3 ms·

We reason these things not simply to contradict our feelings (though that is often a side effect), but to draw conclusions of how best to improve society and ou

We reason these things not simply to contradict our feelings (though that is often a side effect), but to draw conclusions of how best to improve society and our species as a whole. If human procreation is immoral simply because it creates suffering for "sentient" beings, then it's this particular line of ethics that needs to go extinct, rather than humanity itself. "The rules we invented for ourselves say that we shouldn't continue existing" seems like a mindset that natural selection will handle by itself though.

InsideOutSanta 2y ago
>If human procreation is immoral simply because it creates suffering for "sentient" beings, then it's this particular line of ethics that needs to go extinct You're not accurately describing the argument the linked article is making, but even so, is the argument you're making that creating suffering for sentient beings is not morally wrong? >"The rules we invented for ourselves say that we shouldn't continue existing" seems like a mindset that natural selection will handle by itself though. This is completely orthogonal to whether the argument is correct. Natural selection isn't moral; it just is.
- setsewerd 2y ago
  > You're not accurately describing the argument the linked article is making Page quote: "Benatar's antinatalist philosophy: sentient beings are harmed when they are brought into existence, and it is therefore wrong to procreate." The absolutism and anthropocentrism inherent in that statement renders his whole argument kind of silly. The existence of life itself is inevitably going to cause harm, regardless of how self-aware that particular life form is. It might be smaller degrees of harm, or more indirect, but harm nonetheless. Sure we should try to minimize the harm we cause others, within reason, on a case-by-case basis, but if your best solution to that is self-imposed specicide, what is the point of ethics? (Also the comment about natural selection was a half-joke, not a stance on the argument, but your final sentence seems to agree with me anyway.)
  - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
    As far as I can ascertain, the argument being made in the article is this: 1. The absence of good is not bad because nobody is around to lament it 2. The existence of bad is bad In other words, because it doesn't yet exist, you can't hurt a being by not bringing it into existence. You can't hurt non-existent beings. But you can hurt a being by bringing it into existence because it can and will be harmed once it exists. The argument is not "simply because it creates suffering for sentient beings." If you disagree with the argument, you have to explain why it is incorrect. In particular, why is the absence of good bad even if nobody is around to experience that absence? This is difficult to argue, in my opinion, even if I subjectively feel like it has to be wrong. One argument I can think of is that we want to maximize the average goodness, so we should bring conscious beings into existence if we expect them to experience more good than bad. However, philosophers don't tend to make that argument because the implications are horrific.

InsideOutSanta 2y ago

>If human procreation is immoral simply because it creates suffering for "sentient" beings, then it's this particular line of ethics that needs to go extinct You're not accurately describing the argument the linked article is making, but even so, is the argument you're making that creating suffering for sentient beings is not morally wrong? >"The rules we invented for ourselves say that we shouldn't continue existing" seems like a mindset that natural selection will handle by itself though. This is completely orthogonal to whether the argument is correct. Natural selection isn't moral; it just is.

setsewerd 2y ago
> You're not accurately describing the argument the linked article is making Page quote: "Benatar's antinatalist philosophy: sentient beings are harmed when they are brought into existence, and it is therefore wrong to procreate." The absolutism and anthropocentrism inherent in that statement renders his whole argument kind of silly. The existence of life itself is inevitably going to cause harm, regardless of how self-aware that particular life form is. It might be smaller degrees of harm, or more indirect, but harm nonetheless. Sure we should try to minimize the harm we cause others, within reason, on a case-by-case basis, but if your best solution to that is self-imposed specicide, what is the point of ethics? (Also the comment about natural selection was a half-joke, not a stance on the argument, but your final sentence seems to agree with me anyway.)
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  As far as I can ascertain, the argument being made in the article is this: 1. The absence of good is not bad because nobody is around to lament it 2. The existence of bad is bad In other words, because it doesn't yet exist, you can't hurt a being by not bringing it into existence. You can't hurt non-existent beings. But you can hurt a being by bringing it into existence because it can and will be harmed once it exists. The argument is not "simply because it creates suffering for sentient beings." If you disagree with the argument, you have to explain why it is incorrect. In particular, why is the absence of good bad even if nobody is around to experience that absence? This is difficult to argue, in my opinion, even if I subjectively feel like it has to be wrong. One argument I can think of is that we want to maximize the average goodness, so we should bring conscious beings into existence if we expect them to experience more good than bad. However, philosophers don't tend to make that argument because the implications are horrific.