Yes. Why avoid causing suffering? — Isaac

My feeling with all these antinatalist arguments is that they're putting the cart before the horse. They name some ethical principle which (unless you're religious) can only have been derived from some aspect of human nature. Then they use this one ethic to suggest we should ignore a whole series of other aspects of human nature (the desire to procreate, a feeling of belonging, a sense of community etc).
I just want to know - why pick that one. — Isaac

I've always said that it basically goes down to first principles. If agreed upon, then it is about whether they are applied consistently.

If you want me to defend the first principles themselves, I can give several reasons. The first principles to do no harm and to not force others would be respecting the individual as an autonomous being that might have choices (like not wanting to be forced or harmed). This is also not using the individual for another thing (perhaps a preference you would prefer from that individual). Thus the highest respect for the individual would in negative ethics. Since it is individuals where ethics is ultimately realized, this again would be a respect for the individual. It is based on individualistic notions of ethics- that it is actual individuals that must be considered. Procreation sets the conditions for harm to an individual, it also forces their hand. The decision to not procreate prevents both of these.

The first principles to do no harm and to not force others would be respecting the individual as an autonomous being that might have choices (like not wanting to be forced or harmed). — schopenhauer1

Which would just be another first principle, of course.

it is individuals where ethics is ultimately realized — schopenhauer1

Is this just another first principle, or are you claiming this to be objectively the case?


I still don't understand where you're going with this. If all you have are some unsupported first principles which (on the face of it) are quite odd, and so unlikely to be shared, then what purpose could possibly be served by stating them?

You can't realistically hope to convince others to hold them too - after all, you can forward no rational argument for having them in the first place. You can't expect anyone to be drawn by the consequences - the extinction of the human race. So what is it that compels you to keep writing this stuff?

I still don't understand where you're going with this. If all you have are some unsupported first principles which (on the face of it) are quite odd, and so unlikely to be shared, then what purpose could possibly be served by stating them?

You can't realistically hope to convince others to hold them too - after all, you can forward no rational argument for having them in the first place. You can't expect anyone to be drawn by the consequences - the extinction of the human race. So what is it that compels you to keep writing this stuff? — Isaac

I always claimed that this starts with agreeing with the first principles. That is all philosophy can do... "If you believe X, Y, Z, it should entail 1, 2, 3".. If you don't believe that the only ways are by picking out elements that you disagree with and seeing what it is that you would disagree about that and then seeing if at the end you really disagree with it, or you disagree with some of its consequences. If you do disagree with it, then it can be shown that what you disagree with has implications that you may also not like and maybe reconsider the original. However, at the end of the day, the first principles are where it ends. I do not think there is a perfect Categorical anything Kantian style that may be in some undisturbed land of pure rationality that I can get you to. This goes for any ethical debates... you weigh the merits and see any drawbacks and see if those drawbacks can withstand defense.

Yes, I've made a similar argument with both Schop and I think it was Batricks. Basically he is saying: Value X is the most important value. This is self-evident. Any action that would go agains this value is vetoed by this value. This is the truth, period. If, for example, we value the continuation of sentient life in the universe, this gets vetoed, because we are allowing for new creatures who can suffer.

And the really ironic thing is people advocating for the end of animal life,since all animals can suffer, is concerned about the consent of currently non-existent beings. Its actually a kind of selfish attitude. To make sure I cause no suffering I will try to make it so that no conscious life ever exists again. But more than that the radical outcome is not one that is being consented to either by these non-existent beings.

And then, yes, there can be no evidence that this Value X is the most important, or even more extreme, outweighs any other value.

And then, yes, there can be no evidence that this Value X is the most important, or even more extreme, outweighs any other value. — Coben

Yes, and I think that's what's being missed here. @schopenhauer1 is arguing entirely on the basis that some interlocutor might dislike the consequences of their position (namely perceived inconsistency - not that I'm convinced there really is any), yet when people (quite rightly) baulk at the consequence of the extinction of all humanity, we're told we must just put up with that feeling.

If the point of arguing here is...

... by picking out elements that you disagree with and seeing what it is that you would disagree about that and then seeing if at the end you really disagree with it, or you disagree with some of its consequences. If you do disagree with it, then it can be shown that what you disagree with has implications that you may also not like and maybe reconsider the original. — schopenhauer1

... then any foundational belief which ends with "... and so we ought to wipe out the human race" is as good a candidate as any I can think of for revision.

What possible purpose could there be to wanting to avoid suffering, but not minding if all creatures capable of suffering cease to exist? I mean, I known filling in tax returns is a bit of chore, but the extinction of the human race is a bit of an overreaction, no?

Yes. And all animal life also. We all make decisions every day that may cause harm in others who have not consented to it. You can't avoid this unless you are a shut in with very careful investments. And if you are in the West your continued existence could be seen as a drain on world resources even then.

It is a very anti-life non-theist but religious position, I think founded on a hatred of life and an anger at the universe. Sans God, it is hard to blame any agent, so it becomes parents. But I think there is a category error in here. People consent to life by living. We are not just the little lawyers in the mind with the words. We are the bodies that struggle to live, and struggle to live from conception. Consent is inherent in the striving to live and thrive. There is no fetus that has not consented to life. It doesn't make sense. It's like saying a squirrel hasn't consented to life. If you could manage to make the squirrel understand the issue, he'd still rush off to find food or mate. Life is that which wants life. Yes, some people reach a point where they no longer want to live and that which creates that we should struggle against, be it mental illness, cruelty, abuse, oppression and so on.

But part of the sickness of the Abrahamic religions was this pressure to be perfect. That's right. In life our choices may lead to unpleasance. We are not perfect. And the anti-natalists are not perfect either. And if they happen to be wrong, their project is horrific.

But since they are 100% sure they are not, they can happily have as a goal the elimination of all future life.

We are the bodies that struggle to live, and struggle to live from conception. Consent is inherent in the striving to live and thrive. There is no fetus that has not consented to life. — Coben

Nicely put.

... then any foundational belief which ends with "... and so we ought to wipe out the human race" is as good a candidate as any I can think of for revision. — Isaac

The result may be the end of the human race. However, it is not the goal, but the consequence of not putting more people into harm.

It is futile to keep on creating more children. They will all die and our species will probably go extinct in the long term.

t is futile to keep on creating more children. They will all die — Andrew4Handel

Why hand out a death sentence to an innocent child when they haven't done anything wrong?

I agree

It is futile to keep on creating more children. — Andrew4Handel

That would depend on what you are doing it for.

They will all die and our species will probably go extinct in the long term. — Andrew4Handel

That makes every act, including your posting, futile and superfluous.