Hi Lewis. I don't have time to listen to the whole thing right now, but , just to comment on the title, I would say it's not immoral if you don't realize what's going on in the world around you. I was lucky enough to wake up and snip my lines at age 22.
@@LouisGedo Hi, I spelled Lewis wrong. Kinda like accidentally dialing the wrong number and having to explain that you didn't really mean to call them.
@@Wearephuct-O Isn't Perspective Philosophy's name spelled "Lewis", the British version? "Louis" is French derived I believe while "Luis" is Spanish derived I believe.
@ProSocial Pessimist Thanks for sharing your views but your argument is 100% unpersuasive since there's zero good reason to believe that a Better World isn't created when individuals choose to no longer participate in 1. funding companies / entities that exploit and kill innocent individuals , and 2. choosing to make them self complicit in supporting activities that intentionally harm innocent individuals. Also, one needn't oppose the exploitation of labor in order to live vegan or practice veganism......you appear to not understand the most appropriate meaning of the word "vegan". That said, it's certainly morally virtuous for a vegan to oppose practices which intentionally and needlessly harm human workers.....but not opposing exploitative labor practices does not negate that one may practice veganism. What you are doing is a heck of a lot of conflation. You remind me of the people who claim that you can't be in favor of human rights unless you support the anti-choice position. Have a nice day.
@@justanotherutuber3 Perhaps in delusionland, but it's yet to be demonstrated in this reality. BTW, one can simultaneously be an antinatalist and live vegan......the 2 aren't mutually exclusive.
Really enjoyed this discussion, it helped me form a more solid view of both sides of the argument and of my own beliefs as well. Is there such a thing as conditional antinatalism? I feel like I fall between the sides.
@@PerspectivePhilosophy I think one point of discussion I would like to hear more on is overpopulation. I think the discussion here mostly related to the individual and their own expression of subjectivity, however I think that there is a link between each individual's ability to express their subjectivity and the rest of those in existence. Maybe this is just another point of consideration during the ethical decision process? I tend to think the less beings in existence the easier existence will ultimately be for each individual, as there would be more resources, space, and opportunities per individual.
@Perspective Philosophy @Ethan Pollitt I think a good way to make a distinction in this is using the terminology pragmatic-antinatalist, or dogmatic-antinatalist. A pragmatic one would take all factors into consideration, the dogmatic one believes it is imperatively always the correct Position to take.
I think people should quit makeing kids for a while at least so they can save the starving orphan children instead of createing a new thing to care for while ignoreing the starving orphans resulting in them starving to death. everyone should be encouraged alot more to use birth control or a condom to try to prevent unwanted pregnancy. People who can afford to should give tax deductible donations to pay for poor people in third world countries to get vasectomys if they want them but cant afford them.
Apply that to animals as well....so many pets need adopting....don't shop...adopt....ban all breeders! I'm leaning toward efilism....nature is just rude and cruel...prevent all suffering...don't procreate!
I haven't listened to the whole debate but I see a key argument that isn't mentioned: "The benefit to the world that a smart being provides [is worth the cost of their suffering]." Since the ball is already rolling, this is the Crux of any natalism. Of course, it's trivial for us all to agree, without dispute, that life itself is inherently suffering and therefore "wrong" according to some systems of thought. But once life already exists, pragmatism steps in, and brilliant folk should have brilliant kids to change the world for the better. Literally, Jesus... He might have been an antinatalist but knew his life was worth the change to the world.
I appreciate that point but I don't think it addresses that main issue of life always being a net negative. That's my primary concern on the issue, but I do see you're point that even if having children is not good, it may be better to have children than not in certain circumstances!
@@PerspectivePhilosophy That's brutal, mate. _even if having children is not good, it may be better to have children than not in certain circumstances_ This means you would agree to use the child as a tool to do the majestic work of bettering the world. It would be like a state outlawing abortions so that women breed more workers and soldiers to continue the holly nation or race. "Be my sword! Change the world!" you scream to the child. All this, without knowing whether the child agrees to that, will want that, or whether they'll even have a decent life. Russian roulette with the barrel of the gun pointed to the kid's head.
@@WackyConundrum just a moment: general antinatalism says: i should never have come into existence and i should never again come into existence. Don't tell me which is the totalitarian ideology. Your ideology creates what antinatalists complain about first: the lack of consent.
I think these are all valid points but arguing about morality in a world without life seems tenuous and reeks of Godels incompleteness theorem. You can only argue from a standpoint of life. And who wouldn't sacrifice one person to save 20 billion people? The antinatalist argument doesn't really answer this but instead turns it into a "lack of consent." There is no being to provide consent because it doesn't exist yet. The universe doesn't give consent when physics created life in the primordial soup. Computation is just.. physics... Boltzmann brains appear randomly. This issue is far more complex than we are giving it credit for. I don't have a solid argument for either direction - it's a conundrum
I am a bit confused. You mentioned sabotaging the pregnancy is monstrous, so that reminded me on something. Insentient fetuses have no intrinsic worth, by virtue of not being sentient at that time, and future sentience they would have if they are not killed is irrelevant. Let's now imagine a woman who lives certain lifestyle during the insentience of the fetus (like smoking, heavy drinking and such) during the insentience of the fetus. Fetus becomes sentient, but there are some defects later on in development which can be traced back to smoking, drinking, etc. Following what is said about sentience, intrinsic worth, and killing, it cannot be said that smoking and drinking while pregnant is monstrous if fetus is insentient. But it also cannot be said that she is harming a sentient fetus when there is no such thing as sentient fetus. The moment fetus becomes sentient, then and only then can be said that woman is harming it if she drinks and smokes, because there is something to be harmed. Appeal to the future sentience and what would be in the future is impotent just like before. I don't see how would that be monstrous under sentientism.
You are damaging or destroying the potential life. Whether it is considered sentient or not, it has the potential for life, sentient life has value, the potential for sentient life has value, it has intrinsic worth because it will become sentient. Maliciously damaging or destroying that value is monstrous
@@fritjofvalerijs800 You sound pro-life. If so, the thought experiment is not intended for you, but for those, like vegans, who think that existence of sentience, right now, is what gives a being intrinsic worth.
@@skyisthelimitreadyornotfor2 I don't think so, because their ideology is sentience centered, so if no sentience, then no moral worth. And because of that I am pointing on the problem I outlined in my op.
That's a really interesting question, and something I've thought about before. We can think of it in terms of a couple deciding their course of action if they decide to have a child. If they do decide to procreate, then their obligation to care for the future child begins even before the child is created. It would at best be irresponsible of them to have no plan whatsoever as to how they will provide for another human being. But if they do not decide to procreate, then they wouldn't have any of those duties. It wouldn't matter how irresponsible they are with their money, because it wouldn't affect anyone else. The child only matters if the parents decide to have the child. The same can be said about a fetus. It's only relevant if the mother decides to keep it. If a woman smokes and drinks alcohol while pregnant but has an abortion, then no harm done. It could only be harmful to the future person a fetus will become if a woman decides to keep it, whereas killing a fetus cannot harm said future person because that person will not exist, and it doesn't harm the fetus because the fetus is not sentient. I hope that offers a reasonable explanation.
Hi Lewis. I don't have time to listen to the whole thing right now, but , just to comment on the title, I would say it's not immoral if you don't realize what's going on in the world around you. I was lucky enough to wake up and snip my lines at age 22.
zzzzzzzzup!
@@LouisGedo Hi, I spelled Lewis wrong. Kinda like accidentally dialing the wrong number and having to explain that you didn't really mean to call them.
@@Wearephuct-O Isn't Perspective Philosophy's name spelled "Lewis", the British version?
"Louis" is French derived I believe while "Luis" is Spanish derived I believe.
@@LouisGedo zakly If you had a British father, a French mother, and a spanish uncle your name might be, Lewis Louis Luis
*Create a Better World by..............Living Vegan*
@ProSocial Pessimist Thanks for sharing your views but your argument is 100% unpersuasive since there's zero good reason to believe that a Better World isn't created when individuals choose to no longer participate in 1. funding companies / entities that exploit and kill innocent individuals , and 2. choosing to make them self complicit in supporting activities that intentionally harm innocent individuals.
Also, one needn't oppose the exploitation of labor in order to live vegan or practice veganism......you appear to not understand the most appropriate meaning of the word "vegan".
That said, it's certainly morally virtuous for a vegan to oppose practices which intentionally and needlessly harm human workers.....but not opposing exploitative labor practices does not negate that one may practice veganism.
What you are doing is a heck of a lot of conflation. You remind me of the people who claim that you can't be in favor of human rights unless you support the anti-choice position.
Have a nice day.
Antinatalism logic destroys veganism everytime?xP
WORD
@@justanotherutuber3 Perhaps in delusionland, but it's yet to be demonstrated in this reality.
BTW, one can simultaneously be an antinatalist and live vegan......the 2 aren't mutually exclusive.
@@donaldanderson6578 to da bird
Really enjoyed this discussion, it helped me form a more solid view of both sides of the argument and of my own beliefs as well. Is there such a thing as conditional antinatalism? I feel like I fall between the sides.
I would be in the same camp. It's not anti-natalist but rather, do the right thing and recognise having children is an ethical decision.
@@PerspectivePhilosophy I think one point of discussion I would like to hear more on is overpopulation. I think the discussion here mostly related to the individual and their own expression of subjectivity, however I think that there is a link between each individual's ability to express their subjectivity and the rest of those in existence. Maybe this is just another point of consideration during the ethical decision process? I tend to think the less beings in existence the easier existence will ultimately be for each individual, as there would be more resources, space, and opportunities per individual.
@Perspective Philosophy @Ethan Pollitt I think a good way to make a distinction in this is using the terminology pragmatic-antinatalist, or dogmatic-antinatalist. A pragmatic one would take all factors into consideration, the dogmatic one believes it is imperatively always the correct Position to take.
Is life immoral?
I think people should quit makeing kids for a while at least so they can save the starving orphan children instead of createing a new thing to care for while ignoreing the starving orphans resulting in them starving to death.
everyone should be encouraged alot more to use birth control or a condom to try to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
People who can afford to should give tax deductible donations to pay for poor people in third world countries to get vasectomys if they want them but cant afford them.
Apply that to animals as well....so many pets need adopting....don't shop...adopt....ban all breeders! I'm leaning toward efilism....nature is just rude and cruel...prevent all suffering...don't procreate!
The natalist does not work that way. Post an adoption post for a cat on Facebook and get minimal replies from people that have procreated plenty.
I haven't listened to the whole debate but I see a key argument that isn't mentioned: "The benefit to the world that a smart being provides [is worth the cost of their suffering]." Since the ball is already rolling, this is the Crux of any natalism. Of course, it's trivial for us all to agree, without dispute, that life itself is inherently suffering and therefore "wrong" according to some systems of thought. But once life already exists, pragmatism steps in, and brilliant folk should have brilliant kids to change the world for the better. Literally, Jesus... He might have been an antinatalist but knew his life was worth the change to the world.
I appreciate that point but I don't think it addresses that main issue of life always being a net negative. That's my primary concern on the issue, but I do see you're point that even if having children is not good, it may be better to have children than not in certain circumstances!
@@PerspectivePhilosophy That's brutal, mate.
_even if having children is not good, it may be better to have children than not in certain circumstances_
This means you would agree to use the child as a tool to do the majestic work of bettering the world. It would be like a state outlawing abortions so that women breed more workers and soldiers to continue the holly nation or race. "Be my sword! Change the world!" you scream to the child.
All this, without knowing whether the child agrees to that, will want that, or whether they'll even have a decent life. Russian roulette with the barrel of the gun pointed to the kid's head.
@@WackyConundrum
just a moment: general antinatalism says: i should never have come into existence and i should never again come into existence.
Don't tell me which is the totalitarian ideology.
Your ideology creates what antinatalists complain about first: the lack of consent.
They crucified Jesus tho!!!!! Why would you bring children into a world where they crucified Jesus?
I think these are all valid points but arguing about morality in a world without life seems tenuous and reeks of Godels incompleteness theorem. You can only argue from a standpoint of life. And who wouldn't sacrifice one person to save 20 billion people? The antinatalist argument doesn't really answer this but instead turns it into a "lack of consent." There is no being to provide consent because it doesn't exist yet. The universe doesn't give consent when physics created life in the primordial soup. Computation is just.. physics... Boltzmann brains appear randomly. This issue is far more complex than we are giving it credit for. I don't have a solid argument for either direction - it's a conundrum
Second
First
I am a bit confused. You mentioned sabotaging the pregnancy is monstrous, so that reminded me on something.
Insentient fetuses have no intrinsic worth, by virtue of not being sentient at that time, and future sentience they would have if they are not killed is irrelevant.
Let's now imagine a woman who lives certain lifestyle during the insentience of the fetus (like smoking, heavy drinking and such) during the insentience of the fetus.
Fetus becomes sentient, but there are some defects later on in development which can be traced back to smoking, drinking, etc.
Following what is said about sentience, intrinsic worth, and killing, it cannot be said that smoking and drinking while pregnant is monstrous if fetus is insentient. But it also cannot be said that she is harming a sentient fetus when there is no such thing as sentient fetus.
The moment fetus becomes sentient, then and only then can be said that woman is harming it if she drinks and smokes, because there is something to be harmed.
Appeal to the future sentience and what would be in the future is impotent just like before.
I don't see how would that be monstrous under sentientism.
You are damaging or destroying the potential life.
Whether it is considered sentient or not, it has the potential for life, sentient life has value, the potential for sentient life has value, it has intrinsic worth because it will become sentient.
Maliciously damaging or destroying that value is monstrous
@@fritjofvalerijs800 You sound pro-life. If so, the thought experiment is not intended for you, but for those, like vegans, who think that existence of sentience, right now, is what gives a being intrinsic worth.
@@Wlof25 All vegans if ethically consistent should also be pro life.
@@skyisthelimitreadyornotfor2 I don't think so, because their ideology is sentience centered, so if no sentience, then no moral worth. And because of that I am pointing on the problem I outlined in my op.
That's a really interesting question, and something I've thought about before.
We can think of it in terms of a couple deciding their course of action if they decide to have a child. If they do decide to procreate, then their obligation to care for the future child begins even before the child is created. It would at best be irresponsible of them to have no plan whatsoever as to how they will provide for another human being. But if they do not decide to procreate, then they wouldn't have any of those duties. It wouldn't matter how irresponsible they are with their money, because it wouldn't affect anyone else. The child only matters if the parents decide to have the child.
The same can be said about a fetus. It's only relevant if the mother decides to keep it. If a woman smokes and drinks alcohol while pregnant but has an abortion, then no harm done. It could only be harmful to the future person a fetus will become if a woman decides to keep it, whereas killing a fetus cannot harm said future person because that person will not exist, and it doesn't harm the fetus because the fetus is not sentient.
I hope that offers a reasonable explanation.