There could be things that are good for people, but they don´t recognize them.
— Antinatalist

I don't deny that in relation to health. but in relation to morals I think we've had plenty of time to figure out the broad picture in relation to most human acts. There won't be any controversy about the morality of murder, rape, child-abuse, theft etc. Suicide is still being worked out. There are likely some things in relation to which consensus will never be reached.

As for command theory, that is a matter for the religious; in any case the religiously conceived morality of acts like murder, rape and so on agree with the secular; at least I can't think of any exceptions. Of course there will be disagreements when it comes to the subtle details involved in considering the morality of minor acts like sex before marriage, masturbation, gay relations and so on. People with different starting premises will never agree on those issues. — Janus

Some religious movements believe that even masturbation is wrong (like you mentioned). And Catholics don´t accept contraception, but often Catholic Church understate the child abuse that Catholic priests have done.

↪Antinatalist I think you're missing the point. If it is natural for humans generally to value or disvalue particular things then that fact does tell about their value; there is only human value (for us; other animals may value different things). What other value, apart from the value of valuers do you imagine might exist? — Janus

There could be some options.

Some religious people would say, that there is some divine, supermundane values. As an atheist I don´t personally believe in them, but I accept the possibility that values like that could exist.

And like you said, other animals may value different things.

I´ve said this before, but I want to underline the fact that there could be some things that humans don´t value - or they don´t value them enough - but they should. There could be things that are good for people, but they don´t recognize them.

Hey Antinatalist,
I've read Schopenhauer's "Studies in Pessimism" and "the Conspiracy Against the Human Race" by Thomas Ligotti. Beautiful and intelligent works of literature that reveal the complex puppetry of our existence and the constant carrot on a stick which seems to deceive us... however, i think this kind of evaluation of reproduction as a moral act is a bit absurd.
For one, the idea that a child is begotten or created (such that it emerges out of nothing into being) is an old myth. Children are, relative to one reproductive partner, an expression of the other partner. If a man has a child with a woman, we may say he "sculpted" the child from her (as out of a preexisting template)... the woman who bears the child, from her perspective, has also "sculpted" the child from the father in the same way. Neither one has "created" the child. And even if we tried to say the man and the woman together created the child, we find that, even from this perspective, they "sculpted" the child from matter itself which they must have consumed and then used in the act of fertilization and embryonic development. ..."creation" or "conception" is not something that can be physically defined in nature... there are only stages of process, of which we cannot ascribe beginning or end except by arbitrary, subjective description. As odd as it may seem, the desire that manifests in a child (or in any thing) is inseparable from the same active forces responsible for it's manifestation... desire (the mechanism) may affect some organism to do something, to feel pain in some instance or to desire some stimuli that another organism might have an opposite reaction to, but the "desire" in itself is inseparable and identical as a force between them... it is just an objective fact of physical reality... — Marigold23

Hey for you, also

In the other thread I said (this is old - but still valid - fragment of my philosophical essay from 2004.
I didn´t knew the word "antinatalism" then). The woman and the man, who are trying to have a child are both in responsibility, that is not evadable.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/525133

… the child occurs as a byproduct of sex and the parents have been "programmed" to care for it and raise it so that sex can keep happening… — Marigold23

This is often the case, at least.

The only way one could imagine "too much" pain (suffering) is as it would prevent pleasure entirely... but, as pain and pleasure can only exist in conjunction with each other, pain (stress) can never so far outweigh pleasure (relief) as to render it impossible for the thing that experiences them. — Marigold23

I totally disagree.

Footnotes: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_and_Fog_(1956_film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Browning#Ordinary_Men

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/321263.Humanity


And, people living in horrible environments, like prisoner in Dachau in 1943, most of them wanted to live. I don´t disagree. But I think, for most of them (at least), it would been better that they had never been born. Say people like Benkei whatever they say on "betterness".

But you prove/"prove" it intuitively, the question of is some a priori judgment true or false, is judged by intuition.
— Antinatalist

Close enough. We’re saying about the same thing.

I made a mistake, nonetheless, in that judgements don’t have truth values, as such. They stand, a posteriori, as the correctness of the relation between an object we sense and the object as it becomes known. Or, in the case of mere thought a priori, they stand as the validity of the relation of conceptions to each other. — Mww

I agree.

Best to bear in mind the perspectives involved. When there are two distinct and separate cognitive systems in play, they are required to conform to each other in order to facilitate the possibility of productive communication. When either system operates on its own, for its own purpose, to its own end, there is no communication, the system is confined to itself internally. The difference is language, necessary for the communication between multiple systems, not even present in each singular system in its internal operations. So when it is said a judgement is true, what it meant is that the proposition composed and presented externally to represent the internal judgement in one system, conforms to the internal judgement in the other, from which his composed proposition would have been congruent, had he been the speaker rather than the listener. In effect, it is the proposition that holds truth value, and then only because a judgement has been made on the validity of the relations in the proposition given by one system, to the relations in the internal judgement of the other system, with respect to it.

Are we having fun yet? — Mww

I have to agree. And yes, I think we are having fun.

↪Antinatalist As I already said the only guide is opinion. If everybody thinks a particular thing is good or bad, what better guide could there be? As an example it is reasonable to think murder is bad because just about everyone would likely agree that it's bad.

It is also reasonable to think that what undermines social relations, trust and security, which child abuse, murder, rape and theft, among other things do, is bad. It is natural for those kinds of acts to undermine social relations. In fact it seems impossible to imagine how it could be otherwise, and so that would be an example of the existence of a natural state of affairs justifying belief in the moral reprehensibility of certain acts. — Janus

If something is natural - or unnatural also - it doesn´t yet tell a thing about its valueness/antivalueness. But I agree, human mind has its limits, but that is all we got. And we have to get along with it.

I don´t believe at all, that all antinatalists don´t have suffered.

And let´s suppose, that even if you are right on this, "life is suffering" is not the only argument antinatalists have.
— Antinatalist

Quite shocking news I must say. It was a zen moment for me. We've been so preoccupied with suffering - that's how powerful it is - that we couldn't see past it. I wonder what other reasons are there for pushing the antinatalist agenda? Can we, for instance, convince a denizen of paradise (supposedly bliss taken to perfection) to not want to live or, at the very least, refuse to have children? — TheMadFool

There at least couple of arguments, which relate on suffering: The first one argues that "life is suffering" is not true in general, but life contains too much of it.

And the other one. This is more complex.
It´s about rights and obligations. I will say we don´t have obligation for anyone to have a child, and same time we have no right to have a child.

In murder the murderer extremely violates the rights of victim of murder very bad, her/his autonomy and sovereignty. Even so, when the murder is painless and does not contain any negative emotions of the victim.
I think these things - autonomy and sovereignty - are violated also when persons are going to have a child. I have to also admit, that in this case the violation is more questionable.

And I´m not saying that murdering people and having a child are ethically at same level. Not at all. But both of those acts have some similar features.

Perhaps you missed this then:

I have never thought much of Moore's argument in any case. "moral properties" do not have to be identical to "natural properties" in order to be plausibly thought to be justified by them.
— Janus

In any case you still haven't explained what you think the relevance of the Open Question Argument to what we have been discussing is. — Janus

I think that the relevance is in the question is that we define as a "good" really "good". We have values, but we don´t know is it good that we have those values. According to Moore, we could never know.

Here's another version of my argument which takes into account the fact the existence of abject misery - poverty, chronic illnesses, death, and the rest of the stuff about life that make it an unbearabale ordeal/agony.

As I said, antinatalists, given that they've developed a philosophy (antinatalism), have to counted among the fortunate - even if antinatalists experience suffering they still have an overall comfortable existence as evidenced by how they were able to "think in peace" and work on their belief.

Antinatalists, when they speak of how, to borrow a line from Buddhism, "life is suffering" are not talking about themselves for, as I said, they aren't suffering. What they're actually doing is drawing our attention to the section of the human population who live in appalling conditions, those whose lives are a constant struggle, those who don't know what fun means, and so on. Let's call such people les misérables

Here's the million dollar question aimed at antintalists: can't the les misérables work their way up the social ladder and themselves become antinatalists? Surely they can, les misérables are humans, endowed with the same capabilities, as antinatalists. If so, the antinatlist position is untenable; after all les misérables can achieve the same level of happiness that allows antinatalists to cogitate about them. — TheMadFool

I don´t believe at all, that all antinatalists don´t have suffered.

And let´s suppose, that even if you are right on this, "life is suffering" is not the only argument antinatalists have.

↪Antinatalist Sure it's logically possible, but seems to me extremely unlikely. I'm not seeing the relevance of Moore's views. — Janus

"The open-question argument claims that any attempt to identify morality with some set of observable, natural properties will always be liable to an open question, and that if this is true, then moral facts cannot be reduced to natural properties and that therefore ethical naturalism is false. Put another way, Moore is saying that any attempt to define good in terms of a natural property fails because such definitions can be transformed into closed questions (the subject and predicate being conceptually identical, that is, the two terms mean the same thing); however, all purported naturalistic definitions of good are transformable into open questions, for it can still be questioned whether good is the same thing as pleasure, etc. Shortly before (in section §11), Moore had said if good is defined as pleasure, or any other natural property, "good" may be substituted for "pleasure", or that other property, anywhere where it occurs. However, "pleasure is good" is a meaningful, informative statement; but "good is good" (after making the substitution) is an uninformative tautology."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-question_argument

There´s some religious cults, with manipulative leaders, who could get everyone think that mass suicide is best way to go higher place, Heaven. And maybe it is not.
— Antinatalist

Manipulative leaders might get some small, credulous percentage of the populace to think it is a good idea to commit suicide, but even then not by convincing them that life is not worth living, but by means of some beguiling promise of salvation.

In a post-apocalyptic world, if conditions were horrible enough, then all the remaining people may indeed think life is not worth living, and they wouldn't need any manipulative leader to convince them of that. But even in such a situation, I think it is likely that many people would still want to continue living. Never underestimate the human spirit. — Janus

Mix those two things together, religious suicidal cult and post-nuclear war situation.
It is at least possible that everyone agrees on mass suicide. And it is possible, that this mass suicide is not the best option.

But I was thinking more of G.E. Moore´s views on the topic.

I was thinking that perhaps reasoning about a priori judgments is itself intuitive.
— Antinatalist

In that case, all we’re doing is exchanging the general form of the judgement, with particular matter that can be used to verify or falsify it. We are still reasoning about an intuition and not reasoning about an a priori judgement, the validity of it being a consequence. — Mww

When someone is making an reasonable a priori judgment, I understand it so, it has to be true by definition. It is another question that are a priori judgments true. But you prove/"prove" it intuitively, the question of is some a priori judgment true or false, is judged by intuition.

Do you see flaws in my logic?
And maybe I´m repeating myself.

For example, everybody can think that mass suicide is best for everybody and for whole humankind.
And same time is possible that is not the best possible option for humankind.
— Antinatalist
— Janus

The reality, though, is that only a vanishingly small percentage of humankind thinks that; so I'm not sure what your point is. If everyone felt life was not worth living, just as if an individual feels life is not worth living (after long and hard consideration, mind, not impulsively) then would not suicide be best for them in either case? — Janus

I think, that if there is situation, when everybody thinks that suicide is good option, it still is not necessarily good option.

There´s some religious cults, with manipulative leaders, who could get everyone think that mass suicide is best way to go higher place, Heaven. And maybe it is not.

And there could be also be that kind of situation in the future, that all the people in the world belongs to this kind of cult. There could be post-nuclear war situation etc. Perhaps that will not happen in billion years, but I think it is still possible.

So you think all a priori judgments are reasonable and discursive, but there is no intuition at any level.
— Antinatalist

No intuitions, at any level? Yes, there are, at the empirical level. The sensible level, of real things, represented in us as phenomena. There is no knowledge of real things of experience without representations by intuition, just as there is no knowledge of abstract things of thought without representations as concepts. — Mww

I was thinking that perhaps reasoning about a priori judgments is itself intuitive. That reasoning, which evaluates is some a priori judgment true or false.

You might see the problem here. Nothing given from concepts alone can tell us about the world of objects and nothing from intuition alone can tell us about abstract things, like beauty, justice, moral obligation, even though experience is rife with examples of them.
———- — Mww

Yes.

My hard statement is that all knowledge is based on intuition.
— Antinatalist
....which rejects a priori judgements.
— Mww

Perhaps so, but what is the relation between a priori judgments and knowledge? Just asking (what you think).
— Antinatalist

What I think:

All empirical judgements are intuitive, hence contingent; all a priori judgements are discursive, hence necessary. Knowledge from intuitive judgements is experience; knowledge from discursive judgements is reason. — Mww

So you think all a priori judgments are reasonable and discursive, but there is no intuition at any level.

Not for the hard sciences, for the most part finding no empirical reason to acknowledge the validity of it. Brain states, recyclable neurotransmitters, variable ion potentials and all that jazz, doncha know. And not for speculative epistemology, which grants that the “I” represents the unity of the manifold constituency of consciousness. But then, metaphysics is a mystery in itself, so....there is that. — Mww

I agree. But then again, if you radically doubt everything, you doubt also science etc.
And I don´t think such a doubt is a rational way to view life.

My hard statement is that all knowledge is based on intuition.
— Antinatalist

....which rejects a priori judgements. — Mww

Perhaps so, but what is the relation between a priori judgments and knowledge? Just asking (what you think).

If we assume classic logic in general to be true "I think, therefore I am" is analytically true.
— Antinatalist

...which is necessarily an a priori judgement. — Mww

Yes, it is. At same time, it seems to be true. The judgment of this is intuitive, I argue.


I don´t think that there´s any serious arguments against Descartes, I certainly think that he proved logically his existence for himself.
— Antinatalist

People do think of it that way. But here, in the sections following the section in which ”Cogito... is posited, is found “the first and most certain...”, which is congruent with your “analytically true”. So Descartes himself didn’t logically prove anything, per se; he merely espoused something as impossible for him to not know immediately, without any intervening arbitration. — Mww

I agree. If you mean, that he didn´t found any new logical truths.

“....I have often noticed that philosophers make the mistake of trying to explain things that were already very simple and self-evident, by producing logical definitions that make things worse! When I said that the proposition I am thinking, therefore I exist is ‘the first and most certain thing to occur to anyone who philosophizes in an orderly way’, I wasn’t meaning to deny that one must first know what thought, existence and certainty are, and know that it’s impossible for something to think while it doesn’t exist, and the like....”
(Principles of Philosophy, I.10., 1644, in Cottingham, Cambridge, 1985)

Even so, the serious argument....assuming there is one..... revolves around exactly what existence, and thereby what kind of existence, Descartes was so sure of. All he said about “....I am”, is “...we can’t suppose that we, who are having such thoughts, are nothing....” (ibid, Sec 7). He is saying what I am not, but doesn’t say what I am, only that I am.

My interpretations only, of course. — Mww

I agree. It is mystery what this "I" is.

To get to the point, antinatalism is a rational standpoint - arrived at via research, study, discussion, and argumentation. What I want bring to your attention is that antinatalism, because it requires extensive rational analysis, implies that the brains/minds that hit upon the idea were, note, not suffering; had they been suffering they wouldn't have been able to think at all. I guess my point is, in a nutshell, that antinatalism exists as a well-reasoned philosophical position means that antinatalism can't be right. — TheMadFool

If just looking and thinking about suffering of others, one could come to conclusion that antinatalism view is the right one, I think antinatalistic point of view have to be right.

That is also true. But even so, that there is a situation where everybody totally agrees about ethical values (maybe there is also scientific empirical study that proves that all humankind agree with about every ethical value) it does not tell about values as such.

There could be naturalistic fallacy. Everybody could agree with the values, but that doesn´t prove them right.
— Antinatalist

If every human agreed about a moral value, how could it be wrong? Values are just human values; my values are right according to me, but may be wrong according to others; and in such cases there is no clear right and wrong.

Take sex before marriage as an example; it is simply a matter of opinion as to whether it is right or wrong, that means it is right to leave it to the individual, and wrong to claim to univeralise it, since there is no universal agreement.

But if everybody agrees to a moral value then it cannot be wrong by definition. It could become wrong, though, if general opinion swung the other way, and everyone came to disagree with it. — Janus

I think about an option, when people don´t know what is best for them.
For example, everybody can think that mass suicide is best for everybody and for whole humankind.
And same time is possible that is not the best possible option for humankind.
I, personally, don´t make evaluation is mass suicide the best option for humankind, or is it not. My point of view is irrelevant, in this particular question.


Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-question_argument

Many people doesn´t have a slightest idea what suffering can be, good for them.
— Antinatalist

:rofl:

Would you like a similar fate to William Wallace (c. 1207 - 1305)? Hanged, drawn, and quartered?

The convicted traitor was fastened to a hurdle, or wooden panel, and drawn by horse to the place of execution, where he was then hanged (almost to the point of death), emasculated, disembowelled, beheaded, and quartered (chopped into four pieces). His remains would then often be displayed in prominent places across the country, such as London Bridge, to serve as a warning of the fate of traitors.
— Wikipedia

Perhaps that might not be to your taste, you might prefer something else, Crucifixion? — TheMadFool

I simply don´t understand your point. Wallace´s fate and - also crucifixion - is horrible. I don´t wish such a fate for anyone.

In the case of ethical claims it is not so simple. There is nothing that is subject to direct observation and testing of predictions. Now I personally think it is true that almost everyone agrees that things like murder, rape, child abuse and even theft are wrong, and if almost everyone, cross-culturally, agrees about something then there is a great degree of normative force there. — Janus

Those moral standards are quite universal, I think. My own opinion is murder, rape and child abuse are very bad crimes. Theft is wrong also, but in my opinion there´s huge difference comparing for those forementioned crimes.

But others will argue flat out that not almost everyone does agree about such things or at least that we would have to do an empirical study to determine if they do or not (a difficult or even impossible task). — Janus

That is also true. But even so, that there is a situation where everybody totally agrees about ethical values (maybe there is also scientific empirical study that proves that all humankind agree with about every ethical value) it does not tell about values as such.

There could be naturalistic fallacy. Everybody could agree with the values, but that doesn´t prove them right.

To get to the point, antinatalism is a rational standpoint - arrived at via research, study, discussion, and argumentation. What I want bring to your attention is that antinatalism, because it requires extensive rational analysis, implies that the brains/minds that hit upon the idea were, note, not suffering; had they been suffering they wouldn't have been able to think at all. I guess my point is, in a nutshell, that antinatalism exists as a well-reasoned philosophical position means that antinatalism can't be right. — TheMadFool

My life was good when I was a child. When I was older I have suffered. But at world scale, not so much at all. There are millions and millions of people, who had and will suffer far more than I have, unfortunately.

The first person´s point of view to pain (I use the word "pain" in special meaning covering all suffering) is important. Many people doesn´t have a slightest idea what suffering can be, good for them.
When I´ve been in pain (I say in PAIN), I think this is terrible, this should not be. And sometimes it could be hectic, violent, you just react. Afterwards I have thought a lot.
Pain, suffering, the accidental part of life (you can´t escape it).
So, I don´t think your point of view is valid.

I remember when I was ten, when Descartes was introduced to me.
I thought he was wrong. I made conclusion that only sure thing is that things are certain or uncertain. I didn´t understood those "things" have to exists, although I was implicitly assuming them to be, to exist.

At those times, little bit later, I was in a car with my family me speaking about certainness and uncertainness, my grandmother asked me: Is it that true, at least, that we are in a car?
I was astonished and replied: That definitely is not sure!

Against Descartes:
""I think, therefore I am" presupposes logic without any proof of it.

Side note: You can´t prove logic logically. If you try, it is petitio principii (begging the question).
And conclusion from that and plus some extra thinking what I made is:
My hard statement is that all knowledge is based on intuition. The deductive and inductive reasoning. Disagree, prove me wrong!


If we assume classic logic in general to be true "I think, therefore I am" is analytically true.
But: empirical fact could be, that a being will think in some part of her/his brain, and make conclusion "therefore I am", even when the first thinking part of the brain has died, and the other part is alive. So, there´s somebody, who thinks and therefore exists, but this conclusion is wrong, because the first thinking part doesn´t exist anymore. That part, where "therefore, I am" is denoting.
So, statement may technically be right, but not for the right reasons.


(Augustine think way similar than Descartes over thousands years before)

This was more of stream of consciousness. I don´t think that there´s any serious arguments against Descartes, I certainly think that he proved logically his existence for himself.

In my opinion sentience does not define life. But I think, most valuable and meaningful life is sentient.
— Antinatalist

The life of a sentient being can have value both to that being and to other sentient beings. Thus my life has value to me, and also to my dog (because I feed him). By contrast, the life of a non-sentient being, such as a pre-sentient foetus, can only have value to other sentient beings; because it is not sentient, it can have no value to itself, which is to say, it does not matter to the pre-sentient foetus what happens to it, or whether it continues to live or not.

The value of a being's life to itself, rather than to others, is the core of morality. Without it, all we have is the value of sentient lives to others, and if that is all we take into account, it leads to many abuses of sentient beings for purposes that are against those beings' interests, e.g. killing them for food just because we like the way their flesh tastes, or depriving them of their liberty if they state publicly that they disagree with the way their country is being run.

A non-sentient being, such as a pre-sentient foetus, has never had value to itself. If it is aborted, it never WILL have value to itself. That is why it is not wrong to abort a non-sentient foetus. It is also why a non-sentient foetus should not be given human rights. We should only give human rights to human organisms whose lives have value to them, or have had value to them, or will at some future date have value to them. An aborted pre-sentient foetus falls into none of these categories. The idea of giving rights to something that is incapable of valuing anything, something to which it can't matter how you treat it, is absurd. — Herg

I certainly agree.

Does this mean we should allow the killing of sleeping people? I would say no. This is not because it offends against the moral rule-of-thumb that only beings that ARE non-sentient should be killed; it's because it offends against the moral rule-of-thumb that beings that HAVE BEEN sentient should not be killed. There are good reasons why, in most cases, we should follow these rules-of-thumb, the main one being that not following them tends to lead to cruelty against sentient beings, and this causes unhappiness, which is intrinsically evil. — Herg

I agree for this, also.

If I interpret you correctly, you are saying that abortion and killing already born person are morally at same level?
— Antinatalist

Yes, I unless you don't have to choose between 2. — SpaceDweller

Hard statement. Are you kind of person, who attacks to the abortion clinics?

Because procreation (and protection of it) is natural to all known life, stopping procreation is not a natural thing, I think nowhere in the nature we can observe such behavior?

Except for us humans ofc, that would likely be very unusual or not a normal thing. — SpaceDweller

That something is natural, it doesn´t make it good. You should google David Hume and Hume´s Guillotine.


What makes human fetus so special compared to animal fetus?
But I was meaning human fetus and comparing its life for already born animal´s life.
— Antinatalist

Because it's natural for one kind to protect it's own kind rather than other kind. — SpaceDweller

Like I said, that something is natural doesn´t make it good. Viruses are natural too, and cancer, for example.


In moral philosophy is a concept of  "a person".  A person has always value, and her/his life is always valuable, at least according to most moral philosophers.
Most moral philosophers don´t define couple of months old fetus as a person.
— Antinatalist

I understand, same problem as with current "criterias" that we currently have.

One may also ask. what is life and when does it begin?
Does sentience define life? — SpaceDweller

In my opinion sentience does not define life. But I think, most valuable and meaningful life is sentient.

Life is all around. Are viruses alive?
Plants are definitely alive.

Some people (like Cleve Backster) think that even plants are sentient beings.
I don´t believe that at all, but I have read his book from seventies; and in mid-nineties I read report from his scientifical/"scientifical" experiment, which purpose was to figure out do plants feel emotions (pain, in this particular experiment). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleve_Backster

but lack all the essential criterias, which are important when we evaluate a value of life of some being
— Antinatalist

I see your point, but current criterias are unfortunately not universally accepted. — SpaceDweller

They are never.

Ending life is about human rights, so if those criterias are not governed by morality then aren't they exposed to immoral conclusions?

For example, if we exclude morality then we can also say that killing a retard person is favorable vs killing a normal one, or killing a 1 month old baby is favorable vs killing 30 years old person? — SpaceDweller

I don´t think that kind of immorality follows from my opinion about right for abortion (It is indeed moral obligation at first couple of months of pregnancy, that´s my opinion and is reasoned from my antinatalistic point of view).

This is what most people may do if they're forced to death to choose.
Because one have to choose between 2 evils, so he chooses lesser one.

Morally they are all equal human beings regardless of their abilities, so I think the choice above should be random to be morally acceptable.

Same way if exclude morality, and human rights don't apply to non sentient being, a fetus, then what makes this morally acceptable? — SpaceDweller

If I interpret you correctly, you are saying that abortion and killing already born person are morally at same level?


We have to look deeper to the concept like "the human rights". To the origin of ethics.

In moral philosophy is a concept of  "a person".  A person has always value, and her/his life is always valuable, at least according to most moral philosophers.
Most moral philosophers don´t define couple of months old fetus as a person. And some philosophers give the status of a person to some animals too. Of course those philosophers could be wrong, but I wrote this to clarify my point of view.

is it by definition a human being or perhaps some animal.
— Antinatalist

I would not dare to compare human fetus to animal fetus and then draw conclusions based on perception or differences between 2 fetuses. — SpaceDweller

At least at early stages of pregnancy I would. What makes human fetus so special compared to animal fetus? But I was meaning human fetus and comparing its life for already born animal´s life.

The ability to sentience is essential, when we are discussing are we going to give - or give we not - human rights for some being.
— Antinatalist

Why?

Given the fact we are talking about human being then we should give it human rights regardless of it's abilities.

I mean, something either is human being (it exists and is alive) or it is not (does not exist or it is dead) — SpaceDweller

One thing is that, we can say a fetus is a human being by biological definition. I see slippery slope here and also a fallacy, which comes by natural language (when we simply use concept "human rights", like I also did).

A fetus can be human being by biological definition, but lack all the essential criterias, which are important when we evaluate a value of life of some being - is it by definition a human being or perhaps some animal.

↪Antinatalist
The essence is that "A human fetus is biologically human" (not "it could be") — SpaceDweller

By biological definition yes, I agree.

lack of sentience or intelligence does not make it not-a-human being. — SpaceDweller

The ability to sentience is essential, when we are discussing are we going to give - or give we not - human rights for some being.

According to my own limited knowledge, I would say Kurt Gödel.

not quite, the logic is following the essence not the accident — Alexandros

Now I have to admit, my intellect could not follow your logic.

↪Antinatalist Yes, actually you should. If a particular human will never actually exceed an ape in intelligence, then that's an argument in favor of treating this ape no worse than one would treat this human. — Xanatos

Yes, I agree. But I don´t think that value of the sentient life depends on intelligence.

The reductio ad absurdums
Finally, two unexamined points that occured to me.

If living causes suffering we should be killing everything on the planet and murder would be a just act. — Benkei

Killing causes more suffering and is extreme violation against person who will be killed. It is extreme violation against person´s sovereignty and autonomy.

If the anti-natalist plan is succesful, there would be no moral actors around to judge the world to be a better place, leading to another metaphysical nonsense comparison between what we have now and nothing - or at least a world where there are no moral actors to experience anything and have an opinion on the matter. Saying such a world is better than this one is meaningless. — Benkei

If not being born could never be better than a life, we can get some interesting conclusions.
If we forget for the sake of argument the sovereignty and autonomy of a person for a moment, we can also think a scenario, what I call absurd.

If not a moral obligation, then supererogatory act, is to breed more babies to existence to miserable circumstances, war zones etc., and when they are born and suffering, perhaps we could save them from such environment. And those who are in permanent agony and there´s no salvation for them, we could make euthanasia for them (of course we could respect their autonomy, and do so only if we can get consent from them), and we are now decreased lots of suffering!

And after all, we don´t have to decrease the suffering not much at all, because like said non-existence could never been better than most miserable life.

↪Antinatalist again, it's not your opinion about what you think it's human life, tgat has already been resolved in biology. Neither is my opinion. It's a fact. From there the rest follows. Regarding your example of an ape being more intelligent, an ape is an ape and it's not going to be more than that. Do not misinterpret me, I value apes, but as apes. And the foetus has a different essence. So it's irrelevant your comparison — Alexandros

A human fetus could be biologically human in essence of biological definition, but it is not sentient being at the early stage of pregnancy. That is the essential point.

And about intelligence, there are people who have so permanently mentally retarded condition that they could never reach the intelligence of a five year old ape. According to your point of view of importance of intelligence for value of a human life, you cannot therefore give the value of human being for those mentally retarded persons and not give the same value for apes. According to your logic, you should give more value for life of apes than for those mentally retarded people.

↪Antinatalist a psychiatric condition is behind antinatalists, calling for destruction of human life and claiming that it has no value. — Alexandros

That is not what I said. I consider human life has a great value, but I don´t regard young human fetuses as human beings.

. Evidently an inner conflict can create such a profile. May you one day open your eyes and discover how unconscious forces are guiding yourself into the realm where there is no reason. Onthe other side there is a realm of reason. Biology and logic have proven my points. Do not mix the animals here because it was never a point of discussion here. — Alexandros

All what´s in your posts are biological speciesism and statements without reasoning, there´s no logic there. And when we are discussing of giving a human rights for non-sentient fetus, speaking of also from animal rights are more than relevant. At least, already born mammals are way more sentient beings than young human fetuses.

And ability to feel emotions and to suffer is one criteria of value of life. And there´s huge difference of ability to feel pain between insects and mammals, for example. Looks like you don´t know much about biology yourself.

. The only animal that can give them value is the human being in its dimension of morality. Intellect puts the man in a higher hierarchy in the animal realm. — Alexandros

There is a contradiction with your own statement. A newborn child is not as intelligent as five year old bonobo ape. And analyzing your own logic and reasoning, I´m not sure are you either (as intelligent than five year old bonobo ape). Anyway, I give you the​ value of a human being. Human value is not depending about intelligence, or lack of it.

Yes there is hierarchy and structures and responsibilities. People with trouble accepting that develop their complexes in ideologies and as Jung called them spirit epidemics. Anyway, again, this has nothing to do with the discussion but even there your reasoning is flawed. Evidently you just feel forced to get off the track under feeble arguments, in reality the lack of them. My advice, study, be humble and take responsibilities. — Alexandros

I don´t think you are the person to talk to me about structures and responsibilities, or reasoning. You take some moral axioms for granted, with no reasonable argument behind. Some may say, that you should start to think with your own brains, but I see problem there; looks like you don´t have enough brains to think for. You can prove me wrong, but I seriously doubt your capability for that.

↪Antinatalist no, that's called amoral. If you want to change meaning and twist and pervert concepts, go ahead, there are persons who say tge earth is flat and 2 plus 2 not really four. Those have a name too. Study biology — Alexandros

Study biology yourself. There is lots of suffering among of others animals in the world, in the nature and on the other hand, caused by human beings. Your way to put freshly existent fetus´s life´s value over fetuses of other animals, or even already born animals, is speciesism. And it´s just stupid.

Study also moral and origin of ethics. Maybe you learn something.

Again, there is a whole potential in process already, which you are terminating, if you didn't do anything, the development is going to be a persona. That is to say, it's a human life that cell clump. If I take cells from my skin, it's not going to become a person. Don't try to evade moral acts. You are nobody to judge who has to be born. There is something called responsibility of moral acts — Alexandros

A fetus isn´t human being at early stage of pregnancy.

You are nobody to judge who should forced to be born. Having a child is a selfish act.
The moral fact is, if you´re pregnant, is a moral obligation to terminate the pregnancy (at least in the first couple of months).
That is the responsibility of moral acts.

↪Antinatalist the problem is that, in your opinion, a person will be human when he is intelligent and experiencing emotions, but who told you that? how to empirically trace the moment when a person becomes a person? the answer is obvious in no way can it be traced, one way or another I will repeat once again the zygote is the stage of HUMAN development if you do not kill a person at the age of 5 when he is still developing, why should you kill him before birth? and a person develops after his birth for a huge amount of time, a person does not become a person after birth who determines this and how? magically? I will repeat once again that I am for abortion and for human life, just like you, but you need to be able to discard your prejudices and use logical analysis thank you — evtifron

In my opinion the question, is a person intelligent or is she/he not, is not relevant for her/his value. The ability to suffer and feel emotions are relevant, however.


"I will repeat once again the zygote is the stage of HUMAN development if you do not kill a person at the age of 5 when he is still developing, why should you kill him before birth?"

For my point of view, the point that is child still developing, is irrelevant. Child has reached the state of human being much earlier.
Like I said before, the demarcation line is always hard to set absolutely correct. When the fetus becomes human? David Benatar says it´s about 28 weeks. Some people say for sure, that fetus becomes human earlier.

Saying that, my point of view, to kill a fetus - make an abortion - in first couple of months has a quite big safe margin comparing to Benatar´s opinion. Benatar could be right, but in my opinion is always right, moral obligation as a matter of fact, make an abortion in first couple of months of pregnancy.

I will repeat once again that I am for abortion and for human life, just like you, but you need to be able to discard your prejudices and use logical analysis thank you — evtifron

If you are for abortion, how will you answer?

↪Antinatalist How about you answer my question first? It should also clarify why euthanasia is different. — Benkei

Sometimes I hear comments like this on other subjects:
"It´s not much of a loss for him,  because he didn´t know of better."

This kind of statement assumes, that there is anyway something better for him, but it´s not much for a loss for him, because he didn´t know of this betterness.

After all, this statement presuppose that there is better state for the person, does he know it or not. It is only additional annoyance, if he know that he could be in better state but doesn´t.


On "betterness":

I don´t think that is kind of a problem that you present.
I think it´s more about limitations of the natural language.

In my point of view, it´s relevant to say it is better that there is a world without people suffering, than a world with people suffering in it. Or even that there is no world, no people, no suffering - and I concern this better than the world with people suffering in it.
— Antinatalist

Yes, this fallacious intuition is shared by many. Unfortunately there's nothing logical about it. Better for whom? — Benkei

So, what about euthanasia?
Isn´t the same situation there? It is not enjoyed by anyone, at least not the object of euthanasia. Because after euthanasia she/he doesn´t exist anymore.
I have mentioned this before, but I don´t think you have answered for this.

↪Antinatalist a fetus is sentient and is a human being, what are you talking about? Once there is a conception, there is a human being. If nobody terminates (that's the word, not interrupt) the pregnancy, that fertilized ovum is going to fully develop, that means that the whole potentiality of development is part of its essence. — Alexandros

In early stage of pregnancy, a fetus isn´t sentient being. After moment of the conception, there is a cell lump. It´s quite analogous to compare it to embryo of a cow.
We don´t give human rights for cow´s embryos, we will raise cows to be eaten.

Already born cow, something in our culinaristic menu, is far more sentient being than a human fetus in early stages of pregnancy.

In that state, abortion is obligatory act. That potential forthcoming child never have to be born.

↪Antinatalist Your sentence doesn't make sense to me in that I'm confused what you're trying to say. In your last post people are either suffering or they are not. People are doing something. If there are no people, it no longer makes sense to talk about suffering because that is something people do. In other words, "suffering" is a state, which presupposes the existence of living people. — Benkei

Okay, let´s try again.

In my point of view, it´s relevant to say it is better that there is a world without people suffering, than a world with people suffering in it. Or even that there is no world, no people, no suffering - and I concern this better than the world with people suffering in it.

Okay, you may say that is senseless to use word "better" the way I used it.
This can go along to Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle, and so on.

How you speak - or denote - of nothing?
I think that natural language makes us to make many errors and lead even to philosophical problems. We may need formal logic here, but I´m not expert on it.

But I stand my ground - and I think, I have accurate reasons for that.