• Katrisia
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Nothing is objective to our knowledge and nothing is a given, that’s the point. I was not trying to declare those things as truths but trying to explain that there is room to consider them (e.g., to consider that little pain weighs more than enormous pleasure). I cited a philosopher who does, but there are many others. Those are the topics relevant to this discussion.

    Antinatalism is not a negative attitude towards sex nor children.

    People are free, free enough to create life. The antinatalist wonders if the people creating it have the right to do so, if it hurts in some way (and who), and if we should continue to do so. The answers are very different even among antinatalists. The only thing they have in common is that they do not approve ethically of creating new [human] lives. You can take out the square brackets for some.

    And… that’s it. I understand if many here believe that procreating is morally neutral or good, but I think there is validity in questioning it or in believing that it is morally incorrect. We all have our reasons and nobody ultimately knows.

      • Katrisia
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Don’t worry. Good physicists know it as they study epistemology, philosophy of science, and philosophy of physics, among other things.