pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @hybridbits OP 23h \ parent \ on: Is choosing not to have kids the most ethical act today? AskSN
Interesting points. But I can't shake the feeling that:
Choosing not to have kids is depriving someone of life they would have valued
Can be valid for the other side as well. The antinatalist argument believes that there is more suffering than pleasure/non-suffering. ‘Choosing TO have kids is condemning someone to a life they would probably hate.’ And (just guessing) that’s probably true, especially if you’re born in a shitty country like India, Libya, or in a favela in the northeast of Brazil. I dunno, dude. I need to read more and live more to get to a good answer.
write
preview
129 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 23h
Yes, both can be true, but why err on the side of the (far) less likely outcome?
there is more suffering than pleasure/non-suffering
In what way can this claim possibly be evaluated? Revealed preference (almost everyone continues to choose living) is the only evidence we have and it's extremely against your assertion.
Even people born into situations that you deem undesirable generally prefer to be alive. Who are you to decide for people that their lives aren't worth living? This seems unbelievably arrogant and entitled.
reply
24 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 22h
I need to read more and live more to get to a good answer.
You need a reality check. You should go and ask these people why they don’t kill themselves because they must be suffering so much. Maybe even offer to lend them a hand out of compassion?
reply