I remember reading about a Catholic saint who was so passive the account said "it seemed he had no will of his own". Buddhists aren't the only ones who know this — Gregory

Schopenhauer did mention many times the asceticism of Catholic monks and nuns and the concept of grace being similar. He just didn't actually believe the mythology or specific theologies of the specific religions. He thought they were simply unnecessary drapery over the heart of the metaphysics.

The obvious problem however, is that we don't have the slightest of clue how such a process results in the experience of qualia — StarsFromMemory

Bingo. It is actually a dualism. We are positing that some things (processing things like brains) have a dual aspect to them, which seems contrary to the monism of naturalism (everything is basically matter/energy in space/time).

However, is it a result not of cognition, but of intuitive knowledge? And in Schopenhauer, we can tease these two out as being disparate? — jancanc

Yes, it is kind of a sudden, even spontaneous understanding of the Big Picture, and then a kind of change in character from being will-driven to being will-less. It cannot be pursued so seems kind of elusive to most people.

It's been stated a lot that Schopenhauer's theory of salvation is contradictory- , in salvation one apparently denies and thus transcends the will via the use of cognition. Yet how can we deny and transcend the essence of what we are (i.e. will)?
However, is denial of the will really contradictory; is it really about cognition? — jancanc

If Will is what brings dissatisfaction, will-lessness is what brings the salvation. The cognition comes from a sort of recognition of what is happening. The hard part is trying to get rid of that which essentially causes the very world to exist in its subject-object form, and thus the "illusion" of a the very world itself. Somehow getting to a state of "nothing" without "willing" it. This is why really achieving "Enlightenment" is so hard in Buddhism I wold presume. Same type of deal.

Many of us older people find it quite impossible to excise the control of our bodily functions as you so proudly assume is everyone's choice for control. And since when did we expect a male to exercise the control we demand of men today? Back in the day, 4F males took a lot of pride in not exercising a lot of self-control. — Athena

You get the analogy though.. Always adult diapers.

BS, they are horny and it happens and they sure as blazes are not pondering the social and political ramifications of having sex. My bad, that was not a very philosophical statement, but here is where philosophy gets a bad rap. The average person is reacting to feelings without analyzing why and what the consequences will be to self or society? Young people having children can't even comprehend how a child will change their own lives, let alone contemplating ideologies. When it comes to sex, it is the other head in control. — Athena

Birth control is readily available. There is still choice, no matter the mitigating circumstances. We all know the consequences. If it was as you say, accidental birth would be the only reason people are born, but its not. Rather, the average person when choosing to procreate, is perpetuating a type of lifestyle- a brand. It is wanting to continue a way-of-life. It is an ideology and the adherents are the people being born.

I respectfully disagree with you. I love my fiancé and I want to sleep with her because I love her and I find her desirable. If we get pregnant, that’s the fruit of our love. Politics have nothing to do with it. — Agathob

So bringing a new person into the world is not a political decision? You may not think of it like that, but that's exactly why I started this thread, to make people aware that even if it's not interpreted that way, it is. You can decide NOT to have a child. It is generally known that a child would have to deal with all the things that they must do to navigate a particular society, keep themselves alive, maintained, and entertained. This decision to procreate is also something on behalf of someone else. It is in a way assenting to the society to the point of wanting to see yet another person maneuver society and its ways-of-life. That indeed is a political ideology of sorts.

As for your love for your fiance and find her desirable.. we know where babies come from. We know how to prevent it. By not preventing it, we are indeed making a political decision on someone else's behalf and assenting to an ideology, whether we actually see it that way or not, that is what is happening.

Oh dear. I always thought people had sex because of hormones not because of some kind of planned parenthood. — Athena

Sex and reproduction are different. People have sex because it feels good. People find others attractive for all sorts of social and biological reasons (hormones being a part of that). However, to decide to have a child is a choice. Even "accidents" are willful ignorance. We know where babies come from. We know how to prevent it. If I have to go to the bathroom really bad, I still hold it until I get to a facility if you know what I mean.

However, men did hold a notion that having a son proved they were a man, and back in the day, having children is what a good woman did. Are these examples of having children to manifest an ideology? — Athena

Kind of. What I am proposing is that if a parent (man or woman) decides to have a child, generally, they are following an ideology of society. They are signalling, "I like society and think someone else should have to go through all the ways-of-life of the current society". Other ways I have said this point below:

To reiterate, my argument is having a child is approving of a certain lifestyle (the current society) and thus society becomes an ideology for parents. — schopenhauer1

This assenting to bringing new people into society is an ideology in itself of perpetuating the current society. Its such a strong assent to the point of making the decision that others must go through it as well. — schopenhauer1

To have a child is a POLITICAL decision, one made on behalf for the child, due to an ideology that the current society is good (and good enough to force another person into it on their behalf by procreating them into the society in the first place). That is more the topic, not as much role of gender in society. — schopenhauer1

You're probably going to work for some employer or maybe start a business. If you don't for a long enough, you will go hungry and become homeless. You can try to hack it in the wilderness yourself. Someone thought that this was a good situation to bring you in. But this wasn't examined more than- it is good to bring this person into society. The ideology is, "At least some people should be brought into society". Why is any person being brought into a society a good thing? It is simply an ideology that the way of life is good, and others should be brought into it. — schopenhauer1

So is society itself a sort of ideology, a sort of "brand" that we as individuals perpetuate through the gateway of birth? It has a way-of-life. By constantly birthing people, we are clearly buying into it. Sure, we might want to change parts of how the backbone runs (free health care vs. private, etc) but generally speaking, the whole pie itself of society (work, entertainment, maintenance/increase comfort levels) seems to be shared by all. Thus, birth essentially pushes this ideology unto a new generation. I think it is an ideology, forced in perpetuity on others. More work, more entertainment, more going to die hacking it in the wilderness if you don't like. There is no option for the no option (non-birth). Once born, you're living the ideology out until you don't (that is you die). — schopenhauer1

Do these quotes give you the gist of what my argument is as how procreation relates to perpetuating society and thus becoming an ideology as the parents assent to a certain way of life?

Eating and continued survival would be the best examples. — MyOwnWay

Hunger certainly is. Continued survival is too broad, but generally we don't like the pain associated with dying and we may add fear of death. However, having a child is a choice. One can go their whole life without it and live. It is not like going to the bathroom or hunger.

It was meant to. This isn't an implication of right or wrong though. What I'm trying to get across is the original question here must be answered in a clinical and biological way. If we fail to do that then I suppose every action must be viewed as part of or a contribution to ideology. — MyOwnWay

So antinatalism believes ALL people should not procreate (due to preventing any suffering for new person born), not just some. I just don't want to get bogged down in discussing other ideas.

Is it though? What if you have a child outside of societies bounds and raise it disdain society? — MyOwnWay

So in my earlier posts I explained that if we pan out of any society, the ways-of-life start looking more similar than different. There need to be social mechanisms for survival (through some sort of economy, even hunting-gathering), maintenance/comfort (keeping tools maintained, body temperature maintained, even sleep dwellings maintained and in more industrial society this gets exponentially ratcheted up as there are more "things" to maintain and worry about to keep oneself comfortable). Finally, there is entertainment/meaning that must be pursued (anything beyond mere survival or maintenance). All societies are going to perform these three aspects in SOME way. Earlier, I even mentioned the few on the fringe who want to hack it out in the wilderness. That is still in relation to the rest of society (being that's where they came from and that is what they are rebelling against). Thus, they are a consequence of a broader society, not in a vacuum.

Maybe the ability to deliberate can cause you to act against your own instinct and therefor your own self interest. It's something I personally like to call the curse of philosophy. — MyOwnWay

How is reproducing an instinct?

On the opposing end one could argue that being able to think in this way means they are a value to the gene pool but a detriment to their own natural interests. — MyOwnWay

What natural interests? How can you prove wanting a child is natural? Also, this example is oddly eugenic sounding. To reiterate, my argument is having a child is approving of a certain lifestyle (the current society) and thus society becomes an ideology for parents.

I don't know that I can equate instinct to ideology, but I can say it's the progenitor of ideology. — MyOwnWay

That's an interesting thought. Is the assent to perpetuate society (through procreating more people) an instinct? I say no. It is a preference and thus something that can be deliberated and reflected upon. In other words, we can choose to follow an ideology (perpetuate society) or we can choose not to. This is unlike instinct where there is no choice. There is no ideological animal instinct.

It seems to me this thread took a turn when it became about having children. — Athena

So it is about having children in that, by having children, a parent is assenting to the current society and its ways of life. They are agreeing with it to the point that they will create more adherents to the current society. One must have a strong conviction that society is good if one is making the decision on behalf of someone else (by procreating them) that they should also be involved in and participate in the current society and it ways of life. This assenting to bringing new people into society is an ideology in itself of perpetuating the current society. Its such a strong assent to the point of making the decision that others must go through it as well.

Ill abide. How about the unnecessary trolling?

Who undertakes the action is totally irrelevant as to understanding the causality. And in the abstract it's even worse; if people walk on the streets, then they may get robbed. Walking on the streets therefore causes robberies. As if.

Even if for some reason I caused people to walk on the streets, there's still no moral dimension whatsoever because there's no causal link. — Benkei

I don't agree there is no causal link. You are making a conflation (category error?) between intention and cause. Living definitely contains/entails some amount of harm. Are we on agreement with that at least? Thus, with this knowledge, you might not intend for harm to occur, but you know it will at some point, agreed?

For example. Here an appropriate analogy : If I hadn't walked down the street, I wouldn't have been robbed. My walking down the street caused the robbery. That's basically the argument you are now forwarding. — Benkei

No it is definitely not. In the procreational decision, everything is in the abstract, including the fact that harm (whatever it is) will take place for someone else. It is too late once born, it is likely at some point, something will happen. Every decision can't actually factor in harm, unlike the procreational decision which can factor in that existence is indubitably likely to have harmful experiences. Also, this has to do with someone else's life. The analogy would be more like, I knew that there was definite harm, and I forced someone down various streets that bad stuff is likely to happen anyways, even though I don't know what exactly bad stuff might happen (coronavirus, bad interactions, mental disorders, etc.).

You're doing x is not a proximate cause to anyone's suffering so it's irrelevant. That you think it is relevant, is a self-imposed burden but it's not borne out by a logical argument. — Benkei

This I find to be totally misplaced and irrelevant. It does not have to be the proximate cause for a particular instance, but it is a necessary condition for all instances.

To provide an example, if I have natural gas pumping into a room, that is a necessary condition for something blowing up. Every instance of someone lighting a match would be the proximate cause. I allow people to enter this room knowingly..is that correct?

Now obviously the analogy isn't perfect. There are good experiences to be had in that natural gas room too in our case. Also, the proximal cause in the real world case is always varying, but we know they will be caused, which is my point.

This is just restating what was previously proved to be logically wrong. If the logical conclusion is that living does not cause suffering then causing life is not morally wrong because I didn't cause anyone to suffer through that action. — Benkei

C'mon dude. You know what my argument is. If it is a well known fact that If I do X and people will get hurt from it, why would you bother with this kind of non-argument?

If living doesn't cause suffering, then obviously procreating and giving life has no moral implication whatsoever in the abstract. — Benkei

No not really. It is a known fact that suffering exists and is almost indubitably inevitable beyond a doubt that someone will suffer in some way- even just negative interactions with other people you work with, anything. There is no way that this new person will do the impossible and 1) be able to 2) know how to be able to 3) even have the ability to be able to mitigate all or even most of their negative experiences. That's not possible but yet you know this.

I said "can" not "should". Their choice. — Benkei

Ok, then the hope they will help is sufficient reason to go ahead and have people that will inevitably suffer? That is still causing the necessary conditions for suffering for a particular reason that is not the person themselves (thus being a means in some way).

They can help. — Benkei

Is that your final answer? You know I'm going to say that falls into the "using people as a means" category. Now they have to deal with, because you wanted them to help with the already existing problem. Not only does it not eradicate or mitigate, it simply extends and prolongs for more people.

Eradicate or mitigate the sufficient causes of suffering since suffering from a break up, or a car crash or a disease entails living. — Benkei

Agreed for the already living. Until further eradication or mitigation, why bring more people into it?

Ok Good. So then we are in agreement that living doesn't cause suffering? — Benkei

If we are using it in a precise and not common-parlance way, sure it is necessary but not sufficient (unless we explore Buddhist/Schopenhauer's ideas of striving). However, I don't see how that is an issue. The inevitability and frequency of it, makes it such that it would be almost a truism to say "Life will have suffering". The question is, with this information, what does one do with it?

As I said before that every life has some suffering is no proof that it is a sufficient condition for particular suffering. — Benkei

Ok, we can agree to that.. Still doesn't make it an "issue".

For a sufficient condition "if P then Q" it means that the truth of P guarantees the truth of Q. Let's try that shall we? — Benkei

Sure.

Except I'm not. So the premisse is wrong. Why? Because living is only a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition. — Benkei

You are not suffering right NOW. There almost certainly was and probably will be. That is the same for everyone.

Living does not cause a disease, it does not cause a car accident and it does not cause a break-up. Causality matters. The difference between necessary and sufficient conditions matters. — Benkei

Yes but these examples are anticipated and countered by these past quotes I've stated:

The conditions of suffering are necessary enough to contain the particular instances that cause suffering. Being that life usually has many of the instances, we don't need to talk about every single cause of an instance of suffering. — schopenhauer1

Sure, but what lives don't have these particular cases? Extremely low, if any. In fact, because life entails some sort of strife to live, one can argue (barring arguments against induction, Hume style) that any life will have to have strife in order to live and thus some form of suffering. — schopenhauer1

Living causes the conditions of suffering. See my post above about its inevitability and thus why its a non-starter what you're saying. If it was a poor unfortunate handful of souls that suffered in some odd foible of the universe, and everyone else lived some Edenic lifestyle, then you might have something more than a semantic argument. But that is not the case. — schopenhauer1

The theme here is that one can't prevent all instances of suffering, but one can prevent the container that the instances fall under for a future case (by preventing that case from occurring). We know how people get made, so don't give me the non-identity argument please. The non-action prevents the case from happening. Simple as that. I can agree with you for the already living, that we have to mitigate as much as we can and maximize what is good, etc.

If upon reading my arguments your first substantive sentence is "Living causes the conditions of suffering" then you're ignoring my arguments. — Benkei

How is that ignoring your arguments? Its saying that living itself is not "sufficient" to cause particular cases of suffering, but it is necessary for the conditions for all these cases to occur. That is not ignoring anything.

Upon pointing that out and your subsequent reaction is "I sufficiency even an ISSUE does it have to be if all lives have it?" then we're done. — Benkei

Yes, is it an issue? The conditions of suffering are necessary enough to contain the particular instances that cause suffering. Being that life usually has many of the instances, we don't need to talk about every single cause of an instance of suffering.

Not what I said. — Benkei

Maybe not, but it's what I'm trying to say.

If you are going to handwave logical requirements for a valid argument because it's convenient for your preconceived conclusion, I'm fully in my right to handwave the entire post into the bin. Which I did. — Benkei

But I didn't handwave your arguments. I tried to answer them by questioning whether sufficiency matters when all lives have suffering (to some degree) that we have known of since the beginning of time.

What? You've never read Benatar? — Benkei

I had a copy of the book. I did read it years ago. I don't have it in my possession now, to my frustration as I constantly try to find bits of it online.

If ideological spam is acceptable here, then responding to it with ideological trolling is fair game. — SophistiCat

I think you mean philosophical spam. However, you are not doing philosophical trolling. You are just trolling. Anyways, Coronavirus in and of itself can be said to not be philosophical. I am at least trying to bring some philosophical themes involved. I think it is very relevant being that people will suffer from this, and antinatalism, if nothing else, revolves around the theme of suffering.

I'm sorry but you don't understand what causality is when you say "living causes the conditions..." It doesn't. — Benkei

You can't handwave the whole post off with this cherry-picked quote. You have to read the part that it is an almost inevitability that suffering will occur..So I qualified it. Is sufficiency even an ISSUE? Does it have to be if all lives have it?? I think this is using a non-essential, non-starter argument against the suffering we are discussing.

I'm reacting to what you wrote - not Benatar. — Benkei

So shall we both agree to get a copy of Benatar's book before we go further since this is deeply involving his arguments?

I'm reacting to what you wrote - not Benatar. And what you write is non-sensical. You're not preventing pain by not procreating because you're comparing a possible situation (people suffering) with nothing (nobody suffering), which is not a valid comparison. You're preventing suffering when you avoid the suffering of an actual person that would otherwise suffer. That's an actual comparison between possible states. It's that simple. — Benkei

Living a life that suffers is not a possible state? It is pretty simple. Even if there is no one who exists, if there is a possibility that suffering can occur.. what then?

No dude, this is most certainly not a semantic issue. — Benkei

Yes compadre, it is.

You underestimate the importance of delineation. — Benkei

You overmine it and are making a non-argument an argument.

If one thing is intrinsically part of something, that one thing is not caused by the something. Water does not, by its mere existence, cause itself to be wet. Does living cause breathing? Does living cause a heartbeat? If you want to make an argument, your use of language must be sensible. So it's fundamental to decide whether living causes suffering (however remotely) or whether suffering is intrinsic to living. If the latter, then there is no argument to be had from an ethical point of view. — Benkei

Living causes the conditions of suffering. See my post above about its inevitability and thus why its a non-starter what you're saying. If it was a poor unfortunate handful of souls that suffered in some odd foible of the universe, and everyone else lived some Edenic lifestyle, then you might have something more than a semantic argument. But that is not the case.

This makes no sense. I'm using non-existent people (which is in itself a contradiction in terms and therefore not intelligible)? Fine, that means I'm using nothing because non-existent (not that that can be a quality but whatever!). It's not Kantian, it's Konfused. — Benkei

OH here we go.. It is preventing.. "people from being used".. It is not preventing (non-existent) people...from being used. There is a difference. Think about it before you answer though.

The fact that all living things suffer at some point in time, is not a valid argument to conclude that living is a sufficient condition for suffering so this does not resolve the causal chain. — Benkei

Again, if most (if not all) life has suffering, how is that not approaching sufficient enough, even if you think that it must be sufficient to cause suffering? Can there be human life without suffering? We can certainly try to imagine it, but that is in the imagination, not reality.

The disease causes suffering, being run over by a car causes suffering, a break up causes suffering etc. etc. Suffering is unique and particular. — Benkei

Sure, but what lives don't have these particular cases? Extremely low, if any. In fact, because life entails some sort of strife to live, one can argue (barring arguments against induction, Hume style) that any life will have to have strife in order to live and thus some form of suffering.

The whole anti-natalist approach also ignores the fact that suffering is subjective, that all the research on human well-being shows almost everyone across cultures is well above neutral on happiness. — Benkei

That is a bold assertion to say ALL the research shows... These are Benkei picked studies.. I can throw the opposite conclusion articles your way too.

So Benatar (and you) are simply empirically wrong about the experience of suffering in the world. The argument "yeah, but you really suffer more and are just deluding yourself" does not resolve the issue because if it's true the delusion is the experience and it's all about the experience. — Benkei

Again, have you actually read Benatar (in full)? We would do far better making this an actual book discussion if we are going to invoke his name and arguments. That way we are not just arguing our own second-hand points about Benatar.

Anyways, there is certainly many negative experiences in even an average human life. Diseases (being the topic of this thread) being one of many many many negative experiences. Why should a parent force their view of the world (that it should be lived out in its current conditions) by having a child who must then live this view of the world (that it should be lived out in its current conditions..lest suicide) out?

And "not experiencing the bad of life" by not existing isn't "good" as this is the usual metaphysical mumbo-jumbo: We cannot ascribe ethical states to nothing. — Benkei

This is the case again that you're not actually reading Benatar, so you get to debate a representative interpretation, as we aren't using the actual text. But, if I recall, he thought that it is absolutely good to not experience negative experiences/pain/suffering but relatively good to experience happiness. Then he gives some thought experiments. One if I recall was about how we wouldn't care if happy aliens don't exist on Mars. We would most likely feel sympathy if we found out aliens lived a tortuous painful life on Mars. Preventing pain is more important than generating good experiences in this conception because of these type of intuitions.

Please have more response to my argument than that. I did provide a pretty detailed response and even though I generally disagree with your current argument, I think you elicit good debate. On an aside, I could swear I've seen you make (at least tepid) antinatalist arguments or at least have shown some sympathies for the arguments in the past. I could be mistaken though.

Benatar's ethics is consequentialism. — Benkei

I do want to bring up, I am not necessarily using Benatar's version of antinatalism here, though I guess I'm obliged to defend it now being it is something I do generally agree with. But let's not mix what schopenhaer1 is saying with strictly what Benatar is saying. He has a pretty idiosyncratic form of antinatalism that I don't always use. That being said, have you actually read his arguments or are you just going by third-hand accounts?

If living entails suffering then living doesn't cause suffering. — Benkei

No one is saying that living causes suffering. However, no existence is so charmed as to not entail some suffering and thus for pragmatic argument's sake, semantically speaking, you can see why it becomes conflated in common parlance in these discussions (being suffering's ubiquitousness in all forms of living).

So if the position is, suffering is intrinsic to life then it must necessarily fail as a consequentialist argument because living then does not cause suffering. — Benkei

Benkei, you have some interesting ideas, but this is a semantic argument, not a deep philosophical one. One can just make the move in this tit-for-tat game to remake the terms and keep the same substance of the argument. The position is suffering is entailed in (most life that we've ever known).. That's good enough then if living doesn't actually cause suffering. But who knows, maybe living does entail suffering. That is an intriguing idea to pursue. Buddhists believe it to be some sort of necessity, for example. It may be considered an illusion ultimately in this conception, but it is part of the doctrine in a fundamental way.

Also, Benatar isn't strictly a consequentialist. I actually see him more as a Kantian if we are to use the most widely used ethical categories. That is to say, he doesn't want to see people (the child) being used as a means to the someone else's (the parents') ends when it comes to generating the conditions for suffering for others (that is to say the necessary condition of life). Also he seems to say that there is an obligation not to cause the conditions of suffering, and not an obligation to cause happiness (if there is no actual person there in the first place). Thus, there seems to be an obligation around preventing suffering that is not purely about the consequences, but about obligations around suffering (and uniquely so, in the case of procreation where prevention of good affects no person so is not bad, and prevention of bad also affects no one, but is still good that no suffering occurred).

If the argument is that it is not intrinsic to life, then it becomes necessary to examine the causal chain. And then you run into problems because living is never a sufficient condition for suffering, merely a necessary condition. — Benkei

This to me is really what you are trying to argue. For all intents and purposes, living is the cause of that which is inevitable- suffering. We have to define suffering of course. Certainly a life that has experienced an ounce of disease has some suffering. It is another argument, for example, as to how much disease, and how painful for this to be considered truly "suffering". But your argument is strictly about whether living is necessary and sufficient. The facts are that suffering is almost impossible to avoid while alive. The proof is simply seeing the suffering in almost everyone's life. No utopia exists, no paradise exists, etc. If Buddhism/Schopenhauer does have some truth to it, then perhaps there is a metaphysical aspect of animal striving that indeed would relate suffering with living itself. None of this needs to be consequentialism, in other words. Even if it was, the balance sheet is not on your side of the argument, if we are to use Benatar's argument. That is to say, if in the procreational decision, no actual person loses out on experiencing the good life that is not bad (as there is no actual person). However, not experiencing the bad of life is always good, even if there is no actual person to enjoy this good (see Benatar's asymmetry and formal argument written elsewhere to get full picture of his argument before you go by my rough outline of the argument).

Again, unnecessary trolling.

You don't like him because he's the bully - but at least, in roughing you up, he throws you back into town, his town, where you can lick your wounds safely. You don't like him - but - he crystallizes everything perfectly. And that's a comfort.

It's a commensal , co-dependent relationship. And, like most abusive relationships, it repeats the same patterns, endlessly, while the participants speak endlessly about why it isn't abusive. It's actually so purely real, they say, you can't even understand.

Listen, I dated the same guy. It doesn't get better. Get out while you can. He's telling you what you want to hear, because it keeps you passive, and prevents you from developing an actual self. The more your autonomy wanes, the more you justify him to others. Eventually, it's compulsive. But you can still leave, any time. — csalisbury

This is a really good analogy. I interpret it this way:

People have become co-dependent with their suffering. It becomes necessary to living because if one cannot defeat it, or get away from it, the only thing people think they must do is embrace it and accept it. Thus, not only is suffering acceptable to oneself, but it is okay to create the (well known) conditions on someone else's behalf because somehow, they will (must) accept it too in order to deal with the mitigating circumstances of The Big Problem of Suffering.

The coronavirus isn't about The Big Problem of Suffering. Most things aren't! — csalisbury

But it is, and so are most things. Physical stress on your body is part of the abusive relationship. But one must accept it and continue it for others. No, we can break the habit of the abusive relationship and acceptance of it.

Since 'already born' procreators are also sufferers;

and (2) since for many sufferers - if not most - "not procreating" increases their suffering; — 180 Proof

This is a dubious argument. When your supposed "suffering" is contingent on not getting to seriously affect someone else, then that suffering is not even a factor. I can't say something like "Oh, I am suffering so much because I don't get to force other people to do this or that". Nope.

and (3) since species auto-extinction, like personal suicide, neither eliminates the conditions that make suffering possible nor undoes/ameliorates any suffering already endured - i.e. nothing is prevented ex post facto; — 180 Proof

That I agree with you, but going forward, a potential that could suffer prevented by someone who might have a child, is still prevented. It's not about the aggregate but the margins. One person not suffering that could have, is one person not suffering that could have.

and (4) since there are many viable and effective ways taught by e.g. Laozi/Zhuangzi, Buddha, Epicurus/Lucretius, Seneca/Epictetus, Spinoza, Zapffe et al (with which CBT & studies in 'positive' psychology are consistent) to further mitigate, even minimize, current suffering as well as prevent as much prospective (i.e. foreseeable) suffering as possible; — 180 Proof

If we need to mitigate, no reason to start the suffering. It's as simple as that. Let me provide you suffering on behalf/for you so you can deal with mitigating it later on is a non-starter in the realm of ethics.

antinatalism - merely, at best, an auto-da-fé - is an idle 'solution' to the wrong problem, or pseudo-problem (pace "Silenus", Schopenhauer, Cioran, Benatar, Ligotti ... ) — 180 Proof

What pseudo-problem? No new person, no new suffering. If Mary and Joe do not have a child, no suffering will befall a new child from that union. Simple as that. No coronavirus for them to deal with, to be concordant with this thread.

Eliminate patients instead of the viruses (or conditions that make them contagious) ... à la 'destroy the village in order to save the village' (Bên Tre, 1968) :roll: — 180 Proof

Eliminate the need to eliminate the virus by not having the patients in the first place. The patients already here have to deal with it (get the theme of "dealing with" here?).

More like cutting-off heads to treat migraines. Suffering (e.g. sickness, morbidity), schop1, is the problem, not living (i.e. procreating). — 180 Proof

It is indeed the problem. If we know it exists, do not put more people in harms way. Having children is its own ideology- that of assenting to the way things are, and wanting to put another person into that way (pace my thread on society being an ideology).

Since antinatalists' maxim is that living perpetuates suffering, they will all be in favor of their own extinction - not to mention everyone else around them. It's pure win! — SophistiCat

Bringing people out of existence through horrible disease is not part of the antinatalist agenda, sorry. Certainly being brought into existence exposes people all around the world to this though.

Enough trolling. Youre not as sophisticated with the unnecessary swearing. Say something or be silent.

Diseases in general show how short-sighted people are when they are projecting how well-off their offspring will be. When people only think of the "good times" when projecting their child's life, they are miscalculating the horrible physical pain that can and does befall everyone. You want to prevent viruses from spreading? Prevent people who will get those viruses. If you say that is like cutting off your arm because of an itch, you are wrong. Any suffering is wrong to bestow if it can be prevented in fell swoop by simply doing the non-action of not procreating. Let this be a lesson to all. Do not have children. Over and out. But I'll be back shortly.

The threat I am referring to, is the inability for human beings to find activities that suitably pass the time. Such as, if we start to stagnate in the area of computing, then a programmer will no longer have a job, or a designer if we stagnate also in the visual arts. This is a threat, because people put out of their jobs would have to find something else to do, or to occupy themselves with, and if we stagnate as a race, then we are left only with functional jobs, or supply/maintenance jobs. There would be virtually no intellect remaining, and there would be great numbers of useless people without any real work to do, as the jobs would already be filled. — Jhn4

Have you considered antinatalism as a solution? :lol:

Why should we enforce some values on everyone? Someone has to care for the children and there is an important difference between giving children a home life or institutionalizing them. Homemakers played an extremely important role in society and I am not sure we are better off without them. — Athena

So I don't think you are getting me here. You are talking about gender discrimination and the role of women in society. That is an interesting topic. However, this particular topic is about whether bringing children into the world is considered a political ideology in itself. In other words, choosing to have a child is equivalent to saying, "I like the current society and its ways-of-life and want to make another person also go through the ways-of-life of the society". To have a child is a POLITICAL decision, one made on behalf for the child, due to an ideology that the current society is good (and good enough to force another person into it on their behalf by procreating them into the society in the first place). That is more the topic, not as much role of gender in society.

As an aside, it is an interesting debate whether having someone stay at home full time is a better arrangement than two working parents. But that would be a different topic.

Interesting post. Thanks for sharing. So this thread is about how deciding to have children is itself an ideology. The ideology would be something like "The current society is one where a someone ELSE should have to live all the ways-of-life of that society". Why do you suppose someone else should live all the ways-of-life of a society because the parent deems this to be good for the child? Why is it ever good to force the ideology of society (aka the game of life) on someone else? Unlike other "forced" ideologies, this one is permanent lest suicide. I would just like to see your justification for why it is acceptable and not questioned like any other ideology. The ideology of bringing another person into the world because you believe it is good for them to be brought into the world should be questioned.

It is an aside, however, to what extent people can be justified holding a position without thinking through the justification. My statement wasn't well written if it is not clear I was not taking a position relative this issue. Apologetics for people who haven't thought their actions through much is not a subject that interests me -- though not because the answers are clear to these questions but simply because the only person who can benefit from such arguments is someone who does have the time and desire to think about the subject and so is no longer in the category of "not having thought about it". — boethius

Good point.

My main purpose in my response, however, is to make a moral equivalence between having children and all actions that maintain and perpetuate society. — boethius

Interesting. I can agree being that parents are assenting to perpetuate a certain way-of-life from being born. There is possibly a tangential aspect here too of the fact that the parent is doing it on BEHALF of the child. Therefore, procreation specifically (more than other societal perpetuation activities) is that much more under scrutiny as the participants cannot make the decision on their own behalf. Someone ELSE feels society is worth living through, and another person is the one who deals with the consequence of this decision. This makes procreation that much more of a focal point. The parent not only deems society good enough for THEMSELVES, but deem it such that ANOTHER PERSON must enter into its fray. Thus more than any other ideology, indeed there is as an aspect of forced ideology. The consequence is that it forces another person to play the game of life (society). [As an aside, let's not get bogged down if there was an actual "person" to be "forced". We can both agree that a new person would exist where there was not a person in the case of procreation, and that new person would be "forced" by having to play the game of life or die.. in that sense I mean "forced"..Others on here have tried to bog the conversation down in semantics regarding "forced" due to no person being around beforehand. Besides being off point of this particular thread, it is trying to use "forced" in a metaphysical sense and not as a shorthand for "have to go through society's ways-of-life lest the person die].

In my last comments I have been outlining (in my view) how a justification for having children can be argued; although it is indeed a very weight decision in itself, it follows from the broader question of valuing humanity as a whole or not. If humanity has value, and we conclude we should continue it, then it follows children are consistent with such a value system. — boethius

Of course, using people by "forcing" them into a way-of-life because one thinks the abstract concept of "humanity" is good, is still using the individual for an abstract concept...

We could of course move onto this question, but so far my goal here is to give an idea of how ideology does not exclude coherent ideology which in turn does not exclude an ideology being true. That indeed, everything is ideological, and the word only has meaning when contrasting with the status quo (which at best is simply a short hand way to say "I'm going to now describe some ideas the majority does not agree with" and at worst is the ideology of denying the status quo is an ideology -- such as maximizing profits is simply rationality beyond reproach and not an ideology in itself), and in a philosophical context is simply equivalent to "world view". We are still left with all the same questions of whether the ideology or world view in question has merit or not, is sound or not, and is true or not. It's not a useless word in the philosophical context, it makes sense to contrast "my ideological foundations to yours"; but my main point so far is that identifying something as ideological does not provide us any further information than that we are considering the ideas in question together; it remains to be seen if those ideas have justification or are really true. — boethius

I would only add that ideology is any set of ideals a particular person or group holds. My point with society being an ideology is that for all the things we do not hold in common, there are ways-of-life of any particular society (how we produce/consume/need some form of entertainment or meaning) that a parent is tacitly consenting to by having a child. That is to say, the parent agrees with the BROADER ways-of-life of a society and assents to it by having the child (which bears the consequence due to someone else's assent). This particular ideology is that of assenting to the current (or hoped-for) ways-of-life. The parent believes this is GOOD for SOMEONE ELSE (to be born at all and live out the ways-of-life).

However, that we are unable to convince each other of anything without sharing premises that we can always beg the question about, does not imply there is no true positions. It does not even mean that we can't be truly convinced that we really do have the truth about something. Though I accept that you see my ideology (wherever we disagree) as one ideology among many, I see my ideology (certainly the critical foundations of it) as really true, otherwise I would not believe it; and I expect you to see things the same way for the key parts of your ideology. — boethius

Indeed, I think parents are convinced they have the "truth" about something- mainly that the ways-of-life of society are good and should be perpetuated. What are the costs? Who is affected? In this case it is on behalf of someone else. The parent is so convinced of their truth, they will put another person into a situation, affecting them for a lifetime because THEY think the ways-of-life are so good it MUST be good for someone else.