Why do you think there is any inconsistency between those quotes? — Bartricks

I guess I thought of divine command theory as objective morality rather than a subset of subjective morality. In this context, it appeared like you had changed your mind from morality being subjective, to it being objective.

Why did you think that when I gave - and you quoted - a definition of objective versus subjective?

Objective - in this context - means 'exists extra mentally'. And subjective means 'exists in the mind alone' (it means 'made of subjective states', and those are essentially mental).

Divine command theory is a form of subjectivism. It is just that as the subject in question is not one of us, moral norms become as external to us as they would be if morality were objective.

External to us and 'objective' do not mean the same, but are often conflated. If something is objective, it is external to us. But if something is external to us it is not necessarily objective. Most reason poorly and cannot quickly see this, hence the conflation.

Now that you know my views are well thought through and consistent, address the argument in the OP

Happiness isn't defined by money (many of the happiest people I've met didn't have a lot) but ignorance does undoubtedly play a role in how we act. Reckless procreation is wrong.

Why did you think that when I gave - and you quoted - a definition of objective versus subjective? — Bartricks

Objective morality is all I've ever heard theists argue for.

Florida State University's Department of Philosophy says:

"One of the primary advantages of Divine Command Theory is that it answers why morality is objective. Morality is not just the sum of everyone's opinions about what is right and wrong, but the buck stops, so to speak, with God's views on what is right and wrong. So even though people can disagree about morality, God ultimately determines the content of the moral law".

Source: https://philifefsu.org/its-all-about-god-divine-command-theory/ (You have to click on "It's Not Up to Us" further down the page).

the deserved benefits they create are less than the person they create deserves and so we have an injustice overall, not justice promotion; — Bartricks

So? You've still not demonstrated anything about the degree of this injustice. Some injustices are only minorly bad, some injustices are monstrous. Simply pointing out that the goods of life are insufficient to outweigh the injustice is not evidence that they are insufficient to outweigh the badness this injustice has (which might only be very minor).

if the act is not performed there does not exist a person who is being deprived of the deserved benefits the act would otherwise have created. — Bartricks

Typical of the selfishness of antinatalists. The rest of us non-sociopaths are happy to consider benefits to others as worthy of taking into consideration weighing moral harms.

I don't think that they were trying to be selfish. The argument was that if one didn't procreate, it wouldn't result in the existence of a person who would deserve benefits but be unable to get them. The claim is that it's better to not create someone, even though it's not as if non-existent beings who avoid deprivation gain anything from it—they simply don't exist to have anything. I would say that if this framework is true, then one could also say that it's good to create someone because it would allow them to experience the benefits they deserve (even if the situation would not be perfect). If one does not need to gain from the absence of deprivations (and we know that inexistent souls or inanimate objects aren't experiencing any satisfaction from their lack of existence) in order for us to say that the creation of deprivations is bad, then I believe that we could similarly suggest that the creation of the benefits is good regardless of whether or not their absence leads to a conscious experience of deprivation.

To procreate is to create an innocent person. They haven't done anything yet. So they're innocent. — Bartricks

Agree.

An innocent person deserves to come to no harm. Thus any harm - any harm whatever - that this person comes to, is undeserved. — Bartricks

Agree.

Furthermore, an innocent person positively deserves a happy life. — Bartricks

Disagree. Just as someone only deserves harm if they've done something bad, they only deserve a happy life if they've done something good.

So, an innocent person deserves a happy, harm free life. — Bartricks

Disagree. They only deserve a harm free life, for the reason already given.

This world clearly does not offer such a life to anyone. We all know this. — Bartricks

Agree.

It is wrong, then, to create an innocent person when one knows full well that one cannot give this person what they deserve: a happy, harm free life. To procreate is to create a huge injustice. It is to create a debt that you know you can't pay. — Bartricks

Disagree. I don't believe they deserve a happy life, for the reason already given. They also don't deserve any harm, but I believe harm can be made up for with pleasure (e.g. prick of a needle to be irresistible to women, meet the woman of your dreams). This would not be an injustice. No debt would be owed.

Even if you can guarantee any innocent you create an overall happy life - and note that you can't guarantee this - it would still be wrong to create such a person, for the person deserves much more than that. They don't just deserve an overall happy life. They deserve an entirely harm-free happy life. — Bartricks

Disagree. An overall happy life is more than what they deserve.

I don't think that they were trying to be selfish. The argument was that if one didn't procreate, it wouldn't result in the existence of a person who would deserve benefits but be unable to get them. — DA671

Indeed. But it would create a person whose existence would bring enormous benefits to the other humans already in their community.

It takes a particularly selfish outlook not to even consider that as a relevant moral value.

The impact it could have is undoubtedly an important point.

You clearly don't understand the point.
The person deserves more benefit than they recieve. More. The shortfall represents an injustice.
If you borrow 1m and make 500grand, you have made a loss.
You want to keep emphasizing how good 500grand is.
Yes. But you racked up 1m to generate it. That was stupid. You can keep going on about how you made 500 grand until you are blue in the face, you're still a shite business person, you just don't recognize it.
In this metaphor the 500grand is the benefit that a life confers on a person, and the 1m is the desert of benefit that was incurred to generate it (in case you didn't realize).

You are wrong about an innocent not deserving a happy life. But it doesn't matter as my argument goes through with the agreements secured from you. All that's required is that the innocent deserves no harm. The fact they positively deserve a happy life compounds my case, but is not essential to it.

I've explained why it is a form of subjectivism. I've also explained why it is often thought to be a form of objectivism (objectivism and externalism are often conflated). And now you are just ignoring what I've said.
If you think DCT is a form of objectivism then you are not using that term as I do. Indeed, I think you would be unable to provide a clear definition of the term. But that's semantics. You accused me of inconsistency. I took the trouble to explain to you something I had already explained in one of the quotes from me. And now you are simply ignoring what I have said.
Fine.

The failure to reject arbitrarily high standards for one thing (the positives) whilst not accepting them when it comes to the other (the negatives) is bound to lead to erroneous conclusions. The alternative to not being able to get everything is to get a majority of it, not to never even have the capacity to receive it.

Happiness isn't defined by money (many of the happiest people I've met didn't have a lot) but ignorance does undoubtedly play a role in how we act. Reckless procreation is wrong. — DA671

I wish we had data to work on. Methinks happiness & wealth are strongly correlated which makes the paradox even more baffling. Happy people don't want or want fewer children.

Lived experiences can often reveal a lot, which is why I believe that it isn't baffling that many rich people do not want children (though this slightly differs from one region/culture to another). Wealth, and particularly a constant desire for something more, does not always lead to long-term happiness. It is, however, possibility that the well-off might want value the enjoyment they gain from other sources. Since I do not think that people should be pressurised to procreate, I do not find this to be problematic. I just hope that people can have a more comprehensive perspective and help make the world a better place.

:ok: Paraenesis!

The person deserves more benefit than they recieve. More. The shortfall represents an injustice. — Bartricks

Yep. That'll probably be why I said...

This is indeed all valid and sound. It soundly proves that there is a negative aspect to procreation, that it creates a situation in which there will be undeserved harm which is a bad thing. — Isaac

So tell us. How bad is that injustice?

If I don't get my fair share cake at the village fete, that's an injustice. It's a very very minor one. If a multiple rapist walks free, that's also an injustice. A very very monstrous one.

All you're doing is pointing out that an injustice has occurred. I agree.

Now the discussion about how bad an injustice it is, and whether that badness outweighs the other benefits of procreation (such as the benefit to others).

A hopeful attempt. :up:

Yep. That'll probably be why I said...

This is indeed all valid and sound. It soundly proves that there is a negative aspect to procreation, that it creates a situation in which there will be undeserved harm which is a bad thing.
— Isaac — Isaac

No, Isaac, for you then proceeded to bang on about the benefits that life confers on the liver, yes? So, you didn't understand the point, did you?

That's like banging on about the $500 grand you racked up $1m to generate. Can you see that? Do you understand yet? The benefits that befall the liver of the life are all deserved - but they're LESS than the person deserves.

So, once more, if you rack up $1m of debt to make $500 grand, you're a shite business person. And if you think the $500 grand is profit, you're an idiot. It's not profit. You're down 500grand. You made 500 grand - but you made it at $1m cost.

Now, if you create a life, then you've created a debt. And it's a debt that isn't going to be paid off, is it? For the innocent deserves a harm-free beneficial life (pssst, this is the point where you forget that you said the argument establishing this was sound and we start all over again).

So, to create a life is to create a debt that can't be repaid. It's to rack up $1m of debt to do something that was always going to generate no more than 500grand. (For it is not in dispute that life here does not take the form of a totally harm-free life of benefit).

You are either incapable of understanding the point, or you're just willfully misunderstanding it because the conclusion is inconvenient to you. I don't know which it is. (And note, if you want once again to return to insisting that an innocent does not deserve any benefits, then you've made your task even harder, because desert adds moral value to benefits.....that is, it is better, morally speaking, for a person to receive a deserved benefit than an undeserved one).

So, it's a big black mark against procreative acts that they create a great injustice. They seem, if we focus on the person who is created by them, to be big moral loss makers. And to overcome those losses you'd need to locate a lot of moral positives (and remember, the benefits the procreative act confers on the person who is created can't be counted among them - if you ask 'why' then you haven't understood the point above; they've already been taken into account).

Now, what are those great other positives that such acts create? Perhaps all the good we do to other animals? Oh, shit, that's not going to work is it? What are the moral positives - the great goods - that procreative acts generate that are capable of overcoming the moral negatives?

Note too, that in this thread I am focussing on 'one' moral negative that procreative acts possess - one that has been overlooked.

They have lots of moral negatives. Lots. The one I am highlighting here is novel. But they have lots of other moral negatives. They're not consented to, for instance. And they cause untold harm to other sentient creatures. And they cause a person to die. And so on.

So, once more, if you rack up $1m of debt to make $500 grand, you're a shite business person. And if you think the $500 grand is profit, you're an idiot. It's not profit. You're down 500grand. You made 500 grand - but you made it at $1m cost. — Bartricks

Uh huh. So is $500 grand valueless? No.

If you were comparing the scheme you outline to one in which $400 grand remained would it be a better or worse scheme? Better.

The injustice (or in your example's case, bad business practice) is irrelevant to the outcome. The outcome can be valued separate to the injustice.

If I don't get all the cake I deserve, that's the same injustice as not getting all the bananas I deserve. But since I like cake and I don't like bananas, the value of those two injustices is not the same.

All you've shown is that because we get less benefit than we deserve, and injustice has occurred, which is a bad thing.

What you've not taken into account is that those benefits have a value other than their role in the injustice. Their worth is not accounted for solely by the degree to which they were deserved. The goods of life may still outweigh the bads in value, even if they don't in desert, because the degree to which I deserve something and the degree to which I value it are not the same measure.

So, it's a big black mark against procreative acts that they create a great injustice. — Bartricks

This is bare assertion. You've established they create an injustice. You've provided no argument at all that it is a 'great' injustice. You've not given any mechanism for measuring the scale of injustice, nor have you located this particular injustice on any relative scale.

They seem, if we focus on the person who is created by them, to be big moral loss makers. — Bartricks

Nope. You've shown they seem to be moral loss makers. Again, you've provided no measurement mechanism so have given no argument at all that they are 'big' moral loss makers.

remember, the benefits the procreative act confers on the person who is created can't be counted among them — Bartricks

False. You've confused the value of benefits with the degree to which they are deserved. If I get £1 where I deserve £10 an injustice has occurred, the £1 is considerably less than I deserve. This has no bearing whatsoever on the value of £1. You've taken into account only the degree to which they are deserved (more than is provided by life, generally), this is not the same measure as the degree to which they are valued.

:clap:

Deprivations are more but not total: Creation isn't ethical. One happy day doesn't erase every other bad experience.

Satisfaction is more but not total: Creation is ethical. Some negative experiences do not outweigh the value of countless moments of satisfaction derived from love, they appreciation of beauty, and the pursuit of knowledge.

So, once more, if you rack up $1m of debt to make $500 grand, you're a shite business person. And if you think the $500 grand is profit, you're an idiot. It's not profit. You're down 500grand. You made 500 grand - but you made it at $1m cost. — Bartricks

This needs to be published in a reputed philosophical journal!

If I said you invested 1 and got 5, you'd think you made a killing!

However, the truth is you spent $1 million and made only $5 grand!

:snicker:

A hopeful attempt. :up: — DA671

Please, please... :smile:

We have to cure the illness without killing the patient!

It's the least one could do!

And witness the majestic sights outside of the hospital!

It's the least one could do!

And witness the majestic sights outside of the hospital! — DA671

:up:

Lastly, I think that the millions and the grand can swap places in a subtle way depending upon the individual. Therein, I believe, lies the end of absolutist pro-lifeism/universal AN.

Have a great day, friend!

You are wrong about an innocent not deserving a happy life. But it doesn't matter as my argument goes through with the agreements secured from you. All that's required is that the innocent deserves no harm. The fact they positively deserve a happy life compounds my case, but is not essential to it. — Bartricks

It doesn't follow that if they get that which they do not deserve it cannot be made up for.

but I believe harm can be made up for with pleasure (e.g. prick of a needle to be irresistible to women, meet the woman of your dreams). — Down The Rabbit Hole

An overall happy life is more than what they deserve. — Down The Rabbit Hole