Philosophy Now Forum

Dalek Prime wrote: Feel free to prove me wrong. Just because you don't fancy the conclusion, doesn't mean it's wrong.

That was exactly my point. I intend to give it the benefit of the doubt till proven incorrect. Needs more support though.

Systematic wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Feel free to prove me wrong. Just because you don't fancy the conclusion, doesn't mean it's wrong.

That was exactly my point. I intend to give it the benefit of the doubt till proven incorrect. Needs more support though.

Support for what? With no life, there are no problems. How do you not see this? I'm not being facetious or coy.

And if this thread is correct, my solution should be even easier to stomach, if there is really no existence anyways...

viewtopic.php?f=16&p=207147#p207147

Dalek Prime wrote:Support for what? With no life, there are no problems. How do you not see this? I'm not being facetious or coy.

And if this thread is correct, my solution should be even easier to stomach, if there is really no existence anyways...

viewtopic.php?f=16&p=207147#p207147

Most people like existing, even when it is painful. If we are to believe that we should not exist, then that idea needs to be supported. I would do it myself, except that I rather like existing also.

I'm not talking about those already existing, Systematic. I'm talking about refraining from creating existing people. Those that don't exist, won't miss existence. So we can all just carry on as normal, sans procreation.

As a friend says, "life may be worth living, but it's not worth starting".

Anyways, this isn't about me convincing anyone not to procreate. This is about stating a plan that would solve all problems, as asked for in the OP. That I did. That no one will follow it through on it is not my issue or problem. Although, 20% of western society is not procreating, without my needing to nudge them.

Btw, what did you mean by "I would do it myself, except that I rather like existing also"?Not procreate? What does that have to do with you existing?

Ah, I see what you're asking now. You want me to cover all the reasons for antinatalism, is that it? It would be easier to have you browse through my past posts on the subject, or read up on antinatalism yourself. Truth is, I'm tired of explaining it, and don't really care who breeds. The world can go to heck in a hand basket for all I care (It will, eventually, anyways.) At least I know I didn't contribute to the problem.

Here's some reading material I posted, should you decide to look into it further.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=15466

Dalek Prime wrote: Btw, what did you mean by "I would do it myself, except that I rather like existing also"?Not procreate? What does that have to do with you existing?

I would support your argument myself, except that I rather like existing also.

Edit: I rather like the idea that my son exists too.

Well, yeah, now that your son exists, sure.

I would posit that if someone does exist, it is their right and responsibility to go on existing. Since we know that we are mortal, we must find another way to go on existing that transcends mortality--hence we must reproduce.

How would you answer such a claim, Dalek Prime?

It's most definitely the existent's right to continue existing. But there is no ethical duty to bring others into the world. There is no 'must' in this equation.

I'm not so sure as to 'responsibility' to remain existent, though. Provided one has no dependents, and thoroughly wishes to end existence, I would allow for their preference, as a right.

We should not try to solve the problems of society. We should just leave people alone, and let them solve their own problems.

Unless you mean putting a bullet through the heads of David Bowie, David Byrne, and Sting. In that case, can I hold the gun?

"We should just leave people alone, and let them solve their own problems."

Yep.

henry quirk wrote:"We should just leave people alone, and let them solve their own problems."

Yep.

But then all those "do gooders" would be left with nothing to do. - Oh wait, we could find out if they could dig their way out of a grave with broken fingers.

thedoc wrote:

henry quirk wrote:"We should just leave people alone, and let them solve their own problems."

Yep.

But then all those "do gooders" would be left with nothing to do. - Oh wait, we could find out if they could dig their way out of a grave with broken fingers.

And if they are children or invalids or disabled, etc, and are in a situation they cannot solve or are too scared or unable to ask for help?

Arising_uk wrote:

thedoc wrote:

henry quirk wrote:"We should just leave people alone, and let them solve their own problems."

Yep.

But then all those "do gooders" would be left with nothing to do. - Oh wait, we could find out if they could dig their way out of a grave with broken fingers.

And if they are children or invalids or disabled, etc, and are in a situation they cannot solve or are too scared or unable to ask for help?

Those people already have responsible grown ups to help them, and don't need "busybody" types sticking their noses in where they don't belong. If you know some of those people who don't have someone to help them, why aren't you helping them if they need it, or are you all talk and no action. FYI, some friends of mine were down on their luck, so they are now staying in our house till they get their lives back in order.

thedoc wrote:

henry quirk wrote:"We should just leave people alone, and let them solve their own problems."

Yep.

But then all those "do gooders" would be left with nothing to do. - Oh wait, we could find out if they could dig their way out of a grave with broken fingers.

LOL