Thanks :)
I mean come on already right? Evidently i still have work to do, my response got eaten when the threads were merged, I was writing it at the time.

Aren't you the one complaining about suffering? — Terrapin Station

Yes the suffering of your posts.

Alright, but give me the Von Hartmann argument for why that's likely to happen in the future, even tho it hasn't in the past. — csalisbury

It's hard to find one honestly, but here is an excerpt I found:

The term "unconscious," for yon Hartmann includes the entire primordial foundation of all reality, and he sketches the levels and kinds and types in considerable detail. The problem of evil, as might be expected, becomes the center of his philosophical consideration, for we must solve that in order to know what the forces of the unconscious are like. However, yon Hartmann's goal becomes to shatter the individual's hope of attaining happiness in a life hereafter. His pessimism makes him basically opposed to Christianity. In its progress, the world will return to its proper and original state of rest. Men are doomed but God will also go along with us. The final call to morality is issued by pessimism. It is our duty to remain in life and to continue the human species in order to alleviate the misery of the absolute by our constant sufferings. The ultimate end unveils itself in the return of all existence into nonexistence. Obviously, this is a metaphysics with a grand sweep. Professor Darnoi gives us mostly a bold picture and very little critical evaluation, although such criticisms as he suggests are simply offered and not supported in detail. We are left with a voluntarist and a pessimist of radical proportions, and the book's value lies in its description of a little-known metaphysics. — https://muse.jhu.edu/article/229388/pdf

The fact that you or anyone else can intellectualise about it doesnt give you a pass on the weakness and self indulgent petulance that motivates it.
You wanna wallow in your diaper then you are free to do so but I invite you to shut up about it because nobody cares.
You should be ashamed of couching this in terms of philosophy rather than the actual source of you continuously bringing it up which is, to review one last time, that you a whiny and weak person. You can do better, diaper off, big boy pants on. Good luck, you sem like you’ll need it.
Also, for the mods who might want to delete that response on ad hom grounds or somesuch, I offer that it is an equally valid retort as the premiss of the thread, and there is actual merit to the criticisms I stated in the context of this thread. — DingoJones

Oh please... this pull yourself up by the bootstraps is just as cliche too.. You mine as well be doing a parody of the drill instructor from Full Metal Jacket. It is the uncreative, easy-to-reach-for retort, and doesn't provide much insight other than the chance you take at low-hanging fruit for the "don't be a cry baby" trope. Next.

Yes the suffering of your posts. — schopenhauer1

Hence you having a problem rather than me. :razz:

You rephrased what I said into a cliche, then accused me of cliche. A complete strawman.
Im not making reference to whatever pet peeve talking points you are refering to.
Some conservative, Full Metal Jacket caricature of the hard ass telling people to shape up IS a cliche, it IS a kind of jackass who deserves your disdain. Thats one thing. Another thing is an instance where someone IS being weak, and DOES need to grow up. It can ACTUALLY be the case, as I believe is the case here that I was commenting on, that a person is expressing a childish view. It IS possible for everything I said to Andrew to be true AND for it to NOT be an example of the flimsy strawman you have offered.
He IS whining, by which I mean saying nothing of substance and merely complaining and boo hooing for no other reason but to express a tantrum he is having because he didnt consent to being born. Nobody did. Its not the kind of thing one can actually do. It is pathetic and weak, and I for one am not moved even the tiniest bit because he couches his childish, pointless discontent in bad philosophy. Sophisticated whining is still whining, and thought out contructed weakness is still weakness.

it IS a kind of jackass who deserves your disdain. — DingoJones

This I figured out.

It is pathetic and weak, and I for one am not moved even the tiniest bit because he couches his childish, pointless discontent in bad philosophy. Sophisticated whining is still whining, and thought out contructed weakness is still weakness. — DingoJones

And the meek shall inherit the Earth. So what if he's so-called "weak"? What does this advance? He is making a case- don't procreate. You are calling him weak and to grow up. One was an actual philosophical position, the other was just invective at someone's perceived character. Now, sir, I am not saying it is off the table to call out someone's character. I've done so with for example, Mr. Terrapin Station, who indeed doesn't JUST provide an argument but indeed is trying to irk and annoy as well (or at least I see it that way). Mr. Andrew has not done this. He made a general statement about life itself, and an action he thought should be taken to resolve- said general statement. If you think his ARGUMENT is weak, then explain it to him and have him answer it, but this invective on his character when there was no attack on you, is unnecessary, advances nothing philosophically.

I'm going to abbreviate my main arguments against anti-natalism given the time I've already spent on it in the past:

1. Yes, being alive is necessary to be able to suffer but it isn't sufficient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency;
2. The definition of "suffering" employed by pessimists/anti-natalist is not normative free and not acceptable in any type of everyday usage of the word. This is the "whiny" part in my view, where boredom all of a sudden become suffering. You're not suffering, you're just bored;
3. It assumes a utilitarian ethical framework, which I do not accept (as a virtue ethicist).

My post about the fact I did not consent to my experiences is supposed to illustrate from a first person perspective what is being to someone after they have been created on the whim of their parents.

It is not an abstraction but a real lived experience. People love stoicism in suffering because it means people don't have to be infringed on by other peoples suffering or reflect on the true nature of life.

The arguments are skewed when the genuine opposition are silenced or belittled.

Anyhow the lack of consent has real and wide ramifications. Humans are the only species that can reflect on life like this and on issues like consent, ethical issues and the nature of existence.

If I had the energy and didn't suffer from fatigue I would be at war for my stance, It is not a tantrum.

His argument is directly linked to his weakness. He is only able to make his argument by taking a position of such simpering weakness that he cannot tell the difference between suffering and work, or recognise the trade off inherent to reward or happiness and meaning. His argument is refuted by refuting his weakness and childish outlook.

Oh and look at that, he would be at war if he wasnt so tired. Now I think he might be dangerous in addition to weak.

His argument is refuted by refuting his weakness and childish outlook. — DingoJones

Look, I have no bone to pick in this discussion since I don't care either way, but that's a textbook ad hominem fallacy. Nice going, there.

I think there are numerous ethical problems with having a child that make it ethically indefensible. I think consent is one of the biggest problem. Suffering is made a bigger problem because of the lack of consent. You are asking someone to tolerate something they didn't choose.

I think there are problems with creating a society based on this fundamental lack of consent and having ethical expectations of other people.

I don't think you can dismiss peoples individual experiences because society is only made up of individuals. I think people will dismiss some experiences and embrace others like their own.

You don't have to be an antinatalist to be dissatisfied with life, society and peoples ideas and values. The response to the Indian man suing his parents in general shows how irrational and unreflective peoples attitude towards having children is.

So have you decided to join the respectful? I'm ready to engage when you're ready to be more charitable poster. You can keep (believing you are) seeking truth, but there is no rule that truth-seeking is proportional to simply being confrontational and disagreeable.

The assumption of the OP seems to be that no greater good can come from suffering. Basically, suffering is never worth it. You never argued for this. Why should we believe that?

The assumption of the OP seems to be that no greater good can come from suffering. Basically, suffering is never worth it. You never argued for this. Why should we believe that? — Theorem

I don't believe putting an obstacle course on behalf of another person in the name of "no pain, no gain" is ethical. Creating people for the sake of "growing through suffering (whatever amount)", is still not "right". Creating harm where there was none and then post-facto saying it was for the sake of "that" person is not right.

I understand that you believe this, but you still haven't demonstrated why anyone else should believe it.

I understand that you believe this, but you still haven't demonstrated why anyone else should believe it. — Theorem

No ethical theory will have a smoking gun, knockdown, slamdunk argument. Rather, I can try to present the case that creating life for another person is not right, unless there is a guarantee that suffering will not occur for that individual. It would be wrong to create any amount of suffering for another person, for some "X" reason (starting a family, wanting to play the role of parent, watching someone learn about life and overcoming adversity, pressure from family or society, just want to, etc. etc.). While creating suffering where there was no one to suffer is bad, preventing suffering is good. At the same time, there is no ACTUAL person to be deprived of the good of life. This is a win/win.

Fair enough, but I disagree completely. Basically your position is that no amount of goodness/growth/beauty is worth any amount of evil/pain/suffering. If this is a nothing more than a subjective evaluation on your part, then all I can say in response is that as someone who has suffered significantly (though not gratuitously) in life, I would chose existence over non-existence. I know many who have suffered gratuitously who would make the same choice.

Also, is it really fair to make this decision on behalf of those who might/probably would have chosen otherwise?

I think consent is one of the biggest problem. — Andrew4Handel

Something that doesn't exist doesn't have a will. How do you suggest this works?

If this is a nothing more than a subjective evaluation on your part, then all I can say in response is that as someone who has suffered significantly (though not gratuitously) in life, I would chose existence over non-existence. I know many who have suffered gratuitously who would make the same choice. — Theorem

Well, I did say that I agreed that there can never be "objective" deciphering of the axiology of a particular line of ethical reasoning. You can simply lay out the reasoning and appeal to emotions regarding the premise. So yeah, it's "subjective", but no more so than any other ethics. Thus, in the realm of ethical discourse, I lay out the reasoning that follows from the premise and perhaps appeal to emotion regarding the premise which is to not cause harm where there was no harm, and to not make the choice to cause the opportunity for (all other) harm for another person.

Also, it is really fair to make this decision on behalf of those who might/probably would have chosen otherwise? — Theorem

I liken this to "no harm, no foul" reasoning. If no one was ACTUALLY born, no ACTUAL person was deprived of the "goods" of life. If someone is born, an actual person will suffer, however. In other words, it is not bad (or good) if potential person does not actualize to experience good, as there is no actual person to be deprived of that good. On the other hand, that someone did not experience bad is always a good thing, even if there was no actual person to enjoy this.

I liken this to "no harm, no foul" reasoning. If no one was ACTUALLY born, no ACTUAL person was deprived of the "goods" of life. — schopenhauer1

That's not true at all. Billions of actual people would be deprived of the goods (of which there are many) associated with having and raising families.

But more to the point, I asked whether it was fair for us to make the decision on behalf of others. The no harm/no foul principle does not address the question of whether one group of people living at a specific time and place and under specific circumstances has the moral authority to decide whether life is worth living tout court. That seems like a dangerously slippery slope.

I feel deeply unhappy (and ethically perturbed) with the fact that I am (and others are) having horrible experiences and that any experiences including these I did not consent to initially.

.
That’s all true. My own background, and the worse things that happen to a lot of people around the world are as you say, and we didn’t ask for it.
.
Yes, when there’s a “Shit!” moment, I’m reminded that I didn’t ask for this. When people say that, it’s true.
.
But the fact that life is without reason, purpose, meaning or agency (Your parents, purposefully-responsive devices like all of us, and like a Roomba, were only cogs in the machine, not original agents of your life), and the fact that the start of your life was just inevitable, and is now an accomplished fact…
.
--all that doesn’t leave me with anything to complain about.
.
When I spoke of my parents’ culpability, I meant it as proximal explanation, not complaint.
.
So yes, it’s often “Shit!”, but it’s just an inevitable reasonless accomplished-fact.
.
It was inevitable because every hypothetical possibility-world and hypothetical experience-story is inevitable and spontaneous. …including one in which your parents reproduced.
.
As physicist Michael Faraday pointed out in 1844, what’s observed and known about this physical world is logical and mathematical structural-relation. The supposed objectively-existent (whatever that would mean) “stuff” is the stuff of metaphysical theory only.
.
For instance, an inter-referring system of abstract facts are inter-related (…as a truism, just by the facts themselves and their being about eachother). And that’s so, without reference to any outside reality or frame-of-reference, and without any claim of objective existence or real-ness for that system, whatever that would mean.
.
There is this physical world, in its own context, and in the context of your life. …as the setting of a life-experience story that’s a system of inter-referring abstract implications (if-then facts).
.
…inevitably.
.
That isn’t a theory--just uncontroversial statements..
.
It isn’t a metaphysics or ontology, because it claims nothing about what’s “real” or “existent”.
.

I feel life is immoral for two main reasons.

.
Logical inevitability isn’t immoral.
.
Immorality requires an agent.
.

The first reason is because of all the clear problems in the world

.
This societal-world is decidedly immoral.
.

…and the second is the lack of consent when bringing new beings here.

.
None of us consented to being born.
.
Our undeniably culpably-immoral parents were the proximal mechanism of our birth, not its original agent. There was no agency for the inevitable start of our lives.
.
Without agency, no immorality.
.

I don't think being alive or being dead are in my interest.

.
That’s right. Both the start, and the soon end, of this life were/are inevitable, and there’s no point or reason to blame, protest, second-guess or evaluate it.
.
Our time in this inevitable but temporary life is brief, so what is there to do, but to enjoy it while it lasts.
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
10 Th

The definition of "suffering" employed by pessimists/anti-natalist is not normative free and not acceptable in any type of everyday usage of the word. This is the "whiny" part in my view, where boredom all of a sudden become suffering. You're not suffering, you're just bored; — Benkei

To be fair to the anti-natalist, boredom is just one part of what makes life less worth living. If some occasional short term boredom were the end of it, then sure, we could easily dismiss their argument. But it's not. I'm okay with some boredom. But there are other things in life that are not so okay that often have to be dealt with which do make me question whether being alive is worth it, from time to time.

I think consent is one of the biggest problem.
— Andrew4Handel

Something that doesn't exist doesn't have a will. How do you suggest this works? — Benkei

For an antinatalist the lack of consent involved in creating a child is a deterrent from doing this.

But even if you are not antinatalist acknowledging the lack of consenting raises ethical issues which puts the onus of responsibilities on parents.

You have to be really quite confident as a parent to think your child will benefit from having you as a parent and being in this world. It is easy to imagine a hypothetical better world.

I think creating a new person gives you different responsibilities for, not just to your child, but society compared to the childless.

People often use the phrase "our children" as if we have collective responsibility or are all endorsing the same thing. I see having a child as an endorsement of everything, everything you are exposing them to.

Our time in this inevitable but temporary life is brief, so what is there to do, but to enjoy it while it lasts. — Michael Ossipoff

I am not convinced by the inevitability argument.

The problem is that is is not always on our power to enjoy life. I think the optimistic position that everyone could enjoy life is part of the Just World fallacy.

I just found it difficult to embrace something so unjust. It seems better to be a psychopath narcissist where one might only be concerned with ones own desires.

So have you decided to join the respectful? I'm ready to engage when you're ready to be more charitable poster. You can keep (believing you are) seeking truth, but there is no rule that truth-seeking is proportional to simply being confrontational and disagreeable. — schopenhauer1

If you're ready to engage in a conversation, just start already.

So let's define how you're using "suffering" and explain which negative/undesired states of body/mind count as suffering and which do not.

For an antinatalist the lack of consent involved in creating a child is a deterrent from doing this. — Andrew4Handel

I think you missed the point (which admittedly wasn't worded clearly) I was trying to make when I say that something that doesn't exist doesn't have a will, so it cannot be subject to consent either. It doesn't make sense to expect or demand consent from a rock, because it's clear it doesn't have any. Why are you expecting consent from nothing (eg. an unborn child)? And how does that work?

Pointing out a lack of consent does not entail an expectation of consent. But once someone starts to exists they can exhibit a will. Just like you can imagine the wishes of an unconscious person you can imagine your future child's ability to consent and have contrary desires to yours..

You cannot claim someone consented to being created or signed some kind of contract with life. The child exists based on the parents desires (including sexual desires).

With other organisms hypothetical consent isn't even possible they appear not to have the conceptual apparatus (which is why a lot of people do not consider them part of the moral universe).

People already choose not to have children based on their belief they would be an unfit parent or that the child would inherit a faulty body or environment.

If you're ready to engage in a conversation, just start already. — Terrapin Station

I just need confirmation that you'll try to do my recommendations.