I've been thinking about Benatar's arguments and honestly the logic is pretty airtight if you accept the premises. We're basically thrown into a meat grinder from birth: constant physical pain, psychological exhaustion, and worst of all, this inescapable moral trap where just existing means you're stepping on someone else to survive. Every "good" thing in life isn't actually intrinsic value, it's just us frantically patching holes in a sinking ship. Pleasure is reactive damage control, not genuine positivity. And nobody consents to this, your parents basically made a unilateral decision to throw you into terminal decay because they were bored or wanted meaning in their own lives. They gambled with your suffering to alleviate their existential dread. The asymmetry is insane, the non-existent can't be deprived of anything but the existent are guaranteed structural harm and moral corruption. Sure maybe life is worth continuing once you're here and you've built coping mechanisms, but starting it? That's an unnecessary imposition of suffering on someone who never asked for it. The ethical math just doesn't work.
Brother, how many years have you been spamming this?
>>24881568>constant physical pain, psychological exhaustion, and worst of all, this inescapable moral trap where just existing means you're stepping on someone else to survive
>>24881568the logic is pretty airtight>we live in the dream of a small rabbit if you accept the premises.
>>24881571it's a different intern with an alphabet agency every few months
Very wrongRead Spinoza
>>24881568>airtight>he hasn't killed himself
>>24881653The hell you're in has no exit, there's no escape.
>>24881669If Benatar believed what he'd wrote then he wouldn't be aliveShrimple as
I don’t mind a little pain and suffering. It is what it is and we make it worse but dwelling on how horrible it is. Many primitive cultures subject themselves to pain deliberately because they consider it part of strength and consciousness. I won’t say I enjoy pain but it is the cost of the novelty of consciousness, which after all is a brief period of time divided by eternity
Every argument against antinatalism is a cope
>>24881568That's because you are:A. Jerking off to much, causing your dopamine receptors to become insensitive and lowering your testosterone.B. You don't exercise (enough) making it almost impossible for your body to go into momentary high periods.C. You eat to often and not the right products (fish, meat, eggs, veggies, fruits, nuts, etc) and do not sunbathe enough.
>>24881568>nobody consents to thisAnyone can exit whenever they want. There's plenty of 18 wheeler trucks bounding about the highways. Instant off has never been easier.>better to have never beenSoon enough you'll not exist and you'll have no more.>but starting it? That's the point of life, the only point.>>24881956What a petty, childish ideology.
>>24881568
>>24881669this guy escaped, why haven't you?
To every single poster here: If it's such a silly claim, then why not explain the flaws in the argument? Why resort to retard-maxing and ad hominem? Try to think about it before you type up slop
Suffering is an ontological good because life was created to suffer and inflict suffering.hope that helps
>>24881568this nigga forgot one key flaw in his argument: A white ass nigga like me. Life aint never been hard, 22 kids with 25 women, sorry libtard, just be a GOD next time.
Every day you don't KYS you condemn your self of tomorrow the very same thing you condemn parents of. Your future is no less a different subjective suffering from the one you have today. Continuity of self over time is a lie of the archons. Save your future self from pain, be an hero.
>>24882692>you condemn your self of tomorrow the very same thing you condemn parents of.Now that's extremely interesting. I would say that I am entitled to consent to it, regardless of different theories of the self, and so it isn't wrong in that way.
>>24882692>oh there are people suffering all of the world? I know what do to help them, I will kmsbad faith argumentation. all natalists know to do
>>24881568Then die
>>24882667>t. psychopath
Reminder that anti-natalists are likely to be mentally ill and have a personality disorder
This doesn't mean that anti-natalist arguments can be dismissed solely due to this fact (inb4 crying about ad hom); it does however add context to why autists make these threads and are completely unable to understand why they are wrong. It also has direct implications regarding Benatar's quality of life argument (i.e. anti-natalists are stuck in a rigid ideological system as a cope for to sustain their defective worldview).Say you're designing a logo and you want to market test for the most appealing shade of red. Would you want most of those in your sample population to suffer from protanopia?
Anti-natalists are at a complete poverty when it comes to weighing quality of life. Their defective nature simply precludes them from accepting any rationalization outside of their own self-indoctrination. They don't necessarily mean to be disingenuous because such is simply written into their nature.Also note that the more you talk to them the more you'll realize a sick fascination with harm, violence, and death. These people don't want to reduce harm, they want to justify their resentment and spread their misery.
>>24881568Benatar's whole thing relies on this sneaky bait-and-switch that's honestly embarrassing once you see it. When he talks about avoiding suffering he's like "well obviously the potential person would want to avoid pain if they could choose" treating them as a rational agent with preferences. But then when it comes to missing out on pleasure he suddenly goes "wait there's nobody there to be deprived lmao" treating them as complete nothingness. Pick a lane, dude. Either the non-existent person is something we can reason about counterfactually (in which case they could just as easily prefer existing despite the suffering) or they're absolute void (in which case we can't say shit about whether avoiding their pain is good either). The whole asymmetry collapses into perfect symmetry the moment you force him to be consistent. His supporting intuitions about procreation duties are cope too, plenty of normies explicitly say they had kids so the kids could enjoy life's goods, so miss me with that "nobody thinks this way" nonsense. Bottom line is if you want to make the antinatalist case just describe how much life actually sucks materially instead of trying to logic-proof it with this broken formal argument. At least that's honest.
>>24883283>When he talks about avoiding suffering he's like "well obviously the potential person would want to avoid pain if they could choose"but this is not the argument. It's not about a potential person, it's about no person at all, a completely non-existent entity, so you can't talk about someone before being born. This is why the title of the book is "Never to have been".>The whole asymmetry collapses into perfect symmetry the moment you force him to be consistent.No, you are the one not being consistent. When talking about a potential person (which is not a person at all, it can't suffer or choose anything, you can't talk about the being) as being capable of missing anything.
Their argument:>antinatalists central claim is that life is harm>they argue that you have to be alive to feel pleasure and stress this isn't guaranteed>they argue that if you're not alive you are guaranteed not to suffer/harm>[no guarentee of pleasure, risk of suffering/harm, therefore nonexistence is best = basic thread of argument]>note: they also like to being up that the fact you don't have a choice in coming into existence>they conclude that not reproducing and ending life is the optimal outcome to reduce harmWhy they're refuted:>antinatalists can't validate their central claim as they cannot weigh the total value of life in aggregate (the best they can do is assert individual bad things happen)>[this is all the refutation that is needed: they cannot draw logic, let alone an extreme conclusion, from a central claim they are unable to prove; simple as--but lets go on to point out their bad logic]>they place the weight of guaranteed outcomes on detractors but they don't have prescience to forsee the outcome/value of individual lives (let alone the aggregate of all life which they are assuming) but...>antinatalists are attempting to prove their conclusion and thereby the onus is on them produce a stable logic based on a proven premise>however, any single example of value in life automatically contravienes their premise and contradicts the logic they attempt to assert>[antinatalists are generally filtered by this because they still affirm their premise even though reason has been given to reject it]>we may come to the idea of suicide and ending life (which is logically coherent with their outlook while showing their values are actually incosistent)>suicide automatically means an end to suffering, any harm caused doesn't exist for the victim (aside, the absence of existence means you can't even weigh such anyway)>denial of suicide is an affirmation that value exists in life (or else why not? note that they won't even admit that suffering is short relative to continued existence, they really want to avoid clearly weighing anything)>if the antinatalist says it affects others a consistent logic follows that they kill them as well (the sooner the better in fact--stop them from reproducing which puts an end to countless future lives)>alas, the anti-natalist will assert their original logic no longer applies once they are alive (again, affirming the value of existing and demonstrating their logic can actually be harmful)>the last bastion is they HAD no choice to exist (conveniently it doesn't matter that they have one now) but again there are plenty of examples of lives worth living
>>24883332Why antinatalists are retarded:>no matter how many times you point out how AND why their premise is ungrounded they will still assert you must argue within the logic it sets out>no matter how many times you point out the logic is inconsistent they retreat to the idea of their unfounded premise and assert it follows naturally>no matter the absurdities you can show as consistent with their reasoning (i.e. you shouldn't kill yourself let alone others) they will simply change the rules>life is valuable once it exists and yet we need to stop it from existing...that's what their bullshit boils down to and it's utterly stupidAt this point it's worthwhile to point out antinatalists will ignore strong arguments against their case and use any excuse to stay within their own logic. This is because they're ideologically possessed retards too dumb to see how pretentious "I've figured out the totality of existence and have an announcement to make...all life should cease" is in the first place.Get a life, losers.
>>24883283>His supporting intuitions about procreation duties are cope too, plenty of normies explicitly say they had kids so the kids could enjoy life's goods, so miss me with that "nobody thinks this way" nonsenseagain this assumes the kids exists somehow beyond space and time and get summoned somehow to the parents, but no, the person created to experience "the joys of life" was never capable to say "Yes, I want to be born. and experience this and that pleasure!" the new entity is forced to have a will, desires, passions, before it even exists properly. that's the asymmetry.notice how most parents are not happy with their own lives and want to force someone to live their own desires. They will force that new person to do stuff against the will of the person because "they know better" - but this happiness will never be achieved - for the new person or for the parents. Natalists can only cope but the truth is if they remove the cope they have nothing left. They have no arguments.
>>24881568I don't even need to read this since I just hate humanity and view it as worthless from my personal experiences and spiritual visions. What's the point in reading anti natalist philosophy when I'm already disgusted by demon crotch spawn?
>>24883253Based. We need more mentally ill psychopaths to inflict suffering on the world. Retvrn to the golden age of serial killers
I realized there's no reason to have kids that doesn't lead back to some selfish cope about being alive.
I'm less of an anti-natalism person and more of a THD guy
>>24883049>>24882089>>24881671>>24881653If you don't kill yourself you might convince more people to become anti-natalist, end their lives, or kill others, thus ending more circles of life, so overall it's a better option than just ending your one circle of life.
>>24883367>copewhy do trannies on this board love this buzzword nowadays?
>>24883382The average antinatalist is less influential over the period of their entire life than the average father is in a week. Cry all you want but it's true.
Antinatalism isn't enough, we need annihilationism.
>>24884484based. politics would be a lot more fun if this became some radical counterbalance to neoreaction
>>24881568Literally all arguments have airtight logic if you accept the premises. The real question is: are those premises true?
>>24885059>The real question is: are those premises true?They are, and anyone who says otherwise is either coping or arguing in bad faith.
>>24881568I think procreation is carried hard by 4 types of people>accidental almost half of pregnancies were not planned, really puts things into perspective>religious they have the most children, many of them are third worlders that give zero fuck about anticonception >blissfully ignorant optimistspeople who genuinely believe that life is a miracle, never endured any serious hardships >peer pressureddumbest of the bunch, basically just following the herd, zero questioning abilities
>>24885805Maybe they just lack deep empathy or care for consent. Maybe they are ok with reproduction being a selfish act, and never think much about it.Our relation to the axioms of a system many times are tied to our sensabilities.
>>24885059>The real question is: are those premises true?I think the real question is "can you find good counter arguments?" if you can't, might as well say the argument is sound
>>24881568Hello anti natalists , what drugs should I take to feel like the son of Jesus? I'm tired of this shit, I have to take control over my life.
>>24881568Cabrera is better:>https://dn790003.ca.archive.org/0/items/discomfort-and-moral-impediment/Discomfort%20and%20Moral%20Impediment.pdfAlso this:>https://antinatalism.info/quality-of-human-life-and-non-existence-some-criticisms-of-david-benatars-formal-and-material-positions/
>>24885857>half of pregnancies were not plannedDon't care. >they have the most childrenThey're the most successful. >blissfully ignorant optimistsThis is just your (unjustified) ego speaking. >dumbest of the bunchHe says while demonstrating ideological possession.
>>24881568what's actually catastrophically boring is how neither you or the ones calling you a glowie/jew won't ever do anything to confirm/disprove each other and just continue to mouthbreathe and whine ad nauseam onlineyou won't become some villain after losing your mind and moral compass alongside it, doing the most unhinged of acts just as a statement and neither the puritans won't live a more fulfilling life to the point of not having to get into idiotic pissing contests on tibetan yak forums after supposedly going to le non-pozzed church and finding a meaning in life
is sex with blood related siblings purely for the pursuit of pleasure acceptable?
why is this bullshit book constantly floating to the top of /lit/feels like a psyop
>>24886433PsySlop
>>24881568>https://philosopherjuliocabrera.blogspot.com/2020/05/articles-and-books.html>Asymmetries begin to work not because they are based on firm and undoubted intuitions (we always have rival intuitions, endless conflicts between intuitions), but because the world is a bad place, because life is so poor. But this is already one material argument and it is needed to save the asymmetries. Without this material support they do not stand, neither logically or intuitively or axiologically, in a way that cannot be infinitely counter-argued. (After all, we are not compelled to have the same intuitions as Benatar, and the only thing he can do is to defend them, without any possible philosophical checkmate).>I think that if material argumentation is indispensable, if formal argument cannot stand without it, and if this material argumentation is as extraordinarily strong as the texts of Schopenhauer, Cioran, Benatar and Cabrera among others show, then we could ultimately dismiss the famous asymmetry as perfectly unnecessary (along with all the controversy it aroused, however fruitful and intense) and to show the main pessimistic and antinatalist points only through material arguments, more than sufficient not only to prove that coming into existence always causes serious harm, but also the antinatalist thesis that procreation is always immoral.
>anti-natalismreddit cringe>pro-mortalismvgh, fvcking based
>>24886433>this antinatalist thing is le heckin triggering and problematic! it shouldn't be discussed here!!
>>24886433yup, 4chan board "literature" is the best place to do a psy-op against procreation
>>24888126I mean you either get the crazy religious fucks here that multiply like rabbits or total incels that hate everything
>>24881568Not procreating is harmful because it deprives beings of existence which includes good things like sex and tasty food.
>>24889231name one being who doesn't exist
>>24889231fuckin hylic
>>24889246Your biological father who is proud of (You).
>>24881568David Benatar should kill himself
>>24883382>end their lives, or kill othersIf you convince people to kill themselves or to murder, you will nullify their potential for convincing more people of becoming anti-natalist, so Benatar would not approve of this. I believe he would argue against suicide and especially against murder.
>>24881568>the logic is pretty airtight if you accept the premisesIt is only airtight if you accept the premises and refuse to consider any additional ones. For example:>nobody consents to thisCorrect. At the same time... nobody's consent was violated, since you didn't exist at the time. Adjusting the POV by half an inch makes the anti-natalist point - here about consent - fall apart completely.>the non-existent can't be deprived of anything but the existent are guaranteed structural harm and moral corruptionCorrect. At the same time, if you measure ethics in goodness as opposed to lack of harm (as is the primary paradigm of ethics), the non-existent is the worst off. The existent is guaranteed to gain ... otherwise there'd be nothing to be subject to harm or corruption. Again you see that the anti-natalist position does not hold water unless you look at it one particular way. The ethical math just doesn't work. As for the rest:>constant physical painSee a doctor.>inescapable moral trap where just existing means you're stepping on someone else to surviveThis is a function of your model of ethics, not a function of the world. You're complaining about your own opinion.>Every "good" thing in life isn't actually intrinsic value, it's just us frantically patching holes in a sinking ship.A leap from unproven opinion into a circularly reasoned framing.>Pleasure is reactive damage control, not genuine positivity.Fair point. Pleasure isn't a solution. Meaning is.
>>24891746>>nobody consents to this>Correct. At the same time... nobody's consent was violated, since you didn't exist at the time.every being that can exist can't consent to existence before they exist. It's not about a violation of consent but about a impossibility of consent. so you are misinterpreting the premise.>if you measure ethics in goodness as opposed to lack of harm (as is the primary paradigm of ethics), the non-existent is the worst off.you are talking about Fairy Land not about the reality of existence.>>Pleasure is reactive damage control, not genuine positivity.>Fair point. Pleasure isn't a solution. Meaning is.meaning is everywhere and can mean anything. Your arguments are a bunch of stupid copes
>>24891774>you are misinterpreting the premiseI understand the premise and I agree with it. I'm just pointing out it doesn't conclude a problem. The moral problem around consent is its violation. There was no violation here. That a non-existent entity didn't give consent is entirely unproblematic. Every second infinity of non-existent entities withhold consent from an infinity of events. It's a non-issue. But you can phrase it in a way that reminds an issue, which is what anti-natalists manage.>>if you measure ethics in goodness as opposed to lack of harm (as is the primary paradigm of ethics), the non-existent is the worst off.>you are talking about Fairy Land not about the reality of existence.I'm talking about the reality of ethics. How imaginary the discipline is, is a different question. But it is about the good. Not about merely avoiding the bad. Anti-natalism falls apart once you stray away from the latter.>meaning is everywhere and can mean anything.Not in my experience.The ethical math just doesn't work. It's mostly rhetorics.
>>24891746>nobody's consent was violated, since you didn't exist at the time.fucking retard
>>24891805Woah you just violated 100,000,000x non-existent entities consent by posting that! Are you not ashamed??
>>24891790>The moral problem around consent is its violation. There was no violation here. That a non-existent entity didn't give consent is entirely unproblematic.philosophical problems are abstract anyway, I don't think there is only one problem you can say about morality of consent and that's it, set in stone. If there are poor people who have a bunch of kids, would you say many of their problems are not linked with the fact that they couldn't give their consent at birth? I don't see why you would limit yourself to an arbitrary issue regarding consent and not all issues of consent. >I'm talking about the reality of ethics. How imaginary the discipline is, is a different question. But it is about the good. Not about merely avoiding the bad. Anti-natalism falls apart once you stray away from the latter.then Benatar's argument is about meta-ethics. Are ethics good for you, as a being? the dichotomy only exists when there's existence. why not remove it?>>meaning is everywhere and can mean anything.>Not in my experience.isn't that ironic?
>>24891812> If there are poor people who have a bunch of kids, would you say many of their problems are not linked with the fact that they couldn't give their consent at birth?Linked? Who knows... If I were to use as vague as possible, I would naturally retain a lot of rhetorical freedom in articulating my conclusions. Take the rhetorics away and only valid conclusions remain. Anti-natalist ones don't seem to survive that rhetorics-check. So yes, Anon, inability to do the impossible might be "linked" to millions of things. Consent still wasn't violated and no ethical problem is established.>Benatar's argument is about meta-ethicsIt really isn't. It's a very typical ethical argument.>Are ethics good for you, as a being? the dichotomy only exists when there's existence. why not remove it?Remove what? Ethics? Existence? Captcha: WWAHH
>>24891852>Anon, inability to do the impossible might be "linked" to millions of things. Consent still wasn't violated and no ethical problem is established.so when people think about having babies it's completely ethical to not give a shit about the conditions and their own lifestyle that future being will be born in? because there is no consent violation, so then any ethical problem disappears? you can't put yourself in your parents position now that you're old enough to be in their shoes? I think you can very well see how the creation of a future being is an ethical problem>Remove what? Ethics? Existence?you don't know what this thread is about?
>>24891876> because there is no consent violation, so then any ethical problem disappears?The goalpost isn't "any problem". It's consent. And consent was not violated. If you accept this and are ready to move on to other problems, just say the word.>I think you can very well see how the creation of a future being is an ethical problemNot really, no. I can see it has challenges that can be handled unethically, but creation of the being itself is perhaps the most ethical thing in the world.>>Remove what? Ethics? Existence?>you don't know what this thread is about?I know you keep moving goalposts (from ethics to meta-ethics, from consent problem to poverty problem...), so I'd rather ask. Being precise is the anti-natalist kryptonite.
>>24891881>The goalpost isn't "any problem". It's consent.yes, and you claim the impossibility of consent of someone to not be a problem when the subject is consent. >Not really, no. I can see it has challenges that can be handled unethically, but creation of the being itself is perhaps the most ethical thing in the world.you're posting on 4chan bro. if you believed this you must have 30 kids, right?>I know you keep moving goalposts (from ethics to meta-ethics, from consent problem to poverty problem...), so I'd rather ask. Being precise is the anti-natalist kryptonitewhen you say things like "ethics is about the good" or "meaning matters, not pleasure" without specifically describing what "good" or "meaning" is, I'm not really moving the goalposts by engaging with your claims. I gave an example of poor people having kids, is this moving the goalposts? >Being precise is the anti-natalist kryptonite.anything but giving examples of what the fuck you mean. you're only saying words with vague meaning and then acting like you debunked the argument.
>>24891904>>Not really, no. I can see it has challenges that can be handled unethically, but creation of the being itself is perhaps the most ethical thing in the world.>you're posting on 4chan bro. if you believed this you must have 30 kids, right?That is not right, no. I have neither the job nor the family nor diet that is the most ethical in the world. If you think that should shake my faith in my ethics and I should re-imagine them to fit my current life, you're just telling on yourself.So what's the ethical problem with creating a human being? We now know it's not consent, since it is not violated. Is it the risk that you might mess it up? That's the ethical problem? Uncertainty? Fear?
>>24891909>That is not right, no. I have neither the job nor the family nor diet that is the most ethical in the world. If you think that should shake my faith in my ethics and I should re-imagine them to fit my current life, you're just telling on yourself.but isn't the creation of the being itself the most ethical thing in the world for you? so you're living your life against your most precious principle that is, according to you "creation of the being itself"?can you explain
>>24891916Not really against, no. I'll be a father as soon as I'm ready to be one financially, emotionally and socially. Let me know if you need more explanation. Though judging from the fact you didn't have a single question about me not going for my idea of a most ethical job, you seem to understand it pretty well, don't you?
>>24881568>patching holes in a sinking shipwell, drown yourself then, faggot
