I have a question for Verb regarding anti-natalism

More Than Mortal · June 22, 2015, 12:26:57 PM

Let's say, in some rural part of a developed country, a woman gives birth to a child in some isolated log cabin. The only person there with her is her only friend-cum-midwife. Nobody else has any knowledge of the birth, and the moment her friend steps out of the log cabin to go home she is hit by a tanker and killed immediately.

So the mother is the only human being on the planet with the knowledge of the baby's existence. She settles down, and reads some Arthur Schopenhauer, David Benatar and Peter Zapffe. Accordingly, she becomes convinced that life has an aggregate, objective disutility and thus procreation is immoral.

So she smothers the newborn as it sleeps. Is this morally permissible/justified.

Elai · June 22, 2015, 12:32:36 PM

These are the kinds of questions that keep me up at night.

aREALgod · June 22, 2015, 01:59:25 PM

I can answer that for him because he's not qualified to:

Fuck NO, given that anti-natalism is morally reprehensible in the first place.

Girl of Mystery · June 22, 2015, 02:08:38 PM

Verbatim will reply to this post within 24 hours if he agrees that anti-natalism is dumb

Elai · June 22, 2015, 02:27:37 PM

Quote from: aTALLmidget on June 22, 2015, 01:59:25 PM

I can answer that for him because he's not qualified to:

Fuck NO, given that anti-natalism is morally reprehensible in the first place.

Considering the question was specifically directed at Verbatim, he's the only one really qualified to answer. Although, I'm not quite sure why Meta doesn't just PM Verb if the question is for him...

eggsalad · June 22, 2015, 02:27:55 PM

Why wouldn't it be? (Actually curious)

Elai · June 22, 2015, 02:30:41 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on June 22, 2015, 02:27:55 PM

Why wouldn't it be? (Actually curious)

Because you would be imposing death on another human being.

More Than Mortal · June 22, 2015, 02:31:16 PM

Quote from: Snake on June 22, 2015, 02:27:37 PM

Although, I'm not quite sure why Meta doesn't just PM Verb if the question is for him...

forum
ˈfɔːrəm/Submit
noun
1.
a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

Spoiler

Also, I like to air my dirty laundry.

Elai · June 22, 2015, 02:33:14 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on June 22, 2015, 02:31:16 PM

Quote from: Snake on June 22, 2015, 02:27:37 PM
Although, I'm not quite sure why Meta doesn't just PM Verb if the question is for him...

forum
ˈfɔːrəm/Submit
noun
1.
a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

Spoiler
Also, I like to air my dirty laundry.

I know what "forum" means, but if you want Verbatim's response primarily, why not just PM him?

More Than Mortal · June 22, 2015, 02:37:47 PM

Quote from: Snake on June 22, 2015, 02:33:14 PM

I know what "forum" means, but if you want Verbatim's response primarily, why not just PM him?

Because his response will be much more interesting if it can take place in the context of an open discussion.

eggsalad · June 22, 2015, 02:38:17 PM

Quote from: Snake on June 22, 2015, 02:30:41 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on June 22, 2015, 02:27:55 PM
Why wouldn't it be? (Actually curious)

Because you would be imposing death on another human being.

Is that worse than the alternatives? Is non-existence worse than a lifetime of suffering?

Should we play someone else's hand in a gamble of whether or not they find life worth the suffering it will most definitely include?

Elai · June 22, 2015, 02:54:16 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on June 22, 2015, 02:38:17 PM

Quote from: Snake on June 22, 2015, 02:30:41 PM
Quote from: eggsalad on June 22, 2015, 02:27:55 PM
Why wouldn't it be? (Actually curious)

Because you would be imposing death on another human being.
Is that worse than the alternatives? Is non-existence worse than a lifetime of suffering?

It's not the "non-existence" part that makes the question difficult to answer. You won't find a single anti-natalist that believes non-existence to be worst than the alternative. The entire philosophy is based around the idea that NOT suffering (IE., non-existence) is superior to suffering (IE., existence.)

The difficult part of the question is that you are imposing death on someone who might not necessarily want it - thus creating suffering. Yes, yes, I know. It's a child. But there's a reason AN's don't just run around killing people. Imposing death on someone who doesn't want it is almost as bad imposing life on someone.

Quote

Should we play someone else's hand in a gamble of whether or not they find life worth the suffering it will most definitely include?

Again, it's a difficult question to answer. I'm not even sure what I would do.

Verbatim · June 22, 2015, 03:00:47 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on June 22, 2015, 12:26:57 PM

Let's say, in some rural part of a developed country, a woman gives birth to a child in some isolated log cabin. The only person there with her is her only friend-cum-midwife. Nobody else has any knowledge of the birth, and the moment her friend steps out of the log cabin to go home she is hit by a tanker and killed immediately.

So the mother is the only human being on the planet with the knowledge of the baby's existence. She settles down, and reads some Arthur Schopenhauer, David Benatar and Peter Zapffe. Accordingly, she becomes convinced that life has an aggregate, objective disutility and thus procreation is immoral.

So she smothers the newborn as it sleeps. Is this morally permissible/justified.

Yes.

I'm not saying it would be pleasant, and I'm not saying it would be a happy event. Abortions are rarely anything less than an emotional ordeal for not just the mother, but the father as well. But in terms of her options, smothering the newborn is the least worst option, and I think is completely justified.

If I may delve into the mother's psychology, part of the reason why she made the decision might have been because she realizes her means. She likely either lacked the resources and the know-how to even give the child a semblance of a healthy life, or realized that, even if she managed to bring him or her up as best as she could, there is still no guarantee that his or her life will be a "good" one. So instead of imposing her ineptitude on the child, she spared it a life of misery and penury.

Of course, she did a number of things right, which must be commented on:
- She smothered it immediately after its birth.

There's really no better time to do that. Once it starts getting into the "week old" range, "month old" range, "year old" range, it really begins to start sounding ethically questionable. I don't know where to draw the line, exactly, but really, I don't see anything wrong with smothering babies so early after their birth. It's a late-term abortion.

- She smothered it while it was asleep.

Just a smart move in general.

So yes, while that's definitely gruesome, it would be what I'd called "the right thing to do".

Unless she somehow had the means to give the child a perfect life, but clearly, she didn't, if she read all of those philosopers' works.

Verbatim · June 22, 2015, 03:02:13 PM

Quote from: Snake on June 22, 2015, 02:30:41 PM

Because you would be imposing death on another human being.

Well, Benatar's book is entitled Better Never to Have Been for a reason.

This isn't a scenario where you pick the best option--you pick the least worst option.
I'd say imposing death for the purposes of curtailing a potentially miserable life is completely justified.

Elai · June 22, 2015, 03:06:57 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 22, 2015, 03:02:13 PM

Quote from: Snake on June 22, 2015, 02:30:41 PM
Because you would be imposing death on another human being.
Well, Benatar's book is entitled Better Never to Have Been for a reason.

This isn't a scenario where you pick the best option--you pick the least worst option.
I'd say imposing death for the purposes of curtailing a potentially miserable life is completely justified.

True, but where do we draw the line? I mean, I'd obviously like to believe that if I had the option to just press a button and all life would end, I would press it. But I couldn't imagine what I would actually do in that scenario.

It's an entirely different thing to just NOT have kids. But killing the ones you have... might prove too much for me, personally. That's why I consider it a difficult question.

Verbatim · June 22, 2015, 03:18:25 PM

Quote from: Snake on June 22, 2015, 03:06:57 PM

True, but where do we draw the line? I mean, I'd obviously like to believe that if I had the option to just press a button and all life would end, I would press it. But I couldn't imagine what I would actually do in that scenario.

It's an entirely different thing to just NOT have kids. But killing the ones you have... might prove too much for me, personally. That's why I consider it a difficult question.

I don't know where I'd draw the line, necessarily. Obviously, I'm not about to advocate for the murder of kids that are already one or two or three years old. If you're gonna do it at all, you should only do it immediately after it's born, in my opinion. In this scenario, the mother was lucky enough to be in a secluded area, too. No doubt the murder of a newborn child would go over well with the general public.

And how do you feel about abortions, if this scenario gives you pause?

I'm not a fan of abortions, either. They're messy and gruesome and horrible, and they often leave the mother in an intense state of shock and depression afterwards. Bad stuff. But it's one of those "you gotta do what you gotta do" situations. If you make the decision to have the abortion, you are tacitly admitting that you are unprepared to bring up a child--so you should commit to that decision.

If you come to that realization when the kid is already walking and talking, well, you waited too long. It's too late now. Try for adoption, perhaps.

I'd rather children never be even conceived in the first place. I take no joy out of the notion of killing newborns, and I feel like I have to stress that point.

Elai · June 22, 2015, 03:29:53 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 22, 2015, 03:18:25 PM

And how do you feel about abortions, if this scenario gives you pause?

I'm an advocate for them, but again, it's not something I'd like to decide for myself. I'd rather never be in that position, because I'm not sure what I'd do, in-practice.

Another scenario I have trouble with: what if the woman I loved wanted children? That was the only thing in the world she wanted, and she didn't want to adopt? What would I do? I'd want to give the world to my wife, but from a morality standpoint, I know it's wrong. I'd obviously try to explain my standpoint to her, but at the end of the day, I'm still denying the ONE THING she's wanted her entire life to the one person I love.

Quote

I'm not a fan of abortions, either. They're messy and gruesome and horrible, and they often leave the mother in an intense state of shock and depression afterwards. Bad stuff. But it's one of those "you gotta do what you gotta do" situations. If you make the decision to have the abortion, you are tacitly admitting that you are unprepared to bring up a child--so you should commit to that decision.

Like I said, they suck. But you put it best, you gotta do what you gotta do. Better to deny the child the chance to suffer than to selfishly have the child, only to spare yourself of that depression.

Quote

If you come to that realization when the kid is already walking and talking, well, you waited too long. It's too late now. Try for adoption, perhaps.

Wait - I'm confused. Are you saying that if you have children, and then realise too late that having children is wrong, you should put them up for adoption?

Quote

I'd rather children never be even conceived in the first place. I take no joy out of the notion of killing newborns, and I feel like I have to stress that point.

Same. When I try to explain anti-natalism to my friends, they all think I'm so sociopathic murderer, whereas in reality, I'm the exact opposite.

Verbatim · June 22, 2015, 03:30:46 PM

And don't feel pressured to agree with me, Snake, just because you're also an anti-natalist. I understand that the scenario is difficult, and typing up my initial response was a little bit painful for even me. It's just my interpretation, and I don't want to speak for all anti-natalists. So if you disagree, that's fine, I don't really expect anybody to agree with me. I just hope you can see where I'm coming from, at the very least.

That's really been my mission over the past few months--not necessarily to convince anyone of the philosophy, but to get people to see where I'm coming from.

Elai · June 22, 2015, 03:38:15 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 22, 2015, 03:30:46 PM

And don't feel pressured to agree with me, Snake, just because you're also an anti-natalist. I understand that the scenario is difficult, and typing up my initial response was a little bit painful for even me. It's just my interpretation, and I don't want to speak for all anti-natalists. So if you disagree, that's fine, I don't really expect anybody to agree with me. I just hope you can see where I'm coming from, at the very least.

I don't feel pressured to agree with you. And it's not that I disagree with you, it's just that I don't want to commit to saying "I would do this", simply because I'm just not sure what I WOULD do in the given scenario.

And honestly, I'm searching for an opinion of yours that we don't agree on. It's simply uncanny how many viewpoints we share.

Quote

That's really been my mission over the past few months--not necessarily to convince anyone of the philosophy, but to get people to see where I'm coming from.

Well, for what it's worth, you're doing a better job than I am. I'm always having this conversation with my religious friends that simply cannot grasp the concept of AN. You'd think being religious would make someone more of an advocate for anti-natalism, considering that "God has no grandchildren".

Verbatim · June 22, 2015, 03:40:03 PM

Quote from: Snake on June 22, 2015, 03:29:53 PM

Another scenario I have trouble with: what if the woman I loved wanted children? That was the only thing in the world she wanted, and she didn't want to adopt? What would I do? I'd want to give the world to my wife, but from a morality standpoint, I know it's wrong. I'd obviously try to explain my standpoint to her, but at the end of the day, I'm still denying the ONE THING she's wanted her entire life to the one person I love.

If it were me, I'd have to leave her. Simple as that. I know it may not be as simple for you, and believe me, I've thought about scenarios like this before, and they scared the hell out of me. But I've had this philosophy for nearly three years, and it's basically my heart and soul, so... It doesn't really take much thought for me.

Part of being an anti-natalist, of course, is taking initiative. Before you get into a relationship with anybody, make sure to find out first if they have any desire of becoming a biological parent.

Quote

Wait - I'm confused. Are you saying that if you have children, and then realise too late that having children is wrong, you should put them up for adoption?

You should take whatever course of action you feel will be best. Adoption is just one thing you could do, if your child's life is guaranteed to suck if you continue to be its parent.

Quote

Same. When I try to explain anti-natalism to my friends, they all think I'm so sociopathic murderer, whereas in reality, I'm the exact opposite.

Yeah, I've been there. I still am there, in some folks' opinions. They're morons, though. Pay them no mind.

aREALgod · June 22, 2015, 03:49:09 PM

Verbatim officially condones cold blooded murder. Wow. If there was any reason to disregard his opinions (more so than others), this would be it.

Verbatim · June 22, 2015, 03:49:23 PM

Quote from: Snake on June 22, 2015, 03:38:15 PM

I don't feel pressured to agree with you.

It's just a social anxiety I have--it honestly kinda makes me nervous when people agree with me, because people don't agree with me very often, you know what I'm saying?

It's great that you do, but like you said, it's a little uncanny.

Verbatim · June 22, 2015, 03:52:52 PM

Quote from: aTALLmidget on June 22, 2015, 03:49:09 PM

Verbatim officially condones cold blooded murder.

what a fair, nuanced, and sophisticated interpretation

Elai · June 22, 2015, 03:55:47 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 22, 2015, 03:40:03 PM

If it were me, I'd have to leave her. Simple as that. I know it may not be as simple for you, and believe me, I've thought about scenarios like this before, and they scared the hell out of me. But I've had this philosophy for nearly three years, and it's basically my heart and soul, so... It doesn't really take much thought for me.

Yeah, I think I've been calling myself an anti-natalist since Christmas of 2013, so about a year and a half. I'm not exactly a veteran, but I'm somewhat proficient at explaining myself now. Although, I've always been an antinatalist sympathiser since the days of B.net, back when you made a thread about how many children I wanted to have. I believe the words you used were "evil cuntbag", hahaha.

Quote

Part of being an anti-natalist, of course, is taking initiative. Before you get into a relationship with anybody, make sure to find out first if they have any desire of becoming a biological parent.

This. I made a thread before I left in Serious, about 3-5 things that are non-negotiable in a relationship, and one of my choices was that the person must be willing to not have biological children.
But here's the catch: the problem for me would be my previous dating experiences. I've only loved two women in my life, and both of those relationships ended dreadfully (like, life-changing depression). So I would think that if I ever found myself in a relationship with someone I truly loved, and there were no speedbumps along the way, psychologically it might be too difficult for me to say "no" because I NEED that relationship.
And if I didn't have the relationship, I might be prone to killing myself. God knows I've been wanting to for a long time, now. The only thing stopping me is the pain that my death would cause my loves ones. So would the potential suffering the child would endure be worth more than the suffering my loved ones would feel from my death?

Quote

You should take whatever course of action you feel will be best. Adoption is just one thing you could do, if your child's life is guaranteed to suck if you continue to be its parent.

Oh, okay. Yeah, if that's the case, I agree. But what would constitute a life that would "suck"? If you've been, in your opinion, a good father to a child, would it not follow that things would stay the same?

aREALgod · June 22, 2015, 03:55:58 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 22, 2015, 03:52:52 PM

Quote from: aTALLmidget on June 22, 2015, 03:49:09 PM
Verbatim officially condones cold blooded murder.
what a fair, nuanced, and sophisticated interpretation

Yes, because smothering an innocent baby in its sleep is so sophisticated. Dumbass.

Verbatim · June 22, 2015, 03:57:58 PM

Quote from: aTALLmidget on June 22, 2015, 03:55:58 PM

Yes, because smothering an innocent baby in its sleep is so sophisticated. Dumbass.

better than forcing it to live out the miserable, fruitless life that it would inevitably have

but what the hell is nuance when you can have black and white morality like that

aREALgod · June 22, 2015, 04:04:13 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 22, 2015, 03:57:58 PM

Quote from: aTALLmidget on June 22, 2015, 03:55:58 PM
Yes, because smothering an innocent baby in its sleep is so sophisticated. Dumbass.
better than forcing it to live out the miserable, fruitless life that it would inevitably have

but what the hell is nuance when you can have black and white morality like that

Oh, you mean forcing it to die rather than letting it live a happy, long and fruit full life it would inevitably enjoy?

See, I can pull arrogant assumptions out of my ass, too. Who needs facts? Nah, assumptions work great. Reality doesn't matter when you can make shit up.

Verbatim · June 22, 2015, 04:06:03 PM

The potential for suffering outweighs the potential for happiness.

It would only be unjustifiable if the child were to have the perfect life. And nobody has ever lived a perfect life. And there's no way of knowing that it would have a perfect life anyway.

aREALgod · June 22, 2015, 04:10:15 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 22, 2015, 04:06:03 PM

The potential for suffering outweighs the potential for happiness.

It would only be unjustifiable if the child were to have the perfect life. And nobody has ever lived a perfect life. And there's no way of knowing that it would have a perfect life anyway.

Too bad you have literally zero evidence to support that claim.

Plus, there is no rule anywhere saying you must enjoy a perfect life. Unless of course you hold life to extremely childish and unrealistic standards.

Verbatim · June 22, 2015, 04:11:57 PM

And by the way, I'm gonna stress again that if you wouldn't kill the newborn, I wouldn't judge you at all.

I'm just saying, if it happened, I wouldn't care. It would be justified, in my opinion.

I haven't even went into what I would do if I was in her position, because I don't know what I'd do.