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?

So what does? — Isaac

Physical actions.

So do the rules of chess. So what distinguishes morality from any other set of principles which guide behaviour? — Isaac

Not that much, in fact.

The rules of chess guide behavior for individuals playing chess. Morals guide behavior for individuals in life.

By your non-interference (by doing something else instead of helping) you create the conditions in which it is impossible to build a house and all the harms which go along with that. — Isaac

This is where we seem to disagree.

I don't create conditions in matters that I am not involved in by not getting involved. I'm not a part of the conditions initially, and I don't become part of it when I choose not to get involved.

And when I'm deliberating whether or not to get involved in my mind, those conditions aren't changing, nor am I harming people by deliberating internally. And you still need to somehow argue that is the case.

But why is that immoral? Can't I just say that I've decided it isn't, using my rational logic? — Isaac

It's immoral because we're creating harm by our voluntary action. Individuals do not like being harmed, and interactions with other individuals should be on terms acceptable to both sides (consensuality).

And yes, you can argue otherwise and present the logic that leads you to a different conclusion. Go right ahead, isn't that after all what we're here for?

In the end it's about who can present the most coherent argument.

What is the goal of the examination? — Isaac

Testing the validity of one's ideas, of course. We wouldn't want to base our behavior on faulty ideas.

If you're born and you don't like life, you can always kill yourself (not easy, but doable). — Agent Smith

This is a very weak argument.

It's like putting a ring through someone's nose when they're asleep, only to tell them "If you don't like it, just rip it out" when they're asking you why you've done it. Was the person justified in his actions because the subject doesn't opt for the pain of tearing it out?

I suppose the argument goes something like "If you don't hate life enough to commit suicide, you must like it", but is there any other situation in which that standard is used? That the acceptability of imposing conditions on someone is measured by whether or not they violently extract themselves from it through suicide?

Poverty (and much greater harms than that) then must be entirely acceptable, since as long as there are poor people not committing suicide, they like it enough.


Further, one may not like life one bit, but still refrain from suicide due to the suffering it would bring others.


Like I said, a very weak argument (and that's assuming there's even a single person that genuinely believes it), used mostly by disgruntled opponents of antinatalism who are looking for something to say.

There’s the potential for harm to occur in every human interaction. Therefore is all harm caused intentional? — Pinprick

Some of it is caused by ignorance, but roughly speaking yes. If one is aware of the risks (so ignorance is not a factor) and takes the risk, then one intentionally causes harm when it happens.

That's why we ought to behave carefully in our interactions with others and seek consensuality always, especially when the potential harm is irreversible.

I think you have that backwards, but we make this same assumption all the time when we interact with each other. — Pinprick

Yes, I did write that backwards. I meant the parents assumed the good will outweigh the harm of course.

Ok. Then is there really a default situation where no one is depending on us? For example, our parents may depend on us to have children so that they can become grandparents, which will improve their happiness/well-being. — Pinprick

Such a situation is certainly thinkable, but the key is not whether someone depends on us, but whether we accepted such a situation voluntarily.

I did not choose to be born, nor did I accept the duty to provide my parents with grandchildren. They might rely on me to fulfill that desire, but I did not create that situation nor did I accept it voluntarily, so I'm not responsible.

I asked about neither of those occasions. I asked about the occasion of you changing your mind. — Isaac

I don't think it creates conditions.

So if you didn't speak English you could just 'work out' what moral means using reason? — Isaac

You seem to be deliberately trying to misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I won't play that game. This obviously isn't about the English language.

Morality is a set of principles that guide behavior, and I believe such principles can be arrived at through reason, regardless of what language one speaks.

So you intend to help. The conditions are thst it's possible to build a house. You change your mind and walk away. The conditions are now that it's impossible to build a house.

If you changing your mind didn't cause the conditions to change, what did? — Isaac

The conditions didn't change until one had finally made up their mind and turned their intentions into physical actions.

You can't just step over this. You claim thoughts in your head are conditions. You also claim that changing these conditions may incur harm. This means that through a process of inner deliberation I would be causing harm. That is absurd.

Not if it's voluntary. They just decide it doesn't. — Isaac

You're now claiming that responsibility is not voluntary, that some actions bring about a non-optional responsibility. Why? And why only some actions? — Isaac

Because they're actions that create dependency in others. If we voluntarily make others depend on us for their well-being, that brings responsibility that is not optional, morally speaking. Why? Because we voluntarily created a situation in which we cause harm if we aren't to take said responsibility.

It's a mental construction we use to model reality, but such mental constructions do not necessarily exist in reality. — Tzeentch

No inaction is a word we use to describe neutral action opposite to the action in question. — Isaac

You can't point at an act that isn't happening. While we may infer it (You are walking, therefore you are not standing still) it is not happening in reality. It's a mental construction.

You're always performing some action really. You breathe, digest, look about... — Isaac

True. However, I never implied one needs to be completely still for inaction (towards a certain thing), but to avoid confusion I have changed to using the term non-interference.

Plato decided what the word moral means? You didn't know how to use the word until you read Plato? People who haven't read Plato don't know what moral means? This just gets weirder and weirder. — Isaac

Plato and other thinkers alerted me to the fact that my previous conception of morality was unexamined and muddy, not unlike yours.

What about before you change your mind and decide not to help (having previously planned to)? — Isaac

It makes no difference.

When the builders come to ask the conditions are that four people are available.

When I make my intentions known that condition hasn't changed.

Then why are you disputing what is reasonable? — Isaac

To show you how unusable the notion of reasonableness is - opinions vary greatly on what is reasonable and what isn't.

I'm just saying that some behaviour is reasonable and some behaviour is not. — Isaac

Well that is fine, but I don't see why I should value your opinion over someone else's. I need reasoning and logic.

When you were learning the meaning of the word 'moral' we're you shown examples of torture, genocide and slavery to help you learn its meaning? No. So those behaviours are not moral. It's not what the word means. — Isaac

I don't determine what is moral based on what I was taught. I determine it on the basis of reason and moral principles.

Are you seriously going to claim you changing your mind doesn't bring about a change in conditions? — Isaac

In the context of our example it sure seems that way. Remember you have also claimed that changing the conditions causes harm, so now you're implying that by internally changing your mind, you're causing harm. Seems absurd to me.

You said both intentions and consequences matter. — Isaac

If someone chooses non-interference with malevolent intentions then that certainly matters, but not by virtue of creating conditions, but by taking pleasure in other people's suffering. It's not really related to our discussion.

If it's voluntary then a parent might choose to have a child but not take on the responsibility of caring for them. — Isaac

They voluntarily bring about the conditions in which a child will rely on them for survival. That's when it becomes the parent's responsibility.

Inaction exists. Otherwise what are we talking about. — Isaac

It does not. It's a mental construction we use to model reality, but such mental constructions do not necessarily exist in reality.

The tooth fairy doesn't exist, yet we can talk about the tooth fairy.

How did you learn what the word 'moral' means? — Isaac

By reading Plato I suppose.

you admit that, in deciding, you create the conditions for harm. — Isaac

I do not. It would merely inform the builders what the conditions are.

Before the builders ask my help the condition is that there are four people available. After I have made it clear I wish not to get involved, there are four people available.

No conditions have been created.

Then by what? How did you learn how to use the word 'reasonable'? — Isaac

I don't know. Reasonableness isn't a part of my argument.

I can live with a phrase such as "beyond any reasonable doubt", but reasonableness as you are using it is very subjective and in my view unusable.

So you were born unwilling to help? — Isaac

I was born uninvolved.

So it's not possible to change your mind? — Isaac

Sure I can.

I didn't ask about some I asked about your community. When you were learning the meaning of the word 'moral' we're you shown examples of torture, genocide and slavery to help you learn its meaning? — Isaac

What does this matter? In my "community" ideas vary wildly about what is moral, and many of those ideas I would consider clearly the opposite.

I have reasons for having children. Do you assume they are good reasons? — Isaac

I believe you that you must have had good intentions.

But let's not make it personal.

If you scroll back through this discussion you'll see the intentions of the parents are not what's being questioned.

Agreed. Took an inordinate length of time to get there. — Isaac

I've been saying the same thing for a dozen or so posts, so you may take the credits for that one.

So...how do you judge when non-interference is immoral? — Isaac

When one has voluntarily taken upon themselves the responsibility to care for the person in need.

For example, a parent cannot let their child starve, because the parent voluntarily created a situation in which the child depends on them to fulfill their life needs.

Why does inaction not have consequences? — Isaac

Because things that do not exist in reality do not have consequences.

When we describe reality we point at things that are actually happening.

I imagine they might, but I'm not talking to someone in the middle east. I'm talking to you. — Isaac

Well if you're interested in my approach to morality, you're in luck because I've already been sharing it with you over the last few pages.

Then why are you telling me them? — Isaac

You have asked me this before in another discussion, and the answer is the same as it was then.

The reason I post on this forum is to test my ideas. That's why I'm taking part in this discussion with you. Not to convince you, not to judge you, not to spread my gospel, etc.

You either decide you're available to help with the housebuilding or that you're not. — Isaac

Sure. But that is not what was proposed. What was proposed before was that my availability was already decided, and that to dissent was to create conditions and harm.

Then you've misunderstood the meaning of the word reasonable. How many people in your language community have you heard use the word unreasonable to describe fifteen minutes of relaxation time? — Isaac

Reasonableness isn't decided by majority decision, as we've already established.

Funnily enough I've been in communities where fifteen minutes of rest was unacceptable.

Five people are needed to build a house. You create the situation where there are only four by walking away. You created the situation in which it is now impossible to build a house from one where it was possible. — Isaac

There were never going to be five people available to build the house. I haven't created a condition by not getting involved, it has merely informed the builders what the conditions are, namely that there are and were only four people available all along.

Your position is based on an assumption that the starting point is another's desires and their opinion of whether you're 'available' to help out gives them a right to make you part of the problem. I disagree.

And your community doesn't think they were wrong? — Isaac

Some do, some don't. Plenty of fascists, racists and communists around. Most western countries are flirting with totalitarianism. Bad ideas are alive and popular as ever.

You don't think individuals should be left to their own devices to act as they see fit (such as procreation). — Isaac

Me having ideas about morality does not mean I believe individuals shouldn't be free to make their own choices, including choices that I would deem "moral mistakes". Let's keep the discussion honest.

You don't argue that their reasons for action should be assumed to be good. — Isaac

I don't see what that has to do with individualism, nor what part of our discussion this is relevant to.

If you can judge someone's action to be immoral, why can I not judge your inaction to be immoral? — Isaac

Non-interference can be immoral, however it is not so by default.

We can't judge someone who isn't involved for not getting involved. I've already told you why - if not getting involved is immoral, it turns into a moral imperative to get involved in everything.

And you cannot solve that with subjective notions of reasonableness. For one, because such a moral theory would be missing an arm and a leg, but second, because people will also use their subjective notions of reasonableness to decide whether to get involved or not.

The man doesn't involve himself with the building of the house because his subjective notions of what is reasonable told him his time would be better spent fishing.

You may try to ammend that by stating that his notions of reasonableness are only valid if they correspond to whatever community he is part of (which would also imply we're no longer talking about a 'default' situation, but alas), to which I'll say that collectives have never been a reliable source of moral behavior.

inaction or action can both have consequences — Isaac

Inaction does not have consequences. To argue such would be a typically human but erroneous way of representing causality. The drowning man doesn't drown because I did not help him, but because he could not swim and somehow ended up in the water.

The apple doesn't fall on the ground because I wasn't there to catch it.

etc.

They're not 'my' notions of reasonableness. I haven't just plucked them out o thin air. I've been living with other humans using the word 'reasonable' for nearly 60 years. I have a pretty good idea of what 'reasonable' means that's considerably more than just me making it up. — Isaac

I imagine that someone in the Middle-East who is about to stone a woman to death for adultery would come with a similar argumentation.

"What do you mean reasonable? My people have been doing this for hundreds of years!"

So it's OK for me to be immoral? — Isaac

It would be more accurate to say I would not ask you to conform to my ideas of morality.

Are you suggesting that your own availability is out of your control? — Isaac

Yes.

I'm not in control over the ideas in other individuals' heads for which I may or may not be available.

All reasonable activities (in moderation and depending on what else is happening around them). Rest and relaxation are demonstrably necessary. — Isaac

Those activities aren't reasonable at all. They've been sitting there for at least fifteen minutes already, which I deem more than a reasonable amount of rest. After all, I'm over here suffering by their idle hands!

You created the condition where too few people were available to build the house. — Isaac

I did not create that condition. I've already given you multiple examples as to why that would be absurd, despite your attempts at fitting your argument into the "reasonable" mould.

Remember when a few comments back I asked you why you felt people were entitled to another's action?

You denied that you were. I wouldn't be so sure of that.

What evidence would that be? — Isaac

I don't need to list the countless atrocities committed throughout history by collectives that were unable to discern right from wrong. Use your imagination.

The degree to which you lean towards individualism is a) inconsistent - it appears to only apply to inaction, not action, — Isaac

Explain.

Why does non-interference escape judgement? — Isaac

Because one cannot be judged for something one isn't involved in.

I argue that not getting involved is acceptable by default.

To argue otherwise would lead to absurdities like the one I explained earlier - if not getting involved is immoral, that can only lead to a moral imperative to get involved in absolutely everything one possibly can.

Why aren't you spending your every waking moment involving yourself with other people's troubles? I have a house that needs building and your inaction is causing me great harm.

Then of course you fence with notions of reasonableness - fair enough, but if you get to apply your notions of reasonableness then everyone does. After that, we can only accept that everyone is to decide by their own reason whether to involve themselves in matters or not. Hence my position.

I'm not judging anyone. — Tzeentch

So declaring something immoral is not a judgement? On what planet? — Isaac

It's a judgement, not of a person, but of an action and/or the arguments that support it.

So you are responsible for creating those conditions then, because you are responsible for your availability. — Isaac

Negative. Availability is something that exists in the mind of some other individual. It is not some objective state, which is what you're trying to sell it as.

No you couldn't. Half the town would clearly be occupied with a ton of other reasonable tasks. — Isaac

Nonsense. They're sitting on their lawn, reading books, watching tv. Terribly unreasonable things, those immoral creators of suffering! Why isn't my house built yet?

Parents to not create the conditions for harm to befall their children, those perpetrating the harm do. — Isaac

Parents create the condition of life, and life invariably also includes harm.

The community reaches an agreement by various means. — Isaac

This is clearly missing some essential puzzle pieces, unless you wish to argue that morality is whatever a community agrees upon, which honestly it kind of sounds like you're saying. And the evidence to the contrary is so vast that I would indeed be confused if this is what you're arguing.

So we all for as we please then? — Isaac

In the absence of objective truth we have two options: leave the individual to judge themselves (individualism) or let the community dictate (collectivism).

I lean heavily towards individualism.

But we are going wildly off-topic here.

So why does this not apply to procreation? — Isaac

Because procreation is an act, and not non-interference.

Are we really coming down to nothing more than that the antinatalists want to be able to morally judge others but don't want others morally judging them?

You get to judge us for our actions, but your inaction is off limits and whatever your reasons are must be assumed good. — Isaac

I'm not judging anyone. I'm presenting moral principles and the logic that supports it.

Why, is your availability outside of your control? — Isaac

It's a notion that doesn't exist to an uninvolved bystander. It's the person who has the desire to build a house that creates it.

I'm referring to the condition where there are only four people potentially available. That condition leads to suffering because five people need to be potentially available as a minimum requirement. — Isaac

Perhaps so, but I don't agree that it is the uninvolved bystander that creates the condition, nor the suffering.

It seems to me the builders are themselves creating the conditions that cause suffering.

This idea of 'availability' is subjective. I could reasonably assume half my town to be "available" to do things for me. Why don't they build me a house? Because they're not involved with my house building.

And they don't thereby create the conditions for my house not being built, nor my suffering. I created that.

Right, so back to everyone doing as they please. No morality. — Isaac

People do as they please regardless. The question is whether reasoned morality is a part of that which pleases them.

I already have. The limits on mental and physical capacity, limuts on access to resources, reasonable other goals which occupy one's time... — Isaac

And who is to be the arbiter of this?

Should I decide for you that you are not doing nearly enough, and you're occupying yourself with unreasonable goals?

Right. Then they couldn't easily save them then, could they? They'd risk some psychological harm (fear of retribution). I specified "easily". — Isaac

I don't agree that what is "easy" should in the context of morality be determined by a third party.

It is precisely what is under contention.

When a person chooses not to get involved they must have some reason for it, and if they choose non-interference then interference must not have been as "easy" as a third party may have deemed it to be.

In a default situation, ergo completely uninvolved bystander, it's my position that whatever reason they presents is sufficient, no matter how irrational it may seem to a third party, assuming it is not malevolent.

Nope. Merely present. I'm talking about conditions (as you are in procreation - apples with apples). The 'conditions' under which it is not possible to build a house are that there are only four people present. Before anyone has even decided if they're 'available', four is too few. So you have created a condition (too few people even potentially available) where it is not possible to build a house and so people suffer harm. — Isaac

Like I said, I was never available in the first place. So that condition was already in place - I did not create it.

Four people have a desire to create a house that can only be built by five. There are only four people available. Who is the creator of the conditions here? Surely not a bystander who wasn't involved in the first place.

One doesn't, we rely on society as a whole to come to an agreement. — Isaac

I don't accept that answer. Societies have agreed on terribly immoral things in the past.

Are you seriously having trouble understanding the notion of taking more than one factor into account? — Isaac

Tell me about those factors, and I will tell you why it is still inconsistent.

Give me s counter example then. A culture, or any person considered moral (or neutral) for standing by watching a person die who they could easily save. — Isaac

It's a fairly common phenomenon in certain countries for people not to help out in traffic accidents out of fear for being held accountable.

https://medium.com/shanghai-living/4-31-why-people-would-usually-not-help-you-in-an-accident-in-china-c50972e28a82

It is also lacking in virtually all cases of childbirth as well, right? Or do you think people intentionally have kids so that they can cause the conditions for that child to be harmed? — Pinprick

Parents are aware of the harm that may befall their child, so it is intentional. They just assume on the child's behalf that the harm will outweigh the good.

Allowing your child to starve to death by not intervening and providing food for it is neglect, which is also an example of non-intervention, which you claim is neutral, which I assume means amoral. — Pinprick

I never claimed that act was neutral.

I said non-interference is neutral, meaning neither moral nor immoral, by default.

Having made the voluntary decision to create another human being whose well-being will depend entirely on them, the parent has incurred responsibilities and is no longer in a default situation.

No, my analogy only requires that it is an option. By choosing not to be a part of something you are creating the conditions where that something has one fewer participants. If, by having one fewer participant, those conditions cause harm, then you are creating condition of harm. This is exactly the same situation you're claiming to be immoral with procreation. — Isaac

What you're missing is the fact that this presupposes the person in question was a participant in the first place. That's what I take issue with - that is not so by default.

In the example of your house that needs to be built you presuppose there were five people available. What if the fifth person was never available to begin with, as evidenced by the fact that they did not participate in the building?

More goalpost shifting. With procreation you weren't talking about 'causing harm', you were talking about 'creating the conditions for harm'. — Isaac

This isn't goalpost shifting. As far as I'm concerned, by non-interference one isn't creating any conditions that impact a given event. Letting the drowning man drown is not a creation of conditions.

As I said, weird premises in, weird conclusions out. — Isaac

You may find them weird because you're not used to principles being applied consistently.

I've already made a case for why your argument that says non-interference isn't morally permissable doesn't hold up when applied consistently.

Sitting and watching people die who you could easily save is sociopathic. — Isaac

I'd argue that believing oneself to be the proper arbiter to judge who could easily save who is at least equally sociopathic.

Imagine every film, book, or play you've ever encountered. Where in any of them, does the hero sit an watch someone die because he can't be bothered to help? — Isaac

Inaction being neutral doesn't mean interceding cannot be moral. In all the situations you have presented it may very well be the case that helping out is the moral thing to do.

However, I am arguing that not helping out is not immoral, at least by default.

It's absolutely universal that such behaviour is considered immoral. — Isaac

Well, then people are universally wrong for reasons I've already described. The idea that non-interference is immoral by default cannot be applied consistently.

And quite honestly, that belief is not universally held.

Let’s say I plant a tree in a yard that will be owned by someone else 100 years from now. If that tree falls and causes property damage or some other harm, am I responsible for that? — Pinprick

Yes.

But responsibility isn't the primary subject here. It is morality, and intentionality is a large part of that. That factor is lacking in your example, but present in mine.

You mean like neglect? — Pinprick

Call it whatever you like.

Nice post, some interesting points.

Though, I don't think the idea of a "midnight deal" with Ukraine would have been very realistic. Ukraine is one of Russia's primary foreign policy interests - the country and its institutions are likely soaked with Russian intelligence operatives.

Had the United States gone flirting with Ukraine in such a way, it would have likely caused Russia to attack sooner in an attempt to pre-empt it, just like it did now.

Furthermore, NATO is at least on paper a defensive alliance. While the United States is by far the most dominant partner in the alliance, such a move would greatly damage NATO's legitimacy even to its own members.


For the United States and Ukraine to enter into a pact bilaterally I think is equally unlikely, not to mention not very convincing.

For one, such a pact would essentially tie the fate of America to the fate of Ukraine. That's a lot of power and leverage to give to a country that the United States is obviously not prepared to wage large-scale/nuclear war for.

Second, Ukraine is on Russia's doorstep, whereas 9,000 kilometers and an ocean seperate Ukraine and the United States. In the unlikely event that the United States would commit to defending Ukraine with conventional means, by the time it arrives the battle would have been over. The Baltic States suffer from the same strategic problem.

And where would the US land its troops? If NATO is not involved, Europe is not a likely possibility without dragging it into the war. Southern Ukraine would likely fall in days, not to mention landing troops under the Russian missile umbrella seems unappetizing.


In other words, in the face of permanently losing control over Ukraine, Russia would likely not take such guarantees from the United States seriously and invade anyway, calling the United States' bluff.

You could say "I was never going to help with the houses anyway, I was just going to watch everyone die of exposure without lifting a finger". — Isaac

I suppose this is close to what I would say.

The thing is, you presuppose the individual to be a part of something. A circle, a group of people available to build a house, etc.

Sometimes such a presupposition can be correct, but it is not so by default. People aren't part of something just because another holds that opinion. And when that opinion turns out to be false, the person who wasn't involved in the first place hasn't suddenly started to cause harm.

If you seriously think that sitting by watching others die of exposure but refusing to lift a finger to help is 'moral' then you're obviously going to end up with some seriously fucked up conclusions arising from that principle. — Isaac

I don't think it is moral. However assuming one hasn't caused the people to freeze and isn't involved with them in some other way, it is neutral. One may very well choose to help out, however if one has reasons not to do so, non-interference is acceptable.

No moral system that holds non-interference as unacceptable will make sense, because there are people proverbially drowning everywhere at every moment, and if non-interference is not acceptable, well you get where that is going.

So non-interference must be acceptable, at least in a default situation.

That would just be profoundly unethical, regardless of the fact that you don't know whether when it collapses anyone will be injured. It is unethical because it shows you have no moral sense in regard to the quality of what you have been contracted to provide. — Janus

Surely this man will not be condemned just for his shoddy work ethic, but also for the harm he has caused the children.

Or does he get to justify himself by saying none of the children were alive upon construction of the building, and therefore they had no well-being to take into account?

However, 180 Proof got it right, the unborn are possible persons i.e. if permitted they become actual people and this is the difference that makes the difference - fictional people are devoid of potential to become an actual person.

If so, ethics/morality becomes applicable to the unborn. — Agent Smith

That seems to me like sound reasoning.

Clearly there had been only four people available all along.

Jokes aside, this label of "availability" is a subjective one.

How are you not creating the conditions where there are only four people available, by going for a walk? — Isaac

Clearly there had been four people available all along.

The issue is that you are trying to equate non-interference to acting.

Creating conditions and direct causality are both relevant, but in the case of non-interference, I am not creating any conditions that are relevant to the incident, in this example the building of the house.

How? I don't harm my kids. — Isaac

You created the conditions by which harm may befall them, just like the school builder in my example constructed a school that may collapse.

So's moving away from rather than toward a person. So's playing a computer game instead of helping them. — Isaac

I don't know why the "rather than / instead" parts should be considered in order for something to be considered an act or not. The fact that one can interfere does not change the nature of not interfering.

Example: your choice not to interfere with world hunger does not make you the cause of it, nor is it an "act" that is "causing" harm.

If a house needs building, it takes five people to build it, you're one of only five people in the community. If, instead of helping to build the house, you decide to go for a walk, how are you not, by your action (going for a walk at the time the house needs building) 'creating the conditions' whereby that house will not be built and all the associated harms. — Isaac

I think this is an erroneous way of representing causality.

My absence did not cause the house to not be built.

The question here rather is whether my choice for non-interference can be justified.

To which I say, by default people are not entitled to each other's action.

Clearly, the only way out of this bottle (re Wittgenstein) is to assume that nonexistent people do have moral status i.e. they can be harmed/helped. — Agent Smith

I'm sure people will have some objections to my school-example, but intuitively it seems so.

Right. But the bomb causes the school to explode in your other analogy. You didn't cause it. — Isaac

I disagree. Clearly if one makes and sets the bomb to explode, they are the cause, or at least a significant part of it. It is an act.

By having children I don't actually cause the harm they might experience do I? — Isaac

Creating children is likewise an act, which contributes to their harm.

In the case of the drowning man, one created no conditions that contributing to his drowning.

Any 'harm' my children might experience in life is simply the result of their unrealistic expectations, not my fault. — Isaac

Again, having children is an act, and when one acts, one must take into account the harm one causes.

There's a fundamental difference between creating conditions (acting) and choosing not to create them (non-interference).

I suppose you tried to circumvent this by saying we're entitled to other individuals' action, which I disagree with.

As for inaction: as I've argued before on this thread, inaction/non-interference does not cause harm.

The drowning man does not drown because I did not help him, but because he ended up in the water and could not swim.


The same could be said for "depriving individuals of one's company" - one's choice of not getting involved isn't the cause, it's the person's desire for things outside himself that is the cause of his deprivation. One can hardly be held responsible for the unrealistic wants of others, or unjustified claims to other people's company and/or action.

I'd love for people to treat me like a king wherever I go, yet the fact that I desire as much does not make their indifference towards me a cause of harm.

One has a kindergarten constructed. One knows the kindergarten isn't constructed well and will collapse at some point in the future.

Can one evade responsibility through the same route as is attempted here by various posters, by making an appeal to the fact these kindergarteners weren't yet alive during the time of construction, and thus had no well-being to take into account?

The answer, which you're trying so hard to dodge, is obvious.

As I said https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/720016, but you unfortunately ignored, ... — Isaac

When you have your own dilemma pointed out you too, it seems, reach for avoidance. — Isaac

I just thought it was time to let some others share their ideas, since I had been talking way too much already and felt I was hijacking the thread.

I may get back to your comment later.

How could you possibly know where a town will flourish in two hundred years? — Janus

Finding excuses not to have to deal with the dilemma is not a very convincing way of solving it.

The answer is so obvious too, which is probably why you're trying to avoid it. That's the go-to solution for many in this thread who have an issue with antinatalism: finding excuses to avoid having to deal with what is blatantly obvious.

Of course, if one knowingly creates conditions by which individuals will befall harm in the future, one is morally responsible when that harm eventually befalls them, regardless of whether the individuals existed at the time of the creation of the conditions. That is why the harm that may befall others in the future as a result of our actions needs to be considered upon acting.

The individual in my example obviously is morally responsible for the harm they knowingly committed. It's absurd to argue that because the sufferers of said harm weren't alive when the conditions were created, the individual bears no moral responsibility. The individual was aware of the conditions they were setting up, precisely like a parent is.

The second comes forth from the first. The first takes precedence, but there may be situations conceivable where it is justified to impose. We're exploring whether we can find one here.

I don't see any contradiction here, or any objective for that matter.

If you believe the first is a hard rule and the second shouldn't even be considered, then we are done here, no?

Nevertheless, their inaction did cause the person to drown, ... — DA671

This is exactly the point - the inaction did not cause anything.

And just because one is aware of the drowning, it doesn't make one the cause.

I am sure you are aware of certain sufferings in which you could conceivably interfere (homelessness, third-world hunger, etc.). Does your awareness of it and your ability to interfere now make you the cause of it? Is it a moral slight that you are not interfering and doing everything you can to solve this issue?

I think not.

Are these just spontaneous feeling you have, not derived from any deeper objective? They seem, no offense meant, really odd, and intriguing for that reason. — Isaac

They're arrived at through reason. First, individuals do not like being harmed. Their will is as good as mine, so I should take care not to harm them and thus violate their will.

Second, if I impose something on someone, I may violate their will. Maybe there is a situation conceivable where this is justified, but then I would need to make a convincing case for it. So far I haven't seen it.

When is it ever okay to assume for another that these choices and harms are good and acceptable for someone else? — schopenhauer1

It certainly isn't acceptable by default. Perhaps in emergency situations? But even then I would argue that one is obligated to be certain (beyond a reasonable doubt) that one isn't making the situation even worse.

It can still have consequences. — DA671

Non-interference does not have consequences.

If I see a man drowning in the ocean and for whatever reason choose not to try and save him, then his drowning is not the consequence of my choice not to get involved, but of whatever circumstance put the man in the water.

However, if the possibility of an overall good outcome (it may not be perfect) is reasonably high, I believe that it is better to act than to be "neutral". — DA671

In the absence of absolute certainty there is such a thing as "beyond any reasonable doubt", but I don't agree that it applies to the question of procreation.

How does that concern affect the decision to procreate? Is non-procreation more truthful? — Isaac

No, but when you say:

You've not demonstrated that being certain one's actions don't cause irreversible harm before acting minimises harm to others though. — Isaac

Why privilege inaction over action if your concern is the welfare of others? — Isaac

It seems to imply some duty to pursue these things (minimizing harm to others and acting for the welfare of others), to which I replied that those things are not my chief concern. I see no such duty, except perhaps minimizing the harm I myself cause to others directly, that is to say by my action.

The primary reason that procreation needs to be regarded critically is that there's a non-trivial risk of harming others. However, the reason I would refrain from procreation is because I cannot see a justification for the imposition on another, as per the thread's subject.

However, if it is good that inaction prevents harm, ... — DA671

Inaction or non-interference is literally not to get involved.

I do not see why neutrality should be chosen over something that can be (for most people) good. — DA671

I'm not saying it should be, but I'm saying it can be chosen and doing so is a neutral action. People don't have a right to another's action, just because they believe it to be good for them.

So you willingly leave yourself open to accusations of cowardice? — universeness

Sure.

Should the world have stood by and not interfered with the Nazi plans for all people they considered inferiors? — universeness

"The world" should have done as they saw fit at that particular time.

A lot of your replies to me seem to assume I have all sorts of opinions about what other people should do. I don't. The only reason I'm here is to test the principles I use to guide my decisions in life. What people do with the arguments I present here is completely up to them, and it doesn't matter to me.

Then what is your chief concern? — Isaac

The search for truth and wisdom, I suppose.

So you don't breathe, eat or move then? You are never inactive, so you're always doing. The choice is over what to do. — Isaac

With inaction I mean non-interference. So the choice would be not to do anything about a given situation.

You've not demonstrated that being certain one's actions don't cause irreversible harm before acting minimises harm to others though. — Isaac

Why privilege inaction over action if your concern is the welfare of others? — Isaac

My chief concern was never the minimizing of harm to others (besides that which might be caused by myself), or the welfare of others. I see those as noble goals, assuming one doesn't go about achieving them recklessly.

The inaction resulting from your uncertainty might cause harm to others. — Isaac

Inaction does not cause harm. It's a neutral state.

And your solution to this concern; is to advocate for the extinction of your species through their global consent. is this correct? That's your solution? — universeness

No. I don't advocate anything, nor am I in the business of solving the world's problems.