/lit/ - Literature

why are you orangetexting imaginable quotations but use greentext to make points

>>15717381
Because I wanted to

>>15717366
wow, the trouble smart people will go through in order to solve absolutely nothing

>>15717366
buddy if you suffer from depression that’s on you, no need to think that makes you an intelligent philosopher. also, why does it matter if you’re antinatalist or not it you’re an incel

>>15717396
Epic rebuttal of the arguments

>>15717404
here is my argument, you’re depressed. refute it please ;)
keep hiding behind logic, you can’t escape your feelings

Still waiting for an actual argument against the asymmetry

Most people like their lives and the absence of their pleasure would be bad.

>>15717500
Sure that's fine. It's not an argument for suicide but antinatalism. Life worth living is not the same as life worth starting.

>>15717500
>unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
In your example there's someone who would be deprived of that pleasure.

As an antinatalist, I make sure to have as much unprotected sex with every fertile dygenic woman I come across as is possible without compromising my position in life. It's very easy if you travel to third world counties that don't have treaties to arrange payment of child support across borders. The suffering of deformed, dysgenic or just poor children is a moral abomination and I want to do evil.

>>15717366
Can you post some antinatalistcore fiction and poetry? Is there an antinatalist chart?

>>15717366
I've actually met David Benatar. AMA.

>>15717518
I Agree.
But Having a child can increase pleasure for the whole household.
The whole antinatalism thing is very cloistered because our society is programmed to not think in such autistic ans idealistic ways. Only recluses think like that to justify their depression while also seeming like a smart misunderstood person to the outside world.
Our society would be nonexistent if antinatalism was more popular.
Happiness comes with some sort of egoism to procreate even if the outcome could be bad. You don't need arguments to justify your existence you just live.

>>15717366
>The presence of pain is bad.
why?

>you have an obligation to breed as much as possible

Not really. Parents only have so much money, and so much capacity to nurture and give attention to their children, so having a dozen or more children would risk their children suffering due to neglect and poverty. I am an anti-natalist however.

>Why should I care if others suffer?
>Why don’t you kill yourself right now if life is so horrible?
>Why are you so hypersensitive?
Three questions that kill the anti-natalist

>>15717574
Thacker comes to mind but that's more pessimism than just pure antinatalism.
>>15717584
Based on the interviews I've listened to my guess is that he's a utilitarian but it's certainly not clear and I don't have any good reasons to believe it. Does he always remain completely theory neutral?
>>15717588

>Our society would be nonexistent if antinatalism was more popular.
Well yeah, that would be ideal. But I'm under no illusion that antinatalism will ever be popular. I don't exactly buy the selection pressure argument as something that completely makes antinatalism worthless but I don't reject it entirely. One more reason why pessimism is simply correct.
>Happiness comes with some sort of egoism to procreate even if the outcome could be bad.
Except not really. There's empirical data on this and I have a philosophical problem with this as well but that would be a tangent. My point here is not about living your life. You wanna be a bloomer that's fine, I'm happy for you. Benatar's asymmetry argument has nothing to do with this.

>>15717619
Good things can come out of pain but that pain itself isn't good. If you really believed pain is good, you'd start pouring boiling water on yourself or something. The good consequences that pain sometimes has go under the "good" category.
>>15717648
You care if you're not a psychopath. There's no philosophically justifiable "should".

Asymmetry argument works even in a nearly perfect world. Benatar says that only in a hypothetically perfect world (that you can't even imagine) the asymmetry tells us that we should be indifferent towards birth.

>>15717366
people learn through pain, so let them breed, and see how their children cope in the future. blm is just a start, a small spark.

>>15717676
To be clear, I think Benatar himself would say there is a reason to care. His doctoral thesis was about something like that I think, I haven't read it yet. I could be wrong on this though.

>>15717653
>One more reason why pessimism is simply correct.
Seems like it.
But why waste time to justify pessimism if it wont ever be popular to people who aren't depressed.
Wouldn't it be morally questionable to popularize antinatalism if you know that there is no chance to reach the end goal of no suffering.

>>15717366
I encourage anti-natalists to never have children. Hopefully, anti-natalist and doomer views can be bred out of existence that way.

There's no argument for antinatalism that isn't also an argument for suicide.

If the world sucks so much that you shouldn't introduce life to it, you should also kill yourself to leave it. If non-existence for one is good, non-existence for the other is too. If the pleasures of YOU remaining in the world outweigh the bad, why isn't that the same for a child?

The fact that the antinatalist is here and hasn't killed himself is proof that obviously, the pains of the world do not outweigh the pleasures. At least Buddhists and Hindus and Taoists can argue that their end goal takes time and training to reach, suicide is pretty fucking easy (this is part of why the Romans hated early Christians so much, as they were constantly committing suicide-by-cop to get declared a martyr and given a guaranteed spot in the afterlife).

>>15717366
I'm not a utilitarian roach.

>>15717366
I encourage anti-natalists to never have children. This way, the genes that cause susceptibility to doomerism can be bred out of the human population.

>>15717801
>>15717811

Both of these were by me, didn't realize it had posted the first time

>>15717366
I am an antinatalist, I refuse to have children.
But to be honest the whole ideal of "converting" the general population to a refusal to have children is simply impossible. If you consider yourself a realist, think realistically about this. Btw Benetars asymmetry is not as bulletproof as you can think, plus if one embraces it that truely it can lead to some very odd questions such as those stated in the recent chinese anti-natalist who wrote a paper about how suicide is always rational and logical.

>>15717801
t. natalist bloomer cuck

>>15717765
I think that applies to pessimism, it's morally questionable to try and spread pessimism for that reason. But I don't think only depressed people can accept antinatalism or that antinatalism leads to depression. If talking about it prevents a few people from breeding, I take that to be a good thing even if it has some negative consequences for the would-be parents. Also being an antinatalist doesn't prevent you from other ethical pursuits like what David Pearce is advocating for. He's an antinatalist but doesn't believe it will ever be accepted. And my point here was a theoretical one. I hoped /lit/ would have good arguments against it.

>>15717366
Sensible, but not appealing.

cuck

>>15717803
You're misunderstanding the argument. It's not that "the world is so bad", it's the asymmetry. Any non-trivial suffering is enough for the asymmetry to work. Also not everyone agrees with the epicurean argument.
>>15717810
It's theory neutral though.
>>15717831
I agree that it's impossible but I just wanted theoretical counter-arguments. I'm not really trying to convert anyone here. Also I'm reading a paper right now that attempts to debunk his argument.

Not one (1) antinatalist has adequately explained why, if life is so shit they haven't killed themselves yet.

>>15717958
1. The asymmetry argument doesn't rely on this.
2. A life worth living is not the same as a life worth starting.
3. Not everyone agrees with the epicurean argument.

>>15717958
well you wouldnt have heard from the ones who killed themselves would you

>>15717986
Imbecile
>>15717994
>2020
>not being a psychic

>>15718001
>Imbecile
Do elaborate.

The assymetry argument conflates non existence with counterfactuals about people not being born. If you consider people not being born and experiencing pleasure, not being born and experiencing pain, nonexistence and pleasure and nonexistence and pain as four distinct situations it becomes apparent that the whole situation is symmetrical after all and that there's no antinatalism without suicide.

>>15717994
The anthropic principle is awful

>>15717366
>What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine."

>>15718007
>If you consider people not being born and experiencing pleasure, not being born and experiencing pain, nonexistence and pleasure and nonexistence and pain as four distinct situations
I don't follow. It's incoherent to talk about people who haven't being born able to experience absolutely anything. If you're talking about the non-identity problem, that's been addressed.

>>15718012
what does that have to do with the anthropic principle. Antinatalists who are serious will off themselves. mainlander did

>>15717366
>It's not nihilist, Benatar is a moral realist.
Same thing in the end.

>>15718027
>NOO HAVEN'T YOU READ NIETZSCHE YOU NIHILIST
Eternal return works for antinatalism, actually.

>>15717676
and wouldn't it be better to exist in a world of pain where you can sometimes be happy rather than not be? I mean, I'd only give up living if there was no way to experience happiness

>>15717653
Yeah he is broadly a utilitarian. He is normally pretty neutral but he becomes quite outspoken when he defends his antinatalism. He is a very private person and no pictures of him exist on the internet because he worries about getting death threats for that antinatalism. He always wears a hat for extra privacy and nobody knows if he is bald or not or if he has any family. See pic for my Max Stirner style-sketch of roughly what he looks like for posterity. Interesting and nice guy.

>>15718054
It does for whoever came up with it first. It doesn't for 4chan users.

>>15718041
See >>15717986
Mainländer was also a pessimist. Antinatalism can be considered alone. This is exactly what Jordan Peterson tried to argue against Benatar though. Go watch the "debate" on YT for a proper answer.

>>15717366
>The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
u wot m8

>>15718059
>wouldn't it be better to exist in a world of pain where you can sometimes be happy rather than not be?
I don't see why that would be the case. Because of the asymmetry.

>>15717366
Show me a single fucking antinatalist that isn't a maladjusted weirdo and i'll agree.

>>15717840
>I hoped /lit/ would have good arguments against it.
/lit/ is sorry to disappoint you.
Do you have some reading recommendations on this topic. David pearce seems interesting to me.

>>15718086
It's logically coherent to deny this of course. But I think the consequences are unintuitive. Consider that you and your partner want to have a child but you're responsible and do some genetic testing or something before. It turns out that it's nearly certain that your kid would suffer terribly due to some freak genetic disease or something. It'd be a good thing not to have that kid if you consider two possible scenarios: either that kid exists or it doesn't.

>>15718115
>>15718115
yeah but if your kid was based then it would be good to have him

>>15718113
Yeah David Pearce is good though he doesn't talk about antinatalism as far as I know. Benatar of course. Sarah Perry also wrote a good book called "Every cradle is a grave". You could also read about pessimism though that's a bit tangental.

>>15718131
For you maybe but not for him.

>>15718115
Then the good is enjoyed by the parents.

I am not of the opinion that any external or internal stimulus can be reduced to "good" or "bad", or if those qualities can be denoted to anything other than to the purely intellectual efforts of morality, or any other study. The sensations instituted by nature introduce both without any real cause or conclusion, and, if one were to consider the non-human extents of pain or pleasure, then they can each be compared to the ultimately human equivalents. This, I believe, is where Benetar fails: he discusses the two qualities without a consideration if either are even universally important, or worthy of consideration at all. I am the master of a lesser animal's fate so far as it does not lead to legal consequences (for the sake of argument, perhaps an insect), and can experience pleasure beyond what that lesser animal is capable of sensing by destroying them. Who is to say that higher forces, let us say God, is not also able to guarantee that same pleasure to themselves? Who is to say, too, if a greater pleasure claimed by a human cannot outweigh another human's pain, and therefore vindicate the former's motivations in causing that pain?

>>15717676
Pain isn't anything. Its just pain, its just a signal. It's neither good nor bad. Or anything beyond its presence really. Pain doesn't exist outside of the subject experiencing it. You're obviously hypersentive. Chances are that you're living a pretty mundane life, I doubt you've ever been hungery or cold. Or ever pushed yourself to do things you believed were impossible for you. I doubt you've come close to even tasting fear or satisfaction, or any other worthwhile emotional states. Antinatilism is an ideology for stagnant barely conscious men with no convictions (if you truely thought 'suffering' was the lot for you, you'd kill yourself).

>>15718162
The argument as far as I understand it is that being born is never good for the person being born. If the parents get pleasure out of bringing a deformed, sick child into existence then that's on them. I'd say that's pretty indecent though.
>internal stimulus can be reduced to "good" or "bad"
I think this is the "purely intellectual" thing to do. Sure in some sense that's perhaps true but you wouldn't believe that in practice. You'd probably think someone being tortured is having a bad time. I think you should consider what Chomsky has to say about innate human nature here.

>>15718137
Thank you

>>15717834
>t. natalist bloomer cuck
“Yes”

>>15718220
>antinatalism
>chomsky
You're in fucking starbucks aren't you?

>>15718190
See >>15718220
>You're obviously hypersentive. Chances are that you're living a pretty mundane life, I doubt you've ever been hungery or cold. Or ever pushed yourself to do things you believed were impossible for you. I doubt you've come close to even tasting fear or satisfaction, or any other worthwhile emotional states. Antinatilism is an ideology for stagnant barely conscious men with no convictions (if you truely thought 'suffering' was the lot for you, you'd kill yourself).
Great argument. You still can't avoid the asymmetry.

>>15718232
Yeah with my Macbook and vibrator up my ass. Your point?

>>15717574
Some of the latter half of Paradise Lost is pretty antinatalist

>>15718258
I'll check it out too, thank

>>15718220
>If the parents get pleasure out of bringing a deformed, sick child into existence then that's on them. I'd say that's pretty indecent though.
Well, I find that such examples removes the legitimacy of Benetar's asymmetry argument. For instance, the introduction of perceivable pain into birth limits the dimensions of how the pain can be introduced, and how a conceived pleasure can be applied outside this hypothetical condition of, for lack of a better term, "existence's pain". If the parent obtains pleasure through this pain of the deformed child, then the compared extents of these two conditions are hard to decipher or explain at the fullest length. In addition, if those parents were to know of its defects and abort it, not from an antinatalist reasoning, but from the pleasure they would experience from not having that child's existence inhibiting them, would that not also be an example of material pleasure outweighing the supposed pains from existence? Of course, my example is limited to the instant moment of a pain/pleasure exchange, and the lives of those parents cannot be properly measured in terms of if they continue to experience pleasure. However, such an example can lead to the doubts which arise in the argument of asymmetry.
>Sure in some sense that's perhaps true but you wouldn't believe that in practice. You'd probably think someone being tortured is having a bad time.
Nothing is ever so sure, anon. I tend to enjoy S&M from time to time.
I must add that I have not read Benetar in awhile, so I am more than open to any arguments against what I say.

YES I ENCOURAGE YOU TO BE AN ANTI-NATALIST! YOU ARE SAVING THE PLANET.
-smug- :)

>>15718314
I think Benatar's specific claim is that it would be bad for the child. You could make this kind of utilitarian argument that "overrides" our moral interest in the child but that has no bearing on the argument itself. I have no idea of Benatar would respond to this but my response is to appeal to common moral intuitions. I don't think many people would be convinced by this, I don't think you are either. That's not to say you can't make that argument, I just think most people would reject it as antisocial.
>Nothing is ever so sure, anon.
I agree. Who knows, maybe everyone else is a philosophical zombie and these kinds of considerations are misguided. But I'd rather be wrong about something like this rather than be wrong about the other thing and potentially bring a whole lot of suffering. In practice, we all make lots of assumptions that can't necessarily be philosophically grounded.
>S&M
What's that?

>>15718376

>>15717366
KEK OP is retarded. You clearly don't realize that the beauty of life surpasses all the pain. And that the even a glance at the aesthetic experience of God can make the most miserable life ever be worth living. I say this and I'm not even religious. You could probably say the same about the joys of falling in love, having children and everything else. And I'm depressed, OP. But I do realize that this is just my pessimistic view of the world and that eventually I'll be able to enjoy all those things I listed. So do some therapy, will you?

>>15718404
I don't see what's rude about my post. You should totally be anti-natalist! It's an incredible position to hold!
-smirk- ,:)

>>15718405
That doesn't address the asymmetry. See >>15717986
>>15717871
>>15717676
>>15717518

>>15718424
It is ok to not want to have children, but at least do it reasonably. Not because of some depressed retarded wrote some bs book filled with shit. Do people unironically pay to read those things?

>>15718378
>I think Benatar's specific claim is that it would be bad for the child.
The problem here lies in the fact that I do not know if such a condition is even applicable. One could consider a person with Down's Syndrome to be genetically deformed, and yet they can live a life of simple pleasures, and, if the parent so chooses, may not exist at all for the behest of the parent's pleasure. I understand if you would believe this to be antisocial in nature, but I believe that a moral struggle over continuing the life of a medically "braindead" individual is quite similar to the example you speak of; the braindead/sickly/deformed person can experience a varied range of sensations, from survival instincts to depressed moods, but there lies the capability of another person to override those moods for the sake of themselves. I am not endorsing a Ted Bundy-tier understanding of life, but rather that human existence allows for a multilayered set of conditions which are difficult to interpret purely as pain or pleasure.

As for the claim of p-zombies, I believe you have misinterpreted. Those who self-harm can experience pleasure in the act, and some can enjoy pain sexually, in the case of S&M. If there are realms of human experience that allow for such exceptions, wouldn't that remove the total dominion of pain in existence?

>>15718438
No one has yet tried to tackle the asymmetry itself. It's all psychologizing or not actually addressing the argument. I could get better responses from /b/ I bet.

>>15718436
Asymmetry of what? You are fucking retarded. People literally kill themselves and other people in name of God. Why do you think it is not worth creating a life to experience it? I hate religion, but I'm not blind. And it is definitely worth creating a life to spread this kind of thing. I would probably have children with someone religious, although she probably wouldn't want to have children with me KEK

>>15718468
And I'm an atheist btw.

>>15717366
https://youtu.be/KkkJ4HztuQ0

>>15718466
This is the thing about anti-natalists. You don't understand that no one cares about the "asymmetry" labels you give authority too, nor the micro abstractions you want to use in your arguments for such a "perfect" position. This argument is just assuaging the hypothetical, when reality dictates a much different route for humanity. It is pointless to discuss this with you however, because you've already fallen down the rabbit hole. To pull you back out would be a monumental task at hand - I would rather you just stay an AN.
-smile- :)

>>15718462
>One could consider a person with Down's Syndrome to be genetically deformed, and yet they can live a life of simple pleasures, and, if the parent so chooses, may not exist at all for the behest of the parent's pleasure.
I don't see how this questions the possibility of considering the child's interests. Surely you can make this kind of argument that "overrides" the interests of the child. There's nothing incoherent about this if I understood you correctly, I just don't find it convincing and I don't think many would-be parents would either. I think most people think they're doing something good for the child when they bring it to existence and this is what the asymmetry attempts to debunk. Let me ask you what you would do in the hypothetical case of your kid having a high chance of some horrible genetic disease? No wrong answers here but I find it hard to believe that anyone would actually be ok with their kid suffering just because it brings them some form of enjoyment.

As for the enjoyment of pain, that's completely in-line with the argument I think. It's just that the language is a bit misleading, Benatar isn't literally talking about pain and pleasure but more about "good things" and "bad things", however you want to define them. If some amount of pain brings you pleasure, it's a good thing.

>>15718468
The asymmetry argument you debil. I have no idea what you're on about you schizo.

>>15718517
The asymmetry is literally contained in the 4 premises I had in my orginial post. Antinatalism logically follows from them. If you can prove any one of them is wrong, you win.

>>15718534
"A life worth living is not the same of a life worth starting". This shit? Seriously? Just don't be useless and leave a positive legacy for your children. Then you'll be on negative if you don't leave any sucessor.

>>15717366
>>The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
That doesn't seem intuitive at all to me. Premise 3 is open to skeptical doubts, and since you provided no arguments in support for it, one can be fully rational and reject your antinatalist conclusion.
round 2 baby

>>15718550
I've already won due to you choosing to be an anti natalist.
-smug smirking smile- >:)

>>15718557
It means that the sufficient conditions for continuing to live are not the same as the sufficient conditions for starting a life. Benetar's analogy is a bad movie. A movie can be bad enough that if you knew beforehand how bad it was, you wouldn't go but not necessarily so bad that if you find yourself in the theater, you wouldn't leave. Life is bad enough for us to not bring new life but not necessarily bad enough to commit suicide. The asymmetry makes it so that any amount of non-trivial suffering is sufficient reason to not bring life into existence but if your life is bearable it doesn't demand you to commit suicide.

KEK people unironically pay money for this shit book.

>>15718578
What's your reasoning not to be one in light of the argument?

>>15718603
What are you talking about? This sounds like depressed people talk, have you ever read a book on Psychology? Anon, life is all about creating things, if you are an useless person that can only come up with a shit book like that after studying a lot of time, then you are definitely better not having children. But if you end up creating something that is worth anything, be it in yourself or anything, you should consider passing that on. Because life is decent when you have a decent start. If you are able to provide a decent start, why not?

>>15718614
You're trapped in a box. I peer inward and see you sharting all over the cardboard walls. I call your name but you don't look up. You just continue smearing feces in all directions, your senses blinded by asymmetrical warping of the walls due to wetness from your poo. You keep muttering to yourself, "asymmetry proves we shouldn't have children!", and then you put your fingers in your mouth, your shit covered fingers, and lick all the poopoo clean off. I shake my head and quietly leave you to it.

You're. Trapped. In. A. Box.

>>15718529
>I don't see how this questions the possibility of considering the child's interests.
I do not find that there will always be a definite interest in a being's life? There are studies as of recent times that claim insects have a form of cognition, however rudimentary it may be, but would that imply they have a total interest? Applying an abstract idea such as an "interest" only applies the argument to human matters, and can hardly be applied under the situation of limited cognition.
>Let me ask you what you would do in the hypothetical case of your kid having a high chance of some horrible genetic disease?
I am fine with nurturing life, however that life will turn out. To elaborate, my preschool had both normal and disabled children. Even as a young child, who knew disabled children were different and sometimes exhibited pain, I was still content to help them with their tasks, because it gave both them and I peace in the action. I am also able to understand the objectives of a potential parent in not wanting that, if it limits the conditions of their life. I have also had pets that have gone sick, and I have nursed them despite that. Have I ever felt that the potential pain caused by their being legitimates them not existing? Not really. The quality of "horrible" implies too much; does this entirely limit the pleasures of one individual by that condition alone? By speaking of "convincing", you discuss your own personal motivations and the motivations of others despite our examples leading beyond the subjective elements of motivation or of a "natural" state of humanity.
>Benatar isn't literally talking about pain and pleasure but more about "good things" and "bad things"
It seems, then, we discuss intellectual motive. How is this a sufficient development in moral theory if it does not correspond to the elements of life as a whole?

>>15718573
Thanks for actually addressing the argument. I did provide an argument in support of this premise:
>...that it's not a good thing not to have deformed children
Denying the third premise leads to, among other things, the conclusion that it's not a good thing to not have a child that you know beforehand would suffer greatly.

>>15718655
*be a definite interest in a being's life.
Did not mean for a question mark to be placed there
>if it limits the conditions of their life
"their" meaning the parent's life, not the child's.

>>15718626
I don't think it's a bad thing if the universe was sterile. I don't mourn the non-existent Martians who could've become Nietzschean overmen and enjoy sublime creaton or whatever. I do however think it's a good thing that those Martians never have to experience war or famine or torture or weltschmerz.

>>15717366
>The presence of pain is bad.
>The presence of pleasure is good.
>The absence of pain is good
>The absence of pleasure is not bad

>>15717366
op is faggot
>pain is bad
childbirth?
>inb4 it would be better without the pain, we take medication to cope with the pain
yea but that hypothetical doesnt exist and it has no bearing on reality.
lifting weights is painful, it causes damage to your muscles, but when the muscles are repaired they come back bigger and stronger, no one stopped lifting weights because of pain
your just a pussie faggot op

>>15718672
It doesn't matter, anon. You are already here, and if you have anything in yourself that is worth anything, you should consider having children. And the name of this Martian bs you are saying is "catastrophizing", you are probably sick, anon. You should do some therapy, seriously, look for professional help.

>>15717366
Pain and suffering are part of the primordial essence of all things - the fullness of life implies the violence of death. Suffering precedes creation which precedes suffering.

>>15718655
>insects
I mean I definitely think this applies to other animals too but let's just limit this to humans. Humans do have interest by virtue of their innate nature, or so I claim. Some exceptions exists, I'm sure but generally speaking this seems true to me.

Again, if you're convinced by this that's fine. It's a valid argument as far as I know and you can sort of overcome the asymmetry here even if it is true. I'm indeed simply stating that I don't personally find this morally intuitive. We can disagree on this matter but I don't think it really debunks the asymmetry, it just goes around it which is fine.
>How is this a sufficient development in moral theory if it does not correspond to the elements of life as a whole?
I don't see how you get to this from what I said. The argument is theory neutral, you can "cash it out" in any terms you want. "Pleasure" doesn't mean a hedonistic kind of pleasure necessarily (it can if you want though) and same for pain.

>>15718728
cont. To remove them is to remove the tragic beauty and grandeur of life itself. I fully blame Christianity for antinatalism.

>>15718678
>>15718728
I addressed this already. Multiple times I think.
>>15718677
Which premises specifically do you reject and why?

>>15718741
I blame secularists.

>>15717366
I’m glad that I was born. There, refuted

>>15717475
You didn't post actual arguments, pain has its function in life, it is there to protect you, to let you know danger.
The absence of pain would not be good, you would not sustain yourself, you want to be an ephemeral ghost with no body?

>x good y bad

Good bad dichotomy is a simplistic, limited and pointless view if applied in the manner that you use it, that is, dividing everything into arbitrary categories that are neither good nor bad, it stems from fundamentally religious moralism and it can lead you astray.

If you don't want to reproduce than you are quite simply not a sustainable organism and nature dictates you will end. Nature dictates the terms of survival for organisms and failing to meet those terms means that you, the individual organism has failed, you have no legitimacy in projecting your failure as an organism on others through dictating arbitrary moralities. You merely seek to impose your failure as an organism on others and morality is the tool you use in a bid to legitimize this.

>>15718753
Same thing.

>>15718701
I'm not "catastrophizing", that's an example that I use to support premises 3 and 4. If you reject 3, you must think it's a terrible tragedy that Martians don't exist so they can experience sublime euforia or whatever. You should also have lots and lots of kids. Rejecting 4 means you don't think it's a good thing that there are no Martians who aren't experiencing torture. Rejecting both also leaves you with the repugnant conclusion. A world with billions and billions of beings that are just barely happy enough not to commit suicide is logically better than a world with a few million extremely happy people. This has nothing to do with my mental state, it's elementary logic.

>>15718749
Typing =/= addressing

>>15718787
I addressed this elsewhere. I was waiting for someone to attack the premises so I could then respond to them.

I still don’t understand why these people don’t kill themselves already. It’s clear that birth has led to a preference of life over death, and some would even say they are grateful to have been born. Let those who don’t want to live kill themselves, and let those who want to live, live. The extinction of the human race would be immoral for the countless people who never got the chance to experience the world and make their decision about whether to live or not.

>>15718832
See >>15718436

>>15718811
Of course you are, anon. You are thinking about beings that don't exist at war and using it to take decisions on your life. I'm not a therapist, ok? You should probably look for help, this whole thing might sound reasonable for you, but you are delusional, anon. It is beyond of what I can do on the internet.

Fuckin read the thread faggots. I keep seeing the same points over and over again. If you don't like my response to your point, explain why and don't just keep parroting the same shit over and over.

>>15718841
doesn’t address my post at all. We should give birth and let people decide what they want to do with their life, because if this life truly is worse than neutrality, then people would choose that option.

>>15718846
Yeah as a hypothetical example of the fucking consequence of those premises you debil. It's a theoretical point against your ravings, not one that I actually occupy myself with. How is /lit/ this anti-intellectual?

>>15718730
>I don't see how you get to this from what I said
Well, considering that the argument, based upon the prerequisite of interests and what is supposed to be a "good thing" or a "bad thing", we are entirely set upon the intellectual motivations of a functional person when deliberating upon antinatalism. I am very skeptical of any argument which provides the supposition of "good" or "bad" to beings that know nothing of those things, nor are capable of caring for those concepts.
I, for one, see no reasoning for introducing such a concept of antinatalism if it is not universally applicable to all forms of life. This is where we separate from one another: you believe wholeheartedly in human nature, and base these principles upon that bedrock, whereas I am uninterested in limiting any morality just to that idea. Even if there are innate features in the nature of humanity, how are we to judge pain and pleasure when we have emerged from a earthly nature that allows for a free exchange of both? To distance ourselves from both the predator and prey that live among us on some metric of "morally intuitive" ideas brought forth by "human nature" very much disregards the ability of man and animal to be compared, therefore making asymmetry a limited theory that applies only to functional humans, and also impacts nothing outside of that group.

>>15718861
Suicide is a terrible thing to make someone go through. It's better to simply not breed because it avoids the problem and it's not "bad for the child".

>>15717366
having a child and raising him pleases me, therefore it is moral for me to have a child.

>>15718882
>It's better to simply not breed because it avoids the problem and it's not "bad for the child".
except this prevents the existence of people who prefer life

>>15718882
>Suicide is a terrible thing to make someone go through
give everyone a magic button that immediately makes them disappear without pain and most people wouldn’t touch it

>>15718871
Yes, sure. You have a perfect model of the world inside your head. As if reality were actually that simple. Anon, you are delusional. Look for help, ok? Seriously, you are not even using a super computer to get to those conclusions and you are thinking that you know future. If you are that smart, why not use it to get rich, anon? If your grasp of reality is that great, why not use it and make a lot money?

too many inarticulate children who have never suffered itt

>>15718875
>to beings that know nothing of those things
In such cases we should be indifferent, sure. I don't think this is a strong argument against the asymmetry since we can be reasonably confident that most humans do have innate interests. It's not just deformed kids Benatar is worried about, that was just my example. Also I don't think Benatar extends this to all lifeforms. He does include some animals but not all I think. I think it's perfectly coherent to do this, to just consider those lifeforms that are indeed capable of suffering. I mean that seems pretty elementary to me, I wouldn't extend morality to non-living matter either.
>This is where we separate from one another: you believe wholeheartedly in human nature, and base these principles upon that bedrock, whereas I am uninterested in limiting any morality just to that idea.
This seems to be our disagreement for sure and it's an interesting one. In some sense, I'm a moral nihilist. I don't see any way to ground morality philosophically. In practice I accept that we have some innate morals and interests and I accept that I'm programmed to follow those. I don't however see why they couldn't be different and why we *should* follow them philosophically speaking. I'm just resigned to follow what I think are pretty commonly held moral intuitions. To be clear, I think (as in I might also be wrong) Benatar would disagree with this, as far as I know he believes in some kind of objective morality.
>therefore making asymmetry a limited theory that applies only to functional humans, and also impacts nothing outside of that group.
I would say it limits it to being capable of suffering.

>>15718928
Hello Mr. Bourgeois.

>>15718891
A non-existent being can't be deprived of pleasures.
>>15718909
Sure buddy.

>>15718928
>inarticulate children have never suffered
Ask me how I know you went to private school.

>>15718728
How does it make it necessary to procreate ?

>>15718958
The implication that we have a choice is an anthropocentric arrogance.

>>15718741
Having no childs do not deny or remove your "tragic beauty and grandeur of life". You will experience it until you die, don't worry.

>>15718782
Could you be glad if you were not born ?

>>15718964
serve chaos, and die for chaos

>>15718939
No that's the guy whose comparing life to a workout program. so pitifully deluded.

>>15717648
I am unable to kill myself because of the will to live as described by Schopy

>>15718832
>for the countless people who never got the chance to experience the world
???
Those countless people are not.

>>15718950
> A non-existent being can't be deprived of pleasures.
so I can kill a man and I won’t be depriving him of anything because now he doesn’t exist

>>15718982
Cope. Kill yourself already you hypocrite, lmao.

>>15718950
Quit being a coward and read Nietzsche. Like for real, and try to be a fucking man for once. Citing Nietzsche and being scared of tragedy. You honestly disgust me, anon. If it were at least a bit of egoism, that you don't want to waste time raising children. I would respect your opinion. But this is pure retardation, you clearly got nothing out of his books.

>>15718661
>Denying the third premise leads to, among other things, the conclusion that it's not a good thing to not have a child that you know beforehand would suffer greatly.
Well the premise I deny (or at least I am reluctant to accept) is that the absence of pain is good even without anyone to experience it. I can explain why it's a good thing to not have a child that would suffer greatly because the experience of pain is a bad thing (hence not having that child would entail the non-existence of a bad thing).

>>15717366
>The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
>The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
double standard here

>>15718967
It will not - but your push towards antinatalism is rooted in just that. I'm not taking a meta view on this I'm saying your antinatalism is rooted in bitterness and resentment towards things that should be celebrated if not deified in their fullness.

>>15718987
You're literally retarded. You're depriving him of the pleasures of his life by killing him. But you won't deprive the pleasures of your hypothetical child next time you jack off to your chinese cartoons.

>>15717619
Even if you don't think pain is bad, other people do. Why do you get to impose pain on others?

>>15718964
I'm thinking the same but this is not a "free will" thread.

>>15719009
> But you won't deprive the pleasures of your hypothetical child next time you jack off to your chinese cartoons.
that would be depriving those sperm of the pleasures they could live, just like killing the man deprived him of his future pleasures. You’re not consistent

>>157186035
1) Life is in no way analogous watching a movie in a theatre. The Living are not passive observers to their own life.
2) Even if this were the case. And life could be compared watching a middling movie in a theatre. It has to be admitted that
(a) There are no universaly 'bad' movies. There is enjoyment to be found (ironic or genuine) in every work of art
(b) The quality of movie has little to no effect on whether the experience at the theatre is good or bad. The couple to your right could be enjoying plenty independent of the movie. The man to your left is slurping down his favorite flavour of slushie. The family in front of you is enjoying the simple pleasure of being near each other. The entirety of the audience is enjoying the specticle of a packed theatre (life is not solitary) and the excitement of seeing a new movie (as none of them have lived there life before so must this be a the first time they're this movie)
(c) Conversely even if the movie were great, you could still be miserable. If fact, you probably would be miserable as the life you are leading now probably isnt particularly bad at all. The issue is internal.
3) There is always an exit. You are not passive.

>>15718988
:->

>>15719013
pleasure is good, so why should you prevent people from experiencing it? Let people choose after they are born. The majority of people are neither antinatalists nor suicidal

>>15718987
But he did exist so no, you can't kill him anon, I'm sorry.

>>15718603
>>15719023

>>15718989
Still not addressing the asymmetry.
>>15718994
>I can explain why it's a good thing to not have a child that would suffer greatly because the experience of pain is a bad thing (hence not having that child would entail the non-existence of a bad thing).
This is what the premise means though. It's a good thing that such a child doesn't exists even when the child doesn't exist (and can't experience it). If you mean that you take issue with the claim that it's indeed good for the child and not just for observers who already exist, it's because of counter-factuals. You consider two possible futures. One where the child exists and suffers (this is bad) and then the counter-factual case where it doesn't exist. From the perspective of the hypothetical child, the second one is good. I might've fucked that up, I highly recommend actually seeing what Benatar himself says about it.

>>15719019
> And what about the cells uh ? Are they glad to be born haha

>>15719034
>But he did exist
how is that relevant? Use an actual argument

>>15719005
Yes it's logically coherent to say there is a symmetry here, Benatar doesn't deny this. He says it's an axiological argument. There are justifications for this axiology. Counter-factuals avoid any logical issues and a bunch of moral problems that get solved. Also it's problematic to deny these premises as I've discussed above.

>>15719057
I though you'll understand sorry. So "existence to non existence" is antinomic to" non existence to existence". Your argument is therefore fallacious.

>>15719019
Sperm isn't really capable of suffering. I'm not concerned morally about the "interests" of sperm and I don't really think sperm has interests. You can't possibly be seriously arguing this, right? You must be le ebin troling, right?

>>15717366
are these really the sort of arguments antinatalist make or is this just trolling?

>>15719026
Are you kidding me? It's simple morality. While you can blame someone for causing pain, you can't blame them for not giving pleasure.
If I am to take your argument seriously, then you are being immoral right now because you are not giving me pleasure.

>>15719023
Yeah it's not perfectly analogous, it's a metaphor that attempts to explain the difference between life worth starting and life worth living. It's perfectly coherent and I'm sorry if you don't get it.
>The Living are not passive observers to their own life.
Holy shit you're stupid. That's not at all the point you debil.

>>15719064
semantics. All we can agree on is that pleasure is nice and pain isn’t. There’s no conclusion to be made, only premises. Some people are happy with life, others aren’t. To say that one should not give birth is just a subjective claim.

Anyway, I’m an egoist, so even if everyone’s life were worse than non-existence (even to themselves) then you can’t say that it is objectively better that no one exist. All that matters is that you achieve the most preferable life possible, and for some, that includes giving birth.

>I like pleasure spiked with pain
>And music is my aeroplane
>It's my aeroplane
>Songbird sweet and sour Jane
>And music is my aeroplane
>It's my aeroplane
>Pleasure spiked with pain
>That motherfucker's always spiked with pain

as if a scholastic exercise could bring an end to the turning of the earth, and the ceaseless revolt of life against its own annihilation.

>>15719100
Well if you accept those four (4) premises, antinatalism logically follows. Or well, as you point out, it follows that coming into existence is always a harm. As someone else already argued here, you can override that with egoism.

>>15719078
nonsense
>>15719080
>Sperm isn't really capable of suffering
so killing a man is the same as killing sperm so long as he doesn’t suffer in the process? In both cases, you’re preventing future pleasures.

>>15717366
Because although suffering is true, and antinatalism includes a lot of truth, what matters more is function or rather the effect of an idea on the thinker. Antinatalism causes the individual to fall to resentment, causes the parents to suffer more so because their offspring is the symbolic representation of the union of the parents or rather the child is the embodiment of their love, a creation of said love. Antinatalism weakens the individual by removing any desire to do anything at all in this world except analyze the extent of their own suffering. Like Buddhism, and similar religions focuaing on the afterlife—if their worldview is applied in their entirety, the individual becomes preoccupied with the afterlife to the detriment of their current lives/incarnation. Instead of maneuvering about within the confined of this existence they become inactive in search of clues as to what comes afterwards, this leads to individuals who may attain stability in terms of emotion, mental state, etc. but neglect every other aspect of themselves outside of the spiritual and those areas of their psychology of which is applicable to the spiritual, instead of causing action in this vehicle/body and its material existence, the material world around them, they remain inactive in the attempt to safeguard their mental health not knowing that this same state of mind can be achieved through the cultivation of the body through exercise along with taking action in the world, through struggle, strength, will (ex. the soldier, craftsman, businessman, etc.). Antinatalism renders the individual impotent as all philosophies or worldviews of which remain focused exclusively on the suffering/problems/negatives of live without creating a romantic, positive, strong plan of action in response, ex. seeing a world of struggle/suffering without realizing the two paths this world offers: the path of weakness and ultimately self-destruction (of the vehicle) along with the path of strength, of evolution and self-improvement by overcoming the obstacles of this existence through persistence, adaptability, strength. The world is suffering, the weak perish, the strong will destroy them, but that is just the facts without reaction. The romantic, idealistic response to the truth of this world—what these people dismiss as a cope etc. is the only way out of of that state of self-annihilation, no one holding negative or rather pessimistic worldviews are wrong, they are without a doubt correct in their views, however if one remains in that state you will not be able to move about this world efficiently, let alone to your full potential, instead you won't live much at all, just waiting for death and its transformation, a passive transformation instead of an active transformation by your own volition, doing, action. The world as suffering is the first step, how you react to it is all that matters, the world as struggle allows you to engage with it, to fight and overcome.

>>15719086
>While you can blame someone for causing pain, you can't blame them for not giving pleasure.
obviously untrue. An old man collapses on the sidewalk and a woman walks by with indifference, the video broadcast to the world. You’re telling me her reputation wouldn’t be damaged? It’s certainly more moral in this case to help the man

>>15719093
Holy shit you are a disingenuous faggot hahahahaha

>>15719109
>Well if you accept those four (4) premises, antinatalism logically follows
the last two are inconsistent to me
> Or well, as you point out, it follows that coming into existence is always a harm
?

>>15719110
I'm not concerned with preventing future pleasures, I'm concerned with depriving pleasure from already morally relevant beings. If you genunely think jacking off is morally the same as killing millions or whatever many humans, you're completely retarded.

>>15719049
Pain isn't unbearable. You are a fucking retard to fall for such a bullshit. As if there weren't different degrees of pain and pleasure. Formal logic is stupid, anon. It is that simple. This is mostly bullshit, you can't get to anything half decent using formal logic. Want something a bit more sophisticated? Get into fuzzy logic. Then you use it to prove this all this bs, sum up all pleasure and all pain of a regular person life and do it using fuzzy logic. This would be a 'decent' argument, this truth table is just ridiculous, as if all the suffering through life wasn't worth the pleasure. That is why people don't kill themselves, and supposing that you have more than you started with to leave for your children, it is obvious that they will probably get a better start than you.

>>15719049
>This is what the premise means though. It's a good thing that such a child doesn't exists even when the child doesn't exist (and can't experience it). If you mean that you take issue with the claim that it's indeed good for the child and not just for observers who already exist, it's because of counter-factuals. You consider two possible futures. One where the child exists and suffers (this is bad) and then the counter-factual case where it doesn't exist. From the perspective of the hypothetical child, the second one is good. I might've fucked that up, I highly recommend actually seeing what Benatar himself says about it.
No you got it right, it's just that for me the premise that "the absence of pain is good even when no one experiences it" is only true in a qualified sense. That is, it derives from the fact that the experience of pain is a bad thing. But I think that qualification is enough to block your argument, since I 've left open the possibility that eg. a life that contains more pleasure than pain to a certain margin may be preferable than no life at all.

>>15719128
>If you genunely think jacking off is morally the same as killing millions or whatever many humans, you're completely retarded.
that’s because there’s consequences for killing people. Their families will hate you etc. It’s why we kill animals without caring much.

>>15719110
>nonsense
If you kill someone, you deprieved him of pleasure as he was living and now he does not. But a non existent being was not living so how the fuck can you deprieve him of anything ? Goddamm, you're a rough case.

>>15719127
That's alright.
>?
Benatar's asymmetry doesn't necessarily lead to antinatalism. It leads to the conclusion that coming into existence is always a harm. If you think there is some greater principle that can override this harm then that's another debate.

>>15719116
What does this example have to do with giving pleasure?

>>15719142
You're unironically retarded or a psychopath.

>>15719145
you still haven’t explained why living or not living has any relation to the deprivation of pleasure in the future. In both cases, you are preventing pleasure.

This retard unironically makes a living out of this bullshit. Jesus, why do I even bother trying to be a decent person?

>>15717366
>>Theory neutral
The only way that any of the above claims have any merit is by exclusively presupposing utilitarianism.

>>15717366
>The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.

why? seems like it would just be neutral to me

>>15719129
>Pain isn't unbearable
It doesn't have to be if you understood the argument. Fuzzy logic doesn't save you either moron, stop misusing concepts.

>>15719159
not an argument. Try again

>utilitarianism
pass

>>15719167
If pain isn't unbearable to the point of killing yourself, you can't justify that, anon. Means that the sum of all pain paid your pleasures.

>>15719149
“giving pleasure” is just another way of saying “improving the life of another.” Think of it as a spectrum with suffering and pleasure on the ends. Purposely tipping the scale towards suffering is immoral, as well as letting the scale tip over when you could easily prevent it from doing so.

>>15719163
That's simply not true.
>>15719166
See >>15718115

I’m an antinatalist simply because I don’t see the point in bringing people into existence. My life is good right now, but I can easily imagine hundreds of very possible scenarios that would make me want to kill myself. Suicide isn’t even something rare, people kill themselves by the thousands every year. If you think life is good, take into account that it might be temporary and your hypothetical child might not share your view.

>The presence of pain is bad.
>The precence of pleasure is good.
>The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
>The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
Therefore the world is infinitely good.

>>15719177
Theory neutral though
>>15719178
You're wrong, I've explained this multiple times now. The asymmetry only requires a non-trivial amount of suffering. A nearly perfect world is enough.

>>15719191
>I’m an antinatalist simply because
....I would prefer the life of having No children to the life of having children.
FTFY

>>15719181
>That's simply not true
If virtue ethics, deontology, existentialism, or any other moral theory is considered, all antinatalist claims and arguments struggle at best and completely fall apart at worst.

>>15719195
Well, whatever, keep jerking that off.

>>15719195
>Theory neutral though
the fuck are you talking about
the presupposed that suffering is inherently bad and pleasure is inherently good, that's utilitarianism
it's not theory neutral.

>>15719193
Also my life and lives of other people are infinitely good.
Also I am an infinitely kind and good person no matter what I do.

Wow, antinatalism is truly the most optimistic philosophy ever!

>>15719180
What you are doing here is trying to redefine words in order to win an argument.
Are you acting immorally by not giving me pleasure right now?

>>15717366
Question: what sort of world would justify natalism to the antinatalist? At what point does the good outweigh the bad? If you say that it’s only justified when there is zero pain then you should be mocked, because all you’re arguing for is that pain should be avoided at all costs, which is childish.

>>15719193
This is pure cowardice. They even cite Nietzsche. I hope they fucking burn in hell with him.

>The presence of pain is bad.

KEK

>>15719233
fine, it’s not immoral, I’ll give you that. But the reason we can harm our children is because we also allow them to have pleasure, which in most cases seems to keep them from hating us altogether, so the good outweighs the bad

>>15719212
>>15719210
If you actually read the thread or did any amount of googling before coming here to rave about this, you'd see that the language here is a bit misleading. "Pleasure" isn't necessarily utilitarian or hedonistic pleasure though it can be. It can also be interpreted as "wish fulfillment" or any number of other things. Pick your interpretation. No moral philosopher has ever contested this point with Benatar, it's simply retarded.

>>15719193
>>15719223
So if you think that world being infinitely good and people being infinitely kind is ridiculous, you defeated the antinatalism. And if you agree with that, you just got enlightened and now will be eternally happy (no matter what will happen next).

>>15719234
In a hypothetically perfect world we should be indifferent towards procreation. Any amount of non-trivial suffering is enough to make the asymmetry work.

>>15719253
>It can also be interpreted as "wish fulfillment" or any number of other things. Pick your interpretation.
So the word, equivocated with anything whatsoever construed as morally good, is utterly meaningless apart from its difference from "pain," which is equally meaningless. Good job, Retardatar.

>>15719253
“preference” is the most applicable word. Morality consists of achieving the most preferable experience or sum of experiences. The morality of natalism is justified after the fact, as most people prefer life and are glad to have been born. If they could restart everything and choose non-existence or another life, I think most people would choose life.

>>15719269
No, the world being not perfect, but just somewhat good already justifies procreation.

>>15719234
Also it's not that in life all pain should be avoided. It's that there's nothing to be gained by starting a life. It's not a bad thing that Martians don't exist because no one is being deprived of pleasures. However it is a good thing that Martians don't have to experience torture among other things.

>>15719269
you didn’t really answer my question. Is natalism ever justifiable?

>>15719248
And we're right back where we started. You claim that the good outweighs the bad but clearly others don't think so. Like some suicides & antinatalists.
So what gives you the right to make the call for others?

>>15719287
parents are benefited by having children (and raising them properly). That’s why it’s morally justified. I think my child will be happy and love me, which will make me happy, so I’m not an antinatalist

>>15719276
It's theory neutral you retard. That's what it means.
>>15719288
In a perfect world, however you want to define that in light of the premises. Anything non-trivially less than that, it's unjustified.

>>15719303
The specific claim is that it's always bad for the child. Your reasoning could justify abuse as well as long as the abuser gets sufficient pleasure out of it.

>>15719301
>So what gives you the right to make the call for others?
non-psychotic children rarely kill their parents for merely bringing them into the world. I’m right whenever I improve my life, and having a wife and children would be preferable to me. Judging from probability, my children will likely prefer life anyway.

>>15719304
No, the world shouldn't be perfect for natalism to be good. In fact it shouldn't be even extremely good, just somewhat good. And that's true even if we accept the asymmetry principle in question.

>>15719317
That's not true. It's not bad if you don't procreate but any amount of non-trivial suffering is bad for an existing being and it's good to avoid that. That's the asymmetry. No one loses if you don't procreate.

Antinatalism is exhaustively defeatist. You can't really argue that things would be better if nothing living existed, because there would no longer be a subjective being to evaluate it. It would be meaningless bordering on the absurd. Frankly we're dying no matter what choice we make in life, and once we're dead all the pain we've experienced (as well as pleasure and meaning) will be completely erased. As an entity I would still rather be alive for some time, and I think my children will feel the same way.

>>15719304
>In a perfect world
describe the perfect world, then
>>15719312
>The specific claim is that it's always bad for the child
sure, there’s always harm, but overall it’s hard to say that you’re doing evil to the child, when you’re also allowing them to have pleasure. It’s like giving someone a shot that cures their sickness. You can’t do them the good without the bad.
> Your reasoning could justify abuse as well as long as the abuser gets sufficient pleasure out of it.
well, that’s why they abuse. The problem is that this typically isn’t good for the abuser in the long-term. Even if they don’t get caught, they live with a life of fear and maybe regret, all for temporary pleasure. It’s not worth it.

Speaking as an antinatalist, I can't help but feel natalism/antinatalism are driven by dispositional biases, and not rational argument etc. As in, already in an antinatalist there is the sense that life is bad, pointless, not worth living etc, and then not having children follows from it. And vice versa for natalism. Nobody rationally has or doesn't have a child - like all other functions of biology it's not really a rational deliberated choice.

I would doubt anyone gets convinced by antinatalist arguments - when the antinatalists themselves didn't even come to their conclusions through argument (but rather, through personal suffering).

>>15719330
I misspoke. The child doesn't lose if you don't procreate. It's simply incoherent to think that you're depriving a non-existent being of the pleasures in life.

>>15719333
>and I think my children will feel the same way.

yeah but the point is you don't know that for sure, so you're taking a monumental risk (an unwanted life) on behalf of another person, for nothing more than selfish callous reasons.

>>15719330
No, it directly follows from the asymmetry that in many cases it is clearly beneficial for the child to be born (unless the world is very bad, but that's only somewhat changes the threshold compared to the symmetrical philosophy).

>>15719332
>describe the perfect world, then
I can't and I don't have to. It's a hypothetical, I don't think it's actually a possibility.
>sure, there’s always harm
Yeah and not being born is not a bad thing. A non-existent being can't be deprived of pleasure. However avoiding that harm is a good thing.
> Even if they don’t get caught, they live with a life of fear and maybe regret, all for temporary pleasure. It’s not worth it.
A+ moral reasoning here.

>>15719330
If it’s good to avoid harm for an existent being, therefore justifying non-birth, then it’s bad to avoid pleasure for an existent nein, justifying birth. It all depends on how much harm and how much pleasure.

>>15719330
Antinatalism actually proves that world is infinitely good and people are infinitely benevolent. That fact will not change by any finite addition of good or bad.

>>15719344
Sure but it's not like I don't have skin in the game. I'm going to try my darndest to give that kid (or kids) a good life.

>>15719346
Right, it's logically coherent but this is an axiological argument as I stated.

>>15719344
all actions are selfish

>>15719365
So introducing the asymmetry from the oppost changes very little. Even if you agree with it (most people don't), then in many cases procreation is still good, just like in the symmetrical case.

>>15719346
Here you're denying the asymmetry itself. If we accept the asymmetry, then it follows that only a perfect world is sufficient reason for natalism.

>>15719354
>A non-existent being can't be deprived of pleasure. However avoiding that harm is a good thing.
but it’s a non-existent being, so how can it be deprived of harm?

>>15717366
>better never to have been
Better to whom?

>>15719380
Shit I think I quoted the wrong post. I'm getting too tired for this. These points have been addressed by Benatar in his book and some interviews. You'll get a better explanation from him than me. I'm jumping the ship.

>>15719380
>Here you're denying the asymmetry itself.
No-no, I am currently (for the sake of the discussion) accepting the asymmetry. Let me cite it once more:
>The presence of pain is bad.
>The precence of pleasure is good.
>The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
>The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
It does not lead to the claim that "only a perfect world is sufficient reason for natalism.". In fact the world should be only somewhat good to justify the natalism.

>>15719395
Benatar is a freak, but if you want to preach his ideology to the nonbelievers, jumping the ship will not work.

>>15719401
>>The presence of pain is bad.
>>The precence of pleasure is good.
here, let’s add some premises
>when there is more pleasure than pain, life is more good than bad
>non-life is neither good nor bad
>therefore non-life is less good than a life with more pleasure than pain

Therefore a life that seems more good than bad is better than non-life. But everyone already knew that, didn’t they?

>>15717366
I vaguely resent my life and am unlikely to reproduce, but I'm not hanging any labels on it. Other people can do what they want, as far as I'm concerned, too.

Incidentally, it's entirely possible that future humans could be engineered to be only pleasure motivated and lack suffering. That suffering defines life on Earth is fairly accidental. So it might be worthwhile to suffer through a few more generations to turn this thing around.

>>15719429
Yes, something like that. Even if you will accept the asymmetry, it will hardly change this conclusion. So there are no new consequences from the original post and you can make children if you think that they will be reasonably happy.

>>15719316
You've given me something to think to about anon. Even though you've conceded the assymetry you've shown that it's not a major factor in how most people evaluate their lives

>>15718064
I completely missed this. Thanks anon. And yeah I totally understand why he wants privacy.

Can we stop making anti-natalist bait threads please?

>>15719507
antibaitalism asymmetry

The mistake I always see in discussions about whether or not life is "worth it" is the baseless assumption that a cup of pain is necessarily equal to or greater than a cup of joy. There is absolutely no empirical reason to believe this. Most people will endure a great deal of pain for a few moments of joy and think nothing of it. Many people would tell you that pain and struggle gives the joy its value. Most people will even become directionless, miserable, and atrophied in a life without some at least some pain or longing. If pain were actually so terrible, then why would this be the case? Clearly, to use the phrase again, a cup of pain does not necessarily balance out a cup of joy. If anything, joy seems to be exceptionally more rich/dense than pain is, even if you were to concede there was far more pain in life by sheer volume. For some reason, this fact is treated as an error in calculation on the part of humans seeking joy and not evidence of some erroneous assumptions on the part of those who would question the merit of having ever been born.

Just gonna leave this here because all the attempts at counter arguments in this thread and more are addressed by Benatar himself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeGAeBe7iRM

>>15719520
Yes, this is blatant retardation. This guy is probably paying someone to make these threads and sell his shit book.

>>15719644
Hovered over the link. Laughed at the thumbnail. Replied and moved on.

>>15719653
Joke's on him if he is, because nobody's going to impulse buy a book on fucking antinatalism.

>>15719794
Dunno, anon. You are underestimating other anons.

>>15718098
but how can you end up in the conclusion that life is mostly pain? I mean, you could say for example that most of life is just remaining in apathy and you have moments of pain and moments of happiness. if someone were to experience existence like this, wouldn't it be less of an issue with the asymmetry?

>please answers my arguments
>no that didn't address so and so
>Google it you simpleton my arguments are sophisticated
>I've already addressed this rebuttal, see:
>fuck it just watch this video (((Benatar))) has all the answers
Are antinatalists the reddit atheists of '08?

>>15719837
same poster here, he's in there like a way to calculate amounts of pain and happiness and with this decide whether there's a possibility got happiness or joy outweighs pain? for example, you'll have in your life a bigger amount of sad moments than happy ones, but the happy ones have a bigger value and therefore can sometimes justify all the suffering

>>15719794
The interviewer is stupid and his channel is pretentious as hell. Benatar still manages to completely destroy all the arguments in this thread while being careful not to say anything irresponsible.
>>15719837
I never made that claim nor does the asymmetry need that to work. I've repeated this like 20 times in this thread. The axiological asymmetry isn't about an asymmetry between pleasure and pain. Apparently this has to be spelled out since no one can actually think things through. From the axiological asymmetry (the premises I posted in my original post) it LOGICALLY follows that coming into existence is never in the interest of the child. There is another asymmetry as well that Benatar talks about but one that I haven't in this thread. It's an empirical asymmetry between pleasure and pain. You, and a bunch of others, apparently mistake this latter asymmetry as the axiological asymmetry because you're incpabale of going from premises to a conclusion which makes me wonder why you're even spending time in /lit/ since you're obviously incapable of literally elementary level reasoning.

>>15719872
4 premises, most people completely ignored them. There's literally nothing else I can do expect to point out that their posts have no bearing on the axiological asymmetry. And I could answer the same question 500 times or I could link to the answers I already gave since multiple people say the same shit. Never got a proper response back from those though. /lit/ is a worse shithole than reddit.

>>15720106
>it LOGICALLY follows
No, it doesn't LOGICALLY follow. In fact even with your asymmetry it LOGICALLY follows that in many cases it is better to make a child.

>>15720146
what does he say to those who see the inconsistency in the last two premises? Or to egoists? Or to those who think the good outweighs the bad in most cases?

>>15720165
Yes it does. I seriously can't help you if you can't do elemetary logic. Take a course or something. The conclusion I mentioned follows from those premises, this is completely clear for anyone with an IQ over 90. I mean you can look at actual counter-arguments against the asymmetry but none of them contest the logic. They contest one or more of the premises because it's clear as day where they lead. Jesus christ anon.

>>15720178
Well you can watch any interview he's had, people always point out the "consistency" of the last premises. I think he also wrote an article on it but I haven't read it. To egoists he would probably say they're in the minority and it's a bit indecent to suggest that parents have a moral right to selfishly and at the expense of their child enjoy some pleasure it gives them to bring that child into existence. You can play this egoist game for sure, it works even if the axiological argument is true but what's the point in bringing it up if it doesn't really say anything about my OP?

>not alive
>become alive
>go back to being un-alive

The fact that our lives are so short just makes me not really care if my child trips over and hits his kneecap. If you're responsible and have a family you're capable of bringing up intelligently and strongly enough to take power in this world then I don't really see an issue.

>>15720184
Anon, that's a nice tantrum, but I'll try once again: even if we'll fully accept your silly premises, they will still LOGICALLY lead to the pro-natalism. So not only you start with a doubtful claim, but you also use the claim which destroys your desired outcome.

>>15720217
Absolute state of /lit/

>>15720221
Explain retard

>>15720219
They logically lead to there being no interest from the child's point of view to come into existence. Not literally an interest for a non-existent being but when you compare the two possible cases.

>>15720226
No I'm pretty much done, you can read the thread if you want an answer. I'm so disappointed in the responses here. I can't believe how braindead most of this board is. I mean I shouldn't be surprised but I didn't expect most of you being literal high schoolers.

>>15720273
You're just stupid and uneducated anon

>>15720202
>indecent
what does that mean? 99.9% of people find no wrong in parents for simply having children. And most kids don’t hate their parents for having them, either. All actions are selfish. People decide to have kids because they think their lives will be better because of it, not because they want to increase the overall happiness of the world or anything like that. Especially from a biological perspective, we’re simply trying to selfishly preserve our own genes. When suffering exists to lead us to survival, it’s quite strange that a human would eliminate all suffering by eliminating the possibility of survival! It’s all a delusion, like starving yourself in favor of the dopamine that comes from heroine, as if pleasure alone is what keeps us alive.

Egoism completely undercuts the philosophy. We’re alive, now we figure out what to do with what we’re given. There’s no good reason why I should care about eliminating worldwide suffering if it doesn’t help me. Others might seek virtuous for such a thing, but I don’t, and so there’s no benefit for me.

>>15720262
To cite it again, even if we accept the premise that
>The presence of pain is bad.
>The precence of pleasure is good.
>The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
>The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
it will not LOGICALLY lead to "pro-natalism being sufficient only in a perfect world". It will just LOGICALLY lead to the "making children in a good enough world is good", just like with a symmetrical case. So no difference, except for maybe some coefficients in the formula. So your premise LOGICALLY defeated your desired outcome.

>>15720273
You promised to jump the ship quite a bit ago, yet you are still here. Looks like you use the same methods in the 4chan quarrels as you do in your life.

>>15717366
I'm not an anti-natalist because I am sterile and was hence robbed for making any meaningful decision on the matter

>>15720262
>>15720304
the problem comes from quantifying the “good” of non-life. How is that good, anyway, when no one is there to experience it? I would say it’s neither good nor bad. But even if it is good, it should be clarified exactly how good it is. Is it the same level of good as infinite pleasure?

>>15720319
you could always ask a black guy to fuck your wife

>>15720352
Yeah, if you will dig deeper, you will actually get that this premise leads to the world being infinitely good, people being infinitely happy and kind and so on.

>>15720352
on that note, we should also be asking what it means for something to be good or bad. If it means pleasurable/painful, then the premises fall apart.

>>15717366
>>The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation

If a young, talented writer dies in a car accident, we call this tragic, because of how much of life be missed out on, and we wonder what he could have produced had he lived longer. Your silly pseud argument has been demolished. Begone, retard.

>>15720555
There would be no tragedy if he didn't exist in the first place lol.

>>15720577
you only say that because humans become emotionally attached to other humans and we perceive certain events as losses. If aliens suddenly made everyone on the planet sterile, there would certainly be lamenting.

>>15717366
>>The presence of pain is bad.
>>The precence of pleasure is good.
wrong
this should be easy enough for your pea brain
https://youtu.be/0F6oeuV2hL0

>>15720596
There's lamenting every time people are forced to drop something unethical.
>"slavery is illegal? Over my dead body"

>>15720626
I bet you will lament if banned from shitposting.

>>15720637
It would probably be better than staying here, but it would have been best not to have come here in the first place.

>>15717366
>The presence of pain is bad.
>The presence of pleasure is good.
beauty and happiness only exist because of their scarcity, joy is to overcome, with nothing to overcome there is no happiness; if you've never had such a moment where you could die, then and there, because of the pure absolute goodness experienced, a moment worth all pain you've ever suffered, and in-fact amplify it because you've suffered—then you should shut the fuck up.
and pleasure is not joy or happiness

>makes an moral statement without god
>for there to be morality, and good and evil, there has to be the Good
>if there's the Good then the Good caused our existence and begat all things
>therefore creating is good whether living of inanimate
aka pic related

>>15720772
So he created pedophilia?

>>15720818
>17. The other name is that of the Father, by virtue of Him being the author of all things; for the, Father's nature is to create. Therefore, the raising of children2 is held in the greatest esteem in life and most blessed by right-thinking people; and the greatest misfortune and impiety is when someone departs from mankind without children, for he suffers punishment after death from the divine powers. This is the retribution: that the soul without children is condemned to a body that is neither male nor female, and is cursed by the sun. Therefore, Asclepius, do not congratulate anyone without children but rather take pity on his misfortune, knowing what punishment awaits him. Let this much be spoken as a foretaste to the understanding of the nature of the All.

Pedophila is not a life/being/thing but a state and an activity of a free being.

>>15720830
where do pedophilic desires come from

>>15720843
free over-indulgence into pleasures making them into vices

>>15720855
over-indulgence must be born from desire also

>>15720855
So the One creates the pre-disposition to over-indulgence, correct? How can the One not be responsible for the creation of defective beings?

>>15720862
desire is a mechanism, it's up to man to direct it

>>15717366
I'm child free but not an antinatalist. Justifying antinatalism is very difficult, philosophically speaking. Also, in practice it causes more problems (e.g., consider how likely it is for a white to become an antinatalist versus a black man).
I'm just child-free now largely due to pessimistic reasons.

>>15720879
man is ignorant and weak

>>15720883
yep, but he is also free and if he's heroic enough he can overcome his weakness and stop desiring sinful things

>>15720896
free from what, exactly?

>>15720862
>ATHENIAN: I suggest we look at the problem in this way: let’s imagine that each of us living beings is a puppet of the gods. Whether we have been constructed to serve as their plaything, or for some serious reason, is something beyond our ken, but what we certainly do know is this: wee have the see motions in us, which act like cords or strings and tug us about; they work in opposition, and tug against each other to make us perform actions that are opposed correspondingly; back and forth we go across the boundary line where vice and virtue meet. One of these dragging forces, according to our argument, demands our constant obedience, and this is the one we have to hang on to, come what may; the pull of the other cords we must resist. This cord, which is golden and holy, transmits the power of ‘calculation’, a power which in a state is called the public law; being golden, it is pliant, while the others, whose composition resembles a variety of other substances, are tough and inflexible. The force exerted by law is excellent, and one should always co-operate with it, because although ‘calculation’ is a noble thing, it is gentle, not violent, and its efforts need assistants, so that the gold in us may prevail over the other substances. If we do give our help, the moral point of this fable, in which we appear as puppets, will have been well and truly made; the meaning of the terms ‘self-superior’ and ‘self-inferior’ will somehow become clearer, and the duties of state and individual will be better appreciated. The latter must digest the truth about these forces that pull him, and act on it in his life; the state must get an account of it either from one of the gods or from the human expert we’ve mentioned, and incorporate it in the form of a law to govern both its internal affairs and its relations with other states. A further result will be a clearer distinction between virtue and vice;
No matter the pulling force of vice, and the pulling is in all directions (virtue as Plato says long before Aristotle, is the Golden Mean), we always have the power to resist them for virtue, but our free-will let's go of the reign and we let ourselves be pulled by our demons, our lesser selves; how free-will functions is by definition not explainable since if it could be predicted and completely rationalized it wouldn't be free.

>>15720898
not free from anything but free for something

>>15718787
Midwit argument

>>15720906
>we always have the power to resist them for virtue
not necessarily freedom. It’s possible that we be pulled by conflicting desires, feeling the effects of each, eventually being pulled by the stronger one. It’s not as if we reject certain passions for no reason, but we see some sort of incentive in doing so. One way to demonstrate that our behavior is explained by true freedom is to be the example yourself, and always choose what is virtuous. I’ve never seen this, however.

>>15720906
*we have these
not "wee have the see"
>>15720872
because hierarchy is good, defection only comes to be from the free soul's misuse of all things. or themselves, the lowest (matter) is good if we do not try to make it into something more than it is; or even less than it is (like calling it evil in itself), like most moksha seekers or gnostics do.
Without hierarchies there is no life, no growth, no progress, no change, no struggle to overcome, no meaning to find, no beauty to behold.

>>15720939
there's always the golden cord in-between them all, pulling us up the ladder or Eros towards the Good, which is also the Gold itself in ourselves.

>>15720955
And no evil, so evil originates with the One

>>15720955
you can see all this beauty without invoking freedom. The effects can easily be brought about without freedom.

>>15720965
Freedom is Good, there is no love or joy in dopamine without purpose or sincere authenticity. Do you wish to be a heroin rat?
>>15720964
Evil originates from your freedom, God only creates its potential, and its potential is there because otherwise the above answer (love, honesty, and all the virtues, do not exist).
For absolute infinite good to exist, the absolute potential for evil has to be possible; but to not forget that temporary suffering and pain is not evil, the truly evil is the irredeemable, and this does not exist, thus all evil events and experiences throughout all existence have had good effects in them, and in the long run all their evil effects dissipate leaving only their good effects.
But you seek nothingness, an illusion, not the Void of the Ineffable but the void on not-being, which is evil and hangs on the presupposition and delusional selfish dream that the soul could ever cease to be.

>>15717366
Statement 3 and 4 are inconsistent. Statement 3 assumes an impersonal view of harm, whereas statement 4 assumes a personal view of pleasure. There is no reason to believe that while pain is bad impersonally, i.e. without respect to any being capable of experiencing pain, pleasure is only good personally, i.e. only with respect to a being capable of experiencing pleasure.

>>15717366
>Your excuse for not being an antinatalist?
i dont want 3rd world niggers flooding my country because i refuse to contribute to the population

>>15720996
Creating the potential for evil is creating evil lol

>>15720996
>Freedom is Good
why?

>>15721018
The Choice exists because multiplicity exist, by you and me merely existing the choice for me to harm you exists. The Choice and its total rejection is entirely up to us. Multiplicity exists because it is good, since love only exists in-between.

>>15721051
Because honesty, authenticity, and love, does not exist without it.
God is freedom, being images of images of the Good we are primarily free above all else.
An automaton has no life.

>>15717375
>mfw an entire thread of pseuds and not one cogent response to the fpbp

>>15720996
virtues exist even in a deterministic world in which all action is just the result of the greatest desire of the moment. The contrast between good and evil is still apparent if we are not free. Freedom is not required for good or evil, nor does it necessarily lead to evil. I would argue that true freedom and evil are mutually exclusive. If I were free, then I would never purposely choose that which I know is bad for me. The existence of evil is therefore better explained by a lack of freedom.

>>15717366
>The presence of pain is bad.
This is completely false. The good and the painful are one.

>>15721095
this anon knows

>>15721077
How is it not possible to tell the truth without freedom? If the One decided from the beginning exactly what would manifest, is it not possible that the world include humans who tell the truth? Or love? Or strive for things that make their lives much more preferable?

>>15721058
>the One didn't create fire bro, it just made everything flammable, and That's a Good Thing
kek

>>15717366
Falls apart when you expand 'bad', 'good', 'pain', 'pleasure' in detail. Also,
>The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone. Also, you present 3 states, as if capturing the sum of human experience, and claim that the empty one is good. I would say there is no 'empty' one except in death. So really all you've said is
>Death/nonexistence is good, therefore death/nonexistence is good.

Antinatalism could be a valid stance but I've yet to see it.

>>15721140
it’s only valid from the egoist argument that having children will make your life worse through stress, expenses, etc.

Falls apart when you expand 'bad', 'good', 'pain', 'pleasure' in detail. Also,
>The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
You present 3 states, as if capturing the all of human experience and feeling, and claim that the empty one is good. I would say there is no 'empty' one except in death if we're working with such meaninglessly simplistic terms this can only be the case. So really all you've said is
>Death/nonexistence is good, therefore death/nonexistence is good.

Antinatalism could be a valid stance but I've yet to see it.

>>15721094
>then I would never purposely choose that which I know is bad for me.
that is not freedom
Freedom is neutral, it is the power to choose the most evil option "just cause", this of course only happens to an already extremely self-corrupted individual. Necessity then weaves all choices into our fate and the fate of the world, for we are all little demiurges to be "archons" of evil heroes of virtue.
We do not exist here for solely our own leisure, we all have a duty to help others. In Republic the Guardian is told to re-enter the cave and leave "liberation".
>>15721112
Regurgitating facts is no believing them or wanting them.
>>15721136
there's only fire that burns the world due to us igniting ourselves

>>15721158
No. Most people gain a lot emotionally from having children, also it's a good investment longterm. It's not an egoist argument, it's a manchild dogmatist's argument.

>>15721169
or heroes of virtue*

>>15721169
>>15721169
>doing that which aligns with the Good is not freedom...
>...doing evil “just cause” is
doesn’t seem that useful then

>>15717366
>"ethical problems"
Good lord, who let the basedboy in?

>>15721176
I agree, just saying that’s the only possible route of argument. People choose not to have children because they believe they’ll be better off without them

>>15721186
>doing that which aligns with the Good is not freedom...
should check your reading comprehension

>>15717366
>The presence of pain is bad.
>The precence of pleasure is good.
>The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
>The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.

I disagree.

>>15721197
what good is there in freedom, then? Your concept of freedom is incoherent. For me, it’s simoly the ability to rectify yourself, predetermined or not. You’ll never be able to make a reasonable explanation for why freedom implies evil. Evil comes purely from desires that don’t align with the actions that you should take to achieve the most preferable life.

>>15721220
Doing good is less if you aren't doing it because you wish to, if it isn't your will it isn't your act, thus you are not better or worse for doing anything nno matter what you o because you're not 'doing it', you're merely an instrument of something else.
Dunno how you can be so dense.
A sword is not evil, likewise there is no evil without choice, it is the same with good acts; there are no good acts if they aren't willed. Being 'an act' in itself presupposes a will acting.

>>15721478
Without will, which is always free, 'you' do not exist at all, Volition is Being. Life IS self-motion, it is the definition of life.

>>15721220
Is it just me, or is freedom a loaded term in American culture?