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

He didn't say that. He said this:

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

And I addressed that. Bertrand Russell said "never trust a stupid man's report of what a clever man has said". Seems we can add 'or a stupid man's report of what a stupid man has said" too.

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.

Relevance? I do not understand what you are saying. Friend or foe - I do not know

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

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.

Most people THINK they’re doing something wrong but by your standard they’re actually not.

For God, being omnipotent, does not need anyone else's help providing accommodation — 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?

So it seems that the way he provides accommodation is precisely by allowing procreation (ethically speaking). And this seems to be the case since having kids appears to be fine at first glance. And also because people don’t just appear out of thin air. God seems to never “provide accommodation” directly. Two pieces of evidence which lead to the belief that having kids is fine, hell, is precisely what God wants you to do (since he doesn’t seem to want to materialize us criminals out of thin air, and instead made it so that we have the urge to bring in more criminals)

It is to set oneself up as a vigilante. — Bartricks

And what’s wrong with that. Sure God may not need your help in providing accommodation, but that does not make it wrong to provide it nonetheless. Again, it’s just putting criminals in jail. And as shown above it seems that that’s what God wants you to do.

Relevance? I do not understand what you are saying. Friend or foe - I do not know — Bartricks

Sorry. Just typing out loud. I know one poster here, who goes by the name Schopenhauer1, who argues about antinatlism, it seems as if Schopenhauer influenced his views. And it is correct Schopenhauer thought life was a curse. But Schopenhauer is so, so, so much more than that.

I'm neither actually. I'm sympathetic to some aspects of antinatlism in that the way the world is going, specifically connected to the topic of global warming, mentions serios consideration of brining someone to this world.

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.

If you view this as being a foe, ok. I try to avoid painting such black and white considerations in general, not always of course.

You are right - this thread has received much more attention than it deserves.

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

I am probably the main proponent of Schopenhauer around here, so not sure your assessment of associating him with popular versions of AN is on the mark. As far as his metaphysics, it was suffused with philosophical pessimism. Will is insatiable, and eats its own tail which leads to the World as Representation being that of illusionary individuation (aka suffering of the individual being).

As far as the popularity of the topic, it's not really, but as of late there have been several threads, which I'm glad to see. But you can say any philosophy you don't get or agree with as "sad" to be popular, so this just shows your personal bias more than anything about the philosophy. I do hope it gets more popular, but Socrates was hoping the Socratic Method would be popular, and Plato the Forms and Wittgenstein the idea of language games. There is nothing wrong with wanting to see the popularity of a philosophy one agrees with.

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

Yet human life is about living in a society which is a collection of habits and historical contingency, which forces one to deal with these de facto actions one must do to survive, get comfortable, and find ways to occupy the mind. So having babies is not only "telling" people they "should" do something, but actually FORCES people do literally "DO SOMETHING" lest dire circumstances of neglect, homelessness, starvation, free-riding (pushing it on others), or the like. So one is a strong suggestion, the other is a de facto force on another. I don't think I have to say which one is more intrusive to another individual in a profound way.

You are right - this thread has received much more attention than it deserves. — Banno

If only I bet on how many times you used sarcasm and one-line quips as a stand-in for philosophy I would be a pretend billionaire.

True; but I do some philosophical stuff, as it suits me.

Besides, it would presumably ruin your day, were you to find something positive in the world.

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

Why are you confused? I explained! Here:

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

Then you say

Most people THINK they’re doing something wrong but by your standard they’re actually not. — khaled

Er, no. Baby steps. They are doing wrong. Not right. Wrong. Wrong. Wrongy wrongingtons.

Just because a state of affairs is good, does not mean that the acts that bring it about are right.

Again with my example: I did wrong to Jeremy, yes? But Jeremy deserved what he got. That doesn't mean what I did was right. It was wrong. But Jeremy got what he deserved. But my act was wrong, not right. But Jeremy got what he deserved. But the act that gave him what he deserved was wrong. (I'm imagining you've glazed over by now).

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 - decide not to be presumptuous and set themselves up as a vigilante but instead decide humbly 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.

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

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.

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

They aren't argument that are commensurate with your assertions. You're eliciting
tangential ideas, and implicitly restating statements of contention. You've not once explicated why the world is a prison; only having used propositions of it being rife with malevolence and connivance. Why is it a prison, though? Incarceration implies isolation, abject and unfettered suffering, being bereft of one's elementary liberties and existing in a downtrodden fashion. You can use practical examples that underpin those traits.

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

'No harm is done'? If no harm is done, then why is this a transgression? This analogy's not likely to be valid, and its representations of a presumed God are equivalent to that of a tyrant (albeit that's not unforeseeable). How can an entity be omniscient if it allows for any lapses, or omnibenevolent despite passively witnessing suffering?

They aren't arguments, that are commensurate with your assertions. — Aryamoy Mitra

They 'are' arguments, it is just that you lack the comprehension skills to see this.

First I argued that God and antinatalism are compatible.

Then I argued that God's existence actually implies the truth of antinatalism.

But, like I say, you need to know what an argument is in order to recognise that I made arguments. Most believers in God think that procreation is moral. They're wrong. Most believers in God think that God created everything. They're wrong. Those are interesting claims and I have made arguments in support of them.

I'm certain that this encapsulates the temperamental overtones mediating this thread; and yes, that is deliberately facetious. — Aryamoy Mitra

Stop trying to sound clever. You just sound like a policeman.

They 'are' arguments, it is just that you lack the comprehension skills to see this. — Bartricks

Of course.

In the interests of keeping this thread on the rails, my first argument is that God and antinatalism are compatible.

Most theists believe that God created everything. But if antinatalism is true, then God did not create us - or at least, we seem to have very powerful reason to believe that God did not create us.

So, is God's existence consistent with there existing other things that he did not create? Well, I think so. Crucial to this question is what omnipotence involves. Does being all powerful involve having created everything?

I think not. I think it involves having the power to destroy anything and everything that exists. And it involves having the ability to make it the case that one created everything. But if one has those abilities, then it doesn't seem to me to add anything to say that one has actually created everything. How does actually having created everything add to one's powers? A special case that brings this out clearly, if it was not already clear enough, is that of God himself. God did not create himself. But that, surely, does not demonstrate that God is not omnipotent. God doesn't have to have created himself in order to be all powerful.

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

I apprehended the criminal as he was perambulating the repository.

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.

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

I then argued that if God exists, we are not innocent.

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.

Those are 'arguments'. They extract the implications of their premises. So, if you want to take issue with a conclusion, you now know what you need to dispute - a premise. (Most fools here think it sufficient simply to point out that an argument 'has' premises - this, they think, constitutes a profound point and a refutation).

Anyway, we now know by ratiocination that if God exists we are not innocent and that our lives serve a purpose. Well, does that not already give us what we need in order to know what our purpose is? Those who are not innocent are those who deserve to come to harm. And here we are, we non-innocents, suffering ignorance and the risk of harm. Stands to reason, then, that one purpose that is served by our being here is a retributive one. Propose any other purpose, save the others I mentioned (protection and rehabilitation) and you face an age-old problem. That being that God, as an omnipotent being, could have realized such ends without suffering us to live here and furthermore can reasonably be expected to have done so.

For example, some propose that God's purpose in suffering us to live here was to allow us free will. But though it is plausible (though questionable) that allowing us free will does indeed mean allowing us the possibility of doing wrong, the simple fact is that the ignorance we suffer, and the vast bulk of the risks of harm we are exposed to here, seem to do no work whatever in allowing us free will, and so it is simply not overall plausible that this is what purpose this world serves.

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.

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

Not quite. 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).

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 is once again not a rationale; it's a supposition, which you may have acknowledged to be a premise. 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.

1, 2 and 3 are likely complementary to one another, if that matter is resolved.

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

1 is predicated on an idiosyncratic understanding of God, and his/her motives, if an anthropomorphism is even appropriate.

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

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 socioeconomic order is organized, for instance?

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.

Shouldn't you be out chasing criminals?

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

What?

Let's discount the interpersonal quarrels. — Aryamoy Mitra

What?

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

What?

1, 2 and 3 are likely complementary to one another, if that matter is resolved. — Aryamoy Mitra

What?

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

What?

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

What?

Wait. — Aryamoy Mitra

Ok.

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

What?

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

What?

I might not be replying to this thread anymore.

Okay officer. I mean, you won't find a more forthright defender of their positions anywhere on this site or, indeed, the world. But okay officer, whatever you say (most of which I can't understand).

Again with my example: I did wrong to Jeremy, yes? But Jeremy deserved what he got. — Bartricks

I think most people would say “you thought you did something wrong when you didn’t”. That is to say “had you had all the necessary information you would have known the act was fine”. That’s all I’m saying. Had the people undergone these reflections, they would know that having children is merely putting criminals in jail.

decide not to be presumptuous and set themselves up as a vigilante but instead decide humbly to take their licks — Bartricks

You haven’t shown that this is wrong in any way. As I said, it’s not being presumptuous, it’s just helping out without being asked. The only things that make vigilantism wrong in the real world is that it is often risky, and does more harm than good. But in this case there are no such worries. Everyone here and everyone you bring here is a sinner. You’re just helping out God (again, not that he needed help of course). A criminal that captures other criminals is BETTER not worse than one that doesn’t assuming he can’t make a mistake and capture an innocent (which we know is impossible here). And to go and capture criminals as a criminal is not to presume that the omnipotent warden is incapable, it’s just helping out.

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

If “no harm is done” by procreating then what makes it wrong? And you can’t just say “it’s vigilantism” that’s insufficient as I’ve shown above. Helping without being asked is not wrong, even when your help is not needed.

Also according to your view, God would have no problem “providing accommodation” himself. How does that work? Do you wager that if everyone was convinced by your brilliant argument, and thus chose not to have kids anymore, that despite that the human race would not go extinct? We would now have people that materialize out of thin air instead of being born to be punished?

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

I think the only danger is the danger of over thinking.

To have knowledge is one thing, to have the maturity to understand it is another.

To obtain knowledge is to be troubled and burdened by the responsibility of this knowledge and to be accountable when used.

If the danger does not involve you don’t worry about it, leave it to God to work on it and trust in him.

If the danger is part of your life, trust that the suffering and pain that may come from it is to prepare you for a journey. From this struggle comes valuable lessons required to complete the purpose that will be assigned to you.

Off topic, I preach of faith as in believing in good. To recognizing that everything is designed perfectly and things are how it supposed to be. The pain and suffering you witness is just work in progress and the results will present itself in the future and it will be good.

My teacher once told me “Pain and suffering of this world is like the pain of child birth. The Mother must go through the contractions to bring forth the miracle of life”

Pain and suffering are the contractions and the Mother is this world.

And the child being born is the miracle of bring heaven on Earth.

And purpose is not discovered but assigned to us by God.

Is like a soldier who is in the reserves, we wait patiently to heed the call of God.

When he calls us out that will be our purpose.

This world is a prison — Bartricks

Tell that to the person who got transferred here [to this world] from hell. Of course, for people who were deported from heaven, it's exactly what you say it is. This results in much confusion, something you already seem to be aware of. All this assuming god exists.

I think most people would say “you thought you did something wrong when you didn’t”. — khaled

Potato potarto. It doesn't affect the point. It seems clear enough that our blameworthiness is determined by what we think we are doing, not what we are actually doing (not saying that has to be the case, just that it in fact seems to be). If I attempt to kill Mrs Jones by giving her substance x - a substance I think will kill her - but it turns out that substance x is in fact the very substance she needs in her system to stop her from dying - I am still in the wrong and blameworthy even though my act saved Mrs Jones's life. We can say that 'an' act of administering substance x to Mrs Jones would be right under certain circumstances (such as ones in which an agent knew that doing this to Mrs Jones would save her life). But my act was wrong, because my act can't be divorced from the intentions with which it was performed.

So, let's just be clear about most people. Most people are fully aware of how dangerous this world is and how much ignorance it contains. And most people believe that anyone they bring into being here will be born innocent. Yet they do it anyway. Now that's wicked. You do not have to have any view about life's purpose for that to be wicked. It is sufficient that one believes one is bringing innocent beings into this world, a world one is aware is dangerous and full of ignorance. The fact that, in reality, those who are brought into being here are not innocent and deserve everything they get is neither here nor there.

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. Is it morally ok for me to procreate, given my beliefs?

No, I don't think so. First, consider that I think everything that happens here is just. This is a prison, and we deserve to face the risks of harm we face, and we deserve our ignorance. That conclusion is, I think, inescapable, for reasons already given. So that means that no matter what I do to someone else, that person deserves it, and no matter what anyone does to me, I deserve it. Now by your logic, that means that here all is permitted - that I have no moral obligations, for no matter what I do to someone else, that someone will deserve what I do to them. That is what you'd conclude, yes? You'd think "well, if everything that happens here is deserved, then I can do what I want".

But that's clearly not the case. I - we - have moral obligations to behave in some ways and not others, even though it is not possible for us to treat others in ways they do not deserve.

Why? Note, the issue is not 'whether' this is so, for it so clearly is. The question is 'why' it should be. Why should we treat others 'as if' they are innocent, even if we believe, like Pangloss, that anything and everything that happens to anyone here is for the best?

Rehabilitation. A convicted murderer who undertakes to kill other convicted murderers is not fit to be released back into the community. They've missed the point of their imprisonment, which was not for them to punish others, for for them to be punished and to learn how to behave among those who are 'not' guilty of anything. (Why else does our reason tell us to assume others are innocent, not guilty; and to adopt an attitude of goodwill towards them?). And their behaviour is repellant. I mean, who the hell do they think they are? They are behaving 'as if' they have the moral authority of a judge and jury - that their job is to mete out justice. No, they absolutely do not have that authority and for them to think that they have it is, well, obnoxious. The people they're killing deserve to die; but their behaviour in killing them is no less obnoxious for that. Their job is not to mete out justice; their job is to do their time, understand how appalling they are, and undertake to change their ways. They are behaving 'as if' they themselves are innocent, when in fact their job is to learn how to behave towards the innocent.

Anyway, let's say I'm wrong about the above and someone who sincerely and responsibly believes that this world is a prison and procreation provides more cells for criminals is someone for whom procreation will not be wrong. So what? I mean, that just means it is morally ok for me to procreate. That's all. Antinatalism is not an absolutist position. Antinatalists do not typically hold that every conceivable act of procreation is wrong. Far from it: there will be lots of exceptions. They hold instead that procreation is in general wrong or wrong under regular circumstances. Now, most people do not believe this world is a prison and that their offspring are born criminals who deserve every risk of harm they face, do they?

It's "sad" insofar as it leaves out many fascinating topics of conversation that Schopenhauer was fascinated by, such as his accounts of the world being a representations, his observations about psychology, physiology, art and much else.

I don't think I have to say which one is more intrusive to another individual in a profound way. — schopenhauer1

I don't have much to add that others haven't already said many times. However, I don't think you'll get far by trying to get people to feel bad for having kids.

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

You are correct. You won't see me again in this thread.

You are correct. You won't see me again in this thread. — Manuel

Good. Go randomly blurt elsewhere.

If you are transferred from a worse prison to a better one, you're still in prison.

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

Should be a red flag. But anyways.

You do not have to have any view about life's purpose for that to be wicked. — Bartricks

False. For one, one could justify such an act by noting that NOT bringing in those people also comes with risks. In other words, since you’re supposed to act as if people are innocent (even if they’re not), then you also recognize that not having a child can cause harm, and so both alternatives are risky, and a cost benefit analysis is needed. Or alternatively they could simply determine that the project of continuing the human race justifies their actions. Fully realizing they are imposing on others who may not be interested in the project.

No, I don't think so. First, consider that I think everything that happens here is just — Bartricks

Thus no matter what you do, it was just. That’s an inescapable conclusion. So the prisoners are never wrong in what they do. Although they may not be living up to God’s expectations of them, they’re never unjust. Despicable? Obnoxious? Maybe. But did they do anything wrong? No.

So what? — Bartricks

You’d be holding contradictory views. That antinatalism is true although a triple Omni God exists.

Antinatalism is not an absolutist position — Bartricks

Yes it is. Generally people refer to “hard antinatalism” when they say “antinatalism”. Otherwise everyone is an antinatalist. Because everyone thinks that procreation is wrong sometimes. Which is the same as thinking it’s wrong generally but with a lot of exceptions. There is no hard line here.

A convicted murderer who undertakes to kill other convicted murderers is not fit to be released back into the community. — Bartricks

Who cares about that. We’re asking if the act is wrong or not. That is what is being asked here. Not whether or not it is what God expects of you.

An omnipotent warden can expect all his prisoners to treat each other with cordiality as if they’re innocent and give them release if they rehabilitate successfully. But those of them that commit the most atrocious crimes to deserving people, aren’t doing anything wrong. They’re just refusing to rehabilitate. But not doing anything wrong. Because their victim deserved it. They (the crime committers) may not be released as a result, but that doesn’t mean they did anything wrong.

I mean, you won't find a more forthright defender of their positions anywhere on this site or, indeed, the world. — Bartricks

:rofl: Yeah, so "forthright" that you're evading a logical counter-argument to your fatuous, fallacious, OP. :eyes:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/521348