Freedom is the answer - not oppression. — counterpunch

Sure freedom is the answer but with some limits too.

No not at all. There is a distinction between a life worth STARTING and CONTINUTING. Different considerations, mainly involving the fact that in one case, no one exists with fears, goals, interests, and dignity. The other one does. — schopenhauer1

Early Buddhism, which in effect also promotes AN, has a context to its AN and an alternative to "life as it is usually lived".

Your AN has no such thing. The context and the motivation for your AN amount to "I'll have a measure of contentment if noone else ever gets born".

You've capitulated before the problem of suffering. And even seem to think that such a capitulation deserves respect.

Why does the question matter first off?

I'm trying to establish what the motivation of the AN is. Because I suspect that this would be the quickest way to undercut absolute AN.

Considering the motivation behind an idea is never an argument against the idea I struggle to see how it will.

Motive is essential to establishing whether an act committed is a crime or not.

I feel like there is no conversation about how antinatalism is based on the assertion that suffering is equivalent to an objective "bad." Why would suffering, a mental state for an individual, be bad for the universe at whole? — FlaccidDoor

The existence of suffering is, for some people, proof that there is something fatally wrong with the universe.

Deleted

Motive is essential to establishing whether an act committed is a crime or not. — baker

But I don't get what you are trying to imply with motivations of antinatalists. Are you trying to say why are antinatalists trying to "deprive" parents of having children?

I think if that's the case, you must rethink where where the focus should be on. It shouldn't be: "I WANT a child for X reasons, and I am suffering because I cannot satisfy this desire".

Rather, the focus should be on how the parent is bringing the conditions for ANOTHER person to suffer from their actions. Why should just wanting something be a reason for someone else to pay consequences?

Again, I gave the example of WORK. Just because you might not mind laboring to keep yourself alive, doesn't mean that the person you are going to bear into existence will want this situation. It is de facto "forced" on this new person- the alternatives to laboring being sub-optimal options such as homelessness (and slow death) or rapid death through suicide.

But look at the converse. If you DON'T have a child, no ONE is deprived of the (pleasure?) of production/work, because no ONE exists to be deprived. This asymmetry can be applied to any negative outcome for the child (experiencing disease, discomfort, physical/emotional anguish, etc.).

There are plenty of things that one can do that isn't so profoundly affecting someone else. Again, someone else should not pay for another person's sense of satisfaction. And it is this focus on doing harm to another person based on one's actions, that the antinatalist is focusing on.

There are other examples where one is doing harm to others by satisfying one's own wants.. In these circumstances we also seem to look down on this. But somehow this very important and much more permanent and profound example of procreation, gets a pass.

There really isn't a way around the fact that people are born involuntarily, and the moment one tries to justify it, one inevitably enters a slippery slope.

It's simple and crystaline, yet unacceptable to our human nature. Hence, the tension in this thread.

It's simple and crystaline, yet unacceptable to our human nature. Hence, the tension in this thread. — Tzeentch

What makes it paricularly part of human nature and not a pervasive culturally pressured preference that can somewhat easily be overrided? Agree with you otherwise.

I'd assume that our affinity with multiplying has deep roots in our instincts. We're initially programmed to prolong the species. Likewise our dislike of suggestions that there is something inherently wrong with it touch at our basic understanding of our existence.

I'd agree there is likely also a cultural dimension to this.

Whether these things can easily be overrided depends heavily on the individual and their propensity for reason.

Besides attraction (which is its own difficulties to explain in terms of instinct) and the desire for pleasure, can you describe what the "I want a baby" deep-rooted instinct looks like and explain how its an instinct?

But I don't get what you are trying to imply with motivations of antinatalists. — schopenhauer1

What's so hard to understand?

What do _you_, as an antinatalist, get if other people don't have children?

There must be something in it for you, or you wouldn't argue for it. Instead, you beat around the bush like a demivierge.

Besides attraction (which is its own difficulties to explain in terms of instinct) and the desire for pleasure, can you describe what the "I want a baby" deep-rooted instinct looks like and explain how its an instinct? — schopenhauer1

They they they. Duh. Stop talking about others, and instead come forward clearly stating what's in it for you if other people don't have children.

They they they. Duh. Stop talking about others, and instead come forward clearly stating what's in it for you if other people don't have children. — baker

If I advocate that people shouldn't murder, it shouldn't matter what's in it for me. It's the moral thing to do. ALSO, I gave you some ideas in my first reply so now you're beating a dead horse.

You can ask the same thing to literally anyone philosophizing..

Why does @Banno advocate for Wittgenstein's ideas?

Why does Plato advocate the forms? He should keep it to himself right?

Why does Russell care about the logic behind math and publish works about it for everyone to see and review? It just works, right?

I mean this literally can be applied to anything a human does that other people might be an audience of.

When people see a truth of some kind (at least as they see it), they tend to want others to also understand it, grapple with it, have a dialectic about it, and so on and not just have a conversation with themselves only.

When people see a truth of some kind (at least as they see it), they tend to want others to also understand it, grapple with it, have a dialectic about it, and so on and not just have a conversation with themselves only. — schopenhauer1

And why is that? What do they get from it?

And why is that? What do they get from it? — baker

What do you get from asking me this question?

Have you ever tried to provide a thesis or proposition before? Why did you do that?

Why do you think people write on this forum in general?

Why do philosophers publish their thoughts and have a dialogue?

What do you get from asking me this question? — schopenhauer1

A special kind of satisfaction.

Have you ever tried to provide a thesis or proposition before? Why did you do that?

Yes. In order to test drive it, to see what objections to it others would raise, and as such, where the flaws and vulnerabilities of said proposition were (and what I must fix).

Why do you think people write on this forum in general?

I think a lot of it is for philotainment. Some people go drinking with their buddies to bars, some go mountainhiking, some bake cookies, and some discuss philosophy on internetz forums.

Why do philosophers publish their thoughts and have a dialogue?

Some do it because it's their only marketable skill.
Some have been doing it for a long time and they just don't know how to live otherwise.
Some do it for fun.
Some do it in an effort to achieve world domination.
And probably more.

See you can answer your own question.

I was asking for _your_ motivation in particular.

I see the unfairness of bringing suffering into the world and I am impelled to give my perspective due to this.

There are preconditions of the world that every person MUST contend with (I call this de facto forced conditions). For example, one can choose not to work, but then they are going to either free ride off someone else, hack it and probably die by themselves in the wilderness, go homeless, or any other number of sub-optimal outcomes. They can also commit suicide if they really don't like it. I don't like putting people into these de facto forced conditions so I will speak up about it.

I see the unfairness of bringing suffering into the world and I am impelled to give my perspective due to this. — schopenhauer1

And how has that been working out for you?

Hi Javi, to be fair, he is talking about "absolute antinatalism".. that is antintalism that thinks NO parents should ever have children because they want to prevent a future person from suffering. It doesn't matter the background of the parent, or the circumstances. All birth should be prevented if possible.

I already gave my answer as to the difference between beginning a life, and continuing a life that is already here and how ANs would not use the very things they are against (not forcing a situation onto someone, not getting consent, not harming) to prevent current suffering. The nonexistence of an actual person prior to birth makes all the difference here.

How sure are you that people are non-existent before they're born? Does your whole position rest on that?

And how has that been working out for you? — baker

Not sure your point...

How sure are you that people are non-existent before they're born? Does your whole position rest on that? — RogueAI

Not sure where you're going with this.. The point in the comment you quoted was that starting an existence is unnecessary suffering started on someone else's behalf. Once someone is born, there is someone who has interests, etc.

If there was a soul beforehand, we wouldn't know it so doesn't make a difference. From the information we know, suffering is started unnecessarily.

However I may feel about having or not having children, I don't think most people could be persuaded about absolute AN. If they have a pre-disposition to feel the darkness in the world, then they might be persuaded, had they not already reached AN conclusion.

It's a good question. I guess they might get some peace of some kind. Also validation that such arguments can work once in a while.

But if empathy was the main goal here, maybe helping others, in whatever way possible, would probably be better.

So you wanna do eugenics? Do you think you're wise enough to decide who should and should not breed? — counterpunch

Seems like you jumped to the conclusion that Javi was talking about eugenics. How did you conclude that? Does "selective antinatalism" = eugenics?

I guess people who are irresponsible with their own lives shouldn't have the right of breed not only Kids but animals. Having kid is a serious issue that not all the people are ready or capable to do it so. — javi2541997

I think a good case can be made that some people should not have children, and this is a matter that affects both men and women. People whose lives are self-destructive (such as having multiple addictions) will be unable to deliver, care for, and support a healthy child.

The species as a whole (soon to be 8 billion) is too numerous, and couples (4 billion couples, about) should strive for no more than 2.1 children -- at most, preferably fewer. 2.1 is the maximum rate for declining populations.

It is moral to ask that people whose lives render them unable to care for their children to not have them. It is moral to prevent pregnancy for women who are unable to make reproductive decisions owing to severe mental disability. The morality of preventing conception for women whose lives are very disordered, but are capable of making reproductive decisions is much more difficult.

Forced treatment for addiction and mental illness anguishes civil libertarians; requiring consent for any treatment may be an over reaction.

Back to the species as a whole: If we do not find some way for controlling fertility on a global scale, then nature will find a solution for us, and we won't like it.

What if one believed that people choose to come back again (reincarnation)? In that case, there would be no consent issue to having kids.

What if one believed that people choose to come back again (reincarnation)? In that case, there wouldn't be a consent issue. — RogueAI

I guess so, but besides you telling me, how would anyone know that?

How would anyone know the converse? I don't see the justification in assuming this is the only life we've ever lived. A popular interpretation of QM implies there are near infinite copies of me in other real universes. If this (possibly) happens spatially, why not temporally?