|
Post by sugarbiscuits on Jun 16, 2017 8:37:11 GMT
What are your thoughts?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 16, 2017 9:13:10 GMT
I don't buy it. It's based on the idea that missing out on a bad thing due to non-existence is good, but missing out on a good thing due to non-existence isn't bad which I find inconsistent.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 16, 2017 15:54:04 GMT
Im an anti-natalist but not a pessimist. As Einstein said "I would rather be an optimist and wrong then a pessimist and right"
|
|
|
Post by theravenking on Jun 16, 2017 16:07:11 GMT
I did briefly flirt with both of those ideologies, but eventually realised they were too extreme for me. It seems that some people do indeed live happy lives. Optimists would argue that it would be unfair to take that chance of happiness away from them by not bringing them into the world.
The problem with being born is: it is not up to me myself. It is up to my parents. They are the ones responsible for me being in this world. There is something infuriating about this idea, that two people can come together and just create another being without asking for its consent. There is this great saying by Cioran that nobody is responsible for his actions, since none of us have been asked whether we want to live or not. Parents are deluding themselves when they think they are doing their children a favour by bringing them into this world.
I think I mellowed with age. I don't mind anymore, if other people want to have children. Me, I don't want children though. I don't want to be responsible for another person's suffering.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 17:13:35 GMT
Im an anti-natalist but not a pessimist. As Einstein said "I would rather be an optimist and wrong then a pessimist and right" What about being a pessimist and wrong?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jun 16, 2017 19:54:29 GMT
Im an anti-natalist but not a pessimist. As Einstein said "I would rather be an optimist and wrong then a pessimist and right" What about being a pessimist and wrong? Well I suppose thats better then being a pessimist and right.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 16, 2017 19:56:37 GMT
I've generally found anti-natalism ridiculous. I've not seen any arguments for it that don't rest on nonsense and fallacies, including that anti-natalists always seem to be ethical objectivists.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Jul 7, 2017 5:33:23 GMT
I hold to these philosophical positions somewhat inconsistently.
Schopenhauer is one of the greatest philosophers ever to live.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Jul 7, 2017 5:39:52 GMT
I've generally found anti-natalism ridiculous. I've not seen any arguments for it that don't rest on nonsense and fallacies, including that anti-natalists always seem to be ethical objectivists. Objectivists as in Randians?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 11, 2017 18:53:43 GMT
I've generally found anti-natalism ridiculous. I've not seen any arguments for it that don't rest on nonsense and fallacies, including that anti-natalists always seem to be ethical objectivists. Objectivists as in Randians? No--simply as in believing that there are objective ethical values.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 2:22:27 GMT
I don't buy it. It's based on the idea that missing out on a bad thing due to non-existence is good, but missing out on a good thing due to non-existence isn't bad which I find inconsistent. Missing out on a good thing due to non-existence is not even a consideration, because you have to be born in order to be deprived of anything. Pleasure in life is mainly defined in terms of relief from deprivation. I suppose you could challenge the idea that missing out on a bad thing due to non-existence is 'good' (given that nobody can perceive the good). But it's at least completely avoiding the bad, without having unasked risks taken with your wellbeing by someone else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 2:24:56 GMT
I've generally found anti-natalism ridiculous. I've not seen any arguments for it that don't rest on nonsense and fallacies, including that anti-natalists always seem to be ethical objectivists. What is ridiculous about it? There's no mandate that mankind are fulfilling by existing here, and it's generally considered a bad thing to take dangerous gambles with someone else's wellbeing if you have not obtained their prior consent (even if consent cannot be obtained). If you want to point out any nonsense or fallacies (in layman's terms, preferably), I'm very confident that I can address them. Suffering is an objectively bad thing, by the definition of the word (if that's what you're hinting at with regards to antinatalists being 'ethical objectivists') and therefore there needs to be a compelling reason to justify inflicting it on someone (usually this would be something like self defence).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 2:25:41 GMT
I'm absolutely sold on antinatalism, and can't see how it would be possible to form a remotely coherent or sensible rebuttal of it. I certainly haven't come across any when debating reasonably intelligent atheists on the internet, or in any of my substantial research.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 16, 2017 2:34:23 GMT
Suffering is an objectively bad thing. No it isn't. There are no objectively bad things. You certainly can't simply define something so that it's objectively bad and then that's the case. It doesn't work that way. Whether something is objective or not is a fact that's independent of us and how we define anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 2:39:24 GMT
Suffering is an objectively bad thing. No it isn't. There are no objectively bad things. You certainly can't simply define something so that it's objectively bad and then that's the case. It doesn't work that way. Whether something is objective or not is a fact that's independent of us and how we define anything. By the very definition of suffering, it is a sensation that organisms seek to avoid, and is tied to an 'ought'. As in 'suffering ought not to happen'. There's no such thing as enjoyable suffering, it is always repellent. Even if "suffering is bad" is not an objective truth; that's a very feeble excuse for exposing living organisms to the risk of suffering without a very compelling reason for why it needs to happen. You've offered up a very strong dismissal of antinatalism, so surely you must have come to that conclusion based on something rather stronger than 'suffering is not objectively bad'?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 16, 2017 3:02:33 GMT
No it isn't. There are no objectively bad things. You certainly can't simply define something so that it's objectively bad and then that's the case. It doesn't work that way. Whether something is objective or not is a fact that's independent of us and how we define anything. By the very definition of suffering, it is a sensation that organisms seek to avoid, and is tied to an 'ought'. As in 'suffering ought not to happen'. There's no such thing as enjoyable suffering, it is always repellent. Even if "suffering is bad" is not an objective truth; that's a very feeble excuse for exposing living organisms to the risk of suffering without a very compelling reason for why it needs to happen. You've offered up a very strong dismissal of antinatalism, so surely you must have come to that conclusion based on something rather stronger than 'suffering is not objectively bad'? First off, if you're going to make an argument that supposedly hinges on a conventional definition, don't just make up a definition. Give a source for the definition you're using. (It's not that you can't use an idiosyncratic definition, by the way, but that's going to be more problematic for making the sort of argument you want to make--"Such and such is the case, and the justification for that is the definition . . . well, at least if you use my definition." That's not going to be very persuasive.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 3:17:13 GMT
By the very definition of suffering, it is a sensation that organisms seek to avoid, and is tied to an 'ought'. As in 'suffering ought not to happen'. There's no such thing as enjoyable suffering, it is always repellent. Even if "suffering is bad" is not an objective truth; that's a very feeble excuse for exposing living organisms to the risk of suffering without a very compelling reason for why it needs to happen. You've offered up a very strong dismissal of antinatalism, so surely you must have come to that conclusion based on something rather stronger than 'suffering is not objectively bad'? First off, if you're going to make an argument that supposedly hinges on a conventional definition, don't just make up a definition. Give a source for the definition you're using. (It's not that you can't use an idiosyncratic definition, by the way, but that's going to be more problematic for making the sort of argument you want to make--"Such and such is the case, and the justification for that is the definition . . . well, at least if you use my definition." That's not going to be very persuasive.) Definition of what? Suffering? 1. uncountable noun Suffering is serious pain which someone feels in their body or their mind. They began to recover slowly from their nightmare of pain and suffering. It has caused terrible suffering to animals. His many novels have portrayed the sufferings of his race. Synonyms: pain, torture, distress, agony More Synonyms of suffering www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sufferingWhatever you want to call it, or whether it's objective or not, being born causes people and animals to be exposed to sensations that are going to be unpleasant and which they would rather have avoided. Although the unborn person would also not experience any of the sensations that a live person would wish to experience, nor will they experience any deprivation of those pleasurable experiences. Thus, there is no compelling ethical reason why this is a gamble that ought to be taken.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 16, 2017 3:24:10 GMT
First off, if you're going to make an argument that supposedly hinges on a conventional definition, don't just make up a definition. Give a source for the definition you're using. (It's not that you can't use an idiosyncratic definition, by the way, but that's going to be more problematic for making the sort of argument you want to make--"Such and such is the case, and the justification for that is the definition . . . well, at least if you use my definition." That's not going to be very persuasive.) Definition of what? Suffering? 1. uncountable noun Suffering is serious pain which someone feels in their body or their mind. They began to recover slowly from their nightmare of pain and suffering. It has caused terrible suffering to animals. His many novels have portrayed the sufferings of his race. Synonyms: pain, torture, distress, agony More Synonyms of suffering www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sufferingWhatever you want to call it, or whether it's objective or not, being born causes people and animals to be exposed to sensations that are going to be unpleasant and which they would rather have avoided. Although the unborn person would also not experience any of the sensations that a live person would wish to experience, nor will they experience any deprivation of those pleasurable experiences. Thus, there is no compelling ethical reason why this is a gamble that ought to be taken. "By the very definition of suffering, it is a sensation that organisms seek to avoid"--where it "seek to avoid" in the definition you're quoting?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2017 3:32:45 GMT
Definition of what? Suffering? 1. uncountable noun Suffering is serious pain which someone feels in their body or their mind. They began to recover slowly from their nightmare of pain and suffering. It has caused terrible suffering to animals. His many novels have portrayed the sufferings of his race. Synonyms: pain, torture, distress, agony More Synonyms of suffering www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sufferingWhatever you want to call it, or whether it's objective or not, being born causes people and animals to be exposed to sensations that are going to be unpleasant and which they would rather have avoided. Although the unborn person would also not experience any of the sensations that a live person would wish to experience, nor will they experience any deprivation of those pleasurable experiences. Thus, there is no compelling ethical reason why this is a gamble that ought to be taken. "By the very definition of suffering, it is a sensation that organisms seek to avoid"--where it "seek to avoid" in the definition you're quoting? Wow, that's really splitting hairs. Is 'there's no way of telling whether people enjoy suffering or not' really the entire basis on which you call antinatalism 'absurd'? It really isn't necessary to provide a dictionary definition to prove that organisms seek to avoid unnecessary 'serious pain', 'torture', 'distress' and 'agony'. You can try it yourself by touching a hot hob with your hand; your hand will instinctively pull away from the heat. And when pain is felt, that is typically a sign from the brain that some kind of damage or harm has been caused to the body. In any case, none of the sensations that an organism would want to avoid can occur without the organism first having been born and made vulnerable to the source of harm or suffering.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 16, 2017 4:19:55 GMT
"By the very definition of suffering, it is a sensation that organisms seek to avoid"--where it "seek to avoid" in the definition you're quoting? Wow, that's really splitting hairs. If you want have a serious discussion about this you need to be a bit more rigorous. Is "seek to avoid" part of the definition or not? If not, then (a) you cannot sloppily suggest that it is part of the definition, and (b) you need to explain and justify how we get to it.
|
|