If we hold an evolutionary view of truth, antinatalism is false — Lionino
Moar argument please. Justify your "if, then". — fdrake
Adopting that view, antinatalism has to be false, at least after a few generations.
I am not here to argue that view of truth by the way :100: — Lionino
My point was more of, if we accept that truth is determined by the universally held views of the surviving group, antinatalism will soon enough become false, and it will do so every time, as the holders of that view will eventually extinguish themselves. — Lionino
Ok, so you are trying to pose a hypothetical scenario and treat it like a "meme" that gets phased out. But the problem is the same as the naturalistic fallacy as applied to humans.. Humans are so plastic that it is possible that humans have the ability to refrain from procreation and discontinue humans for ethical reasons, like suffering (that those future humans might face if born). — schopenhauer1
That is to say, just because "it's in nature", doesn't mean it is morally right, simply. — schopenhauer1
Right, but even then, under evolutionary truth, antinatalism turns out to be false, even if there are no humans around anymore — especially when there are not more humans around. The truth value of something does not depend on whether there is someone there to state it. — Lionino
Of course, but I will not pretend that the moral argument works either. Antinatalism can be rejected by default in frameworks such as virtue ethics and deontology, as well as ethical egotism. Being that AN works under the premise that suffering outweights joy in life, it could also be rejected within consequentialism, as most people would reject that premise. — Lionino
What makes it “truth”? It seems a category error to apply “truth” to a process. You haven’t explained how this term is meant to be used in this context. It seems like a misuse. — schopenhauer1
I recall reading somewhere that for some, truth comes to be by evolution, where X is true because we would not survive by believing non-X — Lionino
Antinatalism can be supported in almost any normative theory, including deontology. — schopenhauer1
How is that about truth or falsity? — schopenhauer1
If we are going for someone not suffering in the future — schopenhauer1
Right, but if we are going for survival, which was my initial premise, natalism would be the answer. — Lionino
But obviously one could contend that "survival" is some moral mission, especially above and beyond that of imposing the conditions of suffering for a future person. — schopenhauer1
But to talk about, the future conditions of suffering are an unknown, which is an argument against suicide. Not only that, but the conditions of suffering are also relative. A young adult athlete might end up killing himself after a tragit accident that puts him on a wheelchair. People born without movement in their legs do not kill themselves over being on a wheelchair, because that is all they have known, and they make do without being able to walk, and sometimes they make do wonderfully. Of course, there is a limit to this, such as Harlequin disease or glass bones, but we do put down Harlequin disease patients and always have — they end up dying shortly after birth anyway. — Lionino
Negative experiences can be sublimated. Suffering is the end state of failing to sublimate an experience. Most people choose to do this first, unfortunately. But nevertheless I am not nitpicking at all. Suffering and “having a bad time” are not synonymous and can be separate in some sense — AmadeusD
A bad (negatively feeling) experience =/= badness overall. It's kind of the whole point of resiliency and growth: you fight through temporary displeasure to become a stronger person. You seemed to gloss over the argument I was making to nitpick a mostly semantic issue. Plus, it's kind of ironic that you seem to dismiss discussion right after ridiculing someone else for the same thing. — QuixoticAgnostic
So deontologically, if one believes that others should not be used as means to an ends, it would be wrong to put others in a situation whereby they have to be put in harms way in order to "grow". — schopenhauer1
(Another odd presupposition here is that everything a parent subjects their child to is necessarily a burden.) — Leontiskos
Compared to not existing, it’s inarguably a burden to be, do or know anything — AmadeusD
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.