• Terrapin Station
    7.8k
    I have not claimed someone non existent is being forced to do anything.Andrew4Handel

    What started this whole tangent was you writing "to force him or her into existence," where you could be read as saying that there was a moral problem with doing something to someone that forces them into existence. I clarified that that's not possible (for force someone into existence.)

    And no, I'm not claiming that nothing is forced on a child. I'm only claiming that no one can be forced into existence, in the sense of force being applied to a person to cause that same person to exist.

    And yeah, no intentions would be illegal if I were king, a fortiori because no thoughts, period, or even expressions of thoughts a la speech, etc., would be illegal if I were king.
  • Andrew4Handel
    1.1k


    The problem is that no one can choose to be born and so how do you describe their existence instead other than as an act of force?
    I think things like houses are made to exist by force and when I am doing gardening or moving something around I am aware I am using force. I do not think the term force is a value judgement but it is obviously not how parents want to describe having a child. Maybe you like the "life is a gift" metaphor?

    Nevertheless I do think there is a puzzle about how we come into existence in term of consciousness because it seems you can mold clay into numerous different objects without it ever being aware of existence but humans are aware of existing in a profound way.

    I think there are definitely different degrees and varieties of indoctrination and I think that religious extremism is not equivalent to the inevitable indoctrination of a child on birth.

    However to limit force and indoctrination would entail giving a child adequate information to draw her own conclusions and to allow a high level of freedom of choice, information and action.
  • Terrapin Station
    7.8k
    The problem is that no one can choose to be born and so how do you describe their existence instead other than as an act of force?Andrew4Handel

    It's neither an act of force (against them) nor consent (from them), because there's no one to grant or withhold consent.

    I think things like houses are made to exist by force and when I am doing gardening or moving something around I am aware I am using force.Andrew4Handel

    Yes, but it's not force against the house prior to the house existing.

    The distinction here is force as a means of any physical activity occurring versus force against something('s consent).

    Nevertheless I do think there is a puzzle about how we come into existence in term of consciousness because it seems you can mold clay into numerous different objects without it ever being aware of existence but humans are aware of existing in a profound way.Andrew4Handel

    Different material, in different dynamic structures, has different properties. Brains aren't made of clay. They have blood flowing through them, they have electrochemical activity, etc.
  • Michael Ossipoff
    1.7k
    I think one of the problems with having children is that you can do it without any skill or qualification or planning or justification.Andrew4Handel

    it is absurd that anyone can have children without showing any capacity to rear a childAndrew4Handel

    Hear hear! Quite so!

    In Europe and many other places the state will take someone's child from them if they consider them an unfit parent.Andrew4Handel

    ...as they should.

    In fact, there should be demanding requirements for qualification before someone is permitted to be a birth-parent or any other kind of parent. Who'd judge that qualification? I didn't say it was feasible in this Land-of-The Lost societal-world--only that it would be right, if feasible.

    I'm qualified to comment about unqualified parents.

    But it seems to me that it would be entirely meaningless to speak of "...if Mr, & Mrs. Ossipoff hadn't reproduced...." It's a nonsense clause, from my point of view. (...even if not from someone else's point of view.)

    And for whom would it have been better?

    Another thing: As a Materialist, you'll agree that your parents were biologically-originated purposefully-responsive devices. ...just parts of the physical universe. So where's the justification to attribute primary responsibility to them, to make them the cause, as if it all happened because of them?

    They were just a cog in the mechanism of the physical world. You might as well blame our galaxy for your birth, or the Big-Bang. I'm not denying that your parents had a role, but not uniquely. You're giving them too much credit.

    There were going to be parents for me, as an obvious requirement for my physical world, and they were going to be like they were, because, for some reason,. that's the world (including the parents) that was consistent with me.

    I was the reason for the parents, not vice-versa.

    December 25th (Roman-Gregorian calendar)
    2019-W01-2 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)

    Michael Ossipoff
  • Michael Ossipoff
    1.7k
    no one needs anything to begin with if they don't exist in the first place to need it.schopenhauer1

    But if there's no need for life, then why does Schopenhauer1 think that there's need for things in life?

    ...if he says that life itself was and is unnecessary?

    No one needs anything to begin with if they don't exist? It's meaningless to speak of needs of someone who isn't. Schopenhauer1's sentence doesn't really have a subject, and therefore doesn't have a meaning.

    Another thing about "no one needs anything to begin with..."

    ...so Schpenhauer1 thinks that they "need" things now? He's spoken of a "need" to entertain oneself, to always instrumentally strive for entertainment. Yes, greed brings misery, but I suggest that that greed isn't necessary.

    The regrettable situation that Schpenhauer1 (along with other Antinatalists and Absurdists) talks about is an attribute of some people. It isn't an attribute of the world.

    A comment about Absurdism:

    Absurdists are right to say that the Materialist world that they believe in is indeed absurd.

    Michael Ossipoff

    2019-W01-3 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)
  • Andrew4Handel
    1.1k


    I think that all the matter that makes a human does exist before it turns into a child. the only thing that might not exist prior to conception is consciousness.

    I think creating someone is clearly an act of force on them because you are in control of the outcome which profoundly effects them. There is no mystery now about the process of reproduction where you have unprotected sex knowing it could lead to the fusion of egg and sperm and start the process of making another person.

    Anyhow here is another example. If you plant a land mine in a playground it does not matter if the persons killed by the mine did not exist when you initially planted it because your action was clearly one aimed to maim and kill and harm someone else at some stage. You can expose future persons to harm and hardship.

    To me also if someone cannot chose to be born then they did not chose there life and cannot really freely chose anything afterwards because any choice is forced upon them by the nature of non-consensually coming into existence.

    Likewise you cannot authentically help your child charitably because you caused their life problems in the first place. It is like chopping off someones leg and then making them a prosthesis
  • Terrapin Station
    7.8k
    I think creating someone is clearly an act of force on them because you are in control of the outcome which profoundly effects them.Andrew4Handel

    Okay, so at time T100, let's say, conception occurs--S is conceived via intercourse.

    At time T200, birth occurs--S is born.

    At time T10, what is S's status?
  • Andrew4Handel
    1.1k

    DNA in the mother and father?
  • Terrapin Station
    7.8k


    DNA in the mother and father is identical to S at T10? Is food that the mother and father eat identical to S?
  • Michael Ossipoff
    1.7k
    I’m not posting to this Antinatalist issue just to be argumentative. If I just wanted to argue, I could argue with Atheists and Materialists, but I’m tired of that. I sometimes answer Antinatalists, precisely because what they’re saying is something that I can relate to, something that has often occurred to me as well.
    .
    Yes there’s something right about what they’re talking about, and their topic is worth comment. Yes, I didn’t consciously choose to be in a life...least of all one (seemingly) inexplicably sharing the world with violent or aggressive people with whom I have nothing in common.
    .
    Because Antinatalists are Materialists, comments that refer to a metaphysics different from theirs won’t be effective with them. But there are things that can be said that are true for Materialists too.
    .
    As a Materialist, you believe that you’re fundamentally a product and result of your physical world. But then how can you object to being in this world?? What else would you expect, given the belief that I quoted in this paragraph?
    .
    You seem to be objecting to the fact that there’s such a thing as life. To whom is that objection addressed? Not to God, because you’re an Atheist, though Antinatalists seem to be shaking their fist at the heavens. Atheists shakings their fist at the heavens.
    .
    Why has your material world made you be in a life? …which really means, why has this material world made there be life. Materialists deny that they’re religious, but their Material-World really, for them, stands-in for God. It’s there without explanation, as the Ground-of-All-Being, the Uncaused-Cause of everything.
    .
    (I’ve previously described, how, likewise, by Merriam-Webster’s and Simon-&-Schuster’s definitions, Materialism is indeed a religion.)
    .
    But the main point of this answer is what I said a few paragraphs back: If, as you believe, you’re a product and result of this material world, then, given that that’s what you are, then why are you surprised that you’re in a life in a world. …how could it have been otherwise? Is it even meaningful to speak of the possibility of it being otherwise, given that “You” is a meaningless notion without life in a world?
    .
    Then what is the point of railing at that obvious inevitability?? In fact what even is the meaning of that railing?
    .
    Given your beliefs, then, given that you’re here, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to just accept the obviously inevitable situation and just do as you like (…which might include some you-intrinsic standards of right-living, but that’s another topic)?
    .
    Michael Ossipoff
    .
    2019-W01-5 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)
    .
    2019, Late-South, Week 1, Friday (6-Season -3 wk Offset Calendar (where “South” refers to the 13-week terrestrial-season resulting from south solar-declination, roughly corresponding to December, January & February) )
    .
    2018 December 28th (Roman-Gregorian Calendar)
  • Andrew4Handel
    1.1k


    The DNA is not identical to S but it will become an essential part of S.

    The rape analogy consent is most powerful. You cannot have sex with an unconscious person because they cannot consent to it and therefore it will be rape.

    It is not usually acceptable to do something that will effect someone that they couldn't consent and may not have consented to.The fact an unconscious person cannot consent to sex is what makes it so unethical.

    Because someone cannot consent to being born I cannot see any ethical good in that scenario. If someone enjoys there life that is fortunate but does not mitigate the lack of consent. (I will go into this more in the other Schopenhauer thread.)
  • Terrapin Station
    7.8k
    The DNA is not identical to S but it will become an essential part of S.Andrew4Handel

    But then you didn't answer what I asked you. I asked what S's status at time T10 was.
  • Andrew4Handel
    1.1k


    Do you think people come out of thin air?
  • Andrew4Handel
    1.1k
    Because Antinatalists are MaterialistsMichael Ossipoff

    I am not a materialist and also I do not think physics has a picture of reality that is complete and satisfactorily defines the physical or causality
    and also I do not think it is a deterministic picture.
  • Terrapin Station
    7.8k


    So tell me S's status at time T10
  • Andrew4Handel
    1.1k


    What do you mean by his status? He is matter and that matter resides partly in the DNA of his parents and in the environment.

    I gave the example earlier of clay being made into a vase. It is the equivalent of that unless you believe in a preexisting spirit.

    Humans can exist because of preexisting a matter.
  • Terrapin Station
    7.8k


    So at time T10 S is identical to S's parents' DNA?
  • Andrew4Handel
    1.1k


    A person is constantly changing in a flux they are never identical with a previous version of themselves.

    However some personal identity is continuous (the self?) and that might be what you are referring to.

    I am talking about the process of being caused to exist which is what parents engage in. What is being caused to be exist is an individual created by preexisting matter.

    If someone does not chose to come to exist how do they come to exist?
    Their parents make them come to exist.

    I would find it easy to consider myself causally accountable for creating a child and making them exist by act of force.
    It is this forceful lack of consent process which is one of the things that makes me reluctant to reproduce.
  • Terrapin Station
    7.8k


    I asked you a yes or no question. You don't need to respond with more than three letters.
  • Michael Ossipoff
    1.7k


    Alright, I was mistaken to believe that all Antinatalists are Materialists. I was basing that belief largely on Schopenhauer1's statements.

    But, you not being a Materialist, and given the things that you said in your reply just before this message, then, if your physical world isn't necessarily metaphysically-prior to you, then doesn't that mean that Antinatalists are attributing unrealistically-much ontological-creative-power to their parents?

    Anyway, much of what I was saying is true whether someone is a Materialist or an Ontic Structural Subjective Idealist. Only the underlying mechanics-explanation is different. The facts about our situation now are basically the same with either metaphysics.

    Some Buddhists comment on such matters without mention of metaphysics. Much of what I've said, to cheer-up Antinatalists and existential-angst-ridden Absurdists, is independent of metaphysics.

    There are things that you like, They're plainly what you're here for, even if you don't agree with me that they're actually why you're here.

    That's the situation, whether or not the Material world is the Uncaused Cause and Ground of All Being.

    ...you being here, and there being things that you like.

    Schope has said (..,if I understood him right) that we're forced to entertain ourselves. What? Things that we like are an opportunity, not something compelled on us. That's how everyone but a very few Antinatalists and Absurdists view it.

    Whatever the reason why we're in a life, that's the situation, And sure, there are the hardships and risks that go with life. Again, we can agree to disagree about why we're in a life, but Antinatalists can't realistically deny that the person and hir (his/her) being in a life are a "sealed-unit" a "unitary-construction". ...an in-principle inseparable pair like the poles of a magnet or the sides of a paper.

    ,,,and that they're confronted with that as an accomplished-fact, even if we disagree about why that is.

    There's no reason to believe that there's any such thing as waking-consciousness other than in a life.

    Schope speaks of sleep, but there's no reason to believe that there's even such a thing as that except with respect to a current or just-ended life. Sleep is for born living-beings, during their life, or at their end-of-lives (which is at the end of this life if there's no reincarnation). So, even that end that some Antinatalists long for is only there as part of a life of a born bring,

    Antinatalists embrace the sleep at the end of lives (or of this life), while rejecting the life that necessarily, unavoidably must precede it, It's well understood by Buddhists and Hindus that unrealistic rejection of how things are isn't going to bring satisfaction or contentment, As Rajneesh pointed out, your death won't be better than your life, One shouldn't expect an abrupt change at death, from unrest and rejection, to peace. Attitude counts, and that's a matter of life-completion and lifestyle-perfection.

    The fact that you're in this life of vulnerability, varying degrees of hardship and suffering is just something that integrally goes with you. You and that situation are the sealed-unit, the unitary-construction, the inseprable complementary pair that I spoke of, You only are, in the context of that
    situation. ...whether or not we agree on the reason for that situation.

    It's meaningless to speak of that situation as something that has been done to some pre-existing someone. You made an analogy about life being something that is set-up to be done to someone who hasn't yet come into existence. But that analogy doesn't work, because it implies a separate being for the situation and the person subjected to it, A situation like that is necessarily integrally part of the complementary pair consisting of that person and hir world.

    ...whether you agree with my explanation for why there is that, or whether you believe that it's a result of a Material world that is the Ultimate-Reality.

    It's a matter, now, of living with that situation, regardless of disagreements about why there's that situation. Sure, I didn't knowingly ask for this situation either, and I know just how Antinatalists feel, because I sometimes feel the same way.

    But there are things that you like,

    Michael Ossipoff

    2019-W01-7 (South-Solstice WeekDate Calendar)
    2019 Late-South Week 1 Sunday (6-Season -3 wk Offset Calendar)
  • Andrew4Handel
    1.1k


    I think that most antinatalist take issue with parents reasons or lack of reasons for having children

    Which then undermines the meaning making process for the individual. The irrationality of attitudes towards procreating and parenting then leads to fear and a sense of abandonment.

    My parents life meaning and my experiences and desires are seriously at odds.

    I would like to be optimistic for the future but it depends on what evidence you see and whether attitudes are changing.
  • Michael Ossipoff
    1.7k


    I think that most antinatalists take issue with parents’ reasons or lack of reasons for having children.
    .
    So do I. But I don’t (retrospectively) expect much from my parents, and I’m (now) not surprised by their shortcomings. …though I was a bit surprised when I first realized about it.
    .
    Which then undermines the meaning making process for the individual. The irrationality of attitudes towards procreating and parenting then leads to fear and a sense of abandonment.
    .
    Of course. Abandonment is the name-of-the-game. Well, active-victimization is a better word.
    .
    My parents life meaning and my experiences and desires are seriously at odds.
    .
    Of course. Likewise for my parents, of course. They sure didn’t put me in the situation for my benefit, as is obvious from their parenting. Of course the same abandonment and hypocrisy is obvious regarding the schools and overall society, with regard to the children who are their victims.
    .
    In fact, of course “abandonment” is a euphemism and understatement for that victimization.
    .
    I would like to be optimistic for the future
    .
    There’s no cause for optimism for the societal future on this planet in this physical world.
    .
    As for our own individual futures, it’s just a matter of making the best of the situation that we’ve found ourselves in. …found ourselves in with complete bewilderment on the first day, and even for years later weren’t ready for dealing with, due to a societally and parentally taught maladaptive notion of who our life is for.
    .
    Michael Ossipoff

    2019-W01-7 (South-Solstice WeekDate)
    2019 Late-South, Week1, Sunday (6-Seasons -3 wk Offset)
    2018 December 30th (Roman-Gregorian)
  • khaled
    398

    The moral principle of preventing suffering is a byproduct of humanity’s life affirming orientation across an enormous span of time. It exists in a context. It is not a standalone axiom of the universe. To turn it against life itself is mere rhetorical sleight of hand and this is plainly obvious to most of us.Roke

    So we have this principle here A that we use in literally every other situation but when the situation inconveniences you it’s suddenly a “rhetorical slight of hand” because it “is turned against life itself”? I’d say “turned against life itself” is the rhetorical slight of hand here. It’s a phrase that doesn’t mean anything but just sounds “bad”
  • khaled
    398
    When wasn’t I?Michael Ossipoff

    You never ever implied that people get reborn NOR that where they get reborn is dictated by their morality. Those are two MASSIVE speculations. Nothing in your framework says those have to be the case.

    Your subconscious attributes, inclinations, wants, needs, predispositions at the end of this life determine what kind of a world is consistent with the person that you (subconsciously) are. Consistency is the requirement of experience-stories, because there are no mutually-inconsistent facts.Michael Ossipoff

    Who says those subconscious attributes remain after death? I thought more along the lines of Nietzsche’s repeating lives in thus spoke Zarathustra, where you are continuously reborn into the same life. That’s another massive speculation not substantiated by your own framework

    Not necessarily. I’d say probably not. A physical world is bound by logic, not made-to-order, and must operate according to its physical laws. So P2 is far from certain.Michael Ossipoff

    It IS certain. What’s illogical about a world with no pain? Even if you think it’s not certain I’d say you can agree that it IS certain that there are worlds with less pain than this one

    No, not at all. I’ve given two good reasons for Antinatalism.Michael Ossipoff

    Ok then why did you reply to a post that was about finding arguments AGAINST antinatalism lol?

    Final note, I’m still in utter disagreement with your metaphysics as it makes way too many presumptions for no reason and just seems clunky to work with but this is not the thread for that
  • khaled
    398
    They were just a cog in the mechanism of the physical world. You might as well blame our galaxy for your birth, or the Big-Bang. I'm not denying that your parents had a role, but not uniquely. You're giving them too much credit.Michael Ossipoff

    As a metrialist I see blame and prosecution as an evolved mechanism for removing troublemakers and bolstering your chances of survival. As a materialist that doesn’t believe in free will, talks of morality are merely talks of “which combination of words will allow me to release the most good chemicals in my brain”. Now, that being said, in my view blaming your parents for your existence makes sense. You were evolved to undoubtably see them as the cause of your existence despite the fact that they had no choice but to have you. As such they are the cause of your existence. Same with how you say “the gunshot killed the man”. Of course, according to my view, the Big Bang killed the man but when people talk of “cause” they always mean their perception of who the biggest actor was as tuned by their evolution to remove troublemakers. And this is what materialists always mean by “cause”
  • khaled
    398
    But if there's no need for life, then why does Schopenhauer1 think that there's need for things in life?Michael Ossipoff

    He means that a non existent thing (an unborn baby) doesn’t need anything including life but when someone is born, they suddenly need things in life. It’s better to be in a state of not needing anything and to be put in a state of needing something then acquiring it. Solving a problem you posed is not productive and it is immoral to force someone to solve a problem YOU POSE on them when they didn’t have to solve it before. Worse yet if solving that problem requires them to perpetuate it.
  • khaled
    398
    You seem to be objecting to the fact that there’s such a thing as life. To whom is that objection addressedMichael Ossipoff

    Parents. Not the heavens. We humans are born with an evolutionary tendency to blame others who cause pain not because they chose to (that’s what we tell ourselves, they can’t really choose) but because if we don’t execute troublemakers we get executed. As such, when this is applied to parents one can clearly see why they are to be blamed. If parents are executed we won’t have to be put in the conditions where we risk getting painfully executed in the first place. That’s what antinatalists are doing. One doesn’t have to be a Hindu to blame others. One doesn’t have to believe in free will to blame others. Blame is an entirely self preserving endeavor
  • khaled
    398
    Then what is the point of railing at that obvious inevitability?? In fact what even is the meaning of that railing?Michael Ossipoff

    It’s not an inevitability. It might convince others not to have children (deterministically of course) and then eventually maybe an anti-reproduction policy can be implemented. Just because everything is deterministic does not mean you throw up your hands. You can’t say everything is deterministic therefore I’ll do X because you don’t KNOW what’s going to happen even if it is deterministic. You will always feel you have free will because of this. You can’t call having children an inevitability because of what I just said. The antinatilists might succeed in their quest you never know
  • khaled
    398


    But, you not being a Materialist, and given the things that you said in your reply just before this message, then, if your physical world isn't necessarily metaphysically-prior to you, then doesn't that mean that Antinatalists are attributing unrealistically-much ontological-creative-power to their parents?Michael Ossipoff

    Yes. That’s the point of blame. To get someone prosecuted. Not to punish them for being “bad”. You get people prosecuted so that you may survive.

    What? Things that we like are an opportunity, not something compelled on us. That's how everyone but a very few Antinatalists and Absurdists view it.Michael Ossipoff

    That’s how most absurdists view it actually. Not having free will is the state of the world for us.

    It's meaningless to speak of that situation as something that has been done to some pre-existing someone.Michael Ossipoff

    No one does that. I found andrew’s analogy most fitting. Setting a bear trap in an empty park is still wrong despite the fact that there is no one there yet. The point is that setting the bear trap WILL harm someone. Doesn’t matter if that person doesn’t exist yet.
  • andrewk
    2k
    Negative utilitarianism is not generally understood to mean that one should never do anything that causes suffering. To me it means that we prioritise reducing gross suffering rather than net suffering (which is suffering minus pleasure). There are plenty of situations where one reduces net suffering by causing a small amount of additional suffering. An immunisation program is a classic example.

    If somebody adopts the principles of negative utilitarianism as you present them then antinatalism follows immediately. But I don't know anybody that would adopt that extreme form of negative utilitarianism. There are plenty that adopt the 'minimise gross suffering version', but that doesn't automatically lead to antinatalism.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment