4 ms·

> You're not accurately describing the argument the linked article is making Page quote: "Benatar's antinatalist philosophy: sentient beings are harmed when th

> 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

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.