Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Discussion Counter argument for antinatalism

gimmedatrope999

gimmedatrope999

Life is but a dream
-
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Posts
2,255
Online
73d 19h 4m
Does anyone here have any good counter arguments for antinatalism? I believe it to be pretty logically sound and have yet to find any sufficient arguments against it. Procreation is selfish and by not having kids you are preventing a lifetime of suffering. Life for most is a terrible experience and by not having children you’re preventing someone from ever having to deal with the pain and anguish associated with living.
 
Deleted member 36828

Deleted member 36828

Hypogonadism destroyed me
-
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Posts
2,319
Online
19d 13h 52m
Antinatalism implies morals, which is already reaching cope territory. But even then, what do you mean by suffering? Suffering is just a chemical reaction in the brain necessary for survival, so reducing "suffering" doesnt really mean anything. By giving life you also increase happiness and joy in the world anyway, not just suffering
 
gimmedatrope999

gimmedatrope999

Life is but a dream
-
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Posts
2,255
Online
73d 19h 4m
Antinatalism implies morals, which is already reaching cope territory. But even then, what do you mean by suffering?
By suffering I mean anything that causes a sentient being to feel pain, whether it be physical or mental/emotional.

Suffering is just a chemical reaction in , so reducing "suffering" doesnt really mean anything.
Do you like feeling pain? What's stoping you from harming yourself right now and why?
By giving life you also increase happiness and joy in the world anyway, not just suffering
To many people the happiness and joy isn't worth the suffering.
 
Despondent Dreamer

Despondent Dreamer

Recruit
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 1, 2021
Posts
404
Online
16d 18h 58m
Well there is the argument that value is subjectively defined, and there is nothing to compel us what to do or not do. I don't really buy this argument though, because we make value judgements all the time even while knowing that we'll never have all the information, and knowing that our powers of reasoning are limited. Objectivity being impossible doesn't stop people from defining value, so why should we?

But beyond that, I don't think that antinatalism will ever resolve the problem which it presents. The vast majority of humans will never accept antinatalism, and as a result the entire manner of thinking could be seen as DNA wiping out it's disordered elements. So advocacy might well further the propagation of humans/biological life, as opposed to helping to end it. Really the only solution would be continued human existence until someone develops an adequate force multiplier. But what good does this speculating do now?

I agree that coming into existence is a harm, I would say that it can only ever be negative value (for a variety of reasons which are way beyond the scope of this thread), but the idea that you'll ever convince most people to agree with you seems not only silly to me, but outright counterproductive towards the intended goal.
 
Last edited:
gimmedatrope999

gimmedatrope999

Life is but a dream
-
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Posts
2,255
Online
73d 19h 4m
I don't think that antinatalism will ever resolve the problem which it presents. The vast majority of humans will never accept antinatalism, and as a result the entire manner of thinking could be seen as DNA wiping out it's disordered elements. So advocacy might well further the propagation of humans/biological life, as opposed to helping to end it. Really the only solution would be continued human existence until someone develops and adequate force multiplier. But what good does this speculating do now?

I agree that coming into existence is a harm, I would say that it can only ever be negative value (for a variety of reasons which are way beyond the scope of this thread), but the idea that you'll ever convince most people to agree with you seems not only silly to me, but outright counterproductive towards the intended goal.
We both know that humans are going to face extinction. Antinatalism simply offers a less painful road to travel. It also explains why existence is a harm, which I think is important to those who value reason.
 
Selbsthass

Selbsthass

Lebensunwertes Leben
★★
Joined
Nov 19, 2021
Posts
1,149
Online
20d 18h 39m
We both know that humans are going to face extinction. Antinatalism simply offers a less painful road to travel. It also explains why existence is a harm, which I think is important to those who value reason.
Pretty much answered why antinatalism will not be accepted by the majority. Humans operate solely on the animal instincts and what is hardwired in their behavior is the will to procreate. No matter how much people try to glamorize life, set the artificial rules for themselves in form of values, in the end the goal of life is to find a partner, reproduce and then make room for a new generation. It's sort of perpetuum mobile, or rather the never ending cycle of life and death. There is no less painful way of extinction as antinatalistic one would mean that at some point elderly would not be able to be cared for, that is of course provided that majority of the human population would accept the antinatalistic approach.

But beyond that, I don't think that antinatalism will ever resolve the problem which it presents. The vast majority of humans will never accept antinatalism, and as a result the entire manner of thinking could be seen as DNA wiping out it's disordered elements. So advocacy might well further the propagation of humans/biological life, as opposed to helping to end it. Really the only solution would be continued human existence until someone develops an adequate force multiplier. But what good does this speculating do now?
False excessive humanism is the issue. Even if only perfect individuals were allowed to procreate there could still be a possibility of a less fortunate gene recombination or even expression of recessive genes which would result in a birth of an undesirable specimen. Due to concepts that are completely contrary to human nature such as will to preserve every life at every cost this would revert us back to the original problem. Sure there would be less flawed people, but for the unfortunate minority I assume the existence would be even more agonizing that it is for low value society members today.
 
gimmedatrope999

gimmedatrope999

Life is but a dream
-
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Posts
2,255
Online
73d 19h 4m
Pretty much answered why antinatalism will not be accepted by the majority. Humans operate solely on the animal instincts and what is hardwired in their behavior is the will to procreate. No matter how much people try to glamorize life, set the artificial rules for themselves in form of values, in the end the goal of life is to find a partner, reproduce and then make room for a new generation. It's sort of perpetuum mobile, or rather the never ending cycle of life and death. There is no less painful way of extinction as antinatalistic one would mean that at some point elderly would not be able to be cared for, that is of course provided that majority of the human population would accept the antinatalistic approach.


False excessive humanism is the issue. Even if only perfect individuals were allowed to procreate there could still be a possibility of a less fortunate gene recombination or even expression of recessive genes which would result in a birth of an undesirable specimen. Due to concepts that are completely contrary to human nature such as will to preserve every life at every cost this would revert us back to the original problem. Sure there would be less flawed people, but for the unfortunate minority I assume the existence would be even more agonizing that it is for low value society members today.
It seems to me that you agree with the Antinatalist position even though it'll never be implemented. That's good enough for me.
 
Despondent Dreamer

Despondent Dreamer

Recruit
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 1, 2021
Posts
404
Online
16d 18h 58m
We both know that humans are going to face extinction. Antinatalism simply offers a less painful road to travel. It also explains why existence is a harm, which I think is important to those who value reason.
What I'm getting at is that if the reason for your antinatalism advocacy comes from a desire to reduce suffering, or to eliminate the very source of problems faced by anyone, then I would argue that in the long-term you might not be reducing suffering at all.

Let me put it another way, what do you suppose will be the result of a group of honest and high empathy people deciding not to procreate? Ironically many of the best people suited to both having and raising children will be actively deciding not to do so. You can't fight a battle against a process in which you play by the rules of said process ensuring that people who disagree with you are selected for (natural selection is a bitch). You may not need to procreate to spread ideas, but your capacity to accept them certainly has genetic components, and remember that spreading the ideas isn't enough anyway since most people will never accept them.

I don't think you will ever be able to convince anything close to a majority of humans to stop procreating. Our bias for existence/experience is too strong, our desire to have children is an entirely selfish one (why would selfish people care), and ultimately we have far too much cognitive bias within us for most people to be capable of identifying or mitigating. On an individual level some people can overcome these barriers, but this isn't a problem capable of being resolved by a few individuals, at least not if the method is to get humans to stop having children.

At best I think trying to convince people is an exercise in futility. Sure I agree with you, but how many share my viewpoint? More importantly, how will you ever get them to do so? You can't get the process to stop of it's own volition, it has to be forcibly turned off.
 
incelerated

incelerated

shortcel, framecel, mentalcel
-
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Posts
12,104
Online
106d 8h 25m
There are none.
 
trying to ascend

trying to ascend

Youngcel KHHV
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Posts
13,116
Online
330d 23h 5m
That most people enjoy life and prefer it over death.

Also, why are pain and suffering objectively bad? I see many people using it as an axiom when it comes down to utilitarianism
 
Last edited:
gimmedatrope999

gimmedatrope999

Life is but a dream
-
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Posts
2,255
Online
73d 19h 4m
What I'm getting at is that if the reason for your antinatalism advocacy comes from a desire to reduce suffering, or to eliminate the very source of problems faced by anyone, then I would argue that in the long-term you might not be reducing suffering at all.
I agree, I was simply looking for any good arguments against it since I have yet to find one. Most counter-arguments I find against the position come from a place of emotion. It's a very sensitive topic that many people are afraid to discuss.
You can't get the process to stop of it's own volition, it has to be forcibly turned off.
Oh it will be. No doubt about it.
That most people enjoy life and prefer it over death.
Most people enjoy life because they were biologically programmed to.
Also, why are pain and suffering objectively bad? I see many people using it as an axiom when it comes down to utilitarianism
Pain and suffering aren't objectively bad, but most people would agree that they wouldn't like to experience those feelings.Again, everything comes down to Biology. Also, Antinatalism isn't a utilitarian position.
 
Last edited:
Despondent Dreamer

Despondent Dreamer

Recruit
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 1, 2021
Posts
404
Online
16d 18h 58m
That most people enjoy life and prefer it over death.

Also, why are pain and suffering objectively bad? I see many people using it as an axiom on utilitarianism
Why is pleasure objectively good? What about this life warrants taking an action in the form of procreating to further it, as opposed to doing nothing at all? If we're coming at this from a position of pure neutrality, there is no objective reason to procreate in the first place. Even if you disagree with my understanding of value, it doesn't matter, because I don't even need to try to define and gauge value to prove my point.

The question isn't why should people not procreate, it's why should they procreate. The reasons for taking an action have to be decided first.

People preferring life over death is irrelevant, since there is objective and discernible reason to create life. Whether or not people should die is beyond the topic of this thread.
 
trying to ascend

trying to ascend

Youngcel KHHV
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Posts
13,116
Online
330d 23h 5m
Why is pleasure objectively good? What about this life warrants taking an action in the form of procreating to further it, as opposed to doing nothing at all? If we're coming at this from a position of pure neutrality, there is no objective reason to procreate in the first place. Even if you disagree with my understanding of value, it doesn't matter, because I don't even need to try to define and gauge value to prove my point.

The question isn't why should people not procreate, it's why should they procreate. The reasons for taking an action have to be decided first.

People preferring life over death is irrelevant, since there is objective and discernible reason to create life. Whether or not people should die is beyond the topic of this thread.
I never said it was, I'm not even utilitarian. Though the only reason I can see, is that pleasure makes you, sometimes, keep engaging in experiences that are benefitial/non harmful to your health, the opposite applies to suffering. But when it comes down to unecessary pleasure, I guess it falls in the same category as unecessary suffering and pain, both cannot be objectively good or bad (never saw any argument proving it, I'd be thankful if you could send me one).

Why do they need a reason to do it? As far as I know, there is no objective reason for you to do anything, there is no maxim that says we all should do X or why that X is important. All prescriptions are subjective afterall, so you can't just apply that to procreation.

Of course its relevant, the topic was not discussing the purpose of procreation, but using suffering as an argument against it. That's why I'm saying that suffering cannot be used as an argument against procreation, once most people enjoy life
What do you mean by this?
I guess he meant ''No objective and discernible reason to create life''
 
Last edited:
Caesercel

Caesercel

Salem’s Lot Cel
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Posts
19,184
Online
323d 15h 26m
The real problem is consciousness. No phenomena in this world, biological or otherwise should become self aware. Pain is a part of it but not the whole thing. If the human experience consisted of nothing but endless pleasure it still won't make human existence any more meaningful or invalidate the merits of anti-natalism.
 
gimmedatrope999

gimmedatrope999

Life is but a dream
-
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Posts
2,255
Online
73d 19h 4m
The real problem is consciousness. No phenomena in this world, biological or otherwise should become self aware.
couldn't agree more
 
Despondent Dreamer

Despondent Dreamer

Recruit
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 1, 2021
Posts
404
Online
16d 18h 58m
What do you mean by this?
Why do they need a reason to do it? As far as I know, there is no objective reason for you to do nothing, there is no maxim that says we all should do X or why that X is important. All prescriptions are subjective afterall, so you can't just apply that to procreation.
I mean that people usually try to get us to prove a negative. There is no objective reason to procreate, and we don't even have to prove why someone shouldn't until people can provide a reason why we should.

What the reason consists of mostly boils down to "because I want to", essentially saying that they can't come up with a better reason to do something than the simple desire to do it. When you understand this, it makes you entirely aware that people are willing to impose all that potential for harm with no better reason that because they want to do so.

It's a process which doesn't need to exist, being perpetuated by people simply because they want to do so, and their desire is a direct result of programming to further the process. It's cyclical, pointless, and we have no objective reason to continue it.
Of course its relevant, the topic was not discussing the purpose of procreation, but using suffering as an argument against it. That's why I'm saying that suffering cannot be used as an argument against procreation, once most people enjoy life
I see, of course you were addressing OP's argument. How can you address an argument which I have yet to make? Jfl, I'm a little tired.

Anyway, you have a point. But what happens when they don't enjoy life? Do you think it's right to knowingly subject someone to a life which they may not want, a life which our instincts usually prevent us from escaping short of very dire circumstances (extreme pain, extreme hopelessness, incoming crisis, etc). I can recognize that for me at least it would be better if I didn't exist, yet right now I can't make myself end it at this very moment. Don't you see how this is troublesome?

A nonexistent person can't be deprived of pleasure, and can't experience pain, so how do you justify bringing people into existence?
The real problem is consciousness. No phenomena in this world, biological or otherwise should become self aware. Pain is a part of it but not the whole thing. If the human experience consisted of nothing but endless pleasure it still won't make human existence any more meaningful or invalidate the merits of anti-natalism.
Zapffe thought the same tbh, I entirely agree with him.
 
Berrycel

Berrycel

Greycel
Joined
Nov 14, 2021
Posts
16
Online
22h 19m
Antinatalism, at least as it is often presented, is problematic. Should you have children? No. Is having children among the worst things you can do in your life? Yes.

But there are two considerations here that come to mind. The first is the impracticality of it. Not everyone will accept antinatalism, and this has to be taken into consideration. If those who do not care about ethics are the ones having children, this can lead to problems down the road. In other words, the worst of us would be having the most of us.

The other consideration relates to non-human animals. AN doesn't really account for them. Benatar says his approach does, but it's hard to see how. Regardless, we cannot convince animals to stop breeding. A more invasive technique will have to be used to solve the non-human animal problem. And if only humans leave this hell and leave the rest of the animals to fend for themselves, that is not much of an improvement. Nature is terrible. Efilism addresses this, but there is no actionable plan. Nobody even knows where to start with the efilists' noble goal.

Also, to all those saying value is subjective or whatever, that is not the case. There is no objective morality handed down from the heavens. But your suffering has value. Why? Because when you suffer, you recognize "This is awful and bad and I want it to end". That is the basis of morality - limiting the liability of suffering things.
 
gimmedatrope999

gimmedatrope999

Life is but a dream
-
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Posts
2,255
Online
73d 19h 4m
Also, to all those saying value is subjective or whatever, that is not the case. There is no objective morality handed down from the heavens. But your suffering has value. Why? Because when you suffer, you recognize "This is awful and bad and I want it to end". That is the basis of morality - limiting the liability of suffering things.
Morality doesn't exist.
 
Berrycel

Berrycel

Greycel
Joined
Nov 14, 2021
Posts
16
Online
22h 19m
Zapffe thought the same tbh, I entirely agree with him.
I like Zapffe. Too bad his main work isn't translated into English. But I think it's a mistake to "entirely agree with him". Consciousness may provide new opportunities for suffering. But the primary problem is sentience. Self-awareness is just icing on the suffering cake.
 
Despondent Dreamer

Despondent Dreamer

Recruit
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 1, 2021
Posts
404
Online
16d 18h 58m
I like Zapffe. Too bad his main work isn't translated into English. But I think it's a mistake to "entirely agree with him". Consciousness may provide new opportunities for suffering. But the primary problem is sentience. Self-awareness is just icing on the suffering cake.
I should've worded my statement better.

I entirely agree with Zapffe's idea that the primary cause of human suffering is our cognition, and there is a lot of evidence for this. We seem to be the only creatures which can suffer simply as a result of understanding our own existence. People engage in a lifelong battle against the pain their intellect causes them. This don't mean that other forms of suffering are unimportant (not at all), or that other animals suffering isn't also a problem. Just because I agree with this specific idea of his doesn't mean that I think that life without humans has any value either, or that it should continue.
 
Berrycel

Berrycel

Greycel
Joined
Nov 14, 2021
Posts
16
Online
22h 19m
Morality doesn't exist.
Hmm...depends on what you mean by morality. But sure, I can rephrase. Preventing and ameliorating suffering is the closest thing to a morality, and should be treated as such. The problem comes when you wonder, "How can I/we prevent suffering?"
The best thing to do is to limit having new lives. Preventing births here and there is a fine thing to do, but it doesn't solve the problem of suffering. The best thing to do would be to rid this planet of the awfulness of sentience, of life. How do we do that? I haven't a clue, nor does anyone I'm aware of. The world is a big place and life is unfortunately everywhere. "Just nuke it", as I've seen some suggest elsewhere, wouldn't work even if we had the ability to enact such a plan.
I should've worded my statement better.

I entirely agree with Zapffe's idea that the primary cause of human suffering is our cognition, and there is a lot of evidence for this. We seem to be the only creatures which can suffer simply as a resulting of understanding our own existence. People engage in a lifelong battle against the pain their intellect causes them. This don't mean that other forms of suffering are unimportant (not at all), or that other animals suffering isn't also a problem. Just because I agree with this specific idea of his doesn't mean that I think that life without humans has any value either, or that it should continue.
Ah ok. Seems like we are on the same page. The problems faced by us humans are unfortunately heightened by the curse of consciousness.
 
Last edited:
gimmedatrope999

gimmedatrope999

Life is but a dream
-
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Posts
2,255
Online
73d 19h 4m
Preventing and ameliorating suffering is the closest thing to a morality, and should be treated as such.
That's just an opinion.
 
Berrycel

Berrycel

Greycel
Joined
Nov 14, 2021
Posts
16
Online
22h 19m
That's just an opinion.
No it is not. It's based on the universality of the badness of suffering. It's not "my opinion" that it matters when people are harmed. That harm has real value (or rather, disvalue), and morality ought to be used to limit this disvalue. How do we do this? I don't know - it's an ongoing question.
 
trying to ascend

trying to ascend

Youngcel KHHV
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Posts
13,116
Online
330d 23h 5m
I mean that people usually try to get us to prove a negative. There is no objective reason to procreate, and we don't even have to prove why someone shouldn't until people can provide a reason why we should.

What the reason consists of mostly boils down to "because I want to", essentially saying that they can't come up with a better reason to do something than the simple desire to do it. When you understand this, it makes you entirely aware that people are willing to impose all that potential for harm with no better reason that because they want to do so.

It's a process which doesn't need to exist, being perpetuated by people simply because they want to do so, and their desire is a direct result of programming to further the process. It's cyclical, pointless, and we have no objective reason to continue it.

I see, of course you were addressing OP's argument. How can you address an argument which I have yet to make? Jfl, I'm a little tired.

Anyway, you have a point. But what happens when they don't enjoy life? Do you think it's right to knowingly subject someone to a life which they may not want, a life which our instincts usually prevent us from escaping short of very dire circumstances (extreme pain, extreme hopelessness, incoming crisis, etc). I can recognize that for me at least it would be better if I didn't exist, yet right now I can't make myself end it at this very moment. Don't you see how this is troublesome?

A nonexistent person can't be deprived of pleasure, and can't experience pain, so how do you justify bringing people into existence?

Zapffe thought the same tbh, I entirely agree with him.
Looking by that nihilistic optic, nothing has value and everything is pointless, therefore none of us can proof if procreating is either immoral or moral, so procreation is amoral. The burden of proof relies on both of us, once there is no ought, one shouldn't prevented or encouraged to do it. Also, wouldn't the purpose be to maximize one's pleasure (or reduce suffering)? Supposing you are utilitarian (supposing you are a negative one).

Why you think something that is pointless shouldn't be done?

Is there something wrong about doing something because you feel like doing it? Most actions boil down to egoism. You think egoism is evil?

Instincts take part on one's evaluation of life, I don't know why you want to separate it, there is no way to give an objective value to life. One can think life with extreme pain, extreme hopelessness and so on is better than death, you can't objectively value life, that's why the only (as far as I know) way is take in consideration the suicide rates.

A nonexstent person is an oxymoron.

My main two arguments are

1-Pleasure x Suffering when it comes down to the whole population's judgement. This same person can't experience life and though life's brings suffering, life it is preferrable over death by most, therefore the odds are that the child will be benefited from the parent's actions.

2-One can't predict if it's offspring will live a life of suffering, since the latter isn't a logical consequence from birth. Therefore you can't classify its actions as immoral.

Now if you argue that any ammount of suffering, regardless of the ammount of pleasure, makes an action immoral, then all the points are useless. But that's assuming that suffering is bad, therefore you are not looking at it through a nihilistic optic.

Also, would it be immoral to not (inaction) bring one to existence? Assuming that this one would live a life of pure pleasure, no suffering
 
trying to ascend

trying to ascend

Youngcel KHHV
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Posts
13,116
Online
330d 23h 5m
Also, you are not dooming those people (once they have a choice to continue alive or not) to a pain situation nor directly (once existence alone doesn't imply pain) causing it to them
 
Despondent Dreamer

Despondent Dreamer

Recruit
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 1, 2021
Posts
404
Online
16d 18h 58m
Also, wouldn't the purpose be to maximize one's pleasure (or reduce suffering)? Supposing you are utilitarian (supposing you are a negative one).
I'm a negative utilitarian, yes.

I agree with utilitarianism's notion that we should reduce and ideally eliminate suffering, but I don't think that maximizing pleasure or happiness is something we should focus on. Or more specifically, I think that attempting to do the latter is misunderstanding what pleasure even is in the first place.
Why you think something that is pointless shouldn't be done?
I don't think that.

I think that it shouldn't be done because of the potential for harm and the inevitability of harm. When I'm talking about life's propagation being pointless, I'm saying that we have no reason to continue it. The reasons why we shouldn't do it are separate from that.
Is there something wrong about doing something because you feel like doing it?
Not intrinsically.

I would say that it's wrong in this context because it's creating the very capacity for suffering, that it provides nothing (or at least nothing needed because it's creating need), and that just wanting to procreate isn't nearly a good enough reason to do so.
1-Pleasure x Suffering when it comes down to the whole population's judgement. This same person can't experience life and though life's brings suffering, life it is preferrable over death by most, therefore the odds are that the child will be benefited from the parent's actions.
Now I'll go back to what I was getting at about pleasure.

Pleasure is ultimately enslaved to deprivation, and that as far as I can ascertain, just about everything pleasurable in life comes as a result of relieving some preexisting need. While I haven't tried every potential source of pleasure, specifically hard drugs, it would seem that these create a need of their own (and are typically used to cope with pain, both physical and emotional), so idk to what extent these could possibly be separate. Another thing to keep in mind is that much of what we do is done in an effort to relieve boredom, and it can be easily determined that having nothing to do causes suffering for us in and of itself, just look at solitary confinement.

I'm saying that pleasure is a measured reduction in negative utility which we're mistaking to be an independent positive. It feels good because we're perceiving the satisfaction of some need as pleasurable, but ultimately this doesn't actually produce anything.

Of course satisfying needs and reducing negative utility are great things, I'm not saying we shouldn't do them. Rather what I'm actually saying is that while it's good to do this stuff, it would be better if we never had the needs in the first place, since we're only reducing or removing harm already done to us through satisfying them.

An example relevant to users here would be sex, and how prior to puberty we didn't want sex. There was no deprivation for us to feel, and no relief to experience as a result of fulfilling a need which we didn't have. So there was no suffering of this kind, and we certainly weren't missing out on sexual pleasure since this pleasure is dependent upon and enslaved to our craving for sex.

I hope this concise explanation is adequate to understand my thoughts on the subject, as I remember mentioning it to you my other thread but I didn't want to derail it too hard.
2-One can't predict if it's offspring will live a life of suffering, since the latter isn't a logical consequence from birth. Therefore you can't classify its actions as immoral.
It is a logical consequence, it's also inevitable and guaranteed. Humans are need machines, and aside from what I already described about the nature of pleasure, you also have the forms of suffering for which there isn't always an obvious or complete relief. Physical pain (especially chronic pain), hopelessness, existential dread, mortality salience, and other problems which come as a cost of our heightened cognition when compared to other animals.
Now if you argue that any ammount of suffering, regardless of the ammount of pleasure, makes an action immoral, then all the points are useless. But that's assuming that suffering is bad, therefore you are not looking at it through a nihilistic optic.
Yeah we're most probably at an impasse, but I thought that I at least owed you an explanation as to why.

Moral nihilism and existential nihilism are obviously two different things, and while I don't fully agree with either of them, I was using an argument based in the latter to make a point. But yes, I only agree with certain aspects of existential nihilism while wholly rejecting it's moral counterpart.
Also, would it be immoral to not (inaction) bring one to existence? Assuming that this one would live a life of pure pleasure, no suffering
Well this isn't a thought that I've explored too much tbh. Suffice it to say that in a hypothetical world where one could experience exclusively pleasure, I don't think that there would be a moral imperative to create life. But I would argue that in this hypothetical universe where pleasure is true positive utility, then even if procreating isn't a moral imperative, you'd still be doing a good thing.

Of course this is predicated on the existence of this person somehow not being dependent upon the suffering of other sentient life.
Also, you are not dooming those people (once they have a choice to continue alive or not) to a pain situation
They still have to experience enough pain to come to the conclusion that suicide is the right choice for them. Needless to say this isn't an easy choice, and we can reasonably assume that for most it requires a lot of pain, due to our bias for our own continued existence/biological programming.

But you're right in the sense that people can thankfully opt out if their suffering becomes too much to bear, which I'm thankful for and is one of the only redeeming things about this life.
 
Last edited:
Reprisial

Reprisial

Subscribe to my YouTube channel!
★★★
Joined
Nov 5, 2021
Posts
784
Online
13d 8h 44m
Most people are either good at coping or don’t need to do it much
 
totalcel

totalcel

Veteran
★★
Joined
Nov 20, 2021
Posts
1,136
Online
31d 20h 50m
“if the will-to-live exists, it cannot, as that which alone is metaphysical or the thing-in-itself, be broken by any force, but that force can destroy only its phenomenon in such a place and at such a time. The will itself cannot be abolished by anything except knowledge. Therefore the only path to salvation is that the will should appear freely and without hindrance, in order that it can recognize or know its own inner nature in this phenomenon.

Only in consequence of this knowledge can the will abolish itself, and thus end the suffering that is inseparable from its phenomenon. This, however, is not possible through physical force, such as the destruction of the seed or germ (contraceptives), the killing of the new-born child, or suicide. Nature leads the will to the light, just because only in the light can it find its salvation. Therefore the purposes of nature are to be promoted in every way, as soon as the will-to-live, that is her inner being, has determined itself."
-The world as will and representation, Vol. I, §69

Not so easy to understand. The creation and and death of beings is mere phenomenon, and does not affect the thing in itself. We cannot free ourselves from existence by circumventing suffering through suicide or using contraceptives, because causality is ideal. Only denial of the will via knowledge only leads to salvation, not physical destruction.

“It is well known that, from time to time, cases repeatedly occur where suicide extends to the children; the father kills the children of whom he is very fond, and then himself. If we bear in mind that conscience, religion, and all traditional ideas teach him to recognize murder as the gravest crime, but yet in the hour of his own death he commits this, and indeed without his having any possible egoistical motive for it, then the deed can be explained only in the following way. The will of the individual again recognizes itself immediately in the children, although it is involved in the delusion of regarding the phenomenon as the being-in-itself. At the same time, he is deeply moved by the knowledge of the misery of all life; he imagines that with the phenomenon he abolishes the inner nature itself, and therefore wants to deliver from existence and its misery both himself and his children in whom he directly sees himself living again. It would be an error wholly analogous to this to suppose that one can reach the same end as is attained by voluntary chastity by frustrating the aims of nature in fecundation, or even by men, in consideration of the inevitable suffering of life, countenancing the death of the new-born child, instead of rather doing everything to ensure life to every being that is pressing into it. ”
 
Last edited:
Caesercel

Caesercel

Salem’s Lot Cel
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Posts
19,184
Online
323d 15h 26m
Not so easy to understand. The creation and and death of beings is mere phenomenon, and does not affect the thing in itself. We cannot free ourselves from existence by circumventing suffering through suicide or using contraceptives, because causality is ideal. Only denial of the will via knowledge only leads to salvation, not physical destruction.
Nigga wat?
 
totalcel

totalcel

Veteran
★★
Joined
Nov 20, 2021
Posts
1,136
Online
31d 20h 50m
Nigga wat?
Nigga basically for the laymen you will keep getting reborn after death or suicide, babies killed or prevented will manifest as another individual elsewhere in another place and time, etc. It's futile. Unless the end is sought through voluntary asceticism.
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
15,156
Online
195d 13h 4m
Posting so I can come back to this later. I have no position on antinatalism, but I will try to produce counter-arguments for it.
 
IncelWithHate

IncelWithHate

Frustrated, highinhib wizardcel
★★★
Joined
Jul 16, 2021
Posts
1,290
Online
20d 7h 53m
Posting so I can come back to this later. I have no position on antinatalism, but I will try to produce counter-arguments for it.

What are the counterarguments?
 
laanda

laanda

pareidolia
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 8, 2021
Posts
7,372
Online
110d 3h 40m
i have a decent argument against antinatalism but the userbase is too biased and hates it. even though it is blackpilled beyond belief. But I am also an antinatalist. That is the general point of this whole thing, just because I am antinatalist, doesnt mean standing my ground and denying any hypothetical breeding would actually ease anything that antinatalism criticizes. I am expected to stand as an example by not breeding just so I don't contradict my tiny opinion on the matter, why would you do that? The species must be wiped out. This forum is full of copes that serve incels, and the idea that the blackpill should only reveal the delusions of sexhavers, and not all of them, as it is supposed to, you know, being unbiased truth and all..


it is much more common for an incel to be anti natalist because its a way to point out evil in a population we were excluded from thus feeling superior to those who do that evil. It's meaningless superiority, they don't even acknowledge it, and are way happier and will not be punished. The fundamental reason I would if I could, still breed despite BEING an antinatalist, is because evil acts in themselves don't matter and 90% of the perpetrators will die without ever being reprimanded for them. The other 10% are mostly made up of unpredictable deaths in the family that weren't caused remotely by any moral conclusions cast on their decision to breed.

I am a strong antinatalist, even thinking humans should be euthanized, instead of waiting for the death of the species.

Just because you believe something, does not CONDEMN you to stand as an example of that belief, and 100% of the time, humans think it does. It just makes a good example and humans love to cope they matter at all.
They think, if you are anti natalist, you should never ever breed. Why? because it breaks your belief? because you think it is 'bad'? why do either of those stop you, by refusing to do something like this because of your opinion on it, you are bowing to social conditioning and suppressing yourself to prove a point while nobody is even listening to you. It's cucked. Practicing your beliefs out of investment in your own example mattering is so deep set me saying this makes no sense to a lot of people, of course, you must stand as example of your beliefs. Every person does this, not only do they believe in movements, they believe they need to act, despite over and over again getting their opinion washed out by the opinions of such large populaces.

The exact same number of people will breed without you and my breeding would not influence anything but +1 to the population

The second point of antinatalism is that any son I had would be pretty doomed to inceldom. This is true and I don't care. I've always known and seen through the highest copes of this species that people qq when you criticize, mourning is one of them, and family is one of them. 'uuuu we are rEeAllaTedD' god i hate social conditioning, that's a meaningless humanist term and I don't need to respect it. He's a separate life form with a separate conciouisness and him feeling sad and alone can only make me feel sad and alone as far as empathy. That isn't remotely comparable to the strength of the positive emotion I could stand to gain. That isn't psychopathic, it's just blackpilled. In fact in both of the reasons I list for Antinatalism, I'm not saying they aren't evil, I'm saying its a cope for you to point out evil despite NEVER getting anything for doing so, you just feel better about yourself, while also not enjoying the overall mood effects of hating breeders, who are everywhere. Also obviously I would be influenced to or not to breed in hypothetical by how free I was to raise my son in an environment and from a woman from which he was at least less likely to be incel.
Once you begin to truly question why you must 'love your family' or 'support your race' or 'hate your enemy', it literally does become just a socially conditioned cope. Incels love to cope they know what it means to not respect the idea of family meanwhile in any situation we are presented with race or the success of our offspring we suddenly give a shit. I don't care if I cause more pain. The species will be in pain until the last member dies and that wont be prevented just by me breeding.

Finally, humans have known for at least two centuries that human happiness is defined by expectation vs reality. In a modern world all this is is a manipulation of our unevolved, bluepilled instincts to survive, stroking them with entertainment and for the lucky, sex and progression, socially, and status wise. Valuing shit in our lives. Child rearing would be by far the best way to farm the expectation vs reality cycle, EVEN AFTER being largely poisoned and made so stressful by the fact adults work 8 hours a day on top of it, ethnics with zero support system to properly raise kids have like eight of them, simply out of selfish pleasure seeking and knowing that wouldnt make me deny a hypothetical fatherhood ascension. Doing this is literally coded into your brain as more rewarding than anything else. I suppose the sadness is none of us will ever experience this. Therefore imo, most antinatalist incels, aren't 'being illogical', they are just coping that hating on breeders makes them better than breeders, despite involuntary sexlessness being actual hell and for me at least making me want to rope every hour I think about it.

Again I am KHHV but IN THEORY purely, the only reasons I think a user would not want to rear a child, are copes to make them spot evils in a population we are excluded from, thus making us feel better, fuck those evil breeders etc... and because youre under 21 and as determined by nature, have no interest in child rearing. If the rest of you want to claim raising a child strictly while still receiving attracted sex from your partner then I think your beliefs are biased towards whatever makes you feel better. I am not talking about dead bedroom OR divorced. Strictly attracted monogamy.
 
Last edited:
laanda

laanda

pareidolia
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 8, 2021
Posts
7,372
Online
110d 3h 40m
if in hypothetical you got to child rear and chose not to, the species would still breed wildly to the exact same number -1 and you would die having seen no benefit from that decision, coping you are on the right side of history or whatever :feelshaha: Whether being around children is enjoyable, whether I would be too nihilistic to enjoy child rearing or if I would dislike their being and find it tedious, that is another question.
 
laanda

laanda

pareidolia
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 8, 2021
Posts
7,372
Online
110d 3h 40m
in the same way its weird to me that something like 'antinatalism' is seen as blackpilled through and through when it is both a movement, where its members believe in their individual significance, and when it is defined by an investment in humanity and its actions. All antinatalists buy into things that they cannot change. Sure, antinatalism leans towards blackpilled just because most humans are so stupid and delusional they genuinely dont see that evil and do in fact bluepill that they are good people, yes, I accept that they are more bluepilled. That doesn't mean a user is blackpilled just because they read online the reason why breeding is evil. Since when was fighting for morality ever a part of this. Copers man
 
laanda

laanda

pareidolia
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 8, 2021
Posts
7,372
Online
110d 3h 40m
the logic behind global antinatalism or believing all other people should not breed is completely sound.
 
IncelWithHate

IncelWithHate

Frustrated, highinhib wizardcel
★★★
Joined
Jul 16, 2021
Posts
1,290
Online
20d 7h 53m
Posting so I can come back to this later. I have no position on antinatalism, but I will try to produce counter-arguments for it.
What are the counterarguments?
 

Similar threads

svgmn1
Replies
9
Views
315
subhuman
subhuman
SecularNeo-Khazar
Replies
3
Views
148
SecularNeo-Khazar
SecularNeo-Khazar
Murder Mario
Replies
4
Views
90
Intellau_Celistic
Intellau_Celistic
C
Replies
4
Views
314
canwefixit
C
Oroborus
Replies
44
Views
847
youngswedecel
youngswedecel
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top