The evidence is that you're using "primary" in the sense of a preference or goal, but preferences and goals are only things that individual persons have. They're mental phenomena. Things like rivers, say, do not have preferences or goals, they do not have mental phenomena. — Terrapin Station

My guess is he is going to say that natural phenomena have a "final causation" which is different kind of thing than a human goal. So, each natural phenomena is trying to "reach" some "end" and this "reaching" is in its nature. Thus, doing something that impedes this nature is immoral because it is "unnatural".


My critique here is that Darwinism doesn't work like that. This is assuming huge ontological beliefs that are not justified by how evolution and emergence works. Accidental changes to a phenomena become useful, otherwise the species dies out. Differential survival rates based on initial variation is the basic mechanism. The designs were bootstrapped from previous designs and they happened to work for a particular function of survival. Final causation then is a misattribution of what is going on. If the adaptations work to support the organism, it stays. However, with environmental changes, it may prove to be useless or even detrimental. That has nothing to do with evolution "reaching ends". It is more statistical and contingent than that.

However, you are also making a huge category mistake. Human minds don't have ends outside the goals that we individually make. Thus my end can be whatever it is I have decided. Now that does not mean I am saying, thus anything should go. Clearly being an antinatalist, I think that some principles have moral worth more than others. For example, forcing others to play your game, causing harm when there needs to exist no harm is not good, I believe to be important principles, for example.

My guess is he is going to say that natural phenomena have a "final causation" which is different kind of thing than a human goal. So, each natural phenomena is trying to "reach" some "end" and this "reaching" is in its nature. Thus, doing something that impedes this nature is immoral because it is "unnatural". — schopenhauer1

Right. Which I don't at all agree with, but for some odd reason, he chose the tactic of trying to insist that I actually did agree with it.

You seem concerned with what everyone else believes — Riley

Because morality is just that. What everyone believes. I don’t believe in an objective morality

You aren't trying to make the silly argument from popularity are you? — Riley

Where did it seem to you like I did. All I said was: based on most people’s moral principles, antinatalism should be a logical conclusion to their starting principles. I didn’t say that makes it “objective” or “absolute”. I’m saying that most people who have children are being hypocritical to some of their beliefs.

An argument from popularity would be: “everyone believes this so it must be objectively true”
What I’m saying is: “everyone believes this so stop having kids already you hypocrites”

Even natalists cant deny that life is full of suffering.

Even natalists cant deny that life is full of suffering. — Baskol1

I wouldn't say that my life is full of suffering. I understand if you don't want to share personal info, but what suffering is your life full of?

We all could become disabled in life, horrible Ill, or just experience poverty, and many more bad things.

We all could become disabled in life, horrible Ill, or just experience poverty, and many more bad things. — Baskol1

You could, although "this could happen" doesn't equate to "life is full of suffering" does it? And it's not as if everyone with those statuses sees their life as full of suffering.

But is it really so simple? Did I just burst from a parinibbanic state, taking form as this body only for this conscious experience to dissolve back into nothingness, eternally? — inyenzi

What's the alternative? Is this a nod to the idea of reincarnation? — Schopenhauer1

No, not necessarily. What I'm getting at is that a lot of antinatalist argument rests on an assumed view of self which is essentially, "I did not exist prior to my birth, at which I came into being to live a lifetime as the same ongoing self (which suffers and is harmed), and when I die this self will be annihilated forever." Yet there's nowhere stable within the flux of conscious experience for this self to be located. And so if it doesn't exist, to whom does birth harm?

Does procreation create selves?

Does procreation create selves? — Inyenzi

I'd say no. It rather creates things that turn into selves.

No, not necessarily. What I'm getting at is that a lot of antinatalist argument rests on an assumed view of self which is essentially, "I did not exist prior to my birth, at which I came into being to live a lifetime as the same ongoing self (which suffers and is harmed), and when I die this self will be annihilated forever." Yet there's nowhere stable within the flux of conscious experience for this self to be located. And so if it doesn't exist, to whom does birth harm?

Does procreation create selves? — Inyenzi

It is odd to think about- you could not be anyone but you. But in the argument does it matter if you were a changing self? This argument is slippery slope into anything, right? So the person at point X is not the person at point Y. However, I can see if someone is so dramatically changed, that it would appear they are really not their previous self. I think the harm does not matter for any individual self, but that it is happening to a self at all that matters.

Any coin has two sides, so golden mean is always the answer for the best, no extremes should. Lives flourish themselves so any intention to put them under control, either direction, is discouraged.

Any coin has two sides, so golden mean is always the answer for the best, no extremes should. Lives flourish themselves so any intention to put them under control, either direction, is discouraged. — Dzung

If no life = no harm, and life = harm + possible "flourishing", why should flourishing take precedence over no harm?

What is harm? Just an unfavorable to certain witness. If we unite all into a compound witness, it's a different scenario but to a further extent, under views of higher beings if there were, it's a completely different scenario.
On the other side, "no life" state is invalid in any sense from the very ground. At least there then no meaning is possible.

so golden mean is always the answer for the best — Dzung

Per what?

If we unite all into a compound witness, it's a different scenario — Dzung

So we negate people's individual's harm by aggregating it into some utilitarian calculus? What's the point?

under views of higher beings if there were, it's a completely different scenario. — Dzung

Wait, the point is all the aggregating suffering might be worth it to some "higher beings"? Why should the individual care about that perspective? The individual is the one being harmed.

On the other side, "no life" state is invalid in any sense from the very ground. At least there then no meaning is possible. — Dzung

Why does it matter if there is "meaning" in the world?

Is this argument still going on? Good lord.

Listen Anti-Natalists, your argument sucks. It works 100% equally in the exact opposite direction.
Replace “suffering” or “harm” with “joy” or “pleasure” and then swap “it is wrong to procreate” with “it is wrong not to procreate”.
All your arguments now work equally well to prove the exact opposite of the Anti-natalism stance.
Have fun arguing with yourself.

All your arguments now work equally well to prove the exact opposite of the Anti-natalism stance. — DingoJones

But they absolutely don't. I direct you to the asymmetry if you really need it:

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

we are talking on the ground of "meaning", otherwise nothing makes sense and I should withdraw.
The whole point is harm is only subjective to a particular witness and can be dynamic when we shift to another. Subjectivity makes sense only within the consensus group. The larger the group, the more sense it is.
But even with the largest group, say 7-8 known billion currently, it's nothing compared to divinity for a theist group.

The whole point is harm is only subjective to a particular witness and can by dynamic when we shift to another. Subjectivity makes sense only within the consensus group. The larger the group, the more sense it is.
But even with the largest group, say 7-8 known billion currently, it's nothing compared to divinity for a theist group. — Dzung

Again I will ask, why should individuals suffer on behalf of a divinity?

you just replaced the word "harm" with "suffer" with no further extent I'd
assume. So the point stays but I don't think there's enough interests in theism, I just mentioned it for otherwise.
Meanwhile, the 7-8 billion compound view should be the upper limit and though not absolutely sure, it's safe to say it's likely not the same as your (or any agent's) group's "harm" view. I mean it (the "harm" view ) is not valid in a wide enough scale to be promoted.

I don't think you read any argument any of us have presented here because none of them work backwards. I would like you to demonstrate how this argument works backwards:

P1: Creating happy people is morally neutral
P2: Creating suffering people is morally bad
C: Don't create people or else you guarantee doing something morally bad (because everyone suffers at some point)

People usually have a problem with P1 so I'll elaborate. Creating happy people =/= making people happy. Creating someone capable of experiencing pleasure then giving them said pleasure is not a good act, it's what is expected. It didn't actually help anyone. To demonstrate:

You have 3 starving people and are presented with 2 solutions:
A: Feed the 3 starving people
B: Materialize 100 satiated people so that overall, you created more pleasure than you would have by doing A

I think we can agree that A is the better solution right? Because B doesn't actually help anyone. That's the point, creating someone capable of experiencing pleasure then giving them pleasure is not a good act, it is what is expected. It is completely neutral, you create the problem of lacking or having pleasure to a certain person so the least you can do is fix it.

If you want to make this work backwards you'd have to make it:
P1: Creating happy people is morally good (which means you would pick B in the last question)
P2: Creating suffering people is morally neutral (which means you would have no problem with someone genetically modifying a child to guarantee they suffer as much as possible, or with having a child just to torture them)
C: You should have children

I don't think anyone would agree with the reprecussions of changing the 2 premises to what you're proposing, not even you

It doesn't matter what the living view life to be. Not all antinatalists view life as "full of suffering" or terrible in every way. We just like to be consistent and say it is ALWAYS wrong to take someone from a safer to a more risky state of being when they don't benefit from it in any way. Name me one other situation other than birth where you think that's ok.

how would one stop suffering universally, — staticphoton

You can't do it in a moral way. We would have to completely nuke every part of the earth and make it uninhabitable for all life forever.

Also yes, antinatalism will always lose because all it takes is for 2 people of opposite genders to disagree or not care. That doesn't make it ok for someone who has heard the argument to turn a blind eye to it though if he agrees with it. "Everyone else is doing it" is not an excuse to do somethink one thinks is immoral.

Hi khaled,

My question was aimed at trying to understand what could motivate a belief in antinatalism, in all honesty I was puzzled by the belief after first hearing of it a few days ago.

It appears to me that humans, actually all life, is constructed to process and resolve suffering as a means to progress not only evolutionarily, but to enrich self worth (at least in the case of humans). Assigning moral value and therefore placing judgment on something that has no will of its own such as are natural processes seems misguided.

A life with zero suffering is as idealistic a concept as it is unattainable, furthermore, a "neutral" life without natural good/bad cycles seems to appear utterly meaningless...what would be the point of pursuing such a goal?

It appears to me that humans, actually all life, is constructed to process and resolve suffering as a means to progress not only evolutionarily, but to enrich self worth (at least in the case of humans). Assigning moral value and therefore placing judgment on something that has no will of its own such as are natural processes seems misguided. — staticphoton

So I wrote a post that works as good as any as a proper response:

....I have this idea that this world can be characterized as "growth-through-adversity coupled with undue harm".

Growth-through-adversity is defined by challenges faced by someone in order to attain a particular goal. For most people this at least involves survival/work along with goals involving entertainment/family-pursuits outside of survival/work.

Undue harm would be overriding illnesses, circumstances, accidents, disasters, etc. that otherwise would not be asked for outside the usual growth-through-adversity.

To be concise in these posts I am going to call growth-through adversity GTA and undue harm UH.

The GTA-UH model that is our reality, most people think is good to force other lives into. When a parent chooses to have a child, they are really saying, "I approve of the life of GTA-UH onto this new person and believe they should live X number of years of life in this kind of reality". There is no escape from it outside suicide. But no one asks why this is good for someone who doesn't exist in the first place to put this reality onto a new person. Oddly, the parent is an existential missionizer force-recruiting new people who, like religious families tend to do, try to enculturate the new recruit into identifying with the GTA-UH model so as not to regret being recruited....

So the real question is, why foist the GTA-UH model on another person, when this does not need to take place? To use "nature" or some "force" as a reason, is to discard your responsibility as a decision-maker who can self-reflect. It is bad faith (not using your own freedom of thought), and the naturalistic fallacy if you think it is natural and we should do what is natural.

A life with zero suffering is as idealistic a concept as it is unattainable, furthermore, a "neutral" life without natural good/bad cycles seems to appear utterly meaningless...what would be the point of pursuing such a goal? — staticphoton

This is circular reasoning, as prior to anyone's birth, meaning is not required or necessary. After birth is only when humans look for meaning. So that question is a bit invalid from that perspective. The real question is why is it important to add new people who desire meaning in the first place? In fact, why does "meaning" need to take place at all in a universe? Because you imagine a lonely universe and need people to bring "meaning"? This is a fallacy of imagination (my neologism).

My question was aimed at trying to understand what could motivate a belief in antinatalism, in all honesty I was puzzled by the belief after first hearing of it a few days ago. — staticphoton

Consistency. Name one other situation in which putting someone in a risky situation (high risk of pleasure and high risk of pain) from a less risky situation without their consent is considered moral and where they do not benefit whatsoever from the shift.

Assigning moral value and therefore placing judgment on something that has no will of its own such as are natural processes seems misguided. — staticphoton

Which part of antinatlism "Assigns moral value and places judegment on something that has no will of its own". I don't get what you're talking about

A life with zero suffering is as idealistic a concept as it is unattainable, furthermore, a "neutral" life without natural good/bad cycles seems to appear utterly meaningless...what would be the point of pursuing such a goal? — staticphoton

Antinatlism isn't about pursuing a world where there is no life. I quicker way to that would be pro mortalism which is another topic entirely. What antiatalism seeks to do is to stop introducing people who desire this "meaning" in the first place. Natalism creates a problem (meaning) and attempts to solve it (with good/bad cycles), antinatalism is the view that you shouldn't creat the problem in the first place FOR SOMEONE ELSE. You, along with most people find meaning in good/bad cycles. Does that entitle you to introduce more people into the good/bad cycle? Of course not, your opinion of life shouldn't entitle you to introduce more people into it for the simple reason that they might not share your attitude of finding meaning in good/bad cycles. Your child may suffer immeasurably and see no meaning in it. So why are you taking the risk for him? Why are you creating the same problem for someone else? Even if you will do your best to solve it? If you like life, good for you, I like it too, but in the same way that me liking my job doesn't entite me to force new people into it, me liking life doesn't entitle me to force new people into it. Even if this act of forced labor has had a history of producing happy employees.

Consistency. Name one other situation in which putting someone in a risky situation (high risk of pleasure and high risk of pain) from a less risky situation — khaled

First, antinatalism isn't about putting someone in a risky situation. There's no one to put into a situation until we get past the point that antinatalism wants us to not pass.

from a less risky situation without their consent is considered moral and where they do not benefit whatsoever from the shift. — khaled

Aside from the above, this seems like a pretty loaded question. How would there be a high risk of pleasure while the person does not benefit whatsoever from the shift? That seems contradictory. If we're limited to talking about "where they do not benefit whatsoever" then that rules out any chance of pleasure.

The GTA-UH model that is our reality, most people think is good to force other lives into. When a parent chooses to have a child, they are really saying, "I approve of the life of GTA-UH onto this new person and believe they should live X number of years of life in this kind of reality". — schopenhauer1

I disagree, no significant portion of the population goes through such though process when deciding to have a child.

So the real question is, why foist the GTA-UH model on another person, when this does not need to take place? To use "nature" or some "force" as a reason, is to discard your responsibility as a decision-maker who can self-reflect. It is bad faith (not using your own freedom of thought), and the naturalistic fallacy if you think it is natural and we should do what is natural. — schopenhauer1

The real question would be how does one justify discarding as a fallacy the very nature that originated humans.
To make a statement that the very system (natural processes) that originated humanity are morally wrong, seems not much different than saying a rock is bad because it broke my toe.

prior to anyone's birth, meaning is not required or necessary — schopenhauer1

Assuming personal meaning as the only reason for birth?

What antiatalism seeks to do is to stop introducing people who desire this "meaning" in the first place. Natalism creates a problem (meaning) and attempts to solve it (with good/bad cycles) — khaled

This assumes that search for meaning is a problem.

your opinion of life shouldn't entitle you to introduce more people into it for the simple reason that they might not share your attitude of finding meaning in good/bad cycles. — khaled

If you are saying that you will exercise your belief by not birthing any children, I see no issues with that. If you are saying that your belief trumps mine, and that I should not have any children, then I would have to respectfully disagree.

This assumes that search for meaning is a problem — staticphoton

Indeed it does. Because it has all the properties of a problem. If you don’t solve it you suffer. Simple as that. Heck you don’t have to take my word for it, maybe your child would find searching for meaning problematic. Why take the risk for him?

If you are saying that you will exercise your belief by not birthing any children, I see no issues with that. If you are saying that your belief trumps mine, and that I should not have any children, then I would have to respectfully disagree. — staticphoton

I am saying the former and also I am saying that you’d be a hypocrite if you had children. Because you would be going against ethical principles you employ in every other situation.

How would there be a high risk of pleasure while the person does not benefit whatsoever from the shift? That seems contradictory. — Terrapin Station

A more risky situation simply means much more pleasure/pain is at stake. Just because more pleasure is at stake doesn’t make it a benefit. Ex: going to the hunger games vs playing a video game of the hunger games. The former is much riskier than the latter. There is also a much higher amount of pleasure at stake in the former (winning the real thing obviously feels better than the game assuming you’re the type of person to join voluntarily) but that doesn’t make it better does it? Because the risk of harm is also greatly amplified

That seems contradictory. If we're limited to talking about "where they do not benefit whatsoever" then that rules out any chance of pleasure. — Terrapin Station

No it doesn’t. When I say don’t benefit whatsoever, I mean the expected value of pleasure/pain doesn’t change but the standard deviation does.

First, antinatalism isn't about putting someone in a risky situation. There's no one to put into a situation until we get past the point that antinatalism wants us to not pass. — Terrapin Station

Ok reword that to “creating a risky/riskier situation for someone” and everything still makes sense. I think creating a risky situation for someone and putting someone in a riskier situation should have the same moral value, negative. Because the end result is the same: someone is put in a risky situation. You don’t take “creating a risky situation for someone when they don’t benefit from it is wrong” as a principle so arguing with you on it doesn’t matter. Unless you’re willing to suspend your disbelief and follow the results of taking such a premise to be true all the way to the end.