Why not take it at face value and just argue or defend or simply comment on the arguments that antinatalists make rather than try to find these underlying and dubious motives? — schopenhauer1

Because the arguments you put forward are simply not convincing.

It's ill to care about whether someone else even exists or not. So when someone proposes to care so much about others, the simplest answer is that there is something else going on.

A simple argument from misanthrophy, for example, would be far more convincing than yours are.

I can certainly rationalize the majority of your assertions (albeit under specific presuppositions).

I'm inquisitive, nonetheless, with regards to three specific uncertainties:

A) Firstly, do your stances stem from the formalized edifices of Hedonic Morality?

B) Placing a constraint (if not an outright preclusion) on individuals seeking to forge new life, is likely to encroach onto their fundamental liberties. Are you solely promulgating a moralistic perspective, or would you be willing to enact your beliefs in the real world (if accorded the opportunity)?

C) Lastly (and this is solely cursory), what are your views on Schopenhauer's Will to Live (since I imagine you'll bear a tremendous degree of expertise, on him)? I understand that it (presumably) manifests in the aftermath of one's birth; could procreation, however, fall under the purview of the Will to Live (that is to say, instinctively electing to 'live on', by bequeathing one's genetic character)?

So your main point seems to be that we can't help but expect others to work-to-produce so that we ourselves can survive. — schopenhauer1

It's not a fallacy. The fallacy is thinking we are exempt because we are a different species. My main point is that people are natural.

You can choose to NOT put other people in this situation of having to produce to survive in the first place. Is that not true? — schopenhauer1

You can so choose, however, you cannot choose to not benefit from those who chose to do so.

Edited to add: Likewise, you can choose to not be exploited and that will work out for you just like it works out for those who try not to benefit from those who exploit those who produce. There are participants, and there are those who are dead. Nature is not a fallacy.

Is putting people into a situation where they have to produce in order to survive, its own exploitation of people? If not, why not? No one chose that the initial conditions of how life works (like producing something for someone to survive), yet we assume that it is good that people must endure. Why? How is this not immoral/evil and at the least exploitative of people?

It wouldn't be exploitation because survival doesn't necessary involve the forced appropriation of unpaid labor. One must labor for his survival, sure, but it makes little sense to say one must be exploited in order to survive.

Fix it? No that wasn’t the proposed motivation. The motivation was: My child will likely be a positive influence, thus not having him is the riskier option. Similar to how not waking up the swimmer is the riskier option, and so you can choose to wake up the swimmer. — khaled

Right so this again, comes down to our difference in how we are measuring moral good. You are using some totalizing thing where people are used to increase the greatest good for the greatest number of people, etc. As an aside (and simply commentary on your view) I'd like to point out that in the real world these circumstances of using a child's abilities to possibly contribute to society are rarely directly correlated with helping a specific situation and defined outcome. The only main one I can think of is for some sort of medical reason, for example, a sibling or family member needs an organ.

However, in my view, if you are putting someone in an inescapable game, in order to mitigate the people that are already in the game, you are indeed violating the dignity of the person you are forcing into the game, even if the intention or outcome was to increase the good of the already existing people.

The lifeguard and anyone else already existing is ALREADY in the inescapable game. It's too late to prevent their being forced into being in negative situations IN THE FIRST PLACE. So enslaving someone so that the slave can benefit the slaves that are already enslaved would not fly in this view.

This disagreement will always come down to you not seeing the difference between starting a life (creating the very conditions of suffering in the first place) with living an already existing life (a game where amelioration of more harmful with less harmful takes place).

Is it violating the dignity of the swimmer? Well you’re imposing on him so yes.
Justice? Idk about that one it’s too vague a word. — khaled

Do you recognize different states of affairs and thus principles apply differently? Why can a child be forced to go to school but an adult cannot? Differing circumstances.. one may be considered moral to do, one would be considered inappropriate, even if it is seen as best for that person. For example, why is it just to wake the lifeguard to save a life but not to force him to teach lifeguarding classes for the rest of his life and vaguely (maybe) create many competent lifeguards who can save others down the line?

Because the arguments you put forward are simply not convincing. — baker

One has nothing to do with the other. Motives and arguments being good. Or you haven't made that case.

It's ill to care about whether someone else even exists or not. So when someone proposes to care so much about others, the simplest answer is that there is something else going on.

A simple argument from misanthrophy, for example, would be far more convincing than yours are. — baker

It's just saying it's unfair to put others in a game because its your preference. You shouldn't be forced into doing something because another person thinks the game is good and others should play it. I like an existence where people work to survive and go through various harms and suffering big and small THUS others should do this too. Doesn't compute.

A) Firstly, do your stances stem from the formalized edifices of Hedonic Morality? — Aryamoy Mitra

It stems from the indignity of creating unnecessary harm. There are no mitigating circumstances of someone that is not born. Unlike a situation where someone is already born and may need to do some harm to create better outcomes, there is no one in the first place for harm to need to take place. If someone likes the work to survive game, and the overcoming suffering game, it doesn't mean that other people should be force recruited into the game.

B) Placing a constraint (if not an outright preclusion) on individuals seeking to forge new life, is likely to encroach onto their fundamental liberties. Are you solely promulgating a moralistic perspective, or would you be willing to enact your beliefs in the real world (if accorded the opportunity)? — Aryamoy Mitra

Absolutely only moral perspective. It's simply a stance one takes, like veganism. Laws like this usually have to have the morals be foundational to society to such a degree that people would be willing to lay down their life for it, or it's just taken as a given. None of these are true so wouldn't even attempt to move it to law or something like that. It would be as ridiculous as making veganism law.

C) Lastly (and this is solely cursory), what are your views on Schopenhauer's Will to Live (since I imagine you'll bear a tremendous degree of expertise, on him)? I understand that it (presumably) manifests in the aftermath of one's birth; could procreation, however, fall under the purview of the Will to Live (that is to say, instinctively electing to 'live on', by bequeathing one's genetic character)? — Aryamoy Mitra

One might argue that the Will to Live in Schop's view is inevitable Will just is, and thus Representation will always be in the picture somehow. It is really more Representation and Salvation (through ascetic enlightenment). And thus there must always be a way somehow that the Will is objectified..

But I wonder if one can say that perhaps Representation is a guarantee, but not suffering? Only objectifications like animals and humans suffer, even though the objectified/temptestous Will can be found in other, non-suffering forms of striving perhaps.

I am not necessarily a Schopenhaurian in my metaphysics, though I find it intriguing. Can you read over and possibly comment on this thread I have about Schopenhauer's Will?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10521/two-questions-on-schopenhauers-will-and-the-external-world

It's not a fallacy. The fallacy is thinking we are exempt because we are a different species. My main point is that people are natural. — James Riley

But is that ever an excuse to choose to be immoral? If someone murders, can they say "It's natural" even if somehow you can prove human aggression is indeed natural?

You can so choose, however, you cannot choose to not benefit from those who chose to do so.

Edited to add: Likewise, you can choose to not be exploited and that will work out for you just like it works out for those who try not to benefit from those who exploit those who produce. There are participants, and there are those who are dead. Nature is not a fallacy. — James Riley

I see.. We are already in the game.. I am not choosing to benefit from exploitation, everyone is already exploited by being born to work in order to survive.

It wouldn't be exploitation because survival doesn't necessary involve the forced appropriation of unpaid labor. One must labor for his survival, sure, but it makes little sense to say one must be exploited in order to survive. — NOS4A2

But is it always about "unpaid" labor? How about forced labor in general onto another person because you simply like labor yourself (or don't mind it).

We enforce negative conditions on others all the time without their consent. Taxes, schools, etc. So your premise that it’s always wrong to do so isn’t justified. Unless you think taxes and schooling are wrong. — khaled

I'm leaning towards the enforcement of negative conditions on others being always unjust.

I'd like to be persuaded otherwise, but it seems any attempt at justifying such behaviors goes down a slippery slope that leads to a justification for any and all behavior (thus becoming meaningless).

Is putting people into a situation where they have to produce in order to survive, its own exploitation of people? — schopenhauer1

Uh I don't think the alternative was any more humane or non-exploitative. You have something I need, or want even, I take it. If you stop me, I stop you. Not a fun time to be alive. Of course.. it's much of the same even today just with agreed upon.. limits. Usually.

Beyond that it seems to me that not everyone can be a great philosopher, scholar, scientist, teacher, professor, doctor, engineer, architect, etc. That is to say, if everyone is a rich genius then nobody really is. So, some will rise above and their talents will produce works that speak for themselves which will in turn make others actually desire them to be in an elevated social position above theirs. Be it a doctor, builder, scientist, what have you. So the rest of us have two options: work or just try and kill each other and see who survives thus granting the survivor(s?) more resources to do as he pleases. The first option sounds more preferable, especially if you're not very big.

I believe it is important for us to try and bend the arc toward our aspirations and ideals, some of which we think are unique to our species (morality, etc.). I also think that some efforts must be, if they are to succeed, group efforts. And it takes leadership to get the group to go in the agreed upon direction, at the agreed upon rate, and in the agreed upon manner. But all of this occurs in Nature.

For example, when ever a person alleges the hypocrisy or inconsistency of one who fails to carry a load all by himself, I want to put the shoe on their foot. If I'm an environmentalist and I try to carry some of the load and conserve a gallon of gas, I have increased the supply which drops the price which stimulates demand and incentivizes Billy Bob and Cetus to roll more coal thus defeating my goal. so the answer is not me depriving myself. The answer is forcing everyone to conserve a gallon of gas whether they want to or not. But there is an alternative:

If Billy Bob and Cletus get all spun up for war and want to go take out Saddam Husain, they can grab pappy's '06 out of the closet, buy their own ticket to Baghdad, and carry the load by themselves. See how far that gets them.

In others words, we apply that notion of "justice" which is really Nature.

Regardless, we all operate in that world of Nature and if we lack the agreement on a given course of action, then we will all be on our own. If we have the agreement among enough people, and leadership, then we can force everyone to comply. Some times we turn a blind eye to our individual or group immorality because hey, if I let him do it then he'll let me do it. And our kids will look back on us and say "Well, they didn't know any better." But they will be in on the lie too. Because they will have their own immorality.

But the arc, we hope, will continue to bend in the aspirational direction if we are persuasive enough and have the proper leadership.

Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you.

Ok, interesting ideas. However, my question is then, is it just to put another human being into the world if that human is forced to work-to-survive? They don't exist to need amelioration. They are not already in existence and need to be in a "better" place.. If existence has known sufferings, annoyances, and negatives, then surely putting someone into the negatives, just so that they can find ways to get out of it, would be wrong in some way, and perhaps is unjust.

I hate to be flip, but I think it was Clarence Darrow who said something along the lines of "There is no justice, in or out of court." Had I taken that to heart, I would not have spent ten years tilting at windmills. In the end, "just or not" Nature, and the law have largely left it up to the individual. If somebody wants to spread their seed all over the damn place, they run the risk of having that seed put into service of others, and against their will. Is that "on mom and dad," or is the fault of "the man" that exploits the seed? Does fault even matter? Or has Nature and the law taken over at that point?

On the back end, so many people have been through so much worse than I have, and yet they press on. It makes me want to reconsider gratitude, and grace, and fortitude. Then again, I say "Jeesh, there is no way I could do that!" But then I remember that sometimes the only choice would be suicide and Nature has, generally, if not always successfully, programed us to survive no matter what. So, while I think I might never be able to suffer X, I actually would. I don't want to, but I would. Because I have no choice. What do I make of my life then?

Having been in some pretty nasty Fourth World shit holes and seen some relatively happy people digging through and surviving on garbage piles, especially kids, playing and dancing while starving (by First World standards), I wonder why so many First Worlders are whining about XYZ. I think of relativity. It's like putting Bernie Madoff in the general population at a hard corps prison. Nature can be harder on soft people. And not so hard on hard people.

Do I think it's ethical to bring someone into this world for a life of exploitation? We do it with animals all the damn time. In fact, I wonder if our lineage won't someday look back on us and our treatment of animals (or plants, or rocks for that matter) with the same level of abhorrence that we have looking back on slavery, etc. Were the dues paid in the past by all who suffered to get us where we have the luxury of looking back, worth it? Do we dishonor their contribution in taking it for granted?

Should we stop someone from breeding because all the evidence shows their brood will end up exploited? Would we then be exploiting them in the denial of their "right" to breed? Should we leave that decision up to them, or is their right to breed imposing on our vested life?

I think of it like the hunt. I'm disgusted by so much I see in the field. Yet I will kill an Elk too. I think it matters what lies in the heart of the hunter. It may seem like a distinction without a relevant difference, especially as far as the elk is concerned (or the elk's "champions") but it is a difference nonetheless: I strive to live in grace with what I eat, rather than simply saying grace before I eat it.

I think the exploited labor living on top of a festering pile of garbage is capable of living in grace. That is life. Should it be? Who am I to say something should never have been born?

I can kill life, without mens rea, black heart, malice, whatever. It's those who rub their greedy little hands together, taking joy in the suffering and infliction thereof that bother me. I'd sooner kill them than an elk. It's like shooting a rabid dog: No judgement, no justice, just necessary.

But is it always about "unpaid" labor? How about forced labor in general onto another person because you simply like labor yourself (or don't mind it).

I’m opposed to forcing labor of any kind on another. But I don’t believe my parents forced me to labor by birthing me. In fact, they labored for me for quite a period, and I was wholly dependant on them. At any rate, I choose to labor for my own survival.

If existence has known sufferings, annoyances, and negatives — schopenhauer1

It seems people generally think that the joys of life outweigh its sorrows, and that as such, life is worth living and the socio-economic system is worth perpetuating.

One has nothing to do with the other. Motives and arguments being good. Or you haven't made that case. — schopenhauer1

The problem is that you're trying to objectivize the matter, take the persons out of it: as if arguments are good in and of themselves, objectively, regardless of people, and that you have special and superior insight and are the arbiter of the goodness of an argument.

It's just saying it's unfair to put others in a game because its your preference.

Yet people typically don't have a problem with that. Humans are an exploitative species.

You're arguing for a view that is alien to so many people, on so many levels. A view that is estranged from life.

You shouldn't be forced into doing something because another person thinks the game is good and others should play it.

And yet such is life. People do this all the time, in so many ways. Other people can unilaterally force a war on you.

Some say it's naive, childish to wonder about whether something is just or moral.

I like an existence where people work to survive and go through various harms and suffering big and small THUS others should do this too. Doesn't compute.

It doesn't compute in _your_ mind. It computes in so many other people's minds.

I’m opposed to forcing labor of any kind on another. But I don’t believe my parents forced me to labor by birthing me. In fact, they labored for me for quite a period, and I was wholly dependant on them. At any rate, I choose to labor for my own survival. — NOS4A2

I'm sure you know this but you can have two things be true. Your parents labored for you, and now that you were born, you must work-to-survive. You choose to labor or you die from neglect and starvation. That is the situation.

It seems people generally think that the joys of life outweigh its sorrows, and that as such, life is worth living and the socio-economic system is worth perpetuating. — baker

Cool, so if a majority of people like baseball should people be force recruited to play the game? If you say that's different because life has more choices, I'd argue that there really isn't much choice to not work-to-survive, the very topic of this thread. I mentioned the sub-optimal result of free-riding and other things you might bring up too, so don't.

The problem is that you're trying to objectivize the matter, take the persons out of it: as if arguments are good in and of themselves, objectively, regardless of people, and that you have special and superior insight and are the arbiter of the goodness of an argument. — baker

I'm in a philosophy forum, where people make arguments about things like morality. Actually, all of life is a big argument and whether you know it or not, people's arguments are affecting/effecting your life.

Yet people typically don't have a problem with that. Humans are an exploitative species.

You're arguing for a view that is alien to so many people, on so many levels. A view that is estranged from life. — baker

Okay.. slavery not just being the natural course of things also seemed alien for many generations, mainly before the Enlightenment and even then it took until the mid-1800s for it to really start being considered legitimate moral sentiments.

And yet such is life. People do this all the time, in so many ways. Other people can unilaterally force a war on you.

Some say it's naive, childish to wonder about whether something is just or moral. — baker

Really? Why?

It doesn't compute in _your_ mind. It computes in so many other people's minds. — baker

Well, let's take two outcomes from the different computations.

1.) If MY computation is right, no ONE suffers (cause no one is born, of course).
2.) If the procreator-sympathizers are right, SOMEONE suffers.

What's goin' on here?

The lifeguard and anyone else already existing is ALREADY in the inescapable game. It's too late to prevent their being forced into being in negative situations IN THE FIRST PLACE. — schopenhauer1

False. It’s not too late. You can simply let your friend sleep and let the guy drown. That would mean your friend is not forced into a negative situation. You force them into that particular negative situation. And I don’t see how them having had negative situations before is any justification for why it’s ok to force them but not ok in the case of having children.

Do you recognize different states of affairs and thus principles apply differently? — schopenhauer1

No because you haven’t pointed out a principle that applies differently to the different situations. But I do recognize the different states of affairs and how they’re different. You haven’t explained why the difference matters.

1.) If MY computation is right, no ONE suffers (cause no one is born, of course). — schopenhauer1

False. The people the child would have helped suffer. Unless you’re talking about extinction through AN. Which is never happening so is useless to talk about anyways.

I'm leaning towards the enforcement of negative conditions on others being always unjust. — Tzeentch

Schooling? Taxing? Waking up a sleeping lifeguard to save a drowning guy?

I'd like to be persuaded otherwise, but it seems any attempt at justifying such behaviors goes down a slippery slope that leads to a justification for any and all behavior — Tzeentch

Not really. There are countless stopgaps you can implement. Like: Only force a negative condition if the forcing does less harm than not forcing. Is a good one.

No because you haven’t pointed out a principle that applies differently to the different situations. But I do recognize the different states of affairs and how they’re different. You haven’t explained why the difference matters. — khaled

I've already said it, you don't enslave people to help out slaves. You abolish the condition of enslavement. The indignity happens when putting people into the condition in the first place. Once placed in the position, then it would be not recognizing people's dignity by ignoring their humanity. But don't keep putting people into that position in the first place.

I never bought into your totalizing method where this isn't a consideration, only the totalizing outcome of harm or good or whatever utilitarian thing you are claiming. You are assuming your basis as mine and then trying to make me justify why I'm not abiding by your basis that I don't claim to be the moral basis.

What's goin' on here? — Caldwell

Care to elaborate?

I never bought into your totalizing method where this isn't a consideration, only the totalizing outcome of harm or good or whatever utilitarian thing you are claiming. — schopenhauer1

What was this then?

1.) If MY computation is right, no ONE suffers (cause no one is born, of course).
2.) If the procreator-sympathizers are right, SOMEONE suffers. — schopenhauer1

It's almost as if you only consider suffering inflicted...

Once placed in the position, then it would be not recognizing people's dignity by ignoring their humanity. — schopenhauer1

What does this mean? "Once people are born it's ok to force them to do things for the sake of other people"? I'm genuinely asking I don't understand the sentence at all.

The indignity happens when putting people into the condition in the first place. — schopenhauer1

And the indignity happens when you force someone to wake up to save a drowning person too. It also happens when people are forced to go to school. Or forced to pay taxes. Even by your "indignity" basis all these things end up wrong as far as I can tell. Until you define "indignity" more sharply. I assume it means forcing people to do things against their will. Idk what you mean by it.

To not wake the lifeguard would be to overlook the dignity of the drowning person. If the lifeguard was not born, he would not have been waken. But he is born, and thus to survive must mitigate with other humans, ameliorating larger harms with smaller ones. If the lifeguard is not upset from being woken up, then he would be ignoring the dignity of the drowning person himself.

Dignity here is something akin to recognizing people's suffering and wanting to help or prevent it if possible, but realizing that the conditions of life can't prevent it all for those already born.

Again, putting people into enslavement is not the answer to helping the enslaved, but abolishing the enslavement. That is where I'm coming from. I'm not sure why you don't get that.

There are countless stopgaps you can implement. Like: Only force a negative condition if the forcing does less harm than not forcing. Is a good one. — khaled

That will not do.

If one can force negative conditions on others whenever they are of the opinion it does more good than harm, clearly the slippery slope is in full effect.

To not wake the lifeguard would be to overlook the dignity of the drowning person. — schopenhauer1

Oh that counts? Right then to not have the child would be to overlook the dignity of the people they would have helped

Dignity here is something akin to recognizing people's suffering and wanting to help or prevent it if possible, but realizing that the conditions of life can't prevent it all for those already born. — schopenhauer1

Ah I see. So in the end you do only care about suffering inflicted.

Again, putting people into enslavement is not the answer to helping the enslaved, but abolishing the enslavement — schopenhauer1

When the latter is impossible (which it is) the second best thing is to reduce suffering as much as possible (or as you would put it, “respect the existent’s dignity”). Sometimes having a kid does that.

In other words: Hard AN doesn’t follow from your premises.

you didn’t answer though. Taxation? Schooling? Should we stop those? If they’re not wrong why not?

Oh that counts? Right then to not have the child would be to overlook the dignity of the people they would have helped — khaled

Ah I see. So in the end you do only care about suffering inflicted. — khaled

So I should elaborate cause I can see based on what I said, it can be construed as the ONLY thing and that's it, and it's not. Dignity is not simply hedonistic/utilitarian based calculus. It is looking at the person's humanity, trying to understand that they have a POV, that they are a person who must live out the consequences. Morality should be person-centered as it is the person living it out.

So for example, why would it be okay to wake up the lifeguard to save the drowning child, but not force the lifeguard to run a lifeguarding school for the rest of his life? Let's say you did the calculus and indeed the greatest number of people would be saved if he did this. There is something wrong with this. But what? I think by over thinking about the greatest good, you have now overlooked the lifeguard, where before you did not when it was just to wake him up to save the drowning child.

I think forcing both of those upon people is clearly wrong.