What's also probable is that an act that doesn't go against the desires of an existing being cannot be an imposition. — DA671
It's also not for someone else to decide that not creating any positive is ethically justifiable. It's neutral at best. — DA671
The question is: can a pessimistic projection justify the prevention of countless bestowal of positives? — DA671
The good cannot be sacrificed on the altar of unbridled pessimism. — DA671
That apparently even by your own estimation we're only talking about a relatively small number of people making voluntary decisions, does little to explain your defensiveness. — Tzeentch
I'm not voting for anything, nor am I telling anyone what to do - I'm just laying out an argument. Apparently you find that very threatening — Tzeentch
Are you deciding for me that I have no rational stake in the survival of the human race?Humans that proclaim to be heavily invested in the "survival of the human race" - something they hold no rational stake in, nor influence over - cannot be said to be rational. — Tzeentch
I was speaking specifically of people who are suffering harshly, whether it's physical, mental, emotional.
People who by their own account would rather die than live.
On what basis are you claiming they are living a wonderful life? — Tzeentch
I did not say existence is immoral. I said the birthing of children is immoral. — Tzeentch
Yet all of us seem to agree that certain things are wrong. Things that involve doing things to other people without their consent. Rape, murder, that sort of thing — Tzeentch
It's just a matter of applying these principles consistently and we come to the conclusion that forcing people to live is wrong not because we want it to be wrong, but because the consistent application of logic dictates it — Tzeentch
Are you deciding for me that I have no rational stake in the survival of the human race? — universeness
If I say I think the human race has a vital role to play in the universe and its survival is essential to the purpose of the universe, do you simply handwave that away, not matter how much I protest? — universeness
I did not say existence is immoral. I said the birthing of children is immoral. — Tzeentch
You are hairsplitting. — universeness
The latter causes the former or are you saying that the immorality of the parents end once the child is born? — universeness
Deciding not to push a parachutist out of a plane is not comparable with ignoring the instinctive imperative to have children. — universeness
As I have said many times. Many people would be greatly harmed if they could not have children. Some would feel utterly incomplete without children and would not see any point to the future without them. Do you wish to suggest to such people that they are immoral to want children? I would suggest your health would be in danger if you try to, face to face. — universeness
No, we are not forcing people to live we are allowing new life to be born [...] — universeness
[...] and the species to continue as an instinctive imperative that took 13.8 billion years to develop. — universeness
Yes. You objectively have no rational stake in the survival of the human race.
It will survive with you, or without you — Tzeentch
It's no different from being emotionally invested in your favorite sports team. No matter how hard you shout and cheer, your impact on the outcome is negligible. — Tzeentch
Thrusting people into existence is immoral, but once people are in existence they're there and it's an entirely different situation. — Tzeentch
Children shouldn't be used to fill a void. That's a burden no child should have to bear. — Tzeentch
If mankind cannot develop or continue to exist morally, I don't see why it should at all. But I'm not interested in such things. I try to live life morally, and nothing more. That's why I test my ideas in the crucible of free discourse. Not to convince anyone or to judge anyone. — Tzeentch
But it won't survive without everyone! — universeness
Again absolutely untrue a crowd often inspires their team to beat the other team. — universeness
They are not filling a void they are becoming a sentient lifeform and fulfilling a natural evolutionary imperative in their parents... — universeness
... you handwave the pain it would cause them if they were childless based on what YOU think is morally sound. — universeness
Watch the clips that DA671 posted above and comment, they are not long clips. — universeness
They deserve an entirely harm-free happy life. — Bartricks
What about if a city's constant state of serenity and splendor requires that a single unfortunate child be kept in perpetual filth, darkness, and misery. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Is it really that bad for someone to say that they wish the city did not exist in the first place? — Down The Rabbit Hole
Why destroy everyone in the city if you could save them, even if it takes a long long time to achieve it. It's like the Sodom and Gomorrah biblical fables. Those dimwitted angels and the dimwitted god that sent them caused the death of everyone in both cities, when all they had to do was appear, demonstrate their power, educate those who did not understand the folly of their ways and they could have improved the lives of everyone in both cities and perhaps their progeny would have been very nice people. — universeness
I watched about 6 mins of it then had enough. This is always the problem, extreme viewpoints like antinatalism, attracts some seriously disturbed individuals. These creatures are not like any of the people I have clashed with on this thread I assume but they should watch it and understand the cautionary message it suggests. Hopefully the American authorities are keeping tabs on them otherwise I am sure they will appear on CNN in the future having committed some heinous act that they attempt to justify using some variety of the relatively harmless antinatalist reasoning typed on this thread. — universeness
If Barticks is a socialist who supports UBI then I would call him a brother in that sense. I would still argue with him until the universe ends that his support of antinatalism is misguided.
I have probably argued with more socialist brothers on many many issues that I have argued with capitalists or theists. Socialists/humanists must argue with each other as they care about getting things correct. Capitalists just care about themselves and those they care about. They all agree on one main policy. 'Lets make as much money as we can out of the majority by any means possible!' and theists just scapegoat their god and take no responsibility for anything. — universeness
What’s so terrible about suffering and harm and pain? — Xtrix
I was born innocent too. There have been many harms in my life — like with any life. But I love life and continue to prefer being here to the alternative. I’m glad I got the opportunity. I still had to think about having kids — but not using the fact that they will not live a harm-free life as a criterion. — Xtrix
have said that they are in favour of not building but are opposed to destroying. — Down The Rabbit Hole
All people (including me, as mentioned above) were born innocent. All people suffer in life to some degree. Suffering is part of life. Pain is part of life. — Xtrix
(1) All people are born innocent.
(2) Innocent people deserve no harm (which perhaps you can define further, but I view as "suffering").
(3) Life inevitably includes harm/suffering.
(4) Thus, bringing innocent lives into the world when you know they will suffer is unjust/morally wrong. — Xtrix
I was born innocent too. There have been many harms in my life — like with any life. But I love life and continue to prefer being here to the alternative. I’m glad I got the opportunity. I still had to think about having kids — but not using the fact that they will not live a harm-free life as a criterion.
— Xtrix
How does any of that address anything in my OP? Your first line just confirms one of my premises. The rest is entirely irrelevant. — Bartricks
It's not irrelevant. You're making an argument that innocent people don't deserve harm. Fine. — Xtrix
We're all born innocent. So, according to you, none of us deserve harm. Right? — Xtrix
So none of us should have been born. Why? Because "harm" is simply a part of life. It's impossible to imagine a life without harm of any kind. — Xtrix
Relevance? You've CONFIRMED one of my premises. Which one are you challenging? — Bartricks
What follows is that all the harm mentioned in 3 is undeserved. — Bartricks
That one shouldn't be born because life isn't harm-free. — Xtrix
You posted this with the title "A New Argument for Antinatalism." I assumed that you want to say more than simply "harm is undeserved." — Xtrix
We're all born innocent. So, according to you, none of us deserve harm. Right?
— Xtrix
Not when we're born, no. — Bartricks
We are default obliged not to create undeserved harm, yes? If doing x will create some undeserved harm, then we have moral reason not to do x, other things being equal. — Bartricks
Procreative acts subject an innocent person to undeserved suffering - shit loads of it. Thus we have moral reason not to perform those acts, other things being equal. That just follows as a matter of logic.
Do you disagree with any of that? — Bartricks
I was innocent at birth too, and I'm very glad to part of life -- which, yes, hasn't been harm-free. Whether I "deserved" any harm or not is incoherent -- harm is a part of life. Joy is too. Do I "deserve" joy? — Xtrix
One could argue that every innocent "deserves" to be part of this wonderful world and to experience joy, and to deprive them of that is immoral. — Xtrix
Unless of course you don't think it's a wonderful world...which is why I mentioned pessimism. — Xtrix
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.