And your solution to this concern; is to advocate for the extinction of your species through their global consent. is this correct? That's your solution? — universeness
I hope that we will, as you mentioned, stand united—for the good of all. — DA671
You've not demonstrated that being certain one's actions don't cause irreversible harm before acting minimises harm to others though. — Isaac
Why privilege inaction over action if your concern is the welfare of others? — Isaac
The inaction resulting from your uncertainty might cause harm to others. — Isaac
vast majority at your party — universeness
My chief concern was never the minimizing of harm to others (besides that which might be caused by myself), or the welfare of others. — Tzeentch
Inaction does not cause harm. It's a neutral state. — Tzeentch
This statement is obviously false! Are you saying antinatalists are a fringe, minority group? — Agent Smith
overpopulation — Agent Smith
Surely, the conversiom factor is not 1. What you're tryin' to say is that if, in your family, only your bro/sis is :sad: , it's absolutely ok. Wouldn't her sobbing drag down your entire family's happiness score? — Agent Smith
Inaction does not cause harm. It's a neutral state — Tzeentch
Then what is your chief concern? — Isaac
So you don't breathe, eat or move then? You are never inactive, so you're always doing. The choice is over what to do. — Isaac
I mean non-interference. So the choice would be not to do anything about a given situation. — Tzeentch
So you willingly leave yourself open to accusations of cowardice? — universeness
Should the world have stood by and not interfered with the Nazi plans for all people they considered inferiors? — universeness
Then what is your chief concern? — Isaac
The search for truth and wisdom, I suppose. — Tzeentch
With inaction I mean non-interference. So the choice would be not to do anything about a given situation. — Tzeentch
This is more to the spirit of the OP.. Great arguments going on here, but this specific thread is about if/when/the right to make impositions on others unnecessarily.. The key word you used there was "unasked".. Otherwise it could just be typical ameliorating greater with lesser harms with a bad outcome, but someone who sought the help or something.What gives A the right to interfere unasked? What's the sacrifical lamb to make of this? — Tzeentch
How does that concern affect the decision to procreate? Is non-procreation more truthful? — Isaac
You've not demonstrated that being certain one's actions don't cause irreversible harm before acting minimises harm to others though. — Isaac
Why privilege inaction over action if your concern is the welfare of others? — Isaac
However, if it is good that inaction prevents harm, ... — DA671
I do not see why neutrality should be chosen over something that can be (for most people) good. — DA671
I believe I grasped the gist of the OP's antinatalism.
Pronatalists are of the opinion that a person (the child) will share the same values as his/her parents and agree to their assessment of what kind, and how much, of that kind of suffering s/he will consider acceptable. This assumption is unjustified. People suicide for various reasons that differ from one another in kind & degree!
Unfortunately, the knife cuts both ways. The antinatalist too is unwarranted to, in their turn, assume that children will have the same thoughts about life & suffering as theirs. This is also, sadly for the antinatalist, wrong.
In short, the subjective nature of joy/sorrow precludes both antintalism & natalism.
What next?
Left to the reader as an exercise. — Agent Smith
It can still have consequences. — DA671
However, if the possibility of an overall good outcome (it may not be perfect) is reasonably high, I believe that it is better to act than to be "neutral". — DA671
When is it ever okay to assume for another that these choices and harms are good and acceptable for someone else? — schopenhauer1
I see no such duty, except perhaps minimizing the harm I myself cause to others directly, that is to say by my action. — Tzeentch
the reason I would refrain from procreation is because I cannot see a justification for the imposition on another, — Tzeentch
Nevertheless, their inaction did cause the person to drown, ... — DA671
Are these just spontaneous feeling you have, not derived from any deeper objective? They seem, no offense meant, really odd, and intriguing for that reason. — Isaac
First, individuals do not like being harmed. Their will is as good as mine, so I should take care not to harm them and thus violate their will.
Second, if I impose something on someone, I may violate their will. — Tzeentch
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.