I wonder
why you ask?
a blunder
what a task?

an innocent child
is born
in nature's jungles wild
by hungry claws torn

if not that then
it must feed
not if, only when
parasitic weed

so refrain
for your child's sake
it must always rain
no delicious cake

only hidden hunters
hide in the shadow
not enough the wonders
with men so shallow

it could be
that I am wrong
if it would be
I'll sing a song

:rofl: :lol:

It is not nonexistence tout court, but the asymmetry that occurs prior to existence. — schopenhauer1

Yes, your imagined "asymmetry". That's what I'm arguing against.

You realize you just contradicted yourself. No one CAN decide for themselves prior to birth. — schopenhauer1

You realise you just highlighted a section of what I said, treated it as out of context, and then proceeded to misinterpret it? Don't be daft. Obviously I meant that they should decide for themselves subsequent to birth, when they're old enough to do so, like I went on to say. There was no contradiction. You just failed to understand my point.

Also, no one is "stopping people from conceiving"... — schopenhauer1

Good. It's not wrong enough to stop people. People can carry on doing what they're doing, and you find that acceptable. It is morally acceptable for people to give birth. Otherwise you'd stop them.

Even if you are born in great wealth, and with good health. Life ist still full of suffering. Altough, of course it is less suffering than being born poor, and disabled.

Yes, your imagined "asymmetry". That's what I'm arguing against. — S

But you weren't- you were equating the situation before birth (the asymmetry) with the situation of suicide or death (no asymmetry).

Obviously I meant that they should decide for themselves subsequent to birth, when they're old enough to do so, like I went on to say. There was no contradiction. You just failed to understand my point. — S

But I bring up that point as it is an important one. The child cannot decide for themselves to be put in a situation where one has to keep playing the game or drastically alter their existential status (suicide). That is a point I am making that is important here. Khaled made an analogy of saying, "Hey I like this game, now I am going to force another person into playing it. That's okay though, that person will probably like it too and if they don't, they can decide to exit by doing one of the scariest and harmful and anguishing things ever, kill themselves.. But don't worry, most people won't chose that, so they will just keep on playing the game." I don't think that is right to do to someone else.

Good. It's not wrong enough to stop people. People can carry on doing what they're doing, and you find that acceptable. It is morally acceptable for people to give birth. Otherwise you'd stop them. — S

I liken antinatalism to a cause like veganism. As long as enough people in society have values so far afield from the particular ethic, it would not be right to impose such a thing. In the field of ideas, it is simple argumentation and convincing that is called for. In fact, even if a majority of people were antinatalist, I don't know if it would be right to "force" people into anything of that magnitude. Of course, now we are getting into politics.

But you weren't- you were equating the situation before birth (the asymmetry) with the situation of suicide or death (no asymmetry). — schopenhauer1

But I don't accept your "asymmetry" baloney to begin with. It's highly controversial. You're acting as though you've already proved the point.

But I bring up that point as it is an important one. The child cannot decide for themselves to be put in a situation where one has to keep playing the game or drastically alter their existential status (suicide). That is a point I am making that is important here. Khaled made an analogy of saying, "Hey I like this game, now I am going to force another person into playing it. That's okay though, that person will probably like it too and if they don't, they can decide to exit by doing one of the scariest and harmful and anguishing things ever, kill themselves.. But don't worry, most people won't chose that, so they will just keep on playing the game." I don't think that is right to do to someone else. — schopenhauer1

Okay. Well thank you for sharing your opinion for the millionth time.

I liken antinatalism to a cause like veganism. As long as enough people in society have values so far afield from the particular ethic, it would not be right to impose such a thing. In the field of ideas, it is simple argumentation and convincing that is called for. In fact, even if a majority of people were antinatalist, I don't know if it would be right to "force" people into anything of that magnitude. Of course, now we are getting into politics. — schopenhauer1

But you find it acceptable, so life can't be that bad. That's all I was drawing attention to.

Why would you bring kids into the world to condemn them to wage slavery and climate change. seems rather sadistic

No, that doesn't only seem, but clearly is, totally one-sided, and therefore totally unconvincing.

yes, but it clearly is part of the story of why it is wrong, so your analysis is implausible.

But I don't accept your "asymmetry" baloney to begin with. It's highly controversial. You're acting as though you've already proved the point. — S

The point can be proven many times and someone like yourself can still keep disagreeing. Some people can't be convinced. I accept that. The absence of harm is good , even if no one is around to experience this good. The absence of good is only bad if there is someone around who is actually deprived of that good. Thus, not experiencing good, in the case of someone who does not actually exist, is not bad. It is win/win to not reproduce under any circumstance. That is the initial "logical" asymmetry.

But you find it acceptable, so life can't be that bad. That's all I was drawing attention to. — S

So this brings up another argument besides the asymmetry which not only does well on its own, but acts as a bolster for the other arguments. This other argument is forcing others into a challenge/game/adventure (perhaps one that you like yourself, or you think is good) is not right to do to someone else. Now, the only "decision" a person can make at this point is suicide, but suicide is not something that people do willy nilly, even if they don't like the game. It is scary, painful, brings anxiety, etc. Also, people develop interests once born. Ones that didn't need to exist in the first place, but occur post-facto. People generally cling to these- even the depressed, pessimistic, and others. If Benatar is right about the psychological studies, even "well-adjusted" people have a distorted view when self-reporting, as they often diminish painful experience and highlight the better ones when determining what to remember when reporting. Also, as I said, people can identify with something harmful, as they may not see any other choice but to do so. That is the point though. There can never be another choice (excepting suicide or perhaps being a pessimist).

Of course, my own points border on more abstract and existential terms. Why does anyone need to go through the "growth-through-adversity" game in the first place? Seems to be that people think they have some sort of right to impose this on others, as if the universe cares that more humans play this game. "Ah yes" they might say "we need to create people to be challenged so they can be strengthened through it, and hopefully find the joy in it". Of course, you know I'm going to say that is circular reasoning.

Some people can't be convinced. — schopenhauer1

Like you. You're a prime example. Antinatalism has become a fundamental part of your identity. Almost every single discussion of yours is dedicated to the topic. You've learnt all of the crappy arguments. Adopted the language. You even named yourself after Schopenhauer. You're far too committed. Not a chance. We're all just wasting our breath talking to you.

If Benatar is right about the psychological studies... — schopenhauer1

Why would anyone trust him to be impartial? Would you trust William Lane Craig to be impartial?

It is win/win to not reproduce under any circumstance. That is the initial "logical" asymmetry. — schopenhauer1

Sounds like fundamentalism to me. What about the farmer who needs working hands on the farm? Surely it's a selfish reason but a reason nonetheless...

Regarding the claim that it is default wrong to do something to someone without their consent, I don't see it as wrong to push someone so that they don't get hit by a truck, or to surprise someone for their birthday, or to leave food and clothes next to a homeless person who is sleeping.

If instead it is claimed that it is wrong to do something to someone against their will, a non-existent being doesn't have a will. By the time the being has a will, they can decide on their own whether to keep living or die.

Doesn't everyone deep down want to live? I believe people kill themselves when they don't see another way out of their suffering, when they don't see how to stop their suffering while staying alive, and their will to stop that suffering becomes greater than their will to stay alive.

So if everyone deep down wants to live, then the issue doesn't lie in life itself, it doesn't lie in the act of procreation, the issue is suffering itself, not life. And then the solution is to find the reasons why people suffer and to help them ease or stop their suffering, rather than convincing people to stop having children so that humanity goes extinct. If life is most often worth living even with the suffering, then stopping life to stop the suffering is quite the overkill.

I said it before but I'll say it again, in my view antinatalists are people who suffer a lot, and subscribing to antinatalism and attempting to spread it is one way for them to cope with their suffering. Instead of focusing on the precise reasons why they personally suffer, instead of attempting to address them or asking for help, they avoid the problem by saying that the problem wouldn't be there in the first place if they hadn't been born, in other words in their view if they suffer it has nothing to do with them but everything to do with the world, the world is responsible, other people are responsible, not themselves, they don't want to feel responsible for how they are. They want to live, but they don't want to solve their own problems, so they stay there in limbo, whining that they wouldn't have problems if they hadn't been born, instead of looking at the root causes of their suffering, instead of asking for help.

Regarding the claim that it is default wrong to do something to someone without their consent, I don't see it as wrong to push someone so that they don't get hit by a truck, or to surprise someone for their birthday, or to leave food and clothes next to a homeless person who is sleeping. — leo

I don't focus on consent. Rather, I focus on forcing others to play a game that (you think at a point in time X) that you like yourself. This is wrong. Look at the argument I made above (instead of just ignoring almost this whole thread which has gone through almost every anti antinatalist case you brought up, especially by poster khaled). Here is the argument in case you can't be bothered to scroll and read the arguments:

So this brings up another argument besides the asymmetry which not only does well on its own, but acts as a bolster for the other arguments. This other argument is forcing others into a challenge/game/adventure (perhaps one that you like yourself, or you think is good) is not right to do to someone else. Now, the only "decision" a person can make at this point is suicide, but suicide is not something that people do willy nilly, even if they don't like the game. It is scary, painful, brings anxiety, etc. Also, people develop interests once born. Ones that didn't need to exist in the first place, but occur post-facto. People generally cling to these- even the depressed, pessimistic, and others. If Benatar is right about the psychological studies, even "well-adjusted" people have a distorted view when self-reporting, as they often diminish painful experience and highlight the better ones when determining what to remember when reporting. Also, as I said, people can identify with something harmful, as they may not see any other choice but to do so. That is the point though. There can never be another choice (excepting suicide or perhaps being a pessimist). — schopenhauer1

If instead it is claimed that it is wrong to do something to someone against their will, a non-existent being doesn't have a will. By the time the being has a will, they can decide on their own whether to keep living or die — leo

Again, I addressed this above. I also stated:

Of course, my own points border on more abstract and existential terms. Why does anyone need to go through the "growth-through-adversity" game in the first place? Seems to be that people think they have some sort of right to impose this on others, as if the universe cares that more humans play this game. "Ah yes" they might say "we need to create people to be challenged so they can be strengthened through it, and hopefully find the joy in it". Of course, you know I'm going to say that is circular reasoning. — schopenhauer1

So, again, no one needs to go through a life of growth through adversity- the model you bring up here. Also pay attention to why suicide is not the opposite of never being born and why that is a terrible example for why it is okay to then procreate.

So if everyone deep down wants to live, then the issue doesn't lie in life itself, it doesn't lie in the act of procreation, the issue is suffering itself, not life. And then the solution is to find the reasons why people suffer and to help them ease or stop their suffering, rather than convincing people to stop having children so that humanity goes extinct. If life is most often worth living even with the suffering, then stopping life to stop the suffering is quite the overkill.

I said it before but I'll say it again, in my view antinatalists are people who suffer a lot, and subscribing to antinatalism and attempting to spread it is one way for them to cope with their suffering. Instead of focusing on the precise reasons why they personally suffer, instead of attempting to address them or asking for help, they avoid the problem by saying that the problem wouldn't be there in the first place if they hadn't been born, in other words in their view if they suffer it has nothing to do with them but everything to do with the world, the world is responsible, other people are responsible, not themselves, they don't want to feel responsible for how they are. They want to live, but they don't want to solve their own problems, so they stay there in limbo, whining that they wouldn't have problems if they hadn't been born, instead of looking at the root causes of their suffering, instead of asking for help. — leo

For this whole line of bad reasoning, I made a thread dedicated to countering it. See it here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6434/the-mild-torture-of-do-something-about-it-assumptions/p1

They don't, because the situations are too dissimilar, like in all of your attempts throughout this discussion. — S

You: These analogies are terrible
Me: I agree, they are extremes intended to show a general principle
You: These analogies are terrible

Funny. Even if I were to grant that, a single example in no way demonstrates that the least risky option is always preferred when consent is not available. If that were true, then it would be so in every single case that one could possibly imagine. Good luck trying to demonstrate that! — S

Find me an example where it isn't true then.

Nonexistence is the ideal according to you — S

Incorrect. You aren't understanding.

For someone who doesn't exist non existence is ideal
For someone who exists non existence is absolutely terrible

Capisce?

And no, in the thought experiment, the person didn't wish to die, and the next of kin knows that. — S

Dude... It was a rhetorical question....

Just as you suggest that it's horrible to conceive a human, by that same logic, one could suggest that it's horrible to keep them in that situation. — S

No. Because to a non existent person, existence is a risky imposition while remaining non existent doesn't harm them in any way. Once their born however, going back to non existence is terrible, as can be determined easily by asking around if people wanna die.

You don't have a right to stop people from conceiving — S

Would "You don't have right to stop people from murdering" sound like a reasonable statement to you? One can try to stop people form imposing on others, even though one can only do that by imposing, as can be seen in how we try to stop murderers from murdering.

I repeat, that's not an implication of my point. — S

It is... Your point is: It's ok to put someone through life because they have the option of leaving. You haven't actually shown that this isn't an implication of that.

They don't, because the situations are too dissimilar, like in all of your attempts throughout this discussion.
— S

You: These analogies are terrible
Me: I agree, they are extremes intended to show a general principle
You: These analogies are terrible — khaled

Wow.

No, terrible in terms of how inappropriate they are as analogies, given the significant dissimilarities. They utterly fail to show any general principle, because the situations aren't similar enough for it to apply to both.

Not terrible as in, "Oh my god! Stabbing and blinding people is terrible!".

Duh.

I can't be bothered to deal with the rest.

I don't think that statement is trivially true. I think it's false due to a category error. Just repeating our respective claims here doesn't get us anywhere. — Echarmion

What you're doing doesn't get us anywhere either. Refusing this statement but not providing an alternative. I can't convince you of this premise. It's a premise for a reason. If you don't share it then at least you wouldn't be a hypocrite for having children.

I understand you think a deterministic universe kinda makes people exist "in the future", but this kind of thinking doesn't work when we assume we have a choice whether or not to have children. — Echarmion

I'm pretty sure one can say that consciously deciding to get pregnant and have a baby is "determining" the existence of the baby. And I'm saying we shouldn't do that. Also I don't get what determinism has to do with this.

But there is a difference when said action created the other person in the first place — Echarmion

I don't see a reason why that would be the case. Can you think of any othere scenarios when this "special case" comes into play? Or are you just treating birth differently?

I am not sure what general principle you refer to here — Echarmion

That if an action results in harming someone in the future, it doesn't matter whether or not that person existed at the time the action took place. Example: Implanting a bomb in a fetus and setting it to blow up when the baby reaches 18 is just as bad as bombing an 18 year old (the age is besides the point here).

I can't "convince you" of this. There is no logical argument for it. It's a starting premise. Although if you don't believe in it you'd have to say that implanting a bomb in a fetus and killing someone that way is ok or at least less wrong than just killing someone, which I find to be ridiculous

No, terrible in terms of how inappropriate they are as analogies — S

Obviously that's what I meant. I was pointing out that you clearly think they're inadequate but I don't. And that repeating your opinion doesn't get us anywhere.

I can't be bothered to deal with the rest. — S

Then don't reply if you're going to pick on the fist line of a post in such a ridiculous way and then proceed not to actually discuss anything.

Obviously that's what I meant. I was pointing out that you clearly think they're inadequate but I don't. And that repeating your opinion doesn't get us anywhere. — khaled

Shut up about it then. You are repeatedly mentioning your failed analogies, so I'm repeatedly replying that they're useless failures.

Find a situation where we find it ok to put someone in a riskier position without their consent. Riskier defined as "risks more harm than their original situation". Or you could actually reply to the last post if you want to continue this discussion though I'm doubting you do.

I'm not going to run through hoops for you. The burden doesn't lie with me. Support your own claim instead of trying to shift the burden.

I gave an example as you asked. Now it's your turn. Or can you not come up with one that refutes the claim?

Do you want more examples?
It's wrong to put drugs in people's drinks even if the drugs will likely result in a happier time for them (because it risks harming them or making them addicts)
It's wrong to force anyone to work a certain job even if they come to love it (because it risks them hating it)

The easiest way to refute a claim that "X is always the case" is to try to find a situation where X isn't the case. But you failed miserably at doing so with the "unconscious sibling" example

Obviously that's what I meant. — khaled

Anyway, what the...? So you agree with me that they're terrible analogies. Ha.

You: These analogies are terrible
Me: I agree, they are extremes intended to show a general principle — khaled

That's the purpose of analogies: to show a general principle. But you just agreed with me that they're terrible analogies, suggesting that you think that they completely fail in that regard.

How long are you planning to dodge giving an example? I got to go now I don't wanna waste any more time on this.

I gave an example as you asked. — khaled

No. You need to look back at what I actually said. I told you in response to your example that a single example by no means supports your claim. Have you ever studied logic? If I told you that a queue always consists of three people, and then offered you an example of three people in a queue in Tesco's, would that support my claim? No, obviously not.

How long are you planning to dodge giving an example? I got to go now I don't wanna waste any more time on this. — khaled

I plan to continue to refuse to even consider giving you another counterexample until you learn enough about the burden of proof to know that it rests with you, not me, and act accordingly.

I plan to continue to refuse to even consider giving you another counterexample until you learn enough about the burden of proof to know that it rests with you, not me, and act accordingly. — S

But he did. It is you who are not living up to your end of the debate. This is a debate and he has every right to see you defend your side. Again, snide rhetoric (like "learn enough about..") is a cheap theatrical tactic when no arguments are left. You cannot give a counterexample, so you resort to this. Put downs are not a stand in for reasoned argument.

So you're letting your bias cloud your judgement. I know you're both on the same side of the argument, but anyone who knows anything about the burden of proof, and about logic, should be capable of retracing the exchange between us back to his original claim, which was the second premise in his argument, that "actions that risk disasterous consequences for others are wrong when a less risky alternative is possible in cases where consent is unavailable", and he also claimed that "the fact is, in real life the least risky option is always preferred when consent is not available".

Now, from that, it is crystal clear that (a) he has a burden of proof, and (b) a single example does not meet the burden of proof, as I already made clear by way of analogy. If you disagree with that second point, then explain to me how an example of three people in a queue demonstrates that queues always consist of three people.

Now, from that, it is crystal clear that (a) he has a burden of proof, and (b) a single example does not meet the burden of proof, as I already made clear by way of analogy. — S

I will give you this.. you actually quoted something and did not pepper it with snide remarks. This is something I can work with. So what would be a burden of proof for you? He claimed these things and then he asked you to provide any evidence that it is otherwise. He is saying that he cannot find any, but can you? If you cannot, he is probably going to say that proves his point.

He claimed these things and then he asked you to provide any evidence that it is otherwise. — schopenhauer1

Exactly, and that's an example of the fallacy known as an argument from ignorance, also known as shifting the burden.

If you cannot, he is probably going to say that proves his point. — schopenhauer1

Except that that's a known fallacy.

The way I read it, he is saying there is absolutely no case he can find where someone should put another in a situation where they are more at risk than a less risky alternative when there is no consent to be had (I would have said maybe "impossible" to have). You don't have to answer the question, but that is his claim. I guess the challenge is more like, "Hey, I'll entertain your exception if you have one, but this is the case".