I didn't think I had a conclusion? — James Riley
But now that you mention it, is the antinatalist only concerned with heading off the suffering of one? And if more than one, then why? Wouldn't aggregation be a consideration, even if not utilitarian? Or maybe even then? — James Riley
Initial thought, though, is that it seems to address unborn child issue, but when it comes to suicide, it's placing the dignity of the individual who is doing the choosing over the dignity of the individuals who are left behind (like the old saying "Suicide doesn't stop the pain; it just transfers it). — James Riley
Is the lack of consent offset by the fact that whatever you bring into existence has the option of going back to non-existence (suicide)? Also, if I slip five dollars into someone's pocket without their consent, have I harmed them? — RogueAI
I cannot see any reason to create a new child and I have not had any children myself. — Andrew4Handel
No. By that logic one could do anything to someone without their consent on the grounds that if they don't like it they can always kill themselves.
Plus the option is far from always available.
Is it wrong to slip someone 5 dollars? Well, normally yes. I mean imagine you wake up and find five dollars on your bedside table. I sneaked in at night and left it there for you. Was that ok? No.
What if I've got a suitcase with 2 million dollars in it . It is heavy and I am on the top of a very tall building. Nevertheless I want to share my wealth and I am in a hurry, so I decide just to throw it off the building and onto the busy street below. I know that it'll injure - possibly very seriously - whomever it strikes. But what the hell - they'll be 2million dollars up on the deal, so they can't complain, right? No, they can complain and throwing the suitcase off was wrong.
do we care about the future or not? — Xtrix
No one exists in the future. — Andrew4Handel
No one exists in the future. — Andrew4Handel
What is your point, refuted or not, and what is his? — Outlander
In the exchange above, I did make a point that this thread and others similar make too much use of challenging questions, and that such questions are rhetorical devices not arguments. I will not waste more time on that, or on the rhetorical questions. — unenlightened
I know you think antinatalism as a rhetorical question rather than an argument — schopenhauer1
If you would read what I say, you would understand more and be less insulted. — unenlightened
I respect antinatalism as a legitimate position; — unenlightened
I take another view. what I do not respect so much is the proselytising. — unenlightened
Well I think this whole "antinatalism is proselytizing" thing is unfair and just based on strong biases against it. — schopenhauer1
proselytize
/ˈprɒsɪlɪtʌɪz/
Learn to pronounce
verb
gerund or present participle: proselytising
convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
FOR FUCK'S SAKE. I DID NOT SAY "antinatalism is proselytizing". PLEASE DON'T MAKE UP SHIT AND QUOTE IT AS IF I SAID IT. — unenlightened
I take another view. what I do not respect so much is the proselytising. — unenlightened
convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.
We can discuss in any number of threads; we can argue it back and forth. But now you are again misrepresenting my position, and that is an unfair and unreasonable practice. It is another rhetorical trick, and it stinks. — unenlightened
And it is not antinatalism that stinks, it is your debating style, and your use of illegitimate means to try and convince others of the strength of your position. And that is what I am calling 'proselytising'. — unenlightened
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.