They care about an ethereal being that has not yet even started to exist ? Cause before they conceive the child, the child doesn’t exist, so surely they must not care about something that doesn’t exist. They care about THEMSELVES and their desire to have a kid, or did they ask the future kid’s soul if it want to come into existence?
They care about an ethereal being that has not yet even started to exist ?
Couldn’t they care about something before it comes into existence?
so surely they must not care about something that doesn’t exist
I don’t understand how you arrive at this outcome that you cannot care about something that doesn’t exist. Lower stakes example: gamers cared about GTA 6 before it came out. People care about future entries into game series that haven’t even been thought up yet.
People care about the concept of things that don’t exist enough to make them want to exist.
did they ask the future kid’s soul if it want to come into existence?
If you believe in souls, and believe they exist before birth, then I’m curious about why you think it would be selfish to bring souls to experience the mortal plane of existence. Would it not be a function of a soul to be brought here?
Cause before they conceive the child, the child doesn’t exist
According to this thought experiment, their soul exists but they don’t? They meaning their physical body? I guess that makes sense.
But still: people can care about things that don’t exist yet.
Just in case it isn’t clear: none of the above is said with any animosity, and I’m not talking down to you.
Ok I’ll explain better. First I don’t believe in souls, it was a way to express existence, my rationale is that you cannot say you did something for someone who doesn’t exist. So when people say, “I decided to have a son out of love for him” this cannot be, you might want to have a son, like gamer want to have GTA6, but the developers will not say “we decide to create GTA6 because we love GTA6” that wouldn’t make sense. I support freedom for all, if they wish to have 1001 kids they can do so, but let’s not be naive, people do it for many reasons but in my opinion none of those reasons are selfless. Also I happen to adhere to Benatar’s Asymmetry Argument. It states:
-Pain is bad. Pleasure is good.
-But absent pain is good — even if no one’s there to enjoy that absence.
-Absent pleasure isn’t bad — unless someone exists to miss it.
So:
Existing = you get pain (bad) + pleasure (good).
Never existing = no pain (good) + no missed pleasure (neutral, since no one’s deprived).
Conclusion: non-existence never loses. Existence risks suffering for no matching benefit. So it’s better never to be born.
They care about an ethereal being that has not yet even started to exist ? Cause before they conceive the child, the child doesn’t exist, so surely they must not care about something that doesn’t exist. They care about THEMSELVES and their desire to have a kid, or did they ask the future kid’s soul if it want to come into existence?
Couldn’t they care about something before it comes into existence?
I don’t understand how you arrive at this outcome that you cannot care about something that doesn’t exist. Lower stakes example: gamers cared about GTA 6 before it came out. People care about future entries into game series that haven’t even been thought up yet.
People care about the concept of things that don’t exist enough to make them want to exist.
If you believe in souls, and believe they exist before birth, then I’m curious about why you think it would be selfish to bring souls to experience the mortal plane of existence. Would it not be a function of a soul to be brought here?
According to this thought experiment, their soul exists but they don’t? They meaning their physical body? I guess that makes sense.
But still: people can care about things that don’t exist yet.
Just in case it isn’t clear: none of the above is said with any animosity, and I’m not talking down to you.
Ok I’ll explain better. First I don’t believe in souls, it was a way to express existence, my rationale is that you cannot say you did something for someone who doesn’t exist. So when people say, “I decided to have a son out of love for him” this cannot be, you might want to have a son, like gamer want to have GTA6, but the developers will not say “we decide to create GTA6 because we love GTA6” that wouldn’t make sense. I support freedom for all, if they wish to have 1001 kids they can do so, but let’s not be naive, people do it for many reasons but in my opinion none of those reasons are selfless. Also I happen to adhere to Benatar’s Asymmetry Argument. It states: -Pain is bad. Pleasure is good. -But absent pain is good — even if no one’s there to enjoy that absence. -Absent pleasure isn’t bad — unless someone exists to miss it. So: Existing = you get pain (bad) + pleasure (good). Never existing = no pain (good) + no missed pleasure (neutral, since no one’s deprived). Conclusion: non-existence never loses. Existence risks suffering for no matching benefit. So it’s better never to be born.