Anonymous
6/15/2025, 12:31:48 PM
No.81498735
>>81498629
>By advocating for a philosophy that is anti-human, you are also anti-morals
You made a good point. The absence of humans wouldn't invalidate morality or the concept of a right or a wrong, there simply wouldn't be anything to determine as right or wrong since it wouldn't exist. Do you need to be "moral" to believe in a "good" or a "bad"? If morality is that which is absolutely good or the superior good, there aren't lesser goods that would also be good but to a less objective extent? I'm an anti-natalist but if you're a good parent, good person, and have a good family and raise good kids then there isn't anything morally wrong with that, except that not every parent is good, not every person is good, not every family is good, and not every child is raised in a good home which would make a good situation. By being anti-natalist, you eliminate that entirely by simply choosing to not procreate. I'm not the other anon btw
>By advocating for a philosophy that is anti-human, you are also anti-morals
You made a good point. The absence of humans wouldn't invalidate morality or the concept of a right or a wrong, there simply wouldn't be anything to determine as right or wrong since it wouldn't exist. Do you need to be "moral" to believe in a "good" or a "bad"? If morality is that which is absolutely good or the superior good, there aren't lesser goods that would also be good but to a less objective extent? I'm an anti-natalist but if you're a good parent, good person, and have a good family and raise good kids then there isn't anything morally wrong with that, except that not every parent is good, not every person is good, not every family is good, and not every child is raised in a good home which would make a good situation. By being anti-natalist, you eliminate that entirely by simply choosing to not procreate. I'm not the other anon btw