420
Antinatalism Rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 5 months ago by BluJay320 to c/196
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Katrisia@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

Nothing is objective to our knowledge and nothing is a given, that's the point. I was not trying to declare those things as truths but trying to explain that there is room to consider them (e.g., to consider that little pain weighs more than enormous pleasure). I cited a philosopher who does, but there are many others. Those are the topics relevant to this discussion.

Antinatalism is not a negative attitude towards sex nor children.

People are free, free enough to create life. The antinatalist wonders if the people creating it have the right to do so, if it hurts in some way (and who), and if we should continue to do so. The answers are very different even among antinatalists. The only thing they have in common is that they do not approve ethically of creating new [human] lives. You can take out the square brackets for some.

And... that's it. I understand if many here believe that procreating is morally neutral or good, but I think there is validity in questioning it or in believing that it is morally incorrect. We all have our reasons and nobody ultimately knows.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Nothing is objective to our knowledge

Horrible news for physicists

[-] Katrisia@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

Don't worry. Good physicists know it as they study epistemology, philosophy of science, and philosophy of physics, among other things.

this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
420 points (100.0% liked)

196

16714 readers
2539 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS