Don’t you think you need to take into account who you CAUSE to suffer by trying to prevent it? — Joshs
How do you propose to embrace and improve life by stopping procreation if that leads to a disastrous decline in quality of life? — Joshs
No, if I find purpose in MY suffering , and know a great many other people in my life who share my view on the value of one’s OWN suffering, I will suspect there is a very good chance, although no guarantee, that you will also embrace your suffering in this way and be glad that you were born. Or you could become an anti-natalist. — Joshs
Preventing suffering takes precedence over the creation of pleasure, especially when not creating 'good lives' does not harm the unborn — Inyenzi
Antinatalists seek to prevent all human suffering — Inyenzi
But I'm sure we can agree there is a difference caused between the pain that you experience when you stub your toe and when I punch you in the face. The difference being that I am directly reponsible for one. The goal of antinatalism is to cause as little of the latter as possible while ensuring you yourself survive. With having kids you are responsible for every pain and pleasure they go through. Because none of it would have happened without you. And you didn't need it to survive. — khaled
But there is also a difference between causing something in the sense of the sine-qua-non ("it wouldn't have happened without you") and responsibility. Causality is far, far wider than responsibility. — Echarmion
Agreed. And we can get into the nitty gritty. But I doubt whatever configuration you choose will end up having the statement "You are responsible for your child's suffering and pleasure" be false. Or are you going to argue that parents are not responsible for their children? — khaled
If we can agree that they are, and we can also agree that there is a risk the child suffers disproportionately in their life despite the parent's best effort, what justifies that the parent taking the risk? We can agree that usually we would need some sort of justification when doing something that can risk harming others no? — khaled
For example, one might argue providing the future with capable humans justified the associated risks. — Echarmion
Noone is responsible for someone else's suffering and pleasure in toto. Such a responsibility would have to come with absolute authority over the other person, which should never be the case — Echarmion
Sure. I don't think so though. And I find that justification disgusting. — khaled
Not in total, sure. If a kid runs into a wall like an idiot despite their parents warning them that running around like that will hurt, that's partly on the kid. However I think that parents are partially responsible for all their child's suffering.
My "test" for responsibility is: "Had X not been around would Y have still suffered". If yes then it's not X's responsibility to help Y. However in the case of children (being Y) the answer is always no (X being the parent), for every instance of suffering. That I find problematic. — khaled
Can you elaborate on what you find disgusting? — Echarmion
Your test also fails the car example though, doesn't it? Had the car not been around, there would not have been an accident. — Echarmion
the necessary flipside of happyness. One never exists without the other, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. — Echarmion
we can agree that there are situations where it IS wrong to have children. Severe poverty for one. So it's not like I'm proposing anything new here. What makes having a child in severe poverty wrong? — khaled
what do you mean when you say that most antinatalists here aren’t moral objectivists? This to me seems a little bit strange if true — Albero
Kindly explain to me what becoming an antinatalist has to do with embracing my own suffering and finding meaning in my life. This is the most false false dichotomy I have seen in a while. I am glad I was born (the sentence makes no sense, what I really mean to say is "I find my life worthwhile") AND I am an antinatalist. Mindblowing. — khaled
Thus, forming a moral precept is an empirical endeavor. — Joshs
It seems to me that the disagreements that will form between various forms of anti-natalism and various natalisms will be the result of different personal experiences. — Joshs
are more like Schopenhauer1 in extrapolating from their own painful lives in order to form their anti-nataliat stance. — Joshs
How we experience our own suffering plays a central
role in our position on this issue. — Joshs
The same is true of deciding to conceive. At certain. times in our lives , the prospect of bringing children into the world may seem cruel to the child for any number of reasons, and at another point , it appears justified. — Joshs
Those who are failing to adapt stop having children, while other groups who are succeeding become fertile and multiply. — Joshs
an even poorer explanation of what depression is. — khaled
Severe depression is never just about physical struggle. poverty, etc. It is fundamentally a disconnect of social belonging , a sense of alienation with respect to other people or groups. Others appear to me as callous and cruel and unfeeling. — Joshs
Where is this arbitrary point at which we say "no this is too risky"? And why is it that you get to decide it when you're not the one taking the risk? — khaled
I'm waiting for an actual rebuttal to the position — khaled
I kept expecting you to actually argue against the position, but instead all you said was basically "Most antinatalists are depressed, you might change your mind in the future, and our ethical positions are a result of our experiences". Agreed. Now, are you actually going to argue against the position or not? — khaled
Let me know if you believe Ratcliffe, one of
the leading researchers on affect, should be considered an authority on depression. — Joshs
Decision is what this discussion is all about, making a decision to conceive or not to conceive for the sake of preventing suffering in another. But that decision depends on an earlier decision concerning the meaning of terms like suffering, pleasure, value and morality. — Joshs
If you want a refutation of the logic behind your formula
of the risk versus reward calculus, you won’t get one. — Joshs
but because I dispute the assumption that the sense of the terms ‘suffering’, ‘pleasure’, ‘good lives’ ‘harm’, etc can be kept stable enough , long enough for reliable interpersonal agreement — Joshs
You make it sound like there is some set definition of the word. — khaled
What? You're seriously arguing there's no definition of the word? — Isaac
I've given you my defintion already. You then ask me "where I got it from". I don't know how to answer that question. Where did you get yours from? — khaled
There's no private meanings to words, only public ones. — Isaac
I believe anti-natalism is an ethical position — Joshs
Heck, I would say most people think so. You and KenoshaKid (I think) are the only two trying to say that antinatalism isn't a moral theory. — khaled
You can make an ethic of what you like — Kenosha Kid
These have in common the fact that there's no natural reason to accept them. — Kenosha Kid
Agreed. Isaac so it's literally just you trying to say that antinatalism is not a moral theory. — khaled
No, there are clearly natural reasons to accept them. — khaled
It is wrong to eat sherbet on a Wednesday — Kenosha Kid
I think Isaac's view was similar to mine. — Kenosha Kid
Fine. Give me the natural reason to adopt the ethic: — Kenosha Kid
It is wrong to eat sherbet on a Wednesday — Kenosha Kid
I don't think so. He clearly and unambiguously said that the antinatalist claim is not a moral claim as far as I understand. — 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.