There are no examples in society where people are forced to do things against their will unless it reduces suffering to them or others. Or at least there shouldn’t be. — khaled

So making kids go to school is wrong? What about making them eat vegetables, or going to bed on time, or dress appropriately? What about making people pay taxes, or go to jail/prison, or pay for car/health insurance?

There you say it yourself. You cannot logically say that being born is good for the person being born. — khaled

Yeah I can, it’s good because they will experience pleasure. More specifically, it gives them the opportunity to do so. You agree that’s good, right?

But by your own principle, if not having children is “preventing someone from experiencing pleasure” and that is bad, then it should be mandatory. So either having children is not preventing anyone from doing anything, or “preventing someone from experiencing pleasure” is not bad. There is no other way out. — khaled

I don’t see it as black and white, there’s definitely some gray areas. Not having children does prevent them from experiencing pleasure, but sometimes doing so is justified.

Would you judge a murderer? Probably. So the reason you wouldn’t judge someone’s choice to have kids has to be that you don’t consider it a moral issue. I would ask why. Does it not result in harm? Why would it not be a moral issue? — khaled

It has to do with certainty. The outcome of murdering someone is certain, but that’s not the case with having children. It is certain that they will experience pleasure/pain (unless they happen to have whatever disease it is that doesn’t allow them to feel pain), but we have no real idea of how much of either they will experience. If you want to dig deeper, we don’t even know what pain feels like for other people. Do others have the exact same experience of pain when they get a paper cut as I do? We have no idea, so I find it hard to justify holding someone morally accountable for something with such a wide range of results.

Acts that directly cause harm can be considered wrong, but simply being born does not directly cause harm, or pleasure for that matter; it just creates the opportunity. Again, it is in no way your mother’s fault if you suffer, unless she is directly responsible for that suffering. That’s like saying we shouldn’t plant trees because they could potentially fall on someone and cause them to suffer 100 years from now.

What about malicious genetic engineering? Would you judge someone who genetically engineers their child to be blind? Probably. But why is THAT a moral issue but birth itself isn’t? — khaled

Probably, but again the certainty of the outcome makes a difference. I also think intent matters to some degree, but that may be irrelevant to the discussion.

False. You literally just argued a paragraph ago that not having children is a denial of pleasure. Which means that having children causes pleasure (as well as harm). Which is it? Make up your mind. — khaled

It’s a denial of the opportunity to experience either, which is fine to do as long as there is a good reason to do so. Some people should not have children, and some people probably would rather have not been born, but that doesn’t mean you should treat every case the same. This is also why I don’t think it’s appropriate to judge other’s decisions about having children. Some children go on to lead wonderful lives, and strengthen the relationship between their parents/families. At times we can make educated guesses about whether or not that will be the case, but more often our predictions are inaccurate.

Because they don’t exist until you make them exist. So it can’t be that you’re doing it for them. — khaled

It can be if existing benefits them. Besides, doesn’t AN claim not having children is for their benefit so that they won’t experience suffering? But they don’t exist, so how can nonexistence be beneficial for them?

Yes but “The cons aren’t that bad” is not a pro. So idk why you’re framing it as if it is. — khaled

I’m not meaning to. The pros outweighing the cons is a pro. Just like if the cons outweighed the pros, that would be a con.

I think if we know the person in question will find their life worthwhile then it's fine. Problem is we don't. — khaled

Surprisingly, this is my position as well, only stated differently. If we think it’s more likely that they will find life worthwhile, it’s fine. Most cases are unclear, but data surrounding overall levels of happiness, suicide rates, etc. leads us to believe that it is almost always more likely that the person will consider their life valuable, or worth living. Therefore it is almost always permissible.

So making kids go to school is wrong? What about making them eat vegetables, or going to bed on time, or dress appropriately? What about making people pay taxes, or go to jail/prison, or pay for car/health insurance? — Pinprick

I was implying that all of these things were done to reduce the suffering on them or others. I thought that was obvious. We make Kids go to school and eat vegetables because it’s good for them in the long run. We don’t just arbitrarily make kids do stuff for no reason.

Yeah I can, it’s good because they will experience pleasure. More specifically, it gives them the opportunity to do so. You agree that’s good, right? — Pinprick

But not good for them. That would make no sense.

I don’t see it as black and white, there’s definitely some gray areas. Not having children does prevent them from experiencing pleasure, but sometimes doing so is justified. — Pinprick

Oh so preventing people from experiencing pleasure is not bad now? Only sometimes bad? Ok where are these gray areas? When is preventing people from experiencing pleasure bad and when is it acceptable?

The outcome of murdering someone is certain, but that’s not the case with having children. It is certain that they will experience pleasure/pain (unless they happen to have whatever disease it is that doesn’t allow them to feel pain), but we have no real idea of how much of either they will experience. — Pinprick

The outcome of pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is uncertain, as the gun might jam. That doesn’t make it ok to do. It is ridiculous to require certainty to say that something is wrong. Because then nothing is ever wrong

Acts that directly cause harm can be considered wrong, but simply being born does not directly cause harm, or pleasure for that matter; it just creates the opportunity — Pinprick

I’m sure you’d agree that kidnapping someone and putting them in a forest to fend for themselves is wrong. Even though it doesn’t actually cause harm, or pleasure, only creates the opportunity. Why is it wrong then?

It’s a denial of the opportunity to experience either, which is fine to do as long as there is a good reason to do so — Pinprick

But a second ago you said it was fine to deny but did not provide a reason. Why is it you require a reason here? A second ago it was a “gray area”... Until you clarify exactly when denying pleasure is acceptable and when it isn’t you’re just being disingenuous

Besides, doesn’t AN claim not having children is for their benefit — Pinprick

False. That claim would make no sense as there is no one to benefit. And no one to be harmed. Which is why not having children is a neutral act.

Having children on the other hand is a risk act that is not accompanied by consent nor can be said to improve anyone’s situation which makes it wrong. So far you have not provided an example of an act which does these things that you consider fine except having kids.

’m not meaning to. The pros outweighing the cons is a pro. — Pinprick

You cannot know that the pros will outweigh the cons. And that’s not what you said. You said “the pros are likely to outweigh the cons”.

If we think it’s more likely that they will find life worthwhile, — Pinprick

If I happen to be a masochist and I think it’s likely that you will enjoy being tortured does that give me a right to torture you?

I was implying that all of these things were done to reduce the suffering on them or others. I thought that was obvious. We make Kids go to school and eat vegetables because it’s good for them in the long run. We don’t just arbitrarily make kids do stuff for no reason. — khaled

But you don’t know that. I’m actually a social worker, and currently have a client that was sexually assaulted at school; elementary school I might add. I’m not convinced going to school will help him more in the long run than it has harmed him. I know this is an isolated incident, and atypical, but that’s beside the point. You seem to try to argue against taking the risk that a great amount of suffering will be experienced by being born. However, there is potential suffering involved in other things we make people do because we think it’s beneficial, or because the risk is deemed to be negligible. I can make these same calculations with childbirth.

But not good for them. That would make no sense. — khaled

They’re the ones experiencing the pleasure, so of course it’s good for them...

When is preventing people from experiencing pleasure bad and when is it acceptable? — khaled

It is bad when there is not a good reason to do so. It is acceptable if the pleasure they are seeking infringes on the liberties of others, or otherwise needlessly risks harming others.

The outcome of pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is uncertain, as the gun might jam. That doesn’t make it ok to do. It is ridiculous to require certainty to say that something is wrong. Because then nothing is ever wrong — khaled

Ok. Not 100% certainty, but I think we both agree that the likelihood of seriously injuring someone by attempting to shoot them is incredibly higher than the likelihood of the gun jamming. Also, perhaps intent is relevant after all. I don’t view accidentally harming someone as morally wrong, unless it’s due to some gross lack of judgment or neglect. Harming someone on purpose is wrong, except for rare occasions like giving someone a vaccine.

I’m sure you’d agree that kidnapping someone and putting them in a forest to fend for themselves is wrong. Even though it doesn’t actually cause harm, or pleasure, only creates the opportunity. Why is it wrong then? — khaled

I’m pretty sure kidnapping someone causes them distress...

But a second ago you said it was fine to deny but did not provide a reason. Why is it you require a reason here? A second ago it was a “gray area”... Until you clarify exactly when denying pleasure is acceptable and when it isn’t you’re just being disingenuous — khaled

Denying pleasure is acceptable only if there is a good reason to do so, like denying someone the pleasure of killing someone because it unnecessarily harms the person being killed. It’s not ok to harm others, or to risk harming others, just so you can obtain pleasure. However, if the risk of harm is minimal, but the potential benefit is large, the risk is worth it. This is why making kids go to school is ok, and also why having children under most circumstances is ok.

Having children on the other hand is a risk act that is not accompanied by consent nor can be said to improve anyone’s situation which makes it wrong. So far you have not provided an example of an act which does these things that you consider fine except having kids. — khaled

Paying taxes does not improve my situation, and I’ve never been asked to consent to do so. Paying taxes also risks my ability to survive due to not being able to afford the necessities of life.

You cannot know that the pros will outweigh the cons. — khaled

You can reasonably assume that they will by using the available data.

If I happen to be a masochist and I think it’s likely that you will enjoy being tortured does that give me a right to torture you? — khaled

No, because you have no justifiable reason to believe that I too am a masochist.

I’m not convinced going to school will help him more in the long run than it has harmed him — Pinprick

And so we can agree that it’s dubious whether or not they should be forced to go to school by their parents no? Principle still seems to apply. I would say that depending on the case there are times when forcing kids to go to school is wrong. A case like yours for example is a good candidate.

They’re the ones experiencing the pleasure, so of course it’s good for them... — Pinprick

In order for something to be good for someone that someone must exist first. If you want to say that being born is good for someone because they will experience pleasure then by the same token it is bad for someone because they will suffer. You either take both or neither. You can’t say being born is purely good.

Also, perhaps intent is relevant after all. I don’t view accidentally harming someone as morally wrong, unless it’s due to some gross lack of judgment or neglect. — Pinprick

If someone is harmed due to being born that’s hardly accidental. You don’t “accidentally” have kids. There is planning and a 9 month delay. You knew they were going to be harmed in some way.

I’m pretty sure kidnapping someone causes them distress... — Pinprick

So it’s fine if they were sleeping and didn’t feel it, and had no responsibilities to tend to and no close relations? In other words, if the act of kidnapping itself doesn’t cause any harm is it fine? I doubt it. So why is it wrong?

It is bad when there is not a good reason to do so. It is acceptable if the pleasure they are seeking infringes on the liberties of others, or otherwise needlessly risks harming others. — Pinprick

By this metric you should be obligated to have a child whose life will be perfect. Whose liberties would that be infringing on? Yours? In that case then “denying pleasure” should never be a problem in the case of having kids. So idk why you mention it.

Also by this principle: Having kids needlessly risks harming others (the kids), therefore it is fine to deny pleasure in this case making the act overall wrong.

However, if the risk of harm is minimal, but the potential benefit is large, the risk is worth it — Pinprick

Agreed with some caveats.

and also why having children under most circumstances is ok. — Pinprick

But this doesn’t follow. The potential benefit is much smaller than the potential harm. There are multiple paths here:

You consider having kids as something that can be beneficial/harmful to the kid:

In which case having children is wrong because it unnecessarily risks harming someone. In this case you cannot “counteract” this effect by saying that not having kids denies pleasure because in this case your ARE allowed to deny pleasure (which is why you don’t have to have a child even knowing their life would be perfect).

You consider having kids as something that can’t be harmful/beneficial to the kid:

Comes with a whole slew of problems such as malicious genetic engineering being ok which need to be addressed.

Paying taxes does not improve my situatio — Pinprick

False. Or at least supposed to be false. That’s the premise behind it. If everyone paying taxes does not improve everyone’s situation then that’s a corruption problem.

You can reasonably assume that they will by using the available data. — Pinprick

That’s not good enough justification. For example, I know that people on average are happier when they exercise regularly. Doesn’t give me a right to force you to exercise at gun point does it?

And so we can agree that it’s dubious whether or not they should be forced to go to school by their parents no? — khaled

It’s questionable in certain circumstances, but we shouldn’t therefore never send kids to school. I see having children the same way. There are cases where it is probably ok, probably not ok, and cases that are too hard to determine.

In order for something to be good for someone that someone must exist first. — khaled

They will exist prior to experiencing pleasure. Aside from obvious exceptions, if doing X allows someone to experience pleasure (or is likely to allow them to experience pleasure), then doing X is permissible.

If you want to say that being born is good for someone because they will experience pleasure then by the same token it is bad for someone because they will suffer. You either take both or neither. You can’t say being born is purely good. — khaled

I’m fine with saying this. That’s why I feel that you must look at the probability of whether or not the person being born will experience enough suffering to not consider their life to be worthwhile. That’s also why I said way earlier that it ultimately boils down to making a choice of which principle you wish to uphold, because you can’t do both.

If someone is harmed due to being born that’s hardly accidental. You don’t “accidentally” have kids. There is planning and a 9 month delay. You knew they were going to be harmed in some way. — khaled

Right, well partially right, but you also know that they will experience pleasure, so you have to consider that as well. But technically being born doesn’t cause harm/pleasure, it’s just the necessary conditions for harm/pleasure to take place. Similar to how it isn’t immoral to create weapons, only to use them maliciously.

In other words, if the act of kidnapping itself doesn’t cause any harm is it fine? I doubt it. So why is it wrong? — khaled

It depends on the probability of harm vs. pleasure. Is it likely that the person will find fending for themselves in a forest pleasurable?

By this metric you should be obligated to have a child whose life will be perfect. — khaled

I don’t really agree that obligations exist except in the abstract. If you so choose to follow a principle, then your obliged to do so, but you’re not obligated to choose to follow a principle in the first place. IOW’s it’s permissible, but not obligatory.

Also by this principle: Having kids needlessly risks harming others (the kids), therefore it is fine to deny pleasure in this case making the act overall wrong. — khaled

I don’t consider the risk to be needless if its probability of occurring and causing life to be deemed not worthwhile is negligible. Much like the school example. If it’s more likely that the benefits will outweigh the costs, then it’s permissible.

The potential benefit is much smaller than the potential harm. — khaled

I don’t think so. It seems much more likely that a person will judge their life to be worthwhile than not. Or do you mean that the potential worst suffering is greater than the potential greatest pleasure?

You consider having kids as something that can be beneficial/harmful to the kid:

In which case having children is wrong because it unnecessarily risks harming someone. In this case you cannot “counteract” this effect by saying that not having kids denies pleasure because in this case your ARE allowed to deny pleasure (which is why you don’t have to have a child even knowing their life would be perfect). — khaled

No, in which case having kids is permissible, because it is more likely that they will experience more pleasure than harm. And I’m not claiming that therefore it’s impermissible to not have children either. Neither is obligatory.

That’s not good enough justification. For example, I know that people on average are happier when they exercise regularly. Doesn’t give me a right to force you to exercise at gun point does it? — khaled

No, because people on average aren’t happy when they’re being forced at gun point to do something against their will.

It’s questionable in certain circumstances, but we shouldn’t therefore never send kids to school. — Pinprick

I didn’t say that. You should examine it situation by situation. Sending kids to school is not always right and not always wrong.

That’s why I feel that you must look at the probability of whether or not the person being born will experience enough suffering to not consider their life to be worthwhile. — Pinprick

My point is, there is never a case where you can 100% say that the person will live a worthwhile life. So why are you taking the risk for them?

This is different from sending kids to school. If you DON’T send kids to school then you INCREASE the risk they suffer. Sending them to school is usually the least risky option. And when it isn't the least risky option, we have agreed that sending kids to school would be wrong in that instance. However if you don’t have kids you don’t harm anyone. There is no obligation to have kids. There is no need to take the risk. So don’t

It depends on the probability of harm vs. pleasure. Is it likely that the person will find fending for themselves in a forest pleasurable? — Pinprick

What if you don’t know? Heck, what if it’s a 98% chance they’ll like it? Does that make it moral? I’d say no. Because there is absolutely no need to take the 2% risk.

If there was a button I could press that has a 98% chance to give you 1000 dollars and a 2% chance to kill you, should I press that button without asking you first? No. Because there is no reason I should take the risk when I’m not the one paying the consequences.

Now, if “do not deny pleasure” is your principle then there would be some sum of money at which pressing the button is MANDATORY and similarly, kidnapping the person to put them in a forest is MANDATORY. Otherwise you’d be denying too much pleasure.

I don’t really agree that obligations exist except in the abstract. If you so choose to follow a principle, then your obliged to do so, but you’re not obligated to choose to follow a principle in the first place. IOW’s it’s permissible, but not obligatory. — Pinprick

Huh? But you’re the one that proposed the principle. Are you saying you don’t actually follow it? That you don’t actually think denying pleasure is bad?

Much like the school example. If it’s more likely that the benefits will outweigh the costs, then it’s permissible. — Pinprick

No. It is not like the school example. Because with school, NOT forcing a child to go to school IS the risky option. Even there you’re minimizing risks.

No, in which case having kids is permissible, because it is more likely that they will experience more pleasure than harm. And I’m not claiming that therefore it’s impermissible to not have children either. Neither is obligatory. — Pinprick

You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Either “do not deny pleasure” is a principle or it isn’t. If it is then having kids is ok BUT there are situations where you MUST have kids. Heck, it would come out that in most situations you must have kids. If it isn’t then having kids is not ok, because you’re taking an unnecessary risk, and denying pleasure is not a factor.

@all: This question is easy to analyse, but probably impossible to answer.

1) There is rebirth, then you have to compare the probabilities of what the child will be reborn as, because life is always lived. Do I give the child better or worse conditions than the average?

2) There is no rebirth. Then one is non-existent before and after life. One compares existence with non-existence. This comparison is impossible. Mathematically speaking: Is 42 greater or less than 0/0?

2) There is no rebirth. Then one is non-existent before and after life. One compares existence with non-existence. This comparison is impossible. Mathematically speaking: Is 42 greater or less than 0/0? — SolarWind

No, not exactly what's going on. One way to answer this is the Benatarian Asymmetry argument.

Essentially his idea is that if there is no actual person, not experiencing good is neither good nor bad (as there is no "one" to be deprived). It is neutral. However, if there is no actual person, not experiencing bad is a good thing, even if there is no one to benefit from that good.

Now, you do not have to agree to that formulation for that to work. You can just say this:

1) IFF there is a capacity to cause unnecessary harm to a future person, do not go ahead and cause this this for that future person, as causing unnecessary harm is in and of itself wrong. There is no collateral damage of "no good" because no actual person exists for to be deprived of good.

Similarly..

2) IFF a person is born, that birth automatically was an event that was non-consensual. Do not cause this violation of the individual born to occur.

Similarly...

3) IFF there is a capacity to cause unnecessary impositions to a future person, do not go ahead and cause this for that future person, as causing unnecessary impositions on behalf of another person is in and of itself wrong. There is no collateral damage of "no good" because no actual person exists for to be deprived of good.

Surprisingly, this is my position as well, only stated differently. If we think it’s more likely that they will find life worthwhile, it’s fine. Most cases are unclear, but data surrounding overall levels of happiness, suicide rates, etc. leads us to believe that it is almost always more likely that the person will consider their life valuable, or worth living. Therefore it is almost always permissible. — Pinprick

But doesn't this "more likely" lead to a repugnant conclusion whereby if we believe 51% of people find their lives worthwhile whereas 49% don't, procreation is permissible? What is the cutoff? I can imagine a world of 10 billion people, 5.1 billion are happy, whereas 4.9 billion live in abject misery. The odds in this world favour a worthwhile birth, so is it therefore permissible to "roll the dice? Intuitively, the answer seems to be a resounding "no". These 'odds' are after all based on fallible human judgment. Not to mention the absurdity of using the amount of people who resort to lethal self-harm as a parameter of a "worthwhile life"...

It's also worth pointing out that the pleasures in life do not cancel out, nor negate the suffering experienced. There is no scale at the end of ones life our good and bad experiences are stacked upon, with the balance determining the worth of ones life. I think the best we can do is suffer, subsequently experience pleasure and then retrospectively tell ourselves that it was "worth it" in the end. Point being the experience of suffering isn't erased or negated - it was still endured. It's also interesting to note the deprivational language used here - "worth it" is in some sense referencing whether a bad or harm is "worth" enduring or undergoing. We aren't speaking about an objective good here, but rather a trade-off. And who am I to impose this "trade-off" on another person? I couldn't imagine justifying this with, "well, I guessed it was more likely you'd find it worthwhile, so I did it".

Right, well partially right, but you also know that they will experience pleasure, so you have to consider that as well. But technically being born doesn’t cause harm/pleasure, it’s just the necessary conditions for harm/pleasure to take place. — Pinprick

I don't see how any analysis of embodiment itself doesn't lead to the conclusion that it is a burden and a harm. Human embodiment is a locus of perpetual, pressing, potentially lethal biological need, which ends in inevitable death. Babies are after all born crying for milk and comfort. Why is it a good thing to create the conditions of harm to take place, for another person? There is zero need to do so, from the 'perspective' of the unborn.

Say in my power is the ability to instill within you a 6th sense, which has both the capacity to be experienced as painful or pleasurable. I guess that you are 51% likely to judge this added sense as "worthwhile" to have. Do I therefore have the right to bestow this sense upon you, without your permission? How wouldn't this be immoral? What's the difference between me instilling an extra sense upon you, and instilling the (traditional) 5 senses upon a fetus?

I didn’t say that. You should examine it situation by situation. Sending kids to school is not always right and not always wrong. — khaled

Doesn’t AN think it’s always wrong to have kids?

My point is, there is never a case where you can 100% say that the person will live a worthwhile life. So why are you taking the risk for them? — khaled

Because it isn’t that big of a risk under “normal” circumstances. So why not take the risk? All this is predicated on the person actually wanting to have children, so that is the initial default position. There could be a million reasons why someone might want children, some reasonable, some not so much. But the only way this discussion even gets started is by positing this as the default position.

This is different from sending kids to school. If you DON’T send kids to school then you INCREASE the risk they suffer. Sending them to school is usually the least risky option. And when it isn't the least risky option, we have agreed that sending kids to school would be wrong in that instance. However if you don’t have kids you don’t harm anyone. There is no obligation to have kids. There is no need to take the risk. So don’t — khaled

Ok, you’re right about this. But maybe prison is a better example. If someone is sentenced to death, there’s no way that is for their benefit, or that they consented to it. Therefore, it must be for the benefit of others. So, in this particular circumstance we find it acceptable to force someone to do something against their will, that will assuredly cause them harm, strictly for the benefit of others. So then forcing children to be born without their consent (which is different than being against their will), knowing that they may not find life worthwhile due to suffering, should also be ok as long as doing so benefits others.

Because there is absolutely no need to take the 2% risk. — khaled

If taking the risk will benefit yourself or others there is.

If there was a button I could press that has a 98% chance to give you 1000 dollars and a 2% chance to kill you, should I press that button without asking you first? — khaled

This isn’t really a comparable analogy. There is a difference between potentially taking life and creating it.

Now, if “do not deny pleasure” is your principle — khaled

I think the rest of what I said was “without good reason.” That last bit should clear up most of these scenarios for you. Generally speaking, the risk of significant harm (dismemberment, lobotomies, disabling injuries, etc.) trumps any potential pleasure. Although, surgery is a sort of gray area at least, or maybe even a counter example.

Huh? But you’re the one that proposed the principle. Are you saying you don’t actually follow it? That you don’t actually think denying pleasure is bad? — khaled

No, I’m saying obligations are stupid. Obligations amount to being compelled to act a certain way, which unnecessarily limits our freedom. I personally think these things, but they aren’t facts, and you’re free to disagree. I have no desire to try to force others to agree. You have no obligation towards me whatsoever, nor I to you, but if we both choose individually to follow certain principles in our personal lives, then we owe it to ourselves to follow those principles. But I would never consider you to be obligated towards me due to a principle only I hold.

No. It is not like the school example. Because with school, NOT forcing a child to go to school IS the risky option. Even there you’re minimizing risks. — khaled

Ok, consider the example of being sentenced to death then.

Either “do not deny pleasure” is a principle or it isn’t. — khaled

It isn’t an absolute principle. If there’s a good reason to deny pleasure, then it should be denied. This is why things like murder are illegal.

What is the cutoff? — Inyenzi

I don’t have a specific answer or number in mind, but if it isn’t obviously clear which is more likely, you should err on the side of caution.

Not to mention the absurdity of using the amount of people who resort to lethal self-harm as a parameter of a "worthwhile life"... — Inyenzi

I’m open to using any data that’s relevant and available. Suicide’s just an example, and a clear indication that a small number of people do most certainly consider life not to be worthwhile.

I couldn't imagine justifying this with, "well, I guessed it was more likely you'd find it worthwhile, so I did it". — Inyenzi

Why not? Is it ok to risk feeding my child peanuts (or anything else for that matter) without knowing if they are allergic to them? If not, then are you suggesting it’s better to submit them to the harm caused by getting a complete allergy test done?

Why is it a good thing to create the conditions of harm to take place, for another person? — Inyenzi

To be succinct, because it’s most likely worth it.

Say in my power is the ability to instill within you a 6th sense, which has both the capacity to be experienced as painful or pleasurable. I guess that you are 51% likely to judge this added sense as "worthwhile" to have. Do I therefore have the right to bestow this sense upon you, without your permission? — Inyenzi

Aside from your percentage being what I would consider “too close to call,” sure. If I’m in somewhat intense pain 50% of the time, and there’s a surgery that can reduce that number to say 10%, but comes with a 2% chance of increasing the percentage to 75%, would you advise me to get the surgery? What if you find me unconscious and covered in bee stings, and you have an epi-pen that will most likely rescue me, but I could be allergic to it, which would cause me to die. Do you stick me with it anyway? Even without being able to obtain my consent?

Doesn’t AN think it’s always wrong to have kids? — Pinprick

The criteria required is basically impossible. I’ve gone over it before with echarimon. You would need to show that having kids is the less risky option. IE: That you need kids SO BAD that you would suffer more from childlessness alone than your kids are likely to suffer their entire lives. This becomes impossible if your kids are to have their own kids. That’s also on you (though you’re a lot less responsible)

So why not take the risk? — Pinprick

Because it’s not you paying the consequences. You have no right to endanger others. Like with the button example I gave. If one day you woke up 30000 dollars richer and later found that it happened because I pressed the button 30 times without telling you, I think you would be furious at me. I risked harming you. And this is EVEN IF you would have personally pressed the button 50 times.

But maybe prison is a better example. If someone is sentenced to death, there’s no way that is for their benefit, or that they consented to it. Therefore, it must be for the benefit of others. — Pinprick

No it’s for the PROTECTION of others. Not their benefit. Humans like to get revenge but that’s not the primary reason we put people in jail. The primary reason is that we need to protect others. We judge the people in jail as dangerous, which is why we put them there. Letting them walk around is the risky option. We don’t put them there for the population to have fun indulging in a feeling of righteousness.

knowing that they may not find life worthwhile due to suffering, should also be ok as long as doing so benefits others. — Pinprick

You can’t prove that your next child will benefit others. And this isn’t something you can even refer to statistics for. It is possible they’ll be selfish assholes despite your efforts. We have plenty of selfish assholes in the world with parents who had good intentions.

This isn’t really a comparable analogy. There is a difference between potentially taking life and creating it. — Pinprick

Ok make it 2% chance it breaks a random bone in your body. I don’t care. Point is, we don’t take risks with others. Even if we think they’ll think the risk is worth it. We ask first. And when we can’t ask we don’t do it

I think the rest of what I said was “without good reason.” That last bit should clear up most of these scenarios for you — Pinprick

It doesn’t. You said the good reason was that it infringes on liberties. I don’t see how the button examples is infringing on anyone’s liberty. It REALLY doesn’t take much to press a button. I wouldn’t count it as an infringement on liberty to say that I’m obligated to do so.

Generally speaking, the risk of significant harm (dismemberment, lobotomies, disabling injuries, etc.) trumps any potential pleasure. — Pinprick

Wow, crazy what that thought might lead to :rofl:

Seriously though, how do you say this and at the same time say having kids is ok. And don’t go back to the “actually having kids doesn’t harm anyone” BS. We already know there are problems with that, such as not being able to say malicious genetic engineering, or kidnapping people to forests is wrong (since technically neither harms, only creates conditions, but then again, same with shooting people in the face, since the gun might jam)

I personally think these things, but they aren’t facts, and you’re free to disagree. I have no desire to try to force others to agree. You have no obligation towards me whatsoever, nor I to you, but if we both choose individually to follow certain principles in our personal lives, then we owe it to ourselves to follow those principles. But I would never consider you to be obligated towards me due to a principle only I hold. — Pinprick

Sure, agreed. The principle of “do not deny pleasure for no good reason” is very weird. If “good reasons” include “it can harm the guy in question” then the principle just becomes what I’m saying anyways. How do you differentiate?

Ok, consider the example of being sentenced to death then. — Pinprick

We sentence people to death because we deem them too dangerous to keep around. NOT sentencing them to death is the more risky option. Obviously we’re not considering harm done to them, as that is irrelevant. They didn’t consider the harm they did to others, so we don’t consider the harm we do to them as part of the equation at all. They lose the right to be treated as a human in a sense

If one day you woke up 30000 dollars richer and later found that it happened because I pressed the button 30 times without telling you, I think you would be furious at me. I risked harming you. And this is EVEN IF you would have personally pressed the button 50 times. — khaled

Excellent point. It deals with affecting ANOTHER person.

It is possible they’ll be selfish assholes despite your efforts. We have plenty of selfish assholes in the world with parents who had good intentions. — khaled

:rofl:. Trump would not be a case of this though.. He was bred from the start to be an asshole it seems. But he sure took it to the next level.

Even if we think they’ll think the risk is worth it. We ask first. And when we can’t ask we don’t do it — khaled

Prize for most succinct framing of a very basic and intuitive concept that people are doing summersaults to try to bypass.

Seriously though, how do you say this and at the same time say having kids is ok. And don’t go back to the “actually having kids doesn’t harm anyone” BS. We already know there are problems with that, such as not being able to say malicious genetic engineering, or kidnapping people to forests is wrong (since technically neither harms, only creates conditions, but then again, same with shooting people in the face, since the gun might jam) — khaled

And you have to repeat this yet again.. I hope it sinks in this time!

The criteria required is basically impossible. I’ve gone over it before with echarimon. You would need to show that having kids is the less risky option. IE: That you need kids SO BAD that you would suffer more from childlessness alone than your kids are likely to suffer their entire lives. This becomes impossible if your kids are to have their own kids. That’s also on you (though you’re a lot less responsible) — khaled

That seems impossible to calculate if you’re going to consider all the pleasure your child could cause others. I don’t think there’s any reliable way to tell if your child will become inspirational to others. But, I suppose that means the argument for that possibility being likely could be made.

Because it’s not you paying the consequences. You have no right to endanger others. — khaled

We do not live like this, considering the possibility that each act could cause harm to someone else. If we need bread, and there’s only one loaf left, we buy it regardless of the fact that the possibility exists that doing so means someone else is doing without. We routinely risk endangering others if we perceive the benefits to outweigh the costs.

To give a real life example, currently where I live a natural gas pipeline is being constructed underground. This has the potential to explode, and pipelines have in fact exploded before. Were that to happen, the damage could be catastrophic, as this thing runs beneath our roads, near private property, etc. No consent was required, yet this project is occurring nonetheless.

No it’s for the PROTECTION of others. Not their benefit. Humans like to get revenge but that’s not the primary reason we put people in jail. The primary reason is that we need to protect others. We judge the people in jail as dangerous, which is why we put them there. Letting them walk around is the risky option. We don’t put them there for the population to have fun indulging in a feeling of righteousness. — khaled

You don’t think being protected is beneficial? Either way, we justify ALMOST CERTAINLY harming someone against their will (the prisoner) for the sake of others. Why then can we not do the same with childbirth?

You can’t prove that your next child will benefit others. — khaled

The parents will be benefitted. If they actually want a child, then having one will benefit them.

Point is, we don’t take risks with others. Even if we think they’ll think the risk is worth it. We ask first. And when we can’t ask we don’t do it — khaled

Performing CPR on an unconscious person risks breaking their ribs. We do so anyway. Victims that are discovered unconscious often get surgical procedures that have risks. The underlying assumption here, I think, is that life has intrinsic value. My guess is that most people agree with that assumption. If that is the case, then that in itself could justify natalism, because it is better to create value than not to.

It doesn’t. You said the good reason was that it infringes on liberties. — khaled

It is bad when there is not a good reason to do so. It is acceptable if the pleasure they are seeking infringes on the liberties of others, or otherwise needlessly risks harming others. — Pinprick

Seriously though, how do you say this and at the same time say having kids is ok. — khaled

Because having kids very rarely risks significant harm. Very few people get dismembered, lobotomized, etc. Most people get scrapes and bruises, and maybe broken bones, but these relatively small sufferings do not make most people feel like life is not worthwhile.

How do you differentiate? — khaled

The likelihood of the harm occurring, and the severity of it. If we could only experience the pain of stubbing our toe, and every other experience was either neutral or positive, would you still conclude AN?

Obviously we’re not considering harm done to them, as that is irrelevant. They didn’t consider the harm they did to others, so we don’t consider the harm we do to them as part of the equation at all. They lose the right to be treated as a human in a sense — khaled

I don’t see their harm as irrelevant. We should be above the “eye for an eye” justifications of revenge. But if you feel that way, then you’re agreeing that sometimes it’s ok to harm others for the sake of other people? If so, what is the caveat in your principle?

The parents will be benefitted. If they actually want a child, then having one will benefit them. — Pinprick

You can't even say that much for certain. Many parents regret having children, because they weren't actually prepared.

f we need bread, and there’s only one loaf left, we buy it regardless of the fact that the possibility exists that doing so means someone else is doing without. — Pinprick

Because in this case if we don't buy it we ourselves get harmed comparably to how much we can expect the other person (who now can't buy the bread) to be harmed. I don't understand what's so difficult about this.

We routinely risk endangering others if we perceive the benefits to outweigh the costs. — Pinprick

If we perceive the costs of not doing the act to outweigh the costs of doing the act*

To give a real life example, currently where I live a natural gas pipeline is being constructed underground. This has the potential to explode, and pipelines have in fact exploded before. Were that to happen, the damage could be catastrophic, as this thing runs beneath our roads, near private property, etc. No consent was required, yet this project is occurring nonetheless. — Pinprick

Why is this pipeline being built I wonder? It's definitely not being built for no reason. Or rather, the main question is (as always, I don't see what's difficult about this): Is it more harmful to not build the pipeline than it is to build the pipeline? I bet you the answer to that is yes. Or at least it should be.

For example: If the pipeline was being built because some rich guy wanted to have a pipeline there, that connects to nothing, and helps no one, I am pretty sure we can agree that building it in that case is wrong. Because then the frustration of some random guy not getting his arbitrary desire doesn't compare to the risk of someone dying to an explosion.

Why then can we not do the same with childbirth? — Pinprick

Because you cannot say that childbirth is the less risky (likely to cause harm) option. It is basically always the more harmful option, because you're comparing a lifetime of suffering to the suffering of childlessness. Obviously the former is greater, because the latter is literally a subset of it. Whereas you can say with near certainty that throwing someone in jail is the less risky option.

Performing CPR on an unconscious person risks breaking their ribs. We do so anyway. — Pinprick

Because not doing so risks killing them. Which is a much greater harm than a broken rib for most people. I don't understand what's so difficult about this.

The underlying assumption here, I think, is that life has intrinsic value. — Pinprick

Not necessarily. If you go by my definition of harm "Doing something to someone that they would rather not be done to them" then that provides justification for CPR. Most people don't want to die. So not performing CPR would be the more harmful option.

Most people get scrapes and bruises, and maybe broken bones, but these relatively small sufferings do not make most people feel like life is not worthwhile. — Pinprick

Would you mind if I press the button that has a 2% chance of killing you or breaking a bone for a 98% chance of giving you 1000 dollars without asking? Most people walk away 1000 dollars richer.... Heck, most people who have gone through the experience say that it was worth it!

If we could only experience the pain of stubbing our toe, and every other experience was either neutral or positive, would you still conclude AN? — Pinprick

If it is possible that someone will find life not worthwhile because they stubbed their toe once, yes. Though in this case while childbirth would be wrong, it would be a very very small wrong. Akin to pirating a movie or something.

But if you feel that way, then you’re agreeing that sometimes it’s ok to harm others for the sake of other people? — Pinprick

........

I have already given countless examples of this. Like throwing people in jail as letting them go free risks even more harm. Or killing in self defense as not doing so risks comparable harm to yourself. etc.

You minimize harm done. That is all. That is the principle. For a more thorough explanation refer to my talk with Echarimon. Specifically where I talk about what my "tests" are. Search for the word "car" it should be around there.

On the other hand you are suggesting that benefits should also be factored in. That would mean that you are obligated to have children in many scenarios. If you can show that it is likely that they will be beneficial to have overall, then it becomes a duty to have them. But you don't agree with this. Which is weird. Furthermore you say that the risk of significant harm outweighs any considerations of pleasure. I don't see how you balance this. You have two different "variables" whereas I have one.

I say: It's best to do the least risky alternative at all times. And you haven't given an example so far that results in contradictions or ridiculous scenarios by applying this.

2) There is no rebirth. Then one is non-existent before and after life. One compares existence with non-existence. This comparison is impossible. Mathematically speaking: Is 42 greater or less than 0/0? — SolarWind

No, not exactly what's going on. One way to answer this is the Benatarian Asymmetry argument.

Essentially his idea is that if there is no actual person, not experiencing good is neither good nor bad (as there is no "one" to be deprived). It is neutral. — schopenhauer1

In this "neutral" lies the problem. If death is self-non-existence, how are we to imagine it? Seeing nothing and hearing nothing? But the perception of blackness and silence is also a perception. One has to imagine this perception away too.

It is not the same as a dreamless sleep, because one can speak of that after awakening. Personally, I find the indefinable self-non-existence frightening and not neutral.

We aren't speaking about an objective good here, but rather a trade-off. — Inyenzi

Are we? What is being "traded" exactly? This is at the core of the disagreement here, that one side views life as an option, like a game or some other activity, while the other side is saying that this isn't so, as nonexistence is not actually an alternative.

In this "neutral" lies the problem. If death is self-non-existence, how are we to imagine it? Seeing nothing and hearing nothing? But the perception of blackness and silence is also a perception. One has to imagine this perception away too.

It is not the same as a dreamless sleep, because one can speak of that after awakening. Personally, I find the indefinable self-non-existence frightening and not neutral. — SolarWind

So did you read the two reformulations that I wrote below this? I purposely added that in anticipation of this kind of objection. Benatar takes a view that prevention of harm is always good, even if there are no subjective entities to know this. The reformulations below this reformulate this for people who do not have this point of view of the absolute "goodness" of "no harm".

Not to mention the absurdity of using the amount of people who resort to lethal self-harm as a parameter of a "worthwhile life"... — Inyenzi

Good point.

Point being the experience of suffering isn't erased or negated - it was still endured. — Inyenzi

Exactly.

And who am I to impose this "trade-off" on another person? I couldn't imagine justifying this with, "well, I guessed it was more likely you'd find it worthwhile, so I did it". — Inyenzi

Yep.

Say in my power is the ability to instill within you a 6th sense, which has both the capacity to be experienced as painful or pleasurable. I guess that you are 51% likely to judge this added sense as "worthwhile" to have. Do I therefore have the right to bestow this sense upon you, without your permission? How wouldn't this be immoral? What's the difference between me instilling an extra sense upon you, and instilling the (traditional) 5 senses upon a fetus? — Inyenzi

Yep. The only thing they are going to keep doing is make the move to say, "But they don't exist yet, so you can cause anything to happen, because as of the decision, there is no "them" yet". As if this negates that the decision will affect someone in the future. It's mind boggingly bad argumentation, stuck on self-righteous "case closed" ignorance.

Are we? What is being "traded" exactly? This is at the core of the disagreement here, that one side views life as an option, like a game or some other activity, while the other side is saying that this isn't so, as nonexistence is not actually an alternative. — Echarmion

@khaled and I have been saying over and over how making a decision that affects someone in the future, still affects someone in the future. Your argument is specious.

Someone is either affected negatively, or no one is affected negatively. The fact that someone is affected negatively is what we are pointing to. Antinatalists are saying, don't do that. It matters not that the alternative is "no person exists".

Further, Khaled explains over and over how when we "do" cause negative harm, usually it's because of some instrumental reason where the person being harmed is already in a negative situation, and there needs to be some amelioration of this. This is not the case with birth, where there is no person already deprived of something that needs to be ameliorated out of a situation.

So did you read the two reformulations that I wrote below this? I purposely added that in anticipation of this kind of objection. Benatar takes a view that prevention of harm is always good, even if there are no subjective entities to know this. The reformulations below this reformulate this for people who do not have this point of view of the absolute "goodness" of "no harm". — schopenhauer1

Of course I read it. Nevertheless, everything depends on the evaluation of self-non-existence.
If self-non-existence is like hell, then you save someone from that hell by bringing him into life.

A personal question, how do you imagine death, are you afraid of it?

Of course I read it. Nevertheless, everything depends on the evaluation of self-non-existence.
If self-non-existence is like hell, then you save someone from that hell by bringing him into life.

A personal question, how do you imagine death, are you afraid of it? — SolarWind

I don't really understand the context, now. I thought you were trying to do the same thing all the other people are doing.. "No person exists at the time of the decision to procreate, so no one is being affected!" Or "No person will know that they were being prevented from harm!".

What you are saying is odd. Non-existence is non-existence. No subjective point of view of an individual. Existence in the "birth" sense, is some sort of point of view of that organism. There is no metaphysical entity that exists prior to its birth.

There is no metaphysical entity that exists prior to its birth. — schopenhauer1

Let's assume that's true.

Children often say to their parents, "Why did you give birth to me?". The parents might reply, "What would you be if you had not been born, would that be better or worse?"

This is obviously a comparison of existence with non-existence. In this comparison, non-existence does not win over existence, but the comparison is invalid.

What is wrong with my argument?

This is obviously a comparison of existence with non-existence. In this comparison, non-existence does not win over existence, but the comparison is invalid.

What is wrong with my argument? — SolarWind

Because of the way you formulated it. It is about the parent making the decision that affects someone negatively. Don't do it. It doesn't matter that there is no person who is the recipient of not being affected negatively. Otherwise, you have the absurd idea that in order for us to realize harm is bad, someone needs to be born, so we can then say, "See harm is bad!".

Someone is either affected negatively, or no one is affected negatively. The fact that someone is affected negatively is what we are pointing to. Antinatalists are saying, don't do that. It matters not that the alternative is "no person exists". — schopenhauer1

I recognise this is your position, I just wanted to point out that it is, in my estimation, the source of the fundamental disagreement between natalists and anti-natalists in this discussion.

Otherwise, you have the absurd idea that in order for us to realize harm is bad, someone needs to be born, so we can then say, "See harm is bad!". — schopenhauer1

The quintessential problem here is that if I don't agree that this is absurd, there is no further basis for discussion. You think it's absurd, I think it's rather reasonable. Insightful, even. I suppose many of the people who disagree feel the same. There is no easy way to bridge that conceptual chasm.

There is no easy way to bridge that conceptual chasm. — Echarmion

We could start an interminable series of threads sneeringly implying that anyone thinking the opposite "just doesn't get it" for 27 pages before finally admitting it's just a personal feeling without any objective validity. That might work...

It is about the parent making the decision that affects someone negatively. Don't do it. — schopenhauer1

Suppose there were a pill that killed instantly, should parents be allowed to bring children into the world if the children were allowed to take that pill at any time?

Surely that would be in accordance with your logic?