Philosophy forum and children

[Nill]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

Ok, that's what you think. There are people who think the human race should be assimilated to X, Y, Z religion. There are people who think this or that school should be blown up. There are people who wish to bring about eugenics. There are all kinds of people who think various things and wish to control others in various ways. After both threads and dozens of posts I'm still at a loss as to why anyone spends time with antinatalism as a philosophy to apply to the population.

Antinatalists try to conscientize people of the immorality of procreation. I have known many people were convinced to not procreate by some antinatalists. And It's good that I found a few people in other similiar threads in this forum that are aware of the immorality of procreation and hold views that life is a serious harm that no humane person would inflict upon an innocent. I do believe most people are in profound denial and ignorance about the immorality of bearing children. People just need to be conscientized. I also think antinatalism should be taught in schools instead of overrated literature. Then when we get to a point where most people will see procreation as something terrible and immoral, we can implement laws and measures against procreation.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by Nill

Antinatalists try to conscientize people of the immorality of procreation. I have known many people were convinced to not procreate by some antinatalists. And It's good that I found a few people in other similiar threads in this forum that are aware of the immorality of procreation and hold views that life is a serious harm that no humane person would inflict upon an innocent. I do believe most people are in profound denial and ignorance about the immorality of bearing children. People just need to be conscientized. I also think antinatalism should be thought in schools instead of overrated literature. Then when we get to a point where most people will see procreation as something terrible and immoral, we can implement laws and measures against procreation.

I don't believe you. I think people generally perceive you guys just as they do on this forum - as troubled souls.

[415_s2k]

Originally Posted by Nill

It's great that some children enjoy their lives and are glad to have been born. The point is that failing to create a happy child is not immoral. People fail all the time to bring as many kids as possible into existence who could have pleasurable lives. Almost everyone believes that they aren't doing anything wrong. Do you see it as wrong?

I don't believe that it's wrong to not create a happy child, and hardly believe that anyone has an obligation to reproduce.

You believe it's wrong to create a happy child.

This is like saying that preventing someone to steal is wrong because it will cause him to suffer.

No, it's like saying that you believe that the suffering of the majority is acceptable to spare the suffering of the minority, so long as it is in line with your sensibilities. This is something that you have stated repeatedly and attempted to walk away from, but it is an inescapable reality of your opinion.

You decry my belief that it is wrong for the majority to suffer as a "barbaric" attitude, but then find nothing barbaric at the though of forcibly maiming the whole of humanity in line with your ideals. When confronted with this hypocrisy, you simply throw out platitudes such as "why must the extinction of humanity be viewed as a negative thing?" or "people could learn to accept being sterilized and focus on their own personal pleasure." These fantastical "what if's" are irrelevant - if everyone thought as you do, then sure, it'd be possible, but not everyone thinks like you do and indeed, most people reject your ideals with varying degrees of thought and weight. Even if children were to be educated in antinatalism in school, as you suggest, a majority would likely grow up to reject it.

I think that somewhere between your blogs, youtube channel, all the various forums you start threads on, your various shell accounts, your rejection of any dissenting opinions as those of criminally insane "pollyannas," etc, you have certainly encountered and attracted like-minded people. Your worldview obviously revolves around confirming this philosophy and rejecting dissention and so it's inevitable that you will ultimately end up with a skewed perception of peoples' willingness to accept it. All the same that the dominant paradigm is not automatically the most just or fair way of doing things, neither is the opposing viewpoint automatically correct. Disagreeing with the masses does not automatically equate to a higher level of thought or righteousness, as is your case. Indeed, when you suddenly drop your civility and post a brief, spiteful rant about breeders and their meat toys, you show just how viscerally and myopically negative the root of your views really are.,

[Nill]

Originally Posted by 415_s2k

I don't believe that it's wrong to not create a happy child, and hardly believe that anyone has an obligation to reproduce.

You believe it's wrong to create a happy child.

I think it's wrong to create an unhappy child. The issue with procreation is the inability of obtaining consent of the non-existent and predicting the fate of the child. If somehow it was possible to obtain the potential child's consent, There would be no immorality in procreation. I just condemn the act of risking to create an unhappy child for the sake of creating a happy child. If we could only create happy lives, it would be great.

Originally Posted by 415_s2k

No, it's like saying that you believe that the suffering of the majority is acceptable to spare the suffering of the minority, so long as it is in line with your sensibilities. This is something that you have stated repeatedly and attempted to walk away from, but it is an inescapable reality of your opinion.

You have to answer how is it any different than saying that preventing someone to steal or kill is wrong because it will make him suffer? How many thieves are suffering because they can't steal. How many people are suffering because they can't kill?

The question is, is it ever morally justifiable to harm an innocent to benefit oneself?

The problem is that you don't value the suffering of children. You only value the "suffering" of parents. And you think it's justifiable for parents to cause suffering to their children because otherwise they would suffer for not having children. Even though children are innocent, you think they should be sacrificed for parents needs. This argument could justify any sort of immorality.

Yet I don't see being unable to have children as a reason for insurmontable suffering. Having a child is just a part of life, it's not everything. If people couldn't procreate, it doesn't mean it had to be an agonising journey. You have underestimated pain and suffering at the point you said that you would exchange a week of excruciating torture for a dirt bike, and you have called terminal sufferers oversensitive mopey cry babies. At the same time you see the suffering of not being able to have a child as unberably agonising suffering that can't be comparable to any other type of suffering. The suffering of infertility is only true and significant suffering that deserves consideration, the other types suffering are minor, trivial that don't have any moral importance.

I think we have reasons to see the suffering of children as a greater moral concern. The physical and emotional pain that people have to endure on a daily basis is not far from comparable from the suffering of infertility. What about the suffering of a child with brain cancer vomiting, having seizures, extreme headaches? The suffering of a severely deformed child suffering bullying ? The suffering of someone experiencing constant physical pain? What about a child dying with end stage organ failure? What about a child starving to death? What about a tortured and mistread child? What about the agony of a person with heart issues knowing that she could have sudden death any moment? This is hell. How do you dare to compare the "suffering" infertility to the suffering that miserable lives are required to endure on a daily basis? Doesn't their suffering carry a greater moral importance? Plus if nobody procreates, in a few years suffering is gone forever.