I guess this? Yes, we agree that non trivial harm exists for everyone born. — khaled
Ok, now, how do you determine what non trivial harm is without reference to experiences or reports? — khaled
Can we agree on what an imposition is?
Do we agree what non-trivial means?
Do we agree with what unnecessary means?
Do we agree that there is an extra duty of care when it comes to doing something on another person's behalf?
Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? — schopenhauer1
Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? — schopenhauer1
As long as you think non-trivial harm exists for all humans, the argument stands: — schopenhauer1
Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? — schopenhauer1
Do you mean to say that "non trivial harm exists in life" = "Procreation is wrong"?
Because that doesn't follow at all. — khaled
Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? — schopenhauer1
Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? — schopenhauer1
Interesting. Not the reasons I am advocating, but too much population is bound to be bad somewhere, even for our oh-so-clever species. — schopenhauer1
How so? — khaled
Because that's the major claim I am advocating — schopenhauer1
Ok, now, how do you determine what non trivial harm is without reference to experiences or reports? — khaled
I admitted it can even be subjective, instead of some objective list of wrongs. — schopenhauer1
So if a slave was fine with his conditions then we classify his enslavement as a non-trivial imposition? — khaled
Which I agreed with forever ago. But that's not what I asked you in any way shape or form. — khaled
And you said you'll answer my question but you need me to answer first. I have answered. Now. If a slave was fine with his conditions then we classify his enslavement as a non-trivial imposition?
Because you clearly don't think it's purely subjective. — khaled
This is the main justification (at least in our dialectic context) for antinatalism. — schopenhauer1
I think now you are indeed arguing for argument's sake. — schopenhauer1
This is tangential to that major claim, and doesn't need to be argued to support it. — schopenhauer1
Yes.... I am aware it is tangential. Or do you wanna go over the same grounds over and over? — khaled
No, I think it is important though to dileneate the major from the tangential and to have some resolve somewhere. — schopenhauer1
This would’ve been a point in our last discussion but I got tired and deleted it. Yes, do please go back to those examples. Show me how you can derive that Willy wonka’s forced game is a non trivial imposition, without referring in any way to the victims opinions of their situation. I just don’t see how you “objectively” measure how bad an imposition is with no reference to the person being imposed upon. What’s the “set of features” that go into making an imposition non trivial? A certain duration? A certain number of work hours? — khaled
There are factors that could justify the making of significant decisions on someone else's behalf that apply to the raising of children, and not to the having of children. — Tzeentch
The first, acting on behalf of another person's well-being. Assuming the parents' primary concern is the happiness of their child, this applied to the raising of children. However, the act of having children does not involve this, since there is no child on behalf of whose well-being one can act. — Tzeentch
If the raising of children is not done with 1. The well-being of the child as its primary concern, and 2. The wisdom required to achieve that well-being, then the raising of children is not a moral act either. — Tzeentch
I literally explained that this was a tangent from the outset. What's got you so worked up? — khaled
The major premise is more important to me than this argument which I am not as invested in — schopenhauer1
So, I assume you won't answer? I would think that how you determine "non trivial" is very crucial considering literally everyone on planet earth would agree to "foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong". — khaled
I am helping you out here by delineating the arguments... — schopenhauer1
You agreed that every human experiences non-trivial harm. That we agreed upon. So this debate is tangential to that fact, right? — schopenhauer1
For the 3rd time. Yes. Will you or will you not answer the question? — khaled
I tried to engage with you in a meaningful way about this topic. This type of response isn't exactly going to prompt me to keep trying. — Tzeentch
Time is running out for us - either we declare a moratorium on birthing or we all die of starvation, quite possibly some other complication of overpopulation will do us in. — TheMadFool
That's a really really interesting view. And it deserves another thread on its own. Big one.
But I think at this one we examine the "basic theory of antinatalism" under "normal" circumstances. That is no starvation threat (for now) at least.
I think we try to compare 2 different types of thinking .2 different "theories". And as to do that fairly, we should examine them under the exact same circumstances. If we want a fair outcome out of this discussion. Imo at least.
But what you mentioned is really interesting and almost for sure a question that humanity will be forced to face in future. — dimosthenis9
I think my response was completely meaningful, if a bit snarky. "Says who?" can be translated as "I disagree" with the snark added to tweak you for self-righteousness. — T Clark
Strange logic.
— Antinatalist
What? We don't consider the present is exactly the same as the projected future states? How do we pretend cardiac base tissue is a person, by other means? — Cheshire
That way both natalists and antinatalists will have nothing to complain about as there's enough for everybody - happy, content lives are possible. — TheMadFool
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.