Personally I have two beautiful teenagers - they bring so much joy and fear, challenges and rewards to my life, and as far as I can tell they value the opportunity to make something of their own life, regardless of how it pans out. — Possibility

Ok great. Now what about the parents whose children hate them and whose children don't see a value of life? (note this isn't me I don't have children) You took the risk and it seems to be panning out for now. That doesn't justify having taken the risk for someone else in the first place

I would be furious that someone distrusted my capacity to choose what to do with my own life savings. You’ve called it ‘stealing’ - I’m assuming the investment was made in MY name, not their own? Despite the audacity of the act, I would nevertheless have a vested interest in that company from that point on. — Possibility

Yes it's in your name not theirs

‘Would you permit that?’ - this is the wrong question to ask. The deed is done. I can yell and scream and jump up and down at them, try to have them jailed (even though they’ve made no profit themselves from the act). I get that what they did was wrong, but now I have a choice: pull the investment (at whatever cost), or ride it out. A lot would depend on how the investment faired in the short term, but from this point on, control of the money is back in MY hands. Perhaps I would do what I could to ensure my investment in this company had the best chance of success. Perhaps I could embark on a mission to prevent this from ever happening to someone else again. — Possibility

Yes, great. I encourage you to live that way. Antinatalism doesn't say anything about how you should live your life after you're born aka how interested you should be in the company after your money has been invested. It simply tells you not to go on and invest SOMEONE ELSE'S money in the same business without their permission. You yourself called it audacious. So don't repeat it.

Let’s say that your mother calls you and tells you that the money she planned to build up for your inheritance has been decimated in a financial downturn. She’d hoped to have a million dollars by now, but all that’s left is $150,000, and because of the way it was invested it might take a lengthy court case to even get hold of that. Would you wish she’d never intended to give you any money at all? Would you accuse her of an immoral act? Would you spread the word that it’s a bad idea to plan for your kids’ inheritance? — Possibility

No because planning your kid's inheritance is IMPROVING someone's state of affairs and you don't have to do it. First off, I am lucky my parent's investment in my money panned out. I have a pretty good life. So assuming I forgive them the initial discretion of having me in the first place, no I would not say this situation is the same as having children. Why? Because my parents do not HAVE to give me inheritance. That is a way to IMPROVE my life status. They don't HAVE to give me inheritance in the same way you don't HAVE to donate to charity. So if they suddenly become unable I wouldn't hold it against them just like if I was a beggar and someone didn't give me money I wouldn't automatically hate them.

What happened here was: A potentially better state of affairs was denied from me.
What happens in birth is: A definitely worse state of affairs was risked for me without my consent.
They are not the same situation

No we wouldn't need some way to compare the two because: Jane's child will ALSO want to have children presumably to the same or similar extent — khaled

Man this is frustrating because it should be such a simple discussion. I'm saying if you write "the degree to which the people that really want to have children is harmed is much smaller than the degree to which their children are harmed." That sentence says something different than "the degree to which the people that really want to have children is harmed is much smaller than the degree to which those people are harmed PLUS the degree to which their children are harmed."

Yes it's a different sentence. I'm saying both are true

Yes it's a different sentence. I'm saying both are true — khaled

Okay, but the point was that I was addressing what the first sentence says, because that's what you had written. I wasn't addressing the different thing that the second sentence says.

Compare it with this: say that we're human resources employees looking at candidates' job experience. We say the following two sentences:

"Joe's experience is less than Frank's."

"Joe's experience is less than Joe's experience plus Frank's experience."

What information would we need to say whether each sentence is true?

Consider your statement "you do have to avoid X" - does that only count for future generations?
Or are you buying fair-trade goods exclusively as to avoid harm to exploited workers? Do you consume only your fair share of energy and water, so that you are not robbing fellow humans of necessary resources? Avoiding harm to others is not that easily done... — WerMaat

This is different because me consuming slightly more or slightly less energy barely helps anyone. Even if I don't eat that much food, that doesn't mean it translates to a hungry child in Africa eating it probably just means more food loss. And besides, in this case it's I get harmed vs they get harmed which is different from the case of having children where it's: I barely get harmed and get harmed even less if I adopt and they get harmed SEVERELY for no good reason. One also has to consider that most of those exploited workers themselves would not want the capitalist system to cease despite the risks. So in a sense you could argue they consented to taking the risk of becoming exploited workers and got unlucky whereas a child never consented to taking part in a capitalist or socialist or communist system.

The "not having to do good" is another one I don't agree with. I believe that helping and caring for other human beings is as much a duty as the "do no harm" part.
We are not all independent entities, living our lives largely disconnected from each other - in which case the "avoid to harm" is all we need for a peaceful and ethical existence. Instead, we live in close relation. From the social bonds of friends and family, to our social circles, our nations, and even people on the other side of the globe: with all of our choices and actions we affect each other.
I think we need to acknowledge this and take responsibility for each other. Not doing harm is only one side. If you are in a position to help and don't do it, that's equally unethical. — WerMaat

You are in a position to donate all your retirement savings to starving children in Africa. Does that make you obliged to do it? In my system of values, doing good is not a must but it is encouraged (because it's called doing GOOD) however never at the expense of harming someone in the process without them knowing.

For example: Buying shoes for a homeless person in my village: Good, isn't it? But buying cheap shoes supports those companies that produce shoes under horrible working conditions in Bangladesh, thus I'm perpetuating the harm done to other people there. — WerMaat

But in this case even if you don't buy the shoes the working conditions in Bangladesh won't improve so you're not really helping anyone by not buying the shoes. It would be great if you started a petition to boycott those shoes until conditions improve, but you don't have to. If you think you have to then you're committing an atrocity by your own values by wasting time typing here instead of starting that petition

Not to mention issues of consent... if I a bring an unconscious person to a hospital, am I doing good? Or am I disrespecting their free will, as they are currently unable to give consent, and maybe they don't want medical treatment? Well, as long as I cannot obtain consent I will just have to go with my best guess... In daily life, ethical choices are horribly fuzzy and we constantly need to make decisions without having all the necessary data. — WerMaat

Yes but how exactly could you harm said unconscious person by bringing them to the hospital? I can't think of any particular way. On the other hand how could you harm a child by bringing them into existence? I could think of literally EVERY IMAGINABLE WAY. The stakes aren't even close. In this case you have all the necessary data to determine that 80 years of life is not a light transgression, no where near taking someone to the hospital which is a very light transgression. Besides you wouldn't have to take anyone to the hospital in the first case if there ain't anyone to take ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Still, if you have carefully considered the matter and estimate that your child will appreciate life more that he or she will abhor the related suffering, then it is an ethical choice to have a child. — WerMaat

It's not just a matter of risk it's a matter of stakes though. If I THINK you really want product X and it just went down to 2 bucks from 10 bucks and I use your money to buy it you likely won't be that mad considering it's just 2 bucks even if you didn't like product X in the end. On the other hand if it just went down to your entire life savings and I buy it I'm pretty sure you'd be furious REGARDLESS of even whether or not you really wanted it but especially if you didn't want it. Having children is literally investing all of the child's BEING on a product YOU LIKE. And I don't believe it is easy to estimate whether or not your child will appreciate life at all. Especially considering we literally evolved as perpetually goal seeking creatures. Most of the time suffering lasts way longer than pleasure. Compare the pleasure of getting a new car with the suffering of paralyzing your legs. Which will likely impact you more?

I'm not saying it's impossible to be happy or anything like that, just that
happy parents + happy neighbourhood =/= happy children

PS: I also never wanted to have children since I was like, 8 maybe that's why antinatalism came easier to me than others

"Joe's experience is less than Frank's." — Terrapin Station

You can't really confirm this is true. Idk if you mean experience as in job experience or some subjective experience. If it's subjective you can't confirm if it's job you can confirm with working hours

"Joe's experience is less than Joe's experience plus Frank's experience." — Terrapin Station

This is obviously true

You can't really confirm this is true. Idk if you mean experience as in job experience or some subjective experience. If it's subjective you can't confirm if it's job you can confirm with working hours — khaled

Right. So the point was that with that sort of claim, we need a quantification for each in order to make a comparison. Whereas with the other statement it's simply logically true as long as Frank has any experience. We don't need anything quantified for the second sentence other than that.

Ok. And I am saying that no one here including you would employ a quantification that makes it so that a parent's pain due to not having children is so great that it is greater than all of the child's suffering do you agree?

Wouldn’t anti-natalists’ problems be solved if they all just overdosed on heroin?

No because antinatalism isn't about how you live your life it's just the simple statement that you can't take risks with other people's lives. Mass destruction and murder are pro-mortalism views.

But you’re imposing your values on others when you reduce a life to pleasure and pain. Most people don’t do that, and very few newborns would grow up to be anti-natalists.

But you’re imposing your values on others when you reduce a life to pleasure and pain. — Noah Te Stroete

Omg I hear this so often. I am not reducing life to pleasure and pain. Please read my last 10 replies or so because all of them had some reference to people saying this even though it's patently not true

Most people don’t do that, and very few newborns would grow up to be anti-natalists. — Noah Te Stroete

I don't care what most newborns would grow up to be. To have children because they wouldn't be antinatlaists is absurd. You don't owe anyone to give birth to them. What if I told you I employ the value system that "giving me money is good and everything else is bad". Does that mean you are committing a crime by not giving me money? After all that's imposing your values on me isn't it? Obviously you don't owe me money in this case even though I may think you do. If anyone says "give me x" you don't have to give it to them so while it would be great for you to give me money (because that would satisfy my values) you don't have to. You don't have to do good, but you have to not risk doing evil is the basic premise.

Please read some of my earlier replies because you're the billionth person I've talked to who says those clichés about antinatalism. It doesn't reduce life to pain and pleasure. And it is not an "imposition" to apply your own values when dealing with others even if their values differ from you. If it was you're being immoral right now because there is someone out there who thinks you owe them money for you existing and you're not giving it to them

You don't have to do good, but you have to not risk doing evil is the basic premise. — khaled

So having children is an evil act because they will suffer at points in their lives?

Does that mean you are committing a crime by not giving me money? — khaled

Does that mean I committed a crime because I had children and you don’t agree with it? Should I teach my children not to have children because they might suffer at some points in their lives? Do you not see that antinatalists aren’t just saying that they will not have children. They are saying that no new people should ever be born again. That’s a supposition that hasn’t been supported by your example. You ARE trying to impose your values on others, values that 99.99% of people don’t share.

Ok. And I am saying that no one here including you would employ a quantification that makes it so that a parent's pain due to not having children is so great that it is greater than all of the child's suffering do you agree? — khaled

I wouldn't say either way. I don't think there's any plausible way to quantitatively compare two different persons' suffering.

So having children is an evil act because they will suffer at points in their lives? — Noah Te Stroete

Yes. And because you do not have inflict that suffering to alleviate a similar amount from yourself. And because you don't owe them "potential pleasure"

That’s a supposition that hasn’t been supported by your example. You ARE trying to impose your values on others, values that 99.99% of people don’t share. — Noah Te Stroete

Here is the thing. I think 99.99% of people do share these values but have some cognitive dissonance that prevents them from admitting the logical sense in antinatalism.

Does that mean I committed a crime because I had children and you don’t agree with it? — Noah Te Stroete

A crime in both of our eyes because I think you would agree with antinatalism if you read the arguments for it carefully

They are saying that no new people should ever be born again. — Noah Te Stroete

More precisely, they are saying that no new people should be born again under the moral assumptions 99.99% of people are employing.

How do you construct any system of morality then? If a psychopath "kinda wants to torture someone right now" and he does is that wrong? How could you begin to answer that question without comparing the relative pain of the sufferer vs the psychopath if he does not torture said someone

So all that morality is is one's personal dispositions (of approval and disapproval) regarding interpersonal behavior that one considers to be more significant than etiquette. When I note that it's one's personal dispositions I'm not saying that those are not influenced by others, but influence is neither identity nor determination.

One's personal dispositions can be principle-oriented or not. It just depends on the individual. And if principle-oriented, it can be based on misconceptions, mistaken beliefs, etc. of course. These can include that there's a plausible way to quantitatively compare suffering and the like, whereupon one employs a principle-based approach based on a suffering calculus.

Personally, I'm not a fan of principle-based approaches. However, one idea I often return to in my own personal dispositions is consent, but consent where (a) someone normally capable of granting or withholding consent is required, and (b) we're talking about either (i) actions directly performed with or on someone, or (ii) actions performed that have a physical affect on someone through a material, causally-peggable chain--for example, putting toxins in a water supply, rigging a bomb to explode, etc. The basic idea here is that I'm excluding things like "observational consent"--it's not a consent issue if one doesn't like how other people are dressing, what other people's beliefs and behavior with other consenting parties is, etc.

Also, I only consider consent an issue, especially for legal purposes, when we're talking about significant physical effects. Physical effects that macro-detectably linger for, say, at least a few days. Thus if someone nonconsensually bumps into you, taps you on the shoulder, or even flicks you or something like that, it wouldn't be a legal or moral issue unless the physical effects detectably linger for more than a few days.

One thing I definitely do not do in my own ethical views is base anything on ideas of "suffering."

So with the psychopath, I don't at all look at relative suffering or anything like that. I see it simply as an issue of whether the "torturee" is consenting.

Re antinatalism, it's not an issue of consent, because when we're talking about nonexistent people we're not talking about someone normally capable of granting or withholding consent. We need an existent person for that.

This is different because me consuming slightly more or slightly less energy barely helps anyone. Even if I don't eat that much food, that doesn't mean it translates to a hungry child in Africa eating it probably just means more food loss — khaled

Yes, that's the "I can't make that much of a difference on my own, so why should I try" argument. I hear that all the time when in try to talk people into caring for politics.
I think that we should just do our best, both in our personal conduct and in trying to change the system.

. It would be great if you started a petition to boycott those shoes until conditions improve, but you don't have to. If you think you have to then you're committing an atrocity by your own values by wasting time typing here instead of starting that petition — khaled

Yes, exactly. I try for an ethical conduct in that sense, but I often wonder if what I do is enough, if I should not try much harder and give away more of my money and time.

In my system of values, doing good is not a must but it is encouraged (because it's called doing GOOD) — khaled

How come you don't think that doing good is a duty? Being caught up in an unjust system, is it enough to just draw back and not care? Shouldn't we at least try to make it a better world, to the best of our ability?
For example, I'd be totally with you on the not-having-children thing, if the reason was "reduce overpopulation" instead of "prevent the harm of living to befall the child".

however never at the expense of harming someone in the process without them knowing. — khaled

Isn't that second part of the sentence rather impossible to achieve? All of our actions have effects on other people, and our inactions, too. And we cannot always know in advance what exactly is going to happen. We're human and we're not perfect. When we consider an action that we hope is good overall, I believe that the risk of doing harm must be carefully considered, but it's not enough to veto the action automatically.

The stakes aren't even close. In this case you have all the necessary data to determine that 80 years of life is not a light transgression, no where near taking someone to the hospital which is a very light transgression. — khaled

Ah, so are you admitting then, that we violate other people's right to consent all the time? That we also cause harm, be it because we don't have the right data, because we need to choose the lesser of two evils, because we didn't even notice or simply because we don't care...

Then, you're saying, that it is a matter of scale and opportunity?
As in: Not having children is an easy step to take to prevent a lot of harm, so we should do that. And it's independent of whatever else we may or may not do in our lives. As when you state:

antinatalism isn't about how you live your life it's just the simple statement that you can't take risks with other people's lives. — khaled

But as a consequence, you're still giving up on humanity as a whole.
If we don't take a risk with other people's lives without their consent, then we cannot keep existing. That's how it is, tough luck.

You say that it's not about any kind of balancing game, that the question is not whether the joys of life outweigh the suffering. But in the end, it is.
When someone argues that the joys of living may well be worth the suffering, you reply with "the absence of suffering is good, and the absences of joy is not bad", right?
Since human life will contain both joy and suffering, it's better for humans not to exist.

That's where I don't follow. In spite of all the horrible stuff I enjoy being alive quite a lot. I still have hope for us humans, and that includes future generations.

(b) we're talking about either (i) actions directly performed with or on someone, or (ii) actions performed that have a physical affect on someone through a material, causally-peggable chain--for example, putting toxins in a water supply, rigging a bomb to explode, etc. — Terrapin Station

You could say that having children is like rigging a bomb to explode then. It risks causing direct physical harm on someone through a material causally-peggable chain. You have kid, they drink from a poisoned water supply, they suffer. The cause of suffering is as much the CAPACITY to suffer as it is the direct cause. In this case the direct cause is poisoning but the CAPACITY to suffer in the first place was caused by you.

Would you say it is moral if I rigged a bomb such that there is a 5% chance it explodes in your house without your consent? Also I think there is an inconsistency in your system between a and b. Why is planting a bomb to explode wrong? It doesn't seem to pass criteria a. Who exacly is the person from whom you ask consent before placing said bomb? You don't know do you? Same case with children

" consent where (a) someone normally capable of granting or withholding consent is required, "

If I write that that's required, it doesn't imply that it's optional or that we can just ignore it.

Also, why bring up suffering? I just wrote is "One thing I definitely do not do in my own ethical views is base anything on ideas of 'suffering.'"

In the case of having children consent such a person is not available. In the case of planting a bomb such a person is not available. Why is planting a bomb wrong and having children permissable?

Before we even get to that, I was going to bring this up: you're saying that conceiving children is physically harming them, right? (Re the bomb analogy) What exactly is the physical harm being done in that case?

(Also I need to do something at the moment, so if you don't want to have to wait for a response you need to be quick about it)

I never said that. I said it RISKS physically harming them. Per bomb explosion for example. (I also need to go soon so maybe later). Half the reason a child gets harmed in an explosion is that he was there in the first place. The capacity to feel pain is as much a cause of pain as the source itself

Yes, that's the "I can't make that much of a difference on my own, so why should I try" argument. I hear that all the time when in try to talk people into caring for politics.
I think that we should just do our best, both in our personal conduct and in trying to change the system. — WerMaat

Cool. Great. Your kid might not think the same.

Yes, exactly. I try for an ethical conduct in that sense, but I often wonder if what I do is enough, if I should not try much harder and give away more of my money and time. — WerMaat

But I wouldn't say you're morally blameable for not helping more. What should be your sentence for being able to donate 10000 dollars to africa and not doing so? Should it be the same as your sentence for stealing 10000 dollars?

How come you don't think that doing good is a duty? Being caught up in an unjust system, is it enough to just draw back and not care? — WerMaat

Yes. That is enough. Not commendable, but a passing grade.

Isn't that second part of the sentence rather impossible to achieve? All of our actions have effects on other people, and our inactions, too. And we cannot always know in advance what exactly is going to happen. We're human and we're not perfect. When we consider an action that we hope is good overall, I believe that the risk of doing harm must be carefully considered, but it's not enough to veto the action automatically. — WerMaat

But you see, when having children you are risking harming somenone for a life time to alleviate the harm you experience from not having children (as there is no other benefactor to having children than you) however, you children THEMSELVES will also have that pain.

So it must be true that (unless you have some sort of mental condition):
Your suffering due to not having children <<< The suffering you inflict by having children.

And I believe this is always the case because your children will face THE SAME DILLEMA. And not only that, you have to consider the pain of your grand chidlren and THEIR grand children. I hightly doubt your loneliness is enough justificiation for thousands or hundreds of thousands of people's lifetimes of pain.

But as a consequence, you're still giving up on humanity as a whole. — WerMaat

I do not see anything bad about this. I do not assign value to "humanity" but individual humans. A humanity where everyone or most people are suffering has a negative value for me

That's where I don't follow. In spite of all the horrible stuff I enjoy being alive quite a lot. I still have hope for us humans, and that includes future generations. — WerMaat

Many people do. The point isn't whether or not you enjoy it the point is NOT enjoying it is POSSIBLE and you shouldn't take the risk for someone else. If you have a job you like that doesn't entitle you to force others to work the same job because "you'd like the company". That's not a good enough reason at all

I never said that. I said it RISKS physically harming them. Per bomb explosion for example. (I also need to go soon so maybe later) — khaled

I wasn't saying anything about risks. The bomb example has to do with if the bomb goes off. You don't have to be directly touching someone to do physical harm to them against their consent. There can instead be a causally-peggable chain to you, but someone still has to be physically harmed.

By having a child and them exploding in an accident, their suffering is causally peggable to you for having them in the first place