Not sure if I even have the stamina at this point. Just try to read through the thread. — Caldwell

Absolutely no intention in doing so. Not interested in laziness. Sorry.

bye bye

Is this the litteral meaning? — Thunderballs

Yes. The term 'goods and services' is a very broad one that covers ALL resources material (Iron ore or clothes) or otherwise (labour, knowledge or arts).

The layman usually see it as about money and nothing else. money is merely the generic device of measuring value within a group of goods and services distributed.

Growth is measurement of their increase. — Thunderballs

Per person. Increased goods and services (as in Economic Growth) is based on growth per person.

If there is less to go around then there is less to go around. If there is more to go around then there is more to go around.

Economic Growth is a rough measure of the avilability of goods and services avilable to everyone.

Generally speaking where there is economic growth there is more availability for everyone. Problems arise with inequal distribution, but more problem arise with simple lack.

Don't forget that ECONOMICS is at its heart about distribution of resources

No idea what you're talking about so next time don't write in a rush.

I recommend editing the OP :)

I don't understand what this thread is about? We have, and will always, keep on keeping on. I'm sure some people are not 'supportive' about everyone using computers ... so what?

I don't get what the OP is trying to get to here.

I didn´t tell the reason for my decision, but they think my decision might change, because I was so young then. In later years some of my friends questioned my decision, one woman said I would be a good father. Maybe I would, maybe I won´t. — Antinatalist

Adoption is a possibility and not against your beliefs. I'm sure you could lessen the 'pain' of life for someone well enough that way without the "responsibility/burden" (whatever it is to you) of having brought them into the world.

The question of ´right to procreate´ is plain English. — Antinatalist

It is. But it doesn't mean anything anymore than the 'right to eat' (ie. sustain yourself off of other living organisms). Such ideas of 'rights' are embedded in judeochristian heritage. The moral codes we've adopted have been for reasons that are not always valid, but if doing X and Y in one society and A and B in another, given our very silly brains, we assume the outcome in each society is dictated by A and B & X and Y even though they are singular factors that may have VERY little influence on what makes a 'better' society.

But nowadays I´ve been thinking my decision was wrong.
On the surface, at least, my answer to the question seems utilitarian. — Antinatalist

Telling me what you'd do is mostly a waste of time. By doing so you fall into the trap of what society deems as 'right' and what 'right' means. That is a point that most miss with the Trolley Problem. You don't need a 'reason' ... in fact you've porbably seen many people in your life come up with reasons for their actions that are completely fabricated (and they BELIEVE them too!).

I don't think we can escape some idea of 'what is expected of us' as humans, but I sure as hell know we can investigate further and pull back the curtain enough to guard against possible misfortunes due to blinkered views of the world we're about.

I think we think same way at many topics. — Antinatalist

Most people do. Few, if any, truly speak the same 'language' though so we're necessarily at odds with each other to some degree. I find such conflict to be a primary reason for living.

Most so called 'negative' aspects of life are shunned when they should be embraced, and vice versa. A lot of what people wish for is actually nothing more than self-torture (ie. Freedom viewed as a happy bouncy castle of fluffy bunnies and joy ... NO NO NO! Not even slighty would pure freedom look liek that because Freedom comes with the heavy burden of responsibilty. Th more freedom you have the more responsible you are ... sounds good at first but after you really think about it do doubt you'll make do with taking on 'just as much freedom as I can handle and still live comfortably with'.

There is political storm now as always. Today though technologies have made us view this weather differently. It is becoming harder and harder for me to comprehend what I would've missed if I'd be born 20-30 years ago ... I basically left college around the time the internet was really becoming a social force (facebook was just flourishing). It is hard to notice what drips by with time, but the changes have been really phenomenal and I'm excited to see what happens next. I think the old poltical cycles are going to shift because the whole cognitive landscape of human interaction has startewd to shift a lot AND there is an even bigger thing on the way with CRISPR that will make the invention of the computer look like a mere blip in human history.

Anyway, I'll start a thread up or you can about something else and see if we have anything worth disagreeing about ;)

Done here TRULY :D

'Depriving' is the same as 'denying' basically. Both work fine ... I don't think they work for non-existing entitiesd though, but hey, if you do so be it. If that is a problem then you may not be taking the meaning/s of 'rights,' 'consent' and 'good'/'bad' seriously enough.

I know that I will not have a child in any circumstances. — Antinatalist

You lack imagaination then ;) SURELY you can think of a possible (albeit highly unlikely reason for having a child?). The thrust of my point here, and often in this thread, being that extreme cases are useful to help sketch out a course of action for lesser degrees BUT they are not the sole reason for inking in a moral dictum ... things in reality are more messy/complex than we can often see.

Why favor life - pain and pleasure at its purest, leaving nothing out - over non-life (absence of pleasure and pain)? — Antinatalist

Wrong question to get a clear view imo. Yeah, I agree on the surface neither one or the other has presedence when you word it like that. Dig further and then say:

'Does something have precedence over nothing?'

This reveals the flaw. 'Nothing' is a slippery term too. Nothing does nothing and is neither important nor unimportant. Then, due to the diversity of the English language, we may equate 'nothing' with 'absence' ... this is certainly the only way we can understand it. The non-existing is not necessarily the same thing as 'absence' but we could call it 'nothing'. This is a completely different line of thought so I didn't go into it when 'ethics' was on the table.

In this instance we should really explicate what kind of 'absence'/'nothing' we're talking about. As far as I can see we're not talking about anything that make sense so I stated we cannot draw any reasonable judgement on it BUT we can most certainly pass judgement on individual cases (because we do). The universal law of 'Procreation is wrong' - in the antinalism position - makes no sense to me and many others because it rides on the back of too many assumptions that are not delved into by any great degree.

The whole psychological machinations behind the glib terms of 'pleasure' and 'pain' has been given no due consideration in the extract you presented from Benatar. If there are bits you don't agree with that he says (I'm sure there are!) then look into how these points hold up the rest of whatever his argument is. I can say from my perspective, and many others, that I didn't even need to get to the end of the first sentence to question it. I read on hoping for a revelation but nothing came. I found avoidance and real investigation.

To the obvious ... if we feel 'pleasure' we do so because we know 'pain'. If we only feel 'pleasure' do we ONLY feel pleasure REALLY? Show me a person like this please. Plus, does such 'pleasure' necessarily mean this person is ... how should I put it ... 'happily striving through life'? I don't see why this would be so. I know from personal experience that anything I deem 'worthy' has required stress and hardship, and anything that falls in my lap through happenstance is just that. In terms of actually studies done on this matter we do know that we're essentially wired to claim authorship over what we perceived as positive outcomes and deny authorship for perceived negative outcomes.

With such lived delusions and denials going on at various levels of cognition and conscious life I do not think talk of 'consent' to non-beings, OR actual beings, makes a whole lot of sense. Neither do I see a promulgation by an inept and limited being (ie. human being) holding to some universal ethic (whatever it is) makes any kind of sense. For specific INDIVIDUAL instances we can do better because we have more data to work with and can explore the possibles more readily.

Have you heard how the US Airforce tried to create a one size fits all seat for pilots? They took the average width, depth and height of pilot sizes and produce a one size fits all seat. Shock horror, it fit NO ONE. Same principle here. I cannot make sweeping statements about whether it is 'better' or 'worse' (if I followed the antinatalist pattern) to have a child because I am not privy to the live sof every human that has lived. As mentioned previously, I am fairly damn sure that most people prefer to live than to die (and that most if not all consider suicide at some point to some degree). This leaves ONLY the question of 'right' to bring life into the world ... that is just a silly idea. I could ask anyone about their right to do anything or think anything and they may also ask what right they have to ask about their right to do anything and so on ... pointless.

"Rights" are social apparatus hewn over human sociological evolution. They are tied to laws and ideas of 'universal rights' ... no sorry, not for me. Not to say I am not influenced by them I am not that naive. This brings me right back to my main point about the whole body of ethics ... it is not really a matter of what I pronounce and show in the public sphere (ie. here).

We've created ideas of justice and rights in order to live together/apart in a society. I don't think every person requires as much social interaction as others and this can cause great suffering and great pleasure. Neither is BAD or GOOD, but the fact that I exist is something I value because I cannot value not existing because I cannot take part in the act of valuing anything if I don't exist and I take great pleasure and pain in exploring the world.

I don't buy into any 'moral' gibberish about empathy toward non-existing persons or pathetic excuses for shirking responsibility. The Trolley Problem is exactly what this shows in some people. A great many will happily do nothing regardless of pain or suffering OR they just flat out refuse the hypothetical as a hypothetical and childishly avoid the personal task at hand out of ignorance/stupidity (as I used to).

WHo am I to judge you may ask? I am me ... so fucking what?

I hope you would make a choice in the Trolley problem rather than not think at all. I do have a sneaking suspicion you may refuse the problem though and instead equate it with my 'denial' of your antinatalist view of 'right to procreate' but they are not the same thing at all because one is plain English and the other is not far from saying 'Purple under the Tuesday smell of square farts' which is as a grammatical construct is fine, but in terms of meaning requires leaps in metaphor and guesswork.

We only know dark gray and light gray. Don't mistaken them for imagined black or white. We can only stumble around in the degree of shade and light and be thankful when lighter times come about.

Anyway, I'm writing for me without anyone's consent ;) I am TRULY done here but if you wish to start another thread about something un/related that has as much work put into it as your OP here then I will at least read it.

It's been useful to me. Good thread :)

@Antinatalist Your summary is incorrect. I've stated this in the last post I made yet you've interpreted it some other way. I think it's only fair to reiterate ...

1) I put forward that the absence of pleasure deletes pain. They are NOT binary either or concepts. Less pleasure is bad and less pain is good (VERY generally speaking). Generally in the sense tat I've put forward before, pain can be useful and pleasure can be useless/detrimental, but in colloquial terms we can run with one being viewed as 'better' and the other as 'worse' in the immediate NOW experiencing of them.

2) I've stated that there is no one to give consent and that even an existing child in today's world is not deemed self-reflective enough for more matured humans to ask for consent about how they live their lives etc.,. Besides that, from teh get go I clearly stated that the idea of 'right' or 'wrong' was nonsensical but I just stepped past that fo the sake of the discussion (I did state this at the start of our exchange).

My answer regarding euthanasia was carefully worded and not universally applicable ethical law. You shouldn't have a hard time rereading that and retracting your thoughts about what I said. I would absolutely not just agree to anyone saying they wished to die. It would be inhuman to hand a gun to someone having a rough time so they can shoot themselves in the head if they are not in control of their our thoughts/actions due to despair (that was all I meant). From there I just extrapolated to what was most likely and concluded that most people wishing to take their lives are not exactly in a cool calm state of mind.

I don't particularly value consent in every sinngle action I may wish to take. Why should I? I believe being generally polite is enough and I certainly don't go around asking people if they are okay with me doing x or y. I'm not that insecure anymore, but I'm not exactly inconsiderate either. The most important person to ask for consent from is myself (which involves self-restraint and negotiation and sacrifice).

If you want empirical and rational reasons for valuing life over non-life go look for them. I think the question is kind of redundant myself so I don't bother too much with it anymore, but I have before. At the end of the day you just have to come to your own messy place in your head - as we all do - and focus on something you deem worthy of your time and dedication (maybe have a child?). WHat is more important after all as you stated yourself ;)

3) That was just to point out that if one wished to reduce human suffering annihilating the human race would be a sure fire way of doing so and putting an end to the 'endless cycle of pain' as those buddhist types put it. No need to get so dramatic becaus eyou think you've foudn my evil bone :D

4) I am not that keen on rephrasing either so perhaps reread:

You are not in any position to judge and for you that is enough because you believe that pain outweighs pleasure, or rather that it is not worth the risk just incase it does because absence of pleasure is not that big of a deal and that our natural 'loss aversion' (pain) is convincing enough for you to declare that although the pain is the same 'amount' compared to 'pleasure' we feel the pain more strongly so ALL life is essentially skewed toward a life of pain rather than one of pleasure. — I like sushi

I even offered up some possible evidence to back up your position. I'm not in a position to judge either - regarding any pain vs pleasure analysis - with any kind of accuracy. I am in a position to say that 'pain' and 'pleasure' are basically one and the same, so I would question the point of the question in the first place (as stated from the get go).

FINAL point before we part ways for now ...

Benatar's point not mine. I was just stating 'depriving someone of pain' is his focus (and he says so). Why not focus on 'depriving some non-existing person of pleasure'. Because it doesn't suit the argument. It is done very superficially in the quote you presented.
— I like sushi
 
I am not linguistic, but ´depriving some non-existing person of pleasure´ does not make sense. — Antinatalist

Yeah, doesn't make much sense. Yet Benatar talks like this. He says depriving someone of pain (someone who doesn't exist).

FIN :) see you around

@Pop My mistake? I thought you stated you wanted to 'publish' something. Either you editted that out or I'm confusing this with something else?

If you are wishing to publish this in some manner then this isn't really up to scratch regardless of the audience you're aiming at. If you want critique in that area I can give it. For philosophy forum anything goes really.

Either way have fun with it :)

You're failing to address what expressions of consciousness are not 'Art'. Stating that art is an expression of consciousness is not telling me what expressions of consciousness aren't 'Art'.

Also, be careful distinguishing between (or at least addressing as clearly and concisely as possible) the act of producing art, viewing art and objects regarded as art (tied into the former).

@Pop I don't really see much here tbh. I would suggest putting forward other philosopher's definitions and thoughts about 'Art' and pointing out their limitations.

Once you've done that I would also suggest getting across what isn't 'Art'. The way you've put it - about 'consciousness' - just leaves me asking what 'expression of consciousness' means here compared to just plain old 'consciousness' ... that should only be dealt with at a later time once you've gone over definitions and thoughts that are already out there today (check aesthetics).

When you've done that I'd be interested to read what you've got :)

Perhaps asking what the aim of 'morality'/'ethics' is would reveal some misinterpretations?

I have to take antinatalism as a dishonest philosophy. It does not fit the account to reality, rather bends the reality to the account. I call that a lie. — tim wood

I think that may be a little harsh. It is an interesting area to explore. Any questioning of perceived 'norms' does help unearth more intriguing questions. On the surface it is certainly quite empty, but below there is merit in contemplating the ifs, buts and whys of where the thought/s came from.

I think Pink Floyd's (or rather Roger Waters) lyrics relay what I mean by 'striving' in opposition to 'happiness' and such things (that I regard as quite juvenille):

So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from hell?
Blue skies from pain?
Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?
Did they get you to trade
Your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
Did you exchange
A walk-on part in the war
For a leading role in a cage?

I don't think we can really tell 'good' from 'bad' or even know what these concepts mean (it is impossible to explicate a 'feeling' accurately). The antinatalist is assuming they have made a solid judgement over 'heaven and hell' regarding the 'right' and 'wrong' of the sitiuation.

WIth a choice between torturing someone to death for a decade OR killing two people quickly what would we really choose. If those were the ONLY options. What is our instant reaction to such a question and in reacting to this question (by needing to associate it's meaning through a social medium of communication - lanaguage) how much of our 'choice' is dictated by the possible revalation in the public sphere EVEN IF we have no intention of revealing our choice.

I would strongly argue that ANY public declaration of your choice here has to be muddied by how this choice could or would be received. In that light honesty to ourselves, and everyone else, is practically impossible. Any attempts to wrangle around this will result in a deceit of sorts.

We have reason to help us navigate these kind of hypothetical problems and one may ask what their use is. The use is in using the hypothetical in a 'selffish' manner and keeping your 'choice' absent in order to explore what you 'feel' rather than ideas about what 'should' or shouldn't' be done. Then we can at least have a better understanding of what we would wish to do - 'selffishly,' as per aboive meaning of 'selffish' - and then have a target to extend toward.

That is how I view any 'ethical' proposition. It may very well be considered a 'non-ethic' which is fine by me :)

"However, I accept a point of view that for some human being life could be a better option than non-being. But we could never reach any kind of certainty at any case, any circumstances, at any place that life is better for any unborn, potential person."
But this fact, it could be a better option than non-being, does not justify the act of having a child. — Antinatalist

Neither does it not justify the act of having a child. It's not an argument just an empty statement about something we don't know.

There underlies the fact that somebody not existing has no needs, so absence of good is not a bad thing. It perhaps is not a "good" thing, but at least it is a neutral thing. Absence of bad is good even if there is nobody enjoying it. Presence of bad is bad, that will be quite clear. I don´t understand how you don´t get this. — Antinatalist

I get it. I just think it is a very blinkered view and ignore that the opposite position is equally as 'justified'. Why don't you see the absence of pleasure as bad is the key point here. You've not answered probably because you cannot. Neither have you responded to the lesser or larger degree position because you can happily avoid it by jumping to the complete absence of either with some imaginary non-existing person. Mental hoodwinking yourself doesn't mean it will work on me.

Do you really think that way? — Antinatalist

Do I really think that less 'pleasure' is bad and less 'pain' is good? Of course, who doesn't!?

The only reason you may not is because of the rather slippery terms 'pleasure' and 'pain' which I've previously stated I'm not exactly comfortable with using in this given context as they are far too broad and open to multiple interpretations.

I don´t see any thing, which are perceived as enjoyable, happy etc.. could ever balance the badness of Auschwitzes. — Antinatalist

You sound like a 'utilitarian'. Irony?

We are living now. We can make decisions for the future. And we know the pain and pleasure are things the possible upcoming child is most likely to face. I surely can think of a universe without human beings, and a universe without life at all. — Antinatalist

They will certainly face both. It is not merely 'likely'. Speaking personally I've felt more positive about life than not overall. I understand 'pain' is necessary and I'm not bitter about it any more than I'm angry at the Sun for rising everyday without my express permission (because such would be plain silly).

And no you cannot anymore than you can imagine what bat thinks because you cannot think outside of your own head so don't fool yourself into thinking you can. We are unable to think of nothing in any pure sense - that is actually something Kant pointed out.

This is one thing we agree on, at least. — Antinatalist

And so is the presence of 'pleasure' because they are essentially the same item on a spectrum. Why on earth you decide to focus on the 'given' nature of 'pain' over 'pleasure' you'll have to figure out for yourself.

You simply do not get it, the main principle for antinatalism is: you can not do harm someone who does not exist. — Antinatalist

Kill everyone then. That way all harm will cease to exist. Auschwitz every last person alive ... it doesn't matter because once they're gone they won't be around to cry about the suffering. Nothing will matter because for humanity there will be nothing given our exitinction ... the MAIN prionciple of an antinatalist is to rile against existence. The main points is that both existing and new life is bad. You stated you are not this though so I'm puzzled why you carry the fight for an argument you don't fully agree with - an argument that at it's heart is completely nonsensical.

The only value it has is to instill a question in people about the responsibility people have for themselves and others. Generally though, those putting the argument forward do a terrible job of making this clear and/or resort to pure logic and ignore the subjectivity of such matters.

You simply do not get it, the main principle for antinatalism is: you can not do harm someone who does not exist. It is a very different case, when someone is already born and living in this world. On cowardness, I'm pretty sure I find it more on natalists, natalism is, after all, far more socially acceptable ideology than antinatalism. As an antinatalist, you are a rebel. And not that kind of "rebel" you find on mainstream movies or some MTV videos, which were watched when I was young. — Antinatalist

I get it. I just strongly disagree with it because it is a myopic view. I am NOT saying having children is better than not, I'm saying we have literally no way of coming to any reasonable conclusion one way or the other. We know we do what we do and nature is nature. Beyond that we're essentially along for the ride. Judging that lack of pain is better than a lack of pleasure is the heart of the argument. It will remain a purely subjective one from any individual perspective.

The main point is that there is no conclusive evidence either way but by all means go ahead and think what you want. I am inclined to care about HOW you think not really WHAT you think. By this I mean if you cannot argue against your own beliefs then you've missed something.

Doubt is our saviour not rigid reason or ethical drivel.

Regarding bravery. Being a rebel does not equate to brave. Bravery is facing a fear - ie. having a child and excepting the responsibility that entails rather than avoiding it due to fear - bravery would be to willingly do the right thing regardless of the personal harm it causes to you AND, in a purer sense, to do so without any other person's knowledge of what you'd done.

The above is where my interest in ethics lies. Everything everyone says about any ethical issue is mostly hollow and empty. Meaning no matter what we say in the public sphere we cannot escape the ego and self-hoodwinking involved. We cannot explore the really gritty and dark sides of ourselves in the public eye because it is shunned. The best we can do is throw out certain hypotheticals and encourage people to play with them and make them into their own personal monstrosities. Again, the benefit is enormous BUT so i sthe risk. The question remains how on earth we can make any kind of judgement about what is going too far and what is too little. This is PRECISELY where the dualistic items of 'pain' and 'pleasure' presented in this thread come into fruitition.

As a matter of fact it is not depriving anything for anybody, because there is nobody existing. — Antinatalist

Benatar's point not mine. I was just stating 'depriving someone of pain' is his focus (and he says so). Why not focus on 'depriving some non-existing person of pleasure'. Because it doesn't suit the argument. It is done very superficially in the quote you presented.

Miscarry could be tragic, but those who we see suffering from it are usually the parents of the potential child. It is more about  the expectations of the parents than missing the life of the possible upcoming child. — Antinatalist

I think I'll call the aboive clutching at straws because it doesn't make any sense. Check you've not talked yourself into a corner please. Just for the record I have experienced this personally but didn't want to divulge that to avoid vapid sympathy. And I do think from time to time about what someone who never exists misses out on (and I'm not talking about 'pain').

note: Benatar said people don't do this. Probably because he doesn't? I cannot blame him for being lazy I guess. It is what it is.

If you try to attack the asymmetry argument, the different situation for your example above, is that in your example there are living people, who could feel the loss of something good and possibly feel grief from that. — Antinatalist

I didn't attack it. I just dismantled it with ease.

If you wish to imagine a world of non-existing people as an argument do ahead and fool yourself. His point boils down to absence of pain is better than the presence of pleasure (with no explanation that of substance). Your argument has now done the nihilistic/buddhist trick of over stating none of it really matters if no one can be around to experience ... so fucking what? I'll tell you! Then the whole 'ethics' of it is utterly redundant ... that isn't a reasonable argument so there is in fact NO argument to be had here. We may as well argue that green smells better than red in midsummer when the kettle is flying east.

The position is that (Benatar) pain bad and pleasure not good enough. The first step toward nihilism/buddhism. The first step towards denying repsonsibility, having excemption from your actions and giving up your will to do anything about anything. It is cowardice AND it is a cowardice we HAVE TO dip into at some point in our lives in order to carrying the wonderul/scary burden of existing with aplume.

Like I said before, my antinatalism is grounded on the fact that having a child is a decision for someone else´s life, whose consent we can not have. The fact that consent is impossible to have, doesn´t make the decision right. It is a decision for someone else´s whole life, it is not a trivial "cross a road or not" kind of decision. — Antinatalist

Well then, it's a pretty unstable grounding don't you think? You are happy to talk about living people when it suits and understand perfectly well that non-existing items don't exist, yet you say 'consent' is required for something that doesn't exist? That is complete nonsense!

There is no 'consent' and that doesn't make the decision right or wrong, good or bad. Why on earth do you insist that it can be right or wrong? I'm sure your answer will go along the lines of 'because of pain,' to which I could just keep repeating myself by saying what about 'pleasure' and the almost certain fact that the vast majority of people living are quite capable and excepting of the fact that life is not just a happy go lucky experience of eternal bliss. Shit happens, and that's not the end of the world beleive it or not. Some people will have more misfortune than others, but that is just entropy at work it is NOT a valid reason to cut away the pleasure of one because of the pain of another when both of these items are one and the same thing at heart.

You are not in any position to judge and for you that is enough because you believe that pain outweighs pleasure, or rather that it is not worth the risk just incase it does because absence of pleasure is not that big of a deal and that our natural 'loss aversion' (pain) is convincing enough for you to declare that although the pain is the same 'amount' compared to 'pleasure' we feel the pain more strongly so ALL life is essentially skewed toward a life of pain rather than one of pleasure.

That I could understand. Any and everything else you've said doesn't add up, presents a one-sided argument, or just contradicts itself. I like contradictions though :) They are usually where the meat is.

Thansk again. I think I'm done here. Hope you have got something from this

bye bye

Do you think is more ethical to have a child than give euthanasia for some healthy human being, who just one time asks it (and that´s just all you know about that person)? — Antinatalist

I'm not really into some 'ethic law' so to speak. That aside, as stated before, it would depend on individual circumstances. That is the crux of it. Universal ethics is not realistic and is usually found buried in mass religious circles.

Not to avoid the hypothetical (if I was in a position to force open over the other) then I'd say having a child is 'better'. Here it is based almost entirely on reason though. The child doesn't exist so isn't suicidal, yet the person wishing to die (with no knowledge of the situation) is more than likely just in a depressive slump because that is more common than someone actually deciding to end their life due to severe illness or because they've reasoned that they are better off dead for whatever reason.

Remember though, I don't view this anything like you do and have seemingly very different impressions and experiences of what 'happy,' 'pain,' 'pleasure,' 'ethics' and such terms mean.

Dostoevsky and Ursula K. Le Guin have addressed this issue, and I think they both have great point in their texts. — Antinatalist

What are they?

In addition to my long scrawl ...

If there is some underlying 'measurement' of subjective pain vs pleasure then someone somewhere in human history someone has/will suffer more pain than anyone else, and vice versa the same is true for pleasure. Was such 'pain'/'pleasure' inevitable OR has/will humanity find a way to nurture the latter more and more in the future whilst reducing the later ... AND (most importantly!) if we have done/did this would we even know it?

@Antinatalist Mean to have written NOT even slightly convinced by it.

NOTE: Anyone else reading these are NOT quotes from Antinatalist they are from David Benatar.

I'll break it down best I can ...

The absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure is not bad. Therefore, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation. — Antinatalist

Why not absence of either is impossible in life? Why not 'the absence of either pleasure or pain is not bad'? The absence of pain/pleasure is a given in a non-existing individual. Also, lacking pleasure is not exactly what I'd call 'not bad' if the opposite argument is that lacking pain is 'good'.

Let us view this differently ... less pain is better and less pleasure is worse. I think we can all agree with that.

So we can see that the 'ethical conclusion' (a nonsense term in my view for the most part) of favouring non-procreation is based on premises set up from a biased position, or rather a singular perspective.

The conslusion I come to from the opening paragraph is that existence is bad. You said you didn't believe that so you're probably not convinced by this kind of antinatalism in reality (do doubt there are various sectionings of this philosophical position?).

We have a moral obligation not to create unhappy people and we have no moral obligation to create happy people. The reason why we think there is a moral obligation not to create unhappy people is that the presence of this suffering would be bad (for the sufferers) and the absence of the suffering is good (even though there is nobody to enjoy the absence of suffering). — Antinatalist

The above is purely based of what I consider to be singular and unconvincing premises. If the foundation is flawed the conclusion is not going to be of any use. The process can be interesting though so I'll follow it through ...

For starters, why does he assume we're morally obliged to 'create' people without pain and suffering yet doesn't think we're morally obliged to 'create' happy people? That seems like a cognitive bias to push forward his unfounded conclusion. As an opinion it doesn't quite stand up to scrutiny yet.

It looks like he's saying gray is more black than white.

By contrast, the reason we think there is no moral obligation to create happy people is that although their pleasure would be good for them, the absence of pleasure when they do not come into existence will not be bad, because there will be no one who will be deprived of this good. — Antinatalist

Why? Because he says so? I think the mental hoodwinking going on here is confusing 'degrees' of pleasure and pain with some imaginary absolute.

As I stated previous less pleasure is bad and less pain is good. A lack of either, or will to lack either, is where nihilism and what I frame as 'buddhist mentality' collide. They are in denial of existing and or against existence - and often abstain from any idea of free will too. We can see this is the end of the sentence above where non-existence is placed above existence. And as I've stated a lack of 'pleasure' is bad in my eyes just as 'pain' is bad (using the terms in the broadest sense here rather than bothering with gettin into all that).

It is strange to mention the interests of a potential child as a reason why we decide to create them, and it is not strange to mention the interests of a potential child as a reason why we decide not to create them. — Antinatalist

FIrst question here is why? If we have a moral obligation to a potential child surely we need to take into account what the life of such a child could be like and how readily armed we believe we are to 'give them' (probably better to say, 'set them up for') a life they won't wish they'd ever lived. Nothing 'strange' there?

Maybe he is just referring to how people generally consider the responsibility of having children here? If so considering the downfalls isn't a steadfast peice of evidence for his argument. For people who enjoy life they wish to share it. Who better to share this perspective with than a new life. Makes perfect sense.

As previously stated we know that humans are overly optimistic in one sense yet there is pretty good evidence that we are, to put it simply, more 'loss adverse' than 'gain seeking'. It might be too much of a leap for some to parallel this with 'pain' and 'pleasure' as those are very loaded terms. In the realm of this discussion though I think it is more than worth consideration.

Next bit is a willful ignorance of 'worse'/'better' in favour of monadic 'good'/'bad' concepts ...

If it were the case that the absence of pleasure is bad even if someone does not exist to experience its absence, then we would have a significant moral reason to create a child and to create as many children as possible. And if it were not the case that the absence of pain is good even if someone does not exist to experience this good, then we would not have a significant moral reason not to create a child. — Antinatalist

Why? The absence of either means no more humans. I have no qualms with humanity to the point where I'd wish the existence of humanity away merely because I don't understand the ins and outs of the universe at large.

If there is no one to experience it then ... well, it's a pointless discussion that we cannot have because we're existing/living. Just like I cannot think outside of myself I cannot think outside of existence. These are quite basic principles in mainstream philosophy ... or so I thought :D

Someday we can regret for the sake of a person whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we created them – a person can be unhappy and the presence of their pain would be a bad thing. — Antinatalist

NO NO NO! The presence of pain is a given. No one can live a life absent of pain. The presence of pain means they live. the DEGREE of pain is the moral issue being avoided here from what I can tell. This likely because when you dig in far enough some extrememly disturbing truths surface and most sane people shun them.

eg. How many people would you kill to save 1 million strangers? Let us assume such and such a person thinks one, then we shift the question about torturing them to death over decades ... would we rather kill two instantly than torturing one for decades?

The point being here NOT to make public statements about these kind of thoughts but to get to the most honest heart of yourself about how and what you feel about this then try to draw some loose conclusions from it.

You will hopefully find that all life is equal is not where you go at the end of the day. I'm not of the camp that not all lives are worth living (who am I to say!), but I readily accept that some lives must, almost certainly, be more worth living than others. Given that we only ever get to appreciate such a question at or aroundb our demise with any real kind of perspective - and an extrememly limited singular one - passing universal judgements over what lives are and aren't worth living seems quite naive/perverse. THAT is literally the only opening for an antinatalist doctrine I can establish, but it is far from convincing for all the above points made and many more I've not gotten into yet.

Someday we can regret for the sake of a person whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we created them – a person can be unhappy and the presence of their pain would be a bad thing. But we will never feel regret for the sake of a person whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we did not create them – a person will not be deprived of happiness, because he or she will never exist, and the absence of happiness will not be bad, because there will be no one who will be deprived of this good. — Antinatalist

Sounds like cowardice diguised as moral dignity. Shirking any ounce of responsibility towards others is just that. I'm not going to offer to help that person in the street because I might cause them harm ... this is precisely where an item common;ly referred to as 'wisdom' comes into play. I think the ancient Greeks did pretty well in marking out the grounds about 'bravery,' foolhardy' and other such psyhcological categories of human behaviour.

Abstaining is all too often pedestalled as moral. I don't buy it. Also, as mentioned by others as an argument about a purely 'parental spective' the above is extremely selfish in terms of avoiding responsibility. you may very well be 'dripriving a possible human of happiness' but this is somehow okay in balanced to 'depriving them of pain' ... just silly imo.

We feel sadness by the fact that somewhere people come into existence and suffer, and we feel no sadness by the fact that somewhere people did not come into existence in a place where there are happy people. — Antinatalist

Nope! We do, we just don't tend to consider it because it isn't a day to day thought. I'm sure many couples who've experienced miscarraiges would quite clearly state that the above is nonsense. We can also, I'm sure, appreciate that when someone we know has died (no longer 'existing') we wish they could 'be there for this/that'.

You could well argue that these people 'existed' but I'm not sure how this works for a miscarriage as that is more or less the idea of someone coming to exist. For those dead it is similar in that they did exist but don't any longer, so it is a 'potential' (albeit an unrealistic 'potential').

When we know that somewhere people came into existence and suffer, we feel compassion. The fact that on some deserted island or planet people did not come into existence and suffer is good. — Antinatalist

Why is this 'good'? Is the assumption that they merely suffered and died? No mention of 'pleasure' here for reasons unknown. Again, there is a DEGREE of these things. Would we wish away the potential existence of someone alone on a desert island who lived a rather ordinary life on the beaches waking up in morning, fishing and dancing around a fire at night merely because they suffering hardships and pain (physical and mental)? That said it is of course VERY easy to pass a quick judgement if the proposed scenario is painted as 'Born and suffered excruciating pain non-stop for several decades before dying in even more agony'.

As a little aside 'pleasure' can be painful too. A rather horrible tale about a study where elderly people in a home were given more volunteer visitors for month. Their well-being and sense of 'happiness' when through the roof. A follow up study though showed that for some time after (once they didn't have so many visitors) that overall the sense of well-being plummetted. They didn't know what they were missing, so when it was taken away they felt worse of for it.

I find that interesting because this a little parallel reversal of arguments for antinatalism mentioned by some here. Would they be better of without such 'pleasure'? Do we measure in a 'utilitarian sense' amounts of pleasure against pain. I'm not saying one or the other just pointing out how easily such views for one side of a position can be used against it. Plus, this is a singular situation of a myriad of human experience and life.

In conclusion ...

The fact that on some deserted island or planet people did not come into existence and suffer is good. This is because the absence of pain is good even when there is not someone who is experiencing this good. On the other hand, we do not feel sadness by the fact that on some deserted island or planet people did not come into existence and are not happy. This is because the absence of pleasure is bad only when someone exists to be deprived of this good." — Antinatalist

I'm disappointed that that is all David Benatar has. Someone can exist to be 'deprived of good' yet the thought of tyhem existing to be 'deprived of bad' is wholly ignored as well as th edegree to which said potential persons will experience and deal with 'pleasure' and 'pain'.

To sum up, the absence of either pleasure or pain is not a life and therefore to draw comparisons of a life purely 'painful' or purely 'pleasureable' is irrelevant AND a complete fantasy that makes so actual realistic sense. It seems like something has happened here that many scientists try hard to guard against. That is to have an idea then search for evidence to back it up.

What this has hopefully revealed more clearly is the problems surrounding any 'measurements'/'categories' of 'pleasure'/'pain' and what exactly these terms can/could mean in various different perspectives.

Broadly, when it comes to 'ethics,' I'm instantly suspicious of any/all ethical 'conclusions'. If we don't question and scrutinise our principles I don't see what use they are to us at all. Otherwise such 'principles' are like dead limbs we drag around and use to abstain more any sense of PERSONAL repsonsibility amoung/within/without the 'world' (weltenschuuang) at large.

So Antinatalist, can we perhaps get into how 'degrees' fits in here or is this entire antinatalist vie wbased solely on a hypothetical rigid extremity?

Is there anything I've said that is unclear? Do you have a harder position to put forward - perhaps in your own words with more nuance that those of Benatar?

Thanks either way :)

@Antinatalist

I'll get to this all tomorrow. Late here now. For now I'll just say that I'd find it hard to believe the mainstream utilitarian point of view here is that 10,000 people 'happy' exempts 9,999 being tortured. I'm pretty sure you can at least agree that 10,001 people 'happy' and 9,998 is superficially 'better' than the above. They are at least different.

Given that there are no quantifiable units of such things it is merely a hypothetical to explore the ethics lying underneath (like with the previously mentioned 'Utopian' society where the happiness of all depends on the condensed suffering of one.

In the above I'd rather we all carry the burden of suffering than pile hell on one individual. The question then morphs into something entirely more dark and gruesome with progressive speed when you seriously start to ask yourself 'how many would need to suffer?' and 'to what degree?' - this is likely closer to what you're getting at.

Anyway, leave that until later if you can or respind briefly please so I can get back the Benatar bit ...

Tried to keep it short and answer in order:

I agree with David Benatar with his asymmetry argument. — Antinatalist

Maybe I only understand the surface details. On the surface it looks overly simplistic. I'm even slightly convinced by it. If you could indulge me and explain it further than the not this then x not that then y (or is that all there is to it? I hope not).

I'm interested by your view of what 'consent' means here. All living people can kill themselves. Non-existing people cannot choose to exist nor can they argue for 'lack of consent' because they don't exist. You come to exist by the acts of others (right or wrong doesn't seem to have much of a place here does it?). Once you're born you are nurtured and grow, without consent. I do think children should be given more freedom to choose when younger (specifically in education), but this would have to be a global phenomenon so in actuality such a revolution in education would be hard to impliment (not that I'm against attempts ... even though they may very well lead to worsening the situation).

Anyway, you seem to have a different use of the term 'consent'. If you can explain further it might help. I don't see how 'consent' has any application to things/people that don't exist. Neither do I think parents ask for consent to raise their children ... that would be quite strange.

Fundamental difference of having a child and that crossing the road -example is that if it´s your life, cross the road or don´t, but having a child is deciding for other person´s life, without her/his consent.
Other difference is that non-existing creature does not have to make choices between bigger and smaller risks. — Antinatalist

As stated above you'll have to explain how you're using 'consent' for a non-existing being? It doesn't make sense to me. Also, non-existing creatures don't have to make choices implies they can make choices. They cannot make choices. Subtle aspects of language can sneak in unsuspecting ideas without notice (the two meanings of 'don't have to' is one of these cases). I assume you meant cannot btw but such things can make a difference to someone's perspective :)

That is natural way to think. But you do not provide very convincing arguments for this. In matter of fact not a one. — Antinatalist

I'm not here to present any argument to say that bring life into the world is 'better'/'good'. It's your position that's up for debate right? I have discussed ethics elsewhere with points I find to be of more import. I've yet to be convinced this is a matter of much import to my view but I'm intrigued.

I value life, but it is not just about life, it is highly about the existing, living person who lives that life.
And this existing person is highly valuable. — Antinatalist

Sounds like you're refusing to call an Orange an Orange and instead refer to it as a Round Fruit. I fnot I don't quite get this. I'm not trying to catch you out just want to understand what these terms mean for you. What is the difference between a person existing and a person living? Is a person living more important than a bird or plant living? Do those questions matter to your position? (if not ignore).

Regarding Pollyanna principle I do have some thoughts there but they're based on empirical evidence and neurological studies.

Basically we know that humans are 'wired' to be optimistic. We also have good evidence (psychological not neurological last time I looked) that we feel worse about loss more than we feel about a gain - hence humanity's general aversion to 'loss'. I think these items kind of do something to balance out our attitudes towards ideas/concepts ot 'pleasure'/'pain'.

Note: referring back to David Benatar I'd have to grasp his use of the terms 'pain' and 'pleasure'. I think viewing something as 'absence' of is perhaps related to the above^^

You've mentioned 'utilitarian' twice in quick succession now. You have problems with that perspective? If so what are they (beyond the obvious)?

Let´s assume you are right on that. I simply can´t think any cruel acts/things etc., which does not involve suffering, which makes your assertion kind of absurd.
But let´s still assume that I am wrong on that. If you mean some suffering will prevent some other suffering (like a boxer, who will strengthen his/her abdominals that he/she will not tear apart when facing body punches in a real fight).
But that doesn't answer the question, why there have to be life in the first place. — Antinatalist

For reference ASSUME I am right that it is neither right nor wrong. If that is the assumption there is no argument is there? To be clear I view 'right' and 'wrong' as situational. Sitting on a chair could be right or wrong (highly) in various situations and extremities. By choosing, or through happenstance, we 'have' children I don't see this as starting from a position of justification. the justification comes in the choice to have children or in the choosing not to have a child that is expected/possibility in the future.

I have no issue with questioning the why/how/what of the sitiuation. It is not a one size fits all thing though. I would not travel back in time and tell some peasant to have less children to avoid burdening their offspring with pain and suffering and to suffer more themselves in the longrun in both terms of personal and family striving (not necessarily 'happiness' which is certainly a whole other topic worthy of consideration ... I just find 'happy' to be a little off). I'm sur eyou're familiar with De Botton in this area. He has some nice ways of conveying these things, but I'm not by any means completely in agreement with everythign he says.

WHy we have life in the first place? I don't think it is a 'why?' question tbh. In the same light I don't understand the 'why?' in the 'consent' and having childrenfalls into the 'why?' category either. All questions are 'what?' underneath. Reframing such 'whys' as 'whats' in numerous ways can help pick apart the underlying mechinations .. sometimes! :D

Stakes are high, when making decision for someone else's life, like I said before. — Antinatalist

Before they are born they have no life. Bringing a life into the world doesn't require what we colloquially refer to as 'consent'. This seems to be a running theme so I'll wait for your explanation of 'consent' in the terms you mean it to be used.

Like I said one previous post, I think life can have also negative value (and those, who support euthanasia agree with me on that). But the right to end will belong only to the one who lives, it´s her/his life and other people should respect her/his sovereignty. — Antinatalist

Agreed. But again ... there are 'cirumcstances' that can alter these things. I'm not for a one size fit sall attitude. The individual case is, correct me if I'm wrong, far more important than a universal 'law' for singular people (ie. killing someone in a crazed murderous frenzy for the sake of saving others is not 'bad' but it doesn't make killing 'good'). My ethical view is about the unwilling need to explore the extreme fringes of our natures, but it is dangerous so I am not impelled to 'recommend' it for any/everyone.

But the right to end will belong only to the one who lives, it´s her/his life and other people should respect her/his sovereignty. — Antinatalist

To what degree does a newborn possess 'sovereignty'? In terms of consciousness and being a fully enough fledged human being? Again, this is certainly where the whole abortion debarcle emits something wonderful about humanity. We care about it - right or wrong - and that is human. I like humans ... mostly on an individual basis though :D

At suffering, I don´t value purely by the amount of its suffering; but to some degree it certainly correlates. — Antinatalist

Good. And I agree. It is a singular perspective to consider amoungst others. I'm inclined - for various manifest reasons - to favour some perspectives over others and undoubtedly delude myself to some degree ... such is life :) Currently here guarding against delusions but not because delusions are necessarily 'bad' I just favour lessening them to some healthy degree ... I hope! ;)

My point of view is also that preventing harm is greater value than bringing happiness — Antinatalist

I don't see the intrinsic difference between reduction of 'pain' and reduction of 'happiness' ... (see above: I await your explanation, but at least I think we've found a major point of confusion!).

My point is, that when there is no one who has to born, there is no one who has to suffer. — Antinatalist

This is where I’m curious. This is stating the obvious. Why are you focused on the ‘suffering’ though? Why do you think this justifies stating it is ‘bad’/‘wrong’ to have children. This really doesn’t make sense to me.

It is the parents choice. It is neither ‘right’ nor ‘wrong’. I can certainly imagine individual situations where circumstances may shift someone’s perspective though.

I understand that at times life seems terrible.

A parent who actually thinks about these things and decides to have a child is taking a risk to some degree. Most/any parents will tell you that they want to better themselves for their child. The child also reaps this benefit. It is more of a win win situation than a use use situation.

It is ‘right’ - in terms of ‘selfish’? I don’t think that measures up tbh. In terms of anthropology and modern society children were certainly ‘used’ to look after parents and such in old age. Child mortality was high too. Do we have the right to bring children into the world … sure, as much as we have the right to walk, pee and eat.

If life is valued/celebrated (as it is by myself and yourself) then I don’t see how arguing that we have an obligation to nurture life as any worse of an argument. I don’t believe either is ‘better’ - so to speak - because I’m some kind of absurdist I guess.

I guess all this boils down to is you must think more people suffer a substantial amount more in their lives than those who don’t AND that such suffering is intrinsically ‘bad’. I admit that last part sounds weird because ‘suffering’ isn’t generally thought of as ‘good’, but I mean something more like the use of suffering to fortify yourself for future misfortunes.

A would imagine if we could do a worldwide survey and ask every single human if they wished they’d never been born we’d find those who said ‘yes’ would likely live in a more ‘privileged’ demographic. Who knows though? I would expect most would prefer to have had a life than none at all.

Why is life valuable is kind of a ouroboros. Absurdism it generally where I go.

That´s how people usually think, that it's parents´ choice. But that doesn't make it right. — Antinatalist

As stated above. Circumstance will lean people more one way than the other. It isn’t right or wrong, any more than being hungry is right or wrong, it is just the state of affairs of humans living a life. We have moved beyond more, how should I put it, more ‘animalistic’ tendencies … or rather we’ve imbued ourselves with certain psychological restraints. I think, for the most part, we’ve learnt to make life better.

I would like to emphasise that a life without suffering (as stated by someone previously) is more cruel than a life with suffering because life requires hardships and strains, humans basically need to strive forward like Sisyphus in order to inhabit what we loosely refer to as ‘meaning’.

Your new comment above about stakes being so high for a new life. This doesn’t add up if you agree that life is valuable and that suffering is a necessary part of life (from my perspective this doesn’t add up at least).

What stakes are high? The chance of suffering? Suffering is inevitable. Life (you agree?) is valuable. Is the value of life to you determined purely by the amount of suffering involved?

My throw away comment about buddhism and nihilism is an obscure view of mine. Fro what I can tell they are two extremes of the same beast. The nihilist perspective expected more from life and then ended up staring down into the abyss. The ‘buddhist’ (loose term) expected nothing of life and stare out of the abyss. Both essentially view the world through the lens of suffering and pain.

Striving is good. Striving requires ‘suffering’. Life requires suffering. Bringing life into the world is for gods/whatever, we merely exist and strive hoping for more tomorrow. Unfounded hope? Possibly … I’d rather not gamble when the stakes are so high (ie. the ‘value’ I habour in life).

Anyway, thanks for persisting. Not sure if you can offer up much more but hope you surprise me. I’m a pessimist so I’m always happy with what comes my way because I’ve learnt to expect far worse :D

@schopenhauer1 You’re seeing/reading what you want to. I am not saying, and have not said, that it’s purely logic or not. In fact I am not even bothering with you. I think I recall it was pointless in the past.

All I can say is you appear to think I’m saying one thing when I am not.

No ‘Next’ so bye bye. I’ll talk to Antinatalist if they respond. I know many here are … not worthy of my time (my judgement). I’m always willing to open the door again briefly though ;)

Maybe we can talk in a year or two. Have fun :) or ‘suffer’ ;)

@Antinatalist I think you’re the one not listening. I think I can speak roughly for the person above by saying we’re not looking at it purely from the parents perspective. The thing is neither are we looking at it purely from the (possible) child’s perspective.

Again, back to the ‘possibility’ of harm being portrayed as a greater ‘wrong’/‘bad’. This sounds a lot like having ‘safe spaces’ and all that kind of dangerous nonsense.

No one ‘asks’ to be born because that is impossible. The choice, if it exists, is on the parents.

Maybe one day an antinatalist saviour will be born and convince us all to stop having children. Then I guess the parents of that child would feel a bit hard done by :)

This boils down to the trolley problem I set out years back. The issue is exploring the horrendous sides of our nature. I have no issue with that. That is why I am here … I’m ‘using’ you all (no apologies). Maybe what I say will cause ‘suffering’ yet I gain from it (no apologies).

You’re muddled too by the looks of it. I am not the one stating that ‘logically’ having children is ‘wrong’/‘bad’. I don’t think anyone is in the position to do so and I deem such acts as inherently ‘wrong’/‘bad’ (which is my opinion).

If you agree that that ethics isn’t purely about logic fine by me. I have no issue. If you start killing people I’ll not be o your side. If you state that having children is ‘bad’/‘wrong’ I won’t agree with just as much force.

You have no ground to talk about what is ‘cruel’ because suffering is clearly necessary in life. Sounds like some people expect fluffy pink clouds and chocolate without the pollution and diabetes. I assume it is coming from someone who lacks life experience.

Please consider that life isn’t binary. It isn’t a judgement against a or b, or joy or suffering. They are NOT isolated from each other. An argument against any ‘suffering’ is an argument against any ‘joy’. True enough we are more keyed into avoiding suffering than not, but we weren’t born with wings yet we’ve managed to overcome that obstacle.

You’re using us for some means here. What is it? To compare your ideas to others, to force them on others or maybe to avoid human relationships? Who knows … maybe you don’t know either as most likely we all go through our lives shrouded in self-deceit just to make it to the next day. The burden of being a human I’d say … not as bad as it sounds ;)

Note: Not having a child may cause millions to suffer. There is nothing logical in stating having a child may cause greater suffering in the world when the opposite is equally as true. I may even have a child with the sole purpose of raising it to perform horrendous crimes, but then they actually make more human lives much better. Passing judgement is silly. If you want to have kids then have kids. I believe some people are better suited as parents than others … but so what? Freedom is necessarily messy as it is beautiful.

You’re strange.

The word choices like ‘playing’ tell me something about you. This isn’t a logical discussion. You have an opinion that, as far as I can see, has little to no weight to it.

The comparison I made was to get the point across that we cannot fear causing ‘suffering’ every step in our lives. Every step in your life will cause ‘suffering’ some where. By this logic killing all humans will end their ‘suffering’ yet you’re not for murder … guess you’d have another name for it instead, maybe ‘avoiding collateral damage’?

There is nothing wrong with wanting to experience the joys of parenthood anymore than there is with not wanting to. I think anyone trying to take a moral high ground on what is ‘better’ is something close to what I would term ‘evil’.

Life without suffering isn’t worth living. You learn that as you mature. I guess some people get carried away with the search for some ‘answer’ or ‘solution’ to life. Again, as you mature you may see past this (I hope so).

I like humanity. I want it to keep going because I believe human life has value, because I make judgements. I’m not particularly compassionate towards nihilists or buddhists (same difference to me).

My questions remains. How is this different from saying ‘Reasons not to cross a road’ ?

They are very weak points. I can think of better points. For example, people who have children generally suffer more stress and have less ‘happiness’. People who don’t have children though don’t have the elated highs of being a parent.

On balance if you really think having children is bad/wrong/not good, then I don’t understand why.

If you cross the road you may get hit by a car … therefore never cross the road. In fact never leave your house just in case.

Is that different to saying don’t have children because they may lead a life of severe suffering. I don’t think so. Yet I leave the house and cross the road (note: the later is actually dangerous where I live).

@Antinatalist I don’t buy any of that. Nor do I find it logically persuasive. Some people REALLY SUFFER therefore having children is bad? That is not even weak, it’s just plain silly.

Note: I’m assuming there is more? If not take the bombast as not bombast :)

These are sufficient arguments not to reproduce, not to create human life in to this world. — Antinatalist

Sorry, I missed the arguments? What argument? Suffering isn’t necessarily ‘negative’ either. It is ephemeral and allows learning. Learning is ‘suffering’ to some degree.

Another point …

A Linkola-spirited argument to this could be: "Only what is can have value. Non-life cannot have value."

A possible response could be: "Maybe so, but similarly only what is can have non-value." — Antinatalist

That is just plain nonsense.

The glaringly obvious point that needs to be addressed is what ‘good’ means and what ‘wrong’ means. Also, what exactly is ‘suffering’ and given that there is an underlying idea that life is only worth living if it is pleasure for the most part seems a bit strange.

Next thing that bothered me is comparing apples with oranges. Saying a statue is like a creating a baby? Is a baby a piece of art now. That just doesn’t work. Analogies are not particularly helpful here I feel.

Perhaps the main thrust of the problem is actually about ‘meaning’. Does life have meaning? That is, as far as I can tell, a redundant question. Value is an item of a spaciotemporal being. Value is how we navigate the world. The negative aspects of life hit harder than then positive aspects of life because this is how we have evolved to survive. There is no ‘better’ or ‘worse’ in this, it is just how things are.

Note: I don’t really find the political wrangling that involves abortion or euthanasia to be very interesting either (it’s mainly something used by ‘religious’ and ‘non-religious’). Life itself is merely a parcelling of certain aspects of human experience. It is in and of itself a concept that lacks rigorous delineation from its absence. The moral issues surrounding this are always going involve opposing views because we are morally driven creatures. If everyone agreed when and if a human life has value then I’d regard that as the end of humanity (but we wouldn’t know it).

Looks like an interesting read. Will get to it soon I hope …

Yeah, I'm realizing that we can really get side-tracked by hairsplitting comparatively minor issues. Probably I need to ease off the perfectionism a bit and settle more on understanding the whole rather than each individual itty bitty detail. Those can come later with time. — darthbarracuda

This is important for this book. VERY important. Like I said, you’ll find yourself jumping back and forward through the text countless times.

It’s a boom where you’ll constantly find yourself rereading previous sections once the next reveals something. Enjoy :)

Amend above to ‘pure intuitions’.

Walls are walls because of the empty space between them. What’s your point? I can imagine a space that contains no objects.

According Kant space and time are ‘Intuitions’. Think of them as the canvas upon which cognition emerges. His view here is that mentally we ‘know’ (I prefer ‘ken’) only by way of space and time. We cannot imagine without placing something in a spaciotemporal frame.

The use of ‘transcendental’ will become more clear in later sections. He basically argues for and against different elements throughout the book so don’t take any of it as a ‘conclusion’ (so to speak).

@darthbarracuda You can imagine an empty room I’m sure.

Guess I’ll have to for the day when you can. Looks like you have an idea but are under the illusion it can make sense to others.

There is a sciencephilosophy forum where I believe you may find some guidance in terms of expressing whatever it is you’re trying to express.

GL

To describe a shape as a ‘square-circle’ is fine. I’m pretty sure we can all conjure up the image of a square with rounded corners.

Husserl nails this one pretty well I found with ‘parts’ and ‘moments’. Certain phenomenon must meet certain requirements. A sound requires pitch, tone and volume (you cannot image a sound that lacks these), and the same goes for other objects/items.

Personally I’m too fussed about the terms ‘fact’ or ‘existing’ at this level. Those are terms of human negotiation in the sociopolitical realm. I can imagine Pegasus and that is enough. If I asked you to imagine a round ball that was a cup of tea and sounded like a cat in pain but made no sound … you couldn’t. You could still try to, but it is impossible to reconcile the opposing thoughts.

Going back to the hole, ‘volume’ does have meaning independent from ‘tone’ and a ‘hole’ does have meaning independent from an object (hole in some ‘object’).

Going back to antonyms I found it interesting to ask what the opposites are for such things as ‘tone,’ ‘volume’ or ‘shape’. You’ll find there are none.

It might help to refer to the issue of ‘hole’ as a ‘part’ of something. A ‘hole’ in something (be it ground, wall or whatever). We cannot say ‘there is a hole in that hole’. Generally we don’t notice these things in day-to-day speech because we don’t say such things.

In terms of phenomenon the Dawn Star and Evening Star are different events. Just like a baby isn’t an adult and dawn isn’t dusk. The so-called object of two different events yield different facts.

‘The king is dead! Long live the king!’ Would be another instance of how separate objective events can occupy the same space in speech.

The epistemological investigation into these things is necessarily correlated to any ontological issues. In terms of antonyms I would say ontology is opposite to epistemology. The human tendency to simplify into either/or categories is undoubtedly useful, but it certainly isn’t accurate. It is necessary to regard items as opposed for a ‘fact’ to exist.

The issue is then what is meant by ‘fact,’ ‘truth’ and/or ‘existing’/‘being’ and/or ‘reality’. Most of these things carry subtly different meanings within and between different fields of investigation.

Note:

I think, that the issue is one of anthropomorphic perception or understanding. I mention that Hesperus and Phosphorus are the same entity by investigating into the direct referent of the object in question. This seems to me to be an investigational issue about the source origin of the name for Venus at dawn and twilight. — Shawn

What is the difference between ‘perception’ and ‘understanding’ or was that a gist sentence? Plus, you previously said the ‘psychological’ wasn’t where you wanted to go, so why use the term ‘anthropomorphic’? The term generally means to imbue ‘artefacts’ (events, animals or objects) with human characteristics - to assume Monday is felling happy when everyone is happy on Monday and such things.

If you mean we experience things as humans … well, yeah! If you meant that analogies and fables are used often and crossover into what we’d general call more ‘technical fields’ then yeah, I agree. This is a necessity of language evolving and humans playing.

Other deeper questions may arise here as to why we give certain words a certain sibilance. Often the onomatopoeic (the play of mimicking humans are so prone to) has a part here. This can lead to all kinds of cultural adaptations.

Language (spoken) certainly alters perception. I would not refer to language (spoken) as ‘thought’ though. I don’t need words to think, but undoubtedly words allow us to plan and parse up events - effectively ‘see into the future’ - which is a huge boon for social organisation and our perspective on our individual place in the cosmos at large (more referring to Husserl’s point about the human shift from a finite to infinite world).

I don’t think it is really ‘anthropomorphic’ to say something like ‘the Sun rises’ as that is merely an expression of what we see rather than imbuing the Sun with human qualities. It is also a ‘fact’ that it rises and not a ‘fact’ (because the Earth merely rotates - depends on context).

One of the most interesting things I like to look at is how we’ve repurposed and measured ‘events’ into something called ‘time’.

To refer back to Pegasus and Husserl … spot the difference in meaning between these two sentences:

- I can imagine a limbless Pegasus.
- I cannot imagine a Pegasus without limbs.

These are on the surface contrary. Technically speaking what I am saying by ‘without limbs’ here is that I cannot ‘unknow’ an animal that has limbs and then except them that way. Pegasus is a flying horse, a horse has legs, and if I saw a horse without legs I would notice it didn’t have legs or assume they were hidden from sight because horses have legs.

Does that make sense?