Essentially, the work comes first, then the reward. You have to suffer before there can be pleasure. If we had never decided to live together and farm crops despite the many challenges that kind of living situation created, we would never have invented anything. We would be animals. — TogetherTurtle

First, we are animals.. just saying. I am against all forms of suffering if it can be prevented- even suffering through adversity. Preventing birth prevents all forms of suffering. Also, a major conceit that is a cultural norm in capitalist societies, is that one is always working to gain some reward for oneself. This is simply the invisible hand at work. Working for oneself IS working for society. Having more children to be used as laborers makes no sense to me. Work is not a reward in itself, and I am not rewarding a child by having them so they can feel the "reward" of work and labor. That is poppycock propaganda. The same goes for working for so-called "selfish" reasons of accumulating wealth. Anyone who takes economics 101 knows that working really hard to accumulate wealth means simply producing more output.. output society needs and uses.. In other words- it is really using the person who thinks they are using society, but that is not the case, but the other way around. Yes, does this take the complete opposite view of the common notion? Yes. But doesn't mean it's wrong!

People aren’t used by society. Society is used by people so there is less suffering and more convenience. — Noah Te Stroete

As I was saying in my last post- people are used by society, not the other way around. We are lead to believe that by pursuing our own self-interests, we are getting the consumptive goods/services we need. Really, it is the pursuit of wealth, and work ethic slogans like "work is its own reward" which society uses to make us work to perpetuate it.

That is poppycock propaganda. The same goes for working for so-called "selfish" reasons of accumulating wealth. Anyone who takes economics 101 knows that working really hard to accumulate wealth means simply producing more output.. output society needs and uses.. In other words- it is really using the person who thinks they are using society, but that is not the case, but the other way around. Yes, does this take the complete opposite view of the common notion? Yes. But doesn't mean it's wrong! — schopenhauer1

I think that again you are only looking at the disadvantages. Society certainly uses us. We work from 9 to 5 and come home exhausted. We lose free time. We can't always feel pleasure. However, we also use society. On your time off, you can experience things infinitely more entertaining than our ancestors had. That is because their suffering advanced society to the point it could provide that. Generally, the amount of suffering goes down with the amount of work put into discovering new things via society. It is a cycle, what goes around comes around. I think that instead of limiting the workforce because it hurts us in the short term, we should look into advancing what we already know to both make ourselves more productive, (therefore us working for society) but also increase the amenities we will enjoy in the future (therefore society working for us).

I think that looking back at history, the pattern is that suffering has decreased in a linear fashion and pleasure has increased exponentially. I think that relates to the total amount of work we have done as a species, which can be increased by working hard but also inventing things to do the work for us. Yes, you may work more often than you'd like, and yes a child will suffer, but that suffering (at least from my observation) creates so much more pleasure. Following this logic, there may be a day when we can feel only pleasure and have the work automated. Of course, we would never get there (or at least we would get there slower) if we are not willing to make sacrifices in our selves.

I think that while you saw that society used us, you forgot to ask what society was using us for. What other motive is there? Society is made up of us and our collective will. What else do people want other than to feel good? People have certainly gotten the short end of the stick but even now you live on their labor. The least any of us could do is to continue to build the future they worked so hard for, even if they didn't know they were working for it.

First, we are animals.. just saying. — schopenhauer1

Who makes definitions? They certainly don't exist without us. I think that we are biologically very similar to animals, but it's the differences that count. There is a difference, at least to me, between you and my dog. My dog will do whatever I say and I value that, but you will question me, challenge me, and in turn make me stronger. I value that more.

That is because their suffering advanced society to the point it could provide that. — TogetherTurtle

Doesn't matter. They were used too. Being born is being used, period.

It is a cycle, what goes around comes around. — TogetherTurtle

Not really. Being that we cannot make a choice to be born, right off the bat you can see who is using who. We are born for our parents, and with the inevitable enculturation process, this means for society's means to be used for labor. As I've said before, values like "family pride" lead to values like "good laborers". Family pride leads to the inevitable sacrifice of the individual for society's means. By society I mean the maintenance and continuation of institutions which produce and maintain what is produced.

I think that looking back at history, the pattern is that suffering has decreased in a linear fashion and pleasure has increased exponentially. I think that relates to the total amount of work we have done as a species, which can be increased by working hard but also inventing things to do the work for us. Yes, you may work more often than you'd like, and yes a child will suffer, but that suffering (at least from my observation) creates so much more pleasure. Following this logic, there may be a day when we can feel only pleasure and have the work automated. Of course, we would never get there (or at least we would get there slower) if we are not willing to make sacrifices in our selves. — TogetherTurtle

That sounds like a terrible interim. Even so, there is built in systemic suffering not related to the usual contingent (read common) notions of suffering. There is the subtle suffering of the human psyche of desire, which is simply inbuilt. There is the contingent suffering of this or that harm of course, too which you are most likely discussing. Anyways, procreating more people so that they can be used, is not good, period. The ends here, don't justify the means, when, someone didn't need to be born to experience any harm in the first place, and no actual person prior to birth exists to be deprived.

I think that while you saw that society used us, you forgot to ask what society was using us for. What other motive is there? Society is made up of us and our collective will. What else do people want other than to feel good? People have certainly gotten the short end of the stick but even now you live on their labor. The least any of us could do is to continue to build the future they worked so hard for, even if they didn't know they were working for it. — TogetherTurtle

I don't see how perpetuating suffering of future people justifies past iniquities. What does society want? It has taken a life of its own. I believe there are social facts- institutions, if you will. Cultural norms perpetuate these institutions at the behest of individuals. Of course the one needs the other, and I don't think there is any way around it. But, individuals can be prevented from suffering, and being used (as is always the case once born). That is to say, to simply not have more individuals.

we should all die. — TogetherTurtle

And in the fullness of time we will. All of us. Drop dead.

But Schop's plea is to not have children. None of us. Not one.

Is Schop depressed? I don't know -- could be. But quite a few people have decided to not have children who are not explicitly antinatalist and who are no more depressed than the average person (that is, slightly depressed from time to time). They view the world as too screwed up to be a fit place for a child. The big problem used to be the threat of nuclear war (which actually hasn't disappeared). The new threat is ecological collapse. The various harbingers of ecological collapse are already coming home to roost, so... just a matter of time. If the left one doesn't get you, the right one will.

I'm not an antinatalist, but I can see a certain logic to it.

On the other hand, i know men who were in hospice in 1996, waiting to die in very painful ways from terminal AIDS. About that time the trifecta cocktail of anti-HIV drugs arrived and quite a few of these men regained their health. They all seemed pretty happy to be alive once they started to regain their health and vitality--though they still had AIDS, it was under control. They certainly knew a thing or two about suffering, as do many people who have had other severe illnesses and accidents. Or just grown very old.

The fact is that life does involve suffering, and many people (probably most people) consider the pleasures of being alive worth the suffering that goes with it.

I'm not an antinatalist, but I can see a certain logic to it. — Bitter Crank

Life is suffering.
Being born entitles one to life's suffering.
therefore
not being born is good and being born is bad.

One could say

Life is adventure.
Being born entitles one to life's adventure.
therefore
being born is good and not being born is bad.

Life is good enough.
Being born entitles one to life's reasonable goodness.
therefore
being born is fairly good and not being born is fairly bad.

Life is full of shit.
Being a scarab beetle makes a heaven out of the shit pile.
therefore
be a scarab beetle.
Enjoy.

Have you considered (apparently not because you haven't done it) arguing for antinatalism on the basis of global warming?

Fact is, human beings are wrecking the ecosystem on which we depend. It's probably too late to do anything about it, except if people stopped reproducing altogether. The population would fall, there would be less demand on resources, less CO production, less methane, less chlorofluorocarbon gas. Little, less, least -- eventually.

Plus, many people are assholes. The KGB, the US Census Bureau, Pew Research, and Cambridge Analytica all agree that a minimum of 40% of human beings are permanent assholes. They will always be assholes. 4 out of 10 people you meet on the street will be assholes. 4 out of 10 relatives will be assholes. 4 out of 10 school children in third grade will be assholes. Because some of the 40% of the population who are assholes comprise 99% of Republicans, the prospect of having Republicans in power is a very good reason to never have children.

One double benefit reason for not having children is that non-existent children would neither be assholes nor would they have to put up with assholes. And bear in mind, 40% is a minimum; it's a floor, not a ceiling.

Another fact is that [suffering] can be prevented fully. — schopenhauer1

That is not a fact.

You may feel that you personally are preventing some suffering by not procreating. But that doesn't do anything about all the other procreating that goes on, and hence does not prevent suffering 'fully'.

Since it is human nature to procreate, the only way to prevent it fully is by killing or sterilising the entire human population at a point in time. It is hard to imagine anyone having both the power and the will to do that.

Hence it appears not to be true that that action 'can' be taken.

Doesn't matter. They were used too. Being born is being used, period. — schopenhauer1

To bring us back to my prior point about objective morality, why is being used bad?

People (not all of them, but I would think a majority) like to be useful. They enjoy having a positive effect on others. Just because you don't feel that way doesn't mean others don't. Of course, feeling that way doesn't make you a bad person because I don't believe in anything being inherently bad. (So at least to me I don't think you are a bad person.) Others would disagree. Consider a farmer that worked all his life to put his daughter through college. He works hard and suffers for it, and in the end his daughter is using him, but he does get something in return. The joy of seeing his offspring prosper. If you don't or can't feel that way, that is understandable. Just don't have children. As for the farmer, I know his daughter. She's my sociology teacher. She enjoyed her life considerably more than her father and is now working hard to give her children a better life. I know her children and they appreciate it. They are experiencing joy far more than pain. There are others like them. I don't think that they should be limited in how much joy they can produce. One of her daughters even has horrible heart complications. I won't get into the details but even with those, she is happy. I see her every day. 50 years ago she would have died a painful death, and if the doctor that treated her was never born, she most certainly would have.

Not really. Being that we cannot make a choice to be born, right off the bat you can see who is using who. We are born for our parents, and with the inevitable enculturation process, this means for society's means to be used for labor. As I've said before, values like "family pride" lead to values like "good laborers". Family pride leads to the inevitable sacrifice of the individual for society's means. By society I mean the maintenance and continuation of institutions which produce and maintain what is produced. — schopenhauer1

You can not choose to be born without being born. Therefore, if you are not born you can not choose to be born. Both ways eliminate free will from the equation. No one will ever have a choice. If you wish to terminate your life after you are born, you can do that. Birth is, therefore, the genesis of choice. It is unreasonable to ask for a choice before you can even have one. Sometimes parents don't choose to have children. There have been plenty of accidents. Even when parents do choose, they are the only ones who could have done it. Essentially, parents give you a chance to exist, therefore giving you a choice. If you wish to go back to nonexistence, you can do it any time. You can not choose to live but you can certainly choose to die. That is your out if you wish for it. Most don't for the reasons I covered above.


As for the values that warp our mind so, I am lacking in them. It hurts to be honest but I don't feel any attachment to my family. I have no pride in where I came from. My parents were college dropouts. My grandparents did nothing of note. My father was a racist and my mother can't think about the world as you or I are right now. I don't fit the stereotype of a good worker nor do I try to. I'm lazy, that's really all there is to it. I understand the end game though, and I do contribute sometimes, but probably not as much as I should. I don't feel bad for it either if we are being honest.

As for these institutions, you have conveniently ignored the benefit of what they produce and maintain. They give pleasure. The movies, amusement parks, foods, all media, the are maintained through our work, and the benefits outweigh the detriments, otherwise, there would be less or even no people.

That sounds like a terrible interim. Even so, there is built in systemic suffering not related to the usual contingent (read common) notions of suffering. There is the subtle suffering of the human psyche of desire, which is simply inbuilt. — schopenhauer1

And what is the goal of the advertising you see on TV? satisfying desire. You, of course, need to contribute to society and earn money before you can have it. Some contribute by maintaining what we have and some contribute by making new things to satisfy more desire. The ultimate end of such a cycle is everyone having their desires met entirely. Living is an investment in the future. Your children would live a life so much better than yours, assuming you put in the proper effort to build that future for them. More desires met until we have the labor to have everything we need. Children would be born into a world of bliss. They won't need a choice because they won't want one. We can't get there unless we try though. We can't have the infrastructure required to live nice lives unless we live mediocre ones first.

Anyways, procreating more people so that they can be used, is not good, period. The ends here, don't justify the means, when, someone didn't need to be born to experience any harm in the first place, and no actual person prior to birth exists to be deprived. — schopenhauer1

And how does a future where no one suffers outweigh the suffering we have now? We have practically unlimited time left in the universe. Even if it takes a thousand years from now, that is roughly 13000 years of human civilization with suffering and the rest of the lifespan of the universe that doesn't. The sooner we work toward this, the more we get from it.

I don't see how perpetuating suffering of future people justifies past iniquities. — schopenhauer1

It doesn't. This isn't about justice. Things that happened to past people were horrible but I do believe they were necessary and I don't want to punish anyone for that. Punishment would just cause more suffering and waste valuable time and resources. My point was that we shouldn't let their effort be in vain.

What does society want? It has taken a life of its own. I believe there are social facts- institutions, if you will. Cultural norms perpetuate these institutions at the behest of individuals — schopenhauer1

You didn't answer the question. What does society want? If it has taken a life of its own, first, how did it break free from our minds, and second, what is its motive? If individuals command that norms perpetuate institutions, why is it? Of course, our leaders are wealthy, but they would have no job if there was no job to do. At the end of the day, even corrupt officials make decisions. Those decisions have to have something in it for the people or they rise up. There is no government in the world that has only two classes composed of a single leader and thousands of slaves. The single leader would have been slaughtered by his servants long ago. The people's wants and needs matter because those desires keep them in line. A government that wants to continue existing must satisfy their people or risk death. As humanity gets better at providing what it wants, we get closer to a world where everyone has what they want. You can't do that without a sizable population or a lot of machines made by a lot of smart people.

Of course the one needs the other, and I don't think there is any way around it. But, individuals can be prevented from suffering, and being used (as is always the case once born). That is to say, to simply not have more individuals. — schopenhauer1

I think this is the ultimate selfishness. By discontinuing the human race you are hurting people past, present and future.

You hurt the past because all of their work has been in vain. Nothing matters not because we were destroyed by some inescapable force of nature, but because we decided it didn't. To put it frankly, we would be the kid in the group project who refused to do their part. the main difference being that without our part the project doesn't exist and everyone fails.

You hurt the present because of all the people who want their children to be happier than they were. If you had told that farmer 50 years ago that he wouldn't be allowed to have children, he would have felt so much pain. His daughter would have never felt the joy she did. That daughter would be in so much pain because the work of her father and herself would be in vain.

You hurt the future because all of the children who could have existed didn't get to have a choice. Some of them would have loved to be alive. Some of them for sure would have wanted out. You may have prevented suffering, but that suffering could have been avoided in ways that didn't involve the removal of joy. If we truly are able to build a world where suffering is no more, then you have eliminated a near infinite amount of people would live in that world and feel no pain. By ending the human race, you have objectively prevented more joy than pain.

I think that if individuals find their load of suffering to be more than they can handle, they should be helped. If they can find no help, perhaps it is better for them to end it. That is a choice that has to be made on the individual level. If everyone decides that they shouldn't have children and end the human race, then it will be done, however, I doubt that will happen. You are free to do as you choose, but don't expect to be remembered as one of the great heroes that built the world our posterity will be so grateful for. So, help build a future without suffering and only joy, or leave so the rest of us can. That is essentially the idea. I don't think either way is wrong, I just think that you shouldn't force everyone to do one or the other.

Why do you arrive at such a negative view of life? Why so much negation? The root of your analysis is composed of constant negation.

Is Schop depressed? I don't know -- could be. But quite a few people have decided to not have children who are not explicitly antinatalist and who are no more depressed than the average person (that is, slightly depressed from time to time). They view the world as too screwed up to be a fit place for a child. The big problem used to be the threat of nuclear war (which actually hasn't disappeared). The new threat is ecological collapse. The various harbingers of ecological collapse are already coming home to roost, so... just a matter of time. If the left one doesn't get you, the right one will. — Bitter Crank

These threats. They cause so much anxiety and therefore suffering. These are the problems we need to solve. We can't do that unless we go on living.

I don't see the world as fit for a child right now, but I would like to have one. I would like to give them a better life than I had.

This reminds me of an old adage, "Heroes are not born, they are made". It is very unlikely for anyone to be in a position to fix these problems. I ask of you, what is the difference between a hero and a good person? Aside from them both being subjective, (one man's Hercules could be another's Hitler) I think that the difference is the opportunity. A good person might protest for something they believe in or donate to a charity they believe is reputable, but a hero is made through a heroic deed. Simply put, a hero was the right person in the right place at the right time. They had the opportunity and the means to do something great.

It is more about how you are remembered of course, but no one mistakes a hero for a good or bad person, they mistake a hero for a villain. But what of villains? Don't they usually have good intentions? Nobody destroys a city just to destroy a city unless they are mentally ill. (which many fictional villains are) While some interesting villains are mentally ill, I tend to like the ones with good motives more. Sometimes it's hard to disagree with the villain. In the end, both the hero and villain are destroying the city in the process of stopping each other, why is one good and one bad?

This reminds me of how our world has become. It always seems to be two sides fighting, but instead of putting their beliefs on the table and talking about it, then taking a course of action, we fight and destroy the city and in the end, one of us escapes and we fight again in the next episode. There's a reason TV shows don't go on forever. Living like this isn't sustainable.

It isn't gonna happen - that glorious moment where the final fertile person agrees to forego procreation. It's not a realistic cause - its a fantasy. So what ought the antinalist do in the face of that fact?

Preventing birth prevents all forms of suffering. — schopenhauer1

It also prevents pleasure as well. Your argument ignores the existence of pleasure and the subjective nature of both. It really comes down to the question, "Is it better to have had pleasure and suffered, or to never have pleasure at all?" I would go with the former all the time.

Now, is that to say that everyone's life is the same with the same amount of pleasure and suffering experienced by everyone? No. That is why I respect the rights of others to make their own choice about whether or not to continue living for themselves. No one should have the power to determine the value of someone else's life based on their own subjective perspective of their own suffering.

:rofl:

I almost always enjoy your comments. Can't really argue with any of this.

You may feel that you personally are preventing some suffering by not procreating. But that doesn't do anything about all the other procreating that goes on, and hence does not prevent suffering 'fully'. — andrewk

Ok, let me put this in context. Here is where Smokey the Bear and Uncle Sam posters are pointing at you and saying, YOU can prevent suffering (fully for another person) by simply not procreating another person who would otherwise have inevitably suffered.

That doesn't follow.

Even if one were to accept that preventing the commencement of any new human lives is morally preferable because it prevents all future suffering, it does not follow that, given the human race will not stop procreating (as @csalisbury pointed out), the morally preferred choice is to not procreate oneself.

The arguments for the latter proposition need to be different from those for the former.

In addition, there's no point in pointing your posters at me. I am past the point of procreation.

You can not choose to be born without being born. Therefore, if you are not born you can not choose to be born. Both ways eliminate free will from the equation. No one will ever have a choice. If you wish to terminate your life after you are born, you can do that. Birth is, therefore, the genesis of choice. It is unreasonable to ask for a choice before you can even have one. Sometimes parents don't choose to have children. There have been plenty of accidents. Even when parents do choose, they are the only ones who could have done it. Essentially, parents give you a chance to exist, therefore giving you a choice. If you wish to go back to nonexistence, you can do it any time. You can not choose to live but you can certainly choose to die. That is your out if you wish for it. Most don't for the reasons I covered above. — TogetherTurtle

Nope. Suicide isn't the same as not existing in the first place. The point with most brands of antinatalism is that precisely because no actual person is deprived of the "good" of life prior to birth. It is a win/win. No person exists to be deprived, no person exists to suffer.

As for these institutions, you have conveniently ignored the benefit of what they produce and maintain. They give pleasure. The movies, amusement parks, foods, all media, the are maintained through our work, and the benefits outweigh the detriments, otherwise, there would be less or even no people. — TogetherTurtle

Tradition really. Keep on doing what we've always done without question. That is what the self-interest and slogans are for. Take on cultural values of production.

And what is the goal of the advertising you see on TV? satisfying desire. You, of course, need to contribute to society and earn money before you can have it. Some contribute by maintaining what we have and some contribute by making new things to satisfy more desire. The ultimate end of such a cycle is everyone having their desires met entirely. Living is an investment in the future. Your children would live a life so much better than yours, assuming you put in the proper effort to build that future for them. More desires met until we have the labor to have everything we need. Children would be born into a world of bliss. They won't need a choice because they won't want one. We can't get there unless we try though. We can't have the infrastructure required to live nice lives unless we live mediocre ones first. — TogetherTurtle

Uptopian fantasies. Also, again, using people in the meantime as debit for future people.

You hurt the past because all of their work has been in vain. Nothing matters not because we were destroyed by some inescapable force of nature, but because we decided it didn't. To put it frankly, we would be the kid in the group project who refused to do their part. the main difference being that without our part the project doesn't exist and everyone fails. — TogetherTurtle

Fails in whose eyes?

His daughter would have never felt the joy she did. That daughter would be in so much pain because the work of her father and herself would be in vain. — TogetherTurtle

The daughter wouldn't even exist to be deprived. There is no "telos" of the work of anyone. There is no work done in vein as there is no thing that needs to receive people's work.

I think that if individuals find their load of suffering to be more than they can handle, they should be helped. If they can find no help, perhaps it is better for them to end it. That is a choice that has to be made on the individual level. If everyone decides that they shouldn't have children and end the human race, then it will be done, however, I doubt that will happen. You are free to do as you choose, but don't expect to be remembered as one of the great heroes that built the world our posterity will be so grateful for. So, help build a future without suffering and only joy, or leave so the rest of us can. That is essentially the idea. I don't think either way is wrong, I just think that you shouldn't force everyone to do one or the other. — TogetherTurtle

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I don't presume there needs to be a future posterity that needs to be grateful for anything in the first place. If no thing exists to be deprived, then there is no deprivation being had by any actual person.

Why do you arrive at such a negative view of life? Why so much negation? The root of your analysis is composed of constant negation. — matt

Preventing suffering is the number one priority when it comes to ethics. We suffer and are used. We use others for sure too, but that just goes along with the fact that we are used nonetheless.

Nice poetry there.

It isn't gonna happen - that glorious moment where the final fertile person agrees to forego procreation. It's not a realistic cause - its a fantasy. So what ought the antinalist do in the face of that fact? — csalisbury

I believe the mission is really the most important part- the title of the thread. It's just the fact that some of us know what is going on, and want to do something about it. Perhaps it's not outcome, but what is being recognized as the problem.

No one should have the power to determine the value of someone else's life based on their own subjective perspective of their own suffering. — Harry Hindu

But that is what choosing for someone to be born is all about. No actual human lost out on anything prior to birth. What sort of collateral damage are you willing to inflict? Why create anyone in the first place, cause you think there will be some states of pleasure they will feel at some point, is reason enough to start a life? A whole life of possibly 100 + years is based on these simply weighing of subjective states? Rather, all suffering is prevented in one fell swoop of abstaining from procreation. That is a fact.

No actual human lost out on anything prior to birth. — schopenhauer1

I'm saying that they have. They have lost out on pleasure.

What makes suffering supersede pleasure in that the existence of suffering means that life should be exterminated, yet the existence of pleasure isn't an equal enough reason for propagating it? It seems to me that the existence of pleasure equally counterbalances your reasons for preventing the propagation of life.

If suffering is a good reason to prevent lives from being created, then how is it that pleasure isn't an equally good reason to create lives?

If something hurts the most rational thing to do is to examine it closely, like a doctor, diagnose the problem/affliction and treat it. For someone with my worldview suffering is a symptom of a faulty Weltanschauung. In a world of lemons it's impossible, ergo unreasonable, to look for anything other than lemonade. Plus life isn't always sour/bitter is it?

Therefore, we need to teach ourselves how to increase and prolong the pleasurable and decrease and shorten the pain in our lives. This seems more reasonable than saying life itself is the disease/affliction and needs to be prevented.

Yes there will always be people who will negate my whole point with death. Is death the final invincible foe for people like us who think life is better than nonexistence? Well, that we fear death is evidence that life is better than nonexistence is it not? Also, death is part of life, an inevitability that no one (yet) can escape. So, why waste time fretting over it? We have that between birth and death, LIFE, to appreciate and enjoy.

I think all suffering is bad- be it suffering through adversity (even if it results in making something stronger) or suffering through collateral damage. You probably only find the latter unwarranted. — schopenhauer1

The demarcation for me is the degree of suffering--the intensity of it, the ubiquity and persistence of it. Collateral damage matters for determining whether it's morally bad. But even with that, degree is still a determinant.

Nope. Suicide isn't the same as not existing in the first place. The point with most brands of antinatalism is that precisely because no actual person is deprived of the "good" of life prior to birth. It is a win/win. No person exists to be deprived, no person exists to suffer. — schopenhauer1

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that "Oh if they never exist, they never suffered", and, "Since they didn't exist their potential happiness never did either". Either what they will experience exists before they are born or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

Tradition really. Keep on doing what we've always done without question. That is what the self-interest and slogans are for. Take on cultural values of production. — schopenhauer1

Are we not questioning it now? People question whether or not they have meaning all the time and come to conclusions. Just because you haven't yet doesn't mean others haven't either.

Also, if these cultural values are so necessary, where are they in me? You don't seem to answer that.

Uptopian fantasies. Also, again, using people in the meantime as debit for future people. — schopenhauer1

You act as if a Utopia is entirely impossible. It isn't with modern technology, but what of tomorrow? Of course, you don't intend to have offspring around tomorrow to help with that, do you? Do you claim a Utopia is impossible out of actual facts or guilt for not wishing to contribute to it?

Fails in whose eyes? — schopenhauer1

Partially in the eyes of evolution. Evolution, while not having a definition of, "perfection" does guide us to be the most well adapted to our environment as possible. Nothing is more adapted than complete comfort constantly. If we don't achieve that, we have failed every form of life that has come before us. Giving up because we just don't feel like it is even more pathetic.

It is also partially in our own eyes. While you don't share this vision, most people want pleasure and are willing to take the pain now for greater pleasure later. If we decide to give up we have failed all people past present and future who are willing to do that.

The daughter wouldn't even exist to be deprived. There is no "telos" of the work of anyone. There is no work done in vein as there is no thing that needs to receive people's work. — schopenhauer1

But if the work is not done, there is no benefit, and that work would not be done if there was not a greater benefit. The thing that receives our work is ourselves. If the farmer didn't work he would only suffer. How is that better?

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I don't presume there needs to be a future posterity that needs to be grateful for anything in the first place. If no thing exists to be deprived, then there is no deprivation being had by any actual person. — schopenhauer1

But isn't deprivation the act of giving nothing in place of something? If you don't give life, then those potential children are deprived of choice. They are still deprived of something. You still lose.

Ultimately, your argument hinges on the presumption that life isn't worth it, that pain isn't worth pleasure, but a vast majority of people disagree with that. They live, and their pleasure and pain are there own, so there isn't any metric you can use to measure the two in comparison. Ultimately, if you are right, all of these has to be true.

Morality has to be objective at least to the point where pain is wrong, and we have already addressed that isn't always true.

Pain has to always outweigh pleasure, which we have already addressed isn't always the case.

And finally, everyone has to agree with you. This whole idea that birth leads to bad is inherently flawed because you never address that birth leads to good as well. You have thrown out that part of the equation entirely. You forgot about it. This whole idea disregards the fact that there are billions of people alive today that want to be that way. You have ignored reality and based an argument on a perceived moral high ground, and worse yet one that not everyone agrees on. If you wish to not have children and this is your reasoning, fine. This can't be an argument for truth, however. When we discuss emotions, what we feel goes. If people feel differently than you, and that group is a gross majority, then they are right, regardless of what you feel. That is what society is. General consensus guiding the minds of all.

I believe Judaka and Schopenhauer1 perhaps should be banned from this forum.

I believe their opinions are an attempt to smear this forum by being very negative and extreme, thus enabling bad actors to point at this forum and say.

Look they are at a forum where 'people' have dangerous opinions, maybe they have picked them up too.

Thus I believe Judakas extreme views is not only using a faulty logic, but they end up being bad and dangerous, and also very bad for this forum and it's members.

They enable bad actors to smear people who are interested in philosophy and philosophers.

People here need to strongly speak out against their lack of moral and understanding of moral.

They are very wrong.

Most animals on earth don't suffer most of their life.
Insects, fishes, birds, wild animals etc are probably contempt most of their lives. We can also clearly see happiness in animals such as dogs.

Humans who suffer depression should get help.
Instead of giving up, we should carefully understand how to improve our society to minimize suffering without sacrificing lives.

If animals suffer we should help them live without suffering. In any normal situation it is not up to us to decide if we or other animals shouldn't breed or get children, only in extreme situations under certain conditions may we try to help another human to not procreate, for example by handing out condoms.

Because it is not certain if an animal or a human will suffer or how much or more than they enjoy life.

If it is a disease we might find a medical cure, we don't know what the future entails.

The views from Judaka and Schopenhauer1 lacks all basic philosophical understanding of morality and thus morality and is appalling, they are not representative of any normal person interested in philosophy or any known philosopher, they are the very opposite of any opinion I have ever come across among philosophers and therefore I suspect they are trolling and trying to harm the reputation of the forum and it's members.

It does not matter what they say or if they deny it, I will suspect it.

One reason could be to missrepresent atheistic philosophers.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that "Oh if they never exist, they never suffered", and, "Since they didn't exist their potential happiness never did either". Either what they will experience exists before they are born or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. — TogetherTurtle

I don't agree with antinatalist views, but I don't agree with your comment here, either.

If something doesn't exist, we can't say it has any properties, potential or otherwise. "They never suffered" is noting that those properties never obtain relative to something nonexistent. Same for "potential happiness never existed."

I don't want anyone banned, especially not because of any opinion they have/any view they express, but I do find what I call "agenda posters" annoying--basically, obsessives with a single-minded agenda that they're always campaigning for. They're always trying to turn any topic about anything into a discussion about their agenda, so they can campaign for it in that context.

But we can choose to not pay attention to those folks if we find them annoying or whatever.

But we can choose to not pay attention to those folks if we find them annoying or whatever. — Terrapin Station

I'm not so sure we can as that could be seen as an silent acceptance.

Another problem is, that when you answer you push up the subject and by default your answer will become hidden but the first post will be seen.

It's not the first time people with hidden agendas try to smear the reputation of philosophers.

They are actually suggesting that we should justify harming animals and people to end their suffering.

That is a really sick opinion.

I think anyone who try to justify violence should be banned. There should be a zero tolerance for justification of violence, it's easy to argue morally for such a stance.

There can still be interesting philosophical discussions.

It's just naive to accept such posts as they display zero knowledge and understanding of basic moral philosophy and human values. They can't claim to even be doing basic philosophy. There hasn't been a single historic philosopher who has not been concerned with how to help humanity prosper, it's the opposite of what these two charlatans do, they can't have read a single line of philosophy.

And they put philosophers in bad light by pretending to act as philosophers, when any real philosopher no matter school of thought will find their reasoning utterly idiotic, and also puts philosophers at risk of harm by missrepresenting them or people interested in philosophy.

I will not want to be associated with or contribute to a place that permits people who try to justify violence.

On Reddit I could have downvoted their views, unfortunately it is not possible here.

I believe Judaka and Schopenhauer1 perhaps should be banned from this forum.

I believe their opinions are an attempt to smear this forum by being very negative and extreme, thus enabling bad actors to point at this forum and say. — xyz-zyx

Wow, this is the most blatant anti-philosophical thing I've seen on here in a while. You don't agree with an opinion, so it should be banned.

Thus I believe Judakas extreme views is not only using a faulty logic, but they end up being bad and dangerous, and also very bad for this forum and it's members. — xyz-zyx

First of all, part of philosophical inquiry is questioning everything- even things we take for granted. Procreation is not immune to philosophical analysis as to its morality. Yes, even procreation can be seen in the light of its ethical implications.

The views from Judaka and Schopenhauer1 lacks all basic philosophical understanding of morality and thus morality and is appalling, they are not representative of any normal person interested in philosophy or any known philosopher, they are the very opposite of any opinion I have ever come across among philosophers and therefore I suspect they are trolling and trying to harm the reputation of the forum and it's members. — xyz-zyx

Excuse me but there are a (small) group of modern philosophers who do indeed write about the view that we should not procreate as procreation creates suffering for new individuals. Please read David Benatar, and the concept of antinatalism in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

Also, some ancient and later philosophers, notably Arthur Schopenhauer were known for their negative views of existence. These more general philosophies that view life with as negative are considered, literally Philosophical Pessimists. Mainlander and Hartmann are two direct descendents of this.. but these ideas also influenced Nietzschean (although as a foil), and later philosophers like the Existentialists (Sartre, Camus, Heidegger, etc.).

Not everything is unicorns and roses..and those who don't think life is such shouldn't be banned. Look at my own discussions and comments history.. I've put plenty of arguments of various degrees, lengths and perspectives for the negative view of procreation.