I think you mean 'ought to be done even if humans didn't exist'. I don't think my argument entails there are moral prescriptions that are dependent upon the non-existence of humans.
This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
Conversation
This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
I think the definition can be limited to just 'The assertion that procreation is unconditionally unethical' without relying on that particular set of justifications. For instance, you could be an AN because you think humans are a blight to nature, and so shouldn't be created.
1
This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
Nowhere in my argument do any prescriptive claims depend upon the non-existence of humans.
If you can show me that a required premise for my argument to go through is something like:
"If humans do not exist, then X ought to be done."
I'd appreciate it.
1
This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
So you would still affirm P1, given that humans do exist, yeah?
1
This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
Premise one doesn't work. It's a matter of personal opinion whether something ought to be done or not. It's purely subjective; arbitrary.
I suppose then it'd have to be the case as well that it's personal opinion that people should not procreate.
Premise 1 can work even on a subjectivist meta-ethical framework.
1
Antinatalism goes like this: If you birth another human, you are imposing suffering and death on that person.
That's about it.
I don't subscribe to Benatar's asymmetry grid.
2
Show replies