life = suffering
so is having kids and subjecting them to suffering without their consent immoral?
so is having kids and subjecting them to suffering without their consent immoral?
murder kidhavers
Couldn't care less until it extends to baby killing which is absolutely disgusting
who cares tbh
flawed assumption
Immoral
why would anti natalism extend to baby killing? antinatalists are so misunderstood we actually have a lot of empathy , we see how flawed the world is and don't want another soul to go through torment
what's the correct assumption
life = strong possibility of suffering ? actually can't really think of a person who has truthfully claimed they are 100% satisfied with their life
what's immoral
Abortion
Irrefutable ideology no selfless reason exists to having a child it's all selfish they're right
abortion
Antinatalism might be another psyop like the pro-choice movement to allow cunts to fuck with chad without facing any consequences.
anti-natalists are usually incels in denial. Life is suffering for YOU because you are ugly and autistic
Until the niggers stop having children also, it just means the world will be flooded with shit nontheless.
yes if you have shitty genes such as acne, baldness, ugliness in general, shortness. Both men and women
Assuming the typical argument which follows something along these lines:
[1] Life inherently involves unavoidable suffering.
[2] Suffering is harmful, while pleasure is good; lack of suffering is good, while lack of pleasure is neutral. One cannot be deprived of experiences if they never existed in the first place, and the absence of suffering is a net positive.
[3] An individual cannot consent to being born, therefore it is immoral to bring one into a world of guaranteed suffering without their consent.
[4] To prevent suffering one must avoid procreation.
After musing about this topic for a while, following a discussion concerning it, I have concluded the theory only makes sense in the abstract, utilitarianistic sense of reducing aggregate harm; in reality, however, it is a nonsensical subversive ideology, which can be criticized on many levels; it is nonfunctional and even foolish, because as long as some individuals continue reproducing, the primary concept seems to collapse, unless you appeal to intangible potential aggregate harm.
It also leads to absurd moral conclusions about death and life, directly leading to a pro-mortalist position, and repugnant ideas such as murdering people painlessly under the pretense of harm reduction. I will admit it makes sense in theory though.
[1] Life inherently involves unavoidable suffering.
[2] Suffering is harmful, while pleasure is good; lack of suffering is good, while lack of pleasure is neutral. One cannot be deprived of experiences if they never existed in the first place, and the absence of suffering is a net positive.
[3] An individual cannot consent to being born, therefore it is immoral to bring one into a world of guaranteed suffering without their consent.
[4] To prevent suffering one must avoid procreation.
After musing about this topic for a while, following a discussion concerning it, I have concluded the theory only makes sense in the abstract, utilitarianistic sense of reducing aggregate harm; in reality, however, it is a nonsensical subversive ideology, which can be criticized on many levels; it is nonfunctional and even foolish, because as long as some individuals continue reproducing, the primary concept seems to collapse, unless you appeal to intangible potential aggregate harm.
It also leads to absurd moral conclusions about death and life, directly leading to a pro-mortalist position, and repugnant ideas such as murdering people painlessly under the pretense of harm reduction. I will admit it makes sense in theory though.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
