No one can guarantee anything. I claim it is perfectly reasonable to assume, without argument, that people want to live. And I claim that if you reflect upon humanity, then you do also have a reason in support of the premise. And if you think about it a little more, the fact that everyone seems to assume this about everyone else is only more reason to count on it. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't assume this of everyone, and I myself do not possess this intuition that everyone, including myself, ought to want to live - regardless of how many do and make this assumption. Maybe I'm defective; but I know that if one suffers enough, one will end their life or wish that they had never existed. Most people are just lucky that they don't suffer enough.

I'm not directly addressing the arguments for AN here. There's always two or three places to do that, if you'd like. I do think it's reasonable to discuss why I don't think I have to address them. — Srap Tasmaner

You made an argument in favor of an ethical theory, and didn't acknowledge my counter-argument. Why don't you have to address it? Did you even read my whole post?

You genuinely seem to be ignorant of all of the good anti-natalist arguments.

For instance, no great harm is at stake if one does not procreate; no one will be brought into the world that will potentially not want to live or suffer immensely. But if we procreate, we run the risk of bringing someone into the world who might wish that they had never existed but is unwilling to kill themselves because suicide is an unpleasant solution.

Thus, even if you might bring into the world someone who would have acted the same way doesn't mean you aren't at great risk of causing a lot of suffering or producing a person who regrets being born and that wouldn't have acted the same way. There is no negative outcome if you don't procreate, but many possible negative outcomes if you do.

Unless you consider not procreating immoral. Then you have the happy cows argument to contend with.

Ah, no, not really. I'm saying people behaving in this way do not experience themselves as needing a reason to do so, do not experience the need for decision at all. — Srap Tasmaner

That isn't an argument for anything. You are just explaining people's lack of thought given to whether or not they should procreate/save lives.

On the one hand, I'm claiming that there is a way to construe our behavior as reasonable -- this is the claim that the person affected by our actions would want us to behave that way, because they have the same instinct we do. — Srap Tasmaner

But that doesn't make saving someone/procreating right; they might suffer intensely but still want to live, for instance. I think you underestimate this portion of the populace. And a person who procreates or saves a life cannot guarantee that the person given life will share their value system - what if they are a Schopenhauer? What if they don't have that instinct for self-preservation you seem to predicate to everyone? And what if there is no way of knowing if they will have that instinct, as is probably the case?

On the other hand, why? Why should it need justification? I claim that this is an assumption of the moral theorist, despite the evidence that most people do not believe these actions require justification. — Srap Tasmaner

Then we aren't discussing ethics, because reason is central to any ethical theory - or it sucks.

Sorry for the edits.

I never said so. I was implying that all the ways of reaching the antinatalist conclusion come with ridiculous side effects, and the best way to argue against it is to highlight said ridiculous side effects. — khaled

I sincerely doubt anyone starts with the premise that "everything is wrong". And you cited it as a premise leading to the anti-natalist conclusion, not a side effect of it. So what I said remains valid: typical anti-natalist reasoning doesn't have ridiculous side effects like "charity is wrong".

“Everything is wrong” also consistently leads to the antinatalist conclusion but also leads to charity being wrong which the antinatalist will disagree with, thus forcing them to re-examine their starting premises. — khaled

Just because there are multiple ways to reach a conclusion, and one of the ways is ridiculous, that doesn't reflect upon reasonable ways of reaching that same conclusion or the conclusion itself; you don't reach the conclusion that everything is wrong via typical anti-natalist reasoning.

Right. I'm not defending the instinct for self-preservation. But I am arguing that we can rely on all members of our species having the same instinct. — Srap Tasmaner

If you were making a direct argument in favor of natalism you would need to defend this instinct, but you are skirting the issue here, instead making more of an argument that natalism is natural - not right - then claiming that if it is natural it requires no reason. Thus, you say, giving life needs no reason. This is not a good argument.

I also claim that we already do this, in rendering aid to people in peril without analyzing whether they want it or not, and in most people who decide to have children not considering it a moral issue at all unless there are specific circumstances that raise the issue --- hereditary disease, a parent's personality disorder, extreme poverty. Such circumstances make it an issue; reproducing itself needs no justification. — Srap Tasmaner

But according to an anti-natalist it does need a justification other than the one mentioned above; if I make the argument that procreation is always wrong because people suffer in ways that are asymmetric with sources of happiness, cannot consent to existing, etc. then you need to give me a reason for procreating to counter that. That people like being alive largely does not contend with the harms of bringing a person into the world according to an anti-natalist.

You could look at this thread as an "argument" for starting from different premises. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, that sounds about right.

I think our behavior can be described in terms of reasons or in terms of causes. If someone else talks about my reasons for acting as I did, they're at most reporting what I said; but they can refer to things I may not even be aware of, and that will sound more like a causal explanation than a rational one. (Is that obvious, or do we need examples?) — Srap Tasmaner

That makes sense.

To connect that with the talk of "instinct" I've been throwing around: I don't think we experience our instincts as reasons for behaving the way we do; I think we experience them as needing no reason at all for what we do. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, acting in instinct is pretty much always an action devoid of a rationale. But is the default - natalism - right? Even if it is true that it is instinctual to give life, and people are largely happy to be alive, that doesn't mean we shouldn't act without reason in this context imo. It seems to me that your argument is not so much an argument but an explanation; if you are arguing that we should act in a certain way then you need reasons - either abstract or personal. I don't see how instinct can make right.

I can come along, as an amateur philosopher, and I can look at the behavior people engage in without thinking, as the saying goes, and I can offer an explanation -- and in this case it's the bit about self-preservation and so on. — Srap Tasmaner

You correctly acknowledge here that you are explaining something more than making an argument. The only part of your argument that actually seems to be an argument is the reason that most people who are given life would have acted the same way as the person who saved them.

One oddity of my claim is that I've presented it as if our knowledge of self-preservation is itself a reason. That might be true, but it's a little weird. — Srap Tasmaner

Is this a reference to this?

Given the instinct for self preservation that all living organisms appear to share, and which can only be overcome by extreme experiences (resulting in suicide or self sacrifice), your actions are exactly the actions the person whose life you preserve would take if they could — Srap Tasmaner

You actually do cite a reason for giving life in absence of of a good reason not to: that the person you are giving life to would have acted the same in your shoes - which makes sense to me. Your OP was well-written, don't doubt it, we forum members are just being a little obtuse - or at least I was.

I don't think that's what I said. My claim, in a nutshell, is that we do not, as a matter of course, need a reason to save a life or create one. Under some circumstances, there may be an obvious and powerful reason not to, and then you can begin to weigh this against that, collect your pros and cons, etc. — Srap Tasmaner

So reasons for giving life only need be considered once there is a reason not to give life? That sounds specious; should we not always act for reasons? But I get what you are saying now - you represented it much more clearly.

Either I hit a nerve or you aren't trying very hard. My point, once again, is that in the context of whether or not someone should be given life, the most important factor is whether or not they will value their life. In my example the violinist didn't value their life, but there were reasons for the person to continue being the violin virtuoso they were, even if they were pretty crappy reasons. If you are correct in your OP and reasons for not giving life are basically the only reasons that matter, then that the violinist doesn't want to live - something that could have been predicted - is imperative. So it seems to me whatever reasons might be used to justify giving life are definitely eclipsed by good reasons not to give life. Thus, your argument is more an argument for greater prudence in giving life, and not in support of natalism much at all.

This is not even in the ballpark of what I've been posting. Maybe that's why I haven't been able to understand your responses. — Srap Tasmaner

Here I thought I said something worth saying!

An example to demonstrate why I believe your argument isn't what you think it is: maybe you want to bring into the world the next greatest violin virtuoso, but you know that they will have a rare disease that will cause them significant chronic pain - but not so much that they cannot become a virtuoso. You conceive the child and they become the virtuoso you so desired - but they don't want to live because of their pain; they wish that they hadn't been born. Does your pleasure actually give their life value? Perhaps it gives it some external value; but they don't value their own life, and I would argue that that is what matters if you are correct in your OP; you basically admit that reasons for should not do not compare to reasons for should.

if it is so likely that people will appreciate existing, and natalism is the default, then the most important factor is whether or not there is some sort of condition that will prevent them from appreciating existing after being given life.
— ToothyMaw

I really thought I had said almost exactly that. (But then the OP also mentioned instinct and people are still pointing out to me that it's instinct.) — Srap Tasmaner

My point was that there is no reason for should that is comparable to reasons for should not and that should not is the main consideration - perhaps the only consideration - that really matters when it comes to the act of bringing someone into the world and whether or not said person will predicate value to their own life. Which is not so much a sort-of argument for natalism but rather an argument for more prudent selection for giving life.

It seems to me should not is both more pertinent than should and exists independently of should.
— ToothyMaw

I'm not following this. Can you take another swing at it? — Srap Tasmaner

I'm saying that life is only potentially given value after it is given, thus reasons we should not bring life into the world are more pertinent than reasons to do it; if it is so likely that people will appreciate existing, and natalism is the default, then the most important factor is whether or not there is some sort of condition that will prevent them from appreciating existing after being given life. Thus, once again, reasons for - such as the instinctual drive to procreate - are categorically distinct from more important reasons against - a child being brought into the world that will experience only pain and die shortly. And while I am no anti-natalist, I think that it is selfish to bring a child into the world merely for the purposes of furthering your genes if you cannot properly care for them.

So does this: you come to me with a toothache and I shoot you in the head. — Srap Tasmaner

Did I say that minimizing suffering is so important we should shoot people in the head for having toothaches? Did I even say anything about why we should minimize suffering at all? I see being promoted to mod status gave you mind-reading skills.

I think it reduces suffering. How does it save life?

Did I say we should throw more people of color in prison? Or did I say we should address violence in the black community in the most effective way possible?

I am taking a longer view of the consequences than you are. — Ennui Elucidator

Perhaps. I'll have to do more research; you are likely correct about how to best decrease crime.

Very little rises to the level where it's at all likely that the receiver of the gift of life will disapprove of your actions and not be fiercely attached to the life you have given them. — Srap Tasmaner

I think that this happens more often than you might think. Not to mention one can only appreciate their life after having been given life; that someone will appreciate being alive after having been given life is different from there being an external, abstract motivation to give life before it is given (which doesn't exist). Thus, giving life is only given value after you you have made the decision; there is no should or should not at all until it is done - barring having knowledge that those you bring into existence will suffer and die and not appreciate having been given life. It seems to me should not is both more pertinent than should and exists independently of should.

Thus, black-on-black crime eclipses police brutality when discussing consequences.
— ToothyMaw

A claim you keep making but have yet to demonstrate. — Ennui Elucidator

Is 2,574 greater than 241?

My point, obviously, is that successful people of color are doing it almost entirely on their own without being given any of the advantages a young white woman or man might, and oftentimes totally devoid of governmental initiatives or aid. While we can't all be valedictorians, we can all at least finish high-school given we put our minds to it (usually). If we invested in the communities of people of color like we should, there would be more Ahmed's.

I'm not saying you are being obtuse again, but you are being a little obtuse. Of course I know he isn't a black separatist, or that he need be one; it is relevant however that he said he was successful because of other people of color, and not woke white people and the gobbledygook they often spew.

Question it all you want. I neither started nor am responsible any of the various anti-racist conversations/groups presently in existence. Tell them they are wrong and that there is no disparate impact that is presently measurable and meaningfully associated with race — Ennui Elucidator

Did I say there was no systemic racism, or did I say that we are less racist than ever? You are being obtuse.

A claim you keep making but have yet to demonstrate. When you look to the sociologists, they seem to be suggesting that creating a more just society where there is social buy-in would do even more to reduce black-on-black crime than trying to focus on typical crime reduction techniques — Ennui Elucidator

When did I say that there shouldn't be a greater social buy-in? I have said very little about actual strategies for solving black-on-black crime; I would just approach it from whatever angle is most effective.

And you are not refuting my claim by listing strategies for reducing crime. I am merely claiming that there should be movements coequal to BLM to end black-on-black violence via whatever means are most effective - be they symptomatic or systemic.

pretending like individuals are responsible for themselves based on merit alone doesn't even approach a level of serious conversation. — Ennui Elucidator

Never said they were. But we have to recognize that merit matters a lot, even if it is not the sole-determinant of success.

Do you know what farce is? Where do you think he would be if not for the 14th amendment, Brown v. Board, and the Civil Rights Act? Which levers of state power were pulled by non-whites to make them happen? — Ennui Elucidator

I'm starting to question your good faith. Obviously those changes were necessary, but the US is, as many people acknowledge, less racist than it has ever been; that was a totally different time, and issues of race were far clearer.

All I tried to address is that when you are writing to a non-specific audience (especially when the people/groups that are the presumable target of your message is exceedingly unlikely to read what you are writing), your arguments are fairly meaningless and presumptuous. — Ennui Elucidator

This is a philosophy forum, and I'm not a columnist; obviously no one is probably reading this stuff. Does that mean I can't talk about it on said forum? No. Neither does it make my arguments meaningless. I think the word you are looking for is "ineffective".

Further, I tried to highlight the way in which your methods are a performative contradiction of sorts - you say that "talking about x is not always a deflection" and want to focus on X, but you don't really stop to consider what x is alleged to be a deflection from. — Ennui Elucidator

I have said it isn't a racist deflection, yes, because if we are talking about how black lives are undervalued, then the incredible amount of black-on-black crime is relevant. When discussing consequences, such as the loss of black lives - something that is indeed being addressed somewhat by BLM and anti-racist activism - the source is not relevant unless it is being considered for remediation. Thus, black-on-black crime eclipses police brutality when discussing consequences.

I wonder how you might analyze those comments in light of your "racist" detection skills. — Ennui Elucidator

What are you even talking about here? My "racist" detection skills?

Anyways - what do you think of Ahmed Muhhamad, the first black male valedictorian of his school in Oakland? Do you think he achieved this because of anti-racist policies or through hard work? My bet is that he would've achieved highly regardless of whether or not he were the beneficiary of any social programs or initiatives.

The guy's a fucking hero in my book. Would you tell him to his face that black boys and men need white people's help to achieve highly? To extricate themselves from the violence plaguing their communities? He predicates his success not to anti-racist fanatics, but the community that raised him.

Who are you that anyone should care what you think? — Ennui Elucidator

I'm a no one, and I don't think anyone should care what I have to say on the matter, really. People of color are the only ones who can really do anything about this. The rest of us can only be allies, support movements like BLM, and try to end systemic racism.

I feel like I'm bashing my head against a brick wall here.

It isn't about what you know or what you have read, it is about whether you are trying to be a part of the system of liberation for blacks from the unjust systems or just another person choosing to ignore the unjust systems in favor of focusing on the bad behavior of individuals. — Ennui Elucidator

I can be part of the system of liberation of people of color from unjust systems and also try to empower those people of color who feel the need to advocate for greater measures against black-on-black crime by bringing it up when it is relevant - even if I can only get a few progressive white people to recognize that it is not racist to bring up black-on-black crime in this context.

I mean, do you want to talk about the destruction of black lives and property? Do you want to talk about the most significant problems facing people of color? Or do you want to virtue signal?

Look, I have nothing but love for black people - I'm even in favor of some form of reparations. But abolition isn't enough.

And I find the suggestion that I haven't done enough reading a little condescending. How do you know I haven't seen these arguments? How do you know what I have or haven't googled?

As for BLM, at some point I begin to question your good faith. BLM isn't about telling someone's neighbor not to kill them, it is about reminding government (you know, a system) about something. Yes, it would be great of the racist next door also stopped being racist, but how about we start with our systems of power no longer perpetuating racism. — Ennui Elucidator

You didn't respond directly to the point I made about devaluation being fundamental to many people's arguments about systemic racism. And I have read about this, yes. I just wanted to start a conversation here even if it isn't breaking that much new ground.

Furthermore, I am arguing in good faith. While the everyday supporters of BLM might not be able to influence the actions of gang members and other criminals, the people of color who support BLM can at least make it possible to talk about black-on-black violence as as it is relevant without immediately being labeled a racist. And even if BLM wasn't formed for that, and they want to keep their message singular, there should be a coequal movement to stop black-on-black crime if we value black lives the way we value white lives.

And I believe we do not value black lives as much as white lives. I guarantee that if young white men were jailed at the rates young black men are for non-violent drug offenses, for example, there would be a significant change in the judicial and prison system.

And yeah, I want to tear down racist institutions as much as anyone, but I don't think it will solve everything.

The after-school alliance article made the same mistake. But it is a good point that people of color rarely kill each other because they are people of color; it is usually just people murdering those in proximity to themselves. But that is even worse, imo; there is not even any real criteria for who is murdered other than something arbitrary like that.

That Cleveland article was garbage; they cited the ratio of whites killed by whites to refute the preponderance of black-on-black violence.

The problem in the American inner city is not white supremacy but the failure to socialize young males—a problem that is a direct result of family breakdown. As businesses and apartment buildings in the nation’s big cities board themselves up in anticipation of postelection rioting, many Americans may decide that if being “racist” in the eyes of the media, academics, and other elites means worrying about their community being looted or their children being shot, they will simply have to endure that slander.

I can respect that, however.

Again, the people who are talking about systemic issues seem to be focused on systemic issues rather than eliminating the harms of specific violent crimes. They are also talking about the systems of government and not focusing on extra-governmental (private) behavior. If those talking about systemic racism (the sorts of people that you would consider informed on the issue) are not discussing black-on-black crime, do you suppose they are ignorant? If you aren't an insider to the conversation (or in a position of power to respond to the advocacy coming from the conversation), what difference does it make if you don't understand why people aren't discussing your preferred issue? — Ennui Elucidator

I understand that most of those who write or talk about systemic racism are specifically talking about systems of oppression, not private behavior. But people approach systemic racism from the angle that black lives are devalued and, if we are are talking about the devaluation of black lives, then black-on-black crime is relevant (a murder is a murder; murderers almost always devalue their victims by the very nature of the act). And it very much seems to me that the conversation is indeed about the devaluation of black lives. Why else would the slogan "black lives matter" have been chosen?

Lay out a narrative of how it is that you are privilege to this critical issue, the systemic racism folk are unable to identify critical issues to their values, and that your bringing it up is helpful to their agenda rather than a deflection from the agenda they are already advancing. — Ennui Elucidator

I think it is worth bringing up because it is difficult to acknowledge that many of the admittedly oppressed people you self-identify with are responsible - at least partially - for their own horrific behavior. Acknowledging this reality would do much to bridge the gap between some hardliners on crime and those more sympathetic to the plight of impoverished people of color. And, more importantly, it would save lives.

An ethically just system of power will likely have problems with people acting unethically - a situation it shares in common with ethically unjust systems of power. Indeed, as the social circumstance of entrenched racism is redressed, you may very well find that crime against all people (POC or otherwise) decreases. — Ennui Elucidator

Consider Ireland after it became independent. The Irish people were liberated from British control, but the state fell short of its aspirations to be an ethically just system of power; mere liberation was not enough; the Irish people were brutalized by internecine violence and civil war for years after writing up their constitution.

I don't believe, like I have said elsewhere, that we can just legislate this away; abolition is likely not enough, as in Ireland's case. Neither are good motives - which appear to be plentiful on the forum.

Furthermore, we are only a part of the problem if we refuse to accept the reality of the situation and act accordingly.

Great poem.

Again, why are you mentioning it? If it is to stop systemic forces legitimizing/creating the circumstance of power in which violence is unethically directed towards particular oppressed (or politically weak) groups, then black-on-black violence isn’t relevant unless you can directly tie it to the systemic forces being discussed. — Ennui Elucidator

I would say that if we are concerned with saving the lives of people of color, then black-on-black crime is far more relevant than police brutality, for example (something I believe is the result of both personal and systemic racism). We should target the largest source of these murders if all we care about is stopping them and giving black lives the value they deserve.

If I told you that I murdered another black man because of a legacy of racism, would you accept that? If not, would I not be devaluing that man's life by deciding to murder him of my own free will? It seems to me that many murderers of other people of color devalue each other's lives as much as any racist police officer. This might be a bitter pill, but I don't really care.

I seem to remember a certain man calling out another for not recognizing good intent, when really many people's well-intended actions lack any consideration for the wellbeing of those affected by said actions - which might be considered evil. I think many of the people who deny the relevance of black-on-black crime fall into this camp (although I would not say that they are evil; perhaps just confused).

I read some of that thread. I saw nothing in it that I do not agree with - especially some of the policies you outlined. That being said no attention is given to the reality that the bystanders cannot fix this alone. We can't just legislate away the preponderance of black-on-black crime in black communities - even if it may indeed be an expression of internecine violence stemming from a pseudo-apartheid state in which people of color are systematically oppressed. So while we can change some stuff - have some sense.

I agree that in a perfect world no one would integrate their race into their identity.

"Any grouping is arbitrary => groups other than the human mind do not exist" makes no sense to me. The items in a group do not have to be identified with themselves or be identical to be in a group. They must merely be classed together.

But people do indeed divide themselves into groups, even if they are based on somewhat specious connections. And some experiences are more common to people of color than whites. Your argument appears to be that groups don't exist because any grouping is fundamentally arbitrary and any statistics on said group, thus, are also arbitrary. Is this correct?

This non-deflection reminds of when someone says "I'm not racist or prejudice, but ..." or "Some of my closest friends are black, but ..." I'm one of those blacks far more "concerned" about communities of color exploited and discriminated against – ghettoed for centuries – by a white-controlled socioeconomic structure that reinforces the social pathologies in said communities (re)producing internecine violence. I elaborate further in the link in my first post but you don't want to read all that, toothless, do you? Typical. :shade: — 180 Proof

I'll read it and get back to you. No need to draw assumptions.