Conversation

This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more

May 16, 2020

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.

This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more

John Buck

@WriterJohnBuck

May 17, 2020

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.

This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more

John Buck

@WriterJohnBuck

May 17, 2020

So you would still affirm P1, given that humans do exist, yeah?

This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more

antoine sugar

@joedan346

May 17, 2020

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.

John Buck

@WriterJohnBuck

May 17, 2020

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.

Replying to

and

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.

12:32 AM · May 17, 2020Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

That's a description of events, I thought AN was a normative position.

antoine sugar

@joedan346

May 17, 2020

Yeah, I only deal with facts. "Norms" are subject to change without notice. They are social constructs.

Show replies

Show more replies