Natalists are saying that the world is a safe place for children. Is it? — Agent Smith
Anti-natalists are saying that bringing people into the world is ok only if there is no risk. — T Clark
Anti-natalists are saying that bringing people into the world is ok only if there is no risk. That's a silly standard. The whole basis of the anti-natalist argument presented in this thread is that death is; in an of itself; terrible, horrible, no good, very bad enough to make the rest of life not worth living. As we've shown, most people don't feel that way. You guys are wrong. And you're whiny cowards. — T Clark
The primary dispute was regarding the "best explanation part" (A1:P1) since as I have said innumerable times, the explanation is not the "best" one once we realise that the true reasons why people find death to be bad (pain, avoidance of a supposedly horrible void that we are implicitly made to believe in by our environment, the pursuit of valuable experiences) do not have as much to do with the reality of death as they do with our motivations and partial misconceptions — DA671
Of course, this does not mean that we do not have a reason to avoid dying. — DA671
I take it there is universal agreement that if death really is a portal to hell, then it would be seriously wrong to procreate? — Bartricks
There was and there are different answers to be found, though people accept different ones ;)
The Earth is a slightly different matter, but I hope that we can continue to work together towards progress for all! — DA671
Chaos might seem inevitable, but I think that we will eventually find order amidst it as well — DA671
Heaven might also be more inevitable than we realise, but perhaps the cycle is eternal — DA671
I don't think that the law affects the possibility of joy and the meaning one could find in their life — DA671
the prevention of all happiness can be deemed ethical. — DA671
We (antinatalists) are only working with facts as they stand — Agent Smith
1. If we have reason to avoid death under virtually all circumstances, including circumstances in which our lives are already sub optimal in terms of their happiness to misery balance (up to a certain limit), the best explanation of this is that death harms us and harms us by permanently altering our condition for the worse. — Bartricks
2. We have reason to avoid death under virtually all circumstances etc. — Bartricks
3. Therefore, death harms us by permanently altering our condition for the worse — Bartricks
Your OP says even those with a bad life are compelled to avoid death — Down The Rabbit Hole
I replied pointing out that this is because we are hardwired to do so — Down The Rabbit Hole
you then responded to others and me that it is "intuitive" and "self-evident" that we have reason to avoid death - I reiterated that it feels intuitive and self evident because of our hardwiring. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Let's cut out the middle bit, — Down The Rabbit Hole
As you have indicated that death would be best for those in agony, the "we" would only be the majority of people. Therefore death would only harm and permanently alter the condition of the majority of people for the worse. — Down The Rabbit Hole
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.