Forcing people into obligations by procreating them is wrong
By being born we are forced into into agreements with society to survive. One major example is work. While employed, you are obligated to do everything for the employer that is necessary. If you quit, you may find yourself with no economic means to support yourself so you are obligated to continue (if you don't want to burn savings, go poor, homeless, etc.) until you find another job which might continue the cycle. I say it is immoral to knowingly throw more people into the obligatory forced agreements of the economic system or any system that requires obligatory duties be performed.
The only reaction people will have is to embrace the obvious need for obligations instead of spur the fact that it's there in the first place. But if this is your answer, why do you not even question why we should put people in the circumstance of forced obligation in the first place?
Note: I don't think dropping out of the system is a viable option for most and shouldn't be. I am not saying we should not follow obligations as the economic system requires to not fall apart, but rather that it should not be something to force others into.
The only reaction people will have is to embrace the obvious need for obligations instead of spur the fact that it's there in the first place. But if this is your answer, why do you not even question why we should put people in the circumstance of forced obligation in the first place?
Note: I don't think dropping out of the system is a viable option for most and shouldn't be. I am not saying we should not follow obligations as the economic system requires to not fall apart, but rather that it should not be something to force others into.
Comments (105)
One. About half the people in the world are electing to procreate at a sub-replacement rate. The sub-replacement rate is less than 2 children per woman. Sub replacement is the norm in Europe; Canada, Australia, Brazil, Russia, Iran, Tunisia, China, United States and a number of other nations. It is as low as 1.31 in Portugal. France is at 1.96. The lowest reproduction rates are in Singapore, Macau, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea. In developed countries population growth is from migration, or where there is insufficient immigration the population is shrinking.
In the developing countries, the rate of population stability is higher -- perhaps 3.4 children per woman. (Mortality rates, particularly child mortality, are significantly higher in some countries. Niger, South Sudan, DRC, Somalia, Chad, Burundi, Angola, and Mali all have birth rates above 6.0. Niger's is 7.6. This actually represents progress. In 1970, Rwanda and Kenya had birth rates above 8.0. Their birth rates are now 3.9 and 4.3 respectively.
So, At least half of the world has decided that the delights of existence are insufficient to justify more reproduction than it takes to replace themselves.
Two. I agree with you that the economic system to which most people in the world are subjected is based on at least, controlled, and not-horrible exploitation, but exploitation none the less. A good share of the world's people are subjected to fairly bad exploitation, and some people experience downright horrible exploitation.
The Standard Model in the much of the world is this: I will pay you less than your value as a worker and I will keep the extra value you produce for myself. In exchange for this fabulous and generous deal, I will probably? keep you employed until it is no longer convenient for me to do so.
The result of the Standard Model is that some people get more and more rich at the expense of those who get more and more poor. At the present time, the Standard Model has produced less than a dozen splendid people whose combined wealth exceeds the combined wealth of about 3.5+ billion riff-raff. In the industrialized world, the Standard Model applies, but it has been spoiled by roughly a billion lazy, selfish, greedy workers who demanded a larger share of the wealth they created.
The NON-Standard Model is that production should be for human use, and not for profit. The Non-Standard Model greatly reduces the level of exploitation of even the billion lazy, selfish, greedy workers who don't know what hard work is. (For best results, apply your sarcasm sensors here.)
Three. Even in the best of all possible worlds (a famous caveat), life will not be perfect and free of suffering. There will be, for instance, snakes.
We could do a lot better. I don't recommend that anyone hold their breath waiting for that happy day when we figure out how.
But as with the other thread about economics, what is the best model? Is this only for large businesses with CEOs that answer to shareholders, small businesses, or down to the non-owning manager level as well? What makes someone like a manager have more control and power than others? If it was democratically run,would there be more infighting?
Even taking all this into account, if we have to survive, we are obligated to work and that in itself is a problem as now people must be forced to be under some other people's control. There is no way out.
Well, which is the best model depends on what values you want to optimize. In the Standard [capitalist] Model that we have, profit is optimized. Optimizing profit makes sense in the capitalist system.
Society can elect other values to optimize: environmental safety; worker satisfaction; high quality products or inexpensive products; and so on. Worker satisfaction is a reason primary value to optimize, since most citizens in any given country are workers (or will be workers, or were workers). So, optimizing working conditions AND achieving adequate production to meet social needs makes sense,
There are several aspects to optimizing worker satisfaction:
1. Workers have control over their workplace, its operation, and its purpose. In this scheme, workers elect (or hire) coordinators, quality control specialists, occupational safety and health inspectors, and the like. The workers decide what kind of products to produce, what level of quality (with respect to cost), and quantity.
2. Workers decide what they need in terms of their own support and maintenance. They may not be producing for profit, but they are also not working as a voluntary hobby.
3. Most consumers are workers, and consumers need to work with factories to match production to desire (obviously, not on a one to one basis, or in picayune details). If workers need cooler clothing to wear in increasingly hot weather, and maybe with insect repellence built in, these needs can be communicated.
4. Workers and consumers together will have to form councils to determine what a reasonable standard of living is for a given area. Today, people live within the limits of a wage somebody else determines. People will have to decide for themselves what is reasonable for the amount of time they want to put into work. If they want to work less, they might have to share more goods, like sharing bicycles, tools, laundry equipment, or camping gear.
Greater independence and autonomy will, paradoxically, require more interaction and cooperation among people.
What happens to rich people in this sort of society? Well... first, their cash becomes worthless in a economy where work and consumption is connected. Their property will be socialized. a few thousand people in a country of many millions won't own everything. The rich will have to find useful work, just like everybody else, and it will literally be good for them. (The alternative will not.)
The problem with the Standard and Non-Standard dichotomy is it doesn't address particular questions of motivation and production. It's correct about the relationship of the worker to a job, within the context of them participating in that job. When profit is put before the well-being of a worker, the worker suffers. In the wider context though, that is too the livelihoods of people outside of the treatment of a worker, the concepts break down.
In a world with excess people, that is more people than production jobs, the organisation, production and distribution of resources can no longer be tracked by "need." People without a place in the production system need economic means, they need to be able to access food, housing and recreational activities. In the era of mass production and population, it's inevitable that many people outside the system of production are going to have to use it. So what are the idle masses going to do? How are we going to define what they are interested in doing or the particular products they need?
At this point, the "non-productive jobs" come roaring back. If the idle masses are going to enjoy media/art, society is going to need advertising and marketing to generate interest (else you'll just be making expensive films for empty theatres). Various non-essential service industries will spring up again, offering a place for the idle to spend their time. In any case, the deadlines and pressure come back in because this sort of production and service takes people to make and perform it. Many who are idle by basic production must cease to be, to produce the variety of products and services idle masses like to enjoy.
No doubt the remove of the profit motive takes away certain pressures. People aren't under the constant pump to produce for profit maximisation, but it doesn't remove the pressures to keep "doing." Even if basic survival is guaranteed by an effective combination of basic income and resource distribution system, there still many organisations, services and productions which demand the action of it's workers. Many of the excess people won't need to work to survive, but to one degree or another they will have to, to produce the variety of products and services we enjoy. The work cycle doesn't get eliminated till all production and distribution is automated, so no-one has to do anything to produce, organise or distribute what people want.
Now, that is one odd premise. You are saying that having children is unfair to children themselves. We need to be fair to non-existent people by preventing them from coming into existence. I can understand not having children as a political choice to stop overcrowding and damage to the environment. I don't buy it, but I can understand.
Groundhogs are not given a choice. Neither are shrimp, elephants, ants, bacteria, small-mouthed bass, and lobsters. Or apple trees, seaweed, mushrooms, and broccoli for that matter. Broccoli in particular is oppressed by Big Agriculture.
Forced into obligations? We aren't forced to be what we are. We have evolved over billion of years to do what we do and be what we are. There is no obligation to live the life you were built for. It comes from inside yourself.
I ask myself what kind of experiences you must have had to come up with an idea like this. I can't figure it out unless you wish you'd never been born. Which is fine, I guess. I flirt with that idea myself from time to time.
I was hoping you'd finally comment on this topic.
So we have no ability to make choices (not having more children who must be forced into social obligations and control and be controlled)? I am choosing not to bring more people into the world and advocate it... How is it from within me not to decide this if I am willingly doing this along with millions of others who either call themselves "antinatalists" or who choose to be childless for other (non-moral) reasons?
:D
And what if the your teammates are no better than a belligerent manager? Is tyranny of the masses that much better than the tyranny of the few?
Quoting Bitter Crank
How will they know how much to make? Didn't the Soviet Union and other communist countries have problems making enough consumer items? Granted their big trade-off was spending it on military and other non-essential items, how would you not create shortages or waste in command economies?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Sounds like anarcho-communist collectives.. Always compelling due to the idea of everyone contributing in smaller communities. I see the benefits of an interconnected capitalist (exploitative) economy not being realized in this type of economy. For example, communities would have a harder time coordinating without markets and thus overall utility and supplies will be limited.
I'm not against these ideas in theory or practice.. I'd be glad for a change in many aspects if it was for the better.. though predicting if it really works out for the better is near impossible and the collapse of such a system into classic markets or the chance for it to turn into a classic dictatorship seems fairly high. However, even in this model there are still obligations and forcing others into obligations is still harmful to others who will be controlled by the collective or control the collective.. Whether rule by council or rule by shitty CEO/manager everyone is who is part of an economic system will have to endure the insidious, harmful obligations to some entity to survive. The only way to prevent it is to prevent people.
Well this all is predicated on the assumption that you have to work in a traditional job your whole life in order to survive, but that's false. You can teach yourself new skills, which may enable you to start your own business or work as self-employed - for example. Yes, you will have to do something useful for others in order to survive, but that's only normal, human beings are social, and we all need to contribute. If you don't want to contribute anything, then that's a character defect, which you need to work on to fix. Compassion is a natural human virtue.
Also, procreation has nothing to do with this.
Blaming the victim.. you are so compassionate you will FORCE others into "X" harm and then say "Buck up kiddo.. life isn't going to hand you anything".. Well, no shit. Every adult learns this lesson. but YOU put them there in the first place! Not everyone has the constitution, nor WANTS to go through with x, y, z character building program.. I am glad you are all for it and peddling it daily.. but why force others into it?
Okay, can you explain who I will force and into what harm I will force them?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Who am I forcing?
The OP is incoherent.
So let's see. First of all, you presuppose that obligations (and responsibility) are somehow a harm. I think this is absolutely wrong-headed.
Then you also say that by procreating them, you force something on them. But wait a second. Do you believe in souls? If you don't, then the person starts existing when they are born. How can you force something onto someone who isn't yet born? All the forcing starts only after birth, not before birth, so again, logically speaking this has absolutely 0 to do with procreation.
And if you do believe in souls, then there may be a purpose for bringing them here.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Depends what you mean by dropping out of the system. If you don't want to work a traditional job, then learn the skills required so that you don't have to do it anymore. You're not precisely forced to go your whole life working a traditional job... If you don't want to do anything useful for your fellow human beings, then yeah, don't expect to get them to provide for you, that would be absurd. Those who can do something useful for others, should do it. Those who can't do something useful for others - because say they're physically, or mentally handicapped, they should be provided for and taken care of by those who can do something useful.
Do you need me to clarify? Otherwise you just mean to say "invalid" or "wrong". Incoherent means it's not clear.. Which would mean it's best to clarify first..
Quoting Agustino
Why? Obligations force work to be done that would not otherwise be done. Now a person can willingly accept it, and even put a smile on their face while doing it (whistle while we work), or a person can be bitter about it, either way.. it is a necessity and therefore a forced task. To me, continual, ongoing work that is unwanted is harmful. I do not see how it is not.
Quoting Agustino
Oh this little rhetorical wordplay again.. I've gone through this in so many variations.. So I'll say that when the child is born, that is forcing someone, as once a child is born, they exist due to your previous actions. A new child exists and is therefore harmed.
Quoting Agustino
What would be the worst that would happen by not manifesting souls into physical bodies (not that I believe that)?
Quoting Agustino
Again, not that viable.. Surely a person's life trajectory is not as malleable as you claim. Hypothetically, anyone can do anything they want (within reason) but in reality there are a lot of social ties, pressures, and the like that make it almost as impossible as it not even being an option. Also, most people do not like to be homeless, be subject to disease, parasites, bugs, and have no luxuries whatsoever when they were already exposed to the lifestyle of having these goods/services.. No doubt a few people can do this but then it is possible that their social circumstances, their personality, and the like has already given them the inclination and capacity to accomplish this. Of course how long these people really "drop out" would be interesting to discern.. I'm thinking the hippies in the "back to the land" movement in the 60s and then going back to suburban life with family later on.
Quoting Agustino
This is the perfect example of forcing people into obligations which is harmful. Again, I am not saying that people should NOT follow obligations to others, just that exposing new people to this is no good.
No, I don't currently have a child because I'm not married, nor would I have a child right away (that would be something to be discussed and decided together with my wife) but I don't see why that's funny. Most children do in fact seem to think that life is worth living.
LOL. Ah, so you're banking on your child thinking like you, agreeing with you that life is worth living. Thanks for rubbishing your faux neutrality in the other thread >:O
~
(Y)
No, I nowhere said that I'm banking on my child thinking that life is worth living. I did however tell you a fact, namely that most children (while they're children) do in fact seem to think life is worth living. As for neutrality, I don't have any neutrality to hold. I believe life is worth living, but I don't claim to know that. It's a matter of faith.
Incoherent means something more than it's not clear. It means that it's nonsense.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So? >:O That's as silly as complaining you're forced to breathe! I don't understand why you assume that obligations or work are something bad, a harm, or the like. That's absolutely arbitrary.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Breathing is a necessity too, why don't you quit it for awhile? :s Not all necessities are bad. You're making a totally mistaken assumption. You have to justify why a necessity is something bad in the first place.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It's not word play at all, it's just pure logic. When a child is born, nobody gets forced because 1 second prior there was nobody, no suddenly there is somebody. Who was forced? Forcing can only start after the child is born. Mere existence also isn't a harm. I don't understand where you're taking this stuff from. Things like being raped, being beaten, being tortured, starvation, disease, etc. these are harms. Existence isn't a harm.
Quoting schopenhauer1
They couldn't know themselves truly and completely? To know something you have to set it against its opposite. To know immortality, you have to set it against mortality. To know joy, you have to set it against suffering.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It is absolutely viable. Have you tried it? Have you tried training yourself to do something useful for others that would allow you to work independently? People's life trajectory is a lot more malleable than they would initially guess. If you look back 10-20 years ago, you'll be amazed you are where you are today.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don't understand your point. You haven't proven that all obligations are harmful.
Which faith are you talking about? My faith in God? And how can faith be a matter of "worth having" or not. It's not like you do a cost benefit analysis and then decide, yeah, sounds like a good idea, I'll have this faith.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Because I believe that God wouldn't place man without a reason here.
This one:
Quoting Agustino
~
Quoting Agustino
So, faith upon faith upon faith. If none of these faiths are worth having, or if to ask such a question is peculiar, then indeed why have faith? Merely to have it in itself? Surely not, you have faith based upon what believing gets you. And you need to believe that the non-existing, unborn child is worth procreating and is worth being given a life, otherwise your decision to have a child is at best arbitrary and amoral, like picking your nose.
Because you love God, and you believe in the things promised by God. "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen"
Quoting Heister Eggcart
The decision to have a child, is similar symbolically to the divine decision to create the world with its myriad forms in it. It emanates out of love, in this case the creative love that exists between a man and a woman.
Becoming a person who exists (as opposed it seems to being a person who doesn't exist) is evidently bad in and of itself. That is the case because an existing person necessarily experiences pain of some kind in some manner at some time, which was not and could not be experienced by that person while in the blissful state of nonexistence..
So, for example, the parents of schopenhauer1 did wrong by causing him to exist, thus forcing him to do all the things existing people do and those fortunate people who don't exist do not do; work and for that matter I suppose eat, drink, speak, etc.
It's a view which has similarities to the doctrine of Original Sin. We humans exist because our ancestors procreated through the ages. There was no Adam and Eve, but sometime in the course of our evolution a pair or pairs of sinners reproduced and that reproduction caused the many harms we existing people now experience.
I have no problem with you not having children. It's none of my business what your reason is. But to justify it on the basis of the welfare of the unborn child, if that's what you're really doing, is bizarre.
Why?
Ergo, it is morally permissible, or not wrong, to have children. That being said, just because something isn't wrong doesn't make it right, so there is certainly nothing like a duty or positive moral reason to procreate.
I would say invalid or unsound are more appropriate to what you are trying to convey.
Quoting Agustino
Because I believe forcing someone to be in a (practically) inescapable position to do something or not that is ongoing is harmful. Breathing, is usually automatic. Perhaps you should have used eating. Eating is optional.. If eating caused harm in an ongoing continual fashion, than I guess that applies to, though usually it does not.
Quoting Agustino
See above about eating.
Quoting Agustino
When the child is born it is forced. I am unconvinced that "Forced" cannot be used in this case.. Once a person is born, the "Forcing" begins, as the cause of what would be the child was something another person did. A chair is not in existence, but then a chair is made.. It was caused. Since its not a being (animal) then,it would not make sense to use "forced" here but you get the analogy.
Quoting Agustino
But why does this "know themselves truly and completely" have to be carried out? What is the worst that happens with incompleteness?
Quoting Agustino
This sounds like too much self-help hype. I just don't buy that people can control things as much as you are saying in the amount and scope you claim.
Quoting Agustino
I agree that the obligation to do something useful for others is necessary, but I think that people are exposed to having to do this is harmful as it forces unwanted, (often unpleasant) work. Often one must control or be controlled by others. I think here for example of a job..something that is obligated to the employer (being controlled) as it's mainly necessary for economic survival in our current system. I am not advocating that we should be selfish or not be obligated- we must. However, exposing new people to unwanted, unpleasant work in order to survive and function properly (though necessary once born) is not good for the interest of a future possible person who will have to endure it.
Actually, that's a good question. If I were living in Aleppo right now, it certainly would make sense to at least delay having children. And if I felt as though we are living in misery in a terrible world with no hope for improvement, then it would make sense. But I don't think that is what schopenhaeur1 is talking about. He seems to be talking about not having children because it will be inconvenient for them to live. [Yes, that's ham-handed hyperbole. Rhetoric can be fun.]
In a way yes. Procreation brings on the harms, again and again and again.
When the child is born it is forced. I am unconvinced that "Forced" cannot be used in this case.. Once a person is born, the "Forcing" begins, as the cause of what would be the child was something another person did. A chair is not in existence, but then a chair is made.. It was caused. Since its not a being (animal) then,it would not make sense to use "forced" here but you get the analogy.
When the child is born it is forced. I am unconvinced that "Forced" cannot be used in this case.. Once a person is born, the "Forcing" begins, as the cause of what would be the child was something another person did. A chair is not in existence, but then a chair is made.. It was caused. Since its not a being (animal) then,it would not make sense to use "forced" here but you get the analogy.
As I said previously, if there is any forcing going on, children are being forced to be what they are. You are allowed to use whatever words you like, but that seems like a really inapt one to me.
To do what?
Quoting schopenhauer1
But, again, causation does not equal compulsion....
Maybe you already answered this question and I didn't see it. Do you wish you'd never been born?
What's the inescapable position? :s Life isn't an inescapable position. Things in life can be inescapable positions, but certainly not life, which is the stage which makes all inescapable positions possible in the first place.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So what if it's automatic? It's still a necessity. For some people doing the laundry is automatic. Apparently not for you. That's what your real problem is, that you invest so much energy dealing with such basic chores of life.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Again the chair doesn't exist before it's actually made (the form of the chair exists, and the matter from which the chair will be made, but not the chair). The chair is a combination of matter and form to speak in Aristotelian terms. A child in this case would also be a combination of matter (the body) and form (the soul), and a child begins to exist at a certain point in time. Prior to that point in time, the child did not exist. So yes, the child was caused to exist by an external force, so what? More correctly, the matter and form of the child were conjoined in one substance by an external force (notice how both form, and matter existed before by the way). Being caused to exist cannot be a harm, because all harms happen AFTER the moment of birth, not before. No harm can happen before birth. To suggest otherwise is silly.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So a person apparently has interests before they're even born... good one.
I disagree. I think no harm can happen before conception. Plenty of harm can happen before one is born.
You disagree, but I agree with you. It depends where you place the moment of birth. If you place the moment of birth at conception (and I would probably agree with that, or at least I would place it close to conception) then yes of course a lot of harm can happen while the live baby (who is hence already born, otherwise he couldn't be alive) is in his mother's womb.
In my discussions birth does not refer to the moment the baby is separated from his or her mother's womb, but the moment it is alive. I would place that moment at conception, or at least very soon afterwards.
Yes, I thought exactly this, so thank you for clarifying this directly. I realised as I was writing it, but felt too lazy to bother changing the terminology granted that schop1 was using this terminology himself. But I did notice that my argument could then be taken and used as a pro-abortion argument, by claiming that no one is harmed until they're born (taking birth to be leaving the mother's womb) and I totally disagree with that. So thank you once again, well spotted! :) (Y)
What takes place after we exist isn't something which takes place before we do. The harm we may experience after we exist has identifiable causes for the most part. People, animals, nature may cause harm to us once we live. We may ascribe fault to them for doing so. We're not harmed by coming into existence, but are subject to harm when we do.
So, I think one can intelligibly maintain that we shouldn't have children because they'll become subject to harm if we do. It's not a position I accept, but it's comprehensible at least.
Yes, I agree with this, but I do not believe I was NOT saying this. AFTER the child is born it is forced into obligations. Obligations are harmful and inevitable. Procreation creates this condition. Ergo, procreating children is wrong as it leads to exposing a new person to inevitable and harmful ongoing, inescapable obligations.
Nope, that again doesn't follow. Procreation isn't necessarily immoral, but it can be. Should you procreate when you're in a war-torn country, where you probably will have a hard time to assure the survival of your child or provide for them? Probably not.
But what if you're a rich billionaire whose son or daughter will never have any economic obligations whatsoever, should you then procreate? Even you, according to your silly argument, would be forced to concede this.
Sure, procreation can be immoral in some cases, but that's not because it is immoral in-itself. The immorality comes after birth, when, for example, you fail to protect your child.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Agreed.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Again, you need actual concrete reasons of what harms your child will become subject to. If you're not having a child because there's a war going on and it's unlikely you'll be able to take care of them that's completely different from not having a child because there's some harm - which you cannot specify - that will occur to him in his life.
The basis of the anti-natalist position requires birth (conception) itself to be a harm. If birth itself isn't a harm, then bringing people into the world cannot be harmful, end of story. Your failure to provide for your child or protect them may be harmful, but that's an action which is different from bringing them into the world, and hence has little to do with the antinatalist position in the first place.
Your use of "birth" is not idiomatic. "Birth" describes the moment when a fetus leaves the womb. Conception doesn't mean "birth". There are other words describing the significance of conception such as ensoulment, personhood, etc. that can be applied to the unborn fetus (or baby).
But based on my premise, it is valid.
No, it's absolutely not. If you have a child in a war torn region, giving birth to them isn't wrong, but failure to protect them when they need it, that will be wrong.
I agree. No forcing anyone to do anything. Also, adult behavior needs to be reviewed to best understand the spirit of such a view. We're not behaving well - inventing WMD, polluting the environment, waging wars, perpetuating systems as mentioned in the OP, etc etc. And still we bring children into this world. The reasons for doing that are literally vanishing into thin air while reasons for not are multiplying everyday.
We were children once. I don't know what happened?
So rich people have no economic obligations? They have their own obligations not to mention being on top of the very economic system where the economic obligations take place.
If you do absolutely nothing and just plug 1 billion in the bank, how long do you think it will last? :s More than your own lifespan? Probably. Why don't rich people do that? Because it's not fulfilling.
There are many harms that befall humans. No procreation means no exposure to harm.
While it's true for 1% of people they, do not have to worry about economic obligations in the same way others do, there are other harms- some of them are structural.
Sure, you need another argument, that's for sure.
The argument about economic obligations still stands for 99% of people. Suffering exists for 100%.
But if you have faith that having a child is the right thing to do, then you're assuming that this child once born will agree with you.
Quoting Agustino
So play God? You do realize that our creations are wretched, imperfect, immoral, and better not to have been, right? God creating the world isn't the same as you fucking a woman and creating a fallen human being. There's nothing loving about bringing a child into the world so that it may suffer.
If an argument can't hold for the 100%, it shouldn't be held. With regard to principles, they must be black and white. If there are exceptions, then the principle is flimsy.
Why would I be assuming that? You're presupposing that the right thing to do has to be what the child will think is the right thing.
Furthermore, I don't hold that having a child is right or moral by necessity, only that it is not immoral by necessity.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Have you forgotten that man was created in the image of God?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
First of all, I wouldn't call it "fucking" a woman, the word has connotations which denote abuse, or using her. And it's not my creation, it's the creation of the two of us, cause presumably my wife will also want to have a child, otherwise I wouldn't be having a child in the first place. You seem to think that the sexual act is always evil, but that's not true. God has intended a natural place for the sexual act, which is fuelled by our desire for intimacy and union with the beloved. The act is symbolic of God's creation, and is certainly something holy if done right and within the boundaries of marriage.
Of course there's nothing wrong with celibacy either, for those who aren't yet married (like myself) and those who want to be entirely devoted to God (monks/nuns).
Also, while human beings are fallen, there is an element of goodness left in us, otherwise we would be unable to recognise what is good in the first place, and salvation would be impossible (much like for those who have committed the unforgivable sin).
Eckhartus' mate, St. Thomas Aquinas writes:
“Human Nature is not so completely corrupted by sin as to be totally lacking in natural goodness.”
So the slim margin that someone might be rich enough to be above the fray of economic obligations means the whole principle is wrong? I don't think so. Also, if you look at most of my other antinatalism threads, I give many, many reasons why procreation leads to harm. This is just one of many. Combine them all together, and you have a pretty compelling case. This is just yet another reason that affects most people in the world.
No.
Quoting Agustino
Then you have no good reason to have a child. So, why are you in favor of having children if there's no good reason or necessity that demands their procreation?
Quoting Agustino
You are using someone when you're having sex with them.
What difference does this make? You have responsibility over the child just as you do over the cake you baked with your wife.
Quoting Agustino
No, only that it isn't necessary with regard to procreation.
Quoting Agustino
A dick in the hole is a dick in the hole. Throwing around symbolism and metaphorical interpretations on top of you having sex is willful sentimentalism. Also, I think it's worth noting that sex as a function came about after the fall of Man, so to equate sex to God's first creative emanations before sin's entrance into the world would be an entirely obtuse characterization. Sex is not sacred and pure as love is in itself, or justice, or any other virtue.
Quoting Agustino
Nothing wrong? Think about what you're saying here for a second, and I think you'll take that back.
Quoting Agustino
I don't deny that we can do good, only that I cannot divine up an instance wherein procreation is necessary.
Some don't need to have sex, and so celibacy is a properly moral option. Others, however, do need to satiate their sexual appetite, thereby curbing future ruin by not doing what is necessary. Yet, outside of this spectrum, what I'm saying is that it is never morally necessary for anyone to procreate. There is no need great or demanding enough that one cannot do good unless they themselves birth a child.
But I'm saying that you need better reasoning than just, "you may not x, y, z." The discussion I'm having with Agustino I think entails absolutes. As I said before, black and whites, no grays. If you have an absolutist position that you think defends not procreating, I'd like to hear it.
Then why must I assume the child will agree with my judgement?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I'm not in favor of having children (for everyone), I'm just not against it.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
There is a difference between fucking a girl and being in love with a girl (even when that includes sex). Fucking a girl is like a leper scratching an itch - it's ultimately not fulfilling but it's something one does either out of spite for themselves or out of suffering. Being in love with a girl and marrying her can lead to sex, but the action is different. In that case it's not scratching an itch, but doing something that is positively fulfilling of a natural human desire - the desire for intimacy. I'm sorry if you cannot comprehend that there's more to sex than just fucking.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Sure.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
The sexual act isn't necessary with regard to procreation? :s What?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Well, leaving the vulgarity aside, the physical connection that happens during sex is mirroring the spiritual connection that happens between the two lovers. A dick in the hole may be a dick in the hole, but the act itself doesn't include just a dick in a hole.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
First of all this is completely unbiblical and completely false. Read Genesis 1:27-28, which occurs way before the Fall, just after God had created man. What does it say?
So how did God expect them to multiply if not sexually? Did Adam grow a penis and Eve a vagina only after they ate from the Tree of Knowledge? Don't be silly. If you actually leave the bullshit aside and look at human nature, you will see that man (and woman) both have a natural desire for intimacy with their other half, which is also expressed through committed intimacy (including sex) in a married relationship.
There is nothing wrong with sex in itself. But sex, like all other good things from God, has been corrupted with the Fall. And instead of being used for intimacy and procreation, it was used for power, status, etc. Promiscuity (and ALL other sexual sins which, by the way, have their root in promiscuity) is a fallen expression of sexuality.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
What's wrong with it, I seem to be too stupid to realise? :P
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Well, clearly God would disagree given that one of the first commandments was to be fruitful and multiply ;)
Quoting Heister Eggcart
These are not good reasons either for not having sex or for having it. Celibacy is either something temporary, or an action undertaken for spiritual purposes. Marriage and intimacy are fulfilling for many human beings, and they are goods, including having children. This is just how men and women were naturally created to be.
Now, if you either cannot find a woman who fits with you, or you want to undertake celibacy in order to be closer to God, then sure, there's nothing wrong with that. I don't suggest you should marry someone for the sake of having children or having sex. Only if you find the right person. But if you do, then you would be throwing away something that is precious - at least to most people, given our human nature. There's no reason to do that - you won't be more moral by doing it.
Then you're not technically an anti-natalist. Anti-natalism can be wrong and yet there be no morally binding reason to procreate.
Your judgement not to procreate? The baseline is doing nothing, not having the child.
Quoting Agustino
You love the person, not the sex. Sex is sex, regardless of what you're having sex with. And you don't need to have sex in order to love someone more fully.
Quoting Agustino
Sex isn't always evil, but procreation is never good. Having sex doesn't mean you're procreating, even though that's the primary, natural function of sex.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, I'm sure that you love someone so much more if you spiritually slide your cock back and forth inside her! :D
Quoting Agustino
You know, I shouldn't have brought up the Bible, as that's a can of worms I'm not even going to open. All I'll say is that "be fruitful and multiply" doesn't necessarily infer human reproduction. Seeing as God is classically understood as love, to be fruitful is to multiply love.
Quoting Agustino
Please separate sex from procreation. The two are different.
Quoting Agustino
Obviously being celibate can be wrong. I assumed you would think of pedophilic priests who are supposed to be celibates but fail at it. I would argue that they fail at it because they're not satisfying their sexual desires. Not doing that ends up with worse consequences (child abuse).
Quoting Agustino
Nature is corrupt. Merely because having sex and procreating children is natural doesn't make it right or necessary to do so.
Quoting Agustino
My attempt here to emphasize the rawness of sex makes a statement like this absolutely hilarious, >:O
Quoting Agustino
Procreation gets added to the list of corrupted, natural processes.
Even so, if a couple wants to have a child so that they might father and mother it and love it, then there are millions of little shits out there that can keep them up at night and are needing to be adopted.
Highly misleading. This passage has been read allegorically since the early church as I recall. It can refer to the fruitfulness and multiplication of virtue and as a call to evangelize (multiply the numbers of Christians by conversion).
This is still confused. Being against procreation is not the same as not finding any good reasons to procreate (for you).
Why would not procreating be the baseline, when we have a natural desire to procreate and be intimate?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Yes, I do love the person. The sex can be an expression of our love though, that's what you don't seem to understand. It's an expression of it. Just like a bird sings its song, as an expression of its being.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
This is absolutely false. Immoral sex is different than righteous and moral sex.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Sure, I completely agree. I never said you have sex with your wife in order to love her more fully, indeed that would be very stupid and immoral (and untrue). Love comes first, sex is merely an expression of the underlying love when it happens.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I disagree. There is a natural desire to procreate.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Oh yeah, how funny you are. Only that you forget that the physical motion of the penis inside the vagina isn't all that's happening at all. There's the touches, the looking into each other's eyes, the feeling of each other's bodies, the shared emotions, the feelings, the kissing, the intimate connection etc. You strip the act of 99% of what it includes, and then proceed to deride it. Well done.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
While that meaning may ALSO be the case it's not the essential meaning of the statement. Why not? Because Adam and Eve were the first human beings on Earth. Who were they to love? Themselves? No, they had to first reproduce.
Quoting Thorongil
This is ridiculous. So Adam and Eve are the only people on Earth (cause God had just created them) and one of the first commandments is to be fruitful and multiply virtue by evangelizing non-existent human beings in Paradise (cause the Fall hadn't occurred yet) :s Utterly absurd.
It is true that "fruitfulness" implies much more than physically procreating, but physical procreation is one of the absolute essentials, which makes all the other fruitfulness possible in the first place. So it seems to me you want to have the tree, without its roots. I do agree that the Bible has multiple levels of meaning, but these levels of meaning are complementary and not self-refuting.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
This is a frequent misunderstanding of the way sexual desire functions - and Catholic priests aren't taught how to handle their sexual energy, they way monks are taught, so of course they struggle with it. That's one of the reasons why Orthodox priests are encouraged to marry.
Being a celibate cannot be wrong, but there are wrong ways of practicing celibacy. One such way is by repressing your sexual desire. The other is by expression of sexual desire in inappropriate ways, and some are more inappropriate than others. The right way of being a celibate is by sublimating your sexual desire, which does not mean repressing it (running away from it, trying not to feel it anymore) but accepting and experiencing the feeling(s) it generates and brings into consciousness without acting on them. Monks learn this because they have to practice it, and their mystical practice helps guide them through managing it. So celibates are actually very sexual people (most of the time) contrary to what most people would expect - they are very in touch with their sexual energies, and are a lot more aware of them than regular people.
Catholic priests are taught to repress their sexuality. They don't even masturbate (a sin, I know, but less of a sin than raping children). One of the reasons for this is that they misunderstand Aquinas. Aquinas called masturbation the worst sin in-so-far as only sexuality is considered. But in-so-far as justice, compassion, etc. are considered, then rape, child abuse, etc. are much worse. So priests should be told to masturbate if they cannot control their urges otherwise, as this is definitely a better choice than some other sins they would end up committing.
Now sexual desire in itself is not wrong, but it has to be understood. You have to understand what it is that you truly want when you want to have sex. And what you truly want (the natural end of sexual desire) is unending intimacy and love with your other half, something that can only be achieved within the boundaries of marriage. So then, once you understand that, you understand that just shagging that hot girl you see will not make you happy, and will not get you what you truly want. So then you don't do it - it becomes very natural. You don't have to struggle with it at all at that point. If you see a girl that everyone considers hot, it's not a problem, it doesn't disturb you in the least. Because you've understood the natural end of that desire.
However this natural desire for intimacy cannot be fulfilled until you obviously find the person who is your other half and marry them. So celibacy is the right response until then (or until you can be successful at that, management in the least sinful manner, probably masturbation), since there really is nothing else that can satisfy your desire anyway.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Sure, but it doesn't make it wrong either.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
That doesn't mean there isn't a right way to engage in it.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Sure, but again most people do have a desire to have their own children - to be co-creators.
So, by saying that something is immoral you imply that there are absolute moral standards? If so, then why would you focus only on the biological suffering of the individual? Metaphysical morals would suggest that there is more to life than just suffering and body sensations.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Because ''forced obligation'' is not the only thing that we should focus on when contemplating whether a new life should be created or not. Let alone the fact that life is not evaluated in a quantitative way - good stuff vs bad stuff. It's about whether life itself is good or not.
That was only one of the interpretations I provided. But the evangelization might not refer to other human beings but to all the creatures of the earth. When they hear the command, Adam and Eve are ensconced in a fortified garden, suggesting that what lies outside it is dangerous and corrupting. Indeed, the rest of the verse calls on them to "subdue" the earth. Why would it need subduing if it were of the same Edenic nature? This can be taken as an oblique reference to the corruption of the earth by the fallen angels. I agree that the literal meaning of the command implies procreation, but as I believe Heister pointed out, it is given prior to the Fall. I don't think anyone would object to procreation if it took place in paradise by immaculate human beings! The trouble is procreation after the Fall. At the very least, you cannot say that the command is categorical, but only meant for certain people called to marriage and family life.
I actually do focus on that. I bring in some utilitarian ideas like harm to bring some variety to the discussion, but technically, negative utilitarianism is not Pessimism proper per se. The core belief is more of the Schopenhaurean idea that the Will strives forward and will lead to frustration, Sisyphean absurdity, and the like.
As I've said in an earlier thread: Why do people need to be born into the world in order to redeem it? There is an underlying assumption here, or hope that more people put into the world "means" something. The redemption part is simply an post-hoc top layer put over this desire to keep seeing more people in the world. If all was really redeemed though, and there was no need for this, we would still desire the continuation of existence. But for what? The continuation of social relations, "progress" in science/technology, aesthetic contemplation, and mastering skills/knowledge, seem to be usual candidates. Also, the Camus' "hip" standing at the edge of existence by understanding the absurdity as we are living it out, is another candidate for many.
So the desire for redeeming the world (charity, scientific advancement, enlightenment) is really instrumental in getting what seems to be the underlying case, the pure desire for more existence. Schopenhauer might call this the "will-to-live".. or simply Will when made into an abstract metaphysical concept.
Also stated: Boredom is felt when one's attention is not focused on any particular task, or can originate from a lack of stimulating things to do. It is often described as a dullness or restlessness. It causes one to experience time passing, or rather "pressing" down on us. What makes boredom so significant compared to other emotions is that it is, arguably, the baseline emotional state of being. When the usual concerns and goals of daily life are exhausted, or temporarily unable to be pursued, boredom seems to seep through as the phenomenological default experience. If this is true, that boredom is a baseline experience for humans, then what does that say about the nature of being and existence itself?
If life was to be characterized by various forms of flux and stasis, and stress (in its loosest terms of causing one's homeostasis to be out of balance) is one side of the coin, boredom seems to be the emotional baseline state tied with homeostasis. Perhaps like other higher order animals, our baseline state is boredom, but unlike other animals, our acute awareness of our existence makes us aware of time passing, making it all that more significant as part of the human condition.
We are churning along, striving towards goals related to survival, comfort, and entertainment. The avenues to achieve this occur in our particular cultural and linguistic milieu. The props and plays may be different, but the themes are always the same (survival, comfort, and entertainment). The absence of any particular goal/upkeep routine/entertainment seems to lead to a profound boredom- that which makes us aware of our internal need for pursuing something.
There is the stress of moving this way and that, the stress that is inherent with being alive. There is the anxiety of stasis, of no particular goal in mind, of just being, of being acutely aware of time passing. Human existence is characterized by stress and boredom from our first moment of conscious experience.
Also stated: Here is the idea of instrumentality- the absurd feeling that can be experienced from apprehension of the constant need to put forth energy to pursue goals and actions in waking life. This feeling can make us question the whole human enterprise itself of maintaining mundane repetitive upkeep, maintaining institutions, and pursuing any action that eats up free time simply for the sake of being alive and having no other choice. There is also a feeling of futility as, the linguistic- general processor brain cannot get out of its own circular loop of awareness of this. Another part of the feeling of futility is the idea that there is no ultimate completion from any goal or action. It is that idea that there is nothing truly fulfilling. Time moves forward and we must make more goals and actions.
I pointed that out, Heister thinks (or rather thought) the opposite.
Quoting Thorongil
Well this is precisely what Heister was objecting to, he was saying that sex did not exist, except after the Fall. But if sex didn't exist, how were Adam and Eve meant to procreate before the Fall?
Yes, exactly, I completely agree with this. It's a general command for mankind, not for all particular men (and women) - as I've explained celibacy is also moral.
I think we can say that sex as we know and experience it didn't exist.
I wouldn't agree that the world needs to be redeemed. However, I don't think that we as human should think on this level. If a couple wants to have children, why should one of their first concerns be that there will be ''more of us'' on this planet? Why is it relevant? The point in which I disagree with utilitarianism is that life is about quality of life, not about quantity, therefore the number of people on this planet is irrelevant to the meaning of life and to the ethical questions raised.
Quoting schopenhauer1
We've all experienced Camus' feeling of absurdity. In Myth of Sisyphus, Camus' immediately discards human reason and claims that the world is alien to us. Why? Just because of some feelings, or the lack of other feelings? It's as if I said that the one who understands God has finally understood the meaning of life. It might sound appealing to some, but I haven't proven that it's true with regards to its relation to reality. Neither did Camus prove that his feeling of the 'absurd' is something more than just a feeling.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Charity, scientific advancement etc. do not have to be a manifested desire for redeeming the world. If the ''Will'' is a metaphysical concept, is it also a part of the human nature? A part that is not futile (as it itself wants to exist) at all, and the rest, psychological feelings and experiences are the ones that make a person miserable? That would however mean that a person can only be miserable in a material sense, in his own body, so to speak, but not outside of it in a metaphysical sense.
.
Quoting schopenhauer1
In this sense there can be more default experiences. Why would an experience, regardless of the importance for the individual, be so telling when it comes to the nature of being and existence itself? How can it be defined by an experience?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I'm not sure if you view human just from a materialistic point of view when you're describing those forms.
Well, the point of the quote you were responding to was that there a lot of post-hoc reasons we provide for why people need to be born, but none of them are satisfying as they create circular reasoning. Therefore, the only conclusion seems to be that more life (or more experience) itself is what is wanted. It is a desire for more for more's sake. This is not necessarily utilitarian, as there is no rational calculation here, just some underlying desire for more life/experience to be brought forth into the world.
Quoting Coldlight
Well, the "feeling" is a feeling sure, but it's not a feeling your everyday animal possesses, but one that can self-reflect on its own existence- namely humans. But anyways, THAT particular use of the absurdity I was using was to point out that people may feel we need to be born to experience the absurdity because it's somehow hip and fun to do so. In other words, here Sisyphus is seen as a hero rather than a tragic figure. If life is a repetitious episode of boulder rolling, why not let people experience the fun of absurdity? One repeated theme of mine is that absurdity is really not fun or hip though, but more tragic. It is the repetitious nature of existence- the daily need for upkeep, work, entertainment that is so deadingly circular in its mechanism. Life is instrumentality itself, doing to do to do to do..
Quoting Coldlight
I haven't decided if I really believe there is some ground of a metaphysical "Will", but certainly there seems to be a principle of striving going either in the universe at large or in the individual psyche or both. The individual is continually striving-but-for-nothing until death of the individual. The Pessimist might try to quiet the will. Schopenhuaer advocated quietism through ascetics and pointed to the similarities of Eastern thought on this approach. Antinatalism advocates a prevention of future people which would quiet the needless striving of future people. "Why create a burden when none needs to be there in the first place" might be the approach of this brand of antinatalism.
Quoting Coldlight
Because it is the default experience of self-reflective minds that are not driving after goals.
Quoting Coldlight
I don't know about materialistic, but I mean the stress of goal-driven activities and the anxiety of boredom.
Because one's desires need not be fulfilled. Merely because one has a desire does not mean that they must carry out that desire, otherwise hellfire and damnation upon them.
Quoting Agustino
You're still trying to abstract sex out into some nebulous universe of righteous feeling and noodly virtue. I'm sure a psychopath will say that them hacking up someone to bits is an expression of their feeling free. But does this mean that whatever expression they think their act is refutes the base nature of the act itself? Surely not.
Quoting Agustino
This is merely attaching things to sex in order for you to think about it in a better light. Like coating a turd in gold leaf.
Quoting Agustino
This doesn't make it good. And if it isn't good, one has no good reason, therefore, to do it.
Quoting Agustino
All you've done here is replace the rawness of having sex with the rawness of kissing someone, looking into their eyes. Love is not a sentiment, and your categorization of sex is just that, a petty sentiment.
Quoting Agustino
Erm, yes? Eve was made so that Adam might love her, as Adam could not love himself.
Quoting Agustino
Love is not reserved merely for humankind.
Quoting Agustino
Procreation is an absolute essential of what? Love?
Quoting Agustino
Marriage doesn't require sexual relations.
Quoting Agustino
This makes zero sense.
Quoting Agustino
Agreed. So marriage and having "righteous sex" and having children are but shams.
Quoting Agustino
If having a child is neither right nor wrong in your thinking, then there is, as I've said several times now, no good reason to procreate. And if there's no good reason to do something, one has no moral foundation from which they can retreat to if it blows up in their face.
Consider the above this way: there are no good reasons for me to walk outside, lower my pants, and shit on the concrete, but there are bad reasons for me to do the same, such as being seen, someone having to pick it up if not me, someone running it over, my dog eating it, the list goes on. However, were all these reasons entirely unconvincing to me, and the decision to shit on the pavement appeared neither good nor bad, and I go out and shit on the pavement instead of doing nothing, then that decision immediately becomes the past. Once I've shat on the concrete, there then arrives an all new environment where I have to decide whether or not I want to clean up the poo, make someone else do it, risk fallout from that, etc. etc. So, in the instance that you decide to carry out the seemingly amoral decision to crap on the sidewalk instead of doing nothing, you then have to deal with the new realities of that decision, which subsequently facilitate moral dilemmas. In the context of procreation, this means that you can put on blinders and think that deciding to procreate is some sort of amoral, blah decision, but once you've carried out that decision, you then have to take responsibility for the shit on your doorstep. You can't sit back and say after the fact that having the child, then, was a good and righteous and lahdeedahdeedah. Also, the original decision not to shit on the sidewalk because it is judged as being neither good nor bad but amoral, does not facilitate moral dilemmas because I've not acted upon it. It has affected no one but me for the moment I thought about it and then forgot about it.
Regardless, I think I do consider procreation always wrong because there are guarantees with the decision to procreate. The decision to shit on the sidewalk at the very least does not guarantee suffering. Procreating a child into existence does, which is why playing dumb, or flicking the amoral card on the table just isn't going to cut it.
Quoting Agustino
To engage in sex or procreation. I agree that there is a right way to have sex (different from yours, and to which I've explained before, in some other thread), but disagree that there is a right way to procreate, as that entails there being a good reason to procreate, which you yourself have argued against.
Quoting Agustino
So what?
Quoting Agustino
Adam and Eve weren't meant to procreate before the Fall because they didn't need to, just as they didn't need to wear clothing. But once they were expelled from the Garden, they were committed to sin, which means they were pigeon-holed into making bad decisions. I'm arguing here that procreation is one of them, and not a virtue of some sort such as Adam and Eve's capacity to still love each other, to take care of each other, etc.
~ Have you watched the recent Noah movie with Russell Crowe? I think I've asked you this before...but I'd be interested to know how you'd review the movie from a moral standpoint, because even though I think the movie itself from a film standpoint is kinda bad and cheesy, some of its themes are surprisingly deep. I don't even think the movie's writers quite realized what they were suggesting, let alone very many of the movie's watchers. Anyway, I suggest you watch it, or if you already have, think about it again with half a mind toward this discussion. I just find it intriguing how a movie like Noah can subtly argue against procreation just the same as a Se7en can. A testament to the beauty of the arts! O:)
:s this is very bullshitty. It follows almost by definition that it is good for an organism to fulfil its natural desires. Not all desires are of the same kind. Some are not natural desires. Yes, there is no need to fulfil those.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Yes, that's why I made a useful distinction, which you've completely ignored, and spoke of natural desires. That eliminates psychopaths and cannibals, so please, no such examples.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Okay, how is this related to two people in love who have sex within the boundaries of a married relationship again? :s
Quoting Heister Eggcart
So if you have sex with a prostitute that is no different than having sex with your wife within the boundaries of marriage in terms of morality according to you? :s
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Well, most Platonists/Aristotelians - of which the early Christians were - would associate natural with good, for the most part.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I don't see an argument here.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Of other kind of fruitfulness, including, yes, love.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
:-O :-} lol
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Nope, I haven't said it's neither. I said it can be either of them, depending on context.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Suffering is not always bad, sorry to tell you :P
Quoting Heister Eggcart
That is indication it is a natural desire that comes from within man's own being.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
No, I don't watch Hollywood anymore :P Such bullshit honestly, I get so bored trying to watch a movie nowadays. It's the same crap story time and time again, and it seems bullshitty to experience emotions while starring at the screen instead of by living through them. I can't stand the fakery.
I will link my answer with this:
Quoting schopenhauer1
From what you say, it is reasonable to assume that life, in your view, has a meaning. If it had no meaning, then every claim about whether something is moral or immoral would be just an expression of one's mood or opinion. It wouldn't be raised above the human existence as an absolute principle.
If death is the end of it all, if we simply cease to exist, then why is it important to be moral? I'm not sure if you would argue that it is important to lead a morally fulfilling life. I assume you would, otherwise why say that it is immoral to procreate, and stand up for the morally right decision?
Consequently, if the meaning was in leading a morally fulfilling life, then by not procreating you purposefully take away a chance from a new person to lead a meaningful, morally fulfilling life.
You seem very focused on bull shit in this response, so I call bullshit again. You'll have to explain to me how a desire in nature doesn't have to be natural.
Quoting Agustino
Throwing attachments onto a desire doesn't change the desire in itself.
Quoting Agustino
Same response here as what I just gave above. Sex is sex. What you're trying to change, rather, is the love, not the sex. But I don't think you've figured that out yet, or at least you've not alluded to the affirmative.
Quoting Agustino
No, the sex is the same. But whether there is love present is what's the matter.
Quoting Agustino
Okay?
Quoting Agustino
And kissing is spiritual. Alright, bro.
Quoting Agustino
So procreation is an absolute essential for love? Brooooo, please stop contradicting yourself.
Quoting Agustino
I
I
I
V
Quoting Agustino
?
Quoting Agustino
Yes it is. Suffering is "bad" even if it brings about the good.
Quoting Agustino
But one must identify, and argue, from which half of man's being the desire to procreate comes. I also contest that the will to procreate is inherent and that everyone longs to have a child.
Quoting Agustino
Humor me and watch it. At the very least you'll enjoy it more than dropping a pizza on the tile.
I don't agree with the premise that one has to lead a "morally fulfilling life". One can be moral, but "leading a morally fulfilling life" has a different connotation. Leading a morally fulfilling life means that there is some fulfillment from morality. I do not see that as the case of morality. Rather, it is a set of standards of how humans should treat each other. Also, if it is "immoral to procreate" than by procreating people so they can "fulfill" the duty to not procreate would defeat the goal of not procreating in the first place, which would also make this rule absurd. In order to follow the antintatalist principle, you do not procreate out of prevention of a future person's suffering. You do not need to be fulfilled from this.
To expand this to Schopenhauer- we all are manifestations of Willing and the only thing to do to temper it, according to him, is to quiet it through denial, which is roughly similar to living according to ascetic Buddhist/hermit lifestyle practices. As an extension, a way to prevent future suffering is to prevent birth. Therefore, there is no morally fulfilling life as an obligation here. Rather, if one wants to quiet the Will, then one should do X. One does not have to do X but then one won't quiet the Will. One is not obligated to do X though.
So the takeaways here are that "morally fulfilling life" is not really a goal (it's made up)- there is no obligation to live a morally fulfilling life, just to be moral perhaps. Also, if we did follow your principle of leading a morally fulfilling life and apply it to antinatalism, it absurdly leads to the idea that we must have people so that they don't have people. Rather, people do not need to be born, and further, should be prevented from being born out of preventing the burdens, harms, and suffering of the future child. There needs to be no added "and we must be fulfilled from doing this". Finally, if we were to move from straight-up antinatalism to Schopenhaurean morality- his is more of a hypothetical imperative, not an obligation. IF you want to diminish Will, you must deny it by living in roughly ascetic practices similar to certain Buddhist practices. Further, Schopenhauer has a conception of empathy towards fellow man. A more enlightened character would have a "moral sense" of empathy whereby their Will is diminished by being less individuated. Thus Schopenhauer's moral theory regarding empathy is based on moral sense and perhaps how attuned a character is to this moral sense which is based on a nature that is less inclined to follow the dictates of one's Willing nature.
A natural desire is one which belongs to the essence of that organism. Cannibalism isn't a natural desire for example. Nourishing your body, however, is a natural desire.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
No, I can assure you that having sex is a different experience with a prostitute than with your wife. The two may bear a resemblance, but they are not the same.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Yes it is, but not for a particular human being, but rather for the human race as a whole.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
What's this strange sign?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
In other words, there's situations when it's not immoral to have a child. Suffering, contrary to your axiom, isn't necessarily evil.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Okay, it seems that this is the point over which we disagree. I don't think suffering is evil, many times the suffering and the reward are not separate. Many saints, for example, have enjoyed to suffer for the sake of God.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I never claimed everyone longs to have a child, I said most people.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Patience :P
[i]Natural, adjective
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria"
2.
of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
"sharks have no natural enemies"
Nature, noun
1.
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
"the breathtaking beauty of nature"
synonyms: the natural world, Mother Nature, Mother Earth, the environment; More
2.
the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it.[/i]
Sorry, Agu, but cannibalism can be a natural desire.
Quoting Agustino
You'll have to convince me of this assurance because at present you're failing to do so.
Quoting Agustino
Humankind is but a collection of particular human beings, not some amorphous blob. Furthermore, what is your criteria for those who must procreate? Who are they, and why do they have to procreate?
Quoting Agustino
It's an arrow.
Quoting Agustino
Such as? If it's merely to prolong humankind as a race on Earth, why is that important and sufficient justification?
And why is that?
Quoting Agustino
There are three parts to this. The suffering, the act of doing what brings about the suffering, and the "reward" once the act is suffered through. For instance, I play the drums, so if I go to practice the drums there is, 1. the specific practicing of the drums, 2. the suffering that goes along with that (muscle fatigue, sweat, finger blisters, etc.), and 3. the end product of me being better at playing the drums (only attainable through practice.) Merely because I've become a better drummer post-practicing doesn't remove the prior state of suffering.
Quoting Agustino
If this is the case, then how exactly is procreation a natural desire if it isn't inherent in everyone?
Have a read of what Aristotle, Epicurus, and other philosophers have meant by "natural desire". For example.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Why do you think sex with the tramp is the same as sex with your wife?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I don't have a criteria as such, as it is something that each individual should decide for themselves. However, typically those who can afford children, who want children, and who can provide and protect them should have children.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Well yes prolonging humankind on Earth seems to be what God intended, until the end times at least. Since this started from a discussion of the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply", this is what I shall answer.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Because I think suffering can sometimes be rewarding in itself. It is through suffering that you really love someone or something, not otherwise. If you love someone or something, you kind of want to suffer for them you know? Otherwise you don't really love them. What would love be without suffering? An impossibility.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Okay yes! So here is my point I believe: you becoming better at playing the drums isn't above and beyond the suffering - the suffering IS your becoming better at drums. It's the same for example with me working out. I don't take the suffering as any different from my becoming stronger. The two are connected like two sides of the same coin are. You seem to function in a different paradigm, where suffering and reward are disconnected, and you undertake the one to obtain the other. But I say that suffering and reward are one and the same.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Well to be a natural desire doesn't mean that it is present in absolutely everyone. Exceptions and variety exist in nature. To be a natural desire implies that this is something that arises as part of the essence of the specific organism, and it would be reflected in a majority of the population of that organism.
"But I am aware of some that murmur: What, say they, if all men should abstain from all sexual intercourse, whence will the human race exist? Would that all would do this, only in 'charity out of a pure heart, and good conscience, and faith unfeigned'; much more speedily would the City of God be filled, and the end of the world hastened." - St. Augustine
I'm familiar with some of these classical definitions, but...
"examples of natural and necessary desires include the desires for food, shelter, and the like. Epicurus thinks that these desires are easy to satisfy, difficult to eliminate (they are 'hard-wired' into human beings naturally), and bring great pleasure when satisfied. Furthermore, they are necessary for life, and they are naturally limited: that is, if one is hungry, it only takes a limited amount of food to fill the stomach, after which the desire is satisfied. Epicurus says that one should try to fulfill these desires."
the part, "they are necessary for life" is where'd I counter and agree to an extent, but argue that a natural desire, let's say procreation for example here, is not necessary for love. Life? Sure, at the fundamental level. But love? I don't think so.
Quoting Agustino
The sex is the same, but not the love, which would be (and is) different. Consider me killing someone out of self defense with a small firearm opposed to me killing someone in murder with a small firearm. In both cases I'm using a firearm to kill someone, but why I'm doing the killing and to whom is what matters. In that example, sex is the firearm, the thing doing the killing. Love would be me acting in self-defense, while my murdering someone would be more akin to shagging a prostitute.
Quoting Agustino
Each individual, except the child for whom the decision is being made without consent.
These aren't good enough reasons to have a child. At the very least adopt a child if these three reasons are what "most" people desire.
Quoting Agustino
Seems to be? Shouldn't you be a bit more assured in your understanding of God's will?
Quoting Agustino
Maybe, but it doesn't follow that suffering must be propagated in order for love to be fulfilled.
Quoting Agustino
I don't think you quite understand what I was getting at.
Quoting Agustino
True, but I'm saying that a natural desire still exists in the natural world, even if not everyone possesses it.
"For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting is free from blame"
So it seems to be that he considered it preferable to not have children, and yet having children was seen as blameless. I quite agree with that position, but I find it disputable whether if everyone really stopped procreating it would help fill the City of God more speedily.
Yes, this is basically my position now too.
I'm guessing that human beings have caused far more suffering from snakes than vice versa. And when it comes to suffering, snakes never cross my mind amidst being stretched on the rack, burned alive, waiting on traffic lights, and having to socialize on occasion.
For some people, snakes are interesting. I can't say that a snake has ever caused me suffering.
"Snakes" was a cultural quote that missed the target.
In the libretto of Candide, music by Leonard Bernstein, Pangloss is explaining why this is the best of all possible worlds. The students are raising objections, like "What about snakes?"
Epicurus has a tripartite distinction. Natural and necessary desires, natural and unnecessary desires (the desire to have sex for example), and unnatural (or artificial) and unnecessary desires.
I would say procreation is in the natural and unnecessary desires, in that it's not necessary for your own survival (but it is for the survival of the species).
Something like cannibalism would count as an unnatural and unnecessary desire for Epicurus.
What I meant to point out with this, is that some desires are natural, in that they are innate to the human organism - others are not, like cannibalism and the examples you often give.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Okay I think your analogy fails because killing, in and of itself, is wrong, even if in some circumstances it is acceptable (such as in self-defence). However, procreation in and of itself isn't wrong, even though in some circumstances it can be wrong.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
There is no child for whom the decision is made without consent. The child simply doesn't exist, so the question of consent is illogical.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Maybe, but there seems to be the desire to have your own child too. Maybe people should have on child of their own and also adopt?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Yes, and no I don't think I should be. The origins and ends of existence are mysterious.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Why not?
But why is it necessary for the human race to continue if on an individual level you admit that it isn't necessary to procreate?
Quoting Agustino
Okay, but why do you drive a distinction between procreation and murder?
Quoting Agustino
I'm not so sure. Maybe I should stick my dick in that other thread, though it has looked a giant can of worms...
Quoting Agustino
Yes, because people are selfish. Surely this comes as no surprise to you?
Quoting Agustino
Seeing as your actions have consequences, and in the case of procreation, will have an extremely important consequence (the having of a child) on you and the world, I might find it disgusting to think anyone leaves a decision like procreating up to "mystery."
Quoting Agustino
Living in the world for me is an act of self defense against the world. There is enough suffering to go around for love to always be applied without the need to make matters worse by creating more suffering just so that I can love that too. To look to cause suffering, either in yourself or in others is sadism, and is the complete antithesis to love.
It isn't necessary to procreate in the sense that Epicurus used the term, namely that if you don't procreate, your own personal survival will not be affected (Epicurus himself had no children, he was an atheistic ascetic, much like you :P ). As for why is it necessary for the human race to continue, I don't think it's necessary, but I do think we should continue.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Because one of those actions is evil in and of themselves in-so-far as it harms another being, while another isn't evil in and of itself, since it harms no one.
Another example - murder is prohibited in the 10 Commandments, procreation isn't. The two are not comparable, it would be an EXTREME exaggeration to say that to procreate is as bad as to murder.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
What other thread? :P
Quoting Heister Eggcart
It's not just selfishness that is at play. Love your neighbour as yourself implies that you should love yourself to begin with, which is different than selfishness, which entails benefiting yourself and the expense of others.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I agree with this, but I don't agree that this has anything to do with procreation, because, as I've said, someone cannot be harmed by birth. They can be harmed only by what comes after.
Hey, fuck you, I disagree!
Quoting Agustino
A child being born facilitates their being harmed, though, as much you'd like to play a semantic trick on me.
Quoting Agustino
Exaggerations can be true, though.
Quoting Agustino
The other one that's exactly like this, but for some reason we have two threads now! >:o
Quoting Agustino
Fuck no, bro. "Benefiting" yourself at the expense of others, whilst realizing that you are doing so, sounds pretty fucked up to me.
Quoting Agustino
Which can only be facilitated by their being born! I agree birth in itself is not wrong, but procreation, the decision to bring a life into a world of suffering, is wrong, especially if you admit that the child will suffer later.
No sexy time, sorry.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
It is not a semantic trick at all. Giving birth to a child cannot be wrong since the child is not harmed. Something wrong would be doing something that actually harms the child in life.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Almost by definition they can't, since an exaggeration is something that goes above and beyond what is the case.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
:-O Which one lol?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Yes I agree with you. But I meant to say there is a positive type of self-love which is NOT selfishness - not benefiting yourself at the expense of others.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
As far as I know, wrong is when you directly cause harm to someone. Giving birth to someone isn't directly causing them harm, for the simple reason that they don't exist prior to birth.
The child being harmed in life is not an issue were they not to exist. Yet, people still choose to procreate.
Quoting Agustino
Exaggeration doesn't remove the truth totally, though.
Quoting Agustino
"People can't consent to being born." It has 170 replies. Big fuckin clusterfuck of a fuck.
Quoting Agustino
Isn't that just respect? "To will the good of another" can't include you, can it?
Quoting Agustino
You're directly causing the child to exist, which means that you are the facilitator for their suffering, whether you're cognizant (is this really how this is spelled?) of that or not.