Its so funny when idiots think their shit brained arguments are too complex to understand. Every depressed 14 year old has confronted these ideas and got rid of them when they grew up. Suffering isn't that big of a deal, people have been enduring it for thousands of years and dying without regret. If its truly unbearable you know the way out, just realize its your mental illness making life feel unbearable, not life itself.
That's a good argument against God's existence. I made some videos on it, you can check them out. In a nutshell, since we have independent arguments to defend the existence of God and God's being Good, the suffering we experience can only be a part of our existence. It is necessary for the Goodness of God for a time to come at which we declare, in our own way, our existence as something good. This applies to all creatures.
Indeed. God is hidden. Nonetheless, our philosophical investigation into the nature of reality seems to point toward God. The question then becomes why is God hidden? and that's a different problem to be solved, named under the problem of divine hiddenness or problem of evil.
@@SophyPhilia "our investigation", who's investigation is that exactly? And how do you draw the conclusion from it that proves god? To date there is no evidence for god a devil nor angels and demons. There is an original claim that god is real, when anyone says god is real they become attached to that claim making them a claimant, the burden of proof then lays with the claimant to prove the claim. There is no god.
•The 3 marks of existence Everything is suffering, impermanence, and non self,, •Suffering - all living beings suffer in different ways, mental and physical suffering, mental suffering like stress, depression, worry, etc. and physical suffering like disease, skin or organs problems, wounds, etc... •Impermanence - nothing last forever except change, everything or everyone will die or will change, like people, house, plants, possession, gadgets, perspective etc... •No self - everything is made out of 4 elements, fire water earth air, example is the house, how to build a house? Need stone blocks, how to create stone blocks? Need some earth or dirt, combined with water, then shaping to blocks after that need heat to be cooked and steady then need air to make the blocks dry and finish product, and humans and other living beings too are created by the 4 elements, People have heat in their body to not get cold, and water like blood, and air to breath, and earth is the physical form of humans and other organisms (living beings), Humans are just like cars, humans have organs, 6 senses, hormones, chemical reactions to the brain and the nature of mind, nature of the mind is greedy for sensual pleasure to the 5 senses, and car have engine, wheels, fuel, lights, windows, etc.. That's why humans are just like animals, humanity just invented sense of self, the sense of "me" "mine" "I'm this" "I'm that" but in reality all living beings are just an organism in the environment, So everything are just organism trying to survive everyday, name, labels is an illusion it's not real because truth is beyond words and beyond ordinary people and ordinary living beings understanding
Any empirical data requires some "talking" to become evidence, as empirical science presupposes an a priori metaphysical foundation. The same reasoning can lead us to God as you can check out the videos in the playlist.
@@SophyPhiliaTo convey the concept, absolutely. To convince others may take something more. Otherwise, we would still be convinced of say, Xeno's paradox.
There is no evidence of anything supernatural, so presupposing that such things exist does not lead to a valid foundation. All we've ever seen is the natural world.
I still don't understand why you keep relying on the existence of procreated humans when procreation is unethical. You should just live alone in the wild (doing all of your own work) when you don't want humans to procreate.
I do not impose myself on any other when I "rely" on them. They are free to make a decision in living their life, as opposed to not having one to start their life.
@@SophyPhilia It is possible for other humans to suffer because of your decisions! This is why you should just live alone in the wild. No dependencies means no imposed suffering.
That is a good argument for antinatalism! We are living in a world that if we live among each other, we will cause suffering! a world that only living alone is the way to prevent suffering! And yet, some decide to enforce others into this world, and this indeed shows that it is possible for other humans to suffer because of our decisions.
@@SophyPhilia I hope that you will actually do the right thing and leave human society. For three years you already imposed unnecessary suffering on other humans (they maintained the electricity network for your computer).
Narcissist parent: "Here, the minimum food/drink/sleep/shelter you need my child. But you owe me for giving these basic needs. When you grow up, I expect to get more in return, after all, I raised you right. And I will reap a bountyful harvest after all the hard work and investment I did to you." Here we can see a selfish and greedy parent who is only after reward. And yes, they may reap, but they reap bitterness after the truth has been revealed to the child who is now an adult. The parents reap hate and anger from that adult who was once their child that they used for selfish gain. You reap my wrath.
Feels like my parents tbh. Its seems like they don't care much about my mental health and emotional immature and caring much about opinions of others. Idk its really kinda bad situation and i am afraid i am cannot live independently and will depend on them still long time
While it's true life is painful, the simple fact is that life is and remains a miracle. Just the fact you are able to witness reality itself, and all the good that comes with it. What makes the color red be red? The simple fact that we as living beings can perceive the mysteries of the cold hard universe and turn arbitrary wave lengths of light into something that is red, feels red, is a miracle. To be able to see, to be able to hear, to be able to smell, to be able to feel, to love, to cry. Those are all the reason we are alive. Pain is just another aspect of life, to forsake the rest of the wonders that is existence is just a nihilistic view on hedonism in my opinion.
I agree that life is a miracle. But I also believe no matter how great something is, we do not have the right to force it on someone else, and It has to be with their consent.
This is brilliantly explained but I think I take issue with the framing of this as an "alternative" to the standard pro-choice argument. I think this is just a deep way of explaining how the vast majority of pro-choice people think about it. They view personhood as an emergent property of a certain level of biological development, and the "degree" of personhood to be increasing as it coincides with the biological capacity for more experience. I'd actually never considered any other way of conceptualizing it, until I heard you argue in your abortion debate that we should value human biological material for its own sake, even after all capacity for experience is irrevocably gone.
If personhood is seen as a property, then we must consider the possibility of losing it during adulthood and take actions consistently. But I do not think there is a suitable option as I tried to explain in our discussion on abortion. We either have to respect the organism we know as human being in its whole life, from conception to death, or consider a person as a separate entity and value not the human being but the persons. Then the question of coming into existence of persons becomes the main question, but it will be a difficult one as it is not related to biology, as a person is not essentially a biological entity, rather it is related to psychology and philosophy of mind (note that this is not Cartesian dualism, as persons in this view still have physical properties such as position, extension in space, etc.). We either consider them coming into existence alongside the human being, which would be the pro-life position, or take them to come into existence at a later time, the view that I talked about in this video.
@@SophyPhilia I'm having trouble tracking which thing I said that you're responding to. I think most people who are fine with early-term abortions are also fine with euthanasia of people who are braindead, so I don't see that as a particularly difficult bullet to bite for those who see personhood as a property. I would also clarify your position by saying that just because personhood is not the same thing as a biological entity, it doesn't follow that there's no relationship between the two. It's certainly a viable position that consciousness (and degrees of consciousness) emerge from particular arrangements of organic material.
Soul is indeed an apt name for the psychological substance we are focusing on. However, it is better to stay away from it as the concept of soul has been tied up with religion and immateriality, something that is not necessarily true of persons as they can possess physical properties.
@@SophyPhilia Do you sound like a commie by intention? Regardless of your opinion, the truth is that this world is holy. Try the rice experiment from Emoto without ANY prejudice.
We should protect pro-choice because over turning roe vs wade has actually increased the mortality rates of mother's and fully formed infants with unlivable medical conditions. The bans work more like an umbrella law and so many things patients had access to for their safely are no longer available unless the patient is near death in the moment.
@maroontoad8469 If you're claiming a fetus to not be alive and therefore it doesn't feel pain, there would be no need to kill anything then. We do know it's alive because first of all, it's growing, and second of all, an unborn child isn't dead and then suddenly becomes alive at some unknown point. That's not how pregnancy works. Considering this, you can't tell me that no unborn child feels pain, because you don't know that and there is actually some evidence to suggest that they do feel pain very early on. Regardless, something feeling pain or not isn't what makes something moral or not.
@brads8350 So, if we agree that something feeling pain is not what determines whether or not that entity is moral, then we can establish the crux of this debate. What makes the choice to get an abortion not inherently immoral is that the ability of a person to control their own body is vastly more important than that of a being who has not yet been born. This focus on whether or not the fetus is "alive" is kinda besides the point. The bottom line is that as long as that fetus is 1. a part of the mother's body, and 2. having not yet entered a stream of consciousness, then the mother can claim agency over that. I understand why personally one may find it objectionable, but that is not grounds for legislation. Sometimes, the termination of a pregnancy is just necessary based on the circumstances. That said, no one is getting abortions for fun, so it stands to reason that keeping it available as an option is better than outright banning it for emotional reasons. To put it simply, the agency of a person who is alive independently of their mother's body is more important than the agency of a person that is not. That may be harsh to hear, but when the rubber hits the road, these are the choices we have to make, and I think to legislate against it on the basis of religious or emotional appeals is a bad idea. Most people would find violence to be wrong, but we know that sometimes it can be necessary in order to defend something that is more important than a commitment to non-violence. It's a similar thing: Aborting a pregnancy is not a lighthearted or easy thing, but sometimes it is necessary. If you want less abortions to occur, I get it, obviously the prevention of unwanted pregnancy is preferable to having to resolve it after the fact. But this is why I advocate for sexual education and access to contraceptives. If you want less abortions to occur, then this way is just more productive. There's a reason why the highest rates of teen pregnancy are found in places where sexual education is lacking, and sexual repression is more common.
Consider the theology of Gregory of Nyssa and the apokastasis -- that everything returns to God. I believe that hell, to the extent that the concept actually means something, is the refusal of the mercy of God because the person does not accept responsibility for their life. If it is possible to forever refuse God's mercy, then eternal hell is possible. There is the possibility that the love of God is ultimately irresistible and that the person, through their own will, accedes to responsibility and thereby accepts the mercy of God.
I believe that the possibility of refusing God's mercy forever is against Love of God. Because let us suppose that possibility is actualized. Is that life something that that person would have wanted to have if they had given the choice? I do not think so. No one wants to live refusing God's mercy forever, even if it will be our free choice. Free will is only a power for Good and if we know a priori that we will not reach God using it, then there is no value in it. But in that case, God's keeping such a person in existence would not be an act of love, because love is to want the good of others as others, and the good of that person would have been not to come into existence.
It's great you are not depressed, but why are so many Anti Natalists depressed? Basically, is this a logical worldview or a coping mechanism for a community that shares a mental illness. Also, should more be done to get antinatalists psychological help?
Antinatalism fits better for a dark attitude about the world. Because of course as long as things are going great, you do not question your own existence, and if you do not do that, you will not question the coming into existence of your children as well (as it is the most natural thing we see). it is only when you hate your own existence that you start thinking about what has brought you into this situation and then you see birth as the main culprit. There, out of mercy, you decide not to repeat the same act with others and not enforce existence on them. But, even though pessimism might be a sufficient motive for antinatalism, it is not necessary.
Antinatalism is not the view that we should minimize the number of victims. This doesn't capture what antinatalist philosophers are talking about. Antinatalism is not (in general or exclusively) focused on the existing people (victims). And it certainly is not about reducing the number of existing victims, because that would imply killing them. This is the natural conclusion of focusing on the existing people and trying to reduce their number. This argument has the exact same problem as the usual consent argument. You cannot impose life project on anyone, because everyone is already alive. You cannot impose life on someone who is already alive. And before some person X exists, there is not X on which you could impose anything (or breach consent). You cannot impose anything on "empty space" (on the non-existent persons) So, no. The argument is still susceptible to this important objection. Your psychedelics examples shows it clearly. Giving someone a psychedelic (without their knowledge and consent) requires this someone to exist. This is disanalogous to procreation (where there is no child yet on whom anything could be imposed).
That''s a solid argument. I'm curious if you've experienced the profound effects of psychedelics before because you are spot on 😂 while it is the single most profound experience I've had in my short life thus far, I never wanna have that kind of experience again and surely wouldn't give it to someone without their consent
Hello there! That's a great video. I made a response with. Please take a look at my "RE: "The consent argument still works for Antinatalism" by SophyPhilia" 🔥
School is a great reason why I wont have children. No way im putting a child through that hell. School exists to kill all creativity and make loyal factory workers. Such a vile system. No way im putting my child through all that needless stress.
it seems to me that antinatalism has become more like math. like trying to prove a math equation or discussing semantics. many will say, look, in this case you do not need consent therefore i can do whatever i want. we can say the same about sex with an unconscious person and that does not make it right. people want to justify their actions by any means. AN should be about reality. there is only one reality. the reality that the person you create will suffer. and suffering is not optional. this person will also become a slave to keep this crap we call society going. this person can be born with a serious illness etc. and they never agreed to come into existence. they prescribe all this to a person they say they "love". what they actually love are their egos. but, people do not give a F about that. more important are their egos and their fairy tales. reality is that way, better look the other way. the key here is that you cannot get consent or no consent. can't get either. if you are unable to get those, why proceed? as they love to say, no one exist, that is right, if you do not do it, you affect no one. absolutely no one because no one exist anxiously waiting for you to fornicate in order to exist. if you do it, a person will for sure be affected in multiple ways. again, they do not F care. why is that hard to understand? in the end is about justifying their unnecessary actions. unnecessary because there is no need to create a person.
existence is something you do to a person. once they are here it means you imposed it on them. once they are here the notion of consent applies and they did not consent to existence.
@@zoshoa Let's say that you invent an indestructible poisoning machine. You dig a hole and put this machine underground and you program a timer into it so that it will turn itself on and it starts poisoning every living being in the year 2524. Did you harm anyone? After all those future beings don't exist.
Procreation is a animalistic desire and was designed only for consciousness level of animal but at consciousness level of human procreation is immoral because consent plays very important role while doing something to others.
they try to dismiss the consent argument because they can find some cases in which consent may not apply. finding those specific cases does not make the argument invalid. the thing is that the discussion is not about all the possible scenarios in which consent may not apply. the discussion is about the specific case of reproduction. we could very well say, the consent argument about sex does not hold water because in this other scenario consent is not required, therefor I can do whatever I want. that is utterly stupid.
It seems to me that when I exit the arena of instances when individuals are able to give explicit informed consent or non-consent, the only option remaining is to start projecting my desires onto other people and end up doing an entirely different type of analysis. A baby cries, and it hasn't eaten in a while so it must be hungry. I can't know for certain that the baby consents to being fed, but I can project out from my own desires that if I were hungry and unable to feed myself, then I would consent to being fed. So I assume that I have the baby's consent and proceed. And if a baby is refusing to eat, do I allow it starve itself to death? Or do I reason that... well, if only the baby understood that the consequences of not eating would be terrible hunger pains and eventual death, then it would not consent to starving. So I assume that I have the baby's consent, if only it knew better, and proceed. I think that instead of conceptualizing myself as using complicated reasoning to honor the baby's theoretical consent, it's more accurate to say that I'm just overriding the consent-calculation entirely, in order to do what I would want if I were in the baby's position. So my argument is, then, that consent is only important when an individual is capable of giving explicit informed consent. Non-existent humans or future humans, however you want to conceptualize it, are not such individuals, therefore consent is not relevant.
You can't project your preferences onto others. Aside from that, you didn't want to be born before you were actually born. You didn't exist neither to want it or not.
All the good out weighs the pain. As like in weightlifting - NO Pain, NO Gain. Being able to lift much weight comes through tearing the muscles so that they may repair and be bigger and better. Don't be a cry baby. You are better than that.
Oh right, because getting mangled in a car accident with a drunk driver, or dying from a terminal illness is the same thing as gaining muscles in weightlifting. Screw you and your sadistic "no pain no gain" BS. If you think you have the right to force this on someone and tell them to quit crying, then you're sadistic. You're no better than a rapist who tells his victim to quit resisting and stop crying. Disgusting.
1) Babies don’t also consent to not being born 2) There might be pain, but there is also joy 3) No help to the unborn by not creating them Who actually takes this “philosophy” seriously?
Mom did not buy you newest iphone and so you want everyone to die? You can "quit" game of life at any time you want. No one will stop you. Instead you seek atention
But only by sneaking around in secret instead of being able to buy nembutal at the local pharmacy whenever we want. The argument in this video has nothing to do with the inconvenience of not getting the newest iphone, this is about a violation of consent that can cause tremendous amounts of suffering in the future. Good on you encouraging someone to kill themselves just because they're against violating someone's consent by dragging them into this world kicking and screaming. You're clearly incapable of understanding and have no empathy or compassion.
0:55 who are we forcing? It makes no sense to talk of forcing "someone" when that "someone" doesn't exist. You can't commit harms on people that don't exist.
Havent watched the video yet but im so glad youre brave enough to share your story with us, im autistic myself and seeing representatio like this makes me feel more comfortable in my own skin 💖
I totally agree with antinatalism, as I refuse to bring a child into this hell hole; BUT what I want to add to the conversation is that people have kids mostly out of instinct, rather then cold reason and moral disquisitions. We are hardwired to reproduce, which decrease (not totally) moral culpability from parents, because part of that hardwired instinct is to make a person believe that "they are doing the morally right thing" in having kids or to the very least not even consider the subject of morality when it comes to reproduction... In reality it is not moral to have kids in my opinion, but in the sphere of instincts morality does not play. Look at animals... they have to kill to survive on the daily, and lets not forget that we are animals our-self and way less rational then we think. Life requires immorality and bullshit making to sustain itself... this is the sad reality of our predicament. Therefore it is quite logical that the humans who survived till today are the ones most hardwired into bullshitting themselves into believing that life is not the immoral shit show it actually is, and that having kids is therefore a positive loving thing. Not totally their fault! In a way it would be like morally blaming a tiger for wanting to kill to survive: it is hardwired in them! Humans are the bullshiters of the animal kingdom and it is not their fault: nature gave this "gift" to them to compensate for the gift of reason. Reason is a tool for survival but it can be used to easily find out that life is a gigantic shit show, therefore nature provides a method (bullshitting, rationalisations, lies, delusions) for human to avoid seeing the truth of life, cause it would decrease survival and reproductive chances. The most functionally deluded ones survive! So when a parent says "I had my kids out of love", they actually believe their own bullshit! Not their fault.
if you exist, you experience the pleasure of eating a hamburger which is GOOD and you experience the pain of a cold winter night or the depression of loneliness which is BAD. if you NEVER exist and there is thunder that strikes where you would've been that is GOOD yet if you NEVER exist and there is dinner table full of food that is NOT BAD because no one is being DEPRIVED of that pleasure. EXISTENCE IS A CURSE!!!!!!
Let me clear this up for you firstly because we are very unclear,of our origin/purpose this life is pretty senseless secondly our non-thinking stupid parents,who think,they should be revered,are both physically/psychologically biologically programmed what did they sacrifice (nothing) we owe them nothing. simply/plainly putt no life,no worries of any kind.
AH! Interesting. But does a woman have the right to kill an unwanted intruder? Especially one that might kill her? Especially especially if the cops refuse or are unable to remove the person that might kill her? I mean, the person isn't innocent. They're committing trespass on her property. The fact that person didn't mean to trespass is irrelevant. The fact the person isn't corpomentis isn't relevant either. They're on her property. They refuse to leave. Too bad they have an extremely poor medical constitution that means they will die when they're removed from her property. Doesn't matter. She wants them out. If the state wants to assume to cost of removing the trespasser from her property and devise some synthetic or alternative housing for the person, hey! Win win. But if the state can't or doesn't want to assume that burden, then the woman can't be faulted if the person she removes from trespass dies as result of the removal. That person should not have trespassed. If you can't kill a trespasser, one that threatens your life in many cases, one that endangers your health, one that costs you money, just because that trespass is inside another human being, then I'm coming over, taking your stuff, and being an asshole about it because you can't kill me for trespassing on your property.
@@SophyPhilia Doesn't matter if it's rape or not. That person is trespassing on her property and she wants them removed. Imagine a homeless guy broke into your living room and the cops said that you couldn't throw him out for 9 months! You'd be outraged, and rightly so.
yes, DOCTORS AND PREGNANT PEOPLE SHOULD BE THE ONLY PEOPLE TO CHOOSE THIS, they branded this Pro-life because they knew anti-choice would not be as ambiguous and people would have to think before trying to impose personal beleifs on strangers.
_All_ laws governing what members of the public are or are not allowed to do make impositions on strangers. So unless you are against _all_ laws, that's really a useless point to bring up. It's called the "pro-life" position because it is in favour of preserving the life of the unborn child when this is possible. In my experience of talking to people who take what is commonly called the "pro-choice" position, it is rare that they actually are in favour of the mother's choice. Most in my experience are in favour of _forced_ abortions when the expectant mother is below a certain age, so they are not in favour of choice at all.
There is nothing wrong with being anti-choice. We are already anti-choice regarding many subjects. Are only rapists, theives, murderers allowed to choose whether to do what they do? No. If the society decides what they do is wrong, we happily take their choice away. So if abortion is also killing an innocent person, we should be anti abortion, i.e. anti choice of people choosing to abort.
Why does RU-vid think I want to listen to some uneducated dude yappin lmao. At least recommend me pro lifers who know how to defend their shitty opinions lol
