Also this works itself in different ways in how values play out...

The conformist personality has less angst in overcoming negative feelings regarding what is immediate and practical, such as work-related tasks. They do not have to motivate or justify to themselves as much why they do something. Analogously, they are more like an animal-mind. Don't question, just do. In a way, it is much smoother way-of-being as the slogan "just do it" is simply lived, and not questioned.

The open personality has more angst in overcoming negative feelings regarding immediate and practical things. They have to question why they must do it, and then motivate themselves to do something that they don't really want to do. Their preferences don't align with the realities of survival and comfort. This in a way, is less animalistic (an existential layer if you will), but produces more of a sort of "break" with existence, where they are constantly having to realign their values and expectations to what is practically necessary.

The conformist would say the open personality has to "get with it" and change their values. This may happen, but with personality theory, this would not be as easy.

But it also speaks to a larger question. Do the conformist-personalities have better values because they don't have this extra layer of inertia to overcome? Does human evolution favor these personality types? The ones that must overcome their own dislike for the practical, perhaps are the outliers.

The problem is humans are a creature motivated by values, and values seem to be dictated in how it plays out in social relations. Obviously, the practical minded will always win this debate in the realm of the social as we need things to get done, not questioned. And so the circular loop of Sisyphus continues...

One way to approach it is as a generalization of virtue. Do you go off to join the revolution or stay home to be with your dying mother ? Perhaps either choice has merit. Maybe I respect your resolution. Maybe I respect your vision of the theoretical or abstract undecidability here. But in fact you still have to make a choice, and it's arguably more noble to be resolute. Once you've made the 'absurd' decision, do it with all thy might. — green flag

But I am saying, that choice, for personality theorists seems to be fixed, and isn't "really" a choice. The pragmatic-minded stays with their mother. The non-pragmatic-minded perhaps fight the cause. However, that is not to say the decision is fixed, it just means, for the non-pragmatist, the decision might be that much harder to stay with their mother because their "tendency" is with abstraction and not practical.

Your existentialist might have a Hamlet-like frustration with his theoretical bent and decide to take himself for a practical man. — green flag

It's just that this happens sometimes, but not often. They are tendencies afterall. No personality theorist worth their salt, would say it's absolute. No human choice works like that. They would simply assert that there are fixed patterns that will tend towards certain actions and decisions.

Also, this whole thing has wider implications...

Let's look at how people conform to social standards...
You get a job and work for an income.
You consume stuff at markets to live, optimize comfort, and entertain yourself aesthetically or otherwise.
Your social relations are dictated by these structures (work/leisure, where to find friends, when to do something and when not to do something, time is less subjective, etc.)>

However, there are personality types that will take to and conform to already-existing structures like water. They are at home with it. Their decisions revolve around it. They reify it to a value in itself. "Work hard/play hard... Find meaning in the system given to you. If there is a repair, here's the practical steps. If there is something unclean, here is how to clean it, etc.". Then there are those who can question everything. Their values may be to question any aspect whatsoever.

Perhaps the disjunction between the two personality types are such that the human condition is that much more isolating. The conformist can never really see the open personality types view. They don't understand why they don't hunker down in the given system. The open person sees the pragmatist as conformist and unimaginative.

In terms of the decision to have a child this works itself out as well..
The conformist personality envisions a child who will embrace the conformity of the given, just like themselves. Surely, why would they be unhappy with the given?

The open personality type envisions a child trapped in the conformity of the given. Why should they put someone through this?

Why not? Don't people voluntarily agree on ways to coexist all the time?

States just aren't a useful way of reaching such voluntarily agreements, because they're inherently predicated on coercion. This is also why I believe attempts to instrumentalize the state for ethical ends is a flawed endeavor. — Tzeentch

But the damage is done. The state exists. Hence its retribution. Imagine someone with a completely opposite view. You’re both forced into the contract. It’s certainly a pessimistic stance. The violation is inevitable in the circumstance of a contract that no one could ask for.

What about the people who do not have children, though? Perhaps I should have specified better, but this is the group that in my view is subjected to collective punishment, because they haven't done anything wrong and yet are forced to pay. — Tzeentch

That’s part of my point though. No one will agree on any form. You are subject needing or utilizing the minimal benefit as much as the next person. We are all already forced into the contract.

The way you're framing it, it also sounds an awful lot like collective punishment, in which people are punished for crimes (or moral slights) they did not commit. — Tzeentch

So the theory essentially takes into account that we are born into a particular system. Being born into the system is "entering into the social contract". This is a forced "endorsement" of the contract. Hence all people fall under this. The recompense is the minimal standard of living provided.

So it speaks against the absolutist view that non-harm/ non-imposition / pro-autonomy necessarily entails every aspect of human affairs, even beyond personal ethics. That it is "turtles all the way down". I am proposing that whilst it is the model for personal ethics, there is a disjunction at the level of social formation. That is to say, that government first principles are not completely and absolutely reduced to ethical first principles. That is because of the reasons listed above:

1) Harm of being brought into an existence with suffering.
2) Imposed upon to the limited choices this existence/society has to offer for the child who is imposed upon.
3) Inability, even in principle to consent to the contract of this society.

Let's focus especially on point 3.

Person X says, "I want a system whereby the economy is run by workers councils. I want policies a, b, and c to be implemented."

Person Y says, "I want a fully libertarian anarchist government with absolutely no government intervention, and in fact, perhaps no government at all except private formations that people join".

In X's world, Y will not get their desired contract. In Y's world, X will not get their desired contract. With any two people, there will be at least SOME differences, maybe not in complete setup, but minor clauses (policies) within the setup. In other words, once someone enters into the world-system, they will lose in some way. And again, this loss is represented by a forced endorsement of the contract that is given.

That all being said, I see the default action to be one of restitution. If a good ethical system based on deontology values the dignity of a person not being violated, then certainly offering restitution to a person whose dignity was violated would be an appropriate response to the damages to that person, and the violation of dignity, from the very entity (government) whose contract one is being forced to endorse.

Now the issue of "collective punishment" is not really the case here, because a person is not born into "just" a family. They are born into a society. The person lives in property that is part of a town/city/county/state/country. The person is immediately subject to laws, principles, historical decisions, and institutions that long proceeded the person born into these things; who could never, even in principle assent to it. These aren't just words, but whole institutional structures. The parents are a product of this community, and are allowed to freely force people into the society, and sometimes are even promoted to do so. I posit that an individual forcing someone into existence, while a personal ethic, is also committing a political action because they are force "endorsing" the child to become part of a larger social contract of the society simultaneously.

The satisfaction of need is life sustaining, that of desire is also life sustaining; in the sense of bringing the organism pleasure which is opposite of pain. So, things of value are life sustaining things. — boagie

I value not working, but working brings sustenance materially, so it seems to me, we can value things that don't bring maintenance (not working) but also value maintenance that doesn't bring satisfaction (work).

I also don't want to lose sight of the OP here. I am not really advocating a very specific program, but trying to justify Social Programs or a broader social democracy upon deontological grounds where things like non-harm, and pro-autonomy still apply as an ethical foundation. I think it can IF looked at as a "retributive justice" for the:
1) Harm of being brought into an existence with suffering.
2) Imposed upon to the limited choices this existence/society has to offer for the child who is imposed upon.
3) Inability, even in principle to consent to the contract of this society.

With all of that, and with the contingent understanding that NO ONE will ever agree 100% what society they rather have (including free-market only, mixed, anarchism, communism, you name it), that a minimum should be provided for the retribution of being forced into the contract and existence itself.

It'd be like a doctor experimenting on his patients. — Tzeentch

I mean, healthcare isn't an exact science anyways, and we are experimenting with people as much as not providing them healthcare than with providing it via the state.

Modern medicine is probably one of the better things states provide — Tzeentch

Only Medicare and Medicaid in the US, and "exchanges" for (not really) reduced rates via the states in what is called "Obamacare". Just want you to keep in mind that the States are not a universal healthcare system.

Further, if we accept this healthy body/healthy mind minimum, the actions of the state that pertain to those things are not limited to medicine. — Tzeentch

I am talking minimums, not maximums, so I don't want to make a straw man by saying, "The state must enculcate what to eat, what to drink, what to do", etc. So I guess the mimimum standard of living would be at least enough to live by some frugal means. It's not the whole "kit and kaboodle" of healthy living.

What it boils down to is that states don't have the will nor capacity to genuinely pursue the healthy bodies and minds of their citizens, which is why I don't believe we should look for states to do such things.

And to circle back to the ethical nature of the OP, if the state can't do a damn good job, there's no way it can justify the costs it imposes on people. — Tzeentch

I see this as a knowledge transfer problem, more how it is applied than really an argument against the idea. We'd have to know what the criteria is, what is success, etc.

Certainly, if someone has cancer, and the state helps pay for treatments, that would be a minimum.

Perhaps with housing, having at minimum a room somewhere rather than a tent (or at least a heated outside area) might be better than nothing at all. Of course, that is complex as most homeless have chronic mental health and addiction issues and indeed harder to solve, though Portugal might be an ideal to look at as to how they handle such things. What's more disparaging than the state offering some minimum standard is people with mental health/addiction problems not even TAKING the care that is offered. That leads to chronic homelessness, definite crime-ridden areas, etc.

Can one truly afford to answer such questions after the fact and still consider oneself ethical? — Tzeentch

Not sure what you mean. You'd have to explain a lot more for me to comment one way or the other. How is something like universal healthcare bad for the populace, necessarily? Is that causing more pain? Certainly, corruption, abuse, and bloat are a thing, but that is involved in free-market companies too. One can argue that once entrenched, it doesn't leave, but countries that have these systems, for all the complaining, do not seem to get a majority to get rid of it and go back to privatization whereby people must purchase their own or rely solely on employers like fiefdoms that provide such things.

Because I struggle to think of ways states contribute to people's healthy bodies and healthy minds.

The best case could perhaps be made for modern medicine, but honestly I think the state as a whole does about as much to cause problems as it does to solve them. — Tzeentch

I guess it's another question as to how this is to be done.

Is that true, though?

As a basic humanistic starting point, I like to believe every person deserves a healthy mind and a healthy body. — Tzeentch

Which part? It looks like you agree here. I am rather saying that being that no one could ever consent to this arrangement, and understanding that everyone's conception will be different of what would be the best social contract, the least we could do is provide minimum standards, as the harm was already done.

Are states really able to offer these things? — Tzeentch

In a prosperous enough economy, I would think so and many do, especially the Scandinavian models.

Anyways, this all has implications for political theory in general.
I was just listening to something about the The Society of the Spectacle and couldn't help but see how this fits in nicely.

The parts I am thinking are the "impersonal forces" of the social arrangements we are born into. We can never have anything substantial to do with it, yet we are swept up in the agenda of The Spectacle. Another spectator, participating in someone else's ride.

So no, it isn’t true that “Once an individual is born, they are immediately part of a society that may not fully align with their values and principles, and they may have to make compromises and trade-offs to survive and succeed in that society”. The very first assertion…at this point I could care less what follows. — NOS4A2

I changed the first sentence so you can get past your bad argument. I was going to say don't be a dipshit but, I figured if it gets you to engage the argument, maybe you can productively say something instead of this bad faith arguing. It is a fact that the person born is IMMEDIATLEY having their rights violated upon birth.. But I don't want to muddle the water as to what the VALUE will be that is DEFINITELY going to be violated (at some point somewhere by some government entity/person), and the IMMEDIATE violation of the actual person being unnecessarily harmed by being brought into existence.. But I've again, used too many words to argue with this shit.

I cannot just accept the first assertion and move on. I need to know if the principles and values were acquired later in life, through life, long after the fact of being born. — NOS4A2

Not even worth answering. Yawn. Anything else? I see you have not thought through the implications that being born means always being born into something that compromises their values, and where they are inevitably compromising others' values.. The setup that is the background of being born into was there long before the person realizes their own values, so the point is very very moot.

I see you have nothing interesting to contribute :yawn:

And even so, does it matter if the subject in question has certain values at all? If we accept the principles mentioned, it seems that the newborn can still be "violated" regardless of the future values it may accept as an adult. The retroactive application of values unnecessarily convolutes the argument. — finarfin

Finarfin answered you already. No need to red herring again. Besides this clear red herring [which has been properly addressed even though you restated the red herring] is there any legitimate objection, comment, or support for the argument at hand?

A nice pairing. — BC

Thank you, sir! :smile:.

It shoots down the literary balloon and then nails it with a jagged icicle. — BC

Nice turn of phrase and, yes exactly.

So, I am asking how do you think about making sense in the maze of philosophical pluralism? Also, to what extent is reason a quest for reason, a search for personal meaning or connected to power balances or imbalances in social structures? — Jack Cummins

The whole "scientism" vs. "post-modernism" debate is subsumed by existentialism. That is to say, at heart, we are creatures that can do what we don't feel like doing by way of reasons (to ourselves). So, I don't want to work, but I must if I want to survive. I make a narrative to myself (aka a "reason"), and then this becomes my narrative for why I must carry on. But I don't have to. I can technically quit working, and even starve myself. But the rubber hits the pavement, so to say, once the realities of starvation and imminent death are lurking. So here is the "science", that is to say, applied sciences in the form of engineering/technological applications to keep us alive.

So we know at least two things regarding human will:
1) We can create reasons that overcome preferences.
2) We generally don't like pain and hunger and destitution.

Most strife and conflicts come from this. The "modernism" of science represents a sort of historical trajectory that of the underpinning of our survival and ways of life. The "post-modernism" is the desiderata reasons we push and pull at that provide personal motivations to keep using the tools that the scientific apparatus has provided.

Everything is text is post-modernism's stance. However, starvation is a bitch. The "meta-narrative" of the "modernism" haunts the post-modern because as "relativistic" as you want to go, it goes back to that starvation and the use of the scientific apparatus. The meta-narrative wins.

As with everything social, it comes down to agenda. What are people supposed to “get out of living” exactly?

Your answer is the transgression.

Progress assumes people are here to progress. That is a transgression. People are racing around to intentionally or through byproduct of their actions “progress”. That’s a transgression of using people.

Progress is also hollow. It’s instrumental. All trappings and no meaning. To progress so we can progress to progress…

Do people get meaning out of things? Is their meaning based on someone else’s agenda? Then their meaning is a tainted one. Fettered and unfree. Me building a better robot so that people who like the idea of progress can feel good seems wrong.

It’s wrong not because we haven’t “progressed” but the idea of progress itself is prima facie immoral though INSTRUMENTALLY valuable. But this very instrumentality is also its hollowness and meaning-less in the truest sense of only being ever instrumental and as soon as it becomes the ends, becomes just using people for more endless notions of “progress”.

It is, rather, about trying to get to an agreed starting point or marking the differences in starting points. — Fooloso4

Agreed. I meant people using Wittgenstein to say you can’t talk about anything “meaningful” in regards to metaphysics or ethics etc

Wittgenstein is useful insofar as his language games concept. As long as we are using the same language, games, and agree on the definitions of what terms mean what, we will have a much more lucrative dialogue. However, if everyone is using different terms for their starting points, then the language game breaks down, and no constructive debate occurs. However, if Wittgenstein is used to simply shut down philosophical debate, that’s more an agenda. It’s the equivalent of saying “how does philosophy about metaphysics help me in the stock market?” philosophy, perhaps will never satisfy the ultimate pragmatist whereby if it’s not about immediate survival, comfort, entertainment needs it is all useless banter. In that case, it’s just the disposition of the person.

Perhaps I misunderstand you. I hear you objecting to all cultural moralities as, on balance, bad. — Mark S

No just as de facto what we have. It’s like saying, it’s better to have food than no food. It’s almost too common sensical to make any impact as far as any real position. Best to have a society that has a diversity of views. Ok…

Societies decide when “people will be forced to do X” when they advocate and enforce moral norms. For example, people will be coerced into not stealing and murdering. Will some people not like that? Sure. Will anyone else care? No. — Mark S

So your OP was about separating means and ends. Forcing others to do things for ends seems to be a violation of autonomy in regards to the means, no?

Ultimately, you just seem to be advocating what actually happens in modern democratic societies, no? People with different values live in the same communities playing out their values, but they all agree to the value of living in the community and following it’s guidelines. I’m not sure how that’s philosophical as much as just reiterating the status quo. I guess I would default to some sort of essay like Mills on liberty or something like that because that’s essentially what you’re advocating.

But seriously, fun post. However, several things:
Is direct sensory experience in the mindscape or just abstracted thoughts? In other words is me experiencing stepping in shit part of the mindscape too? And if it is, is it the abstracted aspect or the sensory aspect? What makes something mindscape worthy and others passing detritus?

Plato and Schopenhauer I feel, have this problem in defining what counts as a Form…

But the mindscape does have some unintuitive implications. For instance, Shakespeare didn’t create the play Macbeth. Rather, he discovered it in the mindscape where it had been from all eternity. And Albert Einstein didn’t invent the Theory of Relativity. Rather, he found it lying in the mindscape where it, too, had been from all eternity.

And this post has been lying in the mindscape for all eternity, just waiting for someone to read it. — Art48

Put down the ganja and walk away slowly. Breath heavily and take lots of water. Lay down. The world will stop spinning soon. Dry mouth will continue for several hours.

Perhaps helping others and otherwise being kind could cause issues relative to autonomy or lack thereof, but wouldn’t that be rare? Why focus on possible rare bad effects instead of the normal, plentiful benefits? — Mark S

It’s not rare that people will be forced to do X even if it’s supposedly to be in their interest. Who decides when and what and who and all that. They may not like that.

If it is unnecessary to cause the harm TO THAT PERSON affected.

Slavery wasn't always the case, nor racism. Whole communities of people did not practice either and considered them an abomination. Arguments against them appealed to common beliefs. — Isaac

Same with Cathars, some monks, sages and such in history…

Arguments against them appealed to common beliefs. — Isaac

The Roman Empire, Greece, had tons of it. Middle Ages had surfs which are practically slaves.

Literally no one believes that yet-to-be-born imaginary people should have the same rights to autonomy as actual living people. So your argument doesn't appeal to any common belief, it just claims that the beliefs of all of humanity since the dawn of time, in that respect, are wrong. And are wrong solely because you think so. Nothing more. — Isaac

You should be able to memorize my counter arguments by now so I’m not going to reieat.

Learning the secrets of stars, whales and cicadas involves a tremendous amount of tedious work -- work considered tedious by the people who love doing it. The exciting moments are thinly scattered.

Now wait a minute... one of the benefits of civilization has been the rich discoveries of science, boring details and brilliant discoveries alike. What "magic of knowledge" did civilization shut down for so long??? — BC

Well, you got to my point first, hats off to you.

No, that's exactly the science I didn't mean. I mean learning the secrets of stars and clouds and oceans; learning the language of whales and cicadas; rediscovering the magic of knowledge that civilization had shut down for so long. One of the recurring myths of pre-agricultural peoples is the ability to communicate with and change places with animals, an ability we lost through some transgression against Nature. The Eden story is a reiteration of that theme. We are only just beginning to shed the constraints of the conqueror's application of natural curiosity. — Vera Mont

While I sympathize with your romanticism, as BC pointed out. It's all pretty tedious stuff. Some of it, mind-numblingly so. Mongering minutia is what we need to do to survive. We are all infused in the mongering and the mining of the Almighty minutia.

You notice even in this forum, to have cache, you have to mine more minutia than the next guy? If not, you are just not legitimate. The modern day legitimacy is how much minutia you can mine and monger. Mark my words. Otherwise, you are an untethered New Age, mystic freak. All big picture, no analysis. All pie in the sky, no hard-nosed data. When you get granular enough, the nihilism becomes ever so present because at some level, it is just people who need their minds to be occupied with details so it doesn't have to think broadly or generally or existentially. Minutia minutia minutia!

It's only circular if you assume you are correct, i.e., that AN is the same as abolitionists fighting against slavery.

The problem is in your assumption. To think you belong in the same boat is quite astonishing. — Manuel

The point was that there is a parallel here in that at the time of the abolitionist in the 1700s, they were the MINORITY. It was an example of something that started in a MINORITY position (in fact the minority position throughout all of history until the 1800s), and now has become such the norm that we can now take it for granted that it is outrageous to compare anything to it! I know this is going "whoosh" keep doing the faux indignation.

At least abolitionists were helping living people- you reserve you moral righteousness for those who do not even exist!

I'll let you have the last word here - you obviously enjoy pontificating to those who don't even like children, about how much life sucks. — Manuel

Well, if you don't believe in future conditionals, counterfactuals or indefinite nouns, that's not my problem. Pontificating rather than procreating. Fine by me.

Again, I'm not confused about might not making right, I'm confused about why you think "I think so" is a persuasive argument where "10 million people think so" is not. — Isaac

Because progress isn’t always apparent immediately nor maybe ever.

It is laughable that you compare your moral whining to real, actual, legitimate human rights.

You give pessimism a bad name. — Manuel

Circular argument dude. You ALREADY have the conventional notion that slavery is bad. That’s my freakn point.

Well unless I speak of the living, I cannot speak at all. For as you know, people do not exist have no moral rights - they don't exist! — Manuel

I was simply saying, "Most people" doesn't mean much and I will keep repeating why as I did in my last post (cue slavery and other past conventions that "most people" were at least indifferent to).

That means that you, me and everybody else are likely to be wrong on many - if not most - things. Don't be that confident. — Manuel

So abolitionists should have just shut their yapper up because, they are too confident?

Keep existing Nihilists I say…at least they’re not as miserable as the antinatalists — invicta

Hey now!

But we still can have Science - not the science of mere technology to which commercialism has reduced it, but Science as a quest for knowledge and mastery, just as wizardry was a quest for knowledge and control.
We still can have Philosophy - not polemics, not nit-picking pedantry, but the striving to understand our relationship to the world.
We still have ideals... some of us, who have not lost them in the tide of ideologies. — Vera Mont

But my point was "Science" is the tedium. Otherwise it is just more achoring myths. I'd put it really as entertainment more than myth. But we love our myths, because minutia mongering is oh so tedious. Bits, bytes, chemical reactions, equations, and the like. Sounds good until it's just bip bop boop bop bip boop bop all day all day all day.....

This is such a bizarre counter. You're saying here that virtually the entire human race thinking something is right still doesn't make it right, but in the same breath you're trying to suggest the mere fact that you think something is wrong might actually make it wrong. — Isaac

For a long time, most of humanity thought that the sun revolved around the Earth. It's lack of perspective.

It's also a blindspot, I would imagine for most. It is so conventional as to seem not up for ethical debate. But if you were to deign yourself to be a type of person who believes in certain principles, this too would fall under those principles (non-harm, autonomy, etc.).

I liken it to vegetarianism. It may be right, but it takes a long time for people to catch on to things. Slavery was around and condoned as part of life for thousands of years before the last couple hundred years. Some conventions are easier to slough away than others. Clearly, slavery was an easier one to universally condemn (but even that took wars, legislation, and the like).

Again, blindspot, convention, preferences conflicting with values can all play a part. But simply people having a preference that is very conventionally popular, doesn't mean ipso facto, it must be therefore ethical.

When you stop believing that Santa Claus and his elves - or Baby Jesus and his angels - make Christmas, it doesn't matter how much tinsel you hang or money you spend of gifts - the magic is gone forever. — Vera Mont

And what is left? Imagine a world where everyone helped everyone else continually with no entertainment. Imagine a world where everyone just entertained themselves without helping anyone else. It’s meaningless in every direction. Those people will just say have a “mixed economy” of helping and entertainment. Somehow, this mundane realization is seen as the modern standard, and this is tedious as the tedium of technology. The myths were there so that there was a veneer of something greater than entertainment and surviving.

Though it should be revealed as such, it’s banishment leads to Sisyphus and the mundanity of contingency. Next stop (hopefully) Cioran Pessimism.

I'd say this is too narrow a scope. It's been somewhat overcome, for whom? Events from the New Deal to now validates Marx's description of Capital -- class bifurcation from capital expansion that through its economic power has come to revolutionize democracy itself, putting it up for sale, undermining New Deal era social programs to continue to accumulate and create an industrial reserve army. — Moliere

Again, in first world nations, look at the rise of the middle class from the mid-1800s. That fact cannot be denied, would be the reply. Development theory trumps Core-Peripheral (Marxist) theory etc.

tl;dr - Marx is still relevant to the events we see today, regardless of how we parse the New Deal and whether having stock-options as payment is owning the means of production. — Moliere

While I agree with this, I can see your mixed-economy liberal types would just say it is making sure the "tinkering" is adjusted for better wages, services, and opportunities.

Morality as Cooperation Strategies is a non-zero-sum game. This produces many opportunities to increase the benefits of cooperation without harming others. — Mark S

That's not true. The mere act of "trying" to cooperate may cause issues relating to autonomy or lack thereof.

I doubt that real life can be reduced to such axiomatic schemes. The point, which has been stressed ad nauseum, is that most people do not view life in terms of pain alone. You can say these people are deluding themselves or something along those lines. Yet the fact remains that most people don't buy this argument, no matter how much you stress the forced aspect. — Manuel

What does it matter? Some racists will remain racists. At one point, let's say, 51% of people were overtly racist. And so? Providing some popular concept of morality as the justification for action, isn't cutting it either. So where does that leave your argument other than the fact that "most people" think X, when it is wrong?

I have sympathy for your view - I do think that there is too much pain and destruction and misery and depression, partly (only partly) for these reasons I don't have children. The difference being that I also recognize that there are good things in life, things which make it worth living, even if there is pain - all these things are imposed on us by life. — Manuel

Then you are subtly changing the argument from worth starting to worth continuing. As you recognized in my argument, no one is obligated to ensure someone exists for happy things, but certainly preventing avoidable harms is. What would make creating harms to bring someone benefits ON THEIR BEHALF (imposed) be ever justified in your view? No amelioration was needed. This is PURELY creating unnecessary harms without any mitigating reasons other than you want to see X outcome.

And yes, there is pain and suffering too, but it shall pass, as shall we. — Manuel

This is actually a lack of empathy for people who have severe X issue (mental, physical, whatever). And contingency is a bitch. You think you are immune from it until it happens to you. But that is secondary to my main argument which is that aggressive paternalistic impositions under ANY circumstance is not justified, even moderately pained (or pain free) lives. "This too shall pass" is trite, trivializing of suffering, and short-sighted in considering these situations.

So I don't buy your argument. What else is there to say? Are you going to impose on me more arguments? — Manuel

I guess don't reply to me.. But this just states my main point again, in life you CAN'T avoid doing harm whereby in the case of not having a child, indeed a violation did not take place, completely with no ameliorating.

Also, I see that you’re trying to implement some sort of pragmatism of morality for cooperation l. However, this is endlessly subjective. One persons proactive prodding of someone else is another persons, hassling and pestering. Who is right?

Your answer will involve some sort of ends, which not everyone will agree on, and even the means which might be something like pestering to make it happen is not correct