Are there any actual valid arguments against anti-natalism?

File: succturk.jpg (33KB, 443x380px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 443x380px

>Are there any actual valid arguments against anti-natalism?
most of this board

>>1828186
That doesn't even make any sense, unless you are implying that everyone here has lives worth living and should all have children. Which I'm pretty sure wasn't your intention.

Fuck off retarded tripfag.

kill yourself

File: seccturk.jpg (34KB, 443x380px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 443x380px

>>1828188
>unless you are implying that everyone here has lives worth living and should all have children
exactly, we need every historians dick in the fight against the demiurge

>>1828197
Not an argument.

>>1828183
You're still thinking of things in a dualistic framework even without realizing it.

>>1828227
How to transcend that thinking?

>i hate my parents and had a shitty childhood therefore nobody should have kids either life is suffering man hahaha of course I'm not gonna kill myself lol

>>1828232
Who are you quoting?

Not an argument.

>>1828223
I laughed

>>1828183
>Are there any actual valid arguments against anti-natalism?
I'm happy.

>>1828183
Things are pretty good and are better than before. The future will likely be better still.

There are plenty arguments against antinatalism

Question is whether any are valid

If you starting point is 'one ought not cause suffering' then no I don't think there are any valid arguments

Preventing suffering takes far more presceden e over creating pleasure so therefore one ought not have kids

Trouble you'll literally never convince anyone who wants kids not to. People want children for selfish reasons, and also post hoc justify it like 'life is good I wanted to give this gift to someone else'. Which one is retarded because you can't give a gift to something which doesn't exist, but two is that you just had a child because you wanted one for various selfish reasons because you're an immoral idiot

You'll never convince people with no compassion and narcissistic tier selfishness to not have their precious suffering pet, because they're idiots

Antinatalism only appeals to those wih the highest levels of compassion and empathy - the majority of people are immoral scum

Don't even bother trying to convince them op, they're too stupid to realiZe the evil they're doing

Natalists = evil ignorant immoral scum

File: 43.jpg (1MB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1680x1050px

>>1828183
Yes, you were conclusively disproven in the last 3 threads you made.

http://desuarchive.org/his/thread/1466687/
http://desuarchive.org/his/thread/1324617/
http://desuarchive.org/his/thread/703967/

>>1828350
>Preventing suffering takes far more presceden e over creating pleasure
[citation needed]

>>1828183
It makes many unfounded assumptions.
>life causes more pain than pleasure
>preventing pain is more important than creating pleasure
>people cannot just renounce life via suicide if they suffer more than they enjoy it because you said so
>people who desire children (a large majority, since procreation is an instinctive desire) not being allowed to have any and thus sufferring is somehow not important
Look, I know you hate your life. But the philosophy behind antinatalism is high-school tier. Man, your head is haunted, you have gears in your head.

>>1828350
Annihilation is better than life?

Also, your argument can be easily be used to justify shooters and other kind ofpeople. So, no, anti-natalists are scum too.

>>1828228
It's pretty difficult because it's embedded in our language.

I don't even think it's possible for the human mind to truly comprehend such a thing as "non-existence".

>>1828477
but what about the consent of the person that don't exist yet and which cannot be given ?

I would like to bring foward thefact that there are countless father/motherless children in the world but idiots keep spawning pseudo clones to cope with consumerism

>inb4 big words small ideas

>>1828350
This entire thing hinges on a shitty psuedo utilitarian concept of value where base pleasure is all that counts, I don't see how anyone is in a position to claim that.

It's also incredibly masturbatory in that it asserts swathes of people are incapable of making value judgements for themselves, and that a niche movement is more qualified despite running into the same epistemological and metaphysical dead ends as everyone else.

>>1829233
Not everyone wants to raise someone elses kid like a cuck

I want lower birth rates across the board to cope with overpopulation.

I don't want humanity to go extinct and I don't think life is nothing but suffering. Where do I fit in?

>>1829216
This is the strongest argument in favour of anti-natalism: the mere act of having a child is forcing life on someone without ever asking for their opinion. It's not difficult to see how some may find that morally reprehensible.

>>1829679
Maybe they'd find it repulsive if they're idiots. The parent is responsible for the child and is its de-facto "chooser" until they come of age. Children aren't able to make those choices, so it's the parent's responsibility to make the decisions. That includes bringing them into the world to begin with.

>>1829216
>>1829679
That only applies if you believe in the existence of souls. Consent does not apply to non-existence.

>>1828183
>anti-natalism=secular catharism

>>1829216
They are free to renounce it as soon as they are self-aware, and consent is not an issue before they become such (their perception is very much like that of an animal, they do not understand the concept of existence and, as such, are indifferent toward it). So there is no problem with consent.

>>1829233
I am an anti-natalist for this sole reason. I don't think life is inherently bad or it's inherently wrong to procreate, but I do think it is when you have people who want to be parents and children who want parents but instead of doing the morally superior choice, they just fuck and bring another child in the world. Also, a parent procreating entirely for selfish and shortsighted reasons is also against my virtue ethics.
>>1829533
>I don't have any reasonable or logical argument so I'll just use a meme and pretend it has any rational validity

>>1829970
>but I do think it is when you have people who want to be parents and children who want parents but instead of doing the morally superior choice, they just fuck and bring another child in the world.
I don't see how anti-natalism follows from that. What you're describing doesn't even sound like anti-natalism to me, because the core concept of anti-natalism is the concept that bringing life into existance is inherently and thereby always wrong. Adding exceptions already makes this not anti-natalism. Otherwise, even being for any sort of population control or being pro-abortion in any case would be "anti-natalism".

> Also, a parent procreating entirely for selfish and shortsighted reasons is also against my virtue ethics.
Why?

>>1830031
It's anti-natalist because as the world is now with there being plenty of orphans, it is morally wrong to have children. It's also wrong to have children if you're doing it for selfish reasons, because a child shouldn't have a selfish parent.
>Why?
Because creating a new human being is solemn and a very powerful act, possibly as solemn and powerful as killing a human. To do it just because you want someone to "Carry on your legacy" or take care of you when you're old or because you think it'd be cute or fun to be a parent is incredibly selfish. This same mindset can be seen in how parents look at their children as THEIR children, in the sense of property and ownership.

>>1830039
>It's anti-natalist
Still just sounds like a confusion of terms to me. It makes etymologically sense, but it doesn't have much to do with traditional versions of anti-natalism. You might as well make an economic argument that concludes that children shouldn't be born for the next 5 years and call that "anti-natalism", but it wouldn't be, except for the name.

> It's also wrong to have children if you're doing it for selfish reasons, because a child shouldn't have a selfish parent.
I find it interesting that you call someone who has a child for selfish reasons a "selfish parent". If there were two exactly same parents, except that one had a child for selfish reasons and one had one for unselfish reasons (i.e., all things being equal), I would say that the first one was more selfish than the second, but he doesn't necessarily have to be selfish, unless you require that someone selfless is selfless in each and every case of his actions. Why? Because character traits express themselves in more than one aspect in one's life. I could have a child for selfish reasons, but still donate half of my income and stay until 02:00 a.m. helping at the homeless shelter, three days of the week. Am I a selfish parent then?

>To do it just because you want someone to "Carry on your legacy" or take care of you when you're old or because you think it'd be cute or fun to be a parent is incredibly selfish.
So, what if I had a good and noble reason to have children? Is that possible, and would it be okay for you then?

>>1828350
t. Redditor trying to justify not being able to get puss.

>>1830088
>Still just sounds like a confusion of terms to me.
An anti-natalist believes it is immoral to have children; I also believe that, I just believe there can be a future exception.
>I find it interesting that you call someone who has a child for selfish reasons a "selfish parent".
Obviously someone isn't completely selfish, and a selfish parent can still be a good one. But having a child for selfish reasons sets the stage for everything else. Also again, I'm a virtue ethicist, so a person doing something for the wrong reasons is still wrong even though the action itself might end up fine.
>So, what if I had a good and noble reason to have children? Is that possible, and would it be okay for you then?
It's possible but not likely. There's also the aspect that an orphan needs a good and noble parent more than the non-existent future human.

>>1830165
>But having a child for selfish reasons sets the stage for everything else.
Or, it might just become an almost irrelevant detail in an overall good life. What makes someone "selfish"? What makes someone anything, be it funny, courageous, fearful or charismatic? Does only how one acts in an extreme situation matter? Or the whole life? Maybe how the person was at the end of his life? Maybe how he was at the start of his life? Judging someone's character isn't as simple as many people make it out to be.

>Also again, I'm a virtue ethicist, so a person doing something for the wrong reasons is still wrong even though the action itself might end up fine.
It wasn't supposed to be a consequentialist notion. Virtue ethicists have to ask themselves that, too. P.S.: I actually have a lot of sympathy for virtue ethics myself.

>There's also the aspect that an orphan needs a good and noble parent more than the non-existent future human.
Let's assume that there was a pandemic that has killed off 90% of all children and we suddenly had the resources and will to have all orphans cared for. They're all fine and cared for by 10 people each. Would it still be immoral to bring life into existence?

>>1830207
>Or, it might just become an almost irrelevant detail in an overall good life.
That's possible, but the point still remains that if the person is genuinely good and noble, why do something selfish and shortsighted instead of adopting a child if they truly just want to be a parent? Wanting children is largely an irrational, instinctual desire that is rationalized after the fact.
>It wasn't supposed to be a consequentialist notion. Virtue ethicists have to ask themselves that, too.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
>Let's assume that there was a pandemic that has killed off 90% of all children and we suddenly had the resources and will to have all orphans cared for. They're all fine and cared for by 10 people each. Would it still be immoral to bring life into existence?
It would depend on the circumstances and who's creating the child.

Basically my argument is this: it is typically immoral to have children because:
1:There are many orphans in the world who need a parent, so a decent person who desires to be a parent should adopt an orphan instead of needlessly procreating and possibly contributing to the problem.
2:The majority of people do not make good parents or live in good environments for raising children; it is done without the consent of the child and usually for purely selfish and self-centered reasons.

If there were no orphans, the children would be born in a decent environment to good parents, and the reason for procreating was not for selfish reasons, then I would ultimately have no problem with it. But since we do not live in a such a world and possibly never will, I am effectively an anti-natalist.