No. Future life should not be introduced. Totally different things. — khaled

The most significant effect of not introducing more life is that the life cycle will end.
"If" there was a greater purpose as you suggest to be a possibility, you are compromising such a greater purpose based on an arbitrary moral call. Is that your place? I don't know, maybe you think it is, I'm not so sure.

They are strangers until you educate them obviously — khaled

Exactly. You teach them what you believe in, and that becomes their belief.

If you don’t think in terms of good and bad then how are you doing ethics right now? — khaled

My set of values differ from yours, that's all. Me not thinking in terms of good and bad is something you just invented to use as a red herring.

"If" there was a greater purpose as you suggest to be a possibility, you are compromising such a greater purpose based on an arbitrary moral call. — staticphoton

Yes I would be compromising such a purpose. Tell me exactly who that harms. I don’t think an act is wrong if it doesn’t actually harm anyone so who exactly is harmed if everyone decides never to have kids starting tomorrow?

On the other hand look at how many are harmed by people having kids today.

Who exactly does human extinction hurt other than yourself and your fellow believers in great purposes?

Me not thinking in terms of good and bad is something you just invented — staticphoton

No I didn’t, at least not purposefully

I don't think in those terms. Good and bad are far from being absolutely and universally defined values — staticphoton

I thought “those terms” was referring to good and bad

Exactly. You teach them what you believe in, and that becomes their belief. — staticphoton

Correction: you teach them what you believe in and sometimes that becomes their belief. I’d say most people have different beliefs from their parents. Take antinatalists as an example!

Yes I would be compromising such a purpose. Tell me exactly who that harms. I don’t think an act is wrong if it doesn’t actually harm anyone so who exactly is harmed if everyone decides never to have kids starting tomorrow? — khaled

A higher purpose would trump the concern for individual harm. That's the point of a higher purpose, it is above the needs/wants/fears of the individual. If there was such a higher purpose, it would not my place to compromise it.
This fear of harm and suffering over everything else, to believe your moral position is above all else. This urge to terminate the human life cycle... It just doesn't work for me, sorry.

I thought “those terms” was referring to good and bad — khaled

Yes, good and bad as absolute concepts, I don't think in absolute but relative concepts. I don't expect others to accept my moral perspective.

Correction: you teach them what you believe in and sometimes that becomes their belief. I’d say most people have different beliefs from their parents. Take antinatalists as an example! — khaled

Whether they accept your teachings or not does not make them strangers.

A higher purpose would trump the concern for individual harm. — staticphoton

You said it yourself. For INDIVIDUAL harm. Not for another individual's harm.

Are you saying your higher purpose is so high you wouldn't mind harming others for it? Knowing they might not share said purpose?

Yes, good and bad as absolute concepts, — staticphoton

I don't use good and bad as absolute concepts. I expect others to have their own, consistent moral systems though. Or else they'd be hypocrites. Not that that's objectively good or bad either

Whether they accept your teachings or not does not make them strangers. — staticphoton

My point was, you can't guarantee your child will believe in this higher purpose you believe in. That's all. I don't actually care whether or not they're called strangers.

This urge to terminate the human life cycle — staticphoton

Which I don't have. If I did I'd be a pro mortalist

Understood. It is a belief where the only escape from suffering is to not exist, where creating a new life would inevitably bring new suffering to some degree.

I can agree in some aspects.
My wife feeds the feral cats that come around the house, but she also traps them to be sterilized, releases them, and continues to feed them. Otherwise they would produce kittens with bleak destinies.
People in overpopulated, poor, oppressed, and/or polluted areas where a new human is basically a guarantee for lifelong suffering, I believe would be perfect candidates for the voluntary practice of antinatalism (ignoring all fairness/justice aspects of course).

But other than dismal scenarios, from my perspective the foundations don't hold.
I have already expressed my beliefs in past posts which assigns different values & merit to suffering, life, happiness, etc., and I believe values can be passed down to offspring. I believe in a higher purpose (not necessarily religious) that makes the risk justifiable and make life worth living.

These were immediately discarded, so I don't know how else to frame it for you.

It appears to boil down to you finding it unfair that I impose the risk of suffering on someone who is unable to approve/disapprove, and me believing that producing a life is a justifiable endeavor... I am just unable to justify it to an antinatalist.

But other than dismal scenarios, from my perspective the foundations don't hold. — staticphoton

Even what are considered minor negative conditions can really fuck with someone's well being and adjustment in the world, far beyond what others, even a parent would expect or deal with themselves. This idea that only the worst conditions merits avoidance is no big deal for ones own estimate of ones own state, but when considering that this is then applied to another person altogether is misguided at best. Being that the alternative is no harm nor person who is deprived, there is no other argument here.

These were immediately discarded — staticphoton

They weren’t. The idea that you can ignore all moral considerations when it comes to risking someone ELSE’S life for your own ideals was. If I saw “greater purpose” in working as a janitor let’s say, does that entitle me to force you, someone I know nothing about, to work as a janitor as well? With the excuse that “I’m sure he’ll like it in time” or “I’m sure I can pass my values onto him perfectly because there is absolutely no chance he’ll disagree with them because my values are just that good”

I believe values can be passed down to offspring — staticphoton

Well this is just empirically incorrect. Do you see everyone being spitting images for their parents. If it was true that values could be passed down to offspring entirely and with no chance they disagree, I wouldn’t have a problem with having children so far as the ones that did it saw a “greater value” in life. Because they can then know that their children will think the same.

It appears to boil down to you finding it unfair that I impose the risk of suffering on someone who is unable to approve/disapprove, and me believing that producing a life is a justifiable endeavor. — staticphoton

Here’s a challenge: find me a scenario in which individual A is justified to force individual B to do something A doesn’t know B agrees with or not without having B’s consent and where B is put in a much riskier situation as a result

and me believing that producing a life is a justifiable endeavor — staticphoton

This is the problem here. YOU believe producing life is a justifiable endeavor. What if said life doesn’t?


PS: 1k replies. This thread is literally second to trump on the front page

Here’s a challenge: find me a scenario in which individual A is justified to force individual B to do something A doesn’t know B agrees with or not without having B’s consent and where B is put in a much riskier situation as a result — khaled

Ah, but there is no forcing here. Nothing comes as natural as giving birth.

This is the problem here. YOU believe producing life is a justifiable endeavor. — khaled

But it is all about belief, no?

I just don't believe you can reduce life to "suffering = bad" and construct a system of logic that finds no value in what lays outside "suffering = bad". You diminish the concept of life to an incredible simple equation and all the complications are gone. No life = no suffering. Done!
You believe in a simple logic. Its easy, I get it.

Well this is just empirically incorrect. — khaled

I said "can", not "will".

The idea that you can ignore all moral considerations when it comes to risking someone ELSE’S life for your own ideals was. If I saw “greater purpose” in working as a janitor let’s say... — khaled

All moral considerations? I only saw one: suffering = bad => birth bad.
Not ignoring it, just not shallowing it.
...and by "greater purpose" I had something different in mind than working as a janitor, I'll just leave it at that.

but when considering that this is then applied to another person altogether is misguided at best. — schopenhauer1

What is misguided at best is adopting a philosophy of life followed by closing your heart to any other possibilities. But don't feel bad, on that one you are in the majority.

PS: 1k replies. This thread is literally second to trump on the front page — khaled

I'll take that as a compliment!

Joking aside, I have enjoyed the exercise and admire the fighting spirit. You are tenacious and true to your cause.

Ah, but there is no forcing here. Nothing comes as natural as giving birth. — staticphoton

Murder and rape are natural..... this is just a naturalistic fallacy. Having a child obviously forces a child to exist, it IS forcing. You didn’t choose to exist did you? Now that would be impressive.

So again, I ask for an example of the scenario I described other than birth.

But it is all about belief, no? — staticphoton

Yes, just not your own. Your child’s. Whose beliefs you obviously don’t know. So don’t assume they’ll be the same as yours. Simple. Antinatalism is “belief neutral”. The argument doesn’t take into account what the living think of living but what the would be living could think of living.

You believe in a simple logic — staticphoton

I don’t actually believe suffering = bad and that’s it. As I said, I was only doing that for the sake of argument (which was your idea). I haven’t stated what my actual views are because unlike you, I don’t think ME believing in something entitles me to force someone ELSE to do something (in this case live). In fact, I don’t think you believe that either, but you’re making an exception for having children as has been shown by the fact that you can’t come up with another scenario like I specified.

I said "can", not "will". — staticphoton

And that’s a problem innit. So you recognize the possibility that your child would absolutely hate existence right? So why are you taking the risk for him?

All moral considerations? I only saw one: suffering = bad => birth bad.
Not ignoring it, just not shallowing it.
...and by "greater purpose" I had something different in mind than working as a janitor, I'll just leave it at that. — staticphoton

And your child might have something different in mind than preserving the human race. I’ll just leave it at that. The whole POINT of the example is that working as a janitor is something most would say has no greater purpose. All I did was reduce the probability someone finds purpose in the activity in question and suddenly for you it went from “yea it’s ok to force them to do it” to “no it’s not ok, who’d ever want to be a janitor”.

What is misguided at best is adopting a philosophy of life followed by closing your heart to any other possibilities. But don't feel bad, on that one you are in the majority. — staticphoton

If I was closing my heart to any other possibilities I wouldn’t be debating you. And actually, antinatalism is one of the few moral theories where believing in it blindly, even if it turns out to be wrong, doesn’t hurt anyone. Natalism on the other hand....

I'll take that as a compliment! — staticphoton

It was. To everyone in the thread. (Most of the work was done by terrapin though good job)

And your child might have something different in mind than preserving the human race. I’ll just leave it at that. The whole POINT of the example is that working as a janitor is something most would say has no greater purpose. All I did was reduce the probability someone finds purpose in the activity in question and suddenly for you it went from “yea it’s ok to force them to do it” to “no it’s not ok, who’d ever want to be a janitor”. — khaled

Very good example.

And actually, antinatalism is one of the few moral theories where believing in it blindly, even if it turns out to be wrong, doesn’t hurt anyone. Natalism on the other hand.... — khaled

Haha, also good point.

Great thoughts.

I don’t want to Pooh-Pooh the philosophy because I’m only vaguely familiar with its arguments, but I can’t see the reason or value of this stance because it is ethics applied toward beings that will never exist, “potential persons” and the not-yet-born.

I can understand why one wouldn’t want to have children for a variety of reason, but presenting it is an ethical stance towards beings that don’t exist seems strange.

it is ethics applied toward beings that will never exist, “potential persons” and the not-yet-born. — NOS4A2

This wouldn't be the first example of such ethics. I would bargain you find genetically modifying children to suffer as much as possible (by, say, giving them 10 broken limbs on birth) wrong. Even though no person is being harmed at the time the modification is taking place.

This wouldn't be the first example of such ethics. I would bargain you find genetically modifying children to suffer as much as possible (by, say, giving them 10 broken limbs on birth) wrong. Even though no person is being harmed at the time the modification is taking place.

Beings that will never exist is quite different than beings that will or do exist.

when has antinatalism talked about beings that will never exist? It talks about beings that will exist, and says that they might suffer. It also says the alternative doesn't harm anyone. So any rational moral person should seek the alternative.

Antinatalism doesn't say you are good for not having children if that's what you're saying. (Because that's the only sense antinatalism would be talking about beings that will never exist, except it doesn't)

A potential human is never a human and never will be. You are not talking about beings at all. You’re not being moral towards any being.

You’re not being moral towards any being. — NOS4A2

True. Antinatalism doesn't claim it is "helping" potential people. As I said, you are not doing something good by not having children per antinatalism. What antinatalism is claiming is that having children is bad.

A potential human is never a human and never will be. — NOS4A2

Then why are you saying potential human?
Say potential being.

But then...

You are not talking about beings at all. — NOS4A2

You'd have to change it to a potential something.

Until you loop around~

Then why are you saying potential human?
Say potential being.

That is the term I see thrown around.

You'd have to change it to a potential something.

Until you loop around~

Or a potential nothing. Either way when we’re talking about beings let me know.

True. Antinatalism doesn't claim it is "helping" potential people. As I said, you are not doing something good by not having children per antinatalism. What antinatalism is claiming is that having children is bad.

That’s fair, admittedly I know little about the position. Excuse my ignorance.

What is, in your mind at least, the most convincing reason why having children is bad?

Excuses, excuses~

What is, in your mind at least, the most convincing reason why having children is bad? — NOS4A2

Pretty simple. Having children risks harming someone whereas not having them doesn't. And I see no other scenario in real life when people think it's acceptable to risk harming someone for no good reason whatsoever like that.

For me it's more consistency than anything really.

Pretty simple. Having children risks harming someone whereas not having them doesn't. And I see no other scenario in real life when people think it's acceptable to risk harming someone for no good reason whatsoever like that.

For me it's more consistency than anything really.

But doesn’t that becomes a moral imperative to avoid having a child in order to avoid harming someone that doesn’t exist?

But doesn’t that becomes a moral imperative to avoid having a child in order to avoid harming someone that doesn’t exist? — NOS4A2

No. It's "avoid harming someone that will exist". You seem to be thinking that antinatalism is doing this to protect the poor magical ghost babies. Antinatalism doesn't say anything about magical ghost babies. It simply says: avoid the course of action that might hurt someone.

Again, antinatalism doesn't benefit ANYONE. It just makes sure no one is harmed.

Answer this: you agree genetically modifying children to suffer is wrong right? Doesn't that become a moral imperitive to avoid harming someone that doesn't exist? (Note: genetic modification is done on sperm and egg so it's not actually doing anything to the child)

No. It's "avoid harming someone that will exist". You seem to be thinking that antinatalism is doing this to protect the poor magical ghost babies. Antinatalism doesn't say anything about magical ghost babies. It simply says: avoid the course of action that might hurt someone.

I’ve never seen anyone harmed by the birth of a child, but I suppose there could be an argument about overpopulation or environmental concerns,

Answer this: you agree genetically modifying children to suffer is wrong right? Doesn't that become a moral imperitive to avoid harming someone that doesn't exist? (Note: genetic modification is done on sperm and egg so it's not actually doing anything to the child)

Yes it is wrong. But it seems we’re dealing with extant things here, and not the faint imaginings of a “potential human”.

Yes it is wrong. But it seems we’re dealing with extant things here, and not the faint imaginings of a “potential human”. — NOS4A2

I asked why it is wrong. You're not actually doing anything to anyone are you? It is simply not the case that the child exists when you genetically modify it as I have noted. It's confusing but "genetically modify children" actually means genetically modify sperm and eggs (as I noted)

I’ve never seen anyone harmed by the birth of a child, but I suppose there could be an argument about overpopulation or environmental concerns, — NOS4A2

How about the child? Also overpopulation is another argument but I don't use it.

I asked why it is wrong. You're not actually doing anything to anyone are you?

I get the argument, but I think we’re conflating a real potential human-I suppose fertilization—and a philosophical potential human. I just sense some unjust reification going on here.

How about the child? Also overpopulation is another argument but I don't use it.

That’s my problem: What child? The imagined one?

I can understand why people wouldn’t want to have children, but I just don’t see how this conduct can be construed as right or wrong conduct towards something that doesn’t exist.

That’s my problem: What child? The imagined one? — NOS4A2

That's also my problem with you saying genetically modifying children to suffer is bad. What child is getting harmed here? The imagined unmodified child? The situations are identical.

I just sense some unjust reification going on here. — NOS4A2

I don't. If you do present you case. I see the situations are identical.

I get the argument, but I think we’re conflating a real potential human-I suppose fertilization—and a philosophical potential human — NOS4A2

In both cases the action in question is done before fertilization as I note for the third time. And in any case why do you think those two types of potential human should be treated differently?

I can understand why people wouldn’t want to have children, but I just don’t see this conduct can be construed as right or wrong conduct towards something that doesn’t exist. — NOS4A2

Why can genetically modifying a child to suffer be construed as wrong conduct towards something that doesn't exist then? Where is the "unmodified child" that was harmed?

If you feel the situations are not identical please tell me why. Procreation is not a cutoff point as I noted.

Why can genetically modifying a child to suffer be construed as wrong conduct towards something that doesn't exist then? Where is the "unmodified child" that was harmed?

I’ve already distinguished between an actual potential human—the necessary ingredients involved in procreation—and the thought of a potential child. We can’t apply the same ethics to the actual processes of procreation as we would to the fuzzy “potential human” we keep evoking.

I’m not trying to be difficult here, and I apologize if this objection has been raised.

We can’t apply the same ethics to the actual processes of procreation as to the fuzzy “potential human” we keep evoking. — NOS4A2

Why not? The consequences are the same. We agree genetically modifying someone to have 10 broken limbs is wrong right? Well what if a healthy couple find out that if they have a kid he would have 10 broken limbs on birth because of a very rare combination of genes that they have. Wouldn't it be wrong for them to procreate too?

Why not? The consequences are the same. We agree genetically modifying someone to have 10 broken limbs is wrong right? Well what if a healthy couple find out that if they have a kid he would have 10 broken limbs on birth? Wouldn't it be wrong for them to procreate too?

Yes if the options were to bear a child with 10 broken limbs or not, I would think it prudent to choose the latter for the reasons you mentioned.

But we’re not really talking about parents genetically doomed to have genetically deformed children, are we, but all births regardless of the child’s condition or not?