Fed up with the 'you must have children' propaganda

[Kulindahr]

The argument does not hinge on real pain and pleasure, but on pain and pleasure that does not exist.

Look at 3) and 4) again: they talk about absent pain, and absent pleasure.

The asymmetry arises because the absence of pain is good (like the presence of pain is bad) BUT ASYMMETRICALLY the absence of pleasure is not bad (like the presence of pleasure is good).

Therefore, there is no harm in non-existence in the first place; whereas, there is harm in existence.

Benetar's argument is that the harm (however much) entailed by existence is enough to make harm-free non-existence preferable.

It's still a binary argument. If one minute of joy outweighs months or years of pleasure, then the comparison fails.

Arguing that that which does not exist can have value in the first place is ludicrous. The argument is just mind games.

It's not self-evident that it's immoral for the human race to end. I hold the opposite view, that it would be a very good thing to happen. (And the reason is that, our violent competitive, opportunistic nature does too much damage to the world.)

Acting to end the human race would be genocide. It doesn't matter if you're killing people or preventing them from being born, it's still genocide.

 

[Kulindahr]

Should've your parents corrected your homosexuality if they could've?

You can't "correct" something that's not an error.

Besides that, the evidence shows that there isn't any way to prevent it in the first place.

 

[zoltanspawn]

It's still a binary argument. If one minute of joy outweighs months or years of pleasure, then the comparison fails.

The comparison is between existence and non-existence, not between pain and pleasure. Pain and pleasure only explain why non-existence in the first place is preferable to existence. Benetar is demonstrating that there is more harm in even a single moment's painful existence than in non-existence at all.

Arguing that that which does not exist can have value in the first place is ludicrous. The argument is just mind games.

I'm pretty sure we value lots of things for not existing in the first place. Surely you don't need an example of something we prize for being absent.

In the case of procreation, we face a very practical, real, sensible consequence (a human life) as the outcome of our choice. A mind game? No.

Acting to end the human race would be genocide. It doesn't matter if you're killing people or preventing them from being born, it's still genocide.

What rhetoric. We are talking about freely making a choice to not procreate; nobody is 'preventing' another from doing what they wish. Are you suddenly Catholic on reproduction? And need we clarify that genocides are aimed at particular kinds or classes of people?

 

[Disturbance]

The comparison is between existence and non-existence, not between pain and pleasure. Pain and pleasure only explain why non-existence in the first place is preferable to existence. Benetar is demonstrating that there is more harm in even a single moment's painful existence than in non-existence at all.



I'm pretty sure we value lots of things for not existing in the first place. Surely you don't need an example of something we prize for being absent.

In the case of procreation, we face a very practical, real, sensible consequence (a human life) as the outcome of our choice. A mind game? No.



What rhetoric. We are talking about freely making a choice to not procreate; nobody is 'preventing' another from doing what they wish. Are you suddenly Catholic on reproduction? And need we clarify that genocides are aimed at particular kinds or classes of people?

Well maybe you should start the eradication of the human race with yourself. You have the right to make decisions for yourself, but not for anyone else, so go ahead.

 

[ElmosToe]

This discussion is quite disturbing.

Calling Hitler....Eugenics is back.


disgusting.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Well maybe you should start the eradication of the human race with yourself. You have the right to make decisions for yourself, but not for anyone else, so go ahead.

Completely untroubled?

 

[Disturbance]

Completely untroubled?

Not as long as you live

 

[zoltanspawn]

Not as long as you live

Oh. I missed your joke about suicide. Funny stuff.

People with a visceral reaction to the argument love to deliberately confuse something as uncontroversial as contraception with suicide.

But of course there is an obvious--a painfully obvious--difference between not procreating and killing oneself.

 

[Disturbance]

Oh. I missed your joke about suicide. Funny stuff.

People with a visceral reaction to the argument love to deliberately confuse something as uncontroversial as contraception with suicide.

But of course there is an obvious--a painfully obvious--difference between not procreating and killing oneself.

Are you going to kill yourself or not?

 

[zoltanspawn]

Are you going to kill yourself or not?

Because you've arbitrarily encouraged me to?

 

[Kulindahr]

The comparison is between existence and non-existence, not between pain and pleasure. Pain and pleasure only explain why non-existence in the first place is preferable to existence. Benetar is demonstrating that there is more harm in even a single moment's painful existence than in non-existence at all.

It doesn't work that way. For his argument to have substance, he has to have a definition of pain and pleasure. His is binary: pleasure, or pain, no scale of either, just one or the other.

And non-existence cannot be "preferable", because there's no one there to "prefer" it. Preference applies only once you exist. Pain and pleasure only apply once you exist, so there's no value at all to non-existence, it's a null.

It's nothing but a sophomoric mind game.

I'm pretty sure we value lots of things for not existing in the first place. Surely you don't need an example of something we prize for being absent.

We don't prize anything "for being absent" -- we can only prize things that exist. What we prize is not the absence of something, but the conditions which pertain in its absence.

In the case of procreation, we face a very practical, real, sensible consequence (a human life) as the outcome of our choice. A mind game? No.

The "logic" is a mind game. No one has kids in order to make them suffer, which is what has to be considered if we're talking about real people. But he isn't talking about real people, he's talking about aetherial philosophy which has no connection to the human condition.

Existence brings the possibility of joy. Non-existence brings nothing. That's what you get when you look at a "very practical, real, sensible consequence (a human life)".

If you really believed that, you'd end your own life, because the future prospect of continued existence can be measured by the same "asymmetry".

 

[Kulindahr]

Because you've arbitrarily encouraged me to?

No, because your "asymmetry" argument applies to your future just as much as to the future of hypothetical people. Your own approval of the "asymmetry" argument means you should end your life.

That you have not done so demonstrates that you don't really believe the argument.

 

[Disturbance]

Because you've arbitrarily encouraged me to?

I'm merely curious.
I would be happy if you did, but of course I do not wish to force this on you.

Well I would if I had the power, but I do not.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm merely curious.
I would be happy if you did, but of course I do not wish to force this on you.

Well I would if I had the power, but I do not.

What, force people to be philosophically consistent? No government sufficiently large could possibly exist.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Should've your parents corrected your homosexuality if they could've?

That's completely incomparable with saying my parents are bad people "shaming" some part of my identity if they didn't want me to have cystic fibrosis and had a medical option to prevent it.

 

[xbuzzerx]

This discussion is quite disturbing.

Calling Hitler....Eugenics is back.


disgusting.

Oh please.

My boss's wife's family has a very rare autoimmune disease that killed her mother, and which one of the three children is now incapacitated in full-time medical care with. Because of this disease, the fact that it's genetic, and the fact that it can show up amongst any of the kids, they opted to adopt children rather than having their own. They have two now.

"Omg, they're just like Hitler."

 

[Kulindahr]

This discussion is quite disturbing.

Calling Hitler....Eugenics is back.


disgusting.

Um, no. Genetic counseling is not eugenics in the Nazi sense at all. Eugenics is imposed, dictating what characteristics are allowed; genetic counseling allows prospective parents to protect against having children with known genetic disorders.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's completely incomparable with saying my parents are bad people "shaming" some part of my identity if they didn't want me to have cystic fibrosis and had a medical option to prevent it.

Or Down Syndrome. Or Haemophilia. Or Klinefelter syndrome. Or Tay–Sachs disease. Or Turner syndrome. Or any of a number of others.

We shouldn't even talk about selecting for beneficial characteristics until we've gotten a handle on the defects.

 

[mikey3000]

That child could've just as easily been debilitated by a car accident too. Should we kill all handicapped people? When you dictate procreation along some sort of genetic guideline, you are opening a whole Pandora's box of grief. If you try to irradicate genetic "defects", the word defect will become subjective by many different groups. And like it or not, homosexuality is genetic, isn't it? But this is a gay forum, so of course homosexuality is an acceptable genetic defect. Silly me. Yeah, this reeks of supremacy and a master race.

 

[Disturbance]

That child could've just as easily been debilitated by a car accident too. Should we kill all handicapped people? When you dictate procreation along some sort of genetic guideline, you are opening a whole Pandora's box of grief. If you try to irradicate genetic "defects", the word defect will become subjective by many different groups. And like it or not, homosexuality is genetic, isn't it? But this is a gay forum, so of course homosexuality is an acceptable genetic defect. Silly me. Yeah, this reeks of supremacy and a master race.

Homosexuality is genetic only according to SOME research.

There is research that claims that it has much more to do with exposure to certain hormones in the womb, as the hormones influence the development of the brain.

Also, keep in mind that heterosexuality is a mutation, and the original "normal" behaviour was homosexuality. This all got screwed up when a second gender entered the picture.