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

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

>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?