The child will learn a set of values either from his parents or the environment he is raised in, before then he is not capable of deciding whether his life is worth living or not. Once he has a developed a set of values he will. You can come to him at that point and ask him whether he wishes he was never born. — staticphoton
find me a scenario in which individual A is justified to cause individual B to do something A doesn’t know B agrees with or not without having B’s consent and where B is put in a much riskier situation as a result — khaled
Is a false premise because it assumes B is capable of deciding whether he agrees or disagrees — staticphoton
situation 1 does not exist. — staticphoton
The child still has a personality, experiences, and thoughts of its own. There is no 1:1 correlation here between parent's values and childs, besides which the parents values to themselves versus modelled behavior is different, also indicating that the child will have personal thoughts that have nothing to do with being modelled — schopenhauer1
The self-consciousness comes from that. So this species argument in no way negates the claim that procreation is the cause of this person being born, and suffering/being harmed in the world. — schopenhauer1
Existence is riskier than non existence correct? In other words, more pleasure and more pain are at stake when it comes to existing than when not existing correct — khaled
B becomes capable of deciding later no? Yet he still has to do the thing A told him to do, namely live — khaled
That's why I said the values are learned from the parents or the environment. I should have also included the pre-existing genetic makeup, which is actually a direct contribution of the parents. — staticphoton
The whole thing is about making the possibility of harm the pivotal point of the argument, which is an incredible simplistic way of evaluating the meaning of life. — staticphoton
You're saying that after life evolving for 2 billion years and finally acquiring the power of reason, that reason is used to conclude the whole process was morally bad and should be ended.
I'm saying that's just silly. — staticphoton
Whether YOU like this or not, throwing people into adversity (even if in order for them to grow from it), when it was UNNECESSARY is not good either — schopenhauer1
Any of which case, ALL would be wrong to signal "life is always good" — schopenhauer1
A life worth living has nothing to do with "life is good" — staticphoton
I'd like to explain thatforcingallowing others into a model that you agree with or even someone else identifies with later on is wrong — schopenhauer1
No its not wrong. — staticphoton
See, when it takes a page for the other person to pull the "but morality doesn't actually exist" card after they've been debating it for 2 hours that's when you know your arguments make sense
Sure there may be no objective moral rules between people, no ethical system, not even antinatalism can escape that. But so far you have shown that you have subjective moral principles that SHOULD make birth immoral for you yet you're making a special case for it. If you want to do that I can't stop you.
If I were to have 100 children each deformed worse and worse, yet each would live a happy life...if I could show your next 10 children would be as you described there would you have a moral obligation to have them? — khaled
Let's say I like my job- I'm just going to "allow" you to have to do it for a life time (obviously the job being a metaphor for the conditions of life itself). You eventually say, "eh, I guess it is not that bad a job". I still say this is wrong. Consequences be damned, it was wrong to force (um, I mean "allow") it. — schopenhauer1
It would be immoral of me to deny one of them their happiness — Shamshir
I'll cut it short: If you deny the child, you deny any potential good from and to. — Shamshir
You will stagnate in fear of potential damage. — Shamshir
To be moral and free here, would entail to risk — Shamshir
Certain failure versus potential failure. — Shamshir
You are able to use your intellect to decide when the conditions are favorable to allow this to happen. — staticphoton
Would you appreciate it if someone destroyed your house in an attempt to add a room to it when you didn’t ask him to do so — khaled
And I’m here to ask everyone to take this advice and find that the favorable conditions are: never — khaled
Do you mean to say that since no one benefits from antinatalism that it is somehow virtue signaling? Is not modifying children to suffer virtue signaling then as well?
do you think it is right for person A to cause person B to do something B might not like because A likes it? — khaled
something that is always claimed to help others — NOS4A2
Let me ask you this, if you were in a state of oblivion and someone explained to you the risk of harm, and gave you the choice to be born and have a life, would you choose to do it?
Wrong answer, either way. Because you don't have the frame of reference or even the consciousness to evaluate the proposition, in fact you don't even exist. You would actually have to be born and live some extent of this life thing to be able to determine whether it was worth living or whether it was better to remain in the oblivion of not existing.
If you don't exist, no action such as "forcing" can be executed against you. — staticphoton
I'd like to explain that forcing allowing others into a model that you agree with or even someone else identifies with later on is wrong
— schopenhauer1
No its not wrong. — staticphoton
But you’d also prevent many other things besides harm. I wouldn't want to prevent the birth of Nicola Tesla because he was sure to suffer through cholera. — NOS4A2
First off I think that’s incredibly selfish. And second off, what happens once those good things are prevented? Who is harmed?
So you wouldn’t mind if some psycho believed very vehemently in the greater purpose of cleaning sewage and so forced you to clean sewage with him for 60 years? After all, it’s not wrong for him to force you, he sees value in the activity after all. Fuck asking for your opinion — 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.