I disagree. The fact that the "worst" isn't as likely along with the existence of ineffably beautiful experiences gives one a strong reason to not accept absolute antinatalism. — DA671
The idea of being in hell can hurt more when one thinks about the good of heaven ;) — DA671
If you ignore :point: :sad: then, all you have are guilty pleasures - the proverbial fly in the ointment, oui monsieur? The flags in the US & India of all places are flying at half-mast to mourn Shinzo Abe's death. — Agent Smith
The question is whether life is worth living even though there is suffering. If the answer is yes, then it's perfectly fine to have kids if one chooses to. If the answer is no, then the human species should become extinct -- yes? Which I'm not saying is illogical -- it's logical if you accept the premise, as the Buddhists do, that life is suffering and suffering should be eliminated. — Xtrix
In that specific case, no. I don't think it's a great analogy though. Why? Because we're talking about something much bigger -- we're talking about life. So what if the pizza were the size of the world? Would the fact that there was shit on it negate all of that pizza? — Xtrix
Your analogy is a good one in terms of proportion. By that I mean it would hold true for life if, say, we knew 95% of it would be agonizing pain. In that case, sure -- no person deserves that. — Xtrix
But in any case, that's your assertion. If you feel your parents owed you something -- specifically, a life free of any harm whatsoever, that's your business. But it's just that -- an assertion. — Xtrix
No. First, one doesn't "order" anything in life. — Xtrix
Again, the proper analogy is: expecting a pizza which is impossible. Not one without "poo," but one without dough. But dough is what makes it a pizza. So either you want a pizza (which means dough), or you don't. — Xtrix
Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem. — Joseph Stalin
Yes you can expect to get more sense from the socialist, so it's actually worth arguing. My lefty politics are what I'm passionate about, but I do sympathise with anti-natalism. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Yeah, clap clap clap - argument p is a shite argument for q, Bartricks holds that q is true, therefore Bartricks made the shite argument. I'm a good reasoner me!!!
Logic from Xtrix and universenes:
If p, then q; not p, therefore not q — Bartricks
When face to face with uncertainty and the future of children are precisely that, we must/usually assume the worst (outcome). Hence, antinatalism. This is a rule-of-thumb we employ every day in our lives. — Agent Smith
The argument in the OP does not assume that life is not worth living. — Bartricks
You seem studiously to be ignoring the actual argument made and addressing different ones. No premise of the argument I made assumed that life is not worth living. — Bartricks
It's not about how worthwhile it is for someone living a life to continue living it. — Bartricks
Using slaves to build the pyramids: wrong. You: "so we should destroy the pyramids?" — Bartricks
It assumes that innocent people do not deserve to suffer - that's not a 'pessimistic' assumption, it's a conceptual truth that in no way indicates any pessimism on the part of its asserter. — Bartricks
It assumes that innocent people do not deserve to suffer - that's not a 'pessimistic' assumption, it's a conceptual truth that in no way indicates any pessimism on the part of its asserter.
It assumes that harm that befalls an innocent is undeserved. Again, in no possible way is that a pessimistic assumption.
It assumes that life here will visit some harms on anyone who is brought here. That's not pessimistic. You accept it and everyone accepts it who isn't totally nuts.
Again: the reason you have to construe me as a pessimist is in order to be able to persuade yourself that some kind of psychological flaw explains my antinatalism rather than it being the logical implication of some extraordinarily plausible premises. That's wishful thinking. — Bartricks
The question is whether life is worth living even though there is suffering. If the answer is yes, then it's perfectly fine to have kids if one chooses to. If the answer is no, then the human species should become extinct -- yes? Which I'm not saying is illogical -- it's logical if you accept the premise, as the Buddhists do, that life is suffering and suffering should be eliminated. — Xtrix
That's not the question. — Bartricks
The analogy is an extremely good one. Why? Because it models the relevant features. James orders a cheese pizza. And that means he now deserves to get one. THe relevant feature here is not the pizza, but the fact that James 'deserves' to receive a cheese pizza. — Bartricks
What does the person at the restaurant say? Well, they say what you were saying. They say "but its mainly pizza - there's only a bit with shit on" — Bartricks
So, James deserves a cheese pizza. Not a cheese pizza with some shit on it. A cheese pizza. — Bartricks
And an innocent person deserves a harm-free life. Not a life with some harm in it. A harm-free life. — Bartricks
But in any case, that's your assertion. If you feel your parents owed you something -- specifically, a life free of any harm whatsoever, that's your business. But it's just that -- an assertion.
— Xtrix
No, it's not an 'assertion'. It's a 'conclusion'. — Bartricks
The only relevant consideration is whether my conclusions follow from premises that are self-evident — Bartricks
If you create a person who deserves a harm-free happy life, and you do that of your own free will, then you owe them that. — Bartricks
Now, once more, in the pizza example James deserves something - a pizza.
The people in the pizza place can't give James what he deserves, because they only have shit pizzas.
So what ought they have done? Ought they have advertised cheese pizzas and let people order and pay for cheese pizzas - thus generating a deservingness of cheese pizzas - when they know full well that all they can possibly give people are shitted-upon pizzas?
No. Join the dots. Ought you procreate? No. — Bartricks
You know that if you procreate you'll be creating someone who'll deserve a harm-free happy life. — Bartricks
You don't have to procreate. If you procreate you know you'll be creating someone who'll deserve a harm-free happy life. You also know that you can't possibly give them that - the cupboard only has lives that have shit on them in it and you know full well that anyone you bring into being will have to live one of those slightly shat upon lives (and you know as well that some will have really really shitty ones...but let's not get distracted by that highly morally relevant consideration because my argument - my one - doesn't require that to be the case....just an itsy bitsy bit of shit will do). So you ought not to procreate, then, yes? You'll be creating a desert of something you can't provide. — Bartricks
I view life as it is as a good; and life as it is includes suffering. Thus, suffering is ultimately good too.
I would distinguish between necessary and unnecessary suffering, perhaps. But that's a different discussion. — Xtrix
However, it's not even that claim I was discussing, but more about the nature of imposing life on another and when it's justified. Pro-natalists think that life can be imposed as long as X criteria of choices is involved and X criteria of harm is involved. In other words, they recognize that there is an "acceptable" amount of harm that someone else will suffer.
For the antinatalist, both of these claims are misguided. By its very nature, presuming for another that "these range of choices are good" is wrong. I call this moralistic misguided thinking "aggressive paternalism". It presumes one knows what is meaningful, best, or good for another, when in fact they may be ignorant themselves (if these are somehow "objectively" true), or simply, wrong (if they are relatively true and that person being affected just doesn't agree).
Also for antinatalists, presuming that it is permissible to allow the conditions for X criteria of harm is also presumptuous for another. Again, it is aggressively paternalistic to assume that X types of harm are acceptable for other people to suffer. These are flawed and misguided notions that someone else should arbitrarily, by their own reckoning, be the arbiter of what is acceptable in the range of choices or the range of harms that others should encounter. The sad thing is, there is no alternative for those who would disagree.. Only suicide and cajoling that, "This life isn't that bad!" and all the cultural pressures of thousands of years of optimism bias.
Also don't forget, there is unforeseeable harm as well as expected harm for the future person that would be born. The parents might have thought that only X amount of harm would take place, but there are other (perhaps more serious) harms that can befall a person that they didn't even expect and is regrettable. I'll call this a "known unknown". We know that there is unforeseeable harms for future people, so even though we don't know the specifics, we can understand a vague idea of it, and we know that it is a frequent occurrence. — schopenhauer1
I do accept the slippery slope point about antinatalist belief, however this does not answer the question of whether it is moral to build such a city. I know both schopenhauer1 and @Bartricks have said that they are in favour of not building but are opposed to destroying. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Antinatalism would not be true to its own morals.. I guess technically, it is agnostic to being based on consequentialism, but that is why I would not entertain that kind of super consequentialist thinking. I don't see the ground of morality based on such views. If you are a political lefty/socialist, does Stalin represent your highest ideals? Surely not. THAT'S not what you envision. If you are a Christian, does the Crusades or David Koresh or some nutball terrorist represent your highest ideals? My guess is no. There are extremes to any positions/beliefs/outlooks/worldviews etc. — schopenhauer1
I'm asking you what you make of the fact that people are able to procreate (some people, at least; the ability to procreate is not a given).
What moral implications does this fact have, according to you? — baker
None. People are able to do immoral things. — Bartricks
Like I say, you don't seem to be appreciating that this is a normative issue.
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.