/lit/ - Literature

>>23100289
>What? Wouldn't the most specific perspective offer the most relevant approach for a particular individual?
Morally speaking, no. Because the individual's perspective is not altruistic and therefore irrelevant.
>Why would the all-encompassing one be the most important?
By defining what is right more rigorously, even questioning whether life should be continued.
>It's possible to reconcile the egoistic desire to have a child with the altruistic desire to prevent others from experiencing pain.
If we talk about people, it is not possible to avoid the pain of others, at least not in a useful way. Furthermore, helping others makes things worse, because humans are not saints, they are demons. The only way to avoid someone's pain is for them not to be born.
>It can be done by recognizing the altruistic desire to have a child
Seeking happiness is what women want, in fact it is opposed to doing the right thing, because pleasure is just an effect of pain.
>Sounds like a projection of your own pathetic self. Please, go outside and interact with normal people.
Retards who cling to selfishness can't do anything but masturbate all day.
>What's the problem?
The problem of evil, the only real problem
>The fact that we can't know the purpose of human existence beyond our biological functions?
There are purposes from all perspectives, except the last.
>Really? Antinatalism is the most cowardly perspective: no courage to fix their problems and no courage to take their own life, just "I wish I was never born".
The individual perspective only cares about masturbating itself and not solving anything, but it makes the situation worse with its selfish simian whims. The anti-inatalist perspective attempts to resolve the problem of evil definitively.