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? — khaled

Yes, of course. No ethical stance can be other than that. Ethical stances always come down to ways that people feel, dispositions they have. (So maybe "decision" isn't quite right--as it's not a conscious process...it's a way that you can't help but feel.)

Ok why are we still talking then? I have a different ethical stance

Ok why are we still talking then? — khaled

Because you keep responding to me. ;-)

Oy Vey

I don't think anyone literally meant "birth causes suffering". Everyone has a problem with it for the same reasons you have a problem with genetic engineering

Well, and you were asking me questions and so on.

At first, I reported my opinion in response to something you'd said, just in an off-the-cuff way, and then you wanted to launch into a big discussion.

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. — Terrapin Station

No one is talking law though, just personal decision-making and heuristics. Life does contain structural harms in certain views, and certainly has inevitable outcomes for harm, not just potentials. To say life may contain harm at some point, is a bad joke at best- we know it will contain harm. What I think you are really trying to convey is you have problems with basing decisions on only considerations of harm and not the potential for good experiences as well. That is where the AN will always disagree. The AN will say that the parent has the ability to prevent all suffering with no cost. Any other "hinge" consideration would be selfish and of no moral worth. Keep in mind, this is all in the situation prior to birth, not after when someone already exists to receive benefits from good.

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. — Terrapin Station

THAT view is a real problem for me. Creating people to manipulate and exploit them for an agenda is just wrong. Example: To force someone, who did not exist in the first place, to be thrown into a mixed bag of experiences of challenging situations or uncomfortable situations, because you like to see someone try to pull out of it a better person, is still wrong. Nothing need growth before it was born to need growth. To create situations from wholecloth of exploitation because it is fun to see someone come out of a struggle on the other side, is wrong. Even if it is "for" the person, prior to birth, there was no person who needed to grow or get the pleasure of feeling adversity in the first place. Creating adversity, where there was none before is wrong.

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.) — Terrapin Station

It's too late. You already created the life. As I've stated many times before, life is "dealing with" "overcoming" "coping", and so you indeed put someone in a situation where these strategies of mitigating harm must take place. No need for it in the first place before you chose to follow the dictates of exploitation and manipulation to provoke this situation to come about- values that you embrace apparently.

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. — Terrapin Station

Your disposition affects someone else's entire ontological being's very existence, that is the point. It is not like other decisions which mainly affect yourself or if you want to be annoying about it, other people in a butterfly-effect sort of way (i.e. you picking ice cream flavor makes a chain reaction, etc.).

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. — Terrapin Station

Oy. No, this creates a whole new life, that is major.

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. — Terrapin Station

That is a slippery slope. The problem is the condition/platform for ALL negative conditions will be created. That is problematic if you care about creating negative conditions for others.

No one is talking law though, j — schopenhauer1

The reason I brought it up is that if one is curious, one might read " I certainly wouldn't use 'creating the possibility of harm' as a moral hinge," and then wonder what my stance would be on legislating against potentials, since that's a popular track that many people are in favor of, and that might lead to wondering what my view would be on negligence laws. I gave the info so folks wouldn't have to ask.

What I think you are really trying to convey is you have problems with basing decisions on only considerations of harm and not the potential for good experiences as well. — schopenhauer1

I wasn't trying to say that. I very literally did say that.

Any other "hinge" consideration would be selfish and of no moral worth. — schopenhauer1

"Of no moral worth" is not true, because that solely depends on what an individual assigns moral value to. Anyone can assign any moral value, positive or negative, to anything. And they can't be wrong in that, because there are no (normative) moral value facts. There's no valuation to get wrong.

You don't really believe that moral valuations are subjective, because you write things such as, "Creating people to manipulate and exploit them for an agenda is just wrong."

"Of no moral worth" is not true, because that solely depends on what an individual assigns moral value to. Anyone can assign any moral value, positive or negative, to anything. And they can't be wrong in that, because there are no (normative) moral value facts. There's no valuation to get wrong. — Terrapin Station

Hence we are philosophizing. I can only try to convince you that prior to birth, preventing harm for a future person is all that matters and I have presented a lot of arguments for this idea. I have argued why positive experiences being created does not matter in this procreational area, and I have stated the asymmetry argument. I have also stated the using people for agenda argument, one which does not need to take place in the first place. I have discussed collateral damage, and the idea of parents are not arbiters of existence, in some weird quasi-democratic committee that existence needs to take place for others because a "majority" dictates this. We have gone over the arguments. You can disagree with them, but I will present the case as I think it should be heard.

I can only try to convince you that prior to birth, preventing harm for a future person is all that matters and I have presented a lot of arguments for this idea. — schopenhauer1

Mattering is subjective though. No fact can imply that anything matters or doesn't matter. It's an issue of what an individual values. The things they value matter to them. You can't "argue someone to different values."

Mattering is subjective though. No fact can imply that anything matters or doesn't matter. It's an issue of what an individual values. The things they value matter to them. You can't "argue someone to different values." — Terrapin Station

Um, in philosophy, debates and arguments are pretty much its foundation. It's essentially built on dialectics, starting with Socrates. So your characterization is wrong there. I also think people can be convinced, though it is often very hard in a debate-like setting as this, where people will defend their view to the death as to not appear that their initial stance was wrong.

To your other point of individual values, again, values that effect/affect another person completely, that is to say starting another person's life is pretty huge. Your values majorly created a new ontological status for someone else, not just yourself or others who already exist in a minor way.

Um, in philosophy, debates and arguments are pretty much its foundation. It's essentially built on dialectics, starting with Socrates. So your characterization is wrong there. — schopenhauer1

If you're just disagreeing with the notion that you can't argue someone to different values, show me an actual world example of doing so.

If you're just disagreeing with the notion that you can't argue someone to different values, show me an actual world example of doing so. — Terrapin Station

Are you asking, has anyone who has held one set of values been convinced through argument to hold another set of values?

Are you asking, has anyone who has held one set of values been convinced through argument to hold another set of values? — schopenhauer1

Yes I'm asking for an actual world example of that if that's the part of my post that you're disagreeing with.

Note that I'm not saying that folks' values can't change. I've just never seen them change via arguing with them.

Yes I'm asking for an actual world example of that if that's the part of my post that you're disagreeing with.

Note that I'm not saying that folks' values can't change. I've just never seen them change via arguing with them. — Terrapin Station

Before I do that, are we going to agree that philosophy is basically based on argument and dialectics?

Before I do that, are we going to agree that philosophy is basically based on argument and dialectics? — schopenhauer1

Sure. I hadn't said anything about that, by the way. I just said that you can't change someone's values via argumentation. Most of philosophy isn't about the normative sense of values. And some philosophy that deals with values is only about values descriptively (so it's not the normative sense).

Sure. I hadn't said anything about that, by the way. I just said that you can't change someone's values via argumentation. Most of philosophy isn't about the normative sense of values. And some philosophy that deals with values is only about values descriptively (so it's not the normative sense). — Terrapin Station

Please, normative ethics such as Kant's deontology, Mill's utilitarianism, and virtue theory are debated constantly, as are their applications, and applied ethics in general. Descriptive ethics is one study as is meta-ethics.

Anyways, if I'm on a philosophy forum, and philosophy is about dialectics often via debate with others, then I am doing what people who participate in philosophical activities do, so you can't blame me there.

As far as convincing others of the actual arguments I present, I will agree with you to the extent that argument is an extremely hard way to convince someone of a view. There are cases like "changemymind" on reddit etc, where it can happen, and if I did enough research I can give you probably some high profile or interesting cases, but I honestly don't feel like putting in that effort to prove this point to you right now. What I can say is that appealing to emotion is much more effective than purely logical ideas. It has to really affect someone's point of view from where they are at that moment in time in their thought and experiences.

Please, normative ethics such as Kant's deontology, Mill's utilitarianism, and virtue theory are debated constantly, as are their applications, and applied ethics in general. — schopenhauer1

What would you say this has to do with the comment of mine you're quoting? You seem to be presenting it as if you're disagreeing with something I wrote. Do you believe you're disagreeing with anything you just quoted from me?

What would you say this has to do with the comment of mine you're quoting? — Terrapin Station

You said:

Most of philosophy isn't about the normative sense of values. And some philosophy that deals with values is only about values descriptively (so it's not the normative sense). — Terrapin Station

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics

It's a thing man..one of the major branches of ethics in philosophy is normative ethics. How one "ought" to behave. Anyways...

My guess is that most people will be more convinced if it is a strong argument on something they never really considered before, and impacts them because it was something they didn't take into consideration before. In this case, you are coming into this with a set of values that you want to hash out. That's fine, but there are different scenarios as far as how arguments can convince. It isn't always X vs. Y, but just people absorbing value X and trying to see if this makes sense based on something they may never have tried to consider. Or perhaps, someone made an argument that presented something in a different way that made sense to them. Not everything is a knockdown brawl of values, as you seem to make things.

You're arguing that normative ethics is most of philosophy?

This is a good illustration that you're not reading others' comments very closely.

I said that MOST of philosophy is not about the normative sense of values. That's different than saying that NO philosophy is about the normative sense of values.

And then I said that SOME philosophy that deals with values is only about values descriptively. This doesn't imply that I'm claiming that ALL philosophy that deals with values in only about values descriptively.

I said that MOST of philosophy is not about the normative sense of values. That's different than saying that NO philosophy is about the normative sense of values.

And then I said that SOME philosophy that deals with values is only about values descriptively. This doesn't imply that I'm claiming that ALL philosophy that deals with values in only about values descriptively. — Terrapin Station

I just don't get why you wrote that anyways. Because I referenced dialectics in philosophy, and ethics is a form of philosophy, ergo dialectics in ethics? Somehow descriptive ethics vs. normative ethics was brought up, but unqualified.. I don't know just more holding patterns and rabbit holes to go down. I warned khaled that is what you did, and you are true to form..

I don't know if you are sincere or you just like the contention and getting a rise out of people. Cannot tell in internet forums.

I just don't get why you wrote that anyways. — schopenhauer1

The context was a discussion about values and whether they're changeable via argumentation. For some reason you wanted to agree on what philosophy was first. So I thought, "Ohhhkay" and I agreed, but I pointed out that I hadn't said anything about what philosophy was in general, and just in case you were thinking that philosophy in general tended to imply something about normative values (otherwise why were you bringing up a characterization of philosophy in general?), I was stressing that MOST of philosophy isn't about values, period, and SOME of the philosophy that's about values isn't taking a normative approach. (Also not all philosophy about values is ethics, by the way.)

Also not all philosophy about values is ethics, by the way. — Terrapin Station

I know that. Axiology is often the term for value theories in general, which include ethics.

but I pointed out that I hadn't said anything about what philosophy was in general, and just in case you were thinking that philosophy in general tended to imply something about normative values (otherwise why were you bringing up a characterization of philosophy in general?), I was stressing that MOST of philosophy isn't about values, period, and SOME of the philosophy that's about values isn't taking a normative approach. — Terrapin Station

My point was that I am arguing because I am doing what people who do philosophy often do- argue a point in philosophy, specifically in this case in the realm of ethical decision-making. C'mon. It had nothing to do with what kind of ethical branch we were discussing here. Whether or not I convince someone or not is a different story.

I don't want this post to die yet so this is half to revive it and half to ask you about this ethical system you employ

You said that it is wrong to:

create an abnormal situation for the child that would create a lot of problems. — Terrapin Station

And you defined abnormal as whatever society dictates. I'll take that to mean whatever it dictates currently not what was statistically abnormal in the past. According to that is it wrong to genetically modify someone to be way above the average levels of intelligence? It is an abnormal modification isn't it.

Also, if in the future for whatever reason, it became a social norm to genetically modify all children to have 8 broken limbs on birth would you have a problem with that at all?

The truth is that you will suffer in life, some people more than others. Happiness on the other hand ist not guaranteed.

The truth is that you will suffer in life, some people more than others. Happiness on the other hand ist not guaranteed. — Baskol1

Good point. Apparently people want the children to face specific adversities in order so they feel the benefit of growing from them. This of course makes no sense since there does not need to be adversity in the first place.

The KO argument the natalist will use is that most people will self-report that they like life so case closed.

. This May be true, but many people say theyre ok when they are actually not, often due to peer pressure.

This May be true, but many people say theyre ok when they are actually not, often due to peer pressure. — Baskol1

True. Also there is Pollyanna psychological bias to only remember past moments that were good in more detail. As you said, most people simply are habituated to affirm positive evaluations, no matter how mediocre or bad their life is on a day-to-day basis.

None of this will matter to the natalist. As long as they can point to the idea that "most people say their life is good or glad they were born" it is near impossible to win them over no matter how many arguments, how much suffering there actually is, etc. In other words evidence and sound logic doesn't matter if they can point to that as their full stop.

And you defined abnormal as whatever society dictates — khaled

So, we just went over this a handful of posts ago. Here's what we said:

========================================================

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

Not per a decision. Per contingent statistical norms.

========================================================

Did you not read that? Why can't you remember it?

And there is no guarantee that life will always stay good if it is good. No guarantee that it gets better either. I think it is simply too risky to have children.

I've long been troubled by the question of antinatalism. I feel ambivalent about it. I see much of value in life and consciousness as we know it as humans. There is much in my own experience of life that I cherish and much that I simply find astonishing. The thought of no more human life or life whatsoever is an extremely sad and dark thought to me. But I also see much in life that is awful. I am daily confronted with the horror of simply having/being a perishable body. I've experienced a share of both good and bad. I am also not sure if suffering and darkness is always altogether bad. It might even be seen to be part of what gives life gravity and meaning and seriousness. Purely cheerful music is not so substantial. It is like cupcakes. Life isn't like cupcakes. This isn't Disneyland. Maybe that's a good thing.

That said, I hesitate around the idea of having children. I am now approaching my mid 40s and so far have not had any children and probably won't. In some ways, this saddens me greatly. My life feels deeply impoverished by not having children for many reasons. I'll have noone to give myself to, noone to carry the history of my family, noone to tell about the wonderful people my parents were, noone to shower with gifts on Christmas, noone to show all of the wondrous things I've discovered in life. I won't get to discover who my children are. I won't be able to share the experience of raising kids with a significant other. One big one is that I've discovered in myself a deep feeling that I need children in order to feel that my life struggles have meaning. We need someone precious to us that we can give our lives for. What did I build all that I've built up in myself for if only to perish and give it to noone? When I struggle to earn a living, what is it all for, just my mere survival? If I have kids, I have a reason. All seems so much more pointless without children.

But is that a good reason to have kids? So that I can use them to give my life meaning? Is it for me or for them? How selfish if I have them only to better fulfill myself, to help me feel my life was for something! If there is a reason to have kids, it had better be for their sake, and not for my own immortality project or my own sense of meaning!

I feel sad and guilty though when I imagine my potential children. I find I love them. And I feel very sad telling these potential children that I believe they should not exist. Sure, I want to protect them from all the horrors of life. But I also feel terrible denying them the chance to become conscious, to experience love, to hear music, to inhale the intoxicating scents of a forest, to create something, to come to understand some things, even to be saddened at the injustice of death. Yes, even that latter one. There is a goodness underlying any suffering of a bad.

I have a hard time looking at the people around me and thinking, "Reality would be better off if you had never been born, if none of you had ever been born. Things would be better if Earth were like Mars, with not a trace of life." I can't think or say that while really meaning and believing it. But so much of life remains a horror show! I am deeply conflicted about it.

Life in many ways seems a great gift! I would be lying if I were to call it all bad. It is so deep and poignant! There are so many joys, so much to discover. Much in it has value. It is so incredibly dishonest to take all that life is and try to pack it into the word "suffering"! Even suffering itself isn't so simple as what the word implies. It isn't simply a negative, simply a pain. No pain is just pain. There is a whole complex human existential background that frames that pain. It means something. Often it is painful only because it threatens to negate some good or potential of life that never being born would surely negate altogether. What, you've gone deaf and can no longer hear Beethoven's Sixth, which you love? If noone had ever been born, there would never have been any music or hearing. Yes, loss is painful, but loss implies the existence of something valuable and truly worthwhile that can be negated by it. And there is some sort of hard-to-explain value even in the existential situation of there being a human confronting all that is difficult, even suffering the loss of beautiful loved ones. How horrible if we didn't suffer the loss of a beautiful being!

Regardless, I still hesitate at the idea of having children or recommending procreation. But I'd hate to tell my friends who have had children (all beautiful and valuable people) that their children should never have been born, that the world and the universe's experience of itself would be better off without them. And while I sometimes have wished I'd never been born, had never been saddled with all the burdens of my life, I don't feel angry at my parents for having had me. I feel grateful for the life they gave me. And I find, even in my darkest moments, I am glad to have lived and known what I have. What a trip it has been so far!

There is far too much to life to reduce it all down to a single, simple judgment, a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. I suspect that asking yourself if you think life is good or bad is rather misguided and seems maybe to require a willful disregard of so much of what we know and feel about our lives, the lives of others we know, and so on. In doing this kind of thing, I think some of us are probably trying to justify something in ourselves and our lives, maybe something to do with our failures and disappointments, and possibly even our own suicides. Many of us would like to feel we can give ourselves permission to die, to escape the problems of our lives, to be free of what our lives ask of us. To be sure that life is all bad and nothing but futility and evil is to be able to cut one's own throat without guilt, and thus not to have to face our problems, ironically including our own death and our fear of it. Maybe more, we fear life and we are cowards and don't live as we know we should and we can't cope with this. We haven't been the heroes we wish we were. And the idea of suicide makes us feel even more cowardly and guilty. But if we can convince ourselves that none of it is any good, that nothing is worthwhile, that even the things we wish we'd do have no value, that all life is painful and meaningless, we promise to assuage our guilt over our past and the about the dark deed we might do. We maybe want to be free to die.

What motivates our collecting of evidence against life? Why do some of us go to such lengths to justify our rejection of life? If we are honest, I think we know.

What complicated creatures we are. And how richly baffling life! It certainly isn't simple or easy. And all of us are struggling in one way or another. But I see value in it all.