I don't see a distinction. — Wosret
The consequences of birth are of the utmost importance. — Sapientia
And not accepting any reason for having children as morally justifiable is tantamount to anti-natalism — Sapientia
I'm not a consequentialist, mon ami. — Thorongil
The root word "natal" refers to birth. When the prefix "anti" is applied to it and used as a noun, it can only mean "opposition to birth." I'm not opposed to birth, so I'm not an anti-natalist. But not being opposed to birth is not to be in favor of it. That would be a non-sequitur. The natalist has all his work still ahead of him to convince me of any positive reason for why birth is necessary or good.
Recall that I did actually make a distinction between strong and weak anti-natalism, but felt the weak form, which would apply to me, did violence to the very clear and basic etymology of the term just explained to you yet again. — Thorongil
it just indicates your unwillingness to acknowledge their importance. — Sapientia
I used the word "tantamount" for a reason. It means "equivalent in seriousness to; practically the same as". — Sapientia
Your allegation that I haven't done so has not been shown. — Sapientia
The root word "natal" refers to birth. When the prefix "anti" is applied to it and used as a noun, it can only mean "opposition to birth." I'm not opposed to birth, so I'm not an anti-natalist. But not being opposed to birth is not to be in favor of it. That would be a non-sequitur. The natalist has all his work still ahead of him to convince me of any positive reason for why birth is necessary or good.
Recall that I did actually make a distinction between strong and weak anti-natalism, but felt the weak form, which would apply to me, did violence to the very clear and basic etymology of the term just explained to you yet again. — Thorongil
No demonization of sexual activity has occurred. I can do so if you like, but it wouldn't affect or have to do with my original claims. — Thorongil
Your position is far from being in favor of birth — Sapientia
If someone informed you that they were planning on having a baby, then you would probably be opposed to that plan on the grounds that it likely isn't justified or good or necessary. — Sapientia
unconvinced that there is any reason good enough to justify having a baby — Sapientia
It wouldn't make sense for someone in your position - which is not a position of neutrality - not to be opposed — Sapientia
You're not absolutely opposed or opposed in principle, but you're opposed nevertheless. — Sapientia
You hold moral qualms against sexual activity — Wosret
The root word "natal" refers to birth. When the prefix "anti" is applied to it and used as a noun, it can only mean "opposition to birth." I'm not opposed to birth, so I'm not an anti-natalist. But not being opposed to birth is not to be in favor of it. That would be a non-sequitur. The natalist has all his work still ahead of him to convince me of any positive reason for why birth is necessary or good. — Thorongil
Now please explain how I am wrong, otherwise you've no right to throw my accusations against you back at me like some parrot.
Edit: I see you edited your post. Very well. I will reply, but tomorrow, as I'm getting tired. — Thorongil
Yes, as I clearly stated. Well done. — Thorongil
No, not quite. It's not up to me to decide who gets to have a baby or not, so I cannot oppose that which is not within my power to oppose. Hence, I am neither practically opposed nor theoretically opposed (which you already cede) to birth. — Thorongil
It wouldn't make sense how? — Thorongil
The decision doesn't need to be up to you or within your power in order for you to be opposed to the plan. — Sapientia
for any member of the general public to be opposed to a governmental plan — Sapientia
if I genuinely tell you that I plan to go out and impregnate a woman, and ask for your frank opinion or advice, it wouldn't make much sense for you to casually reply "Whatever, dude, it's up to you. I don't mind one way or the other" . — Sapientia
But then the only way to be opposed to it would be in a theoretical sense. How, exactly, am I "practically" opposed to it? — Thorongil
... Which would have to be theoretical opposition. Practical opposition would entail becoming a lawmaker, or voting for one, who would work to repeal or amend it. — Thorongil
Why, though? Why wouldn't it make sense? Once again, the punch line is missing. — Thorongil
I'm aware of those arguments, but I find that they all collapse into and have as their root some form of consequentialism. I only want to say for the moment that, on my moral presuppositions, which are not consequentialist, my position on birth follows. — Thorongil
But anyway, you'd be practically opposed to it if you practiced what you preach, so to speak. — Sapientia
Also, rejecting any and all reasons (thus far) for having a baby is exactly what an anti-natalist would do. — Sapientia
In this case, I just think that to avoid performative contradiction, you ought to do a bit more than shrugging your shoulders. — Sapientia
But that doesn't make me an anti-natalist, though. I share this in common with them, true, but I crucially lack the theoretical (moral) opposition to birth. — Thorongil
By doing what? Answering in the negative if some person randomly asks me if he should have kids? How about this: I might do this, but it would not be in a moral sense. If one ought not to do something, this could imply immorality or irrationality. I conceive of having children as irrational or foolish rather than immoral. Does this make me an anti-natalist? I still think not, since it is universally construed as a moral position or stance. — Thorongil
And even if you take a non-consequentialist position, such as deontology, you can still have an antinatalistic deontological theory based upon a normative rule that one shall not harm another without their consent, which is an intuitive and simple law. Or you can say that one must not take risks associated with an agent without the agent's consent. The non-identity problem does not make potential agents not morally important, either. — darthbarracuda
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.