hm it seems like this or something very close to it falls out of AN when you do a reductio on the premises
-
-
sigh
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I may be wrong! no one has ever actually engaged me on this
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
a reductio of philanthropic AN you mean?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
that seems plausible yes
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot
I’m not even sure I could state the premises of philanthropic AN...suffering is bad unless chosen by the sufferer?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @literalbanana
it might be helpful to unspool from my folk understanding of antinatalist claims unless this is an irritating conversation to you in which case no problem I am happy to live with even-greater uncertainty in my own suspicions and disregard subsequent tweets
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @literalbanana
1. it is wrong to create new human life because (reasons accepted arguendo) 2. I should not do things that are wrong 1, 2 --> I should not reproduce
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @eigenrobot @literalbanana
the jump from (1) to "no one should be alive" or perhaps "nothing should be alive" seems like it requires some (3) involving a justification or obligation to prevent other people from doing wrong things that for sure isn't baked into the original propositions,
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
because “preventing other people from doing wrong things” seems like an enforcement issue not an AN issue
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.