I don't think psychopathy is necessary to rule, per se. I have a hard time imagining Lincoln being a psychopath, for example. It may be, though, that psychopathy or sociopathy make it easier to operate in the political climate.

Shoot, I forgot, Lincoln was a vampire killer.

Practically speaking that is a bigger issue at the moment than the problems of determinism. — mcdoodle

I agree.

That is why it would require a society-wide change.

A tornado hits your house and destroys it. For a brief amount of time, you probably feel rage at the tornado, until you realize that the tornado had no animosity towards you and that your house was simply in the path of destruction. There is no use blaming a phenomenon for which there is no agent responsible.

A man hits your car out of road rage. For a longer amount of time, you probably feel rage at the man and wish ill tidings to come into his life because of how inconsiderate they are. But perhaps the reason they felt road rage was because they had just lost their job. Or perhaps their dog just died. Or perhaps there is a chemical imbalance in the brain that led to his actions.

Because of your (pre-determined) inability to forgive someone for their (pre-determined) recklessness, you now have to go to court and pay a ton of money for lawyers and charges.

Just because things are pre-determined doesn't mean the trash is going to take itself out. You still have to put in effort to take the trash out. And so when we see how people are not intentionally bad and cannot be fully responsible for their actions, it is worth it to try to change how we respond to their actions, even if this change in response is ultimately pre-determined.

I was kind of thinking around the same way as you regarding punishment. It's not possible to abandon punishment; not only do we, the victims, need closure and a feeling of security but the perpetrator needs to understand that these actions are not acceptable. Just because these actions are pre-determined does not mean that the person himself can just sit back and let his body do all the work.

There is an illusory experience of having control over one's actions and this must be taken into account. Because of this I think a good indicator for a crime that requires punishment, although difficult to measure, is whether or not the criminal feels any guilt. If they already feel guilt, then part of the rehabilitation process is already complete. We just need to make sure that they don't over-ride their guilt and perpetrate the crime again.

Ultimately, like most things in the justice system, the changes that do occur will be gradual and likely slight. We likely will not see the end of the ostracizing of criminals, nor of the aggressive vengeful punishments that follow (the death penalty must go though).

There is ample evidence to support the hypothesis that the repression of death is an unnatural, yet necessary psychological phenomenon.

If you are able to do so and live your life free of death-related angst, fine. Not everyone has that psychological flexibility.

Also, if you adopt the Epicurean stance, then you have to accept that murder does not harm the one who is murdered.

Not when it comes to death.

http://www.newser.com/story/147889/death-rates-spike-on-birthdays.html

pfffttHAHAHAHA — The Great Whatever

That's not something to laugh about. Maybe if your intention was to gloat, sure.

I generally hate birthdays as well.

And I agree that most people in general are in a negative state most of the time. But I disagree with your statement that the majority of people never experience any joy whatsoever in their lives on a day-to-day basis. This just strikes me as an absurd generalization.

Also, many of the negative experiences (like sadness, pathetic, desperation, etc) are often not entirely outside of the person's control. It's easy to say that people have shitty lives when you see how stressed they are. But it is an entirely other thing to claim that this is a structural part of the life of a human being, to be stressed out, to be desperate, to be pathetic and angry. It's what a key point in Buddhist (and other eastern religions and philosophies) point out, is that ignorance, attachment, and aversion (take your pick or add some) cause these negative experiences and if you purge your ignorance, purge your unnecessary attachment to materialistic oddities, and purge your fear of little conflicts, you'll be a far more stable and potentially even happy individual.

I think a significant portion of the human race, perhaps the majority, lives day to day with no joy in their lives to speak of. — The Great Whatever

I would be willing to deny this claim. One must only tell a joke or a funny story to see the brightness of the human spirit flourish.

The joy one feels when they celebrate their birthday or when they fall in love is, arguably, an "unnatural" experience that does not happen on a day-to-day basis. But a good, true laugh can make a shitty day a lot better.

The same goes with hearing your favorite song, or viewing a piece of beauty.

I don't think that that's relevant. It is indeed a threat to the idea of humankind existing indefinitely, but I don't find that at all threatening in a psychological or emotional sense. It doesn't affect me at all in a negative way. I don't expect to live forever, and I don't expect humankind to be here forever, so there's no big disappointment. And it's so - almost inconceivably - distant that it's incredibly far removed from day-to-day life and plans for the future. That things will end doesn't mean that they're not worthwhile. This is the fallacy that I spoke of earlier, and it's the epitome of defeatism. — Sapientia

We can kick the can down the road, sure. Maybe it's not a problem now, but eventually it will be a problem. Essentially by saying entropy/death/decay is not a problem, you are setting aside the issue (procrastinating) just like everyone does when they push aside homework or taxes.

Entropy may or may not be an issue in the current moment, but it is ultimately broad, structural, possibly even metaphysical in nature.

If you and the other fatalists cum antinatalists can describe everything as inevitably leading to a shit pile, I don't see why I can't describe the same things as at least possibly leading to a rose garden--just no promises. — Bitter Crank

Entropy, the acceleration of decay. The rose garden is a second-order establishment, built upon a pile of fertilizer (manure).

I don't know about the other people arguing here and what they think about happiness or contentedness or happy-endings, but in my opinion, the rose-garden, white picket fence, happy spouse and a charming lifestyle exist only in the movies. If they exist in the real world, they last for a short time, and are not guaranteed to everyone (some people have an unfair advantage over others, a "head-start" that actually keeps them ahead while pushing everyone else behind). Every once in a while you'll hear about the self-made man who built himself up from the shreds of poverty, and this is supposed to inspire and motivate people to work hard and achieve their dreams. It's all just a joke, unfortunately. It's a nice little narrative to keep people dreaming, and insofar as you are under the influence of the dream, everything seems alright. The hero that built himself up no doubt tried hard (which should be enough to show how faulty this system is...a person has to work their asses off just to make a living), but also was extraordinarily lucky. For there are tens of millions of people just like him who would kill for that kind of opportunity.

This is the crux of my pessimism: it is not that life is unbearably bad at all times and that at every moment of my life I wish I could die (can't say anything about anyone else here though), but rather that I have, at least from my perspective, taken off the rose-tinted glasses and seen life for what it is: it's an ugly, pointless, harsh, depriving, harmful and disgusting cycle of desire, disappointment, regret, conflict (competition), pain, and death, and the nature of the beast is hidden just in case you limit your attention to the incoming blows that threaten your very existence. It seems as though this evaluation can only occur if you are lucky enough to not have to scruple for crumbs every day of your life. Thus, why philosophers like Schopenhauer who lived a rather posh and privileged lifestyle were given the opportunity to reflect upon the lives of others and themselves.

I liken my pessimism (which leads to my antinatalism) to being a soldier in the front lines of battle, seeing his fellow platoon mates yell as more and more shells explode in front of them. I'm stuck in no-man's-land (just as everyone else is), viewing the pointless carnage, and then I hear the whistle as the captain, safe behind the trenches, sends another wave of men out to die (analogous to birth). You can hear the charade, the trumpet fanfare, the shouts of victory and triumph for the first initial seconds as the men sprint on the field, unaware of the nature of the game, high on adrenaline and ambition. Each man has dreams, each man wants to be a hero, but no man wants to die. But from the collective frenzy of fear and group habit, each man runs out anyway.

Hearing the scream as a bullet barely misses me, I sigh in relief even as I hear the squelch of the bullet hit a man next to me. But it's not me that the bullet hit. It's not me that is suffering. There's no need to worry about life!, just keep running blindly into the minefield! You'll be fine!...

But where to run to? Do we just keep running forward blindly? What's the goal? What's the end-point? There's hardly enough time actually stop running and appreciate some of the aesthetics of life before you have to go back to dodging and running. We are, in Heidegger's words, Beings-Towards-Death.

In the end, as each and every one of us lies dying on the field, never reaching the end, what will come to mind? Surely we have to justify this wreck. Surely there has to be a point to all this conflict. There's got to be a point...right? Those white-picket fences, those cute little puppies, the smell of fresh-cut grass...is that it?! What are we fighting for?!

Perhaps you and others think that this analogy is too dark and repetitive. To this I only have to say that if our lives weren't filled with suffering, we'd have to fill them with an empathetic substitute (entertainment). We enjoy seeing others squirm on television, so long as it is not ourselves that is squirming. And we enjoy drinking the kool-aid when we listen to the few lucky people who somehow managed to not get hit by a bullet during their run of life, because it helps us pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and keep us from questioning the unquestionable, from realizing how each and every one of us is a ticking time bomb, and that all of us have a delicate, precarious disposition to suicide.

This response turned out to be longer than I expected. But I'd like to end by saying that what I experience is a profound feeling of disillusionment and, at times, despair, regarding the hopelessness and pointlessness of the world, and that I have absolutely no desire to bring this upon another person and because of this I wish nobody wished this to be so. Perhaps this is why I enjoy amateur astronomy so much: I can look out into the heavens and know that the beautiful cloud of dust that I am viewing is most likely toxic to life as we know it and will not harbor the same horrors that exist on this planet.

You specifically were talking about heroes, thus I provided my opinion. smh

I would disagree. The entire human race is intoxicated under this hero-cult godhead, the Individual who conquers Death (our greatest fear and enemy), the Individual whose Ego Triumphs over the forces of nature and Evil. They are our Heroes precisely because they inspire us to continue to live instead of crumbling to the fear of death.

There's something about living in a non-ideal world that for some reason some people are so attached to. The tragedy of existence becomes romantic and something to be cherished. Look at the toils and strife person x goes through every day, look at their journey, look at their character and strength!

Is that masochistic?

Are those opposed to corporate power's influence in our democracy opposed to the process that resulted in the veto of this bill? Or does the fact that the preferred result was achieved negate the corrupt process that brought about the result? Or, do you think that the process was not corrupt at all and that corporations play an important role in our democratic process by using their influence to get results? — Hanover

So, just to make sure I'm getting this right, am I opposed to the corporatocratic shenanigans even though they led to a good outcome?

Ahem...well FIRST OF ALL I'd like to say that WE'RE ALL HYPOCRITES at some points in life...

No, in all seriousness I think that corporations should play a certain role in the democratic process. Corporations are owned by citizens, and the citizens who run them should be able to utilize them. There's gotta be a balance.

It's tough to say this but I don't think I would consider this event "corporate bullying". More like "social responsibility". But I suppose it does depend on what side you are on.

Is it necessarily impossible to improve the world at some point in the future, such that the balance of probability for an individual born skews to a good, rather than a poor existence? — Sinderion

I'm not against improving the human condition. I won't deny that smallpox has been eradicated, for example. But neither will I deny that it is a far-fetched idea that we will ever solve the problem of suffering in general, or existential identity/boredom, or the ever-increasing and threatening entropy of the universe which will, if all of physics is to be understood, result in the eventual destruction of these improvements of the human condition.

Are antinatalists here saying that existence necessarily entails suffering (at least in this world)? — Sinderion

A lot of us will contend that existence by structural necessity entails suffering. For example, to be alive means to have frustrated preferences. Sometimes these preferences actually get us emotionally distressed, and are often caused by other people. Simply existing can be ethically problematic, it seems, as people inevitably have different opinions.

Also, do antinatalists here have any arguments for/against implementing political measures to enforce their moral principles? — Sinderion

I've argued elsewhere that above all else, liberty is to be understood as the highest of moral and political goods. That doesn't mean that I'm not going to pat you on the back for having a child, I just know that the state hasn't made it illegal (yet?) to exercise your liberty to have a child. Until then, there is absolutely nothing I am allowed to do that permanently affects you (I am not allowed to sterilize the water, for example)

Also, I'm not dogmatic in my philosophical positions: if someone has a good argument against antinatalism, I'll change my mind.

BC, it is great that your personal experience of life is adequate enough for you to say that you feel as though life is decent. However, I think it would naive to say that there is not a lot of suffering (and yes, I mean suffering, not little whiny bitching about having to fill up your gas tank), and I also think that it would be ignorant and wasteful to say that this reality of suffering is completely irrelevant to the discussion of birth.

Having children is forcing them to experience suffering, whether you like to admit this or not. Having children is a risk-taking act that impacts someone else without their consent.

To all disagreeing, here is an analogy: say there are ten brownie cupcakes to choose from. You are not particularly hungry nor are you craving a cupcake, but let's say neither do you have diabetes and you wouldn't mind having a cupcake. There is a catch, though. One or two of the ten cupcakes are not fully cooked, and will thus food poison you, causing you to experience frequent visits to the bathroom and general discomfort.

Now, is it worth the risk? Is the little bit of enjoyment you derive from the cupcake really worth the risk of getting explosive diarrhea?

Perhaps the stakes aren't high enough. What if now, instead of choosing a cupcake for yourself, you had to choose a cupcake for someone else, say, your spouse, or a friend or relative. What about now? Would you choose a cupcake for them?

This is essentially what is involved in the act of child birth, except the stakes are far higher and the probabilities are skewed so far that there really isn't any way to guarantee that someone isn't going to come out fucked up, or live a fucked up life. It's easy to focus on how great someone's life might be, or how much meaning they may derive during certain aspects of their life, and forget about the drudgery, bullshit, and suffering that pervades the world we live in. It's not fun nor comfortable to look at this picture but it does no good to ignore it either.

Antinatalism is often paired with depression but it seems like this is only the case because those who are unable to see the obviousness of this position are typically the ones who have their heads in the clouds. The depression a person may have has no relevance to the arguments they present; I am not a hopeless depressive, I just make sufficient observations around me that lead me to a position that many would consider to be depressive.

I'm saying that it can be worthwhile to have children because there are things in life that are worthwhile, and I'm further saying that there are, and have been, and probably will be, some cases in which it is worthwhile. — Sapientia

There is a difference between a life worth continuing and a life worth starting. Giving birth to a child that turns out to have a life worth living is still a risk, but results in a lucky draw.

I'd like to bring to the discussion a topic that I encountered the other day while reading a thread by Schop1 over at the old PF.

Forget about the inevitable aches and pains of life. What about the frustrated preferences, the frustrated idealism of every person? We live in a society in which every person has a different idea of how things should go. In the end, nobody gets what they want, nobody lives the life that they actually desired, because they were forced into strange and rigid social institutions and told that this is the way you live your life and that's that. You have to go to school, you have to go to an 8-5 job, you have to go to church, you have to pay taxes, you have to serve in the military (or at least you used to if you were a male of a certain physical strength), you have to put aside your dreams and your preferences and focus on all the various other things that keep this whole society thing falling apart.

From my perspective, existence is synonymous with limitations and deprivations. In the end, can we honestly say: was it worth it?

"Wanting a child" does not, in any way, shape, manner, or form, make a child into an aesthetic object. Most people want children because... they want children. They like children. They like the idea of raising up children to be good people. And, by and large, most children turn out to be "good people". They may be flawed; but they are basically "good". — Bitter Crank

I disagree. Certainly some may have children because they like the idea of contributing a positive influence in the community, but to say that all parents do this is a ridiculous generalization. Children are born all the time out of a pure desire for a child, and then later the parents end up hating the kid because they realize how much work it is.

If having a child was a purely rational action, no children would be born. There just is no good reason to have a child that justifies the risk.

Are disease and starvation good reasons not to have children? Quite possibly. If one is in the middle of a war, plague, or mass starvation, yes--probably a good time to hold off on having children. — Bitter Crank

Not only this, but what about when a community's supply of nutrients goes sour, or when the stability of society crumbles? All of this is unpredictable.

I'm sure if I asked you if you would want to go through any uncomfortable experience again, whether that be middle school or an interview for your first job, or if you would want to go through any uncomfortable experience for that matter, you would say no. It just makes me wonder why you then go on to say that it is perfectly acceptable to force another person to go through these trials, unnecessarily.

One of the biggest reasons why I continue to be opposed to birth is that I see absolutely no good reason to take the risk and have a child. It seems to me that the only arguments that the "natalist" has for having a child is that they 1.) want a child, 2.) believe deeply that their child will come out fine.

The first argument is one of selfishness and desire, one that makes a child out to be an aesthetic object rather than a human being. The second argument is one of utter ignorance, as there is no way a parent can know if their child will come out fine. There are certainly ways of telling if they will come out poorly (by looking at a person's genetics), but that is not a fail-safe, nor does it protect the child from dangers that will happen to them "extra-genetically"; i.e. without the influence of genetics.

Now, there are excellent arguments against having a child, one of which is the risk that is involved in birth. This argument can be further developed by appealing to the utter lack of necessity of birth. There is no extra-emotional reason to have a child. The child is not fulfilling a prophecy, or contributing to the inevitable apotheosis of humanity. The child will become quite literally just another one of the billions of people on the planet, eating and shitting and sleeping their way to death. All of the positive aspects of life are not guaranteed, nor are they something that should be used as a reason for creating a child.

Depends. If I had it my way, all sentient life would cease to procreate. Perhaps non-sentient life would also need to be stopped in case they evolve into sentience.

I don't understand.

I would like to say that I still do not find your definition of what makes an antinatalist convincing. If I am understanding correctly, those who don't have sex or don't have babies are to be considered antinatalistic. But the problem I see with this is that they are not intentionally being antinatalistic, they are only accidentally acting in such a way in that their actions would be compatible with antinatalism.

An ascetic who starves themselves, and then accidentally dies out of hunger, is not suicidal, and yet they happen to act in such a way that their actions are compatible with a suicidal person's.

Carry on with the ridicule, then.

This might be irrelevant but it seems to me that the arguments that are the most convincing yet startling get the greatest amount of ridicule.

After reading the paper, I think that Cabrera is right in criticizing Benatar's misuse of counterfactuals, but I disagree with his assessment that counterfactuals should be used.

For if counterfactuals are used, then we are left in the odd dilemma of potentially being obligated to bring people into existence, for their lack of pleasure would be a bad thing. This is absurd. Neither the absence of pleasure or pain have any moral weight for an unborn, potential person.

However, I would argue that this does not mean that antinatalism as a philosophy is wrong. There are alternate formulations that still lead to an antinatalistic conclusion: it could be argued that the initiation of suffering by birth is immoral (as is any non-consented infliction of suffering), and that nothing is gained nor lost by abstaining from birth. Or, at the very least, birth is unnecessary, at the worst, birth is a highly dangerous and reckless act of liberty-violation. Or perhaps if someone is concerned about the suffering on the planet as a whole, they might argue that stopping the suffering at its source, birth, is to be recommended.

Additionally, perhaps some version of Benatar's asymmetry can be salvaged. Perhaps it is not that the absence of pain is good, but that the proactive avoidance of pain is to be recommended while the initiation of pleasure is good if and only if there is not a sufficient amount of pain that comes along with it.

I contend, however, that the most plausible and obvious argument for antinatalism can be seen if one simply opens their eyes to the suffering in the world. If the world was blissful, and the only pain known was a stubbed toe or a pinprick, birth really wouldn't be immoral. But the fact is that life is completely unpredictable and filled with a lot of suffering.

Don't compare your life to others, and want more than most people have. Maybe most people are getting too much as it is. — Wosret

There are some expectations that just cannot be tamed, though. When you drive by a graveyard and suddenly get that sinking feeling that, yeah, you'll be there one day. Or watching a reality television show and then actually going out in reality and seeing how crappy it is. Or when you are all excited for your marathon only to break your leg the night before. The world is unable to provide for the expectations of the human psyche.

Life isn't fair, and it's easy to say this when things are going alright for you but as soon as things take a turn for the worse, it is you who gets the full-frontal assault and to say that this is not a bad thing is to be masochistic and delusional.

There's a reason why people need entertainment; it's a distraction from their lives. Otherwise we'd be bored out of our minds.

All of the mediocrity and suffering can be avoided by birth. To say otherwise is like to eat a piece of burnt toast and then force everyone else to eat a piece as well.

Actually my life took a turn for a worse, and I found refuge in Schopenhauer and the fellow pessimists. It wasn't a horrible catastrophe but it was enough to shake up my world view and make me realize just how ignorant I was of the human condition.

So if nobody else will get it, then what's the point of making arguments for it? — Pneumenon

I wasn't always an antinatalist.

Your claim is ambiguous. Outweighs in what sense? The most relevant sense would be in terms of it's effect on the overall value of life, rather than, say, in terms of the frequency of occurence or severity. It's arguable whether the weight of suffering outweighs the weight of pleasure and the weight of everything else valuable in life. Furthermore, you'd then have to successfully argue that the former outweighs the latter to such an extent that it renders the latter insufficient and dismissible. — Sapientia

Mediocrity is not "good enough". Every one of us is in the condition that a sufficient amount of pain can befall us that leads us to question our existence.

You say that as if it were an established fact. It isn't. — Sapientia

"It is a clear gain to sacrifice pleasure in order to avoid pain."
-Schopenhauer

This is Helen Keller's response to Schopenhauer:

"One who believes that the pain in the world outweighs the joy, and expresses that unhappy conviction, only adds to the pain. Schopenhauer is an enemy to the race. Even if he earnestly believed that this is the most wretched of possible worlds, he should not promulgate a doctrine which robs men of the incentive to fight with circumstance. If Life gave him ashes for bread, it was his fault. Life is a fair field, and the right will prosper if we stand by our guns."

Schopenhauer is not an enemy to the race, he is an individual who has decided that the rat race is not worth it. It is not necessarily his fault that life gave him ashes for bread, and it is far from fact that life is fair or that prosperity is guaranteed by determination. Keller, although admirable for her courage and perseverance, ultimately admits that Schopenhauer is right and that he ought to just stfu cause it's already bad enough. She is the perfect example of the human spirit and the drive for perfection, which is ultimately the only major part that I disagree with Schopenhauer on.

Nevertheless, if you doubt the claim that suffering outweighs pleasure in the world, you only have to look to the suffering of the prey compared to the pleasure of the predator (NSFW).

If we're talking about a homosexual person who goes and tries to encourage other non-homosexuals to engage in sex with him, then probably it does affect the well-being of the general public. — Agustino

True, but this is not exclusive to homosexuals.

Agustino, do you believe that a homosexual lifestyle affects the well-being of the general public?

Some of us acknowledge both the good and the bad in a more balanced way — Sapientia

This is where you are mistaken. Negative experiences far outweigh the positives. Those who look at the Sun, smile and say "life is good" are walking on the bones of their ancestors, the ancestors that lived and died under the Sun, constantly eating other organisms to survive, or competing with others to survive. Suffering is guaranteed, exuberant pleasure is not.

then it is indeed worth giving it a shot - at least if the circumstances aren't too bad. — Sapientia

Say you have a kid. The kid turns out to be an okay person with a decent life and no significant health problems. In all regards, this person is not incredible but neither are they shitty. Instead of it being an expectation that this outcome would occur, you are quite literally just lucky, and so are they, that they didn't turn out to have significant health problems or suffer immensely or turn into a psychopath that kills a ton of people.

There really is no excuse for having a child. It is completely unnecessary and is the ultimate risk.

OK, but I take it you don't approve of throwing surprise parties or giving presents. There's an unnecessary risk imposition. There's a chance that they won't want it. — Sapientia

True. This is an example of when the asymmetry and consent argument begins to break down. But a twenty dollar present is a small loss if they don't like it. That's why we don't spend a fortune on a gift that they may or may not like.

Riiiiiight. Is that supposed to be representative of everyone's life? There can be no happy ending? The world is a stage, but the play must be a tragedy?

Your narrative is impoverished, hyperbolic, and comically one-sided. — Sapientia

Nobody wants to be in this situation. Every parent wishes their child the best. And yet these situations, or analogous situations, do in fact exist. It's just that nobody wants to recognize it.

I don't think you'd be a very good poker player. Judging by your reasoning, you'd fold every hand, or refuse to even join the game! But that's not a very accurate analogy, because there are far more people who profit from life than who profit from poker. — Sapientia

This is not correct. I rather enjoy playing cards and know that there is a chance I may lose. Notice, I may lose, not someone else in the case of birth.

The risk imposition is necessary. It's necessary for humanity to continue to exist beyond the current generation, and that's a goal that most of humanity believes is worth pursuing (so it's not an irrational pursuit for most of humanity, either). — Sapientia

The risk imposition is completely unnecessary, as there is absolutely nothing of substantial value that is worth continuing without consent of those who must bear the burden of continuing the human race.

The value placed upon the continuation of the human race is purely irrational. There is no point in continuing it, and in fact there are good reasons to stop continuing it and allow it to fade out of existence. But the extinction of the human race (and other species presumably as well) is merely a by-product of antinatalism, not the overall goal. We're not pro-mortalists or pro-extinctionists.

And, ultimately, the human race will end, whether you like this fact or not. Entropy's a bitch. So continuing the species is merely kicking the can down the road.

For a balanced view, one must weigh this against the worth of the life that they've lived. Whether it would have been better not to have lived at all. Your error is to think that there can only be one right answer, which happens to be your own. — Sapientia

Someone can live a life of luxury as a prince of a slave nation. They may be one of those very lucky individuals in which suffering is unheard of. But then the slaves rise up and brutally torture and execute the prince, during which all of the past pleasure are entirely unimportant. They are gone. And now the prince is in so much excruciating pain that he wishes he had never been born at all.

There's a category error here that you seem to have made, given this analogy, and that TGW has definitely made in some form or another. Consent doesn't apply. There is no one to either consent or deny or to even consult. For the same reason, it's either false or nonsensical to say that it's against their will. — Sapientia

Do you think bringing a child into the world simply to torture it would be a violation of consent? You at least have to say that it would have been in the child's "best interests" to not have come into existence...but according to your argument, interests cannot be applied to non-existent entities. They have to first be born, and suffer, before they are morally important...what?

That analogy doesn't match up. In the former, you speak of a lack of concern, implying recklessness, but in the latter, you speak of a lack of knowledge, which doesn't necessarily imply recklessness. To be reckless is to not give due consideration to the risks, or to act with disregard of the risks. — Sapientia

But this is exactly what birth entails; an unnecessary risk imposition. The parent's process of "giving consideration" is usually quite little to even none at all, and it is always under the threat of optimism bias (it's always their child that gets the debilitating disease, not my child...and lo and behold the child ends up with a debilitating disease).

Also, you seem to be implying that death is bad, which is arguable. I don't think that death is, in itself, bad. Who actually wants to live forever, when they really think about it? Immortality is the epitome of the cliché "be careful what you wish for...". Death might mean the end to a fulfilling life: a life well lived. One might be prepared for it. It might even be quick and painless. — Sapientia

Death is bad only if someone does not want to die or is not ready to die. I would be willing to say that in most cases, people die either suddenly and when they do not wish to, or die after a grueling process of endurance. For people alive today, death is pushed back to the dark recesses of the mind in the same way taxes are pushed back (procrastinated). It is seen as a far-off problem that one must not focus on because there are "more important things to do".

The mere possibility of a bad life is not sufficient grounds to make a sensible judgement. That also applies to many a situation as a general rule of thumb. Do you avoid crossing roads? Not a fan of any of the more extreme sports? I've been skydiving, and I don't have a single regret about it. It was well worth it. It was possibly the most exhilarating experience of my life. — Sapientia

In those examples, you personally consented to risking your life, and everyone on the road consented to risking their lives, so there's no problem with that. But say you forced someone to skydive, and their chute failed and they plunged to their death...is that acceptable?