AN would be the aesthetic pose in my book. I prefer to move on to the pragmatic meat of the issue of whether to have children. And how to approach life in general. — apokrisis

I don't think you're reading these responses.

Hyperbole. — apokrisis

Not in any way, whatsoever. The number of people who cower into an ideology that saves them from head-on dealing with the complexities and pains of life is far higher than the number of people who do not. This is not hyperbole, it just may be uncomfortable to confront. I am speaking here of religious people, New Age people and the like. It is not common to intellectually "raw dog" life, as it were.

You were arguing as if the “higher consciousness” of humans were something neurobiological rather than sociocultural. This makes a difference. — apokrisis

You may need to clarify as this is across threads, and I don't quite recognize anything here?

able to suffer — apokrisis

Therapy can’t address the source of the distress — apokrisis

Im not sure you're making anything of this. Humans are capable (in fact, predisposed) to suffer. Therapy can't make us inhumane. Okay?

But if instead you understand human consciousness as a socially constructed habit of thought — apokrisis

You'd be a very, very weird person to deal with. Bordering on nonsensical, imo.

then you can see how the inner narrative is something that can quite authentically be rewritten. — apokrisis

This sounds like Frankfurtian nonsense to me I'm afraid (not your fault, I'm sure - you'll have seen at least some of my responses to Constance illuminating why this is so, for me)). The two points you're trying to contrast aren't related in my view (in this discussion, anyway. Others, sure). The fact of self-consciousness has very little to do with (other than as a required premise) inner monologues. Our self-consciousness predisposes us to suffer. We have the ability to talk ourselves around. Okay. This is, again, not related to AN concerns or positions. You're talking about living people dealing with their already-extant lives. Not. Relevant.

This is the shift in mindset behind the positive psychology movement. — apokrisis

And you take this seriously, I take it, as opposed to nifty social trend designed to make money off people's mental health?

helping people realise they have internalised certain scripts and, if they want, they can rewrite them to better suit their own lives. — apokrisis

This is the majority of all therapies throughout time. This is not 'new'.

It is not the “gift of life” that is our unconsented burden. — apokrisis

Yes it is. Unfortunately, nothing you've said comes close to altering this position.

That which we could not help internalising as it was how we were treated, the circumstances of our early rearing. But that which we can grow out if we have a clearer idea about how the human mind is shaped. — apokrisis

The strange part about this exchange (again, not you... some free-floating attribute) is that I basically agree with this. Once alive, we can do all sorts of things to alleviate suffering. Some people genuinely enjoy a life with less suffering and more pleasure (as it were - that's a bit black/white). No issues with what you're getting across here - which is an argument against existential dread, or suicidality, or even defeatist attitudes of the living. It does not engage with AN concerns.

You're talking about living people dealing with their already-extant lives. Not. Relevant. — AmadeusD

It does not engage with AN concerns. — AmadeusD

Who could care about AN concerns? They are ridiculous given that there is plenty enough of pragmatic importance to be getting on with in our already extant lives.

A fashion statement and not a philosophical conundrum.

Who could care about AN concerns? They are ridiculous given that there is plenty enough of pragmatic importance to be getting on with in our already extant lives. — apokrisis

So, you mean to say, you've been arguing with (i think) three people about antinatalism across two threads, and you don't care about, or understand the concerns of antinatalists? Interesting approach my guy.

So, you mean to say, you've been arguing with (i think) three people about antinatalism across two threads, and you don't care about, or understand the concerns of antinatalists? — AmadeusD

I've had schop bleating in my ear for a decade. And you are not striking me as someone who is suddenly going to make it an interesting subject.

A bit weak, but fair. I wouldn't assume I was either. I just think you're clearly wrong.

It might be relatively wrong but then also relatively right. You of course will do your usual mad thing of talking in exceptionless absolutes. — apokrisis

This is more than a bit of bad faith argumentation being that you didn't address any of my points, and only left a sweeping general claim, don't you think?

My error was only in re-entering a long stale discussion.

Remember I have already agreed that one ought to make responsible choices. One can tell if one is really in a position to do a good job of it. — apokrisis

Well, I didn't mean to say that you thought otherwise. I see what you mean, but I don't think you are answering to the objection.

Even if there is a very small chance that life won't be a 'good thing' for my kid, then, given this uncertainty, how can I justify my decision to give birth? If I give birth on the chance that it will be something bad for him or her, then I have to find some other reason to do it - but note that if a person is a good-in-itself, then I cannot really find it acceptable.

Maybe there is something like a 'deontological' duty to preserve the species. But even if it is were true, then, we have the conflict between two 'ethical duties'. On the other hand, we have to preserve humanity. On the other hand, we have to act towards the future human being as a good in himself/herself. If we choose to 'give birth', we follow the first ethical duty and we accept the risk that life might not be something good to the individual that will be born. If we stop reproducing, of course, we choose to ignore the first ethical duty.

I do see it as an ethical dilemma, BTW. The 'best outcome', of course, would be that humanity never goes extinct and every human being sees and will see their own life as something good. Only in this case, the dilemma disappears. If, instead, it is possible that someone doesn't see life as something good, the dilemma arises.

Personally, one of the reason that I am not an antinatalist is that the above - it is true that each individual is a 'good in himself/herself' but I also think that we have a communal duty, i.e. we also have to act in a way that is good for humanity, which seems to imply that as a community we shall seek to avoid extinction (this doesn't imply that everyone must have kids, of course).

@apokrisis, @schopenhauer1

Also, another reason why I am not an antinatalist is that I am open to the possibility of an afterlife. I am not sure how the possibility of the afterlife would influence the dilemma of antinatalism (I guess that it also depends on how the afterlife is, if there is one).

Also, another reason why I am not an antinatalist is that I am open to the possibility of an afterlife. I am not sure how the possibility of the afterlife would influence the dilemma of antinatalism (I guess that it also depends on how the afterlife is, if there is one). — boundless

As someone on the autism spectrum, the question arises for me of whether in an afterlife I would be autistic.

If not, then it doesn't seem like it would be me in the afterlife.
If so, and for eternity, I expect I'd think the afterlife kind of sucks.

My error was only in re-entering a long stale discussion. — apokrisis

Fair enough, as the other poster said. I'll just leave you with the idea that some things are just principles, not everything in human actions have to be about some "greater good" outcome. A lot of injustice happens in the name of that mentality. Deontological basis may be seen as inflexible, but it's not when considering the procreational decision against post-birth considerations. Once born, you have a child that has rights to not die in your care, for example. I call this "mitigation ethics", as the harm is done, but now it's trying to trade the greater for lesser harms (all the "raising" part). But to create the harm, to thus mitigate it is indeed unnecessary, and thus misguided. And, as I was saying, it is aggressively paternalistic ("fascist" if you will). For some reason YOU want to see something and SOMEONE has to dance to the tune you want to see happen. With birth control, there is no real "it's just what people do" aspect (not that they had no choice or couldn't take actions prior either). It now makes it purely a political choice, even if out of negligence. One knows the possibilities.

You assume some holistic system, but these are decisions made by people within the system. Life is a choice one makes on another's behalf, it is not an inevitability to choose that someone else needs to be born into this life. Using people in order to serve some "systemic view of things", makes no sense in light of ethics that considers individuals, and their pain. People aren't pieces to be moved around such that some grand narrative plays out. That is circular logic, whereby the descriptive aspect (entropic gobblygook, etc.) becomes a sort of naturalistic fallacy and a violation of the is/ought gap.

Life is a balancing act. Once you get into a mindset of looking for problems, you are never going to find an end to problems.

That ain’t philosophy. It is reason eating itself.

As someone on the autism spectrum, the question arises for me of whether in an afterlife I would be autistic.

If not, then it doesn't seem like it would be me in the afterlife.
If so, and for eternity, I expect I'd think the afterlife kind of sucks. — wonderer1

Interesting - I would never had thought to ask this, though, I am essentially not open to an afterlife that retains any personality whatsoever. INteresting, nonetheless.

Once you get into a mindset oflooking recognizing for problems — apokrisis

Is a more apt description. You may still think this is inapt for life in general, but it is certainly bad faith to attribute behaviours you're, in the sentence, deeming problematic, when that's not established - its just an appearance from your POV :)

I can certainly recognise problems when I see them. And going looking for problems is a problem that I can recognise.

If you think looking for only problems is not a problem, then you would have to supply your argument for why this lack of balance is not in fact problematic.

Not to sound rude, but did you actually read my reply? My position is that:

recognizing for problems — apokrisis

Is a more apt description. — AmadeusD

Your POV that we're 'looking for problems' is simply not the case. ANd, it is not for you to decide whether or not it is. We see things differently. You are not right. We are not 'right'. You are, however, wrong about the motivation. Recognizing, not seeking. If you do not accept this, that is pure bad faith. There is nothing to explain, from our position. You are simply wrong about what we are thinking, or motivated by. And you couldn't possibly know, so... yeah.

Not to sound rude, but did you actually read my reply? — AmadeusD

It could have been better written.

Recognizing, not seeking. If you do not accept this, that is pure bad faith. — AmadeusD

Well who gives a fuck when you put it like that.

It could have been better written. — apokrisis

LMAO, possibly, but your response seems to just be inapt, even on review. The core point was missed.

Well who gives a fuck when you put it like that. — apokrisis

You're trying to assert that mind-reading is a sound practice. Far be it from me my friend :)

It would have shown less bad faith if you had responded to what I actually wrote.

Once you get into a mindset of looking for problems, you are never going to find an end to problems. — apokrisis

If one is simply recognising problems then that is a quite different mindset. But once you declare no line can be drawn, no balance of interests can exist, then that becomes reason eating itself.

If you have an argument against that argument, rather than some further deflection, I’m happy to hear it.

For fun, let's test the pragmatic limits to your antinatalism.

So you say you are a signed-up member of the AN charter. Being responsible for a birth is deemed a sin as it is impossible for the resulting infant to have given its explicit consent to this reproductive act in advance of the fact.

But having sex is always going to carry this risk. Even contraception – as a sign of your good faith – can fail. So does your AN charter need to add the clause of no sex at all as that is putting you at risk for breaking the faith? Do you need to go out and get sterilised because you could always get drunk one night or duped into performing a service for some cunning natalist?

One could go on seeking such risks to your hardline AN stance. The risks might be diminishing, but even a vasectomy fails 1 in 10,000 times. At some point do you not eventually get a pass on this? Does even the AN extremist accept that imperatives have their pragmatic limits?

Well if reason is allowed back into the conversation, this becomes the point where we can start winding back towards the practical notion of risks being balanced against rewards. We can get back to my commonsense position that what matters in regard to approaching reproduction ethically is not whether the prospective parents can have the baby sign off on the whole exercise in advance, but that the parents are wholeheartedly engaged in making it a turn of as a positive choice.

One can have a productive ethical debate where there are two complementary imperatives in play – like risks and rewards – and so the way that we "ought to behave" is in the way that aims to arrive at an optimised win-win balance.

But if you set up your ethics on the side of a slippery slope fallacy, then why would you expect that to be useful or persuasive?

Who could care about AN concerns? They are ridiculous given that there is plenty enough of pragmatic importance to be getting on with in our already extant lives.

A fashion statement and not a philosophical conundrum. — apokrisis

:up: :up:

ANists hysterically confuse 'preventing possible lives' with 'preventing (and reducing) harm to / suffering of actual lives'.

For fun, let's test the pragmatic limits to your antinatalism. — apokrisis

You've already started off the argument then in bad faith argumentation as its about the normative. 1st degree murder isn't 2nd degree murder isn't manslaughter isn't a random accident. None of your scenario matters to the normative claim of the deontological basis being presented.

Well that becomes the point where we can start winding back towards the practical notion of risks being balanced against rewards. We can get back to my commonsense position is that if we are going to treat reproduction ethically, then what matters in the prospective parents is not that the baby signed off on the whole experiment in advance but that the parents were wholeheartedly in a position to strive to make it a positive outcome. That they weren't just going to spray and walk away.

One can have a productive ethical debate where there are two complementary imperatives in play – like risks and rewards – and so the way we ought to behave is in the way that aims to arrive at its optimised win-win balance. You know. Thinking like an adult.

But if you set up your ethics on the side of a slippery slope fallacy, then why would you expect that to be useful or persuasive? — apokrisis

No, this isn't a slippery slope fallacy because the debate is at the normative level. Murder isn't somewhat wrong, it's wrong. That different scenarios can occur surrounding murder doesn't make murder itself NOT wrong.

None of your scenario matters to the normative claim of the deontological basis being presented. — schopenhauer1

But that is because I am sensible and don't buy that as a basis. Wrong premise and thus a pointless argument.

It would be bad faith to pretend I went along with your scenario for any other reason than its passing curiosity value.

No, this isn't a slippery slope fallacy because the debate is at the normative level. Murder isn't somewhat wrong, it's wrong. — schopenhauer1

But what is murder? What acts fall into that category without involving shades of grey?

Perhaps you have a conviction in black and white thinking to a degree I cannot even fathom? I sort of suspect that deep down you must be kidding. That a little reasonableness will soon penetrate the pose. I'm still kind of giving credit to the possibility that you aren't completely in the grip of your own rhetoric.

But what is murder? What acts fall into that category without involving shades of grey?

Perhaps you have a conviction in black and white thinking to a degree I cannot even fathom? I sort of suspect that deep down you must be kidding. That a little reasonableness will soon penetrate the pose. I'm still kind of giving credit to the possibility that you aren't completely in the grip of your own rhetoric. — apokrisis

The point is that you would not WANT murder because it's wrong, even if, for practical purposes, such as law, we can differentiate punishment and blame based on various pragmatics surrounding the normative principle.

One doesn't WANT to cause another unnecessary suffering is the normative principle. That there are various scenarios of degrees for which negligence towards this can be hashed out, doesn't take away from that core principle.

What you are trying to do is deny that there is a core principle, but that is exactly what I am pushing back on. Negligence and pragmatics are de facto how things play out in the world, but that doesn't change the principles.

What you are trying to do is deny that there is a core principle, but that is exactly what I am pushing back on. — schopenhauer1

But that is just your failure to understand my position. My core principle is that there is always a dialectical balance in anything that could matter. A trade-off. And trade-offs ought to be optimised in a win-win fashion. That is the answer that is worth seeking.

Your approach drives you to angry dogmatism. My approach leads me to pragmatism. We do the best we can by reasoning. We should always expect a complementary balance to exist in nature. Complementary balances is after all how nature can even exist.

So my approach is rooted in natural philosophy. That is its metaphysical basis.

Yours seems to be some kind of Platonic notion of perfection. A one-note "good". A leap to an extreme that ends all debate.

The slippery slope fallacy, as I say. All answers must arrive in the one place, whereas for me they have many possible balancing points between two complementary notions of "the good".

It is good to take risks as it is good to get rewards. Pain is good as pain tells you what to avoid. Life is good because after that you will have plenty of oblivion in which to rest.

Nature has set us up genetically to think in this natural way. To understand life as a spectrum of possibilities that we must then navigate in a reasonable fashion.

The primary dichotomy of human social organisation is the balancing of competition and cooperation. Individual striving and collective identity. Both of these imperatives are good to the degree they are in a fruitful balance.

So perhaps my way of thinking is a little more complex. But not sure I have to make excuses for that.

So my approach is rooted in natural philosophy. That is its metaphysical basis. — apokrisis

This might be a fatal mistake in your reasoning as it is literally the naturalistic fallacy, but not even hidden, but embraced. You'd have to seriously qualify this for me to show which version of the fallacy this would be violating..

Yours seems to be some kind of Platonic notion of perfection. A one-note "good". A leap to an extreme that ends all debate. — apokrisis

Deontology generally seems to work this way, yes.

The slippery slope fallacy, as I say. All answers must arrive in the one place, whereas for me they have many possible balancing points between two complementary notions of "the good". — apokrisis

So then, can you balance murder being wrong? You would not want murder, whether 1st or 2nd degree, surely. There is something that makes the core principle behind it a bad act, and it isn't because of a negotiation or balance. If you jump to manslaughter, that isn't murder. And surely, if someone was very negligent to cause manslaughter, you wouldn't want that either, even though that is perhaps less "blameworthy" or would be in need of a "lesser punishment". That is to say, with all these principles, whatever feels "just" in a pragmatic sense, there is a core with which you at some point say, "This should or should not happen".

Pain is good as pain tells you what to avoid. Life is good because after that you will have plenty of oblivion in which to rest. — apokrisis

But at this point, we are then arguing about the core principle of "Do not cause unnecessary suffering", or "Do not use people if it can be avoided". Or perhaps, "Don't allow your version of what is good violate someone else's negative ethic to not be harmed unnecessarily".

Nature has set us up genetically to think in this natural way. To understand life as a spectrum of possibilities that we must then navigate in a reasonable fashion. — apokrisis

No, humans are deliberative creatures. You make it seem like what we choose is a foregone conclusion.

The primary dichotomy of human social organisation is the balancing of competition and cooperation. Individual striving and collective identity. Both of these imperatives are good to the degree they are in a fruitful balance. — apokrisis

It just seems you are taking appeals to traditional values as THE values one should follow. Tradition is not "nature" per se, but contingent upon a bunch of choices made, which even if helped with survival, is not anything like "nature" in the sense of pure instinct. It would simply be "what takes place" making nature a rather impotent idea then.

My core principle is that there is always a dialectical balance in anything that could matter. A trade-off. And trade-offs ought to be optimised in a win-win fashion. That is the answer that is worth seeking. My approach leads me to pragmatism. We do the best we can by reasoning. We should always expect a complementary balance to exist in nature. Complementary balances is after all how nature can even exist. — apokrisis

:100: :fire:

You'll need to let me know what this has to do with AN first (i can save the time: It does not have more than an aesthetic resemblance to the issues AN wants to deal with). — AmadeusD

yes, that's right, but antinatalists don't confuse the issue:
No humans. Not not playgrounds. Let the people who exist use hte playground, for reasons your point out that would make the "no playgrounds" conclusion stupid as heck. — AmadeusD

I am conceptually in line with AN entirely (including the above prescriptive thinking and hte delineation between living and potential persons — AmadeusD

It's not relevant to me whether someone claims they have a good life individually - the argument is about lives to come. Those who are currently living aren't relevant, — AmadeusD

There are clearly not. There are potential victims. — AmadeusD

If these people were not having children, and increasing the sheer number of sufferers on the planet, I don't think this argument would any weight as one's delusion becomes one's reality internally. — AmadeusD

(this one I've picked, because it clearly shows me saying something stupid, but still attests to your error.

There are plenty more i recall, but I don't want to go through pages, and pages when the search function isn't picking everything up...

ANists hysterically confuse 'preventing possible lives' with 'preventing (and reducing) harm to / suffering of actual lives'. — 180 Proof

So, in light of all the above, it is clear you're either misinformed or trolling, as these are standard AN fare. The suffering of those alive doesn't lead to any position for hte AN-er, other than to say most people already living have a rational interest in continuing to exist. For the most part, that isn't part/parcel of the AN position any given person might hold. It's an externality due to the A-symmetry argument. It seems you either reject, or don't understand it. It makes it almost impossible for an ANist to be motivated by extant human suffering because the purported results of hte view have nothing to do with those living people (except to the extent one might want to discourage procreation - but that's clearly not a motivating factor for the view). Perhaps it's just time you step away from a thread all you do is drive-by and say things that aren't quite right in lol.

If you have an argument against that argument — apokrisis

It has literally nothing to do with what's going on in this discusison. Its a total non sequitur. 'argument' against is inapt. You are simply putting words in people's heads. Sorry to tell you, but I don't look for problems. YOu need to just accept that, or accept that you're trying to mind-read.

But once you declare no line can be drawn, no balance of interests can exist, then that becomes reason eating itself. — apokrisis

True, and completely irrelevant. The balance is in the a-symmetry, for most ANists.

So does your AN charter need to add the clause of no sex at all as that is putting you at risk for breaking the faith? Do you need to go out and get sterilised because you could always get drunk one night or duped into performing a service for some cunning natalist? — apokrisis

One of those options would be preferable. This is not controversial. Non ANists do these things all the time for plenty of reasons - many, ethical (are you(not you, but rhetorically) aware you child might be missing a chromosome? Likely, you wont procreate. What's the difference there, but degree?)

The risks might be diminishing, but even a vasectomy fails 1 in 10,000 times. At some point do you not eventually get a pass on this? — apokrisis

It is almost certain you're arguing with a ghost. I've already addressed this. Certainty is not involved here. You are once again, wrong about the position and are arguing with no one

Does even the AN extremist accept that imperatives have their pragmatic limits? — apokrisis

I don't think even you know what you're talking about now. The only relevant point I could make, though it actually isn't relevant to what you've said - is that an ANist is concerned with not causing more suffering. Nowhere in AN does it posit that there is a 100% fool-proof way to do this. If your point comes down to the infantile suggestion that we can't guarantee that sex wont result in a birth, I have no idea why you think this matters. I can't answer for the extremist, but as Weinberg put its "the risk of a life time" is the risk we're talking about. The risk of sex resulting in a birth/pregnancy is irrelevant unless you're already an ANist. So, perhaps stay on topic. It is getting really tedious having to bring you back to something sensible in every reply.

We can get back to my commonsense position that what matters in regard to approaching reproduction ethically is not whether the prospective parents can have the baby sign off on the whole exercise in advance, but that the parents are wholeheartedly engaged in making it a turn of as a positive choice. — apokrisis

Hooo boy haha, there isn't a heads or tails to reply to here The bolded (whcih is the distilled claim from your POV) is absolute fucking nonsense and so the paragraph is empty. (no, I don't "not get it". You are literally talking non-sense).

One can have a productive ethical debate where there are two complementary imperatives in play – like risks and rewards — apokrisis

This is one of hte stupidest claims about ethical discussion i've ever seen in my life. That's... that's cute.

But if you set up your ethics on the side of a slippery slope fallacy, then why would you expect that to be useful or persuasive? — apokrisis

Haven't. You just are wrong in pretty much all the meaningful ways one can be in this discussion. You literally don't understand (or care) by your own admission what's being discussed. And your replies make this extremely clear. It feels like a child at the adults table, tbh.

But that is just your failure to understand my position. — apokrisis

You don't understand, or apparently care about ours... Yet you're constantly making sweeping, general proclamations about it, and then saying pithy but empty nonsense like this:

My core principle is that there is always a dialectical balance in anything that could matter. A trade-off. And trade-offs ought to be optimised in a win-win fashion. That is the answer that is worth seeking. My approach leads me to pragmatism. We do the best we can by reasoning. We should always expect a complementary balance to exist in nature. Complementary balances is after all how nature can even exist. — apokrisis

Sorry to say, but this is the form preaching takes. The bolded doesn't actually present any sense whatsoever. It's metaphysical speculation in the most strangely uninteresting form i've seen in a while. It's impossible to know why you're doing this, but it's enough now kiddo. Either get educated (and actually give a fuck) about the subject, or post in another thread. It is utterly bizarre that you would, several exchanges ago, point out that you don't get, or care.... and continue replying. I smell some rather obvious self-loathing, or dishonesty.

This might be a fatal mistake in your reasoning — schopenhauer1

Or else you have no idea what natural philosophy is - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/

The rest is just too dull to address.

Still can’t give a fuck. You’re all over the shop.

Then stop fucking posting in here? Good lord. Or, be honest - the reason you keep posting is because you care. One or the other, no?