Is it morally right to have children?

...

>Cumbrain cope

I wish I had children so I could beat them.

Morals don’t care about children

Children don't care about morals.

I don't know but either way you gonna have regrets.

wait why

op is a faggot

A child's care for morals is expressed by the emotional disturbance of being taken by its evolved form

based and kierkegaardpilled

Attached: kierkegaard.png (460x460, 71K)

...

he is reverse /pol/ idiot

give me one reason why we should
cons:
>world is overpopulated
>automation is substituting workplace
>blink of a food and economical crisis

Well I had you, be a little grateful you spoiled brat

My dick is a pulsating phenomenon waiting to trigger :^)

I don't want children as a non-White. My desire for being child free has nothing to do with race. Moreover, I am no longer antinatalist after realizing how difficult it is to apply. It is not tenable, and I cannot get down with promoting antinatalism to European peoples who are being threatened by many external foreign forces. I think ethnic Swedes and Germans should have more kids. Granted, I would love to see USA collapse.

>german
the very race which sought to destroy europe on multiple occasions?

The only people destroying Europe, at present, are Jews and Americans. They were the ones who created the conditions for Migrant Crisis by opposing the secular and noble Assad.
Hitler was the lesser evil compared to Churchill during WWII, and I think if National Socialists won WWII, Europe would be more stable overall. It would also have maintained homogeneity more easily, which is important for cultures to thrive. I am still child-free, but I am no longer an antinatalist because I realize how painful it is to watch one's culture be overrun by foreign infiltrators. Granted, I primarily blame USA and Jews.

>by opposing the secular and noble Assad.
via support for ISIS and Al-Nusra*
Yes, ISIS and Al-Nusra were largely backed by USA and Israel.

It's the only moral imperative

>my double digit iq self would love to see
No one cares dude

Go fuck yourself, condescending faggot. I hope you die some kind of excruciating and terrible accident. Go to hell. Picture is an example of your despicable and vile soul.

Attached: aeronalfrey.jpg (1024x510, 253K)

Yea Forums is thery disgusting place filled with unhuman beings

>implying morality is real
All that matters is the conscious experience of your offspring. If they are healthy and function well in the world then it's worth it. But if they're the offspring of a 4channel poster their future suffering would probably outweigh any positive experience they could get out of life in which it probably is ""immoral"".

Yes. Us pessimists have to get the bad word out there.

Attached: download (2).jpg (225x224, 17K)

>This kind of rhetoric is allowed thanks to Freud

Attached: 1439240592_preview_apu apustaja.png (657x527, 63K)

Nietzsche predates Freud you absolute retard. Read the Genealogy of Morals.

>every day I think about a son or daughter sitting beside me and reflect on how aggrieved and furious with myself I would be, having forced this person into existence, knowing what I know about hell and the cosmos.

This is the kind of antinatalism I always wanted.

Attached: images.png (214x236, 10K)

Perhaps, but ad-hominems can be brought in under the guise of psychoanalysis, which was founded by Freud.

Ad hominem is not what you think it is. Ad hominem is saying "you're wrong because you're a retard". Observing groups, their culture, etc., and deriving their morals from those observations (as Nietzsche did in GoM) is not ad hom. Nietzsche aptly noted that Christians, being in a position of weakness, adopted a morality that glorifies weakness as a result. That's not ad hom. It's culture.

>Ad hominem is saying "you're wrong because you're a retard"

No, that's an insult. Ironically enough, this makes you retarded. Ad Hominem literally means inquiring into the character of the person making an argument.

An insult would me just saying "you're retarded". Saying "you're wrong BECAUSE you're retarded" makes it an argument which makes it ad hominem. Saying "you're wrong. Also, you're a retard" is an insult again. Happy to help.

No, all of them are insults and if if that were withstanding, it is also ad-hominem to question the character of the persons putting an argument forward, and that is what you are doing. Not happy to help, you are a douchebag.

Attached: ubtjy0mgz9o11.jpg (957x621, 71K)

Antinatalism is correct. It is patently immoral to bring children into this world, knowing what we know about what their future is likely to be like.
Conversely, I would argue that it is moral to have kids ONLY if one has dedicated their life to deliberately struggle so that the future is better than we have reason to expect. Not doing so, and having kids anyway, is the peak of depravity.

It's actually an appeal to motive, which is a type of ad hominem, but an appeal to motive is not necessarily a fallacy. What Nietzsche did is use his psychologization as a genealogy in order to explain how what he considered to be wrong came about, not to declare it as wrong.

Nietzsche's argument is: contemporary moral systems are wrong, and they are the expression of psychological desires.

It is not: contemporary moral systems are wrong because they are the expression of psychological desires.

k kid

>Nietzsche's argument is: contemporary moral systems are wrong, and they are the expression of psychological desires.

>It is not: contemporary moral systems are wrong because they are the expression of psychological desires.

Wrong. Nietzsche used the genealogical method (as did Foucault afterwards) to undermine the absolutist notion of morality altogether. Moralities built out of an appeal to some Absolute (God, Nature, Science, etc.); the genealogical method displays the inherent subjectivity of these (how they are constructed, how they could’ve been different if conditions were different). Nietzsche doesn’t call them “wrong”, that would be very anti-Nietzschean. Like Spinoza, he argues that ‘good’ and ‘bad, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are variable to human psyche and perspectives. Nietzsche deliberatedly deploys the inherent power of ad hominem by pointing to the slavish foundations of Christian morality. It’s mot “wrong” because of some rationalitic argument, it’s wrong cause it comes from a tradition of weakness, and resentment, that praises death and chastises life. Nietzsche’s vitalism isn’t founded on reason, it’s an attitude you’re free to take when you realize the limits of reason to dictate ethics,

Thanks I didn't actually know what I was talking about but you get a better answer when you just claim bullshit instead of asking.

No, antinatalism is more of an appeal against the lack of autonomy that the act of birth implies. Also the inherent suffering of existence versus nonexistence.

Only if you are willing to put the effort in and be a good parent. Accidents happen though so man up.

I dont think the world has ever seen such a moronic sophistic retard as Schopenhauer. Honestly, his entire career was built upon nonsensical notions that he pulls from his ass. Will never understand how he rose so high.

But what will we eat?

Attached: 220px-A_Modest_Proposal_1729_Cover.jpg (220x385, 29K)

all life affirmation is cumbrain

>not yet being
>phenomenon

Where do I start with schopenhauer?

Attached: 1541965262718.jpg (547x531, 81K)

You can't underesdant him because you are cunbrain

It’s also morally right to not have children

Sportfucking is just fine

it's morally correct right now

there is no objective morality so the question is silly. I believe one should only reproduce if they know their off spring will have a high quality of life. I wouldnt dare have a son if i knew he were to be doomed to the same fate as myself

Off course like all animals we are biologically programmed to reproduce and most of us give little concern to the consequences

Yes.

+

No

Why does everything you do have to be morally right? Morally neutral is good enough for me.

The world isn't anywhere near overpopulated, we could easily fit the current population into a single continent and it wouldn't even be overcrowded.

>blink of a food crisis
Even utilizing the absolute worst climate change predictions food crisis's would be regional and could be easily managed by utilizing surplus.