Friday, April 01, 2011

Life's a bitch, then you die!

Antinatalist Jim Crawford has posted a follow-up to his prior challenge.

1. To recap, why should I take the time to even discuss a dead-end like antinatalism? Because, as I’ve said before, it’s an object lesson in atheism taken to its logical extreme.

2. I notice that Jim ignores many of my counterarguments to his previous post. And some of the arguments in his follow-up post (e.g. on risk assessment) rehash objections he already raised in the previous post, to which I responded.

Now maybe he thinks my response was inadequate or irrelevant, but if so, he doesn’t say why. Therefore, those counterarguments win by default.

3. By way of preliminaries, I’d like to comment on the paradox of antinatalism. If you don’t think life’s worthwhile, then why do you think it’s worthwhile to argue for the worthlessness of life? Why pour all that ingenuity and eloquence into the proposition that life is worthless, or worse than worthless?

Take a policeman who tries to talk a suicidal teenager out of jumping from a bridge. Because the policeman values his own life, because he thinks life is worth it, he also thinks the teenager has everything to lose by taking his own life. And that makes sense, doesn’t it? Given the operating assumptions.

But does that make sense in reverse? Even if you’re miserable, why feel the need to convince others that they should be as miserable as you are? Antinatalism is a circular two-step program:

i) Persuade happy people to be miserable

In order to:

ii) Persuade them not to bring other happy people into being

But why is there a duty to make happy people miserable? Why is it so urgent to convince them that they should despise life?

It makes sense to disillusion people if you have something better to offer then, but if your battle cry is Life Sucks! Spread the Word!–then that’s not much of a cause to rally around.

iii) An antinatalist might counter that many people are already miserable. But that’s not enough for antinatalism. For the human race to go extinct, antinatalism must make enough converts to bring global procreation irreversibly below the necessary replacement rate.

4. Is it wrong to gamble with someone else’s life? Well, that sounds ruthless in the abstract, but it all depends on the concrete illustration.

Take an ER physician. He gambles with the lives of patients everyday. He tries to save their lives. Give them a second chance. Another shot at life.

Sometimes he has to make quality-of-life decisions. What about amputation? What if the patient will be brain-damaged to some degree? And he must often make life-and-death decisions for the patient without informed consent. 

He’s gambling with their lives, but he’s doing so for their benefit, not his own.

Of course, he could be wrong about their prospects for happiness. By saving them, maybe they will be worse off in the long run. Even if they make a full recovering, maybe they will later endure some devastating personal tragedy, unforeseen by the ER physician. So is that worth the risk?

There’s no value-free answer to that question, for this is one of those dividing lines where Christians and antinatalists lack common ground. Given his philosophy, an antinatalist might well believe it’s always best to let someone die of his injuries. He got lucky to die young. He’s better off dead. So are we all.

5. Nonexistence can be a deprivation.

i) To never exist in the first place can be a deprivation.

To lose something and know you lost it is a deprivation. To miss out and know you missed out is a deprivation.

But it’s also a deprivation to miss out and not even know what you’re missing. That’s a different kind of deprivation, but it’s still a deprivation.

ii) This doesn’t mean we’re wronging nonentities by choosing not to bring them into being. But they still lose out. At least some of they had something to gain by existence. So that’s a loss to them even if they’re oblivious to the loss. And there’s something poignant about the fact that they will never know any better.

Again, that doesn’t mean we’re doing an injustice to nonentities. But there is a cost to that cost/benefit analysis. The difference between existence and nonexistence isn’t indifferent or inconsequential. It’s not a harmless outcome.

iii) BTW, as a Calvinist, I don’t think there will be any missing persons when the eschatological tally is made. Everyone God intended to live will live.

So it’s not as if Christians have an obligation to conceive as many children as they can. And even if (arguendo) they did have such an obligation, they have other obligations as well. Taking one obligation to a logical extreme can conflict with other obligations. Not all obligations are equally obligatory. Not all obligations are maximal.

In the providence of God, it’s not as if there were human beings who were meant to exist, supposed to exist, but were cheated out of existence because many Christians practice contraception. (I’m not talking about abortion, which takes a life.)

6. There’s such a thing as mutual enjoyment. Mutual fulfillment. Mutual edification.

Generally speaking, parents enjoy kids and kids enjoy parents. Indeed, parents who don’t get something out of parenting are apt to be bad parents. So it’s a false dichotomy to classify that transaction as “exploitation.”  Human beings were divinely designed to want each other and need each other.

It’s no more exploitive than pair-bonding between men and women. Many pleasures are shared pleasures.

Of course, since the antinatalist sees every aspect of human life through his jaundiced prism, it’s hard to come up with examples he will accept. If he had a life-affirming ethic, he wouldn’t be an antinatalist.

28 comments:

  1. Jim is simply a proto-abortionist without the stomach for killing.

    In Christ,
    CD

    ReplyDelete
  2. For context:

    1. Here is the original challenge from the antinatalists.

    2. Here is Steve's original response.

    3. Here is Jim Crawford's response to Steve's response.

    4. Here is Steve's next response.

    5. Here is the latest response from Jim Crawford.

    ReplyDelete
  3. filrabat said:

    In that case, I’ll concede one thing but continuing objecting to another: Concede there’s nothing in Scripture explicitly condemning procreation, but object that Scripture actually prohibits antinatalism.

    Sorry, do you mean if Scripture "permits" antinatalism rather than "prohibits" it as per the rest of your response? If you do mean Scripture permits not having children, then, even if that were true for the sake of argument, it's not necessarily a problem for Christians. If Scripture permits not having children in certain cases, then we could look into the reason(s) why. At least as I understand it but please correct me if I'm mistaken, the problem is that antinatalists are actively trying to persuade everyone including Christians to adopt antinatalism.

    Even so, I bring as evidence that the Bible permits, if not actively condones, antinatalism the following verses (one a paraphrase for the other) Matt 7:13-14; Mark 14:26.

    I'll quote the verses you cited:

    Matt 7:13-14: "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

    Mark 14:26: "And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives."

    With regard to Matt 7:13-14, please check out this post.

    With regard to Mark 14:26, sorry, I don't see how that's relevant?

    Plus Luke 23:29 (context is Jesus’ remarks about the End Times).

    Luke 23:28-29: "But turning to them Jesus said, 'Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they will say, "Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!"'"

    Of course, a "blessing" is not necessarily the same as a command. Although a command can be a blessed command.

    In any case, you have to exegete the text at hand for starters. For example, Jesus refers to the "Daughters of Jerusalem" here. So Jesus' primary target audience here is the women of Jerusalem. But since you believe this verse isn't meant solely for these women given that it's "evidence that the Bible permits, if not actively condones, antinatalism," you'd have to explain why you think it should apply to women today.

    Another example is that you'd have to mount an exegetical argument for why you think this passage is referring to "the End Times." After all, Jesus doesn't say that it does. All he says here is that "days are coming when..." In fact, many Lukan scholars argue that Jesus is referring to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. If Jesus is referring to the fall of Jerusalem, then his "Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed" would be referring to the women in Jerusalem in 70 AD. So you'd have to interact with these arguments as well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oops, sorry, ignore this bit: "Sorry, do you mean if Scripture 'permits' antinatalism rather than 'prohibits' it as per the rest of your response?" I misread the original.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Unless a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Also, there is no name name given by which we may be saved.

    What you are proposing is a modified version of universalism (a sort of universalism before age 7), a philosophy that has been condemned by the church right from the beginning until today.

    If tender feelings for babies makes you need to speculate I would suggest you confine your speculation to modes that don't contradict scripture. For example, we know from scripture that the degree of punishment in Hell is not the same for all the damned, that some are punished more than others. If that's the case, is it possible that unbaptized babies suffer the mildest amount possible for someone denied the opportunity to be with God forever and even a degree of happiness and grace? The Bible doesn't say one way or another, it only says there will be varying degrees of punishment, so as a matter of speculation it does not go directly against scripture. If you say that unbaptized babies go to heaven it seems to me (and to most of Christendom before the last century or so) you are going against scripture.

    The antinatalist thing is just silly. You should ignore the trolls who think they are fooling anybody and procreate joyfully as God intends that you and your wife do.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jim Crawford said:

    1. We believe existence operates in such a way that, at least sometimes, it would be better not to bring a child into existence.
    2. Since none of us have complete foreknowledge, each choice to bring a child into existence is to expose him/her to the risks that would justify ACCORDING TO OUR OWN STANDARDS not bringing him/her into existence.
    3. Therefore, it is better not to bring children into existence.


    1. First I'll note this is actually a different argument from your original argument or hypothetical challenge. Your original hypothetical was trying to argue that, given Christianity, it's too great of a risk for a Christian to have a child because the child would likely end up in hell since "narrow is the way, and few there be that find it." It was an attempted internal critique of Christianity. However this new argument is a different and broader argument. For example, central to your new argument here is "OUR OWN STANDARDS" which, obviously, one's own standards would vary according to an individual or group. Certainly a Christian's standards are not identical to a Muslim's or a Buddhist's or an atheist's standards! Again, you're arguing a different argument than the original argument you brought up.

    I point this out for two reasons:

    a. If an individual raises an objection (e.g. your original hypothetical), the objection is answered (e.g. by Steve, Matt, and me) without a reasonable rejoinder from anyone else (e.g. no antinatalist has responded with an argument that overturns our responses), and the same individual then raises a new objection (e.g. this new argument), then it'd be reasonable to conclude that that's a tacit concession that the same individual has lost the original argument.

    Or to put it another way: Let's say Johnny screams, "There's a monster under my bed!" Mom and Dad rush in, turn on the lights, and look under the bed. They don't see a monster. But then Johnny's little sister Jane quietly whispers, "But the monster ran into the closet!" So Mom and Dad open the closet and don't see a monster there either. Although maybe they see a teddy bear that might look like a monster if it's in the dark. They point this out to Johnny and Jane. Then Johnny and Jane shout, "But monsters only come out if it's dark!" So Mom and Dad turn off the lights. They stay in the room with Johnny and Jane. They look under the bed and in the closest. And they still don't see a monster. Now Johnny and Jane sing a different tune. They say, "We wanna watch Frankenstein on TV again!" (Or insert whatever other tangentially related topic you want.) At this point, it'd probably be reasonable to conclude that there actually is no monster under Johnny and Jane's bed. (Not to mention a few other things such as the fact that maybe watching Frankenstein might've caused Johnny and Jane to imagine monsters under their bed in the first place! And that they'll probably be sleeping with Mom and Dad tonight.)

    b. You made the following comment: "As for Triablogue's response, I plan on sticking to my 'one challenge at a time' rule, and here's why..." So you have a "one challenge at a time" rule. However, given that this is a new argument, you've just broken your own rule!

    However, if it's okay for you to break your own rule, then why is it not okay for us to do the same?

    ReplyDelete
  7. 2. As far as your new argument, it's actually quite easily refutable.

    If bringing a child into existence exposes the child to risks that would justify not bringing the child into existence according to our own standards, then what's acceptably or unacceptably risky is based on our own standards. However, my standards aren't necessarily the same as your standards. So if according to my own standards of what's acceptably risky it is acceptably risky to bring a child into existence, then I'm justified in bringing a child into existence according to my own standards.

    If it's true someone can justify x according to his or her own standards of what's acceptably risky, then someone can justify not x according to his or her own standards of what's acceptably risky. If you can justify not bringing a child into existence because you think it's too risky to have kids according to your own standards, then I can justify bringing a child into existence because I don't think it's too risky to have kids according to my own standards.

    After all, maybe Marge Simpson has really high standards of what's acceptably risky while Turanga Leela has really low standards of what's acceptably risky. Or maybe she has no standards at all.

    In other words, we could easily turn your argument around since your argument is based on one's own standards of what's acceptable or unacceptable risk which can vary between individuals.

    3. You said: Making children is ALWAYS selfish, and ALWAYS exploitive for one reason or another. I defy anyone to name an instance where this is not so, either consciously or as a result of thoughtless consummation

    Let's say we agree this is true. If it's true, then what's wrong with being selfish? Walking along the beach by myself to enjoy the sand and surf is selfish. But what's wrong with that? Reading a book by myself is selfish. But what's wrong that? Eating a delicious chocolate ice cream by myself is selfish. But what's wrong with that?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Check out Matt's replies as well. So far, they're all here. For example, this one is great:

    I've been unable to respond the last couple of days. Anonymous has covered pretty much everything, but I wanted to address a couple of specific issues.

    FILRABAT SAID:

    "Even so, I bring as evidence that the Bible permits, if not actively condones, antinatalism"

    It is a category error to say that antinatalism is "permitted." Antinatalism is a set of truth claims regarding the moral obligation to refuse to procreate. It is meaningless to say that truth claims are "permitted" or "condoned." Rather, "permission" and "obligation" have to do with actions (such as refusing to attempt to procreate), not truth claims concerning the ethical status of such actions.

    Perhaps you mean that the Bible permits "holding to antinatalism." In this case, the act that is permitted is that of accepting the truth claims of antinatalism. But even if this is the case, ad arguendo, this says nothing about the validity of those truth claims. This would be analogous to the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols, or observing various festivals, or any other act which is neither prohibited nor obligatory, but rather left up to the conscience of the individual believer. In this case, accepting the truth claims of antinatalism would be permitted, as a matter of conscience, even though the claims of antinatalism are false.

    The Bible nowhere prohibits attempted procreation. On the other hand, it explicitly commands, and extols the value of, procreation. If the procreation is commanded and extolled, then it is permitted, and if it is permitted, then it is not prohibited. To accept the truth claims of antinatalism is to accept a moral prohibition that goes beyond what is written in, or deducible from, Scripture, and even more so, it is to accept a truth claim that directly contradicts the theology of Scripture. This is legalism and a refusal to heed to voice of God, and is not Christian in the least.

    "Even so, I think external data can be very important to informing how we should interpret internal data - to the extent the external data does not violate the internal data points. I simply gathered external data about how the world works, combined it with Christian obligations, and concluded the reasons often said that people should have children are found wanting."

    1. This is another category error, as the subject of discussion is worldviews, not empricial theories. A worldview, by definition, encompasses everything a person believes, by forming the cognitive framework through which interactions with the world are processed. Thus, to try to justify or confirm one's stated worldview by appealing to a different worldview is self-defeating, for it reveals that one does not hold to the stated worldview. A worldview includes a standard of judging worldviews, and to judge a worldview that has a standard different from the standard one is currently using entails that the worldview being judged is not one's own worldview. The Christian worldview does not admit of external judgment, since divine revelation is the highest authority. Thus, judging the Christian worldview by "external data" (especially as a corrective procedure) reveals that one does not actually hold to the Christian worldview.

    2. "How the world works" has nothing to do with what ought to be the case. This is yet another category error, a conflation of "is" and "ought," of indicative and deontic propositions. So, even if you produced a perfect model of how the world works, that would tell you nothing about the validity of antinatalism.

    April 1, 2011 11:31 AM

    ReplyDelete
  9. STEELIKAT SAID:

    “What you are proposing is a modified version of universalism (a sort of universalism before age 7)…”

    I proposed no such thing. I mentioned some respectable Christian thinkers who endorse universal infant salvation. I distanced myself from that position by saying I have no settled opinion one way or the other. And the bulk of my post explored the question of infant damnation, not infant salvation.

    “…a philosophy that has been condemned by the church right from the beginning until today.”

    There’s no one church that condemned any one thing right from the beginning until today.

    “If tender feelings for babies makes you need to speculate I would suggest you confine your speculation to modes that don't contradict scripture.”

    Did you post these comments when you were drunk? Does that account for your systematic misreading of what I actually wrote?

    I was addressing a popular theodicean challenge to Christian theology.

    “If you say that unbaptized babies go to heaven it seems to me (and to most of Christendom before the last century or so) you are going against scripture.”

    That has all the ease of assertion without the work of argument.

    “The antinatalist thing is just silly.”

    Never underestimate the power of a silly idea to become public policy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve,

    My mistake. I should know by now to be more careful with that nasty second person pronoun, since it can so easily lead to misunderstanding. You mentioned some respectable Christian thinkers who have proposed a modified form of universalism. Those thinkers have proposed a novelty foreign to Christianity, which has never countenanced universalism and which indeed is essentially connected with the principle that there is salvation in no one but Christ and we are justified by faith alone. And of course I'm almost always drunk.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Generally speaking, parents enjoy kids and kids enjoy parents. Indeed, parents who don’t get something out of parenting are apt to be bad parents.

    I wonder the percentages of antinatalists who actually have kids. Did they come to their position before or after having kids? Also, how many people who are no longer antinatalists because they (accidentally?) had a child and realized the folly of the position and the joys (and yes the difficulties) of parenthood.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Shadow said:

    "The problem with your argument is that you are IMPOSING life on someone else. That´s the problem."

    Of course, I could turn this around and say that the problem is that an antinatalist is imposing his or her anti-life view on someone else. For example, an antinatalist is imposing his or her view that people shouldn't make children onto natalists. So if your argument cuts against natalists, then it also cuts against antinatalists.

    "When it´s selfishness that only can harm or benefit YOU, that is completely OK. But when you bring SOMEONE ELSE to existence you are being selfish at the EXPENSE of ANOTHER human being."

    By what standard do you make this claim? Your own or someone else's?

    ReplyDelete
  13. timcooijmans said:

    "The 'real ground' is the bottom line that pain and suffering suck. You hate pain and suffering, I hate pain and suffering, everyone hates pain and suffering. Therefore it is non-subjectively good to prevent, avoid and diminish pain and suffering."

    I think the masochist would beg to differ!

    ReplyDelete
  14. 1. timcooijmans says:

    "Therefore it is non-subjectively good to prevent, avoid and diminish pain and suffering."

    and

    "A masochist would not disagree with what I said -- he simply has a different definition of pain and/or suffering."

    If a masochist has a "different definition of pain and/or suffering," then how is this "non-subjective"?

    2. On the one hand, timcooijmans says: "A masochist would not disagree with what I said -- he simply has a different definition of pain and/or suffering."

    On the other hand, timcooijmans says: "Grifman, the same does not go for pleasure because a life filled with pleasure is still worthless..."

    So why can there be "a different definition of pain" but not a different definition of pleasure?

    You haven't argued for why you think the "worthlessness of life" is the differential in grounding the one but not the other. You've just stated that it is. It's an assertion in lieu of an argument. Yet many people see life as valuable rather than worthless. So why are they wrong but you right?

    All you've said so far boils down to subjectivity. Yet if pain and/or pleasure are subjective to the individual, then, like I said to metamorphhh, the argument cuts both ways. If it cuts against the natalist, then it likewise cuts against the antinatalist.

    3. Besides this is ignoring the medical science. With regard to pain, for example, C fibers and A-delata fibers can only explain so much. At best we only have various theories to explain pain. As well as its flipside of the same coin, pleasure. Is fibromyalgia an actual musculoskeletal disease or is it neuropsychiatric disorder?

    4. timcooijmans says: "In life, you often have to settle for less than perfect because all the other options are even worse."

    That's your personal or subjective spin on things. But from my perspective you're looking at everything through your less-than-rose-colored glasses.

    Of course, from your perspective I'm looking at things through my rose-colored glasses.

    So the question is, given antinatalism and atheism, how do we objectively adjudicate between the two?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Shadow said:

    "We base this arguments in our own PAIN, which is VERY REAL, like everyone elses."

    If you base your argument in your own pain, then we can base our argument in our own pain as well. For example, the pain of not (yet) having children but longing to have children.

    "1) First of all, to commit suicide is NOT an easy thing to do, those who have tried know it. We have these instincts built inside ourselves to stop such a thing, which explains why suicides are never a walk in the park."

    The question isn't whether suicide is easy or hard. The question is why isn't suicide justifiable given the confluence of antinatalism and metaphysical naturalism.

    "2) Suicide is killing. Killing oneself. Antinatalists are not defending killing in any way, so..."

    Again, the question isn't what antinatalists are defending or not defending. Rather the question is what objectively grounds not killing someone which includes suicide, given antinatalism and atheism (since this weblog also espouses atheism)?

    "3) If I´m alive, for the time being, I can make some of a difference. If I die tomorrow, I cant´. So.."

    But given antinatalism and atheism, why does it matter whether or not you can make a difference? What difference does "making a difference" make anyway?

    However, if you're suggesting there is actually value in "making a difference" in life, then this is something which makes life at least in part valuable rather than worthless, which in turn undercuts antinatalism.

    "4) To think that suicide is easy, you would have to be ignorant about how the human psyche works. Besides survival instincts, people only suicide when they are feeling like crap. If there are people commiting suicide, they are indirectly showing that what WE (antinatalists) are talking is right, and not the other way around. So..."

    This is more or less the same point as your first point. You're just saying the same thing a different way. But again the question isn't whether suicide is easy or hard. The question is why isn't suicide justifiable given antinatalism and metaphysical naturalism?

    Not to mention that, people committing suicide does not indirectly show antinatalism is right. It just shows that some people don't think life is worth living. But the problem is that what some people think doesn't necessarily reflect what other let alone most or all people think. Also some people who commit suicide are not in the right frame of mind. So it's arguable they are other factors influencing their decision to commit suicide (e.g. psychiatric disorders, depression). You haven't explained why you think it's an indirect argument for antinatalism.

    ReplyDelete
  16. STEELIKAT SAID:
    Unless a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Also, there is no name name given by which we may be saved.

    What you are proposing is a modified version of universalism (a sort of universalism before age 7), a philosophy that has been condemned by the church right from the beginning until today.

    If tender feelings for babies makes you need to speculate I would suggest you confine your speculation to modes that don't contradict scripture. For example, we know from scripture that the degree of punishment in Hell is not the same for all the damned, that some are punished more than others. If that's the case, is it possible that unbaptized babies suffer the mildest amount possible for someone denied the opportunity to be with God forever and even a degree of happiness and grace? The Bible doesn't say one way or another, it only says there will be varying degrees of punishment, so as a matter of speculation it does not go directly against scripture. If you say that unbaptized babies go to heaven it seems to me (and to most of Christendom before the last century or so) you are going against scripture.

    *********************************

    So most of Christendom (before the last century or so) taught kindergarten hell with stuffed animals for unbaptized babies dying in infancy. Good thing we have tradition to guide us through the treacherous waters of sheer conjecture.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Shadow said:

    "I´m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt, and answer your questions again. SO here it goes:"

    Hi there Shadow. Not sure what you mean because you haven't actually answered anything? Well, okay, I should clarify. I mean, yes, technically, you've given an answer. But giving an answer isn't the same as giving a reasonable answer. That's what I'm getting at.

    "I must´ve understand it wrong then, that we were talking about something that antinatalists defend. Then why the hell are we discussing these in an antinatalism blog?? Beats me..."

    Of course, anyone can defend anything he or she wants (antinatalist or natalist or anyone else). You can say "I don't think we should have babies" or "I don't think we should commit suicide" or whatever. That's fine. But again you have to give good reasons for why you think so. That's what I'm talking about. What grounds antinatalism in the first place? What presuppositions are you taking for granted? That's the heart of the issue anyway.

    And, I'm sad to say, but I honestly haven't seen any one of you guys legitimately interact with this. Of course you guys think otherwise. You think we haven't interacted with you. Or whatever.

    So that's why I'm glad my and other people's comments are here (as well as over on Triablogue). This way an outside party can read and see who has the better argument(s). I trust you'll agree with this point since it's a good one for both sides in this discussion or debate.

    "the difference is made when you stop someone from suffering and you know that you did."

    But given your beliefs, why is suffering a morally bad thing? What makes suffering a morally bad thing in and of itself? What defines suffering?

    Also, given your beliefs, why is keeping someone from suffering valuable and worth doing?

    Like I said to you: "if you're suggesting there is actually value in 'making a difference' in life, then this is something which makes life at least in part valuable rather than worthless, which in turn undercuts antinatalism."

    "Let´s say you have a kid. And then you plan to have another one - but then you become an antinatalist - well then you know that you stop that unborn child´s suffering, even if the difference is just about his/her life."

    Let's say you become a natalist and then plan to have a kid. You know that by bringing a child into the world, although he or she may suffer, the fact that he or she has life outweighs the suffering he or she may experience.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Honestly we could go back and forth like this all day. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other. But like I said it eventually comes down to one's presuppositions. You have to argue for why, given antinatalism and atheism, why does it matter whether or not you can make a difference? What difference does "making a difference" make anyway? Sorry to sound like a CD on repeat but again I don't see how you've actually addressed any of this. You've just repeated yourself without advancing the argument.

    "And as for the other question, it doesnt make life worth or anything, but if with my time here I can help someone not to suffer, I guess that´s time well spent, don´t you think? This doesn´t undercut antinatalism in any way, in fact it helps to enforce it."

    But you're not actually helping someone not to suffer. You're actually just not doing anything. You're just making a decision not to bring a child into the world.

    Besides it's not even guaranteed that you can or can't bring a child into the world. You don't know that if you have sex you'll be able to conceive a child. You're just dealing with probabilities. Maybe you will, maybe you won't. Plus it's not just your decision but it's also the decision of your spouse.

    Actually let's try another hypothetical. Let's say you're an antinatalist. But let's say you have a wife who is a natalist. Let's say she desperately wants to have a child more than anything else. Let's say she is in psychiatric distress if she doesn't have a child. Aren't you causing her to suffer mental pain and emotional anguish and so forth by refusing to have a child? By not at least trying to have a child? And at least your wife already exists whereas a potential infant neither exists nor doesn't exist, given that the infant is unrealized.

    "Well the only problem here is what I mentioned before: by satisfying your hunger you are bringing someone else here, who´ll have this same or other problems, and so on, and so on. Do you see the chain of events here? That´s what we´re talking about."

    But from my perspective the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Yes, life can be suffering, but is it gratuitous suffering? Not necessarily.

    So my question is, why is your persepective the correct one, while my perspective incorrect? You just say you think your perspective is correct, whereas I can likewise say that I think mine is correct.

    "Suicide in itself might be justifiable (I said MIGHT), but we´re talking about people here, people that get hurt by things that bring them death. So I guess you see my point, right?"

    Actually, no, I'm sorry, but I don't. I asked: "The question is why isn't suicide justifiable given the confluence of antinatalism and metaphysical naturalism." But you just responded that it "might" be justifiable without giving a reason why you so. Again, you're just stating things without benefit of making an argument for why you think so. In short, it's just your opinion or feeling about how things are or aren't or how things should be or whatever. But opinions or subjective feelings aren't the same things as reasoned arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Plague Doctor said:

    "The DEFINITIION and PERSONAL NEGATIVE valuation of suffering is OBJECTIVE; only the particular CONTENTS of the suffering is SUBJECTIVE."

    So you assert that suffering itself is objective but its "particular CONTENTS" are subjective. Let's see what your argument for this assertion is.

    "UTILITARIAN antinatalism is grounded on the position that assigns positive value to the PREVENTION of suffering."

    You're arbitrarily assigning positive value to the prevention of suffering.

    Given atheism and evolution, on utilitarian ethical grounds, it could very well be possible to argue that suffering is good for the overall survival of the species if it leads to a sustainable replacement rate for the human species. That is, given atheism and evolution, the utilitarian natalist could assign suffering a positive value in leading to the outcome of a beneficial survival rate for our species.

    "Life is ONLY valuable for the BORN; life is worthless and unnecessary for the UNBORN."

    Why is life for the unborn "worthless and unnecessary"? On what grounds do you say this? On utilitarian grounds? Yet that's not necessarily true as I explained above.

    Also, this is from your perspective as someone who has already been born. The unborn don't have a say. But who are you to tell them life is "worthless and unnecessary"? Isn't that for them to decide? Sure, some people who are born may not appreciate life and commit suicide. But I'd say the majority of humans are pretty happy to be alive! And, on utilitarian grounds, what's of use to the majority outweighs the minority.

    "Being born causes UNNECESSARY pain and UNNECESSARY pleasure. Pain (necessary or unnecessary) is BAD, unnecessary pleasure is UNNECESSARY. Hence the Benetarian Asymmetry."

    Again, so you say. You say pain and pleasure are "UNNECESSARY." That's your subjective opinion. That's even the subjective opinion of all antinatalists. However, that's not necessarily the opinion of other humans. And that's not necessarily the opinion of the majority of humans. And, again, on utilitarian grounds, what's necessary vs. what's unnecessary should be adjudicated in light of the majority, not the minority.

    "The pain of not having children is minuscule compared to the unimaginably vast amounts of harm that will occur."

    Once again, that's your subjective opinion. But who are you to tell a woman who desperately wants to have a child that her "pain of not having children is miniscule..."? I believe most women want to have children. So on utilitarian grounds, again, we have to go with the majority.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Furthermore, from a deontological point of view, the pain caused procreation is pain that is IMPOSED on others..."

    Sorry to say this, but it sounds like you're confused. Deontology refers to an ethical system.

    Plus it depends on which deontological ethical system you're referring to (e.g. divine command theory).

    However, the statement "pain that is IMPOSED on others" is an assumption without an argument. It's not necessarily deontological or otherwise. Not without further argumentation for why you think so. Where's your argument for why you think not having a child is an inherently ethical duty? You haven't explained why you think so. At this point, you're just airing your subjective opinion. Again.

    "the pain of not having children is not imposed on others."

    Actually, that depends as well. It could be imposed. An antinatalist husband could impose his antinatalist values onto his natalist wife who desperately wants to have children thus causing her mental, emotional, and other pain.

    "The reasons for suffering are irrelevant; the fact remains that they and millions of other people are experiencing preventable suffering."

    Even if it's true that you can somehow know that millions of non-existent people are experiencing preventable suffering (which again is just your personal perspective anyway), who are you to tell them that their suffering is gratuitous and thus not worth experiencing life for? Given your beliefs, on what grounds do you say suffering is not worth life?

    "I find it absolutely incredible to witness people who are actually DEFENDING THEIR RIGHT TO BE UNHAPPY."

    This is amusingly ironic coming from someone who espouses antinatalism in large part because they believe life is miserable and worthless.

    "Oh, and one more thing: procreation does not reduce the amount of pain caused by not having children, because there will still always be people experiencing the pain of not having children in every next generation (due to infertility or lack of willing partners). Only antinatalism can end the pain of not having children."

    Yes, I suppose, in the same way that nuking a city can end the pain of people in the city who hate living in the city. If antinatalism ends the pain of not having children, it ends all things as well including other pleasures which, for those who suffer because they can't have children but want to have children, might very well still make life worth living. So, once again, who are you to decide what's best for them?

    ReplyDelete
  21. timcooijmans said:

    "A life filled with pleasure is worthless because it would not be missed if it did not exist. The potential for pleasure does not weigh in favor of creation of new life."

    As I said with the other guys, this is your subjective opinion. Most people are perfectly happy to be alive. Most people don't wish they had never been born. You guys are in the minority. You're the hyper pessimists and cynics.

    Anyway I sound like a broken record at this point. But I'm a broken record because the answers given all make the same unargued assumptions.

    "Likewise it doesn't matter what your idea of pleasure or happiness is."

    Wow, I guess you know me better than I do! By the same token, I could say I know you better than you do.

    "It might have been clearer had I written 'good experiences' and 'bad experiences' instead of 'pleasure' and 'pain and/or suffering', respectively."

    Okay, but how would this matter? What's a good experience for one person might be a bad experience for another and vice versa. Having kids might be a bad experience for you but a good one for me and my kids and their kids and so forth.

    "When I wrote about the conventional wisdom of opting for less than perfect I did not mean to make life look bad."

    But isn't that how antinatalists paint life - as "bad"? I mean isn't this one reason why antinatalism argues we shouldn't have kids? Because life is so bad, life is pain, life is suffering, life is miserable, etc.? Or are you saying otherwise?

    "But to choose nonexistence over existence because existence is risky is different, in that there is no relevant person who suffers because of this decision."

    But one problem is that you're the one choosing, not the existing or non-existing person. So why should you choose for them? What gives you the right to choose for someone else whether they think the risk of life is worthwhile or not? Especially in light of the fact the the majority of humans seem to be perfectly content to be alive and do not wish they were not born?

    Rather the problem is, I think, that antinatalists think that if there's a possibility for even one person to be unhappy in this life, then it's not worth it for anyone else to be alive either. It comes down to the fact that antinatalists think no one should be happy if one person is unhappy. But like I said to metamorphhh, why should antinatalists extrapolate from the one to the many?

    "'Making a difference' is valuable because it prevents, avoids and/or diminishes bad experiences. If we change one would-be parents' mind, we have made a valuable difference. By putting our weight on the pro-choice side of the euthanasia debate, we make a valuable difference."

    So you're saying making a difference is valuable because an antinatalist can persuade others about antinatalism which makes a valuable difference. First, this is circular reasoning.

    But also, on antinatalist grounds, it'd be hoping that another person actually comes to adopt antinatalism, which may or may not come. This is therefore a kind of pie in the sky hope. Why not have today what you know to be concrete and true, i.e. that life is not worthing living and therefore it's better to end it (suicide), than to hope that someday someone will also adopt antinatalism, which may or may not ever come?

    Also, does persuading others about antinatalism outweigh one's own continued suffering in this life? Is it worth suffering more misery in this life if only to convince more people about antinatalism, even though that possibility is not guaranteed? Even though it's a risky venture to continue living and thus suffering with the hope that others will also be persuaded about antinatalism?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Filrabat said:

    "My antinatalism is based in suffering prevention - including others mental sufferings. If I committed suicide, that causes great lasting anguish for family and friends - especially if they don't really understand 'where I'm coming from'. Thus, suicide creates more of the very suffering philosophical antinatalism seeks to prevent. Therefore, what I gain from suicide is not worth the anguish caused to others."

    If your antinatalism is based on "suffering prevention - including others mental sufferings," then, if a woman desperately wants to have a child and would suffer mental anguish by not having a child, then it'd seem justifiable for her to have a child.

    If your antinatalism is based on "suffering prevention - including others mental sufferings," then someone could argue for natalism on the grounds that bringing a child into the world would benefit friends and family who would be happy to see someone have a child.

    ReplyDelete
  23. steelikat said:

    "The antinatalist thing is just silly."

    For a while China moved in that direction with their one child policy.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Filrabat said:

    "Of course, it's impossible to prevent all suffering. The best thing - indeed, the only, thing we can do is to minimize the suffering to the lowest level that is the right mix of possible and reasonable."

    So how do you determine "the right mix of possible and reasonable"? Wouldn't that depend on the person or persons involved and who could be affected?

    "The woman wanting a child has at least one option open - adoption."

    I have nothing against adoption. But some if not most women happen to want their own biological child if possible. Adoption is often a next resort.

    "As for giving birth, by conceiving, she and the father are implicitly imposing their answer of 'Is life worth living?' onto a person who could not CONSENT to be born; for the person in their preconceived state could not agree beforehand to being forced to play the game of Living under the rules of Living forced upon us by this reality."

    SUre, the parents may not know their potential child's will on whether he or she wants to exist or not exist. But at the same time they also don't know that their potential child doesn't want to exist.

    Also, why is consent necessary in the first place?

    I didn't have the consent to become a US citizen. But I don't begrudge being a US citizen. On the contrary, I'm quite happy to be a US citizen! Some people never gave their consent to be born into well-to-do or wealthy families. But I don't see too many wealthy people wanting to give up their affluent lifestyle and life. They don't feel like they were forced into this position.

    In fact, I don't think most people alive feel like they are unhappy about living and wish they had never been born. It's only a minority of humanity that feels this way. So, odds are, most people want to be born than not born. Given this, it would seem way more likely than not that a child wants to be born.

    However, I think what it comes down to for antinatalists is what I said above: antinatalists think that if there's a possibility for even one person to be unhappy in this life, then it's not worth it for anyone else to be alive either. It comes down to the fact that antinatalists think no one should be happy if one person is unhappy.

    ReplyDelete
  25. steelikat wrote:

    “If you say that unbaptized babies go to heaven it seems to me (and to most of Christendom before the last century or so) you are going against scripture….Those thinkers have proposed a novelty foreign to Christianity, which has never countenanced universalism and which indeed is essentially connected with the principle that there is salvation in no one but Christ and we are justified by faith alone.”

    Where’s your evidence? I’ve argued to the contrary here. Universal infant salvation seems to have been a widespread view during the earliest generations of church history.

    And why do you go from saying the view in question was opposed by “most of Christendom” to calling that view a “novelty”? If you think it was held as a minority position in earlier generations, then why call its more recent formulations a “novelty”?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Jason,

    You are right, "novelty" was an ill-chosen word.

    The article you linked to seems to be about a different topic (though I guess related since unbaptized babies are involved). Can you check that out and get back to me with the correct link? I admire the apologetic work you've done with regard to early church writings and am eager to read your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  27. For those who are interested, my discussion with steelikat (Steve Polson) has moved to the thread here.

    ReplyDelete