Your OP depends on the above difference but your last post sweeps it aside. — TheMadFool

No? Both the OP and the last post don't recognize the difference as legitimate

it makes little difference to the fact of the matter which is that not having children is a lesser evil than having children and that's working within the boundaries of comparable suffering you set out in your OP. — TheMadFool

Good point. I'll point that out if I talk to him again

Good point. I'll point that out if I talk to him again — khaled

:up: :smile: Don't believe me.

This is a response to the criticism mentioned in the opening post and is addressed to procreators.

I do not see it in any real challenge to the credibility of antinatalism, nor - as an antinatalist myself - do I recognise the characterisation of antinatalists as thinking that not procreating is a 'neutral act'. It is a positively good act.

I am not a consequentialist about morality - I think consequences sometimes matter, sometimes don't. And when it comes to procreation, many of the arguments for antinatalism are deontological, not consequentialist.

But even if we just focus on the consequences - well, humans cause untold harm to other creatures. Don't they count?

And the idea that you ought to procreate on the off chance that your offspring will be saints who'll not perpetuate the suffering of others is wild wishful thinking.

If you have kids, they're going to be just bland, mindless 'more of the sames'. You'll think they're special. They're not. They're not going to discover the cure for cancer; they're not going to write great literature. They're going to be utterly uninspiring moral banalities. You know, like virtually everyone so far. And in living their lives they're going to do more harm than good. You know it, I know it, we all know it.

I mean, what are 'you' like? Are you a saint? Can you even manage to forego meat and dairy? Do you send all your spare money to good causes? Your kids are going to be as rubbish as you! Get some self-awareness and stop burdening the world with more of yourself. Live your own life - it's not your fault you're here, that's on your parents. But for crying out loud, don't repeat their self-indulgent mistake

If you have kids, they're going to be just bland, mindless 'more of the sames'. You'll think they're special. They're not. They're not going to discover the cure for cancer; they're not going to write great literature. They're going to be utterly uninspiring moral banalities. You know, like virtually everyone so far. And in living their lives they're going to do more harm than good. You know it, I know it, we all know it. — Bartricks

The problem with this line of thinking is that the other guy can just say "No I don't" and call you a pessimist. That's why we both agreed to stay as far away as possible form "empirical" arguments. He didn't say "Life is beutiful" and I didn't say "Life is shit"

not procreating is a 'neutral act'. It is a positively good act. — Bartricks

How so? Assuming having children is wrong because it harms someone then not having children can't be good simply because it doesn't harm someone. Unless you think that not having children actually benefits someone more than it harms the parents that want said children

Surely this must have an affect on the world. — Brett

Of course it does. I never claimed it didn't. I just said there is no way of knowing how
this will affect the world. There is no question that it does.

The problem with this line of thinking is that the other guy can just say "No I don't" and call you a pessimist. — khaled

They can 'say' it, but it won't be true. And in calling me a pessimist - which is not true, I'm not pessimistic - they'd be committing the ad hominem fallacy.

Note, I am not saying that life for a human is bad overall. I am saying most human lives do more harm than good.

For instance, if I say "you ought not to eat meat because of all the harm the meat industry causes to animals" I am not thereby saying that it is not pleasant to eat meat. I think meat tastes very nice and a life spent eating it would be very enjoyable. But I also think we ought not to do it.

So, when I say "you ought not to breed, for chances are - and the odds of this are obviously overwhelming - your offspring will be moral banalities who'll achieve nothing great and do more harm than good" I am not saying "life is shit"

not procreating is a 'neutral act'. It is a positively good act. — Bartricks
How so? Assuming having children is wrong because it harms someone then not having children can't be good simply because it doesn't harm someone. Unless you think that not having children actually benefits someone more than it harms the parents that want said children — khaled

Well, I take a 'neutral act' to be one that is neither morally good or bad - such as choosing to have parsnips rather than swede. Positively deciding not to have kids is, I think, a good act due to the harms one has averted.

due to the harms one has averted. — Bartricks

So if I'm really angry at someone but still decide NOT to shoot them thereby averting harm I have done something good? I don't consider merely not doing harm as doing something good. "Look at how few people I've killed I'm so benign"

As for everything else: ok gotcha

Not necessarily, but in the main - yes. Doing something that prevents harms is - often - good. Not always, but often. But it is one way - one way among many - that acts can get to be good. It is - in the main - a good-making feature of an act.

Huh. Interesting perspective. I just don't think of people that go through life merely not hurting others as "good". I think that's what's expected of everyone it's not really worthy of being called "good." I think there is a difference between "doing something that prevents harm" and "not harming others". An example of the former would be donating to charity, an example of the latter would be not shooting people. I think not procreating is an example of the latter not the former.

On a slightly unrelated note, I had a thread a while back describing how humans are uniquely in a situation where they can evaluate very negative aspects of life and yet still go through with sub-optimal options as no other choice would make the situation better. As Julio Cabrera explains, we have only intra-wordly choices but we cannot have the choice to not have a choice to begin with. There is no repose.

I think slightly different concepts are being conflated. An act can promote a good outcome without being obligatory, and an act can be obligatory without promoting a good outcome.

Not harming people - where harming people was an option - will often (not always) be a good feature of an act or omission. But that is consistent with it being obligatory. And it is consistent with it not being obligatory.

For instance, imagine Roger has just mugged someone and so deserves to be mugged himself. He is then mugged by Dave later in the day (Dave, who is ignorant of Roger's earlier acts and is just - like Roger himself - another mugger). Well, Dave's act has a good aspect to it - it gave Roger what he deserve. But Dave's act was wrong - Dave was obliged not to mug Roger. So sometimes an act can promote a good outcome, yet be wrong.

I think slightly different concepts are being conflated. An act can promote a good outcome without being obligatory, and an act can be obligatory without promoting a good outcome. — Bartricks

I didn't say a good act was obligatory.

Not harming people - where harming people was an option - will often (not always) be a good feature of an act or omission. But that is consistent with it being obligatory. And it is consistent with it not being obligatory. — Bartricks

And not harming people being a neutral option, aka not good nor bad, is also consistent with it being obligatory or not being obligatory. Which is why I don't see what significance this has.

So sometimes an act can promote a good outcome — Bartricks

I don't think the mugger getting mugged is a "good outcome" in the first place but ok. Who is that outcome good for?

I didn't say a good act was obligatory. — khaled

No, but you implied that if an act was obligatory, then we cannot say of it that it was good.

For I said that doing something that averts a harm - whether by act or omission - is typically good. You said that getting angry but resisting the temptation to hurt someone was not good, just obligatory. This implies that you think that if an act is obligatory, then the consequences of the act can no longer be considered good or good-making features of the act.

I am simply pointing out that I think many acts and omissions are good due to the fact they avert harm, but I am not thereby saying that all such acts are obligatory or not. Some may be obligatory, some may not be.

No, but you implied that if an act was obligatory, then we cannot say of it that it was good. — Bartricks

Yup

I am simply pointing out that I think many acts and omissions are good due to the fact they avert harm — Bartricks

And I don't think so. And this argument will go nowhere and is off topic and we should probably stop. I can't think of any real advantage or disadvantage to either belief. Both of them will get you to do what's obligatory by saying not doing it is bad and that's all I care about. Whether or not avoiding what's banned is good I don't care as long as you just avoid what's banned (like hurting others for instance)

but I am not thereby saying that all such acts are obligatory or not. — Bartricks

I didn't think you were