I am currently a moral nihilist. I don't think moral claims can have a truth value.

But nihilism doesn't favour anyone because it means all value statements have no truth value.

I think that you can talk meaningfully about harm and prove that creating life creates harm. I don't think you can deny that harms are caused by creating life, that wouldn't exist otherwise.

Creating a child is creating someone else who can form their own opinion about having been created so I don't think someone can be told that their parents did them no wrong because they are the person who is having the requisite experiences.

It may come down to a battle of moral intuitions that can't be resolved.

Personally I think the level of harm humans have and do experience like genocide, war, famine and disease etc outweighs any of life's pleasures.

I think that if something is actually wrong then opinions don't matter.

The conviction something is wrong backed up by arguments and evidence means that someone's moral position is strongest.

So in this sense I am not a moral relativist. Either nothing is right or wrong or there is a moral fact.

As I mentioned about harm previously I think harm is objective and even without morality a calculation of harms can be made. My idea of harm is based on my own ability to experiences pain and the belief other humans have similar experiences.

Rephrased it reads "I didn't understand the point of the thread, nor properly interpret the OP" Is this literally asking about the morality of producing children?

↪Antinatalist Rephrased it reads "I didn't understand the point of the thread, nor properly interpret the OP" Is this literally asking about the morality of producing children? — Cheshire

My statement is that having children is morally wrong.
I answered with following citation of my original text to I like sushi:

The basic argument is as follows: we have no moral right to cause something that radically changes the existence of another individual or – to be more precise: from non-existence to existence or vice versa (in other words, from a non-individual/+ non-existence into existence or vice versa is also regarded as a change here), or to directly affect the existence of another human being if it is not possible to hear this individual in the matter.

In case A does not have a child – and the consequence of this choice is that a greater bad will take place than in the event of A having a child – A will still not have actively influenced the occurrence of this bad. Let us now assume the opposite: A has a child, and the consequence of this choice is that a greater bad will take place than in the event of A not having a child. In this case, it is unquestionably clear that A has actively affected the materialization of this bad. — Antinatalist

Answer me something that I was always curious about antinatalists. I asked the same to Bartricks also.

Let's suppose that the best scenario for you happen. And all people adopt your theory. So at the end your final claim is that humanity should stop existing right?? That no more kids, no more humans.
You find that rational?? It was always one of the main reasons I never could understand that kind of Logic! You find logical humanity to end cause we just "can't ask" an unborn, NonExisting creature?? Really that sounds rational to you??Just asking, really.

And at the end since your final conclusion is that. Then why you call yourselves antinatalists and not anti humanists?? It would be a more honest name, imo at least.

↪Antinatalist Answer me something that I was always curious about antinatalists. I asked the same to Bartricks also.

Let's suppose that the best scenario for you happen. And all people adopt your theory. So at the end your final claim is that humanity should stop existing right?? That no more kids, no more humans.
You find that rational?? It was always one of the main reasons I never could understand that kind of Logic! You find logical humanity to end cause we just "can't ask" an unborn, NonExisting creature?? Really that sounds rational to you??Just asking, really. — dimosthenis9

It may not sound rational of point of selfish gene (little bit anthropomorphism here). I see evolution simply as a mechanism. There are no physical laws for that human beings have to exist.
I see antinatalism as a rational, but unpopular philosophical view.

And at the end since your final conclusion is that. Then why you call yourselves antinatalists and not anti humanists?? It would be a more honest name, imo at least — dimosthenis9

What is humanity? There is many ways to use word/concept "Humanity" or "Humanism". Let´s use "Humanism" I suppose the way you use it (you can correct me if your view is different). It is something good. Something unselfish, peace-loving, something which reach for love and justice.

On that perspective I find antinatalism very humanistic point of view.

Let´s use "Humanism" I suppose the way you use it (you can correct me if your view is different). It is something good. Something unselfish, peace-loving, something which reach for love and justice.

On that perspective I find antinatalism very humanistic point of view. — Antinatalist

I used the word humanism here as to describe "human species".People.
How you find antinatalism humanistic(with the way you defined it) since the ultimate result of your theory would be a totally disappearance of humans? An end to human nature?? I really can't understand this.
Doesn't that imply that you find human creatures unworthy of living? Is this a different kind of "love" for humans and I m the only one who doesn't get it? (maybe I am, don't know).

Let´s use "Humanism" I suppose the way you use it (you can correct me if your view is different). It is something good. Something unselfish, peace-loving, something which reach for love and justice.

On that perspective I find antinatalism very humanistic point of view.
— Antinatalist

I used the word humanism here as to describe "human species".People.
How you find antinatalism humanistic(with the way you defined it) since the ultimate result of your theory would be a totally disappearance of humans? An end to human nature?? I really can't understand this.
Doesn't that imply that you find human creatures unworthy of living? Is this a different kind of "love" for humans and I m the only one who doesn't get it? (maybe I am, don't know). — dimosthenis9

I will try to clarify my view for you.

My main reason for my antinatalistic view is few post above, so I don´t repeat it here. A different kind of perspective for antinatalistic philosophy is first of all take a long look to world, human beings, all mankind.

Doesn't that imply that you find human creatures unworthy of living? — dimosthenis9

I would prefer to turn this question upside down. Life is for some people, at least, such a terrible burden that is certainly not worth of living. In earlier post I have touched the problem of suicide in many cases.
The suicide is not a real option for all people, who live misery lives (like almost all abused children, many mentally retarded people - and I don´t mean that all retard people live misery life, and I have to underline, because I have often become misunderstood, my point of view is that the value of life of mentally handicapped is as important as anyone else’s).

But many mentally retarded people - cause of environment or their own mental condition - are not capable for doing suicide, even when their life is so miserable, that they self think it is not worth continuing. And think about children who suffer sexual abuse without any way out. That is just awful, pure evil.

I think the love for people, all mankind, is realized when they don't have to be born in the first place. When there are no humans, there are no wars, concentration camps, genocides, famine, rapes and other sexual abuse, any other violence, no suffering for losing your loved ones, physical pain and so on.

Of course you can say, in that case there are also not the good things which come with life. And you are right about that. But I think these good things in life are far from balancing the bad ones.

And even if I were wrong in the previous sentence, and we also somehow could come to conclusion that the happiness and other good things outweighs the bad, I still don´t think it is right to reproduce (let´s forget my main reason for antinatalism and think only the things I have dealt with in this post).

Utilitarians think the other way. If the good outweighs the bad in life, then having a child in this world is probably a good thing. On average, from utilitarian point of view. But I don´t think that even when considering life only from utilitarian perspective, we could come to the conclusion that in this real world good outweighs the bad.

My point of view is that preventing harm is a higher value than bringing happiness. Philosopher Sami Pihlström, who is not an antinatalist, and whose views differ in many issues from my own, says utilitarianism is not an ethical theory at all. I agree with him on that.

imagine all the world's women decide they don't want to have kids. You think it is ok to rape them?
The human species is not a person. It doesn't have interests. It doesn't have desires. It's just a term for a collection of persons whose bodies have some things in common, namely a certain genetic history. No one owes it any obligations.

imagine all the world's women decide they don't want to have kids. You think it is ok to rape them? — Bartricks

Your mind is still stuck in the "rape" thing. I already answered you that no its not right at all. And I also mentioned you that is totally irrational to compare a living woman's choice(which she is entitled to have and to express it), with an unborn, non existing creature "potential choice".

If you find them similar and same cases,i don't have anything more to say.

I would prefer to turn this question upside down. Life is for some people, at least, such a terrible burden that is certainly not worth of living. In earlier post I have touched the problem of suicide in many cases. — Antinatalist

That upside down thing doesn't answer at all to my question but anyway.

You keep referring to all those who suffer (and there are many indeed). You don't say anything about those who don't see life as suffering at all. And there are also many!
So since some suffer (even if some of those still prefer life as I mentioned to you at previous post) let's not have kids at all from the fear of the potential suffering! Let's end human existence. Sounds logical??

When there are no humans, there are no wars, concentration camps, genocides, famine, rapes and other sexual abuse, any other violence, no suffering for losing your loved ones, physical pain and so on. — Antinatalist

So you actually admit that you do want Humans to disappear. You just try to present it like a "good", "unselfish", "moral" thing. Sorry but there is no way to accept that. It is totally out of my logic.

But I think these good things in life are far from balancing the bad ones — Antinatalist

Totally disagree.

My point of view is that preventing harm is a higher value than bringing happiness. — Antinatalist

Your point of view ends with the conclusion : that preventing harm is a higher value than life itself at the very end!! And this is something that my Logic fails to follow. It just stops being logic, for me at least.

Anyway as to sum up, cause I think I played almost all my "cards" here and I don't have anything else to add.

I always respect all kind of opinions,even if I don't agree. I respect antinatalists too. But for me as I mentioned to another post this issue can never be a matter of right or wrong! That base is absolutely false for me. It is 100% a simple matter of choice.

Humans just find another reason to practice their favorite "hobby". Split into groups and fight! Making an issue out of nowhere,like in many other cases. Cause they always feel that their choice only is the right one and everyone should do as they do.
That's all for me.

dimosthenis9
303
I would prefer to turn this question upside down. Life is for some people, at least, such a terrible burden that is certainly not worth of living. In earlier post I have touched the problem of suicide in many cases.
— Antinatalist

That upside down thing doesn't answer at all to my question but anyway.

You keep referring to all those who suffer (and there are many indeed). You don't say anything about those who don't see life as suffering at all. And there are also many!
So since some suffer (even if some of those still prefer life as I mentioned to you at previous post) let's not have kids at all from the fear of the potential suffering! Let's end human existence. Sounds logical??

When there are no humans, there are no wars, concentration camps, genocides, famine, rapes and other sexual abuse, any other violence, no suffering for losing your loved ones, physical pain and so on.
— Antinatalist
— dimosthenis9

So you actually admit that you do want Humans to disappear. You just try to present it like a "good", "unselfish", "moral" thing. Sorry but there is no way to accept that. It is totally out of my logic. — dimosthenis9

Yes, I want human race to disappear. By voluntary choice. Not very realistic that this will happen in near future, but I think that way.

But I think these good things in life are far from balancing the bad ones
— Antinatalist

Totally disagree. — dimosthenis9

I have touched the subject in my original text, in chapter Utilitarianism and the best possible world. Even if you were right, your point of view is some kind of utilitarianism. I think utilitarianism is a cruel philosophical ideology.

My point of view is that preventing harm is a higher value than bringing happiness.
— Antinatalist

Your point of view ends with the conclusion : that preventing harm is a higher value than life itself at the very end!! And this is something that my Logic fails to follow. It just stops being logic, for me at least. — dimosthenis9

Preventing harm by not having a child is greater value than giving life for someone not yet existing. Not "giving a life" for someone not existing, we are not doing harm for anyone. But by "giving a life" for yet not existing, we are doing harm for someone who will exist because of this act. I agree with David Benatar with his asymmetry argument.

My ethics is to respect people who already exist, their lives have a great value - even when they have bad ones (Life can have also negative value, but we have to respect peoples own choices of their own life), they only have right to end it (euthanasia and killing for self-defense are different kind of situations)). Also their sovereignty as human beings obligates other people not to use them as a mean for something, and same philosophy is also one reason for my antinatalistic views.

Also their sovereignty as human beings obligates other people not to use them as a mean for something, and same philosophy is also one reason for my antinatalistic views. — Antinatalist

Yes, my AN is along similar deontological ends. In the end, it's about not using people. Do not foist unnecessary, non-trivial harms/burdens/impositions to someone else.

Your mind is still stuck in the "rape" thing. I already answered you that no its not right at all. And I also mentioned you that is totally irrational to compare a living woman's choice(which she is entitled to have and to express it), with an unborn, non existing creature "potential choice". — dimosthenis9

That's because you don't seem to understand its import. You said previously that as it is impossible to consent to be born, this somehow means the choice to impose a life on someone here doesn't matter, ethically. That's absurd. There are lots of acts it is impossible for the affected party to consent to, such as acts of rape and other acts of coercion. You can't consent to be raped. You can consent to sex. You can't consent to rape. So, by your logic, that means rape is fine, or at least that the fact it was non-consensual doesn't matter. Which is absurd.

So, the fact one cannot consent to be created is a fact about procreative acts that it is reasonable to suppose makes them immoral.

You said previously that as it is impossible to consent to be born, this somehow means the choice to impose a life on someone here doesn't matter, ethically — Bartricks

Exactly and I support it.

There are lots of acts it is impossible for the affected party to consent to, such as acts of rape and other acts of coercion. You can't consent to be raped. You can consent to sex. You can't consent to rape. So, by your logic, that means rape is fine, or at least that the fact it was non-consensual doesn't matter. Which is absurd. — Bartricks

At the first case (unborn kid) it's purely impossible cause there is no way to know the choice of the unborn kid. It doesn't even have that capability!

At the rape case woman is already alive and of course she has the choice to agree or not with the sex. And she can also express it(yell, scream, hit etc) !We have also the ability to just ask her for what she wants! Ability that we don't have with the unborn kid! So at that case we CAN know her choice.It is a given fact!
It's not impossible at all as it is with the unborn kid. How you find these cases same and that I somehow support rape is beyond my logic power really.

Anyway I think we repeat the same things here over and over again. So let's drop it.

Even if you were right, your point of view is some kind of utilitarianism — Antinatalist

I don't think it is at all. I don't even support utilitarianism. It is just a simple matter of choice for me as I told you. Nothing else.

Yes, I want human race to disappear. By voluntary choice. Not very realistic that this will happen in near future, but I think that way. — Antinatalist

Ok at least now you admit it. I don't agree at all and I find it irrational. But as I told you I respect every opinion so I respect yours also.

My ethics is to respect people who already exist, their lives have a great value - even when they have bad ones — Antinatalist

Sorry but it's not the case here either.
You care about the "rights" and "potential suffering" of an "unborn creature" a "0".But you don't give a fuck for the actual suffering of the ones that are already alive!

If someone wants to have kids. And he truly wants that with all his heart. That will make him so happy and not having will make him miserable for the rest of his life. Well in that case with your theory you "condemn" a living creature's life into ACTUAL suffering and misery by urging him not to be happy and have kids for the sake of the POTENTIAL suffering of a non existing creature! You value potential suffering of a "0" more that the actual suffering of an already living person. So no, please don't say that.

You aren't getting it. You can't consent to be raped. So, the fact it is impossible to consent to an act doesn't mean the act is morally permissible. It typically means the exact opposite.

"Is it wrong to have children?"
Yeah, when children never have their parents.

"If I mistreat you gal,
I sure don't mean you no harm
If I mistreat you gal,
I sure don't mean you no harm
I'm a motherless child
and I don't know right from wrong" — 180 Proof

Alive woman = option ability = possible to consent or not into something = we can(and MUST) ask for her permission, she can say no! If we simply don't ask her and go rape her is totally immoral and wrong!

Unborn kid = 0 option ability =impossible to consent or not into something =we can't ask it simply! No choice option at all here!

You insist comparing these 2 cases and find them similar. Then yes don't get it at all. We will never agree on that. Let's drop it.

Once more: the act of rape cannot be consented to. As you don't seem capable of understanding this, imagine someone cannot give consent to sex - does that make sex with them ok? Er, no. Yes? Lesson: the fact consent for x was unachievable does not make x ok. It - typically - makes it very far from ok.
So, contrary to what you think, the fact the one who is brought into being here by an act of procreation could not consent to it makes such acts far from ok.

Unborn kid = 0 option ability =impossible to consent or not into something =we can't ask it simply! No choice option at all here! — dimosthenis9

But your argument leads to slippery slopes to all sorts of bad conclusions. Answer me this.. Does all life have non-trivial suffering for humans (at least at some point)? If that future person wasn't already born in the first place to need to ameliorate a greater harm with a lesser harm (like let's say a vaccine or schooling), why should someone be able to make a decision on someone else's behalf that puts that future person into conditions of non-trivial suffering? Just because life might have non-suffering aspects doesn't change this fact you are going to put that future person into some form of non-trivial suffering. No one should foist unnecessary, non-trivial suffering on someone else's behalf, just because it's convenient for their preferences, lifestyle, or raised utility.

why should someone be able to make a decision on someone else's behalf that puts that person into conditions of non-trivial suffering? Just because life might have non-suffering aspects doesn't change this fact you are going to put that future person into some form of non-trivial suffering. — schopenhauer1

I think I answered you again on that. Cause that "someone else" you mention is a "0".Simply doesn't exist! So that someone has absolutely no say! It is simple living creatures decision.

At the end the living creature makes the choice for his own happiness" I wanna have kids ". So I will use my body (semen) as to create. What exactly is immoral on that??
Why you value that living creature suffering (since you think he shouldn't have kids) less than the potential suffering of a creature that DOESN'T even exist? Sounds fair and logical for you??

As you don't seem capable of understanding this, imagine someone cannot give consent to sex - does that make sex with them ok? — Bartricks

What you don't seem to understand is that in 1st case that "that someone" is ALIVE
2nd case "that someone" is 0.NOT existing. Nothing.

If you can't understand and see the difference here I don't have anything else to add.

So if people exist before birth you'd agree that procreation was wrong?
And if someone dies, there's no need to honour their will?

It would put the issue in a whole different base for sure. Don't know if I would still agree on that but for sure I would rethink it and reconsider it.
But as I told you again imo I don't think they exist "somewhere else" already.

I think I answered you again on that. Cause that "someone else" you mention is a "0".Simply doesn't exist! So that someone has absolutely no say! It is simple living creatures decision. — dimosthenis9

No, I don't think you really believe the implications of this. Think about it. Okay, so there's no actual child that exists yet... What if you KNEW that the future child would be born into horrible circumstances, like 100% right after birth. Does this fact not affect anything? Your answer will tell me a lot.

What if you KNEW that the future child would be born into horrible circumstances, like 100% right after birth. Does this fact not affect anything? Your answer will tell me a lot. — schopenhauer1

You mean like having a disease and be 100% sure that my kid will be born with the same horrible disease also? Did I get it right or you mean something else?

If I get it right. So for sure no. You shouldn't have kids. Cause you ALREADY know the outcome! You know for sure that your kid will have a terrible disease. So you already know it and despite that you condemn it into suffering(or a life with much more suffering than happiness at least) . Nope that isn't right at all! But are we only talking about such cases here with antinatalism?

You’re strange.

The word choices like ‘playing’ tell me something about you. This isn’t a logical discussion. You have an opinion that, as far as I can see, has little to no weight to it.

The comparison I made was to get the point across that we cannot fear causing ‘suffering’ every step in our lives. Every step in your life will cause ‘suffering’ some where. By this logic killing all humans will end their ‘suffering’ yet you’re not for murder … guess you’d have another name for it instead, maybe ‘avoiding collateral damage’?

There is nothing wrong with wanting to experience the joys of parenthood anymore than there is with not wanting to. I think anyone trying to take a moral high ground on what is ‘better’ is something close to what I would term ‘evil’.

Life without suffering isn’t worth living. You learn that as you mature. I guess some people get carried away with the search for some ‘answer’ or ‘solution’ to life. Again, as you mature you may see past this (I hope so).

I like humanity. I want it to keep going because I believe human life has value, because I make judgements. I’m not particularly compassionate towards nihilists or buddhists (same difference to me).

You mean like having a disease and be 100% sure that my kid will be born with the same horrible disease also? Did I get it right or you mean something else? — dimosthenis9

Sure, this works.

If I get it right. So for sure no. You shouldn't have kids. Cause you ALREADY know the outcome! You know for sure that your kid will have a terrible disease. So you already know it and despite that you condemn it into suffering(or a life with much more suffering than happiness at least) . Nope that isn't right at all! But are we only talking about such cases here with antinatalism? — dimosthenis9

Ah wait, so this negates your claim here, which mentioned nothing of suffering:

I think I answered you again on that. Cause that "someone else" you mention is a "0".Simply doesn't exist! So that someone has absolutely no say! It is simple living creatures decision. — dimosthenis9

And thus, as you see procreation does affect someone in the future. If you can agree that all life has some non-trivial harm, then I don't see how it cannot (does not) follow here:

Just because life might have non-suffering aspects doesn't change this fact you are going to put that future person into some form of non-trivial suffering. No one should foist unnecessary, non-trivial suffering on someone else's behalf, just because it's convenient for their preferences, lifestyle, or raised utility. — schopenhauer1

The comparison I made was to get the point across that we cannot fear causing ‘suffering’ every step in our lives. Every step in your life will cause ‘suffering’ some where. By this logic killing all humans will end their ‘suffering’ yet you’re not for murder … guess you’d have another name for it instead, maybe ‘avoiding collateral damage’? — I like sushi

It seems exactly the same for me too. Just changing names as to present a situation like an unselfish, moral act etc. The outcome remains the same and doesn't seem logical at all.