"It's evil to act on evil intentions" -- this seems to be the basic argument for AN here.
"To intend to procreate is to set a trap for another person. Setting a trap is evil. To procreate is evil." — baker
once the situation is "inescapable game, that 'hey you might like some aspects'" I believe there to be a problem, even if it has 'hey you might like some aspects' qualities". At that point, what other choice except suicide or slow death is there of course.. It's not like there's a button that we can just say.. "Next!". — schopenhauer1
The thing that occurred in the past is going to affect the person in the future..that developing fetus will become a person at some point. It's just like suffering.. I have a board ready to smack you in the head when a you step in a certain spot.. you step there, as intended, and it smacks you in the head... — schopenhauer1
At the moment a person was put into this scenario, that is the violation of dignity — schopenhauer1
Doing an action that affects someone is messing with someone else's autonomy. — schopenhauer1
Any point where someone's existential situation is assumed for them, would be a violation once someone exists to be the recipient of that existential situation. — schopenhauer1
I never originally defined dignity in terms of autonomy of will, so if that is a sticking point for you (because you limited it to this definition) then refer to my broader point here: As I said...
I don't think "dignity" just covers autonomy of will, but a basic unfairness or injustice that might be more fundamental (you don't need a will involved at point A, let's say). — schopenhauer1 — schopenhauer1
Neither are the point at hand though, which is the argument for hard antinatalism. — Isaac
"It's evil to act on evil intentions" -- this seems to be the basic argument for AN here.
"To intend to procreate is to set a trap for another person. Setting a trap is evil. To procreate is evil." — baker
now (how?) exactly is the way out (if someone TRULY hates life) a minor inconvenience? Last I heard suicide is incredibly difficult to do — Albero
If, instead of being self-absorbed whingers (I'm referring to modern society here, not antinatalists specifically), we actually got out and helped each other, far fewer people would be in such pain. — Isaac
Especially during these fucking lock downs, we need to take extra care of each other. — Benkei
Just two days ago when we're debating a point and someone's rebuttal is based on issues discussed years ago (getting into the metaphysical problems of ascribing states to non-existent people) my interest deflates to negative 100. — Benkei
Dutch people should be fucking like bunnies. — Benkei
Ha! Are they not already? (Everyone in the Netherlands is basically Marlon Brando to us repressed English stiffs, we think you're constantly at it. I've only known one Dutch person, the parent of a client - and she was apparently a sex therapist. Did little to undermine my prejudices I'm afraid!) — Isaac
once the situation is "inescapable game, that 'hey you might like some aspects'" I believe there to be a problem, even if it has 'hey you might like some aspects' qualities". At that point, what other choice except suicide or slow death is there of course.. It's not like there's a button that we can just say.. "Next!".
— schopenhauer1
At no point was there any choice. There are no yet-to-be-born souls wishing someone would ask them. If people really truly don't want to be in the game any more, they can always opt out. For someone who really does not like the game, it would be nothing but a brief inconvenience. It would be ridiculous to argue that causing people minor inconvenience is immoral. The problem is that most people contemplating suicide do like the game, they just wish they could experience it without the pain they're feeling. — Isaac
Non-existence is of course "state", where is no he or she. — Antinatalist
Non-existence is of course "state", where is no he or she.
— Antinatalist
This is metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. Nothing doesn't have properties or states. The ability for a thing to have a property presupposes that it exists. — Benkei
At no point was there any choice. There are no yet-to-be-born souls wishing someone would ask them. If people really truly don't want to be in the game any more, they can always opt out. For someone who really does not like the game, it would be nothing but a brief inconvenience. It would be ridiculous to argue that causing people minor inconvenience is immoral. The problem is that most people contemplating suicide do like the game, they just wish they could experience it without the pain they're feeling. — Isaac
I've just explained how it's not like suffering and you've ignored all the arguments there and repeated the assertion. The bad thing in your example is being smacked by the board - that's the harm - and that is in the future - a consequence. — Isaac
The reason why we're here is because the only way you could answer khaled's sleeping lifeguard example was to invoke a threshold of consequence above which we ought not act against someone's will. You can't revert now to arguments just about the harm principle, they've been lost already - life is mostly a good thing - most people enjoy it - having children creates more good than it causes harm, and if someone really truly doesn't like life, the way out is only a minor and passing inconvenience. The harm principle alone simply doesn't work with our common intuitions about harms. We cause people minor harms all the time for the greater good. — Isaac
This is metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. Nothing doesn't have properties or states. The ability for a thing to have a property presupposes that it exists. — Benkei
That´s why I put the word "state" on quotation marks. — Antinatalist
And if someone finds themselves born into terrible circumstances (more than what you consider "normal" life) and the person knew they were going to birth this future person there..That potential person cannot be considered in any meaningful way? In an odd way Benkei, you are invoking some sort of "soul" theory of being.. Very Platonic and Christian of you. You as well Isaac. — schopenhauer1
Why don't you run me through the 50 steps you went through in your head to go from "you can't attribute states to nothing" to "you're invoking some sort of soul"? That's some serious bullshit right there. — Benkei
What we are comparing then is a possibility of existence with other examples of possible lives lived and we find that possibility unacceptable. But this is fundamentally different from saying this "non-existent" child is better off never having been born because when we talk that way, it is neither a child nor a person nor capable of having any properties, because it is nothing.
It is then the following position of anti-natalism that I suggest has some measure of logical rigour to it:
that any possible persons, who will suffer more than is outweighed by the good they will experience, outnumber people who will suffer less than is outweighed by the good they will experience. Or in short form "unhappy persons outnumber happy persons". — Benkei
but all instances of suffering occur from being put in a position where the conditions occur.. — schopenhauer1
That´s why I put the word "state" on quotation marks.
— Antinatalist
As if that resolves the fact that it's meaningless. — Benkei
This is just a rephrasing of "caused by" which I've thoroughly debunked ages ago. — Benkei
Not going again there. — Benkei
Losing presupposes playing, so if you want to avoid a loss, you need to start playing first. Anything else is just nonsense. — Benkei
Also note that the data for the Netherlands is a strong utilitarian argument to have as many babies as possible. — Benkei
ABSURD. In order to avoid X, you must enter X so THAT it can be avoided. In order to avoid having someone else eaten by a lion, you should put them in situations where they can be eaten by the lion....Nope. — schopenhauer1
You're funny (unintentionally?). — schopenhauer1
aha, the scenarios where we have pegasi on the one hand and unicorns on the other. If neither pertain to reality nothing about the argument is relevant. — Benkei
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.