tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post7023979298313744297..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: Debate with YouTube Antinatalist, InmendhamBenjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-52602903231458384902023-11-01T03:11:44.934-04:002023-11-01T03:11:44.934-04:00"No one cares about life just because of the ..."No one cares about life just because of the feeling of pleasure and pain. Those aren’t the only things that matter. We appreciate life because of the opportunities to learn, to create, and to experience new things. If life is terminated, all those goods go away. True, no one would be around to miss them, but neither would anyone be around to appreciate the lack of pain."<br /><br />Are you talking about every human being? How do you know this even? Further, you do care about pleasure, because you live in societies which, despite being vulgar and decadent, with sex-obsessed imbeciles running around, are of a higher living standard (please pardon my english, I am not a native speaker). Therefore, it is not quite clear if living conditions of several hundred years ago would have you argue from such a viewpoint, i.e. atheistic and content with supposed meaninglesness. Our ancestors were mostly Christians (or religious to some extent in other cultures) because of the hardships of life. You cannot take a few rich Greek thinkers and say this is correct, we need to reject God because a rich Greek man thought it so.<br /><br />No, I say that our highly hedonistic society, where pleasure has been taken to an extreme, esp. in unmanly pursuits like sexual hedonism, is one of the core reasons people shun God, despite the fact that a creation needs a Creator, and objective morality without Him being impossible. (I am not AN, but suicide is of course horrible, certainly, the brave men of WWI and WWII died horrific deaths; in this case at least, it is questionable if such foreknowledge would have caused to want to live prior to their births.) To quote Catholic Gómez Dávila: "The problem is not sexual repression, nor sexual liberation, but sex." and "An atheist is respectable as long as he does not teach that the dignity of man is the basis of ethics and that love for humanity is the true religion."Stefaniehttps://voxday.net/2009/09/22/letter-to-common-sense-atheism-i/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-7629365908805132322023-11-01T03:11:39.730-04:002023-11-01T03:11:39.730-04:00"No one cares about life just because of the ..."No one cares about life just because of the feeling of pleasure and pain. Those aren’t the only things that matter. We appreciate life because of the opportunities to learn, to create, and to experience new things. If life is terminated, all those goods go away. True, no one would be around to miss them, but neither would anyone be around to appreciate the lack of pain."<br /><br />Are you talking about every human being? How do you know this even? Further, you do care about pleasure, because you live in societies which, despite being vulgar and decadent, with sex-obsessed imbeciles running around, are of a higher living standard (please pardon my english, I am not a native speaker). Therefore, it is not quite clear if living conditions of several hundred years ago would have you argue from such a viewpoint, i.e. atheistic and content with supposed meaninglesness. Our ancestors were mostly Christians (or religious to some extent in other cultures) because of the hardships of life. You cannot take a few rich Greek thinkers and say this is correct, we need to reject God because a rich Greek man thought it so.<br /><br />No, I say that our highly hedonistic society, where pleasure has been taken to an extreme, esp. in unmanly pursuits like sexual hedonism, is one of the core reasons people shun God, despite the fact that a creation needs a Creator, and objective morality without Him being impossible. (I am not AN, but suicide is of course horrible, certainly, the brave men of WWI and WWII died horrific deaths; in this case at least, it is questionable if such foreknowledge would have caused to want to live prior to their births.) To quote Catholic Gómez Dávila: "The problem is not sexual repression, nor sexual liberation, but sex." and "An atheist is respectable as long as he does not teach that the dignity of man is the basis of ethics and that love for humanity is the true religion."Stefaniehttps://voxday.net/2009/09/22/letter-to-common-sense-atheism-i/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-10561859504579397332023-11-01T03:01:37.269-04:002023-11-01T03:01:37.269-04:00No, most suicide do not only happen in old age -- ...No, most suicide do not only happen in old age -- why would that even matter? -- but also up to the age of 23. Further, it does not matter if a children's living hell is fixable, which you have not shown to be. Such people are human too, you seem rather uncaring and psychopathic in your argumentation. A child that was abused will suffer its whole life. How can you be so cold and ignore that? Society is going downhill, there is no law that we will always improve, decay has always existed. Ancient Rome went under, too.<br /><br />Further, without God, there is no morality. Cf. Vox Day's "Letter to Common Sense Atheism", where he discusses this with an atheist who has a PhD in philosophy.Stefaniehttps://voxday.net/2009/09/22/letter-to-common-sense-atheism-i/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-11559335820316930142022-10-23T13:28:10.607-04:002022-10-23T13:28:10.607-04:00No, I didn't pass over what he said about &quo...No, I didn't pass over what he said about "consent." Just search the above page for that word and you'll find where I talk about it (at the 11:15 and 18:00 minute marks). My point was that as soon as Inmendham grants that people have freewill such that they could logically be said to have given or withheld their consent to something, he grants that there's an emergent property subject to autonomous, higher-level rules. In that case, his crude social Darwinian reductionism can be dismissed as irrelevant. Specifically, as soon as you have freewill and all the attendant emergent properties of culture, you have the potential for progress, which counts against antinatalism and efilism.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-72491181738833109052022-10-21T11:30:12.457-04:002022-10-21T11:30:12.457-04:00Hi Bejamin
Trust I found you healthy and fine ther...Hi Bejamin<br />Trust I found you healthy and fine there.<br />I was reviewing your arguments against Immendhal . Have you passed over his premises 4:10 - 4:50 where he interates:<br />A fair game/his definition: consent and fairness vs consumption reproduction canibalism and addiction(he later on is willing to discount the canibalism).<br /><br />Have you commented on somewhere else or may you add your view over this contrasting phylosophy more in a nutshell please<br />Cheers,<br />SilviuAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-36674931726637603842022-05-25T09:06:13.135-04:002022-05-25T09:06:13.135-04:00He was supposed to have replied to my critical art...He was supposed to have replied to my critical article that I posted on this blog (link below). I can't find any such reply on his website, "Schopenhauer on Mars." He doesn't seem to post much there at all, though; indeed, he writes more comments there than articles. So your guess is as good as mine. <br /><br />His bark was worse than his bite. <br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2021/11/is-having-children-always-wrong.htmlBenjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-70549890988147567262022-05-19T12:49:48.715-04:002022-05-19T12:49:48.715-04:00Greetings Benjamin
Have you got any follow up wit...Greetings Benjamin<br /><br />Have you got any follow up with existentialgof please ?<br />Take care<br />S.CAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-89328590369579602172021-11-17T08:29:54.231-05:002021-11-17T08:29:54.231-05:00I'm probably going to post it only on this blo...I'm probably going to post it only on this blog, not on Medium. It will be later this week.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-77883764640312692302021-11-17T07:01:23.256-05:002021-11-17T07:01:23.256-05:00I look forward to that! I look forward to that! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-26425663598626177952021-11-17T03:31:12.492-05:002021-11-17T03:31:12.492-05:00GOod morning Benjamin,
then keep us posted about ...GOod morning Benjamin,<br /><br />then keep us posted about that(medium article)please<br /><br />have a good day!<br />SilviuCSicaRacaricahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750815014181477271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-26489740161068307992021-11-15T13:07:57.275-05:002021-11-15T13:07:57.275-05:00Sure, that looks like a stronger version of the ar...Sure, that looks like a stronger version of the argument, to talk about extreme suffering rather than just any old harm. But it's a detail in the context of the deeper problems with antinatalism.<br /><br />By the way, I've written an article against Existential Goof's kind of antinatalism. I might post it on Medium soon. Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-20162218951362185512021-11-15T03:18:00.797-05:002021-11-15T03:18:00.797-05:00Good morning Benjamin
Is it the argument from &quo...Good morning Benjamin<br />Is it the argument from "extreme sufferring" addressed or it fails on the overall your above posts about suffering?<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nf9Aax7gUY&ab_channel=Conundrum<br />Someone replied in the posts:<br />Problem with this argument though is why is it only applied to procreation? By simply being alive humans risk causing extreme suffering. This argument says that we shouldn't procreate because of the mere possibility, so why should we do anything at all in our daily lives?SicaRacaricahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750815014181477271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-53067550783657132042021-11-11T11:17:11.520-05:002021-11-11T11:17:11.520-05:00please see also below exhange for the same topic:
...please see also below exhange for the same topic:<br /><br />Me:<br />"Last but not least, this all approach that pleasure is fixing a pain or need is missing the point about human behaviour:<br />No one cares about life just because of the feeling of pleasure and pain. Those aren’t the only things that matter. We appreciate life because of the opportunities to learn, to create, and to experience new things, to strive and cherish and flourish. If life is terminated, all those goods go away. True, no one would be around to miss them, but neither would anyone be around to appreciate the lack of pain with the prospect of nanotechnology and biotechnology, AI and intelligence"<br /><br />existentialgoof<br /><br /><br />I think that if you tried to apply your point about nobody being able to appreciate the absence of pain to any real world scenario that involved real people, then people would think that you were a monster. The onus isn’t on the person who wants to prevent the torture to demonstrate that the would-be victim is positively enjoying not being tortured. The onus is on YOU to explain why your goals are so important that you’re going to cause torture. That’s because you’re the one trying to fix something that isn’t broken, with a solution that could prove disastrous and whose effects will be experienced by an entirely different sentient entity who had no say in being put in a position of peril.SicaRacaricahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750815014181477271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-57496839264143815122021-11-11T11:12:43.575-05:002021-11-11T11:12:43.575-05:00HI Benjamin
Regarding:
"But I don't know...HI Benjamin<br /> Regarding:<br />"But I don't know the context of his criticism or if it's relevant to how I would frame the issues"<br />it come quite often in this phrasing :<br /><br />"if we imagine that antinatalism has prevented 1 million people from coming into existence (at the moment, this would seem to be a lofty aspiration to be sure), and we can assume based on the surveyed responses from those currently alive that 900,000 of those people would have probably been happy to be alive, but 100,000 were struggling with their existence and were finding it difficult to find much joy in it, then you would still have to take the side of the 100,000 simply on the basis that you would be preventing that suffering, and not paying any cost for that prevention (in terms of harming people who could have come into existence, rather than the ones who already existed) because not one of the counterfactual 900,000 who hypothetically could have come into existence would be suffering any kind of deprivation from the fact that they were prevented from coming into existence. Moreover, you cannot demonstrate why those 100,000 could have done anything that would warrant such unfair distribution of the goods and bads of life. You would fail to justify why you’re going to run a lottery and force a minority to pay a heavy price for the pleasure of the majority. The only way you could rationalise such a deal would be if the 900,000 were going to suffer in some way if you failed to incarnate them into a body, because that would mean that you were reducing the amount of harm that you would be causing."SicaRacaricahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750815014181477271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-12785527760264010422021-11-11T10:44:21.903-05:002021-11-11T10:44:21.903-05:00As I just wrote in the above comment (Nov 11, 8:27...As I just wrote in the above comment (Nov 11, 8:27 AM), the so-called asymmetry between pleasure and pain is bogus. But I don't know the context of his criticism or if it's relevant to how I would frame the issues. I take it the idea is that procreators indirectly torture their children by sending them out into the world, and that that's obviously bad. So antinatalism eliminates that potential suffering. <br /><br />And of course it would so so, but the end of our species would also eliminate all the good things people experience. So if it's right to eliminate all that potential harm, it's also wrong to eliminate all those potential benefits of being alive. The antinatalist's claim that there's a crucial asymmetry there, that the one matters and the other is irrelevant is specious. <br /><br />I may have debated Existialgoof in Inmendham's YouTube comments. I don't remember, and it would have been years ago. Or maybe he commented on some articles on my blog. <br /><br />I see that he says he wasn't impressed with my blog. So the bluster begins early. One of the most prominent antinatalists, such as they are, is Inmendham, and I annihilated his worldview and caused him to flee the debate in exasperation. His worldview is quite incoherent, and I suspect the same is true of any antinatalist's. No one who claims to be a moral purist and who insists that humanity should be extinguished will evade being properly ridiculed for long. Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-80072465007726431492021-11-11T09:13:02.198-05:002021-11-11T09:13:02.198-05:00Hi Benjamin
Trust you are fine. Did he wrote back ...Hi Benjamin<br />Trust you are fine. Did he wrote back to you? At least this is what he was writing in my last update last night:<br />"I’ll maybe have a go at responding to that post shortly. I have debated him before, though, I’m certain of it."<br /><br />His main content repeated all over the posts is:<br />I think that if you tried to apply your point about nobody being able to appreciate the absence of pain to any real world scenario that involved real people, then people would think that you were a monster. The onus isn’t on the person who wants to prevent the torture to demonstrate that the would-be victim is positively enjoying not being tortured. The onus is on YOU to explain why your goals are so important that you’re going to cause torture. That’s because you’re the one trying to fix something that isn’t broken, with a solution that could prove disastrous and whose effects will be experienced by an entirely different sentient entity who had no say in being put in a position of peril.""<br /><br />The best shot I gave was this :<br />Last but not least, this all approach that pleasure is fixing a pain or need is missing the point about human behaviour:<br />No one cares about life just because of the feeling of pleasure and pain. Those aren’t the only things that matter. We appreciate life because of the opportunities to learn, to create, and to experience new things, to strive and cherish and flourish. If life is terminated, all those goods go away. True, no one would be around to miss them, but neither would anyone be around to appreciate the lack of pain with the prospect of nanotechnology and biotechnology, AI and intelligence.<br />and asking a posteriori(while children are born) about their life value and your 2 post from above sent that I linked in my last comment:<br /><br />I see Benjamin replied to your last post here, join him in conversation if you feel like its worth following:<br />https://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2014/02/debate-with-youtube-antinatalist.html?showComment=1636547288022&m=0#c6309203700950732633<br /><br />Like<br /><br />Reply<br />existentialgoof<br />Nov 10, 2021 at 11:05 pm<br />I’ll maybe have a go at responding to that post shortly. I have debated him before, though, I’m certain of it.SicaRacaricahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750815014181477271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-47288360320815248372021-11-11T08:27:34.324-05:002021-11-11T08:27:34.324-05:00I see that Existentialgoof argues in his article t...I see that Existentialgoof argues in his article that, “Under the normal ethical rules of civilisation, there is first an obligation to do no harm; and no obligation at all to give someone pleasure.”<br /><br />That looks like Mill’s harm principle, so it’s a function of liberal society, not of civilization in general. The reason it’s part of liberalism is that the liberal emphasizes our freedom (autonomy) and need for privacy. Pleasuring someone without that person’s consent would amount to a harm, not a good, because pleasure is deemed a private matter. The idea is that the individual’s space shouldn’t be violated either by harming him or even by forcing some pleasure on him. We’re supposed to be free to pursue happiness as we deem fit. Of course, that principle was meant originally for wealthy landowners who did indeed have the means to provide for themselves. They had no need of charity, and the slaves or rabble who did were barely considered persons, so moral considerations weren’t supposed to apply to them.<br /><br />In any case, this alleged asymmetry is superficial at best. Liberalism in turn is part of what we can call “modern civilization,” which means it runs on science-centered progress. So the reason individuals aren’t supposed to be obliged to provide pleasure to others is that that obligation is deferred to progressive modernity in general. For example, we’re obliged to pay taxes not to a king who exploits the peasants, but to a democratically elected government that’s supposed to support the middle class and to help the sick and the poor by setting up homeless shelters or by providing free healthcare and education. The pleasures in these developed, modern societies are provided collectively rather than individually, by all the aspects of modernity (capitalism, democracy, consumerism, science, technology, freedom of thought, church-state separation, and so on). <br /><br />Moreover, there is a civilized obligation to help others in need, to give to charity, and to treat others with respect by displaying good manners. We might not take much pleasure in the showing of mere civility, but that’s because we’re spoiled since our societies are relatively advanced and luxurious. The way that positive obligation comes about is that children in secular liberal societies are trained to have a conscience. Thus, we learn to feel bad when someone’s in need. That conscience is limited, of course, and we violate it in all sorts of ways, such as when we ignore the plight of those who live far away. But there are also charities, animal shelters, and websites like Patreon where we can give directly to causes we care about. Again, this obligation is deferred and collective. Our societies inculcate us with a liberal sense of the worth and the rights of every single individual, so when we grow up, we’re inclined to help others when we can or when the mood strikes. And we often do so collectively, such as by voting in governments that systematically provide aid to poor nations.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-8175705515144477552021-11-10T14:38:01.860-05:002021-11-10T14:38:01.860-05:00You make some good points in your reply. He seems ...You make some good points in your reply. He seems to be assuming hedonism, that pleasure is the highest moral value. I don't share that view.<br /><br />But I had my fill of arguing about antinatalism when I debated Inmendham on YouTube some years ago. It is indeed tiring because I doubt antinatalism is an entirely philosophical matter. Depression, misanthropy, or other psychological factors likely enter into it.<br /><br />I respond to comments, though, so if he raises antinatalism on my blog, I'd reply to it.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-91133853222646058312021-11-10T14:28:00.178-05:002021-11-10T14:28:00.178-05:00I'd rather not get involved in a long indirect...I'd rather not get involved in a long indirect back and forth. I said my piece on it. He may not have understood what I was trying to say, but I can't really explain further without responding directly to him. And I don't know if it's even worth it to argue with antinatalists.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-70226207094291596222021-11-10T12:43:21.292-05:002021-11-10T12:43:21.292-05:00Good evening Benjamin
REgarding this topic"v...Good evening Benjamin<br /><br />REgarding this topic"valuing all personal life", I was preparing an answer:<br /><br />HI existentialgoof,<br /><br />Regarding your epistemology of pain and pleasure, you mentioned:<br />" what we would call “good” value (good because it elicits pleasurable emotions) is only really good because it satisfies a hunger that came into existence when our sentience was formed,<br />....if the social bonds that you have in your life are insufficient to meet your needs.""<br /><br />is not at all as obvious as general premises since: <br />I can anticipate the sensation of hunger, thirst or cold and take an informed decision to drink or feed myself before the sensation kicks in.<br />But you aren't always hungry for food. Yet, eating something good, when you're not hungry, leads to pleasure.<br />The claim that those neurotransmitters lead to pleasure because they reduce some discomfort can be falsified by introducing to the organism this chemical, when the animal (human or not) is not in discomfort. The pleasure will be felt strongly, even though no discernible negative had been felt by the subject before.<br /><br />Is it the pain the only thing related to the increase of desire? Can't pleasure motivate desire too? Particularly, the anticipation of a pleasurable experience can motivate action. Also, the anticipation of a painful experience could also take away motivation to do something. These above lines of reasoning break away from your assertion that "good" or pleasure is always a compesantion or a fix of pain. <br /><br />Another way this claim does not seem to be justified is by looking at the strength of the feelings. I may not feel hunger now, but if I ate something really tasty, I would feel very good. It's not clear why a lack of hunger would, after eating something good, transform into pleasure. And same goes to the thirsty , I can drinnk something now by anticipating a sensation of disconfort and I can drink somethig tasty that brings me more pleasure. I still think memories can play a part in motivation (this includes anticipation, as anticipating an experience ultimately depends on one's memories of past experiences), culture and family inheritance and not last the science to back up motivations and assesments.<br /><br />As you agree above, the value and experience of life is subjective, it is how we see the world in this game called life and it is linked to motivations, we are driven by those since we are borned.<br />Viewing anything from an "objective" standpoint makes value dissapear, because value is subjective.<br /><br /><br />But this all approach that pleasure is fixing a pain/need is missing the point about human behaviour:<br />No one cares about life just because of the feeling of pleasure and pain. Those aren’t the only things that matter. We appreciate life because of the opportunities to learn, to create, and to experience new things. If life is terminated, all those goods go away. True, no one would be around to miss them, but neither would anyone be around to appreciate the lack of pain.<br />...........<br />Any thoughts on my above? are willing to extend the conversation with him on your blog, or on Redit or another media platform you think is best to expose the incoherences? I see you have more arguments I could think about and more versed in these debaits. Right now I feel very tired going with him in long updates :(<br />We have left here, see last comment:<br />https://schopenhaueronmars.com/2021/09/15/antinatalism-vs-the-non-identity-problem/<br />Cheers<br />SicaRacaricahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750815014181477271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-63092037009507326332021-11-10T07:28:08.022-05:002021-11-10T07:28:08.022-05:00If parents are the metaphysical “originators” of a...If parents are the metaphysical “originators” of all the harm experienced by their offspring, such that the parents are ethically to blame, that means the parents have libertarian freewill. Antinatalists like Inmendham tend to be determinists for the important reason that once you posit freewill, you posit the potential for the improvement of human life, for social progress, and for moral modifications of nature. That hope could justify procreation as a rational, reality-based strategy for gradual improvements from one generation to the next.<br /><br />Moreover, if there’s freewill, there’s an anomaly to be treasured and perhaps even to be deemed sacred or at least existentially crucial, precious, and awe-inspiring. Together with consciousness, this would be the basis of valuing all personal life. The continuing existence of free beings might therefore trump all the harms they experience, and the greater tragedy might be snuffing out personhood altogether via antinatalism.<br /><br />If, however, there’s no freewill, the moral condemnation of parents vanishes, and the antinatalist’s indignation at the hardships we experience turns out to be a bluff. <br /><br />Also, I doubt there are many “bad lives that will never be enjoyed.” The reason is that we adjust our expectations for happiness to suit our circumstances. Thus, although poor people may say they’re less happy than rich people, the poor don’t say they’re miserable or nowhere close to being happy. And beyond a certain level of wealth, the rich don’t report being that much happier than the less rich. <br /><br />Happiness is relative to expectations, as the ancient Stoics saw. Happiness depends on brain functioning, and the brain is highly adaptable. Consequently, happiness was possible even in barbaric and medieval periods, and even in prehistory when life was nasty, brutish, and short. Otherwise, our species would have been terminated long ago by mass suicide. <br /><br />To be sure, significant numbers of people kill themselves. Not all suicides, though, are committed as fully rational, sane, or sober acts. Many occur in old age after most of the life has been lived. Others occur in the heat of the moment or due to mental illness such as depression. It’s possible there are some lives that are so gruesome or awful that the individuals might have been better off never having been born, even with the brain’s ability to adjust to its circumstances. This might include the severely disabled or perhaps those born to abusive parents who make their children’s life a living hell. But those are relatively rare circumstances, and they’re fixable by societal improvements. <br />Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-58329294870102517002021-11-10T05:19:54.962-05:002021-11-10T05:19:54.962-05:00Good morning Benjamin
the discussion stoped now w...Good morning Benjamin<br /><br />the discussion stoped now with his reply on :<br />https://schopenhaueronmars.com/2021/09/15/antinatalism-vs-the-non-identity-problem/<br />Not sure what I can add to my arguments to oppose his own<br />Kind Regards<br />SilviuSicaRacaricahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750815014181477271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-72256289567066983052021-11-09T16:36:24.300-05:002021-11-09T16:36:24.300-05:00Good evening Benjamin I trust I find you well and ...Good evening Benjamin I trust I find you well and help me a bit onwards with a sound argument about "value of life" in respect to suffering as per below update which cries for an answer :)<br /><br />May I have your thoughts following the update I got from "existentialgoof" like below(please see the whole comments starting from "Sorry for the delay in responding to you. I’ve been without Internet for a couple of days")<br />"Your argument about imposing on a person yet to come into existence is mere semantics, and is a way to deflect from the real ethical question, which is whether it is ethical for you to undertake an action that is going to originate all of the harm that befalls a person who will have to suffer those consequences. And not only do you open the door to those consequences for your own children, but all successive generations which branch off from your children. And you’ve failed to address that. Even if the majority report that they are happy with their lives, that does not justify creating the bad lives that will never be enjoyed by their victim. People wanting to procreate does not justify allowing them to create a slave to their desires, who will have to bear untold consequences."<br />https://schopenhaueronmars.com/2021/09/15/antinatalism-vs-the-non-identity-problem/<br />I am planning to respond even tonight though...SicaRacaricahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750815014181477271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-85954500669983337062021-11-08T03:28:43.613-05:002021-11-08T03:28:43.613-05:00Good morning Benjamin
Right to the spot you answe...Good morning Benjamin<br /><br />Right to the spot you answered above Benatar personal believes from interview he gave:<br />https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/the-case-for-not-being-born<br />Some people argue that talk of pain and pleasure misses the point: even if life isn’t good, it’s meaningful. Benatar replies that, in fact, human life is cosmically meaningless: we exist in an indifferent universe, perhaps even a “multiverse,” and are subject to blind and purposeless natural forces. In the absence of cosmic meaning, only “terrestrial” meaning remains—and, he writes, there’s “something circular about arguing that the purpose of humanity’s existence is that individual humans should help one another.” Benatar also rejects the argument that struggle and suffering, in themselves, can lend meaning to existence. “I don’t believe that suffering gives meaning,” Benatar said. “I think that people try to find meaning in suffering because the suffering is otherwise so gratuitous and unbearable.” It’s true, he said, that “Nelson Mandela generated meaning through the way he responded to suffering—but that’s not to defend the conditions in which he lived.”SicaRacaricahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750815014181477271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-67859284293401042042021-11-07T15:26:21.404-05:002021-11-07T15:26:21.404-05:00Interesting exhange on Youtube channel coming via ...Interesting exhange on Youtube channel coming via Is Having Children Wrong? | Philosophy Tube:<br />Do you have a channel?happy to answer for below?<br /><br />Rainn Chen<br />3 years ago<br />Penny Lane<br />There is a HUGE cost and need of bravery to suicide, but there is none for not existing in the first place. Prevention is always better than cure. We have a lot of shots for people to prevent diseases, but zero to little solutions for treating them. Not weight as heavily? lol, what a fucking joke from a lack of common sense. That should be the BIGGEST factor any potential parent should consider.<br /><br />5<br /><br /><br />Rainn Chen<br />Rainn Chen<br />3 years ago<br />"most people don't wish they had never been born"<br />I doubt that's the case. Unless you've got the stats to back it up.<br />More like most people don't wish to to die because they already been born. When you ask people these kinds of questions, most people would jump to that conclusion because they think their life is good continuing, but have you asked them clearly, most of them would think their life is not actually good enough to start but not bad enough to end. <br />Have given the choice in the begin, most would not want to to come into existence. <br />A movie might not be bad enough to make you leave immediately, but have you known how good it is, will you have gone, considering this movie lasts 70+ yrs?<br /><br />4<br /><br /><br />Rainn Chen<br />Rainn Chen<br />3 years ago<br />Ivan Clark<br />lol, plz, try asking people this and see the vast amount change their answers to never want to be born, "If you would have known how you are going to look like, if you would have known who your parents are going to be, your lifetime financial status, social class, if you would have known what grades or jobs you will get in life, if you would have known how tall you are, if you would have known you would have gotten these diseases/sickness/problems in life, and you can prevent them all by not coming into existence, would you still want to exist?"<br />Most people don't like factors that are already determined for them, just like you don't like being thrown a random character without being able to customize it when you first start playing a game.<br /><br />6<br /><br /><br />Rainn Chen<br />Rainn Chen<br />3 years ago<br />Niko<br />"Guilt and stuff will get you, but then maybe that is part of who they are and they use that to "give there consent to life"."<br />That would be saying wrongfully guilted prisoners who endured 20 years of unfair suffering should be grateful that they still have a choice to come out after. lol. <br />Of course I don't expect a probreeding pig like you to understand death is compensation of enduring life, not the consent.<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bDuNKEzRa8&ab_channel=PhilosophyTubeSicaRacaricahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750815014181477271noreply@blogger.com