/lit/ - Literature

>How can the creation of children ever be perceived as ethical? Ignoring the utilitarian nature of anti-natalism, you are essentially forcing a person into the world and at the same time denying them the hope of suicide due to the suffering they would inevitably cause if they were to go through with it. This forces the created person to live out a lifetime due to your selfish and impulsive desire for a successor.

This logic is only sound for weaklings, untermensch and edgy teenagers.

>>14318211
spoken like a true npc

>>14318211
Is it possible for pro-natalists to engage in this subject without resorting to ad-hominem?

Ending your line is also unethical and selfish in its own way, and your goal is for everyone to do it at the same time (which is usless most likely) and ending the whole human experiment and thus ethics, knowledge etc basically become usless endeavors if taken to the logical conclusion so what is the point of your moralizing or so why exactly are you the good guy? If your goal is that you REASONEDtm yourself out of procreating why should most people take you seriously? You have no skin in the game. Have sex

The soul will be perpetually reincarnated until it becomes enlightened anyway, and most people are doomed to breed because they're animalistic and don't have much individuality or free will. Whoever is meant to breed will breed and whoever is meant to be born will be born. In a purely materialistic worldview there's neither a way to stop life from arising once more nor a real justification for ethics in the first place, so the discussion is pointless. Do or do not, you will regret both.

>>14318278
Why argue with people who don't even actually believe what they claim to believe? Any antinatalist who legitimately believe their own arguments arguments would have already committed suicide or at least be in the process of planning their own death, and they would make sure to take as many people as possible with them.

I don't be fucking bitches with a rubber on and little niggers can look after themselves. Prove me wrong

>>14318593
Thanks for the input smoothbrain

>Not having kids and teaching them the ways of antinatalism and then they teach their kids

Its like anti-natalists want to lose

Antinatalism is based on an assumption of dualism. Under monism, none of their arguments hold weight.

Because no consent is required when you are a non thing. Consent is only a thing when one is a thing.
>Life is bad though bro
any anti utilitarian argument can go here

>>14318701
>Because no consent is required when you are a non thing.
Huge problem with antinatalism right here. Antinatalists treat non-being as just a different form of being in order to be able to say that not existing is "better", which is beyond retarded.

>>14318716
That's not what they do, and you're retarded.

>>14318726
It's absolutely what they do. Benatar, for instance, writes
>We can ascertain the relative advantages and disadvantages of existence and non existence in another way, still in my original matrix, but by comparing (2) with (3) and (4) with (1). There are benefits both to existing and non-existing. It is good that existers enjoy their pleasures. It is also good that pains are avoided through non existence. However, that is only part of the picture. Because there is nothing bad about never coming into existence, but there is something bad about coming into existence, all things considered non-existence is preferable.

>>14318795
>there is nothing bad about never coming into existence
Thats a rather weighty presupposition

>>14318202
>ever be perceived as ethical
Before we go any further anon, do you believe in God? Or - are you spiritual in any way? If you don't respond to this then i'm dismissing you as pure bait.

>>14318795
It's absolutely not what they do, and that quote never "treats non-being as a different form of being" as you claimed. Benatar's argument is entirely based on treating "non-being" as what it is, non-existence.

>>14318845
Yes, I do.

>>14318855
Then tell me, according to Benatar, for whom is nonexistence better than existence?

>>14318795
Existence presupposes a subject and an object, one can't exist without the other, together they form experience. Existence is experience, nothingness/nonexistence can't be experienced, they can't "be", can't be sustained over time because time is also part of existence. Nonexistence would "pass" instantly and there would be an experience again because it's the only thing that can be, there will always be something. This alone makes antinatalism entirely pointless and, appropriately, fruitless

>>14318856
So you are an anti-natalist with a concept of the Divine? Would you not want to produce new life in which to enjoy the beauty of creation? It's like suggesting life is a long strand of misery when this is simply not the case. There is a great romance in life, and death is particularly a wondrous aspect of life. I find the argument that because we "suffer" that live is somehow a great burden in which it would have been better off to never have experienced. Suffering produces triumph in your will and that is the greatest metaphysical achievement one can reach. Even if you had no interest in pursuing metaphysical conquest, simply living is another form one could take.

I don't understand the anti-natalist perspective either on concepts like conquering the psyche and triumph of metaphysics. For example, why would you not want to produce greatness? Because you might fail? That seems deluded and susceptible to me.

>>14318882
The material world is evil and the god who created it is evil.

>>14318909
I don't see how the material world is necessarily "evil" nor can I find the relation to God being "evil" for having processed the material world. If anything, it is the only field in which you can transcend to the ethereal light existence that transcends spacetime.

>>14318593
Proof that you don't actually know what antinatalism means. good one absolute smallbrain.

>>14318920
The material world was created by the demiurge.

>>14318845
no

>>14319009
So if you are into these concepts I don't see how failing to reproduce combats the demiurge in any meaningful way. If you aren't even achieving transcendental enlightenment you will just be stuck in the same loop regardless. At least with biological off spring this process becomes easier.

>>14319050
I don't want to trap another soul into this material world.

That’s where you go wrong though. Utilitarianism. Humans will never ever be the machines you want to force them to be, no matter how the math or science works out. Experience is experience and is so good or bad. The fact that you think you have the right to deny people existence because of what you think might harm them is unbelievably arrogant and unfair

>>14318976
Suicide isn't part of antinatalism but that doesn't change the fact that nearly all arguments used in support of antinatalism also support all forms of death, including suicide, honmicide and genocide. The immediate death of all living creatures in the universe would be the highest good imaginable according to antinatalism, but most antinatalists when confronted with this fact will pull some randm criteria completely unrelated to the rest of their philosophy out of their ass so they can say death is even worse than life and ignore the implications of their philosophy that make them feel uncomfortable.

>>14319057
They will reincarnate regardless, and if you're intelligent and on your way to becoming enlightened yourself you can provide a good home and spiritual education to another developed soul. Though obviously if they earned it they would be born into a good home regardless of whether you reproduce. If you haven't reproduced yet then it's probably best not to do it and just focus on yourself, but you're not harming the souls you bring here by doing it.
>>14319066
>deny people existence
What people? According to materialism they don't exist yet so there is no one to deny. And if they do exist as souls then they will reincarnate anyway.

I absolutely love my life and I enjoy every breath I take. I'm also aware that pain is temporary and will either build my character or make a future activity even more pleasurable. I love the harshness of biting cold because it allows me to enjoy and appreciate warmth in a way I would never have done if I always lived surrounded by heat. The only thing I hate about life is the shortness of it, but even that I will have to learn to accept humbly, or die trying.

If there is even one millionth of a chance that my children will feel the same joy, how can I endeavor in my selfishness to not share this gift that I've been allowed to partake in? How can I not at least give them the chance to decide for themselves? For if they're not willing to kill themselves, then they still have things they consider worth living for. Ultimately, man spends a measly glimpse of 80 years with existence versus an infinity of nonexistence, so why give up even that little we can barely have? Convince me otherwise. (Or recommend me books with similar themes.)

>>14318202
There are many assumptions involved with this
"Forcing another life into existance"
brings up questions of will, determinism, agency, social responsibility, eiths , values and virtues, npt to mention calling into question the whole metaphysical mature of the universe.
The "inevitability" of consiousness.
Why was it not just as likely that my consiousness was forced into this body and not my friends or enemies instead?
What if it wasnt your parents that willed you into existance but rather the blob of flesh that your consiousness now inhabits?
how the fuck can we know this?

You want to fucking die, go ahead.
But theres alot of great things you're missing out on.
All you gotta do is get off your ass and put in some fucking meaningful effort.
And i mean book of job fucking effort.
So yeah be a lazy fuck.
We dontneed you amd are a detriment to society since you follpw tv and propaganda so fucking much.
Take the easy way.
But your suicide will only prove what we have all been saying.
Pain is temporary.
Quit missing it so much when you find something good and enjoyable.

>>14319116
If you haven't experienced tragedy and agony yet then it's coming your way, don't worry.

>>14318278
They are not.

>>14319135
My father killed himself when I was 14 after he found out my mother was cheating on him. I don't know if that counts as tragedy (since I wasn't abused or anything) but I still think life should be enjoyed regardless.
This isn't a pity party or trauma dick measuring contest though, and I don't think it's impossible for people who have it even worse than me to be even more optimistic.

>>14318909
"Hi."
-- Mani
**note: he was antinatalist doomer Jesus

>>14318278
No, because they're the people who want to create humans to satisfy vain needs... They're too vapid and inane.

>>14319184
You can be optimistic but life will keep fucking you anyway, the scales have to be evened. You can see romance in persisting in a meaningless absurd world and swing on the pendulum like Slim Pickens riding the bomb but it's only delusion in the end. You don't have to be deluded, you can try to transcend duality and get out of this cycle. Persist in believing in the meaning of that as you presist in trudging through this meaninglessness. If you don't think it's meaningless then live longer and examine it sincerely without flinching.

Here's some evil stuff to remind you where we're at.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmwC9HzcWbQ

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10295184/victoria-martens-murder-suspect-freed-monitoring/

>>14319306
>predators eating prey is evil
get yourself a non-retarded definition of "evil" and then come back to us

>>14319306

>>14319318
I'm not saying the Komodo dragons themselves are evil for doing it, retard. That this shit exists naturally should clue you in that this world isn't good, if you didn't get the message already.

>>14319331
the world isn't good in the absolute because absolute good doesn't exist, but then again, neither does absolute bad. The world simply is. if you don't like it you're free to leave

>>14319361
>The world simply is.
Lmao. You're a fucking moron, don't talk to me. Keep coping and deluding yourself and perpetuating the evil.

>>14319374
realistically dude you're not going to stop anything. Even if you convinced everyone to mass suicide tomorrow the universe will spin a million billion other civilizations into existence by the end of the universe.

Your ideal is a mostly-ungrounded cope that won't matter anyway. If you really think it's better to die, just kill yourself.

>>14319418
Don't assume I'm an antinatalist just because I posted in this thread, I'm only agreeing that the material world is fundamentally evil.

>>14318202
What's the point of not having children if other people are having children? You will never convince 7000 million people on Earth not to have children.

>>14319508
>what's the point in not torturing someone if everybody else is doing it?
Completely braindead. It's still one less person having to suffer.

>>14318202
Because life is good

>>14318202
I love living desu.

>>14319361
reddit

all the gnostics itt are right, the best your opponents can offer you is housewife homilies

>>14318202
Prior to their conception and/or birth (take your pick), a person does not exist and therefore has no ethical status. So giving birth to them is neither ethical nor unethical, and only actions towards them after that point matter. inb4 what about death, isn't that the same?: no, birth and death are fundamentally different, so killing is an ethical or unethical act while birthing is not.

>denying them the hope of suicide due to the suffering they would inevitably cause if they were to go through with it.
Non-point. The implication that someone would be sad if you did X is not forcing them to do anything whatsoever. Enough people kill themselves to show that that ultimately doesn't matter anyway.

>>14319729
>giving birth to them is neither ethical nor unethical
only if you believe in souls and reincarnation

in a materialistic world you're tearing consciousness out of the void into an absurd purposeless seesaw existence

>>14319824
>only if you believe in souls and reincarnation
That is precisely the opposite of what that means. If there are persisting souls before birth which are reincarnated, then giving birth is an ethical or unethical act.
>in a materialistic world you're tearing consciousness out of the void into an absurd purposeless seesaw existence
No, you are creating a consciousness. Thinking there is a persisting consciousness that is "torn out of the void" before birth is spiritualism, not materialism.

>>14319851
>then giving birth is an ethical or unethical act
not so because the souls are going to be reincarnated anyway
>No, you are creating a consciousness.
poetic license?
created, torn out of nothingness, get your walnut going

>>14318202
>Ignoring the utilitarian nature of anti-natalism

you literally cant. anti-natalism is the endpoint of utilitarianism, you cannot approach it from any other angle.

>>14318593
Epicurus wrote something similar in the Letter to Menoceus:
>The wise person does not deprecate life nor does he fear the cessation of life. The thought of life is no offense to him, nor is the cessation of life regarded as an evil. And even as people choose of food not merely and simply the larger portion, but the more pleasant, so the wise seek to enjoy the time which is most pleasant and not merely that which is longest. And he who admonishes the young to live well and the old to make a good end speaks foolishly, not merely because of the desirability of life, but because the same exercise at once teaches to live well and to die well. Much worse is he who says that it were good not to be born, but when once one is born to pass with all speed through the gates of Hades. For if he truly believes this, why does he not depart from life? It were easy for him to do so, if once he were firmly convinced. If he speaks only in mockery, his words are foolishness, for those who hear believe him not.
It's not an ad hom, it's a very sincere criticism.

There is value in suffering.

>>14319851
This man is actually autistic.

>denying
>forces
Heh, not my fault if some punk can't see spooks for what they really are.

>>14318687
>believe that giving life is a great evil
>fudge that and give life to more kids
>attempt to indoctrinate them into anti-natalism
>fails and the kids' biological imperative overcomes the indoctrination without any needed rationalizations or refutations of the indoctrination

In other words,
>violating your fundamental belief and taking a massive risk

>>14319086
me dying, by any mean, will cause suffering. therefore i must work to not die. the only way death work is if its globally applied to all concious beings.
must

>>14319086
literally no one will say that. if death of all living thins can be made swift, the every antinatalist would be up there for it. but if a death plague will only kill 1 person every minute that would be thr most incredibly painful experience any human will come experience for a week

>>14321069
>me dying, by any mean, will cause suffering
It causes you suffering, but it also prevents all future suffering, thus you could say that it's a net positive for you.
Could it cause the suffering of others? Sure, but if we're taking the suffering of others into account then it becomes possible to argue against antinatalism by pointing out that many people would be happier if they had kids.
>>14321075
>literally no one will say that. if death of all living thins can be made swift, the every antinatalist would be up there for it.
Not so. Benatar, for instance, writes:
>My view is that all deaths are serious harms, ceteris paribus. How great the harm is relative to others or to the current norm (which itself is determined by the life-span of others) can vary, but there is a serious intrinsic tragedy in any death. That we are born destined to die is a serious harm.

>>14318202
Ethics are merely a form of cultural or aesthetic expression—pretending that it has anything to do with reason is just a cope—so anything can be perceived as ethical. Just do whatever you want that you can get away with and stop needlessly worrying about the consequences of your actions; that's for other people to deal with.

>>14319909
>anti-natalism is the endpoint of utilitarianism
Only negative utilitarianism.

>>14319508
He only cares about the wellbeing of HIS non existent children.

>>14318202
natural selection

>>14318202
Many Normies enjoy life and find it to be worth living.
A child is some what an iteration of you. 50% anyway, the other half someone you (supposedly) love; with a tiny amount of genetic variation.
So if you enjoy life, and you find someone you share mutual love with, is it logical to deny this unpotentiated being its existence?