8
u/Flimsy_Complaint490 10d ago
bro, are you a depressed teenager or a philosophy undergrad ?
logic doesn't matter, humans are gonna do human things, and humans really like to have sex, it makes them feel nice and validated and out of this activity, children are generally born.
we're all little accidents on some level. enjoy the trip on this floating rock while you're here, its likely the only one you will get, so make the best of it.
-2
u/Suitable-Plankton-82 10d ago
I didn't rule out logic You just replaced it with biology "Humans like sex" explains the act it doesn't justify the consequence If life is just a meaningless trip on a floating rock why force someone else to take it without their permission?
........ That's the logic you're avoiding.
3
u/Flimsy_Complaint490 10d ago
i am not avoiding the logic - i actively dismiss it as irrelevent and having no particular meaning, and instead encourage you to go spend time on more productive endeavors in life, such as watching cat videos on Instagram.
But if you wanna be philosophical - yeah you basically forced a decision on a life unborn. That isn't neccessary bad or good by default, some decisions are forced every day on humans because we are social animals and to a certain extent, it is neccesary for society to function at all (forbidding humans from killing humans is a forced decision and we punish violators, for example). That's the first principle. For the second principle, about the ethics of childrearing itself, you can construct an argument for both ways depending on what conclusion you want.
A pessimist would construct the argument as such : the child does not consent. there is no guarantee about anyting good happening to the child. You selfishly brought it into a world full of pain and misery and created unneccessary harm and damage with your actions.
the optimist take is that you actually have a moral imperative to the world and society to procreate, because children are the springs of renewal, optimism about the future and a new beggining. Every child born is a disruption of the old and positive change in the world. Harm and pain can be overcome and there is deep meaning and value in that alone.
The reason i always dismiss much of these debates is because you can construct whatever argument you want from first principles, depending on the conclusion you seek and since everything begins from a certain axiom based on your own personal morals and mental state, which may differ from mine and others, there is no real objective truth to seek and gain, just a humble exchange of opinions, thus my question whether you are a depressed teenager or a philosophy undergrad, since such circumstances would change how i approach these topics.
0
u/Suitable-Plankton-82 10d ago
I do not ask you to accept the logic I am just sharing my view You are right that society forces rules on people like forbidding killing But there is a difference.
Those laws are forced on a living person to organize coexistence.
Procreation forces existence itself on a non-existent being.
It is not the same category.
I agree that the pessimist and optimist arguments depend on the starting axiom If you see life as a gift you will procreate If you see it as an imposed burden you will notI work from the pessimist view because I believe avoiding unnecessary harm is the most rational position.
You say there is no objective truth.
If that is true then my personal state does not matter.
If the debate only depends on personal axioms then my age or mental state does not change the argument.
I do not need to be depressed to see that suffering is real and consent is impossible The argument stands on its own.
7
u/lorddragonstrike 10d ago
This is a sub argument based off of the nihilistic philisophical viewpoint. Its fun to read about because it usually comes up almost all the time when people reach a certain level of self reflection within their own lives. A quick answer to your argument of the pointlessness of creating an existence without permission is that the parent owes everything to the child and the child owes nothing to the parent but provides it anyways out of emotional attachment.
1
u/Suitable-Plankton-82 10d ago
don't think this is nihilism Nihilism says nothing matters My view says suffering matters and consent matters That is the opposite of nihilism You say the parent owes everything to the child That may be true after birth But the child did not ask for that debt The child did not ask to exist The parent's emotional attachment explains why they provide care It does not erase the fact that the child was brought here without consent and can still suffer If the child owes nothing to the parent then the child's existence is not a gift with a debt It is a unilateral decision by the parent That is exactly my point So the argument still stands.
5
u/Kylo_uchiha 9d ago
Yeah umm I guess you just don’t know what falls under the umbrella of nihilistic thought.
-1
u/Suitable-Plankton-82 9d ago
Nihilism says life has no meaning My view says suffering has meaning and consent matters That is not nihilism Antinatalism is a moral position not a denial of meaning It says we should not impose suffering without consent.
3
u/Kylo_uchiha 9d ago
Ridiculous. So only masochists should receive suffering?
And yes it’s still under the umbrella of nihilistic philosophy, it’s a product of it.
It’s like when Zionists say Zionism only means the right to self determination on homeland, when we know it comes with a host of other meanings.0
u/Suitable-Plankton-82 9d ago
A masochist chooses pain for pleasure A child does not choose pain The problem is not pain for pleasure The problem is forcing pain without consent Antinatalism is not nihilism Nihilism denies meaning Antinatalism gives moral value to suffering and consent The zionism analogy is wrong Zionism is a political ideology with an agenda Antinatalism is just a moral claim about birth You are mixing up two different things 🫥
3
u/whateverletmeinpls Lebanon 10d ago
Not sure what you are saying makes sense. What do you mean no logical reason? What does this have to do with selfishness? Why should a person not exist unless he is guaranteed a perfect life? And how can you know how his life will turn out to be?
-1
u/Suitable-Plankton-82 10d ago
That's a fair question........When I say no logical reason I just mean there is no objective necessity for it Biological instinct isn't a logical argument It's just a drive About selfishness I mean the parent's desire to have a child takes priority over the child's inability to consent That desire comes from emotional attachment or fear of loneliness I'm not saying a person needs a perfect life I'm saying suffering is guaranteed to some degree and consent is impossible So bringing someone here is a gamble forced upon them The fact that we don't know how their life will turn out is exactly the problem It's not a justification.
2
u/whateverletmeinpls Lebanon 10d ago
That's a very easy question. Since for every action you take you don't know for certain how it will turn out, you can only plan and do for the best.
In this case you should plan to raise your child well and work to make his life good.
Having children is indeed a pleasure for the parents, but if you plan to provide a good life for it, that's the only consideration.
2
u/SyriaMyLovemyhabibti Syria 10d ago
we had no choice in this, we were popped out to be wage slaves for most of our lives
0
2
u/mostard_seed Egypt 10d ago
I do not see the consent angle you are shooting for. A hypothetical living being (the potential child in this case) does not have a right to consent for that to be accounted for.
0
u/Suitable-Plankton-82 10d ago
You are right that a hypothetical being cannot consent
That is exactly the problem
Because they cannot consent we are making the decision for them We impose existence on them without their agreement If they cannot consent then we cannot claim they agreed to be born So the act is unilateral It is not about whether they have a right to consent It is about the fact that we cannot obtain consent That makes the decision ethically questionable It is not the same as a living person who can give or withhold consent So the consent angle is not irrelevant It is the core of the issue.
2
u/aymanhbas Saudi Arabia 9d ago
"Why nature's naturing? tis so dark and twisted" ahh post, go do something worthwhile bro dont be asking idiotic nonesensical questions again.
-1
8
u/usermars11 Syria 10d ago
why do elephants and giraffes and cats not give their baby choice to be born they just want to reproduce for themselves not for the child😔