Special pleading. Why does unsolicited mercy killings not violate liberty and consent of potential people? Why can't you kill actually people based on the assumption that there is a chance that they would rather be dead than alive? — Wosret
So now you are the cause of their suffering? I thought you were just telling TGW about how that's straining the definition of "cause"? It must be only cool when you do it. — Wosret
And if you asked the vast majority of living people if they'd rather have never been born, what do you think they'd say? If they said "no", are they wrong, or just confused? If the vast majority of people would say "no" (which I'm fairly confident they would), why would you expect a different answer from the unborn? If they're just wrong, and confused about wanting to be alive, again, why is it different? — Wosret
That is entirely my impression, and is an honest reply. It isn't about the description of the wills, or dispositions of others, and a worry for this -- it is rather an imposition, and global evaluation of life made by the anti-natalist.
It has nothing to do with what anyone else wants, or feels. It's all about the anti-natalist being right, anyone else that disagrees just being wrong, and evaluating the whole of life as pointless, and negative. — Wosret
Of course not to simply tell people about what they think, but to claim that everyone actually thinks it too, and are lying, or confused, or some such. That's an imposition of one's view on to others. — Wosret
I don't think that you're grasping the context of the particular point I was making. The claim was that it's appropriate to have moral obligations to potential people, and consider their wills, and well being, and this is why it's immoral to have births, because you don't know whether or not they will wish to be born. I was then pointing out that if this was true, then it's a better assumption that they would want to be born. Whether they're wrong to want that or not is neither here nor their. You aren't violating their wills, if anything not having children is violating the wills of the unborn, if actual people are any indication with regards people's dispositions towards wanting and not wanting to have been born. Whether they ought to want that, or are wrong to want what one wants is neither here nor there. — Wosret
I am not sure that you are characterizing the argument that antinatalists make correctly. — schopenhauer1
And if you asked the vast majority of living people if they'd rather have never been born, what do you think they'd say? If they said "no", are they wrong, or just confused? If the vast majority of people would say "no" (which I'm fairly confident they would), why would you expect a different answer from the unborn? If they're just wrong, and confused about wanting to be alive, again, why is it different? — Wosret
One does not have to assume that potential people would rather be dead than alive, it is enough to assume that there is a chance that they will not want to be alive. — darthbarracuda
Anyway, if you throw a glass beer bottle out the window without concern about its trajectory, we would see this as neglect and immoral because you might kill someone. But expel a baby out of the womb of a woman without knowing the various trajectories in life the baby will have, and in fact knowing the ultimate final trajectory (death), for some reason this is supposed to be acceptable. — darthbarracuda
The implication being that no one should ever act in any way because of the risk of harm that may ensue, or that all actions are negligent unless one is omniscient and omnipotent in being able to avoid harm. That is clearly an unreasonable view. — Wosret
It is not the potential for happy or meaningful moments that the antinatalist sees... — schopenhauer1
I definitely wouldn't want there to be some thing I'm supposed to be doing: some test or end goal to my life. That sounds like a lot of pressure, and a kind of slavery. The triviality, the lack of deep meaning or point in everything that I do is what makes them light, and enjoyable to me. This is life's greatest virtue in my view.
Being a weirdo like me, I've always been surrounded by other people and their absurd notions of a natural or divine order, or teleology, attempting to impose on me the way things ought to be, what they're for, and how to feel about them, and myself in the world. The biggest relief is that they're all wrong. — Wosret
That analogy doesn't match up. In the former, you speak of a lack of concern, implying recklessness, but in the latter, you speak of a lack of knowledge, which doesn't necessarily imply recklessness. To be reckless is to not give due consideration to the risks, or to act with disregard of the risks. — Sapientia
Also, you seem to be implying that death is bad, which is arguable. I don't think that death is, in itself, bad. Who actually wants to live forever, when they really think about it? Immortality is the epitome of the cliché "be careful what you wish for...". Death might mean the end to a fulfilling life: a life well lived. One might be prepared for it. It might even be quick and painless. — Sapientia
The mere possibility of a bad life is not sufficient grounds to make a sensible judgement. That also applies to many a situation as a general rule of thumb. Do you avoid crossing roads? Not a fan of any of the more extreme sports? I've been skydiving, and I don't have a single regret about it. It was well worth it. It was possibly the most exhilarating experience of my life. — Sapientia
But this is exactly what birth entails; an unnecessary risk imposition. The parent's process of "giving consideration" is usually quite little to even none at all, and it is always under the threat of optimism bias (it's always their child that gets the debilitating disease, not my child...and lo and behold the child ends up with a debilitating disease). — darthbarracuda
Death is bad only if someone does not want to die or is not ready to die. — darthbarracuda
I would be willing to say that in most cases, people die either suddenly and when they do not wish to, or die after a grueling process of endurance. — darthbarracuda
For people alive today, death is pushed back to the dark recesses of the mind in the same way taxes are pushed back (procrastinated). It is seen as a far-off problem that one must not focus on because there are "more important things to do". — darthbarracuda
In those examples, you personally consented to risking your life, and everyone on the road consented to risking their lives, so there's no problem with that. But say you forced someone to skydive, and their chute failed and they plunged to their death...is that acceptable? — darthbarracuda
I don't think you'd be a very good poker player. Judging by your reasoning, you'd fold every hand, or refuse to even join the game! But that's not a very accurate analogy, because there are far more people who profit from life than who profit from poker. — Sapientia
The risk imposition is necessary. It's necessary for humanity to continue to exist beyond the current generation, and that's a goal that most of humanity believes is worth pursuing (so it's not an irrational pursuit for most of humanity, either). — Sapientia
For a balanced view, one must weigh this against the worth of the life that they've lived. Whether it would have been better not to have lived at all. Your error is to think that there can only be one right answer, which happens to be your own. — Sapientia
There's a category error here that you seem to have made, given this analogy, and that TGW has definitely made in some form or another. Consent doesn't apply. There is no one to either consent or deny or to even consult. For the same reason, it's either false or nonsensical to say that it's against their will. — Sapientia
This is not correct. I rather enjoy playing cards and know that there is a chance I may lose. — darthbarracuda
Notice, I may lose, not someone else in the case of birth. — darthbarracuda
The risk imposition is completely unnecessary, as there is absolutely nothing of substantial value that is worth continuing without consent of those who must bear the burden of continuing the human race.
The value placed upon the continuation of the human race is purely irrational. There is no point in continuing it, and in fact there are good reasons to stop continuing it and allow it to fade out of existence. — darthbarracuda
And, ultimately, the human race will end, whether you like this fact or not. Entropy's a bitch. So continuing the species is merely kicking the can down the road. — darthbarracuda
Someone can live a life of luxury as a prince of a slave nation. They may be one of those very lucky individuals in which suffering is unheard of. But then the slaves rise up and brutally torture and execute the prince, during which all of the past pleasure are entirely unimportant. They are gone. And now the prince is in so much excruciating pain that he wishes he had never been born at all. — darthbarracuda
Do you think bringing a child into the world simply to torture it would be a violation of consent? You at least have to say that it would have been in the child's "best interests" to not have come into existence...but according to your argument, interests cannot be applied to non-existent entities. They have to first be born, and suffer, before they are morally important...what? — darthbarracuda
OK, but I take it you don't approve of throwing surprise parties or giving presents. There's an unnecessary risk imposition. There's a chance that they won't want it. — Sapientia
Riiiiiight. Is that supposed to be representative of everyone's life? There can be no happy ending? The world is a stage, but the play must be a tragedy?
Your narrative is impoverished, hyperbolic, and comically one-sided. — Sapientia
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.