**All the definitions from the panelists** 20:38 David Benatar gives his definition Antinatalism: abstract noun: the view that it is morally wrong to bring sentient beings into existence. Antinatalist: noun: Somebody who espouses antinatalism. adjective: Of or relating to a person, policy, practice, law, attitude, etc. that discourages or reduces the reproduction of sentient beings. 23:07 Karm Akerma gives his definition i) The term antinatalism encompasses attitudes, movements, and moral theories that advocate the non-procreation and non-creation of entities (biological organisms or artificial non-organismic entities) capable of suffering. ii) The term antinatalism encompasses attitudes, movements, and moral theories that advocate the non-procreation and non-creation of entities (biological organisms or artificial non-organismic entities) capable of suffering. Antinatalism takes on a concise meaning against the backdrop of denatalism. While the latter advocates a mere _reduction_ in the population of a country or an animal population, antinatalism stands for a general end to reproduction. iii) The term antinatalism encompasses attitudes, movements, and moral theories that advocate the non-procreation and non-creation of entities (biological organisms or artificial non-organismic entities) capable of suffering. Antinatalism takes on a concise meaning against the backdrop of denatalism. While the latter advocates a mere _reduction_ in the population of a country or an animal population, antinatalism stands for a general end to reproduction. Thus, antinatalism takes into account the disappearance of the human race by abstention from procreation with many antinatalists also advocating the extinction of some or all animal species as long as this end can be brought about without suffering (e.g. via benign neutering). A particularly controversial issue is the Red-Button thought experiment which asks whether humans or animals would be harmed if their existence ended within a thousandth of a second after someone had pressed the infamous red button. 25:47 Lawrence Anton gives his definition Antinatalism: The view that bringing new human (or sentient) beings into existence is unethical. 31:45 He hear David Pearce's definition Antinatalism is an ethical stance that says procreation is morally wrong. Antinatalists believe that bringing more involuntary suffering into the world without the prior consent of the victims is indefensible. Antinatalists range from "soft" antinatalists who believe that staying child-free or adopting is a personal decision to "strong" (or "hard") antinatalists who aim peacefully to bring about the extinction of all sentient life. 33:22 Amanda Sukenick gives her definition Antinatalism is a critique of procreation. Antinatalism is a philosophical position and social movement concerned with ending suffering by preventing the birth, manufacturing, creation, manipulation & existence of sentience or possible sentience. *) Matti Häyry did not give his definition.
For what it's worth, my original proposed definitions of antinatalism (omitted during the panel due to my role as moderator): 1) A dictionary definition in MH’s dreams maybe: Antinatalism is a philosophy and a social movement criticizing and opposing births and practices and policies encouraging births. It has direct and indirect alliances with > extinctionism, > ethical veganism, > promortalism, > efilism, > transhumanism, and > posthumanism 2) Something very short: Antinatalism is a philosophy and a social movement questioning reproduction 3) MH’s favorite general definition: Antinatalism is being against reproduction on moral grounds
enjoyed listening, very interesting and informative, but i would vote for david benatar's definition. and that is; the view that is morally wrong to bring sentient beings into existence. thanks everybody, much love and respect.
Great conversation. I'm here in Brazil following the discussions, living the philosophy of antinatalism and spreading the ideas in the rare opportunities that curious ears grant me. Congratulations Amanda and the whole team of great brains
Awesome 🎖️🎖️🎖️💯 David Benatar is the man. He was the person who opened my eyes to the fact that there are others who hold the same views as i do. Thank You very much.
This was a very interesting discussion. I liked what Amanda put together and how Matti kept everything on track as well as his ability to summarize what people had said. I particularly enjoyed the spectrum of views; it is my opinion that definitions, and words, are inherently fluid and for this reason there are always going to be differences. I don't think that is a bad thing. // As an aside, I think that Buddhism's relationship to AN is often misunderstood; I think it is similar to Buddhism's relationship to Schopenhauer. I think the misunderstanding arises because it appears that most people writing about AN today work from a utilitarian foundation and Buddhism is not a form of utilitarianism. Buddhism has the view that suffering is an inherent factor of existence as such, whereas utilitarians consider pleasure and pain to both be present. The Buddhist perspective is that pleasure is inherently laced with suffering and that therefore suffering is more ontologically real. That is why Buddhism did not develop a calculus of pleasure and pain. Personally, I prefer the Buddhist analysis of suffering, but I can understand the attractiveness of utilitarianism. In any case, thanks again for a great discussion and for posting it online.
For wider propagation of these ideas, it's probably best *not* to define it, or even have it as the front n centre focus of the no child movement. As people arrive at this conclusion from various different paths, the main unifying idea is not antinatalism per say, but the simple choice to not breed, for whatever reason, every one that doesn't, counts. It may not serve the movement to advertise it as a philosophy, with "dogma" and exclusionary features (asking people if they describe yourself thusly, or are they child free with no interest what so ever in a further philosophical aspect to that choice?)
A question to the community, should antinatalists help natalist beings in any way? This is taking into account that by helping them they increase the net suffering.
👋 That's going to depend on the specific Antinatalist. In other words there's no entailment of Antinatalism to choose to not help non Antinatalists. Also, in my perspective, Antinatalist or not, helping other individuals (whom you've no legal duty to help or whom you've not chosen to make dependent upon you) is never a moral obligation........ it's only always a morally virtuous act.
No. Antinatalism does not put any positive obligations on antinatalists or anyone else for that matter. Antinatalists, and non-antinatalists, may help others for other reasons, though.
@@WackyConundrum Interesting. I may be writing something under the title "Do antinatalists have positive obligations?" What definition of "positive obligation" do you use? The surface internet notion seems to be "obligation to do" - is that it or do you have something more refined in mind?
@@mattihayry5060 Yes, that's what I mean. Antinatalism is merely "you ought _not_ to bring sentient beings into existence", veganism is merely "you ought _not_ to use/abuse/exploit/eat animals". So, these are negative obligations only. Positive obligations would be those that make additional demands on us, such that we should be doing something extra.
antinatalism: A moral belief where one deems procreation (either human, non-human, or all sentient life or any kind of life) categorically as wrong and ought not happen. it doesnt bake in any normative theory or meta ethics. it is compatible with every normative and meta ethical position. this definition is good.
I very strongly disagree since choices of wrong or right can ONLY ever be a consequence of a moral agent who has some knowledge of right and wrong. Since a fish who procreates isn't a moral agent, they can't possibly be guilty of making a wrong, immoral, unethical choice. Wrong (choice) =/= bad (outcomes) Wrong vs bad ........ 2 VERY different things
@@LouisGedo "wrong" doesnt mean anything when not indexed to any stance. when I say "wrong" i mean relative to some stance. "wrong" here is indexed to MY stance. when I say it is "wrong" for a fish to procreate, I mean relative to my attitudes and preferences and values and ideals ,I would prefer that action not take place, that action ought not take place, if possible I would prevent that action from taking place. All this talk of "moral agents" is so confused in this discourse. I endorse moral-anti realism, I think a lot of this terms and semantics become dissolved or eliminated under this interpretation. If a mentally insane man goes around town hacking up people with a machete, and he is not deemed a "moral agent" --- I am still saying that he did something "wrong". Definitely. it is absurd to claim you cannot use the word wrong in this context, I just refuse the use of the terms and semantics this way.
@@LouisGedo And to drive home an even more potent reductio in your view here, suppose you came across a building full of very low IQ human children , like 40iq , or as intelligent as fish, and they were all having sex and going to reproduce. You would not do anything to stop them or break it up? You would just say "welp theyre not moral agents so what theyre doing is perfectly fine!" and have no problem with them reproducing? Just leave them alone? Totally bonkers.
@zeebpc 👋 By your argument, right could mean sexxually exploiting toddlers, to a whole lot of people. Don't you see the serious flaws in your argument? Don't you think it would make a lot more sense to tie right and wrong to decisions made in relationship to values arbitrated by principles laid out in Rawl's theory of justice as a baseline? In this way, it's no more reasonable to call it wrong for lava to be so hot and fast moving that it destroys the feet of a person running away at too slow a pace as it is for a 1 day old toddler or a severely cognitively impaired adult to thoughtlessly do something that ends up causing something bad for someone else? 🤔 And it's absurd to believe that something/one that isn't a moral agent is wrong just because a consequence of an interaction between that something/one and a sentient organism ends up with harmful results to the sentient organism ........not the other way around.
The degree of commodification of "identity" on display here is pretty nauseating. God forbid you just say "I am making the choice not to have children" and leave it at that 😂
**All the definitions from the panelists**
20:38 David Benatar gives his definition
Antinatalism:
abstract noun: the view that it is morally wrong to bring sentient beings into existence.
Antinatalist:
noun: Somebody who espouses antinatalism.
adjective: Of or relating to a person, policy, practice, law, attitude, etc. that discourages or reduces the reproduction of sentient beings.
23:07 Karm Akerma gives his definition
i) The term antinatalism encompasses attitudes, movements, and moral theories that advocate the non-procreation and non-creation of entities (biological organisms or artificial non-organismic entities) capable of suffering.
ii) The term antinatalism encompasses attitudes, movements, and moral theories that advocate the non-procreation and non-creation of entities (biological organisms or artificial non-organismic entities) capable of suffering. Antinatalism takes on a concise meaning against the backdrop of denatalism. While the latter advocates a mere _reduction_ in the population of a country or an animal population, antinatalism stands for a general end to reproduction.
iii) The term antinatalism encompasses attitudes, movements, and moral theories that advocate the non-procreation and non-creation of entities (biological organisms or artificial non-organismic entities) capable of suffering. Antinatalism takes on a concise meaning against the backdrop of denatalism. While the latter advocates a mere _reduction_ in the population of a country or an animal population, antinatalism stands for a general end to reproduction.
Thus, antinatalism takes into account the disappearance of the human race by abstention from procreation with many antinatalists also advocating the extinction of some or all animal species as long as this end can be brought about without suffering (e.g. via benign neutering). A particularly controversial issue is the Red-Button thought experiment which asks whether humans or animals would be harmed if their existence ended within a thousandth of a second after someone had pressed the infamous red button.
25:47 Lawrence Anton gives his definition
Antinatalism: The view that bringing new human (or sentient) beings into existence is unethical.
31:45 He hear David Pearce's definition
Antinatalism is an ethical stance that says procreation is morally wrong. Antinatalists believe that bringing more involuntary suffering into the world without the prior consent of the victims is indefensible. Antinatalists range from "soft" antinatalists who believe that staying child-free or adopting is a personal decision to "strong" (or "hard") antinatalists who aim peacefully to bring about the extinction of all sentient life.
33:22 Amanda Sukenick gives her definition
Antinatalism is a critique of procreation.
Antinatalism is a philosophical position and social movement concerned with ending suffering by preventing the birth, manufacturing, creation, manipulation & existence of sentience or possible sentience.
*) Matti Häyry did not give his definition.
For what it's worth, my original proposed definitions of antinatalism (omitted during the panel due to my role as moderator):
1) A dictionary definition in MH’s dreams maybe:
Antinatalism is a philosophy and a social movement criticizing and opposing births and practices and policies encouraging births. It has direct and indirect alliances with > extinctionism, > ethical veganism, > promortalism, > efilism, > transhumanism, and > posthumanism
2) Something very short:
Antinatalism is a philosophy and a social movement questioning reproduction
3) MH’s favorite general definition:
Antinatalism is being against reproduction on moral grounds
Great work, man.
Great to be on such a great panel!
Great to have you, and to be on, a panel finned with so much greatness all around! : D
You and Amanda were super-good in it! 🎯🚀
@@mattihayry5060 Not as good as the worlds best anti-natal moderator!! 🤩💖🤗
I so agree with your assessment at 46:18. Pessimism is the best umbrella term for me
Could you explain what "NEW" actually means in your definition?
Does this mean that it is ethical to bring OLD beings into existence?
57:23 So happy to see my definition making it to this panel and opening an interesting series of arguments! Thank you for your important work 👏
Wasn't expecting Benatar on it. Thank you.
enjoyed listening, very interesting and informative, but i would vote for david benatar's definition.
and that is; the view that is morally wrong to bring sentient beings into existence.
thanks everybody, much love and respect.
Great video! It’s cool to watch all of these popular antinatalists discuss on this topic.
ewwwww antinatalists, talking to me, through my speakers? I feel so dirtied, intellectually
Very informative discussion. Thank you for having it. "Consent" or lack therof is a crucial component to the definition in my opinion.
The "consent" component isn't necessary because the unborn can not give consent.
Great conversation. I'm here in Brazil following the discussions, living the philosophy of antinatalism and spreading the ideas in the rare opportunities that curious ears grant me. Congratulations Amanda and the whole team of great brains
Awesome 🎖️🎖️🎖️💯
David Benatar is the man. He was the person who opened my eyes to the fact that there are others who hold the same views as i do. Thank You very much.
Great video, many thanks.
Many thanks for this excellent discussion. It's been a privilege to listen in.
Wonderful discussion excellent panel. Keep up the great work you guys!
Terrific and rich, thank you !
Is there any way to buy stock in Antinatalism?
You can invest in the American Military Industrial Complex.
This was a very interesting discussion. I liked what Amanda put together and how Matti kept everything on track as well as his ability to summarize what people had said. I particularly enjoyed the spectrum of views; it is my opinion that definitions, and words, are inherently fluid and for this reason there are always going to be differences. I don't think that is a bad thing. // As an aside, I think that Buddhism's relationship to AN is often misunderstood; I think it is similar to Buddhism's relationship to Schopenhauer. I think the misunderstanding arises because it appears that most people writing about AN today work from a utilitarian foundation and Buddhism is not a form of utilitarianism. Buddhism has the view that suffering is an inherent factor of existence as such, whereas utilitarians consider pleasure and pain to both be present. The Buddhist perspective is that pleasure is inherently laced with suffering and that therefore suffering is more ontologically real. That is why Buddhism did not develop a calculus of pleasure and pain. Personally, I prefer the Buddhist analysis of suffering, but I can understand the attractiveness of utilitarianism. In any case, thanks again for a great discussion and for posting it online.
Thank you for your kind words and the explanation of the Buddhist approach! 🤗
@@mattihayry5060great moderation for sure
For wider propagation of these ideas, it's probably best *not* to define it, or even have it as the front n centre focus of the no child movement.
As people arrive at this conclusion from various different paths, the main unifying idea is not antinatalism per say, but the simple choice to not breed, for whatever reason, every one that doesn't, counts. It may not serve the movement to advertise it as a philosophy, with "dogma" and exclusionary features (asking people if they describe yourself thusly, or are they child free with no interest what so ever in a further philosophical aspect to that choice?)
🎉🎉🎉
Thank you for spreading the truth!
A question to the community, should antinatalists help natalist beings in any way? This is taking into account that by helping them they increase the net suffering.
👋
That's going to depend on the specific Antinatalist.
In other words there's no entailment of Antinatalism to choose to not help non Antinatalists.
Also, in my perspective, Antinatalist or not, helping other individuals (whom you've no legal duty to help or whom you've not chosen to make dependent upon you) is never a moral obligation........ it's only always a morally virtuous act.
There is no community, because groups of procreated humans shouldn't exist according to antinatalism.
No. Antinatalism does not put any positive obligations on antinatalists or anyone else for that matter. Antinatalists, and non-antinatalists, may help others for other reasons, though.
@@WackyConundrum Interesting. I may be writing something under the title "Do antinatalists have positive obligations?" What definition of "positive obligation" do you use? The surface internet notion seems to be "obligation to do" - is that it or do you have something more refined in mind?
@@mattihayry5060 Yes, that's what I mean. Antinatalism is merely "you ought _not_ to bring sentient beings into existence", veganism is merely "you ought _not_ to use/abuse/exploit/eat animals". So, these are negative obligations only.
Positive obligations would be those that make additional demands on us, such that we should be doing something extra.
Late to the party -but I’m glad to hear some respectable names discuss some equally important, and compassionate ideas
Antinatalism 4 the Win! 🏆
antinatalism: A moral belief where one deems procreation (either human, non-human, or all sentient life or any kind of life) categorically as wrong and ought not happen.
it doesnt bake in any normative theory or meta ethics. it is compatible with every normative and meta ethical position. this definition is good.
I very strongly disagree since choices of wrong or right can ONLY ever be a consequence of a moral agent who has some knowledge of right and wrong.
Since a fish who procreates isn't a moral agent, they can't possibly be guilty of making a wrong, immoral, unethical choice.
Wrong (choice) =/= bad (outcomes)
Wrong vs bad ........ 2 VERY different things
@@LouisGedo "wrong" doesnt mean anything when not indexed to any stance. when I say "wrong" i mean relative to some stance. "wrong" here is indexed to MY stance. when I say it is "wrong" for a fish to procreate, I mean relative to my attitudes and preferences and values and ideals ,I would prefer that action not take place, that action ought not take place, if possible I would prevent that action from taking place.
All this talk of "moral agents" is so confused in this discourse. I endorse moral-anti realism, I think a lot of this terms and semantics become dissolved or eliminated under this interpretation.
If a mentally insane man goes around town hacking up people with a machete, and he is not deemed a "moral agent" --- I am still saying that he did something "wrong". Definitely. it is absurd to claim you cannot use the word wrong in this context, I just refuse the use of the terms and semantics this way.
@@LouisGedo And to drive home an even more potent reductio in your view here, suppose you came across a building full of very low IQ human children , like 40iq , or as intelligent as fish, and they were all having sex and going to reproduce. You would not do anything to stop them or break it up? You would just say "welp theyre not moral agents so what theyre doing is perfectly fine!" and have no problem with them reproducing? Just leave them alone?
Totally bonkers.
@zeebpc
👋
By your argument, right could mean sexxually exploiting toddlers, to a whole lot of people. Don't you see the serious flaws in your argument?
Don't you think it would make a lot more sense to tie right and wrong to decisions made in relationship to values arbitrated by principles laid out in Rawl's theory of justice as a baseline?
In this way, it's no more reasonable to call it wrong for lava to be so hot and fast moving that it destroys the feet of a person running away at too slow a pace as it is for a 1 day old toddler or a severely cognitively impaired adult to thoughtlessly do something that ends up causing something bad for someone else?
🤔
And it's absurd to believe that something/one that isn't a moral agent is wrong just because a consequence of an interaction between that something/one and a sentient organism ends up with harmful results to the sentient organism ........not the other way around.
The degree of commodification of "identity" on display here is pretty nauseating. God forbid you just say "I am making the choice not to have children" and leave it at that 😂
Nobody should have children according to these delusional people.