Don’t you mean because the world is perfectly non-ethical? — Fire Ologist

LOL, Yes, I suppose so. May not non-ethical, but ethically bereft/empty/inapt. I hope you groked what I was getting at though... Simply that there is no need for ethical thinking (and no humans would be just that). In fact, it may be that it's not possible in that scenario. But probably that leads into some kind of exegesis which isn't my bag. I say that because, having re-read my passage it would require a "view from nowhere". Speculatively, I don't see an issue though - we're not in that world :P

@Baden Anti natalism is such a broad subject. Why squash all the conversations that can be had on the subject in to one thread? It's messy and isn't really conducive to a nice flow of different conversations that would be better suited apart from one another, not mingled altogether.

Because there were too many.

Anti natalism is such a broad subject. Why squash all the conversations that can be had on the subject in to one thread? It's messy and isn't really conducive to a nice flow of different conversations that would be better suited apart from one another, not mingled altogether. — ShadowRajul

Your observations are correct. I used to have posts that dealt with various aspects that are disparate enough to warrant their own topic.



I wonder, would it be possible to have a subforum within Ethics just for antinatalism topics? If not that, is there some middle ground whereby topics can be clearly delineated within the same thread? I think this category has enough demand to not confine it to the ghetto of a monolithic Antinatalism thread whereby individual topics are hard to discern on a broad and multifaceted issue.

I think this category has enough demand to not confine it to the ghetto of a monolithic Antinatalism thread whereby individual topics are hard to discern on a broad and multifaceted issue. — schopenhauer1

Hear, hear!

Unfortunately, we only have two options:

1. Discuss amongst ourselves (i.e those holders of the view, or sympathetic to the view); or
2. Put up with people who clearly misunderstand hte position, can't put together coherent objections and consistently insult us on the basis of a view we're not forcing on them.

I would hazard a guess neither is actually worth the time. That said, 180 is a never-ending fountain of bad replies which certainly help to elucidate the wrongness of some objections, so maybe there's that.

It really doesn't warrant anything like that. I dedicated sub forum for Kant or various other philosophers/philosophical ideas would make more sense.

Antinatalism is fringe. SO fringe the word is not even recognised by spellcheck yet :D

I did. The guy in the video is holding two contrary views and had this pointed out to him (he probably won't listen though because I have heard some of his youtube stuff before and it is pretty close-minded stuff).

He showed an "Ethic" and "Moral" stance simultaneously (with the meanings I gave you some weeks back) and these are contrary.

It should also be stated that just because someone disagrees it does not mean that they do not understand. If that is the place you leap too maybe you should question your own understanding of what they are saying otherwise you are essentially claiming your position is correct and anyone who does not agree simply does not understand. Wrong. Either they do not understand you fully or you do not understand them fully; but most likely an admixture of the two.

Personally I am some kind of moral sceptic so the whole matter for me is pretty moot at its core. The AN position is Anti-Ethical as pointed out by the guy in the video if your position in in the sphere of what I coined "Ethic" rather than "Moral". As a Moral stance it has more apparent validity.

I'm not sure what "I did" pertains to, or what video you're specifically referring to so shan't comment, but your conclusion here tells me you don't quite understand, so I'm not sure where to take that. I don't particularly care either, I'm just responding as I see fit.. A small remark, based on our exchanges, is that you did not present me any reason to think this AN position is not ethical. You might say "anti-ethical" but that must be on an ethical scale, so not sure its doing the job you think.

your position is correct and anyone who does not agree simply does not understand — I like sushi

No, not at all. I think, again, you have seriously (and uncharitably) misunderstood the point. I do not care whether 180 agrees. He doesn't make any sense to me msot of the time, so why would i care? The point is his constant misrepresentation, trolling remarks, insults and pure ignorance of what's been put to him.
It is genuinely fun. But, do not get it twisted: "you don't understand", for me, has absoltely nothing to do with agreement or disagreement :)

180? I was referring to the video posted recently AND your post.

You generalise and mention 180.

1. Discuss amongst ourselves (i.e those holders of the view, or sympathetic to the view); or
2. Put up with people who clearly misunderstand hte position, can't put together coherent objections and consistently insult us on the basis of a view we're not forcing on them. — AmadeusD

But, do not get it twisted: "you don't understand", for me, has absoltely nothing to do with agreement or disagreement — AmadeusD

Given this and the above you can see how they can coincide?

- My two cents - I think the decision that was made was the right one. It's not ideal, but I don't see a better option given the current constraints of PlushForums.

---

(from other thread)

At one point in our exchange you nearly stopped dodging my reductio. At that point you said:

Supposing only a pin-prick was the suffering, I guess the scenario could be reconsidered. — schopenhauer1

And I replied:

Reconsidered on what basis? — Leontiskos

To recap paraphrastically:

• Leontiskos: Benatar's argument for anti-natalism would hold good even in a world where everyone received a pinprick of pain followed by 80 years of pure happiness. Therefore the argument is not reasonable; it proves too much.
• Schopenhauer1: Supposing only a pin-prick was the suffering, I guess the question could be reconsidered.
• Leontiskos: Reconsidered in what way? If Benatar's argument is sound then it would hold good in that world. If it would not hold good in that world then it is not sound.

The fact that you admitted to reconsideration shows that you do see the force of the reductio, but you failed to follow through and actually do the hard work of reconsidering Benatar's argument and your position.

The point is his constant misrepresentation, trolling remarks, insults and pure ignorance of what's been put to him. — AmadeusD

From your perspectives maybe. Have you considered that what you see as 'trolling' others see as valid points that are not addressed by the argumentation.

@AmadeusD This video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osfgpM4uCVw&t=1s

Have you considered that what you see as 'trolling' others see as valid points that are not addressed by the argumentation. — I like sushi

Of course. This is now coming across as fairly bad faith (i know it isn't but please note what you're doing - telling me I'm not intellectually in the game, as it were). Assuming i've not considered the points adequately is a bit weird if you're getting at me for pointing out others have clearly not done the same (and even self-admitted they don't care to?) These are very different scenarios. Though, I don't fault you. You're doing roughly hte same as me.

You generalise and mention 180. — I like sushi

Several people clearly don't, and yes, that's from my perspective. I have no other. All you can actually do is disagree with me, but it doesn't even seem that you're doing so.

Whether they(interlocutors) agree is a totally different issue - one which doesn't matter if they clearly don't understand my views. I would be the only person in a position to know whether you have understood them.

That said, in terms of the wider issue you're point out, given there are three or four usual suspects in this respect, I don't find an issue with my take. I accept lots of people wont like it, and lots of people wont agree or understand. That's how life works.

Thank you for the link. When my current assignment is over, it might be something to go over with you.

My two cents - I think the decision that was made was the right one. It's not ideal, but I don't see a better option given the current constraints of PlushForums. — Leontiskos

@Baden

Funny you defend this ghettoizing of the topic of antinatalism (something you vociferously disagree with), and yet you bring up a topic we discussed way back.. Something which I can't easily look up BECAUSE of this ghettoization whereby EVERYTHING related to antinatalism, no matter what thread/topic is squished into one long thread. So perhaps it is the limitations of PlushForums, but I am proposing a way to give people the ability to create new threads on the topic, so that conversations can be logically viewed.

The fact that you admitted to reconsideration shows that you do see the force of the reductio, but you failed to follow through and actually do the hard work of reconsidering Benatar's argument and your position. — Leontiskos

Oh fuck no, because I don't see this world as ever being just a pinprick. Did you find my response? It came right after:

My point was that empirically-speaking, in the real world, there are no such charmed lives, so it is de facto out of the question other than a thought experiment. Supposing only a pin-prick was the suffering, I guess the scenario could be reconsidered. But I just want you to know, every single ethical consideration can be reconfigured if you change the conditions for which ethics plays out... So for example.. What if when you stab someone, they reanimate every time you do it instantly.. would that be wrong? I don't know, but that's not the world we generally live in..

But ok, let me take your bait for taking the strongest position just for the sake of argument..

Benatar thinks indeed, being that no one being deprived of this "almost charmed life", there is no foul. No person harmed, no foul. Rather, the violation still takes place in this scenario. It's not like the child is being "saved" from non-existence, so this isn't a palliative situation either. — schopenhauer1

Put up with people who clearly misunderstand hte position, can't put together coherent objections and consistently insult us on the basis of a view we're not forcing on them.

I would hazard a guess neither is actually worth the time. That said, 180 is a never-ending fountain of bad replies which certainly help to elucidate the wrongness of some objections, so maybe there's that. — AmadeusD

It seems to be the case that general decorum for debate in this forum has long ago been deemed as unnecessary.. people like to pull out the roots rather than prune the branches. Robust debate is replaced with "getting one's goat". It's obnoxious and un-philosophical. It is certainly sophistic, but I thought philosophy was trying to veer away from such tactics and stick to substantial issues. This I guess is why philosophers snipe at each other's beliefs, not in real time, but over the course of many years in journal articles. We are playing speed chess, academic philosophy is playing a much longer game, so they can afford to "stick to the topics" more-or-less, in their paid positions to do so in ivory towers. But, this forum doesn't have to resort to gutter tactics. I simply do so when it's necessary to meet in kind, when I sense that people are dodging, uncharitable, rude, or strawmanning my position with sweeping generalizations that don't address the issues.

Funny you defend this ghettoizing of the topic of antinatalism (something you vociferously disagree with), and yet you bring up a topic we discussed way back.. Something which I can't easily look up BECAUSE of this ghettoization whereby EVERYTHING related to antinatalism, no matter what thread/topic is squished into one long thread. So perhaps it is the limitations of PlushForums, but I am proposing a way to give people the ability to create new threads on the topic, so that conversations can be logically viewed. — schopenhauer1

Use the link I already gave you, which makes it super easy to navigate the discussion. You can make such a search more precise by searching for "schopenhauer1" instead of "." In that case it will only display the posts of mine within this thread that include your username. You can also reverse the search to see a chronological list of your posts to me within this thread. Problem solved. :wink:

Oh fuck no, because I don't see this world as ever being just a pinprick. Did you find my response? — schopenhauer1

By burying your head in the sand in this way you prove yourself unserious.

Suppose we lived in that world. And suppose Benatar came along and gave the same argument you think is so great. What would you say to him? Would you "shh!" him and sweep him under the rug!? "Don't give that argument in this world! I like birth in this world! Arguments aren't about what's true, they are about what I want, and we don't talk about the arguments that don't suit what I want!"

You're doing the same basic thing when you bury your head in the sand. You recognize that the argument proves too much but you want to believe its conclusion so you refuse to address the objection. This is precisely the sort of irrational motive I spoke about in the other thread. It's like playing soccer with a guy who uses his hands whenever he starts losing. My solution is to find someone else, who is actually interested in playing soccer. Or find a game in which the person is not irrationally devoted to a predetermined outcome. For whatever reason you show yourself unable to play by the rules of rational argument when it comes to anti-natalism.

Problem solved. :wink: — Leontiskos

Nah, we can just do that for any topic right? The instant you make your 30th post on Kant, you should have its own thread to wade through in the Search. Let's do that with every topic:
Meaning of life
Plato
Kant
Aristotle
Systems Theory/Semiosis
Theoretical Physics etc. etc.

Let's ghettoize all the topics equally then and make it similarly as many unnecessary steps to search for it.

By burying your head in the sand in this way you prove yourself unserious. — Leontiskos

So AGAIN, you ignore the answer I gave you? That is twice you ignored my answer. Why didn't you quote what I quoted you??

Would you "shh!" him and sweep him under the rug!? "Don't give that argument in this world! I like birth in this world! Arguments aren't about what's true, they are about what I want, and we don't talk about the arguments that don't suit what I want!" — Leontiskos

What are you talking about? I would listen and see if he had a point that indeed, in that world even a pinprick is not worth it. In fact, if you ACTUALLY read his book (don't have it in front me, but if you want to do a chapter by chapter reading, I suppose we could), he DOES cover this. So, let's get at it then.

You're doing the same basic thing when you bury your head in the sand. You recognize that the argument proves too much but you want to believe its conclusion so you refuse to address the objection. This is precisely the sort of irrational motive I spoke about in the other thread. It's like playing soccer with a guy who uses his hands whenever he starts losing. My solution is to find someone else, who is actually interested in playing soccer. Or find a game in which the person is not irrationally devoted to a predetermined outcome. For whatever reason you show yourself unable to play by the rules of rational argument when it comes to anti-natalism. — Leontiskos

This is rhetorical blather. First off, I DON"T EVEN USE Benatar wholesale. His asymmetry, if I do mention it, is a way to jump off but I have my own variations of it, which I have taken painstaking time to outline over the course of MANY threads over MANY years.. To have you pin me to one line of reasoning, like that is a subtle but malicious form of uncharitable reading.. But keep mistaking me for Benatar.

But the funny thing is, EVEN if I defend Benatar qua Benatar (not my variation of him), I STILL defended him sufficiently, and you IGNORED my actual response to make rhetorical blather.

philosophy is playing a much longer game — schopenhauer1

True - I should probably remember the stark difference between this forum and in-class discussions I have.

So AGAIN, you ignore the answer I gave you? That is twice you ignored my answer. Why didn't you quote what I quoted you?? — schopenhauer1

Because your quote was a dodge. I asked you why you would reconsider in that world and you pulled the escape hatch and refused to answer, instead changing the subject. I answered your red herring in the thread:

It wouldn't be wrong in the same way as it is now. But your theoretical does not function as a reductio to any argument that I have offered, and that is the primary difference. — Leontiskos

Here is the argument:

The problem occurs if this is a valid argument:

1. Suppose every living human being is guaranteed a pinprick of pain followed by 80 years of pure happiness.
2. [Insert Benatar's antinatalist argument here]
3. Therefore, we should never procreate

Are you starting to see the reductio? The reductio has force because we know that any (2) that can get you from (1) to (3) is faulty argumentation. — Leontiskos

What is your parallel supposed to be?

1a. Suppose one is reanimated whenever they are stabbed.
2a. [Insert anti-stabbing argument here].
3a. Therefore, we should not stab.
4a. (Any 2a that can get you from 1a to 3a is faulty argumentation.)

This fails because we have no reason to believe either 3a or 4a. There is no parity between these two approaches. It's an ad hoc dodge.

This is rhetorical blather. First off, I DON"T EVEN USE Benatar wholesale. His asymmetry, if I do mention it, is a way to jump off but I have my own variations of it, which I have taken painstaking time to outline over the course of MANY threads over MANY years.. To have you pin me to one line of reasoning, like that is a subtle but malicious form of uncharitable reading.. But keep mistaking me for Benatar. — schopenhauer1

You are drawing up more escape hatches because you see your argument failing. You are the one who brought up Benatar, not me. It isn't courageous or rational to give your arguments conditionally, such that if they succeed then your position is vindicated but if they fail then you're none the worse for wear.

It wouldn't be wrong in the same way as it is now. But your theoretical does not function as a reductio to any argument that I have offered, and that is the primary difference. — Leontiskos

Now what you did not quote nor did you actually address was this:

But I just want you to know, every single ethical consideration can be reconfigured if you change the conditions for which ethics plays out... So for example.. What if when you stab someone, they reanimate every time you do it instantly.. would that be wrong? I don't know, but that's not the world we generally live in.. — schopenhauer1

1. Suppose every living human being is guaranteed a pinprick of pain followed by 80 years of pure happiness.
2. [Insert Benatar's antinatalist argument here]
3. Therefore, we should never procreate — Leontiskos

Yet I said here:

This is rhetorical blather. First off, I DON"T EVEN USE Benatar wholesale. His asymmetry, if I do mention it, is a way to jump off but I have my own variations of it, which I have taken painstaking time to outline over the course of MANY threads over MANY years.. To have you pin me to one line of reasoning, like that is a subtle but malicious form of uncharitable reading.. But keep mistaking me for Benatar. — schopenhauer1

SO you are still arguing against your own arguments.. ones cleverly concocted to make you win an argument against yourself.. as they are YOUR contrived arguments (uninformed version of Benatar and my own individual philosophy), not mine.

1a. Suppose one is reanimated whenever they are stabbed.
2a. [Insert anti-stabbing argument here].
3a. Therefore, we should not stab.
4a. (Any 2a that can get you from 1a to 3a is faulty argumentation.)

This fails because we have no reason to believe either 3a or 4a. There is no parity between these two approaches. It's an ad hoc dodge. — Leontiskos

Not at all.. If one is reanimated when stabbed, that changes the very conditions of the world itself. Death is not really death. It's something else. Just as a pinprick world might not be the kind of suffering we are used to. This is the most uninteresting argument I've seen in a while. You haven't even incorporated Schopenhaueran suffering/pessimism in there, something that would come into play in my understanding of suffering (look at my profile if you need to understand that), but you reduced to some kind of hedonoistic/common version all in one swoop because you think you can win some rhetorical points -> NEXT!

You are drawing up more escape hatches because you see your argument failing. You are the one who brought up Benatar, not me. — Leontiskos

You mean where I said THIS???

However, I don't want to get caught in the weeds of that particular version of the argument. I think it is best reformulated clearly as this:

Preventing happiness is less a moral obligation than preventing suffering. All things being equal, in the case of non-consent, and ignorance (like this Veil of Ignorance argument is saying), it is always best to prevent suffering, even on the behest of preventing happiness.

The fact is, this is from the perspective of the decision-maker. That SOMEONE exists who can understand what will result is all that matters, not that the subject of the action exists. — schopenhauer1

Oh so where I even said right in your quote "reformulated as" and went into MY OWN version?

Not at all.. If one is reanimated when stabbed, that changes the very conditions of the world itself. — schopenhauer1

Why should I believe 3a or 4a?

The other problem here is that most 2a's presuppose the falsity of 1a, whereas 2 does not presuppose the falsity of 1. Or in other words, Benatar's argument contains no implicit logical clause, "...Unless the world is situated such that happiness far outweighs suffering for all." That's the very problem with his argument that is being highlighted.

Contrariwise, prohibitions against stabbing are premised on pain, injury, and mortality, and therefore the sort of world you suggest logically invalidates the prohibitions (and hence 3a). This is completely different from Benatar's argument, for the case I gave clearly does not invalidate his prohibition. That's why, in a fit of honesty, you told me that the question may need to be reconsidered in light of such new circumstances. So if you want to pull your head out of the sand you will answer the question: What would you say to Benatar in that scenario? Why trust an argument in our world that you would not trust in that world? The argument by its very nature cannot be invalidated by the minimization of suffering, and yet this is what you are committed to.

Of course. This is now coming across as fairly bad faith (i know it isn't but please note what you're doing - telling me I'm not intellectually in the game, as it were). Assuming i've not considered the points adequately is a bit weird if you're getting at me for pointing out others have clearly not done the same (and even self-admitted they don't care to?) These are very different scenarios. Though, I don't fault you. You're doing roughly hte same as me. — AmadeusD

Well, right back at you. This is my point. If you are stating that you can only speak to people who understand and that anyone who does not is a waste of time that speaks volumes for the position you are favouring.

Of course, it may have just been poor wording. Nevertheless am I somehow acting in bad faith by pointing out how one-sided it sounded. I do not think so. We basically understood each other in a discussion here pretty well and it is quite clear to me that you are happy to disagree and you know I am.

Anyway, think we are sort of saying the same thing again and understand each other :D

I can, and maybe will, point out when I think you or anyone else has said something a little one-sided or poorly expressed AND I will consider the fault can be with me too in appreciation of what is said too. This is just me flexing my writing muscles now and hoping to improve so will shut up :D

Whether they(interlocutors) agree is a totally different issue - one which doesn't matter if they clearly don't understand my views. I would be the only person in a position to know whether you have understood them. — AmadeusD

Well, the vast majority of the time this is probably true enough for everyone. I am well aware that we can easily hoodwink ourselves too. But yeah, probably, for the most part.

That said, in terms of the wider issue you're point out, given there are three or four usual suspects in this respect, I don't find an issue with my take. I accept lots of people wont like it, and lots of people wont agree or understand. That's how life works. — AmadeusD

I do not find an issue with it either as what you seem to say falls on what I coined the "Moral" for the most part. From what Schopenhauer has said in the past too I would say he does too (unless he has changed his views a little since then), so I have no issue with the positions you both hold. I do not agree with them though and neither has put forward a proof because a proof cannot be put forward, only expressed opinions - as is the nature of most of Ethics dealing with obligations.

Thank you for the link. When my current assignment is over, it might be something to go over with you. — AmadeusD

Sure, and same here regarding time limitations. Expanding my workload and loving it though, so should be able to pay decent attention to it :)

I have two questions for antinatalists.

The strongest argument IMO for antinatalism (AN) seems to be the one from deontological ethics, i.e. that if we are not sure that life will be a good for the future human being, it's ethically questionable to 'take the risk', especially due to the impossibility of any consent from the future human being ('I cannot chose for others'...).

1) My first question is (especially for those who do not beleive in some 'objective ethics'): what is the foundation of ethics for an antinatalist? It seems that in AN there is a very strong ethical component but if 'ethics' is reduced to some kind of social contract or something 'natural', it seems that AN doens't have a strong justification to be 'better' than others.

2) Also, if one accepts that we also have a 'deontological duty' for others, for the whole human community and if one agrees that 'extinction' of humanity is bad for the whole community then it seems that what the 'deontological' argument for AN leads to is not AN itself but an 'ethical dilemma', i.e. we arrive at a situation where we have two contradictory duties, i.e. we shouldn't decide to 'give life' due to the ignorance/lack of certainty of what that will entail (if we assume that life might be bad in some cases) and the impossibility of consent and at the same time we should, among other things, continue to sustain the whole human community. If all of this is true, why antinatalists think that AN is the best choice?

what is the foundation of ethics for an antinatalist? — boundless

The ethics are simple self-preservation.

Antinatalism spares you from a future in which you will be making hefty child-support payments for children that you barely see and over whom you have no authority anyway.

Consequently, antinatalism spares you from the absolutely most stupid hobby ever.

In that sense, antinatalism is a naturally emergent property of the country's legal system.

Antinatalism is the 3rd part of the "4 no's" policy as a reaction to the country's legal system:

No civil marriage, no cohabitation, no children, and preferably no sex.

The only way in which the individual can defeat antinatalism consists in physically moving to another jurisdiction. Otherwise, antinatalism is just common sense.

@schopenhauer1

Last night I had a dream that I was back in elementary school and on this day we were taking standardized tests. There was an oppressive seriousness and nervousness about the whole thing, as if 5th graders were sitting for the SAT. On top of this, due to some sort of funding problem the test questions were poorly written and the test booklets included copy errors and print deficiencies, which added a deciphering element to the testing. In the grand scheme of things the whole endeavor was a bit ridiculous, and there was the sense that if one of the 5th graders had started giggling the whole room would have broken out in laughter, popping the bubble of faux seriousness.

This seems reflective of antinatalism. It is Harry Potter exorcising the Boggart with the charge, "Riddikulus!" That is the correct response to Benatar, and the reductio is meant to aid one in seeing it. The entire paradigm is warped and corrupted, and the argument is bizarrely indifferent to the very moral nuances that it ought to be self-consciously attentive to. Such an argument is like a necessitarian Magic 8-Ball with only one response, "Therefore, antinatalism," which response is given regardless of the circumstances.

A lot of this comes back to the wisdom of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. A key to unlocking that text is the idea that the foundation of practical ethics is identifying and emulating the virtuous man. Much of Aristotle text is just drawing out what we already know about the virtuous man, and part of this is the fact that the virtuous man possesses liberality or generousness. When we simply set the generous man alongside the stingy man we know indubitably that the generous man is to be emulated and the stingy man is ridiculous. The virtue of liberality has to do with one's fundamental orientation towards life, and this is inevitably related to one's fundamental orientation towards posterity.

When a child cuts their finger and collapses into hysteria the witty parent will take them in their lap, study the finger carefully and seriously, and then pronounce the judgment, "There's nothing for it. We need to amputate!" The child cannot help but laugh, and in laughing their whole demeanor is changed. The parent's playful humor makes the child generous and overcomes their stinginess and self-centered gravity.

In fact I was recently at my cousin's wedding, and the food at our table was extremely late, arriving about 90 minutes after dinner was supposed to begin. At about 30 minutes into the dinner my nephew received his kid's meal: chicken strips, mac and cheese, and cauliflower. Everyone was gratified to see that at least someone had received their meal, and it looked to be the ideal meal for a hungry toddler. But to everyone's surprise he lost his shit and had a complete meltdown. This caused the whole table to erupt in laughter and festivity. We later learned that his mother had been misinforming him for weeks that the wedding would be wonderful and he would have a delicious meal of chicken strips and French fries - oops! I don't know that he even prefers French fries to mac and cheese, but the expectation threw him. It was a teaching moment for him where he learned that life is bigger than his misplaced French fries, and in time he will learn that life is bigger than many other disappointments, too. As Eichendorff said, "Thou art He who gently breaks about our heads what we build, so that we can see the sky—therefore I have no complaint." (The irony here is that children solve the problem of antinatalism, for it is hard to believe that anyone with the task of parenting a child could subscribe to antinatalism.)

It seems that all the opposed are agreed that antinatalism will not be cured by more of the overly serious, self-centered gravity of analytical argument. Such is not its cause and such is not its cure. What the antinatalist lacks is the subtle virtuous demeanor that Aristotle attempts to paint, and such a thing cannot be bought and sold with mere arguments. The cure for the ridiculousness of antinatalism is laughter, for like the child on the parent's lap we cannot help but laugh at the prognosis. You need only join in and we will be laughing with you and not at you. :wink:

1) My first question is (especially for those who do not beleive in some 'objective ethics'): what is the foundation of ethics for an antinatalist? It seems that in AN there is a very strong ethical component but if 'ethics' is reduced to some kind of social contract or something 'natural', it seems that AN doens't have a strong justification to be 'better' than others. — boundless

You'd have to qualify "foundation" but there are MANY foundational ethical frameworks for which AN conclusions have been drawn or at least "fit into", such as deontological ones (which I hold). Many fall under a negative utilitarian variety. Others are vaguely consequential (environmental ones, probably ones least like the ones I hold). One can even argue for a virtue theory version, that can correspond with Schopenhauer's notion of compassion being THE only real moral sentiment (because it sees everyone as what they truly are.. fellow-sufferers). In this theory, anti-procreation would be a natural course of a virtuous (i.e. compassionate) person. They see what befalls man, and wants to prevent it. In this sense, AN can also be philosophical pessimistic in its foundation. That is to say, there is something INHERENTLY negative about existence that makes it fundamentally never redeemable through social, personal, or political actions. This goes to a vaguely existential understanding of the situation.

2) Also, if one accepts that we also have a 'deontological duty' for others, for the whole human community and if one agrees that 'extinction' of humanity is bad for the whole community then it seems that what the 'deontological' argument for AN leads to is not AN itself but an 'ethical dilemma', i.e. we arrive at a situation where we have two contradictory duties, i.e. we shouldn't decide to 'give life' due to the ignorance/lack of certainty of what that will entail (if we assume that life might be bad in some cases) and the impossibility of consent and at the same time we should, among other things, continue to sustain the whole human community. If all of this is true, why antinatalists think that AN is the best choice? — boundless

So deontology generally puts the locus of ethics at the individual level (not all the time, but most.. things like rights/duties). To me, the outcome doesn't matter. That is to say, we don't have a duty towards the outcome of "preserving humanity". Humanity isn't a subject for ethical concern. Rather, we have ethical considerations of individuals and their suffering, or right thereof not to be unnecessarily and non-consentingly caused the situations/conditions wherewith (ALL!) suffering takes place. That is not your right to confer for someone else. And there is no symmetrical duties/obligations for creating happiness, especially with understanding that there is no one who exists to be deprived of happiness you would not be thus conferring.

The other problem here is that most 2a's presuppose the falsity of 1a, whereas 2 does not presuppose the falsity of 1. Or in other words, Benatar's argument contains no implicit logical clause, "...Unless the world is situated such that happiness far outweighs suffering for all." That's the very problem with his argument that is being highlighted. — Leontiskos

So this is why we shouldn't debate Benatar's full position here without actually having Benatar's full positions available to us. I am not going to defend Benatar with my vague memories of some ideas he had or piecing together from secondary sources. If you want, let's agree to actually obtain a copy of Better Never to Have Been, and we can start looking for how he defends it and critique from there. We would be foolish to make half truths about positions he may not even hold or already addressed and we are ignoring.

Contrariwise, prohibitions against stabbing are premised on pain, injury, and mortality, and therefore the sort of world you suggest logically invalidates the prohibitions (and hence 3a). This is completely different from Benatar's argument, for the case I gave clearly does not invalidate his prohibition. That's why, in a fit of honesty, you told me that the question may need to be reconsidered in light of such new circumstances. So if you want to pull your head out of the sand you will answer the question: What would you say to Benatar in that scenario? Why trust an argument in our world that you would not trust in that world? The argument by its very nature cannot be invalidated by the minimization of suffering, and yet this is what you are committed to. — Leontiskos

Same as above. Let's see what Benatar says himself! I think his book actually goes over this and if I remember, he said that the asymmetry didn't necessarily hold on its own, but rather was bolstered by various other asymmetries that needed to also be true to support it, such as psychological phenomenon, etc.

If you want, there seems to be a preview of the audio version here.. I guess this is a good start, but still isn't enough:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DuLJMhbzZM

Funny you defend this ghettoizing of the topic of antinatalism (something you vociferously disagree with), — schopenhauer1

I don't vociferously disagree with it actually. Depending on how "it" is presented. E.g. If someone said to me, "I don't want to have children because the world is a dangerous and corrupted place and I don't want them to suffer", I'd say "makes sense". But as we discussed before, you were creating literally dozens of threads on the same theme, and it is a niche topic, hence this is the solution.