Do you mean when somebody - there is not somebody, but how can you express this correctly in natural language - does not born, it will not harm anybody? — Antinatalist
I think, Benatar is partly wrong. Theoretically, could be so that life is better than non-life. I personally don´t think it´s true in general, but I like to argue also against my own arguments.
So, if it so that life is better for someone/some people/everyone than not being at all, is true like Benatar have said there is no harm of losing something or suffering for something good, which cannot be realized. Because there is no one who could suffer from those things. — Antinatalist
Let´s assume that life is always better than not life at all, and somehow we can know this fact. Let´s assume that what we call non-life is something where is no experiences at all, there is no one who could experience anything at all.
I don´t think, even in this situation, that no one has duty to reproduce. I don´t think that not having a child is harm doing for anyone (then again, I have to agree with Benatar on this, although I think he is partly wrong on asymmetry argument). Even situation like this, I don´t think it´s obligation to reproduce. — Antinatalist
↪Antinatalist
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
Do you think of this when deciding what gift to buy a friend for an occasion then settling on nothing since the gift could be harmful? — khaled
I find it dubious that any action that can risk harming someone automatically becomes wrong if you don’t have their consent. — khaled
Even situation like this, I don´t think it´s obligation to reproduce. — Antinatalist
You seem to have somewhat of a false dichotomy going on. Either one must have children or one must not have children. — khaled
Gift could be harmful, but comparing gift to having a child is, although natural, but also very extreme thing to do. — Antinatalist
Having a child is not a trivial everyday task. — Antinatalist
I think the main axiom here is that prevented harms is more important than missed goods (when nobody exists to be deprived). That is the basic axiom which the rest of the asymmetry seems to follow. And it does make sense. No person to miss out on the goods of life is neutral. A person missing out on harms, is good. — schopenhauer1
Even situation like this, I don´t think it´s obligation to reproduce. — Antinatalist
I don't quite follow what you are trying to say here. I think with Benatar's asymmetry you simply have to keep in mind that preventing harm is more important than happiness-bringing. I guess that is the basic asymmetry. — schopenhauer1
So you also support that poor people shouldn't have kids? Poor people should be deprived of that joy in their lives? — dimosthenis9
Kids from poor families can't live happily? — dimosthenis9
Only rich family's kids? — dimosthenis9
Kids need love way much more than money. — dimosthenis9
If a poor guy loves his kids he will do whatever to raise them happily. Even with little money. — dimosthenis9
I don't think that this is your intention but poor people shouldn't have kids sounds kind of racist to me. — dimosthenis9
No, it's just too rare to call having kids in that scenario anything less than irresponsibility. — khaled
You can't magically love people so much they stop being hungry — khaled
It doesn't target any specific race, so it isn't. — khaled
Anyways, this doesn't seem like it's going anywhere, bye. — khaled
Gift could be harmful, but comparing gift to having a child is, although natural, but also very extreme thing to do.
— Antinatalist
Having a child is not a trivial everyday task.
— Antinatalist
I'm pointing out that just because something is an unconsented imposition clearly doesn't automatically make it wrong. So you need more premises to make the case that this specific unconsented imposition (having kids) is wrong. I am not comparing having kids to giving gifts, I'm pointing out that they share the same properties and you think one is fine while the other isn't. That needs explaining. — khaled
One point of view is that you can be unpolite, and give the gift back; or you can decide to never use it. Or throw it away. You can not return your life for anyone.
Of course some will say, that if your life is miserable, you can always make suicide. — Antinatalist
Once born, however, a human being is highly unlikely to have the sufficient skills to commit suicide before the age of five – often, in fact, not before turning ten or even fifteen. When this wish arises and the individual aims to fulfill it, surrounding people strive to prevent the suicide almost without exceptions if they only can. Furthermore, a vast number of highly retarded people exist who, due to their condition, will never really be able to commit suicide. One must in any case consider the possibility of having to live a perhaps highly agonizing period of life before suicide, due to a choice – that of creating life – for which the individual him/herself is not responsible — Antinatalist
↪Antinatalist
Once born, however, a human being is highly unlikely to have the sufficient skills to commit suicide before the age of five – often, in fact, not before turning ten or even fifteen. When this wish arises and the individual aims to fulfill it, surrounding people strive to prevent the suicide almost without exceptions if they only can. Furthermore, a vast number of highly retarded people exist who, due to their condition, will never really be able to commit suicide. One must in any case consider the possibility of having to live a perhaps highly agonizing period of life before suicide, due to a choice – that of creating life – for which the individual him/herself is not responsible
— Antinatalist
Your objection seems to be that not everyone can commit suicide, but everyone can return the gift. I don't find that convincing, but does it mean that if painless assisted suicide was a right, you wouldn't be AN? — khaled
I think I have written this text earlier to this forum (the following text is from my original article, which is a little bit longer than the one I posted here). — Antinatalist
↪Antinatalist So you think there is something wrong with letting people commit suicide while they’re young, and at the same time you think that them not being able to do so is unjust? How can you have both? — khaled
To procreate is to impose a whole lifetime in this world on another person without that person's prior consent. Normally it is wrong - seriously wrong - to make a major imposition on another person without their prior consent. We recognize this in other contexts. And it doesn't get much more major than imposing a lifetime here on another person. So that's one reason - a Kantian reason - to think that procreation is default wrong. — Bartricks
↪I like sushi
I hadn't been participating in this discussion. I generally avoid anti-natalist threads. But it was a slow day and decided to take a look. I think anti-natalists like to project their own misery onto the rest of us without any sign of self-awareness. I find it hard to take them seriously. — T Clark
I think anti-natalists like to project their own misery onto the rest of us without any sign of self-awareness. — T Clark
What an ignorant and irrelevant thing to say. — Bartricks
Then there's the irrelevance. Whether antinatalism is true or not h as nothing to do with the happiness or misery of antinatalists themselves. — Bartricks
It's a puzzler, isn't it - does having more money and more time and fewer responsibilities make one happier or more miserable? It's a bit like "is hitting your hand with a hammer likely to make you more happy or less happy?" I just don't know! — Bartricks
if the arguments of antinatalists do no more than express their own misery - which can't possibly be true in my case, as I am not at all miserable — Bartricks
What do the childfree have more of? Money and time. What do they have less of? Responsibility. So, more money and time. Fewer responsibilities. More money. More time. Fewer responsibilities. Hmm. It's a puzzler, isn't it - does having more money and more time and fewer responsibilities make one happier or more miserable? It's a bit like "is hitting your hand with a hammer likely to make you more happy or less happy?" I just don't know! — Bartricks
I think anti-natalists like to project their own misery onto the rest of us without any sign of self-awareness. — T Clark
Just do some research. The childfree are happier.
You seem to be misusing the word 'logical'. — Bartricks
We are also cleverer. — Bartricks
For instance, this is a philosophy forum. How many of the greats had kids? Not many. — Bartricks
I do not understand your point. You say having kids is a choice. Yes, so? I am arguing that it is a choice one ought not to make. And there are a bundle of reasons for thinking this. — Bartricks
So, do you think it is ok to impose something very considerable on another person without their consent? — Bartricks
I consider myself a happy person, yet I find the antinatalist argument quite convincing. It doesn't mean I like the implications, but the nature of things as it is apparent to me is not affected by me liking or disliking it. — Tzeentch
It's also poorly supported, no matter how convincing you find it. And by "poorly supported" I mean "silly." — T Clark
That question would be valid only if there was a way to "ask" the unborn kid if it want that or not. Since that it's purely impossible the choice to be made is on parent's hands. Simply as that. — dimosthenis9
I don't see how that is a good characterization. Why is it "silly"? See all my recent threads. — schopenhauer1
That question would be valid only if there was a way to "ask" the unborn kid if it want that or not. Since that it's purely impossible the choice to be made is on parent's hands. — dimosthenis9
Where exactly is the problem? Why his choice is wrong and yours is right?? — dimosthenis9
My point is the same as I wrote before: it is NOT a matter of right or wrong. — 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.