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. 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.

Anti-natalists are saying that bringing people into the world is ok only if there is no risk. — T Clark

No they're not. Some do, some don't. This thread is about one particular argument for antinatalism - the one in the OP. It is not about 'antinatalism'- it is about the harmfulness of death an antinatalism. Focus.

No, it is not justified or sound. Having a reason to avoid something under some circumstances does not automatically entail that the thing itself is inherently bad as a state since there could also be other factors to consider.

I think you should heed your own advice (and perhaps include understanding in it too). I did not include "virtually", which I will. But, for all practical purposes, your comment did seem to imply that we have a reason to avoid death even if we are in pain, but many people themselves do not believe that. The cardinal point was that the reason is not that ubiquitous. It was not exactly an attempt to dispute the general fact that most do wish to avoid cessation.; rather, it was about the prevalence of such circumstances. Still, I think I could have phrased my reply better. Sorry for the ambiguity.

Anyway, the larger point remains: We simply do not have any reason to believe that death alters our state or is intrinsically bad for us. The justification that has been provided for it is premised upon a narrow and limited understanding of our motivations. You always say that we have to differentiate between something being preferred by us and something being true, but then your entire argument for the "badness" of death appears to rely upon most people's uncritical idea of death, their conflation of dying and death, and their predilection towards existing. I am not denying that most of us might have a reason to avoid dying. We cannot completely control our interests and there is no obligation to seek death/avoid it beyond the fulfillment/deprivation it could cause for an existing being. What I am rejecting is the notion that the reason has something to do with death "altering" us (since there is no evidence for that) instead of a few misconceptions and a potent desire to avoid pain and preserve joy (if the former is bad, the latter is obviously good, in my opinion. Focus is vital.

it is about the harmfulness of death an antinatalism. Focus. — Bartricks

Which is exactly what I said. Focus.

:victory:

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

Whiny cowards? :smile: We (antinatalists) are only working with facts as they stand: the world is a dangerous place (for children). There's a difference between being brave and reckless: discretion is the better side of valor if you must know. That's all from me (for now).

No you didn't. You seem incapable of foccusing on the argument in the op

How does any of that engage with my argument? Argue against a premise.

:up:

I already did in my previous comments. 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. Of course, this does not mean that we do not have a reason to avoid dying. We cannot fundamentally alter what improves/degrades our well-being (and neither do we seem to have some sort of obligation to do so). In light of this, if we find death to be a painful experience and something that negatively affects the good aspects of our life, it would obviously be a desideratum to avoid it. The crux of the matter is that this reason has more to do with the nature of our existence than it does with inexistence. Unnecessary elongation is not productive. As some people say, focus is quite important ;)


In all seriousness, I would like to thank you for this thought-provoking discussion and for sharing your insightful comments. Disagreements are but natural, and yet, inquisitive people like you can serve as a source of inspiration for many. I express my sincere apologies for any inappropriate/irrelevant remarks made by me. Thank you—for being there.

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

So here you are saying that we do not have reason to avoid death, because there are explanations of our fear of death (something I did not mention). Er, what? I claim 'x'. You reply 'but we can explain y'.

Then, having - in your view - provided some kind of argument against my claim that we have reason to avoid death under most circumstances (which you didn't do at all), you then say:

Of course, this does not mean that we do not have a reason to avoid dying. — DA671

So do we or don't we? You seem profoundly confused. Then there's just more blather that doesn't engage with anything I have argued. You really don't seem to understand the argument I have made at all.

I take it there is universal agreement that if death really is a portal to hell, then it would be seriously wrong to procreate? That is, I take it that antinatalism is a moral no-brainer if our situation really is that we - that is, anyone and everyone here - are heading inexorably to hell?

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

Was there any doubt?

The question of questions is this: Will the earth become hell or heaven? It all depends on which of these two is a high entropy state? No prizes will be awarded for answering this question. It's too easy!

Death is not a portal to hell and universal antinatalism remains illogical, particularly in light of the fact that this thread has failed to provide adequate evidence for death being inherently bad other than resorting to the attitude and intuitions of people in a selective manner that ignores their motivations and degree of awareness regarding the nature of nonexistence. Some ideas can definitely involve less brains, which has some peculiar consequences.

No, I merely said that we seem to avoid X due to reasons that do not have much to do with X being something terrible in and of itself. It includes things that are pertinent to our current existence, including misconceptions, aversion to pain, and the presence of good in one's life. At this point, it's evident that you don't see the difference at all. Your entire argument for this purported badness of X comes from the way most people react in the face of X (such as the fact that even people with poor lives might want to avoid death). I only pointed out that this reaction has alternative and more plausible explanations (including fear of loss and pain) that don't entail X leading us to a horrible state of affairs, which we do not have any evidence for other than the opinions of some people who evidently feel strongly about this. It's strange that you fail to grasp this basic point. Nevertheless, I believe that this is the ineluctable conclusion that cannot be refuted by an apparent refusal to acknowledge it. The fact that our reason "tells us to virtually anything to avoid it" cannot be seen in isolation of:
1. Our biological instinct to survive and propagate.

2. Our aversion to harm that many of us associate with death. Some of it is due to the chance of pain, and some has to do with the ideas regarding cessation that are ingrained in us by society.

3. The value we place on our life which would be disrupted by a process of ending.

Instead of erroneously thinking that this is somehow ignoring the argument by talking about the psychology of people, the point is that this goes to show that our reason may not be entirely reliable and to the extent it is, it's not due to some unproven badness of the void.

Once again, you're the one who's confused because there's a difference between talking about the state of being dead and dying, which could be painful. Furthermore, the rational reason one has to avoid it (as opposed to mere opinions about it being a sort of hell) is not because it leads to a special form of hell, but because it could harm one's interests and lead to potential harm. Thus, having provided yet another reply that ignores the actual issue, you mistakenly continue to believe that you have justified your view. I am afraid that it's you who remain fundamentally confused in your thinking. The reality is different, I believe. One can only explain things to someone, but they cannot understand them for them. Anyway, I hope that you have a wonderful day!

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!

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

I don't see how the 2^nd law of thermodynamics can be violated. God, ergo, heaven (bliss) has always been associated with order (low entropy). Hell is chaos, chaos is inevitable (it is the law); hell is ineluctable. Hence antinatalism. Why jump into the fire, when you can avoid it?

Entropy does not entail that one cannot experience positives in their life, and even though chaos exists, I don't think that it outweighs the potency of order in all instances, at least as far as sentient beings are concerned. Chaos might seem inevitable, but I think that we will eventually find order amidst it as well ;)

Heaven might also be more inevitable than we realise, but perhaps the cycle is eternal. Anyway, I hope that the best version of the good can be manifested in the realm we currently reside :p

Chaos might seem inevitable, but I think that we will eventually find order amidst it as well — DA671

Your thoughts don't count I'm afraid. You're up against a law - the law of (increasing) entropy. Show me how we might be able to crack the problem of entropy?

Heaven might also be more inevitable than we realise, but perhaps the cycle is eternal — DA671

You mean birth-life-death-decay? I'm with you on that, but note it looks like we're in the death & decay phase (the beginning of the end so to speak). Just the right conditions for the antinatalism meme to find willing hosts and replicate.

I don't think that the law affects the possibility of joy and the meaning one could find in their life. The mere existence of decay does not negate the reality of the presence of order in the form of ineffably valuable experiences one could and does have. Therefore, I am afraid that your thoughts on the law (which does not aid your case) don't count.

Maybe or maybe not. However, I don't think that this would necessarily make the view a universal truth, because I don't think that the prevention of all happiness can be deemed ethical. But it would obviously be important to minimise harms as much as possible, and if things don't improve, then surely procreation as a whole would not be a good idea until they do.

I don't think that the law affects the possibility of joy and the meaning one could find in their life — DA671

The law means hell is in the offing. Why would you say joy isn't affected? Do you mean we could be "happy in hell"? :chin: Meaning in life? Does meaning offset suffering? If suffering has meaning, does it become joy or bearable? Possible, but only the naïve would make such a trade - they've not seen real suffering. Nothing is worth going through hell for, right?

the prevention of all happiness can be deemed ethical. — DA671

Now you're talking. Yep, the antinatalist does, if one gives it some thought, throw the baby out with the bathwater. What I would recommend is something to numb the pain, a stopgap measure as it were, while we get busy finding a cure for pain/suffering.

Entropy does not entail that existence leads to hell anymore than it does that it eventually leads to heaven. As far as sentient beings are concerned, one could argue that it points to loss. But this doesn't mean that resilience and growth (particularly intellectual and emotional growth) aren't also sources of unfathomable joy that can be more than adequately valuable for an individual. Meaningful experiences can help us transcend suffering, as is the case with many people. Many of the happiest people I've met were those who didn't have a lot.

I clearly wrote "I don't think". Of course they do, and I disagree with that due to a lack of sufficient justification for that prevention. But I do agree that we need to address suffering urgently, which could definitely involve not creating more lives that would probably be negative.

:ok:

:up:

No you didn't. You seem incapable of foccusing on the argument in the op — Bartricks

You spelled focusing wrong.

We (antinatalists) are only working with facts as they stand — Agent Smith

Your argument is based on value judgements, not facts. Whiney, cowardly value judgements.

You have found your level.

You have found your level. — Bartricks

You spelled "you," "have," "found," "your," and "level" correctly

Your OP says even those with a bad life are compelled to avoid death, and we would even saw off our arm to do so - I replied pointing out that this is because we are hardwired to do so, and that our hardwiring cannot be trusted in light of the fact it brought tortured souls here in the first place - 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.

I still have issue with your premises as set out on page 5:

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

Let's cut out the middle bit, to make it easier for me to accept: "If we have reason to avoid death under virtually all circumstances, the best explanation is that death harms us and harms us by permanently altering our condition for the worse".

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.

2. We have reason to avoid death under virtually all circumstances etc. — Bartricks

The majority of people would have reason to avoid death under virtually all circumstances.

3. Therefore, death harms us by permanently altering our condition for the worse — Bartricks

Death would harm the majority of people by permanently altering their condition for the worse.

I think you are going to struggle to get your argument to work for me, as I would only see death as instrumentally bad, and you clearly believe it to be intrinsically bad.

Again, stop the blithering and engage with the argument. Start by understanding it. Then try and see if you can construct an argument that challenges a premise. Resist the urge to talk about human psychology. None of my premises make any claims about motivations or fears. This is getting painful now.

Your OP says even those with a bad life are compelled to avoid death — Down The Rabbit Hole

No it doesn't. Sheesh. It says that we have 'reason to' avoid death. Reason to. Reason to. Reason to. Reason to. Not 'will'. Reason to. Not 'will'. Not 'desire to'. Not 'fear'. Reason to.

I replied pointing out that this is because we are hardwired to do so — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yeah, irrelevant. False. And irrelevant.

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

Again, false and irrelevant. It's called the genetic fallacy- the fallacy of thinking that if a belief or impression has a cause, then that automatically discredits the belief or impression. It works for any goddamn belief or impression of anything at all - so it's a really dumb argument. You keep making it. Draw the inference.

Let's cut out the middle bit, — Down The Rabbit Hole

You mean you want to rewrite my premise so that it is something different and then attack that one, yes? Why not rewrite it so it is a recipe for pesto and then tell me that I left out parmesan? No, don't cut out the middle bit - don't do a damn thing to it. Attempt to show it - it, not some other premise of your own invention - is false.

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

Er, what? No, I have argued that death harms everyone.

I'll try and take you through it (utterly pointlessly) by means of some examples.

Sarah and Jane both want to go to the cinema to see a film. Now, if Sarah sees the film, she'll really enjoy it. But if Jane sees the film, unbeknownst to her, she'll be kidnapped and tortured for years in a crazy person's basement. Okay? That's what happens if they go to the cineman: Sarah have good time; Jane have very bad time.

Now, they're both getting ready to go to the cinema, but unfortunately the ceiling of their house falls on top of them and painfully pins them to the ground and breaks many of their bones. So, rather than going to the cinema, they both spend the evening in agony under plaster and wood.

Have both Sarah and Jane been seriously harmed by the ceiling falling on top of them? Yes. They're both in agony with broken bones. They're both screaming in pain. It is not 'good' to have a ceiling fall on top of you and break your bones. It is not good for Sarah and it is not good for Jane.

However, Sarah has been deprived of a nice evening at the cinema, whereas Jane has been deprived of years or torture. So, Jane is 'better off' than she would otherwise have been, whereas Sarah is worse off.

Your logic tells you that it was good for Jane to have the ceiling fall on her. No it wasn't. It was bad. It was just 'better than' the alternative. 'Better than' does not mean 'good'. This distinction is, of course, too subtle for the internet.

If you're in agony with no prospect of it ending, then death may well be the better option. 'Better'. That doesn't mean it is good. It is not good to have a ceiling fall on you and cause you agony. It may be 'better than' many things, but it is not 'good'.

If you go to a restaurant that serves food all of which is foul, but you happen to order the least foul thing on the menu, that does not mean you had a good meal. You had a bad meal, but it was better than the alternatives.

So, if option a is better than option b, that doesn't mean option a is good for you. Death is better than some things - better than a life of unending agony. But that does not mean it is good. Indeed, it seems highly unlikely it is good, for we are told that it is the 'worse' option under almost all circumstances - the only kinds of circumstances under which it is the 'better' option are ones in which you're in absolute agony with no prospect of the agony ending so long as you remain here.


Death is an immense harm to everyone. Everyone. That's why we use it to punish people. Punishment isn't punishment unless it harms. The death penalty is a 'penalty'. It is a a harm. Death is a harm. A big one. For everyone.

How big? Well, you gage that by looking at how much harm you need to be suffering or prospectively suffering before it becomes rational to seek death. And the answer is: a lot of harm. And even then, if the harm you are undergoing will end soon, death seems irrational as a means to avoid it. So, if I can save my life by sawing my arm off, I seem to have reason to do that even though that'll cause me about as intense an amount of suffering as one can conceive of. So long as I stand a decent chance of surviving and not living in agony for the rest of my life, it makes sense to saw my arm off.

Going back to my restaurant example, imagine that there's a dish on the menu called 'shit soup'. Now, the waiter tells you that virtually everything on the menu is better than shit soup, even after you tell the waiter that several of the other items are ones that, if you eat them, will make you ill due to your allergies. The waiter says 'ah, yes, but shit soup is still worse than that - better to have stomach cramps for a week than eat the shit soup'. But then there's razor soup. The waiter says "ah, shit soup is better than razor soup". Now, do you conclude that shit soup is a nice soup? The waiter has told you that virtually anything else on the menu is better, including items that the waiter knows will make you ill. The only item the waiter says is worse than shit soup is razor soup - a soup filled with thousands of broken razors. What do you conclude about shit soup? That it is good?

So death is a whopping great harm, and furthermore it seems it alters our condition permanently, otherwise why is the rationality of suicide affected mainly by how likely it is that the harm you are using death to escape will come to characterize the rest of your life here, or will pass?

THus, the reasonable conclusion is that death is a portal to hell.

To return to the restaurant once more, imagine that anyone who enters this restaurant 'has' to end their meal with shit soup. No matter what you order, you have eventually to eat a bowl of shit soup. Everyone. You don't know what other dishes you'll be served - you may get served the finest truffles and venison and ice cream or you may start with razor soup and then more razor soup - but no matter what other courses you get served, you will be served shit soup at the end. And it is not a little bowl either, but a giant vat. And you have to eat it all. If you're half way decent, are you going to recommend visiting that restaurant? Are you going to take a friend to it?