It's against the idea that such a position is somehow a logical conclusion from commonly held premises — Isaac

We can debate whether or not they are commonly held but if that's your opposition, and you don't think the premises are commonly held, then sure I don't have an issue.

knowing full-well that at some point the argument relies upon an intuition which is not commonly held. — Isaac

Again, why don't you specify what you mean? You are saying nothing unless you do so. And since when is an uncommon intuition false?

The only reason I can think of for such a practice is the hope of 'recruiting' people who've not noticed this hidden premise — Isaac

Or simply that the antinatalist does not think his premise is hidden at all or that his argument is flawed and just wants to talk about it on an online free philosphy forum? I don't really care what you think shope is doing though. As long as you're fine with antinatalism existing then what we're both doing is just wasting our time.

or griping about the world without actually having to bear any responsibilty for doing anything about it. — Isaac

I hear this a lot from people as if it were an opposition to antinatalism somehow. Since when does not having kids imply you don't want to bear any responsiblity for the world? Since when were people obligated by responsibiltiy to have kids?

Are you seriously attributing to me, standing at the site of a car crash, the ability to correctly calculate the conditional probability of a crash victim's future happiness drawing on my knowledge of established base rates of happiness among people with traumatic injuries that resulted in disability? And this is what I do to overcome the requirement that I seek his consent before saving his life?

If he's conscious but bleeding out, do I still ask for his consent to save him, or do the calculations anyway? Should I discount because he's likely in shock and just apply pressure to his open wound, even if tells me to let him die? No, wait, I need to calculate the conditional probability that he would later endorse his own withholding of consent while in shock, again considering my knowledge of the base rate of changes of heart among people who were saved having asked not to be. — Srap Tasmaner

Basically. I don't expect you to pull out a calculator. This is just another way of saying "I expect you to choose the option that you think minimizes harm done" which isn't really an unusual thing to ask. How would YOU go about deciding in all these situations actually? Ignore everything I have argued, how many variables would YOU try to process?

Gotta say, it's starting to look I'd best just stay out of it. — Srap Tasmaner

But then you still have to do the calculations on what will happen if you stay out of it :razz: Assuming there is some harm that you would be responsible for and so can't just sit back and watch happen. Example: A life guard choosing not to rescue people.

But I did violate their rights back when they didn't exist yet, so shame on me. Oh and their mom, she did too. We'll apologize, but I'm pretty sure they're cool with it. — Srap Tasmaner

Now you're getting it :wink:

Of course, as soon as they were born I took all the rest of their autonomy away. Their mom too, we both did. And we still haven't given all of it back. Thing is though, the kids did get parents in exchange, and I think they're mostly happy with the deal. — Srap Tasmaner

Let me ask you this. If they weren't happy with the deal whose fault is it? And should we pretend that this risk is non existent or that it is not worth considering?

Do you think this might be a pretty common situation? You know, I violate a non-existent person's rights by bringing them into the world, and I continue to violate their rights for years, but in return I accept considerable responsibility for their well-being, at least up until the point where they're ready and willing to take if not all then most of that responsibility themselves? — Srap Tasmaner

I have no doubt that it's common. But it is not always the case.

That could be a reasonable set-up couldn't it? — Srap Tasmaner

No not really. What do you do if your kids hate their existence? What gives you the right to take that risk in the first place? To say "I'll take a risk at harming others because it'll probably turn out okay" is not enough of a justifaction for me. Especially when it can get so bad.

I'm not trying to attack you here but you're the one that brought your kids into the argument.

How would YOU go about deciding in all these situations actually? Ignore everything I have argued, how many variables would YOU try to process? — khaled

My cockamamie ideas are not under discussion here.

If they weren't happy with the deal whose fault is it? And should we pretend that this risk is non existent or that it is not worth considering?
(( ... ))
What do you do if your kids hate their existence? — khaled

I think my oldest son almost hated his existence for a little while in the Spring. He's a musician and had begun thinking that live music might never be a thing again. Pretty depressing stuff for a young man to deal with. He's in fine form these days.

Generally speaking, I don't know. One or two of the kids tend a little toward melancholia, but it's just personality not pathology. So far as I can tell, there's neither mental illness nor despair among my children, though the ones that are old enough have had their moments. Mostly they are wild, creative, gutsy, fascinating little and not so little people.

Having children is of course a roll of the genetic dice, but parenting is not. The way you talk about the risk involved is just meaningless to me. Having and then raising children is not spinning a roulette wheel or something, just one action and then you get the result: loves life, hates life, mostly hates life, mostly neutral, ... Like it's on a scale from 1 to 7. That's not my experience of life or of raising children, or the experience of anyone I know. There is no result, so no risk of the result being one thing or another. We're just alive.

What gives you the right to take that risk in the first place? To say "I'll take a risk at harming others because it'll probably turn out okay" is not enough of a justifaction for me. — khaled

Parents don't just guess how things will turn out, they work at it, they take responsibility. Obviously can't speak for all parents -- most people only know what their parents were like and what they see on TV. If you are a parent, you know a couple more examples, and you tend to know other people with kids and know at least a little about what they're doing.

If you told my kids that I harmed them by bringing them into the world without their consent, I'm gonna guess they would love that. There would be a fair amount of "Yeah Dad, what about that? You violated my rights. You owe me." But once you were gone they would probably all blurt out that that was an amazingly stupid idea.

My cockamamie ideas are not under discussion here. — Srap Tasmaner

It's just that you seem to find "Do what you think will minimize harm" so ridiculous that I wondered how you operate in these situations.

I think my oldest son almost hated his existence for a little while in the Spring. He's a musician and had begun thinking that live music might never be a thing again. Pretty depressing stuff for a young man to deal with. He's in fine form these days.

Generally speaking, I don't know. One or two of the kids tend a little toward melancholia, but it's just personality not pathology. So far as I can tell, there's neither mental illness nor despair among my children, though the ones that are old enough have had their moments. Mostly they are wild, creative, gutsy, fascinating little and not so little people. — Srap Tasmaner

This doesn't address the question.

Having and then raising children is not spinning a roulette wheel or something, just one action and then you get the result: loves life, hates life, mostly hates life, mostly neutral, ... Like it's on a scale from 1 to 7. That's not my experience of life or of raising children, or the experience of anyone I know. There is no result, so no risk of the result being one thing or another. We're just alive. — Srap Tasmaner

The "result" is whether or not your children would rather have not been born. In other words whether or not the "deal" that is life ended up panning out for them in their eyes. That is how you evaluate the consequences of an action right? Thankfully, your children seem to be doing fine. But I'm asking what would you do IF your child did have a severe mental/genetic illness? Whose fault was it that life is so difficult for him/her? And are you responsible for it or not? Saying "my children are doing fine" does not address this.

Parents don't just guess how things will turn out, they work at it, they take responsibility. — Srap Tasmaner

That doesn't remove the risk of suffering. "I will take a risk with someone else's life becaues I will then try as hard as I can to reduce their suffering" still is not a good enough justification for me.

If you told my kids that I harmed them by bringing them into the world without their consent — Srap Tasmaner

You didn't harm them overall though. So that's why they'd think the idea is stupid. Overall life was a good deal for them. It's more like "You risked harming them by bringing them into the world without their consent". I think they'd find that idea a lot less stupid. There is a non zero chance they would have still hated every minute of their lives despite your best effort be it due to genetic/mental illness or some accident, etc, etc.

The "result" is whether or not your children would rather have not been born. — khaled

What does that even mean though? Are we asking them at the end, "So, what'd you think? Worth it?" Should we survey them weekly? I don't think any of them have ever thought this, but it could be, there have been some rough times. Is the question, did you ever, over the course of your life, wish that you hadn't been born? What would having had that thought prove?

There is a non zero chance they would have still hated every minute of their lives despite your best effort be it due to genetic/mental illness or some accident, etc, etc. — khaled

You guys always throw around this "hating every minute of their life" thing. Is this just a thought experiment or are you talking about something real like major depression?

Is this the actual substantial argument for anti-natalism? That there is a non-zero chance your child will experience major depression therefore no one should ever have children?

Is this just a thought experiment or are you talking about something real like major depression? — Srap Tasmaner

Can be seen as either.

That there is a non-zero chance your child will experience major depression therefore no one should ever have children? — Srap Tasmaner

Among other things but yes. The argument is that there is a non zero chance that they won't think their life was worth it.

Are we asking them at the end, "So, what'd you think? Worth it?" — Srap Tasmaner

We're not but the answer to that is what this concerns. There is a non zero chance that at the end of their lives they won't think it was worth it overall. Or they commit suicide, in whichcase the answer to the question is a very clear "no"

Or they commit suicide, in whichcase the answer to the question is a very clear "no" — khaled

I'm sorry, what?

There are the end-of-life decisions of the terminally ill, which is a sound-mind answer of "no" to the question, "Do you want to continue living this way?" not to any other question like, "Do you wish you had never been born?" or "Was life worth it?"

There may indeed be cases of sound-mind decisions to take your life that should count as answers to questions like that, but I don't happen to be familiar with an example.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, suicide is not so much something a person does as something that happens to them, because of mental illness or extreme mental duress, something they cannot stop themselves from doing and no one else does either. This is not a sound-mind judgment of anything, not an answer to any question, and it's callous to treat it as such.

From your side, the existence of conditions in which people take their own lives is unjustifiable, so it still counts.

But this is really strange, because it's as if you are substituting the ideation of major depression for the thing itself, or the desperate thought for the conditions that gave rise to it. Major depression is a disease to be treated and managed; the stresses of life are something people need help to cope with. The fact that there is propositional content associated with these conditions is not a moral fact to be taken into account; it's a side-effect.

Is this just a thought experiment or are you talking about something real like major depression?
— Srap Tasmaner

Can be seen as either. — khaled

That doesn't strike me as much of a position, but then the whole argument has a sort of fluidity to it, may or may not be based on actual facts, as if it makes no difference. Are we talking about suffering? Or about the idea of suffering? Or about what we think about suffering? Makes no difference.

And so it goes with the hypothetical person at the center of it all. We wouldn't presume to say of anyone living that they shouldn't be, that their life is not worth living; we would respect their view on the matter. We wouldn't presume to decide on behalf of someone suffering that they should die; we respect their decision. Then what are we to say about the hypothetical person? We can't respect their views and their decisions, for they have none.

So we go around that and make it an epistemic problem for us. I can't know whether my hypothetical child wants to become real, whatever that could mean. I can't know whether, once living, they will always want to go on living. I can't know whether they will at some point wish they had never been born. And then we switch it all around and construct a duty out of things that I cannot know not because they are private but because they are not facts at all.

But then those non-facts are treated as somehow determinate, as if having a child is drawing a world-line from the proverbial urn of marbles. My child's life will be a red or a blue, it's just a matter of probability, and we can confidently assign probabilities to the different results, probabilities of a very vague sort like "> 0". What justification is ever offered for this absurd formalization?

the stresses of life are something people need help to cope with. The fact that there is propositional content associated with these conditions is not a moral fact to be taken into account; it's a side-effect. — Srap Tasmaner

I just find this to be where the disagreement in intuitions lie. Most ANs would say that this is akin to creating the game for someone else, and then trying to ameliorate the very deprivation that was placed upon them. There is no escape except indeed unintentional death (starvation.. not functioning well in life) or intentional death (suicide.. which as you point out may only occur due to mental illness.. another contingent form of harm, if that is the case).

We wouldn't presume to decide on behalf of someone suffering that they should die; we respect their decision. Then what are we to say about the hypothetical person? We can't respect their views and their decisions, for they have none. — Srap Tasmaner

This is equivalent to saying that you know someone who will encounter immediate torture upon birth shouldn't be considered, because they are not born yet.. No, in this view, you'd wait for the person to be tortured for you to say, "NOW, we can consider that person". Doesn't make sense.

So we go around that and make it an epistemic problem for us. I can't know whether my hypothetical child wants to become real, whatever that could mean. I can't know whether, once living, they will always want to go on living. I can't know whether they will at some point wish they had never been born. And then we switch it all around and construct a duty out of things that I cannot know not because they are private but because they are not facts at all. — Srap Tasmaner

No you are not understanding the argument. There is no violation of anything to anyone prior to birth. That is recognized. No ONE exists.. therefore now harm, no foul (literally). Once born, consent has been violated, and not causing unnecessary conditions of harm has been violated. If you don't believe in those two things.. that would be where the argument ends, that I will give you.

But then those non-facts are treated as somehow determinate, as if having a child is drawing a world-line from the proverbial urn of marbles. My child's life will be a red or a blue, it's just a matter of probability, and we can confidently assign probabilities to the different results, probabilities of a very vague sort like "> 0". What justification is ever offered for this absurd formalization? — Srap Tasmaner

This kind of argument only make sense if we are talking about possibilities that affect no one. You can't equate this with something like "The pink unicorns should be prevented from existing because they might kill the green leprechauns".. Yeah since none of those things actually exist or ever will.. then that is indeed nonsensical to talk about as if it is real.. But an act that WILL create an ACTUAL person if it is followed, DOES have considerations for a future being, so your rebuttal is null.

This kind of argument only make sense if we are talking about possibilities that affect no one. You can't equate this with something like "The pink unicorns should be prevented from existing because they might kill the green leprechauns".. Yeah since none of those things actually exist or ever will.. then that is indeed nonsensical to talk about as if it is real.. But an act that WILL create an ACTUAL person if it is followed, DOES have considerations for a future being, so your rebuttal is null. — schopenhauer1

But this is exactly my problem. An actual person could have any sort of life, but for your argument you need to talk about it this way:

This is equivalent to saying that you know someone who will encounter immediate torture upon birth shouldn't be considered, because they are not born yet.. No, in this view, you'd wait for the person to be tortured for you to say, "NOW, we can consider that person". Doesn't make sense. — schopenhauer1

Is "immediate torture upon birth" one of the marbles in the jar you imagine me drawing from? You're not talking about an actual person, but about a very definite though hypothetical person.

This continual flipping between empirical claims about human life and bizarre thought experiments leaves me wondering if you might have an airtight argument that happens not to apply to real life, like one of those old models in economics with perfect competition and utility-maximizing agents who have perfect knowledge, etc. etc.

I think there is a real argument to be made about the sort of suffering humans actually endure. I'm not sure how to respond to it, but in part that's because I can't quite see how to construct the inference from an understanding of what real people go through to anti-natalism without taking liberties that puzzle me. If one of you ever manages to make just that argument, then we'll see. I would make it myself for you, but I'm not sure how.

Maybe we should just leave it there. The formalism of the argument, which is crucial, just doesn't resonate with me, but you've given me some things to think about.

But this is exactly my problem. An actual person could have any sort of life, but for your argument you need to talk about it this way: — Srap Tasmaner

Yes I get your problem. However, you didn't address the argument itself which is not about whether someone MIGHT enjoy it (or even if they are likely to).

Is "immediate torture upon birth" one of the marbles in the jar you imagine me drawing from? You're not talking about an actual person, but about a very definite though hypothetical person. — Srap Tasmaner

No no, you are taking this out of context, ugh. IF this was the case, would you not consider the circumstances? ANs are essentially considering all suffering over a life time rather than just immediate torture, but same sentiment.

This continual flipping between empirical claims about human life and bizarre thought experiments leaves me wondering if you might have an airtight argument that happens not to apply to real life, like one of those old models in economics with perfect competition and utility-maximizing agents who have perfect knowledge, etc. etc. — Srap Tasmaner

Ha, interesting analogy. However, the mentality that says, "What's a little causing of suffering, there's happiness. too! Am I right?! Ami I right?! (elbow poke to ribs)" Doesn't really hold. Indeed, just because life is a variety of circumstances, doesn't mean "Thus AN reasoning is wrong". You still have the major normative ethical claim to contend with.

Maybe we should just leave it there. The formalism of the argument, which is crucial, just doesn't resonate with me, but you've given me some things to think about. — Srap Tasmaner

That's fair enough. As I said, just because life is a panalopy of various circumstances, doesn't override the claim that unnecessary causing for the conditions of suffering is taking place for another person. I've stated it many times.. you know it.

I do have one final thought I'd like to hear your thoughts on.

The asymmetry of effects (conditions of possible harm to person if born, no one to be harmed if not) is the real fulcrum of the argument; I see this as paradoxical but you don't. (I'm also not granting this.)

There is a mirror asymmetry, that no one benefits from anti-natalism. A person who is not born can no more benefit than they can be harmed. If no one is ever born again, eventually there is no one to benefit from your ethics.

An ethical proposal that by design benefits no one strikes me as paradoxical.

There is a mirror asymmetry, that no one benefits from anti-natalism. A person who is not born can no more benefit than they can be harmed. If no one is ever born again, eventually there is no one to benefit from your ethics.

An ethical proposal that by design benefits no one strikes me as paradoxical. — Srap Tasmaner

Absolutely correct. No one is benefited. But that is better than having many harmed.

because of mental illness or extreme mental duress — Srap Tasmaner

Saying "it's not a sound minded judgement" implies that objectively speaking life is always bearable for everyone which is not necessarily true. "They killed themselves because of a mental illness" is another way of saying "They hated life so much they went against their own survival instinct and decided to die".

From your side, the existence of conditions in which people take their own lives is unjustifiable, so it still counts. — Srap Tasmaner

I was just about to say that.

Major depression is a disease to be treated and managed; the stresses of life are something people need help to cope with — Srap Tasmaner

Fantastically put. But that doesn't justify bringing in more people just so they can cope. Why cause a problem that requires coping in the first place? Taking on challenges is fun and all but forcing others into a state where coping is required just to exist is a different matter entirely. What other situations is it considered acceptable to deprive someone forcefully so they can cope (aside from raising children but even that is just done to help them cope in the future)?

And so it goes with the hypothetical person at the center of it all. — Srap Tasmaner

There is no hypothetical person at the center of it all. There is just a simple premise that: Doing an act in the present that will result in harm to someone in the future is wrong even if that person doesn't exist in the present. Answer me this (and it's a bit of a ridiculous example I know but I don't have too much time right now): Why is it wrong for someone to plant a bomb that is set to explode in 15 years inside a fetus? (The timer is just to avoid the whole "Is a fetus a person" debate)

I can't know whether my hypothetical child wants to become real, whatever that could mean. — Srap Tasmaner

You can't know whether or not your child will experience a disproportionate amount of pain after they're born. So don't take the risk since you're not going to be the one paying the consequences. It is not about a "hypothetical child" whatever that means.

My child's life will be a red or a blue, it's just a matter of probability, and we can confidently assign probabilities to the different results, probabilities of a very vague sort like "> 0". What justification is ever offered for this absurd formalization? — Srap Tasmaner

"What justification is ever offered for this abusrd formalization?" What do you mean? Does it or does it not make sense should be the question. Why is formalization a problem.


You seem to find the whole argument abstract and wishy washy so let me ask you a couple of questions instead to make it more concrete. I'd prefer you answer these primarily:

Is it moral for a couple that finds out that they both have hidden genes that will result in their child having a severe mental/genetic illness to have children?

Why or Why not or Is there an arbitrary point at which you would consider that illness "bad enough" for them having children to be wrong?

Is it moral for someone for a couple that finds out that they both have hidden genes that will result in their child having a severe mental/genetic illness to have children? — khaled

I like this argument. I think if it were me I would choose not to, but I cannot muster a definite approval or disapproval for someone else. Is that odd? If they asked my advice, I don't know what I'd say.

Maybe it's just that I'm not used to thinking of reproduction as a moral question at all, so I'm simply lacking intuition here.

Make the affliction only probable and I'll be completely at sea.

Why or Why not or Is there an arbitrary point at which you would consider that illness "bad enough" for them having children to be wrong? — khaled

And I just don't get here. I've got nothing.

On the other hand, ask me how I feel about bad parenting; I have a truckload of moral intuitions about that.

I really liked hearing your thoughts here. I hope this conversation keeps going

I hope this conversation keeps going — Albero

Not me. It's been exhausting and I'm ready to let it settle for a while. I'm not sure my reactions are worth much because I haven't read the literature.

Well I guess the conversation is over then? We can’t really get anywhere if you don’t have a counterview to mine.

Not me. It's been exhausting and I'm ready to let it settle for a while. — Srap Tasmaner

Same here to be honest. I don’t know why I keep commenting on these threads when it usually ends in both sides getting too tired to care. Just look at Issac. I don’t know how Shope does it

I don’t know why I keep commenting on these threads — khaled

I never have before, and I really appreciate your effort.

It's a very odd thing all around. It walks and talks like a logical paradox to me, so that triggers particular instincts, but the strangeness of it seems to come from somewhere else.

But seriously, I can absolutely imagine an encyclopedia entry in a generation or two that calls this argument "The Anti-Natalism Paradox".

Thanks again for the arguments.

At least schop is passionate enough to try and keep at it. His discussions here seem to get pretty lengthy

Antinatalism respects the individual person that will be created. That is what is being considered. It is not an abstracted third-party. Even if one doesn't mean it, one is then using the individual for some abstract reason. It is no longer about the person who will actually be affected by the decision, but for a cause. Antinatalism respects the fact that the person who will be born will inevitably experience suffering, and therefore, with NO negative consequences for that individual (by abstaining to have them), has prevented any negative conditions that will befall that individual. — schopenhauer1

Yes. You've made your neo-liberal individualism pretty clear a number of times already. What is absent is any reason at all why we should think this way. Why do the rights of the individual trump the pursuit of wider causes?

Most of philosophical debate, especially on something like a philosophy forum convincing people about the validity and soundness of an argument with reasoning and having a general dialectic about a line of reasoning. It is also about explaining ideas. — schopenhauer1

Yes, that's exactly what I'm asking for - the 'reasoning'. All I'm being given is the assumptions (the moral intuitions, the assumptions of priority) I'm not getting any reasoning or explanation at all, just "this is the way I feel". For which, I suggest therapy.

Oh and because it might lead to paths that are counterintuitive to what you find to be respectable doesn't make it not so because YOU think it isn't and it is odious, or whatever bullshit you're peddling as a defense to the "nefarious" antinatalists. — schopenhauer1

Nothing here is 'so' or 'not so'. These are not empirical matters. You're talking about moral intuitions. My feeling that is is not respectable or that it is odious is no less a moral intuition than your feelings about the rights of the individual.

knowing full-well that at some point the argument relies upon an intuition which is not commonly held. — Isaac


Again, why don't you specify what you mean? You are saying nothing unless you do so. And since when is an uncommon intuition false? — khaled

I already have, several times. I'll try to just list them here for convenience.

1. That it is morally acceptable to end the human race
2. That the rights of the individual trump the pursuit of other social objectives.
3. That absence of harm is a moral good, but absence of pleasure is not a moral bad
4. That absence of harm continues to be a moral good even in the absence of any humans to experience that absence.
5. That we ought obtain consent from others whenever our actions might affect them in any negative way even if they don't yet exist.

None of these intuitions are common. The main proof of which (among others) is that most people consider it morally acceptable to have children.

Or simply that the antinatalist does not think his premise is hidden at all or that his argument is flawed and just wants to talk about it on an online free philosphy forum? — khaled

This is not the first such discussion and all that I've been involved with have ended in the same way.

Since when does not having kids imply you don't want to bear any responsiblity for the world? — khaled

Pop psychology. It seemed de rigueur. I see a lot of threads from the same people about anti-natalism. I see few about economic inequality, environmental issues, prejudice, human kindness...

On the off-chance that Srap really is ducking out, I hope he won't mind me answering some of the points in that fork of the thread. Having listed the uncommon assumptions, we can just refer to them by number.

No one is benefited. But that is better than having many harmed. — khaled

Number 4.

forcing others into a state where coping is required just to exist is a different matter entirely. What other situations is it considered acceptable to deprive someone forcefully so they can cope (aside from raising children but even that is just done to help them cope in the future)? — khaled

Number 5

Doing an act in the present that will result in harm to someone in the future is wrong even if that person doesn't exist in the present. — khaled

Number 5 again

You can't know whether or not your child will experience a disproportionate amount of pain after they're born. So don't take the risk since you're not going to be the one paying the consequences. — khaled

Number 3

Is it moral for a couple that finds out that they both have hidden genes that will result in their child having a severe mental/genetic illness to have children? — khaled

Number 2 (most people find this approach repugnant for other reasons - namely that it implies disabled people are living worthless lives on account of their disability, when a lot of the time they're living difficult lives on account of our failure to accommodate them).

All of these also present an example of number 1 of course, because pursuing them will lead to the extinction of the human race.

What I've yet to hear is any support or justification for holding any of those five moral positions.

I thought we were done...

What is absent is any reason at all why we should think this way — Isaac

You can ask "But why should we think that" ad infinium for any position ever.

That it is morally acceptable to end the human race — Isaac

That's not the premise used. The premise used is: The suffering of the individual trumps the "goals" of a concept such as "the human race". Why should we believe that? Again, that is not an objection. All antinatalism has to do is be internally consistent for it to stand on par with other moral theories.

That absence of harm continues to be a moral good even in the absence of any humans to experience that absence. — Isaac

Not used. I think benetar's asymmetry (what you refer to here) is complete bs. Which shows, again, that you're arguing with a caricature not me. You have yet to even bother to ask what my argument for antinatalism is because I doubt you care. Because you seem to just want to have a yelling match over the internet rather than an actual conversation but I'll entertain you for a bit longer.

That we ought obtain consent from others whenever our actions might affect them in any negative way even if they don't yet exist. — Isaac

Do you think it is wrong to genetically engineer a child to be disabled? Probably yes. Why is that? What about engineering them to be geniuses?

I have yet to see someone answer "No, it is not wrong" to that question.

That absence of harm is a moral good, but absence of pleasure is not a moral bad — Isaac

Not used. The absence of both is neutral since there is no one to experience them. This is another form of the asymmetry which, again, you assume I use. Antinatalism has been around way before benetar.

That the rights of the individual trump the pursuit of other social objectives. — Isaac

This one is sometimes used. But not really. In order for something to be a "social objective" citizens of said society must believe it is worth pursuing. And if all said citizens were antinatalists then there would be no "social objectives" past a single generation. Heck if everyone on earth suddenly became an antinatalist "Ending the human race consentually" would become the social objective.

You make it sound like there exists a "checklist" for every society independent from the intentions of its members.

And what is the inverse of this premise? That everyone must have children even if they don't want to so that social objectives are accomplished, even if the parents don't want to pursue these apparently objective objectives? That sounds like it'd be way less popular to me.

The main proof of which (among others) is that most people consider it morally acceptable to have children. — Isaac

Most people don't think about the morality of it at all.

This is not the first such discussion and all that I've been involved with have ended in the same way. — Isaac

Okay so shope wants to talk about the same topic multiple times. Why do you take issue with that?

If you see someone arguing over and over about whether or not Jesus was resurrected would you care to intervene? I doubt it. You seem to take personal issue with these posts.

I see a lot of threads from the same people about anti-natalism. I see few about economic inequality, environmental issues, prejudice, human kindness... — Isaac

The number of threads relating to kindness posted on an online philosophy forum is not indicitive of the level of responsibility that a person has so please stop saying nonsense. If you want to make this claim please back it up with some actual evidence. And once backed up this claim is nothing short of a roundabout ad hominem. Even if me and shope are lifeless irresponssible morons that doesn't make the argument any more or less valid.

most people find this approach repugnant for other reasons - namely that it implies disabled people are living worthless lives on account of their disability — Isaac

Then you're not thinking of the same approach I'm thinking of. There is a difference between whether or not a life is worth continuing and whether or not it's worth starting. "Giving birth to people can harm them so don't do it" In no way implies "Your life is worthless because you're disabled". I am getting sort of tired of replying to willful misinterpretations like these so if I see one more I probably won't reply.

Edit: I have more time now so I'll explain a bit. Once someone exists who has the disability his options are:

1- Commit suicide - very painful
2- Keep living - usually a lot less painful

So it is worth it to keep living for him. Aka, life is worth continuing
But before such a person exists when someone is considering whether or not to have children his options are:

1- Have a child - risk of sever disability among other things
2- Don't have a child - nothing happens, good or bad

In this case, the safer option is obviously not to have the child. Aka, life is not worth starting.

Just because it is possible to cope with disability does not justify risking causing it in the first place.

What I've yet to hear is any support or justification for holding any of those five moral positions. — Isaac

Let's call a moral premise you believe in A. Why should we believe A? OH WAIT, don't answer, I don't actually care, let's call whatever you were about to say B. Why should we believe in B? OH WAIT, don't answer, I don't actually care, let's ca....

This is not an objection to antinatalism this is an objection to every belief ever. Best you can get out of asking this over and over is circular logic.

I thought we were done... — khaled

You're not obliged to respond, I won't be offended if you just don't.

You can ask "But why should we think that" ad infinium for any position ever. — khaled

You asked me to list the assumptions which were uncommon, I didn't just volunteer them. What was the point in that request if your response was going to be "well anyone can have any assumptions they like as long as they're consistent"?

If it's true that...

All antinatalism has to do is be internally consistent for it to stand on par with other moral theories. — khaled

... then why would one even start a thread on it (which was my original question). It would be akin to starting a thread on the fact that I prefer chocolate to ice cream. Bear in mind, because it's important, these threads are not antinatalists defending their position against accusations that they are wrong. These threads are started by antinatalists telling the rest of us that we're mistaken about some issue. The burden is on the OP to make their case, not on the respondents to withhold a defense of their position lest it be seen as offensive.

I think benetar's asymmetry (what you refer to here) is complete bs. Which shows, again, that you're arguing with a caricature not me. — khaled

You started this discussion by asking me about my objection to @schopenhauer1's positions. If you want now to talk about your personal position you'll have to lay it out for me, but that was not originally the topic of conversation.

You have yet to even bother to ask what my argument for antinatalism is because I doubt you care. Because you seem to just want to have a yelling match over the internet rather than an actual conversation — khaled

You've yet to ask me about my position either, do you feel like all you want is a yelling match? I've no doubt at all that I've mischaracterised your position on occasion, I've no doubt I've attributed beliefs to you which you do not have, and I've no doubt I've responded to positions I find offensive with a tone which belies that offence. It happens. Do you seriously think I could not look back over your posts and find examples of exactly the same issues? No. So lets drop the 'who wants to have the most serious conversation' crap. If you've got an actual concern about something I've said, raise it, with a quoted example, and I'll do my best to correct the issue. Otherwise characterising all opposition as just 'looking for a fight' is a weak defence.

That we ought obtain consent from others whenever our actions might affect them in any negative way even if they don't yet exist. — Isaac


Do you think it is wrong to genetically engineer a child to be disabled? Probably yes. Why is that? What about engineering them to be geniuses?

I have yet to see someone answer "No, it is not wrong" to that question. — khaled

So? The premise I highlighted was that it was "we ought obtain consent from others whenever our actions might affect them in any negative way", not " there are no situations in which we ought consider the effects of our actions on others yet to exist". The premise as it is used in antinatalism requires that there can be no exceptions, that thus rule is not applied pragmatically, but universally and above all others.

This is another form of the asymmetry which, again, you assume I use. Antinatalism has been around way before benetar. — khaled

As I said, you started this discussion by objecting to my response to schop. If you want to discuss your position you will have to lay it out for me.

if all said citizens were antinatalists then there would be no "social objectives" past a single generation. Heck if everyone on earth suddenly became an antinatalist "Ending the human race consentually" would become the social objective. — khaled

Yep. And? Again schop's objection (my original topic) was that we (natalists) cannot use the pursuit of a social objective to trump individual rights. It was not that he'd personally prefer not to himself and would like us to stop making him do so. No one is making him have children. Once more, the threads to which I object are started by antinatalists telling natalists they're wrong, not the other way round.

That everyone must have children even if they don't want to so that social objectives are accomplished, even if the parents don't want to pursue these apparently objective objectives? — khaled

Yes. This would indeed be the inverse of that premise. Should such a bizarre and unlikely situation ever arise then it would create such an obligation. Luckily for us our moral intuitions are not a randomly occurring set of rules drawn from a book, but a muddled and fuzzy set loosely connected to our culture and biology so we needn't really plan for such odd eventualities.

Most people don't think about the morality of it at all. — khaled

Wow. And you thought I was being harsh on schop? You're prepared to sit there and judge the majority of the human race as having given no moral thought to the decision to start a family. On what grounds?

If you see someone arguing over and over about whether or not Jesus was resurrected would you care to intervene? — khaled

Read the OP. It is not a investigative discussion about some philosophical issue. It is a direct, and at times pretty blunt, declaration that we (natalists) are morally wrong for seeing things the way we do, and wrong by way of inconsistency. This not only justifies a robust defence in itself, but is disingenuous when the poster has had it previously shown that we're not wrong by way of inconsistency, but rather simply by way of holding moral intuitions which he does not.

Had the OP been of the form "I hold X unusual premise to be true which you might not have heard of, what do you guys think?" I would have far less objection. All the antinatalist threads I've read have followed exactly the same pattern, they start off implying that natalists are inconsistent, they end up agreeing that we just have different values, then a few weeks later another one turns up, ignoring the conclusions of the first and declaring again that natalists are inconsistent.

Antinatalists aren't just people who've decided not to have children. They're people who accuse others of having unjustifiably harmed their own children. It's no trivial conclusion, it turns the majority of the world into child abusers. Just to be clear (since we've had thus trouble before) I'm not suggesting any antinatalist actually said this, nor even intended it (though I think some do), only that it is an implication of labelling the having of children as causing unwarranted harm to them.

Even if me and shope are lifeless irresponssible morons that doesn't make the argument any more or less valid. — khaled

Indeed, but it wasn't your arguments at issue here was it? The topic of the paragraph to which I was responding was your motives.

There is a difference between whether or not a life is worth continuing and whether or not it's worth starting. "Giving birth to people can harm them so don't do it" In no way implies "Your life is worthless because you're disabled". I am getting sort of tired of replying to willful misinterpretations like these so if I see one more I probably won't reply. — khaled

It is not in your authority to simply declare what a thing implies and what it does not. It is very difficult to see how you would get around the fact that avoiding a life (because it would not be worth the harm) and suggesting a life already lived is not worth the harm, seem to most people exactly the same proposition. Especially if you're suggesting you can do so without Benetar's asymmetry.

"The disabled life is not worth creating" and " The disabled life is not worth having" are different how?

Let's call whatever moral premises you believe in A. Why should we believe A. OH WAIT, don't answer, I don't actually care, let's call whatever you were about to say B. Why should we believe in B. OH WAIT, don't answer, I don't actually care, let's ca....

This is not an objection to antinatalism this is an objection to every belief ever. — khaled

I've no idea what you're trying to say here but it sounds vaguely like you're suggesting that my position might make all fundamental beliefs equally valid. Maybe. But you keep acting as if I voluntarily launched an attack on antinatalism. The thread (and others like it) are launching an attack on natalism, I'm only defending the position.

It would be akin to starting a thread on the fact that I prefer chocolate to ice cream. — Isaac

I've seen crazier things on this site tbh

These threads are started by antinatalists telling the rest of us that we're mistaken about some issue. — Isaac

But in this case the issue isn't even directly related to antinatalism the title of the post isn't "we are wrong about this notion" but "Is this notion wrong". The first implication that this had anything to do with antinatalism was by you in the first place not shope. Which is why I say again: If it wasn't shope you probably wouldn't have minded.

Have you ever heard a teenager complain "I never asked to be born!" when asked by their parents to carry out some chore? Schop has unfortunately found a medium for dragging this pubescent whine into four and a half thousand posts. — Isaac

You started this discussion by asking me about my objection to schopenhauer1's positions. — Isaac

I started because I wanted to correct some of your understanding:

Just an interjection here. First off antinatalism doesn't say that.... — khaled

I never intended to convince you of anything only to show that the position is not some nonsensical bs as you were making it out to be. That there is a set of beliefs which consistently lead to it which aren't completely ridiculous but all have real consequences if absent.

Do you seriously think I could not look back over your posts and find examples of exactly the same issues? No. So lets drop the 'who wants to have the most serious conversation' crap. If you've got an actual concern about something I've said, raise it, with a quoted example, and I'll do my best to correct the issue. Otherwise characterising all opposition as just 'looking for a fight' is a weak defence. — Isaac

Fair enough. Sorry about that. I was pissed off IRL when I wrote the reply

The premise as it is used in antinatalism requires that there can be no exceptions, that thus rule is not applied pragmatically, but universally and above all others. — Isaac

Can you think of any other exceptions other than having children? If you want to have a moral rule with a single case exception that goes unexplained (or maybe it does though I wouldn't know how you would do it) go ahead but I don't want to do that.

Should such a bizarre and unlikely situation ever arise then it would create such an obligation. Luckily for us our moral intuitions are not a randomly occurring set of rules drawn from a book, but a muddled and fuzzy set loosely connected to our culture and biology so we needn't really plan for such odd eventualities. — Isaac

I don't really get the second part here after "an obligation" but you seriously think that people have an obligation to have children to keep their society afloat? I see it the other way around. Society, its rules and goals is made to keep the population afloat. It is a vehicle not a goal in itself.

You're prepared to sit there and judge the majority of the human race as having given no moral thought to the decision to start a family. On what grounds? — Isaac

That I haven't seen a parent yet who thought much about having kids. Most people I know just decided "Let's have 2 kids, no 3" without really putting much thought beyond that and whether or not they can afford it. People just feel obligated biologically and socially to have children and that's all the reason they seem to need. This is just my experience though.

Read the OP. It is not a investigative discussion about some philosophical issue. It is a direct, and at times pretty blunt, declaration that we (natalists) — Isaac

It is not directed at you (natalists). And as I said, even if shope is right here that doesn't lead to AN.

Had the OP been of the form "I hold X unusual premise to be true which you might not have heard of, what do you guys think?" I would have far less objection. — Isaac

The post literally has with "I am going to posit" or "I see as" at the beginning of each paragraph.

Antinatalists aren't just people who've decided not to have children. They're people who accuse others of having unjustifiably harmed their own children. only that it is an implication of labelling the having of children as causing unwarranted harm to them. — Isaac

ANs don't necessarily accuse though I know most do. In order to accuse someone of being morally "wrong" one must believe in some form of objective morality which I don't believe in. Can't speak for shope but I don't think he does either.

It is very difficult to see how you would get around the fact that avoiding a life (because it would not be worth the harm) and suggesting a life already lived is not worth the harm, seem to most people exactly the same proposition. Especially if you're suggesting you can do so without Benetar's asymmetry. — Isaac

As I said in my comment. The reason life is worth it when you're already here is because it is very painful to get out so continuing to live is the best option. The reason it is not worth it when you are considering bringing someone else in is because that someone else doesn't experience any sort of deprivation due to not having it. I don't see what's unclear. If you go back and read "edit" portion I don't think anything there didn't make sense or relied on the asymmetry.

"The disabled life is not worth creating" and " The disabled life is not worth having" are different how? — Isaac

In the case of creating: nothing happens if it goes uncreated. So the best option is to not risk harm. In the case of living there is a lot of harm experienced when commit suicide. So the best option is to live.

It's sort of like how even a bad movie is worth watching if you already bought the tickets and are close to the cinema. But it was not worth the tickets in the first place.

might make all fundamental beliefs equally valid. Maybe. But you keep acting as if I voluntarily launched an attack on antinatalism. The thread (and others like it) are launching an attack on natalism, I'm only defending the position. — Isaac

I think we both think the other is attacking our position when that is not the intention. At least I don't intend to attack natalism. It just sounded like you were doing exactly what you were accusing shope of doing. You bring antinatalism into the conversation then imply that there is an inconsistency in it by saying that "Many posts have responded to this already so stop posting it". That sounds like "This has already been proven false, move on". Just as long as you recognize that there are a set of fundamental beliefs that lead to antinatalism consistently then that's all I really expect, I don't care what you think beyond that. I don't think either shope or me are trying to attack natalism though I can't speak for him.

I've seen crazier things on this site tbh — khaled

Yes, using threads in this site as a measure of reasonable activity is certainly not advisable!

-

I'll deal with all the stuff about whether this thread (and others) are attacking natalists or not first.

The title of the thread is "Is our "common sense" notion of justified suffering/pain wrong?" - not "Here's another way of looking at our notion of justified suffering" - it sets, right at the outset, the idea that our position might be actually wrong.

I agree it's not directly about antinatalism at first, but that's the main reason why I responded in such an exasperated fashion, because we all knew it was going to end up that way. Virtually all of the other similar threads have done so, it's part of this whole insidious approach which I find obnoxious. The issue is sidled up to quite deliberately (I suspect) because we've had the actual antinatalism discussions a dozen times before and it didn't end well. There's a bunch of posters who do this on various pet subjects (nuclear weapons comes to mind) and it annoys me. I was on a long train journey at the time, so I picked up on it to pass the time. I might have chosen another, but didn't. As to whether I was right, I don't think the ensuing discussion with Srap was initiated by my comment, but before the first page was even done it had become about antinatalism.

You seem to have avoided the issue of how antinatalism atttacks natalists simply by positing a moral harm. It's not like two different positions on the trolley dilemma which no-one will ever find themsleves directly in. Claiming that creating conditions for harm without consent is always and in all cases morally unjustified makes everyone abusers of their own children. Having just established that this is not an inescapable conclusion but rather just a preferred set of axioms surely you can see how repeatedly announcing this opinion might come across as antagonistic?

-

I never intended to convince you of anything only to show that the position is not some nonsensical bs as you were making it out to be. That there is a set of beliefs which consistently lead to it which aren't completely ridiculous but all have real consequences if absent. — khaled

'The position' being 'it is possible to have some set of axioms which lead to antinatalism'? I don't think any such claim was ever at issue. If it was it seems trivially easy to defeat. It's possible get to any conclusion at all given the right axioms. 'The position' as it comes across is that antinatalism results from moral intuitions we all agree on, that it's a surprising but inescapable conclusion from widely shared premises. Otherwise it's entirely unremarkable and just odd.

That there is a set of beliefs which consistently lead to it which aren't completely ridiculous but all have real consequences if absent. — khaled

How are we determining what is and is not 'completely ridiculous' in this sense?

Can you think of any other exceptions other than having children? — khaled

Yes, if I want to fell a tree I don't typically have to ask for the consent of every potential future person who might shade under it's boughs. Examples are two a penny. I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of the time we're not morally obligated to consider the consequences of our actions on potential persons. When such consequences are clearly negative, uncomplicated by weighing in a lot of uncertainty, and affect a very obvious single potential person then we'll often feel obliged to consider them. In most other cases it's simply too impractical to try to weigh all the issues.

you seriously think that people have an obligation to have children to keep their society afloat? — khaled

Yes. But my personal view is not the point. The point was that there's no logical method of deriving antinatalism. It's not the conclusion of a Modus Tollens or something, it's just a moral feeling (or set thereof). I raised this in opposition to the frequent assertions that there was some 'conclusion' which I just didn't like so I was denying the logic. Nothing like that is happening here.

People just feel obligated biologically and socially to have children and that's all the reason they seem to need. — khaled

What more is a moral judgement than a feeling of social or biological obligation?

The reason life is worth it when you're already here is because it is very painful to get out so continuing to live is the best option. The reason it is not worth it when you are considering bringing someone else in is because that someone else doesn't experience any sort of deprivation due to not having it. I don't see what's unclear. — khaled

Nothing is unclear, it's offensive. The idea that the only thing making disabled people's lives worth living is the difficulty of suicide is deeply offensive.

The title of the thread is "Is our "common sense" notion of justified suffering/pain wrong?" - not "Here's another way of looking at our notion of justified suffering" - it sets, right at the outset, the idea that our position might be actually wrong. — Isaac

That's simply your (bad) mischaracterization of what I stated. I stated this in the OP:

So the common sense notion of suffering I am going to posit as this: — schopenhauer1

I just see this split in justified and unjustified pain/suffering as not seeing the bigger picture. — schopenhauer1

Clearly stated is a viewpoint from a different perspective.. There is nothing chastising strongly or admonishing anyone as your whole characterization seems to indicate. This was very mild. I stated what I thought the common notion of justified suffering was, and why I think it is not the way. I simply stated another view of the situation presented. This is a case of YOU reading into it in some bizarre way that makes it very personal to you.

Oddly enough, YOU yourself said you were not even criticizing my intentions, as you stated early on here:

As I've said, it's not what you intent, it's what's implied — Isaac

But here you are clearly trying to put a very negative spin on my intent.. That I am somehow highly admonishing people.. when I did nothing of the sort.. I simply posited a different view of a common notion.

I agree it's not directly about antinatalism at first, but that's the main reason why I responded in such an exasperated fashion, because we all knew it was going to end up that way. Virtually all of the other similar threads have done so, it's part of this whole insidious approach which I find obnoxious. The issue is sidled up to quite deliberately (I suspect) because we've had the actual antinatalism discussions a dozen times before and it didn't end well. There's a bunch of posters who do this on various pet subjects (nuclear weapons comes to mind) and it annoys me. I was on a long train journey at the time, so I picked up on it to pass the time. I might have chosen another, but didn't. As to whether I was right, I don't think the ensuing discussion with Srap was initiated by my comment, but before the first page was even done it had become about antinatalism. — Isaac

So many of my posts are rather themes/topics on philosophical pessimism, not necessarily antinatalism. For example, this thread is intended as more just a general pessimism theme, yet you took this for an immediate defense of AN proper.. All of this goes back to some grudge against this poster (me) in general. This amounts to a large AD HOM in disguise. You aren't attacking the topics at hand as much as characterizing a poster. In fact, you yourself are hijacking the topic by not actually posting much about it, but rather taking this as a chance to vent your feelings about my posts in general.. That itself is uncharitable, and goes against the spirit of dialogue. So either go F off and write about other topics, or have something meaningful to say about the topic itself. Don't just crowd out the space with uncharitable spewing of hatred towards me and the posts I like to discuss.

You seem to have avoided the issue of how antinatalism atttacks natalists simply by positing a moral harm. It's not like two different positions on the trolley dilemma which no-one will ever find themsleves directly in. Claiming that creating conditions for harm without consent is always and in all cases morally unjustified makes everyone abusers of their own children. Having just established that this is not an inescapable conclusion but rather just a preferred set of axioms surely you can see how repeatedly announcing this opinion might come across as antagonistic? — Isaac

This is even crazier stuff. So now, anytime a fuckn' person posits a moral normative theory, they are ATTACKING some group of people? That is just nuts man. So Kant was ATTACKING people because he had a normative theory that people violated? He wasn't positing a theory? Or maybe you think he is. If so, then at least you're consistent. Honestly man, you are gaslighting, crazy-making right now. You are literally ginning up controversy and strife in this thread to make people angry because you yourself are angry (uncharitably and unreasonably).

The position' as it comes across is that antinatalism results from moral intuitions we all agree on, that it's a surprising but inescapable conclusion from widely shared premises. Otherwise it's entirely unremarkable and just odd. — Isaac

If its unremarkable and just odd.. cool.. then all this strife for nothing. I did say that the intuition to not cause unnecessary suffering towards another (conditions of or capacity of in this case), and violation of consent will take place (but only if the person is born). This is indeed interesting I think.. But I have ALWAYS maintained in these threads that if we don't agree on certain premises than indeed, there's not much else to argue. For example, if you stated that you thought harm was acceptable to place upon other people unnecessarily.. Then I could not go much further except explore that idea with you on why you thought suffering was acceptable. However, if we do agree on that, then that is where it does indeed get interesting as implications.

Yes. But my personal view is not the point. The point was that there's no logical method of deriving antinatalism. It's not the conclusion of a Modus Tollens or something, it's just a moral feeling (or set thereof). I raised this in opposition to the frequent assertions that there was some 'conclusion' which I just didn't like so I was denying the logic. Nothing like that is happening here. — Isaac

I don't know, I don't usually use symbolic logic. If that's your jam, you haven't even tried to post anything about.. Either shit or get off the pot.. Make a logical argument showing this.. and perhaps someone who like symbolic logic can counter it.. I will be honest and say probably not me.. but I can try. Anyways, this posturing is exhausting and shows more about you than your thoughts. So it is about your personal view actually, cause you aren't doing anything...

The only thing you have posted of value here was this:

1. That it is morally acceptable to end the human race
2. That the rights of the individual trump the pursuit of other social objectives.
3. That absence of harm is a moral good, but absence of pleasure is not a moral bad
4. That absence of harm continues to be a moral good even in the absence of any humans to experience that absence.
5. That we ought obtain consent from others whenever our actions might affect them in any negative way even if they don't yet exist. — Isaac

If you JUST posted that.. we could have had some lucrative discussions.. Instead..posturing, ad hom, posturing, ad hom.. just not necessary. Even if all the AN discussion would have been tangential to the point of this thread (as khaled brought up), at least those more clear statements could have been debating points.

just wondering schop, but I’ve seen glimpses of your many long comment chains on this forum regarding AN. Out of everyone you’ve debated, do you think anyone here has ever presented a compelling challenge against your beliefs ? These threads always seem to collapse into people attacking you so I never really know how you feel after

For example, if you stated that you thought harm was acceptable to place upon other people unnecessarily — schopenhauer1

Good point. That seems totally fair.

Nothing is unclear, it's offensive. The idea that the only thing making disabled people's lives worth living is the difficulty of suicide is deeply offensive. — Isaac

It's not specific to disabled people. That's the case for everyone. Life is worth living because living it to the fullest is the best alternative once it has begun.

How are we determining what is and is not 'completely ridiculous' in this sense? — Isaac

That there are consequences that are not very intuitive if you don't believe in one of the premises. For example: If you believe that social goals should take precedence over personal freedom then enforcing a two child rule sort of like china did would be ethical. It would somehow be ethical to force parents to raise kids when they don't want to.

You seem to have avoided the issue of how antinatalism atttacks natalists simply by positing a moral harm. — Isaac

I haven't avoided it. Again, it is only an attack if both parties agree that there is some measure of objectiviety so only one theory can possibley "fit". But since neither of us seems to agree that there is an objective morality, I can posit that it is wrong to have kids because x and y and if you disagree with x and y that is no longer an attack then is it?

I agree it's not directly about antinatalism at first, but that's the main reason why I responded in such an exasperated fashion, because we all knew it was going to end up that way. — Isaac

In all the previous threads that I've seen shope doesn't mention antinatalism until someone brings it up. They end up that way because people take them as an attack.

'The position' being 'it is possible to have some set of axioms which lead to antinatalism'? — Isaac

This is all I really care about. That people understand that the argument is internally consistent.

Yes, if I want to fell a tree I don't typically have to ask for the consent of every potential future person who might shade under it's boughs. — Isaac

But they have no right or special claim on the tree so although that is harmful, you are not responsible for it. And I doubt people would be harmed by the non existence of a tree they never saw. If the tree was in their backyard though....

But yes we do actually have to consider the consequences of indiscriminantly cutting down trees or else we get global warming.

The point was that there's no logical method of deriving antinatalism. It's not the conclusion of a Modus Tollens or something, it's just a moral feeling (or set thereof) — Isaac

Agreed

What more is a moral judgement than a feeling of social or biological obligation? — Isaac

When I eat I don't do so because it is morally right or wrong. And from what I have seen that's most people's position on having kids.

this thread is intended as more just a general pessimism theme, yet you took this for an immediate defense of AN proper — schopenhauer1

Yet...

It's like if I threw you in a game and you didn't ask to play it, can't escape, and aren't particularly good at it. In fact, you have a defect that can prevent you from playing well in many ways. Then I say, "Well, it's justified that you are suffering based on your poor ability to play this game". Yeah, no. — schopenhauer1

Before the first page is even out it had become about antinatalism,

We cannot justify any harms on the basis of poor decisions => all harms must therefore be unjustified => we therefore must cause unjustified harms just by having children. You couldn't have made the garden path you wanted to lead us down more obvious if you'd have lit it up with neon signs.

You aren't attacking the topics at hand as much as characterizing a poster. In fact, you yourself are hijacking the topic by not actually posting much about it, but rather taking this as a chance to vent your feelings about my posts in general. — schopenhauer1

Pretty much, yeah. Although it's not you alone, it's a certain type of poster of which you're an example, The topic itself is ludicrous and engagement with it would have just fanned the flames of this fantasy that your position is somehow amenable to, or a result of, rational discussion. What interests me is the thought processes that goes into the defence you mount - the moves you make, the methods you use, where you switch between concession and repetition, which counters are ignored, which are woven into the narrative... The topic itself is dull and amounts to nothing more than "I have some unusual premises, look at the unusual conclusions which result from following them" - well, no shit! Who on earth would be interested to find that unusual conclusions result from unusual premises? No, the manner in which you defend them is the only interesting part here.

So now, anytime a fuckn' person posits a moral normative theory, they are ATTACKING some group of people? — schopenhauer1

No, but when they posit a moral theory which condemns a known group of people as having acted immorally, then that is exactly what it is doing. Kant condemned a nebulous group of people, those who couldn't universalise their maxims (apologies to any Kant scholars for what I'm sure is a crass oversimplification of Kant). Anyone could think themselves not in this group, nor could Kant know who the target of his condemnation was. Your position holds that anyone who has children has caused them unjustified, immoral harm. You know exactly who your position condemns, and everyone reading knows inescapably whether they fall into that group. You are declaring to the public "I think anyone who has had children has caused them unjustified harm which no amount of kindness can now undo". That's a horrible thing to say. If you feel that way but you have no reason to think anyone else would (ie the premises which lead you there are idiosyncratic) then why on earth would you keep telling people?

The only thing you have posted of value here was this:

1. That it is morally acceptable to end the human race
2. That the rights of the individual trump the pursuit of other social objectives.
3. That absence of harm is a moral good, but absence of pleasure is not a moral bad
4. That absence of harm continues to be a moral good even in the absence of any humans to experience that absence.
5. That we ought obtain consent from others whenever our actions might affect them in any negative way even if they don't yet exist. — Isaac


If you JUST posted that.. we could have had some lucrative discussions. — schopenhauer1

No, on previous experience we could not. In fact that was the least useful thing I posted and I only did so because I felt to continue to refuse would be laboured.

All of those points have been made before, they serve only to cement the position which you already know - you have some very unusual premises, some very unusual conclusions result from following them. This is neither surprising nor philosophically interesting and, given that one of the main conclusions is quite offensive, continuing to repeat it in spite of this is cantankerous to say the least.

Nothing is unclear, it's offensive. The idea that the only thing making disabled people's lives worth living is the difficulty of suicide is deeply offensive. — Isaac


It's not specific to disabled people. That's the case for everyone. Life is worth living because living it to the fullest is the best alternative once it has begun. — khaled

The example here was about disabled children, not children in general. You were implying that disability was a harm which it would be immoral to cause with foreknowledge. this is offensive to disabled people because many feel that their disability is a harm because of society's failure to accommodate them, not the circumstances of their birth. Turning it back into something which presents a good example of a harm which could be avoided undermines this project.

How are we determining what is and is not 'completely ridiculous' in this sense? — Isaac


That there are consequences that are not very intuitive if you don't believe in one of the premises. For example: If you believe that social goals should take precedence over personal freedom then enforcing a two child rule sort of like china did would be ethical. It would somehow be ethical to force parents to raise kids when they don't want to. — khaled

I don't understand your point here. Are you saying that a set of premises is completely ridiculous IFF they lead to consequences which are not very intuitive? You seem to go on to give an example unrelated to anything that's been said (some kind of legally enforced obligation to have children) as if that's what you were suggesting, but then that would without doubt include antinatalist premises in the same boat (since the conclusion there is the extremely counter-intuitive "we should end the human race". As I've said a dozen times before now unusual premises tend to lead to unusual conclusions. Why this continues to surprise people is beyond me. What I was actually looking for in asking this question was the grounds on which you'd claim the premises of antinatalism were not 'completely ridiculous', yet you'd want to reserve the term presumably thinking it possible for some premises to be 'completely ridiculous'. The premises of antinatalism lead to a very counter-intuitive conclusion, so that can't be the deciding factor, so what is it?

it is only an attack if both parties agree that there is some measure of objectiviety so only one theory can possibley "fit". But since neither of us seems to agree that there is an objective morality, I can posit that it is wrong to have kids because x and y and if you disagree with x and y that is no longer an attack then is it? — khaled

As I said before, I think you've misunderstood moral relativism. A moral claim is a claim about how others should act, not a claim about one's personal prefernces. If you personally don't want to have children, but you think it's fine if I do, you're not an antinatalist. Antinatalism is a moral position, it states that other people should not have children (ie they are wrong if they do so). Otherwise what distinguishes antinatalism from just 'not wanting to have children'?

If I were to tell everyone I meet that they're fat and ugly, the social condemnation for that behaviour is not avoided by me saying "well that's just my opinion, if you don't think you're fat and ugly then no harm done". Stating to the world that you think anyone who has children has caused them an unjustified harm is an unpleasant thing to do, it needs at least some just reason to do so. But if there's no compelling argument (other than just "well that's what my unusual premises lead to") then I can't see any good reason why someone would repeatedly say something so unpleasant. It being their opinion isn't sufficient justification.

Yes, if I want to fell a tree I don't typically have to ask for the consent of every potential future person who might shade under it's boughs. — Isaac


But they have no right or special claim on the tree so although that is harmful, you are not responsible for it. And I doubt people would be harmed by the non existence of a tree they never saw. If the tree was in their backyard though....

But yes we do actually have to consider the consequences of indiscriminantly cutting down trees or else we get global warming. — khaled

You've missed the point. You asked about examples of situations where consent is not asked of non-existent persons for actions which may harm them. Finding no shelter from the rain where there might have been shelter definitely harms a future person. I did not ask their consent before removing that shelter. The specifics don't matter. the point is absolutely everything I do has the potential to harm future people by the absence of some resource which I've used that they might have benefited from. I do not ask their consent. Every structural alteration I make to the world might harm a future person who so much as trips over it. I don not ask their consent before doing so. Thinking of the consequences is not the same as asking their consent. Your argument fails if it becomes simply a matter of thinking of consequences. It relies on there being a general intuition that we should ask the consent of those who might be negatively affected by our actions even if they don't exist. We simply do not generally have that intuition.

What more is a moral judgement than a feeling of social or biological obligation? — Isaac


When I eat I don't do so because it is morally right or wrong. And from what I have seen that's most people's position on having kids. — khaled

So what is the difference then, you haven't answered the question, only shown that social or biological obligations are not sufficient. That doesn't in itself prove that the decision to have children is the same as the decision to eat. I don't think anyone would disagree that it is a moral duty to look after one's children, yet most people do so without questioning it out of a strong biological instinct. You'll have to provide some distinguishing feature if you want to argue that any decision made instinctively without question cannot therefore be a moral one.

Before the first page is even out it had become about antinatalism, — Isaac

This is true @schopenhauer1. (I've decided I like it on the sidelines better, but I'm still watching the game.) I hadn't read back so I wondered if somehow I had started it. But @Isaac is quoting your very first response to my very first post in this thread. (My post was the 4th response, yours to me the 6th.)

I knew what you were getting at with the "thrown in a game" bit, but I addressed it anyway as if it were on-topic, gave you a chance to talk about what you claimed the thread was going to be about -- whether there's a distinction between suffering we bring on ourselves and suffering we don't.

Then you responded to that. Remember what your second post addressed to me was?

And so his suffering is justified? I guess the price of being a human born in existence right? Shame indeed. — schopenhauer1

(9th response in the thread)

So maybe this was true

For example, this thread is intended as more just a general pessimism theme — schopenhauer1

for the OP and the first few posts, but you are the one who almost immediately dropped what you claimed the thread was going to be about and turned it into an AN thread.

I mean, I understand that your views all hang together, and that you might start off intending to talk about one thing and but everything else is connected to it, but the very first things you said to me weren't "general pessimism" but went full-steam-ahead toward an argument about AN.

So what's up with that?