If you had the power, what restrictions would you put on people being able to have children? — T Clark
Knowledge and power don't mix. People are free to choose but their choices, in this issue, must be ethical. — TheMadFool
Of course people are free to choose. That's not the issue. It's about the ethics of having children and clearly, if you don't want your child to hurt anyone or get hurt, both of which are inevitable and unethical, then people should NOT have children. — TheMadFool
This response is ambiguous. I'll ask again. If you could, would you put restrictions on others being able to have children? Yes? No? You don't know? — T Clark
Do you not understand what entitlement means? — S
I think ethics is more important than entitlement. I'm entitled to eat meat but is it ethical to kill animals? — TheMadFool
I wouldn't put restrictions or enforce any sort of behavior. — TheMadFool
What about the option where neither happens?In very simple terms either your child will hurt or get hurt. — TheMadFool
In very simple terms either your child will hurt or get hurt. — TheMadFool
I don't think it'd be good advice to avoid being hurt at all costs. Some experiences in life require you to get hurt. That doesn't make being hurt a good thing somehow, but it does mean I don't really want my children to never get hurt. — Echarmion
And regarding what you say about people not wanting their child to hurt anyone or get hurt, that's fine. That's just part and parcel of life, and people can and do still value and enjoy their lives regardless. Virtually everyone concludes that it's much better for the child to live in the first place. — S
You pose very interesting questions. What I understand the philosopher to be saying is that it would be a good idea to reduce the human population at this point, because life on earth is in the process of becoming disasterous for millions of people. — uncanni
As you may have seen, I have a strong angry reaction to the anti-natalist argument. — T Clark
The sophomoric nature of the argument made and its radical departure from modern life (universal acceptance of the claims would lead, clearly, to extinction) lead me to reflect on them as I would conspiracy theorist claims. It's interesting as an exercise in dissecting how we arrive at what we believe, but doesn't move the needle with respect to foundational belief. — JosephS
My rational intuition tells me that there is not much we can do about this either way, assuming no catastrophic intervention. — T Clark
Rational policy as it applies to pricing individual economic decisions may help reduce the risk as we work towards a population equilibrium. — JosephS
Dying isn’t inherently bad? So murder is ok?
— khaled
Yes because it’s my vitality vs theirs
— khaled
The whole post is oozing hypocrisy. — Shamshir
no one left to visit or care for you and you become nothing more than a burden on the social system — Shamshir
But this really does amount to the same thing as harming ghost babies, doesn't it — Echarmion
If the position in time of whoever is harmed by an action is of no consequence, then we treat them as if they were alive right now — Echarmion
Therefore, I think it's wrong to say that the fact that the person doesn't exist is "of no consequence". — Echarmion
Perhaps you could explain why it is wrong. — Echarmion
I don't think "existing" is an action. It's a relation between a mental concept and some external state. — Echarmion
Surely you've heard this before. All the people who think that life is worth living. — S
What a highbrow nonsense! Nobody remains childless because she wants to do something against climate warming.
You have a child or not because this is a very personal preference. — Matias
Characterizing an argument is not dealing with the argument qua argument. It is placing it in a box so as to not actually tackle the questions it poses head on. However, you somewhat redeem this statement by saying that antinatalism, at the least, allows us to explore how it is that we believe certain foundational ideas such as why we believe having more people is good. I think you cannot go into a philosophy forum and expect all arguments to conform to only mainstream views on foundational beliefs. In fact, that might be going against the spirit of philosophy itself, which in its essence, is about questioning foundational beliefs, whether that be in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and value. — schopenhauer1
I wonder what the demographers say about the impact of climate change on the world population, and I intend to see if I can find out. I certainly hope that it's been taken into consideration in their projected numbers. And at this point in time, I would have to express some skepticism about their projections precisely because global warming is impacting earth's inhabitants much faster than was anticipated 10 years ago. — uncanni
I guess I'm asking is whether you feel dispassionate argumentation is somehow flawed. Where does emotion serve a purpose? — JosephS
You're living in a dangerous world full of dangerous and evil people - if you want to be loved do your best to cultivate loving relationships with those who are already around, but don't summon into being vulnerable, innocent people so that you can be the centre of their attention. — Bartricks
This is the anti-natalist argument, one that I find contemptible. Full of anger and bitter hatred for the world and people in it. Nothing is more mean-spirited, graceless than this. It makes me feel sick to my stomach. — T Clark
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.