You aren't forced onto a sports team though. How is this not a violation if you were? Even if it was seen as a benefit if you joined the team. Not only is it a violation of the individual by overlooking the very agent who this is affecting, but it is exactly the kind of aggressive paternalistic assumption I am talking about where another gets to decide for an individual what the conditions are for them (whether for a cause or otherwise). — schopenhauer1
Is exorcism murder? :halo:Is antinatalism murder? — Agent Smith
Like suicide is a kind of retroactive abortion ... :sweat:At the very least it is a kind of preemptive euthanasia.
Nevertheless, I can't shake off the feeling that not giving birth to someone who could've enjoyed life to the fullest (suppose his/her parents are super-rich) is also a privation. This too is an imposition of sorts. — Agent Smith
No. How would it be?Is antinatalism murder? — Agent Smith
Not really. Euthanasia entails someone exists and is already being harmed. It just leads to poor framing of it to mislead.At the very least it is a kind of preemptive euthanasia. — Agent Smith
If you insist that with respect to antinatalism no one exists to be deprived of joy and hence my objection fails to pass muster, I'd be forced to respond likewise - no one exists to benefit from not being born into a life of pain. You can't have your cake and eat it too is what I mean. Be consistent and antinatalism has no leg go stsnd on, oui monsieur? — Agent Smith
Imagine you know for certain that a child about to be bern will live an enchanted life, perfectly happy in every possible way. Would you not do your utmost to ensure the birth of this child? This demonstrates, in my humble opinion, that antinatalism too can be immoral. — Agent Smith
Poverty is hardship, but it does not necessarily entail suffering. Breaking your leg is hardship, but it does not necessarily entail suffering. — baker
What gives us the idea we have a right to make such a decision for someone else in the first place? — Tzeentch
Self-confidence, a "lust for life". — baker
I've already answered this..However, in the same vein as it were, would you prevent a child being born in heaven? No, you wouldn't, oui? — Agent Smith
I've stated many times that if life was someone's individualized utopia, then it's no longer an imposition. — schopenhauer1
Like the old Academic Skeptic's canard "since knowledge is never certain, there cannot be knowledge", to wit: if existing is not painless, then existing should not be reproduced (or prolonged). Let the perfect be the enemy of the good, huh? That'll show 'em ... :sweat:Since life does not offer a personalized utopia, it is creating major impositions onto someone else, — schopenhauer1
since knowledge is never certain, there cannot be knowledge — 180 Proof
Most interesting. — Ms. Marple
Since you haven’t addressed my arguments, no. — schopenhauer1
If the potential for suffering matters (lava pit birth), the potential for happiness does it (heavenly birth). It is only fair that this is so. — Agent Smith
Suppose we do exist prior to birth as a human. What then? Would you not be depriving someone of joy by not letting him/her go to a fun-filled party ? — Agent Smith
But now turn that into something we can work with. Otherwise I'm left to guess what you think the implications are. — Tzeentch
For example, once certain people decided that the way to end their suffering was to kill all the Jews. And for at least some time, it worked. Per your formula, that _wasn't_ maladaptive.
— baker
Of course it was, and still is, maladaptive. They were mistaken and consequently acted on that mistake. — 180 Proof
Poverty is hardship, but it does not necessarily entail suffering. Breaking your leg is hardship, but it does not necessarily entail suffering.
— baker
You'll need to elaborate on that, though honestly what we call it may not be all that relevant. — Tzeentch
Insofar as an existing person maladaptively interprets / relates to her environment, she suffers. — 180 Proof
What gives us the idea we have a right to make such a decision for someone else in the first place?
— Tzeentch
Self-confidence, a "lust for life".
— baker
Why would self-confidence suffice in the case of procreation, when it clearly does not suffice anywhere else in life?
To go back to the sky-diving example, if I push someone out of a plane being extremely confident that they'll enjoy it, but instead they crash into the ground, does my self-confidence make any difference as to the nature of what just happened?
Self-confidence, a "lust for life" are what gives a person the idea they have a right to procreate, ie. make such a decision for someone else in the first place. — baker
The point is the choices are limited, the harms are known (and some unknown), and that there are immense assumptions being made for imposing them onto other people. — schopenhauer1
Why is it that if someone already existed and I forced them to play my game of limitations and harms with some good, THAT would be roundly rejected, but if I created someone from scratch (let's say snapped my fingers) THAT is considered fine and dandy? What makes that difference? I think people are misconstruing the idea that a person GETS to experience in the FIRST PLACE as some sort of untold condition of goodness.. But I don't see that as relevant. Thoughts? — schopenhauer1
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.