What do you think about Antinatalism?

Author: TheRealNihilist ,

Posts

Total: 38
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
Basically your stances on it. 

Here is the definition:
Antinatalism, or anti-natalism, is a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth. Antinatalists argue that people should abstain from procreation because it is morally bad (some also recognize the procreation of other sentient beings as morally bad).
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,886
5
8
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
8
10
I've studied it a bit. It's something every parent should keep in mind (particularly if they believe their children owe them something...).

A problem is that if any society became so enlightened that it sought to not have children, their resources would inevitably just be used by less enlightened societies.

Long story short, people should ensure they can assure their children a good life before having any.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
It is good to be celibate, but not  because procreation is immoral.

In fact, antinatalism, that is to say it is immoral to have children, is definitely immoral. 

I am a vegetarian. I am not a vegetarian because eating meat is immoral. It is not immoral to eat meat. 



TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @Ragnar
Long story short, people should ensure they can assure their children a good life before having any.
Do you consider the act of bringing a life into the world as immoral or a negative?

Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,886
5
8
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
8
10
--> @TheRealNihilist

Long story short, people should ensure they can assure their children a good life before having any.
Do you consider the act of bringing a life into the world as immoral or a negative?
I'd say it defaults to a negative, but is not assured to be immoral (that depends on the motivations of the parents).
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @Ragnar
I'd say it defaults to a negative, but is not assured to be immoral (that depends on the motivations of the parents).
Could the negative become a positive? 
Should we create life?
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
--> @TheRealNihilist
As I read it, anti-natalism is less about birth itself being immoral than it is about life being undesirable.   The core idea is that it is better to have never been born - something many people must have felt at some point in their lives!

Certainly if one was never born one would not have to endure the many unhappy and painful things that life brings on.  It is a good question whether - on balance - one is happy more than one is sad during one's life, if there are more bad things in life than good ones.

As each life contains more sadness than happiness it is immoral to create another life, condemed as it is to more pain than pleasure, because the net effect is an increase in sadness and pain in the world.


Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @keithprosser
Sounds like the logical conclusion of a maximize pleasure moral system.

Life is suffering, therefore life is immoral.


TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @keithprosser
As each life contains more sadness than happiness it is immoral to create another life, condemed as it is to more pain than pleasure, because the net effect is an increase in sadness and pain in the world.
Do you take that position and should we act on it? 

keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
--> @TheRealNihilist
I don't think it is a philosophical position anyone really holds because the logical consequence would seem to be to commit suicide immediately!

It's a bit like idealism - nobody really believes it, but it's great for making people think hard and long about assumptions they didn't realise they had - at least that its effect on me!



TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @keithprosser
I don't think it is a philosophical position anyone really holds because the logical consequence would seem to be to commit suicide immediately!
I wasn't speaking about the consequences more so do you take the position we should act on it?

keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
--> @TheRealNihilist
My instinct is that it's probably wrong.  I don't worry over much about what I can prove, in the sense that I'd have to think very long and hard before I go against my instinct that life is worth living!
 
I treat it as a challenge - to come up with a counter-argument.   Just thinkig about it will be a useful exercise, but I don't see it aecting my 'real life'. 
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 26
Posts: 3,095
3
4
10
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
10
--> @Ragnar
A problem is that if any society became so enlightened that it sought to not have children, their resources would inevitably just be used by less enlightened societies.


Once we implement habe enough technology to implement radical life extension, a large sextor of the public who are concerned with limited resources will take a moral stand against procreation and declare themselves "The Final Generation". It may even be declared before we have access to radical life extension as a show thay we will solve the puzzle. I have already decided to have no more children. The ones I have now are just for replacement parts if I need them. The younger one is a back up plan incase the oldest son is not willing to give me a kidney or cannot for some reason. Once we make organs in a lab, people like me will no longer require replacement parts and let's be honest (a retirement plan like having kids). 
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,364
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Sounds like humanism. 
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
I think that bringing people in the world is something humanity ought to do to expand our species.  There is fear of overpopulation, but this can be solved by increasing the carrying capacity of the species.  GMOs can help us with this goal.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @keithprosser
My instinct is that it's probably wrong.  I don't worry over much about what I can prove, in the sense that I'd have to think very long and hard before I go against my instinct that life is worth living!
  
I treat it as a challenge - to come up with a counter-argument.   Just thinkig about it will be a useful exercise, but I don't see it aecting my 'real life'.  
Can you base it not on your instinct more so a rationale?
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @Alec
I think that bringing people in the world is something humanity ought to do to expand our species.
Why ought we?
Remember there is no right or wrong simply things we decide to value. 
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
--> @TheRealNihilist
I'd like to spend a  lot more time on it.  
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @keithprosser
I'd like to spend a  lot more time on it.   
I think the answers would be rather simple. Following these questions that is:

Is life worth living weighing the positive and negative aspect of it?
Should we ought to carry on living given the findings above?

Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,303
2
4
9
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
2
4
9
--> @TheRealNihilist
I think this thread belongs in a different forum.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @Mharman
I think this thread belongs in a different forum.
I wanted DA users opinion. I am not arguing against someone's position more so asking for it. 

Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,886
5
8
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
8
10
--> @TheRealNihilist
I'd say it defaults to a negative, but is not assured to be immoral (that depends on the motivations of the parents).
Could the negative become a positive? 
Should we create life?
By defaulting to a negative, I mean it can become a positive. We mostly just shouldn't create new people out of boredom.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @Ragnar

By defaulting to a negative, I mean it can become a positive. We mostly just shouldn't create new people out of boredom.
Do you have an example where a negative can become a positive? 
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
--> @TheRealNihilist
I think the answers would be rather simple. Following these questions that is:

Is life worth living weighing the positive and negative aspect of it?
Should we ought to carry on living given the findings above?
My initial problem is how to weigh the positive and negative aspects - indeed maybe the problem is identifying what the negative and positive aspects are!   
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,886
5
8
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
8
10
--> @TheRealNihilist
By defaulting to a negative, I mean it can become a positive. We mostly just shouldn't create new people out of boredom.
Do you have an example where a negative can become a positive? 
I'd say when the parents are dedicating enough resources to give the child a more than average shot at an enjoyable life.

On the other end of the spectrum, some parents today still have kids for the express purpose of cheap labor (AKA slaves).