Share this comment
Hello, Richard! This article has been discussed on an antinatalist subreddit (reddit.com/r/antinatali…), so I decided to share the critiques to give you a fair chance to respond.
1. "Utopia being better than a barren rock doesn't really mean much in the real world because an utopia will never be achieved. Life is pretty dystopian already …
Hello, Richard! This article has been discussed on an antinatalist subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism2/comments/1gda247/dont_valorize_the_void/), so I decided to share the critiques to give you a fair chance to respond.
1. "Utopia being better than a barren rock doesn't really mean much in the real world because an utopia will never be achieved. Life is pretty dystopian already imo, so the author talking about a small chance life will be dystopian is also meaningless to me."
2. "The author isn't arguing in good faith. He is bargaining for pleasures at the price of what is moral. His opinion is therefore of no value. Positive utilitarian's are nature's junkies, they will justify any suffering and harm as long as they get their feel good hit. Why would anyone trust their reasoning unless they also prefer to get high?"
Thanks for sharing! I don't expect anti-natalists to like my article or be convinced by it. After all, my starting premise is that they are crazy. The purpose of the article is to explain to *other* people how, if they share my starting premise, that should also influence how they think about some other important issues in philosophy.