>>24229695
Their argument:
>antinatalists central claim is that life is harm
>they argue that you have to be alive to feel pleasure (and stress this isn't guaranteed) and pain (and stress this is assured) [note their bias toward negative ideation]
>they argue that if you're not alive you are guaranteed not to suffer/harm
>[no guarentee of pleasure, risk of suffering/harm, therefore nonexistence is best = basic thread of argument]
>note: they also like to being up that the fact you don't have a choice in coming into existence
>they conclude that not reproducing and ending life is the optimal outcome to reduce harm

Why they're refuted:
>antinatalists can't validate their central claim as they cannot weigh the total value of life in aggregate (the best they can do is assert individual bad things happen)
>[this is all the refutation that is needed: they cannot draw logic, let alone an extreme conclusion, from a central claim they are unable to prove; simple as--but lets go on to point out their bad logic]
>they place the weight of guaranteed outcomes on detractors but they don't have prescience to forsee the outcome/value of individual lives (let alone the aggregate of all life which they are assuming) but...
>antinatalists are attempting to prove their conclusion and thereby the onus is on them produce a stable logic based on a proven premise
>however, any single example of value in life automatically contravienes their premise and contradicts the logic they attempt to assert
>[antinatalists are generally filtered by this because they still affirm their premise even though reason has been given to reject it]
>we may come to the idea of suicide and ending life (which is logically coherent with their outlook while showing their values are actually incosistent)
>suicide automatically means an end to suffering, any harm caused doesn't exist for the victim (aside, the absence of existence means you can't even weigh such anyway)
>denial of suicide is an affirmation that value exists in life (or else why not? note that they won't even admit that suffering is short relative to continued existence, they really want to avoid clearly weighing anything)
>if the antinatalist says it affects others a consistent logic follows that they kill them as well (the sooner the better in fact--stop them from reproducing which puts an end to countless future lives)
>alas, the anti-natalist will assert their original logic no longer applies once they are alive (again, affirming the value of existing and demonstrating their logic can actually be harmful)
>the last bastion is they HAD no choice to exist (conveniently it doesn't matter that they have one now) but again there are plenty of examples of lives worth living

Back | Go to board

Board:

/lit/

Thread:

What do you make of the arguments in this book?Please only comment if you actually have read it.

What do you make of the arguments in this book?
Please only comment if you actually have read it.