"However, I accept a point of view that for some human being life could be a better option than non-being. But we could never reach any kind of certainty at any case, any circumstances, at any place that life is better for any unborn, potential person."
But this fact, it could be a better option than non-being, does not justify the act of having a child. — Antinatalist

Neither does it not justify the act of having a child. It's not an argument just an empty statement about something we don't know.

There underlies the fact that somebody not existing has no needs, so absence of good is not a bad thing. It perhaps is not a "good" thing, but at least it is a neutral thing. Absence of bad is good even if there is nobody enjoying it. Presence of bad is bad, that will be quite clear. I don´t understand how you don´t get this. — Antinatalist

I get it. I just think it is a very blinkered view and ignore that the opposite position is equally as 'justified'. Why don't you see the absence of pleasure as bad is the key point here. You've not answered probably because you cannot. Neither have you responded to the lesser or larger degree position because you can happily avoid it by jumping to the complete absence of either with some imaginary non-existing person. Mental hoodwinking yourself doesn't mean it will work on me.

Do you really think that way? — Antinatalist

Do I really think that less 'pleasure' is bad and less 'pain' is good? Of course, who doesn't!?

The only reason you may not is because of the rather slippery terms 'pleasure' and 'pain' which I've previously stated I'm not exactly comfortable with using in this given context as they are far too broad and open to multiple interpretations.

I don´t see any thing, which are perceived as enjoyable, happy etc.. could ever balance the badness of Auschwitzes. — Antinatalist

You sound like a 'utilitarian'. Irony?

We are living now. We can make decisions for the future. And we know the pain and pleasure are things the possible upcoming child is most likely to face. I surely can think of a universe without human beings, and a universe without life at all. — Antinatalist

They will certainly face both. It is not merely 'likely'. Speaking personally I've felt more positive about life than not overall. I understand 'pain' is necessary and I'm not bitter about it any more than I'm angry at the Sun for rising everyday without my express permission (because such would be plain silly).

And no you cannot anymore than you can imagine what bat thinks because you cannot think outside of your own head so don't fool yourself into thinking you can. We are unable to think of nothing in any pure sense - that is actually something Kant pointed out.

This is one thing we agree on, at least. — Antinatalist

And so is the presence of 'pleasure' because they are essentially the same item on a spectrum. Why on earth you decide to focus on the 'given' nature of 'pain' over 'pleasure' you'll have to figure out for yourself.

You simply do not get it, the main principle for antinatalism is: you can not do harm someone who does not exist. — Antinatalist

Kill everyone then. That way all harm will cease to exist. Auschwitz every last person alive ... it doesn't matter because once they're gone they won't be around to cry about the suffering. Nothing will matter because for humanity there will be nothing given our exitinction ... the MAIN prionciple of an antinatalist is to rile against existence. The main points is that both existing and new life is bad. You stated you are not this though so I'm puzzled why you carry the fight for an argument you don't fully agree with - an argument that at it's heart is completely nonsensical.

The only value it has is to instill a question in people about the responsibility people have for themselves and others. Generally though, those putting the argument forward do a terrible job of making this clear and/or resort to pure logic and ignore the subjectivity of such matters.

You simply do not get it, the main principle for antinatalism is: you can not do harm someone who does not exist. It is a very different case, when someone is already born and living in this world. On cowardness, I'm pretty sure I find it more on natalists, natalism is, after all, far more socially acceptable ideology than antinatalism. As an antinatalist, you are a rebel. And not that kind of "rebel" you find on mainstream movies or some MTV videos, which were watched when I was young. — Antinatalist

I get it. I just strongly disagree with it because it is a myopic view. I am NOT saying having children is better than not, I'm saying we have literally no way of coming to any reasonable conclusion one way or the other. We know we do what we do and nature is nature. Beyond that we're essentially along for the ride. Judging that lack of pain is better than a lack of pleasure is the heart of the argument. It will remain a purely subjective one from any individual perspective.

The main point is that there is no conclusive evidence either way but by all means go ahead and think what you want. I am inclined to care about HOW you think not really WHAT you think. By this I mean if you cannot argue against your own beliefs then you've missed something.

Doubt is our saviour not rigid reason or ethical drivel.

Regarding bravery. Being a rebel does not equate to brave. Bravery is facing a fear - ie. having a child and excepting the responsibility that entails rather than avoiding it due to fear - bravery would be to willingly do the right thing regardless of the personal harm it causes to you AND, in a purer sense, to do so without any other person's knowledge of what you'd done.

The above is where my interest in ethics lies. Everything everyone says about any ethical issue is mostly hollow and empty. Meaning no matter what we say in the public sphere we cannot escape the ego and self-hoodwinking involved. We cannot explore the really gritty and dark sides of ourselves in the public eye because it is shunned. The best we can do is throw out certain hypotheticals and encourage people to play with them and make them into their own personal monstrosities. Again, the benefit is enormous BUT so i sthe risk. The question remains how on earth we can make any kind of judgement about what is going too far and what is too little. This is PRECISELY where the dualistic items of 'pain' and 'pleasure' presented in this thread come into fruitition.

As a matter of fact it is not depriving anything for anybody, because there is nobody existing. — Antinatalist

Benatar's point not mine. I was just stating 'depriving someone of pain' is his focus (and he says so). Why not focus on 'depriving some non-existing person of pleasure'. Because it doesn't suit the argument. It is done very superficially in the quote you presented.

Miscarry could be tragic, but those who we see suffering from it are usually the parents of the potential child. It is more about  the expectations of the parents than missing the life of the possible upcoming child. — Antinatalist

I think I'll call the aboive clutching at straws because it doesn't make any sense. Check you've not talked yourself into a corner please. Just for the record I have experienced this personally but didn't want to divulge that to avoid vapid sympathy. And I do think from time to time about what someone who never exists misses out on (and I'm not talking about 'pain').

note: Benatar said people don't do this. Probably because he doesn't? I cannot blame him for being lazy I guess. It is what it is.

If you try to attack the asymmetry argument, the different situation for your example above, is that in your example there are living people, who could feel the loss of something good and possibly feel grief from that. — Antinatalist

I didn't attack it. I just dismantled it with ease.

If you wish to imagine a world of non-existing people as an argument do ahead and fool yourself. His point boils down to absence of pain is better than the presence of pleasure (with no explanation that of substance). Your argument has now done the nihilistic/buddhist trick of over stating none of it really matters if no one can be around to experience ... so fucking what? I'll tell you! Then the whole 'ethics' of it is utterly redundant ... that isn't a reasonable argument so there is in fact NO argument to be had here. We may as well argue that green smells better than red in midsummer when the kettle is flying east.

The position is that (Benatar) pain bad and pleasure not good enough. The first step toward nihilism/buddhism. The first step towards denying repsonsibility, having excemption from your actions and giving up your will to do anything about anything. It is cowardice AND it is a cowardice we HAVE TO dip into at some point in our lives in order to carrying the wonderul/scary burden of existing with aplume.

Like I said before, my antinatalism is grounded on the fact that having a child is a decision for someone else´s life, whose consent we can not have. The fact that consent is impossible to have, doesn´t make the decision right. It is a decision for someone else´s whole life, it is not a trivial "cross a road or not" kind of decision. — Antinatalist

Well then, it's a pretty unstable grounding don't you think? You are happy to talk about living people when it suits and understand perfectly well that non-existing items don't exist, yet you say 'consent' is required for something that doesn't exist? That is complete nonsense!

There is no 'consent' and that doesn't make the decision right or wrong, good or bad. Why on earth do you insist that it can be right or wrong? I'm sure your answer will go along the lines of 'because of pain,' to which I could just keep repeating myself by saying what about 'pleasure' and the almost certain fact that the vast majority of people living are quite capable and excepting of the fact that life is not just a happy go lucky experience of eternal bliss. Shit happens, and that's not the end of the world beleive it or not. Some people will have more misfortune than others, but that is just entropy at work it is NOT a valid reason to cut away the pleasure of one because of the pain of another when both of these items are one and the same thing at heart.

You are not in any position to judge and for you that is enough because you believe that pain outweighs pleasure, or rather that it is not worth the risk just incase it does because absence of pleasure is not that big of a deal and that our natural 'loss aversion' (pain) is convincing enough for you to declare that although the pain is the same 'amount' compared to 'pleasure' we feel the pain more strongly so ALL life is essentially skewed toward a life of pain rather than one of pleasure.

That I could understand. Any and everything else you've said doesn't add up, presents a one-sided argument, or just contradicts itself. I like contradictions though :) They are usually where the meat is.

Thansk again. I think I'm done here. Hope you have got something from this

bye bye

Do you think that all life experiences subjective non-trivial harm? — schopenhauer1

Yes.

If so, why wouldn't that be an example of the former? — schopenhauer1

What "former"? You mean this argument?

"non trivial harm exists in life" = "Procreation is wrong" — khaled

It doesn't work for the same reason that "non trivial harm exists in sending people to school" =/= "sending people to school is wrong". It isn't sufficient for a non-trivial harm to exist due to an imposition, it has to also be the case that the imposition caused that in its entirety.

If you had a time machine and discovered that by sending someone to school, that person will one day be late for school, try to jump the fence, and break their arm. Assume there is no way of changing this, if they go to school, they are fated to breaking their arm due to being late at one point. Breaking an arm is a non-trivial harm, agreed? Does it now become wrong to send them to school?

I'd say no, because although it is the case that they will break their arm, it wasn't purely because of going to school. The imposition of having to go to school was a very small reason as to why they broke their arm. The main reason was because they were late.

Similarly, you have to show that the imposition of life itself, IE requiring food, water, and a couple more things, is itself non-trivial, not just that it can lead to a non-trivial harm when combined with other factors.

By your system, it would be wrong to have children even in a utopia where suffering is a choice. Because you don't know whether or not the next person will choose to suffer a non-trivial harm or not, and so their life could contain non-trivial harm, so it's wrong to impose. Basically any imposition becomes wrong, no matter how benign, simply because there is a chance it contributes to a non-trivial harm.

"non trivial harm exists in life" = "Procreation is wrong"
— khaled — khaled

No that's not what the major premise.. You know it by now. Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? I'll add in conditions of unnecessary harms if you need it.. Now we are going back to really inane arguments from Benkei days of "causation" versus conditions for all causations of harm :roll:. Just widen the "container" of what creates the harms.. But please please let's not rehash this one, or at least we should re-read that whole line or argument from that Benkei AN thread from months ago...

By your system, it would be wrong to have children even in a utopia where suffering is a choice. Because you don't know whether or not the next person will choose to suffer a non-trivial harm or not, and so their life could contain non-trivial harm, so it's wrong to impose. Basically any imposition becomes wrong, no matter how benign, simply because there is a chance it contributes to a non-trivial harm. — khaled

Ok, I see a little bit where you are going here.. I don't think it's quite the same causation issue that Benkei argued..

This simply doesn't get around the idea of non-trivial harm that is subjectively experienced/evaluated. You seemed to agree, even if for the sake of argument, that this could be the case. Even if I don't give you a criteria for objective harm (because no one would "see" its validity), it works as long as all humans experience subjectively non-trivial harm.

Secondly: I use at the end of this article the concept of  the "potential person" slightly different as R.M. Hare does. My statement is that ´potential person´ has not right to be born, but it has right not to be born.  — Antinatalist

The potential person may have rights, but how would you or anyone else know what they are, or what their preference is. Further, it is not a potential person before it is a potential person. Ante, there ain't no it. And further, reproduction is something people do as what they are. Your argument appears to be along the lines of it being just plain wrong to be what we are. But being, both generally and particularly, is a given. Being cannot be wrong.

I have to take antinatalism as a dishonest philosophy. It does not fit the account to reality, rather bends the reality to the account. I call that a lie.

Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? — schopenhauer1

110% agreed in all situations ever.

Now. By what standard shall we determine what a non-trivial unnecessary imposition is?

I'll add in conditions of unnecessary harms if you need it. — schopenhauer1

Then no. This would make literally any imposition wrong. Because literally anything can be a condition of unnecessary harm. I can't give someone a gift because by stopping them I could be resulting in them getting into a car accident later. In that instance the gift was a condition for the accident, as the accident wouldn't have happened without it.

You seemed to agree, even if for the sake of argument, that this could be the case — schopenhauer1

Can you please just write what you mean? Instead of arguing that this is better than that which is better than the latter which is worse than the former?

What exactly is it that I seem to agree to?

Ok, I see a little bit where you are going here.. I don't think it's quite the same causation issue that Benkei argued.. — schopenhauer1

So, you understand that "life contains/results in non-trivial harm" is not the same as "life is a non-trivial imposition"?

I agree it's wrong to impose non-trivial impositions, not that it's wrong to impose things that result in non-trivial harms. Because, again, literally any imposition can result in a non-trivial harm.

Then no. This would make literally any imposition wrong. Because literally anything can be a condition of unnecessary harm. I can't give someone a gift because by stopping them I could be resulting in them getting into a car accident. In that instance the gift was a condition for the accident, as the accident wouldn't have happened without it. — khaled

Ok, so you are bringing up this one again. You are bringing up a new topic now, right? The new topic is the old one we discussed in the last thread where Benkei said that birth doesn't cause harm, so can never be relevant in discussing causing harm for future people because it's not the "direct cause" for each case of harm after the child is born? And I am going to have to rehash the same answers as I gave? Should we just say for this whole topic "Refer to old thread"?

Can you please just write what you mean? Instead of arguing that this is better than that which is better than the latter which is worse than the former?

What exactly is it that I seem to agree to? — khaled

This:

Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong?
— schopenhauer1

110% agreed in all situations ever. — khaled

And so now you ask what "trivial" means... And then I said, it doesn't matter to the argument.. All that matters is someone subjectively thinks that they are harmed non-trivially.. Like if you gave them the surprise party, and they said "I felt non-trivially harmed" if you asked them.. then that is non-trivially harmed. You brought up the unrealistic situation that everyone's non-trivial harm is not non-trivial, oddly defining it in an objective way, which you excoriated me for attempting to do (which I still haven't given a definition of yet).

And so now you ask what "trivial" means... And then I said, it doesn't matter to the argument.. All that matters is someone subjectively thinks that they are harmed non-trivially. — schopenhauer1

Agreed.

Like if you gave them the surprise party, and they said "I felt non-trivially harmed" if you asked them.. then that is non-trivially harmed. — schopenhauer1

Ok. So what matters is that they think they are non-trivially harmed. And if you knew that, that makes it wrong to impose. Agreed.

What do you do in situations where you don't know what they will think? Do we take a "best guess"? As in: "They probably won't feel non-trivially harmed, so it's ok". Note, I do still agree that if you know they will think it's a non-trivial harm that it's wrong. This is a separate question.

which you excoriated me for attempting to do (which I still haven't given a definition of yet). — schopenhauer1

I literally asked you to give an objective definition that doesn't rely on reports. I am not criticizing you for attempting to do that, I am literally asking you to do it.

Kill everyone then. That way all harm will cease to exist. Auschwitz every last person alive ... it doesn't matter because once they're gone they won't be around to cry about the suffering. Nothing will matter because for humanity there will be nothing given our exitinction ... the MAIN prionciple of an antinatalist is to rile against existence. The main points is that both existing and new life is bad. — I like sushi

This is kind of my first-glance impression of what anti-natalism seems to be or at least will inevitably lead to as well. Am I incorrect, @Antinatalist? How so?

Basically if new life happens say unplanned pregnancy regardless of circumstances surrounding it "oh well, we'll let it slide", or at an extreme only if the child is born in an uneducated society where enlightenment, knowledge, and morality simply isn't available or the rare occasion when a medical abortion would be hazardous to the health of the mother, but purposefully doing so (procreating) is immoral. Something like that? What scenario would be valid or is it just as simple as the point you summarized earlier, being "creating life where harm is possible is immoral" thus not explicitly saying any of the things mentioned or alluded to but definitely implying them.

I have to take antinatalism as a dishonest philosophy. It does not fit the account to reality, rather bends the reality to the account. I call that a lie. — tim wood

I think that may be a little harsh. It is an interesting area to explore. Any questioning of perceived 'norms' does help unearth more intriguing questions. On the surface it is certainly quite empty, but below there is merit in contemplating the ifs, buts and whys of where the thought/s came from.

I think Pink Floyd's (or rather Roger Waters) lyrics relay what I mean by 'striving' in opposition to 'happiness' and such things (that I regard as quite juvenille):

So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from hell?
Blue skies from pain?
Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?
Did they get you to trade
Your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
Did you exchange
A walk-on part in the war
For a leading role in a cage?

I don't think we can really tell 'good' from 'bad' or even know what these concepts mean (it is impossible to explicate a 'feeling' accurately). The antinatalist is assuming they have made a solid judgement over 'heaven and hell' regarding the 'right' and 'wrong' of the sitiuation.

WIth a choice between torturing someone to death for a decade OR killing two people quickly what would we really choose. If those were the ONLY options. What is our instant reaction to such a question and in reacting to this question (by needing to associate it's meaning through a social medium of communication - lanaguage) how much of our 'choice' is dictated by the possible revalation in the public sphere EVEN IF we have no intention of revealing our choice.

I would strongly argue that ANY public declaration of your choice here has to be muddied by how this choice could or would be received. In that light honesty to ourselves, and everyone else, is practically impossible. Any attempts to wrangle around this will result in a deceit of sorts.

We have reason to help us navigate these kind of hypothetical problems and one may ask what their use is. The use is in using the hypothetical in a 'selffish' manner and keeping your 'choice' absent in order to explore what you 'feel' rather than ideas about what 'should' or shouldn't' be done. Then we can at least have a better understanding of what we would wish to do - 'selffishly,' as per aboive meaning of 'selffish' - and then have a target to extend toward.

That is how I view any 'ethical' proposition. It may very well be considered a 'non-ethic' which is fine by me :)

Perhaps asking what the aim of 'morality'/'ethics' is would reveal some misinterpretations?

Its definitely wrong for me to have children. It would cramp my style

"However, I accept a point of view that for some human being life could be a better option than non-being. But we could never reach any kind of certainty at any case, any circumstances, at any place that life is better for any unborn, potential person."
But this fact, it could be a better option than non-being, does not justify the act of having a child.
— Antinatalist

Neither does it not justify the act of having a child. It's not an argument just an empty statement about something we don't know. — I like sushi

No, it does not justify in itself, and I´m not saying that is an argument. I have mentioned reasons for my argument before so I didn't like to rephrase myself, but let´s repeat them here:

"The basic argument is as follows:we have no moral right to cause something that radically changes the existence  of another individual or –  to be more precise: from non-existence to existence or vice versa (in other words, from a non-individual/+ non-existence into existence or vice versa is also regarded as a change here), or to directly affect the existence of another human being if it is not possible to hear this individual in the matter.

And one foundation of this argument: In case A does not have a child – and the consequence of this choice is that a greater bad will take place than in the event of A having a child – A will still not have actively influenced the occurrence of this bad. Let us now assume the opposite: A has a child, and the consequence of this choice is that a greater bad will take place than in the event of A not having a child. In this case, it is unquestionably clear that A has actively affected the materialization of this bad."

There underlies the fact that somebody not existing has no needs, so absence of good is not a bad thing. It perhaps is not a "good" thing, but at least it is a neutral thing. Absence of bad is good even if there is nobody enjoying it. Presence of bad is bad, that will be quite clear. I don´t understand how you don´t get this. — Antinatalist

 

  I get it. I just think it is a very blinkered view and ignore that the opposite position is equally as 'justified'. Why don't you see the absence of pleasure as bad is the key point here. You've not answered probably because you cannot. Neither have you responded to the lesser or larger degree position because you can happily avoid it by jumping to the complete absence of either with some imaginary non-existing person. Mental hoodwinking yourself doesn't mean it will work on me. — I like sushi

 

Do you really think that way? — Antinatalist

 

 Do I really think that less 'pleasure' is bad and less 'pain' is good? Of course, who doesn't!? — I like sushi

 

My question was: Do you really think that absence of pleasure is as bad as that presence of pain?
The asymmetry argument is not the only one, whom you can justify antinatalism. But I think it is a really strong one. But if you are not convinced by human history, it could be that nothing can convince you.

   The only reason you may not is because of the rather slippery terms 'pleasure' and 'pain' which I've previously stated I'm not exactly comfortable with using in this given context as they are far too broad and open to multiple interpretations. — I like sushi

 

They can, of course, be interpreted many ways, I'm not denying that. If you find this a problem, describe the way you use it.

  I don´t see any thing, which are perceived as enjoyable, happy etc.. could ever balance the badness of Auschwitzes. — Antinatalist

 

You sound like a 'utilitarian'. Irony? — I like sushi

 

My point of view may seem at some point even utilitarian. I am not, I am anti-utilitarian.
I find one innocent human life - her/his sovereignty for her/his life and ability to suffer and also feel pleasure - so important that nothing can balance that, to use the somewhat utilitarian concept of "balance". Auschwitz is an extreme example, but you answer this with disregard.

  We are living now. We can make decisions for the future. And we know the pain and pleasure are things the possible upcoming child is most likely to face. I surely can think of a universe without human beings, and a universe without life at all. — Antinatalist

  

  They will certainly face both. It is not merely 'likely'. Speaking personally I've felt more positive about life than not overall. I understand 'pain' is necessary and I'm not bitter about it any more than I'm angry at the Sun for rising everyday without my express permission (because such would be plain silly).

And no you cannot anymore than you can imagine what bat thinks because you cannot think outside of your own head so don't fool yourself into thinking you can. We are unable to think of nothing in any pure sense - that is actually something Kant pointed out. — I like sushi

 

In the end, reality in its purest sense is unreachable, and it is unreachable to know what feels to be another human being or animal, I agree. But that doesn´t prevent us from making moral judgments and decisions. You yourself make them when you are saying having a child is not wrong.

   This is one thing we agree on, at least. — Antinatalist

 And so is the presence of 'pleasure' because they are essentially the same item on a spectrum. Why on earth you decide to focus on the 'given' nature of 'pain' over 'pleasure' you'll have to figure out for yourself. — I like sushi

 

Empathy, maybe.

  You simply do not get it, the main principle for antinatalism is: you can not do harm someone who does not exist. — Antinatalist

 

  Kill everyone then. That way all harm will cease to exist. Auschwitz every last person alive ... it doesn't matter because once they're gone they won't be around to cry about the suffering. Nothing will matter because for humanity there will be nothing given our exitinction ... the MAIN prionciple of an antinatalist is to rile against existence. The main points is that both existing and new life is bad. You stated you are not this though so I'm puzzled why you carry the fight for an argument you don't fully agree with - an argument that at it's heart is completely nonsensical. — I like sushi

 

I don´t think that even the most extreme pro-mortalist will kill another human beings. I respect human´s life and sovereignty, and I don´t have any right to terminate another person's life. YOU ARE MAKING AN INSANE LEAP, WHICH DON'T FOLLOW MY ANTINATALISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

  The only value it has is to instill a question in people about the responsibility people have for themselves and others. Generally though, those putting the argument forward do a terrible job of making this clear and/or resort to pure logic and ignore the subjectivity of such matters. — I like sushi

 

If there is objective morality, I don´t think humans could reach that kind of phase. But that does not have to cause neglect for moral questions.

     You simply do not get it, the main principle for antinatalism is: you can not do harm someone who does not exist. It is a very different case, when someone is already born and living in this world. On cowardness, I'm pretty sure I find it more on natalists, natalism is, after all, far more socially acceptable ideology than antinatalism. As an antinatalist, you are a rebel. And not that kind of "rebel" you find on mainstream movies or some MTV videos, which were watched when I was young. — Antinatalist

 

  I get it. I just strongly disagree with it because it is a myopic view. I am NOT saying having children is better than not, I'm saying we have literally no way of coming to any reasonable conclusion one way or the other. We know we do what we do and nature is nature. Beyond that we're essentially along for the ride. Judging that lack of pain is better than a lack of pleasure is the heart of the argument. It will remain a purely subjective one from any individual perspective.

The main point is that there is no conclusive evidence either way but by all means go ahead and think what you want. I am inclined to care about HOW you think not really WHAT you think. By this I mean if you cannot argue against your own beliefs then you've missed something.

Doubt is our saviour not rigid reason or ethical drivel. — I like sushi

 

My basic premise is to question my own thinking. I have stated that asymmetry argument is not the only reason for antinatalism (look to the beginning of this post).

  Regarding bravery. Being a rebel does not equate to brave. Bravery is facing a fear - ie. having a child and excepting the responsibility that entails rather than avoiding it due to fear - bravery would be to willingly do the right thing regardless of the personal harm it causes to you AND, in a purer sense, to do so without any other person's knowledge of what you'd done. — I like sushi

 

On bravery, in trivial (almost) everyday situations which many antinatalists have to face, set them out of the social community. This is a personal harm. Of course not all social communication will lead to this, but some will. I think quite similarly of bravery as you, and I have to admit that I don´t think most of those situations will cause fear. But I think some do, when you are about 1-20 -situations arguing against potentially violent people. At least for some antinatalists, I believe.

  The above is where my interest in ethics lies. Everything everyone says about any ethical issue is mostly hollow and empty. Meaning no matter what we say in the public sphere we cannot escape the ego and self-hoodwinking involved. We cannot explore the really gritty and dark sides of ourselves in the public eye because it is shunned. The best we can do is throw out certain hypotheticals and encourage people to play with them and make them into their own personal monstrosities. Again, the benefit is enormous BUT so i sthe risk. The question remains how on earth we can make any kind of judgement about what is going too far and what is too little. This is PRECISELY where the dualistic items of 'pain' and 'pleasure' presented in this thread come into fruitition. — I like sushi

 

   As a matter of fact it is not depriving anything for anybody, because there is nobody existing. — Antinatalist

 

  Benatar's point not mine. I was just stating 'depriving someone of pain' is his focus (and he says so). Why not focus on 'depriving some non-existing person of pleasure'. Because it doesn't suit the argument. It is done very superficially in the quote you presented. — I like sushi

 
I am not linguistic, but ´depriving some non-existing person of pleasure´ does not make sense.

   Miscarry could be tragic, but those who we see suffering from it are usually the parents of the potential child. It is more about  the expectations of the parents than missing the life of the possible upcoming child. — Antinatalist

 

  I think I'll call the aboive clutching at straws because it doesn't make any sense. Check you've not talked yourself into a corner please. Just for the record I have experienced this personally but didn't want to divulge that to avoid vapid sympathy. And I do think from time to time about what someone who never exists misses out on (and I'm not talking about 'pain'). — I like sushi

 

My point is the potential child does not suffer. If it's already sentient being at the time of miscarriage it surely can suffer.

note: Benatar said people don't do this. Probably because he doesn't? I cannot blame him for being lazy I guess. It is what it is. — I like sushi

 

Benatar is not on the line. I don´t know about his reasoning.

  If you try to attack the asymmetry argument, the different situation for your example above, is that in your example there are living people, who could feel the loss of something good and possibly feel grief from that.
— Antinatalist — I like sushi

 

  I didn't attack it. I just dismantled it with ease. — I like sushi

 

In your dreams, perhaps. Asymmetry argument says that absence of pain is good, absence of pleasure is neutral. It is fully compatible with the example of your previous post. The grief, sorrow and sense of missing someone are feelings of some existing creature. Not feelings of someone nonexistent.

   If you wish to imagine a world of non-existing people as an argument do ahead and fool yourself. His point boils down to absence of pain is better than the presence of pleasure (with no explanation that of substance). Your argument has now done the nihilistic/buddhist trick of over stating none of it really matters if no one can be around to experience ... so fucking what? I'll tell you! Then the whole 'ethics' of it is utterly redundant ... that isn't a reasonable argument so there is in fact NO argument to be had here. We may as well argue that green smells better than red in midsummer when the kettle is flying east. — I like sushi

You´re thinking backwards. Ethics is the concept of humans, but in the heart of ethics is not the axiom that there has to be human life, or life at all.  If you mean that, when there is no life, we don´t need ethics, then you are right.

  The position is that (Benatar) pain bad and pleasure not good enough. The first step toward nihilism/buddhism. The first step towards denying repsonsibility, having excemption from your actions and giving up your will to do anything about anything. It is cowardice AND it is a cowardice we HAVE TO dip into at some point in our lives in order to carrying the wonderul/scary burden of existing with aplume. — I like sushi

You reject Benatar´s argument. You take for granted that absence of pleasure is as bad - if not more bad - than presence of pain. You don´t present an argument, you just say so.

On responsibility and on cowardice. I don´t think that a human being in all of its capableness and incapableness is capable enough to take responsibility for having a child. Okay, people would say so. Most will. Talk is cheap. Look around, look at the human. Humans surely breed, but where is the responsibility?
You can talk about responsibility; it is not responsible to have a child and then try to take care of them.
It is least what parents have to do, but is simply is not enough - because of pure essence of existence.
Of course most parents will care about their children and try to nurture them the best way, but that just is not enough. Even the best parents in all their nobleness are humans, not gods - they are not gods or some other supernatural creatures who could prevent things like Auschwitz, for example, on their own.
They make a risky decision, but the risks will fall on the child.

You mentioned in some of your previous posts, that having a child is something similar to peeing etc. Okay, I agree, it is natural. Perfectly natural, atavistic urge. To do like humans have always done. Some would call this cowardice.

   Like I said before, my antinatalism is grounded on the fact that having a child is a decision for someone else´s life, whose consent we can not have. The fact that consent is impossible to have, doesn´t make the decision right. It is a decision for someone else´s whole life, it is not a trivial "cross a road or not" kind of decision. — Antinatalist

  Well then, it's a pretty unstable grounding don't you think? You are happy to talk about living people when it suits and understand perfectly well that non-existing items don't exist, yet you say 'consent' is required for something that doesn't exist? That is complete nonsense! — I like sushi

It is not nonsense, when there is no consent, then the act of having a child should not be done.

  There is no 'consent' and that doesn't make the decision right or wrong, good or bad. Why on earth do you insist that it can be right or wrong? I'm sure your answer will go along the lines of 'because of pain,' to which I could just keep repeating myself by saying what about 'pleasure' and the almost certain fact that the vast majority of people living are quite capable and excepting of the fact that life is not just a happy go lucky experience of eternal bliss. Shit happens, and that's not the end of the world beleive it or not. Some people will have more misfortune than others, but that is just entropy at work it is NOT a valid reason to cut away the pleasure of one because of the pain of another when both of these items are one and the same thing at heart. — I like sushi

Your point of view seems something amoral, pre-moral, something in an ancient natural state, where the creatures living there are not capable of being moral at all. Your point of view seems also the point of a benevolent human being, who thinks the suffering in all its extremeness is that´s part of the picture, an accidental side. Which doesn't really matter.

   You are not in any position to judge and for you that is enough because you believe that pain outweighs pleasure, or rather that it is not worth the risk just incase it does because absence of pleasure is not that big of a deal and that our natural 'loss aversion' (pain) is convincing enough for you to declare that although the pain is the same 'amount' compared to 'pleasure' we feel the pain more strongly so ALL life is essentially skewed toward a life of pain rather than one of pleasure.

That I could understand. Any and everything else you've said doesn't add up, presents a one-sided argument, or just contradicts itself. I like contradictions though :) They are usually where the meat is. — I like sushi

There is more in my argument than just the "pain". You don't have presented a single contradiction. From highly biased, natural natalistic attitude my point of view may seem one-sided.

Thansk again. I think I'm done here. Hope you have got something from this

bye bye — I like sushi

Summary:

1) You don´t think that absence of pain is more important than the presence of pleasure.

2) You don´t think that impossibility to have the consent of a possibly upcoming child makes the decision of having a child wrong.
Your answer for the so called euthanasia -question is that you favor having a child more ethical than giving an euthanasia to person who asks it once.
It seems like you don´t give much of value on consent in general.
There seem underlie an non-reasoning statement value life over non-life, regardless of consent of objects of the acts (having a child over only once asked euthanasia). This attitude is natural, but its foundation seems religional. What are the empirical or rational reasons to value life over non-life?

3) I hope you are not serious, but if you are, your reaction "Kill everyone then" tells you don´t really understand what antinatalism is. It certainly is not to kill others, its voluntary refusal of having a child.

4) Your statement that I am not in a position to judge, but you are judging my point of view. Perhaps not in itself paradoxical, but when making out everything what you have said is at least a bit strange.


And if that is really bye bye, I hope you have a good life. That is not sarcasm; when you are still here, make the most of it. Thank for your time and effort. :)
 

Secondly: I use at the end of this article the concept of  the "potential person" slightly different as R.M. Hare does. My statement is that ´potential person´ has not right to be born, but it has right not to be born. 
— Antinatalist

  The potential person may have rights, but how would you or anyone else know what they are, or what their preference is. Further, it is not a potential person before it is a potential person. — tim wood

I agree with the previous sentence.

Ante, there ain't no it. And further, reproduction is something people do as what they are. Your argument appears to be along the lines of it being just plain wrong to be what we are. But being, both generally and particularly, is a given. Being cannot be wrong. — tim wood

As a matter of fact being alive can be wrong - but that is not the view I present. Some people do, and they may make suicide because of that. Reproduction is a perfectly natural human act. But what is natural or what is not, is irrelevant about its rightness or wrongness.

  I have to take antinatalism as a dishonest philosophy. It does not fit the account to reality, rather bends the reality to the account. I call that a lie. — tim wood

Where exactly is the lie of antinatalism?

Kill everyone then. That way all harm will cease to exist. Auschwitz every last person alive ... it doesn't matter because once they're gone they won't be around to cry about the suffering. Nothing will matter because for humanity there will be nothing given our exitinction ... the MAIN prionciple of an antinatalist is to rile against existence. The main points is that both existing and new life is bad.
— I like sushi

This is kind of my first-glance impression of what anti-natalism seems to be or at least will inevitably lead to as well. Am I incorrect, Antinatalist? How so? — Outlander

I will answer you the same way I answered to ´I like sushi´.
I don´t think that even the most extreme pro-mortalist will kill another human beings. I respect human´s life and sovereignty, and I don´t have any right to terminate another person's life. YOU ARE MAKING AN INSANE LEAP, WHICH DON'T FOLLOW MY ANTINATALISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

Basically if new life happens say unplanned pregnancy regardless of circumstances surrounding it "oh well, we'll let it slide", or at an extreme only if the child is born in an uneducated society where enlightenment, knowledge, and morality simply isn't available or the rare occasion when a medical abortion would be hazardous to the health of the mother, but purposefully doing so (procreating) is immoral. Something like that? What scenario would be valid or is it just as simple as the point you summarized earlier, being "creating life where harm is possible is immoral" thus not explicitly saying any of the things mentioned or alluded to but definitely implying them. — Outlander

I consider purposeful procreating immoral. I have mentioned my grounding and reasoning in my original text and also in my previous post to ´I like sushi´.

@Antinatalist Your summary is incorrect. I've stated this in the last post I made yet you've interpreted it some other way. I think it's only fair to reiterate ...

1) I put forward that the absence of pleasure deletes pain. They are NOT binary either or concepts. Less pleasure is bad and less pain is good (VERY generally speaking). Generally in the sense tat I've put forward before, pain can be useful and pleasure can be useless/detrimental, but in colloquial terms we can run with one being viewed as 'better' and the other as 'worse' in the immediate NOW experiencing of them.

2) I've stated that there is no one to give consent and that even an existing child in today's world is not deemed self-reflective enough for more matured humans to ask for consent about how they live their lives etc.,. Besides that, from teh get go I clearly stated that the idea of 'right' or 'wrong' was nonsensical but I just stepped past that fo the sake of the discussion (I did state this at the start of our exchange).

My answer regarding euthanasia was carefully worded and not universally applicable ethical law. You shouldn't have a hard time rereading that and retracting your thoughts about what I said. I would absolutely not just agree to anyone saying they wished to die. It would be inhuman to hand a gun to someone having a rough time so they can shoot themselves in the head if they are not in control of their our thoughts/actions due to despair (that was all I meant). From there I just extrapolated to what was most likely and concluded that most people wishing to take their lives are not exactly in a cool calm state of mind.

I don't particularly value consent in every sinngle action I may wish to take. Why should I? I believe being generally polite is enough and I certainly don't go around asking people if they are okay with me doing x or y. I'm not that insecure anymore, but I'm not exactly inconsiderate either. The most important person to ask for consent from is myself (which involves self-restraint and negotiation and sacrifice).

If you want empirical and rational reasons for valuing life over non-life go look for them. I think the question is kind of redundant myself so I don't bother too much with it anymore, but I have before. At the end of the day you just have to come to your own messy place in your head - as we all do - and focus on something you deem worthy of your time and dedication (maybe have a child?). WHat is more important after all as you stated yourself ;)

3) That was just to point out that if one wished to reduce human suffering annihilating the human race would be a sure fire way of doing so and putting an end to the 'endless cycle of pain' as those buddhist types put it. No need to get so dramatic becaus eyou think you've foudn my evil bone :D

4) I am not that keen on rephrasing either so perhaps reread:

You are not in any position to judge and for you that is enough because you believe that pain outweighs pleasure, or rather that it is not worth the risk just incase it does because absence of pleasure is not that big of a deal and that our natural 'loss aversion' (pain) is convincing enough for you to declare that although the pain is the same 'amount' compared to 'pleasure' we feel the pain more strongly so ALL life is essentially skewed toward a life of pain rather than one of pleasure. — I like sushi

I even offered up some possible evidence to back up your position. I'm not in a position to judge either - regarding any pain vs pleasure analysis - with any kind of accuracy. I am in a position to say that 'pain' and 'pleasure' are basically one and the same, so I would question the point of the question in the first place (as stated from the get go).

FINAL point before we part ways for now ...

Benatar's point not mine. I was just stating 'depriving someone of pain' is his focus (and he says so). Why not focus on 'depriving some non-existing person of pleasure'. Because it doesn't suit the argument. It is done very superficially in the quote you presented.
— I like sushi
 
I am not linguistic, but ´depriving some non-existing person of pleasure´ does not make sense. — Antinatalist

Yeah, doesn't make much sense. Yet Benatar talks like this. He says depriving someone of pain (someone who doesn't exist).

FIN :) see you around

Antinatalist Your summary is incorrect. I've stated this in the last post I made yet you've interpreted it some other way. I think it's only fair to reiterate ...

1) I put forward that the absence of pleasure deletes pain. They are NOT binary either or concepts. Less pleasure is bad and less pain is good (VERY generally speaking). Generally in the sense tat I've put forward before, pain can be useful and pleasure can be useless/detrimental, but in colloquial terms we can run with one being viewed as 'better' and the other as 'worse' in the immediate NOW experiencing of them. — I like sushi

I agree that pain can be useful and sometimes essential in life, and pleasure can be useless/detrimental. So, it is necessary to define how I use ´pain´ and ´pleasure´. Pain is something bad itself, it does not have any accidental (term from Paul Virilio) good points - or they are so minor that they don't really matter. Pleasure is something purely good, without any unwanted accidental part - or they are so minor that they don't really matter. Real life contains all aspects of pain and pleasure. Those that you mentioned and those that I mentioned.

  2) I've stated that there is no one to give consent and that even an existing child in today's world is not deemed self-reflective enough for more matured humans to ask for consent about how they live their lives etc.,. Besides that, from teh get go I clearly stated that the idea of 'right' or 'wrong' was nonsensical but I just stepped past that fo the sake of the discussion (I did state this at the start of our exchange).

My answer regarding euthanasia was carefully worded and not universally applicable ethical law. You shouldn't have a hard time rereading that and retracting your thoughts about what I said. I would absolutely not just agree to anyone saying they wished to die. It would be inhuman to hand a gun to someone having a rough time so they can shoot themselves in the head if they are not in control of their our thoughts/actions due to despair (that was all I meant). From there I just extrapolated to what was most likely and concluded that most people wishing to take their lives are not exactly in a cool calm state of mind. — I like sushi

Okay. I understand your point of view. I find both acts, this so called "euthanasia"  and having a child immoral. I know that I will not have a child in any circumstances.

  I don't particularly value consent in every sinngle action I may wish to take. Why should I? I believe being generally polite is enough and I certainly don't go around asking people if they are okay with me doing x or y. I'm not that insecure anymore, but I'm not exactly inconsiderate either. The most important person to ask for consent from is myself (which involves self-restraint and negotiation and sacrifice).  — I like sushi

In my point of view, the decision  to have a child is such a severe and serious issue, that the impossibility to have a consent makes the decision of having a child wrong. You think differently, and the impossibility to have the consent in this case is irrelevant for you. You think that procreation is right anyway.

  If you want empirical and rational reasons for valuing life over non-life go look for them. I think the question is kind of redundant myself so I don't bother too much with it anymore, but I have before. At the end of the day you just have to come to your own messy place in your head - as we all do - and focus on something you deem worthy of your time and dedication (maybe have a child?). WHat is more important after all as you stated yourself ;) — I like sushi

Like I said before I will never have a child, and reasons you sure know. I try to find happiness and interesting issues from somewhere else.

  3) That was just to point out that if one wished to reduce human suffering annihilating the human race would be a sure fire way of doing so and putting an end to the 'endless cycle of pain' as those buddhist types put it. No need to get so dramatic becaus eyou think you've foudn my evil bone :D — I like sushi

Reducing human suffering is a great thing, but not by any means.

  4) I am not that keen on rephrasing either so perhaps reread:

  You are not in any position to judge and for you that is enough because you believe that pain outweighs pleasure, or rather that it is not worth the risk just incase it does because absence of pleasure is not that big of a deal and that our natural 'loss aversion' (pain) is convincing enough for you to declare that although the pain is the same 'amount' compared to 'pleasure' we feel the pain more strongly so ALL life is essentially skewed toward a life of pain rather than one of pleasure.
— I like sushi

I even offered up some possible evidence to back up your position. I'm not in a position to judge either - regarding any pain vs pleasure analysis - with any kind of accuracy. I am in a position to say that 'pain' and 'pleasure' are basically one and the same, so I would question the point of the question in the first place (as stated from the get go). — I like sushi

Conclusion of your last sentence, ´pain´ and ´pleasure´ are basically one and the same. I suppose, you accept the statement that life contains both (of course you said this in many posts, also), by your own definition of them (because they are the same thing).
And non-life, by definition, does not contain pain and pleasure.

So, there is the new question, or as matter in fact the original one (it is too difficult for people in my experience, it´s from the nineties):
Why favor life - pain and pleasure at its purest, leaving nothing out - over non-life (absence of pleasure and pain)?

  FINAL point before we part ways for now ...

Benatar's point not mine. I was just stating 'depriving someone of pain' is his focus (and he says so). Why not focus on 'depriving some non-existing person of pleasure'. Because it doesn't suit the argument. It is done very superficially in the quote you presented.
— I like sushi
 
I am not linguistic, but ´depriving some non-existing person of pleasure´ does not make sense.
— Antinatalist

Yeah, doesn't make much sense. Yet Benatar talks like this. He says depriving someone of pain (someone who doesn't exist).

FIN :) see you around — I like sushi

I certainly am not an expert of the English language, but ´depriving someone of pain´ could be still an understandable sentence, at least if you mean "preventing someone of pain", even when that "someone" will not yet exist - and because of that prevention that "someone" will never exist. This makes sense to me. But ´depriving some non-existing person of pleasure´ does not make sense. If you mean by "depriving" "taking away".

'Depriving' is the same as 'denying' basically. Both work fine ... I don't think they work for non-existing entitiesd though, but hey, if you do so be it. If that is a problem then you may not be taking the meaning/s of 'rights,' 'consent' and 'good'/'bad' seriously enough.

I know that I will not have a child in any circumstances. — Antinatalist

You lack imagaination then ;) SURELY you can think of a possible (albeit highly unlikely reason for having a child?). The thrust of my point here, and often in this thread, being that extreme cases are useful to help sketch out a course of action for lesser degrees BUT they are not the sole reason for inking in a moral dictum ... things in reality are more messy/complex than we can often see.

Why favor life - pain and pleasure at its purest, leaving nothing out - over non-life (absence of pleasure and pain)? — Antinatalist

Wrong question to get a clear view imo. Yeah, I agree on the surface neither one or the other has presedence when you word it like that. Dig further and then say:

'Does something have precedence over nothing?'

This reveals the flaw. 'Nothing' is a slippery term too. Nothing does nothing and is neither important nor unimportant. Then, due to the diversity of the English language, we may equate 'nothing' with 'absence' ... this is certainly the only way we can understand it. The non-existing is not necessarily the same thing as 'absence' but we could call it 'nothing'. This is a completely different line of thought so I didn't go into it when 'ethics' was on the table.

In this instance we should really explicate what kind of 'absence'/'nothing' we're talking about. As far as I can see we're not talking about anything that make sense so I stated we cannot draw any reasonable judgement on it BUT we can most certainly pass judgement on individual cases (because we do). The universal law of 'Procreation is wrong' - in the antinalism position - makes no sense to me and many others because it rides on the back of too many assumptions that are not delved into by any great degree.

The whole psychological machinations behind the glib terms of 'pleasure' and 'pain' has been given no due consideration in the extract you presented from Benatar. If there are bits you don't agree with that he says (I'm sure there are!) then look into how these points hold up the rest of whatever his argument is. I can say from my perspective, and many others, that I didn't even need to get to the end of the first sentence to question it. I read on hoping for a revelation but nothing came. I found avoidance and real investigation.

To the obvious ... if we feel 'pleasure' we do so because we know 'pain'. If we only feel 'pleasure' do we ONLY feel pleasure REALLY? Show me a person like this please. Plus, does such 'pleasure' necessarily mean this person is ... how should I put it ... 'happily striving through life'? I don't see why this would be so. I know from personal experience that anything I deem 'worthy' has required stress and hardship, and anything that falls in my lap through happenstance is just that. In terms of actually studies done on this matter we do know that we're essentially wired to claim authorship over what we perceived as positive outcomes and deny authorship for perceived negative outcomes.

With such lived delusions and denials going on at various levels of cognition and conscious life I do not think talk of 'consent' to non-beings, OR actual beings, makes a whole lot of sense. Neither do I see a promulgation by an inept and limited being (ie. human being) holding to some universal ethic (whatever it is) makes any kind of sense. For specific INDIVIDUAL instances we can do better because we have more data to work with and can explore the possibles more readily.

Have you heard how the US Airforce tried to create a one size fits all seat for pilots? They took the average width, depth and height of pilot sizes and produce a one size fits all seat. Shock horror, it fit NO ONE. Same principle here. I cannot make sweeping statements about whether it is 'better' or 'worse' (if I followed the antinatalist pattern) to have a child because I am not privy to the live sof every human that has lived. As mentioned previously, I am fairly damn sure that most people prefer to live than to die (and that most if not all consider suicide at some point to some degree). This leaves ONLY the question of 'right' to bring life into the world ... that is just a silly idea. I could ask anyone about their right to do anything or think anything and they may also ask what right they have to ask about their right to do anything and so on ... pointless.

"Rights" are social apparatus hewn over human sociological evolution. They are tied to laws and ideas of 'universal rights' ... no sorry, not for me. Not to say I am not influenced by them I am not that naive. This brings me right back to my main point about the whole body of ethics ... it is not really a matter of what I pronounce and show in the public sphere (ie. here).

We've created ideas of justice and rights in order to live together/apart in a society. I don't think every person requires as much social interaction as others and this can cause great suffering and great pleasure. Neither is BAD or GOOD, but the fact that I exist is something I value because I cannot value not existing because I cannot take part in the act of valuing anything if I don't exist and I take great pleasure and pain in exploring the world.

I don't buy into any 'moral' gibberish about empathy toward non-existing persons or pathetic excuses for shirking responsibility. The Trolley Problem is exactly what this shows in some people. A great many will happily do nothing regardless of pain or suffering OR they just flat out refuse the hypothetical as a hypothetical and childishly avoid the personal task at hand out of ignorance/stupidity (as I used to).

WHo am I to judge you may ask? I am me ... so fucking what?

I hope you would make a choice in the Trolley problem rather than not think at all. I do have a sneaking suspicion you may refuse the problem though and instead equate it with my 'denial' of your antinatalist view of 'right to procreate' but they are not the same thing at all because one is plain English and the other is not far from saying 'Purple under the Tuesday smell of square farts' which is as a grammatical construct is fine, but in terms of meaning requires leaps in metaphor and guesswork.

We only know dark gray and light gray. Don't mistaken them for imagined black or white. We can only stumble around in the degree of shade and light and be thankful when lighter times come about.

Anyway, I'm writing for me without anyone's consent ;) I am TRULY done here but if you wish to start another thread about something un/related that has as much work put into it as your OP here then I will at least read it.

It's been useful to me. Good thread :)

'Depriving' is the same as 'denying' basically. Both work fine ... I don't think they work for non-existing entitiesd though, but hey, if you do so be it. If that is a problem then you may not be taking the meaning/s of 'rights,' 'consent' and 'good'/'bad' seriously enough.

I know that I will not have a child in any circumstances.
— Antinatalist

You lack imagaination then ;) SURELY you can think of a possible (albeit highly unlikely reason for having a child?). The thrust of my point here, and often in this thread, being that extreme cases are useful to help sketch out a course of action for lesser degrees BUT they are not the sole reason for inking in a moral dictum ... things in reality are more messy/complex than we can often see. — I like sushi

I thought in early nineties the problem of procreation. And the basic principles, what I have presented here, were already in my thinking. I decided no to have child ever in my life, I thought it is a decision for someone´s whole life and I don´t have right to do so. I told my decision to someones, but they didn´t think that this kind of decision will last.
I didn´t tell the reason for my decision, but they think my decision might change, because I was so young then. In later years some of my friends questioned my decision, one woman said I would be a good father. Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn´t. It is not about that at all. Fifteen years ago I got sterilization (so for your natalists, this creature will not throw his possibly invalid genes to next generation :))
I have friends who have kids of their own, and I´m okay with that.

   Why favor life - pain and pleasure at its purest, leaving nothing out - over non-life (absence of pleasure and pain)?
— Antinatalist

   Wrong question to get a clear view imo. Yeah, I agree on the surface neither one or the other has presedence when you word it like that. Dig further and then say:

'Does something have precedence over nothing?'

This reveals the flaw. 'Nothing' is a slippery term too. Nothing does nothing and is neither important nor unimportant. Then, due to the diversity of the English language, we may equate 'nothing' with 'absence' ... this is certainly the only way we can understand it. The non-existing is not necessarily the same thing as 'absence' but we could call it 'nothing'. This is a completely different line of thought so I didn't go into it when 'ethics' was on the table.

In this instance we should really explicate what kind of 'absence'/'nothing' we're talking about. As far as I can see we're not talking about anything that make sense so I stated we cannot draw any reasonable judgement on it BUT we can most certainly pass judgement on individual cases (because we do). The universal law of 'Procreation is wrong' - in the antinalism position - makes no sense to me and many others because it rides on the back of too many assumptions that are not delved into by any great degree. — I like sushi

I have thought about this issue a lot. The concept of "nothing" and the limitations of natural language. In the nineties I read a statement from some philosopher, maybe Nietzsche (maybe not; I haven´t found the statement later in his works): "You can't criticize it from the inside". And that "it" is life. But I  think that statement does not stand up to closer scrutiny.

And we are making decisions all the time, which involves nothing/"nothing" or "absence of life".
Euthanasia is one example. Many people think that for some people euthanasia is the best option in some situation, and they don´t believe in afterlife. They think that this nothing/"nothing", which comes according to their point of view by way of euthanasia, is better/"better" for that person than her/his current life.

I think the question "Why favor life - pain and pleasure at its purest, leaving nothing out - over non-life (absence of pleasure and pain)?" is valid after all.

  The whole psychological machinations behind the glib terms of 'pleasure' and 'pain' has been given no due consideration in the extract you presented from Benatar. If there are bits you don't agree with that he says (I'm sure there are!) then look into how these points hold up the rest of whatever his argument is. I can say from my perspective, and many others, that I didn't even need to get to the end of the first sentence to question it. I read on hoping for a revelation but nothing came. I found avoidance and real investigation.

To the obvious ... if we feel 'pleasure' we do so because we know 'pain'. If we only feel 'pleasure' do we ONLY feel pleasure REALLY? Show me a person like this please. Plus, does such 'pleasure' necessarily mean this person is ... how should I put it ... 'happily striving through life'? I don't see why this would be so. I know from personal experience that anything I deem 'worthy' has required stress and hardship, and anything that falls in my lap through happenstance is just that. In terms of actually studies done on this matter we do know that we're essentially wired to claim authorship over what we perceived as positive outcomes and deny authorship for perceived negative outcomes. — I like sushi

I know this. I had couple of low level kickboxing matches in my youth (full contact not nowadays popular K 1, in "full contact" punches and kicks allowed only waist above and  I have couple of light contact matches, where the contact is limited). I wasn´t much of a fighter, but at the end the process of going through the pain was rewarding. The amount of suffering was not so much, in general - but without it the pleasure wouldn´t been so rewarding. And I find this rewarding feeling when I´m training others sports as well nowadays. Maybe I train wrongly (some say insane), but usually the exercise itself is not fun. The suffering of sports is definitely limited, of course there are some other much bigger obstacles - to which I personally may don´t have much of a relation - which will give you greater reward. But some pain is no way developing and have any positive outcomes. And I´m not talking about war zones or any situations like that.

  With such lived delusions and denials going on at various levels of cognition and conscious life I do not think talk of 'consent' to non-beings, OR actual beings, makes a whole lot of sense. Neither do I see a promulgation by an inept and limited being (ie. human being) holding to some universal ethic (whatever it is) makes any kind of sense. For specific INDIVIDUAL instances we can do better because we have more data to work with and can explore the possibles more readily.

Have you heard how the US Airforce tried to create a one size fits all seat for pilots? They took the average width, depth and height of pilot sizes and produce a one size fits all seat. Shock horror, it fit NO ONE. Same principle here. I cannot make sweeping statements about whether it is 'better' or 'worse' (if I followed the antinatalist pattern) to have a child because I am not privy to the live sof every human that has lived. As mentioned previously, I am fairly damn sure that most people prefer to live than to die (and that most if not all consider suicide at some point to some degree). This leaves ONLY the question of 'right' to bring life into the world ... that is just a silly idea. I could ask anyone about their right to do anything or think anything and they may also ask what right they have to ask about their right to do anything and so on ... pointless. — I like sushi

I think we think same way at many topics. However, we evaluate quite differently the rights and the totality of life, the question of starting the new life of someone else .

  "Rights" are social apparatus hewn over human sociological evolution. They are tied to laws and ideas of 'universal rights' ... no sorry, not for me. Not to say I am not influenced by them I am not that naive. This brings me right back to my main point about the whole body of ethics ... it is not really a matter of what I pronounce and show in the public sphere (ie. here).

We've created ideas of justice and rights in order to live together/apart in a society. I don't think every person requires as much social interaction as others and this can cause great suffering and great pleasure. Neither is BAD or GOOD, but the fact that I exist is something I value because I cannot value not existing because I cannot take part in the act of valuing anything if I don't exist and I take great pleasure and pain in exploring the world. — I like sushi

Rights, as you describe them, are social structures. And some theorists derive them from some concept of universal rights, etc. I think you may value not existing in some situation, where the burden of life is too much.

  I don't buy into any 'moral' gibberish about empathy toward non-existing persons or pathetic excuses for shirking responsibility. The Trolley Problem is exactly what this shows in some people. A great many will happily do nothing regardless of pain or suffering OR they just flat out refuse the hypothetical as a hypothetical and childishly avoid the personal task at hand out of ignorance/stupidity (as I used to).

WHo am I to judge you may ask? I am me ... so fucking what?

I hope you would make a choice in the Trolley problem rather than not think at all. I do have a sneaking suspicion you may refuse the problem though and instead equate it with my 'denial' of your antinatalist view of 'right to procreate' but they are not the same thing at all because one is plain English and the other is not far from saying 'Purple under the Tuesday smell of square farts' which is as a grammatical construct is fine, but in terms of meaning requires leaps in metaphor and guesswork.

We only know dark gray and light gray. Don't mistaken them for imagined black or white. We can only stumble around in the degree of shade and light and be thankful when lighter times come about.

Anyway, I'm writing for me without anyone's consent ;) I am TRULY done here but if you wish to start another thread about something un/related that has as much work put into it as your OP here then I will at least read it.

It's been useful to me. Good thread :) — I like sushi

The question of ´right to procreate´ is plain English.


Do you mean by "Trolley problem" this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

If so, I thought this in 2011. My intuitive answer was then:

Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

But nowadays I´ve been thinking my decision was wrong.
On the surface, at least, my answer to the question seems utilitarian.

But counter argue my point of view, go ahead.
But now I HAVE TO GO UNDER THE BAR, GO TO SQUATTING, to the gym.
I should have gone already yesterday, but this site took all my time.

I didn´t tell the reason for my decision, but they think my decision might change, because I was so young then. In later years some of my friends questioned my decision, one woman said I would be a good father. Maybe I would, maybe I won´t. — Antinatalist

Adoption is a possibility and not against your beliefs. I'm sure you could lessen the 'pain' of life for someone well enough that way without the "responsibility/burden" (whatever it is to you) of having brought them into the world.

The question of ´right to procreate´ is plain English. — Antinatalist

It is. But it doesn't mean anything anymore than the 'right to eat' (ie. sustain yourself off of other living organisms). Such ideas of 'rights' are embedded in judeochristian heritage. The moral codes we've adopted have been for reasons that are not always valid, but if doing X and Y in one society and A and B in another, given our very silly brains, we assume the outcome in each society is dictated by A and B & X and Y even though they are singular factors that may have VERY little influence on what makes a 'better' society.

But nowadays I´ve been thinking my decision was wrong.
On the surface, at least, my answer to the question seems utilitarian. — Antinatalist

Telling me what you'd do is mostly a waste of time. By doing so you fall into the trap of what society deems as 'right' and what 'right' means. That is a point that most miss with the Trolley Problem. You don't need a 'reason' ... in fact you've porbably seen many people in your life come up with reasons for their actions that are completely fabricated (and they BELIEVE them too!).

I don't think we can escape some idea of 'what is expected of us' as humans, but I sure as hell know we can investigate further and pull back the curtain enough to guard against possible misfortunes due to blinkered views of the world we're about.

I think we think same way at many topics. — Antinatalist

Most people do. Few, if any, truly speak the same 'language' though so we're necessarily at odds with each other to some degree. I find such conflict to be a primary reason for living.

Most so called 'negative' aspects of life are shunned when they should be embraced, and vice versa. A lot of what people wish for is actually nothing more than self-torture (ie. Freedom viewed as a happy bouncy castle of fluffy bunnies and joy ... NO NO NO! Not even slighty would pure freedom look liek that because Freedom comes with the heavy burden of responsibilty. Th more freedom you have the more responsible you are ... sounds good at first but after you really think about it do doubt you'll make do with taking on 'just as much freedom as I can handle and still live comfortably with'.

There is political storm now as always. Today though technologies have made us view this weather differently. It is becoming harder and harder for me to comprehend what I would've missed if I'd be born 20-30 years ago ... I basically left college around the time the internet was really becoming a social force (facebook was just flourishing). It is hard to notice what drips by with time, but the changes have been really phenomenal and I'm excited to see what happens next. I think the old poltical cycles are going to shift because the whole cognitive landscape of human interaction has startewd to shift a lot AND there is an even bigger thing on the way with CRISPR that will make the invention of the computer look like a mere blip in human history.

Anyway, I'll start a thread up or you can about something else and see if we have anything worth disagreeing about ;)

Done here TRULY :D

I didn´t tell the reason for my decision, but they think my decision might change, because I was so young then. In later years some of my friends questioned my decision, one woman said I would be a good father. Maybe I would, maybe I won´t.
— Antinatalist — I like sushi

  Adoption is a possibility and not against your beliefs. I'm sure you could lessen the 'pain' of life for someone well enough that way without the "responsibility/burden" (whatever it is to you) of having brought them into the world. — I like sushi

I highly respect people who adopt children. But I don´t have that kind of relationship, that adoption will be realistic. And my economic situation is not as good as it needs to be if I have an adopted child. And most of all, I don´t think I will be a good father (although I said in a previous post maybe I would, maybe I wouldn´t). I think I have some good values, and I am not a violent person or anything like that, but I don´t think I with my personality I would be father good enough. But like I said, I highly respect people who have adopted children.

The question of ´right to procreate´ is plain English.
— Antinatalist

  It is. But it doesn't mean anything anymore than the 'right to eat' (ie. sustain yourself off of other living organisms). Such ideas of 'rights' are embedded in judeochristian heritage. The moral codes we've adopted have been for reasons that are not always valid, but if doing X and Y in one society and A and B in another, given our very silly brains, we assume the outcome in each society is dictated by A and B & X and Y even though they are singular factors that may have VERY little influence on what makes a 'better' society. — I like sushi

But don´t you also think that this heritage also gives very limited kinds of structures for us to think about society and life in general?  The idea of questioning the evolutionary/cultural code of having children seems very strange or odd for most people. Because of culture and evolution. I think that questioning is really a good example of out of the box -thinking.

  But nowadays I´ve been thinking my decision was wrong.
On the surface, at least, my answer to the question seems utilitarian.
— Antinatalist

  Telling me what you'd do is mostly a waste of time. By doing so you fall into the trap of what society deems as 'right' and what 'right' means. That is a point that most miss with the Trolley Problem. You don't need a 'reason' ... in fact you've porbably seen many people in your life come up with reasons for their actions that are completely fabricated (and they BELIEVE them too!). — I like sushi

I agree with the last sentence. But I think, from personal experience I know something about what society deems ´right´ and ´wrong´. I learned that at the latest in the nineties with my own antinatalistic views, when I presented them (okay, I didn´t know term "antinatalism", and I read about David Beanatar not until 2015), if not already in elementary school. But of course the values of society affect the individual, also they affect me, I am not denying that. And I also think, that example, the "Trolley Problem" is a good one. It may teach something about reasoning and like you pointed out, about society and its effect.

  I don't think we can escape some idea of 'what is expected of us' as humans, but I sure as hell know we can investigate further and pull back the curtain enough to guard against possible misfortunes due to blinkered views of the world we're about.  — I like sushi

I agree with this.

  I think we think same way at many topics.
— Antinatalist

Most people do. Few, if any, truly speak the same 'language' though so we're necessarily at odds with each other to some degree. I find such conflict to be a primary reason for living.

Most so called 'negative' aspects of life are shunned when they should be embraced, and vice versa. A lot of what people wish for is actually nothing more than self-torture (ie. Freedom viewed as a happy bouncy castle of fluffy bunnies and joy ... NO NO NO! Not even slighty would pure freedom look liek that because Freedom comes with the heavy burden of responsibilty. Th more freedom you have the more responsible you are ... sounds good at first but after you really think about it do doubt you'll make do with taking on 'just as much freedom as I can handle and still live comfortably with'.

There is political storm now as always. Today though technologies have made us view this weather differently. It is becoming harder and harder for me to comprehend what I would've missed if I'd be born 20-30 years ago ... I basically left college around the time the internet was really becoming a social force (facebook was just flourishing). It is hard to notice what drips by with time, but the changes have been really phenomenal and I'm excited to see what happens next. I think the old poltical cycles are going to shift because the whole cognitive landscape of human interaction has startewd to shift a lot AND there is an even bigger thing on the way with CRISPR that will make the invention of the computer look like a mere blip in human history. — I like sushi

I am happy that I´m not young anymore. Although, the life I lived then was quite good, I mean post twenties.

Anyway, I'll start a thread up or you can about something else and see if we have anything worth disagreeing about ;)

Done here TRULY :D — I like sushi

Okay. :)

It's not wrong to have children. But I it's not wrong to not have children either. I knew from a young age, around 5 or 6, that I never want(ed) to have children. And I never will have children. That is a "good" thing in my book.

That's fine, but the philosophical part of it isn't the choice to have a child or not personally, but whether it is a moral question to bring someone into the world considering things like suffering and harm is entailed in existing, no consent can ever be had, and things of this nature. Do you have anything to say on that?

It is. But it doesn't mean anything anymore than the 'right to eat' (ie. sustain yourself off of other living organisms). Such ideas of 'rights' are embedded in judeochristian heritage. The moral codes we've adopted have been for reasons that are not always valid, but if doing X and Y in one society and A and B in another, given our very silly brains, we assume the outcome in each society is dictated by A and B & X and Y even though they are singular factors that may have VERY little influence on what makes a 'better' society. — I like sushi

Not sure what this means, but there need be no society nor would the antinatalist claim care about abstract things like "society" (at least deontological ones). Unlike a "right to eat" let's say, one is decisions made on one's own behalf and the other is made on behalf of others, and that makes the difference here. Procreation very much becomes a political decision and agenda to enact. We think about technology, economics, finance, the climate in all sort of analytical ways, but procreation for people is "automatically" off the table, when it is the root of all other conflicts.

Unlike a "right to eat" let's say, one is decisions made on one's own behalf and the other is made on behalf of others, and that makes the difference here. Procreation very much becomes a political decision and agenda to enact. We think about technology, economics, finance, the climate in all sort of analytical ways, but procreation for people is "automatically" off the table, when it is the root of all other conflicts. — schopenhauer1

I have to agree. Procreation is something people normally can not (or maybe they could, but they would not) consider rationally. It is something given, unquestionable. And like you said, it is the root of all other conflicts.

I have to agree. Procreation is something people normally can not (or maybe they could, but they would not) consider rationally. It is something given, unquestionable. And like you said, it is the root of all other conflicts. — Antinatalist

Yes. The agenda is already baked in at this point. It's all politics once you are enacting something for someone else. Your decision (to what though?).. Perpetuate (what though?) because you want (what though?), etc.

The basic argument is as follows:we have no moral right to cause something that radically changes the existence  of another individual or –  to be more precise: from non-existence to existence or vice versa (in other words, from a non-individual/+ non-existence into existence or vice versa is also regarded as a change here), or to directly affect the existence of another human being if it is not possible to hear this individual in the matter.

Such arguments have been made concerning the act of having a child that one cannot affect something that does not exist. Is this argument justified? — Antinatalist

I don't see anything wrong with speculating about child birth. If you believe that having children is risky because your child might suffer, it is good judgement to decide not to have children. I believe it is a risk assessment decision rather than it being about morality.

Choosing not to have children is a personal risk assessment decision, it has nothing to do with wrong-or-right morality. Just my two cents...

Rather, not existing deprives no ONE of happiness. Someone was not harmed, THIS is what matters morally. Why am I obligated to bring happy experiences into the world? That would seem odd. Rather, the negative is usually what is morally relevant. I don't necessarily have to give someone my extra candy bar, though it would be nice, but I certainly would be obligated to not cause unnecessary harm like punching them in the gut as I walk by or shoving a candy bar down their throat cause, hey, I think people should like candy bars, and ya know, generally they do! — schopenhauer1

I think you are at the essence, in the pure core, of what are persons obligations, rights - and what are not.

As to whether it is moral or immoral to bring a child into this world right now, I would say that it is moral. Human life is beautiful and valuable in all its forms. Even if the world is burning.

Maybe one of the children born today will invent the solutions of tomorrow?

The basic argument is as follows:we have no moral right to cause something that radically changes the existence of another individual or – to be more precise: from non-existence to existence or vice versa (in other words, from a non-individual/+ non-existence into existence or vice versa is also regarded as a change here), or to directly affect the existence of another human being if it is not possible to hear this individual in the matter.

Such arguments have been made concerning the act of having a child that one cannot affect something that does not exist. Is this argument justified?
— Antinatalist

I don't see anything wrong with speculating about child birth. If you believe that having children is risky because your child might suffer, it is good judgement to decide not to have children. I believe it is a risk assessment decision rather than it being about morality.

Choosing not to have children is a personal risk assessment decision, it has nothing to do with wrong-or-right morality. Just my two cents — Wheatley

My point is that because having a child is a decision of someone else´s life, and those risks will fall to the child, who can not be a part of the decision process, this decision certainly has everything to do with wrong or right -morality. It is very different to bet your money in a casino or drink a liter of vodka a day, those are risky decisions that you make with your own life. Having a child is completely different decision in its pure nature.

My point is that because having a child is a decision of someone else´s life, and those risks will fall to the child — Antinatalist

I can just as well say that adults are responsible for children.