Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Too bad I am not allowed to act according to my own subjective morals. It's so fun to kill little children, steal, murder.. It's fun to cause suffering to people... I don't think anything of this is wrong. Morality is a just a matter of personal opinion. Why am I not allowed to act according to my subjective morality?
No. Given the impossibility to predict the outcome, the moral choice is to avoid procreation. Because once you create life harm may happens. If harm happens immorality takes place. The only way to avoid immorality, is to avoid procreation.
It's only immoral to have a child if you are so pessimistic like this.
Too bad I am not allowed to act according to my own subjective morals. It's so fun to kill little children, steal, murder.. It's fun to cause suffering to people... I don't think anything of this is wrong. Morality is a just a matter of personal opinion. Why am I not allowed to act according to my subjective morality?
Because the society that affords you the life you have says so. By and large if you don't insert yourself into the lives of others you will be left alone. That seems to be what most want and we are, collectively, willing to use force on those who desire otherwise. There is no reason for you to decide for others.
Look braunwyn, slavery wasn't considered immoral by society many years ago. Since there is no objective morality abolitionists could think that it'd be pointless to argue for the abolition of slavery. Abolitionism was just a point of view and non-abolitionists couldn't be forced to agree with it.
Luckily, the disbelief of non-abolitionists didn't prevent the abolitionists from having victory. For that to have been possible, abolitionists understood that they had to gain strenght in numbers, which they later proceeded by making compelling arguments.
Procreation isn't considered immoral by society. But antinatalists try to persuade the public at large. Surely we can't force people to agree with our arguments. But it doesn't mean we can't debate the morality of procreation. Procreation is an ethical issue that needs to receive attention.
It doesn't matter what you want to call it. Incompetence all too often brings a bizarre level of confidence. An argument coming from an obvious young, child-free antinatalist is exhibit A of this phenomenon. There are nothing but assumptions from A to Z and sorry, but I will not accept assertions of expertise on the parents in this thread and elsewhere from those who know nothing of parenting.
I cannot relate to the idea of knowing much at all in order to draw any grand conclusions, so I don't think there is a lacking in confidence on the part of antinatalists. They have it all figured out- not just for themselves, but everyone else.
You are making assumptions here. Not every antinatalist is young. Most of them are child free by definition but you don't know if maybe they work with children or if they have nieces, little siblings and got a chance to raise other children or watch little children grow up. Many in this thread have stated they like children. I am also under the impression that you have a nine month old daughter so it's not like you have watched your own children grow up either. Your daughter may turn out like an antianatalist for all we know. Parents are not gods, children are independent individuals with their own morals and value systems.
Then you state "I will not accept assertions of expertise on the parents from those who know nothing about parenting". I think the theme here is whether is moral to have children or not, not how to raise children. Do you need to kill another human to figure out if killing is immoral?
Look braunwyn, slavery wasn't considered immoral by society many years ago. Since there is no objective morality abolitionists could think that it'd be pointless to argue for the abolition of slavery. Abolitionism was just a point of view and non-abolitionists couldn't be forced to agree with it.
Luckily, the disbelief of non-abolitionists didn't prevent the abolitionists from having victory. For that to have been possible, abolitionists understood that they had to gain strenght in numbers, which they later proceeded by making compelling arguments.
Procreation isn't considered immoral by society. But antinatalists try to persuade the public at large. Surely we can't force people to agree with our arguments. But it doesn't mean we can't debate the morality of procreation. Procreation is an ethical issue that needs to receive attention.
Slavery wasn't considered immoral by society and then it was. So, what? I don't get the point. There are many things we personally find immoral that society doesn't agree with. Some are more rational than others. For example, as an ethical vegetarian for decades I find killing animals to be immoral. There is a direct measure of harm. Not hypothetical harm, not potential harm, but real, measurable harm. I find those who engage in such behavior, either directly or in support roles via meat eating, to be amoral, not immoral themselves. Why? Because other people do not share my values and the behavior would only be immoral if they did. It would be immoral for me to eat meat, not you. I have the sense to recognize this. Further, unlike anti-meat eating arguments your position is quite similar to those who desire to own slaves. You wish to impose yourself, your views, onto others where it would measurably threaten lives and quality of life. As I stated way up thread I don't find that any of you have the intelligence, wisdom, education, or relevant life experience to dictate how I should live or what decisions I should make when it comes to my offspring and family. For this kind of an argument to be believable it has to be substantiated and you have to have credibility as an authority. None of these requirements have been fulfilled thus far.
You are making assumptions here. Not every antinatalist is young.
I was quite clearly referring to one poster in this thread and you know that, so I'm not sure why you are charging me with making assumptions about all antinatalists. My tense was singular, not plural.
Quote:
Most of them are child free by definition but you don't know if maybe they work with children or if they have nieces, little siblings and got a chance to raise other children or watch little children grow up.
Does not matter one bit. Working with kids is not parenting. Having nieces and nephews is not parenting. If you think otherwise you are either lying to yourself or you simply do not have the experience to know any better. I do and have experienced all of the above.
Quote:
Many in this thread have stated they like children.
Who has argued otherwise?
Quote:
I am also under the impression that you have a nine month old daughter so it's not like you have watched your own children grow up either. Your daughter may turn out like an antianatalist for all we know. Parents are not gods, children are independent individuals with their own morals and value systems.
Statistically, children tend to end up just like their parents for better or worse. That's just the way of it. That is why I say parents have more control and responsibility than many are willing to admit. Every cell in my daughter's body was dictated by me; by the choices her father and I made years before we even met; by every morsel I put into my body during gestation; by my approaches to stress and awareness of hormones and chemistry, and by every morsel that goes into her body after birth. Her neural development is largely dependent on what I decide to expose her to as well as the environments I decide to expose her to; whether there is or is not religion (no); whether compassion is a part of her daily routine (yes); whether she will be exposed to the sciences or TV. People just don't randomly turn out how they are. The programming starts long before conception.
Anyhow, you should be well aware of the statistics. We don't still have a world full of Christians and Muslims because children are independent individuals with their own value system. Unless a person does a whole lot of LSD or engages in some other life altering experiences it's unlikely s/he will deviate far from her roots. My daughter has a greater chance of ending up like both of her parents rather than an antinatalist who cannot substantiate arguments he wishes to inflict on others. That is just not the kind of interaction she is going to be raised with.
Quote:
Then you state "I will not accept assertions of expertise on the parents from those who know nothing about parenting". I think the theme here is whether is moral to have children or not, not how to raise children. Do you need to kill another human to figure out if killing is immoral?
Why don't you try reading the thread before assuming. Two posters in this thread have made matter of fact statements of why parents, parent. That is simply not information they or you are privy to. You likely have no idea what I'm talking about though and why bother when assuming is the norm.
For those antinatalists who firmly hold that life is predominantly misery and suffering (I'll leave that assumption alone for a moment**), from where does that misery and suffering spring? From other humans, of course. A rock can't cause you suffering unless it's thrown by another person at your head, for example.
So now, as an adult who believe suffering and misery are so monumentally pervasive as to proscribe antinatalism...how are YOU AND YOUR CONTINUED LIFE not part of the problem?
Is your ego so big as to claim you're more evolved and harm nobody ever? Ha, doubt it.
And even if you're a super nice person today, based on your assumption on the universal pervasiveness of suffering, you must indeed be not just capable of inflicting suffering 'tomorrow' but downright compelled to!
I mean if suffering is so ubiquitous, it can't just be a few random bogeymen that make the rest of the world suffer. Not everyone can be a Hitler or a serial rapist. No, you must add everyday people like yourselves to the sources of misery.
So why are you still here? The misery you create affects actual live human beings, not ones that haven't been born yet.
**(Frankly I find this depressing view of life as itself causing misery upon others (anyone grow up with an untreated, depressed parent...that's misery), and wish some Misanthrope Island existed where they could all relocate.)
Last edited by elhelmete; 01-31-2014 at 10:57 AM..
Slavery wasn't considered immoral by society and then it was. So, what? I don't get the point. There are many things we personally find immoral that society doesn't agree with. Some are more rational than others. For example, as an ethical vegetarian for decades I find killing animals to be immoral. There is a direct measure of harm. Not hypothetical harm, not potential harm, but real, measurable harm. I find those who engage in such behavior, either directly or in support roles via meat eating, to be amoral, not immoral themselves. Why? Because other people do not share my values and the behavior would only be immoral if they did. It would be immoral for me to eat meat, not you. I have the sense to recognize this. .
I am not trying to force or impose my views on anyone. I am just argumenting for antinatalism. Nobody is required to agree with our views. Procreation has been undebated all this time and its a subject that needs to be approached. I find it to be something immoral. I want to change that. I have the right to state my opinion.
You just said you are an ethical vegetarian. How many debates about the ethics of killing animals have you seen in internet? People have the right to start these debates. They have the right to condemn acts they consider immoral. Don't you think antinatalists also have the right to defend their views?
If you don't find our arguments compelling, it's your right. You don't have to agree with them. But it's also our right to defend antinatalism.
I am not trying to force or impose my views on anyone. I am just argumenting for antinatalism. Nobody is required to agree with our views. Procreation has been undebated all this time and its a subject that needs to be approached. I find it to be something immoral. I want to change that. I have the right to state my opinion.
You just said you are an ethical vegetarian. How many debates about the ethics of killing animals have you seen in internet? People have the right to start these debates. They have the right to condemn acts they consider immoral. Don't you think antinatalists also have the right to defend their views?
If you don't find our arguments compelling, it's your right. You don't have to agree with them. But it's also our right to defend antinatalism.
Again, the difference in argument is that you cannot show harm. The veg can. Whether these arguments should happen or not, or who has the right to argue is besides the point. If you're going to make a statement about a population and cannot substantiate it or if your argument folds under scrutiny it's going to get called out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, based on your assumption on the universal pervasiveness of suffering, you must indeed be not just capable of inflicting suffering 'tomorrow' but downright compelled to!
