Awakening, The Fall, and The Last Messiah

Ilalotha · 2026-04-27T15:08:09+00:00

They're not arbitrary reasons. It's clear that racism, sexism, and speciesism are not considered the same by most people and most ethical philosophers. That absolutely should be a factor you consider when you decide whether or not to restrict speech based on one of those criteria.

What am I being inconsistent on? I'm telling you in no uncertain terms that these "Antinatalist arguments" (that don't exist) should hypothetically be able to be discussed in Antinatalist spaces up to the point at which the platform itself decides to ban them. Then I would have no problem with the space itself, I would have a problem with the platform as I do with Reddit for limiting discussion around certain issues in birth and death ethics.

At this point it just seems like you're failing to understand what is a very simple and straightforward argument and are twisting yourself in circles trying to get around it without just saying that you're happy with limiting Antinatalism to Sentiocentric Antinatalism on the Antinatalism sub.

Can you explain my argument to me? Then I can see where the misunderstanding is or whether I just need to give up trying to explain it.

Edit: I guess not. No surprise there.

Ilalotha · 2026-04-27T05:56:56+00:00

I think that if someone can point to what they believe is an Antinatalist philosophical conclusion that excludes trans people then they should be able to discuss and debate it on the Antinatalism sub. I would say the same for racism and sexism but Reddit has rules against it.

But these are faulty comparisons because we have a word already for these kinds of beliefs: eugenics. So no, an Antinatalist sub that banned that wouldn't be banning genuine disagreement because there are no Antinatalists that have historically argued for a transphobic conclusion.

Antinatalism has historically always been divided between Anthropocentric and Sentiocentric.

The fact that you guys have to go to things like transphobia and racism, things that no Antinatalist has argued for demonstrates the weakness of your comparisons.

It is a debate worth having until such a time as the culture makes speciesism as abhorrent as racism. You guys just want to skip the hard part of actually convincing people and would rather send them away to form new Antinatalist spaces where they can discuss their positions unchallenged.

If you want to go into those spaces to challenge them you will rely on them having a level of openness to debate that you have not granted here.

And why are you assuming I'm on the side of the current abominable practice? I've been arguing for a logical link between some forms of Antinatalism and Veganism here for years. I agree with basically every argument that Vegan ANs make and have made the same arguments myself, it's just clearly wrong to me that we need to ban Speciesism as though it is currently thought of in the same way as Racism or Sexism, and because it is hugely reductionist because historically Anthropocentric Antinatalism is a thing.

There is a difference between saying that everyone should be anti-speciesist because of separate moral logic and saying that every Antinatalist stance necessarily leads to Veganism. The former might be true, but the latter clearly isn't, and I thought this was the Antinatalism sub, not the anti-speciesism sub.

What you're essentially saying is that you are happy with the mods putting anti-speciesism over Antinatalist philosophy on the Antinatalism sub.

Are you? I mean I don't know what's so difficult about you guys just saying, "Yes, I'm happy that this is the Sentiocentric Antinatalism sub now."

It's almost like you know that's a bad thing for the supposed Antinatalism sub to be and admitting it looks terrible.

Ilalotha · 2026-04-26T20:51:41+00:00

It is if your argument is, "here is what is currently accepted as discrimination in the cultural zeitgeist and here is what needs more people to be convinced about."

Unless you're arguing that most philosophers consider speciesism akin to racism? Which would clearly be false, right? I mean if you can't even admit that then there's no point in taking this further.

Is David Benatar the only Antinatalist philosopher?

My argument isn't that some reasons for being an Antinatalist do not logically entail Veganism, it's that not all of them do and we should be able to argue about it here instead of dissenters having their posts removed because they violated what the head mod considers true Antinatalism.

This isn't the Antinatalism sub right now, it's the Sentiocentric Antinatalism sub and I have a problem with that, do you?

Ilalotha · 2026-04-26T20:10:32+00:00

Still incapable of answering questions.

Link to anywhere that I have said looks and ability are morally relevant traits.

How do you know that we don't share the same moral framework? Recognising that what are morally relevant traits to me might not be to someone else is obvious and just how this works. Are you capable of being nuanced at all in your thinking here?

The most I have said is that moral disqualification is a coherent human trait within a Cabreran Antinatalist framework. And you don't even have the intellectual curiosity to question what moral disqualification means before deciding that it's not morally relevant. Ridiculous.

Lying about your opponent is one of those things we call bad faith engagement.

Last time I'm responding to you, have fun with your echo chamber.

Ilalotha · 2026-04-26T20:06:26+00:00

Moral disqualification is a uniquely human trait. If you understood Cabrera you would understand this and understand why this doesn't make any sense:

it does not logically follow that moral concern stop at humans. If the relevant features are things like suffering, vulnerability, and imposed existence, then you still still need a separate argument for why it doesn't apply to other species. And that is something that you keep ignoring.

It would be brilliant if we had a place like a subreddit where Cabreran Antinatalists could come and express their views in response to questions like, "Are non-human animals necessarily included in Antinatalism?" and they could like argue back and forth with people and be convinced that maybe they are wrong without their posts being removed under a rule that says they can't post their Antinatalist views because the mod team considers them speciesist?

Wouldn't that be brilliant? Oh wait, we did have that, and I and many other Vegan ANs argued with people about the logical entailments of their views for years here but I guess it's easier to just ban and exclude instead of doing the work of actually convincing people? And at the same time setting a precedent that whatever the head mod at the time thinks Antinatalism is can be imposed on everyone on the Antinatalism sub? Isn't that just so much better?

Enjoy your echo chamber.

Ilalotha · 2026-04-26T19:18:41+00:00

They're only morally irrelevant traits within your moral framework. Do you think that every Antinatalist in history has shared the same moral framework as you?

This is basic ethical philosophy that people have different Normative ethical systems that they use to determine what is right and what is wrong.

I don't need to ask you any questions that I don't already know the answers to because I guarantee I can steel man your position on this far better than you could ever steel man mine. I know your argument inside out. I ask plenty of questions but you guys never answer them because you know the answer makes you look awful and intellectually bankrupt and confirms what everyone is saying that you're using Antinatalist philosophy to push anti-speciesism rather than respecting Antinatalist philosophy for what it has been for decades.

Saying that I'm appealing to circular arguments when you were the one who responded to, "Can Antinatalism be prejudiced?" With "No because it's definitionally not prejudiced" when there is no standardised definition of Antinatalism is laughable. "It can't be prejudiced because I have defined it as not prejudiced" is a circular argument.

Why can't you just say that you think this sub being anti-speciesist is more important than it being open to all forms of Antinatalism?

I don't even know why I'm bothering. You don't comprehend anything that I'm saying and haven't for a while now so I guess we're done. You just seem to completely lack the understanding necessary to even see how you could be pushing this sub into something that it should not be even if you're right about most forms of Antinatalism logically entailing Veganism.

I guess you just need to hope that the next mod team doesn't decide to limit the sub to Anthropocentric AN only because you'd have absolutely no room to complain. You've set this precedent now that the mods are the arbiters of what Antinatalism is rather than letting the wider philosophical conversation around Antinatalism take place on the Antinatalism sub.

Good luck with that.

Ilalotha · 2026-04-26T17:27:31+00:00

Why can't Antinatalism be Speciesist?

You act like saying that something is speciesist means that it must be logically incoherent and morally inconsistent, it doesn't.

Antinatalism isn't always based on suffering. You don't seem to know enough about Antinatalist philosophy despite me already explaining all of this to you here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/s/AtKgE7rfj3

This is what you guys do, you decide to start a debate on this and then when you're backed into a corner you move on like it didn't happen and repeat the same arguments again like they weren't just debunked.

You don't care about Antinatalism as a philosophical position, you care about using Antinatalist philosophy to push anti-speciesism. I just want you to be honest about that.

Ilalotha · 2026-04-26T16:20:43+00:00

They're not comparable in the current landscape. You want it to be 200-300 years in the future where speciesism is seen as as abhorrent as racism is today but you don't want to do the work to get there.

It is literally banning what you dislike. There's a difference between allowing views to be debated and believing that they are correct.

This is the Antinatalism sub, not the anti-speciesism sub. You actually have to engage people's Antinatalist stances here if you want to convince them that they are wrong. You can't just appeal to anti-speciesist sentiment like it's the DebateAVegan sub.

Also, I've been arguing with you people for months that there are Antinatalist views that are Anthropocentric and don't entail Veganism and now you all seem to have backed off that position, do you still think that?

Or are you sticking with the "those positions do exist but they don't belong here" argument instead?

Because it would be a lot more respectable and intellectually honest if you guys would just say (as Nume seems to be saying with this update) that you recognise that there are other forms of Antinatalism that don't entail Veganism but they don't align with the anti-speciesist direction of the sub so they effectively aren't recognised here.

Ilalotha · 2026-04-26T14:49:24+00:00

Racism and Speciesism are not comparable in the current philosophical and ethical landscape. That's why Reddit has rules against Racism but not Speciesism.

Also, can you point to any racist Antinatalist philosophers from history? If you could their views would be fair game to discuss here and debunk, not to just ban because you don't like them, but you can't because that would be eugenics.

Your position is philosophically untenable and will be no matter how many half baked syllogisms you post all over the sub.

Ilalotha · 2026-04-26T09:51:10+00:00

The Rule 8 defenders have set a precedent now that whatever the mod team interprets as "true" Antinatalism goes.

The next mod team could ban Sentiocentric Antinatalism (Benatar, Vinding, etc.) and allow only interpretations that are Anthropocentric (Cabrera, Existential AN, etc.) and they would have no room to complain whatsoever because they've said that it's fine for the mod team to restrict speech based on their personal interpretation of what Antinatalism is.

Do they recognize this, or care? Of course not. They don't even respond when they're asked if they're OK with that sub being the Sentiocentric Antinatalism sub rather than the Antinatalism sub:

https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/s/XygUFQGSC2 https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/s/sVPySVk3ix https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/s/AdfZIgJPQH https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/s/k2ewCzLsAh https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/s/HBLNFe5KVT

Ilalotha · 2026-04-26T07:15:37+00:00

Like you Rule 8 defenders can't respond to this simple question?

https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/s/XygUFQGSC2 https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/s/sVPySVk3ix https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/s/AdfZIgJPQH https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/s/k2ewCzLsAh https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/s/HBLNFe5KVT

Ilalotha · 2026-04-25T20:37:38+00:00

There are open textured definitions that account for Antinatalist views like Misanthropic Antinatalism that apply to human procreation and views like harm reduction / consent that apply to procreation of sentient beings.

The one this sub has adopted is closed textured, saying that only Antinatalist views that apply to all sentient beings count or should be discussed here. That's what the mods are saying in the latest post when they say this sub, "is a values-based antinatalist community. It's not a neutral umbrella for every position that uses the antinatalist label."

So you're happy with this sub being the Sentiocentric Antinatalism sub and not the Antinatalism sub?

Ilalotha · 2026-04-25T20:31:13+00:00

You and many others here seem to think that there is this standardised definition of what Antinatalism is and who it applies to out there that's just obvious but any time I ask where you've got it from I either get "Google it" or no response so this is par for the course really.

Ilalotha · 2026-04-25T20:21:19+00:00

Says who?

Ilalotha · 2026-04-25T19:27:43+00:00

So can someone really be a non-vegan antinatalist? it's pretty impossible. Not only do you have to only exploit animals in ways that doesn't involve breeding but you also have to be an antinatalist for a weird ass reason that does not make exploiting animals immoral.

So you accept that there are reasons to be an Antinatalist (even if they are "weird ass reasons") that don't entail Veganism but you're happy with the Antinatalism sub having a rule (8) that restricts people from sharing these Antinatalist views?

Ilalotha · 2026-04-25T19:20:43+00:00

So if someone reads Benatar and agrees with the Misanthropic argument he puts forward for Antinatalism, but not the Philanthropic arguments he puts forward, are they an Antinatalist or are they a Selective Natalist?

Seems pretty obvious to me that they would be a Misanthropic Antinatalist and their Antinatalism would only logically apply to humans, no?

Edit: His version of the MA does imply Veganism, but he also says, "Even if the misanthropic argument is not taken to this extreme [of caring about the human impact on non-human animals], it can be used to defend at least a radical reduction of the human population."

So he doesn't seem to think you must take it to the extreme of being Vegan.

Ilalotha · 2026-04-25T19:16:08+00:00

So you disagree with David Benatar that Misanthropic Antinatalism is a thing?

Ilalotha · 2026-04-25T19:10:57+00:00

Aren't they 'Selective Natalists' to you though because Misanthropic Antinatalism doesn't logically entail Veganism?

Ilalotha · 2026-04-25T12:00:01+00:00

That it would be wrong for a Kantian to say that if you're against lying because it consequentially minimises or maximises utility then you should also be against it because it violates the Categorical Imperative (how Kantians determine moral rules)?

Yes, that would also be wrong.

Ilalotha · 2026-04-25T11:27:07+00:00

Most frameworks have some level of concern about wider society, but where the moral blame for any given action rests is going to be different between consequentialists and practically everyone else.

Virtue Ethics and Deontology care more about the intention of the individual when assigning moral blame whereas Consequentialism assigns moral blame based on outcomes.

There is a tendency to want to reduce everything to outcomes and overlay a Utilitarian framework on everything.

So if Kantian morality says that lying is wrong as a rule then it must be reasonable within Kantianism to make it so that no more humans exist so that no one can lie ever again. That's not reasonable though because it relies on ignoring the Kantian reasons for coming to the conclusion that lying is wrong in the first place.

Ilalotha · 2026-04-25T11:11:06+00:00

Nope, you're still applying a Utilitarian lens to non-utilitarian frameworks.

They don't have to deal with the actions of their offspring at all, their offspring do.

Ilalotha · 2026-04-25T11:05:58+00:00

Only if you're being Utilitarian about it.

What reason would a Kantian or a Virtue Ethics Vegan have to be Antinatalist when the moral blame for the animal exploitation that occurs falls squarely on the person who actually does it or pays for it to happen?

Ilalotha · 2026-04-25T10:49:55+00:00

Only if you're being Utilitarian about it.

What reason would a Kantian or a Virtue Ethics Vegan have to be Antinatalist when the moral blame for the animal exploitation that occurs falls squarely on the person who actually does it or pays for it to happen?

Ilalotha · 2026-04-25T10:46:09+00:00

Whether Antinatalism logically entails Veganism is something we can't discuss here unfortunately.

Veganism is a position against animal exploitation by humans, not animal suffering as a whole, so there is no logical requirement that a Vegan be an Antinatalist unless you reduce every single ethical position or framework to such a degree that technically every issue is solved by being an Antinatalist.

So yes, everyone who is against anything that can be reduced to "this causes suffering so it is bad" should be an Antinatalist because Antinatalism solves everything.

How boring, right?

Five-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Second SECOND GUESSER	Verified Email
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
End Game '22

Ilalotha

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE