Perhaps buy a gun? — Isaac

So much for "suffering an inconvenience for the sake of others". — baker

Well, there's the cost of the gun...

Still not seeing what any of this has to do with the issue. What's at stake is whether (to rephrase it in your terms) it is reasonable to have an expectation of the individual that they will care about the well-being of other individuals sufficiently to want to suffer minor inconvenience for their benefit. — Isaac

But who is who in this willingness to suffer minor inconvenience for the benefit of others?
And in what way?

Are you saying that the antinatalist should be willing to suffer minor inconvenience for the benefit of others (including those yet to be born)?
In what way?

No, I'm saying that having the avoidance of all suffering as a moral maxim is incoherent because moral maxims by their very nature, require at least some small degree of suffering to carry them out.

No, I'm saying that having the avoidance of all suffering as a moral maxim is incoherent because moral maxims by their very nature, require at least some small degree of suffering to carry them out. — Isaac

Agreed, said maxim requires a further qualification.

Your neo-liberal philosophy is that no, that's not a reasonable expectation, some people may not care about the well-being of others enough to want to suffer some minor inconvenience for their benefit and it's not for us to interfere with that. I don't agree that we cannot have expectations of others which inform our actions toward them. — Isaac

No, not quite.

This is why I think dignity is violated after a certain threshold is met. This also has to be balanced with unnecessary suffering. So birth is a case where dignity would be violated and unnecessary suffering would be violated. However, when someone is born, things like taxes, making people go to school, etc. can be a consideration because as to survive, we live in a society and is necessary for the maintenance of that survival. If it isn't an industrialized form, it will simply take other forms, as in some way people will have to get together to get stuff done for survival's sake. So dignity not violated/unnecessary suffering in the case of the procreational decision looks like antinatalism. All harm and all dignity violation could have been prevented. Once born, it becomes ameliorating greater with lesser harms and thus looks more like balancing of smaller infractions with unnecessary future suffering, etc. The point of violation becomes different when an actual person has needs and wants and interests and ability to feel pain, etc. versus preventing a hypothetical person from dealing with any of it.

Dignity being violated is if in some sense a negative that will befall someone is being completely overlooked in an egregious manner (like unnecessary suffering, being put in the challenge game in the first place that is nearly inescapable). In the case of birth this is always the case the way I see it. However, once born, de facto choices are in play. We must work to survive, and work is learned through socialization, sharing experiences- essentially using language-based ways to convey meaning. This entails a social structure that keeps this going, etc.

And so I guess the straightforward case of procreation is like the lifeguard being condemned to lifeguarding school to me whereas..

The small violations that we balance with unnecessary suffering we must do once born is likened to lightly tapping on the lifeguard to wake him up to save the child...That is to say, it doesn't meet the threshold of egregiously overlooking the lifeguard, and certainly it is fulfilling the need not to overlook the drowning child.

when someone is born, things like taxes, making people go to school, etc. can be a consideration because as to survive, we live in a society and is necessary for the maintenance of that survival. If it isn't an industrialized form, it will simply take other forms, as in some way people will have to get together to get stuff done for survival's sake. — schopenhauer1

Well yeah, that then is exactly what I'm talking about. You put all stuff that your have to do for others in terms of your own benefit. "I have to pay my taxes becasue it contributes to the general governance from which I benefit". I don't think anyone suggests neo-liberals are fanatically opposed to helping others even when it directly benefits them to do so.

Dignity being violated is if in some sense a negative that will befall someone is being completely overlooked in an egregious manner — schopenhauer1

It's not being overlooked at all. I know that if I have another child they will suffer many of life's challenges, I'm not overlooking it at all. I expect a person to tolerate such harms for the greater good. I expect it of my children and I expect it of any imaginary future child when I'm contemplating what their existence would be like when considering bringing it about.

It's a reasonable expectation because normal human beings do indeed tolerate minor harms to benefit others, it's part of being human - or at least it was until you and your neo-liberal buddies tried to drive it out of everyone so as to make them compliant little consumers.

the straightforward case of procreation is like the lifeguard being condemned to lifeguarding school to me whereas..

The small violations that we balance with unnecessary suffering we must do once born is likened to lightly tapping on the lifeguard to wake him up to save the child... — schopenhauer1

This makes no sense at all. The harms are the same in both cases. The harms brought about from procreation are exactly and only the "small violations that we balance with unnecessary suffering we must do once born".

This still does nothing to explain why you care so much about the lives of others (whom you'd prefer weren't born at all).

Well yeah, that then is exactly what I'm talking about. You put all stuff that your have to do for others in terms of your own benefit. "I have to pay my taxes becasue it contributes to the general governance from which I benefit". I don't think anyone suggests neo-liberals are fanatically opposed to helping others even when it directly benefits them to do so. — Isaac

I don't have a problem looking at it in either way. But let's not kid ourselves, the reason for the survival is so that individuals in the society (like you and I and him and her) can benefit. Health care for all is health care for everyone in the community. Helping the poor is such that anyone who befalls the state of being poor can be helped which could be any X person. I am not saying we have to look at it in completely self-centered ways but simply recognizing it is at the level of individuals whereby benefits are being had. So I do not accept that interpretation or spin on it.

What I was trying to say with "every human needs a justification" is that humans are not just if/then creatures. The motivations are obviously complex and multicausational. We are a linguistic-based animal in a large degree. Thus linguistic-based concepts often (at least appear to ourselves) as our motivators for why we do any act. So the reason I do X is because.. (fill in the blank). However, these justifications/motivations are never just automatic. They are things we convince ourselves either out of habit, perceived losses from expectations, rationalizing, or simply expediency (can't think of a better way). So humans have to constantly buffer why they do anything. There is no automatic reason why we need to do anything at all. Thus we are an existential creature because there is never a set automatic response (outside of some basic stimuli perhaps). For the community, for this or that reason, are justifications we tell ourselves, sure. But it is never as easy as, "Society broadcasts X message (perhaps what Isaac thinks people should do), and people accept it". Rather, each and every decision is an existential decision to follow a course of action. Each person has to allow that X view to motivate them. It just doesn't motivate them. We can evaluate at any time, "I don't like this" and no longer go along with the program. The idea that these people need to be "recalibrated" like some member of the borg, is a bit dehumanizing at the least. It is at the most "bad faith" in not recognizing the fact that again, people choose justifications for why the do any task at all.

This makes no sense at all. The harms are the same in both cases. The harms brought about from procreation are exactly and only the "small violations that we balance with unnecessary suffering we must do once born". — Isaac

But all harm can be prevented in one case and not the other. That is why it is "unnecessary" at the point of procreation. Unless you want to die, all other harms are ameliorations, often by necessity of the facts of survival through balance of lesser harms with greater harms. This whole thing did not need to take place though in the first place.

So humans have to constantly buffer why they do anything. There is no automatic reason why we need to do anything at all. — schopenhauer1

I think only some people are like that; in fact, possibly the minority. A case can be made that a psychologically normal person does usually not reflect upon their choices at all, and this is actually preferred both by psychologists and people at large.

In fact, someone who reflects on their choices like you suggest, someone who wonders about their motivations that way is likely to score highly on the neuroticism scale (at least that), and render themselves somewhere in "mentally unwell" territory.

What you describe as "humans have to constantly buffer why they do anything", normal people would classify as "doubting oneself, second-guessing oneself", and thus as "lack of self-confidence", "lack of belief in oneself". A more charitable normal person would tell you that you "think too much".

It is at the most "bad faith" in not recognizing the fact that again, people choose justifications for why the do any task at all. — schopenhauer1

No, I think that typically, they don't "choose" their justifications. They just have them, end of story.

No, I think that typically, they don't "choose" their justifications. They just have them, end of story. — baker

Even if that is the "majority", we have the ability to access whether we still want to do something or not, and evaluate it negatively or positively. There are many times when what one is currently doing does not align with what one would rather be doing, and then there are a whole set of justifications why one wouldn't do otherwise. It's just that these justifications are more in the background.. You don't just quit your day job because that brings X, Y, and Z.. etc. Of course the limits of this thinking butts up against the reality of our mortal conditions.. We need survival, survival requires the necessity of social and historical contingency.. we must work through this to survive...etc.. But then what if we don't want these initial conditions? Well, too bad.

What you seem to describe is primary consciousness without any ability to self-reflect, evaluate, and judge in complex linguistic terms that we do. Or it could be explaining a highly habituated person like in a military setting. Follow orders, don't overthink, etc. No, we don't always just "do".. we often give ourselves reasons, motivations, stories, narratives, principles to work by, etc.

Of course, a lot of it IS neurotic in the sense that a general anxiety and angst often motivates us to want to alleviate that anxiety as well. "I don't want to think of X so I do Y" (eat food, go for a run, read a book, etc).

I think only some people are like that; in fact, possibly the minority. A case can be made that a psychologically normal person does usually not reflect upon their choices at all, and this is actually preferred both by psychologists and people at large.

In fact, someone who reflects on their choices like you suggest, someone who wonders about their motivations that way is likely to score highly on the neuroticism scale (at least that), and render themselves somewhere in "mentally unwell" territory.

What you describe as "humans have to constantly buffer why they do anything", normal people would classify as "doubting oneself, second-guessing oneself", and thus as "lack of self-confidence", "lack of belief in oneself". A more charitable normal person would tell you that you "think too much". — baker

I think this is a good analysis. what's happening in antinatalism is the consequence of seeking some foundational principle behind a set of moral intuition which in all likelihood has no such principle. That it leads to odd, even repugnant conclusions shouldn't surprise us, and certainly shouldn't guide our actions. There'll be no end to@schopenhauer1's ability to provide post hoc rationalisations because data underdetermines theory. The relevant point is the one you've made here - theory also predates data. It is all seen already interpreted.

odd, even repugnant conclusions — Isaac

Odd yes. Rupugnant, no.

"Who are you to tell me what to think?!" is the reply you'll probably get from most people to your AN suggestions.

If you, as an AN, care so much about future, potential people that you want for them not to suffer even one iota of harm, then how come you don't extend the same care to people who are already alive?

Your AN arguments are presumably based on empathy and compassion for people who don't even exist yet, but you don't muster the same empathy and compassion for existing people*. That's strange.


*Which you'd need in order to get through to them.

If you, as an AN, care so much about future, potential people that you want for them not to suffer even one iota of harm, then how come you don't extend the same care to people who are already alive?

Your AN arguments are presumably based on empathy and compassion for people who don't even exist yet, but you don't muster the same empathy and compassion for existing people*. That's strange.


*Which you'd need in order to get through to them. — baker

Surely both can be employed no? Prevent it fullstop (what most people aren't doing) and also help the people already here. Unfortunately, for the already born the inherent conflict with working towards helping others and simply just "working with others" will be part of the "helping others" but that is the nature of man.. To essentially deal with the asshole qualities of other people and hopefully disregard, overcome, or change them to some extent. And everyone thinks it's the other.. and perhaps it is..

Here's a something you might want to consider. It looks like a paradox but I'll leave that for you to suss out.

First things first, I don't claim to know all that much about suffering but from my own experiences of how bad life can treat you I've discovered, to my great disappointment, that when one is miserable, it's impossible to think let alone think well (rationally). The mind/brain is overwhelmed by the urgent call for relief (from suffering) that it can think of nothing else. The COVID-19 pandemic illustrates what I'm driving at quite well. In the face of this viral event which I liken to suffering, all governments of the world seem to be hyperfocused on how to alleviate/eliminate the devastation the pandemic is causing.

To get to the point, antinatalism is a rational standpoint - arrived at via research, study, discussion, and argumentation. What I want bring to your attention is that antinatalism, because it requires extensive rational analysis, implies that the brains/minds that hit upon the idea were, note, not suffering; had they been suffering they wouldn't have been able to think at all. I guess my point is, in a nutshell, that antinatalism exists as a well-reasoned philosophical position means that antinatalism can't be right.

I guess my point is, in a nutshell, that antinatalism exists as a well-reasoned philosophical position means that antinatalism can't be right. — TheMadFool

Not sure if any of this is correct. Can you not suffer and think of an argument? Even if that was true, can you not have some moments of clarity and some moments of suffering? Isn't thinking rationally and leading to AN, an indication that it is the rational answer?

Can you not suffer and think of an argument? — schopenhauer1

No, unfortunately not. Ever heard of a woman in labor coming up with a bright idea? Plus, what's the idea of taking leave from work when one falls ill?

To get to the point, antinatalism is a rational standpoint - arrived at via research, study, discussion, and argumentation. What I want bring to your attention is that antinatalism, because it requires extensive rational analysis, implies that the brains/minds that hit upon the idea were, note, not suffering; had they been suffering they wouldn't have been able to think at all. I guess my point is, in a nutshell, that antinatalism exists as a well-reasoned philosophical position means that antinatalism can't be right. — TheMadFool

My life was good when I was a child. When I was older I have suffered. But at world scale, not so much at all. There are millions and millions of people, who had and will suffer far more than I have, unfortunately.

The first person´s point of view to pain (I use the word "pain" in special meaning covering all suffering) is important. Many people doesn´t have a slightest idea what suffering can be, good for them.
When I´ve been in pain (I say in PAIN), I think this is terrible, this should not be. And sometimes it could be hectic, violent, you just react. Afterwards I have thought a lot.
Pain, suffering, the accidental part of life (you can´t escape it).
So, I don´t think your point of view is valid.

Many people doesn´t have a slightest idea what suffering can be, good for them. — Antinatalist

:rofl:

Would you like a similar fate to William Wallace (c. 1207 - 1305)? Hanged, drawn, and quartered?

The convicted traitor was fastened to a hurdle, or wooden panel, and drawn by horse to the place of execution, where he was then hanged (almost to the point of death), emasculated, disembowelled, beheaded, and quartered (chopped into four pieces). His remains would then often be displayed in prominent places across the country, such as London Bridge, to serve as a warning of the fate of traitors. — Wikipedia

Perhaps that might not be to your taste, you might prefer something else, Crucifixion?

“if they were suffering they couldn’t have thought of this position therefore this position is not right”

What? How does that follow? And how does it not apply to every position ever?

“if they were suffering they couldn’t have thought of this position therefore this position is not right”

What? How does that follow? And how does it not apply to every position ever? — khaled

It applies to every position of course. :chin:

It applies to every position of course. :chin: — TheMadFool

Even that one.

In other words, you're speaking nonsense. Your thoughts are self contradictory. Should be a pointer that “if they were suffering they couldn’t have thought of this position therefore this position is not right” is not right to begin with.

Even that one.

In other words, you're speaking nonsense. Your thoughts are self contradictory. Should be a pointer that “if they were suffering they couldn’t have thought of this position therefore this position is not right” is not right to begin with. — khaled

What's self-contradictory about it? That there are philosophies, all and sundry, implies that the suffering extant in the world ain't so terrible that people can't think. This gibes quite well with the fact that much of the thinking going on in the world takes place in so-called first-world countries where suffering, at least those in the form of diseases, seems to be ebbing away. Contrast this to other less fortunate regions of the world. A grain of sodium chloride might come in handy nevertheless.

That antinatalism exists implies that people aren't suffering to the extent that they can't apply their brains which they have to to think of antinatalism. Ergo, antinatalism is a catch-22 situation - the antinatalist claims all is not well but to do that all has to be well.

the antinatalist claims all is not well but to do that all has to be well. — TheMadFool

I see what you mean now. There are multiple ways to resolve this though.

1- First off, the AN doesn't claim that all is not well necessarily. But that there is a chance that all won't be well. So based on that, don't take the chance.

2- The AN can simply claim that all will not be well for their child while all is well for them

Among others. But most importantly: No AN on this site has tried to reach AN through the angle that life is terrible and unbearable. Because that's not true on average. Most arguments are about risk management and how the risk of all not being well need not be taken.

Many people doesn´t have a slightest idea what suffering can be, good for them.
— Antinatalist

:rofl:

Would you like a similar fate to William Wallace (c. 1207 - 1305)? Hanged, drawn, and quartered?

The convicted traitor was fastened to a hurdle, or wooden panel, and drawn by horse to the place of execution, where he was then hanged (almost to the point of death), emasculated, disembowelled, beheaded, and quartered (chopped into four pieces). His remains would then often be displayed in prominent places across the country, such as London Bridge, to serve as a warning of the fate of traitors.
— Wikipedia

Perhaps that might not be to your taste, you might prefer something else, Crucifixion? — TheMadFool

I simply don´t understand your point. Wallace´s fate and - also crucifixion - is horrible. I don´t wish such a fate for anyone.

To get to the point, antinatalism is a rational standpoint - arrived at via research, study, discussion, and argumentation. What I want bring to your attention is that antinatalism, because it requires extensive rational analysis, implies that the brains/minds that hit upon the idea were, note, not suffering; had they been suffering they wouldn't have been able to think at all. I guess my point is, in a nutshell, that antinatalism exists as a well-reasoned philosophical position means that antinatalism can't be right. — TheMadFool

If just looking and thinking about suffering of others, one could come to conclusion that antinatalism view is the right one, I think antinatalistic point of view have to be right.

I see what you mean now. There are multiple ways to resolve this though.

1- First off, the AN doesn't claim that all is not well necessarily. But that there is a chance that all won't be well. So based on that, don't take the chance.

2- The AN can simply claim that all will not be well for their child while all is well for them

Among others. But most importantly: No AN on this site has tried to reach AN through the angle that life is terrible and unbearable. Because that's not true on average. Most arguments are about risk management and how the risk of all not being well need not be taken. — khaled

The future is unpredictable, like the weather I suppose - bright and sunny one moment, overcast and pouring the next. Nevertheless, there's a noticeable trend, even if only in certain patches of the global community, in the human condition in that the overall situation vis-à-vis happiness has shown some definite improvement. All we need to do now is to maintain the momentum so to speak and the future will probably be a better place than now/the past. That's looking at the bright side though, full of optimism and hope.



Here's another version of my argument which takes into account the fact the existence of abject misery - poverty, chronic illnesses, death, and the rest of the stuff about life that make it an unbearabale ordeal/agony.

As I said, antinatalists, given that they've developed a philosophy (antinatalism), have to counted among the fortunate - even if antinatalists experience suffering they still have an overall comfortable existence as evidenced by how they were able to "think in peace" and work on their belief.

Antinatalists, when they speak of how, to borrow a line from Buddhism, "life is suffering" are not talking about themselves for, as I said, they aren't suffering. What they're actually doing is drawing our attention to the section of the human population who live in appalling conditions, those whose lives are a constant struggle, those who don't know what fun means, and so on. Let's call such people les misérables

Here's the million dollar question aimed at antintalists: can't the les misérables work their way up the social ladder and themselves become antinatalists? Surely they can, les misérables are humans, endowed with the same capabilities, as antinatalists. If so, the antinatlist position is untenable; after all les misérables can achieve the same level of happiness that allows antinatalists to cogitate about them.

Nevertheless, there's a noticeable trend, even if only in certain patches of the global community, in the human condition in that the overall situation vis-à-vis happiness has shown some definite improvement. — TheMadFool

Cool. But is having children now risk free? No. If not what justifies the risk?

The antinatalist would tell you: Nothing. What would you say?

can't the les misérables work their way up the social ladder and themselves become antinatalists? Surely they can — TheMadFool

Not as surely as you might think.

If so, the antinatlist position is untenable; after all les misérables can achieve the same level of happiness that allows antinatalists to cogitate about them. — TheMadFool

Why does that make the position untenable?

It would only be untenable if you can demonstrate that les Misérables will achieve the same level of happiness. Demonstrably, that's not the case. That they can is not sufficient.

:ok: I having nothing more to say.