Complex situations are rarely fixed by one-sided "solutions". I don't think the harms are good; I merely disagree with the assertion that preventing necessary (assuming that averting harm is also necessary), precious, significant, and evanescent yet eternally valuable positives is an acceptable idea. — DA671
I haven't done anything except for pointing out the inherent flaw with idea that there needs to be a deprivation for the creation of a positive life to be necessary, but it's somehow logical to suggest that the lack of harm is good sans an actual benefit, because the truth is it simply doesn't seem to be the case. There's no need to drag this on infinitely, because it's also quite easy to understand that one resolves to create a benefit in one case that one could consider akin to a gift they couldn't solicit themselves. In one instance, the state of affairs changes to one having good, and in the other, there is no value. Once again, the lack of a "POV" before existing is precisely why I don't think that existence can be inherently better/worse for a person. But even if it is and all that matters is the perspective and experiences of the actual person, the logical position seems to be to understand that the creation of a benefit matters just lile the prevention of damage. You cannot apply double standards and then accuse others of making a "sleight of hand" when being questioned for a lack of consistency, for doing so is probably a much accurate representation of a sleight of hand. — DA671
Do you think there is life on other planets? I'd prefer a yes or no to a don't know but I know we don't always get what we prefer. — universeness
I think my case is adequately strong. On one side, there are goods, on the other side, there aren't any. — DA671
Nobody is positively affected by the lack of harm in nonexistence either. And no, I am not focusing on nonexistent beings, only pointing out the obvious before moving on. — DA671
The fact is that nobody is benefitting in one state of affairs either, but they do experience happiness when they do exist, so it has significance from their POV, and there's no need for a deprivation for that to be important. — DA671
You say, happiness is a pass to initiate the process. I am saying that there is nothing that justifies creating unnecessary collateral damage as a state of affairs in the world for someone else. — schopenhauer1
You obviously disagree, and mistakenly so, in my view, but I believe that if it is preferable to prevent potential harm, it is also justifiable to create valuable experiences that would be gained by people when they exist. — DA671
You say that the positives do not justify procreation, but I disagree, because I do think that the intricately ethereal and indescribable goods do justify creating people. — DA671
If you could press a button now, and all human life would cease to exist, without causing any suffering to anyone, including you. Instant removal from the Universe. Would you press?
If we go back to the time of the dinosaurs and consider the longevity of time they had on the Earth, compared to humans. Was there any suffering during those times, when there were no humans around?
Is it only human suffering you are concerned about?
Do you think there is life on other planets? I'd prefer a yes or no to a don't know but I know we don't always get what we prefer. — universeness
Do you believe a human being can learn from suffering and improve their life due to the experience of suffering? — universeness
No I would not press a button. Ethics is at the individual level. People's consent must be obtained.. If not for an individual, then ethics means nothing but aggregate averaged out utility.. It is at the individual level of POV that experience is carried out and it is there where ethics must be considered. — schopenhauer1
I am primarily concerned of human suffering simply because we are deliberative beings that can make choices, but I do care about animal welfare, yes. — schopenhauer1
Sure I'll say there might be.. And if there is.. if they can deliberate like we can, they can make the same AN choices, if there is "suffering" which certainly there is for them as us — schopenhauer1
Humans can learn from suffering. However, to create suffering so people can learn is wrong I think — schopenhauer1
If the harms would negatively matter for people once they exist which necessitates preventing them, I believe that it can also be good to create happiness that would be cherished once people exist. — DA671
If that's the case, then I am also not taking about nonexistent beings beings deprived of goods. The cardinal consideration is that benefit is not being created in one state of affairs, and that's not an upside. — DA671
It does, because happiness (a desirable experience) that matters more for innumerable people despite harms (undesirable sensations) does justify, in my opinion, the formation of life. — DA671
It's much more paternalistic, harmful, and hubristic to suggest that one should not create ineffably valuable experiences due to the risk of damage (since I do not think that a harm always negates the worth a person sees in their life). — DA671
simply don't think that creating precious and hugely significant joys (many of which exist in spite of harms) is wrong due to the possibility of harms. — DA671
A worldview that results in a total devaluation of a crucial aspect of reality deserves opprobrium, in my view. One's arbitrary notions are certainly not a valid excuse for a worldview that irrationally and patronisingly decides that the creation of truly majestic joys isn't necessarily valuable for those who would exist and appreciate them. — DA671
specially in situations when they know that the likelihood of the child having a good life is low. — DA671
This is why I support the availability of a liberal right to die along with careful use of technology in order to remove/reduce suffering as much as possible. All the harms are extremely tragic, and I do not think that my words alone are sufficient to change that fact. Yet, there is also another side of the coin. There are those who truly perceive their lives to be a gift. For them, the so-called "little" things act as a source of indubitable value. Things such as the love of a family member, or the achievement of a dream such as being able to become the first educated person in a family (a phenomenon that's still common in the country I come from) can inundate people with a happiness that's truly immeasurable. I just don't think that one should loom at those experiences and decide that it's acceptable for those goods to never exist again, even if those people themselves continue to cherish their lives. I don't think that genuine empathy entails ignoring the positives. Paternalism can manifest in multiple ways, my friend. Still, I completely agree with you that our current system of oppressing people in the name of "mental illness" instead of providing actual solutions like a right to a graceful exit and reducing inequality is condemnable. I hope that this situation will change as time goes on. — DA671
Paternalism can manifest in multiple ways, my friend. Still, I completely agree with you that our current system of oppressing people in the name of "mental illness" instead of providing actual solutions like a right to a graceful exit and reducing inequality is condemnable. I hope that this situation will change as time goes on. — DA671
No, such people deserve happiness and care. I don't think that irredeemable harms are logically inextricable for happiness, though it's true that there are negatives that do exist. I think that creating happiness and then sincerely caring about a person who would love their life is trivial; it possesses priceless worth. Thank you for this enlightening discussion, and I hope that you have a good week ahead! — DA671
Many would argue that there are many other 'deliberative' non-human creatures on Earth.
From orangutans to dolphins. Okay, perhaps not as cognisant as humans but should antinatalism apply to them due to 'suffering' or do they have to be fully able, to be asked for and confirm consent in some way? — universeness
Well I hope you are not one of the first representatives from the human race to encounter aliens from another planet. How long would it be before you said:
'Welcome to Earth.....but what a shame you were ever born! Have you suffered today?' — universeness
So, you are in a sense, 'over-rulling' evolution. The around14 billion years it took to reach the stage where the universe was able to produce lifeforms such as humans was a complete waste of 'time'? due to the 'suffering' aspect of existence. Is that your logical position? — universeness
I know you recognise that this is a very small minority view (or at least a minority view). Would you also call it an extreme view? — universeness
But your posit is that birth is the beginning of suffering and you give that priority over all other human states and actually think that the state DEAD is better. Would this be an accurate statement? — universeness
Ironically.. perhaps aliens don't "exist" because they already figured out antinatalism a long time ago — schopenhauer1
I have no duty to a natural mechanism like evolution, only to people, and not creating their unnecessary suffering. — schopenhauer1
I think it seems extreme, but so do a lot of new ideas — schopenhauer1
That's harder to say.. You can still believe life was not worth starting but also believe that once begun, since humans have connections to their own endeavors, interests, etc. it may be worse off to be dead. It doesn't mean that one equals the other.. Birth and death are changes of states of existence, but the decision to procreate another and a decision to kill yourself are not equivalent decisions. It can be said, that to put someone into suffering is bad, and to put someone in a bind that death is part of their equation of living, is also a part of this — schopenhauer1
Obviously and as I am rational, I withhold my consent to AN, for my lifetime. As long as anyone, with the same view as me, lives, AN can never be realised, in its ultimate goal, unless our species is wiped out for other reasons, because consent is required. This encourages others of your ilk, perhaps a more extreme flavor to consider removing the need for consent. Do you have a duty to stop such people? — universeness
This is not a new idea, its a very boring, very old idea that was part of early greek musings and was posited within the words 'better not to have been born in the first place.' It was rejected by the majority of rational thinkers then (The proof being that we are still here with an ever-increasing population since the times of Ancient Greece) and it will continue to be utterly rejected by the majority of rational thinkers now. — universeness
Ok, if that's the level of your Antinatalism then you are harmless. The result will be that you will have no kids. I have no kids and will not have any because I am now too old to do the nurture part as effectively as I think it needs to be done. So we are a gentle assist to the current global over-population problem. — universeness
I would just like confirmation from you that any time an Antinatalist group or individual raises its head and declares that consent is no longer required, that you will be helping me and folks like DA671,
stop them from achieving their goal — universeness
An antinatalist seems to have other motives though. They think their children will become part of the problem, while animals think their children will be a victim of it. — Raymond
There's no "initial asymmetry" to begin with, so repeatedly mentioning the fact that the absence of the good isn't ethical if the prevention of the bad is ethical would be frivolous. — DA671
In the case of a person, one is bestowing a good that cannot be solicited by the person themselves. — DA671
If one chooses to view an act of beneficence (if it's a "burden" to create harm) as "meddling", then that's their choice. But this wouldn't change the fact that the positives are quite important. — DA671
There's no "square one", because my case has always been for a logically consistent view that doesn't devalue the positives. — DA671
There's also no person who's being forcibly taken away from a blissful and free void into a worse state of affairs. Yet, if it's still a burden/harm for the negative to exist, the good can also be perceived as a gift/benefit. — DA671
Negatives not had by anybody also don't matter, by the same token. — DA671
However, preventing the possibility of actual goods for the sake of preventing harms does matter, and I do not think that averting the opportunity of innumerable loved experiences is ethical/good/just/proper to do. — DA671
Sorry for my digression with shopenhauer1 from your OP but shopenhaur1 and DA671 had already established the digression and I am sure you can still bring us back to the OP if you feel there are still points about Global warming and chaos not yet aired. — universeness
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.