schopenhauer1

As far as I'm concerned the failings of natalist arguments were encapsulated in this post. I haven't seen much progress from them since either. Addres...

@"khaled" So I don't believe @"Tzeentch" was doing that. He said as a hypothetical analogy. You are still not getting what I stated about a future per...

@"khaled"@"Benkei" Yes, I also think he might be thinking that there is an airtight case around consent. He thinks that because at the time the decisi...

Yes exactly. I am not sure if this is a rhetorical move that @"Benkei" is making. Antinatalists are using the same "as if the child existed" model as ...

Yes, exactly. It gets pushed to either, "Well they don't exist when making the decision, so that's fine" or "It's for the community" or something like...

@"khaled"@"Tzeentch"@"Echarmion"@"Benkei" Ok, it's been a couple pages since I answered so I'm just going address the trends I see in "What's wrong wi...

No that does not follow. I think you can combine them as the locus of ethics is at the individual level, and one of the most important implications he...

Let's go back. I am essentially saying that you do not account for a future child who will exist and you do not seem to like the idea of generalizing ...

Yet, perhaps inadvertently you seem to be arguing this.

So, I'm not going to bother with the previous comments, because this answers your supposed problems with the metaphysics of no existing person prior t...

I believe Schopenhauer's idea is not egoistic at all. Compassion is so lauded by Schop precisely because it is something which gets one out of the ind...

This is the ridiculous move Benkei also makes.. You don't believe in future outcomes. There is no actual person now, but there will be in the future. ...

Yep, similar example to what I had.

So you are now saying we are taking freedom away from the thing that does not exist yet? "Who" is being deprived of this freedom? Here's the move you ...

I just don't buy this move you are claiming. You deny two things that humans can do very easily: 1) Project future outcomes. We know what life's suffe...

Actually, those are exactly the de facto impositions I am talking about. So, when you project things about life, are these not things that factor in?

Exactly. Well-stated and concise. It isn't that hard. I called it the Argument Against Paternalism. At base, the answers here is that the parent think...

Yet it's something which almost all people born experience.

From whom? It's always been do not cause unnecessary suffering on behalf of someone else. I will admit I went down a consent rabbit hole with you, but...

Yes, people fail to recognize de facto forced choices. For example, we can follow the impositions that are demanded of life or die. That is a de facto...

:100: :up:

Creating situations for suffering so you can get to consent.. This is honestly why I rarely form the argument around consent and just keep it at unnec...

Certainly a good basis for antinatalism.. No reason to unnecessarily cause conditions of harm for the future person.

So if you cannot get consent, you should be able to impose suffering and impositions on someone unnecessarily? In other words, there is no reason to d...

Negative states/suffering/causing impositions on others to overcome.. these are things which deal with the dignity of the individual person. That is t...

Let me clarify cause I am using impose in two ways that should be more clearly explained: 1) Imposing suffering.. used in conjunction 2) Imposition in...

It's both. If you want to self-impose your own suffering, go ahead. Once you impose it for someone else, it's not good. Please don't make the move com...

Much of these debates are around the sophistic move that we cannot sufficiently generalize all of life's sufferings and then make a judgement: For all...

Are we referring to inherent or contingent? If inherent then, being born is the direct reason why someone is alive which, if inherent suffering exists...

A state of E (existing itself) vs. N (not existing), rather than default already existing E (where x, y, z intra-worldly affairs happen within it). Al...

:100: :up:

Yes, then you would be correct. Different states. But these are also different cases. These are self-imposed. I have nothing against that. It is creat...

I agree with this. But how come birth isn't the cause? This I believe I gave a sufficient response. You make it seem like we don't know the contingent...

Because this is different than other impositions. One is about inter-wordly affairs (should we impose existence, and the harms and challenges to overc...

It's not about what the parent incurs. Even if it makes someone have to work harder, that doesn't negate the principle of not causing an imposition on...

Boy, that can be said of procreating itself! Sorry... life's well-trodden harms are just such an unknown, because everyone has that much of an individ...

Got it. If I reformulate that, let me know if this is similar: It may be the case you are obligated to prevent unnecessary harm. It may be the case yo...

Benkei, do you have an answer to the objections I had earler? Specifically:

@"khaled" Would you be able to put your theory in context of antinatalism? I get what you're saying but now it has gone in the weeds and I think it wo...

The problem I see with your argument is you don't give enough account for what we know about the impositions of life. We can generalize what they are ...

I'd like to get back to this, because perhaps I just don't understand your point with intrinsic suffering being irrelevant. However, I think I have ad...

How so?? Those are structural to life itself, and are known knowns, if you will. That should be the most morally relevant because of how structural th...

Ok, so you go the point right here though. We know what life's impositions are. It is not something that is unknown. You keep making it seem like we c...

So if you've been reading my last posts, I perplexed how natalists/optimists think that we do not know the general impositions/conditions imposed on a...

Okay, so we can gain common ground here at least that we can recognize future states of people who will be born and compare that to not having future ...

What does that even mean? There is so much metaphysical weirdness here. Even if you were to prove the Nietzschean notion that there is "higher meaning...

Okay, what does that change if it is inherent in living? I believe this to be the crux of your argument. I believe I answered these when I said that y...

But it does. Only in situations where someone is capable of suffering, does the position become valid.

But I don't see a problem here. See what I said to Benkei here:

I am not sure I can agree on that formulation. For possibly some types of utilitarian-based antinatalists, this might be acceptable. Rather, they woul...