bolstering the AN point. This is how it works when someone is born (they just live their life without your negative interference). However, from the future conditional perspective, you are not going to start negatives for another. It is not letting known harms occur (that could have).
Quoting Existential Hope
But we are not talking about unmitigated good are we. Perhaps if a paradise only universe existed and guaranteed you might have some argument. So hey, at least I'm giving you that point! But alas, we know this world is not that. But I'd even argue, EVEN in that scenario, though it is perfectly permissible to go ahead and start that life, not starting it isn't unethical. As you admit, not starting something does nothing for no one. Nothingness doesn't "hurt" anyone.
Receiving a pointless burden that stands in the way of a free and happy life is quite different from being given the very ability to experience the positives (and not by dragging inexistent souls from a superior state of existence). Evasion resides on many territories.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Your usage of the word "force" despite the absence of any evidence that demonstrates the desire of non-existent beings to avoid existence is indicative of your excessive faith in the negative. Only dictatorial dispensations would seek to eradicate all potential good due to their failure to observe value in it. It's myopic to think, "Well, I can see that you sincerely love your life, but since you were not there to ask for it, they ultimately mean nothing and, if given the chance, I would have prevented your existence." Is it "cringey"? I cannot answer that. Nevertheless, I believe that it is unfortunate. It's also not as frivolous as getting the machines out. It is undeniably tragic that people have to go through terrible afflictions. Our efforts to address this have to be incessant and multifaceted (without annihilating the good). If no other option remains, being able to find a graceful exit should not be an unconscionable demand.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I am denying that the absence of states of affairs can be better/worse in any meaningful way without a being. More importantly, I reject the double standard that attempts to devalue that which is positive.
Quoting schopenhauer1
X not happening results in A happening instead, which is good for Z. When Z is not there in the first place, the absence of X or A means nothing to Z. However, if it does in one case, I don't see any good reason to think that it doesn't in the other.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not really. It is you, I think, who is projecting value judgements onto nothingness by conflating the absence of a being and the presence of some good that supposedly comes from it. Also, if/them statements stretch beyond the negative.
Which is a mirage. Negative interference and positive intervention both have a role to play. The only thing is that an existing person can live a decent life without the latter, whereas there is no life at all before birth.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I am thankful to you for your magnanimous attitude. However, I cannot but continue to disagree. If, hypothetically, we lived in a hellish landscape devoid of all love and beauty without any hope, your view would have had immense worth. But as we are not discussing boundless harms, ignoring the good cannot be ethically justifiable. Your next statement about that possible utopia further reflects your deep-rooted pessimistic bias by forgetting about the fact that procreation can also have unimaginable value for those who exist. Finally, not starting anything benefits nobody either.
https://unherd.com/2023/04/we-need-to-talk-about-extreme-antinatalism/
I came across this article, and the following is an excerpt from the linked article:
... Jiwoon Hwang, Rafe McGregor, and Ema Sullivan-Bissett (last two are not antinatalists) have all persuasively argued that promortalism is the core of antinatalism. ... For all three individuals, if you accept that life is suffering, it is reasonable not only to want to cease the propagation of life but to end life. Sullivan-Bissett and McGregor offer the analogy of smoking — if you think smoking causes harm, you don’t only think people shouldn’t start smoking. You believe that people should stop if they already smoke ...
This is a paper by Jiwoon Hwang (an antinatalist) arguing it's always better to cease to exist
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3184600
So, is there really no reason for an antinatalist to live?
That is answered from where the premises are being framed. Most AN arguments are about notions of starting or imposing suffering onto others. Not starting does not necessarily entail thus ending one’s life once born. Indeed part of the suffering and imposition to begin with is even being put in a position where once must decide if life is worth living, and thus where Cioran’s quote encapsulates a sort of resigned mindset of the living pessimist:
Meaning, suicide is an impossible wish of undoing the suffering that has already occurred. What we really want is to never have suffered in the first place. Annihilation after the fact doesn’t negate this.
Doesn't non-existence in the first place leave the equation absurd? To not have existed is to never have had a will to not suffer. The relief from suffering cannot exist for something that does not exist. We have to exist with suffering in order to want to be free from suffering. This paradox makes the will to never have existed an essentially meaningless yearning. Since it is with even less meaning in its fundamental emptiness than a meaningless existence that actually exist.
Can you explain your objection? At the end of the day my point is antinatalism doesn’t entail promortalism, whatever the reasons great or small for suicide. Camus asked if we should kill ourselves if life has no meaning and of course his answer was live rebelliously with the absurdity. Not causing suffering for others, by imposing life doesn’t mean one ought to not choose to continue with the burdens foisted upon them by continuing to live.
That strengthens Ciorans point in suicide. We are put in an impossible situation. The nostalgia for “unbirth” can never be attained. It doesn’t negate choosing not to impose the very dilemma on another.
You simply didn’t answer me so I guess I will carry on since you have no response..shrug.
But we do impose the dilemma on others by acknowledging that the suffering of existence exists, putting a spotlight on ideas that in themselves lead to the suffering. And we also need to interact with the ideas in order to process suffering and find a way past it. To interact with the ideas require interaction with others over these ideas.
I think that when adding our biological drives into the mix, people find social bonds meaningful, regardless of their meaninglessness intellectually. We have this vague feeling of meaning when with others. So in that sense, imposing the ideas that lead to suffering on others is impossible to avoid, but equally required for us in order to find meaning and a will to exist. So we can't be free from imposing these things on others because we need to interact with the ideas about our suffering to process it through our social bonds.
Suicide is multifaceted. My point was how it’s not entailed with antinatslism. We can discuss peoples reasons for suicide but the quote was to point the paradoxes associated with it. It ends suffering, but for whom? The suffering has already occurred by the time it is committed. I believe life to entail suffering, both necessary and contingent. Suicide in some way is a response to this in some way, whether philosophically driven regarding meaning or acute reasons like specific circumstances.
Sure, and others can cause suffering.
Quoting Christoffer
Not sure what this means.
Moar argument please. Justify your "if, then".
Quoting fdrake
Yes what fdrake said, please. Evolutionary as in truth is evolutionary? In what way? how does it fit in that schema of truth? Evolutionary as in the biological mechanism of change via natural selection and adaptation over time for an ecological niche?
Adopting that view, antinatalism has to be false, at least after a few generations.
I am not here to argue that view of truth by the way :100:
Ok got it, you meant the latter definition I asked about- evolution, the biological mechanism. Well, this to me just stinks of the naturalistic fallacy. We evolved a lot of things, and culture has shaped our beliefs in ways that perhaps, originally, it was not physically intended for. I type here on this keyboard, not because my ancestors 100,000 years ago needed it, but because human biological makeup allows for tremendous general learning capacities (as compared with other animals), we can often reason out logical, moral/psychological, and empirical conclusions that are wildly varying "contradictory" to the if/then programming of other animals where things like, "Is it okay to kill?" or "Is it okay to impose suffering by procreation" is not even amenable to their psychological programming.
That is to say, just because "it's in nature", doesn't mean it is morally right, simply. And there are thousands of examples to speak against this naturalistic fallacy thinking. And also, contrary to this view, humans being so culturally "plastic", are naturally able to pose and try to answer various moral questions, so what of that fact?
My point was more of, if we accept that truth is determined by the universally held views of the surviving group, antinatalism will soon enough become false, and it will do so every time, as the holders of that view will eventually extinguish themselves.
Ok, so you are trying to pose a hypothetical scenario and treat it like a "meme" that gets phased out. But the problem is the same as the naturalistic fallacy as applied to humans.. Humans are so plastic that it is possible that humans have the ability to refrain from procreation and discontinue humans for ethical reasons, like suffering (that those future humans might face if born). Humans are not if/then enough to count out those possibilities. Granted, the likelihood is low, that is not due to some fixed law, simply people's preferences which rather than fixed by physical or innate mechanisms, are largely social, personal, and existential depending on how you look at it.
Right, but even then, under evolutionary truth, antinatalism turns out to be false, even if there are no humans around anymore — especially when there are not more humans around. The truth value of something does not depend on whether there is someone there to state it.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Of course, but I will not pretend that the moral argument works either. Antinatalism can be rejected by default in frameworks such as virtue ethics and deontology, as well as ethical egotism. Being that AN works under the premise that suffering outweights joy in life, it could also be rejected within consequentialism, as most people would reject that premise.
What makes it “truth”? It seems a category error to apply “truth” to a process. You haven’t explained how this term is meant to be used in this context. It seems like a misuse.
Quoting Deleted user
This is all false. Antinatalism can be supported in almost any normative theory, including deontology.
Quoting Deleted user
If a belief leads to a groups' extinction while its opposite leads to its survival, the belief would be false.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Right, that is why I said can be rejected, just like you said can be supported.
How is that about truth or falsity?
Quoting Deleted user
Ok
It is one of the theories of truth (or so I remember reading it).
The pragmatist theory of truth is about practical consequences based on their success in solving a problem, and thus is an argument for pluralism for methods that lead to an outcome. As far as I see, it has nothing to do with what outcome is deemed as successful. If we are going for someone not suffering in the future, that would be antinatalism.
Right, but if we are going for survival, which was my initial premise, natalism would be the answer.
Sure. But obviously one could contend that "survival" is some moral mission, especially above and beyond that of imposing the conditions of suffering for a future person.
Well, everything can be contended in ethics, which is why I use more common sense than a philosophical approach when I am faced with a dilemma in real life — not my intellectual topic of interest.
But to talk about, the future conditions of suffering are an unknown, which is an argument against suicide. Not only that, but the conditions of suffering are also relative. A young adult athlete might end up killing himself after a tragit accident that puts him on a wheelchair. People born without movement in their legs do not kill themselves over being on a wheelchair, because that is all they have known, and they make do without being able to walk, and sometimes they make do wonderfully. Of course, there is a limit to this, such as Harlequin disease or glass bones, but we do put down Harlequin disease patients and always have — they end up dying shortly after birth anyway.
My response is not based on the empirical per se, but the empirical can be added to it. Rather, it is contra the paternalistic idea that imposing the limitation of life's choices (as life can only provide a range of choices one may have ultimately never wanted to choose from), known suffering (one knows of suffering but is willing to expose others to it anyways), and unknown suffering (one doesn't know ALL the forms of suffering), is acceptable. Rather, it indicates that procreation is in fact a violation of a deontological sort against the person who is so affected by this decision (the child born).
In Kantian terms, it is violating the principles of non-malfeasance which ultimately has its basis in not using people for a means to your ends.
In any case, my original comment was mostly playful. As a personal dogma, I don't think antinatalism is a serious idea that has to be debated. So I will just hide this thread. Cheers.
I am an antinatalist and it is patent to me so perhaps that’s just par for the course
And the argument would go like this: you are delusional.
I didn’t miss anything. I agree, but that’s not what suffering consist in. Suffering is not a “bad feeling”. It is the state of being emotionally perturbed by an experience to the point you cannot integrate it. It precludes a silver lining type framing, without further fact.
Negative experiences can be sublimated. Suffering is the end state of failing to sublimate an experience. Most people choose to do this first, unfortunately. But nevertheless I am not nitpicking at all. Suffering and “having a bad time” are not synonymous and can be separate in some sense
I must begrudgingly comment that you make a good point here.
So there are a lot of points to make, that it is hard for me to distill it in a concise way. However, I'll try from the perspective of deontology...
So deontologically, if one believes that others should not be used as means to an ends, it would be wrong to put others in a situation whereby they have to be put in harms way in order to "grow". Thus, knowingly putting someone in harms way so that they can grow, when that situation could have been avoided, is still wrong, even if they "grow" from it.
Of course, there are mitigating factors for this. If someone is already in a situation where it is judged they will be harmed if you do not take care to mitigate the harm in some way with a less harm, then this is permissible. For example, it is better to give children shots to immunize them against disease. It is better to put children in some form of education so they an survive well in society etc. However, that is only due to the fact that the children were put in that situation in the first place. It is a different question whether they should even be put in the situation for which one must mitigate greater harms with possibly lesser negative experiences/harms/suffering.
See this thread for more detail as it is almost exactly to do with this discussion of purposefully putting people in harms way for "growth":
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14291/the-ethics-of-burdening-others-in-the-name-of-personal-growth-when-is-it-justified
Quoting schopenhauer1
The Kantian deontological maxim is something like, "Do not use others as a means to your own ends." If a parent teaches a child a skill, then arguably, according to your ideas, they are "burdening" the child. So when Honest John teaches and forces Pinocchio to perform, he is taking advantage of him and using him as a means for his own selfish ends. But suppose that Geppetto teaches Pinocchio to make toys in order that Pinocchio might make a living. In this case he is using Pinocchio as a means to Pinocchio's own ends, and it is actually a parent's duty to educate their children in this manner. A relation between a parent and child is different from a relation between two adults. Thus your means/ends analysis is flawed.
Your distinction between example 1 and example 2 does not hold water given the fact that example 2 also fits your definition of "necessity" (). In example 2 the burden was not created "just to see that person overcome the burden," but rather to provide the child with skills of survival and independence. Further, the duty of the parent to educate includes more than helping the child survive. If a parent teaches their child to dance for the sake of the child's happiness, they are not violating Kant's morality. It doesn't matter that dancing is not necessary for survival.
Kant's maxim does not include a dispensation for cases where the end is necessary for survival. The maxim is not, "Do not treat others as a means to an end unless the end is their own survival." Your Kantian argument and your survival argument are therefore two different arguments, but neither one succeeds.
(Another odd presupposition here is that everything a parent subjects their child to is necessarily a burden.)
This isn’t in any way odd. Compared to not existing, it’s inarguably a burden to be, do or know anything
According to Aristotle the depraved man does feel this way, so I will take your word for it. :joke:
So stasis and boredom are never burdensome? We have a word to describe people for whom all activity is a burden: lazy.
"Nothing" excludes boredom or stasis. Clearly. So, not sure how you think I would respond, but im laughing.
Antinatalism is not promortalism. It's a strawman. Antinatalism is about not creating new life, not about whether, once born, it is moral or "worth it" to continue.
That can be said about literally any moral topic- not well-thought out or philosophical. Very internet trolling though, so not surprised on an internet forum...
Quoting Vaskane
Fear of death/dying is not cowardly, nor again, has it to do with antinatalism. Think of better arguments.
Dude, saying "Well they did it get over" can be inserted against any claim against an ethical rule. Someone murders someone or steals.. "Well get over it" is not an answer to whether it was ethical to murder or steal. You don't get that?
Quoting Vaskane
So this is just an ad hominem. Why even try?
That doesn't make sense and you are just arguing to argue now. Do you have an actual argument or is that it? Because I already said why that can be said about anything, and it can, so what specifically do you have other than hyperbole and ad hominem?
I wonder if you can think of something interesting to say without taking either my words or Nietzsche's out of context.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/726159
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/772934
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/808366
:death: :flower:
Quoting Vaskane
I've neither claimed or implied otherwise. Obviously, as an existential fact, suffering is not avoidable; morally, however, suffering is a reducible exigency, the reason, in fact, for flourishing (i.e. overcoming) by non-reciprocally – non-instrumentally – helping others to reduce, not "avoid", suffering. Of "all great things", human flourishing comes first and last, otherwise the rest (including "great things") are merely decadent detritus. Easy sleep is not proposed by me as a "virtue" but as the daily reward for and restorative of strivings to flourish – even as a measure of good health: eine Ja-sagen zu Leiben. :fire:
The eternally recurring choice: blue pill (passivity) or red pill (actively affirming there is no ultimate choice: amor fati – what Spinoza calls blessedness) ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/726159
Unless you have insomnia :snicker:.
But then, this belies the very point that one even should be in a place where they should be overcoming. One is simply descriptive. Every day is a sort of overcoming of death, if nothing else. But to force others to conform to this system of overcoming- the problem of initiating (this whole system OF) harms on others, is the one at hand.
Someone ELSE deemed it, that this is "good" (and God said "it was good"). People want to be gods in their decisions that others should even BE overcoming.
But more likely, people don't think that grandiosely. Rather, if they are benevolent (and not just capricious or cruel), they are thinking of some positive outcomes, usually selfish vision of future familial X. If it is for someone else's "sake" (the future person born), it might be simply thinking of the good things that might occur. The negatives get downplayed. At worst, it is used as an excuse as it is seen as necessary for the good. Even if we were to say that is a true statement, "That good comes from struggle", that belies the question of whether one should force others to endure the struggle. That will always recenter the question, and not let the issue at hand slip away.
Might be worth allowing it to pass.
If this was applied to antinatalism, imagine a prospective parent/society is behind the veil of ignorance. They would not know what position any potential child will occupy, what their quality of life will be, their potential for suffering or happiness, or their genetic/biological predispositions.
Rawls' Veil of Ignorance (aka Original Position) asks us to consider the full range of possible lives a new person could lead. This includes the best possible scenarios as well as the worst- thus extreme suffering, disabilities, mental illness, or life in poverty and conflict, amongst a whole host of other negatively balanced lives.
Since behind the veil, individuals do not know if their offspring will be born into a life of mostly joy or mostly suffering, they must weigh the potential risks of severe harm and suffering against potential benefits of a good life.
Combining this with Benatar's asymmetry, it may be rational to view the prevention of harm as a greater moral priority than the creation of happiness, especially when consent cannot be obtained.
Thus, under the veil of ignorance, where the outcomes of a new life are unknown, the ethical priority of avoiding potential harm and respecting the impossibility of obtaining consent presents a strong argument against procreation.
An inversion is occurring where consent becomes more fundamental than life. A similar inversion occurs where the justification of society displaces Rawls' question of how best to order society. The problem is that life is the precondition for consent, and is therefore prior to consent. Making consent the summum bonum is therefore misguided from the start. Either God or Nature proves that consent does not deserve the highest place, for it simply does not occupy the highest place. These sorts of arguments look to be a critique of reality, and are incompatible with an acceptance of reality. I suppose one could argue that consent should precede life, but at the end of the day the simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't.
The variant on Rawls' argument is somewhat interesting: negative utilitarianism in the service of antinatalism. "I should not have a child if they will suffer much." Meh. I don't think life is ultimately about the avoidance of suffering any more than I think life is ultimately about consent, and I have found that those who are excessively focused on such things tend to lead impoverished lives. I'd say life is bigger than suffering or consent.
I never understand these kind of criticisms. It reminds me of "If a tree falls in the woods.." arguments. One can say this about ANY moral claim. For example, if no humans were around, there would be no need for morality regarding murder. THUS, how can murder be wrong (whether through consent, rights, dignity of the human, or other normative ethic) if the norms behind "Murder is wrong" do not exist prior to the existence of humans?
Obviously this is fallacious thinking. Rather, we can simply say that "Once humans DO exist, then 'Murder is wrong' comes into play". The same with procreation. Once humans DO exist, then "Procreation is wrong" comes into play. I don't see it being more complicated than that. ALL moral claims presuppose "life" (people) exist(!) in the first place.
Quoting Leontiskos
Same critique so I am moving on.
Quoting Leontiskos
I think this is throwing out a lot of important values we hold in other arenas. For example, if as a consenting adult I force you into a game you don't want to play because I think the game is bigger than any one individual's refusal, that seems mighty suspicious. And I am talking personal ethics here, which procreation (should) fall under. I do believe there is a discontinuity with the State/political ethics, but that is a different argument, which I can bring in if you want to make the category error of using laws like the draft, education compliance, and inoculations.
I also think it is a bit of a red herring to compare it to parental care of children under a certain age (often 18 yo). That is because usually the care is about preventing more harm in the future for that child, where this very specific/unique kind of decision is creating all of the potential harm in the first place. These are two different types of decisions regarding consent. At this point since someone DOES exist, it would be more harmful NOT to take care of them, as now you are not recognizing the rights of the child who does exist already, to be cared for, being that they have not fully developed into fully functioning adults yet, and had no say to be born in the first place. Presumably babies and children have a right not to be abandoned, neglected, or abused, for example, which is a different (positive/must do ethics) consideration rather than the (negative/NOT doing) ethics of simply not causing harm in the first place. One is palliative (as someone already exists and is exposed to great harms), and one is preventative (in the absolutist terms).
This doesn't make sense. How could I have a child without knowing the social conditions into which it would be born? If I were the King of Philosophy, I would outlaw thought experiments.
Just curious, do you know of Rawls' Veil of Ignorance regarding justice and rights? If so, can you see how there can be a direct analogy between the use in the equality sense for a moderate social democracy to understanding that a person's life could be of any condition?
Also, just factually speaking, no person's life can be predicted through simply contemplating it, or taking one's own circumstance as the template for how other people will live.
Imagine if I were to predict all sorts of things based on my understanding of what I think you would like.. But I forced it on you forever lest you kill yourself. Such an odd position to defend. But you will say the same for mine, simply because it is not widely considered or understood, not because it isn't sound.
I've heard of it only in the quote and link you provided. As described there, as I noted, it does not apply to antinatalism, since when I choose to have a child I do know the kind of life it is likely to live. My wife and I wouldn't have had children if we didn't think we could give them a good life.
As I said earlier, it is just factually the case you can never know the kind of life your child will have accurately. That is epitome of hubristic thinking. Any number of factors including health issues, accidents, societal/environmental changes can effect a person negatively and was not accounted for in the prediction. It has been well-documented how when we are in our "happiest states" (which is often the case of young couples who start developing a long-term relationship, or simply sexual relations leading to accidental pregnancy), we are often at our worst state of predicting all the negative things that can occur (Pollyannaism).
Also, personal decision-making process of a single couple is presented here as a rebuttal to a broader philosophical position. This is a case of confirmation bias and overconfidence in predictive ability of a complex situation (every single experience of a lifetime's worth of experiences of a person).
If life is ever good enough to allow one to ponder whether to have a child, life must be good enough for the child just the same.
If life is so bad to ponder whether to have a child, don’t have a child. But should no one be allowed to have a child? Death is still coming for all so what does it matter if you do or do not have a child? No one, not even your children (if you have any) are going to be there long enough to justify any judgment of it.
I believe I just answered this objection:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting Fire Ologist
How does that logic follow? What happens if life was really bad but one still pondered whether to have a child.. Someone in a terrible circumstance let's say. It is simply false that all circumstances thinking of procreation entails one is in a good place. Also, even if one was in a good place whilst thinking about procreation, why would that effect the morality of the decision of creating suffering for another person?
Quoting Fire Ologist
That makes no sense. For example, if someone is suffering in agony, that person isn't going have such a carefree outlook. However, one doesn't even need to go to the worst outcomes, just the fact that you are making a decision for someone else who will live out the burdens, is enough to give pause.
Having a child, feeding a child, etc. are as much making a decision for someone else as deciding not to have a child, or aborting a child.
If it is good to have no children because life is suffering, than life isn’t all bad since we get to make this good decision to have no children. Aren’t we brave and honest and considerate. Such wonderful compassion for the suffering of future generations - we should build ourselves some statues for thinking so compassionately and reasonably so that all future generations will remember our sacrifices. Oh wait.
I see your attempt at irony. Nice, I like irony. But since it really doesn't have an impact on the argument, I don't have much more to say to it. If no one was around to gain the benefits of non-existence, shall we create sufferers so that they can see how they would have benefited from non-existence? That would also be ironically wrong.
Then why not have kids. Life is good too.
Because causing suffering is more important than not promoting good.
From a more practical standpoint, if a prospective parent is either 1) so depressed that they (incorrectly) view their life (since they have no true knowledge of the subjective assessment of life by others) as pure suffering or 2) their is actually so materially terrible that it is in reality pure suffering, then neither of those situations is optimal for childrearing, thus that individual or couple definitely should not have children. However, that individual's situation is absolutely not a reason for anyone else to not have children.
That's very different from a "Veil of Ignorance." If it only means that the we can't predict the future perfectly accurately, then it's kind of a useless concept.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No, it's not just a single couple. It's reasonable to say that any prospective parent can know their future child's ethnicity, social status, and their idea of how to lead a good life with reasonable accuracy.
To be clear, I'm not arguing against anti-natalism here, although you know I find the idea repugnant. I'm only arguing that your logic is flawed.
No, that's not what I am saying. Your premise is
Antinatalism reminds me of Gnosticism, where nature and the material world were created by an evil god and one is thus supposed to escape this entire order of being. Or in modern terms, something like The Matrix. The true god is represented by Consent, and in the alternative, non-evil universe, Consent reigns. Given our gnostic situation, the best we can do is escape the material order by ceasing all procreation. Historically gnostics really did tend to eschew procreation.
(Edit: I now see you have authored a thread, "If there is a god, is he more evil than not?" :razz:)
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think consent has a place, but not the highest place. It does not trump everything else.
Quoting schopenhauer1
But I never made that comparison...?
No, it means that from a position of ignorance we should do the LEAST amount of harm. And our disagreement is over how ignorant we truly are over a complex situation like a person's psychological, physical, interpersonal, and emotional well-being over the course of a lifetime.
Quoting T Clark
It is true that many decisions are made based on prevailing social norms, but this does not elevate these norms to the status of ethical imperatives. The is/ought problem remains central here: the fact that something is commonly done does not mean it ought to be done. The ethical implications of bringing a child into the world must be scrutinized independently of societal conventions, and this scrutiny reveals the inadequacy of current norms in addressing the potential for harm and suffering.
Quoting T Clark
When it comes to making decisions for another person, procreation is unlike any other decision. It imposes an irreversible existence and all its accompanying burdens onto another being without their consent. This is different from other decisions we might make for someone else’s perceived benefit, as those typically allow for some form of redress or agency by the affected individual. Comparing it to a gift is illustrative: a gift can be accepted, rejected, or discarded with minimal consequence. Procreation, however, imposes life, with all its inherent suffering and challenges, making it a decision of an entirely different kind AND magnitude.
We are not ignorant that suffering will occur- but we are ignorant as to the manner it will take shape.
Hubris is a source of a lot of well-intentioned but misguided ideas.
But that's not what I am saying. Rather, if a human exists, then consent towards other humans is on the table.
Quoting Leontiskos
This all follows from a faulty view of my premise.
Quoting Leontiskos
I kind of like this notion, though I don't hold "Consent" to be independent of humans, simply entailed in humanity. If there is no humanity, consent disappears as well.
Also, this particular argument is a bit different than just consent. Rather, it is saying that since we are IGNORANT as to how any person's life truly will play out in the course of their lifetime, AND we cannot get consent otherwise, we should do the option that is with the intention of the LEAST harm, which is of course, not even procreating that person who will be harmed to X degree.
That they will be harmed is generally not questioned. To what extent, and by what right is what is at stake here.
Quoting Leontiskos
Ha, well, look at my profile for a better understanding of my overall philosophical position. And Gnosticism is mentioned, but as an analogy to Philosophical Pessimism, not, obviously, as a belief in it as a wholesale mystical/ontological belief system.
Quoting Leontiskos
But this also relies on what "the good" is, and defines it in "negative" terms (what not to do). Suffering is weighted more heavily in this conception such that, causing negative/suffering unnecessarily on someone else's behalf is weighted as a bigger moral consideration than any of the positives that result from causing the suffering. Not causing great distress to someone is a bigger ethical consideration than say, buying them cake.
There's another argument here to be made from this, but I am not making that case right now. Though all of it basically can be tied together to make for a compelling set of arguments from various angles contra procreation.
You didn't respond to my argument. The argument you make here is your usual one and has nothing to do with a veil of ignorance. No reason to take this any further.
What isn’t answering your supposed objection of my use of VOI?
Okay.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sure.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Okay, so maybe something like this?
Thus consent functions as an exception to the prohibition on suffering, but does not apply in the case of procreation.
I would appeal to a similar "inversion" argument to the one I already gave, but focusing on suffering rather than consent. Just as consent does not constitute an absolute principle, neither does suffering-avoidance. "I'd say life is bigger than suffering or consent."
The key here is that birth/existence is qualitatively different from, and ontologically prior to, consent and/or suffering. More directly: life is more than the avoidance of suffering, and therefore the desire to avoid suffering is not a sufficient reason to nix life.
Regarding the moral maxim of (1), I think it would apply to procreation in a very dire apocalyptic scenario, but I don't think it applies more generally throughout history. I don't know... There are a lot of different ways one could go with this.
ChatGPT is pretty impressive:
[hide="Reveal"]Can you think of any counterexamples to the maxim "Do not cause suffering, absent consent"
ChatGPT
The maxim "Do not cause suffering, absent consent" is a foundational principle in ethics and moral philosophy, often associated with the concept of autonomy and the importance of respecting individuals' rights and choices. However, there are situations where this maxim may face challenges or counterexamples:
Emergency Situations: In cases of emergency where immediate action is necessary to prevent harm, such as administering medical treatment to an unconscious person, causing temporary suffering without explicit consent may be justified to save their life or prevent further harm.
Parental Authority: Parents often make decisions on behalf of their children, such as vaccinations or medical procedures, without their explicit consent. While parents are expected to act in their child's best interest, these actions may cause temporary suffering.
Paternalism: In some cases, individuals may act in what they perceive as the best interest of others, even if it causes temporary suffering, without obtaining explicit consent. This concept, known as paternalism, can be controversial as it overrides individual autonomy.
Legal Punishment: In the context of legal punishment, individuals may experience suffering as a consequence of their actions, such as imprisonment or fines, without their explicit consent. This raises questions about the balance between justice and the prevention of suffering.
Animal Welfare: The maxim primarily focuses on human suffering but may not directly address the suffering of non-human animals. Actions that cause suffering to animals for purposes such as scientific research or food production may occur without their consent.[/hide]
The question is then whether these exceptions to (1) apply to the case of procreation. For example, we can cause suffering absent consent when punishment is due, but is punishment due in the case of procreation?
Quoting Leontiskos
Says it all for me on this question.
Anti-natalism doesn’t save anyone in particular from suffering. We are not doing anyone any good by not procreating. There has to be a someone to prevent someone from suffering. Life is ontologically prior as Leontiskos said.
It depends on what kind of life you expect your kid to have. If there's a 99% chance your child will die an excruciating death by the time they're ten, then you probably have a duty not to have a kid.
So the case is really best exemplified by David Benatar's asymmetry argument that is now more widely known than when I used to discuss it.
However, I don't want to get caught in the weeds of that particular version of the argument. I think it is best reformulated clearly as this:
Preventing happiness is less a moral obligation than preventing suffering. All things being equal, in the case of non-consent, and ignorance (like this Veil of Ignorance argument is saying), it is always best to prevent suffering, even on the behest of preventing happiness.
The fact is, this is from the perspective of the decision-maker. That SOMEONE exists who can understand what will result is all that matters, not that the subject of the action exists.
But I think I answered that objection from @Leontiskos. That is to say, all that matters is that humans exist for this to take place. No humanity, no need for antinatalism or any other normative ethical principle. The principle doesn't come first. IF humanity exists, the morality of being human applies. IF people exist, and the decision is about making another suffer or preventing it, then this applies.
Also as indicated, and I went into more detail here on...
Quoting schopenhauer1
See about the difference between palliative and preventative ethics. Procreation is in the realm of preventative ethics, not palliative. AND it would be wrong to make a preventative situation turn purposefully into a palliative one.. I can prevent harm, but I cause it, so that you now need to mitigate it.. That isn't right...
But if the reason to promote antinatalism now while there is humanity is that It is the ethical thing, and its goal is no humans, then “No humanity, no need for antinatalism or any other normative ethical principle.”
Meaning, what is the point of being ethical towards beings that aren’t born yet, if ethics itself is not to be? Why would we humans uphold any ethics above upholding the procreation of more humans, if upholding that ethics means that humans and ethics both equally should no longer be?
Antinatalism is just as much an anti-ethicalism.
This doesn't make any sense to me. We are not living for ethics. Ethics is present because humans are around.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Ethics simply is entailed if humans exist. We aren't living to carry out ethics, ethics is carried out because we are living. It is actually precisely CONTRA a notion that we are obligated in some "positive" (must do) sense. That is to say, there is more obligation to prevent suffering (a negative ethic), than to promote happiness or any X "other" beholden reason. That is to say, if there was a case whereby my action results in an unknown amount of suffering, and I can't get consent beforehand, and the effect is not only trivial, but major (though this part is not even necessary to state), that is more relevant than the unknown amount of happiness that might result as well from this action.
**excuse my constant affect/effect errors.
I think Benatar's argument avoids the question of whether life or existence is good.
Quoting schopenhauer1
There persists the conflation between the ontological and the "moral" (in the modern sense). It is the difference between preventing something and preventing the potential/potency for that something. To prevent the potential for X will also prevent X, but it is not the same thing as simply preventing X. One could prevent their child from getting smallpox by having no children or by vaccinating the children they do have, but these two options are not parallel. The obligations with respect to each are somewhat different.
Is Thanos from The Avengers a good example of an antinatalist? Specifically, a Thanos who snaps his fingers and everyone disappears without pain, not just half of them? No suffering + no potential for suffering = perfection. The theological gnosticism crops up its head again here, for the gist is that it would have been better for nothing at all to exist. I don't think the theological or metaphysical shift is avoidable given that your argument pertains to ontological realities and sheer potencies, rather than only to mere "moral" realities. To weigh suffering against life or existence will go beyond the "moral" insofar as evaluations of life and existence do not fall within the "moral" (in the modern sense).
But the Christian and Platonist traditions have been saying that being and goodness are convertible for thousands of years, and given that the argument does not recognize this seems to imply that it is weighed down by a specifically modern context. Yet to make an argument against life per se or existence per se is to move beyond that modern context.
I am not sure what this is supposed to translate to, ethically speaking. It becomes irrelevant given the considerations of suffering prevention being more ethically an obligation than happiness promotion, all things being equal. In fact, if what you are implying here is correct, it is your notion that has some template that people must adhere to assumed to be there prior to birth "The Good". But I am not sure completely what you are implying, so I'd hold judgement. "Life is good" seems a theological statement of some sort.
Quoting Leontiskos
So as with TClark, this will be a case of how we parse the facts of life. That is to say, I believe it to be the case that it is empirically evident that life has X amount of suffering. Charmed lives don't exist, except in perhaps imagination or thought experiments. And with this particular argument, it is precisely because we are ignorant of what that X entails that we take the route of causing minimum suffering.
I also see the thread about fate and determinism there is discussion of agency. Clearly, the child did not have to experience any suffering. And this is why Is ay that it is never good to turn a preventative into a palliative purposefully. I don't cause (the conditions for) suffering so that you can take X, Y, Z palliative actions from it. And then I don't gaslight the situation and say that "It is what it is", or that "This is just not a growth mindset". We know that at least certain amounts of suffering, often well-known can and do occur.
Quoting Leontiskos
So you are conflating two arguments into one here. It is precisely because people cannot be consented that this Thanos argument is wrong. Also, once people exist, taking their existence away, is not the same question as bringing people into existence, so should probably be thrown out as some sort of counterpoint. There's too many differences.
As to the Christian/Platonist idea of being and goodness, or nothingness and perfection, I do find it intriguing. This is actually touching upon Schopenhauer's notion that we are NOT actually "being" in some rested/Platonic way, but because we are in the world of Maya, we are in the world of "becoming" which by default is always in some way "suffering" as it is a world of dissatisfaction, or lack, or "what we do not have presently and fades away", a world of "vanity", and all such notions. Indeed, there is an argument is precisely this world that we experience that is NOT goodness in any Platonic/completed/perfected sense. And interestingly, mysticism tries to work around this problem by saying that we are trying to "perfect" the world by giving it value and moral meaning (usually by way of enacting various commandments or divine actions upon the world).
However, though I am glad to discuss these notions, it is tangential to the argument itself which doesn't need the world to have any inherent value per se. Rather, as long as there is suffering (in any sense of that word), and the decision is there, that the moral weight is to prevent suffering more than any other one, including promoting (what one believes to be) good experiences for a person. It creates a baseline set of boundaries, as what people can end up doing is any such harm to a person and justify it in the name of X positive value that they think will result. Rather, if people have inherent dignity and worth, that respect for this boundary would seem to be necessary, otherwise people are perpetual pawns that are to be treated as such.
Being human (or maybe any being with senses) entails suffering.
Human beings are inherently ethical beings - the beings whereby ethics exist in the universe.
And in order for human beings to act according to this ethics that they are, one thing they cannot do is inflict suffering without consent.
Since we cannot get consent from the unborn, and being born human entails suffering, we should be, we ought to be, anti-natalist. As a result of us currently living, suffering, ethical beings acting as ethical anti-natalists, there will be no more humans, but also no more human suffering inflicted unethically, without consent.
Am I with you so far?
However, with no more humans, there will be no more ethics either. As you said “ethics is present because humans are present.” So humans not present (unless some other beings are ethical) means ethics is not present. With anti-natalism, we not only avoid inflicting suffering without consent, we void the ethics that told us such inflictions are wrong.
So the anti-natalist is saying, in order to abide by the ethical rule now, we must create the conditions where this ethical rule will no longer exist, since humans are the presence of ethics and no more humans will be present. The anti-natalist is saying we should eliminate the existence of the ethical rule for the sake of following the ethical rule. Just like they are saying we should eliminate the possibility of human procreation (end all future humans) for the sake of abiding by an ethical rule that is only found in existing humans. The anti-natalist gets to be the last ethical man standing, and the last instance of ethical behavior anywhere in the known universe.
The anti-natalist must admit we’ve evolved to a point where we humans inherently posit “should” and “ought” only to take this power and say “I should not have evolved at all because my consent to suffer was not obtained. And since ethics comes to be only through me, a human, ethics ought not to have evolved in the universe either. But then if ethics didn’t exist until I did, how could it have been unethical for me to be born?”
The fact that the ethics summarized as anti-natalism arises in the human race means the human race must exist for the rule to not inflict suffering to exist, AND the human race should NOT exist because none of our consent to suffering could be obtained.
(It’s not quite a paradox because it holds “is” together with “ought not”, as opposed to paradoxically joining “is” to “is not” or “ought” to “ought not”, but it is certainly absurd.)
Anti-natalism is either a self-defeating way of saying, because of human suffering, it would have been better if humans never existed. Or it is simply passing judgment on God, saying God, a being whose mere existence entails ethics (like humans) was wrong to create humans and inflict suffering on them without their consent.
Absurd or Satanic. Better to rule without humans or their ethics in hell, than to consent posthumously to suffering in heaven.
Why should it matter if the ethical rule disappears though? What needs to preserve the ethical rule? The rule comes into play when more than one human is around, and the potential to procreate is there. If there is no potential to procreate, it no longer applies. Why would it matter that the rule gets rid of the application of itself? I don't see the problem.
Water by itself has no value. But when an animal relies on it, water then obtains some "value" for that creature. If there are no humans, there is no ethics. If there are no humans, there is no thirst either. Thirst exists because humans exist, we don't exist because thirst would cease without humans. That makes no sense.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I don't get what you are saying. A lot of people believe honor killing is ethical. Does that mean the first person to question this was wrong because it was a novel idea? Also, before you were born, there was the potential for you to be born. You didn't need to be born for the ethics to be relevant, just the potential for "someone" to be born.
Quoting Fire Ologist
But it isn't absurd. You are already finding out that your own objection seems to have no impetus. All this is saying is humans can self-reflect which is different than other animals.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I have no idea what you're getting at. If humans don't exist, there are simply no people, not some hell. Also, I don't think anyone has called existence "heaven" in any non-ironic way. So, not sure what that's getting at. If you have some unspoken religious biases that you would like to bring up, go ahead.. Your notions start becoming clearer to me if you have some theological reasoning, but it doesn't become more accurate, just explains your frustration perhaps. The "Existence must exist so that we can fulfill whatever X mission" explains some of your implicit confusions and objections and it turns into the old debate of the problem of evil.
Interesting enough, antinatalism SOLVES a Christian problem by bypassing it. Souls cannot be sent to hell if you do not bear them into existence in the first place. If you didn't do this, of course, you would violate the "be fruitful and multiply", but let's say it was carried out to its logical conclusion and no one existed.. Would more people just be created like Adam and Eve so that they go through this game? Why have the game? What is important about the game? Doesn't it seem a bit anthropocentric? If aliens exist, would their religion reflect a god that has them as the main characters in their own Moral Play? Perhaps they have a similar but not quite the same salvation mythology.. One that precludes humans? :chin:
But I think ethics is either irrelevant, or is not being applied far enough. From my perspective, if a person, or a generation, is even grossly unethical, the organism and species should not be punished. Antinatalism is unethical itself; a patent example of the arrogance that our constructions have led "us" to. That we are considering sterilization of a living organism, because we can't seem to simply change our ways. Many even blame the body for that: craving, drive, aggression. As if much of the animal kingdom isn't basically variations of us. Our condition; our immoral condition, if that's what we're settled at, is not because our organism is naturally immoral. We constructed immoral in that uniquely human condition, Mind. And we can deconstruct it. We don't have to end an entire species to do so.
“The fact that the ethics, summarized as anti-natalism, [only] arises in the human race means the human race must exist for the rule to not inflict suffering to exist, AND the human race should NOT exist because none of our consent to suffering could be obtained, [must both be true and ethical, is absurd.]
— Fire Ologist”
The two sides of the “AND” above defeat each other. So we must exist in order to not exist, by enacting a rule that must not exist unless I exist. This is impossible to live by. I am making a rule that says I should not be making rules.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Because it undermines its enactment in the first place when it results in no ethical beings.
If humans disappear because all humans follow the rule, and with humans the rule disappears, then such humans would be being ethical for sake of a world without ethics.
Maybe it is because of my own limitations that I am suffering to make my point and why I can’t logically show why antinatalist ethics is absurd, but that is because this really boils down to the amount and depth of suffering in the world. If we all thought life was only suffering, and unfulfillable, longing desire, without any satiation or anything else, we would be inventing ethical rules to justify not only antinatalism, but mass suicide, after wars to enforce the ethical rule once and for all (if we weren’t too incapacitated by suffering to act at all).
But life is not only suffering. We generally don’t think that. At least most of us. Often.
And some suffering is good (like right now I’m starving and soon I will be eating). “Hunger is the best sauce. The poor always eat well.” - Sancho Panza, Don Quixote.
It boils down to whether it is absolute that inflicting suffering without consent is always and only wrong. Life is not only the suffering of being wronged, it is also forgiveness. You really can suffer and move away from suffering. There really are both. I will be done eating today. You can give consent after the fact, after you’ve suffered without consent and say “oh well, life goes on.” Because there is not only suffering.
And it is worth some suffering to force a new life to be hungry once in a while, to work hard once in a while, to struggle and fail, in order to also have bread and achieve success, or just sit down and relax.
Most real suffering is self-inflicted. We break our own rules all of the time, and shoot ourselves in the foot, just so we can say “see, life is only suffering” to ourselves, regardless of those around us.
But some of us can sometimes just live life, accepting the suffering, forgiving the inflicters, and see that inflicting this life on another without consent is like giving them a gift, an unexpected, un-consented gift.
I just disagree it is moral or ethical that we should only focus on the suffering when deciding what world is better for any other people, such as any future generation. We need to see what is good in life just as well before we make out ethics and enact it.
Antinatalism upholds ethics high above the life and suffering of the human beings it is designed to promote, and this is absurd to me. If there is to be some grandiose place for any such high and mighty ethical laws, such as “thou shalt not inflict suffering without consent,” then there must be humans there to uphold it in that place. Ending humans ends any good ethical laws protect.
Following our disappearing ethical laws isn’t the only good that is done in the world; life has its own goods just as well.
Why I don't see the problem. "What" is being undermined if there are no ethical beings? You are making it as if ethical beings are necessary to exist in the first place.
Quoting Fire Ologist
And the problem is?
Quoting Fire Ologist
Quoting Fire Ologist
I can say that the potential of suffering is always on the table, but that the world isn't constant suffering might be a different standard for things like suicide. Rather, the case isn't being born and leaving, but putting other people into the situation in the first place. I think the AN argument has presented a cogent case against this decision.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Yeah, but this indeed highlights the underlying tension between positive and negative ethics. It would be wrong of me to make you suffer just to overcome the suffering. Rather, it was better you didn't suffer at all. And then when you inevitably tell me, "But the suffering is where the meaning is!" Then I would say that this is misguided. If meaning entails suffering, there are a few things going on:
1) YOU should not be the arbiter of the suffering. Even if suffering is supposedly "good", it is not ethically encumbent on someone to take it upon themselves to be the executioner of the suffering onto someone else, violating the dignity, consent, autonomy, of a person, and violating the basic principle of "non-malfeasance" towards fellow humans.
2) Perhaps a world where "meaning" entails suffering, isn't one where it is best to bring someone into in the first place.
2a) Even more salient, and related to this Veil of Ignorance, we don't even KNOW how much suffering one's life might entail. Let's say you think that 22 is the threshold of suffering any average life should have to endure, because that is the number for "growing".. Well, if someone lives a 47 life, you can never predict that, where the suffering has now exceeded the amount necessary for a balanced, happy life. It is now excessive.
3) It is aggressively paternalistic to assume for someone else that THEY need to suffer because YOU think there is some "good" to it. Again, it's the ugly side of "positive ethics". We MUST save blank from certain death is a different situation than we MUST create beings that MIGHT experience happy lives. And you add to this that the cost of this is a lifetime of negative experiences, in unknown quantities, enacted without consent, this simply does not have much merit for its assumptions.
Quoting Fire Ologist
The problem again is with preventative and palliative ethics. In almost every other situation in life, it is a palliative measure.. You temporarily cause discomfort for a child because they need to learn to survive. But not procreating is simply preventing all suffering, period. All things being considered, not causing harm is the ethic that has no need to be violated. There is no one that needs "palliative harm". Rather you are CREATING THE VERY NEED for palliative harm. This is now in the realm of preventative ethics.
Quoting Fire Ologist
The point is we need not put other people in this situation in the first place. I don't throw you into a game and say "Tough luck, bitch" and then gaslight you by saying, "Hey it's your fault. I tried to give you tools!". It is actually quite manipulative, what you are suggesting.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Actually, no we don't. Let's say for the sake of argument that both absolute hellish lives and absolute charmed lives are not really existent (though there is way more evidence for more hellish lives).. Even if there was some mix, the "happiness creating" aspect has no bearing if that happiness is also coming with the "gift" of unknown amounts of burdens. There is no amount of paternalistic ethics that can be justified for such hubris.
Quoting Fire Ologist
You keep claiming this, but for no good reason. Why must there be humans there to uphold it in place?
Because as you said “Ethics is present because humans are around.”
Your argument is something like this:
"If there are no humans, the ethic cannot be followed".
My point is, "Correct".
And you see a problem there, but I don't see where.
No. My argument is if there are no humans around there are no ethics around. Your argument is if the ethics is antinatalism, there would be no humans around. You just just don’t see the absurdity of keeping the ethics in place without the humans to place it there.
Correct...
Quoting Fire Ologist
Huh? I am not following.
If there is no potential for procreation, there is no need for the ethic. Similarly, if there is only one person in existence, there is no need for ethics against murder.
I think that what is primarily at stake is a "theological" question, namely the question of whether life itself is good or bad, and therefore my response here would be "tu quoque." Your position passes beyond the mere ethical when it comes to depend upon the proposition
Now it seems to me that you are committed to the proposition
Quoting schopenhauer1
This is a good example of the ethical/theological or act/potency equivocation. The more precise statement is, "Clearly the child did not have to exist, and therefore did not need to experience suffering." To conflate the situation where the child does not have to experience suffering with the situation where the child does not have to experience suffering because there is no existing child to suffer is part of the problematic equivocation. You are not merely proposing removing suffering from a child, you are proposing removing the existence of the child as a means to avoiding that suffering.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No, not at all, for you have already denied that consent plays a central role in your argument. The Thanos example is apparently apropos. If suffering is the real problem, and life has no intrinsic value, then if Thanos can remove suffering by removing life—without causing suffering in the process—then on your principles he should do so. You relegated consent to a caveat, <1. Do not cause suffering, absent consent>. Because Thanos is not causing suffering consent cannot be relevant. If you reject the Thanos comparison then consent must play a more central role than your defensive argument permits.
Coming at this from a different angle, if Thanos attempted to obtain consent before snapping each individual out of existence, do you think this attempt would be rationally sound? Does it follow from your argument that consensual euthanization of the entire race is the ideal and rational solution?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Okay, interesting. I will leave this to the side for the sake of time, but it is worth noting that Platonist and Christian schemes allow for a fallen world of cave-shadows.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So again, your argument here is bound up with the claim that the world has inherent negative value. More precisely, it is bound up with the claim that human existence has negative value (i.e. is evil). This is in no way tangential. If we remove that premise then your argument disintegrates, does it not?
Quoting schopenhauer1
It's not at all clear to me that your position is the one that favors inherent dignity and worth. To nix life on account of suffering seems to be contrary to notions of inherent dignity. If humans have inherent dignity, then they have it regardless of negative attributes or accidents such as suffering, disability, etc. That is basically the heart of what we mean by dignity, "Even in spite of your inadequacies, your life still has intrinsic value." Suffering is merely one form of inadequacy.
Quoting schopenhauer1
There is the danger here of an argument which proves far too much. Imagine a world where every person suffers a pinprick but no more, and the remainder of their life is pure happiness. Why wouldn't your or Benatar's argument also prohibit procreation in this world? The pinprick of suffering seems to fuel your arguments just as well as extreme suffering. Benatar's asymmetry holds just as well in that case.
This seems to be the same problem as Fire Ologist, but a variation. The ethic is on the part of the person enacting the suffering onto the other. At this point, it is not about the "other".
Let me walk you through some situations. Will you grant me that instead of an existing "person", I can instead use an existing "state of affairs"?
If you allow me that, we can use the following analogy...
There is a state of affairs whereby I can put someone in harms way by X action (it need not be procreation).
The state of affairs does not exist yet, however. You can always say, "How can you prevent a state of affairs that is not existent! That situation has not come about yet.. In fact, we don't even KNOW which person might be harmed by the situation, but we know that in all likelihood, a person WILL be harmed, if YOU (the person who is doing the action) does X".
In this state of affairs scenario, it is doubtful you will find this thinking absurd. That is to say, just because there isn't a particular person that this state of affairs will affect, doesn't mean we are not incumbent to prevent the situation. All the more so, the more important the harm that will occur, that it can be prevented reasonably easily, etc. etc. So no, I don't see this situation applying.
Quoting Leontiskos
I didn't say consent was ONLY necessary when doing harm to someone. In fact, I didn't even mention whether ONCE ALREADY EXISTING, non-existence is or is not considered a harm. You cannot put the genie back. Where as with birth, there is no one that can get consent, NOW someone exists.. The very basis for this kind of deontological basis of ethics (respect, dignity, autonomy, etc.) now applies to a person.
Quoting Leontiskos
Well, now you've changed it. If he asked, and everyone consented, ethically speaking, this isn't violating an ethic. Whether this is the right "solution", I don't know, because I don't believe already-existing to be symmetrical for never-existing. In modal thinking, never-existing is simply the potential of something to exist, and the already-existing is the factuality of someone's actual existence. Can it be that once existing, different priorities are considered in regards to harms and goods? Perhaps. For example, I wouldn't recommend forcing X upon someone. But once someone has X done upon them, if it means that they have abc experiences, and they value them, I see no need to get rid of them, unless indeed they thought they were were worthless. So perhaps nothing should have been done to that person, but once it's done, it doesn't take away the value they might have gotten. They do not have to be mutually exclusive. This is a trap many anti-AN arguments fall under. If there is good from a bad, then the bad must not be that bad. That is faulty logic.
I think also what you are struggling with is that antinatalism tends to be void of a positive value that we must live for. You can try putting in the value of "not suffering", but that doesn't get at it. Rather, we are NOT LIVING for that value, but rather, preventing that negative state of affairs from befalling someone. On the flip side, any other reason to have a child that is not purely a selfish reason by the parent, is one whereby you want the child to LIVE FOR some value, thus violating the non-harm prevention SO THAT they can live out this value. And it would indeed be on the anti-AN to prove that this violation is fine and dandy without just resorting to "It has always been done this way and thus appeal to tradition, yadayada".
Quoting Leontiskos
No, because you don't need to view the world as evil for this argument, just that preventing suffering is a priority. Tangentially, the world might have inherently suffering, adding to the evidence FOR the suffering of the world though. I refrain from using "evil" though as it sounds like the world is "out to get you", when it could just be an inherent factor of our condition.
Quoting Leontiskos
So whilst I agree with what you have said there, the point is that paternalistically making a decision on behalf of someone to not prevent them from suffering, and thus basically forcing the conditions of suffering onto them, would not be respecting the dignity, as this becomes aggressive paternalism. You can probably think of your own scenarios where aggressive paternalism would be violating this dignity, other than procreation.
Quoting Leontiskos
My point was that empirically-speaking, in the real world, there are no such charmed lives, so it is de facto out of the question other than a thought experiment. Supposing only a pin-prick was the suffering, I guess the scenario could be reconsidered. But I just want you to know, every single ethical consideration can be reconfigured if you change the conditions for which ethics plays out... So for example.. What if when you stab someone, they reanimate every time you do it instantly.. would that be wrong? I don't know, but that's not the world we generally live in..
But ok, let me take your bait for taking the strongest position just for the sake of argument..
Benatar thinks indeed, being that no one being deprived of this "almost charmed life", there is no foul. No person harmed, no foul. Rather, the violation still takes place in this scenario. It's not like the child is being "saved" from non-existence, so this isn't a palliative situation either.
Leontiskos methodically demonstrates that antinatalism turns on the premise that, if there is any human suffering, there is enough suffering to justify ending the human race.
When thinking ahead for the unborn-yet-to-be-procreated persons, the potential ones antinatalism is trying be ethical toward, couldn’t we just as easily instead think of those unborn persons and make the rule “one cannot deprive someone of happiness without their consent.”
Is there no happiness in the world?
If that is our new rule, it becomes ethical to ask everyone to procreate as much as possible. Which would also be absurd as it would tend to deprive everyone of happiness if everyone was cranking out and trying to manage babies all of the time.
This highlights something else. There is not really any duty one way or the other to non-existing potential people. Antinatalism is good for potential people who will by design never exist. Ethics arises between two existing, actualized people. We can act today thinking of its impact on future people, but until those future people are actual, our present actions can’t be seen as ethical, or not ethical. The ethics of the actions only arises where the people arise, actually.
Also highlighted and not addressed in antinatalism, the world isn’t just suffering, or even enough suffering to contemplate a need to end all human beings. It’s just not compelling.
We don’t need to solve the problem of any suffering. We will want to solve the problem of the individual actual person who is actually suffering greatly. But because of that person’s existence, and because other people experience happiness at times, we don’t need to end all people.
This is different than the theoretical potential person that is discussed pre-procreation. In the above scenario, not knowing the identity of the particular person who will be put in harms way doesn’t mean the present existing state of affairs does not include already existing people who are actually putting people in harms way and actually going to be harmed.
The above is just not helpful here.
No because that's the point, that in matters of ethics, preventing suffering is weighted more important than promoting happiness. And indeed, causing suffering in the hopes that one promotes happiness would thus be a violation therewith.
Quoting Fire Ologist
But you point out the absurdity indeed of defending certain forms of utilitarianism. In fact, you have stumbled on the repugnant conclusion.
Quoting Fire Ologist
No, not at all. As I said here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting Fire Ologist
How is it not compelling to prevent suffering when one can?
Quoting Fire Ologist
But this is exactly the misguided thinking I explain between the tension of preventative and palliative ethics. You don't CREATE the situation of palliative ethics by bypassing the preventative part. I don't CREATE your suffering so that I can help you fix it.
That is not absolute. I’m not a utilitarian for instance. And antinatalism isn’t tailored to preventing suffering, it prevents everything, including weighting the importance of suffering over happiness.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don’t see this as analogous here, because you are dealing here with existing people who are put in specific harms way and existing people who are putting them there. Antinstalism is dealing with existing people who are potentially putting people in harms way, and non-existing potential people. The scenarios are too far apart. It’s not close enough of an analogy to be instructive.
Quoting schopenhauer1
In a world of suffering and happiness, it is not compelling to prevent suffering by eliminating all people and all happiness as well. We don’t all agree that “in matters of ethics, preventing suffering is weighted more important.”
Many would agree that disallowing procreation would cause great suffering in existing people. Some people are born moms and dads and they know it. Is their suffering as they live our antinatalism worth the good of a future world without humans to you? Antinatalism also causes suffering of existing people now who want kids and whose kids will love them.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You don’t prevent MY suffering if I never exist either.
It is ethical to prevent actual suffering in actual beings. It is wishful thinking to prevent potential suffering in non-existing beings. You might also be preventing the evolution of bliss and paradise on earth. You will never know if antinatalism was the right prescription for suffering, because they will be no one who could thank you for your ethics.
So now I have three problems with antinatalism.
1. There is no ethical way to treat non-existing people, so an ethics that is called good for its treatment of non-existing people is misguided at best if not non-ethics. Its resource management policy - not enough happiness to go around so let’s eliminate the number of suffering people.
2. Suffering is not enough a reason to eliminate all humanity. My guess is the vast majority of people suffer 33% of their conscious time. The vast majority would rather live this life than no life at all. The suffering in the world still isn’t enough to justify ending the world.
3. Antinatalism is not directed at preventing suffering, as it prevents everything. It’s an over broad solution to a narrower problem
Imagine you have a magic wand that allows you to prevent procreation. People In two neighboring villages are constantly inflicting suffering on each other. You can’t solve so many disputes and you see that the suffering will never end, so instead you make it so those people can’t procreate and just let them live out their lives suffering. Soon there will be no more suffering inflicting going on in those villages because there will be no more people there. In another two neighboring villages, the people are always stealing from each other and bullying each other. There are times when the people are back in their homes laughing and relaxing, but at some point, everyone is stealing and bullying so at some point everyone is a victim of theft and bullying. No way to address the stealing and bullying, so you wave the wand and solve the problem eventually.
Antinatalism isn’t tailored to the specific problem it is trying to prevent, and is way overboard of a response to just suffering.
The ethics are to do with our actions now. Not unborn people. The potential suffering itself is not hte moral crux. The action that (on the balance of probabilities) will make it come about, are. This is a gross oversimplication (or, overcomplexification, depending where you stand) of the point of antinatalism. That said, this is just another notch in my belt of Emotivism. Only your emotional response to that potential suffering could inform any decision around it. There is no ethical, normative principle which could entail either having, or not having children in the strict sense of those statements.
Quoting Fire Ologist
This is, again, an emotive position. To some people it is. There isn't a way to argue for one or the other, really, other than Benatar's clearly apt a-symmetry argument. Accept, or don't.
Quoting Fire Ologist
This is a non sequitur. It prevents the imposition of human life and nought else. The suffering goes with it. I can't quite grasp why you'd make such a wildly overt overstatement of the position. Another below..
Quoting Fire Ologist
-------------------
Quoting Fire Ologist
Then it would stand to reason you are an anti-abortionist? Someone who would not look twice pulling out in the road? Wouldn't remove broken glass from a playground? These are all potential harms to no one in particular (the A-symmetry argument beats this anyway). A starker example is, why keep NICU's sterile? Hehehe.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Benatar, particularly, addresses this issue. It is far more likely the figure is closer to 80% (this is interpolation based on my thoughts along with his arguments around it). Polly-Anna syndrome is rife. Most people are genuinely mistaken about how often they suffer. That said, I'm unsure this is a particularly strong anti-natalist argument anyway. I don't care what living people think about their lives. The vast majority of anti-natalists hold that the living have a deep interest in continuing to live. Perhaps there are situations in whcih this isn't the case, but overall, its hard to find examples of that.
Your earlier two objections are to stronger arguments, and I think your objections are just your taste. They aren't logic objections or reasonable ways around the claims made. They just illustrate that you do not accept htem, prima facie. That's fine. None of that has to do with the strength or weakness of hte anti-natalist position other than how it strikes you (weakly, it seems).
Quoting Fire Ologist
It is a 1:1 match with its aim. That you're averse to non-existence is expected, but not relevant.
The argument holds that human life is evil (or bad) on account of suffering, and therefore we should not further human life by procreation. The proposition that
Quoting schopenhauer1
We force a decision upon them either way. I don't see how only one direction is paternalistic.
Quoting schopenhauer1
The problem is that your argument is a form of metabasis,
Our obligation is to prevent the suffering of persons, not to prevent persons for the sake of suffering. Our primary suffering-obligation is to prevent existing persons from suffering. Additional argument is required to show that this means that we should prevent persons from existing. Your aversion to suffering is overwhelming, and out of sync with common intuitions. Common intuitions merely say that suffering should be mitigated, not expunged at all costs. ...but maybe I would be better off directly addressing Benatar's argument... (and I do so at the end)
Quoting schopenhauer1
Why not? Does existence suddenly become a non-harm once someone is born? Is life bad before we are born and good after we are born? So that we must avoid it before we are born and embrace it after we are born?
Let's move to the consensual variant, which seems to me more fruitful:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Again, why are they not symmetrical? I am guessing that unhappy people correlate to antinatalism and happy people correlate to "pronatalism," because there is symmetricity. Again, the whole thing is based on the question of whether life is good or bad, and that determination should hold steady. So if you really think life is bad then you should think that other people should think that life is bad, and that other people should consent to painless euthanization. If euthanization is not the rational choice for living persons, then why would you promote antinatalism? (Note that when I talk about the "rational position," what I mean is that this is the choice that the rational person ought to freely choose for themselves.")
Quoting schopenhauer1
If X doesn't want to be euthanized because they find life beautiful and valuable, then either they are irrational or else the antinatalism thesis suffers a blow. That person would literally resent your antinatalism, because it sought to "paternalistically" prevent their fulfilling life. These two realities are directly opposed. It is not faulty logic.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It seems to me like a rationalization of pusillanimity: fear of life for fear of suffering. The antinatalist would apparently counsel the unborn to opt out of life for fear of suffering.
Do you agree that, one way or another, we must make a choice for the unborn? That to give birth is to choose life for them, and that to abstain from procreation is to choose non-existence for them? (Really "them," as I am now swimming in the metabasis). I don't accept the purported neutrality of the antinatalist position, as if so-called "paternalism" is not inevitable.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Reconsidered on what basis? I am offering a reductio, and if your argument succumbs then the argument itself is problematic, as it "proves too much."
Quoting schopenhauer1
It wouldn't be wrong in the same way as it is now. But your theoretical does not function as a reductio to any argument that I have offered, and that is the primary difference.
Quoting schopenhauer1
The problem occurs if this is a valid argument:
Are you starting to see the reductio? The reductio has force because we know that any (2) that can get you from (1) to (3) is faulty argumentation.
But, true, I’m not just building analytic proofs here.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Schop said, and I agree, that ethics only exist where people and exist, and in particular, where more than one person exists. The ethical rule at issue is: it is always wrong to inflict suffering on others and/or to do so without consent. And the ethical solution is to stop making people.
While I disagree with the rule (and I don’t thereby think inflicting suffering is good, just that it is not universally always wrong to inflict any suffering without consent), leaving the rule as is anyway, there is a distinction between an ethical rule that prevents harm to people you don’t know in particular, and a rule that prevents harm in people people that don’t exist.
It is true that, if all suffering infliction is wrong, the unethical behavior is “to do with our actions now” and the unethical person is the one who exists, inflicting the suffering. But in all of the above scenarios, in your quote, there are already existing victims of the harm. The antinatalist isn’t looking out for the fetus who will be a person; the antinatalist is urging no one gets pregnant. There is no person existing that is the one towards whom the ethical act is directed. There is only the antinatalist claiming ethical treatment of the beneficiaries of that ethical treatment, namely beings (I guess you can call them human beings) that never come to be. There is not only no particular subject of the antinatalists actions, there is no potential ethical subject.
Too leave the glass on the playground is potentially inflicting harm (not necessarily, whereas necessary suffering is part of the antinatalist solution) on anyone who plays there. The people who might or might not play there actually exist while I consider whether or not to remove the glass. The non-procreated are not beings at all. So if two ethical beings must exist for there to be an ethics between them, those beings exist in the playground scenario but do not exist in the antinatalist world. We can’t prevent suffering in someone until someone exists, at least any reason we would have to prevent further existence is not a matter of ethics towards that further existing being, because there is no one or thing there to be ethical towards.
If I use the playground analogy, the antinatalist reasoning to me would lead to solutions like “there should be no playgrounds” or “because children at play can cut themselves on glass, there should be no children.”
Truth is antinatalism solves every math problem, every philosophical conundrum, every imperfection - all of gone to history. Problem is, people like playgrounds, despite the glass. All ethics and logic and suffering be damned when there is good sliding board around.
Totally
Quoting Fire Ologist
And, if you don't mind, add: and, a response directed at the wrong party. If you want to end suffering, end mind's constructions, and attachments thereto. Why end a species?
Yep
Quoting AmadeusD
Yep/.. I am not sure why @Fire Ologist isn't quite getting this.
Quoting AmadeusD
Yep.
All of these are basically my points as well.
Again, you ignore what it means to cause suffering and back-filling the justification after-the-fact with palliative ethics. You don't intentionally cause the situation for which you think you then have the remedy. And since you really ignored my argument, and simply show your distaste, I don't know what else to say other than you have failed to show any meaningful objections other than indeed your distaste for the logic.
No, causing happiness is not an obligation in the way NOT causing harm is. Causing pain in order for them to also have happiness is still a violation of non-malfeasance.
Happiness-promoting is not obligatory, and especially so if to promote happiness you knowingly create the conditions for someone else to be harmed. Procreation creates the very need for palliative measures to mitigate suffering. Preventing harm by not procreating avoids creating this need altogether.
Quoting ENOAH
See, that reads to me like a breath of new air in the conversation. Sort of procreates some breathing space.
Reminds me that we are talking about making a rule that must guide my actions. It’s not just an analytic exercise with suffering and ethical rules as its parts. The argument for antinatalism is also about my response, like where you said it was a response directed at the wrong people.
After we’re done with the logical analysis, antinatalism is a call to action. It says if we work hard enough together, maybe in a few generations, we will finally all do the ethical thing and choose to be antinatalists, then, the human species will be gone, and with it, gone is all suffering, and those last people can say “we, now the most ethical generation, the ones who have inflicted the least suffering on others, we bid to those who discovered antinatalism our humble gratitude for showing us the ethic, and bid everyone else, including ourselves, I guess, good riddance.”
While I think we mean different things when you say “end mind’s constructions and attachments thereto”, I would use those same words to point to the fact that all ethics is in our heads. Ethics is about what we physically do when we interact with other people in the world, but the ethical parts of those actions exist only in my head, in our heads. We must construct all of this, and together for it to be ethics. I would also instead use some of your words to say, “while we are always attaching and detaching from constructions, to be ethical is to take care of what you attach to and detach from.”
But we need both the analytic approach, and this raw, more contextual (aware of aware-ing) view to find an ethical norm.
My attempt at the analytic syllogism:
[b]Life is suffering.
No one should intentionally cause suffering.
Procreating is intentional infliction of suffering…
Therefore, antinatalism.
Negatively put, we should not inflict suffering, so we should not procreate. Or more positively put, it is right not to procreate, or else you would intentionally cause suffering.[/b]
We’ve constructed out of suffering this new ethic. (It had to be new because people had to be here first to construct it, it is newer than us at least.)
Now of course antimatalism is more that. And granting the premises, it’s a sound argument. That may be enough for many intuitions.
But what can we know and say about this syllogism?
P1: Life is suffering.
Maybe. Maybe because of life, we have something to compare suffering with in order to identify that life includes suffering. Without something good in life to compare to, how would we recognize suffering. We had to have a happy finger first before we could say that on prick was suffering. But then, does that mean the good and happy finger is a cause of the suffering too?
But maybe life is living. And living is many things, with the many things we live with. One of them is suffering. One of them is ecstasy. One of them is sleeping. One of them is a pin-prick, or reading. Life is reading, right now.
Also, this premise is where we assume a sub premise “suffering is only bad.” Suffering is bad, but it is not only bad. Some suffering is called work. Some called really hard work. Some called loving. Some called longing. Some longing is suffering deeply. Some longing is not.
I think many are willing to say there is enough suffering assured in life that it’s not worth breaking it down into how much or how little there is that it would start to change the calculus of the syllogism. Many would argue life pivots from suffering too much to suffering enough, and therefore “Life is suffering” is a valid premise, period, end of discussion.
So we’ll move on, under protest.
P2: No one should intentionally cause suffering.
Sounds like a nice sentiment from the start. But it depends on your view of what suffering is from P1 if you would make this an absolute. If all suffering is bad, then yeah, absolutely no one should inflict it on anyone else. But many of us have had suffering inflicted upon us without our consent, at great cost, causing deep suffering, only to later count the experience as a a good one. That’s the constant life of a child. Some suffering can lead to tremendous things that would not have been what they are without the suffering. So if not all suffering is bad, what is wrong with causing it in another?
So this premise only works if all suffering is bad. So my protest from P1 is rearing its head.
That means to me I should try to tailor P2 to keep the argument flowing.
How about new P2: “No one should intentionally harm or injure another for the sole purpose of causing them to suffer.”
Sounds stronger, and accounts for the good of inflicting valuable suffering, but this will be a problem when it comes time to choose whether to procreate. Now with new premise 2 we have to have a baby already born who we can physically “harm and injure” before we might unethically do so for “the sole purpose of causing them to suffer.”
I just disagree that intentionally causing suffering, the heart of this ethical rule, is necessarily something that should never be done, it’s not clearly a universal. It’s not self-evident.
It needs work, as does my argument against it, but let’s press on.
P3: Procreating is intentional infliction of suffering.
This conflates begetting, or giving new life, with infliction on a subject. When we inflict, we inflict upon. There must be an object that we inflict something specific like suffering upon. But that object is missing in the syllogism. Take the antinatalist negative approach and flip it, and you see the hole, the missing object when one tries to inflict something onto the unborn, the non-existent.
If we do not procreate we will not inflict suffering upon……..who? (I get it, the answer is: on the possible child that would have been had you gotten pregnant.). But really, who benefits when I do not have a kid so I can not inflict suffering? Can I say I benefited 10 babies because I was going to have at least 10 kids, but now since I’m an antinatalist, I benefited 10 people? That seems really odd. But if making up some number of never-existing people as beneficiaries of my good antinatalist deeds is odd at all, so is saying I benefitted one person. There is no one person who benefits if you conflate the Infliction of suffering with procreation and respond by not procreating. I’m just procreating. There is no one there to enjoy my mon-procreation with, as there is no one to say “thanks for not inflicting suffering on me” because I didn’t create any such life.
Secondly, there is a bias in the word “inflict”. We don’t inflict levity and happiness. We inflict pain and suffering. To procreate need not be an “infliction” of anything at all. Maybe it is another place to reword the premise better.
But thirdly, premise three is kind of premise 1 reworded. To say procreation is inflicting suffering is like saying life is suffering. Life, the tug and pull of being and becoming, or just the becoming of being, or just the “ing” of suffering. If life is suffering procreating is building new suffering or inflicting suffering.
This just goes back to the arguments against premise 1, that life can’t only be suffering for suffering to be distinguishable as a feature of life at all - life is more than suffering, and more than enough good to enable appropriate attachment to other features of life besides suffering. And suffering isn’t so bad that you must never cause it in another.
But, Conclusion: Antinatalism.
Logically flows from the premises as they are meant by the antinatalist. Suffering is truly excruciating and life is suffering, so since procreating makes new lives of suffering, we should not procreate. Certinly uses logic.
But only compelling if you think suffering is so bad, that suffering is the definer of becoming a human being, that we can’t see any good in suffering, that we can’t see other things besides suffering more valuable to us, that we can’t use our suffering to construct other things, and that if we inflict suffering it is never for good, it is always an unethical act. I just disagree with all of those observations. Together they mean an end to procreation is wildly inappropriate a response. It’s an emotional response to suffering, not something clear enough to construct an ethical norm.
It’s a slap in the face of the Dionysian. Mother Nature inflicted humanity on the universe, why would we judge her so harshly and end her creation, for the sake of each other not having each other?
I don’t see wisdom in turning against life itself because of suffering.
We should turn against the suffering, not the life that begets it or not even the ones who inflict it.
The law should be, because life involves suffering, we should give relief and kinship, so that others can know life with less suffering, but others can know life.
My arguments don’t seem compelling enough yet either. But that just means I need to keep searching for the words, suffering through the birth of better words, constructing something to attach to that accounts for more than the last attachment.
Suffering is intrinsically negative and harmful regardless of comparative happiness. The existence of suffering is ethically significant on its own, as it involves harm and distress that should be prevented when possible.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Promoting happiness at the expense of causing harm violates the principle of non-malfeasance by justifying harmful actions for potential positive outcomes. It involves using individuals as means to an end, imposing projects on them without their consent, and treating them as tools for achieving broader goals. Ethical consistency requires prioritizing the avoidance of harm and respecting individuals' autonomy and dignity, rather than foisting known and unknown conditions of harm upon them, for the sake of some positive-ethical external objectives.
Quoting Fire Ologist
While some people argue that suffering isn't all bad and can lead to growth, this idea falls short when you look at the bigger picture. First off, suffering is inherently harmful. Even if it might lead to some positive outcomes, the immediate distress and pain it causes shouldn't be ignored or justified. The principle of "do no harm" should always come first, and causing suffering to potentially promote happiness just doesn't cut it ethically. Plus, making someone else suffer because you believe it's good for them totally disregards their right to make their own choices. It's like deciding for them that the end justifies the means, which is a huge overstep.
Treating people as tools for achieving a goal (like personal growth through suffering) is another major issue. People aren’t just instruments for projects we believe in. Everyone has different ways of dealing with and understanding suffering. What might be a meaningful struggle for one person could be devastating for another. This unpredictability means you can't assume suffering will lead to positive outcomes for everyone.
Respecting personal autonomy is crucial. Everyone should have the right to decide whether they want to endure suffering for a potential benefit. Foisting this decision on someone else is ethically wrong and incredibly paternalistic. It’s like saying, "I know what's best for you," which often isn't the case. Growth and fulfillment can happen through positive experiences and challenges that don't involve suffering.
Finally, there's a big difference between preventing harm (preventative ethics) and trying to fix it after the fact (palliative ethics). Creating situations where suffering occurs and then trying to justify it with potential benefits is backwards. It’s better to avoid causing harm in the first place. All in all, assuming that suffering is valuable and imposing it on others without their consent is unethical and dismissive of individual autonomy and well-being.
After reviewing your P2, that last response answers that as well, so moving on...
Quoting Fire Ologist
This principle doesn't need to be about a specific person who benefits or says thanks. It's about the ethical stance of the decision-maker to prevent harm. The decision not to have children because you want to avoid causing potential suffering is about maintaining an ethical standard. Saying "who benefits?" misses the point because it’s not about imaginary future people celebrating your decision. It's about your commitment to an ethical choice that avoids creating a scenario where suffering is possible. It’s not about benefiting non-existent beings; it’s about making a responsible and ethical decision based on the understanding that creating life inevitably involves creating suffering, and the ethical imperative to avoid this suffering outweighs other considerations, and the recognition that not doing so, is a paternalistic overstep in foisting one's projects onto another, using them. So, this strawman argument oversimplifies and misrepresents (this particular) antinatalist position.
Is this not the long and the short of it?
With a Bricolage of logic and reasoning, a skilled artist can construct complex hypotheses to justify many things in ethics. As much as we like to think ethics transcends us, that thought too, emerged because it is functional to view ethics that way. Contra Descartes et. al., the only thing this organism can claim with certainty is that this organism is. Period. The same cannot be said of any of its constructions from "I" to "all life is Dukkha," to "thou shalt not x".
So does it not boil down to: life is living. We humans make the distinction suffering/no suffering. These, and like distinctions are how our world turns. But with antinatalism we are clearly going too far. People think asceticism a radical approach; how much more is extinction?
Even practically. If you can mobilize an entire species to eliminate one of the three strongest drives--to perpetuate living, and to bond with one's offspring--you might as well exhaust first, all other efforts to change the conditions. If the livestock are suffering under our current conditions, the solution is to change the conditions, not to sterilize the cattle.
As much as I have been turned on to Schopenhauer. This is the corrupted truth which emerges out of the insistence that the will is both the seat off the suffering and our essential human nature. The will constructs suffering. Our human nature may experience pain, the absence of pleasure, but it does not construct anything out of that; it responds to it, just as it responds to pleasure.
The so called will is the name we give to those dynamics of Mind. Difficult to escape, but actually malleable.
Because only when born is it paternalistic, as there is someone aggressed. The aggression only works one way.
Quoting Leontiskos
No, going back to the Kant thread, not preventing all counts of suffering BECAUSE (X reason that parent has), IS using as means to an ends, overlooking dignity. It is this crux of dignity that you are missing. It was unnecessary, other than promoting some cause.. That project is done on behalf of the child- hence aggressive paternalism.
Quoting Leontiskos
No, because again, one could have been prevented, one violated and justified with mitigation or because of X conflicting reason of the parent, to be carried out for the child, but can never be the child.. there was no child to begin with to even need happiness.. nor to need the suffering which ultimately comes along with it... And again, "merely" becomes a cover for everything. I merely let that thing hurt you because in the future, it could be in your interest. There is an reductio for ya.
Quoting Leontiskos
I've already answered and you conveniently ignored and cherry picked so I will present it again:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting Leontiskos
Actually, if we want to use Benatar here, that matters not. If no ONE is deprived of the good, then the decision does no good or bad that "no benefits" took place for someone. The onus is on the creating the bad "for someone". I might even argue that creating bad "for no one" is not good or bad either. It can only be formulated as a maxim for someone making the decision.
And yes, the ethic assumes that creating suffering is more important ethically than promoting happiness. And hence why even the pinprick argument is a sort of shrug because due to the non-existing people to not care about it, it becomes moot. It's only YOU the person existing crying on the sidelines over non-existent spilt milk.
Quoting Leontiskos
No it's precisely this kind of formulation I am against. The only scenario where something would happen for/to them is the one where a person results, none of the others. At this point, it might be helpful to draw a table...
Quoting Leontiskos
No, not really. When you create a fantasy world and that changes the very terms of how existence works, I don't see that as proving anything. What if gravity didn't exist? How would that change ethics? What if time and space could be changed so that we can redo actions? Again, none of this is this world. We can argue facts, but then at least we are arguing what is the case, and not hypotheticals that change how ethics would work because circumstances of the very conditions for ethics have changed.
Quoting Leontiskos
It's to show an illustration of what is going on when you change things to a certain extent.
Er, I think antinatalism is dead in the water due to this argument:
What is your counter supposed to be? "No, because counterfactual analyses aren't allowed"? I would suggest reading about the fallacy of "proving too much." Benatar's argument cannot account for the fact that procreation is obviously permissible in an all but perfect world. Benatar would not allow procreation before removing that pinprick. That's crazy. Benatar is irrationally opposed to life, and he would be irrationally opposed to life even in the best of circumstances. Indeed, his irrational argument opposes life even in the best of circumstances!
For example, given that Benatar’s argument opposes the natural order, it cannot have been derived from the natural order. So if Benatar really thinks his argument holds good, then he must hold that his own mind and the knowledge it has come to know is super-natural, transcending nature. If we are limited to nature then we cannot contradict nature. Where does such a mind or such knowledge come from, if not from nature? Either the Gnostics are correct and it comes from the true god, or Christians are correct and it comes from demons. Or else it is just hopelessly mistaken and a product of merely human irrationality.
This is definitely the most arguable aspect of the whole thing. I actually do sometimes swing on this one, but as a living person it hits me as patent that I'm off the rails at that point. I am not important to my own considerations here. It is whether or not causing people to exist is ethical. If you are (as I would put it) deluded into thinking your life is, on balance, purposeful and happy, you will reject this premise and (whether erroneously or not) be fine with procreation. The other premises don't seem to be shakeable in this way.
Quoting Fire Ologist
This is true, but where we are dealing with non-existent people this is not relevant other than to assign a position to oneself as a result of their emotional reaction to whatever proposition..
Quoting Fire Ologist
There are clearly not. There are potential victims. This is why the analogy holds, for the most part. And taking this straight to your conclusion of "no playgrounds", yes, that's right, but antinatalists don't confuse the issue:
No humans. Not not playgrounds. Let the people who exist use hte playground, for reasons your point out that would make the "no playgrounds" conclusion stupid as heck. That said, it seems fairly clear that's not hte intention. THe intention is to leave the playground (world)as is, and remove the potential sufferer as it is (on this account) an unavoidable consequence of being one. We're not trying to get rid of oceans to avoid drownings - we're trying to stop people swimming where drowning is a clearly likely consequence (very shaky analogy, but there you go - can refine later if needed).
Quoting ENOAH
Yes. But "many things" includes many things one would not trade non-existence in for, if the choice were at all a coherent one. If someone is "many things" but in there is psychopathic sexual deviant, we aren't inclined to let it roll.
Quoting Leontiskos
That isn't an argument.
Quoting Leontiskos
Quoting Leontiskos
Simply put, what? Total non sequitur. Sorry to say, but this just hits as red herring designed to impugn the logic of an argument on a naturalistic basis. Who gives a flying toss if its "against the natural order"? You'd need to establish what that is, and how it is derived (in light of hte extremely novel consciousness humans currently enjoy (see what i did there..)) in a way which could logically make Benatar's points untenable. You can't support these claims - only make them. I do smell the overwhelming aroma of religiosity coming through here... where did the evil bit come in?
Either, you have that knowledge, or his arguments are as good as yours. One for thee, one for me. Though, if you've simply been overzealous and mean only to posit that his arguments are inadequate and not that his position is wrong due to other arguments, sure. It reads as if you're trying to present a logical basis for rejecting his arguments. But, they literally boil down to your tastes regarding epistemology it seems. And I'd say your comments there are.. bizarre... That said, you'd very much enjoy prof. Tim Mulgan's Ananthropocentric Purposivism.
Antinatalism need not be synonymous with philosophical pessimism, though the two concepts are often related. Antinatalism only requires certain logical principles to be true. If we believe in a negative ethics where it's best not to cause suffering, harm, or use others, it is imperative not to overlook the consequences of procreation, even if motivated by a positive ethical cause, like promoting happiness.
Everything follows from this principle. There are no non-existent people who benefit from being born; rather, it is about preventing the suffering, harm, and violation of existing people, if they are born.
Gnostic-like elements can be used to justify why suffering is as bad or worse than people initially think. While these more theoretical notions of suffering can be indulged, antinatalism does not hinge on them. If we do take these aspects seriously, there is an argument, that it appears that once born, we are trapped in a cycle of unfulfilled desires with little chance for genuine repose. We can only mitigate this through psychological and physical means, such as fulfilling needs and wants or using mental exercises to manage angst, but this will never satiate, as Schopenhauer noted in detail.
Beyond the inherent suffering of existence, life imposes contingent suffering based on situations and circumstances beyond one's control. These include diseases, natural disasters, social injustices, and personal losses. The world subjects individuals to random and often severe hardships, from debilitating illnesses to the trauma of losing loved ones, and the cruelty of societal inequalities. Even small daily annoyances—everything from traffic jams, minor illnesses, interpersonal conflicts—accumulate over time, adding to white noise baseline of human suffering. By choosing to procreate, we are subjecting new individuals to these unpredictable and uncontrollable harms. This contingent suffering exacerbates the moral issue of procreation, as it means bringing someone into a world where their well-being can be drastically compromised by forces they cannot influence or evade.
While there are inherent goods in life, claiming that these justify causing harm oversteps a deontological point. The inherent goods can be summarized as follows:
-Physical pleasure: The simple joys of sensory experiences.
-Human or animal connections: Friendships, romance, group activities, bonding, nurturing, etc.
-Flow states: Getting "caught up" in something challenging and engaging.
-Aesthetic pleasures: Enjoying art, humor, nature, music, literature, etc.
-Learning: Gaining new concepts or skills, engaging in hobbies.
-Achievement: Accomplishing goals and feeling a sense of accomplishment.
These goods add value to life. But to assert that these goods justify the creation of life, with its inevitable suffering and harm, oversteps a fundamental deontological principle. This principle maintains that we should not unnecessarily cause harm for people (i.e don’t create circumstances of harm for someone that did not need existing harm reduced with a lesser harm)- this is regardless of potential positive outcomes. Procreation involves deciding that potential pleasure and meaning for new beings outweigh the certain suffering they will encounter, which is a significant and hubristic ethical assumption.
Humans are unique in their self-reflection. Unlike other animals that live in the moment, generally absent existential or moral considerations, humans do and can make self-consciously deliberate choices. Other animals exist within the simplicity of their instincts, unburdened by the weight of self-awareness. In contrast, humans have been metaphorically kicked out of paradise because we possess the knowledge of good and evil, the capacity for existential contemplation.
Choosing to bring someone into existence means deciding that they should live out the challenges and issues we deem meaningful. This is a profound choice, not a natural inevitability. People seek pleasure and meaning in various ways, but deciding for others what is meaningful or subjecting them to a lifetime of issues is something that is paternalistically assumed to be imposed for another.
You claim that the antinatalist is secretly religious, but even the most atheistic person promoting having kids is really the pseudo-religious because they see life as something necessary for someone to live out. Indeed the project of life becomes more important than the harms that that person would experience. It is this overlooking of suffering for the project of life that I am concerned with. It is this idea that is the crux of the dignity violation. It’s no “mere” here, it’s full stop.
Yep :up:
Quoting AmadeusD
I agree. But the rest isn’t fairly arguable?
Quoting AmadeusD
Yes.
But there’s no reasonable quarrel with “procreating is inflicting, and inflicting suffering because it inflicts life which is suffering?” Seems subject to scrutiny, and potentially analogous to “feeding is inflicting suffering, and opening a window to let in some fresh air is inflicting suffering”, because all of these promote life, like procreation promotes life which is suffering. I might not only have to be an antinatalist, I might have to be an anti-hydrationist, because giving a thirsty person a glass of water, is like giving birth to a new person.
And no need to consider what other things we cause by not procreating? As long as we don’t inflict suffering we will be doing good in this world, be good for this world - not arguable?
Quoting AmadeusD
Getting a little emotive here, which you criticized me for above. You mean, one person who would reject this would be someone satisfied with experiences of purpose and happiness instead of suffering. You can call this one person deluded. Maybe they are. But then who is anyone to judge someone else’s self delusions and their effect on the balance of their own suffering? Must we stop the delusional thoughts of others with our own better thoughts? Like the wonderful thought of antinatalism?
And why are happiness and/or purpose, as you frame the delusion, the only counters to suffering? If you are (as I would put it) deluded into thinking life is, on balance, suffering, then you would reject anyone who viewed any life as on balance, not suffering. Screw purpose. I’m enjoying just trying to argue with you here.
Maybe you are right that the suffering in life is the most arguable premise, but the other premises utterly rely on suffering and can be shown almost as anrguable even granting that life is suffering.
Quoting AmadeusD
Antinatalism analogized to, ironically, a life guard, keeping people out of the dangerous waters. That’s backwards. Antinatalism would eliminate the lives to guard, not merely keep lives on the land to live safely. A lifeguard would inflict a riddance of the ocean to those safely on land, not a riddance of living, like antinatalism would.
Living is simply different than suffering and cannot be summarized as only suffering.
Bottom line to me, in a raw, physicalist sense, life is prior to suffering, and life is more than this conversation about suffering and what to do about it. Procreating, consuming, growing, secreting, growing some more, always dying as newness is always born in each living moment - these are the experiences of living, not just suffering. And now life is thinking and writing or reading, not only suffering. Antinatalism isn’t just a tidy little syllogism categorized as ethics. It’s an act in the world, and an against life, which is procreative. Against suffering on paper, but inflicted upon all human life in action.
Antinatalism, might simply be something psychological, a justification for suicidal tendancy applied on a universal scale.
Mother Nature made use of suffering to fashion we species of ethical monkeys, only so that we could end the infliction of Her suffering on us and call it “good ethics.” Seems potentially delusional to have out smarted Mother Nature and her sufffering ways called “life.” With our “ethics” no less.
Quoting AmadeusD
That’s interesting.
Antinatalism promotes no more babies because making a baby is the infliction of suffering on that baby. No one wants to inflict suffering on a baby, because it is just wrong. If that is the right way to live, and someone gets pregnant, the pregnant couple would have done wrong and inflicted suffering on another (or be in the act of inflicting suffering on another growing into such person).
What can the antinatalist do with the new fetus? Can they abort it?
If they can abort it, it must not be a person, because I would think the rule is that it is not ethical to kill another innocent person. That’s worse than inflicting suffering.
But this is interesting. The antinataliat who doesn’t think a fetus is a person and who supports abortion would have to agree with the following: it is unethical to cause a sperm and an egg to form a fetus because that would be inflicting suffering on another person, but is it ok to kill the fetus after it is formed because a newly conceived fetus isn’t a person.
Doesn’t an antinataliat have to be an anti-abortionist to lay out a consistent treatment of future people we do not want to inflict things upon?
You still haven’t paid attention to preventative vs mitigative. One you’re already existing and now mitigation measures are appropriate. The other, you prevent the harm in the first place, as putting them in a situation in the first place which must be mitigated, is the ethical consideration in question. Hence, unique in moral choices.
Quoting Fire Ologist
In existential terms this is bad faith. You are assuming the role of arbiter of life. Rather this is simply something you chose to take on, it is not some robotic imperative. We are deliberative and can choose non life by choice, so prima facie, this appeal to the species or life is a false narrative.
Quoting Fire Ologist
But ethical monkeys like us have ideas of antinatalism and choosing no suffering for others. You are anthropomorphizing nature. Nature doesn’t care whether the species dies or you or I fell off a cliff.
It get it, antinatalism is a preventative act in your mind. Analogies to mitigative acts don’t impress you. These distinctions don’t impress my view of antinatalism.
You still don’t pay attention to much else I’ve written as well.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Neither does nature care about any ethics at all, be it telling you to have 20 babies or 0. Neither does an unborn baby care what you inflict on it or not. Neither will anything care that there once were these ethical creatures who were so ethical they wouldn’t wantonly inflict their ethicalness on life anymore.
I disagree that life is suffering. False premise.
I disagree that procreating is an act upon a person - we don’t “inflict” anything when we participate willingly in the natural act of procreation. We aren’t acting for or against any particular human being when we procreate. The particular human being comes afterwards because life is prior to all of this ethical speak and life is prior to the harm of inflicting suffering by anyone or any process. Procreation is a choice to accept new life - not a choice to make nature do nature’s thing. Nature does the procreating - we accept it. We don’t inflict it (even in vitro).
I disagree that it is always wrong to inflict suffering on another person. Just not a solid, clear, ethical basis to wipe out procreation. Inflicting suffering can be the most ethical thing to do.
It is wrong to take what you are given and squander it, waste it, hoard it, and wrong to not share it, to not give it freely to others.
Don’t have children if you think life is so terrible that no one should be forced to exist.
Look down on people who do have children for their breaches of your ethics if you want.
But Antinatalism is unethical. It misses the point of ethics entirely, which is good human life.
So again, for another time, the point is about the act of the parent, not the child. Do YOU (the potential parent) want to prevent suffering for another, if you can? It doesn't matter one wit, whether the child exists to KNOW this. It is about what YOU should do as the already existing person with the agency and means to do so.
Now, the obvious response to this is something like what you are saying here:
Quoting Fire Ologist
But you will "inflict" something to "someone". It again, is a bad faith argument to understand what procreation is (leads to a new person), and then say that "because we don't know the exact person who will be born, that they don't exist yet, that the act has no affect/effect to someone". That is just patently false. Any future situation by definition, doesn't occur yet, that doesn't mean people don't have agency now that would lead to various known outcomes in the future. This is just rhetorically hollow argument, and a poor one that lands flat just on the face of it based on the nature of what procreation entails, what even the concept of "future" entails, and what human agency entails.
But let's have a mind-journey here...
Me: Once born, we know that people will die. Is this acceptable?
Interlocutor: "Yes, death isn't bad in and of itself. It's the price we should pay for life".
Me: Ok, some people think this is a harm, but let's grant that this is acceptable..
Me: Once born, we are exposed to all kinds of illnesses and unfortunate circumstances including but not limited to:
Now, you may say that this is contingent and we don't know what people will really endure. And I would say, that i correct, and why I would call them "contingent/circumstantial harms". And thus, the beginning of this particular argument was showing that the Veil of Ignorance applies here, because (contra other posters here like TClark), we do not have even imperfect knowledge of what types and degrees of harms people will endure once born.
Then you will tell me, "No we do know to some degree the amount of harms, based on what we've experienced". But then, I would say the crux of the issue regarding dignity pops up. That is to say, what are you willing to allow another person to be exposed to in your pursuit of X? In this case, it looks like your X is an impersonal idea of "Life" or "Mother Nature". None of these things are entities that deserve the category of ethical consideration. The only people that matter are the people that might be born who will be affected. Those are the loci of actual pain and suffering.
Then you can tell me that the "goods" outweigh the pain.. That "Mother Nature" and "Life" deserves such-and-such. Besides being an impersonal concept, and thus a category error for ethical consideration that deserves absolutely nothing, being "deserves" doesn't even apply to such impersonal concepts.. We have to understand what it is about suffering that makes it weighted as more important to prevent than promoting-good/happiness. This goes to the notion of aggressive paternalism.
Just as you say here:
Quoting Fire Ologist
Acknowledging that people have a right to their own estimation of things...
It is not just/fair to estimate for others, a whole lifetime of what various harms and suffering is acceptable. In fact, not considering suffering when they are not in a scenario where they need help (already exist), is purely using someone, because precisely because that person doesn't exist yet, any move to create that person, would always be one whereby one is inflicting that suffering upon them when it did not need to be inflicted so. Thus it is always the case that this is using someone as a means.
Adding Benatar's asymmetry (reformulated and tweaked a bit), this is no debate.
Preventing procreation prevents suffering and happiness. Preventing suffering is the obligation, preventing happiness matters not. And no "thing" will cry over spilt milk, not Mother Nature, not Life.
It is aggressively paternalistic to assume that your unhappiness for other people not experiencing X positive value, is the reason why people should thus suffer. And as I explained, certainly, Mother Nature and Life, abstract and reified ideas, have no say in the matter.
Wrong. YOU are still talking about the child too. You should be saying something like this: Do you, the potential parent want to be a person who inflicts suffering, do you want to walk around being an unethical person who inflicts suffering, or do you want to be be ethical? Takes the child out of the equation. If it’s not about the child then it is not about preventing suffering “for another”.
You can’t make your arguments without committing the same error you accuse me of making.
It’s not an error. You need two existing subjects before you can judge the actions of one upon the other as ethical or not. The best you can say is the present world would be a better place if it was filled with people who acted according to principle and and acted according to ethical principle. If one of those principles happens to mean all people will cease to exist, the world is still better today because all of us principled antinatalists inhabit it.
That’s your argument. But you said “for another” anyway.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Almost as hollow as thinking we humans, the sole source of ethics, came to be this way by a natural process that was unethical all along.
Don’t you think there is as long a list of great things that happen to people as your laundry list of dirty laundry? You need the clean clothes first before you can get stuck with the dirty laundry. You need life first, apart from suffering, free from suffering, to later suffer anything.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What are you willing to take away from another person in your pursuit of your ethical ideals? Take away parenting? Take away loving your children. Take away pride in how those children endure and learn from suffering and are charitable with their sacrifices?
Life does include suffering. Everyday to some extent, for everyone and every creature who lives, there is suffering.
I also don’t want to inflict any more suffering on anyone to make matters worse for them.
But, what is the point of being ethical when being ethical means there will no longer be beings being ethical?
Antinatalism is anti-ethics.
Which is why earlier I said antinatalism puts ethical principals above the people who are being ethical, and does so having the effect of there no longer being any people. So what is the point of being ethical when ethics itself is being used to destroy is, to harm the species, to inflict upon the world a world without any ethics (without people)?
It’s all backwards and confused. Like murdering someone for their own good.
No, I am saying that antinatalism is non-naturalistic. I wrote out responses to all of your claims, but then I shelved that post because it was so long. Instead I focused on the simple argument () and the foundational Gnosticism ().
Regarding the simple argument, I will ask you a simple question: Is it true that we should not procreate in a world where everyone receives one pinprick of pain followed by 80 years of pure happiness? Yes or no? Presumably some have ambitions of achieving such a world someday.
Here is an easier way to envision the foundational Gnosticism problem. The evolutionary naturalist says:
This argument is a microcosm of the anti-Gnosticism argument, for the Gnostic must reject naturalistic premises akin to (1). For the naturalist, antinatalism is by definition irrational, as it is directly contrary to nature. Your arguments are all dubious, but one of the fundamental reasons they are all dubious is because you are essentially importing knowledge from a different "god," a god that is foreign to our nature, culture, religions, etc. In denying moral naturalism you must necessarily be appealing to some form of supernaturalism. Think of it in terms of the microcosm: if your ethic is directly contrary to evolutionary survival, then it must be coming from something above and beyond evolutionary survival.
Don't look now, but you are making my arguments...
Yeah reformulate it to take the child out of the equation. It's about the parent.
However, I am not opposed to talking in "potentials" or "future children". What I AM opposed to is talking AS IF the future child will feel "deprived" of not existing. So I think it's fine to say, "You can prevent future suffering", because it is the NOT SUFFERING that matters. That someone DOES NOT exist to suffer is the ethically good outcome. That someone DOES NOT EXIST TO BE HAPPY matters not one wit..
Quoting Fire Ologist
Again, category error to input ANY ethical thing to nature. Humans are too plastic for this kind of thinking. Did nature intend us to have computers? No, nature intended nothing. Nature has nothing to say on nothing. Once you have degrees of freedom of deliberation, it is up to us to figure shit out and not go bad faith and say, "What did nature want?". As nature a) isn't something that can confer morality and b) nature doesn't tell us about morality. And any use of "appeal to nature" can be to justify anything because we are brutes and we do ethical things as well.. it is up to us to deliberate on what to sus out as the correct view and action. There is nothing to fall back on. Even if we did, it would be your interpretation of it. Or at best using descriptive ethics to justify normative ethics.
Quoting Fire Ologist
And that is my point, when not under mitigating circumstances, but preventative choices, mitigating circumstances don't matter. If you allow/inflict/not prevent suffering even with the intent on someone enjoying the good, but knowing you are allowing the bad, that doesn't mean that there wasn't a violation. Causing suffering that was not necessary to cause because you have an agenda is the height of paternalism and means-using.
Quoting Fire Ologist
None of these things are ethical. In Kantian terms, they are simply "inclinations" or ends that people might want to pursue. They aren't moral onto themselves like suffering prevention is.
Quoting Fire Ologist
That's good. But you are in the realm of mitigation now, since "not make worse", not prevention.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Because ethics is around because there are humans around, humans aren't around to keep ethics going, for the nth time. In fact, it would be immoral to keep people around to keep some ethical framework going, as that is exactly the reason it is unethical in the first place- it is discounting the causation of someone else's lifetime of suffering for the promotion of some X ethical project that you conceive of!
Quoting Fire Ologist
Actually, quite the opposite. Death comes from being born in the first place. All the sufferings of life, including being murdered come from one's choice to overlook suffering for one's project. And since no one is exists to feel the "deprivation" of good, go back to the spilt milk argument. Quoting Leontiskos
And I gave you my answer....
Also, about "someday", I wouldn't make people in the meantime become grist for this goal.
Quoting Leontiskos
This is not fact. Moral reasoning isn't necessarily evolved for from evolutionary reasons, but could be a secondary byproduct of other reasons. I do know that whole fields like evolutionary psychology exist, but it's often contested certain methodologies being it's near impossible to know the original environment conditions of our ancestors, and what particular traits were evolved for versus simply having large brains with a degree of plasticity. For examples, presumably making computers wasn't "evolved for", but perhaps basic numeracy was. It would be bad faith arguing to presume you are going to get from basic structures to complex ones without it being a "just so" story. And spare me any articles, I understand that these theories exist.. Doesn't mean they are hard facts.
Quoting Leontiskos
Evolutionary adaptation isn't "ordered" per se, but rather, is a shotgun approach of genetic variation against environmental factors. It prunes away variations not fit for the environment reproduction. The order is simply our way of organizing the "real time" of this happening in nature. The "order" is not like some "logos", just how we humans are understanding the variations that cause change in species fitting into environmental niches.
Quoting Leontiskos
Again, not necessarily the case. Moral reasoning might be even a more modern thing really. It could have been traditional understanding based on tribal traditions. I wouldn't call that reasoning as an appeal to tradition. For example, let us say there is a culture with a history of some heinous act, but the heinous act allowed them to survive. I wouldn't say this is "moral reasoning". There are blood feuds and slavery and honor killings, and all such things that have kept people in line. This doesn't mean it's moral. There may be stuff that helped to survive that is actually immoral.
Quoting Leontiskos
This is the same problem as Fire Ologist. Evolution has nothing to say about morality, and anything we glean from it is from post-facto reasoning, not because it is inbuilt. It is cultural, personal, existential, but not necessarily instinctual. There can arguments that basic empathy and fairness are seen in small children, but this is so general as to not be an actual ethical basis. I can say it is compassionate and fair to not procreate, and it just took being an adult with a certain amount of reasoning abilities to understand this, using my "evolutionary" traits of compassion and fairness.
Quoting Leontiskos
Again, as far as I am willing to entertain Gnosticism, it is as a metaphor that existence has some inherent suffering aspects to it merely by being something with becoming and is not fully being. I can go into it more, but it would be Schopenhauer's idea of boredom being a sort of proof of the negative nature of happiness, as a repose rather than something that actually satiates. It is the treadmill rather than the peace of fully being.. Schopenhauer might say that "higher realm" is some sort of non-willing peacefulness of nirvana. I don't necessarily believe that is possible. @Wayfarer has called this belief "nihilistic" because there is no soteriology whereby one can escape the cycle of suffering.
Let me bring you through a series of questions:
What are you intending a new person born to get out of life? Why must there be someone versus no one that isn't selfish from the start (remember, no person exists prior to you to care)?
Once born, let's say the thing you envision is some sort of happiness conceived of in whatever way (religious, social, personal, hedonistic, virtue, etc.). What if they fail on most of those ways?
If your answer is that "They just have to figure out a better way".. how is this not paternalistically assuming that people "must do" this project that you had for them? It's forcing a set of (de facto) choices that these new people will have to pursue. Once "in the game", there is no way out of having to make these choices, and sometimes they lead to no good outcome for the player. It is then quite gaslighting to blame the player for not following the plan well enough the way you want it, or to say that it didn't work out in their favor, or to say if they "just did this or they would be better". I can't emphasize enough the kind of hubristic paternalism necessary in deciding for another that this project is what needs to be played out be a person that is someone that is not you simply because you have the power to create that person.
Interesting point.
An attack from a different flank.
I’ve been pointing out that if the ethic was indeed a product of nature, it would be nature developing an ethic that led to the demise of all ethic agents and so the demise of ethics itself; the ethic that was naturally born would then have to turn and destroy itself to be an antinatalist ethic. I’ve been trying to show it is internally self-defeating - living things using their lives to end living things that use their lives ethically.
But destroying itself is not what life naturally does. It’s just the opposite. Living things may devour their surroundings and destroy things, but life does so to live and to endure destructive forces from outside nature.
This all just further supports your argument that antinatalism is not natural.
I don't see this as a knock on his position. Birth control isn't natural, but it's not immoral.
This is two parts: 1. That SOMEONE does not exist. And 2. “Exist to suffer”.
You are talking about the child as if actual, not potential. You did a much worse job of making this about the parent. The ethically good outcome has to be about the parent, the ethical person acting ethically. Not someone else. Be they “not exist” as a potential child or “exist to suffer” as an actual child.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Don’t really need to reply here. I’m not talking about nature like it’s intentional. It’s causal. Mother Nature is a metaphor for causality, or natural necessity. Like a biological function. Like procreation. Like, in the case of humans, ethics. Ethics came from humans and humans came from natural processes so ethics sits directly in nature in us humans. Antinatalism would be nature’s human ethics that requires by natural necessity humans unnaturally stop procreation, which ends the ethics that sits only in humans which formerly sat in nature. Total mess.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Suffering prevention. Is this the highest ethic, the only ethic, a foundational ethic to all that are built on it? Or just another ethic where someone might hold some other ethic higher while keeping suffering prevention close, just not central?
I think you have to say it is up there pretty close to your highest ethic. All other ethics might add some suffering to the world.
Antinatalism sort of is a one size solution fits all human immorality solution.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What a phrase.
And I know you don’t care about this but it means ethics is as meaningless as your suffering, your life, and your precious preventative sentiments. Why be ethical? It’s a different question, but antinatalism does not promote a good sense of meaning and purpose behind being ethical. It rids the world of the life out in place that would do the preventing of procreation.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Who knows? No one can influence what a person gets for themselves out of this life. That’s up to them to get out of it what they can. To the ones who are born to us we can only give them things out of life - it is up to them and their intentions to take these and get things out of life. All we can intend is the same thing we can physically provide - an opportunity. It’s called procreation.
Quoting schopenhauer1
There’s nothing paternalistic by banning all babies? It is an ironic use of the term “paternal” but “thou shalt prevent suffering and never have children.” Just as wide open to derision for “paternalism”.
You never responded to this:
Quoting Fire Ologist
Well?
It’s a more clear blow than my same point about it being unnatural. It just means you can’t be a naturalist if you want to be an antinatalist. You couldn’t have drawn the ethic from nature. Some other influence, like a god as an easy example whispered “no more babies lest you cause all their suffering.” If the antinatalist doesnt want to have a deity, fine then - but where did they get the idea of a universal morality that wipes out procreation was a good?
I still say it makes no sense to prevent suffering in another by eliminating the other (through never making the other). You never have the prevention if you never have the other to prevent from something.
No. Again, it IS from the perspective of the parent. You CAN project onto the future and see hypotheticals. Someone DID NOT SUFFER (that could have). There is no actual "someone", but from the perspective of the parent, this prevention was what was the ethical decision, and being a negative ethic, it is good that it DID NOT occur. And again, the ethic, being a negative ethic, was about NOT allowing the suffering. The asymmetry is when you project to the other way, "Happiness did NOT occur". This is not a violation; it's not obligatory to promote happiness, only prevent the situation where an ACTUAL someone would suffer. The ACTUAL someone did not suffer. Violation did not take place.
As an aside, you can certainly disagree with the formulation and reformulate it. That is fine. The nature of the ethic doesn't change, just the language used for hypothetical scenarios. But oddly enough, however you formulate the language, we actually agree it is from the perspective of the person making the decision.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Natural necessity? This is all bad faith arguing. You are arguing as if humans cannot deliberate for themselves, or that there are directives from nature that force us to decide a certain way. Calling your argument by another name "causality/natural necessity", doesn't change the incoherent nature of the argument, thus everything imputed on your idea of "Mother Nature" remains for this new term, that also matters not to moral decisions. There is no logos, no natural necessity to fall back on.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Indeed negative ethics, like not violating rights, or making people suffer unduly, would be pretty high up there, yes. The basis could be several things, but it is based on a deontology of not using people in this case. YOUR positive projects shouldn't be at the behest of SOMEONE ELSE'S negative violation. The right not to be used/rights violated/negative ethics violated is above someone else's notion of what is best to occur in the world.
Quoting Fire Ologist
No, I am not sure why this phrase or concept is so puzzling to you. Let's say instead of ethics, it was "Make plastic". Would it make sense that humans need to be around so plastic exists? That makes no sense. Nothing "needs to be around", including ethics. It's a byproduct of what humans face when making decisions. If there is no potential for ethical considerations (like procreation, murder, theft, etc.) to exist, then there are no need for ethics. It's not much more complicated than that.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Right..so this speaks to exactly my point about the intent versus reality, Veil of Ignorance, and creating projects for someone else. I know you don't see anything wrong here, and that is part of our miscommunication/disagreement. I at least want you to understand where the disagreement is, even if you disagree. I don't know if you see it here with your answers to these questions..
Quoting Fire Ologist
No, that would mean all ethics that say "Don't do X" is paternalistic. That would be absurd as any action that is an "ought" would be this, and we would be abusing language. "Don't murder" is not paternalistic. Rather, unlike the antinatalist ethic, which PREVENTS a paternalistic scenario from happening, procreation WILL cause another person to be affected, to be born for X reason/project. THAT is paternalistic to think another person should be allowed to suffer because you have a notion of X. No one is affected by anything by not procreating/antinatalist argument. So by definition and applying it to the outcome, antinatalism cannot be paternalistic like procreation would indeed be. Also, being that almost no antinatalist philosophies entail being "forced" to not have children, but rather provide an ethical reason not to, there is no problem here either. The person can freely choose what they think is right.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I didn't answer because it's a non-sequitur. This isn't a debate about abortion. An antinatalist is not entailed to believe anything regarding abortion, but certainly, one who believes that the fetus (qualified perhaps by a certain time period of gestation), is not a person yet, would think that abortion is permissible.
So an antinatalist can say it is impermissible to procreate, to create a new fetus, in order to prevent suffering, but it is ok to kill a human fetus.
Got it.
It's not new that overpopulation is a problem, and killing off billions of people is unacceptable, but Anti-natalism would solve that problem in only 50 years without anyone suffering.
Antinatalism can take many forms, but most antinatalism is not about preventing various environmental or population outcomes but due to not wanting to allow suffering for a future person. Indeed, a result would be a reduced people born, which would in fact reduce the population, but that is generally not the position of most philanthropic or misanthropic antinatalists. Once the population levels off to a "correct" level, the environmental/population "antinatalist" would no longer be so, and thus was a contingent natalist, really.
Interestingly, in the US, countries in Western Europe, Japan, Korea, Russia, and even China (even AFTER the one child policy restrictions) the population has gone to below replacement levels which makes economists and social conservatives uneasy. They need little units of labor to keep the pyramid scheme going, and this "lower than replacement level" gives them pause for alarm. Here are some recent stories on this:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/20/health/global-fertility-rates-lancet-study/index.html
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/america-birth-rate-decline-a111d21b
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/06/01/global-fertility-has-collapsed-with-profound-economic-consequences?utm_content=section_content&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw7NmzBhBLEiwAxrHQ-Z7JGafAcUZiAufKxKdpfX4yzbiPVxb0FOEcHE1d1-oiBo7YEc6WLRoC7cwQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
https://www.vox.com/23971366/declining-birth-rate-fertility-babies-children
https://time.com/6836949/birth-rates-south-korea-japan-decline/
https://www.ft.com/content/008a1341-1882-4b98-83d4-0d7dc08a4134
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-fertility-rate-record-low-rcna100353
Now I'd love to think this worldwide decline in fertility rate is because everyone realizes that bringing more people into the world means bringing more suffering into the world, and they want to prevent this in a noble ethical way, as good antinatalists.. But that is not the reason. The reason of course is mainly due to the fact that the more educated a population, and higher the standard of living, the harder it is to raise a child. People also end up living more individualistic lifestyles that tend to skew child-free over family-type living. So it is more about lifestyle choice, the cost of raising a child, and a more individualistic, less traditional view of goals in life.
Of course in poorer, less educated (for women especially), and more traditional societies like the Middle East, parts of South America, Africa, and Asia, the fertility rate is still fairly high and so in those areas you will continue to see growth, and the overall growth will continue being that there's simply more people on the planet in general, but it will slow.
Either way, no, population decline is generally not the goal of antinatalists. Since population reduction is context dependent (as presumably it would be permissible to have children again once sustainable levels are reached) we maybe can call it "context-dependent antinatalism". I guess in theory as well, "misanthropic" antinatalism falls under this (rather than philanthropic ... or "to prevent suffering").. That is to say, people think that humans are ruining the environment, other animals, habitats, and the current living conditions and thus need to stop breeding until such time as these recover. Usually these people are simply for fewer children, not absolutely no children.
Well said, I have no counter arguments but will add to your comment that using this kind of antinatalism to reduce population would also create economic issues.
Most likely various adversary countries would see it (or already see it) as opportunity to expand population by settling low fertility areas or areas that would introduce such antinatalism.
Quoting Fire Ologist
This is true, but where we are dealing with non-existent people this is not relevant other than to assign a position to oneself as a result of their emotional reaction to whatever proposition..
Quoting Fire Ologist
There are clearly not. There are potential victims. This is why the analogy holds, for the most part. And taking this straight to your conclusion of "no playgrounds", yes, that's right, but antinatalists don't confuse the issue:
No humans. Not not playgrounds. Let the people who exist use hte playground, for reasons your point out that would make the "no playgrounds" conclusion stupid as heck. That said, it seems fairly clear that's not hte intention. THe intention is to leave the playground (world)as is, and remove the potential sufferer as it is (on this account) an unavoidable consequence of being one.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Could be. But I found this to be the sore red thumb of the lot, so figure best to tackle this first.
Quoting Fire Ologist
While i understand the avenue you're taking here, it's not apt.
Procreating is not analogous to maintainence of life. If someone is alive, there's a consequence to doing nothing. Not so around procreation. There is a neutral, or a positive (i.e nothing, or a new person (capable of suffering)).
Quoting Fire Ologist
No. This isn't relevant in any way. We're starting at zero. If the position is that people must procreate I can only laugh. I don't see another conclusion there, if you want to establish a 'wrong' in not procreating.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Not at all. I would guess if it's making you uncomfortable, i could repeat those comments :P
The point here, is that most people are "wrong" about hte quality of their life. Do you seriously think that isn't a reasonable inference, ignoring emotionality?
Quoting Fire Ologist
Here's some meat. IFF I am deluded in that way, then yes I would. I, currently, have zero reason to think so and plenty of good reason to think the opposite. I can note all the happiness and purpose in my life without having to ignore what I think is a good, logical conclusion about my life. It is, overall, a waste of time.
Quoting Fire Ologist
That is not the analogy at all. The analogy would be to God if anything. God removing people because they suffer too much in the face of his arguably more important creation - the Ocean. But this is a little silly. An Antinatalist would call both analogies dumb and just say "Why can't you take the metaphor as the metaphor instead of reading other things into it?"
Quoting Fire Ologist
Antinatalists don't do so. Not quite sure how to respond, in this case.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I don't disagree. But it hasn't anything to say about antinatalism.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I really don't know what you could mean here. Life is plenty of things - overwhelmingly: suffering. It is not right to procreate in the face of that fact (on my account). It goes no deeper than that. All of the other fluff obviously exists. It has nothing to do with the arguments, as i see them.
Quoting Fire Ologist
This anthropomorphizing of nature seems delusional to me. I'm unsure how to approach it, given that take. There is no 'intention' behind nature. We're not acting 'against' anything by not having children. We have a choice, and to me, it's a clear one. To you, either not so, or the 'other' choice.
Quoting Fire Ologist
This is very interesting and you've picked up on a couple of conceptual issues that I think probably sort of float around among antinatalists without any real answers. For me, the antinatalist can abort. Should abort. But this is in line with most other reasonable takes on abortion: Up to a point. I'm not willing to commit to a timeframe, but its obvious at some stage a fetus can 'experience' and prior to that, go for gold.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Few points here:
1. They would not have to agree. A zygote is not a person. The coming together of a sperm and an egg is not what leads to suffering. Though, most antinatalists probably would recommnd avoiding this.
2. To - some - degree, i get what you're saying. But 'future people' is a bit ambiguous here. A fetus which could survive outside the womb is probably already a person. Prior to that, you're still int he realm of "whether or not" in terms of making a choice, to my mind.
Mission accomplished.
Quoting AmadeusD
Really? You don’t use metaphors to make the text more interesting? Ok if you think that’s “delusional” of me how about simply:
Arising by the necessity of chemistry on earth, life began. This led to animals, which by the natural necessity of evolution led to animals on land, which by necessity led to humans, which by necessity led to logic and ethics, which by necessity led to antinatalism, which, if practiced well, necessarily leads to the end of all of this living necessity (at least of the ethical kind). The natural evolution of ethics in the world was necessary so that ethics could be ended by these ethical animals.
Basically, all the rest of the living things by necessity procreate, as procreation is part of the very life that has now spit out ethics, and our ethics is to end life itself, unlike every other natural, necessitated living thing. Seems like natural necessity gone astray because of our “ethics”. Or, justQuoting AmadeusD
seems like it’s based on a preoccupation with suffering too much maybe?
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Can I use these statements too? In response to the other things you said? :razz:
Quoting AmadeusD
What?
Quoting AmadeusD
Wow. Philosopher king hath spoken to the little suffering people. Is anyone ever “wrong” when they judge what is right or wrong about the quality of OTHER PEOPLE’s lives? Maybe wrong anbout some of the “most people”? Isn’t it THEIR lives? It’s none of my business to say your life is suffering, just like it’s none of your business to say my life is anything. Maybe “most antinataliats are wrong about the quality of their lives.” Possible? Killing off all procreation might be a little rash?
Quoting AmadeusD
So by procreation, you have to mean conceiving, growing the fetus, giving birth and feeding/caring for a new person. So it is wrong to “procreate” in this sense because only after some or all of these steps has suffering been inflicted on a person. Not just conception. This way, conceiving a fetus isn’t yet procreating, and we can kill the fetus if we want, without inflicting suffering. But then, a man could have sex and conceive many fetuses and never brake the rule of antinatalism. It is only the woman alone who can complete the steps it takes to inflict the suffering of procreation. The man inflicts a fetus that can be killed on a woman (or maybe inflicts is harsh, but antinatalists know how to read “inflicts” between the lines), but only the woman chooses not to kill it and inflicts suffering on a new person, eventually. Right? To be consistent with the notion procreation inflicts suffering, much harder for men to break the antinatalist rules? If ever?
Don't know what the other person would say, but your use of "necessity" here is the problem. Necessity is being used in some ethical fashion. We aren't "necessitated" in an ethical way by any natural logos or impulse. Meta-ethically, we at least act as if we have the freedom of deliberation, so I am not sure your point. We have no fidelity to "evolution", "the chemistry on earth" or anything else. That is a weird reification to me.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Interesting enough, this is partly the basis for deontologically, why it would be wrong to decide for another that they should suffer. It isn't your business to determine that for someone else :D.
But besides this, empirically-speaking there is solid ground to stand on in regards to Pollyannaism. That is to say, we often have very unpleasant experiences in the present that we often smooth away later with our cherry-picked and more subdued memories of the unpleasant experience. This leads to a false estimation of each event in the moment as opposed to the events in hindsight which throws off later reported evaluations of good and bad. Or, even worse, trying to compress all experiences in an evaluation later on, not pulling apart each individual events negative experience as lived.
Antinatalism is a weird reification of being ethical, of the “good” as in a good choice being choosing not to inflict life with its suffering.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Then we often have pleasant experiences in the present that we rough up later with our cherry-picked and more subdued memories of the pleasant experience. That’s all psychology.
All of this interestingly points out that no one can judge another’s suffering, or that they are suffering at all.
It is false to say life is insufferable. Just way too much whining about the day you stubbed your toe. Way too much discounting of the day you saw someone you love happy and laughing, or laughter itself.
It is false to say we are never right to inflict suffering. Just not a tailored ethic anyone could ever follow. We can follow a rule to not steal. We can not lie or murder. But never inflict any suffering?? We would need to not ask anyone to ever do anything. We couldn’t tell someone we loved them for fear this would burden them and increase their suffering. Teaching someone about antinatalism could inflict tremendous suffering on them - the meaning of life and all their plans dashed because they involved a family and kids. It is NOT true that “Happiness is not obligatory, whereas preventing suffering is.” Neither happiness nor preventing suffering are obligatory. You reify your ability to reduce suffering, and the ethical rule that tells you this is the highest good.
That's not reification. Reification is this:
In your case, you were treating nature/necessity as something which we need to have fidelity for.
In the case of AN, there is no necessity of nature being appealed to. The ethic itself isn't a reification, simply a weighted value (against causing suffering). You can question that value, but that is not reifying an abstract thing into something more concrete. Nature's evolutionary aspect has no ethical component to it, and to pretend it does, would be a reification. Similarly, if you said "good exists in the world like a chair exists in the world", some might accuse that kind of thinking as a "reification" of good. You are doing this to necessity.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Indeed it is psychology. Either way looks pretty poor for evaluation then. Interestingly enough, the negative biased people that have mild depression have been seen as "depressive realists".. That is to say they may have a more accurate view of things. This doesn't seem to be the norm as the average person doesn't have mild depression (aka dysthymia).
Quoting Fire Ologist
So again, for the nth time, the unique thing about procreation is it is completely preventative.. It prevents the cause of all suffering. Every other instance has an aspect of not only prevention but mediation. I see your other arguments as not mattering because of the difference between positive and negative ethics. As you yourself stated in the last post, just because YOU have a project you want to see carried out, that doesn't mean others need to be inflicted with suffering as a result of this. And being that no one is forcing antinatalism, no one is forcing you live out the AN ethic, if it pains you so. It is up to you whether you want to decide for another that they should suffer because you think that some X positive project overrides this consideration. That is the whole crux of the argument.. Is allowing the conditions for someone else's suffering with X positive ethical consideration you might have? The AN would always claim that no, it is not. No need to cause suffering, if it was unnecessary.
Like reifying an abstract “good not to inflict” in the physical act of procreation.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So we are allowed to inflict lots of suffering throughout our lives, but the rule not to inflict suffering is super important when looking to consent to the naturally produced function of procreation. Got it.
It’s completely preventative of ethics too. No more ethics along with no more suffering that the ethical ones couldn’t stomach inflicting on others (except they could stomach the risk of inflicting suffering by every other act they take besides procreation).
That's not reification. You are giving ethical powers to nature. Ethics are usually things that are in the realm of human decisions.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Are you willfully ignoring what I am saying between preventative and mitigative? Mitigating is only needed once you have to trade a greater harm for a lesser harm because there is no other way out of the harm. It is already happening.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Yeah and again, no humans, no ethics needed. No problem.
Also, no one is saying one should try to inflict or to not prevent suffering other than procreation. Not sure where that comes from. I just said procreation is unique in terms of prevention. It doesn't mean anything else.
But humans came here naturally. So ethics, which tells you how to live good and rightly, came here naturally.
We kill all humans off, and ethics is gone, who’s to say nature won’t evolve a new species of sentient, ethical beings. By ending humans you are leaving the world empty of ethical beings who could have prevented nature from spitting out more sentient suffering. Totally irresponsible of you.
That premise is misguided or misleading in either one of two ways:
1) If humans came here naturally, then anything can be justified as it came about from humans, which came here naturally so anything we do is technically "from nature".. reductio.
and
2) Descriptive ethics is not normative ethics. There is no directive from nature. This is as existentialists say as "bad faith".. Or it is a smokescreen as you can say that "Nature tells us this", and I can say "Nature tells us that". "Nature tells us clearly that we need to procreate because animals procreate". That is literally the definition of the naturalistic fallacy.
So do antinatalists believe we humans came here UNnaturally? What did ethics come from then?
Look, I think we are talking past each other.
My wife was just scratching our dog’s neck telling him how good he was with my daughter’s dog who he hates who just spent a few days over the house. Finally went home today and my dog is happier than ever. My dog of course had no idea what my wife was saying just that it sounded soothing as she massaged his neck and ears. All he knew was all of his suffering was gone, he was master of his house once again and feeling at peace staring into my wife’s eyes as she gently petted him. That happy 30 seconds was worth hours of suffering (which of course it took to build), and was just a dog’s life.
Happiness is so much more than suffering; moments are worth a lifetime of suffering. Moments of human happiness are worth millions of years of evolutionary struggle for survival.
We show this in our choices and lives all of the time. We don’t suffer only because of life. We suffer because of what we want, we suffer on purpose when we work towards something we suffer to achieve, we struggle to realize, we wish we knew before but we know now and we are glad we at least know this at all. All for those fleeting moments where now is joyous, where our work is done, when we’ve achieved our goal, as we realize our vision and know enough to say “good”.
We all say “good” everyday. I defy you to get through one day without saying “good”.
Life is suffering? How could you know this if life was not good?
I agree that life includes suffering, but I don’t agree suffering is bad.
Like the antinatalist just asserts as a given that life is suffering and suffering is bad, I simply assert life is a series of joyous moments and these things are good, and good enough, not at all like suffering, and not bad at all.
Don’t you see that at all? If not, can’t you let someone else wish that joy upon everyone, wish that they get to experience a moment of joy that would fill a hundred lives? Uou really think no one could feel this way in this life, this life is so bad?? Can’t you let someone have that? Let them have their joy along with their suffering?
Now back to the syllogism.
If the suffeting in life is what counts most for you, then fine, find your ethics in the prohibition of suffering, and build your ethical behavior out of ceasing procreation.
But if suffering is just one of those things, a stumbling block to a lifetime understanding even the concept of “bliss”, where suffering is just a challenge you’ve beaten so many times by simply living, if you can make a trifle of all the suffering in the world when compared to the good life also brings, then the whole antinatalist argument fails. It is a syllogism in which “life is suffering” is the main premise, linking procreation with unethical failure to prevent suffering, so if you just don’t care about life’s suffering to the point where it’s prevention is the highest good, the whole argument fails.
That’s my starting point - life is good. Suffering is a part of life, but so what? Life was good first and still good now that I suffer while living my life.
Even though without this first premise the antinatalist argument fails, I recognize that I haven’t proven that life is NOT suffering, or given you any reason to abandon your position that life is basically suffering. That’s up to you to prove your premise is valid. You also haven’t proven to me that life is NOT good, or its goodness cannot dwarf its suffering.
But now you know, if you want to convince me of the soundness and validity of the antinatalist argument, you should be convincing me that life sucks. Otherwise the rest of the argument will fail for me.
If you did convince me that life sucked so bad it was worth considering an ethic that held “all suffering that can be prevented in others should be prevented in others”, you would still have to convince me that preventing procreation is preventing suffering. Suffering only has a chance to be suffering after there is a person who suffers. The person in whom you might prevent suffering, therefore had to exist before one can prevent suffering, because suffering doesn’t exist until after the person suffers. So never procreating is not preventing suffering, it is preventing a person. Period. Unless preventing a person is some other good ethic, nothing good is done by preventing a person from existing. They haven’t existed yet; you haven’t prevented suffering yet. You may have a rule “all suffering that can be prevented in others should be prevented” but you can’t apply that rule to any actions that do not involve other existing beings who actually exist and therefore can actually suffer (if not prevented). Potential, future beings do not actually suffer; so if you prevent a potential future being from existing, you prevent no suffering at all, since there is no actual suffering that could possibly be prevented, as there is no actual person who could possibly suffer.
I know you don’t like this argument but it sits in the bigger question: why would anyone even care to be ethical in their treatment of other people, if procreating other people is not a good? Who are we being ethical for? Ourselves? Will we suffer any less as we go on living? All that we’ve done if we stop procreating is we assert our judgment that the existence of people doesn’t matter as much as the ethical rule “all suffering that can be prevented in others should be prevented.” But ethics is for people (which you have said), not people for ethics.
Lastly, even if you could convince me that the suffering outshines the joy as the essential feature of life, and even if you could convince me that by procreating, we are doing anything specific toward any specific person, let alone by not procreating we are preventing anything specific in any specific thing (like a person), you still could t convince me that the rule “all suffering that can be prevented should be prevented.”
I’m not going to go into it again but suffering isn’t what is bad in life to me. Evil and sin are. Unethical choices are. Suffering is a consequence, not a raw material, of life, but not always a consequence, and sometimes non-existent in life (for moments, many moments).
So there is no need to convince me that I am wrong. You can if you want, but then you would have to show me I don’t really mind the suffering enough to justify discarding the joyousness.
I admit I have been focused on the logic to try to convince you that you are wrong. Beat up the premises to snap you out of the conclusions. But it’s up to you to see for yourself.
I can’t make you see the good that is life and how suffering can be minimized and defeated. All I can ask is that you honestly answer this: if someone thought life was good, in fact amazing, would they be immoral to want to share this with as many people as they could, including by hoping for children and doing everything they could to raise children?
Or if someone thought ethics only applies between existing moral/ethical agents, that ethics can’t apply to the dead or the uncreated, then wouldn’t an ethical rule forbidding procreation because of its infliction of suffering be misapplied? Or Maybe even unethical in its ignorance towards actual people as opposed to potential people?
Or if someone thought suffering could be something so important in the shaping of who one actually is in this life, that suffering was sometimes good in itself as something not only to be accepted, but embraced and promoted at times, wouldn’t a rule that ended all suffering by ending all people seem opposite of the good one sees in other people, in other lives, and in life itself?
If you grant me my premises, am I still wrong to think procreation is a great good?
And I think I’ve said my peace. Antinatalism seems unneccesssry if it be based on simply suffering, seems anti-ethics while it puts ethics above ethical people, and simply ignores the joy in life.
And the boredom. Life is boredom - we should all kill each other in a final bloodbath just for sake of some excitement in these otherwise insufferably boring lives. Ridiculous? Not if life is only boredom.
Life is way more than suffering. Maybe only human beings can recognize this. Why kill ourselves off because of a little suffering?
It is a useful to consider antinatalism if you are planning to have children. The reason being it requires you to look at your inner motives and understand the kind of responsibility you are taking on.
Other than that, it is fairly limited in my view for the reasons you articulated (and many more).
Because the AN basically believes that not suffering trumps not existing. It is certainly a factual claim that if you do not exist you do not suffer. It is not a factual claim to state that something is better than something else. It is also not a factual claim that suffering is bad unless you have outlined some specific example of the kind of suffering being offered up for discussion.
The arguments for and against the AN position are dependent upon personal views, experiences and metaphysic (The non-identity of possible people is an example of the kind of metaphysics argument used by ANs).
I think it is fair to say that it is an extreme kind of negative utilitarianism if taken as universal law, as the end goal drives towards something like net zero suffering (so net zero existence).
In a more favourable light it is act utilitarianism hyper-focused on a specific aspect of the human experience.
But isn't it ironic the AN is only able to prevent said suffering, by in fact, making full use and utility of the alleged eventual path (or in their mind, cursed tool) that is existence?
Kind of a corundum in and of itself, no?
It is a moral preference. Of course, if said person believes in moral absolutes then the matter is quite different.
As a means of exploring the responsibility of being a parent I regard the AN position as worthy of serious attention.
Let's reframe the mindset here. Not ""against" anything, simply the acknowledgement (belief, rather) that creating human life is more likely to incur negative experience than positive and such should either be avoided altogether or at least such factual information or likelihood (whether true or not) should be made present in the minds of all men or women capable of childbirth?
Can we agree on that as being the anti natailist creed? Or do you have a different definition in mind?
To further say, there is a war (or framed binary belief or "footing") between so called "anti-natalists."
That life, regardless of change or possible omission of what is currently held in the antinatalist mindset as "suffering" or "negative", creation of new life either, is intrinsically a negative, whether that conviction is held based on the likelihood of even, say, a perfect utopia naturally always reverting to a negative state, or some other generally non-evidential belief.
That is to say there are two camps so to speak, whose divisions are defined not of anti-natality at all but greater reason itself: possibility of change and rigidity of current state of affairs. Is this not correct?
Existing = Suffering < Neutral < Pleasure
Not Existing = No Suffering/Neutral/ No Pleasure
Only the latter guarantees No Suffering.
Obviously because ANs exist they are prone to argue against bringing life into the world.
From this there is the argumentation of having the Right to bring people into existence. Then we enter into the non-identity problem and metaphysics.
Of course there is much more nuance to it than this but this is the basic frame work. Its proponents will vary depending on other moral stances (including items like moral absolutism, moral naturalism and logical positivism).
I think this more or less aligned with the Right of the living to bring life into existence.
Basically what makes the anti-natalist so sure? What specifically do they hold their ground on?
Is it, say as if one were a prisoner, who is given the option to father a child, knowing said child will also in turn become a prisoner and experience more suffering then pleasure? And is this the root of all AN argument: if more pleasure cannot be "guaranteed" prior to the creation of life, such action, which would apparently likely result in more negative than positive is to be avoided.
Is this not the AN dogma or decree? I apologize, for it is me who is now asking for you for information or clarity!
Hmmm. Seems to me if something doesn’t exist then any reference to this non-existent thing makes the thing some theoretical thing. It’s not a real thing (because it doesn’t exist).
So the new ethics of AN demands we be ethical towards future potential beings who actually don’t particularly exist; and in the meantime we suck at being ethical now (not for the future) towards actual human being who actually exist.
Or, I wonder “if you do not exist, what do you do?” Obviously you do nothing, nor can you do anything because “you” in the first place are a fiction, a possibility at best. Why would a fiction suffer or certainly not suffer, or do anything?
It’s not a language game. Who or what is relieved of suffering but our imaginary friends who we spare from living in the first place?
If I, who now exist, died, it can be said that I do not suffer. I’ll accept that (although there are various ways to dispute that as well, including my own argument against un-procreated beings). But you can say I don’t eat chicken anymore either, or play music, or stub my toe, or have a toe. You can say lots of things about me that are over now. That’s because I existed, and knew suffering and had all of these things about me to lose with my life. There is an “I” from which things that go along with this “I” can be removed, like my suffering, or my toe.
But if there is no one there to exist, no “you” as in a “you never existed”, there is no one saved from suffering. No procreation ends human life, and no human life means no humans suffering (or playing tennis); but you cannot particularize this and say “YOU or HE or even IT never suffered” about a “you” who never existed.
Because you cannot particularize this prevention of suffering in a particular “you” who doesn’t suffer, AN is acting ethical towards no one, no one who ever exists.
The AN view is asking what right anyone has to create life if they know it will suffer.
Below this isasymmetry argument. The absence of pain is Good whilst the absence of pleasure is Neutral.
You can guarantee less suffering by not bringing someone into the world. This is also underlined by the metaphysical problem of non-identity. Much like our responsibility for considering the kind of world we leave behind for future generations (which we speculate about quite often without arguing about their non-existence).
The problem of identity is a real problem, but if we admit this problem to the equation, then there may be no “me” who could fail to prevent suffering either.
We need to assume an agent, identify many agents, to build an ethic among them.
That’s not the issue, or we can never say anyone exists to suffer or more to the point, never say anyone exists to prevent suffering.
Well, not really because you exist.
I think we have to insist any AN statement adheres to their moral stance regarding nonidentity of possible future people, as well as their moral claim that no suffering is good and no pleasure is neutral.
It is a utilitarian position in essence, so when questioning the AN this should also be kept in mind and pointed out where we feel necessary.
I'm sure you're correct in most instances. Of course we have yet to meet or question an actual practicing anti-natalist (not counting the obvious resident one, joyous and pleasant to know him as he is..., of course, a bit or irony but that's beside the point, for now)
I fee it important to note the overwhelming drive in which spurred my recent response to you, was to assert, rather question, anti-natalist is poorly defined as is. That is to say, there are two (at minimum I argue) driving forms of rationale that define such an idea. With no shyness of immodesty, I believe one could ascertain the driving consistent ideology of anti-natalism is: life is more likely to incur negative outcome than positive, and so, in respect to culmination of man's efforts of reason, that which is likely to produce negative result, is best avoided. However, this may be true. All well and good. But there remains a blockage, a failure of inquiry, I believe. As to whether or not said belief is based on circumstance that is changeable, or remains a hopeless illusion of changeability. That is to say, in simple terms, yes, if something is likely to be negative, it is to be avoided. But whether or not this negativity can be changed, resolved, eliminated, defeated, or perhaps lessened by introduction of a greater dynamic thus making said negativity trivial, is my, question. Basically.
So. I believe there are two types of anti-natalists. Those who are such rationally, and those who are perhaps confused and only in such respective minds of thinking due to circumstance that is in fact, false.
That is to say, those who are truly not anti-natalists but consequentialists, or best said, the current state of being ie. the status quo produces adequate evidence procreation is more harmful than positive, as in, perhaps things could be changed, whether easily or throughout much if not impossible levels of difficulty, to alter such a reality. This is the divide I think is neglected in the majority. Hence me reason for replying.
So. Yes, ":the way things are, that can be changed, but do not seem likely to be changed, creates the factual inarguable reality that, creation of new life is more likely to incur suffering on the innocent then immediate and observable positive outcome and so, procreation is to be avoided"
Versus "No, even if everything were to be perfect, either eventually, or in some intrinsic yet unobservable way, creation of new life is likely, eventually, to be of worse outcome than not"
Essentially. There is a divide that those who fail to acknowledge simply refute the soundness of the anti-natalism argument. Is my suggestion.
I'm just watching as you all wildly miss the mark on antinatalism. I do love it when others try to argue it, but I also cringe at the misguided notions when they inevitably misunderstand it. It also seems no one pays attention to my previous arguments, so every time I argue something it is like all the arguments made previously are put on reset and wiped clean, and then people take other arguments that are not correct, and replace those as strawmen instead. I refer everyone to my last several posts and interactions in this thread, starting with the Veil of Ignorance as a starting point, and then once you have caught up to the relevant arguments, rather than misrepresenting them so as to knockdown poor strawmen, I can reenter the chat. Otherwise, please keep arguing misguided points for misguided notions.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/908702
What I said outlined a couple of the main points AN puts forwards. I said no more than that.
There’s a lot of AN positions so it’s easy to pick and choose strawmen. What “general ones”? Even Benatar, the most well known proponent, is misconstrued terribly.
I pointed to the issue of non-identity (about which there are many positions) and about asymmetry (about which there is more to say too in terms of its implications). Pointing out to those asking that looking at one without considering the other is kind of futile.
You can provide links for them if you wish. I have read, and listened, extensively to the AN position.
My position is that it is VERY useful to look at for anyone considering having children - but not because I believe it will, or should, stop them.
Again with the THE. It's not ONE position. The "gist" is not having children. The arguments are numerous and nuanced. To lump it in as "the" position would be misleading.
Quoting I like sushi
That's ok. I've written plenty if you want to search.
Quoting I like sushi
What you said there are very different things. Let's say Kant's CI or Aristotle's virtue ethics is correct, that wouldn't necessarily mean people "will" stop people from X, Y, Z or promote people to do X, Y, Z. The soundness on the argument doesn't rely on whether it affects a lot of people. I can try to show tens of millions of people that someone like Trump is a conman liar that doesn't have your interests in mind, and that doesn't mean it will affect them, even if there is plenty of evidence it is the case.
Right there are many positions, but you lump despite this. Anyways, the "non-identity" issue works AGAINST natalism. That is to say, if we believe in not violating dignity/autonomy etc. The violation only happens when someone is born, not when someone is not born.
If we had a set of beliefs about an event, even as big as "life itself", ranging from really like, disappointed with, frustrated by, not happy with, etc. None of that becomes so much a moral issue insofar as it is someone's own personal reaction. The minute that "I like X, so SOMEONE ELSE SHOULD LIKE X", it becomes a problem, as now someone ELSE will be affected by YOUR evaluation.
But again, this is my argument, not all of AN. So don't misconstrue that even though I am continuing the debate.
The main positions are:
- We have no right to bring life into existence (nonidentity issue involved here in part).
- No harm is better than no pleasure.
I have found nothing much outside of these primary ethical issues worthy of much attention (existential threats, state of society etc.,.) because all of them orbit the two positions I gave the gist of above.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I responded to people asking about the AN position is in general. I did that. What your personal position is is your business to explain.
Why do you state it like I don't understand this?
Quoting I like sushi
Replace "pleasure" though with happiness or "positives".
People were responding to my last comments generally, then you swooped in there like you owned the place.. Please.
We've discussed this before. We've discussed this before. Again, swipe clean. Last time you were tag-teaming my argument with some other poster.. I forget which of the handful of anti-antinatalists that like to join..but they'll probably pop in too. Your friend perhaps.
Also, I'd like to add to your 'No harm is better than no pleasure" summation that it's not as simple as that, as nothing is. It is also the fact that one is pursuing a positive ethic by breaking a negative ethic, or justifying breaking the negative ethic (don't harm), by pursuing a positive ethic (promote X, Y, Z outcome.. happiness or whatnot). One would have to get past this notion that one should force a new person into an intended goal by breaking the negative ethic of no-harm, no-autonomy, etc.
Yeah the non-identity thing is then thrown out like a poor defense because "Who is harmed?" "Who is violated?" And of course this is supposed to justify doing any number of things that could potentially harm a future person.. It's obvious that any number of other scenarios that might happen to a "potential child" would be considered wrong, even if a person isn't actually born yet. It's the weakest of the anti-AN defenses, and not even clever.
Because you were wrong. I will not interact with you any more. My post was directed at the others who failed to understand the AN position. I tried to guide them towards a better understanding that is all.
Bye
Wrong about what? Wrong about THE AN position..Right.
I truly think there are two widely and generally-held ideological "camps" as far as AN.
Perhaps it's an over-simplification or some misaligned understanding (which surely you could correct emphatically and with a smile), those two camps being:
Circumstantial:
Things (be it poverty, the state of the world, wars, overpopulation, prejudices, natural greed* [though that one gets interesting because it hints at an absolute, "unfixable" dynamic that will forever be present which belongs to the second camp]) as they are (and are foreseeable to be in either perpetuity or any reasonable foreseeable future) formulate a moral non-favorability towards procreation,
Intrinsic:
Due to Original Position, even if Earth was transformed into a Utopia, a hypothetical almost "alien world" where suffering is so rare and unheard of it now requires true and intense effort to create (versus the current dynamic where suffering seems to be the default and likely outcome without large [and for some non-accomplishable] levels of planning, effort, and perhaps luck), procreation is still responsible because a person did not choose to be born, and inevitably will face some restriction as a result, such restriction amounting to enslavement (ie. follow the moral laws, be a good neighbor, feed oneself, manage stress in a socially-acceptable way lest one be punished by physical incarceration, etc, etc. that one never "asked" or was even involved in being placed in). Something like that?
--
I take it to mean, in short, one is simply not true AN. True AN is, in a sentence, based on the truth one can never truly guarantee a net positive in performing an action (whether it's procreation, or even something more general such as ordering a dish at an unfamiliar restaurant or a new special at a familiar one, it should not be taken. That is to say, the reasons for avoidance are self-evident. Is this correct? Simply because we, rightfully so, consider creating new life more substantial and important than ordering food, doesn't change the underlying principle or truths of the comparative example, I think can be argued.
Yes. So, as you just pointed out, life has a limited set of choices. We tend to look at life as the degrees of freedom of choice, rather than the degrees of limitations. That is to say, you can't choose what is not available- a world or circumstance that cannot or does not exist, for example. THESE are the set you can choose from. But what if I don't want these set of choices? You are shit out of luck. Some people might have some mitigation, or even say to just go kill yourself you ungrateful bastard. But you see, there's something callously and unjustly wrong with this kind of response to the forced set of choices, once born. Once a person is born, there is only what life offers, with a brain that can understand there are undesirable things about life. And if you need to mitigate and change your mindset, or whatever else you're going to throw as a palliative, you have already conceded the original violation of forcing a limited set of choices.
Edit: And thus, why I say one should not violate the negative ethics of non-harm, forcing someone into YOUR project, for the positive ethic of X, Y, Z (usually along the lines of promoting happiness, a value of some sort, virtue, and then we can go down the litany of purely selfish personal projects).
If I value X, Y, Z about a project and think it is good, this does not mean I should affect other people to be forced to also be part of the project.
So, at the end of the day, it requires respect of life to allow one to be in a position to create, let's say a bomb, to end all intelligent life, on Earth? Since life will exist otherwise. And the AN argument is, this is pure suffering.
Where do we go from here? What about possibility of life on other planets? Should life be respected long enough to ensure our entire universe is destroyed or rather "made incapable" of supporting life in perpetuity? We're not at that state, currently. So surely, the irony or at least unacknowledged (at least at present) reality which requires such a truth to become actualized is ignored?
That is to say, life (the true AN equates with suffering?) will still exist until more life is created that allows greater potential to prevent itself? Do you understand this is what you're saying?
Huh? Why make strawmen? You don't "fix" a violation (non-harm, no autonomy) with another violation (non-autonomy at the least, and non-harm in certain forms of hedonism/utilitarianism).
Quoting Outlander
I don't understand what it is YOU'RE rambling on about. Killing people to "save" them is not what AN is saying. It is a ridiculous straw man.
Ironically, the only way death occurs is being born in the first place, so try again.
No one is an AN to that degree at all. That is not AN. I lost my 3000+ word essay on this subject unfortunately (not that I think you would have enjoyed reading it anyway!) :D
Made a brief summary here:
Antinatalism is based on a two main areas of contention. That is the philosophical problem of nonidentity and application metaphysical valuations.
NONIDENTITY
Firstly, the nonidentity problem is outlined quite simply in ethical terms as how and if we can claim to pass moral judgements that have consequences on persons who do not, as yet, exist. An instance of this would be akin to how we attend our environment with the thought to hand as to how it can effect future generations.
For instance, a culture that prioritises trees, viewing them as sacred perhaps, may also use them to build housing. This would disrupt future generations if they neglected the native forests by effectively destroying them all to build more houses or for use in other sacred ceremonies.
Here we can see a clear neglect of persons who do not yet exist (nonidentity). In contemporary terms this is often equated to how humans have damaged the natural world, thus leaving future generations with future problems to solve they had no direct hand in causing.
Here one antinatalist (AN) argument ensues. This is that we have no right to bring life into the world that will suffer due to none of its own doing. The new life is not responsible for its own coming into being, yet it does come into being. How can this be considered in light of those making the moral decision to have children? Is this morally irresponsible or not? If so to some degree each way, then to what degree and how can we rightly measure this?
Regardless of any personal analysis of this situation we can understand that given certain beliefs about this scenario we can come to see the reasoning behind someone siding with the AN argument.
Some will see justification in talking about the rights of nonidentity persons while others may find this too difficult, or impossible, to hold. The degree to which this can or cannot be justified is tied up in other initial ethics/moral stances (be this deontological, utilitarian, nihilistic, etc.,.).
THE METAPHYSIC OF ASYMMETRY
This perspective is an interesting one regarding moral axiology. Let us assume that measuring such values of human experience can be made in a meaningful way to begin with. This argument puts forward the proposition the probable chance of ‘harm’ and ‘benefit’ (let us use these terms as positive and negative aspects of human experience).
A) If someone (nonidentity) does not come into existence then there is No Harm and No Benefit.
B) If someone does come into existence then Harm is guaranteed (on some level) and so is Benefit (to some degree).
The argument goes as follows …
For A, No Harm is Good and No Benefit is Not Bad.
For B, Harm is Bad and Benefit is Good.
Looking at instance A), not existing is Better than existing because there is an asymmetry between Harm and Benefit, where lack of harm is strove for and peaks in Good in its negation, lack of Benefit is Not Bad and so neutral. No Harm either way.
Looking at instance B), existing is guaranteed to cause Harms and Benefits are not guaranteed to outweigh Harms, even though in some cases they may.
Conclusion: Not existing guarantees No Harm caused. Existing guarantees Harm caused AND cannot guarantee Benefits outweighing guaranteed Harms.
If then the goal is to reduce Harm then it is effectively a gamble when we create new life. The nonidentity person may have a Good OR Bad life, whereas if such a person never came to be no more Harm will be caused to such a person for obvious reasons.
Now to return to the problem of nonidentity …
MORAL RESPONSIBILITY
The question is now how anyone has the moral right to procreate given a belief in reducing Harm following from the principle outlined in the argument of asymmetry?
No one asked to be born (obviously!), but someone did choose to bring life into the world. It is a solid argument for AN to say no to procreation here if they believe in the reduction of Harm as a priority. It is not faulty thinking following that particular line of reasoning with those particular views.
There are numerous other AN arguments that are basically little more than weighing the scales regarding future benefits and detriments to living being (and nonidentity potentials too) that add different themes to the argument. The common ones are Overpopulation, Dystopian World, Inequality, etc.,. These are more or less decoration to the core elements of the AN position I have laid out.
There is certainly weight to argument. Like every other ethical position though it does not present a convincing absolute moral law, but creates dilemmas for those serious about having children who wish to explore the ethical implications of doing so, for their child, other children, their community and surroundings, and all other manner of issues too.
NOTE: There was a another major point I had in the essay regarding ethics in general and Self-interest Vs Common good. Way more involved for that though so omitted it. Hopefully the above helps you see the weight, and use, of the argument presented by the AN position (whether you follow it or not).
Congrats :)
Quoting Fire Ologist
This is a bit sleight-of-handy. That's not what's happening here. They are informing the interpretation of the argument. That, to me, is bad form in the sense that you are in la-la land if you anthropomorphize nature to support a factual or logical argument because you think its relevant - and really not contacting the argument if you think it addresses it. I understand flowery language for engagement, but this isn't hte place.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Your use of 'necessity' in this paragraph is perplexing. None of it necessary. That invokes a (whats called) cosmic level of intent which simply doesn't exist. But, for the sake of discussion, let's grant it - why is this conclusion at all a problem? Things are cyclical as best we can tell and don't adhere to much in terms of form (over such long periods, that is).
Quoting Fire Ologist
I would say to some degree, this one gets a bit of traction. I think its worth discussing why Ethics even matters to this discussion beyond whether or not one feels that having children is ethical. I don't. I can explain why and see where other's are lets say not making sense, but if someone simply rejects that suffering is ethically relevant to whether or not life obtains I can't argue with that. That's their view, and IMO ethics its nothing but personal emotional response - if you're a fairly logical person, you can get further but that's all. But again, 'necessity' is not a good word here. These things didn't have to happen. The natural necessity you invoke didn't see the Dinosaur asteroid coming, that's for sure.
Quoting Fire Ologist
If you suffer too much, whether you're preoccupied with it isn't relevant. Those who aren't have the 'polly anna syndrome' and those who are are simply in touch with reality (this being a take - not my position on every human's psyche lol)
Quoting Fire Ologist
Hard to know what you're not getting. Swap humans for God. God's decision to remove the ocean. Human's decision not to procreate. They are diametrically opposed in the two stories we've told. If you can be clearer about what's not landing, I'd be happy to draw more parallels.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Sly digs aside, you have entirely misunderstood what is being said here. If someone tells me they have a good life, yet all they ever do is complain to me about their life.... *shrug*. I don't have to even explain why they are wrong there. They are lying to themselves. "quality of life" is subjective, where a count of suffering is not. Don't conflate the two. Quoting Fire Ologist
Possibly, for sure.. but i see absolutely no argument that gets anywhere near the realm of getting that off the ground. Antinatalists don't claim their lives are horrible, and you've got to stop insinuating there's some personal judgment going on. It's not relevant to me whether someone claims they have a good life individually - the argument is about lives to come. Those who are currently living aren't relevant, personally, but in aggregate. Most people are flat-out delusional about how good their life is because evolution has provided us with several incredible illusions to keep us procreating. Which is arbitrary, unnecessary and IMO bad for all involved. We do not need to procreate, other than to procreate, whcih is tautological crap. And even more importantly, most people are completely ignorant to the suffering of others. This is partially why polly-anna syndrome is so rife. Most people don't have a fucking clue how bad the majority of people's lives are - and this obviously a sliding scale. People are getting more ignorant about others over time, which the strict number of people suffering at the extremes comes down. But the number of people not majoratively suffering is vanishing. More slaves than ever, more concentrated wealth, authority and power than at most points in history (though, this is to do with population booms as much as form).
Quoting Fire Ologist
Accepting the over-simplification, yes. This does fall to women at some stage of hte analysis (careful of the alphabet soup). I see no issue there. That's just a fact of how humans procreate (the woman chooses, essentially, whether it comes to fruition). But, I think this is a bit dull of a version of the discussion. Whoever makes the choice is the culpable one. It's not all that interesting that at some stage the woman has the ultimate say (also, that's not always true anyway - men are larger and stronger on average and can physically force a woman to carry to term - which, obviously, is unethical already so we're fine heh).
Quoting Fire Ologist
We can. Yet, those alive will suffer for it, almost invariably. Yet another reason not to procreate - the possibility of having to go through an abortion.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Not in any way whatsoever, and I have to say I do not think your run up to this illustrated a support for this conclusion.
Men choose to have children. If men never chose to have children and women were surreptitiously getting pregnant, or carrying to term then this gets some truck, but hte fact is men choose to have children and in fact have been the prime drivers behind procreation for hte majority of history. Only in the last seventy years or so have women had any control over when to conceive, carry and birth children with any lets call it accuracy.
Men actually seem more likely to break antinatalist 'rules' by breaking several other deontological rules.
This all said, perhaps it would make more sense to make an evolutionary argument:
Evolution wants you procreate. It will delude you to this end. This doesn't make your life better. It is a parasitic kind of manipulation of you body by your genes, to have more, and less happy, children (that is biased, and its illustrative, to be clear - not trying to sneak it in). This functions the exact same way drug-seeking behaviour functions in addicts. You have to break the cycle to avoid the hurt.
But the argument is that the lives to come will be full of suffering, and the evidence that the lives to come will be full of suffering is gleaned from those living now, who are suffering. So the judgment: "my life and those of others, are full of suffering," IS relevant. The argument is made FOR lives to come (or for NO lives to come more precisely), but the personal experience of lives now is one of the premises of the argument.
Quoting AmadeusD
Seems like you are basically saying either you know your life is full of suffering, or you are living in LaLa land. I don't know why we would speak so generally about billions of lives in such simplistic terms, especially to support a logic that ends procreation as if it was just some other behavior.
Look, I agree that suffering is everywhere that there is a living conscious being. I disagree the suffering is all of the time for every living being. And I think the non-suffering is well worth the suffering, for the vast majority of living beings. So I would need to be tortured and watch my family tortured for a few days at least before I would throw away all of human history and its future. I know there are those who have been tortured for years. I know for many, anxiety and depression are worse than physical pain - mental illness may be the deepest and sharpest of all suffering there is (and it can be accompanied by physical pain and physical sickness).
But still, for most, much of the time, life is worth it. It's not LaLa land to take your suffering medicine like a badge of honor and greet each new day, each new birth, as something better, again, and again and again.
I agree, but I see that as entirely impersonal. Each individual arguing about the merits of their lives doesn't really touch the discussion too deeply. Its aggregation that matters because we're talking chances. And when speaking about this, in aggregate, that most people are wrong(or right) about how 'good' their lives are becomes highly relevant. A birds-eye could count up the good moments vs bad moments (by their own lights) and most people would come out in the negative yet claim the positive. This is unfortunately, true for myself and every person i've ever pressed on the subject.
I should say, I take this position, but its not "mine". This is an age-old position that I think some of the more recent antinatalists have just tried to quantify. I think it works. Its just hard to accept without becoming cynical, which i've not. It's an 'on average' claim, which results in a x chances in x that one would have a life balanced toward not suffering. That chance is vanishingly slim.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Not really, no. The chance of a particular kind of experience is relevant, and we can aggregate extant experiences to calculate chances of more or less of that kind of experience. Ones where suffering isn't the overall flavour are rare. I wouldn't even consider doing the vast majority of things with a risk of a lifetime of suffering, without a 75+% chance of that not being the outcome. And even then, i'd most likely not do it. This rises to 99.9999999% when it has to do with my children's experience, which is telling, and may give some insight into the antinatalist thinking.
Quoting Fire Ologist
in aggregate yes. Maybe 1/100,000 people would be right making the claim. Or living in lala land, yep.
Nought wrong with that other than that it blinds you to the fact you're deluding yourself and hey presto having kids looks good to you. *sigh*. If these people were not having children, and increasing the sheer number of sufferers on the planet, I don't think this argument would any weight as one's delusion becomes one's reality internally.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Same. Hadn't intimated this as best I can tell.
Quoting Fire Ologist
There are ways I can get to this position, but I can't only do so in light of a fully-conscious being at the level humans are making an informed decision. Inflicting this on those unborn is horrid.
Quoting Fire Ologist
This seems extremely, extremely selfish imo. Why is your experience the tell-all for humanity? (this being said while I fully get your point. This just seems a more fun way to take it).
Quoting Fire Ologist
I think they are deluded that this is hte case, for sure. For most people, evolution has provided a rather handy mechanism for dismissing the almost inevitable future of mostly suffering to allows to go forth and fuck, basically. I'm unsure this can be gotten around without some kind of spiritual invocation and I'm unsure what that would look like for you. Peterson'eqsue perhaps?
It’s not. I’m saying, to convince me of the premise that my life is mostly suffering, you will have to add some suffering to my life.
I’m not fashioning any new law based on my experience of suffering or happiness, or my judgement of how other people should rationally balance the scales of suffering and joy in their experience, in their lives.
AN is fashioning a new law. AN says to me “because your life is mostly suffering, you should not procreate.” AN is the tell all.
I’m just saying to Mr. AN enthusiast, “procreate if you want or don’t procreate if you don’t want, but telling all of us, including me, not to procreate based on the fact that all life, including mine, is on balance over full of suffering, doesn’t make sense to me at all.” My kids love life too much. One’s a nurse (surrounded by suffering), one is a welder (gets burned everyday), and one is a struggling artist (who needs a job). They are all glad I “inflicted” life on them.
Quoting AmadeusD
There is no aggregate until there are individuals to pile up into that aggregate. An aggregate construction doesn’t get off the ground without constructing all of its individual stories first.
Quoting AmadeusD
Two things: 1. I think most people overlook the positives and would errantly come out with mostly negatives. So I personally think most people would be wrong about their own lives too - if they said their lives were over full of pointless overwhelming suffering. But 2. What does it matter what anyone else thinks about anyone else’s lives but their own? I can’t tell you what pink looks like to you, or what hot feels like to you, and I can’t tell you how much you should be suffering or how much you should think you are suffering, or what you are feeling when you suffer painful feelings. So unless we all of our own wills each agree that “life is basically suffering” none of us should be basing a law on this premise. Who is anyone to tell me or anyone else but themselves, how much they suffer - that is not possible.
What happens here is that, even if objectively speaking “life is mostly suffering”, we can only test that by asking each person, and the vast majority of people will say (as you said above), on balance, life is worth all of the suffering. Suffering, like the qualia of any experience, can’t be determined or imposed from without, and the value of that suffering in developing laws like AN, should not be imposed either.
The AN position is not this. Some idiots may think they have an unshakable argument, but in truth it is just one of many arguments and has valid points to consider.
If anyone here is such an Extreme AN (to the point where they would enforce this by law) then they are not really understanding the point regular ANs make.
I summed up the main points someone trying to understand the AN position need to understand. The AN position is perfectly reasonable and does raise some intriguing questions about personal responsibility and how we measure the value of life (which is clearly quite a subjective matter!).
You're all missing the mark to some degree. The main argument is not about "How much suffering" per se. That can be a dimension, but only after the core of the argument is understood.
The argument relies on the asymmetry of preventing suffering and not preventing suffering. You already have to have as an ethic something "pinning" suffering to ethics. In my case, I am "pinning" via common notions of deontology about the dignity of people, and how they aren't to be used or "messed with". For example, non-harm, and autonomy seem to be pretty essential to the dignity of a person. All things that would be violated by having children. [It matters not that they "can't" be consented either, simply that they wouldn't be.]
Not preventing suffering via procreation, will lead to the violation of this ethic (non-harm, autonomy). Procreation leads to harm/suffering.
And again, if you want to parse out "suffering" and throw out categorical errors and strawman for examples, you can save it, as like in previous posts, I have provided the distinction between preventative actions (prevent the harm if possible, especially if it is unnecessary to let the harm happen in the first place!) versus remediative harm (the harm is already taking place, now a set of actions is needed to remediate it!).
It also becomes a problem of aggressive paternalism, as no procreation leads to no person being affected, and thus nothing caused to be affected ("forced" in shorthand colloquial speak), whereas procreation does lead to harm. Thus the aggressive paternalism only leads one way, that of the decision to procreate.
What do I mean by aggressive paternalism? That is what I was explaining in many of these posts, the simple idea that you shouldn't violate a negative ethic (such as non-harm, autonomy) to promote a positive ethic. That is to say, you should not force recruit people who will be harmed, and profoundly, because YOU deem the game necessary for someone else to play based on your personal estimation.
Now here is where perhaps we can discuss the dimension of: "HOW MUCH suffering?"- and I did bring up the Veil of Ignorance as we can never truly know, what the world beholds for someone else. But more than a primitive harm/benefit analysis, it is just a fact that the world has many known and unknown/unanticipated harms that will befall someone. That alone is enough to preclude life from being something one should "inflict" for another. Perhaps if we were indeed living in a parallel universe where there were very little suffering considerations, it would be more on the level of an ACTUAL gift. What do I mean here? I mean that (unlike life), an ACTUAL gift is something that would not impose an overriding set of inescapable BURDENS onto someone else, along with the "positives" of the gift being given. So even though this ethic doesn't need the dimension of "how much suffering", it still doesn't pass the test, even on this front.
Call me an idiot but I thought we were talking about ethics, a moral law.
If all the people who were thinking about procreating asked “what ought I do? What’s the right thing to do? Should I procreate?” The AN believer would say to everyone “You shouldn’t procreate because that would cause suffering.”
No one is talking about “enforcement” of some criminal statute or something. Missed my point.
But a lot of people argue, oddly enough, passionately against AN as if it were being proposed as law. it seems to me, weirdly misplaced hostility. If it’s not worth consideration, you don’t even have to think about it. But often being angry about something means there is something of consideration that you find worthy of having to be addressed. It’s causing you a disturbance in some way that you can’t let it go. It’s not even popular enough that you can say it’s all over so you can’t avoid it. It’s a small minority position in philosophy, an already small subset.
Yes, but they are entitled to their opinions and it makes sense to listen to their arguments for what they are not you think they are.
It is not really all that complicated you just have to break it down and understand that they have particular views on responsibility to future beings. You may not hold these views but you can consider them as if you did to some degree and come to a reasonable understanding of them.
As something of a comparison let us assume we all agree that polluting rivers is a bad thing. If some factory manager dumped toxins into the river (il)legally knowing the potential effect on the offspring of people who happen to drink this water we would regard this as a pretty terrible thing. The AN extends this further, but at least you can begin to understand why we want to STOP the factory manager from doing what they did, yet we would not decide to BAN the construction of all factories that could potentially pollute the river.
Understanding the general direction of the argument does not mean you need to adhere to it nor agree with it. You can still follow the path and see what is of use.
People who talk about AN from a radical position are obviously radicals, and radicals tend not to listen. I do not really waste my time on them as they do a good enough job of pushing others away from themselves to the point I see no point in engaging directly.
NOTE: To anyone jumping down my throat saying I am misrepresenting AN. No, sorry. This is not what I am doing. I am, and have, broken it down to the CORE elements that those not familiar with AN need to understand. I have no intention of exhibiting every possibility because they ALL come down to no 'suffering' being good where no 'pleasure' is not bad (asymmetry argument and the surrounding issues of utilitarianism/consequentialism and metaphysical values) and nonidentity (surrounding items like individual rights, responsibility and in particular whether or not we can say we have a 'Right' to procreate regarding potential beings combined with inevitability of 'suffering').
So any degree of suffering is bad. I get that about your argument.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
I get it.
Dignity is preserved in the person who prevents suffering by not procreating.
I get it.
You dont get that I’m still not persuaded by the logic.
If I go to Chicago, there’s a chance I cause somebody in Chicago to suffer. So if I never go to Chicago I have prevented all of that possible, likely (because life is so full of suffering) suffering. Therefore, I should never go to Chicago.
These aren’t strawmen. These are individual lives living out their free moral choices, using logic and judgement. In the judgement of AN, all human procreation is worth ending balanced against all human suffering.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Suffering is close to the core of the argument. Very close. The AN person is not preventing happiness, or boredom, they are preventing suffering, and suffering caused by one person to another person is the thing that goes against human. Suffering is really bad, bad enough to prompt moral laws and new choices. According to the AN position.
It’s not convincing to keep saying discussions about the suffering prong of the argument are strawman arguments.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So what if you come from a long line of procreators, all of your parents and grandparents were all procreators (weird how that works) and all you want to do is spread a little love and joy and hope for a better future around like your mother did….. Don’t you think you will cause fresh new suffering to make this person doubt procreation? You are saying “it’s for your own good, despite all the people on your family tree who love and admire, for your own ethical good you should not cause suffering, so you should not procreate.” The rule itself as a thought causes suffering too, to someone who had long plans of a family and grandkids one day. It’s nice that no one is talking about actually forcing people not to procreate, but that’s not the point; even asking (most) people to reconsider any more procreation, is going to cause suffering. How do you answer that without being paternalistic, and without: Quoting schopenhauer1
The game in your estimation is never causing suffering. But you never entertain thoughts of suffering being not just tolerable, but able to be made part of our dignity.
Not causing suffering isn’t strong enough of a moral code versus the chance at bringing about a human good through that suffering.
Suffering matters greatly to your argument and you take it for granted that everyone should know this suffering, and that no one could dignify this suffering, and instead call it a strawman.
I can’t believe it’s even a small subset, because it’s illogical to me to promote an ethic that defeats the existence of all ethical subjects.
I’m just talking to you. I’m not trying to save the world. I know nature will never give AN much traction. Maybe it’s not a good thought, despite the goodness of trying not to cause harm. AN defeats it’s own good, which are ethical human beings.
No. That life is suffering, and no more needs to be said about this life we are each forced to live? No, I don’t assume that.
Interesting. Maybe. But says nothing about whether it’s a good idea and a sound moral position to take.
The AN argument has weight to it. The utilitarian positions have weight to them too, So what? It is our pleasure to attend to them or not.
No one has explained how it is logical for an AN person to say “thou shalt not procreate” but, after a person breaks that rule and gets pregnant, how they can also say “it is permissible to get an abortion.” That would mean, it is wrong to create a newly conceived fetus, because that causes suffering, but once you create one, you can still kill it. Where is the internal logic there?
Unless AN’s define procreation as bringing a baby to viability. In such case, another sub rule under the AN ethic is that “if you are newly found pregnant, you should always get an abortion, or you will fail to prevent suffering.” See, I answered it for the AN enthusiast. More abortions to save world from all those mothers and fathers who don’t seem to care about all of the suffering they failed to prevent.
So if life only had a little bit of suffering in it, for everyone, the AN argument would fail? That’s not what Schop is saying. And it opens the whole AN argument up to attacks regarding the value of suffering.
Which to me shows its weakness.
If I leave my house tomorrow and go driving, I’ll accidentally cut someone off, or miss a green light and cause someone to be late for work, or maybe hit someone, so in order to prevent suffering, shouldn’t I never leave my house? Isn’t that the same logic being applied to procreation?
This is precisely the kind of problem looked at in the issue of nonidentity. I do not know of any good argument as to when an abortion should or should not happen - but that is a separate but interesting comparison to consider when untangling the differences in such positions.
I am not going to put words in their mouth only give an honest reply to your point.
Quoting Fire Ologist
It would still not address the issue of nonidentity and your 'Right' to bring someone into the world who may or may not suffer to some larger or smaller degree.
This is because the valuation attached to existence put forward by the AN is that of 'asymmetry'. The absence of 'suffering' is GOOD while the absence of 'pleasure' is NOT BAD (rather than GOOD). It is a basic aggregation aligned with the unpredictability of how a human's life will be. This is why an AN may say 'Why gamble?' because to them it is a little like this scenario:
1) You do not care about money AT ALL.
2) You are given money and then have to gamble with it.
3) Two possible outcomes:
A) You GAIN more money.
OR
B) You LOSE the money.
All you then have to do is replace MONEY with 'Pain' and then 'Pleasure' to see how there is an imbalance. Not having either to begin with is more satisfactory than gambling.
If you could guarantee that every lived life would be basically full of 'pleasure' to an optimal level for everyone then I cannot see how an AN could argue against such a scenario. If there is LITERALLY no scenario they or you can present that is for procreation then they are stuck.
On the flip side can you imagine certain extreme scenarios where you would look more favorably on the AN position?
By favorably you mean see the logic, because AN is all gloom and doom about all of life and what is the best thing to do about it - doesn’t do any of us any favors. But If this world was a living hell, I and all I could see around me was great suffering, and I knew my child would have it as bad or worse, with no hope for anything worth all the pain and suffering, then maybe.
You didn’t answer my scenario about leaving the house being likely to cause additional suffering in the world. How am I any less immoral by having a baby or leaving the house? If I leave, I am likely to cause some suffering to some potential person, just like if I take steps to procreate I am likely to cause some suffering, therefore yo prevent suffering and be an ethical person, I shouldn’t leave the house or procreate.
I believe such a person would do their best not to cause more harm either by leaving or not leaving their house. Once we exist it cannot be undone.
Again, the point of focus would be the nonidentity and what right you have to bring someone into the world in the first place.
You may as well ask something like why not wipe out the entire human race over night BUT that is not what AN is saying. They are concerned with the Rights of potential people and our justification for viewing having children as a human right in and of itself (without considering the rights of a human that never asked to exist in the first place).
Being born into an idealistic world still begs the question of why we do it and whether we really should. I imagine everyone has a number of reasons for having children and an even greater number of people never even really think about it at all.
What right do I have to make someone else late for work by driving too slow? What right do I have to cause a car accident? None. So if preventing suffering in some possible scenario is the highest ethical ideal, then I shouldn’t leave the house.
You didn’t answer the question.
I can have a baby and “do my best” not to cause any harm to that baby. So if merely having the baby sets up the conditions where I didn’t prevent suffering, so does leaving the house and involving anyone else in my actions.
Nothing to do with AN.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I answered by saying if 'suffering' was not an issue there is still the issue of questioning the intrinsic right of of having a child (the nonidentity problem).
Do not get me wrong I understand the kind of comparison you are making, but it is not an AN position to argue about things such as the right to punch someone in the face, be late for an appointment or such items surrounding the usual ethical concerns of existing humans. It is about looking at the ethical issues surrounding the reasons, and 'human rights' involved in procreation.
The 'suffering' part is A factor not THE defining factor of the AN position. This is why I have stated multiple times that both need to be considered when viewing the AN position.
It’s THE defining factor. Take out that life is suffering, you take out that procreation causes life which causes suffering, AND you take out the ethical ideal that it is wrong to inflict suffering and good to prevent suffering.
Take out Suffering, and the whole AN argument collapses.
So does life. There is no life without suffering so you would effectively be achieving nothing by making a claim that suffering is absent.
The 'suffering' is part of the argument involved with the presumed Right to bring life into the world going unquestioned. It is a very subtle part of the AN position but nevertheless essential to it - just like the Right to have an abortion for some women.
There is the claim to a Right to act in a certain manner (create/negate) potential life, and the issue of 'suffering' too (which is inevitable for any living creature).
To repeat, you have absolutely no need to agree with the AN argument only to understand the inner workings of it. The issue of nonidentity might not be much of an issue for you either, but it is for many. You just have to accept this and say "okay, but no thanks," and take what you can away from the discussion.
Just like someone believing in a god you have to listen to them, throw in some questions and then see if you can make some kind of sense of it all as best you can. Ultimately there is no conclusive answer as we cannot measure such things as yet.
There is a point in my mind where having an abortion is the right way to go and in my mind there is also the point where AN is the way to go. I have a far less murky picture of former than the latter.
In terms of nonidentity I have already shown how we can have care and concerns for future generations, so this is involved in the argumentation too.
That is it. If you understand this you understand the AN position and the problems it poses (regardless of its 'rightness' or 'wrongness').
Again, you have failed to interpret the arguments, by mischaritable reading or just outright failure to tackle what I am saying.
You are now wearing out my patience with this kind of thing. Either debate the points, or don't. But stop misconstruing and strawmanning it.
Let's look at your responses...
Quoting Fire Ologist
No, you don't get it then. It's NOT about the dignity of the PARENTS. Rather, it's about the dignity of the (future) child. Dignity is not violated by NOT allowing the suffering to carry forward (i.e. non-harm/non-autonomy principles are not violated). That is say, no person exists to be violated prior to procreation. The violation only takes place once procreation occurs.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Once born, the person is in remediation ethics. They have interests and goals, and these are weighed against other interests and goals. It would be indeed, an indignity to NOT allow people to pursue their goals within reason, once actually existing. This doesn't mean that they then get to FORCE others, unnecessarily into harmful projects of their personal preferences (as this would be unnecessary violation.. it didn't need to happen). Rather, it means you have to learn to live together and respect each other's rights. Needing to survive in a given context of a society means having to move about in public spaces- in the situatedness of a social sphere. This means, inevitably you will cause unintentional harm. You try to be careful to avoid violations, but it cannot be prevented (unlike in the case of procreation), and thus why it always falls under remediation whereas procreation falls under preventative. Positive ethics DOES matter in the sphere of existing to some extent, as long as it doesn't unnecessarily violate others. Remember the bridge argument? The fishermen want to catch the biggest fish of their life. It's blocking YOUR right to go to your car. Whatever pleasure they get from fishing and the collateral damage of causing your harm, it was unnecessary to "recruit" you into their project. This is different than being one car of many in traffic "recruiting" you into traffic. With the road situation, it is tacitly accepted that this is part of how roads worked. However, if a car wanted to stop traffic so they can look out the side of the road at some attraction, that is now falling into unnecessary "recruiting" territory.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Some people believe the world is flat. They are UNCONVINCED. Some people think Donald Trump doesn't pose a threat to the democratic order. They are UNCONVINCED. Some people think the world is 6,000 years old. They are UNCONVINCED. It's not my job to try to convince every Harry, Dick, and Jane of their intransigent, unsound beliefs. I can only present the argument faithfully and to the best of my ability and they can do whatever they want. They can handle snakes, pray to their god, say their holy Hosannas, spout out nonsense, red herring non-sequitors on an internet forum, do whatever.
Quoting Fire Ologist
This is actually the thing I am saddest about when arguing the case. I am not a Spock-like figure. I think people can be great parents, and are good people, but that procreation is still wrong. The two can be separated out. No one is doubting that certain people are very good at parenting and raising kids and I feel for the idea that they feel they are missing out on something. But this is a classic case of "inclination" versus "moral". The inclination is to want to fulfill this desire to raise a child. The ethic is to not unnecessarily create more people that suffer, and to force people into a world based on one's own estimation of how much suffering is good (especially since the amount and kind of suffering for another is unknown as just a fact of the matter). It's then the inclination that must be re-educated, not the ethic.
Everything seems counterintuitive until it becomes the norm. How do you explain people who value being "child-free"? These people don't even have the inclination to have children. They rather live a non-child lifestyle. They don't want to raise them, some don't even like kids (though many do, they just don't want them). This isn't even a small segment of the population. Child-free people aren't antinatalists usually, but they are a growing trend in society, and it grows with each generation, leading to a decline in fertility rates in most developed and highly educated nations. These people simply don't have this "inclination". This is just one of many proofs that the desire for procreation (literally the desire to want kids) is not a function of "instinct" so much as nurture/personal preference. In traditional societies, families are seen as paramount. Religious/tribal notions often reinforce this familial pressure. Family, society, and tradition, reinforces it with enculturated expectations. Many times, especially in atomistic societies (such as this "modern" one), it's a function of existential angst. "What is my purpose without a family"? And it gives at least 20 or so years of solid "something" to pay attention and attend to for parents. It becomes its own reason for existing.. Why work? To help raise a family! Why go on vacation? To take your (or alternatively to get away from) family!. Why do anything? Because of family. It becomes its own built in purpose. But I am not giving justification for causing suffering, unnecessarily (because it gives YOU purpose), only providing some reasons for the procreation inclination. Again, I don't look down on or castigate parents, or people that want kids. They are generally good people, trying to do the right thing, generally. Though of course, there are also plenty of horrible parents as well, but all of this is besides the point. I am just addressing this idea that AN is cold-hearted or doesn't understand that perspective. Most thoughtful ANs do, they just don't think it is relevant in countering or addressing the issue at hand in the ethical consideration.
Quoting Fire Ologist
So this isn't quite true. It is more than just suffering. If it was just suffering, I would consider myself a hedonic utilitarian or some such. It is rather about not using people by force recruiting them into projects that will harm them. Suffering matters here, but it is the particular nature of preventing suffering absolutely in the case of procreation that makes it exceptionally different than already-existing scenarios, where we are simply remediating suffering (doing the best with what we have, trading greater with lesser harms, negotiating our interests, etc.). Raising a child, forcing education, etc. then can be justified due to remediation measures for preventing greater suffering later on, it is argued. The prevention is not in play anymore. Since someone is born, they DO have interests, goals, etc. It would be wise to trade long terms harms for short term harms in some cases.
It’s not my job to demonstrate that the suffering that exists in life is only animating factor of ethics. That’s your job as an AN proponent. By simply avoiding the issue you sound like a flat-earther.
The earth isn’t flat. I can argue that, point.
Life is waaay more than suffering. I argued that. You don’t respond.
Preventing suffering is NOT the highest good of ethics. I argued that, you failed to respond.
If you are frustrated with me, I think it’s because you cherish suffering too much.
Life is suffering is your strawman.
Way to ignore my whole post for making this (weak) rhetorical flourish :roll:
Quoting Fire Ologist
I made a whole post, for the Nth TIME, laying out my case, in a pretty lengthy detailed way. This is so uncharitable and untrue as to be laughable at this point. This is the kind of thing where I can respond with a million different lengthy treatises, and you will just dismiss them (without actually addressing the points) so as to constantly make me repeat my points. It's a argumentative overextension. At some point, in debates like these, you acknowledge that the points have been addressed, and you either need to think more on it, or you simply disagree an lay out your counter-arguments.
Quoting Fire Ologist
That is a strawman because I never made that point! Keep using bad faith arguments though if you think that is "winning" you rhetorical points.
Quoting Fire Ologist
No I'm frustrated with you because you have not actually understood what I have written, you are uncharitable, and you are making straw man arguments of my points. I think that's pretty good reasons to be frustrated! You can stop arguing now, because it looks like this is just turning into bad faith ones. This last post has now proven it for me at least. You can say you're bad faith response to this, but that would just be proving it more now. I'll entertain good faith arguments, but in these last posts, I have now seen I am arguing with someone who doesn't care to actually debate, just antagonize, so good day.
Schop,
I’m not trying to be uncharitable. I’ve told you that anyone who wants to prevent suffering has their heart in the right place.
Answer me one question, is the fact that life is suffering a key premise to your argument or not?
Or better is the fact that some degree of suffering is entailed in every life a key premise to your argument or not?
Frankly don’t know why this is antagonizing. I’m trying to debate the logic of AN. It’s all so clear to you that you think I’m acting in bad faith because I’m not just following along the path that follows from the premise “life is suffering” but “ethics are good for people” and “preventing suffering is good ethics” so “never procreating is living ethically.”
To me it seems you are saying “there is enough suffering in every life that it is not debatable to evaluate that suffering as anything other than bad, harmful, fruitless, and unethical to inflict on another to any degree.
I’m trying to debate that. You think that’s bad faith for some reason.
When I was arguing that we can’t be ethical towards a future person who does not exist, you went on and on about how it was not about the child. You said it was about the parent who was not inflicting suffering and preventing suffering and the non-presence of the child as recipient of the ethical behavior was irrelevant.
Now when I argue that (because there is no child) the human dignity AN ethics is trying to preserve has to exist in the living person who acts ethically (by preventing suffering and not procreating) you say it’s about the dignity of the future child.
I could level accusations of bad faith around too, but I’m just trying to point out the logical inconsistencies and am open to reasonable opposing views.
For instance, instead of thinking I know how the never going to Chicago scenario is so different than the never having children scenario, why don’t you lay it out? I think they are similar.
And instead of thinking I am fully aware of what I’m saying and acting in bad faith, show me how what I’m saying is not reasonable. Don’t just say it’s bad, show me.
I don’t think you are acting in bad faith towards me - I think you are being illogical and I’m trying as many ways as I can to show you why it’s illogical. I could be wrong about what AN really is, or I could be wrong about how my arguments are unsound or invalid in themselves. But you haven’t shown me otherwise. And instead like calling me a bad faith straw man builder. Over and over.
Are you really going to leave this conversation without showing me MORE CLEARLY how I am wrong?
There is no need to. We are are discussing the logic of ending procreation to make the world more ethical and prevent future suffering.
There is a law that murder is wrong. The fact that I am never inclined to murder and likely never will be makes it easy for me to follow that law. That’s a different conversation than whether “murder is wrong” is a good law, is something universal everyone should follow, and something we should teach all to understand. Even if we logically showed “murder is good” I still wouldn’t murder.
The question is only is AN sound ethics?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I am trying to use logic only. I never raised any of these non-sequitors. You did, which makes it a non-sequitor to the conversation I’m having.
I only point this out to show you how much I’m trying to avoid bad faith. I’m sticking to the text and bringing up logical issues with it and new premises (like suffering is of less import and less valuable than the life of the one who suffers). I’m not resorting to anything else but my observations and wits - no insulting references to religious practices.
I’m not belittling the AN person - I’m attacking the logic behind the conclusion that in order to be ethical, we should not procreate.
If AN is an issue of personal faith, like other “holy hosannas and spouting out other nonsense, then I wouldn’t be arguing the way I am. But it’s a logical, ethical stance. One that doesn’t seem sound to me.
Because I had a long post and you ignored it. Yes it's about suffering. Duh. But it's not suffering "tout court" in this case. It's about what surrounds it. The context. In this case the context that occurs when deciding to procreate.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Nope, I am not saying that at all really because again, this is not my argument.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Yeah I am ready to do just that because as with even this last post, you misconstrue it, make it into your own version of an argument (straw man), and then ask why I'm pissed.
Quoting Fire Ologist
But you're not.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I had a whole freakn' post with a bunch of detail you ignored.
Quoting Fire Ologist
No, I don't have to prove shit to you. It's time for you to actually do some work in understanding my argument.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Wow, you are so far from what the point of that was to prove. Try again.
Quoting Fire Ologist
You are barely sticking to the text. Try again.
Link to a post where you think I’m not responding to you. The clear “here is the AN argument and here is why it is the most logical ethic” post or posts.
I don’t see why you think the things I’m saying are not relevant or in bad faith. Spell it out or give up.
I keep rephrasing what I think you are saying to show you clearly what I think you are saying, and then I post my objections.
I’m playing as fair as I can despite your accusations.
You just respond to my objections by calling me names.
How about laying out your argument, or linking to something you already said the for Nth time.
I’ll try it again anyway.
Is this AN??:
1. Living entails suffering.
2. Causing someone else to suffer (without their consent?) is bad (immoral, unethical), and preventing suffering or future suffering is good.
3. Procreation brings about new life, and the suffering entailed in that new life.
Therefore, procreation is a violation of the ethical rule stated in 2, procreation causes unconsented future suffering, and AN is the more ethical stance.
Is that AN? I am not sure whether consent is needed in the ethical rule of 2.
And instead of jabbing at wherever I have it wrong, show me where it is wrong, incomplete, unclear, but leave in the parts where it is right or clear (if any) so this can be a discussion that builds on prior assertions we’ve made. Lay it out so that I say “Wow, I did sound like I was in bad faith. I did have it all wrong.” Or really the point of any conversation, show me so I say “Schop was right, AN makes sense.”
Work in the asymmetry. I’m sure I would screw that up if I tried. Maybe it’s not essential to sure up the argument.
Work in the fact that specific future people do not matter to take the AN ethical stance towards them (as you said to correct me), but that the dignity of future people is the point of AN (as you said to correct me). And maybe address the issue of these two seeming (to me) to be incompatible.
Suffering itself is a physical, mental lived experience.
The context around suffering, to me, would be the body and its environment, or the psychology - both interacting between the suffering subject.
The deciding to procreate doesn’t make sense to me as the context surrounding the suffering. You need to be more precise.
Do you mean some suffering is neutral, not good or bad, but other suffering, like future suffering cause by procreating is good or bad, and in the CAE of AN, bad?
Don’t follow needing to think of the context of suffering to understand the arguments.
Right, somewhat fair. In this case, I think it would take that accounting exercise though. Again, in the individual circumstance your delusion(Trademark - lol) is a + for your experience but I'm unsure why this matters. I also suffer the above-noted delusion but I'm still aware of all the suffering outside myself - with the addition of my being relatively sure I'm wrong about my own life. The former aspect is far more important than the suffering I actually acknowledge in my own life, as I see it. Forgive the somewhat combative nature of that approach too - it was tongue-in-cheek.
Quoting Fire Ologist
No, no. Let me be clear. This is wrong. I have struck through the erroneous word that I think is doing a lot of lifting. Without that word, it becomes as described in the first response paragraph in this post. Its actually pretty damn key to remember that zooming in on a specific life is the wrong method here, and I just don't see it as relevant in the wider discussion because of the potential that you're just simply wrong about your quality of life - despite that wrongness improving your quality of life hehe (though, noting that almost no antinatalists think suicide is a reasonable response to any of life, once it gets going).
Quoting Fire Ologist
Because they are alive. You're doing the wrong calculation. Suffice to say, your point here stands but your reasons for it are simply not at all relevant to coming to conclusions on whether to have more children versus what you think about your existing children, or what they think of you. They are already alive. Not in the discussion, as individuals.
Quoting Fire Ologist
And yet, the individual stories aren't relevant and the aggregates are. *shrug*. Not an uncommon reality.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I think you're wrong and I can't find any intuition as to how your reversed version could be reasonable as an assumption.
Quoting Fire Ologist
That wasn't really asserted. I've been very clear that what I think about any particular life isn't relevant (nor is what you think, for that matter). I'm unsure how better to explain that?
Your position seems to result in the notion that it is never permissible to require behaviours from people who are ignorant of the harm those behaviours cause, because they don't report the harm. IF you're consistent in that, I can't really fault your reasoning But i think you're wrong about the states of affairs. If we all accept that life is on balance, a shit experience, having kids would be morally wrong ipso facto - no law needed. Having kids at 80 (males) is in this box. No one thinks Al Pacino isn't all hunky dory for being a father to his newborn at his age. Most agree it's wrong.
Quoting I like sushi
This is somewhat false. Many antinatalists would prefer there were restrictions on procreation on ethical grounds. Otherwise, your description is good.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I'm not.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not quite. This is what supports it. It relies on the state of affairs being that suffering is the overwhelming mode of experience for humans.
The a-symmetry simply supports the ethical solution of not procreating. Not the position itself.
Quoting Fire Ologist
We were - i tried to take your posts as this. I've responded to the additional comment above as-if. I didn't take you to be insinuating common law.
Quoting schopenhauer1
This is why I have a semi-constant smirk on. Every time I've been pressed on this by non-philosophers they get quite angry at their inability to find fault. I think people assume i'm telling them their choice to have children makes them worse people in my eyes
Quoting Fire Ologist
I think this is wrong. If the goal is to reduce suffering in humans, eliminating humans is its ultimate good. The fact that Ethics then cease to exists doesn't say anything about it. No humans is a success.
A further comment on the a-symmetry being leaned on here: It is a crucial part of hte position, but you can actually jettison this and still hold AN views. This is why you can see it supports the action rather htan the position. A lot of people will say "Ok, but why would that mean I shouldn't have kids?" and the a-symmetry comes in.
But this also, and it needs to be clearly understood, makes it obvious that the AN accepts that nearly every living person should continue living as death causes a large proportion of the suffering being calculated.
The individual stories aren’t relevant individually, but in order for the aggregate to display more or less suffering, you can’t gather individual stories about wood-working - you need individual stories that provide some insight into suffering levels.
Quoting AmadeusD
This sounds more pragmatic or utilitarian. Which may be the best spin on AN. If we treat humans like any other animal and for whatever reason want to reduce the suffering of humans, we could end procreation and let it all fade out.
I’m just saying if we humans think our ethics and morals are so important that we must live by them and uphold them above our own instincts and choose not to procreate for the sake of being moral and “good”, then we are defeating the seat of ethics in the world along with the lives that could have otherwise recognized and lived ethically; “because it is wrong to inflict suffering” is an ethic, and if this ethic is the reason we act, and our actions are to never procreate, then we are not only removing all of the suffering humans from the universe, but the ethics that inspired their removal in the first place.
I missed this, so will give my response here, and then add responses to your most recent below:
Ah, but this is entirely fine and there's nothing wrong with those two positions. It is wrong to bring a fetus to term because thence begins suffering. Being pregnant, per se, isn't an issue. If you were 100% sure to miscarry every child you ever had implanted in your womb - go for gold, but get a therapist.
An abortion prevents the human life entering the pool of suffering. There's no failure in logic that i can see unless there's some underlying imports i'm not grasping.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I agree, and in the process of getting to the 'data set' these are meaningful, just not to antinatalism. It's the contour of the aggregation that's used in this discussion, rather than the fine-grain you're at(or were before).
Quoting Fire Ologist
I think, in a poetic sense, this is more or less where most antinatalists lie. Just don't do anything to increase the number of people. The rest can take care of itself, if we dodge an asteroid in the meantime. Quoting Fire Ologist
Yes. I see no issue, though. The ethic which leads us to remove bigotry would be defeated by a defeat (removal) of all bigotry in the world. This is an oddity of most ethical views, but they are about how to act. If we can't act, its not up for consideration I think.
Read this more carefully. Then re-read it. Make sure you can summarize the main points to yourself. Then when you answer, probably best to go paragraph by paragraph and ask a question if you don't understand, or raise an objection to discrete points, but don't lose track of the bigger picture each point is trying to paint. Here it is again:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/915425
So the initial asymmetry is presented by Benatar as the following:
3 the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone;
4. the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
So I further explain this asymmetry by reformulating it a bit. The reason is because people often think that 3 runs into the "non-identity" issue because it is an impersonal "good". In other words, "Who" is benefiting from the absence of pain? And if no one, then how is it in any sense "good"?
Now, I think this is easily defeated in modal understanding of future conditionals. That is to say, we just say "It is a good state of affairs" that no one was harmed, WHEN THERE VERY WELL COULD HAVE BEEN SOMEONE HARMED. That's all that is needed to defeat this point.
However, even if someone had a weird metaphysics that denies future conditional states of affairs, you can rephrase the asymmetry as this:
1) Having a person will cause the harm/cause the breaking of some principle. This is a bad situation.
2) Not having a person will not cause the harm/cause the breaking of some principle. This can be either good or neutral situation, it doesn't matter.
All that matters in this is 1 (the bad situation) doesn't obtain.
Explain what kind of "restrictions" you are talking about here. You might be correct as a great many of people with a shallow understanding of the principles involved would encourage this quite strongly (people who watched a youtube video and decided it sounded about right). Anyone with a more thorough understanding in favour of enforcing such ideas by law are extreme radicals and should probably be treated with contempt by everyone else (they will be by me for sure).
Quoting schopenhauer1
You told me to read it carefully and read it again and parse it out with questions. I don’t suppose you meant me to do that with the above.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Ok, the violation occurs when procreation happens. But you didn’t say the rule that’s violated (and I’m not going to dare to assume anything). The violation of what rule specifically in your words for me to parse out?
But I got this rule is violated once procreation occurs.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That sounds like a rule in there. The rule seems to be to “prevent harm when possible, especially when unnecessary.” Then, once procreation happens and the rule has been violated, you move to a different rule where, if there is harm already done “a set of actions is needed to remediate it.”
I think you said before AN has nothing to do with remediative actions. Which makes sense since AN is a pre-procreation moral guidance.
Quoting schopenhauer1
This seems to be about a wider moral position, and has stepped outside of a narrow focus on AN. The above all talks about how to treat other currently living people. In this context, and if I got the rule right, the rule being: “prevent harm when possible, especially when unnecessary”, in the wider context of other living people we still must try to prevent harm, especially when unnecessary, but there can be harmed caused that is “unintentional harm.” And any step we take is towards remediation, not prevention first.
[Could negligent behavior blur the line between preventative and remediative acts? Is there a duty to try to prevent negligence, and while some acts are purely unintentional, others are wanton and grossly negligent sorts that we all have a duty to prevent? This is a tangent - forget the question.]
Quoting schopenhauer1
I sum this up as making the point that what is wrong about procreation is that we are recruiting a future person into a life of suffering, and failing to prevent obviously unnecessary suffering.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think you are making me do all the work and judging by your abilities you could do it way better, and tighter. You just don’t want to waste your time on a bad faith opponent - well you’re judging me harshly. I’m doing my best too.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I get it’s a tough moral choice to make. That was in The Revealers too.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You said “especially since the amount of suffering is unknown.” That adds an interesting element. “Amount of suffering” as a concept, plus this amount being “unknown.”
I don’t think the amount of suffering matters, and I don’t think the fact of suffering is unknown. We know every time we procreate we are recruiting someone into suffering. Period. Right?
As far as the re-education, I agree it would be in the face of inclinations and old habits. But I’m still trying to parse out the content of the education. That is a 2.0 discussion about inclinations and where they come from and why someone might resist AN. I’m just sticking to what AN is.
You even said yourself after talking about people who aren’t inclined to have kids, about religion and family as urging kids, as existential need for purpose.. “…Though of course, there are also plenty of horrible parents as well, but all of this is besides the point.”
So I don’t think I need to parse that part out yet to focus on what AN is.
I’m not intending to mischaracterize anything you are trying to explain, so if I do, that wasn’t my intent, so don’t accuse me of bad faith anymore, please. (If something is wrong, clarify it for me. Nothing wrong with wiping the blackboard clean and laying out a tight argument from the top again.)
Then you said this:
Quoting schopenhauer1
So it is more about not forcing someone to be born at all, regardless of any suffering; it is about how “recruiting them into projects” is wrong. The fact that it is a project “that will harm them” makes it all the worse, but “it is more than just suffering. […] It is rather about not using people by force.”
This is why you don’t like my arguments about the amount of suffering. Suffering in life is a part of what is wrong about procreation, but it is the involuntary recruitment that might be the real heart of the rule that is violated.
So I had the rule as (trying to quote you) “ prevent the harm if possible, especially if it is unnecessary to let the harm happen in the first place.” But there is a second rule or complication to the rule (again that I hope you will clarify) something like (as tight as I can make to build less room for misinterpretation): “do not impose harm, especially when it can be avoided.”
So this confuses “prevent” with “not impose”. But I am seeing AN as more saying “do not impose” in order to get the involuntary recruitment aspect into it.
But that undermines all of the time spent parsing out “prevent” from “remediate”. That wasn’t really the issue. And that issue was related to the suffering, where first you must prevent suffering, but then once procreation happens and you are with the currently living you are following a rule relating to remediating suffering. But we also said that the suffering isn’t the heart of the issue.
So I think all of the arguments over prevent versus remediate and suffering and amounts of suffering, were off the mark (or at least my objections and rebuttals to those aspects of the arguments were off the mark). Because that wasn’t the real heart of the problem. That’s why it can be ok to cause some suffering in living people, because they can consent to that suffering.
The mark for AN has to do with the lack of consent to live at all.
It is wrong to force a being into existence when no such being could give its consent, therefore one should not procreate.
Is this right?
Quoting schopenhauer1
It is right. It sounds right to me. I still don’t think I’m mischaracterizing anything you are saying.
And I also still think it can all be summed up in a tighter argument where every word counts better than I’ve done here. I’m not sure if the best formulation of the rule involved ( “prevent harm” or “not imposing harm”).
There are holes that I can’t seem to fill, and that I’m afraid to fill for fear of “strawmanning”!!
There is an apparent vacillation on the place of the future non-existing baby that is both prevented from existing (as a future possible baby), and in which suffering is prevented from existing. I know that the baby never exists when the rule is followed and no violation occurs. But the rule itself seems to invoke the existence of a baby that cannot give its consent, to whom life is being imposed involuntarily; there’s a tension there that you (not me) introduce into the text. The existence of the baby seems to matter (actual) and not matter (potential) to the world this ethic describes.
And I still see a hole in the value of suffering to the AN argument. Something needs further clarity here. Does AN hold its ground regardless of any suffering or not?
But I’ve gone too far astray from the text.
Before you respond to all of the things I got wrong, can you at least admit how far I DO seem to understand it? Most of this whole post was me trying to restate you without causing any cringing.
Yes, thank you for actually trying to analyze and parse out the arguments. I appreciate that, and now we can have a much more interesting discussion :clap: because we are not talking so past each other, but seriously engaged in the content. This was actually very good, along the lines I was looking for.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Correct.
Quoting Fire Ologist
:up:
Quoting Fire Ologist
Correct
Quoting Fire Ologist
Absolutely, but as further down it discusses that once born, "positive ethics" does come into play (people's interests, goals), complete avoidance of harm, and to what point negligence matters is a sticky situation. But correct, at this point tangential so can be tabled for another thread/discussion. AN does not matter for these cases being that it's still remediation, and then a matter of "To what degree?"
Quoting Fire Ologist
Correct. There are multiple violations here having to do with violating someone's dignity, encapsulated with "Don't harm" and Don't violate people's autonomy" (both of them being further grouped as types of the principle "Don't use/mess with people", but I'll explain that later).
Quoting Fire Ologist
Correct, but with a caveat. The non-harm/autonomy principles were violated, and it was unnecessary (no remediative reason for it), so in an absolute sense, always wrong. However, I don't discount that the extent of suffering is in play. But it is in play to the detriment of the pro-natalist argument, not the other way around. Whereas, if no one was born, literally no one would be deprived (non-identity issue) of the goods of life, once born there will be suffering/harm as a fact. And it is empirically true that this world holds a great deal of it in known and unknown quantities. That adds to the antinatalist case. It also leads into the idea that if we distill down the (six or so to my estimation) goods of life, causing people suffering so they can experience the goods is problematic itself in breaking the ethic of "not using people" (by unnecessarily harming them, and "messing" with them/violating other people's autonomy).
Quoting Fire Ologist
Yes, my point to bring that in the discussion was many people, and I believe earlier you did as well, try to invoke some procreative/natural "necessity" into the human psyche. But I am encountering with empirical evidence that humans don't even work that way. Rather, we are very much learned/cultural/existential/deliberative creatures, and less so "instinctual". This gets into a lot of side avenues of discussion but generally what I was getting at is that "Wanting to procreate" or "Wanting to have kids" is not an instinct but a (very culturally weighted) preference. Childfree-people and their GROWTH as societies get more educated (that is, away from familial and tribal and religious pressures), they tend to become more individualistic, and PREFER to procreate less over time. That to me indicates that "wanting kids" is not instinctual but very much contingent on social and existential pressures. I also mentioned that it's simply a personal preference one takes on because for many, it seems like an ultimate "purpose" because it is so all-encompassing. Also, I am acknowledging that this is a hard decision and a powerful "inclination" for many people. I am explaining possible origins, but also disregarding that any of it is relevant to the moral considerations at hand. Thus it's a classic case of "inclination" vs. "morality". You feel a "loss", but what if I told you that this feeling of "loss" can be transferred to any number of things that one might miss out on? (trips, experiences, rights of passage, etc.). This is a bit outlandish, but imagine a young Spartan who was all prepared to do all sorts of horrible things to their helot slaves. It was a right of passage they were looking forward to, but Athens takes over Sparta (this didn't happen) and forces Sparta to stop the practice of killing helots as a right of passage. Does the young Spartan have a right to feel a sense of loss? That's all he's ever known or looked forward to. Obviously, I recognize procreation is so integral to society as to be a matter of course and thus deemed as irrevocably different than the "obvious" example of inclination and preference I provided. But isn't this the point of these debates on this topic? That perhaps our normative understanding IS incorrect, and we must re-evaluate?
Quoting Fire Ologist
Yes good catch on the two themes/points of violation here. Roughly they correspond to non-harm principle violation (don't unnecessarily cause harm), and autonomy principle (don't unnecessarily mess with people/ violate their autonomy). And thus, as you state, the extent of suffering is not the crux of the position, but it can inform it. Why? Because part of the "non-harm" principle entails two things:
1) Known harm
2) Unknown harm
So the violation happens because you know there is harm, but you choose to impose it anyways. And you know that you cannot know "unknown harm" that might befall someone- so you are gambling with other people (again all these are principles of using someone.. harm/autonomy, etc.).
And this brings me to another point, that of the notion of "aggressive paternalism". This is the stance one takes when they deem that it is OK to violate these deontological principles of non-harm/autonomy (to use people). That is where this notion of "Your positive ethics does NOT justify violating someone else's negative ethics".
Quoting Fire Ologist
Nice takeaway, and good example of walking through the dialectic and how it relates to the arguments and seeing where some errors could be on initial interpretations and arguments.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Yes, but I don't think the rule relies solely on consent. There is definitely the principle of non-harm, so you can combine it with what you were getting at earlier, "One should not cause unnecessary harm, or violate someone's autonomy (consent)" This is an example of the more basic principle of "Do not use people". And to violate this would be to take a stance of "aggressive paternalism" where you deem "Ok to violate other people's negative ethics for the cause of one's own positive ethics". In other words, "You deem what is best for others, even if that brings with it harms/suffering for others."
Quoting Fire Ologist
:up:
Quoting Fire Ologist
Indeed, I also wonder this because, as you stated, they both convey different but related ideas. You are preventing harm AND imposing harm. In the negative sense, you are not violating non-harm. In the positive sense, you WILL be imposing harm, presumably for some positive ethic. You are IMPOSING a project, creating unnecessary harm (aggressive paternalism- feelings that one has the right to violate negative ethics for one's own estimation of what should be/positive ethics).
Quoting Fire Ologist
This is why I reformulate the general "asymmetry" here. Even though I might say that a potential child not born is "good" for not suffering. You might say that it is neutral. And I am willing to say that I am okay with this. We can say in fact, that prior to procreation, no ethical thing is happening good or bad. It is only one way that it is bad, the scenario of procreation. There may not be an equivalent "good", just "not bad".
Quoting Fire Ologist
This is indeed a whole discussion in itself. But to be brief, this is answered by being contra the "aggressive paternalism" stance. That is to say, it is hubris to assume for others that there is a certain amount of suffering that is acceptable or even "good for someone" to take place, even if it doesn't have to. You are indeed violating someone's dignity (using them) because you deem a certain set of positive principles as above and beyond the violation of someone else's negative principles.
Thank you for taking the time to do this "close/charitable" read! Now we can have productive conversations around the same set of ideas rather than talking past each other. Even if we disagree, we are at least doing it on the correct set of ideas, or at least near close to it (I'm sure we will still talk past each other).
So you are introducing a bunch of strawman scenarios into the AN argument, as it looks like you are not understanding the domain of antinatalism. Antinatalism is purely about the decision to procreate a person. In the current world we live in, this is by the usual biological methods, though with fertilization technology I guess it can involve several participants. But the question for antinatalism is strictly "Is it okay to procreate someone who will be harmed/suffer once they are born?". The antinatalist answer is an emphatic "NO!".
The same ethic that wants to prevent future suffering of a person might also be at work in various other ethical applications, but that wouldn't be the domain of antinatalism- this includes the upbringing of a child once already born.
There may be several possible normative ethical foundations for a person's particular version of antinatalism. For example, mine might include the idea that procreation violates negative ethics (the non-harm/autonomy principles), and even if there is a positive project you might want from it (meaning in your life, heritage, legacy, etc.), that positive project doesn't override another person's negative right not to be harmed unnecessarily.
I have seen discussions where I've leant toward this not being the case. I.e not being sufficient to support the position entirely. The non-identity problem does get its day, essentially. But I think it can be defeated, regardless. I would have to revisit those discussions (i believe one was on an Antinatalist podcast with a very irking woman presenting, tbh, but Benatar as guest) to get to it, though, so feel free to disregard that.
I think its not entirely wrong to require that a lack of harm is pursuant to an individual. But, if its true for *insert any considered future person* then it is true for every other considered future person. These are, to the degree it matters here, individuals in consideration. So, you can take an individual who does not exist, yet is on the other side of the Yes/No choice being made (determinists shhh) - it's clearly wrong to create something which will primarily suffer.
But this actually gives us an even clearer formulation - "Inducing suffering is wrong".
Quoting I like sushi
(to be clear, I personally don't really think these restrictions are apt responses to the AN position, but other ethical considerations to be discussed elsewhere). One possible route would be licensing for parentage. Another would be restrictions on how many children can be part of any given (defined) genetic circle. Quoting I like sushi
I'm unsure contempt would be my response, as opposed to incredulity.
All of your points have to do with individuals already living, and so are irrelevant.
I feel my post you quoted from sufficiently goes over reasons why the non-identity issue is a red herring. It's an abuse of language to reason that future conditionals are not in moral considerations. Also I gave some restatements of the Benatarian asymmetry that can change it to "states of affairs" language. The state of affairs of suffering can obtain (BAD), or it does not (good or at least NOT BAD). Obviously select the NOT BAD over BAD.
I do not feel you post does what you've described. It's possible you missed that your arguments support action, while what I'm outlining supports the position. Maybe?
I really don't know what you're getting at here about action and position in regards to the non-identity issue.
I have mentioned this before. That is not exactly something I would favour but it falls far away from the kind of of extreme I was talking about - an essential ban on procreation - which is not really what AN is about.
Quoting AmadeusD
I have a feeling this is parallel to something I have tried to mention before on the subject of AN.
Often what is ethical is used synonymously with what is moral. With AN we are really talking about a 'moral' view (individual conscience) whereas as an 'ethical' view (general rule for society) it is something quite different.
The lack of common distinction with these terms causes discussions about AN to become fractious. This is why you see so many people believing that others are condoning the extinction of the human species - they see the 'ethical' stance as saying this is better for society (the destruction of society is better for society).
How did you derive this from position and action? Am I not understanding the common usage of those words?
I am not saying I understood what they said just that it made me think of this. Whether they can apply it or not we will see.
Agreed.
Quoting I like sushi
ANs do believe in the extinction of society being the ethically correct outcome of hte near-middle future. But, not by genocide. Not it's better 'for society'. It 'is better'. Full stop.
This is as regards the Asymmetry. The asymmetry supports acting to prevent more people. Not the position that more people is an unethical course of action. One pre, one proscriptive.
I'd give a slight rebuttal to this that it depends if you are a utilitarian or a deontologist about it. A utilitarian would say that it is about the outcome of suffering that needs to be prevented (negative utilitarianism), the deontologist would say it is the principle of not causing harm.
No they do not. Only if they proclaim AN as an 'ethical' paradigm that must be followed by others. When it comes to believing that it should be followed the same would not apply if should is framed as a suggestion rather than am order based on irrefutable reasoning.
You are a believer in AN? If so I am curious what your views are. I know already know well enough what Schopenhauer believes what about you? Even if you are one of those I said I would have 'contempt' for I would still like to try and understand why you think what you think :)
My views are odd - because I am conceptually in line with AN entirely (including the above prescriptive thinking and hte delineation between living and potential persons) but I don't take anything seriously enough to think this is a view I could enforce. And nor would I want to. I have better things to do. Thsi is an intellectual position that I do believe in, but as with all of my positions, I think they apply to me. I can simply think one has their reasoning wrong without impugning htem intellectually.
Hell, I have two kids. That doesn't mean I don't feel guilt every moment of my life for that.
Quoting AmadeusD
This is directly in line with what I outlined as 'moral' and almost entirely opposed to the 'ethical'. Do you agree that what you say here aligns with what I stated as being a 'moral' stance rather than what I stated as an 'ethical' stance? If not why? (Note: I used these terms fairly loosely so there is wiggle room).
As an aside, based on @AmadeusD's position, he doesn't want to do the following:
1) Impose antinatalism
2) Impugn others who don't believe in the rightness of antinatalism
Number 1 is simply a given being that antinatalism is properly an ethic and not a political policy. One can make it into one perhaps, but then that is antinatalist policy, not antinatalist ethics, which for all intents and purposes is what people generally refer to when they say "antinatalism". Generally antinatalists do not advocate imposing/forcing others to follow antinatalism. This is similar to veganism.
Number 2 seems a non-sequitur or self-refuting. Simply don't debate it on a philosophy forum then if you don't want to "impugn" others' stances. If he meant that in public life he doesn't do this, that is one thing. Most antinatalists don't usually go around advocating for it, though there are some that do this. It is not incumbent to be a missionary for antinatalism. However, being on a philosophy forum, and defending the position, would in a minor way be "impugning" those who are objecting, if one engages with it. So I am not sure if this is sort of tu quoque fallacy Amadeus is unintentionally making on himself by even arguing anything related to AN, given 2.
Not quite, no. I do think it would be better if people were ANs to the point that I believe people should not have children. This is proscriptive, and is an ethical position.
Perhaps I need to be clearer: I have ethical positions I never intend to enforce on others. If you look at all the arguments and conclude "Not good enough", fine, but I'll think you're wrong and would try to persuade you otherwise. I do not have to commit myself to arguing with everyone who has kids to hold an ethical position such as AN. Practically speaking, what is the point in that? Just Stop Oil are a joke for a reason.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Wrong. Enforce. I would impose the reasoning on anyone who would listen. Enforcement is a step too far to my mind.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Impugn "intellectually". Very different to impugning their ethics in my view. I think other people should not have children. Would I purposefully insinuate this to people? No. I'd prefer to suffer in silence on this issue unless asked. I wouldn't assert someone's mind was wrong (in terms of some kind of retardation(in the strict sense)) for not agreeing with my ethical position. Please keep in mind, though, I am an emotivist to the degree that i have an actual Ethical view.
I don't believe my ethical framework can be enforced. It should should be followed by me. No, this is not morality, but it is a bit of a get-out-of-jail card because it basically is a meta-ethical theory that asserts there is no objective morality. Moral theories in general don't make any sense in this light.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not at all. Possibly the exact way you worded it, it would be, but not once you've read the above paragraph.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not intellectually. I think you are morally deficient if you're intent on having children, though.
You do this actively or only when questioned about your AN beliefs?
I do think it can be quite problematic to argue about moral positions unless you adhere to some kind of moral realism. I am assuming you are a moral realist? If not how does this fit into your views on AN?
Thanks
A sideline to this: it seems to me that most antinatalist arguments apply to animals as well (possibly even more strongly, given the amount of suffering).
If you're unwilling to enforce your framework or even really convince people, what about animals? Would you spay/neuter as many animals as possible, given the chance? Perhaps avoid their procreation in other ways?
1. My current understanding of (most) animal psychology is either not good enough to assume, or leads me to believe that hte relevant animals do not 'suffer' the way humans do, but experience an aversion; and
2. I don't think we will ever have a very clear understanding of the above issue outside of some higher animals and fish.
If I could clearly understand 1. above to indicate that animals, on the whole, suffer the same way humans do, I would probably assent to your point.
Quoting I like sushi
Not always directly on-point to AN stuff, but whereever it seems applicable to the discussion (several versions of a vague 'ethical' discussion would do this and hten, yes) and whenever I'm specifically prodded on the issue.
Quoting I like sushi
I am a pretty staunch moral antirealist (hence noting I am an Emotivist, to the degree that I will commit to an existing label). I don't think this has any affect or effect on my AN positions beyond noting that they are 'my' ethical beliefs. My meta-ethical position doesn't really give me any room to pretend i'm the arbiter of truth, no matter how sure I am that I have the 'right' idea.
You deem 'suffering' as 'bad' (or rather "Boo!") knowing it is your subjective emotions talking.
How then can you state, in any serious way, that something is 'right' or 'wrong'. The whole point of AN is to state that natalism is wrong. But you seem to be saying "it is 'wrong' (boo!) for me" not that it is out and out wrong (Boo!) for everyone or that there is anything dictating what is objectively viewed as 'right; or 'wrong' other than commonality of emotional expressions.
It is interesting how this, in part, appears similar to moral naturalism rather than moral scepticism.
Following this lien of questioning I find myself framing you as what I previously expressed as harbouring a 'Moral' stance of AN rather than an 'Ethical' stance of AN. I made this particular distinction in an essay I wrote on AN to highlight the flaw in some who make claims to both 'Moral' and 'Ethical' stances on AN as to do so is to hold contradictory positions.
Anyway, thanks for your replies. I think we could argue back and forth a bit more but it may be mostly a semantic issue given that emotivism is hard to articulate (a serious flaw of emotivism).
It's hard to commit to a formulation of this part, but I think this is a bullet to bite, in terms of its vagueness. Yes.
Quoting I like sushi
I don't see a problem. I'm an Emotivist. That's what 'right' and 'wrong' mean.
Quoting I like sushi
A lot here.
It is wrong for anyone(currently, anyhow) as far as I am concerned. Enforcement of that policy can only apply to me based on my ethical views.
(my view is that..)There is nothing that could even begin to dictate what is objectively right or wrong (in the meta-ethical sense of the term "objective"). Those words don't have objective bases.
The basis is necessarily one's emotional disposition (maybe predisposition? This could in a very weird and unsatisfying way open the door to a more-objective ethic) as there is nothing else which could inform us.
The commonality of emotional expression is probably hte best way (:optimal) to work toward policy. I don't take this to indicate anything truly ethical. But it does indicate the overall moral vibe of a society/culture.
Quoting I like sushi
Could you expand? My understanding of Moral Naturalism is that it more or less indicates that morals are evolutionarily-required aspects of human development, which I don't agree with.
Quoting I like sushi
Hmm. Pretty hard disagree. I think in these exchanges I have navigated through that suggestion pretty well. The fact that I don't think I should be forcing other people to adopt my view doesn't make it less ethically-driven. Not doing much about it is a dispositional fact of my mind or, to be a bit more sanguine, a practical necessity to not hating my life and hte world I live in.
I disagree that Emotivism is either hard to articulate, or flawed in any meaningful way (beyond causing discomfort, that is - but that's baked into the position so LOL). But that would make sense if it's my position, so just noting this for thoroughness.
Quoting AmadeusD
In common parse, yes. In the framing I made for 'Moral' and 'Ethical' I am satisfied with how you have responded. If you had said some other things then I would have pulled you up about them. This is because AN only makes rational sense if it is either 'Moral' OR 'Ethical' in the way I framed those terms.
Quoting AmadeusD
It just seemed that you were framing emotional dispositions as the grounding for moral choices rather than there being no moral choices. I made the leap from biological necessity to emotional dispositions. That is clearly not what you meant though.
What is Right For You (Emotivism) is not deemed Objectively Right. Ergo, your claim is Subjectively Led not Objectively Led - for emphasis this is what I meant in my distinction between Moral (Right for Your Perspective) and Ethical (The Right Objective Implementation).
Oh, okay, I see what you mean. That might be a language issue - Emotional dispositions are the only possible grounding for moral choices. But that lives within the vagueries of "moral decision" so probably cannot be adequately defined (in either direction).
Quoting I like sushi
But this misses that Emotivism is a meta-ethical position. It says that human Ethics are dispositional. That framing Ethics as something objective, under which we must argue for our chosen source (God, Ayn Rand, deontology, utilitarian calc etc...) is wrong ethically. Ethics inform morals - so this ethical position means that all moral choices are in response to one's emotional state which is in turn in response to a moral proposition. You can't have a meta-moral system to explain this, because that's just ethics. And the "ethics" is that it is right to ascribe moral positions to their underlying emotional states. I'm unsure more needs to be said here, but feel free to pick it apart.
For what it's worth, I think people are ethically wrong to enforce their ethical position if their position entails an objective moral outcome. Strange, I know.
Thank you
Which is another way AN harms itself as a reasonable ethical system.
If the goal of ethics is to eliminate ethics, we could just ignore any pangs of morality now instead. Like ignoring pangs of procreation when trying to be an ethical AN.
If It’s all pang manipulation, why base the manipulations on any ethics, let alone an ethics that seeks to undo its application anywhere?
Sure, pain and suffering suck and sex feels good and so does a cheeseburger when you are hungry, but using scales of ethics and motality to help decide one’s way forward for sake of eliminating ethics is a bit like using math to show how numbers can’t exist (or in this case shouldn’t exist).
I'll try to sort out your comments below, but I do not see how that, in any way, harms itself. If the ethical goal is to no longer require ethical systems (because the world is perfectly ethical) then it is precisely, as an ethical system, that AN succeeds (obviously if you disagree with it then success is subjective, but I hope you get the sense in which I mean this).
Quoting Fire Ologist
I'm unsure this is the right description of the goal, but onward..
Quoting Fire Ologist
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but this seems to violate the former idea: If we're ignoring moral pangs (though, I couldn't give a shit what your moral pangs are. Show me the results of your behaviour) then ethics would say this is unethical, in some sense. You are not attended to ethics in this case. The case I'm, at least superficially, putting forward as a goal of AN would be that there are no ethics to attend. I think there is a clear distinction, myself, because you're right - the conception you've described here is inapt, and probably self-defeating.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I do not see this at all, unfortunately. They are not the same thing, or comparable. To be fair, morality would likely only pertain to the acts of hte living. Ethics are to do with the effect of those acts so there can be a difference between the two 'scales' being considered, I think - though, I ahve written this on the fly while editing a settlement statement so go easy LOL
Don’t you mean because the world is perfectly non-ethical?
Quoting AmadeusD
LOL, Yes, I suppose so. May not non-ethical, but ethically bereft/empty/inapt. I hope you groked what I was getting at though... Simply that there is no need for ethical thinking (and no humans would be just that). In fact, it may be that it's not possible in that scenario. But probably that leads into some kind of exegesis which isn't my bag. I say that because, having re-read my passage it would require a "view from nowhere". Speculatively, I don't see an issue though - we're not in that world :P
Because there were too many.
Your observations are correct. I used to have posts that dealt with various aspects that are disparate enough to warrant their own topic.
I wonder, would it be possible to have a subforum within Ethics just for antinatalism topics? If not that, is there some middle ground whereby topics can be clearly delineated within the same thread? I think this category has enough demand to not confine it to the ghetto of a monolithic Antinatalism thread whereby individual topics are hard to discern on a broad and multifaceted issue.
Hear, hear!
1. Discuss amongst ourselves (i.e those holders of the view, or sympathetic to the view); or
2. Put up with people who clearly misunderstand hte position, can't put together coherent objections and consistently insult us on the basis of a view we're not forcing on them.
I would hazard a guess neither is actually worth the time. That said, 180 is a never-ending fountain of bad replies which certainly help to elucidate the wrongness of some objections, so maybe there's that.
Antinatalism is fringe. SO fringe the word is not even recognised by spellcheck yet :D
He showed an "Ethic" and "Moral" stance simultaneously (with the meanings I gave you some weeks back) and these are contrary.
It should also be stated that just because someone disagrees it does not mean that they do not understand. If that is the place you leap too maybe you should question your own understanding of what they are saying otherwise you are essentially claiming your position is correct and anyone who does not agree simply does not understand. Wrong. Either they do not understand you fully or you do not understand them fully; but most likely an admixture of the two.
Personally I am some kind of moral sceptic so the whole matter for me is pretty moot at its core. The AN position is Anti-Ethical as pointed out by the guy in the video if your position in in the sphere of what I coined "Ethic" rather than "Moral". As a Moral stance it has more apparent validity.
Quoting I like sushi
No, not at all. I think, again, you have seriously (and uncharitably) misunderstood the point. I do not care whether 180 agrees. He doesn't make any sense to me msot of the time, so why would i care? The point is his constant misrepresentation, trolling remarks, insults and pure ignorance of what's been put to him.
It is genuinely fun. But, do not get it twisted: "you don't understand", for me, has absoltely nothing to do with agreement or disagreement :)
You generalise and mention 180.
Quoting AmadeusD
Given this and the above you can see how they can coincide?
---
(from other thread)
At one point in our exchange you nearly stopped dodging my reductio. At that point you said:
Quoting schopenhauer1
And I replied:
Quoting Leontiskos
To recap paraphrastically:
The fact that you admitted to reconsideration shows that you do see the force of the reductio, but you failed to follow through and actually do the hard work of reconsidering Benatar's argument and your position.
From your perspectives maybe. Have you considered that what you see as 'trolling' others see as valid points that are not addressed by the argumentation.
Of course. This is now coming across as fairly bad faith (i know it isn't but please note what you're doing - telling me I'm not intellectually in the game, as it were). Assuming i've not considered the points adequately is a bit weird if you're getting at me for pointing out others have clearly not done the same (and even self-admitted they don't care to?) These are very different scenarios. Though, I don't fault you. You're doing roughly hte same as me.
Quoting I like sushi
Several people clearly don't, and yes, that's from my perspective. I have no other. All you can actually do is disagree with me, but it doesn't even seem that you're doing so.
Whether they(interlocutors) agree is a totally different issue - one which doesn't matter if they clearly don't understand my views. I would be the only person in a position to know whether you have understood them.
That said, in terms of the wider issue you're point out, given there are three or four usual suspects in this respect, I don't find an issue with my take. I accept lots of people wont like it, and lots of people wont agree or understand. That's how life works.
Thank you for the link. When my current assignment is over, it might be something to go over with you.
@Baden
Funny you defend this ghettoizing of the topic of antinatalism (something you vociferously disagree with), and yet you bring up a topic we discussed way back.. Something which I can't easily look up BECAUSE of this ghettoization whereby EVERYTHING related to antinatalism, no matter what thread/topic is squished into one long thread. So perhaps it is the limitations of PlushForums, but I am proposing a way to give people the ability to create new threads on the topic, so that conversations can be logically viewed.
Quoting Leontiskos
Oh fuck no, because I don't see this world as ever being just a pinprick. Did you find my response? It came right after:
Quoting schopenhauer1
It seems to be the case that general decorum for debate in this forum has long ago been deemed as unnecessary.. people like to pull out the roots rather than prune the branches. Robust debate is replaced with "getting one's goat". It's obnoxious and un-philosophical. It is certainly sophistic, but I thought philosophy was trying to veer away from such tactics and stick to substantial issues. This I guess is why philosophers snipe at each other's beliefs, not in real time, but over the course of many years in journal articles. We are playing speed chess, academic philosophy is playing a much longer game, so they can afford to "stick to the topics" more-or-less, in their paid positions to do so in ivory towers. But, this forum doesn't have to resort to gutter tactics. I simply do so when it's necessary to meet in kind, when I sense that people are dodging, uncharitable, rude, or strawmanning my position with sweeping generalizations that don't address the issues.
Use the link I already gave you, which makes it super easy to navigate the discussion. You can make such a search more precise by searching for "schopenhauer1" instead of "." In that case it will only display the posts of mine within this thread that include your username. You can also reverse the search to see a chronological list of your posts to me within this thread. Problem solved. :wink:
Quoting schopenhauer1
By burying your head in the sand in this way you prove yourself unserious.
Suppose we lived in that world. And suppose Benatar came along and gave the same argument you think is so great. What would you say to him? Would you "shh!" him and sweep him under the rug!? "Don't give that argument in this world! I like birth in this world! Arguments aren't about what's true, they are about what I want, and we don't talk about the arguments that don't suit what I want!"
You're doing the same basic thing when you bury your head in the sand. You recognize that the argument proves too much but you want to believe its conclusion so you refuse to address the objection. This is precisely the sort of irrational motive I spoke about in the other thread. It's like playing soccer with a guy who uses his hands whenever he starts losing. My solution is to find someone else, who is actually interested in playing soccer. Or find a game in which the person is not irrationally devoted to a predetermined outcome. For whatever reason you show yourself unable to play by the rules of rational argument when it comes to anti-natalism.
Nah, we can just do that for any topic right? The instant you make your 30th post on Kant, you should have its own thread to wade through in the Search. Let's do that with every topic:
Meaning of life
Plato
Kant
Aristotle
Systems Theory/Semiosis
Theoretical Physics etc. etc.
Let's ghettoize all the topics equally then and make it similarly as many unnecessary steps to search for it.
Quoting Leontiskos
So AGAIN, you ignore the answer I gave you? That is twice you ignored my answer. Why didn't you quote what I quoted you??
Quoting Leontiskos
What are you talking about? I would listen and see if he had a point that indeed, in that world even a pinprick is not worth it. In fact, if you ACTUALLY read his book (don't have it in front me, but if you want to do a chapter by chapter reading, I suppose we could), he DOES cover this. So, let's get at it then.
Quoting Leontiskos
This is rhetorical blather. First off, I DON"T EVEN USE Benatar wholesale. His asymmetry, if I do mention it, is a way to jump off but I have my own variations of it, which I have taken painstaking time to outline over the course of MANY threads over MANY years.. To have you pin me to one line of reasoning, like that is a subtle but malicious form of uncharitable reading.. But keep mistaking me for Benatar.
But the funny thing is, EVEN if I defend Benatar qua Benatar (not my variation of him), I STILL defended him sufficiently, and you IGNORED my actual response to make rhetorical blather.
True - I should probably remember the stark difference between this forum and in-class discussions I have.
Because your quote was a dodge. I asked you why you would reconsider in that world and you pulled the escape hatch and refused to answer, instead changing the subject. I answered your red herring in the thread:
Quoting Leontiskos
Here is the argument:
Quoting Leontiskos
What is your parallel supposed to be?
1a. Suppose one is reanimated whenever they are stabbed.
2a. [Insert anti-stabbing argument here].
3a. Therefore, we should not stab.
4a. (Any 2a that can get you from 1a to 3a is faulty argumentation.)
This fails because we have no reason to believe either 3a or 4a. There is no parity between these two approaches. It's an ad hoc dodge.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You are drawing up more escape hatches because you see your argument failing. You are the one who brought up Benatar, not me. It isn't courageous or rational to give your arguments conditionally, such that if they succeed then your position is vindicated but if they fail then you're none the worse for wear.
Now what you did not quote nor did you actually address was this:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting Leontiskos
Yet I said here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
SO you are still arguing against your own arguments.. ones cleverly concocted to make you win an argument against yourself.. as they are YOUR contrived arguments (uninformed version of Benatar and my own individual philosophy), not mine.
Quoting Leontiskos
Not at all.. If one is reanimated when stabbed, that changes the very conditions of the world itself. Death is not really death. It's something else. Just as a pinprick world might not be the kind of suffering we are used to. This is the most uninteresting argument I've seen in a while. You haven't even incorporated Schopenhaueran suffering/pessimism in there, something that would come into play in my understanding of suffering (look at my profile if you need to understand that), but you reduced to some kind of hedonoistic/common version all in one swoop because you think you can win some rhetorical points -> NEXT!
Quoting Leontiskos
You mean where I said THIS???
Quoting schopenhauer1
Oh so where I even said right in your quote "reformulated as" and went into MY OWN version?
Why should I believe 3a or 4a?
The other problem here is that most 2a's presuppose the falsity of 1a, whereas 2 does not presuppose the falsity of 1. Or in other words, Benatar's argument contains no implicit logical clause, "...Unless the world is situated such that happiness far outweighs suffering for all." That's the very problem with his argument that is being highlighted.
Contrariwise, prohibitions against stabbing are premised on pain, injury, and mortality, and therefore the sort of world you suggest logically invalidates the prohibitions (and hence 3a). This is completely different from Benatar's argument, for the case I gave clearly does not invalidate his prohibition. That's why, in a fit of honesty, you told me that the question may need to be reconsidered in light of such new circumstances. So if you want to pull your head out of the sand you will answer the question: What would you say to Benatar in that scenario? Why trust an argument in our world that you would not trust in that world? The argument by its very nature cannot be invalidated by the minimization of suffering, and yet this is what you are committed to.
Well, right back at you. This is my point. If you are stating that you can only speak to people who understand and that anyone who does not is a waste of time that speaks volumes for the position you are favouring.
Of course, it may have just been poor wording. Nevertheless am I somehow acting in bad faith by pointing out how one-sided it sounded. I do not think so. We basically understood each other in a discussion here pretty well and it is quite clear to me that you are happy to disagree and you know I am.
Anyway, think we are sort of saying the same thing again and understand each other :D
I can, and maybe will, point out when I think you or anyone else has said something a little one-sided or poorly expressed AND I will consider the fault can be with me too in appreciation of what is said too. This is just me flexing my writing muscles now and hoping to improve so will shut up :D
Quoting AmadeusD
Well, the vast majority of the time this is probably true enough for everyone. I am well aware that we can easily hoodwink ourselves too. But yeah, probably, for the most part.
Quoting AmadeusD
I do not find an issue with it either as what you seem to say falls on what I coined the "Moral" for the most part. From what Schopenhauer has said in the past too I would say he does too (unless he has changed his views a little since then), so I have no issue with the positions you both hold. I do not agree with them though and neither has put forward a proof because a proof cannot be put forward, only expressed opinions - as is the nature of most of Ethics dealing with obligations.
Quoting AmadeusD
Sure, and same here regarding time limitations. Expanding my workload and loving it though, so should be able to pay decent attention to it :)
The strongest argument IMO for antinatalism (AN) seems to be the one from deontological ethics, i.e. that if we are not sure that life will be a good for the future human being, it's ethically questionable to 'take the risk', especially due to the impossibility of any consent from the future human being ('I cannot chose for others'...).
1) My first question is (especially for those who do not beleive in some 'objective ethics'): what is the foundation of ethics for an antinatalist? It seems that in AN there is a very strong ethical component but if 'ethics' is reduced to some kind of social contract or something 'natural', it seems that AN doens't have a strong justification to be 'better' than others.
2) Also, if one accepts that we also have a 'deontological duty' for others, for the whole human community and if one agrees that 'extinction' of humanity is bad for the whole community then it seems that what the 'deontological' argument for AN leads to is not AN itself but an 'ethical dilemma', i.e. we arrive at a situation where we have two contradictory duties, i.e. we shouldn't decide to 'give life' due to the ignorance/lack of certainty of what that will entail (if we assume that life might be bad in some cases) and the impossibility of consent and at the same time we should, among other things, continue to sustain the whole human community. If all of this is true, why antinatalists think that AN is the best choice?
The ethics are simple self-preservation.
Antinatalism spares you from a future in which you will be making hefty child-support payments for children that you barely see and over whom you have no authority anyway.
Consequently, antinatalism spares you from the absolutely most stupid hobby ever.
In that sense, antinatalism is a naturally emergent property of the country's legal system.
Antinatalism is the 3rd part of the "4 no's" policy as a reaction to the country's legal system:
No civil marriage, no cohabitation, no children, and preferably no sex.
The only way in which the individual can defeat antinatalism consists in physically moving to another jurisdiction. Otherwise, antinatalism is just common sense.
Last night I had a dream that I was back in elementary school and on this day we were taking standardized tests. There was an oppressive seriousness and nervousness about the whole thing, as if 5th graders were sitting for the SAT. On top of this, due to some sort of funding problem the test questions were poorly written and the test booklets included copy errors and print deficiencies, which added a deciphering element to the testing. In the grand scheme of things the whole endeavor was a bit ridiculous, and there was the sense that if one of the 5th graders had started giggling the whole room would have broken out in laughter, popping the bubble of faux seriousness.
This seems reflective of antinatalism. It is Harry Potter exorcising the Boggart with the charge, "Riddikulus!" That is the correct response to Benatar, and the reductio is meant to aid one in seeing it. The entire paradigm is warped and corrupted, and the argument is bizarrely indifferent to the very moral nuances that it ought to be self-consciously attentive to. Such an argument is like a necessitarian Magic 8-Ball with only one response, "Therefore, antinatalism," which response is given regardless of the circumstances.
A lot of this comes back to the wisdom of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. A key to unlocking that text is the idea that the foundation of practical ethics is identifying and emulating the virtuous man. Much of Aristotle text is just drawing out what we already know about the virtuous man, and part of this is the fact that the virtuous man possesses liberality or generousness. When we simply set the generous man alongside the stingy man we know indubitably that the generous man is to be emulated and the stingy man is ridiculous. The virtue of liberality has to do with one's fundamental orientation towards life, and this is inevitably related to one's fundamental orientation towards posterity.
When a child cuts their finger and collapses into hysteria the witty parent will take them in their lap, study the finger carefully and seriously, and then pronounce the judgment, "There's nothing for it. We need to amputate!" The child cannot help but laugh, and in laughing their whole demeanor is changed. The parent's playful humor makes the child generous and overcomes their stinginess and self-centered gravity.
In fact I was recently at my cousin's wedding, and the food at our table was extremely late, arriving about 90 minutes after dinner was supposed to begin. At about 30 minutes into the dinner my nephew received his kid's meal: chicken strips, mac and cheese, and cauliflower. Everyone was gratified to see that at least someone had received their meal, and it looked to be the ideal meal for a hungry toddler. But to everyone's surprise he lost his shit and had a complete meltdown. This caused the whole table to erupt in laughter and festivity. We later learned that his mother had been misinforming him for weeks that the wedding would be wonderful and he would have a delicious meal of chicken strips and French fries - oops! I don't know that he even prefers French fries to mac and cheese, but the expectation threw him. It was a teaching moment for him where he learned that life is bigger than his misplaced French fries, and in time he will learn that life is bigger than many other disappointments, too. As Eichendorff said, "Thou art He who gently breaks about our heads what we build, so that we can see the sky—therefore I have no complaint." (The irony here is that children solve the problem of antinatalism, for it is hard to believe that anyone with the task of parenting a child could subscribe to antinatalism.)
It seems that all the opposed are agreed that antinatalism will not be cured by more of the overly serious, self-centered gravity of analytical argument. Such is not its cause and such is not its cure. What the antinatalist lacks is the subtle virtuous demeanor that Aristotle attempts to paint, and such a thing cannot be bought and sold with mere arguments. The cure for the ridiculousness of antinatalism is laughter, for like the child on the parent's lap we cannot help but laugh at the prognosis. You need only join in and we will be laughing with you and not at you. :wink:
You'd have to qualify "foundation" but there are MANY foundational ethical frameworks for which AN conclusions have been drawn or at least "fit into", such as deontological ones (which I hold). Many fall under a negative utilitarian variety. Others are vaguely consequential (environmental ones, probably ones least like the ones I hold). One can even argue for a virtue theory version, that can correspond with Schopenhauer's notion of compassion being THE only real moral sentiment (because it sees everyone as what they truly are.. fellow-sufferers). In this theory, anti-procreation would be a natural course of a virtuous (i.e. compassionate) person. They see what befalls man, and wants to prevent it. In this sense, AN can also be philosophical pessimistic in its foundation. That is to say, there is something INHERENTLY negative about existence that makes it fundamentally never redeemable through social, personal, or political actions. This goes to a vaguely existential understanding of the situation.
Quoting boundless
So deontology generally puts the locus of ethics at the individual level (not all the time, but most.. things like rights/duties). To me, the outcome doesn't matter. That is to say, we don't have a duty towards the outcome of "preserving humanity". Humanity isn't a subject for ethical concern. Rather, we have ethical considerations of individuals and their suffering, or right thereof not to be unnecessarily and non-consentingly caused the situations/conditions wherewith (ALL!) suffering takes place. That is not your right to confer for someone else. And there is no symmetrical duties/obligations for creating happiness, especially with understanding that there is no one who exists to be deprived of happiness you would not be thus conferring.
So this is why we shouldn't debate Benatar's full position here without actually having Benatar's full positions available to us. I am not going to defend Benatar with my vague memories of some ideas he had or piecing together from secondary sources. If you want, let's agree to actually obtain a copy of Better Never to Have Been, and we can start looking for how he defends it and critique from there. We would be foolish to make half truths about positions he may not even hold or already addressed and we are ignoring.
Quoting Leontiskos
Same as above. Let's see what Benatar says himself! I think his book actually goes over this and if I remember, he said that the asymmetry didn't necessarily hold on its own, but rather was bolstered by various other asymmetries that needed to also be true to support it, such as psychological phenomenon, etc.
If you want, there seems to be a preview of the audio version here.. I guess this is a good start, but still isn't enough:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DuLJMhbzZM
I don't vociferously disagree with it actually. Depending on how "it" is presented. E.g. If someone said to me, "I don't want to have children because the world is a dangerous and corrupted place and I don't want them to suffer", I'd say "makes sense". But as we discussed before, you were creating literally dozens of threads on the same theme, and it is a niche topic, hence this is the solution.
This has a lot of unjustified assumptions.. such as, why should virtuous men matter? If you say that because the know how to live a "good life", AN always knows that starting a life for someone else means you have a project for them to follow. But here belies an actual UNVIRTUOUS thing- the forcing of someone else into the burdens of life to live out the project of X (the virtuous man!.. cue marble statue staring into the horizon clutching robe!!). It reeks of an aggressive paternalism and assumption (for someone else), that their negative rights should be violated (and that is indeed part of the debate, is it a violation), because you think "someone living out a virtuous life" is okay to go head and be aggressively paternalistic to allow for a deontological violation to take place.
The Lord of the Rings, obviously, an author and work who would be against my philosophy or antinatalism, however, does have themes that I am getting at. The Ring itself can represent the controlling nature of humans- the ability to want to control people, destiny, the world. Wanting to see X thing from another person, even if it means burdening them is perhaps one of these unconscious factors that we hold. The Ring seems to be a good idea.. it seems to have the answers, but in fact, it is simply the human desire to control things, to see their projects carried out by way of using other people, even their sufferings to make this happen. '
You will claim "NO! LOTR was talking about unrestrained control- like Sauron wanting to enslave everyone!". But there is indeed where the debate lies. "Does procreation represent an aggressive paternalism.. does this too go too far in how we want to control people, even violate ethical principles, to see our project carried out?". And I get the impulse to defend it.. It's the very basis for which our whole society has operated. But perhaps it isn't as unassailable as you might think. And for millennium, as long as there has been societies that had the abilities to reason beyond the tribal unit, there have been lifestyles of ascetics who eschewed the worldly projects. I am not necessarily advocating that, however, but just showing that this difference in notions of established familial traditions exist.
Quoting Leontiskos
Far be it from me to begrudge anyone laughter. But as I indicated with the Lord of the Rings analogy above, there is a bit of a weird aggressive paternalism in the notion that you need to teach someone, and see your project carried out... I have wants and desires, but do I have the right to unnecessarily and non-consentingly burden you with them? Well, no I don't have that right. But somehow a blind eye is seen in the case of procreation because of the romantic notions of learning and virtue of the philosophies you describe here. Don't get me wrong, go have fun.. don't be a dour asshole to your children, but my point is perhaps we may even question the impetus for control and wanting to see projects carried out from others, rather than assume that this is what is right. The doting grandfather laughing at his grandchildren in merriment as they work through the small problems of life gradually being raised to become productive members of society, etc. But what of this? I question this project, its motives, and what we are wanting from other people.
I get that, but how does one differentiate between all the threads of argument dealing with the subject?
That difficulty is the trade-off. 58 pages of continued effort to discuss the issue suggest, that while the context is not ideal, the results have not been fruitless.
Aging can help. I should leave each individual in my family a personal letter they can read when I die and hopefully keep to read again when they are old and enter the purgatory of old age. That time when our lives are behind us and all that is left is the memories and a need to make peace with our lives.
I appreciate my grandmother so much more today than when I was young and rushed away from home to have my own life. I kept in touch with family but lived far from family.
Loose one's memory, then each time is the first time and new things can be discovered. I just called old age purgatory but I am also enjoying, thinking, and rethinking things and noticing changes and new awareness. What really matters is if am enjoying the moment.
New people are constantly coming into the arguments and really can't we treat each day as a new day? It really sucks to be enjoying a thread and then reading the subject has already been covered and a grumpy demand that the discussion end. If someone doesn't want to cover the subject again, just stay out of the discussion but there is no reason to ruin everyone else's fun. Especially not a newcomer's first-time experience of the subject. We can not be a part of the past discussions, only the present ones.
That really bites! I usually avoid threads that are too long. I really don't care what all the important people here have to say about anything. If I want to participate in a discussion of something, I want that to be my experience, not your only spoken thoughts. My thoughts and your reaction to them is what makes being here fun. If all I want is knowledge, I will buy a book that is highly recommended and read that. I do not come to forums and look for subjects to read that were closed discussions 5 years ago. If any of you have written books I should read, let me know.
I do wish there was a middle ground whereby the AN topic can be cogently discussed in separate threads without "cluttering" the main forum. The only other way would be to banish it to The Lounge, but then that doesn't show up on the main feed, so I'm opposed to that too. I also think, as loathsome as it might be to some sensibilities, it is squarely philosophical (generally in the realm of ethics), and should be discussed robustly and openly in the main forum.
Whenever we are considering a position on TPF we are considering a determinate and static position. Thus "Benatar's position" within our conversation denotes the argument you attributed to Benatar early in our conversation (link). You used a Wikipedia article and a personal gloss to represent the argument. That is what I am referring to.
Now it seems that you recognize that his argument cannot meet my objection, and the logical thing for you to do is to say, "Okay, I see the problem. I will have to get back to you on this. Maybe I will look at my Benatar books and see if he has anything to say to this."
It is not a legitimate move to say, "No, that objection doesn't count because you haven't read his book(s) on the topic." If we had to read a book on TPF every time we made an argument there would only be a few posts each week. You presented a version of Benatar's argument, I responded to it, and now the onus is on you to respond in your own words. Take your time and review Benatar's books if you like, but don't say that my objection is null because I haven't read a book. Besides, the first you've spoken about his books addressing this objection was yesterday.
No bro, you haven't answered my objections and we seem to be at an impasse, as I have answered you about the stabbing that reanimates. That's my answer to it if we are talking about the "statistical approximation of Benatar" and not Benatar himself.
No you haven't. You haven't answered <the most recent post> on the so-called "stabbing counterargument." You just pointed to Benatar's book hopefully without engaging any of the points.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well it sounds like you were not talking about Benatar simpliciter and I was not talking about Benatar simpliciter. So we can stop talking about Benatar simpliciter and instead talk about the determinate and static argument that we have associated with him.
So I said way back that a world where pain was ONLY comprised of a pinprick is NOT OUR WORLD. That is an interesting one, but not this one. I present to you this world is the following, as taken from my profile:
With that being said, does Pinprick World have the necessary suffering in it? Is it the case that ALL contingent harms are reduced to a single pinprick at one instance in time? If so, none of that resembles the NATURE OF SUFFERING as it pertains to this world. Thus, how am I going to compare morality when it is centers on suffering in such a world where suffering is so redefined and the realities of the situation thus so radically different? This world would have no suffering due to feelings of dissatisfaction, lack, boredom. It would have no force social situations like doing tasks and work one would rather not do, or come into contact with anything negative whatsoever. How can I speak to such a world without all that is the reality of the situation when suffering is so redefined into one instance of a pinprick and nothing else?
So you have at last provided a shadow of a counter-argument. You are effectively claiming that an equivocation is occurring such that the "pinprick of pain" in premise (1) is an equivocation on the suffering in Benatar's (2). Your argument requires that the pinprick of pain is not a legitimate instance of Benatar's "presence of pain" or the "suffering" that you say one is morally obligated to prevent. You are saying, "Ah, but that pinprick isn't the sort of suffering that Benatar and I think need be prevented." Thus you deny that premises (1) and (2) imply conclusion (3).
Congratulations on finally making a counterargument, though I'm not sure it is a very good one. It certainly opens the can of worms as to which sorts of suffering need to be prevented and which sorts don't, and that is a can of worms that antinatalists take many precautions to keep closed.
---
For reference:
Quoting Leontiskos
I think this is more-or-less the discussion ANs have (and honestly, the one whcih is usually attempted cross-positionally). The type though doesn't seem that interesting - it's the balance (ironic, given apokrisis' objections in the other thrad) between suffering and other considerations. The position is that suffering always wins out
I can't remember who I have all spoken to about antinatalism on this forum (and therefore who has shaped my understanding of it), but I can say that schopenhauer1 has been my primary interlocutor, and that I have not seen him engaging in this discussion of balancing suffering with other considerations. Perhaps there are different approaches than his.
Quoting AmadeusD
Because I see @apokrisis' objections as apt I see it as inevitable that questions of balance must emerge.
Quoting AmadeusD
The position of antinatalism? If the position of antinatalism is that suffering always wins out then how could there ever be a balance between suffering and other considerations?
I can make another argument along the lines of @AmadeusD':
Quoting AmadeusD
That is to say, what is the asymmetry about? It's about the following:
That is to say, the thrust of the argument is the obligations we have towards adding happiness to the world versus adding suffering/harm/pain into the world in the case of non-existent but potential people (that is someone who could exist if X, Y, Z actions are taken). The antinatalist will always say that in the case of future people, we have no obligation to add happiness for them, but ALL the obligation to prevent the harm.
Thus, I generally make sure to qualify the notion that "One should not cause unnecessary suffering unto another if it can be prevented. Why do I add "unnecessary"? Because a "potential future person" (one in consideration of whether it should exist or not), would suffer without any need for this to happen to them. At least in the case of the "procreational decision", we are in a unique vantage point, where we can prevent ANY suffering for another person, by simply not doing something, full stop. After someone is already born into the world, then we must play the game of "mitigation ethics" whereby we now start dealing not in digital but analog whereby we cannot avoid suffering, and in some cases it might be incumbent to cause it to prevent greater harm (e.g. raising children, education, inoculations, all sorts of learning experiences and enculturation). But the idea that one should cause suffering SUCH THAT we can THEN LATER MITIGATE IT (i.e. favoring OUR positive projects over SOMEONE ELSE'S negative ethics), is what is the violation going on here.
Yes, and because of this the "balancing suffering with other considerations" evaporates into thin air and you are placed into the same quandary where you began. If the pinprick is acceptable for posterity in the pinprick world then it cannot be true that one has "all the obligation to prevent the (future) harm," for if one had "all the obligation" in this sense then there could be no balance between suffering and other considerations for posterity.
I think you're overlooking the simple fact that premise (1) was already about posterity. If mitigation and balancing considerations can only be applied to the current generation and not to posterity, then Benatar's argument succumbs once again to the reductio.
So I am offering two arguments:
1) Suffering in Pinprick World isn't "suffering" as we know it, and thus disqualifies for 2 in the asymmetry.
2) Since there is no one to miss out on the "good", no obligation was intendent on the missed opportunity. In other words, your world could be COMPLETELY all BLISS.. and if you did not create someone into that world, you are still NOT in the wrong by preventing that birth.
I see the first as the only real argument.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Okay, and I assessed this argument <here>.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Put differently, "If we omit the pinprick from (1) then (3) does not follow from (2)." I agree and I have not said otherwise.
Fair
Quoting Leontiskos
Yep. I don't see them as apt at all given they were responding to me making that point.
It seems like your position is that there must be balance - not "carry out a balancing exercise". That is not reasonable at all, if that;'s the take. And if it's not then you've missed that ANs do the balancing exercise, and suffering tips the scales. Given this is the case across the board in relation to procreation then the exercise has been carried out and the answer is clear. I'm not sure what else you could want? To deny the result of hte exercise (on their account, that is?)
Quoting Leontiskos
There is no need for one, unless for some strange metaphysical reason you believe this is hte state of things, arbitrarily. That seemed to be apokrisis' position. I found it funny, and a not just a little silly.
Ah, okay, I see what you are saying.
The question then is this: Why does the suffering of the pinprick do nothing to tip the scale?
I see two possible answers. Either the suffering of the pinprick is for some reason not counted as suffering; or else the antinatalist is in fact balancing suffering with some other consideration, in which case suffering does not always tip the scales.
Generally, AN is about suffering AND consent- that is to say, the deontological principles of non-harm and non-autonomy are both broken in regards to procreation. So there is that, and one can go down that line of reasoning as well.
However, keeping it just to suffering, for the sake of this particular argument, the consideration is that there are no people deprived of good and that is not bad. Therefore, in the decision for procreation, at least, the balance is always against causing the violation of the non-harm principle because it was unnecessary to cause to another individual. It is undisputed that, in this actual world, at least there will be suffering, and therefore a state of affairs will occur which violates the principle and someone will suffer. This should be prevented of course.
Who is making this consideration? Certainly not me, as I explained above.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I would say that it is also undisputed that in the pinprick world there will be suffering, at least until you give an actual explanation for why a pinprick does not count as suffering. The prima facie answer is that it does count as suffering.
That is the consideration of the “balancing”. No one exists who is deprived of good. Someone will exist who will suffer and thus non harm violated.
Quoting Leontiskos
And I answered you. If you want to attempt again to read it charitably, have a go.
@schopenhauer1 seems to assume that "other considerations" could only be positive experiences, which I was not assuming.
That said, I don't really understand Amadeus' post here. This is how I read it:
You haven't. Getting answers out of you is like pulling teeth. It literally took three months to get a real answer to my reductio, and that was the simplest argument on offer by design. Even then I had to draw out the argument you were intimating. Answers are not forthcoming, and you fall into petitio principii at the drop of a hat. :roll:
Prima facie, I would say it doesn't tip the scales because other pleasures out weight a pinprick (scratching a decent itch would be enough v a pinprick). But the suffering of life is vastly more intense, prolonged and intractable than a pin prick.
Quoting Leontiskos
Ill try to re-word your interp. to see if it gets you anywhere..
I think the discussion of what level of suffering need be prevented is more or less the discussion that antinatalists have among themselves (and it is also the discussion that others wish to have with antinatalists). The type of suffering doesn't seem that interesting - it's the balance between the "intensity, length and meaningfulness of the suffering" and other considerations* that is interesting. The antinatalist position is that suffering always trumps any other consideration.
As a clarifying point, to me, 'other considerations' could be positive experiences, bare pleasure (in an abstract sense), character-building, the achievement of some life-long goal etc.. etc.. But the problem with all of this is it's speculation. We're only talking about unborn people - in this way, we can see that suffering is ensured (by the journey to Death) but positive experience is not vouchsafed by being born. One could have an all-in-all 'good' life, but that's highly unlikely on the view of the world and life ANs take, and at any rate, the suffering which comes with one's death (ones anxiety, fear etc.. and the pain of those around us) would usually trump that possibly-good life. Only religion can break that loop, and I think that's a poor way to gt around it myself.
This seems in line with my interpretation to
Also, this is on line with what I was getting at here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Projects is a good word IMO as it captures exactly what is hoped for or tacitly desired- character-building, someone to learn through trial and error, achievement, the “goods” of life. It need not be bare “pleasure”. But it’s the parents’ positive project, overriding (“I want X to happen) over the child’s negative ethic (right for non-harm and non-consent to be unnecessarily violated).
Okay, so are you saying that a pinprick (or small amount) of suffering would not suffice for antinatalism? There must be more suffering before the arguments in favor of antinatalism become plausible. Is that right?
But if it is right then it seems like suffering does not always trump any other consideration, for the suffering of the pinprick does not trump the consideration of other pleasures.
Quoting AmadeusD
Good, this is my main concern: If suffering always trumps any other consideration, then how is it that the balance between suffering and other considerations constitutes an interesting discussion? How could one be talking about balancing suffering with some other consideration if suffering always outweighs any other consideration?
Quoting AmadeusD
Okay. Well at first blush it seems like you may be willing to balance suffering and other considerations in a way that schopenhauer1 is not.
As I saw it, he was saying something very similar to me. He was saying those other considerations (not just purely pleasure) matter not against the one consideration that matters- suffering.
I think it would clearer to say that "the sum total of suffering ensured by living a human life outweights any version of hte calculus a ANist can provide".
I.e, on our understanding of suffering, pleasure and how to balance them (those terms are obviously lacking nuance) we cannot find a reason to risk the most likely outcome - that one's sum total of suffering vastly out-weights the other considerations in one's life. To bring a person into existence when there is a very high - almost inescapable - chance their life will be, on balance, bad for them, is wrong. (i would think that statement stands to reason - you need not agree, but it explains the position I think).
Being an AN is a result of running the calc, and never coming out with 'life' as the winner. Not that its pre-decided. Obviously, that would be stupid. But if its a 2/98 chance, i'm going to force someone into the race.
Quoting Leontiskos
It only does so once the calc is run. The statement is not meant to be a position of it's own. It's more "I've run this calc 60,000 times and zero came up on the side of procreation". Again, disagree, sure, but it's wrong to take this as a position rather than what causes the position to be taken up.
Quoting Leontiskos
Possibly. Reading down just this page I get the feeling he's just being imprecise in a way that sort of hides what I'm saying about in some more let's say confident language.
Fair enough, slightly different than what I meant but in the ballpark. My way of interpreting the balancing is more deontological I think than your approach which is more perhaps consequential but this just shows the diversity of AN whilst basically agreeing on the same foundation @Leontiskos
Okay, interesting. I do see this as a more conservative version of antinatalism than schopenhauer1 holds.
Quoting AmadeusD
And I see this as substantially different from schopenhauer1. This is something like consequentialist antinatalism as opposed to deontological antinatalism, and it does seem more rational and plausible to me. It certainly does not fall victim to the two counterarguments I formulated for schopenhauer1's position.
Edit:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes.
This would I would think fall more into those objections as presumably, some condition of life would simply need it to be 51% good to procreate when you run the calculus. To me that’s a limited natalism. That’s actually a weaker/more conservative position than negative utilitarianism. A negative utilitarian would say for example, to cause the least amount of preventable harm the situation, especially because it’s very doable, unlike post-birth scenarios. I just don’t think the aggregate approach is amenable to certain ethics- even NU should be geared towards individuals. Not using people for a great calculus machine aggregating all suffering from everywhere seems to be a good start. [but a calculus for preventing an individuals suffering makes sense].
Learning is also a kind of 'suffering' too. The impossibility of clarity for the term 'suffering' makes AN a particular kind of subjective view. Like most items in ethics it is more or less opinion.
"there's a risk, so don't" which I can't quite see as a good enough reason not to procreate. The A-symmetry seems to rely on the consequentialist concept, even if the actual justification is more broad (i.e to live is to suffer. We shouldn't cause others to suffer. Don't have kids). I think I see why Leontiskos had a problem with this. It's more-or-less arbitrarily nihilistic. I think the consequentialist description overcomes some objections that are in concept, rather than execution. I wouldn't say life simply is suffering. I would say it is most likely the vast, vast, vast (perhaps 99.85%) of people born will, on balance, suffer more than they enjoy their life. Therefore, the possibility (0.15%) of a life worth living tells us not to create lives, on balance rather than because life is awful prima facie.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Nah. Note, for example, that the reductio objection that we have been considering recently simply has no force at all against Amadeus' position. Amadeus' position does not support the conclusion (3) as Benatar's does.
This also conveniently shows that the objection is not ad hoc, it is not superfluous, and it does not prove too much. Instead it is tailor-fit to your own account in a way that does not necessarily fit alternative antinatalist accounts.
Well, I see what you mean, but AN makes the claim that 'giving birth is intrinsically bad'. This is an ethical evaluation and quite clearly is incompatible with a 'subjectivist' view of ethics, for instance. Viirtue ethics is probably the best 'foundation' of ethics in general. We might assume that, say, a good action is both good for the recipient of the action and for the agent himself/herself. So, yes, compassion is a good ground for ethics and I agree with Schopenhauer.
It's also compatible IMO with a 'deontological' view: being compassionate is also a duty to both oneself and to others - one should/must seek the good for oneself and others.
'Giving birth' is tricky here because the 'human being' doesn't exist (unless one believes in some kind of existence before birth*, but let's assume that this is not the case). Let's say that we cannot know the 'final outcome'** of the future person life (i.e. if that individual will be satisfied with life or irreversibily unhappy), in this case, clearly we must admit that, after all, we can't say that 'giving birth' is a good act. In this sense I agree with the antinatalists. However, I am not sure if 'giving birth' qualifies as a 'bad' act, even when one considers the future individual.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Probably, 'deontological' was the wrong word. I believe, however, that ethics itself is intrinsically social. Ethical agency doens't seem to me to make sense without a community. In other words, if, say, 'I act in order to bring the good to myself and to others', then I cannot 'ignore' the presently existent human beings and the human community in general. If one accepts that seeking the 'good' is also a social 'enterprise', then trying to preserve society seems, after all, a 'good' act. If one believes that, clearly there is a contrast with AN.
*For instance, Hindu, Jain and Buddhists believers in reincarnation/rebirth see the 'birth as a human' as something good, precisely because it gives the chance to get better rebirths and liberation. So, if this belief were true, then antinatalism would be wrong.
**As in the other thread, if one believes (as say Christian universalists) that in the 'end' 'all will be well', then of course IMO life would be good for everyone (ultimately).
Well, not sure of your point. If, say, one has no economical problems, would you still think that 'giving birth' is morally wrong?
Also, generally antinatalists argue that 'giving birth' is wrong becuase it is a choice that affects others (in unknown ways) not becuase it undermines our 'self-preservation'. At best your argument is for a personal choice of not giving birth.
It is not about economic problems but legal ones. You are very likely to end up at some point becoming the noncustodial parent of the child. That is a stupid hobby.
Above a certain national divorce rate, it looks like a bad decision to have children with a person of that particular nationality:
https://divorce.com/blog/divorce-rates-in-the-world/
It is preferable to pick a country with a much lower divorce rate, choose a romantic interest there, and have children there instead.
I ruthlessly discriminate against anybody from a high divorce rate country. So, yes, I consider it to be morally wrong to have children with these people. Better safe than sorry.
What are you talking about? It’s either effectively the same (a threshold needs to be met, but empirically, this seems to never be the case..and this always wrong de facto) or its premises are wrong (that the threshold is met or can at some point be met).
Also your non sequitur tying 3 has no support. If the threshold is never met, 3 effectively always stands (it’s good no one suffers..as the threshold represents “suffers” here or “pain”). True it’s not as digital as deontology, but the aggregate amount of “too much pain that this life holds” seems to be his definition of suffering.
But this isn't an argument for antinatalism. Antinatalism is the view that is morally wrong to give birth. You are merely saying that in some circustances one might choose to not have children.
Why not check rather than pulling numbers out your arse?
36% chance of creating an unhappy person then.
This average happiness is potentially overshadowed by life's inevitable suffering - "Nearly 1 in 2 people born in the UK in 1961 will be diagnosed with some form of cancer during their lifetime", "12.7% of all deaths registered in the UK in 2018 were from dementia and Alzheimer disease".
@AmadeusD may not be too far off:
Quoting AmadeusD
What are you talking about? The reductio objection has nothing at all to do with a threshold, and that is the problem. For Benatar's argument even a pinprick suffices to trigger antinatalism—ad hoc counterarguments aside. The objection requires only the presence of suffering, not a threshold. The whole premise of the objection is that Benatar's argument absurdly greenlights antinatalism even when suffering is outstripped by happiness by 1,000 miles.
Amadeus rightly notes that any position which assumes antinatalism before considering the balance between suffering and other considerations "would be stupid":
Quoting AmadeusD
His key distinction is between suffering trumping other considerations before a balance-analysis, and suffering outweighing other considerations after a balance-analysis. The deontological antinatalist is committed to the former, which Amadeus disagrees with.
Apokrisis' statistic already included such folks. It was baked in.
The consequentialist antinatalist apparently thinks that if we polled everyone on their deathbed and asked them if life was worth living or they wished they had never been born, the vast majority* would wish they had never been born.
* For Amadeus this is something like "99.85%"
Your second paragraph suggests you understand what I was getting at. Of those polled only a fraction would have been people experiencing the suffering at the end of life.
99.85% does seem rather high, but I don't think it unreasonable to determine the majority of people have net bad lives.
Do you think it is unreasonable to determine that the majority of people would rather had never been born?
But then thinking that nothing in this actual world does or ever will meet that threshold, effectively makes this a nonissue.
Quoting Leontiskos
I am fine with that. But I gave my thoughts on pinprick world. It’s either not suffering as we normally define it, or indeed, since no one is obligated to bring happiness only prevent suffering in this instance, it can be defended. Why would it matter if no one existed in the first place? The problem is using Benatar as if he’s purely doing hedonic calculus and not explaining the difference of good and bad in respect to non-existence. Not existing hurts no actual person, only existing does.
Either way, Benatar goes out of the way tgat even if you don’t bite the bullet in pinprick scenario, THIS world is not that world hence he has a litany of follow-up empirical evidence of how we are often mistaken psychologically and empirically just how bad it is in regards to present pain and pain reflected or projected.
If you are talking about a poll like the one that showed 64% happy - 36% unhappy, ostensibly, the percentage of people that would rather they had never been born would be lower than the unhappy 36%, when considering things like unhappy people that prefer to have been born "otherwise they wouldn't have had their children" etc.
My same objection to the happiness poll would apply to the birth preference one though. I don't know how many of those suffering at end of life wish they had never been born.
Further, I would rather prevent a life of suffering in spite of a future person's preference. There are many people that hurt themselves, and society determines it just to thwart their preference.
The case against antinatalism is not about its logic. That is all too easy to dismiss. It is about people confirming themselves in the social role of being victims of life itself. It is about the nonsense of forming a communal identity around a justification for not feeling better about their world.
Suffering can't be avoided so one can't be criticised for not even trying.
This thought used to be framed as existentialism and nihilism. Now it is framed in this really bullshit legalism of existence being an unconsented fact. Of no person having a right to impose a burden on another.
Systems of laws arise out of the need to organise successful human communities and not the other way around. If you think there is a problem, changing the system is what you should strive for.
But systems of laws recognise rights and responsibilities. They are based on a pragmatic balance between individual wants and communal needs. Burdens will be imposed. All that is asked is that they are reasonable.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
In modern society, what are we truly the victim of? The industrial food industry. Big pharma. The banking industry. The atomising effects of neo-liberal economics and social policy.
If you live a healthy life, the odds of metabolic diseases are greatly cut. We can live in ways that avoid cancer and dementia. But also a lot of that is down to the fact we now all live so long.
What are the actual death bed regrets of people? They are about not doing more to be part of a personally meaningful community. About not getting out and living life more.
So from a moral philosophy point of view, there are some real issues to be addressed. The modern world has many pluses compared to other times, but also plenty of questionable economic and political settings.
You know something has to be out of balance when most folk are more familiar with Kim Kardashian's intimate life than they are with their next door neighbour's.
In this context – life as something to be lived – antinatalism is just whiny bullshit. A wet legalistic self-justification.
Sure, the decision to be a parent ought to be taken with a clear-eyed view of the risk/reward balance. Studies show that 10% of parents in developed countries wished their kids had never been born. :grin:
But taking a rational view of life is the habit we would want to encourage. People who can cope with balancing complex risk/reward decisions and so likely to make the best of their lives as well as of their communities.
I agree with that. Ethics is born, or created, in between, or out of, two or more people.
Quoting schopenhauer1
In my view, saying “ethics” is to call up a community, such as “humanity.” So it doesn’t make sense (to me) to talk about AN without talking about both humanity and the individual; otherwise we aren’t doing ethics (or even psychology).
Humanity can be limited to all of those humans alive now, but this humanity is where any ethic is inflicted upon the universe. This ethics only emerges among humans (at least emerges as a topic of discussion only humans currently call “ethics”).
We, here on this thread, are building an ethical discussion. This is where ethics lives. Both within each individual as you read, and among us now exchanging these words of ethical wisdom.
Ethics itself, like this thread, is particular to humans, and out of this, the ANist shows that consent and suffering are paramount considerations, and out of these that we (humanity as each individual) must not procreate.
I still find AN difficult to fully grasp in its use of ethical reasoning to promote a world bereft of ethical reasoning, a world bereft of human procreation (humans being the creatures who use “ethical reasoning” as a thing).
I agree we are broken. I agree suffering is unavoidable and ubiquitous. And I agree compasssion is essential to ethics, a good, a virtue to be cultivated. And I agree it is “good” not to inflict suffering without consent. But I don’t see anything reasonable about eliminating the infliction of suffering by eliminating the ethics and compassion (along with the human species) that show us suffering is something to be compassionate about in the first place. It makes ethics itself potentially unethical, or non-sensical. It is either suicidal or nihilistic, not simply “good” anymore as “good” is no longer good.
When we end human procreation, we end the existence of compassion in the same universe that led us to be “ethical” and not procreate in the first place.
It’s like this: we all get together write a rule down and all sign it with full consent and the rule is “all of those who make rules must not procreate.” There need be no “good” in the rule or “reason” why the rule is written, because all “good” and “reason” will cease to provide account of anything at all where all those who make rules do not procreate.
Right. Also IMO human beings are, so to speak, essentially social. Ethics, in particular, seems to me based on how an individual relates to other individuals. Making an ethical claim by 'abstracting' oneself or another person from the social context seems to me a contradiction.
BTW, I don't think that we must have kids. But I think that the antinatalist ethical 'prohibition' to have kids is wrong. One can choose to not have kids and making arguments for that choices, sure. But saying that it is always ethically wrong to give birth is a different matter.
1. If we polled everyone on their deathbed, X% would wish they had never been born
2. Therefore, X% of potential future persons would not want to be born
3. Therefore, we should not give birth to new human beings
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
You seem to be saying, "It looks like X isn't going to be high enough to justify (3), therefore we can't give them a choice." This is a bit like the father at the theme park who reasons, "My daughter wants to go on this ride, and if she goes on it she will probably enjoy it, so I can't let her go on it." This is reminiscent of the "paternalism" that schopenhauer1 claims to oppose.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
The imaginary poll is taken at end of life:
Quoting Leontiskos
They have all been addressed.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Pain isn't suffering? This is ad hoc, and it brings with it more problems:
Quoting Leontiskos
-
Quoting schopenhauer1
Again, completely irrelevant:
Quoting Leontiskos
-
Quoting schopenhauer1
Again, there is nothing about balancing or hedonic calculus involved in the objection. At this point your reading comprehension is coming into question.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Again:
Quoting Leontiskos
The point can be rephrased in any number of ways. "The woman learns that any children she has will inherit her extremely painful disease. Should she bear children?" "The antinatalist learns that any child she has will experience a pinprick of pain. Is this sufficient to exclude children?" To be blunt, the idea here is that your argument is stupid because it justifies stupid decisions. It makes no sense to say, "Ah well the advice does justify stupid decisions, but it is still good and reasonable advice."
Quoting schopenhauer1
...and paternalistic gaslighting is the icing on the cake. "Humans think life is good even in spite of the pain, but they're wrong so we're going to exterminate the race through lack of births." What is the difference between this and genocidal insanity?
Pain vs. Suffering certainly does bring on debate. Does a pinprick followed by no other suffering (necessary or contingent) count as suffering? Well, interestingly, one can argue that the pinprick being the ONLY version of suffering, as the mark-for-what-suffering-is revolves solely on that, might be considered the worst thing ever because it literally is in that world. So, perhaps from the perspective of Pinprick World, this threshold itself would be suffering, and thus indefensible to enact upon on another.
Of course I can cut all this short and just go with my #2 response which is that people should not be unnecessarily harmed and non-consented under any circumstance. Nothing wrong with that. And you can make a whole incredulous response to this, but then you never really addressed how it is that non-existence hurts anyone.
But, even if that sort of response seems off to you because it is so rigid, all you need is as I said, that the "Threshold never reaches the level of pinprick world". And you may say that a future point would lead there, but then you are using people in the meantime to get there- and indeed, it would be generations to get there. Notice, you can say two pinpricks, three... and increase it, but even if you were to increase it by a factor of 100s but still less suffering than our world, that isn't currently our world, and using people to get there would nullify it.
Quoting Leontiskos
No you are assuming some baseline "common sense" sensibility beyond the violation. This just Kant-objections redux. There's a reason why 1st degree murder and 2nd degree and 3rd degree murder is considered murder yet have different blameworthiness/punishment aspects to them. There's a difference between murder and manslaughter as well. So is pinprick world akin to manslaughter as opposed to murder? Perhaps, the situation might be "wrong" in some very abstract sense, but there can be allowed degrees of it. In your world, which is a ridiculous reduction. For example, in your world there is no gambling with lives aspect, whereby there can be varying amounts of pains and pleasures. It's all the same amount of pain and all the same outcomes. That drastically changes how that world operates compared to ours. Yet you claim that it's a "reductio" rather than being so irrevocably different that they count as different kinds, not just degrees. I am pushing back on that. At some point, for example, murder is no longer murder, though someone might have died, and someone was involved.
Quoting Leontiskos
Yeah this is certainly strawmanning the argument to a laughable level. "We are going to exterminate the through lack of births..." sounds like the goal of AN is to exterminate the race rather than prevent a violation of suffering/non-consent.
I can think of my own thought experiments for you here:
I have a game that I think is worthwhile for other people to play. I enter you into the game without your consent. In the game, you may have good moments, but there are also some tragic ones, harmful ones, and throughout the game, you are put through a lots of negative experiences. In order to escape the game, the person can only kill themselves. They are in it permanently. Are you justified to put someone through that game because you think it is good for them?
Quoting apokrisis
It might be this assumed stance that I most vehemently reject as being moral. It is circular reasoning. Why should burdens be imposed? You will use your systems theory to justify it. However, being that we are counterfactual-acting creatures, we could always choose not to burden someone, so the system itself can produce people that can choose the counterfactual than what you claim the "system" wants to have happen. Yet, hypothetically, all people could choose to not procreate. What you are tacitly suggesting is that there is some instinct or logos, or necessary aspect to procreation. But with deliberative creatures, there is no necessity to procreation. Thus, saying that "Burdens WILL be imposed" is just wrong. Burdens NEED NOT BE imposed.
No, "society" doesn't suffer, individuals with POVs do. I make a distinction between mitigation ethics and preventative ethics. Once born, we are in mitigation ethics mode where indeed, we may have to trade greater harms for lesser harms. Uniquely for the procreational decision, we can be in preventative ethics, where absolutely/purely we can make a decision to prevent ALL harm to a future person whereby no drawback (lesser harm) is had for that person. No ONE is deprived. And ANs generally all agree that (unlike your definition of ethics), positive ethics (other people's projects.. like continuing humanity, wanting to take care of a new person, etc.), should not override individuals' negative ethics (rights not to be harmed, non-consented).
Edit: Notice also the pyramid scheme aspect to this. By society existing, it becomes self-perpetuating as you can throw another person in the fray, burden them, cause them to eventually deal with life/suffering, and you can always justify it by saying, "If we don't sacrifice the rights of individuals not to suffer, our society will collapse!". And this to me, is just a justification for doing harm, not an actual answer to the problem that exists.
Again, this doesn't make sense to me, as we discussed in earlier discussions. Ethics only exist because humans exist. Once there are no more humans, ethics need not exist. We don't exist SO THAT ethics can persist, but rather ethics exists because humans exist.
Quoting Leontiskos
No, I'm not convinced that the majority of people end up preferring they had been born. On top of the people that already wish they had never been born you have those suffering at the end of life wishing they had never been born.
Considering my view that most people are likely to live net bad lives, it would be more like the daughter wanting to go on the ride (after eating lots of candyfloss), and if you let her go on it will make her sick.
It would actually be worse than this, you would be putting her on the ride and making her sick before she even had a preference on it.
@schopenhauer1 was the master of these thought experiments. Forcing people onto rides, Willy Wonka World etc :smile:
Thank you much appreciated..oldie but goodie:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10842/willy-wonkas-forced-game/p1
Here's a thought experiment..
I realized I went from 3rd person to first person in that OP :lol:
It is the dialectical reasoning of the systems science view. The complexity of a system arises from the fruitful balancing of its contrary impulses. Rights and responsibilities are one such way of capturing the essence of modern social structure.
I only used your emotive jargon - burdens - to make the connection to your own reductionist position. You can see that burdens are really just the global responsibilities that can justify a person also having their particular local rights.
Speaking more generically, a system is a hierarchical balance of the dichotomy that is constraints and freedoms.
So at every level of natural order, we have the same general idea of a balancing of top-down long-run constraints and bottom-up constructive or creative freedoms.
What you call burdens are in fact the constraints that shape up a society as a collection of individuals with their freedoms. The freedoms that are meaningful and pragmatic as they are how the society can continually renew its own globally persisting being.
But you don’t seem to have an understanding of nature as a developmental or self-organising system. This is why your logic is so broken.
I agree that 'society' doesn't suffer but individuals do. And I also agree that we should avoid to cause unnecessary suffering, especially when there is no possibility of consent. 'Not intentionally causing unnecessary harm' seems to be a 'regulative ideal' that we should follow.
And yet, I think that as an ethical duty, if you want, we also have a moral obligation to act for the benefit of others. In fact, I think we should act with the benefit of everyone in sight, although of course we cannot directly benefit to everyone due to our finitude - hence I see this as a 'regulative ideal'. The fact that ethics seems to work only when a community of ethical agents is present seems to me that this second regulative ideal is necessary.
It seems to me that these two 'ideals' give us an ethical dilemma, if we accept both as ethical regulative ideals. Of course, if we give the prominence to the first one, it seems that, unless one holds to some kind of religious/metaphysical beliefs, antinatalism would be right. I'm not convinced, however, that the second 'ideal' is 'lesser' than the first. So, it seems to me that antinatalism isn't the 'best' ethical position for both the 'single individual' and 'all individuals'. I would like to find a way to avoid giving 'prominence' to one ideal over the other. But I admit that at least until now, I never found a solution.
I agree - we don’t exist for ethics.
But AN is the ethical system that places the ethics above the humans.
For the ANist, the ethical principal is a higher good than the agent, because the ANist is willing to destroy the possibility of all future ethical agents for sake of upholding its ethical principal.
But if ethics tells me ethics should not exist, why would I think I should be ethical?
I exist, then ethics exists. If the ethics exists because of me, but this ethics tells me I should not exist, then the ethics should not exist either. So what is “wrong” about inflicting suffering without consent again? I was wrong to exist then so is my ethics wrong to exist. So why do a fabricate this whole ethical dilemma? Why not let the Forrest fire burn, the earthquake crumble, the storm drown, and the human procreate? Why not, if our ethics is nothing and for nothing?
The AN position upholds ethics above the ethical agent, in order to eliminate the agent and so eliminate the ethics.
That is what makes no sense to me.
There is nothing good about being ethical in a world that should not have ethics in it because it should not have humans in it.
I'm not sure how you get this. Placing ethics before humans would be the opposite. For example, some forms of utilitarianism would have it that you should violate people's basic rights if it helps the greater community. One example might be, having a set of people secretly tested for scientific experiments without consent (this did happen to a group of Tuskegee Airmen in the American South, for example) .. But there are many many examples of this kind of thinking.
Quoting Fire Ologist
So this fails to be an example of "placing ethics above the human", as "the possibility of all future ethical agents" is not an actual human, but a reified concept (the possibility of a human). Quite the opposite, whereas creating suffering because we prefer to keep "Humanity and civilization going" would be using real people for an ethical principle (i.e. some positive project such as "humanity and civilization"), AN is actually ABOUT preventing suffering and non-consent of an ethical agent who will so be affected by that.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Your conclusion does not follow at all from the premise. The ethics isn't "You should not exist". Rather, the ethic is, "Do not cause unnecessary harm". All else you are saying is thus misguided and confused. Once you exist, it is incumbent to not cause unnecessary harm. The purest form of this is in the procreational decision which can prevent ALL harm with no cost to an actual person, and thus, to follow this ethic, at least in its purest action, would be to not procreate.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Your first part is wrong as I've explained above. The ethics is not "above the agent". Rather, the ethics is incumbent on humans that already exist to follow in regards to future ethical agents (by preventing a future person's birth). The principle is all about how we are NOT to treat a (possible) ethical agent from the perspective of one who already exists.
Quoting Fire Ologist
This actually makes no sense. If humans exist, ethics towards other agents exist. If humans don't exist, this ethic is no longer needed. No humans = no ethics. If there are humans, then the ethic (of not procreating) remains.
And the concept of "no consent" and the concept of "inflicted suffering on another" and the concepts of "good" and "ethics" are reified concepts. Not actual humans. No difference.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You can't discard my reference to "the possibility of future ethical agents" as a mere reified concept, and then say ethics is incumbent on current people "in regards to future ethical agents."
This is the problem with the logic. You need certain things be in place as premises and principals, in order to demonstrate a world where none of these premises or principals need exist.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You need human civilization to exist for any human preference to exist at all. The ANist is using a preference to base a conclusion that preferences should not exist. If preferences should not exist, why prefer not to inflict harm? Unless you uphold the principal over the person.
Quoting schopenhauer1
There is more to ethics than principles. Ethical principles are calls to action, prescriptions for behavior impacting other ethical agents - they are guides for physical, actual behavior in a society. AN ethical behavior based on principals (do not cause harm; procreation causes harm without consent) is for the sake and goal of eliminating all ethical action by eliminating all ethical actors. On principle, the ANist doesn't want any creatures that would have or construct principals to exist at all. On principle, principles should not drive action. That makes no sense.
So I ask, why would we use ethical principles (don't inflict harm) to make the world better if that better world doesn't need or have any ethical principals in it (because no ethical agents)? Why would I think it is good to follow any ethical principal that had the goal of building a society that had no need or place for ethics?
Quoting schopenhauer1
What drives the notion "ethics is incumbent"? Why would you say that? We choose our ethics just as we choose our actions according to our ethics. If choosing and choosing ethically are so good they are "incumbent", why would we destroy the presence of these goods by building a world that had no ethical agents in it? Choosing must therefore be bad.
Quoting schopenhauer1
If humans exist, ethics is possible, but need not exist - we are the only creatures who construct ethics, but before we construct it, ethics does not exist. AN is constructing ethics to construct a world without humans, as if the ethics of "not inflicting harm" was more important than the human that constructed this ethic. And all with the outcome of world where no creature could reconstruct this ethic and recognize how good all of those humans who did not procreate were back when they were living, ethical agents.
No, you are misconstruing my argument. The "no consent" and "inflicting suffering", if violated, WILL affect the person involved. "No humanity/civilization" would be [s]inflicting suffering/non-consent[/s] doing something FOR a reified concept.
Quoting Fire Ologist
All that's needed is actual people with a perspective that exist to know that a future person would be so affected if they violated these principles.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Again, this seems like muddled thinking. The "preference" is based on following a principle of non-harm/non-consent. That principle exists because humans exist. Once humans no longer exist, no need for preferences. I am not sure why this is so hard.
Quoting Fire Ologist
This question makes no ethical matter. In a way, you are undermining your own accusations of me. It seems you have a hidden agenda in your ethical principles (i.e. that they need to have some sort of "goal" that is above and beyond not inflicting suffering/not violating consent to an individual). No one is talking about "building a society" here. That is not this ethic, which is negative (nothing about building). In fact, as I've explained previously, no positive ethic in this case, where there is no tradeoff to an existing person, would matter when it violates a negative ethic. Your right to "build X, Y, Z" shouldn't override unnecessarily harming/violating consent, especially as there is no person who "loses out" on you doing so (i.e. preventative vs. mitigation ethics).
Quoting Fire Ologist
The "presence of these goods".. This sounds like people are instruments for "goods" to take place, precisely the thinking that I think is UNETHICAL... people should not be used (caused to be harm) so that your vision of a positive project is carried out ("these goods of life"). At some point, it is up to the individual to "choose" what they think is ethical. I am presenting the case that unnecessarily harming people (causing to suffer for no reason), is unethical- it doesn't matter if you had a positive vision in mind in doing so (when there is no need to have actually caused the harm in the first place).
Quoting Fire Ologist
Why does this matter that there would be no one to "recognize" that good was done or to "reconstruct this ethic" (whatever that means)?
But what is wrong with inflicting suffering? Why is it wrong to torture babies to death and make more babies to torture them?
You need an ethics to argue torturing babies is wrong. It’s not obvious. Otherwise, like an orca teaching its young, torturing babies to death is just another motion in space, like any other, neither good nor bad.
WE say it is bad to inflict suffering without consent. WE create this rule, this ethic. Now that it’s created, WE can choose to act on it. And the ANist can determine that to not-procreate is to act on this new rule we created. And what is the good of this act?? What is the good of the rule? In the end, what is the reason there were humans once but are no longer any humans? The reason would be because of the ethics we created. Not any other reason.
So the ethics itself, the principle itself, for the ANist, is the higher goal than some condition or state in the ethical human being.
We create a problem (inflicting suffering without consent) to create a solution (not procreating) for sake of….
…upholding the principle, NOT for sake of any person. All things people are, to the ANist, something that SHOULD NOT persist, should not have come to be.
So AN upholds ethics to defeat ethics. It is literally for the sake of nothing.
In that case, it is legitimate to ask Why be ethical at all?
Instead of killing off the human race, we could all choose to kill off ethics. We could fight our instinct towards compassion (fight the pangs that arise when suffering is inflicted on another) instead of fighting our instinct to procreate?
Why must our response to compassion be the creation of ethics? If the answer involves humans (an individual, a community, possible future humans…) than antinatalist ethics make no sense as its goal is “no more humans is a good.”
I base the deontology as rooted in the idea that people have inherent dignity and should not be used as a means to an ends. I agree, if you don't agree with this basis for morality, that either people do not have inherent dignity and thus they should not be used, then none of this would matter. Some people think instrumentally, for example. I think that basis is wrong, precisely because it denies the individual worth of the individual. I also think that this entails that preventing things like suffering and non-consent are more important than whatever machinations you had in mind for a person that would violate those basic principles. Thus I say, your positive ethics doesn't override someone's negative ethics, if it need not be the case (you can prevent versus putting someone in mitigation mode where they must have some suffering but now trade greater for lesser, etc.).
Quoting Fire Ologist
Notice you said "any other reason". Well yeah, there would be a "reason" nonetheless. Some "reasons" are ethical and some are not. That's the debate here. It just so happens, the ethical ones ends in no human being procreated. Again, I see no problem with that. Your argument seems to be something akin to credulity but with no force behind it. You are essentially saying, "But look at this outcome! But look!"
Quoting Fire Ologist
If you mean by this that ANs generally don't prioritize positive projects over negative ethics, then yes. For example, a positive project from a philosopher might say they want to see, "The flourishing of a virtuous person" (which may or may not be the outcome, but even that point is irrelevant here, though can be the basis for weaker arguments like the "gambling with other lives" arguments, which are also valid). A less philosophically inclined person might just say they want "A person they can raise and do family stuff with". It's all positive projects though, whatever it is.
Quoting Fire Ologist
You are phrasing it so that it comes out this way. Rather, a violation of a person will take place, you are preventing that violation of a person. It doesn't matter if someone is not benefiting from this, rather a PERSON will not suffer and be non-consented. It is for the sake of the person not suffering and being non-consented, that WILL BE SO AFFECTED.
1 There is a null state (no person), and
2 there is a state with some bad
3 and some good.
2 is the only one that has moral relevance here.
That there is a null state is not morally wrong...
That some good happens (3) is not morally relevant.
All that matters is 2 does not occur, as THAT is the morally relevant/bad/wrong state of affairs.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Sure, don't make someone else unnecessarily suffer if you can.
Quoting Fire Ologist
You could. We can do a bunch of things.
Quoting Fire Ologist
See, you are caught up in the "no more humans". It is precisely this thinking that I question. Why is this project important to you other than incredulity or appeal to tradition? And you are going to say a whole bunch of statements about civilization, the wonder of a sunset, love, and all this, and all the "goods" of life, but if you go back to 1, 2, and 3. Why are we forcing suffering unto others so that X, Y, Z happens? Why does X, Y, Z matter? That people need to experience "goods of life", seems oddly messianic, and aggressively paternalistic. What makes you believe that these projects of "good life" or "positive experience" mean you get the right to make people suffer? Indeed, this would be using people's suffering for your messianic/paternalistic notion of what "MUST happen FOR them" or simply "What MUST HAPPEN" in general. If suffering isn't the paramount thing, then there is something that is not ethics going on here.. Perhaps ego? Perhaps forcing one's vision of "the good" on others? Perhaps, misplaced messianism (YOU know what's good, and YOU must be the one to carry that out). But as I've stated more eloquently here: