And yet it continually happens in this thread and I've already pointed it out several times. The last time was here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/480046 — Benkei
It's not well-stated at all because consent cannot play a role here because this is once again personifying non-existence as if it has thought processes and a will. — Benkei
@khaledIt's not well-stated at all because consent cannot play a role here because this is once again personifying non-existence as if it has thought processes and a will. And consent isn't even necessarily important for moral questions. Actions can be moral or immoral without another person being involved. Unnecessarily cutting down trees because I like destroying stuff isn't right either. Gluttony isn't right either. Lusting after your girlfriend even when nobody in the world is aware of it, isn't right either. — Benkei
Let's say I had the power to make you experience something that you may or may not enjoy. Why should or shouldn't I use that power without your consent?
— Tzeentch — Benkei
But we weren't "made to exist". We're made to do a lot of things, but existing isn't one of them. In a sense, even parents don't "create" new humans because however it is that we end up as conscious subjects, our parents certainly didn't control that process. They merely initiated it and perhaps gave their input. — Echarmion
It would certainly be better if people considered whether they actually should have children more thoroughly in general, but it is also the case that no-one really knows beforehand whether the resulting life will be particularly happy or sad. — Echarmion
He said as a hypothetical analogy. You are still not getting what I stated about a future person who will be affected. And that was what he is getting at. All you have to do is agree that you can make a decision that affects someone later that that person later could not possibly (by way of not existing), be a part of. — schopenhauer1
You inject half way in discussions between other people and take things out of context.
What you quoted wasn't about improving life. It was an attempt to show the absurdity of the earlier premise, by pointing out the absurdity of the implication. — Tzeentch
What a great society that would be! It's not the one we live in though. If society agrees about something there is generally a law to enforce it. This isn't a hard rule, but it is generally applicable. — khaled
Views are not actors, but to follow the spirit of your comment I would say no.
I don't seek to create such a universe. I haven't seen anyone here expressing that they do.
As far as I have seen, the anti-natalist argument as shared in this thread consists of observations and questions to which there do not seem to be any good answers. Every individual can draw their own conclusions and make their own choices based on that. — Tzeentch
But yes, if every person on earth were to conclude at once that the questions and observations of the anti-natalist argument are sufficient reason not to have children, humanity would eventually cease to exist. If that is a result of people's voluntary choice not to have children, then what business is that of mine? — Tzeentch
I don't know what you are saying here. Are you saying parents don't have freewill or that consciousness can be created regardless of whether people reproduce? — Andrew4Handel
The problem is the current lack of real effort to question the ethics and ramifications of having children. — Andrew4Handel
This strikes me as a pretty dishonest way of summarizing the thread. schopenhauer1 in particular is one of the most offensively proselytizing users on this forum. — Echarmion
It's weird that you make this question about you, personally. — Echarmion
My "observation" is that an anti-natalist position, ulitmately seeks to end humanity. — Echarmion
The fact that I cannot find sufficient justification to force individuals to exist doesn't mean it is the same for others — Tzeentch
What I have described is the way I look at the matter, at least. — Tzeentch
I don't think that's inherent to the position, but rather inherent to some individuals' desire to impose their views on others. That's a flaw in those individuals, and not in the position. — Tzeentch
The fact that I cannot find sufficient justification to force individuals to exist doesn't mean it is the same for others. — Tzeentch
I am not sure where you get this from. I get the impression that this one of the areas where there is a lot of discussion. — Echarmion
And isn't it great that the view you have actively argued and defended in this thread is the one "just asking the hard questions" that the other side just "cannot answer". — Echarmion
Presumably, the only people still reading are the 6 regular posters, and they won't be fooled by airy declarations of socratic ideals. — Echarmion
So, to clarify, you don't think the anti-natalist position is true in an intersubjective sense, that it should convince people? You just like it for entirely personal reasons? — Echarmion
we force humans into being? — Albero
I don’t agree with Schopenhauer1 but what he’s saying is undeniable — Albero
I think this is an example of the problem, that people don't really realise the extent of other people problems despite paying lip service to them but when they have first person evidence they have to commit to real intervention. — Andrew4Handel
All I know is that it raises questions I cannot answer, and, judging by the tone of our conversation, you cannot either. — Tzeentch
If you answered it, I must've missed it. — Tzeentch
I wasn’t clear that’s on me, but what I mean is that I don’t agree with his approach to antinatalism, but how can we deny that birthing people affects them ? — Albero
There is someone who who is going to be affected because you create a being into the world. This doesn’t necessarily lead to antinatalism but that’s not the point — Albero
I think you have interesting arguments but how come you disagree that we force humans into being? — Albero
Look op negligence. — Benkei
But good to know you have no intrinsic moral compass and are easily swayed by what others expect from you. — Benkei
For proximate causes, if it's a near certainty the proximate cause will exist and cannot be avoided or alleviated then it makes sense to move up the causal chain. — Benkei
Literally the first element of negligence claims: Duty. And the fact that we do not sue bystandards for negligence claims shows that we do not believe they have a duty to help. Unless it's their actual job, like firefighters or doctors. — khaled
Hij die, getuige van het ogenblikkelijk levensgevaar waarin een ander verkeert, nalaat deze die hulp te verlenen of te verschaffen die hij hem, zonder gevaar voor zichzelf of anderen redelijkerwijs te kunnen duchten, verlenen of verschaffen kan, wordt, indien de dood van de hulpbehoevende volgt, gestraft met hechtenis van ten hoogste drie maanden of geldboete van de tweede categorie. — Dutch criminal code
See, what I consider funny about all this is that first you confuse law with morality — Benkei
second that you let your morality depend on what others think is right with the lovely result that your morality will change by crossing a border. — Benkei
Now is the question. Why must it be a near certainty? And more importantly, why is it wrong to claim that if there is any chance the proximate cause will exist and cannot be avoided, then it makes sense to move up the causal chain (Antinatalism)?
. — khaled
Sounds to me like: "It is good to have children, but you don't have to". Even though you kept asking me why I distinguish between things that are good to do and things that you must do, you seem to be doing it. — khaled
This seems like a contradiction to me. One sentence you're saying "furthers free will" and the next you're saying "free will is not quantified". Wtf does "furthers free will" mean? — khaled
It should simply be "in accordance with freedom". — Echarmion
And if you should have children, you should have children. There is no other result here, you either should or you should not. — Echarmion
You don't have to go out and create a specific situation just so you can then have children. — Echarmion
If you answered it, I must've missed it. — Tzeentch
Apparently you have. — Echarmion
How does one reconcile the fact that when making the decision to have a child, one does not know A: whether the child wants to live in the first place, and B: whether the child will have a good life, even by one's own standards (let alone those of the child)? — Tzeentch
Noone gets to decide whether they want to live in the first place, — Echarmion
There is no such thing as a good life. — Echarmion
That seems way less obvious with how common it is for everyone to bash their own governments and communities, and how prevalent depression is. And I’m not seeing how studies about food sharing solve the issue. — khaled
Why would they be relevant to the moral case? — Isaac
Why would it not? Premises. — khaled
The community. You and them — Isaac
But in the case of having children there is no “them” or did you forget? That was your whole point. If no one is harmed by being brought into the world then no one is benefited either. So it’s you and the community in that case, but definitely not them. That I find problematic. — 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.