I actually agree with this; I don't think anti-natalism is a 'practical' philosophy. But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing its philosophical strength.
No, since anti-natalism is seeking for the total elimination--as far as is logically possible--of potential persons. It's giving precedence to avoiding the initial imposition of disutility on a person, not saying potential persons have more value thab actual persons. It's precisely because actual persons have MORE value that we should reduce the number of potential persons.
How would someone even practice antinatalism?
Quote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 03:41:31 PMHow would someone even practice antinatalism?By not having children and convincing others of the immorality of having children. The problem, according to antinatalism, is that the imposition of life--or the actualisation of potential persons--necessarily imposes disutility on a person, which is unwarranted.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 03:46:26 PMQuote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 03:41:31 PMHow would someone even practice antinatalism?By not having children and convincing others of the immorality of having children. The problem, according to antinatalism, is that the imposition of life--or the actualisation of potential persons--necessarily imposes disutility on a person, which is unwarranted.I have no plans of ever having children for as long as I live. Does that automatically make me an antinatalist?Spoilerserious
No, I don't either, but I'm not an anti-natalist (see my rebuttal to Verbatim on page .
Even accepting the premise that suffering is bad [nope]
Quote from: gogojirajira on February 03, 2015, 04:41:32 PMEven accepting the premise that suffering is bad [nope]*angry face*Disutility (conceived as suffering - minus potential benefit) is what's being discussed. Although, see my rebuttal on page 8 for why I'm not an antinatalist >.> It might explain the difference between disutility and suffering a bit more.
All disutility, to the anti-natalists, is equal in magnitude and moral "transgression".
This, seems to me, to be false. It is worth quantifying disutility into at least two categories: significant disutility, and standard disutility.
My argument relies on the fundamental premise that the abolition of significant disutility is possible, via technology.
In such an instance whereby significant disutility is not a potentiality, yet both kinds of utility are potentialities, it actually becomes more moral to strive for the continuation of the species with the expressed goal of eliminated significant disutility.
For survival, for community, and for happiness.
Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2015, 12:12:07 PMI'm gonna step out for awhile. I've been sitting here for five hours.Good grief.Get a life.
I'm gonna step out for awhile. I've been sitting here for five hours.
A better question is why you're so afraid of suffering.
I think the best explanation as to why people haven't taken up the stance is simply a lack of care, or rather understanding of the suffering everyone is collectively going through.
I have no plans of ever having children for as long as I live. Does that automatically make me an antinatalist?Spoilerserious
Reasoning from the personal sense like some deranged ape wouldn't change that.
Quote from: Naoto on February 03, 2015, 12:44:33 PMA better question is why you're so afraid of suffering.I'm not afraid of it so much as I recognize its lack of rational function in any decently constructed universe. A reality where suffering exists is a shitty reality, period. I reject it entirely, and I find it disgusting that people will make glib statements like this. If you're going to say something like, "suffering isn't bad," then I hope you get the worst suffering ever. You're not even fucking thirty, and you're gonna tell me that suffering is okay? Just wait. I hope you get the very worst of it, and then come back and tell me that life is still worth it. I'll get a nice laugh out of it.Quote from: Jocephalopod on February 03, 2015, 01:59:57 PMI think the best explanation as to why people haven't taken up the stance is simply a lack of care, or rather understanding of the suffering everyone is collectively going through.*COUGH* naoto *COUGH*They're glib cunts. You hit the nail on the head. They act like they understand, but they DON'T understand. The only way they'll understand is if they keep playing the game some more. They can sit through World War III and they'll still glibly say, "Yup, life is still worth it, because these fucking Doritos taste too delicious" or whatever the flying fuck it is you think makes life worth living. It's all ego crap, by the way. Everything you think makes your life worth it is all ego desire. And if it makes you happy, go for it. I'm just saying, Lamborghinis, sex, and winning the World Series--what do all of these things have in common?They all have no intrinsic value.
There's only so much emo edge cringe I can take in a day.
Quote from: Naoto on February 03, 2015, 09:28:59 PMThere's only so much emo edge cringe I can take in a day. Ad hominem.
You dismiss my philosophy as "emo edge cringe"--meaningless Internet buzzwords.Shows your young age. Maybe you'll grow up some day, kid.
Not my fault you can't read into WHY I said that to you.
They're glib cunts. You hit the nail on the head. They act like they understand, but they DON'T understand. The only way they'll understand is if they keep playing the game some more. They can sit through World War III and they'll still glibly say, "Yup, life is still worth it, because these fucking Doritos taste too delicious" or whatever the flying fuck it is you think makes life worth living. It's all ego crap, by the way. Everything you think makes your life worth it is all ego desire. And if it makes you happy, go for it. I'm just saying, Lamborghinis, sex, and winning the World Series--what do all of these things have in common?
I don't even know what that means, but whatever, I guess.
It obviously is pragmatic
<rest of post>
Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 11:29:13 AMAll disutility, to the anti-natalists, is equal in magnitude and moral "transgression".Well, not really. Obviously, two broken legs is worse than one broken leg, and so forth. The idea, as you've been forced to repeat ad nauseam to the ignorant, is that all disutility in accumulation tends to outweigh decisively all that could be considered utility in the world. Because all life is is a zero-sum game. There is no goal one could possibly contrive that would make life ultimately worth continuing, in my eyes, by any wild stretch of the imagination. Not immortality, not utopia--nothing.You can't do a dance so cool that it justifies the holocaust, metaphorically speaking. So no, there's still some nuance, which is really the whole idea. The bad apples are more poisonous than the good apples are pure.Also, you used the plural there--how many other anti-natalists other than myself have you spoken to? Or read the works of?QuoteThis, seems to me, to be false. It is worth quantifying disutility into at least two categories: significant disutility, and standard disutility.I would have a lot more than that, but you know, I see where you're going, and I certainly don't contest it. To be honest, I don't know where you got the idea that all disutility is equal in magnitude from, but it couldn't have been from me.QuoteMy argument relies on the fundamental premise that the abolition of significant disutility is possible, via technology.This assumes that, after we've finally augmented our lives to such an extent that we'll never suffer to any excruciating or gratuitous degree, that life is still something that ought to be experienced by everyone. Not to mention, it's extremely vague--you'd have to outline how to prevent literally every type of significant disutility in order to show that it all can be prevented, because right now, the very notion seems kind of... if not bogus, then totally unfeasible. I just have to ask--what, precisely, will make it worth it in the end? It's not enough to prevent bad shit, you realize. It's good--but now your task lies with justifying the imposition.Why should we continue to keep pulling the unborn from the perfect, sublime, comfy realm that is nonexistence? Because it doesn't suck here anymore? Okay... what makes it good, though?QuoteIn such an instance whereby significant disutility is not a potentiality, yet both kinds of utility are potentialities, it actually becomes more moral to strive for the continuation of the species with the expressed goal of eliminated significant disutility.I disagree, for pretty much the reasons stated above. After you get significant disutility out of the picture (however it is we manage that), that's not going to remove all the conflict and the bullshit in the world. Do you think I wanna live on a planet where a bunch of numbnut fuckwits disregard my ideas, for instance, based on some physical quality that I have? Or is that sort of thing considered significant disutility, and that wouldn't even happen? See, the fact that I can ask questions like that, muddying up your scale, shows that your scale for utility lacks function. I like the idea of quantifying levels of comfort/discomfort, but you need more than two parameters.So, we have this fundamental disagreement where you believe all significant disutility is preventable if we just continue to improve technology (which we will, of course), but I remain skeptical--for, even if it ended up being the case, there's nothing about life, even without its follies, that should compel anyone to want to live it, and the question of "was it worth it" still needs to be answered. You gotta be talking about some crazily advanced technology--practically science fiction.
Dude, the premier antinatalist thought experiment bases itself on a hypothetical even more unbelievable than half of the super idealistic transhumanist literature out there. I think we can all agree that antinatalism is not going to be stopping the introduction of all agents everywhere any time soon [as in literally astronomic timescales off].
Hell, should the universe be infinite [like studies suggest] the entire movement becomes a leap of faith where you "hope" that the other agents to come into existence either don't, or that they all become antinatalists as well. "Hard" antinatalism is just not a pragmatic philosophy. Sure, you can definitely argue that it's a sound one [your back and forth with Meta's been interesting on that note] but...
Indeed, you defend your existence by your agency, claiming that you'd commit suicide were spreading the message not such an important cause. Do you believe that enacting antinatalism at this stage in our development, [i.e. removing all agents from Earth] will fulfill the antinatalist philosophy [i.e. removing all agents from existence]?
I've gotta go now, sorry for the half a$$ed reply, but Verbatim: you're giving off a hostile tone. Feel free to continue [your post, your call] but I just want to say that I have no intention of reinstating any antagonism between us.
Suffering has value. Of course nobody likes suffering, but we gain understanding from it.
Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2015, 12:12:07 PMYeah, because you've never sat in one place for an extended period of time in your entire life.Arguing on the Internet for 5 hours straight? lolno
Yeah, because you've never sat in one place for an extended period of time in your entire life.
How bad does life have to get
