Sweet reminder that there are no successful arguments against antinatalism

suffering is not bad
utilitarianism is bullshit
negative utilitarianism is even more bullshit
the absence of pleasure is bad

How is it nihilistic?

/thread

>Antinatalism is not the view that you should commit suicide.
It is the logical conclusion of both antinatalism and the very specific brand of negative utilitarianism that underpins it. The usual response to this is some mumbling about biological imperatives, which funnily enough never come into question on topic of childbirth. Also I‘d like to agree with another poster that you should stop making these embarrasing redditesque threads at least until such time that you understand that axiomatic basis of antinatalism is in itself not some universal truism and most people don‘t go by the aforementioned brand of negative utilitarianism, hence your fedoratastic „no succesful argument“ belongs on /r/atheism or similar enlightened places, but not on Yea Forums.

Poor breeders can't justify themselves without running into endless contradictions or egoism

Attached: 6NNNx.jpg (1280x1280, 266K)

>It is the logical conclusion of both antinatalism and the very specific brand of negative utilitarianism that underpins it.
Killing yourself = more suffering than not killing yourself
Not begetting children = less suffering than begetting children

>more suffering than not killing yourself
What? Death is the end of suffering. It is non-existence. You don't actually believe in negative utilitarianism if you don't believe blowing your brains out is the best course of action.

Could you expand on your first sentence a little? I'm intrigued by what you're saying, but have no idea why its ontology is confused and what do you mean by the liberal grammar in this case.

Attached: elaborate.jpg (1278x905, 65K)

The keyword here is consent. Your stupid enlightenment idea of social relations as contracts are stupid.

Your family suffers retard

>You don't actually believe in negative utilitarianism if you don't believe blowing your brains out is the best course of action.

not only that but you should be taking out as many people with you as possible.

a) No they don't.
b) Even if they did, they wouldn't if they kill themselves too or you kill them all yourself.
The end goal of negative utilitarianism is total human extinction.

Shouldn't they be celebrating the end of your suffering? wouldn't that bring them joy?

What they should be doing is irrelevant

have sex

Attached: dream_girl_by_lindseyyoung-d6v765f.jpg (1024x1536, 145K)

Antinatalism does not account for the frequency or strength at which pain occurs relatively to pleasure. Additionally, consent is irrelevant if you don't exist.

No it's not. By killing yourself, you reduce your family's suffering.

>the very specific brand of negative utilitarianism
Because David Retardatar founded the School of Antinatalism

Attached: 63237235.jpg (400x300, 18K)

What would be a non-contractarian way to think about receiving and bestowing life that still allows prospective parents to consider the interests of their prospective child?

make sure you're in a lasting marriage with financial security first

This argument only works against depressed utilitarians.

Stop interpreting your acts in life as a long chain of contracts that must obey moral/legal rules such as informed consent, consideration, proposal, acceptance, refusal, reparations for failing to act, voidness, nulity etc. That's retarded.

>Absence of pain (good)
>Absence of pleasure (Not bad)
I fucking hate this stupid arbitrary chart. If you are nonexistent, it is impossible for anything to be good for you. How can there be anything valued as good when the subject does not exist to give anything value? Everything in scenario B should be neutral.

Surely in scenario B, either both situations should be 'not bad' or the absence of pleasure should be 'bad'.

Non-existent things aren't moral agents sweetie

People are not fully rational agents who subject their emotions to a rigorous ethical system. Presumably your family has an extreme connection to you, the rupture of which would cause them immense pain. This connection is not present with potential beings.
Note that it does follow that people without loved ones should be able to commit suicide if they want to and I fully support their doing so.

But what do you propose as an alternative basis for deciding how to treat other people decently and how to avoid doing harm? I'm not arguing with you as I'm not really married to any of the categories you listed, I would just like to understand your position beyond the refusal of liberal/contractarian vocabulary.

>People are not fully rational agents who subject their emotions to a rigorous ethical system
Yeah, that's what anti-natalism assumes.

>absence of pain
>good
>absence of pleasure
>neutral
wew

Think about all the things that we take for granted because no absence-of exists...

Only if you're a basic bitch hedonist

>1. If an action is 1) non-consensual and 2) contributes to net suffering, then the action is immoral.
>2. Begetting children is nonconsensual and contributes to net suffering.
>3. Therefore, begetting children is immoral.

Please tell me where this assumption is made.

Antinatalist here. This philosophy vindicated my suicidal ideation. Life is suffering, get out as soon as you can. Probably going to off myself before the year ends. I'm not doing it now because I'm a coward. It's been fun. Haven't been able to read anything in months. Writing isn't pleasurable anymore. I'm probably going to fail out of uni. Girlfriend is about to leave me. Parents think I'm a disappointment. Don't really have any friends, job prospects, whatever. See you never lads it's been fun

Attached: finnish island where i want to live.jpg (1401x1540, 370K)

>Begetting children is nonconsensual and contributes to net suffering.
right here

>If an action is 1) non-consensual and 2) contributes to net suffering, then the action is immoral.
here

Your claim:
>Antinatalists assume that people are fully rational agents who subject their emotions to a rigorous ethical system.
The evidence for your claim:
>Antinatalists assert that begetting children is nonconsensual and contributes to net suffering.
Do you see how the former does not follow from the latter?

Your claim:
>Antinatalists assume that people are fully rational agents who subject their emotions to a rigorous ethical system.
The evidence for your claim:
>Antinatalists assert that If an action is 1) non-consensual and 2) contributes to net suffering, then the action is immoral.
Do you see how the former does not follow from the latter?

no, it makes sense to me.

>Anti-murderers assert that murder is immoral.
>Therefore, anti-murderers assume that people are fully rational agents who subject their emotions to a rigorous ethical system.

yup

Why not try to do something

Attached: antinatalism.png (1215x253, 22K)

Total units of pleasure one experiences in life > total units of pain one experiences in life

BTFO

>X pleasure is small
>Y pain is horrible
>Y is the pain equivalent of x
I hate utilitarians. This is all completely arbitrary. You can't treat morality like math because it's completely subjective.

its just a meme, newfag, no need to be pulling your hairs out

>(bad)
>(good)
found your mistake

yeah there are? why would any of those conditions be good or bad?

[citation needed]

I need kids for my happiness

Enjoy your hedonistic piece of shit of a life then

>pleasure is the only arbiter of good and evil.

Hedonism was invented to spot retards right away.

Yes, my own enjoyment and pleasure of raising a child. Give a fuck if they suffer a bit I live in a first world country and they’ll be white and well taken care of.

Ah, the "anne-tie-nay-tuh-vist" b8. Exquisite. I've encountered such enticing tricks on few occasions, and as such, they are all equally, especially treasured... but I must say, this, user, is a bounty. Such biting, such crying. The christcucks, STEMcucks, racecucks; soiled, they have come, and their humiliations are preordained. Perhaps, if I entertain my satisfactions, I could fashion a holy unity from this moment, and these like it. A just god, who bestows, upon the worthy, the greatest of lolcows. A just man, I might say, ought to dream so.

Attached: David_8_profile.jpg (720x800, 67K)

>he has a girlfriend
Some would envy you.

You can't even formulate any underlying philosophical problems of existence, you are just complaining over basic shit. Are all people who neck themselves this primitive in their thinking?

I agree that there is no successful counterargument against pressing the red button and nuking the whole world.

>no successful arguments against antinatalism

Just like there's no successful argument to make against being a retarded teenager or a complete pussy. You either grow up or don't. Either way it works out best for society

>absence of Pleasure
>not bad

Lol. Also what about the absence of an existentially purposeful existence with your surroundings? How about the loss of your impact with a lot of people? The loss of your journey through this Earth?

All very important things to think about :3

Not him but when an user uses a term like "liberal grammar" you should conclude that they either simply inarticulate, or that their poor word choice is an attempt at embellishment. Either way, in the absence of explanation, you are forced to use context to figure out their meaning. user was probably trying to say something like:
>Antinatalism is stuck within a liberal moral ontology. This moral ontology understands things under moral consideration in terms of consensual/nonconsensual. Nonconsensual actions result in damages, and said damages must have reparations.
This would be the most charitable reading. But user contradicts this reading in the next sentence by saying antinatalism is nihilistic so I don't know

Based

*crickets*

Well, that's helpful, thanks. I gathered as much from his later posts, but I'm still waiting for the exposition of the ethical theory that succesfully disposes with the notion of consent (preferably with added explanation of how it applies to the specific issues raised by the antinatalists).
Long before I knew of antinatalism as a thing, I found it pretty intuitive to think there's something at least morally ambiguous about bestowing life on people who never had the choice in the matter. I would be perfectly happy to dispose of the rotten liberal notion of "consent", but someone has to convince me why it's wrong to think that we should generally avoid doing things to others if they don't want them being done to them.

I think antinatalism is cool and i've done my own research on it, but this chart never makes any sense to me. What about absence of both pleasure and pain? What about presence of both pleasure and pain that brings divine ecstasy like the Lingchi torture sufferers that look like their having the ultimate pleasure? Or the ascetic starving themselves to reach beyond pain and pleasure? The pain and pleasure Bataille always obsesses about?

This chart can be better. IIRC there was a much more elaborate one but I can't seem to find it.

Attached: tumblr_meto8rYpTA1qc7tw4o1_500.png (500x366, 247K)

Christianity

Ligotti's brand of existential antinatalism at least makes sense, Benatar is just a utilitarian fuccboi

Attached: 1551847358073.png (1920x1200, 356K)

i hope someone tortures his child for a laugh

You have awful taste in women.

ew nigga

no pain, no gain, compadre

There's an alternative aside from abolishing all notions of consent—you can distinguish questions of consent in nonexisting entities (possible people) versus preexisting entities (actual people). What does it mean to be capable of consent? I don't think consent can be given by nonexistent entities because it can't be asked of them in the first place—there is no “person” to ask for consent in the case of an unconceived child. (This still doesn't contradict a pro-life position on abortion, since antinatalism pertains life even before conception. A pro-life stance might see fetuses as capable of consent, but an antinatalist stance deals in entities before conception, to which the question of consent does not apply.) Lifegiving is neither consensual nor non-consensual; it is not a matter of consent whatsoever. Neither can consent be given or taken retroactively: a child cannot grow up, suffer, and then “retract” their consent to live, because there was no question of consent there in the first place. *No one* is in a position to consent (or not) at the defining moment of their existence. By the time you can consent or not, you already exist, so it's paradoxical to apply questions of consent to nonliving beings. The problem with consent in already-living beings is also not whether something is done without consent, but whether it is done against consent. If the question of consent never appears, you cannot be acting against consent, but you will always be acting “without” consent.
The antinatalist position also falls prey to the problem of induction. Even if all life so far has been suffering, nothing ensures that all life in the future will be the same way. But I still think the biggest problem with antinatalism is misunderstanding the nature of consent.

can someone elaborate on the idea that absence of pain is good but absence of pleasure is "not bad"?

if pain is bad, and someone missing out on pain is good, and pleasure is good, then how is them missing out on pleasure not bad?

Not sure if nihilistic, but self-defeating for sure. Population with anti-natalist sentiment will be simply outbred by population who has more vital outlook on life. Less resources consumed by west, more resources left for central africa. Even now the sub-replacement population barely makes a dent compared to the "traditionally exploding" populations which are more capable of staying near malthusian limit by simply refusing comforts of civilization.

based nick, utilitarians are swine