LogFAQs > #956377852

Reigning_King posted...

This is why I've been pointing out that most people believe that at least certain people shouldn't breed, because it wouldn't be fair to their potential offspring for whatever reason. This is a completly natural way of think, to find the suffering of someone who doesn't, but could, exist disagreeable even though this suffering doesn't actually exist.

We can make this judgement because we already have foreknowledge of the likelihood of that person being born with defects. I would imagine most people take issue with this kind of birth. I don't know about the possible worlds argument, but the paper I quoted actually goes on to address it.

It is revealing that Benatar cannot elucidate his allegedly personal claim without saying that we are in fact comparing the values of two possible worlds. Since he cannot say that one possible life is better than another, he must say that one world is better than another. But the question of what is better for a person is not identical (or, we might add, even remotely similar) to the question of which of two worlds is best. Moreover, when asking what would be best for their future children, prospective parents are not asking about the comparative value of two possible worlds. Benatar, despite what he says, is answering the fourth and most abstract of the questions listed at the beginning of this paper.7 But this is not the question that any prospective parent is asking, nor has anyone shown that it is the question they ought to be asking.

I agree with the above user. Why have antinatalists given up on striving to eliminate as much suffering as possible by making life better for everyone? That is a noble cause. Antinatalism is more like a lazy escape route for edgelords.

---

https://imgur.com/NkZUeFd