The question doesn't make any sense to me either. May as well ask if it is morally right that the sky appears to be blue. — I like sushi
At its core it boils down to a self-contradiction or just an attitude that says because one, or more, persons suffer that it isn't a fair trade off. Life isn't 'fair' and it is silly to view existence as being 'fair' or 'unfair' - not that I have seen any AN admit this is basically where they are coming from — I like sushi
We are not responsible for the sky being blue. — ToothyMaw
But as far as certain lives being genuinely horrible and painful, the idea of unfairness makes some sense - you aren't existing on the terms you would like to, which is true for a great many people, even if they are happy to be alive. — ToothyMaw
If I was to take your point more seriously I can just as easily throw the same kind of thinking right back at AN thoughts. We have the instinct for procreation (evidence being we're part of a species that exists) and we also have a moral sense of responsibility in how we live (not in how we don't live). So the 'responsibility' is no more valid a point than 'procreating'. We have a sense of responsibility tied to our procreative abilities. I cannot see how it can be argued that these are separate to the point that one is on a pedestal but not the other. — I like sushi
This had nothing to do with having children though. A non-existent person is non-existent not a 'potential person'. Such word play may convince others and I understand that there are gray areas. I don't see the world as black and white though ... more of a gray mushy, marbled mess of interwoven shades . — I like sushi
It's true for me too. I've lived through some horrors. I don't regard that as any kind of justification for someone erasing my life once I hit that point of suffering ... if some understood what it was I felt they might likely think it 'better that I die, than suffer what I was suffering'. No thank you! — I like sushi
All the more reason to believe that it isn't wrong to not take a great risk in bringing someone into the world. Or, if we do, to be careful about it. — ToothyMaw
I don't see any 'wrong' or 'right' about it. The very question of it being right or wrong to have children is meaningless to me. I've tried to understand the AN point of view but there seems to be a disjoint in their thinking as some claim that they 'value life' yet, for all intents and purposes, wish human life to cease (quite literally). — I like sushi
Neither do they seem to understand that life without suffering is NOT life. Suffering isn't something inherently 'negative' it is just how we tend to view it overall. — I like sushi
Life is absurd. I'm okay with that and if it wasn't absurd I think I would likely have ended my life some time ago. The 'absurdity' makes it interesting. — I like sushi
I get what you are saying though. Suffering is inevitable, but if gratuitous amounts of it can be prevented it should be. — ToothyMaw
I am not an anti-natalist, but if I were, then I would uphold all of the implications of my beliefs. — ToothyMaw
No to mention the harmful consequences of giving a crappy gift or sending a kid to school are significantly less than the wide range of horrible illnesses/conditions/disorders than can be inherited or developed throughout one's life — ToothyMaw
Not to mention, if we were all anti-natalists, there would be no children to send to school. — ToothyMaw
But we are responsible for procreating - and we could stop or at least wonder why we do it; we can actually consider reasons for and against. — ToothyMaw
So the 'responsibility' is no more valid a point than 'procreating'. We have a sense of responsibility tied to our procreative abilities. I cannot see how it can be argued that these are separate to the point that one is on a pedestal but not the other. — I like sushi
All I would argue is that reasons should always be considered when procreating, and that people do consider reasons for procreating more than you think. — ToothyMaw
All that said, asking the question (no matter how absurd) is a possible step towards understanding it to be absurd and that not all sentences with '?' at the end warrant a '?'. — I like sushi
Does that mean we can answer it? — Srap Tasmaner
It's more that a life without suffering is inconceivable, we can't imagine it, so that might be a way of rationalising it or making the best out of the situation. — Wayfarer
If they don't hook up, it's still just a little logical puzzle. — Srap Tasmaner
But even these more "obvious" categories have been philosophized as to what "degree" what was the "intent" etc. — schopenhauer1
The point being with all of this is what counts as moral is not immediately realized, nor does it have to be to still be considered moral. — schopenhauer1
"Have been" is inarguable, but I see no reason to think philosophy is the origin of the taboo against kin-slaying, for example. — Srap Tasmaner
I take your point, and I could see how someone would find the comparison to, say, veganism compelling. — Srap Tasmaner
I remember Freud describing how an overdeveloped superego could make a person miserable, insisting on standards of thought and behavior they could not possibly meet, but at the same be a source of pride, because look what high standards they have! — Srap Tasmaner
If AN is a matter of human beings developing a standard of morality that human beings can only meet by not existing, that's at least paradoxical. — Srap Tasmaner
You see the rest of the story as a process of realization, or consciousness raising, and that's plausible. You could say I'm just looking at the other side, at our resistance to that process. — Srap Tasmaner
I find that resistance reasonable, but I want to get the facts right first.
(I could be helping your cause by figuring out what you really need to argue against, rather than just making the same arguments all the time without convincing anyone.) — Srap Tasmaner
:up: To the degree we thrive (i.e. flourish – optimize agency), not only in spite of but because of suffering (i.e. by pro-actively reducing suffering), I think we give our individual and/or collective lives value.I don't agree that suffering 'gives life value', though, even if suffering seems inevitable. — Wayfarer
I was thinking of it in terms of being 'satiated'. A glass of water offers more pleasure the more thirsty one is or a meal the pleasure the hungrier one is. — 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.