Creating joy is not an obligation. Not creating harms where it didn't have to take place is. — schopenhauer1

Neither are obligations. There's either the desire to give life or not. Those who don't want to are welcome. But not everyone views suffering and exclaims "life is refuted," which is what antienatalism rests on. If you don't share that attitude, then the rest is just nonsense. I don't share that attitude.

Again, for those who do -- fine. Then kill yourself, don't have kids, etc. That's your right. But why one wants to go around infecting others with this morbid, anti-life view is beyond me. I guess that's your right too, in the end. What can you do. Carry on!

They generally don't take positions that put values on things. Rather, it is philosophical pessimism, and it's not dressed up. — schopenhauer1

It's dressed up nihilism. Always has been.

There's either the desire to give life or not. — Xtrix

So if you knew that that life would suffer in X amount (for you unreasonably).. Should that not be considered? You would normally say yes (but maybe not cause you want to make a point debating me perhaps)..

ntly creating negatives (impositions, harms) for others that can't be escaped.. That in itself is enough not to do unto another person.

But not everyone views suffering and exclaims "life is refuted," which is what antienatalism rests on. If you don't share that attitude, then the rest is just nonsense. I don't share that attitude. — Xtrix

You can say that about any position though. What makes any other ethical position immune from someone disagreeing with it? That's like saying.. I don't believe in X ethical position, so the rest is nonsense.. So if you don't believe in Kant's ideas, should it be banished from philosophical debate? Seems ridiculous to me.. You are making unreasonable hoops for antinatalism to jump through as if it is not like any other ethical system one can believe or not believe. I never said you are FORCED to believe it. Now that truly would be hypocritical to impose the view after saying that impositions themselves should be avoided unto others!

Again, for those who do -- fine. Then kill yourself, don't have kids, etc. That's your right. But why one wants to go around infecting others with this morbid view, anti-life view is beyond me. I guess that's your right too, in the end. What can you do. — Xtrix

Oh dear, a philosophical position has a position that is counter to your current belief-system.. Thus it should be violently opposed. Great job advocating for free speech in the confines of a respectable forum. Rather, any position you don't hold should also be banished right? Or no, just this because YOU have opinions on it.

It's dressed up nihilism. Always has been. — Xtrix

Haha.. What does that even matter? It isn't but why do you think that makes a point? Big Lebowski or something? Great movie, by the way.

There are reasons people want to procreate.. whether or not they are ethical.. Understood and can agree if stated in those terms. But once you say, THEREFORE people should procreate, that becomes an ethical statement, or at the least, axiological. — schopenhauer1

Work with me here; for the moment ignore ethics, Momma Nature has been doing that all this while, oui? Maybe that's not entirely accurate but methinks there's a grain or two of truth in my statement. Now, sir/madam, as the case maybe, can you think of one/two good reasons why we should have children?

Too, it just dawned on me, ethics revolves around two essential doodads:

1. Life/Phanes/Existence
2. Suffering/Algos

Antinatalism is unethical for the simple reason that nonexistence (death, killing) is. You can't claim to be moral in any sense of the word if as a solution to a problem you recommend nonexistence. Ethics is all about creating/preserving life while attempting to make the experience a memorable (read happy) one.

I'll ease off here because at the end you did say:

I guess that's your right too, in the end. What can you do. Carry on! — Xtrix

So, in recognition of this, I'll respect that you agree to disagree. I have no problem with that. I only have a problem when people want to banish it from any public forum. Just discounting out of hand and banishing because you think it is distasteful to your mores, doesn't say anything against it. Socrates, Galileo, Bruno, Inquisitions, that's what you get with that kind of thinking.

It's dressed up nihilism. Always has been. — Xtrix

:chin:

Ethics is all about creating/preserving life while attempting to make the experience a memorable (read happy) one. — Agent Smith

Really? I thought it was about right action? You are putting a spin on it such that of course, antinatalism would thus never be "ethical".. If ethics entails procreation, thus antinatalism is not ethical. But of course, the antinatalist would never define ethics so. They would define ethics as principles of right and wrong behavior.

Really? I thought it was about right action? You are putting a spin on it such that of course, antinatalism would thus never be "ethical".. If ethics entails procreation, thus antinatalism is not ethical. But of course, the antinatalist would never define ethics so. They would define ethics as principles of right and wrong behavior. — schopenhauer1

I said what I hadta say!

If you're interested, you might wanna read up on the taijitu (yin-yang). When someone cares (too much) about life, he becomes a mass-murderer! :chin:

Thanos cared too much. I'm ignoring the "too much" part!

Thanos cared too much. I'm ignoring the "too much" part! — Agent Smith

Look, I'll give you a secret about my antinatalism, that isn't really a secret if you pay attention to my whole corpus (which I don't expect you to :)). Antinatalism isn't just about the principle itself, though it can be debated on its own without any connection to a broader principle... But I do think it is also its implications on the broader life we live.

What are these impositions of life?
Why should they be endured?
How should we treat each other if we must endure them?
What are we perpetuating when we create more people?

So I discuss things like the burdens of survival and striving-after of the human condition.
I discuss what it means to not make others unduly suffer even more than they should.
I discuss the political choice one is making for another by procreating them. There is a system in place, and one wants to keep this system going, and more people to endure it.

What are these impositions of life?
Why should they be endured?
How should we treat each other if we must endure them?
What are we perpetuating when we create more people? — schopenhauer1

Vitals!

My own take is that the problem of suffering at the heart of natalism-antinatalism is this:

1. (How to) Live happily (?).

Note live happily.

You can't, as is obvious to you, recommend nonexistence as a solution then, oui?

Well, you won't ever experience death. Death is simply, "The end". You'll experience dying if you're conscious at the time. But that's it. There is no peace, no rest, no etc.
— Philosophim

How do you know???? — baker

You are your brain Baker. We've known that for decades in science now. Its not a debate. Scoop the brain out of someone and that aspect of the brain that was them is gone. It is only your imagination and hope that somehow you will continue on after death. You will not. That is fact.

You can't, as is obvious to you, recommend nonexistence as a solution then, oui? — Agent Smith

Your implication is we need to create people so that they can be happy. If every life was an individualized utopia, you would have solid ground. It obviously isn't. So, yes, you can try to find happiness in life once born, but it doesn't negate that life entails a lot of other stuff as well, to be endured. And this isn't to be ignored.

The natural response is to reify suffering as a necessity for a complete experience. I just don't think it is our job to bring people into the world to suffer and then learn from their suffering. Who are we? How is this NOT a political position for someone else? And of course, besides that this is wrong to want people to suffer because YOU think it is worthwhile for them (making that decision for them), suffering many times goes off the rails.. more than you predicted or expected.

I sympathize with the antinatalist crowd. Suffering tops the list of humanity's and also all life's problems - people seem too distracted to notice their own dukkha, especially in the modern world with cyberspace providing intermittent relief (for folks like myself). Billions are, to use a Matrix analogy, plugged in/jacked into virtual communities; I consider this a symptom of our dissatisfaction with the real world (dukkha manifests in interesting ways). In short antinatalism has a point.

However, this also means that if people are happy, they'll choose life.

Conclusion: :chin:

A question to antinatalism.

Do you detect any problems with the following list which has been ranked in termsa preference?

1. Life + Happiness
2. Nonexistence

My gut instincts tell me that antinatalists should give their nod of approval for the order, it makes sense to them. Therein lies the rub, oui mes amies?

I sympathize with the antinatalist crowd. Suffering tops the list of humanity's and also all life's problems - people seem too distracted to notice their own dukkha, especially in the modern world with cyberspace providing intermittent relief (for folks like myself). Billions are, to use a Matrix analogy, plugged in/jacked into virtual communities; I consider this a symptom of our dissatisfaction with the real world (dukkha manifests in interesting ways). In short antinatalism has a point. — Agent Smith

Good points.

However, this also means that if people are happy, they'll choose life. — Agent Smith

If you like the flow states and the pleasures that come from the obstacle course, that's great.
1) Does it actually last for a lifetime, or is intermittent?
2) Does the fact that there is an obstacle course presented to you (foisted if you will) not give you pause?
3) Whilst the need for happiness? Isn't there a state of lack implied here that we are trying to constantly fulfill?

You had it right with the dukkha.. keep going with that theme.

1. Life + Happiness
2. Nonexistence

My gut instincts tell me that antinatalists should give their nod of approval for the order, it makes sense to them. Therein lies the rub, oui mes amies? — Agent Smith

I already answered:

If every life was an individualized utopia, you would have solid ground. It obviously isn't. So, yes, you can try to find happiness in life once born, but it doesn't negate that life entails a lot of other stuff as well, to be endured. And this isn't to be ignored. — schopenhauer1

I don't think it's a good idea but I trust mother nature or, more accurately, evolution. Suicides happen for a reason I suppose - those who can't take it are being culled automatically i.e. only those who don't mind suffering will be able to pass down their apathetic genes. In the long run what'll happen is our pleasure-pain sensing apparatus will be recalibrated to a new, higher pain threshold and all will be well. :snicker:

I notice you don't answer my questions. Not a great way to dialogue.. and sort of unfair to me who is trying to do one.

I notice you don't answer my questions. Not a great way to dialogue.. and sort of unfair to me who is trying to do one. — schopenhauer1

Apologies! Not a refusal to answer, but an inability to answer! Please carry on. Danke for sharing your views. Paranesis!

Not a refusal to answer, but an inability to answer! — Agent Smith

You haven't thought enough or at all about it? Or have come up with no answer?

I'm disorganized! Years of self-abuse! I'm sorry that you have to put up with my shit! :smile:

Meaning is just another invention we make to trick ourselves into believing life is worthwhile. — Darkneos

There's that word "just" again --

any one name is easy to put aside, when you have another set of names and operators.

{J}(NAME) -> "just an invention/trick/illusion"

So there's what's apparent, and then there's what is real. For any named reason one will reduce said reason with the above "just" operator, categorizing the reasons people give as apparent.

The real, here, is . . . well, what, precisely?

Let's just say whatever it is, it certainly isn't any possible reason someone might give that they feel life is worthwhile. You see the real, and these all fall to the above described operator.

But unlike Plato, who talks of a light -- a knowledge of the good, the beautiful and the true -- you just say "I want you all to feel life is not worthwhile!" -- why would we do that?

I only have a problem when people want to banish it from any public forum. — schopenhauer1

I have no desire to do so. And I don’t consider it illogical. I just think it’s silly and those who pick this hill to die on are silly. But like I said, that’s their prerogative!

For any named reason one will reduce said reason with the above "just" operator, categorizing the reasons people give as apparent.

The real, here, is . . . well, what, precisely? — Moliere

:up:
It's nice to see someone else call out this effervescent real.

When I was in my twenties, evading the Union Army as it burned Atlanta, I became an existentialist, — jgill

:up:

However, this also means that if people are happy, they'll choose life.

Conclusion: :chin: — Agent Smith

I would suggest that your conclusion should be simply 'make your choice!'
I cite again (as an atheist) a variant based on what's in Deuteronomy 30:15-20
This from the first episode of Carl Sagan's series Cosmos.
'I lay before thee life and the curse, therefore choose life so that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed.'
You can live life as an hour-to-hour daily chore if you choose and covet death and you will have earned my personal pity. That's all a person can do who loves life. Pity those who are anti-life and just make sure those who live are as protected as they can be from any extreme maniacs who project anti-life into an attraction to commit an atrocity against life.

I can't afford pity, mon ami! Didn't you know?, it's a luxury item! :sad:

I would suggest that genuine empathy is emotionally challenging for many people, especially if deeply felt but pity is a different harsher offering that entails only a very minor burden on my emotions.

I would suggest that genuine empathy is emotionally challenging for many people, especially if deeply felt but pity is a different harsher offering that entails only a very minor burden on my emotions. — universeness

Agent Smith makes a mental note of that! Feels important!