/lit/ - Literature

>>11237069
Goddamnit antinatalists are fucking annoying.
Like >>11237066 pointed you, you dipshits assume that the basis of morality and anything related to having a 'good' life is equal to being happy, or /not suffering/. Since suffering is oh so bad we cannot let those poor other baby's be born cuz that might be a little too unpleasant for it.
Now that's fine and all, if you are just acting out of empathy and don't think this thought is in any way universal. The funny thing is, that most of the incels who think this shit, are so commited that they must absolutely prevent everyone from ever getting children and anyone who does is the most evil person ever.
The funny thing is that they never seem to realise that they presuppose one of the most retarded philosophies in western tradition: utilitairianism. Hume(I guess you can mention Moore too)has proven that it is in no way possible to ever assert that suffering is objectively bad, and pleasure is objectively good. But even if you would know that an unborn baby will have the most horrible and grievous existence until now, it is still impossible to claim that letting it be born is an immoral decision. The only argument these neckbeards have worth considering is the argument of free choice, but even then, can you really claim that giving someone life can really be a choice? Does someone not-exist before they were born? Also good luck deriving ought from is in this case
not the other guy btw