In arguments like this one, people ignore And even often create and bend their own logic. The whole concept is essentially a non starter.
I Believe Having Children Is "Immoral" (Aka: Any Antinatalists Here? )
- Thread starter Bounceounce
- Start date
- Status
In arguments like this one, people ignore And even often create and bend their own logic. The whole concept is essentially a non starter.
Hey . Life is good . I wish the best for you either way
hope it works out listen to others and I wish you well .
Laieon
Member
Sounds like you just figured out how to solve your food shortage problem.
No, this thread is a gift, I'm literally tearing up from laughter.
KO Traveling Hobo
Member
Everyone in the thread is calling him a mentally unstable idiot who thinks he's smarter than everyone else. Why is "fuck off" crossing a line?
freethoughtbubble
Member
You guys can't honestly think that op is advocating getting consent from a non-existent human being.
It would be immoral to force a lease on a person without consent.
Yet it is not immoral to force an entire life on a person without consent?
How do you reconcile those two positions?Suggesting OP is silly doesn't really answer the question.
Life is good is one answer. Yes, there's risk involved, but if you believe life is a net positive more often than not, then creating life can be considered a net positive.
Life is duty is another. Like people have said repeatedly, if humans don't reproduce, they go extinct. Assuming human life is a good thing (debatable but I like to think so), then it can be considered a duty to reproduce and a duty to be born.
I like both answers. Why even bother to ask the question? Because one of my exes told me once, flat out, that she was having a kid to give her own life meaning and because they're cute. That...is a shitty, shitty reason imo. You arrive at a reason like that by not thinking.
It would be immoral to force a lease on a person without consent.
Yet it is not immoral to force an entire life on a person without consent?
How do you reconcile those two positions?Suggesting OP is silly doesn't really answer the question.
Life is good is one answer. Yes, there's risk involved, but if you believe life is a net positive more often than not, then creating life can be considered a net positive.
Life is duty is another. Like people have said repeatedly, if humans don't reproduce, they go extinct. Assuming human life is a good thing (debatable but I like to think so), then it can be considered a duty to reproduce and a duty to be born.
I like both answers. Why even bother to ask the question? Because one of my exes told me once, flat out, that she was having a kid to give her own life meaning and because they're cute. That...is a shitty, shitty reason imo. You arrive at a reason like that by not thinking.
arent you the guy with heaps of suspicious threads?
Bounceounce
Member
"I don't mean to be an ass, but you seem like someone who is convinced they're the smartest person they know."
He came at me first.
I didn't insult anyone else in this thread.
When someone's born that person didn't consent to being born because they were incapable of consenting as prior to conception they were just a concept in the minds of parents who sought to make that concept a reality.
It doesn't take believing in souls to think that parents should take the moral implications of that into consideration.
J
Jpop
Unconfirmed Member
Yes, but I don't think suspicious is the right word.
I mean you kinda come off condescending in your posts.
Patrick S.
Banned
Because he didn't ask for consent for telling people to fuck off.
Sam Handwich
Neo Member
I can, maybe on some level, relate to OP. I was reading some existentialist book that argued that human consciousness is an evolutionary fluke and the cruelest joke in the universe. I think, basically, the argument was that we are just self-aware enough to know the inevitability of death and not keen enough to really understand anything in this cold, brutal universe. It kind of struck a cord with me (probably the depression talking) and I felt super guilty at the prospect of having a child, but with that being said I am sitting here typing this with my five day old son in my lap and it's the best and most worthwhile goddamm thing I've ever done.
Your tag is obviously relevant I don't mean to derail this thread but wtf you talking about . But I'll entertain you go on .
(I feel you agree so I am not arguing but merely ranting) Well I think saving people from suffering is the wrong way to go about it. Everyone is going to suffer. It's helping those around you (and yourself, the hardest of all) to be able to deal with that suffering in a healthy way that's the key. No one is immune to the shitstorm. Some people can weather it better than others, but no one is immune.
To go one (or two) further, I think people SHOULD fucking suffer some, even considerably. Comfortable folks who know nothing of it tend to not consider it in regard to other people. One cannot have real empathy without having suffered in some sense. Suffering makes people think about other people.
Edit: I just went full hippie. Goddamnit. Sorry, GAF.
Getting over the original paradox and somehow accepting that you can ask for consent for existence from that which does not exist yet, how can you be both an anti-natalist and be pro-abortion? You've a better chance of asking the fetus if it consents to the birth than asking the concept of a child if it consents to being conceived.
OP you're pretty much gettin crucified so I thought I'd jump in with a more mixed opinion.
I don't really agree with your idea that you can't get consent from a non-existent person for them to agree to exist. If consent isn't a possibility, then that responsibility falls to you, if it's your decision whether or not they exist. Kind of like how some kinds of sick people are given power of attorney over their relatives to make decisions in their best interest. So I'm not with you on that.
Then you've got to think about whether it's a good idea to have a kid. So there are two things. There's the pessimistic view that in any given human life, there's more of a guarantee of pain than there is of happiness. I think you can make a good argument for that when you consider all the emotional pain and mental pain that comes along with a human life, and the almost guarantee that it will also end badly as well. On the side of happiness, you could argue that most of the time we aren't actively happy the same way pain is active, we just enjoy the absence of pain and spend our lives working towards keeping it at absent as possible. There will be counterarguments to that but I think it's an idea that holds a bit more weight than your consent idea.
On top of that, there are more than enough people in the world as it is, and there's no reason to assume that your kid will be of any net benefit to society. They might even be a drain. Resources are unevenly distributed and human impact on the planet seems to be pretty harmful overall, so even if you don't agree with the idea there should be less people, I can't think of a good argument why there should be more right now. So there are humanitarian and environmental reasons you could argue in objection to having children.
If you take the biological imperative to procreate out of it, it's a pretty simple proposition to me. I don't think everybody in the world should decide not to have kids, I don't think humanity should let itself die off, but I've got no issue with somebody who decides not to have kids for the two reasons I just mentioned.
Then there are some things in defense of it.
In relation to the pain/happiness judgment - if the desirable quality is happiness here, and having a kid will bring you great happiness, then in the absence of any other existing person (ie the kid), your happiness takes priority. So if having a kid makes you happy, you should do it, if that's all there is to it. It isn't all there is to it though, so you've got to think about whether the kid will be happy, and whether they are likely to cause happiness in the course of their life. Those two things will be your responsibility to ensure up to a certain point, so it's a lot of responsibility to take on. It can't just be about you, you've got to think about the kid and how they should ideally turn out.
As far as overpopulation goes, there are judgments to be made there. If you have prepared to have a kid properly, you will have an approach to their education and socialisation that makes it more likely that they will become a net benefit to society and possibly even the planet overall, even taking into consideration overpopulation and the harm humanity causes to itself and to the environment. That's another responsibility you take on - to provide the best possible conditions to make that desirable outcome more likely.
I haven't really come to a conclusion on this, though. As for me, I don't know if I will have kids. Right now I can't take on those two major responsibilities, because I don't have the desire to in the first place. Even if I did have the desire to have a kid now, I shouldn't, because I couldn't justify it for the same reasons. It isn't enough to want to have kids, if you're really asking the question. It is selfish and carries a lot of risk with it.
There's a pretty convenient option that puts all of these issues to the side though, which is adoption of an unwanted baby or a child who is being left to languish in some way. If I do have kids, I think I'd be a lot more likely to go for that. Some people might say they want the kid to be their own, but I think that's a pretty indefensible reason to bring another person into the world with everything else considered. Most of humanity does it anyway!
I don't really agree with your idea that you can't get consent from a non-existent person for them to agree to exist. If consent isn't a possibility, then that responsibility falls to you, if it's your decision whether or not they exist. Kind of like how some kinds of sick people are given power of attorney over their relatives to make decisions in their best interest. So I'm not with you on that.
Then you've got to think about whether it's a good idea to have a kid. So there are two things. There's the pessimistic view that in any given human life, there's more of a guarantee of pain than there is of happiness. I think you can make a good argument for that when you consider all the emotional pain and mental pain that comes along with a human life, and the almost guarantee that it will also end badly as well. On the side of happiness, you could argue that most of the time we aren't actively happy the same way pain is active, we just enjoy the absence of pain and spend our lives working towards keeping it at absent as possible. There will be counterarguments to that but I think it's an idea that holds a bit more weight than your consent idea.
On top of that, there are more than enough people in the world as it is, and there's no reason to assume that your kid will be of any net benefit to society. They might even be a drain. Resources are unevenly distributed and human impact on the planet seems to be pretty harmful overall, so even if you don't agree with the idea there should be less people, I can't think of a good argument why there should be more right now. So there are humanitarian and environmental reasons you could argue in objection to having children.
If you take the biological imperative to procreate out of it, it's a pretty simple proposition to me. I don't think everybody in the world should decide not to have kids, I don't think humanity should let itself die off, but I've got no issue with somebody who decides not to have kids for the two reasons I just mentioned.
Then there are some things in defense of it.
In relation to the pain/happiness judgment - if the desirable quality is happiness here, and having a kid will bring you great happiness, then in the absence of any other existing person (ie the kid), your happiness takes priority. So if having a kid makes you happy, you should do it, if that's all there is to it. It isn't all there is to it though, so you've got to think about whether the kid will be happy, and whether they are likely to cause happiness in the course of their life. Those two things will be your responsibility to ensure up to a certain point, so it's a lot of responsibility to take on. It can't just be about you, you've got to think about the kid and how they should ideally turn out.
As far as overpopulation goes, there are judgments to be made there. If you have prepared to have a kid properly, you will have an approach to their education and socialisation that makes it more likely that they will become a net benefit to society and possibly even the planet overall, even taking into consideration overpopulation and the harm humanity causes to itself and to the environment. That's another responsibility you take on - to provide the best possible conditions to make that desirable outcome more likely.
I haven't really come to a conclusion on this, though. As for me, I don't know if I will have kids. Right now I can't take on those two major responsibilities, because I don't have the desire to in the first place. Even if I did have the desire to have a kid now, I shouldn't, because I couldn't justify it for the same reasons. It isn't enough to want to have kids, if you're really asking the question. It is selfish and carries a lot of risk with it.
There's a pretty convenient option that puts all of these issues to the side though, which is adoption of an unwanted baby or a child who is being left to languish in some way. If I do have kids, I think I'd be a lot more likely to go for that. Some people might say they want the kid to be their own, but I think that's a pretty indefensible reason to bring another person into the world with everything else considered. Most of humanity does it anyway!
I'll explain explain every concept please do amuse me .
Interesting discussion!
I don't think there's anything wrong with you for not wanting to have kids. Some people like to eat, some don't. I wouldn't call a lack of consent from a spermatozoon 'immoral', because you can't communicate with your semen.
I'm biased (i.e. I'll have some little ones running around), so take the following as you will. I don't think it's selfish or individualistic to want to have kids. I don't think you have any sort of obligation to have kids, but I do think humanity only works through the replacement of humans. To add to that, depending on your financial and economical well-being, having children can be a passing of a torch -- a pretty unselfish thing to do. I don't agree with the following, but it's much easier to argue that not wanting to have children is the ultimate act of selfishness, because humanity cannot exist without humans.
Obviously, given the direction of some countries (e.g. United States adopting Hitler's game plan, Uganda dictating the rights of your dick, the Philippines ushering in casual genocide, China gunning for a three-peat on the Best Misuse of Air award etc.) it makes you uneasy about bringing or raising another human in the present and future world. With that in mind, I can understand why an argument about having kids can be an argument about morality. However, there are over 190 countries in the world, so it's not like you don't have options on where to raise your child.
I don't think there's anything wrong with you for not wanting to have kids. Some people like to eat, some don't. I wouldn't call a lack of consent from a spermatozoon 'immoral', because you can't communicate with your semen.
I'm biased (i.e. I'll have some little ones running around), so take the following as you will. I don't think it's selfish or individualistic to want to have kids. I don't think you have any sort of obligation to have kids, but I do think humanity only works through the replacement of humans. To add to that, depending on your financial and economical well-being, having children can be a passing of a torch -- a pretty unselfish thing to do. I don't agree with the following, but it's much easier to argue that not wanting to have children is the ultimate act of selfishness, because humanity cannot exist without humans.
Obviously, given the direction of some countries (e.g. United States adopting Hitler's game plan, Uganda dictating the rights of your dick, the Philippines ushering in casual genocide, China gunning for a three-peat on the Best Misuse of Air award etc.) it makes you uneasy about bringing or raising another human in the present and future world. With that in mind, I can understand why an argument about having kids can be an argument about morality. However, there are over 190 countries in the world, so it's not like you don't have options on where to raise your child.
I'm not talking about you in talking about the OPs line of thinking, and how when debating subjects such as this, where rules and logic go out the window.
Airola
Member
I think you have overthought the whole concept of consent.
I get that in certain cases not giving consent is a bad thing, such as in sexual things.
But not everything where someone can't give consent is a bad thing. There are almost unlimited situations where we are never giving consent. Storms happen no matter of my concent. Wind blows my face no matter of my concent. Blood flows in my veins, etc. And they all can be fatal to me in a way or another.
The beginning of life is one of these things.
I think most people are confused and asking for clarification. 'Fuck off' holds no merit and welcomes no further discussion.
SporeCrawler
Member
Hypothetical consent
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
Did someone just take intro to philosophy?
Then quote op not me . Basic forum discussion etiquette . You quote my post I'll reply to your reply to my post . Makes sense ? Be sensible enough to put a mean it in the ops context not yours .
But there's nothing to attribute the idea of consent to, prior to existence, if you don't believe in souls.
And anyway why would you take the inability to consent as a lack of consent, as opposed to taking it as express consent. They'd be equally valid interpretations, surely?
Bounceounce
Member
I'd say that I've generally had an experience, and that even for the worst parts of said experience, I find value in them being interesting, and one of the things that keeps my going is interesting stuff regardless of if it's "bad" or not.
Not sure if that means I've had a net positive experience or not.
My answer to your question is that it's half and half.
When you join the site you consent to a set of rules, if I'm banned, then I consented to the rules when I checked that box.
FunkyDealer
Banned
How would you know if the unborn person consent or not?
I believe the majority, if they could, would answer "Life? Sure, I'll give that a shot."
I believe the majority, if they could, would answer "Life? Sure, I'll give that a shot."
What the hell? I was going along with your line of thinking that he's rambling on in his argument with broken logic. I was supporting your post by reinforcing your point. That's a very common train of dialog on forums, no need to get offended.
SporeCrawler
Member
Albert camus?
Ishan did not consent to your quote; no means no.
I'm pretty sure my Phil100 lecturer would have shot this argument down immediately so perhaps not. Moral philosophy with way fewer flaws than this are barely given the light of day.
Again, until you address the fact that this will kill the species your argument is worthless. Do you believe that in response we as a species need to strive towards immortality. Because that is a solution, although possibly a flawed one.
Edit: The above isn't an answer. You either want the species to end or you don't. Can't meet half way on that.
More Fun To Compute
Member
I guess it hard to imagine that the vast majority of people would rather be alive than dead. You have to live in a world where suicide is considered illegal or highly damaging and that reproductive rights always means the right to knock out sprogs whenever you feel like you need a mood boost.
Which is what makes the whole thing ridiculous.
SporeCrawler
Member
1. You cant. Only hypothetically
2. the Belief that everyone would cherish life is deeply religious. (The other side is the fear of death/ the relief of that fear through the concept of the afterlife)
I think op is trying to posit the idea that bringing children into this world without their consent may be wrong now that's a fascinating question .... Op is also frankly an idiot in my mind cause he/she decided to posit it's immoral. One humanity naturally reacts to children being characterised as immoral with a punch you in the face reaction ... I'm not a jock but if you said that line I'd probably sock you ... But op in his/her stupidity and frankly op is stupid and didn't realize this visceral reaction humans have towards any immorality towards anything babies ... It's an emotional reaction us humans have . Op has a good question tho . Op also needs to apologise because of how insensitive he/she has been . Then we can move forward within this question .....
Edit and if op doesn't get the backlash op you need to meet some children and see how wonderful and innocent they are .
Edit and if op doesn't get the backlash op you need to meet some children and see how wonderful and innocent they are .
The OP might be off-base, but this kind of response is just shitty. Cmon, bud. At least contribute something relevant if you feel the need to respond. Remember what happens when we dismiss people out of hand rather than engaging them? Yeah.
KO Traveling Hobo
Member
I don't think "edgy" "a crazy person" "nuts" "one of the more stupid things I've heard" "needs a girlfriend" " Good. Let's not spread these genes." etc ask for clarification or welcome further discussion.
I just noticed this post re-reading the first page. Legit giggled.
Bounceounce
Member
Is there a Bellamy waifu pillow?
Nah.
Well I did take it but anti-natalism/determinism/nihilism were all things I went to prior to taking the class.
And I never finished the semester so I don't believe we had addressed any of them yet.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
@OP, they give consent by swimming towards the egg.
If they didn't want to be born they'd swim elsewhere.
If they didn't want to be born they'd swim elsewhere.
Sam Handwich
Neo Member
I think it might have been The Conspiracy Against the Human Race, but I'm super sleep deprived so I can't remember and my Nook battery is dead so I can't check.
Op you messed up with your words .... Own up apologise a lot you have to and this discussion is then worth having
That's... a really really good point, actually.
Bounceounce
Member
I just realized that the text at the bottom of my picture could make it seem like I'm a troll when I'm really not.
. The entire evolutionary process happened. Millions upon millions of organisms died, fought and struggled for you to be here including your forfathers...now you throw in the towel. Something tells me you justification isnt sound and that there is another reason you are oppossed to having kids.
So you say someone can't consent to birth before they're born; yet that claim is basically saying that full autonomy is given to a person who doesn't exist. It sounds odd to say that both a person doesn't exist and they have the autonomy of an individual to consent to things, no? I guess I'm not really buying that part of your argument sorry. You seem to be taking into account the potential suffering for a non-existent person, but not happiness (I'm sure if you asked "hey are you happy to be alive?" to your average human brought up in a good environment, they will respond with a resounding "yes").
Plenty of reasons not to have kids in today's climate, but to say procreation is immoral in ALL contexts is absurd.
Plenty of reasons not to have kids in today's climate, but to say procreation is immoral in ALL contexts is absurd.
freethoughtbubble
Member
Just because someone has opinion doesnt mean it should be respected particularly such a crazy one as exhibited by the OP. Unless of course he is able to suffiently argue that it is not crazy, but evidently he hasnt. There are better arguements for antinatalism.
- Status