Because Antinatalists are Materialists — Michael Ossipoff

I am not a materialist and also I do not think physics has a picture of reality that is complete and satisfactorily defines the physical or causality
and also I do not think it is a deterministic picture.

So tell me S's status at time T10

What do you mean by his status? He is matter and that matter resides partly in the DNA of his parents and in the environment.

I gave the example earlier of clay being made into a vase. It is the equivalent of that unless you believe in a preexisting spirit.

Humans can exist because of preexisting a matter.

So at time T10 S is identical to S's parents' DNA?

A person is constantly changing in a flux they are never identical with a previous version of themselves.

However some personal identity is continuous (the self?) and that might be what you are referring to.

I am talking about the process of being caused to exist which is what parents engage in. What is being caused to be exist is an individual created by preexisting matter.

If someone does not chose to come to exist how do they come to exist?
Their parents make them come to exist.

I would find it easy to consider myself causally accountable for creating a child and making them exist by act of force.
It is this forceful lack of consent process which is one of the things that makes me reluctant to reproduce.

I asked you a yes or no question. You don't need to respond with more than three letters.

Alright, I was mistaken to believe that all Antinatalists are Materialists. I was basing that belief largely on Schopenhauer1's statements.

But, you not being a Materialist, and given the things that you said in your reply just before this message, then, if your physical world isn't necessarily metaphysically-prior to you, then doesn't that mean that Antinatalists are attributing unrealistically-much ontological-creative-power to their parents?

Anyway, much of what I was saying is true whether someone is a Materialist or an Ontic Structural Subjective Idealist. Only the underlying mechanics-explanation is different. The facts about our situation now are basically the same with either metaphysics.

Some Buddhists comment on such matters without mention of metaphysics. Much of what I've said, to cheer-up Antinatalists and existential-angst-ridden Absurdists, is independent of metaphysics.

There are things that you like, They're plainly what you're here for, even if you don't agree with me that they're actually why you're here.

That's the situation, whether or not the Material world is the Uncaused Cause and Ground of All Being.

...you being here, and there being things that you like.

Schope has said (..,if I understood him right) that we're forced to entertain ourselves. What? Things that we like are an opportunity, not something compelled on us. That's how everyone but a very few Antinatalists and Absurdists view it.

Whatever the reason why we're in a life, that's the situation, And sure, there are the hardships and risks that go with life. Again, we can agree to disagree about why we're in a life, but Antinatalists can't realistically deny that the person and hir (his/her) being in a life are a "sealed-unit" a "unitary-construction". ...an in-principle inseparable pair like the poles of a magnet or the sides of a paper.

,,,and that they're confronted with that as an accomplished-fact, even if we disagree about why that is.

There's no reason to believe that there's any such thing as waking-consciousness other than in a life.

Schope speaks of sleep, but there's no reason to believe that there's even such a thing as that except with respect to a current or just-ended life. Sleep is for born living-beings, during their life, or at their end-of-lives (which is at the end of this life if there's no reincarnation). So, even that end that some Antinatalists long for is only there as part of a life of a born bring,

Antinatalists embrace the sleep at the end of lives (or of this life), while rejecting the life that necessarily, unavoidably must precede it, It's well understood by Buddhists and Hindus that unrealistic rejection of how things are isn't going to bring satisfaction or contentment, As Rajneesh pointed out, your death won't be better than your life, One shouldn't expect an abrupt change at death, from unrest and rejection, to peace. Attitude counts, and that's a matter of life-completion and lifestyle-perfection.

The fact that you're in this life of vulnerability, varying degrees of hardship and suffering is just something that integrally goes with you. You and that situation are the sealed-unit, the unitary-construction, the inseprable complementary pair that I spoke of, You only are, in the context of that
situation. ...whether or not we agree on the reason for that situation.

It's meaningless to speak of that situation as something that has been done to some pre-existing someone. You made an analogy about life being something that is set-up to be done to someone who hasn't yet come into existence. But that analogy doesn't work, because it implies a separate being for the situation and the person subjected to it, A situation like that is necessarily integrally part of the complementary pair consisting of that person and hir world.

...whether you agree with my explanation for why there is that, or whether you believe that it's a result of a Material world that is the Ultimate-Reality.

It's a matter, now, of living with that situation, regardless of disagreements about why there's that situation. Sure, I didn't knowingly ask for this situation either, and I know just how Antinatalists feel, because I sometimes feel the same way.

But there are things that you like,

Michael Ossipoff

2019-W01-7 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)
2019 Late-South Week 1 Sunday (6-Season -3 wk Offset Calendar)

I think that most antinatalist take issue with parents reasons or lack of reasons for having children

Which then undermines the meaning making process for the individual. The irrationality of attitudes towards procreating and parenting then leads to fear and a sense of abandonment.

My parents life meaning and my experiences and desires are seriously at odds.

I would like to be optimistic for the future but it depends on what evidence you see and whether attitudes are changing.

I think that most antinatalists take issue with parents’ reasons or lack of reasons for having children.

.
So do I. But I don’t (retrospectively) expect much from my parents, and I’m (now) not surprised by their shortcomings. …though I was a bit surprised when I first realized about it.
.

Which then undermines the meaning making process for the individual. The irrationality of attitudes towards procreating and parenting then leads to fear and a sense of abandonment.

.
Of course. Abandonment is the name-of-the-game. Well, active-victimization is a better word.
.

My parents life meaning and my experiences and desires are seriously at odds.

.
Of course. Likewise for my parents, of course. They sure didn’t put me in the situation for my benefit, as is obvious from their parenting. Of course the same abandonment and hypocrisy is obvious regarding the schools and overall society, with regard to the children who are their victims.
.
In fact, of course “abandonment” is a euphemism and understatement for that victimization.
.

I would like to be optimistic for the future

.
There’s no cause for optimism for the societal future on this planet in this physical world.
.
As for our own individual futures, it’s just a matter of making the best of the situation that we’ve found ourselves in. …found ourselves in with complete bewilderment on the first day, and even for years later weren’t ready for dealing with, due to a societally and parentally taught maladaptive notion of who our life is for.
.
Michael Ossipoff

2019-W01-7 (South-Solstice WeekDate)
2019 Late-South, Week1, Sunday (6-Seasons -3 wk Offset)
2018 December 30th (Roman-Gregorian)

The moral principle of preventing suffering is a byproduct of humanity’s life affirming orientation across an enormous span of time. It exists in a context. It is not a standalone axiom of the universe. To turn it against life itself is mere rhetorical sleight of hand and this is plainly obvious to most of us. — Roke

So we have this principle here A that we use in literally every other situation but when the situation inconveniences you it’s suddenly a “rhetorical slight of hand” because it “is turned against life itself”? I’d say “turned against life itself” is the rhetorical slight of hand here. It’s a phrase that doesn’t mean anything but just sounds “bad”

When wasn’t I? — Michael Ossipoff

You never ever implied that people get reborn NOR that where they get reborn is dictated by their morality. Those are two MASSIVE speculations. Nothing in your framework says those have to be the case.

Your subconscious attributes, inclinations, wants, needs, predispositions at the end of this life determine what kind of a world is consistent with the person that you (subconsciously) are. Consistency is the requirement of experience-stories, because there are no mutually-inconsistent facts. — Michael Ossipoff

Who says those subconscious attributes remain after death? I thought more along the lines of Nietzsche’s repeating lives in thus spoke Zarathustra, where you are continuously reborn into the same life. That’s another massive speculation not substantiated by your own framework

Not necessarily. I’d say probably not. A physical world is bound by logic, not made-to-order, and must operate according to its physical laws. So P2 is far from certain. — Michael Ossipoff

It IS certain. What’s illogical about a world with no pain? Even if you think it’s not certain I’d say you can agree that it IS certain that there are worlds with less pain than this one

No, not at all. I’ve given two good reasons for Antinatalism. — Michael Ossipoff

Ok then why did you reply to a post that was about finding arguments AGAINST antinatalism lol?

Final note, I’m still in utter disagreement with your metaphysics as it makes way too many presumptions for no reason and just seems clunky to work with but this is not the thread for that

They were just a cog in the mechanism of the physical world. You might as well blame our galaxy for your birth, or the Big-Bang. I'm not denying that your parents had a role, but not uniquely. You're giving them too much credit. — Michael Ossipoff

As a metrialist I see blame and prosecution as an evolved mechanism for removing troublemakers and bolstering your chances of survival. As a materialist that doesn’t believe in free will, talks of morality are merely talks of “which combination of words will allow me to release the most good chemicals in my brain”. Now, that being said, in my view blaming your parents for your existence makes sense. You were evolved to undoubtably see them as the cause of your existence despite the fact that they had no choice but to have you. As such they are the cause of your existence. Same with how you say “the gunshot killed the man”. Of course, according to my view, the Big Bang killed the man but when people talk of “cause” they always mean their perception of who the biggest actor was as tuned by their evolution to remove troublemakers. And this is what materialists always mean by “cause”

But if there's no need for life, then why does Schopenhauer1 think that there's need for things in life? — Michael Ossipoff

He means that a non existent thing (an unborn baby) doesn’t need anything including life but when someone is born, they suddenly need things in life. It’s better to be in a state of not needing anything and to be put in a state of needing something then acquiring it. Solving a problem you posed is not productive and it is immoral to force someone to solve a problem YOU POSE on them when they didn’t have to solve it before. Worse yet if solving that problem requires them to perpetuate it.

You seem to be objecting to the fact that there’s such a thing as life. To whom is that objection addressed — Michael Ossipoff

Parents. Not the heavens. We humans are born with an evolutionary tendency to blame others who cause pain not because they chose to (that’s what we tell ourselves, they can’t really choose) but because if we don’t execute troublemakers we get executed. As such, when this is applied to parents one can clearly see why they are to be blamed. If parents are executed we won’t have to be put in the conditions where we risk getting painfully executed in the first place. That’s what antinatalists are doing. One doesn’t have to be a Hindu to blame others. One doesn’t have to believe in free will to blame others. Blame is an entirely self preserving endeavor

Then what is the point of railing at that obvious inevitability?? In fact what even is the meaning of that railing? — Michael Ossipoff

It’s not an inevitability. It might convince others not to have children (deterministically of course) and then eventually maybe an anti-reproduction policy can be implemented. Just because everything is deterministic does not mean you throw up your hands. You can’t say everything is deterministic therefore I’ll do X because you don’t KNOW what’s going to happen even if it is deterministic. You will always feel you have free will because of this. You can’t call having children an inevitability because of what I just said. The antinatilists might succeed in their quest you never know

But, you not being a Materialist, and given the things that you said in your reply just before this message, then, if your physical world isn't necessarily metaphysically-prior to you, then doesn't that mean that Antinatalists are attributing unrealistically-much ontological-creative-power to their parents? — Michael Ossipoff

Yes. That’s the point of blame. To get someone prosecuted. Not to punish them for being “bad”. You get people prosecuted so that you may survive.

What? Things that we like are an opportunity, not something compelled on us. That's how everyone but a very few Antinatalists and Absurdists view it. — Michael Ossipoff

That’s how most absurdists view it actually. Not having free will is the state of the world for us.

It's meaningless to speak of that situation as something that has been done to some pre-existing someone. — Michael Ossipoff

No one does that. I found andrew’s analogy most fitting. Setting a bear trap in an empty park is still wrong despite the fact that there is no one there yet. The point is that setting the bear trap WILL harm someone. Doesn’t matter if that person doesn’t exist yet.

Negative utilitarianism is not generally understood to mean that one should never do anything that causes suffering. To me it means that we prioritise reducing gross suffering rather than net suffering (which is suffering minus pleasure). There are plenty of situations where one reduces net suffering by causing a small amount of additional suffering. An immunisation program is a classic example.

If somebody adopts the principles of negative utilitarianism as you present them then antinatalism follows immediately. But I don't know anybody that would adopt that extreme form of negative utilitarianism. There are plenty that adopt the 'minimise gross suffering version', but that doesn't automatically lead to antinatalism.

Suffering seems to be great!

The definition of suffering is that it isn't great. Suffering =/= pain. Masochists think pain is great. Suffering is whatever you don't think is great

I actually got tired of arguing with NU as it's just impossible to win then. The best thing you can do against a NU Antinatalist is show them the absurdities of it.

There can be no objective truth in what is inherently subjective. Antinatalism, if I'm correct, needs, for it to make its case, suffering and pain to be objective facts.

Some people, like antinatalists, find life to be miserable but some find life enjoyable and worth it.

We need to be objective about this if we're to make a judgment as to who is right. However, this isn't possible for the simple reason that people's values differ both in type and degree. You don't tell people not to eat chocolate because you don't like it. Some people will. There's no objectivity antinatalism, if you ask me.

This is a translation from an excerpt of a greek poet's work that has something to do with anti-natalism:

"The pain that began with the resistance of matter to become a world, becomes a pain of matter that ceases to be a world anymore. You do not understand, I see, my poetic expressions are to blame: in the face of the act of my birth (which, irrespective of the fact that it is not an act of mine, it nevertheless is the most important event in the history of my being) is the only act of MINE that can stand at the same height because it has insurmountable power and tragedy.

What benefits me to exist for what it's worth, since at the moment that I did not ordain, but luck itself - the very power that gave birth to me, I should bend my head and die patiently, consoling myself that this is how the law of nature dictates, and what can I do?

A course that has a beginning and an end the command of a hostile law, totally and beyond alien to me - because neither my birth did I will (how could that be?), nor death do I accept - what is the point in that? Since I was not able to give birth to myself, I make an equivalent act: I destroy him. By taking life from my matter, I raise it against my mother - fate -, thus taking away from her the right to decide for my end; she decided for my beginning - I decide for my end - I equate my power with hers".

The definition of suffering is that it isn't great. Suffering =/= pain. Masochists think pain is great. Suffering is whatever you don't think is great — khaled

I listen to albums that I don't think are great all the time. I'm listening to one right now, actually--Black Sabbath's Seventh Star. It's solid, and I enjoy listening to it--I'm certainly not suffering listening to it, or I wouldn't listen to it. But I wouldn't say it's great.

This is the big problem with framing anything on "suffering." It's not clear just what the demarcation criteria of that term are supposed to be, especially if we're to see it as something universally negative.

”When wasn’t I [a Hindu]?” — Michael Ossipoff
.
You never ever implied that people get reborn NOR that where they get reborn is dictated by their morality.

.
I’ve been saying those things since my arrival at The Philosophy Forum.
.

Those are two MASSIVE speculations. Nothing in your framework says those have to be the case.

.
Incorrect. They plausibly, naturally, follow from my metaphysics, Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism.
.
…though I never claimed proof that there’s reincarnation.
.
If there’s a reason why you’re in a life, and if that reason remains at the end of this life, then what does that suggest?
.
Of course, if you’re a Materialist, then, by your metaphysics, the reason why you’re in a life is simply because your parents reproduced…a cause that obviously won’t remain at the end of this life.
.
Under Materialism, reincarnation is ruled-out.
.

”Your subconscious attributes, inclinations, wants, needs, predispositions at the end of this life determine what kind of a world is consistent with the person that you (subconsciously) are. Consistency is the requirement of experience-stories, because there are no mutually-inconsistent facts.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Who says those subconscious attributes remain after death?...That’s another massive speculation not substantiated by your own framework.

.
From the point of view of your survivors, when you’re dead, and the worms are eating your decayed body, neither you nor any of your attributes, subconscious or otherwise, remain.
.
But it was clear from what I said that I wasn’t talking about the time experienced by your survivors, when you’re dead, with your body’s shutdown complete.
.
I was referring to your experience, during the “unconsciousness” (absence of waking consciousness) that arrives during death.
.

I thought more along the lines of Nietzsche’s repeating lives in thus spoke Zarathustra

.
You’re welcome to that belief. But it’s yours, not mine.
.

”Not necessarily. I’d say probably not. A physical world is bound by logic, not made-to-order, and must operate according to its physical laws. So P2 is far from certain.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
It IS certain.

.
Your pain-free world—the notion that there could be such a world--is speculation.
.

What’s illogical about a world with no pain? Even if you think it’s not certain…

.
No pain whatsoever for anyone is a big, big thing to postulate for physical beings in a physical world operating by its own physical law, where the physical perception of an immediate &/or urgent need to avoid serious injury is called “pain”.
.
If you admit that it’s not certain, then you contradict your statement quoted above.
.

I’d say you can agree that it IS certain that there are worlds with less pain than this one.

.
Undeniably.
.

”No, not at all. I’ve given two good reasons for Antinatalism.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Ok then why did you reply to a post that was about finding arguments AGAINST antinatalism lol?

.
Because, though I agree with the undesirability of being part of the proximal cause of another life in this world, or of increasing the Earth’s human population, I nevertheless point out some errors of Antinatalists and Absurdists. …whose claims go beyond merely saying that it’s undesirable to be part of the proximal cause of another life in this world or increasing the Earth’s population.
.

Final note, I’m still in utter disagreement with your metaphysics

.
Of course. How could it be otherwise, with you being a Materialist?
.

…as it makes way too many presumptions for no reason

.
Actually, Ontic-Structural Subjective Idealism makes no assumptions or presumptions whatsoever, and posits no brute-facts (…unlike Materialism.)
.
You should feel free to share with us what assumption or presumption you think my metaphysics makes.
.
…but I emphasize that my criticism of the claims of Antinatalists and Absurdists is NOT a metaphysical issue, because, even under Materialism, there are good objections to various statements made by Antinatalists and Absurdists.
.
But, as I sometimes say, Absurdists are right about one thing:
.
The (Materialist) world that they believe in is indeed absurd.
.

…but this is not the thread for that.

.
Correct, because my criticisms of statements by Antinatalists and Absurdists are valid even under Materialism.
.
Replies to your other posts will be along soon, maybe all today, or maybe one or a few each day.
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
2019-W03-7 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)
Late-South Week3 Sunday (6-Seasons -3 wk Offset Calendar)
January 13th (Roman-Gregorian)
January 14th (Hanke-Henry)
Month 1 Week3 Sunday (South-Solstice Equal 28-Day Months Calendar)
2019-W02-7 (ISO WeekDate Calendar)
23 Nivose (Snowy) CCXXVII (French Republican Calendar of 1792)

There can be no objective truth in what is inherently subjective. Antinatalism, if I'm correct, needs, for it to make its case, suffering and pain to be objective facts.

Some people, like antinatalists, find life to be miserable but some find life enjoyable and worth it.

We need to be objective about this if we're to make a judgment as to who is right. However, this isn't possible for the simple reason that people's values differ both in type and degree. You don't tell people not to eat chocolate because you don't like it. Some people will. There's no objectivity antinatalism, if you ask me. — TheMadFool

If there can be no objective truth in what is inherently subjective and we have to rely on an objective truth to make a claim that something is morally wrong then it’s not clear to me how we can conclude that something like murder is wrong either. Just as you insisted that someone shouldn’t tell you to refrain from eating chocolate because that someone doesn’t like chocolate, I could just as easily insist that someone doesn’t tell me to avoid killing people just because that someone doesn’t like death. Now, I think the best response against antinatalism is not to try to deny an objective moral truth but rather to insist that the mean collective subjective opinion could be regarded as objectively true. That is to say that if we compiled the opinions of millions of people across various cultures and took the average of those opinions, we would get the closest approximation of the actual objective human preference. This might get the accusation of using the bandwagon fallacy, but it may seem appropriate to ask the preferences of others as the basis for predicting the likelihood that a person would be glad to have been born for most of his life.
But the antinatalist could insist that instead of asking people for their existential preference, it is more appropriate to ask whether or not it morally right or wrong to create preferences in the first place. For that, we would need to compare 2 different preferential circumstances: the circumstance of having preferences of which some preferences will be satisfied and others will be frustrated and the circumstance of never having any preferences. You might insist that these 2 circumstances are incomparable and therefore we can’t judge one to be better than the other, but I think it is self-evident that creating a preference that is certain to never be satisfied and will lead to frustration is not morally preferable. Whereas, creating a preference that is guaranteed to be satisfied isn’t self-evidently morally preferable. That is not to say that it is never good to create a likely satisfied preference. I’m not taking a radical anti-frustrationist position on this topic but rather I’m insisting that there seems to be a skewed scale against creating preferences. Having said that, I do think that in addition to preferences we should observe the various experiences in our lives to get a better understanding of whether or not we think the experience of being alive is overall preferable to non-existence. My instinct is that if someone doesn’t enjoy their life, then it’s probably a bad idea for them to have children. That is because their children would likely inherit their misery. I don’t necessarily think that people who enjoy their lives should have children because of my moderate anti-preference creating views and because I think avoiding harm to others should be a stronger motivator for morality than providing someone with a benefit.

That is to say that if we compiled the opinions of millions of people across various cultures and took the average of those opinions, we would get the closest approximation of the actual objective human preference. — TheHedoMinimalist

You're forwarding an argumentum ad populum.

agreed. I’m not an antinatalist I’m just playing devil’s advocate

suffering anything that brings about a negative emotional state

You're forwarding an argumentum ad populum. — Terrapin Station

No, I’m not actually. Although I thought I was when I wrote the original comment. An argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so." The key word in this definition is belief. When evaluating the most likely human existential preference, we are not saying that the belief that people hold about their life is the reason why life is good but rather the preference that they have for existence over non-existence. The difference between a belief and preference is that a belief is an opinion about the nature objective reality while a preference is an opinion expressed in personal taste and there’s no claim that something is objectively better but rather just an expression of subjective preference. I think when evaluating 2 state of affairs, it is appropriate to try to figure which state of affairs most people prefer. This would be one empirical fact that the pronatalist could use effectively to make her position stronger. By all means, I do not think that it’s the only valid empirical fact regarding the morality of reproduction. If you read the rest of my long previous comment, that becomes quite clear. I must also add that I’m more of an antinatalist than a pronatist and I was giving the devil his due by providing the strongest potential argument for pronatalism. To me, the most absurd position that a person could hold on reproduction is actually the most common one: that is the view that reproduction is amoral or not morally relevant. I can’t imagine how something as consequential as reproduction could not have any serious moral significance. The only way an action could not be morally significant is if:
1. The action has no morally significant consequences
2. There are no duties related to the action in any way
3. There are no commonly understood virtues or vices that go along with the actions.

In my opinion, none of the 3 above criteria apply to reproduction much less all 3.

I’ve been saying those things since my arrival at The Philosophy Forum. — Michael Ossipoff

Well you haven’t said them here lol. And looking into the comment history of everyone I meet is creepy and time consuming

…though I never claimed proof that there’s reincarnation — Michael Ossipoff

Why were you stating it as fact then?

No pain whatsoever for anyone is a big, big thing to postulate for physical beings in a physical world operating by its own physical law, where the physical perception of an immediate &/or urgent need to avoid serious injury is called “pain”. — Michael Ossipoff

Imagine a world where a planet where particles accidemtally collided together forming a utopian planet where everything has a marshmallow like texture so that even if you fall you just bounce back and can’t hurt yourself even if you tried. Now imagine those particles collided also forming 2 humans that just happen to both not have the ability to feel pain. If you’re still not convinced a world without suffering is possible you must at least be convinced that a world with less suffering than this one is possible.

And besides according to your position you shouldn’t be an antinatlist. Because no matter what you do you’re not actually preventing people from being born. A person will ALWAYS be born into whatever world best fits “them” (although you don’t have proof that changes to their subconscious self remain after life and you still have no proof that moral GOODNESS brings you to better worlds. You know the saying nice guys finish last right? What if being good actually made you susceptible to getting born into WORSE realities. You haven’t explained how this “affinity” between person and world is decided). Since a person will always be born into whichever world fits them our decision to procreate or not procreate is completely inconsequential. If we DO antinatalist ourselves into extinction that’s just because we’re out of people that fit our world. We didn’t save anyone from anything

Actually, Ontic-Structural Subjective Idealism makes no assumptions or presumptions whatsoever, and posits no brute-facts (…unlike Materialism.) — Michael Ossipoff

Your version does. You assume people go to better worlds if they do moral deeds. You assume people’s subconscious changes remain after death and that they get reborn into a different life as a consequence. You assume “minds” exist to have ideas to begin with for these minds to be born into a world consistent with their ideas. You assume our laws of logic are cross-universal and that an illogical universe with contradicting principles cannot exist. All you know is that we cannot image such a universe. That’s not proof it cannot exist. There is no such thing as an ideology that makes no assumptions. You can’t have a syllogism without premises.

The (Materialist) world that they believe in is indeed absurd. — Michael Ossipoff

Mind explaining how?

Also I’d rather we do metaphysics in a private chat rather than on this thread