Trouble with Impositions
From another thread, but since this is a different argument, I'll start a new one to not derail or confuse the arguments being discussed in the other one.
Certainly the larger argument might be something like, "We are not obligated to create happy people (if that person isn't there to be deprived), but it seems we are obliged to not create unhappy people (who may indeed actually exist)".
However, it's not even that claim I was discussing, but more about the nature of imposing life on another and when it's justified. Pro-natalists think that life can be imposed as long as X criteria of choices is involved and X criteria of harm is involved. In other words, they recognize that there is an "acceptable" amount of harm that someone else will suffer.
For the antinatalist however, both of these claims are misguided. By its very nature, presuming for another that "these range of choices are good" is wrong. I call this moralistic misguided thinking "aggressive paternalism". It presumes one knows what is meaningful, best, or good for another, when in fact they may be ignorant themselves (if these are somehow "objectively" true), or simply, wrong (if they are relatively true and that person being affected just doesn't agree).
Also for antinatalists, presuming that it is permissible to allow the conditions for X criteria of harm is also presumptuous for another. Again, it is aggressively paternalistic to assume that X types of harm are acceptable for other people to suffer.These are flawed and misguided notions that someone else should arbitrarily, by their own reckoning, be the arbiter of what is acceptable in the range of choices or the range of harms that others should encounter. The sad thing is, there is no alternative for those who would disagree.. Only suicide and cajoling that, "This life isn't that bad!" and all the cultural pressures of thousands of years of optimism bias.
Also don't forget, there is unforeseeable harm as well as expected harm for the future person that would be born. The parents might have thought that only X amount of harm would take place, but there are other (perhaps more serious) harms that can befall a person that they didn't even expect and is regrettable. I'll call this a "known unknown". We know that there is unforeseeable harms for future people, so even though we don't know the specifics, we can understand a vague idea of it, and we know that it is a frequent occurrence.
Certainly the larger argument might be something like, "We are not obligated to create happy people (if that person isn't there to be deprived), but it seems we are obliged to not create unhappy people (who may indeed actually exist)".
However, it's not even that claim I was discussing, but more about the nature of imposing life on another and when it's justified. Pro-natalists think that life can be imposed as long as X criteria of choices is involved and X criteria of harm is involved. In other words, they recognize that there is an "acceptable" amount of harm that someone else will suffer.
For the antinatalist however, both of these claims are misguided. By its very nature, presuming for another that "these range of choices are good" is wrong. I call this moralistic misguided thinking "aggressive paternalism". It presumes one knows what is meaningful, best, or good for another, when in fact they may be ignorant themselves (if these are somehow "objectively" true), or simply, wrong (if they are relatively true and that person being affected just doesn't agree).
Also for antinatalists, presuming that it is permissible to allow the conditions for X criteria of harm is also presumptuous for another. Again, it is aggressively paternalistic to assume that X types of harm are acceptable for other people to suffer.These are flawed and misguided notions that someone else should arbitrarily, by their own reckoning, be the arbiter of what is acceptable in the range of choices or the range of harms that others should encounter. The sad thing is, there is no alternative for those who would disagree.. Only suicide and cajoling that, "This life isn't that bad!" and all the cultural pressures of thousands of years of optimism bias.
Also don't forget, there is unforeseeable harm as well as expected harm for the future person that would be born. The parents might have thought that only X amount of harm would take place, but there are other (perhaps more serious) harms that can befall a person that they didn't even expect and is regrettable. I'll call this a "known unknown". We know that there is unforeseeable harms for future people, so even though we don't know the specifics, we can understand a vague idea of it, and we know that it is a frequent occurrence.
Comments (521)
My position on this is clear. We must, for the sake of simplicity, assume that we exist prior to our birth on earth as humans (to nullify the asymmetry that gums up the works) Nonexistence pre-birth unnecessarily complicates the calculations, sensu amplo.
This enables the mathematization of the problem by taking life as a game with the entry fee (P) being how much pain one is willing to bear, happiness (H) being the prize, the probabilities of winning and losing being W% and L% respectively. The expected value (E) is how much one will gain/lose if you play the game.
E = W% × H + L% × -P
Play the game (choose to be born) only if E > 0 and I haven't said anything about how large E has to be for the game to be worthwhile. Would you spend $10 on a lottery whose expected value is $10.01?
Can we guesstimate the values of P, H, W, L?
You can't nullify the asymmetry though as the argument rests on precisely the idea of imposing on others. You are talking utilitarian language game and I am talking deontology language game.
Quoting Agent Smith
Nice equation though.
Can you make an equation whereby it is ever okay to make impositions on others when it wasn't necessary to ameliorate greater with lesser harms? When would that be permissible? The parent is the one doing the equation.. That's the problem.. It can NEVER be the person it is affecting. Why should such significant and profound calculations be done on someone else's behalf when it wasn't necessary to do so?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Paternalism refers to restricting the freedom and responsibilities of others for their own good. It is more suitable for anti-natalists, that want to restrict all of the freedoms and responsibilities the unborn would have, for their own good. Pro-natalists are throwing caution to the wind, opening up the freedom and responsibilities, and any harm that comes with it.
Anyway, it looks we're on the same wavelength as regards the asymmetry I referred to. My take is rather simple. The fact that we actually don't exist before we're born complicates the problem for the simple reason that there's no one who gains/loses if prepartum but there is someone who gains/loses postpartum. Clearly, it's comparing apples to oranges then, oui? We couldn't argue that not being born is beneficial - like you asked me in the other thread who benefits? If so how are we going to make the case for antinatalism - it's good for...no one! One counterargument against antinatalism revolves around this point, oui? A nonexistent person doesn't have moral worth e.g. no one would be arrested for murdering Frodo because Frodo is fiction.
When we assume a person exists prepartum, we can reframe antinatalism/natalism as a game of chance which I've done my best to mathematize.
This really is the core of the problem, and in my opinion it is an open and shut case.
The usual route people take to solve it is by arguing that the life they wishfully envision for their child is a positive thing.
Even assuming this approach would be feasible in the first place*, this skips the fact that no person has the wisdom, knowledge and capacity necessary to put their vision of their happy child into reality. The life of a person is simply too complicated, and the influence of the parents, while significant, too limited to take control of all the outcomes.
It's not just a choice on behalf of another, it is a gamble with that person's life.
*Since their idea of what is positive is subjective and may not correspond with their child's.
I'm not so sure though. Because antinatalists are not doing anything to "any one", there are no restrictions taking place (nor freedoms for that matter). As everything with the asymmetry, the damage (collateral, intended or otherwise) goes one way. That is to say, only the person born would be restricted.. And I do mean to use it in a sense of restricting, because at the end of the day, the "choices" in life are actually rather limited based on contingent circumstances and de facto realities of cultural and physical space and time. Reality presents only so many things, and it is those things that are assumed the person born must deal with/endure etc.
If not, things would be very boring, very quickly. Well, Schopenhauer pointed out, not an exact quote, that even if we did manage to create a utopia for a while, we would soon be bored and begin acting improperly.
Yet he lived his life, unlike, say Mainländer. He was a real anti-natalist.
Then we are already at odds because you are bringing it back to utilitarian calculations and not deontological considerations. Rule-based if you want to translate it.
Quoting Agent Smith
It's about the state of affairs being good that the outcome was not bad as Benatar explains.
Quoting Agent Smith
For some reason I have to make it a stark situation for people to see the problem clearly...
A lady is planning to give birth to a kid in a lava pit. She thinks it's a good idea (some crazy religious notion let's say).. The baby is not "born" yet (and let's keep "born" ambiguous as to what stage that is).. You can prevent the lady from giving birth in a lava pit. The baby is not a person yet. Would you prevent the lady from doing so if you could? Let's say that no baby was born because you convinced her to not give birth in a lava pit. That is good, even though there is no baby as a referent that is a benefit of that good. Had that baby been born, what we do definitely know is that would be bad (for an actual baby born into a burning lava pit).
Quoting Agent Smith
And yet again, I will have to keep pointing to future conditionals which are possibilities in the world and future conditionals which can never happen.
A good point.
Quoting Tzeentch
That too.
Your right to say/think/feel that.
Quoting Manuel
Though your right to say it, to act upon it and presume this is or should be the case is the exact damage I speak of coming from a place of aggressive paternalism.
Quoting Manuel
I don't get to put someone in harms way because I'm bored nor put them in harms way because I think that they should like it (even if they don't). YOU should not be making those assumptions for others.
Quoting Manuel
Indeed, but that is more proof of the inherent suffering of the world.
Quoting Manuel
Well, I don't want to be engaged in True Scotsman fallacy. But at any rate, he did not advocate promortalism, and nor is this argument about that.
So my wishes are nothing personal; I want suffering and dying to continue in general and indefinitely, because the joy and beauty of life is not separate from suffering and death. The antinatalists will get their wish in time and my wishes will be frustrated, which is only fair. Such is life eh?
I am being slightly silly, because I'm in that mood, but, let me be a bit more serious:
We must begin with one assumption, at the very least, or we cannot do anything. Heck, we have to assume math is true, because how can we justify it?
In morals, you assume that others either want life or do not. Most people want life, some do not. You can call these people deluded if you wish, those that want life, but, I don't see the point of "making them see", that life is worthless. Most don't see it, maybe because it isn't true for them.
Quoting schopenhauer1
This is why I avoid talking much about ethics, I think the standards are too high, thus I keep to politics. I like True Scotsman, I accept no substitutes. If I want an Irishman or a Ethiopian, I'll ask for one. ;)
How does someone impose on a future person without having to travel through time?
:up:
Good gedanken experiment. To be fair and with deference to your deeper understanding of the situation, I concur, I would do everything to stop this rather hapless woman from birthing the baby who being born would end up in a friggin' lava pit.
However, I suggest you reexamine your argument to gain further insight into your views on the matter.
Bonam fortunam!
Why is an action's you do presently not matter just because the consequence will be in the future? Would you create an unjust situation in order for the conditions for injustice to come about? That makes no sense.. You must put an "actual person" in harms way so that you can have a referent to "not harm".. Error.
I just dont understand how one can impose on someone in the future. Which past people or situation imposes on you?
You make it seem like it's an inevitability to make people pay this price :brow:
Quoting unenlightened
Right, but why are you assuming you should be making those choices for someone just BECAUSE there is no choice that can be made by a person to begin with? This is the aggressive assumption in question. Why should one person decide what the acceptable parameters of choices and harms should be for another person, ever? Forget convention, ideas of "common sense" or historical practices, just think about the actual notion itself. You think I don't understand these conventional ways of thinking? I get it.. I am questioning it.. And that's the part that bristles certain people the wrong way.. Lay down the prejudices of against the gadfly for now (plenty of time to give me the hemlock), and just look at the case without using indignity for (this idea) not following common precedent.
Quoting unenlightened
How do you think that antinatalists will get their wishes?
Huh? Are you asking how simple cause and effect works? Like a past action can have consequences on someone in the future? In this case, a past action can have a consequence on someone in the future (even if they were not around in the past when the action took place that would affect them at a future time). This isn't that hard.
Ok. So, for example, which past persons and which situations imposes on you?
Quoting schopenhauer1
The asymmetry would say lack of freedom is not a bad thing. But freedom is being prevented?
Responsibility is often a bad thing, and the asymmetry would say that this lack of responsibility is good. But responsibility is being prevented?
This prevention is more paternalistic than letting the experiment play out.
Do you know how procreation works? Do I need a diagram?
Remember, this is about a rule.
The rule is:
1. Don't assume that you should create unnecessary impositions on others on conditions like:
a. the parameters of choices in the world one must choose from and encounter
b. the amount of harm that is acceptable
c. the risks of unforeseeable harms someone might encounter
2. By not acting on these assumptions for another person, no negative takes place.
2a By going ahead and acting on the assumption, a negative takes place,
2c Don't let the negative take place.
So I guess my formulation is a bit different because it is more about creating the negative situation or not creating the negative situation.
By not acting on the assumption, no negative takes place (see 2).
You can call that "good" if you want. No positive takes place, but where is the moral impetus for positives not taking place, if there is no one to be deprived?
The fact is no negative took place (2c). Call it whatever you want.
Confusion doesnt explain how a past action can impose on a future person.
'Possible persons' are imaginary nonexistent and, therefore, only subsist (A. Meinong), like every other mere possibility, (D. Lewis) without a moral status .
Antinatalists, IMO, need to either (A) refute that proposition (B) find another (less incoherent) argument to "justify" their position or (C) concede that the idea is wholly subjective and be consistent enough to (i) refrain from procreating and/or (ii) kill themselves asap.
:fire:
See my post about the lava pit.
Quoting 180 Proof
Why are you so off the rails hostile? Kill yourself is callous. I dont even jokingly say that.
:fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: oh shit you just started a forest fire
Quoting 180 Proof
That's not very hard to refute.
Let's say I plant a timebomb in the ground in a place where I know a town will flourish two-hundred years from now.
When the bomb goes off and wipes out this town, full of people who did not yet exist at the time of planting the bomb, do I get to say I'm without blame because these possible persons had no moral status at the time of my planting the bomb, thus I had no obligation to take their well-being into account?
This is child's play.
Paternalism: "relating to or characterized by the restriction of the freedom and responsibilities of subordinates or dependants in their supposed interest." Thankfully, non-existent beings aren't in some free state of affairs that is being taken away by their creation. However, it could be possible that certain flawed worldviews would mislead innocent people (capable and willing of being good parents) not being able to have a family they would have cherished due to an enormous yet unnecessary moral burden. This isn't probable (for now), but it is nevertheless possible. Impositions, troubles, and paternalism are not the onlyor even the primary things that should matter. Gifts, opportunities, and kindness are also important. Despite everything, the positives will always remain relevant.
You must agree such a group of people exist, no?
No hostility, just the logic of antinatalism's life-denial.
No wonder, because what you're suggesting is absurd - that people have no moral obligation to take into account the consequences of their actions.
Quoting DA671
I think the responsibility lies on the shoulders of the parents who brought this tragedy about.
The question is, however well-meaning parents may be, how much power can they truly be said to have on the well-being of their child?
They have some influence, but as I have argued before, no parent has the knowledge and wisdom to foresee their child's life very far into the future, nor do they have control over the countless factors that influence their child's life.
I conclude that since parents do not have the knowledge and wisdom, nor the power to bring about their envisioned end-state of a happy child, even at best their action is a gamble.
Typical strawman. :ok:
I do not believe that parents do not have significant power over the direction their children take. They are the ones who can (and should) give their kids a decent life. They are the ones who should show them the importance of good values. However, absolute power is not necessary for one to live an adequately happy life. If a gamble is bad due to the risks it entails, it can also be good due to the opportunities it creates. And we do know that inexistent souls do not have an intrinsic preference for avoiding the gamble, so one has to act in a way that minimises harms without eliminating the possibility of the good.
I agree. I cannot for the life of me think why arguments against anti-natalism always seem to descend into this particular lunacy. It is obvious that one ought consider the as-yet-unborn child's welfare prior to their birth. It's why prospective parents buy nappies, because they don't want the newborn to be without them (and so uncomfortable). It seems so obvious, I'm genuinely baffled by the popularity of the counter-argument.
:smirk:
How much influence can a parent be said to have on the consequence of their actions in regards to the well-being of their child?
Even the best-equipped and well-meaning parents can, tragically, bring about a terrible life for their child.
Do you agree that this is a possibility every parent should take into account? And if so, on what basis should it be dismissed in favor of having children, if not mere chance?
Pronatalists are of the opinion that a person (the child) will share the same values as his/her parents and agree to their assessment of what kind, and how much, of that kind of suffering s/he will consider acceptable. This assumption is unjustified. People suicide for various reasons that differ from one another in kind & degree!
Unfortunately, the knife cuts both ways. The antinatalist too is unwarranted to, in their turn, assume that children will have the same thoughts about life & suffering as theirs. This is also, sadly for the antinatalist, wrong.
In short, the subjective nature of joy/sorrow precludes both antintalism & natalism.
What next?
Left to the reader as an exercise.
The amount of influence one has might depend on the level of involvement of the parent. The more they are there to help their children and give them the right skills/values, the more probable it gets that they would live a better life or at least not find it impossible to face difficult situations.
Even seemingly terrible parents can create children who would have good lives. However, it wouldn't seem reasonable to suggest that we should ignore their intentions altogether. In addition, one should not be compelled to have perfect control over one's life. This could only be applicable if the person in question was unable to take care of itself for eternity or the parents were somehow responsible for placing the person in a worse, less free state than it previously was inwhich obviously doesn't apply to non-existent beings. And if one is responsible for all the harms that happen in a person's life, they also deserve praise for all the good that happens.
Certainly, one should not forget about the negative consequences that could occur. Although, I would still say that the actions of other individuals are also pertinent, since ascribing responsibility should be done in a reasonable way that takes into account all the diverse factors in a person's life. Still, if creation has value, it can obviously be negative, whether or not the parents intended it to be. I do not think that the possibility of a negative outcome should be dismissed. Rather, one should act depending upon their circumstances whilst keeping in the mind the reality of happiness along with the risk of suffering.
I agree to an extent, but one has to have careful limits if one is to do that and I think those limits create an asymmetry. Looking at just utility we end up with the utility monster problem (is a million moderately happy people better than a few extremely happy people). You'd have to look at is from a virtue perspective - ought I create some happiness, ought I create some harm (or risk)? I think the answer to both depends on the scale of either. One ought not create the risk of massive unwarranted harm. One ought to create happiness where one can, but one seems less obliged to do the latter than avoid the former.
Coming to your point, I certainly agree with you that one should have a nuanced approach that addresses the complexity of the real world.
The well-being of the person is unknown prior to the unfoldment of their life.
Getting the ball rolling is ultimately the parents' choice and no one else's, and if they must conclude that many things will be out of their control, then on what basis will they justify their choice?
I see "good odds" as the only attempt at a justification here, but I'm trying to see if there are other possibilities.
Yes. NU is as bizarre a ethic as any. Why would we eliminate harm with no-one around to enjoy their harm-free life? One might as well have an ethic around eliminating cheese.
Good odds is the requirement, not the justification. One cannot reasonably justify having a child on the basis of good odds that they'll be happy alone. We should no more be wanting to maximise the number of happy people in existence (by procreation) than we should be wanting to minimise the number of unhappy ones (by culling). We ought be concerning ourselves with the welfare of our community. That's what ethics is for, otherwise it's just baseless.
The ball is also controlled by many other agents. One would not say the Earth is the cause of an accident that happened yesterday. Even if it has theoretical value, this analysis would ignore the role of other elements. I think one should only be expected to have absolute control if it is reasonably possible for them to possess it, the person in question would necessarily experience terrible harms without the control, and there is nobody else involved in whatever that happens. The fact that everything cannot be controlled does nothing to dimish the ineluctable truth that a lot of people go on to have experiences that they would cherish forever. As I have said elsewhere, one cannot simply look at the risks and ignore the opportunities.
Good odds, intentions, and a multitude of other factors, etc., can certainly be things to consider. Most importantly, I think, one should not disregard the potency of the positives whilst acknowledging the truth of the harms. The solution is unlikely to be black-and-white.
Quoting Isaac
I agree with this line of thought.
And if one's goal is to do good onto others, one should be humble and seek to do so in ways that are within one's control.
By it, the simplest justification for having a child is that it will do more to improve the welfare of one's community (including the future child) than not doing so would.
Quoting Tzeentch
I don't follow. On what grounds is inaction morally superior to action?
To expand. It seems to me that a person standing by without acting whilst another is clearly in pain is callously immoral, whereas a person arranging a huge benefit concert for starving Africans, but in doing so causing a minor trip hazard which breaks someone's foot, is clearly a good person (despite the unforeseen harm).
Insisting that one only act in ways that are totally in one's control seems a bizarre restriction.
Which is precisely the issue. It is largely out of the control of the parents who make the decision, which seems to me a shaky basis upon which to make decisions that can have serious negative consequences for another.
Quoting DA671
Ok, but the outcomes are unknown. All we can do is guess as to what the outcomes will be, and some of those outcomes may be good and some bad.
Does this not amount to a gamble?
Quoting Isaac
That isn't known when the decision is made. One may very well be making a decision that greatly damages their community and their future child.
So I guess one approach would be to say something like "but the chance of improvement is larger than the chance of damage", or is there some other way to continue in the face of these unknown consequences?
Quoting Isaac
I didn't say one should choose inaction, I said one should choose action in ways that are within one's knowledge and power to oversee and control.
Some would say that inaction that prevents pointless harms is better (even if it's in a neutral sense). Howbeit, in that case, one could also point out that neutrality is worse than a positive state.
Possibly. Yet, as I said before, I believe that if a "gamble" is bad due to the risks, it can also be good due to the opportunities. We could say that deciding for someone else isn't good, but I think that another perspective could be that one can give a good that one simply cannot ask for prior to existing. All in all, I think that a balanced approach is generally preferable here.
True. It's a consideration one ought to take into account.
Quoting Tzeentch
My preferred solution to the unknown consequences problem is to consider ethics about virtue, not consequence. Virtue only requires that we do our best. Once one has positively answered the question "have I reasonable grounds to think this action will increase the welfare of my community" then one can act virtuously in carrying out that action because the ethic is about the virtue, not the consequence (one might be wrong). Consequentialist ethics is a nightmare because we have no cut-off point. Maybe it will be good in ten years, but bad in a hundred, but then good again in a thousand... where do we stop?
I think most people though, could answer that question positively. Without a future generation almost all communities would suffer great harms, and almost every human alive benefits more from the company of other humans than they do from solace (very few of us are hermits).
It's the basis of my argument against anti-natalism. One only need a reasonable belief that one's child will not suffer greatly for any small suffering they might experience to be outweighed by the benefits it is reasonable to believe they will bring to one's community. Ethics should be about the welfare of the community as a whole, not of individuals, otherwise no sacrifice for the wider community could ever be ethically advocated.
Just to clarify: I am an antinatalist (also, pro-euthanasia, pro-abortion, pro-vasectomy/tubal ligation) because the world and society I was born into and have lived in for almost 58 years is ravaged by gratuitious suffering force multiplied by endemic stupidity; so for the last 30+ years I've deliberately avoided chucking anymore fresh meat into the moral circus of these times. I'm not "pronatalist" at all. In fact, one doesn't have to be; there's no argument needed to procreate and perpetuate the species that's what extant species do by biological default.
However, I am against poor arguments and sophistical exortations which is all that's ever proffered in defense of "antinatalism". In genuine Hegelian (or iekian) fashion, antinatalists should be hyper-natalists preaching "be fruitful and exponentialize" in order to as rapidly as possible bring about the negation of natality with an extinction-event scale Malthusian apocalypse: hyper-natality > natality thesis negated by fatality antithesis > antinatal aufhebung. Yeah, it's bullshit, but at least there's an internally consistent hook to hang that antinatal party-hat on (rather than a so-called "utilitarian / consequentialist argument" premised on a category mistake of conferring a moral status on inexistent, merely possible, persons as if they are existing, actual, persons).
:yawn:
I've seen people go through years of misery due to their failure to have kids. Thankfully, many of them found happiness through adoption. Still, I think it does demonstrate that procreation can be a source of unfathomable value for many (and I haven't even mentioned the indirect value it could have due to the fact that it could lead to the creation of people who would help their communities and would contribute towards the common good).
Yes, I think one can reason badly about the courses of action which would most benefit the community and ignoring individual welfare would be one such bad reasoning practice.
Quoting DA671
Yes. And also many projects which increase the welfare of a community take more than one generation to complete, so it's reasonable to have children to help progress such projects.
Not necessarily. I can ask the same question even if the odds were, say, 10:1. A gamble with good odds is still a gamble. The question is whether in the face of unknown consequences we can classify our choice as anything other than a gamble.
Quoting Isaac
I think a just intention alone does not suffice, though it is a prerequisite for a moral action.
Similarly, a good outcome alone is not enough either.
One needs both.
The issue is that when one's intentions do not match up with the outcome, and instead one produces a negative outcome, one must have been ignorant. And ignorance is not virtuous, nor does it justify an action.
One cannot have both, so you've made moral action impossible. Thus the word 'moral' becomes pointless. I suggest, therefore we find it new use - perhaps to describe actions which are reasonably likely to bring about good outcomes?
Quoting Tzeentch
Ignorance, of the sort you describe here, is neither virtuous non non-virtuous. It's as relevant to virtue as having a nose. We are all ignorant in the manner you describe and cannot be any other. As such the state is irrelevant to virtue. One cannot make into a virtue that which is unobtainable.
All we can reasonably say is a virtue is for one to have taken achievable steps to predict the outcome of one's actions.
Why not?
Quoting Isaac
While I would argue ignorance is relevant to one's capacity to bring about intended outcomes, I would agree it is a "neutral" factor. However, virtue ethics would imply that ignorance is not an impediment to ethical behavior, whereas I would argue that it is.
If intentions were good but the outcome was bad, then there must have been ignorance at play. In my view that does not justify the action or make it moral as per virtue ethics.
Because that would involve omniscience and none of us are.
Quoting Tzeentch
Well then you're not using the word 'moral' correctly. The degree of prior certainty you're describing is not the kind of action we use the word 'moral' to describe (in fact it describes no class of actions at all, since that level of prior certainty in unobtainable but...). You're describing a different type of action. Let's call it a 'y-moral' action. Now, why ought we only act in ways which are y-moral?
Why would that require omniscience?
You're saying for one's intention to match the outcome it requires omniscience?
Quoting Isaac
Perhaps.
It seems to me that talking about morality in terms of only intentions or only outcomes makes no sense, and these two should always be considered together.
If one intends to do great good but does only great harm, they clearly cannot be said to be moral, regardless of their intentions.
If one intends to do great harm but does only great good, they clearly cannot be said to be moral either, regardless of the outcomes.
Yes, clearly. One does not otherwise know the outcome in advance and cannot match it to one's intention.
Morality is about what we ought to to. It is necessarily predictive about outcomes.
Quoting Tzeentch
Why not? If the harmful outcome was completely unforeseeable we'd commonly refer to such good intentions as virtuous.
But let's take this away from semantics. What ought we do? We cannot predict the future with great accuracy, our inaction could cause as much harm as our action, so what ought we do?
When it comes to the well-being of others, to take only those actions the outcomes of which we can predict with great accuracy.
Why?
:clap: :fire:
Gratuitious suffering! Endemic stupidity! Fresh meat! Moral circus! :up: :up:
As for your recommendation, let's go all out on (pro)natalism; (Hegelian) Dialecticism guarantees that, as you seem to be implying, that the thesis (natalism) contains the seed of its own antithesis (antinatalism) via overpopulation/population explosion and intriguingly this might be automated rather than willed. The same goes for antinatalism, but there's a real chance that the yin-yang pattern won't hold: ?extinction!
Much obliged monsieur!
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Yes, some of us, I guess the more liberal-minded ride on optimism, it's their superpower. Others tend to be conservative, extra cautious as it were, not willing to take (unnecessary) risks, these types like to play it safe.
The way out, like one person once told me, is to take a calculated risk.
The possibility of harm to others inspires all decent people to work hard to protect against such.
Every member on this website who has children that they love more than they value their own lives are being constantly insulted and accused of being immoral by misanthropic cowards who do not have the guts to make their statements face to face in public.
All the antinatalists here should organise into a public pressure group and show their faces on tv and the internet. Then their suggestions could be exposed to all and the public can react to them accordingly. Perhaps they will start a new global revolution and all procreation will stop. :rofl:
Imagine you're asked to throw a dart blindfolded. The person whose game this is informs you that there's a dartboard, complete with a bullseyse in front of you but, just to add that extra spice to the game, there's also a child in the vicinity of the dartboard. You're told that whether you throw the dart or not is your choice and yours alone. Would you throw the dart or would you go "you sick bastard!"
Better to play pinata. Swinging a big club blindfolded can cause harm but the intelligent pinata player can prod with the bat quite softly until they identify where the item filled with goodies is.
Then they can swing with strength and release all the goodies for everyone to enjoy (all part of a balanced food plan of course). People don't have to play nasty games such as the one you suggest.
The possible outcome of one throw are (50/50 odds, a fair coin in a manner of speaking):
1. Dart lands anywhere but on the kid ( :smile: )
OR
2. Dart lands on the kid ( :sad: )
We're not certain which of the two (1/2) will happen! How would you or anyone else for that matter tackle this game?
The game mirrors the natalism vs antinatalism dilemma. Neither side can guarantee the joy/sorrow of children and hence can't clinch their respective arguments.
P.S. Those who can provide for the well-being of their kids are only a handful of well-off folks and so, for simplicity's sake, they can be ignored, like [math]\delta x[/math], from the calculus.
Yes, I agree. There's no point in reducing harm just for the sake of following some rule about reducing harm. We usually weigh predicted harms and benefits. I can't see any reason why procreation should be treated differently.
Quoting Isaac
Because if one chooses to interfere in the affairs of others, one should be certain their actions don't cause irreversible harm.
Not forgetting the threats! :lol:
A calculated risk is when the odds of winnin' are higher than the odds of losin'. The risk is in name only, or nominal/negligble whatever you wanna call it but, the catch is, ain't zero! Having children it seems is a gamble after all!
The whole of human society has responsibility for the well-being of all children and all people for that matter, not just parents. We need to remove the rich/poor imbalance from the human experience, which will help alleviate human suffering without turning to extremist, fringe, low-brow thinking such as antinatalism.
Why? You just keep repeating arbitrary rules without basing them on any potentially shared objectives. We don't just follow rules for no reason.
I don't recall suggesting it does.
All people should be able to take the basic means of survival for granted as all people should be equally valued. The rich/poor imbalance supports a power/influence imbalance that creates massive suffering and undeserved harm for a majority. Health care and education should be completely free for all from cradle to grave as the alternatives again cause great imbalance and a great deal of undeserved harm.
Antinatalists would be more than absolutely useless if they spent all their energy fighting against these undeserved harms than typing the utter nonsense they type. Good people are forced to waste their time typing the same truths in response to 'misguided' pointless threads such as this one.
It's very hard not to respond to horrible concepts like antinatalism. It deserves imo to be utterly ignored but I suppose as long as the antinatalists make their useless noises, good people will feel compelled to respond to them and If they ever gain the guts to identify themselves in public then I predict that the response they will get will not be as pleasant as it is on this anonymous forum.
As I suggested previously in another thread, we need hard data to settle the matter, but to compound our woes, the subjective nature of joy/sorrow means data (happiness indices) will be worthless.
This brings us back to the question I asked: Given the uncertainty that's a feature of the issue, what should we do?
The antinatalist's dilemma: Sorrow ( :sad: ) or Nonexistence ( :death: ) [Suicidal ideation].
The natalist's response: Life isn't suffering (anti-Buddhism) & Life isn't mostly suffering i.e. the joys of life are being ignored. Took the bull by the horns!
The subjective nature of hedonism nullifies both antinatalism & natalism as pointed to above.
What do we do?
Desperate times call for desperate measures, mon ami! Consider antinatalism a symptom; that should clear up the matter for you. If I throw a party and I see someone :sad: , my party is bollocks! :snicker:
Live, progress and continue the fight against viewpoints such as antinatalism and the narcissism of the very few.
Edit: Oh, I forgot to include 'and keep reproducing! Responsibly, of course.
Even if the vast majority at your party are having a great time?
The pessimist! A hundred joys just cant compete with a single :sad:
I am glad I don't think like that.
What we should do, particularly at a time like this, is to focus on reducing inequalities as universeness mentioned and implementing ideas such as a free and fair right to a dignified exit that would ensure almost nobody would be forced to go through a primarily negative existence. Then, one makes people understand that procreation isn't a joke, which could help the people that do come into existence live better lives supported by people who genuinely care. In the end, the middle path (Buddha's idea) should be the way forward. Thank you for your kind words, and I sincerely hope that your concerns (and your happiness) are treated with the respect they deserve. If these are desperate times, then the need of the hour is to do everything possible to get out of themand we will. Have a wonderful day!
:clap: and in reducing 'undeserved harms,' by employing better politics and by establishing powerful checks and balances which will prevent the nefarious from gaining power and positions of authority.
And no formation of antinatalists will ever stop the inevitable movement of the human race towards a fairer global socio/political system. Remember what the Mahatma said! All tyrannical systems in history have fallen. Do the antinatalists really believe that the human race will vote for their own extinction?
That is their ultimate suggestion after all. I mean come on! How ridiculous can it get. It's embarrassing that we have to debate such utter tosh because they continue to make their white noise.
Pointless distractions from the real issues going on in the world today.
The people of Sri Lanka have just demonstrated that the nefarious cannot always depend on the police and the army to support them. The police and army are not always filled with mindless automatons, sometimes they support the people as they come from the people!
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Isaac
Because causing harm to others is bad.
This is turning into a silly game. Please get to a point.
I think the void you describe should now be awarded a new welcome mat with the words 'All antinatalists welcome here. Nonexistance available here, for all who apply, anytime!'
Quoting DA671
Hope springs eternal!!
UNITED, we stand!
A fancies himself quite good at what he does, and on nine out of every ten people into whose business he interferes he makes a markedly positive impact.
However, A isn't perfect, and one out of every ten people he ruins, by accident.
A calculated risk, A thinks. One out of every ten? That seems like good odds. A small sacrifice to make for the good for those nine others who may benefit from A's boundless benevolence.
So, is A a saint? A highly dangerous individual? What gives A the right to interfere unasked? What's the sacrifical lamb to make of this?
Absolutely! Perhaps we can also prevent the 'sacrificial lamb' type shortfalls or any 1 sufferer out of every 10. No people means 10 out of every 10 cannot ever be achieved. Let's keep trying for 10 out of 10 every time but lets never forget that life needs comparators to be able to understand and appreciate what 'good' is. We all need some bad in our lives to be able to enjoy the good. The antinatalists don't understand this it's beyond their ability to.
:up: :clap:
I hope you understand that the harm that befalls people isn't always limited to "some bad", and not always followed up with good to enjoy.
Quoting universeness
:roll:
The antinatalists should be grateful that we are creatures who refuse to accept the old Darwinian 'law of the jungle.' But it is possible that their importance to 'nature' is reduced by their decision not to reproduce. I currently share this position with the antinatalists as I have no children. I have been content with this decision but the antinatalist viewpoint is one of the most compelling reasons I have heard to encourage me to make a newborn. Even at 58! :chin:
Does life just scare you? Are you afraid of coming to harm? Do you spend your days afraid of all the bad things that might happen to you or those you care about?
You've not demonstrated that being certain one's actions don't cause irreversible harm before acting minimises harm to others though. The inaction resulting from your uncertainty might cause harm to others.
The point was made way back. Why privilege inaction over action if your concern is the welfare of others? Your inaction is just as likely to result in harm to the welfare of others as your action.
None of those things. I'm quite happy. But I'm also aware of the misery that exists.
My concern is specifically with the morality of the act of imposing life upon someone.
And your solution to this concern; is to advocate for the extinction of your species through their global consent. is this correct? That's your solution?
No. I don't advocate anything, nor am I in the business of solving the world's problems.
I think we can safely say that you and I stand united in our opposition to antinatalists and we probably represent an overwhelming global majority. If humans do go extinct at some point in the future I think it will have little to do with the efforts of or noises from antinatalists.
Quoting Isaac
My chief concern was never the minimizing of harm to others (besides that which might be caused by myself), or the welfare of others. I see those as noble goals, assuming one doesn't go about achieving them recklessly.
Quoting Isaac
Inaction does not cause harm. It's a neutral state.
This statement is obviously false! Are you saying antinatalists are a fringe, minority group? I'm not so sure - remember one Doomsday factor is overpopulation and it gets worse by the minute (google population clocks).
Also what's the exchange rate between tears & smiles? How many :sad: are worth 1 :smile: or conversly how many :smile: are worth 1 :sad: ? Surely, the conversiom factor is not 1. What you're tryin' to say is that if, in your family, only your bro/sis is :sad: , it's absolutely ok. Wouldn't her sobbing drag your entire family's happiness score down into the bloody abyss?
I'm all out.
Then what is your chief concern?
Quoting Tzeentch
So you don't breathe, eat or move then? You are never inactive, so you're always doing. The choice is over what to do.
Yes I am. The fact that the human population of the Earth has been increasing since the days of the first Homo Sapiens is proof enough for me.
Quoting Agent Smith
How did that happen based on your suggestion of antinatalist populism?
Quoting Agent Smith
No I already told you before, I would be one of the people at a party who tries to cheer up anyone who looks like they are not enjoying themselves but I would not be the pessimist who would declare the party bollocks because of some sad people at the party. Maybe their dog just died, who knows. Your responsibility is to help them, if you can, not conclude that antinatalist BS has been exemplified as correct and it would be better if EVERYONE at your party had not been born because one or two or ten of them have faces that look :sad:
So you see an innocent getting attacked and you take no action? Inaction may not cause the harm but it can help maintain it. Just like no reproduction would cause the harm of making a species extinct!
The search for truth and wisdom, I suppose.
Quoting Isaac
With inaction I mean non-interference. So the choice would be not to do anything about a given situation.
So you willingly leave yourself open to accusations of cowardice? Should the world have stood by and not interfered with the Nazi plans for all people they considered inferiors?
Sure.
Quoting universeness
"The world" should have done as they saw fit at that particular time.
A lot of your replies to me seem to assume I have all sorts of opinions about what other people should do. I don't. The only reason I'm here is to test the principles I use to guide my decisions in life. What people do with the arguments I present here is completely up to them, and it doesn't matter to me.
How does that concern affect the decision to procreate? Is non-procreation more truthful?
Quoting Tzeentch
And how does that assist the search for truth?
This is more to the spirit of the OP.. Great arguments going on here, but this specific thread is about if/when/the right to make impositions on others unnecessarily.. The key word you used there was "unasked".. Otherwise it could just be typical ameliorating greater with lesser harms with a bad outcome, but someone who sought the help or something.
No, but when you say:
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
It seems to imply some duty to pursue these things (minimizing harm to others and acting for the welfare of others), to which I replied that those things are not my chief concern. I see no such duty, except perhaps minimizing the harm I myself cause to others directly, that is to say by my action.
The primary reason that procreation needs to be regarded critically is that there's a non-trivial risk of harming others. However, the reason I would refrain from procreation is because I cannot see a justification for the imposition on another, as per the thread's subject.
Quoting DA671
Inaction or non-interference is literally not to get involved.
Quoting DA671
I'm not saying it should be, but I'm saying it can be chosen and doing so is a neutral action. People don't have a right to another's action, just because they believe it to be good for them.
I am fine with it being a possible choice. In fact, if the risk is greater, it should be preferred. However, if the possibility of an overall good outcome (it may not be perfect) is reasonably high, I believe that it is better to act than to be "neutral". Considering that inexistent beings cannot ask for the benefits of life, I believe that if one is concerned about violating rights, they should also be glad about bestowing goods that one could not have asked for before existing. My worldview does not begin and end with impositions (or some divine gift of life that all souls should be forced to give). Unasked harms matter, but so do goods that non-existent beings are unable to solicit. The greater good of existing people is also quite important, but I do not think that has to be the only pertinent factor (assuming that creation can be good/bad for the person who is born).
You have almost grasped it.
When you say "the knife cuts both ways. The antinatalist too is unwarranted...to assume.."
However, it doesn't cut both ways (i.e. the asymmetry). That is to say, no actual person is deprived (not good or bad). You did not unnecessarily impose suffering onto another, that can surely be counted as good, no?
EDIT: In other words, the collateral damage only goes one way, not both ways.
Non-interference does not have consequences.
If I see a man drowning in the ocean and for whatever reason choose not to try and save him, then his drowning is not the consequence of my choice not to get involved, but of whatever circumstance put the man in the water.
Quoting DA671
In the absence of absolute certainty there is such a thing as "beyond any reasonable doubt", but I don't agree that it applies to the question of procreation.
But beyond the idea of the gamble, which is mainly about the "unforeseen harms" (third point), the first two are intended and known by the parent:
1.that there are only a certain range of choices for the person born, and that THESE CHOICES are good FOR THEM
2. There are a range of harms, and THESE HARMS are acceptable FOR THEM.
When is it ever okay to assume for another that these choices and harms are good and acceptable for someone else? I think this goes beyond just "not knowing" (which Tzeentch makes a great point of). That is part of it, but it is also not knowing and then going ahead and thinking that your view of harms and what choices are meaningful or good to encounter, are something others should experience (because YOU think it).
EDIT: If I sit you in a manufacturing plant and have you make widgets for 8 hours a day and say this is MEANINGFUL.. you will just say, this is what YOU think is meaningful..
Then the inevitable response is, "Well, life has way more CHOICES than just a manufacturing job making widgets!"..
But my point is EVEN THESE RANGE OF CHOICES are limited.. one ASSUMES these range of choices are something the other person would want to choose from.. And there are limitations based on the situatedness and de facto realities of physical and cultural existence.
Then the natalist may pull out their final defense.. The "Most people" defense...They'll claim:
"I have a right to do this to another because MOST PEOPLE would have wanted this".. But is there a situation you would do that to someone else (unasked/unnecessarily)? But I feel there is more here than just that idea too... I'll have to come back to it..
Ok, I have come back to it.. It's something to do with the working in the manufacturing plant making widgets.. Objectively, the person could be wrong about what is meaningful. Subjectively, the person could be wrong for that person for what is meaningful. There is something not right about aggressively assuming for others what is meaningful and what is acceptable harm for someone else.
It certainly isn't acceptable by default. Perhaps in emergency situations? But even then I would argue that one is obligated to be certain (beyond a reasonable doubt) that one isn't making the situation even worse.
The antinatalists exclaim 'tut, tut these poor, tired, huddled masses are upsetting my sensitive persona. The only sensible decision is to help end all life in the Universe by asking all humans to stop reproducing. :halo:
It's even more fascinating to read antinatalism in its platitudinal mode. The old 'you can attract more flies with sugar than vinegar' approach. :roll:
I believe that it does apply to procreation, provided one also takes the benefits into account.
"Causing harm" to imaginary people is ... imaginary. You're either incorrigible or delusional. :zip:
This is the one I'm asking about. And...
Quoting Tzeentch
...
Why?
Are these just spontaneous feeling you have, not derived from any deeper objective? They seem, no offense meant, really odd, and intriguing for that reason.
This is exactly the point - the inaction did not cause anything.
And just because one is aware of the drowning, it doesn't make one the cause.
I am sure you are aware of certain sufferings in which you could conceivably interfere (homelessness, third-world hunger, etc.). Does your awareness of it and your ability to interfere now make you the cause of it? Is it a moral slight that you are not interfering and doing everything you can to solve this issue?
I think not.
Quoting Isaac
They're arrived at through reason. First, individuals do not like being harmed. Their will is as good as mine, so I should take care not to harm them and thus violate their will.
Second, if I impose something on someone, I may violate their will. Maybe there is a situation conceivable where this is justified, but then I would need to make a convincing case for it. So far I haven't seen it.
You talk about meaning, I'm talking about good. Two different objectives. What is meaningful is fine being subjective. We can each make our own choices. What is 'good' is not fine being subjective because you sffdct me and I affect you, we share common resources, we share space, we collaborate to achieve stuff we couldn't achieve alone. We must come up with an agreement as to what constitutes the common good.
Once we have such an agreement, the maintenance of it is all morality is. Anything else is pointless. You could say "you mustn't do X", " you must do Y", but why? Who sets these bizarre rules and why ought we obey them?
If you don't want to build a better community, if you don't care for their welfare, then that's fine, you do you, but you've got no business with morality, the subject matter of which is the welfare of our community. Anything less is just a set of arbitrary rules for no purpose.
So your concern for the autonomy of the as yet unborn is noble, important, but completely pointless unless in the service of the larger goal of community welfare. Otherwise, why? Why bother with autonomy? Why bother with rights? Why bother with dignity? What's the purpose?
So your first clashes with your second. Your objective is unachievable. You might as well toss a coin.
I don't see any contradiction here, or any objective for that matter.
If you believe the first is a hard rule and the second shouldn't even be considered, then we are done here, no?
I don't see how you can't replace the word and the logic not be the same. Just replace meaning with good then.
Quoting Isaac
I'll allow you that if you want to make that distinction with those two words.. but though on the surface that looks like it is relevant, it actually isn't because you are talking about cases where a person exists to already need to share resources, space, and "achieve stuff". Hence why I really try to emphasize the unnecessary nature of creating these things for another person to encounter (the very imposition in question).
Quoting Isaac
Procreation is a case that doesn't fit this conception and yet it is something that will (or at least could) affect another person so squarely fits in morality. It is not exempt because it doesn't fit with other cases. The rule itself must make room for this decision as well.
Quoting Isaac
But here we are getting closer to the matter at hand. Your assumption seems to be that people NEED to be born TO build a better community.. Well, hold on, who says? Why do you get to make that decision?
Quoting Isaac
Because it affects people in significant ways to have to do X. It is about when is it right to ever impose your view of reality onto another in such a profound way.. That your view of acceptable choices, harms, and unforeseen harms is what another person must encounter.
Virtually all humans thrive on the company of others. The greatest harms we suffer are ostracisation and loneliness, far greater than any physical harm. Beyond that we cannot survive alone, we require the support of a community. If you do nothing to interact with other they will definitely come to this harm. You may not have directly caused it, but this is also true of procreation (I don't directly harm my children, I merely create a situation in which they may be harmed).
You cannot avoid interaction with others full stop. But even if you somehow became the world's first true hermit, you'd cause harm by depriving those who thrive on human interaction the pleasure (and utility) of your company.
I may not be the direct cause of the harms. Yet, my inactions do cause the harms to continue (along with the source of the harm, naturally). However, I think that one has to take intentions, practical limitations, and the long-term consequences of something into account. Holding people responsible for everything could make us forget about all the good that also happens, or occlude our ability/will to help others. Therefore, a nuanced perspective seems to be desirable.
People do already exist with these needs. The current community. All of whom will suffer if there's no succeeding generation.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I agree. Procreation should not be exempt from any moral rule.
Quoting schopenhauer1
See above. What is 'good' for a community cannot be a subjective decision because we all affect each other, so I have expectation of you and you of me on the grounds of our mutual need for each other. It is not only reasonable to expect others to adhere to the general consensus on what is good, it is completely necessary for a community to function.
But beyond this someone has to make a decision because inaction will definitely cause harm. we can't ask the unborn child, so we have to decide. Not deciding is just a cop out. It doesn't avoid harm, it just avoids direct responsibility. You create a situation where people will be harmed, but you personally get to wash your hands of it and say "wasn't me, not my problem".
As I said, if you don't care about whether a community functions, then that's fine, but it's nothing to do with morality then. You're just making up arbitrary rules.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So? Why care about affecting others?
Quoting Isaac
While I agree perhaps about certain things about the community (perhaps not fully though because it seems like your rule makes a slippery slope consequential conclusion about how "useful" people are), in this case you are creating someone else's needs de novo. That is the violation. The community is not some amorphous entity either, but comprised of people with feelings, attitudes, ways of beings, and their own internal thoughts.. It is THAT which the ethics obtains to.. The projects to stay alive for them.. To then put the projects above the persons in question is to put the wrong thing as the locus of ethics. Projects on their own are for the humans. And not all humans might like the projects... nor is there anywhere that it says that the projects must be carried forward simply because OTHERS have a notion it must (and so they get to impose it on other people).
Quoting Isaac
Because people are not to be used, even if it is for a "greater cause of the community". People are where ethics lies, not communities. If I have a project that I like, I don't get to impose it on others because the project cannot move forward and then claim anything that doesn't further my project is not moral, therefore I can do X things to other people, whether it is good/whether they want it or not. I also don't get to create harmful situations for them because it furthers my project. Again, it's aggressive paternalism. It uses people. It assumes what YOU think is good is good (for them).
Nonsense. People's own private objectives are not ethics, it's just subjective. If I want a big car it's not ethics to get me one.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That's exactly what morality is, a general agreement among a community as to what is best. Absent of agreement it's just personal preferences, not ethics. Total consensus is impossible, so you either have a general agreement to which people are expected to adhere regardless of their own view, or you have nothing but personal preferences - which is not ethics.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Why not? More arbitrary rules.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Then you've no ethics. If the community don't get to have any expectation of anyone they don't personally agree with then all you have is everyone just does whatever they want. That's not ethics.
However, for this very same reason, I can't defend antinatalism and nor can anyone justify natalism. To do either, we need objectivity (we are arguing, oui?) but that as we just discovered isn't there (vide previous paragraph).
What this means is that we can't predict how children will respond to the world - they could be all smiles or all tears, nobody can say.
It is at this juncture that I left the readers/posters/forum members.
What should we do now?
[quote=Dr. Lanning]That, my friend, is the right question.[/quote]
I wasn't saying that. I wasn't advocating for some preference-maximizing or something like that. I was saying that WHO is the person that enjoys, doesn't enjoy, feels the affects of X, Y, Z? It is the individual. There is no collective WE that feels anything, even if a collection of people are necessary to coordinate to move the project forward. Coordinated entities, are not the locus of ethics, a person is.
Quoting Isaac
I'm just going to have to disagree with you there as to your conception of ethics.
Quoting Isaac
No, the assumption is that the community wants what the community wants, and you must comply with it (or die). That itself is the aggressive idea I am trying to refute as anything to do with being ethically valid.
Why should such aggressive assumptions that impact a person so significantly hold? What makes you the judge and jury for someone else's set of choices and harms? Anyone can do anything to anyone in the name of community then.. No you don't understand... COMMUNITY!! But then even if let's say it wasn't just me but a ragtag team of colonists in the 1600s that claim that that one person is a witch to be burned at the stake... COMMUNITY!! it must be moral? Of course not.. Or a community of any X things. It doesn't matter. No particular project should be used to impose on another because you value that project yourself.
Quoting Isaac
I was defending against your idea of community lording it over the individual and saying that in this particular situation, the individual is the ethical locus, not some community consensus as to what is acceptable to someone in the first place. And again, go back to what you said that the rule must fit for the circumstance of procreation which is different from imposing to ameliorate greater harms with lesser harms (because that only happens if people need that...). It is a matter of kind and not just degree here. You are assuming the projects one must encounter for someone else, including all the harms they will encounter, not just mitigating already existing harms for which people can't help but encounter.
Quoting Isaac
I think I addressed this further up in the post about the so-called needs of a community census on whether something is validly moral.
Yes, this is more to the point I was trying to make.
Quoting Agent Smith
But one doesn't affect a person, and the other does. So even if one is aware of the problem, but doesn't know if it is objectively true, why go with the riskiest, most harm-creating one? And then the idea of aggressive impositions starts coming into play even more... Why this assumption that others must do or like or comply with what you deem as good/meaningful and in such a significant and irreversible way?
As I've tried to explain to you, this statement you just made [math]\uparrow[/math] is nonsensical for the simple reason that objectivity is impossible in re happiness/sadness. To drive home the point, a person could be in hell & :smile: and another person could be in heaven & :sad:
When subjectivity is involved, all bets are off!!! You can't predict and once that's impossible, our argument falls apart.
Right, but this doesn't refute the point, if the things are different for everyone, why go with the riskiest move? And then this also goes back to the asymmetry. WHO loses out on "no goods had"? Look back to my last post about the asymmetry.
So, each person does exactly what they wish. Doing exactly what you want is not ethics, not by any definition at all.
The only alternative is that someone has the right of expectation that another will adhere to some behaviour even if they don't want to.
But then you can't avoid the question of who gets to set what that behaviour is.
You have three choices...
1. Everyone does whatever they want.
2. People are expected to behave in certain ways even if they don't want to. The community comes to a decision somehow as to what that behaviour is.
3. People are expected to behave in certain ways even if they don't want to. You, God, or some other arbitrary person, decide what that behaviour is.
There is no "riskiest move" mon ami! De gustibus non est disputandum. Lemme clarify: Since how I feel (sad/happy) about the world is subjective (we're on the same page), I can't make objective claims about it and since I can't do that, I can't argue.
As for who gains/loses if born/unborn, let's examine Benatar's asymmetry.
1. Born + Will be happy (Good)
2. Born + Will be unhappy (Bad)
3. Unborn + Would've been happy (Not bad)
4. Unborn + Would've been unhappy (Good)
To my reckoning, Benatar is guilty of an inconsistency - look at 3 & 4. In the case of 3, nonexistence diminishes the value of possible happiness (Not bad only), but in 4, the value of unhappiness remains unaffected by nonexistence (Good). Benatar is trying to eat his cake and have it too.
"Natalism" needs to be justified? Since when?
No it's not an inconsistency, he is working off of moral intuitions about non-had goods and non-had bads. I rather don't like it formulated in that fashion you wrote. Rather, the way I would put it but gets to the same idea:
1. When someone doesn't exist to experience good, damage has occurred to no one.
2. When someone does exist to experience bad, damage has occurred to someone.
Not bringing about 1 harms literally no one in its absence.
Bringing about 2 will harm someone.
The collateral damage only obtains for 2 and never for 1.
We've just been through this. The rest of the existing community are harmed by the absence. The claim is categorically false.
No, I don't know how that conclusion is reached that each person does exactly as they wish. That isn't a necessary conclusion. Clearly there are rules, the ones about not using people or violating their dignity by forcing upon them significant conditions.
1- That doesn't follow.
2- And then you run into things like the colonists burning witches- something you didn't address. Rather, there must be some rule above and beyond the community's standards. That's why ideas of rights came into play, to protect the individual. But beyond this, no one can act upon someone and then say that they are acting on behalf of the community or some goal that just "needs doing" and thus doing something to another unnecessarily is justified for these reasons.
3- This may be true if I am reading it correctly. Arbitrary is not accurate though. Rather it is the idea of people are not pawns to be moved around and to be used for some other entity whether that be a cause, another person's preferences, or what have you.
So who gets to decide what the rules are?
That's the interesting part...
If no person is born, no person is imposed upon. There is no person not obtaining anything. If they are born, there is an imposition going on. Someone IS deciding in one, and in the other, no one is making that assumption for another, literally.
Yes they are. They're making an assumption that all the people who would benefit from the prospective person should suffer. They're deciding on behalf of others.
Why is a person's dignity being violated something that must be based on some community standard? Again, the witch being burned. Why is that allowed? The community feels this person is bad. She must suffer?
Because the alternative is that everyone just does whatever they want. Again, if you prefer that system, that's your deal, but it just not what morality is.
See, this is the false dichotomy I don't accept. Morality itself just becomes the capricious whims of a community's time, place, and circumstance. There seems something above and beyond community standards going on for things like when (or if) it is okay to harm an individual. Something that is irrespective of time and place of a community.
God?
The point is we already disagree, you and I.
So we've only two choices. We arbitrate (come to a binding agreement, someone imposes on someone else), or you do as you see fit and I do as I see fit (we do as we please).
Based on what it means to have an ethics that obtains for reasoning, feeling, people who have their own internal reasons and preferences. It comes from that understanding expanded to everyone respecting this upon everyone.. Similar to Kant's foundation give or take.
Yet even despite that complexity and the possibility of individual harms, more people still want to have children compared to the number that does not, based on the continuous population growth of our species. Looks like most humans choose to keep living after they have been born so who are the antinatalists to try to suggest they hold the moral high ground by suggesting that all parents are immoral?
Agreed.
I liken it to vegetarian/veganism. Propose, make a case, don't impose. I also separate discussions of ethics from law. Government/law and ethics is not the same but may overlap with personal ethics.
Everyone doing as they please (ultimately) is just not ethics.
ethic
noun [ C, usually plural ]
uk
/?e??k/ us
Social responsibility.
a system of accepted rules about behaviour, based on what is considered right and wrong:
eth·ics
/?eTHiks/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.
Same thing. Key word being 'govern'. Not do as you please.
Benatar, to be consistent, has to say:
1*. When someone doesn't exist to experience [s]good[/s] bad, [s]damage[/s] benefit has occured to no one.
1 & 1* (a consistent pair), together, means that nonexistence can't gain/lose anything [Who? Nemo (no one)]
However, Benatar's argument for antinatalism is based on the premise that
1**. When someone doesn't exist to experience bad, benefit has occurred. He truncates his premise by leaving out "no one". Below is how 1** should look if Benatar is to be consistent
1***. When someone doesn't exist to experience bad, benefit has occured [to no one].
1* = 1***
So, Benatar has to be inconsistent in how he treats nonexistence to make the case for antinatalism. That's the flaw in his argument in my humble opinion.
That's why I wished to take nonexistence out of the calculus by proposing we assume people exist before they're born on Earth. That way we can avoid the metaphysics of nonexistence, a complex topic in its own right and reduce the problem to a mathematical game of chance.
Natalism: It's ok/good to birth children.
Question: Why?
Well, I think that's why it should be read in its context. He gave common intuitions we have when trying to justify the claim. So he thinks that while not experiencing good is always instrumental, not experiencing bad is intrinsically good. There is something weighted to make the asymmetry such that no bad occurring is just "good" whilst good not occurring is not just bad but bad only if instrumentally felt by an actual someone.
He gives examples like, it seems intuitively weird to be sad about the non-existent aliens on Mars. It seems intuitively more salient if we knew there were aliens and they suffered. We would probably feel a sadness.
It says govern, but the definition I pasted did not mention "accepted rules about behaviour". That of course makes your definition entail some sort of community-deemed foundation to ethics, when it is more general than such a definition. Rather, it is simply rules that govern behavior, and can have a multitude of foundations in ethics and metaethical analysis.
If you're game let's go over this again.
1. Nonexistent people don't feel the deprivation of joy.
To be consistent,
2. Nonexistent people also don't feel the elimination of suffering.
Nonexistent people have no moral status then, oui? If so to say being childless is moral is devoid of any meaning for no one's happy/suffers less or not at all except the people who decided not to have children. You know what I'm driving at, oui? We must shift our focus from possible people (babies) to actual people (people who can have babies). Give it a shot, will ya?
One response would be we're looking at the potential for suffering (if a baby is birthed, s/he may suffer). However, there's the potential for happiness too and it's back to square 1 for us.
Why the question?
Why not the question?
Why would we want to reproduce given that path leads to disaster: overpopulation and its accompaniments like diseases (e.g. Covid), famine, ecological collapse, so on and so forth.
You did mention in an earlier post that reproduction is as natural as breathing - it's the default state of all life. However, is it sensible/reasonable to have kids? There are many things that are natural, e.g. we're violent by nature, but does that mean we should be violent?
And, recycling souls makes for an efficient universe and leaves enough space in hell for everybody, if necessary :naughty:
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, it is childish. How could you possibly know where a town will flourish in two hundred years?
Quoting Agent Smith
Some people want to reproduce, others don't. There is no one rule or one set of acceptable conditions that should govern everyone's decision as to whether or not to procreate. It's self-righteous nonsense to imagine there could be
One is not 'governed' if one gets to make up one's own rules. One is simply doing as one pleases.
Yep. Remember my arguments around the differences in things like drinking water, taking a shit, and procreating? Procreating is not instinct in the way the first two are (necessary or death).
Thats not how the definition was using governed. It referenced no actual government or community and the word just means there controls.
Recycling souls in samsara! Makes sense to me!
Firstly, how could you possibly know what they meant? Secondly, one is no more 'controlled' by one's own rule than one is governed by it. If you can change the rule any time you desire, then you are de facto controlled by your desires, not the rule.
Biological urges usually have a perfectly good explanation says the theory of evolution. The problem is that sometimes they can be counterproductive e.g. emotions tend to be problematic by deprioritizing reason - it initiated a vicious cycle that leads to death spirals.
Really? Why?
:roll:
Precisely!
You mean to say reason doesn't guide us/doesn't inform our deeds? That's antiphilosophy, not philosophy! I quite like it! :smile:
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
This however raises the question of where exactly in samsara (hell/earth/heaven) souls started out. It's a rather interesting puzzle, oui? Did we begin with a net karma that was positive (heaven/earth) /negative (hell)/zero (limbo)? Basically, how does karma in samsara work?
Very interesting indeed. I find it's best not to think about karma too much. But according theosophy, we started out as spiritual/ethereal beings in paradise with zero karma. But as the "race of adam" became mired in matter, it began accumulating karma. That race has since evolved over the aeons into our glorious generation, where we are currently working out the karma that we have built up through countless lifetimes. But that's only one perspective.
Apologies then. Must be the bad cold I have. Au revoir.
Because that's how governed is used unless in the context of talking about government, as in "The people were governed by X government". Anyways, this is pedantic asides. Look up govern in the dictionary, besides the political usage, it means controlling something.
Quoting Isaac
Well that's a separate issue on whether people change the rules they think they follow. Clearly, that in itself is moving the goal posts and is not moral so much as expedient, quite the opposite of what moral reasoning is doing. So again with vegetarianism.. You may really miss meat, but not indulge in it as an ethical rule. See how that works?
On the other hand, if you want to justify any action, you constantly change morality to fit your needs, whereby it is no longer a governing rule but simply preference-maximizing with post-facto justification (unless I guess your ethic was absolutely preference-maximizing, which is more egoism or self-interest.. hard to justify as an ethic).
:clap:
Finding excuses not to have to deal with the dilemma is not a very convincing way of solving it.
The answer is so obvious too, which is probably why you're trying to avoid it. That's the go-to solution for many in this thread who have an issue with antinatalism: finding excuses to avoid having to deal with what is blatantly obvious.
Of course, if one knowingly creates conditions by which individuals will befall harm in the future, one is morally responsible when that harm eventually befalls them, regardless of whether the individuals existed at the time of the creation of the conditions. That is why the harm that may befall others in the future as a result of our actions needs to be considered upon acting.
The individual in my example obviously is morally responsible for the harm they knowingly committed. It's absurd to argue that because the sufferers of said harm weren't alive when the conditions were created, the individual bears no moral responsibility. The individual was aware of the conditions they were setting up, precisely like a parent is.
And how do rules control your behaviour when you do not have to abide by them if you don't want to?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Right. So I shouldn't change my current rules, that wouldn't be moral. What exactly are you hoping to achieve here then?
Quoting Tzeentch
Right.
As I said https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/720016, but you unfortunately ignored, both your position on inaction and your position on antinatalism create conditions by which individuals will befall harm in the future.
When you have your own dilemma pointed out you too, it seems, reach for avoidance.
Quoting Isaac
I just thought it was time to let some others share their ideas, since I had been talking way too much already and felt I was hijacking the thread.
I may get back to your comment later.
Thanks. I usually attack head on. But it is obvious that TPF is oversaturated with evasive tactics, so I feel the need to work on my evasive tactics so that I...can...fit...in!. :halo:
You're great! :up:
Can one evade responsibility through the same route as is attempted here by various posters, by making an appeal to the fact these kindergarteners weren't yet alive during the time of construction, and thus had no well-being to take into account?
The answer, which you're trying so hard to dodge, is obvious.
The drowning man does not drown because I did not help him, but because he ended up in the water and could not swim.
The same could be said for "depriving individuals of one's company" - one's choice of not getting involved isn't the cause, it's the person's desire for things outside himself that is the cause of his deprivation. One can hardly be held responsible for the unrealistic wants of others, or unjustified claims to other people's company and/or action.
I'd love for people to treat me like a king wherever I go, yet the fact that I desire as much does not make their indifference towards me a cause of harm.
Right. But the bomb causes the school to explode in your other analogy. You didn't cause it. You merely created a situation in which is was more likely to happen. It's exactly the same with procreation. By having children I don't actually cause the harm they might experience do I? I merely allow for it by bringing them into being. You can't have it both ways - direct causality on one side, but 'creating conditions' on the other.
Quoting Tzeentch
Right. So we're declaring some harms to be the result of desires which conflict with reality and others not. So I can simply declare that by procreating, I've caused no harm at all. Any 'harm' my children might experience in life is simply the result of their unrealistic expectations, not my fault. Again, you can't have it both ways.
The other option is to say that people do exist before they're born (on earth as a human).
These two options come with their own metaphysical baggage though, but at least we achieve some semblance of symmetry which is vital to the issue.
If not then the problem of natalism-antinatalism gets bogged down by the metaphysics of nonexistence. Why complicate the issue (unnecessarily)?
I disagree. Clearly if one makes and sets the bomb to explode, they are the cause, or at least a significant part of it. It is an act.
Quoting Isaac
Creating children is likewise an act, which contributes to their harm.
In the case of the drowning man, one created no conditions that contributing to his drowning.
Quoting Isaac
Again, having children is an act, and when one acts, one must take into account the harm one causes.
There's a fundamental difference between creating conditions (acting) and choosing not to create them (non-interference).
I suppose you tried to circumvent this by saying we're entitled to other individuals' action, which I disagree with.
How? I don't harm my kids.
Quoting Tzeentch
So's moving away from rather than toward a person. So's playing a computer game instead of helping them.
Quoting Tzeentch
If a house needs building, it takes five people to build it, you're one of only five people in the community. If, instead of helping to build the house, you decide to go for a walk, how are you not, by your action (going for a walk at the time the house needs building) 'creating the conditions' whereby that house will not be built and all the associated harms.
Condition 1 - there are four people available. The house doesn't get built. People suffer.
Condition 2 - there are five people available. The house gets built. No one suffers
By going for a walk instead of helping you are, without a shadow of a doubt, creating condition 1. The condition in which harms come about.
I'm sure people will have some objections to my school-example, but intuitively it seems so.
You created the conditions by which harm may befall them, just like the school builder in my example constructed a school that may collapse.
Quoting Isaac
I don't know why the "rather than / instead" parts should be considered in order for something to be considered an act or not. The fact that one can interfere does not change the nature of not interfering.
Example: your choice not to interfere with world hunger does not make you the cause of it, nor is it an "act" that is "causing" harm.
Quoting Isaac
I think this is an erroneous way of representing causality.
My absence did not cause the house to not be built.
The question here rather is whether my choice for non-interference can be justified.
To which I say, by default people are not entitled to each other's action.
My procreation did not cause the harm to my children. You keep moving the goalposts.
Procreation - it's all about incidentally creating conditions.
Community welfare - it suddenly becomes about direct causality.
Which is it. Direct causality, or incidentally creating conditions?
Quoting Tzeentch
No one said anything about entitled. We were talking about creating conditions. You undoubtedly create condition 1 by going away.
Creating conditions and direct causality are both relevant, but in the case of non-interference, I am not creating any conditions that are relevant to the incident, in this example the building of the house.
Just declaring it to be the case doesn't make it so.
How are you not creating the conditions where there are only four people available, by going for a walk?
Five people (one you) are standing in a circle. You leave. How have you not now created the condition where there are only four people in the circle?
Clearly there had been four people available all along.
I said "only four".
Jokes aside, this label of "availability" is a subjective one.
No you're just talking nonsense. A circle with five people in it does not have only four people in it.
Situation analysis:
Fictional entities don't have moral status. You can't make Sherlock Holmes glad/sad and so ethics is moot, morality is N/A, a category error that is.
This above idea has been adapted to the unborn - they're being likened to fictional characters in a book/play/movie.
However, 180 Proof got it right, the unborn are possible persons i.e. if permitted they become actual people and this is the difference that makes the difference - fictional people are devoid of potential to become an actual person.
If so, ethics/morality becomes applicable to the unborn.
That would just be profoundly unethical, regardless of the fact that you don't know whether when it collapses anyone will be injured. It is unethical because it shows you have no moral sense in regard to the quality of what you have been contracted to provide.
Surely this man will not be condemned just for his shoddy work ethic, but also for the harm he has caused the children.
Or does he get to justify himself by saying none of the children were alive upon construction of the building, and therefore they had no well-being to take into account?
Quoting Agent Smith
That seems to me like sound reasoning.
Ditch it then. Just a circle with five people in it (one you). You walk away. You have brought about a condition where there's a circle with only four people in it. No availability involved.
A circle (community/village) with only four people in it causes harms in a way that a circle with five people in it doesn't (house building cannot take place and so people suffer from exposure).
You have brought about a situation where harms are going to occur. Just the same as procreation.
You could say "I was never going to help with the houses anyway, I was just going to watch everyone die of exposure without lifting a finger". That would indeed change the logic.
And thereby we'd end up where every single discussion of antinatalism always ends up...
If you have weird premises, you'll end up with weird conclusions.
If you seriously think that sitting by watching others die of exposure but refusing to lift a finger to help is 'moral' then you're obviously going to end up with some seriously fucked up conclusions arising from that principle.
I suppose this is close to what I would say.
The thing is, you presuppose the individual to be a part of something. A circle, a group of people available to build a house, etc.
Sometimes such a presupposition can be correct, but it is not so by default. People aren't part of something just because another holds that opinion. And when that opinion turns out to be false, the person who wasn't involved in the first place hasn't suddenly started to cause harm.
Quoting Isaac
I don't think it is moral. However assuming one hasn't caused the people to freeze and isn't involved with them in some other way, it is neutral. One may very well choose to help out, however if one has reasons not to do so, non-interference is acceptable.
No moral system that holds non-interference as unacceptable will make sense, because there are people proverbially drowning everywhere at every moment, and if non-interference is not acceptable, well you get where that is going.
So non-interference must be acceptable, at least in a default situation.
As the OP said, "great arguments"! It seems apparent to me that not acting in a particular situation can be one of the causes of a state of affairs continuing in a certain way, since doing something could have stopped/changed the situation. Of course, there can be multiple sources and ignoring intentions and practical limitations whilst ascribing responsibility for something is not right, in my view.
That they
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting Tzeentch
Having children is an act of faith, an act of confidence: The prospective parents have faith, are confident that the universe will prove to be a welcoming place for themselves and their children.
Refusing to have children can sometimes be seen as an act of capitulation, defeat, a loss of faith, a giving up on the whole project of existence.
In order to feel alive, many people feel they need to pass on life to others. This can be done by propagating plants, breeding animals, or, to make the lifeform as close to oneself as possible, produce children.
The actual problem is how to balance out the dog-eat-dog mentality with a life-is-good mentality.
Except, of course, if the child is of the wrong skin color/ethnicity/socioeconomic class, has a disability, is one too many.
You keep ignoring this.
Quoting Isaac
It's about the quality of one's intention. The one thing one always has to live with.
No, my analogy only requires that it is an option. By choosing not to be a part of something you are creating the conditions where that something has one fewer participants. If, by having one fewer participant, those conditions cause harm, then you are creating condition of harm. This is exactly the same situation you're claiming to be immoral with procreation.
Quoting Tzeentch
More goalpost shifting. With procreation you weren't talking about 'causing harm', you were talking about 'creating the conditions for harm'.
Quoting Tzeentch
As I said, weird premises in, weird conclusions out. Standard fare for antinatalism.
Sitting and watching people die who you could easily save is sociopathic. Imagine every film, book, or play you've ever encountered. Where in any of them, does the hero sit an watch someone die because he can't be bothered to help? It's absolutely universal that such behaviour is considered immoral. But then you know this already.
Quoting Tzeentch
No-one said anything about not weighing other factors. One cannot be everywhere at once, one has limited mental and physical capacities, we have a justifiable expectation, that's all.
Yes, which is why the antinatalist must constantly shift the goalposts. When it's pointed out that parents rarely actually cause harm to their children, the rhetoric shifts to merely being instrumental in brining about conditions where they might come to harm. When it's pointed out that the lack of a next generation can also bring about conditions where people might come to harm, the rhetoric shifts back to "well, the antinatalist isn't actually causing that harm". And so we go round and round.
More of the antinatalist goalpost shifting.
When the talk is of procreation it is the outcome that matters...
Quoting baker
When the talk is of antinatalism, it's now the intention that matters, not the outcome...
Quoting baker
How are we to judge what matters morally - intention or outcome? Pick one and then we can have a discussion about how it relates to antinatalism. Keep shifting which depending on the argument and discussion become impossible.
That would be my preferred definition, but I'd be happy with at least a consistent one. What's frustrating is that causality is treated, by the antinatalists, as super-specific when talking about the harms of antinatalism "it's not my fault if I didn't directly cause it", and then suddenly becomes hyper-general when talking about the harms of procreation, where one is apparently a cause merely by "creating a situation whereby harm might come about some years later"
Have you ever bought a gift for someone, or mailed someone a letter? Did you consider the harm you could have caused if the person were to get a paper cut by opening the letter/gift? Did you assume the person would like the gift?
I find it very difficult to think of any situation where an interaction with another person has absolutely no risk of causing harm and doesnt require any assumptions about what that person may or may not like/want.
Quoting Tzeentch
Lets say I plant a tree in a yard that will be owned by someone else 100 years from now. If that tree falls and causes property damage or some other harm, am I responsible for that?
Quoting Tzeentch
You mean like neglect?
What you're missing is the fact that this presupposes the person in question was a participant in the first place. That's what I take issue with - that is not so by default.
In the example of your house that needs to be built you presuppose there were five people available. What if the fifth person was never available to begin with, as evidenced by the fact that they did not participate in the building?
Quoting Isaac
This isn't goalpost shifting. As far as I'm concerned, by non-interference one isn't creating any conditions that impact a given event. Letting the drowning man drown is not a creation of conditions.
Quoting Isaac
You may find them weird because you're not used to principles being applied consistently.
I've already made a case for why your argument that says non-interference isn't morally permissable doesn't hold up when applied consistently.
Quoting Isaac
I'd argue that believing oneself to be the proper arbiter to judge who could easily save who is at least equally sociopathic.
Quoting Isaac
Inaction being neutral doesn't mean interceding cannot be moral. In all the situations you have presented it may very well be the case that helping out is the moral thing to do.
However, I am arguing that not helping out is not immoral, at least by default.
Quoting Isaac
Well, then people are universally wrong for reasons I've already described. The idea that non-interference is immoral by default cannot be applied consistently.
And quite honestly, that belief is not universally held.
Quoting Pinprick
Yes.
But responsibility isn't the primary subject here. It is morality, and intentionality is a large part of that. That factor is lacking in your example, but present in mine.
Quoting Pinprick
Call it whatever you like.
It is also lacking in virtually all cases of childbirth as well, right? Or do you think people intentionally have kids so that they can cause the conditions for that child to be harmed? Also, is being irresponsible not immoral?
Quoting Tzeentch
Its not what I like to call it, its what it is. Allowing your child to starve to death by not intervening and providing food for it is neglect, which is also an example of non-intervention, which you claim is neutral, which I assume means amoral. If thats your position, then you shouldnt feel like those who neglect their children should be punished, as theyve done nothing morally wrong. You agree with all that?
Parents are aware of the harm that may befall their child, so it is intentional. They just assume on the child's behalf that the harm will outweigh the good.
Quoting Pinprick
I never claimed that act was neutral.
I said non-interference is neutral, meaning neither moral nor immoral, by default.
Having made the voluntary decision to create another human being whose well-being will depend entirely on them, the parent has incurred responsibilities and is no longer in a default situation.
Nope. Merely present. I'm talking about conditions (as you are in procreation - apples with apples). The 'conditions' under which it is not possible to build a house are that there are only four people present. Before anyone has even decided if they're 'available', four is too few. So you have created a condition (too few people even potentially available) where it is not possible to build a house and so people suffer harm.
Quoting Tzeentch
See above.
Quoting Tzeentch
One doesn't, we rely on society as a whole to come to an agreement.
Quoting Tzeentch
No, I can't. Are you seriously having trouble understanding the notion of taking more than one factor into account?
Quoting Tzeentch
Give me s counter example then. A culture, or any person considered moral (or neutral) for standing by watching a person die who they could easily save.
Like I said, I was never available in the first place. So that condition was already in place - I did not create it.
Four people have a desire to create a house that can only be built by five. There are only four people available. Who is the creator of the conditions here? Surely not a bystander who wasn't involved in the first place.
Quoting Isaac
I don't accept that answer. Societies have agreed on terribly immoral things in the past.
Quoting Isaac
Tell me about those factors, and I will tell you why it is still inconsistent.
Quoting Isaac
It's a fairly common phenomenon in certain countries for people not to help out in traffic accidents out of fear for being held accountable.
https://medium.com/shanghai-living/4-31-why-people-would-usually-not-help-you-in-an-accident-in-china-c50972e28a82
Why, is your availability outside of your control? Did someone else force you to become unavailable?
Quoting Tzeentch
That's not the condition I'm referring to. I'm referring to the condition where there are only four people potentially available. That condition leads to suffering because five people need to be potentially available as a minimum requirement.
Quoting Tzeentch
Right, so back to everyone doing as they please. No morality.
Quoting Tzeentch
I already have. The limits on mental and physical capacity, limuts on access to resources, reasonable other goals which occupy one's time...
Quoting Tzeentch
Right. Then they couldn't easily save them then, could they? They'd risk some psychological harm (fear of retribution). I specified "easily".
It's a notion that doesn't exist to an uninvolved bystander. It's the person who has the desire to build a house that creates it.
Quoting Isaac
Perhaps so, but I don't agree that it is the uninvolved bystander that creates the condition, nor the suffering.
It seems to me the builders are themselves creating the conditions that cause suffering.
This idea of 'availability' is subjective. I could reasonably assume half my town to be "available" to do things for me. Why don't they build me a house? Because they're not involved with my house building.
And they don't thereby create the conditions for my house not being built, nor my suffering. I created that.
Quoting Isaac
People do as they please regardless. The question is whether reasoned morality is a part of that which pleases them.
Quoting Isaac
And who is to be the arbiter of this?
Should I decide for you that you are not doing nearly enough, and you're occupying yourself with unreasonable goals?
Quoting Isaac
I don't agree that what is "easy" should in the context of morality be determined by a third party.
It is precisely what is under contention.
When a person chooses not to get involved they must have some reason for it, and if they choose non-interference then interference must not have been as "easy" as a third party may have deemed it to be.
In a default situation, ergo completely uninvolved bystander, it's my position that whatever reason they presents is sufficient, no matter how irrational it may seem to a third party, assuming it is not malevolent.
Right. So you are responsible for creating those conditions then, because you are responsible for your availability.
Quoting Tzeentch
What? The four people who are available are responsible for the fact that the fifth isn't there? What the fuck?
Quoting Tzeentch
No you couldn't. Half the town would clearly be occupied with a ton of other reasonable tasks. You could reasonably assume half the town are available to do some things for you. And indeed are and they do.
Quoting Tzeentch
Just gainsaying is not an argument. Or else... Parents to not create the conditions for harm to befall their children, those perpetrating the harm do.
Quoting Tzeentch
I've already answered thst several times now. The community reaches an agreement by various means. Is there something about this answer you don't understand?
Quoting Tzeentch
Mortality is not 'doing as you please'.
Quoting Tzeentch
So we all do as we please then?
Quoting Tzeentch
So why does this not apply to procreation? Whatever reason the prospective parent thought made it morally OK to have children must be sufficient, no matter how irrational it may seem to a third party, assuming it is not malevolent.
Once more you are just using different criteria depending on which supports your theory. Now it is that the reasons for inaction cannot be judged by a third party and must be assumed good, but the reasons for action apparently magically can be judged by a third party and are not assumed to be good.
Which is it?
You get to judge us for our actions, but your inaction is off limits and whatever your reasons are must be assumed good.
Negative. Availability is something that exists in the mind of some other individual. It is not some objective state, which is what you're trying to sell it as.
Quoting Isaac
Nonsense. They're sitting on their lawn, reading books, watching tv. Terribly unreasonable things, those immoral creators of suffering! Why isn't my house built yet?
Quoting Isaac
Parents create the condition of life, and life invariably also includes harm.
Quoting Isaac
This is clearly missing some essential puzzle pieces, unless you wish to argue that morality is whatever a community agrees upon, which honestly it kind of sounds like you're saying. And the evidence to the contrary is so vast that I would indeed be confused if this is what you're arguing.
Quoting Isaac
In the absence of objective truth we have two options: leave the individual to judge themselves (individualism) or let the community dictate (collectivism).
I lean heavily towards individualism.
But we are going wildly off-topic here.
Quoting Isaac
Because procreation is an act, and not non-interference.
Quoting Isaac
I'm not judging anyone. I'm presenting moral principles and the logic that supports it.
Are you suggesting that your own availability is out of your control?
Quoting Tzeentch
All reasonable activities (in moderation and depending on what else is happening around them). Rest and relaxation are demonstrably necessary.
Quoting Tzeentch
You created the condition where too few people were available to build the house. Homelessness invariably also includes harm.
Quoting Tzeentch
What evidence would that be?
Quoting Tzeentch
It's entirely the topic. The degree to which you lean towards individualism is a) inconsistent - it appears to only apply to inaction, not action, and b) extreme - leading to the same conclusion we always end up with - rubbish in, rubbish out.
Quoting Tzeentch
That's just a declaration of difference. You might as well say "because act has three letters and non-interference has 15".
Why does non-interference escape judgement?
Why must we assume the reasons for non-interference are good, but not for action?
Quoting Tzeentch
So declaring something immoral is not a judgement? On what planet?
Hear! Hear!
Yes.
I'm not in control over the ideas in other individuals' heads for which I may or may not be available.
Quoting Isaac
Those activities aren't reasonable at all. They've been sitting there for at least fifteen minutes already, which I deem more than a reasonable amount of rest. After all, I'm over here suffering by their idle hands!
Quoting Isaac
I did not create that condition. I've already given you multiple examples as to why that would be absurd, despite your attempts at fitting your argument into the "reasonable" mould.
Remember when a few comments back I asked you why you felt people were entitled to another's action?
You denied that you were. I wouldn't be so sure of that.
Quoting Isaac
I don't need to list the countless atrocities committed throughout history by collectives that were unable to discern right from wrong. Use your imagination.
Quoting Isaac
Explain.
Quoting Isaac
Because one cannot be judged for something one isn't involved in.
I argue that not getting involved is acceptable by default.
To argue otherwise would lead to absurdities like the one I explained earlier - if not getting involved is immoral, that can only lead to a moral imperative to get involved in absolutely everything one possibly can.
Why aren't you spending your every waking moment involving yourself with other people's troubles? I have a house that needs building and your inaction is causing me great harm.
Then of course you fence with notions of reasonableness - fair enough, but if you get to apply your notions of reasonableness then everyone does. After that, we can only accept that everyone is to decide by their own reason whether to involve themselves in matters or not. Hence my position.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Isaac
It's a judgement, not of a person, but of an action and/or the arguments that support it.
You either decide you're available to help with the housebuilding or that you're not. It's not someone else's judgement. If I ask you to help build my house and you say "no" and walk away, I'm not subjectively judging you unavailable. You deliberately and knowingly made yourself that way.
Quoting Tzeentch
Then you've misunderstood the meaning of the word reasonable. How many people in your language community have you heard use the word unreasonable to describe fifteen minutes of relaxation time?
Quoting Tzeentch
And I've already refuted them (seeing as we're playing the "I've already done that" game).
Quoting Tzeentch
It's got nothing to to with 'entitled' Five people are needed to build a house. You create the situation where there are only four by walking away. You created the situation in which it is now impossible to build a house from one where it was possible. It doesn't require that anyone be entitled to your help. It's simply an fact that by denying it you create a situation in which the house cannot be built. It would be exactly the same if the four definitely weren't entitled to your help. If they were really mean and you'd only just finished helping them all loads, they wouldn't be entitled to your help then. you'd still, de facto, have created a condition in which it is impossible to build a house out of one where it was possible.
Quoting Tzeentch
And your community doesn't think they were wrong?
Quoting Tzeentch
You don't think individuals should be left to their own devices to act as they see fit (such as procreation). You don't argue that their reasons for action should be assumed to be good.
Quoting Tzeentch
You haven't argued, you've just declared it. I asked for a reason. If you can judge someone's action to be immoral, why can I not judge your inaction to be immoral? Whether you're consequentialist or deontologist, inaction or action can both have consequences or be a dereliction of a duty.
Quoting Tzeentch
They're not 'my' notions of reasonableness. I haven't just plucked them out o thin air. I've been living with other humans using the word 'reasonable' for nearly 60 years. I have a pretty good idea of what 'reasonable' means that's considerably more than just me making it up. Otherwise, why don't I think it refers to pottery?
Quoting Tzeentch
I see. So it's OK for me to be immoral?
Sure. But that is not what was proposed. What was proposed before was that my availability was already decided, and that to dissent was to create conditions and harm.
Quoting Isaac
Reasonableness isn't decided by majority decision, as we've already established.
Funnily enough I've been in communities where fifteen minutes of rest was unacceptable.
Quoting Isaac
There were never going to be five people available to build the house. I haven't created a condition by not getting involved, it has merely informed the builders what the conditions are, namely that there are and were only four people available all along.
Your position is based on an assumption that the starting point is another's desires and their opinion of whether you're 'available' to help out gives them a right to make you part of the problem. I disagree.
Quoting Isaac
Some do, some don't. Plenty of fascists, racists and communists around. Most western countries are flirting with totalitarianism. Bad ideas are alive and popular as ever.
Quoting Isaac
Me having ideas about morality does not mean I believe individuals shouldn't be free to make their own choices, including choices that I would deem "moral mistakes". Let's keep the discussion honest.
Quoting Isaac
I don't see what that has to do with individualism, nor what part of our discussion this is relevant to.
Quoting Isaac
Non-interference can be immoral, however it is not so by default.
We can't judge someone who isn't involved for not getting involved. I've already told you why - if not getting involved is immoral, it turns into a moral imperative to get involved in everything.
And you cannot solve that with subjective notions of reasonableness. For one, because such a moral theory would be missing an arm and a leg, but second, because people will also use their subjective notions of reasonableness to decide whether to get involved or not.
The man doesn't involve himself with the building of the house because his subjective notions of what is reasonable told him his time would be better spent fishing.
You may try to ammend that by stating that his notions of reasonableness are only valid if they correspond to whatever community he is part of (which would also imply we're no longer talking about a 'default' situation, but alas), to which I'll say that collectives have never been a reliable source of moral behavior.
Quoting Isaac
Inaction does not have consequences. To argue such would be a typically human but erroneous way of representing causality. The drowning man doesn't drown because I did not help him, but because he could not swim and somehow ended up in the water.
The apple doesn't fall on the ground because I wasn't there to catch it.
etc.
Quoting Isaac
I imagine that someone in the Middle-East who is about to stone a woman to death for adultery would come with a similar argumentation.
"What do you mean reasonable? My people have been doing this for hundreds of years!"
Quoting Isaac
It would be more accurate to say I would not ask you to conform to my ideas of morality.
I don't recall making any mention of it being 'already decided', but regardless, you admit that, in deciding, you create the conditions for harm.
Quoting Tzeentch
Then by what? How did you learn how to use the word 'reasonable'? Why do you not apply it to the act of making pottery, or use it to refer to a bus, or the colour red? You know what 'reasonable' means because you've heard people use it. Use it to describe certain kinds of behaviour. Those people unarguably then, determined what 'reasonable' means. You didn't. You learned the word from them.
Quoting Tzeentch
So you were born unwilling to help? All your decisions programmed from birth?
Quoting Tzeentch
So it's not possible to change your mind? Weird in, weird out.
Quoting Tzeentch
I didn't ask about some I asked about your community. When you were learning the meaning of the word 'moral' we're you shown examples of torture, genocide and slavery to help you learn its meaning?
Quoting Tzeentch
So your moral rules don't apply to others. What exactly are you arguing for then?
Quoting Tzeentch
I have reasons for having children. Do you assume they are good reasons?
Quoting Tzeentch
Agreed. Took an inordinate length of time to get there. So...how do you judge when non-interference is immoral?
Quoting Tzeentch
All that's just restating your assertion. Why does inaction not have consequences?
Quoting Tzeentch
I imagine they might, but I'm not talking to someone in the middle east. I'm talking to you.
Quoting Tzeentch
Then why are you telling me them?
I do not. It would merely inform the builders what the conditions are.
Before the builders ask my help the condition is that there are four people available. After I have made it clear I wish not to get involved, there are four people available.
No conditions have been created.
Quoting Isaac
I don't know. Reasonableness isn't a part of my argument.
I can live with a phrase such as "beyond any reasonable doubt", but reasonableness as you are using it is very subjective and in my view unusable.
Quoting Isaac
I was born uninvolved.
Quoting Isaac
Sure I can.
Quoting Isaac
What does this matter? In my "community" ideas vary wildly about what is moral, and many of those ideas I would consider clearly the opposite.
Quoting Isaac
I believe you that you must have had good intentions.
But let's not make it personal.
If you scroll back through this discussion you'll see the intentions of the parents are not what's being questioned.
Quoting Isaac
I've been saying the same thing for a dozen or so posts, so you may take the credits for that one.
Quoting Isaac
When one has voluntarily taken upon themselves the responsibility to care for the person in need.
For example, a parent cannot let their child starve, because the parent voluntarily created a situation in which the child depends on them to fulfill their life needs.
Quoting Isaac
Because things that do not exist in reality do not have consequences.
When we describe reality we point at things that are actually happening.
Quoting Isaac
Well if you're interested in my approach to morality, you're in luck because I've already been sharing it with you over the last few pages.
Quoting Isaac
You have asked me this before in another discussion, and the answer is the same as it was then.
The reason I post on this forum is to test my ideas. That's why I'm taking part in this discussion with you. Not to convince you, not to judge you, not to spread my gospel, etc.
What about before you change your mind and decide not to help (having previously planned to)?
Quoting Tzeentch
Then why are you disputing what is reasonable?
Quoting Tzeentch
I'm just saying that some behaviour is reasonable and some behaviour is not. You learnt how to use the word 'reasonable' in this context. You know what it means. You did not determine what it means. Others did.
Quoting Tzeentch
When you were learning the meaning of the word 'moral' we're you shown examples of torture, genocide and slavery to help you learn its meaning? No. So those behaviours are not moral. It's not what the word means.
Quoting Tzeentch
So when you change your mind, what happens to the conditions? Do they change or not? You change your mind, the conditions change. You don't change your mind, the conditions don't change. Are you seriously going to claim you changing your mind doesn't bring about a change in conditions?
Quoting Tzeentch
I know, but the intentions of the non-involved are. You're applying your approach to morality inconsistently. You said both intentions and consequences matter.
Quoting Tzeentch
That's not an example of the case you've given. If it's voluntary then a parent might choose to have a child but not take on the responsibility of caring for them. Or they might decide to then change their mind.
Quoting Tzeentch
Inaction exists. Otherwise what are we talking about.
Quoting Tzeentch
Not your approach. The meaning of the word. How did you learn what the word 'moral' means?
Quoting Tzeentch
How?
It makes no difference.
When the builders come to ask the conditions are that four people are available.
When I make my intentions known that condition hasn't changed.
Quoting Isaac
To show you how unusable the notion of reasonableness is - opinions vary greatly on what is reasonable and what isn't.
Quoting Isaac
Well that is fine, but I don't see why I should value your opinion over someone else's. I need reasoning and logic.
Quoting Isaac
I don't determine what is moral based on what I was taught. I determine it on the basis of reason and moral principles.
Quoting Isaac
In the context of our example it sure seems that way. Remember you have also claimed that changing the conditions causes harm, so now you're implying that by internally changing your mind, you're causing harm. Seems absurd to me.
Quoting Isaac
If someone chooses non-interference with malevolent intentions then that certainly matters, but not by virtue of creating conditions, but by taking pleasure in other people's suffering. It's not really related to our discussion.
Quoting Isaac
They voluntarily bring about the conditions in which a child will rely on them for survival. That's when it becomes the parent's responsibility.
Quoting Isaac
It does not. It's a mental construction we use to model reality, but such mental constructions do not necessarily exist in reality.
The tooth fairy doesn't exist, yet we can talk about the tooth fairy.
Quoting Isaac
By reading Plato I suppose.
I asked about neither of those occasions. I asked about the occasion of you changing your mind.
Quoting Tzeentch
No they don't. No one thinks reasonable behaviour is a bus. The word means something determinable.
Quoting Tzeentch
Did you learn the meaning of 'reasonable' from me? No. So it's not my opinion is it?
How on earth could reason and logic tell you what the word 'reasonable' means? Are you suggesting a non-English speaker could 'work out' what reasonable means by a process of rational inference?
Quoting Tzeentch
So if you didn't speak English you could just 'work out' what moral means using reason?
Quoting Tzeentch
So you intend to help. The conditions are thst it's possible to build a house. You change your mind and walk away. The conditions are now that it's impossible to build a house.
If you changing your mind didn't cause the conditions to change, what did?
Quoting Tzeentch
Yep.
Quoting Tzeentch
Not if it's voluntary. They just decide it doesn't.
You're now claiming that responsibility is not voluntary, that some actions bring about a non-optional responsibility. Why? And why only some actions? Why doesn't, for example, your benefitting from the protection of your community not bring about a responsibility to help with the housebuilding?
Quoting Tzeentch
No inaction is a word we use to describe neutral action opposite to the action in question. You're always performing some action really. You breathe, digest, look about...
Quoting Tzeentch
Plato decided what the word moral means? You didn't know how to use the word until you read Plato? People who haven't read Plato don't know what moral means? This just gets weirder and weirder.
Theres the potential for harm to occur in every human interaction. Therefore is all harm caused intentional?
Quoting Tzeentch
I think you have that backwards, but we make this same assumption all the time when we interact with each other.
Quoting Tzeentch
Ok. Then is there really a default situation where no one is depending on us? For example, our parents may depend on us to have children so that they can become grandparents, which will improve their happiness/well-being.
I also notice a continuous misinterpretation of the nonidentity problem by antinatalists, which is persistent but I have neither time nor inclination to explain at this time since I'm on holidays.
I don't think it creates conditions.
Quoting Isaac
You seem to be deliberately trying to misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I won't play that game. This obviously isn't about the English language.
Morality is a set of principles that guide behavior, and I believe such principles can be arrived at through reason, regardless of what language one speaks.
Quoting Isaac
The conditions didn't change until one had finally made up their mind and turned their intentions into physical actions.
You can't just step over this. You claim thoughts in your head are conditions. You also claim that changing these conditions may incur harm. This means that through a process of inner deliberation I would be causing harm. That is absurd.
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
Because they're actions that create dependency in others. If we voluntarily make others depend on us for their well-being, that brings responsibility that is not optional, morally speaking. Why? Because we voluntarily created a situation in which we cause harm if we aren't to take said responsibility.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Isaac
You can't point at an act that isn't happening. While we may infer it (You are walking, therefore you are not standing still) it is not happening in reality. It's a mental construction.
Quoting Isaac
True. However, I never implied one needs to be completely still for inaction (towards a certain thing), but to avoid confusion I have changed to using the term non-interference.
Quoting Isaac
Plato and other thinkers alerted me to the fact that my previous conception of morality was unexamined and muddy, not unlike yours.
Some of it is caused by ignorance, but roughly speaking yes. If one is aware of the risks (so ignorance is not a factor) and takes the risk, then one intentionally causes harm when it happens.
That's why we ought to behave carefully in our interactions with others and seek consensuality always, especially when the potential harm is irreversible.
Quoting Pinprick
Yes, I did write that backwards. I meant the parents assumed the good will outweigh the harm of course.
Quoting Pinprick
Such a situation is certainly thinkable, but the key is not whether someone depends on us, but whether we accepted such a situation voluntarily.
I did not choose to be born, nor did I accept the duty to provide my parents with grandchildren. They might rely on me to fulfill that desire, but I did not create that situation nor did I accept it voluntarily, so I'm not responsible.
[math]\downarrow[/math]
Existence [path 2]
Path 1: No imposition; there's no one to impose on.
Path 2: To be consistent, no imposition; there was no one to impose on, just like in path 1.
However path 2 leads to the creation of a human, call her X. Did this human, X, choose to be born? Obviously, no s/he didn't because she didn't exist to make that choice.
However now X analyzes her situation carefully - she could come to the conclusion that she's happy and is happy with life or she could be down in the dumps 24×7 and this thought crosses her mind: I wish I had never been born! Therein lies the rub.
In my humble opinion, to aid parents in making sound decisions, one must assume persons exist antepartum: Given how things are - the state of the world, finances, etc. - would anyone want to be born (to us)? Thinkin' for someone else is the tricky part; how do you know your child isn't going to be a masochist (pain is fun)?
Summary:
Firstly, we realized that we need to assume people exist prior to their births; otherwise, we wouldn't be addressing the documented sentiment "I wish I had never been born!" which is nothing more than the claim that had I existed prenatally, I would've chosen nonexistence over life.
Secondly, there's no satisfactory way of predicting how your child will respond, positively/negatively, to the world.
Argument from reversal of position
If you're born and you don't like life, you can always kill yourself (not easy, but doable).
If you're never born, that's it; you don't have the choice to be born - that ship has alreasy sailed/left the harbor as it were.
Ergo, natalism is preferable over antinatalism given the uncertainties that inhere to the problem of suffering (in life)?
This is a very weak argument.
It's like putting a ring through someone's nose when they're asleep, only to tell them "If you don't like it, just rip it out" when they're asking you why you've done it. Was the person justified in his actions because the subject doesn't opt for the pain of tearing it out?
I suppose the argument goes something like "If you don't hate life enough to commit suicide, you must like it", but is there any other situation in which that standard is used? That the acceptability of imposing conditions on someone is measured by whether or not they violently extract themselves from it through suicide?
Poverty (and much greater harms than that) then must be entirely acceptable, since as long as there are poor people not committing suicide, they like it enough.
Further, one may not like life one bit, but still refrain from suicide due to the suffering it would bring others.
Like I said, a very weak argument (and that's assuming there's even a single person that genuinely believes it), used mostly by disgruntled opponents of antinatalism who are looking for something to say.
However, it seems rather odd that someone who advocates for antinatalism would have any objections to suicide. That's like someone championing the anti-smoking cause and getting all worked up about a person who kicks the nicotine addiction. :chin:
So what does?
Quoting Tzeentch
How can you and I discuss what is moral if you think you can just make up what the word means on a whim?
Quoting Tzeentch
So do the rules of chess. So what distinguishes morality from any other set of principles which guide behaviour?
Quoting Tzeentch
So did someone else force your physical actions, like a marionette? Because otherwise you're just being pedantic to avoid the point. The point is that you created the conditions in question. If you want to say they were created when you walked away, or the moment you did something other than build the house, then fine. The point is, you created them. By your non-interference (by doing something else instead of helping) you create the conditions in which it is impossible to build a house and all the harms which go along with that.
Quoting Tzeentch
But why is that immoral? Can't I just say that I've decided it isn't, using my rational logic?
Quoting Tzeentch
What is the goal of the examination?
Physical actions.
Quoting Isaac
Not that much, in fact.
The rules of chess guide behavior for individuals playing chess. Morals guide behavior for individuals in life.
Quoting Isaac
This is where we seem to disagree.
I don't create conditions in matters that I am not involved in by not getting involved. I'm not a part of the conditions initially, and I don't become part of it when I choose not to get involved.
And when I'm deliberating whether or not to get involved in my mind, those conditions aren't changing, nor am I harming people by deliberating internally. And you still need to somehow argue that is the case.
Quoting Isaac
It's immoral because we're creating harm by our voluntary action. Individuals do not like being harmed, and interactions with other individuals should be on terms acceptable to both sides (consensuality).
And yes, you can argue otherwise and present the logic that leads you to a different conclusion. Go right ahead, isn't that after all what we're here for?
In the end it's about who can present the most coherent argument.
Quoting Isaac
Testing the validity of one's ideas, of course. We wouldn't want to base our behavior on faulty ideas.
In the scenario I described, whose physical actions caused the change in conditions from the state where a house could be built to the state where one could not?
Quoting Tzeentch
Traffic laws also guide behaviour for individuals in life. Is it a moral rule that we ought drive on the left?
The rules of mathematics determine how I behave when calculating. Is it a moral rule that 2+2=4?
What property distinguishes moral rules from other rules?
Quoting Tzeentch
Then who does? You keep dodging the question. Who causes the change of circumstances in the situation I described, if not you?
Quoting Tzeentch
Why?
Quoting Tzeentch
What would inform us of the invalidity of a moral rule. What properties does it need to have, or criteria, such that an examination might cause it to fail it's validity-check?
No one's. No change took place. The condition under which the house could not be built was in place all along, the builders simply didn't have the information to understand.
We never went from five to four builders, because a fifth person was not available.
Quoting Isaac
I'm not sure. Does it pertain to living a good life? Does it pertain to not harming others? I could see an argument made for it, or against it. Why is it relevant?
Quoting Isaac
I've answered you more than once. You just don't like the answer.
Speaking of dodging questions, what about those deliberations in one's head that according to you cause conditions and harm? Isn't it about time you address that elephant?
Quoting Isaac
You're asking why I think I shouldn't harm people? Gut feeling, I guess. It seems people are a lot happier when they don't harm each other.
Quoting Isaac
Logical inconsistencies.
Why don't you come to a point?
So before you changed your mind, when you were planning to help build the house, you were unavailable? How so?
Quoting Tzeentch
Why would those two criteria determine something to be a moral rule, as opposed to any other rule?
Quoting Tzeentch
It's not remotely a problem for me. deliberations in one's head are neural activity. I don't have a problem with that having consequences. The problem are for those who think mental activity is magic.
Quoting Tzeentch
So the aim is to make people happier?
Quoting Tzeentch
How? I just cannot see what kind of logical inconsistency would render something I thought a moral rule into not one? What logic could one apply? LEM?
I didn't know whether I would be available, clearly.
If I thought I would be available and turn out not to be, then clearly I didn't know if I was available in the first place.
Quoting Isaac
I'm done playing games. Wrap up your little yarn and get to a point that pertains to the subject.
Quoting Isaac
According to you, deliberation causes conditions to form, and such conditions can produce harm.
Can you point to the harm done as a result of my deliberation? I think not.
I'm deliberating, changing my mind several times. Am I now causing harm with every deliberation?
Clearly not, and if you believe otherwise than kindly point me to the harm that's done by deliberating.
Whether a condition is formed is decided when I express my conclusion to the builders.
If I tell them I am available, now the condition changes from there being four people available to five.
If I tell them I am not available, the conditions haven't changed. There are still four people available.
Quoting Isaac
You're talking about yourself? Where is the magical suffering that's caused by my deliberation?
Let's bring this back on topic:
Your final argument was that not having children causes harm.
This is an erroneous representation of cause and effect, since doing nothing causes nothing. It has no physical effects nor does it create conditions.
The drowning man drowns because he fell into the water, not because I did not save him. He would drown whether I am there to not save him, or whether I am not there at all. My presence has no effect.
You attempted to mend this by saying it still causes harm because I was 'available' to avoid it. To which I replied that clearly I wasn't, because otherwise I may have saved the man. I was unavailable, busy being myself.
To this you said that according to some unspecified arbiter of availibility (that conspicuously shares your idea of reasonableness), I could have been available and that my internal deliberation deciding I was not is what caused the harm. To which I now say, show me the harm caused by my deliberation - you cannot. I've changed my mind several times. Did I cause harm several times?
Note you have de facto abandoned your position that not having children causes harm, but that, apparently, we're responsible for the harm caused to others when they have wrongfully mistaken us for being 'available' for fulfilling their desires.
Your idea can be summed up that it is immoral not to involve oneself in business on the basis of what others believe to be your reasonable actions. Not acting to fulfill their desires harms them, because they had "reasonably" assumed you were available.
Yet, the problem with this position is clear and you've already shown it when I asked you to build a house for me and you implied that wasn't reasonable thing to ask.
If you have any questions you would like me to answer, please make clear how they relate to the central question. If there are unrelated questions that are burning on your mind, send them in a private message.
So you're not in control of your own decisions, you just 'find out' what they are when you get there?
Quoting Tzeentch
The suffering from the lack of a house.
Quoting Tzeentch
Some, yeah.
Quoting Tzeentch
So before you say anything, were you available or not?
Quoting Tzeentch
I've just said. The lack of house.
Quoting Tzeentch
That's begging the question.
If you want to argue against my position, quote me. Don't make up what you think I said and argue against that. If you want to argue against a fantasy opponent do it in private.
Essentially, yes. What else would you conclude if you believe to be available but ultimately it turns out you're not? Only that you apparently didn't know whether you were available or not.
Quoting Isaac
Deliberating causes a lack of a house? Explain, please.
So in your view, while I'm deliberating the possibility of a house flashes in and out of existence, and thereby causing harm? And you're accusing me of coming to weird conclusions?
An outsider couldn't even detect the nature of the deliberations, let alone suffer harm from them.
Quoting Isaac
There's no way to tell.
Quoting Isaac
Just thought I'd do everyone a favor and delineate how all of this ties back to the subject of the thread.
That you changed your mind?
Quoting Tzeentch
Neurons fire, cause some action other than building a house. No house. Is there something about that account that puzzles you?
Quoting Tzeentch
You're unaware of the concept of passing time? Everything that happens, happens concurrently?
Quoting Tzeentch
I can't detect radiation either. So it's harmless, yes?
Quoting Tzeentch
Brilliant. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at your work.
Boss: "are you available for night shift on Thursday?"
You: "how could I possibly know, we'll just have to wait until Thursday and find out, won't we?"
Quoting Tzeentch
I assume anyone who's interested would be sensible enough not to trust a summary of an argument by someone looking to dismiss it.
That's just another way of saying you didn't know.
Quoting Isaac
Haha, yes. Where is the causation in this story?
Condition A: No house.
> "Neurons fire"
Condition B: Still no house.
Quoting Isaac
So what, not only are you entitled to decide for me whether I am potentially available, but I also need to decide now?
Everything you argue is from your perspective, your desires, your subjective ideas of whether or not someone is available or not and what are their acceptable courses of action, and there should somehow arise some objective situation from that.
Quoting Isaac
You can detect radiation.
Quoting Isaac
For the sake of argument, I have a contract with my boss. I don't have a contract with the child that I will not have.
So how could prospective parents possibly change their minds about having children when such a decision is already made?
Quoting Tzeentch
Condition A: world is in a state such that a house can be built.
Neurons fire, cause some action other than building a house.
Condition B: world is in a state such that a house cannot be built.
Quoting Tzeentch
No one's deciding or forcing. It's just a statement about the state of affairs in the world.
Quoting Tzeentch
How?
Quoting Tzeentch
That changes whether you understand what 'available' means?
:rofl:
That matches a description of me!
I didn't say the decision is already made. I said that we don't know our final decision until we make it.
Quoting Isaac
It's never in a state that the house can be built. I fear you've conflated causation with potentiality.
Let me ask you this, are you responsible for all the harm "caused" by every possible action you could take, but didn't? Are you immoral for not taking those actions? There are a lot of actions you could possibly be taking right now, infinite in fact, and I guess then so is your list of moral transgressions.
Quoting Isaac
With a geiger counter.
Quoting Isaac
No, it changes the situation since I've voluntarily accepted responsibilities. This is no longer a default situation. If I promise someone I'm available for work (an act in the actual physical world) I am creating conditions.
But if I never was an employee to begin with, and we had signed no contract, clearly I would not be harming the employer for not showing up to work, let alone be responsible for it!
Quoting Agent Smith
I'm not sure if this solves it.
Should I push you out of an airplane if there's a 90% chance of you having a great experience, and a 10% chance of crashing into the Earth?
And regardless of one's answer to that, what gives one the right to decide for another that they should jump out of an airplane in the first place?
Many games we play at casinos and gambling dens have odds of a win less than 90%. The stakes may not be as high as one's very life though.
The mathematization of the issue with the requisite risk-benefit analysis needs work but rest assured once we have the exact figures, we can make decisions rationally, exactly what we should be doing, oui?
What's you knowing it got to do with causality?
Quoting Tzeentch
It's nothing to do with causing the harm itself. Parents don't cause harm to their children do they? The argument is that they create the conditions in which harm is going to happen (note the future tense).
The equivalent situation would only require that by your decision to not interfere (do something else instead) you create the conditions in which harm is going to happen.
You keep changing this to your non-interference having to directly cause harm.
But parents don't directly cause harm to their children, so it's not comparing apples to apples.
The conditions in which harm is going to happen (future tense - same as procreation) is that the house cannot be built. That is going to cause harm.
That condition, that state of affairs, came about when you decided not to help. The conditions is about a state of affairs regarding future events (just like the procreation on is). So it necessarily involves potentiality. As does procreation. Your objection is about the potentiality of harm, not direct causality. Parents don't directly harm their children.
Quoting Tzeentch
So radiation was harmless before the invention of the Geiger counter? Shame we invented it really.
Quoting Tzeentch
No one even mentioned harm. You claimed you didn't know if you were available until the time of the actual event. This is clearly just a misuse of the word 'available'. If your boss asks you if you're available next Thursday you know perfectly well what he means. Apply that understanding to the question I asked. Don't dodge it by pretending available means something else.
Your argument is that a change in conditions takes place through my deliberation, when in fact it is unknown whether the conditions will change until I've made up my mind.
Quoting Isaac
That condition was already in place when there were only four builders and they were looking for a fifth. I was never a potential builder, and I brought about no state of affairs or conditions. This is just wishful, entitled thinking on the part of the builders, appointing random uninvolved people as potential builders and then blaming them for their own ignorance.
If I set out, assuming every woman in my town to be a potential love interest, and it turns out they're not. Who is creating the harm here? If anyone is creating harm at all it is me.
Quoting Isaac
Fine. You've conflated creating conditions with potentiality.
And the question is still valid, since your view is that it is possible to create conditions by not taking a certain action, and that by doing so you become responsible for harm. Is that not your position?
So are you responsible for all the conditions that is "created" by actions you did not take? Seems like the outcome is the same - an infinite, list of moral transgressions.
Quoting Isaac
Procreation is an act. Not acting is not an act.
Quoting Isaac
It's about both, really. Life has many harms inherent to it, and those can be said to be caused directly by the parents.
Quoting Isaac
Before the Geiger counter you could detect it when your hair and teeth started falling out, but whatever you say.
Quoting Isaac
I'm not dodging anything.
Strictly speaking I don't know if I'm available when my boss asks. However, my contract created a condition X, that my boss counts on my presence at the agreed upon time. If I now go fishing instead, the condition goes from 'X' to 'not X', and it can be said I've caused conditions, not by virtue of my non-interference, but by virtue of my breach of contract. There's no such contract in a default situation.
Let's say we know the exact figures. 9:1 in favor of pushing someone out of the plane. Surely it is not up to the pusher to decide that they like those odds on someone else's behalf, or do you disagree? Would it be fine to push someone in such a situation, and one would carry no blame when they go splat?
What's them being unknown got to do with the argument about what they are. The current arrangement of sand on the dark side of the moon is unknown. It still is arranged some way.
Quoting Tzeentch
So what were you when you intended to help build the house, before you changed your mind?
Since each of the other builders could change their mind too, there are really no potential builders. So all houses get built by luck? Random fluctuations? It's no wonder developers need so much money, what an unpredictable business they're in.
Quoting Tzeentch
In the scenario you intended to help. You changed your mind. How is that the builder's 'appointing random uninvolved people'? You were neither random nor uninvolved, you were a member of the community intending to help.
Quoting Tzeentch
What's the difference then?
Quoting Tzeentch
We've been through this, you agreed to use 'non-interference'. Non-interference is an action (it involves doing something else), and so has no problems affecting potentiality.
Quoting Tzeentch
See above. Not acting is dead.
Quoting Tzeentch
No they can't. You keep reminding us that only direct causality counts.
Quoting Tzeentch
Right. But you said...
Quoting Tzeentch
So following your example of what it means to 'detect', then an outsider could perfectly well detect the nature of the deliberations by their effect.
Quoting Tzeentch
Then why don't you say "I don't know" when he asks?
Quoting Tzeentch
Nope, we're talking about overtime. No obligation.
Let's take it away from work. A friend says "I'm moving house on Wednesday, are you available to help?", you seriously telling me that your normal reply to such a question would be "I don't know if I'm available, I suppose we'll have to wait until Wednesday to find out"?
You're making assumptions about things that are unknown and attributing harm to conditions they supposedly create, that's why it's relevant.
Quoting Isaac
You were deliberating.
Quoting Isaac
Because from the very beginning my argument, the argument that you attacked, has been about a default situation. That means the person is initially uninvolved in any way.
Quoting Isaac
The creation of conditions is a physical, detectable thing. Potentialities are things that may or may not happen in the future.
Quoting Isaac
Non-interference is not an action, regardless of whether one is doing something while one is not interfering with any given situation.
Lets say I walk by a house. Am I now interacting with the house because I'm also walking while not-interfering with it?
I don't think so.
Quoting Isaac
Simply untrue. We've talked about both direct causation and the creation of conditions.
Quoting Isaac
Correlation =/= Causation.
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
If I intend to help I may want to reassure my boss or my friend that I will do everything in my power to be present to do so. However, that's simply a way of human customs. It has nothing to do with logic, because it's fundamentally illogical. We cannot know if we're available in the future.
All knowledge is an assumption about the unknown. You don't know that a potential child will come to harm. You assume.
Quoting Tzeentch
So there's no such thing as available? No one is ever available? What a weird world you live in.
Quoting Tzeentch
What? Why is being uninvolved the default, and what's that got to do with the situation I asked you about?
Quoting Tzeentch
So harm to children is a potentiality then, not a condition. OK.
Quoting Tzeentch
Who said anything about interacting? We're talking about changing what is possible (or probable). You can change what is probable without interaction. If I don't bet on roulette, it is now less probable that I will win. Are you really struggling with this notion? It's pretty basic probability theory.
Quoting Tzeentch
So radiation was harmless before we understood the causality, when we had merely correlation?
Quoting Tzeentch
The meaning of words is not determined by logic. We don't logically work out what the word 'available' means.
If I have a child, it is possible that child will go through life completely unharmed, yes? A new pill could be invented during pregnancy that eliminates the sensation of harm entirely and that child lives it's life in utter bliss. Are you suggesting that situation is logically impossible?
If I pull the trigger of a gun pointed at you, is it logically impossible for me to miss? Have I directly caused your injury the moment I pull the trigger, or have I merely massively increased the probability that you will be injured?
If I stand up in a boat and start kicking it from side to side, letting water in over the thwarts, it is physically impossible for the boat to remain afloat nonetheless? Must it sink? Or have I merely increased the probability of it sinking by my actions?
My argument doesn't rest on whether or not I know. In fact, it's indeed our ignorance of the consequences that should make us think twice before having children.
Quoting Isaac
When the builder's subjective wishful thinking matches up with the uninvolved person's abilty and desire to help out as evidenced by his agreement to help, I suppose he was correctly thought to be available.
If you're asking if some objective situation exists in which one can be considered "available" - of course not. It's subjective. If I want to help out but I cannot match the expectations of the builders, was I available? If I'm missing both arms and cannot help, am I creating conditions for the builders' harm? More logical is that the builders have incorrectly assumed I was going to help them in the first place, and thereby caused their own harm.
Quoting Isaac
Because in order to understand a principle (non-interference is neutral) we must regard it in an uncomplicated setting. If we can agree that non-interference is neutral in an uncomplicated setting we can see if there are settings in which it is no longer neutral.
Pretty obvious, and the term 'by default' I've probably repeated over a dozen times by now.
Quoting Isaac
Procreation is a physical, detectable thing.
Quoting Isaac
Some interaction must take place for me to become responsible for the harm that befalls someone else, no? Setting the conditions or otherwise.
If you believe we can cause harm without interacting, then I guess your list of moral transgressions has grown even longer.
Quoting Isaac
Your chance of winning with roulette was the exactly the same before and after.
Quoting Isaac
Haha, no. But you'll have to go through some process to prove you can equate the two.
Quoting Isaac
Then I guess you've gotten yourself in a bit of a pickle, because it was you who assumed I was available to build you a house.
Quoting Isaac
Sure.
Then why raise the fact that we don't know?
Quoting Tzeentch
Why the builders? You incorrectly assumed you were going to help too. So why are you only considering them as to blame?
Quoting Tzeentch
Ah, so non-interference is neutral because it helps your argument if it is. Got it.
Quoting Tzeentch
So. we're talking about the harm you claim results, not the act. No-one's denying people procreate.
Quoting Tzeentch
No. Se my next post.
Quoting Tzeentch
Do not ever go to Vegas. You're seriously, on a public forum, going to claim that your chances of winning at roulette are the same if your don't put a bet on as they are if you do? Priceless! You really don't disappoint
Quoting Tzeentch
Why? Why is the default position that they're not equated. Would that have been a sensible position when everyone's teeth and hair were falling out correlated with exposure to radiation?
Quoting Tzeentch
What?
Quoting Tzeentch
Right. So I haven't definitely caused harm by having the child. I've merely increased the probability of harm befalling someone.
Quoting Tzeentch
_____
Quoting Isaac
Because it is the builders desire to build a house, and I am an uninvolved bystander, obviously.
Quoting Isaac
Nonsense. It's neutral because it causes no harm, as I have argued.
And what you've attempted to do is construe a situation in which unrelated factors cause harm and you've attempted to blame the uninvolved for it.
Quoting Isaac
Right now we're talking about your attack on my principle of non-interference, in which you are attempting to equate procreation - a physical, detectable act, to non-interference - not an act.
If you've given up your attack on my principle and you're back to defending your choice to procreate let me know and we'll get right back to it.
Quoting Isaac
The idea that the chances of winning at roulette change depending on whether you play is the absurd one. They're exactly the same before and after.
Quoting Isaac
Situation A: I am not playing roulette. The chance of winning is X.
Situation B: I am still not playing roulette. The chance of winning is still X.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Isaac
Wasn't I responsible for harm because, in your view, I was available for house building and chose not to?
This assumes you can produce some objective measure by which to decide whether I am available or not. You just stated you couldn't, because the word, apparently, doesn't convey logic.
Quoting Isaac
What a foolish thing to do.
You are now, you weren't before, you wanted to build a house too, and were involved.
Quoting Tzeentch
Begging the question. That's the argument we're having, you can use its conclusion as evidence within it.
Quoting Tzeentch
Back to this crap again. Non-inteference is an act, that's why you came up with the phrase in the first place, as opposed to 'not acting' which you were previously using. Keep up.
Quoting Tzeentch
So if I place a bet on roulette, my chances of winning £100 are, say, 1 in 32.
You're seriously attempting to argue that if I don't even place a bet, I have a 1 in 32 chance of winning £100?
Having agreed (below) that we're talking about probabilities, I don't see how we can make further progress if you don't understand basic probability theory.
Quoting Tzeentch
So we're agreed then that procreation merely increases the probability of harm?
If happiness & sorrow are wholly subjective then true, we can't/shouldn't decide for/think for others. Howevr, if there's some objectively measurable sense in which we can be certain if a child will be happy/sad with life, we should be able to deduce whether a person would wish never to have been born or thank their lucky stars to be alive and having a blast.
The long and short of it is that it isn't always wrong to make other people's decisions for them; however, when we're allowed to do so has to be worked out carefully. Mistakes are gonna be costly.
The antinatalism vs. natalism debate can be resolved if we can actually calculate the probability of someone being happy/sad with life. The math will speak for itself I believe.
I'm sorry, I don't quite follow. If I can show that the probability of a child's life being miserable is 90%, does this info not help the would-be parents to make a decision whether to have this child/not?
:ok:
This is basically my position aswell.
The example I like to use is when two people are stranded in the wilderness and they need to cross a river. One person has an irrational fear of water and will not cross the river to get back to civilization, whereas the other person can clearly see there is no risk of drowning whatsoever. Can the fearful person now be dragged across the river against their will, for their own well-being?
I strongly lean towards a yes here, so what factors contribute to that, and are those factors present in the case of procreation?
At least one important factor that I believe is present in this example that isn't present for procreation, is that the danger of drowning can be measured with a great deal of accuracy. One can test the depth of the water and be certain, essentially.
The dangers/harms a child will face in their life cannot be predicted to such a degree at all. We may have some indications, but nothing resembling certainty.
In my opinion that is an important difference.
If I have at any point made it clear to the builders I was intending to build a house with them, then it's a different story. In a sense I have now taken upon myself a responsibility, because I've voluntarily created a situation in which people come to rely on my actions for their well-being.
Note that this is not a default situation. It requires specific actions from me prior to the ordeal for this to be the case.
Quoting Isaac
Non-interference is not an act. It's literally not being involved.
The reason I switched to using this term is because even when one is not involved with things, one may still be doing other things that have nothing to do with the thing one is not involved in. Therefore "inaction" was confusing and strictly speaking inaccurate. It has nothing to do with non-interference being an act.
Quoting Isaac
You argued that you could change what is probable without interacting.
Is placing a bet on roulette not an interaction?
Oops.
Quoting Isaac
I don't agree on that, though certainly increasing the probability of harm sounds like a foolish thing to do.
Probability conveys ignorance. It means we are unable to determine cause and effect. What it means to say that procreation "merely increases the probability of harm" is that we're ignorant to the causes and effects related to procreation.
Making major decisions for someone else while being ignorant to what one is setting in motion also seems like a foolish thing to do, which is precisely the basis on which I argue procreation is immoral.
1. All suffering. Would prefer nonexistence.
2. Suffering > Happiness. Ditto.
---
3. Suffering = Happiness. Would prefer existence
4. Suffering < Happiness. Ditto.
5. All happiness. Ditto.
I feel that most if not everyone would want to exist if scenario 3 were the case. The other options are clear-cut and uncontroversial. This means existence, in and of itself, has value; after all there are no hedonic reasons to choose existence as suffering = happiness (vide 3).
We don't need to be certain, a high likelihood of a happy/sad life (9 to 1 odds for example) should be good enough to make a decision as to whether to have a child/not. This, as you would've already realized, involves a heavy dose of mathematics. A mathematician like @jgill might be able to give us a rough sketch of what kinda info is required and how they're related mathematically.
No I wasn't suggesting you told anyone of your intention, why would you get that impression? (Oh yes, so you can dodge the conclusion). If you intended, then you are involved just as much as the other builders. Regardless of whether you let them know.
Quoting Tzeentch
So, an act then.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yep. I intend to put a bet on, what are the chances of me winning? I no longer intend to put a bet on, what are the chances of me winning now?
If you want to introduce this magical realm where intention lives which is not actually a physical state of the brain, then you go ahead, but there's no point in continuing a discussion about made up realms. Back in actual reality, a brain which is in a state of 'intending to do X' is significantly more likely to produce actions yielding X than a brain which is in a state of 'not intending to do X'. Changing your mind about something changes the probability of that something happening, probability being (as you so rightly say) a measure of uncertainty.
Quoting Tzeentch
So no decision to not interfere then (no changing one's mind), seeing as that's a major decision which affects someone else?
No, an intention does not mean involvement. I may consider getting involved and then decide not to, and I wasn't involved before, during or after the decision is made.
Quoting Isaac
Walking is an act. Non-interference is not.
I may be walking while I'm not involved in something. That doesn't make not being involved an act.
Quoting Isaac
Zero. It's your actual playing of the game that will give you a chance of winning, not your intention.
Quoting Isaac
It's not a decision I make for someone else. It's a decision that I make for myself.
And when the person we pushed out of the proverbial plane goes splat on the ground, what are we to make of that?
Excuse ourselves because we thought the odds were good? Didn't we just kill someone?
So I was gone for a bit, but rejoining this thread, there are several points to consider regarding this current back-and-forth about the builder:
The decision to procreate is always one of force recruiting. The aggressive paternalism in the OP is the stance that force recruiting is justified. Is it ever okay to force recruit people into your projects? I think never. Generally people have a chance to move, associate differently, etc. The assumption about building the house is that someone else needs to help build that house because someone wants it. That by itself is not a moral obligation. That just leads to slippery slope thinking whereby technically everyone at all times needs to be busy helping others out... It would be an insane utilitarianism the likes of the repugnant conclusion. Just working infinitesimally more for other people's projects will technically help them accomplish it, and perhaps 16 hours of your day can be arranged for helping in these projects because, ya know, people always need helping!
But really, I don't want to get bogged down in these silly arguments of utilitarianism, because I think it misses one of the main points of the wrongness of this kind of imposition that procreation represents. Rather, the background de facto understanding is life presents various choices and limitations limited to the physical and cultural realities of this existence. These things are well known because we live, experience, and learn about them everyday. Yet the big leap is assuming that THESE sets of choices offered in THIS existence is something OTHERS should endure. That is the stance I am objecting to. Along with these particular range of choices that existence offers (and of course more limited by place and time of where and when the person is born), but the harms of existence are also fairly well known, and the assumption that THESE sets of harms are okay for others to endure. And of course, the unforeseen harms that no one is sure of will befall people in the future. All of this is assumptions one makes on others behalf. Unlike other decisions where the person can just move out, associate with different people, get out of a contract, the actual set of choices and conditions themselves cannot be chosen or agreed upon.
Exactly so, however it has been Isaac's argument that one is thereby creating conditions for harm, and is thus immoral. (The way this ties back into the original topic is that he is arguing that not having children creates conditions for harm).
As you pointed out, this leads to a slippery slope. If not doing something creates conditions for harm, then we are creating harm continuously through all the actions we are not taking.
The second way of tackling this argument is through attacking the notion that not doing something causes something. Ergo, not helping the drowning man causes him to drown. While this may sound intuitively reasonable, it is an erroneous way of representing cause and effect. The man drowns because he ended up in the water and could not swim. Not because I did not help him. Had I not been there at all, the man would have also drowned.
Based on the aforementioned, the way I sought to definitively solve this issue is by considering "not acting", non-interference, not getting involved, etc. neutral. Not moral, nor immoral. Because:
1). If the opposite is true, one would creates infinite harm because of the infinite actions one did not take, and that is absurd.
2). One is not causing harm.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think this is an equally strong argument in favor of antinatalism, since by procreating one is undeniably making major choices on someone else's behalf without knowing what the person will experience and how they will enjoy it.
The common defense is that such decisions on behalf of someone else are acceptable under certain conditions, and the condition which satisfies many of the 'pro-natalists' is that it seems the chance of a good life is higher than that of a miserable one.
That seems like a flimsy argument to me, and I think the example of pushing someone out of a plane with a 90% chance of enjoying the experience and a 10% chance of crashing into the ground illustrates it well. What gives us the idea we have a right to make such a decision for someone else in the first place?
As I said, there's nothing more I can say. If you don't understand basic probability we can't talk about probable events (such as future harms).
I think your neo-liberal hyper-individualism has been quite well expounded. I have no problem with the logic of your conclusion, given the premise that we are all selfish bastards who ought have no obligation at all to look after each other. I think it quite satisfying, in fact, that if one posits such a culture the logical conclusion is that it ought to wipe itself out. That, as far as I'm concerned, is a win.
Leaning on probability is just an admission of ignorance. One may need probability because one doesn't understand the cause and effect behind a certain phenomenon, so how is one going to base a philosophical argument on something one doesn't understand?
Probability is not something that exists in reality, they're practical assumptions we use as tools. Amongst other things, it's philosphy's job to question these assumptions to see if they hold any merit.
The thing is, my argument doesn't require knowledge of future harms at all. The fact that they're unknown is enough.
Your objection has been noted, schop1, and it's still moot because (1) "inexistent others" is incoherent & (2) most human primates will never voluntarily fight c2 million years of hardwiring to stop procreating. :point: .
So one should avoid all actions which have a non-zero probability of harm? Do you realise what that entails?
Probability is just a fundamentally flawed way of approaching these things, but:
One should definitely avoid actions that:
1). Cannot be performed consensually.
2). And are also irreversible.
3). And can also inflict great harm.
4). And one can also not oversee the consequences of.
Seems like a pretty decent set of criteria for any interaction with people. I don't see why procreation should be treated any different, and note that procreation checks all of these boxes.
Quoting Tzeentch
I think most actions affect, or have the potential to affect, millions of people. Its impossible to get the consent of everyone your action may affect, especially if were supposed to consider those who do not yet exist (which one has to do in order for this to be relevant to AN).
Quoting Tzeentch
Everything is irreversible, unless Im misunderstanding what you mean.
Quoting Tzeentch
Again, many actions have this potential.
Quoting Tzeentch
I dont know how anyone can do this unless theyre God and have control over every variable.
The consumption of basic needs like water, trash, and electricity is a good example of what Im getting at. The waste from this consumption contributes to the very climate crisis many believe were in the midst of right now; so it affects people whove never consented to your consumption of these utilities (number 1 on your list), your consumption cannot be undone or reversed in any way (number 2 on your list), contributes to the total destruction of this planet we all depend on for life (number 3 on your list), and none of us are personally able to oversee the consequences (number 4 on your list).
Indeed the (mathematical) method I propose is far from perfect, but it's much better than what we have at present - wild shots in the dark!
But this to me is insane moral thinking, if examined and not just taken due to current convention. Your project being deemed worthy means another person must pay. One that cannot by its unique nature have agreed upon the conditions.
Theres something else going on here too. Where the already existing people cant help but try to endure the stress of existence, by putting a new person in the fray, its creating yet more harm and harm-overcoming upon someone else in order to try to fix the current problems. The ultimate case of using people. Its also the ultimate pyramid scheme. Pyramid schemes dont resolve anything, they simply create more victims that rely on yet more victims to survive. But its even worse cause its combining the two. Im having a problem, therefore I will force recruit yet more people into the pyramid scheme operation that creates another person to endure harm itself. It actually solves nothing but to further continue the creating of victims.
So on two fronts we have some bad things here:
1. Making others pay for your problems. It would be like making a relative get punished for what you did.
2. Making future victims to fix a past problem and continuing the harm cycle.
1) Why?
2) Why?
3) Why?
4) Why?
One should definitely avoid actions that:
1) Contradict the lyrics of the Grateful Dead's second album
2) Risk one having to wear a tutu
3) Cannot be performed equally well blindfolded
3) Must be performed on a Wednesday
Turns out this morality lark is quite easy afterall...
Quoting Agent Smith
I'll give you that. :up:
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think the objection would be that many here believe us not just to be victims, but also beneficiaries. Would that change the nature of the pyramid scheme?
Of course, who are we to decide others must participate when we don't even know whether they'll be a victim or a beneficiary?
Something @Pinprick just showed you to be false. Most procreators do not consider your rules to be the basics of moral interaction for exactly the reasons given, it is impossible to apply them.
Weren't you so fond of "reasonableness" and morality by majority decision? Well here you have it.
@Pinprick has already done so, I'd just be repeating what they've already said. People do not hold that as a moral belief because it is impossible to adhere to without either omniscience or killing one's self.
That has never stopped anyone. It certainly hasn't stopped you in the past.
Remember how your beliefs lead to one committing infinite moral transgressions?
Right.
An example then.
Most people, if asked, will say that it was morally right to fight the Nazis. Do you think all those Nazi soldiers consented to the irreversible harm of being shot?
Most people think self-defence is morally defensible, do you think the attacker consents to being attacked back?
Most people think emergency surgery to save unconscious patients is morally correct, do the unconscious somehow consent to the massive harms?
Most people think imprisoning or punishing criminals is morally good, do the criminals consent to such harms?
Most people think procreation is fine...
The world is absolutely full of examples of harms being inflicted on people without their consent for the greater good.
Ineffaceable great goods also matter. An excessive aversion to risks at the cost of downplaying the opportunities that many people could (and do) appreciate does not seem reasonable.
Danke!
What do you have to say about the following?
If life is hell, even hardcore natalists will support antinatalism.
If life is heaven, even dyed-in-the-wool antinatalists will advocate for natalism.
Life on earth, this universe, is neither hell nor heaven and ergo, both natalism and antinatalism are wrong.
In other words, those who can guarantee at the very least a pain-free (aponia) life for their children should procreate and those of us who can't should remain childless.
There's no way a one-size-fits-all recommendation can be formulated given the disparities in well-being in the global population - some are happy, others not!
In the long-term, if happiness can be...er...redistributed equitably/equally such that in transhumanist terms all suffering has been abolished, antinatalism would die. It would be a glorious end to an illustrious career in the ideaverse. Antinatalists would embrace their extinction; it would mean the problem of suffering has (finally) been solved (for good/once and for all). :snicker:
I genuinely cannot imagine what a life without any pain looks like, and I wonder if it wouldn't make the whole ordeal more meaningless?
One of the many puzzles I haven't been able to solve. Do we (really) need to know sorrow in order to understand joy and vice versa? In a sense knowing how unpleasant the sensation of pain is, I value painlessness that much more. Similarly, having experienced pain-free times, my dread (of pain) is aggravated.
Those werent moral claims in that post but descriptions of what your stance leads to. You were waiting to take that arbitrary ethics attack out of your arsenal though.
Your philosophy leads to punishing others for harms others are incurring basically and pushing the victims continually into the future by using them to ameliorate the past.
At the end of the day aggressive paternalism as what counts for others as to the range of choices, known harms, and unforeseen harms that they must endure, is an underlying assumption that can be questioned and examined. How is that ever good to assume for others en totale? Its creating the obstacles and limitations de novo for others. Its not ameliorating anything. It simply imposes one persons view of what another person should deal with onto another. In a way, because other animals never have to make these assumptive, imposing choices on behalf of others, I am not really concerned with antinatalism proper as concerning other animals. We have an agenda. We understand the deal and then decide others must endure what we deem as necessary.
No. It would have to be some sort of personalized utopia you know the person was born into to not violate the imposition of one view into another person.
*sigh*
Like I said more than once, I'm not an antinatalist.
I'm trying to bring some balance into the discussion. I'm critical of both the antinatalists as well as the (pro)natalists. If it seems I'm siding more with the antinatalists, it's because the charges against them are sometimes extremely biased and hostile. Which is strange, given that they come from those who claim to love life or at least deem it worthwhile. How is it that someone who presumably loves life tells others to kill themselves??
I'm saying that there are ways in which some antinatalist arguments make sense. Such as in terms of the quality of intention.
Do video game (simulation) programmers have a moral obligation to code only 'programs which cannot suffer'?
Did a creator-deity have a moral obligation to create only 'creatures which could not suffer'?
One of the core problems in these discussions is the usual failure to distinguish between hardship and suffering, and instead conflating them.
Poverty is hardship, but it does not necessarily entail suffering. Breaking your leg is hardship, but it does not necessarily entail suffering.
But people who procreate don't typically seem to see it that way. What do you make of that?
Self-confidence, a "lust for life".
But on the other hand, there are the tribalist pro-natalists who only look out for their own tribe/family and who feel no obligation at all to look after those outside of their tribe/family. Many people are like this.
This is a natalist culture that wipes out others, outsiders and their families or tribes. You think that's a win?
Quoting Isaac
But many natalists are doing the exact same thing. Just look at the severe judgment with which the antinatalists on this forum are being met.
Irrelevant. It's not about what the stakes are, it's about what is at stake.
People will generally do something they value highly, even if the chances of success are very small.
And they will refrain from doing something they don't value, even if the chances of something going wrong at it are very small.
What you're describing is the mentality of gamblers, ie. people who don't want to decide on a matter, but use various ways to distance themselves from contemplating the morality of an action.
This is what is so dismal about the pronatalists.
If life is so great, why can't they give a good reason for it? Why the exhortation to kill yourself if you don't like it? Why the implying that you're mentally ill if you have second thoughts about having children?
I generally agree, but the problem with your formulation is that it is so general that it can also be applied in ways that would generally be considered immoral.
For example, once certain people decided that the way to end their suffering was to kill all the Jews. And for at least some time, it worked. Per your formula, that _wasn't_ maladaptive.
Of course it was, and still is, maladaptive. They were mistaken and consequently acted on that mistake. Short-term efficacy scapegoating, genocide at the expense of long-term sustainability (i.e. forming habits / institutions for 'othering' even their own because (some believe) "that is a way to end their suffering").
Indeed! Pronatalists can't formulate an argument for their position based on how things are (rampant suffering).
However, to play the devil's advocate, they can ask us to treat humanity as an individual that makes sacrifices now for rewards in the future; a logic very similar to that of athletes - pain now for glory later.
You aren't forced onto a sports team though. How is this not a violation if you were? Even if it was seen as a benefit if you joined the team. Not only is it a violation of the individual by overlooking the very agent who this is affecting, but it is exactly the kind of aggressive paternalistic assumption I am talking about where another gets to decide for an individual what the conditions are for them (whether for a cause or otherwise).
I call it aggressive paternalistic thinking. Their values must be lived by another person. I don't know what to say other than it is an attitude. Attitudes can lead to all sorts of things.
It's kind of like this...
Life presents itself as a series of problems that have to be overcome:
Problem: I feel kind of unhealthy..
Solution: Well, the way to fix that is good diet and exercise..
This is seen as "good" by the potential parent that a child will get to experience the maintenance of healthy eating and exercise. But wait, this is just creating the problem of unhealthy conditions that then needs remedy by healthy eating and exercise. Why is this maintenance routine something that should be experienced by another in the first place? All you have is presumptive answers that only make sense for the decision-maker and can never be made by the person it is presuming for.
Problem: You need to survive- usually by some system of exchange of labor for money which buys goods and services.
Solution: Well, the way to resolve this is have to figure out jobs to apply to with a range of limited choices of time, place, circumstance, market conditions, background fit, etc.
This is seen as "good" by the potential parent that a child will get to experience the survival routine of working a job. But wait, this is just creating the problem of surviving that then needs remedy by finding a suitable job (if there are any that combine in such a way by such and such circumstances). Why is this survival routine something that should be experienced by another in the first place? All you have is presumptive answers that only make sense for the decision-maker and can never be made by the person it is presuming for.
Problem: You have a major health issue.
Solution: Well, the way to fix that is by going to a doctor to find out how to deal with it and get better...
And of course, it's the person's fault for not "getting in line", or "not preparing better", or "not getting the habits right", or not "doing this the right way", "let that person down", "let down the team", "you haven't quite got it", "you must learn to deal with this and that and the other", "you forgot this", "you overlooked that", "here's another thing to add".. You see all those negative things happened because YOU didn't play the game right and it's your fault..
I can keep going on and on and do thousands of variations based on locations, situations, etc. But the point is that these problems to overcome and experience the overcoming of, are seen as somehow necessary for someone else to endure. That is a big presumption.
The only thing the other side can do here is make a red herring/straw man of my examples as "not that bad".. But you can "not that bad" anything... And I can use more extreme examples, but purposely choose not to as I don't even think it's necessary, though I will if someone wants to pull that nonsense response. The point is the choices are limited, the harms are known (and some unknown), and that there are immense assumptions being made for imposing them onto other people.
This is a very true observation.
Yup, giving birth to someone is to force that someone to play a/the game (of life). To that extent it (life) is an imposition.
Nevertheless, I can't shake off the feeling that not giving birth to someone who could've enjoyed life to the fullest (suppose his/her parents are super-rich) is also a privation. This too is an imposition of sorts.
Another point I want your views on is there's a likeness between antinatalism and abortion and we all know the latter has been equated to murder. Is antinatalism murder? At the very least it is a kind of preemptive euthanasia.
Quoting Agent Smith
Is exorcism murder? :halo:
Like suicide is a kind of retroactive abortion ... :sweat:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/722428 :eyes:
On what person is this imposing? A person could be born that likes a bike you could have bought them. Do you mourn that person who is not there to like the bike you bought? That would be odd indeed. Even if you did mourn it.. That is YOUR problem as an already existing person.. not the person who doesn't exist who didn't need the bike in the first place. Nor do you need to create that circumstance JUST BECAUSE you have some notion that it is necessary for them to experience liking the bike. Unfortunately, the case is you create a person who has a range of choices, harms, and unforeseen circumstances that you imposed on them, not just X positive experiences that that person would have liked had they lived out some utopia. All major assumptions for others.
Quoting Agent Smith
No. How would it be?
Quoting Agent Smith
Not really. Euthanasia entails someone exists and is already being harmed. It just leads to poor framing of it to mislead.
Look at it from the angle of potential - once you recommend antinatalism for reasons such as the possibility of suffering, you'll also have to advise natalism for children who'll be happy. It's only fair to do so.
If you insist that with respect to antinatalism no one exists to be deprived of joy and hence my objection fails to pass muster, I'd be forced to respond likewise - no one exists to benefit from not being born into a life of pain. You can't have your cake and eat it too is what I mean. Be consistent and antinatalism has no leg go stsnd on, oui monsieur?
If existence can be imposed, so can nonexistence. A little gedanken experiment is in order. Imagine you know for certain that a child about to be bern will live an enchanted life, perfectly happy in every possible way. Would you not do your utmost to ensure the birth of this child? This demonstrates, in my humble opinion, that antinatalism too can be immoral.
Go back to my response again and not just put out the same old non-identity argument which I have objected to many a time. You talked about someone not enjoying X. I explained the faulty reasoning for such thinking on mourning the bike that is missed by no one. As for your (separate red herring) non-identity argument (unrelated to that other point but seemingly thrown in there as yet another chance at this discussion), the collateral damage of imposition only goes one way- birth. The missed goods don't cause collateral damage (to that person that is supposed to miss out). It doesn't matter what you even judge the state of affairs as, no collateral damage took place. No "good" took place either, but think of that missed bike mourned by only you. Birth guarantees the collateral damage, no birth has no collateral damage. It only has you thinking about a missed opportunity.
Also, this is about impositions made on others behalf, not harms not had by non-existent people, oui? So is this sneaking in another argument into this particular one to pry open room for a red herring debate on the non-identity argument, or is it not understanding this particular claim which does not rely on non-existent people enjoying or not enjoying something?
Quoting Agent Smith
In this universe do people live such a life, ever? If you bring in probabilities of some 1 trillionth chance we're done. I've stated many times that if life was someone's individualized utopia, then it's no longer an imposition.
To pick up where we left off, I agree I would do everything possible to prevent a mother from birthing a child who is going to end up in a boiling lava pit.
However, in the same vein as it were, would you prevent a child being born in heaven? No, you wouldn't, oui? In other word, if you're consistent and you should be, a possible person whose birth you prevented is, for certain, deprived of the happiness s/he would've experienced.
View it from the perspective of potential for enjoyment/suffering.
You'll need to elaborate on that, though honestly what we call it may not be all that relevant.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting baker
Why would self-confidence suffice in the case of procreation, when it clearly does not suffice anywhere else in life?
To go back to the sky-diving example, if I push someone out of a plane being extremely confident that they'll enjoy it, but instead they crash into the ground, does my self-confidence make any difference as to the nature of what just happened?
I've already answered this..
Quoting schopenhauer1
Since life does not offer a personalized utopia, it is creating major impositions onto someone else, so being that this existence is not that (and it's not even a debate that this existence is not that), it is an imposition.
This does bring up an analysis of the word "imposition". There are two ways it is used, and I think both are relevant here.
A) Imposition- foisting one's will onto another.
B) Imposition- creating a burden for another.
Both of these definitions can apply here. In the case of the utopia example, the absence of B makes the the case a bit murkier, but this existence never has a case where there is not B, it it wouldn't matter. In my argument I had three things here:
1) The range of choices are limited to the physical-cultural arrangements of this existence and circumstances of time and place. This was assumed to be an appropriate set of choices for another.
2) Known harms are assumed to be enough for others to endure.
3) Unknown harms are simply had by a person through collateral damage of being born. The parent knows there are unknowns but they can't say what they are.
2 and 3 are certainly a violation of B.
1 may seem to not be a violation of B, but besides just the fact one is imposing one's own will (A), the fact that the choices are limited to what existence currently has to offer, B is still relevant too in that the choices may not be wanted if otherwise one could choose so. A and B are violated in all three parts of the argument.
Well, if you've answered my question and you're still arguing for antinatalism, something's wrong. At the very least, I expect you to rethink your treatment of the nonexistence-existence asymmetry. Can you accommodate my objections and make the appropriate changes, please? Muchas gracias in advance.
Like the old Academic Skeptic's canard "since knowledge is never certain, there cannot be knowledge", to wit: if existing is not painless, then existing should not be reproduced (or prolonged). Let the perfect be the enemy of the good, huh? That'll show 'em ... :sweat:
:fire:
[quote=Ms. Marple]Most interesting.[/quote]
May the nonexistent god bless your nonexistent soul! :smile:
Since you havent addressed my arguments, no.
Red herring observation. Why should the conclusion be this imposition? You havent connected that. Its just moral fiat. Do it cause you think so.
Let's back up a little to the point where we seem to be on the same page. I would, like you would, do everything in my power to prevent the birth of a child in a lava pit.
My counter-question is will you, isn't it immoral, to stop the birth of a child in heaven?
If the potential for suffering matters (lava pit birth), the potential for happiness does too (heavenly birth). It is only fair that this is so.
The asymmetry between harm and benefits. In this existence, it isn't a heaven, it comes with harms. Harms = Impositions (point B specifically.. the burdening of someone and A, foisting one's idea of what those burdens should be onto someone). A heaven, if it is so, would not have at the least B. So there is a category error between comparing heaven to this existence, which obviously isn't so..
What you end up doing is trying to make this statistics. It's not about probabilities but the rule of avoiding imposing unnecessary impositions on others. Or maybe more categorically-speaking, questioning the right to impose, or assume the harms, set of choices, etc. that others must encounter.
Suppose we do exist prior to birth as a human. What then? Would you not be depriving someone of joy by not letting him/her go to a fun-filled party ? Did Cinderella not cry in sorrow when her stepmom and stepsisters forbade her from attending the prince's ball?
Let's now look at the asymmetry due nonexistence:
Birthing a child is to impose one's will on a child even if it's well-thought-out.
Not birthing a child, on the other hand, isn't an imposition for only the living can be so (mis)treated.
Can you spot the error? Possible persons vs. Nonexistent persons! The T1000 in Terminator 1, had it succeeded in killing Sarah Connor, wouldn't have committed any crime against John Connor, the leader of the resistance, because John hadn't been conceived yet!
While this supposition is obviously a bit of a stretch, I would say the following:
1). Just like the procreator has no right to decide for another they should play the game of life, neither does a person (who in this hypothetical exists prior to birth) have a right to demand it.
2). Life is not always a fun-filled party.
3). Since this ties into the earlier discussion, it's worth pointing out that even in this hypothetical, not procreating would not be depriving anyone of anything. The hypothetical person desires, and as a result of his desire suffers a lack. We don't create that lack.
An acorn, if nurtured, will grow into a oak tree [yes potential].
A stone, no matter what you do, will remain a stone [no potential].
That's why we treat acorns and stones differently.
But now turn that into something we can work with. Otherwise I'm left to guess what you think the implications are.
That is ground we've already covered mon ami!
Why was that maladaptive? Why were they mistaken?
Substantiate.
Hardship and suffering are two different concepts.
Hardship (pain) are the external and bodily circumstances that a person is subject to: poverty, a broken leg.
Suffering is a possible (but not necessary) response to these cirumstances.
Or, as another poster put it:
Quoting 180 Proof
I answered your question. Self-confidence, a "lust for life" are what gives a person the idea they have a right to procreate, ie. make such a decision for someone else in the first place.
No. But if you wouldn't be thusly confident, you wouldn't push that person out of the plane.
A very literal answer to my question, but ok.
Does it suffice?
If we can justify making a major imposition on someone else based on self-confidence, then that would open the door for a whole slew of behaviors that most would consider immoral.
What if I push someone off a building because I was extremely confident they were suicidal and wanted to make an end to their life?
I'm still trying to articulate this more clearly, but I'd like to ask you, can you define what it is that makes not imposing harms from scratch (for someone else) more ethically relevant than not causing benefits from scratch (for someone else)?
I've explained it thus that for a potential person to exist (the procreative question whereby the effect is another life), not creating a life that has benefits for that person is not experienced by that person. However, creating a person that will be harmed/limited to a set of choices that they might not like, is going to be experienced. It is this that is relevant, despite the good that might come about.
Why is it that if someone already existed and I forced them to play my game of limitations and harms with some good, THAT would be roundly rejected, but if I created someone from scratch (let's say snapped my fingers) THAT is considered fine and dandy? What makes that difference? I think people are misconstruing the idea that a person GETS to experience in the FIRST PLACE as some sort of untold condition of goodness.. But I don't see that as relevant. Thoughts?
An argument can only be persuasive to someone, to a person. It cannot be objectively, suprapersonally persuasive.
So what are you going to do about that?
Talk about it.
As another poster suggested earlier in this discussion (in this or another thread), the actual issue is that existence itself is problematic.
Antinatalists (at least the variety one usually encounters in secular Western settings) don't go far enough in their criticism of procreation. It is existence itself they should be criticial of, not merely procreation.
And talking about it accomplishes what?
Why does one do anything? Does there have to be an achievable goal? Don't psychologize it please, unless you are leading somewhere?..
For some people, it clearly does.
What you're after is objective morality, absolute authority.
Are you sure I haven't done that in the past? Look at some of my past posts focusing on Schopenhauerian philosophy. However, though it CAN be relevant to THIS debate, this particular argument can work on its own, though I think can be quite elucidated from it. I have discussed at length the difference between what I have called "necessary suffering" and "contingent suffering". But again, doesn't have to be discussed in this debate.
For a purpose.
Yes. All other action is irrational/maladaptive.
Well, you can say that about any philosophical debate, right? That's a whole value sentiment that can be discussed in another thread. Should philosophical debates about life be discussed? I think it is super relevant because we are humans living the human condition and we can analyze what this condition entails. And as far as it having a purpose, it is the definition of something of an ethics that can be applied, so your assessment is wrong.
Wrong how?
It's a very relevant topic that can be applied in life (whether to procreate or not). I would say a pretty central one.
I lean strongly towards there being an ethical duty not to cause harm to others.
I don't believe there to be an ethical duty to cause good to others, because it would come with too many problems. It would imply a duty to meddle in other people's affairs, a duty to get involved in literally everything one possibly can, because not to cause good would be to neglect one's moral duty. People rarely (if ever) have a complete understanding of a given situation, so not only is the implication one MUST meddle, but also that one must do so with little more than ignorance as a basis. After all, all one has is one's subjective understanding.
Further, not to cause harm is an effort by the actor not to take actions that interfere with the will of a subject. To endeavor to cause all the good one can is to interfere regardless of the will of a subject.
Lastly, earlier in this thread I argued for non-interference being a morally neutral option. That means inaction is morally acceptable, even if it means potentially missing out on causing good. This flows from the first point, namely that if non-interference is not acceptable when there's a potential for good, it becomes a moral imperative to interfere in everything, with all the problems that brings.
And second, non-interference causes no harm.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I agree, this seems inconsistent. I've been using my sky-diving example to inquire about this very same question.
Quoting baker
Ideally, yes. But in the absence of such sound, consistent reasoning will do.
Yes, that slippery slope argument. I called it a brand of "repugnant conclusion". All your efforts would have to be towards other people's affairs. If you can work 18 hours a day helping people, you would be doing your best to "help" (interfere?) whenever you can at all possible times. Also then you run into probability unknowns.. You can almost never know how much you are helping in this way versus that way. The opportunity costs then have to rely on just "what you think" which may be way off. Or you are relying on social scientists' or philosophers pet calculation. Where is the demarcation? It is always conveniently selected to make it seem like a neat fit. I also think that ideas of supererogatory can be relevant here.
Quoting baker
As I wrote in the post you only half-quoted:
Quoting 180 Proof
So if you still have to ask, baker ... :brow:
Maybe so, but I neither claim nor implied it could be, so I don't see the relevance of your remark.
This is a philosophy forum, not the watercooler.
Why wouldn't destroying an entire social category be "sustainable" in the long term? People have always done this. What reason is there to think that it isn't "sustainable" in the long term?
Can you explain, do you have something more than mere gut feeling for this?
Even you yourself advised that a certain social category should be destroyed by suicide.
Yes, you did: The formulation you used isn't one where you'd merely state your opinion, but declares a lot more, namely, that what you're saying is an objective, absolute truth.
In order to address that very question.
That's irrelevant. The parents know that by their direct actions a child will come to be, and that child has no choice in whether it does or not. It's an intentional act that disregards the wills of whom it affects - an act of force.
Quoting Isaac
You recall incorrectly.
In the case of procreation the parents cause the child to be born. In the examples we discussed the moral agent doesn't cause anything and therefore does not bear responsibility.
It is imposing the state of affairs that entails that necessary condition. How is it not?
Yes. It is. But not imposing them on a person. Imposing them on an embryo.
If I force someone to become a soldier, I'm not forcing a soldier to become a soldier, I'm forcing a civilian to become a soldier.
If I force a rich man to give away all of his money and become poor, I'm not forcing a poor man to be poor, I'm forcing a rich man to be poor.
If I force a stationary person to move, I'm not forcing a moving person to move.
... and so on.
The examples hinged on the fact that your mental state did not cause anything. Your only argument for that was that the causal chain was indirect.
Oh this is pedantic.
An action led to a person existing. That person existing has entailed necessary conditions. It's probably the same argument you are having with tzeentch right now.
Yes. I agree with all that.
None of that argues against procreation. Creating a person (with necessary conditions) is fine if it's for the greater good and you've good reason to believe they won't mind those necessary conditions.
Having lost the argument above, you then resort to it being unfair to impose that on a person without their consent (even if for the greater good and assuming justifiably they won't mind). But one didn't impose that on a person. One imposed it on a embryo, and there's no moral issue with imposing something on an embryo without its consent. So your counter fails.
:rofl: .. Really? This is your argument? That conceiving a child to birth takes 9 months and that there is a period between conception and birth, this thus refutes that the parents imposed? A wait time between the initial action and the outcome (a person) somehow makes the imposition null? How? Why does it have to be the exact immediate effect of conception and not the result 9 months later?
The wait time is irrelevant. It could be instantaneous. If I instantaneously make someone a soldier. Did I make a civilian into a soldier, or did I make a soldier into a soldier?
It is that there was a state of affairs thus that you made a soldier. It doesn't matter what the previous state was.
Yep. I agree. But on whom did I impose, who did I force. Did I force a soldier to become a soldier, or did I force a civilian to become a soldier?
Doesn't matter. You caused a soldier to be. Without you, no soldier.
It matters intently because you lost the argument about simply causing people to be. Causing people to be has no moral problem. They'll probably be happy enough and its for the good of the already living community.
You want to say that some unjust, immoral 'forcing' has taken place against someone's will. But no such forcing has taken place. The entity that was forced had no will, no moral status, nothing more than forcing a rock to roll downhill.
Of course the other very strong evidence that it does matter is the lengths you're going to to avoid just answering it.
Causing people to be is the moral problem if it leads to X, Y, Z negatives.. That is the argument at hand but you are the one constantly changing it to be about the definition of "force"..
Quoting Isaac
Causing it to be is the "force" I am talking about.. There is no strict use of force.. but it usually means in these cases, "imposing your will".. When the person comes to be.. THAT is caused by someone's action. You can pedantically hang your hat on this point all day, and it has no merit to the claim that causing someone to be (forcing, making a life start that entails suffering, it DOESN"T matter the phrasing), is the point at hand.
That argument has already been refuted. One balances the negatives with the positives in any endeavour. If it is a moral problem if an action has potential negatives then all action is morally proscribed.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes, I agree with all that. If I push a rock downhill I am imposing my will on that rock. I'm forcing it to roll downhill. So what?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well then what's the moral case against doing that. Forcing a gamete cell to become a person. What's the moral case against doing that?
A gamete cell has neither a will nor any feelings at all, so forcing it to become something is not a moral issue on it's own. And, most importantly. The gamete cell already must satisfy the necessary conditions of its existence, so you're not even changing that.
The person you make will experience suffering, but the already living will experience suffering if you don't make them, so that seems a moot point. so long as you don't deliberately increase their suffering beyond that which you're alleviating.
On this front, there are many arguments in favor of life as undesirable. The one I'd put forward is that life seems to be at odds with our desires. At it's simplest, we desire happiness, health, etc., but the nature of life is survival, avoiding harm and death and such things. Even in the things we enjoy, we must endure until we reach the satisfaction. Perhaps this is a little personal, but for me, that would be cooking. I'd love to enjoy a good meal, but I'm a tad lazy and don't really enjoy the process of preparing food. It's not pain or suffering per se, but an undesirable situation I must endure.
Of course, I would agree that with the good comes the bad, and the bad helps exemplify the good. However, the point is not whether or not the good outweighs the bad, at least not with this particular argument, but rather that the good has to outweigh the bad in the first place. And not only that, but the bad has to constantly be outweighed, that it's a fact of life that we have to fight for life. Should we bring people into being, forcing them to fight that fight?
Now, this isn't the best argument. I anticipate and could formulate my own argument as to why this fight for life could actually be a good, a valiant thing, but I'll leave it there as a starting point.
By willfully rolling that rock downhill, one caused an entity to come to be, whose will was disregarded. It's an act of force.
You're attempting to hide in the fuzzy cracks, but we've progressed. You've admitted an embryo has been forced. The next step is admitting that by forcing the embryo, one also willfully forces the person that the embryo develops into.
You've already admitted to pulling the trigger. Now it's time to take responsibility for the bullet, and the person it killed.
They already have to fight that fight. No entity in existence doesn't. Any entity, to exist, must resist entropic decay. And since matter/energy is neither created nor destroyed, it follows that everything in in this state. If we (by an act of procreation) force a gamete, or an embryo, to become a person we're doing nothing at all about the state of necessary conditions. The gamete has to do what is necessary to resist entropic decay, so does the person. Nothing has changed there.
Just saying it again doesn't refute the counterargument.
Quoting Tzeentch
Nonsense. It's just garbage.
One does not force a soldier to become a soldier.
Algos (suffering) makes life a just-not-dying affair. That, in short, is the crux of the problem of suffering.
Except a gamete isn't a living, conscious thing with emotions that can feel pain? It's not until we choose to make it a baby that it does so?
That's the point. The thing we impose our will on is a gamete. It doesn't care.
This is R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-US!
What a rhetorical con! I can't believe you have reverted to this argument rather than move forward with whether it is okay to impose conditions on X individual. You are now trying to refute that a parent causes a gamete to become a human by the steps related to procreation. What kind of diagram do I need to draw to show you how this works?
@Tzeentch is absolutely correct in his analogy.. The pulling of the trigger causes the bullet to fire and kill the person. The trigger doesn't fire on its own. The gamete doesn't just "become" a human. You are subtly trying to deny that the gamete becomes a human.. and that things that take time don't count for causation because there is a duration. Gametes + 9 months + birthing into the world = a person born. It is THAT event that is caused by the parents. Generally, for brevity's sake, we just say parents "procreate" the child. We don't need to go into the whole biology to prove the cause.
Now. move the hell on from this red-herring hill and go back to the argument @Jerry, myself, and @Tzeentch are actually making. By not doing so, I think I'm going to have to ignore as you are simply rhetorically stalling.. Get to the argument at hand.. Should parents procreate a person with X conditions?
Oh, and if you mention "FORCE" or anything else that you think can't be used... Then just replace it with caused to occur.. I don't care about the pedantic argument of what word to use. If I recall, I saw you defending Wittgenstein's ideas in his PI. That is to say, there are family resemblances in how words are used in a language game.. In this one, we are simply using "force" as a word for causing someone to exist who wouldn't exist otherwise.. DEAL WITH IT. That is how this particular language game is being used. It makes sense. It doesn't have to precisely correlate to a Platonic "force" but rather resembles how we use it in other ways, even if not exactly the same. BUT here I am indulging your language argument when we have moved away from the question at hand...
Never even mentioned cause.
The argument is over on whom or what imposition is forced, not what it results in. I agree with what it results in - a person who has necessary needs.
It's you who keep drawing the argument back to the deontological question of imposition, having lost the arguments about consequence.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I never said it did. Read what I've written. We force the gamete to become a human. Impose our will on it. No-one give s a shit (quite rightly) because gametes don't care.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes. Absolutely. The benefits to society outweigh the risks of harm. We've had this one already.
Then you say "It's unfair to impose that on someone"
Hence we're back here - arguing about whether you do, in fact, impose that on someone.
Quoting schopenhauer1
OK. I will. So your argument that it is unjust to 'force' someone into the game of life can be completely ignored then. since "It is unjust to have caused to occur a person in the game of life" is not true. There's nothing unjust in general about causing things to occur. It depends entirely on the merits of the thing you caused.
You caused to occur someone to exist who didnt previously. You proved nothing except you can create lots of sophistic nonsense. While amusing, exhausting.
You equivocate this act of causing with not affecting someone because at some point that person didnt exist because they were not fully formed, but then they did and so your points are moot.
Yes, we agree on that.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Nope I'm quite in agreement with you about both causing and affecting someone. You cause events in the future which will affect a person in the future. No problem with that analysis.
I also think there's no moral problem with that because we're talking about consequences (things that you cause, effects you have on the future) and as far as consequences are concerned, having children reduces suffering more than it creates it.
You then turn to unjust impositions to try and wriggle out of that obvious assessment. You then start to claim that it's not fair to impose on someone without their consent. Not effects. Not causes. Impositions without consent..
I then point out that no unjust imposition without consent has taken place because that which was imposed on is a gamete and doesn't care.
You then have a hissy fit for a while before reverting to talk of effects and causes, which has already been refuted as above.
I would never wriggle out of that, because I wouldn't claim it. I'm not a utilitarian consequentialist. I don't think "the greatest good" is a good argument, and it ignores the locus of ethics (the individual) and treats them like units in a greater whole that is aggregated in nothing but a calculus. So no, I wouldn't concede anything there. Basically, you don't get to impose on someone because you are sad otherwise.
Quoting Isaac
But we've been through this over and over, so the hissy fit. The fact is consent could not be gotten. That's all that matters. CAN you get consent for this affect on the person you are creating? But see, YOU ant to wriggle out (by way of sophistry) by saying that a "person" is not affected. But that is not true. At time "Z" (we'll" say), when a person "exists" (however you define person).. THAT is the entity that has NOW (time 1 started) been affected, thus.. How? By BEING in existence. Affected thus.
How do you quantify suffering?
How do you explain that not everyone thinks the way you do about procreation?
If your position is one of materialism or something similar (as it seems to be), then how do you explain the differences in the outlook that people have on life?
And on what grounds do you justify the relevance of those differences?
I can't read people's minds.
My impression based on the arguments that have been put forward suggest to me most are comfortable with keeping a double standard, and feel no necessity to apply their moral principles consistently.
Quoting baker
I never thought of my position of having to do with materialism. You'll need to elaborate on that one.
Quoting baker
I don't find the other arguments logically coherent and consistent. I am not seeking to change people's minds or judge them in some way, I am just putting forward and testing ideas to the best of my ability. I don't see what there is to justify.
But how come you're different than those people?
You don't believe in, for example, "souls" and "life after death", do you?
Don't you find it odd that different people have so widely differing ideas about some topics, specifically, procreation?
There you go again. No one is imposing on someone. There is no someone.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Does conscription make soldiers into soldiers?
Guess.
No idea. I may just be very dumb and fail to see how their logic adds up.
Quoting baker
Insofar as is relevant to this discussion, no.
Quoting baker
Why would that be odd? Isn't widely differing ideas pretty much the norm for humanity?
Come on. We're talking about matters of life and death. Guessing isn't good enough.
No. There is a trend toward uniformity.
And normally, one stance is considered normal, right, and all others less or more wrong, evil, pathological.
It's all we've got. What's your alternative?
I either guess which course of action/inaction will cause least suffering or I just act randomly. I prefer the guess.
I also don't see how my stance, if it can even be called that, could be genuinely classified as evil.
Conditions X are a necessity of Y state of affairs.
Someone brought about Y state of affairs for someone else, which entails X.
Someone could NOT bring about Y state of affairs for someone else, which entails X.
Being born (Y) ALWAYS entails X (working in some manner to survive). One doesn't just "come into existence" without someone else making this happen. Some act had to be done previously.. decided upon or allowed to happen, etc. THIS situation is how I am using "forced". It is obvious how it is used. I shouldn't have to explain it like this, but since cases are being made from nothing, I'll do it to appease my pedantic interlocutors (even though they know themselves how I am using it).
schopenhauer1
Except that some people are happy to be alive (in fact, they're so happy that they wish you'd die).
How do you explain the difference between yourself and them?
It should be your concern when those people act on those ideas, and you're on the receiving end, and not in a good sense.
I wonder about that too. Clearly, some people think the antinatalist stance is all kinds of wrong (from psychopathic to evil). Although they generally refuse to present a clear case, in fact, they generally refuse to discuss the matter in any depth.
Still, if your take on the matter is right, then we need to explain how come not everyone thinks that way (and what to do with the differences).
To begin with, it's not clear how to quantify hardship and suffering (importantly, the two should be distinguished one from the other). Do you measure them in dollars lost, in sighs? So the point seems moot from the onset.
Further, in the same external circumstances, one person suffers a lot, and the other suffers less. For one person, living in poverty is agonizing, for another, it's not. How do you explain that difference?
How do you decide what kind of material comfort is relevant? Did the peasants in 15th century Europe suffer as much a modern day person probably would if they suddenly had to live that kind of peasant lifestyle? Why exactly should a 15th century peasant lifestyle not be regarded as "good enough"?
It's not clear it's possible to act "randomly", although it's certainly possible to retrospectively classify one's action as "random". As far as I can see, people always act out of some motive, and usually, this is the pursuit of sensual pleasures. At that, they act in line with their current assessment of which sensual pleasure will be greater and thus, which one to pursue. As such, they live in a tightly interlinked net of their pursuits of various sensual pleasures and the results or consequences of those as they take place.
Okay, but I fear I will get no further than a psycho-analysis.
And while those may sometimes be interesting and handy, they don't carry much weight as I am not a mind reader.
I'm also going to inevitably step on a lot of toes, but lets try:
- Primacy effect: a type of cognitive bias that favors the position we are told first. And almost everyone is taught the pronatalist position, implicitly and explicitly, from a young age.
- Normalcy bias: a type of cognitive bias that favors what is considered normal. Procreation is considered 'normal'. Humans do it, all living creatures do it, so it must be ok.
- Confirmation bias: many people desire to have children, and thus they might be biased towards an interpretation of reality in which having children is good.
- Retroactive justification: many people have already had children, so they might be biased towards an interpretation of reality in which their choice was justified.
Honorable mention:
- Savior image: one reason I have often seen espoused here is that humanity would cease to exist without procreation. While that is undeniably true, it also suggests that they see the inherent problem with procreation, but choose to procreate anyway as a sort of personal sacrifice to the greater good of humanity. I've always found this one quite humorous, because it suggests the person views themselves as carrying the weight of humanity's survival on their shoulders - a savior figure, if you will. I also don't think there's anyone who genuinely believes this, and that it is more likely a variation on confirmation bias.
Anyway, this is a fun exercise, but it's also a bit cheap. Don't take it too serious.
While I find myself leaning strongly towards the antinatalist side (when compelled by reason, I find I have no choice in that matter), I am still very much part of the active debate and don't consider myself "an antinatalist". I respect everyone who continues to weigh arguments from both sides.
Excellent points.. I was going to write something similar, but this is better.
Quoting Isaac
It forces something to happen to someone and what is forced is significant, etc. etc.. That's all that matters in this argument.
Does it force something to happen to soldiers? is conscription a force which imposes on soldiers?
This is as bullshit a sophistry as I've seen in a while...This goes up there with medieval apologetics...
Do you believe that a person can be caused to exist in the world just like the soldier is caused? I'm sure you would say yes.. THAT is the imposition.. The forcing of the civilian to soldier is the force. The forcing from not-person to person is the force. Ironically, both inescapable (in theory) except through punishment in one and death in the other.
Yep. agree with all that. Conscription forces civilians to be soldiers. Procreation forces gametes to be people.
So we're on the same page. Great. Now what's wrong with forcing a gamete (a mindless-cell) to do/be anything apart from the consequences? (you said your ethics were not consequentialist)
Why does this matter? The gametes are set into motion to be a person.. At the time the person becomes a person THAT is the imposition.. As you said, doesn't matter if it is instantaneous or 9 months..
I mean this goes back to the lava baby yet again.. We agree that bringing a baby into a lava pit is bad..
Antinatalists say the lava pit is the necessary conditions of the world. Don't create that for others unnecessarily if it is not purely utopian, but rather requires burdens of known and unknown kinds/degrees. But you see that is now getting to the argument at hand, which I have been trying to do instead of whether arguing whether something that is caused to be is "forced". It certainly is, even if prior to the "person born" is a non-person.. Because at some point X a person IS born, and THAT is the thing we are discussing. It's simply displacement of time and we have discussed this a while ago.
Creating the soldier..takes time.. Creating the human takes time.. The process by which when that person becomes a soldier/human THAT is when there is something we are discussing.. Well, not even I should say, because it is also the attempt to get them there in that state of affairs and whether that attempt should be done to get them there.. But yeah.
Because you said your ethics were not consequentialist. So I'm asking what the moral issue is with forcing my will on a mindless gamete , if not the consequences.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No, there's no imposition at that time, the imposition was before. There's consequences at that time.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes, that sounds about right. The world is just one giant bubbling lava pit - and you don't see how that assessment is just your own mental neuroses? No one else thinks the world is just a bubbling lava pit
Quoting schopenhauer1
Then we are discussing consequences. Not impositions. I impose my will on a gamete. The consequence is a person (with all the suffering and joy that entails)
This is more sophistry around the word consequences. Consequentialism, basically looks at how good or bad the consequences are of an action. Deontology would simply focus on the rightness or wrongness of the action. You are making a category error, misplacing the action with how ethical consequentialism bases its theory on the goodness or badness of that action..
The action is imposing on someone. Consequentialists.. especially of the utilitarian variety.. will essentially reduce to a kind of moral statistics. Deontology (in my characterization at least) is more binary. It is or is not good to do.
Here's an example of deontology:
It is never good to impose significant burdens on others when it is unnecessary to do so (not ameliorating a greater with lesser harm)... Procreation imposes burdens.. It is thus never good to do so...
That's more deontology.. Even though it is based on actions taking place (how you are using "consequences" here".
Here's an example of consequentialism (of utilitarian variety):
IF X amount of benefit is created from the process of procreation (and usually for the greatest amount of Y agents), then procreation may be good. In this, the consequence that is important is the amount of benefits created.
No the action is imposing on a non-person. You said so here...
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
Procreation imposes burdens on gametes. You admitted as much here...
Quoting schopenhauer1
So either you're arguing from a deontological position that we ought not impose our will on mindless cells, or you're arguing that the consequences of doing so on the consequent person are to be avoided for some reason.
One is about impositions, the other about consequences. @schopenhauer1 said his ethics doesn't judge consequences, so we're left with the imposition on its own, absent of consequences, being morally bad. Since the imposition is on a mindless cell, I'm struggling to see how it has any moral component to it at all.
If we allow a judgement of consequences, then it all makes sense. The consequence of birthing a baby into a lava pit. The consequence of making a gamete into a person. The consequence of turning a civilian into a soldier, the consequence of pulling the trigger...
It seems to me imposing on someone and forcing someone to undergo consequences is the same thing.
I think what argues is that impositions are immoral based on the intention to impose, thereby the intention is all that is needed, and it doesn't depend on the consequences.
Yep. I'd agree.
Quoting Tzeentch
Right. But what's immoral about imposing on a gamete?
Quoting Benkei
One takes what one can get.
For one, the intention to force a human being to live.
A human being is already alive by definition, how can I intend to force one to be?
You didn't say 'create a human being' you said 'force a human being'. Two completely different verbs.
Creating brings something into existence.
Forcing imposes your will on something already in existence.
They are two totally different actions.
What other being?
But the child they wish to have doesn't exist, so how can they force it to be anything?
So I've seen you still have a misunderstanding of what consequentialism means and deontology. Deontology can be ABOUT actions ("consequences").. All actions in the world play out as consequences.. That's just cause and effect. Rather, deontology does not put "good/bad" values on the consequences (what plays out), but whether the action (consequences) are right or wrong IN THE FIRST PLACE.
And thus I will repeat.. A deontologist would say something like.. "It is always WRONG to burden people unnecessarily (and what that means)".. It doesn't matter how many "benefits" are calculated as a result.
Consequentialists would add up all the benefits and aggregate it and determine based on this kind of calculus whether it has been beneficial.. And you can have act and rule consequentialism, etc. but that's the gist of it.
Their intention to what? I thought we were talking about their intention to force a gamete to become a person. Now you're saying they intend to force a child in some way. What child? The child they're going to have? What do they intend to force on this child?
I understand quite well enough. I agree that...
Quoting schopenhauer1
Who are prospective parents burdening unnecessarily with the necessary conditions of existence?
The gamete already has that requirement, so does the embryo, so does the child. Nothing has been burdened by the parents. The whole point of necessary conditions of existence is that they're necessary, not something I have in my power to bestow or remove.
Existence. That's the parents' intention - to force a child to exist. In other, less harsh words - to create a new child.
Boy this is getting tiresome pointing out the obvious, isn't it? Ha
He has a problem with the idea that the term "imposing" can include turning X into Y state of affairs. That is to say..at T1.. they set in motion would would become a person at TX, and it is TX that is the event at which the imposition took place.
Causing someone to be in conditions Y, is the event we are discussing. Should you cause someone to be in those conditions Y? The parent forced their will to create this person with conditions Y. There is no sophistry that can work around it.
Do you force a soldier to become a soldier? No.
You can't force a child to exist. They already exist.
I suppose technically you could intend to force a child to exists in the same way as I could indent to pick up a mountain, or fly to the moon, but I don't see the moral relevance and certainly such lunacy is not common.
Quoting Isaac
Are we done here? I think we're done here.
You know this stuff in in print above don't you?
Everyone can read what you actually wrote and what I actually responded to.
Rewriting history doesn't tend to work less than an hour after the event when what happened is in print. Try a little while later.
I guess lava baby was properly cared for because you dont believe anything is done to it. Yep. THATS not lunacy.
What?
Nothing was done to the baby born into a lava pit in your sophistically twisted conception.
I have no idea what you're blathering about. The baby born into a lava pit was burnt alive in lava. I'd say that's something done to it. The parent, knowing full well it was in the birth canal, dropped into a pit of lava.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument which is about the object on which a person's will is imposed. The closest I can imagine to your example would be if one were of the view that human beings did not have any will, or moral rights until they left the birth canal. If that were the case then yes, I would argue that the parent's will to birth a baby over a lava pit was imposed, not on a person, but on a {whatever we might call the baby in the birth canal}.
The result of such a decision would be a considerable amount of pain with no benefit, it would be a pretty evil thing to do.
Quoting Isaac
:chin:
Quoting Isaac
Ok.....
Quoting Isaac
Yep. So it looks like you are agreeing that the parent's will to the birth of a baby (over a lava pit.. but could be any X condition) was imposed. I don't see how the lava pit changes anything in the structure of the statement.
Cutting a tree down does not force a log to become a log, I don't impose my will on the log, I impose my will on the tree, I force a tree to become a log.
Conscription does not force a soldier to become a soldier, I don't impose my will on the soldier, I impose my will on the civilian, I force a civilian to become a soldier.
Imprisonment does not force a prisoner to become a prisoner, I don't impose my will on the prisoner, I impose my will on the free man, I force a free man to become a prisoner.
And so on... I do not force nor impose my will on a person in making a person out of a gamete.
...
Then there's the question of whether its a good thing. Is it a good thing to turn trees into logs? It is a good thing to turn civilians into soldiers. Is it fair to make free men prisoners?
So. Is it a good thing to make a gamete a person? This can be addressed, but it can't be addressed using arguments about imposing on people or forcing people. Neither of those two things have happened.
The annoying thing about your argument is that in most cases I think the answer to that question is "no". There's a really important argument against having children. It's being buried because you want to blame someone else for your lack of effort.
No man, you can't go back because it goes against your tedious point. You admitted your position here:
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
Right, the parent is imposing their will and that leads to a person born. We can call it different things for the debate, but it actually doesn't change the material thing at hand behind the debate.. I would like to move forward on whether it is indeed good for the parent to create someone (they are imposing their will such that a person is born where one would not be because they decided to do this).
Quoting Isaac
There are important arguments against having children. Creating someone who will be burdened unnecessarily is one major one. Utilitarian (negative or otherwise) arguments are just icing that provide more evidence to this logical cake.
We already have. We've argued this point before. You dodged having to concede either that it was good, or that your philosophy was essentially selfish and not ethical at all, by starting to talk about imposing one's will on someone. Hence the importance of the argument that one is not imposing one's will on someone, one is merely imposing one's will (on a mindless object) in such a way as it will eventually become a someone.
If one is reasonably sure (after having done their due diligence) that the situation they're planning to bring about will be a better one for the world in general (their community specifically) then it's a perfectly good thing to do (in ethical terms).
If one imagines their community '+ child' and imagines their community without and can reasonably say the community is better off with the child (that community now including the imagined child, of course), then their behaviour is ethical. It is good that they try to bring about that situation.
... That's it.
There's no question of whether it's right to 'impose one's will without consent' - one imposed one's will on a mindless object, so there's no ethical component there.
There's no question of special consideration for the so called 'one who is affected by that imposition' - the whole community are affected by it. The resulting child is not magically affected more than the elderly couple who now won't starve in their dotage.
There's no question of someone being now 'burdened with existence'. Every entity is burdened with existence. At most you could say that a consequence of procreation is the awareness of that burden (which the gamete wouldn't have had if one hadn't forcibly changed it's level of consciousness) - but since the overwhelming majority of people simply don't mind, this burden seems small in the weighing.
...
And no, it's nothing to do with 'moral calculus'. One could just as easily frame this in denotological terms. "One ought to do what one can to improve the lot of one's community" seems a maxim one would wish generalised.
Distinction that makes no difference and why its sophistry. A person shooting the gun is the factor that kills the person. But you know that. Why you keep on the point, is obviously suspect. Or you think theres a really good point, theres somehow profoundly missed. Its not. Youre just being willfully pedantic for arguments sake.
Quoting Isaac
If you think its best to force me (cause it to come about such that :roll:) I work for a company the rest of my life unless I kill myself, no amount of research or outcome would justify that.
Quoting Isaac
Thats it? Anyone can justify doing anything that affects anothers life significantly in the name of community. A slippery slope! Also no amount of research predicts the unknown harms that result. Things change literally day to day, moment to moment. Youre not a god that knows exactly how much harm will take place. More importantly, who are you to judge of what is acceptable for someone else to endure? Why should they even have to endure it? Lifes slate of choices and many harms doesnt have to be lived because you, the existing person with the ability to procreate deems or so.
Quoting Isaac
Yikes, this is a terrible attempt at causative ethics. No I didnt do it, I merely pulled the trigger.
Quoting Isaac
You wouldnt kidnap someone to take care of the elderly, or would you? There is no difference that one person already exists. AGAIN, lava pit baby. mother thought lava put was a ritual that would save the community. It doesnt matter, even if she was RIGHT!!
Quoting Isaac
You dont get to do significant things to people because other people say they dont mind it. Peoples attitudes change over time. Its the tail wagging the dog. Rather, what is right to do is not about public attitudes. If everyone suddenly became super religious, and 10% of people dissented, it doesnt mean freedom of worship is now not a thing anymore. And yes, every entity is burdened with existence, but it is only sentient life that knows, feels, is aware, of it and can suffer. So to make a sentience is to make something that suffers. Ethically, being the judge that significant harm is acceptable to create for someone because you think you have reasons is problematic.
I don't.
Quoting schopenhauer1
How so?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I see. So the lava baby's mother should perhaps just carry on. After all, who can tell what will happen in the future? It's such a mystery. Maybe the lava will do the baby good.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Unless you plan on becoming a hermit, you are constantly deciding what others have to endure.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Someone has to. To give a simple example, either the elderly have to endure starvation because there's no younger generation to look after them, or the younger generation have to endure some suffering associated with being alive to feed the elderly. The non-suffering option is to make life for the youngsters really good.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Nothing causative about it. It's assigning the object of an imposition, not the consequence of one.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I would if I had to, yes. why on earth would you let hundreds of people starve just to preserve one person's autonomy?
Quoting schopenhauer1
You do.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not in the least bit problematic. As I said before, if you want a set of rules which essentially say we must never ever impose anything on individuals for the benefit of the community, then you don't have an ethical rule, you just have a neo-liberal political agenda. Put down the Rand and back away.
Yet, somehow procreation gets a pass. And THIS might be the central point that we should be arguing. Is life REALLY that variegated enough to count as acceptable? In fact, is any amount of variety of choices enough? I would say, short of an infinite amount of choices that somehow conforms to an ever adjusted utopia (for the person experiencing it), no amount is enough.. But even if we were to give some leeway in a mostly utopia, this existence certainly isn't it.
That is to say, you likely disagree with forcing someone to work at your company for the rest of your life because you think this is too limiting in someone's ability to choose what to do with their life. But my main point in the OP on the first argument (about choices) is that there are de facto choices in life itself that can never be overcome. Survival, and survival in a relative-context (socio-cultural-economic-political context), is one major de facto "choice" made for us by simply living (as you acknowledged earlier). I call these kind of de facto choices, necessary choices/conditions.
The problem also pointed out in the OP is the following: Who really knows what are acceptable necessary conditions to start for someone else? My answer, no one. No one has that omnicience. Rather, it is taken as a "right" that the parent gets to decide that the conditions of this life are what other people should be living out and experiencing. But these range of choices that we agree are necessary, are simply, by fiat of the parent's decision, simply taken as their divine right to make for another person.
The poor logic goes something like: "I deem X conditions as a good enough slate of conditions/choices, therefore ANOTHER person should too". Nothing else in this world seems to be justified in this way. It would be a horrible person who went about their day, significantly affecting others in what choices others have to make, simply because they deem it right to do. Mind you, even if a person said to themselves, "I represent the MAJORITY of humanity's wishes and will thus so limit others in their conditions because I have a "mandate" from the "majority".. This would be woefully wrong and unjust justification for such action. It is at root, what I call, "aggressive paternalism" and using whatever post-facto justifications afterwards to make it seem okay to do. So, the illusion that there are more "choices" in life, doesn't negate that THESE choices (the de facto ones of living itself) are indeed (aggressively so) deemed "appropriate" to start for another person.
Quoting Isaac
Because a majority of people think X, a basic right is taken away... People think dear Trump to be the best leader, therefore Trump can do no wrong.. We see it happening right now.. Take top secret documents from White House, perhaps he should get a pass if enough people think he represents them, and so whatever he does can't be wrong.. Even if 95% of Americans loved the guy, he should still be kept under the same rule of law. But just as easily it can go in the negative form... The majority think that slavery is acceptable, therefore slavery is acceptable. The majority of people think that one religion is the true religion, therefore other beliefs cannot be believed.. The majority of people think.. any of it....
Quoting Isaac
In that situation, it is certainly a known harm.. Not much mystery. But in life in general, there are other known harms.. but THESE are deemed as acceptable (but why do they get to decide that these are acceptable for someone else?).. However, there are also unknown harms.. things parents didn't anticipate (nor could).. and THESE alone disqualify the decision as just to do on someone else's behalf. Again, @Tzeentch's analogy of the parachute opening 90% of the time should apply here. Gambling with people's lives is not something people should do lightly, or at all.
Quoting Isaac
Sophistic nonsense. I don't want to go into this again about causation, but when deciding an ethical decision, it is the person involved and their actions that matter, not simply the action in isolation.. It's the person who decided to pull a trigger pointing it at someone, not the fact that the bullet is the actual thing that hit someone. This is too obvious even for you to be throwing out this kind of red herring. In other words, it's irrelevant that it wasn't the "person" but the "bullet" that killed the person.. The "person" was the one who decided to shoot the person dead! At some point X, there is a person in the world. THAT person was created by something (namely, parents). That something was a decision (to conceive and carry out to term). A person existed where there was no person. Whether that person was a sentient/alive "person" before X time, doesn't mater that at X time they do exist. You can also argue how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.. you can argue anything and think it relevant, but this particular thing you have is not relevant, and if you know it, it's bad faith arguing as it's red herring at this point.
Quoting Isaac
Because it's unethical to use people, even for what seems like a good cause. What if the elderly people protested and said, "No, no please stop doing that! I rather starve than have you use people for some cause!". Would you still do it? But this puts you in double binds because here we have a "majority" saying X (seemingly your only way of judging things), yet in YOUR estimation this IS the best ethical thing (i.e. greatest good). Interesting...
Quoting Isaac
Then this is clearly where our differences lie most plainly.
Quoting Isaac
This is just straw man characterization. At the end of the day it is about what we want to see from others and whether wanting to see stuff from others means forcing the situation onto others.
It's hard to generalize when speaking of so many people. I do not doubt that many of them suffer. But they don't solely suffer, there are other things in life too, like joy and love and laughter.
The point is that most people (not all) prefer to go on living, till' it's time to go - as everyone eventually will.
My point is that there is a good reason the religions exist right?
Quoting Manuel
Just another version of "why don't you commit suicide?"
Many reasons surely.
Incidentally, the post you replied to is 8 months old. I have no interest in discussing anti-natalism, maybe others will. I find it quite tedious and boring.
If you want to discuss Mainländer's metaphysics and epistemology, then we can do that, as that's quite fascinating.
Okay. I mean you posted on a forum, you should expect people to respond.
Quoting Manuel
Daft stuff altogether.
Suffering I think.
And I have replied.
Again, 8 months is kind of a long time for a discussion that was meant for a different poster and a different context in mind.
There are no new arguments to be given for or against AN. It boils down to you thinking life sucks and me thinking it does not.
Ok. Fine.
This kind of trivializing isn't even getting at the actual argument at hand. It's not about views of life, but at what is morally justified in terms of action towards others.
In other words, these kind of antinatalist questions come down to what counts as moral, and are much deeper than, "you like blue and I like green".
For example, you said:
Quoting Manuel
I can phrase the argument as: "Do you believe it is morally justifiable to cause unnecessary (absolutely avoidable) harm to others and determine the conditions of their existence, based on the limited socio-cultural ways that humans must endure by default in this universe, which individuals have no control over upon birth?"
You can say, "Yes, I believe unnecessarily causing people to experience X, Y, Z limited choices, and unnecessarily harming others, and using them is perfectly fine".
These are the kinds of the deeper issues at hand. It's not just a matter of opinion, but informs our view of justice in the world, and justified action more generally. I would say such a view of procreation is callous, not totally thought out to its moral infractions, and using people. Going ahead and making a significant decision that life is what another person should experience, causing them unnecessary (avoidable) harm and imposing burdens (impositions), EVEN with the intention or hope that they would also have good experiences, isn't justifiable. Continuing to justify causing harm to others is a slippery slope towards accepting injustice, which can have far-reaching political consequences since it affects how others are impacted by individual decisions.
It is also about informing people as to what an imposition is, why imposing unnecessarily upon others is wrong, and why creating impositions for others is equally wrong, when it is avoidable and unnecessary to do unto another.
Since all other decisions relate to intra-worldly affairs, they inherently involve moral ambiguity, and require balancing different ethical considerations. In contrast, choosing not to procreate is an inter-worldly decision that can be made without any moral hedging or ambiguity and perfectly aligns with the principles of non-harm and respect for others. A state of affairs will occur that person will NOT be harmed, NOT be forced into this universe's limited choices, etc. Overlooking harm and downplaying it so that one can see X (even if it is "good experiences"), is still violating the dignity and respect of that person who will thus be harmed as a result of this imposition.
You see that this goes back to the argument of "inexistent being" being harmed. You've discussed this several times, probably too much. But a lot of this hinges precisely on that.
We know the formulaic response - because repetitious.
Two options: either be somewhat smirk and say, I don't care about potential suffering so long as you also count potential happiness, which makes me very immoral in your eyes or I can say that I think your views of suffering are quite distorted to the extent that it actually clouds other everything else life can provide.
I wouldn't be so superior sounding when passing such judgements.
Finally, also an issue that surely has come up - that people who have AN views tend to be depressed in some manner. This is claimed to be irrelevant to the central AN argument.
But if AN didn't have this kind of depression, I seriously doubt it would've ever arisen.
And I say all this while having some AN sympathies actually. But beating a bull to death, then stabbing its corpse, dousing it on fire, throwing a nuclear bomb on it and shooting it off to the sun, isn't really productive. There is no word that goes beyond "overkill" that I know of - but I don't see what success you've had.
Something has gone wrong here.
Youre playing with peoples lives, not the AN. The burden of proof is on you and cannot simply be you think its fine and that it aint that bad is it? You see where that kind of self entitled deeming to do harm leads, if applied in any other case right? Me unnecessarily forcing an avoidable imposition on you because I deemed it right in some calculation I made- how is that ever right?
Quoting Manuel
Red herring and ad hom, youre right, it is.
Quoting Manuel
What does success to you look like in this forum?
The most success Ive seen is posters display how many times they can sound like an ahole by way of smug trolling. And indeed if that is success it is in spades here.
No @Manuel has it right here. You've spoken at length about wanting to find a 'community of catharsis' These posts are exactly about you and your feeling, not any deeper moral point. Indeed when the moral argument is countered you invariably dismiss that counter with something along the lines of "you've had your say, I want to hear from others", a 'casting around' for agreement, and disparaging all others as 'trolls'.
You've plumbed the depths of the moral argument, it's apparent to anyone even taking a passing interest in these threads that they all reach the same point. A disagreement about the moral significance of the fact that the person-to-be is not yet born. You claim that it's not significant and as such making decisions for them leads to a slippery slope (or a contradiction). The rest of the world think the difference is significant and as such taking a decision for them (because they can't) is a perfectly moral thing to do and faces no such contradiction with their moral behaviour toward persons who already exist.
That there is a difference between persons who are yet to exist and persons who already exist is undeniable. So all we're left with is how we handle that difference morally. Since there are no other examples in life, you can't appeal to consistency, and since there are no objective moral laws, you can't appeal to authority.
Were you to be interested in the arguments one might expect that to be and end to it. But these threads just seem to come back again and again. Fishing for people who agree with you is not the same thing as showing an interest in the arguments. It's an emotional, not an academic activity.
I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking catharsis (I don't think it's healthy, but then I'm not your therapist, so that's no concern of mine), but it is unpleasant to dismiss as 'trolls' anyone taking, at face value, an appeal to mutuality dressed up as a moral investigation.
Oh boy, I guess another person saying that makes it true!
Who countered what?
Quoting Isaac
The rest of the world are individual decisions of people. Many wrong. Lot of wrong choices made by lots of people everyday.
Quoting Isaac
No, you know I can bring up the usual examples of egregious acts that you could prevent that everyone would agree with but make glaring exceptions for procreation.
Quoting Isaac
I dont fish for any agreement. Its a nice change but clearly I keep replying to people as yourself. Almost every one of my posts about this is with someone who disagrees. Look at post history if you care to see the evidence.
Quoting Isaac
Yea yeah. Again, its not the AN making decisions on others behalf and messing with other peoples lives. The burden of proof is on the one doing the affecting. And me thinks it good despite causing suffering and person doesnt exist yet so I can do anything that will cause negative thing to someone in the future are extremely weak tea.
Nah - it's called a "red herring" and a ad hom merely because the topic does not what to be discussed - it is actually relevant. Why? Because if people did not feel this way, the argument given would not arise.
I have read several of your posts on the topic, you don't need to keep putting "imposition" and "forced" in bold - I get that point very well. But it's simply not convincing.
You can be a happy go lucky antinatalist. And there are! Doesnt change the argument anymore than depressed people against poor leadership. Depressed people against theft or happy people who support right to die.
Quoting Manuel
Some people will never be convinced regarding many things, pro choice, etc. That an individual isnt particularly convinced doesnt affect the aptness, just displays the view of a particular person. If I truly cared for that particular person to be convinced, Id ask them if perhaps convention itself has gotten in the way of moral reasoning or perhaps why causing harm unnecessarily is justified, or how causing harm in the hopes of causing good is not using someone to see some outcome and why this is acceptable. Id question that persons moral framework. Id mention how this is the only time someone can perfectly not cause unnecessary harm, and not hedge.
Then you go on to give the standard reply that pain is an obvious evil and that no one deserves it, yet people aren't owed pleasure, etc., etc.
I doubt that real life can be reduced to such axiomatic schemes. The point, which has been stressed ad nauseum, is that most people do not view life in terms of pain alone. You can say these people are deluding themselves or something along those lines. Yet the fact remains that most people don't buy this argument, no matter how much you stress the forced aspect.
I have sympathy for your view - I do think that there is too much pain and destruction and misery and depression, partly (only partly) for these reasons I don't have children. The difference being that I also recognize that there are good things in life, things which make it worth living, even if there is pain - all these things are imposed on us by life.
The mere fact of being able to listen (and appreciate!) music, watch a beautiful sunset, fall in love, be able to experience the universe is a privilege known to only one species in the universe.
And yes, there is pain and suffering too, but it shall pass, as shall we.
But this doesn't enter into your calculus - or if does, it is not given the proper attention such topics deserve, as evidenced by the fact that you return to people not forcing others to have creatures who can have such privileges (or curse in your case.)
So I don't buy your argument. What else is there to say? Are you going to impose on me more arguments?
What does it matter? Some racists will remain racists. At one point, let's say, 51% of people were overtly racist. And so? Providing some popular concept of morality as the justification for action, isn't cutting it either. So where does that leave your argument other than the fact that "most people" think X, when it is wrong?
Quoting Manuel
Then you are subtly changing the argument from worth starting to worth continuing. As you recognized in my argument, no one is obligated to ensure someone exists for happy things, but certainly preventing avoidable harms is. What would make creating harms to bring someone benefits ON THEIR BEHALF (imposed) be ever justified in your view? No amelioration was needed. This is PURELY creating unnecessary harms without any mitigating reasons other than you want to see X outcome.
Quoting Manuel
This is actually a lack of empathy for people who have severe X issue (mental, physical, whatever). And contingency is a bitch. You think you are immune from it until it happens to you. But that is secondary to my main argument which is that aggressive paternalistic impositions under ANY circumstance is not justified, even moderately pained (or pain free) lives. "This too shall pass" is trite, trivializing of suffering, and short-sighted in considering these situations.
Quoting Manuel
I guess don't reply to me.. But this just states my main point again, in life you CAN'T avoid doing harm whereby in the case of not having a child, indeed a violation did not take place, completely with no ameliorating.
This is such a bizarre counter. You're saying here that virtually the entire human race thinking something is right still doesn't make it right, but in the same breath you're trying to suggest the mere fact that you think something is wrong might actually make it wrong.
If the entire human race can't make something right or wrong just by thinking it is so, then what superpower do you have that makes you think that you alone thinking it wrong might be a compelling argument?
For a long time, most of humanity thought that the sun revolved around the Earth. It's lack of perspective.
It's also a blindspot, I would imagine for most. It is so conventional as to seem not up for ethical debate. But if you were to deign yourself to be a type of person who believes in certain principles, this too would fall under those principles (non-harm, autonomy, etc.).
I liken it to vegetarianism. It may be right, but it takes a long time for people to catch on to things. Slavery was around and condoned as part of life for thousands of years before the last couple hundred years. Some conventions are easier to slough away than others. Clearly, slavery was an easier one to universally condemn (but even that took wars, legislation, and the like).
Again, blindspot, convention, preferences conflicting with values can all play a part. But simply people having a preference that is very conventionally popular, doesn't mean ipso facto, it must be therefore ethical.
Well unless I speak of the living, I cannot speak at all. For as you know, people do not exist have no moral rights - they don't exist!
Therefore, I am not "subtly changing" anything. All people, including newly born people, have a due of pain and joy - what % and how to quantify this, is quite impossible.
The only thing I actually have a problem with - besides the repetition of the subject matter - is that you think your judgment is fantastically superior to the vast majority of everybody. That's quite an extraordinary stance to take.
If there is one thing studying or being interested in philosophy should do to people, is to make them realize the greatest, most brilliant people in history were wrong in most of the things they believed, not only intellectually, but morally too.
That means that you, me and everybody else are likely to be wrong on many - if not most - things. Don't be that confident.
I was simply saying, "Most people" doesn't mean much and I will keep repeating why as I did in my last post (cue slavery and other past conventions that "most people" were at least indifferent to).
Quoting Manuel
So abolitionists should have just shut their yapper up because, they are too confident?
It is laughable that you compare your moral whining to real, actual, legitimate human rights.
You give pessimism a bad name.
It's lack of accuracy, in that case.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No it doesn't. That's the point. Those two principles, in most people, apply to the living. They don't apply to the dead, they don't apply to rocks, and they don't apply to the yet-to-be.
You think they ought to. Everyone else disagrees.
What I'm asking you is why, if you think 10 million people can all be wrong, anyone will find it remotely persuasive that you happen to think this.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Again, I'm not confused about might not making right, I'm confused about why you think "I think so" is a persuasive argument where "10 million people think so" is not.
Circular argument dude. You ALREADY have the conventional notion that slavery is bad. Thats my freakn point.
Because progress isnt always apparent immediately nor maybe ever.
That doesn't answer the question. If 10 million people thinking something is the case is nonetheless unpersuasive, then why would you expect one person thinking it's the case to be persuasive... ever.
It's not about progress, it's about your argument. What do you imagine is persuasive about it, why would you just saying "I think X" persuade people of X when all of humanity ever clearly do not think X?
Slavery wasn't always the case, nor racism. Whole communities of people did not practice either and considered them an abomination. Arguments against them appealed to common beliefs.
Literally no one believes that yet-to-be-born imaginary people should have the same rights to autonomy as actual living people. So your argument doesn't appeal to any common belief, it just claims that the beliefs of all of humanity since the dawn of time, in that respect, are wrong. And are wrong solely because you think so. Nothing more.
It's only circular if you assume you are correct, i.e., that AN is the same as abolitionists fighting against slavery.
The problem is in your assumption. To think you belong in the same boat is quite astonishing.
At least abolitionists were helping living people- you reserve you moral righteousness for those who do not even exist!
I'll let you have the last word here - you obviously enjoy pontificating to those who don't even like children, about how much life sucks.
Enjoy.
The point was that there is a parallel here in that at the time of the abolitionist in the 1700s, they were the MINORITY. It was an example of something that started in a MINORITY position (in fact the minority position throughout all of history until the 1800s), and now has become such the norm that we can now take it for granted that it is outrageous to compare anything to it! I know this is going "whoosh" keep doing the faux indignation.
Quoting Manuel
Well, if you don't believe in future conditionals, counterfactuals or indefinite nouns, that's not my problem. Pontificating rather than procreating. Fine by me.
Same with Cathars, some monks, sages and such in history
Quoting Isaac
The Roman Empire, Greece, had tons of it. Middle Ages had surfs which are practically slaves.
Quoting Isaac
You should be able to memorize my counter arguments by now so Im not going to reieat.
There are no counter arguments.
All you've said is that you think the yet-to-be born ought benefit from exactly the same moral treatment as the already living (particularly in respect to personal autonomy).
You haven't provided any argument at all as to why we ought make that change.