“I do genuinely think that animal life is superior to the vast majority of human life... there are a good lot of humans that don't deserve to live. Meanwhile I don't think there's a single animal who deserves to die.”
So if aliens crash landed on earth that looked exactly like humans, but had green skin, and had sufficiently different genetics to fall outside the taxonomic classification, and procreated like crazy you would not have any moral opinion on it because "Anti-natalism is only for humans" and "humans" here means having sufficient genetics/DNA to be classified under the homo-sapien taxonomy.. Will you backpeddle and contradict yourself and say "well no those beings ARE included" Maybe dont make this claim if everytime the counterfactual shows up you get caught in a contradiction, retract it and backpeddle?
Oh yeah, and "rape" "consent" "murder" terminology doesnt apply to these alien creatures, simply because they have a different species classification on paper. Interesting moral & linguistic framework ... Either bite the bullet of this criteria or stop embarrassing yourself here. I doubt you will do either, you may hypothetical dodge even though the example is logically and physically possible. Many of us dont defend animals or animal rights because we love animals or hate humans, we just have a modicum of abstract thought and thinking about logical entailment and if denying certain groups of individuals rights because of X reason, it logically follows that you must do so in other contexts. If you were imaginative, you'd have realized these obvious redictio's . And if you try to say AN only applies to humans because "moral agency" , do 40iq profoundly mentally damaged humans have "agency" ? if no, does that mean you have no moral preference against their actions either? For me it does not matter if someone has "agency" for me to have a moral preference or attach "oughts" to their actions. Morality isn't just about "blame". It is about what should or should not happen.
What I think youre doing here is aking to saying
"The words "Rape", "murder", "consent" only applies to Gingers -- By Definition"
Sure? if thats the way one chooses to use the word, its trivially true. So what? anyone can do that. Why would I use that definition , I find it silly. Are you a linguistic realist? Do you think words have concrete objective meaning in some platonic realm or something?
"Anti-natalism only applies to gingers, and if you think otherwise, fuck you!"
then, we can press why it only applies to gingers, suppose they give some arbitrary reason like "Gingers have freckles" but when shown another creature that isnt a ginger, but has freckles they now contradict themselves or backpeddle and update their criteria.
And ok, Someone could have that criteria. As long as they are consistent with accepting what such a criteria actually means, I cant say theyre logically wrong or contradictory. But being logically consistent isn't always admirable.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
And one last thing "Anti-natalism" doesnt mean ANYTHING (per my usage) except:
"A general dispreference and attitude categorically against reproduction/starting a new life"
It doesn't entail human supremacy, or animal supremacy, or android supremacy, or aliens. Those are all tangential bits and byproducts of individuals and their extended applied ethics. You in particular happen to be anthropocentric and human supremacist, big deal. I've shown what kind of bullets you have to bite to stay there, up to you if thats where you want to plant your flag. I think it has silly conclusions. Id prefer if people stopped trying to make "anti-natalism" some kind of homogenized identity. It is a trivial feature of someones applied ethics, for some reason or another they have just arrived at a dispreference against reproducing. Its not this grand statement or ideology or necessarily entail anthropocentrism or anything else. There is no "correct anti-natalism" stance.
A significant reason animals crop up in the "AN communities" is because many Anti-natalists are Utilitarians, and theyve realized since all they care about is utility, it makes no sense to care about the vehicle the utility comes in (animal, human, sentient android, aliens , etc) Thus, naturally this makes them arrive at non-anthroprocentric views.
Maybe you should start railing against Utilitarianism if you dont like this byproduct? this post just seems misguided. it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with hating humans or cuddling animals. I am not a Utilitarian, so thats not the case for me.
I just want a coherent framework to protect basic Human rights (and generally sentient rights) and Carnism cannot protect human rights to a degree that satisfies me. Every property that seems exclusive to humans per their protection, ends up easily suspect to hilarious absurd conclusions. So, Ironically, I defend animal rights because I want to protect human rights, second order to actually caring about animals.
Anti-natalism is a different topic altogether, I also just have a deontoic principle against bringing new life consciousness existence for various unrelated reasons.
So if aliens crash landed on earth that looked exactly like humans, but had green skin, and had sufficiently different genetics to fall outside the taxonomic classification, and procreated like crazy you would not have any moral opinion on it because "Anti-natalism is only for humans" and "humans" here means having sufficient genetics/DNA to be classified under the homo-sapien taxonomy.. Will you backpeddle and contradict yourself and say "well no those beings ARE included" Maybe dont make this claim if everytime the counterfactual shows up you get caught in a contradiction, retract it and backpeddle?
Oh yeah, and "rape" "consent" "murder" terminology doesnt apply to these alien creatures, simply because they have a different species classification on paper. Interesting moral & linguistic framework ... Either bite the bullet of this criteria or stop embarrassing yourself here. I doubt you will do either, you may hypothetical dodge even though the example is logically and physically possible. Many of us dont defend animals or animal rights because we love animals or hate humans, we just have a modicum of abstract thought and thinking about logical entailment and if denying certain groups of individuals rights because of X reason, it logically follows that you must do so in other contexts. If you were imaginative, you'd have realized these obvious redictio's . And if you try to say AN only applies to humans because "moral agency" , do 40iq profoundly mentally damaged humans have "agency" ? if no, does that mean you have no moral preference against their actions either? For me it does not matter if someone has "agency" for me to have a moral preference or attach "oughts" to their actions. Morality isn't just about "blame". It is about what should or should not happen.
What I think youre doing here is aking to saying
"The words "Rape", "murder", "consent" only applies to Gingers -- By Definition"
Sure? if thats the way one chooses to use the word, its trivially true. So what? anyone can do that. Why would I use that definition , I find it silly. Are you a linguistic realist? Do you think words have concrete objective meaning in some platonic realm or something?
"Anti-natalism only applies to gingers, and if you think otherwise, fuck you!"
then, we can press why it only applies to gingers, suppose they give some arbitrary reason like "Gingers have freckles" but when shown another creature that isnt a ginger, but has freckles they now contradict themselves or backpeddle and update their criteria.
And ok, Someone could have that criteria. As long as they are consistent with accepting what such a criteria actually means, I cant say theyre logically wrong or contradictory. But being logically consistent isn't always admirable.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
And one last thing "Anti-natalism" doesnt mean ANYTHING (per my usage) except:
"A general dispreference and attitude categorically against reproduction/starting a new life"
It doesn't entail human supremacy, or animal supremacy, or android supremacy, or aliens. Those are all tangential bits and byproducts of individuals and their extended applied ethics. You in particular happen to be anthropocentric and human supremacist, big deal. I've shown what kind of bullets you have to bite to stay there, up to you if thats where you want to plant your flag. I think it has silly conclusions. Id prefer if people stopped trying to make "anti-natalism" some kind of homogenized identity. It is a trivial feature of someones applied ethics, for some reason or another they have just arrived at a dispreference against reproducing. Its not this grand statement or ideology or necessarily entail anthropocentrism or anything else. There is no "correct anti-natalism" stance.
A significant reason animals crop up in the "AN communities" is because many Anti-natalists are Utilitarians, and theyve realized since all they care about is utility, it makes no sense to care about the vehicle the utility comes in (animal, human, sentient android, aliens , etc) Thus, naturally this makes them arrive at non-anthroprocentric views.
Maybe you should start railing against Utilitarianism if you dont like this byproduct? this post just seems misguided. it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with hating humans or cuddling animals. I am not a Utilitarian, so thats not the case for me.
I just want a coherent framework to protect basic Human rights (and generally sentient rights) and Carnism cannot protect human rights to a degree that satisfies me. Every property that seems exclusive to humans per their protection, ends up easily suspect to hilarious absurd conclusions. So, Ironically, I defend animal rights because I want to protect human rights, second order to actually caring about animals.
Anti-natalism is a different topic altogether, I also just have a deontoic principle against bringing new life consciousness existence for various unrelated reasons.