Life Sucks | Exit Duty Generator by Matti Häyry - TTS Audiobook @LifeSucks | Uploaded February 2023 | Updated October 2024, 5 hours ago.
I made this TTS audio version of antinatalist philosopher Matti Häyry's newest article so I could listen to it while running errands. Oldphan asked me if I could make it a public video so here it is! His view (need-based) differs from that of efilism (sentiocentric view) which he explains in the article. He is inviting responses in the form of comments and videos.
This article presents a revised version of negative utilitarianism. Previous versions have relied on a hedonistic theory of value and stated that suffering should be minimized. The traditional rebuttal is that the doctrine in this form morally requires us to end all sentient life. To avoid this, a need-based theory of value is introduced. The frustration of the needs not to suffer and not to have one’s autonomy dwarfed should, prima facie, be decreased. When decreasing the need frustration of some would increase the need frustration of others, the case is deferred and a fuller ethical analysis is conducted. The author’s perceptions on murder, extinction, the right to die, antinatalism, veganism, and abortion are used to reach a reflective equilibrium. The new theory is then applied to consumerism, material growth, and power relations. The main finding is that the burden of proof should be on those who promote the status quo.
cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics/article/exit-duty-generator/49ACA1A21FF0A4A3D0DB81230192A042
I made this TTS audio version of antinatalist philosopher Matti Häyry's newest article so I could listen to it while running errands. Oldphan asked me if I could make it a public video so here it is! His view (need-based) differs from that of efilism (sentiocentric view) which he explains in the article. He is inviting responses in the form of comments and videos.
This article presents a revised version of negative utilitarianism. Previous versions have relied on a hedonistic theory of value and stated that suffering should be minimized. The traditional rebuttal is that the doctrine in this form morally requires us to end all sentient life. To avoid this, a need-based theory of value is introduced. The frustration of the needs not to suffer and not to have one’s autonomy dwarfed should, prima facie, be decreased. When decreasing the need frustration of some would increase the need frustration of others, the case is deferred and a fuller ethical analysis is conducted. The author’s perceptions on murder, extinction, the right to die, antinatalism, veganism, and abortion are used to reach a reflective equilibrium. The new theory is then applied to consumerism, material growth, and power relations. The main finding is that the burden of proof should be on those who promote the status quo.
cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics/article/exit-duty-generator/49ACA1A21FF0A4A3D0DB81230192A042
