Also their sovereignty as human beings obligates other people not to use them as a mean for something, and same philosophy is also one reason for my antinatalistic views.
— Antinatalist
Yes, my AN is along similar deontological ends. In the end, it's about not using people. Do not foist unnecessary, non-trivial harms/burdens/impositions to someone else. — schopenhauer1
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. — I like sushi
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’? — I like sushi
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’. — I like sushi
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 sushi
And thus, as you see procreation does affect someone in the future. If you can agree that all life has some non-trivial harm, then I don't see how it cannot (does not) follow here: — schopenhauer1
I just say that it is a decision totally in parents hands. — dimosthenis9
So there is nothing immoral in having kids (except in the disease cases we already discussed). Why you see a contradiction here? — dimosthenis9
When you know the outcome for sure then yes it is wrong to have kids.
But that can't be applied in every situation! With the fear of the potential harm that might happen (or might not) to be deprived of having kids. — dimosthenis9
As I like sushi mentioned we can't fear of the potential suffering in every step we make, so at the end not making it at all!! — dimosthenis9
Even if you were right, your point of view is some kind of utilitarianism
— Antinatalist
I don't think it is at all. I don't even support utilitarianism. It is just a simple matter of choice for me as I told you. Nothing else.
Yes, I want human race to disappear. By voluntary choice. Not very realistic that this will happen in near future, but I think that way.
— Antinatalist
Ok at least now you admit it. I don't agree at all and I find it irrational. But as I told you I respect every opinion so I respect yours also.
My ethics is to respect people who already exist, their lives have a great value - even when they have bad ones
— Antinatalist
Sorry but it's not the case here either.
You care about the "rights" and "potential suffering" of an "unborn creature" a "0".But you don't give a fuck for the actual suffering of the ones that are already alive! — dimosthenis9
If someone wants to have kids. And he truly wants that with all his heart. That will make him so happy and not having will make him miserable for the rest of his life. Well in that case with your theory you "condemn" a living creature's life into ACTUAL suffering and misery by urging him not to be happy and have kids for the sake of the POTENTIAL suffering of a non existing creature! You value potential suffering of a "0" more that the actual suffering of an already living person. So no, please don't say that. — dimosthenis9
You’re muddled too by the looks of it. I am not the one stating that ‘logically’ having children is ‘wrong’/‘bad’. — I like sushi
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). — I like sushi
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. — I like sushi
That's all I said. Logic can be employed, but as to whether that logic or conclusion is what is truly "ethical" is not a matter of course of simply applying the logic, as we are clearly demonstrating with our disagreement right now.Nothing will naturally lead to any conclusion on an ethical matter, so you are already expecting the wrong thing from the very form (ethics). — schopenhauer1
You have no ground to talk about what is ‘cruel’ because suffering is clearly necessary in life. — I like sushi
I assume it is coming from someone who lacks life experience. — I like sushi
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. — I like sushi
The contention isn't this but whether because something doesn't exist yet, this means you can do anything you want because they don't exist yet. That is exactly what you were implying, don't try to move it to some non-controversial point that the decision is in the parents' hands. — schopenhauer1
So why is it permissible to foist non-trivial, unnecessary (doesn't need to happen) harms/suffering on a future person's behalf? You still haven't addressed this but only retreated to a non-controversial points that it is the parents' decision. — schopenhauer1
Can we agree that all life has non-trivial harms? — schopenhauer1
The fact that it is indeed a decision for someone else should mean more care is taken here, so our are only strengthening my point. — schopenhauer1
That is just an absurd statement. — Antinatalist
About utilitarianism, your arguments/reasoning seem strongly as utilitarian. — Antinatalist
if you look the act of having a child only at parent's perspective, you use the unborn potential person as a mean - not an end itself. — Antinatalist
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. — I like sushi
Wait wait. I don't try to change anything here. Once again : Since something doesn't exist wrote so many times, that then it has absolutely no choice! So not being able to take his answer whether it wants to be born or not doesn't make immoral at all the parents decision to have it! It is totally on parents hands! Since it isn't alive has simply no say on that. What exactly I changed from my original view? Can't follow you here. — dimosthenis9
I wrote you there all my argument about suffering and happiness. And how I can't accept the way you measure them, and how we think so different that life is a field of suffering etc etc. So you want us to repeat all that again?? Cause it's a potential harm that you can't be sure and the happiness that will bring might be 10times more for example! I just write it again as you not to think that I avoid your question. — dimosthenis9
You keep insisting on that cause you wanna make a certain outcome out of this! That harm in some lives might be only death (when they end) and nothing else! — dimosthenis9
So what?? Your view is that in all circumstances that decision should be "no"! And I don't agree at all! It depends on the each circumstance individual and you can never make a" rule " that you always have to decide no in having kids. Sounds totally irrational to me! — dimosthenis9
You try to gain points here for your arguments jumping to irrelevant conclusions. You don't seem the type of person, as I read other posts you make in general, who would do that on purpose. — dimosthenis9
↪Antinatalist 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. — I like sushi
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’? — I like sushi
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’. — I like sushi
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 sushi
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). — I like sushi
So this is an important point and why I'm debating! What does it matter if a person who doesn't exist doesn't experience happiness?! Are you not seeing this? What does seem to matter is that someone will not suffer non-trivial and unnecessary harms. This is the basic asymmetry between happiness and harm for something that does not (but could) exist. — schopenhauer1
If you think that there is no certainty that people will have non-trivial harm, indeed we can stop debating because I think you are being ridiculous. No one leads a charmed life, and if that is a possibility, and we are speaking of likelihoods, how likely is a charmed life .0001 or something like that. You would be intellectually dishonest if you were to hang your argument on the idea that almost all people born will most likely live a charmed life. — schopenhauer1
The only thing close to you trying to justify this is that you think that there is a real possibility for a charmed life (a life without non-trivial harm). — schopenhauer1
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. — I like sushi
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. — I like sushi
That is just an absurd statement.
— Antinatalist
No it isn't. It's a statement that you simply can't deny. — dimosthenis9
About utilitarianism, your arguments/reasoning seem strongly as utilitarian.
— Antinatalist
I ensure you I m not at all. Whether you believe it or not. — dimosthenis9
if you look the act of having a child only at parent's perspective, you use the unborn potential person as a mean - not an end itself.
— Antinatalist
The thing is that you look it only at the "unborn kid's" perspective! And don't care at all about parent's perspective. — dimosthenis9
it is still wrong because it is a decision for someone else´s life — Antinatalist
it is still wrong because it is a decision for someone else´s life
— Antinatalist
Made by an already living creature towards a "0",non existing one. And which you can never be sure (even if you had the chance) that" kid's answer" would be always a "no". — dimosthenis9
Anyway as I told you I almost played all my cards here and feel like I just repeating same things. And in general spamming is one of the main things that bothers me in TPF. So I don't want to feel that I do the same.
As I told you I respect your opinion even if I totally disagree and I depart peacefully. — dimosthenis9
My point is, that when there is no one who has to born, there is no one who has to suffer. — Antinatalist
That´s how people usually think, that it's parents´ choice. But that doesn't make it right. — Antinatalist
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). — I like sushi
But come on my friend, we did had that conversation at previous pages. The "no happiness experience" values nothing to you compared to potential harm. And with antinatalism it's like you always take for granted that "the unborn kid's" answer would be always a "no" for life! I really can't accept that. — dimosthenis9
So don't make me change my mind about you. — dimosthenis9
No kids should be born at whatever circumstance!
Mine is that you can NEVER apply such a rule in all cases! It's impossible and irrational! — dimosthenis9
I just say that every case is different and you can never make a rule about it! — dimosthenis9
If your view sounds more fair and rational than mine. It's fine. I don't have anything to add. — dimosthenis9
Again and for last time : I think very very possible a life with muchhhh happiness and little harm(not 0 harm) !
But even with the 0.001 possibility that someone's life harm is only death, your theory doesn't include it at all! A tiny possibility is still always a possibility! But I don't hang my arguments on it as you see. — dimosthenis9
You measure harm and suffering always heavier! And you see life as an "endless suffering field" as you mentioned.
Told you then that this seems to be the "root" of our disagreement. Cause I don't see life at all the way you do!
Again I repeated it for last time as not to think that I avoid your questions. — dimosthenis9
There is no need for someone's supposed "answer" to this question. — schopenhauer1
Honestly, why should I care? — schopenhauer1
why would you think it's okay to inflict unnecessary, non-trivial harm on another person? — schopenhauer1
You STILL have not recognized that no one has a charmed life and lives 90+ years of non-trivial harm. Everyone is harmed by existing. — schopenhauer1
That is enough to make AN case true if one agrees with the idea of not inflicting unnecessary non-trivial harm on others' behalf. — schopenhauer1
when empirically and anecdotally, I have never seen or heard such a thing. — schopenhauer1
Yes and I explained how harms are morally relevant while bringing-happiness is really not. — schopenhauer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.