THE NIGHTMARE NETWORK
Go Back   THE NIGHTMARE NETWORK > Wayward Distractions > Philosophy
Home Forums Content Contagion Members Media Diversion Info Register
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes Translate
Old 01-22-2013   #1
Viva June's Avatar
Viva June
Mystic
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 232
Quotes: 0
Points: 7,493, Level: 60 Points: 7,493, Level: 60 Points: 7,493, Level: 60
Level up: 72% Level up: 72% Level up: 72%
Activity: 7% Activity: 7% Activity: 7%
Re: The Optimism Delusion - David Benatar responds to Richard Dawkins.

Quote Originally Posted by Kramdar View Post
The unborn never ask to be born.

This seems true enough. But the corollary is:

The unborn never ask to not be born.

This latter statement is true in precisely the same way as the former statement.

The unborn do not desire life, but neither do they desire nothingness. To say "well, the unborn do not desire anything, so let's just leave them that way" may seem the better decision for those few unborn who would otherwise have manifested to think the transient "harm" of living overrides all other considerations, but it would just as easily be the worse decision for the many unborn who would have otherwise gone on to believe that the experience (good and bad) of existence is better than the perpetual ignorance of the void.
Again, you fail to recognise that the antinalist argument doesn't rely on there being actual entities who feel one way or another about the prospect of existence. Talk of the unborn and so on is just a kind of linguistic shorthand. The antinatalist may say that the unborn suffer no harm by remaining unborn, but what she actually means is that there can be no pain where there is no subject to experience it. For this claim to work she needs non-existence to be simply nothing and nothing else, since if there is an absence of everything, then the absence of subjectivity and hence of harm is included in that. Most people seem to think of non-existence in a similar way, which is why the shorthand of "the unborn" works often enough: people understand the argument along the same lines as the antinatalist, even if for various reasons they disagree with her conclusion. Now, you turn the shorthand on its head, but in doing so you violate the metaphysical assumptions supporting the argument: now the absence of everything includes the presence of a desire for something. The counterargument fails as a reductio because, rather than expose a contradiction within antinatalism, it introduces a contradiction from without.
Viva June is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Thanks From:
bendk (01-22-2013), gveranon (01-23-2013)
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
benatar, david, dawkins, delusion, optimism, responds, richard

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
David Benatar interview mongoose Philosophy 11 12-08-2017 02:36 AM
New David Benatar essay (AEON) Benatarian Philosophy 2 10-20-2017 10:33 PM
An entertaining polemic concerning Richard Dawkins Malone Off Topic 7 10-23-2014 09:32 AM
Richard Dawkins on The Horror of Existence Malone Philosophy 10 06-12-2011 04:49 PM
The Optimism Delusion Jeff Coleman Off Topic 7 05-20-2010 07:05 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:41 AM.



Style Based on SONGS OF A DEAD DREAMER as Published by Silver Scarab Press
Design and Artwork by Harry Morris
Emulated in Hell by Dr. Bantham
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Template-Modifications by TMS