Well right, so let's say you judge "working at X" to be good. Why is it good for someone else? That's where the trickiness of it lies- when dealing with others. To go further, it's not that why is it good for someone else, but why should you then proceed to force the situation for someone else? — schopenhauer1

All I can say is once one is brought into existence, one can begin making choices. That first choice will always be out of one's hands. And really, there will be many factors out of one's hands. Can't choose parents, can't choose parents circumstances, can't choose your physical characteristics, potential for illness or disease, etc. One cannot choose the hand one is dealt. One can make the best of it, or not. The choice is theirs.

Whether or not the work environment is exploitive, or whether exploiting workers is ok, are both value judgements and subjective, yes.

If you make a choice on another because "Most people" would want it, it is only just if someone needed to replace a greater harm with a potential lesser harm. In the case of birth, no ONE needed to be saved from a lesser. It is a completely unnecessary choice made for someone else with much harm done to the other person. — schopenhauer1

And since what is just or unjust is purely subjective, you can certainly hold the above opinion. To state that every birth will result in "much harm" being done to the one being born cannot be reasonably supported, in my view.

Calculating value and harm is multifactorial. If everyone is born without choice, and an overwhelming majority value having been born, then the risk is low that any one birth will produce someone who perceived their existence as causing them great, and irreconcilable harm. That risk is then weighed against any and all perceived benefits of continuing this process of life. Based on my observation it seems most people subjectively value this process of bringing new life into the world, that it is justified in spite of potential risks.

Why are logical proofs required in regards to John? Wouldn't John and his characteristics be demonstrated by empirical observation?

"So with all this grey area.. wouldn't you say that "it" is a matter of just and unjust in regards to the ones who already exist in relation to choosing for something that could exist? So the justice lies in making a circumstance of no choice for someone else."

Are you arguing a position that one can never be justified in bringing a rational agent into existence? That can certainly be your subjective value choice. I would disagree that it should be considered unequivocally or universally true.

Can we recognize differences in conditions and environments of existence and value certain conditions over others? Certainly. One can also consider the potential environment into which a rational agent will be brought into to begin its existence and make value choices as to whether that potential environment meets a subjective standard. However, the standards and values will all be relative and subjective Even if one could ensure uniformity of environment for all in existence, it would in no way guarantee a sense of satisfaction or worth in ones existence. A person born in poverty may value their existence more than another born to privilege. There are many complex factors that inform value and a sense of worth, including biological, environmental, and social factors.

I would guess that enough people value having been brought into existence over the idea of never having existed that the whole process of bringing a rational agent into existence without consent can be considered worthwhile, to be considered justified.

“So you have a whole range of X, Y, Z, etc. options. You cannot select the option for no option. Is this just?”

In your supposition as stated in the OP, you specified a condition where the rational agent had a range of options to choose from and that is the condition that my comments addressed. Yes, there are many events upon which a rational agent has no choice, the choice to exist being one of them.

Is your point to ask whether it is just to bring a rational agent into existence? Again, I would say that it is relative. The one or ones bringing a rational agent into existence can certainly come up with justification for it, say survival of the species, or perhaps that those who currently exist require the continued creation of new rational agents to maintain a certain quality of existence throughout their lifetime.

As to the one being created, it would be relative as well. Depending on the environment in which one is brought into, it can be perceived either way, or in shades of grey.

I suppose I am saying that existence is neither just nor unjust, it just is. Once we begin to have choices we can then place subjective value on those available choices and act accordingly.

You need to establish that there is such a thing as an 'afterlife'. After that you need to establish that it is eternal and what ratio of good/bad would be experienced, if any.

All I can say is that I would disagree. The color in our brain is an accurate representation of the of the wavelength combination being reflected. We are accurately discerning each time that wavelength combination is being reflected. Reflecting only a specific set of frequencies is real information and our ability to recognize and discern that pattern is an accurate representation of what is occurring.

We are perceiving the world as it is, and at the very least, it is a gross exaggeration to say what we perceive is very different from the way the world is.

Color is not an illusion, however. If a light source radiates every wavelength in the visual spectrum upon an object and only certain wavelengths are reflected, while others are absorbed, that is really happening. One is actually detecting the wavelengths being reflected, which may be distinctly different from the combinations of wavelengths reflected by another object, or more specifically, the surface chemical composition of the object.

Movement of air molecules is not an illusion. They are actually moving and moving in multiple ways, multiple frequencies. Our brains are not inventing the pattern of frequencies, but rather, perceiving the pattern of frequencies. The air is actually moving in the way perceived.

I would say that our senses provide us with an excellent representation of the macroscopic world around us when we put things to close examination. Obviously, in situations where there is incomplete information one cannot create a completely accurate representation of all that is perceived, say very low light conditions, or an object is at sufficient distance that one is unable to perceive enough detail to distinguish between similarly shaped objects.

In addition, we are now at a stage of development to where we can create tools that expand our ability to perceive the world beyond the limits of our biological senses. And with this we have only corroborated that the macroscopic world is as we have perceived it for millennia.

"It is also well established that our experience of the world is not representative of the actual state of our environment. That is, the mental image created by our brains is very different from the way the world is."


When you say our mental image of the world is very different from the way the world is, in what sense do you mean? I would think that, on average and within their biological limits, our senses give us a pretty good image of the reality around us. Our senses are the product of millions of years of evolution. If they did not provide an accurate picture, wouldn't you think that would impact our chances of survival?

Very curious as to how you would describe actual reality and in what ways our perception is very different.

And yet so many find comfort or satisfaction in the imaginary. Would that not be considered 'quenching'?

I would imagine that what is just is in the eye of the beholder. What is considered just is relative to either the one imposing options or the one who must choose. And is 'not selecting' ever off the table? Wouldn't it simply be a matter of what the cost would be not to choose?