thus proving that the reproductive drive is very persistent, resilient, and insistent — Bitter Crank

It's still a voluntary choice, though.

Yes. I think it can attach to certain non-human animals. I don't rule out God either, so it would attach to him as well if he exists.

None, but I'm in my 20s.

To anticipate some possible replies: my natalist interlocutor needs to establish that creating life is good, not that life is good. I could grant for the sake of argument that life is intrinsically good (or that happiness is intrinsically good), but that wouldn't in itself prove that creating it is good.

In light of this, there really does seem to be only one game in town when it comes to selfless reasons to have children: theism. Either it is commanded of God, or the creation of life is good inasmuch as it imitates or even partakes in God's creative act, God being the good itself and so unable to will other than the good. Alternatively, procreation might be good from an Indian religious perspective in that it extricates someone from being in a hell realm or some other deleterious samsaric plane of existence. Secular natalists and parents are therefore on the thinnest ice of all when it comes to reasons to procreate.

What about giving? A gift can be egotistical -- a display of ownership or power -- but I'd say there is also compassionate giving. — Moliere

Right. I wouldn't say the act of giving in itself is compassionate. If the motive to give is compassion, then it is, but if it isn't, then it isn't.

In the case of procreation, once again, there is no one to be compassionate toward, so it isn't a compassionate, and therefore selfless, act. It's a selfish one. As I say, selfish acts aren't necessarily wrong, but neither are they right. So I'm still left without a non-selfish reason to have children.

So you're no hedonist. — Marchesk

No, but I should add here that one could view pleasure as intrinsically good and not be a hedonist. The hedonist views pleasure as the only intrinsic good. There could be others.

Also, it depends on what is meant by pleasure. I've spoken of pleasure and have in mind effectively positive physical stimulation, but schop1 also equated it with happiness. I might be inclined to view happiness as intrinsically good, but that's because I don't equate it with pleasure.

Does that mean hedonists would necessarily disagree with antinatalism, or only if pleasure outweighed the pain of being alive? — Marchesk

Yeah, maybe.

1) What is your definition of intrinsic and instrumental good? — schopenhauer1

Good-in-itself and good for some other end.

1a) Why isn't pleasure an intrinsic good? — schopenhauer1

Because I think it's purpose is to aid the health of an organism.

2) Why is inherently selfish bad? — schopenhauer1

Well, I didn't say it was bad. I think selfishness is amoral, neither good nor bad.

Is compassion the only non-egoistic motive? — Moliere

I tend to think so, but I won't say that with certainty.

what are rational reasons for not having children that outweigh the non-rational reasons for having them? — T Clark

I don't say that there are.

I guess they would respond, "What's wrong with wanting a child to go into existence to feel pleasure/happiness"? — schopenhauer1

Because pleasure isn't an intrinsic but an instrumental good and therefore inherently selfish.

if you believe life is inherently good and enjoyable — Maw

I don't know what calling life good means, unless you're thinking of the Platonic equivalency between being and goodness. That's an intriguing concept and may be the most promising as a selfless reason, but I have no definite opinion on it yet. It's a variant of the hypothetical theist answer I gave above, I would say. As for life being enjoyable, I fail to see how that translates into a reason to have children. It sounds selfish, as life can only be enjoyable to individual living things. Life itself doesn't enjoy anything. There is no duty to perpetuate enjoyment either.

Even supposing your partner wanted children out of a sort of egoism, if you were doing it for your partner, that seems to me like it would count as a non-selfish reason. — Moliere

I still think this would make the act of procreation selfish in this case, since at least one person (the person who will have the child) is acting selfishly, even if I may not be.

In some sense we can see all motivations or consequences as centrally related to an ego. — Moliere

I disagree. I think compassion is an non-egoistic motive. But one can't be compassionate to non-existent people, so compassion can't be a motive to have children.

I don't think there are any rational reasons for having children. — T Clark

Neither do I. That's why I asked the question I did. :|

Anything in response to my first response? — schopenhauer1

I don't buy that either, as it depends on the claim that experiencing life is intrinsically good. I don't think it is. What would be the reason that it is? Because one can feel pleasure? Well, then we're back to a selfish reason at bottom.

The latter. It was just a thought I had and felt like adding to the thread.

I suppose if there is a God and he commanded procreation, then it would be selfless in that case, but I am not in fact religious myself at present, so this can't be appealed to.

:rofl:

The "large number of factors that go into all the products that they encounter and use."

is this a problem for modern humans? — schopenhauer1

Only inasmuch as ignorance of anything is a problem.

Long time donor to Democrats and liberals, scrapping TPP, trade wars and tariffs, massive infrastructure plan, paid family leave, isolationist foreign policy tendencies, is pro choice ("changed his mind" later), has no problem with gay marriage (" "), in favor of legalizing drugs (" "), doesn't give a fig about religion (" "), etc.

Yeah, he contradicts himself all the time, but he strikes me as a typical liberal of the kind you would expect to find from someone with his background. I don't fall for the ever leftward moving Overton window that paints him as some kind of proto-fascist. One thing he is not is a conservative, and to the extent that he shares some views with some people thought of as right wing, still, that doesn't not make him a liberal either.

Well, he's from Queens and his views and policies are pretty typically liberal, in the American sense.

He did think that. Check out B635.

Also, we here in Australia all despised W. But compared to Trump, W was a knight in shining armour. — Wayfarer

This is one of the main problems with the left and the MSM. It's what I would call the boy who cried wolf syndrome. Just look at how the word "white supremacy" has now been normalized as a means of slander. Once all the meaning of "racism" was beaten out of word, they had to find another word with which to hurl ad hominems at their political opponents.

Trump is a brash New York liberal, nothing more.

Woke Kantians understand that the thing-in-itself is just another name for God.

Why would it be "corrupt," let alone "absolutely" so? Why would it be equated with nihilism?

Eating meat is a legal, long-standing, socially approved, culturally familiar, doctor recommended, popular dietary behavior. — Bitter Crank

Slavery was a legal, long standing, socially approved, culturally familiar, doctor recommended, popular institution. So I guess that makes slavery okay, right? Let it be known: Bitter Crank finds nothing wrong with slavery.

There is no reason why enjoyment is not a full and sufficient justification for doing it. — Bitter Crank

Yes there is. I have shown why with two very simple counter examples.

The reality of carnivores, predation and death in nature as an essential part of the life cycle means that humans consuming meat cannot be considered an aberration — Andrew4Handel

That isn't the claim. Vegans, or at least I (as a vegetarian), don't say that it's aberrative. It clearly isn't. We rather affirm that meat eating is unnecessary, irrational, immoral, or some combination thereof. Just because something is common does not make that thing right. Slavery used to be common in the Southern US. Does that make it right? No.

and I don't know anyone that eats meat just to see animals suffer. — Andrew4Handel

Right, neither do I. Here we're talking about ignorance. I don't condemn people for eating meat when they don't intend to see animals suffer. But again, that doesn't positively justify eating meat.

I am never convinced that vegans have a realistic picture of nature where animals starve en masse, ,drown en masse, get eaten alive and don't retire to Old Persons homes. — Andrew4Handel

Maybe others don't. I do. I used to be an antinatalist myself and am still heavily sympathetic to the view. The horrors of existence have always been clear to me and never whitewashed.

Personally I am a moral nihilist — Andrew4Handel

Ah, now we come to the origin of your confusion! If it's true that you're a moral nihilist, then your problem isn't with vegan moral arguments against eating meat but with moral arguments per se.

I think all we can have is a bit of hope that life is somehow on an upward trajectory and meaningful — Andrew4Handel

A funny thing for a moral nihilist to say. Methinks you don't know what that term refers to.

I don't see good grounds for vegans to judge us differently than a lion eating meat and why we are the only species supposed to eat with some ethical dimension. — Andrew4Handel

This dimension is in large measure the very thing that makes us unique as a species, so I don't know why you would wonder that. If you cannot understand that human moral reasoning is completely different not only in magnitude but perhaps in kind from that of lions, then you have somehow failed to see the self-evident. The very fact that you forcefully lament the profound evil human beings incur on one another, and lions don't, is itself evidence of said difference.

I like cooked animal, to start with — Bitter Crank

It seems to me that you, like T Clark, then fall into BB's trap mentioned earlier.

Let's say I tortured and raped little children and you asked me why I did that. If I replied, "I like torturing and raping children," does that justify my doing so? This is elementary stuff, BC, and I don't know why you and T Clark have adopted such an absurd and easily refutable justification. I guess it goes to show what I said in my first comment, that most people choose to eat meat on crass hedonistic grounds.

The example above is not meant to suggest an equivalency with eating meat, by the way. It's merely meant to expose the rather large hole in your rationale for eating meat.

I don't have a problem with the practice of raising animals humanely and then eating them. — Bitter Crank

Why?

I can understand a moral argument against abortion, but I continue to support a woman's right to choose. I understand a moral argument for the death penalty, but I continue to oppose it. — T Clark

Yeah, fair enough, but do you have any positive reasons for why you continue eating meat, or it is, as I said in my other comment, simply force of habit?

Why do you remain an omnivore, if I may ask?

It seems problematic to me that vegan (and possibly vegetarian ethics) hinges on the claim that we don't need to eat meat. — Andrew4Handel

Who said that? There are lots of positive arguments given in favor of veganism.

That said, my own view is that eating meat is not intrinsically wrong, but indeed unnecessary in today's world. In centuries past and in some parts of the world today, it is necessary for survival, and so can be justified for that reason. But in the industrialized world at present, people eat meat merely out of habit or because it tastes good, which of course are very poor and shallow reasons to justify what even educated omnivores acknowledge is a pretty abusive and corrupt system of animal husbandry.

Show me where I or Baden did that. — andrewk

Baden's very first comment was: "David Horowitz who has a history of misinformation and on top of that is an alleged racist." And then he quoted from Wikipedia. That's it. I don't know what else he wanted me to infer from saying such a thing.

Saying it's not worth wasting time on the website is not saying that all its claims are wrong. — andrewk

Which induces one to ponder just why you believe it not worth your time, if not because you think its claims are false. I was asked to substantiate a claim. I did. You don't want to address the evidence I offered? Fine, then stop replying.

CAIR? Are you serious? I almost suspect I'm being trolled at this point.

I am already aware of the left wing position on it, so no, it doesn't stand as unreliable re: my claim.

That's not what the genetic fallacy is. Look it up. — andrewk

I have. You're wrong. Why don't you look it up?

Good lord, Baden. Not even the left takes the SPLC seriously anymore.

go get the specific left wing sources — Baden

No, go to hell. This is becoming farcical. You know very well what the left wing position on BLM is and where one might easily find it. I'm not going to submit to such a ludicrous demand.

Meaningless bare assertion. To consider a site unreliable solely on the basis that you disagree with its conclusion is obviously to say nothing at all unless you can present evidence as to why you are right and it is wrong. — Baden

It is a fact that Horowitz is not on the extreme right. Here's your precious Wikipedia on the extreme right: "The term is often associated with Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist or reactionary views. These can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state or ultraconservative traditional social institutions." None of that applies to Horowitz. Say what you want about the man, and I'm not actually the biggest fan, but to apply that label to him is sheer slander.

And I'll consider the information you presented as reliable in conjunction with left wing sources on the same topics. Please present them and we can continue. — Baden

You mean to tell me you haven't done so already? You're just a blank slate with respect to BLM? Come now. The left wing view of BLM is not hard to find or being suppressed. It is, in fact, the default view of most media outlets. You already adopt it. It's just a question of admitting it.

Now give me your objections? Why is this website unreliable in your view? — Baden

David Horowitz is not on the "extreme right." Nor does he support any "hate group."

To put it another way, would you consider news that came from a left-wing website that explicitly set out to attack the right reliable? — Baden

Yes, in conjunction with right wing sources on the same topics.

Just present your objections to Michael's source. I've asked you several times for them. Or, we'll have to presume you don't have any. — Baden

I'm not doing that until you acknowledge you understand the distinction I made between the two websites, although it should be obvious why I dismiss it.

On the other hand, I don't concede that Michael's source is clearly biased. In fact, because it presents criticism of both the right and the left, it would seem more likely to be unbiased. — Baden

Irrelevant. Apples to oranges.

you now admit — Baden

Again, I haven't ever denied this.

So, obviously it's reasonable to suspect he may not have compiled and edited and presented that information in an unbiased way. — Baden

Again, you're missing the point. I have been talking about the reliability of the information itself. Now you have shifted to talking about how the presentation of that information might be biased. I'm sure it is, as it comes from a position of opposition to BLM, but I haven't ever denied that either. And one would expect that a source opposed to BLM would compile information about it that cast it in a negative light, so the bias isn't surprising. But that doesn't mean the information it compiles is false. You accuse me of not reading your posts, but you apparently don't read mine.