Unsolicited mercy killings are not preferable because it is violation of liberty and consent. One does not have to assume that potential people would rather be dead than alive, it is enough to assume that there is a chance that they will not want to be alive.

In the case of unsolicited mercy killings, you are enabling suffering that is ultimately in the realm of another person. In the case of potential people, you are causing suffering if you have a child.

Special pleading. Why does unsolicited mercy killings not violate liberty and consent of potential people? Why can't you kill actual people based on the assumption that there is a chance that they would rather be dead than alive?

You have to admit that you are treating potential and actual people entirely different, with entirely different (often opposing) moral obligations. You can kill people without causing them harm or suffering. You're right though that it's because it's in the realm of another person, and you must ultimately stay neutral and unpresuming about whether they want to live or die, because you know that they actually have their own will, and get to decide that. When it comes to potential people you can project all over them, because they don't.

So now you are the cause of their suffering? I thought you were just telling TGW about how that's straining the definition of "cause"? It must only be cool when you do it.

Special pleading. Why does unsolicited mercy killings not violate liberty and consent of potential people? Why can't you kill actually people based on the assumption that there is a chance that they would rather be dead than alive? — Wosret

Because what if they actually don't want to die? Then you'd be harming them. It's none of mine nor your business to be involved in the continuation or lack thereof of someone else's life.

So now you are the cause of their suffering? I thought you were just telling TGW about how that's straining the definition of "cause"? It must be only cool when you do it. — Wosret

You are correct, my mistake.

Anyway, if you throw a glass beer bottle out the window without concern about its trajectory, we would see this as neglect and immoral because you might kill someone. But expel a baby out of the womb of a woman without knowing the various trajectories in life the baby will have, and in fact knowing the ultimate final trajectory (death), for some reason this is supposed to be acceptable.

Okay, I don't really find discussion with you productive, so it's probably for the best.

And if you asked the vast majority of living people if they'd rather have never been born, what do you think they'd say? If they said "no", are they wrong, or just confused? If the vast majority of people would say "no" (which I'm fairly confident they would), why would you expect a different answer from the unborn? If they're just wrong, and confused about wanting to be alive, again, why is it different?

It is none of your business, unless it's about their reproduction, and then it's all your business, despite good reason to think that the vast majority of potential people would rather be actual than not, if asking actual people is an indication.

There are very many scenarioes in which one takes every precaution, and isn't negligent, and harm still occurs which isn't in their control. Everyone frowns on negligent parents -- yet understanding that plenty that we do involves risk, and requires attentiveness, care and precaution. The implication being that no one should ever act in any way because of the risk of harm that may ensue, or that all actions are negligent unless one is omniscient and omnipotent in being able to avoid harm. That is clearly an unreasonable view.

And if you asked the vast majority of living people if they'd rather have never been born, what do you think they'd say? If they said "no", are they wrong, or just confused? If the vast majority of people would say "no" (which I'm fairly confident they would), why would you expect a different answer from the unborn? If they're just wrong, and confused about wanting to be alive, again, why is it different? — Wosret

For many antinatalists, I think that birth is a stand in for not just possible and unknown suffering that can or will occur, but has a large tie-in with the endlessly instrumental project that existence seems to represent. An antinatalist might think along the lines of "Another person is born, which means another instrument that has no reason for "this and that" pursuit other than that is alive and programmed to more or less fear death and seek goals". It is not the potential for happy or meaningful moments that the antinatalist sees, but yet another experiencer of the instrumental running-around nature of existence. Yes there are happy moments, and moments of goal-attainment, and lessons on living with not getting one's goals, and adjusting to realities while maximizing ones efforts for what one wants out of life, yadayadayada. However, it is the emptiness and vanity in all pursuits that are more vivid. Why should more vain pursuits be started in the first place when the alternative is to not even start it. So you see, that to the antianatalist is important. Even if non-antinatalists (or non-anatalists), don't see what antinatalists see as "the bigger picture". The antinatalists see this as a large problem.

That is entirely my impression, and is an honest reply. It isn't about the description of the wills, or dispositions of others, and a worry for this -- it is rather an imposition, and global evaluation of life made by the anti-natalist.

It has nothing to do with what anyone else wants, or feels. It's all about the anti-natalist being right, anyone else that disagrees just being wrong, and evaluating the whole of life as pointless, and negative.

That is entirely my impression, and is an honest reply. It isn't about the description of the wills, or dispositions of others, and a worry for this -- it is rather an imposition, and global evaluation of life made by the anti-natalist.

It has nothing to do with what anyone else wants, or feels. It's all about the anti-natalist being right, anyone else that disagrees just being wrong, and evaluating the whole of life as pointless, and negative. — Wosret

Well, I'm not saying the antinatalist is wrong in thinking this though. Unless the antinatalist physically forces someone not to have a child, I don't see how it is an "imposition". In a community of free exchange, they are conveying their view of their evaluation of life, and thus why they think it would not benefit the child for it to be born. The receiver of this information can say, "fuck you", "hmm interesting, I kind of think that too", or any number of variations in between. There is nothing wrong with this.

Another point that can come from this is that antinatalists see something about the world that perhaps they think people are overlooking. It is not something that is simply kept to oneself once ones views the world in this way. It is something that often times has to be explained to others. That's how many things work. We are social animals after all, and we are often compelled to share our views, whether negative to the listener or not.

Further, not only is there a need to share the information, if they think the child is being thrown into the world as just another experiencer for vain pursuits, this would be alarming to them, and I don't see why someone (even if they disagreed) would not understand why the antinatalist would want to convey this notion to others if it is so alarming to them. To extrapolate from one's own life what appears to be a deep reality to the situation of life, is not an unfair move by the antinatalist, but makes sense.

No, no. That's why I said what you said was "honest", I don't think you're saying that antinatalists are wrong, I figured you were one.

The imposition is with respect to claiming that it's really what everyone wants, or that it's a violation of the wills of the unborn to force them to exist. Of course not to simply tell people about what they think, but to claim that everyone actually thinks it too, and are lying, or confused, or some such. That's an imposition of one's view on to others. It would be of course be a lot worse to try to sterilize everyone or something, lol, which would definitely be a more extreme case of it.

Yes, certainly everyone tends to think that everyone that disagrees with them about anything is missing something important. Personally, I'm fairly confident that I alone have sole access to the truth.

Of course not to simply tell people about what they think, but to claim that everyone actually thinks it too, and are lying, or confused, or some such. That's an imposition of one's view on to others. — Wosret

Well, I am not sure about the lying but I think it can be justified that the antinatalists may think those who do not see their view may be overlooking certain things that they themselves see and are trying to convey what it is they see. If the other person still does not recognize this, it doesn't mean that the antinatalist will then say "your truth is yours, my truth is mine". Rather, it is probably more along the lines of "you don't see the actual truth of the matter" or "if you do see the truth, you aren't seeing the implications of it". Antinatalists see it at every turn, in many successive moments. Now, you can counter that "but I don't!". But you see, potential child represents more continuation of this truth, and so will let you know about it. So, can you really blame them on telling people this understanding? Also, if it is seen as foundational, then all the more reason they will try in every way they can to make their case known.

I don't think that you're grasping the context of the particular point I was making. The claim was that it's appropriate to have moral obligations to potential people, and consider their wills, and well being, and this is why it's immoral to have births, because you don't know whether or not they will wish to be born. I was then pointing out that if this was true, then it's a better assumption that they would want to be born. Whether they're wrong to want that or not is neither here nor there. You aren't violating their wills, if anything not having children is violating the wills of the unborn, if actual people are any indication with regards people's dispositions towards wanting and not wanting to have been born. Whether they ought to want that, or are wrong to want what one wants is neither here nor there.

I don't expect people to be all "well, that's your truth, and this is mine". I expect the complete opposite of that, and find it trivial to expect that people think others are wrong, and missing something when they disagree with them, rather than all is relative.

I don't think that you're grasping the context of the particular point I was making. The claim was that it's appropriate to have moral obligations to potential people, and consider their wills, and well being, and this is why it's immoral to have births, because you don't know whether or not they will wish to be born. I was then pointing out that if this was true, then it's a better assumption that they would want to be born. Whether they're wrong to want that or not is neither here nor their. You aren't violating their wills, if anything not having children is violating the wills of the unborn, if actual people are any indication with regards people's dispositions towards wanting and not wanting to have been born. Whether they ought to want that, or are wrong to want what one wants is neither here nor there. — Wosret

I am not sure that you are characterizing the argument that antinatalists make correctly. I think the assumption is that life brings much harm, is instrumental (pursuits but in vain, emptiness, underlying angst, not sure why things keep going to go to go etc.) and if people did see this understanding, which is the truth of the matter, they would turn away from it. To bring someone into this reality, if they knew the truth of it, is not something that should be imposed. If the antinatalist thinks that the complete logical response to life is the pessimistic stance, then the assumption is, if the new person was completely logical in response to life, they would not have consented. Whether a majority of people would have this response to life might have nothing to do with the consideration.

In addition to this, Benatar also addressed this point. The absence of pleasure is not bad for something that does not exist yet, but certainly, the absence of pain is good, whether someone exists to experience that good or not. Adding in the instrumentality of existence (I'll just call IoE), this can also be used, the absence of the IoE is good, even if there is no one there to experience that good or not.

I am not sure that you are characterizing the argument that antinatalists make correctly. — schopenhauer1

Probably not, since I was talking to a particular person about a particular thing they said.

I don't think you know what "logic" means. You mean something agreeing with your emotional evaluation, not logic, or facts. What information does someone that hates pie have that someone that loves it doesn't? Aren't they perfectly capable of having all of the exact same information, or facts about pies, agree, but still have different dispositions? How much sense does it make to say that one is illogical to like pie? Is it illogical to like or dislike anything, really? Tastes, or emotional dispositions aren't about logic, or facts.

I didn't realize that when you were talking about not thinking "this is your truth, and this is mine", that you were talking about tastes, which I indeed do think are relative.

And if you asked the vast majority of living people if they'd rather have never been born, what do you think they'd say? If they said "no", are they wrong, or just confused? If the vast majority of people would say "no" (which I'm fairly confident they would), why would you expect a different answer from the unborn? If they're just wrong, and confused about wanting to be alive, again, why is it different? — Wosret

You are confusing a life worth continuing with a life worth starting, and clumping them together as a life worth living. It doesn't matter if the majority think they are glad they are born. Furthermore, there are good reasons to think that people's appropriation of their lives are flawed and stem from optimism biases.

Antinatalism is not an unreasonable view because it doesn't tell people to radically change their lifestyles. It advocates a single change in action that people can live without.

To further go on, what you consider to be "pointless", "meaningless", "empty", and "vain", I very much do as well, and that's precisely why they're so great. I definitely wouldn't want there to be some thing I'm supposed to be doing: some test or end goal to my life. That sounds like a lot of pressure, and a kind of slavery. The triviality, the lack of deep meaning or point in everything that I do is what makes them light, and enjoyable to me. This is life's greatest virtue in my view.

Being a weirdo like me, I've always been surrounded by other people and their absurd notions of a natural or divine order, or teleology, attempting to impose on me the way things ought to be, what they're for, and how to feel about them, and myself in the world. The biggest relief is that they're all wrong.

No, I'm not conflating the two, I think attributing moral obligations to potential people is absurd in the first place. I'm more pointing out that if I had to guess what potential people wanted, the best guess would be based on what actual people wanted. What are you basing it on other than just your own private opinion, and nothing objective at all -- rejecting everyone's opinions instead, rendering your view in no sense descriptive, and entirely prescriptive.

It's an unreasonable view because it asks you to accept outrageous claims about the value of life, that disagree with what you feel and believe about life, while telling you that you just don't get it like I do.

Likewise.

One does not have to assume that potential people would rather be dead than alive, it is enough to assume that there is a chance that they will not want to be alive. — darthbarracuda

Wow. It certainly isn't, at least the way that I see it, which I don't think is unreasonable.

Anyway, if you throw a glass beer bottle out the window without concern about its trajectory, we would see this as neglect and immoral because you might kill someone. But expel a baby out of the womb of a woman without knowing the various trajectories in life the baby will have, and in fact knowing the ultimate final trajectory (death), for some reason this is supposed to be acceptable. — darthbarracuda

That analogy doesn't match up. In the former, you speak of a lack of concern, implying recklessness, but in the latter, you speak of a lack of knowledge, which doesn't necessarily imply recklessness. To be reckless is to not give due consideration to the risks, or to act with disregard of the risks.

Also, you seem to be implying that death is bad, which is arguable. I don't think that death is, in itself, bad. Who actually wants to live forever, when they really think about it? Immortality is the epitome of the cliché "be careful what you wish for...". Death might mean the end to a fulfilling life: a life well lived. One might be prepared for it. It might even be quick and painless.

The mere possibility of a bad life is not sufficient grounds to make a sensible judgement. That also applies to many a situation as a general rule of thumb. Do you avoid crossing roads? Not a fan of any of the more extreme sports? I've been skydiving, and I don't have a single regret about it. It was well worth it. It was possibly the most exhilarating experience of my life.

The implication being that no one should ever act in any way because of the risk of harm that may ensue, or that all actions are negligent unless one is omniscient and omnipotent in being able to avoid harm. That is clearly an unreasonable view. — Wosret

Exactly. All anti-natalists set up a false dilemma: a life that's not worth living or no life at all.

It is not the potential for happy or meaningful moments that the antinatalist sees... — schopenhauer1

Then that's where they go wrong. It does often seem as though they are blind to, or overlook, that potential.

I definitely wouldn't want there to be some thing I'm supposed to be doing: some test or end goal to my life. That sounds like a lot of pressure, and a kind of slavery. The triviality, the lack of deep meaning or point in everything that I do is what makes them light, and enjoyable to me. This is life's greatest virtue in my view.

Being a weirdo like me, I've always been surrounded by other people and their absurd notions of a natural or divine order, or teleology, attempting to impose on me the way things ought to be, what they're for, and how to feel about them, and myself in the world. The biggest relief is that they're all wrong. — Wosret

Good point. I am of like mind.

That analogy doesn't match up. In the former, you speak of a lack of concern, implying recklessness, but in the latter, you speak of a lack of knowledge, which doesn't necessarily imply recklessness. To be reckless is to not give due consideration to the risks, or to act with disregard of the risks. — Sapientia

But this is exactly what birth entails; an unnecessary risk imposition. The parent's process of "giving consideration" is usually quite little to even none at all, and it is always under the threat of optimism bias (it's always their child that gets the debilitating disease, not my child...and lo and behold the child ends up with a debilitating disease).

Also, you seem to be implying that death is bad, which is arguable. I don't think that death is, in itself, bad. Who actually wants to live forever, when they really think about it? Immortality is the epitome of the cliché "be careful what you wish for...". Death might mean the end to a fulfilling life: a life well lived. One might be prepared for it. It might even be quick and painless. — Sapientia

Death is bad only if someone does not want to die or is not ready to die. I would be willing to say that in most cases, people die either suddenly and when they do not wish to, or die after a grueling process of endurance. For people alive today, death is pushed back to the dark recesses of the mind in the same way taxes are pushed back (procrastinated). It is seen as a far-off problem that one must not focus on because there are "more important things to do".

The mere possibility of a bad life is not sufficient grounds to make a sensible judgement. That also applies to many a situation as a general rule of thumb. Do you avoid crossing roads? Not a fan of any of the more extreme sports? I've been skydiving, and I don't have a single regret about it. It was well worth it. It was possibly the most exhilarating experience of my life. — Sapientia

In those examples, you personally consented to risking your life, and everyone on the road consented to risking their lives, so there's no problem with that. But say you forced someone to skydive, and their chute failed and they plunged to their death...is that acceptable?

But this is exactly what birth entails; an unnecessary risk imposition. The parent's process of "giving consideration" is usually quite little to even none at all, and it is always under the threat of optimism bias (it's always their child that gets the debilitating disease, not my child...and lo and behold the child ends up with a debilitating disease). — darthbarracuda

I don't think you'd be a very good poker player. Judging by your reasoning, you'd fold every hand, or refuse to even join the game! But that's not a very accurate analogy, because there are far more people who profit from life than who profit from poker.

The risk imposition is necessary. It's necessary for humanity to continue to exist beyond the current generation, and that's a goal that most of humanity believes is worth pursuing (so it's not an irrational pursuit for most of humanity, either).

To give birth is not necessarily a reckless act, but even if it were, we both agree that the consequences are important too, and I'd say more so in this case. Much good can come of such recklessness: we're talking about a human life, after all. It's a bit like finding a diamond in the rough.

Death is bad only if someone does not want to die or is not ready to die. — darthbarracuda

For innumerable people, myself included, to live and die is better than the alternatives of either life without death or no life at all. Our testament should not count for nothing. You are not giving us enough credit.

I would be willing to say that in most cases, people die either suddenly and when they do not wish to, or die after a grueling process of endurance. — darthbarracuda

For a balanced view, one must weigh this against the worth of the life that they've lived. Whether it would have been better not to have lived at all. Your error is to think that there can only be one right answer, which happens to be your own.

For people alive today, death is pushed back to the dark recesses of the mind in the same way taxes are pushed back (procrastinated). It is seen as a far-off problem that one must not focus on because there are "more important things to do". — darthbarracuda

There is good reason for that. I'd recommend it.

In those examples, you personally consented to risking your life, and everyone on the road consented to risking their lives, so there's no problem with that. But say you forced someone to skydive, and their chute failed and they plunged to their death...is that acceptable? — darthbarracuda

That only makes sense because we're talking about a life, and a life that has value. Take life or value out of the equation, and it makes no sense. Yet there is not a life in the hypothetical scenario that we're considering, nor do you think that such a life would have value, or at least not enough value to have been created in the first place - which is pretty much the bare minimum in terms of value.

There's a category error here that you seem to have made, given this analogy, and that TGW has definitely made in some form or another. Consent doesn't apply. There is no one to either consent or deny or to even consult. For the same reason, it's either false or nonsensical to say that it's against their will.

I don't think you'd be a very good poker player. Judging by your reasoning, you'd fold every hand, or refuse to even join the game! But that's not a very accurate analogy, because there are far more people who profit from life than who profit from poker. — Sapientia

This is not correct. I rather enjoy playing cards and know that there is a chance I may lose. Notice, I may lose, not someone else in the case of birth.

The risk imposition is necessary. It's necessary for humanity to continue to exist beyond the current generation, and that's a goal that most of humanity believes is worth pursuing (so it's not an irrational pursuit for most of humanity, either). — Sapientia

The risk imposition is completely unnecessary, as there is absolutely nothing of substantial value that is worth continuing without consent of those who must bear the burden of continuing the human race.

The value placed upon the continuation of the human race is purely irrational. There is no point in continuing it, and in fact there are good reasons to stop continuing it and allow it to fade out of existence. But the extinction of the human race (and other species presumably as well) is merely a by-product of antinatalism, not the overall goal. We're not pro-mortalists or pro-extinctionists.

And, ultimately, the human race will end, whether you like this fact or not. Entropy's a bitch. So continuing the species is merely kicking the can down the road.

For a balanced view, one must weigh this against the worth of the life that they've lived. Whether it would have been better not to have lived at all. Your error is to think that there can only be one right answer, which happens to be your own. — Sapientia

Someone can live a life of luxury as a prince of a slave nation. They may be one of those very lucky individuals in which suffering is unheard of. But then the slaves rise up and brutally torture and execute the prince, during which all of the past pleasure are entirely unimportant. They are gone. And now the prince is in so much excruciating pain that he wishes he had never been born at all.

There's a category error here that you seem to have made, given this analogy, and that TGW has definitely made in some form or another. Consent doesn't apply. There is no one to either consent or deny or to even consult. For the same reason, it's either false or nonsensical to say that it's against their will. — Sapientia

Do you think bringing a child into the world simply to torture it would be a violation of consent? You at least have to say that it would have been in the child's "best interests" to not have come into existence...but according to your argument, interests cannot be applied to non-existent entities. They have to first be born, and suffer, before they are morally important...what?

This is not correct. I rather enjoy playing cards and know that there is a chance I may lose. — darthbarracuda

You'd lose if I were your opponent. That's for sure. ;)

Notice, I may lose, not someone else in the case of birth. — darthbarracuda

OK, but I take it you don't approve of throwing surprise parties or giving presents. There's an unnecessary risk imposition. There's a chance that they won't want it.

The risk imposition is completely unnecessary, as there is absolutely nothing of substantial value that is worth continuing without consent of those who must bear the burden of continuing the human race.

The value placed upon the continuation of the human race is purely irrational. There is no point in continuing it, and in fact there are good reasons to stop continuing it and allow it to fade out of existence. — darthbarracuda

:D

Sure.

And, ultimately, the human race will end, whether you like this fact or not. Entropy's a bitch. So continuing the species is merely kicking the can down the road. — darthbarracuda

Of course it'll end. Whether it's merely kicking the can down the road or coming along for the ride is largely a matter of perspective. If you fail to realise that, then that's your problem.

Someone can live a life of luxury as a prince of a slave nation. They may be one of those very lucky individuals in which suffering is unheard of. But then the slaves rise up and brutally torture and execute the prince, during which all of the past pleasure are entirely unimportant. They are gone. And now the prince is in so much excruciating pain that he wishes he had never been born at all. — darthbarracuda

Riiiiiight. Is that supposed to be representative of everyone's life? There can be no happy ending? The world is a stage, but the play must be a tragedy?

Your narrative is impoverished, hyperbolic, and comically one-sided.

Do you think bringing a child into the world simply to torture it would be a violation of consent? You at least have to say that it would have been in the child's "best interests" to not have come into existence...but according to your argument, interests cannot be applied to non-existent entities. They have to first be born, and suffer, before they are morally important...what? — darthbarracuda

Pah! Torture?! More hyperbole. I'm sorry, but I'm finding it hard to take your position seriously.

OK, but I take it you don't approve of throwing surprise parties or giving presents. There's an unnecessary risk imposition. There's a chance that they won't want it. — Sapientia

True. This is an example of when the asymmetry and consent argument begins to break down. But a twenty dollar present is a small loss if they don't like it. That's why we don't spend a fortune on a gift that they may or may not like.

Riiiiiight. Is that supposed to be representative of everyone's life? There can be no happy ending? The world is a stage, but the play must be a tragedy?

Your narrative is impoverished, hyperbolic, and comically one-sided. — Sapientia

Nobody wants to be in this situation. Every parent wishes their child the best. And yet these situations, or analogous situations, do in fact exist. It's just that nobody wants to recognize it.

That's some silly shit. "Unnecessary risk" implies that something could be accomplished without the risk. Otherwise it would be like telling someone attempting to assemble a bed that a screwdriver is unnecessary, they could just roll over and die instead.

Most children don't develop debilitating diseases, as just a matter of statistical likelihood, so assuming that a child won't is hardly optimism bias, unless most of the children around them actually were. Otherwise the exact opposite is actually the case. As Sapient says, all of your examples are hyperbolic, and outlying unlikelihoods. If life was so bad, you'd had something better than death itself that was more commonly applicable to people.

Bringing me to death. For some reason it's not okay to not be totes bummed out by death in every moment, and no matter how much icecream and blowjobs someone is getting in the moment, that's just a distraction from thinking about the terribleness of death all day -- yet if one had a speculator life reminiscing, or distracting themselves with memories, and maybe even appreciating them good ol'days even more when the horrible end comes is inappropriate, or irrational. One should instead be all like "I wish all of that awesome stuff didn't happen to me along with this!", instead of "man, I wish all of that awesome stuff was still happening instead of this".

I plan my last words to be "totally worth it".