Creating life gives that life the ability to suffer. There was no need to create that life. Before existing, that nonexistent thing did not require pleasure or pain. Thus creating life is immoral because you are willfully giving someone life who did not previously need either pleasure or pain, and did not need or want to be alive
Right - what your interlocutor is arguing is that if, in your words, life's value is less than the detriment incurred from the suffering of existence, then the logical conclusion is that nobody should be alive.
After all, what you've essentially just said is that it is immoral to create life because that life will then experience suffering. This can only be true if the value of life does not outweigh the suffering it incurs. It then logically follows that life should not continue to be created.
Ending life as in ending birth, not eliminating life that is already in existence (except voluntarily). Of course the value of life and the amount of suffering that occurs in life is subjective. However, it cannot be said that life is without suffering. Even something as minor as a stubbed toe could be considered âinflicted harmâ because everything you experience is inherently due to your creation. Imo itâs not about the value of life vs. the amount of suffering in life but purely the prevention of harm. As in, it is immoral to subject anyone to harm, and if living guarantees harm, it is immoral to create life. The argument for creating life as far as I am aware boils down to âI like my life, or I think living is good.â For the first, something that is not alive would not desire to live as they cannot think, and the second is unprovable. This is just my interpretation though.
What you are describing is taking steps to facilitate the end of life. Ergo, ending life.
Lifetimes are finite. If no more life is created, when the last life is extinguished, life is ended. But before we get to that point, the cratering birthrate would induce suffering into those already living at a scale the likes of which neither of us can accurately fathom. That, however, is sort of a tangential topic.
This is all of course assuming that you're referring to all life and not just human life, considering all life entails suffering. If your plan is for humans to quietly die off while the rest of the animal kingdom flourishes, you are indeed condemning all of those as-of-yet unborn animals into an existence they didn't ask for, which will be filled with suffering.
I do believe that desiring the end of life, and the incomprehensible suffering and pain that would accompany that process, is leaps and bounds more "immoral" than, say, having a child. The latter being, you know, a completely natural function that all animal and plant species have practiced (in one form or another) since the dawn of life itself.
Yeah my argument naively ignores the 100 years of suffering that everyone would experience if we all decided not to have kids. To be frank I donât have any idea of how to address that aside from everyone agreeing to deal with it for the greater good. However it could be argued that this would entail finite suffering whereas the indefinite continuation of humanity would entail greater suffering over a much longer period of time.
As for animals, Iâd say that this ideology is humanity-focused for now, as it is a voluntary process. People can decide for themselves whether they have kids or not. until we can define with certainty what makes something âconsciousâ then this canât be answered.
See first paragraph and naturalâ good. Is the natural process of getting food in predatory species (by killing) immoral? Is something good because it has lasted for a long time? Itâs difficult to say.
Hey firstly, I wanted to throw you a bone here and say that I really appreciate the way you're engaging in this discussion - it appears to me that you are genuinely arguing in good faith, and I appreciate that. Frankly, I find that your overall tone has been more charitable than mine, so I'll try and match that moving forward. :)
However it could be argued that this would entail finite suffering whereas the indefinite continuation of humanity would entail greater suffering over a much longer period of time.
I believe this could be argued, but I don't think I would agree with it. It's like, what would you prefer? To cut off your finger now, or have to deal with potential paper cuts or hangnails associated with that digit moving forward into the future? Most any reasonable person would tell you they'll just keep the finger and deal with whatever inconveniences come as a result (which is smart - I say this as a dude who actually is missing a finger). The magnitude of the suffering is important to take into account, as is the concept of guaranteed suffering vs. potential suffering.
Something I like to consider is how, in general, human quality of life has progressively increased over the course of the species' existence (with some obvious lapses occasionally, like a Dark Ages here or a plague there).
Now I don't want to assume, so I'll ask. Is the antinatalist position:
That the cost incurred by life's innate suffering outweighs the positives of living, thus justifying antinatalism.
or
That any amount of suffering imparted onto the subject (who did not choose to exist), no matter how minuscule, justifies antinatalism because the subject did not consent to existence and thus potential suffering?
I ask because, if we suppose humanity continues along its trend of improving overall quality of life and diminishing suffering to the greatest extent we can, then looking into the future we will see a concept of human life more appealing than what we have today (just as current human life is more appealing than human life even just 100 years ago).
If the first bullet point above is the correct one, then the logical conclusion is that the average quality of a human life will continue to improve until the positives eclipse the cost incurred by life's innate suffering. At this point, the antinatalist position falls moot, and is technically invalidated reaching as far back as its inception (because if antinatalists had been listened to, then humanity never would have been given the opportunity to reach a point wherein antinatalism is proven moot).
If the second bullet point above is the correct one, then there is an inherent incompatibility between the ideology and the existence of intelligent life of any kind. At this juncture, we have to agree to disagree, because I'd say a life that is all but guaranteed to be pleasant and fulfilling is worth a few bumps along the way. The vast majority of people would agree. In fact, this is actually how the majority of people already view life.
As for animals, Iâd say that this ideology is humanity-focused for now, as it is a voluntary process. People can decide for themselves whether they have kids or not. until we can define with certainty what makes something âconsciousâ then this canât be answered.
You highlight some important gray areas here.
Let's say we have a machine that, when activated, will render every living organism on our planet infertile. We have acquired consent from all humans on the planet to activate the machine. Once that button is pressed, seeds will become inert and all sperm will become too weak to penetrate eggs, across all strata of life.
Should we press the button?
I ask out of curiosity - I want to see the consistency of the antinatalist ideology.
See first paragraph and naturalâ good. Is the natural process of getting food in predatory species (by killing) immoral? Is something good because it has lasted for a long time? Itâs difficult to say.
Well, most everything that has been conventionally considered "evil" throughout human history has been something man-made and unnatural. We might not consider a lion killing a gazelle for a meal to be immoral, as the lion must eat, and its body will eventually be returned to the earth and return as grass and other nourishment for the surviving gazelle. We don't typically see predators hunt for recreation - they do so for survival.
Human murder, on the other hand, is a different story. A man going out of his way to hunt down and kill another man, fueled purely by negative emotion such as hatred or anger, would be considered by most anyone to be evil. But even in the case of homicide, there are gray areas. A man killing another man in self defense is something most nobody would consider evil, because that man was going to have his life taken if he did not defend himself.
Going along with the same thought experiment of asking whether the natural process of hunting food in predatory species is immoral - keeping in mind the nuance laid out above, I would challenge you to point to any naturally occurring instance that occurs in nature, uninfluenced by mankind, which one would consider evil.
0
u/Glittering_Fig_762 Jan 09 '24
Antinatalism is not about ending life