There are many nice people out there; it just sometimes takes time to find them :)

Agreed. Also, I don't think that one needs to read countless books in order to value one's life. Meaningful experiences might require rejuvenation (which can and is achieved in many cases!), yet they also possess an eternal resilience in terms of their capacity to appear in a new form, even when one has to face numerous odds. Those happy women in the slum didn't need to read Marcus Aurelius for the sake of discovering happiness; their cherished bonds acted as a source of unparalleled goodness with seemingly little effort. The Dhammapada also speaks about the possibility of genuine delight:

"A monk who with tranquil mind has chosen to live in a bare cell knows an unearthly delight in gaining a clearer and clearer perception of the true law."

(Dhammapada 373 / Müller & Maguire, 2002.)

I agree with the overarching idea that we should strive to reduce unnecessary needs, since that's probably the best way to attain an ineffably positive state of contentment that has immense worth.

Unlike religions, which seem to have differences on various matters, most people do seem to value their lives due to things such as love and beauty. The way they manifest themselves can certainly be different, which, in my view, only adds to the beauty of life. As you said, I do think that one can say one should procreate if a good life is likely. I don't think that ending all opportunity of the positives for the sake of preventing the negatives is justifiable. I do agree that life can be terrible in many circumstances, which is why I hope that we can work together to address issues such as rising inequality. We should also rethink mindless procreation, and also consider effectuating ideas such as a liberal RTD and transhumanism. Hope you have a wonderful day!

Your enthusiasm is inspirational and reinvigoriating! Even though we do have to resolve certain issues, I think that active participation and a balanced approach can definitely help us achieve our goals to an adequate degree. Thanks, for being there.

If you don't mind, may I please ask for the name/link of your blog?

And yeah, it's definitely encouraging to finally see (after a long time) many people who wish to genuinely contribute towards the well-being of others :)

Apologies for barging into your conversation, but I just want to say that I agree with you that we must embrace cooperation in order to ensure that we can mould a better tomorrow for all. Schopenhauer1 isn't wrong in saying that there is a lot of unnecessary harm in the world, but I am optimistic that as long as compassionate people like him, you, and others here on this forum exist, we can make meaningful progress. Hope you have a fantabulous day!

Agreed. I believe that S1 is a truly intelligent and compassionate person who has genuinely good intentions, and even though I disagree with them on a particular issue, I believe that the world needs more empathetic people like them.

I wouldn't wish to step into unreasonable waters ;)

There's no "switcharoo" happening. You have unjustifiable double standards when it comes to happiness and suffering. If existing is a "burden" from the POV of an existing person even though there wasn't any prior interest in an alternative state of affairs, a good life can also be perceived as a gift, irrespective of whether or not some nonexistent person needed it. As for existing people's view, you obviously believe that the creating the good is not acceptable due to the negatives, but I disagree, because I do think that the creating numerous individuals who do find joy in their lives despite suffering can be ethical.

I was referring to their absence. Even if the lack of a bad is neutral (and not good), the creation of the joys is preferable to a valueless state of affairs. As I said before, if it can be unethical to form the damages, it can also be ineffably good to create happiness.

That's a mischaracterisation, since I meant that they do not matter only if the lack of the harms doesn't have any worth. But no, they do matter if the absence of the harms matters. I do think that I am probably right about antinatalism being a logically untenable position ;)

There's no "square one", because my case has always been for a logically consistent view that doesn't devalue the positives. I had not accepted any double standards about the creation of happiness not being important yet the prevention of harms being so.

There's also no person who's being forcibly taken away from a blissful and free void into a worse state of affairs. Yet, if it's still a burden/harm for the negative to exist, the good can also be perceived as a gift/benefit.

Negatives not had by anybody also don't matter, by the same token. However, preventing the possibility of actual goods for the sake of preventing harms does matter, and I do not think that averting the opportunity of innumerable loved experiences is ethical/good/just/proper to do.

There's no "initial asymmetry" to begin with, so repeatedly mentioning the fact that the absence of the good isn't ethical if the prevention of the bad is ethical would be frivolous.

In the case of a person, one is bestowing a good that cannot be solicited by the person themselves. In the other case, no positive exists. If one chooses to view an act of beneficence (if it's a "burden" to create harm) as "meddling", then that's their choice. But this wouldn't change the fact that the positives are quite important.

As I said, there is a certain degree of paternalism in telling a happy person who would wish to experience the good again that their positives are not adequate and do not deserve to be created for the sake of preventing harm. But if it's "paternalistic" to create a burden (even though there isn't any free state of deep interest prior to existing), it can be a genuine gift to have a truly valuable life that one can cherish only once they exist and cannot ask for it otherwise. Thus, your double standards remain unjustifiable. If nobody is born, nobody can benefit, but this isn't the case if people do exist. Of course, you believe that they don't matter (incorrectly, in my view), but I disagree, because the priceless joys will always be pertinent (along with the harms).

The comparison doesn't appear to be quite accurate because I don't think that the lack of exploitation would somehow make most people irredeemably derprived, and I believe that there is a difference between intentional harm (that also doesn't lead to greater happiness for the people concerned), and creating a positive that doesn't depend on the person directly harming someone else whilst also seeking to minimise the harms that tragically do exist as much as possible (which is why I support ideas such as the RTD). As I said in my discussion with Schopenhauer1 on the global warming topic, I simply disagree with the idea that preventing all good is justifiable for the sake of preventing the negatives. A world where there are ineffable goods and harms (which don't need to remain at the same level, since we have managed to eradicate issues such as smallpox) isn't necessarily a world wherein the good exists directly because of the negatives. Hatred isn't an inextricable desideratum for love. I do agree that there is a lot of exploitation in the world, which is also why I am against mindless procreation before we can adequately address issues such as climate change and rising inequality. Nevertheless, there are also empathetic people like you and Schopenhauer1 who demonstrate that cooperation can and does exist. But I won't start the same discussion again here, so I shall move on.

I do think that our contemporary consumerist system can blind people to the issues we face, which is what leads to scenarios such as the ones mentioned by S1, wherein people's harms aren't addressed but made fun of. I am not even sure if people who do have wealth are always happy, since I have seen many people in the "third world country" that I reside in who are happier than the "affluent" despite not having a lot. Contentment is generally preferable for existing beings than unnecessary needs. Hopefully, we will be able to find a more appropriate arrangement someday.

Creating the good does matter.

There's also nobody who cares that there isn't a downside, except from your own projections. What also matters is that there isn't any joy, which you don't seem to understand.

I am sure the "people" spoke to Schopenhauer1 and explained to them how they find happiness to be a baggage they don't wish to possess. Once again, shallow and patronising. I am not obliged to follow the words of the prophets of doom and unremitting pessimism.

It does. What you're essentially saying is: if one had to capability to recreate a person who truly loved his life and wished to experience those goods again, their wish would be irrelevant because preventing the harms matters more by virtue of paternalistic judgement that decides what matters more for other sentient beings. Also, to digress a bit, I don't think that not creating a person is respecting their dignity, since they don't have an interest in the void that has been taken into account.

Paternalism (Google definition): "the policy or practice on the part of people in authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to or otherwise dependent on them in their supposed interest."
I never knew that there were emancipated souls floating around in the void whose "freedom" was being "restricted" against interests that don't even exist. And if one is talking about a "potential" interest to not suffer, then there is also a need to take the potential interest of happiness into account, which is why creating the positives could be deemed an act of beneficence that lends dignifies a person by giving them a good they couldn't ask for themselves. You would, of course, still focus on the negatives. But I am afraid that your viewpoint is not representative of the lives of countless individuals who do love their lives despite the hardships they face.

You're the one who presumes that your own perspective justifies ending all happiness, which isn't ethical. You deem one thing to be "necessary" whilst ignoring the other because of ... reasons.

At the end of the day your pessimistic projections prevent the existence of cherished experiences.

It's tragic that the effulgent smiles of people are "sentimentalism" for you, but it's understandable, considering that you haven't tried to look at things from a wider viewpoint. Good things are considered by many to be gift that outweighs the potential burdens, yet you would paternalistically judge that the existence of harms would justify not creating any good life. Bestowing a good by procreating can certainly be good and is the opposite of "messing" with anybody.

Truth is intuitive, yet it's tragic that people reject it ;) Once again, if you could move past your projections and attempts of being the judge of all experiences, you would realise that things that one considers to be a blessing isn't a burden for them. Then again, pessimistic sentimentalism can be difficult to overcome in some cases.

Once again talking about nonexistent whispers and yet claiming that what matters is existence. As I have already said before, if it can be good to prevent suffering even though there's nobody in the void who's happy about the idea of not existing, then it can also be good to create happiness. I don't think that it's callous, because it does give people a way out if things do get bad. I didn't say that it's easy or preferable, but I believe that it's still something that many people desire and is probably a better alternative than preventing all happiness. Not making any omelette because a few might break isn't the epitome of wisdom.

There's nothing about suffering that deserves to be ignored. But as I mentioned before, there are situations that do not have "easy" solutions. I can see that you wish to eradicate the potential for all ineffably valuable experiences due to your inability to see beyond the harms.

Harms that don't lead to a benefit for an actual person do not matter either. This is another straw man anyway, because I wasn't talking about nonexistent people. If the harms would negatively matter for people once they exist which necessitates preventing them, I believe that it can also be good to create happiness that would be cherished once people exist.

If that's the case, then I am also not taking about nonexistent beings beings deprived of goods. The cardinal consideration is that benefit is not being created in one state of affairs, and that's not an upside.

It does, because happiness (a desirable experience) that matters more for innumerable people despite harms (undesirable sensations) does justify, in my opinion, the formation of life.

I was using valuable experiences synonymously with people to compare with damage.

Once again, this is a only a misunderstanding/double standard. I never said that damage is good; I only said that creating the benefits is good, and my contention is that it can be justifiable to create them, considering that many people do go on to find immense meaning in their lives. And if there's no need for a feeling of satisfaction/relief for the prevention of damage to be good, there's also no need for a feeling of "missing out" or a need for being "saved" from the creation of happiness to be good once the person exists.

It's much more paternalistic, harmful, and hubristic to suggest that one should not create ineffably valuable experiences due to the risk of damage (since I do not think that a harm always negates the worth a person sees in their life). I simply don't think that creating precious and hugely significant joys (many of which exist in spite of harms) is wrong due to the possibility of harms. Another misunderstanding, since there's nobody whose welfare is being "messed up" by merely being created. And if the person does find the joys to be more potent than the harms, which is the case in many situations, then they don't need anybody else to tell them what is good for them. My inability to find value in life does not justify negating all that matters. Also, I have already mentioned that there is a difference between causing harms for existing people (which would only be ethical if there is a greater good for the person), and the creation of a good life, wherein if the prevention of harms is necessary, then so is the genesis of happiness. At the end of the day, if one chooses to believe a flawed view that suggests that not bestowing an amazing good onto a person who cannot ask for it themselves before existing is acceptable due to their own narrow viewpoint, that's their prerogative. Nevertheless, it wouldn't change the fact that their idea of the creation of good being unnecessary remains flawed and incorrect, and straw men arguments about good for the universe aren't going to change that. A worldview that results in a total devaluation of a crucial aspect of reality deserves opprobrium, in my view. One's arbitrary notions are certainly not a valid excuse for a worldview that irrationally and patronisingly decides that the creation of truly majestic joys isn't necessarily valuable for those who would exist and appreciate them.

Life is often a "gift", but I never claimed it always is or needs to be seen that way (though I do think that it's necessarily better for a person if they can). I do not believe any of what you said there, and I am sorry if any of my comments made you think that this is the case. As I have said before, I do think that people need to think about procreation more carefully, especially in situations when they know that the likelihood of the child having a good life is low. Additionally, I don't think that it's ethical to force people to keep enduring a valueless existence that they cannot find any joy in for the sake of defending some strange idea of the "sanctity of life". This is why I support the availability of a liberal right to die along with careful use of technology in order to remove/reduce suffering as much as possible. All the harms are extremely tragic, and I do not think that my words alone are sufficient to change that fact. Yet, there is also another side of the coin. There are those who truly perceive their lives to be a gift. For them, the so-called "little" things act as a source of indubitable value. Things such as the love of a family member, or the achievement of a dream such as being able to become the first educated person in a family (a phenomenon that's still common in the country I come from) can inundate people with a happiness that's truly immeasurable. I just don't think that one should loom at those experiences and decide that it's acceptable for those goods to never exist again, even if those people themselves continue to cherish their lives. I don't think that genuine empathy entails ignoring the positives. Paternalism can manifest in multiple ways, my friend. Still, I completely agree with you that our current system of oppressing people in the name of "mental illness" instead of providing actual solutions like a right to a graceful exit and reducing inequality is condemnable. I hope that this situation will change as time goes on.

No, such people deserve happiness and care. I don't think that irredeemable harms are logically inextricable for happiness, though it's true that there are negatives that do exist. I think that creating happiness and then sincerely caring about a person who would love their life is trivial; it possesses priceless worth. Thank you for this enlightening discussion, and I hope that you have a good week ahead!

I think my case is adequately strong. On one side, there are goods, on the other side, there aren't any.

Nobody is positively affected by the lack of harm in nonexistence either. And no, I am not focusing on nonexistent beings, only pointing out the obvious before moving on.

I am not going to "go back" on anything because I don't need to. Although I do think that a "loss" requires an actual worsening, but that wouldn't be pertinent here. The fact is that nobody is benefitting in one state of affairs either, but they do experience happiness when they do exist, so it has significance from their POV, and there's no need for a deprivation for that to be important.

You obviously disagree, and mistakenly so, in my view, but I believe that if it is preferable to prevent potential harm, it is also justifiable to create valuable experiences that would be gained by people when they exist.

You say that the positives do not justify procreation, but I disagree, because I do think that the intricately ethereal and indescribable goods do justify creating people.

It was extremely difficult for me to refute "intellectual" arguments such as "get into a tizzy" or "messiah deems it must happen". ;) I don't care about the crowds, because universal AN still remains unethical even if many more people supported it.

An apropos description of your views. Much of the so-called "asymmetry" also seems like smoke and mirrors to me. The truth is that you don't wish to venture past your narrow framework, which is why you keep dismissing everything else as being "not the argument". Although there are those who do harm others, there are many who are happy and also help others. The harms do exist alongside the positives, but this doesn't mean that the good directly requires the negatives to exist. Preventing the damage cannot come at the cost of preventing all the benefit. Complex situations are rarely fixed by one-sided "solutions". I don't think the harms are good; I merely disagree with the assertion that preventing necessary (assuming that averting harm is also necessary), precious, significant, and evanescent yet eternally valuable positives is an acceptable idea.

I haven't done anything except for pointing out the inherent flaw with idea that there needs to be a deprivation for the creation of a positive life to be necessary, but it's somehow logical to suggest that the lack of harm is good sans an actual benefit, because the truth is it simply doesn't seem to be the case. There's no need to drag this on infinitely, because it's also quite easy to understand that one resolves to create a benefit in one case that one could consider akin to a gift they couldn't solicit themselves. In one instance, the state of affairs changes to one having good, and in the other, there is no value. Once again, the lack of a "POV" before existing is precisely why I don't think that existence can be inherently better/worse for a person. But even if it is and all that matters is the perspective and experiences of the actual person, the logical position seems to be to understand that the creation of a benefit matters just lile the prevention of damage. You cannot apply double standards and then accuse others of making a "sleight of hand" when being questioned for a lack of consistency, for doing so is probably a much accurate representation of a sleight of hand.

Self-evident things don't solicit excessive explanations. There's no need to "get in a tizzy" over trivial matters.

I can't quote because my bizarre and antiquated device refuses to do anything :p Still, I apologise for the inconvenience.
There are indeed many issues worth discussing, and I found this one to be interesting for now, so there isn't much of a mystery to it. Nevertheless, I suppose it's still fruitful to point out that believing in the prevention of all good is not a logical position to hold, in my view.

I have already recognised it. It's you who failed to move past "damage", which is also why one reaches erroneous conclusions such as the prevention of joys being acceptable.

But I was indeed arguing against your argument that mischaracterised my view by unnecessarily referencing to people "losing" out, so no.

Thank you for your kind words, my friend. You're the one who keeps repeating the term "collateral damage" ad nauseam whilst continuing to ignore the flaws in your own position. I also hadn't talked about "ghosts of nonexistent persons" that needed happiness (even though I personally do believe that harms/benefits in terms of leaving someone better or worse off does require an actual degradation/fulfillment, but that's not pertinent here). The only simple and consistent point was: if it's bad to create the damage/negatives, it's also good to create benefits. This isn't a particularly complex point.

I think I "got it" much sooner than you realise; it's you who's refusing to see the essential irrationality and double standards of your position. It's definitely could be about existing people, in which case the relevant factor would be the happiness they would experience once they exist, not nonexistent ghosts feeling deprived.

That is the argument. If one needs to be "deprived" for the lack of happiness to be bad, I don't think it's sensible to deny that there should be a satisfied state of affairs that would prevail from absenct harms, which is clearly not the case. Once again, you simply don't want to look beyond your single-minded viewpoint.

Sometimes our biases can lead to unnecessary "obfuscations" where none exist. To your statement about there being no damage from absent happiness, I had pointed out that if the lack of damage is good even though it doesn't benefit an actual person, there is also no need for there being a conscious feeling of harm for the creation of joys to be ethical. Yet again, you didn't seem to understand, which is, I must confess, regrettable.

The truth can hurt, but it's sometimes necessary. Arbitrarily deciding that the prevention of harms matters above everything else on the basis of an unjustifiable asymmetry that employs double standards is simply not a truly reasonable view to hold. If creating damage "ex nihilo" is bad even though it doesn't worsen an actual state of affairs, it can be quite good to create an ineffably meaningful life that would have resilience that enables them to cherish deeply potent and significant experiences of love, beauty, excitement, and tranquility. Bestowing precious goods to someone incapable of asking for it themselves can be considered praiseworthy in innumerable ways. This, however, does not mean that the harms do not matter, which is why we need to limit mindless procreation and also implement ideas such as a liberal RTD to ensure that people don't have to endure a truly valueless existence.

"What does it matter if good does not occur jn the universe?" could be interpreted in multiple ways. I am not saying that everybody needs to create beings. However, for those who do value things such as having a close bond with a family member and creating a new source of and for joys, the preservation of the positives can definitely be a extremely meaningful. It's about damage, and it's also about the decision to create as much real good as possible.

If one believes that one is doing something ethical by preventing potential damage, I don't think that one can resist the inevitable truth that they are also preventing all good, which is problematic, to say the least. However, I suppose one could also harm their own well-being by believing pessimistic positions that aren't justifiable. No, I am not going to let this sort of double standard slide. The "default" state either is valueless (neutral), in which case it would be worse to create harms, but better to create happiness. However, if the lack of harms is "good", then the lack of all happiness is indeed bad. You not creating a good might be mitigated by factors such as the likelihood of the person having a good life and practical limitations, but I don't think that not forming any positive lives is acceptable (assuming that it's good for the negatives ones to not exist). The default state leads to no benefit, but this is clearly not the case with procreation.

I don't have to be concerned about fundamentally problematic views, but it's always better for others to realise that instead of indulging in projections. ;)
Nothing will be gained from this, but I suppose I'll move on. And I discovered the arguments myself, not from a friend.

Asking for introspection is indeed useful in the face of prevarication.

If damage is an inherent harm that needs to be prevented, happiness is also a good that does not deserve to be prevented. Straw man argument again, since I have already argued for a consistent case that is about creating the benefit for those who would exist. However, the reality is that there aren't any souls in some blissful antechamber who are desperate to avoid existence. It cannot be preferable for nonexistent beings, by the same token, to not exist, since that's also a category error. There's indeed a valueless state of affairs in one case. In the other, there is the invaluable benefit of happiness. No benefit here means that nobody is fulfilled from any absent harm. The flip side is a state of affairs where a person does experience goods. The lack of absent benefits doesn't matter for those who never had them in the first place, but if the positives don't matter, then the lack of damage also has no relevance for those who aren't feeling satisfaction due to its absence.

Because consistency matters, even if it's difficult to accept. It's not rational to focus on removing undesirable experiences at the cost of preventing the preferable ones.

The universe also doesn't care about any absent harm. I am sorry if my replies came off as "arrogant", yet it seems to me, and I could be wrong here, that its a trait that pervades any view that totally disregards one aspect of reality. I am interested in many things, but I am afraid that I have been impelled to disagree with the internet prophets of unreasonable pessimism ;)

Yeah, the flawed "asymmetry" often comes into play, though it doesn't win. ;) As I said before, I do not think that it makes sense to say that the lack of harm is good without also acknowledging that the absence of the positives is bad. It's tragic, but understandable, that you have chosen to ignore the obvious.

Fallacy of fallacies. No one is being treated as an end in themselves either by the lack of the bestowal of any good either, considering that one has no interests when they don't exist that are being fulfilled/respected. And I didn't straw man you, since I wasn't talking about people being "used", but an inherent good (that one cannot ask for) not being bestowed due to one's overwhelming pessimistic inclinations. A benefit that an innocent being cannot ask for is being created when one exists, and it isn't if they aren't born. Thus, the so-called asymmetry remains unreasonable. Again, in one case no joy occurs (irrespective of any intentions to prevent harm), in the other case, there is no benefit either (nobody to gain from the lack of damage). It is all about whether one can understand the simple truth that it can never be moral to prevent all happiness for the sake of preventing harms.

Yes, I can also see that you believe in an unethical view that justifies preventing all good in order to prevent some harms that one is single-mindedly focused on whilst ignoring other pertinent factors. I am sorry if I had misunderstood anything you had written, but as things stand, I don't think that you were able to make a successful case for your position here.

It's you who's trying to defend the indefensible by repeatedly attempting to downplay the reality of happiness (that people who go through intense harms also cherish). I do want to minimise harms (and I don't think that it's logically necessary for one to harm someone in order to be happy), but I don't think that anything, even my own misery, can justify preventing all happiness for billions of people the sake of preventing some negative experiences for others. A "prevention" that leads to the nullification of all good simply cannot be deemed an ethical/reasonable solution.

Whatever noble intentions you might have, the ineluctable truth is that you are unnecessarily preventing joys due to your perspective. Cold-hearted and apathetic this is (since if creating harms is "using" someone, then it's also absurd to not create possible joy that one cannot ask for themselves before existing). One cannot be truly empathetic whilst also ignoring the power and reality of happiness. There is no benefit in one instance. In the other, you can create the good. Preventing suffering is certainly important, but that's also because doing so can lead to the preservation of happiness, which is also significant. As for creating valuable/disvaluable lives, if it's necessary to prevent damage, I do think that it's necessary to create happiness, though this has to take other things into consideration, such as physical limitations and long-term consequences. In reality, I do think that one needs an actual benefit/harm (which is I don't consider creation to be inherently good/bad for a person), but if one does not need an actual benefit for the prevention to be good, there is also no need for a feeling of deprivation for the formation of happiness to be intrinsically preferable. It's also only us who need to exist in order to create deep joys.

I wouldn't, because I don't accept extreme views that ignore one side of the coin :)

The right argument. Preventing harm for a person doesn't have any value either if the creation of goods doesn't matter. And there are also those who have turned around their lives in spite of suffering a lot, so I will not be accepting an incomplete image that suits your agenda.

A statement that appears to be devoid of all sense. Once again, there is a difference between causing a situation that would cause harm which won't leave to more happiness, and creating the conditions for immense joy that a person would value despite the existence of harms. "What's that? You believe that love and beauty deserve more consideration than being callously disregarded for the sake of preventing 'damage'? Yeah, your view is irrelevant." Is a terrible perspective, much of which may not be intentional. The "benefit" is happiness, the the "problem" would be to negate it.

Just not getting the obvious point that if not creating harms would be good, ceasing the creation of happiness would also eventually stop all good, which wouldn't be ethical. I wasn't talking about any termination. Moving on.

It was an error that I corrected in the edit I made a few minutes ago. However, negatives that lead to more value might certainly be worthwhile, though they only possess instrumental value. However, struggle can indeed create happiness, such as the struggle of studying hard to achieve good grades. Continuing forward.

It can be difficult to accept the truth. You are not "using" anybody because the "person" has no interest that would be unnecessarily (without a greater joy they would achieve) harmed by being created. Intentionally creating the conditions for a good one cannot ask for themselves can certainly be good if it can be good to prevent harm.

Since they don't exist, you should also not be making absurd claims such as "using" one to an end or making spurious claims such as "causing harms for x reason (happiness)" as if the happiness isn't in the interest of the person (if avoiding harm is in their interest even though they don't exist) or it is something trivial (hint: it's not). Being born is indeed the only way to experience happiness ;)

If preventing harm sans any actual benefit to a person is not using them as a means to an end, one is also not using anyone as means to an end, since there isn't anybody whose interests are being violated by their creation. Your inability to differentiate between situations involving existing people and those who don't exist yet has evidently caused grave confusion. Moving on.

Blind deontology that leads to intense harm for innumerable individuals for the sake of some "principles" might not be a good idea, but this isn't relevant, because I was talking about happiness for the person. Also, it would still be important for a utilitarian to ensure that happiness is maxmised for as many people as possible. But the point was about joys for the person, so I digress.

It's not a straw man; that's your inability to recognise the double standards when making the absurd claim that it's necessary to prevent harms even though it doesn't benefit anybody, but it's inexplicably insignificant to create valuable experiences.

For existing beings, I think avoiding harms can generally allow people to live valuable lives, so I don't think constant interference is necessary. Personally, I do not think that there is any inherent value in creation/non-creation, but for the sake of the discussion, I do think that if it's bad to create negatives, it's also good to create positives. Still, the expectations have to take practical limitations and the well-being of people in the long term into account.

Your pessimism is a self-fulfilling prophecy that prevents you from realising the potency of happiness. For the last time, creating happiness is not "using them", since that implies disregarding interests (that don't actually exist for a nonexistent being). However, it's quite apparent that if preventing harm can be good, it can also be problematic to avert all possibility of joy. Letting a mango tree that gives succulent fruits die out just because there might be a few bad ones seems nonsensical to me. Preventing all joy as a solution to your pessimistic desires is not justifiable.

Yup.

I am afraid that I would have to disagree with the conclusion that the possibility of harm (which I do favour preventing and reducing as much as possible) can negate the value of a life that's permeated by experiences one finds indescribable value in, even if they face adversities along the way. I do not feel that I can justify the idea that the life of that child from the slum who finds immense joy in just living with his family does not deserve to exist (assuming that preventing the harms is good). There's not much that makes it ethical to prevent a life that is cherished, precious, and a source of ethereal happiness for a person. It's incredibly uncaring and narrow-minded, in my view, to arbitrarily judge that the creation of innumerable positive lives is an act that is not ethical; it is. The crux of the difference is the ability to recognise that solving a problem cannot come at the cost of nullifying all good.

It's much more paternalistic to suggest that one's own perspective justifies the cessation of all positive experiences, since it's evident to me that if it can be good to prevent harms, it can also be bad to prevent the positives. And no, intentionally creating a life that could experience immense goods does not use them as mere means to an end, since the person themselves have no interest that is being disregarded from their creation. And I do not think that not creating a person treats them as an "end in themselves" either. If it did, it would probably include using them as mere means to the end of eliminating suffering, despite the fact that it isn't the case that they would always have irredeemably negative experiences. But as far as creating people is concerned, I do think that creating the person with the right intentions and caring for them properly does treat them as ends in themselves. Not starting a good for reason X (an unreasonably high desire to prevent harm at the cost of all good) isn't a particularly wise perspective either. I don't think that one always needs to be harmed in order to be happy, though it's true that many harms (for now) do exist. However, one is not "creating the conditions of harm" for an existing person who is already happy. I have already said that it's wrong to do so for existing beings unless it leads to a greater happiness for them. But nonexistent beings don't have perceive the void has a desideratum that would somehow be cruelly distanced by their mere creation. The cardinal consideration remains the value/disvalue they might experience, and I am sorry, but your (or mine!) personal viewpoint simply does not justify not creating the conditions for all happiness just because you (or I) fail to find sufficient significance in life. I do hope that more people could see things in a different light. Preventing harms at the cost of all happiness is a "cure" much worse the problem it allegedly "solves". Since there is no such thing as eternal bliss prior to creation that's negatively affected by the genesis of ineffable happiness, one should not hold views that lead to unfathomable losses that outweigh any gain. Btw, 100,000 people do get free lunch in the Golden Temple, though paying money for preserving the good can certainly be worth it ;)

Hope you have a nice week ahead!

Edit: Also, I should add that I absolutely agree with the general idea that many people do create beings solely because of reasons that don't necessarily pertain to the person themselves, such as wanting more working hands. This is deeply unfortunate, but I am hopeful (partially due to the existence of compassionate people like you!) that more people would give birth to a person because they would want them to have a good life, something that is certainly in their interest if the lack of harm is not in their interest (in an abstract sense, of course, since nobody exists in the void to have a desire for existence/nonexistence), which would mean that the person would be seen as end themselves.

In here for the daily reminder that the reality of A does not automatically make B unreal. Dissatisfaction is, by definition, not true satisfaction. However, profound happiness does exist, and one can cherish it in multiple ways, from simple pleasures such as consumption to more complex ones such as love and achievement of knowledge. I would not be making the claim that the reality of happiness makes suffering unreal, however, since I do think that a comprehensive approach is preferable.

Some people do take substances that make them happier, though it might not be good to use those things which lead to a loss of happiness in the long run. However, removing pain does not mean that one does not experience happiness. Part of the reason why one seeks to avoid pain is that they wish to return to the state that is permeated with more fulfillment. The sales do show that there is an increase in our need to be happy than there was before ;)

Edit: Although I do not consider the usage of drugs to be the pinnacle of happiness (which is real), here are a few interesting statistics:

"In 2007 and 2008, cocaine was used by some 16 to 17 million people worldwide, similar to the number of global opiate users. North America accounted for more than 40 per cent of global cocaine consumption (the total was estimated at around 470 tons), while the 27 European Union and four European Free Trade Association countries accounted for more than a quarter of total consumption. These two regions account for more than 80 per cent of the total value of the global cocaine market, which was estimated at $88 billion in 2008."

Source: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/drug-trafficking/index.html

"According to the report published by Allied Market Research,the antidepressant drugs market accounted for $13.75 billion in 2016, and is estimated to reach $15.98 billion by 2023, registering a CAGR of 2.1% from 2017 to 2023."

Source: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/08/06/2074356/0/en/Antidepressant-Drugs-Market-to-Grow-Valuation-of-15-98-Billion-by-2023.html

"The global analgesics market reached a value of US$ 48.2 Billion in 2020."

Source: https://www.imarcgroup.com/analgesics-market#:~:text=Market%20Overview%3A,moderate%20growth%20during%202021%2D2026.

Therefore, the value of the "pleasure" (using just a single substance) appears to be greater. However, I do not think that one requires drugs in order to appreciate a valuable relationship or enjoy the beauty of art. I think it would be extremely difficult to put a monetary value on the effulgent smile a child has on his face when his mother after a long time. It would also be pertinent to mention that it could be possible that one is throwing away the opportunity to recognise happiness either by dismissing it as an "illusion" or by creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that sucks all joy from one's life, which will lead one to an inexorable descent into an irrational position. One does do many things in order to prevent/reduce harm and regain contentment.

The upshot of all this is that universal antinatalism remains indefensible. I have already expressed my other views, so I shall refrain from repeating them here. Hope everybody here has an amazing day!

To me, it's either nothing or a "solution" worse than the problem. But the intentions are still good. Also, most people who support AN don't promote authoritarian measures and only peacefully advocate for their point of view.

Preventing good seems to be quite an "active" problem ;)

Much can be lost due to pernicious ideas. Anyway, I am just interested in various topics. I am not sure if I am vociferous; I do try to keep a mild tone :p

1. Currently and mostly. But I agree, you are definitely peaceful.

2. I wouldn't be too happy to see people much wiser than I am (which would be just about everybody!) to believe in a flawed ideology. I didn't join due to you in particular; I just had some time so I figured I may as well read and type some stuff. People certainly continue to be created, but it's nice to see individuals like you who wish to reduce harms, which might be an inspiration for us to become better.

I've heard these arguments many times. Nevertheless, I do enjoy putting forth my views, especially because I am an introvert who cannot discuss these things in real life easily. I did appreciate your insights, so thank you! I hope you have an amazing weekend!

For existing people, perhaps (unless it leads to greater happiness for the person). However, it is sensible to cause a good if it isn't to solely create a harm. You're the one who's missing the point.

I don't think that things need to be perfect for happiness to be sufficiently valuable. It's not the case that everything is terrible either, and I remain reasonably optimistic that we can further reduce our problems. Nevertheless, the positive aspects will always matter and they will continue to be seen as a genuine blessing/gift by many sentient beings, in spite of the damage.

I've already addressed your claim. There is the benefit of happiness taking place in one state of affairs and none taking place in another. The explication is consistent and does not make any unnecessary claims based upon arbitrary double standards. It's clearly about the a priori claim that there is is no good prior to its existence.

Already did ;)
It should not be too difficult to grasp the fact that there is happiness in one case and none other. This "a priori" analysis simply points out the obvious, with further points mainly supporting it. The good occurs for the person. Significant benefit, no benefit, and from the perspective of an existing parent.

The implications also include future happiness for the child that they could cherish.

All relevant, but it's fine if you wish to ignore the obvious. If not creating the damage is good (and not merely neutral), then not creating ineffable happiness can also be problematic. One created good in one case and did not do so in another. The perspective that leads to its prevention is certainly from one who already exists, not the person who would appreciate their life.

It might not matter to you, but it does in reality :p
The fact of the matter is that one has the potential to knowingly create a life that one could deeply love despite the existence of odds, and if it can be considered bad to create a harm even though it doesn't help a person, it can also be good to create happiness. This is the only ethically reasonable perspective, in my view. If preventing the cherished experiences doesn't have moral worth, then I am afraid that the negation of any damage or "strings" also wouldn't matter besides fulfilling the personal interests of an existing person.

I do have some, though increasingly diminishing sympathy, for the pessimistic and paternalistic (preventing damage is more important than anything" argument. All prior and post analysis leads to the ineluctable truth that happiness is significant.

Intentionally bestowing indescribable happiness that the person themselves would likely value even in the face of potential harms can be quite ethical. Intentions do matter, and the intention to prevent suffering is certainly a noble one, even though the conclusion of antinatalism ultimately remains an unsound position.

I didn't say that there could not be instances where the suffering would outweigh the happiness; I am merely saying that this is not the case in most situations.

That's a straw man/misunderstanding. I said that if it can be bad to create damage, it can be good to create happiness. I don't consider the alternative to have any value, but even if it is neutral, it would still be preferable to have a better outcome (happiness), just as it might be preferable to avoid the worse outcome (harm). My major point was that if preventing harm is good, then preventing happiness (an inherently desirable experience) is bad. I think one does entail the other.

It is indeed nothing, which is why I don't think that any comparisons/claims about benefit or harm are meaningful. But I've granted it for the sake of the discussion, so I digress.

It also seems nonsensical (if my point appeared that to you) to talk about "burdening" or "acting on the behalf of other" (as if that has moral relevance) before a person exists. But if it is bad to create suffering on the "behalf" of another person, it is more than sensible to create happiness on the behalf of another who couldn't ask for it. Once again, this is nothing except a logically consistent view, in my opinion.

There's nobody who is being "used" when they are created. Creating a valuable life doesn't have to directly harm another person, and as far the person are concerned, I would argue that it is simply fallacious to use the term "use" (as if the person doesn't have an actual interest in happiness but has one in some alternative state of affairs) for a person who is being created. The "pet" claim about creating damage doesn't negate the value of creating the happiness that the person would likely value. Many people do find the bestowal of a greater good to be in their interest, and, as I have already said, if creating negatives can be unethical, causing happiness can also be good.

I think you're the one who is being arrogant here, my friend. I am sorry, but you have no authority to proclaim that the innumerable ineffably meaningful experiences of people (many of whom have faced intense hardships) are irrelevant because of your single-minded emphasis on the negatives. You have also ignored/misunderstood much of what I said. You had said that people can find existence a burden and difficult to escape, and I only pointed out that others find it precious and value it. Yet, it's strange that you managed to not grasp this simple fact. It's extremely patronising of you to claim that you know that the bestowal of good is a "violation" of dignity instead of being an affirmation of it due to the simple fact that one cannot ask for a good experience before one exists. Harming an existing person isn't good because it reduces their well-being without providing a substantial benefit (in most cases). However, there isn't anybody in the void who prefers not existing, so I don't think that the genesis of happiness can somehow be harmful to them.

It does matter because there are contingent goods that lead to joyous satisfaction which also has significance, even if you don't recognise that. Probabilistically, life also contains many benefits.

Not irrelevant because happiness matters once one exists, just as the harms do when one begins to exist. If the prevention of the latter is "relevant" for you even though it doesn't benefit an actual person (except for your interests, perhaps), then the prevention of all good is quite relevant.

I don't think there's much point in arguing with the "God of non-procreation". The universe does not need the absence of all life, and if no problem comes from the creation of happiness, no good comes from the prevention of suffering. As for existing beings (and assuming non-creation is neutral), it can certainly be good to create meaningful (it does not lose value merely because you don't appreciate it, but I hope this can change), if it is bad to create the harms sans an actual loss for someone who does not even exist.

I am aware you're not, but your other arguments are, sadly, extremely limited and flawed, in my view. There's great good in one instance and none in the other. Moving on indeed.

It does in many more ways than you realise ;)
As I have said countless times before, the harm might be unnecessary, but the happiness isn't (assuming that you believe that the prevention of harm is necessary). When you use words like "using", you are still implying that one is somehow being manipulated (potentially against their interests) to achieve one's "sinister" designs. However, bestowing the chance to experience happiness can certainly be good if one claims that creating damage is bad. There is no need for "use" because the case is analogous to acting on behalf of someone who cannot ask for a good themselves (of course, this assumes that one would consider the deliberate creation of negative lives to be an act of "using" them even though they don't exist). Your examples are poor and reflect a lack of understanding. One could certainly appreciate someone taking an act on their behalf that leads to a greater good. However, it would be pertinent to remember that making money isn't bad if it doesn't even exist in the first place, since the probability of generating profitable income can justify the act of creation, just as the losses might be bad. Giving additional work which doesn't make a person happier might not be good, but there isn't any state of ethereal bliss in the void that is being disturbed/worsened by the creation of a person. At least you could recognise that some people might indeed enjoy the work, and for them, it's a source of happiness. There could be a plethora of reasons, from dedication to one's family to genuine enjoyment in the process of typing (I do have a predilection towards it!). Unfortunately, our current work culture is not the best, which is why I do think that we should focus on resolving many of the issues we face at the moment before indulging in mindless procreation.

I don't think that happiness is less significant than suffering. One might not need to constantly interfere in the case of existing beings who are capable of living adequately meaningful lives as long as they avoid serious harms, but this doesn't apply to people who aren't in a state of affairs they have an interest in. Preventing all happiness for the sake of fulfilling a pessimistic agenda, all the while refusing to bestow indelible joys just because one doesn't appreciate it seems to be a fundamentally unethical position to hold.

Neither is the "gift" an ordinary one when it unleashes its potency, which can happen even in the face of seemingly insuperable odds. There undoubtedly are tragic situations that one does need to mitigate (at which point it wouldn't be sensible to call it a "gift", and that's why I don't consider life to be a gift in all cases). When the gift is the source of all value that did not exist before its existence, and many innocent beings would likely find it to be verily invaluable and precious despite the harms, I think it has immense worth that deserves to be preserved. For the last time, happiness is also not "trivial".

I thought that intentions mattered in Kantian frameworks, which is why I had brought it up. However, it's fine if one doesn't care. The cardinal consideration is that powerful joys can exist if a person is created, and as long as that's true for countless sentient beings, it is good enough.

I made a consistent case for treating happiness equally, so I don't think there was any straw man involved. I said that I thought your claim was understandable, but I didn't think it was right. Some things can be implicit in our assumptions, even if we don't realise/accept it. The only reason I emphasised nothing was because you mentioned that "no happiness was being deprived", which seemed to refer to the idea that nobody is deprived of happiness in nothingnes. But moving on the the main argument.

Once again, I feel that your statements are limited because they frame things in a biased way. In other words, it essentially says that "nobody is suffering" and "nobody has any need for happiness". However, one could also say:

1. There is a state where nobody is happy, and nobody is saved from suffering.

2. The parent is the only one capable of making the decision whereby a state of affairs of no value (happiness) would turn into one that does possess the positives.

Nothing should compel us to create harms in isolation. However, I do think that the existence of deeply valuable experiences for many gives us a reason to create them. The formation of happiness can certainly be ethical.

I would not say that not creating a person leads to no harm. It could, for instance, severely affect the people who wanted to have a family. However, I won't consider that point here. I don't think there is a valid justification for not creating happiness in a state of affairs that lacked any prior value. Happiness is intrinsically valuable and it is never unnecessary to not create it, unless it leads to greater loss of value, which I don't think it does.

1. If not starting suffering (an intrinsically undesirable experience) is necessary, then starting happiness (an intrinsically preferable experience) can also be good.

2. It's definitely good to do so on behalf of someone who cannot ask for the good themselves.

Furthermore,

4. The happiness can also be deeply valuable and is experienced by many people; it is not insignificant.

5. It is quite precious and is cherished by many people.

I never claimed that life is perfect. However, it isn't an absolute hell without any hope either. Without resorting to angels or demons, there are many people who find joy in seemingly little things, such as reading and gardening. I witnessed this myself due to the time I have spent in a "third world country". Joy can be found in unlikely places, and though it isn't (unfortunately) ubiquitous, at least for now, I do think that it has more than sufficient worth that justifies its preservation. The Eastern tradition also has many other larger beliefs, such as rebirth and the futility of not creating people. However, they also speak of sukkha (happiness) which can be found by minimising unnecessary desires, and I already agree with that idea. Chasing superficial pleasures often leads to harms. I'll return to the main topic now. There certainly is a need to survive, but I don't think that everybody constantly despises it. I, just like many other people, like the process of striving for a greater good, even though I admit that contentment is generally preferable. Again, I am not saying that there aren't hardships, because there clearly are. Nevertheless, I disagree with the idea that their existence always negates the value of the good parts of life. There is happiness, and there is immense resilience in many cases (I remember the genuine happiness in the eyes of the people who came from what many of us would call terrible conditions). It's often a twofold blessing.

When one adds the fact that happiness is being created from a state of no value, I think it would be misguided and unethical to claim that they don't have significance or deserve to be prevented.

If it is good (and not neutral) to prevent damage even if it prevents some happiness, it can also be bad to prevent all positive experiences for the sake of preventing the negatives. I suppose this would also depend on the nature/scope of happiness and harms, but I don't think that it makes sense to say that it's wrong to create happiness if it also creates harms, but it isn't problematic to prevent all good for the sake of avoiding harm. Alternatively, one could say that non-creation is neutral in both cases, but the formation of the positives is still good.

Once again, once one realises the potency that the positive experiences of life can have for a person, I simply don't think that it can be fair or ethical to suggest that preventing all good (which is not-so-simple in every instance) would be preferable.

There could still be harms for those who desperately want to create a person they would care for, but this isn't my main point. I don't think that this is just about harms; it is also about happiness. For existing people, it might be sufficient to not harm them in order to ensure that they live generally good lives. However, nonexistent people are clearly not in a state of affairs they would have an interest in. If creating suffering is "unnecessary", but preventing it is necessary, then I also think that creating a happy life can also be necessarily good. One could also say that it makes sense to care about preventing harms when one exists, but not before it. But I am not taking such a view at this point of time, so I'll move on.

I don't think that this violates Kant's imperative. Nobody has an interest in not existing that would somehow be violated or disregarded by being created. In Kantian ethics, what might be more pertinent would be to ensure that one truly cares for the person and doesn't create them merely because they wish to have more working hands. However, I do think that one actually respects and exalts the dignity of a person by giving them the opportunity to experience goods they would be deeply grateful for and had no way to solicit prior to existing. On the other hand, I don't think that preventing all goods for the sake of a perspective that doesn't sufficiently focus on the goods would be an ethical intention/act.

I would not say that life is always a "gift"; it could certainly turn bad, which is why I support transhumanism and the RTD so that harms can be reduced. However, I think that the value of a gift comes from the overall good it provides, not from just potential harms.
i) The "no-strings" attached might be relevant if greater value/happiness was achievable without causing the harm caused by the negative aspects of the gift. However, it is evident that nonexistent beings don't exist in a state they have an interest in that would be affected by the "inferior" gift. In many instances, it could be a source of inimitable value that, despite its downsides, can still be quite meaningful.

ii) One doesn't have absolute certainty about anything. Everything does involve a certain degree of risks, such as giving a self-help book to someone that ends up making them miserable. Most people do genuinely seem to wish that the person they create would have a good life, and if the taking the risk can be bad, grabbing the opportunity for happiness can also be good. I think that an agenda to prevent all happiness cannot be considered ethical. Weaving the fabric of all happiness can be immensely good. I don't think that most people intend to create harms. If anything, the existence of numerous NGOs and people committed to social causes like charity does show that people do wish to reduce harm. Being happy doesn't have to come at the cost of harms, especially when it comes to different individuals (not to mention that one can also help others in small ways, such as by making a kind remark). For many people, the blessing outweighs the "burden" by a large margin, and intentionally forming that great joy cannot be unethical in any consistent ethical framework.

Overall, I believe that any time one is unnecessarily preventing significant happiness that nobody could ask for or appreciate prior to existing, they cannot claim that they have accomplished an ultimate good by preventing potential harms.

Same to you! :D

It always has been. After all, the achievement of the "ridiculous" is an excellent way to reach the realm of ecstasy. :)
We will, mate. I am not an oracle, but I would be far more worried if there weren't people like you who cared. That's why I said before, thanks for "everything".

Also, sukha is not dukkha.

A child lovingly hugging his mother in an attempt to express the indescribable beauty of love is not tolerance. A soldier feeling immense pride and honour despite of facing pain is transcending mere "tolerance". Innumerable people helping others and finding genuine happiness in it is more significant than one might think. I am not denying that the harms aren't extremely problematic, however. Part of the problem is that most people these days wish to chase superficial pleasures instead of finding deeper contentment, which is easier to find if everybody benefits, not just a few. If the world had more empathetic people like you, we could have resolved our problems sooner. Still, hope remains.

We all are distorted to various degrees, my friend. Some mitigate that, others exacerbate it. Even though you have engaged with one side of reality quite well, you have grossly neglected the other. That ignorance continues to shape and reflect your words. Some people live their entire lives living a lie, but I hope your destiny is different.

Pseudo-realism ;)

"We" is a broad term :p We shall certainly see. I have marked your words, but I think that the only use they would have (ultimately, not immediately) would be as an example of how wrong some worldviews and predictions can get. Until then, please have a good life ahead!

It's one of many.
I don't need absolute perfection for life to be worthwhile, just as one doesn't require absolute suffering for some lives to be negative. You are free to consider anybody to be on "backfoot", but that doesn't mean much. It's merely a recognition of reality.

Happiness isn't any less real than suffering. Not much to see when one has not removed the curtain ;)

And Buddha didn't believe that happiness was an illusion. Mitigating unnecessary desires does lead to positive contentment.

You don't understand the Buddha, because he was never as limited in his scope as you have made yourself. Quite strange it is to think that the reality of one thing automatically makes the other an illusion. You never understood what the Buddha said, because you have single-mindedly focused on one aspect of reality. Happiness is real. Dukkha exists, but so does
sukkha (happiness). दुःख and सुख are both relevant. I don't think that you understand what understanding means. Broadening one's horizons before reaching any conclusions is important lest one arrives at one that is fundamentally flawed. It's better to not annihilate one's keyboard before it happens.
"When the Buddha said he taught suffering and the end of suffering, rather than being pessimistic, he was being optimistic. When the Buddha explained dukkha (Pali. suffering, discontent), he explicated its cause, how to eradicate its cause, and the method of practice leading to its eradication. He taught us the way to avoid suffering.

Happy will he be who knows how to bring an end to suffering. Sukha may be translated as pleasant, pleasurable, happy, happiness, contentment, satisfaction, or even as joy and bliss."
—Buddhistdoor.net

The presence of discomfort doesn't automatically imply that good isn't real, but you need to look beyond your biases in order to see that.

You have denied the truth of happiness, which is the same as affirming a lie, my friend.

I have no obligation to work under your framework. Making the "case" doesn't mean ignoring the truth, as you and many other antinatalists choose to do. Happiness is what makes life worth it, just as extreme suffering might lead to some not have adequate value. Yet, that doesn't mean that the ineffably meaningful experiences of people dont matter. You can certainly say many things, but that doesn't make them real or substantial. They certainly will be the judge of the sort of things that you and I have said. Hopefully, they would have a better understanding of what reality and illusions mean than the one that has been displayed here.

Hope will not be necessary here. No problem :)

Perfectly understandable, but I believe it is. I think I could also focus more on the current state of affairs instead of a non-beneficial future prevention of damage.

Indeed.

This assumes that not creating the damage is either ethically good/neutral. If it's good to prevent damage whose prevention would not satisfy the interests of an actual person, then it is also bad to prevent happiness, regardles of whether or not someone exists to be deprived of it. If it is solely neutral, then I don't see how it can be justifiable to say that bestowing the good of happiness on another person's behalf is not ethical, especially considering the fact that there is no happiness and no satisfaction arising from "no collateral damage".

We certainly do have situations wherein one incurs harms in order to achieve greater goods, though I don't think it is necessary in all cases, provided one learns to limit their unnecessary needs. For instance, I don't think that infinite money is a required for a meaningful life, but some might crave it due to their inability to find contentment.

The problem is that you're only concerned with suffering. However, one is also starting the conditions for all joyous experiences. Someone is starting the state of affairs which would allow all happiness to take place.

I don't deny that there are serious harms, which is also why I support transhumanism and the right to a graceful exit. However, there are also deeply meaningful experiences that act as a source of inimitable value even in terrible situations for innumerable people. I don't think that this is a trivial factor. I don't think that the harms are always inescapable, and there is also a lot of resilience that people demonstrate (though voluntary life-extension can certainly help people cherish the lives they value). So, we are actually here:
1. Starting the conditions for all happiness is necessarily (presuming that NOT starting the conditions for harms is necessary) good.

2. On behalf of someone else who cannot ask for the good.

3. The happiness is also not trivial.

4. The happiness is precious and ineffably valuable, and most people do seem to value their lives.

Happiness does matter, and I don't think that your replies change that cardinal consideration. I am not claiming that life is intrinsically valuable (just as I don't believe that life is inherently disvaluable). I only think that if it can be good to not create harms, it can also be good to create valuable experiences. Nevertheless, I don't believe that anyone should be pressurised or forced to endure a valueless existence.

And you don't wish to add them, because you're aware that it highlights the flaws of your philosophy. I think I have a decent idea, but I will avoid giving any false impressions of attacking "straw men" in the future

You did the same when you said "No happiness is being deprived", since this clearly meant that no "person" exists to realise this bad.. Again, I am not going to accept unjustifiable inconsistencies. However, that's fine. You can elaborate on what you wish to say. I haven't done much more than object to potential/actual double standards that I've spotted, period. Be that as it may, I apologise if I misunderstood/misconstrued anything you said.

No, I clearly said "full statement", which means that I believe that the points I added should also be a part of the sort of framework you had proposed. This is a complete misunderstanding, I am afraid.

I could rephrase what I said for further clarity:
No happiness is taking place.
No relief/satisfaction from the absence of damage is being provided (to an actual person).

I am not bound to use your terminologies (I consider damage to be linked with value, but I digress), but rest assured, I was not referring to anything other than the facts on the ground.

You don't seem to understand your own views, or have altered them without realising it. Nevertheless, I will disregard this manoeuvre, though an actual explanation would be appreciated.

I was making my own statement, so this has nothing to do with your words. Once again, an unsubstantiated claim.

Saying it's an "open shut case" also doesn't make it true. Not sure how much "forward" we're going to go, but sure.

I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I was merely stating a fact that the lack of collateral damage is not helping anybody in inexistence.

"Twists" are necessary to fix already twisted ideas ;) You said:
"How can it ever be bad that someone does not incur collateral damage (of harm), when the collateral damage of "no happiness", is incurred by literally "no one"?"

This isn't just about no damage taking place. Firstly, I did not claim that the lack of damage is bad; I said that if the lack of damage is good, then the lack of happiness is also bad. You seemed to imply that the absent happiness does not matter because it doesn't "damage" anybody. I only pushed for consistency by pointing out that, by the same token, the lack of collateral damage also does not bestow any good upon someone who does not exist. So, if the lack of happiness cannot be bad due to a lack of experiential harm, I don't think that a lack of damage could be considered preferable since there is no experiential benefit arising in that state of affairs.

It's quite relevant.

Full description:
No benefit from a lack of harm is taking place.
No relief is being felt from any "prevented suffering" (for an actual person).

If this is true, then I certainly agree with (parts) of what you say.

❤️

Another assertion that contradicts reality, I am afraid. There is no such thing as "seeming" to be happy. There are instances when one might be in pain and yet also be happy, but that is a situation of duality, not illusions. And if happiness can seem like an illusion, so can suffering. I have seen many people breaking down in tears over failing to win their favourite video game, all the while they can easily retry and have many material comforts, Yet, if their sadness is "real" to you, then so is happiness. It does seem like there is a fool's hell, and you are dangerously close to it. You deserve better. Avidya leads to suffering, and it is worse when it is deliberate.

Quite regrettable that denial is the path you have chosen. From the very beginning, you seemed inquisitive, yet you have let your biases shape your worldview for too long. Your attempts to diminish happiness are, unfortunately, but ultimately futile. At the end of the day, it is crystalline that you have an extremely narrow knowledge of the world. Acknowledging one part of the circle does not make the other "frivolous", but grasping this requires looking at the bigger picture.

Thanks for everything. Have a wonderful day, and I hope you can have all my happiness :)

Very "noble" of you to ignore the reality that has defined the lives of billions of people. There is indeed happiness, and you are probably experiencing it in some form right now. Unfortunately, you are not willing to let go of the presuppositions that are holding you back. I wish I could do something to help you see things differently, even if it meant causing harm to myself. I am sorry if I said anything unsavoury in this exchange.

Being sad over someone's happiness might be a good example of "guilty sorrow".

Happiness is real. I do not really need to "argue" for that which is usually self-evident. Our situation is grave indeed, but not for the reasons you think. We do need to comprehend that the world is not defined by our personal viewpoint. Nevertheless, hope and joy will persist.

Nice "guess"!

You do not care about the happiness and the lived experiences of innumerable innocent people who continue to cherish their lives despite having suffered more than you can probably imagine. I am sure that people of all age groups would consider your facetious and unjustifiable remarks about the so-called "illusion of happiness" to be deeply enlightening. I never downplayed suffering; I merely did not restrict my perspective. I doubt you understood them much, my friend. There is a sense of deep-seated prejudice and disdain in the way you have treated the profoundly significant experiences had by people, which is not unexpected, but slightly disappointing.

If only you could have spent some time with those who survived suicide and feel truly grateful for having gained a second chance, but then again, one can only look where they wish to. I will continue to support a liberal right to die since I do think that everybody should have the ability to find a dignified exit if the need ever arises.

I suppose the pain in that case wouldn't be a harm in the ultimate sense, since it would lead to a greater good (which isn't illusory) that would outweigh the harm for the person. Some people might indeed crave pain, but I think it is better to avoid it if better alternatives for being happy are available.

I don't believe in hell, but I guess there would be some sort of special section for the evil person where they can hurt themselves or don't achieve satisfaction the way they usually did. It's certainly interesting!