Ah, finally! This admission constitutes real progress in our discussion! :P
Now, this means that you are not an anti-natalist. Or, if you still think procreation is wrong, it means that you have some reason other than that birth is wrong for thinking procreation wrong. It would seem that that reason might be that you think life or existence itself is a harm. If so, then I'd want to see how that fact is used in reaching the conclusion, "procreation is wrong." — Thorongil
Really? The subtitle to Benatar's book reads, "The Harm of Coming into Existence." The Wikipedia entry on anti-natalism says that it is "a philosophical stance that assigns a negative value to birth." Emphasizing birth as a harm is in fact the most typical claim made by anti-natalists. It's their raison-d'etre. — Thorongil
Admission of what? — schopenhauer1
The act of birth has nothing inherently harmful (except the physiological pain involved I guess), but rather than "birth" I should say "life" or "existence" itself- not the birthing process. — schopenhauer1
But no one is the recipient of birth (for we agreed that pre-born souls do not exist), so no one is the recipient of harm in being born. Please tell me if you follow this. — Thorongil
No one is the recipient of birth? Who cares — schopenhauer1
Do you agree that people exist? — schopenhauer1
Do people "start" to exist at X time? — schopenhauer1
At the X time of starting to exist, starts the harm. — schopenhauer1
X could only refer to the moment of conception, in which case we're talking about a fertilized egg. I don't think fertilized eggs can be harmed, so I disagree with you here. — Thorongil
We assume our habits and goal-seeking is "us" and do not go on to the next layer of meta-analysis and get at what we are trying to get at by being in the first place. — schopenhauer1
I think the problem is that along with increased intelligence and civilization came this perceived need to always be achieving, thriving, and improving. This perceived need drives much of the mental suffering that takes place. — CasKev
Then it wouldn't be such a question of morality when bringing a child into the world; it would just be the natural thing to do, in line with our instinct to survive and procreate, like any other animal. — CasKev
Why do we need more people to exist who need goals to work towards, over and over, relentlessly until we die? — schopenhauer1
But yet you said earlier, no one is the recipient of harm. When that "one" comes into existence (let's say 6 months is when some sort of conscious awareness begins), that X moment is the beginning of harm. — schopenhauer1
The "no one" referred to the nonexistence of any person prior to conception. We can trace your existence all the way back to the point at which an egg was fertilized in your mother. Before that, "you" didn't exist. — Thorongil
Even if I grant you that "You" began at the instant of conception, as I stated, it is the whole process of gestation and birth that contributes to the person. The harm does not maybe start with conception, but it does start at what ever X time after conception. — schopenhauer1
Yes! But if you grant, as you have here, that you exist at the moment of conception, then "coming into existence" isn't a harm, because there is no one to harm prior to conception. You also previously granted that literal birth (exiting a mother's womb) isn't a harm. So whence anti-natalism? It has no leg to stand on now. — Thorongil
Of course not, they are talking about "coming into existence" which usually correlates to becoming a fully functioning human — schopenhauer1
Being born implies more than the birthing or conception. So no actual person was being harmed until X time, then that person who started at x was harmed (X being some X time of becoming a fully functioning human- whether that be awareness, being in the world as a separate entity completely from the mother's womb, etc.). Existing in the world came about through events that were not self-caused. Something caused this to happen. — schopenhauer1
Most Pessimists (capital P) would say that the world has structural harm, and thus bringing someone into existence is bringing someone into this world means creating the circumstance for a fully functioning human who by this fact experiences the structural harm inherent in the system. — schopenhauer1
It seems here that the answer to my question is, "yes." If so, then I disagree with this hitherto unstated premise in your argument. I don't think personhood arises at some magical date after conception. I take personhood to exist concomitantly with the distinct generic code that results from fertilization. — Thorongil
Implicit in this line of reasoning is negative utilitarianism. Thus, when all the dust has settled, you're actually presenting the most well known and popular argument for anti-natalism, despite your seeming protestations to the contrary. — Thorongil
But this is agent-centered and not about reducing suffering writ large — schopenhauer1
1. It would be wrong to treat humans as a means and not as an ends in themselves, if it brings about all structural and contingent suffering for another person's life. — schopenhauer1
You can then call it agent-centered deontological negative utilitarianism, and I would not have a problem with it. — schopenhauer1
Here you speak of humans, plural. Your clause at the end speaks of structural suffering, which refers to suffering that all humans must experience simply by virtue of being alive. Thus, you are talking about reducing suffering writ large. — Thorongil
Fine by me. As long as you understand that it depends on both a deontological claim that I believe admits of exceptions and on a certain conception of personhood with which I disagree. I'm glad we were able to at least narrow down where our disagreement lies, but it seems I wasn't all that off the mark in my suspicion that you were still arguing for anti-natalism on fairly convention grounds. — Thorongil
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.