↪Antinatalist Believe you me, we'll never make any progress just bandying words about as long as we have no means of getting childrens' consent with regard to being born in this world, in these times.

It's clear as crystal that the best-case scenario is to be able to get a child's prenatal permission. Hold on! Last I checked, children don't get to make decisions until they're 18+, legal guardians (parents, elder siblings, etc.) speak for them until autonomy at 18 is attained, oui? If so, isn't it odd that antinatalists demand that consent is a sine qua non for bringing children into this world? A fortiori, pre-birth, children are less able to make decisions. — Agent Smith

You got a point there, I have to admit.

However, those are decisions that people make after the child is already born. It is a different kind of scenario when there is nobody who already exists.

There is asymmetry in procreating. I don´t believe there is a moral obligation to bring human life into the world, even if we somehow could find it is a good thing for becoming a person (and if we do have that kind of obligation where does it end? Do we then have a moral obligation to bring as many human beings to life as we can, does the obligation stop somewhere?).
On the other hand, I do believe that we don't have a moral permission to bring a human life to this world, if we do not surely know that this life would be a good thing for this potential human being - with no exceptions. And that kind of sureness we can not have.

However, the problem doesn't go away, does it? Even if we're supposed to think for unborn children, we can't ignore the suffering that stares us in the face every single day of our lives, ja? — Agent Smith

I agree with you that everyday suffering don´t go away. As long as there is life, there is suffering

Maybe so, but those fulfilling sufferings need to be taken by a person´s own free will, not after someone is forcing her/him to the "game" of life.
— Antinatalist

You're on target, sir/ma'am! However, who's coercing anyone to save the world? Do you think Alexander Fleming was bullied into discovering antibiotics? Are all the folks engaged in cancer research under some kind of duress? :chin:
— Agent Smith

Maybe we are speaking about different things. By ´forcing´ in this particular point I mean reproduction. I thought it was quite clear.
— Antinatalist

I'm not sure, but your concern seems to be consent, the lack thereof, in birthing children. While it's true that there are many of us who'd have wished to remain unborn, the catch is would-be parents are in the dark about that - they didn't know if the child they're now busy bringing up would've preferred nonexistence over life. Plus those people who manage to do well in life are likely to say "yes" to life.

As you might've already realized, starting a family then requires you to accurately predict the future (of your children), something notoriously difficult to do! Some of us then resort to what is essentially a gamble - we have children, hoping they'll have a good life and we do our best (grooming, educating, assisting, etc. them) to give them a decent chance at success, knowing all the while that life may throw them a curve ball with catastrophic consequences. The sentiment is noble (a person could enjoy life) but also ignoble (we're basically gambling with someone's life).

Frankly, I have a feeling that people hardly think so deeply about bringing other peeps into existence! They should, right? — Agent Smith

I will borrow my text from other thread.


It can be further argued that what we call non-life is in fact not that: it is possible that before turning into a human person, there is an entity that truly lives but in a form that is not evident to humans. Consequently, one could express the same argument that this non-human life ”can be an even worse fate than the two previously mentioned fates” (those of a test animal in a brain pressure chamber and the rape victim of a wolfhound).  This is a very speculative and perhaps unrealistic statement,  but I do not deny that this would in theory be possible, nor do I deny the characteristic similarity of the counterexamples I have presented.

 

Finally, what can we say about this side of the matter? The answer is strikingly clear. Even if it was the case that we cannot say anything about the supremacy of life or non-life – even in the case that all the world’s current and forthcoming human beings were to experience the fate of those two! – there is an important,  fundamental difference between having a child and not having one (as this is finally the focal issue here): not having a child leaves things as they were. Let us assume that unit A is making a decision on whether or not to have a child.

In case A does not have a child – and the consequence of this choice is that a greater bad will take place than in the event of A having a child – A will still not have actively influenced the occurrence of this bad.

Let us now assume the opposite: A has a child, and the consequence of this choice is that a greater bad will take place than in the event of A not having a child. In this case, it is unquestionably clear that A has actively affected the materialization of this bad.

Maybe so, but those fulfilling sufferings need to be taken by a person´s own free will, not after someone is forcing her/him to the "game" of life.
— Antinatalist

You're on target, sir/ma'am! However, who's coercing anyone to save the world? Do you think Alexander Fleming was bullied into discovering antibiotics? Are all the folks engaged in cancer research under some kind of duress? :chin: — Agent Smith

Maybe we are speaking about different things. By ´forcing´ in this particular point I mean reproduction. I thought it was quite clear.

That means that those possible future children will be treated as a means, not as an end itself. That is wrong.
— Antinatalist

I completely forgot about Kant! Thanks for the reminder. As you would've already realized Kant's people as ends in themselves is at odds with another very pressing need that seems to bother us at a very deep level viz. meaning of life, which, if one really thinks about it, is simply the desire to be of some use, a synonym for means or something like that.

Moreover, people seem to find a life as but a means to such lofty ends as abolishing suffering quite fulfilling and well worth ignoring/overriding Kant's maxim, noble thought it may be. — Agent Smith

Maybe so, but those fulfilling sufferings need to be taken by a person´s own free will, not after someone is forcing her/him to the "game" of life.

We don't recommend natalism (there's still so much suffering and by the looks of it, the situation is only going to get worse), but do continue to have children because there's a slim chance that one of those children or their descendants will find a solution to suffering.

State control of family aka Family Planning! — Agent Smith

That means that those possible future children will be treated as a means, not as an end itself. That is wrong.

I agree with that, people here living on this globe could reduce suffering. But the first thing for that is not to reproduce - although that is preventing the suffering, not reducing it.
— Antinatalist

Agreed. But we need to recognise that we can only control ourselves. We can’t force others not to reproduce - that just adds to suffering, and then we’re compromising our efforts. Increasing awareness and connection brings others the information they need to recognise the inefficiency of procreation, given the potential of life. And collaboration brings this diverse potentiality together, with a reduction of suffering as our common focus of attention, effort and time we each have available. — Possibility

We can force people to fight in wars they didn´t start (and to die there). But however, I don't consider it realistic that there would be a law against procreation.

Even if you were right, that things will get better and there would be more collaboration among humans, we don´t need those things in the first place if there weren't life at all.
— Antinatalist

But there IS life, and it’s ours to do with what we will, regardless of what anyone says. If you want to waste it on griping, like Schop1, that’s your choice, as it is his. I’m only suggesting an alternative that I think fits with what you want to achieve: reduced suffering. — Possibility

I believe that Schopenhauer1 has something to say about this "waste it on griping". But I agree with that, people here living on this globe could reduce suffering. But the first thing for that is not to reproduce - although that is preventing the suffering, not reducing it.

I wouldn't call that naive. In human history, just the encounter of two tribes has often led to irrational violence. That is so sad. And now there are billions of people, are you really saying that there will be a time in the human future without violence, for example? Of course there could be ideas, innovations and practices that will reduce violence, epidemics and suffering which derives from such phenomenons. But I don't see that misery totally disappear.
— Antinatalist

As I’ve said, I think it may get worse before it gets better, but I do think there will be a time in the future of humanity with far less violence than we have now, let alone have had in the past. I mentioned in my discussion with Agent Smith that I don’t imagine a total elimination of what we call ‘suffering’. But then I think it’s an important aspect of cosmic evolution - it’s how life learns. As humans I think we have the collaborative potential to transcend this aspect to a large extent, but we keep following the ancient cultural myth of ‘survive, dominate and procreate’, along with the individual self-actualisation myth of ‘power, fame and fortune’ (independence, autonomy and influence). We’re collectively selling ourselves short, increasing suffering in the process, and then focusing on the suffering rather than looking for alternatives. — Possibility

Even if you were right, that things will get better and there would be more collaboration among humans, we don´t need those things in the first place if there weren't life at all.
Procreation is forcing somebody to this life, and that is no way necessary. Forcing someone to live is deciding for someone else´s life, which this someone has not even any kind of veto, any kind of way to prevent this thing from happening.

When there is human life, is possible at least (more realistic is to say it is almost inevitable) that there is genocides, rapes, mass murders, child abuse and so on.
Even when we could think that something so called "bad" is actually good, I can not considered any of those aforementioned things any way good.
— Antinatalist
— Possibility

This is fear and naive helplessness. There is potential for these to occur, sure, but the idea that they are ‘inevitable’ is not an objective view. The more we are aware of how this potential develops and the alternative paths, the more we can counteract the circumstances that contribute to it. The more we fear this human potential, especially in ourselves, the less capacity we have to prevent its actualisation. — Possibility

I wouldn't call that naive. In human history, just the encounter of two tribes has often led to irrational violence. That is so sad. And now there are billions of people, are you really saying that there will be a time in the human future without violence, for example? Of course there could be ideas, innovations and practices that will reduce violence, epidemics and suffering which derives from such phenomenons. But I don't see that misery totally disappear.

So when these do occur, it doesn’t help to label the perpetrators ‘inhuman’ and exclude their being from the value of ‘human’ potential. Nor does it help to focus only on the suffering caused, and refuse to understand the structures and patterns of reduced perceptions of potential that would lead to it. It is ignorance, isolation and exclusion that lead to suffering, and we counteract and prevent suffering with increased awareness, connection and collaboration. That’s my view. — Possibility

I don't want to be rude, but for me that sounds naive. But of course it is a good thing to try to reduce suffering (but not by any so called utilitarian way, though).

Allright, I try not to be.
— Antinatalist

Don’t worry - he was referring to me, there. — Possibility

Okay, I didn´t get it at first.

Basicly: it is bad when there is somebody suffering, and when there is no one suffering, it is not bad. Quite simple.
— Antinatalist
— Possibility

What is bad or not bad? You seem to be talking about your subjective experience as if it’s some objective moral position.

I appreciate you parsing your position in this way, because this aspect of antinatalism is the part I’m having trouble with. I don’t think the event of somebody suffering is necessarily ‘bad’ - and I’ve discussed this in more detail here with Agent Smith. — Possibility

Some things that are considered bad things at first glance are often considered later otherwise, when the situation is different and we/me/somebody can estimate that so called bad thing for instrumentally good thing. That bad thing prevented some more bad thing to happen or was essential for something good to happen (some might say what this got to do with antinatalism?).
But all those things belongs to life, and are only valuable inside this life, are they instrumentally good things or maybe something, which someone seems a purpose of life. (Of course somebody could say life has a ultimate value over non-life. That is a question of an another topic).

The complexity of this bad/not bad -issue is so huge, that it would be a quite big sidestep, so I try to crystallize for you my point of view of that bad I referred for:

When there is human life, is possible at least (more realistic is to say it is almost inevitable) that there is genocides, rapes, mass murders, child abuse and so on.
Even when we could think that something so called "bad" is actually good, I can not considered any of those aforementioned things any way good.


So, are you against procreation?
— Antinatalist

I do support antinatalism as a practical, socially and environmentally conscious choice - but I’m not going to take a moral stand against procreation, for two reasons. Firstly, I’m a parent myself, so I can relate to both the ignorance that leads to it, and the understanding that comes from the experience. I don’t regret my choice, and I know that without the experience, I would not have understood how naive I was. But I’ve been careful to ensure that my children are aware of better alternatives. We need a cultural paradigm shift away from the myth of ‘human purpose’ and towards creative collaboration, rather than moral judgement with an impossible alternative. Read my responses to Agent Smith for more details on this.

Secondly, I’m not against life, being or suffering, while it appears that most antinatalists are. So I’m reluctant to throw my lot in with the movement while the aim is non-being in general because of suffering (despite continuing to be, themselves). There seems, to me, something very misguided about this. — Possibility

Do you think that antinatalists would be somehow more convincing if they will make more suicides?

↪Antinatalist @Possibility, stop trying to be semantically pedantic. — schopenhauer1

Allright, I try not to be.

You know what he means. I’ll phrase it this way:
By procreating the parent is creating collateral damage. Antinatalists don’t want to create unnecessary collateral damage for other people. This not procreating does not create this collateral damage.. — schopenhauer1

Yes.

Also making a decision as profound as the comply or die agenda for someone else is a political move that violates or disrespect to the dignity of the person who will this have to follow these dictates as a result. — schopenhauer1

I have to agree.

What is this state of non-existence that you value higher than being? And in what way is it more valuable in this non-state? What you seem to be referring to is the idea of unrealised human potential. But I could be mistaken.
— Possibility

I believe that "being" who does not exist, does not suffer.

— Antinatalist

What is that ‘being’ who does not exist, if they do not exist? If they do not suffer, what is their significance for you? How are they ‘real’ enough for you to talk about in this way? — Possibility

Basicly: it is bad when there is somebody suffering, and when there is no one suffering, it is not bad. Quite simple.

But that is not the only reason for my antinatalism.
The other one is this; when you reproduce you are deciding for someone´s life in a situation when you really don´t have to.
— Antinatalist

I recognise that procreation is to deliberately create a life that isn’t necessary. I do think the motivation behind that decision is usually and to a large extent self-serving, and based on an ignorant notion that it gives their own existence ‘purpose’ to determine the course of someone else’s life when they are most vulnerable, with little regard for the purpose of that life in itself. So I’m with you there. It’s not ‘purpose’ they’re drawn to, but power, and a vicarious sense of potential/value. Most people fail so dismally at parenting because the reality doesn’t reach their expectations in this sense. To be a parent is to gradually relinquish any control you thought you had over to someone else, and to watch your best efforts take on a life of their own, rendering you effectively redundant. Once this realisation kicks in, most will either fight to dominate, or give up early and abandon the child to school and society.

But this is ignorance, not immorality. We’re still pushing this ancient cultural myth that our purpose is to survive, dominate and procreate collectively, and to strive for independence, autonomy and influence individually - it’s no wonder we’re so disappointed with life! We’ve been shooting ourselves in the foot all this time.

You can’t just say ‘don’t do it’, though. And it certainly doesn’t help to say ‘don’t exist’. I think there is an alternative to procreation in recognising the variability of our own potential, and focusing on that, instead of creating a new set of limitations in being. It starts with dismantling this cultural myth. — Possibility

So, are you against procreation?

The possibility of suicide of course exists. Once born, however, a human being is highly unlikely to have the sufficient skills to commit suicide before the age of five – often, in fact, not before turning ten or even fifteen. When this wish arises and the individual aims to fulfil it, surrounding people strive to prevent the suicide almost without exceptions if they only can. Furthermore, a vast number of highly retarded people exist who, due to their condition, will never really be able to commit suicide.

One must in any case consider the possibility of having to live a perhaps highly agonizing period of life before suicide, due to a choice – that of creating life – for which the individual him/herself is not responsible. And most importantly, not even suicide guarantees that the individual will achieve the state or non-state where s/he “was” before the decision of having a child was made. (Be it complete non-existence, for example.)
— Antinatalist

What is this state of non-existence that you value higher than being? And in what way is it more valuable in this non-state? What you seem to be referring to is the idea of unrealised human potential. But I could be mistaken. — Possibility

I believe that "being" who does not exist, does not suffer.
But that is not the only reason for my antinatalism.
The other one is this; when you reproduce you are deciding for someone´s life in a situation when you really don´t have to.

The last posts of schopenhauer1-Possibility -debate reminds me that "Go then kill yourself" -attitude.
And same time these people (I´m not saying Possibility is one of them) find very odd when I tell, or have told elsewhere that people who present suicide as an option; that usually people under age of ten or even fifteen don´t have capabilities doing suicide.
— Antinatalist

Then you’re reading it through a lens. A fourteen year old certainly has this capability. — Possibility

Some do, I agree.

Someone under the age of ten usually lacks a sufficient self-concept to make such a decision based on a preference for non-being. Either way, it wouldn’t be an intellectual decision based on awareness of an individual self - the kind you’re claiming we should be entitled to before we’re even born.

So, when it arises as an option, what prevents you from taking it?

It is this question I’d like an honest answer to. Instead, I’m accused of gaslighting, while my position is misrepresented and distorted. I support antinatalism, but not this opinion that existence sucks.

My attitude is not ‘go kill yourself then’ - I think there is a gap in understanding (or just blatant ignorance) when someone argues so strongly for non-being as a preferred option, but not for actual beings. And then denies the existence of potential structures that enable actual, self-conscious beings to choose beyond a reductionist binary structure of ‘comply or die’, even as they claim to make a third choice of ‘rebellion by griping’. — Possibility

I will borrow my text from another thread:

The possibility of suicide of course exists. Once born, however, a human being is highly unlikely to have the sufficient skills to commit suicide before the age of five – often, in fact, not before turning ten or even fifteen. When this wish arises and the individual aims to fulfil it, surrounding people strive to prevent the suicide almost without exceptions if they only can. Furthermore, a vast number of highly retarded people exist who, due to their condition, will never really be able to commit suicide.

One must in any case consider the possibility of having to live a perhaps highly agonizing period of life before suicide, due to a choice – that of creating life – for which the individual him/herself is not responsible. And most importantly, not even suicide guarantees that the individual will achieve the state or non-state where s/he “was” before the decision of having a child was made. (Be it complete non-existence, for example.)

The last posts of schopenhauer1-Possibility -debate reminds me that "Go then kill yourself" -attitude.
And same time these people (I´m not saying Possibility is one of them) find very odd when I tell, or have told elsewhere that people who present suicide as an option; that usually people under age of ten or even fifteen don´t have capabilities doing suicide.

↪Pantagruel

@schopenhauer1 Antinatalist

I don't know if you saw this, but I thought you might be interested. It is not the same argument you guys use, but it's similar. I found it more convincing. — T Clark

Thank you for the information.

↪Antinatalist I don't will consider wise to have children due to our actual circumstances as species. I think, their lives will get short and bad. We actually burn the entire planet and we aren't going to be around for a wile. — Santiago

That is possible, even highly possible, perhaps.

It seems very clear to me that it's quite easier
— Antinatalist
I'm lazy. — Wheatley

I briefly checked how many threads you have started in this forum, seems not so lazy. Of course "laziness" on philosophy forum, on work, hobbies is a different kind of thing than laziness to resist the ancient will to spread one's own genes into this world.

Personally, I would not have a child if I even somehow could, for ethical reasons
If I have to kill a person in some "life or death" -situation, I don´t consider that wrong - at least in some circumstances.
— Antinatalist
That's fine, but are you going to tell me not have children?

If you tell me it's unethical to have children, I don't care. :kiss: — Wheatley

If you have read my original text, you already know that I don´t want you - or anybody - to have children.
You don´t care. Most people don´t. It seems very clear to me that it's quite easier to think with your balls or by the ovaries. 

↪Antinatalist
But are they morally equivalent? Having children is not illegal, neither is getting drunk. — Wheatley

In most countries, I think, drunk driving is illegal. Law and moral are two different things.
On my personal moral I consider all those three things wrong, in general - there are some exceptions.
Are they morally equivalent?
Personally, I would not have a child if I even somehow could, for ethical reasons.
If I have to kill a person in some "life or death" -situation, I don´t consider that wrong - at least in some circumstances.
And if I compare the ´act of having a child´ to the ´act of killing some child murderer, child rapist´ who is not gonna stop his/her behaviour, my answer is very clear. I think killing that kind of bastard is clearly morally better than having a child.

↪Antinatalist
Even if it's morally wrong, people are still going to have children anyways. Antinatalism is useless. You'd have to pass a law! — Wheatley

That does not make antinatalism useless. People are going to have children, going to drive drunk, going to kill people and so on. I know.

My point is that because having a child is a decision of someone else´s life, and those risks will fall to the child
— Antinatalist
I can just as well say that adults are responsible for children. — Wheatley

Of course they are! But they are not the ones who could prevent the realization of risks (no one can); and those - at least some - fall for the child. Parents can do their best, but there are no guarantees that those acts will prevent children from suffering.

The basic argument is as follows:we have no moral right to cause something that radically changes the existence of another individual or – to be more precise: from non-existence to existence or vice versa (in other words, from a non-individual/+ non-existence into existence or vice versa is also regarded as a change here), or to directly affect the existence of another human being if it is not possible to hear this individual in the matter.

Such arguments have been made concerning the act of having a child that one cannot affect something that does not exist. Is this argument justified?
— Antinatalist

I don't see anything wrong with speculating about child birth. If you believe that having children is risky because your child might suffer, it is good judgement to decide not to have children. I believe it is a risk assessment decision rather than it being about morality.

Choosing not to have children is a personal risk assessment decision, it has nothing to do with wrong-or-right morality. Just my two cents — Wheatley

My point is that because having a child is a decision of someone else´s life, and those risks will fall to the child, who can not be a part of the decision process, this decision certainly has everything to do with wrong or right -morality. It is very different to bet your money in a casino or drink a liter of vodka a day, those are risky decisions that you make with your own life. Having a child is completely different decision in its pure nature.

Rather, not existing deprives no ONE of happiness. Someone was not harmed, THIS is what matters morally. Why am I obligated to bring happy experiences into the world? That would seem odd. Rather, the negative is usually what is morally relevant. I don't necessarily have to give someone my extra candy bar, though it would be nice, but I certainly would be obligated to not cause unnecessary harm like punching them in the gut as I walk by or shoving a candy bar down their throat cause, hey, I think people should like candy bars, and ya know, generally they do! — schopenhauer1

I think you are at the essence, in the pure core, of what are persons obligations, rights - and what are not.

Unlike a "right to eat" let's say, one is decisions made on one's own behalf and the other is made on behalf of others, and that makes the difference here. Procreation very much becomes a political decision and agenda to enact. We think about technology, economics, finance, the climate in all sort of analytical ways, but procreation for people is "automatically" off the table, when it is the root of all other conflicts. — schopenhauer1

I have to agree. Procreation is something people normally can not (or maybe they could, but they would not) consider rationally. It is something given, unquestionable. And like you said, it is the root of all other conflicts.

I didn´t tell the reason for my decision, but they think my decision might change, because I was so young then. In later years some of my friends questioned my decision, one woman said I would be a good father. Maybe I would, maybe I won´t.
— Antinatalist — I like sushi

  Adoption is a possibility and not against your beliefs. I'm sure you could lessen the 'pain' of life for someone well enough that way without the "responsibility/burden" (whatever it is to you) of having brought them into the world. — I like sushi

I highly respect people who adopt children. But I don´t have that kind of relationship, that adoption will be realistic. And my economic situation is not as good as it needs to be if I have an adopted child. And most of all, I don´t think I will be a good father (although I said in a previous post maybe I would, maybe I wouldn´t). I think I have some good values, and I am not a violent person or anything like that, but I don´t think I with my personality I would be father good enough. But like I said, I highly respect people who have adopted children.

The question of ´right to procreate´ is plain English.
— Antinatalist

  It is. But it doesn't mean anything anymore than the 'right to eat' (ie. sustain yourself off of other living organisms). Such ideas of 'rights' are embedded in judeochristian heritage. The moral codes we've adopted have been for reasons that are not always valid, but if doing X and Y in one society and A and B in another, given our very silly brains, we assume the outcome in each society is dictated by A and B & X and Y even though they are singular factors that may have VERY little influence on what makes a 'better' society. — I like sushi

But don´t you also think that this heritage also gives very limited kinds of structures for us to think about society and life in general?  The idea of questioning the evolutionary/cultural code of having children seems very strange or odd for most people. Because of culture and evolution. I think that questioning is really a good example of out of the box -thinking.

  But nowadays I´ve been thinking my decision was wrong.
On the surface, at least, my answer to the question seems utilitarian.
— Antinatalist

  Telling me what you'd do is mostly a waste of time. By doing so you fall into the trap of what society deems as 'right' and what 'right' means. That is a point that most miss with the Trolley Problem. You don't need a 'reason' ... in fact you've porbably seen many people in your life come up with reasons for their actions that are completely fabricated (and they BELIEVE them too!). — I like sushi

I agree with the last sentence. But I think, from personal experience I know something about what society deems ´right´ and ´wrong´. I learned that at the latest in the nineties with my own antinatalistic views, when I presented them (okay, I didn´t know term "antinatalism", and I read about David Beanatar not until 2015), if not already in elementary school. But of course the values of society affect the individual, also they affect me, I am not denying that. And I also think, that example, the "Trolley Problem" is a good one. It may teach something about reasoning and like you pointed out, about society and its effect.

  I don't think we can escape some idea of 'what is expected of us' as humans, but I sure as hell know we can investigate further and pull back the curtain enough to guard against possible misfortunes due to blinkered views of the world we're about.  — I like sushi

I agree with this.

  I think we think same way at many topics.
— Antinatalist

Most people do. Few, if any, truly speak the same 'language' though so we're necessarily at odds with each other to some degree. I find such conflict to be a primary reason for living.

Most so called 'negative' aspects of life are shunned when they should be embraced, and vice versa. A lot of what people wish for is actually nothing more than self-torture (ie. Freedom viewed as a happy bouncy castle of fluffy bunnies and joy ... NO NO NO! Not even slighty would pure freedom look liek that because Freedom comes with the heavy burden of responsibilty. Th more freedom you have the more responsible you are ... sounds good at first but after you really think about it do doubt you'll make do with taking on 'just as much freedom as I can handle and still live comfortably with'.

There is political storm now as always. Today though technologies have made us view this weather differently. It is becoming harder and harder for me to comprehend what I would've missed if I'd be born 20-30 years ago ... I basically left college around the time the internet was really becoming a social force (facebook was just flourishing). It is hard to notice what drips by with time, but the changes have been really phenomenal and I'm excited to see what happens next. I think the old poltical cycles are going to shift because the whole cognitive landscape of human interaction has startewd to shift a lot AND there is an even bigger thing on the way with CRISPR that will make the invention of the computer look like a mere blip in human history. — I like sushi

I am happy that I´m not young anymore. Although, the life I lived then was quite good, I mean post twenties.

Anyway, I'll start a thread up or you can about something else and see if we have anything worth disagreeing about ;)

Done here TRULY :D — I like sushi

Okay. :)

'Depriving' is the same as 'denying' basically. Both work fine ... I don't think they work for non-existing entitiesd though, but hey, if you do so be it. If that is a problem then you may not be taking the meaning/s of 'rights,' 'consent' and 'good'/'bad' seriously enough.

I know that I will not have a child in any circumstances.
— Antinatalist

You lack imagaination then ;) SURELY you can think of a possible (albeit highly unlikely reason for having a child?). The thrust of my point here, and often in this thread, being that extreme cases are useful to help sketch out a course of action for lesser degrees BUT they are not the sole reason for inking in a moral dictum ... things in reality are more messy/complex than we can often see. — I like sushi

I thought in early nineties the problem of procreation. And the basic principles, what I have presented here, were already in my thinking. I decided no to have child ever in my life, I thought it is a decision for someone´s whole life and I don´t have right to do so. I told my decision to someones, but they didn´t think that this kind of decision will last.
I didn´t tell the reason for my decision, but they think my decision might change, because I was so young then. In later years some of my friends questioned my decision, one woman said I would be a good father. Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn´t. It is not about that at all. Fifteen years ago I got sterilization (so for your natalists, this creature will not throw his possibly invalid genes to next generation :))
I have friends who have kids of their own, and I´m okay with that.

   Why favor life - pain and pleasure at its purest, leaving nothing out - over non-life (absence of pleasure and pain)?
— Antinatalist

   Wrong question to get a clear view imo. Yeah, I agree on the surface neither one or the other has presedence when you word it like that. Dig further and then say:

'Does something have precedence over nothing?'

This reveals the flaw. 'Nothing' is a slippery term too. Nothing does nothing and is neither important nor unimportant. Then, due to the diversity of the English language, we may equate 'nothing' with 'absence' ... this is certainly the only way we can understand it. The non-existing is not necessarily the same thing as 'absence' but we could call it 'nothing'. This is a completely different line of thought so I didn't go into it when 'ethics' was on the table.

In this instance we should really explicate what kind of 'absence'/'nothing' we're talking about. As far as I can see we're not talking about anything that make sense so I stated we cannot draw any reasonable judgement on it BUT we can most certainly pass judgement on individual cases (because we do). The universal law of 'Procreation is wrong' - in the antinalism position - makes no sense to me and many others because it rides on the back of too many assumptions that are not delved into by any great degree. — I like sushi

I have thought about this issue a lot. The concept of "nothing" and the limitations of natural language. In the nineties I read a statement from some philosopher, maybe Nietzsche (maybe not; I haven´t found the statement later in his works): "You can't criticize it from the inside". And that "it" is life. But I  think that statement does not stand up to closer scrutiny.

And we are making decisions all the time, which involves nothing/"nothing" or "absence of life".
Euthanasia is one example. Many people think that for some people euthanasia is the best option in some situation, and they don´t believe in afterlife. They think that this nothing/"nothing", which comes according to their point of view by way of euthanasia, is better/"better" for that person than her/his current life.

I think the question "Why favor life - pain and pleasure at its purest, leaving nothing out - over non-life (absence of pleasure and pain)?" is valid after all.

  The whole psychological machinations behind the glib terms of 'pleasure' and 'pain' has been given no due consideration in the extract you presented from Benatar. If there are bits you don't agree with that he says (I'm sure there are!) then look into how these points hold up the rest of whatever his argument is. I can say from my perspective, and many others, that I didn't even need to get to the end of the first sentence to question it. I read on hoping for a revelation but nothing came. I found avoidance and real investigation.

To the obvious ... if we feel 'pleasure' we do so because we know 'pain'. If we only feel 'pleasure' do we ONLY feel pleasure REALLY? Show me a person like this please. Plus, does such 'pleasure' necessarily mean this person is ... how should I put it ... 'happily striving through life'? I don't see why this would be so. I know from personal experience that anything I deem 'worthy' has required stress and hardship, and anything that falls in my lap through happenstance is just that. In terms of actually studies done on this matter we do know that we're essentially wired to claim authorship over what we perceived as positive outcomes and deny authorship for perceived negative outcomes. — I like sushi

I know this. I had couple of low level kickboxing matches in my youth (full contact not nowadays popular K 1, in "full contact" punches and kicks allowed only waist above and  I have couple of light contact matches, where the contact is limited). I wasn´t much of a fighter, but at the end the process of going through the pain was rewarding. The amount of suffering was not so much, in general - but without it the pleasure wouldn´t been so rewarding. And I find this rewarding feeling when I´m training others sports as well nowadays. Maybe I train wrongly (some say insane), but usually the exercise itself is not fun. The suffering of sports is definitely limited, of course there are some other much bigger obstacles - to which I personally may don´t have much of a relation - which will give you greater reward. But some pain is no way developing and have any positive outcomes. And I´m not talking about war zones or any situations like that.

  With such lived delusions and denials going on at various levels of cognition and conscious life I do not think talk of 'consent' to non-beings, OR actual beings, makes a whole lot of sense. Neither do I see a promulgation by an inept and limited being (ie. human being) holding to some universal ethic (whatever it is) makes any kind of sense. For specific INDIVIDUAL instances we can do better because we have more data to work with and can explore the possibles more readily.

Have you heard how the US Airforce tried to create a one size fits all seat for pilots? They took the average width, depth and height of pilot sizes and produce a one size fits all seat. Shock horror, it fit NO ONE. Same principle here. I cannot make sweeping statements about whether it is 'better' or 'worse' (if I followed the antinatalist pattern) to have a child because I am not privy to the live sof every human that has lived. As mentioned previously, I am fairly damn sure that most people prefer to live than to die (and that most if not all consider suicide at some point to some degree). This leaves ONLY the question of 'right' to bring life into the world ... that is just a silly idea. I could ask anyone about their right to do anything or think anything and they may also ask what right they have to ask about their right to do anything and so on ... pointless. — I like sushi

I think we think same way at many topics. However, we evaluate quite differently the rights and the totality of life, the question of starting the new life of someone else .

  "Rights" are social apparatus hewn over human sociological evolution. They are tied to laws and ideas of 'universal rights' ... no sorry, not for me. Not to say I am not influenced by them I am not that naive. This brings me right back to my main point about the whole body of ethics ... it is not really a matter of what I pronounce and show in the public sphere (ie. here).

We've created ideas of justice and rights in order to live together/apart in a society. I don't think every person requires as much social interaction as others and this can cause great suffering and great pleasure. Neither is BAD or GOOD, but the fact that I exist is something I value because I cannot value not existing because I cannot take part in the act of valuing anything if I don't exist and I take great pleasure and pain in exploring the world. — I like sushi

Rights, as you describe them, are social structures. And some theorists derive them from some concept of universal rights, etc. I think you may value not existing in some situation, where the burden of life is too much.

  I don't buy into any 'moral' gibberish about empathy toward non-existing persons or pathetic excuses for shirking responsibility. The Trolley Problem is exactly what this shows in some people. A great many will happily do nothing regardless of pain or suffering OR they just flat out refuse the hypothetical as a hypothetical and childishly avoid the personal task at hand out of ignorance/stupidity (as I used to).

WHo am I to judge you may ask? I am me ... so fucking what?

I hope you would make a choice in the Trolley problem rather than not think at all. I do have a sneaking suspicion you may refuse the problem though and instead equate it with my 'denial' of your antinatalist view of 'right to procreate' but they are not the same thing at all because one is plain English and the other is not far from saying 'Purple under the Tuesday smell of square farts' which is as a grammatical construct is fine, but in terms of meaning requires leaps in metaphor and guesswork.

We only know dark gray and light gray. Don't mistaken them for imagined black or white. We can only stumble around in the degree of shade and light and be thankful when lighter times come about.

Anyway, I'm writing for me without anyone's consent ;) I am TRULY done here but if you wish to start another thread about something un/related that has as much work put into it as your OP here then I will at least read it.

It's been useful to me. Good thread :) — I like sushi

The question of ´right to procreate´ is plain English.


Do you mean by "Trolley problem" this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

If so, I thought this in 2011. My intuitive answer was then:

Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

But nowadays I´ve been thinking my decision was wrong.
On the surface, at least, my answer to the question seems utilitarian.

But counter argue my point of view, go ahead.
But now I HAVE TO GO UNDER THE BAR, GO TO SQUATTING, to the gym.
I should have gone already yesterday, but this site took all my time.

Antinatalist Your summary is incorrect. I've stated this in the last post I made yet you've interpreted it some other way. I think it's only fair to reiterate ...

1) I put forward that the absence of pleasure deletes pain. They are NOT binary either or concepts. Less pleasure is bad and less pain is good (VERY generally speaking). Generally in the sense tat I've put forward before, pain can be useful and pleasure can be useless/detrimental, but in colloquial terms we can run with one being viewed as 'better' and the other as 'worse' in the immediate NOW experiencing of them. — I like sushi

I agree that pain can be useful and sometimes essential in life, and pleasure can be useless/detrimental. So, it is necessary to define how I use ´pain´ and ´pleasure´. Pain is something bad itself, it does not have any accidental (term from Paul Virilio) good points - or they are so minor that they don't really matter. Pleasure is something purely good, without any unwanted accidental part - or they are so minor that they don't really matter. Real life contains all aspects of pain and pleasure. Those that you mentioned and those that I mentioned.

  2) I've stated that there is no one to give consent and that even an existing child in today's world is not deemed self-reflective enough for more matured humans to ask for consent about how they live their lives etc.,. Besides that, from teh get go I clearly stated that the idea of 'right' or 'wrong' was nonsensical but I just stepped past that fo the sake of the discussion (I did state this at the start of our exchange).

My answer regarding euthanasia was carefully worded and not universally applicable ethical law. You shouldn't have a hard time rereading that and retracting your thoughts about what I said. I would absolutely not just agree to anyone saying they wished to die. It would be inhuman to hand a gun to someone having a rough time so they can shoot themselves in the head if they are not in control of their our thoughts/actions due to despair (that was all I meant). From there I just extrapolated to what was most likely and concluded that most people wishing to take their lives are not exactly in a cool calm state of mind. — I like sushi

Okay. I understand your point of view. I find both acts, this so called "euthanasia"  and having a child immoral. I know that I will not have a child in any circumstances.

  I don't particularly value consent in every sinngle action I may wish to take. Why should I? I believe being generally polite is enough and I certainly don't go around asking people if they are okay with me doing x or y. I'm not that insecure anymore, but I'm not exactly inconsiderate either. The most important person to ask for consent from is myself (which involves self-restraint and negotiation and sacrifice).  — I like sushi

In my point of view, the decision  to have a child is such a severe and serious issue, that the impossibility to have a consent makes the decision of having a child wrong. You think differently, and the impossibility to have the consent in this case is irrelevant for you. You think that procreation is right anyway.

  If you want empirical and rational reasons for valuing life over non-life go look for them. I think the question is kind of redundant myself so I don't bother too much with it anymore, but I have before. At the end of the day you just have to come to your own messy place in your head - as we all do - and focus on something you deem worthy of your time and dedication (maybe have a child?). WHat is more important after all as you stated yourself ;) — I like sushi

Like I said before I will never have a child, and reasons you sure know. I try to find happiness and interesting issues from somewhere else.

  3) That was just to point out that if one wished to reduce human suffering annihilating the human race would be a sure fire way of doing so and putting an end to the 'endless cycle of pain' as those buddhist types put it. No need to get so dramatic becaus eyou think you've foudn my evil bone :D — I like sushi

Reducing human suffering is a great thing, but not by any means.

  4) I am not that keen on rephrasing either so perhaps reread:

  You are not in any position to judge and for you that is enough because you believe that pain outweighs pleasure, or rather that it is not worth the risk just incase it does because absence of pleasure is not that big of a deal and that our natural 'loss aversion' (pain) is convincing enough for you to declare that although the pain is the same 'amount' compared to 'pleasure' we feel the pain more strongly so ALL life is essentially skewed toward a life of pain rather than one of pleasure.
— I like sushi

I even offered up some possible evidence to back up your position. I'm not in a position to judge either - regarding any pain vs pleasure analysis - with any kind of accuracy. I am in a position to say that 'pain' and 'pleasure' are basically one and the same, so I would question the point of the question in the first place (as stated from the get go). — I like sushi

Conclusion of your last sentence, ´pain´ and ´pleasure´ are basically one and the same. I suppose, you accept the statement that life contains both (of course you said this in many posts, also), by your own definition of them (because they are the same thing).
And non-life, by definition, does not contain pain and pleasure.

So, there is the new question, or as matter in fact the original one (it is too difficult for people in my experience, it´s from the nineties):
Why favor life - pain and pleasure at its purest, leaving nothing out - over non-life (absence of pleasure and pain)?

  FINAL point before we part ways for now ...

Benatar's point not mine. I was just stating 'depriving someone of pain' is his focus (and he says so). Why not focus on 'depriving some non-existing person of pleasure'. Because it doesn't suit the argument. It is done very superficially in the quote you presented.
— I like sushi
 
I am not linguistic, but ´depriving some non-existing person of pleasure´ does not make sense.
— Antinatalist

Yeah, doesn't make much sense. Yet Benatar talks like this. He says depriving someone of pain (someone who doesn't exist).

FIN :) see you around — I like sushi

I certainly am not an expert of the English language, but ´depriving someone of pain´ could be still an understandable sentence, at least if you mean "preventing someone of pain", even when that "someone" will not yet exist - and because of that prevention that "someone" will never exist. This makes sense to me. But ´depriving some non-existing person of pleasure´ does not make sense. If you mean by "depriving" "taking away".

Kill everyone then. That way all harm will cease to exist. Auschwitz every last person alive ... it doesn't matter because once they're gone they won't be around to cry about the suffering. Nothing will matter because for humanity there will be nothing given our exitinction ... the MAIN prionciple of an antinatalist is to rile against existence. The main points is that both existing and new life is bad.
— I like sushi

This is kind of my first-glance impression of what anti-natalism seems to be or at least will inevitably lead to as well. Am I incorrect, Antinatalist? How so? — Outlander

I will answer you the same way I answered to ´I like sushi´.
I don´t think that even the most extreme pro-mortalist will kill another human beings. I respect human´s life and sovereignty, and I don´t have any right to terminate another person's life. YOU ARE MAKING AN INSANE LEAP, WHICH DON'T FOLLOW MY ANTINATALISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

Basically if new life happens say unplanned pregnancy regardless of circumstances surrounding it "oh well, we'll let it slide", or at an extreme only if the child is born in an uneducated society where enlightenment, knowledge, and morality simply isn't available or the rare occasion when a medical abortion would be hazardous to the health of the mother, but purposefully doing so (procreating) is immoral. Something like that? What scenario would be valid or is it just as simple as the point you summarized earlier, being "creating life where harm is possible is immoral" thus not explicitly saying any of the things mentioned or alluded to but definitely implying them. — Outlander

I consider purposeful procreating immoral. I have mentioned my grounding and reasoning in my original text and also in my previous post to ´I like sushi´.

Secondly: I use at the end of this article the concept of  the "potential person" slightly different as R.M. Hare does. My statement is that ´potential person´ has not right to be born, but it has right not to be born. 
— Antinatalist

  The potential person may have rights, but how would you or anyone else know what they are, or what their preference is. Further, it is not a potential person before it is a potential person. — tim wood

I agree with the previous sentence.

Ante, there ain't no it. And further, reproduction is something people do as what they are. Your argument appears to be along the lines of it being just plain wrong to be what we are. But being, both generally and particularly, is a given. Being cannot be wrong. — tim wood

As a matter of fact being alive can be wrong - but that is not the view I present. Some people do, and they may make suicide because of that. Reproduction is a perfectly natural human act. But what is natural or what is not, is irrelevant about its rightness or wrongness.

  I have to take antinatalism as a dishonest philosophy. It does not fit the account to reality, rather bends the reality to the account. I call that a lie. — tim wood

Where exactly is the lie of antinatalism?

"However, I accept a point of view that for some human being life could be a better option than non-being. But we could never reach any kind of certainty at any case, any circumstances, at any place that life is better for any unborn, potential person."
But this fact, it could be a better option than non-being, does not justify the act of having a child.
— Antinatalist

Neither does it not justify the act of having a child. It's not an argument just an empty statement about something we don't know. — I like sushi

No, it does not justify in itself, and I´m not saying that is an argument. I have mentioned reasons for my argument before so I didn't like to rephrase myself, but let´s repeat them here:

"The basic argument is as follows:we have no moral right to cause something that radically changes the existence  of another individual or –  to be more precise: from non-existence to existence or vice versa (in other words, from a non-individual/+ non-existence into existence or vice versa is also regarded as a change here), or to directly affect the existence of another human being if it is not possible to hear this individual in the matter.

And one foundation of this argument: In case A does not have a child – and the consequence of this choice is that a greater bad will take place than in the event of A having a child – A will still not have actively influenced the occurrence of this bad. Let us now assume the opposite: A has a child, and the consequence of this choice is that a greater bad will take place than in the event of A not having a child. In this case, it is unquestionably clear that A has actively affected the materialization of this bad."

There underlies the fact that somebody not existing has no needs, so absence of good is not a bad thing. It perhaps is not a "good" thing, but at least it is a neutral thing. Absence of bad is good even if there is nobody enjoying it. Presence of bad is bad, that will be quite clear. I don´t understand how you don´t get this. — Antinatalist

 

  I get it. I just think it is a very blinkered view and ignore that the opposite position is equally as 'justified'. Why don't you see the absence of pleasure as bad is the key point here. You've not answered probably because you cannot. Neither have you responded to the lesser or larger degree position because you can happily avoid it by jumping to the complete absence of either with some imaginary non-existing person. Mental hoodwinking yourself doesn't mean it will work on me. — I like sushi

 

Do you really think that way? — Antinatalist

 

 Do I really think that less 'pleasure' is bad and less 'pain' is good? Of course, who doesn't!? — I like sushi

 

My question was: Do you really think that absence of pleasure is as bad as that presence of pain?
The asymmetry argument is not the only one, whom you can justify antinatalism. But I think it is a really strong one. But if you are not convinced by human history, it could be that nothing can convince you.

   The only reason you may not is because of the rather slippery terms 'pleasure' and 'pain' which I've previously stated I'm not exactly comfortable with using in this given context as they are far too broad and open to multiple interpretations. — I like sushi

 

They can, of course, be interpreted many ways, I'm not denying that. If you find this a problem, describe the way you use it.

  I don´t see any thing, which are perceived as enjoyable, happy etc.. could ever balance the badness of Auschwitzes. — Antinatalist

 

You sound like a 'utilitarian'. Irony? — I like sushi

 

My point of view may seem at some point even utilitarian. I am not, I am anti-utilitarian.
I find one innocent human life - her/his sovereignty for her/his life and ability to suffer and also feel pleasure - so important that nothing can balance that, to use the somewhat utilitarian concept of "balance". Auschwitz is an extreme example, but you answer this with disregard.

  We are living now. We can make decisions for the future. And we know the pain and pleasure are things the possible upcoming child is most likely to face. I surely can think of a universe without human beings, and a universe without life at all. — Antinatalist

  

  They will certainly face both. It is not merely 'likely'. Speaking personally I've felt more positive about life than not overall. I understand 'pain' is necessary and I'm not bitter about it any more than I'm angry at the Sun for rising everyday without my express permission (because such would be plain silly).

And no you cannot anymore than you can imagine what bat thinks because you cannot think outside of your own head so don't fool yourself into thinking you can. We are unable to think of nothing in any pure sense - that is actually something Kant pointed out. — I like sushi

 

In the end, reality in its purest sense is unreachable, and it is unreachable to know what feels to be another human being or animal, I agree. But that doesn´t prevent us from making moral judgments and decisions. You yourself make them when you are saying having a child is not wrong.

   This is one thing we agree on, at least. — Antinatalist

 And so is the presence of 'pleasure' because they are essentially the same item on a spectrum. Why on earth you decide to focus on the 'given' nature of 'pain' over 'pleasure' you'll have to figure out for yourself. — I like sushi

 

Empathy, maybe.

  You simply do not get it, the main principle for antinatalism is: you can not do harm someone who does not exist. — Antinatalist

 

  Kill everyone then. That way all harm will cease to exist. Auschwitz every last person alive ... it doesn't matter because once they're gone they won't be around to cry about the suffering. Nothing will matter because for humanity there will be nothing given our exitinction ... the MAIN prionciple of an antinatalist is to rile against existence. The main points is that both existing and new life is bad. You stated you are not this though so I'm puzzled why you carry the fight for an argument you don't fully agree with - an argument that at it's heart is completely nonsensical. — I like sushi

 

I don´t think that even the most extreme pro-mortalist will kill another human beings. I respect human´s life and sovereignty, and I don´t have any right to terminate another person's life. YOU ARE MAKING AN INSANE LEAP, WHICH DON'T FOLLOW MY ANTINATALISTIC PHILOSOPHY.

  The only value it has is to instill a question in people about the responsibility people have for themselves and others. Generally though, those putting the argument forward do a terrible job of making this clear and/or resort to pure logic and ignore the subjectivity of such matters. — I like sushi

 

If there is objective morality, I don´t think humans could reach that kind of phase. But that does not have to cause neglect for moral questions.

     You simply do not get it, the main principle for antinatalism is: you can not do harm someone who does not exist. It is a very different case, when someone is already born and living in this world. On cowardness, I'm pretty sure I find it more on natalists, natalism is, after all, far more socially acceptable ideology than antinatalism. As an antinatalist, you are a rebel. And not that kind of "rebel" you find on mainstream movies or some MTV videos, which were watched when I was young. — Antinatalist

 

  I get it. I just strongly disagree with it because it is a myopic view. I am NOT saying having children is better than not, I'm saying we have literally no way of coming to any reasonable conclusion one way or the other. We know we do what we do and nature is nature. Beyond that we're essentially along for the ride. Judging that lack of pain is better than a lack of pleasure is the heart of the argument. It will remain a purely subjective one from any individual perspective.

The main point is that there is no conclusive evidence either way but by all means go ahead and think what you want. I am inclined to care about HOW you think not really WHAT you think. By this I mean if you cannot argue against your own beliefs then you've missed something.

Doubt is our saviour not rigid reason or ethical drivel. — I like sushi

 

My basic premise is to question my own thinking. I have stated that asymmetry argument is not the only reason for antinatalism (look to the beginning of this post).

  Regarding bravery. Being a rebel does not equate to brave. Bravery is facing a fear - ie. having a child and excepting the responsibility that entails rather than avoiding it due to fear - bravery would be to willingly do the right thing regardless of the personal harm it causes to you AND, in a purer sense, to do so without any other person's knowledge of what you'd done. — I like sushi

 

On bravery, in trivial (almost) everyday situations which many antinatalists have to face, set them out of the social community. This is a personal harm. Of course not all social communication will lead to this, but some will. I think quite similarly of bravery as you, and I have to admit that I don´t think most of those situations will cause fear. But I think some do, when you are about 1-20 -situations arguing against potentially violent people. At least for some antinatalists, I believe.

  The above is where my interest in ethics lies. Everything everyone says about any ethical issue is mostly hollow and empty. Meaning no matter what we say in the public sphere we cannot escape the ego and self-hoodwinking involved. We cannot explore the really gritty and dark sides of ourselves in the public eye because it is shunned. The best we can do is throw out certain hypotheticals and encourage people to play with them and make them into their own personal monstrosities. Again, the benefit is enormous BUT so i sthe risk. The question remains how on earth we can make any kind of judgement about what is going too far and what is too little. This is PRECISELY where the dualistic items of 'pain' and 'pleasure' presented in this thread come into fruitition. — I like sushi

 

   As a matter of fact it is not depriving anything for anybody, because there is nobody existing. — Antinatalist

 

  Benatar's point not mine. I was just stating 'depriving someone of pain' is his focus (and he says so). Why not focus on 'depriving some non-existing person of pleasure'. Because it doesn't suit the argument. It is done very superficially in the quote you presented. — I like sushi

 
I am not linguistic, but ´depriving some non-existing person of pleasure´ does not make sense.

   Miscarry could be tragic, but those who we see suffering from it are usually the parents of the potential child. It is more about  the expectations of the parents than missing the life of the possible upcoming child. — Antinatalist

 

  I think I'll call the aboive clutching at straws because it doesn't make any sense. Check you've not talked yourself into a corner please. Just for the record I have experienced this personally but didn't want to divulge that to avoid vapid sympathy. And I do think from time to time about what someone who never exists misses out on (and I'm not talking about 'pain'). — I like sushi

 

My point is the potential child does not suffer. If it's already sentient being at the time of miscarriage it surely can suffer.

note: Benatar said people don't do this. Probably because he doesn't? I cannot blame him for being lazy I guess. It is what it is. — I like sushi

 

Benatar is not on the line. I don´t know about his reasoning.

  If you try to attack the asymmetry argument, the different situation for your example above, is that in your example there are living people, who could feel the loss of something good and possibly feel grief from that.
— Antinatalist — I like sushi

 

  I didn't attack it. I just dismantled it with ease. — I like sushi

 

In your dreams, perhaps. Asymmetry argument says that absence of pain is good, absence of pleasure is neutral. It is fully compatible with the example of your previous post. The grief, sorrow and sense of missing someone are feelings of some existing creature. Not feelings of someone nonexistent.

   If you wish to imagine a world of non-existing people as an argument do ahead and fool yourself. His point boils down to absence of pain is better than the presence of pleasure (with no explanation that of substance). Your argument has now done the nihilistic/buddhist trick of over stating none of it really matters if no one can be around to experience ... so fucking what? I'll tell you! Then the whole 'ethics' of it is utterly redundant ... that isn't a reasonable argument so there is in fact NO argument to be had here. We may as well argue that green smells better than red in midsummer when the kettle is flying east. — I like sushi

You´re thinking backwards. Ethics is the concept of humans, but in the heart of ethics is not the axiom that there has to be human life, or life at all.  If you mean that, when there is no life, we don´t need ethics, then you are right.

  The position is that (Benatar) pain bad and pleasure not good enough. The first step toward nihilism/buddhism. The first step towards denying repsonsibility, having excemption from your actions and giving up your will to do anything about anything. It is cowardice AND it is a cowardice we HAVE TO dip into at some point in our lives in order to carrying the wonderul/scary burden of existing with aplume. — I like sushi

You reject Benatar´s argument. You take for granted that absence of pleasure is as bad - if not more bad - than presence of pain. You don´t present an argument, you just say so.

On responsibility and on cowardice. I don´t think that a human being in all of its capableness and incapableness is capable enough to take responsibility for having a child. Okay, people would say so. Most will. Talk is cheap. Look around, look at the human. Humans surely breed, but where is the responsibility?
You can talk about responsibility; it is not responsible to have a child and then try to take care of them.
It is least what parents have to do, but is simply is not enough - because of pure essence of existence.
Of course most parents will care about their children and try to nurture them the best way, but that just is not enough. Even the best parents in all their nobleness are humans, not gods - they are not gods or some other supernatural creatures who could prevent things like Auschwitz, for example, on their own.
They make a risky decision, but the risks will fall on the child.

You mentioned in some of your previous posts, that having a child is something similar to peeing etc. Okay, I agree, it is natural. Perfectly natural, atavistic urge. To do like humans have always done. Some would call this cowardice.

   Like I said before, my antinatalism is grounded on the fact that having a child is a decision for someone else´s life, whose consent we can not have. The fact that consent is impossible to have, doesn´t make the decision right. It is a decision for someone else´s whole life, it is not a trivial "cross a road or not" kind of decision. — Antinatalist

  Well then, it's a pretty unstable grounding don't you think? You are happy to talk about living people when it suits and understand perfectly well that non-existing items don't exist, yet you say 'consent' is required for something that doesn't exist? That is complete nonsense! — I like sushi

It is not nonsense, when there is no consent, then the act of having a child should not be done.

  There is no 'consent' and that doesn't make the decision right or wrong, good or bad. Why on earth do you insist that it can be right or wrong? I'm sure your answer will go along the lines of 'because of pain,' to which I could just keep repeating myself by saying what about 'pleasure' and the almost certain fact that the vast majority of people living are quite capable and excepting of the fact that life is not just a happy go lucky experience of eternal bliss. Shit happens, and that's not the end of the world beleive it or not. Some people will have more misfortune than others, but that is just entropy at work it is NOT a valid reason to cut away the pleasure of one because of the pain of another when both of these items are one and the same thing at heart. — I like sushi

Your point of view seems something amoral, pre-moral, something in an ancient natural state, where the creatures living there are not capable of being moral at all. Your point of view seems also the point of a benevolent human being, who thinks the suffering in all its extremeness is that´s part of the picture, an accidental side. Which doesn't really matter.

   You are not in any position to judge and for you that is enough because you believe that pain outweighs pleasure, or rather that it is not worth the risk just incase it does because absence of pleasure is not that big of a deal and that our natural 'loss aversion' (pain) is convincing enough for you to declare that although the pain is the same 'amount' compared to 'pleasure' we feel the pain more strongly so ALL life is essentially skewed toward a life of pain rather than one of pleasure.

That I could understand. Any and everything else you've said doesn't add up, presents a one-sided argument, or just contradicts itself. I like contradictions though :) They are usually where the meat is. — I like sushi

There is more in my argument than just the "pain". You don't have presented a single contradiction. From highly biased, natural natalistic attitude my point of view may seem one-sided.

Thansk again. I think I'm done here. Hope you have got something from this

bye bye — I like sushi

Summary:

1) You don´t think that absence of pain is more important than the presence of pleasure.

2) You don´t think that impossibility to have the consent of a possibly upcoming child makes the decision of having a child wrong.
Your answer for the so called euthanasia -question is that you favor having a child more ethical than giving an euthanasia to person who asks it once.
It seems like you don´t give much of value on consent in general.
There seem underlie an non-reasoning statement value life over non-life, regardless of consent of objects of the acts (having a child over only once asked euthanasia). This attitude is natural, but its foundation seems religional. What are the empirical or rational reasons to value life over non-life?

3) I hope you are not serious, but if you are, your reaction "Kill everyone then" tells you don´t really understand what antinatalism is. It certainly is not to kill others, its voluntary refusal of having a child.

4) Your statement that I am not in a position to judge, but you are judging my point of view. Perhaps not in itself paradoxical, but when making out everything what you have said is at least a bit strange.


And if that is really bye bye, I hope you have a good life. That is not sarcasm; when you are still here, make the most of it. Thank for your time and effort. :)
 

Do you think is more ethical to have a child than give euthanasia for some healthy human being, who just one time asks it (and that´s just all you know about that person)?
— Antinatalist

I'm not really into some 'ethic law' so to speak. That aside, as stated before, it would depend on individual circumstances. That is the crux of it. Universal ethics is not realistic and is usually found buried in mass religious circles.

Not to avoid the hypothetical (if I was in a position to force open over the other) then I'd say having a child is 'better'. Here it is based almost entirely on reason though. The child doesn't exist so isn't suicidal, yet the person wishing to die (with no knowledge of the situation) is more than likely just in a depressive slump because that is more common than someone actually deciding to end their life due to severe illness or because they've reasoned that they are better off dead for whatever reason.

Remember though, I don't view this anything like you do and have seemingly very different impressions and experiences of what 'happy,' 'pain,' 'pleasure,' 'ethics' and such terms mean. — I like sushi

I wrote on my original text:


"Let us assume that an adult human being seems to outsiders in their right minds to be willing to die and to clearly and unambiguously state “Kill me!” Is this sufficient justification for killing this human being?

Juridically surely not, but what about ethically?
In my opinion, NO. I believe that a vast majority of people hopefully agrees with my view (even though this is no basis for justifying the value of the action).

Nonetheless, in the above example case, the actor has more information on the tendencies of the object of the action than in the example on bringing about life – i.e. in the active deed that aims at creating a new human being, a child. Hence, there is some information available on the desires and intentions of the object of "mercy killing". As for the object of conception, there is no information available on the desires of the (forthcoming) individual. This is also true in the likely case of the (intended) object of the action not existing yet. The fact that it is impossible to have this information when creating new life (having a child) does not change our diverging epistemic attitudes in any way.

Hence, we cannot know whether it is better to be than not to be."

Antinatalist and I like sushi, just wanted to mention that it looks like you may be going down the same road I had previously in this thread and in my previous thread about "No options" and Most people". You are even mentioning degrees and such. That doesn't mean you don't have to go through the dialectic as I think it's important to work out, but just wanted to provide it for a reference. I'd like to add the idea of "trivial harm" vs. "non-trivial harm". Trivial harm would be things like getting a papercut from a friend giving you a five dollar bill. Non-trivial harm are burdens one would not want, even if one looked back and was okay later on. It's things to a degree of threshold that they are no longer practically negligent to consider anymore. I think the main argument that can made for AN here is that:

Creating conditions for unnecessary, non-trivial harms for others is wrong (or negligent). From here, as long as we agree on the terms, AN has good footing to stand on. Coupled with this idea is Benatar's argument that harm is indeed more important to consider in procreation decisions. He relies on our own intuitions. For example, we seem to care more if people are suffering on deserted planets than we would care that "No one exists to be happy!". It seems to be neutral, not really worthy of moral consideration, to have no happy people. It does seem to be "bad" to have unhappy or suffering people, however. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I have to check your previous threads.

You seem to enjoy being alive. If even not for the sole purpose to convince others otherwise. I'm trying to tread carefully here but, look at your argument from an outside perspective. — Outlander

I´m an antinatalist, not pro-mortalist. And even when I live happy, enjoyable life, I don´t think I have right to reproduce. Am I happy or not, is irrelevant for this decision.

Antinatalist Mean to have written NOT even slightly convinced by it.

NOTE: Anyone else reading these are NOT quotes from Antinatalist they are from David Benatar.

I'll break it down best I can ...

The absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure is not bad. Therefore, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation.
— Antinatalist

Why not absence of either is impossible in life? Why not 'the absence of either pleasure or pain is not bad'? The absence of pain/pleasure is a given in a non-existing individual. Also, lacking pleasure is not exactly what I'd call 'not bad' if the opposite argument is that lacking pain is 'good'.

Let us view this differently ... less pain is better and less pleasure is worse. I think we can all agree with that.

So we can see that the 'ethical conclusion' (a nonsense term in my view for the most part) of favouring non-procreation is based on premises set up from a biased position, or rather a singular perspective.

The conslusion I come to from the opening paragraph is that existence is bad. You said you didn't believe that so you're probably not convinced by this kind of antinatalism in reality (do doubt there are various sectionings of this philosophical position?). — I like sushi

I wrote in my original text:
"However, I accept a point of view that for some human being life could be a better option than non-being. But we could never reach any kind of certainty at any case, any circumstances, at any place that life is better for any unborn, potential person."
But this fact, it could be a better option than non-being, does not justify the act of having a child. 

  We have a moral obligation not to create unhappy people and we have no moral obligation to create happy people. The reason why we think there is a moral obligation not to create unhappy people is that the presence of this suffering would be bad (for the sufferers) and the absence of the suffering is good (even though there is nobody to enjoy the absence of suffering).
— Antinatalist — I like sushi

  The above is purely based of what I consider to be singular and unconvincing premises. If the foundation is flawed the conclusion is not going to be of any use. The process can be interesting though so I'll follow it through ...

For starters, why does he assume we're morally obliged to 'create' people without pain and suffering yet doesn't think we're morally obliged to 'create' happy people? That seems like a cognitive bias to push forward his unfounded conclusion. As an opinion it doesn't quite stand up to scrutiny yet. 

It looks like he's saying gray is more black than white. — I like sushi

There underlies the fact that somebody not existing has no needs, so absence of good is not a bad thing. It perhaps is not a "good" thing, but at least it is a neutral thing. Absence of bad is good even if there is nobody enjoying it. Presence of bad is bad, that will be quite clear. I don´t understand how you don´t get this.

  By contrast, the reason we think there is no moral obligation to create happy people is that although their pleasure would be good for them, the absence of pleasure when they do not come into existence will not be bad, because there will be no one who will be deprived of this good.
— Antinatalist — I like sushi

  Why? Because he says so? I think the mental hoodwinking going on here is confusing 'degrees' of pleasure and pain with some imaginary absolute.

As I stated previous less pleasure is bad and less pain is good. A lack of either, or will to lack either, is where nihilism and what I frame as 'buddhist mentality' collide. They are in denial of existing and or against existence - and often abstain from any idea of free will too. We can see this is the end of the sentence above where non-existence is placed above existence. And as I've stated a lack of 'pleasure' is bad in my eyes just as 'pain' is bad (using the terms in the broadest sense here rather than bothering with gettin into all that). — I like sushi

Do you really think that way?

Theodor Adorno once said:
“It would be advisable to think of progress in the crudest, most basic terms: that no one should go hungry anymore, that there should be no more torture, no more Auschwitz. Only then will the idea of progress be free from lies.”
― Theodor W. Adorno

What does this mean? What are the consequences of that "no more Auschwitz"?
I once thought "pro life, pro concentration camps". I was wrong, it was just a thought - and I didn't thought that way deep inside me. But I was at least partly right at that thought.
But still, what is the only sure way to prevent things like Auschwitz ever to exist? It is to stop procreating. When there is no life, there are no concentration camps.

That sounds extreme. And I´m the first to admit, it is. It is extreme. But that is the only sure way to prevent horrors of Auschwitz and other horrors like it.

I don´t see any thing, which are perceived as enjoyable, happy etc could ever balance the badness of Auschwitzes.

 It is strange to mention the interests of a potential child as a reason why we decide to create them, and it is not strange to mention the interests of a potential child as a reason why we decide not to create them.
— Antinatalist — I like sushi

  FIrst question here is why? If we have a moral obligation to a potential child surely we need to take into account what the life of such a child could be like and how readily armed we believe we are to 'give them' (probably better to say, 'set them up for') a life they won't wish they'd ever lived. Nothing 'strange' there?

Maybe he is just referring to how people generally consider the responsibility of having children here? If so considering the downfalls isn't a steadfast peice of evidence for his argument. For people who enjoy life they wish to share it. Who better to share this perspective with than a new life. Makes perfect sense.

As previously stated we know that humans are overly optimistic in one sense yet there is pretty good evidence that we are, to put it simply, more 'loss adverse' than 'gain seeking'. It might be too much of a leap for some to parallel this with 'pain' and 'pleasure' as those are very loaded terms. In the realm of this discussion though I think it is more than worth consideration.

Next bit is a willful ignorance of 'worse'/'better' in favour of monadic 'good'/'bad' concepts ...

If it were the case that the absence of pleasure is bad even if someone does not exist to experience its absence, then we would have a significant moral reason to create a child and to create as many children as possible. And if it were not the case that the absence of pain is good even if someone does not exist to experience this good, then we would not have a significant moral reason not to create a child.
— Antinatalist

Why? The absence of either means no more humans. I have no qualms with humanity to the point where I'd wish the existence of humanity away merely because I don't understand the ins and outs of the universe at large.

If there is no one to experience it then ... well, it's a pointless discussion that we cannot have because we're existing/living. Just like I cannot think outside of myself I cannot think outside of existence. These are quite basic principles in mainstream philosophy ... or so I thought :D — I like sushi

We are living now. We can make decisions for the future. And we know the pain and pleasure are things the possible upcoming child is most likely to face. I surely can think of a universe without human beings, and a universe without life at all.

About that what Benatar says about what is strange and what is not when discussing the purpose of having a child, I´m not sure about that. Perhaps it is the way people usually state their reasons. But most likely, I think, is so as Benatar has argued, someone who doesn´t exist, does not have interests. But again, if the child is born, she/he then have interests/needs.

  Someday we can regret for the sake of a person whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we created them – a person can be unhappy and the presence of their pain would be a bad thing.
— Antinatalist — I like sushi

NO NO NO! The presence of pain is a given. No one can live a life absent of pain. The presence of pain means they live. — I like sushi

This is one thing - "The presence of pain means they live" - agree on, at least.

the DEGREE of pain is the moral issue being avoided here from what I can tell. This likely because when you dig in far enough some extrememly disturbing truths surface and most sane people shun them.

eg. How many people would you kill to save 1 million strangers? Let us assume such and such a person thinks one, then we shift the question about torturing them to death over decades ... would we rather kill two instantly than torturing one for decades? — I like sushi

These are the things we have to deal with, when there is human life. When there is not, we don´t have to. My view is antinatalistic, not pro-mortalist. I am in favor of voluntary extinction. You yourself don´t favor absence of bad over presence of good. Some people - if not most - want to blame antinatalists with all kinds of accusations, but your view on life sounds kind of terroristic. To sacrifice some people for Greater Good.

  The point being here NOT to make public statements about these kind of thoughts but to get to the most honest heart of yourself about how and what you feel about this then try to draw some loose conclusions from it.

You will hopefully find that all life is equal is not where you go at the end of the day. I'm not of the camp that not all lives are worth living (who am I to say!), but I readily accept that some lives must, almost certainly, be more worth living than others. Given that we only ever get to appreciate such a question at or aroundb our demise with any real kind of perspective - and an extrememly limited singular one - passing universal judgements over what lives are and aren't worth living seems quite naive/perverse. THAT is literally the only opening for an antinatalist doctrine I can establish, but it is far from convincing for all the above points made and many more I've not gotten into yet. — I like sushi

Antinatalism can be grounded on Kantian ethics or negative utilitarianism, at least.

  Someday we can regret for the sake of a person whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we created them – a person can be unhappy and the presence of their pain would be a bad thing. But we will never feel regret for the sake of a person whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we did not create them – a person will not be deprived of happiness, because he or she will never exist, and the absence of happiness will not be bad, because there will be no one who will be deprived of this good.
— Antinatalist — I like sushi

  Sounds like cowardice diguised as moral dignity. Shirking any ounce of responsibility towards others is just that. I'm not going to offer to help that person in the street because I might cause them harm ... this is precisely where an item common;ly referred to as 'wisdom' comes into play. I think the ancient Greeks did pretty well in marking out the grounds about 'bravery,' foolhardy' and other such psyhcological categories of human behaviour. — I like sushi

You simply do not get it, the main principle for antinatalism is: you can not do harm someone who does not exist. It is a very different case, when someone is already born and living in this world. On cowardness, I'm pretty sure I find it more on natalists, natalism is, after all, far more socially acceptable ideology than antinatalism. As an antinatalist, you are a rebel. And not that kind of "rebel" you find on mainstream movies or some MTV videos, which were watched when I was young.

    Abstaining is all too often pedestalled as moral. I don't buy it. Also, as mentioned by others as an argument about a purely 'parental spective' the above is extremely selfish in terms of avoiding responsibility. you may very well be 'dripriving a possible human of happiness' but this is somehow okay in balanced to 'depriving them of pain' ... just silly imo. — I like sushi

As a matter of fact it is not depriving anything for anybody, because there is nobody existing.

    We feel sadness by the fact that somewhere people come into existence and suffer, and we feel no sadness by the fact that somewhere people did not come into existence in a place where there are happy people.
— Antinatalist — I like sushi

  Nope! We do, we just don't tend to consider it because it isn't a day to day thought. I'm sure many couples who've experienced miscarraiges would quite clearly state that the above is nonsense. We can also, I'm sure, appreciate that when someone we know has died (no longer 'existing') we wish they could 'be there for this/that'.

You could well argue that these people 'existed' but I'm not sure how this works for a miscarriage as that is more or less the idea of someone coming to exist. For those dead it is similar in that they did exist but don't any longer, so it is a 'potential' (albeit an unrealistic 'potential'). — I like sushi

Miscarry could be tragic, but those who we see suffering from it are usually the parents of the potential child. It is more about  the expectations of the parents than missing the life of the possible upcoming child.

  When we know that somewhere people came into existence and suffer, we feel compassion. The fact that on some deserted island or planet people did not come into existence and suffer is good.
— Antinatalist

Why is this 'good'? Is the assumption that they merely suffered and died? No mention of 'pleasure' here for reasons unknown. Again, there is a DEGREE of these things. Would we wish away the potential existence of someone alone on a desert island who lived a rather ordinary life on the beaches waking up in morning, fishing and dancing around a fire at night merely because they suffering hardships and pain (physical and mental)? That said it is of course VERY easy to pass a quick judgement if the proposed scenario is painted as 'Born and suffered excruciating pain non-stop for several decades before dying in even more agony'.

As a little aside 'pleasure' can be painful too. A rather horrible tale about a study where elderly people in a home were given more volunteer visitors for month. Their well-being and sense of 'happiness' when through the roof. A follow up study though showed that for some time after (once they didn't have so many visitors) that overall the sense of well-being plummetted. They didn't know what they were missing, so when it was taken away they felt worse of for it.

I find that interesting because this a little parallel reversal of arguments for antinatalism mentioned by some here. Would they be better of without such 'pleasure'? Do we measure in a 'utilitarian sense' amounts of pleasure against pain. I'm not saying one or the other just pointing out how easily such views for one side of a position can be used against it. Plus, this is a singular situation of a myriad of human experience and life. — I like sushi

If you try to attack the asymmetry argument, the different situation for your example above, is that in your example there are living people, who could feel the loss of something good and possibly feel grief from that.

   In conclusion ...

The fact that on some deserted island or planet people did not come into existence and suffer is good. This is because the absence of pain is good even when there is not someone who is experiencing this good. On the other hand, we do not feel sadness by the fact that on some deserted island or planet people did not come into existence and are not happy. This is because the absence of pleasure is bad only when someone exists to be deprived of this good."
— Antinatalist

I'm disappointed that that is all David Benatar has. Someone can exist to be 'deprived of good' yet the thought of tyhem existing to be 'deprived of bad' is wholly ignored as well as th edegree to which said potential persons will experience and deal with 'pleasure' and 'pain'.

To sum up, the absence of either pleasure or pain is not a life and therefore to draw comparisons of a life purely 'painful' or purely 'pleasureable' is irrelevant AND a complete fantasy that makes so actual realistic sense. It seems like something has happened here that many scientists try hard to guard against. That is to have an idea then search for evidence to back it up.

What this has hopefully revealed more clearly is the problems surrounding any 'measurements'/'categories' of 'pleasure'/'pain' and what exactly these terms can/could mean in various different perspectives.

Broadly, when it comes to 'ethics,' I'm instantly suspicious of any/all ethical 'conclusions'. If we don't question and scrutinise our principles I don't see what use they are to us at all. Otherwise such 'principles' are like dead limbs we drag around and use to abstain more any sense of PERSONAL repsonsibility amoung/within/without the 'world' (weltenschuuang) at large.

So Antinatalist, can we perhaps get into how 'degrees' fits in here or is this entire antinatalist vie wbased solely on a hypothetical rigid extremity?

Is there anything I've said that is unclear? Do you have a harder position to put forward - perhaps in your own words with more nuance that those of Benatar?

Thanks either way :) — I like sushi

Like I said before, my antinatalism is grounded on the fact that having a child is a decision for someone else´s life, whose consent we can not have. The fact that consent is impossible to have, doesn´t make the decision right. It is a decision for someone else´s whole life, it is not a trivial "cross a road or not" kind of decision.

So Antinatalist, can we perhaps get into how 'degrees' fits in here or is this entire antinatalist vie wbased solely on a hypothetical rigid extremity?

Is there anything I've said that is unclear? Do you have a harder position to put forward - perhaps in your own words with more nuance that those of Benatar?

Thanks either way :) — I like sushi

I will answer more completely a little bit later, but I ask you one question.

Do you think is more ethical to have a child than give euthanasia for some healthy human being, who just one time asks it (and that´s just all you know about that person)?

And if it is, why so?

Dostoevsky and Ursula K. Le Guin have addressed this issue, and I think they both have great point in their texts.
— Antinatalist

What are they?

In addition to my long scrawl ...

If there is some underlying 'measurement' of subjective pain vs pleasure then someone somewhere in human history someone has/will suffer more pain than anyone else, and vice versa the same is true for pleasure. Was such 'pain'/'pleasure' inevitable OR has/will humanity find a way to nurture the latter more and more in the future whilst reducing the later ... AND (most importantly!) if we have done/did this would we even know it? — I like sushi

Perhaps it is just my poetic(?) way to underline that at life the person who lives is more important than his life itself, as strange as may seem when you first time hear thing like that. — Antinatalist

I´ve referred before to Le Guin´s The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas). I think Dostoyeski brings some real heavy issue in The Brothers Karamazov. This is just one quote from Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov, there are many perhaps much more impressive points, buI don’t have the original novel on hand:

“Listen: if everyone must suffer, in order to buy eternal harmony with their suffering, pray tell me what have children got to do with it? It’s quite incomprehensible why they should have to suffer, and why they should buy harmony with their suffering.” 

(https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/brothersk/quotes/page/2/)

Antinatalist

I'll get to this all tomorrow. Late here now. For now I'll just say that I'd find it hard to believe the mainstream utilitarian point of view here is that 10,000 people 'happy' exempts 9,999 being tortured. I'm pretty sure you can at least agree that 10,001 people 'happy' and 9,998 is superficially 'better' than the above. They are at least different.

Given that there are no quantifiable units of such things it is merely a hypothetical to explore the ethics lying underneath (like with the previously mentioned 'Utopian' society where the happiness of all depends on the condensed suffering of one.

In the above I'd rather we all carry the burden of suffering than pile hell on one individual. The question then morphs into something entirely more dark and gruesome with progressive speed when you seriously start to ask yourself 'how many would need to suffer?' and 'to what degree?' - this is likely closer to what you're getting at. — I like sushi

Dostoevsky and Ursula K. Le Guin have addressed this issue, and I think they both have great point in their texts.

Anyway, leave that until later if you can or respind briefly please so I can get back the Benatar bit ... — I like sushi

Alright.

Tried to keep it short and answer in order:

I agree with David Benatar with his asymmetry argument.
— Antinatalist

Maybe I only understand the surface details. On the surface it looks overly simplistic. I'm even slightly convinced by it. If you could indulge me and explain it further than the not this then x not that then y (or is that all there is to it? I hope not). — I like sushi

I will quote David Benatar:

"Benatar argues that bringing someone into existence generates both good and bad experiences, pain and pleasure, whereas not doing so generates neither pain nor pleasure. The absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure is not bad. Therefore, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation.

Benatar raises four other related asymmetries that he considers quite plausible:

We have a moral obligation not to create unhappy people and we have no moral obligation to create happy people. The reason why we think there is a moral obligation not to create unhappy people is that the presence of this suffering would be bad (for the sufferers) and the absence of the suffering is good (even though there is nobody to enjoy the absence of suffering). By contrast, the reason we think there is no moral obligation to create happy people is that although their pleasure would be good for them, the absence of pleasure when they do not come into existence will not be bad, because there will be no one who will be deprived of this good.
It is strange to mention the interests of a potential child as a reason why we decide to create them, and it is not strange to mention the interests of a potential child as a reason why we decide not to create them. That the child may be happy is not a morally important reason to create them. By contrast, that the child may be unhappy is an important moral reason not to create them. If it were the case that the absence of pleasure is bad even if someone does not exist to experience its absence, then we would have a significant moral reason to create a child and to create as many children as possible. And if it were not the case that the absence of pain is good even if someone does not exist to experience this good, then we would not have a significant moral reason not to create a child.
Someday we can regret for the sake of a person whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we created them – a person can be unhappy and the presence of their pain would be a bad thing. But we will never feel regret for the sake of a person whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we did not create them – a person will not be deprived of happiness, because he or she will never exist, and the absence of happiness will not be bad, because there will be no one who will be deprived of this good.
We feel sadness by the fact that somewhere people come into existence and suffer, and we feel no sadness by the fact that somewhere people did not come into existence in a place where there are happy people. When we know that somewhere people came into existence and suffer, we feel compassion. The fact that on some deserted island or planet people did not come into existence and suffer is good. This is because the absence of pain is good even when there is not someone who is experiencing this good. On the other hand, we do not feel sadness by the fact that on some deserted island or planet people did not come into existence and are not happy. This is because the absence of pleasure is bad only when someone exists to be deprived of this good."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar)

I'm interested by your view of what 'consent' means here. All living people can kill themselves. Non-existing people cannot choose to exist nor can they argue for 'lack of consent' because they don't exist. You come to exist by the acts of others (right or wrong doesn't seem to have much of a place here does it?). Once you're born you are nurtured and grow, without consent. I do think children should be given more freedom to choose when younger (specifically in education), but this would have to be a global phenomenon so in actuality such a revolution in education would be hard to impliment (not that I'm against attempts ... even though they may very well lead to worsening the situation).

Anyway, you seem to have a different use of the term 'consent'. If you can explain further it might help. I don't see how 'consent' has any application to things/people that don't exist. Neither do I think parents ask for consent to raise their children ... that would be quite strange. — I like sushi

I think we use the term ´consent´ quite similar, but my point of view is that when we can´t get it, cause in this case is about unborn child, we should not then have a child. When a child is already born, it is very different situation. There is somebody, whose well-being some non-consent act are needed.

Fundamental difference of having a child and that crossing the road -example is that if it´s your life, cross the road or don´t, but having a child is deciding for other person´s life, without her/his consent.
Other difference is that non-existing creature does not have to make choices between bigger and smaller risks.
— Antinatalist

As stated above you'll have to explain how you're using 'consent' for a non-existing being? It doesn't make sense to me. Also, non-existing creatures don't have to make choices implies they can make choices. They cannot make choices. Subtle aspects of language can sneak in unsuspecting ideas without notice (the two meanings of 'don't have to' is one of these cases). I assume you meant cannot btw but such things can make a difference to someone's perspective :) — I like sushi

I don´t think this - non-existing creatures don't have to make choices - implies they can make choice; you are right, they can not.

That is natural way to think. But you do not provide very convincing arguments for this. In matter of fact not a one.
— Antinatalist

I'm not here to present any argument to say that bring life into the world is 'better'/'good'. It's your position that's up for debate right? I have discussed ethics elsewhere with points I find to be of more import. I've yet to be convinced this is a matter of much import to my view but I'm intrigued.

I value life, but it is not just about life, it is highly about the existing, living person who lives that life.
And this existing person is highly valuable.
— Antinatalist

Sounds like you're refusing to call an Orange an Orange and instead refer to it as a Round Fruit. I fnot I don't quite get this. I'm not trying to catch you out just want to understand what these terms mean for you. What is the difference between a person existing and a person living? Is a person living more important than a bird or plant living? Do those questions matter to your position? (if not ignore). — I like sushi

A person living is a person existing. Perhaps it is just my poetic(?) way to underline that at life the person who lives is more important than his life itself, as strange as may seem when you first time hear thing like that. And I mean for this, that life could be horrible for the person who is living that life. In my point of view a bird is important, but living human being is more important - you can disagree on that, and you might have some good arguments against mine. I don´t consider plant as important as human or bird, because it isn´t sentient being.

Regarding Pollyanna principle I do have some thoughts there but they're based on empirical evidence and neurological studies.

Basically we know that humans are 'wired' to be optimistic. We also have good evidence (psychological not neurological last time I looked) that we feel worse about loss more than we feel about a gain - hence humanity's general aversion to 'loss'. I think these items kind of do something to balance out our attitudes towards ideas/concepts ot 'pleasure'/'pain'. — I like sushi

I largely agree, although pessimist seem to be more realistic than optimists, in general.

Note: referring back to David Benatar I'd have to grasp his use of the terms 'pain' and 'pleasure'. I think viewing something as 'absence' of is perhaps related to the above^^

You've mentioned 'utilitarian' twice in quick succession now. You have problems with that perspective? If so what are they (beyond the obvious)? — I like sushi

Trivial example of utilitarian philosophy is when we can have 10 000 pleasure points, when some sadistic people are torturing some other people, but their miseries outcome is only 9999 suffering points. The outcome is positive, so then it is morally right to torture those people.

Let´s assume you are right on that. I simply can´t think any cruel acts/things etc., which does not involve suffering, which makes your assertion kind of absurd.
But let´s still assume that I am wrong on that. If you mean some suffering will prevent some other suffering (like a boxer, who will strengthen his/her abdominals that he/she will not tear apart when facing body punches in a real fight).
But that doesn't answer the question, why there have to be life in the first place.
— Antinatalist

For reference ASSUME I am right that it is neither right nor wrong. If that is the assumption there is no argument is there? To be clear I view 'right' and 'wrong' as situational. Sitting on a chair could be right or wrong (highly) in various situations and extremities. By choosing, or through happenstance, we 'have' children I don't see this as starting from a position of justification. the justification comes in the choice to have children or in the choosing not to have a child that is expected/possibility in the future. — I like sushi

Like you might seen, I find this choice to have a child problematic.

I have no issue with questioning the why/how/what of the sitiuation. It is not a one size fits all thing though. I would not travel back in time and tell some peasant to have less children to avoid burdening their offspring with pain and suffering and to suffer more themselves in the longrun in both terms of personal and family striving (not necessarily 'happiness' which is certainly a whole other topic worthy of consideration ... I just find 'happy' to be a little off). I'm sur eyou're familiar with De Botton in this area. He has some nice ways of conveying these things, but I'm not by any means completely in agreement with everythign he says.

WHy we have life in the first place? I don't think it is a 'why?' question tbh. In the same light I don't understand the 'why?' in the 'consent' and having childrenfalls into the 'why?' category either. All questions are 'what?' underneath. Reframing such 'whys' as 'whats' in numerous ways can help pick apart the underlying mechinations .. sometimes! :D. — I like sushi

I don´t agree, although I think I´ve heard this before. One physicist spoke at same thing at some lecture years ago, if I can remember correctly. Human differs from most animals, if not all, that she/he can ask "why?" . Of course there is "whys" and "whys", some could say that in the beginning materia and antimateria fought each other and materia won, and because of that Tampa Bay Buccaneers won Super Bowl 2021. Sounds very fatalistic. I have a very different kind of view. I don´t think there are any physical laws that human beings have to exist. It just happened.

IStakes are high, when making decision for someone else's life, like I said before.
— Antinatalist

Before they are born they have no life. Bringing a life into the world doesn't require what we colloquially refer to as 'consent'. This seems to be a running theme so I'll wait for your explanation of 'consent' in the terms you mean it to be used.

Like I said one previous post, I think life can have also negative value (and those, who support euthanasia agree with me on that). But the right to end will belong only to the one who lives, it´s her/his life and other people should respect her/his sovereignty.
— Antinatalist

Agreed. But again ... there are 'cirumcstances' that can alter these things. I'm not for a one size fit sall attitude. The individual case is, correct me if I'm wrong, far more important than a universal 'law' for singular people (ie. killing someone in a crazed murderous frenzy for the sake of saving others is not 'bad' but it doesn't make killing 'good'). My ethical view is about the unwilling need to explore the extreme fringes of our natures, but it is dangerous so I am not impelled to 'recommend' it for any/everyone. — I like sushi

I agree.

But the right to end will belong only to the one who lives, it´s her/his life and other people should respect her/his sovereignty.
— Antinatalist

To what degree does a newborn possess 'sovereignty'? In terms of consciousness and being a fully enough fledged human being? Again, this is certainly where the whole abortion debarcle emits something wonderful about humanity. We care about it - right or wrong - and that is human. I like humans ... mostly on an individual basis though :D — I like sushi

I think newborn has sovereignty as like any other already born human being. Of course we can continue probably there, what is the time when a foetus is sovereign human being - if ever; but that is a matter of another topic.

At suffering, I don´t value purely by the amount of its suffering; but to some degree it certainly correlates.
— Antinatalist

Good. And I agree. It is a singular perspective to consider amoungst others. I'm inclined - for various manifest reasons - to favour some perspectives over others and undoubtedly delude myself to some degree ... such is life :) Currently here guarding against delusions but not because delusions are necessarily 'bad' I just favour lessening them to some healthy degree ... I hope! ;)

My point of view is also that preventing harm is greater value than bringing happiness
— Antinatalist

I don't see the intrinsic difference between reduction of 'pain' and reduction of 'happiness' ... (see above: I await your explanation, but at least I think we've found a major point of confusion!). — I like sushi

I touched the subject in the "utilitarianism example" in this post.