Aren't you? Anti-natalism seems uninterested in other people, it just seems to want to tell the majority of other people that in one fundamental respect they are mistaken in how they value life, procreation and sexual pleasure: it feels more of a lecture than an analysis. Surely if you want to spread the word, you need to enquire a little more into how other people are? That's certainly how politics is done, for instance: tramping round streets, knocking on doors, listening to people's concerns, explaining your views to them. — mcdoodle
I am well familiar with all the kinds of arguments you cited from other threads. the problem is, none of them are compelling to anyone who doesn't empathize with your feeling about life. — Janus
I agree with your statement as quoted above; and the fact that we can't "know what the hell we are doing here in the first place", in the kind of shareable discursive sense you are demanding, is the very fact that makes the value of life incalculable in any intersubjective unbiased way. — Janus
This is a bit suspect to me for several reasons. 1) You are assuming future people will reduce suffering in the same way as the parents. Offspring may be nothing like their parents. 2) Using future people in order to decrease some overall suffering seems to not be in the spirit of the moral stance to not use people for a means to an ends. You create a life with suffering in order to reduce some total suffering. — schopenhauer1
Not quite sure what you mean by "switched-on". I agree that that age group may be the most existential, but that may be for circumstantial reasons. Funny, how existential thinking is juvenile but religious belief is considered just cultivating a deep longing. I see the two as very related but one without the trappings of metaphysical restraints. — schopenhauer1
But what is wrong with this? I don't see the contradiction in living life yet rejecting the premises of life itself. Indeed, life is presented to humans as it is already structured, and people can evaluate and analyze the structure and their place in it. If that is "needing the world as a stage", again, what is wrong with that? Suicide is not the only answer to existential questioning. — schopenhauer1
I never said anyone was dullards, just that some people disarm others by throwing the term "juvenile" around to dissuade them from the line of questioning. I am not so sure about individuals "deciding" that the came is worth the candle. Many go through the motions without deciding anything. — schopenhauer1
The point is to grapple with it and keep it at the forefront of thought continually. I think the generic "wisdom" is to think about it for a bit and move on, but it is the core of the issue as our very motivations are the core of what we do, think, plan, etc. Survival/boredom, and absurdity are all wrapped in our very existence as self-reflecting beings. — schopenhauer1
Exactly. There is no objective moral law or ethical code. Ethics and morality are subjective. What is good or bad is what is helpful or harmful in achieving one's goals.This is why I don't engage in many ethical discussions - because I realize that there are no real answers to those questions other than what is helpful or harmful to one's goals.So the same can be said about arguments on the limits of ethics- abortion, eating animals or animal by-products, assisted suicide, etc. These are things which are also argued about, but somehow are considered legitimate topics of consideration, why would procreation not also be in this category of a legitimate moral argument as the other things mentioned? Why is this one off limits but others not? Again, this is another way to shut down any thought on it before it enters the world of debate to begin with. — schopenhauer1
As to (1), true, things are not deterministically set—either biologically or behaviorally. Yet just as the kids’ phenotypes are on average a mixture of the parents’ phenotypes, so too can be argued for the kids’ behaviors, including their sense of ethics, when both parents have been around. What I’m upholding is that the kid’s behavior will not itself be random but will be in great part learned from the parent(s)’ behavior. So if the parents desire less suffering in the world, given that they are good parents by common sense standards, so too will their children. Exceptions could of course occur. But this argument is about average outcomes. — javra
As to (2), I very much acknowledge that this position is hard knocks. All the same, if one cares about suffering in the world among humans and lives one’s life thus, then the absence of this person to humanity only increases the suffering in humanity relative to this person’s being otherwise present—this for reasons aforementioned. E.g. where this person would smile at a homeless kid, a non-caring person would not show any kindness toward the same homeless kid; and without the caring person the same homeless kid would receive less compassion and would therefore experience greater suffering. Do you deem this overall reasoning valid or erroneous?
I’ll try to address “the people as means toward ends” issue after this one issue is first addressed—since the former issue is contingent upon the latter issue being valid as here expressed. — javra
It seems to me that the ultimate question you are asking is: Should schopenhauer1 have the right to prevent others from having kids simply because his life is full of suffering? Well, should you? I consider the question of rights and who has more rights than someone else a question with an objective answer that doesn't have to do with ethics. Who has more rights than anyone else? My answer is no one. We all have equal rights, which means you don't have the right to tell me how to live my life, nor do you have the right to prevent others from having a life, because yours is bad. — Harry Hindu
What does prevent it is preventing birth. — schopenhauer1
Well, according to one argument, it's because there will be more pain and suffering. We therefore have a duty not to procreate to prevent this needless pain and suffering. The underlying premise here is that negative utilitarianism is true. — Thorongil
People suffer, some way or another. Therefore, there should be no more people. There are people, now. That is their misfortune; ideally, they shouldn't be alive, but it's wrong to kill them (and end their suffering).
Is this anti-natalism? — Ciceronianus the White
Since you all missed my point about how it is not as much about the ethical credo as it is a jumping off point about contemplating existential questions — schopenhauer1
I don't know what this means. But let me take a stab at it. The first part about an "ethical credo" might mean that you don't think anti-natalism is a normative stance. My reply would be that it clearly is, so that to ignore the tasks of arguing in favor of it and defending it from criticism is to engage in special pleading: "listen to what I say, but don't make me defend myself."
By "contemplating existential questions," you might have in mind the kind of rhetorical questions you asked in the OP. But if that's the case, you're not requesting to explore genuine questions, because rhetorical questions answer themselves. This would mean that "contemplating existential questions" can only lead to a certain set of conclusions: those you hold to.
Please clarify if you'd like. — Thorongil
You don't like the topic. — schopenhauer1
I do, though. It's just we're not really discussing it, and I don't understand the desire to avoid actually having an argument. I say let's have one, instead of these bizarre, cryptic little dances around the topic. — Thorongil
So it is a bit insulting and I can only fathom you are trying to simply get me to stop posting about the topic — schopenhauer1
I get that it is hard to remember what was said in the past, so I advise to may read from our last discussion if you are going to call the question of absurdity and structural suffering simply rhetorical. I don't know how it can be when rhetorical usually means it is not meant to have a definitive answer, when I in fact do provide some ideas and answers. If others don't see it the same way, then I argue my point by describing more clearly what I am talking about. It is hard to convey certain concepts like absurdity into words, but I try to paint a picture. If people still don't get it, or understand it, so be it, but I do like to hear other's opinions on the matter as it is important, as far as I see it. — schopenhauer1
I still don't understand the intent behind these threads, seeing as they all turn out the same. — Thorongil
Well, what does it mean to advocate if not to make others believe as you do?I am not saying we should force the prevention of procreation. It is simply an argument that one can agree or disagree with. I liken it to vegans who advocate for their cause but do not ram it down people's throats or force it into law or anything like that. — schopenhauer1
That's ironic. The very thing that you want to eliminate would be the answer to your question of "What are we doing here day after day after day?". We are here to procreate, and I don't mean that in simply passing down one's own genes. We are all here - even those that don't have any kids themselves - to ensure the next generation can run things in our absence and then pass the torch down to each following generation. We all share genes from the same gene pool and each do our own job in ensuring in some way that the next generation is able to keep things running (childless teachers and coaches, couples who can't have kids that adopt, gays that adopt, etc.).Also, as I've stated earlier, I don't see the issues of procreation simply as an ethical credo but as a way to understand what we are doing here in the first place. So it is more of a jumping off point for seeing a certain aesthetic understanding of the human condition. What are we doing here day after day after day? — schopenhauer1
I don't get that part that's underlined. I can't attempt to answer a point that I don't understand.I already stated the usual suspects of what people use to justify why existence is in a way "necessary" or "justified" for a new human, but really human existence is a lot of needs and wants (for survival and boredom's sake) in a cultural context. There is an instrumental nature to existence, an absurd repetitiousness, and the need to overcome burdens and challenges seems a bit trite and pat to be an appropriate answer for why people need to be born to experience the challenges in the first place. Something needs to exist to overcome challenges to feel good for overcoming them when nothing needed to exist at all, though glib-sounding, still has to be grappled with. I believe the answer to that conundrum is trickier than most people believe at first reflexive response. — schopenhauer1
Well, what does it mean to advocate if not to make others believe as you do? — Harry Hindu
That's ironic. The very thing that you want to eliminate would be the answer to your question of "What are we doing here day after day after day? — Harry Hindu
We are here to procreate, and I don't mean that in simply passing down one's own genes. We are all here - even those that don't have any kids themselves - to ensure the next generation can run things in our absence and then pass the torch down to each following generation. We all share genes from the same gene pool and each do our own job in ensuring in some way that the next generation is able to keep things running (childless teachers and coaches, couples who can't have kids that adopt, gays that adopt, etc.). — Harry Hindu
I don't get that part that's underlined. I can't attempt to answer a point that I don't understand. — Harry Hindu
I am interested, hence a forum rather than a journal. So why put more people into the world? What is gained? Are you familiar with my position? It is not all just contingent suffering (the usual harms people think about when discussing suffering). The idea is perhaps too subtle to be effective, I agree. Relationships, pleasure, being absorbed in physical/mental activities, aesthetics, learning, and achievement (or some variation thereof) seem to be the considerations that people choose. Then a defense of suffering based on some variation of Nietzsche's idea of "suffering makes life interesting" as this makes everyone's life its own unique "work of art". Ideas of absurdity, structural, or contingent suffering are not considered and the relative goodness of relationships, pleasure, being absorbed in physical/mental activities, aesthetics, learning, and achievement are never examined as to whether individuals need to carry these experiences out qua individuals who live and have the opportunities for these positive experiences. — schopenhauer1
I don't see why the human project needs to be carried forth. It is absurd in the grandest sense. — schopenhauer1
But these others things are just as significant. For instance, you reduce human motivations to a flight from pain and boredom. Of course these are actual and important motivations among others. But is human desire in general negative? When a young man has a crush on a young woman, for instance, is this unsatisfied desire only pain? Or does it not light up the world with a sweet anguish? — t0m
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.