See my about page.

And a totally unremarkable red herring uttered by you.

Here's an easy yes or no question: Do you or do you not still stand by your original argument? And if you do, then explain why my objection is inapplicable.

Correct. It's part of one that you've taken out of context. Well fucking done. — Sapientia

So as of now, you still haven't argued that AN is false, nor that having children is justifiable. Well done.

In a hypothetical future scenario, someone is born and experiences valuable things out of life. — Sapientia

Whoop-de-fucking-do. This isn't an argument about anything.

They should be granted temporary asylum, provided "they" are actually refugees. The problem no one likes to talk about is that well more than half of the people flooding into Europe at the moment are not families with children fleeing war zones, they are primarily young men from North Africa and South Asia looking for work and free welfare, while pretending to be Syrians. Some of these young men are no doubt moles for various terrorist groups as well. So there first of all needs to be greater checks at the border.

Second, the Gulf Arab states should be made to accept more refugees than they have. Jordan, Lebanon, and now Europe are full to bursting from the influx, whereas Saudi Arabia and the UAE have comparatively accepted hardly anyone. And one of their ambassadors, when asked why, cited cultural differences. The mind boggles. Europe should not be made to have its societies convulse and buckle under the strain of migrants when it doesn't have to.

The title of your thread and the wording of your poll are not quite the same. I would agree that one has the right to have sex, but I would not agree that sex is an essential part of human existence.

Is this like Kant's distinction between the empirical and intelligible self?

of course there's a *reason* which is simply that it tastes good, and S wants to eat that which tastes good.

It doesn't justify inflicting harm towards animals or the environmental damage the industry is said to cause, but it's a reason. It's also the reason why I personally am hoping lab grown meat become commercially viable sooner rather than later. — Sinderion

Okay, sure. It's a reason, but it's still not a good one or a moral one.

I don't think love implies annihilation of the self, only annihilation of the egoic self, which is different. — Agustino

I'm not familiar with such a distinction, or at least with how you have worded it.

A certain fellow-feeling and compassion draws me to it though. — Agustino

Touche.

I have qualms with the desirability of abolishing one's ego (if by that you mean the entirety of the individualised self) while still alive. — Agustino

It is the individualized self that is dissolved when being compassionate. ;)

If one has the opportunity to survive without eating meat, there is no reason, moral or otherwise, to eat it.

Also, I think you are closer in personal mission to Plato's goal, than to Aristotle's. Plato is good for telling the wise man what they should do. — Agustino

True, I am more drawn to mystical apotheosis than I am to scientific inquiry, though I do not wish to denigrate the latter.

Yep, I entirely agree with this. — Agustino

:P I added a couple other things to that point too.

this highest truth, which is equivalent to the highest beauty, is of little interest to the man in the street. — Agustino

Yes, though I am tempted to say "to hell with the man on the street." Let the vulgar associate with themselves.

It is wrong to search for what is to come after death while still alive. — Agustino

Agreed, but seeking after the denial of the world, or nirvana, need not mean or entail what you say above. The egoistic hope for immortality is not to be confused with the attempt to abolish one's ego while alive.

I voted for Plato. One perhaps unconscious reason for siding with him is that he has much more of an effect on me due to the quality of his writing. Aristotle's dialogues are lost, and so all we have are his admittedly rather dry non-dialogical treatises and lecture notes. Plato is a master of the dialogue form and so always manages to convince me of his arguments, at least for a time.

Secondly, I think the general idealist epistemological framework he presents stands on its own and is more or less correct, while Schopenhauer, whose system I accept in the main, managed to incorporate Plato's Ideas in such a way that they are still relevant philosophically. There are also mathematical Platonists around today. So Plato is not merely of historical interest as the purported founder of Western philosophy.

On aesthetic grounds, Plato's system is by far the more beautiful. If beauty were the standard of truth, as I am sometimes wont to think, then Plato's philosophy would be the truest. And it is further enriched and confirmed in its beauty by the Neoplatonists like Plotinus.

You said: "Being non-existent, strictly speaking, they don't get a say in the matter, nor are they entitled to one, nor are they missing out or being done an injustice." They're not missing out, eh? So why are you in favor of bringing them into the world so that they don't in fact miss out on art and whatever else? This is manifestly contradictory and shows you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You either stick to the quoted statement and find a better argument or admit that the argument you presented several pages ago is faulty.

Also, note how we can both talk about a hypothetical someone without talking nonsense. Remarkable, eh? — Sapientia

A most salient admission. I'll take it as proof that my objection to you was correct after all.

Perhaps we need a general list of values that a group of revolutionaries need to be fighting for in order for them to be seen as morally justified. Some suggestions might be the pursuit of liberty, universal equality, a right to live, etc. "Western", "liberal" values found in the American Constitution and those of other countries. — darthbarracuda

I think you answer your own question here.

Excellent post. However, I think at least in moral matters, human beings have always ever been fallen, for we now know that there never was an idyllic utopia from which to fall. Ancient man's life was just as nasty, brutish, and short as modern man's. And speaking of the world, ever since the Cambrian explosion 500 million years ago, it has been awash in a staggering, seemingly endless amount of violence and death. I greatly value the doctrine of original sin for its explanatory power, but it is crucially deficient in the above respects.

The labels "liberal" and "conservative" are almost meaningless. Using your own labels as an example, being opposed to the death penalty and in favor of universal health care are positions most on the left espouse.

I find classical liberalism, which seems to fit me best, is now seen as a conservative or rightist position, ironically enough. But this has only come about in the last 50 years or so with the rise of the highly illiberal New Left.

Is that masochistic? — darthbarracuda

The very definition thereof.

The decision is entirely up to the living. Pointing out that a child might well live a worthwhile life is not to speak on behalf of that child — Sapientia

I've already replied to this claim of yours. There's no need to link it to me again, for I can merely link my own reply back to you.

and that is what you're robbing them of, so to speak. (And don't take that too literally — Sapientia

Then how am I to take it? Where is the nuance? This claim is bullshit on stilts. Please do assuage my indignation as to your continued absurd declarations on behalf of non-existent people.

That those who so desire can pursue the goal of experiencing worthwhile things without procreating is utterly beside the point — Sapientia

I don't understand why.

if it is simply true that life is worthwhile — Sapientia

That wasn't your claim. You said: "I don't think that it's simply true that life is worthwhile."

t might also be worth noting, to all it may concern, that the point of my argument is more about validity than soundness. I was responding to the charge that my conclusion doesn't follow. — Sapientia

Not that I think we're somehow going to reach it, but if you don't care about the truth (soundness), I can stop replying right now. You can make all the valid arguments you want, but if you don't like me objecting to some of your premises, then there's no point in continuing this discussion.

P1. If life is worthwhile, then life is good enough to live.
P2. If life is good enough to live, then life cannot be so lacking in goodness, or so bad, that it is better not to live.
P3. Procreation produces life.
C1. Therefore, procreation produces something worthwhile.
P4. Producing something worthwhile is itself worthwhile.
C2. Therefore, procreation is worthwhile. — Sapientia

Nope, in these premises you're still equivocating on the word life. You fail to distinguish between individual lives that may or may not be worthwhile to continue living and the creation of as of yet potential lives, about which you cannot by definition decide the worth of.

To make it easier for you, what you have to do is the following: you must prove that life in general is an end-in-itself, i.e. something to be continued, created, and in a word, affirmed for its own sake. You have thus far conceived of life as a means to an end, where that end is to experience worthwhile things; things that are not life. In other words, despite saying that it's not true that life is worthwhile, this is precisely what you have to claim in order for your argument to work; specifically for P4 to do the work necessary to reach your conclusion. Moreover, if you want to enjoy and experience worthwhile things, then you can pursue this end without procreating. Even if you are a utilitarian who wants to maximize the number of people who experience worthwhile things, potential human beings are by definition excluded from consideration. Non-existent people don't and can't experience anything.

So cough up this premise.

Yes... — Sapientia

No, don't say "yes," because you clearly still don't get it on the basis of the following:

If it was simply true that life is worth living, then there'd be no problem with creating new life. — Sapientia

This is a non-sequitur.

But it's not. They have liberals and conservatives writing for them. Maybe "classical liberalism" just is conservatism nowadays, but I never got that memo.

But the problem I see with this is that they are not intentionally being antinatalistic, they are only accidentally acting in such a way in that their actions would be compatible with antinatalism. — darthbarracuda

Yes, and this is all I meant to say. You seem to have answered your own objection here.

There comes a point in life when someone can judge for themselves whether or not life is worth living — Sapientia

Yes, their life.

That's when they get a say in the matter, and your position, in practice, entails the removal of this potential. — Sapientia

They get a say in the matter of their own life.

For example, by saying that if someone existed, then their life would not be worth living. — Sapientia

I have never said this. If you're still going to lump me in with anti-natalists, fine, you clearly have a pathological obsession with doing so at this point, but if there's one thing you ought to have realized from this thread by now, it's that not all anti-natalists share the same assumptions. I don't speak for TGW, nor does he for me.

You can't just declare that politics is what you think it ought to be. — Hanover

This is not what I'm doing. I'm simply describing to you how the US government and democracy in general function.

He can pull up stakes and leave, and while you think that's not fair that he have more say than you or I, that's super until he leaves and you realize how much more he contributed to the community than you or I. — Hanover

First, it's not only unfair, but undemocratic, which has consistently been my point. Second, if he does leave, then he doesn't deserve any tax breaks, subsidies, or other forms of corporate welfare, since he's reaping all the benefits of living in the US while working to undermine them by destroying his fellow citizens' livelihood.

So, the corporation did not tell the Governor to do anything. It was the many people who would be adversely affected as well as the people who ran the corporations that did the speaking. How is that not democratic? — Hanover

Because laws are passed by representatives who are democratically elected by the people, not by corporations. If the latter call up the governor of a state, himself democratically elected, and yes indeed tell him what to do (for this is what "corporate influence" entails), that is not democracy. Representatives are beholden to their constituency's interests as a whole, not exclusively to a tiny minority whose only distinguishing feature is how much wealth they control and money they have.

Is that clear enough for you? — Sapientia

It appears you cede my point about necessity. That's good, but you're still stuck arrogating to yourself the ability to speak on behalf of the non-existent, an ability neither you nor anyone else possesses.

I know. I've already said that. It doesn't need to be. I don't know why you keep bringing up these irrelevancies about necessity. — Sapientia

Because you're using them as reasons for having children? What, if not this, are you trying to say?

In pursuing their own interests, corporations infringe on the well being and rights of others to a disproportionate degree. In your example, the law ought to have been passed democratically. If it was alleged to violate the constitution, it would then be sent to the court system. A corporation telling a governor what to do is not democracy, but plutocracy, no matter the outcome.

The majority of results from corporations do not benefit the average person or protect civil liberties. You can of course find examples of the kind you mention, but these are the exception, not the norm. They also further prove that corporations only care about profit, not the welfare or liberties of citizens. Their mentality is that if they happen to coincide, so be it, and if not, so be it.

I don't live in Britain, but I greatly enjoy the Spectator. Douglas Murray, Nick Cohen, et al are brilliant. I'm to the left of this newspaper on economic issues, but on civic and foreign policy issues, I couldn't agree more. It represents one of the last bastions of classical liberalism which has effectively been emasculated by the so called "progressive" left. To label this newspaper "conservative" is a misinformed slight.

rather than recognising that people have some say in the matter — Sapientia

The yet to be born have no say in the matter.

By having a child, one is granting them the opportunity to experience worthwhile things. — Sapientia

But it isn't necessary that people experience worthwhile things.

And, given that most people, throughout multiple generations, would say that they are glad to be alive, and that they do not regret being born, there is reason to believe that the yet-to-be-born stand a good chance of reaping the rewards and arriving at the same conclusion. — Sapientia

You do not speak for the yet to be born.

At times.

I did that with Obama. Everyone kept saying that my state of residence was a swing state and so I voted for Obama, whom I thought vastly superior to Romney. It turns out that it was never much of a swing state, and Obama crushed Romney nationwide. Now I have a growing disillusionment with voting in general. Evil is still evil, and I think I want no part of it.

I think a Trump presidency might do the country a bit of good. The Republican establishment hates him and the Democrats obviously think he's cancer, so he actually wouldn't be able to do a whole lot in office except make more blusterous speeches. I would enjoy basking in the collective tears of glib Romney-esque people on the right as well as politically correct infantile people on the left huddled in their safe spaces. I also like his general stance on terrorism.

Clinton would only be worthwhile if she gets to nominate the next supreme court justice and forgives my student loans. Otherwise, I think she's a snake and corrupt as they come.

I grant you all of this. I'm just killing time on an Internet forum.

It's trivially true that humans need to be born for art to continue beyond the current generation. That is part of what I was getting at. But I did not impy, or at least did not intend to imply, that humans ought to be born for that purpose, or for that purpose alone. Art is just one of the many things that can make life worthwhile. Not just bearable or tolerable or as a relief, but worthwhile. — Sapientia

Good, I'm glad you acknowledge this. But there is a difference between life being worthwhile once alive and creating more of it just so those creatures can experience worthwhile things. The latter is not at all necessary.

You talk in an objective, matter-of-fact manner, which is quite misleading. — Sapientia

So you would prefer that I not try to speak as objectively and matter-of-factly? What a revealing demand, one to which I refuse to comply. I value objectivity, facts, and truth and make no apologies for it. I could be, possibly am, and certainly have been wrong about many things, but that doesn't mean I will stop telling what I take to be the truth or state what are the facts of the matter. Let's please not descend into some insufferable relativism here.

Pot, kettle, black. — Sapientia

I don't see how.

I am always at least a little astonished when someone makes this fallacy. — Sapientia

It's not fallacious. I'm simply pointing out a fact. Do you dispute it?

That it will eventually be obliterated is completely irrelevant. — Sapientia

Clearly not, since you seem to have a raging desire to preserve it in perpetuity, which as I point out, is impossible.

That's not what I said. — Sapientia

I appeal to anyone reading the post to which I replied to show how my interpretation was off base. I also appeal to you to show how it is off base. Here it is again:

You do realise that if we were all anti-natalists, and we all practiced what we preached, then there would be no more art, no more music, no more human compassion, no more ascetic practice, no more philosophy, no more understanding, no more goal seeking, no more desires, and no more fulfilment or satisfaction? If you're an anti-natalist, then you endorse the will-to-end-life, and everything valuable in it.

You Schopenhauerians often speak of art as if you value it highly, and have a special appreciation for it, but you do not value or appreciate it as much as those of us who wish it to live on with us, rather than let it die a premature death. Who will create and appreciate art when we're all dead? No one. And there would not have been such a long history full of great works of art if we had cut it short by adopting your viewpoint. There could have been no Picasso, no Mozart, no da Vinci, no Shakespeare. Also, as a result, there could have been no Schopenhauer. — Sapientia

That is but one interpretation, and not necessarily one which everyone will agree with. In fact, that's very unlikely. — Sapientia

That people might disagree with me doesn't make me wrong.