Nonexistence couldn't possibly be existence — Agustino

Where did I say it did? You misunderstood me before.

Possibly. — Agustino

Why?

Because who knows whether the child should or shouldn't exist? — Agustino

If I point a gun to your head and fire, you could survive but be impaired, or you could die. If my intention was to sustain what you were before, ie to keep you alive, surviving, then I'd never would have chosen to shoot you in the head. But if my intention was in fact to kill you, but I didn't actually kill you, then I'm still in the wrong because I've still forced my will upon your own, even though you lived.

Why do you think it doesn't warrant one to will another into existence? — Agustino

Because it does not follow that what redeems existence necessarily redeems nonexistence. Love may make life worth living, but only because I am, because I exist. Were I not to exist, which is to suffer, then I would have no need of love, as there would be no suffering to define love's antithesis.

I've explained to you that in no way can you say the child will avoid suffering if you don't have him. — Agustino

Suffering is of the world, not of nonexistence. The child cannot necessarily experience suffering if it does not exist. Therefore, if the child does not exist, it does not suffer, which means it has avoided suffering by not suffering. This is super simple to understand. I don't think I can write it any clearer.

Because it does not follow that what redeems existence necessarily redeems nonexistence. Love may make life worth living, but only because I am, because I exist. Were I not to exist, which is to suffer, then I would have no need of love, as there would be no suffering to define love's antithesis. — Heister Eggcart

This is incoherent. If something redeems existence, say Love, then it follows that existence isn't ultimately an evil, because it can be redeemed. But if existence can be redeemed, and is not ultimately an evil, then your whole antinatalist position falls apart, because you can no longer claim that life is necessarily a tragedy, and thus birth is necessarily to be avoided if possible.

The trouble is it's misleading. You make it sound like the child has acted to avoid suffering while also living. In truth, it's not that the child avoided suffering, but that a suffering child was prevented by denying them existence.

What you are saying here is more an excuse to deny the responsibility for this act. If love makes life worth living, then we ought to give thus child existence so they can experience. Non-existence cannot be used to deny others what they deserve. It's a path which lets the powerful get away with anything and then calls it moral-- "That poor man, he doesn't exist with money or resources, so no-one needs to help him out." The absence of moral outcome cannot be used to deny a moral outcome someone else deserves.

No doubt an anti-natalist postion is possible, but that works no the basis existence cannot be redeemed-- not even love is important or wonderful enough to overcome the pains of suffering. Thus, the argument goes, an attempt to bring new life into the world is unethical. It doesn't work by redeeming the non-existence, but rather holding existence is beyond both redemption and justice-- no-one deserves to be brought into the suffering of life.

"Eugenics" as a term has been used to describe societally enforced gene pools as well as things as simple as prenatal care. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics . I think if we work with your definition (forced breeding practices and the like), this is a simple question, with NAZI Germany offering sufficient empirical evidence of its horrors. — Hanover

This is the issue with morality in general. It's debatable whether we are forced into acting morally, or we choose to do so. I don't think anyone would argue that morality is not good, and should be avoided, because it is something which is forced on us. But surely it can be argued that morality is forced upon us.

The trouble is it's misleading. You make it sound like the child has acted to avoid suffering while also living. In truth, it's not that the child avoided suffering, but that a suffering child was prevented by denying them existence.

What you are saying here is more an excuse to deny the responsibility for this act. If love makes life worth living, then we ought to give thus child existence so they can experience. Non-existence cannot be used to deny others what they deserve. It's a path which lets the powerful get away with anything and then calls it moral-- "That poor man, he doesn't exist with money or resources, so no-one needs to help him out." The absence of moral outcome cannot be used to deny a moral outcome someone else deserves. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Willow, it's time for us two to each open our calendars, and make note of this great day when we finally agreed on something!

I think we can use the term to apply to designer babies in a Capitalist setting, even though as you say it is speculative sci-fi at the moment. The term is possibly too shadowed by its history and should maybe be abandoned to your definition. — Nils Loc

Individuals selecting traits for their planned infant from a menu of genetic possibilities is certainly related to eugenics, but because it is directed by individual choice, doesn't have the same 'shadowing' as that practiced by states in the US or by Nazi Germany.

There are problems inherent in the market-driven designer baby scenario. We see the consequences in India, where for the last 30 years or so parents have used abortion, and infanticide, to obtain preferred male babies. The result is that there are now too many male babies and not enough female babies for the now-adult men to marry. If all the extra male babies were gay, that would be advantageous for all these forced bachelors, but they are straight, 9.7 times out of 10.

Were Americans, for instance, able to choose from a menu of features, i would expect to see a lot more tall, muscular, blond men with nice teeth and blue eyes. Fine by me; tall, muscular blue-eyed blonds with great teeth are nice to look at, but who will the surplus studs marry if there are too few females? Will the blonds form an elite caste? "No skinny, short, fat, black-haired, dusky skinned, gap toothed individuals need apply"?

You've seen the film, GATTACA, I'm sure, where citizens are discriminated against on the basis of whether they've undergone pre-birth genetic enhancement. — Nils Loc

No, didn't see Gattaca. I've added it to my list of "should see, must read, ought to do, over-due, deep doo doo if I don't do" list.

You're just talking to me with this response. Anyhoo, a new challenger has approached, so perhaps let me argue with them, then maybe you'll understand better what I'm trying to say, if read at a distance.

The trouble is it's misleading. You make it sound like the child has acted to avoid suffering while also living — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, this would actually be me, the person deciding not to procreate. Although, I don't think I really know what you're trying to say here.

In truth, it's not that the child avoided suffering, but that a suffering child was prevented by denying them existence.

You just turned 180 degrees, and then 180 degrees again. Saying the same thing a different way doesn't altar the thought, Miss Willow.

What you are saying here is more an excuse to deny the responsibility for this act. — TheWillowOfDarkness

wot

If love makes life worth living, then we ought to give thus child existence so they can experience. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope. Me, myself, and I think life is worth living because of love. The child I may bring into existence may not agree.

Non-existence cannot be used to deny others what they deserve. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You've essentially just said that non-existing entities deserve to exist. Okay, why do you say that? If every unborn child deserves to exist, then I should expect to see you with lots and lots and lots and lots of kids running around...no? Why not?

It's a path which lets the powerful get away with anything and then calls it moral-- "That poor man, he doesn't exist with money or resources, so no-one needs to help him out." The absence of moral outcome cannot be used to deny a moral outcome someone else deserves.

You're talking about someone who already exists in this world, so you've not properly compared anything to an unborn, non-existing child.

No doubt an anti-natalist postion is possible — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't assign a negative value to birth, so I'm not an antinatalist.

I don't assign a negative value to birth, so I'm not an antinatalist. — Heister Eggcart

That's what makes your position incoherent. Without a negative value to birth, it makes no sense to deny potential children existence, for any reason. To argue someone ought not exist becasue of the suffering which will occur during their life is to place a negative value on their birth.

Nope. Me, myself, and I think life is worth living because of love. The child I may bring into existence may not agree. — Heister Eggcart

What if they were to agree though? How can you make the decision to deny them that opportunity? This is why you are assigning a negative value to their birth. On the off change they won't find life worth living, you decide they will not be at all. What justifies this decision on your part?

Certainly, not the fact they don't care because they aren't alive yet. That's just a naturalistic fallacy that someone failing to care what you do makes it okay. This is what I mean about denying your responsibility. You try to pass off your denial of life to the child as if it was an act without significance to what happens in the world.

You've essentially just said that non-existing entities deserve to exist. Okay, why do you say that? If every unborn child deserves to exist, then I should expect to see you with lots and lots and lots and lots of kids running around...no? Why not? — Heister Eggcart

The point is made on the idea that love redeems a life of suffering. If that is true, without qualification (e.g. without a negative value assumed to birth, limitation to your own experience), then the non-existence of a child is no reason to deny them a life containing love. Their suffering soul be fine because love would be their to make life worth living anyway.

Also, this is lazy rhetoric. If I held the above position, I wouldn't necessarily have acted morally myself. Even if we assume I meet other criteria which might be critical to having a child (e.g. that I have a willing partner), I might have failed to meet this standard of having children. You cannot expect such an ethical argument to be false just because someone hasn't lived up to it. That's a category error-- the confusion of how someone acts with the significance of a moral position.

"Hypocrisy" is a logical fallacy. Just because someone doesn't do what they say people ought to, it doesn't mean the moral argument they are making is wrong. If a serial killer tells you not to kill people at random, their argument is still right, even if they might be constantly violating that ethical precept constantly.

Anyhoo, a new challenger has approached, so perhaps let me argue with them, then maybe you'll understand better what I'm trying to say, if read at a distance. — Heister Eggcart

*grabs popcorn*

Without a negative value to birth, it makes no sense to deny potential children existence, for any reason. To argue someone ought not exist becasue of the suffering which will occur during their life is to place a negative value on their birth. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'm anti-procreation, not anti-birth.

What if they were to agree though? How can you make the decision to deny them that opportunity? This is why you are assigning a negative value to their birth. On the off change they won't find life worth living, you decide they will not be at all. What justifies this decision on your part? — TheWillowOfDarkness

There's no opportunity cost for that which does not exist.

Certainly, not the fact they don't care because they aren't alive yet. — TheWillowOfDarkness

So, nonexistence cares? huh, how?

That's just a naturalistic fallacy that someone failing to care what you do makes it okay.

This "someone" doesn't exist, though........

This is what I mean about denying your responsibility. You try to pass off your denial of life to the child as if it was an act without significance to what happens in the world.

The only significance in the world that results from my not procreating is what affects me. The world is not affected by what does not exist in it. Non-existing children only matter once they've been willed into the world, which is why I'm against abortion, for instance.

The point is made on the idea that love redeems a life of suffering. If that is true, without qualification (e.g. without a negative value assumed to birth, limitation to your own experience), then the non-existence of a child is no reason to deny them a life containing love. Their suffering soul be fine because love would be their to make life worth living anyway. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Life is suffering, and one is only ensured to suffer, not to find love. Love is but a possibility, not a certainty. Redemption does not make the world good, it merely brings the fallen back up to its knees, figuratively speaking.

Also, this is lazy rhetoric. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is a rhetorical comment, right?

If I held the above position, I wouldn't necessarily have acted morally myself. Even if we assume I meet other criteria which might be critical to having a child (e.g. that I have a willing partner), I might have failed to meet this standard of having children. You cannot expect such an ethical argument to be false just because someone hasn't lived up to it. That's a category error-- the confusion of how someone acts with the significance of a moral position.

I have precisely no idea what you're trying to tell me here. Please rephrase and help me understand.

"Hypocrisy" is a logical fallacy. Just because someone doesn't do what they say people ought to, it doesn't mean the moral argument they are making is wrong. If a serial killer tells you not to kill people at random, their argument is still right, even if they might be constantly violating that ethical precept constantly. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Who, what, dafuq? If someone agrees with my position as I understand it, and they still have children, then they're morally bankrupt and do not have the authority to posit what they don't practice. Good intentions must lead to good actions. If one never acts in accordance to their supposed intentions, then they've not truly intended to act the good.

I'm literally going to pop some popcorn here in a minute. Got a box of movie theater popcorn at the store, looks gnarly (Y)

Although the sodium may end up killing me... >:o

lol but I thought that since you don't want to bring children into the world, and you consider non-existence to entail an end to suffering, therefore the sodium killing you would actually be doing you a favor no? :-O

No, I have a few people in my life that I share love with, which makes my life worth living. Thanks for your worry, though :D

Without a negative value to birth, it makes no sense to deny potential children existence, for any reason. — TheWillowOfDarkness

What the hell is a potential child? If we made every potential child become an actual, existent child, wouldn't the earth be so overrun with children that they'd pile right up to the moon or something?

I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with eugenics as long as everyone participating in it is doing do voluntarily, per their own goals with it.

I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with eugenics as long as everyone participating in it is doing do voluntarily, per their own goals with it. — Terrapin Station

So like what's going on right now?

It's going on with some people right now, sure.

The problem is the term fitness in the context of eugenics is often defined normative.

For example the Nazi's deemed jews to be unfit.

To presume to know what biological traits are the most fit objectively is to presume to have all knowledge about nature and evolution.

Sorry I am skeptical that any one can know what traits are best suited for reproduction and what traits are not.

I doubt anybody could know such thing because it implies there is some objective goal of evolution.

Our consciousness [means we should go extinct] — Heister Eggcart

Do you believe consciousness to be an inherent bad or is it just bad the way consciousness interacts with the other attributes of humanity?
Either way, why?
I expected it to be [spoiler]something like the fact that we're the most powerful species and therefore those able to do the most damage[/spoiler]

Just to keep people on track here... Eugenics isn't about what "you" want, it's about what the authorities have decreed. Eugenics is a plan for improvement which has nothing to do with your personal preferences. Of necessity, it has been, is, or would be decreed and enforced by centralized authority with enough power to coerce "you" into breeding or not breeding as directed. — Bitter Crank

Actually the way I, OP, used it, it could also mean a cultural attitude and thinking or saying otherwise shows that you haven't actually read the OP properly.

Actually the way I, OP, used it, it could also mean a cultural attitude and thinking or saying otherwise shows that you haven't actually read the OP properly. — Ovaloid

I don't know why you are telling me this 16 days after I posted my comment. I could have died and been buried a couple of weeks ago, and might have left this world without your ever-perceptive correction.

If posters want their texts to be read in a very specific way, then they better write precisely structured posts so that errant "misreadings" are nigh unto impossible. We cast our bread on the water. If gulls rather than swans swoop in and snatch it... well, that's life in the big city.

Are you trying to say that a person should not complain if he or she is misunderstood?
Surely being understood and contributing what it is that the poster wishes to be understood is the entire reason behind posting something.
http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/829/proper-interpretation

Sarcasm--->Not only should we be punished for misreading but also for post redundancy due to skipping posts. I suppose it could be part of the PF's behavioral engineering program.<---Sarcasm