I would like to see you further elaborate on the point of a parent inflicting blindness on their child if there “was no child”. You made some really good points

I haven’t really interacted with many users, so what do you think are common moral views here? Ironically my initial thought was that a lot of people here were moral objectivists given the fact that these antinatalism threads seem to extend for 30+ pages

:up:

ok gotcha. Though I am curious as to how anti-natalism would work under an anti-realist position

maybe I’m just not understanding your use of “moral objectivism” but what do you mean when you say that most antinatalists here aren’t moral objectivists? This to me seems a little bit strange if true

Another antinatalism thread and another case of the same arguments being re-hashed or going nowhere :roll:

yeah you’re right, I got mixed up with other things. Thanks for pointing it out. But my issue here is that you and others are trying to use loopholes around this by saying that there’s no nobody to consent in the first place, so that makes it justifiable. I’m not going to bother providing my view on the matter, but this doesn’t make sense to me.

deleted

deleted

I wasn’t clear that’s on me, but what I mean is that I don’t agree with his approach to antinatalism, but how can we deny that birthing people affects them ? There is someone who who is going to be affected because you create a being into the world. This doesn’t necessarily lead to antinatalism but that’s not the point

I think you have interesting arguments but how come you disagree that we force humans into being? I’m no anti-natalist, but life is an imposition in the sense that we have no escape other then suicide or natural death if we end up hating it here. Yes, some anti-natalists do use silly language when they describe this stuff and you’re right to point out that “bringing into existence” is a confusing term, but there’s someone who will be affected by the decision. I don’t agree with Schopenhauer1 but what he’s saying is undeniable

I mean no offense to anyone on this forum and I respect everyone’s views, but maybe the fact that “you’ve received no good answers” is because these forum arguments in anti-natalism can be constraining and get caught up in little semantic games instead of the big picture. Obviously if you’re not convinced you’re not convinced, but I’ve seen published papers, journals, and essays criticizing the position with unique arguments that I thought were good. Those are worth checking out for both parties

I try to keep a sense of humor about it, but man do I fail miserably. I have obsessive compulsive tendencies, so philosophical ideas can literally keep me up at night and stop me from doing school work because I become momentarily obsessed with finding an answer. Sometimes I sit and wonder why any of these ideas even bother me. Most of the time a bizarre and counter-intuitive thought experiment wriggling in my mind doesn't impact or reflect on reality at all. The hardest part is learning to let go and realize that perfect answer ain't coming no matter what

I’ll admit I haven’t read the entirety of this conversation, but is this anything different from Peter Singer’s “Drowning Kid” thought experiment? If so, it’s the first time I’ve seen anyone say we have no obligation to save them

I agreed with your points earlier Hanover, but I think you should answer Schopenhauer1's question from earlier. He calls it "paternalistic BS" to impose known suffering on someone else just because you think it has a higher meaning. I don't agree with him here, but this is an excellent and critical question I think ought to be adressed

Interesting points, these really gauged my thoughts. It's definitely something that ought to be questioned, 100% agreed. I don't blame others for not being interested in bio-ethics, but people really are willy-nilly when it comes to having children.

This isn't really on the topic, but as an antinatalist how do you feel about nature/animal rights groups who wish to re-populate animals to help with biodiversity or revive extinct animals or something. Some antinatalists think abstaining from procreation ought to apply to all life. Your arguments seem to be more deontological and human-centric, so I was wondering your thoughts on the matter.

I think the general idea on the Nietzschean parent is something like: “life is valuable and I desire a parent-child relationship; though their lives may be filled with hardship and struggle, I will guide my child and help them any way I can. They are likely to enjoy their lives, but I will aid them in a journey to establish meaningful and productive lives through their hardship.”

Because Schopenhauer1 supports a non aggression idea for ethics, it’s pretty clear why this wouldn’t be okay. Nobody needed to come into existence, but some would-be parents have a strong interest in procreating and I don’t think it’s clear that just because something didn’t have to be it’s always impermissible. I don’t think this idea renders procreation 100% impermissible for those who don’t support a non-aggression pact

I personally don't know but this reminds me of this case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)

You make some thought provoking points but I am skeptical that people don't procreate to prevent suffering. In certain cases yes, but it seems most people don't procreate because they want time for themselves or they dislike children. I'm also not sure if this is a matter of politics, but moral disagreement instead. I also don't think one has to be an optimist to consider having children. I know you're trying to separate philosophical pessimism from "glass half empty pessimism" but I and other people I've met seem to have a neutral view on life and still had kids (I don't have kids).

It’s not like anyone in my family reads philosophy for fun like I do, but I have engaged in philosophical discourse with my brother and parents. The best way to do it is to steer clear from existential questions and big moral dilemmas like abortion and veganism, and ask their opinions on playful thought experiments. My mother told me she would happily step into the experience machine lol

I don't mean to necropost, but I always thought this was an interesting argument against Benatar. I think Julio Cabrera is very underrated as a philosopher. I wonder if his criticism holds up

Stephen King's "The Drawing of the Three"

Let’s revive this thread

Since this doesn’t seem to be solely limited to philosophers, I’ll go with:

• Max Stirner, Zhuangzi, Lao Tzu (I know he wasn’t one guy) Nietzsche, Novatore (he seems forgotten), and I know he’s not really a thinker or a philosopher, but I think Alan Watts has a lot of good things to say sometimes.

I really agree with your last point. Information is incredibly easy to find these days (arguably too easy), but at the same time I find a lot of critical thinking to be at an all time low. People are quick to gnaw and scratch at each other’s throats much too quickly, there is a lot less civil discussion. I think it’s critical that kids are exposed to this; we do need more people asking why

Solipsism is something we’ve all thought and it’s normal to toy with those ideas. However, dwelling on it too much and letting it dictate your life is pointless and not very useful. If it starts to really impede your life it could be a kind of “philosophical OCD”. That’s beyond our pay-grade but if this stuff bothers you stay away from internet rabbit holes (they’ll never help) and contact a counselor

Man these threads devolve fast nobody answered schop’s question lol

just wondering schop, but I’ve seen glimpses of your many long comment chains on this forum regarding AN. Out of everyone you’ve debated, do you think anyone here has ever presented a compelling challenge against your beliefs ? These threads always seem to collapse into people attacking you so I never really know how you feel after

At least schop is passionate enough to try and keep at it. His discussions here seem to get pretty lengthy

I really liked hearing your thoughts here. I hope this conversation keeps going

It sort of has from what I've seen, but if you think about it, antinatalism isn't anything new. If you look at history there have been tons of movements promoting that we abstain from procreation. Obviously, humanity will not stop procreating, so it will come and go. Aside from economics and the cost of living, it is also apparent that many people are not having children because of climate change fears and eco-fascist ideas that are gaining popularity.

When I read your last bit, it made me wonder why our societies are so anti-suicide when we shouldn't always be. Not everyone enjoys being here, and we certainly didn't get a say in whether we want to be here or not. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but in the movie "Children of Men", life has become so miserable that suicide pills are sold on the counter in laissez faire style. Maybe this could be reality 40 years down the line

Moral anti-realism

@schopenhauer1 I’m sure what you mean in that last bit there, if I came across as rude I apologize. After reading your response, I think I can agree to an extent since I understand what you meant better. I’d have to agree that we do tend to have a rosy view on our species when it comes to decision making. We can barely get our shit together in this pandemic that’s going on thanks to the god awful planning. The United States is pretty much a complete disaster, and climate chaos is starting to rear its ugly head. Unfortunately, one man’s horrible decision is another man’s lucky strike (the Trump supporters seem to be pretty chipper despite fascism being seen as a pretty bad idea)

This is definitely an interesting question, and one that will probably garner you many responses. Personally, it seems a little too reductionistic for my tastes. To me, it may imply that if something terrible happens the event can all be traced back to your parents for being responsible since they brought you here in the first place. I think biting that bullet is fair, but I’m part of the more stoic camp that whatever is justified or unjustified in my life is dependant on my judgements alone.

@schopenhauer1 I don’t think Pearce specifically wants people to procreate solely for his ideas to come into fruition, but simply that he understands people aren’t going to stop procreating any time soon. I suppose he means if people are going to be coming into existence, might as well stop suffering from existing entirely rather than prevent it. The issue I have though, is that I don’t know how Mr Pearce even defines “elimination of suffering.” Does he want our bodies to never get hurt? Turn our pain receptors off? I’m sure he explains it but it all sounds fantastical

that sounds strange to me. Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe this isn’t suited for this forum, but are optimistic or pessimistic dispositions genetically inherited?

no idea what his justification is. Like you said, I suppose a strict negative utilitarian outlook wouldn’t care about such justifications as long as global suffering is eliminated. It seems to me that not caring about rights and justifications is pretty much an issue with positive utilitarianism as well. He does have a website though, so maybe it’s on there

glad to hear this

well id say you should really aim to truly understand it before completely dismissing it. I’m definitely not an anti-natalist, but I’m also quite well read on what they have to say. I don’t think brooding Schopenhauerian pessimism is any more objective then blind, dumb optimism.

@Jack Cummins Learn to appreciate the doom and gloom people, because my personal views have always strengthened when I argue against them. That being said, I personally don’t conflate philosophy with highest aspirations and ideals (obviously people will disagree), but instead with a more balanced path. I’m a fan of Taoism, moral anti-realism, and stoicism (the latter two seem to be unpopular here) so I don’t think existence is inherently good or bad really.