The evidence is that you're using "primary" in the sense of a preference or goal, but preferences and goals are only things that individual persons have. They're mental phenomena. Things like rivers, say, do not have preferences or goals, they do not have mental phenomena. — Terrapin Station
My guess is he is going to say that natural phenomena have a "final causation" which is different kind of thing than a human goal. So, each natural phenomena is trying to "reach" some "end" and this "reaching" is in its nature. Thus, doing something that impedes this nature is immoral because it is "unnatural". — schopenhauer1
You seem concerned with what everyone else believes — Riley
You aren't trying to make the silly argument from popularity are you? — Riley
Even natalists cant deny that life is full of suffering. — Baskol1
We all could become disabled in life, horrible Ill, or just experience poverty, and many more bad things. — Baskol1
But is it really so simple? Did I just burst from a parinibbanic state, taking form as this body only for this conscious experience to dissolve back into nothingness, eternally? — inyenzi
What's the alternative? Is this a nod to the idea of reincarnation? — Schopenhauer1
Does procreation create selves? — Inyenzi
No, not necessarily. What I'm getting at is that a lot of antinatalist argument rests on an assumed view of self which is essentially, "I did not exist prior to my birth, at which I came into being to live a lifetime as the same ongoing self (which suffers and is harmed), and when I die this self will be annihilated forever." Yet there's nowhere stable within the flux of conscious experience for this self to be located. And so if it doesn't exist, to whom does birth harm?
Does procreation create selves? — Inyenzi
Any coin has two sides, so golden mean is always the answer for the best, no extremes should. Lives flourish themselves so any intention to put them under control, either direction, is discouraged. — Dzung
If we unite all into a compound witness, it's a different scenario — Dzung
under views of higher beings if there were, it's a completely different scenario. — Dzung
On the other side, "no life" state is invalid in any sense from the very ground. At least there then no meaning is possible. — Dzung
All your arguments now work equally well to prove the exact opposite of the Anti-natalism stance. — DingoJones
The whole point is harm is only subjective to a particular witness and can by dynamic when we shift to another. Subjectivity makes sense only within the consensus group. The larger the group, the more sense it is.
But even with the largest group, say 7-8 known billion currently, it's nothing compared to divinity for a theist group. — Dzung
how would one stop suffering universally, — staticphoton
It appears to me that humans, actually all life, is constructed to process and resolve suffering as a means to progress not only evolutionarily, but to enrich self worth (at least in the case of humans). Assigning moral value and therefore placing judgment on something that has no will of its own such as are natural processes seems misguided. — staticphoton
A life with zero suffering is as idealistic a concept as it is unattainable, furthermore, a "neutral" life without natural good/bad cycles seems to appear utterly meaningless...what would be the point of pursuing such a goal? — staticphoton
My question was aimed at trying to understand what could motivate a belief in antinatalism, in all honesty I was puzzled by the belief after first hearing of it a few days ago. — staticphoton
Assigning moral value and therefore placing judgment on something that has no will of its own such as are natural processes seems misguided. — staticphoton
A life with zero suffering is as idealistic a concept as it is unattainable, furthermore, a "neutral" life without natural good/bad cycles seems to appear utterly meaningless...what would be the point of pursuing such a goal? — staticphoton
Consistency. Name one other situation in which putting someone in a risky situation (high risk of pleasure and high risk of pain) from a less risky situation — khaled
from a less risky situation without their consent is considered moral and where they do not benefit whatsoever from the shift. — khaled
The GTA-UH model that is our reality, most people think is good to force other lives into. When a parent chooses to have a child, they are really saying, "I approve of the life of GTA-UH onto this new person and believe they should live X number of years of life in this kind of reality". — schopenhauer1
So the real question is, why foist the GTA-UH model on another person, when this does not need to take place? To use "nature" or some "force" as a reason, is to discard your responsibility as a decision-maker who can self-reflect. It is bad faith (not using your own freedom of thought), and the naturalistic fallacy if you think it is natural and we should do what is natural. — schopenhauer1
prior to anyone's birth, meaning is not required or necessary — schopenhauer1
What antiatalism seeks to do is to stop introducing people who desire this "meaning" in the first place. Natalism creates a problem (meaning) and attempts to solve it (with good/bad cycles) — khaled
your opinion of life shouldn't entitle you to introduce more people into it for the simple reason that they might not share your attitude of finding meaning in good/bad cycles. — khaled
This assumes that search for meaning is a problem — staticphoton
If you are saying that you will exercise your belief by not birthing any children, I see no issues with that. If you are saying that your belief trumps mine, and that I should not have any children, then I would have to respectfully disagree. — staticphoton
How would there be a high risk of pleasure while the person does not benefit whatsoever from the shift? That seems contradictory. — Terrapin Station
That seems contradictory. If we're limited to talking about "where they do not benefit whatsoever" then that rules out any chance of pleasure. — Terrapin Station
First, antinatalism isn't about putting someone in a risky situation. There's no one to put into a situation until we get past the point that antinatalism wants us to not pass. — Terrapin Station
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.