:victory:

Thank you for agreeing with me ,(it's rare to see that on a forum like this one!). Yes, the fundamental issue with unmitigated consumerism is that it is a road to nowhere. Instead of enjoying the good, it always tries to needlessly dig holes when the ground was already filled up. We should have a balanced approach.

Sharing knowledge is undoubtedly a great way to obtain happiness!

Also, I am glad that you were able to hold on despite going through terrible harms. May you have a wonderful day/night ahead!

I think that their point is that they do prefer non-existence but they are not a huge fan of the road that leads there. In other words, they find life to be better than an overwhelmingly negative end, but not necessarily more desirable than one that would most probably be peaceful. And then one also has to think about societal expectations. I am not saying that annihilation is always better. I sincerely hope that they can find the comfort they seek.

Money is a key, but not the central, cause of happiness. I agree with much of what you have written. I think that a major issue in our modern society is that people intentionally create unnecessary desires in order to acquire superficial pleasures instead of focusing on the subtle yet more potent good of contentment. I hope that our perspectives will change. Music, family, beauty, and the pursuit of knowledge can be sources of indelible fulfilment. May people get the happiness they deserve! I hope that you have an amazing day!

I know that nobody loses something when they don't exist. However, by the same token, nobody feels satisfied/fulfiled when they don't exist either. This is why I think that there is no absolute reason for everyone to either keep living or to try to end everything. If life has nothing worthwhile left, then the only source of comfort becomes cessation—and I am not going to call you irrational for thinking that. But for a lot of people, the positives of life, such as love and beauty, are of greater value, which is why they don't have a reason to simply stop everything. The negatives may degrade the value of the positives, but they don't nullify them entirely for all individuals. In short, it does because we have a reason to gain the goods when we exist (which is the only place where value can exist). Of course, there is no objective reason for us to either continue on or to annihilate everything. But, from the point of view of sentient beings who necessarily seek positives and avoid negatives, the availability of a higher good can give one a reason to not give up.

It's not always about rationalisation; it's about the variegated nature of preferences and perspectives. I am aware of Becker's ideas. Part of the reason why people fear death is because they appreciate the goods of life. These goods could be complex, such as the relationships one has and could lose, to more basic ones, such as death resulting in some sort of horrible black void that takes away the positive state of we were in. I do think that there is a sort of paternalism when it comes to giving people the right to a graceful exit. Personally, I don't think that one's love for life should justify making someone else endure a valueless existence. Toxic positivity is a significant problem.

Some people might indeed prefer the void (especially when they cannot find any other source of value). However, this doesn't apply to all individuals. I wouldn't say that you are somehow inherently wrong to prefer the void (if that was the case, I would not have been in favour of a right to a dignified exit). But this doesn't affect my logic that choosing nothingness is just as meaningful/pointless as seeking happiness and valuing life is. Many people believe that the precious joys of life (that come from things such as worthwhile bonds with loved ones and gaining knowledge) are worth cherishing instead of focusing on a valueless void. However, if one tragically fails to find any great fountain of fulfilment, then forcing them to live by calling them irrational is wrong, I believe. Uncritically worshipping life can cause more harm than good. The survival instinct is still a part of us and can even help save us in times of need. If there is a will to live that prevents one from ending everything no matter how much they want to, there might also be a will to not exist that would obstruct people's ability to find happiness and a reason to keep living even if they do everything in their power to find it. I don't think that either of these biological processes are intrinsically irrational. At the same time, it's also true that our strong aversion to non-existence coupled with the fear of extreme suffering can force us to keep living a life we really don't want to. In such cases, provided nothing else can be done, I think that a peaceful way to choose the exit door should be available.

I am not OP, but I could try answering the question:

1. It's not easy to embrace nothingness (at least until there is a liberal right to a graceful exit that allows one to find a completely peaceful and risk-free way out).

2. Since one is already here, they could focus on alleviating the suffering of existing sentient beings.

I am thankful that the extreme step has not been taken. I hope that we can someday live in a world in which people never have to do so in a state of pure misery and despair.

:ok: :clap:

:pray:

:up: It's more than enough!

I think we can love someone without necessarily fearing that we would/could lose them. However, if we have lost something of value, then one can feel both hope and despair. I would say that the former is generally preferable. If you meant that to love someone else, one must be dissatisfied/averse to their current state of affairs, I would agree with that. But this state of deprivation/insecurity itself arises from the loss of a previous state of being satisfied/loving what one has.

Thank you for the warning!

That is what I believe. People hate different communities because they love their own and fear that others could damage their values/customs. The preference for a good is what primarily seems to drive our aversion towards its absence.

I am content with what I am capable of having. Cats are cute, by the way.

Interesting. I think that fear is a subcategory of loving (being attached to) a positive state of affairs that we would not want to lose. Curiosity is certainly a powerful source of value.

Love of life can drive the aversion, too.

Agreed.

:up: Same (unless there's potential for something new).

The very fact that you posed this question makes me think that there is clearly a part of you that finds the worldview you are currently tilting towards to be problematic. I am so sorry that you feel the way you do. I know that platitudes about how it all eventually gets better would seem like empty words to you. But I can say from personal experience that things can definitely change dramatically. I've people who began to enjoy their lives when they reached their 40s. Obviously, their cases were all manifold and intricate. But one common thread was, perhaps surprisingly enough, a shift in what they expected from life. They began to see the things in life that they once found to be merely small things that one needed to "get through" as sources of genuine (albeit not total) fulfilment. There was gratitude whilst drinking a glass of water that sustains life, amazement when thinking about the enormity of the cosmos as they were driving, and happiness at being able to help someone. You're not going to be perpetually satisfied to the greatest degree possible. Yet, there could always be some happiness within you and it could come back again with a lot more force. There's nothing that is inherently wrong with having a pessimistic outlook. Nevertheless, I believe that it can only have instrumental value for sentient beings who are necessarily driven towards regaining satisfaction. Finally, and this is a point that concerns all individuals, I believe that there has to be a realisation that people's experiences are bound to vary, so absolutist views like universal pro-natalism or absolute antinatalism don't seem to be good ideas. They tend to ignore one side of the coin and have the potential to cause unimaginable loss. Even if I suffer, that does not efface all the happiness you might experience. I hope you find the good that you deserve! Have a nice day!

Edit: I have had many discussions regarding AN on this forum. You could check my comments history if you're interested in my reasons for rejecting the philosophy. Here's an example: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/657516

I should forewarn you that these discourses are a bit long and somewhat tedious.

Precisely. I also feel that sometimes our mind starts telling us that there's something wrong/incorrect with finding happiness in these so-called small things. I generally respond to this internal pessimistic scepticism by asking why exactly should I not find beauty or meaning in that story or song? Is there an objective reason that compels me to not find it meaningful? More often than not, this makes my other side realise that, though optimism and pessimism can both be rationally chosen, only one has ultimate value that all sentient beings pursue—and there is nothing wrong with that.

I think that people should have a liberal right to exit if they cannot find any alternative source of value.

I am truly saddened by the fact that you don't seem to find joy in life. Since I am not you and don't know your experiences, it would be presumptuous of me to suggest what and how you should think. From what I have observed and experienced, however, I think I can say that moulding our perspectives can play a big role in defining the good we see in our lives. Whenever I've met the financially less-fortunate people in my area, I've noticed that they are simply content with having a decent relationship and being able to sustain themselves. They learn whatever they can and say that they don't need to create some sort of ultimate purpose that transcends their "mundane" existence. Happiness is fundamentally subjective, so I believe that there is truth to the idea that we shouldn't have unrealistic expectations. And it's possible for us to have them subconsciously without even being aware of them. If someone had told me prior to my illnesses that reading my favourite novel would give me satisfaction that would outweigh the intense pain high fever brings, I would have likely dismissed them. However, lo and behold, this is precisely what happened. Sentient experience is quite diverse (and maybe that is what plays a major role in what makes life beautiful). I think that instead of absolute natalism or universal antinatalism, a nuanced approach is desirable.

You also raised a point that I see being mentioned frequently, viz., the fact that you wouldn't need happiness if you don't exist. Now, I actually believe this to be true (assuming physicalism is correct), but this is an incomplete conclusion. If we should not be afraid of/averse to non-existence because we cannot be deprived of something when we don't exist, we should also not chase/worship the void, since the absence of suffering has no value for an inexistent being. You're not going to be in some better/more satisfied state due to the lack of harms. In view of this, non-existence has no value/disvalue. What one does with their life, therefore, becomes a highly individualised affair that differs from person-to-person and what action/emotion brings them happiness when they exist. Lastly, I wouldn't say there's something "wrong" with you. I am not a fan of blind optimism. All I would say is that, considering that value only lies in existence, I think that it can be rational to try our best to discover a source of joy that can provide us happiness for as long as possible instead of seeking cessation which is necessarily limited in its capacity to provide fulfilment. Maybe some people are too uncomfortable thinking about non-existence so they quickly jump to therapy. After having discussed this issue with many individuals, I feel that I am not one of those aforementioned people. Nonetheless, I believe that therapy can definitely help. If there is an opportunity for gaining ineffable value that is more powerful than the temporary and slightly distorted satisfaction that the void might give, it may be the better option.

I hope that you have a wonderful day ahead!

I often feel that the so-called small moments of fulfilment can also be of great value. Unfortunately, they aren't often appreciated and even acknowledged as much because we expect the positives to be greatly apparent (like laughing or the pleasure of eating). Personally, I have found an extremely bright silver lining in the darkest of clouds. I hope that this can be the reality for everyone (though it would obviously be better to reduce the size of the clouds!).

Thank you for your reply. I am saying that the claim that procreation is always wrong is not an evidently justifiable one. Even if we accept that creating someone causes unjust harms (and still don't believe that an act that doesn't reduce one's well-being can be a harm), we should not miss the fact that it also bestows happiness that innocent sentient beings deserve and cannot ask for prior to existing. Is not not just to provide a good that cannot be solicited? Sure, there could be risks, but this also applies to trying to save someone who might actually hate that or experience other negatives. We have to work on the basis of reasonable probabilities and make sure that we don't tilt too much towards a pessimistic/optimistic ultimate analysis.

You also seem to be arguing that not creating happiness is not bad because nobody loses anything if they don't exist. This is true, but this principle also applies to the prevention of negatives. If the absence of happiness is only bad if someone is deprived because of it, then the lack of suffering is only good if it allows a being to live a happier life and benefit from the absence of suffering. In order to argue that this isn't true, I think that one has to resort to arbitrary double standards that fail to recognise the value of the positives. If one is going to say that it's better/good to prevent suffering even though this prevention helps no actual being, then I can also say that it's worse/bad to not create happiness even if it's absence doesn't cause a loss to someone. Alternatively, if the argument is that creating suffering is bad but not doing so is neutral (as opposed to being good), then it is also better to bestow positives rather than maintain neutrality because a neutral state of affairs is worse than a (largely/mostly) positive one. I just don't think that the only alternative to reduced welfare is no welfare. There are guaranteed harms (though it's also a mostly likely a guarantee that nobody born today will suffer from smallpox) and there are also guaranteed ineffaceable goods. Some of the happiest people I've met have been those who didn't have a lot. I can't find the strength within me to feel that, no matter how much you cherish your life, it would have been better/not bad for you to have never existed.

There are obviously a lot of people who believe that life has intrinsic value and deserves to be continued. I think that the nature of this value cannot be entirely divorced from the well-being of sentient beings, but I certainly respect those who find some enigmatic yet potent significance in the continuation of life (and we all know that the existence of life is a rare phenomenon that only occurred because many things went right).

Assuming physicalism is true, I don't think that an empty world is bad. However, it's not good either. In other words, there isn't an absolute reason to either seek the void for everyone or to ensure that nobody ever reaches close to it. If one thinks that it is good/better that there wouldn't be any suffering in a lifeless universe, then I believe that it is incoherent to suggest that it wouldn't also be bad/worse that there wouldn't be any happiness.

Many people I know are sceptical about having children. That doesn't mean they are universal antinatalists. Conditional natalism (or conditional AN) appears to be a better alternative.

Ultimately, people like you, Bartricks, Tzeentch, and Schopenhauer1 are intelligent enough (certainly a lot more than me) to decide your path. I am just glad that there is little support for violence here because there are some who want to accomplish their goals using whatever means necessary.

Being a guardian of genuine well-being is far more important. Blindly worshipping life is a recipe for disaster.

Reckless procreation is undoubtedly problematic, and I think that it is good that there is growing awareness regarding the need to reduce suffering. Still, I don't think that universal antinatalism is the right path forward. Along with the risks, one also has to consider the opportunities. There are plenty of people who find inimitable happiness in their lives in spite of going through countless harms and their perspectives also matter. The non-existent don't experience any negatives, but neither do they gain/preserve any positives. If the objection is that the absence of happiness isn't bad because nobody is deprived, then it should also be kept in mind that nobody in the void is left in a fulfiled state of affairs due to their lack of existence. It doesn't seem particularly persuasive to me to emphasise the negatives whilst entirely disregarding the goods of love, beauty, and the acquisition of knowledge that also exist concurrently. The variegated nature of the sentient experience makes me believe that a one-size-fits-all is unlikely to be the correct one. I do believe that people should have the right to a dignified exit. In addition, judicious use of technology (Pearce's hedonistic imperative comes to mind) can also help alleviate suffering.

I am glad that you have actively played a role in preventing unnecessary misery. All I would say that there is something beyond the clouds as well and it would be better to not let a shroud of excessive risk-aversion and pessimism prevent us from grasping its value.

Also, I wouldn't mind if all rational beings willingly decided to stop reproducing due to their inability to find adequate value in the world. Perhaps I would be sad, but my sadness does not justify ignoring the reality of innumerable individuals. However, since we (fortunately, I think) do not live in a world devoid of all hope and value, I believe that it can be justifiable to procreate. At the same time, the individual should obviously ensure that the environment in which they are creating is more conducive than not to the existence of a life that would be permeated with more worthwhile experiences. One's expectations and perspectives can also influence their lives in an unimaginably powerful way, which is another reason why absolute pro-natalism and antinatalism seem limited in their scope.

I hope that you have a good day!

No worries!

The amazing thing isn't the poverty (obviously!), but their ability to find happiness in the seemingly small things of life. It's become a cliché at this point to talk about love and beauty, perhaps because these things are simply not good enough for a society that encourages creating unnecessary holes in order to fill them up again. When the good is already there, it's better, I think, to have modest expectations and appreciate the value that does exist (as much as we can).

I cannot hope to have all the answers. Nonetheless, I think that having a balanced worldview can definitely be immensely helpful. The pursuit of knowledge is obviously good for rational beings who are curious about the nature of ultimate reality. It's also important to know if the direction we are headed in is the right one. But this doesn't mean we need to embark on this journey in an emotionless manner or disregard simple the goods of life. If anything, understanding the sheer diversity of the sentient experience has made me more open to the value that might be inherent in things that I once considered to be boring or intellectually deficient. In the end, I hope that we can do the right thing, reduce acrimony, and find the happiness that (hopefully) ethical beings deserve.

Have a nice day!

I think we can all be glad that we don't live in a world wherein it's wrong to save a person (who cannot magically rescue themselves) just because there is a risk that they would actually hate it. And before someone argues that non-existent beings cannot be rescued because they aren't in a negative state of affairs that restricts their freedom, I would also like to point out that neither are there souls floating around in some joyous antechamber that provides them with unimaginable freedom which would somehow be taken away by the "imposition" of life. Yet, if creation can be an imposition, it can also be a gift. At this point, only caring about one side of the coin epitomises the flaws of a narrow perspective. To each their own, I guess.

Are you saying that all (or most) antinatalists are self-loathing? If so (and I apologise if I am wrong), I think that this would be an erroneous characterisation. Despite everything, most supporters of AN are normal people who want to make the world a better place and are tired of the selfishness and unnecessary competition they see around them. Additionally, people who hold unconventional views and are more empathetic might be self-critical to a degree that is greater than what most people are used to. I may disagree with their solution but I do believe that there is profound value in caring significantly more about our actions and how they could cause gratuitous harms. For me, doing so is an inextricable part of bringing about the happier tomorrow that innocent sentient beings deserve.

The good is always worth striving towards (though one need not forget about appreciation!).

Implications are not always accepted. Once again, I am explaining why it's not a negative, not explicating your argument. I could also say that talking about the lack of procreation not causing damage/deprivations is a straw man (vide https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/724625) because I am concerned with the benefits and not with the damage/harm that results from their absence.

When one begins to keep harping about the same point ad infinitum despite multiple attempts to demonstrate their obvious flaws, I think that there is very little one can do. I have no blind faith in unbridled pessimism. You are the one who ignored the difference between bestowing a good that cannot be solicited and imposing a harm that is neither required nor ultimately beneficial. Tragic but not unexpected.

You are also not deciding for someone if they don't exist. And once they do exist, there is nobody for whom one can decide (as far as their creation is concerned). If procreation can be an imposition even though there is no agent existing at the time of the action whose interests are being violated, then it can also be gift. Non-interference is not a good idea when one is trying to save someone (@Isaac delved deeper into the nature of the cause of harms and non-interference in a discussion he had recently). Furthermore, the central point is that it is good to decide on behalf of someone in order to provide a good they deserve and would benefit from but are not able to ask for.

The irrefutable truth is usually unaffected by flawed arguments (even if they are incessantly repeated). I am sorry if I couldn't explain myself clearly enough, but I really don't think that there is any point in trying to elucidate the same idea. Rehashing the same refuted objections leads to nowhere.

It's not just a "bigger" version of this (though the analogy does reveal your pessimistic biases). Non-existent beings have no interest to avoid existence that is being disregarded as they are dragged away from the blissful void. For existing people, not doing something negative is usually sufficient for them to live a life they value. Kidnapping someone (or intentionally forcing them to do something they dislike) is highly unlikely to give them happiness they want and deserve. But when it comes to those who don't exist, bestowing the goods of love and beauty is a far cry from unnecessarily harming existing individuals for the sake an improbable benefit. It's not 'kidnapping" someone to give a good/save someone when they are not in a position to ask for it themselves. It's not for you to decide what choices are "de facto" adequate for all sentient beings, and constantly focusing on the risks whilst downplaying the significance of beneficence and benefits only paves the way for a myopic worldview that does not understand the variety of the sentient experience. It is a major folly, I think. It will never be moral to deliberately contribute towards the end of all happiness, beauty, meaningful relationships, and the pursuit of knowledge merely because there are harms (that will differ from person to person). If there are inescapable harms, there are also irremovable goods. The fact that life does not end easily can also be seen as a blessing. It shows the resilience of the gift and how it drives us to move forward even in difficult times. The crux of the problem is that you are not willing to come out of your pessimistic narrative. For you, everything is about impositions and deprivations. However, I believe that beneficence and fulfilment are equally essential elements of forming a coherent worldview.

The good is certainly relevant. The harms are not the only important thing. Preventing all positives because of the possibility of negatives is problematic. If there doesn't have to be an actual benefit in order for us to say that creation unethically causes damage and imposition, then there is also no necessity for the lack of procreation to cause damage to someone for us to say that it is still good to bestow provide happiness.

The proof by assertion fallacy is being exemplified here. Unless the so-called game can be a source of greater value for a person and that person has an interest in it, it isn't necessary. However, non-existent beings are not in a state of affairs they prefer, which is why excessive risk-aversion at the cost of ignoring the opportunities is probably unwise. I already have the gift, and I appreciate it despite the limitations (just as many do). But even if I did not, it does not erase the value of the joy experienced by you or someone else. If you were to save me and give me something good even if there were some negatives that I would have to face, it would still be better to provide the benefits. Perspectives and experiences can differ. It is an act of beneficence to bestow a good.

It's not respectful/kind to care about preserving the non-existent freedom of inexistent souls (and if the lack of procreation does not preserve anybody's freedom but creation is still an imposition, then it is still better to bestow positives even if not doing so is not an act of aggression against someone). If it is aggressive to create the negatives (whose prevention was desired by nobody), giving positives that cannot be solicited is an ethical act that has significant value.

Of course, the aggression in providing a good to an innocent being by saving them/giving them something that they would probably find to be valuable is quite palpable.

Unremitting repetition about paternalism and aggression cannot distract one from the value of bestowing goods, which are also a key part of the "question".

Just because there is a state of affairs that is worse than absolute perfection (the world could also be permeated with a lot more harms), it does not mean that it is better to never choose the right thing for someone who cannot ask for it and bestow the good that innocent sentient beings deserve. Illimitable pessimism will not define the destiny of an existence that is filled with a variety of perspectives and experiences. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that people should be able to find a dignified exit if no other source of fulfilment can be discovered. Blindly worshipping happiness does not seem appropriate and is unlikely to lead to formation of a more ethical society.

My hypothetical pessimistic outlook does not justify me trying to prevent the manifestation of a better state of affairs for a sentient being who is not in a position to ask for the positives themselves.

"Opportunities as well" is not a valid excuse if one already has a fairly satisfied life or could have found alternative sources of value that did not require unnecessary harms. However, non-existent beings are not in a positive state of affairs, which is why one should definitely focus on the opportunities as well as the risks. Too much spinning can make it difficult to think reasonably—and that is why I generally avoid it.

Unknown benefits are also important.

Schopenhauer1 would have you believe that his worldview that is restricted to games and impositions is the be-all and end-all of human existence. However, if you were unaware of something/unconscious (and consequently unable to decide for yourself), and I brought you to a palace that you would almost certainly enjoy and be grateful for being brought there when you were not in a position to arrive there, then I think that choosing to act would seem almost certainly to be the better option.

I appreciate your sentiments. I have already addressed the claims about paternalism and why it doesn't make sense to suggest that an action that does not go against the rights of an existing being who could have had antecedent interests in a state of affairs can somehow restrict their freedom. Then, I explained that if it can be paternalistic to create life, creation can also be an act of beneficence that gives a good. This is a good that comes as a result of the actions of the procreator. Unfortunately, meaningful progress will remain elusive if people disregard one aspect of reality.

Right back to pointlessly throwing around fallacies when one is simply pointing out why one should have a consistent framework, which is different from construing one's argument in a certain way.

It is my argument and there has been no successful demonstration of its falsity.

Weasels are nice. However, prevarication will not work forever. I never said that the benefits were unmitigated. My claim is that the absence of absolute perfection does not imply that it isn't better to create positives, just as the fact that life isn't completely bad does not make one day that it is never wrong to create someone. Even though I do not find creation to have any value/disvalue, I assumed the framework to be true and then simply tried to suggest that it would be rational to expand it by also including the factors such as the goods one would experience, the fact that the positives cannot be asked for prior to existing, and also that there are ineffaceable positives that can be found by people even in the darkest of times. I am sorry if my replies seemed "uncharitable". However, I think it is you who is refusing to see the light of reason here. The unavoidable truth is that the positives will always matter. Also, it isn't "aggressive" to provide a good that cannot be solicited. Perhaps your unbridled pessimism is preventing you from grasping this.