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. — schopenhauer1

How about overlooking everything except the suffering the future person might experience, isn't that pushing an agenda?

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. — schopenhauer1

Indeed, the parents are actual persons and they would be harmed if they are prevented from having a baby. Note that parents don't see a baby as a toy (most of them anyway), it's not a selfish act, nurturing a baby and raising a child are selfless acts, sacrifices are made so that the child can have the best possible life.

If the parents already thought that their life was unbearable, why would they then proceed to make sacrifices for years and years for another being, why would they move on to have an even more unbearable life just so that another being can have an unbearable life as well? It's rather that they see the beauty in life, they see it as worth it.

I think most antinatalists suffer so much that they would have preferred not to have been born, and they project that feeling onto everyone else, and if others say that they don't have that feeling antinatalists attempt to rationalize it so that it fits into their preconceived world view.

It isn't right that some people suffer unbearably while some others live the good life at their expense, and that's what I see as the kind of problem to solve, rather than preventing people from giving love to their future child and destroying their dreams just so everyone can suffer along with the antinatalists.

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

Ironically, you are doing this by posing shoddy argumentation. So, there's that.

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. — Terrapin Station

The parents "feelings" matters not in regards to starting SOMEONE ELSE'S life. You've already been given analogies by others. You know what the response is going to be to that bad objection. You also know that by "actual person" I meant the person who might be born from a parent if they decided to procreate. "That" person does not exist to be deprived. Notice the "quotes". To not notice that is lawyerly holding patterns and advancing nothing but bad sophistry.

An unconscious person is unable to give consent. Only a conscious person can give consent. Why should we respect an unconscious person during the stage they can't give consent?

If you think it is because the unconscious person will become conscious in the future that is speculative and you don't know that they will regain consciousness.

if you can be speculative about the future of unconscious person then you can be speculative about the futures of any new human that will be created.

Ironically, you are doing this by posing shoddy argumentation. — schopenhauer1

Explain why it's shoddy in your view rather than just making the accusation.

The parents "feelings" matters not in regards to starting SOMEONE ELSE'S life. — schopenhauer1

What does this have to do with whether they're suffering, harmed, etc.?

An unconscious person is unable to give consent. Only a conscious person can give consent. — Andrew4Handel

Sure. Do you understand the difference between whether we're talking about someone who can normally grant or withhold consent or not?

Sure. Do you understand the difference between whether we're talking about someone who can normally grant or withhold consent or not? — Terrapin Station

Most human beings past, future, and present can give consent.

Someone who is unconscious cannot give consent in the present only in the future like the children people seek to create.

Here is a further elaboration.

Imagine there is a person who has a huge fetish about someone having sex with them while they are asleep or unconscious. Their biggest sexual fantasy is that someone has sex with them whilst they are asleep or unconscious.

So they leave a note in their pocket saying "If I fall asleep or become unconscious please have sex with me".

Later you find this person lying unconscious in the street and are unaware of the note in their pocket.

Most people would not sexually assault this person assuming that no unconscious person wants someone to have sex with them. They would not base their judgment on an individual personal preference but on a general rule.

So when you respect an unconscious person you are usually basing it on a general rule not on their specific preference and so you can easily do the same in an abstract way with the unborn.

Most human beings past, future, and present can give consent. — Andrew4Handel

How are past or future humans normally capable of granting or withholding consent?

Explain why it's shoddy in your view rather than just making the accusation. — Terrapin Station

Your bad arguments about "causally-pegging" something for one. Irrelevant in the case of the procreational decision. It's simply a red herring... quick sand of pettifoggery.

The parents "feelings" matters not in regards to starting SOMEONE ELSE'S life.
— schopenhauer1

What does this have to do with whether they're suffering, harmed, etc.? — Terrapin Station

"This" meaning: SOMEONE ELSE'S life? Because it is about starting a life that contains harm for someone else. There is no damage done to another person by not procreating. You don't get to cause a life that contains harm on someone else's behalf, because you will feel bad that you don't get what you want. I don't have to show how harm will be causally pegged to a life either (I really hate that term..sounds dirty anyways). You just have to know that life contains harm, period.

My opinion is that the quality of, and conditions of human existence are nowhere near good enough to justify satisfying the want for a child (by procreating). The natalist 'counter-argument' is essentially some variation of, "I want a child (and human existence is good enough to justify satisfying my want)".

So who is right? Is life good enough?

From my perspective, anyone saying "yes" must either totally lack empathy, be completely unaware of the suffering in this world, or just have abysmally low, downright callous standards. The unborn have no need for life, so it better be pretty damn great in order to justify it's creation. But, it's not.

Irrelevant in the case of the procreational decision — schopenhauer1

But those comments had nothing at all to do with "procreational decisions" and there was never any claim that they did have anything to do with that. That seems to be a reading comprehension issue on your end rather.

There is no damage done to another person by not procreating. — schopenhauer1

This statement is false. The damage doesn't have to be for someone else. The damage is for the person who wants to procreate but doesn't because they're pressured or forced not to.

This statement is false. The damage doesn't have to be for someone else. The damage is for the person who wants to procreate but doesn't because they're pressured or forced not to. — Terrapin Station

And then the damage on the broader level if anti-natalism became the norm or the rule. From their perspective the end of the human race is fine, and perhaps the end of all life. That fits their single criterion of no harm can be risked for another, no life with suffering unless it is chose. Nothing else could possibly outweigh or counter that. It is the only risk. Other values about life and living and interests and participating in long term goals and achievement and the current suffering this would create in the last humans, mean nothing to them. They are of no value. Their value is, apparantly, the objective value that supercedes all other values, despite the vast majority contradicting this value in the way they choose to live despite suffering, despite the anti-natalists who find life not worth living but keep doing it. I know, I know, they don't want to hurt their relatives and loved ones. How conveniently empathetic all of a sudden.

This statement is false. The damage doesn't have to be for someone else. The damage is for the person who wants to procreate but doesn't because they're pressured or forced not to. — Terrapin Station

Actually response above is a very good rebuttal to your comment. Not only his ideas, but add to that, one is "damage" from not doing anything TO someone else, and one will lead to negative consequences for someone else. That is the major problem with your thesis there.

Irrelevant in the case of the procreational decision. — schopenhauer1

But those comments had nothing at all to do with "procreational decisions" and there was never any claim that they did have anything to do with that. That seems to be a reading comprehension issue on your end rather. — Terrapin Station

Right, the antinatalism argument is at the procreation level, and you are arguing from some post-birth perspective about consent. Not the same.

That fits their single criterion of no harm can be risked for another, no life with suffering unless it is chose. Nothing else could possibly outweigh or counter that. It is the only risk. Other values about life and living and interests and participating in long term goals and achievement and the current suffering this would create in the last humans, mean nothing to them. They are of no value. Their value is, apparantly, the objective value that supercedes all other values, despite the vast majority contradicting this value in the way they choose to live despite suffering, despite the anti-natalists who find life not worth living but keep doing it. I know, I know, they don't want to hurt their relatives and loved ones. How conveniently empathetic all of a sudden. — Coben

Never existing and suicide are not the same. In fact, that is another pro-antinatalist argument. Either live out life, or kill yourself is pretty damn callous... but those are people's choices..If you don't like life, figure out how to cope. Yep, sounds great. Also, it makes no logical sense to CREATE people from NOTHING just so they can HAVE goals that they DIDN'T NEED in the first place. Putting an agenda like "long term goals and achievement" above considerations of preventing ALL harm (with no cost to the future child), makes no sense is using the child for an agenda. They have to have XYZ experiences because someone else projected this to be what has to happen for them.

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. — leo

I think you truly have a misconception about what suicidal people go through. Suicide is nothing like "Damn life sucks lemme just go jump off a bridge real quick". I think you are severely underestimating the resolve required to actually commit suicide

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. — leo

This is the sort of twisted reasonsing I am surprised natalists are oblivious to. Do you hear what you're saying? "It is not ok to create a being that will be in a constant state of suffering" well no shit sherlock, I never thought someone would consider to set the bar THAT low. And then you say "One baby out of a million is born like that". WHY IS THIS BAR SET SO LOW? So as long as I commit an action that causes less suffering than a genetically engineered baby's suffering it's ok? What would you think if someone forced you to, say, cut a finger off and then said "Oh I'm not doing anything wrong here, at least I'm not forcing him to live with 8 broken limbs, this is totally negligable"

And this: "but then by the same token we should stop doing anything because there is a risk of causing suffering in anything"

sounds bonkers to me. Doing something that risks harming someone else is shunned upon agreed? Yet we do it to survive OURSELVES. The case with antinatalism is extremely different. You can always adopt, so the suffering due to not having a child is just an excuse and instead you spare someone a LIFETIME of suffering. Sure you also deny them a lifetime of pleasure, but as I've stated before, you have a moral obligation not to create suffering but you don't have to create pleasure. You have to not steal but you don't have to donate to charity. You have to not risk harming someone without their consent but you don't have to provide them opportunities to have pleasure either.

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? — leo

No because I have to do that to survive. Antinatalism doesn't say "don't do anything that risks harming someone else". It says "Ok guys, I know life sometimes sucks and you have to hurt others to avoid getting hurt yourself but can someone please explain to me what's going on with having kids? You are literally dooming someone to a lifetime they didn't ask for that may or may not be terrible for no good reason whatsoever when you can adopt." Antinatalism is simply the view that the risks of harm associated with coming into existence are astronomically high in comparison to the rewards, which I'm sure everyone would agree with

but add to that, one is "damage" from not doing anything TO someone else — schopenhauer1

From conversations with you previously, you count frustrated/unmet desires, especially where that causes emotional distress, as suffering, right?

Otherwise a lot of what you're classifying as suffering for offspring wouldn't count as suffering.

Right, the antinatalism argument is at the procreation level, and you are arguing from some post-birth perspective about consent. — schopenhauer1

Right, those comments were about the concept of consent, because that's something I'm interested in that we don't talk about in 100 different threads every day. Those comments were not at all about antinatalism per se.

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). — Terrapin Station

I would say that giving an entity an entire PHYSICAL BODY and SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE out of knowhere without being asked is a pretty unusual modification. Compare how long you were dead to how long you're alive. I'd say the unusual bit is the being alive portion. In addition, no modification to an entity not capable of granting or withholding consent is as potentially bad for it as giving it a subjective experience. Sure none are as potentially good either but:

I want to ask you if you agree with these 2 statements: "One is not morally obliged to improve another's state of wellbeing unless one made it worse previously and only to the extent that he made it worse. One is morally obliged not to deteriorate another's state of wellbeing without consent with the possible exception for when this deterioration is minor in comparison to the benefits gained by oneself"

What "improve state of wellbeing" and "minor in comparison" mean I will leave up to you, but do you think either of these statements apply to your morality?

I would say that giving an entity an entire PHYSICAL BODY and SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE out of knowhere without being asked is a pretty unusual modification. — khaled

You're giving an existent entity a physical body?

Also really late right now so won't be here much

Ignore physical body then, subjective experience. You're giving inanimate matter subjective experience eventually. Sperm/egg -> Human

Yeah, I've got to run, too, but I don't know why you either can't come clean with metaphysical views you have that I don't at all agree with, or otherwise why you can't learn with respect to the ridiculous metaphysics you're (maybe unwittingly?) espousing.

You're giving inanimate matter — khaled

So in your ethics, it's a problem to do things to inanimate matter?

Trust me, I'd take those same words and say them back to you exactly

What metaphysical views of mine would you be referring to?

In yours too. You have said that genetically modifying babies to make them suffer is a problem

Babies are not inanimate matter.

Alright let me make one more correction then: You're giving unconscious biological matter subjective experience. sperm/egg -> human

So in your view, it's a problem to do things to any arbitrary biological matter? For example, if you have a mole that's bothering you, it's an ethical issue to cut it off?