this post was submitted on 31 May 2023
14 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10168 readers
2 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think it's a flawed premise based on my limited understanding of what I have read
Life entails inevitable suffering.
Death is inevitable.
Humans (and all forms of life) are born without their consent, no one chooses whether or not they come into existence.
Although some people may turn out to be happy, this is not guaranteed, so to procreate is to gamble with another person's suffering without their consent.
Therefore it is immoral to create life.
The problem that I have with this is it also is making the choice for the potential life. If you ask anybody at end of life if they were glad they existed or the life they had, and if given the choice to have existed or existing again under the same conditions of their current life, they would choose to have existed/exist the same. Therefore, I think it is just as immoral to take the potential away.
Existence is also a choice. If at any point you no longer consent to existing, there exists a mechanism for accomplishing that. It is not accepted by society (we are making progress in some areas such as assisted suicide for terminal illness) but it doesn't mean you are bound to abide by those 'rules'.
I think that this kind of philosophy leads to very weird conclusions, that's why I abstain from it.
I'm not certain which side you are falling on? Anti-Natalism leads to weird conclusions, or my thinking leads to weird conclusions?
The reality is that they BOTH do, so that shouldn't be used as a basis for making that decision.
This part