Sentiment? What sentiment? I’m just making a statement of fact. Do I know my kids would not be miserable wretches despite my best efforts? No and neither do you. So this establishes that bringing someone into existence is a risk. — khaled
You force someone to live for 80 years with very high emotional consequences on both parties if they try to commit suicide early while risking they have a miserable life. All of this for no good reason. — khaled
The risk to you or the unborn child? — Wallows
What's to say that your child or whatnot is going to do that? — Wallows
That is not a good reason. Because I don’t care how small the chances of being miserable are (although I don’t think they’re that low) it’s still not a good reason to take a risk FOR someone else when they will pay the consequences. — khaled
If you don’t agree then you wouldn’t mind someone stealing your bank account to invest most of your savings in a certain business without your consent — khaled
I think it is a good reason, because the odds are by far in favor of not being miserable. Maybe you don't take good bets, but I do. I think good bets are worthwhile to take. — Terrapin Station
We're not at all talking about doing something against anyone's consent. Consent requires someone capable of granting or withholding consent. — Terrapin Station
I have kids. I'm not against having more — Terrapin Station
So it's ok to put bear traps in a park because you can't get consent from the people that will be there later because they don't exist right now and you don't know who they are? — khaled
What if a parent reads this, feels like they have committed some kind of crime against their kid and kills themself`? Shouldn't you get consent before spreading your ideas.The point isn't going AGAINST consent. Any action that risks harming someone required explicit consent. — khaled
I didn't say they WILL have a miserable life. I said they might despite my best efforts — khaled
What if a parent reads this, feels like they have committed some kind of crime against their kid and kills themself`? Shouldn't you get consent before spreading your ideas. — Coben
What if my kids would view never having had a chance to live as harm? — Coben
What about inactions? Should we get consent for not acting if this harms someone? — Coben
Why are pleasure and pain the measure of a life? I oftne set goals for myself that require dealing with more pain than if I was a hedonist. I do this because the life in me wants to experience certain things and be expressive in certain ways. Am I harming myself? And yes, I understand that I can give consen for this, but my point is that I think harm is being defined as if hedonism was the obvious choice that life makes. I dont think this is the case. Or if it is, the type of pleasure is so nuanced it is really not a good term for it. And pain too is misleading — Coben
An antinatalist wants life to stop — Coben
I think the universe is better with life and as far as I can see most life agrees — Coben
In its seeking out more life — Coben
But the antinatalist talks about consent, when they try to convince life that life is bad and should not have been — Coben
Where did they get the consent to try to end all future life — Coben
But, one has to realize the inherent illogicality of this whole rationale, being that how can one ad hoc provide reasons for not wanting to continue suffering in the world for an entity that has never experienced anything at all? — Wallows
People who exist are capable of granting or withholding consent, aren't they? — Terrapin Station
I hear this so often but it's really not that hard to get. Antinatalism doesn't want to protect magic ghost babies from harm. It wants to protect real people from harm. Course of action A: have birth, results in harming someone therefore it is immoral. Course of action B: don't have birth doesn't harm anyone therefore it is better. That's all. Or to be more specific, course of action A guarantees harm that is not asked for while course of action B only denies potential people pleasure which isn't a bad thing because you don't owe anyone pleasure, refer to my last comment. — khaled
You haven't yet demonstrated (for the above in any way to be a sound argument) that existence is necessarily suffering. — Wallows
The illogicality is really showing here. How can you ask for consent from a fictitious straw-baby? — Wallows
IOW you're not especially effective at spreading the ideas, but you know people are curious, especially philosophers, and presumably hope that they will read it. So either you think what you are doing is futile, or you don't really care about consent. So, it's either a strange activity or less directly going against consent. And either way, any person you convince will not have the consent of children who will no longer get born. Your values will keep them from living. What if they would have preferred to?No because I didn't force them to read it. Unlike with children who you force into this world. — khaled
Who says? That's sounds like you thinking your values are objective.Then it's not your responsibility. It's not your responsibility to make someone happier, but to not make them suffer more — khaled
Ibid.I believe inaction should never be morally punishable. — khaled
There's a chance that your ideas will lead to the cessation of all life. The implications of antinatallism are that no one should be alive after we all reach natural deaths. What if that's an atrocity for all the life that would have happened?I never used pleasure and pain and if I did I didn't intend to. I don't need to appeal to hedonism. I said "do you know your child will find their life Worthwhile? No". To elaborate, do you know for sure that your child will have a system of value that he himself finds satisfaction in, be that hedonism or whatever you're doing? No. You don't. So it's still a risk. There is a chance your child becomes miserable by his own standards and finds no meaning in any of it — khaled
No. That is a side effect. An antinatalist simply doesn't want to risk others' wellbeing for his own — khaled
Most of life in middle class Western society agrees and if they're human. Look at how cattle are treated. And how some people in less developed parts are treated. I don't think your opinion of life is as universal as you think — khaled
The fact that life seeks more life doesn't mean life is enjoyable or worthwhile or whatever value you want to measure it by. — khaled
Most of life in middle class Western society agrees and if they're human. Look at how cattle are treated. And how some people in less developed parts are treated. I don't think your opinion of life is as universal as you think — khaled
An antinatalist doesn't necessarily try to convince that life is bad, but that propagating it is risky for no good reason — khaled
You don't owe future life it's existence. — khaled
Then you are violating your own rule. And note the word 'hurt'. Pleasure pain is how you measure life. I see people, in both the developing world and elsewhere valuing life in much more complicated ways, of wanting to live anyway, of finding value even when there is struggle and pain. Meaning, love, creating, small successes, curiosity....there are so many things that keep people living and wanting to live. I see not the slightest indication they would prefer someone had decided not to risk their being allive.You do however owe everyone not taking risks that might hurt them without their consent. — khaled
IOW you're not especially effective at spreading the ideas, but you know people are curious, especially philosophers, and presumably hope that they will read it. — Coben
And either way, any person you convince will not have the consent of children who will no longer get born — Coben
Who says? That's sounds like you thinking your values are objective. — Coben
Ibid — Coben
What if that's an atrocity for all the life that would have happened? — Coben
Nor does it mean that you somehow have the consent of future generations to try to eliminate their coming into being with what is basically a massive guilt trip based on anti-life. — Coben
But you are. If you are effective in your polemic there will never be well being again. — Coben
I missed this. Again, there is a pleasure/pain analysis implict in your position, even if you do not say it outright. This is you presuming you can measure, with your values, what people should think the measure of life is. — Coben
I see not the slightest indication they would prefer someone had decided not to risk their being allive. — Coben
I never said I did. I am not saying any person must procreate — Coben
That is a risk you take without their consent. — Coben
If a scientist antinatalist is influenced by your rhetoric, he might invent a tool to eliminate future generations. — Coben
We all take risks. Doctors take risks inventing drugs for children. It's true that once these drugs are made, some few children might die of the side effects while many others are saved — Coben
In your eyes, to live one must be perfect. Well, let me tell you, each time your write, each time you leave your apartment and do anything, you risk that your actions will cause harm without the other person's consent — Coben
So presumably you don't drive. Because your actions might cause a death without the other's consent. — Coben
Perhaps you will argue that your parents will feel bad if you die, but my guess is even if they pass you will continue to live. And you could have cut off relations with all others to minimize their loving you and being sad if you were gone.
Of course a lot of parents would suffer if they don't get grandkids. And a women who loves you might suffer. — Coben
we are not perfect, but life wants to continue. With great passion. There is a seed of hatred of life in anti-natalism — Coben
Because I do not share your values system — Coben
Once the person is dead, no good or bad is left, as those things are opinions, and opinions require living. — Neir
Course of action B: don't have children
Result: No one is harmed or risked harm — khaled
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.