Thank you so much @schopenhauer1!

I very much hope that you enjoy Exit Duty Generator, and I look forward to reading the Antinatalist works of yours that you've linked to! : D Since you enjoy the deontological approached to Antinatalism, are you familiar with the work of Julio Cabrera?

All the best,
Amanda

Hello there! Thanks for your reply, a message from the author of the article below : )

"Thank you for your response, Down the Rabbit Hole! The author of the article does not have an account here but he saw your post and asked me to convey this:

“Down the Rabbit Hole, I think that you are right, strictly speaking, about my theory not being a negative utilitarian one, at least in the traditional sense. Thank you for making that point!

As for not being amenable to anyone, may I offer a comment? This article is the second “act” of a trilogy that I started when I recently realized that I am classified – and am – an antinatalist philosopher. In the first “act” I simply described “how I feel”: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180122000317

You are absolutely right in saying that this is my view but I would hesitate on the “only”. I am not convinced that philosophers in ivory towers – like myself – can pontificate about categorical imperatives. Assertive hypotheticals in same cases – I try to do that sometimes – but not universal, categorical. I may be wrong. I often am.

Anyway, this is why in this second “act” I go on to tell “what I think”. In some other thread in some other platform someone asked me to explain this article’s content in a few sentences, and I offered this:

Liberal pronatalists think that sentiocentric negative utilitarianism is an absurd ethical theory because it makes involuntary sentient extinction a moral duty. I add to the theory the consideration of autonomy, after which involuntary sentient extinction is not a moral duty any longer. Voluntary human extinction remains a prima facie (unless proven otherwise) rational obligation. The absurdity in the eyes of liberal pronatalists should be gone and they should admit that the burden of proof is on those who want to procreate, continue excessive consumption, perpetuate material growth, and exploit human workers and nonhuman animals.

So, I do believe that I have presented a more palatable deal for the nice, law-abiding liberal who thinks that children should be had. The third “act” will move beyond this and enter the attack mode. But that is in the future.

Once again, thank you for engaging with Oldphan’s post, hoping to hear your thoughts on my ramblings here, and all the best to you and your endeavors!

Matti”

; )

All the best,
Amanda