staticphoton

Comments

On Antinatalism
Yes I would be compromising such a purpose. Tell me exactly who that harms. I don’t think an act is wrong if it doesn’t actually harm anyone so who exactly is harmed if everyone decides never to have kids starting tomorrow? — khaled

A higher purpose would trump the concern for individual harm. That's the point of a higher purpose, it is above the needs/wants/fears of the individual. If there was such a higher purpose, it would not my place to compromise it.
This fear of harm and suffering over everything else, to believe your moral position is above all else. This urge to terminate the human life cycle... It just doesn't work for me, sorry.

I thought “those terms” was referring to good and bad — khaled

Yes, good and bad as absolute concepts, I don't think in absolute but relative concepts. I don't expect others to accept my moral perspective.

Correction: you teach them what you believe in and sometimes that becomes their belief. I’d say most people have different beliefs from their parents. Take antinatalists as an example! — khaled

Whether they accept your teachings or not does not make them strangers.
On Antinatalism
No. Future life should not be introduced. Totally different things. — khaled

The most significant effect of not introducing more life is that the life cycle will end.
"If" there was a greater purpose as you suggest to be a possibility, you are compromising such a greater purpose based on an arbitrary moral call. Is that your place? I don't know, maybe you think it is, I'm not so sure.

They are strangers until you educate them obviously — khaled

Exactly. You teach them what you believe in, and that becomes their belief.

If you don’t think in terms of good and bad then how are you doing ethics right now? — khaled

My set of values differ from yours, that's all. Me not thinking in terms of good and bad is something you just invented to use as a red herring.
On Antinatalism
This "suffering" thing has been integral to the cycle of life since its inception, what, 2 billion years ago or so. So now that life has gotten to a point where it acquired the capacity of reasoning, it reasons that this "suffering" thing is "bad" and the cycle of life should end.

that's the bottom line, right?
On Antinatalism
At least you haven’t shown me a good reason yet. — khaled

What I consider a good reason, you don't. You are asking me to understand what "good" means to you, and structure my answer in a way that fits that mold. That is beyond my ability.

you take a risk of harming someone else for no good reason — khaled

See above.

That YOU find value in the balance of suffering/happiness that is no good reason to assume a stranger would find value in the same is it? — khaled

Per your own reasoning, values are not genetically inherited, they are taught. And to assume that those reared by me are "strangers" is a belief I don't share either.

You’d have to convince me that there is some moral good resulting from having children, as in, someone somewhere benefits from it so much that the suffering of the child is outweighed. — khaled

Again, I have no interest in convincing you, I only here to see if from my perspective there is any merit in your belief.

Let’s just get one thing clear: do you think that if someone had a child and provided them with an absolutely perfect life (as measured by the child) that that someone has done something good? — khaled

I don't think in those terms. Good and bad are far from being absolutely and universally defined values against which every system of morals is measured, what is good to some is bad for others. I'm sure I don't need to explain that to you. To me that question is meaningless.

Ending humanity is not my ideal. It’s a side effect. “Humanity” is not a person. I’m not actually harming anyone here whereas one can be harmed severely by being brought into a world where harm is possible. If you harm someone by NOT having children then I’d be arguing you’re a hypocrite for not having MORE children — khaled

Again, judging people for not sharing your set of beliefs is dogmatic at best. Personally, ending humanity seem like a pretty big deal to be set aside as a collateral effect, "oh well stuff happens".

The key here is "us" in your quote. You are making a decision on behalf of someone else, and then hoping post-facto that they will agree with your decision, or that harm is not greater than pain for them. — schopenhauer1

If you are making a decision to contribute to the greater good by not having any children, I respect that. If you will not be content until everyone sees it your way, that's another story. I simply don't share your values or perspective.
On Antinatalism
Nature also allowed us all to be antinatalists no? So I don’t see a problem here — khaled

You're the one who said:
we have gone against nature’s design plenty of times already — khaled
So I was trying to make it easier for you.

Since your strategy keeps reverting to calling me a hypocrite, and because of the fact that no matter what I say you will never accept the premise that there is merit in the balance of suffering/happiness, I don't see the point of continuing.

In the end it is all a matter of belief, and we are free to believe what makes sense to us. If ending suffering by ending humanity is your ideal, I am sure there are good reasons for you to reach that point, I completely accept that, and I have no interest in making you think my way.

I'll catch you around Khaled, be good.
On Antinatalism
Ok so we’re not using pleasure good pain bad anymore then. What’s the alternative you’re proposing? Also, antinatalism is not a plan. In the same way that “murder is wrong” is not a plan. Note that a world without murders is unimplementable and neither is a world where everyone is not an antinatalist. That doesn’t take away from whether or not they make sense does it? — khaled

Since you're using murder as a parallel, I'll delineate a parallel plan:
Murdering causes suffering, so we will outlaw murder to limit it.
Birthing causes suffering, so we will outlaw birthing to limit it.

Neither is fully implementable, but you do your best, right? The only obvious difficulty is that pretty much everyone considers murder to be bad, while not so many consider birth to be bad. And if one doubts the power of the majority in forging the bounds of morality then one has forgotten history.

Birth = bad makes sense to you and a very small minority. A simplistic rationalization doesn't necessarily make it morally correct.

Nature doesn’t design. Also does that mean if you had bad vision you wouldn’t buy glasses to preserve “nature’s design”? What about vaccines? As I said, we have gone against nature’s design plenty of times already. Unless you mean something else by nature’s design and I’m talking past you — khaled

Design is a word I'm using to illustrate man is a product of nature.
There wasn't a point in which humans became "separate from nature" and began to create eyeglasses and vaccines, we do exactly what nature endowed us with to do, nothing more & nothing less. We are not an invading species from another planet nor a "virus" inoculated into the environment to screw things up. If we ultimately bomb ourselves into extinction and take the world with it, it is only because evolution has taken us to the point of being able to create the means and make the choices.

I have no idea how anyone can come to the conclusion that human reason is above the very system that created it.
On Antinatalism
That makes no logical sense. Nature's design? Humans have freedom of thought and can do any number of actions. Nature here implies there is only one path someone can or should follow. If it is "should follow" that is the naturalistic fallacy. — schopenhauer1

Not really. After all, by whatever method that we clearly do not yet understand nature produced humans, where humans are nowhere near to produce anything rivaling the feat. There is no one path, we are free to choose. You choose to believe the very fact that nature produced humans is a mistake that needs to be corrected, I simply disagree.
On Antinatalism
Why does the "human experience" need to be lived out in the first place? It sounds like a knee-jerk idea of "because existence has some good points, or because I have grown from pain, existence must be good for people to have to live through". That however, does not logically cohere — schopenhauer1

More than directing the argument towards what I personally consider good or bad, whether human existence is good or bad, or anecdotal examples about human life benefitting from surviving hardship, I prefer to not pretend my personal moral judgment is above nature's design.
On Antinatalism
Yes it is. Because a world of the "morally irresponsible" is impossible. The chances of it are highly unlikely — khaled

Impossible and highly unlikely are far from being the same. For the sake of argument, if you erase the morally responsible all you have left is the morally irresponsible.

but I thought we were reducing it to pleasure = good, pain = bad for the sake of argument — khaled

Yes, but as I also stated, that reduces the argument to a depth nearing meaninglessness.

If the whole purpose of this thread is an exercise in argumentative skills then I'm bowing out. I was trying to understand the concept as a meaningful, implementable plan, but I'm finding it to be nothing but an exercise in idealism based on a dim view of the human experience.
On Antinatalism
That's not how it works because "morally responsible" isn't the same as "blood type O". It can be learned. You aren't born with it. — khaled

Whether it is learned or not is of no consequence for my statement.

Again so far, you haven't disagreed with the two main premises of antinatalism the first being "making happy people is morally neutral" and the second being "making suffering people is morally bad". — khaled

I can't agree or disagree because the key words on that sentence (happy people, morally neutral, suffering, morally bad) are ambiguous at best, their deeper meaning reduced to labels. I see nothing to gain by having anyone say "I agree" or "I disagree" other than your personal triumph in this argument.
On Antinatalism
We decide the course of our evolution. We already did so when we made societies, medicine, etc. — khaled

I don't share that belief. I'm not speaking of social evolution, but natural evolution... social evolution has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Again. "Nature" is not a person. You're not harming anyone by not having children. Whereas you could harm someone by having children. That's what this boils down to — khaled

Also disagree.
Accepting the premise and thinking it through the reality of implementation, it would be fair to assume that only those who are morally responsible would make the choice of not having children. The morally responsible would eventually disappear, leaving a world inhabited with the morally irresponsible. It would not be unreasonable to assume that suffering would increase in a world inhabited by morally irresponsible human beings.

So in reality, since there is no realistic method for both the morally responsible and morally irresponsible to participate proportionally, the best you can do is to reduce suffering by somehow making the number of morally responsible to increase at the expense of the morally irresponsible.

I suppose that A: Once the morally responsible have taken over the world, then B: They can stop having children and put an end to it. But I'm not seeing A happening anytime soon.
On Antinatalism
But other than that. Do you see any problem in the reasoning of the previous post? — khaled

From a purely logical perspective your argument is coherent. For purely argumentative purposes I can go along with suffering = bad, and happiness = good, although it really reduces the depth of both circumstances to the thickness of a sheet of paper.

However I don't agree with the stance that personal interpretation and moral valuation of suffering/pleasure, despair/happiness, should dictate the outcome of 2 billion years of evolution. I also don't agree with the unstated conclusion that human existence is a mistake of nature that needs to be corrected by eliminating the species through voluntary attrition or any other means.

In my personal view, the fact that the matter, energy, and space-time that originated in the big bang has evolved to become aware of itself, is astonishing feat far beyond my comprehension. Although I am not a religious mas, I see homo sapiens and consciousness as a miracle of nature.

Using a simple line of reasoning to deliberately end what I believe to be nature greatest achievement over the fact that pain exists, would be unacceptable on my part, however that is just a personal belief, not a personal judgment against you.
On Antinatalism
One problem I see is implentation. Voluntary participation is probably unlikely. If an antinatalist became supreme ruler of the world and legislated that any further procreation is forbidden, how would one deal with transgressors? Any kind of action against them would increase suffering. Would that be justifiable for the greater good?
Also, i assume antinatalism proposes to eliminate only human suffering, as non human suffering would continue indefintely after we are extinct.
On Antinatalism
And if they hadn’t? Why take the risk? Also everything you said doesn’t stop you from being a hypocrite still — khaled

Aren't you making far reaching assumptions to conclude hypocrisy based on nothing but my stated remarks on anti-natalism?

It doesn’t matter what you think of meaning as long as you’re willing to concede that “life has suffering”. — khaled

I suppose my problem is understanding what part of suffering precludes life. I can understand that an absolutely miserable existence in every aspect not be worth living, but to say any further new life should be avoided because some degree, any degree of suffering will occur, seems a little extreme to me.
On Antinatalism
Indeed it does. Because it has all the properties of a problem. If you don’t solve it you suffer. Simple as that. Heck you don’t have to take my word for it, maybe your child would find searching for meaning problematic. Why take the risk for him? — khaled

I see it more like an attractor than a problem, finding meaning is what humans naturally do.

I am not saying either. I am saying that you’d be a hypocrite if you had children. Because you would be going against ethical principles you employ in every other situation. — khaled

My personal case would be a very bad example because I have 3 grown up children who have done well for themselves and have provided me not only with a near-lifetime of joy (with the attached growing pains), but with 4 grandchildren who I also enjoy tremendously, and who up to this point are normal, happy, and playful children. But putting my joy aside, I would adventure to say if given the choice of not existing at all, all of these persons I contributed to put on this planet would choose to remain.
On Antinatalism
The GTA-UH model that is our reality, most people think is good to force other lives into. When a parent chooses to have a child, they are really saying, "I approve of the life of GTA-UH onto this new person and believe they should live X number of years of life in this kind of reality". — schopenhauer1

I disagree, no significant portion of the population goes through such though process when deciding to have a child.

So the real question is, why foist the GTA-UH model on another person, when this does not need to take place? To use "nature" or some "force" as a reason, is to discard your responsibility as a decision-maker who can self-reflect. It is bad faith (not using your own freedom of thought), and the naturalistic fallacy if you think it is natural and we should do what is natural. — schopenhauer1

The real question would be how does one justify discarding as a fallacy the very nature that originated humans.
To make a statement that the very system (natural processes) that originated humanity are morally wrong, seems not much different than saying a rock is bad because it broke my toe.

prior to anyone's birth, meaning is not required or necessary — schopenhauer1

Assuming personal meaning as the only reason for birth?

What antiatalism seeks to do is to stop introducing people who desire this "meaning" in the first place. Natalism creates a problem (meaning) and attempts to solve it (with good/bad cycles) — khaled

This assumes that search for meaning is a problem.

your opinion of life shouldn't entitle you to introduce more people into it for the simple reason that they might not share your attitude of finding meaning in good/bad cycles. — khaled

If you are saying that you will exercise your belief by not birthing any children, I see no issues with that. If you are saying that your belief trumps mine, and that I should not have any children, then I would have to respectfully disagree.
On Antinatalism
Hi khaled,

My question was aimed at trying to understand what could motivate a belief in antinatalism, in all honesty I was puzzled by the belief after first hearing of it a few days ago.

It appears to me that humans, actually all life, is constructed to process and resolve suffering as a means to progress not only evolutionarily, but to enrich self worth (at least in the case of humans). Assigning moral value and therefore placing judgment on something that has no will of its own such as are natural processes seems misguided.

A life with zero suffering is as idealistic a concept as it is unattainable, furthermore, a "neutral" life without natural good/bad cycles seems to appear utterly meaningless...what would be the point of pursuing such a goal?
On Antinatalism
I have some questions.

Assuming the entire population abides by the antinatalist fundamental and stops giving birth. Within 100 and so years most humans would become extinct save for those in extremely remote locations. Within a number of milenia humans would likely repopulate earth and likely continue birthing.

Assuming somehow all humans could be coherced to comply and extinction was absolute. It would not be unreasonable to assume neture would do its thing and within a couple million years or so evolution would produce another sapiens being, and thus resuming the cycle.

Extending the fundamental to all sentient beings, as suffering can be reasonably extended to all living, how would one stop suffering universally, or or does the concern only encompass beings aware of their own existance.

Thanks

Home » staticphoton

Start FollowingSend a Message