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 issue is about planning to create a child knowing that that hypothetical desired child could withhold consent from something. A sperm is not a potential child in the way a fertilised egg is. A sperm is as much a potential child as an atom is. The problem is the parent intends to create a child. So they intend to create something that has volition, desires and consent issues. (planning to have children requires envisioning future children)

This gets back to the intent cases where someone is a danger because they intend to harm someone. people are trying to fixate the discussion around the point before the child is conceived.

This is like the unconscious rape case. You don't focus the issue of consent to sex around the time when someone is unconscious but on the whole lifespan and future potential to consent.

An analogy is when you consider throwing a brick at a window. You know that a window has a disposition to shatter. You don't need to prove it will shatter. So when planning a child we know they can do X. You don't have to wait til a future point to assert the outcome of an action.

It is true that a child may endorse life but the problem is the same process that created them creates people who don't endorse life. So I might consent to sex and another person may not, the fact that some people may consent to something doesn't justify inflicting it on all, but life is like that.

As has been said it is possible our "soul" exists before this body. — Andrew4Handel

That's what you have to argue for in order for what you say to make any sense. So get to it. What is the soul and how does it pre-exist the body?

Or you could go further afield and talk in a similar way about apples, dogs, or lampposts, as I have done. — Sapientia

You insulted dogs? I'll legit beat you up if we ever meet irl.

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

They can't be upset because they don't exist.

Absence of consent, can be, and in many cases is, a non-factor — Sapientia

I don't think so. Consent is key in any interaction between two/more people. Ask any court, anywhere. I accept the concept of mutually beneficial relationships. There's absolutely nothing morally wrong with establishing them but, that's a BIG but, we must remember that they're, in essence, contracts/agreements. As such they require the contracting parties to be capable of consent because it is essential that both parties see the benefits in the relationship. No side has the right to think for the other, especially in absentia. The moment this occurs, the mutually beneficial nature of the relationship ceases.

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

Take a consequentialist approach to the issue. Consequences, necessarily in the future, are all that matter. So, the future existence of a person, the quality of the person's life have moral weight in the present. So, nonexistence, IF life is suffering, is morally preferable. Conversely, to bear children would be categorically immoral.

Now let's take the virtue-ethicist path. As I explained (above) in my reply to Sapientia, there is something inherently wrong, morally speaking, in engaging another person without consent, as is the case in birthing children.

Thus, it is morally wrong to bear children IF life is suffering.

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

Is it all a matter of taste and preference then? If it is then why get into arguments (logical ones)? Argument means objectivity, at least an attempt at it.

Which is why it would make just as much sense to say that. ;-)

So, nonexistence, IF life is suffering, is morally preferable — TheMadFool

That's only if you believe that life is suffering and if you believe that it is morally preferable to avoid suffering (and of course that's only to the person who thinks this). The kid who wasn't born maybe would have wound up thinking that life is suffering and that suffering is preferable to not suffering, or any other sort of alternative.

there is something inherently wrong, morally speaking, in engaging another person without consent, — TheMadFool

No. There is nothing that is inherently wrong.

Are you serious with that argument?

In that I think that

(a) "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"

and

(b) Antinatalism

are equally ridiculous, for the same reasons.

Absence of consent, can be, and in many cases is, a non-factor — Sapientia

I don't think so. Consent is key in any interaction between two/more people. Ask any court, anywhere. — TheMadFool

You don't think so, even though what I said in the quote above can be demonstrated by example when it comes to pets and children? And by your own appeal to law? Absence of consent is a non-factor when it comes to parenting and keeping pets within the law. That there is an absence of consent from pet or child would provide no legal basis for prosecution in many conceivable cases.

I accept the concept of mutually beneficial relationships. There's absolutely nothing morally wrong with establishing them but, that's a BIG but, we must remember that they're, in essence, contracts/agreements. As such they require the contracting parties to be capable of consent because it is essential that both parties see the benefits in the relationship. No side has the right to think for the other, especially in absentia. The moment this occurs, the mutually beneficial nature of the relationship ceases. — TheMadFool

No, that kind of complex abstract thinking is far beyond the capabilities of pets and toddlers. Mutually beneficial? Yes. Mutual consent? No, obviously not.

So you are saying that it's not possible that persons are souls, which exist prior to death? It's hardly a trivial possibility. I can't think of anything which might have more significant implications for human life, were it to be true. Socrates and Plato apparently believed it. Hermeticists and theosophists through the ages have believed it. You need to provide an actual argument against the idea if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion. I pointed out this possibility which everyone in this discussion seems to be prejudicially assuming is not a possibility, precisely because of those presumptions. All possibilities should be taken into account if you are to be a genuine skeptic.Now, do you have an actual argument, or not?

No, I'm not saying that it's impossible. Why would you think that, given the analogy that I made? I'm saying that your "if" isn't worthy of serious consideration for a similar reason that my "if" isn't worthy of serious consideration, and that if a more stringent standard is not applied, then you'd have to allow for a whole load of those kind of considerations, which would be silly and chaotic.

All possibilities should be taken into account if you are to be a genuine skeptic. — John

I am not a genuine skeptic, for good reason, if taking all possibilities into account involves what I mean by serious consideration. The far fetched possibilities that have nothing going for them aren't worthy of serious consideration, in my view. You seemed quite content to dismiss the possibility I raised earlier of a pig flying past my window.

If you want to make a claim that is a logically correct conclusion of OP's thoughts out of that, you have to rephrase it so that the potential person might, in future, be happy that they exist, in which case you accidentally have an actual working argument.

Kind of ironic, isn't it? You took the opposite premise of what the OP has, trying to make an opposite claim that would be non-sense, but your argument ends up working, thus proving OP to be right. Therefore your attempts to refute antinatalism without attacking the premise itself have failed.

Are flying pigs really being argued as being logically equivalent to unborn children? Jesus Christ...

Are flying pigs really being argued as being logically equivalent to unborn children? Jesus Christ... — Heister Eggcart

No. You might want to go back and check what was compared to what. I compared a big "if" with another big "if". In common parlance, we refer to what's inside the womb of a pregnant woman as an unborn child. If that's what's being referred to, then that isn't a big "if" at all. There are countless unborn children all over the world as we speak.

The far fetched possibilities that have nothing going for them aren't worthy of serious consideration, in my view. — Sapientia

Why do you say the scenario of souls existing prior to birth is "far-fetched"? Just because not many people believe it? (Actually countless millions of Hindus believe it). Or is it just because it doesn't fit into your predetermined worldview? Do you have an actual argument against the idea. If not and it is just your own subjective opinion; why should others be interested in hearing about that? Are you here to learn and maybe change your thinking and even your way of thinking or is this just a chat room for you where you get to mouth off and enjoy the sound of your own voice?

Why do you say the scenario of souls existing prior to birth is "far-fetched"? Just because not many people believe it? (Actually countless millions of Hindus believe it). — John

No. You should know by now that I am adept at identifying informal fallacies, like appealing to the masses.

Or is it just because it doesn't fit into your predetermined worldview? — John

Something like that.

Do you have an actual argument against the idea. If not and it is just your own subjective opinion; why should others be interested in hearing about that? — John

Of course there's a reason for it, which I could try to put into words. Constructing a good argument tends to take time and hard work, and I'm a bit of a perfectionist. So maybe I'll get back to you on that, and maybe in a separate discussion, so as not be too off topic.

Are you here to learn and maybe change your thinking and even your way of thinking or is this just a chat room for you where you get to mouth off and enjoy the sound of your own voice? — John

Bit of both.

That's what you have to argue for in order for what you say to make any sense. — Thorongil

What I am saying makes sense and is factual. We didn't consent to be born.

What I am saying makes sense and is factual. We didn't consent to be born. — Andrew4Handel

In itself, yes. But how do you think you can resolve the dilemma of either implying something controversial which makes no sense or saying something trivial and uncontroversial?

It is irrelevant whether someone can consent to be born what is relevant is they can be harmed by existing and parents have created this existence for them not at that individuals desire.

Parents make people exist. So existence is created by parents and they are responsible for that existence and what it is subject to.


It sounds like you would let a serial killing, paedophile procreate because you are only prepared to intervene when the child starts to exist.

Here is another highly disturbing case like the one I mentioned earlier. This woman agreed to let her boyfriend abuse her children after they were born in return for him marrying her. The plan went ahead and the children were abused/raped.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2479093/Mother-sentenced-54-years-horrific-sex-abuse-children.html

They had no intention of respecting the future children's well being and integrity. Obviously we shouldn't way til a plan is enacted to act.

As has been said it is possible our "soul" exists before this body. — Andrew4Handel

It is true that a child may endorse life but the problem is the same process that created them creates people who don't endorse life. So I might consent to sex and another person may not, the fact that some people may consent to something doesn't justify inflicting it on all, but life is like that. — Andrew4Handel

You acknowledge that it is possible that souls exist prior to birth. What if all those souls born into flesh do consent? It's true that later they may come to either endorse life or not. But if in their pre-life state they saw the greater picture, their later failure to endorse life might merely be the result of not being in their right minds.

In itself, yes. But how do you think you can resolve the dilemma of either implying something ethically controversial which makes no sense or saying something trivial and uncontroversial? — Sapientia

We haven't got around to examining the ethical consequences.

If people don't consent to be born then it is an imposition. Once they start to exist they are imposed upon and exposed to harms they did not volunteer for.

Now if law and democracy is supposed to be a contract then it is invalid because we are already in society without our consent. It is the equivalent to offering a kidnapped person a choice between having green or cream paint in their bedroom. If someone consents to a system or game then the rules can be used on them.
But because they did not consent to be in born they have no obligations or accountability to the system.

It seems ludicrous to me that punching someone in the street is considered a crime and an imposition. But a parent creates a child and they (like someone I knew) suffer from something like 40+ years of constant pain through chronic arthritis and that is acceptable.

I don't see why I should be allowed to expose another person to severe harm and not be in the least accountable either.

You acknowledge that it is possible that souls exist prior to birth. What if all those souls born into flesh do consent? It's true that later they may come to either endorse life or not. But if in their pre-life state they saw the greater picture, their later failure to endorse life might merely be the result of not being in their right minds. — John

There is no evidence for this scenario so it cannot be a coherent excuse for creating a child. It's wild speculation. I am open to it but it is widely rejected by most people so only a parent that believed this could advocate this excuse.

However as I think I said earlier, even if a soul was desperate to be born you can prevent that by using contraceptive methods. If someone came to me and was desperate for me to set them on fire I wouldn't do it. You can judge the world is an unsuitable place to create new humans.

I just don't get why past events like human sacrifice, slavery, 2 world wars, yearly famines, the holocaust and so on, are no deterrent. I learnt about The Holocaust at around 12 when we watched "Escape from Sobibor" in English class and I could not fathom how people could behave like that and then later in my teens I was shocked by this kind of mounting evidence and that people would continue create new humans. (new evidence included photo's of a KKK lynching where someone was burnt alive surrounded by grinning men and boys)

Of course there's a reason for it, which I could try to put into words. Constructing a good argument tends to take time and hard work, and I'm a bit of a perfectionist. So maybe I'll get back to you on that, and maybe in a separate discussion, — Sapientia

Yeah, sure, I won't hold my breath... >:O

so as not be too off topic.

It's not "off-topic" at all. If it were true that souls pre-exist bodily life, and also true that all who are born consent to be born, it would repudiate the argument of the OP.

On the other hand were it not true that souls pre-exist bodily life, then the OP is also repudiated, for the reasons of incoherence I pointed out in my original post, and which others have also emphasized. In fact that was precisely my original point in highlighting both possibilities together; to show that the assertion of the OP is either false or incoherent.

There is no evidence for this scenario so it cannot be a coherent excuse for creating a child. — Andrew4Handel

What is the evidence for the obverse? In any case, my point was not to advocate this view, but to show that we are radically ignorant about the origin of personhood; and that we therefore have no evidence to support any view either way about whether or not it is right to procreate.

It's not "off-topic" at all. If it were true that souls pre-exist bodily life, and also true that all who are born consent to be born, it would repudiate the argument of the OP. — John

And, just to be clear, your stance is that that isn't far fetched?

If you want to make a claim that is a logically correct conclusion of OP's thoughts — BlueBanana

No moral stance is going to be a "logically correct conclusion."

I don't consider it to be far-fetched, although I don't deny that it would be in today's world fairly widely, and mostly prejudicially, considered to be far-fetched.

In any case, what does it matter what my stance is? Your task is to argue for your own contention that it is far-fetched. You need to show firstly what it means for an idea to be far-fetched, beyond it being merely widely, or even more or less universally, thought to be so. And if you are able to fulfill that task adequately, then you need to show that, and how, the idea in question fulfills the cogent criteria you have already provided for far-fetchedness.

I pointed out that you can't force your parents to create you. There is no evidence of people being told by an unborn spirit to procreate (I've heard of).

I have not experienced a whisper in my mind encouraging me to create children. Also it is unnecessary for a biological account of reproduction.

As I say it is an arrangement dependent on the parents having sex so the key responsibility falls on them. If it was true it would imply some consent but how could you prove it?

Anyone can make up an unfalsifiable theory and brandish it about and.. you have no evidence I was a pre existing soul that wanted this. Why would I or anyone want this?

My experience was that I was lied to from birth about religion and parental authority so I was not in the position to give consent (forced to go to church up to 5 times a week) It was only as a culmination of traumatic experiences that I was able to break away from the indoctrination as a older teenager.

Why would I chose to be lied to so that i was only able to honestly examine existence when I was in my late teens?

Also I do not believe any one would chose a bad life even if they were a preexisting spirit entering the foetus somehow. Unless you have a further invalidate belief that preexisting spirits know the future.

Therefore If a spirit did enter the womb to be born the parents is still infringing it by exposing it to harm that it didn't expect.

I pointed out that you can't force your parents to create you. There is no evidence of people being told by an unborn spirit to procreate (I've heard of). — Andrew4Handel

Even if souls' do pre-exist bodily life, there are alternative possibilities that may be imagined when it comes to the question of whether these souls consent to be born. I was concerned with only one of those possibilities; which is that all souls born consent to be born by the parents they are born by.

So, your objection here is irrelevant to my point.

I have not experienced a whisper in my mind encouraging me to create children. Also it is unnecessary for a biological account of reproduction.

This is completely irrelevant because in my scenario the souls choose ovum that are already fertilized.

As I say it is an arrangement dependent on the parents having sex so the key responsibility falls on them. If it was true it would imply some consent but how could you prove it?

Nothing can ever be proven either way, so what's your point?

Anyone can make up an unfalsifiable theory and brandish it about and.. you have no evidence I was a pre existing soul that wanted this. Why would I or anyone want this?

The theory that souls do not pre-exist bodily life is equally unfalsifiable, so again what you say here is irrelevant.

My experience was that I was lied to from birth about religion and parental authority so I was not in the position to give consent (forced to go to church up to 5 times a week) It was only as a culmination of traumatic experiences that I was able to break away from the indoctrination as a older teenager.

Yes, and according to our two alternative scenarios, you either chose this prior to life or the very notion of choosing it is incoherent; take your pick.

Why would I chose to be lied to so that i was only able to honestly examine existence when I was in my late teens?

I don't know; maybe in your pre-life state of all-seeing soul-wisdom you realized that you needed those experiences. Or perhaps you knew then that the circumstances of life are not fore-ordained, but you knew that it was right that you should be born of those parents, and experience the unfolding of your life with them.

Also I do not believe any one would chose a bad life even if they were a preexisting spirit entering the foetus somehow. Unless you have a further invalidate belief that preexisting spirits know the future.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you mean the soul would only choose if it couldn't know that it was choosing a "bad life"? On the other hand, perhaps what you consider a bad life is, in spiritual terms, in terms of soul-development, a good life; and you are just not in your right mind when you think it is "bad".

Therefore If a spirit did enter the womb to be born the parents is still infringing it by exposing it to harm that it didn't expect.

This doesn't follow, because the parents would not be in a position to "expect the harm" either. And as I said above, it may only be in a state of ignorance or self-pity or whatever, that it appears to be "harm" at all.