But a little responsible for EVERY INSTANCE OF SUFFERING. That adds up to a lot. — khaled

I said "at worst", as in not necessarily responsible.

It's different if, say, a teacher (just using another fatherly figure) is very nice to you and you're grateful to him and you blame other people for your suffering. In that case he literally has no connection to your suffering so is not to blame. However if it turns out the teacher is the one that originally picked your classmates and knowingly picked bullies when he had other options, it would be a different story wouldn't it? — khaled

What a bad analogy again. Choosing whether or not to have a child is not analog to a teacher choosing whether he's gonna pick bullies as your classmates or not. You keep bringing up stories as if they were valid analogies, they aren't.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I have never blamed my parents for anything. Nor other people for that matter and I don't see how it is relevant who I personally blame for what as to the validity of that blame — khaled

So if some individual doesn't see his parents as responsible for his suffering, who the heck do you think you are to tell that individual he's wrong and his parents are really responsible for his suffering? What makes your subjective point of view more important than his subjective point of view?

Oh you don't see that? What about all those starving children in africa who you know apparently OWE money to? How long of a sentence should you get for NOT providing as much joy as you could to other people. Stop typing and have more kids lest you deny them joy which is apparently morally punishable.

See how ridiculous it sound to say you owe others joy or pleasure? If you truly did you wouldn't be wasting time typing here as it is denying someone somewhere some pleasure potentially. The only thing you owe others is not harming them. Neither of us OWES the other a massage. — khaled

Nice way to totally misinterpret and misrepresent what I said. You complain I put words in your mouth while you're doing worse. I said, in my view I owe joy to my future children, not just "no suffering", because in my view a life without joy isn't a life worth living. I doubt your children would be happy if you consider that all you owe them is "no suffering", but then I guess it's a good thing you don't want to have children.

Look at the asymmetry thing. It clearly says that having children has both good and bad aspects to it. However, me participating in, or not participating in society has a negligably small impact on the suffering or pleasure of any one person so it doesn't matter which I do morally speaking. — khaled

Your existence doesn't have a negligeably small impact no, especially if you go around preaching antinatalism and convince future parents that they are bad people for wanting to have children and make them suffer greatly as a result. You're oblivious to the consequences and ramifications of your actions.

Since when does having children give you immortality? Are you implying that if I have a child I will somehow "live on" consciously INSIDE their cells or something? — khaled

I'm not implying that, that's again you misinterpreting and putting words in my mouth, all the while ignoring what I was replying to.

You say it's ok to make other people suffer if you need to do it to survive. First that's your opinion, not a fact, some people see sacrifice as a good thing so others don't have to suffer because of them.

Second, again, if you want to risk causing suffering as little as possible, go live in the woods far from anyone and only eat plants, that's enough to survive, yet you don't do that, because you're inconsistent.

Third, other people besides you have their own subjective idea of what they "need to do to survive". Plenty of people indeed hold the view that having children is a way to transcend death, if you look around you will find them. Not everyone is like you you know? A few examples from the first page of Google:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-big-questions/201202/children-and-the-quest-immortality
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8080676-our-immortality-comes-through-our-children-and-their-children-through
https://pelos2016.wordpress.com/2016/04/30/the-immortality-trap/

..... No. And heck, if there WAS such a disease I'd say it is debatable to allow having a child in this case. — khaled

I guess you don't know that infertility is correlated with depression and suicide. You don't care about infertility because you don't want children, most people care.

When you want something so much that it gives meaning to your life, and you can't have it, you suffer greatly. In your case, if you couldn't preach antinatalism anywhere I think you too would suffer greatly.

I am very happy with my life. And heck jobs can be fun. That was the point of the metaphor. They CAN be fun but they're not guaranteed to be which is why you can't force people to work them — khaled

And the metaphor is shit because for most people life has nothing to do with a job.

It's not "only to satiate my own desires". It's to stop more people from suffering. — khaled

Which is your desire.

Find me a valid reason or a valid benefactor to the act of having children other than the parents of said children — khaled

You know plenty of children are happy to be alive right?

If Jill applying any sort of force on Jack that is going to leave a long lasting effect is bad just cuz then it doesn't matter if that force or something else is the cause of Jack's suffering. A and B have nothing to do with causality but if you pick A then what caused Jack's suffering doesn't matter morally. That's what I mean when I say it doesn't matter to debate who's the cause of Jack's suffering. But had you picked B then determining if that force is the cause of Jack's suffering is significant. You picked A so it doesn't matter if Jack suffers or not or what makes him suffer, Jill is still at fault.

I started this whole situation assuming you would have picked B and was trying to understand how you can causally peg a force to someone's suffering directly. You don't have to do that if you picked A though.

So now I guess we're back at where we were like 3 days ago. You consider actions done on living creatures that are currently not capable of giving consent but will become capable of doing so in the future at some point morally considerable. Ergo you didn't think genetically modifying children to suffer is morally permissable. However you set the bar of what counts as "abnormal" alterations at "whatever society dictates is normal or abnormal" which by definition will never make birth abnormal. So if your argument justifying why fertilization (an action done on a living creature that is currently not capable of giving consent but will become capable of doing so in the future at some point) is morally permissable is because society dictates it. And if that is all it takes for something to be morally permissable then there is no chance you'll ever consider birth as morally problematic

I just want to get this point straight. Does fertilization fall under: an action done on a living creature that is currently not capable of giving consent but will become capable of doing so in the future at some point?

And if so is your reason for saying it is moral that society has decided it doesn't count as "abnormal"

And if not how is it that fertilization is different from genetic engineering. They are both modifications done on living creatures (sperm and egg) currently incapable of giving consent that will become capable of giving consent later. But you classify one as a modification and the other not — khaled

What a mess of not really paying attention to or understanding what I'm saying. There's too much stuff to address there. I'll stick with your "point you want to get straight," because we keep going over and over this, where you apparently are incapable of learning: fertilization/conception is NOT doing something to an entity that is normally capable or granting or withholding consent. Why that's so difficult to learn I don't know, but for some reason you have a mental block when it comes to learning this.

fertilization/conception is NOT doing something to an entity that is normally capable or granting or withholding consent. — Terrapin Station

That's not what's written there.... I didn't ask this.

Remeber this:

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

Does procreation fall under: 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?

Suppose I am hit by a drunk driver and am greatly harmed, physically and emotionally. If I were looking for someone to blame, it would be the intoxicated driver himself, and not my parents (who are not at fault for whatever in the world happens to harm me). However, through their decision to conceive and raise me, the very possibility of 'my harm' came into being, which was a bad thing that should not be repeated.

I said "at worst", as in not necessarily responsible. — leo

How are you not responsible for their suffering if you enabled it in the first place? If someone genetically modifies a child to suffer tremendously (extra limbs or fewer limbs or something like that) is he responsible for their suffering or no?

So if some individual doesn't see his parents as responsible for his suffering, who the heck do you think you are to tell that individual he's wrong and his parents are really responsible for his suffering? What makes your subjective point of view more important than his subjective point of view? — leo

I never said more important or less. I'm just trying to understand how that person manages to remain consistent if he thinks his parents have absolutely no part to play in his suffering. If a A does something that is necessary for harming B and then B gets harmed has A done something wrong?

I said, in my view I owe joy to my future children — leo

But that's different form saying you owe future children joy. Let me get this straight: Do you think you have a moral obligation to

A: Make your children happy
B: Make happy children

Because those are very different obligations. I'm saying you don't have to do B but you have to do A. And you have to do A because you forced the children to exist in the first place. The only time you owe someone something is when you harmed them and need to make up for it

You say it's ok to make other people suffer if you need to do it to survive. First that's your opinion, not a fact, some people see sacrifice as a good thing so others don't have to suffer because of them. — leo

Those two statements are not contradictory. "It's ok to make people suffer if you need to do it to survive" and "Sacrifice is a good thing so others don't have to suffer" are not contradictory at all. In fact I agree with both of them. There are things you don't have to do but that would be good if you did them. Having happy children is an example. It would be good if you did it (see asymmetry) but you don't HAVE to have happy children in the first place

Second, again, if you want to risk causing suffering as little as possible, go live in the woods far from anyone and only eat plants, that's enough to survive, yet you don't do that, because you're inconsistent. — leo

Find me a person whose suffering will be alleviated significantly (significantly as in he would suffer much less than I would suffer by living in the woods) by me personally living in the woods and I'll take off to the woods. You keep ignoring my point that whether or not I participate in society is morally irrelevant because it doesn't help anyone. I'm not a world famous anything for my decisions to make that large an impact.

And besides, I said before that there ARE situations where you are allowed to risk harming others. Namely one: If you have consent from them beforehand.

Third, other people besides you have their own subjective idea of what they "need to do to survive". Plenty of people indeed hold the view that having children is a way to transcend death, if you look around you will find them. Not everyone is like you you know? A few examples from the first page of Google: — leo

Yes but only crazy people mean "transcend death" in a literal sense. As in you literally continue to live consciously by having children. Figures of speech such as "transcend death" aren't to be taken literally

I guess you don't know that infertility is correlated with depression and suicide. — leo

It is quite a stretch to say from there that infertility CAUSES depression and suicide but even giving that (and I believe it does) are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the harm done due to infertility is equivalent to the harm of an entire lifetime?

Are you saying that you, personally, will suffer more by not having children than you children will suffer their entire lifetimes? OBVIOUSLY that's false. Because if your children face the same dillemma they will suffer at least just as much. Also notice your wording. You literally said "some people want children so badly they would die without them". I took that to mean they literally have some brain disease that causes them to die if they don't have children and in a very painful manner at that. The way you said it implies an abnormality.

Infertility is correlated with depression and suicide but so is social media usage. But now one would go around saying "Some people need social media so bad they would die without it"

When you want something so much that it gives meaning to your life, and you can't have it, you suffer greatly — leo

You also sentence your children to this same dillemma. See, no matter how much I starved I would never steal someone else's food if I knew that was going to starve them (at least I hope). If your life lacks meaning without children you're welcome to try to find any way to alleviate that suffering. As long as, of course, you don't LITERALLY TRANSPOSE IT WHOLESALE ONTO SOMEONE ELSE with a side dish of extra suffering at that. That's a ridiculous solution

Which is your desire. — leo

Yes, my desire is to stop others from suffering but that's not a selfish desire is it? Especially when in doing it I am directly harming myself.

You know plenty of children are happy to be alive right? — leo

Irrelevant. You don't get to take risks with other people's lives because you want to. What makes you think YOUR kid will be happy to be alive. If you can prove it to me with 100% certainty then I would grant that you have the option of having that kid but you still don't have to morally speaking

And the metaphor is shit because for most people life has nothing to do with a job. — leo

I'd say it has plenty of similarities but if you don't like the metaphor you're free to propose a better one or at least point out WHY the metaphor is shit. What you said basically amounts to "This metaphor is shit because this metaphor is shit"

Right, that is the gist of the AN argument. It would be a category error to focus on pegging causal instances to the parent. It is only at the procreational level of decision-making that uniquely ALL harm can be prevented with no cost to an actual person (the Benatarian asymmetry).

Someone like @Terrapin Station is simply going to say something like, "I don't believe harm should be the only consideration or any consideration for moral decision making".

That is why my response goes something like, "Parents should not play with other people's lives. Anything other than harm at the procreational decision-making level would be forcing a projected agenda on someone else that would be using them for that agenda. It would be callous as it would be starting the very conditions and platform of harm for someone else, along with known and unknown challenges. All of these things are creating, wholesale, negative situations for someone else, that they did not need in the first place".

Until natalists can answer why starting negative situations on other's behalf is permissible outside of some idea that they are allowed to be the arbiter of such situations through ad populum notions, they don't have a good answer other than it is a current acceptable social norm.

At any rate. Yes, I'm the arbiter of what's good, relative to me. You're the arbiter of what's good, relative to you. That's how it necessarily works for everyone. Good/bad and the like are judgments we make and dispositions we have regarding preferences. That includes if what someone uses for a guide is a consensus opinion or something like that. They're still deciding that relative to them/their opinion of good, they're going to go by what the consensus opinion is. — Terrapin Station

That's fine, being your OWN arbiter of good relative to you and me, but this decision affects a whole lifetime for another person, so I don't think the matter is as simple or flippant as you are making this out, like buying a flavor of ice cream or even intra-worldly moral decision-making once already-born. This decision affects another person, and in many negative consequences, creating harms to overcome from wholecloth because YOU decided ANOTHER person needs to live out these consequences (again with the understanding that the alternative is no person existing who would be deprived of any collateral goods).

Creating negative situations for other people, even with intended good outcomes, or with positive collateral benefits is still what is being examined here in its moral consideration. Certainly the logic is there in the asymmetry, but the appeal to follow the logic and not simply what one wants to do, ad populum arguments, social norms, etc. is another matter. I can't force you to see harm in the matter of procreating another person as paramount, only present the logic.

That's not what's written there.... I didn't ask this. — khaled

Here's what you do when someone brings up a point like this: You acknowledge that you misread it and then address it again. See how easy honesty is?

So, addressing that again: no, it's not something done to an entity that will later be capable of consenting. The entity in question doesn't exist until conception.

Someone like Terrapin Station is simply going to say something like, "I don't believe harm should be the only consideration or any consideration for moral decision making". — schopenhauer1

By the way, re his comment that "However, through their decision to conceive and raise me, the very possibility of 'my harm' came into being," I definitely agree with that.

One thing I'm disagreeing with khaled about is calling that possibility, that precondition a "cause." If he'd just said "they cause the possibility of harm" or something like that, there would be nothing to disagree with.

At any rate, it's not just that I don't use "harm" as a moral hinge. Even if I did, I certainly wouldn't use "creating the possibility of harm" as a moral hinge. In general, I'm very much against legislating against and having moral proscriptions against possibilities/potentials. I'm not against negligence laws, but they have to be about something specific that actually happened, where the negligent party had a causal role in the occurrence, per the way I define cause.

Anything other than harm at the procreational decision-making level would be forcing a projected agenda on someone else that would be using them for that agenda. — schopenhauer1

That's not something that I'm either legally or morally against. I'm not categorically against manipulation, exploitation, etc. In fact, I think that both can be quite positive instead.

Until natalists can answer why starting negative situations on other's behalf is permissible — schopenhauer1

So the situation that parents start is life. If the kid in question sees life as a "negative situation," then we should get them some help--psychological help, basically. (Which can be obtained in a variety of ways, including other things to focus on--like philosophy in some cases, religion in some cases, etc.; it doesn't necessarily require a psychologist or psychiatrist, though it might.)

I don't think the matter is as simple or flippant as you are making this out, — schopenhauer1

It's not flippant at all. It's an ontological fact. Good/bad and similar evaluations are simply ways that people feel about something (and/or its upshots per their understanding), dispositions they have towards it.

This decision affects another person, — schopenhauer1

I don't know if it would be plausible to say all, but probably the vast majority of decisions affect another person in at least some indirect way. There's nothing morally problematic about this in general.

Creating negative situations for other people, — schopenhauer1

"Negative situations" is way too vague, though. And any situation can only be negative to an individual, in that individual's opinion, which we can't know until we ask them their opinion. Anyone could consider anything negative. I don't think that a lot of what people consider negative is a moral problem. I often think that the problem lies with people considering things negative instead. For example, when people are offended by speech.

no, it's not something done to an entity that will later be capable of consenting. The entity in question doesn't exist until conception. — Terrapin Station

But that is the same in the case of genetic engineering which is done on the sperm and or egg not on "the baby". How do you genetically modify a baby? You can't modify the genetic code in every single cell in its body, you modify the first two.

So, now given that fertilization doesn't count as "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?" because the baby doesn't exist as it is occuring, on what ground did you say abnormal genetic engineering is wrong? They are both modifications to sperm or eggs so why is one wrong and the other ok? Why are you counting one as a modifiaction and the other not?

So, now given that fertilization doesn't count as "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?" because the baby doesn't exist as it is occuring, on what ground did you say abnormal genetic engineering is wrong? They are both modifications to sperm or eggs so why is one wrong and the other ok? — khaled

If it's only doing something to sperm and/or eggs that are not fertilized, I don't have a problem with it.

If it's only doing something to sperm and or eggs that are not fertilized — Terrapin Station

I didn't ask if you had a problem with it I asked do you even consider it, morally speaking. DOES fertilization count as: "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?" You said no. Now how does genetic engineering fall under that category? Because you also said it does previously

Both of them are actions done on living things that will grow into other living things that are capable of performing consent. Yet you claim that fertilization doesn't fall under this. Which rule does it break

A: done on living thing
B: Living thing will grow to become consent capable living thing

Which of these doesn't apply to fertilization itself because to me they both seem to apply

I didn't ask if you had a problem with it I asked do you even consider it, morally speaking. — khaled

Now you're not very familiar with how English normally works? "I don't have a problem with it"--in other words, a moral problem. That's the topic.

Now how does genetic engineering fall under that category? Because you also said it does previously — khaled

I have no idea what the actual process is for genetic engineering. That's not my field. If it's only doing something to sperm and/or eggs that aren't fertilized then I don't have a problem with it. That's why I just typed that.

Now you're not very familiar with how English normally works? "I don't have a problem with it"--in other words, a moral problem. That's the topic. — Terrapin Station

It could also mean "I don't have a problem with it" as in it is ethically permissable but it IS a moral issue. I am asking for clarification as to whether it is a moral issue or not. You have made a ditinction between something being morally permissable and it not being a moral issue in the first place before. I am asking which fertilization counts as: Moral issue but it has been determined that the act is permissalble or not moral issue at all

You can't simultaneously complain that I misread what you say and also that I ask for clarification.

I have no idea what the actual process is for genetic engineering. That's not my field. If it's only doing something to sperm and/or eggs that aren't fertilized then I don't have a problem with it. That's why I just typed that. — Terrapin Station

So if it so happens that the WAY you genetically engineer a child to have 8 broken limbs on birth doesn't involve interacting with the embryo post fertilization in any way is it morally permissable to genetically modify a child to have 8 broken limbs on birth?

Also pretty sure this is gramatically incorrect:

Now you're not very familiar with how English normally works? — Terrapin Station

t could also mean "I don't have a problem with it" as in it is ethically permissable but it IS a moral issue. — khaled

??? What in the world would that even mean?

I am asking which fertilization counts as: Moral issue but it has been determined that the act is permissalble or not moral issue at all — khaled

How, in your view, does it make sense to say "This is a moral issue but it's morally permissible"?

You can't simultaneously complain that I misread what you say and also that I ask for clarification. — khaled

I didn't complain that you misread what I said. I'm commenting on further evidence of your apparent mental and socialization issues--maybe evidence that you're an Aspie or something, in that you apparently are unfamiliar with and/or you're incapable of understanding, contextually, the very common phrase "I don't have a problem with it," so that now we'd have to hash that out.

So if it so happens that the WAY you genetically engineer a child to have 8 broken limbs on birth doesn't involve interacting with the embryo post fertilization in any way is it morally permissable to genetically modify a child to have 8 broken limbs on birth? — khaled

It's morally permissible to modify the sperm and/or egg. You're not doing anything to a child at that point, because no child exists. Children only exist once an egg is fertilized. In order to do something to x, it's required that x exists. You say you understand this, but it couldn't be more obvious that you do not, because you keep going back to the idea.

It's morally permissible to modify the sperm and or egg. You're not doing anything to a child at that point, — Terrapin Station

So if it so happens that the WAY you genetically engineer a child to have 8 broken limbs on birth doesn't involve interacting with the embryo post fertilization in any way I take it it IS morally permissable to genetically modify a child to have 8 broken limbs on birth for you?

I take it it IS morally permissable to genetically modify a child — khaled

It's important that you are able to learn this:

If what you're genetically modifying is a sperm or egg cell at time T1, then you're not genetically modifying a child at time T1.

Do you agree with that?

Wait no wtf. You genetically modify children by genetically modifying sperm and eggs. That's what genetically modify MEANS. If you want to count it like that then "genetically modify a child" doesn't make sense as a phrase

Okay, so when we genetically modify sperm or an egg, are we genetically modifying a child?

Okay, so when we genetically modify sperm or an egg, are we genetically modifying a child? — Terrapin Station

That is what "genetically modifying a child" means yes.

That is what "genetically modifying a child" means yes. — khaled

Is that literally correct, though?

No but whenever someone says "genetically modifying a child" that's what they mean. This is basic English

That being said, is genetically modifying children (genetically modifying sperm or eggs) an issue for you if it is done abnormally

Okay, but if we're going to be doing philosophy about this and formulating stances based on ontological points about it, we should probably say things that are literally correct, no?

Sure. Is genetically modifying sperm and eggs in such a way that the final result of that modification is that a child will be born with 8 broken limbs on birth morally problematic?

Is genetically modifying sperm and eggs in such a way that the final result of that modification is that a child will be born with 8 broken limbs on birth morally problematic? — khaled

Yes, I think it is, but not because we're doing anything to a child.

And it's problematic in just the same way that it's problematic for siblings to have offspring, in the same way that it's problematic to carry through a pregnancy when we know that there are particular medical problems with the baby, etc.

Yes, I think it is, but not because we're doing anything to a child. — Terrapin Station

Why then?

This was already answered long ago. Because it would create an abnormal situation for the child that would create a lot of problems.

This was already answered long ago. Because it would create an abnormal situation for the child that would create a lot of problems. — Terrapin Station

Cool and you define "abnormal" in a culturally evolved sense? As in whatever society decides is abnormal?

Cool and you define "abnormal" in a culturally evolved sense? As in whatever society decides is abnormal? — khaled

Not per a decision. Per contingent statistical norms.

It is per decision that you based your policy on actions that will impact a living being capable of giving consent in the future based on statistical abnormality though right? Not saying there is anything wrong with that