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
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
The argument about economic obligations still stands for 99% of people. Suffering exists for 100%. — schopenhauer1
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.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
Have you forgotten that man was created in the image of God?So play God? — 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.God creating the world isn't the same as you fucking a woman and creating a fallen human being. — 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. — Agustino
Furthermore, I don't hold that having a child is right or moral by necessity, only that it is not immoral by necessity. — Agustino
First of all, I wouldn't call it "fucking" a woman, the word has connotations which denote abuse, or using her. — Agustino
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. — Agustino
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
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
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
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
Then why must I assume the child will agree with my judgement?No. — Heister Eggcart
I'm not in favor of having children (for everyone), I'm just not against it.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
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.You are using someone when you're having sex with them. — Heister Eggcart
Sure.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
The sexual act isn't necessary with regard to procreation? :s What?No, only that it isn't necessary with regard to procreation. — 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.A dick in the hole is a dick in the hole. — 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?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
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."
What's wrong with it, I seem to be too stupid to realise? :PNothing wrong? Think about what you're saying here for a second, and I think you'll take that back. — Heister Eggcart
Well, clearly God would disagree given that one of the first commandments was to be fruitful and multiply ;)only that I cannot divine up an instance wherein procreation 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.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
I don't deny that we can do good, only that I cannot divine up an instance wherein procreation is necessary. — Heister Eggcart
Then why must I assume the child will agree with my judgement? — Agustino
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
The sexual act isn't necessary with regard to procreation? :s What? — Agustino
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
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
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
What's wrong with it, I seem to be too stupid to realise? — Agustino
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
Now, if you either cannot find a woman who fits with you, — Agustino
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
but I am against procreation as there are no good reasons enough that convince me that it's necessary, for anything. — Heister Eggcart
Why would not procreating be the baseline, when we have a natural desire to procreate and be intimate?Your judgement not to procreate? The baseline is doing nothing, not having the child. — 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.You love the person, not the sex. — Heister Eggcart
This is absolutely false. Immoral sex is different than righteous and moral sex.Sex is sex, regardless of what you're having sex with. — 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.And you don't need to have sex in order to love someone more fully. — Heister Eggcart
I disagree. There is a natural desire to procreate.procreation is never good. — 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.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
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.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
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.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 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.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
Sure, but it doesn't make it wrong either.Merely because having sex and procreating children is natural doesn't make it right or necessary to do so. — Heister Eggcart
That doesn't mean there isn't a right way to engage in it.Procreation gets added to the list of corrupted, natural processes. — Heister Eggcart
Sure, but again most people do have a desire to have their own children - to be co-creators.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
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
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
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
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 pointed that out, Heister thinks (or rather thought) the opposite.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
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?I don't think anyone would object to procreation if it took place in paradise by immaculate human beings! — 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.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
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
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
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
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
If life was to be characterized by various forms of flux and stasis, and stress — schopenhauer1
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
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
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
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
I'm not sure if you view human just from a materialistic point of view when you're describing those forms. — Coldlight
Why would not procreating be the baseline, when we have a natural desire to procreate and be intimate? — Agustino
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
This is absolutely false. Immoral sex is different than righteous and moral sex. — Agustino
I disagree. There is a natural desire to procreate. — Agustino
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
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
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
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
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
Being a celibate cannot be wrong, but there are wrong ways of practicing celibacy. — Agustino
nothing [...] can satisfy [...] desire — Agustino
Sure, but it doesn't make it wrong either. — Agustino
That doesn't mean there isn't a right way to engage in it. — Agustino
Sure, but again most people do have a desire to have their own children - to be co-creators. — Agustino
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
: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.Because one's desires need not be fulfilled. — 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.Merely because one has a desire does not mean that they must carry out that desire, otherwise hellfire and damnation upon them. — Heister Eggcart
Okay, how is this related to two people in love who have sex within the boundaries of a married relationship again? :sI'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
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? :sThis 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
Well, most Platonists/Aristotelians - of which the early Christians were - would associate natural with good, for the most part.This doesn't make it good. And if it isn't good, one has no good reason, therefore, to do it. — Heister Eggcart
I don't see an argument here.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
Of other kind of fruitfulness, including, yes, love.Procreation is an absolute essential of what? Love? — Heister Eggcart
:-O :-} lolAgreed. So marriage and having "righteous sex" and having children are but shams. — Heister Eggcart
Nope, I haven't said it's neither. I said it can be either of them, depending on context.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
Suffering is not always bad, sorry to tell you :PProcreating 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
That is indication it is a natural desire that comes from within man's own being.So what? — 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.Have you watched the recent Noah movie with Russell Crowe? — Heister Eggcart
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 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
Not all desires are of the same kind. Some are not natural desires. — Agustino
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
Okay, how is this related to two people in love who have sex within the boundaries of a married relationship again? — Agustino
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
Well, most Platonists/Aristotelians - of which the early Christians were - would associate natural with good, for the most part. — Agustino
I don't see an argument here. — Agustino
Of other kind of fruitfulness, including, yes, love. — Agustino
INope, I haven't said it's neither. I said it can be either of them, depending on context. — Agustino
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
That is indication it is a natural desire that comes from within man's own being. — Agustino
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
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
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.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
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.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
Yes it is, but not for a particular human being, but rather for the human race as a whole.So procreation is an absolute essential for love? Brooooo, please stop contradicting yourself. — Heister Eggcart
What's this strange sign?I
I
I
V — 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.? — 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.Yes it is. Suffering is "bad" even if it brings about the good. — Heister Eggcart
I never claimed everyone longs to have a child, I said most people.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
Patience :PHumor me and watch it. At the very least you'll enjoy it more than dropping a pizza on the tile. — 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. — Agustino
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
Yes it is, but not for a particular human being, but rather for the human race as a whole. — Agustino
What's this strange sign? — Agustino
In other words, there's situations when it's not immoral to have a child. — Agustino
Suffering, contrary to your axiom, isn't necessarily evil.
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
I never claimed everyone longs to have a child, I said most people. — Agustino
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.