Its obvious that life is full of suffering, no one can deny this. There is much more suffering than pleasure in life. Think of the many possible disabilities, illnesses, and other great pains in life. Now think of the relatively few things that give pleasure in life. Even healthy and wealthy people suffer in life. But if youre disabled or chronically ill its much worse. And there is always a chance your child is born severely disabled or becomes severely disabled. And then there are wars, famine, hunger, violence, abuse, rape and many more bad things. Thats why it is immoral to bring life into this world full of suffering.

Think of the many possible disabilities, illnesses, and other great pains in life — Malhararos92

Yep.

Thats why it is immoral to bring life into this world full of suffering. — Malhararos92

Won't argue with you there. Your typical objection would be "But what about the average life that is more balanced perhaps than the ones with famine and hunger?

The other objection would be "But what of the possibility of alleviation of pain through technology and things like positive psychology?

I would say suffering takes two forms- contingent and necessary. Contingent is about circumstances. Necessary is innate. It is innately part of the human experience to strive for survival, comfort, and entertainment. This striving represents an underlying dissatisfaction at almost all times (with moments of brief repose). On top of that is contingent suffering that you describe. There are pains and harms of all stripes in the form of physical disease, disaster, discomforts and mental disorders, anguish, frustrations, and just about any negative experience.

The main counter-attack of the antinatalist is that life need not be at all. We need not be missionizers of the human experience by procreating new people into the world. Rather, no one existing means NOTHING to that no-body that exists. So no one is "missing out" on good experiences. But certainly the alternative of being born means experiencing bad ones. This could have been avoided. In other words, all necessary and contingent suffering could be avoided for a potential person by simply not actualizing them into existence. There is no downside to them not existing in terms of the non-existent person in question.

Are you aware that schopenhauer was an antinatalist?

Are you aware that schopenhauer was an antinatalist? — Malhararos92

Yes I am.

Yes I am. — schopenhauer1

lmao

lmao — darthbarracuda

I had the same reaction :lol:

Parents always think their child will have a perfect, or good life, or atleast a better life than they had. But this isnt necessarily true, or not true at all. Many humans have an optimism bias, which is delusional, but a survival mechanism. Yes i think suicide is not necessarily irrational. Especially if it really doesnt get better for years, but rather worse. Especially in cases of horrible illnesses and disabilities.

Are you against assisted suicide in all cases as well? Or would you allow such thing if the pain is simply too much to bear for someone and there is no possible improvement or even cure?

Are you against assisted suicide in all cases as well? Or would you allow such thing if the pain is simply too much to bear for someone and there is no possible improvement or even cure? — Malhararos92

Assisted suicide should be a valid and legal option. However, suicide in general is a different topic than not procreating. One can recommend not procreating for all, but not necessarily suicide. That is because there is a distinction between "a life worth starting" and "a life worth continuing". Once alive, though it would have been better never having been, one still has attachments, goals, fears of death/pain, that make exiting life early less of an imperative. Being anti-natal is not being pro-mortal. One does not entail the other.

Generally, the root of much normative ethics, if we are to give dignity and respect for the individual, would be around suffering. Thus agency in regards to how to handle one's own suffering would also very much be at the individual level. It's when one is creating choices for other lives that it becomes problematic. That is what procreation does. There's of course many other things involved, such as missionizing others into an ideology (that life is worth living and should be lived, not just for oneself who is already alive but for some other person, who should somehow also go through the motions and experiences of life).

Interestingly, Schopenhauer thought the basis of morality was metaphysically based. If we are all Will, compassion is thus breaking the barriers of seeing oneself as an individual Will and understanding the reality of unified monism. The act of seeing yourself in the other, is this understanding of the origin of our collective metaphysical origins (outside time and space and thus even the Principle of Sufficient Reason). I'm not sure I buy his basis, but it is an interesting and seemingly consistent one.

I also find it interesting that Schopenhauer himself was not a compassionate or ascetic person really (outside preferring to not be around other humans who he generally looked down on). But I see this is more legitimacy for his ideas as, he wasn't just creating a philosophy based on his own personality. His personality clearly would have preferred a self-interested and possibly hateful ideal of ethics.

What? Understatement? :lol:

Ive changed my mind, antinatalism is an evil and satanic ideology which should never be promoted. It is anti life, it is anti God, it is anti christian.