Ever Vigilant Existence
Fear of suicide is easy to understand. The better question is why we continue to procreate. Fear of death, the "unknown", pain, and the unsettling idea that there will be no future "self" that we are so used to chattering with, are sufficient enough reasons to me for why people do not commit suicide often outside of extremely painful circumstances.
However, a more vague fear is the fear of eternity. Levinas sort of touches upon this, the inability to shut off, to sleep, to not have to bear the burdens of existing and being. I always bring up the point of why more "points of view" or more "existences" into the world. But, people such as @Thorongil and @darthbarracudaremind me that even if antinatalism worked out for one particular instance of a new person, someone or some other will probably always be born somewhere and thus being itself will always bear itself out eternally. Even if no person actually existed, per panpsychism and perhaps a David Chalmers argument, some primordial existence will always be "on" keeping existence existing (or "being" for the more panpsychically inclined). There is this relentlessness to being in that we are forced into cognitive gymnastics of self-other relations to maintain both our material survival and entertainment needs. See below:
The more fundamental question is why we continue bringing forth more people. What is it about having a next generation that needs to take place? The thoughtful answers would be something like: self-actualization, scientific discovery, art/music/humanities, creativity, flow experiences, physical pleasures, friends, relationships, achievement in some field or area of study, and aesthetic pleasures. However, the thoughtful person may also know that these experiences have some vague repetitiousness to it. It seems old hat that just repeats for each person in each generation. Why does it need to be carried out? Why go through it in the first place? In our linguistically-wired brains, we take the chaos of pure sensory information and through many cognitive mechanisms, create concepts and provide an impetus for our actions. In other words, we create goals. These goals, whether short-term, long-term, vague, or well-planned are executed as we have no choice. They well up from the unformed and provide some sort of ballast to the chaotic, undefined world. We must make one goal, then another, then another, even if just to get something to eat. What is really a value-less, goal-less world, is subjectivized into one where the individual human now has "priorities", "preferences", "tendencies", "hopes", "way of being in the world", and "personality". The structural needs of survival, the existential needs of entertainment, and the contingent setting of cultural surroundings that provide the content for surviving and entertaining, what is it that we want from this? Why do we need more people to exist who need goals to work towards, over and over, relentlessly until we die?
However, a more vague fear is the fear of eternity. Levinas sort of touches upon this, the inability to shut off, to sleep, to not have to bear the burdens of existing and being. I always bring up the point of why more "points of view" or more "existences" into the world. But, people such as @Thorongil and @darthbarracudaremind me that even if antinatalism worked out for one particular instance of a new person, someone or some other will probably always be born somewhere and thus being itself will always bear itself out eternally. Even if no person actually existed, per panpsychism and perhaps a David Chalmers argument, some primordial existence will always be "on" keeping existence existing (or "being" for the more panpsychically inclined). There is this relentlessness to being in that we are forced into cognitive gymnastics of self-other relations to maintain both our material survival and entertainment needs. See below:
The more fundamental question is why we continue bringing forth more people. What is it about having a next generation that needs to take place? The thoughtful answers would be something like: self-actualization, scientific discovery, art/music/humanities, creativity, flow experiences, physical pleasures, friends, relationships, achievement in some field or area of study, and aesthetic pleasures. However, the thoughtful person may also know that these experiences have some vague repetitiousness to it. It seems old hat that just repeats for each person in each generation. Why does it need to be carried out? Why go through it in the first place? In our linguistically-wired brains, we take the chaos of pure sensory information and through many cognitive mechanisms, create concepts and provide an impetus for our actions. In other words, we create goals. These goals, whether short-term, long-term, vague, or well-planned are executed as we have no choice. They well up from the unformed and provide some sort of ballast to the chaotic, undefined world. We must make one goal, then another, then another, even if just to get something to eat. What is really a value-less, goal-less world, is subjectivized into one where the individual human now has "priorities", "preferences", "tendencies", "hopes", "way of being in the world", and "personality". The structural needs of survival, the existential needs of entertainment, and the contingent setting of cultural surroundings that provide the content for surviving and entertaining, what is it that we want from this? Why do we need more people to exist who need goals to work towards, over and over, relentlessly until we die?
Comments (141)
Why do I exist? Because my parents had sex. But why did they have sex? Because they wanted to. But why did they want to? Because they're human beings. But why do human beings exist? Because they're part of the evolutionary chain of life. But why does life exist? Because the Earth had the right conditions for it to exist. But why does the Earth exist? Because the solar system exists. But why does the solar system...the galaxy...the galactic cluster...the universe exist? Because...because...because...full stop. Somewhere along the line something exists simply because it exists.
So any sort of reason, purpose, teleology exists within a system that already exists. But this base system cannot have a purpose itself, because purpose implies that something needs to get done, but self-evidently if there is only one being in existence, nothing needs to get done. It's also the case that something cannot come into being on its own accord, unless it already exists. So it seems that anything that comes into being can have a purpose but that which has no beginning cannot. But it cannot be that a being that comes into being has a purpose for itself, for it did not create itself. So the purpose is imposed on it from something else. Which eventually leads us back to the timeless substance with no purpose in its existence. So ultimately there is no fundamental purpose for anything. The universe cannot have a purpose for its being unless we postulate the existence of another world, which merely kicks the can down the road.
So perhaps instrumentality is a meaningless issue, although I suspect it isn't. If nothing can ultimately have any purpose at all, then what does it mean for us to wonder why things exist? If it's impossible for something to have ultimate purpose, then can it really be bad that it has no ultimate purpose? What would need to be the case in order to satisfy the problem of instrumentality?
Probably the answer is that we humans need reasons for things and the absence of any is discouraging. Just as we need justice even if there isn't any. Or beauty when there isn't any. etc
Well, the problem with instrumentality is not necessarily about not having an ultimate purpose. By this I mean, not having some gestalt "Eureka!" explanatory reason for why things exist in the first place. But rather, as I said earlier "There is this relentlessness to being in that we are forced into cognitive gymnastics of self-other relations to maintain both our material survival and entertainment needs."
So the problem of instrumentality is why we need to need or rather create need in the first place. It is not only that we create need, but that we need to constantly pursue it. There is a vague understanding of the repetitiousness of this in all generations (the "absurd"). Why this repetition of going through goal-seeking and fulfilling structural survival and entertainment needs in a historical-cultural framework? Why do these needs need to be brought forth to a new generation, ad infinitum, until species or universal death is the question more or less. It is not necessarily one of why things exist in the first place, but rather, why we want to put more subjectivized beings in the world who will need to form goals to follow and make more people who will also form their own subjectivized world and need goals to follow, etc.
Once we hit the error logic of this instrumentality of to do to do to do, what do we do with this knowledge? Do we ignore it? Do we castigate it? Do we have a discussion on it? What I am trying to get at is, to at least deal with it as it is a problem unique to humans (as far as we know at this point) and yet, we fall back into the "priorities", "preferences", "tendencies", "hopes", "way of being in the world", and "personality" that we have created from the unformed, using a perhaps, inauthentic "automatic" mode. We assume our habits and goal-seeking is "us" and do not go on to the next layer of meta-analysis and get at what we are trying to get at by being in the first place.
Some people choose not to.
And not because they are antinatalist.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It probably varies with the individual (see above about how some people choose not to).
There is probably great variation between those who do choose to do it. Subconscious conditioning for some. Conscious rebellion for others. Pressure to conform for others. Etc.
It seems that the answer will not be found at the level of the individual being.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Say nobody suffered. Say we all loved life, and death was not feared but calmly accepted without any sadness. What would be wrong with instrumentality?
Your focus on needs makes me believe that it's the struggle that is problematic. If everything was easy-peasy lemon-squeezy there'd be nothing wrong with an absurd life.
The struggle is part and parcel with the idea. There is the struggle in achieving goals, and the relentless nature of the need for need, and the struggle in getting those goals. There is also the unique self-reflective ability of thinking upon existence itself (felt in boredom and angst, and intellectualized as the repetitious nature of goal after goal and need for need and striving in general). The fact that we are constantly faced with "having" to do something, the relentless nature of having to do, but for the sake of doing is something unique to our species (as far as we know). It does not go away. Your vision of no struggle would be something I would not even recognize as it would not be life as we know it. The struggle of being faced with "to do" or more accurately "to deal" with life, is structural.
Right, precisely.
Now, tlo elucidate more, I should make a distinction between the primary "dealing with life" (the goal-seeking default of humans, whether they reflect on it or not) and the self-reflection on the repetitious goal-seeking.
This is a philosophy forum afterall, and as such we are all sort of descendants of a form of critical thinking. This critical thinking takes what is thought to be well-adjusted thought which we take for granted and to look at it critically to see if it stands up. What does not stand up, to me at least, and I would imagine many self-reflective, existentially-oriented people, is the repetitive nature of goals and the need to create more people who need to need. Why create people who do in the first place? Why create the burden of dealing in the first place? Why create more "to do" in the first place provides a quandary to the human animal. We can stop and reflect on why we continue more goal-seeking repetition. For those where "why" is a big deal, it does become problematic.
So to summarize, there is the "goal-seeking" primary need for need, which we do not need to self-reflect on, and then there is a more abstract philosophical problem of why more "to do" in the first place.
Outside of the obvious biological answer to your question, the most cogent that I have found, though not quite fully assented to, is that we have a duty to maintain civilization, given 1) its superiority to barbarism and 2) the fact that people will continue to procreate whether we like it or not, as you noted. All of the items on your list presuppose even more basic relationships that contribute to the functioning of civilization. The most important of these relationships is, as Burke says, between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born. To live, to exist, is to enter into a contract with these parties, the voluntary opting out of which is only possible through suicide and the involuntary through imprisonment due to crime. This is not a duty for each individual to procreate, but it is a duty for society as a whole not to so completely wither away.
Look at what the Greek historian Polybius says, for example:
This ought to sound very familiar. Polybius asserts that the barrenness of Greece effectively led to geopolitical weakness, which in turn led to Roman conquest. The conquest turned out not to be so bad, as the Romans were able to clamp down on violent feuds between smaller factions and replace inept Macedonian rule. The Romans were also emulative and admiring of the Greeks, so they did not produce a mix of antithetical values and cultures. But when Rome itself succumbed to the tendencies Polybius describes above, there was no culturally friendly power waiting in the wings to preserve it. Thus, civilization collapsed, leading to what has been called, not unreasonably, the Dark Ages. Civilization's light was only precariously preserved in monasteries. Now in our own time, the West is repeating the same "evil," but unlike Greece and like Rome, there is no other society to carry on its values and prevent, this time, what would be a global descent into darkness and barbarism were it to collapse. Again, human beings will be born into the world whether we like it or not, but the deliberate procreation of children who are raised to carry the torch of civilization both does not squander the immense positive, constructive labor of previous generations and does not forsake future generations to abject misery. To not assert that we have this duty is, ipso facto and in practice, to prefer barbarism and anarchy.
So we have the goal-seeking need for need, as in, we need more needs because needs entail goals and goals are good, and we have the "philosophical" problem of why we need to have goals to begin with?
I think the only time "why" comes into the picture is when the attainment of a goal fails to compensate for the striving towards it. Otherwise the "why" would easily be answered by: because it feels good, it gives me pleasure, I enjoy doing it, etc. Why do we keep making philosophical posts on this forum? It's pretty repetitive, cyclic, and not much seems to get done - but presumably we find some degree of satisfaction that compensates. It's worth it.
Only when a job becomes annoying and difficult do people start to wonder if they should quit. But maybe they keep going because there's another reason to keep the job, to provide for the family, pay the bills, etc.
But if life takes more than it gives (which is what I see to be the umph behind instrumentality), then what reason is there to keep living, and make more people who will live?
So I think the part where I might be disagreeing with you is that I find enjoyment to be positively good and a justifying reason for doing (some) things. All things considered, if something brings me pleasure then I have a good reason to do it and keep doing it, even if it's repetitive. Maybe if I see how repetitive it is and wonder if there's anything "more" to life will I cease to find pleasure in what I am doing - but that's the problem, really, I cease to find pleasure in it.
But even granting the truth of this claim, which I am not entirely convinced of, the absence of a need to produce need does not, in itself, constitute a reason not to procreate. You've merely identified procreation as an action that isn't strictly obligatory for the individual. You haven't moved beyond the descriptive to the prescriptive.
Pointing out the apparent absurdity and vanity of existence leads one to question why more people ought to be created. But at that point, the assigning of moral blame to those who do so requires enumeration of what qualifies something or someone as morally blameworthy. Absent that, threads like this become mere plaintive tedium.
Now, in my own case, I have realized that attempting to justify anti-natalism on non-consequentialist grounds is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. For me, the motive determines the moral worth of an action, not its consequences. Hence, because the motive of most parents in having children is not to inflict or create more pain and suffering, they have done no wrong. Perhaps you agree but still see no positive reason to have children. That's fine, for again, there isn't any personal obligation to procreate.
Edit: I realize that some philosophers distinguish between motive and intent, but I'm using them interchangeably here.
There are a couple problems I see here. First, the contract has to be agreed upon. No one signed a contract that says "I want to be born to keep civilization going, and that upon rejection of this civilizing effort, I have no recourse except suicide, otherwise I would be harming mankind by sticking around and not doing so". No one signed that.
Also, an obligation to keep civilization going seems to also suffer from lack of a justification. Just as I can take "to do to do to do" and make it infinitum, "to civilize, to civilize, to civilize" or rather "keep civilization going to keep civilization going, etc." also suffers from infinite regress. Now, I see where you are sort of going with this- others will always be born, so it is up to us to make sure they have the fruits of civilization. We have obligations to past and future contingent connections, etc. However, this also suffers from no justification. I may be part of this historical-cultural setting that I was thrown into, but what is the reason to keep the fruits of civilization going? It is a snake that eats its tail.. We don't want to starve and live in a barbaric way so we keep civilization going so others can be born and so others can be born and so others can be born.. It is still all instrumental. It does not get out of the cycle.
Well, this to me actually seems to show a pattern. When a society has enough people of a certain socio-economic level, one perhaps with more self-reflection of existence itself, perhaps procreation seems less desirable. The world becomes instrumental upon reflection, why bring more people into it? Less time just surviving perhaps leads to idle time for reflection (Bertrand Russell praised idleness for example). This idleness may even lead to thoughts of existential instrumentality. Why keep it all going? Seems logical.
Quoting Thorongil
So even if this was the implication, so what? Why not take it even further, prefers nothingness.. because after barbarism and anarchy, perhaps complete extinction of the species, right? If there was no human, what would that mean? If there was no consciousness, what would that mean? Why do more individuals born into the world and producing science/technology and all the rest need to be put forth?
Quoting Thorongil
Well, this is a descriptive thread about our existential situation. I am not laying blame per se. I am being "plaintive" in cajoling those who do want to procreate to look at the big picture as to why. To take the questioning all the way down, and not to stop at merely "X, Y, or Z" reasons, but keep going with the "why".. Keep deconstructing it to the very mechanism, which I believe to be the basis for human life, instrumentality itself.
The ethical implication comes in when it deals with making more people to deal with life in the first place, for whatever reason.
I agree.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Some people do not see the vanity in it. The ironic thing is that the more reflection we have on it, the more it becomes in vain, the more repetitive and unnecessary it seems. Why do people need to go through it in the first place is a bit different than, we are already here an we get pleasure out of things.
I think there's also an element of disbelief accompanying all this. Like it's actually hard to believe, not because it's far-fetched but simply because how underwhelming and unsatisfactory it is. It's not until the end of our lives that we really get it, after we've gone through life and seen it all happen.
For many people, simply because they have an inborn feeling that they want to. What more reason do you expect or ask for?
A want, choice or preference needn't be justified in terms of something else.
For others, it might, instead, be that they just enjoy the process. :)
Michael Ossipoff
Levinas also touches on enjoyment, on jouissance, being primary, before all this thinking. What of this aspect of his views?
I'm interested in the absence of sex/gender in your musings about this topic. It doesn't require a psychoanalyst to wonder whether there isn't something about *mothers*, rather than people in general, that you're implicitly addressing. The abstractions you talk in seem to be the ways an academic could-be-father would think about such a topic. What of the could-be-mother's body and what the body's moods and tempers and temperaments tell a woman?
I'm a fairly old man, beyond fatherhood now, and never fathered children. Even this male body of mine sometimes feels a great surge of parentness, though, towards children, and grief towards the children I might have had. These are profound feelings that seem to be treated as somehow insignificant in your account.
But they have. It is implicitly agreed upon so long as one upholds the law and desires its just emendation, respects the rights of others, and looks to the past so as to determine one's actions in the present and the future. You do all of that on a daily basis. As I said, the only way to opt out of this contract is to commit suicide or a crime that leads to imprisonment, whereby one is voluntarily or involuntarily removed from society.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Finish the sentence. We don't want to starve and live in a barbaric way, so we keep civilization going so that others can be born without having to starve or live in a barbaric way.
Thus:
Quoting schopenhauer1
So that others can be born without having to starve or live in a barbaric way.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Wrong. We have already agreed that humans reproduce whether in civilization or in barbarism, and it is clearly preferable that they do so in the former. You can't have it both ways. You can't simultaneously bemoan the injustice, evil, and suffering in life while at the same time deliberately condone their infliction in order to bring about the extinction of human beings. You must choose: either you commit to maintaining civilization, in which case you oppose barbarism, or you commit to barbarism, in which case you have no grounds for advocating anti-natalism on the basis of concern for human beings. Your anti-natalism would have to be grounded in a hatred of life and of human beings and in the desire for human extinction or the pleasure you feel in imagining this.
You are just restating the argument you had originally. As I said earlier: "No one signed a contract that says "I want to be born to keep civilization going, and that upon rejection of this civilizing effort, I have no recourse except suicide, otherwise I would be harming mankind by sticking around and not doing so". No one signed that."
Quoting Thorongil
So again, how does this refute the earlier argument I made: "Now, I see where you are sort of going with this- others will always be born, so it is up to us to make sure they have the fruits of civilization. We have obligations to past and future contingent connections, etc. However, this also suffers from no justification. I may be part of this historical-cultural setting that I was thrown into, but what is the reason to keep the fruits of civilization going? It is a snake that eats its tail.. We don't want to starve and live in a barbaric way so we keep civilization going so others can be born and so others can be born and so others can be born.. It is still all instrumental. It does not get out of the cycle."
Quoting Thorongil
This is ultimately a false dichotomy. I prefer for no suffering and no instrumentality. I rather prefer that civilization comes to a point where it realizes the instrumentality of things, not that civilization demises altogether. If I were to agree to your premise, it would be to take humanity to the level of understanding of instrumentality and turning away from it, not to bring it to barbarism. There is no "If not this, then it has to be that", hence the false dichotomy.
So someone else's whole existence, whereby instrumentality (doing just to do), forced goal-seeking, and contingent harm is not justified? That seems a bit short-sighted.
There's a few things here. First, why assume that mothers are the only ones who nurture? I use nurture here, because I know Levinas specifically mentions to be nurtured as the originary form of coming into the world for a baby. You already sort of address this with the mentioning fatherhood.. I try to avoid gender/sexual politics in this in general, but it can be discussed. Do women experience some sort of biological "need" to nurture their own offspring? I don't know if human biology works like that. There are guys (and gals) who drool over a fancy car. They treat it with care and respect and maintain it really well. Is that biological? I doubt it. How do you know that you do not just falsely attribute instinct to what is simply a preference that is influenced by society? "I have an existential hole in my life (instrumentality but ill-formed) but creating a new human that I must put much of my life's effort can fill that" can be a better explanation than instinct per se. There is a tendency to overextend evolutionary biology too much in our preferences and decisions. We have general processors, neuroplasticitiy, and linguistic-conceptual frameworks that can make the one-to-one instinctual reasoning of other animals less pertinent.
Also, how does the preference of the mother/parent override the 80+ years of the new person's life that will be created as a result?
And I disputed this claim you have quoted.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What are you talking about? I answered the question you asked in this quote.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Then you presuppose the maintenance of civilization until it reaches such a point.
I'd said:
You replied:
So someone else's whole existence, whereby instrumentality (doing just to do), forced goal-seeking, and contingent harm is not justified? That seems a bit short-sighted.[/quote]
[/quote]
Sure, especially when you consider that birth-control is available.
But don't underestimate the strength of those needs.
After all, the only reason why we're all here today is because our ancestors had those inclinations.
A subset of the population without those needs would be long-extinct by now.
One more thing:
By my metaphysics, the mere possibility of there being a world in which not everyone uses birth-control is all it takes. By individually not reproducing, you aren't really preventing any births.
I believe someone here mentioned something like that.
Nevertheless I wouldn't want to cause anyone to be born, unless I were with someone who really badly wanted to rear a child.
Michael Ossipoff
I don't think you did. Your little formula (Burkean influenced you say?) does not solve the problem of instrumentality, and in fact perpetuates it as we are now living so others can live, so others can live, so others can live. There's a lot of collateral damage in that, with the individuals thrown into existence to maintain this. However, you're getting to a possible answer when you attach instrumentality to this. However, I would not say there is any hard obligation here, as stated earlier with the none contract that was signed.. No one asked to be born and to contribute to the maintenance of civilization or will otherwise agree that suicide is the only recourse for not contributing. This I am guessing is sort of a Burkean social contract, but (and other Enlightenment social contract theorists) didn't think of "life" as something that was done to someone, they assumed its existence without thinking of the procreation of another person involved.
Quoting Thorongil
Sure? I just don't see it as my mission. Rather, I prefer the fruits of civilization over not..but that is not even necessarily the case as it could be true that I was born into a "barbaric" society (whatever that is), and still enjoy it, if I knew no other alternative. Rather, from my vantage now, which is quite biased, the Westernized civilization I live in is one I know and am most comfortable in. However, I would never say that everyone is "here to maintain civilization" as an end to itself. Rather, people maintain civilization because it is the easiest way to live and produce entertainment as far as we know.
Though from what I have read, some tribal societies, like the Bushmen, seem to live and entertain themselves quite easily, despite a possible early death. However, I still say instrumentality is foundational to all humans and all cultures. Nothing "needs" to be maintained.
What is wrong with that though? You are assuming that is necessarily bad. It is simply non-being.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Yes I acknowledged this in my first post. You'd have to elaborate on your "metaphysics" though in order for this to have context though.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
But that is yet again, not thinking of the future child which you are now going to create that needs to need, when the need did not have to be created in the first place if you never had the future child.
I'd said:
You replied:
I didn't mean that there'd be anything wrong with it. I just meant that there's a very good reason why it isn't surprising that we now have a population in which nearly everyone seems to want to reproduce.
That attribute has been very strongly selected for. The extinction of otherwise-disposed lines of heredity is the reason why pretty much everyone now alive wants to reproduce.
I'd said:
You replied:
I suggest that, for each person, this life is a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story. There are infinitely many such stories, encompassing every self-consistent life-experience possibility-story.
A life-experience possibility-story is a system of inter-referring if-then facts.
For example, the laws of physics are "if" facts that relate various physical quantity values. The physical laws and the quantity-values are parts of the if-clause of hypothetical if-then facts. These if-then facts have a then-clause that consists of other physical quantity-values.
Mathematical theorems are if-then facts whose if-clauses include (but aren't limited to) a system of axioms.
Each life-experience possibility-story is an inter-referring system of such hypotheticals.
There are infinitely many, and each of our lives is one of those life-experience possibility-stories.
I call that metaphysics "Skepticism", because it doesn't need or use any assumptions, or posit any brute-facts.
Rejection of assumptions is skeptical, justifying that name.
I'd said:
You replied:
Yes, but I'd put my wife's needs first, and maybe she'd very strongly want to bear and raise her own child. But yes, I wouldn't advocate it to her.
Michael Ossipoff
Michael Ossipoff
This appears to be your answer to why instrumentality is a problem. The problem with it is that, instead of merely acknowledging the fact that human beings will exist in the future, you resort to hyperbolic and sophistical expressions like "thrown into existence." No one is thrown into existence, for no one exists before they exist, which is both impossible and absurd. The act of procreation does not pluck pre-born souls from the ether and force them into bodies.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Nor did anyone ask not to be anything or not to contribute to the maintenance of civilization. Prior to existing, we couldn't ask to be or not to be anything, because there was no "we." Moreover, once we do exist, there isn't any way to determine whether existence is preferable to non-existence, since no one has or can experience non-existence to make the comparison. So you have no reason to conclude, on the basis that humans behave instrumentally, that it is preferable that they not exist so as not to behave in such a way. For all you and I know, which is, by definition, nothing in this case, non-existence may be worse than existence.
Quoting schopenhauer1
A barbaric society is one inferior to a civilized one. If you understand and appreciate the benefits of civilization, then you wouldn't enjoy living in a barbaric society, even if you knew of no alternative, for otherwise you would be other than you are. Not all people living in such societies enjoy living in them, and so you would be one of them.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Neither would I. You have phrased this as a descriptive claim, but I'm saying civilization ought to be maintained, not that it is maintained because that's our purpose. And it ought to maintained for the reason that we owe it to future generations.
Just because there was no "pre-born souls" which you very-well know I don't believe in, does it then mean that people are not "thrown into existence". You are born without having a say, because it is impossible. Someone is born and it happened not of their own cause. It is not hyperbolic, but is simply what happens. There was no human, and then there is. Wherever you cut this "there is", it happens at some point and that is the "thrown" that you think is hyperbolic.
Quoting Thorongil
Yes if a tree falls in the woods, and there's no one there to hear it.. People need to exist for consent to exist. Thus, there cannot be "no wanting to exist" without existence. I was figuring you were going to go in that direction. The problem is, not existing would have not even made this an issue in the first place. Why create any issue at all? Why create those who need to be obligated to others, if what you are saying is something you strongly believe is what we must do. Forcing someone into an obligation to the species or be obliged to commit suicide seems its own bizarre justification.
Quoting Thorongil
Not preferable but, simply would be a non-issue. Born = issue. Not born, no issue, nor would it matter that there is no issue either. Just non-being.. Cannot get beyond the words here unfortunately whend discussing non-being (shades of Wittgenstein..etc. etc.). However, from the perspective of being, born one can get to understanding of instrumentality, striving, and for the non-reflective the actual "living in striving" and the ever present contingent harms of the many ways the world impinges on us in unwanted ways.
Quoting Thorongil
Well, this may be an abuse of the word non-existence. No one can really speak about it directly, only about it.. and even that seems absurd.. However, I don't think "worse" even really makes sense when discussing something like non-existence other than a word-game as the counterfactual to existence from the perspective of one already existing.
Quoting Thorongil
I'm not sure about that.. Again, Bushmen might like their lifestyle and not give a shit about the millions of complex technological advances or whatever other standin for our current civilization. You are overvaluing science, technology, arts, humanities, and the rest as an end in itself and not seeing it too as just another instrumental goal. I am not saying I don't like or prefer these things, just that it is not a justification in and unto itself.
However, to indulge your cultural absolutism.. perhaps we can get to a state where all people can become of one civilization and then realize the absurdity of instrumentality. So in a way, I agree with you that, the way history has played out, Western civilization will perhaps bring us to this conclusion.. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey and the Space Baby representing the new human understanding..of the absurdity of instrumentality. The absurdity of procreation for procreation, to do to do, to be to be.
As an aside, I am not liking the character of this debate because I am being pigeonholed into a debate about an absolute ethics which I don't hold. I don't condemn people who have kids. I don't think there is necessarily an obligation either. I just want people to think more about the implications of procreation, what that will do for the future person, and what instrumentality means about human life in general.
...but, actually, that was only because all but one of them had had her children long before we met.
Michael Ossipoff
"Thrown" has implicit normative connotation. It implies that someone who already exists is forced to do something without their consent. But as I argued and as you acknowledge here, that is not what happens. Parents cause their children to exist, but they do not, and cannot, force them to exist. Thus, the causative act of procreation is amoral and, for that very reason, permissible.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Why are you asking me? I don't plan on having children, but I recognize that other people do and that this can be beneficial with respect to the maintenance of civilization. Secondly, you're still resorting to normatively charged, hyperbolic language, e.g. "forced." Once again, no one is forced into said obligation, just as no one is forced to exist. Whether you find this "bizarre" or not is irrelevant to its truth.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don't think you can say in an absolute sense that there is no issue with not being born. How could you possibly know that, unless, again, you had prior acquaintance with nonexistence so as to make the comparison? It could turn out that God exists, in which case, nonexistence is known to be worse than existence from his larger perspective. It could turn out that rebirth and/or reincarnation is true, in which case, even if all human beings ceased procreating, they would still be reborn as other creatures and so continue the cycle of birth and death, or else be reborn as human beings in a future kalpa.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No, they live in a primitive society. Primitive -> barbaric -> civilized. Merriam-Webster: "barbaric: possessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex than primitive culture but less sophisticated than advanced civilization."
Quoting schopenhauer1
I apologize for in any way souring the conversation, but I was simply interested in knowing where you stand on this issue. You and I go back a long time at this point, schop1. As you know, I used to be an anti-natalist, and I know you were one too, but as I explained earlier, over time I realized I couldn't reach its conclusion based on the ethical premises I accept. I have also come to find the arguments for anti-natalism unpersuasive. At the moment, I'm neither a natalist nor an anti-natalist. Your present position has remained a bit of an enigma, in that you make threads like this one that seem to beat around the bush. If you don't condemn people for having children, that is actually news to me, especially given the many artifacts of anti-natalist arguments you have employed thus far in this thread. When did you reject anti-natalism, and how did you come to such a position?
I've always had the feeling that Schopenhaur1 has about this. I always said, "I never chose to be born."
And of course it's true.
But, now, my criticism of my (now passed-on) parents isn't that they brought me into the world. It's just that they were thoroughly unqualified as parents.
I believe that not just anyone should be allowed to create and raise kids. There should be qualifications and evaluations. And removal should be a lot easier and more frequent than it is now.. Just speaking from experience.
Anyway, as Schopenhaur1 has agreed, this matter is moot, because, by some metaphysicses, including mine, not reproducing in this world doesn't really prevent any births overall, because all that's needed for a birth is the mere possibility of a world in which not everyone practices birth-control.
Anyway, of course life isn't all bad. It has really good potential. And, reluctantly, I have to admit that there's a sense in which my birth was partly because of me. A life-experience possibility-story's Protagonist is someone about whom there can be a life-experience story. That story, with a Protagonist just like me, was already always there, and it's a life-experience possibility-story only because of its Protagonist who would have to be someone inclined to be involved in life, with some inclination toward life.
According to Eastern traditions, there's such a thing as people who, by long diligent practice, in many lives, now have no strong sense of identity, or involvement in life, or stake in life, such as inclinations, needs or wants. ...and no un-discharged consequences remaining from previous consequence-producing actions. There wouldn't be another life-experience possibility-story about such a person.
Obviously, then, there could this life-experience possibility-story about me only because I'm not such a person.
So, people who are born are people who want and like life. Yes, you could say that about fighting-roosters and their the fighting that they're bred to want. But of course the difference is that that breeding is artific[ally done to them by humans.
Michael Ossipoff
It's only true in the trivial sense that you didn't exist prior to being born, which is in fact a mere tautology, but not in the sense that you were forced to exist. Anti-natalists want to make the latter claim so that they can declare birth an evil and procreation immoral.
It doesn't matter, because tautologies are no less true by being tautologies.
A newborn is bewildered, and maybe frightened. All of us find ourselves here without it being obvious that we wanted to be here.
Tautology or not, of course it's true (except for the considerations that I mentioned in my previous post).
Not entirely, for the reasons that I mentioned in my previous post.
But being forced into life doesn't require that you were a pre-existing person who was then forced into life. Being forced into life is something that can be said of the newly-existing person brought into the world.
As of the time of your conception and birth, that's when that new you was forced into life,
Listen to what a newborn has to say about that.
Michael Ossipoff
I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm saying that it doesn't say what anti-natalists want it to say and/or imply.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Yes it does.
But couldn't you have that perception at the beginning of your life?
"I don't want to be here. How did this happen?"
As a newborn, aren't you forced?
Michael Ossipoff
You exist at the moment of conception. You're apparently trying to say that you don't exist until you're born, which is absurd.
Of course, you existed as a fetus before birth.
Ok, that just changes what moment is being talked about.
Before birth, you might have wondered what's going on, and why. And certainly even moreso again at the relatively sudden event of birth.
And, at birth, and maybe before it too, you might have felt an opinion about not wanting this unexplained state of affairs, about which you obviously, at any time during those times, had no choice.
But that's just hypothetical. I'm not saying for sure that you had an opinion that you didn't want what was happening. That probably isn't knowable, and there's some basis for arguing to the contrary (as suggested in my other post). Maybe you felt it to be an interesting, exciting, promising, adventure.
Michael Ossipoff
Michael Ossipoff
This is false. A fetus, by definition, attempts to live and grow unless impeded from doing so by external factors.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
The crying is concomitant with trying to breathe air for the first time and is used to predict the health of the baby.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Early humans were not stupid and so wouldn't give birth next to lion dens. They traveled in protected groups.
The story told from a woman's point of view makes no sense at all. Procreation is something a man does, and a woman becomes. 'Why do it?' makes sense, whereas 'why be it?' does not. It is the toxicity of individualism that leads down this path, that a lifeless universe is to be preferred - by no-one.
Yes, the infant, and therefore the fetus s/he was, could be expected, if only by natural-selection, to want life.
Michael Ossipoff
Parents cause their children to exist. Since it is an impossibility to ask something-that-does-not-exist to participate in its own birth, by being caused to be born, another human was affected without that person having input in the matter (by way of the impossibility of consenting in the first place). I am not saying this means the parent should be condemned (as I don't think of it in those terms with antinatalism), but just as I have explained it (that someone was affected without input).
However, it does implicate the parent in not perhaps thinking of the implications of causing that child's existence. The parent is causing a new being to contend with life, when there did not need to be anything to contend with in the first place. This is where I implore the future parent to look deeper at this implication. I also do not believe that we can choose NOT to deal with life once born. We are always dealing with life, forced to make goals, forced to make choices as is how life is structurally.. Thus to be caused to be born is to go through this, it is not something we can choose NOT to do (even the goal or choice of suicide is something we have to choose if we do not want the alternatives).
Quoting Thorongil
I just don't see how maintaining civilization or committing suicide is a goal unto itself. It is a hypothetical imperative that you seem to be making categorical..
Rather, if one is inclined to that civilization is something that is good because it provides X, Y, and Z and that is preferable, then by all means, one should support the cause of civilization, and ya know, "Rah Rah, Sis Boom Ba!" .. But if you would hypothetically prefer to see violence, chaos, and anarchy.. then that would make things less pleasant for those who do support the cause of civilization, and so unless you want to see, that nay nay.. but why ruin the parade of others boo boo!..
Even if people don't explicitly take this maintenance of civilization on as their goal, but rather pursue their self-interest within the framework of civilization we have now, not much would change.. No, listening to science and philosophy podcasts and books won't make much more contribution to civilization than the average folks that are producing stuff and buying stuff already... Those inclined towards invention will do so, those inclined towards art and philosophy will do so, just as those inclined towards sports, games, and the Wall Street investments will do so etc. etc., just as people have done through the ages who inadvertently without supporting violence, barbarism, or the other..
But again, all you are saying is "to maintain X, Y, Z society, you must support X, Y, Z factors". This is not saying much.. If you want to keep having nice cars.. you need to maintain engineers, manufacturing, and the like. Well ok, I just don't think that is much of a moral stance just a very basic understanding of how to keep the goods and services we prefer to have going.
Quoting Thorongil
I mean, c'mon this is language employed by a select group of intellectuals in the 1700s-1800s.. It's very antiquated. Franz Boas, a leading anthropologist of the 20th century contended this model for example. It also smacks of red herring as it does not get at the heart of the issue which is why bring more people into existence in the first place, not "how to keep the whole civilization thing going". And, as I already explained above, by existing, for the most part simply living day-to-day life without screwing up too much with other people or large swaths of society, they are "maintaining" de facto. But to support civilization means nothing, without the people there that "benefit" from the civilization.. But I am saying is you don't need the people to be there to benefit from it in the first place.. Yeah civilization seems to bring some cool stuff, but that's only if you prefer it (which most do), and thus most would assent to this anyways. It's like saying.. "politicians are all terrible".. Many people can agree with this.. but it's not saying much.. It's a platitude. No one has to hold a toga together with one hand, stoically stare into space in a statue pose, and carry around philosophy books to continue civilization either.
Quoting Thorongil
I know, we do go back a long time on these forums, especially regarding this issue. Yes, my present position is not really as forceful as previous iterations, but in the same spirit. I am less inclined to absolutist notions, and more interested in existential issues as a whole. I don't know if I necessarily reject antinatalism per se though.. I don't necessarily think in condemning or blaming ways is more like it. I think it is best not to be born, and promote this idea. I don't condemn people who do procreate though, which you may think is hypocritical, but may be different approaches to how we see the world. I see it more like eating animals.. Those who are strict vegetarians or vegans, may not participate in the animal byproduct industry as much as possible. They may even promote it as much as possible when they can.. But they don't need to be complete assholes to those around them, condemning them with full effect, etc.. just because this is something they strongly believe themselves. They can take a softer approach.. Yes, you can say if it is so important a cause, it should be akin to firebrand abolitionism, or civil rights activists. I don't think issues like these, where the norms are so beyond the common understanding, should be dealt in such a matter..
Also, I prefer antinatalism as an abstracted way to get at the instrumentality of life.. Birth is what leads to more life in the first place.. which leads to asking "why create more life in the first place?" This gets down to why people need to carry out this or that purpose that one is going to say needs to take place by individual humans who will carry out this mission. What is it about work, enculturation, dealing with life in general that needs to be experienced? What about the struggles that inevitabley occur? Why create more people that will need stuff? Etc etc.
How is this not making the same contradictory point but with different vocabulary? How is "affect without input" different from "force without consent?" The former appears as merely a euphemism of the latter, made in order to hide the contradiction embedded in the latter.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Agreed.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I suppose suicide could be seen as dealing with life, but I don't see what this is a reply to. I'll take it as a general comment.
Quoting schopenhauer1
But I would argue that one should support civilization because it's moral to do so. And it's moral because civilization is better than the alternatives at administering justice and providing for the well being of others. The person who prefers violence, chaos, and anarchy is not a moral person. So it's not that he's wrong to engage in such things "because they oppose civilization," but because they are wrong. On the other hand, it is not wrong not to support civilization for those who, as you say, peacefully pursue their self-interest within the framework of civilization.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Antiquation does not equal falsity.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes, and I am saying that the people will be there whether, by your lights, they "need" or "ought" to be or not! Call it a paradox, if you like, but that is the crux of my position.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Maybe nobody "has" to, but they do. And they will continue to do so whether you and I like it or not. The sooner we own up to this fact, the better, for then the burden of pining away in lonely, illimitable exasperation for an impossible utopia where no human beings exist, assuming it is one, will be lifted.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes, this does seem mildly inconsistent and slightly confusing to me still. Are you a moral relativist now perchance?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I see. Anti-natalism, but not as loud and abrasive.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Endlessly repeated questions like this, by the mere fact that they are questions, suggest that you wish you had an answer, or at least, a good answer, to them; that you believe there may be good answers to them that you simply haven't yet come across. Is this so or do you axiomatically deny that there could ever be any adequate answers given, such that these questions are meant merely to be rhetorical?
To take up the question again, no, maybe we don't need to create more people. But there are lots of things we don't need to do that we do, that you do. Why do you continue to do them? "Because of habit or natural instinct," you might reply. Ah, but if you realize that you do such things out of habit and instinct, and yet still continue do them, on what grounds can you criticize the act or the decision to procreate? Just because something is natural doesn't make it right (an appeal to nature), but it doesn't make it wrong either. "I just want parents to think about their decision more seriously." So do I. And if they have, and decide to have children while acknowledging and considering your questions, are they to be condemned? You have said both that you are an anti-natalist and that you don't condemn parents for having children. But you must choose, for these are not mutually compatible.
But I do not see the contradiction.. Just because that person was not around before his own birth does not mean that the impossibility of causing his own existence means that he was not affected without any input in the matter.. I don't see how that stands as a contradiction.
Quoting Thorongil
I think we agree on more than this discourse lets on, but I'll continue.
Quoting Thorongil
It's a reply to my original comment about being "forced" or "thrown" into the world. One is "forced" to make choices where before, there was no choices to be made as there was no person to make them.. A person was created, and by direct correlation, must be forced with decisions, burdens, and the rest. This is something "forced" "foisted" whatever, as a person was created that is correlated with these things, where in a counterfactual case, there may not have been someone created who was forced to with decisions, burdens, and the rest. I think the semantic word-game your argument is taking, discounts that we probably agree on the point.. If you want to rephrase it so that it satisfies your word-game, be my guest.. But I think you are getting it, but are stuck on the language used. For example, I have used in the past instead of "forced into existence" that "a state of affairs will take place that leads to X. Y, Z, when another state of affairs could have taken place that did not lead to X, Y, and Z". If you prefer me to assert the claim in that fashion, I'll accommodate. "Forced" is a colloquialism for this more elongated version. I feel this does not need to be stated, as you probably know it already.
Quoting Thorongil
Okay, fundamentally I agree with you here, but my point was that not many people are going to argue against you. As you agreed on, it is mostly in self-interest which is not working "against" civilization, but quite fitting in the framework and de facto consenting to the fruits of civilization. That's why I equated it to someone saying "All politician's are terrible". Well, most people can agree.. so it becomes a truism. It isn't saying much. I guess its aimed at terrorists and extremists who want to blow the system up or something, but when did the discussion veer to that? Also, who wold really want to live in utter chaos, anarchy, and violence their whole life? Not 95% of the population I'd guess. I think this came out of your answer to some sort of purpose.. Okay, but most people, as we both agree are just pursuing their self-interest in the given framework, trying to get by, so it is sort of a moot point. As you agreed with me on:
Quoting Thorongil
So, this is most people. The given of the system is to inadvertently contribute via the invisible hand, or on the rare occasion, those who have the skill and inclination and self-reflection to know they are contributing to something that provides some sort of "profound" innovation. However, I would not see people should be born to pursue this.. But I do not think you are too, so we can move on to the next topic.
Quoting Thorongil
Well, this is now getting caught up in that word-game thing again. No, of course I am not trying to say that because something is "out of fashion" that it must be wrong. Rather, I am saying that just as the "luminous ether" and the justification for acts of brutality like slavery were once something that was thought of as right, we have developed (more or less) more sophisticated observations and conclusions based on evidence and our general feelings towards diverse groups of people. So, in that regard, it is "outdated" like many scientific and social customs are "outdated" due to a better understanding of the world, not simply because it is "out of fashion".. On the similar token, some things like aesthetic preferences, like classical music is still "great" and not because it is not en vogue. But again, this is something I feel you know, and do not need to explain.
Quoting Thorongil
Okay, but then this is the crux of where we are crossing paths! I am not disagreeing with you about civilization, but the argument was about life's perpetual instrumentality.. Should we bring the system down as we contemplate the nuances of instrumentality? No, but I have never said that. Again, I feel you already know this.
Quoting Thorongil
No.. I will be answer this and your other comments soon..
Well, these questions seem to lead to a certain conclusion- that of the concept of instrumentality and unnecessary struggle. The absurd repetitious nature of life, the need for survival and entertainment, the burden of dealing with one's self, society, surroundings, and the contingencies of life itself. My hope is this makes people take pause. I believe, if it does not make people take pause, the actual implications of these consequences for a future child have not been realized. But it also should make them take pause of their own lives. This is not strictly about antinatalism, but about our own existential condition as self-reflecting beings. It leads back to the vanity of our pursuits, the repetitious nature of life, the constant pressure from needs and wants from our own nature, impinging harms from contingent circumstances, and importantly, the constant, relentless "dealing" with our own choices, circumstances in life. In my view, anything that gets more focus on this rather than ignoring our own unique situation is a good thing. Questioning procreation happens to be the best tool to bring people to a more existential understanding. So if I place "value" on something, it is understanding the our situation more clearly, seeing some of the negative implications, and preventing it. It is kind of a whole package. It is existentially motivated- not consequential, not necessarily deontological, but methodological.. It is antinatalism via a more overriding Pessimism, not antinatalism stark and naked. Why the methodology? Because that is the part that answers the "how about the people already existing part". Simply saying.. more people means more suffering is hallow without the implications of what this means for us.. It makes us take stock of our own condition by going through the methodology and not merely acting on a principle in some "If-then" none self-reflecting way.
Quoting Thorongil
So this idea of antinatalism is very much tied to our own existential condition. The very "why" we do anything- why things are worth it. This is very abstract and to many people, this kind of abstractness does not translate immediately. Being more of a methodologically-oriented ethic, it takes time to grapple with these things. Similar to Schopenhauer's idea of the vanity of things unfolding over certain predisposed personalities over time, this questioning process and insights into instrumentality take time to understand its implications. This is the part that matters for the already-existing.. the concept of antinatalism again, is a tool for this self-understanding. So it is mutually compatible.. Also, secondarily, as I think I said earlier, like vegetarians that practice and promote their cause without being obnoxious or abrasive, when something that is way outside the normative view is abrasively shoved down people's throats, that does not really do much. There are certain things worth condemning that immediately affects those already-existing: torture, stealing, taking away people's relative freedom of choice, etc. etc. But this more abstract principle of antinatalism is a bit harder to qualify for people. Creating people that by correlation must deal with life by their mere existence, does not compute right away.
So in a very roundabout, with many caveats way, Thorongil, I agree with you. I have sympathy with people who have children out of some joyful hope of things. I think there might be non-reflection going on, but this again is methodological... The person can come to the existential conclusions about life even after they have a kid. It is not the direct consequence that matters, but the self-reflection and understanding from this. Thus, no the "blame" is not necessarily on the parents, the way someone who is torturing can be blamed. I am not sure if what I am laying out is even considered "ethics" in the traditional sense as more of a theory of value and aesthetic outlook in a more general sense.
The contradiction resides in the word "affected" here, or any other synonym you might use. Prior to birth, the person was not affected by anything, because he didn't exist. Birth is not itself an affection but rather the condition for being affected.
Quoting schopenhauer1
The language here matters precisely because, put one way, procreation and those who engage in it are immoral, and put another, they are not. In other words, if it's true that all people are "forced" into existence, then anti-natalism follows, and possibly suicide along with it. If it's not true that people are forced into existed, but are merely caused to exist, then anti-natalism doesn't follow.
Let me give an example. When Iceland beat England in the European Cup a year ago, nine months later the country experienced a surge in births. See here. Now, if we use the language you have just agreed to use, namely, that "a state of affairs will take place that leads to X, Y, Z, when another state of affairs could have taken place that did not lead to X, Y, Z," then the Icelandic footballers form a link in a causal chain that leads to the creation of more human beings. Would it make sense to cast moral blame on them? No, of course not. We're just describing a state of affairs, which, by definition, carries no normative weight. But if human beings are "forced" to exist, then the situation changes, for such language cannot but entail negative moral evaluation of procreation. The footballers would then be implicated in the creation of human beings, so that if procreation is wrong, you would have to be opposed to football. But think of all the other things that play a causal role, however dimly, in the creation of children. One would have to be opposed to civilization itself. This is why a consistent anti-natalism is incompatible with civilization, such that to accept one is to reject the other, and vice-versa.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I would, though. My position is that there is a general duty (or that it is good) to support civilization, which directly entails the creation of life for that purpose, not in order to support civilization for its own sake, but for the sake of those who will be born into the world regardless of whether there is civilization or not. If it were the case that only people who understood this had children, there would be no reason to have children. But there are people who have children for a multitude of other, less justifiable reasons, and so there is a reason for the former to have children for the sake of the latter. This is why I spoke of my position as being somewhat paradoxical. Does this make sense, and, if so, do you still believe we are in agreement?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don't think these things are for naught, for to believe that they are would entail metaphysical naturalism, which I don't believe is true. But if you think they are, then I would love to know why.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Fully agreed.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So is it that you think that by merely encouraging people to think about the topic, to "take pause," as you said, they will choose not to procreate of their own accord and as a matter of course?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Again, though, what of the people who choose to have children after having taken pause, considered anti-natalism, and charitably listened to your thoughts on instrumentality? Can such people exist or would you simply declare of them that they weren't reflective enough (meaning that, if one reaches the level of reflection you seek, they couldn't not choose not to have children)?
Being birth is "affecting" someone as there is now an existence of an identity where there was none before. So I still contest this objection.
Quoting Thorongil
To me, this is a false dichotomy as I explained later on in my last post, that blameworthy is a spectrum and not an "if then" binary case.
Quoting Thorongil
I have several issues with this. You are making a lot of tenuous jumps here to get to your argument. The decision to create the child "forces" the child into existence. You can take any act and make a claim of determinism. So a murderer killed someone but he had a bad upbringing too. Are the parents then put on trial? Society as a whole? Certainly a state of affairs where someone is dead by the hand of another occurred where it may not have occurred.. You can use blame there. But, as I stated earlier, I do not even look at procreation in the same moral category as murder and the usual suspects of ethical inquiry. At least that is my current position.
Quoting Thorongil
I am not sure I get this reasoning. Why do people who do not want children but support civilization need to have children? That is paradoxical indeed. As we agreed on earlier, the average folk will follow self-interest and thus inadvertently advance civilization. You don't need to force those who don't agree to procreate to do this to carry on a tradition for the others. Even if that is the case, using someone for the needs of civilization (if you do not think life should be carried out by a new person if it can be prevented reasonably) would be performing a greater wrong.
Quoting Thorongil
These are the reasons I gave for not putting forth new humans if it can be helped. To not give them these burdens.
Quoting Thorongil
Sort of. Yes, I hope this is the conclusion, but then they can see these aspects in their own lives so it is a greater self-awareness of the instrumental, repetitious, burden-overcoming nature of life, so it becomes therapeutic in its own goading to questioning our own existence. I thought you would understand this, especially after seeming to be a devote of many of the observations that Schopenhauer elaborates on that are similar in theme.
Quoting Thorongil
I would like to think the latter. However, if it is the former, than what can I do? They had a different perspective on it. But since the topic is so outside the purview of the average understanding of things, I do not condemn with blame at least not in the same way it might be for murder, torture, etc.
This is incoherent to me. "Birth" just designates the moment that one came into being. It can't "do" anything, for it describes a fact, a state of affairs. It's a noun, not a verb.
I genuinely don't know how this is a reply to what you quoted of me, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say either. It seems that we can't get past the question of whether people are forced to exist. I say, unequivocally, that they are not and cannot be forced to exist. To say that they are is strictly meaningless, though, I admit, has the appearance of meaning. I've tried explaining why several times now. If you don't understand or I'm just being unclear, there's not much more I can say.
Quoting schopenhauer1
They don't! I said many posts ago that I was speaking of a general, not an individual, duty. There is more than one way to support civilization, not just procreation. But I say procreation is one way.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes, but I'm saying that if naturalism is false, it's possible that such negative experiences do have some greater meaning or purpose. I believe I said this earlier, but naturalism directly entails anti-natalism. If nothing but the physical world exists, i.e. the world is self-justifying, then nothing in principle could ever justify all the suffering, misery, etc that it contains. In fact, suicide would be a perfectly moral decision in that case. Why stick around and prolong the burdens of "instrumentality?" There would be no reason to, absent any possibility of greater meaning and salvation.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I've moved beyond Schopenhauer a bit in recent years. His philosophy still forms the prism through which I view the world, but precisely because I know it so well (or at least I think I do), its deficiencies are put in starker relief.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I have asked myself the question I just posed to you. In contemplating the former option I sketched, what I have done is engage in critical self-reflection. Anti-natalists take great pride in the fact that hardly anyone seems to problematize procreation like they do. Anti-natalism's obscurity is therefore perhaps its greatest strength. But it doesn't follow from the fact that it appears as though most people don't think about the morality of procreation that procreation is wrong.
Yo I'm gonna steal this (Y) 8-)
I'll give credit, of course.
Yet that's not my goal at all- fighting for the forgotten, or self-righteous whatever. I'm frankly a bit offended you would try to characterize my argument like that. I especially went at length to say that the theory isn't meant to be condemning and that it is more aesthetic than moral and that my theory was being characterized in a way that made it moralistic despite my protestations in order to make it a foil for whatever beef you had with "antinatalists" writ large.
Probably so.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don't think he was necessarily talking about you.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Is this directed toward me? I still don't understand what "aesthetic anti-natalism" means, if that is in fact your position. I don't see how anti-natalism could be anything other than a moral position.
I see, but then I go back to my objection that you are weighting civilization greater than the individual's suffering. People should be born to keep civilization going is using individuals for some cause. Using people for this means, seems uncaring towards the individual. If people must be used to make the people existing not suffer, then there is a knot that needs to be untied, and the solution is not more people (and ipso facto suffering people).
Quoting Thorongil
Okay, so we agree on something if naturalism holds true (I am not sure I am a naturalist, but I will entertain it for the sake of argument).
Quoting Thorongil
Because as I've stated in another discussion: Fear of death, the "unknown", pain, and the unsettling idea that there will be no future "self" that we are so used to chattering with, are sufficient enough reasons to me for why people do not commit suicide often outside of extremely painful circumstances.
In other words, the world is what we know, and to dissolve all of what we know is scary, so fear keeps us from answering that existential question posed to life with the suicide.
As far as a possible religious answer to the suffering (as I think you are gravitating towards that right?), I think an answer in another discussion fits as well:
Why does reconciliation need to be maintained though? So God wants humans to exist so that they make right decisions in order to reconcile back to God. Why go through all this in the first place? Sounds like a game of sorts. No matter how you look at it, if you value "you" as an individual with your own feelings, pains, wants, etc. then you mean nothing to this deity as far as "you" as an individual person is concerned. You are only good insofar as your plans comport with "the good", which is all that matters to this vision, as this leads to reconciliation. If this is the case, humans are instrumental to this end for God. He is in the end, uncaring about you, the individual, as much as your value in the vision of how you are to be used for his plan.
The situation sucks no matter what. What does it matter whether you suffer for a grand plan, or for no reason at all? As far as the measily human is concerned, is the grand plan supposed to be comforting? As a matter of practical import, there is not much difference between the two. We can imagine things which don't exist. Our guilt knows no bounds. Combine those together and you have a God that created free-willed humans who are constantly transgressing and need to reconcile. Evil occurs due to our fallen state, a punishment. Boy can we reify some guilt.
Quoting Thorongil
Sure, same here.. There are a lot of things, especially regarding his metaphysics (ugh, the "Forms" and his mis-understanding of evolution.. he was just a bit before Darwin's theory was popularized). But many of his observations about the nature of suffering and the nature of our own needs and wants were very well-stated. The spirit of his message still rings true.
Quoting Thorongil
No, but it is at least misguided that most people don't think of procreation in the realm of moral theory in general (whether it is right or wrong). However, my point was exactly that because it is so outside people's purview, I would not be self-righteous about it (at least not outside philosophy forums and those who would possibly understand its implications and even then I would not characterize my arguments as self-righteous but more explanatory, descriptive, etc.).
Quoting Thorongil
Okay, I have not explained this well. I will retract that it is not just aesthetic, but the ethic entails an aesthetic aspect to it. So where something like Benetar's conception (which is not the only antinatalism, just the most popular, especially due to the neologism) is based on utilitarian reasoning, this is mainly based on a mix of aesthetic and deontological reasoning. It is deontological, as the individual human life is not calculated based on a grand plan, or vision of some abstract principle.
Aesthetic here means the recognition of the suffering that occurs through a series of existential question-asking. You work to work to work. You do to do to do. You exist to exist to exist. The repetitious nature of existence coupled with subtle and profound, necessary and contingent forms of suffering become apparent with enough reflection. That is important in this ethic- the self-reflection. Simply stating "procreation is wrong" is simply a conclusion but does not encompass the full picture. You can say that the ethic is more Pessimism with antinatalism as one main idea that comes out of it, but not antinatalism completely separated as its own thing that is independently and starkly thrown out as a polemic against people for blame or condemnation. So in this view it is a whole package.
That's not how I see it. I'm privileging civilization precisely for its ability to address the individual's suffering better than the alternatives.
Quoting schopenhauer1
But again, it's not uncaring. It has the care of the individual primarily in mind. Also, you can't "use" people who don't exist.
This actually reminds me of what I called a deontological argument for anti-natalism that I made some time ago. It went something like this:
1. It is wrong to treat humans as means and not as ends in themselves.
2. Procreation is to treat potential humans as means and not as ends in themselves.
3. Therefore, procreation is wrong.
Both premises, however, can be challenged. The first doesn't seem to admit of universal applicability. If I use a doctor as a means to fix my tooth, have I really committed wrongdoing? Clearly not, as both parties have consented to an action that will mutually benefit them. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any actions that would escape being wrong, according to the first premise, apart from rare instances of pure altruism and compassion perhaps. Concerning the second premise, as I said right before the argument, you can't treat or use people who don't exist as or for anything, so the premise is nonsensical.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes.
Quoting schopenhauer1
They may be sufficient reasons, but they are not good reasons, for they make the individual a coward and a hypocrite. And if you're going to excuse hypocrisy in this instance, then why would you likely not excuse what you would consider the hypocrisy of someone who chooses to have children despite knowing all about instrumentality and the like? That is to be quite selective in the hypocrisy you condone. Feel free to challenge my assumption about you, though.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not necessarily. It could be a philosophical one. I'm merely concerned with the possibility.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Ironically, I tend to think he ought to have reversed the status of the Ideas and the will, as in fact he did do in his early manuscripts. In other words, I think he ought to have moved closer to Platonism, not farther away.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes, but no less stated by countless other religious, philosophical, and poetic texts.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Granted, but I would expand this by saying that the anti-natalist ought not to assume that anyone who has looked into anti-natalism and rejected it rejects it because they're an incorrigible and delusional optimist. I witness a lot of armchair psychologizing among many anti-natalists: "Oh, you reject our arguments? Well, that must be because you don't really understand them and are just looking to make excuses for your own selfish, immoral behavior." It's exactly equivalent to what the fundamentalist often says to the person who has lost his or her faith: "Oh, you rejected Christianity? Well, that must be because you never really believed, just didn't pray hard enough, or were abused by a Christian as a child."
Quoting schopenhauer1
Hmm. I'm still not quite sure I follow this, alas. :(
I don't see how using future people's lives who will suffer is justified for the reason that they will contribute to something that helps already existing humans as a general concept via "civilization". It's also somewhat circular. People need to be born so others don't suffer, but that causes more suffering, but let's solve it with more birth, which caused suffering in the first place. If my claim is that suffering is structural and is there from the beginning of existence for an individual, you can see how this indeed is circular reasoning.
Quoting Thorongil
I'm not sure how you are not understanding the concept that something "will" be used in the future tense, and once born "has" been used. Once born, the whole being used part occurs. This being used could have been prevented. There's no logically invalid anything going on. I tried to point to this earlier but you were not liking or getting it.. You made the argument that Iceland winning world soccer or whatnot caused more babies to be born, therefore, what are you going to do, blame soccer? Any my point was that this argument can be made of any act. At what point do you stop the causal chain of pointing to the actual moment when the act can be considered someone's doing? Well, I would say the parents having sex and bringing the baby about is a good place to start.. Just as maybe a murderer had a bunch of causal chain events that led him to kill someone, but we usually look at the actual events that directly brought this even about. So we can talk about causal chains and such, but then we are abusing our common notions of attribution, and thus render all language regarding this moot.
Quoting Thorongil
Well first off that is not a great example as both parties consented to this use of the doctor and thus the doctor was no unaware that his services in the role of doctor was being used and assented to it as this was also his own will. So, it is not so binary. Second, you can probably conjure up a better example where someone is not consented but clearly what was done helped the person in the long run. This is where I would say the first premise is simply too broad. It should be rather:
1. It would be wrong to treat humans as a means and not as an ends in themselves, if it brings about all structural and contingent suffering for another person's life.
2. Procreation treats humans as a means and not as an ends in themselves as it brings about all structural and contingent suffering for another person's life.
3. Therefore procreation is wrong.
Thus bringing a person into the world for some cause (for civilization, other people, etc.) but creates the situation of structural and contingent suffering for the individual being born has occurred.
Quoting Thorongil
Cowardice in the face of mortal death and pain is reasonable for the reasons I listed. That doesn't bother me. As far as hypocricy, it is not hypocritical to feel life as suffering but then not kill yourself. Suicide and the projection of an unknown non-existing self is scary for most. Rather, I think giving a new person the option of continuing to exist or make a most painful decision of suicide as well is rather an inescapable choice. There is no third alternative, though people like Schop's ascetics and the religious and the utopian theorists they may have found them.
Quoting Thorongil
Ha, I knew you were going to say that :P. Whether we disagree on the exact points he got wrong, we still agree that we think he got some things wrong (the fact that there is a verb of striving or that space/time exists along with Will.. how can there be one if there is something more than one.. the fact that the first animal of consciousness seems to be the time when the world of appearances started in time, which makes the first animal a very special creature indeed.. etc. etc.).
Quoting Thorongil
Yeah but not compiled in such a way in my opinion. Indeed I have mentioned many a time on here how Pessimism is a theme that goes back to ancient times and possibly further back.
Quoting Thorongil
Yet, based on my quote, have I said this? This seems to be a red herring aimed at antinatalists writ large but somehow is supposed to allude to my arguments though I keep on reiterating that I am not trying to be self-righteous or condemning, just explanatory of the situation. What you explain is the "bad" antinatalist/Christian's reaction to someone who "rejects" their worldview.. something I have not done. At the end of the day, you can only explain your point and if someone sees it, then they see it and will possibly change something as a result. Philosophy is not a totalizing thing where if you come up with the magic grail of arguments no one can ever claim you are wrong. Value is inherently hard to prove and so it is up to individual's to really work it out in their own head based on the evidence and arguments provided. I also stated how antinatalism, being so far out of people's recognition of what even counts as "moral", is not something that should really be condemned, just considered in the dialogue and at least heard out. If it's rejected, then it is not my job to shun them, yell at them, or want them arrested. Rather, I can keep making arguments respectfully if they are willing to listen or just let it be.
Quoting Thorongil
Well, I stated something in a post a while ago something l like this in discussions with darth:
Quoting schopenhauer1
But @darthbarracuda, I don't know do you have anything to add to explain more clearly "aesthetic Pessimism"?
"
Premise 1: If a person has an experience that a rational and well-informed person would prefer not to experience, then this person has been harmed (definition of harm).
Premise 2: But life as an experience is not something a rational and well-informed person would prefer (the negative perspective).
Conclusion 1: Therefore, life is harmful to a person.
Premise 3: But the life of a person depends on them having been born (self-evident truism).
Conclusion 2: Therefore, the birth of a person is harmful to this person.
Premise 4: But it is wrong to hurt other people (the fundamental ethical articulation).
Conclusion 3: Therefore, it is wrong to give birth to a person.
"
This is what I call the fundamental argument for antinatalism.
And while I agree with you that there is a fundamental "uncalmness" to phenomenal existence, I'm specifically focused on the anxiety produced by our inherent moral disqualification. We have to make do with the "lesser of all evils", go for the "greatest good", oftentimes solve difficult problems by appealing to the majority, and inevitably hurt or manipulate other people simply because we feel the need to live, progress, survive. We feel forced into political discourse, dirtying our hands and getting pissed off. We have to make exceptions to the fundamental ethical articulation, we can't get bogged down and worry about the "little things" we do that hurt other people. They are expendable and forgettable, apparently.
I happen to have consequentialist leanings but only because I believe the world we live in is incapable of sustaining a more natural, primordial deontological ethic. Deontology is often criticized for not addressing the problems with agent-relative reasons (refusing to hurt one person to prevent five more from equal treatment - it has an air of irrationality to it) - but that's not really the fault of deontology per se as much as it is the fault of those who decide it's okay to sustain a world in which we have to substitute this ethic for another one. In my view, the existence of substantial moral disagreement is a very troubling thing.
Therefore I believe that life is structurally negative and is morally disqualifying. We will never have a satisfactory ethic that affirms life, and this produces an anxiety in us. There's no such thing as "the good life", and everyone is guilty of doing something wrong. Most of the time it's not even our fault.
I can definitely get on board with this formulation. However, you are going to get the most flack from Premise 2. As Thorongil was alluding to, well-informed people may not agree that life is something not preferable. You may question their rationale (or whether they are rational) if this is the case though. I'd like to see your take on that objection.
Quoting darthbarracuda
I agree, by default of having to deal with life, many transgressions and aggressions have to be performed to simply sustain life, society, and adapt to everyday interactions. This means de facto that by being born we are going to be forced into morally suspect decisions, because its inherent in the "making do" process we need to perform to just get by. Moral perfection seems to be an impossibility by way of the moral compromises we have to make or overlook to get by.
Quoting darthbarracuda
I think deontology can be helpful to think of moral problems when not used in too broad a way. Kant's 1st formulation, for example, leaves it open for too many bizarre (i.e. repugnant) conclusions. He tried to make an airtight formula, and broadened it to such a degree that if there is a contradiction when universalizing a law, it is wrong. The spirit is good but the application is disconcerting.
The deontology of not using people as ends, which is his second formulation, is a bit more able to withstand some of these disconcerting conclusions and I think can be decoupled from his first formulation. What it does do well, is put individuals (agent-relative) as a starting point. However, this formulation does not seem to work when used in too universal a fashion either.
Rather, the "problem of suffering" is the heart of Pessimist ethics and involves existential issues of self-reflection on the human condition. Here is where the aesthetic aspect comes in. In order to understand suffering in its necessary (uncalmness/vanity/absurd/instrumentality) and contingent (numerous circumstantial) harms, one has to see the structural conditions of human life. Here the "insight" into how these sufferings manifest would probably have to be recognized through some sort of assent that this indeed is the case. Once this is recognized then you can say that using people by creating more people who will suffer for an abstract principle or any other reason would be not good.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Agreed.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Agreed.
No, I don't. You seem stuck in the land of the hypothetical. "People don't need to be born, so it's possible that humans will refrain from procreating." Yes, except the possibility of that ever happening is infinitesimally small; so small, in fact, that it has no relevance to the problem of human suffering in terms of its present, not to mention its past and future, character and arrangement. My argument seeks to address human suffering on the terms that it presents itself to us. Ingredient to those terms is the fact that humans will continue to procreate until they are no longer able to do so. We both know this. Repeating the statement that "we don't have to" is like yelling at a brick wall and expecting it to fall over. In the end, it's a waste of breathe, time, and energy, and will fail in its intended goal, an apt definition of anti-natalism.
In the meantime, humans continue to suffer. How might their suffering be alleviated, if its alleviation is a moral and noble enterprise? Again, not by writing books no one will read about how we ought not to have children. It will have to be done by other means. I have suggested one of those means, its generalness notwithstanding. Preserving civilization is no small task but easier than convincing the planet not to procreate. @darthbarracuda has his own ideas about how best to alleviate suffering, most notably what he and others call "effective altruism." That smacks of consequentialism to me, and so rubs me the wrong way, but we are both agreed that there are better ways to confront suffering than anti-natalism (I think; I don't want to put words in his mouth). Thus, the change in my views is not an evolution out of anti-natalism and into some kind of Panglossian casuistry, but out of the former and into what I take to be a morally serious position.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Wouldn't "structural" and "contingent" be opposites?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Ah, but if the prevention of suffering is what matters, then I have an easy reply. I could grant for the sake of argument that, on consequentialist grounds, humans ceasing to procreate prevents more suffering than preserving civilization, but once we factor in the given likelihood of these options occurring, then the first option is clearly the more likely and so the one that will prevent more suffering. In other words, my argument can be construed as beating the anti-natalist at his own consequentialist game.
As an aside here, I want to remind you that I gave you two hypothetical scenarios in which ceasing to procreate might not have the effect that you and the anti-natalist desire and expect. See here:
The only way to dispute these possibilities is, once again, to argue that naturalism/materialism is true.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I was speaking of suicide under the assumption that naturalism/materialism is true. If it's true, then there is no "unknown" of which you speak. Death is simply the dissolution of a material body, nothing more. So my charge of hypocrisy stands.
Quoting schopenhauer1
;)
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well, with respect, I still think you're trying to have it both ways. You seem to be in favor of anti-natalism in one comment (and in general), but are then seemingly opposed to it in others. I haven't been convinced that you're not an anti-natalist, in the strict (read: moral) sense of that term.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well said. I would add, though, that I don't think pessimism is absolutely committed to there having been no progress or to the impossibility of progress in the future. Ending slavery in the US was a form of moral progress, for example. An objectively better state of affairs for human beings living in this corner of the globe occurred. The pessimist is not pessimistic about such developments, seeing as they plainly exist, but about the ability to ever reach a state of perfection by our own efforts. Or at least, this would be my brand of pessimism. An even more radical form of pessimism might say that no one can ever reach a state of perfection by our own efforts or by any other means. I don't think Schopenhauer goes this far, though, for example, for he is adamant that the complete abolition of the will (his stand-in for perfection) is possible but not by mere human effort alone. I could go on at length about this aspect of Schopenhauer's thought, but I shall simply say that, for him, something akin to grace is necessary to achieve salvation.
I do have a question now: how might anti-natalism be asserted on non-consequentialist grounds? And I mean principled, ethical grounds, not contingent reasons like "overpopulation" (which is a myth) that some people like to give for not having children. Some kind of misanthropic nihilism and/or moral relativism come to mind, but that's about it.
This contains the same logical contradiction found in most other arguments for anti-natalism. The fact is that birth harms no one. To say that it does requires that people exist before they are born, which is to say that people can exist before they exist, an absurdity. There's no getting around this.
See my answer in the next quote to some of what you raise here. I would like to note, that you mention "serious" question versus not going to happen. I have never been caught up with the end result. Perhaps it will never happen. Part of the point of aesthetic understanding of structural suffering like instrumentality is that there is no end goal.. We do to do to do.. A new person born, is ipso facto a new person that is born and must deal with life. Is it noble to try to alleviate contingent suffering for those already here? I think so, but not at the cost of starting a new life that will now have to deal with life and its own structural and contingent harms when this did not have to occur.
Quoting Thorongil
Yes, they are in a way opposites. Structural is suffering that never goes away, whatever circumstance someone experiences and contingent harms are based on time, place, upbringing, causal reasons, setting, culture, genetics,etc. etc.
Quoting Thorongil
Nope, because it is not consequential. Rather, it is agent-centered- the individual's suffering is what matters, not this amorphous "suffering" as seen aggregated in some equation. The individual being born to lessen the suffering of others, is still creating a WHOLE new life that suffers and must be lessened by yet others. It's a treadmill of sorts. You have to draw the line in the sand. Preserving civilization to me, as explained earlier, is a tautology of sorts. I thought we agreed, most average folk do support this, just in their own self-interested, inadvertent way. It's already happening. Can there be a little more of this or that? Sure. "Civilization", despite the overblown rhetoric is still up and kicking, and defended and advanced by lawyers, judges, scientists, entrepreneurs, charities, universities, businesses, government entities, non-profits, and the like. This however, does not end the suffering en toto. Suffering will exist in a structural way. The aesthetic aspect is to see the structural suffering, which is subtle but all-pervasive. It is hard for some to see it as we are so used to seeing only contingent suffering as the form that "matters". The structural is existential and goes deeper than the foundations of material goods which your consequential formulation seems to indicate.
As far as nonexistence being worse, etc.. Non-existence has no worse.. you are actually doing what you are trying to accuse me of, reifying something that does not exist. It literally is nothing.. Since nonexistence can only be talked about in relation to the already-existing, we have no more to say about it, literally. As far as reincarnation, this again is the aesthetic aspect. It's not about the end goal, it's about understanding the situation and not wanting to put others in the situation.. It's not about a final consequence of complete nonbirth, it's about an understanding of the existential situation and doing something that comports with that. It is more than just stark naked antinatalism. It's about understanding our own existential condition.
Quoting Thorongil
See above.
Quoting Thorongil
Okay, the antinatalism comes from existential grounds.. Think of it as a first step in a questioning process that leads to greater understanding of the instrumental nature of things. So it's almost like existential therapy, if you will (with no connection to logotherapy, just in the fact that it has a self-questioning aspect). It also comes from deontological grounds- you don't treat people as a means to an end when it comes to starting a whole new life which will ipso facto have suffering by being in the first place. As far as the existential questioning, it is more fully stated in the OP:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Hardly, for we don't need someone to exist before they're born to be harmed. If something is bad to experience, then it is harmful for a person to experience it, even if they don't exist before. Especially if we define harm in the way I did in the first premise: something counts as a harm to a person if this person, if they were rational and well-informed, would prefer not to experience it.
Unless you honestly, truly believe it is not a harm to a baby to be tortured as soon as they're expelled from the womb. It's not a persuasive line of reasoning. If, for some crazy reason, people actually did exist in some pre-natal otherworld before they were born, would that suddenly make coming into biological existence a harm?
(I'm sure you'll agree that at least some people are better off dead, even if this means they don't exist to recognize that they're better off.)
Yes you are! Read the following quote again:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Here you make it crystal clear that your desired end result is the cessation of all procreation, owing to the "cost" of doing so. That word "cost" is also interesting, in light of your seeming disavowal of consequentialism.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I never claimed it would, though.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No I'm not. I was talking about the possibility of there being some greater perspective, such as God's or the Buddha's, that might entail that nonexistence is worse. I didn't assert that it was worse in and of itself, only from the standpoint of these perspectives. You, on the other hand, have consistently assumed materialism this whole time, and so that's why you face my objection about reifying nonexistence.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I've already addressed this. I think this will be my last post. We're just spinning our wheels and continuing any further would not be productive. I will just reiterate that 1) the arguments in favor of anti-natalism don't work, 2) because they don't work, procreation is admissible, and 3) I fail to understand how your position refutes either 1 or 2. And let me just say that I would love it if someone could refute 1 and 2, because I still possess the deep, stomach knotting intuition that procreation is wrong. But I simply fail to see how any argument can get to that conclusion.
No, this doesn't follow at all. If you don't need to exist in order to be harmed, then what is being harmed? Your position is utterly incoherent.
Quoting darthbarracuda
I was hoping you wouldn't equivocate on the word "birth," but it looks like you might be doing that here. I took "birth" to refer to "coming into existence," not "exiting a mother's birth canal." Let's get straight on what we're trying to say is bad here: the former or the latter. If the former, then you're arguing for anti-natalism. If the latter, then you're not arguing for anti-natalism, but for abortion, which is a separate topic.
Quoting darthbarracuda
I think it would, yes. For then the logical contradiction goes away and the anti-natalist would have a very cogent point about consent, which he doesn't otherwise have.
Quoting darthbarracuda
I don't know. I'd have to think about it.
:-}
Quoting Thorongil
No, obviously you need to exist to be harmed. You just don't need to exist before the harm occurs in order to be harmed. There's nothing incoherent here.
Quoting Thorongil
Right, I think you get what I meant though.
:-| Again, incoherence. These two statements are flatly contradictory of each other.
Quoting darthbarracuda
No. What was it?
That coming into existence can be harmful.
Quoting Thorongil
You're going to need to explain why.
I feel that my arguments presented in this thread were strong enough to defend "antinatalism" in the form of aesthetic antinatalism mixed with basic (non-Kantian) deontological principles. Your "stomach knotting intuition" should be more at ease, but if it is not sufficient, I'd rather respond to a succinct itemized rebuttal to a summarized version of my responses. If you do this 1) I might find a flaw in your interpretation through your summarizing of my own arguments (and can thus fix any misguided notions that lead to the rebuttal) and 2) I can have chance to defend the rebuttal if the interpretation is indeed correct. However, if you feel that you no longer want to engage in the conversation, I understand. Just realize, just because Thorongil states that I have not defended (a certain form of) antinatalism, does not mean that I have in fact, not defended antinatalism.. That is of course, Thorongil's judgement of the matter, not necessarily the actual case.
Okay. You had seemingly implied the opposite.
Quoting darthbarracuda
I don't know what to say. One sentence says you can't be harmed before existing and the other says you can.
With respect, I think I've already been doing this. I can only state what I have asserted again.
If you want a reboot, then perhaps you could you say whether you agree or disagree with the following definition: anti-natalism is the view that procreation is immoral.
???
You can't be harmed if you do not exist.
Coming into existence implies you now exist. If this existence harms you, then you have been harmed by coming into existence.
Existence per se does not harm anyone; it merely provides the conditions, so to speak, for help or harm along with anything else to be.
(Y)
That's like saying you aren't harming a child by not making them wear a seatbelt, you're just providing the conditions that enable the child to be harmed. If a person's existence requires them to be harmed, then their existence is harmful to them. This should not be difficult to understand.
And, for some people, existence is equivalent to suffering, which is seen as harmful. There is no difference.
It's not parallel, because the child exists in this scenario and in the case of birth, it doesn't. There is a being who might be harmed by not wearing a seatbelt. But there is no being who might be harmed by being born.
Quoting darthbarracuda
You're shifting the goalposts. We're talking about coming into existence, not existence itself.
Well, actually you are not necessarily harming a child by not making them wear a seat belt, so I can't see your point with that analogy.
Be that as it may, existence cannot be seen to be either a harm or a help, per se. Of course, if you don't exist then you cannot be harmed because you cannot be anything. It is meaningless to talk about someone never existing, and being better off never having existed, though, in the kind of way that we might talk about someone no longer existing, and being better off no longer existing. In any case we would only justifiably say that about someone whose sufferings had been truly intolerable.
If a persons' existence requires them to experience joy, then their existence is joyful, according to the logic of your formulation. It is not a matter of "difficulty of understanding", but interpretation according to disposition. That existence is "equivalent to suffering" for some people, says more about those people than it does about existence.
Exactly!
But there is - the person who is being born. They are being born. Birth is happening - to them. If a person cannot be harmed by being born because they don't exist prior, can a person even be born at all, since they don't exist prior to being born?
:-| Criminal negligence is a thing.
Quoting Janus
This makes it seem like existence does, in fact, help or harm someone by enabling them to be harmed.
A most ambiguous reply. Do you remember what I said about equivocation? You've used the present progressive tense here, which can be used to describe either what is happening now or what will happen in the future. If you meant the former, then we must be talking about a being that already exists, in which case, we're not talking about coming into existence. If you meant the latter, then we're not talking about any person that exists, for there can be no person that exists before existing.
Yes, and I'm not recommending it; negligence, as worthy of condemnation as it indeed is, does not necessarily harm the child.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Existence enables someone to be, period; but even this is a silly way of speaking because it makes it sound as though someone pre-existed existence. And it seems that you, apparently tendentiously, left off the 'or helped' that should have been included at the end of your sentence.
It wouldn't be "helped", it would have been "benefited". Helped implies there is something harmful that needs to be removed.
Quoting Thorongil
I mean, no shit. But why should I believe someone needs to exist before in order to be harmed?
If I snapped my fingers and instantly fully-grown people appeared and were instantaneously tortured, would it be harmful to these people, since they previously did not exist? Would it only be a harm if, say, the came into existence, and then after one second began to be tortured? Why is prior existence so important?
Because it's self-evident. You might as well ask why lemons need to exist before making lemonade.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Yes, torture harms people, people who exist. :-}
Lemons don't need to exist "before" making lemonade. They just need to exist at the time of making lemonade.
It was you said: Quoting darthbarracuda
It should have been:'This makes it seem like existence does, in fact, help or harm someone by enabling them to be harmed or helped.'
The words 'benefit' and 'benefited' could just as well be substituted for 'help' and 'helped'; it would make little difference to the substance of the sentence and no difference to its relevance for the point at issue.
Not that it is really relevant, but 'help' does not necessarily imply anything harmful that needs to be removed. Consider: "Increased practice helped his development as a musician".
It feels like you're pulling my leg now. If they exist at the time of making lemonade, then they existed before one made lemonade.
If someone is born, that person is exposed to structural and contingent harms where there could have been no person born who would be exposed to structural and contingent harms. I am not sure why you would disagree with this. The cause of the person being born is the parents who have the kids.. Just as the cause of X event was the person who directly caused the event. Trying to put the starting point at a ridiculous causal chain that goes back infinitely makes no sense if you agree to how we attribute most events which is the direct cause of how something came about. The carpenter built the chair, but yes there were many circumstances that came about in order for the carpenter to build the chair.
Now perhaps the parents didn't realize this logic- I guarantee that this is indeed the case. This does not mean that the parents were not the cause of exposing the child to being harmed by causing it to be born. However, that is where antinatalism, and Pessimism more broadly would make its case, and thus see the logic of this.
But I don't disagree with this. Never have. Once born, people are exposed to harmed. What I have consistently objected to is the claim that being born itself, that is, coming into existence, is a harm. It's not. It's rather the condition for being harmed. But arguments for anti-natalism depend on this claim, which means that, because it is false, anti-natalism is false.
Pessimists think that being born itself is a harm. The proof being the examples provided from aesthetic pessimism I described earlier. I guess I should rephrase this.. The act of birth has nothing inherently harmful (except the physiological pain involved I guess), but rather than "birth" I should say "life" or "existence" itself- not the birthing process. No one ever emphasized "birth" as the wrong.
No, pessimists clearly don't all think that. I still consider myself a pessimist, but I don't consider being born a harm, strictly speaking.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Ah, finally! This admission constitutes real progress in our discussion! :P
Now, this means that you are not an anti-natalist. Or, if you still think procreation is wrong, it means that you have some reason other than that birth is wrong for thinking procreation wrong. It would seem that that reason might be that you think life or existence itself is a harm. If so, then I'd want to see how that fact is used in reaching the conclusion, "procreation is wrong."
Quoting schopenhauer1
Really? The subtitle to Benatar's book reads, "The Harm of Coming into Existence." The Wikipedia entry on anti-natalism says that it is "a philosophical stance that assigns a negative value to birth." Emphasizing birth as a harm is in fact the most typical claim made by anti-natalists. It's their raison-d'etre.
No that's not right. The history of a lemon's existence is irrelevant at the time of lemonade-making. It doesn't matter if it existed for a century or two seconds before. All that matters is that it exists at the moment lemonade-making occurs.
Now that you've have time to think, I'll ask you again: do you think people can be harmed or benefited by dying? Do you think it might help someone to be euthanized if they are suffering terribly? Even if they don't exist after the fact?
I've made it clear that my definition of harm does not require there to be an actual person existing prior to the harm. It requires only a counterfactual hypothetical person, "if there had been".
:-}
Quoting darthbarracuda
As for the first question, that depends on context. I agree in principle with the death penalty, for example. So I do think people can benefit from the death of an individual convicted of a serious crime, those people being the criminal's potential victims, were he not punished. I also think that some wars can be justified, in which case the people on the just side of the war would benefit from the enemy being killed. As for harm, I think a suicide's death, for example, can harm the friends and loved ones of the person who took his or her life. Fatal accidents can do so as well.
As for your second question, I'm not quite comfortable with euthanasia, even if the individual is suffering terribly. I don't think we have the right to take innocent life, no matter if that life is suffering (I'm not a consequentialist, in other words).
Quoting darthbarracuda
And your definition of harm is incoherent for this reason.
???
Quoting Thorongil
I meant specifically the person dying, not those around them. So you're taking the epicurean stance on this.
Quoting Thorongil
Yeah...no.
Look at the word I bolded.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Oh. Can the dying person benefit from or be harmed by his own death? Initially, I would say no and probably for the same reasons that I have given about birth. On the other hand, death is clearly different from birth in that an individual does exist prior to its occurrence. In that sense, death cannot but be a harm to that individual, since it results in that individual's bodily extinction, at minimum.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong! hop along! Fal lal the willow!
Right but a person doesn't exist after they died so how can it harm them. This whole "argument" is going in circles, punctuated by emoji's and sarcastic poems.
You're asking how nonexistence can harm them, and I agree that it can't. Death itself harms the person, not the after death state, of which you refer.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Think that if you want. I've been quite consistent in my position this whole time. Nothing you've said has caused me to doubt it.
So why cannot birth harm a person?
Quoting Thorongil
...okay? How is that relevant?
Let me add that this comment itself perpetuates what you see as circularity, because it refuses to address what I'm saying.
Consider again, for a moment, the reason for my emoji. I said that lemons need to exist before making lemonade. You disagreed. But then you contradicted yourself and agreed with me that, to make lemonade, the lemons need to exist "before" doing so (whether by two seconds or a century).
I shouldn't have to spell this out, hence the emoji.
No, I didn't. Read that again.
Quoting darthbarracuda
Because there is no person to harm, prior to it, like there is in the case of death.
Yet the epicurean position is precisely that death cannot harm the person themselves because a person does not exist after they die. It seems ad hoc to require someone exist before a harm for something to count as a harm but not require that they exist after a harm for something to count as a harm.
You contradicted yourself, and I've shown why. Telling me to "reread" what you wrote, instead of explaining why my assertion that you have contradicted yourself is wrong, does not, in fact, absolve you from contradiction.
Quoting Thorongil
Implying that I said lemons do not need to exist before to make lemonade, and then said they do. But this is false because I explicitly said:
Quoting darthbarracuda
I did not contradict myself. I have been consistent. Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade, they only need to exist at the moment of lemonade-making.
Then to hell with the Epicurean position! I never said I was an Epicurean.
Quoting darthbarracuda
You're not listening to what I'm saying. To be harmed requires that a person exist. Birth cannot harm anyone, because no person exists for it to constitute a harm. Death can harm someone, because it always occurs to people who exist. Things that are nonexistent do not die.
Right.
Quoting Thorongil
But they can be born?
What the deuce is your problem here. You have made both of the following statements:
1. Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade
2. Lemons do need to exist before making lemonade.
These are mutually incompatible statements. It's not possible for them both to be true at the same time. Only one option is true, which is the second. Therefore, you need to stop making the first claim.
No, I haven't, where are you getting this from?
Quoting Thorongil
Honestly can you stop being an ass. That doesn't even follow either. If I really was making those two statements, I would need to stop making either the first or the second claim.
Your own damn words!
Quoting darthbarracuda
Here you acknowledge that lemons do need to exist before making lemonade. The duration of their existence is irrelevant. Whether they existed a million years or a millionth of a second before making lemonade, they still exist before.
This conflicts with the following statement (your original statement):
Quoting darthbarracuda
No, that's not what I meant at all. I said the duration doesn't matter because it doesn't matter at all whether or not lemons exist before lemonade-making.
I said, explicitly and many times now:
Quoting darthbarracuda
Darth, I refuse to accept that you are this daft. The point I just made to you was that, if you acknowledge ANY duration of a lemon's existence BEFORE making lemonade, then you have contradicted the following statement:
Quoting darthbarracuda
How does acknowledging a lemon's prior existence contradict my claim that the only thing that matters is that the lemon exists at the moment of lemonade-making?
If "at the moment" still presupposes the lemons' prior existence in your mind, it doesn't.
It contradicts this statement:
Quoting darthbarracuda
???
Quoting darthbarracuda
Christ, be charitable. Lemons do not need to exist beforehand in order to make lemonade, if that clears things up. They need only exist at the time of lemonade-making.
Wow. You must be trolling me. I don't know how else to account for such brazen stubbornness.
I don't know how else to account for your inability to comprehend a very simple issue. But oh well.
You have some lemons, some water, and some sugar. Making lemonade requires mixing lemon juice from the lemons with the water and sugar. This means the lemons must exist prior to the making of lemonade.
So now why don't you tell me how I'm wrong.
This is wrong. Lemons only need to exist at the moment of lemonade-making.
Admission of what? Birth is the CAUSE of existence for an individual, thus the CAUSE of suffering in the individual who is BORN as being born CAUSES existence and thus suffering.
Procreation is the direct cause of life which correlates with structural suffering. Thus procreation caused the structural suffering that will occur in an individual. How does that not follow for you?
Quoting Thorongil
Negative value to being born (which causes the structural suffering that correlates with existence?)
Let's look at it again, then. My claim is that birth itself is not a harm. You then said:
Quoting schopenhauer1
I thought you were agreeing with me here. But looking at this quote again in light of your present confusion, it appears as though you were using the word "birth" in a different way than I was. I said a while ago in this conversation that I was going to take "birth" to mean "coming into existence," not the exiting of a baby from a mother's womb, precisely because I wanted to avoid the kind of difficulty we have now run into. I thought everybody was on board with that, but apparently not. I apologize for not being clear if I wasn't.
My position is, to wit, that birth, in the sense of coming into existence, is not a harm. Procreation is the cause of of birth, I agree. But identifying the cause of an action is not necessarily to identify the moral blameworthiness of that action. Anti-natalism takes procreation to be a morally blameworthy act. I don't, and the reason I don't is because the effect it causes, namely birth, is not a harm. Why don't I think it's a harm? It's that because, in order to inflict harm, a person must exist to be the recipient of it. But no one is the recipient of birth (for we agreed that pre-born souls do not exist), so no one is the recipient of harm in being born. Please tell me if you follow this.
No one is the recipient of birth? Who cares.. Someone EXISTS who did NOT EXIST beforehand. Existing is harmful. Who brought about the existence of this person ergo the harm? Do you agree that people exist? Let's hope we can at least start there.. Do people "start" to exist at X time? Let's hope we agree there. At the X time of starting to exist, starts the harm. There need not be people before X time. You cannot try to word-game your way into trying to say that because there was no identity of a particular person prior to birth, no one was actually harmed, because harm "began" at the instant of X- there need not be someone prior to that to be harmed. Just the fact that X happened (and then X1, X2, etc. etc.) and that something prior to this brought this about, means something caused X to happen.
Oi vey....
Quoting schopenhauer1
I do.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I'm tempted to challenge this, but I'll provisionally say yes.
Quoting schopenhauer1
X could only refer to the moment of conception, in which case we're talking about a fertilized egg. I don't think fertilized eggs can be harmed, so I disagree with you here.
But yet you said earlier, no one is the recipient of harm. When that "one" comes into existence (let's say 6 months is when some sort of conscious awareness begins), that X moment is the beginning of harm. Procreation is not just the conception but the whole process of bringing a new person into the world which includes the gestation process. Why would you be so caught up in when X begins and not simply note that at some point, X suffering will begin and this was caused by something or someone who brought directly brought this situation about where it otherwise would not. It does not matter whether it is a process overtime that brings about X moment or an instantaneous event.
I think the problem is that along with increased intelligence and civilization came this perceived need to always be achieving, thriving, and improving. This perceived need drives much of the mental suffering that takes place. If we teach our children that it is okay to just survive and contribute the best they can, instead of imposing such unnaturally high ideals on them, perhaps much of the suffering would end. Then it wouldn't be such a question of morality when bringing a child into the world; it would just be the natural thing to do, in line with our instinct to survive and procreate, like any other animal.
Good points, but when you have a workplace with various levels of engagement, talent, abilities, and effort, that might be hard to justify and hence the wheel continues. Though, these are contingent realities and not structural like the instrumentality and repetitiousness of "being", so may be solvable in a local way.
Quoting CasKev
This is more at the heart of structural suffering- why are we surviving and procreating? What is it about the repetition of eat, work, crap, maintain lifestyle through MASSIVE socioeconomic infrastructure (and the myriad of things people must do to maintain it), and entertainment that we must keep doing and procreating for a new person? Why must they go through it too? As I said earlier: Why this repetition of going through goal-seeking and fulfilling structural survival and entertainment needs in a historical-cultural framework? Why do these needs need to be brought forth to a new generation, ad infinitum, until species or universal death is the question more or less. It is not necessarily one of why things exist in the first place, but rather, why we want to put more subjectivized beings in the world who will need to form goals to follow and make more people who will also form their own subjectivized world and need goals to follow, etc.
I also stated: The thoughtful answers would be something like: self-actualization, scientific discovery, art/music/humanities, creativity, flow experiences, physical pleasures, friends, relationships, achievement in some field or area of study, and aesthetic pleasures. However, the thoughtful person may also know that these experiences have some vague repetitiousness to it. It seems old hat that just repeats for each person in each generation. Why does it need to be carried out? Why go through it in the first place? In our linguistically-wired brains, we take the chaos of pure sensory information and through many cognitive mechanisms, create concepts and provide an impetus for our actions. In other words, we create goals. These goals, whether short-term, long-term, vague, or well-planned are executed as we have no choice. They well up from the unformed and provide some sort of ballast to the chaotic, undefined world. We must make one goal, then another, then another, even if just to get something to eat. What is really a value-less, goal-less world, is subjectivized into one where the individual human now has "priorities", "preferences", "tendencies", "hopes", "way of being in the world", and "personality". The structural needs of survival, the existential needs of entertainment, and the contingent setting of cultural surroundings that provide the content for surviving and entertaining, what is it that we want from this? Why do we need more people to exist who need goals to work towards, over and over, relentlessly until we die?
The need for offspring is biological. That's why we're so attracted to certain members of the opposite sex, why sex feels so damn good, why seeing your newborn offspring brings such joy, and why the loss of a child is probably one of the worst things a person can experience. It is only our high level of intelligence that turns procreation into a question of whether or not we should do it. And it is this same intelligence that has resulted in all of the unnecessary suffering - whether physical/emotional/sexual abuse inflicted on others, or self-inflicted mental suffering.
As for goals - they can be fine and dandy, as long as you don't attach too much importance or judgment to the end result. Once you've satisfied your basic survival needs, establishing lofty goals can be a way to spice up life - to thrive instead of just survive. That being said, I think there is some benefit to routine, repetition, and consistency. It is comforting to feel like there is some level of control over your life, and that your survival is not constantly under threat.
The "no one" referred to the nonexistence of any person prior to conception. We can trace your existence all the way back to the point at which an egg was fertilized in your mother. Before that, "you" didn't exist.
Even if I grant you that "You" began at the instant of conception, as I stated, it is the whole process of gestation and birth that contributes to the person. The harm does not maybe start with conception, but it does start at what ever X time after conception.
Yes! But if you grant, as you have here, that you exist at the moment of conception, then "coming into existence" isn't a harm, because there is no one to harm prior to conception. You also previously granted that literal birth (exiting a mother's womb) isn't a harm. So whence anti-natalism? It has no leg to stand on now.
The person was brought about by someone conceiving and then birthing a child. Do you really believe it is the act of conception and birthing that antinatalists are talking about? Of course not, they are talking about "coming into existence" which usually correlates to becoming a fully functioning human (even if reliant on others). Most Pessimists (capital P) would say that the world has structural harm, and thus bringing someone into existence is bringing someone into this world means creating the circumstance for a fully functioning human who by this fact experiences the structural harm inherent in the system.
You are caught up on the semantics of the "anti-natalist". Being born implies more than the birthing or conception. So no actual person was being harmed until X time, then that person who started at x was harmed (X being some X time of becoming a fully functioning human- whether that be awareness, being in the world as a separate entity completely from the mother's womb, etc.). Existing in the world came about through events that were not self-caused. Something caused this to happen.
This doesn't make any sense to me. You exist from the moment of conception until death. I am talking to an adult human being. If we wind back the clock, before you were an adult, you were an adolescent, and before that, a child, and before that, an infant, and before that, a fetus, and before that, an embryo, and before that, a zygote, which places us at conception. At no point during this sequence did you not exist. Thus, you began to exist at conception and have continued to exist ever since then.
This is true, unless you are trying to say that your person did not exist until a certain point after conception. Is that what you're trying to say below?
Quoting schopenhauer1
It seems here that the answer to my question is, "yes." If so, then I disagree with this hitherto unstated premise in your argument. I don't think personhood arises at some magical date after conception. I take personhood to exist concomitantly with the distinct generic code that results from fertilization.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Implicit in this line of reasoning is negative utilitarianism. Thus, when all the dust has settled, you're actually presenting the most well known and popular argument for anti-natalism, despite your seeming protestations to the contrary.
That's just going to be a line in the sand then.
Quoting Thorongil
But this is agent-centered and not about reducing suffering writ large. If I used my formula from previously in this thread:
1. It would be wrong to treat humans as a means and not as an ends in themselves, if it brings about all structural and contingent suffering for another person's life.
2. Procreation treats humans as a means and not as an ends in themselves as it brings about all structural and contingent suffering for another person's life.
3. Therefore procreation is wrong.
This means that another person's life cannot be used if it brings about all their structural and contingent suffering that they will ever experience. Perhaps you can say that it is negative utilitarian in that it is preventing suffering, but there is definitely a strong deontological bent because it does not allow the individual to be used for a principle or external reason. You can then call it agent-centered deontological negative utilitarianism, and I would not have a problem with it.
But how can it not be? Look at your first premise:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Here you speak of humans, plural. Your clause at the end speaks of structural suffering, which refers to suffering that all humans must experience simply by virtue of being alive. Thus, you are talking about reducing suffering writ large.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Fine by me. As long as you understand that it depends on both a deontological claim that I believe admits of exceptions and on a certain conception of personhood with which I disagree. I'm glad we were able to at least narrow down where our disagreement lies, but it seems I wasn't all that off the mark in my suspicion that you were still arguing for anti-natalism on fairly convention grounds.
Not really. I am talking about the suffering that that individual will suffer, not as suffering as this tangible mass that accumulates or decreases with every birth. It is not about reducing suffering even, just preventing it to begin with.
Quoting Thorongil
Well, it is the ethical part of a larger Pessimism. As I said, what leads to this conclusion? The ethical system has to have an emotional import, in my opinion.. otherwise it is hollow. The aesthetic part is the understanding of what it means "structural" suffering. Also the aesthetic part involves the people already here, not just focusing on future people as the aesthetic contemplation of the structural suffering is a kind of therapy.