This is an extremely unserious objection.

"Nothing" excludes boredom or stasis. Clearly. So, not sure how you think I would respond, but im laughing.

I regrettably can't argue too strongly against the imposition of will against potential humans argument. The only way I can logically get around it is if the parents had altruistic motivations for creating a child, like wanting to allow a child to experience the joys of existing, and if existence itself wasn't inherently burdensome, as it seems to be, even by the most optimistic of folks. I suppose I'll continue to hold the stance that anti-natalism is a rational position, but one that I simply don't feel compelled enough to act in accordance with. Although, now that I think of it, I think I may agree for the previous reason that natalism is ethically questionable, but that life and existence isn't inherently bad or suffering, because I think suffering can be overcome, even if it isn't right to impose it on a potential human.

My argument against antinatalists -- you're still here, so you think Life is worth living. The end. Just a bunch a weak individuals who don't want to hold themselves accountable for their life sucking. — Vaskane

Antinatalism is not promortalism. It's a strawman. Antinatalism is about not creating new life, not about whether, once born, it is moral or "worth it" to continue.

It's about "whaa my parents had no right to give birth to me." Well, they did, get over it. — Vaskane

That can be said about literally any moral topic- not well-thought out or philosophical. Very internet trolling though, so not surprised on an internet forum...

And they drone on and on about how shitty life is, fact is they're just cowards who actually can't embrace nothing, once they've already tasted life. They want life to end AFTER theirs runs to completion. Like a Last Man. Pathetically dissonant. — Vaskane

Fear of death/dying is not cowardly, nor again, has it to do with antinatalism. Think of better arguments.

Except that's literally the argument here. — Vaskane

Dude, saying "Well they did it get over" can be inserted against any claim against an ethical rule. Someone murders someone or steals.. "Well get over it" is not an answer to whether it was ethical to murder or steal. You don't get that?

If you want the end of the human race, by all means, put your money where your mouth is and lead by example. — Vaskane

So this is just an ad hominem. Why even try?

It can, but equating them as the same would obviously be a fallacy of equivocation. — Vaskane

That doesn't make sense and you are just arguing to argue now. Do you have an actual argument or is that it? Because I already said why that can be said about anything, and it can, so what specifically do you have other than hyperbole and ad hominem?

I'm sure you can think of greater virtues than Sleep. — Vaskane

I wonder if you can think of something interesting to say without taking either my words or Nietzsche's out of context.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/726159

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/772934

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/808366

I've no idea what you're talking about or taking issue with.

And therefore we have metaphysics in order not to despair at the real.

:death: :flower:

... suffering is the crucible in which all great things are born, through overcoming that suffering. Not by avoiding it. — Vaskane

I've neither claimed or implied otherwise. Obviously, as an existential fact, suffering is not avoidable; morally, however, suffering is a reducible exigency, the reason, in fact, for flourishing (i.e. overcoming) by non-reciprocally – non-instrumentally – helping others to reduce, not "avoid", suffering. Of "all great things", human flourishing comes first and last, otherwise the rest (including "great things") are merely decadent detritus. Easy sleep is not proposed by me as a "virtue" but as the daily reward for and restorative of strivings to flourish – even as a measure of good health: eine Ja-sagen zu Leiben. :fire:

The eternally recurring choice: blue pill (passivity) or red pill (actively affirming there is no ultimate choice: amor fati – what Spinoza calls blessedness) ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/726159

A person can also not want to reproduce without being an Antinatalist, and for several reasons. I find antinatalist as people who want to deflect from reasons why they can't actually have kids because it would bring THEM more suffering. They don't want to hold themselves accountable for how they feel. So they say it's immoral instead. — Vaskane

Its the same, I'd say, for every person who considers themselves 'moral' or having fulfilled their moral duties as proven by some 'justification' so that they can take a break to 'live life' as they so desire it (most every person including you and me). Its an ad hoc excuse being masked in rational language to seem more palatable and less emotionally weak as it really is. At least, I speculate as much.

Easy sleep — 180 Proof

Unless you have insomnia :snicker:.

But then, this belies the very point that one even should be in a place where they should be overcoming. One is simply descriptive. Every day is a sort of overcoming of death, if nothing else. But to force others to conform to this system of overcoming- the problem of initiating (this whole system OF) harms on others, is the one at hand.

Someone ELSE deemed it, that this is "good" (and God said "it was good"). People want to be gods in their decisions that others should even BE overcoming.

But more likely, people don't think that grandiosely. Rather, if they are benevolent (and not just capricious or cruel), they are thinking of some positive outcomes, usually selfish vision of future familial X. If it is for someone else's "sake" (the future person born), it might be simply thinking of the good things that might occur. The negatives get downplayed. At worst, it is used as an excuse as it is seen as necessary for the good. Even if we were to say that is a true statement, "That good comes from struggle", that belies the question of whether one should force others to endure the struggle. That will always recenter the question, and not let the issue at hand slip away.

Surprised you engaged with him as long as you did. But also, do you mind giving your opinion on this point I made earlier: Even though it may be wrong to introduce life, because you are forcing them to bear the burden of suffering, that doesn't imply that life itself is inherently suffering. Perhaps thats a strawman though to say the antinatalist claims life is just or predominantly suffering. In fact, this may be in favor of your point that, for the people living, there's no urgency to end your own life because there is still value to be had in it. But just because there is value, that may not outweigh the prevalence of suffering, nor the nonconsensual thrusting of children into potential suffering.

I think Vaskane is in a trough at the moment. Regularly devolving into a pissing match with himself. Last time he did this he apologised directly to me.

Might be worth allowing it to pass.