If one disregards the concept of consent in procreation that’s fine I guess (depending on what bullets you want to bite) but people are going to be affected. I don’t see why it’s popular here — Albero

Yep, good observation. It's probably a bias and also a way to try to not grapple with the question at hand perhaps, that as you said, someone is going to be affected.

It’s tiring seeing all these “You didn’t give me a reason to believe your premise” arguments. That’s true of every moral theory, why do you expect it here? — khaled

Exactly.

I don't know if the election was a fraud or not. I'm in the UK - a long way from this, and I could get just as convincing arguments from the other side, saying the 2016 vote was valid and the 2020 vote a fraud. I don't know enough to form an opinion. But I can say, both sides have made claims the election system is open to fraud - and that's not good. Particularly as, it seems, in 2016 and 2020 - the apparent results have been, or are going to be sustained. Is all this sour grapes? — counterpunch

No one contested in 2016 as far as I know, and I just mentioned the very large differences of how transfer of power was handled between 2016 and now. Also just mentioned that Trump said he believed there to be fraud BEFORE the election.. so what do you make of that shit? Ridiculous move.. He threatened calling fraud and did it.. he was always going to do it.. doesn't matter how clean the system.

Also, 2020 results are not sour grapes, as even very conservative judges agreed the grounds for the fraud were ridiculous.. all of them.

They didn't do the right thing because they had no evidence that there had been voter fraud. Acting on blind belief is not doing the right thing. Even if it turned out that there had been voter fraud, they still would not have been doing the right, but their blind belief would have just happened to turn out to be true. I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if someone else has already made this point. — Janus

When you claim that the election would be fraudulent before the actual election, then yeah. How come his followers had forgotten that?

I haven't paid Trump a great deal of attention. I know he has lent credence to claims of fraud, but I also recall the 2016 election being decried as fraudulent by the left - and what's missing, is the left saying the integrity of the democratic system must be assured. It seems like, they don't care if the election was a fraud because they "won." Or are we to suppose, Trump fixed what Obama left broken, and then declined to claim credit for assuring the integrity of the vote? He's soooo modest! Or are we to suppose that you were lying in 2016, and now - don't like the same lies used against your champion? — counterpunch

Difference is that one could have contested much more in 2016 being Hillary won popular vote and lost electoral college vote. Yet neither Hillary nor Obama created years of narcissistic rallies, endless poisoning-well Tweets, and the like, such that such an event as a storming of a separate branch of government would even be fathomed by their followers... yet it is very predictable based on what we know of Trump, what he has created with his following, and the like. Obama was maligned for years about not being a citizen, and he sat there while the smug Don took power.

It is true that there are fundamental principles which can only be understood, but not proven. If this is one, I don't understand it. And if, after 24 pages of debate, I still don't, then I suppose another 24 won't help. — Echarmion

As is your right.. A lot of my posts aren't strictly antinatalism but general philosophical pessimism threads to demonstrate how much suffering we are often overlooking. But it's your right to believe what you want. It's your right to be able to be convinced or not of any particular argument.

I will say, I think you are overlooking the idea of things only applying if someone who could suffer could exist. It's the same thing as rights. If no person exists, rights don't matter. If someone exists, rights matter.

Had to edit that for clarity.

The thing is that life isn't a game. Life isn't optional. You can kill yourself, yes, but killing yourself is, ironically enough, also something you do while living. — Echarmion

Hahahaha. . Great option, dude.. Play this game, or kill yourself.. I mean, "It's an option!". :roll: You see how cruel that sounds? Maybe not. :meh: .

Your argument, in simple terms, is that people suffer if they exist, and therefore they shouldn't exist. All this other stuff about "forcing people to play games" is just a bunch of false equivalence, because it all treats life as an option for souls floating around in the aether, which it is not. — Echarmion

Oh right.. now you are ignoring the argument for why that whole line of reasoning is false, which @khaled has doggedly been trying to explain in every which way. As I myself have said repeatedly.. just because a person doesn't exist now, doesn't mean you cannot consider a person who will exist in the future. You keep ignoring that fact.

But claiming that there shouldn't be people because there shouldn't be suffering is propping up suffering as a metaphysical evil, totally abstracted from anyone actually suffering. What's the reason that there shouldn't be suffeirng? Is it because people don't like to suffer? But then, it makes zero sense to delete the people as the solution to the problem, does it? — Echarmion

One can simply phrase it thus:
Once someone exists, the suffering that will incur is bad. Don't allow this to happen, if preventing this is possible.

There doesn't need to be a principle for anything regarding the case of non-existence, simply that:
IFF existence with suffering possible, THEN prevent existence with suffering.

As for WHY suffering counts more, my own philosophy is one of overlooking dignity. And same thing here...

ONCE someone is born and that existence has suffering, the dignity of the person has been violated as it was overlooked for a cause that was not considering the person's pain.

Now you can say.. but why is THAT a foundation? You have to stop somewhere.. I cannot open the universe and show you objective morality. If you do not see the injustice of it- the overlooking of someone's pain for another reason, then I don't know what else to say to convince you. If you don't think making someone play a game and then saying go kill yourself if you don't like it, doesn't convince you, I don't know what to say. Obviously you think it is okay to overlook pain for some other reason. I cannot force you to believe this principle. Obviously, you don't care if presuming someone should play a game that causes harm, and imposes challenges is okay on other people's behalf.

At the same token, some people believed slavery was justified, vegans think eating meat and factory farming are bad, etc. etc. Not everyone is convinced.. it doesn't matter what the fundamental principle comes down to. To think that antinatalism is any different than any other moral principle in this regard, would be special pleading to make antinatalism seem extraordinarily out of place with ethical principles. I am not sure @khaled's take on it though.

I certainly do not rule that out and as has been pointed out above, it is a staple in fascist ideology, charismatic leadership as Weber called it. Here we saw the clash between charismatic leadership and formal rational leadership play out. I do also think though in order for people to risk being hurt there must be something at stake for them, apart from a leader that is a dick. Whether they marched against their own interests is irrelevant, they thought they marched for them. — Tobias

I can see that, perhaps. But there has to be a strong correlation with sympathizing with dick leadership style.. They defend the right for him to lead like a dick, even to the point of risking being hurt themselves. I wonder though as @darthbarracuda, that there are personality types that are drawn to fascist personalities. People that rule out of poisoning the well, erratic decision-making, having no filter or nuance, etc. Some people really respond to that shit. It's like if you took a book on good leadership and inversed every principle.

No, I do not think racism went away, or else I would not be against identity politics. Believe it or not, I think the descendants of slaves are deserving of some form of reparations. But you cannot do that with identity politics, when you believe all people who have dark skin are deserving of the same. Not only is it racist to think that way, it’s unjust. — NOS4A2

I don't know why one thing would exclude the other. But, oddly I can see this as being somewhat reasonable from one point of view. You realize, Trump and his ilk would be the least likely to be for anything like reparations right? If you truly believe this, then you are backing the wrong horse.. I don't even know if there is a conservative politician that would agree with reparations.. there's barely liberal politicians that would agree with that.

I guess then, what is your idea of identity politics? It is quite clear that "white identity" is something Trump supporters identify with very strongly, so even that would be against your own devotion to Trump.

Also, generally speaking, identity politics has to do with discrimination of some sort. But if you can identify specific instances of using identity politics poorly I can evaluate what you mean more clearly.

They certainly were being discriminated against, and this discrimination was compelled by racist superstition. — NOS4A2

Phew.. at least you agree with that.

So I see no benefit in carrying this same racist superstition into the future, especially after the hard-fought battles against it. — NOS4A2

This is vague troll-speak. Don't know what you are saying. You didn't address what I said... especially this part:

And because some (liberal) legislation was passed in the US, do you think that stopped racism? Poof! It just went away by the Civil Rights and Voting Rights act (that's assuming you at least believed that legislation was necessary)? Centuries of Jim Crow, red lining, and de facto discrimination was just wiped out?

It's easy to pretend history doesn't matter.. as if there wasn't hard won political events that led to someone like you pretending everything is just about individual acts of discrimination. — schopenhauer1

So.. the civil rights movement wasn't about a group of people that were being discriminated against because of a category called race? And because some (liberal) legislation was passed in the US, do you think that stopped racism? Poof! It just went away by the Civil Rights and Voting Rights act (that's assuming you at least believed that legislation was necessary)? Centuries of Jim Crow, red lining, and de facto discrimination was just wiped out?

It's easy to pretend history doesn't matter.. as if there wasn't hard won political events that led to someone like you pretending everything is just about individual acts of discrimination.

That this will involve suffering on the part of the children is not more or less relevant than that the children will be subject to the laws of gravity. — Echarmion

Why is that not relevant? So odd..

As I said before: I still think the game scenario is the best analogy. It's as if after being kidnapped into the game, the person was like "But I prepared you for the game, didn't I?" This seems to be enough to go ahead and create a new player for the game. But is it? Just because you think you have prepared enough, it is okay to initiate someone into the game? That doesn't prevent everything. If someone still doesn't play the game well, doesn't want to play it, or simply has contingent harms that throw off the vision of how the game was to be played, you cannot prevent that because you think you think you prepared them enough. There is a better solution.. just don't initiate them in the game.

But also I want to know what the sufficient reason is in the case of having children. Because it can't be for the children themselves, as they don't exist. — khaled

This is one I think @Echarmion will have trouble with, cause there isn't.

You’re shown so-called dog-whistles while his talk of peaceful protest is omitted, then you carry on in faith. — NOS4A2

When the consequences are closer to home.. he does some self-preservation, like a little bitch. Then he goes back to being a dick again.

We just disagree on the "have to". When do you "have to" do something? Taken literally, you almost never "have to" do something, unless it's a reflex or urge you just cannot control. So what "have to" means comes down to your personal moral code. Some people think they "have to" have children. You may think they're wrong, but telling them "don't do it if you don't have to" doesn't help. — Echarmion

I mean, if it's not a reflex, and the logic of not causing harm/ starting a game on someone else's behalf wont' work, then please let me know what you think will? What's right and what's convincing are often two different things, and unfortunately, sometimes at odds.

President/executive branch dog-whistling to known fanatic followers to march on the legislative branch..

If you can't tell the difference between that an other type of protest/riots, then you are indeed the trolliest of trollers.

the need for authority by natural chiefs (always male), culminating in a national chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group's historical destiny;
the superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason; — darthbarracuda

Yeah those seem to fit.. Though Trump is more of a loud-mouth idiot boss-type. Emperor has no clothes, etc.

I agree with the sentiment here. Obviously one should be humble and careful, well aware of the possibility of making a mistake. But I don't think we need to avoid dangers at all costs either. Nor do you. So the difference between us isn't really that I inflict suffering on other and you don't. It's just that I consider different reasons sufficient. — Echarmion

But that's the point.. do not create dangers for others unnecessarily, when one does not have to. Do not assume people should be forced to play a game because you like it.

Exactly what in the Biden administration would take away the advantaged position? Public health care? Immigration?

I'm not sure your theory of their gripes is really the case. It's more about some weird cultural identity for the Trumpers. The moderate repubs just think taxes will be kept lower (which they won't.. just be more deficits as happened under Trump). So, it's actually a lot of bullshit based on bullshit for what exactly hardcore Trump fans want.. It's a lot of conspiracy theory perhaps and fantasy but not much to do in reality with what you said.

If the Trumper movement was about anti-corruption.. Trump is more corrupt than all the insider politicians so don't know what that's about either. My theory is people like leaders that act like dicks. They want an idiot boss that just rules by force of personality and not reasoned understanding.

Imagining the suffering of a non-existent being and then arguing that it's existence, on that basis, should be averted is circular, again reminiscent of Republicans telling voters that there must have been voter fraud then reporting in Congress that voters have concerns about the election. It is dangerous territory in which otherwise unthinkable acts can be justified by imagining oneself into a rage against anything.

One thing that is most certainly absent from your argument is the suffering of the child whose future eexistence is apparently an argument for AN. If the child lives a perfectly happy life, doesn't matter right? He should not have been allowed to be born. This is even worse: we're supposed to empathise with the imagined suffering of an imagined thing and then use this as a justification for disallowing a real thing. Reality is disavowed; fiction is paramount. — Kenosha Kid

This is such a terrible argument. Trying to compare the prevention of a future sufferer with Trump political tactics. Any sane person understands that one can consider the state of well being of a future person. Because the person will exist in the future and is not present now, doesn't negate this consideration.

That may be a good enough heuristic in many cases, but that doesn't make it a convincing principle. — Echarmion

For you. Just like you should not make a decision that affects a whole life time on someone else's behalf, you should not presume to know what others think on the matter.

But you apparently do not think this is because we respect other people's right to make choices for themselves. It's all only about reducing suffering, except in any of the cases where suffering doesn't seem all that important, like when we allow people to drive personal motor vehicles just for their own convenience even though doing so massively increases the risk of causing suffering for other people. — Echarmion

You know my position regarding why this is different between the decision to start a life and already living in a life. De facto forced conditions living in a certain type of society creates these situations. They are unavoidable. It's just like, it's unavoidable really to either keep living to some degree of comfort slowly die trying to hack it in the wilderness trying to avoid causing others suffer. Of course there is one decision where I certainly can guarantee a person will not suffer from my decision.

But that's just the claim you make. We aren't forced to agree with it. — Echarmion

I liken it to veganism.. They can make their argument, but cannot force others to abide by it.

Right, and I disagree. I don't see how your position could consistently avoid dystopian scenarios where everyone is forced to conform to some exact code of conduct so as to avoid all possible suffering for others. — Echarmion

Yes and that would be impossible to keep once born, I agree so is a non-starter. Certainly, one can simply not procreate. Not an impossibility or even hard. In principle though, when you have the chance to not cause harm on someone else's behalf good idea to do not do that, and certainly not one that causes a whole life time worth of harmful experiences.

Non-sequitur. Do you disagree that humans don't always try to avoid suffering? — Echarmion

Not at all.. It's not about what you do to yourself but others. If you want to make a decision to cause harm to yourself, go ahead. I don't assume because some people do this, I therefore should do it on behalf of another person, just the same as if you like a certain game you shouldn't force someone else to play it, or if you like some harmful activity others should be a part of it to cause you insist.

I just wonder whether or not you realise that you're doing at least as much preaching as everyone else here, and that there is no difference between you arguing for your position and I arguing for mine. Noone of us has any more or less right to influence other people's thoughts. — Echarmion

We have a right to voice our ideas and arguments. It is not our right to force others to follow it. Similarly, it is not okay to force others into harmful situations because we insist it is good for them.. Also, can we skip your obvious reply about parents et al as I have addressed it? But go ahead..

Ah, then i think the misunderstanding may be that you think I want other people to suffer so they can self-realize, but all I am saying that self-realisation is more important than suffering. — Echarmion

No I don't think you want that necessarily, I still think it is wrong to put any cause above unnecessary (unprovoked) suffering when it comes to making decisions on other people's behalf.

Neurologically simple Animals avoid suffering if they can. Humans do sometimes, but hardly all the time. — Echarmion

Yeah, I don't care if you do it to yourself. And obviously now that you created a being, you have to make decisions for it not to suffer a lot more. Certainly starting the suffering cycle all together was the wrong part though, not the "taking care of once born".

No. The person who will exist if you procreate - will not exist if you don't. So, if you don't procreate, they won't exist. And hence they won't have a dignity to protect. — Echarmion

That's okay..then dignity wasn't violated. All that matters there.

Then stop writing posts that talk about your moral philosophy, including anti-natalism, this instant, or be branded a hyporcite. — Echarmion

I am not forcing you to follow or read them. Certainly I didn't cause your very existence where this suffering for you has taken place ;). Don't worry though, you'll suffer again and again and again..

I did not say that people need to be born in order to realize themselves. Though if I did say that, then the suffering would be literally necessary, so I don't understand your criticism either way. — Echarmion

That is my criticism.. Using people's suffering for some other goal that you have for them.

What I said is that what is moral and what is not is not based on some quantification of suffering caused by a given course of action. Avoiding suffering is only an instrumental goal. The ultimate goal is a state of freedom, not a state of no suffering. — Echarmion

This sounds like doublespeak.. work sets you free shit. One avoids suffering if one has to chose between suffering or non-suffering (unless one is a masochist I guess). But intentionally putting people in positions where you know they will suffering X amount (a lifetime's worth of individual instances actually) in order for some abstract cause of "freedom" is what I am saying is wrong to do on someone else's behalf.

Obviously it imposes duties on people - not to procreate. But more to the point, I don't see how someone who will never exist can have dignity. — Echarmion

Oh this one again.. the person who will exist if you procreate won't exist? II guess you can say the indignity of being caused to suffer. That you did not enable suffering, thus violating the dignity of the person that will be born, by overlooking the fact that you are also causing the conditions for their suffering on their behalf, if they were to be born.

Having a moral philosophy and acting on it isn't paternalistic. — Echarmion

Having a moral philosophy is fine. Acting on a philosophy that affects others, by causing them to suffer for an abstract cause like, "realizing themselves" and "freedom" is not.

You already quoted it. It just didn't say anything like what you then wrote. — Echarmion

You said:

Yes, I can see how you arrive at the conclusion. It just seems to me you're thereby forgetting just why suffering matters. You're treating suffering like metaphysical evil, that needs to be eradicated "just because".

From where I stand, suffering (and perhaps even more importantly the fear of suffering) matters insofar as it keeps individuals from realising themselves. — Echarmion

I don't get how I can't take from this that it is okay to enable conditions of suffering of the future individual to occur. Also, what I think to be wrong is to put some issue like "realizing themselves" is some principle for which needs to take place above and beyond the indignity of causing conditions of someone else's suffering. Unnecessarily putting someone else in a position of suffering so they can "realize themselves" is a strange position to me. It using people for what YOU deem to be "good" for that person. Simply not procreating doesn't impose anything on anyone and certainly keeps in mind the dignity of the person who one would have enabled the conditions of suffering.

This indeed goes back to that paternalistic idea that other people need to live life out for YOUR idea of what is valuable for THEM to experience.

So what is your position then?

You seem fine with presuming to put words into other people's mouths though. — Echarmion

Not sure what you are saying.

Gaslighting as in making the other believe they are crazy? How do you mean this exactly? he crowd was gaslighted into thinking they are being oppressed by an unseen elite and the media, or gaslighting as in the media are making us believe we see something that is actually not there, i.e., a violent mob invading the Capitol? — Tobias

No NOS4A2 is gaslighting you it seems.. And yes Trump is certainly gaslighting his constituency. Actually they are willing participants.. already believe anything he says.. it's more the people that aren't his constituency that he's gaslighting.. trying to make actually very corrupt deeds seem no big deal.

Huh? They intended to stop the proceedings which would have proclaimed Biden the president elect... or was it just coincidental and does it happen every odd Monday morning? — Tobias

You are familiar with the term "gaslighting" right? Well, I suspect some gaslighting here..

Yes, I can see how you arrive at the conclusion. It just seems to me you're thereby forgetting just why suffering matters. You're treating suffering like metaphysical evil, that needs to be eradicated "just because".

From where I stand, suffering (and perhaps even more importantly the fear of suffering) matters insofar as it keeps individuals from realising themselves. — Echarmion

And this indeed is the heart of our difference. I don't presume to "teach" another person a lesson of suffering as a goal that needs to be played out by that other person.

I can see where you are coming from. Any pain chosen for another is a violation in some pure theoretical sense.

My response is just the suggestion that human thinking is deeply probabilistic and approximate. So I can see that you are right in some sense, but an almost perfect life still pulls my heartstrings. That suggests that humans are willing to pay for pleasure with pain, and I project that onto this possible child. It's as if I am shopping for them and decide that I found a good enough deal. — five G

Haha yes! Good analogy.

Yes, though not, of course, at any price. But this is because causing the suffering is a crime, so we have already established that it has special significance. — Echarmion

I'm not sure what you are saying, because based on this response, you are indeed agreeing with the sentiment (at least) of antinatalism. Surely you can at least see how antinatalists see creating the unnecessary suffering as the crime that is being prevented. They don't see the logic in some deeper "meaning" in letting the "crime and punishment" be carried out.

OK, but here we are within language appealing to concepts like dignity. Let me zero in. Human suffering has an extra dimension, made possible by abstract thought. We can experience the world as a meaningless nightmare, where 'meaningless' names a recognized absence of some kind.
We develop human notions of fair play and justice, and it's only then possible to see life itself as a kind of injustice or foul play. Other animals just hurt, but humans can see the absurdity of their pain, perhaps as they look forward to an inescapable personal death. For people in our culture, the 'point' is to become an Individual, which is to say irreplaceable and therefore genuinely mortal --unlike the interchangeable beavers who repeat, repeat, repeat the beaver destiny. — five G

Yes I can agree with this. Humans have an extra "layer" of suffering based on our conceptual framework way of operating.

I like the dignity theme, and I remember it occuring to me many years ago that 'life is an indignity.' One is thrown absurdly into an unchosen situation with responsibilities that one could not consent to. — five G

Exactly! You can stop right there :).

But we learn to think that way as part of a human community, so that our culture allows us to articulate the violation in a way that other animals can't. And we have to have the fantasy or goal of dignity in the first place. — five G

I mean, that is simply how humans operate in general. Humans use linguistic-conceptual frameworks and socio-cultural enculturation to be able to function in the world. So this is just a truism of how we operate, not a declaration of how humility is some sort of arbitrary concept.

Difficult question for some: If one could somehow know that one's child would be gloriously happy and successful for 30 years and then die suddenly and painlessly (without expecting it)...would one consent to the birth? I'd be tempted to consent. His or her life could be known ahead of time as a dream worth having. (Implicit here is an aesthetic justification of existence, and of course what is promised is well above the expected value of the random variable that we actually have to work with.) — five G

I would argue that any existence that is not a perfectly ideal world (for that individual being born) is probably a decision one person shouldn't make on another's behalf.

We put people in jail not based on some calculation of the suffering this will avoid, but based on more abstract notion of respect for the law. We may dress this up as a decision to avoid some vague amount of suffering in the future, but I consider that an ex-post rationalisation. — Echarmion

If you can prevent the suffering that the crime induced, would you? Or is the "game" of crime and punishment just something that should be played out to get a "higher meaning"?

I can imagine a character bent on the elimination of suffering. He would wipe out not only humanity but also all life on earth. It would be best to destroy the planet too, in case life were to evolve again. There's a kind of 'insane' rationality at play in this idea. Put everything to sleep, out of...love? — five G

Nah.. there are crazies on all sides I suppose, but most antinatalists are person-affecting in some way. That is to say, it is the individual (who would have been born) who one is preventing from suffering and not an aggregated mass of suffering being prevented. I agree, aggregate utilitarianism (I guess the most cliched version) can lead to these kind of conclusions, but most antinatalists again, are person affecting. For example, much of my view rests on the dignity of the individual that would be born that is compromised by overlooking the suffering one is unnecessarily causing for them, the imposition/game that is "forced" (use whatever word you want there for this notion) on them, and the consent that can never be gained (vial not existing prior to birth). These are things overlooking the dignity of the future individual, and usually for either a selfish reason (I prefer to have kids) or an abstract cause (this is good for the country, humanity in general, etc.).

That seems right to me. What is family planning after all? A conscientious potential parent will at least consider what kind of life they can offer that possible child as a parent. Does this make sense to everyone? Humans have vivid imaginations. We project into the future constantly. It's easy to imagine a person who on some level would love to be parent worrying about whether creating that child would be a selfish act. — five G

Of course. I tend to agree.. Red herring it is. They pick and choose when this "no actual child" makes a difference it seems. For universal antinatalism.. it does apparently, but not for other considerations.

@khaled I think you've already had this little chestnut, but did you already answer the bad arguments for consent in regards to adoption or forcing to go to school or vaccines? So a person cannot consent to be adopted, or be forced to go to school (at least early years), and get vaccines or no vaccines.. and thus it is equivalent to not getting consent to be born. If one can't get consent than the other is the same, according to this false equivalency.

I'm starting to see similarities of these bad arguments with Trump supporters who by saying something a certain amount of times somehow makes a claim true. So, Trump keeps saying the elections were stolen. Pro-natalists keep saying that one cannot consider the harms that may befall a future individual because they will only exist in the future and don't exist currently. If they know what they are doing, it's a red herring. If they don't, it's simply a denial that one can affect a person in the future (that "will" exist rather than someone that "does" exist now). Somehow future tense doesn't compute with these people and their arguments suffer for it. I suspect it's more of the former.. they know it's true, but red herring is easier to obfuscate and put up a smokescreen for a couple posts to not argue the heart of the suffering/consent argument.

If a person has an overriding biological need, e.g. starvation or childlessness, it ought to be biologically evident. — Kenosha Kid

Those two things are are far from the same category of dire need, and one is affecting the whole lifetime of another person. The other simply means one needs to eat something