Why anti-natalists should be against abortion

Relevant Philosophy of Chandler

I would like to explain why anti-natalists should be against abortion. I’m not making the case that one should necessarily vote for certain politicians or try to make abortion illegal. The subject of this article is a strictly moral one.

Perhaps the best way to start is telling you a brief history of how I came to be an antinatalist and vegan. I grew up in Christianity like most Americans and was constantly obsessed with believing the right things when it came to god, jesus, heaven, hell, and that sort of thing. However this was all interrupted one day when I got something in the mail telling me to vote for Claire Mccaskill instead of Todd Akin. The reason was because Todd Akin was pro-life. I was greatly upset by this because I really hadn’t known much about the abortion debate and so I started searching online and I read…

View original post 796 more words


We Don’t Eat of Our Free Will

We Don’t Eat of Our Free Will

I’m going to use the topic of food to explain why what we eat is not chosen by us of a free will. Understand that none of us is the true author of the choice of what we eat.

1. We don’t choose to be hungry in the first place. We need to eat to live and we feel pain if we go too long without eating.

2. We don’t choose which foods taste better to is than others. We eat more of the things that we like better.

3. We don’t choose which foods are available in our area. We don’t control the climate and what grows nor do we choose which stores carry the food or what the prices are.

4. We also sometimes consider how healthy foods are for us and try to eat foods that will help us be stronger, live longer, lose weight, or prevent disease. However we don’t truly know what is really healthier nor do we have the power to make the healthy food available at a cheaper price or taste like our favorite food. If the food you like happens to be healthier or cheap, then you lucked out.

These 4 facts are a simple way if understanding that we have zero control over the food that we end up eating. It’s true that we try our best to weigh the options we have and consider all of the relevant factors, but these determining prior causes that our food decisions are based on is totally out of our control. You might say that you choose your food, but you don’t choose to choose your food.

Another way to think of it is to say that, if we “had a choice”, wouldn’t we all choose to never eat? If we could be solar powered machines that didn’t need to eat and yet were always full of energy, there would be no use for food. In a sense, we are all slaves to biology in this way. We don’t eat because we woke up one day and thought it would be fun to shove a grapefruit into the big hole in our face. We eat because we die if we don’t.

This is a powerful way of understanding the lack of food-free-will. This is a specific area of understanding that helps us understand the bigger picture that free will is an illusion. It applies to topics other than food too. However, the reason food is an important place to start is because we all are forced to eat. It’s something we all have in common.

Valentine’s Day (by Judena Klebs)

Relevant Philosophy of Chandler

I have a theory about Valentine’s Day. No one really knows what to do with that day because hardly any one has a spouse or a date that they’re not mad at most of the time but they know that if they don’t pretend to love them at Valentine’s Day that person will be even more mad and stuff candy hearts down their throat until they choke. They also feel the pressure to spend hundreds of dollars on fresh flowers so that they will not be smashed over the head with the large vase that was positioned in plain view as a hint. There are naked babies with bow and arrows decorating every building. Anything you order from a restaurant is heart-shaped. If you are single, people look at you at parties as though you poked your head out of a casket at your own funeral. You see lips kissing…

View original post 115 more words

Response to: Feel Free To Differ

I wrote responses to a few paragraphs in this article. I feel that it misrepresents determinism as well as misses the point of what the free will debate is about.


Grant Bartley: “Determinism itself comes in different flavours. Hard determinism of the most absolute sort is the theory that the entire history of the universe was already fixed from its very beginning by the setting of the laws of nature and the original states of the matter in it. This is no longer tenable due to the intrinsic indeterminacy – the random behaviour – at the heart of matter that is explored in quantum physics. But physics does apparently allow a somewhat less absolute determinism – the idea that the behaviour of the world is determined by previous physical activities, but with some randomness as to what the particular outcomes will be. So a quantum determinist could defend an indeterministic determinism!”

Chandler Klebs: A person either is a determinist(they believe all events are caused) or they are an indeterminist who believes some things happen acausally for no reason at all. Honestly I find uncaused events absurd and define as a hard determinist, but some among my peers such as ‘Trick Slattery define themselves as a hard incompatibilist. This means that free will is nonsense whether determinism is true or false. If determinism were false, it would only mean strange events happen but they happen without a cause. This means that no human or even a god is the cause.

Grant Bartley: “I think there are two major problems for hard determinists (and so also for compatibilists) to address. Firstly, How do you justify your assumption that causation is only physical, not also mental? The idea that minds can’t choose is so far only an assertion by determinists, and one that’s not justified in experience (and so is not empirically sound), since all our experience of willing informs us that we do make choices, and that we do so effectively. So what sound basis exists for saying we don’t choose?

Chandler Klebs: There are so many errors in this paragraph. First of all, determinism applies whether we define causation as physical, mental, spiritual, political, sexual, financial, or whatever. Prior causes, whether natural, supernatural, or something else are required for our existence. A person need not be a materialist(everything is physical) as I am. It also doesn’t matter whether you believe in gods, ghosts, unicorns, or the flying spaghetti monster. If you say you made a choice, then tell us why you made the choice. It’s not about whether we consciously choose. It’s more about the fact that we don’t choose which option we choose. We are simply born with different preferences in food, sexuality, and other basic things such as left or right handedness. Our choices are caused by what we desire, but we don’t choose what we desire.

Grant Bartley: “The second problem is: Why would consciousness evolve if it doesn’t do anything? On a more rigid determinism, our conscious states and our actions are the results of automatic brain activity; so our actions would be the same with just the brain activity and without the consciousness. However, consciousness is an expensive luxury, being created through specially-evolved, dedicated and energy-hungry brain areas (eg V4-V6 for colour vision). Consciousness is evidently not just a fortuitous free side-effect of other brain activity, as some determinists misrepresent it. So why evolve it?”

Chandler Klebs: I’ve never heard of a determinist who makes the claim that consciousness doesn’t do anything. Quite the contrary. To be able to eat requires consciousness of being hungry and consciousness of food available nearby. No amount of consciousness or lack thereof allows someone to choose to stop feeling hungry. Consciousness is another philosophical debate entirely that has very little to do with determinism, indeterminism, or libertarian and compatibilist definitions of free will.

Free Will and I.Q. – Mine and Yours

Exogenous Agency - Our Un Free Will

About twenty-five years ago, I was asked to take an I.Q. test, and earned a score of 143. That number placed me in the 99.64th percentile of the overall population.

I live in White Plains, New York, a small city in Westchester County, just north of New York City. In 2014, White Plains was ranked by the real estate firm Movoto as the third best place to live in New York State. And, in case you’re interested, the nine other places within the top ten were also in Westchester. Take that Big Apple! But, hey, that’s neither here nor there, right?

Let’s put my I.Q. ranking in perspective. White Plains has a population of about 58,000, which means that about 582 of my neighbors have an I.Q. equal to, or higher than, mine. In Manhattan, with a 2014 population somewhat over one and one half million, (1,636,268 to be exact)…

View original post 677 more words