Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SvetlanaButosky t1_j8fscw6 wrote

Antinatalists and Pro mortalists argue that as long as even ONE person has to suffer without a cure in this world, then NOBODY should exist, its basically the extreme version of the trolley problem where you MUST always sacrifice EVERYONE (and animals) in order to be moral.

Why? Because ending all lives will prevent any possibly of suffering till end of time and total prevention of suffering is the ONLY value that matters, according to these philosophies.

What about creating a suffering free tech Utopia you asked? Well, their usual counter is that its almost impossible and even if its doable, it will require many generations of suffering and they cannot accept this, they want the perfect Utopia TOMORROW and if you cant make it happen TOMORROW, then they prefer blowing up earth or something similar. lol

What about people who WANT to endure suffering and cherish existence you say? Well, their counter is that most if not all people are delusional and biased about life, their lives are all terrible but they dont realize it, therefore according to some "objective" benchmark for suffering, most lives are actually very bad and should not continue to exist, because they know better than the actual individuals who want to live. lol

Lastly, they will claim that consent is a moral absolute and any violation of consent is wrong and should never be done, no exceptions, this means nobody should procreate because nobody asked to be born. If consent is impossible, the default moral position should be to not procreate, according to this "logic", makes sense? lol

What is your counter argument against these extreme philosophies?

5

Maximus_En_Minimus t1_j8huma1 wrote

I am not going to comment on pro-mortalism, as I know very little of it.

———

Now, unfortunately I fear you have only been given or are only producing a strawman of both what anti-natalists is, and what it argues.

To define anti-natalism (AN): the belief that it is wrong to bring new people into existence. (This could extend to all life, if needed). It is not a position on what someone should do once they exist, in how to live a fulfilling life, except for the case of arguing a person should not have kids.

As to why: because there is suffering in existence - this is an important point, most arguments used by AN rely not upon the belief that existence is suffering, but that it has suffering within it. From this premise, we derive some of the following arguments:

  • Axiological Asymmetry: Existent Benefit = Good; Existent Harm = Bad; Non-existent Benefit = Neutral; Non-existent Harm = Good. (Benefit and Harm here refer to pleasure/pain, knowledge/ignorance, esteem/esteem-lessness).

The allegory used here is: we do not think it is bad for the people who don’t exist on Mars to have no benefit, but do think it good that non-existent martians are not suffering because of such.

  • Wellbeing Argument: Existence is majority or entirely suffering vs benefit - Benatar comments on this, supplying scientific studies showing that people’s memory tends to prioritise positive memories over negative ones, even in the case where their life has been relative hell. It is plausible people’s desire to survive is an evolutionary mechanism which increases the chances of reproduction; a person might be perfectly capable of living an unhappy life, incapable of understanding it as such, if their genes incline them towards ignorance. (I personally disagree with the wellbeing argument holistically, as a metaphysical reality of suffering, but I agree that some people’s lives are hell, that they are blind to such a fact, and, despite their circumstances not altering, these peoples still bring new humans into their damaged situation.)

  • Probabilistic-Insecurity Argument: we cannot secure the beneficial, no-harm existence of a person we bring into existence, absolutely; hence we shouldn’t bring them into the world.

  • Non-consent Argument: given anti-natalists believe, as well as any other sane person, that existence has suffering within it, bringing people into existence without there consent is regarded as wrong. For an analogy: you run a bath; some of it is boiling, hot, tepid, luke warm, cold, or just right. Without their permission, you throw a person into the gigantic bath, without knowing if they will burn, freeze or relax; this we regard as wrong.

  • Damnation Argument: this is only reserved for Abrahamic religions but relies upon two points. Firstly, abrahamic religions accept the premise that our current existence is suffering, and only some form of divine act can save us. If they are wrong, about God’s existence, this still leaves existence to be suffering, hence we shouldn’t bring people into the world. They also believe that if man fails to have a relationship with God, atone for his sins, and submit to God, they may be damned into the endless pain of hell. Given a parent cannot ensure their child’s salvation, it seems irresponsible to possibly doom them to eternal suffering.

There are some other interrelated but non anti-natalist arguments:

  • Non-natalism argument: instead of it being an injustice to bring people into the world, there simply isn’t a justification for bring new people into existence.

  • Environmental arguments: more people will destroy the world quicker.

  • Adoption argument: it is better to adopt the millions of kids without parents.

  • Vegan Arguments: less people, less animal food produce.

———

As to why we shouldn’t build an utopia: well, I don’t totally disagree with you. I would personally hold that the hedonistic imperative is an obvious conclusion of anti-natalism, when one accepts that humanity will never be wholly anti-natalist. However, the initial imperative to not have kids still is primary.

Despite this, it does not follow we should accept suffering now for the benefit of future generations. An example of this is the classic: ‘maybe I should have kids because they could be the doctor which will cure cancer or a scientist which fixes climate change?’ - however, it does not follow we should subject another being to suffering to resolve our mistakes.

The important point is that anti-natalism and hedonistic imperitivism are not mutually exclusive positions, as long as the latter does not hold that bringing new people into existence is a predicate for the achievement of their vision. We have no right bringing people into existence to achieve our dreams and desire.

———

I also want to point out that reddit anti-natalists are usually not philosophical anti-natalists. They are often ill-informed 20y old whiners with poor life prospects and too must screen time. If you are engaging with reddit anti-natalists you are probably debating the equivalent of a high-school feminist with daddy problems or neo-conservative with mommy problems; not the serious feminists, conservatives or anti-natalist of philosophy and political studies.

1

DoctorDream614 t1_j8kpgo7 wrote

I don't believe it ppl shouldnt reproduce my point was were the only form of life that thinks on a higher lvl and wants to be noticed I'm throwing ideas out there we could all be hooked up computers talking to each other Wich were made by same said society and so on

2

Maximus_En_Minimus t1_j8m0u7n wrote

I can’t comprehend your comment, it’s inarticulate. Please re-phrase.

2

DoctorDream614 t1_j8myfv1 wrote

Sorry I was drunk last night what I meant was were the only animals / mammals species on Earth that create war over simple s*** as a political dispute or in the name of God when while you only see an animal nature do some type of s*** like that to defend themselves and then what I meant what I said at the end of my rant was that we could all be computers just communicating with each other like A. I. self learning ones Elon musk I think it was created they started thinking for themselves without no one's help or influence and created their own language what if we're in a game of inception it just keeps getting deeper and deeper the writer and creator of The Terminator and The matrix said The Terminator was a prequel to what's to come. weather you believe in the 1 percenters or not they usually publicly announce their intentions and plans of world changing events before they even take place pay attention to what they don't want you to pay attention to read what they tell you not to read learn how to think not what to think just because Google says it's true don't mean s*** Google is owned by corporations the corporations control the truth that you see same as any news station any real news that there is to be reported is overshadowed by all the stuff and b******* that separates us and divides us as a people and then we're showing how scared we should be of our surrounding world. They're training us now to turn on each other at point in time when it would be crucial for the powers that be in their agenda that if we didn't they don't want us to unite

2

Qawali t1_j90g1gr wrote

i dont think anti-natalism is rooted in the fact that life has suffering, i think its more subjective to a persons individual belief that leads to it.

arthur schopenhauer, one of the “OG” anti natalists believed that life is almost entirely just suffering. and that happiness is really just the extremely temporary removal of said suffering.

from a “philosophical anti-natalist” viewpoint, schopenhauer does not believe people should have kids because experiencing life itself is inherently a bad thing.

but from a young person seeing the world burning, society collapsing, another world war approaching, then yes, they would be an anti natalist because they want to prevent their children from experiencing that suffering, not because they believe experiencing consciousness/life is suffering.

the question is - do you think it’s selfish? to say life is not worth living, and then to drive society and all life into death and nothingness because you believe that experience is only bad, and that everyone who believes otherwise is biased, is that not selfish? thats something ive been asking myself. who am i to even answer the question of whether life is worth living?

2

Maximus_En_Minimus t1_j92zzfs wrote

  • Life is suffering and life has suffering are not mutually exclusive, however the latter is a predicate of the former. I think you are confusing anti-natalism with Pessimism, which is not a predicate of its believing. Only because many anti-natalists are also pessimist, and derive their natalist views from their pessimism, does not mean it is necessary to be one. Is also doesn’t exactly follow that if one is a pessimist, one thus has to be an anti-natalist. Nietzsche was originally a pessimist, due to Schopenhauer, and - in his later writings - still held heavily to a metaphysics of strife (in the periphery of suffering), yet I don’t believe he was anti-natalist.

  • I discuss a Metaphysics of Suffering, of which Schopenhauer held, at the end of the Well-being Argument, of which it is a substratum off. Itis important to note that Schopenhauer was not the ‘OG’ anti-natalist, as the position goes all the way back to early christianity, buddhism, and ascetic anti-demiurgicalists (often referred to non-academically as ‘Gnostics’).

  • I don’t agree with the phrasing of the question, it is skewed to disfavour anti-natalists. Anti-natalism is about whether or not you should bring someone into existence. Not whether it is worth living once you are within it. If I was to re-write it:

‘Is it selfish to believe one does not have the right and should not bring new people into existence, because it has suffering within it; further, to persuade others to also do the same and, if sufficiently successful, lead humanities extinction within a generation?’

Then: No.

You ask: ‘who am I to even decide if life is worth living?’ - well, there is no life beyond your own, whence you perish, so you are literally the one to decide if your life is worth living or not.

As for the non-existent, I would ask: who are you to bring them into the world? - especially if you don’t know if it is worthwhile?

1

Forward-Razzmatazz18 t1_j96ktf6 wrote

Lol if you want to live then you're not suffering like you said suffering is subjective. That's what I'd say.

1