In not drawing a sharp distinction there, you join both the pro-life movement — Srap Tasmaner
Because the people alive already have an interest. — schopenhauer1
But then you are contradicting yourself as far as using people. — schopenhauer1
The lifeguard did not have an interest to save the person in the water. But you didn’t care. It is true that the lifeguard had interests in general, but the only way to NOT have any interests or intentions is to not exist. So the difference again boils down to: “Is the person to be harmed born yet? if so, it becomes wrong to do unilaterally, if not it’s ok to balance”. Which I disagree with. Because it is special pleading. — khaled
In the case of the not yet born, "unnecessary" becomes "not being born into harm" as it was unnecessary at the level of hte interests of that person for that person to be brought into the game. In the case of those who exist, unnecessary becomes "least amount of violation when possible to play the game". — schopenhauer1
Well, it would be unnecessary to bring about a whole lifetime of pain to ameliorate the people who already exist. — schopenhauer1
We are purely, that is to say, "absolutely" creating from "scratch" ALL instances of harm for a person rather than mitigating and ameliorating something. — schopenhauer1
Is the disagreement. The distinction between what “unless necessary” means for before and after birth is what I don’t get. — khaled
We are purely, that is to say, "absolutely" creating from "scratch" ALL instances of harm for a person rather than mitigating and ameliorating something.
— schopenhauer1
We are doing both. — khaled
↪Antinatalist Maybe quote the whole thing for starters. And no, quite obviously alleviating specific suffering where no other solution is available then euthanasia is entirely different from a blanket claim we should stop procreating because of suffering. But your leaping ahead. Let's first start with the fact living obviously doesn't cause suffering. — Benkei
Having a child takes faith because you have to have the faith that the world is good — Gregory
Antinatalist fundies seem incorrigibly blind to this point; they've somehow lost the ethical plot – maximal reduction of suffering for already born sufferers – which has the distinct advantage of being desired by the vast majority of people (et al). — 180 Proof
If you don't believe in throwing people into a game you can only escape with self-harm, if you don't believe in exposing new people to suffering.. that is the conclusion. — schopenhauer1
the absence of suffering is not a moral good because it's not enjoyed by anyone."
↪Benkei
If you are right, then the concept of euthanasia is absurd. — Antinatalist
It's simply not dire or exigent enough for natalists (or conscientious antinatalists) to advocate wholesale human extinction.As Gregory just stated, you think it narrow-minded that antinatalists have solely focused on their dissatisfaction with the current situation and its incorrigibleness, but the non-antinatalists have not focused on it enough. — schopenhauer1
he absence of suffering is not a moral good because it's not enjoyed by anyone."
↪Benkei
If you are right, then the concept of euthanasia is absurd.
— Antinatalist
Not at all because in euthanasia there is still a population of humans living in a world with less suffering in it as a result. The completion of the hard antinatalist program results in a world where the absence of suffering is of no consequence at all because there are no humans to enjoy living in a world without it. — Isaac
Let´s assume there is entity called God. God created the world. God created also two billion human beings to live in the place called Hell. Living in Hell is living in extremely miserable place forever.
Let´s assume there is an alternative option. God didn´t exist. There was a world. And there were no people or place called Hell.
Are you saying that both scenarios are analogous?
The world without people suffering was not better world than the Hell? — Antinatalist
Let´s assume there is entity called God. God created the world. God created also two billion human beings to live in the place called Hell. Living in Hell is living in extremely miserable place forever.
Let´s assume there is an alternative option. God didn´t exist. There was a world. And there were no people or place called Hell.
Are you saying that both scenarios are analogous?
The world without people suffering was not better world than the Hell?
— Antinatalist
Yes, that's right.
It's just nonsensical to say the alternative would be 'better'. 'Better' is judgement, a state, of a human mind, without the human mind to contain the judgement it simply can't exist. It has no mind-independent existence such that it would still be 'better' even if there were no person to hold that thought. 'Better' in whose opinion? — Isaac
Therefore there could be values without the valuer. — Antinatalist
Antinatalism, however, as policy is totalitarian, almost theocratic (pace Mainländer). — 180 Proof
Let´s assume there is entity called God. God created the world. God created also two billion human beings to live in the place called Hell. Living in Hell is living in extremely miserable place forever.
Let´s assume there is an alternative option. God didn´t exist. There was a world. And there were no people or place called Hell.
Are you saying that both scenarios are analogous?
The world without people suffering was not better world than the Hell?
— Antinatalist
Yes, that's right.
It's just nonsensical to say the alternative would be 'better'. 'Better' is judgement, a state, of a human mind, without the human mind to contain the judgement it simply can't exist. It has no mind-independent existence such that it would still be 'better' even if there were no person to hold that thought. 'Better' in whose opinion?
— Isaac — Antinatalist
Maybe so, but I agree with Camus:Maybe there are optimistic AN perspectives in that, one can be an optimist about the future while thinking that not being born would have been better. Maybe. — Manuel
There are no optimists (or pessimists) in foxholes; only the courageous survive and thrive from the struggle.Real generosity towards the future lies in giving all to the present.
Amor fati.One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
I'll put it here too since you seem to want to espouse it in both threads. — Isaac
Conception is unique - it's not like throwing people into a game you can only escape with self-harm because there are no 'people' whose will we can consider prior to birth (even a few months after birth there's not a sufficiently complex will for such a consideration), so contrary to what you say it is not the inevitable conclusion for people who do not like throwing people into a game you can only escape with self-harm. Such people may well hate throwing people into a game you can only escape with self-harm with a vengeance, but still consider the unique situation of having a child to be morally acceptable. — Isaac
There are no other circumstances where the person who would experience that which we expect for them does not exist to be asked (or have their will considered) in our lives. Birth is the only one. So we have no intuition on the matter other than the one we use for birth, and that is 99.999999% in agreement that it's morally acceptable. — Isaac
It's simply not dire or exigent enough for natalists (or conscientious antinatalists) to advocate wholesale human extinction. — 180 Proof
Therefore there could be values without the valuer.
— Antinatalist
Lots of things could be. The important question is whether they need be, how useful it is to assume they are, what problems arise if we do etc.
So with values (without a valuer) - what advantage does seeing things that way give us? If it does give advantages, what are the disadvantages and are they sufficiently outweighed? Where would the values reside and what form would they take? If a value can exist without a valuer, then what happens when the values we know exist with a valuer contradict them?
I can see more problems than are worth it with a dualistic realm of 'values', but if you've got a good defence of the concept I'd like to hear it. — Isaac
It's interesting that such a person can elaborate extremely interesting and insightful epistemological and metaphysical philosophies because of his conclusions about the origin of existence. Yet one can reject his conclusions while accepting his other arguments. But he would not have elaborated this arguments absent his nihilism. It's very strange.
Maybe there are optimistic AN perspectives in that, one can be an optimist about the future while thinking that not being born would have been better. Maybe. — Manuel
or conscientious antinatalists — 180 Proof
Cool insights. One can have two ideas in one's head at the same time. I bet you you can find some happy-go-lucky philosophical pessimists. Not all PPs are necessarily dispositional pessimists too. — 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.