\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

man sues his parents for having him

https://www.theblaze.com/news/man-plans-to-sue-parents-for-h...
Oh, you travel?
  02/05/19
This will be the only way to take what the boomers hoard
Enki
  02/05/19
Leave Tommy t A L O N E
A Jurisprudence is Performed
  02/05/19
FFS tommy
JFC
  02/07/19
180
hyperdreadnought
  02/07/19
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/2/7/18215586/india-m...
JFC
  02/07/19
he should win
lawman97638737382647
  02/07/19
He should but the remedy should be post-birth abortion.
TMF's size 38 pleated dockers
  02/07/19
It's both fortuitous and fair.
lawman97638737382647
  02/07/19
"I find for the plaintiff and sentence him to death&quo...
Everything is Flame
  02/07/19
He's right.
````````````````````````
  02/07/19
It was hard to believe at first, but I think the younger gen...
Oh, you travel?
  02/07/19
...
JFC
  02/07/19
We all know that's tommy turdskin. He's running out of ball...
Julius Caesar's Mattress
  02/07/19
...
JFC
  02/08/19
Does he have a legal theory to apply here? I don't know, I'm...
Oh, you travel?
  02/08/19
Samuel’s suit is likely doomed, and the idea sounds ab...
JFC
  02/11/19
I know what antinatalism is dude, I was asking if there&rsqu...
Oh, you travel?
  02/11/19
Samuel’s suit is likely doomed
JFC
  02/11/19


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: February 5th, 2019 8:19 AM
Author: Oh, you travel?

https://www.theblaze.com/news/man-plans-to-sue-parents-for-having-him-without-consent

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194810&forum_id=2#37728061)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 5th, 2019 8:20 AM
Author: Enki (🙏 )

This will be the only way to take what the boomers hoard

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194810&forum_id=2#37728067)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 5th, 2019 8:21 AM
Author: A Jurisprudence is Performed

Leave Tommy t A L O N E

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194810&forum_id=2#37728068)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 7th, 2019 8:45 PM
Author: JFC (lawman8)

FFS tommy

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194810&forum_id=2#37745262)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 7th, 2019 8:45 PM
Author: hyperdreadnought (boner police)

180

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194810&forum_id=2#37745267)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 7th, 2019 8:48 PM
Author: JFC (lawman8)

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/2/7/18215586/india-man-suing-parents-giving-birth-antinatalism-raphael-samuel?campaign_id=A100

This man is trying to sue his parents for giving birth to him

Mumbai business executive Raphael Samuel argues that creating people without their consent is wrong.

By Kelsey Piper Feb 7, 2019, 1:55pm EST

SHARE

Javier Zarracina/Vox

Future Perfect

Finding the best ways to do good. Made possible by The Rockefeller Foundation.

Let’s say that someone, without asking your permission in advance, kidnapped you and brought you to a new country where your life would be noisy, confusing, and full of suffering. That seems like something you could sue for, right?

Now let’s say that the way they did this was by giving birth to you.

That’s (approximately) the logic of Raphael Samuel, a Mumbai business executive trying to sue his parents for creating him. He told the BBC that he’s been obsessed since he was a small child with the question of why his parents were entitled to create him without his consent. Because it’s not possible to ask children for consent before they are created, he argues, it’s wrong to have them at all.

Samuel’s suit looks unlikely to get anywhere in India’s courts. The BBC reports that he’s been unable to find a lawyer to take his case, and his parents, both lawyers, have responded in good humor: “She said that’s fine,” Samuel said of his call to his mother with the news he was suing her, “but don’t expect me to go easy on you. I will destroy you in court.”

Samuel’s suit is likely doomed, and the idea sounds absurd, but it’s linked to a serious strain of philosophical thought, which challenges the idea that it’s good to make new people. Samuel is a believer in a philosophy called antinatalism, which holds that it’s wrong to create new people. It has been popularized in the West by philosophers like David Benatar, who wrote a book in 2006 called Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence.

The antinatalist argument goes like this: Pain is bad, while the absence of any experiences can’t possibly be bad. That means that creating people moves them from a state that isn’t bad to a state that is. “Coming into existence, far from ever constituting a net benefit, always constitutes a net harm,” Benatar argues in Better Never to Have Been. “Each life contains a great deal of bad — much more than people usually think. The only way to guarantee that some future person will not suffer that harm is to ensure that the possible person never becomes an actual person.”

If widely adopted, this advice would cause us to go extinct — but antinatalists are, by and large, not persuaded that’s a bad thing. “There’s no point to humanity,” Samuel told the BBC. “So many people are suffering. If humanity is extinct, Earth and animals would be happier. They’ll certainly be better off. Also no human will then suffer. Human existence is totally pointless.”

Antinatalism is part of a broader class of ethical philosophies, many of which start with premises that most of us share and then reach some conclusions that most of us would vehemently disagree with.

Suffering-focused ethics is a broad term for ethical philosophies that, like Samuel’s antinatalism, are primarily or exclusively focused on the prevention of suffering. By contrast, classical utilitarianism is primarily or exclusively focused on the creation of happiness. If you care primarily about the creation of happiness, then it’s obvious that it’s okay to bring new people into the world if they’ll be happy. But if you care primarily about the prevention of suffering, it looks pretty dubious to bring new people into existence — they are guaranteed to suffer.

Not everyone with suffering-focused ethics thinks that it’s inherently bad for new people to be born. For one thing, some of them are optimistic that human effort can make the world a better place and end suffering for everyone, including animals — something which won’t happen if we let ourselves go extinct. Others may consider suffering a priority, but still care about other things, and be supportive of people existing to achieve those other things.

Does this have any takeaways for those who believe that human lives are good and worth living? Many of the concerns that Samuel’s mother cites as influences in his antinatalism — “his concern for the burden on Earth’s resources due to needless life, his sensitivity toward the pain experienced unwittingly by children while growing up” — are concerns that should resonate with non-antinatalists, too.

You don’t have to reach the conclusion that no one should ever be born to be concerned with whether children have good lives and whether parents are having them for the right reasons.

“Mum said she wished she had met me before I was born and that if she did, she definitely wouldn’t have had me,” Samuel told the BBC. “She told me that she was quite young when she had me and that she didn’t know she had another option. But that’s what I’m trying to say — everyone has the option.”

Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good

NEXT UP IN FUTURE PERFECT

Facebook is reckoning with its role in “a textbook example of ethnic cleansing”

How public service announcements reduced violence against women

Why this billion-dollar foundation is becoming a corporation

Why Kamala Harris is under attack for a decade-old anti-truancy program

Democrats need to think way bigger on guns

The US is withdrawing from a nuclear arms treaty with Russia. An arms race might be next.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194810&forum_id=2#37745278)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 7th, 2019 8:48 PM
Author: lawman97638737382647 (not lawman8)

he should win

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194810&forum_id=2#37745280)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 7th, 2019 8:51 PM
Author: TMF's size 38 pleated dockers ( )

He should but the remedy should be post-birth abortion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194810&forum_id=2#37745290)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 7th, 2019 8:52 PM
Author: lawman97638737382647 (not lawman8)

It's both fortuitous and fair.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194810&forum_id=2#37745291)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 7th, 2019 8:59 PM
Author: Everything is Flame

"I find for the plaintiff and sentence him to death"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194810&forum_id=2#37745324)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 7th, 2019 8:50 PM
Author: ````````````````````````

He's right.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194810&forum_id=2#37745284)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 7th, 2019 9:04 PM
Author: Oh, you travel?

It was hard to believe at first, but I think the younger generations might just bring this into the mainstream. Would be just retribution for the crimes of their callow and selfish monied progenitors who thought it would be oh so novel to have a little human accessory.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194810&forum_id=2#37745356)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 7th, 2019 10:10 PM
Author: JFC (lawman8)



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194810&forum_id=2#37745735)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 7th, 2019 10:20 PM
Author: Julius Caesar's Mattress

We all know that's tommy turdskin. He's running out of baller money in Thailand...needs cash fast.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194810&forum_id=2#37745803)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 8th, 2019 7:27 PM
Author: JFC (lawman8)



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194810&forum_id=2#37750025)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 8th, 2019 7:41 PM
Author: Oh, you travel?

Does he have a legal theory to apply here? I don't know, I'm no doctor.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194810&forum_id=2#37750085)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 11th, 2019 8:56 AM
Author: JFC (lawman8)

Samuel’s suit is likely doomed, and the idea sounds absurd, but it’s linked to a serious strain of philosophical thought, which challenges the idea that it’s good to make new people. Samuel is a believer in a philosophy called antinatalism, which holds that it’s wrong to create new people. It has been popularized in the West by philosophers like David Benatar, who wrote a book in 2006 called Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence.

The antinatalist argument goes like this: Pain is bad, while the absence of any experiences can’t possibly be bad. That means that creating people moves them from a state that isn’t bad to a state that is. “Coming into existence, far from ever constituting a net benefit, always constitutes a net harm,” Benatar argues in Better Never to Have Been. “Each life contains a great deal of bad — much more than people usually think. The only way to guarantee that some future person will not suffer that harm is to ensure that the possible person never becomes an actual person.”

If widely adopted, this advice would cause us to go extinct — but antinatalists are, by and large, not persuaded that’s a bad thing. “There’s no point to humanity,” Samuel told the BBC. “So many people are suffering. If humanity is extinct, Earth and animals would be happier. They’ll certainly be better off. Also no human will then suffer. Human existence is totally pointless.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194810&forum_id=2#37762230)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 11th, 2019 8:58 AM
Author: Oh, you travel?

I know what antinatalism is dude, I was asking if there’s a legal application.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194810&forum_id=2#37762233)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 11th, 2019 12:26 PM
Author: JFC (lawman8)

Samuel’s suit is likely doomed

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194810&forum_id=2#37763163)