Then I'm not imposing natalism - I'm simply a conduit for the child; which in due time after garnering enough experience, can decide whether life is worth living or not.

And if it isn't worth living - it can stop living and spare itself and its offspring further injury. Of course that's assuming its offspring think alike, when they could think the opposite.

The difference between us is that you assume that the child doesn't want to live, whereas I assume that it might want to live, keyword being might.
And unlike you I'm willing to offer the child a trial and have it formulate its own verdict.

Natalism isn't an enforcement but an allowance and each child may spend it as they see fit; whether they suffer or prosper is up to them.

You are imposing on the person you bring into existence. They exist. Crikey, how can't you see this?

You have 3 starving people and 2 solutions which do you employ

A: feed them
B: create 100 satiated people such that you create more pleasure/happiness than in A

I think most people would pick A, because B doesn't actually help anyone — khaled

@Janus has already touched on this in his responses to others, but there is a simple argument against this position which is very strongly related to both global warming and your 3 starving people.

You'd agree, from the sounds of your argument, that we have a moral duty to feed the three, yes? So what if the process by which we ensure that is done takes longer than one generation? If we do not have children (and bring them up to continue our good work), then we will not have fulfilled our moral obligation to the three starving people.

Yes, in those sorts of scenario we'd have to weigh the importance of not imposing a life on another person versus the good of preventing someone who already exists from starving to death.

I am not an absolutist. There are no doubt all kinds of scenario we can dream up in which procreation would be ethically justifiable. For instance, if someone held a gun to my head and said "procreate or I kill you" I think it would be within my rights to procreate.

The point, though, is that 'other things being equal' it is wrong to procreate. There may be some who depend on having offspring for their own survival - in their case I don't think the 'other things being equal' condition is satisfied. But in our case - certainly my case - it is satisfied and thus it is wrong for me to procreate and others who are relevantly similarly situated.

For instance, if someone held a gun to my head and said "procreate or I kill you" I think it would be within my rights to procreate. — Bartricks

So your rights outweigh the rights of the child you were so vehemently defending moments ago.

Point in fact, you're just a narcissist who doesn't care about the child, but whatever gets you high at the moment.
Evident by the following statement:

The problem is that you do have to be above a certain IQ level to see this. — Bartricks

No, quite wrong. I just think that what's moral depends on the circumstances. What would be atrocious in some circumstances is perfectly reasonable in others.

I read a story recently about someone who was forced to rape members of his own family as he was told that unless he did that he, and they, would be killed. I don't know what happened - I read no further as it was too disgusting to contemplate - but it seems plausible that he'd be justified in raping them. Now, does that mean that I am not vehemently opposed to rape? No, obviously not, it is seriously wrong in virtually all circumstances - but even here there are ghastly exceptions. The real world turns up such situations with alarming regularity - a world you think it is fine to bring innocent children into. Shame on you.

I don't recall this topic being discussed from just this angle before. As presented here by Matias it's not antinatalism per se — Janus

It's just anti-natalism with a different premise. The conclusion in itself warrants rejection.

So you think that it is so obvious that procreation is ethical that any argument that leads to the contrary conclusion must have a false premise?

Okay, but what if the best explanation of why most people get the rational impression that procreation is ethical has nothing whatsoever to do with its actual ethics? I mean, there's a pretty obvious explanation of why virtually all humans get the impression procreation is ethically fine - only those whose ancestors got that intuition would breed.

That's similar to the intuition, again widely felt, that there is something immoral about homosexual relations. Why do many people - often people with homosexual dispositions - get that impression? Well, because it would be adaptive. If you have a homosexual disposition but also think it would be wrong to act on it, and bad to have it, then you'll try hard not o act on it and to focus and cultivate your heterosexual dispositions (and acquire all the standard heterosexual attributes, such as a partner of the opposite sex and lots of offspring). Hence why the intuition that homosexual sex is immoral gets selected for, and why we find it associated with possession of homosexual dispositions.

Now, does that show that the intuition should be taken seriously? Does it show that homosexual sexual relations are, in fact, immoral?

No, the opposite - it discredits such intuitions. It does not vindicate them, it debunks them. Likewise with the intuition - widely felt - that procreation is morally fine. It's pretty obvious why most people get it: anyone whose ancestors did not get it would not have procreated.

So you think that it is so obvious that procreation is ethical that any argument that leads to the contrary conclusion must have a false premise? — Bartricks

No, you're putting words in my mouth. The conclusion of anti-natalism is that it's immoral to have children. There are justifiable grounds to reject that conclusion. I do think that it's obvious to most what those grounds are. It's probably obvious to anti-natalists, too, although they'd of course deny that it's justifiable grounds.

That's similar to the intuition, again widely felt, that there is something immoral about homosexual relations. — Bartricks

No it isn't.

Yes it is. This is profitable isn't it - you pronouncing things to be the case, me explaining why they're not, and then you pronouncing again. Really, really useful. Well done. Top marks.

Yes, in those sorts of scenario we'd have to weigh the importance of not imposing a life on another person versus the good of preventing someone who already exists from starving to death. — Bartricks

This seems to be a false dichotomy to me. Conceiving children is not opposed to caring for the people who are already alive.

I don't follow you. I was simply admitting that though it is in general wrong to procreate, there are circumstances where it may be permissible or even obligatory - such as when procreating is the only way to save one's own life, or the only way to save the lives of numerous others.

I’d just like to warn you that shamshir is going to devolve to personally insulting you when it comes to this topic.

If we do not have children (and bring them up to continue our good work), then we will not have fulfilled our moral obligation to the three starving people. — Isaac

First off, I don’t think feeding them is an obligation. You never have an obligation to help someone unless you harmed them yourself.

So you’re proposing controlled reproduction with the goal of eventually ending humanity? As in, we will ONLY have children to feed the starving people, after that, we’re done (and we’re obviously going to do it in such a way that the number of starving people keeps decreasing or else it would be a very dumb solution). Actually, I think there is some merit to this view. I’m fine with it. After all, if everyone stopped procreating tomorrow the result will be complete mayhem a few decades down the line, and what did the people who will live through that do to deserve it? They didn’t ask to be born themselves did they? So I think there is some merit in saying that they are then justified to procreate IN SUCH A WAY that annihilation is the final goal. They would be moral to procreate when they can show that they would suffer severely more alone and childless, then they+their child would suffer if they were together (or at least that the suffering is comparable both ways). This wouldn’t sustain the population however.

Although I shouldn’t be saying final goal but rather final destination. It is not a goal in and of itself per se

But then those same people are apphaled by rapists, murderers, totaitarian governments, terrorist groups, etc..... That's the inconsistency here.

It is ONLY ever the main theme for them when it comes to birth as I’ve asked them to come up with one other example where they think this type of thinking is acceptable and they have yet to come up with one. — khaled

I agree. The agenda is more important than causing the conditions for an individual's harm. They think it is acceptable, justified, and perhaps even desirable to create more people for their "growth-through-adversity" model coupled (unwittingly) with undue harm (the GTA-UH Standard Model). This is the agenda that somehow must perpetuate the generations in perpetuity over time.

So your rights outweigh the rights of the child you were so vehemently defending moments ago. — Shamshir

No and you’re being willfully blind. In the scenario in question the choice is between 100% chance of severe suffering (and death) or a slight chance of severe suffering for someone else. In this case it is permissible to procreate.

His rights don’t outweigh the child’s but they do have some weight

And if it isn't worth living - it can stop living and spare itself and its offspring further injury. — Shamshir

Let’s expand on this logic a bit. “If getting raped isn’t worth going through, she can just stop living and spare herself further injury, after all she MIGHT enjoy the experience no? I’ll rape her and give her a chance to make the verdict herself. After all, not raping her would he forcing her to not get raped when she could enjoy it”

Disgusting to even read isn’t it?

Then I'm not imposing natalism — Shamshir

Yes you are because

Again, slowly this time: you can only impose something on someone who exists at some point. — Bartricks

Thus when someone exists without asking to exist, they have been imposed upon to exist. When no one exists, no one has been imposed upon not to exist.

There are justifiable grounds to reject that conclusion. I do think that it's obvious to most what those grounds are. It's probably obvious to anti-natalists, too, although they'd of course deny that it's justifiable grounds. — S

I’d like to hear those. I don’t mean this in a challenging or standoffish way, I’m just curious if there’s any I haven’t heard before.

I don't follow you. I was simply admitting that though it is in general wrong to procreate, there are circumstances where it may be permissible or even obligatory - such as when procreating is the only way to save one's own life, or the only way to save the lives of numerous others. — Bartricks

Right, I misread that, sorry.

Let’s expand on this logic a bit. “If getting raped isn’t worth going through, she can just stop living and spare herself further injury, after all she MIGHT enjoy the experience no? I’ll rape her and give her a chance to make the verdict herself. After all, not raping her would he forcing her to not get raped when she could enjoy it”

Disgusting to even read isn’t it? — khaled

This isn't the same scenario, because the person being raped exists beforehand and therefore already has ethical position that would be violated. But what ethical standing to non-existant potential people have?

Thus when someone exists without asking to exist, they have been imposed upon to exist. — khaled

The phrase "being imposed upon to exist" doesn't make grammatical sense to me.

No and you’re being willfully blind. In the scenario in question the choice is between 100% chance of severe suffering (and death) or a slight chance of severe suffering for someone else. In this case it is permissible to procreate.

His rights don’t outweigh the child’s but they do have some weight — khaled

First off, the choice is only 100% of suffering if you're an utter wimp who can't defend himself and is scared of dying; to add to which - your assumption that it is inherently bad.
Secondly, that's what outweighing means - having weight, precisely more weight.

And why do his rights appear to outweigh the child's? Because he, like you, would rather save his own skin at the expense of another. You and him both value your own lives over that of another and there's no two ways about it.

Let’s expand on this logic a bit. “If getting raped isn’t worth going through, she can just stop living and spare herself further injury, after all she MIGHT enjoy the experience no? I’ll rape her and give her a chance to make the verdict herself. After all, not raping her would he forcing her to not get raped when she could enjoy it” — khaled

It's not about if she gets raped, maimed, burned alive, lynched or whatever.
Those are all potential risks, that if the woman in question is paranoid over and unwilling to face, she can spare herself the worry by living completely isolated or ending her life.

Imagine you want to build a house, but you suddenly start thinking - what if my neighbour burns it down, what if lightning burns it down, what if a tornado blows it away, what if a meteorite falls on top of it?
All if scenarios, that could happen.

And you either accept that they could happen and build your house anyway, hoping they won't, but prepared to deal with them if they do.
Or you give in to paranoia and don't build the house; quit.

If you're unwilling to go through and cannot handle the potential trials and tribulations, then quit and stay safe.

Thus when someone exists without asking to exist, they have been imposed upon to exist. When no one exists, no one has been imposed upon not to exist. — khaled

What about if that someone does want to exist?
Denying existence to someone who wishes to exist is bad isn't it?
And let me guess - you can't impose on the nonexistent and cannot ask them anything, right?
So how do you impose anything, when you don't know anything? It's simple - you don't.

You're deliberating this drivel on behalf of children you won't have, thus children you know nothing about.

And because that's too hard for you to wrap your head around - here's an easy example.
You impose your hunger on other lifeforms, consuming them at your leisure to prolong your vitality.
You didn't ask those lifeforms for consent prior to consuming them.
You didn't even ask for consent prior to butchering and/or harvesting them - if you've ever even done it yourself, rather than wash your hands with the grocery store.

And the irony of it all is that you possess the leisure and amenities to espouse all of this drivel, thanks to all of the natalists prior to you who got you here, only to have you shit on their graves.

You're a narcissistic stick in the mud who wants to play hero, having humanity go extinct.

This isn't the same scenario, because the person being raped exists beforehand and therefore already has ethical position that would be violated. But what ethical standing to non-existant potential people have? — Echarmion

None. Then again, I’m not claiming having kids harms non existent ghost babies. I’m claiming it risks harming real people. That the real person didn’t exist at the time the action that would harm said real person in the future took place is of no consequence. To demonstrate: I’m pretty sure you’d agree that genetically modifying children to suffer more (extra limbs, blindness, etc) is wrong no? Explain to me why that is wrong then you will find that the same explanation could be used to explain why having children with the normal number of limbs is still wrong.

The phrase "being imposed upon to exist" doesn't make grammatical sense to me. — Echarmion

Grammar doesn’t make or not make sense to individual people first of all, and as far as I know “being imposed upon to exist” makes grammatical sense. Doesn’t “being imposed upon to eat” or “go to school” make sense?

If I’m sounding like a douche it’s because I have shamshir to reply to after this so some of it spilled over sorry.

First off, the choice is only 100% of suffering if you're an utter wimp who can't defend himself — Shamshir

There you go with the personal insults again. I just don’t understand what you think this is accomplishing. These are the assumptions for this example yes.

your assumption that it is inherently bad. — Shamshir

Dying isn’t inherently bad? So murder is ok? Please actually present a case for something

Secondly, that's what outweighing means - having weight, precisely more weight — Shamshir

Again with the willful blindness. In this scenario, Bartricks life has less or equal weight than his child when considering an action done to both. However the madman here (maybe it’s you lol, I might as well hop on the pointless ad hominem train you’re so fond of) threatened to shoot Bartricks not his child didn’t he? So the child isn’t under danger of being shot, if he was, I’d imagine Bartricks would way he should choose to get shot himself or that there’s is no right answer.

And why do his rights appear to outweigh the child's? — Shamshir

They don’t, but he’s under more threat of harm. Another example would be: I think if someone told you “punch someone and break their nose or I shoot you” and you do it, the person that got punched wouldn’t even mind and you would be right to do it. Because the suffering you stopped from happening (your own) is out of proportion with what you inflicted. In this case the strangers safety has equal or more weight than your own. However he is under much less threat than you are. So harming him is the right call.

Imagine you want to build a house, but you suddenly start thinking - what if my neighbour burns it down, what if lightning burns it down, what if a tornado blows it away, what if a meteorite falls on top of it? — Shamshir

These are indeed all if scenarios. That could happen TO ME. And I personally would take them. Procreation is taking huge risks for someone else who had no interest in taking those risks at the time the decision was made.

You speak as if the individual that gets born doesn’t matter. We’re talking making another life here not a freaking house. A house doesn’t get hurt. I’m paranoid of hurting someone else unnecessarily as I fucking should be. Aren’t you? Don’t you avoid harming someone for no reason? Is it really fair to call that paranoia? (Notice the “for no reason” it’s pretty important)

If you're unwilling to go through and cannot handle the potential trials and tribulations, then quit and stay safe. — Shamshir

Agreed. But I’m hoping you’re not talking about childbirth with this because it doesn’t apply. Because SOMEONE ELSE will be taking the trials and tribulations and you had no right to make them do so

What about if that someone does want to exist? — Shamshir

That is impossible. Someone needs to exist for someone to want to exist. But he freaking exists already in that case.

Denying existence to someone who wishes to exist is bad isn't it? — Shamshir

First off it’s not denying. Second off even if it was it wouldn’t be bad. It’s not bad to deny a beggar money for example. You don’t owe anyone their existence.

So how do you impose anything, when you don't know anything? — Shamshir

You know some things and you assess the costs vs the benefits. Having children has no benefits at best and many costs at worst. That is because as I’ve shown, having children isn’t good in and of itself, no one actually thinks that.

You're deliberating this drivel on behalf of children you won't have, thus children you know nothing about. — Shamshir

Even if that was the case, I wouldn’t be wrong, I don’t owe anyone a life. However I owe not to give someone a shit life they will hate. Procreation risks doing both, so is bad.

You impose your hunger on other lifeforms, consuming them at your leisure to prolong your vitality. — Shamshir

Yes because it’s my vitality vs theirs. But the child doesn’t get harmed if he isn’t born. No one loses anything (except me) by me not having children. I just can’t imagine how you think any of the examples you cite are anything like birth. They’re not in the same ballpark.

And the irony of it all is that you possess the leisure and amenities to espouse all of this drivel, thanks to all of the natalists prior to you who got you here, only to have you shit on their graves.

You're a narcissistic stick in the mud who wants to play hero, having humanity go extinct — Shamshir

You almost have it shamshir. I’m so proud of you. You almost made it without much ad hominem this time. Maybe next time you might actually say something you haven’t said already and has been refuted 100 times which led you to resort to ad hominem due to having nothing to say.

Also I’m pretty sure you’re purely projecting when you say “play hero”. That’s what you’re trying to do bud. “Save the magical ghost babies who are very sad at having not been born because they totally exist”. I’ll just stick to the safe route when it comes to making decisions for other people when consent isn’t available. As I’ve said before, anitnatalism doesn’t “save” anyone, so I’m I can’t be trying to play hero here when I don’t even think what I’m doing (or rather refraining from doing) is good (it’s neutral)

Dying isn’t inherently bad? So murder is ok? — khaled

Yes because it’s my vitality vs theirs — khaled

The whole post is oozing hypocrisy.

Okay, boy - if and when you get to the tender old age when there is no one left to visit or care for you and you become nothing more than a burden on the social system and you still hold this view - you can write me a message about how wrong I was, and if I'm not dead I'll read it.

So survive if you can.

None. Then again, I’m not claiming having kids harms non existent ghost babies. I’m claiming it risks harming real people. That the real person didn’t exist at the time the action that would harm said real person in the future took place is of no consequence. — khaled

But this really does amount to the same thing as harming ghost babies, doesn't it? If the position in time of whoever is harmed by an action is of no consequence, then we treat them as if they were alive right now. They're not, however. Whether they will be alive in the first place depends on the choices of current people. Therefore, I think it's wrong to say that the fact that the person doesn't exist is "of no consequence". I think, rather, that we need a dedicated justification for the moral standing of "potential" persons.

To demonstrate: I’m pretty sure you’d agree that genetically modifying children to suffer more (extra limbs, blindness, etc) is wrong no? Explain to me why that is wrong then you will find that the same explanation could be used to explain why having children with the normal number of limbs is still wrong. — khaled

Sure, but that's only because you're causing me to imagine a suffering baby and therefore empathy kicks in. I'm not actually sure a rational argument can be made to this effect. Perhaps you could explain why it is wrong.

Grammar doesn’t make or not make sense to individual people first of all, and as far as I know “being imposed upon to exist” makes grammatical sense. Doesn’t “being imposed upon to eat” or “go to school” make sense? — khaled

I don't think "existing" is an action. It's a relation between a mental concept and some external state.

Is it ethical to have children? — Matias

No!

In very simple terms either your child will hurt or get hurt.

You don't want your child to hurt someone

You don't want your child to suffer

Ergo it's unethical to have children

1. C > ( H v S).......premise
2. ~H.......premise
3. ~S.....premise
4. ~H & ~S.......2, 3 conj
5. ~(H v S).......4 DeM
6. ~C.............1, 5 MT

C = You have children
H = Your child will hurt someone
S = Your child will suffer

I’d like to hear those. I don’t mean this in a challenging or standoffish way, I’m just curious if there’s any I haven’t heard before. — khaled

Surely you've heard this before. All the people who think that life is worth living.

All the people who think that life is worth living. — S

Bandwagon fallacy? :broken:

Bandwagon fallacy? :broken: — TheMadFool

No, I'm not suggesting that it's true because lots of people believe it, I'm suggesting that it's none of your business to presume that you know better than them and to contradict them. That's not warranted. If you think that life isn't worth living, than you can make your own decisions with regard to your own life, and keep out of the lives of others. People are entitled to start a family if they so desire.

People are entitled to start a family if they so desire. — S

Of course people are free to choose. That's not the issue. It's about the ethics of having children and clearly, if you don't want your child to hurt anyone or get hurt, both of which are inevitable and unethical, then people should NOT have children.

Of course people are free to choose. That's not the issue. It's about the ethics of having children and clearly, if you don't want your child to hurt anyone or get hurt, both of which are inevitable and unethical, then people should NOT have children. — TheMadFool

If you had the power, what restrictions would you put on people being able to have children?