I think there are many more fundamentalists — I like sushi
measures' the valuation between 'pain' and 'no pain' as a meaningful point — I like sushi
No one has explained how it is logical for an AN person to say “thou shalt not procreate” but, after a person breaks that rule and gets pregnant, how they can also say “it is permissible to get an abortion.” That would mean, it is wrong to create a newly conceived fetus, because that causes suffering, but once you create one, you can still kill it. Where is the internal logic there? — Fire Ologist
So if life only had a little bit of suffering in it, for everyone, the AN argument would fail? That’s not what Schop is saying. And it opens the whole AN argument up to attacks regarding the value of suffering. — Fire Ologist
can you imagine certain extreme scenarios where you would look more favorably on the AN position — I like sushi
How am I any less immoral by having a baby or leaving the house? If I leave, I am likely to cause some suffering to some potential person, just like if I take steps to procreate I am likely to cause some suffering, therefore yo prevent suffering and be an ethical person, I shouldn’t leave the house or procreate. — Fire Ologist
what right you have to bring someone into the world in the first place. — I like sushi
What right do I have to make someone else late for work by driving too slow? What right do I have to cause a car accident? None. So if preventing suffering in some possible scenario is the highest ethical ideal, then I shouldn’t leave the house. — Fire Ologist
I can have a baby and “do my best” not to cause any harm to that baby. So if meeely having the baby sets up the conditions where I didn’t prevent suffering, so does leaving the house and involving anyone else in my actions. — Fire Ologist
The 'suffering' part is A factor not THE defining facto — I like sushi
Take out Suffering, and the whole AN argument collapses. — Fire Ologist
If I go to Chicago, there’s a chance I cause somebody in Chicago to suffer. So if I never go to Chicago I have prevented all of that possible, likely (because life is so full of suffering) suffering. Therefore, I should never go to Chicago. — Fire Ologist
I get it.
Dignity is preserved in the person who prevents suffering by not procreating.
I get it. — Fire Ologist
And again, if you want to parse out "suffering" and throw out categorical errors and strawman for examples, you can save it, as like in previous posts, I have provided the distinction between preventative actions (prevent the harm if possible, especially if it is unnecessary to let the harm happen in the first place!) versus remediative harm (the harm is already taking place, now a set of actions is needed to remediate it!). — schopenhauer1
It’s not convincing to keep saying discussions about the suffering prong of the argument are strawman arguments. — Fire Ologist
So what if you come from a long line of procreators, all of your parents and grandparents were all procreators (weird how that works) and all you want to do is spread a little love and joy and hope for a better future around like your mother did….. Don’t you think you will cause fresh new suffering to make this person doubt procreation? You are saying “it’s for your own good, despite all the people on your family tree who love and admire, for your own ethical good you should not cause suffering, so you should not procreate.” The rule itself as a thought causes suffering too, to someone who had long plans of a family and grandkids one day. It’s nice that no one is talking about actually forcing people not to procreate, but that’s not the point; even asking (most) people to reconsider any more procreation, is going to cause suffering. How do you answer that without being paternalistic, and without:
YOU deem the game necessary for someone else to play based on your personal estimation.
— schopenhauer1 — Fire Ologist
Not causing suffering isn’t strong enough of a moral code versus the chance at bringing about a human good through that suffering.
Suffering matters greatly to your argument and you take it for granted that everyone should know this suffering, and that no one could dignify this suffering, and instead call it a strawman. — Fire Ologist
It's not my job to try to convince every Harry, Dick, and Jane of their intransigent, unsound beliefs. — schopenhauer1
It’s not my job to demonstrate that the suffering that exists in life is only animating factor of ethics. — Fire Ologist
That’s your job as an AN proponent. By simply avoiding the issue you sound like a flat-earther. — Fire Ologist
Life is waaay more than suffering. I argued that. You don’t respond. — Fire Ologist
If you are frustrated with me, I think it’s because you cherish suffering too much.
Life is suffering is your strawman. — Fire Ologist
It's NOT about the dignity of the PARENTS. Rather, it's about the dignity of the (future) child. — schopenhauer1
How do you explain people who value being "child-free"? — schopenhauer1
I can only present the argument faithfully and to the best of my ability and they can do whatever they want. They can handle snakes, pray to their god, say their holy Hosannas, spout out nonsense, red herring non-sequitors on an internet forum — schopenhauer1
Frankly don’t know why this is antagonizing. I’m trying to debate the logic of AN. — Fire Ologist
To me it seems you are saying “there is enough suffering in every life that it is not debatable to evaluate that suffering as anything other than bad, harmful, fruitless, and unethical to inflict on another to any degree. — Fire Ologist
Are you really going to leave this conversation without showing me MORE CLEARLY how I am wrong? — Fire Ologist
I could level accusations of bad faith around too, but I’m just trying to point out the logical inconsistencies and am open to reasonable opposing views. — Fire Ologist
And instead of thinking I am fully aware of what I’m saying and acting in bad faith, show me how what I’m saying is not reasonable. Don’t just say it’s bad, show me. — Fire Ologist
But you haven’t shown me otherwise. And instead like calling me a bad faith straw man builder. Over and over. — Fire Ologist
There is no need to. We are are discussing the logic of ending procreation to make the world more ethical and prevent future suffering.
There is a law that murder is wrong. The fact that I am never inclined to murder and likely never will be makes it easy for me to follow that law. That’s a different conversation than whether “murder is wrong” is a good law, is something universal everyone should follow, and something we should teach all to understand. Even if we logically showed “murder is good” I still wouldn’t murder. — Fire Ologist
I am trying to use logic only. I never raised any of these non-sequitors. You did, which makes it a non-sequitor to the conversation I’m having.
I only point this out to show you how much I’m trying to avoid bad faith. I’m sticking to the text and bringing up logical issues with it and new premises (like suffering is of less import and less valuable than the life of the one who suffers). I’m not resorting to anything else but my observations and wits - no insulting references to religious practices.
I’m not belittling the AN person - I’m attacking the logic behind the conclusion that in order to be ethical, we should not procreate.
If AN is an issue of personal faith, like other “holy hosannas and spouting out other nonsense, then I wouldn’t be arguing the way I am. But it’s a logical, ethical stance. One that doesn’t seem sound to me. — Fire Ologist
Yes it's about suffering. Duh. But it's not suffering "tout court" in this case. It's about what surrounds it. The context. In this case the context that occurs when deciding to procreate. — schopenhauer1
It’s not. I’m saying, to convince me of the premise that my life is mostly suffering, you will have to add some suffering to my life. — Fire Ologist
“becauseyourlife is mostly suffering, you should not procreate.” — Fire Ologist
They are all glad I “inflicted” life on them. — Fire Ologist
There is no aggregate until there are individuals to pile up into that aggregate. An aggregate construction doesn’t get off the ground without constructing all of its individual stories first. — Fire Ologist
Two things: 1. — Fire Ologist
But 2. — Fire Ologist
The AN position is not this. — I like sushi
ou're all missing the mark to some degree. — schopenhauer1
The argument relies on the asymmetry of preventing suffering and not preventing suffering. — schopenhauer1
I thought we were talking about ethics, a moral law. — Fire Ologist
But often being angry about something means there is something of consideration that you find worthy of having to be addressed. — schopenhauer1
AN defeats it’s own good, which are ethical human beings. — Fire Ologist
And yet, the individual stories aren't relevant and the aggregates are. *shrug*. Not an uncommon reality — AmadeusD
f the goal is to reduce suffering in humans, eliminating humans is its ultimate good. The fact that Ethics then cease to exists doesn't say anything about it. No humans is a success. — AmadeusD
No one has explained how it is logical for an AN person to say “thou shalt not procreate” but, after a person breaks that rule and gets pregnant, how they can also say “it is permissible to get an abortion.” That would mean, it is wrong to create a newly conceived fetus, because that causes suffering, but once you create one, you can still kill it. Where is the internal logic there? — Fire Ologist
you need individual stories that provide some insight into suffering levels. — Fire Ologist
If we treat humans like any other animal and for whatever reason want to reduce the suffering of humans, we could end procreation and let it all fade out. — Fire Ologist
we are not only removing all of the suffering humans from the universe, but the ethics that inspired their removal in the first place. — Fire Ologist
Not quite. This is what supports it. It relies on the state of affairs being that suffering is the overwhelming mode of experience for humans.
The a-symmetry simply supports the ethical solution of not procreating. Not the position itself. — AmadeusD
This is somewhat false. Many antinatalists would prefer there were restrictions on procreation on ethical grounds. Otherwise, your description is good. — AmadeusD
Again, you have failed — schopenhauer1
wearing out my patience…stop misconstruing and strawmanning it — schopenhauer1
Rather, it's about the dignity of the (future) child. […] That is say, no person exists to be violated prior to procreation. The violation only takes place once procreation occurs. — schopenhauer1
prevent the harm if possible, especially if it is unnecessary to let the harm happen in the first place!) versus remediative harm (the harm is already taking place, now a set of actions is needed to remediate it!). — schopenhauer1
in a given context of a society means having to move about in public spaces- in the situatedness of a social sphere. This means, inevitably you will cause unintentional harm. — schopenhauer1
Positive ethics DOES matter in the sphere of existing to some extent, as long as it doesn't unnecessarily violate others. Remember the bridge argument? The fishermen want to catch the biggest fish of their life. It's blocking YOUR right to go to your car. Whatever pleasure they get from fishing and the collateral damage of causing your harm, it was unnecessary to "recruit" you into their project. This is different than being one car of many in traffic "recruiting" you into traffic. With the road situation, it is tacitly accepted that this is part of how roads worked. However, if a car wanted to stop traffic so they can look out the side of the road at some attraction, that is now falling into unnecessary "recruiting" territory. — schopenhauer1
I can only present the argument faithfully and to the best of my ability — schopenhauer1
I think people can be great parents, and are good people, but that procreation is still wrong. — schopenhauer1
The ethic is to not unnecessarily create more people that suffer, and to force people into a world based on one's own estimation of how much suffering is good (especially since the amount and kind of suffering for another is unknown as just a fact of the matter). It's then the inclination that must be re-educated, not the ethic. — schopenhauer1
It is more than just suffering. If it was just suffering, I would consider myself a hedonic utilitarian or some such. It is rather about not using people by force recruiting them into projects that will harm them. Suffering matters here, but it is the particular nature of preventing suffering absolutely in the case of procreation that makes it exceptionally different than already-existing scenarios, — schopenhauer1
Suffering matters here, but it is the particular nature of preventing suffering absolutely in the case of procreation that makes it exceptionally different than already-existing scenarios, where we are simply remediating suffering (doing the best with what we have, trading greater with lesser harms, negotiating our interests, etc.). — schopenhauer1
Before you respond to all of the things I got wrong, can you at least admit how far I DO seem to understand it? Most of this whole post was me trying to restate you without causing any cringing. — Fire Ologist
That sounds like a rule in there. The rule seems to be to “prevent harm when possible, especially when unnecessary.” Then, once procreation happens and the rule has been violated, you move to a different rule where, if there is harm already done “a set of actions is needed to remediate it.” — Fire Ologist
I think you said before AN has nothing to do with remediative actions. Which makes sense since AN is a pre-procreation moral guidance. — Fire Ologist
This seems to be about a wider moral position, and has stepped outside of a narrow focus on AN. The above all talks about how to treat other currently living people. In this context, and if I got the rule right, the rule being: “prevent harm when possible, especially when unnecessary”, in the wider context of other living people we still must try to prevent harm, especially when unnecessary, but there can be harmed caused that is “unintentional harm.” And any step we take is towards remediation, not prevention first. — Fire Ologist
[Could negligent behavior blur the line between preventative and remediative acts? Is there a duty to try to prevent negligence, and while some acts are purely unintentional, others are wanton and grossly negligent sorts that we all have a duty to prevent? This is a tangent - forget the question.] — Fire Ologist
I sum this up as making the point that what is wrong about procreation is that we are recruiting a future person into a life of suffering, and failing to prevent obviously unnecessary suffering. — Fire Ologist
You said “especially since the amount of suffering is unknown.” That adds an interesting element. “Amount of suffering” as a concept, plus this amount being “unknown.”
I don’t think the amount of suffering matters, and I don’t think the fact of suffering is unknown. We know every time we procreate we are recruiting someone into suffering. Period. Right? — Fire Ologist
As far as the re-education, I agree it would be in the face of inclinations and old habits. But I’m still trying to parse out the content of the education. That is a 2.0 discussion about inclinations and where they come from and why someone might resist AN. I’m just sticking to what AN is.
You even said yourself after talking about people who aren’t inclined to have kids, about religion and family as urging kids, as existential need for purpose.. “…Though of course, there are also plenty of horrible parents as well, but all of this is besides the point.”
So I don’t think I need to parse that part out yet to focus on what AN is. — Fire Ologist
So it is more about not forcing someone to be born at all, regardless of any suffering; it is about how “recruiting them into projects” is wrong. The fact that it is a project “that will harm them” makes it all the worse, but “it is more than just suffering. […] It is rather about not using people by force.”
This is why you don’t like my arguments about the amount of suffering. Suffering in life is a part of what is wrong about procreation, but it is the involuntary recruitment that might be the real heart of the rule that is violated.
So I had the rule as (trying to quote you) “ prevent the harm if possible, especially if it is unnecessary to let the harm happen in the first place.” But there is a second rule or complication to the rule (again that I hope you will clarify) something like (as tight as I can make to build less room for misinterpretation): “do not impose harm, especially when it can be avoided.” — Fire Ologist
So I think all of the arguments over prevent versus remediate and suffering and amounts of suffering, were off the mark (or at least my objections and rebuttals to those aspects of the arguments were off the mark). Because that wasn’t the real heart of the problem. That’s why it can be ok to cause some suffering in living people, because they can consent to that suffering. — Fire Ologist
The mark for AN has to do with the lack of consent to live at all.
It is wrong to force a being into existence when no such being could give its consent, therefore one should not procreate.
Is this right? — Fire Ologist
It is right. It sounds right to me. I still don’t think I’m mischaracterizing anything you are saying. — Fire Ologist
And I also still think it can all be summed up in a tighter argument where every word counts better than I’ve done here. I’m not sure if the best formulation of the rule involved ( “prevent harm” or “not imposing harm”). — Fire Ologist
But the rule itself seems to invoke the existence of a baby that cannot give its consent, to whom life is being imposed involuntarily; there’s a tension there that you (not me) introduce into the text. The existence of the baby seems to matter (actual) and not matter (potential) to the world this ethic describes. — Fire Ologist
And I still see a hole in the value of suffering to the AN argument. Something needs further clarity here. Does AN hold its ground regardless of any suffering or not? — Fire Ologist
Does adoption/taking guardianship over children abandoned by their genitors prolong suffering according to AN? Is it the fault of those that adopted him, who've abetted & aided in introducing him to a potentially painful existence within society? Or the fault of those who brought him into this world, the mother who gave birth to him, the father who inseminated?
Or an asexual who adopts a kid, though never brought the child into existence through procreation. Yet, similarly, the child will expect to experience immense suffering within his societal upbringing, is this the fault of the biological parents who are completely absent in this regard? — gadzooks
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.