:pray:

Indeed. The concept is stretched and contracted in a way that seems a bit capricious. For instance, if one believes that an individual is responsible for harms even if they do not directly cause them, then they should also think about all the good that could happen regardless of whether or not the creators directly caused or intended it to happen.

I agree. Unless one has a very narrow (and ultimately counter-intuitive, in my opinion) definition of "causing" something (which is not the same as being held responsible for it), I do not think it makes sense to deny that one of the causes behind the man's drowning was that he was not helped. But, as mentioned earlier, even if inaction is neutral, it cannot be always better than doing something that can be an all-things-considered benefit.

Striking the right balance between pernicious optimism and unbridled pessimism is quite important!

:up:

As the OP said, "great arguments"! It seems apparent to me that not acting in a particular situation can be one of the causes of a state of affairs continuing in a certain way, since doing something could have stopped/changed the situation. Of course, there can be multiple sources and ignoring intentions and practical limitations whilst ascribing responsibility for something is not right, in my view.

:clap: One can hope that people will not turn a blind eye to the significance of providing benefits and choosing something better over something that is neutral/bad. At the same time, pressurising people to always love life or procreate is unacceptable. Having a holistic worldview is generally wise.

The inaction did not cause the person to start drowning; it caused him to keep drowning. Obviously, if one isn't even in the area and is unaware/incapable of stopping the harm, then I don't think that they should be held responsible for what happened. Nevertheless, I do not think that it changes the fact that one of the effects of the inaction was that the person could not live. Other causes could include the person not being able to escape their boat, their inability to contact someone, and a more direct cause, like a sudden flood.

I may not be the direct cause of the harms. Yet, my inactions do cause the harms to continue (along with the source of the harm, naturally). However, I think that one has to take intentions, practical limitations, and the long-term consequences of something into account. Holding people responsible for everything could make us forget about all the good that also happens, or occlude our ability/will to help others. Therefore, a nuanced perspective seems to be desirable.

If the absence of happiness is not bad because there isn't any deprivation being felt by someone, then neither can the absence of suffering be good, since this does not lead to a satisfied state for anybody either. But if one is not saying that the absence of suffering is good and is merely suggesting that neutrality is better than "impositions" (though I do not see how actions that do not frustrate the interests of someone could be called impositions), then someone else could also point out that bestowing goods that non-existent beings are unable to demand is preferable to a valueless state of affairs.

I agree that one is not directly responsible for what happened. Nevertheless, their inaction did cause the person to continue to drown, since if they had acted, this negative could have been stopped. But obviously, allowing a harm is not the same as actively causing it. Here's how Google defines consequence (definition is from Oxford Languages): "a result or effect". Not acting could mean that one is not the cause of an effect, but it could mean that they are the cause of that event not ceasing/changing. I would say that if it is better than harms don't exist, then it is also worse that the benefits do not.

I believe that it does apply to procreation, provided one also takes the benefits into account.

It can still have consequences. Of course, it involves non-involvement.

I am fine with it being a possible choice. In fact, if the risk is greater, it should be preferred. However, if the possibility of an overall good outcome (it may not be perfect) is reasonably high, I believe that it is better to act than to be "neutral". Considering that inexistent beings cannot ask for the benefits of life, I believe that if one is concerned about violating rights, they should also be glad about bestowing goods that one could not have asked for before existing. My worldview does not begin and end with impositions (or some divine gift of life that all souls should be forced to give). Unasked harms matter, but so do goods that non-existent beings are unable to solicit. The greater good of existing people is also quite important, but I do not think that has to be the only pertinent factor (assuming that creation can be good/bad for the person who is born).

If someone is saying that inaction should always be preferred, they seem to be implying that it is good. However, if it is good that inaction prevents harm, it is also bad that it prevents future goods. If one is arguing that inaction is merely neutral (and this is disputable considering that intentional inaction can still cause harms to grow, which isn't good), then I do not see why neutrality should be chosen over something that can be (for most people) good.

:pray: :up:

Unfortunately, some people care too much about impositions and too little about the bestowals of great goods. Nonetheless, I hope that we will, as you mentioned, stand united—for the good of all.

"Absolutely! Perhaps we can also prevent the 'sacrificial lamb' type shortfalls or any 1 sufferer out of every 10."

:up: :clap:

If people keep taking unnecessary risks (they are unnecessary because existing beings do not need constant interference for adequate happiness) for those who already exist, it could eventually lead to a decline in societal well-being. One has to think about the long-term consequences of a seemingly good action. Intentional severe harms for a lesser and unnecessary good is not acceptable. Creating positives that have a reasonable probability of materialising and do not requiring directly harming a single person in order to exist can be justifiable.

Preferably, I would like to see a world wherein we would not need the mat at all. Maybe it's a lofty goal, yet I think it's worth striving towards.

What matters to me is trying to do the right thing. The rest depends upon the wills of the other sentient beings. I can't control them (nor do I wish to or am capable of doing so), and I will respect their decision (as long as it isn't the result of an external imposition/manipulation). I hope that the good in the world can be conserved to a degree that people would not have to turn towards the void. What happened in Sri Lanka is undoubtedly a good sign. More positive changes will probably occur as as their inner values drive them towards the greater good.

That, of course, is the final destination.

Yes, I apologise if my comment seemed to suggest that you had said otherwise. I just thought that far too many people equate happiness with financial worth these days, which is something that should be avoided lest we ignore a more complete view that also considers other elements as well. Nevertheless, it's quite apparent that rising inequality is a serious problem that demands our urgent attention. Greater appreciation of the power of cooperation instead of falling prey to unmitigated competition can help us find a way out.

Most Buddhists accept rebirth and do not accept universal AN. However, I do believe that life can be mostly positive.

What we should do, particularly at a time like this, is to focus on reducing inequalities as universeness mentioned and implementing ideas such as a free and fair right to a dignified exit that would ensure almost nobody would be forced to go through a primarily negative existence. Then, one makes people understand that procreation isn't a joke, which could help the people that do come into existence live better lives supported by people who genuinely care. In the end, the middle path (Buddha's idea) should be the way forward. Thank you for your kind words, and I sincerely hope that your concerns (and your happiness) are treated with the respect they deserve. If these are desperate times, then the need of the hour is to do everything possible to get out of them—and we will. Have a wonderful day!

It would be a bit of a cliché to say this, but I think one should also remember that wealth does not always lead to happiness. Many of the happiest people I have come across have been those who were not well-off financially. The more pertinent point was that becoming well-off was an ideal destination for them, not a necessity whose absence led to unbearable sadness. Obviously, none of this makes inequality or poverty better. Still, I believe that it does highlight that having the right perspective and not creating too many holes that let our contentment escape can be quite useful.

Indeed, it involves both risks and opportunities. There is a risk, but it can be justifiable due to the goods that can exist. That which does not hinder us can prove valuable in some way. The unbelievably valuable destination justifies the "gamble", for the alternative is either good but also bad (assume that one thinks that the absence of harms is good), or merely neutral. Yet, I think that a mostly good outcome is better than both. The key is to act sensibly and not thoughtlessly procreate/fall prey to unremitting pessimism.

That is why I used the word "risks"! Therein lies the balance. But the scales can tilt towards the light. Also, the joy derived from love and acquiring knowledge is far greater than the satisfaction that darts can provide.

The possibility of irreversible harms should not blind us to the possibility of imperishable goods. If one cannot guarantee that the future would not be completely miserable, then they should not simply ignore one side of the coin. There is this incessant demand for absolute perfection (total happiness, absolute certainty) when it comes to the positives, yet this is dropped when it comes to the negatives, which seems like an arbitrary and unjustifiable double standard.

Calculated risks keeping in mind the opportunities! :ok:

I think that creation can be justifiable. There are many people who live have inestimably valuable without the media covering them all. However, we do need to do a lot more to create a create a better society that would be worthy of innocent sentient beings. Have an excellent day!

Or something else—hopefully better.

If one can say that it's wrong to procreate unless it's almost certain that the outcome would be positive, then one could create a similarly high standard and say that it's right to procreate unless a negative outcome is nigh impossible to avoid. The single-minded emphasis on harms and implicit contempt for the positive does not seem right to me.

It is (if creation has value/disvalue for the person). My point is that it isn't necessarily bad. We do know that most people do appear to appreciate their lives (and we lack evidence to the contrary) to not an absolute, but an adequate degree. Furthermore, the sort of environment one is in can also help one make a reasonable decision. It's unlikely, for instance, that procreating in North Korea would always lead to an amazing outcome. Obviously, wealth is only just one factor. The degree permeation of meaningfulness in a region/community is also a vital consideration. The question is whether or not the action is reasonably justifiable. Given the possibility of countless invaluable experiences, I think it can be. But because this is a "can", not a "will", universal pro-natalism or even extreme pro-natalism is ethically untenable.

Indeed. However, would you say that there is a risk that we can start thinking about the community or the collective as this distinct being of sorts whilst disregarding the needs of the individuals, which could be deleterious for the community itself (eventually)? I suppose it can be good to remember that both the ocean and the drops need each other, which you probably already know.

I've seen people go through years of misery due to their failure to have kids. Thankfully, many of them found happiness through adoption. Still, I think it does demonstrate that procreation can be a source of unfathomable value for many (and I haven't even mentioned the indirect value it could have due to the fact that it could lead to the creation of people who would help their communities and would contribute towards the common good).

:up: The harms to existing beings is also a good point worth thinking about.

That's only if one is focusing more on the risks and is ignoring the opportunities that could also exist. Once again, I don't think that one should require an unreasonably high degree of control for something that can also have immense value, does not deprive one of a superior state they wanted to stay in, and involves the actions of multiple people, including the individual themselves. One could say that one allows the possibility of negative consequences, but they also allow (and contribute towards) positive consequences that one has decent reasons (environmental, personal abilities, finances, etc.) to expect.

Possibly. Yet, as I said before, I believe that if a "gamble" is bad due to the risks, it can also be good due to the opportunities. We could say that deciding for someone else isn't good, but I think that another perspective could be that one can give a good that one simply cannot ask for prior to existing. All in all, I think that a balanced approach is generally preferable here.

I fail to see why having an unreasonably high level of control should always have greater worth than bestowing indescribably good experiences. The inability to have that control does not lead to inevitable and irreversible misery for all, and neither is it the case that the creators are the only morally relevant agents.

Some would say that inaction that prevents pointless harms is better (even if it's in a neutral sense). Howbeit, in that case, one could also point out that neutrality is worse than a positive state.

I agree that trying to maximise the number of happy people like one is trying to achieve a high score in a video game seems a bit absurd. This is why I am more sympathetic to average/person-affecting views (though they have their own issues). Welfare of the community is undoubtedly a cardinal concern.

One can see that most people do seem to prefer their lives. Additionally, one doesn't know that the outcome would always (or even mostly) be negative.

The ball is also controlled by many other agents. One would not say the Earth is the cause of an accident that happened yesterday. Even if it has theoretical value, this analysis would ignore the role of other elements. I think one should only be expected to have absolute control if it is reasonably possible for them to possess it, the person in question would necessarily experience terrible harms without the control, and there is nobody else involved in whatever that happens. The fact that everything cannot be controlled does nothing to dimish the ineluctable truth that a lot of people go on to have experiences that they would cherish forever. As I have said elsewhere, one cannot simply look at the risks and ignore the opportunities.

Good odds, intentions, and a multitude of other factors, etc., can certainly be things to consider. Most importantly, I think, one should not disregard the potency of the positives whilst acknowledging the truth of the harms. The solution is unlikely to be black-and-white.

Interestingly enough, negative utilitarians who only wish to reduce suffering might be forced to say that allowing a million people to suffer is good as long as it removes the greater suffering of a single being. Therefore, NU isn't as perfect as some of its proponents might think.

Coming to your point, I certainly agree with you that one should have a nuanced approach that addresses the complexity of the real world.

:up:

The key thing is the well-being of the person, not the degree of control exercised by two people. Other people are also responsible for the happiness of individuals.

The amount of influence one has might depend on the level of involvement of the parent. The more they are there to help their children and give them the right skills/values, the more probable it gets that they would live a better life or at least not find it impossible to face difficult situations.

Even seemingly terrible parents can create children who would have good lives. However, it wouldn't seem reasonable to suggest that we should ignore their intentions altogether. In addition, one should not be compelled to have perfect control over one's life. This could only be applicable if the person in question was unable to take care of itself for eternity or the parents were somehow responsible for placing the person in a worse, less free state than it previously was in—which obviously doesn't apply to non-existent beings. And if one is responsible for all the harms that happen in a person's life, they also deserve praise for all the good that happens.

Certainly, one should not forget about the negative consequences that could occur. Although, I would still say that the actions of other individuals are also pertinent, since ascribing responsibility should be done in a reasonable way that takes into account all the diverse factors in a person's life. Still, if creation has value, it can obviously be negative, whether or not the parents intended it to be. I do not think that the possibility of a negative outcome should be dismissed. Rather, one should act depending upon their circumstances whilst keeping in the mind the reality of happiness along with the risk of suffering.

My position, if true, would also mean that creating the positives would not be necessary in and of itself—something I do not like. However, I do not base my arguments on that position. Instead, I believe that one should be consistent with the framework they use. I see no reason why future negative consequences should be in our minds but not the positive ones.

I do not see how acknowledge in a complex reality is a "cop out". Actions that don't affect one's well-being cannot be better/worse for them. Still, I know that it is a controversial view, so I am willing to accept that creation can indeed be good/bad. As I have said elsewhere, if this view is true, then creating a mostly negative life would be immoral, especially when it's done intentionally.

I do not believe that parents do not have significant power over the direction their children take. They are the ones who can (and should) give their kids a decent life. They are the ones who should show them the importance of good values. However, absolute power is not necessary for one to live an adequately happy life. If a gamble is bad due to the risks it entails, it can also be good due to the opportunities it creates. And we do know that inexistent souls do not have an intrinsic preference for avoiding the gamble, so one has to act in a way that minimises harms without eliminating the possibility of the good.