Responding to your Antinatalist Comments

[@WackyConundrum]

Elias, in a couple of videos you mentioned "telos", "the value of consciousness", "existence has inherent value", and similar bold claims. But it seems to me, they are properly explained nor argued for. It makes following your line of thinking quite difficult. What do you say about making a dedicated video _arguing for_ your case, rather than merely attacking the opposition (antinatalists)?

[@eliassideas]

The very term 'intrinsic value' can be translated as 'something whose nature is such that it ought to be so, i.e. that it is objectively and categorically better to be the way that it is'. The first step towards my moral view is just to acknowledge that the very meaning of intrinsic value is literally a teleological statement. It is the assertion that there are at least some things (i.e. values) that can be described not only in descriptive terms but also in teleological terms. Believing in intrinsic values presumes that there are natures of "oughts" and "ought nots". Now, when talking about ethics, antinatalists usually believe that pleasure and pain hold intrinsic value (one positive and another negative). My only observation is that, if we're going to employ a teleological understanding in ethics for values, then we have to consider whether pain and pleasure are the only things in the world that have this teleological quality. My argument about existence is that, because it is contingent and infinitely more specific than nothingness, it requires an explanation. At the same time, any physical, descriptive explanation would presume the existence of something (i.e. the descriptive explanation) in the first place, so it would not explain existence's emergence or differentiation from nothingness. In trying to give a sufficient explanation for existence then, it seems that since a descriptive physical explanation is illogical, it is better to explain it through a teleological explanation, i.e. existence's nature is such that it ought to be as it is. In other words, every "is" is contingent upon the fundamental "ought" or "value" that underlies existence itself, or in simpler terms, existence itself has fundamental instrinsic value. Hope this makes things clear!!!

[@AnonymousWon-uu5yn]

Huge thumbs down on this video.

[@historycentral8543]

I really don't understand this concept because adhering to it on a mass scale would effectively promote the prospect of Human extinction.Moreover how can something that doesn't even exist obtain consent.Its not even a moral agent nor is it even conscious.

[@AnonymousWon-uu5yn]

Because they don't have the ability to consent is why we don't force them into the type of existence that they might not like or possibly hate to exist in.

[@centurion7398]

It's anti human, monstrous evil. Peddled by ridiculous selectively nihilist midwits just smart enough to make logically structured arguments, but too stupid to take a step back and see the absurdity of their "oh-so-clever" reasoning.

[@Oatmeal_Mann]

​@@AnonymousWon-uu5ynThey still will never be objects of moral concern because they don't exist. You also can't force something that doesn't exist into anything. If they don't like it, well, you had no reason to believe that they wouldn't have and there's an easy way out. This whole ideology is incoherent.

[@WackyConundrum]

Why would the consequences of adhering to antinatalism on a mass scale matter as to whether it's right or wrong? Why would it be bad for humanity to go extinct sooner rather than later? Who would feel sad about it?

[@AnonymousWon-uu5yn]

it is immoral to force someone into the type of existence that they might hate to exist in. And if they don't ever exist then that's just fine because they will never know or care that they never existed.

[@phantomknight1395]

I am sorry if I come across as too direct, but I will call it how I see it now. At this point, it seems like you're just being stubborn, or maybe I will have to rewatch the video again because I don't get what you're really trying to say this time. I kept thinking that I will get you, but no, you just went off the rails. Like really, I really tried to understand what you're saying, but nothing made sense. Antinatalism is still not a uniform philosophy, so you will get a lot of people explaining it differently. Antinatalism is a conclusion and an answer to the question, 'is life worth starting?' and both observation and logic support it. It is not me or anyone trying to shove our beliefs down anyone's throat by force; we're merely presenting reality as it is. And I will try again to show what I believe you're still unable to see. If you find a turd on top of the table, you will not say maybe it was placed there for a reason, not because you know that it belongs in the toilet, no, it's because it smells terrible, it's because it's disgusting. If you were to find a Lego or toothpaste, you wouldn't even notice it. Those two things too don't belong on the table, but they will not bother you at all. If you haven't figured out where I am going, I will spell it out for you. The fact that things are, it doesn't mean that they are sacred and valuable. And if you think that existence and consciousness are transcendental, that's you assigning meaning to them, that is you projecting stuff onto this world or you will demonstrate how they are. Because if you observe and perceive reality, you will see that no one wants to be hungry, no one wants to be sick, and no one wants to be incapable. These are not my projections, but observable facts, that is the turd in the table, and if people don't want to be hungry, why should we create situations that will lead to people who wouldn't have been otherwise end up hungry? Help me out here. Under what observation did you reach the conclusion that it's okay to create a situation that will force someone into a position you know they wouldn't want to be in? Another thing, philosophy, ethics, mathematics, and thermometers are tools by which we measure things consistently. Imagine if we changed how a thermometer works every time it gives us results we're not happy about; what would be the point of making it in the first place? If we have a principle, we stick by it whether we're happy about the results or not. Every time you're hungry, something you don't like is happening to you. Every time your skin is itchy, something you don't like is happening to you. And these situations were created by moral agents, people who don't want these things to happen to them, but they thought it was okay to perpetuate these situations. And again, this is not me projecting my thoughts onto this world; I am merely telling you what you observe too. So, logically, it's better not to create anyone because, based on the observations we made on the living, life is dysfunctional. And there is nothing to justify it. Even your Telos argument doesn't, as I showed you in the first paragraph. So, yeah. I hope you get it this time. Oh, and that party example you made in response to the first comment was way off; in your example, people are already in the situation, and you failed to represent the dysfunctionality of life. Procreation is forcing people into a situation they don't want to be in, even those who claim that life is beautiful say that because they haven't made an observation or they are just in denial.

[@Oatmeal_Mann]

Argument by assertion.

[@phantomknight1395]

@@Oatmeal_Mann You cannot just assert that without pointing out the any inconsistencies or present a better. What are you not getting here because this is clear as day.

[@seanmellows1348]

The assignment of value ( negative or positive) to suffering is a mistake, it is inextricable to, even the very essence of, life. Antinatalism is fun logical play, and a rich approach to philosophical questions, but not useful in actual lived moral life. My current understanding leads me to conclude consciousness is fundamental, and all experiential possibilities are of equal weight.

[@eliassideas]

Great comment, but I am afraid you are applying a double-standard here. On the one hand, you want to make purely descriptive claims about reality, and that by me saying that existence is intrinsically good, I am just asserting or adding something to existence that is not there. But well... aren't you doing the exact same thing when yoy assert that suffering is intrinsically bad? You say life is "dysfunctional", and sure, that may be a descriptive claim, but why would dysfunctionality be intrinsically bad? It is one thing to describe a situation of someone being in pain, and its a different thing to say that this pain matters in any way. Under a purely descriptive view, sure this man is in pain, but so what? The description alone does not give me any duties or any reason to care. In other words, if I cannot assert an "ought" based on the nature of existence as such, because there are no "oughts" but only "is", then by the same logic you cannot assert an "ought" based on the nature of pain as such, because there are no "oughts" but only "is". So your response is self-defeating. If we agree that values are objective and exist, then we have to assert them based on the teleological nature of ontologies. If you believe that they are not objective and exist, then you have no reason to talk with such convction on the matter of procreation.

[@phantomknight1395]

@@eliassideas Good point, I greatly appreciate this reply. I talked about observation (Is) and logic (Ought). I will also use the same example as you: someone is in pain. Yes, that is an observation; however, someone trying to get rid of the pain is also an observation. And then, logically, if you have a way to stop that pain or possibly prevent it, you ought to do it. By helping, you're not projecting anything. It is an observation that people like it when you scratch the itchy area their hand cannot reach. And there is nothing I hate more than double standards. This is why I raised the point that we don't change how the thermometer works if we are not happy with what it shows us. I believe in principles and stick by them. Yes, there are always areas of discussion, like the difference between self-defense and murder. The teleological argument you're using is not an observation like my dysfunctionality of life argument; you don't even know what consciousness really is. You have no demonstration or mechanism of how this is good. The argument is simple: 'we exist (which is an observation), and we don't know why (another observation), so we ought to continue because maybe there is a reason for all this (logic, which I found to be super illogical).' Just like the example of a turd, removing a stinking turd from your table requires no assertion or projection; it is a logical thing to do. If I bash 100 testicles and get one and the same reaction of people trying to heal the wounds I have inflicted to them, it is logical to stop doing it. But saying maybe this, maybe that, is projecting things that are not there. That can be grasping at straws. I agree that value does exist. And what is value? Many people tend to confuse value and appreciation because most of the time they go together. If your neighbor is playing music and you find yourself enjoying it, that music is a benefit to you. But if you're working a night shift and it is disturbing your sleep, it is a harm to you. And by being a harm, that music gives value to its absence. Back to my dysfunctionality of life argument again, it is not a projection to say the absence of that music would benefit you; it is an observable fact. And if I am your neighbor and I know that you have to go to work at night, it is logical to play my music as low as possible so I don't harm you, instead of saying maybe he will be able to sleep, I cannot sacrifice my leisure time for him, or whatever excuse I can come up with. And again, we can all see that life comes with a lot of needs that everyone is desperately trying to get rid of. This is an observation; this is a fact. So what is the most logical thing to do? Maybe you're thinking about nothingness, and I hate the nothingness example. But still, my argument stands, and I will give you this example: If someone is mad at you and is planning to shoot, but the family talks him out of it, you benefit from that even though you will not appreciate it because you don't know that it happened. If I am able to talk you into Antinatalism, since life was going to harm your kid, that would be a benefit, regardless of whether they will exist to appreciate it or not, because preventing a harm is always a good thing to do.

[@CharlieApples]

Spoken like someone who cannot become pregnant or give birth, nor suffer the lifelong consequences and damage done to your own body. It’s extremely easy to live in this idealistic fantasy where “procreation” is no big deal, it’s like a party! The more the merrier! When it’s not you and your body, your health and safety and sanity and happiness that’s on the line for that procreation to be made possible. You’ve never felt the mortal fear of a pregnancy scare and you never will, and I envy that. I wish I could live life with such a carefree attitude, and have someone else suffer so I can have a bunch of kids with my last name.

[@eliassideas]

So basically your criticism is that I am a man, and so I shouldn't speak. Definitely not a sexist comment. Also, there are plenty of women who want to have kids. If you don't that's fine, nobody is forcing you to.

[@AnonymousWon-uu5yn]

@@eliassideas me being compassionate enough to not hurt someone else by not forcing them into the type of existence where they would suffer against their will and possibly suffer horribly against their will is the most loving thing that I could possibly do for them and so me doing that for them is a complete win. But if I did force someone into the type of existence where they will suffer against their will and possibly suffer horribly against their will then I would be a horrible person for doing that to them. But you don't have the ability to be able to understand.

[@modernosfilosofos]

@@AnonymousWon-uu5yn "the most loving thing that I could possibly do for them", hmmm... who is "them"? Oh, the person that doesn't exist because it hasn't been procreated. So you did the most loving possible thing for someone who does not exist. In other words, for nobody at all. Such a logical statement.

[@lukasgray1443]

"You’ve never felt the mortal fear of a pregnancy scare and you never will, and I envy that. I wish I could live life with such a carefree attitude" you don't need to either. It's pretty easy to not get pregnant.