I as referring to the general AN positions not your personal ones.
What I said outlined a couple of the main points AN puts forwards. I said no more than that. — I like sushi
I have read, and listened, extensively to the AN position. — I like sushi
You can provide links for them if you wish. I have read, and listened, extensively to the AN position. — I like sushi
My position is that it is VERY useful to look at for anyone considering having children - but not because I believe it will, or should, stop them. — I like sushi
I pointed to the issue of non-identity (about which there are many positions) and about asymmetry (about which there is more to say too in terms of its implications). Pointing out to those asking that looking at one without considering the other is kind of futile. — I like sushi
But again, this is my argument, not all of AN. So don't misconstrue that even though I am continuing the debate. — schopenhauer1
Nonidentity is neither for nor against (it is not specific to AN either). It is the question of whether, or how, ethics can be applied to people who do not as yet exist. — I like sushi
The main positions are:
- We have no right to bring life into existence (nonidentity issue involved here in part).
- No harm is better than no pleasure. — I like sushi
I responded to people asking about the AN position is in general. I did that. What your personal position is is your business to explain. — I like sushi
People were responding to my last comments generally, then you swooped in there like you owned the place.. Please. — schopenhauer1
Because you were wrong. I will not interact with you any more. My post was directed at the others who failed to understand the AN position. I tried to guide them towards a better understanding that is all.
Bye — I like sushi
misguided points for misguided notions. — schopenhauer1
Due to Original Position, even if Earth was transformed into a Utopia, a hypothetical almost "alien world" where suffering is so rare and unheard of it now requires true and intense effort to create (versus the current dynamic where suffering seems to be the default and likely outcome without large [and for some non-accomplishable] levels of planning, effort, and perhaps luck), procreation is still responsible because a person did not choose to be born, and inevitably will face some restriction as a result, such restriction amounting to enslavement (ie. follow the moral laws, be a good neighbor, feed oneself, manage stress in a socially-acceptable way lest one be punished by physical incarceration, etc, etc. that one never "asked" or was even involved in being placed in). Something like that? — Outlander
Yes. So, as you just pointed out, life has a limited set of choices. We tend to look at life as the degrees of freedom of choice, rather than the degrees of limitations. — schopenhauer1
So, at the end of the day, it requires respect of life to allow one to be in a position to create, let's say a bomb, to end all intelligent life, on Earth? Since life will exist otherwise. And the AN argument is, this is pure suffering. — Outlander
Where do we go from here? What about possibility of life on other planets? Should life be respected long enough to ensure our entire universe is destroyed or rather "made incapable" of supporting life in perpetuity? We're not at that state, currently. So surely, the irony or at least unacknowledged (at least at present) reality which requires such a truth to become actualized is ignored?
That is to say, life (the true AN equates with suffering?) will still exist until more life is created that allows greater potential to prevent itself? Do you understand this is what you're saying? — Outlander
Mission accomplished — Fire Ologist
Really? You don’t use metaphors to make the text more interesting? — Fire Ologist
The natural evolution of ethics in the world was necessary so that ethics could be ended by these ethical animals. — Fire Ologist
Seems like natural necessity gone astray because of our “ethics” — Fire Ologist
seems like it’s based on a preoccupation with suffering too much maybe? — Fire Ologist
What? — Fire Ologist
Wow. Philosopher king hath spoken to the little suffering people. Is anyone ever “wrong” when they judge what is right or wrong about the quality of OTHER PEOPLE’s lives? — Fire Ologist
Maybe “most antinataliats are wrong about the quality of their lives.” Possible? Killing off all procreation might be a little rash? — Fire Ologist
The man inflicts a fetus that can be killed on a woman — Fire Ologist
we can kill the fetus if we want, without inflicting suffering — Fire Ologist
To be consistent with the notion procreation inflicts suffering, much harder for men to break the antinatalist rules? If ever? — Fire Ologist
Antinatalists don't claim their lives are horrible, and you've got to stop insinuating there's some personal judgment going on. It's not relevant to me whether someone claims they have a good life individually - the argument is about lives to come. — AmadeusD
If you suffer too much, whether you're preoccupied with it isn't relevant. Those who aren't have the 'polly anna syndrome' and those who are are simply in touch with reality (this being a take - not my position on every human's psyche lol) — AmadeusD
But the argument is that the lives to come will be full of suffering, and the evidence that the lives to come will be full of suffering is gleaned from those living now, who are suffering. So the judgment: "my life and those of others, are full of suffering," IS relevant. — Fire Ologist
the personal experience of lives now is one of the premises of the argument. — Fire Ologist
Seems like you are basically saying either you know your life is full of suffering, or you are living in LaLa land. — Fire Ologist
I disagree the suffering is all of the time for every living being. — Fire Ologist
And I think the non-suffering is well worth the suffering — Fire Ologist
So I would need to be tortured and watch my family tortured for a few days at least before I would throw away all of human history and its future — Fire Ologist
But still, for most, much of the time, life is worth it. — Fire Ologist
Why is your experience the tell-all for humanity? — AmadeusD
Its aggregation that matters — AmadeusD
most people would come out in the negative yet claim the positive. — AmadeusD
AN is fashioning a new law. AN says to me “because your life is mostly suffering, you should not procreate.” AN is the tell all.
I’m just saying to Mr. AN enthusiast, “procreate if you want or don’t procreate if you don’t want, but telling all of us, including me, not to procreate based on the fact that all life, including mine, is on balance over full of suffering, doesn’t make sense to me at all.” My kids love life too much. One’s a nurse (surrounded by suffering), one is a welder (gets burned everyday), and one is a struggling artist (who needs a job). They are all glad I “inflicted” life on them. — Fire Ologist
to the point where they would enforce this by law — I like sushi
No one is talking about “enforcement” of some criminal statute or something. Missed my point. — Fire Ologist
If all the people who were thinking about procreating asked “what ought I do? What’s the right thing to do? Should I procreate?” The AN believer would say to everyone “You shouldn’t procreate because that would cause suffering.” — Fire Ologist
the asymmetry of preventing suffering and not preventing suffering — schopenhauer1
common notions of deontology about the dignity of people, and how they aren't to be used or "messed with". For example, non-harm, and autonomy seem to be pretty essential to the dignity of a person — schopenhauer1
Not preventing suffering via procreation, will lead to the violation of this ethic (non-harm, autonomy). Procreation leads to harm/suffering. — schopenhauer1
The main argument is not about "How much suffering" per se. That can be a dimension, but only after the core — schopenhauer1
you should not force recruit people who will be harmed — schopenhauer1
YOU deem the game necessary for someone else to play based on your personal estimation. — schopenhauer1
It’s a small minority position in philosophy, an already small subset. — schopenhauer1
let us assume — I like sushi
this idea stemmed from a staunch opposition to 'Pro Lifers — I like sushi
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.