And your opinion does matter then? If no opinion matters, there would be no such thing as philosophy.

For what you have.

Exactly, im not grateful for that, because if i would not be alive, i would not suffer.

You suffer because you're not grateful.

Appreciate the time you spend complaining, as you could have been burning alive this very moment - like someone else probably is.

Don't be so impatient to make claims when there's so little you've seen and done.

Burning alive? You dont survive that or long.

And your opinion does matter then? If no opinion matters, there would be no such thing as philosophy. — Baskol1

Sensible opinions matter. Yours is not sensible.

What do we actually mean when we say life is "good" or "bad"? Are we comparing? Is there some sort of objective standard? — Echarmion

There's no objective standard, but that doesn't mean that anything goes or that we can't asses the matter sensibly. The anti-natalists are notorious for their exaggeration and cherry picking and one-sided rhetoric. They're seemingly incapable of assessing the matter impartially.

The special case is creating new moral subjects in the first place. We could apply the same logic to the question of whether or not it is moral to create human-level-intelligence AIs for menial tasks (essentially as slaves). — Echarmion

You've pointed out here an off-shoot of this area of ethical inquiry that bears further investigation. The mainline argument, that human procreation is, as a general practice, unethical has been treated fairly here (and with more consideration than I would give it) and found wanting.

The question of artificial consciousness and what concern is due with respect to its creation (and destruction) is one which may well have relevance in the 21st century. The side benefit is that the question of consent will again be played out. In as much as dollars are in the mix here, we can expect that the question will be answered (or not answered) in a way which maximizes profit, so the quandary might find itself pushed out again.

Another tangential concern is that of embryonic genetic manipulation. If we assume that the resolution of things that are almost uniformly considered deleterious (e.g. sickle cell) meets no serious objection, we arrive at body enhancements. Under what conditions is it acceptable to 'enhance' a child, in utero, without their consent? Personally, I think a third thumb could be quite useful. Are there situations where the impossibility of getting consent would be treated as tacit permission for the enhancements?

Dealing with these two, foreseeable concerns may result in progress on the question that undergirds the premise of the antinatalist position.

Exactly, im not grateful for that, because if i would not be alive, i would not suffer. — Baskol1

How irrational. You say that, yet you choose to continue to live, which suggests that for you, living is better than not living. So in the bigger picture it doesn't matter that you suffer, because that doesn't effect the overall value you see in life.

Yes, suffering is always bad, obvously. — Baskol1

This is obvious insofar as it's a tautology - bad things are bad. But that doesn't tell us anything about what "bad" means.

There's no objective standard, but that doesn't mean that anything goes or that we can't asses the matter sensibly. — S

I am just asking what we are assessing. Is life "bad" if I feel sad, or hungry, or frustrated right now? Do we add up all the times we fell this way? The antinatalist argument that life is "bad" seems to lack any metrics for which to establish this.

I am just asking what we are assessing. Is life "bad" if I feel sad, or hungry, or frustrated right now? Do we add up all the times we fell this way? The antinatalist argument that life is "bad" seems to lack any metrics for which to establish this. — Echarmion

Well there's no objective standard, so the criteria can vary massively. But if you're enquiring about my criteria, then it would have to take a lot more than a fleeting feeling.

The question of artificial consciousness and what concern is due with respect to its creation (and destruction) is one which may well have relevance in the 21st century. The side benefit is that the question of consent will again be played out. In as much as dollars are in the mix here, we can expect that the question will be answered (or not answered) in a way which maximizes profit, so the quandary might find itself pushed out again. — JosephS

Presumably, the most profitable option will be to give no concern to AIs, at least initially. The question of what is morally permissible to create is a thorny one quite apart from that though.

Another tangential concern is that of embryonic genetic manipulation. If we assume that the resolution of things that are almost uniformly considered deleterious (e.g. sickle cell) meets no serious objection, we arrive at body enhancements. Under what conditions is it acceptable to 'enhance' a child, in utero, without their consent? Personally, I think a third thumb could be quite useful. Are there situations where the impossibility of getting consent would be treated as tacit permission for the enhancements? — JosephS

Consent seems more or less like a red herring to me. The problem is more basic than that: can we even make an argument about what kind of moral subjects should exist?

Im alive because suicide isnt that easy.

Sure it is. Jump off a bridge, a tall building. Easy. If you are talking about the difficulty of going through with it then I submit your desire to not be alive is an illusion, brought upon by mental problems or a weak and whiny disposition. Have you considered that possibility?

Im alive because suicide isnt that easy. — Baskol1

Life can't be that bad for you, then. Otherwise you would've overcome the difficulty. And you're lying to yourself. You know that you're alive because of comedy and good food and entertainment and all the rest of it. You should have the honesty to admit it. No one suffers when they're laughing their head off or enjoying a really nice meal.

Not anymore, i have decided that it is enough for me.

Not anymore, i have decided that it is enough for me. — Baskol1

You're in need of professional help, then.

You dont think adult should have the right to die if they want?

You dont think [that an] adult should have the right to die if they want [to]? — Baskol1

No, not simply if they want to. But I do support the legality of assisted suicide under the right circumstances, as per the laws in certain countries.

You probably don't qualify and should seek professional help.

How can you say that that's not his argument, and then go on to mention consent in your description of his argument? That's a contradiction. Clearly if it's in his argument, then he thinks that it's of relevance. I'm saying that it's not, because obtaining consent isn't even a possibility.

And his assertion about putting someone in a riskier situation not only lacks justification, but has been refuted by counterexample. — S

No, read it correctly, I am saying it is his argument. It is the main point of his argument. And the very fact that it is impossible to obtain consent, he seems to be saying, is why you should pick the least riskiest option (not born at all).

Your inconsistency, you mean. If life were that bad, then there would be nothing at stake. — S

Again, the point khaled was making earlier was that at the time of procreation, when there is an asymmetry, when all harm can be prevented, and no actual person is deprived, THAT is different than when someone is ALREADY born and there IS someone who is deprived, there is a personality now that is existent, there is someone with interests. This matters now because as a fully alive human we have emotions like fear and feelings like pain. This is a DIFFERENT circumstance than prior to birth. Being afraid of death, and having interests do not mean that this life was worth starting. It means that once born, life is worth continuing for this person being that it is now someone with emotions, interests, etc. The threshold for starting a life is different for continuing a life. But they are different standards because one uniquely prevents all harm while not depriving, while one is depriving and death will harm someone (the act itself and the lead up). So they are very different situations.

No, read it correctly, I am saying it is his argument. It is the main point of his argument. — schopenhauer1

Are you pulling my leg?

I made a simple point that the issue of consent is irrelevant, inapplicable, inappropriate, the wrong category.

You then say that that's not his argument.

I point out to you that the issue of consent is clearly part of his argument. And that he clearly thinks that it's of relevance. Meaning that you were wrong to dismiss my point like that.

And now you say that not only is it part of his argument, but it's the main point of it. Meaning, after having contradicted yourself, we're back to square one.

And the very fact that it is impossible to obtain consent, he seems to be saying, is why you should pick the least riskiest option (not born at all). — schopenhauer1

Can't you read? We've just been over this. My response to him bringing up consent is that it's irrelevant. It's a category error. And, I repeat, he never provided justification for his follow up assertion, and it has been refuted by counterexample.

"Least risky" is also irrelevant in itself, because the consequences are what matter, and the probable good consequences of having a child beat holding back with irrational and excessive "concern". It's irrational and excessive because the analysis is hopelessly biased, and the conclusion extreme. Real concern works with and for the living, not for wiping them out.

Case closed. We're done here. Unless you want to repeat yourself some more and go back over it again. But I'm not exactly eager to humour you in that regard. You'd have to actually argue the point instead of merely repeating what I've already addressed as though I don't understand it. There's little-to-nothing from either you or Khaled that hasn't already been addressed a million times over, anyway.

You don't think adult should have the right to die if they want? — Baskol1

I think you're confusing "right" with license. I'm taking right in this context as concerning that between persons, as duty, obligation, expectation, or whatever. Your ability to do pretty much whatever the heck you want, absent consideration of either right or consequence, you retain as license. But if you exercise your license, why care about right or rights? (A substantive, not a rhetorical, question.)

S., above has it right, imo:

No, not simply if they want to. But I do support the legality of assisted suicide under the right circumstances, as per the laws in certain countries. — S

No, not simply if they want to. But I do support the legality of assisted suicide under the right circumstances, as per the laws in certain countries. — S

Why? What gives anyone the right to decide for someone else whether or not they are allowed to kill themselves? I understand about mental illness that might lead to suicide and how we would want to “save” that person, but if they don’t want help and just want to die...you want someone other than them to make that decision? A person cannot even die if they want to die? We gotta take that from them too?

Why? What gives anyone the right to decide for someone else whether or not they are allowed to kill themselves? I understand about mental illness that might lead to suicide and how we would want to “save” that person, but if they don’t want help and just want to die...you want someone other than them to make that decision? A person cannot even die if they want to die? We gotta take that from them too? — DingoJones

Yes, of course I want someone other than them to make that decision, namely a medical professional. I've been suicidal myself. Thank goodness I got through it instead of being left to my own devices, or worse, being persuaded that I should do so if I want to, otherwise I wouldn't be here right now. But if someone is absolutely determined to kill themselves, then whether or not they have a "right" to do so is irrelevant. That's not something that can be taken away from them, anyway.

Consent seems more or less like a red herring to me. The problem is more basic than that: can we even make an argument about what kind of moral subjects should exist? — Echarmion

Is it not legitimate to judge, and in some cases prohibit, the creation of certain living things?

Is there no legitimate application of principle regarding those who might take a human/non-human chimera through gestation to raise it (I'm contemplating something more human than non-human)? Take the example of those who raise fainting goats for the purpose of novelty and amusement. It seems rather cruel to me. Potential for suffering seems a legitimate concern here and one which me might leverage to inhibit (if not prohibit) the conception of these animals. And even if fainting goats are fine, human imagination maintains hitherto untapped veins of horror.

The question of consent arises because there are cases where we allow adults (but not children or those acting for children) to weigh risk and potential for suffering. There is a boundary to be considered around risk and benefit for those who cannot consent.

The negative of self-extinction, for me, is a sufficient counter to the categorical case. I raised the embryonic genetic selection/modification case as a class of actions where some instances could be considered unethical to proceed on.

I understand your practical view here, but im interested in the principal. So I agree that we want t to persuade our loved ones, whomever that may include, not to kill themselves and try to work it out or whatever, but you mentioned legality. Thats much different, thats a state enforced law that forces someone against their will to live a life they dont want to live. That seems horribly authoritarian to me.
So aside from the obvious practical things you stated, what in principal are you operating with? Why do you think its ok to use force to prevent someone from checking out?

What are you talking about? I didn't say or suggest anything about "using force". This law can't be enforced like other laws can. The police can't do anything about someone who secretly kills themself. And the principle is that it's wrong to rashly submit to what someone says when that someone should be treated as a patient and properly assessed by a professional. It's not horribly authoritarian at all, it's just sensible. The alternative would be rash and have disastrous consequences. I can't believe you're even considering it.

Well I dont think we should rashly submit to what someone says, that's a straw-man. This “rash” business is all you, not me. I don’t think anything about deciding to kill oneself should be rash. (But I still wouldn't want it to be illegal to make rash decisions about your well being).
Anyway, I used the term “force” in the sense of enforcing the law. Its pointless to have a law that you cant enforce. Calling it a “law” is just postering at that point.
So what Im asking about is how you view the principal of...if you don’t like “forcing” we can use “lawfully coerce” or something, doesnt matter...the principal of lawfully coercing someone to live when theyd rather die. That is an authority (the law, or a medical professional you said as well) deciding something for someone against their will. Thats authoritarian. Now Im not saying all such authoritarianism is horrible, but rather in the particular case of deciding to kill oneself it seems horrible to me.

Well I dont think we should rashly submit to what someone says, that's a straw-man. — DingoJones

No it's not, it stems back to the original proposition, which is that an adult should have the right to die if they want to, which would mean rashly submitting without proper examination. Obviously the part about it being rash isn't explicit, but it's implied.

And I was only ever using the law as a point of reference in answer to the question I was asked. It doesn't matter whether or not it can be enforced. I'm making the point that it's right to act in line with what the relevant laws say on the matter. Clearly more thought has gone into the laws I've referenced in this discussion than some of the simplistic opinions expressed by participants in this discussion.

You'll have to come up with a better objection than, "It seems horrible to me". And you don't even seem to know what you're talking about when you say that. What seems horrible to you? No one is stopping anyone from killing themselves if they are intent on doing so. So what's horrible? A medical professional doing their job? What planet are you living on? That would fall under the the Hippocratic Oath.