well I guess, but at least the ceremonial aspects were supposed to invest it with significance. Anyway I get really tired of all these types who bleat about what a drag it is to have been born, they really ought to just find a way to be useful to someone else if they have nothing useful to actually say.

I agree with you that marriage should be invested with significance, and I also agree with you about how tiresome and childish the anti-life, anti-natal sheep are.

They could awaken from their "dogmatic slumbers" if they only used their energy and intelligence creatively for a change. In fact they would snap out of it very quickly if they had to face a genuine survival situation. It seems that they really want to cling on to this negative bullshit, God knows why. :s

Have you not heard of hypotheticals? There is nothing bizarre about predicting the future based on the past. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, of course I have. What about them? You need to bring this back to consent and go into more detail. Predicting the future based on the past is not bizarre in and of itself.

Hello science! — Andrew4Handel

That science has to do with hypotheticals does not support your position.

We are not talking about whether a non existent person should be able to consent but that the future person who comes to exist will be able to withhold consent and have desires and that these desires can be in opposition to your act of creating them. — Andrew4Handel

Why mention that a person, once old enough, will be able to withhold consent if you aren't suggesting that a non-born non-person won't be able to do so, and that this ought to change? The consent angle is not sensible.

As for desires being in opposition to being procreated, I think that that is such a misguided thing to focus on after the fact, since nothing can be done about it - that you were procreated, that is. It's an epitome of that sort of thing, actually. And in terms of beforehand, I reiterate my earlier point about it being a gamble, like many other acts that we do, and that we find acceptable. Should we stop crossing roads? What about leaving the house?

You didn't answer my questions, so I'll repeat them. What would you think if I said that chairs don't speak loud enough? Or that apples were not surprised at the recent general election result? Or that people didn't protest against the big bang at the time? Or, here's another one, that dogs can't vote? Be honest. And remember that there's an implied ethical context.

If someone is unconscious they can't consent. So you can violate their consent without them having to be able to vocalise it. Unless you want to claim we can do what we like to unconscious people. The same way you assume a sleeping person isn't consenting to sex you can assume things about future humans. — Andrew4Handel

I explained this at least a couple times above. The differences are whether we're actually talking about a person who has thoughts and opinions on what they would or wouldn't consent to.

If a child had the choice to be born to millionaire or to be born in a slum facing hunger do you think any child would choose the slum over the wealthy existence? — Andrew4Handel

If they were only given that information probably not many would choose the slum. If they were given a Ghost of Christmas Future glimpse into what their lives would be like, more would choose the slum. Many wouldn't like having little contact with their parents but instead an endless stream of nannies, many wouldn't like the restrictions and pressures they'd have, including in private/prep schools, etc. Money doesn't make you happy. Particular possessions do not make you happy. You might think they would if you don't have access to them and you don't know many rich folks (and especially if one is also suffering from depression and is untreated), but they don't make you happy. Disposition/attitude, one's manner of looking at things, one's manner of acting/interacting with others, etc., regardless of possessions, is what makes one happy.

If someone is unconscious they cannot consent to sex. Therefore it is wrong to have sex with them in this state.

If someone cannot consent to be created then you should not create them. You cannot be acting in their benefit or based on them expressing any desire to exist. — Andrew4Handel

It is sensible to think of consent comparatively. There are situations in which people can consent to sex, and we use that as a comparison, but there are no situations in which nothings can consent to being created. There can be no such situation. We can't even conceive of it. That's why it's nonsense. It'd also be nonsense in a lesser sense if you're imagining a foetus or a "hypothetical" or "potential" person consenting. I don't conclude that we should treat lampposts with tender love and care because I can imagine that they would really appreciate that.

On the matter of 1, some posters have said that it's irrelevant because consent was impossible and what is impossible can't be of moral significance — TheMadFool

Ontologically it's rather just a category error. Folks make the mistake of thinking that there's a person prior to conception. There isn't. So it's a category error to talk about it as if we're talking about a person prior to procreation. Anything pertinent to persons is only an issue once a person exists.

Indeed, why cause the burden of life to exist in the first place for a new person when there did not have to be a burden in the first place? — schopenhauer1

Nice of you to chip in with some more loaded language. But calling it a burden doesn't quite do the trick. What if we call it a torment? Or compare it to torture? Oh no, we've had that one already. Abuse? No, wait, that's been done. Has someone brought up Hitler yet? What if we just spit at it?

Ontologically it's rather just a category error. — Terrapin Station

I don't think it's simply a cateogry error. Nonexistence does imply a freedom from suffering. And I think we have real experiences that validate such a notion e.g. we put animals out of misery, which is I think, apart from being an euphemism for killing, roughly fits, what the OP has in mind.

Indeed, I agree, nonexistent people have no moral standing. We can't murder Harry Potter, neither can we make him happy. However, when it comes to birthing children, nonexistence has moral weight. To illustrate, don't we advise a friend against a movie, music, game, experience? We say a movie is so bad it's not worth watching and these are minor issues compared to life. Life can be beautiful but, our world being what it is - indifferent to our welfare - we're always inches from disaster. It seems then that the logic behind advising someone against a movie is applicable, twice as much, to bearing children.

Also, consider the case of a mother carrying a child with a severe genetic defect. Most people choose to abort the pregnancy based on the premise that life would be intolerable suffering for the child.

So, labeling the OP's concern as a category error is correct but hardly diminishes the strength of his/her argument.

The whole argument rests on two pillars:

1. Consent was not taken

2. Life is suffering

On the matter of 1, some posters have said that it's irrelevant because consent was impossible and what is impossible can't be of moral significance. It's impossible to remove gravity from our lives and to include it in moral, or any other, evaluation would be unreasonable, to say the least. In short, the distinction ''can't'' vs ''didn't'' matters. Children can't consent, not didn't consent. That, some say, relieves the parents of moral responsibility in birthing children and, simulaltaneously, surrenders a child's autonomy to the parents. Is this true?

Empirical data suggests that this is true. Many situations exist where people can't consent e.g. when as a child, in a coma, in absentia, when mentally challenged, etc. At these times, someone - a loved one, friend, colleague, parent - makes the decision for the person, hopefully, keeping best interests in mind. As you can see, impossibility does matter - we're morally permitted to make decisions for others when it's a can't rather than a didn't consent.

2 is controversial and actually defies empirical evidence. Most people aren't depressed, suicide is not as common as would be expected, people aren't avoiding having children, etc.

One could say that this is simply because people haven't given enough thought on the matter i.e. they fail to see the truth, the truth that life is suffering. If everyone were to just give a moment to consider the matter, everyone would see that life's just not worth it.

However, one could argue back along the same lines. Take Buddhism for example. It's central tenet is exactly what is your premise - life is suffering. But, according to the Buddha, this suffering has an irrational origin - unmoderated attachment, expecting more than is possible, clinging to the superficial, a failure to recognize and accept nature. So, right back at you, in fact, suffering is not because you haven't contemplated the issue, rather, it's because you haven't.

In addition, the experience of life is improving - we're healthier, safer, happier than we were a thousand years ago. This trend is likely to continue and a few thousand years from now, life will be even better. This seriously undermines your argument. Life is a dynamic force, it progresses, and your argument ignores this crucial fact. Your argument was good in the past, is less applicable now, and will become utterly bad in the future. — TheMadFool

Well argued! Impossibility does matter, in a certain sense, in some situations. But what Andrew's trying to do with it doesn't work. They can't win the debate through reason, so they try to win the debate through appealing to emotion, by painting a certain picture and getting you to imagine certain things. But the picture is only shown from one side, and is exaggerated, and a lot of what they try to get you to imagine makes no sense in reality.

Nonexistence does imply a freedom from suffering. — TheMadFool

A freedom of suffering for what?

To illustrate, don't we advise a friend against a movie, music, game, experience? We say a movie is so bad it's not worth watching — TheMadFool

People do that, obviously, but I find it ridiculous if it's not about the person in question's tastes, not the person doing the advising's tastes. For example, if I know that my friend dislikes films where there's a lot of mumbling, I can say, "You'd better avoid such and such, because half of the dialogue is mumbled." That would be the case even if I have no problem with mumbling and I loved the film. Likewise, maybe I don't care much for realist dramas (and in fact I do not), but I know that my friend loves them. So I might not have liked a film due to this, but I can recommend it to him, because I know his tastes.

Recommendations make no sense unless we know the person we're making the recommendations to. Different people have different tastes, like different things, etc.

Recommendations make no sense unless we know the person we're making the recommendations to. Different people have different tastes, like different things, etc — Terrapin Station

You're right but this logic fails because it can be used against you. Not knowing the tastes of a person denies you the right to think for him/her - neither to not have children, and more importantly, nor to have children.

So, we've reached an impasse.

For me, the next step is to try and bring some objectivity into the game and that I've done in my previous post - the truth of "life is suffering" is slowly becoming suspect. This isn't a matter of taste. Maybe it was, but now it's acquring an objective quality that's tending towards falsehood.

Without consent any relationship would automatically become an imposition and that is an attack on personal freedom, which is morally reprehensible.

Since, children didn't consent to being born, it implies that parents have committed a moral wrong. The consquences in the OP - the unaviodable suffering and pain that accompanies life - don't even matter. Absence of consent, in and of itself, is sufficient to qualify the act of procreation as immoral. — TheMadFool

This is where you go wrong.

It isn't morally reprehensible to keep pets in the right way, despite the fact that they do not, and cannot, consent. It's mutually beneficial. This can be, and often is, also true of parent-child relationships. Absence of consent, can be, and in many cases is, a non-factor.

You're right but this logic fails because it can be used against you. Not knowing the tastes of a person denies you the right to think for him/her - neither to not have children, and more importantly, nor to have children. — TheMadFool

There's no one to think for prior to that person existing. You can't think for someone who doesn't exist yet.

For me, the next step is to try and bring some objectivity into the game and that I've done in my previous post - the truth of "life is suffering" is slowly becoming suspect. This isn't a matter of taste. Maybe it was, but now it's acquring an objective quality that's tending towards falsehood. — TheMadFool

There is no objectivity in something like "life is suffering." There is no objectivity in ethics or valuations.

Again untrue. Firstly my "if-then" is simply an examination of a purely logical possibility. It is neither lightweight, superficial, ill-considered nor trivial. And I was not being flippant, either. On the other hand you, apparently bereft of any argument against what I had said, flippantly offer up something which is not even a proper "if-then" (you don't even say what will or could be the case if pigs do fly). — John

That's missing the point. You're right that it wasn't a proper 'if-then', since it was incomplete. That was the point: I didn't even need to complete the 'if-then'. The 'if' isn't worthy of serious consideration, so the 'then' is trivial. Which makes the whole thing trivial, unworthy of serious consideration, and not worth bringing up.

Even I, with my 'tiny' brain, picked up on that. We shouldn't make exceptions. If you allow one, you allow them all, and that would be chaos. A more stringent standard should be applied.

You confused my demonstration with mere flippancy. You just have to try a little harder.

What would you think if I said that chairs don't speak loud enough? Or that apples were not surprised at the recent general election result? Or that people didn't protest against the big bang at the time? Or, here's another one, that dogs can't vote? Be honest. And remember that there's an implied ethical context. — Sapientia

Chairs can never speak, apples will never express surprise.
But humans will have consent issues and will have an opinion on their creation and their own desires.
People can express an opinion on the big bang..

My statement in this thread is that it is impossible to consent to be born so it can never be that we are here by consent undermining consent. I am not expressing a desire that the unborn consent just stating the fact that life is at base non consensual. (Thanks The madfool)

Apples do not desire to be surprised so the inability to do this is not a burden but humans can reflect on their existence and creation and regret it and lots of people have. People can speculate about the big bang and express opinions on it even though it is a past event. Humans are not just stuck remorsely in a present moment with no access to the past and future. They remember the past and are influenced by it and plan for the future,

My first ever post in the other "Philosophy Forum" was suggesting that the need to philosophise came from being born. That a fundamental question is why our parents created us.

For example now children have access to a huge range of facts and ideas humans have made or found. So a child now appears to have less work to do to explain various aspects to reality.

Parents could have brought children (hypothetically) into a world with no philosophical questions.

I am interested in philosophy but I feel it is an imposition like everything because I was brought into a mysterious imperfect world.

I don't think the onus should be on the child to understand her existence or make his own meaning. I find this whole "make your own meaning" idea unpleasant. It is an existential burden that also implies the failure of parents to present you with a meaning.

Chairs can never speak, apples will never express surprise. — Andrew4Handel

And non-people can never consent. Only people can. That dogs can't vote is not a massive ethical issue. It's not an ethical issue at all.

But humans will have consent issues and will have an opinion on their creation and their own desires. — Andrew4Handel

When people are people, they have people problems. But your reverse thinking doesn't work. Yes, we can think about what will or might be, and act upon such thoughts, but it isn't reasonable to commit a reification fallacy, as you seem to be doing.

My statement in this thread is that it is impossible to consent to be born so it can never be that we are here by consent undermining consent. I am not expressing a desire that the unborn consent just stating the fact that life is at base non consensual. (Thanks The madfool) — Andrew4Handel

When you state that people can't consent to being born, there's either a controversial ethical implication or it's trivial. Take your pick. It's lose-lose. (Thanks critical thinking ability).

Apples do not desire to be surprised... — Andrew4Handel

Apples don't cry over spilt milk, either. But if they did, I'd try to encourage them to think about things like that in a better way.

If you were an apple, I'd slice you into pieces and eat you. Buy you're not, and even if you were, it would be okay to slice you into pieces and eat you, because apples differ from people in important ways, as do all non-people.

I don't think suicide is a consensual act because if you do something to yourself you don't need to ask for consent. So I don't think committing suicide is a way of withdrawing consent from life

Also people have glib attitude to suicide when advocating it for antinatalists.

If you watch documentaries on suicide, the families and friends of the deceased persons are usually devastated by the bereavement. Also suicide usually comes after a lot of suffering. Usually when you withdraw consent it is an easy situation.

1.Do you want an apple? No thanks. 2.Do you want an apple. *kills self.*

And non-people can never consent. Only people can. That dogs can't vote is not a massive ethical issue. It's not an ethical issue at all. — Sapientia

Oh please, this is rubbish. When a child is conceived and then gestates, and then is birthed into the world, that is "creating a new life". By creating a new life, they created a person who will suffer. The point is that the child that "will be born if conceived, gestated, and birthed" cannot retroactively consent to existing in the first place. Now, this is not my number 1 reason against birth, but I can see the logic of the OP.

When people are people, they have people problems. But your reverse thinking doesn't work. Yes, we can think about what will or might be, and act upon such thoughts, but it isn't reasonable to commit a reification fallacy, as you seem to be doing. — Sapientia

Why not? Why can't someone say "Whatever child might be born from the conception, gestation, and birth that may take place cannot be consented prior to its own birth, ergo I will not cause a person to be born that, de facto, cannot be consented in the first place". This seems logical to me. You don't need to know that actual identity of the person who will be born, just that someone will be born that cannot be consented.

When you state that people can't consent to being born, there's either a controversial ethical implication or it's trivial. Take your pick. It's lose-lose. (Thanks critical thinking ability). — Sapientia

Nope on both fronts actually, so keep thinking more critically.

Do you want an apple? — Andrew4Handel

Yes, but I won't touch one if it doesn't consent, because I'm responsible like that. I'm an anti-appleist. We ought to bring attention to this massive ethical issue by creating multiple discussions about it on this forum.

What about all the lives that aren't born? What about all the potential lives floating around within our groins that may provide consent to be born but never are. There are far more lives that are never born than those that are.

What about all the lives that aren't born? What about all the potential lives floating around within our groins that may provide consent to be born but never are. There are far more lives that are never born than those that are. — Harry Hindu

What about the apples? Think of the apples!

If apples have souls... :-O

What about all the lives that aren't born? What about all the potential lives floating around within our groins that may provide consent to be born but never are. There are far more lives that are never born than those that are. — Harry Hindu

The great thing is that if no one was born, no one feels the deprivation of whatever goods they may have had, since they never existed to care. No harm, no foul. However, if someone was born, harms will happen, so fouls have happened.

If any of this were true, then we'd have to revamp our ethics and convict our parents, not the others who actually cause us suffering, for our suffering. We'd be putting our parents in prison rather than those that actually caused us suffering. Your parents would be in prison instead of the the thief or cheat that caused your suffering.

The fact is that I don't blame my parents as the source of my suffering. I blame those that cause my suffering. If that is how you feel then grow a set and go blame your parents for all the suffering you ever experienced and tell them you're going to sue them for the suffering you experience in life. In other words, be consistent in your philosophical worldview and put your money where your mouth is.

I don't think suicide is a consensual act because if you do something to yourself you don't need to ask for consent. So I don't think committing suicide is a way of withdrawing consent from life. — Andrew4Handel

Here's the key point you seem to miss: consent isn't always explicit, nor need it be. I don't need to ask because my continued consent is implicit, not because I know I don't consent or because the question doesn't apply. I could withdraw my consent to life, and live as a sort of nihilist, or I could consent to suicide.

You don't need to know that actual identity of the person who will be born, just that someone . . . — schopenhauer1

It's not that you don't know the identity--it's just someone that we're doing things to.

It's not anyone prior to conception. There's nothing there to consent or to NOT consent.

It would make just as much sense to say, "All of these potential people that we're not creating might be really upset that we didn't create them, so we'd better try to have as many kids as possible."

It's not that you don't know the identity--it's just someone.

It's not anyone prior to conception. There's nothing there to consent or to NOT consent.

It would make just as much sense to say, "All of these potential people that we're not creating might be really upset that we didn't create them, so we'd better try to have as many kids as possible." — Terrapin Station

Or you could go further afield and talk in a similar way about apples, dogs, or lampposts, as I have done. I think my examples better emphasise the absurdity, but yours has a better chance of getting these people to relate the error to their own thinking. That said, I very much doubt that schopenhauer1 will be persuaded out of his thinking.

If any of this were true, then we'd have to revamp our ethics and convict our parents, not the others who actually cause us suffering, for our suffering. We'd be putting our parents in prison rather than those that actually caused us suffering. — Harry Hindu

Oh men of straw.. behold. It means nothing whether someone else causes the suffering because life has suffering. If you believe the Schopenhauerean approach (my style) life is always suffering in structural terms. If you are a utilitarian or just any good/bad approach, then you know that inevitable harm will take place because that is a part of life. You don't need to know the perpetrators of the harm, you don't need to know when (usually right after birth is the start though), you don't have to know the kind of harm- you can simply say that harm will befall that otherwise will not take place and this will go on until death or at least 100+ years if the new person made it that far.

The fact is that I don't blame my parents as the source of my suffering. I blame those that cause my suffering. If that is how you feel then grow a set and go blame your parents for all the suffering you ever experienced and tell them you're going to sue them for the suffering you experience in life. In other words, be consistent in your philosophical worldview and put your money where your mouth is. — Harry Hindu

Nah, it's too late now. I'm more about the prevention of future harm. I also sympathize with folks who might not think in those terms.. I'm not a monster.. I don't yell at new mothers pushing their babies in strollers. I still have compassion for those even who cause new births and more suffering to occur. It is a big deal, but the approach also matters.

Silence is consent, you know. Qui tacet consentire videtur. So, the fact that the unborn silently accept their birth indicates they consent to their birth, if it indicates anything at all.

Now, some may reply that the unborn don't exist, and so could not give their consent. [Or, some may say that to speak of "the unborn" is silly, but let that pass--everyone seems to anyway]. That may be true, but if it is then so is the fact that they could not object to being born.

Why do some of us assume that they would not consent to being born? Or, if they don't make that assumption, why do they maintain that the fact consent can neither be give nor refused establishes that one should not give birth under any circumstances?

In either case, I think, consent is not an issue; it can't be. So, I suspect the idee fixe of the anti-birthers (so it seems they may be called) is merely that life is bad, or wrong, or undesirable, and so nobody should live. For that matter, we shouldn't have been born either, but alas we were (it is what it is).

Here's another thought. Let's say someone is born, and somehow becomes glad of it? He/she thus ratifies their birth, so to speak. Can consent not given (because impossible) be given when it is possible? Do the parents remain guilty--is the sin of having children unforgivable?