Now, from that, it is crystal clear that (a) he has a burden of proof, and (b) a single example does not meet the burden of proof, as I already made clear by way of analogy. — S

I will give you this.. you actually quoted something and did not pepper it with snide remarks. This is something I can work with. So what would be a burden of proof for you? He claimed these things and then he asked you to provide any evidence that it is otherwise. He is saying that he cannot find any, but can you? If you cannot, he is probably going to say that proves his point.

I plan to continue to refuse to even consider giving you another counterexample until you learn enough about the burden of proof to know that it rests with you, not me, and act accordingly. — S

But he did. It is you who are not living up to your end of the debate. This is a debate and he has every right to see you defend your side. Again, snide rhetoric (like "learn enough about..") is a cheap theatrical tactic when no arguments are left. You cannot give a counterexample, so you resort to this. Put downs are not a stand in for reasoned argument.

Regarding the claim that it is default wrong to do something to someone without their consent, I don't see it as wrong to push someone so that they don't get hit by a truck, or to surprise someone for their birthday, or to leave food and clothes next to a homeless person who is sleeping. — leo

I don't focus on consent. Rather, I focus on forcing others to play a game that (you think at a point in time X) that you like yourself. This is wrong. Look at the argument I made above (instead of just ignoring almost this whole thread which has gone through almost every anti antinatalist case you brought up, especially by poster khaled). Here is the argument in case you can't be bothered to scroll and read the arguments:

So this brings up another argument besides the asymmetry which not only does well on its own, but acts as a bolster for the other arguments. This other argument is forcing others into a challenge/game/adventure (perhaps one that you like yourself, or you think is good) is not right to do to someone else. Now, the only "decision" a person can make at this point is suicide, but suicide is not something that people do willy nilly, even if they don't like the game. It is scary, painful, brings anxiety, etc. Also, people develop interests once born. Ones that didn't need to exist in the first place, but occur post-facto. People generally cling to these- even the depressed, pessimistic, and others. If Benatar is right about the psychological studies, even "well-adjusted" people have a distorted view when self-reporting, as they often diminish painful experience and highlight the better ones when determining what to remember when reporting. Also, as I said, people can identify with something harmful, as they may not see any other choice but to do so. That is the point though. There can never be another choice (excepting suicide or perhaps being a pessimist). — schopenhauer1

If instead it is claimed that it is wrong to do something to someone against their will, a non-existent being doesn't have a will. By the time the being has a will, they can decide on their own whether to keep living or die — leo

Again, I addressed this above. I also stated:

Of course, my own points border on more abstract and existential terms. Why does anyone need to go through the "growth-through-adversity" game in the first place? Seems to be that people think they have some sort of right to impose this on others, as if the universe cares that more humans play this game. "Ah yes" they might say "we need to create people to be challenged so they can be strengthened through it, and hopefully find the joy in it". Of course, you know I'm going to say that is circular reasoning. — schopenhauer1

So, again, no one needs to go through a life of growth through adversity- the model you bring up here. Also pay attention to why suicide is not the opposite of never being born and why that is a terrible example for why it is okay to then procreate.

So if everyone deep down wants to live, then the issue doesn't lie in life itself, it doesn't lie in the act of procreation, the issue is suffering itself, not life. And then the solution is to find the reasons why people suffer and to help them ease or stop their suffering, rather than convincing people to stop having children so that humanity goes extinct. If life is most often worth living even with the suffering, then stopping life to stop the suffering is quite the overkill.

I said it before but I'll say it again, in my view antinatalists are people who suffer a lot, and subscribing to antinatalism and attempting to spread it is one way for them to cope with their suffering. Instead of focusing on the precise reasons why they personally suffer, instead of attempting to address them or asking for help, they avoid the problem by saying that the problem wouldn't be there in the first place if they hadn't been born, in other words in their view if they suffer it has nothing to do with them but everything to do with the world, the world is responsible, other people are responsible, not themselves, they don't want to feel responsible for how they are. They want to live, but they don't want to solve their own problems, so they stay there in limbo, whining that they wouldn't have problems if they hadn't been born, instead of looking at the root causes of their suffering, instead of asking for help. — leo

For this whole line of bad reasoning, I made a thread dedicated to countering it. See it here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6434/the-mild-torture-of-do-something-about-it-assumptions/p1

But I don't accept your "asymmetry" baloney to begin with. It's highly controversial. You're acting as though you've already proved the point. — S

The point can be proven many times and someone like yourself can still keep disagreeing. Some people can't be convinced. I accept that. The absence of harm is good , even if no one is around to experience this good. The absence of good is only bad if there is someone around who is actually deprived of that good. Thus, not experiencing good, in the case of someone who does not actually exist, is not bad. It is win/win to not reproduce under any circumstance. That is the initial "logical" asymmetry.

But you find it acceptable, so life can't be that bad. That's all I was drawing attention to. — S

So this brings up another argument besides the asymmetry which not only does well on its own, but acts as a bolster for the other arguments. This other argument is forcing others into a challenge/game/adventure (perhaps one that you like yourself, or you think is good) is not right to do to someone else. Now, the only "decision" a person can make at this point is suicide, but suicide is not something that people do willy nilly, even if they don't like the game. It is scary, painful, brings anxiety, etc. Also, people develop interests once born. Ones that didn't need to exist in the first place, but occur post-facto. People generally cling to these- even the depressed, pessimistic, and others. If Benatar is right about the psychological studies, even "well-adjusted" people have a distorted view when self-reporting, as they often diminish painful experience and highlight the better ones when determining what to remember when reporting. Also, as I said, people can identify with something harmful, as they may not see any other choice but to do so. That is the point though. There can never be another choice (excepting suicide or perhaps being a pessimist).

Of course, my own points border on more abstract and existential terms. Why does anyone need to go through the "growth-through-adversity" game in the first place? Seems to be that people think they have some sort of right to impose this on others, as if the universe cares that more humans play this game. "Ah yes" they might say "we need to create people to be challenged so they can be strengthened through it, and hopefully find the joy in it". Of course, you know I'm going to say that is circular reasoning.

Yes, your imagined "asymmetry". That's what I'm arguing against. — S

But you weren't- you were equating the situation before birth (the asymmetry) with the situation of suicide or death (no asymmetry).

Obviously I meant that they should decide for themselves subsequent to birth, when they're old enough to do so, like I went on to say. There was no contradiction. You just failed to understand my point. — S

But I bring up that point as it is an important one. The child cannot decide for themselves to be put in a situation where one has to keep playing the game or drastically alter their existential status (suicide). That is a point I am making that is important here. Khaled made an analogy of saying, "Hey I like this game, now I am going to force another person into playing it. That's okay though, that person will probably like it too and if they don't, they can decide to exit by doing one of the scariest and harmful and anguishing things ever, kill themselves.. But don't worry, most people won't chose that, so they will just keep on playing the game." I don't think that is right to do to someone else.

Good. It's not wrong enough to stop people. People can carry on doing what they're doing, and you find that acceptable. It is morally acceptable for people to give birth. Otherwise you'd stop them. — S

I liken antinatalism to a cause like veganism. As long as enough people in society have values so far afield from the particular ethic, it would not be right to impose such a thing. In the field of ideas, it is simple argumentation and convincing that is called for. In fact, even if a majority of people were antinatalist, I don't know if it would be right to "force" people into anything of that magnitude. Of course, now we are getting into politics.

I repeat, that's not an implication of my point. That's your misunderstanding. I don't have any burden to defend your misunderstanding of my point. Do you understand that? This has been a problem throughout this discussion, and it continues to be so. — S

No you misunderstand khaled big-time. It's sad that you project onto me and him what you yourself are doing :grimace: .

Your reasoning is inconsistent. Nonexistence is the ideal according to you, so death would be a positive. Just as you suggest that it's horrible to conceive a human, by that same logic, one could suggest that it's horrible to keep them in that situation. — S

It is not nonexistence tout court, but the asymmetry that occurs prior to existence. I can't believe you still haven't gotten this by now :roll: (taking a page from your shitty arguing style).

As an aside, you realize, you don't win arguments by showing the most disdain, right? Dispense with the theatrics of snobbery and condescension and actually debate instead of inflate your own ego. See, I feel bad even calling you out on this shit..but that's the difference between me and you.. You don't feel bad.. Again, something odd there. If it is a debate tactic to be patronizing, it sucks. If it is your personality, I'd do some soul searching. If it is just you trying to get a rise out of people, knock it off and just focus on the arguments.

Then you should be consistent and let everyone decide for themselves. You don't have a right to stop people from conceiving, and then giving birth, and then letting that baby decide for itself when it's old enough. Nothing to do with you. — S

You realize you just contradicted yourself. No one CAN decide for themselves prior to birth. Someone ALWAYS decides for them. Also, no one is "stopping people from conceiving". Khaled is suggesting through argument (not force) that people not procreate. There is a huge difference and to say otherwise is to construct a big fat straw man.

Sounds like you're coming around to the idea that these discussions you keep creating are pointless, as it has been done to death. You already know that the full argument contains objectionable premises, yet you continue to peddle it. — S

That's not true at all. But yes, arguing with you is objectionable at times. The point is that if you are affecting someone so profoundly as in the case of literally birthing them, and that action leads to profound negative consequences- all of life's harms that happen as a result of being born... Well you know where that is going. That can have several things attached to the conclusion. Some people focus on consent. I don't do that usually. I focus on negative outcomes prevented with no cost of being deprived of good to an actual person.

Then the chicken egg argument. Whence arises appearance?

Yeah I'm not putting the other premises in there. I think you can fill those in..and if you can..you know where the argument was going in the first place and this objection is an exercise in objecting.

Some do, but others play soccer (the beautiful game). You know that the search for comfort is a purposeless purpose, yet you keep presenting it as the only possible one. And as it leads inevitably to greater discomfort, you end up with a negative view of life. Go for the burn instead; overcome the pain barrier; give blood - play rugby.

If you want to have a purpose, don't make yourself comfortable, make yourself useful - make yourself beautiful. — unenlightened

I did mention entertainment. Soccer would fit under there. Comfort are things not out of boredom or survival. For example, people generally prefer clean clothes, clean environments, comfortable temperatures etc. It is not absolutely necessary to survive, but people do it because they would uncomfortable otherwise.

If you want to have a purpose, don't make yourself comfortable, make yourself useful - make yourself beautiful. — unenlightened

But the point wasn't comfort vs. discomfort. Actually, in another thread I wrote all about this idea of "growth-through-adversity". See here:

Growth-through-adversity is defined by challenges faced by someone in order to attain a particular goal. For most people this at least involves survival/work along with goals involving entertainment/family-pursuits outside of survival/work.

Undue harm would be overriding illnesses, circumstances, accidents, disasters, etc. that otherwise would not be asked for outside the usual growth-through-adversity.

To be concise in these posts I am going to call growth-through adversity GTA and undue harm UH.

The GTA-UH model that is our reality, most people think is good to force other lives into. When a parent chooses to have a child, they are really saying, "I approve of the life of GTA-UH onto this new person and believe they should live X number of years of life in this kind of reality". There is no escape from it outside suicide. But no one asks why this is good for someone who doesn't exist in the first place to put this reality onto a new person. Oddly, the parent is an existential missionizer force-recruiting new people who, like religious families tend to do, try to enculturate the new recruit into identifying with the GTA-UH model so as not to regret being recruited.

For one, some people like working. And not just when it's "dream work" like what I lucked into. My dad, for example, does very blue collar work, as did his dad, and he loves doing it. At 80 years old now, he still goes batty if he has too much time off, and he starts creating all sorts or work-like projects for himself. He'll never retire. He doesn't want to. His dad never retired, either, because he was just the same way.

And take something like exercise. I don't always feel like exercising/working out before I start, but I get into it once I start, and I always feel way better on days when I do significant exercise, so I try to do it every day.

The same thing is true for stuff like housecleaning, home maintenance, etc.

I understand that some people don't like doing that stuff, some people hate their work, etc., but it often seems to be people who have an overall disposition of being miserable, complaining etc. in general--people who will always find something to complain about. — Terrapin Station

Well that's the point, the imposition is not direct, it is inculcated through social norms and simply by the way social institutions shape expectations for what we should be doing. What would humans do without focusing on outputs? It would be an angsty, uneasy existence. You can say it is "inbuilt" in people, but you know as well as I that "selves" don't form in a vacuum- it is the interaction with social expectations, norms, institutions, other people, etc.

You see we need to generate power, we need to manufacture stuff, we need to get shit done. We also need to focus our liquid fray of general awareness on "something". Combine these, and we have society shaping our attention on generating stuff. What we cannot stand to do as a species is allow us to remain in the liquid unbounded general inattention to outputs. This would not make for continuation and "growth" of individuals, species, and the self-perpetuating social institutions themselves.

If it is impossible to predict whether a tortoise will fall on your head and the impact will kill you, then do not leave your home, lest fortune claims your life. — Shamshir

So it is impossible to distinguish degree of harm? One cannot weigh the difference between the probability of a tortoise falling on one's head vs. driving a car vs. 100% something affecting another person?

If you think that conclusion follows, then you need to restudy logic. — S

I don't see how it doesn't.

Okay, but I'm simply pointing out that you can't nonconsensually conceive a child, either. Consent is a category error here. — Terrapin Station

It isn't if you phrase it correctly. Personally, I focus on the affect/effect and not so much on the consent argument, but it can be phrased in a way that is meaningful and makes sense.

A) There is a situation A where a person will be affected if X happens, but it would be impossible to get consent from the person who will be affected if X happens.

B) In situations like A where a person will be affected if X happens and it is impossible to get consent, do not do X.

That is the main claim here.

What I'm rejecting is the tendency to 'absolutize' the objective - to declare as per the Quine quote, that we should defer all questions about what exists to science and naturalism. It limits philosophical enquiry to what can be objectively validated, whereas philosophy points to what underlies objectivity, the 'conditions for objectivity', if you like. — Wayfarer

Granted- this was essentially what Kant was trying to do. But my question here wasn't so much whether we can get objective facts, but what a non-self perspective of the universe (or existence) would be.

I can read. The conclusion doesn't follow, consent is an irrelevant category error, and repeating things in all caps doesn't help. — S

Being a category error is irrelevant. The logic follows if you use the term "impossible".

If it is impossible to get consent and a future action leads to unknown suffering that affects an actual person, then do not procreate that person who will be affected by being born and who will experience unknown suffering.

Sounds like panpsychism.

All @Bartricks is saying is that you CAN'T give consent prior to birth. Birth causes unknown suffering. Ergo, DON'T give birth since consent is impossible. He is saying the default decision in this case should be no birth.

The view I am coming around to is that 'nothing exists without a perspective'. Even if we are to picture the early Earth before life began, and even if we have a scientifically-informed picture of what that would be like, there is still an implicit organising perspective that the mind brings to bear in establishing that picture. We are imagining a world in which there were no humans; and it is empirically true that there was such a world, up until very recent times, in a geological sense. But there's still a sense of scale and perspective in such reckonings, which we overlook or neglect (which I think correspond with Kant's 'primary intuitions of space and time'). We instinctively say that in such a world, there can be no viewpoint or perspective, because there was no being to attribute such a thing to; but this is treating 'perspective' as the attribute of some being, in other words, externalising it, or reifying it as an objective reality, which it is not. It is part of the fabric of thought and cognition, something which we can't think or conceive without, but it's not an objective reality, as it is logically and ontologically prior to the ability to conceive of objective reality - including the apparently objective reality of a world with no beings in it! — Wayfarer

I am a bit confused on your position.. First you say "nothing exists without a perspective" and then you say that "it's not an objective reality". To put the two together would be "perspective is not an objective reality" which is essentially a Berkleyean position. Is that a correct interpretation then?

I will not clutter up your thread with my opinions beyond this. We've discussed this numerous times before. It's just a new verse in your anti-natalist song. A song I find off-key and discordant. — T Clark

Well without some reasoning behind your words, it would be just a comment indeed.

I think this has to do with point of view. We accept that human selves have a point of view and that animals have a point of view, however, can there be a point of view from everywhere?

I suspect that Berkeley and Hegel were looking at the same thing from different perspectives. Berkeley was discussing how a human perceives the world from inside the system (subjective). Hegel was trying to imagine the world from outside the system, from God's point of view (objective).

So, actually, there are two "perceivers" (perspectives), the relative creature and the absolute Creator. We get confused when we don't make clear which point of view we are talking about. — Gnomon

@Wayfarer

I think that a lot of this has to do with point of view. We can never step outside our point of view. We generally accept other "selves" have a point of view (other humans and animals). However, we can never fully understand what it means to have the "point of view of everything" or the "point of view from everywhere". However, that is what Hegel wants to get at, in his overly simplistic way of historicizing human history as some apex narrative.

So as far as a species or overall existence is concerned, there is no end goal. For the individual human, we are bounded by the limits of survival, our own boredom/restlessness, and comfort-seeking. This is mediated through the societal institutions and structures. These three limits combined with social mediated avenues of obtaining them, create the myriad of secondary, tertiary (and beyond) worries, concerns, goals, etc. that we create (are created) for ourselves.
Beyond this, there are "inherent goods" that we generally try to maximize (also through societally mediated structures):

Relationships, flow-states, aesthetic goods (like humor/sunsets/art), physical pleasure, accomplishment, learning.

These inherent goods should not be misconstrued as meaning, but simply part of what we generally seek out. These inherent goods are not necessarily inbuilt either (except maybe physical pleasure), they arise from the inevitable interaction of an individual with his/her social environment. Almost everything that we find pleasurable or happy falls into the categories above.

All that we have left of note is experience, if that's a benefit. — PoeticUniverse

At the end of the day we only have the point of view of ourselves. We can try to fit ourselves into some grand plan, but it still goes down to the individual person being acted upon and acting upon the environment. In a world full of generalized purposelessness we are extruded into the confines of the outputs we consume and create. That de facto defines our individual lives- the embodied self. To lift the veil of the attention on only outputs would be to reveal a stark angsty existence, full of nothing, chaotic sound and fury, signifying nothing. We need to be directed by the angst of small things (outputs) so we do not get suffocated by the angst of the big things (general purposelessness).

Schopenhauer1. I like your references to Sartre with regards to the fundamental human situation and more specifically life in respect of purposefulness versus purposelessness. At present I am busy with a similar discussion in the Ethics Section of this forum under the heading "Life and Meaning". I want to invite you to have a look at what has been discussed so far and to consider joining the discussion. I am of the opinion that you will be able to make valuable contributions - if you are interested. Thank you for considering this invitation. Daniel C — Daniel C

Cool, I'll take a look!

I think this sounds rather interesting and I have never considered looking at 'god' from this perspective. But rather than referring to it/them as god, couldn't we just say "metaphysical foundational ideas" and our communication would be more clear?

I like it, but I really don't see any theists (or even many agnostics) agreeing to this description of god? — ZhouBoTong

Yes we can. This is why I ask these questions.

First, I am interested in all this, but I want to get right to the point. Feel free to call me stupid, but please don't get offended and stop arguing — ZhouBoTong

I wasn't arguing, at least in this thread or yet rather :).

Ok, but if 'god' is a metaphor then it doesn't actually impact our reality (at least not any more than any other fictional being that one might believe is real), right? — ZhouBoTong

Well, I should say a "stand in", a synonym maybe for "what is the case". As for being not real, it depends on how we want to limit the concept. For example, Plato had a concept of "The Good" but Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Dionysus, Pan, and all the other Greek deities and demigods were floating around too. Plato's The Good seems more like a metaphysical statement and the Greek deities (pre-Socratic at least) seemed more like traditional gods of some transcendental kind that looks after human affairs and creates the universe and all that. So are we rejecting things like metaphysical statements and keeping deities, or is the field relatively open?

Not sure. Can you give me an example of mystical understanding? I am probably making it far more complicated than it needs to be — ZhouBoTong

Oh prophetic visions, some divine communion sensation, otherworldly beings, otherwordly trances, otherwordly visions, revelations, feelings of oneness, out-of-body experiences, things like that.

Correct me where I am wrong...doesn't this line of thought start with admitting there is no god? If it is JUST a metaphor for 'what is' then it is ONLY a metaphor....? I am fine with this, but I doubt many of the theists will be? — ZhouBoTong

Right, theists generally believe there to be an aspect of a transcendent being usually to be considered "God". But if we are in the realm of something like Plato's The Good, or Spinoza's God, Schopenhauer's Will, Whitehead's process theology, and other metaphysical foundational ideas, then the field is opened up to more than just "some transcendent being that creates and cares what humans do".

I think a place to start is can we say that God can be a metaphor for "what is" (aka metaphysics)? Does God have to have a telos (a universal end or goal)? Does God have to involve some sort of mystical understanding?

If God is simply a metaphor for "what is", then I think that is a starting place. From here we can perhaps examine things like point of view. What is the world without the point of view of a self? In other words, what is the view from anywhere, everywhere, and nowhere? So far we can only imagine views from a subjective self, but not anywhere, everywhere, and nowhere.

Yeah, that'd be a great analogy, if slavery and the average life were even remotely alike. — S

It is the same type of relation, except the conditions are that of human existence instead of the slave owner. There are conditions which cannot be overcome for any life.

Except that "some" really doesn't convey that we're talking about most people on the planet, several billions of people. But good. If that is so, then life is worth starting. It wouldn't be worth starting if it wasn't worth living. But it is. So there you have it. — S

So I had a post once about if a it was good to put a slave in slavery if they identified with the very slavery that was enslaving them. People can be self-deceived or enculturated to identify with the condition/game that is causing them harm in the first place. Providing someone a "dealing with" situation, harmful contingent circumstances (that can change any time from point A to Z which overrides a simple self report at point X), providing someone the conditions of surviving itself, and the burdens of the human condition (deprivation), I would say that it is not worth starting for someone else, self-report or not. Being that no one actually gets deprived of any goods either, this is again, a win/win. Post-facto creating people who more-or-less have no choice but to identify with the game and develop interests, doesn't provide any evidence to the contrary, though I can see how it may seem that way.

That once again doesn't address the point. None of that tells me whether you think that life is worth living. — S

So your question is, once born, is life worth living for some people? I would say yes. Then I would say, that this is different than whether someone should have been born at all in the first place, as these are different thresholds. One can prevent all harm with no collateral damage of deprivation to the individual. The other is a situation where someone is already born. There is no post-facto takebacks of this event and thus, interests, goals, and maximization of goods would be expected and encouraged for individuals, when possible.

If life is worth living, because of interests and committments and whatnot, then it is worth starting. — S

No, then this is ignoring my argument, which was that interests and commitments are the default of being born- we cannot avoid them as they are what we naturally incline towards. That doesn't prove that it was then good to start a life, simply because someone will have interests and people have an option for suicide (which are hard to follow through on for mainly natural reasons as well). Preventing harm for another person, and preventing other people with "dealing with" life in the first place are the reasons not to start a life. Once born, sure people will have interests.

If you deny that a cause is responsible for its effect because the effect doesn't yet exist, you end up denying all forms of responsibility. — petrichor

I wish people kept this understanding you present here in mind when trying to argue some sort of non-identity objection to antinatalism. It is ridiculous to the point of absurdity when people argue, "the child doesn't exist yet, so nothing is done "to anyone" by procreating."

You're not dealing with my objection. Are there bad experiences which count against life to the extent that life isn't worth it, or aren't there? — S

If you mean, are there bad experiences which count against life to the extent of not starting a life, then yes.

The reasoning for not starting a life is based on a number of bad experiences you get in life. Continuing life is open to that same reasoning. You can't consistently close it off from that just because it's convenient for your stance. That's the fallacy of special pleading.

Either these bad experiences count against life or they don't. Make your mind up, because you can't have it both ways.

Anyway, if the person who had the accident would lose all their memory, then it would be starting a life. So there you have it. Objection overcome on your own terms. — S

So once born, humans naturally gravitate to goals and interests they don't want to lose. Prior to birth, no one has interests to lose in the first place. One can still have a life not worth starting (and have no interests), but still have a life worth continuing once born (and have some interests). It is a default position, once born. Suicide is not like making a regular ole decision- "gee, should I go to the bar today or kill myself?". Once born, we are almost defaulted into interests, so that would indeed be a category error to compare the case of not being born at all.

The counterexample refuting your assertion is that of a person who has had an accident leaving them unconscious and requiring urgent surgery in order to stay alive, with the alternative of doing nothing almost certainly resulting in death, and the decision being in the hands of the person's next of kin. Now, according to your warped way of thinking, death would be the least risky option, because that would avoid all of the risks accompanied with continued living, whereas the surgery would be considerably more risky, because then, if successful, they'd run the risk of stubbing their toe, or breaking up with their girlfriend, or whatever. You know, all of the things that you think can make life not worth living. — S

Wow, you completely miss the point of separating STARTING a life and CONTINUING a life. Continuing the life already born, is different scenario. Someone can have interests of staying alive once born- that is reasonable and does not justify starting a life, because humans naturally gravitate to interests (like accomplishing goals, keep on living). This situation in no way refutes khaled's argument.

Nonexistence is not a "less risky" alternative for the child though. Non-existance is not more or less pleasant than existence. That's a category error. — Echarmion

The point is one alternative means no one experiences harm and no one is deprived of good (because there is no actual person who exists). As I've seen on here before, there are no "ghost babies" wailing for existence. The other alternative is someone is born and guaranteed will experience some harm.

Non-existence- no one is harmed/no one is deprived = win/win. The idea that someone could have had more good experiences or whatnot if born matters not, in this procreational scenario. The risk khaled is talking about is mitigated and no actual person is alive prior to birth, losing out on anything.

Okay. Excuse me for looking for a more realistic source to explain ethical rights. — S

No, I am telling you where our culture even got this notion of human rights in the first place, as it evolved over time and place- that is to say, historically. It was more-or-less based on cosmic/natural law up until very recently. You are putting the cart before the horse by not recognizing this. "Rights" was a concept defined in a certain way. We now take that certain idea as a given and post-facto try to shoehorn our own basis for this very useful concept.

At the end of the day, it is a useful concept for getting certain social arrangements and outcomes accomplished. So yes it is, "If you want this, then you should do this" in a roundabout way.

Do you feel better after that little vent? I clearly presented a foundation in moral sentiment. And those longer-term members who are familiar with my views should already know that. Haven't you been following the discussion? — S

Yeah and it is ridiculous. You are mostly just "venting" on others.. spewing the bile, so to speak. Human rights started as a concept arguably from the Greeks, a little more fully in the Middle Ages, actually made into its proto-modern form in John Locke/Enlightenment political thinkers, and essentially goes from there. All of them have some sort of appeal to Natural Law..which is a kind of law that is assumed to be of an ethereal/cosmic/godly kind that is above any time and place. It is a historically-rooted concept that ironically formed in certain times and places. It is a human invention that goes along with Enlightenment notions of universality (think Kant's Categorical Imperative). Moral sense is not so sophisticated that all cultures think of this. The specific idea of human rights, is very much a culmination of Western ideals that came to its more-or-less modern form in the 1700s.

Well, close enough as a rough picture of how rights tend to work, and as a rough picture it's pretty obvious. But there are most probably deviants from the norm who would insist that they have rights that hardly anyone else would acknowledge, on the same sort of basis as others insist that they have rights, whether they're conscious of that basis or not, namely on the basis of their strong feelings. We both agree that there's no objective right or wrong here. There doesn't really, for all conceivable cases, "have to be a kind of social agreement to respect certain feelings that are more or less universal in the culture". That only really works as a conditional, like if one were to add, "if you want to fit in" or something. — S

Your whole notion of rights is so handwaving and full of assertion, I don't know where to begin. You don't even present a foundation. You mask your lack of foundation in simply trying to denigrate everyone.

The sophomoric nature of the argument made and its radical departure from modern life (universal acceptance of the claims would lead, clearly, to extinction) lead me to reflect on them as I would conspiracy theorist claims. It's interesting as an exercise in dissecting how we arrive at what we believe, but doesn't move the needle with respect to foundational belief. — JosephS

Characterizing an argument is not dealing with the argument qua argument. It is placing it in a box so as to not actually tackle the questions it poses head on. However, you somewhat redeem this statement by saying that antinatalism, at the least, allows us to explore how it is that we believe certain foundational ideas such as why we believe having more people is good. I think you cannot go into a philosophy forum and expect all arguments to conform to only mainstream views on foundational beliefs. In fact, that might be going against the spirit of philosophy itself, which in its essence, is about questioning foundational beliefs, whether that be in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and value.