I think the thought experiment implicit in The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas puts this kind of question to the test.

My instinct is that not even one person should have a bad life as a cost of the masses having a good life. It follows that natalism is wrong.

Agreed!

If so because you legitimately believe acts can be done to someone or on their behalf because "most people" think its okay with disregard for those who don't think so, is ethics then simply based on the current preferences of a particular group? — schopenhauer1

That doesn’t follow. It doesn’t have to be the only relevant consideration. Your search for a single simple statement that sums up all of morality is half the reason you end up with AN I think.

If so because you legitimately believe acts can be done to someone or on their behalf because "most people" think its okay with disregard for those who don't think so, is ethics then simply based on the current preferences of a particular group? Are ethics voted in by majority rule? — schopenhauer1

It does seem that ones sense of what is ethical or not is dictated by the society and culture in which you are raised and situated. Most societies frown upon murder, torture, incest and theft but not all and universal ethics does seem (in practice anyway) a difficult if not unachievable goal.

My instinct is that not even one person should have a bad life as a cost of the masses having a good life. It follows that natalism is wrong. — Down The Rabbit Hole

What's this got to do with natalism? It's very rare that a person has an entirely 'bad' life, and it's certainly not in any way necessary for the well-being of 'the masses'. I don't see how you're connecting the two at all. New people need to be born to sustain the well-being of the masses, they don't need to have a 'bad life'. In fact it's overall worse for the masses if they do as we're broadly speaking an empathetic species.

Here is my question as it relates to ethics:
Is it permissible to do something on someone else's behalf because one has a notion that "most people" would "want this"? — schopenhauer1

I would say that it can very often be permissible. For example, suppose that a billionaire asked me if I want him to give you a million dollars. I know that if I were to send you a DM here asking if you want a million dollars, then you probably would assume that this is a joke or a scam(after all, why would some random person offer you a million dollars for no reason). So, I would have to make a decision on your behalf here or just have you forfeit the million dollars. Surely you wouldn’t think that I should tell the billionaire not to give you a million dollars just because I can’t be certain that you will be happy about receiving the money. Though, I’ll grant you that the overall goodness of being born is more controversial than the goodness of receiving a million dollars. But, if the vast majority of people are happy about the fact that they are born then why wouldn’t it make sense to take that risk of an occasional child being unhappy about existence?

I think you have a better case to make for legalizing assisted suicide with these consent arguments as it may be argued that if you make a decision on someone else’s behalf then that person has a right to not have people preventing her from wanting to undo the outcome of that decision to the greatest extent that it can be undone(which is suicide). I think it’s kinda strange to argue that we are never justified taking risks on other’s behalf because we actually take risks on other’s behalf quite often. For example, my retirement fund is being managed by some professional investors that I don’t know and they certainly don’t ask me permission for every investment decision that they make. Nonetheless, I trust that they probably know what they are doing and I don’t think it’s wrong for them to make decisions with other people’s money. Though, you should be allowed to object to their decisions and try to undo their decisions if you have the time and will to study and analyze them.

If so because you legitimately believe acts can be done to someone or on their behalf because "most people" think its okay with disregard for those who don't think so, is ethics then simply based on the current preferences of a particular group? Are ethics voted in by majority rule? — schopenhauer1

This is a non sequitur. You're confusing the rule with the data used to carry it out.

Let's say a society has a simple rule. "Do not paint your house a colour that the others in your street generally don't like". That rule could be an absolute one, not subject to democratic usurpation, but immutable for all time. It doesn't have any bearing on the fact that, in order to carry it out, one must discover which colours 'others in your street generally don't like'. Not only can this stage be carried out by majority averaging, but arguably it must be, else it would be prone to bias. One must check, by majority average, what colours are acceptable in order to carry out the timeless and absolute rule to only use such colours on one's house.

It's the same with children. The (seemingly) timeless and absolute rule is that we shouldn't do something on someone else's behalf unless their response is likely to be proportionate to the necessity of the action. There's nothing democratic about this rule. To carry it out, however, we need to assess what a person's likely reaction will be. That data is something which needs to be derived from averaging a population, otherwise we're just guessing.

My instinct is that not even one person should have a bad life as a cost of the masses having a good life. It follows that natalism is wrong. — Down The Rabbit Hole

What's this got to do with natalism? It's very rare that a person has an entirely 'bad' life, and it's certainly not in any way necessary for the well-being of 'the masses'. I don't see how you're connecting the two at all. New people need to be born to sustain the well-being of the masses, they don't need to have a 'bad life'. In fact it's overall worse for the masses if they do as we're broadly speaking an empathetic species. — Isaac

Natalism is a belief that promotes the reproduction of human life. This belief has lead to millions of people being born, a small chunk of which will have net bad lives, an even smaller chunk will have lives of unbearable suffering.

These people with net bad lives and those with lives of unbearable suffering, exist as a consequence of natalism. In short, If people stop breeding, the lives of suffering eventually stop too.

These people with net bad lives and those with lives of unbearable suffering, exist as a consequence of natalism. In short, If people stop breeding, the lives of suffering eventually stop too. — Down The Rabbit Hole

But you said that no individual should suffer for the good of the masses. So why should those people who will suffer during the course of this 'eventually' do so just to alleviate the potential suffering of these unfortunate future people who would otherwise have miserable lives?

These people with net bad lives and those with lives of unbearable suffering, exist as a consequence of natalism. In short, If people stop breeding, the lives of suffering eventually stop too. — Down The Rabbit Hole

But you said that no individual should suffer for the good of the masses. So why should those people who will suffer during the course of this 'eventually' do so just to alleviate the potential suffering of these unfortunate future people who would otherwise have miserable lives? — Isaac

I am a consequentialist. Suffering in itself is not a bad thing, and is justified if it leads to less net suffering e.g. getting surgery.

I think any suffering resulting from not breeding will pale in comparison to the millions of lives of unbearable suffering that would otherwise exist.

I think any suffering resulting from not breeding will pale in comparison to the millions of lives of unbearable suffering that would otherwise exist. — Down The Rabbit Hole

What makes you think that? You'd need numbers on the amount of suffering, the longevity of the human race, the extent to which antinatalism will be successful - all seems like quite a lot of guesswork on which to advocate the extinction of humanity, no?

X: (Most people) think TPF is such a boring place.
Y: Speak for yourself - I like it!

Jokes aside, that's why the moral rule that has the most appeal is the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would like others do unto you. Ethics isn't about what most people would want but about what you want. The underlying assumption though, ironically, is that other people are like you and Bob's your uncle!

Yet, it isn't that simple. It's not just about what most people want. We all know that! ( :wink: :wink: :wink: ) - the list of most popular and fastest growing websites will vouch for what I'm hinting at.

I find it fascinating that both X (Christ) and XXX (porn) turn us on! :chin: Threesomes, Anyone?

I think any suffering resulting from not breeding will pale in comparison to the millions of lives of unbearable suffering that would otherwise exist. — Down The Rabbit Hole

What makes you think that? You'd need numbers on the amount of suffering, the longevity of the human race, the extent to which antinatalism will be successful - all seems like quite a lot of guesswork on which to advocate the extinction of humanity, no? — Isaac

I operate from the data I am aware of, and I would and have changed my beliefs based upon fresh data (I used to be a pro-natalist).

To be honest I wasn't sure of the gross increase in suffering you had in mind. Presumably, sadness of not being able to have children, less young people to look after the older generation?

I don't see real reason to believe the human race will cease to exist by the year 2100, with a predicted population of around 11 billion. I don't know how the aforesaid suffering from antinatlaism could outweigh the millions of lives of unbearable suffering that would otherwise exist e.g. babies, children, and adults with horrific illnesses wishing it would all end, people tortured begging to be killed, and we are due another world war.

I don't think the extent to which anitinatalism will be successful is relevant to my position that procreation is a net bad. It's not even a topic I'm that passionate about, it's just I sympathise with the antinatalist position, and there won't be many people defending it.

I operate from the data I am aware of — Down The Rabbit Hole

I assumed that, I was just wondering what your numbers are. Key ones being - % of the population who'd rather they hadn't been born, quantification of their 'suffering' vs the suffering of humanity as it descends to extinction, and the length of time you envisage the process taking.

wasn't sure of the gross increase in suffering you had in mind. Presumably, sadness of not being able to have children, less young people to look after the older generation? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yes, and also, any community benfitting project which takes more than single generation to complete.

I don't know how the aforesaid suffering from antinatlaism could outweigh the millions of lives of unbearable suffering that would otherwise exist e.g. babies, children, and adults with horrific illnesses wishing it would all end, people tortured begging to be killed, and we are due another world war. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Well, that's what I was asking really. Why the assumption that it won't? Once the human race is extinct you can't undo that and you're advocating that position on the basis of "it seems to me, and no one's shown me otherwise". Just seems either monumentally reckless or sociopathic. Surely the default should be that the existing natural state is OK until such time as someone comes up with an absolutely watertight set of figures proving the net gain in suffering is greater if we continue. Given it's a one time switch you can't undo "I just reckon" seems an astonishingly inadequate level of certainty on which to go ahead.

Imagine you're a God. You wipe out the human race to prevent net suffering. One of the other gods comes along with the figures proving that net suffering was actually increased by your actions, distraught over the loss he asks "why did you do it?", you reply "I just had a bit of a think about it and 'reckoned' what the figures might be". Would any normal person be satisfied with that?

I don't think the extent to which anitinatalism will be successful is relevant to my position that procreation is a net bad. — Down The Rabbit Hole

The less successful it is the longer the human race is around for despite your policy, the more net suffering from those who remain. Given that the human race will end anyway at some point, a long drawn out decline by antinatalism only yields a net drop in suffering if it successfully ends the human race enough years before it was going to end anyway.

Is it permissible to do something on someone else's behalf because one has a notion that "most people" would "want this"? — schopenhauer1

Permissible by whom?

Surely the default should be that the existing natural state is OK /.../ — Isaac

This is moral realism, though. Might makes right. The downtrodden will not like it.

"The existing natural state is that people have children. Because it is the existing natural state, it's ok."

vs.

"The existing natural state is that rich and powerful people can take advantage of those with less money and less power, and they can do so with impunity. Because it is the existing natural state, it's ok."

The "the existing natural state is OK" motto is not applicable in all cases, so it cannot be used as a general rule by which to act or assess the moralit status of an action or ideology.

I don't know how the aforesaid suffering from antinatlaism could outweigh the millions of lives of unbearable suffering that would otherwise exist e.g. babies, children, and adults with horrific illnesses wishing it would all end, people tortured begging to be killed, and we are due another world war. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Well, that's what I was asking really. Why the assumption that it won't? Once the human race is extinct you can't undo that and you're advocating that position on the basis of "it seems to me, and no one's shown me otherwise". Just seems either monumentally reckless or sociopathic. Surely the default should be that the existing natural state is OK until such time as someone comes up with an absolutely watertight set of figures proving the net gain in suffering is greater if we continue. Given it's a one time switch you can't undo "I just reckon" seems an astonishingly inadequate level of certainty on which to go ahead.

Imagine you're a God. You wipe out the human race to prevent net suffering. One of the other gods comes along with the figures proving that net suffering was actually increased by your actions, distraught over the loss he asks "why did you do it?", you reply "I just had a bit of a think about it and 'reckoned' what the figures might be". Would any normal person be satisfied with that? — Isaac

The unborn are in a neutral state (they experience neither good or bad), on the other hand there are millions that would live in unbearable agony. I don't think it's fair to err on the side of those in a neutral state as opposed to those in unbearable agony.

Further, I don't know if I said something to the effect of "I just reckon", but I would say the data's strong enough to form a belief. It's pretty obvious the suffering that lies ahead in breeding billions more people (by the year 2100), and evidence of the suffering involved in stopping breeding looks very weak in comparison.

The less successful it is the longer the human race is around for despite your policy, the more net suffering from those who remain. Given that the human race will end anyway at some point, a long drawn out decline by antinatalism only yields a net drop in suffering if it successfully ends the human race enough years before it was going to end anyway. — Isaac

Okay, I see where you are coming from now. I don't see any evidence to believe humans will go extinct by the year 2100 by which 3 billion people are projected to be brought into existence, and if even 1% of those are a life of suffering, that's 30 million.

That doesn’t follow. It doesn’t have to be the only relevant consideration. Your search for a single simple statement that sums up all of morality is half the reason you end up with AN I think. — khaled

I'm not sure I'm trying to do that. In our back-and-forths, due to you wanting me to provide a one-size-fits-all heuristic as a basis for my AN, I do end up doing that I think (see previous discussions).

What I am proposing here is that almost every circumstance where something is done on someone else's behalf there is ameliorating a lesser harm for a greater harm.. One can even argue, giving a present to someone is also doing this... surprise party, or whatever example you want to use.

However, in the case of the not-born/considering-born, it is always the case that at least for that person being born nothing needed to be ameliorated, thus, I call this act of putting in conditions of harm/suffering "unnecessary" in the sense that it is absolutely not needed for some living agent. Bringing it to the subject-at-hand in the other thread but can be generalized to any form of suffering, harm, imposition, etc.

1) Working to get better circumstance = a necessary (evil/need/thing/event)
2) Creating the conditions where someone needs to get better circumstances (aka through working) = not necessary.

It does seem that ones sense of what is ethical or not is dictated by the society and culture in which you are raised and situated. Most societies frown upon murder, torture, incest and theft but not all and universal ethics does seem (in practice anyway) a difficult if not unachievable goal. — prothero

Well, I think this goes even deeper to the problem with the Golden Rule argument (What you do not want done to you, do not do to another).. There are people who would want suffering in certain contexts which others would not. Hence the rule is a bit flawed itself, though I like its attempt at succinct clarity. It doesn't work when combined with outliers or simply moral relativism in general throughout individuals and cultures.

Though, I’ll grant you that the overall goodness of being born is more controversial than the goodness of receiving a million dollars. But, if the vast majority of people are happy about the fact that they are born then why wouldn’t it make sense to take that risk of an occasional child being unhappy about existence? — TheHedoMinimalist

Again, this is the same problem with the Golden Rule, not everyone wants done to them what you would want done to you or its inverse (not done to them what you would not want done).

I think it’s kinda strange to argue that we are never justified taking risks on other’s behalf because we actually take risks on other’s behalf quite often. For example, my retirement fund is being managed by some professional investors that I don’t know and they certainly don’t ask me permission for every investment decision that they make. Nonetheless, I trust that they probably know what they are doing and I don’t think it’s wrong for them to make decisions with other people’s money. Though, you should be allowed to object to their decisions and try to undo their decisions if you have the time and will to study and analyze them. — TheHedoMinimalist

I'm sure there are legal ways you have allowed that person to do that.. forms, fine print, laws, and whatnot. Certainly that person shouldn't do it without your approval otherwise. On an ethical basis, no one should just bet on your money, even if it is a sure bet. And certainly moments in life are not sure bets, but very nuanced and complicated phenomena.

That data is something which needs to be derived from averaging a population, otherwise we're just guessing. — Isaac

Right, but at what percentage does the minority get discounted? And what kind of phenomena does this apply more strongly? A color to a house and a human life you would think this rule would get more stringent, don't you think?

Jokes aside, that's why the moral rule that has the most appeal is the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would like others do unto you. Ethics isn't about what most people would want but about what you want. The underlying assumption though, ironically, is that other people are like you and Bob's your uncle!

Yet, it isn't that simple. It's not just about what most people want. We all know that! ( :wink: :wink: :wink: ) - the list of most popular and fastest growing websites will vouch for what I'm hinting at. — TheMadFool

That's another point.. What if what most people want IS NOT GOOD, but they are not aware of this?

Permissible by whom? — baker

Permissible as one's own ethical guideline.

I used to be a paramedic, and this question seems very similar to certain issues that we EMS workers see every day.

If I run across an unconscious or an irrational patient (perhaps from drugs, or a head injury), I can treat that person under the doctrine of "implied consent," which means that we do what a majority of reasonable people would want under similar circummstances.

This even applies if they refuse, as an incompetent person is not able to legally refuse treatment.

I don't believe that the ends justify the means, but we are expected to be practical and pragmatic in a medical emergency.

I don't believe that the ends justify the means, but we are expected to be practical and pragmatic in a medical emergency. — Kevin Levites

Granted. But let's make this more interesting..
You are convinced most people would like the "feelings of accomplishment" or at least the "feelings of being engaged" of working.. You are a magician of sorts who can conjure people out of thin air. You use your powers and create people. You provide some options but they must choose a form of work.. You decide that "most people you create through your magical powers like doing this"... Are you in the right in creating these people who will work?

Again, this is the same problem with the Golden Rule, not everyone wants done to them what you would want done to you or its inverse (not done to them what you would not want done). — schopenhauer1

So, would you say that it would be more wise for me to tell the billionaire in my hypothetical that I can’t speak on your behalf and risk you not receiving a million dollars because of that?

So, would you say that it would be more wise for me to tell the billionaire in my hypothetical that I can’t speak on your behalf and risk you not receiving a million dollars because of that? — TheHedoMinimalist

So you are saying the complexities and known harms of life are the same as giving someone a million dollars?

If most people want something that has almost 0.000000001 possibility of harm and something that has demonstrable forms of known and unknown harms, you think this is analogous?

Probabilities can have a place but the application is so haughtily assumed..THATS the real argument. I’d still find something as important as bestowing a human life should be more closely analyzed.

Also, once born, its TOO LATE. At this point relative comparisons of lesser for better states come into play, so of course the negligible “lesser state” of not consenting to a million dollars is like a limit in calculus. However creating a whole life for someone else is much less negligible AND is not trading a greater harm for a lesser harm SINCE THAT PERSON DOESN'T EXIST YET TO NEED THIS TRADE OFF”. Thus it is an absolutely unnecessary cause of harm to that person.

I'm not sure I'm trying to do that. In our back-and-forths, due to you wanting me to provide a one-size-fits-all heuristic as a basis for my AN, I do end up doing that I think (see previous discussions). — schopenhauer1

But in the OP you say:

If so because you legitimately believe acts can be done to someone or on their behalf because "most people" think its okay with disregard for those who don't think so, is ethics then simply based on the current preferences of a particular group? Are ethics voted in by majority rule? — schopenhauer1

Again, it doesn’t have to be the only consideration.

One can even argue, giving a present to someone is also doing this — schopenhauer1

No they can’t. Not consistently anyways. Unless you believe that every instance of pleasure is just amelioration of harm.

Currently if someone gave me 10 dollars I’d be happy. Even though I’m not suffering due to lack of 10 dollars. I wasn’t being harmed by lack of 10 dollars yet I’d appreciate the gift. You think this is never the case?

surprise party, or whatever example you want to use. — schopenhauer1

The whole point of that example is that no one suffers due to lack of surprise party. It’s a surprise. They weren’t expecting it. You can’t suffer due to not having something you weren’t expecting.

Are you currently suffering due to me not gifting you 10000 dollars? No. Because you don’t expect 10000 dollars from me. But would you be happy if I gifted you 10000 dollars? Probably.

So you are saying the complexities and known harms of life are the same as giving someone a million dollars? — schopenhauer1

They aren’t the same obviously but I think most people would rather lose a million dollars of their lifetime earnings than to have someone make it so that they have never been born at all. I don’t why this fact shouldn’t also be considered here.

If most people want something that has almost 0.000000001 possibility of harm and something that has demonstrable forms of known and unknown harms, you think this is analogous? — schopenhauer1

Given that there seems to be only like 3% of people who wish they had never been born at any given time, I think it could reasonably be seen as somewhat analogous. Even if I thought there was like a 3% chance that you wouldn’t want a million dollars(maybe because it would trigger a drug habit or something), I would still think it’s appropriate to make a decision on your behalf here since you are quite unlikely to be worse off.

Also, once born, its TOO LATE. — schopenhauer1

I don’t think it’s too late. In fact, with adequate access to assisted suicide, I think you can provide most people who wish they had never been born with a quite reasonable solution to their future suffering.

SINCE THAT PERSON DOESN'T EXIST YET TO NEED THIS TRADE OFF”. Thus it is an absolutely unnecessary cause of harm to that person. — schopenhauer1

Why do you think that being born is an unnecessary cause of harm and that avoid harming someone is necessary? I think one could reasonably argue that we don’t need to care about harming others(at least I don’t see why you think it’s more obvious that we need to care about harming others but we don’t need to care about creating additional benefits for others). I think this sort of mindset about morality relates to the bias of morality being treated like legal laws. For example, there seems to be a lot of talk of moral laws, moral duties, and moral prohibitions in moral discourse(which kinda seem strangely similar to the concept of legal duties and legal prohibitions). I think laws have a structure to them that emphasizes keeping everyone civil and that tends to prioritize punishing those that harm others as opposed to rewarding or punishing others that refuse to help others. This is because the law kinda seems to act as a mediator and peacekeeper to avoid having everyone engage in vigilante justice against their enemies. They typically choose to use legal proceedings instead. Because of this function of laws, laws are mostly about avoiding harming others. But, I don’t see why morality needs to be treated the same as laws and I think it’s quite common for people to conflate moral concerns with legal and sociocultural concerns. If such bias didn’t exist, then I think people wouldn’t gravitate much towards moral codes that focus on avoiding harming others. I think harming others would be equal in weight to benefiting others in a bias-free conception of morality.

But then, if you start convincing people that you are correct, then many of them will feel bad - for having children, that their parents were immoral. So, then you have made living people feel bad, for the non-benefit of currently non-existing creatures...well, some of them. Which seems even worse than...

My instinct is that not even one person should have a bad life as a cost of the masses having a good life. It follows that natalism is wrong.