Re: The Optimism Delusion - David Benatar responds to Richard Dawkins.
 

Yes, but my point was that more often than not, people are happy to be alive.

As for those cases where a person suffers so much that they wish they hadn't been born -- and I've felt like that many times, being a former antinatalist myself -- they are the price that must be paid so that others may be free to experience.

I know what I'm saying sounds cruel, but free societies work in much the same way -- crimes (and hence great suffering) are the price paid for the people to be free. One has the option of less crime only through autocracy, dictatorship, totalitarianism.

And, at the risk of sounding facetious, if life gets too unbearable for the tragic few, there's always death to look forward to.

Re: The Optimism Delusion - David Benatar responds to Richard Dawkins.
 

Nemonymous,

Of course.

I know that people are animals, and, well, just people, so they have kids in the burst of love, lust and so on. I know it's not (usually) a calculated decision to expose another person to existence.

It almost seems like you are trying to smother any objections under the "empiricality of it all", though.

What I was trying to get at in my comment was that I see a flaw in his logic, where he repeatedly asserts that no one has the authority to state for another whether life is worth living, but doesn't acknowledge that having a child is precisely that.

Re: The Optimism Delusion - David Benatar responds to Richard Dawkins.
 

Kramdar,

Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet, eh?

Re: The Optimism Delusion - David Benatar responds to Richard Dawkins.
 

When I had my first child over 40 years ago, I was not 'stating' anything consciously, as far as I recall.
But everyone can interpret my actions how they feel. Much like the Intentional Fallacy vis a vis literary criticism.
And not intending to smother anything...

Re: The Optimism Delusion - David Benatar responds to Richard Dawkins.
 

Nemonymous,

You seem like a good fella who loves his kids. Apologies for the "smothering" thing.

Sorry if I'm a bit distracted now, I'm crying crocodile tears for all the unborn who had life stolen from them.

Re: The Optimism Delusion - David Benatar responds to Richard Dawkins.
 

I see what you did there.

But I could just as easily accuse you of being dictatorial in your insistence that no one has the right to life.

And you say that by having children, you are deciding for them that their life is worth living. Nope. You are simply giving them the choice to decide for themselves. Anyone who decides that life isn't in fact worth living can opt out at any time.
But no one can opt in.

Re: The Optimism Delusion - David Benatar responds to Richard Dawkins.
 

Forgive me if I sound snide, but I think you fail to consider the implications of your own argument. What is the antinatalist's claim? Simply that there can be no harm in not existing. In response to this you say that there is such a thing as harm caused by being denied something one might enjoy. In order for this to be a refutation of the antinatalist view, it must apply to those who do not (yet) exist. Thus there is one harm that can be experienced even in non-existence: the harm of being refused entry into existence. From this it follows that refusing to bring people into existence is harmful, or as you put it, "not having children is immoral because it is the theft of one's freedom to experience existence". Hence my belief that your two statements amount to the same thing.

The basic problem, as I see it, is that language encourages the slip from non-existent to existent people. Confuse the two just once, and suddenly the universe will be crawling with unborn children who wail and gnash their teeth, and of course they too deserve to experience the taste of cold cherries on a hot summer day, surely there is no harm in that, quite the opposite in fact, etc. The thing to keep in mind is that no harm can come to "those" who do not exist, not even a kind of harm which "they" never experience.

Re: The Optimism Delusion - David Benatar responds to Richard Dawkins.
 

Your point is the exact same one I used to make, once.
But again, you're assuming that harm is the be all and end all of existence. What about pleasure? What about experience?
Sure, I get that denying these things to something that doesn't exist may seem inconsequential, but what if that potential person would have otherwise gone on to become an actual person who wanted the chance to live?

Re: The Optimism Delusion - David Benatar responds to Richard Dawkins.
 

Let me get something straight.
I think procreation is neither moral nor immoral.

I do however think that deciding for others whether procreation is moral or immoral is immoral.


I did not intend to imply that procreation is moral, or that antinatalism is immoral, only that morality or immorality can be shoehorned into anything, and that there is no *objective* morality or Truth to antinatalism, as Benatar suggests there is.


So Jeff, wipe your eyes, there's really no need for the crocodile tears.

Re: The Optimism Delusion - David Benatar responds to Richard Dawkins.
 

Kramdar,

Ahhhh... fair enough.

You hit my soft spot. I think the subject (antinatalism) is important (and categorically different from how you portray it) , but I don't care for moralizing (since I've seen how easily it can be used to justify cruelty). I disagree a lot with you, but I'll let up for now.