Why do antinatilists value the suffering of someone who didn't want to be born above the suffering of a couple who want to reproduce? Saying this as someone who doesn't I just see both sides
Idk, why do you value the suffering of someone who doesn't want to die above the suffering of a sadistic seriel killer who gets enjoyment out of killing? Not all sufferings are equal
BTW the doesn't in the op was me meaning reproduce I want to get my tubes removed lol
Rivka Weinberg wrote a paper relating to this, basically trying to justify her choice to procreate because procreation can be a justifiable imposition of risk because parents have an interest in having a child and basically tough shit and its all good so long as the child is allowed to procreate itself under the same conditions.https://philpapers.org/rec/WEIRRA-4Or some billshit like that. Just self serving narcissistic Jewish nonsense. The actual answer from an antinatatalist (me), is that it is wrong to just instrumentallly use the creation of a new human being, who will the subject of non-trivial and potentially immense harms in their lives, in order to mitigate or alleviate a potential parents interest in being benefitted by the "joys of parenting". The prospective parent ought just suffer. They have no right to bring into existence a new human that has biological needs, vulnerabilities to sickness and injury and will be subject to aging and death, all because they want to selfishly enrich their own lives by becoming a parent. Think of it like this. You know those fucked up dog or cat breeds whose faces are all smushed in and they can barely breathe and they suffer heaps? Well I want the joy of owning one. So I'm gonna find an adult male and female one and make them breed. So they give birth to a wheezing barely breathing abomination of a pet that suffers greatly. Well I don't care one but because I'm just so God damn happy to be the proud pet owner of this monstrosity of an animal that is better off not being born. That's the logic of your op. That parental interests exceed our moral duties to prevent harming others. But they don't. We should cause unnecessary harm to others even if that would alleviate our own suffering. Having a child is not necessary. You can adopt, you can foster, you can just accept you're not going to experience parenthood. Tough shit.
>>85428525>breathe and they suffer heapsThat doesn't say anything pro antinatilism since antinatalism is against even good prospects reproduction>>85428525>interestYou still haven't explained how one pain is greater than the other. I am not really biased since I don't want to reproduce but I still don't see why one pain is worse than the other
>>85428372Well, everyone is free to make their own choice. It just comes down to personal choice. If someone doesn't want to reproduce, that's their right. I'm not a militant antinatalist.
>>85428402Uh, english please?
>>85428637>Saying this as someone who doesn't > doesn't in the op was me meaning reproduce I want to get my tubes removed lol
>>85428608Just say you don't know anon
>>85428372>Why do antinatilists value the suffering of someone who didn't want to be born above the suffering of a couple who want to reproduce?The three people suffering is more than two people suffering.3>2.Very complicated moral arithmetic, I know, but I believe in you.
>>85428716Isnt it the opposite. The two are happy but the one is sad 2>1
>>85428591>don't see why one pain is worse than the otherYou really don't get it? One is the pain of an already existent human. The other is the potential pain of a human that will be brought into existence to alleviate the pain of an already exist person. The pain of the child who is to be brought into existence, is utterly unnecessary. They don't have to be. Their pain can be avoided entirely. The pain of the already existent person, who wants to be a parent, can ONLY be avoided by instrumentally bringing into existence a new human, who is now subject to their own pain. It's like a procreational ponzi scheme. Where each person wants to feel the benefit of parenthood because nit being a parent harms them. So they make a child who grows up and suffers the same issue so makes a child. Who grows up and suffers the same issue and on and on it goes. Just pains continually passed onto the next generation because each one only thinks about their own suffering and how to end it, even if it be by the creation of an entirely new being subject to sickness, aging, and death, and THE VERY SAME PAIN that the person was trying to avoid (the pain of not being a parent) by having a child. If the pains of not being a parent has a bad value, then why is it okay to create humans, who will experience this same pain, in order to avoid this pain in yourself? It's as if I could cure my broken arm by breaking yours. Woukd that be okay?
>>85428732>Isnt it the opposite.No.>The two are happy but the one is sad 2>1This is only a temporary/transient circumstance.Across the whole-life timeline, you can treat everyone, on average, as suffering equally.So, as previously stated, three people suffering is more than two people suffering.Though you don't necessarily have to interpret antinatalism as "Never Reproduce", but just an assertion that breeders are in moral debt to the person they forced into existence. "Gift of Life" should be read as containing a German loanword.
>>85428372One of those is selfish
>>85428763>utterly unnecessaryWe accept morally that we do things for fun that have a negative effect on others. So it is a question of how is the pain worse than the other>>85428763>the sameThe rest of the reply is not a valid argument since it isn't guaranteed they will feel the same
>>85428778>debtNot what antinatalism is technically since that would imply you can steal for example from others as long as ypu pay them back>>85428778>whole-lifeIf the two people all their live say they would have chosen to be born if they were asked beforehand wouldn't it be 2>1>>85428792They are both the question is which is right
>>85428372are you dumb? thats why antinatlsts beleive no one should be born. so neither of them have to suffer
>>85428778>debtAlso also same anon but that also isn't what antinatalism is cause you can't remedy the suffering of someone who is born with a horrible disability that makes them in pain all the time
>>85428829>>85428847Not all debts can be repaid.
>>85428860Therefore it is theft
>>85428829>If the two people all their live say they would have chosen to be born if they were asked beforehand wouldn't it be 2>1Do we need to take people's whistling-past-the-graveyard self-delusions into account?If so, do we account for them credulously at their delusional face value, or do we account for them as causing even greater real suffering?
>>85428864Nothing was taken, merely forced to receive something of negative value.
>>85428891What does that mean are saying that nobody likes being born and they are all delusional. At that point you can claim anyone who does anything you don't like is lying about being happy
>>85428899Are you being dense on purpose, yor position is not only impossible but also not antinatalism
>>85428914>real antinatalism has never been triedkgood luck
>>85428953You said you are ok with reproducing under some (non possible) circumstances which is not what antinatalism is
>>85428906Religions and philosophies have been having a go at that question for millennia and keep reaching the same consensus from every angle.Call it suffering, call it sin, call it samsara, call it whatever you like, but your culture has a name for it and it is the default state.
>>85428967>You saidlolnogood luck
>>85428970You haven't proved that they are delusional>>85428975Anything but arguing your point
>>85428984>no one has defended my strawman, making me the victorweeoooweeeoooweeooweeeeeeehua
>>85429021How is it a strawman you literally implied it
I don't know still huh
>>85428808I don't think this thread is serious. You aren't taking the replies given by me and others charitably, you're not putting any effort into your responses and you're either 1. Trolling or 2. Legitimately too stupid to understand the replies given.If you wanted I have plenty of books and paper reccomendations relating to your question and the wider philosophy of antinatalism in general. In my first response I even directly linked a very relevant paper that touches on this exact issue. I highly suspect you didn't even click the link, let alone read it. That's on you. At this point if you are genuinely confused then I've given you to the tools to be able to research more. If you're not confused and just want to debate, you're putting in so little effort that it's simply not worth it for me. I'll be hiding this thread now.
