↪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
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
↪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
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
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
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
Doesn't that imply that you find human creatures unworthy of living? — dimosthenis9
imagine all the world's women decide they don't want to have kids. You think it is ok to rape them? — Bartricks
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
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
But I think these good things in life are far from balancing the bad ones — Antinatalist
My point of view is that preventing harm is a higher value than bringing happiness. — Antinatalist
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
But I think these good things in life are far from balancing the bad ones
— Antinatalist
Totally disagree. — dimosthenis9
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
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
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
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
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
Even if you were right, your point of view is some kind of utilitarianism — Antinatalist
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
My ethics is to respect people who already exist, their lives have a great value - even when they have bad ones — Antinatalist
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
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
As you don't seem capable of understanding this, imagine someone cannot give consent to sex - does that make sex with them ok? — Bartricks
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
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? — dimosthenis9
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
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
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
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.