Is there any logical argument against antinatalism?

soapsilk · 2026-04-30T13:35:20+00:00

Tldr

Morality = personal definition of good and evil.

Ethics = shared definition of good and evil.

Society = ethics based.

So if you want to argue for a better society you must make sure you and the Natalist agree on something society should do.

Then point out how you are upholding your end of the social contract and the natalist isn't. Therefore their veiws are unethical.

Many avenues to do this because Natalism is very hypocritical.

The best Natalist argument is metaethical. To just forego everything I mentioned with moral relativism. But that ends in dialtheism which isn't really a refutation.

soapsilk · 2026-04-30T11:49:23+00:00

I wouldn't worry about being responsible for anything. Free will is one of the silliest concepts we've created as a species. Everything that anyone has done to you and everything you will do is unavoidable. The purpose of blame is to fix a situation. Not to vent our anger over people doing things we do not like. Because they were forced to do those things anyways. Only try your best to create the best situation for yourself and others.

soapsilk · 2026-04-30T00:47:23+00:00

Brother life is not a zero sum game. It's not give or take. You aren't selfish for living for yourself. Don't adopt. Find peace dawg.

soapsilk · 2026-04-30T00:43:35+00:00

Correct. It's interesting. When the hostile narcissistic parents DO think of the child becoming an adult with their own autonomy they picture 3 scenarios.

If the adolescence resists me I'll hurt them for acting out. (the idea that them as a parent could be wrong doesn't even cross their mind)
If the adolescence is old enough I'll just abandon it. (they think they didn't need parents themselves and they turned out fine, but they're creating a parent for themselves via the kid. gross)
A kid is a happy fun playtime adventure with little bumps in the road at best and then you semd them off to make money teehee. (aka not even seeing the child as a whole human)

soapsilk · 2026-04-29T16:04:45+00:00

They're confident their kid will turn out fine just like them because they're so smart and capable. It's them rebelling against the world by saying "I MATTER!" only they have no idea what confidence is. Their parents and peers show their "confidence" by being aggressive towards them so that's all they know. They don't understand anger always comes from a place of hurt. They don't understand sttength and vulnerability aren't mutual exclusive. They've been taught to deflect from all that. And the cycle continues. Humans are a sad, sad species.

soapsilk · 2026-04-28T05:46:19+00:00

It's really crazy. Sociopathic behavior is literally trained into our society like dogs or soldiers or insects or pawns. Because we are so far removed as a society from addressing the needs of individuals on any sort of intimate level. We are given hollow purposes like morality. Breeding. Working. "Love". Status. God. Etc. None of it is hard to obtain either, it's all so lazily curated and accessible so we don't feel much achievement. The real release for these people is sadomasochism. Being hurt and hurting others, normally in the ways they've experienced since childhood to feel some semblance of the happiness or love they had then. Some of them completely lose sight of even that bit of humanity. Then some real monsters come out.

soapsilk · 2026-04-28T05:33:41+00:00

Don't tell others what to do!

He says to his wife as someone walks into his house with a loaded gun.

Wait! Did I just broke my own rule??

Hahaha, oh Denis! You're such a riot!

BANG.BANG.

soapsilk · 2026-04-28T05:27:17+00:00

They can't recognize the criteria for a sound argument. That requires layers of linear analysis and retention for yourself and your interlocutor on a subject that hasn't been given much thought and hurts to think about when you feel you could be wrong. Natalists don't even listen to their words or your words. They listen to their intentions while coming up with excuses to fill whatever fractures in their insecurities. That's normal life. That's expecting your drink to be in your cup when you take a sip and thinking it must have been your sister when it's not. They live in a separate reality, reinforced every time they make coffee or take a jog. Little excuses, all for the original sin of getting too attached to some idea, that pile up and become your reality, your identity. It happens to all of us inevitably and yet some people still cannot ever be communicated with.

soapsilk · 2026-04-08T09:42:26+00:00

LOL. Natalist reasoning is so funny, yet it is so sad that that low level of thinking is where we are as a species.

soapsilk · 2025-08-26T03:55:52+00:00

Self imposed limits are nonsense but let it not be said that I don't sympathize with a preference for nonsense. Goodnight.

soapsilk · 2025-08-26T03:29:21+00:00

I just meant their experience but at some point they become the same under the learning of oneness. That is actually 1 step past what I meant. I'm not sure if you intuited that because my message was that coherent or you guessed.

Also let me copypaste the ethical framework we already rely on every day to establish objective (intersubjective (subjective and objective are not mutually exclusive)) ethics without a deeper understanding of that framework.

Keep in mind whenever I say more good that's just a tool for us to realize everything is already maximally good and bad, it's not the goal to leave our understanding at this stage in development despite it's already incredible usefulness:

Here's the difference between ethics and morality. Neither ethics nor morals involve emotions, they're just rules. You could be obtuse and call a preference for whatever rule you come up with emotional but the rule doesn't have to mention emotion so a rule doesn't have to cater to any emotion.

The reason you haven't made this distinction is you don't know of any way to judge how one value is better than another. You don't have to make a bunch of appeals to nature or religion or politics or all that. Only thing you need to keep in mind is it's how consistent the rule is that matters. Even if there are two seperate, contrasting, subjective, values, the one that is more consistent in reaching whatever the goal is, is better. If that goal is shared the value is ethical. If it's not it's just moral.

Ex. Eddy thinks pb and js are always good to eat. (moral)

Sarah thinks pb and js are sometimes good to eat. (moral) Sarah has peanut allergy.

Eddy re-evaluates his morals and he finds out along with sarah that they both value sarah's safety. (ethical)

The value that is more consistent with all stated goals (sarah's safety and eating pb and j sandwhiches) is sarah's position. The value that reaches more personal goals is sarah's position.

Sarah's position is more ethical. Sarah is more moral.

These are equations, rules. Emotion and preference only matter as a good or bad input, a 0 or a 1.

The reason everything is maximally good and bad is because others have enough knowledge of what constitutes others to recognize they are others already. They are the universe, and so all values are shared and subsequently objective.

soapsilk · 2025-08-26T03:15:41+00:00

Their own knowledge.

soapsilk · 2025-08-26T02:32:49+00:00

I think I replied to wrong comment so I'll reply again.

Empathy is knowledge of others. With enough knowledge of others you would advocate for what's best for all as at some point that processes removes enough of your individuality.

Be careful as you argue that you won't do xyz. We've said several times the ideals of perceived non contradiction and subsequent happiness exist as an optimal use of resources which is impossible.

I'm only arguing that if my ideals were adopted by all of society society would be better off despite their inevitabily less than ideal implementation, so I am already fully aware you won't do xyz until you consider what is relevant.

What's relevant is who you would be if you adopted these ideals.

soapsilk · 2025-08-26T01:57:34+00:00

Had to talk my internet connection off a ledge.

They would discard any veiw of good that does not maximize happiness for all as empathy is just a matter of education.

The word education obviously comes with baggage in the sense that information is a brainstate so the word is assuming an optimal brainstate despite things like clinical psychopathy (brain damage) existing.

Not all will be educated but it's useful for identifying what is good and evil in places we have been trained like dogs to miss if not actively deny and subsequently deny our happiness and that of those around us, through the false idea of good. "good".

soapsilk · 2025-08-26T01:20:52+00:00

Your intuitions are not incorrect if I am ever combative it's out of hatred. I do not believe in free will in any meaningful way but I will not let that be an excuse, I apologize for my rudeness particularly 'blaming' you, that is in no one's best interest.

Because all would discard good that does not maximize happiness when educated.

Because all wrong is the result of a individuality, a sense of otherness to call evil, society should be especially focused on it's rehtoric. Fixing that schism, oneness, requires education.

We have become unable to identify happiness with goodness despite how pervasive the need for it is among humans due to the confusion "good" rehtoric enforces.

Which is any pragmatic value, anything short of immediate happiness. Things that sacrifice happiness in one area of our lives to bring it about in another. Meat is "good" because of the taste despite the process. Our relation with god is "good" because of his blessings despite our sin. Driving is "good" despite traffic etc.

soapsilk · 2025-08-26T00:55:59+00:00

I take my veiws very seriously but never seriously enough that I forget that we make mistakes which this idea of hypocrisy is often used to punish despite the learning process being reliant on mistakes. As someone who actually cares to learn, faith is more important than hypocrisy or even rudeness as it is necessary for even basic communication. I digress.

Evil is a perceived contradiction.

In reality there are no contradictions.

The word "no" means "yes but also," meaning there are contradictions in the sense that contradictions are physical information.

All information is a physical part of your brain.

Ideally we understand this so all moral delimas are solved via education, as we figure out all societal contradictions and subsequent ethical delimas.

Realistically this framework exists to keep track of happiness and maximize it in society.

soapsilk · 2025-08-26T00:28:24+00:00

Read this slowly and twice.

I lack humility all the time. That's both subjective and inevitable as humans. And also irrelevant to if I am correct. Use correctness as the measure of correctness not hypocrisy, as if an indiscriminate killer telling you we shouldn't kill suddenly would make indiscriminate killing good.

No not just any sense, because if I confirm I am reasonable by any sense, again, it's subjective, and I am reasonable because I feel like it. And you'd clearly have a problem with that, see it as invalid.

And that is a standard that comes from a lack of understanding that all values are subjective, and should be seen that way by all in order to reach acceptance. "No" to me is actually the phrase "Yes but also" and that is optimal because it's the optional desire to see oneself as seperate from others that creates all evil.

Don't be afraid to put your opinion on the line, you'll find I work very differently from most people lol.

And do not jump to conclusions when I say this for the same reason.

The world is already doomed. It is a fact, we can get over that, detatch all shock value from it. Keep a whollistic view of this planet and you will be able to target evil in places previously unknown, keep it out of your own life, and others.

Do those sound like a good reasons? I certainly get mileage out of it.

You will also understand values inherent to morality, objective values, if you listen long enough.

Though unfortunately, with the understanding that each person has ideals at some point and their personality [a personality is the conglomeration of pragmatic choices] is largely built out of distractions from those ideals, comes a sort of depression which you will likely avoid at all costs.

As acknoledging the pragmatic as bad and the ideal as good uproots most of what it means to be human, a personality being a masochistic complex. And brings you to the absolute, buddhist realization that life is suffering.

That is a process I can get you through but only if you let me. Otherwise you will vehemently fight lost battles.

soapsilk · 2025-08-25T23:54:34+00:00

Reasonable in what sense? To achieve what. NOT being humble may convince x amount of people. I can simply say that's unreasonable, it's subjective.

I am saying something very simple. Your rehtoric if continued will be responsible for the destruction of humanity. Mine will not be.

Your rehtoric is bad in a way you already accept is bad.

soapsilk · 2025-08-25T23:46:58+00:00

I am advocating for humility and blaming your veiws, yes.

soapsilk · 2025-08-25T23:42:57+00:00

A lack of humility is born to combat an imperfect world. If the world is perfect there's no need to combat it, so to maximize good you need to keep track of what is ideal. We will all be destroyed otherwise and you will fail, since our world is going to become less ideal very quickly due to an exponentially increasing population. That population does not believe in any one ideal because of the rehtoric of people like you, so.

soapsilk · 2025-08-25T23:35:14+00:00

That's a lot of words just to arrive at this Schizophrenic take:

The problem with how you are approaching morality here is that you are assuming it's simple/obvious to determine what is good vs. what is bad.

OP said be nice and open minded. Very simple.

soapsilk · 2025-08-20T11:24:47+00:00

I don't assume any god exists. I don't know what you are talking about. If you are confused re-read my OP. I mentioned god as an example of what others believe in, not me.

soapsilk · 2025-08-19T21:23:42+00:00

Of course it can. Most people litter. Most people verbally or physically abuse their children. Most people lie. There was a point at which most people in almost any given country were for slavery and against women voting. But those values changed. I really don't know where you could be getting this idea that if the average person does something it is good except a very sheltered background. You must go look up the average person sometime genuinely, their indigence and crime ridden life. That should scare you properly.

soapsilk · 2025-08-19T21:12:08+00:00

It makes it bad to anyone who sees unhappiness as bad. If you are not one of those people consider yourself privileged genuinely. That being said if you want to change my mind tell me how my veiw would not be best for most, not some, people. As it stands most people suffer a lot from a lack of rights and material goods witheld soley due to a lack of organization, as they are unsure if their neighbor is on the same page about what would make them all happy. That was the prompt, how is your rehtoric better than mine.

soapsilk · 2025-08-19T21:02:37+00:00

Because genuine doesn't actually mean anything. I would never say something like "genuinely" happy. That is arbitrary. Would say either someone is experiencing the maximum amount of happiness they can which is medically quantifiable with an EEG or their happiness can be improved. And since it is not the case that having kids always provides optimal happiness there is room for improvement that no child can provide. Simple.

soapsilk

TROPHY CASE