Because you love God, and you believe in the things promised by God. "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" — Agustino

But if you have faith that having a child is the right thing to do, then you're assuming that this child once born will agree with you.

The decision to have a child, is similar symbolically to the divine decision to create the world with its myriad forms in it. It emanates out of love, in this case the creative love that exists between a man and a woman. — Agustino

So play God? You do realize that our creations are wretched, imperfect, immoral, and better not to have been, right? God creating the world isn't the same as you fucking a woman and creating a fallen human being. There's nothing loving about bringing a child into the world so that it may suffer.

The argument about economic obligations still stands for 99% of people. Suffering exists for 100%. — schopenhauer1

If an argument can't hold for the 100%, it shouldn't be held. With regard to principles, they must be black and white. If there are exceptions, then the principle is flimsy.

But if you have faith that having a child is the right thing to do, then you're assuming that this child once born will agree with you. — Heister Eggcart

Why would I be assuming that? You're presupposing that the right thing to do has to be what the child will think is the right thing.

Furthermore, I don't hold that having a child is right or moral by necessity, only that it is not immoral by necessity.

So play God? — Heister Eggcart

Have you forgotten that man was created in the image of God?

God creating the world isn't the same as you fucking a woman and creating a fallen human being. — Heister Eggcart

First of all, I wouldn't call it "fucking" a woman, the word has connotations which denote abuse, or using her. And it's not my creation, it's the creation of the two of us, cause presumably my wife will also want to have a child, otherwise I wouldn't be having a child in the first place. You seem to think that the sexual act is always evil, but that's not true. God has intended a natural place for the sexual act, which is fuelled by our desire for intimacy and union with the beloved. The act is symbolic of God's creation, and is certainly something holy if done right and within the boundaries of marriage.

Of course there's nothing wrong with celibacy either, for those who aren't yet married (like myself) and those who want to be entirely devoted to God (monks/nuns).

Also, while human beings are fallen, there is an element of goodness left in us, otherwise we would be unable to recognise what is good in the first place, and salvation would be impossible (much like for those who have committed the unforgivable sin).

Eckhartus' mate, St. Thomas Aquinas writes:
“Human Nature is not so completely corrupted by sin as to be totally lacking in natural goodness.”

So the slim margin that someone might be rich enough to be above the fray of economic obligations means the whole principle is wrong? I don't think so. Also, if you look at most of my other antinatalism threads, I give many, many reasons why procreation leads to harm. This is just one of many. Combine them all together, and you have a pretty compelling case. This is just yet another reason that affects most people in the world.

Why would I be assuming that? You're presupposing that the right thing to do has to be what the child will think is the right thing. — Agustino

No.

Furthermore, I don't hold that having a child is right or moral by necessity, only that it is not immoral by necessity. — Agustino

Then you have no good reason to have a child. So, why are you in favor of having children if there's no good reason or necessity that demands their procreation?

First of all, I wouldn't call it "fucking" a woman, the word has connotations which denote abuse, or using her. — Agustino

You are using someone when you're having sex with them.

And it's not my creation, it's the creation of the two of us, cause presumably my wife will also want to have a child, otherwise I wouldn't be having a child in the first place.

What difference does this make? You have responsibility over the child just as you do over the cake you baked with your wife.

You seem to think that the sexual act is always evil, but that's not true. — Agustino

No, only that it isn't necessary with regard to procreation.

God has intended a natural place for the sexual act, which is fuelled by our desire for intimacy and union with the beloved. The act is symbolic of God's creation, and is certainly something holy if done right and within the boundaries of marriage. — Agustino

A dick in the hole is a dick in the hole. Throwing around symbolism and metaphorical interpretations on top of you having sex is willful sentimentalism. Also, I think it's worth noting that sex as a function came about after the fall of Man, so to equate sex to God's first creative emanations before sin's entrance into the world would be an entirely obtuse characterization. Sex is not sacred and pure as love is in itself, or justice, or any other virtue.

Of course there's nothing wrong with celibacy either, for those who aren't yet married (like myself) and those who want to be entirely devoted to God (monks/nuns). — Agustino

Nothing wrong? Think about what you're saying here for a second, and I think you'll take that back.

Also, while human beings are fallen, there is an element of goodness left in us, otherwise we would be unable to recognise what is good in the first place, and salvation would be impossible (much like for those who have committed the unforgivable sin).

Eckhartus' mate, St. Thomas Aquinas writes:
“Human Nature is not so completely corrupted by sin as to be totally lacking in natural goodness.” — Agustino

I don't deny that we can do good, only that I cannot divine up an instance wherein procreation is necessary.

Some don't need to have sex, and so celibacy is a properly moral option. Others, however, do need to satiate their sexual appetite, thereby curbing future ruin by not doing what is necessary. Yet, outside of this spectrum, what I'm saying is that it is never morally necessary for anyone to procreate. There is no need great or demanding enough that one cannot do good unless they themselves birth a child.

So the slim margin that someone might be rich enough to be above the fray of economic obligations means the whole principle is wrong? I don't think so. Also, if you look at most of my other antinatalism threads, I give many, many reasons why procreation leads to harm. This is just one of many. Combine them all together, and you have a pretty compelling case. This is just yet another reason. — schopenhauer1

But I'm saying that you need better reasoning than just, "you may not x, y, z." The discussion I'm having with Agustino I think entails absolutes. As I said before, black and whites, no grays. If you have an absolutist position that you think defends not procreating, I'd like to hear it.

No. — Heister Eggcart

Then why must I assume the child will agree with my judgement?

Then you have no good reason to have a child. So, why are you in favor of having children if there's no good reason or necessity that demands their procreation? — Heister Eggcart

I'm not in favor of having children (for everyone), I'm just not against it.

You are using someone when you're having sex with them. — Heister Eggcart

There is a difference between fucking a girl and being in love with a girl (even when that includes sex). Fucking a girl is like a leper scratching an itch - it's ultimately not fulfilling but it's something one does either out of spite for themselves or out of suffering. Being in love with a girl and marrying her can lead to sex, but the action is different. In that case it's not scratching an itch, but doing something that is positively fulfilling of a natural human desire - the desire for intimacy. I'm sorry if you cannot comprehend that there's more to sex than just fucking.

What difference does this make? You have responsibility over the child just as you do over the cake you baked with your wife. — Heister Eggcart

Sure.

No, only that it isn't necessary with regard to procreation. — Heister Eggcart

The sexual act isn't necessary with regard to procreation? :s What?

A dick in the hole is a dick in the hole. — Heister Eggcart

Well, leaving the vulgarity aside, the physical connection that happens during sex is mirroring the spiritual connection that happens between the two lovers. A dick in the hole may be a dick in the hole, but the act itself doesn't include just a dick in a hole.

Also, I think it's worth noting that sex as a function came about after the fall of Man, so to equate sex to God's first creative emanations before sin's entrance into the world would be an entirely obtuse characterization. Sex is not sacred and pure as love is in itself, or justice, or any other virtue. — Heister Eggcart

First of all this is completely unbiblical and completely false. Read Genesis 1:27-28, which occurs way before the Fall, just after God had created man. What does it say?

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

So how did God expect them to multiply if not sexually? Did Adam grow a penis and Eve a vagina only after they ate from the Tree of Knowledge? Don't be silly. If you actually leave the bullshit aside and look at human nature, you will see that man (and woman) both have a natural desire for intimacy with their other half, which is also expressed through committed intimacy (including sex) in a married relationship.

There is nothing wrong with sex in itself. But sex, like all other good things from God, has been corrupted with the Fall. And instead of being used for intimacy and procreation, it was used for power, status, etc. Promiscuity (and ALL other sexual sins which, by the way, have their root in promiscuity) is a fallen expression of sexuality.

Nothing wrong? Think about what you're saying here for a second, and I think you'll take that back. — Heister Eggcart

What's wrong with it, I seem to be too stupid to realise? :P

only that I cannot divine up an instance wherein procreation is necessary. — Heister Eggcart

Well, clearly God would disagree given that one of the first commandments was to be fruitful and multiply ;)

Some don't need to have sex, and so celibacy is a properly moral option. Others, however, do need to satiate their sexual appetite, thereby curbing future ruin by not doing what is necessary. — Heister Eggcart

These are not good reasons either for not having sex or for having it. Celibacy is either something temporary, or an action undertaken for spiritual purposes. Marriage and intimacy are fulfilling for many human beings, and they are goods, including having children. This is just how men and women were naturally created to be.

Now, if you either cannot find a woman who fits with you, or you want to undertake celibacy in order to be closer to God, then sure, there's nothing wrong with that. I don't suggest you should marry someone for the sake of having children or having sex. Only if you find the right person. But if you do, then you would be throwing away something that is precious - at least to most people, given our human nature. There's no reason to do that - you won't be more moral by doing it.

I don't deny that we can do good, only that I cannot divine up an instance wherein procreation is necessary. — Heister Eggcart

Then you're not technically an anti-natalist. Anti-natalism can be wrong and yet there be no morally binding reason to procreate.

Then why must I assume the child will agree with my judgement? — Agustino

Your judgement not to procreate? The baseline is doing nothing, not having the child.

There is a difference between fucking a girl and being in love with a girl (even when that includes sex). Fucking a girl is like a leper scratching an itch - it's ultimately not fulfilling but it's something one does either out of spite for themselves or out of suffering. Being in love with a girl and marrying her can lead to sex, but the action is different. In that case it's not scratching an itch, but doing something that is positively fulfilling of a natural human desire - the desire for intimacy. I'm sorry if you cannot comprehend that there's more to sex than just fucking. — Agustino

You love the person, not the sex. Sex is sex, regardless of what you're having sex with. And you don't need to have sex in order to love someone more fully.

The sexual act isn't necessary with regard to procreation? :s What? — Agustino

Sex isn't always evil, but procreation is never good. Having sex doesn't mean you're procreating, even though that's the primary, natural function of sex.

Well, leaving the vulgarity aside, the physical connection that happens during sex is mirroring the spiritual connection that happens between the two lovers. A dick in the hole may be a dick in the hole, but the act itself doesn't include just a dick in a hole. — Agustino

Yes, I'm sure that you love someone so much more if you spiritually slide your cock back and forth inside her! :D

First of all this is completely unbiblical and completely false. Read Genesis 1:27-28, which occurs way before the Fall, just after God had created man. What does it say? — Agustino

You know, I shouldn't have brought up the Bible, as that's a can of worms I'm not even going to open. All I'll say is that "be fruitful and multiply" doesn't necessarily infer human reproduction. Seeing as God is classically understood as love, to be fruitful is to multiply love.

There is nothing wrong with sex in itself. But sex, like all other good things from God, has been corrupted with the Fall. And instead of being used for intimacy and procreation, it was used for power, status, etc. Promiscuity (and ALL other sexual sins which, by the way, have their root in promiscuity) is a fallen expression of sexuality. — Agustino

Please separate sex from procreation. The two are different.

What's wrong with it, I seem to be too stupid to realise? — Agustino

Obviously being celibate can be wrong. I assumed you would think of pedophilic priests who are supposed to be celibates but fail at it. I would argue that they fail at it because they're not satisfying their sexual desires. Not doing that ends up with worse consequences (child abuse).

Marriage and intimacy are fulfilling for many human beings, and they are goods, including having children. This is just how men and women were naturally created to be. — Agustino

Nature is corrupt. Merely because having sex and procreating children is natural doesn't make it right or necessary to do so.

Now, if you either cannot find a woman who fits with you, — Agustino

My attempt here to emphasize the rawness of sex makes a statement like this absolutely hilarious, >:O

I don't suggest you should marry someone for the sake of having children or having sex. Only if you find the right person. But if you do, then you would be throwing away something that is precious - at least to most people, given our human nature. — Agustino

Procreation gets added to the list of corrupted, natural processes.

Even so, if a couple wants to have a child so that they might father and mother it and love it, then there are millions of little shits out there that can keep them up at night and are needing to be adopted.

Yes. I'd say that I'm not anti-sex in many cases, am not anti-birth because I think that once a life is in the world we have a responsibility to love it, but I am against procreation as there are no good reasons enough that convince me that it's necessary, for anything.

Read Genesis 1:27-28 — Agustino

Highly misleading. This passage has been read allegorically since the early church as I recall. It can refer to the fruitfulness and multiplication of virtue and as a call to evangelize (multiply the numbers of Christians by conversion).

but I am against procreation as there are no good reasons enough that convince me that it's necessary, for anything. — Heister Eggcart

This is still confused. Being against procreation is not the same as not finding any good reasons to procreate (for you).

Yea, if Heister is anti-peach-ice-cream, I doubt it's on the basis that it's unnecessary.

Your judgement not to procreate? The baseline is doing nothing, not having the child. — Heister Eggcart

Why would not procreating be the baseline, when we have a natural desire to procreate and be intimate?

You love the person, not the sex. — Heister Eggcart

Yes, I do love the person. The sex can be an expression of our love though, that's what you don't seem to understand. It's an expression of it. Just like a bird sings its song, as an expression of its being.

Sex is sex, regardless of what you're having sex with. — Heister Eggcart

This is absolutely false. Immoral sex is different than righteous and moral sex.

And you don't need to have sex in order to love someone more fully. — Heister Eggcart

Sure, I completely agree. I never said you have sex with your wife in order to love her more fully, indeed that would be very stupid and immoral (and untrue). Love comes first, sex is merely an expression of the underlying love when it happens.

procreation is never good. — Heister Eggcart

I disagree. There is a natural desire to procreate.

Yes, I'm sure that you love someone so much more if you spiritually slide your cock back and forth inside her! :D — Heister Eggcart

Oh yeah, how funny you are. Only that you forget that the physical motion of the penis inside the vagina isn't all that's happening at all. There's the touches, the looking into each other's eyes, the feeling of each other's bodies, the shared emotions, the feelings, the kissing, the intimate connection etc. You strip the act of 99% of what it includes, and then proceed to deride it. Well done.

All I'll say is that "be fruitful and multiply" doesn't necessarily infer human reproduction. Seeing as God is classically understood as love, to be fruitful is to multiply love. — Heister Eggcart

While that meaning may ALSO be the case it's not the essential meaning of the statement. Why not? Because Adam and Eve were the first human beings on Earth. Who were they to love? Themselves? No, they had to first reproduce.

Highly misleading. This passage has been read allegorically since the early church as I recall. It can refer to the fruitfulness and multiplication of virtue and as a call to evangelize (multiply the numbers of Christians by conversion). — Thorongil

This is ridiculous. So Adam and Eve are the only people on Earth (cause God had just created them) and one of the first commandments is to be fruitful and multiply virtue by evangelizing non-existent human beings in Paradise (cause the Fall hadn't occurred yet) :s Utterly absurd.

It is true that "fruitfulness" implies much more than physically procreating, but physical procreation is one of the absolute essentials, which makes all the other fruitfulness possible in the first place. So it seems to me you want to have the tree, without its roots. I do agree that the Bible has multiple levels of meaning, but these levels of meaning are complementary and not self-refuting.

Obviously being celibate can be wrong. I assumed you would think of pedophilic priests who are supposed to be celibates but fail at it. I would argue that they fail at it because they're not satisfying their sexual desires. Not doing that ends up with worse consequences (child abuse). — Heister Eggcart

This is a frequent misunderstanding of the way sexual desire functions - and Catholic priests aren't taught how to handle their sexual energy, they way monks are taught, so of course they struggle with it. That's one of the reasons why Orthodox priests are encouraged to marry.

Being a celibate cannot be wrong, but there are wrong ways of practicing celibacy. One such way is by repressing your sexual desire. The other is by expression of sexual desire in inappropriate ways, and some are more inappropriate than others. The right way of being a celibate is by sublimating your sexual desire, which does not mean repressing it (running away from it, trying not to feel it anymore) but accepting and experiencing the feeling(s) it generates and brings into consciousness without acting on them. Monks learn this because they have to practice it, and their mystical practice helps guide them through managing it. So celibates are actually very sexual people (most of the time) contrary to what most people would expect - they are very in touch with their sexual energies, and are a lot more aware of them than regular people.

Catholic priests are taught to repress their sexuality. They don't even masturbate (a sin, I know, but less of a sin than raping children). One of the reasons for this is that they misunderstand Aquinas. Aquinas called masturbation the worst sin in-so-far as only sexuality is considered. But in-so-far as justice, compassion, etc. are considered, then rape, child abuse, etc. are much worse. So priests should be told to masturbate if they cannot control their urges otherwise, as this is definitely a better choice than some other sins they would end up committing.

Now sexual desire in itself is not wrong, but it has to be understood. You have to understand what it is that you truly want when you want to have sex. And what you truly want (the natural end of sexual desire) is unending intimacy and love with your other half, something that can only be achieved within the boundaries of marriage. So then, once you understand that, you understand that just shagging that hot girl you see will not make you happy, and will not get you what you truly want. So then you don't do it - it becomes very natural. You don't have to struggle with it at all at that point. If you see a girl that everyone considers hot, it's not a problem, it doesn't disturb you in the least. Because you've understood the natural end of that desire.

However this natural desire for intimacy cannot be fulfilled until you obviously find the person who is your other half and marry them. So celibacy is the right response until then (or until you can be successful at that, management in the least sinful manner, probably masturbation), since there really is nothing else that can satisfy your desire anyway.

Merely because having sex and procreating children is natural doesn't make it right or necessary to do so. — Heister Eggcart

Sure, but it doesn't make it wrong either.

Procreation gets added to the list of corrupted, natural processes. — Heister Eggcart

That doesn't mean there isn't a right way to engage in it.

Even so, if a couple wants to have a child so that they might father and mother it and love it, then there are millions of little shits out there that can keep them up at night and are needing to be adopted. — Heister Eggcart

Sure, but again most people do have a desire to have their own children - to be co-creators.

I say it is immoral to knowingly throw more people into the obligatory forced agreements of the economic system or any system that requires obligatory duties be performed. — schopenhauer1

So, by saying that something is immoral you imply that there are absolute moral standards? If so, then why would you focus only on the biological suffering of the individual? Metaphysical morals would suggest that there is more to life than just suffering and body sensations.

The only reaction people will have is to embrace the obvious need for obligations instead of spur the fact that it's there in the first place. But if this is your answer, why do you not even question why we should put people in the circumstance of forced obligation in the first place? — schopenhauer1

Because ''forced obligation'' is not the only thing that we should focus on when contemplating whether a new life should be created or not. Let alone the fact that life is not evaluated in a quantitative way - good stuff vs bad stuff. It's about whether life itself is good or not.

This is ridiculous. So Adam and Eve are the only people on Earth (cause God had just created them) and one of the first commandments is to be fruitful and multiply virtue by evangelizing non-existent human beings in Paradise (cause the Fall hadn't occurred yet) :s Utterly absurd. — Agustino

That was only one of the interpretations I provided. But the evangelization might not refer to other human beings but to all the creatures of the earth. When they hear the command, Adam and Eve are ensconced in a fortified garden, suggesting that what lies outside it is dangerous and corrupting. Indeed, the rest of the verse calls on them to "subdue" the earth. Why would it need subduing if it were of the same Edenic nature? This can be taken as an oblique reference to the corruption of the earth by the fallen angels. I agree that the literal meaning of the command implies procreation, but as I believe Heister pointed out, it is given prior to the Fall. I don't think anyone would object to procreation if it took place in paradise by immaculate human beings! The trouble is procreation after the Fall. At the very least, you cannot say that the command is categorical, but only meant for certain people called to marriage and family life.

So, by saying that something is immoral you imply that there are absolute moral standards? If so, then why would you focus only on the biological suffering of the individual? Metaphysical morals would suggest that there is more to life than just suffering and body sensations. — Coldlight

I actually do focus on that. I bring in some utilitarian ideas like harm to bring some variety to the discussion, but technically, negative utilitarianism is not Pessimism proper per se. The core belief is more of the Schopenhaurean idea that the Will strives forward and will lead to frustration, Sisyphean absurdity, and the like.

As I've said in an earlier thread: Why do people need to be born into the world in order to redeem it? There is an underlying assumption here, or hope that more people put into the world "means" something. The redemption part is simply an post-hoc top layer put over this desire to keep seeing more people in the world. If all was really redeemed though, and there was no need for this, we would still desire the continuation of existence. But for what? The continuation of social relations, "progress" in science/technology, aesthetic contemplation, and mastering skills/knowledge, seem to be usual candidates. Also, the Camus' "hip" standing at the edge of existence by understanding the absurdity as we are living it out, is another candidate for many.

So the desire for redeeming the world (charity, scientific advancement, enlightenment) is really instrumental in getting what seems to be the underlying case, the pure desire for more existence. Schopenhauer might call this the "will-to-live".. or simply Will when made into an abstract metaphysical concept.

Also stated: Boredom is felt when one's attention is not focused on any particular task, or can originate from a lack of stimulating things to do. It is often described as a dullness or restlessness. It causes one to experience time passing, or rather "pressing" down on us. What makes boredom so significant compared to other emotions is that it is, arguably, the baseline emotional state of being. When the usual concerns and goals of daily life are exhausted, or temporarily unable to be pursued, boredom seems to seep through as the phenomenological default experience. If this is true, that boredom is a baseline experience for humans, then what does that say about the nature of being and existence itself?

If life was to be characterized by various forms of flux and stasis, and stress (in its loosest terms of causing one's homeostasis to be out of balance) is one side of the coin, boredom seems to be the emotional baseline state tied with homeostasis. Perhaps like other higher order animals, our baseline state is boredom, but unlike other animals, our acute awareness of our existence makes us aware of time passing, making it all that more significant as part of the human condition.

We are churning along, striving towards goals related to survival, comfort, and entertainment. The avenues to achieve this occur in our particular cultural and linguistic milieu. The props and plays may be different, but the themes are always the same (survival, comfort, and entertainment). The absence of any particular goal/upkeep routine/entertainment seems to lead to a profound boredom- that which makes us aware of our internal need for pursuing something.

There is the stress of moving this way and that, the stress that is inherent with being alive. There is the anxiety of stasis, of no particular goal in mind, of just being, of being acutely aware of time passing. Human existence is characterized by stress and boredom from our first moment of conscious experience.

Also stated: Here is the idea of instrumentality- the absurd feeling that can be experienced from apprehension of the constant need to put forth energy to pursue goals and actions in waking life. This feeling can make us question the whole human enterprise itself of maintaining mundane repetitive upkeep, maintaining institutions, and pursuing any action that eats up free time simply for the sake of being alive and having no other choice. There is also a feeling of futility as, the linguistic- general processor brain cannot get out of its own circular loop of awareness of this. Another part of the feeling of futility is the idea that there is no ultimate completion from any goal or action. It is that idea that there is nothing truly fulfilling. Time moves forward and we must make more goals and actions.

I agree that the literal meaning of the command implies procreation, but as I believe Heister pointed out, it is given prior to the Fall. — Thorongil

I pointed that out, Heister thinks (or rather thought) the opposite.

I don't think anyone would object to procreation if it took place in paradise by immaculate human beings! — Thorongil

Well this is precisely what Heister was objecting to, he was saying that sex did not exist, except after the Fall. But if sex didn't exist, how were Adam and Eve meant to procreate before the Fall?

At the very least, you cannot say that the command is categorical, but only meant for certain people called to marriage and family life. — Thorongil

Yes, exactly, I completely agree with this. It's a general command for mankind, not for all particular men (and women) - as I've explained celibacy is also moral.

Well this is precisely what Heister was objecting to, he was saying that sex did not exist, except after the Fall. But if sex didn't exist, how were Adam and Eve meant to procreate before the Fall? — Agustino

I think we can say that sex as we know and experience it didn't exist.

As I've said in an earlier thread: Why do people need to be born into the world in order to redeem it? There is an underlying assumption here, or hope that more people put into the world "means" something. — schopenhauer1

I wouldn't agree that the world needs to be redeemed. However, I don't think that we as human should think on this level. If a couple wants to have children, why should one of their first concerns be that there will be ''more of us'' on this planet? Why is it relevant? The point in which I disagree with utilitarianism is that life is about quality of life, not about quantity, therefore the number of people on this planet is irrelevant to the meaning of life and to the ethical questions raised.

Also, the Camus' "hip" standing at the edge of existence by understanding the absurdity as we are living it out, is another candidate for many. — schopenhauer1

We've all experienced Camus' feeling of absurdity. In Myth of Sisyphus, Camus' immediately discards human reason and claims that the world is alien to us. Why? Just because of some feelings, or the lack of other feelings? It's as if I said that the one who understands God has finally understood the meaning of life. It might sound appealing to some, but I haven't proven that it's true with regards to its relation to reality. Neither did Camus prove that his feeling of the 'absurd' is something more than just a feeling.

So the desire for redeeming the world (charity, scientific advancement, enlightenment) is really instrumental in getting what seems to be the underlying case, the pure desire for more existence. Schopenhauer might call this the "will-to-live".. or simply Will when made into an abstract metaphysical concept. — schopenhauer1

Charity, scientific advancement etc. do not have to be a manifested desire for redeeming the world. If the ''Will'' is a metaphysical concept, is it also a part of the human nature? A part that is not futile (as it itself wants to exist) at all, and the rest, psychological feelings and experiences are the ones that make a person miserable? That would however mean that a person can only be miserable in a material sense, in his own body, so to speak, but not outside of it in a metaphysical sense.
.

Also stated: Boredom is felt when one's attention is not focused on any particular task, or can originate from a lack of stimulating things to do. It is often described as a dullness or restlessness. It causes one to experience time passing, or rather "pressing" down on us. What makes boredom so significant compared to other emotions is that it is, arguably, the baseline emotional state of being. When the usual concerns and goals of daily life are exhausted, or temporarily unable to be pursued, boredom seems to seep through as the phenomenological default experience. If this is true, that boredom is a baseline experience for humans, then what does that say about the nature of being and existence itself? — schopenhauer1

In this sense there can be more default experiences. Why would an experience, regardless of the importance for the individual, be so telling when it comes to the nature of being and existence itself? How can it be defined by an experience?

If life was to be characterized by various forms of flux and stasis, and stress — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure if you view human just from a materialistic point of view when you're describing those forms.

If a couple wants to have children, why should one of their first concerns be that there will be ''more of us'' on this planet? Why is it relevant? The point in which I disagree with utilitarianism is that life is about quality of life, not about quantity, therefore the number of people on this planet is irrelevant to the meaning of life and to the ethical questions raised. — Coldlight

Well, the point of the quote you were responding to was that there a lot of post-hoc reasons we provide for why people need to be born, but none of them are satisfying as they create circular reasoning. Therefore, the only conclusion seems to be that more life (or more experience) itself is what is wanted. It is a desire for more for more's sake. This is not necessarily utilitarian, as there is no rational calculation here, just some underlying desire for more life/experience to be brought forth into the world.

We've all experienced Camus' feeling of absurdity. In Myth of Sisyphus, Camus' immediately discards human reason and claims that the world is alien to us. Why? Just because of some feelings, or the lack of other feelings? It's as if I said that the one who understands God has finally understood the meaning of life. It might sound appealing to some, but I haven't proven that it's true with regards to its relation to reality. Neither did Camus prove that his feeling of the 'absurd' is something more than just a feeling. — Coldlight

Well, the "feeling" is a feeling sure, but it's not a feeling your everyday animal possesses, but one that can self-reflect on its own existence- namely humans. But anyways, THAT particular use of the absurdity I was using was to point out that people may feel we need to be born to experience the absurdity because it's somehow hip and fun to do so. In other words, here Sisyphus is seen as a hero rather than a tragic figure. If life is a repetitious episode of boulder rolling, why not let people experience the fun of absurdity? One repeated theme of mine is that absurdity is really not fun or hip though, but more tragic. It is the repetitious nature of existence- the daily need for upkeep, work, entertainment that is so deadingly circular in its mechanism. Life is instrumentality itself, doing to do to do to do..

Charity, scientific advancement etc. do not have to be a manifested desire for redeeming the world. If the ''Will'' is a metaphysical concept, is it also a part of the human nature? A part that is not futile (as it itself wants to exist) at all, and the rest, psychological feelings and experiences are the ones that make a person miserable? That would however mean that a person can only be miserable in a material sense, in his own body, so to speak, but not outside of it in a metaphysical sense. — Coldlight

I haven't decided if I really believe there is some ground of a metaphysical "Will", but certainly there seems to be a principle of striving going either in the universe at large or in the individual psyche or both. The individual is continually striving-but-for-nothing until death of the individual. The Pessimist might try to quiet the will. Schopenhuaer advocated quietism through ascetics and pointed to the similarities of Eastern thought on this approach. Antinatalism advocates a prevention of future people which would quiet the needless striving of future people. "Why create a burden when none needs to be there in the first place" might be the approach of this brand of antinatalism.

In this sense there can be more default experiences. Why would an experience, regardless of the importance for the individual, be so telling when it comes to the nature of being and existence itself? How can it be defined by an experience? — Coldlight

Because it is the default experience of self-reflective minds that are not driving after goals.

I'm not sure if you view human just from a materialistic point of view when you're describing those forms. — Coldlight

I don't know about materialistic, but I mean the stress of goal-driven activities and the anxiety of boredom.

Why would not procreating be the baseline, when we have a natural desire to procreate and be intimate? — Agustino

Because one's desires need not be fulfilled. Merely because one has a desire does not mean that they must carry out that desire, otherwise hellfire and damnation upon them.

Yes, I do love the person. The sex can be an expression of our love though, that's what you don't seem to understand. It's an expression of it. Just like a bird sings its song, as an expression of its being. — Agustino

You're still trying to abstract sex out into some nebulous universe of righteous feeling and noodly virtue. I'm sure a psychopath will say that them hacking up someone to bits is an expression of their feeling free. But does this mean that whatever expression they think their act is refutes the base nature of the act itself? Surely not.

This is absolutely false. Immoral sex is different than righteous and moral sex. — Agustino

This is merely attaching things to sex in order for you to think about it in a better light. Like coating a turd in gold leaf.

I disagree. There is a natural desire to procreate. — Agustino

This doesn't make it good. And if it isn't good, one has no good reason, therefore, to do it.

Oh yeah, how funny you are. Only that you forget that the physical motion of the penis inside the vagina isn't all that's happening at all. There's the touches, the looking into each other's eyes, the feeling of each other's bodies, the shared emotions, the feelings, the kissing, the intimate connection etc. You strip the act of 99% of what it includes, and then proceed to deride it. Well done. — Agustino

All you've done here is replace the rawness of having sex with the rawness of kissing someone, looking into their eyes. Love is not a sentiment, and your categorization of sex is just that, a petty sentiment.

While that meaning may ALSO be the case it's not the essential meaning of the statement. Why not? Because Adam and Eve were the first human beings on Earth. Who were they to love? Themselves? No, they had to first reproduce. — Agustino

Erm, yes? Eve was made so that Adam might love her, as Adam could not love himself.

This is ridiculous. So Adam and Eve are the only people on Earth (cause God had just created them) and one of the first commandments is to be fruitful and multiply virtue by evangelizing non-existent human beings in Paradise (cause the Fall hadn't occurred yet) :s Utterly absurd. — Agustino

Love is not reserved merely for humankind.

It is true that "fruitfulness" implies much more than physically procreating, but physical procreation is one of the absolute essentials, which makes all the other fruitfulness possible in the first place. So it seems to me you want to have the tree, without its roots. I do agree that the Bible has multiple levels of meaning, but these levels of meaning are complementary and not self-refuting. — Agustino

Procreation is an absolute essential of what? Love?

This is a frequent misunderstanding of the way sexual desire functions - and Catholic priests aren't taught how to handle their sexual energy, they way monks are taught, so of course they struggle with it. That's one of the reasons why Orthodox priests are encouraged to marry. — Agustino

Marriage doesn't require sexual relations.

Being a celibate cannot be wrong, but there are wrong ways of practicing celibacy. — Agustino

This makes zero sense.

nothing [...] can satisfy [...] desire — Agustino

Agreed. So marriage and having "righteous sex" and having children are but shams.

Sure, but it doesn't make it wrong either. — Agustino

If having a child is neither right nor wrong in your thinking, then there is, as I've said several times now, no good reason to procreate. And if there's no good reason to do something, one has no moral foundation from which they can retreat to if it blows up in their face.

Consider the above this way: there are no good reasons for me to walk outside, lower my pants, and shit on the concrete, but there are bad reasons for me to do the same, such as being seen, someone having to pick it up if not me, someone running it over, my dog eating it, the list goes on. However, were all these reasons entirely unconvincing to me, and the decision to shit on the pavement appeared neither good nor bad, and I go out and shit on the pavement instead of doing nothing, then that decision immediately becomes the past. Once I've shat on the concrete, there then arrives an all new environment where I have to decide whether or not I want to clean up the poo, make someone else do it, risk fallout from that, etc. etc. So, in the instance that you decide to carry out the seemingly amoral decision to crap on the sidewalk instead of doing nothing, you then have to deal with the new realities of that decision, which subsequently facilitate moral dilemmas. In the context of procreation, this means that you can put on blinders and think that deciding to procreate is some sort of amoral, blah decision, but once you've carried out that decision, you then have to take responsibility for the shit on your doorstep. You can't sit back and say after the fact that having the child, then, was a good and righteous and lahdeedahdeedah. Also, the original decision not to shit on the sidewalk because it is judged as being neither good nor bad but amoral, does not facilitate moral dilemmas because I've not acted upon it. It has affected no one but me for the moment I thought about it and then forgot about it.

Regardless, I think I do consider procreation always wrong because there are guarantees with the decision to procreate. The decision to shit on the sidewalk at the very least does not guarantee suffering. Procreating a child into existence does, which is why playing dumb, or flicking the amoral card on the table just isn't going to cut it.

That doesn't mean there isn't a right way to engage in it. — Agustino

To engage in sex or procreation. I agree that there is a right way to have sex (different from yours, and to which I've explained before, in some other thread), but disagree that there is a right way to procreate, as that entails there being a good reason to procreate, which you yourself have argued against.

Sure, but again most people do have a desire to have their own children - to be co-creators. — Agustino

So what?

Well this is precisely what Heister was objecting to, he was saying that sex did not exist, except after the Fall. But if sex didn't exist, how were Adam and Eve meant to procreate before the Fall? — Agustino

Adam and Eve weren't meant to procreate before the Fall because they didn't need to, just as they didn't need to wear clothing. But once they were expelled from the Garden, they were committed to sin, which means they were pigeon-holed into making bad decisions. I'm arguing here that procreation is one of them, and not a virtue of some sort such as Adam and Eve's capacity to still love each other, to take care of each other, etc.

~ Have you watched the recent Noah movie with Russell Crowe? I think I've asked you this before...but I'd be interested to know how you'd review the movie from a moral standpoint, because even though I think the movie itself from a film standpoint is kinda bad and cheesy, some of its themes are surprisingly deep. I don't even think the movie's writers quite realized what they were suggesting, let alone very many of the movie's watchers. Anyway, I suggest you watch it, or if you already have, think about it again with half a mind toward this discussion. I just find it intriguing how a movie like Noah can subtly argue against procreation just the same as a Se7en can. A testament to the beauty of the arts! O:)

Because one's desires need not be fulfilled. — Heister Eggcart

:s this is very bullshitty. It follows almost by definition that it is good for an organism to fulfil its natural desires. Not all desires are of the same kind. Some are not natural desires. Yes, there is no need to fulfil those.

Merely because one has a desire does not mean that they must carry out that desire, otherwise hellfire and damnation upon them. — Heister Eggcart

Yes, that's why I made a useful distinction, which you've completely ignored, and spoke of natural desires. That eliminates psychopaths and cannibals, so please, no such examples.

I'm sure a psychopath will say that them hacking up someone to bits is an expression of their feeling free. But does this mean that whatever expression they think their act is refutes the base nature of the act itself? Surely not. — Heister Eggcart

Okay, how is this related to two people in love who have sex within the boundaries of a married relationship again? :s

This is merely attaching things to sex in order for you to think about it in a better light. Like coating a turd in gold leaf. — Heister Eggcart

So if you have sex with a prostitute that is no different than having sex with your wife within the boundaries of marriage in terms of morality according to you? :s

This doesn't make it good. And if it isn't good, one has no good reason, therefore, to do it. — Heister Eggcart

Well, most Platonists/Aristotelians - of which the early Christians were - would associate natural with good, for the most part.

All you've done here is replace the rawness of having sex with the rawness of kissing someone, looking into their eyes. Love is not a sentiment, and your categorization of sex is just that, a petty sentiment. — Heister Eggcart

I don't see an argument here.

Procreation is an absolute essential of what? Love? — Heister Eggcart

Of other kind of fruitfulness, including, yes, love.

Agreed. So marriage and having "righteous sex" and having children are but shams. — Heister Eggcart

:-O :-} lol

If having a child is neither right nor wrong in your thinking, then there is, as I've said several times now, no good reason to procreate. — Heister Eggcart

Nope, I haven't said it's neither. I said it can be either of them, depending on context.

Procreating a child into existence does, which is why playing dumb, or flicking the amoral card on the table just isn't going to cut it. — Heister Eggcart

Suffering is not always bad, sorry to tell you :P

So what? — Heister Eggcart

That is indication it is a natural desire that comes from within man's own being.

Have you watched the recent Noah movie with Russell Crowe? — Heister Eggcart

No, I don't watch Hollywood anymore :P Such bullshit honestly, I get so bored trying to watch a movie nowadays. It's the same crap story time and time again, and it seems bullshitty to experience emotions while starring at the screen instead of by living through them. I can't stand the fakery.

Well, the point of the quote you were responding to was that there a lot of post-hoc reasons we provide for why people need to be born, but none of them are satisfying as they create circular reasoning. Therefore, the only conclusion seems to be that more life (or more experience) itself is what is wanted. It is a desire for more for more's sake. This is not necessarily utilitarian, as there is no rational calculation here, just some underlying desire for more life/experience to be brought forth into the world. — schopenhauer1

I will link my answer with this:

I haven't decided if I really believe there is some ground of a metaphysical "Will", but certainly there seems to be a principle of striving going either in the universe at large or in the individual psyche or both. The individual is continually striving-but-for-nothing until death of the individual. The Pessimist might try to quiet the will. Schopenhuaer advocated quietism through ascetics and pointed to the similarities of Eastern thought on this approach. Antinatalism advocates a prevention of future people which would quiet the needless striving of future people. "Why create a burden when none needs to be there in the first place" might be the approach of this brand of antinatalism. — schopenhauer1

From what you say, it is reasonable to assume that life, in your view, has a meaning. If it had no meaning, then every claim about whether something is moral or immoral would be just an expression of one's mood or opinion. It wouldn't be raised above the human existence as an absolute principle.

If death is the end of it all, if we simply cease to exist, then why is it important to be moral? I'm not sure if you would argue that it is important to lead a morally fulfilling life. I assume you would, otherwise why say that it is immoral to procreate, and stand up for the morally right decision?

Consequently, if the meaning was in leading a morally fulfilling life, then by not procreating you purposefully take away a chance from a new person to lead a meaningful, morally fulfilling life.

Not all desires are of the same kind. Some are not natural desires. — Agustino

You seem very focused on bull shit in this response, so I call bullshit again. You'll have to explain to me how a desire in nature doesn't have to be natural.

Yes, that's why I made a useful distinction, which you've completely ignored, and spoke of natural desires. That eliminates psychopaths and cannibals, so please, no such examples. — Agustino

Throwing attachments onto a desire doesn't change the desire in itself.

Okay, how is this related to two people in love who have sex within the boundaries of a married relationship again? — Agustino

Same response here as what I just gave above. Sex is sex. What you're trying to change, rather, is the love, not the sex. But I don't think you've figured that out yet, or at least you've not alluded to the affirmative.

So if you have sex with a prostitute that is no different than having sex with your wife within the boundaries of marriage in terms of morality according to you? — Agustino

No, the sex is the same. But whether there is love present is what's the matter.

Well, most Platonists/Aristotelians - of which the early Christians were - would associate natural with good, for the most part. — Agustino

Okay?

I don't see an argument here. — Agustino

And kissing is spiritual. Alright, bro.

Of other kind of fruitfulness, including, yes, love. — Agustino

So procreation is an absolute essential for love? Brooooo, please stop contradicting yourself.

Nope, I haven't said it's neither. I said it can be either of them, depending on context. — Agustino

I
I
I
V

Furthermore, I don't hold that having a child is right or moral by necessity, only that it is not immoral by necessity. — Agustino

?

Suffering is not always bad, sorry to tell you — Agustino

Yes it is. Suffering is "bad" even if it brings about the good.

That is indication it is a natural desire that comes from within man's own being. — Agustino

But one must identify, and argue, from which half of man's being the desire to procreate comes. I also contest that the will to procreate is inherent and that everyone longs to have a child.

No, I don't watch Hollywood anymore :P Such bullshit honestly, I get so bored trying to watch a movie nowadays. It's the same crap story time and time again, and it seems bullshitty to experience emotions while starring at the screen instead of by living through them. I can't stand the fakery. — Agustino

Humor me and watch it. At the very least you'll enjoy it more than dropping a pizza on the tile.

If death is the end of it all, if we simply cease to exist, then why is it important to be moral? I'm not sure if you would argue that it is important to lead a morally fulfilling life. I assume you would, otherwise why say that it is immoral to procreate, and stand up for the morally right decision?

Consequently, if the meaning was in leading a morally fulfilling life, then by not procreating you purposefully take away a chance from a new person to lead a meaningful, morally fulfilling life. — Coldlight

I don't agree with the premise that one has to lead a "morally fulfilling life". One can be moral, but "leading a morally fulfilling life" has a different connotation. Leading a morally fulfilling life means that there is some fulfillment from morality. I do not see that as the case of morality. Rather, it is a set of standards of how humans should treat each other. Also, if it is "immoral to procreate" than by procreating people so they can "fulfill" the duty to not procreate would defeat the goal of not procreating in the first place, which would also make this rule absurd. In order to follow the antintatalist principle, you do not procreate out of prevention of a future person's suffering. You do not need to be fulfilled from this.

To expand this to Schopenhauer- we all are manifestations of Willing and the only thing to do to temper it, according to him, is to quiet it through denial, which is roughly similar to living according to ascetic Buddhist/hermit lifestyle practices. As an extension, a way to prevent future suffering is to prevent birth. Therefore, there is no morally fulfilling life as an obligation here. Rather, if one wants to quiet the Will, then one should do X. One does not have to do X but then one won't quiet the Will. One is not obligated to do X though.

So the takeaways here are that "morally fulfilling life" is not really a goal (it's made up)- there is no obligation to live a morally fulfilling life, just to be moral perhaps. Also, if we did follow your principle of leading a morally fulfilling life and apply it to antinatalism, it absurdly leads to the idea that we must have people so that they don't have people. Rather, people do not need to be born, and further, should be prevented from being born out of preventing the burdens, harms, and suffering of the future child. There needs to be no added "and we must be fulfilled from doing this". Finally, if we were to move from straight-up antinatalism to Schopenhaurean morality- his is more of a hypothetical imperative, not an obligation. IF you want to diminish Will, you must deny it by living in roughly ascetic practices similar to certain Buddhist practices. Further, Schopenhauer has a conception of empathy towards fellow man. A more enlightened character would have a "moral sense" of empathy whereby their Will is diminished by being less individuated. Thus Schopenhauer's moral theory regarding empathy is based on moral sense and perhaps how attuned a character is to this moral sense which is based on a nature that is less inclined to follow the dictates of one's Willing nature.

You seem very focused on bull shit in this response, so I call bullshit again. You'll have to explain to me how a desire in nature doesn't have to be natural. — Heister Eggcart

A natural desire is one which belongs to the essence of that organism. Cannibalism isn't a natural desire for example. Nourishing your body, however, is a natural desire.

Same response here as what I just gave above. Sex is sex. What you're trying to change, rather, is the love, not the sex. But I don't think you've figured that out yet, or at least you've not alluded to the affirmative. — Heister Eggcart

No, I can assure you that having sex is a different experience with a prostitute than with your wife. The two may bear a resemblance, but they are not the same.

So procreation is an absolute essential for love? Brooooo, please stop contradicting yourself. — Heister Eggcart

Yes it is, but not for a particular human being, but rather for the human race as a whole.

I
I
I
V — Heister Eggcart

What's this strange sign?

? — Heister Eggcart

In other words, there's situations when it's not immoral to have a child. Suffering, contrary to your axiom, isn't necessarily evil.

Yes it is. Suffering is "bad" even if it brings about the good. — Heister Eggcart

Okay, it seems that this is the point over which we disagree. I don't think suffering is evil, many times the suffering and the reward are not separate. Many saints, for example, have enjoyed to suffer for the sake of God.

But one must identify, and argue, from which half of man's being the desire to procreate comes. I also contest that the will to procreate is inherent and that everyone longs to have a child. — Heister Eggcart

I never claimed everyone longs to have a child, I said most people.

Humor me and watch it. At the very least you'll enjoy it more than dropping a pizza on the tile. — Heister Eggcart

Patience :P

@OP: I'm not sure at this point whether you're talking about forcing people to live or forcing them to work and function as parts of our societies, but I assume the latter. Well, no one is forced to do that. Run away, burn everything you own, go live in a forest. But since you have seemed to kind of dismiss this solution, maybe you're talking of forcing people into this decision, not only forcing them to choose the option we do. But this isn't forced upon anyone either: the state of unexistence is reachable and available as an option. You're talking of procreation and thus beginning of existence, but in my opinion what is relevant is existence itself. I.e. for the subject of these actions, there is no difference between never existing and existing until they kill themself.

A natural desire is one which belongs to the essence of that organism. Cannibalism isn't a natural desire for example. Nourishing your body, however, is a natural desire. — Agustino

Natural, adjective

1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria"
2.
of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
"sharks have no natural enemies"

Nature, noun

1.
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
"the breathtaking beauty of nature"
synonyms: the natural world, Mother Nature, Mother Earth, the environment; More
2.
the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it.

Sorry, Agu, but cannibalism can be a natural desire.

No, I can assure you that having sex is a different experience with a prostitute than with your wife. The two may bear a resemblance, but they are not the same. — Agustino

You'll have to convince me of this assurance because at present you're failing to do so.

Yes it is, but not for a particular human being, but rather for the human race as a whole. — Agustino

Humankind is but a collection of particular human beings, not some amorphous blob. Furthermore, what is your criteria for those who must procreate? Who are they, and why do they have to procreate?

What's this strange sign? — Agustino

It's an arrow.

In other words, there's situations when it's not immoral to have a child. — Agustino

Such as? If it's merely to prolong humankind as a race on Earth, why is that important and sufficient justification?

Suffering, contrary to your axiom, isn't necessarily evil.

And why is that?

Okay, it seems that this is the point over which we disagree. I don't think suffering is evil, many times the suffering and the reward are not separate. Many saints, for example, have enjoyed to suffer for the sake of God. — Agustino

There are three parts to this. The suffering, the act of doing what brings about the suffering, and the "reward" once the act is suffered through. For instance, I play the drums, so if I go to practice the drums there is, 1. the specific practicing of the drums, 2. the suffering that goes along with that (muscle fatigue, sweat, finger blisters, etc.), and 3. the end product of me being better at playing the drums (only attainable through practice.) Merely because I've become a better drummer post-practicing doesn't remove the prior state of suffering.

I never claimed everyone longs to have a child, I said most people. — Agustino

If this is the case, then how exactly is procreation a natural desire if it isn't inherent in everyone?