some atheists are really pushing for life to be pointless and meaningless — Andrew4Handel

It's objectively pointless and meaningless but that's like noting that objectively, there is no opinion on whether to have pizza or salad for lunch. In other words, it's quite silly to worry about what the "world itself" does when it comes to the meaning/point of life and what to have for lunch. Those are the sorts of things that individual people do. It's up to you to decide what you want to eat for lunch. And it's up to you to assign a point or meaning to your life.

The sense of morality is based on reason. For example, rape is wrong because it causes pain and deprives the victim of basic human dignity. — TheMadFool

And why is pain a negative thing? That's a subjective opinion.

And it's up to you to assign a point or meaning to your life. — Terrapin Station

The problem is that we didn't consent to be here. When we were talking about suffering levels and making meaning we are talking about things imposed on someone. It is one thing to choose to find your own meaning or tolerate your own suffering another to be placed in this dilemma.

For example I love Bach and Handel and Baroque music in general but I don't actively force it on anyone.

I think making an individual find their own meaning is an existential burden. It is a task for scientists and philosophers to explore life not something everyone should have foisted on them.

I also think in reality peoples meaning comes naturally for instance I don't choose to like baroque music and people finding meaning from relationships. I don't think science or philosophy have proven there is no meaning so I don't think we should revel in this position or promote it. The problem is the existential burden when life loses its meaning and there are only different dogmas to choose from.

If science had really discovered life was futile and about mindless survival that would be good evidence to stop propagating it.

And why is pain a negative thing? That's a subjective opinion. — BlueBanana

Pain is defined by being an unpleasant sensation. That is not a moral claim. I find moral claims dubious but I think you can make valid harm claims.

I think moral nihilism offers no justification for anyone. On a nihilistic stance no one's behaviour is validated. I think pronatalism is quite nihilistic in that it usually does not demand much reason from its proponents. Nature allows people to have children it also allows people to try and prevent birth and allows famine and so on it doesn't usually resolve moral arguments.

I think moral nihilism or the lack of an enforceable morality(like the laws of nature say) makes it difficult to enact antinatalism. So you can have children using brute force and try and justify it after.

I think one defence against nihilism is logic and I think the world gets more nihilist the less reasonable beliefs are.

I think making an individual find their own meaning is an existential burden. It is a task for scientists and philosophers to explore life not something everyone should have foisted on them. — Andrew4Handel

It's not something you have to do. It's just that if having an overarching "point"/purpose/"meaning" etc. is the sort of thing you're attracted to, it's up to you to come up with your own.

For me, it's not the sort of thing I'm attracted to. So I don't worry about it.

Your position is just a tiny step away from chaos. If there are no rules, mayhem is inevitable. Besides that... — TheMadFool

Why would the fact that morality is how people feel about things imply that we'd have no rules? That's what morality is, and obviously we have rules.

For example, rape is wrong because it causes pain and deprives the victim of basic human dignity. — TheMadFool

And what's the reason that it's wrong to cause pain and deprive the victim of basic human dignity?

You might have a reason for that, but if you do, I can just ask the same thing again: why is it wrong to ____?

That's not going to go very far before you more or less just give up. You're very unlikely to even have, say, 50 levels of reasons. We'll quickly get to one where it's just the way that you feel about it.

So no one is denying that you feel some way and then reason from that. "It's wrong to wear orange shirts in Florida." "Why?" "Because people shouldn't wear clothing the same color as fruit that is commonly grown in a particular area." Maybe that person has a further reason for that. "Why shouldn't people wear clothing the same color as fruit that is common grown in a particular area?" "Because people shouldn't match plants." "Why shouldn't they match plants?" "Because people should only resemble their own biological kingdom" and so on--that guy has a nest of reasons for "It is wrong to wear orange shirts in Florida," but ultimately they rest on some stance that has no reason behind it beyond the fact that he feels that way. That's the way all morality works, because it's not possible to ground an ought or a should on an is.

I don't see how that, the application of logic and reason, is not objective? — TheMadFool

Aside from the fact that all morality is ultimately grounded on some way that a person feels, a way that they didn't in fact reason to, logic and reason are mental activities. They don't occur in the extramental world.

Logic, by definition, is about following rules of correct thinking, which is the hallmark of objectivity. — TheMadFool

Where do you think that "rules of correct thinking" would come from. Under a rock somwhere? Is there some sort of field of them out in space?

Your own arguments, based on logic, evidence to the fact that application of reason implies objectivity. — TheMadFool

Unlike many objectivists, I'm not operating on some unspoken assumption that things are only "legitimate" if they're objective, and should be avoided otherwise.

If morality is completely subjective, why do our moral compasses point in one direction on some issues? — TheMadFool

I don't believe that there is in fact any moral stance that everyone shares. Not everyone believes it's wrong to commit murder for example. But let's suppose that there are moral stances that everyone shares. This question is like asking this: "If hunger is only a body phenomenon, why is it that everyone gets hungry?" Well, why shouldn't people get hungry if it's only a body phenomenon? Likewise, why shouldn't people have some moral stances that are the same as everyone else if morality is only a body phenomenon?

It is about making life not seem futile. unfortunately I got to the point where the gloss ran out of life and it seemed like a futile imposition.

There is a problem with conflicting meaning. Religious people believe there's intrinsic meaning and have children for that reason. I think making meaning gets unstable and chaotic with all these conflicting meanings. The reason our parents had children can emanate from all kinds of ideologies (many false)

But I think meaning is undermined if there is no justification given for having children. I am agnostic so I think making strong claims either way is suspect. Part of my meaning breakdown comes from having to reevaluate all my beliefs for truth value.

What was the argument as to why the future potential to consent is irrelevant?

If a child you create has the potential to consent in the future and desires how would that not factor into creating them?

And why is pain a negative thing? That's a subjective opinion — BlueBanana

I think, like @Terrapin Station, you're confused between mental and subjective. If it is subjective, you wouldn't need to argue. For example people have varying preferences regarding ice cream flavors they like. Nobody argues about my/your flavor being better. That would be purely subjective. There's no logic in flavor choices. By that reasoning infamous serial killers would be, shockingly, moral! This you won't concede.

Also, morality is a sociological concept. It isn't about the individual, which taste and preference is all about. The society decides, through reason, what is moral/immoral. The general consensus, again based on reason, acquires an objective character. There are changes in the standards of morality but they're grounded in increased knowledge of biology, social concepts, etc.

I think, like Terrapin Station, you're confused between mental and subjective. If it is subjective, you wouldn't need to argue. For example people have varying preferences regarding ice cream flavors they like. Nobody argues about my/your flavor being better. That would be purely subjective. There's no logic in flavor choices. By that reasoning infamous serial killers would be, shockingly, moral! This you won't concede. — TheMadFool

The confusion is that subjective doesn't only refer to mental and that it implies that people will disagree.

He's asking you why pain is a negative thing objectively. He's stressing that there's no extramental fact that makes pain negative. It's rather a mental state that finds it negative.

People argue about subjective stuff all the time, by the way, including food . . . and that especially becomes acute when different people have to decide where to go together to eat.

But people obviously also argue about tastes in art, too--music, films, novels, paintings, etc.

Why do people do this? Because they feel so strongly about their own reactions, and they like to commune with others, and they like other people to be able to enjoy the same sorts of reactions, etc. (And of course they want to agree with their friends, family, colleagues etc. where to go to eat, what concerts or films to go to, etc.)

Re serial killers, some of them are certainly moral in their own view. Other people feel differently, of course.

That's similar to the fact that to some people, McDonald's quarter pounders taste excellent, and other people feel differently.

Objectivists often make the mistake of believing that if this is the case, we have to let serial killers kill people. That's because they see objectivity as some sort of trump card--or as I mentioned earlier, the only "legitimate" thing. But subjectivists do not agree with this. We don't see objectivity as a trump card. We see morality as an inherently subjective thing, so there's no reason to defer to objectivity. We can and do impose our own morality, because we don't want to tolerate a world where we allow people to do certain things unchecked.

Religious people believe there's intrinsic meaning and have children for that reason. I think making meaning gets unstable and chaotic with all these conflicting meanings. The reason our parents had children can emanate from all kinds of ideologies (many false) — Andrew4Handel

Really, the reason that most people have kids is because they fall in love (or lust) with someone and have sex with them. That's it.

Aside from that, for me personally, no futility enters into the "meaning" picture. When I was a little kid and I'd hear some other kids talk about "the meaning of life" I always simply wondered "what in the world is this kid talking about?" I never had any drive or compulsion for a "meaning of life," and it didn't stop seeming any sillier to me once I learned more about what they were talking about.

One thing re people debating about or constructively discussing morality, aesthetics etc. is that if people do have the same or similar foundational views, they'll try to figure out why they disagree when they do.

So Bob and Betty discover that they both like paintings of birds. They go to an art exhibit together, Bob sees a painting of a bird and says, "Ah--look at this nice one!" But Betty says, "Nngh, I don't care for that." Bob says, "Why? It features a bird." And then they might figure out more specifically why Betty doesn't care for it.

If they don't both like paintings of birds they can't even get that far.

That's important in discussions of morality, too.

For example, I don't morally object to anything just because it involves suffering or pain or harm. At least not unless we define those terms far more specifically (so that they'd pick out things I do formulate moral stances on).

(And I certainly do not formulate any moral stances on "human dignity" by the way.)

Ok. What would be your first choice between consent and no consent re a relationship with another person? — TheMadFool

My answer to that question won't change anything.

I agree parents think keeping the best interest of their children, born and unborn, in mind. It's also true that an unborn simply can't give consent. So, the practice of thinking for your children is essentially a contingency measure. It's not moral but we can't help. A necessary evil, so to speak. — TheMadFool

Again, calling it a contingency measure is misleading. What would be the alternative? It wouldn't be consent, obviously. That's not a sensible comparison to make. If your position relies on a nonsense ideal, then all the worse for your position. Mine is grounded in reality.

As for it not being moral, or being an evil, that's just your assertion, not a statement of fact. It has been disputed.

There's enough suffering on earth to see why people might not consent to come here. — Andrew4Handel

You are stuck on nonsense mode, it seems. I don't care about your hypothetical which has no basis in reality.

There's enough error in what you're doing that one can see why telephones might not approve of it.

He's asking you why pain is a negative thing objectively. He's stressing that there's no extramental fact that makes pain negative. It's rather a mental state that finds it negative. — Terrapin Station

Well, to look for extramental qualities in mental states would be like looking for edges of an egg. I think you're mistakenly lumping ALL that is mental into the category of subjective. Why? Because poking a finger with a needle is painful for everyone. I've never seen an insult evoke laughter. Nor have I seen a happy murder victim. Of course, there are exceptions - the odd masochist. However, to give weightage to such rare cases on the scale of morality would be like thinking one or two passive lions upsets the objective true belief that lions are dangerous. Statistically speaking, you're focussing on the irrelevant. You seem to demand 100% objectivity which is asking the impossible. Not even science has that level of objectivity and I'm sure you have no problems with science. Why then do you single out morality for such overly rigorous treatment?

We see morality as an inherently subjective thing, so there's no reason to defer to objectivity. We can and do impose our own morality, because we don't want to tolerate a world where we allow people to do certain things unchecked. — Terrapin Station

Like I said above, the claim that morality is subjective rests on the few outliers who have a different, what shall I call it, disposition. Your whole argument rests on a handful of oddballs. This is clearly irrational.

So, if you want to continue insisting that morality is subjective, you'll also have to forfeit your rationality.

Mine is grounded in reality — Sapientia

If you ground morality on reality then stealing, lying, rape, murder, everything would be moral. Afterall all of the above are real.

Morality is, at least in part, an ideal shaped by the human ability for empathy, to suffer, to feel joy, etc., under the guidance of reason.

Well, to look for extramental qualities in mental states would be like looking for edges of an egg. I think you're mistakenly lumping ALL that is mental into the category of subjective. Why? Because poking a finger with a needle is painful for everyone. I've never seen an insult evoke laughter. Nor have I seen a happy murder victim. Of course, there are exceptions - the odd masochist. However, to give weightage to such rare cases on the scale of morality would be like thinking one or two passive lions upsets the objective true belief that lions are dangerous. Statistically speaking, you're focussing on the irrelevant. You seem to demand 100% objectivity which is asking the impossible. Not even science has that level of objectivity and I'm sure you have no problems with science. Why then do you single out morality for such overly rigorous treatment?

We see morality as an inherently subjective thing, so there's no reason to defer to objectivity. We can and do impose our own morality, because we don't want to tolerate a world where we allow people to do certain things unchecked. — Terrapin Station


Like I said above, the claim that morality is subjective rests on the few outliers who have a different, what shall I call it, disposition. Your whole argument rests on a handful of oddballs. This is clearly irrational.

So, if you want to continue insisting that morality is subjective, you'll also have to forfeit your rationality. — TheMadFool

It seems in this comment that you're understanding "subjective" to imply something like "there is little agreement on x." Is that right?

I hasten to clarify that, though I said that the OP had a point, I was not referring to his wish to forcibly involuntarily sterilize everyone. Forced sterilization of an entire population can't be justified, and would be unconscionable. When some people forcibly impose their own preferences and beliefs on others, that's one of the things that makes this a world in which you wouldn't choose to be born.

Here's what I meant when I said that the OP has a point: Yes, none of us asked to be born.

And yes, if you, as an individual who is on the wrong end of a planet's barbarism, refuse to reproduce, then you're 1) not bring someone into a life under barbarism; and 2) not contributing to there being an overall possibility to be born under barbarism at all.

Hypothetically (even if not realistically), if everyone who is on the wrong end of barbarism made that refusal, then no one on any planet in any universe would be born on the wrong end of barbarism. It wouldn't be a possibility.

But not reproducing must be an individual choice,unless someone is objectively and fairly judged to be unqualified as a parent. (I emphasize that I don't claim that our society has a feasible trustworthy means to objectively and fairly make that determination.)

Making our own life choices is a basic

Of course you surely agree that it would be better if, in our planet's societal system, no one were wrongfully harmed. (Dream on). If that unattainable condition were so, then there'd be no need to not reproduce.

So, just complain about the things that make being born on this planet undesirable, and make an individual choice to not reproduce.

Replying to a comment:

I'd said:

Or, looking at it evolutionarily, natural-selection makes it so that people who are born have an inclination toward life. Part of what made you was natural selection's influence that made you inclined toward life.

And that was encoded in the genes from which yours were going to be chosen,, even before your own genes were finally determined by your conception.

You commented:

But that's the naturalistic fallacy. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. — schopenhauer1

Which of my statements that you quoted isn't true? It all seemed, to me, uncontroversial.

"Naturalist"? You really know how to insult someone >:o

Potentially all future suffering can be prevented if no one procreated.

If you lived on a non-barbaric planet, there'd be no need to not reproduce.

But yes, after you posted, I clarified that I agree that any caring person who lives on this planet wouldn't want to reproduce.

But that's only because of a planetary societal aberration. It isn't a general conclusion about life itself.

No disagreement there. We probably don't disagree on this subject.

Michael Ossipoff

If you ground morality on reality then stealing, lying, rape, murder, everything would be moral. Afterall all of the above are real.

Morality is, at least in part, an ideal shaped by the human ability for empathy, to suffer, to feel joy, etc., under the guidance of reason. — TheMadFool

If that's what I had meant, then that's what I would have said. But I didn't. I said that my position is grounded in reality, and I said that in a context whereby it was contrasted with nonsense ideals like an unborn baby consenting to being born. I'm not rejecting ideals, just nonsense ideals that are so unrealistic that they're hardly worth consideration. Attainability matters, and is a criterion for determining what is and is not nonsense. I'm only interested in real alternatives, not nonsense alternatives which aren't really alternatives at all.

Hypothetically (even if not realistically), if everyone who is on the wrong end of barbarism made that refusal — Michael Ossipoff

[referring to the refusal to reproduce]

That supposition doesn't make sense. Just as there's an "if no one in barbaric worlds reproduced", of course there's also an "if" that they do reproduce, and, hence, there are possibility-worlds in which they do.

So, better that I just say, "Living on a barbaric planet, it's better to not reproduce.", and leave it at that.

Michael Ossipoff

It seems in this comment that you're understanding "subjective" to imply something like "there is little agreement on x." Is that right? — Terrapin Station

Subjective to me is a matter of taste. An example would be what sort of food, game, movies, music, one likes. The hallmark of subjectivity is disagreement among people e.g. people like different genres of movie, music, etc.

Attainability matters, and is a criterion for determining what is and is not nonsense — Sapientia

So Utopia is nonsense to you? Isn't it the ultimate goal of all nations? It's not attainable at present but this is due to prevailing circumstances but circumstances change and what seems impossible may be achievable in the future.

I agree that we have to be realistic but that shouldn't obstruct the ideal situation, condition, world, etc. Morality, an ideal, serves as a beacon to guide our decisions. Without ideals progress isn't possible.

So Utopia is nonsense to you? Isn't it the ultimate goal of all nations? It's not attainable at present but this is due to prevailing circumstances but circumstances change and what seems impossible may be achievable in the future.

I agree that we have to be realistic but that shouldn't obstruct the ideal situation, condition, world, etc. Morality, an ideal, serves as a beacon to guide our decisions. Without ideals progress isn't possible. — TheMadFool

I thought I was clear. No, utopia in itself is not what I consider to be nonsense. Nor ideals. Whether a particular conception of utopia or a particular ideal is or is not nonsense would depend on one or more factors, like the one I mentioned. I don't restrict attainability to the present. I'm not holding my breath on babies consenting to be born, pigs flying, and whatnot. I don't think that it's sensible to subscribe to an ethic which relies on that kind of thinking, too far removed from reality, as a foundation. Bring it close enough, and we can talk sensibly.

Bring it close enough, and we can talk sensibly — Sapientia

You're right. I'm being unrealistic. We can't ask an unborn child whether it'd want life or not. But, you will agree that nonconsensual relationships are immoral?

But yes, after you posted, I clarified that I agree that any caring person who lives on this planet wouldn't want to reproduce. — Michael Ossipoff

That's not true. Lots of caring people on this planet want to reproduce, and lots do.

So, better that I just say, "Living on a barbaric planet, it's better to not reproduce.", and leave it at that. — Michael Ossipoff

But it isn't accurate to say that we live on a barbaric planet. That kind of thing is relative. Anyway, we don't live in a world that is so barbaric that it's better not to reproduce.

You're right. I'm being unrealistic. We can't ask an unborn child whether it'd want life or not. But, you will agree that nonconsensual relationships are immoral? — TheMadFool

No, not always. Why would I agree to that, given that I presented counterexamples? But in many cases, yes, they're quite clearly immoral.

I think people have ignored most of what I said.

I gave the example of my preference for Bach and baroque. No one has said to me that because I derive pleasurable or profound experiences from Baroque music I should be allowed to force it on others.

There is no justification for imposing something on someone else based on your own preferences.

And as I said with the groping on a bus scenario most brief acts of unwanted contact or imposition are frowned upon.

I do like exposing people to Bach and Handel but I haven't a made any major converts. You can only have a child based on your own preferences so you can't claim to have done it in their interests.

I think people have ignored most of what I said. — Andrew4Handel

Probably because a lot of it is repetitive and makes the same mistakes. People tend to get tired of that.

So once again you've not provided a logical refutation

So once again you've not provided a logical refutation. — Andrew4Handel

What do you mean "once again"?

I gave the example of my preference for Bach and baroque. No one has said to me that because I derive pleasurable or profound experiences from Baroque music I should be allowed to force it on others.

There is no justification for imposing something on someone else based on your own preferences.

And as I said with the groping on a bus scenario most brief acts of unwanted contact or imposition are frowned upon.

I do like exposing people to Bach and Handel but I haven't a made any major converts. You can only have a child based on your own preferences so you can't claim to have done it in their interests. — Andrew4Handel

Amusingly, in some respects, you've done the work for me, and I need only point out that this goes against your own earlier comment about having no qualms about putting a chemical in the water that would cause mass infertility.