Kant is not even wrong ... so Cabrera is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

Kant can be wrong in some things and still be right in others.

Kant can be wrong on Kant.

Yes, of course, I'm only referring to Kant in the sense you bring him up in the OP.

The arrangement always means that you are still a unit and treated as a means. The package is not because you are you, it is contingent on how valuable they think you are.. When you are not valuable, they will just fire you because you are no longer a means for their end. — schopenhauer1

Sure, as the nature of life in this world is one of eating.

You, too, eat others. But how concerned are you about the morality of that? You think that being lower on the food chain makes you more innocent?

@schopenhauer1

Kant's categorical imperative, does it apply to natalism? What if everybody did that (procreated)?

Antinatalism is paradoxical - it values life & joy and for that reason promotes a 0 child policy (you would've been quite at home in the China of the 80's with its 1 child policy, just 1 tiny, babystep away from your dreams :cool:).

Not really, because ironically, FORCING a population to do something, even if to prevent ANOTHER forcing (that is to say procreating someone into the burdens of life), would be a contradiction of using a similar moral violation of forcing upon someone (in this case a personal decision to procreate) to solve the issue other moral violation (of forcing unnecessary harms onto someone). And also, of course, that isn't the reason at all why China has done that.

Not really, because ironically, FORCING a population to do something, even if to prevent ANOTHER forcing (that is to say procreating someone into the burdens of life), would be a contradiction of using the exact moral issue (forcing upon someone) to solve the issue (of forcing life onto someone). — schopenhauer1

I see, but I thought we're arguing for antinatalism i.e. making people aware of the immorality of bringing children into this world (re your forced-to-play-the-game argument). We had a very strong case thousands of years ago when life was short, brutish, and nasty (Locke?), but now with science & technology the argument from suffering has weakened and is gonna be unsound in another (say) 500 suns. In other words the immorality of birthing children has to shift base from consequentialism to the next closest harbor viz. Kantian ethics.

Is life intrinsically immoral in the Kantian sense? Should everyone make babies (re the categorical imperative)?

In other words the immorality of birthing children has to shift base from consequentialism to the next easy harbor viz. Kantian ethics. — Agent Smith

Fine by me as my argument has been deontological for a long time.

Is life intrinsically immoral in the Kantian sense? Should everyone make babies (re the categorical imperative)? — Agent Smith

Yes, I've made the case.. See backlog of hundreds of posts relating to not forcing unnecessary suffering absolutely (as is the case prior to someone's possible birth).

Can you elaborate, I don't recall having read that particular argument you say you've made.

suffering — schopenhauer1

We can't use a consequentialist argument.

Can you elaborate, I don't recall having read that particular argument you say you've made. — Agent Smith

It is a violation to cause unnecessary suffering onto someone. It would be using them, even for good intentions. Prior to birth, one can prevent unnecessary suffering onto someone absolutely.. Once born, it is impossible to cause unnecessary suffering absolutely, but certainly prior to birth this rule can be followed and someone's dignity/worth/being used (by being born and thus suffering unnecessary) would not be violated.

We can't use a consequentialist argument. — Agent Smith

The deontological RULE is to not cause unnecessary suffering onto others.

The deontological RULE is to not cause unnecessary suffering onto others — schopenhauer1

So you propose a combo (Kant + Bentham/Mill). :up:

Sort of, if you want to think of it that way.. I think our language in "consequential" versus "deontological" can be a bit tricky..

Clearly, "not lying" with fully understanding that the outcome would be a lie, seems to violate the principle of "not lying" so consequences matter in a certain way in deontology.. However, consequences as THE Summum bonum, I think is what distinguishes the two not that consequences should not be a consideration en toto.

And as far as unnecessary suffering being a deontological rule.. Suffering seems intuitively to be a major part of ethical consideration. And justice is often at base, not being used (not having rights violated, etc.). Combining this, one way of not "using" someone, and valuing dignity (in hypothetical or actual terms) would be not to intend to bring about situations of unnecessary suffering for someone else.

We must distinguish entailment from effect.

I conjecture that life is inherently/intrinsically immoral i.e. it's unethical to have children ... even in svargaloka.

We must distinguish entailment from effect.

I conjecture that life is inherently/intrinsically immoral i.e. it's unethical to have children ... even in svargaloka. — Agent Smith

Oui monsieur.

Oui monsieur. — schopenhauer1

Good day.

Antinatalism is paradoxical - it values life & joy and for that reason promotes a 0 child policy ... — Agent Smith

Antinatalists like David Benatar and @schopenhauer1 value life over morality (not unlike Kierkegaard's 'teleological suspension of the ethical'), that is, they argue, in effect, it is better to prevent life than to struggle with both the personal and the public moral problem of preventing and/or reducing the suffering in individual lives as much as possible. "Destroying the village in order to save the village" does not save the village, only rationalizes an atrocity – in the case of antinatalism, it only rationalizes evading moral engagement with the problem of the suffering of the living by, in effect, proposing to eliminate sufferers themselves. Why not advocate total nuclear war (or unleashing the most virulent lethal pathogens from all biolabs) – engineering an extinction-event – in order to "prevent bringing any more offspring into the world"? :mask:

Actually, it's more a simple solution and elegant. Don't create the burdens to overcome in the first place. Keep it simple.

But I was discussing earlier.. It's not about suffering simpliciter. It's about not violating the principle of autonomy nor causing unnecessary impositions onto others. The end result might be no person, but no person cares about no-thing, including your lament.

Also, how would an antinatalist who cares about unnecessary harm advocate what is possibly the most harmful event (nuclear war)?

Actually, it's more a simple solution and elegant. Don't create the burdens to overcome in the first place. Keep it simple. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, but this antinatalist evasion is too simplistic, schop ...

There is also the other side of the coin minted by Einstein: “Everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler” – a scientist’s defense of art and knowledge – of lightness, completeness and accuracy. — Louis Zukofsky, 1950

... which I've pointed out previously and you continue to (or can't help but) ignore.

Antinatalists like David Benatar and schopenhauer1 value life over morality (not unlike Kierkegaard's 'teleological suspension of the ethical'), that is, they argue, in effect, it is better to prevent life than to struggle with both the personal and the public moral problem of preventing and/or reducing the suffering in individual lives as much as possible. "Destroying the village in order to save the village" does not save the village, only rationalizes an atrocity – in the case of antinatalism, it only rationalizes evading moral engagement with the problem of the suffering of the living by, in effect, proposing to eliminate sufferers themselves. Why not advocate total nuclear war (or unleashing the most virulent lethal pathogens from all biolabs) – engineering an extinction-event – in order to "prevent bringing any more offspring into the world"? :mask: — 180 Proof

Antinatalism is a trivial solution to the problem of suffering just like, as you said many suns ago, if happiness is everything, put everybody on a morphine drip!

That said, I conjecture thst life is inherently/intrinsically immoral. There's something not quite right about life, but I haven't got me finger on it ... yet. It might, for example, fail Kant's categorical imperative. Should everybody have children? No, right?

Should everybody have children? No, right? — Agent Smith

Right! Only those who want to have children for no other reason but to love them and bring them up strong. My (panglossian) guess is that's only about one in four, if thst many, who actually have a children. :smirk:

The rest, three-quarters of the species, however, needs to be sterilzed! :brow:

Right! Only those who want to have them for no other reason but to love them and bring them up strong. That's about one in four who have a children is my (panglossian) guess. :smirk:

The rest, three-quarters of the species, however, needs to be sterilzed! :brow: — 180 Proof

:lol: Rational reproduction, like rational medicine (it works) or like rational spending (epic fail).