I'm confused. I thought you were making the case that all of our actions have some moral support behind them. But here you're talking about survival instinct — khaled

My mention of ‘survival instinct’ was anticipating your response to the question of why you eat when you’re hungry. You do realise that you don’t have to eat, even when you’re hungry, don’t you? You think that hunger ‘makes’ you eat because you don’t believe you can choose NOT to eat once you get hungry. But you can. People do it all the time. Just as you can choose not to survive, not to have sex or to procreate, against what many still consider to be an ‘overwhelming’ biological urge. It’s a matter of changing how you evaluate the urge to act, and how you evaluate the ‘suffering’ you would experience from not acting.

Every ‘instinct’ we think we have is an unconsciously determined and initiated action - one that can be consciously determined and initiated if we choose to be aware of the process. But we choose ignorance, instead - because otherwise we would need to consider the ethical implications of our actions, even at this level. It’s part of our unwritten social contract to eat when we’re hungry, convinced that we’re harming no one (that matters) by doing so. But in some situations, people are starving because they’re unable to ‘eat when they’re hungry’ without violating someone else’s property rights, considered more important than hunger because we enforce it as law - because WE don’t have to think about the ethical implications of eating when we’re hungry.

So, by my book, a serial killer is ignoring their capacity to act against their urge to kill. They’ve given themselves permission to ‘kill when they want to’, convinced that they’re harming no one (that matters) by doing so. There is no ‘overwhelming biological urge’ that one cannot overcome by developing a conscious awareness of the process. So there are no human actions that are free of ethical implications due to something that ‘makes’ us do it.

Let X be the suffering due to not having a child. The person in question here is saying

My X >>> All the suffering my child will experience (including his own X)

Is this really an acceptable evaluation for anyone. That's like someone justifying murder by saying "my minor inconvenience due to having to meet this guy twice a week is greater than all the grief I caused by killing him"

There is only very few instances where I would believe both of these are true. Again, I don't "ban" procreation, if someone can show me that the first scenario is the case for them, sure have kids. You'll have one child every 200 couples or so then maybe, and that's being generous — khaled

But again, you’re making a logical evaluation based on your perspective and extrapolating that to be some objective ‘evaluation for anyone’. But there is only the individual and their subjective evaluation - they don’t have to show YOU that their evaluation of the harm/benefit scale favours them having a child. They don’t have to answer to you at all, or to logic, because the will of the individual is most important here (according to your ethical perspective).

As for justifying murder, it is your evaluation of his inconvenience as ‘minor’ and your awareness of ‘all the grief it would cause’ that makes it unacceptable for you. He obviously saw it differently at the time, otherwise he would not have committed the act. He might regret it later, as he becomes aware of the grief he causes, but it’s easy to ignore or devalue ‘possible future grief’ to unknown individuals in the face of overwhelming personal suffering. That doesn’t make it right, but it does allow those who subscribe to an ethics of ‘cause as little harm as possible - especially to oneself’ to justify either murder or procreation.

How would there be nothing wrong by my standards. They can "forget to consider" it genuinely but if they actively ignore it of course that's wrong. A murderer can't "actively ignore" the suffering he causes and then claim to be doing nothing wrong. — khaled

But they’re not ignoring actual suffering, only your subjective prediction of possible suffering. If they subscribe to ‘cause as little harm as possible’, they’re not expected to be aware of (and in agreement with) your evaluation of their future actions, only with their own. You’re not presenting objective facts, you’re giving your individual opinion. So what makes you think your value structure is more accurate than theirs? Because it appeals to logic?

I don't understand the significance of the reply to the first quote. Ok, survival instincts are not deterministic. So?

I'm confused about one thing though

So there are no human actions that are free of ethical implications due to something that ‘makes’ us do it. — Possibility

I presume this implies the serial killer is wrong right? Because he CAN choose not to kill yet he chooses to do so. But then how can the parent be right in procreating? He/She also chooses to ignore the logical implications of his/her actions

But again, you’re making a logical evaluation based on your perspective and extrapolating that to be some objective ‘evaluation for anyone’. But there is only the individual and their subjective evaluation - they don’t have to show YOU that their evaluation of the harm/benefit scale favours them having a child. They don’t have to answer to you at all, or to logic, because the will of the individual is most important here (according to your ethical perspective). — Possibility

Everything here is correct. However I don't believe there are nearly as many individuals as you think that would honestly say

Let X be the suffering due to not having a child. The person in question here is saying

My X >>> All the suffering my child will experience (including his own X)

Their numbers would be similar to serial killers who honestly believe they aren't causing much suffering

He obviously saw it differently at the time, otherwise he would not have committed the act. — Possibility

No way to tell that but ok

That doesn’t make it right, but it does allow those who subscribe to an ethics of ‘cause as little harm as possible - especially to oneself’ to justify either murder or procreation. — Possibility

Again. For like the 100th time. I don't "ban" procreation. I never said it can't be justified. Just that the number of people that would seriously think it justifiable is negligible

You’re not presenting objective facts, you’re giving your individual opinion — Possibility

YES. But an individual opinion the vast majority shares. Do you honestly think most people would believe in:

My X >>> All the suffering my child will experience (including his own X)

If they thought about it?

My X >>> All the suffering my child will experience (including his own X) — khaled

I’m going to stop you here, because I’m starting to see why we’re getting nowhere - you cannot rationally apply logical reasoning to moral intentions. I’m pretty sure this violates rationality. For brevity’s sake, I’ll quote from SEP:

One of Schopenhauer’s most significant assertions is that the four different modes of explanation only run in parallel with each other, and cannot coherently be intermixed. If we begin by choosing a certain style of explanation, then we immediately choose the kinds of object to which we can refer. Conversely, if we begin by choosing a certain kind of object to explain, we are obliged to use the style of reasoning associated with that kind of object. It thus violates the rationality of explanation to confuse one kind of explanation with another kind of object. We cannot begin with a style of explanation that involves material objects and their associated cause-and-effect relationships, for example, and then argue to a conclusion that involves a different kind of object, such as an abstract concept. Likewise, we cannot begin with abstract conceptual definitions and accordingly employ logical reasoning for the purposes of concluding our argumentation with assertions about things that exist. — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Arthur Schopenhauer

Likewise, we cannot begin with ‘individual’, ‘suffering’ or ‘harm’ as abstract conceptual definitions and accordingly employ logical reasoning for the purpose of concluding our argumentation with assertions about the morality of intentions. So you CAN argue that it’s illogical for parents to both procreate and minimise ‘harm’ to a conceptual ‘individual’ (and I might even agree with you, conceptually speaking), but if you’re going to argue about the morality of intentions, then you cannot use logical reasoning to do so - you would need to construct an argument employing moral reasoning about psychologically motivating forces. You haven’t done that, because you’ve started with abstract concepts and logical reasoning.

I think that this is where we’re coming unstuck. You keep referring to abstract concepts of ‘suffering’, ‘harm’ and ‘individual’, while I keep referring to them as moral concepts. Either you’re arguing logically, or you’re arguing morally. You can’t begin with logical explanations in order to conclude a moral argument, and expect it to be rational.

It's only Kantian or deontological in the sense that it is about a duty to a principle that considers the person qua person and not as utility to be maximized. Also, importantly (in my conception anyway), it is about not using people as a means. It is a strong version of this, as Kant's principle holds that you should not use people only as a means. However, I think this can be taken further, in that if you like the idea of a new person being born to do X and X (the parent's agenda for the child), yet this will inevitably cause harm to the child (as life has the possibilities for lots and lots of harm), then it is not permissible to force the parent's agenda on the child, as it is violating the non-harm principle (and the autonomous individual as someone who can be harmed and forced).

I think if we're going to progress in this discussion we need clear definitions. Maybe I haven't fully understood your argument so I'll do my best to re-phrase what I think you're saying and feel free to tell me if anything I'm saying is wrong or a misrepresentation of your argument. All right, here goes:

You're asking why positive ethics should outweigh negative ethics (and you seem to take the side that negative ethics should outweigh positive ethics.) It's crucial to define these terms though, and in your original post you define positive ethics more along the lines of maximizing well-being (this phrase is strongly linked to utilitarianism/consequentialism) versus negative ethics which is more about prohibitions and rules like the non-aggression principle or non-harm principle as well as other deontological principles which limit action. You're asking which should take priority. Am I understanding you right?

Am I understanding you right? — BitconnectCarlos

More-or-less yes.

All right, well this is how I would approach it. Feel free to disagree, ask questions, clarification, etc.

Utilitarian "maximization of utility" and Kantian deontology or other deontological rules like the NAP are distinct philosophical systems. It really doesn't make sense to just pick and choose when you prefer one over the other because then it's really less about the logic of the systems and more ultimately up to your feelings or intuitions. I wouldn't "weigh" one against the other either; they're competing ideologies and if you believe in one then I think you should disregard the other. I've never heard of the two being reconciled.

In regard to making the case for one of them, Kant makes the case that his rules are derived from reason itself. It's very ambitious. Naturally, philosophers have a hard-on for this kind of thing so if you buy Kant's case then I figure that kind of settles it... you're a Kantian. Similarly, I remember I debated with someone over the non-aggression principle years ago and they also argued the principle was derived directly from reason.

The utilitarian case - and it's been some time since I looked into it - is definitely not based around such a strong claim. I think it's more of a mild common sense appeal and then we go from there. I'm not going to make the utilitarian case here - you can find it elsewhere - but ultimately you need to be comparing these two systems more as competing ideologies and less of 'how do we find balance?'

then it's really less about the logic of the systems and more ultimately up to your feelings or intuitions. I wouldn't "weigh" one against the other either; they're competing ideologies and if you believe in one then I think you should disregard the other. I've never heard of the two being reconciled. — BitconnectCarlos

It all follows from the idea of not violating autonomy. You don't assume others want to be harmed or forced. What follows is the NAP and the NHP (non-harm principle). Also, a correlation to this is that by respecting someone's autonomy you aren't using them for an ends. So this happens to fall in line with Kantian ideas, but isn't derived from them. So, there is a difference and in this case, it would not be arbitrarily cherry-picking from systems as you may be implying.

In regard to making the case for one of them, Kant makes the case that his rules are derived from reason itself. It's very ambitious. Naturally, philosophers have a hard-on for this kind of thing so if you buy Kant's case then I figure that kind of settles it... you're a Kantian. Similarly, I remember I debated with someone over the non-aggression principle years ago and they also argued the principle was derived directly from reason. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, what does "reason" mean though? It is a tricky word and hence I avoid it. It is a hypothetical imperative (I am not going to indulge the idea of a CI for the sake of this argument), and the hypothetical imperative is, "If you value an individual's autonomy, and believe that the basis of ethics is a person's individual autonomy, then the NAP and NHP fall naturally from this". So I am not going to use any ambiguous and weasel-words like "reason" which just stands for "my thinking is superior" rather than a real definition of anything meaningful.

The utilitarian case - and it's been some time since I looked into it - is definitely not based around such a strong claim. I think it's more of a mild common sense appeal and then we go from there. I'm not going to make the utilitarian case here - you can find it elsewhere - but ultimately you need to be comparing these two systems more as competing ideologies and less of 'how do we find balance?' — BitconnectCarlos

I don't know where you got this notion at all from this thread, as I have nothing about competing utlitarian and deontological claims in here. My whole premise has been deontological (though I see that you have seen negative ethics as more associated with utilitarian). I don't agree with a utilitarian basis for ethics as I think it does not take into account individuals and their autonomy which is where I see the locus of actual ethics to lie. On the other hand, I can see the usefulness of utilitarian reasoning in other areas of human life, including government policy, but that would be something else and not necessarily ethics proper.

Likewise, we cannot begin with ‘individual’, ‘suffering’ or ‘harm’ as abstract conceptual definitions and accordingly employ logical reasoning for the purpose of concluding our argumentation with assertions about the morality of intentions. — Possibility

Why not exactly? I read the quote, nothing in it says this is problematic. Morality and suffering/harm are the same "class" of things. We can use logic to go from talking about one to the other. How else do you propose we begin to argue about morality? Having premises that don't involve suffering or individuals?

employing moral reasoning — Possibility

What the heck is "moral reasoning"?

You're asking why positive ethics should outweigh negative ethics (and you seem to take the side that negative ethics should outweigh positive ethics.) It's crucial to define these terms though, and in your original post you define positive ethics more along the lines of maximizing well-being (this phrase is strongly linked to utilitarianism/consequentialism) versus negative ethics which is more about prohibitions and rules like the non-aggression principle or non-harm principle as well as other deontological principles which limit action. You're asking which should take priority. Am I understanding you right? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes. You can't just say "use both" because in many situations they give opposite answers. And while I did define positive ethics as essentially utilitarianism, that's just a bad habit of mine. Positive ethics is anything telling you "you should do X"/"It would be wrong not to do X" instead of "you shouldn't do X"

Methinks you confound positive and negative duties (or freedom) with the inchoate distinction between "positive and negative ethics." After all, the good life entails the avoidance of suffering.

Methinks you confound positive and negative duties (or freedom) with the inchoate distinction between "positive and negative ethics." After all, the good life entails the avoidance of suffering. — Methinks

You make two statements that don't seem to have much relation with each other. One is an insignificant but noted objection of my semantics (ethics vs.duties), and the other has to do with the good life entails avoiding suffering. Rather, this thread is more about not overriding negative ethics (duties) for a positive ethics (duties). Thus, if you kidnap someone and force them into a game (thus violating the non-aggression rule) because YOU think it is good for them, that would be wrong as you are using a positive ethics to justify violating a negative ethics.

Methinks you're entitled to the semantics of your choice; but know that philosophical tradition restricts negative/positive characterizations of actions to duties or freedom. Negative duties are duties of noninterference; positive duties are duties of assistance. The question you pose, in the parlance of the tradition, is whether paternalistic imposition of perceived goods on an unknowing or uncooperative other is ever morally justified.

The question you pose, in the parlance of the tradition, is whether paternalistic imposition of perceived goods on an unknowing or uncooperative other is ever morally justified. — Methinks

Close, there are exceptions I admitted in this thread for reasons of either autonomy being limited or about to be violated (elderly, coma patients, children, self-defense, etc.). In terms of antinatalism, I'm claiming the time of the force and the time of the harm is done at X time birth. THAT is when the person was forced and harmed. But generally, this is correct. A paternalistic imposition of perceived goods on an unknowing or uncooperative other is almost never morally justified. Hence, a parent's agenda to see X thing happen for child should not justify violating the non-aggression and non-harm principle, both of which will be violated at birth.

Yes. You can't just say "use both" because in many situations they give opposite answers. And while I did define positive ethics as essentially utilitarianism, that's just a bad habit of mine. Positive ethics is anything telling you "you should do X"/"It would be wrong not to do X" instead of "you shouldn't do X"

Yes, thank you for the last definition. So much clearer.

Well, what does "reason" mean though? It is a tricky word and hence I avoid it.

This is Kant speaking, not me.

It all follows from the idea of not violating autonomy.

I feel like you're channeling Kant here, but Kant's idea of autonomy isn't a purely negative, libertarian idea of the subject. I don't think you can go from Kant's idea of autonomy directly to NAP (or at least I haven't seen it). It has been a while since I've picked up Kant, but I do remember that for Kant autonomy was intimately connected with rationality and to basically be bound by one's own laws. I believe he views rationality as a precondition for a free will.

I remember reading an article about a Korean guy in a gaming cafe who gamed for 72 hours and then dropped dead. Under the libertarian definition he had his freedom, but no way was this person driven by their rationality so I think Kant would say he was unfree. I'm happy to discuss this topic further.

Also any Kant experts here please let me know if I'm wrong.

I feel like you're channeling Kant here, but Kant's idea of autonomy isn't a purely negative, libertarian idea of the subject. I don't think you can go from Kant's idea of autonomy directly to NAP (or at least I haven't seen it). It has been a while since I've picked up Kant, but I do remember that for Kant autonomy was intimately connected with rationality and to basically be bound by one's own laws. I believe he views rationality as a precondition for a free will.

An example I think of - and I don't ever explicitly recall Kant using it - is, say, that of gaming addict or a drug addict. I remember reading an article about a Korean guy in a gaming cafe who gamed for 72 hours and then dropped dead. Under the libertarian definition he had his freedom, but no way was this person driven by their rationality so I think Kant would say he was unfree. I'm happy to discuss this topic further.

Also any Kant experts here please let me know if I'm wrong. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, as I've said, I am not specifically channeling Kant. Rationality is used in many ways by many philosophers. I don't use it because I think it has a connotation to it. But anyways, if "rationality" means some sort of "free choice" and thus autonomy, then yes, that may play into what I am talking about here. One of the big things is here is not trying to do something to an individual that will violate non-harm principle,

Alright, so I'm someone who's also more libertarian in how I think and if you want to identity "autonomy" more with negative freedom that's fine with me. I also respect negative freedom and I think a lot of people recognize its importance.

What I can't do is jump from a general respect of negative freedom to embracing the non-aggression principle which categorically rejects any imposition of coercion. In other words, I can't jump from "I generally respect this principle" to "we need to abide by this principle in every possible circumstance."

I can't jump from "I generally respect this principle" to "we need to abide by this principle in every possible circumstance." — BitconnectCarlos

Unless you are trying to straw man my argument, by mischaracterizing it, why wouldn't you abide by the non-aggression principle? I've already said how it wouldn't apply to self-defense, as one's own autonomy is being violated. I've already said how it wouldn't apply to dementia cases, children, coma patients, and others who would have no autonomy. It wouldn't apply to something like a game like a boxing match, where the parties involved autonomously agree to the terms of the aggression. So in what way would my version of the NAP not be applicable? Remember, I am talking ethics, not politics.

So in what way would my version of the NAP not be applicable?

Lets take the case of an extremely contagious bio-chemical hazard or disease where we have the vaccination, but some people are refusing to be vaccinated for ideological reasons. It's a serious national security issue. And yes, we would be coercing these people if we made vaccination mandatory. If the choice is basically between mandatory vaccination or likely extinction which one do you choose?

There's no sharp distinction between the ethical and the political. Political decisions are made by people, by individuals. If I grab you and forcibly vaccinate you... I have coerced you and violated your autonomy even if I was acting as an agent of the state. I think national security is my biggest objection here.

Lets take the case of an extremely contagious bio-chemical hazard or disease where we have the vaccination, but some people are refusing to be vaccinated for ideological reasons. It's a serious national security issue. And yes, we would be coercing these people if we made vaccination mandatory. If the choice is basically between mandatory vaccination or likely extinction which one do you choose?

There's no sharp distinction between the ethical and the political. Political decisions are made by people, by individuals. If I grab you and forcibly vaccinate you... I have coerced you and violated your autonomy even if I was acting as an agent of the state. I think national security is my biggest objection here. — BitconnectCarlos

First, I think you can make sharp distinctions between government and individual ethics. This is why I'd never call myself a "libertarian". Second, how is it NOT aggressive to allow a deadly disease proliferate?

Edit: OH Also, you COMPLETELY left out my other principle that of NON-HARM!!

Even if we were to allow the NAP to say that it is okay to not get vaccinated, the NHP would still be in force that we shouldn't allow for the conditions of others to be unnecessarily harmed if we can prevent it. That is my main point.

In the world of being already-born, we have to make a trade off sometimes, the NHP and NAP are at various times employed. It is never clear which should be, only personal judgement really. The only time when it is objectively clear that BOTH the NHP and NAP will NOT be violated would be the case of antinatalism which 100% guarantees both that a person won't be forced and will not be harmed (for a lifetime in fact).

First, I think you can make sharp distinctions between government and individual ethics.

Ok, so if my government pushes me to round up and execute Jews in ditches that's just a political thing and I have no moral culpability in that. Ok.

Second, how is it NOT aggressive to allow a deadly disease proliferate?

If you let a disease take its course that's not aggression. If I force you to do something like get a vaccination that would qualify as aggression. This distinction is important to liberal/libertarian thought.

Edit: OH Also, you COMPLETELY left out my other principle that of NON-HARM!!

...because we're focusing on the NAP? Honestly, I'm not here to beat you or destroy all of your arguments. Your tone suggests your getting defensive when the only reason I engaged you was to exchange ideas. I don't care who "wins" here. I don't care about winning internet arguments. For the record I find the non-harm principle much less problematic than NAP so.... one point for you?

Even if we were to allow the NAP to say that it is okay to not get vaccinated, the NHP would still be in force that we shouldn't allow for the conditions of others to be unnecessarily harmed if we can prevent it. That is my main point.

The NAP regards coercion as inherently bad. This isn't an "even if we were to allow" case; this is the primary idea of the NAP.

You're not understanding the NHP either. The NHP is concerned with constricting the actions of individuals to ones which don't harm others. It seeks to demarcate the proper limits of government. If we just take it to mean preventing harm in general from any source it takes on a very, very different meaning.

I don't mean to be mean here. I don't care about winning. I'm just trying to clarify.

Ok, so if my government pushes me to round up and execute Jews in ditches that's just a political thing and I have no moral culpability in that. Ok. — BitconnectCarlos

I take the Rawls Veil of Ignorance approach. Here is a summary of his argument:

is based upon the following thought experiment: people making political decisions imagine that they know nothing about the particular talents, abilities, tastes, social class, and positions they will have within a social order. When such parties are selecting the principles for distribution of rights, positions, and resources in the society in which they will live, this "veil of ignorance" prevents them from knowing who will receive a given distribution of rights, positions, and resources in that society. For example, for a proposed society in which 50% of the population is kept in slavery, it follows that on entering the new society there is a 50% likelihood that the participant would be a slave. The idea is that parties subject to the veil of ignorance will make choices based upon moral considerations, since they will not be able to act on their class interest.

As Rawls put it, "no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like".[3] The idea of the thought experiment is to render obsolete those personal considerations that are morally irrelevant to the justice or injustice of principles meant to allocate the benefits of social cooperation.] — Wikipedia article on Veil of Ignorance

Thus, just because I don't think that political theory is completely based on the same groundwork as personal ethics, does not mean that political decisions can just run roughshod over people's humanity and rights. What I mean by this is that while it is mainly the duty of government to ensure people's rights are not violated by others and the government (property, physical space, life, free choice, free speech, etc.), it can also include things by which personal ethics might not need to take into account. Where personal ethics is about recognizing people's humanity, government is at a macro-level (even if within a small community) government can into account communitarian ideas such that if one were born in a certain class/position/state of being, one might be able to access resources just the same as someone from another class/position/state of being.

I will say, when choosing to birth someone, you are making a political decision for someone else, that is to say, the parent is de facto saying, "the way of life of X society is what I want for this child" (even if that's not stated directly by the parent), and this is actually wrong. Prior to birth, there is a perfect point whereby someone can prevent a force and harm to a future individual. A political decision to enter X society is NOT made for that individual (by NOT birthing them). AFTER birth, the only way out is suicide. ANY social setup is thus contrived (libertarian type society or communitarian "liberal" type society, or anywhere in between). This social setup has to account for the fact that AFTER birth, people will have interests and goals and pains and sufferings and the like (barring suicide). AFTER birth, you can start thinking in terms of maximization of the ability to achieve goods on a communitarian level. To be fair, in the end, all of it is contrived and post-facto making up for the fact that the decision of being birthed into society was ALREADY made up for the individual person (by being birthed in the first place). ALSO, keep in mind, society is PRE-MADE (that is to say PRIOR to the birth of the child), and thus whether completely libertarian capitalist, mixed economy, or full-on socialist does not matter as historical circumstances (or as existential philosophy states, "situatedness") of the human is already there PRIOR to the person's birth. Thus no system ever conforms to a person's preference for how society SHOULD be, it only operates in a historical development mixed with institutions that are cemented to various degrees through tradition. Even violent revolutions in the end, bring about minor changes, usually to the scope of who gets to access institutions (that are still prior and separate from each individual's preferences of how a society should be set up in their own eyes). So after all this, if the situated institutions of a society then enforce something that is AGAINST one's own principles (the NAP and NHP), then one certainly has no obligation to override personal ethics for societal dictates. Thus, stating that ethics and political functioning work on different principles does not mean that the social overrides the personal, only stating that by mere functioning, they are different spheres of activity that don't have a 1:1 correspondence, necessarily. That is to say, personal ethics is always in play, no matter what is going on. Can a government promote education, science, and health care through "forcible" taxation? I think yes. If we look at the alternative, someone is ALREADY forced into existence, and thus if they do not have access to public education, health care, and perhaps certain scientific advancements only garnered through public collection, what then? What does that look like? Just a meaner version for those not equipped already to gain access to those things. But, can an individual force someone to promote education, science, and health care through forcible means like extortion? I think no.

If you let a disease take its course that's not aggression. If I force you to do something like get a vaccination that would qualify as aggression. This distinction is important to liberal/libertarian thought. — BitconnectCarlos

I will give you that. Thus I said that the negative principles are about weighing harm vs. aggression. I also admitted in this thread that the perfect ethical decision that follows the NAP and NHP would be to NOT procreate. After birth, one has to judge what when to use what. My rule was to always apply NHP first. Is it likely my action will cause harm to others? If so, then don't do that action. So if by not vaccinating, everyone around me will get Ebola, then yeah, I'd say that action would cause significant harm. Is it known that Ebola has a high chance to kill many people? Will that violate those people's autonomy (thus violating the NAP?)? If so, then in self-defense, people can vaccinate that hold-out for violating other people's autonomy. In a way it IS self-defense as Ebola is known to be highly contagious and very fatal. If a car was hanging off a precipice and about to fall on someone's head below the cliff, and a guy pushes the unknowing victims out of the way, he is not violating the NAP, as he is preventing known harm to occur, thus recognizing that person's autonomy which is about to be squashed. If after preventing the clear and present harm to the individual, the hero then kidnapped the victim and made them played a game that he thinks is good for them, that person is unnecessarily violating the NAP. The victim's autonomy was not being violated (or was not about to be violated), this was purely because the person thought it was best for that victim to play this game. Thus someone who was perfectly autonomous and had choices and the ability to feel pain was forced into a situation whereby they did were not able to make a choice, and possibly was put in danger if the game itself was dangerous.

...because we're focusing on the NAP? Honestly, I'm not here to beat you or destroy all of your arguments. Your tone suggests your getting defensive when the only reason I engaged you was to exchange ideas. I don't care who "wins" here. I don't care about winning internet arguments. For the record I find the non-harm principle much less problematic than NAP so.... one point for you? — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not getting defensive, it is just that it looks like you haven't read all the posts in this thread so it is sort of re-arguing and perhaps you are not seeing the full argument as it has developed over the course of the thread I realize people don't have time for that or may just want to focus on the OP, so that is why I am taking time to answer your questions here rather than say, "read the thread!" or be dismissive. I don't like when people do that to me, so I'm trying not to do the same. But I will say, that both the NHP and NAP work in tandem and it revolves around autonomy. Is someone's autonomy about to be violated? Is a clear and present harm about to ensue by this course of action? It is not about NOT acting as much as minimizing harm and minimizing force.

You're not understanding the NHP either. The NHP is concerned with constricting the actions of individuals to ones which don't harm others. It seeks to demarcate the proper limits of government. If we just take it to mean preventing harm in general from any source it takes on a very, very different meaning.

I don't mean to be mean here. I don't care about winning. I'm just trying to clarify. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, I never meant for this to be about political actions. So, this is a straw man or red herring. You are the one bringing in ideas of government. You seem to use preconceived ideas of what concepts should mean that I have stated pretty clearly in how I am using them, and then saying that I am not conforming to your preconceived ideas that you have. That may be from not reading the thread fully. It may be to make an argument where there is none. However, I have defined the terms throughout the thread as far as I see. I certainly have tried to do so in answering you in this post, if that was not clear. What I think we should stop doing is saying that "X past person used this term this way. You are using this term that way. Why are you not following X past person's way of using the term? Thus your argument is somehow wrong." That would not be productive.

I'm not going to address your argument about anti-natalism because we haven't settled the more fundamental issue of you understanding NAP and NHP. These terms already have meanings and they are embedded within their own philosophical systems. These systems are important because they give us an idea of how to evaluate or critique an idea. I can't quite tell if you're just misunderstanding the ideas or if you're using your own private definitions. It's fine to use a personal definition with "autonomy" because that word can be a little vague and it's an easy semantical issue, but with NHP and NAP these terms have clear meanings which have already been established. If you don't agree with the idea just say you disagree with it and don't try to use the term in your own personal way and tell people that you agree with it because that would just be very confusing.

It would be like if I kept telling people that I believed in democracy and the democratic process but my own personal ideas of democracy were completely different than what the term is generally recognized as.

If a car was hanging off a precipice and about to fall on someone's head below the cliff, and a guy pushes the unknowing victims out of the way, he is not violating the NAP, as he is preventing known harm to occur, thus recognizing that person's autonomy which is about to be squashed.

The guy would be violating NAP by pushing the person out of the way. NAP is a deontological principle so it does not care about consequences. You are not allowed under NAP to use direct physical force on someone without their consent. Agree with it or not, that is what the NAP states.

It comes down to the standards of philosophy and good writing. Trust me, I wasted four years of my life on this and a pretty penny. A decent proportion of any philosophy paper will be allocated to just explaining the original author's ideas just to ensure that you understand it and to avoid the issue of using your own personal understanding of it.

Anyway, lets say I accept your own personal definition of the NHP here when we were talking about forcible vaccination.

Even if we were to allow the NAP to say that it is okay to not get vaccinated, the NHP would still be in force that we shouldn't allow for the conditions of others to be unnecessarily harmed if we can prevent it.

Your new understanding of the NHP has very authoritarian implications. If my fundamental principle is just preventing harm from befalling others then we're talking an extreme amount of paternalism and placing safety first and foremost. I don't want you to trip on the street maybe I should force you to wear kneepads and a helmut. I don't know what "unnecessary harm" is here and how it compares to "necessary harm" so I'm just trying to prevent harm.

If you don't agree with the idea just say you disagree with it and don't try to use the term in your own personal way and tell people that you agree with it because that would just be very confusing. — BitconnectCarlos

Fine, I'm using it in my own way. I'll let you call it anything you want it helps you move past this god awful semantic argument.

It would be like if I kept telling people that I believed in democracy and the democratic process but my own personal ideas of democracy were completely different than what the term is generally recognized as. — BitconnectCarlos

Right right, cause it's that far off. Again, suggest any change to the name you want. I'll call it X and Y. I don't care.

The guy would be violating NAP by pushing the person out of the way. NAP is a deontological principle so it does not care about consequences. You are not allowed under NAP to use direct physical force on someone without their consent. Agree with it or not, that is what the NAP states. — BitconnectCarlos

Again, Non-harm principle or call it the Blurpet principle.. if you want still abides. And sometimes if you do see someone's autonomy will be destroyed you act on it. I also admit (and have repeatedly elsewhere), that the world is not perfect and that these laws will NEVER be able to be followed in the intra-worldly affairs of life. It's not that the ideals are bad.. Yeah, no one should ever force anyone. No one should ever harm anyone, it is that the world is inherently messy and we will ALWAYS be violating one of those principles at some point. It's even worse if we look at ethics subjectively, where each person is their own judge of what is right or wrong. In that case, we are always guaranteed to violate some ethical principle.

It comes down to the standards of philosophy and good writing. Trust me, I wasted four years of my life on this and a pretty penny. A decent proportion of any philosophy paper will be allocated to just explaining the original author's ideas just to ensure that you understand it and to avoid the issue of using your own personal understanding of it. — BitconnectCarlos

Your new understanding of the NHP has very authoritarian implications. If my fundamental principle is just preventing harm from befalling others then we're talking an extreme amount of paternalism and placing safety first and foremost. I don't want you to trip on the street maybe I should force you to wear kneepads and a helmut. I don't know what "unnecessary harm" is here and how it compares to "necessary harm" so I'm just trying to prevent harm. — BitconnectCarlos

That is a good question, but again, in the intra-wordly affairs NOTHING is black-or-white really. My definition of when it would be used in such a way that by inaction you are doing wrong, is a clear and present danger when it is clear by inaction the person will get harmed. Clearly you aren't respecting individual there, as you know that something will become injurious to that person. Is that unclear as to when to follow the NHP vs. NAP? Yep, so is the intra-wordly messy scenario of the daily life. The only perfect time to prevent all harm and all force is procreation. Period. Now, as far as preventative harm for individuals as you implied, that depends. If you OWNED a skatepark and knew people often get injured without kneepads. If it's your property and you put up a sign saying, no customers can skate without kneepads, nothing wrong with that. However, if you forced a fully autonomous adult into buying knee pads, that would be a clear violation. Or, because you thought going to X church was good for someone, you were going to kidnap them into attending. That would be bad. Or because you think that life is about doing, X, Y, Z you think everyone else should do X, Y, Z that would be bad. As you can see, in the argument about procreation, X, Y, Z agenda for a child does not override the fact that by procreating you're forcing and causing conditions of all future harms, for that child. That would be perfectly preventing it.

So I will always admit that in the intra-wordly affairs of already being born, we will NEVER be able to perfectly conform to the NAP and NHP (or whatever you want to call my version). However, we can try to approximate with our best judgements. I will claim that the only way to perfectly not violate these principles (and follow a negative ethics in general perfectly) is to prevent procreation. Now, if you want to "work" with me on this thread to come up with a nice heuristics on how to apply my versions of NAP and NHP, I'm all for it. But the major claim here is that indeed someone's paternalistic understanding of what is good for someone "happiness, religion, self-actualization, civilization, school", should never be foisted on people IF POSSIBLE. Even worse if the decision might cause some actual harm to the person, but you still think it is best they do X, Y, Z agenda you had for them. Now, you see how this is perfectly prevented in the case of birth. I also explained why even after birth (the imperfect scenario of always violating something for someone else at some point), that autonomy must be part of the equation (thus removing the possible objection of making decisions for children, elderly, coma patients, and other such scenarios). Thus, keep all this in mind.

Methinks antinatalism is simply a radical, and somewhat silly, variant of nihilism.

Methinks you're wrong

Methinks if perfect application of the NHP is purportedly impossible post-birth, then, since ought implies can, NHP is nonsensical. If perfect NHP is applied globally to eliminate procreation, then, at ieast within a couple of generations, it is a reductio of the principle. Silliness.

Methinks if perfect application of the NHP is purportedly impossible post-birth, then, since ought implies can, NHP is nonsensical. If perfect NHP is applied globally to eliminate procreation, then, at ieast within a couple of generations, it is a reductio of the principle. Silliness. — Methinks

The basic gist of the Benatarian version of the antinatalist argument is thus: Not procreating prevents suffering which is good. Not procreating prevents good experiences which is only bad if there is an actual person to be deprived. My spin on it was that another added benefit is that by not procreating, one is preventing the state of affairs whereby harm and force would befall an individual (the NHP and NAP principles). That is to say, one is not using a positive agenda ("I want a kid for X agenda) to justify violating an negative ethical principle (not causing conditions of harm for another and not forcing an agenda or way of life on another). It is not a reductio, as it is only in effect in the procreational decision. I don't see much of an argument other than you don't like it, find it silly, and you apply the term "nihilism" to it. Again, not much in the way of argument.

Not procreating prevents suffering which is good. Not procreating prevents good experiences which is only bad if there is an actual person to be deprived. — schopenhauer1

Methinks I smell a rat here: preventing good is only bad if an actual person exists who could be benefited; yet preventing evil is good even in the absence of an actual person who could be harmed.

Correct, which is why it's considered an asymmetry. See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar

Methinks the assumption of asymmetry is simply false. See https://www.academia.edu/38291449/How_to_Reject_Benatars_Asymmetry_Argument