I want to know robots opinion on [Thread Name]
We'll start off with a simple beginning topic; is procreation moral or immoral and why?
The anti-buddha made a very convincing 6 paragraph post on why morality is a spook t b h
>>27260004
Objectively immoral, pic related.
>>27260019
>There is no pleasure, which is not bad
This is false though. Most people on /r9k/ are sad because of the lack of pleasure (a gf), not because of pain in itself.
Please fuck off.
This reeks of edgy teenager to me.
>>27260019
This is obviously flawed because 1+2 are not less good than 3+4.
>>27260130
Notice how this is in the second column where we assume the person is currently not existing
>>27260017
This would assume that we look at in in a nihilistic manner which is what anti-natalism actively opposes because it is rooted in the empathy of other human beings.
>>27260130
>This is false though. Most people on /r9k/ are sad because of the lack of pleasure
That's wrong. Non-existent people don't feel (mental) pain in response to not feeling pleasure. Existing people feel (mental) pain in response to not feeling pleasure, and it's not the lack of pleasure itself that is bad but the secondary (mental) pain they feel which is.
>>27260162
Check your math again.
i. -1
ii. +1
iii. +1
iv. 0
>>27260277
He prefaced what he said with
>this reeks of edgy teenager
pay him no mind, he is not here for discussion in the first place.
>>27260277
You need to check yours.
It's irrational to weigh 2 and 3 equally.
>>27260322
no pain = good
some pleasure = good
checks out to me
also 1 and 4 factor in with that as well
>>27260359
My argument within those constraints boils down to 2 + 1 > 3.
4 does not factor into anything, because 3+4 is the same as 3.
>>27260389
but according to >>27260277 3+4>1+2
How do you interpret them as integers? If we assume that this is not an issue would you have any further objections to anti-natalism past that?
>>27260433
Again, in >>27260277 2 is weighted equally with 1 and 3. This is what I take offense with
>would you have any further objections to anti-natalism past that
Other than the fact that it assumes pleasure to be the highest agency and that suicide is the logical conclusion to it, no?
I imagine suicide might be considered bad because you supposedly have a civic duty to fulfill, similar to stoicism, right?
>>27260322
>It's irrational to weigh 2 and 3 equally.
'There is some pleasure which is good' is equal to 'There is no pain which is good', or else euthanasia wouldn't exist. You can read the guy's book where this asymmetry argument comes from for more details (just put better never to have been pdf into Google and it's the first search return, can't post its url to 4chan because of spam filters).
>>27260509
>or else euthanasia wouldn't exist
This is faulty as well.
In a case where Euthanasia would be acceptable, we have the situation that -1 >>> 2, which in turn means 3 > 1+2.
This is a specific situation and assuming it to be representative all of life is rather silly.
>>27260489
Not suicide at all as anti-natalism is the belief that no future children should be born as it is based around the empathy of other humans who are unable to consent to being born. Some may be depressed and suicidal but that is not the end goal of someone who is alive.
>>27260589
Did you even read what I said?
Suicide would be the logical conclusion, as the entire reasoning is built upon hedonism, but it is "forbidden", because you have a duty to fulfill, like in Stoicism.
>>27260549
The measurement of how much pain you could have in life could be potentially great, as is the potential amount of pleasure you could have being equally great. The graph is a means to simply have an objective look at how we could interpret an average life of a human being without him straying to far into either extreme.
>>27260549
Try starting out with nonexistence. If you refrain from creating a new life, is the person who never began existing harmed by the deprivation of pleasure they might have had access to were they instead made to exist? The answer is 'no'. Existing is a prerequisite for suffering from deprivation. Therefore, you cannot use pleasure as an argument in favor of creating new life. It's only after new life is created that suffering from a lack of pleasure is even possible. Citing pleasure as a justification for creating new life is analogous to getting someone hooked on heroin and then using how much better they feel when given relief from heroin withdrawals as a reason for why getting them hooked on heroin was a good thing to do. You bypass the craving for pleasure which makes pleasure seem like a good thing altogether simply by not creating a new instance of life in the first place.
>>27260624
I believe that no future children should be born, suicide is not the logical conclusion for most anti-natalists because the one belief we have in common is my first statement and nothing else. We can choose to live our current lives as we see fit because we have been already born, we only hope to persuade others.
>>27260019
>muh utilitarianism
>b-but schopenhauer said that we suffer because we are born
If you really believe that the world would be a better place without your existence, then why don't you end yourself?
>>27260693
>>27260700
I am now going to be incredibly hypocritical by using an argument I have ridiculed repeatedly in this very thread. Because quite honestly I am not good enough to argue with professional philosophers, from whom you take your arguments, I mean, they have used those arguments too.
I'll make it quick, I am just gonna ask a single question, because I don't an out to this one:
Is procreation not your duty as citizen, as human, and if not, why not?
>>27260727
See:
>>27260509
>(just put better never to have been pdf into Google and it's the first search return, can't post its url to 4chan because of spam filters)
He addresses this issue in his book. To summarize though, there's a difference between arguing for not creating new life vs. arguing for the termination of already existing life.
>>27260734
>duties
and to whom would you owe this duty?
yourself?
>>27260734
>Is procreation not your duty as citizen, as human
'Duty' is a moral or legal obligation. It's definitely not a legal obligation to procreate. As for whether it's a moral obligation, the moral asymmetry argument establishes the opposite: that it's a moral obligation to *refrain* from procreation.
Existence itself has no inherent positive qualities. Think of boredom. If mere existence were a positive force then we should be satisfied by merely existing, this is not the case.
Pleasure and pain are dependent on a whole range of factors only a few of which are predictable. Those that are predictable tell us children will reduce the mean happiness experienced in the world.
>>27260017
That guy's still posting? Of course it was six paragraphs, brevity is the soul of wit, after all.
>>27260734
We have no obligation to our respective species simply because we have not consented to be born, to be put under the pressures of fulfilling an arbitrary goal to procreate and create more genetic copies of oneself is just tradition for the sake of tradition and quite frankly, nihilistic in nature.
Alright, I'll play devil's advocate now;
Isn't not having children and and continuing your family line hedonistic and immoral?
>>27261184
>not having children and and continuing your family line
