SvetlanaButosky t1_jb76z89 wrote on March 6, 2023 at 11:14 PM

Reply to comment by Possibly_a_f1sh in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | March 06, 2023 by BernardJOrtcutt

Of course, if suffering far outweighs pleasures, most of us would prefer that life ends, this is objectively true as far as we can tell.

However, it doesnt address the axiomatic claim that if SOME have to suffer, then NONE should exist to risk this suffering in perpetuity, especially when nobody asked for it, we were all born without a chance to weigh the risk and reject or accept our births.

It may be a minority moral claim, but it is still a valid claim that requires proper counter.

How do you counter this argument? Majority rule?

Gamusino2021 t1_jb8a2qd wrote on March 7, 2023 at 4:19 AM

Its not like we have only 2 choices. All of us live or all life goes extinct. If there is someone who was unlucky and preffers to cease to exist it is his choice, but why force the rest into extinction?

SvetlanaButosky t1_jbab9dz wrote on March 7, 2023 at 4:41 PM

According to their arguments, it is because the victims never asked for it, they were forced into such horrible fates because we continue to exist, meaning we are deliberately perpetuating their suffering knowing that a percentage of them will always suffer.

Therefore we have a moral obligation to stop this once and for all, if we cant create a suffering free Utopia (which is near impossible), then it would be easier and more practical to just blow up earth or something similar.

They have basically compared the options and found total annihilation of life to be much more achievable so that's why they went for it.

To be fair, a suffering free Utopia is not totally impossible, its just very hard to achieve and will probably take thousands of years if not longer, it would be much easier and create much less victims if we just blow up earth. lol

Gamusino2021 t1_jbaer0k wrote on March 7, 2023 at 5:04 PM

"meaning we are deliberately perpetuating their suffering knowing that a percentage of them will always suffer."

Again, there is two independent things here. The existance of the "happy ones" and the existance of those that are so un happy that would want to cease to exist. The first doesnt affect the second. Those who dont want to exist can cease to exist if they want to.

Now they can say that if the happy ones continue existing and reproducing then there will be some new "Unhappy ones" that will have to pass through suffering until they decide to suicide. But that amount of suffering is supersmall compared with all the happiness. And also, if we dont bring a person into existance then this person cant even decide if exist or not. By making new people we are giving them the choice to exist or not for a very small risk of suffering briefly.

Its like for them 1 "unit" of suffering is more important than 1000 "units" of happiness and the choice to exist or not.

lyremska t1_jbdke2q wrote on March 8, 2023 at 7:16 AM

> The existance of the "happy ones" and the existance of those that are so un happy that would want to cease to exist. The first doesnt affect the second.

It does, if the existence of the happy ones relies on the suffering of the others - like it does in our world.

> Those who dont want to exist can cease to exist if they want to.

Which in turn will make other people suffer (family, closed ones etc).

Gamusino2021 t1_jbf0glp wrote on March 8, 2023 at 4:06 PM

Number 1 is totally true. But that doesnt mean we should make humans extinct, that means we should fight for justice.

Number second is not a valid argument, because yeah, that would make other people suffer, but making humans extinct would make them lot more suffer, so its not a valid argument to make humans extinct

slickwombat t1_jba892z wrote on March 7, 2023 at 4:21 PM

>However, it doesnt address the axiomatic claim that if SOME have to suffer, then NONE should exist to risk this suffering in perpetuity, especially when nobody asked for it, we were all born without a chance to weigh the risk and reject or accept our births. It may be a minority moral claim, but it is still a valid claim that requires proper counter.

What is an "axiomatic claim" and what makes this one "valid"?

SvetlanaButosky t1_jbaegb0 wrote on March 7, 2023 at 5:02 PM

google it? lol

Axiom is a very basic claim of most philosophies, its valid when you have no objective ways of proving it "wrong".

slickwombat t1_jbagjng wrote on March 7, 2023 at 5:15 PM

Well no, axioms are not typically a thing in philosophy. In philosophy we are concerned with trying to figure out what's true, not just declaring random things are "axioms" and thus true unless proved false. The latter approach would make just about anything an equally "valid" candidate for truth, and suggest, contrary to basic principles of reason, that we should believe things without having sufficient reasons to believe them.

With that in mind, the question has to be: why should we take your antinatalist principle to be true? Or perhaps, what makes it more plausibly true than the other things people typically believe that it conflicts with, e.g., that life has inherent value, that procreation is an inherent right, or that happiness as well as suffering is morally significant?