Thanks, I guess there is some value in asking the question at the same time.

Thanks, I guess there is some value in asking the question at the same time. — Sumyung Gui

A little history for you—The moderators here on the forum decided to lump all anti-natalism discussions into this one thread because they annoy some people. I mean the threads annoy some people, not the moderators. Well, the moderators annoy people too. So, anyway, you might find yourself responding to posts that are really old. Also—if you start a new anti-natalism thread, the moderators will likely move it here without telling you.

For your information—@schopenhauer1 is our resident anti-natalism expert.

This argument strikes me as at best indentured servitude to a hypothetical or slavery to a hypothetical at worst. Am I off the mark?

"You must exist and suffer because some hypothetical beings might have it better as a result."

Slave owners had it better than their slaves. — Sumyung Gui

Yeah I think I agree here. The argument was:

There's suffering but there's also a lot of joy. A lot of people consider the suffering to be worth it due to the joy. — Xanatos

My response was basically:
It is immoral to be aggressively paternalistic- that is to say, to assume
a) others should experience a certain existential arrangement that you deem as good (like having to survive in this universe in some socio-economic way)
b) causing known harms (you know this is part of almost all human lives)
c) causing unknown harms (you know of harms that you cannot predict)

All of these assumptions would be violating the dignity of the person, as forced choices and forced, unnecessary (avoidable) harm was caused on behalf of someone else when this situation could have been avoided (by not procreating).

So my argument rests on deontological considerations of duties towards others not to violate their dignity or use them.

Xanatos also implied that it is okay to do X negative to someone (that could have been avoided) as long as it is with the intention or the hunch that the person being harmed would appreciate it post-facto. Using someone, by causing avoidable harms unto someone, EVEN with the intention that they will have positive experiences from it as well, is still a violation of dignity, the violation of not using people, and a violation of the principle of doing no harm.

Once born, the situation changes whereby there is no WAY to both live and avoid harm and pursue interests. It would in fact be a violation to prevent certain goals and such that might cause harm because the person born now has interests, values, and such. At that post-birth stage, it becomes using heuristics whereby one respects the goals, values, and worth of others while still trying best to exercise ones own will.

However, prior to birth, this is the only time someone (a potential parent) can avoid doing harm 100% towards someone else (by not procreating a child that will be forced and harmed). Thus, really, the decision to not procreate is one of the only ethical decisions where someone can "perfectly" follow the rule of not causing avoidable harm, not using someone, and not violating someone else's dignity by forcing your will on their behalf.

For your information—@schopenhauer1 is our resident anti-natalism expert. — T Clark

I could not disagree more, and suggest you read more of the posts of @DA671

It’s nice to be in such a diverse environment where some wanna die whilst others wanna live forever.

Your characteristic generosity is greatly appreciated. However, with all due respect, I don't think that I possess either the eloquence or the breadth of knowledge that S1 does. I can only hope to present the other side of the coin.

Good people have such thrusted upon them. Your judgement of yourself is often not as important as how others might judge you. In my opinion your views are far far more balanced, and show more insight, into the very fringe issue of anti-life(natalism), compared to posters such as schopenhauer1.

:heart: :pray:

Done patting yourselves on the back? I find it funny that some styles of debate here are to be very unpleasant, but then use that to say how pleasant life is. Demonstrating unpleasantness as a way to justify life's pleasantness seems a bit more than odd to me.

I could not disagree more, — universeness

Now you're just looking to start an argument. Let's share a meat pie instead.

:grin: Forfar or Killie?

Forfar or Killie? — universeness

Mull.

:roll: Another non-existent who's followers you pander to! Only Kiddin! Put down the gun/Killie pie, and walk away slowly! :fear:

The moderators have relegated all anti-natalism posts to a single thread. That includes anti-anti-natalism threads.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13310/antinatalism-arguments/p1

Ah I was not aware of such an initiative. Thank you for pointing it out

I think Mr Schop1 has been able to sneak in a few new antinatalist threads since the move the mods made to put them all under 1 title.

Anti-natalism is pointless. It's not like mother earth wouldn't reestablish life if it was snuffed out, as it has many times before. Mass extinctions occur. But life as a whole, persists. — Benj96

I have made a similar point many times when discussing antinatalism. Life existing in the universe is, has, and always will be, a natural consequence of very large variety in every combination possible and my main evidence, is the fact that it has already happened that way.
The antinatalists on TPF don't seem to be concerned with the general existence of 'life' in the universe, they just think that the best cure for human suffering, is no more humans, it's as banal and irrational as that.

I think Mr Schop1 has been able to sneak in a few new antinatalist threads since the move the mods made to put them all under 1 title. — universeness

In the words of Winston Churchill, "Eat it raw, fuzz nuts."

Antinatalism preaches that we are all better off dead than alive because it avoids suffering. — Benj96

I don't think so. Assuming that the occasional joys of life do not justify or compensate for life's inexorable and useless suffering, antinatalism proposes that it's better not to be born in the first place, and failing that, therefore, we who are already born and suffer should not breed any more generations of 'innocents' who will uselessly suffer as we have and do. For the antinatalist, it's (hypothetical) never-borns which are "better off", not "the dead" (especially since the prospect of an 'afterlife' remains an open question – perhaps the dead can suffer?! (which is, for some, another precautionary / paranoid reason not to breed)).

Btw, I'm an antinatalist in principle – at least until a viable mode of Abolitionism is invented – but not by policy (i.e. ideology). I am far more concerned with reducing the suffering of actual already-borns (naturalized ethics) than preserving the 'hypothetical bliss' of never-borns (speculative inexistence).

Don't get over-excited auld yin! :lol: Yer nuts will shrivel even mair than they already huv!

Don't get over-excited auld yin! — universeness

I understand. You never have been one to speak out about what's fair and what's not.

One topic, only needs one soap box.

To make it a bit easier to respond, here was the original post by Benj96:

Antinatalism preaches that we are all better off dead than alive because it avoids suffering.

However the dead cannot suffer. Nor have they any agency, choice, power, authority or intellect to subvert suffering. So the goal of antinatalism is one of irrelevance and impotence.

Secondly, life, albeit harmful and treacherous indeed at times, is also full of beneficial/benevolent phenomena like love, nurturing, support, care, joy, peace, prosperity, triumph, opportunity, optimism, kindness/generosity, control, choice and agency.

Antinatalism declares that life is the greatest of impositions. But to the living, and especially to those that enjoy life, antinatalism is the greatest of impositions. Not to mention that the state of livinghood was imposed on all by abiogenesis. The universe brought about life whether one likes it or not. This imposition applies to everyone, and yet not everyone feels "imposed" upon by that fact. Many indeed feel grateful instead. Myself included.

Who has more choice? The living or the dead? And thus who has the most authority and capacity to engage and diminish suffering; the living or the dead?

The dead do not impose, control nor have a say. The living do. And because the living are the only faction that can suffer, perhaps the decision to endure it or opt for an escape, is for the living not the dead.

The final statement, is that the living are the only faction that can be antinatalist. There are two things their views must be reconciled with: a). Why do they continue to live if their sole objective in argument is total mass anhilation?This seems hypocritical. You're living to tell people not to.

And secondly, how do they reconcile those that enjoy their lives, and wish to be benevolent, or contribute benefit to the living status, with their beliefs that everyone is better off dead, just in case any suffering should occur.

This gives little to know autonomy to those that accept a bit of suffering in their endeavours to improve and progress the condition of living towards a state of diminished harm.

Anti-natalism is pointless. It's not like mother earth wouldn't reestablish life if it was snuffed out, as it has many times before. Mass extinctions occur. But life as a whole, persists.

Antinatalism preaches that we are all better off dead than alive because it avoids suffering.

However the dead cannot suffer. Nor have they any agency, choice, power, authority or intellect to subvert suffering. So the goal of antinatalism is one of irrelevance and impotence.

Well that's a strawman based on a mischaracterization of the argument. I believe 180 Proof already addressed this though.

Secondly, life, albeit harmful and treacherous indeed at times, is also full of beneficial/benevolent phenomena like love, nurturing, support, care, joy, peace, prosperity, triumph, opportunity, optimism, kindness/generosity, control, choice and agency.

You are bringing up every anti-antinatalist fallacy there is and that I have dismantled over the years. The latest argument is here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14291/the-ethics-of-burdening-others-in-the-name-of-personal-growth-when-is-it-justified/p1

Antinatalism declares that life is the greatest of impositions. But to the living, and especially to those that enjoy life, antinatalism is the greatest of impositions.

If I do something that burdens you but also brings you joy, that doesn't excuse burdening you, especially when I can't get your consent, de facto. It’s breaking a deontological principle of making burdens for other people, and deciding for another what burdens another person should endure. It’s creating the problem that another person has to solve but it did not have to be made in the first place.

Who has more choice? The living or the dead? And thus who has the most authority and capacity to engage and diminish suffering; the living or the dead?

This argument is specious and a strawman. It is not about "living or dead" but living and "not yet born", huge difference. One has a potential to actually come into existence, and that choice is indeed made by those who are already born. And what of it? This seems like a red herring point. The people already alive are deciding for others what kind of burdens they should endure. See my response above. Also, gambling with people's lives is not so great either. Not existing hurts nobody. No one is obligated to create joy, preventing harm however, is something. Also, creating joy with incumbent burdens is not a purely good act, and creates harm on top of the intended good. See my thread about creating burdens unnecessarily, with no mitigating reason for that person being affected.

Why do they continue to live if their sole objective in argument is total mass anhilation?This seems hypocritical. You're living to tell people not to.

This might be the worst argument when debating antinatalism. Not starting a life and preventing harm for a future person, and not killing yourself are two separate things. Just because upon birth, people don't immediately jump off a cliff, doesn't mean that one is caused harm. Fear of death, etc. are a very real thing. This is the worst strawman.

And secondly, how do they reconcile those that enjoy their lives, and wish to be benevolent, or contribute benefit to the living status, with their beliefs that everyone is better off dead, just in case any suffering should occur.

Is this a joke? This is like a parody of a bad natalist argument. Antinatalists don't believe people should be kill themselves! So uncharitable I'm not even going to take this further. Go back and read what antinatalism really believes. Read some proper philosophers like David Benatar even or Gerald Harrison! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#:~:text=Antinatalism%20or%20anti%2Dnatalism%20is,humans%20should%20abstain%20from%20procreating . Come back when you at least know what you are debating.

This gives little to know autonomy to those that accept a bit of suffering in their endeavours to improve and progress the condition of living towards a state of diminished harm.

It is about causing suffering/harm/negatives on behalf of others. This can be both negative utilitarian and deontological for NOT violating the principle of harm and autonomy. But also creating the least amount of harms, with no consequences to an ACTUAL person (see Benatar).

Anti-natalism is pointless. It's not like mother earth wouldn't reestablish life if it was snuffed out, as it has many times before. Mass extinctions occur. But life as a whole, persists.

This is the naturalistic fallacy. "Mother Earth" does a lot of things that don't fall into the ethical realm.

My suggestion is at least to read some of my past discussions on this. You can look them up in my profile if you'd like. They go back pretty far. I've seen every argument you can think of, so be careful what you want to rehash. It's been said, believe me.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13246/trouble-with-impositions
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13574/series-in-pessimism-you-can-resign-a-game-and-move-on
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13543/series-in-pessimism-we-can-never-know-what-sustains-us
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13118/marxism-and-antinatalism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12594/pessimisms-ultimate-insight
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13027/this-existence-entails-being-morally-disqualifying
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11847/what-would-be-considered-a-forced-situation
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11469/the-most-people-defense
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10842/willy-wonkas-forced-game
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7092/what-justifies-a-positive-ethics-as-opposed-to-a-negative-one
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5981/schopenhauers-deprivationalism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5098/procreation-and-its-central-role-in-political-theory
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4121/reproduction-is-a-political-act

@Benj96 A SLIGHT exaggeration maybe. It simply depends con whether or not one is fanatical about any proposed philosophical position.

There is a significant use in contemplating how your actions effect others and your personal motivations for having children.

"that I have dismantled over the years."
This is how delusional some antinatalists are.
You are attempting to use rational argument against fundamentalist style ossification.
The continued existence of humanity and it's future expansion into space, is the best answer to antinatalists. The best aspect of the antinatalist position, is if the human race ever does go extinct, for whatever reason, we wont have to ever endure their exclamations of 'we told you so,' as they will all be extinct.
They are an utter irrelevance, to the vast vast majority of people deciding whether or not to have children.
I have NEVER heard any young couple say 'well we chose to not have children, because of the global power of the antinatalist movement.' :lol: I don't think I ever will hear such!

They are an utter irrelevance, to the vast vast majority of people deciding whether or not to have children.
I have NEVER heard any young couple say 'well we chose to not have children, because of the global power of the antinatalist movement.' :lol: I don't think I ever will hear such! — universeness

This topic is meant for you since you display an example of it here so well.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14307/ad-populum-indicator-of-a-moral-intuition/p1

Yeah sure, I will click on YOUR recommendations. :lol:
I am seeking more wisdom and enlightenment so, no thanks, I have no such spare time to waste.

I think that creating children is the source of all human harm. It is the only way human harms can enter the world and creating a new child is not a solution. People will always die and experience an array of harms they didn't consent to before hand.

It would be good if there was somekind of positive afterlife to reward struggling through this.

No children equals no genocides,wars, murder,famine misogyny, slavery, racism, cancer deaths, MS, inequality and so on. It is a positive philosophy that says no to suffering and false hope.

I think that creating children is the source of all human harm. — Andrew4Handel

I disagree. I think scarcity is the source of (all) human harm and that "not having children" doesn't solve anything ...

... as I pointed out in this old (antinatalism?) thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/505320

I think that creating children is the source of all human harm. — Andrew4Handel

When is a human a human? In the sense of gradual slight changes over evolution?
Presumably if we have a strict set of conditions that determine us as homo sapien, then there was a point in time in which a predecessor homo species that failed to meet this criterion gave rise to the first sapien that did meet it. The parents = not sapiens, the offspring = sapiens.

In that case if there is "harm" in giving birth to children. The harm is not human. But from other animals that "imposed our humanness on us". Should we then go out and blame all human hardship on australopithicus?

Maybe we take it back further and blame everything on LUCA (last universal common ancestor).

If we are to take this sharp delineation, then creating human children was not harm done by humans. As the parents were originally not human. But rather pre-human animals. Should we then blame all the primates or extinct homo genus groups for harming us in their contribution to birthing us?

You can blame away if it helps you have peace of mind. But it seems totally pointless.

The universe gave rise to life. It imposed living on itself. Through biogenesis, evolution and speciation.

Should we just blame the entire universe then? And if we do, what comes of it? The universe doesn't give a rats ass. Nature operates the way it does. Nothing will change this.

Is there any point in exterminating life in a universe hellbent on its emergence? What is to stop life from rekindling. It is the law of chemistry and physics that dictates the emergence of biology. You cannot swim against that tide.