/lit/ - Literature

>>9757894
>wahhhh someone was mean to me gib me safe space
the solution is to grow up.

>wahhhhh it hurts to live wahhhhhh someone save meee wahhhhhh it's definitely not my own fault wahhhhhhh

>>6593339

Daily antinatalism thread! Feel free to critique, or further justify the arguments presented, which due to length, will be split into two posts, but please be civil to one another.

Firstly there are several antinatalist arguments that are not predicated on the notion that all lives are not worth living, like many would like to contend is a consequence of the ethic. For example:

[P1]

The consent argument states that nobody opts into existence, and that should some entity enter existence, and come to live a life not worth living, then having brought them into existence constitutes a harm to that entity, to which that entity did not consent to bear. Further, such an entity is then compelled to take their own life, which for mechanical or psychological reasons may be impossible for them to do, and even if they should choose to do it, the act of suicide might constitute a harm in itself, due to societal prohibition against suicide, therefore often requiring painful, and terrifying methods, it may also entail significant harms to loved ones, some of whom may be so badly impacted, might themselves take their lives. Therefore inflicting life without consent on this entity constitutes an immoral act.

[P2]

The second argument does not rely on consent, but holds that if we could press a button to create a life with a 95% chance of being wholly satisfying and rewarding, and a 5% chance of being horrendous and torturous, we ought not press the button, because there is a (purported) moral asymmetry between happiness and suffering. This might be contested, but would you press the button?

Antinatalist argument thread!

[P1]

Firstly there are several antinatalist arguments that are not predicated on the notion that all lives are not worth living, like many would like to contend is a consequence of the ethic. For example:
[P1]

The consent argument states that nobody opts into existence, and that should some entity enter existence, and come to live a life not worth living, then having brought them into existence constitutes a harm to that entity, to which that entity did not consent to bear. Further, such an entity is then compelled to take their own life, which for mechanical or psychological reasons may be impossible for them to do, and even if they should choose to do it, the act of suicide might constitute a harm in itself, and entail significant harms to loved ones. Therefore inflicting life without consent on this entity constitutes an immoral act.

[P2]

The second argument does not rely on consent, but holds that if we could press a button to create a life with a 95% chance of being wholly satisfying and rewarding, and a 5% chance of being horrendous and torturous, we ought not press the button, because there is a (purported) moral assymetry between happiness and suffering.


[P3]

Benatar's asymmetry states the following:

(1) The presence of harm is bad.
(2) The presence of benefit is good.
(3) The absence of harm is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
(4) The absence of benefit is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.

This would mean bringing someone into existence is always a harm, even if the harms experienced are mild, and the benefits orgasmic. It's also worthy to note that such a view isn't reliant on ethical hedonism, you can define benefits, or harms anyway you like, preference satisfaction, objective list, or indeed hedonism

[P4]

Having children has a costly environmental impact, a child uses a lot of food, electricity, and other resources, by having a child you are contributing to climate change, overpopulation, and resource depletion. Negatively impacting the welfare of existent people.

[P4]

There is some psychological evidence that having children doesn't improve the well being of the parents: