[Mr. Veech]

@ Cannibal Cop

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I assume that human "intelligence" (in this context) is the result of millions of years of genetic mutations. It seems highly unlikely that a morality which self-consciously opposes an organism's primary goal (reproduction) can develop within a closed physical system, a closed system in which survival and reproduction are simply given. The resources don't seem to be available, not without borrowing certain philosophical elements from an alternative source.

It's certainly possible. But we're concerned with probability, not logical consistency.

As far as moral agency is concerned, a closed physical system demands that there are only causal interactions determined by predetermined conditions. Now, one can argue that we don't know said conditions. However, a good scientist will declare that we are permitted to believe those conditions are always already in place. Moral agency implies a sort of radical contingency that defies the kind of determined system the scientist has in mind. In other words, an action's contingency must be a real possibility, not merely a possibility conceived by the human intellect in retrospect.

The ontology behind conventional forms of naturalism is far too poor to account for the very nature of antinatalism. That's what my reason tells me. Of course, I'm entitled to abandon my reason.