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.

Does life just scare you? Are you afraid of coming to harm? Do you spend your days afraid of all the bad things that might happen to you or those you care about? — universeness

None of those things. I'm quite happy. But I'm also aware of the misery that exists.

My concern is specifically with the morality of the act of imposing life upon someone.

We all need some bad in our lives to be able to enjoy the good. — universeness

I hope you understand that the harm that befalls people isn't always limited to "some bad", and not always followed up with good to enjoy.

The antinatalists don't understand this it's beyond their ability to. — universeness

:roll:

Let's suppose for a moment that there is a person, A, who out of the goodness of their heart makes it their business to interfere in the lives of others unasked.

A fancies himself quite good at what he does, and on nine out of every ten people into whose business he interferes he makes a markedly positive impact.

However, A isn't perfect, and one out of every ten people he ruins, by accident.

A calculated risk, A thinks. One out of every ten? That seems like good odds. A small sacrifice to make for the good for those nine others who may benefit from A's boundless benevolence.

So, is A a saint? A highly dangerous individual? What gives A the right to interfere unasked? What's the sacrifical lamb to make of this?

When it comes to the well-being of others, to take only those actions the outcomes of which we can predict with great accuracy. — Tzeentch

Why? — Isaac

Because if one chooses to interfere in the affairs of others, one should be certain their actions don't cause irreversible harm. — Tzeentch

Why? You just keep repeating arbitrary rules without basing them on any potentially shared objectives. We don't just follow rules for no reason. — Isaac

Because causing harm to others is bad.

This is turning into a silly game. Please get to a point.

When it comes to the well-being of others, to take only those actions the outcomes of which we can predict with great accuracy. — Tzeentch

Why? — Isaac

Because if one chooses to interfere in the affairs of others, one should be certain their actions don't cause irreversible harm.

But let's take this away from semantics. What ought we do? We cannot predict the future with great accuracy, our inaction could cause as much harm as our action, so what ought we do? — Isaac

When it comes to the well-being of others, to take only those actions the outcomes of which we can predict with great accuracy.

Because that would involve omniscience and none of us are. — Isaac

Why would that require omniscience?

You're saying for one's intention to match the outcome it requires omniscience?

Well then you're not using the word 'moral' correctly. The degree of prior knowledge you're describing is not the kind of action we use the word 'moral' to describe. You're describing a different type of action. let's call it a 'y-moral' action. — Isaac

Perhaps.

It seems to me that talking about morality in terms of only intentions or only outcomes makes no sense, and these two should always be considered together.

If one intends to do great good but does only great harm, they clearly cannot be said to be moral, regardless of their intentions.

If one intends to do great harm but does only great good, they clearly cannot be said to be moral either, regardless of the outcomes.

One cannot have both, so you've made moral action impossible. — Isaac

Why not?

Ignorance, of the sort you describe here, is neither virtuous non non-virtuous. It's as relevant to virtue as having a nose. We are all ignorant in the manner you describe and cannot be any other. As such the state is irrelevant to virtue. One cannot make into a virtue that which is unobtainable. — Isaac

While I would argue ignorance is relevant to one's capacity to bring about intended outcomes, I would agree it is a "neutral" factor. However, virtue ethics would imply that ignorance is not an impediment to ethical behavior, whereas I would argue that it is.

If intentions were good but the outcome was bad, then there must have been ignorance at play. In my view that does not justify the action or make it moral as per virtue ethics.

That's only if one is focusing more on the risks and is ignoring the opportunities that could also exist. — DA671

Not necessarily. I can ask the same question even if the odds were, say, 10:1. A gamble with good odds is still a gamble. The question is whether in the face of unknown consequences we can classify our choice as anything other than a gamble.

My preferred solution to the unknown consequences problem is to consider ethics about virtue, not consequence. Virtue only requires that we do our best. — Isaac

I think a just intention alone does not suffice, though it is a prerequisite for a moral action.

Similarly, a good outcome alone is not enough either.


One needs both.


The issue is that when one's intentions do not match up with the outcome, and instead one produces a negative outcome, one must have been ignorant. And ignorance is not virtuous, nor does it justify an action.

The ball is also controlled by many other agents. — DA671

Which is precisely the issue. It is largely out of the control of the parents who make the decision, which seems to me a shaky basis upon which to make decisions that can have serious negative consequences for another.

As I have said elsewhere, one cannot simply look at the risks and ignore the opportunities. — DA671

Ok, but the outcomes are unknown. All we can do is guess as to what the outcomes will be, and some of those outcomes may be good and some bad.

Does this not amount to a gamble?

By it, the simplest justification for having a child is that it will do more to improve the welfare of one's community (including the future child) than not doing so would. — Isaac

That isn't known when the decision is made. One may very well be making a decision that greatly damages their community and their future child.

So I guess one approach would be to say something like "but the chance of improvement is larger than the chance of damage", or is there some other way to continue in the face of these unknown consequences?

I don't follow. On what grounds is inaction morally superior to action? — Isaac

I didn't say one should choose inaction, I said one should choose action in ways that are within one's knowledge and power to oversee and control.

We ought be concerning ourselves with the welfare of our community. — Isaac

One ought not create the risk of massive unwarranted harm. One ought to create happiness where one can. — Isaac

I agree with this line of thought.

And if one's goal is to do good onto others, one should be humble and seek to do so in ways that are within one's control.

The key thing is the well-being of the person, not the degree of control exercised by two people. — DA671

The well-being of the person is unknown prior to the unfoldment of their life.

Getting the ball rolling is ultimately the parents' choice and no one else's, and if they must conclude that many things will be out of their control, then on what basis will they justify their choice?

I see "good odds" as the only attempt at a justification here, but I'm trying to see if there are other possibilities.

Still, I know that it is a controversial view, so I am willing to accept that creation can indeed be good/bad. As I have said elsewhere, if this view is true, then creating a mostly negative life would be immoral, especially when it's done intentionally. — DA671

How much influence can a parent be said to have on the consequence of their actions in regards to the well-being of their child?

Even the best-equipped and well-meaning parents can, tragically, bring about a terrible life for their child.

Do you agree that this is a possibility every parent should take into account? And if so, on what basis should it be dismissed in favor of having children, if not mere chance?

Typical cop-out. :snicker:

Given how confidently this argument is parroted on every antinatalism thread, I was expecting you to have something to say in its defense. This is just a cop-out.

No wonder, because what you're suggesting is absurd - that people have no moral obligation to take into account the consequences of their actions.

I do believe that the existence of lives wherein there isn't sufficient value is extremely tragic. The responsibility lies on the shoulders of many. — DA671

I think the responsibility lies on the shoulders of the parents who brought this tragedy about.

The question is, however well-meaning parents may be, how much power can they truly be said to have on the well-being of their child?

They have some influence, but as I have argued before, no parent has the knowledge and wisdom to foresee their child's life very far into the future, nor do they have control over the countless factors that influence their child's life.

I conclude that since parents do not have the knowledge and wisdom, nor the power to bring about their envisioned end-state of a happy child, even at best their action is a gamble.

What have you to say for the group of people who are genuinely miserable as a result of their parents' choices, and for whom it can be said their parents' choice did go against their interests?

You must agree such a group of people exist, no?

'Possible persons' are imaginary – nonexistent – and, therefore, only subsist (A. Meinong), like every other mere possibility, (D. Lewis) without a moral status . — 180 Proof

Antinatalists, IMO, need to either (A) refute that proposition — 180 Proof

That's not very hard to refute.

Let's say I plant a timebomb in the ground in a place where I know a town will flourish two-hundred years from now.

When the bomb goes off and wipes out this town, full of people who did not yet exist at the time of planting the bomb, do I get to say I'm without blame because these possible persons had no moral status at the time of my planting the bomb, thus I had no obligation to take their well-being into account?

This is child's play.

The parent is the one doing the equation.. That's the problem.. It can NEVER be the person it is affecting. Why should such significant and profound calculations be done on someone else's behalf when it wasn't necessary to do so? — schopenhauer1

This really is the core of the problem, and in my opinion it is an open and shut case.

The usual route people take to solve it is by arguing that the life they wishfully envision for their child is a positive thing.

Even assuming this approach would be feasible in the first place*, this skips the fact that no person has the wisdom, knowledge and capacity necessary to put their vision of their happy child into reality. The life of a person is simply too complicated, and the influence of the parents, while significant, too limited to take control of all the outcomes.

It's not just a choice on behalf of another, it is a gamble with that person's life.

*Since their idea of what is positive is subjective and may not correspond with their child's.

As a realist, you ought to have nothing to worry about, no values to defend, nothing you really care for is at stake here. Reality will continue to unfold in a real way, the way it tends to do... And that will be it. — Olivier5

Realism is a tool for understanding international politics. What one does with that understanding is up to them.

To say a realist does not have any values to defend is false. A realist simply doesn't let their subjective values taint their attempt at objectively estimating and predicting actions and consequences on the world stage.

The Ukrainians aren't going to just give up. — jorndoe

I don't presume to tell the Ukrainians what to do. It's their country being invaded.

Putin says a lot of things, like in 2014:

Don't worry, Putin says he doesn't want Ukraine (PRX; Mar 29, 2014) — jorndoe

I think United States meddling in the Maidan Revolution in February 2014 was a turning point in Russia's view on the question of Ukraine. I think a peaceful solution to the brewing conflict went off the table then and there.

And as a realist, you think that policy is wise, correct? — Olivier5

I am concerned with how states act and why they act that way. I'm no policymaker. If you want my non-realist opinion: states are run by crooks. Period. I expect nothing even vaguely resembling wisdom from any state actor, only self-aggrandisement.

So as a realist, are you saying that US presidents should keep on making profitable deals with dictatorships, human rights be damned? Kindly confirm whether this is what you mean by "realism". — Olivier5

As a realist I'll say that that's exactly what they'll do. (Note: there is no "should" in there) And lowe and behold, you just summed up United States foreign policy.

I'd love to see you try, ... — Olivier5

I don't need to try, since the realist - idealist split has been something that has characterized international politics for a long time and are concepts widely accepted in academia. If you want to argue that they don't exist that'll be for you to prove.

Idealism Versus Realism

A facile example: it is IMO ridiculously unrealistic and even lunatic to suggest that Ukrainians are sacrificing their lives to uphold Wayfarer's personal ideals. — Olivier5

[...] on behalf of whose ideals do you believe they're speaking other than their own? — Tzeentch

In reality, it just so happens that Wayfarer agrees with the values for which Ukrainians are fighting. — Olivier5

Indeed. They are speaking on behalf of their own ideals, they just happen to correspond. And to suggest such ideals should be a driving factor behind the decisionmaking process is, you guessed it, typically idealist.

This couldn't be farther from the realist perspective that argues actions and consequences, not ideals, are what matter.

So no matter what Putin does, the fault is with the West. — Wayfarer

No, given the geopolitical context in which trouble in Ukraine and Crimea started, which goes back to at least 2008, the fault is predominantly with the United States (and Europe by virtue of its complacency and blind adherence to the Americans).

In no way does that justify Russia's invasion. It does however give us an idea on where to look for solutions to this conflict.

This geopolitical context is explained in detail by thinkers such as Noam Choamsky and John Mearsheimer, both of which I have shared in this thread, and they come to that conclusion.

So do you think Putin's war is justified? — Wayfarer

No, of course not. But my moral judgement is irrelevant.

That Ukraine should just give up the fight and allow Russia to annex their country? — Wayfarer

I have no opinion on what the Ukrainians should do.

The United States and Europe could have done much to prevent this conflict and I believe they should have. I also believe the United States and Europe should not cheer on Ukraine on the road to its own destruction for the sake of hurting Russia.

We all discuss from our POV, you included. This is unavoidable. You too have beliefs and ideas. — Olivier5

Yes, but do I really need to explain to you the difference between realism and idealism, which is where we fundamentally differ?

It is absurd to try and make it personal. — Olivier5

What a joke that you of all people should say that.

I'm not making it personal. I'm calling apples apples. In this thread we are debating on Ukraine and some do so from their personal beliefs and fancies (idealism), and I'll happily argue why that is wrong and what the implications of it are.

Are you kind of suggesting that Ukrainians are going to sacrifice their lives to uphold Wayfarer's personal ideals? — neomac

That's the essence of the idealist approach to international politics.

When states that we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists, on behalf of whose ideals do you believe they're speaking other than their own?

Saying no to negotiations means one thing: to carry through this war to its bitter end. That will mean the destruction of Ukraine and the loss of thousands more lives, if not worse.

This thread is drenched with this type of naive idealism - the belief that one's personal dislike of Putin, however justified, should serve as a basis upon which to decide whether the conflict in Ukraine should be prolonged, and thus how many should continue to sacrifice their lives.

Sorry, I mistook your yappy dog syndrome for the false idea you had something to say.

Ok then, no negotiations.

"We" are going to "beat the Russians", and who do you suppose is going to make that sacrifice to uphold your ideals?

I'm guessing probably not yourselves?

Let's hear your plans then.

But it won't survive without everyone! — universeness

You are not everyone, nor do you have any influence on everyone.

Again absolutely untrue a crowd often inspires their team to beat the other team. — universeness

Doubtful. Why do so many fanatical sports fans get so mad when their team loses? Because they are powerless. They're invested in something they have no power over.

It's bad for you. Better to invest that energy in things you have real power over, like being a good person in every day life.

They are not filling a void they are becoming a sentient lifeform and fulfilling a natural evolutionary imperative in their parents... — universeness

Those were your words, not mine.

... you handwave the pain it would cause them if they were childless based on what YOU think is morally sound. — universeness

I don't handwave anyone's pain. But pain is no excuse to act immorally, and that's why I cannot accept what you gave as a justification.

Watch the clips that DA671 posted above and comment, they are not long clips. — universeness

No thanks. Ten seconds in and it doesn't seem worth the time or the brain cells. If there's something specific you want me to engage with you'll have to write it here.

Are you deciding for me that I have no rational stake in the survival of the human race? — universeness

Yes. You objectively have no rational stake in the survival of the human race.

It will survive with you, or without you, and none of us will be around to see it perish, if it does, but as time goes on it's exceedingly likely that it will.

If I say I think the human race has a vital role to play in the universe and its survival is essential to the purpose of the universe, do you simply handwave that away, not matter how much I protest? — universeness

I would say that's a wonderful idea, yet one that doesn't escape the cold logic that I just laid out.

It's no different from being emotionally invested in your favorite sports team. No matter how hard you shout and cheer, your impact on the outcome is negligible. Though arguably cheering for one's favorite sports team has more impact than cheering for the human race.

I did not say existence is immoral. I said the birthing of children is immoral. — Tzeentch

You are hairsplitting. — universeness

No, these two things are fundamentally different.

Existing is obviously not immoral.

Thrusting people into existence is immoral, but once people are in existence they're there and it's an entirely different situation.

The latter causes the former or are you saying that the immorality of the parents end once the child is born? — universeness

For the most part, yes. After the child is born it's a new situation. The parents have made a moral error, and now it's their responsibility to make the best of it.

Deciding not to push a parachutist out of a plane is not comparable with ignoring the instinctive imperative to have children. — universeness

I've never heard the term 'instinctive imperative' before, but I don't believe instincts form a good guide for moral behavior, nor do they justify behavior.

We scrutinize individual behaviors through the lens of reason. That's how we evaluate the morality of certain behavior, with things like law.

If humans want to appeal to instincts to excuse their reckless behavior they're essentially saying "I'm an animal" - then they'll be treated as such. That's not to say we can be cruel to them, but I wouldn't have philosophical conversations with my dog either.

Needless to say, such arguments sound like an intellectual concession of defeat and I don't find them very compelling.

As I have said many times. Many people would be greatly harmed if they could not have children. Some would feel utterly incomplete without children and would not see any point to the future without them. Do you wish to suggest to such people that they are immoral to want children? I would suggest your health would be in danger if you try to, face to face. — universeness

Children shouldn't be used to fill a void. That's a burden no child should have to bear.

I'm not here to judge people, and I won't. All I'll say is that by my argument having children under such conditions would be an immoral choice. What they do with this is up to them.

And if that makes people violent, I would read that as simple fear that I am right.

No, we are not forcing people to live we are allowing new life to be born [...] — universeness

Potatoe, potatoe.

[...] and the species to continue as an instinctive imperative that took 13.8 billion years to develop. — universeness

The 'species' is simply a conglomerate of individuals, and I believe the value of humanity, if indeed it can be said to have any value, lies in the moral behavior of each individual.

If mankind cannot develop or continue to exist morally, I don't see why it should at all. But I'm not interested in such things. I try to live my life morally, and nothing more. That's why I test my ideas in the crucible of free discourse. Not to convince anyone or to judge anyone.

What's also probable is that an act that doesn't go against the desires of an existing being cannot be an imposition. — DA671

No.

If for whatever reason it could be accertained beforehand that a pregnancy would result in a child with deficiences (because of incest for example), the choice to get pregnant anyway is clearly an imposition. An imposition of those deficiences onto the child. Whether the child is not yet in existence is irrelevant. We know it will come into existence by our actions, and we know the consequences it will have.

It's also not for someone else to decide that not creating any positive is ethically justifiable. It's neutral at best. — DA671

Indeed. Inaction is always neutral, except under the conditions I specified.

The question is: can a pessimistic projection justify the prevention of countless bestowal of positives? — DA671

The good cannot be sacrificed on the altar of unbridled pessimism. — DA671

If you read my argument carefully you will see I am not making a pessimistic argument at all.

I'm making the argument that we're fundamentally ignorant to the results of our actions, those actions will have monumental consequences for another living being, and thus our actions are irresponsible - immoral.

Not only that, but the parents are also largely powerless over the well-being of their child! So however benevolent their intentions and however good their capabilities as parents, much of it is out of their control.

One cannot make justifiable decisions on someone else's behalf when one is ignorant of the outcomes and largely powerless over the course of events.

And if people were to do that by their own voluntary will, why would that be a problem? — Tzeentch

Oh I have no problem with that, I merely ridicule the suggestion that such consent will ever be given by all humans that exist. Antinatalism is therefore a dimwitted forlorn proposal and a completely pointless suggestion. — universeness

That apparently even by your own estimation we're only talking about a relatively small number of people making voluntary decisions, does little to explain your defensiveness.

I'm only interested in the question whether it is moral to birth individuals into this world. What people do with the answer is up to them and not my business.

You are correct, there is no danger of the human race voting for their own extinction as they are capable of rational thinking. — universeness

Humans that proclaim to be heavily invested in the "survival of the human race" - something they hold no rational stake in, nor influence over - cannot be said to be rational.

Yes, I would broadly agree with that as it took 13.8 billion years of happenstance to produce us, so let's try to figure out why before we decide to vote for extinction. — universeness

I'm not voting for anything, nor am I telling anyone what to do - I'm just laying out an argument. Apparently you find that very threatening.

I'm glad you feel that way. There's also a lot of misery though. There are many individuals who don't feel comforted, loved, encouraged, etc. They are alone, and sadly, they are many. Withering away, some even broken by the very parents that made the choice to have them in the first place. — Tzeentch

Do what you can to help! — universeness

Ok! But being a good person has nothing to do with whether child birth is moral or not!

On what basis do you believe these people are living "a wonderful life" — Tzeentch

I have met many people who have told me so. — universeness

I was speaking specifically of people who are suffering harshly, whether it's physical, mental, emotional.

People who by their own account would rather die than live.

On what basis are you claiming they are living a wonderful life?

The simple question is, where do they get the right to make such a monumental and potentially disastrous decision on behalf of someone else? — Tzeentch

I disagree... — universeness

That's not an answer to the question. That's dodging the question.

Where do you get the right to suggest that the existence of life is immoral due to the possibility of suffering or whatever else you think is a logical reason to support the antinatalist viewpoint. — universeness

You must present my position fairly. I did not say existence is immoral. I said the birthing of children is immoral.

And I do so on the basis of the fact that it is immoral to impose such monumental and potentially grave conditions on someone without knowing whether they consent.

In the case of an unborn child, gaining consent is impossible, so birthing the child is akin to taking a gamble with someone else's life (aka pushing someone out of an airplane knowing their parachute has a ten percent chance of failing). Something for which I can find no moral justification.

The universe does not have any known moral imperatives. — universeness

Yet all of us seem to agree that certain things are wrong. Things that involve doing things to other people without their consent. Rape, murder, that sort of thing.

It's just a matter of applying these principles consistently and we come to the conclusion that forcing people to live is wrong not because we want it to be wrong, but because the consistent application of logic dictates it.

Nobody is being forced to exist against their will. — DA671

Someone is clearly being forced. Whether it's against their will is unknowable. So I don't know how you can say that is "indisputable". I'm disputing it, certainly.

Anybody who believes to the contrary should not have issues with someone who says that clearly someone is being given a good they couldn't have asked for. — DA671

It's not up to you decide what is "clearly" good for someone else, and then simply impose it on them.

To a non-trivial amount of people life is not a welcome gift. Ergo, their parachute didn't open. And they were pushed, without their consent, into an abyss of suffering. It's clearly immoral.

The question is, given the fact that we do not know the status of the parachute before the imposition, is it ever morally justifiable to make that imposition.

One does know that most people do seem to cherish their lives despite the harms they face. If one doesn't know that the negatives won't necessarily outweigh the positives, then preventing all of them cannot be given approbation. — DA671

That some people, luckily, enjoy the experience is not sufficient reason to justify the whole ordeal. That would be like accepting those people who come to suffer and not enjoy life as sacrifical lambs. I don't see how that can be morally justifiable.

Beyond the matrix: the sequel we never got :p — DA671

:wink:

There isn't a being who is being forced to exist when they had a desire to not to do. — DA671

Clearly there is a being who is being forced. At the point of birth I don't think you can dispute that anymore.

And while we know little about a baby's desires since they're not yet capable of expressing them, they're clearly conscious and have little wills of their own. So again, there's an imposition based on a fundamental ignorance here that I don't think you can avoid.

But if creation can be an imposition, it can also be a gift that gives positives that one had no way to solicit before they existed. — DA671

Certainly. But how does one know beforehand? And if one conceeds that one doens't know beforehand, how does one justify going ahead with it anyway, knowing the dire consequences one's actions may have, however benevolent the intentions?