These are sufficient arguments not to reproduce, not to create human life in to this world. — Antinatalist
A Linkola-spirited argument to this could be: "Only what is can have value. Non-life cannot have value."
A possible response could be: "Maybe so, but similarly only what is can have non-value." — Antinatalist
Is it wrong to have children?
Foreword: First of all, I´m definitely against murder. — Antinatalist
It's wrong to have children iff you are compelled to have them, or you're having them transactionally, or you deliberately have them even though you either (A) cannot financially afford to feed cloth shelter & educate them or (B) cannot emotionally afford to care for and cultivate them lovingly. — 180 Proof
These are sufficient arguments not to reproduce, not to create human life in to this world.
— Antinatalist
Sorry, I missed the arguments? What argument? Suffering isn’t necessarily ‘negative’ either. It is ephemeral and allows learning. Learning is ‘suffering’ to some degree. — I like sushi
Next thing that bothered me is comparing apples with oranges. Saying a statue is like a creating a baby? Is a baby a piece of art now. That just doesn’t work. Analogies are not particularly helpful here I feel. — I like sushi
Another point …
A Linkola-spirited argument to this could be: "Only what is can have value. Non-life cannot have value."
A possible response could be: "Maybe so, but similarly only what is can have non-value."
— Antinatalist
That is just plain nonsense.
The glaringly obvious point that needs to be addressed is what ‘good’ means and what ‘wrong’ means. Also, what exactly is ‘suffering’ and given that there is an underlying idea that life is only worth living if it is pleasure for the most part seems a bit strange. — I like sushi
It's wrong to have children iff you are compelled to have them, or you're having them transactionally, or you deliberately have them even though you either (A) cannot financially afford to feed cloth shelter & educate them or (B) cannot emotionally afford to care for and cultivate them lovingly. By these criteria it's abundantly clear that too many people should not have children who nonetheless have always had and will keep on having them anyway. — 180 Proof
Antinatalist I don’t buy any of that. Nor do I find it logically persuasive. Some people REALLY SUFFER therefore having children is bad? That is not even weak, it’s just plain silly.
Note: I’m assuming there is more? If not take the bombast as not bombast :) — I like sushi
cannot financially afford to feed cloth shelter & educate them — 180 Proof
↪Antinatalist
Hi Antinatalist, as you may already know, I like your arguments.. Things that I have to add here:
Unnecessary, and unwanted harmful impositions are wrong, period, entailed in the fact that it is on someone else's behalf. All life has some minor transactional harms.. Even giving someone a gift can lead to some harm (butterfly affect maybe). — schopenhauer1
However birth is one example where absolutely no harm will follow to any ONE (as they won't exist), and no ONE misses out either (Benatarian asymmetry). — schopenhauer1
2) Ethics should be based on deontological grounds more than utilitarian, but this doesn't mean that degrees of harm are not existent. Thus, as an example, a very low level theft is wrong, but not as wrong as a theft of someone's life savings or life saving drugs.
3) Amelioration is inherent in existence. That is to say, we are always compromising minimal harms to alleviate lesser harms. Perhaps the cost of a low level harm of a surprise party (because the person doesn't like being surprised) is what must happen in living in any social milieu. We are always compromising, and imposing on others by necessity. Procreation prevents any need for amelioration. All harms are prevented with no collateral damage.
a) No one is obligated to bring about happy people
b) We are obligated to prevent unnecessary harm if it's possible.
c) Not procreating prevents all unnecessary harm for another person (and conversely doesn't create unnecessary harm on their behalf).
d) Once existing, ameliorations must take place for life to move forward. Thus though things can have a low level harm, they can be necessary to ameliorate greater harms. — schopenhauer1
Finally, nobody will know is it better for human being born into this world or not. However, we know that if child born into this world, her/his life could be painful, perhaps she/he will suffer really hard. — Antinatalist
Even situation like this, I don´t think it´s obligation to reproduce. — Antinatalist
Help raise some other poor parent's impoverished babies instead of breeding more misery. — 180 Proof
No I don't want to. I want to have my own kids and raise them with no misery at all. Why should I help others kid and deprive myself from the joy of having my own kids just because I m poor — dimosthenis9
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.