/lit/ - Literature

>>14482781
Sed contra, it is written "Increase and multiply"

man, by his nature, is established, as it were, midway between corruptible and incorruptible creatures, his soul being naturally incorruptible, while his body is naturally corruptible. We must also observe that nature's purpose appears to be different as regards corruptible and incorruptible things. For that seems to be the direct purpose of nature, which is invariable and perpetual; while what is only for a time is seemingly not the chief purpose of nature, but as it were, subordinate to something else; otherwise, when it ceased to exist, nature's purpose would become void.

Therefore, since in things corruptible none is everlasting and permanent except the species, it follows that the chief purpose of nature is the good of the species; for the preservation of which natural generation is ordained. On the other hand, incorruptible substances survive, not only in the species, but also in the individual; wherefore even the individuals are included in the chief purpose of nature.

Hence it belongs to man to beget offspring, on the part of the naturally corruptible body. But on the part of the soul, which is incorruptible, it is fitting that the multitude of individuals should be the direct purpose of nature, or rather of the Author of nature, Who alone is the Creator of the human soul. Wherefore, to provide for the multiplication of the human race, He established the begetting of offspring even in the state of innocence.

>>14482781
>I mean you have a penis or a vagina and that just means you can will people into existence at your own discretion?
Yes.

>What sense does that make?
If something doesn't "make sense" to you, obviously it should not occur. Makes sense.

>just the simple level of entitlement someone has to think this is not even worthy of consideration.
I'm procreating, as is my right, and there's nothing you can do about it lmao.

>>14482781
>I mean you have a penis or a vagina and that just means you can will people into existence at your own discretion?
Yes

>>14482896
What is this? Pensees?

>>14483011
>>14483021
If that’s how you feel fine. I suppose if I look down at my hands and I realize they are able to wrap around a human neck I can go and put that mechanism to use on any random passerby as well.

/lit/ is shittier than usual tonight

>>14482781
I'm glad that you, being solely capable of such moronic reasoning, have your sights set on not polluting the world with more morons of your nature

>>14482781
Procreation is a consequence of sex. Sex is usually pleasurable. The experience of pleasure between two consenting individuals has a tendency to make these individuals happy. The individual pursuit of happiness is not immoral so long it is not at the expense of another, thus sex itself is not immoral. If you have a problem with potential consequences of this act, then you as an individual have the right to refuse participation in it.

>>14483117
Lol

THE EXPECTED NET UTILITY VALUE OF A HUMAN LIFE IS POSITIVE IPSO FACTO ONE OUGHT TO HAVE CHILDREN

>>14482781
Are you suggesting you need to ask your offspring's consent to let them be created? How are you gonna do that?

>>14482781
You can be personally child free without being antinatalist. It's kind of what I've adopted now.

>>14482781
Natural imperative to reproduce and derive great joy from making a family. A lonesome man is a a dead man. Always regretful. Also if you actually had an argument outside of infantile hedonism then maybe they'd be more receptive.

>>14483347
You can't. Therefore you don't do it. In the same way, you cant get consent from a horse, so it's obviously immoral to fuck horses.

>>14482781
it's impossible to take antinatalists seriously when they won't even put their money where their mouth is and end their own pathetic and sad lives

>>14482781
it is immoral because the conditions of modern world have made it so. before people did not have to suffer mentally or get addicted to porn, they fought the against the hardship of nature and did not feel powerless.

>>14483725
So it's also immoral to ride horses? To kill animals for meat? Why does morality hinge on the idea of consent to you?

>>14483769
Just because YOU are addicted to porn and feel powerless doesn't mean the same holds true for people in general.

>>14483787
fair enough, then please kill me

wait so you mean
>just DONT have sex?

interesting. this is new. this is so new.

>>14482781
It's only immoral if you are poor or have shit genes which is 99% of the world's population

>>14484534
Any trust fund faggot who unironically thinks like this should be dumped into the forest 50+ miles from civilization completely nude

>>14483531
If you mean antinatalism can be a deontological or virtue ethic, then I agree.

>>14482781
I fund antinatalist movements while fathering several children. Best strategy.

>>14482896
Anything named a soul can also deteriorate.

>>14483011
Does anyone have such a right?

On what grounds?

>>14483769
>>14483531
>>14483199
the only comments here to actually discuss the ethic. good for you, anons.

Life is anti-entropic and generating more life makes the planet last longer. Considering life is a manifestation of the planet, as much as hair is a manifestation of your head, you would agree that the objective of life is not to do its own thing, but rather, do that which is for the benefit of the planet - that is to say, to grow and steward more life (greening the deserts, etc etc)

>>14483769
>I'm addicted to porn so people should stop reproducing
genius level insight

>>14482781
Here's this issue. We can't exterminate all life in the universe, so eventually the process of evolution would start again and the beings would be in the animalistic heck-scape like we were. So we gotta get to the point where we're able to make life perfect with technology. So, it's ONLY moral to have kids if you study science.

>>14482781
If existence is so bad then why do most people not kill themselves? You can’t rationalise your way out of the impulse to continue to live. If you try to, you’re being disingenuous or at best misrepresenting what the majority of people regard as a deeply held truth - I.e. that their continued existence is a good thing. Conversely, if you claim dying is painful there are plenty of ways to kill yourself these days that are pain-free. You can talk about how you’re alive anyway now so you might as well keep living but you’re grounding that in an emotional response too, which you’ve seemingly dismissed as an illegitimate form of moral argument. So, when an average human being reproduces as an expression of their deeply held (emotional) values for continuity of community, culture, family and so forth they are expressing an aesthetic preference, vindicated through their own lived experiences and imparted on non-moral entities (hypothetical people). Those newly conceived people, for the most part, grow up and live in ways that further vindicate to themselves those aesthetic preferences. There may be some disagreements about whether life or too many people is a good thing but most will agree, as most life forms tend to do, that their own lives are worth living. Both the natalist and antinatalist positions therefore come down to aesthetic preferences and conception as a singular isolated act on average cannot properly be said to be immoral because it tends to be felt to be retroactively justified by the person conceived.

By the way, I’ve also met David Benatar in person AMA.

Read Nietzsche.
Unironically.
Or better yet: download godmode mods to your favorite video game, then play on this new ultra easy difficulty, the complete absence of suffering [read: challenge]. You will find nothing but suffering, an unrelenting boredom.
Suffering gives existence meaning.

>>14485891
pascal's wager

>>14485467
we give that absolute subsatance called a soul a name imagine what the creator would called it perpetual willed existence for the sake of expression

>>14483117
The two phenomena are not comparable. The penis and vagina were created explicitly for reproduction, while hands can serve a multitude of purposes, some good, some bad.

>>14482781

>>14482781
>Why is the idea that procreation is immoral so hard for people to grasp?

Because over three billion years of evolution teach us the opposite, and that your idea is pathetic, retarded, and cucked.
I have kids and will probably make more, and you won’t. You’ll die alone and your genes will never reach the future. I win.

>>14487135
>The penis and vagina were created explicitly for reproduction

Humans evolved. We weren’t created. There’s no teleology in biology.

>>14487386
Antinatalism is just a memetic psycho-weapon that removes those unfit for life from the gene pool.

>>14482781
delete

>>14483780
If horses object to being ridden on they will buck you. That is a form of of consent/not consenting. Killing an animal for meat is done so that the hunter can consume the protein and nutrients to survive. If something is necessary to survival it cannot be immoral because you were forced to partake in it by nature itself, not by your own intent.

>>14488053
This.

>>14482781
>FIFTEEN YEARS where 4chan had no tolerance for these shitposts
>suddenly they never stop coming
what happened?

>>14488101
>If something is necessary to survival it cannot be immoral because you were forced to partake in it by nature itself

Is ought fallacy

>>14483780
Consent doesn't real anyway.