What if I force someone into a game that they enjoy? They have a great time and vibe despite the fact I gave them no choice but to play? What would you say then? — Benj96
This.A good state of affairs, but the result of a bad moral choice. — Tzeentch
The rest follows. — 180 Proof
It is now up to the "pronatalists" to argue why procreation is a special case that deserves special logic. — Tzeentch
Person B dodged a bullet, because person A took a gamble with B's life and it happened to turn out ok.
A good state of affairs, but the result of a bad moral choice. — Tzeentch
Life was formed in the universe without intent and without any 'permission' or 'consent.' This was the original natural happenstance. — universeness
These systems were established, regardless of any aspect of human morality. — universeness
You are the ones making special pleads to a logic that is only valid in your own heads. — universeness
I am pro species survival. — universeness
It is now up to the antinatalists to prove that their suggested solution would work ... — universeness
But actually they have a great father/mother (Person A) one that protects them when they're infants, teaches them to be wise as they grow up, gives them exceptional tools to combat adversity and call out the BS of people trying to make them suffer (perhaps those suggesting they ought to die or never have children) and instills in them a sense of pride at being able to fend for themselves, to be independent, masters of navigating a world of suffering without allowing it to impact their happiness, their purpose being a moral one - teach others to do as their own parents did for them. — Benj96
If you believe that's a sufficient justification for procreation, then have at it. — Tzeentch
Whether someone has a great or terrible life is not solely a product of parenting. It's also a product of the environment, and a good amount of luck. There are many things the parents have no influence over, thus it is still a gamble, no matter how capable and well-intentioned the parents are — Tzeentch
The only possible reason I can imagine for an anitnatalist ideology is that the person who holds it - just hates life. — Benj96
The idealogy is literally about desire to not procreate/self annihilation/end of humanity and everything that comes with it. — Benj96
Put a parent and their child in the worst environment you can think of - famine, war, poverty etc and if that parent is extremely strong willed/intelligent/resourceful etc (all part of what it means to be "Good" (virtuous/highly adaptable/skilled etc), all the things opposite of what's outlined above...
... And I guarantee you they will turn a bad situation around. — Benj96
Well, you'd be wrong. — Tzeentch
It's not an ideology - at least not for me. It's about observing an inconsistency in human behavior and asking for an explanation. — Tzeentch
You can't make such a guarantee, and while I like the positive outlook, it is not rational. — Tzeentch
and feel good about it so long as we have the intention to improve things/help sufferers — Benj96
You cannot just do anything in the name above — schopenhauer1
This won't do.
There are many behaviors that have existed prior to notions of morality, and many of such behaviors are universally regarded as immoral now, regardless of their prior existence. — Tzeentch
"Don't impose (unless there are pressing reasons to do so)," is a common, almost universal moral principle.
You may claim this is not a moral principle, and that imposing is perfectly fine. Probably you realise that would lead you down a slippery slope. So what you have left is explaining why there is a pressing reason to impose in this particular instance - special pleading.
It's the procreators who are behaving inconsistently. — Tzeentch
I am pro species survival.
— universeness
Why? It's not something you have power over, nor have a stake in. Whether the human race survives for another thousand years or another hundred thousand, you won't be around to witness it.
Besides, do you expect me to believe there is even a single person on this globe that procreates not for the simple reason that they want to have children, but because they so selflessly care about the survival of the human race? — Tzeentch
I'm not suggesting any solution. I'm pointing out an inconsistency in your behavior and asking for an explanation — Tzeentch
and call out the BS of people trying to make them suffer — Benj96
It is therefore way beyond YOUR mere opinion that 'this won't do.' — universeness
A universal 'don't impose' is an illogical and unsustainable edict in human reality. — universeness
Yes, everyday people do exactly that as the 'want to have children' IS an act which results in the survival of the human race, regardless of the fact that you are unable to grasp the connection. — universeness
Why are you preaching antinatalism then? — universeness
It's a matter of rational scrutiny - to demand a consistent argument from someone who chooses to impose on others. You've failed to provide that, and that's why it won't do. — Tzeentch
Once again, I don't see any explaining going on here.
Why don't you start with coming up for a logically consistent argument as to why imposing is acceptable in this case? — Tzeentch
I'm not preaching anything. I'm pointing out your inconsistency and waiting for an explanation. — Tzeentch
1. The natural imperative of reproduction as a method of species survival. — universeness
2. Life started in the universe without intent, consent or permission and therefore is immune to any human contracted moral crisis you may personally be having. — universeness
3. Evolution through natural selection is still happening and still has no intent and seeks no permission or consent from humans to do what it does. — universeness
4. Humans have intent and intelligence and can alleviate, reduce and possibly even remove all forms of human suffering. — universeness
5. The survival of such intent and ability to ask questions and discover answers in necessary. — universeness
6. A universe with no life has no purpose. — universeness
My evidence starts with the fact that LIFE HAPPENED in this universe and that happenstance CANNOT be logically judged as immoral. — universeness
Welcome brother, to those of us who will 'call out the BS of people.' :flower: :flower: :flower: — universeness
People don't reproduce for the sake of the species' survival. This is just nonsense. — Tzeentch
You think in extremes! Why would I have to reject morality altogether? What utter nonsense!Unless you wish to reject morality altogether, this is more nonsense.
If you do wish to reject morality, then what are you doing in a thread that's unmistakenly about a moral question? — Tzeentch
I typed the word intent YOU decided that was synonomous with the term 'good intentions.' You further evidence your tendency to invent and attempt to misrepresent and misdirect when you are frustrated that you have no valid response.Good intentions don't excuse immoral actions. — Tzeentch
Necessary, why? To whom?
Sounds like a load of New Age hooey to me. — Tzeentch
The choices of moral agents can be judged, which is what we're doing right here.
I'm getting the sense that you have some rather subjective views about man's purpose in the universe, and are willing to resort to imposition to press gang new people into this project - an "ends justify the means" type argument and a common moral pitfall. — Tzeentch
People don't reproduce for the sake of the species' survival. This is just nonsense. — Tzeentch
Based on what evidence? — universeness
Why would I have to reject morality altogether? — universeness
Necessary to intelligent lifeforms who value legacy. — universeness
If you are living a purposeless life and have no sense of purpose in your life, then you have reaped what you sowed. If you believe that life and lifeforms have no purpose then you are left with time as your enemy and oblivion as your saviour. How sad. If you do have purpose in your life, then you are contradicting your own words that suggest you believe HUmans have no purpose in this universe. — universeness
Based on common understanding of human psychology.
But since you're the one claiming humans reproduce not out of personal motivations but some selfless act for the survival of mankind the burden of proof is on you. — Tzeentch
Based on what logic? Try actually answering a question instead of just responding with obvious and tedious obfuscations.Why would I have to reject morality altogether?
— universeness
It's either that or be a hypocrite. — Tzeentch
Because you like "legacy" you get to press gang everybody into your vanity project? — Tzeentch
If you are living a purposeless life and have no sense of purpose in your life, then you have reaped what you sowed. If you believe that life and lifeforms have no purpose then you are left with time as your enemy and oblivion as your saviour. How sad. If you do have purpose in your life, then you are contradicting your own words that suggest you believe HUmans have no purpose in this universe.
— universeness
A thinly-veiled attempt at a personal attack, and not remotely related to what I said. — Tzeentch
You are the one preaching antinatalism as a solution to your conflated moral issue, so the burden of proof is yours. — universeness
'It would be great to have something that is of me and you that will carry on the bloodlines.' — universeness
Why would I have to reject morality altogether? — universeness
It's either that or be a hypocrite. — Tzeentch
Based on what logic? — universeness
But the point is that the origin of the reproduction choice a human has, had no inherent intent, so any moral question you impose based on the existence of that choice is a purely human construct and has no natural imperative. — universeness
Your attempt to ignore legacy — universeness
The offspring shall serve the parents' ego, then? — Tzeentch
You sought to dismiss my moral dilemma on the basis that the choice is purely a human construct.
All morality is a human construct.
So you're either consistent and dismiss morality altogether, or start cherry-picking (which is what you're doing) and are inconsistent, ergo a hypocrite. — Tzeentch
No, I call it out for what it is: irrational ego-driven vanity.
You won't have a leg to stand on if your argument doesn't involve the well-being of the person you just forced to participate in your project, so I would suggest starting there. — Tzeentch
No, you don't seem to understand at all.
And you don't seem to understand what a proponent of the problem of evil believes either. — Bartricks
My argument is addressed to those who believe that the evils of the world constitute evidence that God does not exist. — Bartricks
It seems like you're using the word "God" interchangeably with OOO Being, I'm OK with either, but if there is some specific context in which you use one over the other I'll need some more details.A proponent of the problem of evil [PPE] believes that it would be wrong for God to invest a world such as this one with innocent life. They point to the evils of the world and conclude that God would have prevented those. That's the basis upon which they believe God does not exist. — Bartricks
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.