Hello, I hope that you have been doing well. I was recently having a conversation with an anti-natalist who supports the anti-natalism of Julio Cabrera. Cabrera is not exactly a utilitarian or even a classic deontologist. Do you have any thoughts on his negative ethics, MEA (Minimum Ethical Articulation), and views on the "terminality" of life that, combined with the "moral impediments"we face, makes AN the right choice (in his view). The position is intricate, but I do feel that there is a concealed emphasis on the negatives (focusing on terminality rather than birth and believing that the frictions of life somehow make it worthless).
Although I have seen people respond to Professor Benatar and Inmendham before (thank you, by the way), I haven't found a significant critique of his worldview. To me, his arguments about birth leading to "manipulation" (my interlocutor wrote that creating someone "manipulates" their being itself) is strikingly similar to the asymmetrical approach of the consent argument. The consent argument (if we can even believe that consent can be applied to an action that doesn't violate the existing interests of any being) fundamentally favours a pessimistic interpretation by asking us to focus in the "impositions" rather than the gifts of life (that nobody can ask for prior to existing).
I shall be immensely thankful for your incisive and perspicacious words concerning this.
Just to give you a gist of the broader discussion (it's still underway), I wanted to share a comment of my interlocutor. Thereafter, I shall share my response:
Regarding the MEA, it's not contradictory at all, the MEA since its very foundation pointed towards impossibility, that's why under this line of thinking we all are morally impeded meaning that; in one point or another we are going to act impeded towards someone inside the holistic web of actions. Not because of malice or anything of the sort, but because we are embedded in a situation of radical lack of space, affirmative ethics just take a cut portion of the hole picture, declaring morality to be assumed by free, rational, good beings, directed towards a dignified life, while systematically forgetting that we are moral patients, bound to assume morality in a state of radical discomfort. Since "negativity" is supplied ontologically this will put us in a constant state of going against the interest of others (which violates the MEA. We put forward our lives projects or we get crushed) and putting ours above in turn, this is reflected through the compulsive creation of estantes. Estantes... Always at the risk of harming someone or ourselves, created arduously in a narrow space of action inside a gigantic holistic web of actions, at one point or another this ends up affecting someone. Not creating someone can cause unwanted harm? Yes. It can certainly create a harm to our parents' playfulness of getting to know their grandchildren the same goes to our parthers, to our communities, etc. As described above, we are morally impeded (we cannot observe the MEA at all times due to structural reasons) this doesn't mean that we should therefore turn resigned and say "there's nothing to be done", "it is what it is". The attempt of negative ethics is to construct a normative framework against the hypocrisy and pride of affirmative ethics. As mention in part one, affirmative ethics forget about the radical discomfort of being, viewing it as "without importance", "absurd" or "trival" and being totally focused on "how to live" without questioning if living in itself doesnt imply some kind of sensible and ethical issues. The only moment in which the life of the newborn will be problematized will be in its rearing and education. Negative ethics has a profound connection to the structure of the world that go unnoticed by most normative theories; devaluation of human life (sensibly and morally), the reactive nature of positive values and moral impediment. This ends up translating in not procreating, minimalistic life, disposition towards death and negative inviolability. Don't have time to develop here.
"Sidenote 1. Regarding hypocrisy and pride, the two moral faults of affirmative ethics. Affirmative ethics violate the minimal ethical articulation (not harming and not manipulating) by procreating new beings uncritically. It has been already argued that; discomfort or "negativity" is ontological and the act of procreation is manipulative. Manipulation and the structural death of the others are necessary for the continuity of affirmative philosophy to keep on living. These are considered as (affirmative ethics are expansionist and maximalist given their positive ontology). Since manipulation is condemned in affirmative ethics this will translate into a second grade morality. (From a negative ethics perspective). In affirmative ethics is always possible to judge and condemn what is unethical inside the intra-world ignoring the most basic, trivial and worldly unethical transgressions. Hypocrisy is linked to occultation whilst pride is linked to aggressiveness. One of the main ethical consequences of the secondary character of affirmative ethics is certainly the break of the principle of inviolability of the other‟s person and the full assumption of a political administration of violence. Indeed, if we consider also the moral issues connected to what to live (and not only to how to live), we would see that being itself can be considered as ethically problematical, that in order to be (anything), it is necessary to transgress MEA, in the sense of expansion and aggression of the other, due to the basic “lack of space”, etc., which could lead to question the current policies of births and deaths, the affirmative ontological administration. The fundamental aggression of being shows that “cohabitation among freedoms” is, in the radical level, impossible. Affirmative ethics are constituted on the basic transgression of MEA, so they are inevitably compelled to use hypocrisy to hide transgression (and so they can edify secondary morality without basic disturbances) and also the systematically assumed aggressiveness (pride), by not accepting abstention or letting be killed as ethically advisable attitudes. Kantian and Christian ethics in general tend to stress the affirmative hypocrisy component, whereas Utilitarian, Pragmatic and other empirical ethics tend to stress aggressiveness and pride. One of the most basic manifestations of moral hypocrisy in affirmative moral consists of attributing to eventual contents, strategically and politically selected, the moral evil formally present always and in every moment due to the transgressions of MEA connected to the being itself. It is a kind of systematic concealment of the formality of evil, through the adduction of contents that apply to specific cases one wants to morally condemn but not to others, strategically breaking the formality of evil (moral disqualification, as transgression of MEA, by structural pain). This way, MEA receives a new formulation in the secondary level; the articulation good/evil turns now into this one: determined (pointed out, emphasized, highlighted, stressed, etc) evil versus undetermined (not pointed out, not stressed, etc) evil. The formality of evil makes the normative space saturated. It is inevitable to permanently fall into situations of immorality, not due to some “radical evil of human nature” or to a “perverse nature”, but because of our own structural factual condition as elucidated by naturalized ontology (terminality of being) which does not leave us space, as we have seen, to be moral. The affirmative maneuver consists of denouncing, in a particular case, what could (and, morally in the sense of primary moral should) have been denounced in all other cases of the normative space, but it was not because there were not strategic motives for that (though there has always been moral motives available)."
"The contradiction comes in when the action that is allegedly going to be ethically preferable (not procreating) is also going to violate the "Minimal Ethical Articulation" because of the value that life has for many people. In other words, the alternative being presented is not nearly as attractive as it may appear at first glance. For all his criticisms of other ethical systems, Mr Cabrera inevitably arrives at the same view that most others do, which is that there can be a greater good. If affirmative morality had assumed perfection and goodness, there wouldn't be any discussion about the ethics of the right to a graceful exit, the prison system, and the very notion of acting unethically. Negative ethics is not holistic. It only looks at a small slice (similar to the absolutist optimist) and puts forth a judgement that secretes layer upon layer of unidimensional obligations and analyses. The radical comfort of the present moment has been underestimated and devalued for a long time. I shall not dismiss suffering as being something absurd, but neither will I embrace the absurdity of disregarding the unfathomably robust good.
The assumption of the universality of impediment (in terms of its extent) is deeply troubling. I already agree that procreation should not occur uncritically, but it would be short-sighted to believe that the opposite side of the coin will not have insidious consequences as valuable structures (which we take for granted) collapse. The badness of manipulation and harms (and I don't believe that the idea that beings can be manipulated/harmed by an action that doesn't go against their existing interests makes much sense) cannot be seen in isolation. True affirmative ethics does not discard the reality of the negative. Nonetheless, it goes a step further than negative ethics and asks what one should do with the other aspect of existence. Bestowing good experiences that one cannot demand before existing is not unethical in my view. It is hypocritical and arrogant, I think, to care about suffering and being holistic while ignoring the effects on existing individuals and the fact that the positive perspective is not a mirage. I don't believe that abstention is not acceptable. If anything, I would say that it is desirable for many in the times we live in. All I would deny is the view that life is somehow always good or always bad. As soon as the MEA presumes the possibility of better ethical conduct, the view that there is an unending chain of evil is defeated. Now, if one chooses to look at a small speck on a massive cape, that is their prerogative.
"I have been unable to spot significant strategic or moral value in the universal condemnation or the universal commendation of being.
I am not in favour of irrationally worshipping life either. One of the telltale signs of a worldview gone wrong is its declaration that something extremely intuitive cannot be right in any situation. Manipulation is controlling someone in a dishonest manner for one's own benefit. The obvious issue is that the dishonesty aspect relied upon the violation of one's existing interests, and we know that those who don't exist have no interest in not being born. Secondly, the landscape is not defined exclusively by manipulation (if we assume that the concept is applicable). As I have already elucidated, beneficence and happiness are inextricable parts of life. The process of fulfilment is not identical to the state itself (which is why I reject the idea of the good being reactive). If cessation is bad, it is because it causes the loss of something positive (life). However, it makes little sense to prevent the loss at the cost of the presence of the very good that we are trying to protect. Life is not "just" about survival and getting by; it can also be seen as a journey that provides numerous experiences that possess ineffable value. Love, bravery, aesthetic value, etc., are not frivolous features of life. To not worry about the conservation of this good would not be moral, in my opinion. There are limitless qualifications and possibilities too.
Again, I don't see how nothingness can be manipulated. And once the person exists, the purported manipulative action has already occurred. The nature of subsequent actions can be better or worse, but this is a different matter. Also, the lack of procreation does not respect anybody's interests either and nobody benefits from it other than those who have a desire to not reproduce. If "manipulation" is synonymous with any action that affects someone, then it loses its negative connotations as I simply don't believe that providing a good that cannot be solicited is immoral. I do believe that ethical concerns should not be ignored. I am not one of those natalists who believe that recklessly procreating for the sake of having a large population is intrinsically desirable.
Sentiments are a part of the human experience and detaching ethics from it is to transform it into an alien concept. The love I was talking about was not one for destruction, but for each other and the positive facets of reality. Also, I believe that everyone is interconnected and true indifference is difficult (as long as awareness is present). It is not justifiable to end all good in the name of loving avoiding harms.
The holistic ends where the extreme begins. The idea of what is virtuous evolved with our growing knowledge.
"The denunciation of denouncers is much appreciated. No sincerely ethical person would prefer mindless destruction if the good can be saved in another way. The omnipresence of the positives does not change the fact that it exists in and blooms from sentient beings, which is why the living component cannot be broken from the good. The exact same principle applies to the negatives, but the crucial difference is that the latter can be made to retreat in a close-to-permanent way. The reason why Mahatma Gandhi, democracy, vaccines, etc., are not mere illusions is because it was possible for concerted efforts to bring them into existence and incessantly strengthen them. Finally, I am far from perfect. I am still learning and hope to do the right thing in this ever-mystifying cosmos of ours (with the continual recognition that this is better than a void). The good did exist, it does exist, and it will (most probably) always continue to exist. I wouldn't ask anyone to leave negativity; I would just hope that the other rooms of the mansion are not left unexplored.
The concealment of moral progress is equally, if not more, severe. Countless daily deeds of kindness (helping a fallen stranger, giving tips, giving someone one's phone to call someone) are routinely downplayed as being actions that are simply normal. However, I agree that conceit and sanctimonious attitudes are all too common and are deplorable. At the same time, entire societies would not have changed if there was no willingness to change. The fact that the UK can allow Dr Tharoor to promote his book on colonialism shows that there is another side to this story.
Trivialising is not one-sided. Positives such as the independence of one's nation can often be restricted to being an enjoyable holiday. I am not surprised by this as education should keep going and most people have other concerns. The only time this becomes problematic is when this general attitude converts into a pernicious apathy.
It's not holistic to ignore anything, which is something that also includes the good.
Moral disagreement is not necessarily that extreme. People, usually, celebrate freedom, tolerance, and cooperation. The differences are more about the interpretation of events. Still, the majority of people today would likely find the deeds of the German dictator to be abhorrent.
Harming others is only justifiable if there is a higher good in sight. The three impediments essentially point out the fact that harms are not avoidable. But what they miss is that the umbrella of the negatives is not wide enough to prevent is from feeling the pleasant raindrops of the positives.
Weak and defenceless people would not dare to express their controversial views. People can certainly struggle to escape the darkness. After all, the light in front of them is not without its merits. The comfort in being is structural and is the cause behind the random shopkeeper asking you, with a smile on their face, how their product was the last time you purchased it. A constellation of confidence, hope, trust, honesty, happiness, and love is unlikely to pose much danger. I agree that the need for approval is a bit excessive these days. Then again, the primacy belongs to the positives here as well. When good is done, the desire for its recognition is only natural. The project of ethics should not be seen as a burden that, if left incomplete, warrants the end of all that is valuable. Incremental steps can help make things better as we continue to be grateful for that which is already there."
Sorry, but I don't have the time or the interest to weigh in all of this. If you ask me a specific question or summarize the point at issue, I might be more inclined to comment on it.
I am sorry for the inordinately long comments. My central interest was knowing your views on Cabrera's negative ethics and his ideas of terminality and moral impediment. More information about it is available online. Here are a few pertinent words:
Julio Cabrera proposes a concept of "negative ethics" in opposition to "affirmative" ethics, meaning ethics that affirm being. He describes procreation as manipulation and harm, a unilateral and non-consensual sending of a human being into a painful, dangerous and morally impeding situation.
Cabrera regards procreation as an ontological issue of total manipulation: one's very being is manufactured and used; in contrast to intra-worldly cases where someone is placed in a harmful situation. In the case of procreation, no chance of defense against that act is even available. According to Cabrera: manipulation in procreation is visible primarily in the unilateral and non-consensual nature of the act, which makes procreation per se inevitably asymmetrical; be it a product of forethought, or a product of neglect. It is always connected with the interests (or disinterests) of other humans, not the created human. In addition, Cabrera points out that in his view the manipulation of procreation is not limited to the act of creation itself, but it is continued in the process of raising the child, during which parents gain great power over the child's life, who is shaped according to their preferences and for their satisfaction. He emphasizes that although it is not possible to avoid manipulation in procreation, it is perfectly possible to avoid procreation itself and that then no moral rule is violated.
Cabrera believes that the situation in which one is placed through procreation, human life, is structurally negative in that its constitutive features are inherently adverse. The most prominent of them are, according to Cabrera, the following:
The being acquired by a human at birth is decreasing (or "decaying"), in the sense of a being that begins to end since its very emergence, following a single and irreversible direction of deterioration and decline, of which complete consummation can occur at any moment between some minutes and around one hundred years. From the moment they come into being, humans are affected by three kinds of frictions: physical pain (in the form of illnesses, accidents, and natural catastrophes to which they are always exposed); discouragement (in the form of "lacking the will", or the "mood" or the "spirit", to continue to act, from mild taedium vitae to serious forms of depression), and finally, exposure to the aggressions of other humans (from gossip and slander to various forms of discrimination, persecution, and injustice), aggressions that we too can inflict on others, also submitted, like us, to the three kinds of friction. To defend themselves against (a) and (b), human beings are equipped with mechanisms of creation of positive values (ethical, aesthetic, religious, entertaining, recreational, as well as values contained in human realizations of all kinds), which humans must keep constantly active. All positive values that appear within human life are reactive and palliative; they do not arise from the structure of life itself, but are introduced by the permanent and anxious struggle against the decaying life and its three kinds of friction, with such struggle however doomed to be defeated, at any moment, by any of the mentioned frictions or by the progressive decline of one's being.
Cabrera calls the set of these characteristics A–C the "terminality of being". He is of the opinion that a huge number of humans around the world cannot withstand this steep struggle against the terminal structure of their being, which leads to destructive consequences for them and others: suicides, major or minor mental illnesses, or aggressive behavior. He accepts that life may be – thanks to human's own merits and efforts – bearable and even very pleasant (though not for all, due to the phenomenon of moral impediment), but also considers it problematic to bring someone into existence so that they may attempt to make their life pleasant by struggling against the difficult and oppressive situation we place them in by procreating. It seems more reasonable, according to Cabrera, simply not to put them in that situation, since the results of their struggle are always uncertain.
Cabrera believes that in ethics, including affirmative ethics, there is one overarching concept which he calls the "Minimal Ethical Articulation", "MEA" (previously translated into English as "Fundamental Ethical Articulation" and "FEA"): the consideration of other people's interests, not manipulating them and not harming them. Procreation for him is an obvious violation of MEA – someone is manipulated and placed in a harmful situation as a result of that action. In his view, values included in the MEA are widely accepted by affirmative ethics, they are even their basics, and if approached radically, they should lead to the refusal of procreation.
For Cabrera, the worst thing in human life and by extension in procreation is what he calls "moral impediment": the structural impossibility of acting in the world without harming or manipulating someone at some given moment.
This was from the Wikipedia article on anti-natalism and it provides the essence of Mr Cabrera's views.
When you say, “Cabrera believes that the situation in which one is placed through procreation, human life, is structurally negative in that its constitutive features are inherently adverse,” that looks to me like the genetic fallacy. Cabrera would be saying that the conditions of our birth are foundational to everything we do as we grow. On the contrary, in growing we leave those conditions behind. We physically transform from an infant to a child to a teenager to an adult. So, who says the value of adult life is reducible to what happened to us when we were infants? That’s Freudianism.
Still, I agree that life is an uphill battle. The world’s indifference is stacked against our self-interests and our moral concerns. Life is indeed a struggle, but that makes the value of life mixed not wholly bad since there’s nobility and honour in the struggle.
The talk of “three frictions” in life is fine as far as it goes, but it’s cherry picking (or perhaps poison picking). There’s obviously a downside in life, including plenty of inevitable suffering. But there’s also an upside, which having been born grants us. As usual, the issue in antinatalism is whether the bad outweighs the good, or whether the two values can be quantified and compared in the first place. The asymmetric power relations in the act of giving birth don’t necessarily taint or direct the offspring’s entire life. Again, that looks like the genetic fallacy.
Also, what’s the difference between the so-called MEA and the liberal’s harm principle? You or Wikipedia says it’s “the consideration of other people's interests, not manipulating them and not harming them.” That’s just an appeal to liberal, Enlightenment morality. But as I pointed out to Inmendham, the antinatalist doesn’t get to appeal to morality without acknowledging that there’s good in the world. Our moral rights are based on our relative autonomy as adults, and that independence gives us some freedom to pursue our interests, as opposed to being enslaved by evolution or by asymmetric power relations in our having been born. Here, then, is the incoherence of moralizing antinatalism.
Thank you for your ever-perspicacious replies. Yes, the information about Mr Cabrera that I shared with you did come from Wikipedia. I think that you are right that, beyond the verbose arguments, this essentially comes down to the potency and extent of the negatives (and the positives). When we talk about the asymmetry of creation, why should "manipulation" be the only consideration and not the fact that life can also be seen as an authentic gift (because nobody can ask for the good things in life before they are created). Pleasure, redemption, resilience, and generosity are not figments of our imagination. One simply cannot abstract the poison without looking at the concurrent presence of the nectar.
Thank you, again, for your patience and wisdom, Mr Cain.
By the way, I had a last, and somewhat unrelated (though perhaps not in the larger scheme of things) question. A person named Blithering Genius has made some videos critiquing efilism and exploring ideas regarding race, sexuality, etc. for a while. While he is an atheist, he doesn't seem to care much about heroism and the transcendent aspects of life. For him, the only purpose of man is to reproduce. However, be also believes that nobody is rationally compelled to hold his views. Here is his playlist on efilism:
And here is a video he made on the school shooter Adam Lanza (who was apparently influenced by Gary):
https://youtu.be/VMTqrHviBE0
If you ever get the time to see some of these videos, could you please consider sharing why is it that, despite both of you rejecting traditional theism and also embracing evolution, your worldview is not as peculiarly cold as BG's? I would not say that he rejects life,but I don't sense the kind of vitality in its affirmation in the way that I see in your work. I would disagree with some of his basic principles. I would, for example, say that it is more likely that positive experiences are value and not a result of the acquisition of something else. Similarly, I would say that there can be significant altruism in our lives even if that enriches our well-being. Mahatma Gandhi was not frolicking around in Noakhali. However, I feel that the kind of pantheism you espouse could potentially help many people who, while not necessarily denying life, still lose its wonder as a consequence of letting go of some versions of theism. As a Hindu, I am quite sympathetic to views such as pantheism and panentheism. I do ponder about their trajectory, especially as dogmatism declines. Unfortunately, India has to see some progress before the inclusivism of Hinduism (that Mahatma Gandhi and Swami Vivekananda believed in) can be adequately restored in the atmans of people. Right now, too much of the discourse is permeated with "decoloniality" and Muslim aggression. Neither of these is inherently problematic to explore, but this shouldn't be done at the cost of downplaying our flaws and vilifying others. Anyway, I am not going to diverge beyond this point. Thank you for your indubitably priceless work.
That’s more of a psychological than a philosophical question. It’s possible that someone’s philosophy could have nothing to do with the person’s upbringing, character, or environment, but this is highly unlikely. We incorporate these conditions into our worldviews. So, I’d have to know about an atheist’s personal background to ascertain why this person’s philosophy of life is “colder” than mine.
I share some of the philosophical influences on my worldview, in the article linked below. There are plenty of personal factors too. For instance, I have some talent for visual art, inherited from one of my grandfathers. And an eye for art lets you appreciate beauty. Thus, I’ve argued for the importance of an aesthetic reconstruction of morality, based partly on my experience with art. You see how I’m partly expressing my background in ideological form. That doesn’t mean a philosophy reduces to just these influences, but if you want to understand why a thinker is attracted to certain ideas, or why a philosophy is pessimistic or optimistic, it would be useful to know something about the thinker’s personal and social background.
That is a valid point. Our personal experiences and general outlook on life is bound to affect the nature of our philosophical positions. When I say that BG's view is "colder", I don't mean that it is utterly pessimistic or life-denying. It's merely that he seems to believe that if man has any purpose, it is reproduction (though he also says that nobody is compelled to accept his values). His manner of stating things is not really "pessimistic". It's mostly in a matter-of-fact approach. Seemingly troubling questions (murder, life-denial of life) don't appear to perturb him much (you can see his video on Adam Lanza or his debate with an anarcho-capitalist to get a slight glimpse of this). All I would say is that, while I am thankful to BG for his precision, I believe that the world is authentically enriched at a profoundly transcendent level by the work done by people like you. Reason divorced from aesthetic value do probably take away an invaluable component of our being, which can also obstruct our journey towards the truth. Thank you for your doing what you do.
If you are interested, here is the link to BG's blog:
You might be talking there about writing styles. I used to write in the dry, academic style, but I realized that that would be self-defeating if I wanted to appeal to a broader audience. It's also a matter of practice. I've been writing a lot for a long while. And again, my artistic sensibilities might enter the picture: I'm trying to spark the imagination and shake us out of mundane frameworks, so dryness might be precise but boring.
It's interesting that BG's still posting on blogspot. Why not switch over to Medium and get paid a little for it? It might be too late now, with all the competition. Or maybe he writes on Medium under a different name. I wish I'd switched over earlier.
I think that the writing style is certainly a major component, but the critical aspect has, in my opinion, more to do with your emphasis on the aesthetic/transcendent facets of life (something BG usually doesn't write about). I don't want to reduce everything to psychology, but if you genuinely believe that life is selfish (and transcending this in an elegant manner is nigh impossible) and simultaneously hold that the only "objective purpose/value" (that you are not forced to accept by reason) is procreation, a form of aridity can creep in.
I remember watching your video "Nihilism or Transcendence? A Reply to Inmendham". Even then, your work was inclined towards a different approach than that adopted by someone like BG. That video was uploaded in 2014. Maybe your shift had started earlier than that. Regardless, your distinguishing feature has been your worldview.
BG is fairly active on YouTube (though his blog seems to get more activity these days). It's possible that he doesn't really care about reaching a large number of people and, as you said, feels that the competition is not worth the trouble. To be honest, the profundity of your articles usually supersedes the kind of material I see on Medium. I suppose it's also a blessing as it allows writers to grow and promotes the rather invaluable habit of reading. But I can't aver that there is a charm in finding gems like this blog whilst randomly searching for a topic. Possibly, everything has a role to play, even if we inhabit an esoteric cosmos. Still, I am glad that you found the appropriate medium to put forth your intriguing and thoughtful views (I am not witty enough to conjure up puns).
Hello, I hope that you have been doing well. I was recently having a conversation with an anti-natalist who supports the anti-natalism of Julio Cabrera. Cabrera is not exactly a utilitarian or even a classic deontologist. Do you have any thoughts on his negative ethics, MEA (Minimum Ethical Articulation), and views on the "terminality" of life that, combined with the "moral impediments"we face, makes AN the right choice (in his view). The position is intricate, but I do feel that there is a concealed emphasis on the negatives (focusing on terminality rather than birth and believing that the frictions of life somehow make it worthless).
ReplyDeleteAlthough I have seen people respond to Professor Benatar and Inmendham before (thank you, by the way), I haven't found a significant critique of his worldview. To me, his arguments about birth leading to "manipulation" (my interlocutor wrote that creating someone "manipulates" their being itself) is strikingly similar to the asymmetrical approach of the consent argument. The consent argument (if we can even believe that consent can be applied to an action that doesn't violate the existing interests of any being) fundamentally favours a pessimistic interpretation by asking us to focus in the "impositions" rather than the gifts of life (that nobody can ask for prior to existing).
I shall be immensely thankful for your incisive and perspicacious words concerning this.
Just to give you a gist of the broader discussion (it's still underway), I wanted to share a comment of my interlocutor. Thereafter, I shall share my response:
ReplyDeleteRegarding the MEA, it's not contradictory at all, the MEA since its very foundation pointed towards impossibility, that's why under this line of thinking we all are morally impeded meaning that; in one point or another we are going to act impeded towards someone inside the holistic web of actions. Not because of malice or anything of the sort, but because we are embedded in a situation of radical lack of space, affirmative ethics just take a cut portion of the hole picture, declaring morality to be assumed by free, rational, good beings, directed towards a dignified life, while systematically forgetting that we are moral patients, bound to assume morality in a state of radical discomfort. Since "negativity" is supplied ontologically this will put us in a constant state of going against the interest of others (which violates the MEA. We put forward our lives projects or we get crushed) and putting ours above in turn, this is reflected through the compulsive creation of estantes. Estantes... Always at the risk of harming someone or ourselves, created arduously in a narrow space of action inside a gigantic holistic web of actions, at one point or another this ends up affecting someone.
Not creating someone can cause unwanted harm? Yes. It can certainly create a harm to our parents' playfulness of getting to know their grandchildren the same goes to our parthers, to our communities, etc.
As described above, we are morally impeded (we cannot observe the MEA at all times due to structural reasons) this doesn't mean that we should therefore turn resigned and say "there's nothing to be done", "it is what it is". The attempt of negative ethics is to construct a normative framework against the hypocrisy and pride of affirmative ethics. As mention in part one, affirmative ethics forget about the radical discomfort of being, viewing it as "without importance", "absurd" or "trival" and being totally focused on "how to live" without questioning if living in itself doesnt imply some kind of sensible and ethical issues. The only moment in which the life of the newborn will be problematized will be in its rearing and education. Negative ethics has a profound connection to the structure of the world that go unnoticed by most normative theories; devaluation of human life (sensibly and morally), the reactive nature of positive values and moral impediment. This ends up translating in not procreating, minimalistic life, disposition towards death and negative inviolability. Don't have time to develop here.
Continuation of interlocutor's comment:
ReplyDelete"Sidenote 1. Regarding hypocrisy and pride, the two moral faults of affirmative ethics. Affirmative ethics violate the minimal ethical articulation (not harming and not manipulating) by procreating new beings uncritically. It has been already argued that; discomfort or "negativity" is ontological and the act of procreation is manipulative. Manipulation and the structural death of the others are necessary for the continuity of affirmative philosophy to keep on living. These are considered as (affirmative ethics are expansionist and maximalist given their positive ontology). Since manipulation is condemned in affirmative ethics this will translate into a second grade morality. (From a negative ethics perspective). In affirmative ethics is always possible to judge and condemn what is unethical inside the intra-world ignoring the most basic, trivial and worldly unethical transgressions.
Hypocrisy is linked to occultation whilst pride is linked to aggressiveness. One of the main ethical consequences of the secondary character of affirmative ethics is certainly the break of the principle of inviolability of the other‟s person and the full assumption of a political administration of violence. Indeed, if we consider also the moral issues connected to what to live (and not only to how to live), we would see that being itself can be considered as ethically problematical, that in order to be (anything), it is necessary to transgress MEA, in the sense of expansion and aggression of the other, due to the basic “lack of space”, etc., which could lead to question the current policies of births and deaths, the affirmative ontological administration. The fundamental aggression of being shows that “cohabitation among freedoms” is, in the radical level, impossible. Affirmative ethics are constituted on the basic transgression of MEA, so they are inevitably compelled to use hypocrisy to hide transgression (and so they can edify secondary morality without basic disturbances) and also the systematically assumed aggressiveness (pride), by not accepting abstention or letting be killed as ethically advisable attitudes. Kantian and Christian ethics in general tend to stress the affirmative hypocrisy component, whereas Utilitarian, Pragmatic and other empirical ethics tend to stress aggressiveness and pride. One of the most basic manifestations of moral hypocrisy in affirmative moral consists of attributing to eventual contents, strategically and politically selected, the moral evil formally present always and in every moment due to the transgressions of MEA connected to the being itself. It is a kind of systematic concealment of the formality of evil, through the adduction of contents that apply to specific cases one wants to morally condemn but not to others, strategically breaking the formality of evil (moral disqualification, as transgression of MEA, by structural pain). This way, MEA receives a new formulation in the secondary level; the articulation good/evil turns now into this one: determined (pointed out, emphasized, highlighted, stressed, etc) evil versus undetermined (not pointed out, not stressed, etc) evil. The formality of evil makes the normative space saturated. It is inevitable to permanently fall into situations of immorality, not due to some “radical evil of human nature” or to a “perverse nature”, but because of our own structural factual condition as elucidated by naturalized ontology (terminality of being) which does not leave us space, as we have seen, to be moral. The affirmative maneuver consists of denouncing, in a particular case, what could (and, morally in the sense of primary moral should) have been denounced in all other cases of the normative space, but it was not because there were not strategic motives for that (though there has always been moral motives available)."
Finally, here is my response:
ReplyDelete"The contradiction comes in when the action that is allegedly going to be ethically preferable (not procreating) is also going to violate the "Minimal Ethical Articulation" because of the value that life has for many people. In other words, the alternative being presented is not nearly as attractive as it may appear at first glance. For all his criticisms of other ethical systems, Mr Cabrera inevitably arrives at the same view that most others do, which is that there can be a greater good. If affirmative morality had assumed perfection and goodness, there wouldn't be any discussion about the ethics of the right to a graceful exit, the prison system, and the very notion of acting unethically. Negative ethics is not holistic. It only looks at a small slice (similar to the absolutist optimist) and puts forth a judgement that secretes layer upon layer of unidimensional obligations and analyses. The radical comfort of the present moment has been underestimated and devalued for a long time. I shall not dismiss suffering as being something absurd, but neither will I embrace the absurdity of disregarding the unfathomably robust good.
The assumption of the universality of impediment (in terms of its extent) is deeply troubling. I already agree that procreation should not occur uncritically, but it would be short-sighted to believe that the opposite side of the coin will not have insidious consequences as valuable structures (which we take for granted) collapse. The badness of manipulation and harms (and I don't believe that the idea that beings can be manipulated/harmed by an action that doesn't go against their existing interests makes much sense) cannot be seen in isolation. True affirmative ethics does not discard the reality of the negative. Nonetheless, it goes a step further than negative ethics and asks what one should do with the other aspect of existence. Bestowing good experiences that one cannot demand before existing is not unethical in my view. It is hypocritical and arrogant, I think, to care about suffering and being holistic while ignoring the effects on existing individuals and the fact that the positive perspective is not a mirage. I don't believe that abstention is not acceptable. If anything, I would say that it is desirable for many in the times we live in. All I would deny is the view that life is somehow always good or always bad. As soon as the MEA presumes the possibility of better ethical conduct, the view that there is an unending chain of evil is defeated. Now, if one chooses to look at a small speck on a massive cape, that is their prerogative.
Continuation of my response to my interlocutor:
ReplyDelete"I have been unable to spot significant strategic or moral value in the universal condemnation or the universal commendation of being.
I am not in favour of irrationally worshipping life either. One of the telltale signs of a worldview gone wrong is its declaration that something extremely intuitive cannot be right in any situation. Manipulation is controlling someone in a dishonest manner for one's own benefit. The obvious issue is that the dishonesty aspect relied upon the violation of one's existing interests, and we know that those who don't exist have no interest in not being born. Secondly, the landscape is not defined exclusively by manipulation (if we assume that the concept is applicable). As I have already elucidated, beneficence and happiness are inextricable parts of life. The process of fulfilment is not identical to the state itself (which is why I reject the idea of the good being reactive). If cessation is bad, it is because it causes the loss of something positive (life). However, it makes little sense to prevent the loss at the cost of the presence of the very good that we are trying to protect. Life is not "just" about survival and getting by; it can also be seen as a journey that provides numerous experiences that possess ineffable value. Love, bravery, aesthetic value, etc., are not frivolous features of life. To not worry about the conservation of this good would not be moral, in my opinion. There are limitless qualifications and possibilities too.
Again, I don't see how nothingness can be manipulated. And once the person exists, the purported manipulative action has already occurred. The nature of subsequent actions can be better or worse, but this is a different matter. Also, the lack of procreation does not respect anybody's interests either and nobody benefits from it other than those who have a desire to not reproduce. If "manipulation" is synonymous with any action that affects someone, then it loses its negative connotations as I simply don't believe that providing a good that cannot be solicited is immoral. I do believe that ethical concerns should not be ignored. I am not one of those natalists who believe that recklessly procreating for the sake of having a large population is intrinsically desirable.
Sentiments are a part of the human experience and detaching ethics from it is to transform it into an alien concept. The love I was talking about was not one for destruction, but for each other and the positive facets of reality. Also, I believe that everyone is interconnected and true indifference is difficult (as long as awareness is present). It is not justifiable to end all good in the name of loving avoiding harms.
The holistic ends where the extreme begins. The idea of what is virtuous evolved with our growing knowledge.
The final part of my response:
ReplyDelete"The denunciation of denouncers is much appreciated. No sincerely ethical person would prefer mindless destruction if the good can be saved in another way. The omnipresence of the positives does not change the fact that it exists in and blooms from sentient beings, which is why the living component cannot be broken from the good. The exact same principle applies to the negatives, but the crucial difference is that the latter can be made to retreat in a close-to-permanent way. The reason why Mahatma Gandhi, democracy, vaccines, etc., are not mere illusions is because it was possible for concerted efforts to bring them into existence and incessantly strengthen them. Finally, I am far from perfect. I am still learning and hope to do the right thing in this ever-mystifying cosmos of ours (with the continual recognition that this is better than a void). The good did exist, it does exist, and it will (most probably) always continue to exist. I wouldn't ask anyone to leave negativity; I would just hope that the other rooms of the mansion are not left unexplored.
The concealment of moral progress is equally, if not more, severe. Countless daily deeds of kindness (helping a fallen stranger, giving tips, giving someone one's phone to call someone) are routinely downplayed as being actions that are simply normal. However, I agree that conceit and sanctimonious attitudes are all too common and are deplorable. At the same time, entire societies would not have changed if there was no willingness to change. The fact that the UK can allow Dr Tharoor to promote his book on colonialism shows that there is another side to this story.
Trivialising is not one-sided. Positives such as the independence of one's nation can often be restricted to being an enjoyable holiday. I am not surprised by this as education should keep going and most people have other concerns. The only time this becomes problematic is when this general attitude converts into a pernicious apathy.
It's not holistic to ignore anything, which is something that also includes the good.
Moral disagreement is not necessarily that extreme. People, usually, celebrate freedom, tolerance, and cooperation. The differences are more about the interpretation of events. Still, the majority of people today would likely find the deeds of the German dictator to be abhorrent.
Harming others is only justifiable if there is a higher good in sight. The three impediments essentially point out the fact that harms are not avoidable. But what they miss is that the umbrella of the negatives is not wide enough to prevent is from feeling the pleasant raindrops of the positives.
Weak and defenceless people would not dare to express their controversial views. People can certainly struggle to escape the darkness. After all, the light in front of them is not without its merits. The comfort in being is structural and is the cause behind the random shopkeeper asking you, with a smile on their face, how their product was the last time you purchased it. A constellation of confidence, hope, trust, honesty, happiness, and love is unlikely to pose much danger. I agree that the need for approval is a bit excessive these days. Then again, the primacy belongs to the positives here as well. When good is done, the desire for its recognition is only natural. The project of ethics should not be seen as a burden that, if left incomplete, warrants the end of all that is valuable. Incremental steps can help make things better as we continue to be grateful for that which is already there."
Sorry, but I don't have the time or the interest to weigh in all of this. If you ask me a specific question or summarize the point at issue, I might be more inclined to comment on it.
DeleteI am sorry for the inordinately long comments. My central interest was knowing your views on Cabrera's negative ethics and his ideas of terminality and moral impediment. More information about it is available online. Here are a few pertinent words:
DeleteJulio Cabrera proposes a concept of "negative ethics" in opposition to "affirmative" ethics, meaning ethics that affirm being. He describes procreation as manipulation and harm, a unilateral and non-consensual sending of a human being into a painful, dangerous and morally impeding situation.
Cabrera regards procreation as an ontological issue of total manipulation: one's very being is manufactured and used; in contrast to intra-worldly cases where someone is placed in a harmful situation. In the case of procreation, no chance of defense against that act is even available. According to Cabrera: manipulation in procreation is visible primarily in the unilateral and non-consensual nature of the act, which makes procreation per se inevitably asymmetrical; be it a product of forethought, or a product of neglect. It is always connected with the interests (or disinterests) of other humans, not the created human. In addition, Cabrera points out that in his view the manipulation of procreation is not limited to the act of creation itself, but it is continued in the process of raising the child, during which parents gain great power over the child's life, who is shaped according to their preferences and for their satisfaction. He emphasizes that although it is not possible to avoid manipulation in procreation, it is perfectly possible to avoid procreation itself and that then no moral rule is violated.
Cabrera believes that the situation in which one is placed through procreation, human life, is structurally negative in that its constitutive features are inherently adverse. The most prominent of them are, according to Cabrera, the following:
The being acquired by a human at birth is decreasing (or "decaying"), in the sense of a being that begins to end since its very emergence, following a single and irreversible direction of deterioration and decline, of which complete consummation can occur at any moment between some minutes and around one hundred years.
From the moment they come into being, humans are affected by three kinds of frictions: physical pain (in the form of illnesses, accidents, and natural catastrophes to which they are always exposed); discouragement (in the form of "lacking the will", or the "mood" or the "spirit", to continue to act, from mild taedium vitae to serious forms of depression), and finally, exposure to the aggressions of other humans (from gossip and slander to various forms of discrimination, persecution, and injustice), aggressions that we too can inflict on others, also submitted, like us, to the three kinds of friction.
To defend themselves against (a) and (b), human beings are equipped with mechanisms of creation of positive values (ethical, aesthetic, religious, entertaining, recreational, as well as values contained in human realizations of all kinds), which humans must keep constantly active. All positive values that appear within human life are reactive and palliative; they do not arise from the structure of life itself, but are introduced by the permanent and anxious struggle against the decaying life and its three kinds of friction, with such struggle however doomed to be defeated, at any moment, by any of the mentioned frictions or by the progressive decline of one's being.
Cabrera calls the set of these characteristics A–C the "terminality of being". He is of the opinion that a huge number of humans around the world cannot withstand this steep struggle against the terminal structure of their being, which leads to destructive consequences for them and others: suicides, major or minor mental illnesses, or aggressive behavior. He accepts that life may be – thanks to human's own merits and efforts – bearable and even very pleasant (though not for all, due to the phenomenon of moral impediment), but also considers it problematic to bring someone into existence so that they may attempt to make their life pleasant by struggling against the difficult and oppressive situation we place them in by procreating. It seems more reasonable, according to Cabrera, simply not to put them in that situation, since the results of their struggle are always uncertain.
DeleteCabrera believes that in ethics, including affirmative ethics, there is one overarching concept which he calls the "Minimal Ethical Articulation", "MEA" (previously translated into English as "Fundamental Ethical Articulation" and "FEA"): the consideration of other people's interests, not manipulating them and not harming them. Procreation for him is an obvious violation of MEA – someone is manipulated and placed in a harmful situation as a result of that action. In his view, values included in the MEA are widely accepted by affirmative ethics, they are even their basics, and if approached radically, they should lead to the refusal of procreation.
For Cabrera, the worst thing in human life and by extension in procreation is what he calls "moral impediment": the structural impossibility of acting in the world without harming or manipulating someone at some given moment.
This was from the Wikipedia article on anti-natalism and it provides the essence of Mr Cabrera's views.
When you say, “Cabrera believes that the situation in which one is placed through procreation, human life, is structurally negative in that its constitutive features are inherently adverse,” that looks to me like the genetic fallacy. Cabrera would be saying that the conditions of our birth are foundational to everything we do as we grow. On the contrary, in growing we leave those conditions behind. We physically transform from an infant to a child to a teenager to an adult. So, who says the value of adult life is reducible to what happened to us when we were infants? That’s Freudianism.
DeleteStill, I agree that life is an uphill battle. The world’s indifference is stacked against our self-interests and our moral concerns. Life is indeed a struggle, but that makes the value of life mixed not wholly bad since there’s nobility and honour in the struggle.
The talk of “three frictions” in life is fine as far as it goes, but it’s cherry picking (or perhaps poison picking). There’s obviously a downside in life, including plenty of inevitable suffering. But there’s also an upside, which having been born grants us. As usual, the issue in antinatalism is whether the bad outweighs the good, or whether the two values can be quantified and compared in the first place. The asymmetric power relations in the act of giving birth don’t necessarily taint or direct the offspring’s entire life. Again, that looks like the genetic fallacy.
Also, what’s the difference between the so-called MEA and the liberal’s harm principle? You or Wikipedia says it’s “the consideration of other people's interests, not manipulating them and not harming them.” That’s just an appeal to liberal, Enlightenment morality. But as I pointed out to Inmendham, the antinatalist doesn’t get to appeal to morality without acknowledging that there’s good in the world. Our moral rights are based on our relative autonomy as adults, and that independence gives us some freedom to pursue our interests, as opposed to being enslaved by evolution or by asymmetric power relations in our having been born. Here, then, is the incoherence of moralizing antinatalism.
Thank you for your ever-perspicacious replies. Yes, the information about Mr Cabrera that I shared with you did come from Wikipedia. I think that you are right that, beyond the verbose arguments, this essentially comes down to the potency and extent of the negatives (and the positives). When we talk about the asymmetry of creation, why should "manipulation" be the only consideration and not the fact that life can also be seen as an authentic gift (because nobody can ask for the good things in life before they are created). Pleasure, redemption, resilience, and generosity are not figments of our imagination. One simply cannot abstract the poison without looking at the concurrent presence of the nectar.
DeleteThank you, again, for your patience and wisdom, Mr Cain.
By the way, I had a last, and somewhat unrelated (though perhaps not in the larger scheme of things) question. A person named Blithering Genius has made some videos critiquing efilism and exploring ideas regarding race, sexuality, etc. for a while. While he is an atheist, he doesn't seem to care much about heroism and the transcendent aspects of life. For him, the only purpose of man is to reproduce. However, be also believes that nobody is rationally compelled to hold his views. Here is his playlist on efilism:
Deletehttps://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTpAXDT40cuhkXoUWZlfyY6vsxyt1Mels
And here is a video he made on the school shooter Adam Lanza (who was apparently influenced by Gary):
https://youtu.be/VMTqrHviBE0
If you ever get the time to see some of these videos, could you please consider sharing why is it that, despite both of you rejecting traditional theism and also embracing evolution, your worldview is not as peculiarly cold as BG's? I would not say that he rejects life,but I don't sense the kind of vitality in its affirmation in the way that I see in your work. I would disagree with some of his basic principles. I would, for example, say that it is more likely that positive experiences are value and not a result of the acquisition of something else. Similarly, I would say that there can be significant altruism in our lives even if that enriches our well-being. Mahatma Gandhi was not frolicking around in Noakhali. However, I feel that the kind of pantheism you espouse could potentially help many people who, while not necessarily denying life, still lose its wonder as a consequence of letting go of some versions of theism. As a Hindu, I am quite sympathetic to views such as pantheism and panentheism. I do ponder about their trajectory, especially as dogmatism declines. Unfortunately, India has to see some progress before the inclusivism of Hinduism (that Mahatma Gandhi and Swami Vivekananda believed in) can be adequately restored in the atmans of people. Right now, too much of the discourse is permeated with "decoloniality" and Muslim aggression. Neither of these is inherently problematic to explore, but this shouldn't be done at the cost of downplaying our flaws and vilifying others. Anyway, I am not going to diverge beyond this point. Thank you for your indubitably priceless work.
That’s more of a psychological than a philosophical question. It’s possible that someone’s philosophy could have nothing to do with the person’s upbringing, character, or environment, but this is highly unlikely. We incorporate these conditions into our worldviews. So, I’d have to know about an atheist’s personal background to ascertain why this person’s philosophy of life is “colder” than mine.
DeleteI share some of the philosophical influences on my worldview, in the article linked below. There are plenty of personal factors too. For instance, I have some talent for visual art, inherited from one of my grandfathers. And an eye for art lets you appreciate beauty. Thus, I’ve argued for the importance of an aesthetic reconstruction of morality, based partly on my experience with art. You see how I’m partly expressing my background in ideological form. That doesn’t mean a philosophy reduces to just these influences, but if you want to understand why a thinker is attracted to certain ideas, or why a philosophy is pessimistic or optimistic, it would be useful to know something about the thinker’s personal and social background.
https://medium.com/grim-tidings/philosophy-for-those-who-are-neither-vulgar-nor-wise-367760aaf0dc?sk=fd97a989dcd7afe8b3e335b1b3818ea7
That is a valid point. Our personal experiences and general outlook on life is bound to affect the nature of our philosophical positions. When I say that BG's view is "colder", I don't mean that it is utterly pessimistic or life-denying. It's merely that he seems to believe that if man has any purpose, it is reproduction (though he also says that nobody is compelled to accept his values). His manner of stating things is not really "pessimistic". It's mostly in a matter-of-fact approach. Seemingly troubling questions (murder, life-denial of life) don't appear to perturb him much (you can see his video on Adam Lanza or his debate with an anarcho-capitalist to get a slight glimpse of this). All I would say is that, while I am thankful to BG for his precision, I believe that the world is authentically enriched at a profoundly transcendent level by the work done by people like you. Reason divorced from aesthetic value do probably take away an invaluable component of our being, which can also obstruct our journey towards the truth. Thank you for your doing what you do.
DeleteIf you are interested, here is the link to BG's blog:
http://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/?m=1
Thanks. I appreciate it.
DeleteYou might be talking there about writing styles. I used to write in the dry, academic style, but I realized that that would be self-defeating if I wanted to appeal to a broader audience. It's also a matter of practice. I've been writing a lot for a long while. And again, my artistic sensibilities might enter the picture: I'm trying to spark the imagination and shake us out of mundane frameworks, so dryness might be precise but boring.
It's interesting that BG's still posting on blogspot. Why not switch over to Medium and get paid a little for it? It might be too late now, with all the competition. Or maybe he writes on Medium under a different name. I wish I'd switched over earlier.
I think that the writing style is certainly a major component, but the critical aspect has, in my opinion, more to do with your emphasis on the aesthetic/transcendent facets of life (something BG usually doesn't write about). I don't want to reduce everything to psychology, but if you genuinely believe that life is selfish (and transcending this in an elegant manner is nigh impossible) and simultaneously hold that the only "objective purpose/value" (that you are not forced to accept by reason) is procreation, a form of aridity can creep in.
ReplyDeleteI remember watching your video "Nihilism or Transcendence? A Reply to Inmendham". Even then, your work was inclined towards a different approach than that adopted by someone like BG. That video was uploaded in 2014. Maybe your shift had started earlier than that. Regardless, your distinguishing feature has been your worldview.
BG is fairly active on YouTube (though his blog seems to get more activity these days). It's possible that he doesn't really care about reaching a large number of people and, as you said, feels that the competition is not worth the trouble. To be honest, the profundity of your articles usually supersedes the kind of material I see on Medium. I suppose it's also a blessing as it allows writers to grow and promotes the rather invaluable habit of reading. But I can't aver that there is a charm in finding gems like this blog whilst randomly searching for a topic. Possibly, everything has a role to play, even if we inhabit an esoteric cosmos. Still, I am glad that you found the appropriate medium to put forth your intriguing and thoughtful views (I am not witty enough to conjure up puns).