antinatalism and pessimism

antinatalism and pessimism Sept 16, 2017 3:02:33 GMT

Quote

Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 16, 2017 3:02:33 GMT

Sept 16, 2017 2:39:24 GMT @miccee said:

Sept 16, 2017 2:34:23 GMT Terrapin Station said:

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.)