True. This is an example of when the asymmetry and consent argument begins to break down. But a twenty dollar present is a small loss if they don't like it. That's why we don't spend a fortune on a gift that they may or may not like. — darthbarracuda

It's a bit of gamble, no doubt. Isn't everything? But it'd be sensible to factor in to the decision-making process what we know about the person; or, in this case, what we know about humanity and the world that we live in. Some of us acknowledge both the good and the bad in a more balanced way, and recognise that the gamble might pay off, and that it might just be worth throwing the dice. If the testament of innumerable people is something to go by (which it is), then it is indeed worth giving it a shot - at least if the circumstances aren't too bad. (I wouldn't readily advise having a baby in a disease-ravaged, famished and wartorn community, for example).

Nobody wants to be in this situation. Every parent wishes their child the best. And yet these situations, or analogous situations, do in fact exist. It's just that nobody wants to recognize it. — darthbarracuda

What kind of situation? The rather extreme one in your example about the prince? I do recognise it. But I also recognise that that's not the whole story; merely one aspect of it.

The sooner you realise this too, the better.

Some of us acknowledge both the good and the bad in a more balanced way — Sapientia

This is where you are mistaken. Negative experiences far outweigh the positives. Those who look at the Sun, smile and say "life is good" are walking on the bones of their ancestors, the ancestors that lived and died under the Sun, constantly eating other organisms to survive, or competing with others to survive. Suffering is guaranteed, exuberant pleasure is not.

then it is indeed worth giving it a shot - at least if the circumstances aren't too bad. — Sapientia

Say you have a kid. The kid turns out to be an okay person with a decent life and no significant health problems. In all regards, this person is not incredible but neither are they shitty. Instead of it being an expectation that this outcome would occur, you are quite literally just lucky, and so are they, that they didn't turn out to have significant health problems or suffer immensely or turn into a psychopath that kills a ton of people.

There really is no excuse for having a child. It is completely unnecessary and is the ultimate risk.

I don't think you know what "logic" means. You mean something agreeing with your emotional evaluation, not logic, or facts. What information does someone that hates pie have that someone that loves it doesn't? Aren't they perfectly capable of having all of the exact same information, or facts about pies, agree, but still have different dispositions? How much sense does it make to say that one is illogical to like pie? Is it illogical to like or dislike anything, really? Tastes, or emotional dispositions aren't about logic, or facts.

I didn't realize that when you were talking about not thinking "this is your truth, and this is mine", that you were talking about tastes, which I indeed do think are relative. — Wosret

I don't know, I liken it to seeing the actual source of the light rather than the shadows. I mean, perhaps a society that commits human sacrifice by ripping people's beating hearts out of their chests to make the sun go up again has a particular taste. Perhaps one person in the group sees it differently, is struck by the utter senselessness of it. "It's a matter of taste"- as you say. However, clearly that answer seems odd at best. So no, the analogy is clearly much more drastic, and this is much more subtle, but the same notion applies to the antinatalist position. Here is something they clearly see, but many others do not.

Then that's where they go wrong. It does often seem as though they are blind to, or overlook, that potential. — Sapientia

Better to measure twice and cut once than to measure once and cut twice.

I'm sure that you do liken it to that. I'm Enlightened too. High five!

I mainly am a moral emotivist, somewhat of a consequentialist, but consequentialism doesn't have any force without some emotivism.

I could make an argument that a society that kills its members is simply a less secure, and more dangerous society than one that doesn't. Just like torture, and others things. For the golden rule's sake, we don't want to support and promote those activities within our societies because they increase the likelihood that we ourselves will become victims of them. I can make this argument based solely on the premise that you give a shit only about yourself.

I think that veganism can be argued on this ground as well, that simply a more compassionate, sympathetic society is a better society, in the sense that it promotes more kindness, less exploitation and selfishness.

Someone disagreeing completely, like a murderer, or someone dangerous in an excessive fashion, even though I don't think that it's objectively written into the stars that they're wrong, will in no way prevent me from condemning them, and sanctioning action against them.

I don't need the universe's permission to enforce my moral sentiments, to have a good time, or to live a meaningful life.

I don't really get what you are getting at.

I'm getting at the notion that you have to throw your hands in the air because different moral sentiments aren't illogical, or irrational or factually mistaken necessarily, one has to throw their hands in the air and say nothing can be done, all is equal. That's not implied at all, there are still rational arguments that can be made, and there's always the use of force when all else fails.

I also mocked your telling me all about how you just see things that I don't, like the cave analogy for the like fourth time. What's the use of saying that? Do you think it will persuade me rather than substantiate points? No, of course you don't, that just sounds like something that you like to tell yourself, as a force field against objections. It's about persuading yourself, not anyone else.

What about antinatalism, are you ranting against? Are you ranting that antinatalists don't persuade you? There are a lot of good points made by many people over many arguments that don't persuade people. The soundness of an argument doesn't necessarily make people automatically agree with it. If you are looking to be rushed on a stream of dialectic that will bring you to the understanding of an antinatalist, it is not going to happen.

No man... not agreeing with something isn't the same thing as failing to grasp it, this is just the conceit that you keep asserting to explain away disagreement. Sometimes shit's wrong, and it's your ass staring at cave walls. In this case, for instance.

No man... not agreeing with something isn't the same thing as failing to grasp it, this is just the conceit that you keep asserting to explain away disagreement. Sometimes shit's wrong, and it's your ass staring at cave walls. In this case, for instance. — Wosret

You can grasp something and disagree with it, even if it is the truth. Sometimes, people both don't grasp it and don't agree with it. Either way, it happens all the time. It may be that most people don't really grasp it even if they think they do.

It may be that most people don't really grasp it even if they think they do. — schopenhauer1

It may be, but pointing that out over and over again gets old fast, and doesn't add anything to the conversation.

It may be, but pointing that out over and over again gets old fast, and doesn't add anything to the conversation. — Wosret

Oh, I am just making the point that no matter how good a point I add, it's most likely not going to bring you to enlightened thinking on the matter. For every conterversial claim, there will always be endless defenses on both sides. So, I can go on and add stuff, but I am not going to do it thinking that if I only had the magic bullet of a winning argument you will now see the light. So with that said, we can move forward with the argumentum infinitum,

This is where you are mistaken. Negative experiences far outweigh the positives. Those who look at the Sun, smile and say "life is good" are walking on the bones of their ancestors, the ancestors that lived and died under the Sun, constantly eating other organisms to survive, or competing with others to survive. Suffering is guaranteed, exuberant pleasure are not. — darthbarracuda

This is one possible interpretation. It's been pointed out that there are many people - not all benighted fools mind you - who do not agree with it and who would gladly sacrifice something of their lives for their progeny. Maybe that's part of the issue: starting from a subjectivist standpoint and failing to tie our own story in with a wider narrative or historical unfolding, we're left with the shopkeeper's cost/benefit mentality which is IMO totally unworthy of the magnitude and profundity of human existence.

My opinion (or truth) is that despite a great deal of suffering I'm thankful my parents brought me into this world. I would not presume to take my experience as the final word on human existence, or use the limited perspective I've acquired through the years to pass judgment on life generally. From what I've seen Anti-Natalists make many strong and rational arguments to bolster the position, but this tendency to make universal and unqualified claims about the undesirability of human existence strikes me as incredibly arrogant and condescending. Perhaps a better tack would be to re-examine the way we live before deciding whether it's worth anything or not. Yeah I know that sounds condescending too, but it comes from my own existential and 'spiritual' struggles, much different than yours perhaps.

My opinion may shift, but I hope that I'm never so entitled as to think that only a life free of suffering or death or anything that doesn't involve any occasional struggle or pain would be worth living. The more deeply I reflect upon it (like Heraclitus, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky et al have) the more I think that it is that life which would be pointless and absurd. I'm not so sure I'd even want to live forever as the thought gives me chills. I try to embrace the constant flow and shifting nature of things, even this self I'm so obsessed with protecting.

Anyhow the place where this refutation comes from is very intimate and personal. I totally respect others who disagree with it, but for some reason the respect isn't reciprocated and the assumption becomes that I - and others who think along similar lines - must be ignorant of the Truth. But the idea of some eternal, all-embracing Truth would seem to be an illusion. At the very least maybe what I'm trying to suggest is: let's acknowledge our own biases and assumptions and limited perspectives.

I would also add that I have a respect for the place where the AN position comes from, i.e. a genuine concern to eliminate future suffering of other potential people. In that sense it isn't 'subjectivist' at all - above I was thinking along the philosophical position in which Schopenhauer (if I understand him correctly) works as laid out by Descartes and Kant. The isolated and autonomous ego. That's a commendable and extremely noble aim IMO, but is still a partial and one-sided perspective.

I'm not trying to sound cryptic, but I think the AN position - as I understand it - thinks both too much and too little of human existence. Too much in the sense that only a guarantee of eternal life untouched by adversity or pain would justify bringing a new child into the world. Too little in the sense that it works within a very narrow and seemingly hedonistic understanding of the aims and ends of human being-in-the-world. A radical reinterpretation or reevaluation of said existence is, to me, a prerequisite for the possibility of gaining a new perspective on such a big and important topic.

This is where you are mistaken. Negative experiences far outweigh the positives. — darthbarracuda

You say that as if it were an established fact. It isn't.

Those who look at the Sun, smile and say "life is good" are walking on the bones of their ancestors, the ancestors that lived and died under the Sun, constantly eating other organisms to survive, or competing with others to survive. Suffering is guaranteed, exuberant pleasure is not. — darthbarracuda

Sure, they experienced suffering. Some more than others. They also experienced pleasure. Some more than others. Both are guaranteed. And fortunately, they obviously thought that life was of such value as to try - successfully, as it turned out - to keep humanity going for some length of time.

Say you have a kid. The kid turns out to be an okay person with a decent life and no significant health problems. In all regards, this person is not incredible but neither are they shitty. Instead of it being an expectation that this outcome would occur, you are quite literally just lucky, and so are they, that they didn't turn out to have significant health problems or suffer immensely or turn into a psychopath that kills a ton of people. — darthbarracuda

That's not all entirely down to luck, so you're wrong there. There is probability, and factors such as genetics effect it. If there's a very high percentage that one's offspring will inherit a significant health problem, such that the result is predicable, and they do so, then to say that that was just bad luck is obviously inappropriate.

But yes, such things do occur, and can be hard to predict with accuracy enough to selectively prevent them from occurring. But that's life. Doesn't mean that we should end it, or that it would be better to do so. Your conclusion just doesn't follow, unless you objectify the subjective, like you seem to be trying to do, but you would be doing so in vain because it isn't possible. Your value judgements are subjective.

I would also add that I have a respect for the place where the AN position comes from, i.e. a genuine concern to eliminate future suffering of other potential people. In that sense it isn't 'subjectivist' at all - above I was thinking along the philosophical position in which Schopenhauer (if I understand him correctly) works as laid out by Descartes and Kant. The isolated and autonomous ego. That's a commendable and extremely noble aim IMO, but is still a partial and one-sided perspective. — Erik

Actually, Schopenhauer's vision, whether you agree with it or not, is not just about hedonisitic calculus or the individual ego, but rather how we are manifestations of a larger Will or Principle that is essentially striving/strife. The "thing-in-itself" is Will, but when looked at from the the flip side of time/space/causality/Principle of Sufficient Reason it becomes individuated forms that are living out this principle in time/space etc. The Will becomes the will-to-live and is felt in our ever present goal-seeking, basic desires and wants, and the emptiness we feel with existential boredom. That is a very brief summary, but it is a much bigger picture than what you present. Now, not every antinatalist is a Schopenhauerian, and many might reject his overwrought metaphysics, but I was just showing an example of an antinatalist strain that is very much not about the particular but looking at existence from a holistic perspective. In fact, compassion, art/music, and ascetic practice are supposed get us out of our individuated experiences and into a more rarefied understanding of the whole.

You do realise that if we were all anti-natalists, and we all practiced what we preached, then there would be no more art, no more music, no more human compassion, no more ascetic practice, no more philosophy, no more understanding, no more goal seeking, no more desires, and no more fulfilment or satisfaction? If you're an anti-natalist, then you endorse the will-to-end-life, and everything valuable in it.

You Schopenhauerians often speak of art as if you value it highly, and have a special appreciation for it, but you do not value or appreciate it as much as those of us who wish it to live on with us, rather than let it die a premature death. Who will create and appreciate art when we're all dead? No one. And there would not have been such a long history full of great works of art if we had cut it short by adopting your viewpoint. There could have been no Picasso, no Mozart, no da Vinci, no Shakespeare. Also, as a result, there could have been no Schopenhauer.

You Schopenhauerians often speak of art as if you value it highly, and have a special appreciation for it, but you do not value or appreciate it as much as those of us who wish it to live on with us, rather than let it die a premature death. Who will create and appreciate art when we're all dead? No one. And there would not have been such a long history full of great works of art if we had cut it short by adopting your viewpoint. There could have been no Picasso, no Mozart, no da Vinci, no Shakespeare. Also, as a result, there could have been no Schopenhauer. — Sapientia

The Schopenhaurian perspective is that art temporarily relieves us of our individuated will's. However, it is not that life is a means to an end, which is art in itself. Rather art is a way to stop the will's inertia, once already born. The same applies to compassion.

Thanks for the quick clarification on Schopenhauer's holistic philosophy. Interesting and insightful views on art and ethics -- I'll have to go back and take a look at that. The quieting of the individual will and subsequent ability to see things beyond their strictly utilitarian value (something that seems extremely rare, especially in the modern world) is a very appealing notion to me. I also appreciate the idea of transcending our narrow and grasping egos for a much wider perspective that views us as active participants in a wider movement of Being or God or whatever you'd like to call it. Those do seem to be the general 'truths' of authentic religious experience based on what little I've read.

But I do wonder where the original impulse to suppress the Will comes from? It would have to come from that very same Will (where else?) if it is in fact the noumenal thing-in-itself behind individual appearances. I don't know, but maybe the longing for truth and beauty and compassion that crashes into some of our lives somehow points to the contradictory nature of the Will, and that it is not all as horrible and evil (or amoral and indifferent) as some make it out to be.

As Heraclitus - the philosopher of strife - noted: without injustices the name of justice means what? And God is winter/summer, day/night, war/peace, etc. This is purely speculative on my part, but I get the intuitive feeling at times that without that initial fall or degradation or evil that afflicts us (both individually and collectively) there could be no redemption or hope or ultimate joy. Which side takes precedence? This is where I imagine I'd part ways with Schopenhauer.

You Schopenhauerians often speak of art as if you value it highly, and have a special appreciation for it, but you do not value or appreciate it as much as those of us who wish it to live on with us, rather than let it die a premature death. Who will create and appreciate art when we're all dead? No one. — Sapientia

What a silly thing to say. The planet is finite. The human species is finite. All this art you wish to preserve will eventually be obliterated one way or another. To say that humans need to be born merely to preserve it is not to understand the purpose of art, which is to release one, if only temporarily, from the suffering and boredom of life. Art is a ladder one climbs to help one flee from these things, which can then be thrown away once the destination is reached. That destination is a state of detachment from all things, for being attached to the ephemeral and finite (including art) is the cause of suffering and boredom.

But I do wonder where the original impulse to suppress the Will comes from? — Erik

Knowledge.

What a silly thing to say. — Thorongil

Pot, kettle, black.

The planet is finite. The human species is finite. All this art you wish to preserve will eventually be obliterated one way or another. — Thorongil

I am always at least a little astonished when someone makes this fallacy. That it will eventually be obliterated is completely irrelevant. It obviously doesn't follow that we should not care about it's continuance or take action to ensure its continuance.

To say that humans need to be born merely to preserve it... — Thorongil

That's not what I said.

...is not to understand the purpose of art, which is to release one, if only temporarily, from the suffering and boredom of life. Art is a ladder one climbs to help one flee from these things, which can then be thrown away once the destination is reached. That destination is a state of detachment from all things, for being attached to the ephemeral and finite (including art) is the cause of suffering and boredom. — Thorongil

That is but one interpretation, and not necessarily one which everyone will agree with. In fact, that's very unlikely.

You say that as if it were an established fact. It isn't. — Sapientia

"It is a clear gain to sacrifice pleasure in order to avoid pain."
-Schopenhauer

This is Helen Keller's response to Schopenhauer:

"One who believes that the pain in the world outweighs the joy, and expresses that unhappy conviction, only adds to the pain. Schopenhauer is an enemy to the race. Even if he earnestly believed that this is the most wretched of possible worlds, he should not promulgate a doctrine which robs men of the incentive to fight with circumstance. If Life gave him ashes for bread, it was his fault. Life is a fair field, and the right will prosper if we stand by our guns."

Schopenhauer is not an enemy to the race, he is an individual who has decided that the rat race is not worth it. It is not necessarily his fault that life gave him ashes for bread, and it is far from fact that life is fair or that prosperity is guaranteed by determination. Keller, although admirable for her courage and perseverance, ultimately admits that Schopenhauer is right and that he ought to just stfu cause it's already bad enough. She is the perfect example of the human spirit and the drive for perfection, which is ultimately the only major part that I disagree with Schopenhauer on.

Nevertheless, if you doubt the claim that suffering outweighs pleasure in the world, you only have to look to the suffering of the prey compared to the pleasure of the predator (NSFW).

Not that I'd ever expect a critic of a philosopher to read the philosopher they're criticizing. But anyone who sees Schopenhauer's project as only one of destruction and annihilation has not appreciated Book IV, which is a work of transcendent beauty in its own right. If Schop. is an enemy of humanity, it is because humanity is the enemy of the better.

Schopenhauer is not an enemy to the race, he is an individual who has decided that the rat race is not worth it. — darthbarracuda

No, not an enemy to the race. More like a potential and highly unlikely enemy to the race. I don't think it likely that his views will spread to such an extent that it becomes an existential threat to humanity.

Nevertheless, if you doubt the claim that suffering outweighs pleasure in the world, you only have to look to the suffering of the prey compared to the pleasure of the predator (NSFW). — darthbarracuda

Your claim is ambiguous. Outweighs in what sense? The most relevant sense would be in terms of its effect on the overall value of life, rather than, say, in terms of the frequency of occurence or severity. It's arguable whether the weight of suffering outweighs the weight of pleasure and the weight of everything else valuable in life. Furthermore, you'd then have to successfully argue that the former outweighs the latter to such an extent that it renders the latter insufficient and dismissible.

Also, being human, I'm more interested in human life - and present human life, rather than that of nonhuman animals or our human ancestors, which isn't nearly as relevant. This talk of art, for example, doesn't make any sense in relation to nonhuman animals.

Pot, kettle, black. — Sapientia

I don't see how.

I am always at least a little astonished when someone makes this fallacy. — Sapientia

It's not fallacious. I'm simply pointing out a fact. Do you dispute it?

That it will eventually be obliterated is completely irrelevant. — Sapientia

Clearly not, since you seem to have a raging desire to preserve it in perpetuity, which as I point out, is impossible.

That's not what I said. — Sapientia

I appeal to anyone reading the post to which I replied to show how my interpretation was off base. I also appeal to you to show how it is off base. Here it is again:

You do realise that if we were all anti-natalists, and we all practiced what we preached, then there would be no more art, no more music, no more human compassion, no more ascetic practice, no more philosophy, no more understanding, no more goal seeking, no more desires, and no more fulfilment or satisfaction? If you're an anti-natalist, then you endorse the will-to-end-life, and everything valuable in it.

You Schopenhauerians often speak of art as if you value it highly, and have a special appreciation for it, but you do not value or appreciate it as much as those of us who wish it to live on with us, rather than let it die a premature death. Who will create and appreciate art when we're all dead? No one. And there would not have been such a long history full of great works of art if we had cut it short by adopting your viewpoint. There could have been no Picasso, no Mozart, no da Vinci, no Shakespeare. Also, as a result, there could have been no Schopenhauer. — Sapientia

That is but one interpretation, and not necessarily one which everyone will agree with. In fact, that's very unlikely. — Sapientia

That people might disagree with me doesn't make me wrong.

I don't see how. — Thorongil

Big surprise.

It's not fallacious. I'm simply pointing out a fact. Do you dispute it? — Thorongil

It's a fallacy of relevance. I obviously don't dispute it, as was clear from the following sentence in which I acknowledged it.

Clearly not, since you seem to have a raging desire to preserve it in perpetuity, which as I point out, is impossible. — Thorongil

It seems that way to you because you have read that into my comments. You're attacking a straw man. The "in perpetuity" part is entirely of your own imagination.

I appeal to anyone reading the post to which I replied to show how my interpretation was off base. I also appeal to you to show how it is off base. — Thorongil

It's quite simple, really. I mentioned "living on with us", "a premature death", and "cutting it short", yet no where did I mention "going on indefinitely" or "in perpetuity". Your interpretation is very uncharitable, as it assumes that I'm stupid enough to think that it can be preserved forever, in spite of the strong evidence to the contrary.

It's trivially true that humans need to be born for art to continue beyond the current generation. That is part of what I was getting at. But I did not impy, or at least did not intend to imply, that humans ought to be born for that purpose, or for that purpose alone. Art is just one of the many things that can make life worthwhile. Not just bearable or tolerable or as a relief, but worthwhile.

That people might disagree with me doesn't make me wrong. — Thorongil

A tedious and predictable reply. At some point, it boils down to subjectivity, especially something such as this. You seem to have somewhat of an inability to recognise this. You talk in an objective, matter-of-fact manner, which is quite misleading.

So, because of all the suffering in the world, anti-natalism is supposed to be obvious, right? But most people don't believe it, so they're either dishonest, delusional, or stupid. But there's no point in arguing with dishonest, delusional, and stupid people, so why bother advocating for anti-natalism? The brave, noble, kind, wise, Schopenhauer types should grasp it intuitively, so if you're capable of understanding anti-natalism, you already do so. And if you're not capable of understanding anti-natalism, you never will. So if nobody else will get it, then what's the point of making arguments for it?

Think of it as therapy for people with Stockholm Syndrome.

Your claim is ambiguous. Outweighs in what sense? The most relevant sense would be in terms of it's effect on the overall value of life, rather than, say, in terms of the frequency of occurence or severity. It's arguable whether the weight of suffering outweighs the weight of pleasure and the weight of everything else valuable in life. Furthermore, you'd then have to successfully argue that the former outweighs the latter to such an extent that it renders the latter insufficient and dismissible. — Sapientia

Mediocrity is not "good enough". Every one of us is in the condition that a sufficient amount of pain can befall us that leads us to question our existence.