since you have completely personalized the debate to one of convince/unconvince you — Cobra
it is actively demonstrated by anthropological, biological, sociobiological, ecological, medical and cognitive sciences (and beyond) - that certain things are objectively optimal and sub-optimal to biological (human) moral agents in terms of well-being. — Cobra
you are refusing the process of analysis to simply reaffirm your own beliefs and assertions over mine, — Cobra
This does not require composing a list of 'particular sufferings' simply because you personally cannot apprehend what is being said; nor is your lack of apprehension a warranted refute or doubt. — Cobra
Hard to sell. No taxes, no laws, no jails, etc. Also can be taken to many unpleasant extremes. Say I want to donate to charity. But there is someone in my family who is a strict capitalist and very much against the idea of donating to charity. If I donate, I would certainly be harming that person for a purpose outside themselves. Heck, I would say MOST of what we do is harming someone out there for a goal outside of themselves. — khaled
What I definitely agree with however is that appealing to goals like “For mankind” or “For the country” as justification to hurt someone is utter BS. If you want to harm someone, the alternative has to also be harmful to specific people, not to some abstract cause for the act to begin to be considered acceptable. That is exactly the case with birth however. — khaled
Sure. And this makes it risky to do so. Problem is, there is also a very high chance someone will get harmed by NOT having children. Which makes having children acceptable in cases where the latter trumps the former. Aka, when someone can be a good parent. — khaled
As you say, MOST of what we do in harming someone out there for a goal outside of themselves. However, here is a chance to no cause any unnecessary harm to anyone. — schopenhauer1
That family member already exists.. the compromise is inevitable — schopenhauer1
A more clear cut case of using someone, is if you sold your family member's car in order to give the money to charity. That wouldn't be right, even if that charity was going to benefit more from the money than your family would from their car. — schopenhauer1
But I did mention that in procreation, here is a case where it is absolutely unnecessary — schopenhauer1
I still think this is actually inadvertently perpetuating the harm, if you are going to use the aggregate approach.. You are just kicking the can down the road for yet more generations. — schopenhauer1
Not only is it hard to quantify the amount of harm/good a person actually contributes to the world, it might be a case of projection of what one wants to see than what might actually be the case. — schopenhauer1
You using X product might have inadvertently killed thousands of Y across the world. — schopenhauer1
Your post is brain damaged. — Cobra
Reread what I said when you're not so focused on being obtuse. — Cobra
If there is a logical operation that leads from "Life is full of strife" to "You shouldn't have kids" what is it? — khaled
And you not having a child might have killed thousands of people because the child was going to cure cancer.
Literally brain damaged. But loGiCk. — Cobra
Continue to strawman and contradict in your own posts about lack of sense-making. — Cobra
It applies to all of them. — Cobra
Your misspelling of "logic" is telling.... — khaled
into something in un/intentional bad faith — Cobra
I am making an argument that giving birth enables this (by the way of consciousness); which is a FACT. The non-conscious abiotic 'in life' things cannot be sufferers or suffer. — Cobra
If we knew the next child to be born was going to have a perfect suffering-free life, is it wrong to have them? If so why? — khaled
you wouldn't keep bringing up shit I never said or implied. — Cobra
Why of course, it’s not your decision to make. I trust that the AN are not trying to stop other people from conceiving children, and that they are just personally opposed to it for themselves. — Olivier5
No one should have to suffer to keep the species going. — Andrew4Handel
3 times you can't respond. — khaled
This turns an objective debate into a matter of convincing you (i.e. making you understand and convert), rather than focusing on deconstructing impersonal arguments and refuting them in good faith. — Cobra
And something failing to abide by your logic does not mean it is nonsensical nor devoid of sense — Cobra
"I'm not convinced," while offering no warranted refute or counterargument — which by default personalizes the discussion and communication style, which is in fact, rude and entitled. — Cobra
And even more nonsensical is deducing that "surveys," inform public health and public safety, and therefore, "happy people = disproves the objective basis of suffering," — Cobra
I ignore your lazy critique, because it is not a critique, and I already covered it three times in my previous — Cobra
Anti-natalism is a position based off these facts - it does not assign nor give instructions, or make "ought" arguments. — Cobra
Anti-natalism is a position based off these facts - it does not assign nor give instructions, impose restraints to ones biological drive to reproduce, or make "ought" arguments. — Cobra
regarding taxes, laws, jails.. These are political actions, not personal ethics. — schopenhauer1
I believe they’ve said as much, but I’m not sure I buy it. If it were just a personal choice to not have children, why all threads? Are they not there to try to convince others that their personal choice is somehow morally superior? — Pinprick
The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. — Andrew4Handel
Literally brain damaged. — Cobra
Most people who don't have kids don't think it's wrong not to have kids. — khaled
You need to make a case as to why things which are are immoral when not political become OK when political. — Isaac
It’s called rationalizing an irrational fear. — Olivier5
While I may not be AN anymore, the number of people I would think have no business having children is probably greater than most. I definitely still think people in general take the decision too lightly. — khaled
a) We can't know if they will be equipped (that's more the approach of khaled, but I agree.. there is that 10% or whatever figure it is). Also, it is hard to really know how to judge this. At some points someone might be okay, others not, and then there is total evaluation which is separate than the individual experiences. Which version is it? I don't think we can say, and there are certainly times one someone would ideally rather not have had those experiences. — schopenhauer1
b) Even if I equipped someone, putting them in the game in the first place is wrong. — schopenhauer1
If I can somehow predict the future, and I find every person your future child (were you to have one) would help then I bring them all together in a room, why do you treat harm done to them as "aggregate" but harm done to the child as concrete and immediate. By not having a child, you are in fact harming everyone in that room. There is no "abstract cause" here. It's not like saying "For the country", where you are asked to harm someone for the sake of a fiction. There are real people in that room. — khaled
I think there is a point at which you can use people to prevent harm on other people, which sets a high, but not unreachable, standard for when it is ok to have children. I'd say we do so all the time. Taxing the rich for example, even though they don't benefit from it much if at all in comparison to what they're paying. — khaled
So that involves not using them, even if it is trying to ameliorate unnecessary harm — schopenhauer1
someone with a better model, that can see the "bigger picture" can simply override your more primitive model of "just seeing what's in front of your face". The better model might actually predict that it was better overall not to procreate that child — schopenhauer1
By procreating someone, you are enabling the conditions of harm — schopenhauer1
Rather, now you are making, from complete scratch, another situation of enabling harm, so that you can ameliorate the situation. I just don't see that as right to do, even if it means that you think it will have some beneficial outcome. Enabling harm by creating harmfulness "anew" in a new person, so that you can "fix" something for people that were already born is just not good enough to say, "Oh, this justifies creating the harm for that person". — schopenhauer1
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.