Morality is integral to the argument for anti-natalism.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 10:14:10 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:11:29 AMYes.Wouldn't that imply a lack of objective morality?Who said morality was a part of any of this?
Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:11:29 AMYes.Wouldn't that imply a lack of objective morality?
Yes.
Obviously no one is. But you can't stop the universe from doing so.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 10:12:38 AMpotentialThat right there. Why should we put a precedence on those who can exist but don't?At least in my opinion, we should worry about the people who already exist before we worry about those who are yet to exist. What we already have is more important than what we can have.
potential
Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:15:34 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:11:29 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:08:08 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:06:26 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:02:32 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:01:54 AMQuote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2015, 10:00:45 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 09:56:17 AMBecause there's nothing inherently wrong with suffering, which seems to be the entire reason for wanting to eliminate it.For the fifth time, it's NOT.There's nothing inherently wrong with suffering--that doesn't mean it HAS to happen. That doesn't mean it HAS to exist. Invariably, it is BETTER if there is NO suffering.What's the point of nonexistence?Conversely, what's the point of existence?There isn't, until you give it purpose.And giving something purpose is what everything's about.The universe will continue to exist with life with it as much as we want or don't want it to. To appreciate it for its beauty and accomplishments is better than to sit around pouting about how you with everything was an empty void of nothingness.So the point of existence is subjective?Yes.That would also include the possibility that any number of persons don't find a purpose in existence, right?Just because they failed to find their purpose, that doesn't mean they didn't have the potential to find one for themselves.
Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:11:29 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:08:08 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:06:26 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:02:32 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:01:54 AMQuote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2015, 10:00:45 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 09:56:17 AMBecause there's nothing inherently wrong with suffering, which seems to be the entire reason for wanting to eliminate it.For the fifth time, it's NOT.There's nothing inherently wrong with suffering--that doesn't mean it HAS to happen. That doesn't mean it HAS to exist. Invariably, it is BETTER if there is NO suffering.What's the point of nonexistence?Conversely, what's the point of existence?There isn't, until you give it purpose.And giving something purpose is what everything's about.The universe will continue to exist with life with it as much as we want or don't want it to. To appreciate it for its beauty and accomplishments is better than to sit around pouting about how you with everything was an empty void of nothingness.So the point of existence is subjective?Yes.That would also include the possibility that any number of persons don't find a purpose in existence, right?
Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:08:08 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:06:26 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:02:32 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:01:54 AMQuote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2015, 10:00:45 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 09:56:17 AMBecause there's nothing inherently wrong with suffering, which seems to be the entire reason for wanting to eliminate it.For the fifth time, it's NOT.There's nothing inherently wrong with suffering--that doesn't mean it HAS to happen. That doesn't mean it HAS to exist. Invariably, it is BETTER if there is NO suffering.What's the point of nonexistence?Conversely, what's the point of existence?There isn't, until you give it purpose.And giving something purpose is what everything's about.The universe will continue to exist with life with it as much as we want or don't want it to. To appreciate it for its beauty and accomplishments is better than to sit around pouting about how you with everything was an empty void of nothingness.So the point of existence is subjective?Yes.
Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:06:26 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:02:32 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:01:54 AMQuote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2015, 10:00:45 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 09:56:17 AMBecause there's nothing inherently wrong with suffering, which seems to be the entire reason for wanting to eliminate it.For the fifth time, it's NOT.There's nothing inherently wrong with suffering--that doesn't mean it HAS to happen. That doesn't mean it HAS to exist. Invariably, it is BETTER if there is NO suffering.What's the point of nonexistence?Conversely, what's the point of existence?There isn't, until you give it purpose.And giving something purpose is what everything's about.The universe will continue to exist with life with it as much as we want or don't want it to. To appreciate it for its beauty and accomplishments is better than to sit around pouting about how you with everything was an empty void of nothingness.So the point of existence is subjective?
Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:02:32 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:01:54 AMQuote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2015, 10:00:45 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 09:56:17 AMBecause there's nothing inherently wrong with suffering, which seems to be the entire reason for wanting to eliminate it.For the fifth time, it's NOT.There's nothing inherently wrong with suffering--that doesn't mean it HAS to happen. That doesn't mean it HAS to exist. Invariably, it is BETTER if there is NO suffering.What's the point of nonexistence?Conversely, what's the point of existence?There isn't, until you give it purpose.And giving something purpose is what everything's about.The universe will continue to exist with life with it as much as we want or don't want it to. To appreciate it for its beauty and accomplishments is better than to sit around pouting about how you with everything was an empty void of nothingness.
Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:01:54 AMQuote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2015, 10:00:45 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 09:56:17 AMBecause there's nothing inherently wrong with suffering, which seems to be the entire reason for wanting to eliminate it.For the fifth time, it's NOT.There's nothing inherently wrong with suffering--that doesn't mean it HAS to happen. That doesn't mean it HAS to exist. Invariably, it is BETTER if there is NO suffering.What's the point of nonexistence?Conversely, what's the point of existence?
Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2015, 10:00:45 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 09:56:17 AMBecause there's nothing inherently wrong with suffering, which seems to be the entire reason for wanting to eliminate it.For the fifth time, it's NOT.There's nothing inherently wrong with suffering--that doesn't mean it HAS to happen. That doesn't mean it HAS to exist. Invariably, it is BETTER if there is NO suffering.What's the point of nonexistence?
Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 09:56:17 AMBecause there's nothing inherently wrong with suffering, which seems to be the entire reason for wanting to eliminate it.For the fifth time, it's NOT.There's nothing inherently wrong with suffering--that doesn't mean it HAS to happen. That doesn't mean it HAS to exist. Invariably, it is BETTER if there is NO suffering.
Because there's nothing inherently wrong with suffering, which seems to be the entire reason for wanting to eliminate it.
Quote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:19:13 AMQuote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 10:12:38 AMpotentialThat right there. Why should we put a precedence on those who can exist but don't?At least in my opinion, we should worry about the people who already exist before we worry about those who are yet to exist. What we already have is more important than what we can have.Nothing you just said contradicts any part of our arguments.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 10:22:38 AMQuote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:19:13 AMQuote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 10:12:38 AMpotentialThat right there. Why should we put a precedence on those who can exist but don't?At least in my opinion, we should worry about the people who already exist before we worry about those who are yet to exist. What we already have is more important than what we can have.Nothing you just said contradicts any part of our arguments.If it doesn't, then what point are you trying to make?
Good luck with that. Tell me how far you manage to get with it.
Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:23:14 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:18:46 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:15:34 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:11:29 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:08:08 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:06:26 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:02:32 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:01:54 AMQuote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2015, 10:00:45 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 09:56:17 AMBecause there's nothing inherently wrong with suffering, which seems to be the entire reason for wanting to eliminate it.For the fifth time, it's NOT.There's nothing inherently wrong with suffering--that doesn't mean it HAS to happen. That doesn't mean it HAS to exist. Invariably, it is BETTER if there is NO suffering.What's the point of nonexistence?Conversely, what's the point of existence?There isn't, until you give it purpose.And giving something purpose is what everything's about.The universe will continue to exist with life with it as much as we want or don't want it to. To appreciate it for its beauty and accomplishments is better than to sit around pouting about how you with everything was an empty void of nothingness.So the point of existence is subjective?Yes.That would also include the possibility that any number of persons don't find a purpose in existence, right?Just because they failed to find their purpose, that doesn't mean they didn't have the potential to find one for themselves.One point for anti-natalism is that if life wasn't imposed upon that individual, he or she wouldn't have had to suffer through that lack of purpose. It's cutting off suffering before it can happen.I'm playing devil's advocate here by the way. I do agree with Verb that there is no purpose, but I prefer the chaos of life and development to a lack of it. That doesn't mean that existence or chaos is an objective right or good, just that it's there.If you prefer life's chaos, then why wish for an end to all existence? There is no middle ground.
Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:18:46 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:15:34 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:11:29 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:08:08 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:06:26 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:02:32 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:01:54 AMQuote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2015, 10:00:45 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 09:56:17 AMBecause there's nothing inherently wrong with suffering, which seems to be the entire reason for wanting to eliminate it.For the fifth time, it's NOT.There's nothing inherently wrong with suffering--that doesn't mean it HAS to happen. That doesn't mean it HAS to exist. Invariably, it is BETTER if there is NO suffering.What's the point of nonexistence?Conversely, what's the point of existence?There isn't, until you give it purpose.And giving something purpose is what everything's about.The universe will continue to exist with life with it as much as we want or don't want it to. To appreciate it for its beauty and accomplishments is better than to sit around pouting about how you with everything was an empty void of nothingness.So the point of existence is subjective?Yes.That would also include the possibility that any number of persons don't find a purpose in existence, right?Just because they failed to find their purpose, that doesn't mean they didn't have the potential to find one for themselves.One point for anti-natalism is that if life wasn't imposed upon that individual, he or she wouldn't have had to suffer through that lack of purpose. It's cutting off suffering before it can happen.I'm playing devil's advocate here by the way. I do agree with Verb that there is no purpose, but I prefer the chaos of life and development to a lack of it. That doesn't mean that existence or chaos is an objective right or good, just that it's there.
Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2015, 10:26:38 AMThey WANT the human race to continue for... some stupid, petty, worthless reason. Based on their ego.That's not ego.
They WANT the human race to continue for... some stupid, petty, worthless reason. Based on their ego.
That's not ego.
It'd be id, actually.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 10:25:00 AMAlso, TIL: Nuka is a social darwinist.Cool, another reason for my parents to hate me even more.
Also, TIL: Nuka is a social darwinist.
1) Creating life creates suffering2) Limit suffering from those who exist
The fact that the disutility is potential doesn't negate the negative moral value of procreation, since the imposition of life is the very thing which actualises the potential.
Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:28:00 AMThat's not ego.It's EXACTLY ego."I want to be a father. I want to extend my bloodline."Ego.Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:28:30 AMIt'd be id, actually.No, uh, yeah, it's ego. I know what I'm talking about. Been at this for two years.
Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:25:25 AM1) Creating life creates suffering2) Limit suffering from those who existSo... parenthood sucks and don't be a parent?
But why potentials? Why are we dilly-dallying around in hypotheticals?
Quote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:29:50 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:25:25 AM1) Creating life creates suffering2) Limit suffering from those who existSo... parenthood sucks and don't be a parent?Yes and no. Being a parent does involve suffering, but there are ways to be a parent without creating new life, e.g. adoption.
But wishing for no existence at all is obviously stupid and futile. Might as well just off yourself if that's what you want, rather than being an insufferable edgelord.
The id is your natural impulses, no? Procreation is one of those.
...what?
But it's pretty stupid if you think that's the only reason people have kids.
Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:29:45 AMBut wishing for no existence at all is obviously stupid and futile. Might as well just off yourself if that's what you want, rather than being an insufferable edgelord.Yeah, wow, that would accomplish a lot.Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:30:25 AMThe id is your natural impulses, no? Procreation is one of those.If we're going off of Freud's model (I wasn't, initially), the ego is what seeks to sate the id.
Just about as much as nonexistence, wouldn't you say?
Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:31:29 AMQuote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:29:50 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:25:25 AM1) Creating life creates suffering2) Limit suffering from those who existSo... parenthood sucks and don't be a parent?Yes and no. Being a parent does involve suffering, but there are ways to be a parent without creating new life, e.g. adoption. The second point covers that: adopting a child will promote limiting their suffering (if you're able to, that is.)Which is always a plus, yes. Adoption is a fantastic thing, be it for children or pets.Better to give those without homes a home, after all.
Quote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:29:50 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:25:25 AM1) Creating life creates suffering2) Limit suffering from those who existSo... parenthood sucks and don't be a parent?Yes and no. Being a parent does involve suffering, but there are ways to be a parent without creating new life, e.g. adoption. The second point covers that: adopting a child will promote limiting their suffering (if you're able to, that is.)
Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2015, 10:32:50 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:29:45 AMBut wishing for no existence at all is obviously stupid and futile. Might as well just off yourself if that's what you want, rather than being an insufferable edgelord.Yeah, wow, that would accomplish a lot.Just about as much as nonexistence, wouldn't you say?
Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:29:45 AMBut wishing for no existence at all is obviously stupid and futile. Might as well just off yourself if that's what you want, rather than being an insufferable edgelord.Yeah, wow, that would accomplish a lot.
Quote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:29:50 AMBut why potentials? Why are we dilly-dallying around in hypotheticals?Sorry, what? Since when was it possible to talk about actualities without potentials, since the latter necessarily precedes the former.