If we continue to procreate, unethical behavior will continue. The inverse is not true and establishes its persuasive ability. — darthbarracuda
Presumably because the potential sufferings of an unborn person can and often does exceed (in great proportion) the potential sufferings of those who do not procreate (because they do not procreate). — darthbarracuda
Always? If a nurse takes pleasure in vaccinating people it’s bad? — Pinprick
Forcing my daughter to not jump out the window because I desire her safety is immoral? — Pinprick
Neither is allowing the continued suffering of two people to spare the suffering of one. It’s just a different version of the trolley problem. — Pinprick
Nor are they means to your end. You desire extinction and are willing to persuade others to alter their behavior to bring about that end at the potential expense of their happiness. — Pinprick
In your view, what types of suffering are necessary? — Pinprick
Well then consider foul tasting medicine, or something else that illustrates the point that in certain cases harm/suffering is good, even if it only benefits the person involved. — Pinprick
One can argue, since already born, taking the vaccine is preventing oneself from harming others, besides preventing future harm for oneself. — schopenhauer1
Right, but there are actual negative consequences for those already born. — Pinprick
Exactly where the person falls on this scale is too difficult to predict, as is the amount of suffering/pleasure the person will endure throughout their life. The point being that everyone is connected. One unhappy couple can cause more people to be unhappy, etc., etc. At least in principle. So it’s too difficult to know, and I’d rather not base my decisions on such an uncertainty. Especially when the cost is so great. — Pinprick
Personally, I don’t like strict negative utilitarianism. — Pinprick
So for me, there’s more to consider than just potential suffering. — Pinprick
So it’s too difficult to know, and I’d rather not base my decisions on such an uncertainty. — Pinprick
And again, unnecessary suffering (for someone else). — schopenhauer1
Was it necessary for her to not get harmed further or are you causing the very harm in the first place because you enjoy it? — schopenhauer1
No it isn't. Straw man. This actually has only surface similarities at best. The trolley problem is picking between two bad alternatives to other people. This is about creating all instances of future suffering for someone else to alleviate one instance of suffering of oneself. — schopenhauer1
Again, it's to alter their behavior to prevent other people's suffering. Just like the person who likes to blow up stuff in residential neighbhorhods who gets joy from it, should alter their behavior... — schopenhauer1
If someone else is born already and was blatently going to get harmed, and you were trying to prevent this, thus causing slight harm... vaccines, pushing someone out of a moving train, educating one's offspring, not neglecting them, that sort of thing. — schopenhauer1
Don't understand this argument — schopenhauer1
That implied, the small harm to oneself to prevent others harm.. affecting others.. — schopenhauer1
Again, other people's suffering is not a means to your end.. If someone likes blowing up stuff in residential neighborhoods but is prevented from doing so, and cries about it, tough shit. — schopenhauer1
Could it be argued that extinction isn't only not unethical, but the only way to guarantee the removal of unethical practices? — JacobPhilosophy
Not having a child involves the certainty that the person will not suffer, and the uncertainty that...? — darthbarracuda
The issue is if you try to convince others they should not. Even worse would be acting in such a way that people were forced to not procreate, or punished for doing so. Which I don’t think anyone here has advocated for, but it seems a logical conclusion to me. If procreating is bad, then one should prevent it whenever possible. Just like if murder is bad, one should prevent it whenever possible. — Pinprick
Well the goal of evolution is to survive and reproduce, no? If we actively avoid procreating, we will become extinct, not because we were unfit for survival, but because we believed it right to do so. — JacobPhilosophy
Fine. But the unborn child’s “protection” from harm is also predicated on the harm of others. As a third party, you must at least allow the harm of others (those who desire children, grandchildren, siblings, etc.) to continue, and perhaps at times directly cause their harm so that the unborn child is protected at all costs. The point being that Antinatalism’s conclusion isn’t a “win-win” situation. New harm will be introduced in the world regardless. The only difference is who is experiencing it, and possibly the extent/severity of it. — Pinprick
Why is their suffering of less significance than ours? — Ciceronianus the White
if that were the case why is it that we avoid death? Surely a rationalist would just give in to a painless death or jump off a bridge. — JacobPhilosophy
Not all forms (or many) look at suffering in aggregate, but more on the margins.. how it affects each individual (or how it would affect each individual). One person not born, is one person not suffering — schopenhauer1
I thought antinatalism takes the position that people should not reproduce, as anyone born will suffer. If that's not the case, and it instead takes the position that the decision to procreate should be made on a case-by-case basis considering the circumstances in which the child would be born and its prospects, I think that would be quite reasonable. — Ciceronianus the White
"One less person procreating, is one less person who will suffer" — schopenhauer1
P1: In order for an agent to be morally considered or effected, they must be in existence.
P2: Extinction results in a lack of existence.
Conclusion: extinction cannot hold any moral value greater than the neutrality of death — JacobPhilosophy
I don't see how you can justify that assessment. That person's net effect on the world might be to reduce the suffering of others to a greater extent than their own suffering was increased by being born. The 'logic' of antinatalism (such as it is) does indeed rely on immediate annihilation of the human race, because if there's even one person left, it is possible that creating a second person could feasibly reduce overall suffering. — Isaac
Sounds like a fairly convoluted post hoc ethics stemming from, rather than leading to, a commitment to antinatalism. — Isaac
If someone routinely saw another person in pain and just walked by we would likely label them a sociopath. — Isaac
Once born, of course one can help reduce harm. — schopenhauer1
obligation to help. — Isaac
There is a difference between ethically virtuous actions and actions that are obligatory. — ProbablyTrue
Optionality isn't the point. The point is that if someone chooses to walk by we would probably think them a sociopath. No one's talking about being forced to walk by, we're talking about an obligation to help. — Isaac
is that emoji because you're thinking or are you saying it's contradictory? — JacobPhilosophy
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.