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 like sushi
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. — I like sushi
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 like sushi
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. — I like sushi
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’. — I like sushi
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? — I like sushi
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. — I like sushi
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 — I like sushi
So now you say that there is no need for content in your case. But you need a "yes" as to bring someone in life?? So you want it all your way! Cool!
So it's OK to take a "no" answer granted but not OK to take a "yes" for granted. Nice whatever suits your arguments better. — dimosthenis9
Cause that harm that you keep mention might be way less than happy moments. Who told you that the unborn kid wouldn't want to come to life as to even experience that?? You just suppose that it wouldn't cause that's what fit your arguments better. Well no it's not the case at all though. — dimosthenis9
To recognize that?! That existing harms everyone!?!Are you serious really??
No way! I would never recognize such a lame statement. Cause you believe life is an endless suffering that doesn't mean that everyone thinks the same! — dimosthenis9
And at the very end how the fuck you know that in all humanity existence there was not even one person who had that kind of charming life?!?! — dimosthenis9
The most possible thing is that there have been more than one!! It is statistical impossible not even one to existed!
And I told you that I don't even support my arguments in that extreme cases(which STILL exist though)!! — dimosthenis9
It's only enough in your mind. — dimosthenis9
It's statistically impossible as not even one case(for sure not only one) to exist throughout humanity's history.
And guess what? Even that rare cases make your theory totally invalid!
Not only that of course, but one more reason that make your position irrational. — dimosthenis9
You explained and I didn't agree at all. So let's drop it. — dimosthenis9
You cannot GET content!! — schopenhauer1
However, certainly it is good no one has been harmed, collateral or otherwise. — schopenhauer1
Yep, so you are hanging your argument on this guy? — schopenhauer1
That's your core argument, is it not? — schopenhauer1
That's exactly what makes it a NO moral matter at all. Cause you expect a content from a Non existing creature! A 0!You just can't do that. Impossible. So it's totally parents choice. And not a moral issue at all. You just can't accept that simple thing. — dimosthenis9
Not even letting kids experience life but to prefer not to start it at all IS bad in my eyes! You deprive them from an amazing experience! Even if you see only suffering in life. — dimosthenis9
2.the harm you create into already living parents by depriving them the joy of having the kid for shake of the "potential" harm of a non existing creature. — dimosthenis9
.the irrational outcome of your theory that is to end humanity existence. — dimosthenis9
.that the unborn kid has no choice! So it simply isn't a moral matter for parents!! — dimosthenis9
that the unjust issue that you protest giving to someone life without asking him is equalized for me with the suicide option each individual has. — dimosthenis9
I agree with David Benatar with his asymmetry argument. — Antinatalist
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
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 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
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
Stakes are high, when making decision for someone else's life, like I said before. — Antinatalist
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
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
At suffering, I don´t value purely by the amount of its suffering; but to some degree it certainly correlates. — Antinatalist
My point of view is also that preventing harm is greater value than bringing happiness — Antinatalist
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 like sushi
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. — I like sushi
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 :) — I like sushi
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). — I like sushi
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'. — I like sushi
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)? — I like sushi
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 like sushi
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. — I like sushi
IStakes 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. — I like sushi
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 — I like sushi
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!). — I like sushi
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. — I like sushi
Anyway, leave that until later if you can or respind briefly please so I can get back the Benatar bit ... — I like sushi
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Dostoevsky and Ursula K. Le Guin have addressed this issue, and I think they both have great point in their texts. — Antinatalist
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? — I like sushi
Perhaps it is just my poetic(?) way to underline that at life the person who lives is more important than his life itself, as strange as may seem when you first time hear thing like that. — Antinatalist
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 :) — I like sushi
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'd like to add the idea of "trivial harm" vs. "non-trivial harm". Trivial harm would be things like getting a papercut from a friend giving you a five dollar bill. Non-trivial harm are burdens one would not want, even if one looked back and was okay later on. It's things to a degree of threshold that they are no longer practically negligent to consider anymore. — schopenhauer1
From here, as long as we agree on the terms, AN has good footing to stand on. — schopenhauer1
As long as we agree that life is a non-trivial harm. Which is precisely what most people disagree with you on. — khaled
but realize we are going to disagree on criterion. You will say that it's a summative report that only counts. I will say that the experiences in real time have to be considered. — schopenhauer1
Non-trivial can be subjective, but it would have to be understood that all human life will have subjectively non-trivial harm. — schopenhauer1
Foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong — schopenhauer1
I won't agree that having children is non-trivial, unnecessary imposition. You must show that using whatever your criteria is. — khaled
That’s the criteria I want to know. Doubly so since supposedly it doesn’t rely on the subjective evaluation at all. — khaled
As long as you think non-trivial harm exists for all humans, the argument stands:
— schopenhauer1
What argument?
Do you mean to say that "non trivial harm exists in life" = "Procreation is wrong"?
Because that doesn't follow at all. — khaled
That is something you just implied, not what I stated. — schopenhauer1
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?). — I like sushi
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 — I like sushi
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. — I like sushi
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 — I like sushi
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). — I like sushi
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 — I like sushi
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 — I like sushi
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 — I like sushi
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. — I like sushi
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? — I like sushi
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. — I like sushi
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 — I like sushi
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. — I like sushi
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. — I like sushi
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 — I like sushi
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'). — I like sushi
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. — I like sushi
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 :) — I like sushi
You seem to enjoy being alive. If even not for the sole purpose to convince others otherwise. I'm trying to tread carefully here but, look at your argument from an outside perspective. — Outlander
Antinatalist and I like sushi, just wanted to mention that it looks like you may be going down the same road I had previously in this thread and in my previous thread about "No options" and Most people". You are even mentioning degrees and such. That doesn't mean you don't have to go through the dialectic as I think it's important to work out, but just wanted to provide it for a reference. I'd like to add the idea of "trivial harm" vs. "non-trivial harm". Trivial harm would be things like getting a papercut from a friend giving you a five dollar bill. Non-trivial harm are burdens one would not want, even if one looked back and was okay later on. It's things to a degree of threshold that they are no longer practically negligent to consider anymore. I think the main argument that can made for AN here is that:
Creating conditions for unnecessary, non-trivial harms for others is wrong (or negligent). From here, as long as we agree on the terms, AN has good footing to stand on. Coupled with this idea is Benatar's argument that harm is indeed more important to consider in procreation decisions. He relies on our own intuitions. For example, we seem to care more if people are suffering on deserted planets than we would care that "No one exists to be happy!". It seems to be neutral, not really worthy of moral consideration, to have no happy people. It does seem to be "bad" to have unhappy or suffering people, however. — schopenhauer1
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. — I like sushi
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.