There's no moral element to the question "are they likely to be OK with this?". The same would apply to you painting my house green. Whether I'm likely to be OK with that depends largely on whether I like green. I'm neither right nor wrong about liking green, but the fact of the matter is crucial to whether you're morally OK to paint my house green without asking first. — Isaac

Right nor wrong about the harm done. I explained how one can be harmed without knowing it. Certainly one is harmed in life. Certainly one can be okay with that. The happy worker is still exploited. Yet this is worse because, the happy worker can quit if he sees his exploitation, a human must embrace the forced situation, lest suicide. Hence so many analogies, and perhaps all of them of already born situations just don't compare to making a decision on behest of someone not yet born.

One way we could make some sense of all this is as follows: Say, most Nazi's want all Brits dead. If you're a Nazi, the likelihood is high that you too might want all Brits dead. This is the argument that I formalized. Want.

However, why do most Nazis want all Brits dead? This question can't be answered with a vote i.e. democractically as you put it on pain of committing the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Truth. — TheMadFool

Yes, I think this gets at it.

A lot of analogies simply cannot apply. This is the only time you are making a choice for someone else and that can never have a recourse other than accepting (even embracing) the outcome lest the very hard act of slow or fast suicide.

The argument is that it is OK to impose on someone something they'll probably like (absolute moral, no voting involved). To enact this absolute moral one needs to know whether your target is likely to like what you intend to do to them. This is where majorities and averages come in, it's about having done one's due diligence in checking before taking an action (are they likely to be OK with this?). — Isaac

And if they are not? Is this averaging then correct? The implication isn't just one thing (like a surprise party).. You are playing averages with a whole life. Commit suicide and go away or some other callous BS is the only ameliorating response to the minority.

Also, what if what the majority is "ok" with is still not good? This covers what we discussed already. A majority of people can be wrong (country full of Nazis example).

One is whether the majority view dictates what is right.

Two is whether what is right can be determined by a majority view. — Isaac

Right..just like I laid out myself here you mean?:

True, I guess this argument has turned into two:
1) Does a majority of people mean it is permissible to do something that a minority views as wrong? Hence, "Should/is ethics be democratic"? (Notice I didn't say politics or law which is related, but not the same as ethical guidelines..For example, it might be "wrong" to eat animals or refuse to move away from oil, but perhaps shouldn't be illegal).

The other topic that is being currently discussed:
2) Can a majority of people be wrong about their view, and thus should not be a consideration for evaluating ethical claims?"
So for example, let's say Nazis won the war, and killed off their enemies.. Does a majority of Nazis who are the only ones left to evaluate right and wrong, mean they are right? Of course not. This is an extreme example of course, but to show the point. — schopenhauer1

It's not possible to refute this argument. It's an inductive argument and depending on a percentage value roundabout 90% that corresponds to "most", the argument is cogent! — TheMadFool

True, I guess this argument has turned into two:
1) Does a majority of people mean it is permissible to do something that a minority views as wrong? Hence, "Should/is ethics be democratic"? (Notice I didn't say politics or law which is related, but not the same as ethical guidelines..For example, it might be "wrong" to eat animals or refuse to move away from oil, but perhaps shouldn't be illegal).

The other topic that is being currently discussed:
2) Can a majority of people be wrong about their view, and thus should not be a consideration for evaluating ethical claims?"
So for example, let's say Nazis won the war, and killed off their enemies.. Does a majority of Nazis who are the only ones left to evaluate right and wrong, mean they are right? Of course not. This is an extreme example of course, but to show the point.

Sure. But I doubt professional philosophers have much of that bias. Why is it that even out of the people that don’t have kids ANs are still a minority? Why is it that even among professionals who shouldn’t suffer from these biases, AN is still a minority. — khaled

Professionals suffer from many biases. But besides that, as explained to Isaac, the extent of the majority doesn't mean much about the rightness or wrongness. Having kids isn't necessitated. A universe can exist where people are convinced this is indeed a wrong. That too doesn't mean anything about its rightness or wrongness, but that's the point of this line of reasoning. That sort of things isn't a factor to determine this evaluation.

Give an example then. Or has this never happened? Note that beforehand it was “without anyone knowing it”. — khaled

I really shouldn't give any example, because it was meant to show that perception of the wrong isn't really the determining factor of the right or wrong. A country of Nazi-followers that let's say won the war and defeated their enemies aren't "right" because they perceive as so and they are the only ones left to perceive and evaluate such things.

Wat? Please elaborate. — khaled

Life itself is a default.. You have no choice but to make a choice- even to do nothing and starve. Not so with other activities where other hopes are clearly being achieved with the explicit entry and participation in mind (winning, friends, achievement of some kind, etc.). Once this becomes a negative, one can opt out. Even the activity in question can be "making do" in a larger sense since again, the option otherwise is to "do nothing" which has its own negative consequences.

You claimed that there could be some moral wrong which most people think at the time is right, you cited slavery and suppression of women as examples. Khaled pointed out that vast swaths of people did not think these were right at the time so it isn't an example of the 'most people' argument you're making. Instead of saying "Yes, you're right, that line of argument doesn't work does it", you just ignored his point entirely and replied with

I just think a wrong can take place without "most people" knowing it.
— schopenhauer1

An unsupported re-assertion of the point you made. That's not a discussion. Just saying the same thing over and again without taking any notice of the arguments the other side are making. — Isaac

Just because its not as decisive as majority takes away nothing from the analogy..Many people condoned slavery.. In the US it was enshrined in the Constitution. The point still stands that "Most people" can say whatever they want and that doesn't change the nature of the exploitation or injustice taking place (or other X negative descriptor).

It could be the case that everyone agrees eating higher lifeform animals is wrong, that contributing to the global warming in the current manner is wrong, that x, y, z number of things are wrong but aren't fully realized or taken into account by "most people" (simply experts, outliers, and pet theorists at this point, depending on the cause).

or (B2) choose, as Silenus says, "to die soon" (and, in the meantime, (B1) narrowing your 'consciousness' to near zero by heavily self-medicating (e.g. heroin, booze) or with the equivalent of a prefrontal lobotomy aka "philosophical suicide" à la religious fundamentalism or political nihilism). — 180 Proof

True.. I can't disagree too much with this.. I find it funny that we are on the lookout for all sorts of exploitation except the major one ha. It's too much to wrap people's heads around.. Better to sublimate, medicate, and commit as you say "philosophical suicide".

then the risk is low that any one birth will produce someone who perceived their existence as causing them great, and irreconcilable harm. That risk is then weighed against any and all perceived benefits of continuing this process of life. Based on my observation it seems most people subjectively value this process of bringing new life into the world, that it is justified in spite of potential risks. — MikeF

Right, I guess everything is subectivized.. So the boss exploiting the willing-worker is okay in doing so because, the worker doesn't perceive his own exploitation.

So who or what is the instance to whom or which you can file this complaint? — baker

It's a double-bind. YOU made the bad decision and its YOUR fault!

No I write something like “this isn’t convincing” as in “it’s not justified” or “it’s fallacious”. It’s not about convincing me specifically. There is a reason AN arguments convince very few (including me once) — khaled

Sometimes people don't want to be convinced. You must admit that too.

never unanimously agreed on something being wrong/right and it turned out right/wrong. Having children falls here as well. — khaled

I just think a wrong can take place without "most people" knowing it. Can it be that someone has misplaced X going on? Possibly. The boss "can't" be exploiting me, he is my provider... Naive, but just trying to give an example quickly.

Just a long way of asking whether the average of the moment by moment evaluation should trump the overall evaluation. And why you think it should. — khaled

I think the nuance not in there is that the achieved goal is always in that equation, not post-facto as you are saying. Not quite the same analogy.

What you mean to say is "Is never having the option I want just?" - Yes, it's fine, people are not morally obliged to provide you with the option you want at all times. — Isaac

But it's not just they are not obliged.. They are forcing the situation and then post-facto saying "Oh I'm not obliged". It's not obliging it's enabling the situation. That's different.

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

Hence my thread about the "Most people" defense (which I claim is still wrong): https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11469/the-most-people-defense/p1

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

indicates lack of ethical/moral integrity and irresponsibility. You should be able to act according to what you believe is right or wrong, good or bad, and accept the consequences of your actions. — Alkis Piskas

Yes I think I agree with this. So in the realm of antinatalism (AN), what I am referring to here is the decision to procreate another person here is a situation that:

1) You exist, but the other person does not exist.
2) We know there is a guarantee of at least some harm to that child you might procreate.
3) We know that by having the child we are imposing regimens of living like finding work (or being homeless, dying of starvation, or any other number of ways of dying)
4) We know the only way out of the situation of "life" is suicide or some sort of amelioration process (that was needed because the person was put in that situation by being born).

With all this known, what is the justification that one should impose on another "life" and to enable the conditions for guaranteed harm on that person?

Well what people often say is MOST PEOPLE would have wanted to be born, so it can't be wrong!

But then this whole thread started arguing whether that is a good argument.

My claims were that:
a) Often "most people" evaluate their lives in a distorted fashion when simply asked "did you want to be born" versus the much more nuanced (and probably negative) experiences throughout a period of time.
b) I gave an example of a boss who exploits a worker who is okay with the arrangement.. Even if the person being exploited (like most people born) didn't realize the injustice of the condition, there is still an injustice..

@Isaac @khaled and @TheHedoMinimalist had disagreements with this, and the back-and-forth is continuing. If you want to add to this one way or the other, let me know.

An argument we can dissect, it's an entertaining parlour game, but an opinion...? What use is that? — Isaac

Granted and I welcome arguments, just more congenial versions of it. Not everything is "cut the other guys throat".. not all the time for me at least. There's a time and a place I guess, but that shouldn't be default "always".

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

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

Give an example of such an X. Slavery? The slaves didn’t think it was right. Gender inequality? Women didn’t think it was right. Racial discrimination? Black people didn’t think it was right. Etc.

No there was no point at which we unanimously agreed that X is right and discovered later that it was wrong or vice versa. — khaled

And ANs don't think it's right as being shown in real time.

At first X was some action that we think is either wrong or not wrong. Now it’s a person? I’m confused. — khaled

I often have to write this with time constraints.. Sorry for confusion.. Put in Y or something.

On the one hand you have the momentary evaluations of events. On the other you have the evaluation of whether or not life was worth it overall. What would it mean for these two evaluations to be “the same result”? As you say, one is analog and one is binary. How can they be the same? It makes no sense. — khaled

I mean one evaluation might indicate life was not so great, the other a positive affirmation.

Of course a person has to pick his battles wisely. Ultimately, though, it's a life we're living, and no choice at all. — tim wood

But can someone pick not to go through with the battles? Never. An impossibility without not existing at all..

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

Interesting point.. the way the world works, everything has a cost, including the choice not to choose anything. My example is meant to show that life itself has no option for no option.. Suicide is not the same as not wanting to choose an option. Is the fact that "no option" was not an option just for the person born? It can never be the case that someone will have that option. Just because this is an impossibility doesn't mean that it is not an injustice to never have the option not to pick the options. Fitting it with what you were saying, by being born, you are just exposing people to the costs of decision-making, an option we cannot avoid as well.

The only defense to this is the "If a tree falls in the woods argument.." If no one is around to "realize" the injustice, then who cares is the usual response.. But I think preventing injustice is a thing if discussing something that exists preventing an instance of injustice that doesn't exist yet.

Apart from the above-mentioned digital fill-out forms, one can choose to conceive of the situation in a different way. Ie. not as a matter of picking options as presented by others, but instead take charge and conceptualize the situation on one's own terms. The salient point is that everything comes at a cost, and so one cannot live without the consequences of one's actions. — baker

I simply mean.. In the Ice Cream example, you can choose NOT to pick anything. In the life example, that isn't an option. Is that just?

In the less wide-ranging example, I used work/survival instead of life itself..
You can choose from options. Most people think this is justice and freedom- CHOOSING an option amongst many. BUT the option not to choose an option related to one's own survival (except slow death from starvation as default) is not on the table. Is that justice? So you have the OPTION to CHOOSE a lifestyle in Westernized economic system, homelessness, making it in wilderness, free rider, etc. But you cannot choose NOT to do any of those.

So we replace it with;

1.X
2.Y
3.Z
4.'don't even have to choose'

Now tell me how you go about selecting (4). If you select it, then it must de facto have been one of the choices (otherwise you could not have chosen it), but if it's one of the choices then you open it up to the complaint of not having the choice not to choose.

All you've done here is confused your grammar. One cannot have the choice not to choose, it just doesn't make sense. — Isaac

I don't mean it in the "meta" way of "don't EVEN have to choose", rather simply option 4. "Don't have to choose".. That option is on the table in the flavors example, not in the being born example. All you have is, "You don't like the flavor? Option 4. Kill yourself or find solace somehow brother!

This is not your blog. You do owe khaled something, and others who've contributed to your thread. You owe them at least an honest attempt at following through the arguments they make, otherwise we're just the 'comments section' below your Wordpress. Those aren't the terms under which people make the effort to respond. — Isaac

First off, I do that pretty well I think MORE than other people who are more well-liked (known) on this forum. So many people write something and barely respond or just disappear. Many other posters will give one word quips or sarcastic remarks to thought-out posts.. I at least give the minimal time and day to most thoughtful posters (as long as I have the actual time). So no I am not doing that. What I am trying to do is make a space for disagreement to not be as hostile as it becomes. I know that is not how you operate as you have told me. It's like arrogance is working hand-in-hand with self-righteousness working hand-in-hand with all the other negative qualities of philosophy debators.. I'd like it not to be that way all the time. Doesn't mean anyone will oblige, but I will vocalize how I'd like the tone to be, despite what others value as their debating style.

No I write this to challenge your views. Clearly however, you don't want that. Which makes me question why you start threads in the first place. Do you want a thread where all the replies are "I agree"? What's the point of that? — khaled

I just don't need even more aggravation in my life and you can be very aggravating. You're on a righteous cause to "challenge schopenhauer1's view :roll:. Good for you.

If it's not to convince, and if it's not to look for opposing views, then why write an OP at all? — khaled

Because I FEEL LIKE IT. But more importantly, they are ideas I think I are worth thinking about. And if you don't like it fine. But you often write something like, "Well, this doesn't convince me." As if when I'm writing I'm hoping in gleeful restraint that khaled would approve. You make it oddly to the man without actually doing so, a great skill. In other words, you can write in a more conducive to dialogue way, but it's slash and burn like your friend Isaac. Anyways, I don't have much time to reply in much detail.

You write this like I owe you something. I write my thoughts not to convince you believe it or not.

So, if you see on a menu, vanilla or chocolate, you have options but if you see only vanilla or only chocolate, you have no options. You don't select/choose/opt for "...the option for no option..." That would be a paradox! — TheMadFool

In the case of flavors, you can simply choose the option for none of it at all. "No thanks". In the case of life, you cannot choose "no thanks" (only I "I didn't want this"). Less wholistic, you cannot say, "I don't want the option for homelessness, job, independently wealthy, free rider, etc. I just want none of those options". Is that just?

I want to focus on one scenario on a time, and also address you both (three, including Isaac-Khaled complex actually), but don't have time to go over each line...

Scenario 1: The imposer doesn't realize they are imposing, neither does the imposed (the controversial part). Again, there was a time when people used to think X was not wrong.. X is now considered wrong. What makes this any different?

We think because if there is a multiplicity of choices for X, that must mean, that something is just. However, the option to not even need to make the choice for X is not on the table, so how is that just?
Coke, Pepsi, Juice, Water, etc. I don't want any of them in the first place.. not an option.

So this goes back to what is just.. You will say that "as long as "most people" don't see not having the option for no option as bad, it's all good". I'm questioning this default assumption.

Scenario 2: Cognitive distortions of binary vs. analog. Khaled said to try to objectively prove himself wrong about his evaluation.. But I am not putting in a spin of "objective" and "subjective" per se. Rather, it's analog and binary. The evaluations are still subjective.. So even the analog is subjective. So when you have something super painful, or even just mild irritations throughout the day, you would subjectively evaluate that. What I am saying is the results may be different than the binary answer of "yes/no" you get when asked a question summing up your whole life.

You already know my position on this but: No to all but the second (yes he’s being exploitative, which isn’t a problem when the person getting exploited doesn’t see an issue with it) — khaled

Yes, so we are going to differ on this then. As @Down The Rabbit Hole explained, it seems wrong to be doing the imposing in the first place by the employer. The main point being here that there can be something wrong done, even if no one perceives the wrong.

It seems clear to me that the sum of pleasure and pain isn’t all we consider. Raising children is more often than not extremely painful in comparison to how much pleasure it brings. Yet everyone does it and doesn’t seem to mind the negative balance (note, I said raising not having. This applies even more so to adoptive parents) — khaled

More cognitive distortions. Once you have a kid, you generally can't take it back or be in a state where you didn't have a kid. So there's no other (responsible) choice ha.

Same as above. Why should any of this be more important than whether or not the person minds the imposition. — khaled

That's the thing, they minded it at the moment.

Please tell me how happy I am objectively, using the standard -100 to 100 numerical scale, given the above information, and demonstrate your workings. — khaled

Well right, analog versus digital. When the question is asked, it's digital, but much of life is lived in the moment in analog (give me this binary answer right now!). Even the mood of the time being asked might affect things. Also, the question, "Did you want to be born" might be gotten at in different ways that isn't as straightforward, as this has all sorts of implications of suicide, depression, etc. that no one would want to project. However, investigate the holistic case of what is going on throughout the feelings, moods, and experiences throughout a day, a week, a month, a year, etc.

Yes, good point.

I would say no to all questions here and I think a lot of other people would as well. I don’t think we have any reason to care about some seemingly abstract and hypothetical harms done to others if they aren’t even expressing a grievance and they aren’t even willing to do anything to stand up for themselves. The employee in your hypothetical seemingly could tell the boss to give him less work but he chooses not to. In addition, he isn’t even forced to work for this terrible boss and with his go-getter attitude he could easily find a better job. So, why care about this person’s well being? If his well being is bad, then isn’t it completely his fault for not doing anything about it?(if there’s lots of things that he can do to alleviate his harm with not too much effort). I think that we have the greatest expectation to be able to help ourselves and pursue our own interests. If someone isn’t even willing to put thought and effort into their own welfare then it’s hard for me to understand why others should take their welfare considerations seriously either. — TheHedoMinimalist

My reply is the same as to Isaac's above. I will copy and paste it:

Well, the point of this wasn't to show someone's reaction on behalf of others, per se, though that can be a possible avenue to explore. What it is illustrating is that the ethical onus fell on the owner, not the worker's reaction to being exploited. The implication being that, if someone is imposing on another, it can still be wrong despite the person being exploited perhaps not minding. I wanted to use a different example than the usual one I use about slavery, but it is similar. A slave who may not know they are being imposed upon unjustly, may not seem to care. This doesn't mean the slaveowner is thus absolved of doing the imposing or should keep persisting. This goes back to what @khaled (you) said earlier about the absolute subjective nature of ethics, as I interpreted him/you:
I don’t think “how bad they have it objectively” makes sense. How bad one has it is always a subjective assessment.
— khaled

You haven't said on what grounds. The simple explanation seems to be contrary to your hyper-individualist stance. You say we can't judge happiness on behalf others (and take action assuming our answer), but here you're saying we can judge unhappiness on behalf of others and take action accordingly. Why can we assume we're better judges of suffering but not better judges of happiness? — Isaac

Well, the point of this wasn't to show someone's reaction on behalf of others, per se, though that can be a possible avenue to explore. What it is illustrating is that the ethical onus fell on the owner, not the worker's reaction to being exploited. The implication being that, if someone is imposing on another, it can still be wrong despite the person being exploited perhaps not minding. I wanted to use a different example than the usual one I use about slavery, but it is similar. A slave who may not know they are being imposed upon unjustly, may not seem to care. This doesn't mean the slaveowner is thus absolved of doing the imposing or should keep persisting. This goes back to what @khaled (you) said earlier about the absolute subjective nature of ethics, as I interpreted him/you:

I don’t think “how bad they have it objectively” makes sense. How bad one has it is always a subjective assessment. — khaled

But why should the 'in-the-moment' assessments take precident, there's nothing which objectively makes these assessments more 'real'. They're subject no less to expectation biases, perhaps the thought out judgement at the end of the day is a better assessment for taking the whole day in context. All you have is two slightly contradictory assessments. You've no grounds to treat one as more 'real' than another. — Isaac

Well, precisely. This is again to throw doubt on simply saying "it's all subjective". I don't think that is the full story. Subjective at what point in time? Is a summative statement the one that should be used or the in-the-moment?

This leads then to the factors that seem to indicate we shouldn't quite take the summative statement (Scenario 1 and 2)...

Positive outlooks are more socially acceptable than negative ones. I can see how this could impact overall judgements of a person's quality of life, but there's a long way from "people overstate their quality of life when asked" to "most people would rather not have been born". — Isaac

I really don't think so in the context of an interview. I am not just talking about to very close friends or someone like a therapist which actually may be a better indicator. I think in a formal context of acquaintances, co-workers, strangers, etc. the tendency would be towards what the social expectation is. This plays out in social media a lot. Sure, there are always those willing to post their full views and innermost feelings for everyone to see, but for a lot of people, it is important to present photos of a happy, well-adjusted life with vacations, sunsets, smiling families, etc. Posting your daily log of how your day sucked will soon start getting you strange looks and too much negative attention. But this doesn't have to be a modern social media context. I think cultural groups are basically self-reinforcing with their social pressures. Even if this was a tribal society, I am sure there is even that much more pressures to not stray from the usual modes of thought without getting some negative attention.

Also true, but this one is subject to the problem above. Happiness is just a state of mind, it's not an objective property of causal events. If we're happier with out post hoc filtered recollection than we were with the original events, then we're happier. Full stop. — Isaac

But that is the point. No, you can't say that is happier, because that is a post-hoc "answer". But is the "answer" the events themselves that were experienced before the few seconds/minutes it took to summarize your whole life for someone?

There's no 'real' happiness, it's all constructed. There's literally no neurological equivalent of being 'happy', it's entirely something we construct from recollection, there is no other form. — Isaac

So one of my main points here was to throw doubt on the completely taking subjective view. Your point here, again, is reinforcing my point -this brief summation may simply not be "the" answer, because it was constructed based on various factors which may bias it. Certainly Pollyannaism is a thing, we seem to agree there. There are so many things we simply have to suppress, forget about, diminish in order to go on with life. If the brain/mind held on to things as when they happened, we couldn't function, so the brain does things with memories and projections to future and calibrates it with present working memory, etc.. It's all complicated and way more involved than a post on TPF, but I am getting at the fact that it isn't as straightforward as to if our subjective answer at a moment-in-time is "the" answer for how we feel on day-to-day real time.

I don’t think “how bad they have it objectively” makes sense. How bad one has it is always a subjective assessment. — khaled

@Isaac (khaled and Isaac same person, slightly different writing style? haha.. collusion?) anyways..
@Bitter Crank
@TheHedoMinimalist

There are a lot of facets to explore in terms of subjective versus objective in the ethical realm.. Here's some examples:

Scenario 1: You have a prick boss. The boss is good at seeing who to exploit. He sees there is a worker who is willing to do pretty much any task given to him with a smile and a yessir. Maybe the person really just likes to work a lot. Maybe he's a people pleaser. Maybe he just looks at everything always with rose-tinted glasses. Maybe he just feels this will get him ahead. The other workers are given the average amount of work. The boss is astute enough to know that he cannot exploit them as much as the people-pleaser worker with the can-do attitude. So the boss keeps piling more and more work on the poor schmuck. The poor schmuck doesn't see any problem with it, let's say.

Is the boss wrong in what he is doing? Is he being exploitative of someone's comparative willingness to work? Is this just? Is this too much of an imposition? I would say yes to all of this, EVEN THOUGH the willing-worker doesn't see it as a problem.

Scenario 2: Let us say, we can give a tally of a typical day when negative experiences occur for a person. Spill your coffee -1, traffic jam -4, smartass remark of coworker -3, forgot to do X, -2.. You do some positives too- laugh at a joke +1, read your favorite topic, +3, etc. etc. When you add it all up, you're actually at a net negative. In other societies.. this might be as sad as looking for trash in a trash heap, etc, so go as dark and deep in the human experience as you want..

However, the local psychology department is doing a survey and has selected you to answer one question. This question, without any nuance, is meant to give a summation of ALL aspects of your life with one question. "Were you glad to be born?" The answer is "Yes". The interviewer walks away and is satisfied that this is a perfectly accurate self-assessment.. but is it?

There are the immediate phenomenological aspects to life that is the "lived experience" and then there are abstractions of this lived experience, in some remove from daily goings-on. It could be demonstrably shown that humans overestimate their positive experiences when put in the non-usual mode of evaluating their WHOLE life with one sentence. There are many biases going on including:

1) Cultural bias.. Even if someone was to REALLY think about life in depth, without reflexively giving an answer, that person might look to what social norms generally accepts as an appropriate answer. So a person on the fence who is thoughtful might never give the true answer, because then they are the weird "Negative Nancy" or "Debbie Downer" (or put in X pejorative here).

2) Cognitive bias... People have cognitive biases to distort what their experiences are when recalling them. They become cherry-picked, confused, etc. So sure we can say that in their evaluation they sounded like they were content with the situation, but then not be living the situation they are describing (see Scenario 2).

It’s only wrong when the imposition becomes too much, correct? There are situations where “most people would want this” is enough to justify a certain action, you just don’t think birth is one of them because it’s “too much” of an imposition. — khaled

It's about how we assess what "too much" imposition is. Sometimes, a slave for example, might not know how bad they have it objectively, because that's all they know, perhaps. I'm just getting you to think a little outside this box you are trying to steer this into.

I think easy access to euthanasia drugs provides a pretty good solution for those who wish that they had never been born. — TheHedoMinimalist

Do you think that suicide is easy for people? And do you think the difficulty of doing something like that is a reason why life is then a good thing for that person?

Where does this leave antinatalism? Our actions have a significant effect on the lives of future persons not yet born. The ethical concern about global warming is primarily about the environment that will probably exist for future persons not yet born. We ought to be concerned about the circumstances of life for both the born and unborn. We can also be ethically concerned about the ethics of bringing people into a world where the environmental conditions will be very bad.

A diminishing birth rate may represent economic barriers to supporting children adequately. It may also represent a loss of confidence in the future, such that people feel it would be unethical to bring another child into the world. — Bitter Crank

Interested in your input:
Do you think that because someone says they like something at a point in time, it is good to encourage what they like? For example, addicts of narcotics or opioids. They want drugs. Does that mean that it is right to just give them drugs because they want it? This is a different question than if it should be allowed as a law, just as an individual to another individual.

Can people's own assessment on life be similar to that of an addict? Can it be true that internal mechanisms like Pollyanniasm, adaptation to worse circumstances than the ideal, and comparison to worse circumstances had by others allows us to have this kind of addiction-distortion?

What are you, five years old, a handmaid, or a slave to need to ask for permission for what to have as your ethical guideline? — baker

Don't be a dickhead. We follow our own ethical guidelines all the time. I didn't say it has to be enforced by an outside entity. You can argue that no one follows ethical guidelines, only what is in their self-interest at the time, but you have not presented that. All ad hom, no philosophy. Come back when you want to offer something.

The point is, when any gift is not relieving suffering, by your system it automatically becomes wrong to give, since it can always be harmful. — khaled

Are we measuring whether someone makes a statement at a point in time that “All burdens that happened, currently exist, and will exist are fine and dandy.” or Are we measuring the amount of actual burden one is given once one is given the dual“gift” of both burdens and non-suffering circumstances? Certainly, most surprise parties and gifts don’t reach anywhere near the imposition, enduring duration, and frequency of burden as this gift.

And the other parts about the origin of the triadic necessity?

This becomes about language. When you say something is evil it (for many anyway) imparts a sense of intention and agency on the part of the cause. We can say floods, hurricanes and disease are evil but it seems to anthropomorphize an agent that is without agency. — prothero

Yeah, but both versions seem to be used historically. So, if evil as defined by "natural evil" is still on the table (and generally this is defined as enduring suffering from things like diseases, disasters and such), then this does become relevant in defining the concept. Perhaps it informs the other form of evil (human motivated). So if you wish harm on another (aka malice) and you have no other sense of wrongness in obsessing on these thoughts or acting on them, then that can be in the realm of evil. It would be similar to sociopathic, if that's the case. It could be simply having the power to do destruction without any care about the consequences to others. Certainly, suffering seems central to both parts of the equation... But I agree, in the human sense, other elements are involved.. Otherwise accidents, etc. would be considered "evil". But perhaps accidents ARE evil, but simply a natural evil. So thus, both options are covered with suffering as central concept.

I still disagree, but it's good you have addressed the issue. It is much easier to make a tangential case that suffering is a reason to question the intrinsic value of future life. You don't need to even bring evil into the matter; and as other posters noted, it is such a loaded term that it hurts creditability from the onset of discussion. — Cheshire

True enough.