Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Antinatilism

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 7:57:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Antinatalism is a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth, standing in opposition to natalism"

I think I find myself leaning to this position or to put it more into layman terms don't bring children into this world.

The reason being the suffering and all around bullsh*t is forced upon those who are born to such conditions without their consent and frankly I am not convinced that "life" generally is worth it.

A question that bothers me is this one........

"Schopenhauer thought that the most reasonable position to take was not to bring children into the world:

If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?[10]"
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 8:26:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 7:57:11 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
"Antinatalism is a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth, standing in opposition to natalism"

I think I find myself leaning to this position or to put it more into layman terms don't bring children into this world.

The reason being the suffering and all around bullsh*t is forced upon those who are born to such conditions without their consent and frankly I am not convinced that "life" generally is worth it.

A question that bothers me is this one........

"Schopenhauer thought that the most reasonable position to take was not to bring children into the world:

If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?[10]"

All reasons as to 'why you should care' are necessarily subjective. It all depends in yours desires and self-interests. The same applies to the grand question of 'is life worth it' itself. It's entirely subjective upon you. Is it within your self-interest to persist in life? Is it within your long-term self-interest to do so? The answer is almost invariably yes, since that's how we are biologically built. I am not saying we objectively *should* live, only that "life being meaningless" is rather irrelevant to the challenge posed by antinatalism.

You can't have anti-natalism unless you do subscribe to some objective stance on the value of life, but personally I think such a stance, as well as it's opposite (existentialism/essentialism, which assigns a positive value to life) are all false, since they do not ground it within the person that actually cares about the issues, the subject.

So no, it's not rational to give birth to children, but neither is ANYTHING we want or desire, that's the very nature of your desires and interests. It's just the way our brains are wired up. I don't have a problem with that fact, so I will blissfully continue to enjoy life, for it is in my interest to do so. I may have a desire for children, which will make me happy, and the person I give birth to will almost certainly be happy with their win existance, thus I don't particularly see a problem with continuing our species.
Fido
Posts: 357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 9:38:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 7:57:11 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
"Antinatalism is a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth, standing in opposition to natalism"

I think I find myself leaning to this position or to put it more into layman terms don't bring children into this world.

The reason being the suffering and all around bullsh*t is forced upon those who are born to such conditions without their consent and frankly I am not convinced that "life" generally is worth it.

A question that bothers me is this one........

"Schopenhauer thought that the most reasonable position to take was not to bring children into the world:

If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?[10]"

Schopenhauer could not bring a child into this world because he couldn't score with the ladies because he was an as s. Thinking has nothing to do with it. People don't think who have children; but feel, and when they feel love they want to share it with the whole world, but they have to settle for their own children. Most of what people do naturally, which comes from natal/navel, is instinctual, and emotional. Even Kant, who I think was generally a better philosopher, tried to Think an Ethical system into being. People are not ethical for a reason, but against all reason. Supporting the life we are all given, wanting to give life for the life given, if we are happy, is the most natural feeling ever.

Schopenhauer, like so many rational people did not get the relationship thing, and there are few philosophers who do. Socrates had a troubled home life. Nietzsche had to go to a prostitute to get syphilis. He talked about women, but knew nothing. If he had known anything about women he would not have been a philosopher. Who would give up the danger of love for the life of a harmless drudge? I read philosophy, but I consider myself a moralist, which to be correct is kind of a branch of philosophy. Before I would call myself a philosopher I would consider wearing a big sign saying I am emotionally dickless, since that is what most philosophers have been.
tezcatlipoca
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 4:35:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 8:26:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 7:57:11 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
"Antinatalism is a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth, standing in opposition to natalism"

I think I find myself leaning to this position or to put it more into layman terms don't bring children into this world.

The reason being the suffering and all around bullsh*t is forced upon those who are born to such conditions without their consent and frankly I am not convinced that "life" generally is worth it.

A question that bothers me is this one........

"Schopenhauer thought that the most reasonable position to take was not to bring children into the world:

If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?[10]"

All reasons as to 'why you should care' are necessarily subjective. It all depends in yours desires and self-interests. The same applies to the grand question of 'is life worth it' itself. It's entirely subjective upon you. Is it within your self-interest to persist in life? Is it within your long-term self-interest to do so? The answer is almost invariably yes, since that's how we are biologically built. I am not saying we objectively *should* live, only that "life being meaningless" is rather irrelevant to the challenge posed by antinatalism.

You can't have anti-natalism unless you do subscribe to some objective stance on the value of life, but personally I think such a stance, as well as it's opposite (existentialism/essentialism, which assigns a positive value to life) are all false, since they do not ground it within the person that actually cares about the issues, the subject.

So no, it's not rational to give birth to children, but neither is ANYTHING we want or desire, that's the very nature of your desires and interests. It's just the way our brains are wired up. I don't have a problem with that fact, so I will blissfully continue to enjoy life, for it is in my interest to do so. I may have a desire for children, which will make me happy, and the person I give birth to will almost certainly be happy with their win existance, thus I don't particularly see a problem with continuing our species.

I don't think the point is whether or not you take an objective stance on the value of life. The point is that only when you procreate, and not when you abstain, do you impose your subjective stance onto another person. In the case of abstaining from procreation a potential individual would never exist and therefore their sovereignty could not be infringed upon(being eternally non-existent). While in the case of procreation the potential individual would eventually exist and their then very real sovereignty could be infringed upon retroactively(having been acted on before their ability to consent). We can't say that either stance is objective but we can say that through the act of procreation a parent objectively infringes upon the sovereignty of the child.

Many people who I've had discussions with on the topic of antinatalism fail to grasp the idea that: although a yet unborn person does not currently exist, eventually they will(in the case of procreation). It is irresponsible to say the rights of a person who we know will eventually exist do not matter just as it was irresponsible for our parents to make some decisions before our births that negatively affect us today; this is why there are environmental movements and screening for genetic diseases because a few people do understand that people will exist in the future who do not currently exist.

Please tell me you were joking at the end about having a child who will be, "almost certainly happy". You have no way of knowing this. There are many people who are very unhappy with existence and some people who even act on this unhappiness.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 3:27:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 7:57:11 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
"Antinatalism is a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth, standing in opposition to natalism"

I think I find myself leaning to this position or to put it more into layman terms don't bring children into this world.

The reason being the suffering and all around bullsh*t is forced upon those who are born to such conditions without their consent and frankly I am not convinced that "life" generally is worth it.

A question that bothers me is this one........

"Schopenhauer thought that the most reasonable position to take was not to bring children into the world:

If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?[10]"

It is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 3:35:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 7:57:11 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
"Antinatalism is a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth, standing in opposition to natalism"

I think I find myself leaning to this position or to put it more into layman terms don't bring children into this world.

The reason being the suffering and all around bullsh*t is forced upon those who are born to such conditions without their consent and frankly I am not convinced that "life" generally is worth it.

A question that bothers me is this one........

"Schopenhauer thought that the most reasonable position to take was not to bring children into the world:

If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?[10]"

If you're interested in anti-natalism I recommend getting philosopher David Benatar's book "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence"

Even though I'm unconvinced by his arguments, I still enjoyed his book very much.
AureusRex
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 3:36:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 7:57:11 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
"Antinatalism is a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth, standing in opposition to natalism"

I think I find myself leaning to this position or to put it more into layman terms don't bring children into this world.

The reason being the suffering and all around bullsh*t is forced upon those who are born to such conditions without their consent and frankly I am not convinced that "life" generally is worth it.

A question that bothers me is this one........

"Schopenhauer thought that the most reasonable position to take was not to bring children into the world:

If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?[10]"

I am no expert on the reasons people have children but I think most parents believe their child will have a life worth living.