I think having a child does not resolve the ethical issue about creating children. In the same way that killing someone does not resolve the ethical issue about killing.

Having children because it is "natural" justifies of free for all of anyone doing anything because they can.
In the same way slavery has gone on throughout human history by brute force.

I think it is nihilistic to have children without good argument and sufficient justification.

Causes are the forces that necessarily result in property F (of some entity x) obtaining versus some other property. If c is the cause of F, then c can't occur without F occurring. — Terrapin Station

Do you mean force as in actual physical force? Are we talking pure physics here? Electromagnetic, Gravitaitonal, strong and weak nuclear? Then is lying in court wrong if it directly causes someone to get jailed unjustly? What is the force that causes his incarceration in that case? Can you peg it causally EXACTLY from the moment the sound waves leave his mouth.

What is the force that necessarily resulted in the property Dead (of the guy that got blown up due to having a bomb implanted in him) obtaining versus the alive property? Can you peg it EXACTLY? Including every physical interaction inside the bomb?

To be honest, I think your definition of cause and what actions are wrong to commit leaves ample ambiguity which you're happy to exploit in the case of giving birth but never in other situations. I'm intersted in what the direct physical force is in lying to court that makes it wrong. Unless you think lying purposefully in court isn't wrong. Even if it harms someone

You also have yet to explain what "causally peggable" means. And you haven't "causally pegged" any of the things you call wrong. Please causally peg the unfair incarciration of a person to another person's lie. And if you seriously think lying in court is morally permissable then please causally peg the death of someone by explosion to the planting of the bomb. With extra physics and chemsitry please. Because apparently unless YOU PERSONALLY cannot peg the crime to the criminal, he is innocent.

Life also contains positive experiences. Some people see their life as a net negative, some other people as a net positive.

If you see negative experiences as what has to be eliminated, why don't you kill everyone? That would be more effective. You may convince a few people not to have children, but there are still billions having children.

However if instead of focusing on negative experiences we focus both on negative and positive experiences, the goal could be instead to reduce negative experiences and increase positive experiences, to make life a net positive for most people. And then life would be a net positive as a whole, and that's better than the absence of life. — leo

The point of antinatalism isn't that any act that causes suffering is bad. It is that risking suffering on someone else without their consent is always bad, with the possible exception of if it is done to prevent an even greater harm on them (ex: education). There is a positive aspect to every job and a negative aspect, however I think we can both agree that forcing people to work ANY job against their will is wrong. It doesn't matter how good or bad the job is. I have no right to FORCE you to work it.

I dont have to show how every connection leads to birth. By definition, all forms of suffering come from being alive in the first place. If you want to refute the self evidence of that, despite what you know to be true, — schopenhauer1

Exactly. It just seems like a truism to me that all suffering is partially caused by existing in the first place.

Do you mean force as in actual physical force? Are we talking pure physics here? Electromagnetic, Gravitaitonal, strong and weak nuclear? — khaled

Yes, physical forces. I'm a physicalist. (However, I'm not also a determinist. I buy that we have free will.)

Then is lying in court wrong if it directly causes someone to get jailed unjustly? — khaled

Lying in court doesn't cause anyone to be jailed. People deciding to forcibly jail someone, and then physically carrying that through does. Morally, in that scenario, by the way, I'm strongly against the idea of prosecuting anyone on witness testimony alone. I'd require physical evidence.

What is the force that necessarily resulted in the property Dead (of the guy that got blown up due to having a bomb implanted in him) obtaining versus the alive property? Can you peg it EXACTLY? Including every physical interaction inside the bomb? — khaled

Again, we can do this (it's weird that you'd not be aware of this--that you'd not know that we know very well how bombs work, we can do forensics very well, etc.), but again, if we assume that we can't, it in no way helps your argument.

(it's weird that you'd not be aware of this--that you'd not know that we know very well how bombs work, we can do forensics very well, etc.), — Terrapin Station

I am aware of this but you asked me PERSONALLY to peg every form of suffering on being born as if that is an argument for why it is unpeggable so I'm asking you PERSONALLY to explain to me how bombs work lest the bomber remain innocent.

We can also peg every form of suffering causally back to being born. I cannot. But it is possible.

I am aware of this but you asked me PERSONALLY to peg every form of suffering on being born as if that is an argument for why it is unpeggable so I'm asking you PERSONALLY to explain to me how bombs work lest the bomber remain innocent. — khaled

No, I asked you to give the specific causal chain for one example. Because that's going to require that you rule out environmental factors, free will factors, etc.

There is a positive aspect to every job and a negative aspect, however I think we can both agree that forcing people to work ANY job against their will is wrong. It doesn't matter how good or bad the job is. I have no right to FORCE you to work it. — khaled

I can leave the job if I don't like it. It's not like people who are brought into being are doomed to eternal torture. If they don't like the experience they can just say fuck it and leave the world. I suppose the only case where people are forced to stay is when they're made to believe that if they kill themselves they will spend eternity in hell, but then you could focus on preventing that.

Also I think the idea of consent doesn't apply to people who don't exist yet. If you say risking suffering on someone against their will is bad, people who don't exist don't have a will so you're not doing anything against their will. Also it's not just risking suffering, it's also risking wonderful experiences.

I can leave the job if I don't like it. It's not like people who are brought into being are doomed to eternal torture. If they don't like the experience they can just say fuck it and leave the world. I suppose the only case where people are forced to stay is when they're made to believe that if they kill themselves they will spend eternity in hell, but then you could focus on preventing that. — leo

Alright. So if I hire you to work as a sewage cleaner and make it so that in order to leave you have to cut your own wrists after going through extreme levels of suffering the likes of which you can't imagine and then you're not allowed to take any other job that's fair right?

Suicide isn't easy. If there truely were no obstacles for leaving life/the job I wouldn't be an antinatalist

Also I think the idea of consent doesn't apply to people who don't exist yet. If you say risking suffering on someone against their will is bad, people who don't exist don't have a will so you're not doing anything against their will. Also it's not just risking suffering, it's also risking wonderful experiences. — leo

Two things to unpack here
1: Idea of consent doesn't apply to people who don't exist yet:
It very much does. Would you say it is ok to genetically modify a baby so that he is constantly in severe suffering? Maybe give birth to him with 9 limbs all of which are broken? After all he didn't object did he?

2: Risks wonderful experiences
Agreed. However you have a moral obligation not to risk giving someone negative experiences non consentually while you don't have a moral obligation to risk giving someone positive experiences. Ex: I don't have to donate to charity but I HAVE TO NOT steal money. This is what makes stealing money to donate to charities bad

No, I asked you to give the specific causal chain for one example. Because that's going to require that you rule out environmental factors, free will factors, etc. — Terrapin Station

How about this one: Childbirth causes severe pain for both the child and the woman. I think we can both agree that the pain of childbirth is causally peggable to childbirth? As there are no "free will" or environmental factors to consider here.

Therefore childbirth is wrong. Isn't it? By your standards

Childbirth causes severe pain for both the child and the woman. — khaled

What would be the epistemic basis for childbirth causing severe pain to babies?

I have no idea what you mean by that. The child exists during childbirth. The child experiences pain during childbirth. Why is this different from any other physical force being applied on that child.

What is the epistemic basis for punching causes severe pain to the punched. I don't even understand what the question means

The child experiences pain during childbirth. — khaled

Which you know via?

The fact that they have a working brain. Also it's scientific fact. How much pain is debatable though. It seems quite unreasonable to me to argue babies have no subjective experience. I can just use that to argue that NOTHING have subjective experience because I can't confirm it.

How do you know that the guy that got bombed had subjective experience?

If you see negative experiences as what has to be eliminated, why don't you kill everyone? That would be more effective. You may convince a few people not to have children, but there are still billions having children — leo

That's a strawman and classic trope against AN. AN is not promortalist. Decisions regarding birth are different than decisions about continuing to exist. One major difference is the asymmetry in respect to no actual person being deprived of good before birth while no person will exist to experience harm (which is good, even if no one exists to know this).

To overlook anything but harm to future person at procreational decision would be using child for an agenda. The child did non exist beforehand to even need the XYZ experiences that supposedly make it good for the child to be created in the first place.

What is the case however, is ALL harm can be prevented with NO COST to an ACTUAL person. No one would actually exist to be deprived of anything...only the parents imaginary projected vision of loss.

The fact that they have a working brain. Also it's scientific fact. — khaled

Oy vey.

In other words, I'm asking you because there's no way that you can know that a baby experiences pain at childbirth. Having a working brain doesn't imply that--lol.

And it can't be a scientific fact, because there's no epistemic method for seeing whether it's the case or not.

Oy vey.

In other words, I'm asking you because there's no way that you can know that a baby experiences pain at childbirth. Having a working brain doesn't imply that--lol.

And it can't be a scientific fact, because there's no epistemic method for seeing whether it's the case or not. — Terrapin Station

Ok. Then nothing is wrong because I'm the only mind and you can't prove otherwise. What was all that talk about things being wrong when you're going to pull out the "there is no way to say that they experienced subjective experiences" solipsist bullshit. What is with you and arguing for things we both know you don't even believe.

You clearly have a moral compass that assumes that people have subjective experiences. There is also ample evidence to suggest children have subjective experiences

Empirical claims aren't provable period--that's science methodology/phil of science 101.

And wrong in a moral sense is necessarily subjective.

Alright. I am saying that subjectively childbirth should be wrong for you because it checks all your criteria for a subjectively wrong action and the only way it's not subjectively wrong is if you don't care about being consistent

You are despirately trying to argue that children have no subjective experience while not arguing that anyone else doesn't. You're making a special case for childbirth

Alright. I am saying that subjectively childbirth should be wrong for you because it checks all your criteria for a subjectively wrong action — khaled

No it doesn't. It doesn't meet any criterion of consent. Babies are not creatures normally capable of granting or withholding consent, I don't even consider babies prior to the childbirth process being completed to be separate entities from mothers, and there's no physical damage that's present for days afterwards anyway, even if they were entities normally capable of granting or withholding consent.

Let me ask you something. Is it moral to genetically modify a baby to ensure it suffers as much as possible. Say, by giving it 8 limbs all of which are broken.

I wouldn't indulge Terrapin Station with his absurd consent rabbit hole. He likes to get conversations on a holding pattern loop. It reminds me of a lawyer's trick- poor philosophy, all sophistry. I've already given him the main argument- no loss to an actual person, but harm was prevented. No agenda was had on behalf of another person.hes just going to keep denying that consent matters for babies, etc etc.

I think it's fun

Ok, that's good. I just know how these go sometimes. They eventually just lead to frustration as one side may not be trying to actually get anywhere.

I don't see a difference between an unconscious person unable to consent and a non existent person able to consent. Unless an unconscious person regains conscious they cannot consent. they may never regain consciousness.

But the inability to consent does not justify you doing anything you want to them. Some people use this arguments to defend the environment because they will say even though plants are not conscious we are not justified in wantonly destroying them.

You can morally criticize someone for their intentions unless you are a moral nihilist. You can prevent harm by thwarting someones intentions. Not creating a child is preventing future inevitable harm. Like I said to Station earlier not acting is a way of respecting consent and a way of not causing harm.

When someone starts to exist they have strong preferences usually and can reject life and feel imposed upon. It is this potential to feel imposed upon and have personal opinions and be imposed on that is being created.

I hope all antinatalist men “accidentally” get their female partners pregnant and she refuses to get an abortion. Or are they all celibate?

So if I hire you to work as a sewage cleaner and make it so that in order to leave you have to cut your own wrists after going through extreme levels of suffering the likes of which you can't imagine and then you're not allowed to take any other job that's fair right?

Suicide isn't easy. If there truely were no obstacles for leaving life/the job I wouldn't be an antinatalist — khaled

I don't agree that it's a suitable analogy, because you don't have to go through extreme levels of suffering in order to leave. You can be fine and leave by jumping off a bridge, or by taking some medication that puts you to sleep and never wakes you up. It's rather that it's usually people who go through extreme levels of suffering who want to leave, those who feel fine usually do not.

1: Idea of consent doesn't apply to people who don't exist yet:
It very much does. Would you say it is ok to genetically modify a baby so that he is constantly in severe suffering? Maybe give birth to him with 9 limbs all of which are broken? After all he didn't object did he? — khaled

That's not ok, but I'm still saying that consent doesn't apply to a being that doesn't exist.

There you're arguing for the idea that it's not ok to create a being who will be in a state of constant severe suffering, that's not the same as arguing for antinatalism, because the vast vast majority of babies aren't born like that.

Maybe you're arguing for the idea that if there is the risk that one baby out of a billion is born like that, then we should stop making babies, but then by the same token we should stop doing anything because there is a risk of causing suffering in anything.

2: Risks wonderful experiences
Agreed. However you have a moral obligation not to risk giving someone negative experiences non consentually while you don't have a moral obligation to risk giving someone positive experiences. Ex: I don't have to donate to charity but I HAVE TO NOT steal money. This is what makes stealing money to donate to charities bad — khaled

Again, you risk giving someone negative experiences non-consensually in anything you do, just by driving your car or talking to someone, so by that logic shouldn't you stop doing anything?

Let me ask you something. Is it moral to genetically modify a baby to ensure it suffers as much as possible. Say, by giving it 8 limbs all of which are broken. — khaled

My policy on actions performed on an entity that is currently not capable or granting or withholding consent, but that will likely survive as a consent-capable being, is that you'd not be allowed to unusually modify, outside of corrective measures for deformities, diseases, etc., or physically or psychologically abuse the non-consent-capable entity in a manner that would linger indefinitely/not be reversible during their consent-capable years. You can't overlook the word "unusual" there (as I'm predicting you'll do even with me pointing this out).

I've already given him the main argument- no loss to an actual person, but harm was prevented. No agenda was had on behalf of another person. — schopenhauer1

The problem is that you want me to be having conversations about antinatalism in general, partially because you want to be able to keep repeating your telemarketing/cult-recruitment script about it ad infinitum.

Re your comment above, we've already discussed that. If a person wants to have kids but is pressured or forced not to, there is a loss, there is harm or suffering for them, per the way that you're using those terms. So "no loss to an actual person" is false.

Aside from that, there's no reason to only care about the harm side of the equation and not the benefit side of the equation.

Ok, that's good. I just know how these go sometimes. They eventually just lead to frustration as one side may not be trying to actually get anywhere. — schopenhauer1

My goal is to get you folks to reason better, to not forward crappy arguments, etc.

I don't see a difference between an unconscious person unable to consent and a non existent person able to consent. — Andrew4Handel

The unconscious person is normally capable of granting or withholding consent. A "non-existent person"--in quotation marks because there is no such thing, isn't normally capable of granting or withholding consent.