Ok. I am not tyring to argue antinatalism is objectively good or bad. I am trying to argue that it is bad according to the subjective values you set here and the ones everyone on this thread so far has set as well.

Now: Why exactly is genetically modifying a baby to have 8 broken limbs on birth bad? And don't say "because it's unusual" I am asking why unusual is bad

Ok let's take this slowly then. Why exactly is genetically modifying a baby to have 8 broken limbs on birth bad? And don't say "because it's unusual" I am asking why unusual is bad — khaled

You understand that I was simply reporting my personal ethical dispositions to you re the "unusual" bit, right? No fact can ground any ethical stance. So if you're looking for a fact to ground an ethical stance, you'll never find one.

I am trying to argue that it is bad according to the subjective values you set here a — khaled

Didn't I point out to you that I do not do moral stances via principles? I do moral stances by dispositions for particular situations. No principle is ever a trump card for me. I think that approach is ridiculous. So there's no way to argue that I would think something is wrong via some principle I hold. That's not how I do moral stances. I pointed that out from the start.

You understand that I was simply reporting my personal ethical dispositions to you re the "unusual" bit, right? No fact can ground any ethical stance. So if you're looking for a fact to ground an ethical stance, you'll never find one. — Terrapin Station

I am not looking for a fact, just more sharply defined subjective reasons. For me "unusual" isn't bad but "harmful" is. Let's look at some examples to see exactly where you lie: Is circumcision ethical? Beware that it is scientific fact that circumcision provides no physical benefits whatsoever and in fact causes sever suffering and even brain damage to some children.

And don't say "because it's unusual" I am asking why unusual is bad — khaled

Any moral stance is going to ultimately come down to "because that's the way I feel about it." This is true for everyone, for every moral stance.

Any moral stance is going to ultimately come down to "because that's the way I feel about it." This is true for everyone, for every moral stance. — Terrapin Station

And I doubt that's actually how you feel about it. To illustrate: Is circumcision ethical? Beware that it is scientific fact that circumcision provides no physical benefits whatsoever and in fact causes sever suffering and even brain damage to some children.

For me "unusual" isn't bad but "harmful" is. — khaled

"Unusual" is only bad re the full scenario I explained above. Because that's my disposition with respect to that (re modifications to an entity--we need to have the entity in question, where it's going to survive to a point where it's normally capable of consent, etc.) That can effectively be a foundational disposition.

Re circumcision, I'd prefer that it wasn't a norm, but sure, I wouldn't say it's unethical.

Alright then we're done here. There is nothing I can do to convince you. You have shown that for some bizzare reason you think that whatever the social norms dictate is what is ethically correct concerning non consenting entities even when they will grow to be ones. So if I understand you correctly: If it were a social norm to genetically modify children to have 8 broken limbs on birth you wouldn't think it's unethical?

Personally, I think any act that risks harming someone else should be handled with care when it comes to moral situations. If it cannot be demonstrated that the act will alleviate significantly more pain somewhere than it will impose then it shouldn't be done. And birth and circumcision are examples of such things and so I consider then unethical

If you had started off by saying that you consider anything social norms dictate to be your ethical standard I wouldn't have bothered arguing with you in the first place, (for the obvious reason that having children is a social norm. For obvious reasons). Although I do think your ethical system is essentially mob mentality and is completely untenable, hey, who am I to judge.

Fun discussion though.

There is nothing I can do to convince you — khaled

I could have easily told you that from the start. I didn't just start thinking about this stuff yesterday. I've been doing philosophy for over 45 years, and I have a formal and a bit of a professional background in it. It wouldn't be impossible for my views on anything to change, but it wouldn't be easy to change them and it would require pretty clever theorizing that's different than stuff I've heard over and over for decades, or it would take some novel insight on my own part. (An example of the latter is that I didn't use to reject principle-based approaches to moral stances, but then I had an insight that that was a form of theory-worship and that it was stupid--just like theory-worship in general)

You have shown that for some bizzare reason you think that whatever the social norms dictate is what is ethically correct concerning non consenting entities even when they will grow to be ones. — khaled

Just for irreversible body modifications. Of course, this isn't a principle that I hold so that it would be a trump card. Could there be a cultural norm re body modification that I'd have an ethical problem with? Sure, but I'd not know that for sure until I encountered it.

As I've stated many times, I base no moral stance on either harm or suffering. Both are far too vague in my ooinion.

but it wouldn't be easy to change them and it would require pretty clever theorizing that's different than stuff I've heard over and over for decades, or it would take some novel insight on my own part. — Terrapin Station

There is no way to convince someone who believes social norms are the basis for what makes actions against non consenting entities (that will become consenting) of antinatalism. Because having kids will never cease as a social norm (for obvious reasons) and so the only way to change their mind would be to convince them to change the underlying ethical positions they have. I am hopelessly bad at that, but it's just that most people who argue against antinatalism hold ethical rules that WOULD consider it wrong but they make a special case for some reason. For example: most people would say that modifications that risk harm are bad not that modifications that are "unusual" as you have defined them are bad. I was thinking you said unusual but actually meant harmful. It became clear to me you meant unusual as unusual with the circumcision example. So at that point there is nothing I can do. Most people I've seen on this thread however would disagree with that stance as far as I can tell.

For you though, all I can do is disagree. My only goal was to show people that hold contradictory ethical view that they're contradictory but you don't so kudos to you

There is no way to convince someone who believes social norms are the basis for what makes actions against non consenting entities (that will become consenting) of antinatalism. — khaled

Again, it's an ontological fact that you can't do anything to the entity in question prior to conception, because the entity doesn't exist prior to conception.

My question was basically this: Why do you think it is permissable to cause someone so much suffering that they literally kill themselves? The fact that they can kill themselves to remove that suffering doesn't justify causing it does it? — khaled

That's still straw men, are you doing it on purpose or do you not see it? Nowhere did I claim what you're implying I think.

Risking that someone might suffer a lot, while doing our best so that they don't suffer, is not the same as causing someone to suffer a lot. If I do my best to raise a child, and the child is happy, and because of unforeseeable circumstances he/she gets abducted and repeatedly raped and tortured by some monster, and as a result he/she suffers horribly and becomes suicidal, I'm not the cause of that, the monster is the cause. The happiness and the suffering would have been prevented by not having the child, but the suffering alone would have been prevented by identifying that monster beforehand, by understanding what leads people to commit this kind of atrocities, and by taking preventive measures so that people never get to the point that they become monsters.

In my view, people who do that kind of things suffer a lot themselves, it seems most antinatalists have also suffered a lot because of others, because of constant bullying or stuff like that, and in many cases people who have suffered that way either kill themselves, or become chronically depressed (and form the idea that bringing a being into the world is wrong because of the suffering they have experienced), or move on to commit atrocities themselves. If you have suffered a lot because of others, the solution is not that everyone stop having children, it is to understand why others caused you that suffering and what could be done to prevent it. In my view little is done to understand how suffering comes about, our society is immersed in the belief that medication or punishment or imprisonment is the best way to prevent and relieve suffering, but I see it as a really poor model, many people suffer because of others in ways that are socially accepted, and they internalize that suffering until they end up causing suffering to others later on. The suffering an individual causes eventually ripples through the world, but so does the joy that an individual brings. The solution isn't to make humanity go extinct, it is to spread joy and stop spreading suffering. And if you can understand that, maybe you can bring more joy and less suffering to the people who live now and to those who are yet to be born. Whereas spreading antinatalism is spreading your suffering.

For example: most people would say that modifications that risk harm are bad not that modifications that are "unusual" as you have defined them are bad. — khaled

Re this, by the way, most people don't actually believe that harm, unqualified, is bad as a "trump card principle." That's the reason that antinatalism will never be more popular. Antinatalists have the very unusual disposition that harm and suffering, in the broadest, most vague senses, are bad in principle, to a point where nothing else matters.

Normally, even if someone were to agree that harm and suffering are negative in principle, they're not going to agree that that's all that matters. They'll think that it has to be balanced against positive facts.

However they will suffer and it will be experiened by them as harm. And this would be, if antinatalists were successful, an effect of your polemic, and one which might be, since you are fallible humans, based on values that are not prioritized correctly or the wrong ones, or based on some incorrect reasonsing, or based on false metaphysics.

But you take that risk because you are pretty dman sure you are right.

Which is what everyone does regarding their values.

You however seem to think you are taking no risks of causing harm on those who did not ask for it.

I think that is very confused. It would have to mean you assume you cannot possibly be mistaken and so risks are being taken. I don't know where this idea of your infallibility comes from. But we've covered this ground. — Coben

Again, my answer to this is that if pro-natalists are right, suffering will ensue for someone else- will be created wholesale for someone else. If antitnatalists are right, no new person will suffer anything. There is no "risk" in the antinatalist outcome, other then no people existing. But, what does that matter to anyone, literally?

I'm going to address some arguments for antinatalism that were mentioned in the beginning of this thread. — leo

Interesting that khaled gave you a huge response, but you direct the post at me. Alrighty then, I'll answer you.

This argument assumes that avoiding harm is more important than having positive experiences, which many don't agree with. Also it doesn't take into account the fact that would-be parents are often deprived and harmed from not having a child. — leo

What it is saying is that in the case of the procreational decision, no collateral damage of harm is done to someone else. Yes, at that point, all that matters is that harm is not foisted on someone else. Any other justification is using the child for the parent's agenda of XYZ projected reasons (on behalf of the child). The child will not be deprived, literally, of anything prior to birth. This brigs us to the bad argument of suffering of the parent for not having a child, the same thing that @Terrapin Station uses. If I was to put you in an obstacle course that you could not get off of unless you commit suicide, because putting people in various challenges and obstacle courses makes me happy, and maybe I think you will really like it, or get meaning from it, or whatever, it still doesn't make it right for me to put you in that obstacle course because I suffer less from doing so. That's just one of many examples I can use.

Many people don't see their life as being in "a constantly deprived state", they would rather describe it as full of experiences and feelings, so I don't agree that life is being in a constantly deprived state. — leo

Sure, you can say whatever happy fluffy things you want, you still need and want all day long. It's part of human life. Experiences and feelings are part of life too, but much of those experiences are feelings of need and want- even if just to be in some positive state (get there, maintain it, hope for it, etc.).

Whether a particular experience is seen as a "challenge to overcome" or a "burden to deal with" is subjective. When you enjoy what you do, you don't see it as a challenge or a burden, it's when you don't enjoy what you do that you see it that way.

So again, you're focusing on the negative part (the unenjoyed experiences), and not the positive part (the enjoyed experiences). Whether you confer more weight to the negative part is a subjective view, not an objective one.

I could equally make the opposite argument and say that life presents wonders and joy. When putting a new person into the world, you are creating a situation where they will experience wonders and joy, ... — leo

Again, no one NEEDS to experience anything. Any negative experiences can be avoided, and ALL collateral damage, by simply preventing birth. That is a fact. No one is obligated to have make people with good experiences, but it seems to me, at the level of the procreational decision, it is best to prevent ALL harm. I am not the arbiter, a force that must bring happy experiences into the world. But I can certainly be a non-starter for someone else's negative experiences.

Again, you don't know how much wonder and joy there will be in life for a certain person. I think we can agree that a given person can see their life as a net positive or as a net negative. You're not saying why it is more important to avoid a potential net negative than it is to create a potential net positive. Especially if the parents believe that they can give a happy life to their child.

This is not to say that people should have as many babies as possible, if the would-be parents feel like they couldn't take care of one or couldn't make him/her happy then better not to have one. — leo

Again, we are not obligated to create positive experiences at the procreational level, since no actual person will be affected. I think creating ANY negative experiences for someone else at that time, is bad being that the alternative is literally NO deprivation for that person who was not created. Being that life has more than trivial harm, that ANY is way more than just stubbed-toes... Also, to create challenges for someone else, because they may identify with the challenges, is not right. Go back to my obstacle course analogy. Nothing needs to happen for anyone PRIOR to their birth. It is simply the parents' agenda (to see their child have XYZ experiences). They think they should reasonable make decisions that affect other people, because they have a projected agenda for that person. Rather, don't have children, and let sleeping dogs lie. No harm ensues, no one is deprived. Win/win.

Yes this is a problem, but it's separate from antinatalism. We are educated to become efficient cogs in a great industrial machine that progressively destroys nature and other species and cultures, and that's a huge problem, and a source of great suffering. Does that mean that to solve this problem the whole of humanity has to be thrown away and go extinct? No, some individuals are much more responsible for this state of affairs than others. That's what I see as the important fight, changing course, elevate consciousnesses, make people see this state of affairs and rise against it, against those who are responsible for it, for a great part of the suffering that antinatalists and people around the world experience, that's the important fight, not convincing people that life is fundamentally horrible and that it's better to put an end to it all, because then those who are destroying humanity and the world will have won and we will have lost. — leo

Once the technology is created, we simply become growers and maintainers of the technology. We become minutia mongers. But please, lets have more people that must participate in this as employees. We must make more workers... People don't intend to do this, but of course, that is where they are heading when they are born. Otherwise they are just the financial class that underrides everyone else's work, or the underclass, a hermit/monk slowly dying, or commits suicide to escape it. But we put people into this position of complying by being good employees, or the other less optimal options.

Again, my answer to this is that if pro-natalists are right, suffering will ensue for someone else- will be created wholesale for someone else. If antitnatalists are right, no new person will suffer anything. There is no "risk" in the antinatalist outcome, other then no people existing. But, what does that matter to anyone, literally? — schopenhauer1

It matters to people existing now. It might mean something that no sentient life continues. You have your values and you are universalizing and objectivizing them. You focus only on suffering as the only potential loss/risk. If you are wrong about all this - and yes, I understand that you cannot see how - your project could do lots of harm. You are assuming things like 'there is no God' 'there is no value in sentient beings per se' 'people's current interests in the future of the species are wrongheaded and need not be considered' 'the urge to procreate causes not harm if it is inhibited' 'reincarnation is not the case, there are no souls in line, so to speak ' 'precreation is natural and good' and likely many other values, some rather mundane, others involving belief systems other than yours. Now, with some bird's eye view, I could say 'Hey, perhaps you are right.' but even if I go to that bird's eye view, I MUST ABSOLUTELY note that you as a fallible human might be wrong. Since that is a possibility, you are taking a risk.

But your position is founded on the idea that no risks can be taken that might cause damage or suffering without the direct consent.

Now you may say that these other values and beliefs have the onus of proof.

But no they don't. Because there is a risk, as far as you know, that you are doing damage and harm with your position, the spreading of it.

You cannot seem to acknowledge this risk. And that risk is present regardless of whether other people mount perfect argument that these other values are the correct ones.

You want perfection and perfection in not causing harm. But that is out of your reach in situ.

It is another fundmentalism, in the broad sense, you are presenting, which presumes infallibility on your part, since no one should risk. But you are risking.

There's nowhere to go from here between us since you cannot admit to this basic fact that it is possible you are wrong, and if you are, and you are effective, even with a few people, but certainly as a movement that might be widely effective, then you will cause some or incredible harm. Just because you can't see how, is part of your inablity to imagine, even, that you could possibly be wrong and missing something. That's a risk I take when I go out of my house, and that act might even lead, unintentionally to the suffering of a child - I watched a bike accident where the child ran out and the women braked and had done nothing wrong. Of course, if she'd been walking, there would be less chance things like that would happen.

We all take risks, even you, that your actions will cause harm. In this case because of your spreading an idea. In everyone's case, mundanely.

But you allow yourself this while expecting others to never in any way risk non-consensual harm to others. We must adhere to your values or we are immoral.

It's just another religion, presumably without a deity.

What it is saying is that in the case of the procreational decision, no collateral damage of harm is done to someone else. Yes, at that point, all that matters is that harm is not foisted on someone else. — schopenhauer1

If someone is making the decision for themselves, that's the case. If they're pressured into it--including by someone like you incessantly, repetitively nagging about it, or if there would be a law about it, that then that's not the case.

This brigs us to the bad argument of suffering of the parent for not having a child, the same thing that Terrapin Station uses. — schopenhauer1

That's only an argument against the claim that no one is harmed or no one suffers just in case someone is pressured or forced into not having kids, when they want to have kids.

There's nothing to stop you looking at causation that way, but as I have said it is an arbitrary reduction. In any case what bearing does it have on or against the anti-natalist argument that being born will necessarily provide the causes or conditions that will occasion suffering?

@Terrapin Station
Exactly.

That's only an argument against the claim that no one is harmed or no one suffers just in case someone is pressured or forced into not having kids, when they want to have kids. — Terrapin Station

Someone suffering by not creating the causes or conditions that will occasion all other suffering for/ on behalf of another person makes no sense to qualify. I never said suffering alone is the only thing that matters. I usually frame it as causing suffering on behalf of another person. That is what is happening by having children, and you know it. You are lost in your own red herrings, that you have no argument against the actual antinatalist claims. That is what this thread is about. It's about consent in regards to the procreational decision. It's about causing (the conditions for) someone else's suffering, and not piecemeal in a case-by-case basis (after birth) but ALL suffering. All suffering for a future person can be prevented uniquely in the procreational decision. All suffering is experienced from being born in the first place. If you don't understand that being self-evident, I would just say you are just showing how much sophistry your many years in philosophy has afforded you.

You are assuming things like 'there is no God' 'there is no value in sentient beings per se' 'people's current interests in the future of the species are wrongheaded and need not be considered' 'the urge to procreate causes not harm if it is inhibited' 'reincarnation is not the case, there are no souls in line, so to speak ' 'precreation is natural and good' and likely many other values, some rather mundane, others involving belief systems other than yours. — Coben

All of these things would then assume that people are to be used (for reincarnation, for spiritual entities, for future of humanity as a whole, etc.). Why individuals suffering should be started for a third-party cause, is never stated. Creating the conditions for harm for other people, because they need to do XYZ things, is creating people for someone else's agenda. Why make people for a third-party's agenda? That seems wrong as well. Again, an analogy would be setting up an obstacle course (i.e. the challenges of life) and forcing people to participate in it. The only option they have to get out is to kill themselves. You have to deal with the obstacle course, because I want you to. You will suffer, but hey, I believe you will get so much out of going through the obstacle course. Something is not right about that. Making someone go through challenges, that did not exist in the first place to need those challenges, even if the person identifies with those challenges (like a slave who doesn't realize his persecution), should make one pause.

You are lost in your own red herrings, that you have no argument against the actual antinatalist claims. — schopenhauer1

Was the comment about whether there is suffering when people don't have children an argument against antinatalism?

In any case what bearing does it have on or against the anti-natalist argument that being born will necessarily provide the causes or conditions that will occasion suffering? — Janus

It's not an argument against antinatalism. I don't know how many times I need to say that in order for anyone to understand it.

It is, however, a way of saying that I don't consider being born to be the cause of, say, someone suffering via not wanting to eat broccoli but being made to eat broccoli, or, say, someone suffering from a broken arm they received from playing "king of the mountain."

Again, it's an ontological fact that you can't do anything to the entity in question prior to conception, because the entity doesn't exist prior to conception. — Terrapin Station

That entity may not exist but there is another entity there that will grow to be that entity. The person might not exist but the fetus does. And I'm saying childbirth is harmful in the same way genetically modifying someone to have 8 limbs is harmful. The act of genetically modifying doesn't hurt anyone but it has consequences that WILL hurt someone. The act of having children doesn't hurt anyone but it has consequences that MAY hurt someone (most definitely will at some point)

. And I'm saying childbirth is harmful — khaled

I've asked you a ton of times what's harmful about it. What consequences will hurt someone? Specify what you're talking about (not exhaustively--just via some examples).

I'm not the cause of that, the monster is the cause — leo

I would say you are a partial cause for having them in the first place. "I tried my best but the world sucks bucko" doesn't relieve you of responsibility.

The happiness and the suffering would have been prevented by not having the child, but the suffering alone would have been prevented by identifying that monster beforehand, by understanding what leads people to commit this kind of atrocities, and by taking preventive measures so that people never get to the point that they become monsters. — leo

Agreed. So let's do the safer solution that requires less suffering and is applicable with 100% chance of success: not have the child

Solution A to suffering: Don't have the child
Result: No suffering (good) and no pleasure (not bad because you don't owe future children pleasure)
Chance of success: 100%

Solution B to suffering: Prevent every instance of suffering by creating a utopia
Result: No suffering (good) and a lot of pleasure (good)
Chance of success: idk but I don't think it's that high
What happens if it fails: Suffering (bad)

So i'd rather go with solution A

it seems most antinatalists have also suffered a lot because of others — leo

It definitely is more attractive to people with harsh lives but there are plenty of us perfectly content middle class antinatalists as well. I wouldn't dismiss us

As for the rest of your comment. I agree it would be great if any of those things happened but just remember that every single ancestor of yours has said words to that effect and where are we now relative to that utopia? Not much closer huh. It seems to me the safe option is better. Because remember for all those wonderful things you said (perfect mental health for the entire societ, harmony and cooperation globally), there is 5 times as many terrible alternative events so statistically speaking, the odds we actually make a utopia are pretty slim.

And what of the suffering in the way of GETTING that utopia? Would you agree to suffer a lifetime so that people 300 years later can live better lives? I doubt it.

I've asked you a ton of times what's harmful about it. What consequences will hurt someone? Specify what you're talking about. — Terrapin Station

Any harm you can think of can be causally linked to being born. In the same way that the specific harm of having 8 broken limbs can be linked to the genetic modification, so can ANY kind of harm be linked to the modification "birth" that allowed it. I say enabling harm and causing it directly are just as punishable. Setting a bear trap that someone someone steps on and personally hacking their legs off with an axe are just as punsihable

Was the comment about whether there is suffering when people don't have children an argument against antinatalism? — Terrapin Station

That's one of them. The other one is this whole cause thing. It is self-evident that being born is the one condition that allows for all other suffering. It is a category error to say non-existing children are suffering. It's nonsensical rather.But guess what? Existing people will be harmed. What causes someone to get born, to exist? Procreation.

But again, you know this. You can dance around and twist your arguments as much as you want to make it not the case, but indeed it is the case:

Being born allows for ALL suffering>>>> procreation leads to being born in the first place. You can't twist your reasoning enough to get out of this fact.

Any harm you can think of can be causally linked to being born. In the same way that the specific harm of having 8 broken limbs can be linked to the genetic modification, so can ANY kind of harm be linked to the modification "birth" that allowed it. — khaled

C'mon, you can't give a single example?

That's one of them. — schopenhauer1

? It was a yes or no question. And the answer, given good reading comprehension, should have been "no."

It's not an argument against antinatalism. — Terrapin Station

It is an argument against the idea that being born can coherently be considered to be the cause of any particular instances of suffering, so it is an argument against the principal argument for anti-natalism, which I would say amounts to it being an argument against anti-natalism. It is also a tendentious, reductive, flawed argument, as I have shown.