In terms of creating desires for useless stuff— “fashionable consumption,” etc. — this has a long history, has been studied, documented; not a controversial remark. — Xtrix

Useless by what measure? Obviously they must find some use for it - entertainment or otherwise. Why else would people spend money on it?

You’re free to ask me what I believe directly — Xtrix

What do you believe?

And yes, China is communist. — Xtrix

It's definitely not. Communism explicitly aims to socialize the bourgeoisie, that is to say, repress and steal from the upper middle and rich classes and (supposedly) give to the poor working class.

There's nothing communist about China anymore. Like Russia, China has more in common with a classic dictatorship.

Lol. Food, water, shelter, family, community. I view these as needs, or at least different than a new gadget every 2 years. — Xtrix

Those darned advertisers convincing people they need pointless luxuries!

Wouldn't it be nice if we could take all of that money and instead use it for useful things?

I guess I’m part of a communist conspiracy. — Xtrix

Unlikely, but your characterization of advertising as a means to sell people things they don't need suggests you both consider people too stupid to make such choices for themselves and yourself an expert on determining what is best for others.

You may be a closet authoritarian, I'm afraid. Something which is not at all uncommon among those who harbor collectivist fantasies.

If you're the hippie commune type I take all of that back, but something tells me you're not.

I don’t think China is an example of communism at all, as I understand it. — Xtrix

Collectivism isn't the same as communism, and China isn't communist (anymore). However it is collectivist, since the individual has been completely subjugated to the whims of the CCP.

But I’m using your meaning, not mine. — Xtrix

You're using it poorly.

Yes, the United States has its problems — Xtrix

If you think I'm a fan of the United States then you are sadly mistaken. But if you want to compare the domestic policies of the US with China and suggest they're similar then that is laughable.

Xi Jinping is constantly getting upset about everything that goes on outside of his country that he can't do anything about. — dclements

Taiwan, even according to official United States policy, is a part of China. This has been United States policy since 1972 was reaffirmed explicitly as recently as 2017.

One China Policy

I think the language used in describing the situation is something like that if China attacks Taiwan, then the US will help Taiwan but not if Taiwan attacks China. — dclements

No. It's not like that. The United States has not made it clear whether it will protect Taiwan in case of a military invasion and explicitly has made no guarantees to do so. But it still might. That's the idea behind strategic ambiguity.

As I said before when a country like China is constantly threating to start World War III for trivial reasons... — dclements

Again, you're falling into the same trap the United States and Europe have fallen into with Russia. You assume that Taiwan, just like Ukraine and Crimea, has only symbolic value, and that those symbolic values only matter to crazy dictators in power.

This is plain short-sighted and wrong. The fact that both of these issues have been hot topics for decades, Taiwan for over half a century, should tell you that we're not talking about benign matters, but in fact matters that a country like China could actually go to war over.


Will they go to war now? It's not likely, I'll grant you that. According to some projections China is not expected to be ready to invade Taiwan until 2027. But projections can be wrong, and China could just be waiting for a pretense to strike. Consider also that China may have more instruments to start a conflict besides an all-out military invasion, and that retaliations against Taiwan or the United States may take a different form.

In fact the entire advertising industry operates on the complete opposite goal: create desires for things not needed. — Xtrix

Ah, one styles themselves the arbiter of who needs what. Spoken like a true 'collectivist'.

They can’t? China seems to be doing just fine. — Xtrix

China is an autocratic dictatorship. A big mess of repression, surveillance, authoritarianism, genocide, etc.

Please don't use China as an example for successful collectivism. It's a powerful state. So were Nazi-Germany and the USSR. Were they successful collectivists by your standards?

A strange definition of collectivism, but OK. — Xtrix

That was not a definition, obviously. :roll:

Unlike Ukraine, the US has pledged that if China invades Taiwan we will get involved and help defend them against China. — dclements

As far as I know, the United States pursues a strategy of 'strategic ambiguity' in regards to Taiwan, meaning that they haven't made it explicitly clear whether they will defend Taiwan or not.

Didn't Biden say recently during a press conference they were committed to defending Taiwan, only for that statement to be recalled, reasserting their position was ambiguous as per the Taiwan Relations Act?

US State Department Walks Back Unusually Strong Comments on Taiwan

Taiwan Relations Act

It "may" be in China's best interest right now to look tough and do a lot of sabre rattling, but it isn't in their best interest to start a war with Taiwan and the US. — dclements

But they won't look very tough if the United States just goes ahead with their plan and they do not retaliate in any way. They'll look like chumps. And powerful nations do not like looking like chumps. Especially not China. Especially not now.

Because China's threats are nothing more than a lot of hot air it is the US best interest to go about business as usual and not pay any any attention to their empty threats. If you don't stand up to bullies on the world stage then the rest of the world will look at you as if you don't have any backbone. — dclements

They're nothing but hot air, until they're not. We've seen in Ukraine what it can lead to when the biggest bully on the block - the USA - ignores warnings from other nations they are going too far.

No, that would be capitalism. Brutal, inhumane, and reducing everyone and every thing to capital. — Xtrix

Sure, capitalism is far from perfect, but at least a successful capitalist has to produce something others want to buy, which is why its many evils also went along with many goods - history's collectivist projects cannot say the same.

You can have a collective without a state. — Xtrix

Two people can form a collective, technically. Though I understand collectivism to be a term to describe state policies (and in recent times also supranational organisations), and collectivist states to be states that act with collectivism as their goal.

But if one wishes to practice collectivism in a sort of hippie commune where everybody engages with each other on voluntary grounds, then who am I to oppose that?

If Pelosi visits and the Chinese government doesn't back up their threats, they will look weak.

But then again, what could they do? Attack?

Regardless, this will be a big event in China-US relations.

If China is forced to back down it will damage relations and fuel animostiy further, greatly increasing the likelihood of a military conflict over Taiwan in the near future. It could spark a Crimea/Ukraine-like situation where China, like Russia, is instilled with a sense of urgency to secure its outstanding claims before it's too late.

If China backs up their threats somehow, we could be looking at open war. The question is if in such a scenario Japan and South Korea would enter the war on the US-side, which would be a complete disaster and likely spark mass conflict, if not WWIII. For the US not to get involved military would be unlikely, considering their naval assets in the area, but they also never officially guaranteed Taiwan's independence (I think?), so perhaps there is a way out, though unlikely.

A very violatile situation. I don't think the United States is in a position to be waging any kind of war currently, and they are banking on the power of their deterrence to score a victory for the Biden administration - not unlike the Ukraine-situation. A dangerous gamble.

That despite having been tried and having produced by far the worst track record of any system in human history, collectivism still is supported shamelessly is truly a testament to mankind's ignorance.

The problem with collectivism is simple. It is the outright subjugation of the individual to the ideology of the state, and amounts to nothing less than slavery. And before anyone goes there, a slave who wears a fancy suit and is given priviledges by his slave owner is still a slave.

Every collectivist state pursues totalitarianism (whether explicitly, or by ignorance), and vilifies those who do not go along with their ideology. For the Third Reich it was the Jews that needed to be socialized. The USSR needed to sociailze the bourgoeisie.

Today it is man who the collectivists need socialized.

Man, with all his unfortunate ideas of individual freedom and rights.

Man, who by his unfortunate free will fails to fall into lockstep with the ideals of the state.

And their eagerness to forcefully subjugate those whom their arguments fail to persuade is evident. It took the western nations and institutions that are now openly flirting with tyranny hardly a year to turn from the world's leading proponents of individual liberty and justice, to states who took steps towards lawlessly socializing those who opposed them. Every excuse was grasped, every legislative loophole exploited, every repressive tool in the governmental toolkit utilized towards this end.

However, these aspiring Hitlerites also failed to see that their malpractices went unnoticed in the past precisely because they did not overtly display their power. The reason modern day tyranny may exist at all,(and precisely why it is so dangerous) is because it has become increasingly well adapted at hiding itself in the shadows. Deep inside institutions, lobby groups, academia and extrajudicial bodies.

Now the ugly beast has crawled out of its cave and showed the world its true face (not in the least because its rotten societal fruits could no longer be ignored either). And like all things vile and despicable, it does not withstand the light very well.

Bravo! :fire:

Any ideology that fails to take into account human (evolutionary) psychology & biology is going end up a magnificent failure! — Agent Smith

Attempting to turn people into worshippers of an ideology, which is what every ideology-based society tries to do, is a flawed endeavor to begin with. People and their ideas are flawed, and that goes double (nay triple) for governments.

The least flawed societies we have come up with are those that attempt to make these flawed people able to do the least amount of damage to each other, including and especially those who run the government.

I'm still trying to articulate this more clearly, but I'd like to ask you, can you define what it is that makes not imposing harms from scratch (for someone else) more ethically relevant than not causing benefits from scratch (for someone else)? — schopenhauer1

I lean strongly towards there being an ethical duty not to cause harm to others.

I don't believe there to be an ethical duty to cause good to others, because it would come with too many problems. It would imply a duty to meddle in other people's affairs, a duty to get involved in literally everything one possibly can, because not to cause good would be to neglect one's moral duty. People rarely (if ever) have a complete understanding of a given situation, so not only is the implication one MUST meddle, but also that one must do so with little more than ignorance as a basis. After all, all one has is one's subjective understanding.

Further, not to cause harm is an effort by the actor not to take actions that interfere with the will of a subject. To endeavor to cause all the good one can is to interfere regardless of the will of a subject.

Lastly, earlier in this thread I argued for non-interference being a morally neutral option. That means inaction is morally acceptable, even if it means potentially missing out on causing good. This flows from the first point, namely that if non-interference is not acceptable when there's a potential for good, it becomes a moral imperative to interfere in everything, with all the problems that brings.
And second, non-interference causes no harm.

Why is it that if someone already existed and I forced them to play my game of limitations and harms with some good, THAT would be roundly rejected, but if I created someone from scratch (let's say snapped my fingers) THAT is considered fine and dandy? — schopenhauer1

I agree, this seems inconsistent. I've been using my sky-diving example to inquire about this very same question.

What you're after is objective morality, absolute authority. — baker

Ideally, yes. But in the absence of such sound, consistent reasoning will do.

Self-confidence, a "lust for life" are what gives a person the idea they have a right to procreate, ie. make such a decision for someone else in the first place. — baker

A very literal answer to my question, but ok.

Does it suffice?

If we can justify making a major imposition on someone else based on self-confidence, then that would open the door for a whole slew of behaviors that most would consider immoral.

What if I push someone off a building because I was extremely confident they were suicidal and wanted to make an end to their life?

Of all the evils of government, forcing individuals to kill and die is by far the worst.

“It is compulsory by law for all eligible Australian citizens to enrol and vote in federal elections, by-elections and referendums.” — NOS4A2

What a strange policy.

Voting lends legitimacy to a system, so essentially they're forcing their citizens to acknowledge the system as legitimate. An odd flirtation with tyranny.

If one doesn't vote because they do not wish to acknowledge the legitimacy of a system, that seems to me like a perfectly viable position to take.

We don't take kindly to people inquirin' 'bout climate change 'round these places.

Ok, sure.

But now turn that into something we can work with. Otherwise I'm left to guess what you think the implications are.

Suppose we do exist prior to birth as a human. What then? Would you not be depriving someone of joy by not letting him/her go to a fun-filled party ? — Agent Smith

While this supposition is obviously a bit of a stretch, I would say the following:

1). Just like the procreator has no right to decide for another they should play the game of life, neither does a person (who in this hypothetical exists prior to birth) have a right to demand it.

2). Life is not always a fun-filled party.

3). Since this ties into the earlier discussion, it's worth pointing out that even in this hypothetical, not procreating would not be depriving anyone of anything. The hypothetical person desires, and as a result of his desire suffers a lack. We don't create that lack.

Poverty is hardship, but it does not necessarily entail suffering. Breaking your leg is hardship, but it does not necessarily entail suffering. — baker

You'll need to elaborate on that, though honestly what we call it may not be all that relevant.

What gives us the idea we have a right to make such a decision for someone else in the first place? — Tzeentch

Self-confidence, a "lust for life". — baker

Why would self-confidence suffice in the case of procreation, when it clearly does not suffice anywhere else in life?

To go back to the sky-diving example, if I push someone out of a plane being extremely confident that they'll enjoy it, but instead they crash into the ground, does my self-confidence make any difference as to the nature of what just happened?

I think suffering is inherent to life. It even seems to be inherent to happiness (does happiness still have meaning without suffering to contrast it to?).

I genuinely cannot imagine what a life without any pain looks like, and I wonder if it wouldn't make the whole ordeal more meaningless?

People do not hold that as a moral belief because it is impossible to adhere to — Isaac

That has never stopped anyone. It certainly hasn't stopped you in the past.

Remember how your beliefs lead to one committing infinite moral transgressions?

Right.

Go ahead and argue that not causing irreversible harm to others without their consent isn't a basic moral belief most people hold. I'd love to hear about it.

Weren't you so fond of "reasonableness" and morality by majority decision? Well here you have it.

There’s something else going on here too. Where the already existing people can’t help but try to endure the stress of existence, by putting a new person in the fray, it’s creating yet more harm and harm-overcoming upon someone else in order to try to fix the current problems. The ultimate case of using people. — schopenhauer1

But it’s even worse cause it’s combining the two. I’m having a problem, therefore I will force recruit yet more people into the pyramid scheme operation that creates another person to endure harm itself. It actually solves nothing but to further continue the creating of victims. — schopenhauer1

I think the objection would be that many here believe us not just to be victims, but also beneficiaries. Would that change the nature of the pyramid scheme?

Of course, who are we to decide others must participate when we don't even know whether they'll be a victim or a beneficiary?

Strictly speaking you're right, of course. What I sought to convey was that procreation breaks some rules that many procreators themselves would consider the basics of moral interaction between individuals. It was not an attempt at a conclusive argument.

Indeed the (mathematical) method I propose is far from perfect, but it's much better than what we have at present - wild shots in the dark! — Agent Smith

I'll give you that. :up:

So one should avoid all actions which have a non-zero probability of harm? Do you realise what that entails? — Isaac

Probability is just a fundamentally flawed way of approaching these things, but:

One should definitely avoid actions that:
1). Cannot be performed consensually.
2). And are also irreversible.
3). And can also inflict great harm.
4). And one can also not oversee the consequences of.

Seems like a pretty decent set of criteria for any interaction with people. I don't see why procreation should be treated any different, and note that procreation checks all of these boxes.

As I said, there's nothing more I can say. If you don't understand basic probability we can't talk about probable events (such as future harms). — Isaac

Leaning on probability is just an admission of ignorance. One may need probability because one doesn't understand the cause and effect behind a certain phenomenon, so how is one going to base a philosophical argument on something one doesn't understand?

Probability is not something that exists in reality, they're practical assumptions we use as tools. Amongst other things, it's philosphy's job to question these assumptions to see if they hold any merit.

The thing is, my argument doesn't require knowledge of future harms at all. The fact that they're unknown is enough.

Is it ever okay to force recruit people into your projects? I think never. Generally people have a chance to move, associate differently, etc. The assumption about building the house is that someone else needs to help build that house because someone wants it. That by itself is not a moral obligation. That just leads to slippery slope thinking whereby technically everyone at all times needs to be busy helping others out. — schopenhauer1

Exactly so, however it has been Isaac's argument that one is thereby creating conditions for harm, and is thus immoral. (The way this ties back into the original topic is that he is arguing that not having children creates conditions for harm).

As you pointed out, this leads to a slippery slope. If not doing something creates conditions for harm, then we are creating harm continuously through all the actions we are not taking.

The second way of tackling this argument is through attacking the notion that not doing something causes something. Ergo, not helping the drowning man causes him to drown. While this may sound intuitively reasonable, it is an erroneous way of representing cause and effect. The man drowns because he ended up in the water and could not swim. Not because I did not help him. Had I not been there at all, the man would have also drowned.

Based on the aforementioned, the way I sought to definitively solve this issue is by considering "not acting", non-interference, not getting involved, etc. neutral. Not moral, nor immoral. Because:
1). If the opposite is true, one would creates infinite harm because of the infinite actions one did not take, and that is absurd.
2). One is not causing harm.

Rather, the background de facto understanding is life presents various choices and limitations limited to the physical and cultural realities of this existence. These things are well known because we live, experience, and learn about them everyday. Yet the big leap is assuming that THESE sets of choices offered in THIS existence is something OTHERS should endure. That is the stance I am objecting to. Along with these particular range of choices that existence offers (and of course more limited by place and time of where and when the person is born), but the harms of existence are also fairly well known, and the assumption that THESE sets of harms are okay for others to endure. And of course, the unforeseen harms that no one is sure of will befall people in the future. All of this is assumptions one makes on others behalf. Unlike other decisions where the person can just move out, associate with different people, get out of a contract, the actual set of choices and conditions themselves cannot be chosen or agreed upon. — schopenhauer1

I think this is an equally strong argument in favor of antinatalism, since by procreating one is undeniably making major choices on someone else's behalf without knowing what the person will experience and how they will enjoy it.

The common defense is that such decisions on behalf of someone else are acceptable under certain conditions, and the condition which satisfies many of the 'pro-natalists' is that it seems the chance of a good life is higher than that of a miserable one.

That seems like a flimsy argument to me, and I think the example of pushing someone out of a plane with a 90% chance of enjoying the experience and a 10% chance of crashing into the ground illustrates it well. What gives us the idea we have a right to make such a decision for someone else in the first place?

We don't need to be certain, a high likelihood of a happy/sad life (9 to 1 odds for example) should be good enough to make a decision as to whether to have a child/not. This, as you would've already realized, involves a heavy dose of mathematics. A mathematician like jgill might be able to give us a rough sketch of what kinda info is required and how they're related mathematically. — Agent Smith

And when the person we pushed out of the proverbial plane goes splat on the ground, what are we to make of that?

Excuse ourselves because we thought the odds were good? Didn't we just kill someone?

If you intended, then you are involved just as much as the other builders. — Isaac

No, an intention does not mean involvement. I may consider getting involved and then decide not to, and I wasn't involved before, during or after the decision is made.

So, an act then. — Isaac

Walking is an act. Non-interference is not.

I may be walking while I'm not involved in something. That doesn't make not being involved an act.

Yep. I intend to put a bet on, what are the chances of me winning? — Isaac

Zero. It's your actual playing of the game that will give you a chance of winning, not your intention.

So no decision to not interfere then (no changing one's mind), seeing as that's a major decision which affects someone else? — Isaac

It's not a decision I make for someone else. It's a decision that I make for myself.

You are now, you weren't before, you wanted to build a house too, and were involved. — Isaac

If I have at any point made it clear to the builders I was intending to build a house with them, then it's a different story. In a sense I have now taken upon myself a responsibility, because I've voluntarily created a situation in which people come to rely on my actions for their well-being.

Note that this is not a default situation. It requires specific actions from me prior to the ordeal for this to be the case.

Back to this crap again. Non-inteference is an act, that's why you came up with the phrase in the first place, as opposed to 'not acting' which you were previously using. — Isaac

Non-interference is not an act. It's literally not being involved.

The reason I switched to using this term is because even when one is not involved with things, one may still be doing other things that have nothing to do with the thing one is not involved in. Therefore "inaction" was confusing and strictly speaking inaccurate. It has nothing to do with non-interference being an act.

So if I place a bet on roulette, my chances of winning £100 are, say, 1 in 32.

You're seriously attempting to argue that if I don't even place a bet, I have a 1 in 32 chance of winning £100? — Isaac

You argued that you could change what is probable without interacting.

Is placing a bet on roulette not an interaction?

Oops.

So we're agreed then that procreation merely increases the probability of harm? — Isaac

I don't agree on that, though certainly increasing the probability of harm sounds like a foolish thing to do.

Probability conveys ignorance. It means we are unable to determine cause and effect. What it means to say that procreation "merely increases the probability of harm" is that we're ignorant to the causes and effects related to procreation.

Making major decisions for someone else while being ignorant to what one is setting in motion also seems like a foolish thing to do, which is precisely the basis on which I argue procreation is immoral.

The long and short of it is that it isn't always wrong to make other people's decisions for them; however, when we're allowed to do so has to be worked out carefully. Mistakes are gonna be costly. — Agent Smith

This is basically my position aswell.

The example I like to use is when two people are stranded in the wilderness and they need to cross a river. One person has an irrational fear of water and will not cross the river to get back to civilization, whereas the other person can clearly see there is no risk of drowning whatsoever. Can the fearful person now be dragged across the river against their will, for their own well-being?

I strongly lean towards a yes here, so what factors contribute to that, and are those factors present in the case of procreation?

At least one important factor that I believe is present in this example that isn't present for procreation, is that the danger of drowning can be measured with a great deal of accuracy. One can test the depth of the water and be certain, essentially.

The dangers/harms a child will face in their life cannot be predicted to such a degree at all. We may have some indications, but nothing resembling certainty.

In my opinion that is an important difference.

Then why raise the fact that we don't know? — Isaac

You're making assumptions about things that are unknown and attributing harm to conditions they supposedly create, that's why it's relevant. — Tzeentch

_____

Why the builders? — Isaac

Because it is the builders desire to build a house, and I am an uninvolved bystander, obviously.

Ah, so non-interference is neutral because it helps your argument if it is. Got it. — Isaac

Nonsense. It's neutral because it causes no harm, as I have argued.

And what you've attempted to do is construe a situation in which unrelated factors cause harm and you've attempted to blame the uninvolved for it.

So. we're talking about the harm you claim results, not the act. — Isaac

Right now we're talking about your attack on my principle of non-interference, in which you are attempting to equate procreation - a physical, detectable act, to non-interference - not an act.

If you've given up your attack on my principle and you're back to defending your choice to procreate let me know and we'll get right back to it.

You're seriously, on a public forum, going to claim that your chances of winning at roulette are the same if your don't put a bet on as they are if you do? — Isaac

The idea that the chances of winning at roulette change depending on whether you play is the absurd one. They're exactly the same before and after.

If I don't bet on roulette, it is now less probable that I will win. — Isaac

Situation A: I am not playing roulette. The chance of winning is X.

Situation B: I am still not playing roulette. The chance of winning is still X.

Then I guess you've gotten yourself in a bit of a pickle, because it was you who assumed I was available to build you a house. — Tzeentch

What? — Isaac

Wasn't I responsible for harm because, in your view, I was available for house building and chose not to?

This assumes you can produce some objective measure by which to decide whether I am available or not. You just stated you couldn't, because the word, apparently, doesn't convey logic.

Right. So I haven't definitely caused harm by having the child. I've merely increased the probability of harm befalling someone. — Isaac

What a foolish thing to do.

All knowledge is an assumption about the unknown. You don't know that a potential child will come to harm. You assume. — Isaac

My argument doesn't rest on whether or not I know. In fact, it's indeed our ignorance of the consequences that should make us think twice before having children.

So there's no such thing as available? No one is ever available? — Isaac

When the builder's subjective wishful thinking matches up with the uninvolved person's abilty and desire to help out as evidenced by his agreement to help, I suppose he was correctly thought to be available.

If you're asking if some objective situation exists in which one can be considered "available" - of course not. It's subjective. If I want to help out but I cannot match the expectations of the builders, was I available? If I'm missing both arms and cannot help, am I creating conditions for the builders' harm? More logical is that the builders have incorrectly assumed I was going to help them in the first place, and thereby caused their own harm.

What? Why is being uninvolved the default, and what's that got to do with the situation I asked you about? — Isaac

Because in order to understand a principle (non-interference is neutral) we must regard it in an uncomplicated setting. If we can agree that non-interference is neutral in an uncomplicated setting we can see if there are settings in which it is no longer neutral.

Pretty obvious, and the term 'by default' I've probably repeated over a dozen times by now.

So harm to children is a potentiality then, not a condition. OK — Isaac

Procreation is a physical, detectable thing.

Who said anything about interacting? — Isaac

Some interaction must take place for me to become responsible for the harm that befalls someone else, no? Setting the conditions or otherwise.

If you believe we can cause harm without interacting, then I guess your list of moral transgressions has grown even longer.

You can change what is probable without interaction. If I don't bet on roulette, it is now less probable that I will win. — Isaac

Your chance of winning with roulette was the exactly the same before and after.

So radiation was harmless before we understood the causality, when we had merely correlation? — Isaac

Haha, no. But you'll have to go through some process to prove you can equate the two.

The meaning of words is not determined by logic. We don't logically work out what the word 'available' means. — Isaac

Then I guess you've gotten yourself in a bit of a pickle, because it was you who assumed I was available to build you a house.

If I have a child, it is possible that child will go through life completely unharmed, yes? — Isaac

Sure.

What's them being unknown got to do with the argument about what they are. — Isaac

You're making assumptions about things that are unknown and attributing harm to conditions they supposedly create, that's why it's relevant.

So what were you when you intended to help build the house, before you changed your mind? — Isaac

You were deliberating.

How is that the builder's 'appointing random uninvolved people'? — Isaac

Because from the very beginning my argument, the argument that you attacked, has been about a default situation. That means the person is initially uninvolved in any way.

What's the difference then? — Isaac

The creation of conditions is a physical, detectable thing. Potentialities are things that may or may not happen in the future.

Non-interference is an action (it involves doing something else), and so has no problems affecting potentiality. — Isaac

Non-interference is not an action, regardless of whether one is doing something while one is not interfering with any given situation.

Lets say I walk by a house. Am I now interacting with the house because I'm also walking while not-interfering with it?

I don't think so.

No they can't. You keep reminding us that only direct causality counts. — Isaac

Simply untrue. We've talked about both direct causation and the creation of conditions.

So following your example of what it means to 'detect', then an outsider could perfectly well detect the nature of the deliberations by their effect. — Isaac

Correlation =/= Causation.

Then why don't you say "I don't know" when he asks? — Isaac

A friend says "I'm moving house on Wednesday, are you available to help?", you seriously telling me that your normal reply to such a question would be "I don't know if I'm available, I suppose we'll have to wait until Wednesday to find out"? — Isaac

If I intend to help I may want to reassure my boss or my friend that I will do everything in my power to be present to do so. However, that's simply a way of human customs. It has nothing to do with logic, because it's fundamentally illogical. We cannot know if we're available in the future.

The mathematization of the issue with the requisite risk-benefit analysis needs work but rest assured once we have the exact figures, we can make decisions rationally, exactly what we should be doing, oui? — Agent Smith

Let's say we know the exact figures. 9:1 in favor of pushing someone out of the plane. Surely it is not up to the pusher to decide that they like those odds on someone else's behalf, or do you disagree? Would it be fine to push someone in such a situation, and one would carry no blame when they go splat?

What's you knowing it got to do with causality? — Isaac

Your argument is that a change in conditions takes place through my deliberation, when in fact it is unknown whether the conditions will change until I've made up my mind.

The conditions in which harm is going to happen (future tense - same as procreation) is that the house cannot be built. That is going to cause harm.

That condition, that state of affairs, came about when you decided not to help. — Isaac

That condition was already in place when there were only four builders and they were looking for a fifth. I was never a potential builder, and I brought about no state of affairs or conditions. This is just wishful, entitled thinking on the part of the builders, appointing random uninvolved people as potential builders and then blaming them for their own ignorance.

If I set out, assuming every woman in my town to be a potential love interest, and it turns out they're not. Who is creating the harm here? If anyone is creating harm at all it is me.

It's nothing to do with causing the harm itself. — Isaac

Fine. You've conflated creating conditions with potentiality.

And the question is still valid, since your view is that it is possible to create conditions by not taking a certain action, and that by doing so you become responsible for harm. Is that not your position?

So are you responsible for all the conditions that is "created" by actions you did not take? Seems like the outcome is the same - an infinite, list of moral transgressions.

So it necessarily involves potentiality. As does procreation. — Isaac

Procreation is an act. Not acting is not an act.

Your objection is about the potentiality of harm, not direct causality. — Isaac

It's about both, really. Life has many harms inherent to it, and those can be said to be caused directly by the parents.

So radiation was harmless before the invention of the Geiger counter? Shame we invented it really. — Isaac

Before the Geiger counter you could detect it when your hair and teeth started falling out, but whatever you say.

No one even mentioned harm. You claimed you didn't know if you were available until the time of the actual event. This is clearly just a misuse of the word 'available'. If your boss asks you if you're available next Thursday you know perfectly well what he means. Apply that understanding to the question I asked. Don't dodge it by pretending available means something else. — Isaac

I'm not dodging anything.

Strictly speaking I don't know if I'm available when my boss asks. However, my contract created a condition X, that my boss counts on my presence at the agreed upon time. If I now go fishing instead, the condition goes from 'X' to 'not X', and it can be said I've caused conditions, not by virtue of my non-interference, but by virtue of my breach of contract. There's no such contract in a default situation.

So how could prospective parents possibly change their minds about having children when such a decision is already made? — Isaac

I didn't say the decision is already made. I said that we don't know our final decision until we make it.

Condition A: world is in a state such that a house can be built.

Neurons fire, cause some action other than building a house.

Condition B: world is in a state such that a house cannot be built. — Isaac

It's never in a state that the house can be built. I fear you've conflated causation with potentiality.

Let me ask you this, are you responsible for all the harm "caused" by every possible action you could take, but didn't? Are you immoral for not taking those actions? There are a lot of actions you could possibly be taking right now, infinite in fact, and I guess then so is your list of moral transgressions.

How? — Isaac

With a geiger counter.

That changes whether you understand what 'available' means? — Isaac

No, it changes the situation since I've voluntarily accepted responsibilities. This is no longer a default situation. If I promise someone I'm available for work (an act in the actual physical world) I am creating conditions.

But if I never was an employee to begin with, and we had signed no contract, clearly I would not be harming the employer for not showing up to work, let alone be responsible for it!

The antinatalism-natalism problem will be settled for good once we can calculate the probability of a future child ending up down in the dumps or on cloud nine. You can't argue with math; if your future baby has a 90% chance of lifelong suffering, it would be insane, not to mention cruel, to have him/her and if the odds of happiness are 90%, it would be wrong to not have the child. — Agent Smith

I'm not sure if this solves it.

Should I push you out of an airplane if there's a 90% chance of you having a great experience, and a 10% chance of crashing into the Earth?

And regardless of one's answer to that, what gives one the right to decide for another that they should jump out of an airplane in the first place?

That you changed your mind? — Isaac

That's just another way of saying you didn't know.

Neurons fire, cause some action other than building a house. No house. Is there something about that account that puzzles you? — Isaac

Haha, yes. Where is the causation in this story?

Condition A: No house.

> "Neurons fire"

Condition B: Still no house.

You're unaware of the concept of passing time? Everything that happens, happens concurrently? — Isaac

So what, not only are you entitled to decide for me whether I am potentially available, but I also need to decide now?

Everything you argue is from your perspective, your desires, your subjective ideas of whether or not someone is available or not and what are their acceptable courses of action, and there should somehow arise some objective situation from that.

I can't detect radiation either. — Isaac

You can detect radiation.

Brilliant. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at your work.

Boss: "are you available for night shift on Thursday?"

You: "how could I possibly know, we'll just have to wait until Thursday and fond out, won't we?" — Isaac

For the sake of argument, I have a contract with my boss. I don't have a contract with the child that I will not have.

So you're not in control of your own decisions, you just 'find out' what they are when you get there? — Isaac

Essentially, yes. What else would you conclude if you believe to be available but ultimately it turns out you're not? Only that you apparently didn't know whether you were available or not.

The suffering from the lack of a house. — Isaac

Deliberating causes a lack of a house? Explain, please.

So in your view, while I'm deliberating the possibility of a house flashes in and out of existence, and thereby causing harm? And you're accusing me of coming to weird conclusions?

An outsider couldn't even detect the nature of the deliberations, let alone suffer harm from them.

So before you say anything, were you available or not? — Isaac

There's no way to tell.

If you want to argue against my position, quote me. — Isaac

Just thought I'd do everyone a favor and delineate how all of this ties back to the subject of the thread.

So before you changed your mind, when you were planning to help build the house, you were unavailable? How so? — Isaac

I didn't know whether I would be available, clearly.

If I thought I would be available and turn out not to be, then clearly I didn't know if I was available in the first place.

Why would those two criteria determine something to be a moral rule, as opposed to any other rule? — Isaac

I'm done playing games. Wrap up your little yarn and get to a point that pertains to the subject.

It's not remotely a problem for me. — Isaac

According to you, deliberation causes conditions to form, and such conditions can produce harm.

Can you point to the harm done as a result of my deliberation? I think not.

I'm deliberating, changing my mind several times. Am I now causing harm with every deliberation?

Clearly not, and if you believe otherwise than kindly point me to the harm that's done by deliberating.

Whether a condition is formed is decided when I express my conclusion to the builders.

If I tell them I am available, now the condition changes from there being four people available to five.

If I tell them I am not available, the conditions haven't changed. There are still four people available.

The problem are for those who think mental activity is magic. — Isaac

You're talking about yourself? Where is the magical suffering that's caused by my deliberation?


Let's bring this back on topic:


Your final argument was that not having children causes harm.

This is an erroneous representation of cause and effect, since doing nothing causes nothing. It has no physical effects nor does it create conditions.

The drowning man drowns because he fell into the water, not because I did not save him. He would drown whether I am there to not save him, or whether I am not there at all. My presence has no effect.

You attempted to mend this by saying it still causes harm because I was 'available' to avoid it. To which I replied that clearly I wasn't, because otherwise I may have saved the man. I was unavailable, busy being myself.

To this you said that according to some unspecified arbiter of availibility (that conspicuously shares your idea of reasonableness), I could have been available and that my internal deliberation deciding I was not is what caused the harm. To which I now say, show me the harm caused by my deliberation - you cannot. I've changed my mind several times. Did I cause harm several times?

Note you have de facto abandoned your position that not having children causes harm, but that, apparently, we're responsible for the harm caused to others when they have wrongfully mistaken us for being 'available' for fulfilling their desires.

Your idea can be summed up that it is immoral not to involve oneself in business on the basis of what others believe to be your reasonable actions. Not acting to fulfill their desires harms them, because they had "reasonably" assumed you were available.

Yet, the problem with this position is clear and you've already shown it when I asked you to build a house for me and you implied that wasn't reasonable thing to ask.


If you have any questions you would like me to answer, please make clear how they relate to the central question. If there are unrelated questions that are burning on your mind, send them in a private message.

In the scenario I described, whose physical actions caused the change in conditions from the state where a house could be built to the state where one could not? — Isaac

No one's. No change took place. The condition under which the house could not be built was in place all along, the builders simply didn't have the information to understand.

We never went from five to four builders, because a fifth person was not available.

Traffic laws also guide behaviour for individuals in life. Is it a moral rule that we ought drive on the left? — Isaac

I'm not sure. Does it pertain to living a good life? Does it pertain to not harming others? I could see an argument made for it, or against it. Why is it relevant?

Then who does? You keep dodging the question. Who causes the change of circumstances in the situation I described, if not you? — Isaac

I've answered you more than once. You just don't like the answer.

Speaking of dodging questions, what about those deliberations in one's head that according to you cause conditions and harm? Isn't it about time you address that elephant?

Why? — Isaac

You're asking why I think I shouldn't harm people? Gut feeling, I guess. It seems people are a lot happier when they don't harm each other.

What would inform us of the invalidity of a moral rule. — Isaac

Logical inconsistencies.

Why don't you come to a point?