That nullifies the purpose of any human life at all. All who do and have ever lived were children born capable of suffering. By what standard does this fact alone make it better that they were never born to begin with? — TVCL
Your assumption is that people should be brought into existence at all. — schopenhauer1
David Benatar makes an argument, for example, that preventing birth prevents any harm (which is good), and also prevents benefits (which is neither good nor bad). — schopenhauer1
Firstly, comparing being to non-being appears to be a difficult comparison to make because if one were to posit "it would have been better for me to not have existed" — TVCL
Finally, there is an assumption that suffering is simply bad. For example: — TVCL
but is there an assumption that freedom is so paramount that it trumps birth? — TVCL
Firstly, comparing being to non-being appears to be a difficult comparison to make because if one were to posit "it would have been better for me to not have existed" we could ask: in what sense would it be better for "me" if no "me" existed for it to apply to? We can translate the same reasoning to the question of whether it would have been better for "that person" to have existed or not... — TVCL
Secondly, there is an assumption about force. True enough, the unborn do not consent to be born, but is there an assumption that freedom is so paramount that it trumps birth? Even if freedom is held to this standard, in what sense would one be free to "do" anything if they were not first born? Therefore, we might be "forced" to be alive at birth, but this would be the necessary precondition to all other freedoms. — TVCL
May I ask you to justify this? Why is not suffering good, yet being in a state which one enjoys merely neutral? — TVCL
"We MUST birth others (and thus force others) for them to have other freedoms". This is putting the cart before the horse. — schopenhauer1
Actually it’s not even that existence is worse than non existence but that in order to put someone into existence you will be harming them. And whenever you are about to harm someone explicit consent is required to make that harm ethical. Since that isn’t available here (no one to get it from because they don’t exist) it is effectively not given (since that’s how consent works). — khaled
But what if it was - in fact - better for non-existent being(s) to have a chance to exist? — TVCL
it doesn't seem plausible to posit a being that can or cannot consent without existence — TVCL
there is not a comparison that we can use to judge the two states besides one-another. — TVCL
“Non existent beings” is a contradiction in terms. — khaled
Then, again, we circle back to the same point; it does not make sense to posit a state which is better or worse for a being that does not exist. — TVCL
Therefore, there is no wrong done to the child before it is born — TVCL
But this is precisely why the argument is so strange. Prior to existence, the person does not have any freedoms anyway. Therefore, if the argument is turned back around the position is that we must respect people's freedoms and by doing so, we put them in a situation in which they are never people (for they do not exist) and can never have any freedoms. — TVCL
The ethics being, which is more immoral, to have a coffee at Starbucks while some child is dying of disease and starvation or to actually be the one responsible for bringing the child into the world. I think if you bring a poor child into existence you can't blame society (not the government) for not helping you as you are the one with the greater moral sin — Gitonga
Solving the world's problems at other people's expense. Everyones favourite philosophy; everyone's favourite politics. Shitbags of the world unite, you have nothing. — unenlightened
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.