On what basis are you making this claim? — Isaac
The key point is that anti-natalism confuses elimination of pain with absence of being. You don’t take away MY pain by not having me be born in the first place. You only take away MY pain by giving me the choice of removing an obstacle that is interrupting my ongoing self-functioning. If I choose suicide, I havent chosen ‘non-being ‘ , since that notion has no meaning in itself. I have only chosen that way of thinking which reduces pain, provides a sense of relief , and so ENHANCES my functioning. — Joshs
In this context, what would it mean to wish to have never been born? — Joshs
we dream about how nice it would be not to ever have been born — Joshs
that our freedom of choice has been taken away by being born. ? — Joshs
You don’t take away MY pain by not having me be born in the first place. You only take away MY pain by giving me the choice of removing an obstacle that is interrupting my ongoing self-functioning. If I choose suicide, I havent chosen ‘non-being ‘ , since that notion has no meaning in itself. I have only chosen that way of thinking which reduces pain, provides a sense of relief , and so ENHANCES my functioning. — Joshs
This seems a very obvious point, but it's not one that the anti-natalists here accept, so there must be some fundamental disagreement about the basics of the argument involved. — Echarmion
The key point is that anti-natalism confuses elimination of pain with absence of being. — Joshs
This seems a very obvious point, but it's not one that the anti-natalists here accept, so there must be some fundamental disagreement about the basics of the argument involved. Unfortunately, I have been so far unable to figure out just how exactly this fundamental disagreement comes about. — Echarmion
Bad metaphysics which they handwave at as "semantics" is my experience. — Benkei
Put simply, the goal of antinatalism was never the elimination of pain. The goal was not to cause pain. So the fact that the elimination of pain is not the same as absence of being is irrelevant. — khaled
I think it is that you guys think we consider "not having children" as a good act. It isn't. Having children is a bad act. That doesn't make the opposite good. The opposite (not having children) is not good or bad, because it doesn't harm or benefit anyone.
Put simply, the goal of antinatalism was never the elimination of pain, as that would require the existence of someone whose pain you're eliminating. The goal was not to cause pain. So the fact that the elimination of pain is not the same as absence of being is irrelevant. — khaled
So while anti-natalists think the terms of the debate are about being versus non-being, they’re really about how best to move forward in life. — Joshs
Most would be saying they don’t mind the pain and your decision ‘deprived’ them of life. — Joshs
One wonders why there are not more suicides. Many who don’t contemplate suicide have had much suffering in their life, and yet they view each new day as if they are potentially reborn, with a new chance at meaningful existence. Even though they know what great pain may lie ahead, they clearly don’t believe that choosing to be ‘born again’ into the next new day is an unjustifiable risk where they needn't ‘re-birth’ themselves into new life in the first place. They could choose preventing further suffering over the creation of pleasure , but they don’t. Why? Perhaps because even the suffering has meaning and value to them. If they feel this way about their own lives, maybe you can see why they feel the same about conceiving children. — Joshs
This is your opinion. — Joshs
Why are you a better proxy for those not yet born than these other voices? — Joshs
So your mission can’t simply be to prevent suffering. It has to be to prevent the suffering of those who , when born, would grow up to believe they shouldn’t have been exposed to the risk of suffering. How large a group so you think this is? — Joshs
My point isn’t that not killing oneself in and of itself means that one believes the decision to create another human who will suffer must be justified.” It is that I believe that most of them do believe it is justified, in spite of their misery, because they equate a life starting and one continuing. — Joshs
The problem is I don't see how "do not cause pain" can possibly be a reasonable goal in isolation. In the abstract, pain is just a fact of the universe. It's a bit like making a rule not to strengthen magnetic fields. — Echarmion
See what percentage of the population thinks it would have been better if they hadn’t been born — Joshs
So if you’re trying to make a proxy decision for the yet to be born, that poll should tell you that the odds are 70% you are not doing the yet to be born any favors. — Joshs
Meanwhile, you as the anti-natalist are very much alive, and while the decision you make not to bring a life into the world is designed to ‘prevent causing pain’ in another, it has a paradoxical effect. Because it at the same time is relieving your pain. That is , your decision on behalf of the yet to be born resolves a dilemma, problem or dissatisfaction within you. It eliminates or reduces your pain (felt on behalf of others). So your voting for ‘non-being’ enhances and
furthers the functioning of your cognitive system. One could say your decision against another’s birth is a kind of fecundity. You are after all a self-organizing complex system , and your vote on behalf of ‘non-being’ does what all personal choices do , it increases the complexity of your living system by resolving interruptions in its functioning and therefore transforming and strengthening itself further. Your vote for the other’s non-being was at the same time a vote for the affirmation and enhancement of your own life vector. This is why I think that the motive of not wanting to CAUSE suffering in others cannot be separated from the ELIMINATION of suffering in yourself. Not just because you would not be motivated
to do the former if it didnt also achieve the latter. But because the two are really one motivation.
My point isn’t that all supposedly altruistic acts are
really selfish. Benefiting others benefits ourselves because our personal and social welfare are inextricably intertwined. It’s that not wanting to cause suffering is in the service of life enhancement, even when couched in the confused terms of anti-natalism.
So while anti-natalists think the terms of the debate are about being versus non-being, they’re really about how best to move forward in life. — Joshs
“ Preventing suffering takes precedence over the creation of pleasure, especially when not creating 'good lives' does not harm the unborn. It's an unjustifiable risk to create life where it needn't have existed in the first place.“
This is your opinion. That’s what makes it a political issue, and why you have to honor the voices of those already living who say that preventing suffering does not take precedence over the creation of pleasure, and it is not an unjustified risk to create life. They are speaking from their own experience , just as you are. Why are you a better proxy for those not yet born than these other voices? Especially if they are the majority? Maybe your unhappy life gives you a skewed perspective. — Joshs
They could choose preventing further suffering over the creation of pleasure , but they don’t. Why? Perhaps because even the suffering has meaning and value to them. If they feel this way about their own lives, maybe you can see why they feel the same about conceiving children. — Joshs
Is it that the people who regret having been born are essentially collateral damage justified by the majority who don't? — Inyenzi
I think the lesson here is you can try to quash life in the aim of preventing suffering, but life will
always re-emerge one way or another anyway, so really the only ethical direction is embracing and improving life. — Joshs
if you want to eliminate procreation this isn’t a zero-sum game because you’re trading off the potential suffering of the not yet born anti-natalist for the real suffering you would cause in many living people. — Joshs
Remember, the political issue here isn’t about preventing the birth of everyone who might suffer, it’s about preventiing the birth of those whose suffering would cause them to regret having been born and to support anti-natalism, and that I imagine is a small fraction of the population. — Joshs
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.