See how in the reply to Khaled he fails to address the criticism that if the world is a prison then its creator is an evil bastard — Banno
EITHER, an omnipotent omnibenevolent God exists and so everyone here, and everyone you bring here, must be a sinner (because God wouldn't have suffered innocent people exist here, your own words) in which case having children is fine (you're just putting criminals in jail). OR people here (or at least people you bring here) are innocent and God allows procreation in which case he is either not omnibenevolent/not omnipotent/not omniscient or a combination (if antinatalism is true, he either can’t stop people from having kids even though it’s wrong, can stop them but chooses not to, or doesn’t know that people are having kids). Or having kids is fine (if you want to keep the 3 omnis) — khaled
So, as far as they are concerned, they made an ignorant innocent person join them in a world they knew was full of dangers. Wicked. — Bartricks
For God, being omnipotent, does not need anyone else's help providing accommodation — Bartricks
It is to set oneself up as a vigilante. — Bartricks
Relevance? I do not understand what you are saying. Friend or foe - I do not know — Bartricks
I don't understand. Why is this topic so popular? Heck, one would get the very misleading impression that Schopenhauer (who tends to be associated with this movement) was only about life being bad. Most of his work is showing how amazing our capacities are! His whole metaphysical-epistemological project, and his psychological insights are second to none.
That's quite sad, I think. — Manuel
Having said that, I think telling people they should not have babies does not make much sense. Each person has his or her own reasons. They should consider the pros and cons of having a baby. But the focus on pain avoidance is too narrow, in my view. — Manuel
You are right - this thread has received much more attention than it deserves. — Banno
But for anyone that has done these reflections, they would soon find that everyone here and everyone they bring here is not innocent. So I’m confused as to why you’re an antinatalist then. — khaled
What if one does believe this world is a prison and that by procreating one is providing God with accommodation for other convicts (and one has arrived at this conclusion responsibly - that is, by carefully reasoning to the conclusion in the same manner I have done)? Well, that alters the moral quality of one's actions, but it remains wrong, I think, however the vice it displays would be presumptuousness, not wickedness. For God, being omnipotent, does not need anyone else's help providing accommodation; your job is just to do your time and mend your ways, not get involved in the administrative side of things. It is to set oneself up as a vigilante. — Bartricks
Most people THINK they’re doing something wrong but by your standard they’re actually not. — khaled
Well then why did he make it such that people CAN procreate in the first place? Him being omnipotent could’ve made it otherwise. Why is he giving us criminals the ability to bring in more people? — khaled
Having said that, I think telling people they should not have babies does not make much sense. Each person has his or her own reasons. They should consider the pros and cons of having a baby. But the focus on pain avoidance is too narrow, in my view. — Manuel
What? So, I make an argument - two arguments, in fact - and your response is to dismiss the entire project of using reasoned argument to find out about the world. Excellent. What you actually mean is that you want to believe whatever the hell you want and if anyone dares to use reason to arrive at a different view, then reasoned argument is to be dismissed. — Bartricks
Well then why did he make it such that people CAN procreate in the first place? Him being omnipotent could’ve made it otherwise. Why is he giving us criminals the ability to bring in more people?
— khaled
Why wouldn't he? No harm is done. They, by procreating, make themselves deserving of another lifetime in the prison. Good - that's what they deserve - and further accommodation is provided for other criminals (two birds, one stone). And those who listen to reason and decide instead either not to bring what they suppose to be innocent people into an ignorant and dangerous world, or - realizing this is a prison and that everyone here is getting what they deserve - decides not to be presumptuous and to set themselves up as a vigilante decides instead just to take their licks - will no doubt do well at their parole hearing, for they will have freely shown themselves not to be a self-indulgent busy-body git. — Bartricks
They aren't arguments, that are commensurate with your assertions. — Aryamoy Mitra
I'm certain that this encapsulates the temperamental overtones mediating this thread; and yes, that is deliberately facetious. — Aryamoy Mitra
They 'are' arguments, it is just that you lack the comprehension skills to see this. — Bartricks
No, that's reductive. Your devised an arbitrary, archetypal representation of a God-like entity with specific characteristics, and asserted that it'd imply a negative value to procreative exercises in a world that was equivalent, in its totality, to a prison. You haven't thoroughly explicated why you believe the latter to be the case, nor have you successfully addressed the internal contradictions engendered by the paradigm. — Aryamoy Mitra
So far as I can tell, what you were using that thicket of words to try and do was to ask was why, if God exists, would it be reasonable to conclude that this world is a prison. — Bartricks
Well, I explained why our lives here can safely be taken to serve some kind of a purpose if God exists. Because you don't know an argument from your elbow, here it is all nicely laid out:
1. If God exists, no ignorance or suffering would occur in a life without it serving some purpose
2. Our lives here contain much ignorance and suffering
3. Therefore, if God exists our lives here serve some purpose — Bartricks
1. If God exists, God would not suffer innocent people to live lives containing much ignorance and suffering
2. Our lives here contain much ignorance and suffering
3. Therefore, if God exists we are not innocent. — Bartricks
The same goes for any other purpose. Namely, the purpose either seems inconsistent with being moral, or seems inefficiently realized in this world. Thus, retribution is left as the only plausible contender - extremely plausible given that we already know that our lives do have a purpose and that we are not innocent. — Bartricks
I was asking why you thought the world was equivalent to a prison, as an a priori truth (independent of any theistic or non-theistic constraints) — Aryamoy Mitra
Let's discount the interpersonal quarrels. — Aryamoy Mitra
1 is once again not a rationale; it's a supposition - which you may have acknowledged to be a premise (I can't decipher so exactly). Why would suffering be absent without a purpose, if God was existent? It's not self-evident. It's only if you presuppose an omnibenevolent being, with a specific set of moral virtues - one of whom is ennoblement through suffering, that one can arrive at that conclusion. God, as a term, might be reductive here; that's one contention. — Aryamoy Mitra
1, 2 and 3 are likely complementary to one another, if that matter is resolved. — Aryamoy Mitra
1 is predicated (as conveyed earlier) on an idiosyncratic understanding of God, and his/her motives - if an anthropomorphism is even appropriate, for an entity that's presumably transcendental.
If that matter is resolved, the remainder of the propositional sequence is likely coherent. — Aryamoy Mitra
If those premises are unfounded, and implicitly restated - then that may not be a disconfirmation of an argument, but it is nevertheless a reasonable criticism. — Aryamoy Mitra
Wait. — Aryamoy Mitra
If an objective is inefficiently realized, then why would an omnipotent entity refrain from intervening? And what does 'retribution' entail, precisely? If you're referring to a literal variant of retribution, shouldn't it imply an egalitarian result (equivalently imprisoning and tyrannizing everyone)? Isn't this inconsistent with how the world's organized socioeconomically, for instance? — Aryamoy Mitra
If you've attempted to answer the cardinal question (why the world is a prison), then - from what I can infer, you've invoked a retributive objective as a means to doing so.
Firstly, that doesn't in the slightest encompass the whole of what a prison entails (insofar as life's not inescapable, insufferable or a retributive experience for all its agents). More disconcertingly, it implies that existence is an eternal punishment designated to non-innocent individuals by an omnibenevolent being (as you've vehemently iterated earlier, in this thread). — Aryamoy Mitra
Again with my example: I did wrong to Jeremy, yes? But Jeremy deserved what he got. — Bartricks
decide not to be presumptuous and set themselves up as a vigilante but instead decide humbly to take their licks — Bartricks
Why wouldn't he? No harm is done. They, by procreating, make themselves deserving of another lifetime in the prison. Good - that's what they deserve - and further accommodation is provided for other criminals (two birds, one stone). — Bartricks
But it also stands to reason that God would not have allowed innocent creatures to live in ignorance in a dangerous world. Thus, as God exists and there is no doubt we do live in ignorance in a dangerous world, we can conclude that we are not innocent — Bartricks
This world is a prison — Bartricks
I think most people would say “you thought you did something wrong when you didn’t”. — khaled
I don't think I have to say which one is more intrusive to another individual in a profound way. — schopenhauer1
Again, relevance? Did you read the OP? Nothing you've said there addresses anything in it. I think you have literally just seen the word 'antinatalism' in the title and then blurted what you blurted. Bizarre. — Bartricks
What about those who believe that God exists; that none of us have been created; that this world is a prison, and that everyone who comes here deserves to come here (and have arrived at this belief responsibly)? Let's first be clear how many people satisfy that set of criteria. Me. I think that's it. Just me. — Bartricks
You do not have to have any view about life's purpose for that to be wicked. — Bartricks
No, I don't think so. First, consider that I think everything that happens here is just — Bartricks
So what? — Bartricks
Antinatalism is not an absolutist position — Bartricks
A convicted murderer who undertakes to kill other convicted murderers is not fit to be released back into the community. — Bartricks
:rofl: Yeah, so "forthright" that you're evading a logical counter-argument to your fatuous, fallacious, OP. :eyes:I mean, you won't find a more forthright defender of their positions anywhere on this site or, indeed, the world. — Bartricks
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.