And if we're believers in liberal democracies, we're believers in religious freedom. — Baden

No. If we're believers in liberal democracies, we're believers in religious superficialism: "It's okay to be religious, you can be any religion you want, as long as you don't take it all that seriously."

There is a tendency among beleaguered minorities to never criticize one another publicly. — Hanover

It could be that, or it's simply that such criticism would in some cases amount to interfering with the internal affairs of another country.

Moreover, perhaps they don't think there is anything to criticize.

It's an ill fated strategy based upon strength in numbers, but it predictably destroys credibility to the entire group. — Hanover

You think they care whether you find them credible or not?

Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

The angle I would take wouldn't focus excusively on Islam but use this event as an example of a wider problem--extreme religious fundamentalism, which is a stain that bleeds across different religions in different ways and is destructive in different ways. But getting back to the OP, I think it's absolutely right to expect loud condemnations from Muslim clerics worldwide. — Baden

1.

The government of Iran is an Islamic theocracy that includes elements of a presidential democracy, with the ultimate authority vested in an autocratic "Supreme Leader";[26] a position held by Ali Khamenei since Khomeini's death in 1989.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

2. Iran is a sovereign country.

3. Iran doesn't have a secular legal system the way Western secular countries typically do.

For a foreign country to interfere with a decision issued by the Iranian Supreme Leader would be a case of said foreign country interfering with Iran's internal affairs.

Iran effectively declared Rushdie to be an enemy of the state of Iran. As a sovereign country, it has the right to do that.


But the real issue is that secularists believe that Iran's fatwa was somehow frivolous. Leaking classified military documents and diplomatic cables is bad enough to consider someone an enemy of the state, but saying disrespectful things about a religious figure is somehow not. This is how secularists deny the autonomy of the religious.

Just dressed up nihilism.
— Xtrix

Wrong again.. At least get your terms correct. Nihilism in ethics, it he belief in no values. A nihilist wouldn't give a fuck if you procreated or not. They generally don't take positions that put values on things. Rather, it is philosophical pessimism, and it's not dressed up. — schopenhauer1

Ironically, both the antinatalists as well as the natalists are still firmly immersed in the pursuit of sensual pleasures, they differ only in which types of sensual pleasures they pursue.
The pursuit of sensual pleasures necessarily entails suffering.

Whether it is or isn't enough really is up to you. It's your relationship to the world, to yourself, to your emotions and needs and people. There is no "reason" someone can give you to make you feel any differently about those. The unjust thing about this world is that it's probably not even your fault you feel this way -- but because it's your life, your emotions, your desire, well... it still falls to you to learn how to live with it. — Moliere

A person doesn't live in a socio-psychological vaccum. Thus neither the existential problem nor the solution to it are within the person's power.

In a sense food lost its numero uno position in re labor to second place, below other more, let's just say, sublime aforementioned activities. To me this is a significant upgrade to the status of work which should matter — Agent Smith

On the contrary. People generally don't value food production enough, hence the abuse of the planet.

Come on. We're talking about matters of life and death. Guessing isn't good enough.
— baker

It's all we've got. What's your alternative?

I either guess which course of action/inaction will cause least suffering or I just act randomly. I prefer the guess. — Isaac

To begin with, it's not clear how to quantify hardship and suffering (importantly, the two should be distinguished one from the other). Do you measure them in dollars lost, in sighs? So the point seems moot from the onset.

Further, in the same external circumstances, one person suffers a lot, and the other suffers less. For one person, living in poverty is agonizing, for another, it's not. How do you explain that difference?

How do you decide what kind of material comfort is relevant? Did the peasants in 15th century Europe suffer as much a modern day person probably would if they suddenly had to live that kind of peasant lifestyle? Why exactly should a 15th century peasant lifestyle not be regarded as "good enough"?

I either guess which course of action/inaction will cause least suffering or I just act randomly.

It's not clear it's possible to act "randomly", although it's certainly possible to retrospectively classify one's action as "random". As far as I can see, people always act out of some motive, and usually, this is the pursuit of sensual pleasures. At that, they act in line with their current assessment of which sensual pleasure will be greater and thus, which one to pursue. As such, they live in a tightly interlinked net of their pursuits of various sensual pleasures and the results or consequences of those as they take place.

Well, people have had some silly ideas about right and wrong, so I don't see why that should be any concern of mine unless their ideas are supported by arguments that can be scrutinized. — Tzeentch

It should be your concern when those people act on those ideas, and you're on the receiving end, and not in a good sense.

I also don't see how my stance, if it can even be called that, could be genuinely classified as evil.

I wonder about that too. Clearly, some people think the antinatalist stance is all kinds of wrong (from psychopathic to evil). Although they generally refuse to present a clear case, in fact, they generally refuse to discuss the matter in any depth.

Still, if your take on the matter is right, then we need to explain how come not everyone thinks that way (and what to do with the differences).

Twisting of how language works...

Conditions X are a necessity of Y state of affairs.

Someone brought about Y state of affairs for someone else, which entails X.

Someone could NOT bring about Y state of affairs for someone else, which entails X.

Being born (Y) ALWAYS entails X (working in some manner to survive). One doesn't just "come into existence" without someone else making this happen. Some act had to be done previously.. decided upon or allowed to happen, etc. THIS situation is how I am using "forced". It is obvious how it is used. I shouldn't have to explain it like this, but since cases are being made from nothing, I'll do it to appease my pedantic interlocutors (even though they know themselves how I am using it).
— schopenhauer1

Except that some people are happy to be alive (in fact, they're so happy that they wish you'd die).

How do you explain the difference between yourself and them?

Your little eeyore video simply implicitly extolls common decency, while your religion/spirituality promotes the pursuit of sensual pleasures. (The pursuit of sensual pleasures which is inevitably linked to the destruction of other living beings: animals, plants, other people.)

You yet have to show that you're not another one of Sisyphus' waterboys.

Why would that be odd? Isn't widely differing ideas pretty much the norm for humanity? — Tzeentch

No. There is a trend toward uniformity.
And normally, one stance is considered normal, right, and all others less or more wrong, evil, pathological.

How do you quantify suffering?
— baker

Guess. — Isaac

Come on. We're talking about matters of life and death. Guessing isn't good enough.

It doesn't have to be interpreted as a negative take or mod judgement on the subject. E.g. We could say it's more convenient and efficient to have everything in one discussion. Anyhow, it took me years of careful consideration and preparation to come up with this cunning plan, so I'm not for backing down now. — Baden

Your point, while perhaps a fair one, seems not to have affected my position. — Jamal

Unfortunately, forums like this are the only place where this topic can be discussed in an at least half-way meaningful manner for ordinary people. Meawhile, the trend toward a favorable attitude toward assisted suicide and euthanasia continues. And with that, a favoring of a superficial take on the topic of "meaning of life". What is more, people who are supposedly happy with life nonchalantly advise others to kill themselves if they're not too keen on living. One would hope moderators would neither give such advice, nor passively approve of it.

My impression based on the arguments that have been put forward suggest to me most are comfortable with keeping a double standard, and feel no necessity to apply their moral principles consistently. — Tzeentch

But how come you're different than those people?

I never thought of my position of having to do with materialism. You'll need to elaborate on that one.

You don't believe in, for example, "souls" and "life after death", do you?

I don't find the other arguments logically coherent and consistent. I am not seeking to change people's minds or judge them in some way, I am just putting forward and testing ideas to the best of my ability. I don't see what there is to justify.

Don't you find it odd that different people have so widely differing ideas about some topics, specifically, procreation?

Not really, so far they are facts not beliefs. Anything saying you are not the body hasn't held up very well — Darkneos

You are your brain Baker. We've known that for decades in science now. Its not a debate. Scoop the brain out of someone and that aspect of the brain that was them is gone. It is only your imagination and hope that somehow you will continue on after death. You will not. That is fact. — Philosophim

This is a philosophy forum. This includes philosophy of science.

The OP's problem comes precisely from a lack of appreciation for the philosophy of science, and an uncritical internalization of particular scientific and popularly held claims.

I'm mainly concerned about, in a manner of speaking, junk files - they do consume valuable real estate, oui monsieur? — Agent Smith

It's not clear they do.
You're not Kelly Bundy, are you?

How do you explain that not everyone thinks the way you do about procreation?

If your position is one of materialism or something similar (as it seems to be), then how do you explain the differences in the outlook that people have on life?

And on what grounds do you justify the relevance of those differences?

I also think there's no moral problem with that because we're talking about consequences (things that you cause, effects you have on the future) and as far as consequences are concerned, having children reduces suffering more than it creates it. — Isaac

How do you quantify suffering?

And irrelevant of your status of being either a civilian or not, you might be shot, captured, tortured and injured in war. — ssu

That can happen to you in war regardless whether you're a civilian or a soldier. It can also happen to you regardless whether there is officially war or not.

And anyway, you'll probably suffer more harm from capitalists and mean neighbors in peace time than you'd do in a war from an invading force.

@rossii What should I live for or how should I live?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13302/page/p1

A person doesn't live in a socio-psychological vacuum, therefore, the answer to this question cannot be idiosyncratic.

Both created you, of necessity. Neither were done to you. — Isaac

Exactly.

We'd have to venture into a more "exotic cosmogony" in order to be able to coherently claim that the injustice of birth is done _to_ someone.

An "exotic cosmogony" like the one where living beings happily exist as "disembodied souls", but who can be embodied against their will by the act of someone else.

Stuff takes time ...

What causes life to turn on life? — ChatteringMonkey

Not enough return upon investment.

Contrary to the belief of capitalists and assorted others, people do not have an infinite willingness to invest any amount of effort, however great, into obtaining any amount of sensual pleasure, however small. You will not work the entire day just for a morsel of food.

Yes, but it exists to gather all the anti-life stuff in one place, so that it can be easily ignored. Until Baden merged them all into this thread, there were at least two or three such active discussions. We've had enough. Containment seems like the best option. — Jamal

Given the global trend toward legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia, will you rethink your negative take on the "anti-life stuff"?

Like I said, I'd love to discuss Buddhism with him. He said he understood the Buddha. To begin with, back in his day, there weren't many translations of the Pali Canon available. I wonder what his source for Buddhism was.

I shall name this village Melancholia, which sits in a flood prone depression next to the River Angst. The dark clouds are confined in the valley by the heights of Mount Despair and Mount Regret, where a true rain never falls, just an eternal cold drizzle.

Only one small path leads out, but its trailhead can only be seen by casting one's gaze above shoulder height, and none have yet looked that high up. They've heard of this Path of Hope, but never having seen it, they scoff and shrug, looking at the ground, firmly denying it. — Hanover

The righteous will be glad when they are avenged,
when they dip their feet in the blood of the wicked.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+58&version=NIV

"I'll go on" like reading the blackest passages of Cioran — 180 Proof

The irony of living to be 84 years old and die of Alzheimer's!

I'd love to discuss Buddhism with him.

Imagination is good, but living at the moment requires courage. That's it. Courage to face the mundane and the ordinary. — L'éléphant

The courage to lower one's existential standards! Yay!

Escapism has flourished over the last last decade or so.

"Facing" the mundane and the ordinary is yet another form of escapism.

This has nothing to do with peace in life, it's about the cessation of all things. — Darkneos

No, it has to do with the belief that you are your body; and it has to do with the belief that when the body dies, "it's all over".

Note: These beliefs are dogmatic, axiomatic. We're not supposed to question them.

Yet every day, we also act in ways that show that we don't hold those beliefs consistently.

If society had a different mind they'd see that and allow people to exit if they choose.

And they do, the list is growing:

Physician-assisted suicide is legal in some countries, under certain circumstances, including Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland, parts of the United States and parts of Australia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicide

I guess people only rationalize living by stating "precious joys are worth cherishing" is due to death anxiety, as Ernest Becker put it. — Darkneos

It's more the case that we're craving sensual pleasures. We don't fear death per se; we fear that we won't be supplied with sensual pleasures or that we'll run out of them.

Believing oneself to be the speaking organ of objective truth is the death of philosophy.

Well, you won't ever experience death. Death is simply, "The end". You'll experience dying if you're conscious at the time. But that's it. There is no peace, no rest, no etc. — Philosophim

How do you know????

Why bother with philosophy then ...

All of which I learned from individuals.

I have never met the collective, let alone learned anything from it. — NOS4A2

Nor has anyone else. But the things you've learned from those individuals can only work because there is the assumption that those things work interpersonally, within a social group, as opposed to idiosyncratically, as things that would work only between yourself and the person you learned it from.

But enough people do vote. — Isaac

That varies from country to country.

Yeah. I don't object to voting, or with a compulsion to vote where it's necessary. What I object to is the ludicrous notion that I have no means at my disposal to check whether I'm in such a circumstance prior to any given election. It's absurd. I know the political landscape in my part of the world very well. I know almost exactly how much use my vote will or won't be. Where it won't be of any use, there's no point in doing it. It's not magic, it's just a bit of paperwork. It either needs doing or it doesn't.

Again, that varies from country to country. I agree that in some countries, elections are an exercise in futility. In some others, not so much.

When democracy is indistinguishable from tyranny we’ve lost the plot. — NOS4A2

Again,
It seems that what you really want is that your political stance should prevail with ease.

How does a president represent the will of millions of strangers? You can't represent someone's will unless you know their will. Just getting elected by the strangers doesn't grant you some magical ability to know their will once elected. — Yohan

Representative democracy is about the elected people representing those that voted for them. Not everyone.

but wouldn't it be great to have a system for forgetting — Agent Smith

The problem isn't the remembering of painful or embarrassing past events; the problem is not knowing how to think about them wisely, what and how to learn from them.

Forgetting such events wouldn't necessarily help; but it could lead to again acting in ways that brought on those events. So that even if one were to forget the old painful or embarrassing events, if one wouldn't change one's ways, one would just recreate the conditions for those events again, provided it's in one's power to do so. For example, if you do stupid things when drunk, the solution isn't to forget those stupid things; it's to stop drinking.

As for the events over which one doesn't have control: Some studies suggest that catastrophic events like earthquakes, tsunamis, global economic crises are actually easier to cope with than the more ordinary hardships people tend to face (and over which one has much more control).

I don't vote (and never have) — Isaac

I know people who don't vote, as a matter of principle. I vote.

mainly because of the first past the post system in the UK, I probably would if we had PR, but I still would object strongly to any deification of voting. It acts, when treated that way, like an opiate, allowing people to think they 'done' politics by ticking a box once every five years, and can then rest on their laurels for the intervening time.

I suppose some people are like that. But I'm not. Perhaps it's because of the specific situation of the country I live in. Last year, there was a real danger of the then government abolishing democracy. They had gained so much power (seats in the parliament) because so many people were too apathetic to vote. But the situation here is different, than in, say, the US or UK, because we don't have a tradition of two major parties fighting for supremacy. Rather, there has usually been one major party, and a number of smaller ones which have to form a coalition in order to rule. Also, new parties spring up; many are short-lived, but they actually make it into the government. The party currently in rule (and with an overwhelming majority) was only formed earlier this year, shortly before the elections in April.
In a political situation that is this dynamic, voting does make a difference.

I'm fairly certain I'd rather live in a democracy than any of the other available options. — Isaac

Democracy isn't a given, it isn't the default. If enough people don't vote, a minority can, through what is on principle a democratic election, establish a dictatorship and abolish democracy altogether.

By voting, you, at least on principle, benefit from voting. Even if it isn't immediately obvious, and even though you cannot single-handledly change the course of politics.

Anti-social types love to blather on about markets and free trade — they’re simply merchants who lower everything to the level of transaction, because that’s all they know and thus how they see the world. Then they raise transactions among two people to moral heights.

But they always— always — ignore externalities. That’s not an accident. We’re supposed to forget about the outside world, the community, or other people altogether. What matters is ME and MY transactions.

So it goes for this sick, merchant worldview.

I’ll say it as I’ve said a hundred times: the quicker these poor saps die out, the better. For the sake of future generations. — Xtrix

But they don't die out: they stick together, they're solidary with one another. They're just not solidary with outsiders.