There comes a point in life when someone can judge for themselves whether or not life is worth living — Sapientia
That's when they get a say in the matter, and your position, in practice, entails the removal of this potential. — Sapientia
For example, by saying that if someone existed, then their life would not be worth living. — Sapientia
But the problem I see with this is that they are not intentionally being antinatalistic, they are only accidentally acting in such a way in that their actions would be compatible with antinatalism. — darthbarracuda
Do we also agree that although it's true that preventing birth doesn't affect the non-existent, it isn't true that preventing birth doesn't affect anyone? Because it obviously does, especially those who plan to have children. With that in mind, can you understand my initial reaction? — Sapientia
Yes, their life.
They get a say in the matter of their own life. — Thorongil
I have never said this. If you're still going to lump me in with anti-natalists, fine, you clearly have a pathological obsession with doing so at this point, but if there's one thing you ought to have realized from this thread by now, it's that not all anti-natalists share the same assumptions. I don't speak for TGW, nor does he for me. — Thorongil
... they 1.) want a child, 2.) believe deeply that their child will come out fine. — darthbarracuda
The first argument is one of selfishness and desire, one that makes a child out to be an aesthetic object rather than a human being. — darthbarracuda
"Wanting a child" does not, in any way, shape, manner, or form, make a child into an aesthetic object. Most people want children because... they want children. They like children. They like the idea of raising up children to be good people. And, by and large, most children turn out to be "good people". They may be flawed; but they are basically "good". — Bitter Crank
Are disease and starvation good reasons not to have children? Quite possibly. If one is in the middle of a war, plague, or mass starvation, yes--probably a good time to hold off on having children. — Bitter Crank
I'm saying that it can be worthwhile to have children because there are things in life that are worthwhile, and I'm further saying that there are, and have been, and probably will be, some cases in which it is worthwhile. — Sapientia
I'm saying that it can be worthwhile to have children because there are things in life that are worthwhile, and I'm further saying that there are, and have been, and probably will be, some cases in which it is worthwhile. — Sapientia
P1. If life is worthwhile, then life is good enough to live.
P2. If life is good enough to live, then life cannot be so lacking in goodness, or so bad, that it is better not to live.
P3. Procreation produces life.
C1. Therefore, procreation produces something worthwhile.
P4. Producing something worthwhile is itself worthwhile.
C2. Therefore, procreation is worthwhile. — Sapientia
It just makes me wonder why you then go on to say that it is perfectly acceptable to force another person to go through these trials, unnecessarily. — darthbarracuda
P4. Producing something worthwhile is itself worthwhile. — Sapientia
? It seems like that life as an end in itself can be asserted, and then one has to stop. "End in itself" can't be proven, can it?"that life in general is an end-in-itself" — Thorongil
There is a difference between a life worth continuing and a life worth starting. Giving birth to a child that turns out to have a life worth living is still a risk, but results in a lucky draw. — darthbarracuda
Nope, in these premises you're still equivocating on the word life. You fail to distinguish between individual lives that may or may not be worthwhile to continue living and the creation of as of yet potential lives, about which you cannot by definition decide the worth of. — Thorongil
To make it easier for you, what you have to do is the following: you must prove that life in general is an end-in-itself, i.e. something to be continued, created, and in a word, affirmed for its own sake. You have thus far conceived of life as a means to an end, where that end is to experience worthwhile things; things that are not life. In other words, despite saying that it's not true that life is worthwhile, this is precisely what you have to claim in order for your argument to work; specifically for P4 to do the work necessary to reach your conclusion. Moreover, if you want to enjoy and experience worthwhile things, then you can pursue this end without procreating. Even if you are a utilitarian who wants to maximize the number of people who experience worthwhile things, potential human beings are by definition excluded from consideration. Non-existent people don't and can't experience anything. — Thorongil
I say that it is good to have children because, in my personal -- and valid for me -- experience, life is on balance a good thing. Is it all good? Obviously not. Is it all bad? Just as obviously not. On balance... it's quite a bit better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick--which is more than I can say for the antinatalist argument.
All the arguments I have read here about how having children is an inherently bad thing boil down to "Life sucks" and "having babies is forcing them to suffer". This line of reasoning doesn't strike me as mature, insightful, wise, or anything of the kind. It strike me more as juvenile, uncomprehending, stupid, and... stop me before I say something harsh.
What I find remarkable, darthbarracuda, is that someone (you) who has written as many intelligent posts as you have is spouting this stuff. — Bitter Crank
Why isn't P4 a tautology? — Bitter Crank
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.