It is not nonexistence tout court, but the asymmetry that occurs prior to existence. — schopenhauer1
You realize you just contradicted yourself. No one CAN decide for themselves prior to birth. — schopenhauer1
Also, no one is "stopping people from conceiving"... — schopenhauer1
Yes, your imagined "asymmetry". That's what I'm arguing against. — S
Obviously I meant that they should decide for themselves subsequent to birth, when they're old enough to do so, like I went on to say. There was no contradiction. You just failed to understand my point. — S
Good. It's not wrong enough to stop people. People can carry on doing what they're doing, and you find that acceptable. It is morally acceptable for people to give birth. Otherwise you'd stop them. — S
But you weren't- you were equating the situation before birth (the asymmetry) with the situation of suicide or death (no asymmetry). — schopenhauer1
But I bring up that point as it is an important one. The child cannot decide for themselves to be put in a situation where one has to keep playing the game or drastically alter their existential status (suicide). That is a point I am making that is important here. Khaled made an analogy of saying, "Hey I like this game, now I am going to force another person into playing it. That's okay though, that person will probably like it too and if they don't, they can decide to exit by doing one of the scariest and harmful and anguishing things ever, kill themselves.. But don't worry, most people won't chose that, so they will just keep on playing the game." I don't think that is right to do to someone else. — schopenhauer1
I liken antinatalism to a cause like veganism. As long as enough people in society have values so far afield from the particular ethic, it would not be right to impose such a thing. In the field of ideas, it is simple argumentation and convincing that is called for. In fact, even if a majority of people were antinatalist, I don't know if it would be right to "force" people into anything of that magnitude. Of course, now we are getting into politics. — schopenhauer1
But I don't accept your "asymmetry" baloney to begin with. It's highly controversial. You're acting as though you've already proved the point. — S
But you find it acceptable, so life can't be that bad. That's all I was drawing attention to. — S
Some people can't be convinced. — schopenhauer1
If Benatar is right about the psychological studies... — schopenhauer1
It is win/win to not reproduce under any circumstance. That is the initial "logical" asymmetry. — schopenhauer1
Regarding the claim that it is default wrong to do something to someone without their consent, I don't see it as wrong to push someone so that they don't get hit by a truck, or to surprise someone for their birthday, or to leave food and clothes next to a homeless person who is sleeping. — leo
So this brings up another argument besides the asymmetry which not only does well on its own, but acts as a bolster for the other arguments. This other argument is forcing others into a challenge/game/adventure (perhaps one that you like yourself, or you think is good) is not right to do to someone else. Now, the only "decision" a person can make at this point is suicide, but suicide is not something that people do willy nilly, even if they don't like the game. It is scary, painful, brings anxiety, etc. Also, people develop interests once born. Ones that didn't need to exist in the first place, but occur post-facto. People generally cling to these- even the depressed, pessimistic, and others. If Benatar is right about the psychological studies, even "well-adjusted" people have a distorted view when self-reporting, as they often diminish painful experience and highlight the better ones when determining what to remember when reporting. Also, as I said, people can identify with something harmful, as they may not see any other choice but to do so. That is the point though. There can never be another choice (excepting suicide or perhaps being a pessimist). — schopenhauer1
If instead it is claimed that it is wrong to do something to someone against their will, a non-existent being doesn't have a will. By the time the being has a will, they can decide on their own whether to keep living or die — leo
Of course, my own points border on more abstract and existential terms. Why does anyone need to go through the "growth-through-adversity" game in the first place? Seems to be that people think they have some sort of right to impose this on others, as if the universe cares that more humans play this game. "Ah yes" they might say "we need to create people to be challenged so they can be strengthened through it, and hopefully find the joy in it". Of course, you know I'm going to say that is circular reasoning. — schopenhauer1
So if everyone deep down wants to live, then the issue doesn't lie in life itself, it doesn't lie in the act of procreation, the issue is suffering itself, not life. And then the solution is to find the reasons why people suffer and to help them ease or stop their suffering, rather than convincing people to stop having children so that humanity goes extinct. If life is most often worth living even with the suffering, then stopping life to stop the suffering is quite the overkill.
I said it before but I'll say it again, in my view antinatalists are people who suffer a lot, and subscribing to antinatalism and attempting to spread it is one way for them to cope with their suffering. Instead of focusing on the precise reasons why they personally suffer, instead of attempting to address them or asking for help, they avoid the problem by saying that the problem wouldn't be there in the first place if they hadn't been born, in other words in their view if they suffer it has nothing to do with them but everything to do with the world, the world is responsible, other people are responsible, not themselves, they don't want to feel responsible for how they are. They want to live, but they don't want to solve their own problems, so they stay there in limbo, whining that they wouldn't have problems if they hadn't been born, instead of looking at the root causes of their suffering, instead of asking for help. — leo
They don't, because the situations are too dissimilar, like in all of your attempts throughout this discussion. — S
Funny. Even if I were to grant that, a single example in no way demonstrates that the least risky option is always preferred when consent is not available. If that were true, then it would be so in every single case that one could possibly imagine. Good luck trying to demonstrate that! — S
Nonexistence is the ideal according to you — S
And no, in the thought experiment, the person didn't wish to die, and the next of kin knows that. — S
Just as you suggest that it's horrible to conceive a human, by that same logic, one could suggest that it's horrible to keep them in that situation. — S
You don't have a right to stop people from conceiving — S
I repeat, that's not an implication of my point. — S
They don't, because the situations are too dissimilar, like in all of your attempts throughout this discussion.
— S
You: These analogies are terrible
Me: I agree, they are extremes intended to show a general principle
You: These analogies are terrible — khaled
I don't think that statement is trivially true. I think it's false due to a category error. Just repeating our respective claims here doesn't get us anywhere. — Echarmion
I understand you think a deterministic universe kinda makes people exist "in the future", but this kind of thinking doesn't work when we assume we have a choice whether or not to have children. — Echarmion
But there is a difference when said action created the other person in the first place — Echarmion
I am not sure what general principle you refer to here — Echarmion
No, terrible in terms of how inappropriate they are as analogies — S
I can't be bothered to deal with the rest. — S
Obviously that's what I meant. I was pointing out that you clearly think they're inadequate but I don't. And that repeating your opinion doesn't get us anywhere. — khaled
Obviously that's what I meant. — khaled
You: These analogies are terrible
Me: I agree, they are extremes intended to show a general principle — khaled
I gave an example as you asked. — khaled
How long are you planning to dodge giving an example? I got to go now I don't wanna waste any more time on this. — khaled
I plan to continue to refuse to even consider giving you another counterexample until you learn enough about the burden of proof to know that it rests with you, not me, and act accordingly. — S
Now, from that, it is crystal clear that (a) he has a burden of proof, and (b) a single example does not meet the burden of proof, as I already made clear by way of analogy. — S
He claimed these things and then he asked you to provide any evidence that it is otherwise. — schopenhauer1
If you cannot, he is probably going to say that proves his point. — 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.