417

Antinatalism Rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 3 months ago by BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

308 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 54 points 3 months ago

Antinatalism is reactionary and incorrect.

[-] Omega_Man@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Need dragon slayers in the time dragons.

[-] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

Suffering is inherent to the human condition. Is it okay to undertake actions that cause people suffering?

[-] Omega_Man@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

What makes something okay? Who decides what is okay and what is not okay?

[-] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

I'm taking an utilitarian approach. Suffering should be avoided, and happiness maximized. Bringing another being into existence guarantees suffering, with a chance of creating happiness. That is not a gamble you should take on behalf of another being.

[-] Omega_Man@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Is the potential (or guarantee) for suffering greater than the potential for joy? You also have to account for the joy of the person and the joy they create. I believe the potential for expected joy exceeds the guarantee of suffering.

[-] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

What previous status quo are antinatalists trying to return to? "Reactionary" is just the left wing equivalent of "woke".

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago

I suppose the previous status quo that anti-natalists want to return to is before the evolution of intelligent life. Word is still out on whether it's immoral for single-celled organisms to reproduce.