Suffering itself involves emotions, physical states and psychological reactions to those states, so bringing emotion into it isn’t a non-sequitor. — Fire Ologist
But in all of the above scenarios, in your quote, there are already existing victims of the harm. — Fire Ologist
But the rest isn’t fairly arguable? — Fire Ologist
I might not only have to be an antinatalist, I might have to be an anti-hydrationist, because giving a thirsty person a glass of water, is like giving birth to a new person. — Fire Ologist
And no need to consider what other things we cause by not procreating? As long as we don’t inflict suffering we will be doing good in this world, be good for this world - not arguable? — Fire Ologist
Getting a little emotive here, which you criticized me for above. — Fire Ologist
And why are happiness and/or purpose, as you frame the delusion, the only counters to suffering? If you are (as I would put it) deluded into thinking life is, on balance, suffering, then you would reject anyone who viewed any life as on balance, not suffering. Screw purpose. I’m enjoying just trying to argue with you here. — Fire Ologist
Antinatalism analogized to, ironically, a life guard, keeping people out of the dangerous waters. That’s backwards. Antinatalism would eliminate the lives to guard, not merely keep lives on the land to live safely. A lifeguard would inflict a riddance of the ocean to those safely on land, not a riddance of living, like antinatalism would. — Fire Ologist
Living is simply different than suffering and cannot be summarized as only suffering. — Fire Ologist
Bottom line to me, in a raw, physicalist sense, life is prior to suffering — Fire Ologist
Antinatalism isn’t just a tidy little syllogism categorized as ethics. It’s an act in the world, and an against life, which is procreative. Against suffering on paper, but inflicted upon all human life in action. — Fire Ologist
Mother Nature made use of suffering to fashion we species of ethical monkeys, only so that we could end the infliction of Her suffering on us and call it “good ethics.” Seems potentially delusional to have out smarted Mother Nature and her sufffering ways called “life.” With our “ethics” no less. — Fire Ologist
What can the antinatalist do with the new fetus? Can they abort it?
If they can abort it, it must not be a person, because I would think the rule is that it is not ethical to kill another innocent person. That’s worse than inflicting suffering. — Fire Ologist
The antinataliat who doesn’t think a fetus is a person and who supports abortion would have to agree with the following: it is unethical to cause a sperm and an egg to form a fetus because that would be inflicting suffering on another person, but is it ok to kill the fetus after it is formed because a newly conceived fetus isn’t a person.
Doesn’t an antinataliat have to be an anti-abortionist to lay out a consistent treatment of future people we do not want to inflict things upon? — Fire Ologist
To - some - degree, i get what you're saying. — AmadeusD
This anthropomorphizing of nature seems delusional — AmadeusD
overwhelmingly: suffering. — AmadeusD
Not quite sure how to respond, in this case. — AmadeusD
But it hasn't anything to say about antinatalism. — AmadeusD
I really don't know what you could mean here. — AmadeusD
The analogy would be to God if anything. God removing people because they suffer too much in the face of his arguably more important creation - the Ocean. — AmadeusD
most people are "wrong" about hte quality of their life. — AmadeusD
The coming together of a sperm and an egg is not what leads to suffering. Though, most antinatalists probably would recommnd avoiding this. — AmadeusD
Arising by the necessity of chemistry on earth, life began. This led to animals, which by the natural necessity of evolution led to animals on land, which by necessity led to humans, which by necessity led to logic and ethics, which by necessity led to antinatalism, which, if practiced well, necessarily leads to the end of all of this living necessity (at least of the ethical kind). The natural evolution of ethics in the world was necessary so that ethics could be ended by these ethical animals.
Basically, all the rest of the living things by necessity procreate, as procreation is part of the very life that has now spit out ethics, and our ethics is to end life itself, unlike every other natural, necessitated living thing. Seems like natural necessity gone astray because of our “ethics”. Or, just — Fire Ologist
Maybe wrong anbout some of the “most people”? Isn’t it THEIR lives? It’s none of my business to say your life is suffering, just like it’s none of your business to say my life is anything. — Fire Ologist
That is a weird reification to me. — schopenhauer1
we often have very unpleasant experiences in the present that we often smooth away later with our cherry-picked and more subdued memories of the unpleasant experience. — schopenhauer1
Antinatalism is a weird reification of being ethical, of the “good” as in a good choice being choosing not to inflict life with its suffering. — Fire Ologist
Reification is when you think of or treat something abstract as a physical thing. Reification is a complex idea for when you treat something immaterial — like happiness, fear, or evil — as a material thing. — Vocabulary.com
Then we often have pleasant experiences in the present that we rough up later with our cherry-picked and more subdued memories of the pleasant experience. That’s all psychology. — Fire Ologist
It is false to say we are never right to inflict suffering. Just not a tailored ethic anyone could ever follow. We can follow a rule to not steal. We can not lie or murder. But never inflict any suffering?? We would need to not ask anyone to ever do anything. We couldn’t tell someone we loved them for fear this would burden them and increase their suffering. Teaching someone about antinatalism could inflict tremendous suffering on them - the meaning of life and all their plans dashed because they involved a family and kids. It is NOT true that “Happiness is not obligatory, whereas preventing suffering is.” Neither happiness nor preventing suffering are obligatory. You reify your ability to reduce suffering, and the ethical rule that tells you this is the highest good. — Fire Ologist
That's not reification. Reification is this:
Reification is when you think of or treat something abstract as a physical thing. — schopenhauer1
the unique thing about procreation is it is completely preventative — schopenhauer1
Like reifying an abstract “good not to inflict” in the physical act of procreation. — Fire Ologist
So we are allowed to inflict lots of suffering throughout our lives, but the rule not to inflict suffering is super important when looking to consent to the naturally produced function of procreation. Got it. — Fire Ologist
It’s completely preventative of ethics too. No more ethics along with no more suffering that the ethical ones couldn’t stomach inflicting on others (except they could stomach the risk of inflicting suffering by every other act they take besides procreation). — Fire Ologist
Yeah and again, no humans, no ethics needed. No problem. — schopenhauer1
But humans came here naturally. So ethics, which tells you how to live good and rightly, came here naturally. — Fire Ologist
1) If humans came here naturally, then anything can be justified as it came about from humans, which came here naturally so anything we do is technically "from nature".. reductio. — schopenhauer1
And I think I’ve said my peace. Antinatalism seems unneccesssry if it be based on simply suffering, seems anti-ethics while it puts ethics above ethical people, and simply ignores the joy in life. — Fire Ologist
Life is way more than suffering. Maybe only human beings can recognize this. Why kill ourselves off because of a little suffering? — Fire Ologist
ANs are not against existence per se — I like sushi
That life, regardless of change or possible omission of what is currently held in the antinatalist mindset as "suffering" or "negative", creation of new life either, is intrinsically a negative, whether that conviction is held based on the likelihood of even, say, a perfect utopia naturally always reverting to a negative state, or some other generally non-evidential belief. — Outlander
Can you explain better please? — I like sushi
It is certainly a factual claim that if you do not exist you do not suffer. — I like sushi
Because you cannot particularize this prevention of suffering in a particular “you” who doesn’t suffer, AN is acting ethical towards no one, no one who ever exists. — Fire Ologist
This is also underlined by the metaphysical problem of non-identity. — I like sushi
The problem of identity is a real problem, but if we admit this problem to the equation, then there may be no “me” who could fail to prevent suffering either. — Fire Ologist
The AN view is asking what right anyone has to create life if they know it will suffer. — I like sushi
I'm sure you're correct in most instances. Of course we have yet to meet or question an actual practicing anti-natalist (not counting the obvious resident one, joyous and pleasant to know him as he is..., of course, a bit or irony but that's beside the point, for now) — Outlander
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.