To overlook anything but harm to future person at procreational decision would be using child for an agenda. The child did non exist beforehand to even need the XYZ experiences that supposedly make it good for the child to be created in the first place. — schopenhauer1
What is the case however, is ALL harm can be prevented with NO COST to an ACTUAL person. No one would actually exist to be deprived of anything...only the parents imaginary projected vision of loss. — schopenhauer1
My goal is to get you folks to reason better, to not forward crappy arguments, etc. — Terrapin Station
So "no loss to an actual person" is false.
Aside from that, there's no reason to only care about the harm side of the equation and not the benefit side of the equation. — Terrapin Station
Ironically, you are doing this by posing shoddy argumentation. — schopenhauer1
The parents "feelings" matters not in regards to starting SOMEONE ELSE'S life. — schopenhauer1
An unconscious person is unable to give consent. Only a conscious person can give consent. — Andrew4Handel
Sure. Do you understand the difference between whether we're talking about someone who can normally grant or withhold consent or not? — Terrapin Station
Most human beings past, future, and present can give consent. — Andrew4Handel
Explain why it's shoddy in your view rather than just making the accusation. — Terrapin Station
The parents "feelings" matters not in regards to starting SOMEONE ELSE'S life.
— schopenhauer1
What does this have to do with whether they're suffering, harmed, etc.? — Terrapin Station
Irrelevant in the case of the procreational decision — schopenhauer1
There is no damage done to another person by not procreating. — schopenhauer1
This statement is false. The damage doesn't have to be for someone else. The damage is for the person who wants to procreate but doesn't because they're pressured or forced not to. — Terrapin Station
This statement is false. The damage doesn't have to be for someone else. The damage is for the person who wants to procreate but doesn't because they're pressured or forced not to. — Terrapin Station
Irrelevant in the case of the procreational decision. — schopenhauer1
But those comments had nothing at all to do with "procreational decisions" and there was never any claim that they did have anything to do with that. That seems to be a reading comprehension issue on your end rather. — Terrapin Station
That fits their single criterion of no harm can be risked for another, no life with suffering unless it is chose. Nothing else could possibly outweigh or counter that. It is the only risk. Other values about life and living and interests and participating in long term goals and achievement and the current suffering this would create in the last humans, mean nothing to them. They are of no value. Their value is, apparantly, the objective value that supercedes all other values, despite the vast majority contradicting this value in the way they choose to live despite suffering, despite the anti-natalists who find life not worth living but keep doing it. I know, I know, they don't want to hurt their relatives and loved ones. How conveniently empathetic all of a sudden. — Coben
I don't agree that it's a suitable analogy, because you don't have to go through extreme levels of suffering in order to leave. You can be fine and leave by jumping off a bridge, or by taking some medication that puts you to sleep and never wakes you up. It's rather that it's usually people who go through extreme levels of suffering who want to leave, those who feel fine usually do not. — leo
There you're arguing for the idea that it's not ok to create a being who will be in a state of constant severe suffering, that's not the same as arguing for antinatalism, because the vast vast majority of babies aren't born like that.
Maybe you're arguing for the idea that if there is the risk that one baby out of a billion is born like that, then we should stop making babies, but then by the same token we should stop doing anything because there is a risk of causing suffering in anything. — leo
Again, you risk giving someone negative experiences non-consensually in anything you do, just by driving your car or talking to someone, so by that logic shouldn't you stop doing anything? — leo
but add to that, one is "damage" from not doing anything TO someone else — schopenhauer1
Right, the antinatalism argument is at the procreation level, and you are arguing from some post-birth perspective about consent. — schopenhauer1
My policy on actions performed on an entity that is currently not capable or granting or withholding consent, but that will likely survive as a consent-capable being, is that you'd not be allowed to unusually modify, outside of corrective measures for deformities, diseases, etc., or physically or psychologically abuse the non-consent-capable entity in a manner that would linger indefinitely/not be reversible during their consent-capable years. You can't overlook the word "unusual" there (as I'm predicting you'll do even with me pointing this out). — Terrapin Station
I would say that giving an entity an entire PHYSICAL BODY and SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE out of knowhere without being asked is a pretty unusual modification. — khaled
You're giving inanimate matter — 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.