Europe, sadly, deals with exactly the same issues.

Fundamental ignorance is the prime reason one should practice caution when forcing conditions on others. As far as I am concerned, that applies anywhere in life, and I see no reason why the choice of having children should be different.

One must either have a child or not; that is the decision one must make if the choice is available, or else let nature take its course. — unenlightened

The choice to have a child is akin to choosing on behalf of that child that it must experience life.

One might say that there is no child yet on whose behalf choices can be made, but one knows it to come about as a direct result of one's actions.

How many more times would you like me to answer that question? — unenlightened

Well, it is a rather odd position.

It implies one should not take into consideration the future conditions one knowingly brings about as a result of their actions.

You seem to argue that I should have refrained from giving life to another from a place of even more ignorance than me. — unenlightened

I am arguing no such thing. I'm here to test my own ideas and there's no reason my comments should be seen as a personal attack on anyone's life choices.

Back on subject:

This fundamental ignorance you speak of, isn't that a serious reason to refrain from making major decisions on behalf of another?

YOU deem it as a good thing, should another be the recipient of your preference, especially if the consequence is a whole lifetime of unknown variations on a theme of possibilities of suffering? — schopenhauer1

I act on my deeming as I suppose you act on yours. — unenlightened

Is what one deems to be good a justification for making major decisions on behalf of another?

If so, why?

I think forcing both of those upon people is clearly wrong.

There are countless stopgaps you can implement. Like: Only force a negative condition if the forcing does less harm than not forcing. Is a good one. — khaled

That will not do.

If one can force negative conditions on others whenever they are of the opinion it does more good than harm, clearly the slippery slope is in full effect.

I don't really worry about those things.

And when Ebola comes to your neighbourhood, you will be imposing quarantine yourselves at gunpoint or at whatever other point you have available. — unenlightened

Or you could just lock your door. Why is violence the default mode of thinking?

I think it is what you are suggesting, but you seem aware that it is quite an untenable position to hold, thus the old semantic smokescreen is deployed.

Aren't you suggesting individuals should be pressured out of exercising their right to bodily integrity?

Those pesky individual rights. If only we could do away with those, the world would surely be a better place.

Normal, healthy people being framed as a threat to safety for exercising their right to bodily integrity is a scary trend.

We enforce negative conditions on others all the time without their consent. Taxes, schools, etc. So your premise that it’s always wrong to do so isn’t justified. Unless you think taxes and schooling are wrong. — khaled

I'm leaning towards the enforcement of negative conditions on others being always unjust.

I'd like to be persuaded otherwise, but it seems any attempt at justifying such behaviors goes down a slippery slope that leads to a justification for any and all behavior (thus becoming meaningless).

So, the term you shared "pornification", has to do with how sex pervades in modern culture.

That process has, in my eyes, way more to do with the way sex is used to market products and to get attention, than it has to do with pornography.

I'd assume that our affinity with multiplying has deep roots in our instincts. We're initially programmed to prolong the species. Likewise our dislike of suggestions that there is something inherently wrong with it touch at our basic understanding of our existence.

I'd agree there is likely also a cultural dimension to this.

Whether these things can easily be overrided depends heavily on the individual and their propensity for reason.

There really isn't a way around the fact that people are born involuntarily, and the moment one tries to justify it, one inevitably enters a slippery slope.

It's simple and crystaline, yet unacceptable to our human nature. Hence, the tension in this thread.

I don't think porn is the cause of "pornification". I think marketing is.

In western societies, there exists a subgroup of men who are, at least in 'popular culture', considered inferior or even worthless (implicitly, but also explicitly), due to their inability to attain the masculine ideal that is forwarded by that same culture of sex/wealth/success/dominance, etc.

That alone is extremely damaging, and it is further exacerbated by the fact that their grievances are generally met with ostracization and more humilation.

Are people really still scratching their heads at this? It is pretty obvious where the deadly cocktail of suicidality and a grudge against society comes from.

I don't see why those who deem themselves vulnerable cannot isolate themselves, or have the government facilitate such isolation on a voluntary basis.

This is just another example of governments treating their citizens like children. Wear a coat when it rains outside! Don't run with sharp objects! Wash your hands before dinner!

A while back there was a thread that talked about how western society seems inhabited by adult children. My reply was; treating people like children, makes them act like children.

And that sums up this whole situation. Governments playing the role of overbearing, controlling mother and turning its population into dysfunctional children.

I think referring to what the US have right now as totalitarianism is a symptom of lost faith in your democratic system. I’m not sure if you quite realise what totalitarianism really amounts to. What you’re experiencing is a sense of lost freedoms, which is understandable in the current circumstances. — Possibility

I do not think this reaction is so strange. After all, once freedoms are lost, one also becomes painfully aware that it is not within their own power to simply take them back, and that "the powers that be" have very little interest in ever returning them.

Losing freedom is a gradual process. Gaining it, usually the result of a bloody revolution against a tyrannical oppressor.

So when people call the US totalitarian, they're essentially just looking ahead.

What do antinatalists get if other people aren't born at all, ever? — baker

I don't think antinatalism is about "getting something".

One can come to moral conclusions that one does not like, but still recognize them as being true.

Which works if what we mean is that further experiences can tell us that some limited earlier experiences were not the full picture; I agree with that completely. But in that case you're still relying on experience generally. — Pfhorrest

To connect two experiences together and figure out what they mean, one has to rely on reason to tell the relation between the two.

Eating sugar brings pleasure. That is an experience.

Developing diabetes brings pain. That is also an experience.

These two experiences seperately do not tell us anything. We need another element, which I argue is reason, to connect the dots.

I seem to have the feeling that as the super-ego or some moral tendency defined as a good conscious concerned with truth or whatnot must find that they ought to reduce suffering in the world if they are to feel good with themselves as a philosopher. — Shawn

Some thoughts:

I don't think there is a duty to reduce suffering. That would seem like quite a large burden for an individual to bear.

Perhaps what you name the super-ego leads us to wisdom and self-realization, and the reduction of suffering for those around us is a natural result of this process. Perhaps the duty is self-realization and the attainment of wisdom.

Coming as the average Westerner it would be mostly through the political process mostly at the moment. — Shawn

The political process in western countries can be described as the individual attempting to have their worldview imposed upon others by government, generally through majority-decision. Does this seem like a suitable tool to reduce suffering?

Hedonism (specifically ethical hedonism, the topic of the thread) is about appealing to experiences (of things feeling good or bad) as grounds to call something good or bad. — Pfhorrest

And we've talked about how these experiences alone are too easy to fool to serve as a guide.

Only when we already have some known-true propositions about what's good or bad to reason from. But when we're starting from scratch, or are lost in radical doubt, where do we get any such moral propositions to start that reasoning process from? I can think of nothing other than experience, or else just taking someone's word for it. — Pfhorrest

Ok, but how does this make a case for hedonism?

Reasoning PLUS experience can, sure, but you were just doubting the reliability of experience, and when pressed for what grounds we have to doubt it, gave just reasoning alone as an answer.

My point overall is that while the conclusions reached from some experiences can indeed turn out to be wrong, the way we find that out is via more experiences, so it’s still ultimately experience that we’re relying on. — Pfhorrest

I think we can use reasoning alone to come to conclusions about what is good and bad, without having to experience it first-hand. I think we do this all the time, on this forum for example. Unless you wish to classify reason as an experience in the same way that pain and pleasure are experiences. But I wouldn't agree with such a classification.

it can't tell you any contingent things about either what's true or what's good, only about what's (not) possible. — Pfhorrest

I disagree. I think such experiences and reasoning can tell us many things that are both true and good for ourselves.

Experiences of what? Knowledge of what? That something felt good at first but later lead to greater suffering? That’s information from your senses again, telling you that your earlier senses didn’t give you the full picture. — Pfhorrest

Yes and no.

Sensory experiences combined with our reasoning faculty, where the latter can provide us with an understanding the sensory experiences cannot.

Then how do we know that there is any reason to doubt them? — Pfhorrest

Hopefully one wisens up to this fact as they grow up, through their experiences and gathered knowledge.

How do we know they have been fooled except by further use of them? — Pfhorrest

We don't, which is why I think the senses are a bad guide for moral conduct in the way hedonism seems to prescribe.

What is bad about being poisoned if not the suffering it causes? — Pfhorrest

What I am trying to point out is that someone's subjective idea of pleasure and pain can vary greatly over time. Eating all that sugar may feel good in the moment, but it will not when one develops an illness because of it. Similarly, physical exercise can feel bad when one is doing it, but be very healthy.

So the premise of hedonism that pleasure and pain determine what is good and bad seems to me inherently flawed. Our senses are simply too easy to fool.

What makes conduct moral, if not refraining from hurting people (not inflicting suffering), and helping them (enabling enjoyment)? — Pfhorrest

I can for the most part agree with this idea of moral conduct, however I do not think that those things you named are, in the context of morality, necessarily connected to subjective sensations of pain and pleasure.

I can feed my child all the sugar it wants, and I am sure they will enjoy it greatly, however I would be slowly poisoning them, regardless of their enjoyment.

A guide to what? — Pfhorrest

Moral conduct, starting with me, an individual.

How can we talk about morality without considering what feels good or bad (for me, you or anyone else). — I like sushi

With reason, I suppose. The senses will simply have to follow.

The pleasure/pain system in our bodies is so deceptive, I don't think it can serve as a useful guide.

For anyone to say it is irrelevant to morality must have said so with good reason ... I cannot fathom what that is and will be simply down to their personal understanding of what ‘morality’ means. I can understand the view that the ‘pleasure’ is in the journey, but the ‘pleasure’ is still ‘pleasure’ rather than some cold-reasoned way of living morally that may actively pursue pain and suffering ... — I like sushi

My view:

Something that feels good can be immoral, and something that feels bad can be moral.

So whether something feels good or bad does not seem to determine whether something is moral or immoral.

That isn't to say that living morally cannot feel good. It simply is not relevant to it.

I = 1 of course. — TheMadFool

What is one?

I guess TheMadFool referred as sticks but it also works with counting with your own fingers. This is the most solid proof of why 2 + 2 equals 4. — javi2541997

Sticks, fingers, luxury yachts. They don't answer the question of what is one.

I I [2] + I I [2] = I I I I [4] — TheMadFool

I = ?

Joe Frazier famously went on record, long after his rivalry with Muhammad Ali ended, and asked "Who really won that fight?"