this degenerate ideology literally postulates the existence of previous lives, so there must an independent soul. if there's no independent soul while there's previous lives then it makes buddhism even more absurd
He had his kid before he became enlightened though and went on his journey
biological goal doesn't exist, biology and whole modern science rejects teleology so it comes to philosophy
Doesn't matter, he never encouraged people to not have kids. Having kids isn't immoral at all, only miserable idiots with existential guilt cope about "muh reee having kids baddd". You clearly don't have much knowledge about buddhism if you really believe in that.
Forget about Buddhism for a second
It's bullshit because they is no reason for people to not reproduce, they is nothing bad about life at all. As i said before, if one carries such believes they should be the first to follow through with their ideology and kill themselves. A human living is bound to bring suffering anyway.
does biology worth anything?
Disease, war, poverty, violence, bullying, crime, drug addiction, mental health issues, inceldom etc etc, I would argue that most things that happen worldwide are bad
Not being born is not the same as ending your life when you are currently living, if you don't understand that then idk for ur IQ
life mogs death to shit so giving birth is based
Yes since it is based on evidence which can be observed by even the most retarded of men unlike philosophy which is mostly worthless humanimal ape babble with some exceptions of course.
Its not about pholosophers nigga I never mentioned Schopenhauer, its just about the ideals that go into antinatalism
Nobody dies if you dont give birth, someone has to be born for them to die
Best take I've seen on this retarded forum in a while
these aren't bad things, they only exist so you can value health, piece, sex with femboys etc. just like you value life because there's death
death is the same as pre-life (not being born)
So what? Violence is a part of life, the weaker will get bullied and taken advantage of. That just how the world works and have always worked, their is nothing bad or sad about it. Drug addiction is mostly a persons fault so no point in acting like it is something out of a man's control, If you can't do anything about your situation then suicide is always an option.
such things as value and worth are already philosophical so you need philosophy to know if biology is valuable or not. evidence comes to epistemology as well.
They're pretty bad, and ur being a degen so idk if ur being serious or not
Experiencing death tho is brutal af and guaranteed for all humans so its not the same as never being born
As I said if you have a "so what?" attitude about the bad things in life then thats ur opinion but that doesnt mean that procreation isn't immoral or that life isn't bad at all, that just means you dont care
You're bringing the whole thing into absurdity, antinatalism is about not continuing the cycle of suffering not about all people must die, and if you kill yourself you still cause harm to your friends and family, if you don't bring any kids here thats not harming anyone
even if they are bad then it makes it even more logical because its part of perfect world harmony. like i said bad things exist because without them you wouldn't know if there's good things. you only know the good because there's the bad. so you can say that those "bad" things aren't even that bad
There are more bad things in life than disease and deformity, and 3 million and an MTB doesn't guarantee shit either
not being born is worse than suffering
So if someone kicks ur ass thats worse than not getting beat up at all?
There is no harmony cus the bad things in the world outweigh the good and bad things are guaranteed for all humans and good things are not, and the good things do not make up for the bad things, the bad things stay for life and the good things are temporary
I replied to someone else gentlemen not you.
Procreation isn't immoral, you are just acting like a fool who believes he has figured it out. It's something which is just, it's neither good or bad. Humanimal perspectives about it do not matter.
you could also argue that it is our duty to have children and raise them to be the most beautiful, healthy and vital version that one half of your DNA and one half from your foid can allow in order to cleanse the world of our suffering by giving them the ability to live a fulfilling life and create more beauty, so to speak.
suffering mogs "not being born" to shit, because suffering is something more than not being born at all. mathematically suffering>not being born
if there wasn't harmony then one particular element (the bad in this context) would absorb any other element, so the world would be only bad. it's impossible because the bad would absorb it's meaning too so there's no the bad
No it causes harm to the person being born so it is immoral, just like doing something else bad to someone else is immoral, human ideas about it matter considering its humans being born
The only way to cleanse the world of human suffering is if humans stopped being born, and the only human that doesn't suffer is one that doesn't exist (aka its impossible to avoid and the world is never gonna be cleansed)
That equation only works if both things exist in the same place and the same realm, like with real maths, if there is nobody born then they don't miss out on anything
yes, suffering has meaning only relative to non-suffering, that doesn't mean that suffering is justified, that suffering is acceptable to impose, that suffering should be risked by creating new life and so on etc
It is always immoral regardless of ur intention
why so?
not being born is non-existence, so they missed out their existence
suffering is based, it's the only thing that leads us to don't suffer
People only say this until they suffer in a way that they cant come back from and they are scarred for life
if we go by that definition tell me why would having kids be immoral
Because if we go by what is ethical then we should ideally seek to avoid or reduce suffering inflicted upon others, and forcing someone into the world to live, suffer and die is inflicting a great harm on them, regardless of the fleeting experiences of happiness that may come in-between
i mean by the definition of immorality that uve showed me, having kids cant be immoral in any way whatsoever,
Religions also sanctified hell, collective punishment, and genocide so its not a moral guideline of anything at all
Humans always experience suffering and life is a complete gamble and most humans suffer more due to the world being only a few at the top aka elites and many at the bottom. There is no need to roll the dice on someone else's existence
Thats fine if u dont believe it, but that argument still doesnt defeat antinatalism because antinatalism doesnt need objective morality, only internal consistency
definition of morality u gave is dependent on social norms, which is also religion
this is purely subjective and u knoe that it doesnt hold its ground
idk what is antinatalism completely, and idc, purpose of that part was to point out hoe ur definition of morality isnt good because of the religions and things which is the first thing in this message aswell
no im talking ab the definition of morality that u gave me denies the whole idea because ur talking about immoral things, and u cant argue this if u dont know the absolute objective morality which u dont and therefore there is nothing to argue about here, if anything its moral once u strip it of whats a current trend, cuz its a natural need
"it would have BEEN better to not be born" based on what exactly boss ?
Based on how painful life can be for no reason? There are people out their that suffer everyday, day and night simply because they were born with a genetic defect, or born into the wrong country etc. This is common sense??? What kind of stupid question is this. Just because your life isn't miserable doesn't mean other people whose lives are miserable would be better off being born then not.
