Instigator / Pro
17
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#5247

It is illogical to keep living & to create new life

Status
Voting

The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

Voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
70
1774
rating
97
debates
77.32%
won
Description

I am the creator of 2 unique philosophies, namely existential antinatalism (the idea that procreation is illogical) & existential promortalism (the idea that it is logical for any mortal living being to die as soon as possible).

I should start by differentiating existential antinatalism/promortalism from contemporary antinatalism/promortalism. The latter 2 are against procreation & continued living respectively, but on the basis of ethics/morality. Ethics/morality is a completely fictitious concept & this can be easily proven.

Firstly, David Hume’s “is-ought” gap can be solved, but the solution has nothing to do with morality. It can only be solved by determinism/causation e.g a ball that is held up in the air is let go. What ought to happen? It ought to fall down. The, “is” statement is the fact that the ball has been let go and the, “ought” statement is the fact that it must fall down. I state that morality is fictitious because it fails to solve what I call the, “ought-ought” gap. Since deriving an, “ought” from an, “is” has nothing to do with morality, the only other option to try & prove moral realism is to try to derive an, “ought” from another, “ought”. Unfortunately, this is impossible, because it results in an infinite regress of, “ought” statements. E.g If you try to justify, “ought” claim-1 with, “ought” claim-2, you are implying that, “ought” claim-1 requires justification, because it is an, “ought” claim. This further implies that, “ought” claim-2 requires justification as well. Attempting to do so with an, “ought” claim-3 results in the same problem, leading to an infinite regress of, unjustifiable, “ought” claims.

It argues in favor of both, with 3 arguments.

The first is called the argument from unnecessary complexity. It states that in the world there exist living things and non living things & both serve the same purpose, which is obedience of the laws of physics. However, the non living things can do this job by themselves, meaning that the existence of living things adds unnecessary complexity to the world. Thus, it is more logical to make the world simpler by removing the already existing living things & not bringing more new ones.

The second is called the argument from a lack of purpose. It states that it is impossible to prove that a living organism must continue living or that it must create new life, since this would amount to a moral claim & morality is a fictitious concept. As such, it is illogical to do something that you have no obligation to do. One could argue that there is no moral obligation to be dead either so being dead is illogical. This is false, because dead things do not exist any more & the characteristic of being logical or illogical cannot apply to the them.

The third is called the argument from a universal solution. It states that every living thing has to solve problems. The word, “problems” here, is used in a general sense, to refer to having desires. To have a desire simply means to want something. The nature of the desire, doesn’t matter. It could be anything, no matter how big (wanting to run for president) or small (wanting to go to the toilet). This argument states that it is illogical to create offspring who will have desires, since they did not need or want anything before they were born. It goes on to state that death is the most logical reaction to having any desires, because death gets rid of desires themselves. Consider for example, the fact that humans need to eat food to stay alive. Instead of dealing with your hunger by eating food, if you instead die, you would permanently, no longer even need to eat. On a larger scale, rather than governments spending huge amounts of money & effort on agriculture, it would instead be a more sensible action to organize a total genocide, to avoid the need for food production.

For more information, check out my Amazon published book, "Promortalism" that explores the topic in greater detail.

Round 1
Pro
#1
Forfeited
Con
#2
Illogical has a very specific meaning. An argument with faulty premises is not sound, but it is also not illogical. An illogical argument is where the conclusion doesn't follow.

P1. You should follow your dreams
P2. Surviving and procreating is your dream (for some people)
C. You should survive and procreate

This argument is logical, the conclusion follows from the premises. It would still be logical even if the premises were false. But what one OUGHTS to do cannot be established based on what IS. But the other side of that coin is that no ammount on argumentation based purely on what IS can disprove an OUGHT claim. So it is impossible for PRO to demonstrate that "You should follow your dreams" is a faulty premise. That is not a proposition that can be deemed objectively true or false, it is a subjective personal value. So it makes no sense to say that surviving and procreating is illogical for most people. 
Round 2
Pro
#3
Forfeited
Con
#4
Extend.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Forfeited
Con
#6
Extend.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Forfeited
Con
#8
Extend.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Forfeited
Con
#10
So go have children if you want to and are a responsible adult in a life situation where you can sustain parrenthood.