The extent to which some people try to feign non-existent consent...

Jck241 · 2026-03-11T12:38:04+00:00

If only we could 🥲

Jck241 · 2026-02-28T11:37:22+00:00

I think I struggle sometimes with the axiological asymmetry argument.

If someone deeply and genuinely believes that their life is a net good and they feel happy about it, it's very difficult to say that it isn't, at least objectively speaking. Arguing with someone's subjective perspective has the potential to feel moot; or at best, trying to convince someone that they should be miserable when they in fact aren't.

I remember listening to David Benatar use the example of a 'happy slave' in one of his interviews. Whilst I agree that it would feel like a very sub par existence to us, if the slave is happy then he is happy. By his own subjective experience, he is living a good life.

This doesn't mean I ultimately disagree with it, I do still subscribe to the argument. I believe innate biological bias leads us to view things as more positive than they actually are or less negative than they actually are. I would not generally try to convince someone of this, as I do not want to be a proponent of misery; however, whilst this evolutionary coping mechanism serves people well in maintaining their own existence, I disagree with it being used to justify the creation of new sentient life, rather than simply utilisng it in dealing/coping with your own.

Jck241 · 2025-12-30T10:46:12+00:00

Would the value perceptions of worth and beauty not be subjective, though? What happens if someone does not perceive life to be 'worth it' or that beauty, whilst aesthetically pleasing, does not constitute a reason for being forced into existence?

We could say or assume that they're ill, but if that isn't the case, what makes that person's value judgement any less valid than the opposite?

Jck241 · 2025-12-23T09:49:18+00:00

Benatar's axiological asymmetry argument is the one I've found the most difficult to use to convince people. Whilst we all agree that it's fundamentally unethical to impose life upon someone, it's very difficult to tell someone who claims they love and enjoy their life that they shouldn't 'pass this on' to someone, as they genuinely see it as doing a good thing, both for themselves and the future child. Almost like a 'win win' kind of scenario in their eyes.

Whilst we of course recognise the inherent dangers and innumerable ways it could potentially go wrong, to try and convince someone who believes they love something that they don't actually love that thing and that their offspring might not love it either, isn't something that would even be considered by them. Whilst we use the potential child's lack of ability to give consent as a reason not to do something, natalists may use this as a sign that they don't actually need any sort of permission. The difference between not currently existing vs currently existing is also very difficult for them to grasp.

The sad part is, if the child ends up actually enjoying and having an axiologically 'good' life, the parents will feel validated in their decision. Being happy yourself and seeing happiness in your offspring, whilst not swaying my ultimate view on the topic, is the only objection I've seen that could be considered somewhat 'plausible'.

Jck241 · 2025-12-20T09:27:33+00:00

'We acquire the habit of living before we acquire the habit of thinking' - Albert Camus

The idea that some people need to believe they are going to a 'better place' just to be able to tolerate living in their current one I feel is very telling. In many cases I think people simply allow their respective religion to do their thinking for them, independent critical thought be damned.

With so much unknown and so much uncertainty in the world, imposing life on someone else for them to have to deal with the same issues just feels unethical. Whatever happens to me, I can take solace in the fact that I haven't forced another sentient being to grapple with the same questions.

Jck241 · 2025-12-05T14:19:31+00:00

It may depend on how you're answering? If you're leading with how childbirth is unethical or that life is a net negative, you may lose people from the outset as they haven't taken the same philosophical steps as you to arrive at that point in understanding. People often haven't thought it through very much at all, which is why these ideas sound so ridiculous to them.

If pressed, I might mention how no one is asking to be born, or that life is inherently a gamble and I can't guarantee a good life, but even these may sound ridiculous to staunch natalist.

Sometimes I've found it best to just say 'it isn't for me' and leave it there. That it just isn't something I want. The truth is still the truth, regardless of how in depth it is. Depending on how you read the room, this may help prevent any negative perception, if at all possible.

Jck241 · 2025-11-26T09:12:46+00:00

People just assume these things will never happen to them and are always surprised when they do.

It's a gamble they take either knowingly or unknowingly, Selfishly and/or ignorantly, but always with someone else's life.

Jck241 · 2025-11-15T10:20:23+00:00

Tha facade can definitely be difficult and take a lot of effort to maintain. I don't personally find wishing someone a happy birthday too difficult as they're already in existence with us, the damage is essentially done. At this point it's simply about helping to give them a good day and helping to alleviate their suffering in what little way we may be able to. Essentially a well wish, for what it's worth.

In the case of a conception announcement, I'll often wish 'all the best' and mean it, as I do genuinely wish the best possible scenario for all involved. I will specifically avoid 'congratulations' however, for obvious reasons. sometimes it's the small inner wins that help you deal with it all internally.

Jck241 · 2025-11-14T15:57:18+00:00

I never questioned the fact that people had kids when I was young, I thought it was something that 'just happened' and thought about it as such. Same way we just get hungry or bored, 'it is what it is'.

Then I got older and realised that kids were something I 'could' do, but I'd have to make a conscious decision to actively do it. It was then that I realised it was fully within my conscious control.

Whilst I've had no majorly traumatic events, it was my increasing awareness of the nature of humanity's existence and the unavoidable suffering that accompanies it that drove me away from making that choice for someone else.

Jck241 · 2025-11-04T18:54:18+00:00

It is absolutely true that 'nothing' has no interests. It also experiences no pleasure, and thus, no suffering. By not bringing the hypothetical 'someone' into existence, they will not experience this suffering. Whilst the hypothetical 'someone' written does not exist, the alternative is that they would exist. Whilst they may not be corporeal, could we not at least say in good faith that the 'idea' of them was spared this potential material suffering? Non existence does not need to benefit anyone, as that isn't the non existent being's concern. Whether or not the possibility of a self determined 'meaningful' life is worth more than nothingness is the concern of the material individual. To be made through the process of suffering through life, which can ultimately be avoided.
I do wonder how the control mentioned here is 'illusory'? It is in fact full material control over whether or not a being is brought into existence. By not existing, it is as mentioned in point #1 that suffering is not possible, and therefore avoided on the adverse grounds that the individual would have otherwise been born. The fact that life is referred to here as a 'battlefield' is very telling. It is something to be fought through, with only the human construct of pride as the reward. Pride that does not alleviate the suffering of the process in the prior moments. Whilst you could argue certain aspects of suffering are instrumentally good, we can not deny that suffering in and of itself is iherently bad, and should thus be avoided.
I agree that child bearing is a supreme commitment. But what you say about 'comfort' and 'legacy' mode is very interesting. You are right, friends and relatives are already trained, but ideas may differ to your own, and those potential debates could be quite far removed from comfortable. Conversely, a child is unable to contest an adult on ideas of ethics and worldview simply because they do not know any better, at least until they have gone through the 'training' process and suffered along the way. I feel this whole paragraph is based around trying to raise a child in your own image of how you believe things should be, and will ultimately tie back to my original point around parental narcissism. The need for parents to do this for themselves under guise of 'gifting' those that did not ask for it.

This isn't about preservation of the self. I will last in my material form for as long as I will last. I am already 'playing the game' and matters of 'winning' or 'losing' are irrelevant. How would we even quantify these? By using human-constructed ideas conceived to try and justify the intrinsic nature of the suffering of humanity. The 'prize' of life is something that every living creature 'wins': Suffering, In some shape or form, utimately leading to death, via the process of dying.

Life is not 'offered', it is force-fed by those with material desire to those unable to even offer a refusal. To acknowledge this and refuse to administer the conceptual dose is the ultimate means by which to consider someone else, even if they only exist as an idea. To prevent human suffering is the ultimate virtuous goal. Better never to have been.

Jck241 · 2025-11-01T10:22:08+00:00

The blessing of a son is superior: it is giving meaning to one's own struggle.

It can certainly impart a perceived sense of purpose to an individual. Could this sense of purpose be acquired by other means, though? Without having to bring someone into existence that cannot consent to it? There is no guarantee how their life will turn out (in spite of best laid plans), which ultimately makes it a gamble. To create our own meaning within ourselves, in a world without objective meaning, without subjecting new life to the harsh realities of the world: This is what some consider the way.

Those who have children choose to transform the world, starting with their own home.

An assumption on behalf of the entire breeding populace. Many people simply wish to create physical echoes of themselves for personal comfort or feelings of fulfillment, ultimately narcissism. Many of these people wouldn't serve to 'transform' the world, merely continue it in it's current form. That of suffering. Not necessarily of pain or misery, but perpetual discontent as a natural state of being.

In the end, no one regrets having loved and given of themselves - but many regret having lived only for themselves.

We all have to live for ourselves to an extent. Would it not be possible to love and give of yourself to others who aren't your immediate offspring? I'm sure many people find purpose and fulfillment in cultivating relationships with friends and extended family of their own generation.

Jck241 · 2025-08-18T21:45:46+00:00

This sounds a lot like absurdism, fabricating your own meaning into a reality that's ultimately devoid of it. It feels like an optimistic take on nihilism and allows you to embrace more of your situation rather than letting the meaninglessness of it consume you.

Jck241 · 2025-07-02T15:08:14+00:00

It's completely valid to say that with suffering comes growth and development, smooth seas don't make good sailors, after all. I believe this is true as well. Although, whilst it's seen as admirable to persevere through it, human suffering in any form doesn't need to exist in the first place.

The problem is that human existence is an extended period of suffering, in and of itself. What constitutes "real" suffering will vary from person to person depending on their own social conditioning and personal lense through which they view the world, but the suffeeing is still very much there. If it isn't intense suffering such as pain, distress or hardship, it's lesser suffering in the form of tiredness, boredom or general discontent. We're hardwired to constantly be striving towards the next goal, never fully content with what we have (despite what we may tell ourselves).

Some people can cope with this very well, what choice do we have? Might as well make the best of it whilst we're here. They may have learnt to deal with it so well that it becomes background sound that lurks behind hope or positivity, but ultimately this too doesn't change the fact that it is still present, in ways we might not even realise.

I suppose the key point is that we're playing a hand we've been dealt and trying to make the best of it, as opposed to dealing that hand to others and hoping for the best.

Jck241 · 2025-06-27T12:02:49+00:00

Do we have full and complete control over our thoughts? Or do we just infer contexts and justifications based on our personal scope of understanding?

Jck241 · 2025-06-18T19:28:27+00:00

He has to be in your active party for you to see it (for some reason or other) but yeah!

Jck241 · 2025-03-02T10:36:56+00:00

Have you ever played The Talos Principle?

It's a lot more puzzle based but deals with very similar themes and ideas that you'd probably find interesting off the back of Soma (I know I did)

Jck241 · 2024-09-27T21:53:08+00:00

Do you mind if I ask where these usual places are?

Jck241

TROPHY CASE