People don't want see other humans for the profoundly evil, or at the very least reckless, beings they are. I believe that this true for reasons of mental health.
A good example of this is ethical Veganism. And I use the word ethical to separate this type of Veganism from the one that is primarily associated with avoiding animal products for health reasons.
I remember reading online about a guy who said he stopped being vegan because he didn't want to see his fellow humans as unrelenting murderers (although he didn't use those exact words). Which is where you will end up if you follow the ideology of ethical Veganism to its logical endpoint. If it is wrong to cause harm to any sentient being for any reason and virtually all humans engage in this behavior on a daily basis primarily for reasons of pleasure and tradition, then that paints a very ugly picture of humans.
Dima is being painted as a stubborn, immature person because he is not leaving any room for a positive or neutral view of parents. And parents (as well as future parents) constitute the vast majority of human beings in this planet. We don't want to see the vast majority of the people we interact with as bad, irresponsible beings so we paint the person who calls them that with that same brush. Better that one individual than the rest of humanity.
This is also a way for us to feel like we are in control. We know that there isn't any way for us to stop any of the horrors that happen around us on a daily basis, so we begin to make everything a matter of personal choice. It's okay for people to have children if they want to. The fact that bringing children into this world inevitably puts them in harm's way is ignored and brushed aside even though that was what the argument was about initially. The closest we ever come to including morality in discussions around childbearing are statements like "as long as they can afford them." I find that statement (and attitude) woefully wanting in several ways but that's a post for another day.
Thanks for the mention. Great analysis. I pretty much gave up on that thread and only occasionally visit it.
ReplyDeleteYou're very welcome, Dima. It was almost surreal to observe the persona attacks you started receiving just because you stuck by your original arguments. And I say that even though I don't agree with everything you said!
DeleteBut eventually people's true motives began to show themselves with posts that basically equal 'life may be meaningless but I still enjoy it enough to be here and I'm not interested in stopping future suffering'. Along with the few parents' random posts which basically equalled 'I guess I'm a bad guy for being a parent!' <---- that's not an argument!
Oh well. My bad for expecting humans to be rational beings. Especially the ones who see themselves as such.
"We don't want to see the vast majority of the people we interact with as bad, irresponsible beings so we paint the person who calls them that with that same brush."
ReplyDeleteAn optimist imperative, i.e. to see the whole as overall good - even if it isn't (because that would be pessimist and "nobody" likes pessimists).
Would others agree, in that humans (all of them) are by definition/nature bad/evil? After all, our existence is always source of harm, if too short-lived to be so for others, one still will have been so for oneself. IMO, when non-physical hierarchies (such as the "holier than thou") are dispelled, people tend to be less stubbornly defensive. Or is it too unhelpful to reserve discriminatory judgement only for actions and consequences?
First I would like to thank you for commenting on my blog. I've always found your comments on the anti-natalist blogosphere to very critical and well thought out; they are always among my favorites.
DeleteWould others agree, in that humans (all of them) are by definition/nature bad/evil?
I used the word 'evil' because there's not much deterministic language available. I also followed it up with the word 'reckless' for that reason. I'm not a big believer in free will. Maybe humans aren't evil but their actions certainly are. I agree with you that we should " reserve discriminatory judgement only for actions and consequences."
IMO, when non-physical hierarchies (such as the "holier than thou") are dispelled, people tend to be less stubbornly defensive.
I don't completely agree with this. Sometimes when you go with a less aggressive approach, people are more open to listening to you but that doesn't mean their own views will change in any meaningful way. And it certainly doesn't mean that they will modify their actions. One of my most surreal experiences after becoming an atheist was sharing what led me to become an atheist with some of my friends. Many of them could see the inconsistencies and other obvious issues with faith in the divine. But they all told me that they 'needed' to believe in God for sanity's sake. They could (clearly?) see all the evidence against a belief in God but that didn't stop them from believing.
Yet, that weight of humiliation is contingent upon the weight of your denomination, I would say. Making fools out of unquestioning religious cultists only works nowadays, because secular logic and atheism have reached the critical mass required to recapture averted gazes.
DeleteIt's only a guess though, about how powerful antinatalism is, so it likely is for the better to try a variety of approaches after all. That about, I find myself curious to hear about successes, impediments and the methods used by others.
"I'm not a big believer in free will. Maybe humans aren't evil but their actions certainly are."
I haven't heard of a human who wouldn't crush an insect, causing it to be grinded alive between its dorsal and ventral carapax, to avoid a far lesser torment to oneself. Like most, I've done so manifold for the pettiest of motivations. Our lack of free will and the very fact that it will put forward evil actions, would that not suffice to make us all evil?
I merely react to thoughts evoked. Thank you and sorry for the delayed reply.
I see a lot of ad hominem attacks in that thread... how can people who claim to be seriously dedicated to philosophical questions not call each other out on such a widely-known logical fallacy? I give up for today. Going to read some swords and sorcery.
ReplyDeleteStuff like this:
ReplyDelete"Is every single human life not worth living? For all Mr Ligotti's avowed antinatalism and desire never to have been, I think the world would be a poorer place without his having contributed to it, and despite his ideology that he didn't need to do so, I'm grateful for his books, and am delighted he did not extinguish himself."
just reads to my weary eyes today as "me, me, me, me, I'm so happy Ligotti lived his shit-eating miserable life so he could write a pretty book for me, me, me, me, me!" Piss off, really.
Ann, what you say is OK, but more importantly, I feel that if I'd never come across a work of art I enjoyed a lot, I wouldn't have "missed" them either. And why, if I hadn't been born, I wouldn't be desperate for works of art to fill my empty time with. Hmm, that kind of goes for your works too ... like Ligotti, I too have gradually stopped feeling any connect and attraction to fiction.
DeleteI couldn't believe someone said that either, Ann. It's such a great example of how utterly self-absorbed people are. I always think I understand the depth of human selfishness but then I come across comments like that and have to reevaluate. And to think that he wasn't even ashamed to utter such a statement out loud!
DeleteYes, chickpositive
ReplyDeletehttps://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/q71/1544368_568350786587427_508097053_n.jpg
Buddha himself says so! =)
lol, Srikant. The Buddha was a very wise man.
Delete