I have read all or some of many of your threads. Discussion after discussion, post after post, paragraph after paragraph, word after word. Long posts that finally boil down to just one argument.
[1] It is immoral to make decisions for another person without their agreement.
[2] Before they are born, children are non-existent persons.
[3] It is impossible to obtain agreement from a non-existent person.
[4] Therefore, it is immoral to cause children to be born. — T Clark
Response to 1 - We make decisions for other people, especially children, all the time without their approval. We take them to the doctor; make them take medicine; make them have operations; make them go to school; punish them for bad behavior....
Response to 2 - Non-existent persons are not persons.
Response to 3 - Even if non-existent children were persons, the power of consent for children resides in their parents. — T Clark
unnecessary (not for amelioration of a greater for lesser suffering for that person) — schopenhauer1
non-trivial — schopenhauer1
But to whom does that matter? Certainly, not the non-existent being, as that makes no sense. — schopenhauer1
1) A person is not born, and a person is not imposed upon — schopenhauer1
That’s what you meant by unnecessary? That’s ridiculous though. You remember the life guard example right? In that example, by this definition, waking up the life guard would be “unnecessary suffering” and so would be wrong. Since the suffering alleviated is not the lifeguard’s. — khaled
I guess when we are arguing, yes.That’s really where the core of the disagreement lies. — khaled
Not sure what you mean. No one exists yet to need amelioration.This also applies to (1) in exactly, precisely, the same way. — khaled
This is not a good thing, as there is no one it is good for.
It’s as good as imposing traffic laws on a planet with no inhabitants. — khaled
I think that is not charitable that everything I've written boils down to the consent argument. — schopenhauer1
It's not good (wrong) to create unnecessary (not for amelioration of a greater for lesser suffering for that person), non-trivial burdens/impositions/harms on someone else's behalf — schopenhauer1
similar to Kant's second formulation of not using people, and treating individuals as ends in themselves. — schopenhauer1
But to whom does that matter? Certainly, not the non-existent being, as that makes no sense — schopenhauer1
So there is some asymmetry here between 1 and 2 where 1 seems waited as more important to consider than 2 — schopenhauer1
This is your judgement of prospective parents motivations. Based on my own experience, both as a parent and observer of other parents, it's not correct for most of us. If you were to make the statement that having children solely for one's own personal gratification is immoral, I'd be more open to agreement, or at least negotiations. — T Clark
The child is already born and would be a dereliction of duty as a parent to not prevent greater harm. — schopenhauer1
I guess when we are arguing, yes. — schopenhauer1
You are actually making my argument. No person, means no goods of life. That no one is harmed is good though.. — schopenhauer1
Not sure what you mean. — schopenhauer1
Rather I see it as just not fully understanding the extent of the unnecessary, non-trivial burdens put upon another person. — schopenhauer1
That could be the same for 1 too. Don't you think? — dimosthenis9
But why 1 is more important than 2? — dimosthenis9
In general I get your point but for me that question can never be valid since it has no practical use. It can never happen so what to discuss about?? — dimosthenis9
Life is given to all of us without asking. But the "fair" thing for that is that you can also choose to end it whenever you want. It would be totally unfair only if you couldn't. — dimosthenis9
But another thing people seem to think is that I am trying to personalize this. I don't go around shaming pregnant people or anything. In other words, I don't think parents are trying to be malicious. I think it's wrong to procreate, but I don't think it's out of bad intent or think them horrible people. — schopenhauer1
Since when is it that when we can’t ask for consent, we assume it is given? — khaled
Let’s assume that a couple has hidden genes that would result in their child having a terrible illness. We’re talking, missing eyes, broken limbs, broken organs, etc. Do you think it’s fine for that couple to have that kid?
The idea that having kids is always fine at all times is silly, even to non antinatalists — khaled
That's a fallacy.. What if you never wanted to have the option be to live life or do the generally painful, scary thing of killing yourself? — schopenhauer1
Harm was prevented which was good. Good was prevented, but how is that bad or good if there's no one there to care? There seems to be an asymmetry where prevented bad that could have happened is good. Prevented good, not so much a bad thing (or good). — schopenhauer1
I never thought you would shame prospective parents or that you think they are horrible people. On the other hand, you do question their intent. Your argument about using children for one's own personal gratification shows that. — T Clark
My point is that is totally useless, imo at least, to discuss issues that can never happen. You simply can't decide for life. It is given to you. The decision isn't made by us. At least I find it fair that you were given the option to end it. For me it balances the non asking life. — dimosthenis9
Good that was prevented is bad. You can't claim that preventing harm is good but preventing good then who cares?Either you will say that prevented harm also who cares.. Or preventing good is bad. You can't have it all. — dimosthenis9
Pick a consistent basis. Either you’re looking at it from the perspective of “How would this affect an existent person” or from the perspective of “How would this affect a non existent” (it wouldn’t). So either both neutral, or: no suffering = good and no pleasure = bad. — khaled
One situation brings an injustice (born with no "no option" excepting the very difficult prospect of slow suicide through passive starvation/depredation or faster means of suicide) and one situation simply doesn't (not having the child). — schopenhauer1
Harm that is prevented seems asymmetrical to good that is prevented. If a harm is avoided (that could have happened), is this not a good thing? If good was prevented, it would only be bad if someone was there to exist to be deprived of it.. An actual person existing doesn't seem to affect the goodness of a possible harm that was prevented though. That seems always good, no matter what. It's good as a state of affairs, whereas the state of affairs of "no good happening" seems to only matter in the relative sense of a person needing to be deprived of it to begin with — schopenhauer1
Anyway I repeat to you that the "unjust" argument is solved for me with the suicide option. And if Antinatalists want also just for parents well they have it too!Also the parent that "shouldn't have the kid" gets "punished" having to suffer the loss of his kid for the rest of his life. — dimosthenis9
Let's agree with disagree on that. I really can't understand why you make that distinction. I understand your arguments but really I can't accept them. Why you find that asymmetry and the way you "measure" it, I can't agree on that. So better to stop arguing about that,i think,and move on. — dimosthenis9
life is known to be the condition for which harms take place (obviously). — schopenhauer1
Happiness may be "good", but not enacting it seems to not matter. No harm seems to be more important than no happy. — schopenhauer1
"What makes suffering so bad compared to the non-existent good"? That is where axiologies basically stop. — schopenhauer1
Now I get why you and me disagree then. I think you just mentioned the "root" here.
For me that's ONLY how humans has made life seem. And how they think about it.
My cosmo theory is very different than yours. Life is a joke! Even a bad joke is nothing more than a joke!
And now your nickname makes more sense to me. No offense here, just telling you what I exactly thought when I read that. — dimosthenis9
But why?? Why seems like that?! And as you keep writing "seems!"." Seems" means "not sure" also. Anyway we keep repeating the same things here. — dimosthenis9
someone in utter pain isn't going to necessarily be able to wave such things away.. One has to eat.. etc. Joke assume easy-to-deal-with and light. Surely, someone must find ways to live in the word, lest they die (they must "deal with" inescapably lest they die by starvation). Surely, contingent, harmful events might happen to someone as well. Structural and contingent harms happen..That's no joke. — schopenhauer1
This isn't the case with happiness-bringing. — schopenhauer1
Lower perspective: Assuming, people exist who can evaluate good or bad in the FIRST PLACE..
An actual person (that is being affected) does not need to exist in order for prevention of harm to be good. An actual person (that is being affected) does need to exist for prevention of good to be bad. — schopenhauer1
You either agree imposing harm on another is wrong (if it's unnecessary and non-trivial) or not. — schopenhauer1
That harmful burdens and suffering is not good, and thus not good to enact on another. Happiness may be "good", but not enacting it seems to not matter in a moral sense in the same way not enacting harm is. — schopenhauer1
I will go back to things like Willy Wonka's limited choices, and the Exploited Worker, and that is not even discussing agreed-upon, contingent (non-structural yet likely) harms such as physical ailments, accidents, disasters, and the rest. — schopenhauer1
Of course not it isn't right. — dimosthenis9
Where exactly is the problem? Why his choice is wrong and yours is right??
My point is the same as I wrote before: it is NOT a matter of right or wrong. — dimosthenis9
Of course not it isn't right. When you know that your kid will face serious illness, it's not right at all to have it. — dimosthenis9
We will never agree on that. Let's face it. It's OK. Not saying that I m surely right and you are wrong. We just think different on that. — dimosthenis9
someone in utter pain isn't going to necessarily be able to wave such things away.. One has to eat.. etc. Joke assume easy-to-deal-with and light. Surely, someone must find ways to live in the word, lest they die (they must "deal with" inescapably lest they die by starvation). Surely, contingent, harmful events might happen to someone as well. Structural and contingent harms happen..That's no joke.
— schopenhauer1
Why you think that a person who suffers (and there might be probably billions as we are talking) don't kill himself?? Cause they STILL answer "yes" to life. Life to most people is much more preferable than "nothing","0", even if they suffer! — dimosthenis9
Point is: You yourself don’t believe in the asymmetry “It’s wrong to do something that risks harming someone no matter how much pleasure that could bring as enacting pleasure is not a duty” — khaled
There could be no valid research as to measure that.Even if you could ask all people on earth and the majority told you they are happier, how can you be sure that they would tell the truth?. So stop that research thing. — dimosthenis9
We are also cleverer.
— Bartricks
Really?? No further comment... — dimosthenis9
Okay, so all surveys count for nothing. You should contact universities and tell their researchers to stop[ doing them. — Bartricks
Goodness, how silly you are. No wonder you think having kids is morally fine. — Bartricks
How is it not right sometimes and also not a matter of right and wrong? — khaled
Is someone who can afford to give 100 dollars to charity but chooses not to as bad as someone who steals 100 dollars?
Because that seems like it’d follow if you believe that bringing about happiness is as important as not harming. I’m not quite made up on the issue but I do think they’re comparable. — khaled
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.