# Nihilism and Antinatalism Conflict?



## HaleightheNinja (Apr 14, 2016)

Do you think nihilism and antinatalism contradict each other? If you don't know the latter, it's simply the belief that it's immoral to bring new life into the world. Google it for more information. I was talking to someone on omegle, and the chat can be seen here: 
http://logs.omegle.com/da722de
I myself am both a nihilist and an antinatalist, and believe that once one decides to be an atheist, nihilism is the next logical step, followed by antinatalism. I'm not claiming that there cannot be a disconnect between the two, I'm just puzzled as I don't see it. If anyone can enlighten me, please do.


----------



## ScorchedEarth (Jul 12, 2014)

I don't see how they contradict each other. If you accept that there's no inherent meaning to life, you may conclude that the only reason to live is to have positive, joyful experiences and avoid pain. Since it's almost guaranteed that any life, no matter the standard of living, is going to have more pain than pleasure, antinatalism makes sense.


----------



## Bunnicula (Sep 10, 2015)

Well I think that if you personally defined yourself as a "moral nihilist" and then said it was "morally" wrong to bring children into existence, there would be some contradiction about not recognizing moral values and then making a moral judgement. 

I don't think there are universal laws that we can look to for morality, but I still have a moral value system that prevents me from wanting others to suffer. I don't want others to suffer because I have an inner sense of empathy that prevents me from wanting others to come to harm. This is the reason I'm an anti-natalist. 

Someone that is a total nihilist might still be able to ask "Why should I care about the suffering of others?" And there doesn't seem to be an answer for a person that does not value morality at all. It's just like predators in the wild, all they value is their own sense of hunger, they don't care about the pain they will cause prey by devouring them. 

So I think that a nihilist's view on bringing children into the world might actually be one more of neutrality - there is no positive moral value to bringing children into the world, but there is also no negative moral value for bringing children into the world.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

HaleightheNinja said:


> Do you think nihilism and antinatalism contradict each other? If you don't know the latter, it's simply the belief that it's immoral to bring new life into the world. Google it for more information. I was talking to someone on omegle, and the chat can be seen here:
> http://logs.omegle.com/da722de


Possibly, as a nihilist may not respect and positive/negative values to natalism/antinatalism and just be indifferent. It depends on what kind of nihilist you are talking about. Moral nihilists for example would assign no moral factor to situation, but are more likely to say it's pointless rather than immoral.



> I myself am both a nihilist and an antinatalist, and believe that once one decides to be an atheist, nihilism is the next logical step, followed by antinatalism. I'm not claiming that there cannot be a disconnect between the two, I'm just puzzled as I don't see it. If anyone can enlighten me, please do.


Atheists by default are arguably existential nihilists, as without belief in a deity how can there be objective meaning/purpose/value to the universe? That certainly doesn't mean atheists are moral nihilists though. The vast majority of atheists see the valid purpose/value to culturally established morality and can find all the meaning they need to be happy and fulfilled based on subjective rather than objective notions.

I'd hate there to be an objective purpose/meaning to life. I value liberty very highly and want to chose my own purpose, so I do, and I get great joy from it. 

Living a life which is orientated around some divine objective based purpose is highly risky since there is no evidence for its legitimacy. Following such ideologies seems like an almost certain waste of a time/life to me.

I wouldn't say antinatalism is a logical next step from atheism or necessarily from nihilism. Disbelieve in the existence of a deity has zero connection with the believe in the morality of having children. In fact, most atheists very much value people having children as it's the only way our species can endure and prosper. It would be self defeating to campaign for no more children. Society needs new generations and if it doesn't have them society will crumble and we will eventually all become extinct. As for nihilism, a nihilist is of course free to choose not to have children and may see no point to depending on if they accept subjective value/morality or not, so, it's not necessarily a logical next step.


----------



## andy1984 (Aug 18, 2006)

nihilism is a meaningless position. it exists in thought but not in action. there is no way to practice nihilism. all you can do is consider the idea of nihilism, you can't be one. people don't really mean nihilist when they say nihilist, they just mean they supposedly don't care about certain things. if you don't care about anything, you will not care about truth, so talking to you will be pointless. in that sense zen is the next step, because being itself becomes the important thing. you talk because that's just how you are, not because it has meaning.

i don't see any connection between nihilism and antinatalism. there is no god -> nothing has meaning -> don't have babies?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

andy1984 said:


> nihilism is a meaningless position. it exists in thought but not in action. there is no way to practice nihilism. all you can do is consider the idea of nihilism, you can't be one. people don't really mean nihilist when they say nihilist, they just mean they supposedly don't care about certain things. if you don't care about anything, you will not care about truth, so talking to you will be pointless. in that sense zen is the next step, because being itself becomes the important thing. you talk because that's just how you are, not because it has meaning.
> 
> i don't see any connection between nihilism and antinatalism. there is no god -> nothing has meaning -> don't have babies?


Actually nihilism's common definition doesn't state they don't care/believe about anything. It's primary do do with believing life has no objective meaning and/or rejecting morality having an objective source.


----------



## funnynihilist (Jul 29, 2014)

I am both. 

I do believe in the absurdity and pointlessness of existence but I also believe that it's "shameful" to bring new life into this pointless existence because it's more tilted towards pain than pleasure.

Logically why would anyone want to bring a life into this paradigm unless they knew for certain that the new person's life would be "easy" but even then the new person would still have to face death which is never easy.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

funnynihilist said:


> I am both.
> 
> I do believe in the absurdity and pointlessness of existence but I also believe that it's "shameful" to bring new life into this pointless existence because it's more tilted towards pain than pleasure.
> 
> Logically why would anyone want to bring a life into this paradigm unless they knew for certain that the new person's life would be "easy" but even then the new person would still have to face death which is never easy.


The universe is inherently hostile to our well being, but that doesn't mean many of us don't experience more pleasure than pain. I know I experience a lot of pleasure and very little pain. Living in a rich country in this day and age can make that easy, so there is arguably no better time to have a child.


----------



## ScorchedEarth (Jul 12, 2014)

ugh1979 said:


> Living in a rich country in this day and age can make that easy, so there is arguably no better time to have a child.


If everything goes right for you, sure. Modern society hasn't dealt with mental health issues, in fact it has created new problems. Increasingly more people are driven to suicide. Quality of life is no guarantee of happiness. It helps but it's only one factor. I think in order to experience more pleasure than pain, you have to be employed to do something you enjoy (or be unemployed and self-sufficient). How many people can claim that?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

ScorchedEarth said:


> If everything goes right for you, sure. Modern society hasn't dealt with mental health issues, in fact it has created new problems.


It has also shed light on existing problems that were once clinically dismissed/unknown.

Also, modern medicine and psychiatry has done a huge amount to help people with mental health problems.



> Increasingly more people are driven to suicide. Quality of life is no guarantee of happiness. It helps but it's only one factor.


Of course.



> I think in order to experience more pleasure than pain, you have to be employed to do something you enjoy (or be unemployed and self-sufficient). How many people can claim that?


I disagree. Just because someone has a job they don't enjoy doesn't mean it's necessarily 'pain'. I'm as indifferent to the fact that I have to work as I am to the fact I have to eat. Yeah it would be nice to not have to do either but it doesn't cause me to suffer in any significant manner, and I have a life that is full of things which give me pleasure which more than make up for the inconvenience of having to occasionally work in a area i'm not interested in. That work also gives me the money to help allow me to fill my life with pleasure so it's a very amenable inconvenience.  Working for something is often better value wise than just being given it for free.


----------



## Forlorned (Apr 24, 2016)

For the nihilists... The 3rd law of logic is the law of the excluded middle, meaning everything is either true or false, there are no exceptions. Every action is either right or wrong. Absolute truth is a logical necessity. Nihilism if meaning, the denial of absolute truth (which is usually the case) is illogical. This doesn't really have anything to do with the question, I just can't stand when many nihilists say 'there are no absolutes'


----------



## Forlorned (Apr 24, 2016)

Antinatalism and nihilism are incompatible because Antinatalism requires the belief that life's sole purpose if the pursuit of pleasure, nihilism states life has no purpose. Antinatalism is also illogical because it requires a belief in personal truth which is a logical contradiction because truth is absolute (absolute truth is a logical necessity by the way)


----------



## funnynihilist (Jul 29, 2014)

ugh1979 said:


> The universe is inherently hostile to our well being, but that doesn't mean many of us don't experience more pleasure than pain. I know I experience a lot of pleasure and very little pain. Living in a rich country in this day and age can make that easy, so there is arguably no better time to have a child.


I don't agree with you.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

funnynihilist said:


> I don't agree with you.


On what aspect? The latter? Do you think then there was a better time to have children? Or should we not even exist?


----------



## andy1984 (Aug 18, 2006)

ugh1979 said:


> Actually nihilism's common definition doesn't state they don't care/believe about anything. It's primary do do with believing life has no objective meaning and/or rejecting morality having an objective source.


if there is no objective meaning then there is no meaning. if morality has no objective source then there is no source. that is my understanding. everything that exists exists objectively. if it doesn't exist objectively, how does it exist?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

andy1984 said:


> if there is no objective meaning then there is no meaning. if morality has no objective source then there is no source. that is my understanding. everything that exists exists objectively. if it doesn't exist objectively, how does it exist?


Your understanding is wrong then. Human concepts such as morality and meaning are entirely subjective, as there is no evidence that indicates they objectively exist. They are just ideas and customs that emerged/evolved in line with our biological and cultural evolution.

Or are you saying concepts don't exist? Love doesn't objectively exist for example. It's purely subjective.


----------



## andy1984 (Aug 18, 2006)

ugh1979 said:


> Your understanding is wrong then. Human concepts such as morality and meaning are entirely subjective, as there is no evidence that indicates they objectively exist. They are just ideas and customs that emerged/evolved in line with our biological and cultural evolution.
> 
> Or are you saying concepts don't exist? Love doesn't objectively exist for example. It's purely subjective.


concepts are subjective, but they certainly exist objectively in our experience of them. subjectivity is about truth and the varying beliefs that people have. but if anyone believes something doesn't objectively exist then they believe that that something doesn't exist at all surely.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

andy1984 said:


> concepts are subjective, but they certainly exist objectively in our experience of them. subjectivity is about truth and the varying beliefs that people have. but if anyone believes something doesn't objectively exist then they believe that that something doesn't exist at all surely.


No that's not what subjective/objective means, and perceived truth of a belief is irrelevant to it actually being true or not from a relevant objective perspective.

Let's clarify what objective and subjective mean which should make it clear:



> *Objectivity*
> not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.





> *Subjectivity*
> a. Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world.
> b. Based on a given person's experience, understanding, and feelings; personal or individual.


Therefore, it should be obvious that there are many concepts that don't objectively exist and are all in the mind, so can be anything the person desires as they aren't constrained by reality or it has no bearing on the material world.

Love doesn't objectively exist for example. If nothing that can experience the purely subjective emotion of it exists then neither does it.


----------



## andy1984 (Aug 18, 2006)

ugh1979 said:


> No that's not what subjective/objective means, and perceived truth of a belief is irrelevant to it actually being true or not from a relevant objective perspective.
> 
> Let's clarify what objective and subjective mean which should make it clear:
> 
> ...


you just said that concepts are all in the mind. are they in the mind subjectively or objectively?

i can't know if concepts exist in other people's minds right now because i have no means of observing them. but the existence that i am unsure of is the existence of an object. because obviously, all existence is the existence of something, some object.

i can't be sure if the concept of love for me resides in my partner's mind. maybe she loves me, and attributing the love to me is subjective, but that attribution is only a property of the thought itself which exists objectively in her mind. its not a subjective attribute that is magically imparted to me by her having the thoughts.

you seem to be saying her love for me is subjective because some other people don't love me. but the love-concept still exists in her mind. or it doesn't. there is no such thing as subjective existence.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

andy1984 said:


> you just said that concepts are all in the mind. are they in the mind subjectively or objectively?


They are purely of the mind so subjectively. The definitions I gave above should make that clear.



> i can't know if concepts exist in other people's minds right now because i have no means of observing them. but the existence that i am unsure of is the existence of an object. because obviously, all existence is the existence of something, some object.
> 
> i can't be sure if the concept of love for me resides in my partner's mind. maybe she loves me, and attributing the love to me is subjective, but that attribution is only a property of the thought itself which exists objectively in her mind. its not a subjective attribute that is magically imparted to me by her having the thoughts.


See my above answer. Also, there's nothing magical about subjectivity.



> you seem to be saying her love for me is subjective because some other people don't love me.


I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I'm saying love is subjective because it is. Who loves you is irrelevant.



> but the love-concept still exists in her mind. or it doesn't. there is no such thing as subjective existence.


Thoughts are subjective. Thoughts exist. Therefore such things exist, albeit subjectively rather than objectively.


----------



## andy1984 (Aug 18, 2006)

ugh1979 said:


> They are purely of the mind so subjectively. The definitions I gave above should make that clear.
> 
> See my above answer. Also, there's nothing magical about subjectivity.
> 
> ...


ok. i just don't see it that way. to me my thoughts exist objectively, because i experience them directly. nothing could be more objective. anyway... we obviously believe different things.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

andy1984 said:


> ok. i just don't see it that way. to me my thoughts exist objectively, because i experience them directly. nothing could be more objective. anyway... we obviously believe different things.


You aren't using the term objectively correctly then. The definition I posted and my further explanation should make this clear. If it's purely of the mind then it's subjective rather than objective.


----------



## andy1984 (Aug 18, 2006)

ugh1979 said:


> You aren't using the term objectively correctly then. The definition I posted and my further explanation should make this clear. If it's purely of the mind then it's subjective rather than objective.


thats just your subjective opinion.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

andy1984 said:


> thats just your subjective opinion.


Actually it's a dictionary definition rather than just my opinion.


----------



## andy1984 (Aug 18, 2006)

ugh1979 said:


> Actually it's a dictionary definition rather than just my opinion.


is the mind a physical thing?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

andy1984 said:


> is the mind a physical thing?


I wouldn't say so. Would you say dreams are a physical thing?


----------

