Anyone else here a proponent of Anti-Natalism? I got into an argument about this on /tv/, and I want to hear what /his/ has to say on the topic.
Procreation is an inherently selfish act, one that cannot be justified by traditional morals. Life and its continuation serves but one false purpose, and that is to ensure the continuation of life. This of course, can be no true purpose, as it holds no sort of finality, no end goal. I ask you, in the absence of finality, can purpose exist? I think not. Reproduction's sole function is to ensure that one fulfills THEIR own biological imperative to continue THEIR bloodline, to prevent THEIR genes from fading along with the sands of time, and to do this, they would force another living being into this world. Such an act is morally unjustifiable, seeing as by creating said person, you are only creating the possibility that they will suffer. On the other hand, by abstaining from reproduction, the child is spared both pleasure and pain, and the result is an action which can be seen as morally neutral. This is the only action that can ensure a lack of suffering 100% of the time, and as such, it is the most logical.
One might claim that, from a Utilitarian perspective, reproduction is to be allowed and even advocated, as the total suffering is outweighed by the total pleasure, and in turn, renders the net suffering to somethijg negligible.
This is ultimately a false statement, as those who suffer shall suffer regardless of those who prosper and thrive. Therefore there is no net good or suffering except in the individual themselves.
So I ask if you, /his/, can Natalism be morally justified, or not? Do you share my beliefs on the subject, or do you have a differing view that you would like to point out?
![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/R6vVd7m.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
>>1324617
I am fascinated with that aspect of the christian dualist heresy called bogomili, cathars, albigenses, paulikiani and related, that flourished during the high middle ages.
The Roman Church still claims today that their literal eradication of the concurrent dualist Church, culminating in the Albigensian Crusade and the foundation of the Inquisition, was necessary partly, but most importantly, because of this creed of theirs.
Apparently they promoted or sexual abstinence, or sex through "unnatural" means as a way to avoid procreation. Their idea was that the earth and all things material were inventions of Satan, who locks our souls (which are divine beings who belong to God) into this word of his creation, and that every baby born is another soul re-incarnated in this earthly prison.
The Roman Catholic Church claims that without their efforts, dualist catharism might have prevailed and caused basically the suicide of the human race.
>>1324617
>Procreation is an inherently selfish act
It is what we are designed to do. Because we know that we are designed for that purpose does not mean it is selfish to do so. Withholding our seed would be the selfish act.
>>1324617
>The continuation of life is a false purpose
Why? Because it's not that awesome purpose you wanted it to be? Fucking hell
>>1324617
Sounds like you're just some /r9k/er upset he's a beta male?
You are spooked as fuck, man.
Not even memeing
really not a safe nor productive topic to discuss outside of an academic context m8.
antinatalism is the last bitter truth that you need to accept
every counter argument grows straight out of that biological instinct to affirm life
>>1326025
Ok can you make a trap thread now?
>>1324639
Why? You could argue it's selfish not to procreate because you're denying a potential person a chance at life and a chance to experience the various pleasures in life.
You could also argue procreation is selfish because you're subjecting your child to suffering, potentially immense amounts of suffering, with no guarantee of equal pleasure to compensate.
Both seem like equally valid arguments to me. It being what we are "designed" to do has nothing to do with whether we should do it or not, unless you're approaching this from a religious perspective and think it's some command from on high or something.
Even then, that's not a sufficient reason to do it if it's not good for us.
>>1326025
Inshallalah Im glad you take the burden away to have us to struggle against infidels in the future^^
>>1324617
>can continued existence of one's own species be morally justified?
Nope. Good luck passing this amazing school of thought to the nonexistent next generation though.
This seems to be similar in nature to solipsism. Logically valid but practically retarded.
>>1324617
>Anti-Natalism
Sorry. Not even gonna read through most of that. Yes, modern culture and modern moral standards do sort of contradict the original reason for procreation, but that doesn't make doing it because you want your genetic line to carry on selfish by the standards of morality. It is a perfectly natural desire. Literally every animal that procreates like we do has this desire as well.
I'd go as far as to say because of that, it can't really be called selfishness, but just competitiveness. We are designed to always be trying to one-up each other in the gene pool to make our species better as a whole, but now our ability to evolve is plateauing due to our reliance on other things to survive. By that measure, yes, procreating becomes pointless, but that doesn't mean it is completely pointless, or somehow "wrong" by any belief's standards. Now that we can supplement our genetic pool with technology, we can focus solely on keeping our evolutionary state from regressing.
The only reason a religion or philosophy would think procreation is wrong is because they didn't know much about evolution when that practice came into place.
>>1326481
The only reason we keep doing it is to survive. People way over think the meaning of living way too much. Here it's to be expect on a board about philosophy, but out in the world, that is really the only thing that needs to be taught. I personally believe the reason kids these days are so care free and reckless is because they aren't taught be cautious with the life they have.
Wew, just woke up, I have no idea why everyone here is so pissed off at me. Half of these responses are just personal insults.
>>1324648
I actually tried to explain why I didn't vuew it as a purpose. I said that, as it is virtually without end, and the only thing ot serves to accomplish is its own continuation, can it truly be considered a purpose? Is purpose not the end intened to be met by the means?
>>1324835
It seems so.
>>1326205
>>1324639
I don't really understand how it can be selfish to abstain from forcing someone into the world. Who is being affected by it? You cannot claim the the supposed child is, as they are not alive. They have no will. How can you be selfish towards an idea?
>>1326495
But is competition not done purely for the self?
>>1324617
I feel like this argument is inherently subjective and entirely dependent on one's view of life. You could argue the utilitarian perspective of minimizing suffering like its something that can be measured, but we know that's not possible. Not to sound cliche but sometimes it takes true suffering to know how to appreciate not suffering. To say you're minimizing suffering is fallacious, as life itself can't exist without it. You're trying to divorce two concepts that are irrevocably intertwined. So you're not really preventing suffering, more just rendering it moot.
Some people find life worth living in spite of the suffering they endure or witness. If there exists a possibility for someone to hold this worldview then it follows that a child could eventually grow into this type of person as well. Someone with this view would of course want to share it with people, ergo having kids, arguing that life is sacred, all that crap. You're essentially taking a gamble by having kids; that their life and experiences will eventually end up a positive one. And as a parent (a good parent, rather) youd want to try your hardest to make sure that happens, even outside of your biological urge to nurture your children, if you're someone who believes in the sanctity of life itself. But again this is up to individual belief.
You could argue that only economically or genetically privileged people would hold this worldview, and you wouldn't be wrong, but happiness can thrive in the weirdest places. Some people don't even fathom thinking about this kind of stuff and can just keep on keeping on without worrying no matter what happens to them.
Also, from an existential standpoint, isn't existing inherenty better than not existing? None of us know what not existing is like, so no one can state that one is better than the other. The worth of existence is wholly determined by the individual. Can you really justify being the spokesperson for every unborn child that could exist?
>>1327126
>isn't
is*
Never realized how bad a simple typo could fuck up an argument.
>>1327126
I'm not divorcing the two. If suffering requires life, and vice versa, than by eliminating the possibility of one of these two, you therefore eliminate the possibility of the other. It is a truly neutral position.
>Some people find life worth living in spite of the suffering they endure or witness.
Again, this is not a valid argument. Their life and the joy or suffering they may experience are not even a possibility if their birth is prevented.
>Also, from an existential standpoint, isn't existing inherenty better than not existing?
Is this where you meant to say is, or what?
I say that existing is most definitely not an inferior option than existing.
>Can you really justify being the spokesperson for every unborn child that could exist?
Yes. Anti-Natalism is the position that takes into account the future person, and renders their suffering an impossibility. Natliam is seflishly forcing into human into existence without regard for how their existence may end up, allowimg for suffering.
>>1327164
>I say that existing is most definitely not an inferior option than existing.
**I say that existing is most definitely an inferior option than existing.
This isn't quite as life vs suffering argument like ones already discussed, but the argument for adopting a pet that you should only get a adult cat or dog rather then a new kitten or puppy as to give them a home and a life etc etc, shouldn't that argument apply to humans as well.
Unless you have an above average intelligence or extremely superior body then genetically an adopted child is close enough to your own potential kin (besides race blah blah) for the nature vs nurture argument to lean towards nurture.
Of course I am talking about the average child below 5 years old for you to be able to place your values and beliefs onto the child. But even then any child over 5 will view you as their parent once passed teenage years
>>1327164
Your entire argument revolves around suffering being inherently negative. If you regard it instead as a neutral force that simply drives life/existence your argument falls apart. I know it sounds like I'm trying to redefine words to win an argument, but the perception of suffering is inherent to the arguments against it in the first place. The subjectivity of the experience means that no single person can make a value judgment about it as a whole.
Muscles require breakdown in order to grow. The pain that accompanies that process is a part of the process itself. You don't isolate the pain as its own entity and use only that metric alone to decide whether working out is worth it or not. You look at the whole picture. You can't justify preventing life being positive because you're preventing suffering without also claiming that you're preventing positive experiences as well, which makes the stance neutral.
It comes down to personal experience. If you value life, your perception of it will be positive, and existence itself will seem to be inherenty good. If you don't value life, your perception of experience will be negative, and existence itself will seem bad. Since experience is completey subjective, picking one of these two sides can't be rationally argued as it's up to the individual themself to determine this or not.
Your argument is neutral, and therefore can't be used as a basis for any moral claims about nobly preventing suffering like you seem to be implying.
>>1324638
>The Roman Catholic Church claims that without their efforts, dualist catharism might have prevailed and caused basically the suicide of the human race.
This, while interesting fails to take into account the enormous human propensity to forget dogma whenever it becomes convenient.
We have an infrastructure here on Earth made for billions of people. It requires maintenance and care. If anti-natalists had there way we'd spend a century not reproducing, living in a pathetic crumbling infrastructure. The last gasps, as they say.
The problem is there's no way to universally enforce an ideology. And it's likely that people would forget in the last few years what was going on. Someone would break the rules and reproduce.
Most reproduction on Earth is done heedlessly without planning.
I'd argue for this reason that we need reasonable educated people reproducing, because otherwise only the heedless reproducers will be reproducing.
>>1327316
Can such things be considered suffering though? The pain from working out of course, is pain in a sense, but this pain is endured with the knowledge that pleasure will follow promptly.
Also, I'm not claiming that my stance is positive. I specifically stated that it was neutral. I do believe that reproduction is pure, unadulterated evil.
It is an act that is solely justified by personal benefit, seeing as the unborn being's "pleasure" cannot be taken into consideration as an argument for their birth, as without birth, pleasure is a nonissue.
>the continuation of life is a false purpose
Says who?
It's our biological imperative as a species of animal to procreate. We enjoy it for a reason.
Why is this form of selfishness inherently bad?
You're throwing around all this presumptive rhetoric.
>>1327362
Already explained how it is a false purpose.
If you won't read my posts, don't reply.
>>1327333
>Can such things be considered suffering though? The pain from working out of course, is pain in a sense, but this pain is endured with the knowledge that pleasure will follow promptly.
I'll concede that. Muscle growth has a known outcome so we know it has a payoff, true, but if you do acknowledge that pleasure can indeed follow instances of pain, how can you write suffering off altogether? Is there no amount of suffering ever worth enduring for the outcome at the end? That seems like a grandiose claim.
>Also, I'm not claiming that my stance is positive. I specifically stated that it was neutral.
I realize that now. I got carried away and misconstrued your post.
>the unborn being's "pleasure" cannot be taken into consideration as an argument for their birth, as without birth, pleasure is a nonissue.
If you can't take into account the child's pleasure why can you definitively account for their suffering? One does not exist without the other. If you claim that the cessation of suffering is a greater good than the acquisition of pleasure then you're making a quantitative argument about suffering and pleasure which is an impossibility due to the aforementioned subjectiveness of the experiences.
Anti-natalism is meme-tier and relies heavily on a set of assumed premises, those premises being:
A) That suffering is always bad
B) That the person you are trying to argue with is strictly utilitarian in morals
C) That the universe actually gives a fuck what you think or feel
D) That even most people actually give a fuck what you think or feel
E) That selfishness is in itself inherently a bad thing rather than something circumstantially bad
F) That pain and pleasure are somehow "opposites"
G) That things like purpose can exist in the first place let alone be "false"
H) That either the absence or presence of purpose has any actual bearing on human action
I) That the universe somehow privileges those who never exists over those who do because (???)
J) That morality itself is not a purely human invention
K) That morality is always based upon suffering
Long story short OP you're begging the question harder than I've ever seen in my life
>>1324617
Logically fallacious.
First you claim your reasoning is based on traditional morals, but then argue from a purely hedonistic standpoint which most religions and cultures argue isn't everything in life.
Then you argue it would be injust to bring 100 people into existence if 1 person is sad, but utilitarianism is consequentialist meaning this is no different from killing 99 people because 1 person was sad. According to your reasoning 99 might as well be 9999999999999 people, as long as 1 person stubs their toe none of it is justified, this resembles the nirvana fallacy.
Halfway through you assume that neutral is good, which seems to be based on your own mysterious morals which you haven't gone into or given us a solid basis for.
>>1327454
That's the thing. You don't always know. It is always a gamble. A risk of your own suffering, and in this case, a risk of anothers. And as far as we can tell, there is no grand payoff. Only the continuation of the cycle for yet another human. To what end shall this continue?
>If you can't take into account the child's pleasure why can you definitively account for their suffering?
Because without existence, pleasure is neither desired nor needed. A non-existent being can have no desire. They are little more than an idea, a concept. But in making the choice to reproduce, you are thereby ensuring that they WILL experience suffering, perhaps more than they might be able or willing to endure, perhaps without payoff. If they do not exist in this first place, this situation is effectively bypassed. You eradicate the issue before it comes to fruition.
>>1327463
Ok, ok, I get it, objective morality isn't real, nihlism this, nihilism that. Alright.
>>1327486
>He's so entrenched in his ideology that he thinks anyone who disagrees with him is a Nihilist
Keep crying bitch nigga
>orgyofthewill.net
363. Natalism vs. antinatalism. It is hilarious how the natalists try to argue with the antinatalists, the latter of whom are like an enemy in the middle of war threatening to commit suicide. It's not just the antinatalists who shouldn't reproduce, then, but even many of the natalists, such as for instance all those who try to argue with the antinatalists.
>>1327474
>You eradicate the issue before it comes to fruition.
Therein lies the problem with this problem. You assume that suffering in general is a something that needs to be solved. If this is truly the case and that suffering is so unbearable that it's morally justifyable to prevent existence, then you're not arguing against further propagation, but life itself. And if this is true the logical conclusion to this would be suicide, since nonexistence is inherenty preferable to existence.
I'll even risk the slippery slope to say you could use this to justify murder, since if you're alleviating someone of potential future suffering by killing them can you really say that what you're doing is bad? After all, nonexistence would be the preferred state, wouldn't it?
This is assuming of course the potential suffering is greater than that of the current suffering granted by the murder. Which is fallacious because it's an illogical claim of the quantification of suffering, which you're also doing by implying suffering is inherently worse than not suffering.
>>1327509
Alright, you caught me. I won't deny it. do think that life itself is the issue. And I likely will kill myself soon enough.
>>1327486
>anti-natalist
>Calling other people nihilist.
>>1326253
This pic makes me sad. What went so wrong?
>>1327517
Cmon man don't do me like that. I was enjoying this debate.
Also I'd tell you not to kill yourself but I've been dealing with that feeling for a while too so I'm not gonna pretend like I have an answer for it.
>>1327531
Well, I mean, I can't really say anything. You caught me red handed.
>>1327521
Islam
>>1326253
Literally nothing wrong with that pic. Whores should be put in their place.
>>1327520
>equates nihilism with anything "dark" and pessimistic
>>1324617
I am an anti-natalist, but my main opinion comes down to individualist free will.
If you cannot forcefully deprive an individual of any rights unless they commit some pre-determined concept of a crime, how could you force life on them without there being any possibility of consent?
You're not even allowed to force sex upon someone without their consent, which is arguably the most natural of human activities. How then are you allowed to force life on them without their consent?
>>1327539
Well I'll leave you with this then.
http://historyofphilosophy.net
I've just started getting into philosophy recently. Not saying it'll do anything for you, maybe philosophy isn't your thing, but listening to these podcasts has been helping me somehow. I suddenly care about things again. It's almost as if the mere attempt at trying to understand the problems of reality makes it seem like finding answers is actually possibile. And that kinda gives me hope. Or maybe I'm just a delusional faggot I dunno.
>>1327567
Thanks, but it's unlikely that anything in my life could help at this point. It's been nice speaking with you.
>>1327572
Y-you too. Godspeed anon.
>>1327566
Because "they" dont exist to begin with?
Fuck morals. Say goodbye to your genetic line. That's your own problem.
>Waugh life sucks
Y'ALL NIGGAS NEED NIETZSCHE
>>1327463
BTFO'ed
>>1327975
"no"
>>1324737
The continuation of humanity is a spook.
>>1326747
>But is competition not done purely for the self?
No. its for the good of an entire species. Animals may not inherently think that, but their instincts make them know they "need" to procreate, just not why. Humans work off the same basic instinct, except we no longer actually need to worry about carrying on our genes in the same traditional sense. We now "know" why we need to do it, but unlike animals though, we no longer need to do it for the same reason. We can use that same basic instinct to simply keep our genetic pool diverse enough to last as long as possible. It's ultimate goal of life: to continue it.
You can call it what you want, but I don't think it's selfishness by human moral standards. It's a simple basic instinct most creatures have. You might think it's selfish because you think of the scenario where two males are are trying to have a kid, and you as an outside observer know who is genetically the better person to have one. From YOUR perspective it can be seen as selfish, because you know who is the better genetic candidate, but in reality, few people actually know they have bad genes, and assume "hey I've lived quite some time, I need a kid," and start competing with others for females. Until we can accurately tell who does and doesn't have the best genes, you can't call wanting to have children purely a selfish act, in my opinion.
I hope this explains my point of view.
ITT: Imbeciles that haven't read a single page of anti-natalistic litterature.
>>1329495
They probably are not of European descent. Pic related.
