Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Is the Asymmetry Argument at the basis of anti-natalism flawed ?
The asymmetry argument at the basis of anti-natalism is flawed
In order to accept the Asymmetry argument, you first have to accept some sort of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is false.
Contrary to the third statement of the Asymetry Argument, the non-existing pain of a non-existing thing is not a good thing, it's just nothing.
Contrary to the Asymmetry Argument, it IS theoretically possible to deprive a yet-unborn child of happiness
Unless you're a hedonist, pleasure isn't necessarily good, just as pain isn't necessarily bad.
It is logically incorrect to say that non-beings cannot be deprived of pleasure, but can be spared pain
The asymmetry argument unfairly reduces the relevant factors worth considering to pleasure and pain. It is possible to achieve satisfaction devoid of pleasure and to deny the satisfaction of interests without causing suffering.
If one thinks that the 'absence of pleasure' is merely 'not bad' then one is simply failing to imagine a pleasure which is equal in magnitude to the imagined pain.
happiness can outweigh pain - even for future-beings
most people would not bring their children into a life of certain suffering, even if future generations might be happy
One cannot cause harm to a non-existent being
The absence of pain is good even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom that absence is a deprivation
The Asymmetry Argument simply states that causing pain is always wrong, while it is NOT "wrong" to refrain from creating pleasure for someone i.e. there is no moral obligation to create pleasure for 'random' people.
All lives involve experiencing pain
Anti-natalists are not necessarily pro-mortalists
What is the best religion to believe?
Does God Allow Evil: Is the Existence of God Compatible with the Existence of Evil?
What is the worst world problem of the utmost concern?