Antinatalism debunked... in less than 10 minutes

[@eliassideas]

I am aware I used a wrong photo when talking about David Benatar. It is not a picture of Benatar, but of Ricardo Lopes. Thank you for pointing it out!

[@MunchinYou-jy6km]

I think it is pretty clear and uncontroversial that if you bring a sentient individual into existence, your own flesh and blood, then you are opening the door to every evil under the sun. You are creating the possible for evil where there was previously none.And as a parent you have absolutely zero control over their destiny and what will befall to them. All parents affirmed in their head that everything will go on well, but on a population level, where there are fortunate people, there are also unfortunate ones. Every parent in their head at least believed their child will have a relatively good life, and that they will be relatively reasonable people. Historically and on a population level, the evidence is different. Leaving aside how well/unwell people are faring, it is not clear to me why we should bring fragility into existence. If a being constantly chases the cheese and says "ouch" everyday to sustain itself, and says "mega ouch" when things don't go the way the being wants it to be, how can that be defended? Even if individuals can tolerate tragedies, it doesn't follow from that that it is ethically permissible to subject them to such scenarios. If you could spare a future child from suffering, illness, aging, pain, loss of others and personal death, why wouldn't you? The benefits that life entail have to be created first in the form of wishes and desires. Without wishes and desires, pleasures and benefits more broadly are irrelevant.

[@musa8693]

That’s just look at the bad part though. If they had a baby the baby could also experience good things of life like friendship, food, knowledge etc. It is true that suffering also will be there but that’s just life everyone suffers in their own way.

[@MunchinYou-jy6km]

@@musa8693 If you don't bring someone into existence, the good things are not relevant for them in the first place. But to bring them into existence with the knowledge that HORROR could befall them is evil. Also the good aspects you mentioned such as knowledge, relationships, joy etc. are usually just the flip side of our usual mode of living: Being ignorant, being unhappy, having imperfect relationships with ourselves and others. Also to obtain these good things is very difficult, need constant effort, are not fully under out control and if frustrared of these good things, sometimes even serious atrocities can happen, i.e. depression, loneliness, suicide, homicide etc.

[@gigiduru125]

People who exist have a right to consent. Since they cannot consent to their birth, it is immoral to bring them into this world.

[@eliassideas]

It seems paradoxical that one has to consent to exist. Existence is not some property of a person, it is the person itself. There is no such thing as not consenting to be an agent, because the rejection itself presupposes being an agent.

[@Oatmeal_Mann]

1. What is best for someone is not always what they would consent to. 2. We don't know if someone comes into existence at birth. What if the person is a soul which reincarnates or which pre-exists? If you can't prove reincarnation or pre-existence to be false, then I reject your argument as unfounded.

[@awkwardukulele6077]

All it sounds like you're saying is "But then NOBODY would consent to existing, so that's not fair!" which comes across as less learned or insightful, and more whiny and immature. If there is no person to consent, then they by definition didn't give consent. They didn't refuse, either, because there was no person to have an opinion on the topic, but that means by definition they did NOT give consent, because they didn't and couldn't do _anything,_ because they didn't exist at that point. @@eliassideas

[@jaco7826]

​@eliassideas with that logic. The person(the existence) has the right to consent to their own existence. You assume its an agent. Therefore they have a right to choose. The only way the person dont have rights to consent is to assume the person will never exist. Do better next time and dont make stupid logical errors like you constantly do

[@eliassideas]

@@jaco7826 I don't think you understood my point. Yes, we are talking about an agent, and my point is that an agent does not have the right to consent to his existence, because his existence is the very prerequisite that is needed for him to be an agent and have the right to consent.

[@vijrumbhanam9200]

2:29 - The violation of consent starts existing once a new person is born.

[@Yuri-nc9vl]

My legit reason to don't have kids is: Life isn't worth it...too hard, too unfair, only few will have a good life, rest will be wagies (i mean S word) Also for most men isn't an choice anymore...

[@eliassideas]

I see that you are struggling my friend... I'm sorry to hear that. I think there is always ways to find meaning. I would recommend reading Victor Frankl, who was a survivor of the holocaust, and one of the biggest life-affirming thinkers of our times.

[@Yuri-nc9vl]

@@eliassideas Thanks, I'll put this book on my wishlist, I'm trying to read as many books I can (hoping to escape the tech addictions), also I'm trying meditation

[@Yuri-nc9vl]

@@eliassideas Also I believe we will end like in Brave New World. Sad.

[@eliassideas]

​@@Yuri-nc9vl keep doing your best and good luck. From what I understand you may also like the Discourses of Epictetus.

[@alexhoffmanjazz]

I don’t think Victor Frankl is taken seriously by analytic philosophers or continental philosophers, never mind psychology or psychiatry

[@ifLifeWereAnAnime]

9:50 we don't know if what keeps mpst people living is "purpose" or simply a biological instinct which they cannot over write. Just like more animals who have no purpose in the philosophical sense yet keep on living due to life's preservation instinct.

[@Scriabin_fan]

I thought this was gonna be some God fueled 10 minute rant. Glad that's not the case.

[@moralitywithoutaddiction797]

I always thought the basis of anti-natalism's consent argument was: if you can't get consent, don't do it.

[@eliassideas]

Sure, let's take the argument as you present it. "If you can't get consent, don't do it" -- This is a great principle, but of course it implies that there is a person to get consent from. It essentially says, "don't do something to someone if you cannot get their consent", but in the case of procreation, there is no "someone" to not get the consent from in the first place. It is literally creation ex nihilo.

[@moralitywithoutaddiction797]

@@eliassideas This principle applies to moral agents (the ones who propose to act upon moral patients) irrespective of why the moral patient can't give consent. You're relying on the prospective moral patient's current status of not existing as a justification to violate this principle to act in a way that will make them exist. Cheat code not accepted.

[@eliassideas]

"irrespective of why the moral patient can't give consent" -- but don't you see that in this case there IS no moral patient? Existing is not a status that a person may have. It is the prerequisite for there to be a person in the first place.

[@moralitywithoutaddiction797]

@@eliassideas I haven't studied philosophy and you're writing a paper countering anti-natalism but you don't seem to understand that hypotheticals facilitate philosophical/moral discourse. And procreation is not a wild, off-the-wall hypothetical - if a female and male have sex without interference and if the conditions are favourable for conception, then they will procreate. The act creates the moral patient(s).

[@MrJonFerraro]

@@eliassideas "but don't you see that in this case there IS no moral patient?" Right but there will be. That is a person will be thrusted upon this game that we all play, and as I'm sure you can see there are plenty of those people who really don't want to play the game, yet somebody else made this decision on their behalf. If you can't get consent, the default position should be neutrality. But beyond that, the consent argument is just scratching the surface. Not a single thought about the world that the human is being brought into. Not a single thought about the harm caused by the behavior that the human will be responsible for, whether it be the direct or indirect (choices via the supply and demand marketplace). Not a single thought given to the opportunity cost that is lost in providing need for those that are already here, instead of creating a need when it's not necessary to do so. Not a single thought about contributing another mindless consuming normie into a world that has a surplus of it, but for some reason, people feel they are doing something really important by adding to the tally. Not a single thought about if you are even a decent enough parent to raise a compassionate human being, how they are going to be far more prone to depression, because this world is quite brutal to those that see it from an empathetic viewpoint as opposed to the standard homo sapien. So, you see...... you can have success as a parent by raising what will be a depressed human. The simplicity of the thought given with "they might enjoy their life hence life is good" implies we all, individually live in some kind of vaccuum. "Ignorance is bliss" may be the single most succinct and accurate description of the modern-day human species. The world isn't in the state it is in from a lack of "happy people". That isn't the actual problem here. "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti

[@tobiasvanleeuwen1691]

I think you're misinterpreting the first argument. The "Argument of Consent," in my view, mainly points out that you can only ask a person for consent once they are born (which becomes somewhat trickier if you don't believe in free will). However, by the time you can ask that person for consent, it's already too late. So, we ask existing people who can give consent whether it's a good idea to have children. Argument 1 is therefore primarily an argument for why we should carefully consider and not just have children because we want to. Argument 2 concludes that it is immoral to procreate. You agree with both premises but argue that they are not strong enough to warrant that conclusion. You suggest that worthiness is determined far more by the level of purpose in someone's life. However, you can draw the same conclusion from your premise. An example of such a conclusion could be: the existence of purposelessness is worse than being unable to experience a purpose, or for that matter, purposelessness itself.

[@eliassideas]

Thank you for your comment! For the first argument, if one uses it in the way you did, I would be happy to agree. One should be prepared to be a parent and treat the responsibility with care. As for the 2nd one, again, I am not really against your analysis of the symmetry of purposefulness, I am saying that the standard of asymmetry that is acceptable for sufficent worth is not objectively measureable, and it is therefore immoral to not allow this worth to a person just because of our own subjective assessment of the asymmetry. I would also like to point out that existence itself may have a real teleology. Of course i cant prove or disprove this definitively, but to take the strong position of ending existence as such is to say that one is certain that there is no teleology related to it. To me this is philosophical arrogance. Great points! You made me think a lot, which is always appreciated.

[@jaco7826]

@@eliassideas kzbin.info/www/bejne/qInQfWaMbLVpedk The parenting ponzi scheme that your parents forced you into without your consent.

[@oldrusty6527]

You can be glad you exist. You can't be glad you don't exist.

[@MunchinYou-jy6km]

Being glad implies a wish that has been fulfilled. Uncontroversially, if you don't exist, there are no wishes. To me, having fulfilled wishes or a removal of a wish is equally are equally the same. However, by creating a wish, you run into a lot of problems if these wishes don't become (immediately) fulfilled.

[@jaco7826]

Litterally 4 logical errors in your arguments. You didnt discredit a single thing about antinatalisms ideology. Do better next time

[@shinobiighost6946]

Redditor moment XD

[@jaco7826]

@shinobiighost6946 and that means?

[@shinobiighost6946]

@@jaco7826 you didn't explain anything in your comment, I don't have to explain anything either. Tata.

[@jaco7826]

@@shinobiighost6946 1. He made the video, not me. When you try and disprove/discredit something you have to at least make an argument against the thing you want to disprove. He didnt prove antinatalism bad or disprove its merrits. Literally didnt debunk anything. He stated something that is flawed and full of logical errors and says it debunks antinatalism. That is a lie and hipocritical. 2. He assumes something can only have agency if it exists. Yet bringing someone into existence might be against their agency. Your problems of tomorrow dont exist yet but its good to prepare for it. But with his logic, since they dont exist yet they cant affect you or wont happen. 3. He discredits a person's choice because the person is not alive and thus being born must be in the persons best interest. "Life is suffering", an ancient saying no less true now. Being born is not in your best interest but is a long topic, so for a summary go read David Benatar- Better to have never been. 4. The choice was made by someone else by force and is not in your best interest. (many bad shit happens when this occurs) Assuming being born is good contradicts this. Consider all the millions of children suffering in this world, in which they had absolutely no say and was brought in against their will. He is saying in the video that you forcing your choices on someone else is good and doesnt matter since the person doesnt exist yet. So to summarise for your little brain. He didnt "debunk" jack shit. Wrongly assumes agency of a person. Ignores a persons choice. Ignores what might be in the persons best interest. Argues in favour of other people forcing their choices on people, as if thats a good thing. He made the video "debunking" nothing. I just stated that he made some errors. So come on and use your brain a bit.

[@GraySlothPlaysGames]

Do you support an unalienable right to die? Should individuals, for whatever reason they deem fit, be able to end their lives without interference?

[@turtleflash139]

Yep! My life, my choice.

[@Metamorph2]

I do. Your life, your choice. Nobody is owed your existence

[@DylanEmelio-oz5rd]

No, I don’t. There is no unalienable right to die, and society has a duty to protect life even if it’s from the individual

[@Metamorph2]

@@DylanEmelio-oz5rd duty to keep people suffering the awareness that what once made their lives worth living will never be recovered? And if there is a little bit of hope, the struggle is extremely hard. People should have the right to stop fighting and give up. It is fascistic to force people to fight for others. You can't love others' lives if you don't love yourself and your own life first.

[@eliassideas]

Sure.

[@moralitywithoutaddiction797]

Life is tantamount to an addiction (to dopamine/serotonin/endorphins/oxytocin etc (pleasure chemicals/hormones/neurotransmitters)). This video (and your paper) is the reflex of the metaphorical heroin addict when presented with the idea of 'no more heroin'. Try 'cocaine' - fostering/adoption (or do something else that doesn't make your own children suffer an die).

[@eliassideas]

Maybe pro-natalism is a reflex to the threat of deathliness, but have you ever considered that maybe antinatalism is a reflex to the threat of liveliness? :)

[@moralitywithoutaddiction797]

@@eliassideas Let's focus on protecting our children from pain, suffering and death - which is ironically what parents propose they're doing when they claim to 'care' about the children they put in harm's and death's way.

[@moralitywithoutaddiction797]

@@Rustemfrendsk-js189 Will you believe that when you're at the business end of your mortality?

[@moralitywithoutaddiction797]

@@Rustemfrendsk-js189 Never mind.

[@naturalisted1714]

That's not a photo of Benatar. That's the host of "Descenter".

[@eliassideas]

You are correct. My mistake.

[@1x93cm]

The first counter arguement begs the question/ or is circular reasoning. Counter argument 1 just doesnt make sense because non existent persons become persons via birth. That is the only way they can become persons. Once created they can consent (presumably). Even this statement is false because children cannot consent. We have laws regarding this fact in every country. So - for the first 16-18 years a person is incapable of consenting to their existence. Are they non-persons in a sense if we're to follow this logic. Furthermore what happens in a situation where a person reaches the age of maturity and decides they do not consent. Self deletion is crime in many societies. You can't consent because you don't exist until you exist. Of course once you exist- if you don't consent, by whatever means you choose to exit pain and suffering is guaranteed (by most means) How is this not immoral? If we think of a situation where a party has to agree to the terms of a binding contract but can only be told what the terms of said contract are until after they agree and are 18 years into the contract this is immoral and reprehensible. The logical fallacy at play in this situation is known as "begging the question" or "circular reasoning." In this scenario, the fallacy occurs because the party is asked to agree to terms without being provided with the terms beforehand. However, agreeing to terms presupposes that the party understands and accepts those terms. Therefore, the request to agree to the terms assumes the very thing it's supposed to prove - that the terms are acceptable. This lack of transparency and information creates an unfair situation where one party is asked to commit without full knowledge, potentially leading to coercion or exploitation. It undermines the principles of informed consent and fair negotiation. Even just with this little example- I don't think one could argue in good faith that it is moral or ethical to bring someone into reality with these things being the case.

[@ifLifeWereAnAnime]

When you attack the second premise worthiness cannot be quantifiable. You cannot assert life's worthiness in an objective way regardless of meaning or rhe balance of pleasure or pain. To bring a person to life has both possibilities as a result. But only the person existing can make the decision. As you said it's subjective. Life's value cannot be determined in general. But one owns individual life value can.

[@jaco7826]

Literally didnt debunk a single thing about antinayalism in the video. Pathetic attempt. Made too many logical errors and presents it as right or fact.

[@jimmyfaulkner1855]

What are arguments against the misanthropic arguments for anti-natalism? Could you a do a video on just that, similar to this video? Thanks 😊

[@FinnA07]

You completly misrepresnted both arguments, either you didn't understand, or didn't want to understand them. About the First one, If you do think about concseeding a child it's a possible person, so you have to take their consent into account. So the point still stands. to the second one, premise 1 isn't that there is suffering but rather that Life = suffering, given that anything you do is, if you trace it back, to avoid suffering. So when you cannot ask a person for consent or show them how life will be divided into Suffering and Pleasure it is immoral to concieve them, since they might have decided not to want to live if they had the choice. I know you might have chosen tot live, but others might not have, and that is the whole point. Going from: My live isn't too bad. to: therefore it must be Worth living. Is not a logical throughline. What David Benetar does, with analyzing live in how Suffering and Pleasure generally work instead of just for you is imo more logical for an actual Philosophie. Also imagine showing a child about to be born in Africa, into a family that will not be able to feed it properly, that will hunger for 8 Months be in pain and then die how their life will be and how they would answer to the question of: Do you want to be born? And now on a broader scale reconsider showing a Possible Person in a First world Country their live, full of hardships (Abusive Parents, SA, Deppression, Glassern Bones, getting cheated on, and so on, pretty much everything that could happen/does happen to people in the real world) and Pleasure (Getting Married, Birthdays, Friendships, and so on) how their live will be. All of it. They might decide the pleasure wasn't enough to justify the suffering and might not want to be born, AND that's where the consent comes in.

[@eliassideas]

When it comes to the first argument, your response sounds good, but I still think it's a special case, because you are not really making a decision about some "thing" that will happen to a person, but about the very existence of the person in question. That's why I don't think the consent argument works. As for the asymmetry, I think you misrepresented my response. I never said that life is worth living because my life isn't that bad. I said that the question of whether life is worth anything is not that much about pleasure and pain but about purposefulness.

[@FinnA07]

@@eliassideas About the first one we are talking about the live a person will live in which A lot of things will happen to a person, as the person cannot give consent to being subjected to those things, it is immoral to concieve them. It's like involuntarily putting someone in an experiment where he will be shocked and rewarded for certain puzzles or smth. Would it be immoral to do so? I think yes I worded myself poorly on the second one, i believe the illusion can be created that life is worth living by thinking your (generell your, not just you) own life is worth living. And i look forward to seeing your full argument about purposefullness. I do believe a nonexistent person would rather wanna know about Suffering/pain and pleasure, but that's anecdotal

[@Monster254KE]

You are wrong bro,you can't debunk

[@shinobiighost6946]

The best part about diving into antinatalism was that part of me killing itself. I went from "OH NO nothing matters! 😱" To "Oh yay! Nothing matters. 🙂"

[@joshwhite5730]

This is a really interesting video, and I look forward to watching your previous videos. What are is your background and the main idea of this channel?

[@eliassideas]

Well, I am an undergraduate student who started getting into philosophy through literature. I write a lot and think a lot, and that's basically it. As for the channel, it is a blend of my personal philosophy and ideas that I find interesting.

[@naturalisted1714]

My response to your debate with Lawrence Anton: Not existing didn't stop your life (a life) from being "imposed", and so why would have not being born stopped some other life (a life) from being the one imposed? Every single living organism didn't exist, and that lack of existing didn't do anything to stop a life from being imposed. Clearly, not existing is useless at stopping a life from being imposed. If one life isn't imposed then some other life will be the one imposed. No escape. ... P.s. Im not advocating for procreation.

[@elzoog]

How about, creating a fictional story with people in it is immoral? Something is moral if people consent right? However, you did not ask a person if he or she wants to be in your fictional story, therefore, writing a fictional story with people in it, is immoral.

[@FactsCountdown]

Life is temporary illusion like a dream which none of us going to remember after we die

[@bonganikato3016]

I landed on breeder Channel.

[@phantomknight1395]

This isn't supposed to be a difficult thing to understand; you really don't need to engage in all these philosophical struggles to see that life is not worth starting, like, really. I don't see why anyone, when presented with this idea, would still struggle to grasp it. 1st, the consent argument. You say those who do not exist have no properties, and so cannot consent or not consent to anything. 2nd, the asymmetry. It is not pleasure and pain that defines the quality of life, but the meaning one draws from his/her existence. These two points are direct counterarguments, but, well, you even mention in this video that you're debunking Antinatalism. In this reply, I will do both: lay a foundation for these arguments and counter your arguments. But first, I believe in principles, and every argument one makes, I will turn into a principle because without doing that, we end up cherry-picking and contradicting ourselves. Or let me say, it avoids hypocrisy. So now, let me lay down the foundation. We don't know much about this world except that we are born deprived, in need, with holes, and spend all of our lives trying to fill the empty spots, responding to our needs. I doubt that anyone can argue with this; however, if you think that you can, be my guest. The point is that life is dysfunctional; it is like injecting someone with some sort of disease so they will get a higher meaning or purpose in trying to cure themselves. Life is the beginning of all problems that life will have to solve. It's like activating a machine that will produce waste as soon as it is activated, and its purpose is to clean after itself. It doesn't make sense at all. Consent argument. In principle, if you cannot get consent from someone, you are not allowed to do anything to them unless it is in their interest. If you notice that my smartphone battery is about to die and I'm not around, you don't need my consent because it is what I would have done if I was there. Even if I left it uncharged on purpose because I wanted it to switch off, I cannot be mad at you when I come back because you were trying to help. This is why I'm not mad at my parents for having me. They didn't know better. But back to my argument, if you cannot get consent from someone, and you're not helping them, you are not allowed to do anything to them, and that goes double when you know that what you're doing goes against their interest. Yes, it's true that non-existent people have no interest; however, creating a life is creating a need, hole, or deprivation. You cannot argue with that, and no one wants to be deprived. As soon as a baby arrives, it will gasp for air and scream its lungs off. Since that day, it will be condemned to filling a hole in the beach sand you dug for it, a hole that will never get full, and the game ends as soon as it dries. The kid will be chasing the waves with a 5-liter bucket, trying to make sure that there is at least a milliliter of water in that hole. No one can choose to be deprived, and you can only need what you are deprived of. Looking at life this way, you can only conclude that life is an imposition. And if a moral agent imposes it, that is morally wrong. And if you're still shaky, imagine I were to make a bomb that will explode after 150 years and claim that I didn't kill those people because the future people do not exist anywhere to be killed, and no one who lives today will be alive when the bomb goes off. People can see me as a bad person because not existing doesn't strip away any right you will need after being created. Consent is a principle, and if a moral agent imposes without it, it is wrong. Now, the asymmetry. Well, since you agreed with it, I won't dwell on it, but you argued that only an individual can determine if their life is worth it or not and that the quality of life depends not on pain and pleasure but on meaning. So, I'm not a nihilist; I believe that there is an inherent meaning to life, it's just that life itself is pointless. If you feel hungry, you know actually what that means, and if you ignore it, there will be consequences. If you feel a sting, you will know what to do because that pain meant something. But I believe that the meaning you're talking about is not intrinsic like the examples I gave. That meaning is merely a coping mechanism, and how do I know that? Everyone in this world is addicted to something. For some, it's self-improvement; for some, it's religion; and for some, it's their dreams. We were quick to judge those who are addicted to substances when, in reality, we are no different. The basic of life is responding to your deprivations until you can no longer do it. That's life; the rest are just distractions. And back to your point, shouldn't a parent lock the fridge when her young offspring want to eat ice cream during the winter? Shouldn't those who have seen the truth try to show it to those who haven't? As antinatalists or efilists, we are not at war with you or humanity. But that is the truth we have discovered, and we are trying to share it with the world. I believe that I explained it to you, and if you're still not getting it or you find what I said illogical, point out those inconsistencies. And I'm not just defending Antinatalism; I am defending what I believe to be true, and if you can show me more convincing arguments, I am willing to let go of Antinatalism.

[@eliassideas]

What a great comment! You made really good points. I guess my general issue is that i don't actually see life as just a "hole, or deprivation". I agree that people often have needs because they lack something, but this is not enough to show that life in its' entirety only has meaning due to deprivation. I don't think that the fact that we don't have all the things we want proves in any way that we are "deprived" of those things. Meaningfulness is in some sense in opposition to having everything. Of course it can go too far if the suffering is too immense, but for the average person life's difficulties often create purposefulness instead of destroying it, and as i said this is what matters most. As for the consent argument, most people are glad to be alive, or at least dont regret being alive. If this much is true, then it can be said that even if you think consent is broken in procreation, at least in most cases the person created is glad for the decision. If an agent finds something to be a pure benefit, I think we have every right to make a decision to give it to them, even if we can't get consent. If by punching my face I would get 1000 dollars, then I would actually want you to punch my face even without my consent. Just to be clear, I still stand with the position that the consent argument is technically illogical. Even with the bomber you mentioned, i would argue that the bomber does something very immoral, but i wouldn't say he "broke someone's consent". These are 2 different things. As for the asymmetry, I have changed my postion and actually I now disagree with it. You can find a small section where I talk about why with Lawrence Anton in the debate. Thanks for youe comment!!!😊

[@phantomknight1395]

@@eliassideas I think the next time you make a video, try to tackle the dysfunctionality of life argument because, in my opinion, it is the backbone of Antinatalism and is still unrefuted. Because really, if you say, "I don't think that the fact that we don't have all the things we want proves in any way that we are deprived of those things," I don't even know how to answer that. Because that is what life is at its fundamental level. You lack something, fill the spot, lack again, and fill it again. Life is a game of responding to your needs. That is all we do here, trying to get rid of our needs. And anything that creates those needs that we are so desperately trying to get rid of is violating our consent, and that is birth. A world where you have to do stuff you don't want to do to survive, and survival is programmed into you, is not good for you. And the bomb example was meant to show you that if you are going to exist or have the potential to exist, you have all the rights you will need when you exist, even if you don't exist now. The non-existence argument is one of the most illogical arguments people use to refute Antinatalism, but it doesn't work. You don't tell people not to save money for their unborn kids, you don't tell people that making a home for a non-existent family is illogical because not existing doesn't take any right of potential people away. We know that no one wants to get hungry, so why should we do something that will lead to someone having been forced to move in order to get something to eat? That is my argument; no one wants to have an itch, but if you don't take a bath, your body will itch. So you don't want to take a bath, but you have to. You can tell yourself that you want to smell nice and assign a meaning to your showers, but in truth, you're responding to your needs, the need to be liked, to be acceptable, and to feel good. You can say, "I wear a hijab because I want to," but what if you don't want to? You will wear it all the same. And if we had everything we wanted, life would be too boring and meaningless; this is why life is dysfunctional. Just like being forced to wear a hijab, there is nothing you can do about it but to tell yourself stories that all of this means something greater than just scratching an itch. And your $1000 example doesn't really parallel my consent argument. I made the same example about a charger; we know what people want and what will benefit them, and life is not one of those things unless the dysfunctional argument is wrong.

[@Charismaniac]

@@phantomknight1395If life was dysfunctional it wouldn't have survived for as long as it did.

[@kodak-5677]

so to give a little back story to this comment i am a antinatalist you some how managed to end up in my recommended i guess the youtube overlords gods love you haven’t watched the full vid yet will give it a shot tho Edit:also the guy here is ricardo lopes not Benatar 0:44there actually Isn't any image of him online

[@eliassideas]

I hope you liked the video and yes, the photo used was my mistake.

[@tianamarx]

are you greek

[@eliassideas]

Yes αδερφέ 🇬🇷

[@destronia123]

Morality is a subjective opinion, and it would be immoral to impose one's subjective opinion on anyone else. ;)

[@eliassideas]

Wait a sec, if you think that morality is subjective, then the moral claim that "it would be immoral to impose one's subjective opinion on anyone else" is also subjective. So why should i follow it?

[@destronia123]

@eliassideas It up to you to accept it or not. But, it's up to me to accept your morality, unless you somehow persuade me or force me, but that would be immoral. ;)

[@eliassideas]

@@destronia123 Why would it be immoral to force you? You said that morality is just a subjective opinion. So if forcing you to do what I want is good according to my subjective opinion, then on what grounds do you claim that it is immoral? Don't you see that your argument defeats itself?

[@destronia123]

@eliassideas That's my morality. That's why morality is subjective. We may agree on a lot of moral points, but we're just matching up our subjective opinions. On a societal level, we pressure conformity to moral constructs by consequences such as shaming, shunning, violence, etc.

[@DRAKOS353]

Very good. I'd love to read the full paper when it's ready. Συνέχισε

[@eliassideas]

Sure mate. Βρες με στο ινστα: @ilias_sefe και θα σου δείξω το progress του paper.

[@DRAKOS353]

@@eliassideas είσαι μάγκας

[@xenocrates2559]

Thanks for this cogent analysis. I think it is worth bringing into the picture that there are many philosophies that argue for the pre-existence of persons in the form of souls, or reincarnating mechanisms of some sort. My perception is that this would impact at least some anti-natalism arguments because in the process of rebirth it is viewed that the soul, or 'person', does in fact choose to be reborn in chosen conditions. // If you are a materialist and a reductionist, bringing up such considerations would likely be exasperating and they would be simply dismissed. But arguments along this line appear in 'Phaedo' and other philosophical arguments that, to my mind, would make the anti-natalist view more difficult to maintain.

[@qeteacean]

anti anti natalism gang

[@Coquimo]

Great video

[@Ryo-jb4zn]

It would be interesting if you did another video like this but for the misanthropic arguments.

[@poopstink2196]

I feel like antinatalism is like the flat earth of philosophy

[@AtHost98]

It’s when child free people want to sound poetic instead of just saying they don’t like kids

[@kenyodethegreat9197]

@@AtHost98and what tf is wrong about not liking kids

[@AtHost98]

@@kenyodethegreat9197 Nothing at all, but just be honest about it. A lot of this antinatalism is just them trying to justify their decision to not have kids when they don’t need to. If you got relatives badgering you about having kids just help set them straight that its not for you.

[@vermin5367]

​@@AtHost98Antinatalists don't hate children, they actually promote adoption if someone has the desire to raise a child. I think their main point is this: is it ethical to bring children into an imperfect world while guaranteeing their death? Consider this: do you agree that, with the exception of self defense, we should never act in such a way that a person would die as a consequence of our actions? If you agree, how is introducing a new being into this world any different? I think this is a big part of the antinatalist perspective.

[@AtHost98]

@@vermin5367 Yes I would think it’s ethical for the first part and no I wouldn’t agree with the second part. The first one is highly subjective and the second feels like a misdirect from the core of the premise. I would not agree with the second as there are arguments for death in regard to the justice system and or assisted suicide. I’m not the best at explaining things but this video did a great job at going over it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/h3bVZYybpKmDjqMsi=G10XRT70J16UzuGL