‘Aggression is wrong, UNLESS the intention behind that aggression is to prevent more aggression - then aggression is not wrong’ is an example of self-justification as a result of cognitive dissonance. — Possibility

We agreed that it revolves around autonomy of the individual being violated. The negative ethics revolves around that.. Why not just have a child for X reason? Because we don't use individuals like that.

Your problem is with the amount of ‘suffering’ that appears to necessarily come with the existence of the individual. I believe this ‘suffering’ is a result of prediction error - as each ‘individual’ predicts, tests and then adjusts their mental concepts to better correspond with reality. The more we interact with reality, the more prediction error we experience. It’s in our best interests, then, to continually adjust our concepts to suit our interactions with reality, so that our predictions are more refined and accurate as a result. This is easier said than done, of course. Pain, loss, lack and humiliation are all signs of prediction error - avoiding these signs that we need to adjust our concepts is not the answer to reducing suffering - taking the steps to understand where the prediction error occurs and then adjust our concepts is. — Possibility

I'm not saying that one must avoid reducing prediction error. Rather, I am saying that it is not your place to make a prediction error for someone else that affects them profoundly, because you decided you wanted to.

What this broader understanding of reality this leads me to (eventually) is that I don’t matter as an indivisible, isolated existence in the universe: I matter as an aware, connected and collaborating participant in the unfolding universe, in the whole of existence. — Possibility

How does this matter in regards to preventing suffering for others? It sounds like you are trying to say that the "Will of the Universe" is an excuse to cause suffering of others. This would indeed be a way to make it ok to positively do things to others (violating non-aggression and non-harm). This is problematic. In fact, what you postulate is that we are just test-cases so the universe can get things "better". If that is the case, then we are being used by the universe itself and thus nothing matters on the individual level of ethics. That is problematic.

Okay, but then what does it have to with the principle of non-aggression? Enabling you to be somewhere, whether you thought you had a choice in being there or not, is not an act of aggression. If I fall asleep on the train and end up five stops past where I wanted to be - is that the train’s fault for enabling me to be there? Or the train driver’s fault? — Possibility

No, since you were an autonomous person who mistakenly slept on the train, that was in your side of the court. If, however, you had no choice and someone drugged you to sleep on the train and wake up later, yeah that would be force. Thus, if someone does something that affects someone else's life, and the person being affected could not make a choice, that would be force.

The cause must occur before the effect. — Possibility

Parents conceive and birth children- check.

Whenever the cause occurs, the effect must also occur. — Possibility

When something is conceived and birthed, someone becomes born- check.

There must not be another factor that can explain the relationship between the cause and effect. — Possibility

Only conception and birth from the parents or intentional efforts by fertility clinic which still need the desire from at least one parent- check.

So, enable is not the same thing as cause. You can cause an effect, but scientifically you can’t conceptualise an event and treat it like a single effect with a single cause. When you arrange the conditions for an event to occur, you are enabling that event, not causing it. It’s a common misconception - a case of anthropocentrism, that we are the sole ‘cause’ of every event in which we are the only conscious contributor to the conditions. It’s a limitation of our legal and moral systems, for obvious reasons, but it isn’t reality. There are many more interactions that contributed to the conditions for that birth than the parents’ conscious actions - and some of those interactions continue to contribute to the existence of that child throughout their life, even if the parents don’t. That these are not conscious contributors should not exclude them as contributors - even though you’re specifically looking for ‘someone’ capable of consciously preventing the event. — Possibility

At the end of the day, it is the will of the parent that allows the birth to take place. If birth was fully unpreventable, then you may have a point. But practically all birth is.

I recognise that I appear to be splitting hairs here. But when you charge a parent with ‘violating a principle of non-aggression’ for contributing to a collaborative event, there is something amiss with the conceptualisation. I’m trying to show where the error occurs in relation to reality - not in relation to a moralistic system. So, while I recognise that the parents are considered the ‘moral agents’ within your ethical perspective, the fact that it doesn’t correspond to a broader experience of reality challenges the validity of the ethical perspective itself. When you’re looking at the situation from within that ethical perspective, it’s like trying to make the bed while you’re still under the covers - so I understand your frustration. — Possibility

Again, you have not explained your non-agent based system which apparently leaves morality of individual agents as irrelevant. This can be used to justify anything- the murder was the cause of the universe from unknown multiple causations. There is no need to do that. Without the agent, the violation would not have occurred. You want to have this holisitic perspective of reality, but even if that were true from a birdseye view (which we cannot prove), existence is felt and experienced at the individual level. There is no way of getting around it. The main reason this is dangerous, is people will then use it as an excuse to not have any responsibility or accountability to whether they cause harm to others.

Yes, the child had no conscious decision in the matter. But no, it was not ‘someone’ else who made a decision for the child. That’s an assumption based on a moralistic perspective of reality. You’re saying that a ‘moral agent’ MUST be held accountable for ‘causing’ an event instead of simply causing an effect that contributes to the event - and it can’t be a ‘god’ or any other collaboration of concepts that has no ‘actual’ individual existence, let alone moral agency. But in reality there is no individual agent who ‘caused’ the event of being born (existence) to happen for the child. — Possibility

Without the parent doing certain things, there is no child. Thus, this is provably wrong.

So no, this is NOT a violation of non-aggression because at the moment of birth/existence, an event has happened to a create a person that was a collaborative effort which DID include the pre-conscious action of several actual contributors that continue to constitute the person created, as well as the conscious or unconscious action of the parents and a number of other conditions of which no agent in relation to the birth/existence of that child may be consciously aware - not even the parents. — Possibility

What other conditions besides the parents decisions each step of the way? Here's the thing, you are really over-emphasizing the idea that antinatalism is trying to "blame" parents. You are not quite getting where the emphasis is. Antinatalism is trying to inform the parents that be simply preventing birth, they can prevent harm. There isn't supposed to be a post-facto blame of what has already occurred. I see that as a big glitch here in your reasoning. You are not even putting the focus where antinatalism is putting the focus. It's not about blaming things on people or holding them in contempt, etc.

When viewed from within the moralistic system, the only way to make sense of this reality is to exclude the interaction of non-moral agents. But then it isn’t reality, is it? And what you deem to be ‘wrong’ with the interaction of the world is precisely where you have ignored, isolated and excluded what is real about the interaction of the world. — Possibility

This is all elusive. You have to provide examples. Sure, people have accidental births. What else are you trying to get at?

No, it isn’t forcing the child to get punched in the face. The punch in the face is a separate event in which one can identify an act of force. This act of force occurs in time against the actual, existing child. Using passive language doesn’t change the fact that someone does the punching (not necessarily those who contributed to the child coming into the universe), and associating the punch with the child’s arrival doesn’t make them the same event with the same agent.

What do you mean by ‘prior against’? That doesn’t make any sense. — Possibility

C'mon Possibility. This is semantic tit-for-tat that I expect from other posters wanting to go down rabbit-holes. If you create the conditions for someone to have X thing happen (punched in the face), then you were the person who caused it, whether indirectly or not. The "force" is the X event of being born. What caused the conditions for that birth? The parent. "Who" created the conditions for the child to be born in the first place? The parent? If you want to say that "force" has to have someone prior to the X to force, I'll use another word- "BLORCE". The parents "BLORCED" the child. I don't care what the actual term used is, the meaning I am conveying is that the child itself had no decision in the matter. It was someone else who made that decision for the child and caused the X event (being born) to happen for the child. This is a violation of non-aggression because at the moment of birth, an effect/affect has happened to a person caused from someone else, that affects that person's whole life and did not involve the actual participant being affected (the child). I am avoiding the word "consent" because that's just another rabbit-hole that I don't think needs to be mined for red herring pate.

What do you mean by ‘prior against’? That doesn’t make any sense. — Possibility

You don't need the person to exist before the event who has a "will" to violate. All you need is for X event to happen that will affect someone that were caused by someone else and not that person that affects them their whole life. That would be what the parents are doing.. Like I said use "blorce" and not force. As long as you get my meaning.

But you haven’t shown that someone was forced. And again, you’re using passive language to conceal the agent of any force the child may experience immediately after existence, implying that this force (which appears to act against an existing will in time) is the result of bringing the child into existence in the first place. The child’s existence enables an act of force, sure - but it doesn’t cause the act. — Possibility

It doesn't matter! If I enabled you to be somewhere you had no choice in, that is that.

I get that you’re looking for a way to prevent further suffering, and that you’ve logically determined the most effective way is to prevent individual existence in the first place. But in my view, it is that existence is individual which causes suffering, not that the individual exists. — Possibility

You have not proved this. You simply assert collaboration, et al. It is pie in the sky and in fact is part of the problem. It is using people for an agenda, or overlooking people's autonomy. Actually, it is self-justifying. If there is no individual, there is no abuse happening, therefore, don't worry about it. Case closed. I don't think so.

You keep coming up with analogies that cannot be the same thing. If you chose instead NOT to bring me to this obstacle course, I would still exist, and still have a will that I can exercise independent of you. I could even choose to go on the obstacle course myself, if I thought it might be good. But there is no will to go against prior to existence, and no will that is ‘freed’ by preventing that existence. That’s not a reason to procreate, but it is a reason why you cannot accuse those who do procreate of ‘force’. — Possibility

If the child comes into the universe and upon the millisecond of their arrival, the child was punched in the face, and it is well known that upon birth, one gets punched in the face, is that forcing the child to get punched in the face? Now extend that over the course of a lifetime, and instead of a punch it is all suffering. You don't need a will to go "prior against". You just need to cause something to happen to someone else (that extends into autonomous adulthood) that is not ascertained by the person this is affecting.

So you’re saying that ‘force’ is in the eye of the beholder? In that case, you can only know that you’ve caused someone to endure something once the action is in the past and one evaluates that action from their own perspective. That’s not force. I’ve already agreed that procreation is an act of ignorance - but it’s not ignorance of a will that doesn’t exist. — Possibility

No I am not saying that at all. I'll say it different. It matters not whether there was bad intent regarding procreation. The fact that someone was forced is what matters- good intentions or not. That's why the analogy of the obstacle course is in fact apt. Would it matter if prior to that person's existence, there was no actual person? What if I upped the stakes like Khaled has stated, and said that the child would immediately upon existence experience worse things (let's say the parent thought it was good, but the child didn't)? Is that right? It is not intent. It is the fact that it is the violation of non-aggression PLUS the fact that one is causing ALL conditions of harm on another person. Both big nos to do to someone else.

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who sees this.

Great stuff. Unfortunately, education trends are going in the exact opposite direction. We (to be fair, I only know the American system well) are abandoning content to teach "skills" like critical thinking. And very smart people (see the many in this thread) seem blind to the fact that you must have something to think critically about, and without a knowledge base, you might be thinking, but there is nothing critical going on.

And after my first read through the thread, every post that even slightly disagrees provides no example of how to teach critical thinking separate from content...unless I missed it. — ZhouBoTong

Good point. It reminds me of history education. There are theories now that history education can be a mish-mash hodepodge of time periods and events, as long as it is taught using "critical thinking" skills. In other words, the aversion to "grand narrative" history is so great, that the basic eras, periods, and change over time is lost to "thinking exercises" or collaborative projects, or whatever else is considered more important than content itself. However, without the basic narrative, there is no way to properly understand it, deconstruct, or do anything else meaningful with it. It is devoid of context. If you don't understand the Enlightenment, the American Revolution makes little sense. If you don't understand the Reformation, the Enlightenment makes no sense. If you don't understand the Silk Road, you miss out on the globalization that lead to Renaissance, etc. To take things out of context and to just use historical subjects as a means to some some ludicrous critical thinking goal, that has nothing to do with history itself is to create a real disservice.

@Banno Maybe you'd agree.

Incidentally, the manslaughter charge doesn’t necessarily shift culpability to the doctor, of course. — Possibility

So, I never claimed that most parents are thinking, "I am going to force someone into the world". That is the resultant action. Many people have "good intentions". If someone kidnapped you and brought you to this (what they perceived to be) amazing obstacle course and said you cannot get off it because it will be as good for you as it was for them, are they right in doing this to you because they thought it was good for you? No it isn't. So the force doesn't have to have malintent. I understand well the various reasonings for not thinking of birth as "forcing" someone into anything. But that is the point, to provide a perspective they weren't thinking of earlier. I don't know, slavery might have been thought of as justified at some point too based on conceptions that they didn't consider. (That is being real charitable of course).

But you still haven’t shown that the parents committed a conscious act of ‘force’. You show the parents, and then you show the ‘suffering individual’ who didn’t HAVE to exist (and I agree with you there), and you expect us to ‘naturally’ conclude that there was an act of ‘force’ committed by the parents in creating that suffering individual? Nope.

I will agree that the parents contributed significantly, and are primarily responsible for that ‘individual’ from the point they become aware of its actual OR potential existence. But you have yet to convince me that they’ve acted with aggression or force against an individual. — Possibility

So, I don't think the force matters as to the intent of the force. Someone can force something on someone without knowing it. They may be blissfully ignorant that this is the case. In fact, that might be a reason to keep promoting antinatalism, so people won't be ignorant of it anymore! :).

Again, you’re referring to collaborative efforts, not an act of ‘force’. I’m trying to point out that what you’re calling ‘immoral’ cannot be identified as such because there is no single, conscious act of ‘force’ by an agent in time that can be defined as procreation. It IS hard to point to what act was a direct cause of the birth of something. You can point to key contributors, sure. But you have yet to pinpoint the act of ‘force’ you seem to think exists here. — Possibility

IT DOESN'T MATTER. Whatever place you put the X time of the person being "born" is the time X of the force. That is a red herring!

In a murder, you can say it was also hard to define "when".. What makes it murder is a couple factors that have to come together- intent, planning, the actual act itself.. etc. Maybe the guy survived actually, but the doctor did something that actually caused the final demise of the person.

You are trying to find this wiggle room around "force". It doesn't have to be "crisp". It can be fuzzy. What you need to create another person is two parents. At which point you deem the "force" is another matter (conception, gestation, primary consciousness, secondary consciousness, birth, identity, etc.).

I agree that our being born should not be declared evidence that ‘procreation is good/necessary’. In order for our being born to matter, our own existence must be deemed our BEST opportunity to effect change in the world - not simply a step towards ‘creating’ someone else with a maybe better chance of achieving. It’s a cop-out, a cowardly attempt to pass the buck, as well as ignorance and hubris to consider that the best possible use of my capacity for awareness, connection and collaboration is to simply continue my genetic existence... — Possibility

Ok, I agree there.

Yes - this is why you cannot declare the ‘force’ of an entire event concept to be ‘immoral’. It DOES matter what constitutes that ‘force’, because your evaluation of a collaborative force as immoral renders all participants culpable. — Possibility

No, no, no. If someone murders someone else, it is not the universe's fault and thus no one is directly culpable. That itself is a cop-out.

If you want to attack the morality of a single participant, then you need to address their specific, conscious contribution to that ‘force’. Which means that you need to consider their interaction with the event well before it occurred in time. — Possibility

Don't create the new person, period. If it's live birth, it's parents. If it is a test tube baby, it's the components of that. It is not hard to point to what was a direct cause of birth of something.

What exactly do you believe constitutes the ‘force’ of a child coming into existence? Is it labour? Is it the whole pregnancy? Is it conception? — Possibility

It actually doesn't matter. You can believe it's conception.. you can believe it's the time of identity formation. It has no bearing. A red herring.

You seem to be describing this ‘force’ as an event which is in reality a collaboration of events, each with their own ‘force’ of collaborative action. — Possibility

That can be said of any event. What prevents all parts of the event(s) leading to a full existence is not procreating in the first place from the very start.

To prevent the ‘force’ of collaborative action that constitutes a child being born, you would need to address more than the morality of the parents at the time that child is born. By then it’s too late. — Possibility

Sure. I don't care where you want to set up the prevention. I don't want to make this a debate about abortion. The point is to prevent birth. At which point this should count, is a separate debate.

Just because I agree that procreation is not a good choice doesn’t mean I would refer to myself as an antinatalist. Antinatalism argues from a moral standpoint, but I don’t see it as a moral issue. The way I see it, how people got into a situation is only relevant to how they should act once there IF how they act has contributed to how they got there. If it’s not something you can change (ie. it happened in the past, before you were aware of its impact) then why waste effort on it that could be better spent collaborating to effect change where you can? — Possibility

It's not a waste to prevent others from being harmed when it can be prevented- from not letting negative ethics from being violated. We can collaborate regarding the original harm being done :D. All politics, and everything else starts from being born in the first place. This HAS to be addressed for anything else to matter.. By the way, this sentiment is separate from my more formal antinatalism argument. However, you brought up what to do after we, the already-born are here.

You can argue about the existence of potential or possible persons, but this is what you’re referring to when you talk about a ‘future’ person (or the concept of a person regardless of time) - particularly in relation to ‘force’. A force cannot act against a future or past existence - only against their potential or possibility. That’s basic physics. A force acting in physics can only act on the values of what exists in time.

A force acting on an actual person existing in time can be against their physical existence or against their will. In the later case there must be a will (a faculty which determines and initiates action) operating in time that has some value for the force to act against. — Possibility

I'm sorry but this doesn't have much bearing here. When someone is born, THAT is the force. Preventing the "force" of the action (which is the time the child comes into existence). At that time X (when the child comes into existence) is when the force takes place. By preventing the "force" one is preventing that X time from happening. It is as simple as that.

But this is different again from a force acting on a possible person, which is where you are operating here. An act of force on a ‘possible person’ in time can only be against the possibility of a person existing in the future: this is the only existence in time here that has a value to be acted against. So those applying any ‘force’ against this ‘possible person’ would be you and khaled. — Possibility

Same answer as above.

So, yes - it could be deemed ‘wrong’ to use force, but if ‘force’ is an act against the value of what exists in time, then perhaps you’re the ones attempting to use force here. — Possibility

This makes no sense based on your own objections. No one actually exists prior to their existence to be forced or harmed. Once born, the force has taken place. That is the asymmetry that has to be reckoned with.

I think all branches of knowledge ultimately must inter-validate. It is up to 'practical thinkers' (who pursue something as an avocation) to keep academics grounded. And sometimes to introduce novelty. — Pantagruel

I would agree with you in most other fields, but not so much philosophy being that there is no "cut-and-dry" concepts that must be "validated". It is not grounded at all. It is escoteric built on escoteric wanting to be taken seriously as more concrete. I am fine with that, if it is recognized for what it is, and not more. I think philosophical thinking is the root of all other branches of knowledge really, so I am not opposed to philosophy, just opposed that there is a "hard and fast" philosophy.

Oh gotcha. Well, if you read my passage, you can see what I am trying to get at with it. I'm glad if others find it satisfying, though. I always thought academic philosophy students were the most arrogant. I always appreciated the few engineers forced to be in there to round out their major requirements.. They seemed to be less of a show-off types. Again, that is completely anecdotal. I always gravitated towards straight-up history or other subjects as the other students were less blowhard types, and the content was less escoteric. Escoteric thinkers, thinking they are superior to others in their escoteric thinking in some hard and fast "academic" way bothers me.

Not at all. I concurred with your estimation of academic philosophy at the time, with the ensuing results for myself. I didn't attribute any more to you than what you said. I don't think I implied it either. — Pantagruel

Ok, I wasn't quite sure what you meant by biggest mistake of our life. Can you elaborate?

Added quote to my post for clarity. — Pantagruel

Isn't this an example of taking one passage out of context. If you read the whole thing, I then go into what I mean by that, and it isn't simply saying "don't read other thinkers or academic philosophy at all".

I was of the same opinion as Schopenhauer regarding academic philosophy, and thought that it would somehow hinder my ability to freely explore my own ideas. — Pantagruel

Please read my own opinion on the matter. I am NOT against reading historical thinkers or "academic" philosophy!

Secondly, I think you're confusing the notion that "philosophy should be able to be exercised by anyone and everyone" with the posts I was being derogatory toward. Philosophy, if taken seriously, is quite hard, it's not, in my opinion, just 'reckoning some stuff'. This means that a) you'd be crazy not to read at least a summary of what people before you have already thought on the matter, b) it's very unlikely that you'll be so confidently right about any of it as to make the kind of 'you're wrong' single line pronouncements I'm referring to, and c) anything you do think is likely to need to stand on the shoulders of others as explaining the whole thing from first principles would require a book, not a 150 word post. — Isaac

Before answering you specifically, I'd like to add that I have a problem with academic philosophy in general. To me, academic economics and philosophy programs are the most egregious versions of elitist. Much of economics is so desperately trying to be a "harder" science because they use statistical econometrics or mathematical models, and thus believes that they are more than a social science. Often "laws" of economics are taken as more seriously than what they are, etc. Also, older forms of thinking in that department don't want to be misconstrued as psychological or philosophical-based, and thus also dig themselves deeper in the rabbit-hole of preserving economics as some more "real" descriptivist social science as opposed to the rest which is less amenable to math. That is my take on how I encounter this department anyways. Anecdotally, the economic students were usually business-oriented and just seemed to accept that if economics said "law of this or that" it must be a real law that is "proven" rather than an accepted methodology. The "curtain" isn't really pulled back until grad school that these laws are essentially just that- accepted methodologies, one of many to be used and arranged.

Philosophy has a similar problem to economics as an academic program in trying to justify itself as "legitimate" content. However, it has a more uphill climb and in a more basic way. Where economics has a more-or-less agreed upon methodology as to how to analyze data (or the fact that it even has data to look at), philosophy has to define what it actually is that it is trying to do. Universities seem to have approached it in various ways. There is the historical approach where one learns the development of thoughts over time- Ancient Philosophy, Medieval, Eastern Philosophy, Enlightenment Philosophy, 19th century Philosophy, 20th century Philosophy, etc. Then there is the "category" approach where certain "basic" categories are thought of as required areas of knowledge in the "field". Metaphysics/Epistemology, Ethics, Aesthetics, Symbolic Logic, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Math, Political Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind, etc.. There are movements: Existentialism, Logical Positivism, Analytic Philosophy, Marxism, Postmodernism, Critical, Frankfurt School, Pragmatism. Then there are niche philosophy topics one can break down from there. But it is kind of a hodgepodge and coordinated much more locally by department heads and committees.

So philosophy is not so cut-and-dry as to what is agreed upon as basic concepts, other than perhaps historical understanding of concepts and perhaps categories like metaphysics, ethics, and symbolic logic. But unlike some other topics, philosophy is on shaky ground as far as what counts as legitimate "philosophizing". It has always been an open field. If you were to tell me professors of philosophy are more "wise" I'd laugh my ass off. We are now at the level of how thought thinks of itself. We are at the definitions of things like "What is existence", "What is real", "What is consciousness", "What is right action?" Things like that. There is no cut-and-dry data on this. Actually, in true philosophical spirit, you can even argue if data itself is even called for, because again, it's an open field! You are at the level of existence and thought thinking of its own thinking. There is no right or wrong! Science has available evidence in repeated experiments and technology that comes from it. Not so in philosophy. There isn't even a defined methodology as in other social sciences (like the always striving-to-be-more-than economics department!).

Now I agree with you, it is good to be informed as to the "telephone game" of historical thought. But this makes philosophy an exegesis exercise only. It is not teaching thinking critically in its own right. If you think philosophy should just be about engaging previous thinkers on issues, then you are not getting a full view of philosophy. Rather, if Socrates was right, that it is about examining life, it should be about thought process and examining givens. The best philosophers not only studied great thinkers, but blazed their own path. They had their own unique thoughts and patterns of thinking. The biggs

So, if you want to put your money where your mouth is, when you engage someone, and want them to be more historically-engaged, give them a reference or passage to read from a philosopher that pertains to the subject at hand. If you yourself are not able or willing to do that, then perhaps you are just complaining to complain. You have to be willing to do what you are asking of others. Perhaps balance out people's own "crazy" ideas by providing relevant articles from other philosophers and then ask them to compare their own thoughts to that author's ideas. That is a good midway point between simple exegesis of someone else's thoughts, and being creative and thinking for oneself. If you are simply always analyzing someone else's work, you are not philosophizing, but being a book club participant.

As to you specific points:

a) Yeah I agree, you should read about topics at hand by others. When discussing antinatalism or philosophical pessimism, the main proponents are David Benatar (and authors critical to him) and Schopenhauer. I have read people like Joshua Foa Dienstag, Julio Cabrera, Zapffe, Mainlander, Hartmann, sources from newspapers, popular articles, and all sorts of places. I agree and disagree in various places. However, the most interesting part is critically examining my own thoughts by having to defend them. Its tiring, but the dialectic is the main part that is enriching. I've brought these authors up over time on this forum, but I would never let them speak for me or only use quotes to defend any argument. That is insane.

b) There is no right and wrong! There is agree or disagree! You can be "wrong" about what a previous thinker thought, but you are not "wrong" on whether this or that ethical argument is good or bad. You can have arguments that "better" or "worse" reasoning, but even that is subjective. I'd say that this is not known until the dialectic process is played out. You don't know if someone's argument is bad until they fully develop their reasoning. If at the end, their reasoning fails to hold up, even to themselves, then you can say that the argument was not fully thought out, and thus not very good. Or you can say that the argument needs more details as it cannot overcome certain objections.

c) If you want to use prior thinkers, that's great, but if you ONLY use prior thinkers, you are a hack. There is no originality. Let's take someone like Kripke. He's always thrown around as a modern "great" in philosophy and logic. He is definitely drawing on the debates of Russell and Frege and later on Wittgenstein. However, though he is informed, his thoughts are original to all of them. I see nowhere in his lecture notes pages and pages of exegesis, but rather original thinking. Taking the concepts and moving with it.

Now don't get me wrong. I love history. I think people should be more informed on historical thinking. In fact, I think the hard sciences and math should be taught in a historical approach, not separating the thinkers from their end results (the mathematical or scientific concepts we now have). However, philosophy is not just about understanding other people's thoughts. It's about being able to examine the world using one's own ideas and applying it using relevant methods at hand. Other people's thoughts should be a jumping off point, not an end to themselves when it comes to philosophy.

I'll add @Pfhorrest @frank @Metaphysician Undercover@god must be atheist@Pantagruel @fdrake

You might not like the choices available, or you might not be aware of them all yet, but the reality is that you always have choices, so nothing is ‘forced’. — Possibility

But this is not what I said. I said that you do not have the choice to have no choices. Again, from what I said earlier, and you keep overlooking this: Like I said, forcing others into a trial-and-error scenario because you like it, or you feel like it, is wrong to do to someone. Certainly it is wrong to do someone in the name of collaboration, or civilization, or to experience X thing that YOU deem is important.

I can’t help that - you would need to recognise for yourself that individual autonomy is impossible to achieve in any situation, let alone without force or harm, and have the courage to then abandon it as a principle and adjust your conceptualisation. I certainly can’t ‘force’ anyone to do that. — Possibility

I don't know what you meant here.

It’s not that I deem collaboration to be important. It’s that I see increasing awareness, connection and collaboration to be the underlying impetus of existence. — Possibility

Self-justifying prophecy when applied to the issue we are discussing.

When we suffer, it is from ignorance, isolation or exclusion. — Possibility

But how are people put into this situation in the first place? You already recognized you are an antinatalist, so I am guessing this is something that takes place after the first option has already been not followed?

The feeling of freedom, independence and power that the illusion of ‘individual autonomy’ promises (but does not deliver) can only be achieved by increasing awareness, connection and collaboration. It’s not about what is right or wrong. This is reality, as I understand it. We can ignore it, sure - but I have found that we will inevitably suffer or increase suffering in others from that ignorance, every time. — Possibility

And thus what I said earlier which you also overlooked in your response:


My problem with this, besides the major lack of real evidence of an underlying Way is that it can simply be manipulated into anything. So, if I make a decision that makes me suffer, you can say, "Ah, schopenhauer1 was not conforming with the Way!". Or alternatively, you can say, "Ah, don't worry schopenhauer1, in the end it is all a part of the Way!". As you see both versions of this can be used, and it would not matter whether there was a Way or not, just something someone uses as a justification for why your action was "wrong" or why it wasn't "wrong".

The premise of this thread stinks of elitism and fallacy of authority. If I was to take this perspective to the most logical conclusion, I would have to be published in an academic journal or university press book in order for my thoughts to be taken seriously. That is ludicrous when philosophy should be able to be exercised by anyone and everyone.

Don't get me wrong, I love a good book club and analysis of other's works, but to pretend that because someone published something in a journal or book form, or because someone is a professor of philosophy, this confers expert philosophizing ability is going too far.

I think @Baden was doing a better service by providing examples to raise up the level of writing and analysis of those who have their own thoughts. This to me seems more beneficial than simply retreating to being a glorified academic book club. That all being said, I think the best thing to come from this thread is to put in a section for book/journal analysis. That would be great. But this "holier than thou" commentary is elitism masquerading as reform.

Evolution works on the principle of trial and error so I suppose that is the most 'intelligent' approach. — ovdtogt

Not sure what context this was in based on what you quoted, but my point earlier is that if life is about trial-and-error, it is NOT good to put more people by way of procreation into a trial-and-error experiment. There's also many parts of life that are not trial-and-error. People's personalities are pretty fixed. Often there is collateral damage of many kinds that are hard to overcome in general, that even trial-and-error cannot fix. Also, just the mere fact that one must overcome challenges is something to examine. Is that something we should be forcing others into?

The next step is to be aware of potential for change, and have the courage and patience to connect and collaborate with that potential, effecting change without force or harm. — Possibility

I can agree with that. The problem is being put in a situation where you are forced to change things in the first place. Yes, I accept that is the reality, but there is a way of not creating it for others- procreation. So I think we agree in some respects. If you like the game of change and finding a way to improve prediction errors fine, but don't force it on others. Like I said, forcing others into a trial-and-error scenario because you like it, or you feel like it, is wrong to do to someone. Certainly it is wrong to do someone in the name of collaboration, or civilization, or to experience X thing that YOU deem is important.

He means 'agree/conform' with reality. If your choices do not conform with reality they will not lead to the results you may desire. — ovdtogt

I'm going to include @Possibility, in this being that I assume he/she agrees with your response..

How does interpretation of "collaboration" bypass my objection of it? What sort of "Logos" do you suppose is underlying the universe such that any decision can agree or disagree with it? Is this a re-hashed Daoism? There is a "Way" of the universe, and all our decisions are informed by it?

My problem with this, besides the major lack of real evidence of an underlying Way is that it can simply be manipulated into anything. So, if I make a decision that makes me suffer, you can say, "Ah, schopenhauer1 was not conforming with the Way!". Or alternatively, you can say, "Ah, don't worry schopenhauer1, in the end it is all a part of the Way!". As you see both versions of this can be used, and it would not matter whether there was a Way or not, just something someone uses as a justification for why your action was "wrong" or why it wasn't "wrong".

Also, back to my earlier problem with it, it is self-justifying, and very conservative. If you say, "Work might be tedious, but the struggle against work causes even more suffering", or something like that, then nothing changes. One just accepts everything as having to be that way. But it doesn't. We have choices and that is not an illusion. One choice we can make is preventing others from suffering. Thta is the choice of antinatalism. This is one amongst many ways of rebellion. To say, "Don't rebel at all" is to self-justify what is currently the way things are.

People can and should make conscious choices, but autonomy is an illusion - every choice we make is either aware, connected and collaborating with reality, or it is ignorant, isolated and excluding. — Possibility

Again, this is an unjustified claim and is self-justifying. It is almost a naturalistic fallacy, if it were true. You assume reality is "collaborating". Even if this was the case (which you haven't really shown), why do humans have to choose to "collaborate" with it to continue life? They don't. The simple way to prove it is this: "I thus choose to not have a child". Look at that! I just went against the "collaboration" of the universe. Simple.

Yeah, I do appreciate Pigliucci's approach, acknowledging the historical and social elements of science which seem to be overlooked. Scientific communities are institutions that have ways of life and idiosyncrasies which are still based on philosophical underpinnings towards the findings (usually a conservative approach to how the findings compare with previous research).

I think his approach is most useful in science/math education. I think it much more enlightening and holistic to provide the context for which these mathematicians and scientists were working and discovering their theories. To just present the theories in a vacuum, as if there was no human struggle with how to understand them, or how the concepts developed over time, is to exclude the actual thinking-processes from the conclusions they wrought.

and happens with or without conscious individual input. — Possibility

It doesn't have to be. There's not much here except accidental birth for "without conscious" individual input.

There is no ‘individual future person’ to be harmed at this point: there is only a connected and collaborative effort that lacks awareness. — Possibility

This makes no sense. If you do action X, Y consequence is a future person, who will then be harmed. It is as if you lost the connection of cause and effect. A person does not have to exist for the the rule to be followed, because by not following the rule, someone will exist, and it will be violated. Also, look again at @khaled point about the genetic tinkering, etc. The action is clearly about something that will negatively affect a future person.

But you’ve lost sight of the real game - one where the individual is simply a step towards maximising awareness, connection and collaboration... — Possibility

Again, you are just repeating that there is some agenda beyond the autonomous individual. People create other people, not "awareness, connection, and collaboration" or any other outside force. In fact, it is self-justifying, saying that people cannot make choices when that isn't true.

I don’t expect you to be convinced - my perspective of the ‘real’ game is a minority view that directly questions foundational assumptions of social reality. But it gives me a workable knowledge of the game, at least. That’s a start. — Possibility

Yes, you never really provided a justification for your perspective of the "real" game. It seems like a idealization of evolutionary principles and emergence. Just because the universe has awareness, connection, and collaboration doesn't mean that is an agenda of the universe. That jump there is the part you are not providing evidence for as far as I see.

Two things. Firstly, I'm not talking about making anything 'only' about academic papers, I was only suggesting a category dedicated to it. — Isaac

I can get on board with that.

Secondly, I think the sort of personal creative element you're talking about here just doesn't lend itself very well to forum discussion. You may well have a perfectly lovely idea about the way the world is (or should be) but there it will stop. Discussion either goes to "oh that's nice", or "I don't think so" (often less pleasantly put).

Any matter where there's real depth to be gotten into, 99% if the time someone's already written about it. — Isaac

While I recognize that there is "nothing new under the sun", there are always nuances to how an individual thinks about an issue. Going through the dialectic process could be good in and of itself. It is an elaboration on a thought. There is no finality like, "Oh it is now written in an academic paper, and thus it is crystallized into truthdom". It is simply a formalized version of what people should be doing anyways, which is examining life, the world, and their own understanding of it.

I get the point to an extent. Sometimes it is fun to "dig in" to someone else's philosophical ideas as writ in an academic journal. But interests are relative to the person holding them. One person might be really interested, and another might find it incredibly dull. There's books I would like to discuss, but no one seems interested. I move forward. No big deal.

However, the strength of this forum, in my opinion, is that it can be a testing ground for ideas. Like any testing ground, a lot of the experiments might go haywire or wrong. Making this about reading only academic papers from other people, would take any personal creative element out of the mix. Its not your thoughts now, but someone else's. There is a balance. In order to gain better understanding of all relevant ideas, it is best to read prior literature. However, to exclusively dwell on other people's thoughts without creating one's own ideas, would be to restrict oneself to being an audience member to one's own show. Why not be the performer as well?

Academic philosophy is basically using prior concepts from other philosophers, giving the relevance of it, history of its usage in past debates, and then providing a modification or simply an agreement with past concepts. Sometimes, an original concept is thrown in. Often times there is use of symbolic logic to provide "sound reasoning" to the concepts.

Personally, I don't mind just reading people's own ideas on issues. Most times, I disagree with academic philosophers despite the fancy logic tables and formalized conceptualizations they provide.

There's a lot of "No true Scotsman" fallacy going on here.

The game will be played - you can try to work out what the real rules are, or you can stick with the ones you have that don’t work. People only get hurt in games when the players don’t follow the rules - not their own rules. — Possibility

So there are two problematic things from this.

1) No one has perfect knowledge of the game. Sure, you can try to educate people as much as possible, but there is inevitably trial-and-error in existence. The nuances are never cut-and-dry. Also, rules for one person doesn't necessarily apply to another person or apply to a specific situation. Or people just make mistakes, etc. But what this amounts to is people are being used in a bunch of trial-and-error situations. Knowing this, what is the justification to put people into a big trial-and-error experiment like that? Rather, if the autonomy of the future individual is respected, there is an ideal state of no-harm and no-force. That is not being born for that person.

2) You are simply justifying a self-fulfilling prophecy. You are making it out like people MUST play the game. No, procreation is made at the individual level. Arguably, its one of the simplest things one can do. Simply do NOT procreate. Thus the whole game can be bypassed for a future person by not having them. My point was that people don't have the option to not play the game in the first place once born. It is pretty high-and-mighty of you or anyone else to assume that people should play the game in the first place, and then scold them for not following the rules that you thought are "good" for them. You know, because YOU deem it is "good" for them... Which, wait, didn't matter prior to their birth.. So here we are back at the fact that we are disrespecting people's autonomy to force them into an agenda (trial-and-error, and learn the rules).

Also, rooting ethics in autonomy is the only thing that actually respects a person as an individual and not just using them for someone else's agenda.

It’s a delusion to say that ‘this is what reality is supposed to be but it sucks that it isn’t’. That’s not a workable philosophy. Don’t get me wrong - that used to be me, so I understand the appeal. But the world is only ‘messy’ because we have an inaccurate perspective of ‘neat’. When we can see the world through a more accurate conceptualisation - one that is inclusive of all actions and processes and motivations (even the ones we don’t agree with) - then it actually looks pretty tidy. I always thought that was the ultimate aim of philosophy. — Possibility

What you describe is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive ethics. Its simply a matter of that. Actions in real time are messier than ideals. If one respects autonomy of the individual, then you would not violate non-aggression and harm of another individual. However, in real life that is bound to happen. Sometimes the violation of harm of another, requires the aggression to prevent the harm. But that is because autonomy is being violated, so it still centers around autonomy and its violation. The closer we get to the ideal, the better. The most ideal is preventing the non-harm and non-aggression ideal from being violated (antinatalism). After that, less ideal options ensue.

What I want to reiterate is "de facto" force onto someone. For example, sure people can choose not to work. They can choose to starve themselves, they can choose to be homeless, the can choose to hack it out into the wilderness, suicide. But these often lead to sub-optimal options. The de facto reality is the least sub-optimal, which for most is simply the situation the majority of society offers. This is a de facto reality. But what if none of these sub-optimal options are wanted, even the ones offered by social majority?

Again, let me reiterate what I said earlier which you did not really address:

I'd also like to distinguish between "de facto" forced and "physically forced". Most people have to find the most reasonable job, with the most reasonable pay, in the most reasonable circumstances, in the most reasonable market conditions, etc. Now, you are correct, no one has to do this. People can try to survive in nature, live on the streets, or become a monk. But these for most would be suboptimal given the choices. But the fact that one has to choose any of these is what is the "de facto" forced. At the end of the day, people pick the best of sub-optimal conditions many of the time.

So if I set up a scenario where I forced you to choose out of sub-optimal conditions, you may be justified to be resentful of this. Sure, you could choose in my game to lay down and die, but really, you are trying to choose the best of the choices. This is an important distinction as well, because people think once born, that people have an infinite amount of choices, or at least more choices than are really available. At the end of the day, mitigating circumstances leads to really a few choices and even those might not be desired in the first place. If you like those choices, why would you want to force others into it because you like them or at least find them acceptable.

In the "game of life" situation, some people don't mind or think that they prefer these sub-optimal choices, so "why wouldn't someone else?". That is problematic.

Not very sound principles then, are they? We’re back to square one. If following one principle causes another principle to be violated, then one or both principles are flawed. — Possibility

Not at all. The ideals are there. The world is messy. I never claimed it wasn't.

And now you’ve added a third principle - or is this your underlying principle? Is autonomy for you a fundamental right? This would explain your stance a bit better: non-existence being the only way to respect ideal autonomy in every sense. — Possibility

Actually, yes! I think I had a hard time explaining that earlier with all the truth tables.

@Congau @Possibility

I'd like to add that a possible justification for negative ethics is its association with autonomy. By violating a principle, autonomy is being violated. By forcing or harming someone, it not respecting their autonomy.

I think you are making it more complicated than it needs to be. The question is a moral one. Should you intervene or not? What are you responsibilities? The five were ordinary day laborers and the 1 was a famous doctor who can save many peoples lives. It wishes merely to illustrate that it is very difficult to make value judgments. — ovdtogt

Yes, if this applies to the scenario of intervening to someone who is about to or already violating the non-aggression/non-harm principle, then it is tough to decipher. My first observation would be that once born, the intra-worldly events of the everyday are messy. The procreational decision is much easier as the messiness is not even in the equation (non-aggression and non-harm can be perfectly followed). Once born, negative ethics still takes precedence, but since the locus of ethics lies at the autonomous individual, it is this which should be taken into consideration when the negative ethics is violated. Is someone's autonomy about to be violated? Then one can intervene positively to prevent the harm/aggression.

You see a runaway trolley moving toward five tied-up (or otherwise incapacitated) people lying on the main track. You are standing next to a lever that controls a switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track, and the five people on the main track will be saved. However, there is a single person lying on the side track. You have two options:

Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do? — ovdtogt

Well yes, this is sort of the problem if by that you mean that the trolley conductor is forced to be in an unwanted situation whereby he has to choose from sub-optimal choices. It is slightly different, because unless the conductor is a sociopath, no one would want these choices. However, in the "game of life" situation, some people don't mind or think that they prefer these sub-optimal choices, so "why wouldn't someone else?". That is the main difference.

There's also a bit of trickery going on here, with the "if a tree falls in the woods" problem. These same people might say, "People need to be around to KNOW they don't like these sub-optimal choices", thus in order to even have any determination, a person needs to be around in the first place. This is the non-identity issue. I say this is a false dilemma as it can be argued that putting someone into the determination of sub-optimal conditions, is itself a violation. As long as we can agree on the premise that it is always good not to cause harm when unnecessary, this will apply to situations prior to birth regarding decisions of procreation.

Humans are 'de facto' forced to stay alive for fear of death. — ovdtogt

Correct, that would be a more general way of putting it.

@Congau@Possibility

I'd also like to distinguish between "de facto" forced and "physically forced". Most people have to find the most reasonable job, with the most reasonable pay, in the most reasonable circumstances, in the most reasonable market conditions, etc. Now, you are correct, no one has to do this. People can try to survive in nature, live on the streets, or become a monk. But these for most would be suboptimal given the choices. But the fact that one has to choose any of these is what is the "de facto" forced. At the end of the day, people pick the best of sub-optimal conditions many of the time.

So if I set up a scenario where I forced you to choose out of sub-optimal conditions, you may be justified to be resentful of this. Sure, you could choose in my game to lay down and die, but really, you are trying to choose the best of the choices. This is an important distinction as well, because people think once born, that people have an infinite amount of choices, or at least more choices than are really available. At the end of the day, mitigating circumstances leads to really a few choices and even those might not be desired in the first place. If you like those choices, why would you want to force others into it because you like them or at least find them acceptable.

But if negative ethics includes both ‘don’t harm others’ and ‘don’t use force’, then wouldn’t you need to allow one to be violated in order to uphold the other in this situation? So how do you decide which one is more important to uphold? — Possibility

It is ok to prevent the harm of someone else if their negative ethics is being violated by a third-party. The autonomy of the person has already been violated. Violating non-aggression is not bad if one's autonomy is going to be or has already been violated from another's aggression.

@Congau@Possibility
The irony is that the ultimate negative demands (don't procreate) would lower the need for positive actions (giving to charity). No people, means no need for charity. Positive demands seem to always be necessary when the real ethical basis of negative demands breaks down. You don't have to save anyone, if someone wasn't doing it in the first place. Of course, another thing to consider is that being born requires necessarily us to break negative ethics. We cannot always know, and we cannot always prevent doing things that will violate harm of someone else or aggression onto someone else. This is the collateral damage aspect.