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.
@@chloeleeabner 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.
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" 🔥
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.
