Antinatalist Definition Discussion Reaction w/ Cosmic Antinatalist
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 окт 2024
- Ask a question: streamlabs.com...
Subscribe - join the cult!
👕 | Get your Anti Natalist Social Club T-shirt: a12497-55.mysh...
❤️ | Make a Donation: streamlabs.com...
💪 | Patreon: / lawrenceanton
👉 | Follow me on X: / lawrence_anton1
📣 | Antinatalist Handbook: antinatalistha...
✊ | Antinatalist Advocacy: antinatalistad...
📧 | Contact Me: lawrenceant@protonmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cosmic Antinatalist: @thecosmicantinatalist
Original Video: • How to Define Antinata...
Thanks so much guys, that was great! : D
Excellent, gentlemen, thank you! You are the best! 🚀
Tejas says that human species have some positive obligations. While it is an interesting idea, without much elaboration and explanation of how that would work, it's very difficult to agree with it. Positive duties are controversial as they are, and expanding them on entire groups or the entire species is even more difficult to grasp and accept.
Tejas, if you see this, pay no heed to the objection. It is clear from what you say that you are confining your observations to moral agents. And they do have positive obligations. As for your critic's "positive duties are controversial as they are", I do not know in what non-ethical egoistic universe they live. All moral and political philosophies that I have encountered in my forty years on the job - with the possible exception of Ayn Rand - have recognized some duties towards others to do something for the benefit of those others.
@@mattihayry5060 I never suggested that beings other than moral agents are to be considered. Rather, I'm calling for a clarification and explanation regarding duties not of individuals but of an entire species homo sapiens.
Great stream! 👋
A proposition that is "true in all possible world" is just a tautology (a proposition that must be true in a given formal system). I think when Tejas says that extinction is a logical conclusion of antinatalism, he tries to say that if we agree with antinatalism, then we must also agree with extinction. It's a similar case as the often used syllogism of Socrates. If you agree with the two premises, then you must agree with the conclusion, because the conclusion logically follows from the premises.
Now, what Tejas means by "extinction" is very unclear. He seems to be thinking about some "goal" of humans or antinatalists. But antinatalism doesn't have any goals, and doesn't seem to have any positive duties. So, it's not clear how any other positive duty (a "goal of extinction") could be [logically] derived from antinatalism. And he doesn't explain it anywhere.
"Conscious" means "has subjective experiences". "Sentient" means "has positive and negative subjective experiences".
Tejas says that one definition of antinatalism could be something like "a view that coming into existence is a harm". But why would we think that? Who among antinatalist philosophers presents such a view? It's not Benatar's view, it's not Cabrera's view, that's for sure. Seems like Tejas presented a stipulative definition, but didn't give good reasons for why we would accept it.
🔥👍
❌🤱🏽❌🤱🏽❌🤱🏽❌🤱🏽❌