Yes, well said, BC. Vielen dank.

It was as a result of taking you to mean what you say. As you can see, I've addressed quotations from your own post. I admit, I do find it difficult to read one's mind, so I tend to go by what they post; and, as a result, I often get the blame for what is, at least in part, a failure of the poster to express him or her self with sufficient clarity, as seems to be the case here.

If you didn't mean to claim that you "identify as an anatalist, both because I find natalism unjustified and because I happen to be celibate", then why did you say so? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and grant that you genuinely didn't mean what you said, particularly the latter part, which is what I've criticised, and that'll be that. But if, on the other hand, you stand by your claim, then, this being a philosophy forum, you ought to at least give my criticism serious thought, rather than evade it. (Note that Soylent only went as far as to clarify what he thought you meant, rather than defend this specific point on your behalf).

You may start where he left off, on page 3, if you so choose. I stand by my claims.

2) Many Church Fathers and Christian theologians have not interpreted the command to "be fruitful and multiply" as relating to procreation. — Thorongil

This is an irrelevant aside. Surely you're not suggesting that there is not a single priest who is both celibate and who wants there to be more children in the world. That is all that is required. At any rate, my point was simply that there is nothing illogical about wanting there to be more children in the world and also wanting to be celibate.

This ad hominem is something I would expect a fraternity boy to utter, not someone on a philosophy forum. — Thorongil

And that too is an ad hom, but not terribly insulting, considering I was in fact in a fraternity (shocker I know). I'm not sure why that's a bad thing, unless, of course, you harbor some long term resentment from exclusion.

My point was simply (as I've noted) that your argument was illogical. There is no relationship to celibacy and natalism. You threw in a curious personal factoid about yourself in the OP, and now you complain when I commented on it and offered an alternate explanation for why you weren't having sex.

By analogy: If I told you that I don't bathe because I don't want animals to suffer, you might point out that the two are unrelated and that my lack of hygiene is probably because I'm a slob and not because I really care about the higher purpose of animal happiness. You then might tell me to go take a shower. Then someone else might tell you to stop offering advice because this is a philosophy forum. Then I might tell you to stop being mean because I have the right not to shower. And then we'd be where we are, but the point would remain: showering and animal suffering (just like celibacy and natalism) are not logically related, regardless of how cleverly we throw barbs at one another and regardless of how we sidetrack the issue.

a failure of the poster to express him or her self with sufficient clarity, as seems to be the case here. — Sapientia

Only according to you. Most everyone else who has commented seems to have understood what I meant. Of course, this still doesn't mean I was clear, and to the extent I wasn't, you have my apologies.

you ought to at least give my criticism serious thought, rather than evade it. — Sapientia

I don't wish to evade anything, dearest Internet poster. Would you care to summarize the main thrust of your criticism? In reading this thread, I thought you seemed to have come to some understanding of what I was trying to say in light of Soylent's helpful comments, but perhaps not. I will try my best to clarify whatever points confuse you.

Well, I don't enjoy repeating myself. There are a couple of points which I've objected to, and I believe that I've been quite clear in pointing them out. As I suggested (although you might not have seen my edit), you can go back over my comments, and perhaps start where Soylant left off on page 3.

I read them, and I thought they were adequately, nay, perfectly addressed by Soylent, so as it happens I too don't feel the need to go back. Nor do I feel I was unclear in my original post.

At any rate, my point was simply that there is nothing illogical about wanting there to be more children in the world and also wanting to be celibate. — Hanover

Nor would I, and nor did I, deny such a thing. So here we agree.

And that too is an ad hom — Hanover

Perhaps, but what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

considering I was in fact in a fraternity (shocker I know). — Hanover

No, it's merely ironic.

There is no relationship to celibacy and natalism. — Hanover

I don't see that you've shown this. To be celibate is to be practically anatalist, though not necessarily theoretically. What is unclear about this?

Sigh. Okay then, fine, I'll do the work for you and reiterate, yet again, my point which Soylent did not reply to at the end of our dialogue, for whatever reason, and didn't seem to defend, or at least not very well.

But first of all, and most importantly, do you or do you not stand by the following statement that you made in your opening post?

So now I identify as an anatalist, both because I find natalism unjustified and because I happen to be celibate. — Thorongil

Perhaps you would like to reword it. In any case, my objection to the above claim of yours was (and remains to be) that the latter part, namely that to identify as an anatalist because, in part, you happen to be celibate...

[...]is a poor reason to become (or identity as) an anatalist, and should not influence the decision. [Rather, i]t should be incidental. — Sapientia

That's all you're getting for now. I've already elaborated this point earlier, and there was another part about celibates "practically assenting" to weak anti-natalism which I reject.

Edit:

Perhaps this issue can be resolved if you concede that that was poorly phrased, but then, you've just said that you don't think that your opening post was unclear.

Here is the relevant quote, which, as you can confirm if you go back through this discussion as I have done, Soylent did not address in his reply:

Someone whose lifestyle negates the possibility of having children would just be someone who happens to inadvertently conform with the life choice of a weak anti-natalist. It has nothing to do with assent, which is a wilful acceptance, and without such explicit assent, it'd be a mistake to judge that they "practically assent" based solely upon said-lifestyle, unless it was clear that they held weak anti-natalist views without realising it. There are other, more likely, explanations. — Sapientia

do you or do you not stand by the following statement that you made in your opening post? — Sapientia

I do.

there was another part about celibates "practically assenting" to weak anti-natalism which I reject. — Sapientia

Well, why do you reject it? Because that is indeed the reason for its inclusion and relevance in my labeling myself an anatalist.

A celibate person is someone who is not married and who does not engage in any kind of sexual activity. They are, practically speaking, anatalist, since they repudiate natalism by their actions, which don't include, by definition, having children. Now, they may still theoretically assent to natalism, or they may not, but this is a different kind of assent.

To flip it around just to show you what I mean, imagine an anti-natalist who has children. Is this manifestly self-contradictory? No, for it could mean that the person theoretically assents to the proposition "having children is immoral," but for whatever reason still had a child. Perhaps he was caught in a moment of personal weakness or perhaps his condom didn't function properly. At any rate, such a person would be a practical natalist, in that he had a child, but also a theoretical anti-natalist, in that he still agrees that having children is immoral.

Well, why do you reject it? — Thorongil

Don't worry, I've done the work for you again, because deep down, I have a kind heart. Please see the edit in my previous comment.

I will address the rest of your post anyway, although in a separate post.

Someone whose lifestyle negates the possibility of having children would just be someone who happens to inadvertently conform with the life choice of a weak anti-natalist. — Sapientia

This is actually very close to what I am saying, if not exactly what I am saying.

It has nothing to do with assent, which is a wilful acceptance, and without such explicit assent, it'd be a mistake to judge that they "practically assent" based solely upon said-lifestyle, unless it was clear that they held weak anti-natalist views without realising it. There are other, more likely, explanations. — Sapientia

Aha, so you don't think there is any such thing as "practical assent." I believe I've now pinpointed the issue you have. I can only ask why you think this, for I regard it as absolutely undeniable that one can assent in two different ways, one in a physical and active sense and the other in a mental and psychological sense. You can murder someone and yet agree that murder is wrong. You can be an alcoholic and yet also wish to be a teetotaler. You can not eat meat and yet not agree with veganism/vegetarianism. Each of these relies on the distinction in question, and I could proffer a million more examples, but you ought to get it by now.

A celibate person is someone who is not married and who does not engage in any kind of sexual activity. They are, practically speaking, anatalist, since they repudiate natalism by their actions, which don't include, by definition, having children. Now, they may still theoretically assent to natalism, or they may not, but this is a different kind of assent. — Thorongil

You see, I genuinely don't understand why you would make such comments in light of the earlier criticisms made by Hanover and I. It's a simple matter of logic. Look:

P1. A celibate person is someone who is not married and who does not engage in any kind of sexual activity.
P2. It is not necessarily the case that the engagement of sexual activity is required in order to have a child.
C. Therefore, a celibate is not, qua celibacy, practically speaking, anatalist.

Female celibates, in light of artificial insemination, can have a child without engaging in any sexual activity, and both males and females can have children by engaging in sexual activity prior to becoming celibate. Thus, subsequent to the act, they can be celibate, and yet, practically speaking, they are not required for sake of logical consistency, to be anatalist, and can in fact be pro-natalist, both in theory and practice.

To flip it around just to show you what I mean, imagine an anti-natalist who has children. Is this manifestly self-contradictory? No, for it could mean that the person theoretically assents to the proposition "having children is immoral," but for whatever reason still had a child. Perhaps he was caught in a moment of personal weakness or perhaps his condom didn't function properly. At any rate, such a person would be a practical natalist, in that he had a child, but also a theoretical anti-natalist, in that he still agrees that having children is immoral. — Thorongil

I understand what you mean. You're basically talking about a performative contradiction, yes? That one's actions contradict or undermine one's principles? But I don't agree with your argument for reasons previously stated.

It is not necessarily the case that the engagement of sexual activity is required in order to have a child. — Sapientia

Is this honestly the content of your objection? Female insemination? Sure, okay, I grant this very technical exception. On the other hand, how is this not simply an appeal to the extreme?

To label oneself celibate has for millennia entailed that one neither has, nor plans to have, children. Period. If you went up to a nun anywhere in the world and said, "ah, but you see my dear, I've discovered a looophole; you could still have children by artificial insemination and remain celibate!" - you would be met with a rather quizzical look and a reply in the form of, "do you know nothing of my vocation, dear sir?"

This is actually very close to what I am saying, if not exactly what I am saying. — Thorongil

The problem with your reasoning, however, is that you erroneously conclude that a celibate is, necessarily, someone whose lifestyle negates the possibility of having children. That is a non sequitur.

Aha, so you don't think there is any such thing as "practical assent." I believe I've now pinpointed the issue you have. — Thorongil

No, I think I understand what what you mean, and I believe that there is such a thing, but I doubt whether there are not better terms to use than "practical assent". I did qualify with "...unless it was clear that they held weak anti-natalist views without realising it". Perhaps "views" wasn't the right word to use. It can be reworded as follows: "...unless it was clear that they were in accordance with weak anti-natalism without realising it".

To me at least, the word "assent" connotes a willful or conscious act of acceptance or approval. So, to me, the term "practical assent" looks like an oxymoron.

Is this honestly the content of your objection? Female insemination? Sure, okay, I grant this very technical exception. On the other hand, how is this not simply an appeal to an extreme? — Thorongil

Yes, that is the content of that particular objection, but when I raised it, I didn't forsee that what began as a mole hill would become a mountain. (Perhaps this lack of forsight is because my expectations are too high). You might view it as an appeal to the extreme, but it is nonetheless an exception which corrects the error implicit within your association of the two positions.

I have since realised that I don't personally fit the definition of a celibate if the definition contains the exclusion of all sexual activity, but what initially motivated me to object was not just a pedantic urge to correct, but my disapproval of what I took to being lumped in with a position of which I do not agree, nor of necessity conform with.

To label oneself celibate has for millennia entailed that one neither has, nor plans to have, children. Period. — Thorongil

But there was, of course, a very long period of time before contraception and artificial insemination even existed, or at least existed in a modern sense. These inventions are relatively recent, and that's bound to be consequential in terms of cultural awareness. As I said earlier, people naturally tend to associate the two. But the fact is, people are ignorant to varying degrees, and prone to error and common misperception. None of this refutes my argument, and I don't view it as being particularly relevant.

You might view it as an appeal to the extreme, but it is nonetheless an exception which corrects the error implicit within your association of the two positions. — Sapientia

And one which I have granted, though your victory is only proportional to the size of your objection, which as you note, is quite small.

I have since realised that I don't personally fit the definition of a celibate if the definition contains the exclusion of all sexual activity — Sapientia

Sometimes, to be celibate can refer to someone who abstains from marriage, but it can also refer to someone who abstains both from it and from sexual activity, which is how I've been using it. Chastity is another word that has two slightly different connotations. Sometimes it refers to someone who abstains from sexual activity until marriage and sometimes to someone who abstains from sexual activity completely. You may have been thinking of one or another of these different meanings of said words.

And one which I have granted, though your victory is only proportional to the size of your objection, which as you note, is quite small. — Thorongil

But a victory nonetheless. Hurrah.

Sometimes, to be celibate can refer to someone who abstains from marriage, but it can also refer to someone who abstains both from it and from sexual activity, which is how I've been using it. Chastity is another word that has two slightly different connotations. Sometimes it refers to someone who abstains from sexual activity until marriage and sometimes to someone who abstains from sexual activity completely. You may have been thinking of one or another of these different meanings of said words. — Thorongil

Actually, none of that quite sums up what I took it to mean, and I reckon that my interpretation is also quite common. I took it to mean primarily the abstention from sexual intercourse, but which can also include other sex acts which require more than one person, but not necessarily all sexual activity - including those typically done alone, such as masturbation.

You see, I abstain from most sex acts, and all sex acts that require at least one other person, because I don't desire others in that way, or in a way which is very diminished and uncompelling, and I don't desire to do such things. It isn't by choice or by principle. But I still have that natural sensation and accompanying urge which is like an itch, so I "scratch" it myself from time to time.

I took it to mean primarily the abstention from sexual intercourse, as well as other sex acts which require more than one person, but not necessarily all sexual activity - including those typically done alone, such as masturbation. — Sapientia

Odd. I've never heard this.

Well, I just googled "celibacy meaning", and the Google definition - the very first one that came up, above the results - is "the state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations". The Free Dictionary also has: "1. Abstinence from sexual relations", as does Dictionary.com, and Merriam-Webster has "2. a. abstention from sexual intercourse". Don't sexual relations require more than one person? This seems to confirm my view. And what then would you call the abstention from sex? I think people would still call that celibacy.

Yes, I'm aware of the Google definition, but throughout history, to be celibate has usually meant or entailed abstaining from all sexual activity. I'd say this still holds true today as well. If a Catholic priest tells you he's celibate, that doesn't mean he or his church thinks that entails masturbation, oral sex, etc. As I suggested with my nun example, I really don't believe you're that naive.

Just an aside, priests and nuns vow not only to be celibate (not have sex with partners) but also, as I understand it, to be chaste, which means no masturbation either. One should observe, for instance, "chastity of the eyes" -- that is, if you see a voluptuous woman or a buffed man with lots of skin exposed (like wearing a bikini) look away. It isn't the fault of the religious that someone is walking around with almost nothing on, but it would be the fault of the chastity-vowed religious to follow that person with his or her gaze and attention. Just like it isn't your fault if people pass mean spirited and hurtful lies between them, but it would be your fault if you listened eagerly to them and passed them on.

Merely not having sex is relatively easy compared to the requirement that one not even think about sex for one's self while encouraging married couples to be fruitful and multiply (which I think is all about fucking and having babies, not some medieval fantasy).

I am functionally celibate -- having not had sex with anyone for about...6 years? At least for the last 7 years I have either had no desire nor opportunity. I could have, of course, tried to create the opportunity to have sex. But, without a desire, what would be the point? I'm certainly not "chaste" -- I think about sex fairly often, masturbate occasionally (at 70, less often than I might like) and enjoy fleshly sights and fantasies.

At 25 or 35, even at 55, celibacy would have been utterly out of the question. (Actually, the loss of desire is something of a relief at times.) I'm not a-natal or anti-natal. I'm pro-natal, with the caveat that we (humans) really need to strategically reduce our reproductivity for the sake of our future. But that by no means means not having children at all, or thinking that life is suffering, and all that Schopenhauerian1 depressing baloney. My celibacy carries no universal imperative: I'm not having sex at this point, but please don't let me stand in your way! Just do it with risk-reduction guidelines in mind and at hand.

I gather that with more deliberation than I have made, this is Thorongil's position.

Well of course, at least throughout most of history, but I similarly doubt that you could be as naïve as to suggest that there is only one meaning, or that the other meanings somehow don't count. And if that's not what you're doing, then your pointing out just one particular meaning of many that have been in common usage for at least decades, is irrelevant. So, you're in a lose/lose situation, and my advice would be to concede.

Aha, so you don't think there is any such thing as "practical assent." I believe I've now pinpointed the issue you have. I can only ask why you think this, for I regard it as absolutely undeniable that one can assent in two different ways, one in a physical and active sense and the other in a mental and psychological sense. You can murder someone and yet agree that murder is wrong. You can be an alcoholic and yet also wish to be a teetotaler. You can not eat meat and yet not agree with veganism/vegetarianism. Each of these relies on the distinction in question, and I could proffer a million more examples, but you ought to get it by now. — Thorongil

Me not having sex with men is not a practical assent of homophobia. So me not having children is not a practical assent of anti-natalism.

Indeed. I think that that's a better analogy than the ones that I provided earlier.

They are, practically speaking, anatalist, since they repudiate natalism by their actions, which don't include, by definition, having children. Now, they may still theoretically assent to natalism, or they may not, but this is a different kind of assent. — Thorongil

Here's why your position is nonsense:

1. You wish to redefine "assent" to mean "acts in a way that requires a specific result." What this means that a person who very much wants to have children but can't due to physical or social limitations (the largest group of celibates by far) is an anatalist because he's acting like someone who doesn't want to have children. That would mean he's "assenting" to the anatalist position.

2. This causes a problem because the word "assent" also (and actually) means "expressing approval for." That would mean that the celibate who wants children would be "assenting" to the natalist position.

Obviously #1 and #2 are contradictory. The same person is both a natalist and anatalist. That contradiction can be explained away as being the result of equivocation with the term "assent." In #1 the term is used differently than in #2.

This doesn't solve our problem, though...

A person who engages in wild promiscuous sex can be an anatalist as long as that person uses birth control. That is, you can have all sorts of sex, but by engaging in safe sex, you won't have children. So, every person who uses birth control "assents" (per definition #1) to anatalism.

So, to boil all this down, what you're saying is:

If you don't do what is necessary to have children, then you are acting in a way that requires (i.e. "assents" per definition #1) that no children will be born. That does not mean, however, that you prefer that no children be born (i.e. "assent" per definition #2). All you mean to say is that if you don't have sex, you won't have kids, but you offer no hint about whether that person not having sex wants or doesn't want kids. This means that certain anatalists really want children.

So, we now have two definitions of anatalism:

A. Those who don't want for there to be children.
B. Those who want for there to be children.

As noted, we have two definition of the word "assent" :

1. Behavior that requires a certain result.
2. Belief or agreement.

Let us now break this down and offer the 4 logical definitions of anatalism and the behaviors associated with it:

1A -- Those who behave in a way that there will be no children and who don't want children.
1B -- Those who behave in way that there be no children but who do want children.
2A -- Those who express agreement for the position that there be no children and who don't want children.
2B -- Those who express agreement for the position that there be no children but who want children.

2B is a bit of a problem.

Of course, it seems logical (since we've defined terms every whichaway) that there be a natalist who does not want for there to be children. That would be the person who engages in unprotected sex but who claims to hate children. After all, plenty of folks get pregnant who don't want kids. We could go through all this same analysis using the term "natalism" and list out the logical possibilities.

And on and on and on.

The way to avoid all this mess is to define terms in a realistic and meaningful way, which you've not done. In fact, my thought is that your attempt to redefine the terms was an attempt to save your theory that somehow anatalism and celibacy were related.

All definitions are stipulative and based on historical usage.

Me not having sex with men is not a practical assent of homophobia. So me not having children is not a practical assent of anti-natalism. — Michael

Alright, but does this mean you deny any validity between the distinction in question? I don't see how you could.

You wish to redefine "assent" to mean "acts in a way that requires a specific result." — Hanover

No, I only wish to include this as one form of assent.

Obviously #1 and #2 are contradictory. — Hanover

Nope. You still apparently don't get that I am saying that there are two kinds of assent.

A person who engages in wild promiscuous sex can be an anatalist as long as that person uses birth control. — Hanover

Sure, but the anatalism is notional in this case.

1. Behavior that requires a certain result.
2. Belief or agreement. — Hanover

Yes, congratulations.

my thought is that your attempt to redefine the terms was an attempt to save your theory that somehow anatalism and celibacy were related. — Hanover

Well, they are related, as you point out in formulations 1A and 1B. So wherefore art the alleged "nonsense," Hanover? I see nothing of the kind proven in your post.

Alright, but does this mean you deny any validity between the distinction in question? I don't see how you could. — Thorongil

Sure. For instance, donating money to a homophobic political party could be construed as a practical assent of homophobia. But this sort of thing doesn't seem to be the case when it comes to not having children and anti-natalism.

And why not?

Because not having children does not indicate that one assigns a negative value to giving birth. If one doesn't assign a negative value to giving birth then one isn't an anti-natalist.

And unlike the example of being a murderer or alcoholic, being an anti-natalist is defined in terms of one's moral judgements rather than one's actions. So whether or not one is an anti-natalist depends entirely on one's moral attitude, not on one's behaviour (assertions in favour of anti-natalism notwithstanding).

Yes, but Michael, that's basically my point. Did you read my original post? I said I didn't feel comfortable labeling myself an anti-natalist for precisely the reason you've just given me. That's why I introduced the term, "anatalist."

As I said in another post, I regard procreation as rather more foolish than immoral. So I suppose this might be construed as a "negative value" judgment in the broadest sense of normativity, but it's not strictly a moral judgment and nor do I mean for it to be.