How is bringing life into this world not a selfish act that is purely to magnify ones ego? To me, the entire act seems irrational and unethical, because the unborn cannot consent to being born.
>finally put benis in bagina>suddenly not a misogynistwow Schopenhauer you sure convinced me!
Because life itself is a great gift, the smell of roses in a garden is worth all the what normies call 'pain and suffering' and more
It is selfish.It's not irrational or unethical.Read Virtue of Selfishness.> the unborn cannot consent to being born.Not an argument.
>>18463024As an incel I don't really have a dog in this fight, but assigning moral/ethical judgement to procreation is silly
>>18463188Schopenhauer was not an incel.>>18463254Thats your opinion. Its not wrong for you to feel like that, but what about the mentally ill or physically disabled? Someone who's life is almost all suffering. They are living a life that they may deem unworthy of living that they have been compelled to endure.>>18463255>>the unborn cannot consent to being born.>Not an argumentYou don't think consent matters?>>18463273Elaborate please. I think choosing to create another conscious person has very important moral consequences.
>>18463289>ElaborateProcreation is just a ground condition of being. All species procreate or they disappear. Any moral or ethical considerations presuppose permissibility of procreation because otherwise the entire debate ceases to matter. Theoretical world where humans stopped procreating and died as a species is neither moral nor immoral. Calling procreation immoral is like having a problem with gravity.
>>18463024God said to be fruitful and multiply. Case closed>t-thats not an argument!Objective morality trumps all the German subjectivist romanticism by 1800s nerds that can hand wave away anything
>>18463024No philosopher is completely wrong and no philosopher is complately right.
>>18463360Based jew worshipper
>>18463289>You don't think consent matters?No. It's important in sex because it's an easy way to avoid trauma and rape but otherwise no.
>>18463024>How was Schopenhauer wrong?>Mentions the one thing which no one ever disputed as wrong.
>>18463024>How is bringing life into this world not a selfish act that is purely to magnify ones ego?there's so much stupid in that statement I'm almost seething
>>18463024>>18463289>muh consent Consent is not of moral consideration. If you had one opportunity to push a button that would give me a billion dollars and then you told me that you didn't press it because I didn't consent to being given a billion dollars, I would bash your head in on the spot.
>>18463024It must be forgiven as an unavoidable fate. Anyone who doesnt do it ceases to exist, anyone who does do it create clones that are also very likely to do it if given the opportunity. At what point could anyone have stopped this from snowballing to the point where everyone was doing it? Humans cant be blamed no matter how awful or selfish they are, the only thing that can be blamed is God for creating an existence that results in this
He wasn't wrong: he just had some moronic assumptions in his reasoning context. Yeah, indulging in one's ego too much is harmful, but literally nothing at all is possible without the influence of the ego driving one's self to do it. To some extent practically any thought, emotion and action is spurred on by egoism. As if Schopenhauer himself was above freely indulging in egoism at times; the man quietly became almost publicity-crazy in the last years of his life when large amounts of normies finally started paying attention to and praising him.
OP here. I was in my wagecage, but now I'm back.>>18463306>Any moral or ethical considerations presuppose permissibility of procreation because otherwise the entire debate ceases to matter.This is a bit of nonsense. If we have any care at all about preventing the suffering of other humans, there should be nothing preventing us from saying, perhaps it is better if some, if not all, humans didn't exist. To say it is not a moral consideration to delegate whether or not some person or all persons are better off not existing is just refusing to accept the premise because you have an unfounded ethical basis that humans MUST exist. You should start with explaining and proving that moral basis first.>>18463360christ is kang my fellow groyper>>18463511so consent doesn't matter in all other legal contexts then either? I'm failing to see your argument.>>18463812>>How was Schopenhauer wrong?>>Mentions the one thing which no one ever disputed as wrong.Perhaps. I see very little Schopenhauer discussion online, so I may not be privy to the overall opinion of people's idea of him.
>>18463904>>How is bringing life into this world not a selfish act that is purely to magnify ones ego?>there's so much stupid in that statement I'm almost seethingHow and why? The entire reason anyone reproduces is to carry on with genetics/legacy/tradition. It is always a choice made between two people who wish to place the responsibility of life onto someone who never agreed, purely for some kind of self-aggrandizement.>>18463976Just a retarded post. All legal/moral frameworks operate under consent. Though the amount of consent that is considered as necessary varies.>>18463979>Humans cant be blamed no matter how awful or selfish they arePossibly true, but no one can live acting like everyone can just be excused for their behavior because nature endowed them with personality that was not of their choosing (even though its true).>>18464023>but literally nothing at all is possible without the influence of the ego driving one's self to do itTrue. But you are still to be held under moral culpability
>>18464376Morality is a spook
>>18464374>If we have any care at all about preventing the suffering of other humans, there should be nothing preventing us from saying, perhaps it is better if some, if not all, humans didn't existYou are confusing (or obtusing on purpose) two very different imperatives to refuse procreation - one is localized and eugenic and aims at ultimately pro-life improvement of the species as a whole, for example, saying that people with hereditary diseases shouldn't procreate. Another is an antinatalist sentiment that all procreation is bad, which aims to destroy the species. Trying to pass the destruction of entire species as an ethical choice is, in fact, silly.
>>18464376>but no one can live acting like everyone can just be excused for their behavior because nature endowed them with personality that was not of their choosingI wonder about that, do humans gravitate more towards the ideals they have for the world or the emotions they have in their heart as they live longer? I think that early on in peoples lives, the emotions in their hearts win, children are the best listeners of their hearts but adults learn to ignore what their heart says if they believe it would make a situation worse. Perhaps if people lived long enough, they would eventually live acting as if everyone can be excused for their behaviour. I doubt that a mere 80 years is enough for that though
