wasnt implying that you were claiming it was

Im not a redditor but the tenets of antiwork and antinatalism sounds good to me

Antinatalism is kinda dumb tho lmao

Ethically it makes complete sense tho

The ratio of pleasure and pain is completely skewed towards pain. Better to ensure someone feels nothing than the inevitability of deep and sustained pain

Also im saything this as someone who would not want to have been born lol

Natalism is LIONED
Us Türks make a bunch of kids while Germans stay childless soon we will TAKE OVER

youre taking hedonistic utilitarianism as a given when thats not the case lol

Ethically it's abyssal. Antinatalism is one of those positions that could only arise when people are subservient to the world rather than being an actual part of it. You're already making the assumption that you won't have a hand in raising your own child by saying "better to ensure someone feels nothing... &c" as if you would have no hand in the pleasure or pain your offspring experience through their life.

Antinatalism is built on top of a multitude of presuppositions that are really problems with the world rather than being problems with the act of rearing a child.

I've been reading the Phenomenology of Spirit and it's quite interesting to see how Marx was able to build his philosophy off of the principles elucidated by Hegel. Shoutout to the socialists

I agree with this but its also built on top of a metric ton of philosophical presuppositions most of which are controversial

besides having to win that hedonism is the correct ethical theory you should be using, theres so many questions surrounding it in terms of calculating future pleasure/pain and whether it even makes sense to conceptualize pleasure/pain as things that accumulate within stable selves

and many antinatalist arguments also have internal contradictions i.e. lots of criticisms of benatar absolutely dismantle his asymmetry principle

just kind of a lazy worldview but I can sort of see why it appeals to people

i think people's inherent defense mechanisms go into a flurry when they hear about antinatalism and its arguments, so they dance around it, creating convoluted counterarguments when the fact is very simple. There is an inevitability of pain. Undeserved pain. Pain which is guaranteed to occur more often than pleasure. Hence why society in itself is built around survival.

There is no reason why this is worth going through other than some fiction humans create like religion or some moral code. Nature doesnt have a moral code whatsoever. And I'd rather not subject anyone to the randomness of nature, irrespective of how good a father I'd be.

Well my whole point is I dont want to submit my child to the whims of a completely random and amoral world. Im not rolling that dice

If there is an inevitability to pain then is there not also an inevitability to pleasure? Does pleasure follow pain or does pain follow pain? Why is pain 'guaranteed' to occur more than pleasure? Is a moral code a fiction if it is applied or does it not then become 'actualised' so to say and real; could we not then say that antinatalism could be called a fiction until a being says they aren't going to have children and then it becomes actualised? If society is built around survival is this 'coming-together' not for the betterment, or pleasure of the beings who take part in the society?

It is perhaps tenable to say that nature doesn't have a 'moral code' but it is evident that nature follows or imitates laws that produce its animation and thus the 'randomness' of nature is only an appearance produced from underlying principles of indefinite quantity.

I mean just because there is pleasure doesnt change the fact that pain precedes pleasure for pleasure to even exist. And pleasure is not guaranteed to be the end result of every instance to avoid pain.

Sure antinatalism in itself is a moral code, but that doesnt change the fact that nature doesn’t have one.
Nature’s laws are the foundation for its randomness, something of which will never be controlled and again, subjecting anyone to this is just rolling the dice. My intial descendant may say his life was worth it, but what about his next of kin, and the next? There will be one, if not many descendants on this line who would have rather not been born, or would have lived a life of suffering. Suffering is inevitable and will always be out of one's control.

You can draw a parallel from this family tree to a civilization in itself. There have been civilizations that have risen and fell. All of which have not actualized the well being of everyone involved.

So if anything, antinatalism should be the only moral code, for if enacted succesfully there would be the absence of everything else.

Sigma Male?

"they dance around it, creating convoluted counter-arguments"

what you claim as an antinatalist is that it is more likely than not that human existence does not have moral value

thats a massive ass claim, obviously its a complex and thorny issue wtf

and I just explained why, even if you assume that humans experience more pain than pleasure, that doesnt mean antinatalism is correct

bros argument is basically "if you assume that all of my views are irrefutable common sense, im obviously right"

man i thought youd have a more interesting reply

lol u got nothing now huh

my g i can write literal essays about why benatars assymetry principle is contradictory or why hedonistic utilitarianism snt the correct ethical theory

but if you start calling actual philosopohy "dancing around things" and "convoluted counter arguments" then its not worth my time

"dancing around things" was the first reply. go onto the second one tough guy

evading is weak

back to the mma thread for me

dudes got no interesting arguments for me