A new argument for antinatalism
  • Bartricks
    6k
    This is, I believe, a new argument for antinatalism.

    To procreate is to create an innocent person. They haven't done anything yet. So they're innocent.

    An innocent person deserves to come to no harm. Thus any harm - any harm whatever - that this person comes to, is undeserved.

    Furthermore, an innocent person positively deserves a happy life.

    So, an innocent person deserves a happy, harm free life.

    This world clearly does not offer such a life to anyone. We all know this.

    It is wrong, then, to create an innocent person when one knows full well that one cannot give this person what they deserve: a happy, harm free life. To procreate is to create a huge injustice. It is to create a debt that you know you can't pay.

    Even if you can guarantee any innocent you create an overall happy life - and note that you can't guarantee this - it would still be wrong to create such a person, for the person deserves much more than that. They don't just deserve an overall happy life. They deserve an entirely harm-free happy life.
    Bartricks Options
  • Jackson
    1.8k
    I think Artificial Intelligence is another stage in the evolution of the universe. Humans may be edged out by AI 'persons.'
    Jackson Options
  • Bartricks
    6k
    ↪Jackson
    That does not engage with the argument I just presented. Focus!
    Bartricks Options
  • Jackson
    1.8k
    That does not engage with the argument I just presented. Focus! — Bartricks

    Bye.
    Jackson Options
  • Bartricks
    6k
    ↪Jackson
    Yes you were. It is my thread and you wrote on it. Thus you were trying to say something relevant to the OP. You failed. Go away and learn to focus on what someone has said and resist blurting whatever inane thoughts arise in your mind at any given time.
    Bartricks Options
  • Wayfarer
    22.5k
    To procreate is to create an innocent person. — Bartricks

    so you don't accept the doctrine of original sin, then?
    Wayfarer Options
  • Bartricks
    6k
    ↪Wayfarer
    No. That's a Christian doctrine and I'm not a Christian.

    Argument, not arguer.

    Which premise do you dispute?
    Bartricks Options
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    Which premise do you dispute? — Bartricks
    That anyone "deserves" anything.
    180 Proof Options
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Overheard a mom talking to her son: I had you so that you would look after me when I'm old. :rofl:
    Agent Smith Options
  • Outlander
    2.1k
    This world clearly does not offer such a life to anyone. We all know this. — Bartricks

    This is circumstantial. Sure, foolish to think that could or would ever change. However not much more so than to designate your understanding of reality (your limited sensory observation and experiences in a single lifetime) or challenging of it as theoretically impossible and an absolute constant. Maybe aliens show up kill all the bad people and turn this place into a heaven on Earth. Unlikely. But not impossible. This is where the "absoluteness" in the logic profile you seem to be suggesting breaks down.
    Outlander Options
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    Which premise do you dispute? — Bartricks

    That anyone "deserves" anything.     — 180 Proof

    Yep. As with all antinatalist arguments @Bartricks starts with a bizarre premise with which no-one else agrees and then proceeds to show that it yields bizarre conclusions with which no-one else agrees.
    Isaac Options
  • Jackson
    1.8k
    Yep. As with all antinatalist arguments Bartricks starts with a bizarre premise with which no-one else agrees and then proceeds to show that it yields bizarre conclusions with which no-one else agrees. — Isaac

    Then insults everyone.
    Jackson Options
  • Bartricks
    6k
    ↪180 Proof
    So you think no one deserves anything. Good one.
    Bartricks Options
  • Bartricks
    6k
    ↪Outlander
    Which premise do you dispute?
    Bartricks Options
  • Bartricks
    6k
    ↪Isaac
    Why did you post that? Are you just bored?
    Now, Isaac, which premise is bizarre?
    You think we're born guilty? You genuinely think that of these two claims: a) we are born guilty and b) we are born innocent, it is 'b' that is the bizarre one? You actually think that, do you?

    Or do you think it is bizarre to think that an innocent person does not deserve to come to harm? Is that the one that you think is bizarre? You think of these two claims a) innocent people do not deserve to come to harm and b) innocent people do deserve to come to harm, it is 'a' that is the bizarre one?

    Some tasks for you. First, try and become reasonable (this will be the hardest of the tasks I am setting you). Second, try and be clear. Don't make me do the work of trying to figure out what the hell you're on about. Third: engage with the argument and not the arguer.
    Bartricks Options
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    ↪Bartricks
    You must feel so effing entitled. :sweat:
    180 Proof Options
  • Bartricks
    6k
    ↪180 Proof
    Argument, not arguer. Do try and learn. Argument. Address it.

    And yes, the argument establishes that I am entitled to an entirely harm free happy life (whether I feel it or not). Address that argument. See if you can. Or - and this is what you'll actually do - make a witless comment and follow it with a crying with laughter face.
    Bartricks Options
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    ↪Bartricks


    Are you arguing from a purely materialistic paradigm? The argument won't work with a Christian for example
    Gregory Options
  • Bartricks
    6k
    ↪Gregory
    The argument won't work with a Christian for example — Gregory

    You clearly don't know how arguments work.
    Bartricks Options
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    ↪Bartricks


    Your OP isn't complicated
    Gregory Options
  • Bartricks
    6k
    ↪Gregory
    Your OP isn't complicated — Gregory

    My lemons are moldy.

    Are you going to address the argument or are we just going to exchange mindless observations?
    Bartricks Options
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    ↪Bartricks


    What if life is a place to learn something in order to find the meaning of life? I mean you haven't found the meaning of life if you are arguing that life is bad
    Gregory Options
  • Bartricks
    6k
    ↪Gregory
    Can I still use them to make a lemon meringue pie? I wonder.

    Look, which premise do you dispute? Shall we go through them? Do you think a newly born baby is guilty of something?
    Bartricks Options
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    ↪Bartricks


    A baby is not guilty. But it has to go through trials like we and even animals apparently have to go through. Arguing that we shouldn't reproduce is just mindless and childish
    Gregory Options
  • Bartricks
    6k
    ↪Gregory
    A baby is not guilty — Gregory

    That's the only bit that's relevant in your reply.

    Now, moving on, does an innocent person deserve to come to harm?
    Bartricks Options
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    ↪Bartricks


    Yes and no. He deserves respect from humans but the universe can test him
    Gregory Options
  • Bartricks
    6k
    ↪Gregory
    No, the answer is just 'no'.

    It's a conceptual truth. Innocent people do not deserve to come to harm. If they did, then they wouldn't be 'innocent'. To be innocent 'just is' not to deserve to come to harm.

    So, the answer is 'no', Gregory. The question was analogous to this one: do bachelors have wives? The answer to that one is 'no' because it is a conceptual truth that bachelors lack wives.

    So, either revise your earlier answer and say that babies are born guilty, or accept that babies are born innocent and thus deserve no harm whatsoever.
    Bartricks Options
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    ↪Bartricks


    They don't deserve harm but rather need "harm" (trials) to grow
    Gregory Options
  • Bartricks
    6k
    ↪Gregory
    They don't deserve harm but rather need "harm" (trials) to grow — Gregory

    Do try and focus on the question. The question was whether an innocent person deserves to come to harm. And the answer is 'no'.
    Bartricks Options
  • Outlander
    2.1k
    Which premise do you dispute? — Bartricks

    Hm. I like that. The idea that because a state of reality is negative it permanently defines any and all nature, prior or future, of said reality. My vehicle was in pristine condition when first acquired. Now. It could use a bit of work. Now instead of just saying the vehicle was always "in need of a bit of work", perhaps I could repair it to a once pristine condition using effort and yes, manpower. Which requires birth.

    If every human being except for you disappeared right now and you were left with an endless Eden of wealth, resources, food, entertainment, anything a person could desire. Is this bad? Surely if you happened upon a woman and had a kid this would be introducing an "innocent life" to pleasure and a "care-free, safe" environment that you seem to hinge your entire argument upon. So which is it? Defeatism, nihilism, or you just believing the entire sum of reality that ever existed or could ever exist is based on your limited observation of it?
    Outlander Options
  • Bartricks
    6k
    ↪Outlander
    Your car is broken and so you're going to have a kid? What?
    Bartricks Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.

Sign In Create Account

Categories