Resolved: On Balance, Human Childbirth is Immoral

Thanks Con. Con's round 3 is here: . http://tinyurl.com... I. Preface I am grateful to Con for his participation in this debate, and most especially for a take in Utilitarianism that I am not accustomed to, I will be sure to read more into it in the future. This debate has taken two branches which are difficult to separate, since Con's counter-argument from Utilitarianism is largely used as a rebuttal to the arguments for antinatalism. I will use this round to clear up any remaining misconceptions and to lay down the presuppositions as I see them. II. Utilitarianism Con's central assumption/premise is that utilitarianism is that which maximises potential for discovering ultimate value, and hence to maximise utility. Most of my rebuttals, and reducio ad absurdisms that have attacked the consequences of accepting this premise have largely been answered by 'but it fails to increase utility', or 'so what? Utility is increased'. What this reasoning ignores is that we humans already have values that we are familiar with, with wants and desires that are tangible and demonstrable. I stand by my objection that Pro's entire premise is an argument ad ignorantum since it must assert that there is likely an ultimate value to be found, otherwise the entire system is illogical. If we knew there was no ultimate value, then the entire premise of breeding humans to find it is a non-sensical proposition. However to assert such because it hasn't been demonstrated false is a textbook appeal to ignorance. I have given excellent reasons to think no such value should exist, from evolution and that we already have an understanding of human psychology. There is absolutely no reason why in the evolutionary process we would have developed a value which is not now known by empirical science. Since what drives evolution is now relatively well understood, and hence what affects our neurology, emotions and desires is now largely mapped out at a basic level. Note that humans generally, and most basically value their own well-being (state of comfort), and many takes on utilitarianism largely account for this, it also is compatible with the assumptions for antinatalism, and is a premise that is strongly represented in society today. A common objection which Pro did allude to is that people will out the well-being of others before their own. This is an objection III would contend, since concern for another person's well-being would in turn affect their own well-being. If a parent's child died, they would likely suffer great remorse and sadness, which would negatively affect their well-being (state of comfort), so sacrificing one's own state of comfort in one sense, is logical as it improves it in another. Therefore, Pro's replies to animal discomfort (animal rights over human), the patient thought experiment, con's own boat experiment, sexual frustration are all in assumption that we do not already have well-supported values. Indeed Con must deliberate ignore these for these rebuttals to work, which seems ridiculous. Con's position is that we must ignore what we do know (values we do have) in favor of what we don't know, and may never know (unknown ultimate value), which rules his entire premise that we should value our ability to discover new value a weak one at best. III. Anti-Natalism This is where the debate needed to be about, it is the topic of discussion, so I will address Con's most important rebuttals here. Pro's only objections to my overpopulation/increased animal discomfort arguments are from utilitarianism, that animal discomfort regardless of quantity is permissible because they lack the ability to seek ultimate value. This ignores the fact that animals do value their own well-being, and own state of suffering. Animals will actively avoid sources of discomfort (such as suffering, pain, sexual deprivation), and fulfilling these are their 'ends', or values, however simplistic they might be. Therefore Con's argument against animal suffering is simply untenable. Moreover people also value many of the same things albeit with a greater degree of sophistication. Therefore if the birth of a child would negatively impinge on other people's values then it follows it is immoral unless it has a sufficient redeeming positive. I argue this is simply not the case. Moreover people generally value liberty, fairness and rights, which makes the case worse for Con since it unfairly impinges on other people's rights, without their permission. Discomfort is bad I have already given reasons to accept that discomfort is an intrinsically negative state, and I will simplify them now, besides the fact that sentient beings will strive for states that are away from discomfort, if we assume that all states of discomfort are positive, then the following reducio entais: P1) If discomfort was a positive state, then people would not choose to commit suicide/euthasia if in discomfort P2) People choose to commit suicide/euthanasia when in discomfort C) Discomfort is a negative state You can insert virtually any premise here which involves either taking one's own life or forgoing saving a life/giving birth to a new life in favor of a lower state of discomfort. If discomfort was good then it would entail that no amount of discomfort would ever lead to one forgoing life, as there is nothing negative. Moreover Pro has completely ignored my justification that comfort is just a state of fulfilling one's state of discomfort. Scratching doesn't feel good unless the itch is there, a good meal tastes good if you are hungry, etc. These are clear demonstrations that all states of comfort are just fulfilments of states if discomfort. Therefore no positive state could ever be reached, much less sustained. IV. Rebuttals: Reducio ad absurdum- A reducio ad absurdum is used that when assuming a questionable premise that if held true, would logically lead to absurd conclusions. [1] It is not exclusively a device for showing a denial of a premise, it can be used for negating the acceptance of a premise too. Moreover, Pro attacks the hospital,part of the argument, which is irrelevant to the point it is making, a red herring. V. Conclusion Pro has failed to really engage on the central themes of the arguments for anti-natalism, with most his arguments being derived from utilitarianism, which I have shown to be an overly simplistic view on morality which disregards already regarded values. Therefore I hold we should strive for a world with no new children, a world where we can die out. With that I leave you with a couple more quotes. "Why is it that we rejoice at a birth and grieve at a funeral? It is because we are not the person involved. " R13;Mark Twain "It is best not to have been born at all: but, if born, as quickly as possible to return whence one came. " R13;Sophocles VI.