And yet it continually happens in this thread and I've already pointed it out several times. The last time was here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/480046 — Benkei

You inject half way in discussions between other people and take things out of context.

What you quoted wasn't about improving life. It was an attempt to show the absurdity of the earlier premise, by pointing out the absurdity of the implication.

It's not well-stated at all because consent cannot play a role here because this is once again personifying non-existence as if it has thought processes and a will. — Benkei

If one plans to put an individual into existence, shouldn't one take into account their well-being beforehand, regardless of whether they already exist or not? One knows that it is going to happen, so one acts accordingly. Isn't that how common sense works and how every parent operates?

It's not well-stated at all because consent cannot play a role here because this is once again personifying non-existence as if it has thought processes and a will. And consent isn't even necessarily important for moral questions. Actions can be moral or immoral without another person being involved. Unnecessarily cutting down trees because I like destroying stuff isn't right either. Gluttony isn't right either. Lusting after your girlfriend even when nobody in the world is aware of it, isn't right either. — Benkei

@khaled

So I don't believe @Tzeentch was doing that.

Let's say I had the power to make you experience something that you may or may not enjoy. Why should or shouldn't I use that power without your consent?
— Tzeentch — Benkei

He said as a hypothetical analogy. You are still not getting what I stated about a future person who will be affected. And that was what he is getting at. All you have to do is agree that you can make a decision that affects someone later that that person later could not possibly (by way of not existing), be a part of.

And impersonal stuff like the environment should not be miscategorized as if it is affecting only one individual. One is an abstract public good. The other is affecting an individual.

I think the problem with moral arguments is that they can be overruled by action.

The benefits of a religious or supernatural morality is that it could be enforced in the afterlife by some kind of afterlife justice.

So for example I think it is pointless saying The Holocaust was wrong after it has happened in the sense the it does not prevent the Holocaust and the tremendous suffering. But with an afterlife justice or Karma we can believe the victims will have another chance and the perpetrators will be held accountable.

But without the scenario people can just do things that nature allows regardless of the force of moral arguments. So I don't think having a child resolves the moral arguments.

Justifying actions seems to be an after the fact superficial add on that becomes irrelevant after the action has taken place.

I think not doing something because of moral concerns is the probably most effective form of morality in the sense that you didn't cause anything to happen.

That said not intervening could be seen as unethical however I think causing harm is more problematic than not intervening in it.

But we weren't "made to exist". We're made to do a lot of things, but existing isn't one of them. In a sense, even parents don't "create" new humans because however it is that we end up as conscious subjects, our parents certainly didn't control that process. They merely initiated it and perhaps gave their input. — Echarmion

I don't know what you are saying here. Are you saying parents don't have freewill or that consciousness can be created regardless of whether people reproduce?

Even if there were souls in another realm wanting to be birthed there is no evidence of them forcing parents to reproduce.

It would certainly be better if people considered whether they actually should have children more thoroughly in general, but it is also the case that no-one really knows beforehand whether the resulting life will be particularly happy or sad. — Echarmion

I think one of the key arguments or concerns from antinatalists is that people should make more careful parenting decisions but if people do not acknowledge the degree of suffering, exploitation, responsibility and other things in existence then they are going to make ill informed decisions. I think most antinatalists would be very pleased if people simply made better reproductive decisions. The problem is the current lack of real effort to question the ethics and ramifications of having children.

He said as a hypothetical analogy. You are still not getting what I stated about a future person who will be affected. And that was what he is getting at. All you have to do is agree that you can make a decision that affects someone later that that person later could not possibly (by way of not existing), be a part of. — schopenhauer1

Except he made the mistake several times and even if it was a hypothetical analogy it's shitty one because of it.

You inject half way in discussions between other people and take things out of context.

What you quoted wasn't about improving life. It was an attempt to show the absurdity of the earlier premise, by pointing out the absurdity of the implication. — Tzeentch

You inject in my thread so whatever. I call out nonsense when I see it. What did "its" refer to again? You never answered but since everybody can read an understand sentences we already know.

What a great society that would be! It's not the one we live in though. If society agrees about something there is generally a law to enforce it. This isn't a hard rule, but it is generally applicable. — khaled

Funny, you should say that. We do live in such a society and even have laws enforcing it even though I disagree law had much to do with morality.

Look op negligence. But good to know you have no intrinsic moral compass and are easily swayed by what others expect from you. :rofl:

Views are not actors, but to follow the spirit of your comment I would say no.

I don't seek to create such a universe. I haven't seen anyone here expressing that they do.

As far as I have seen, the anti-natalist argument as shared in this thread consists of observations and questions to which there do not seem to be any good answers. Every individual can draw their own conclusions and make their own choices based on that. — Tzeentch

This strikes me as a pretty dishonest way of summarizing the thread. @schopenhauer1 in particular is one of the most offensively proselytizing users on this forum.

But yes, if every person on earth were to conclude at once that the questions and observations of the anti-natalist argument are sufficient reason not to have children, humanity would eventually cease to exist. If that is a result of people's voluntary choice not to have children, then what business is that of mine? — Tzeentch

It's weird that you make this question about you, personally. My "observation" is that an anti-natalist position, ulitmately seeks to end humanity. Whether or not it will persuade enough people to succeed is irrelevant.

I don't know what you are saying here. Are you saying parents don't have freewill or that consciousness can be created regardless of whether people reproduce? — Andrew4Handel

What I am saying is that it's not as if parents make a conscious decision to turn their children into subjects so that they can then suffer. It's simply that when humans reproduce, we also reproduce subjectivity.

The problem is the current lack of real effort to question the ethics and ramifications of having children. — Andrew4Handel

I am not sure where you get this from. I get the impression that this one of the areas where there is a lot of discussion.

What did "its" refer to again? You never answered but since everybody can read an understand sentences we already know. — Benkei

Oh. It was controversial?

This strikes me as a pretty dishonest way of summarizing the thread. schopenhauer1 in particular is one of the most offensively proselytizing users on this forum. — Echarmion

Well, nothing I have read here suggests proselytizing, but maybe I am wrong.

What I have described is the way I look at the matter, at least.

It's weird that you make this question about you, personally. — Echarmion

How so? And why would it be weird?

My "observation" is that an anti-natalist position, ulitmately seeks to end humanity. — Echarmion

I don't think that's inherent to the position, but rather inherent to some individuals' desire to impose their views on others. That's a flaw in those individuals, and not in the position.

The fact that I cannot find sufficient justification to force individuals to exist doesn't mean it is the same for others.

The fact that I cannot find sufficient justification to force individuals to exist doesn't mean it is the same for others — Tzeentch

More metaphysical mumbo jumbo. The ability to exercise force on something presupposes its existence. Existence isn't a property. Sounds like a God complex to think you can create something out of nothing.

What I have described is the way I look at the matter, at least. — Tzeentch

And isn't it great that the view you have actively argued and defended in this thread is the one "just asking the hard questions" that the other side just "cannot answer".

I just wonder who these theatrics are for? Presumably, the only people still reading are the 6 regular posters, and they won't be fooled by airy declarations of socratic ideals.

I don't think that's inherent to the position, but rather inherent to some individuals' desire to impose their views on others. That's a flaw in those individuals, and not in the position. — Tzeentch

See, I asked you earlier whether you tend towards an individualistic philosophy / worldview. Doesn't seem like my armchair psychoanalysis was that far off the mark.

The fact that I cannot find sufficient justification to force individuals to exist doesn't mean it is the same for others. — Tzeentch

So, to clarify, you don't think the anti-natalist position is true in an intersubjective sense, that it should convince people? You just like it for entirely personal reasons?

I mean no offense to anyone on this forum and I respect everyone’s views, but maybe the fact that “you’ve received no good answers” is because these forum arguments in anti-natalism can be constraining and get caught up in little semantic games instead of the big picture. Obviously if you’re not convinced you’re not convinced, but I’ve seen published papers, journals, and essays criticizing the position with unique arguments that I thought were good. Those are worth checking out for both parties

I think you have interesting arguments but how come you disagree that we force humans into being? I’m no anti-natalist, but life is an imposition in the sense that we have no escape other then suicide or natural death if we end up hating it here. Yes, some anti-natalists do use silly language when they describe this stuff and you’re right to point out that “bringing into existence” is a confusing term, but there’s someone who will be affected by the decision. I don’t agree with Schopenhauer1 but what he’s saying is undeniable

I am not sure where you get this from. I get the impression that this one of the areas where there is a lot of discussion. — Echarmion

Can you give an example?

There is a difference between criticizing or discussing individual parents or categories of parents and critiquing the ethics of parenting for every parent.

People don't have a child in a bubble we are all part of an interconnected world community where our choices effect other people. Most people you raise antinatalism with are quick to talk about how happy and successful their children are. I am concerned about all children and all people not just the successful ones.

Here in the UK recently actor "Christopher Eccleston has said lockdown made him realise how 'privileged' he is as he pledged to help the homeless by becoming a Big Issue Ambassador."

I think this is an example of the problem, that people don't really realise the extent of other people problems despite paying lip service to them but when they have first person evidence they have to commit to real intervention.

And isn't it great that the view you have actively argued and defended in this thread is the one "just asking the hard questions" that the other side just "cannot answer". — Echarmion

It is what it is.

Presumably, the only people still reading are the 6 regular posters, and they won't be fooled by airy declarations of socratic ideals. — Echarmion

Good.

So, to clarify, you don't think the anti-natalist position is true in an intersubjective sense, that it should convince people? You just like it for entirely personal reasons? — Echarmion

It's not about truth or liking.

All I know is that it raises questions I cannot answer, and, judging by the tone of our conversation, you cannot either.

we force humans into being? — Albero

That's a contradiction in terms. There are not any humans that are not, so you cannot force humans to be.

I don’t agree with Schopenhauer1 but what he’s saying is undeniable — Albero

This also seems to be an obvious contradiction.

I think this is an example of the problem, that people don't really realise the extent of other people problems despite paying lip service to them but when they have first person evidence they have to commit to real intervention. — Andrew4Handel

Maybe it's a question of social circles, but I know a lot of people who consider whether it's ethical to have children given e.g. climate change and the disproportionate amount of resources inhabitants of industrialised countries use.

Though I suppose you are also right in that a lot of people will still feel children are a necessary part of a full life and ultimately don't follow up on these worries. People do exhibit the same behaviour concerning other questionable behaviours as well, so I am not sure that's really a problem with having children, specifically.

All I know is that it raises questions I cannot answer, and, judging by the tone of our conversation, you cannot either. — Tzeentch

So far as I am aware, I have answered all your questions, at least.

What justifies the act of forcing an individual to experience life without knowing whether they want to or not? — Tzeentch

If you answered it, I must've missed it.

I wasn’t clear that’s on me, but what I mean is that I don’t agree with his approach to antinatalism, but how can we deny that birthing people affects them ? There is someone who who is going to be affected because you create a being into the world. This doesn’t necessarily lead to antinatalism but that’s not the point

If you answered it, I must've missed it. — Tzeentch

Apparently you have.

I wasn’t clear that’s on me, but what I mean is that I don’t agree with his approach to antinatalism, but how can we deny that birthing people affects them ? — Albero

Why formulate the problem with the phrase "birthing people affects then, which is both imprecise on the part of the "affect" and vague as to who is meant?

Why not use the simple, common terms: having children creates children, and those in turn affect other people?

There is someone who who is going to be affected because you create a being into the world. This doesn’t necessarily lead to antinatalism but that’s not the point — Albero

Not just one someone. The person you create is going to affect a lot of people. But discussing this would be a vary different kind of discussion. It'd be about resource use, parenting, education etc.

I think you have interesting arguments but how come you disagree that we force humans into being? — Albero

Because I think it's confused. Just because we can make a grammatically correct sentence doesn't mean we have a meaningful sentence. What am I exercising force on? Not a person. So the sentence has no meaning.

Look op negligence. — Benkei

Literally the first element of negligence claims: Duty. And the fact that we do not sue bystandards for negligence claims shows that we do not believe they have a duty to help. Unless it's their actual job, like firefighters or doctors. Try suing bystanders in a car accident for negligence, you won't get very far.

But good to know you have no intrinsic moral compass and are easily swayed by what others expect from you. — Benkei

I would advise you to try to understand what others are saying before spouting nonsense. What in what I said leads you to believe that I have no moral compass, and only act in accordance with what others expect? I already said I would save a drowning person, but that I don't have to. Your inability to understand the difference between a personal moral compass, and a shared moral responsibility (don't harm) is showing. I've outlined the latter, and it is based on a social contract. That says nothing about the former.

But even IF I only act in accordance to social contract, what use is it pointing that out? Engage with the arguments or don't respond. Talking about the guy making the arguments, rather than the arguments just shows you have nothing to say.

For proximate causes, if it's a near certainty the proximate cause will exist and cannot be avoided or alleviated then it makes sense to move up the causal chain. — Benkei

Now is the question. Why must it be a near certainty? And more importantly, why is it wrong to claim that if there is any chance the proximate cause will exist and cannot be avoided, then it makes sense to move up the causal chain (Antinatalism)?

Stop dodging the question.

Literally the first element of negligence claims: Duty. And the fact that we do not sue bystandards for negligence claims shows that we do not believe they have a duty to help. Unless it's their actual job, like firefighters or doctors. — khaled

And you are obligated to help because that duty is recognised in several places. An example for continental Europe (most countries have an equivalent).

Hij die, getuige van het ogenblikkelijk levensgevaar waarin een ander verkeert, nalaat deze die hulp te verlenen of te verschaffen die hij hem, zonder gevaar voor zichzelf of anderen redelijkerwijs te kunnen duchten, verlenen of verschaffen kan, wordt, indien de dood van de hulpbehoevende volgt, gestraft met hechtenis van ten hoogste drie maanden of geldboete van de tweede categorie. — Dutch criminal code

translation: He who, witnessing the immediate threat to life that another experiences, fails to act to provide such help or assistance that he can provide, without unreasonable danger to himself or others, will be punished with imprisonment of no more than three months or a penalty of the second category, if the death of the needy follows.

In the US Minnesota, Rhode Island and Vermont recognise a duty to rescue. Hawaii, Wisconsin and Washington require you to report crimes.

See, what I consider funny about all this is that first you confuse law with morality, they are not the same and second that you let your morality depend on what others think is right with the lovely result that your morality will change by crossing a border. That, my friend, is the result of your position and results in me "spouting nonsense" because that's what your moral framework amounts to.

Fair enough. Wouldn't say "most countries" have that though. None that I've been in have.

See, what I consider funny about all this is that first you confuse law with morality — Benkei

When did I do that?

second that you let your morality depend on what others think is right with the lovely result that your morality will change by crossing a border. — Benkei

No. I let my morality depend on my responsibilities. Those are partially assigned by others. Wouldn't say that's unusual.

For instance, if you move to a country where it is considered disrespectful to do something that was not the case where you came from, shouldn't you respect the tradition and not do that thing? Changing morality based on the community you're in isn't that unusual I would think. If anything it's common sense.

Seriously though stop dodging the question.

Now is the question. Why must it be a near certainty? And more importantly, why is it wrong to claim that if there is any chance the proximate cause will exist and cannot be avoided, then it makes sense to move up the causal chain (Antinatalism)?
. — khaled

You claim that the "chance of bad outcome" needs to be near 100% for having children to start to be considered wrong. And you claim at the same time that putting the bar at >0% is wrong. On what basis?

Sounds to me like: "It is good to have children, but you don't have to". Even though you kept asking me why I distinguish between things that are good to do and things that you must do, you seem to be doing it. — khaled

I see where you're coming from. I am probably not expressing this very well. Essentially, what I want to say is that it's possible that you should have children, because there is a principle that allows for this possibility and is in line with freedom. And if you should have children, you should have children. There is no other result here, you either should or you should not.

But having children isn't the end here, and neither is having exactly one or two or three children. So it's possible you never end up in a situation where you should have children, and that is fine too. You don't have to go out and create a specific situation just so you can then have children.

This seems like a contradiction to me. One sentence you're saying "furthers free will" and the next you're saying "free will is not quantified". Wtf does "furthers free will" mean? — khaled

You're right, that wasn't the right wording. It should simply be "in accordance with freedom".

It should simply be "in accordance with freedom". — Echarmion

Have no clue what that means either.

And if you should have children, you should have children. There is no other result here, you either should or you should not. — Echarmion

So there ARE situations where it's wrong not to have kids.

You don't have to go out and create a specific situation just so you can then have children. — Echarmion

I would think that this is "in accordance to freedom" whatever that means. Then again, I have no clue what it means.

If you answered it, I must've missed it. — Tzeentch

Apparently you have. — Echarmion

You have objected to the question. You have not answered it.

But enough slithering and crawling. Since you seem so hung up on semantics I'll rephrase my question;

How does one reconcile the fact that when making the decision to have a child, one does not know A: whether the child wants to live in the first place, and B: whether the child will have a good life, even by one's own standards (let alone those of the child)?

How does one reconcile the fact that when making the decision to have a child, one does not know A: whether the child wants to live in the first place, and B: whether the child will have a good life, even by one's own standards (let alone those of the child)? — Tzeentch

By recognizing that:
A: Noone gets to decide whether they want to live in the first place, and wishing for this choice is fundamentally irrational. It can only really be understood as the faulty expression of another wish, such as the wish to decide how one wants to live.

B: There is no such thing as a good life. There are good acts, but these are possible for everyone. There is pain and suffering, and there is also joy and happyness. Neither of these things alone constitute "good" or "bad". They're states of affairs. A life filled with pleasure may be very desirable, but it is not by that token necessarily good.

Noone gets to decide whether they want to live in the first place, — Echarmion

Indeed, the parent gets to decide. And what justification do they have for making that decision? Because the parent was born involuntarily, so should their child? Why? Notice we're talking from the perspective of the decisionmaker, not the (would-be) child.

There is no such thing as a good life. — Echarmion

Then why decide that an individual should involuntarily partake in one?

That seems way less obvious with how common it is for everyone to bash their own governments and communities, and how prevalent depression is. And I’m not seeing how studies about food sharing solve the issue. — khaled

Well, a) I'm not sure how what seems to you to be the case has any bearing on what actually is the case in the light of a disagreement, and b) if you're not sure how it relates, then I'm not sure how to help beyond your actually reading the material I've provided.

Why would they be relevant to the moral case? — Isaac


Why would it not? Premises. — khaled

So it is a moral premise of yours that whatever is the law or social norm is morally relevant? How, in your world, do laws and social norms get changed?

The community. You and them — Isaac


But in the case of having children there is no “them” or did you forget? That was your whole point. If no one is harmed by being brought into the world then no one is benefited either. So it’s you and the community in that case, but definitely not them. That I find problematic. — khaled

No. Some might be making that point, but it's not mine. I'm quite comfortable with imagining a future child and acting in what I imagine to be it's best interests.