Atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnosticism
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God

I think that agnosticism is a better and more prudent position when it comes to the existence of God or a Diety then Atheism as per the above definition. The agnostic does not rule out the existence of God whereas the Atheist does. What are your thoughts ? — Deus

Based off these definitions, holding agnosticism as a position, especially one that is 'better' just seems like virtue signaling and pseudo-intellectual circle-jerk to get people off the hook from thinking further.

If the claim is "God" (and it's existence) is not known or can be known holding agnosticism as a interesting position seems more so a superficial getcha-back statement of some kind in response to atheists and theists, less a position communicating an intellectually interesting stance.

I question agnostics like this why they don't claim Ignoticism instead. What exactly are you 'questioning' that isn't self-defeatist [or superficial] if agnosticism is the position that 'X cannot be known, is not known, or unknowable' is known itself ... knowledge of X is unknown and unknownable, so?

The only agnostics that matter are the ones that hold their "belief" in (ii) and (iv) with so much conviction it is indistinguishable from fact.

A few agnostics holding both positions (not thinking) are indistinguishable from very lazy atheists; and none of these positions are interesting or that important. It's basically positing a non-cognitive attitudes. In other words, water be wet.

We should question the agnostics that hold their "beliefs" with strong conviction in both assertion and practice because it all depends on what god claims they are agnostic about.

Interesting question. I'm curious what roles other parts of the brain plays into this, such as the cerebellum and spatial awareness. The cerebellum and the brain would still be active; in spite of no senses. The loss of all senses may force the brain to compensate and re-route, new sensations outside of the 5 senses may arise. What about dreams? Hallucinations? Etc..

Being born this way from birth may also cause severely stunted development; they'd definitely probably have to be tube fed forever.

Some blind people can still see light. The totally blind can still have hallucinations (this may be the brain compensating).

Reality is not mind-dependent; it persists whether or not it is perceived, no? Do "minds" generate the world around it?

What? You're the third person that has picked on me in this thread for nothing. All I did was ask a question like everyone else here. Leave me alone or I'll report you.

Cobra I’m always skeptical about assigning moral value to how someone reacts. People can hardly choose to hate or not hate. It’s like assigning moral value to eating, or taking a piss. You can’t very well help it.

When people say “hate is bad” I don’t think it is intended as moral condemnation but rather practical life advice. — khaled

Morality seems almost akin to "practical life". Is it not just a series of practiced 'practical/normative' habits to alleviate stress, discomfort, etc.. best to your abilities?

This is somewhat why I attempted to make the distinction. It seems "hatred" (hate in practice e.g. terrorists, premeditated serial killers with specifically targeted victims, etc..) is different from "hate" (fleeting emotions/reactions). The former does seem to contain an element of choice on the conscious level, meaning we can add some moral culpability. It is directed at people causing harm. But it seems this 'wrongness' or 'bad' dissolves very relatively. For some reason, for example, drug addicts, people "practicing obesity", etc.. are excluded from this group, although we can observe long-term bad habits. Why is this?

To my OPs point, it seems "hate" just has no interesting significance unless it is either institutionalized or has intent of some kind behind it.

So,

If I say, "I hate fat people," it seems unreasonable to call this hate toward fat people 'bad, wrong' ... what say ye?

The questions are information-seeking; I am seeking your opinion on how you evaluate, think through and address the dilemmas through a series of questions. That's all philosophy is. There are no right/wrong answers.

And I don't personally care about fat people or Hitler. I am just talking and making convo on this topic; since there seems to be some arbitrariness to the whole "hate" thing.

It seems meaningful to make a distinction.

You have raised an interesting discussion. I am not sure that the feeling of strong dislike and feeling hatred and that of wishing harm is absolute. Perhaps the latter is the exaggeration form of it and most people don't go that far. It could be that the more a person becomes accustomed to the mental state of feeling and thinking thoughts of aversion or hatred, that it becomes a possible starting point is hatred, in its meaning of wishing harm.

I think that hatred, in strong aversion or wishing harm to those with specific attributes is connected to psychological projective processes. — Jack Cummins

But is it just psychologically projective processes or is there really no external or objective basis that we can determine the strong aversion, wishing harm towards, etc.. is reasonable and good?

Take your example of hatred of the fat person, it may be that specific undesirability of fatness as an aesthetic quality is projected onto the individuals who are perceived as fat. The example of hatred of fat people also raises the connection between hatred of others and hatred of self. I have worked with people who have eating disorders and it does seem that they often have internalised self hatred.

See, this is where I get lost. Is it not a fact and known that being fat (obese and overweight) is harmful? Are you saying that obesity and it's effects are just matters of perception?

How is this merely an aesthetic problem just because Susan encourages hatred of fat people that go around eating McDonalds for "fun", but not for say, a man that goes around slapping babies for fun?

Would you say it is wrong to hate the man that goes around slapping babies for fun, and just a matter of some kind of self-hatred..? Doesn't seem the case:

Ex;
1. John hates practicing/active pedophiles.

2. John starts a "movement" fueled by hatred to eradicate practicing/active pedophiles from practicing.

3. This is "good".

--

1. Susan hates practicing/active people practicing gluttony.

2. Susan starts a "movement" fueled by hatred to eradicate practicing/active people from practicing.

3. This is "bad".

What would you say is the difference or factor here that caused hatred to lose it's significance?

I would suggest that hate/hatred is simply an emotion or emotional state. As with most emotional states, the state itself is not a problem. Actions which are a result of said state can be positive or negative. For example: I hate being poor. This hatred in turn motivates me to work hard, save what little money I make, use said money to increase my education and training, resulting in a higher earned wage. I repeat this process until I find I am no longer anywhere near poor. My children do not have to be nearly as concerned as I was about where my dinner is coming from, or where they will sleep. etc. Hatred has motivated me to self improvement.
However, same example: I hate being poor. I look about me and see many others with more than I. This fills me with hatred and envious rage. I proceed to stalk those with more than I have and take it by force. Eventually I am caught, convicted, and spend a lengthy time incarcerated, which further fuels my hate. My children grow up without me, I have not bettered myself, nor those around me (except maybe the guards, they are employed because of people like me). Hatred has led me to self destruction.

Like most emotions, what you feel is far less important than what you do about it. — Book273

With all this said, if hate or "hatred" is just an emotional/feeling, is it reasonable to remove a leader from office, if they say, "I hate America" ... on the basis of feeling/emotions, with no actions to follow?

In the same case:

Is someone with extreme hate for women, and communicates this openly electable, even if they have demonstrated no harmful actions toward women?

Why would hate be "OK" in this case, but bad/wrong in another situation? Or is it just completely arbitrary?

Are you hating obesity or people who are obese? There’s a difference, and I would say reducing a person’s value due solely to their weight is wrong, but hating obesity is like hating pain; there’s nothing wrong with it (I’d actually claim it’s amoral), but that’s because things like obesity and pain are more abstract, so there’s really nothing concrete to direct your anger towards. Hating obesity or pain entails nothing that could affect someone else, at least not that I’m seeing. — Pinprick

Would you then it is "bad" to hate a baby killer on the basis of their actions then? Do you feel similar about the body positivity movement, that it is also "reducing people down to their weight"? Is it good if it doesn't contain hate/hatred?

Ex; 1

1. It is determined that "fat people" are gluttonous (or weight gained/obesity) is mostly "self-inflicted" aside from medical conditions/exceptions, from disregard from self-care.

2. It is determined that being obese is always harmful or increases harm by substantial amounts, leading to medical and health issues and eventually death.

3. It is then reasonable to harbor "hatred" or "hate" for obese people (for inflicting harm on themselves and others [habits being normalized in children]) that have to deal with them.

Based on this,

From my definitions above, hatred seems to serve the purpose of:

2. Hate: Fleeting reaction or prolonged aversion to something that causes disgust, repulsion, or discomfort.

1. Hatred: "Hate" institutionalized (with power). Prejudices + intent + actions taken to "exterminate" or "eliminate" that which causes hate.


Ex; 2

It seems the "Hatred" of Trump, for example, was only of any utility or in this case, "good" because it was able to be institutionalized through widespread societal stigmas, disapprove, prejudices, with an intent to remove him office.

In this scenario, like fat people, this is not "Hating Trump," (fleeting reaction of disgust, etc..) - but something much more, and even so, "hate" doesn't seem strong enough to remove him from office.

"Hate" must have power, meaning institutionalized with intent in order for it to be effective, "good", or "reasonable".

--
Considering that we know "obesity" is harmful, is it the good then to harbor or influence hatred against obese people to eradicate obesity? If no, what is the difference here? What "action" is best appropriate?

How Hatred against obese people on large scale, society wise, less good than Hatred against Trump (not in terms of eradication).

Hey, thanks for the answers all. You make a lot of interesting points. I will respond very soon!

Could you answer this:

So, if I have an extreme hate toward fat people, is this unethical? Or is this hate "good" because being fat is unhealthy?

Surely this isn't just a matter of circumstance, and whether hate is good or bad isn't determined by the circumstance, but the degree in which hate has significance.

Being fat is almost always detrimental in the long run. Would you say "hate" is good, therefore ethical because it serves a significant role in discouraging fatness?

Why do we then, not support the extreme hatred of fat people, but support the extreme hatred of "Hitler" for example?

Is it because all the fat people claim, "It's wrong to hate fat people,". Is this the case?

Hatred leads to violence and discord, so, I guess it's reasonable to say it's not good. What I think is definitely true is that it is not useful. — T Clark

Why, would you say, it's definitely true hatred is not useful?

So, if I have an extreme hate toward fat people, is this unethical? Or is this hate "good" because being fat is unhealthy?

Or, say, if Mike says, "I hate women" as a result to trauma, should this be cause of concern? And should he be labelled a "misogynist".

What I mean is, hate seems to lose significance often, but it's not exactly clear what is determining the degree of significance, even following analysis.

Ex;

"Mike says he hates women, because his mother abused him."

But it seems to be devoid of anything requiring immediate moral action, yet, if Mike was placed in a government position of power, and said, "I hate women," suddenly there is some significance to this, and he will be labelled a misogynist, but not in the former example.

Most people have recognise it’s ok or good to hate Hitler. — DingoJones

Would you say those that "lack hatred" for Hitler are "bad"? What is the purpose of "hating" Hitler?

The victims in the examples you give are not capable of giving consent, because they are either mentally disordered, and therefore not thinking clearly, or are not capable of understanding what they’re consenting to. — Pinprick

Which demonstrates whether someone "can" or "cannot" consent to being harmed is irrelevant to the fact that X causes harm regardless, and it is the latter in which we inform ethics.

You can 'consent' to chop off your dick, doesn't change the fact that it's a harmful and retarded thing to do. It's not increasing your overall well-being just because you enjoy it.

So are you saying malicious intent is why beating someone is wrong, and that since boxers lack that their actions in the ring are ok? — Pinprick

I'm saying that malicious intent (moral blindness) is typically what distinguishes between the boxer and a perpetrator. Just like rape roleplay is a vice, not necessarily a wrong conduct, but it's not consent that distinguishes the two. The former involves no defenseless agents or victims, but can be viewed as immoral to some because it would be considered a perversion of sex, like enabling the fantasies of a pedophile that loves child dolls, although there are no actual children being harmed in the making of this film.

The “victim” agreed to be killed and eaten, so what makes that act wrong? Meiwes did not willingly disregard the victim’s wishes, so his act, according to your definition, was not malicious. — Pinprick

There are "willing victims," and we see these people often. Children, Stockholm Syndrome, psychological traumas, abuse, date rape, etc.

This example is an isolated case to which someone can reasonably terminate ones own life after rational deliberation, it does not apply in all cases. It is not the fact that he agreed that would make this action right or wrong.

That it would be ok to make people box, so long as there were structure, and rules, and attempts to minimize any long term damage? If not, then why is it ok to force me to abide by laws that I never consented to? — Pinprick

Laws are constraints, not restrictions. You are not forced nor coerced to do anything. It is why the system is overflowing with law-breakers. Whatever the case, laws should not be confused with morals. While the two can be informative to each other, your reasoning for being jailed is exclusive to the rules of the law and justice system in which you breached. There is a process for overruling bad law and changing laws.

Boxing is a sport that is practiced ethically - it involves close medical treatment/examination, rules/regulations, and physical conditions that must be met; but what makes the practices ethical are not determined by what the boxers "agree" or disagree to. It is a fact that constantly getting punched in the head has long-term effects, but this is not the same of being a victim of useless and reckless killing (i.e. murder, assaults, etc..). We also have "ethical killing" with humans, it is called euthanasia, but it was not consent that distinguished this from being harmful or unharmful, or "right killing" and "wrongful killing".

It was the fact that denying this persons' right to die caused more harm than forcing them to live. Some guy that consents to be cannibalized as a science experiment is not euthanizing himself. The act is unreasonable and senseless, so just an infliction of unnecessary harm on themselves. It is why we do not amputate the limbs of people with body integrity identity disorder.

An ability to discuss personal things impersonally is a good skill to have; because it sets a tone to discuss sensitive topics that need to be on the table more efficiency across more diverse groups of people. When communicating to many identities all in one setting, it is best to set a tone that this isn't about "you, I, this," and remove a sense of judgmental attitude and reduce prejudices/biases that may leak unnecessarily into topics with sensitive content.

BUT, to disregard identities that are impossible to ignore e.g., minorities, does multiple people a disservice, i.e., womanhood, race, etc.. because such identities are rooted in history, embedded by facts, and institutionalized to where such identities are impossible to separate from the persons themselves. There seems to be a disagreement on what constitutes a trivial and non-trivial identity, but I'd argue the latter is not able to be divorced from reality in the manner more idealistic identities are.

Trivial identities that can be ignored, hold no historic significance, and are highly personal/subjective and shouldn't even be institutionalized in the first place.

But yes, I think there is definitely a use for impersonality, and it can be used in a way to optimize quality in many environments - and even eliminate idealism (and false-fact telling) for the sake of "identity protection" - even when discussing non-trivial identities, but trivial identities have completely polluted/distorted the benefits we can extract from it's use.

Professional fighting occurs in structured and organized environments where both parties engage in fighting under rules and regulations. The intent is not malicious, nor done to a defenseless agent or necessarily to cause harm.

Consent is an irrelevant buzzword here, because a majority of "malicious acts" when done with intent to cause harm are not premeditated nor negotiable. A majority occur under will inference, impulsivity disorders, and are unplanned, with intent of malice - etc. A malicious act is so because the agent is either indifferent to - or - willing disregards the others' lack of desire to be harmed/brutalized i.e., rendering them defenseless, thus 'victimizing' them.

Furthermore, what determines what harms another person is not a matter of consent, agreement or consensus. For example, "consent to be a beaten 3 inches of their life" is completely independent of the fact that these acts can/do cause psychological affects overtime - either (depleting) the quality of the agent and their well-being or increasing it, although the latter is doubtful. Even boxers for instance, have left over remains of demonstrable harm and impact done to their bodies. It is a fact that disregard for their regulations and properly learning to fight will cause some problems in the end.

Whether or not "boxing is wrong to participating in," now that we know this does not apply to the above, because boxing is regulated with intent to minimize as much long-term damage as possible, therefore, can be done ethically. This is not the case for victimization of the defenseless.

I have been skeptical since I left the womb. I trust nothing, and have always been extremely questioning as a child. Even down to religion I was kicked out of Sunday school and put on suicide watch at 5 years old for questioning the teachers too much. Even after vigorous attempts to hammer these lies into me, they never added up. It just never "clicked". I just sat still and did my studies like a good girl i.e., point of lease resistance for social efficiency and counterproductive conflict.

I was not really absorbing this stuff in any interesting way. I would just go home and read the opposite and what I wanted.

I was lucky being private schooled and going to a Montessori school started before I was 3 years old, so you can imagine "religious thought" didn't do well against my thinking style, and Montessoris unique style of learning emphasized on independent, freethinking thought, knowledge-seeking, child curiosity/free will and critical thinking; I blame that. But now I am a distrusting dismissive avoidant with no track record, so it hasn't all be good.

The purpose of life seems self-referential. Really, it comes down to maintaining homeostasis, scratching your ass, and not killing anyone else in the process.

What is the difference here between these two? I don't think you're saying anything particularly interesting here other than we should not hurt others to where there's no utility in doing so. I think we are in some form of agreement.

Sure, it can sometimes be morally justified to make one person suffer for the sake of the welfare of others. But that doesn't mean that the person who suffers 'deserved' to suffer. — Bartricks

Whether some suffering is deserved or not can make a big difference to whether we are justified in bringing it about. For instance, the suffering we cause to criminals when we incarcerate them is suffering that we are justified in subjecting them too in part, at least, because they deserve it. — Bartricks

I'm just saying no one deserves to suffer where there is no utility, not particularly talking about 'justified' suffering, but suffering that serves no optimization benefit.

Someone desiring to be raped doesn't need to be, even if they put themselves in position to be vulnerable to it.

Alright, I'm convinced you're a troll.

The only argument I see we can make for this is that no one deserves to endure suffering that has no utility. Suffering without any utility applies to every single conscious/moral agent, but this is only because no one deserves to be alive at all, and nature is not a conscious agent that "inflicts" rewards/punishments on people.

I could be the most retarded person on this site, and still not care. I am just here to argue my points. If your point is literal brain damage, I'll say. It doesn't matter what my IQ is or not.

"Antinatalism, or anti-natalism, is a philosophical position and social movement that assigns a negative value to birth.

Antinatalists argue that humans should abstain from procreation because it is morally bad (some also recognize the procreation of other sentient beings as morally bad)." -Wikipedia

Do I have to point out where the ought statement is? — khaled

The distinction is right in your very quote. And only pulls out what I was discussing in my very post. That the wrongness in arguments from anti-natalists does not speak to the fact suffer will an does persist independently of ones objections to the existence of it, and I don't definitions as a means of analysis, because definitions are guidelines toward analysis not explanations themselves, and should be examined for their utility, hence the point of philosophy. You give a googled 'definition' as if it explains anything, but all it does is stifle analysis.

I argue in my previous post as an anti-natalist, I believe other antinatalists argue this position weakly when they introduce fallacious ought arguments to the position, and if you understood what I was saying that other anti-natalists deducing that "people should not reproduce," is flawed because it ignores the harm caused by abstaining from an ingrained biological drive to reproduce hardwired within species. Potential parent(s) OUGHT to reproduce if it reduces their own suffering when they deny this desire.

However,

This does not negate the fact that giving 'birth' (i.e. enabling consciousnessness) will almost always "give birth" to an inevitable sufferer subjected to suffering that will serve no utility. Thus, it's not the action of "giving birth" that is wrong, but the LAZINESS is not opportunistically striving to mitigate the suffering of the sufferer. Those that understand this fact, anti-natalists, and have accepted this fact,choose not reproduce based on these grounds. I understand the act of "not having a child," to be altruistic.

No one is arguing about "preventing" any future child from being born because there no existing attributes to stall or prolong; which in my previous post is why I mentioned gestational period. That is immoral.

The rest of your post is a literal repeat of the other strawman's, and I literally couldn't care less about whether you understand it or not.

Yeah, because as I said in post #300, you quoted me when I wasn't even talking to you to simply say, "I'm not convinced," while offering no warranted refute or counterargument — which by default personalizes the discussion and communication style, which is in fact, rude and entitled. You are owed nothing.

This turns an objective debate into a matter of convincing you (i.e. making you understand and convert), rather than focusing on deconstructing impersonal arguments and refuting them in good faith.

3 times you can't respond. — khaled

And something failing to abide by your logic does not mean it is nonsensical nor devoid of sense, and I have no idea why you keep bringing up "logic" when literally every counterargument you make to others does not follow the previous premises; such as the example I just gave. And even more nonsensical is deducing that "surveys," inform public health and public safety, and therefore, "happy people = disproves the objective basis of suffering," that is enabled by being a conscious moral agent. This does not mean life = suffering, as you continue to strawman.

I ignore your lazy critique, because it is not a critique, and I already covered it three times in my previous posts which is how I know your apprehension skills are relatively poor.

Anti-natalism is a position based off these facts - it does not assign nor give instructions, impose restraints to ones biological drive to reproduce, or make "ought" arguments. It asserts that it is a fact that to not give birth means to not give birth to an enabled sufferer. All this other gibberish saying anything but is the same strawman you keep pulling out the sky or getting from anti-natalists arguing the position poorly or in bad faith.

Your misspelling of "logic" is telling.... — khaled

Literal brain damage. You can't even distinguish from me mocking you; and still follow up with strawman's. I know you can't (lack the ability?) to compute anything I said in previous arguments because you wouldn't keep bringing up shit I never said or implied.

You are literally talking about oranges in an apple orchard. Not making sense to you =/= unsound argument, and you reading nonsense and hypotheticals into something in un/intentional bad faith that isn't there does not serve as a warranted refute or counterargument. You quite literally just want to reaffirm your intellectual laziness and hear yourself speak.

My post doesn't have a brain :wink:

It applies to all of them. Continue to strawman and contradict in your own posts about lack of sense-making.

And you not having a child might have killed thousands of people because the child was going to cure cancer.

Literally brain damaged. But loGiCk.

Your post is brain damaged. Reread what I said when you're not so focused on being obtuse.

It's not an "is-ought," fallacy and now I'm not convinced you have a clue what you're talking about, since you have completely personalized the debate to one of convince/unconvince you, instead of refutation of points or lacking the ability (or willpower) to compose counterargument as opponents.

Semantics, simplification and lack of contextualization. Imagine thinking I'm referring to "the world" or universality - which you seem to be confusing with objectivity, instead of directly discussing the ecological basis (of humans) to where it is actively demonstrated by anthropological, biological, sociobiological, ecological, medical and cognitive sciences (and beyond) - that certain things are objectively optimal and sub-optimal to biological (human) moral agents in terms of well-being. This does not require composing a list of 'particular sufferings' simply because you personally cannot apprehend what is being said; nor is your lack of apprehension a warranted refute or doubt.

You then replied with, "but there are people that are happy and enjoy living," which is not only not being mutually exclusive to my points as stated which is an indicator to me you are refusing the process of analysis to simply reaffirm your own beliefs and assertions over mine, but also lacks in holding any interesting relevancy to my arguments. Your posts have very little merit to mine, and it's bizarre you cannot even tell. Clearly, others have more to squabble for days with you.

Well, seeing how these are not refutes to the argument nor have you made any argument, just responded with a matter of your personal dislikes, I'll be moving on to others.

I really don't care what you personally believe or feel convinced by; this is irrelevant to the discussion if you are not going to refute. I am extracting justifications for anti-natalism via centuries of science, history, and more - and only here to present arguments, not convince you of anything.

Really? It seemed to me that you wanted to use the fact that, in life, you are constantly striving merely to survive as an argument for AN. I’ve heard it before and was not convinced by it. Being in a state of constant striving is not clearly a bad thing if you enjoy said striving. — khaled

Well, "seemed" is idly speculative and not to be confused with the actual case, the facts of the case, analyzing or interesting information. Put what I just said into context of my original post. I already said in that post at minimum, what anti-natalism is.

If you are a human agent, you belong to human ecology and are constrained by human flaws i.e., biology, physiology, psychology, cognition, etc. These are facts not determined or dependent on 'personal human happiness.' or 'personal feelings' .. so I don't get why you keep bringing it up. It is a fact that we are constantly driven (biologically), ecologically (morally), and so forth to optimize because if we do not languish occurs. How this relates to antinatalism involves you reading my post, contextualizing and understanding what is being said.

Like the mathematics example, reality does not care what a bunch of non-mathematician optimists say 4+4 is or how they feel about it, because there exists an objective basis.

you become a moral agent, meaning constrained by homeostasis - as a conscious agent that must maintain ones well-being and health, harm - pain - suffering is then enabled because consciousness is enabled. Obviously, you must be reach a certain gestational point - or be born - to be eligible as an inevitable sufferer.
— cobra

Arguments from anti-natalists you simply don't like aside, anti-natalism at minimum does not say 'not giving birth' prevents suffering or that 'living is suffering', it says that, to my mind anyway, that once you cross the threshhold into a personhood you are then eligible to be an inevitable sufferer because you are constrained by your human - biological, physiological, psychological, cognitive, etc flaws (and other elements). — cobra

You are making the same strawman that antinatalism is saying "living is suffering" or "life is suffering", which is not the case. I am making an argument that giving birth enables this (by the way of consciousness); which is a FACT. The non-conscious abiotic 'in life' things cannot be sufferers or suffer.

Fair enough. Point still stands though. Being in a state of constant striving is not necessarily a bad thing if you enjoy said striving.

No point stands at all, because this is not any point I was making nor have you made any point whatsoever.

Even so, this is just a repeat of what you just said were 'fair points' and were in agreement with. Enjoyment/happiness, blah, blah. Buzzwords with synonymous meanings that do not negate the fact that what is good for the well-being of everyone is not solely dependent on whether or not someone enjoys or does not enjoy it. Ethics does not care if you're a masochist or not.

I am not talking about "you" in specific, I use it a generalist fashion.

The fact of the matter is "happiness" does not solely inform public health or public safety; cancer patients can be happy but this is irrelevant to the fact that a cancer patient will inevitably languish (and suffer), without medical treatment.

I am not saying that there is no subjective or personal basis, I am saying that is not just these things, and understand subjective and objective to not be mutually exclusive with one another. Clearly, those with personal preferences for X can still coexist with objects.

If 200 people get together and take a survey on whether or not 4+4 = 8; and all vote that is actually 3,000, and are satisfied with this 3,000, clearly from what we know of mathematics there is an objective basis without being merely a subject to what everyone 'thinks'. The same can be said here. Anyone can vote and say they are "happy" in North Korea; yet it is demonstrated the citizen are suffering and being harmed from lack of proper medical care.

But this is off topic. I'd like to stay on the topic of antinatalism, not veer off into your personal opinions of feeling unconvinced. You are more than welcomed to refute my previous post, otherwise I'll be moving on from the discussion.

Hey, thanks. I just answered E. Maybe you can extract from that. By "objective" I mean constrained by homeostasis and ignoring this inevitably leads to languish or frustrates the biological need to optimize and "live". The acts that mitigate or optimize are not a matter of opinion.

Unless you're apolitical or abiotic, I find this optimist argument to be completely delusional. Personal (happiness/personal desires), do not inform public health and public safety.

I don't know what to tell you, but this thinking is insane to me.

The question then is how "enabling suffering" is equivalent to causing suffering in moral terms. — Echarmion

The question is not now that, because this not conducive to my previous post, and seems to be another strawman.

I did not say that - nor is that what anti-natalism claims. You are construing this from poor arguments of anti-natalism that may be formed off a weak understanding of it.

Once you are born (or rather reach a certain stage in gestation), you become a moral agent, meaning constrained by homeostasis - as a conscious agent that must maintain ones well-being and health, harm - pain - suffering is then enabled because consciousness is enabled. Obviously, you must be reach a certain gestational point - or be born - to be eligible as an inevitable sufferer. not "suffering".

I also stress that 'denying people the ability or capacity to reproduce' is not a antinatalist position, just another strawman.

This does not mean "living is suffering" as I stated, but instead that you now exist in a world as a (human) moral agent to which you are constrained by agency that constantly says "If I do not do this, I will inevitably suffer" or make suffering worse.

Arguments from anti-natalists you simply don't like aside, anti-natalism at minimum does not say 'not giving birth' prevents suffering or that 'living is suffering', it says that, to my mind anyway, that once you cross the threshhold into a personhood you are then eligible to be an inevitable sufferer because you are constrained by your human - biological, physiological, psychological, cognitive, etc flaws (and other elements).

This seems a questionable assertion. How is suffering not dependent on the person experiencing it? Is there some empirical or otherwise objective way to measure suffering? — Echarmion

Because these things are orthogonal to human ecology regardless of partial human non-compliance, subjectivity and what is personal, human homoestasis demonstrates a race toward optimization independent a few rebellious individuals that believe they are immune to languish and mortality.

It is a fact that lack of vaccinations for deadly disease will kill the majority of us, so the majority of humans getting vaccination optimize public health and well-being. This demonstrates that a species not working toward optimization will inevitable languish. It does not vary from 'person to person', nor is it just subjective.

This is does not imply that subjectivity has no place. Clearly, you do have some say on what hurts you as an individual, but I do not see why this is relevant to ecological discussions on mass scale. As demonstrated in your same argument, you recognize that anti-natalism (denying someone's biological desire to reproduce cases harm) on the objective level distinct from what is observable in the object, and that is why we are debating here today.

When we say that animals suffer, we don't usually refer to anything objective though. We're merely projecting our own self awareness on the animal and concluding that we would experience suffering in their place. — Echarmion

Of course it isn't a fiction.

Slicing a dog's head off as being 'harmful' is not not merely a projection of self-awareness nor empathy. It is determined by the fact that the animal will inevitably languish (thus increasing it's suffering) aka "bad", rather than optimizing to assist it's will to live.

I am an anti-natalist, and will try address your points, because I do think some anti-natalists argue it rather lazily, such as the irrationality around persecuting a woman for bringing a pregnancy to term, and these wrong arguments themselves are distinct from the rightness that exists within the position itself.

A question of causality
If living entails suffering (e.g. philosophical pessimism) then living doesn't cause suffering. Much in the same way that me killing a person doesn't cause his death, killing entails death.

Yes, but living doesn't only entail suffering, but rather it enables it — in humans, anyhow. This is not saying that living is suffering or life is suffering, but only that when one is consciously alive in the world as a human being, they are subjected to suffering through what is unique to living as one. Particularly, they are agents.

So if the position is, suffering is intrinsic to life then it must necessarily fail as an argument because living then does not cause suffering and the ethical question becomes moot.

I'm not sure how this follows your previous points, life is a broad term and not the same as living. I understand living to be more than just being alive (life), but instead in the context of philosophy, thriving in the environment as a complexly conscious moral agent. When this occurs, and we introduce ethics, it is not a matter of cause/effect, but of enable/disable. "Death" doesn't stop suffering, for example. It disables it - akin to deep sleep.

The fact that all living things suffer at some point in time, is not a valid argument to conclude that living is a sufficient condition for suffering so this does not resolve the causal chain.

I do think this is a strawman.

A disease causes suffering, being run over by a car causes suffering, a break up causes suffering etc. etc. Suffering is unique and particular and for an important part based on how a person experiences it and remembers it.

These are very isolated events that don't seem very informative when discussing something as broad as suffering; it is posing a personal/subjectivist take on objective causes of harm and hurt. But suffering is not "unique" nor dependent on the person and how one experiences or remembers it, because what causes harm and suffering is not determined by the person, nor is deciding such a thing dependent on their understanding of it.

I think the fact that you can utilize "all other animals get diseases as well," demonstrates this point.

I want to know who voted what so I can start blocking the authorians.

I think the difference is approach to morality, less so optimist/pessimist states and/or expectations, as this seems like a dismissive simplification to what is - in fact, we could argue your post itself is a bit optimistic in how you approach the divide of politics itself, such as having faith that the divide of morality can be boiled down simply to be 'too optimistic', which is a symptom of ignorance, moral laziness, absence of education, I'd say. Some of this may not be able to be changed, lower intelligence may very well be an mostly unchangeable factor, especially in adults going through cognitive declines to where we see shifts back to conservatism and religious-thinking. As for pessimism/optimism, while they contribute to how you deal with already in place policies and politics, it is an expectation or response to "what is" ... Not what can be done (e.g. conduct - morals - etc..). Seems to me discerning "what is" the case is still heavily disputed due to ignorance, moral laziness, and lack of proper education cause political divides. There are also other nuances such as parenting and upbringing. I am skeptical to call someone a 'leftie or rightie' that has such an ignorant stance of politics to the point where they are apolitical. I believe apolitical is a symptom of ignorance, but being political or not is not optional, similar to arguing moral nihilism is a interesting or coherent philosophy.

Left and right's opposing moral stances are the main reason for political divide, and optimism/pessimism are responses either rational or irrational to current state-of-affairs or circumstances which either hinder or help progression and improvements. Conservatism and liberalism are on a similar boat. There are pessimistic conservatives biased by ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declinism ) but then there are optimistic conservatives ("lets never change"), and more. The core here is still their opposing moral stances, unless you are arguing that such states have an effect on how one approaches morality. This may be true, but I do not think it's just political in nature. What leads to people viewing the world in such a way? Seems to be more complex than simply just a pessimistic/optimistic state of mind, maybe a lack of and then some.

Educating people, but mostly emphasizing the point of morality and ethics would alleviate a lot of political emotions seems to be a strong foundation than simply adopting a pesimissistic and optimistic philosophy or way of life, there must be more to it, and without this strong moral foundation we will still have people polarizing and going against one another for groupthink, ignorance and more.

..? Dumbass reply like most of the OP's/pro-lifers MRM shit.