AMA Responses, Part 1

[@DeadEndFrog]

despite the vibe in the begining, you actually seem more happy then last AMA, either way, keep up the great work

[@KaneB]

Life sucks but there's no need to be gloomy about it... We need more joyful pessimists. As much as I enjoy David Benatar's philosophical work, have you ever heard that guy in interviews? He's such a drag lol. Pessimists need better PR.

[@DeadEndFrog]

@@KaneB I call myself a long-term pessimist (or a pessimist about the past, and the future) but a short-term optimist (optimist about the-now) And i agree whole heartedly about pesismists in general being a drag, thats kinda their thing tho. As a side note, i personally think the kantian route about humans not being means to and end to be the best approach to anti-natalism, but even that doesn't get you to 'universal-antinatalism'. Its much better as a personal philosophy, and a statement about the lack of justification natalists have on behalf of the children. as a side, side note, i really enjoyed your introduction to the personite problem, and find it to be a microcosm of the issues anti-natalism deals with.

[@poisonpath7739]

I've been looking through the previous AMA's and I noticed that you seem to have done a 180 on trivialism. What sparked the change? Also, if you ever wanna dip into continental philosophy and Nietzsche, I highly recommend his Genealogy of Morals (it's his most systematic work and the easiest to parse through). He is a pretty good stepping stone into continental since pretty much everyone takes something from him and I think you would have somewhat similar viewpoints. Love your videos by the way. You are, in my opinion, the best philosophy channel on KZbin and seem like a nice enough fellow!

[@allusionsxp2606]

Finally started this, thank you for responding to my question.

[@deepfritz225]

Thank you, Kane!

[@laurensbaan3596]

Okay, so youve given us your opinion of (metaphysical) grounding. Now of course you have to answer the obvious follow-up question: what do you think about (metaphysical) sounding?

[@KaneB]

😬

[@hegelsmonster5521]

Thank you for your response -- even if it was just a negative one. It's really nice that you really try to answer each question -- so personal! I guess this is one advantage of a small channel (or -- it's really nearly too big; part one is nearly four hours long ... :D).

[@tykjpelk]

36:32 Calling modal girls an argument against modal realism is the weirdest way I've heard yet of saying you're never gonna get laid.

[@gugugugugu4514]

Thank you so much for your response!❤ I'll think about that❤

[@davidfoley8546]

Re: your comments at 4:40. Perhaps your mistake here is thinking that "Because I've been able to do exactly what I wanted, I've been lucky." It could be the case that lucky people are the ones who are born into cultures that inculcate them with the kind of desires that lead to happy lives, and that in general doing "what we want" is not actually good for us, because we can very easily find things desirable that don't lead to happiness.

[@InventiveHarvest]

Excellent. As long as there's no strong objection, the memes will continue for now.

[@aarantheartist]

As someone who identifies strongly with the sceptical tradition, perhaps I can defend the sceptic from the concern you mentioned, that the sceptic can’t really claim anything. He can’t even claim “I am a sceptic”. Here’s an ancient answer: distinguish between thick and thin beliefs. My thick beliefs are what I voluntarily and consciously assent to as the truth. They are the things I’m prepared to defend as better than alternatives. Thin beliefs are my mere psychological inclinations. Most people will assent to their psychological inclinations and think them to be better than other options. But the sceptic won’t do that. He has thin beliefs, but no thick beliefs. So he can say “I am a sceptic”, so long as that’s just a thin belief. He can report his natural psychological inclination, but if you press him, he’d have to say “I’m just inclined to think I’m a sceptic. Who knows. If you really push me, maybe I’m something else”. And he has to take that attitude for everything. So the sceptic has to distance himself from all of his psychological inclinations. It’s a tough boat to row. Who knows if anybody can really do that.

[@KaneB]

Actually, I'm inclined to think that the skeptic can claim things. The skeptic can, by her own lights at least, do literally anything at all, and that includes holding beliefs with certainty. After all, for all the skeptic can say, perhaps holding beliefs with certainty is the perfect exemplification of what it is to suspend judgment. I don't raise this point as an objection to skepticism; indeed, I think it's an interesting feature of skepticism.

[@aarantheartist]

@@KaneB What an interesting idea. I’ll have to chew on that one for a bit. But if that’s right, perhaps the main thing that separates the sceptic from your own belief without justification position is just that the sceptic happens to be inclined to suspend judgement. A happy meeting of minds.

[@exalted_kitharode]

Well there's this whole psychological language machinery that has to be in place for him to respond like that. It's as if it were unproblematic to claim that there's some mental entities that have some inclinations or other, postulating some "I" as object of attributes such as "being skeptical", etc. I don't see why that's any more skeptical than pronouncing statements of some technical theory such as general relativity. It takes all the skeptical bite out of this stance if in the end your entire position is that people exist and you as a person is just little more resistant to accepting some preestablished convictions (which you are able to unproblematically individuate as well). That's not nearly as interesting as skepticism attempting to question psychological vocabulary as well, which skeptic won't be able to appeal to his psychological make-up, as well as any other person's "inclinations".

[@jmg1143]

Love that format

[@13part]

really appreciate the answer Kane! also really interesting content from the other people's questions

[@mega1chiken6dancr9]

bruh people asked such boring questions LMAOO yal dont know what to ask

[@13part]

​@@mega1chiken6dancr9 why dont you enlighten us with a not boring question then? specially since your last comments on this channel were calling claims 'stupid' and 'weird' and calling someone a nazi because of philosophical opinions about the holocaust which were more focused on debating the meaning of art and not the tragedy of the genocide of the jewish people. you must be fun at parties

[@mega1chiken6dancr9]

@@13part LMAOO; bro is mad i called someone a creepy nazi becuase they said the holocaust was a work of art. you need to go outside man, philosophy is destroying you

[@mega1chiken6dancr9]

​@@13part non boring questions: 1. controversial stuff (antinatalism was good) 1a: would u push a button that ends all life instantly painlessly 2. 'do you think philosophy is a waste of time, whats the actual point of it' 3. 'how different do you think the field of philosophy would be if many smart people that were good at philosophy but pursued other professions like computer science, medicine or law for the $$ chose philosophy instead' 4. 'what do you think philosophy will be like in 1000 years, do you think any positions will die out, or any trends you think will be prominent'

[@mega1chiken6dancr9]

@@KoopstaKlicca 1) ur first paragraph makes 0 sense 2) nah those are good questions

[@PlumpSort]

The trip to Iceland doesn't capture the emotional weight of signing a kid up to all of the suffering they'll experience in life. (Such as dying of old age or illness) Making someone worse off by harming them a little bit (a boring vacation or a pinprick)? I'm okay with that because it's only a little bit. But putting someone through the whole lifetime of suffering? That's a level of suffering that I find not to be okay to put someone else through. (You basically say that in the second half of the response)

[@KaneB]

I brought up the Iceland trip in the context of assessing the asymmetry argument, to illustrate why I don't accept the inference from the asymmetry of pleasure and pain to the conclusion that you ought not to bring people into existence. The trip to Iceland doesn't need to involve a degree of suffering similar to what you would expect in an average life; it only needs to make the child worse off. If the trip did involve such suffering, I would say that you ought not to take the child on the trip... and similarly, I'm not in favour of bringing people into existence.

[@PlumpSort]

@@KaneB I understand and I agree. So does that mean that if one day humans finally somehow achieve a utopia, it would become okay to bring people into existence? Or is it not okay because of the amount of people you would need to bring into existence to even make it to that point? (When I say utopia I mean that the worst suffering anyone would experience is equivalent to a boring trip to Iceland.)

[@KaneB]

​@@PlumpSort If human life were significantly better than it is -- if people had to work only 3 hrs a week, if we eliminated chronic illnesses, if it were easy for everyone to find loving relationships, etc. -- then I would not be at all sympathetic to antinatalism. I don't think we will ever achieve this utopia. If it were somehow guaranteed that we would achieve this utopia in, say, 200 years, then I would still feel troubled by condemning people to terrible lives now just to achieve that. But I'm not sure I would favour human extinction in that scenario.

[@PlumpSort]

@@KaneB Agreed. And on that note -- it's time for me to get my vasectomy. ENDURE

[@KaneB]

@@PlumpSort Are you actually planning on getting a vasectomy? That's pretty cool if so. I feel like my vasectomy was one of the best decisions I ever made.

[@justanotherhomosapian5101]

Another example of being worse off but not immoral would be not letting someone copy your home work? If I refuse to allow someone to copy my homework, they are worse off compared to if I allowed them to yet I've not done an immoral act. Or suddenly no longer continuing a sexual engagement, right in the middle of hooking-up the person changes their mind and doesn't want go further, the other person is now worse off but the person isn't immoral for no longer continuing.

[@horsymandias-ur]

I think you’re brushing against the realization that pleasure and pain are ill-defined and not the best metric for determining whether someone is worse off

[@cobaj6226]

Thanks for the response!

[@nameofuser5743]

1:28:50 - why are there draught pieces on a chess board? have you now rejected not only the rules, but the entire game? very radical. i like it.

[@noah5291]

I totally missed the QA announcement, bug sad

[@rebeccar25]

Me too, we’re gonna have to wait ages for the next one now

[@Oskar1000]

Iterated st Petersburg paradox. It's a series of coin flips, each of which is a tripple or nothing kind of situation. According to expected value you should always want to play another round of this game, however that asa strategy will definitely end with you loosing all of your money.

[@tykjpelk]

The Kelly criterion offers an analysis where it's shown that you shouldn't play like that forever. Betting a fraction of your money will give you the optimal payoff in the long run, going all in will make you go broke even relatively short term.

[@onlyechadtherebellious2467]

Yeah that was me, thanks for answering my question

[@micgooflander95]

Regarding antinatalism, by version of the asymmetry is slightly different from Benatar's formulation. By bringing someone into existence, you cause someone to exist who may wish that they were dead, or were never born. But a person who never comes into existence can never wish that they did exist. Even pleasure is a double-edged sword. Pleasure is intrinsically good, but because it is good for us, we therefore are dependent on it. Because life does not guarantee us sufficient pleasure to satisfy our need for it (as you've pointed out, in acknowledging that life is rather shit for most of us), it is harmful to put someone in that position of dependency. At least in your 'taking the kid to Iceland' example, it is possible that your child could derive some sort of benefit from visiting Iceland, as in this example, the child already exists, and they already have needs and desires to be satisfied. Taking them to Iceland might not optimally suit their desires, but they might be even more bored if they stayed at home. Or they may look back fondly on the Iceland trip at a future time. However, when it concerns bringing someone into existence, the only people whose interests can be served by doing so are those of people who already exist. Even if actual living conditions were a good sight better than we both agree that they are, you still couldn't argue that you were causing someone to exist because it was in their interests to exist; as this person does not exist and therefore has no interests to be benefitted by being brought into existence. Therefore, procreation is an act that can only ever be done in the interests of anyone other than the person who will bear the consequences of the act (the child themselves). I'm heartened to see that your views on antinatalism have at least matured since we debated this subject on the IMDb forums long ago. I have a blog post on the issue of antinatalism and the non identity problem, if you have time to look at it: schopenhaueronmars.com/2021/09/15/antinatalism-vs-the-non-identity-problem/ I'm also curious as to whether you have any videos where you discuss your views on the right to die. Or if you are going to be doing any future AMAs, perhaps this is a topic that you could cover.

[@freedomclub6969]

1:59:14 The plan goes pretty much thus - in the show, almost absolutist determinism lies, which Dio and Pucci want to take to the extreme by resetting the universe to such a point all living beings are omniscient about what is to come, but since they are bound to fate, they cannot change anything substantionally. @KaneB

[@KaneB]

So the scenario is that we're omniscient and also cannot change anything? I don't really have any attitude one way or the other about such a world.

[@freedomclub6969]

@@KaneB The point is to mentally accept what is to come, almost in a Stoic way (Which is ironic, considering Pucci is a Catholic priest).

[@nahometesfay1112]

​@@freedomclub6969How is that ironic? Is Catholicism counter to Stoicism or determinism? I mean that kinda of stuff is more Calvinist, but I don't see how it contradicts Catholicism.

[@freedomclub6969]

@@nahometesfay1112 It is. Catholicism affirms free will.

[@zeebpc]

can you do a video on benatar and julio cabrera negative ethics?

[@incoher]

there are people who want responsibilities regarding XYZ and people who dont. how do i decide which team im on? i feel like i dont want any responsibility for anything because fulfilling any of them is pointless on every level, small and large, real and unreal. i feel like this is inherent to [the] existence [of responsibility] if we wipe away solutions that might be considered religious/pseudoscientific. is the need for faith a curse? making any decisions is irresponsible given how little i can know. why not just cut it out? i was way happier as a kid when i knew and could know less. if eternal return is a rational risk to consider, id rather just d13 now so "most of my eternity" is spent in that childlike bliss (of a past to yet return forever)... is the "i dont want responsibilities" team invariably depressed, destined for self-destruction?

[@laurensbaan3596]

Where do all these questions come from? Are these all KZbin comments from the past months? Are these from your patreon?

[@KaneB]

I made a video asking for questions. I removed the video once it got 100+ responses.

[@speedracer448]

I was in the middle of a rapid game when you mentioned chess

[@tannerlawg]

Big win on animal welfare

[@jimmypatterson9789]

I'm sure you've been asked about, and probably answered many times over, but I'm surprised you don't have any videos or discussions on or about Nietzschean philosophy, or at least none that were searchable or immediately apparent to me in various comment sections. I'd be more than interested to hear your opinions on him if you ever decide/care to talk about it. Anyways, loved the video.

[@KaneB]

I'm afraid I don't know Nietzsche's work to have anything interesting to say about it.

[@jimmypatterson9789]

​@@KaneB How excited I (possibly) am for you to discover it one day. Perhaps I'll be fortunate enough in the furture that you will have something interesting to say about him. But until then... I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

[@Catofminerva]

Very cool shirt !

[@noah5291]

Talk to Lance Independent please!

[@WackyConundrum]

Now you have to make a video on veganism/animals!

[@azaraniichan]

Thank you for shitting on neoliberalism, I wholeheartedly agree

[@wandrespupilo8046]

you really look likeable i wonder how it's like to interact with you

[@Catofminerva]

I hate to be the one to go AKCHUALLY pragmatists don’t think that!!1 But i like that pragmatism is flexible and encompasses many interlinked positions. As put by James pragmatism “stands for no particular results. It has no dogmas, and no doctrines save its method. As the young Italian pragmatist Papini has well said, it lies in the midst of our theories, like a corridor in a hotel. Innumerable chambers open out of it. In one you may find a man writing an atheistic volume; in the next someone on his knees praying for faith and strength; in a third a chemist investigating a body's properties. In a fourth a system of idealistic metaphysics is being excogitated; in a fifth the impossibility of metaphysics is being shown. But they all own the corridor, and all must pass through it if they want a practicable way of getting into or out of their respective rooms.” This perspective allows for a broader interpretation of "what works." I don’t see pragmatism as insisting that "what works" must inherently or exclusively lead to a practical or tangible outcome, but instead it invites us to question "works to accomplish what?" - which is contingent on context and individual perspectives. Engaging in art for art's sake, or pondering metaphysical questions for fun doesnt seem immediately contrary to this imo. It could very well be said that these activities "work" to achieve desired goals, such as creating richer, more fulfilling lives (Ik Rorty’s is a controversial form of pragmatism but i like his ‘Pragmatism and Religion’ chapter). I think what groups pragmatists together is rejecting the idea that the aim of these pursuits or enquiries is to discover Truths that exists independent of our goals and interests.

[@KaneB]

If we're interpreting pragmatic value in such a broad way, so that literally any philosophical debate can count as pragmatically useful provided the interlocutors get some enjoyment out of it, then I'm happy to get on board with pragmatism. At that point, we might as well say, à la Feyerabend, that the only rule that constrains philosophical inquiry is: Anything goes! I'm not seeing how your conception of pragmatism even rules out the pursuit of independent Truths. If I gain a great deal of comfort from thinking of my beliefs as True, and if I develop methods that I claim are indicative of Truth and I'm able to persuade at least some other people that this is a worthwhile framework for inquiry, so we develop a philosophical tradition that involves searching for Truth with lots of people congratulating themselves for having found the Truth... what's wrong with that? They enjoy the debate, and maybe they even make a living out of it. What more could the pragmatist want? To be clear, I don't mean this as a criticism: I genuinely like this view of pragmatism. But it's difficult to square this with the attitudes that pragmatists often express to other philosophical traditions. One thing that's kinda frustrating about pragmatists (and I'm not accusing you of this; it's just something I've noticed talking to other pragmatists) is that it seems like they'll often motte-and-bailey between some vague, broad characterization of pragmatic value, where pragmatism is really just about e.g. resisting the correspondence theory of truth or whatever, and a far stricter position that demands radical changes to how philosophy is actually practiced. Or maybe it's just that there are lots of different ways of being a pragmatist and I'm in the wrong for conflating these approaches.

[@Catofminerva]

@@KaneB I agree that one could argue that pragmatism can be stretched so far that it encompasses nearly anything that brings satisfaction or fulfilment. It's not entirely wrong; but it's not about "anything goes" as much as it's about a purposeful inquiry into the value of actions and beliefs in relation to the goals and interests of individuals/society. In other words, it's less about sanctioning everything and more about evaluating everything. In your hypothetical scenario, where a philosophical tradition that values Truth brings comfort, joy, intellectual stimulation, and even livelihood to its practitioners, I don't see why pragmatists would object to it. They wouldn't oppose religious beliefs or any belief systems that contribute to happiness and fulfilment either. Rorty's "ironism" comes into play here. According to Rorty, we should distinguish between our private and public lives. In our private lives, we're at liberty to pursue whatever metaphysical beliefs we find fulfilling, including belief in a capital T Truth. But in our public lives, we should adopt an "ironist" perspective. We should acknowledge that such beliefs, while they may be "true" in a sense that they produce desirable outcomes for us, they aren't True in a substantive metaphysical sense that's independent of human experiences and consequences - but rather are contingent upon our historical and cultural context. You’re right that when it comes to the public sphere, where beliefs and actions affect others, a more stringent application of pragmatic evaluation is advocated by pragmatists. In this sense, Rorty's issue with such a philosophical tradition might not be the pursuit of Truth itself, but its practical implications. Although this pursuit might have been productive once, it might not yield the same desirable results now, as it keeps us accountable to abstract entities other than ourselves (e.g., God, capital T Truth, Intrinsic Reality) which distract from or overshadow immediate human concerns. So, pragmatists aren't categorically against the pursuit of perceived independent Truths. They 1) question the metaphysical assumptions of the correspondence theory and 2) make a pragmatic argument against it, contending that it doesn't always yield desirable outcomes. At least - that is my narrow reading of pragmatism. I understand where you're coming from though and I see why you would be frustrated. There can be a tendency among some pragmatists to move between broad and narrow interpretations of the philosophy. Especially with later pragmatists; Hilary Putnam, for example, proposed a 'pragmatic realism' that still finds space for a form of truth 'independent' from our procedures of justification. Richard Rorty's idiosyncratic version - 'neopragmatism' - radically rejects any theory of 'truth' and sticks to social justification. Robert Brandom conceives pragmatism in terms of inferential semantics and social practices of recognition. Susan Haack has her 'pragmatism and old-fashioned empiricism' that places emphasis on the importance of evidence in forming beliefs. But again I see this flexibility as one of the inherent strengths of pragmatism: it can be tailored to suit different contexts and perspectives.

[@faeancestor]

spot on ...

[@ahmedragab795]

Thank u❤

[@DanielM__1]

I love you

[@lovethyneibor22736]

Wow very interesting philosophy ❤

[@veaglethefirst]

2:10:20

[@philosophicsblog]

Love your channel and material. Can't resist commenting from the start. I feel your response to Benatar's asymmetry argument was a bit of a strawman. Who has 100 glorious days interrupted by a pinprick? This describes no person ever. There is a reason Buddhism relates that life is suffering. It's an observable aesthetic. I also feel your Iceland example was off-even if you have these feelings and try to justify otherwise. It feels that you are diminishing the worth and value of the other person in preference to your own desires. Of course, this is not a true dichotomy. You could have travelled the child elsewhere on your excursion or holiday to Iceland. I am neutral, leaning in favour of antinatalism, or as you say, 'sympathetic', but I am commenting on your response rather than the philosophy. I do feel the doctrine that humans are somehow sacred of special does need to be offset as it creeps into policy and law.

[@davsamp7301]

Question: Why should we be Moral? Answer: Because it is good, If anything at all, duh. The Question is indeed, with all respect, stupid, for it is meaningless. It is so, because it asks the equivalent of why would i do what i want, or Else, why Should i do what i want and do, what is needed for that.

[@93alvbjo]

It seems to me you are not distinguishing self-love/self-interest maxims from moral maxims. If the point of morality is that it obligates us to sometimes, not act on our preferences, as personal preferences cannot safe-guard themselves from functioning as reasons, you must somehow be inclined to ignore what in fact moral terms are for.

[@KaneB]

Correct: I don't draw a strict distinction between those. People use moral language to express all sorts of claims; I don't think there is a single "point of morality" or single function that moral terms must serve.

[@jonasjensen9305]

2:50:39 Let me rephrase (I'm Jonas). Is it immoral to painlessly put down a baby, even though you'd be hard pressed to ascribe it personhood? If it hasn't developed any semblance of a personality, is killing it closer in moral weight to killing a human or an animal? Asking as a post-pro-choicer, which is the next step of pro-choice.

[@KaneB]

Yeah, I feel it's immoral to kill babies. It's also immoral to kill animals, though generally I'd probably feel that killing a baby is worse than killing an animal. As for the pro-choice question, in my view it's fine to kill anything that's contained within your own body, at any time, for any reason. The characteristics of the thing in question are irrelevant; even if the fetus had the same cognitive and emotional capacities as an adult human, it would be fine to kill it.

[@Doctor.T.46]

Your response to the question about consciousness intrigues me as someone who has concentrated on the subject for some time. I would love to discuss it further with you, but the comments section on KZbin is too restrictive for deep conversation. So, I'll just wish you well in your quest to discover what matter is...from my experience the answer is in the science. Also, because I'm a physicalist with a background in science, of course I think I've got all the answers...just kidding.

[@KaneB]

What is matter? (If you respond to this with anything other than a direct answer to this question -- for instance, if instead of just answering the question, you start puffing up your own experience or implying that I don't seek out challenges or whatever -- you will be required to wear the idiot hat.)

[@realSAPERE_AUDE]

@@KaneBwe’ve all got a bit of an idiot hat which we struggle to take off; wouldn’t you say? lol

[@KaneB]

@@realSAPERE_AUDE My tetchiness in that response is due to previous interactions with that commenter. Had it been anyone else, I would have just asked the question without the "idiot hat" comment haha.

[@Doctor.T.46]

@KaneB Simple answer. We could start at quarks or leptons, neutrons, but I suspect you're looking for looking for a simpler philosophical answer... so matter is anything that takes up space and can be weighed. Happy to wear the idiots hat, for trying to clarify my authority to make a contribution to the debate... sorry about that. Although I try desperately to see the brain/mind in metaphysical terms I always revert to the physical. I hope that response meets the criteria you set for my leaving a comment without having to wear the idiots hat.

[@realSAPERE_AUDE]

@@KaneB fair enough 🤣

[@justus4684]

3:03:25 I am very proud of myself that I got you so annoyed😂 3:03:50 💀 Oh hell nah sorry bout that

[@KaneB]

The implication that I'm a realist about particular conscious states bothers me a lot more than my dead mum. (I love my mum btw.)

[@WackyConundrum]

In your response to the antinatalist question, you mistakenly assume that antinatalism is about a universal prohibition for procreation. This is not so, in general. Even the wikipedia article on antinatalism makes this point. Secondly, can you **guarantee** that your prospective child will have a life of sufficient level of decency? If not, then you have no justification for bringing the child into existence. Wouldn't you say?

[@KaneB]

I don't care about definitional disputes so if you feel that what I said is sufficient to count as an anti-natalist then fine, I'm an anti-natalist. However, the wiki article appears to use the term in the way that I do. It does draw a distinction between "reactionary" anti-natalism, which seeks to limit reproduction locally and temporarily, and "philosophical" anti-natalism, which seeks to end it conclusively. So you can interpret my comments as concerning the philosophical position. No, I don't agree that it's necessary to guarantee that a prospective child will have a minimally decent life. It would be enough to just believe it for whatever reason.

[@WackyConundrum]

@@KaneB As for the definition, I had this fragment in mind: > the philosophical position that assigns a negative value judgement to birth So, if one judges procreation / coming into exist negatively, then - even if one does not say that procreation should be _prohibited_ - one is an antinatalist. Why do you think it's enough to just believe that the child will have sufficiently decent life?

[@KaneB]

@@WackyConundrum I agree that there is a distinction between values and obligations, so we can distinguish: (VA) Coming into existence has a negative value (is bad, is a harm, etc.) (OA) You ought not to bring sentient beings into existence. / It is morally wrong to bring sentient beings into existence. I've never really thought of (VA) as a kind of anti-natalism. Anyway, I'd say the same about (VA) as I did about (OA): I'm sympathetic to it, but not fully on board with it. The reason why mere belief is enough is because, as I see it, there is no way to guarantee that any particular action will have any particular consequences. Indeed, there is not even any way to justify this, let alone guarantee it. So this is just a result of my skeptical views. I believe that uploading this youtube video will bring pleasure to at least some people who view it, and will not cause extreme suffering. I cannot guarantee this; I cannot even justify this. If mere belief in a minimally decent outcome is enough for all other actions, why shouldn't it be enough for reproduction?

[@WackyConundrum]

@@KaneB I see. I would still like to know why you are only sympathetic to VA and not on board with it, if you don't mind elaborating.

[@rodrigogomes2064]

Being an anti natalist is a pretty anti social position. You probably dont care about morals, but id say thats the definition of bad. I think being alive no matter the state is better than being dead. Non existance is the worst 'state' you can be in. Your not even a you, that can judge anything. To say thats its better is absurd.

[@KaneB]

I used to reject anti-natalism largely on self-interested grounds. Over the last year or so, I've drifted towards a more sympathy-based approach to ethics, and this is responsible for my increasing attraction to anti-natalism. Basically, I used to be more inclined towards something like Hobbesian contractarianism, and from that perspective there's a good case against anti-natalism: if everybody ceased to have children, this would probably my life worse off, since society would be destabilized as I get older. These days, I'm more of a Humean: my moral judgments are driven by sympathy, corrected by the "general point of view". From that perspective, it is hard for me to regard humanity with anything other than horror. So I don't see anti-natalism as particularly anti-social. That is the exact opposite of what drives the view, at least in my own case.

[@nihilitas0]

You haven't been for ages and there haven't been any problems. On the contrary, the problems begin with being in an entropic universe where everything is constantly falling apart. Clearly, bringing someone into such a world is an incredibly cruel act. That doesn't mean that being or consciousness is bad per se, but this world is.

[@deepfritz225]

@@JudeLind antinatalists who are sympathetic to the asymmetry argument understand the forgoing of future suffering to be a good, while the forging of future flourishing is neutral.

[@rodrigogomes2064]

@@nihilitas0 no. i before me didnt exist. i have been me for the time ive existed. and as im alive, it is the only time where i can make judgements about whats good or bad. Inherently, not existing is the worse thing possible there is to being me. You say its cruel, i think existence and life, is infinitly better than not existing. Argueing otherwise, is also arguing againts life, wich is bad. Cuz were life, and i supose we wanna be alive and not dead. (Idk if you care much about morality, but since you used the word cruel i think you might.)

[@deepfritz225]

Benatar thinks this is intuitive, often citing our lack of concern about the fact that Mars contains no conscious life. For my own part, I think this intuition too strongly depends on the planet of choice to be of much philosophical value. The prospect of a future earth devoid of consciousness probably does illicit the intuition of badness in most people. Thus, I'm inclined to be suspicious that the situation is truly asymmetrical, after all.