There is no way of knowing for sure how having a child will influence the world. — Mac
I know his names been brought up but I can't remember in what context; Manson sending the girls out to specifically murder someone. — Brett
and you’re not killing him just because you didn’t save him. — Pfhorrest
Obviously it is morally preferable that he be saved, but you are not morally liable for that not happening. — Pfhorrest
Down the contrary road, everyone who hasn’t already given all of their possessions to the most effective charities and dedicated their entire lives to helping those most in need in the most efficient manner possible is morally liable for all of the harm that’s happening that could have been prevented it they did that. — Pfhorrest
There's a definite possibility that the next child to be born will grow up to cure cancer or solve the world's energy problems but unfortunately for arguments like this, it's equally possible that this child could turn out to be another Hitler, Stalin or Mao. We can't make decisions when all possibilities are equally likely as is the case here. — TheMadFool
The case he was making is that you simply cannot know the effect of your choice either to have or not to have children and as a result one doesn't take a privilaged position over the other — khaled
I agree with you but I am not exactly discussing the morality of the situation right now. I am asking whether or not you not saving someone is a cause for their drowning. I think the answer is yes — khaled
I agree with you but I am not exactly discussing the morality of the situation right now. I am asking whether or not you not saving someone is a cause for their drowning. I think the answer is yes
Your friend's argument is a weak one and, as you've noticed, is incapable of making the case for both antinatalism and natalism — TheMadFool
Firstly, it's based on indubitable facts — TheMadFool
Inaction isn't a cause. If I ask you for a cause I would expect to hear a series of actions or events. — BitconnectCarlos
If I were to accept what you're saying the upshot of this is that even the best of us are all the cause of countless people's deaths so I guess everyone is basically a murderer or at least guilty of countless manslaughters. — BitconnectCarlos
This is why I brought up the "vanished from existence" factor in an earlier post in this thread. If the Drowning Man still would have drowned even if the Abandoning Man had vanished from existence before getting the opportunity to abandon him, then "abandonment" is not an action. — Pfhorrest
How is it incapable for making the case for natalism? Natalism doesn't mean "You should have kids" it means "You may have kids". If you establish that you can be responsible for comparable amounts of harm whether or not you have kids then you may have kids, aka natalism — khaled
Natalism is a belief that promotes the reproduction of human life. — Wikipedia
As far as wikipedia, the main opposition to anti-natalism is not natalism, but the idea that there is nothing per se wrong about having children. One need not promote it, not try to inhibit births. For those who do not thinkt that having children is per se immoral, but also see no compulsion for people to have kids and does not try to convince people to have them. And obviously the stakes are high for the antinatalists: the logical conclusion of their position is that it would be best if no lifeforms that can feel pain continue to have new generations. So their goal would be some kind of minimally painful elimination of all life forms, at least fauna. It seems to me that in the name of making us all perfectly moral, they would seek eliminate all sentient life (if only via argument and propaganda here at least). I think that is as fanatical a position as some of the worst extremes of radical abrahamism. They are will to take, it seems to me, an unbelievable risk that their values are not as perfectly correct as they think. The unbelievable part of the risk comes in given what they are rooting for and striving for. It's hubris and perfectionism. Only this value and nothing else.What does "you may have kids" mean? It makes as much sense, in keeping with the spirit of antinatalism, as "you may make the child suffer". For antinatalism the stakes are high: unwanted and undeserved suffering, completely avoidable by not being born. You can't possibly think that a wishy-washy "may" is an adequate response to such strong beliefs. — TheMadFool
Inaction IS an action. Inaction is: Not doing X but doing Y instead, where X is the action in question. So inaction is just doing Y. Inaction is just as much an active action/choice as any other.
Yup. He made that case and said: So you should try to reduce suffering as much as possible through your action/inaction, inaction doesn't automatically mean you did nothing wrong because it's just as much an action as anything else
@khaledAs far as wikipedia, the main opposition to anti-natalism is not natalism, but the idea that there is nothing per se wrong about having children — Coben
I think that is as fanatical a position as some of the worst extremes of radical abrahamism. They are will to take, it seems to me, an unbelievable risk that their values are not as perfectly correct as they think. The unbelievable part of the risk comes in given what they are rooting for and striving for. It's hubris and perfectionism. Only this value and nothing else. — Coben
What does "you may have kids" mean? It makes as much sense, in keeping with the spirit of antinatalism, as "you may make the child suffer". For antinatalism the stakes are high: unwanted and undeserved suffering, completely avoidable by not being born. You can't possibly think that a wishy-washy "may" is an adequate response to such strong beliefs. — TheMadFool
the most straight-forward answer — BitconnectCarlos
Andy punched it and also Jim, Pam, Michael, Tobey, etc. did not directly interfere or stop him." — BitconnectCarlos
Onto a bigger issue though: I can't stand moral systems which make insane demands from individuals. Why are you on a laptop when that money could have been sent to a child in Africa? Why have savings or investments when that money must be donated otherwise you're a murderer? If everyone followed this the entire economy would fall apart and there would be zero money to donate. Everybody would be impoverished and nobody would have any money to help. It's completely insane and I can't seriously contemplate it. Sorry, you've hit on one of my sore spots here. — BitconnectCarlos
And how in the world did you "cacluclate" what the most straight-forward cause is?
Antinatalism, at least most versions I have seen, rely on the assumption that not having children is a net neutral act. As in it cannot harm or benefit anyone. But then someone made the case that there is no such thing as "inaction". By choosing to not have children, I become a causal factor in harming people my child would have helped so one cannot say that by not having children I am actually not doing anything wrong. While this does imply that there are situations where people would be wrong not to have children (which I find ridiculous) it does pose an interesting question in my opinion about what "inaction" exactly is. — khaled
All I'm saying is: If you cause comparable suffering whether or not you have children then there is nothing stopping you from having them. Does that make sense? — khaled
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.