"However, I accept a point of view that for some human being life could be a better option than non-being. But we could never reach any kind of certainty at any case, any circumstances, at any place that life is better for any unborn, potential person."
But this fact, it could be a better option than non-being, does not justify the act of having a child. — Antinatalist
There underlies the fact that somebody not existing has no needs, so absence of good is not a bad thing. It perhaps is not a "good" thing, but at least it is a neutral thing. Absence of bad is good even if there is nobody enjoying it. Presence of bad is bad, that will be quite clear. I don´t understand how you don´t get this. — Antinatalist
Do you really think that way? — Antinatalist
I don´t see any thing, which are perceived as enjoyable, happy etc.. could ever balance the badness of Auschwitzes. — Antinatalist
We are living now. We can make decisions for the future. And we know the pain and pleasure are things the possible upcoming child is most likely to face. I surely can think of a universe without human beings, and a universe without life at all. — Antinatalist
This is one thing we agree on, at least. — Antinatalist
You simply do not get it, the main principle for antinatalism is: you can not do harm someone who does not exist. — Antinatalist
You simply do not get it, the main principle for antinatalism is: you can not do harm someone who does not exist. It is a very different case, when someone is already born and living in this world. On cowardness, I'm pretty sure I find it more on natalists, natalism is, after all, far more socially acceptable ideology than antinatalism. As an antinatalist, you are a rebel. And not that kind of "rebel" you find on mainstream movies or some MTV videos, which were watched when I was young. — Antinatalist
As a matter of fact it is not depriving anything for anybody, because there is nobody existing. — Antinatalist
Miscarry could be tragic, but those who we see suffering from it are usually the parents of the potential child. It is more about the expectations of the parents than missing the life of the possible upcoming child. — Antinatalist
If you try to attack the asymmetry argument, the different situation for your example above, is that in your example there are living people, who could feel the loss of something good and possibly feel grief from that. — Antinatalist
Like I said before, my antinatalism is grounded on the fact that having a child is a decision for someone else´s life, whose consent we can not have. The fact that consent is impossible to have, doesn´t make the decision right. It is a decision for someone else´s whole life, it is not a trivial "cross a road or not" kind of decision. — Antinatalist
Do you think that all life experiences subjective non-trivial harm? — schopenhauer1
If so, why wouldn't that be an example of the former? — schopenhauer1
"non trivial harm exists in life" = "Procreation is wrong" — khaled
"non trivial harm exists in life" = "Procreation is wrong"
— khaled — khaled
By your system, it would be wrong to have children even in a utopia where suffering is a choice. Because you don't know whether or not the next person will choose to suffer a non-trivial harm or not, and so their life could contain non-trivial harm, so it's wrong to impose. Basically any imposition becomes wrong, no matter how benign, simply because there is a chance it contributes to a non-trivial harm. — khaled
Secondly: I use at the end of this article the concept of the "potential person" slightly different as R.M. Hare does. My statement is that ´potential person´ has not right to be born, but it has right not to be born. — Antinatalist
Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? — schopenhauer1
I'll add in conditions of unnecessary harms if you need it. — schopenhauer1
You seemed to agree, even if for the sake of argument, that this could be the case — schopenhauer1
Ok, I see a little bit where you are going here.. I don't think it's quite the same causation issue that Benkei argued.. — schopenhauer1
Then no. This would make literally any imposition wrong. Because literally anything can be a condition of unnecessary harm. I can't give someone a gift because by stopping them I could be resulting in them getting into a car accident. In that instance the gift was a condition for the accident, as the accident wouldn't have happened without it. — khaled
Can you please just write what you mean? Instead of arguing that this is better than that which is better than the latter which is worse than the former?
What exactly is it that I seem to agree to? — khaled
Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong?
— schopenhauer1
110% agreed in all situations ever. — khaled
And so now you ask what "trivial" means... And then I said, it doesn't matter to the argument.. All that matters is someone subjectively thinks that they are harmed non-trivially. — schopenhauer1
Like if you gave them the surprise party, and they said "I felt non-trivially harmed" if you asked them.. then that is non-trivially harmed. — schopenhauer1
which you excoriated me for attempting to do (which I still haven't given a definition of yet). — schopenhauer1
Kill everyone then. That way all harm will cease to exist. Auschwitz every last person alive ... it doesn't matter because once they're gone they won't be around to cry about the suffering. Nothing will matter because for humanity there will be nothing given our exitinction ... the MAIN prionciple of an antinatalist is to rile against existence. The main points is that both existing and new life is bad. — I like sushi
I have to take antinatalism as a dishonest philosophy. It does not fit the account to reality, rather bends the reality to the account. I call that a lie. — tim wood
"However, I accept a point of view that for some human being life could be a better option than non-being. But we could never reach any kind of certainty at any case, any circumstances, at any place that life is better for any unborn, potential person."
But this fact, it could be a better option than non-being, does not justify the act of having a child.
— Antinatalist
Neither does it not justify the act of having a child. It's not an argument just an empty statement about something we don't know. — I like sushi
There underlies the fact that somebody not existing has no needs, so absence of good is not a bad thing. It perhaps is not a "good" thing, but at least it is a neutral thing. Absence of bad is good even if there is nobody enjoying it. Presence of bad is bad, that will be quite clear. I don´t understand how you don´t get this. — Antinatalist
I get it. I just think it is a very blinkered view and ignore that the opposite position is equally as 'justified'. Why don't you see the absence of pleasure as bad is the key point here. You've not answered probably because you cannot. Neither have you responded to the lesser or larger degree position because you can happily avoid it by jumping to the complete absence of either with some imaginary non-existing person. Mental hoodwinking yourself doesn't mean it will work on me. — I like sushi
Do you really think that way? — Antinatalist
Do I really think that less 'pleasure' is bad and less 'pain' is good? Of course, who doesn't!? — I like sushi
The only reason you may not is because of the rather slippery terms 'pleasure' and 'pain' which I've previously stated I'm not exactly comfortable with using in this given context as they are far too broad and open to multiple interpretations. — I like sushi
I don´t see any thing, which are perceived as enjoyable, happy etc.. could ever balance the badness of Auschwitzes. — Antinatalist
You sound like a 'utilitarian'. Irony? — I like sushi
We are living now. We can make decisions for the future. And we know the pain and pleasure are things the possible upcoming child is most likely to face. I surely can think of a universe without human beings, and a universe without life at all. — Antinatalist
They will certainly face both. It is not merely 'likely'. Speaking personally I've felt more positive about life than not overall. I understand 'pain' is necessary and I'm not bitter about it any more than I'm angry at the Sun for rising everyday without my express permission (because such would be plain silly).
And no you cannot anymore than you can imagine what bat thinks because you cannot think outside of your own head so don't fool yourself into thinking you can. We are unable to think of nothing in any pure sense - that is actually something Kant pointed out. — I like sushi
This is one thing we agree on, at least. — Antinatalist
And so is the presence of 'pleasure' because they are essentially the same item on a spectrum. Why on earth you decide to focus on the 'given' nature of 'pain' over 'pleasure' you'll have to figure out for yourself. — I like sushi
You simply do not get it, the main principle for antinatalism is: you can not do harm someone who does not exist. — Antinatalist
Kill everyone then. That way all harm will cease to exist. Auschwitz every last person alive ... it doesn't matter because once they're gone they won't be around to cry about the suffering. Nothing will matter because for humanity there will be nothing given our exitinction ... the MAIN prionciple of an antinatalist is to rile against existence. The main points is that both existing and new life is bad. You stated you are not this though so I'm puzzled why you carry the fight for an argument you don't fully agree with - an argument that at it's heart is completely nonsensical. — I like sushi
The only value it has is to instill a question in people about the responsibility people have for themselves and others. Generally though, those putting the argument forward do a terrible job of making this clear and/or resort to pure logic and ignore the subjectivity of such matters. — I like sushi
You simply do not get it, the main principle for antinatalism is: you can not do harm someone who does not exist. It is a very different case, when someone is already born and living in this world. On cowardness, I'm pretty sure I find it more on natalists, natalism is, after all, far more socially acceptable ideology than antinatalism. As an antinatalist, you are a rebel. And not that kind of "rebel" you find on mainstream movies or some MTV videos, which were watched when I was young. — Antinatalist
I get it. I just strongly disagree with it because it is a myopic view. I am NOT saying having children is better than not, I'm saying we have literally no way of coming to any reasonable conclusion one way or the other. We know we do what we do and nature is nature. Beyond that we're essentially along for the ride. Judging that lack of pain is better than a lack of pleasure is the heart of the argument. It will remain a purely subjective one from any individual perspective.
The main point is that there is no conclusive evidence either way but by all means go ahead and think what you want. I am inclined to care about HOW you think not really WHAT you think. By this I mean if you cannot argue against your own beliefs then you've missed something.
Doubt is our saviour not rigid reason or ethical drivel. — I like sushi
Regarding bravery. Being a rebel does not equate to brave. Bravery is facing a fear - ie. having a child and excepting the responsibility that entails rather than avoiding it due to fear - bravery would be to willingly do the right thing regardless of the personal harm it causes to you AND, in a purer sense, to do so without any other person's knowledge of what you'd done. — I like sushi
The above is where my interest in ethics lies. Everything everyone says about any ethical issue is mostly hollow and empty. Meaning no matter what we say in the public sphere we cannot escape the ego and self-hoodwinking involved. We cannot explore the really gritty and dark sides of ourselves in the public eye because it is shunned. The best we can do is throw out certain hypotheticals and encourage people to play with them and make them into their own personal monstrosities. Again, the benefit is enormous BUT so i sthe risk. The question remains how on earth we can make any kind of judgement about what is going too far and what is too little. This is PRECISELY where the dualistic items of 'pain' and 'pleasure' presented in this thread come into fruitition. — I like sushi
As a matter of fact it is not depriving anything for anybody, because there is nobody existing. — Antinatalist
Benatar's point not mine. I was just stating 'depriving someone of pain' is his focus (and he says so). Why not focus on 'depriving some non-existing person of pleasure'. Because it doesn't suit the argument. It is done very superficially in the quote you presented. — I like sushi
Miscarry could be tragic, but those who we see suffering from it are usually the parents of the potential child. It is more about the expectations of the parents than missing the life of the possible upcoming child. — Antinatalist
I think I'll call the aboive clutching at straws because it doesn't make any sense. Check you've not talked yourself into a corner please. Just for the record I have experienced this personally but didn't want to divulge that to avoid vapid sympathy. And I do think from time to time about what someone who never exists misses out on (and I'm not talking about 'pain'). — I like sushi
note: Benatar said people don't do this. Probably because he doesn't? I cannot blame him for being lazy I guess. It is what it is. — I like sushi
If you try to attack the asymmetry argument, the different situation for your example above, is that in your example there are living people, who could feel the loss of something good and possibly feel grief from that.
— Antinatalist — I like sushi
I didn't attack it. I just dismantled it with ease. — I like sushi
If you wish to imagine a world of non-existing people as an argument do ahead and fool yourself. His point boils down to absence of pain is better than the presence of pleasure (with no explanation that of substance). Your argument has now done the nihilistic/buddhist trick of over stating none of it really matters if no one can be around to experience ... so fucking what? I'll tell you! Then the whole 'ethics' of it is utterly redundant ... that isn't a reasonable argument so there is in fact NO argument to be had here. We may as well argue that green smells better than red in midsummer when the kettle is flying east. — I like sushi
The position is that (Benatar) pain bad and pleasure not good enough. The first step toward nihilism/buddhism. The first step towards denying repsonsibility, having excemption from your actions and giving up your will to do anything about anything. It is cowardice AND it is a cowardice we HAVE TO dip into at some point in our lives in order to carrying the wonderul/scary burden of existing with aplume. — I like sushi
Like I said before, my antinatalism is grounded on the fact that having a child is a decision for someone else´s life, whose consent we can not have. The fact that consent is impossible to have, doesn´t make the decision right. It is a decision for someone else´s whole life, it is not a trivial "cross a road or not" kind of decision. — Antinatalist
Well then, it's a pretty unstable grounding don't you think? You are happy to talk about living people when it suits and understand perfectly well that non-existing items don't exist, yet you say 'consent' is required for something that doesn't exist? That is complete nonsense! — I like sushi
There is no 'consent' and that doesn't make the decision right or wrong, good or bad. Why on earth do you insist that it can be right or wrong? I'm sure your answer will go along the lines of 'because of pain,' to which I could just keep repeating myself by saying what about 'pleasure' and the almost certain fact that the vast majority of people living are quite capable and excepting of the fact that life is not just a happy go lucky experience of eternal bliss. Shit happens, and that's not the end of the world beleive it or not. Some people will have more misfortune than others, but that is just entropy at work it is NOT a valid reason to cut away the pleasure of one because of the pain of another when both of these items are one and the same thing at heart. — I like sushi
You are not in any position to judge and for you that is enough because you believe that pain outweighs pleasure, or rather that it is not worth the risk just incase it does because absence of pleasure is not that big of a deal and that our natural 'loss aversion' (pain) is convincing enough for you to declare that although the pain is the same 'amount' compared to 'pleasure' we feel the pain more strongly so ALL life is essentially skewed toward a life of pain rather than one of pleasure.
That I could understand. Any and everything else you've said doesn't add up, presents a one-sided argument, or just contradicts itself. I like contradictions though :) They are usually where the meat is. — I like sushi
Thansk again. I think I'm done here. Hope you have got something from this
bye bye — I like sushi
Secondly: I use at the end of this article the concept of the "potential person" slightly different as R.M. Hare does. My statement is that ´potential person´ has not right to be born, but it has right not to be born.
— Antinatalist
The potential person may have rights, but how would you or anyone else know what they are, or what their preference is. Further, it is not a potential person before it is a potential person. — tim wood
Ante, there ain't no it. And further, reproduction is something people do as what they are. Your argument appears to be along the lines of it being just plain wrong to be what we are. But being, both generally and particularly, is a given. Being cannot be wrong. — tim wood
I have to take antinatalism as a dishonest philosophy. It does not fit the account to reality, rather bends the reality to the account. I call that a lie. — tim wood
Kill everyone then. That way all harm will cease to exist. Auschwitz every last person alive ... it doesn't matter because once they're gone they won't be around to cry about the suffering. Nothing will matter because for humanity there will be nothing given our exitinction ... the MAIN prionciple of an antinatalist is to rile against existence. The main points is that both existing and new life is bad.
— I like sushi
This is kind of my first-glance impression of what anti-natalism seems to be or at least will inevitably lead to as well. Am I incorrect, Antinatalist? How so? — Outlander
Basically if new life happens say unplanned pregnancy regardless of circumstances surrounding it "oh well, we'll let it slide", or at an extreme only if the child is born in an uneducated society where enlightenment, knowledge, and morality simply isn't available or the rare occasion when a medical abortion would be hazardous to the health of the mother, but purposefully doing so (procreating) is immoral. Something like that? What scenario would be valid or is it just as simple as the point you summarized earlier, being "creating life where harm is possible is immoral" thus not explicitly saying any of the things mentioned or alluded to but definitely implying them. — Outlander
You are not in any position to judge and for you that is enough because you believe that pain outweighs pleasure, or rather that it is not worth the risk just incase it does because absence of pleasure is not that big of a deal and that our natural 'loss aversion' (pain) is convincing enough for you to declare that although the pain is the same 'amount' compared to 'pleasure' we feel the pain more strongly so ALL life is essentially skewed toward a life of pain rather than one of pleasure. — I like sushi
Benatar's point not mine. I was just stating 'depriving someone of pain' is his focus (and he says so). Why not focus on 'depriving some non-existing person of pleasure'. Because it doesn't suit the argument. It is done very superficially in the quote you presented.
— I like sushi
I am not linguistic, but ´depriving some non-existing person of pleasure´ does not make sense. — Antinatalist
Antinatalist Your summary is incorrect. I've stated this in the last post I made yet you've interpreted it some other way. I think it's only fair to reiterate ...
1) I put forward that the absence of pleasure deletes pain. They are NOT binary either or concepts. Less pleasure is bad and less pain is good (VERY generally speaking). Generally in the sense tat I've put forward before, pain can be useful and pleasure can be useless/detrimental, but in colloquial terms we can run with one being viewed as 'better' and the other as 'worse' in the immediate NOW experiencing of them. — I like sushi
2) I've stated that there is no one to give consent and that even an existing child in today's world is not deemed self-reflective enough for more matured humans to ask for consent about how they live their lives etc.,. Besides that, from teh get go I clearly stated that the idea of 'right' or 'wrong' was nonsensical but I just stepped past that fo the sake of the discussion (I did state this at the start of our exchange).
My answer regarding euthanasia was carefully worded and not universally applicable ethical law. You shouldn't have a hard time rereading that and retracting your thoughts about what I said. I would absolutely not just agree to anyone saying they wished to die. It would be inhuman to hand a gun to someone having a rough time so they can shoot themselves in the head if they are not in control of their our thoughts/actions due to despair (that was all I meant). From there I just extrapolated to what was most likely and concluded that most people wishing to take their lives are not exactly in a cool calm state of mind. — I like sushi
I don't particularly value consent in every sinngle action I may wish to take. Why should I? I believe being generally polite is enough and I certainly don't go around asking people if they are okay with me doing x or y. I'm not that insecure anymore, but I'm not exactly inconsiderate either. The most important person to ask for consent from is myself (which involves self-restraint and negotiation and sacrifice). — I like sushi
If you want empirical and rational reasons for valuing life over non-life go look for them. I think the question is kind of redundant myself so I don't bother too much with it anymore, but I have before. At the end of the day you just have to come to your own messy place in your head - as we all do - and focus on something you deem worthy of your time and dedication (maybe have a child?). WHat is more important after all as you stated yourself ;) — I like sushi
3) That was just to point out that if one wished to reduce human suffering annihilating the human race would be a sure fire way of doing so and putting an end to the 'endless cycle of pain' as those buddhist types put it. No need to get so dramatic becaus eyou think you've foudn my evil bone :D — I like sushi
4) I am not that keen on rephrasing either so perhaps reread:
You are not in any position to judge and for you that is enough because you believe that pain outweighs pleasure, or rather that it is not worth the risk just incase it does because absence of pleasure is not that big of a deal and that our natural 'loss aversion' (pain) is convincing enough for you to declare that although the pain is the same 'amount' compared to 'pleasure' we feel the pain more strongly so ALL life is essentially skewed toward a life of pain rather than one of pleasure.
— I like sushi
I even offered up some possible evidence to back up your position. I'm not in a position to judge either - regarding any pain vs pleasure analysis - with any kind of accuracy. I am in a position to say that 'pain' and 'pleasure' are basically one and the same, so I would question the point of the question in the first place (as stated from the get go). — I like sushi
FINAL point before we part ways for now ...
Benatar's point not mine. I was just stating 'depriving someone of pain' is his focus (and he says so). Why not focus on 'depriving some non-existing person of pleasure'. Because it doesn't suit the argument. It is done very superficially in the quote you presented.
— I like sushi
I am not linguistic, but ´depriving some non-existing person of pleasure´ does not make sense.
— Antinatalist
Yeah, doesn't make much sense. Yet Benatar talks like this. He says depriving someone of pain (someone who doesn't exist).
FIN :) see you around — I like sushi
I know that I will not have a child in any circumstances. — Antinatalist
Why favor life - pain and pleasure at its purest, leaving nothing out - over non-life (absence of pleasure and pain)? — Antinatalist
'Depriving' is the same as 'denying' basically. Both work fine ... I don't think they work for non-existing entitiesd though, but hey, if you do so be it. If that is a problem then you may not be taking the meaning/s of 'rights,' 'consent' and 'good'/'bad' seriously enough.
I know that I will not have a child in any circumstances.
— Antinatalist
You lack imagaination then ;) SURELY you can think of a possible (albeit highly unlikely reason for having a child?). The thrust of my point here, and often in this thread, being that extreme cases are useful to help sketch out a course of action for lesser degrees BUT they are not the sole reason for inking in a moral dictum ... things in reality are more messy/complex than we can often see. — I like sushi
Why favor life - pain and pleasure at its purest, leaving nothing out - over non-life (absence of pleasure and pain)?
— Antinatalist
Wrong question to get a clear view imo. Yeah, I agree on the surface neither one or the other has presedence when you word it like that. Dig further and then say:
'Does something have precedence over nothing?'
This reveals the flaw. 'Nothing' is a slippery term too. Nothing does nothing and is neither important nor unimportant. Then, due to the diversity of the English language, we may equate 'nothing' with 'absence' ... this is certainly the only way we can understand it. The non-existing is not necessarily the same thing as 'absence' but we could call it 'nothing'. This is a completely different line of thought so I didn't go into it when 'ethics' was on the table.
In this instance we should really explicate what kind of 'absence'/'nothing' we're talking about. As far as I can see we're not talking about anything that make sense so I stated we cannot draw any reasonable judgement on it BUT we can most certainly pass judgement on individual cases (because we do). The universal law of 'Procreation is wrong' - in the antinalism position - makes no sense to me and many others because it rides on the back of too many assumptions that are not delved into by any great degree. — I like sushi
The whole psychological machinations behind the glib terms of 'pleasure' and 'pain' has been given no due consideration in the extract you presented from Benatar. If there are bits you don't agree with that he says (I'm sure there are!) then look into how these points hold up the rest of whatever his argument is. I can say from my perspective, and many others, that I didn't even need to get to the end of the first sentence to question it. I read on hoping for a revelation but nothing came. I found avoidance and real investigation.
To the obvious ... if we feel 'pleasure' we do so because we know 'pain'. If we only feel 'pleasure' do we ONLY feel pleasure REALLY? Show me a person like this please. Plus, does such 'pleasure' necessarily mean this person is ... how should I put it ... 'happily striving through life'? I don't see why this would be so. I know from personal experience that anything I deem 'worthy' has required stress and hardship, and anything that falls in my lap through happenstance is just that. In terms of actually studies done on this matter we do know that we're essentially wired to claim authorship over what we perceived as positive outcomes and deny authorship for perceived negative outcomes. — I like sushi
With such lived delusions and denials going on at various levels of cognition and conscious life I do not think talk of 'consent' to non-beings, OR actual beings, makes a whole lot of sense. Neither do I see a promulgation by an inept and limited being (ie. human being) holding to some universal ethic (whatever it is) makes any kind of sense. For specific INDIVIDUAL instances we can do better because we have more data to work with and can explore the possibles more readily.
Have you heard how the US Airforce tried to create a one size fits all seat for pilots? They took the average width, depth and height of pilot sizes and produce a one size fits all seat. Shock horror, it fit NO ONE. Same principle here. I cannot make sweeping statements about whether it is 'better' or 'worse' (if I followed the antinatalist pattern) to have a child because I am not privy to the live sof every human that has lived. As mentioned previously, I am fairly damn sure that most people prefer to live than to die (and that most if not all consider suicide at some point to some degree). This leaves ONLY the question of 'right' to bring life into the world ... that is just a silly idea. I could ask anyone about their right to do anything or think anything and they may also ask what right they have to ask about their right to do anything and so on ... pointless. — I like sushi
"Rights" are social apparatus hewn over human sociological evolution. They are tied to laws and ideas of 'universal rights' ... no sorry, not for me. Not to say I am not influenced by them I am not that naive. This brings me right back to my main point about the whole body of ethics ... it is not really a matter of what I pronounce and show in the public sphere (ie. here).
We've created ideas of justice and rights in order to live together/apart in a society. I don't think every person requires as much social interaction as others and this can cause great suffering and great pleasure. Neither is BAD or GOOD, but the fact that I exist is something I value because I cannot value not existing because I cannot take part in the act of valuing anything if I don't exist and I take great pleasure and pain in exploring the world. — I like sushi
I don't buy into any 'moral' gibberish about empathy toward non-existing persons or pathetic excuses for shirking responsibility. The Trolley Problem is exactly what this shows in some people. A great many will happily do nothing regardless of pain or suffering OR they just flat out refuse the hypothetical as a hypothetical and childishly avoid the personal task at hand out of ignorance/stupidity (as I used to).
WHo am I to judge you may ask? I am me ... so fucking what?
I hope you would make a choice in the Trolley problem rather than not think at all. I do have a sneaking suspicion you may refuse the problem though and instead equate it with my 'denial' of your antinatalist view of 'right to procreate' but they are not the same thing at all because one is plain English and the other is not far from saying 'Purple under the Tuesday smell of square farts' which is as a grammatical construct is fine, but in terms of meaning requires leaps in metaphor and guesswork.
We only know dark gray and light gray. Don't mistaken them for imagined black or white. We can only stumble around in the degree of shade and light and be thankful when lighter times come about.
Anyway, I'm writing for me without anyone's consent ;) I am TRULY done here but if you wish to start another thread about something un/related that has as much work put into it as your OP here then I will at least read it.
It's been useful to me. Good thread :) — I like sushi
I didn´t tell the reason for my decision, but they think my decision might change, because I was so young then. In later years some of my friends questioned my decision, one woman said I would be a good father. Maybe I would, maybe I won´t. — Antinatalist
The question of ´right to procreate´ is plain English. — Antinatalist
But nowadays I´ve been thinking my decision was wrong.
On the surface, at least, my answer to the question seems utilitarian. — Antinatalist
I think we think same way at many topics. — Antinatalist
I didn´t tell the reason for my decision, but they think my decision might change, because I was so young then. In later years some of my friends questioned my decision, one woman said I would be a good father. Maybe I would, maybe I won´t.
— Antinatalist — I like sushi
Adoption is a possibility and not against your beliefs. I'm sure you could lessen the 'pain' of life for someone well enough that way without the "responsibility/burden" (whatever it is to you) of having brought them into the world. — I like sushi
The question of ´right to procreate´ is plain English.
— Antinatalist
It is. But it doesn't mean anything anymore than the 'right to eat' (ie. sustain yourself off of other living organisms). Such ideas of 'rights' are embedded in judeochristian heritage. The moral codes we've adopted have been for reasons that are not always valid, but if doing X and Y in one society and A and B in another, given our very silly brains, we assume the outcome in each society is dictated by A and B & X and Y even though they are singular factors that may have VERY little influence on what makes a 'better' society. — I like sushi
But nowadays I´ve been thinking my decision was wrong.
On the surface, at least, my answer to the question seems utilitarian.
— Antinatalist
Telling me what you'd do is mostly a waste of time. By doing so you fall into the trap of what society deems as 'right' and what 'right' means. That is a point that most miss with the Trolley Problem. You don't need a 'reason' ... in fact you've porbably seen many people in your life come up with reasons for their actions that are completely fabricated (and they BELIEVE them too!). — I like sushi
I don't think we can escape some idea of 'what is expected of us' as humans, but I sure as hell know we can investigate further and pull back the curtain enough to guard against possible misfortunes due to blinkered views of the world we're about. — I like sushi
I think we think same way at many topics.
— Antinatalist
Most people do. Few, if any, truly speak the same 'language' though so we're necessarily at odds with each other to some degree. I find such conflict to be a primary reason for living.
Most so called 'negative' aspects of life are shunned when they should be embraced, and vice versa. A lot of what people wish for is actually nothing more than self-torture (ie. Freedom viewed as a happy bouncy castle of fluffy bunnies and joy ... NO NO NO! Not even slighty would pure freedom look liek that because Freedom comes with the heavy burden of responsibilty. Th more freedom you have the more responsible you are ... sounds good at first but after you really think about it do doubt you'll make do with taking on 'just as much freedom as I can handle and still live comfortably with'.
There is political storm now as always. Today though technologies have made us view this weather differently. It is becoming harder and harder for me to comprehend what I would've missed if I'd be born 20-30 years ago ... I basically left college around the time the internet was really becoming a social force (facebook was just flourishing). It is hard to notice what drips by with time, but the changes have been really phenomenal and I'm excited to see what happens next. I think the old poltical cycles are going to shift because the whole cognitive landscape of human interaction has startewd to shift a lot AND there is an even bigger thing on the way with CRISPR that will make the invention of the computer look like a mere blip in human history. — I like sushi
Anyway, I'll start a thread up or you can about something else and see if we have anything worth disagreeing about ;)
Done here TRULY :D — I like sushi
It is. But it doesn't mean anything anymore than the 'right to eat' (ie. sustain yourself off of other living organisms). Such ideas of 'rights' are embedded in judeochristian heritage. The moral codes we've adopted have been for reasons that are not always valid, but if doing X and Y in one society and A and B in another, given our very silly brains, we assume the outcome in each society is dictated by A and B & X and Y even though they are singular factors that may have VERY little influence on what makes a 'better' society. — I like sushi
Unlike a "right to eat" let's say, one is decisions made on one's own behalf and the other is made on behalf of others, and that makes the difference here. Procreation very much becomes a political decision and agenda to enact. We think about technology, economics, finance, the climate in all sort of analytical ways, but procreation for people is "automatically" off the table, when it is the root of all other conflicts. — schopenhauer1
I have to agree. Procreation is something people normally can not (or maybe they could, but they would not) consider rationally. It is something given, unquestionable. And like you said, it is the root of all other conflicts. — Antinatalist
I don't see anything wrong with speculating about child birth. If you believe that having children is risky because your child might suffer, it is good judgement to decide not to have children. I believe it is a risk assessment decision rather than it being about morality.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.
Such arguments have been made concerning the act of having a child that one cannot affect something that does not exist. Is this argument justified? — Antinatalist
Rather, not existing deprives no ONE of happiness. Someone was not harmed, THIS is what matters morally. Why am I obligated to bring happy experiences into the world? That would seem odd. Rather, the negative is usually what is morally relevant. I don't necessarily have to give someone my extra candy bar, though it would be nice, but I certainly would be obligated to not cause unnecessary harm like punching them in the gut as I walk by or shoving a candy bar down their throat cause, hey, I think people should like candy bars, and ya know, generally they do! — schopenhauer1
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.
Such arguments have been made concerning the act of having a child that one cannot affect something that does not exist. Is this argument justified?
— Antinatalist
I don't see anything wrong with speculating about child birth. If you believe that having children is risky because your child might suffer, it is good judgement to decide not to have children. I believe it is a risk assessment decision rather than it being about morality.
Choosing not to have children is a personal risk assessment decision, it has nothing to do with wrong-or-right morality. Just my two cents — Wheatley
I can just as well say that adults are responsible for children.My point is that because having a child is a decision of someone else´s life, and those risks will fall to the child — Antinatalist
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.