I still think it is wrong to put any cause above unnecessary (unprovoked) suffering when it comes to making decisions on other people's behalf. — schopenhauer1

Right, and I disagree. I don't see how your position could consistently avoid dystopian scenarios where everyone is forced to conform to some exact code of conduct so as to avoid all possible suffering for others.

Yeah, I don't care if you do it to yourself. — schopenhauer1

Non-sequitur. Do you disagree that humans don't always try to avoid suffering?

I am not forcing you to follow or read them. Certainly I didn't cause your very existence where this suffering for you has taken place ;). Don't worry though, you'll suffer again and again and again.. — schopenhauer1

I just wonder whether or not you realise that you're doing at least as much preaching as everyone else here, and that there is no difference between you arguing for your position and I arguing for mine. Noone of us has any more or less right to influence other people's thoughts.

You'll have to forgive me for not remembering the specifics. — Echarmion

In the case of heartbreak you are not forced to endure the pain, you accepted the risk by going into the relationship. In the case of children, they never chose to go into life, so you must minimize their suffering as their parent which calls for sometimes making them suffer now for less suffering later.

We do allow people to engage in very dangerous sports for example, even though the overall suffering of the world might be much reduced if everyone refrained from doing it. — Echarmion

And when did I say we shouldn’t do that? The only case when we shouldn’t is with dependents. If your child suggests taking up parkour with a bunch of shady kids 15 blocks away from home you have a responsibility to stop him as a parent. Your responsibility is, more precisely, to minimize his suffering. Which probably means you’d try to fit in his interest in the least dangerous way.

What is absolutely wrong though is forcing people who are not even your dependents to play dangerous games. I’m sure we can agree on that. But as I said, everyone is free to risk their own suffering as much as they want, just don’t risk anyone else suffering unless they’re your dependents and you’re doing it for their own good.

Just historically speaking, this is manifestly false. You can maybe claim this about some especially well working justice systems, like in the nordic countries. You certainly can't make the claim for the US, or any early 20th-century european country. — Echarmion

Sure. Rather I should have said “The latter should come from the former”

But it is suggestive of the idea that the whole of interconnected humans is more than just the sum of it's parts — Echarmion

False. It does not suggest that at all.

and that in some way, it ought to continue. — Echarmion

And this is another non sequitor. “More than the sum of its parts” doesn’t lead to “should continue”. Again, you’re just shoving that part in there. “Should continue” is its own premise.

And I just continue that thought to conclude that, since responsibilities are sociall mediated, rather than attaching to mere physical fact, causation is a common starting point for responsibility, but it's not a necessary or even a sufficient one. — Echarmion

Agreed, causation is not necessary for responsibility, as you can get it in other ways (socially mediated). But it is almost sufficient in my view with the conditions I outlined in the car example.

How would someone ever know? — Echarmion

Which is what makes it pseudo impossible. Very hard claim to reasonably prove.

It's wrong because it's malicious — Echarmion

Well no it isn’t. Malicious definition by google: Intending to do harm. There is no one being harmed here. I called it malicious because I (reasonably) recognize that we should consider these “potential people”. But that’s just naming. And you think they shouldn’t be considered at all, since they’re not harmed.

What if the intention of the parent was just purely preferential? He just likes blind people for some reason. Just a fancy. Now is it ok? Surely not. But why?

Yes, but this kind of reductio only works so long as we're on common ground, which we're not for the most part in this discussion. You consider things absurd that I don't, and vice versa. — Echarmion

I’m hoping we can find some common ground. We both agree that genetically engineering people to be blind is wrong for example. Though you haven’t explained why, and your principles seem to lead to a contradiction. Since they would lead to it being ok, but you think it’s wrong.

Internal consistency is not the same as disagreeing with a premise. It would be a sign of lack of internal consistency if you would agree with my premises but still disagreed with the result. You won't find a system that has premises that you agree on and is internally consistent, because if this were the case, we'd have the same opinion. — Echarmion

If I agree with the premises, and the logic, I must agree with the result. Maybe you have a way to get “having children is acceptable”, logically, without relying on premises I disagree with, that I haven’t heard yet. I’m not omniscient, I don’t know every argument there is. If you did find such a way, I’d probably not be an AN anymore. But so far I haven’t found that way.

And no one is actually concerned with the consequences for the child themselves? Sure.... — khaled

Do you mean e.g. having an abortion if your child is very likely to have a debilitating disease? The consequences for the child are not real referents if you do. There is no moral good for the child. This is acceptable to me, and knowing that your potential child has a high risk of such a disease is a good reason: since the cause, degree and nature of the risk is understood. But that is a rational decision: we cannot possibly have a natural instinct for it since the possibility of acting on that instinct is only decades old. Which I think answers:

So, again, I believe we have a natural instinct to project onto the future and actually care about potential future people. How else do you explain the difference in reaction? — khaled

Right, and I disagree. I don't see how your position could consistently avoid dystopian scenarios where everyone is forced to conform to some exact code of conduct so as to avoid all possible suffering for others. — Echarmion

Yes and that would be impossible to keep once born, I agree so is a non-starter. Certainly, one can simply not procreate. Not an impossibility or even hard. In principle though, when you have the chance to not cause harm on someone else's behalf good idea to do not do that, and certainly not one that causes a whole life time worth of harmful experiences.

Non-sequitur. Do you disagree that humans don't always try to avoid suffering? — Echarmion

Not at all.. It's not about what you do to yourself but others. If you want to make a decision to cause harm to yourself, go ahead. I don't assume because some people do this, I therefore should do it on behalf of another person, just the same as if you like a certain game you shouldn't force someone else to play it, or if you like some harmful activity others should be a part of it to cause you insist.

I just wonder whether or not you realise that you're doing at least as much preaching as everyone else here, and that there is no difference between you arguing for your position and I arguing for mine. Noone of us has any more or less right to influence other people's thoughts. — Echarmion

We have a right to voice our ideas and arguments. It is not our right to force others to follow it. Similarly, it is not okay to force others into harmful situations because we insist it is good for them.. Also, can we skip your obvious reply about parents et al as I have addressed it? But go ahead..

There is no moral good for the child. — Kenosha Kid

Sigh. I wasn’t arguing there was.

This is acceptable to me, and knowing that your potential child has a high risk of such a disease is a good reason: since the cause, degree and nature of the risk is understood. — Kenosha Kid

Why is it a good reason? There is no moral good for the child. You’re not doing anything good by having the abortion. So it must be that you think the future child’s suffering is a bad thing. Which is the instinct I’m referring to.

we cannot possibly have a natural instinct for it since the possibility of acting on that instinct is only decades old. — Kenosha Kid

Not really. There are people who choose not to have kids in war torn countries for example and not purely out of scarcity, but also because they don’t deem the standards of living good enough for a child. And this is true of all times. It’s almost as if they actually consider the future child’s well-being and decide based on it that right now is not the time to have a child because the child would suffer too much, and not just because of scarcity.

Why is it a good reason? There is no moral good for the child. You’re not doing anything good by having the abortion. So it must be that you think the future child’s suffering is a bad thing. Which is the instinct I’m referring to. — khaled

Right, but it isn't an instinct: it's a rational decision based on abstract information, not an automatic reaction to instantaneous environmental stimuli.

There are people who choose not to have kids in war torn countries for example and not purely out of scarcity, but also because they don’t deem the standards of living good enough for a child. — khaled

Likewise, war significantly reduces the possibility of sexual intercourse.

The biological underpinnings of sociality are not based on guesswork. They are based on empirical physiological and neurological data about people reacting to various stimuli. You can't just make up instincts to put antinatalism on a natural footing: the data doesn't support the conclusion and the premise is clearly incompatible with natural selection.

but it isn't an instinct: it's a rational decision based on abstract information, not an automatic reaction to instantaneous environmental stimuli. — Kenosha Kid

So when I cringe when hearing about the guy who genetically engineered his child to be blind that’s not an automatic reaction? I had to carefully deliberate to find something wrong with his behavior? Nah, that’s not what happened.

The biological underpinnings of sociality are not based on guesswork. They are based on empirical physiological and neurological data about people reacting to various stimuli — Kenosha Kid

Sure. I would say if you looked for it, you could very easily establish the existence of a physiological and neurological reaction that people have when it comes to potential future people. We cringe when we hear about one being blinded for instance.

the data doesn't support the conclusion — Kenosha Kid

Cite me the data proving the non-existence of a reaction when talking about future people.

the premise is clearly incompatible with natural selection. — Kenosha Kid

Not really. It makes sense for us to be able to consider future people so that we can know when and when not to have a child. And to take into account the actual likely state of the child doesn't seem to be an extinction-causing move.

And besides, “incomparable with natural selection” is not an end all be all. It is plausible that we’d have instincts that hinder our own survival. Natural selection is not a done deal, we’re always evolving, and it’s possible we have instincts that don’t actually help but hinder that will eventually “evolve out”.

So when I cringe when hearing about the guy who genetically engineered his child to be blind that’s not an automatic reaction? I had to carefully deliberate to find something wrong with his behavior? Nah, that’s not what happened. — khaled

I was talking about the decision to not have a child with a high risk of a debilitating disease. I would wager in such a case that the instinct is quite the opposite, requiring a rational decision to abort.

As for someone genetically engineering a blind kid, sure, my gut reaction is that it is wicked, but not wicked on the grounds that he had a child that might be born blind, rather wicked on the grounds that he deliberately blinded his own kid.

Sure. I would say if you looked for it, you could very easily establish the existence of a physiological and neurological reaction that people have when it comes to potential future people. — khaled

Again, believing that it's true and therefore the evidence must exist is not empiricism, that's Trumpism.

Cite me the data proving the non-existence of a reaction when talking about future people. — khaled

Are you aware of the difference between evidence supporting something and evidence proving or disproving something? If so, you are being rather intellectually dishonest here.

Not really. — khaled

Yes, really. It is a physical and logical impossibility that nature could have selected a gene for antinatalism. This is really a bad route for defending AN, a total nonstarter.

rather wicked on the grounds that he deliberately blinded his own kid. — Kenosha Kid

He didn't though. Don't you see? There is no kid! He didn't blind anybody! This is what I said a while ago by the way. I said that our empathy can extend to "future people" and you claimed it can't, yet here you are clearly extending empathy to "future people".

You have to consider "future people" if you want the sentence "he blinded his own kid" to make sense. And you don't consider them. When I say "giving birth to someone is risking harming them" you say there is no person to harm so it's ok. But when I say "He genetically engineered his child to be blind" suddenly there is a kid that was blinded. How come?

So you have to either start considering harm done to "future people" as real harm that one is responsible for, in whichcase you have to come up with a new way to justify having kids. OR you have to come up with a new explanation for why you have that gut reaction. In whichcase you'd be coming up with a new "natural instinct" that can lead to AN. I already proposed to you that AN comes out of empathy for "future people" and you claimed that such a thing was impossible, so what exactly did you just do here? What's the instinct at play if not empathy that produces this gut reaction?

Again, believing that it's true and therefore the evidence must exist is not empiricism, that's Trumpism. — Kenosha Kid

You just confirmed it:

my gut reaction is that it is wicked — Kenosha Kid

There is no kid right now. Yet your gut reaction was that it is wicked. As if you were able to consider the future child as some sort of entity. Else there is nothing to blind. OR there is some other natural instinct at work here. In whichcase AN is natural.

Are you aware of the difference between evidence supporting something and evidence proving or disproving something? — Kenosha Kid

You provided neither. You made a claim that:

the data doesn't support the conclusion — Kenosha Kid

I assumed by that you meant that someone actually went and did a study and found no such gut reactions occuring. If all you meant to say was "there is no data to support the conclusion" sure. I don't have any. But "the data doesn't support the conclusion" is misleading when you have no data.

Though I do know that both of us seem to agree that there exists such a gut reaction as we both have it. So I would say it's reasonable to assume that the same will be found in others.

He didn't though. Don't you see? There is no kid! He didn't blind anybody! This is what I said a while ago by the way. I said that our empathy can extend to "future people" and you claimed it can't, yet here you are clearly extending empathy to "future people". — khaled

I meant once the kid was born. Happy to agree that we judge the father before the fact too, based on his intent. That's consistent with the four core mechanisms of our social behaviour:
1. empathy
2. altruism
3. counter-empathetic responses
4. intolerance toward antisocial behaviour

The notion of empathising with fictional characters isn't absurd, but it's based on present stimulus. Ryan O'Neal's heartbreak in Love Story is no less poignant for being a cynical audience manipulation. We do feel sorry for him.

But empathising with things that don't exist and have no representation is a bizarre idea. Why let facts have anything to do with it in that case? "And why did you assault the victim?" "Because he killed Jenny-Wenny Classy-Lassy." "Who the fuck is that?" "Oh, someone I made up once "

I can agree that the defendant might construct a narrative about a fictional individual and make himself empathise with her, but we're back in the realm of derangement. And it is far from natural: it is the height of artificiality.

If all you meant to say was "there is no data to support the conclusion" sure. — khaled

Yes. That is what I meant by the statement:

the data doesn't support the conclusion — Kenosha Kid

The data supports (not proves) other things, but it doesn't support (or disprove) that.

So I would say it's reasonable to assume that the same will be found in others. — khaled

Yes, but there's a difference between our reactions to someone intending ill (4) and someone suffering ill (1). And they have very different physiological responses. Empathetic responses, free from counter-empathetic ones (which really should be in the list), trigger the production of oxytocin which in turn prompts care for the subject (2). It is not the sort of reactive aggressive response we have toward someone trying to behave in some either fundamentally or conventionally antisocial way.

I meant once the kid was born. — Kenosha Kid

Then you're just wrong. He did not, in fact, blind his kid when his kid was born. So it must have been something else that triggered the gut reaction. What is it?

I bet if I say anything along the lines of "Giving birth to someone is harming them after they're born" it'll be dismissed on the basis of being factually incorrect. So I will do the same with your statement. If you want to keep your statment "The parent blinded the child after the child was born by genetically engineering them to be blind" then "Giving birth to someone is harming them after they are born" will make sense by the same token. You can't have one without the other.

You either consider the negative consequences of actions done before someone's birth as "harm" or you don't. If you do both statments make sense. If you don't neither does and you have to explain why you got that gut reaction. Because billy's parent did not blind billy after billy was born. So you can't have meant that.

But empathising with things that don't exist and have no representation is a bizarre idea. Why let facts have anything to do with it in that case? "And why did you assault the victim?" "Because he killed Jenny-Wenny Classy-Lassy." "Who the fuck is that?" "Oh, someone I made up once " — Kenosha Kid

Difference is Jenny-Wenny Classy-Lassy will never exist but Blind-Billy will. I'm talking about empathising with things that will exist. Because that is what you just did with blind billy.

In principle though, when you have the chance to not cause harm on someone else's behalf good idea to do not do that, and certainly not one that causes a whole life time worth of harmful experiences. — schopenhauer1

That may be a good enough heuristic in many cases, but that doesn't make it a convincing principle.

I don't assume because some people do this, I therefore should do it on behalf of another person, just the same as if you like a certain game you shouldn't force someone else to play it, or if you like some harmful activity others should be a part of it to cause you insist. — schopenhauer1

But you apparently do not think this is because we respect other people's right to make choices for themselves. It's all only about reducing suffering, except in any of the cases where suffering doesn't seem all that important, like when we allow people to drive personal motor vehicles just for their own convenience even though doing so massively increases the risk of causing suffering for other people.

Similarly, it is not okay to force others into harmful situations because we insist it is good for them. — schopenhauer1

But that's just the claim you make. We aren't forced to agree with it.

In the case of heartbreak you are not forced to endure the pain, you accepted the risk by going into the relationship. — khaled

That's not really how emotions work. You can't decide to not be heartbroken.

And when did I say we shouldn’t do that? The only case when we shouldn’t is with dependents. If your child suggests taking up parkour with a bunch of shady kids 15 blocks away from home you have a responsibility to stop him as a parent. Your responsibility is, more precisely, to minimize his suffering. Which probably means you’d try to fit in his interest in the least dangerous way. — khaled

I still don't see why you say that we should care about suffering for future people and dependants, but for independent adults only their choice matters, and the suffering caused is suddenly no longer relevant.

What is absolutely wrong though is forcing people who are not even your dependents to play dangerous games. I’m sure we can agree on that. But as I said, everyone is free to risk their own suffering as much as they want, just don’t risk anyone else suffering unless they’re your dependents and you’re doing it for their own good. — khaled

But everything from driving your car to going mountain climbing risks other people suffering. If that was really the standard, we'd have to all lock ourselves into our rooms and interact as little as possible.

And this is another non sequitor. “More than the sum of its parts” doesn’t lead to “should continue”. Again, you’re just shoving that part in there. “Should continue” is its own premise. — khaled

Perhaps. It might be one of those things human brains just tend to associate.

Agreed, causation is not necessary for responsibility, as you can get it in other ways (socially mediated). But it is almost sufficient in my view with the conditions I outlined in the car example. — khaled

This would seem to imply that at least the ethics of reducing suffering are not monolithic, i.e. they aren't derived from a single principle, but rather multiple competing ones.

Which is what makes it pseudo impossible. Very hard claim to reasonably prove. — khaled

Isn't it kind of a problem to have a moral system that requires things that are practically impossible?

Well no it isn’t. Malicious definition by google: Intending to do harm. There is no one being harmed here. I called it malicious because I (reasonably) recognize that we should consider these “potential people”. But that’s just naming. And you think they shouldn’t be considered at all, since they’re not harmed. — khaled

You can intent to harm people in the future, including people who don't even exist yet. Intent always references a future state of affairs. This is really not all that complicated. You can consider the interests of future people. You can have (one-sided) duties to them. You can intend to harm them.

You just can't treat them as if they already existed before you decided to cause them to exist. Which you do if you claim that, by making them exist, you're forcing them to suffer.

What if the intention of the parent was just purely preferential? He just likes blind people for some reason. Just a fancy. Now is it ok? Surely not. But why? — khaled

We can compare two possible existences - the one of the seeing child and the one of the blind child. Not from the perspective of either of the children, but from the perspective of everyone else. So we can ask ourselves whether the principle that "I should act according to my fancy when deciding on the capabilities of my future children" is a moral one. Can we want that to be a universal principle? I'd say no. It seems very obvious that doing so would incur various problems for anyone around all the blind, deaf, etc. children. It would keep these children from helping or inspiring people they might otherwise have.

If I agree with the premises, and the logic, I must agree with the result. Maybe you have a way to get “having children is acceptable”, logically, without relying on premises I disagree with, that I haven’t heard yet. I’m not omniscient, I don’t know every argument there is. If you did find such a way, I’d probably not be an AN anymore. But so far I haven’t found that way. — khaled

I think the most basic thing we'd need to agree on for you to consider my view convincing is that choice is more important than suffering - that what life is about is being who you are, not just trying to get it over with as painlessly as possible.

That may be a good enough heuristic in many cases, but that doesn't make it a convincing principle. — Echarmion

For you. Just like you should not make a decision that affects a whole life time on someone else's behalf, you should not presume to know what others think on the matter.

But you apparently do not think this is because we respect other people's right to make choices for themselves. It's all only about reducing suffering, except in any of the cases where suffering doesn't seem all that important, like when we allow people to drive personal motor vehicles just for their own convenience even though doing so massively increases the risk of causing suffering for other people. — Echarmion

You know my position regarding why this is different between the decision to start a life and already living in a life. De facto forced conditions living in a certain type of society creates these situations. They are unavoidable. It's just like, it's unavoidable really to either keep living to some degree of comfort slowly die trying to hack it in the wilderness trying to avoid causing others suffer. Of course there is one decision where I certainly can guarantee a person will not suffer from my decision.

But that's just the claim you make. We aren't forced to agree with it. — Echarmion

I liken it to veganism.. They can make their argument, but cannot force others to abide by it.

That's not really how emotions work. You can't decide to not be heartbroken. — Echarmion

That’s not what I meant. I meant you accepted the risk of heartbreak when going into a relationship. You weren’t forced into said relationship so you’re weren’t forced into heartbreak. There was a course of action you could have chosen that doesn’t lead to heartbreak. Children at no point accepted the risk of harm. At no point did they have a course of action that would allow them not to suffer at all.

I still don't see why you say that we should care about suffering for future people and dependants, but for independent adults only their choice matters, and the suffering caused is suddenly no longer relevant. — Echarmion

Because in one case you’re responsible for their suffering since you caused it and you knew it was gonna happen (children) and in the other you have nothing to do with the independent adult’s decision so you’re not responsible to reduce their suffering in any way. Only responsible not to increase it.

But everything from driving your car to going mountain climbing risks other people suffering. If that was really the standard, we'd have to all lock ourselves into our rooms and interact as little as possible. — Echarmion

False and I explained this. Sigh. If I don’t drive my car I won’t get to work. I NEED to drive my car. Therefore we do a calculation: Is the harm I avoid by driving comparable to the harm I am likely to cause by driving? If the answer is no (ie, I’m a bad driver, or I’m drunk, etc) then I shouldn’t drive. If the answer is yes then I can drive.

Sure everything you do risks harming others but you are also part of the calculation. You are part of “others”.

Isn't it kind of a problem to have a moral system that requires things that are practically impossible? — Echarmion

Not really. I am an AN because the requirements to have kids in my system are practically impossible to satisfy.

This would seem to imply that at least the ethics of reducing suffering are not monolithic, i.e. they aren't derived from a single principle, but rather multiple competing ones. — Echarmion

Please explain to me how it implies that because I don’t see the connection. Or more importantly, the significance of this observation were it true.

You can intent to harm people in the future, including people who don't even exist yet. Intent always references a future state of affairs. — Echarmion

Agreed but that’s not what’s happening here. Billy’s parent is not plotting to blind billy at his 15th birthday. No. Billy’s parent is genetically engineering Billy to be blind. There is no billy at any point to be harmed here. If you want to say Billy got harmed or blinded you have to treat billy as if:

they already existed before you decided to cause them to exist. — Echarmion

Which is exactly what you do when you claim that by genetically engineering them to be blind you blind them. Just look at the structure of the sentence. “By genetically engineering billy to be blind you blinded billy”. “You blinded billy” clearly assumes the existence of Billy. You reject this. You say we can’t assume this. So why is genetically engineering someone to be blind wrong. Because “intending to harm people in the future including those that do not exist yet” is FACTUALLY not what’s happening here. Billy’s parent has no such intentions. In fact he intends to be a model parent for his blind son.

I think the most basic thing we'd need to agree on for you to consider my view convincing is that choice is more important than suffering - that what life is about is being who you are, not just trying to get it over with as painlessly as possible. — Echarmion

Agreed. Ok now what? Because that doesn’t lead to your view. What WOULD lead to your view is something like “Choice is more important than suffering therefore I am allowed to inflict suffering on others so that they have choices”. I don’t think either of us can agree with that one.

You conflate your personal philosophy about how one should live with how one should treat others. I can consider that there is more to life than minimizing suffering. But it takes an extra step to then say “Therefore I am allowed to inflict suffering on others if I deem that it would maximize their choice”

I have no problem with you not minimizing your own suffering. I have a problem with you purposely choosing a course of action that doesn’t minimize the suffering of others when an alternative was available (again, you are part of the calculation). When they didn’t ask you to choose that.

Not from the perspective of either of the children, but from the perspective of everyone else. So we can ask ourselves whether the principle that "I should act according to my fancy when deciding on the capabilities of my future children" is a moral one. Can we want that to be a universal principle? — Echarmion

Assume the parent of said child did this. And answered “Yes, this should be a universal principle”. Now what? Is it ok? Also I like how here you don’t consider the perspective of the child even though a paragraph ago you were saying that poor billy got blinded. Which is it? Did billy get harmed or not? Because if he did then you harm someone by giving birth to them. If he didn’t then you have to explain why genetically engineering someone to be blind is wrong.

Then you're just wrong. He did not, in fact, blind his kid when his kid was born. — khaled

It's difficult not to ascribe this to wilful misunderstanding to ill defend a bad point. We were discussing the judgment of the act, not the act itself.

Difference is Jenny-Wenny Classy-Lassy will never exist but Blind-Billy will. — khaled

Yes, barring accidents, that is the difference. Nonetheless they have in common that whatever character one is empathising with is imagined, not real. Pointing out where analogies differ is not sufficient to invalidate them. I'm not btw arguing that one shouldn't imagine the blinded child in particular, rather that it belongs to the class of non-existent things one cannot argue we *should* or even *can* empathise with.

Tricking oneself into feeling something, much as film and TV producers do to us, is not a justification because, if it were, truth is out the window and we're in definite Trump territory where outrage can be manufactured based on imaginings.

Imagining the suffering of a non-existent being and then arguing that it's existence, on that basis, should be averted is circular, again reminiscent of Republicans telling voters that there must have been voter fraud then reporting in Congress that voters have concerns about the election. It is dangerous territory in which otherwise unthinkable acts can be justified by imagining oneself into a rage against anything.

One thing that is most certainly absent from your argument is the suffering of the child whose future eexistence is apparently an argument for AN. If the child lives a perfectly happy life, doesn't matter right? He should not have been allowed to be born. This is even worse: we're supposed to empathise with the imagined suffering of an imagined thing and then use this as a justification for disallowing a real thing. Reality is disavowed; fiction is paramount.

Imagining the suffering of a non-existent being and then arguing that it's existence, on that basis, should be averted is circular, again reminiscent of Republicans telling voters that there must have been voter fraud then reporting in Congress that voters have concerns about the election. It is dangerous territory in which otherwise unthinkable acts can be justified by imagining oneself into a rage against anything.

One thing that is most certainly absent from your argument is the suffering of the child whose future eexistence is apparently an argument for AN. If the child lives a perfectly happy life, doesn't matter right? He should not have been allowed to be born. This is even worse: we're supposed to empathise with the imagined suffering of an imagined thing and then use this as a justification for disallowing a real thing. Reality is disavowed; fiction is paramount. — Kenosha Kid

This is such a terrible argument. Trying to compare the prevention of a future sufferer with Trump political tactics. Any sane person understands that one can consider the state of well being of a future person. Because the person will exist in the future and is not present now, doesn't negate this consideration.

If the child lives a perfectly happy life, doesn't matter right? — Kenosha Kid

If you can know that the child will live a perfectly happy life then having them is fine. It doesn't even have to be perfect, if you can know the child will find their own life worthwhile it's fine. Problem is you can't.

He should not have been allowed to be born. — Kenosha Kid

I just replied. False.

He didn't though. Don't you see? There is no kid! He didn't blind anybody! This is what I said a while ago by the way. I said that our empathy can extend to "future people" and you claimed it can't, yet here you are clearly extending empathy to "future people".
— khaled

I meant once the kid was born. — Kenosha Kid

I took this to mean that you mean "Billy's parent blinded billy by genetically engineering him to be blind". That statement is false. There is no billy to be blinded.

Let's say the parent comes from a religion where blind people go to heaven and everyone else goes to hell or something. Let's say his intentions are benign. We also know that in the case of billy, there exists no one to be harmed. Why, then, is genetically engineering billy to be blind wrong? You can't say "Because he is blinding his child", he isn't, as at no point was there a non-blind child that was then blinded. And you can't say he had bad intentions either. So why is it wrong?

More specifically, how can it be wrong in such a way that having children in general is still fine?

That’s not what I meant. I meant you accepted the risk of heartbreak when going into a relationship. — khaled

Heartbreak isn't limited to relationships though, is it?

Only responsible not to increase it. — khaled

Wouldn't it be better though, if we decreased it? I don't get why I should stop worrying about suffering just becasue "it's not my responsibility". Seems selfish and jaded.

False and I explained this. Sigh. If I don’t drive my car I won’t get to work. I NEED to drive my car. Therefore we do a calculation: Is the harm I avoid by driving comparable to the harm I am likely to cause by driving? If the answer is no (ie, I’m a bad driver, or I’m drunk, etc) then I shouldn’t drive. If the answer is yes then I can drive. — khaled

This supposed calculation is imaginary though. You're not really doing anything like comparing the suffering of the two scenarios. How would you even go about doing that? How much suffering does taking the bus or the train cause you? 10, 100, 167? How much suffering is the potential of a car crash worth? Does it matter whether you just got your license vs. having 20 years of experience?

It's no more practical than trying to figure out whether your future child will experience more happiness than suffering. So I'd argue it's not just having kids that you cannot actually justify. It's damn near anything.

Please explain to me how it implies that because I don’t see the connection. Or more importantly, the significance of this observation were it true. — khaled

Well if causality is sometimes almost enough, but responsibility needs to be additionally socially mediated, and sometimes it's only socially mediated without causality at all, then the system has two mutually exclulsive principles - reponsibility is based on empirical facts like causation, and responsibility is based on social mediation. You need at least a third principle to decide when to apply which.

Agreed but that’s not what’s happening here. Billy’s parent is not plotting to blind billy at his 15th birthday. No. Billy’s parent is genetically engineering Billy to be blind. There is no billy at any point to be harmed here. If you want to say Billy got harmed or blinded you have to treat billy as if: — khaled

Well, I don't say that.

Which is exactly what you do when you claim that by genetically engineering them to be blind you blind them. Just look at the structure of the sentence. “By genetically engineering billy to be blind you blinded billy”. “You blinded billy” clearly assumes the existence of Billy. You reject this. You say we can’t assume this. So why is genetically engineering someone to be blind wrong. Because “intending to harm people in the future including those that do not exist yet” is FACTUALLY not what’s happening here. Billy’s parent has no such intentions. In fact he intends to be a model parent for his blind son. — khaled

I agree. But you do intent to have a blind child instead of one can see. That intent can be malicious, as I explained below.

Assume the parent of said child did this. And answered “Yes, this should be a universal principle”. Now what? Is it ok? — khaled

What you're asking here is whether or not what I say is still true if people disagree. Obviously the answer is yes.

Also I like how here you don’t consider the perspective of the child even though a paragraph ago you were saying that poor billy got blinded. Which is it? Did billy get harmed or not? — khaled

I think you got me confused for someone else here, because I did not write that.

Agreed. Ok now what? Because that doesn’t lead to your view. What WOULD lead to your view is something like “Choice is more important than suffering therefore I am allowed to inflict suffering on others so that they have choices”. I don’t think either of us can agree with that one. — khaled

I think I do agre with that. Not in any given case, but yes, in some cases it's ok to cause suffering so that those that suffer (or sometimes even other people) have more choices.

You conflate your personal philosophy about how one should live with how one should treat others. I can consider that there is more to life than minimizing suffering. But it takes an extra step to then say “Therefore I am allowed to inflict suffering on others if I deem that it would maximize their choice” — khaled

I agree with the sentiment here. Obviously one should be humble and careful, well aware of the possibility of making a mistake. But I don't think we need to avoid dangers at all costs either. Nor do you. So the difference between us isn't really that I inflict suffering on other and you don't. It's just that I consider different reasons sufficient.

I agree with the sentiment here. Obviously one should be humble and careful, well aware of the possibility of making a mistake. But I don't think we need to avoid dangers at all costs either. Nor do you. So the difference between us isn't really that I inflict suffering on other and you don't. It's just that I consider different reasons sufficient. — Echarmion

But that's the point.. do not create dangers for others unnecessarily, when one does not have to. Do not assume people should be forced to play a game because you like it.

But that's the point.. do not create dangers for others unnecessarily, when one does not have to. Do not assume people should be forced to play a game because you like it. — schopenhauer1

We just disagree on the "have to". When do you "have to" do something? Taken literally, you almost never "have to" do something, unless it's a reflex or urge you just cannot control. So what "have to" means comes down to your personal moral code. Some people think they "have to" have children. You may think they're wrong, but telling them "don't do it if you don't have to" doesn't help.

We just disagree on the "have to". When do you "have to" do something? Taken literally, you almost never "have to" do something, unless it's a reflex or urge you just cannot control. So what "have to" means comes down to your personal moral code. Some people think they "have to" have children. You may think they're wrong, but telling them "don't do it if you don't have to" doesn't help. — Echarmion

I mean, if it's not a reflex, and the logic of not causing harm/ starting a game on someone else's behalf wont' work, then please let me know what you think will? What's right and what's convincing are often two different things, and unfortunately, sometimes at odds.

Heartbreak isn't limited to relationships though, is it? — Echarmion

The example you gave was about relationships so I assumed we were talking about that.

But I have to say I'm struggling to find an example of heartbreak that does not involve relationships. And I absolutely cannot find an example where you cause someone heartbreak in such a way that they could not have avoided it at all.

Wouldn't it be better though, if we decreased it? — Echarmion

It would be. I didn't say otherwise.

I don't get why I should stop worrying about suffering just becasue "it's not my responsibility". — Echarmion

A second ago you didn't get why we have to worry about suffering at all XD

This supposed calculation is imaginary though. You're not really doing anything like comparing the suffering of the two scenarios. How would you even go about doing that? How much suffering does taking the bus or the train cause you? 10, 100, 167? How much suffering is the potential of a car crash worth? Does it matter whether you just got your license vs. having 20 years of experience? — Echarmion

We can compare two scenarios and find out which is worse. I don't get why you want to pretend we can't. But no we can't put a number on it. And no it doesn't matter if you just got your license vs 20 years of experiences for this purpose since in both cases you can drive, because you're good enough for that.

I think I am justified to drive if I have a licence. Because otherwise I will literally become homeless. That's a whole lot of harm to inflict on myself when the alternative is to do the relatively safe activity of driving to work. We can make these kinds of comparisons, we may not always agree but we largely do.

You need at least a third principle to decide when to apply which. — Echarmion

If they contradict, sure. But I struggle to find a scnerio where your job (socially mediated responsibillity) would require you to go around doing harm on purpose (responsibility not to cause harm to others) or vice versa. What kind of job is that? "Thug"?

But I would say if they do contradict then the latter wins out. You are responsible not to cause harm over any social responsibilities.

I think I do agre with that. Not in any given case, but yes, in some cases it's ok to cause suffering so that those that suffer (or sometimes even other people) have more choices. — Echarmion

And there is the premise that I disagree with. Looks like you can't provide what I'm looking for either.

But you do intent to have a blind child instead of one can see. That intent can be malicious, as I explained below. — Echarmion

If intending to have a blind child instead of one that can see can be malicious intent then so can intending to have a child at all by the same token.

Either "malicious intent" applies to actions that cause harm to people that don't exist yet or it doesn't. If it does then both are cases of malicious intent. If it doesn't then neither is and you have to explain why genetically engineering a child to be blind is wrong.

Nor do you. So the difference between us isn't really that I inflict suffering on other and you don't. It's just that I consider different reasons sufficient. — Echarmion

In my system it is wrong to inflict more suffering than you alleviate from yourself. Period. We don't agree there.

But also I want to know what the sufficient reason is in the case of having children. Because it can't be for the children themselves, as they don't exist.

But also I want to know what the sufficient reason is in the case of having children. Because it can't be for the children themselves, as they don't exist. — khaled

This is one I think @Echarmion will have trouble with, cause there isn't.

I expect he'll claim that having children is in no way a harmful act but I'm drilling there too.

I think it's sufficient that you want to have children and honestly judge that you can give them the necessary love and resources in order to allow them to become active members of a free and equal society.

That this will involve suffering on the part of the children is not more or less relevant than that the children will be subject to the laws of gravity.

That this will involve suffering on the part of the children is not more or less relevant than that the children will be subject to the laws of gravity. — Echarmion

Why is that not relevant? So odd..

As I said before: I still think the game scenario is the best analogy. It's as if after being kidnapped into the game, the person was like "But I prepared you for the game, didn't I?" This seems to be enough to go ahead and create a new player for the game. But is it? Just because you think you have prepared enough, it is okay to initiate someone into the game? That doesn't prevent everything. If someone still doesn't play the game well, doesn't want to play it, or simply has contingent harms that throw off the vision of how the game was to be played, you cannot prevent that because you think you think you prepared them enough. There is a better solution.. just don't initiate them in the game.

As I said before: I still think the game scenario is the best analogy. It's as if after being kidnapped into the game, the person was like "But I prepared you for the game, didn't I?" — schopenhauer1

The thing is that life isn't a game. Life isn't optional. You can kill yourself, yes, but killing yourself is, ironically enough, also something you do while living.

Your argument, in simple terms, is that people suffer if they exist, and therefore they shouldn't exist. All this other stuff about "forcing people to play games" is just a bunch of false equivalence, because it all treats life as an option for souls floating around in the aether, which it is not.

But claiming that there shouldn't be people because there shouldn't be suffering is propping up suffering as a metaphysical evil, totally abstracted from anyone actually suffering. What's the reason that there shouldn't be suffeirng? Is it because people don't like to suffer? But then, it makes zero sense to delete the people as the solution to the problem, does it?

The thing is that life isn't a game. Life isn't optional. You can kill yourself, yes, but killing yourself is, ironically enough, also something you do while living. — Echarmion

Hahahaha. . Great option, dude.. Play this game, or kill yourself.. I mean, "It's an option!". :roll: You see how cruel that sounds? Maybe not. :meh: .

Your argument, in simple terms, is that people suffer if they exist, and therefore they shouldn't exist. All this other stuff about "forcing people to play games" is just a bunch of false equivalence, because it all treats life as an option for souls floating around in the aether, which it is not. — Echarmion

Oh right.. now you are ignoring the argument for why that whole line of reasoning is false, which @khaled has doggedly been trying to explain in every which way. As I myself have said repeatedly.. just because a person doesn't exist now, doesn't mean you cannot consider a person who will exist in the future. You keep ignoring that fact.

But claiming that there shouldn't be people because there shouldn't be suffering is propping up suffering as a metaphysical evil, totally abstracted from anyone actually suffering. What's the reason that there shouldn't be suffeirng? Is it because people don't like to suffer? But then, it makes zero sense to delete the people as the solution to the problem, does it? — Echarmion

One can simply phrase it thus:
Once someone exists, the suffering that will incur is bad. Don't allow this to happen, if preventing this is possible.

There doesn't need to be a principle for anything regarding the case of non-existence, simply that:
IFF existence with suffering possible, THEN prevent existence with suffering.

As for WHY suffering counts more, my own philosophy is one of overlooking dignity. And same thing here...

ONCE someone is born and that existence has suffering, the dignity of the person has been violated as it was overlooked for a cause that was not considering the person's pain.

Now you can say.. but why is THAT a foundation? You have to stop somewhere.. I cannot open the universe and show you objective morality. If you do not see the injustice of it- the overlooking of someone's pain for another reason, then I don't know what else to say to convince you. If you don't think making someone play a game and then saying go kill yourself if you don't like it, doesn't convince you, I don't know what to say. Obviously you think it is okay to overlook pain for some other reason. I cannot force you to believe this principle. Obviously, you don't care if presuming someone should play a game that causes harm, and imposes challenges is okay on other people's behalf.

At the same token, some people believed slavery was justified, vegans think eating meat and factory farming are bad, etc. etc. Not everyone is convinced.. it doesn't matter what the fundamental principle comes down to. To think that antinatalism is any different than any other moral principle in this regard, would be special pleading to make antinatalism seem extraordinarily out of place with ethical principles. I am not sure @khaled's take on it though.

Hahahaha. . Great option, dude.. Play this game, or kill yourself.. I mean, "It's an option!". :roll: You see how cruel that sounds? Maybe not. :meh: . — schopenhauer1

I mean, what I wrote kinda says the exact opposite, but whatever.

Once someone exists, the suffering that will incur is bad. Don't allow this to happen, if preventing this is possible. — schopenhauer1

I think I'll just not be convinced that the suffering is simply bad.

It is true that there are fundamental principles which can only be understood, but not proven. If this is one, I don't understand it. And if, after 24 pages of debate, I still don't, then I suppose another 24 won't help.

It is true that there are fundamental principles which can only be understood, but not proven. If this is one, I don't understand it. And if, after 24 pages of debate, I still don't, then I suppose another 24 won't help. — Echarmion

As is your right.. A lot of my posts aren't strictly antinatalism but general philosophical pessimism threads to demonstrate how much suffering we are often overlooking. But it's your right to believe what you want. It's your right to be able to be convinced or not of any particular argument.

I will say, I think you are overlooking the idea of things only applying if someone who could suffer could exist. It's the same thing as rights. If no person exists, rights don't matter. If someone exists, rights matter.

Had to edit that for clarity.