the qualities of consciousness that are experienced by living things may arise from out of inanimate matter which possesses no inherent qualities in and of itself; outside of our subjective perceptions. — Beautiful Mind

What makes you think it doesn't? Until we invent a "consciousness-o-meter" we can't actually know that.

But do we have a model that states, "If I send 3 nanos of dopamine to cell number 1,234,562 in quadrent 2 you'll see a red dog?" Not yet. — Philosophim

Building such a model is not the hard problem. The hard problem is: Why does sending 3 nanos of dopamine to cell number 1,234,562 in quadrent 2 you'll see a red dog? What properties of dopamine, cells and synapses allow for the existence of the experience of seeing a red dog

well when you define it like that then “Dying” as used in day to day life becomes “A pattern ceasing to exist” in which case you still die. We (patterns) care about other patterns. No one gives a shit about the water except buddhists. They wish to no longer suffer by choosing not to grow attached to any waves.

"Red" is qualia no?

I already gave an example. You can say that waves propagate through space but you cannot say "Red" does. But I assume you want something that goes the other way around. For that maybe this works?: You can talk of "Red" meaningfully without knowing anything about wavelengths or light. Which shows that there IS something that can be said about qualia.

And there are things you can only say meaningfully about "Red" and not about "700 nanometer wavelength electromagnetic wave". Such as "I like Red". When people say that they explicitly mean "I like the experience produced when a 700 nanometer wavelength electromagnetic wave enters my eye" NOT "I like 700 nanometer wavelength electromagnetic waves"

I don’t know exactly, but I find it more reasonable to assume that perhaps we aren’t aware of all properties a physical thing can have, as opposed to assuming things must be immaterial. — Pinprick

Well the definition of physical has always been: Wave, Force, Or touchable thing. The experience of red is none of those as has been shown. That's why people call it immaterial. If you choose to call it material then the word itself loses its meaning eventually and "Physical thing" just becomes "Thing".

absolute truth is not the same thing as absolute fact. — Merkwurdichliebe

What's the difference?

I think if something is “absolutely true” it is not useful. For example “There cannot be a square circle” is absolutely true, but also completely obvious and useless information. The only things that can be true always are true by definition which makes them useless.

Again, what is added to talk of the difference between "700 nanometer wavelength electromagnetic wave" and talk of red by introducing qualia? — Banno

Well for one, a 700 nanometer wavelength electromangnetic wave moves through space but "red" doesn't.

Qualia is only useful to distinguish between things like "700 nanometer wavelength electromagnetic wave" and "Red". There are many things you can say about red that don't apply to 700 nanometer wavelength electromagnetic waves.

So if that debt can accrue to me for benefits given without my consent to the deal — Isaac

They don't accrue if you don't consent to the deal. But I have yet to see someone not consent to living in a society.

If "being a productive member is good enough payment." for the boons that previous generations gave then that is almost literally the definition of doing something for a boon they didn't ask for. — Isaac

Again, I've never seen someone reject the "deal" that is society. But if someone says "I don't want to live in a society where I must work to survive after I become an adult" they're welcome to leave. I always thought there should be some service that does that, allow people to just leave and dump them in some random jungle somewhere since they hate society so much.

We don't 'know' they'll benefit. We just have good cause to believe they will. If that's still all that's required then it's OK to bring someone into being without their consent on the same grounds - that we've good cause to believe they'll overall benefit from that action. — Isaac

No one can possibly be harmed by me making land fertile. Whereas someone can be harmed by brining them into existence. In the former case consent is not required as it is not a risky act, and even if you argue it was then consent is still not required because the future generations don't have any more of a claim on the land to be fertilized than I do so I can fertilize it all I want. In the latter case someone can get harmed so consent is required and is unavailable.

Have you been to America? — Isaac

I don't understand how what I said leads to America. Which part of "You don't have to pay for things you don't want" leads to a "toxic and hypercompetitive society"

how people are motivated to do things which help future generations in your system where there's no duty at all on the beneficiaries of those actions toward the common good that has been thus built. — Isaac

They're not motivated in my system. As there would be no future generation.

We don't 'know' they'll benefit. We just have good cause to believe they will. If that's still all that's required then it's OK to bring someone into being without their consent on the same grounds — Isaac

So you DO argue that somehow someone fertilizing land can harm someone else in the future. Well even if we accept that the situation is still different. People have a right not to be harmed, they don't have a right to having every acre of land look how they want it to.

Do I not owe society anything for all that? — Isaac

As I said, you owe it to become a productive member. Or to at least try to.

The people who give this support do so because they see their community as a moral good in its own right, but they wouldn't be so keen to contribute to that good if those who benefitted most from it incurred no duty to similarly nurture it. — Isaac

Agreed. But "nurturing it" doesn't have to take the form of having kids. As proven by the fact that people don't scoff at those who choose to not start a family nor suddenly think that those people are taking from the community's resources without giving back. As I keep saying, being a productive member is good enough payment.

An even better example is that we still give these societal boons to people who can't have children. Which shows that "having children" is not required payment.

Once born you will inevitably be looked after by 'society' and benefit from its boons, without your consent. — Isaac

You don't need consent to benefit someone if you know that it will be a benefit. And I'm pretty sure that for every human ever, the societal "boons" are much better than leaving said person in a forest somewhere. If they weren't a sizable portion of our population would still be hunter gatherers.

I'm fairly certain that your neo-liberal 'morality' would lead fairly rapidly to a vicious and unpleasant world of ruthlessly competing individuals — Isaac

I don't see how.

Any takeaways for you? Anything you've learned from participating in this thread? — Srap Tasmaner

Mainly that I've put too much time into this. And a couple more ways to not be an antinatalist.

I would like you to explore the self-refuting nature of the statement, N = never say never, never say always, because N does exactly what it says shouldn't be done. — TheMadFool

Well that can easily be fixed by making it "Never say never or always except in this sentence". Pretty easy to resolve as far as paradoxes go.

Not alien, no, and not unheard of, but I still think the Kantian approach is wrongheaded. — Srap Tasmaner

But to me this is clearly a mistake — Srap Tasmaner

I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. That's all I wanted to hear. The "to me" bit. I get irritated when people claim to somehow have a hotline to truth so I keep critiquing until I hear a "to me".

If the whole point of the underlying system is lost by abstracting principles from it and then spinning out new deductions from those principles, either your inferences are faulty or your principle-abstraction process has gone wrong. — Srap Tasmaner

Well what if someone starts with the intuition that having children is not intuitively moral but needs to be further examined and upon listening to and posing some thought experiments finds it intuitively wrong? Then would that adhere to your definition of "moral theory"?

Thing is though, most people haven't even attempted this and often prefer to just dismiss the position out of hand without actually even considering procreation a moral question. Even though there are easy to find thought experiments that show that it is moral (Like the one I already posed)

you have to have a way of judging how well you have reconstructed our moral sense as a system of principles — Srap Tasmaner

Examining how well a robot programmed with those principles would be able to mimic what we call "moral conduct".

hold yourself to the same standards of model building that scientists use. — Srap Tasmaner

The above is exactly that. The scientific process is:

1- Do tests (see what people do in ethical dilemmas)
2- Pose a hypothesis (a set of principles)
3- Test the hypothesis (see if following the principles still matches moral conduct in novel situations)
4- Repeat upon failure

As a child I benefited from a considerable amount of societal boons, right from birth. — Isaac

And you knew that eventually you'd have to hold a job and make your own living as a contributing member. And I'm willing to wager you didn't protest because the terms are very very good. Way better than living in some jungle at least.

So how should I handle the duty that accrues, in your system? — Isaac

By being a contributing member when you grow up, as the "deal" specified.

Similarly, I benefit from the fertility put into my soil several generations ago, how should I absolve my repayment of that debt? — Isaac

I doubt whoever fertilized the land expected anything out of YOU specifically so no deal there. That's just a gift.

How, under your system would anyone undertake any project whose benefits will only accrue to future generations? — Isaac

I don't see how this relates. You just do the project what's so weird about that?

The child above shouldn't ever have been put in that position because they should never have been born. But in this case it's not so much your moral system leading to antinatalism as antinatalism being required in order to make your system coherent. — Isaac

And I don't get this bit at all. Remember this line of argument started from "I find it repulsive for societies to force their members do fullfil "societal goals"". This argument isn't even needed for antinatalism it's a whole different debate. Unless of course you're proposing that a given society should enforce a rule where everyone must have children, THEN we'd have to compare how strong the premise that "societies can force their members to fulfill societal goals" compared to "giving birth is a form of harm".

Only in that case does my position on how far societies should have an impact on personal life matter. But I bet forcing everyone to have x children is a bit of a stretch even for you. In Japan for example, the population is natrually declining, so do you think a: "Every male must have 2 offspring" law should be implemented?

Well yeah. My position is that the "conviction" that kin-harming is wrong almost certainly comes wired in, but it doesn't come wired in as a belief. It shows up in our behavior (and in the behavior of ever so many animals), and it shows up in our feelings — Srap Tasmaner

And then from those feelings we come up with beliefs that explain them and inform us on what to do in novel situations. And antinatalism is one such possible belief.

I've got some big hitters on my side too though — Srap Tasmaner

It's not about who's got the biggest hitters. I was just citing an example to show that my way of thinking isn't this alien, confused thing you've never heard of before

Otherwise what prevents an individual from benefitting from a community's protection, safety-net, shared resources, etc., and then when the time comes to give something back saying "you've no right to tell me what to do"? — Isaac

The fact that someone can't exploit his community. If you don't have a job you will end up homeless and "safety nets" are hardly safe usually. In my opinion, a country should only provide a safety net for those it deems to at least intend to eventually earn or pay back what they were given.

What I find repulsive is forcing someone to do something for a "boon" they didn't ask for or don't want. So for example, forcing pro lifers to pay tax for abortions. Instead, pro choice people should be paying that and allowed to have partially state paid abortions in turn (which the pro lifers don't get). Note: I am pro choice.

I think the prices of these "boons" should never be paid by those who never asked for said boons and in return they shouldn't enjoy said boons. Now, this is probably highly exploitable and realistically impossible but ideally that's what I would wish for.


But to be honest I've never actually thought about how a society should be formed, I always preferred to keep that to the politicians so what I just said may sound completely crazy.

So, just to clarify, for you my second caveat to "Get the consent of others before doing something potentially harmful to them", the one about taking part on wider social objectives, that's just completely irrelevant? — Isaac

Not just irrelevant, I find it repulsive. I don't care how much a society wants to achieve a certain goal it shouldn't force its members to do it. That seems backwards. It is the members that decide the goal, and if some of them don't agree with the majority what gives the majority the right to force them to pursue it?

You have moral intuitions about sacrificing your preferences for the sake of others I assume, so is it just that any such duty must be secondary to one's personal preferences? — Isaac

I don't see how that follows from me thinking that social goals are not a good enough reason to force people to do things they don't want to do.

I'd feel perfectly within my moral bounds just going ahead and making that purchase on those grounds. That's how communities function, they have a goal which is more important than any individual. — Isaac

Again, I find that repulsive.

yet the part we play is still going to need playing — Isaac

There is no rule written in stone that the part needs to be played.

The point I'm making is actually no different to Srap's (I think). Morality is a story we tell ourselves to explain the feelings our biology and early childhood experiences have left us with. It can't be 'worked out', but it is vitally important, and that story is about the community, not the individual. The morality story wouldn't even make sense at an individual level. — Isaac

Well, I have seen family members with severe disabilities and I have been to children's hospitals in my home country (third world) a couple of times so the "feelings of my biology" are "Having kids is wrong when it can go so badly".

Morality is social. Always has been — Srap Tasmaner

I am aware that this is your argument and I disagree with it. I think sustaining the society is a byproduct that has to come out of individual action. Just because it doesn't come out doesn't mean that the premises are wrong or should be abandoned.

I'm not sure about this but I heard somewhere that when Kant was asked: "If a man was stranded with a woman and they were the last remnants of earth after a cataclysmic event, but the woman was a known criminal, should they try to rebuild the human race or should the woman be executed?" And he replied "Executed". So I guess Kant wasn't talking about morality either then?

Similarly if you use the categorical imperitive, lying to hostile aliens about the location of earth is wrong but telling them the exact coordinates which will result in them wiping us out is correct.

That's just one example of a well known moral system that results in our extinction. And I'm pretty sure people would call the subject of the categorical imperative "morality" not "something else". Which is why I say that that the subject of morality is not exactly to sustain society but that that is a result that has to come out of it.

But you have the "correct definition" of morality so I guess Kant was just confused too.

What I'm hinting at is that maybe your "correct definition about what morality is about" is no more than a personal preference and that there is no such definition written in stone.

Genuine questions arise when we face situations never contemplated before in the long history of our living together in communities — Srap Tasmaner

And I would say procreation is one of them. It is hardly contemplated. And there are countless examples of things we do for generations that we then later decide were wrong so it's not like this would be the first (racism, eye for an eye, slavery, etc)

The premises in such exercises simply do not have the sort of standing that you think of the premises in a logical argument as having — Srap Tasmaner

I kept repeating myself that moral premises are not set in stone and can be changed depending on you intuitions or even whims.

When a thought experiment is proposed ("What if it was your daughter?") the idea is to activate our intuitions, give them something more concrete to work with. — Srap Tasmaner

So why would you not have a child if you and your spouse knew you had hidden genes for severe genetic disease? I already posed a thought experiment.

If it doesn't feel right, or if several of us, or millions of us, reach different conclusions, all we can do is try some other starting points we think generally right and talk to each other. — Srap Tasmaner

Antinatalism DOES feel right to antinatalists. Antinatalists don't (all) choose to hold a conclusion they themselves think is weird just so they can debate about it on the internet with strangers. And as far as I know this is what I've been doing or at least tried to.

It's just that when I gave you a thought experiment you refused to hold a position on it and then proceeded to keep critiquing my position anyways without having an opposing view really. You clearly showed that you have the intuition that procreation is wrong sometimes but refused to dive in and try to figure out what makes it wrong and what doesn't while being more than comfortable with saying that my analysis is false and confused.

Is having children a new phenomenon among human beings, something our double inheritance has left us ill-equipped to deal with? — Srap Tasmaner

If you are implying that whatever humans have been doing for a long time must be morally right since the older generations must have already considered it, you are demonstrably wrong.

and it's clear how genuine moral questions arise. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think you needed so many words to basically say: "One of the jobs of morality is to preserve the human race" which you know I disagree with but you just call that "confused". That isn't very convincing.

I don't see how this makes a difference.

second would be someone making a good balanced choice for me — Isaac

That's the main difference between us then. If, for example, I was unavailable and a friend of mine thought I was looking for a suit and he found a very good sale on a good suit, I would still not think he should buy it with my credit card before asking me even if the sale will run out by then. What if I already went to the interview I had but he just didn't know yet.

And I think you'd also think the same way if the object to buy was, for example, a house.

Similarly then, I think life is just about the most serious thing you can get someone without their consent (meaning that if they don't want it, it does the most damage out of anything else) so, similar to a house, I don't get it to people without their consent. I don't think life is easy enough to justify that.


I'm just highlighting differences here, not trying to launch another discussion.

I agree, but I don’t understand why they both can’t be physical. — Pinprick

Well what's the meaning of the word "physical" at that point then? If the experience of color is not something you can hold in your hand and is not a propagating wave or some sort of force or energy what's the point in calling it physical? The word "physical" itself loses its meaning then. People call it immaterial precisely because it is none of the above and so calling it "physical" would make the word itself meaningless.

but do you think consciousness is required to experience qualia? There are animals with no brains, which implies that they are not conscious, which are still able to navigate their environment and discriminate between different types of things (food, mate, etc.). — Pinprick

I'm not sure but my view is that consciousness is inherent in everything not just brains.

It's a bit more than that. Solipsism is the belief that you are the only thing that exists and that everything else is a piece of YOUR mind. It is a form of "all is mind" but moreover it is "all is one mind, mine"

Best advice here tbh

You can attack it in a pragmatic manner by saying "Sure all these people and everything else may just be in my head but I know for a fact I don't like being hurt and so acting in a way that treats people as objects is not in my best interests, therefore your position produces no change in behavior or even a change in how I think of others so I frankly don't care whether or not it's true"

Or you can just say "Sure it's faith but that's fine by me"

Or "If you're a solipsist why are you wasting time explaining to a piece of nothing that the piece of nothing should think that it's the only thing with experience"

I like 1 and 3. The quote you put in seems very buddhist by the way. Maybe they're in some way similar. Could be another thread.


Also a tip from my history of philosophical angst: Doing philosophy is the worst way to get rid of philosophical angst. The best way is to go do something else. Then think about it again way later maybe.

Well a possible alternative would be: You exist because your parents brought you here and that's all there is to that.

The question is why on earth anyone would publish their personal preferences in a public forum when those preferences are the metaphorical equivalent of saying one prefers mud-flavour. We've no cause to say you shouldn't, but it's just a really weird position with nothing in favour of it. — Isaac

That's a question you should ask shope not me.

If you know already that there are perfectly reasonable caveats which avoid antinatalism (just ones which you happen to find unintuitive) then there's nothing philosophically interesting here - psychologically interesting, certainly. — Isaac

Agreed. Though I said this like 6 replies ago. Which is why I thought we were done. When you replied again I thought we were now talking about the arguments themselves not why anyone would have a reason to persuade others of them or believe them. But if we're still talking about that then I wasted about 1.5 hours misreading you, sorry about that.

ah but you're really benefiting them in the future when they exist", that's fine (but unnecessarily clumsy) — Isaac

Clumsy? Maybe. Accurate? Yes.

I don't see how that changes anything. — Isaac

The problem is that you somehow thought antinatalists don't think in that way too.

Where have I suggested the antinatalist doesn't believe this? — Isaac

Here:

No. I know antinatalists have this weird idea that you can't do anything for a person who doesn't yet exist,but tell that to the parent who's saving up children's toys for their as yet un-conceived grandchildren — Isaac

Which is why I said this is a criminal misinterpretation of the argument.

Balance that against the pleasures they might experience. — Isaac

But that's not what you do irl is it? If I really really like a game and I know you would probably really like it too, it is still wrong for me to tape you to a seat and force you to play it for 5 hours. IRL we require consent in these situations which is not provided in this case. Now, you sidestep the need for consent by adding "guess what they would want" but I don't. And I'm not implying that you shouldn't by saying this.

a stupid mistake in their agreement to end it — Isaac

It wouldn't be a stupid mistake if everyone believed it because that includes you and if you believe it it is obviously not stupid from you POV :wink:

I've literally written the exact opposite of this in a comment you even reply to further down — Isaac

Sorry, I reply to a comment bit by bit I don't read the whole thing first.

Yes it is. Do you even read what I write? "1. That the person exists, is conscious, is able to respond, and is judged to be of their right mind - absent of either you have to guess what they might want done — Isaac

I have no excuse for this one. I just straight up misread. Sorry for all the trouble.


I guess we're done for real this time as I don't really have an opposition against the two points you're arguing.

This is actually your problem, right here.

Anti-natalism is not a moral position at all. It is, as I said before, a logical paradox. — Srap Tasmaner

So being logical when it comes to ethics is a problem now? If that's what you think then I don't really value your opinion much.

Morality is how we manage to do that, and how we manage to go on doing that, generation after generation — Srap Tasmaner

Why do you get to decide what morality "really is". I don't think the main purpose of a moral framework is to insure we continue the human race. That in itself is a moral premise. For me it is a result that has to come out of a description of how we should act as individuals based on moral premises.

Either of us could dig in and argue that it's "really" the fault of the other. (I'll spare you the arguments, and assume you can fill them in yourself, though I find them pretty interesting.) I think both accepting some "share" of the blame is just a way of saying we've decided not to argue about whose fault it "really" is. — Srap Tasmaner

The first statement doesn't lead to the second. Just because you didn't dig in doesn't mean that the responsibility is not partial but is solely on one side. You are not compelled by logic to accept that responsibility is only on one side either

If a drunk driver kills somebody, is the bartender who served them partly responsible? What about the dealer that sold him the car? — Srap Tasmaner

Negligably yes. Neither the bar tender nor the dealer forced or encouraged the guy to drink in the first place and neither forced or encouraged him to drive while drunk.

There are so many "variables", and your judgment of responsibility can swing back and forth with each detail I could add to a story; why is that? — Srap Tasmaner

So having a model that changes blame based on the amount of information available is weird somehow? So if I told you: Someone murdered your dad. You would think that he is wrong. Then I add "In self defence". Well now what? Don't you change your judgement? Or do you just stick with whatever you got first?

I think you'll say no, but schop will say yes. — Srap Tasmaner

I'll say yes lol. Though definitely not as much as the parents.

I think you have it in mind that genuine responsibility can be assessed — Srap Tasmaner

I don't. And as I said you are not compelled by logic to accept that a single party is responsible either, you choose to do so. So there is no reason to change my belief that responsibility is shared until you give me an actual reason to do so.

Are you sure you're done? Couldn't we parse that further? Couldn't I still be partly responsible if I warn you not to do something but I'm not certain you understood me? — Srap Tasmaner

No, Yes, Yes, but at that point we're arguing about very minor variations in responsibility that it basically doesn't matter. Sure you're partially resonsible depending on the extent to which your child understood you but as long as you tried to warn then that variation is very small in comparison to the variation of whether or not you tried to warn in the first place. Basically: An attempt at good parenting is leagues better than straight up negligence.

What if I give you a blanket warning to do nothing that might lead to you suffering, is that okay? — Srap Tasmaner

No because you've supplied literally no new information. Every CREATURE knows that.

Neither you nor schop are willing to consider our intentions. — Srap Tasmaner

Incorrect. You just haven't given an example where they are a major variable to consider. An example would be someone breaking into a house to rescue someone because from the window they look like they're having a seizure vs to rob them

But you know for a fact that's false, because hardly anyone you've ever presented the argument to accepted it, right? — Srap Tasmaner

Is that to be unexpected? Most people want children. And if someone told them "Having children is wrong" of course they'd think he's a clown. Additionally, they know the position is not popular and often associate it with pessimism, so they think I'm just about to argue out of some messed up premise like "Life is a disease"

What I can tell you for a fact though is that no one I've talked to so far has been able to show that the argument is ridiculous or not worth considering or to dismiss any of its premises as inconsequential. It's different from an argument such as "Life is a disease so we should kill everyone to spare them". It doesn't have repulsive premises, nor does it have logical inconsistencies, nor can you easily dismiss its premises without ending up with abusrd examples such as "It is fine to genetically engineer a child to be severely disabled" (resulting from the dismissal of "Acts still have moral weight even if the affected party doesn't exist yet").

So now you need to claim that they're not logical, maybe not even capable of being logical (again, some extra pessimism), or that they're capable of it but engaging in motivated reasoning that blocks the inference they really should make. — Srap Tasmaner

Or that they have different moral premises. But that is rarely the case as most discussions about AN are characterised by roundabout ad homs:

or griping about the world without actually having to bear any responsibilty for doing anything about it. — Isaac

Or severly misunderstanding it on multiple occasions:

I know antinatalists have this weird idea that you can't do anything for a person who doesn't yet exist, — Isaac

But once in a blue moon ANs are blessed with someone actually willing to listen to their argument like you.

As far as you're concerned, the only option available for rejecting anti-natalism is denying the principle that is applied after the causal analysis is done: if someone wants to say, yeah I'm down with causing unjustified suffering, you pack up your argument and leave. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes. But first off, isn't that the case for any argument? The only way of rejecting it is by rejecting its premises or critiquing its logic? This isn't an AN specific thing. And secondly usually people ADD premises rather than critiquing AN's premises. Oftentimes they have something like "Ending the human race is completely unacceptable" which I can't argue with though I think is very stupid.

I am more interested, however, in why people feel the need to reject AN. Why people cannot simply recognize that the argument makes sense and still not believe in it anyways (by using extra permises or disagreeing with the ones used, or heck just not believing it because they don't want to). Most ANs don't go after people trying to convince them but simply try to defend the belief (actually I don't have the statistics on that but it applies to me at least). In my experience though people continuously come after AN like it's the plague even if the antiantalist isn't trying to convince anyone.

They can fail morally, fail intellectually or they can agree with you. — Srap Tasmaner

In order for someone to "fail" morally that would imply some way to "succeed" morally which would imply some form of objective morality which I don't believe in. So no, no one fails morally, not even serial killers as far as I'm concerned.

It is literally stupid, in the sense of not knowing or pretending not to know something everyone knows, — Srap Tasmaner

Which is?

that if you're going to talk about who caused what to happen you're already swimming in moral seas. — Srap Tasmaner

So how do YOU assign responsibility then? Or at least what's a way of assigning responsibility that you don't think is stupid?

Why are you adding that particular set of limits and not some other common constraints such as harm done in the pursuit of wider social objectives (like punishment for crime), or harm done where the harm is considered 'character building', or harm done where a greater harm would befall if not done — Isaac

I could ask you the same question. This is a vanilla vs chocolate argument.

All common caveats to the definition of 'harm' in this context, many of which could be used to mitigate the harm of conceptions, all of which you conveniently leave off your addendum. — Isaac

Because I think those caveats are BS in other words, very unintuitive.

No. I know antinatalists have this weird idea that you can't do anything for a person who doesn't yet exist, but tell that to the parent who's saving up children's toys for their as yet un-conceived grandchildren, or planting a woodland, or putting money into a trust fund. Who are they imagining will enjoy these things? — Isaac

It would still be wrong to say that they are doing them for "Non existing children". Did you read that sentence? It makes zero sense. You can say they are doing it for the benefit of people will exist but definitely not for the benefit of literal nothingness.

In which case I'd say: I'm sorry but are you trolling? The whole basis of the argument of antinatalism is that the actions you do have moral weight even if the person they affect doesn't exist yet and on the basis of THAT you shouldn't have children because it will result in them being harmed in the future. This is a central belief to antinatalism so it baffles me that you think every antinatalist doesn't believe in it. I suggest you educate yourself on the argument because you keep ciminally misinterpreting it.

We might, perfectly reasonably, have a child on the grounds that they'd probably like to enjoy some of what life has to offer. — Isaac

Not really reasonably. If you admit that an act has moral weight even if the affected party doesn't exist yet then what do you do about the fact that the child would be harmed as well. I could now argue "It is perfectly reasonable to not have a child on the ground that they'd probably hate some of what life has to offer". You can't just ignore that aspect and only focus on the good things life offers. You are literally one step away from arguing FOR antinatalism.

and all agreed it was so, then ending the human race would become a viable moral option — Isaac

Hmmmm. It's almost as if you're saying that if everyone on earth agrees that having children is wrong then ending the human race would become a viable moral option. Let me ask you this: Why does there need to be a disease AND everyone agree that ending the human race was preferable for ending the human race to become moral? What is the use of the first statement behind and? Why does the disease get a say in what is moral? Does a volacanic eruption count? What about a meteor? Wait, what if the entire human race agreed that life is bad enough that ending the human race is fine (no catastrophe involved)? Because that is the exact situation under which antinatalism would ever amount to ending the human race and here you admit that with everyone's agreement, even ending the human race is a viable moral option. This really undermines your premise that "Anything that ends the human race is bad and should never even be considered" as it shows even you don't believe in it. You seem to believe in the much more common premise that "Anything that ends the human race AGAINST ITS MEMBERS' WISHES is bad and should never be considered"

Oh and it's not "...at all costs" — Isaac

And here you confirm this. So what exactly is your problem if everyone tomorrow became an antinatalist and jointly decided that the human race should end. Because you've raised this issue from post one, implying that "ending the human race" is an unacceptable conclusion a jillion times but here you add the very important caveat "against its members' wishes". Antinatalism does NOT end the human race against its members' wishes so what is your issue with it now?

1. That the person exists, is conscious, is able to respond, and is judged to be of their right mind - absent of either you have to guess what they might want done (where the harm might be weighed against benefits).
2. That no wider important social objective is undermined by avoiding that harm, if so a balance might need to be made - we're a social species, not just a bunch of unrelated individuals.
3. That you don't have good reason to believe you already have consent - I add this one because the 'before' bit is ambiguous - how much before, to what specificity? — Isaac

So do you approve of malicious genetic engineering? Because it is not wrong according to caveat 1. I know you don't but the question is: How do you modify the caveats now?

I don't want to sound antagonistic here, but almost none of that made sense to me.

Being forced to exist implies there is ‘A Will’ behind my existence. — KerimF

Is there "A Will" for everything happening? Are physical forces "Wills"?

My first thought was to assume that ‘IT’ expects something from me for ‘ITSELF’. — KerimF

This assumes some form of intelligence which isn't justified

My second thought was to assume that ‘IT’, being perfect — KerimF

Would be another unjustified assumption

I personally didn’t like the answer in {G}. — KerimF

Which doesn't make it false (just clarifying)

This ‘Will’ is perfect and allowed me to exist in this world just to offer me something special/personal. — KerimF

Or maybe it just thought that it would be funny

So what could be the gift in {I}? In brief, ‘IT’ offers me knowing, if I want to, how to replace my temporary existence in this world with an eternal one in ‘ITs’ Realm which is not defined/limited by the notions of time and space (it is much like the dream realm in which I existed many times... also without my will :) ). — KerimF

Or maybe there is no gift. Or that the gift is the life itself.

{N} Do you think it is good/wise that I also give you my answer of the question in {M}? I bet that many of you, if not all :) , prefer not to hear it. And I respect your wish. — KerimF

Sure

Yes, but this is part of the main point I'm trying to make. You seem to have this sharp line between a moral intuition used as a premise and a moral intuition used to reject (or choose between) counter-intuitive conclusions. I can't see any justification for such a divide, they're all just moral intuitions. — Isaac

I honestly have no clue what you're talking about or how you got that relates to the quote. You just pick the intuitions that have the most intuitive conclusions. And for antinatalists, antinatalism IS the most intuitive conclusion.

No, not in the least bit. — Isaac

Fine fine. Let me limit harm to "Psychological or Physical damage done to an innocent party (not self defence) that is not done with the intention of helping that party (not surgery, vaccines, etc)". Resonable? If so, and assuming giving birth to someone is harming them, that harm is done on an innocent party and is not done to help them (because they didn't exist to want help) so is not permissable.

It isn't. It relies on premises (moral intuitions) taken without the usual caveats which is not at all popular. — Isaac

It uses all the same caveats except "Ending the human race is to be avoided at all costs". Actually, what caveats would YOU put on "You should ask for consent before harming someone". I'd rather you answer that first even if you don't reply to anything else.

What is your claim anyway? You must consider parents responsible for something, or you'd have nothing to say. I could guess, but you could just say what that is. — Srap Tasmaner

That antinatalism an in internally consistent system that doesn't rely on premises that are too unpopular.

As to what parents are reponsible for, they are partially responsible for every kind of suffering their child experiences except in the case where the child willingly brings harm to himself despite being warned by them that that would happen. If the child is harmed in any way that he didn't bring upon himself fully they are partially responsible.

I think my morals do apply to you. I just recognise that you will have different morals that you (might) think apply to me and that there's no objective means of determining who's right. — Isaac

When I said "applies to everyone" I meant "that everyone believes in".

and letting others do the same? — Isaac

This bit is not necessary but I don't have the "zealotry" required to try to change others' morals without having an objective criteria by which to convince them because then it's just a "vanilla or chocolate" debate

But if believing them leads to antinatalism then each premise leads to counter intuitive conclusions if believed too. You haven't removed the counter intuitive conclusions by believing them. — Isaac

Correct. I am not here to say that antinatalism leads to intuitive conclusions. I was saying that not believing in its premises also has consequences so that is the justification for why you would believe them. It then becomes a matter of which is the least counterintuitive which is of course subjective. But I would also add that the premises of antinatalism are not unpopular individually.

If you're claiming that your premise is actually that we should seek consent from those potentially harmed by our action where we have a legal responsibility to do so, or some legal right may be infringed, — Isaac

I didn't say legal. But I think we'd both agree that regardless of whatever criteria I use to determine whether or not consent is required that requiring consent when you're about to harm someone is pretty reasonable no?

The point is that everyone does this. Except antinatalists. Antinatalists do it to a point but then seem to reach "end the human race" as a conclusion and instead of adding another caveat to avoid such an obviously wrong conclusion, they just accept it — Isaac

Because it seems the least wrong to them. Usually because they don't value the good of "the human race" (as if it is some entity that can be benefited or harmed) nearly as highly as the wellbeing of a real person. But I wouldn't call that a minority belief. Many are disgusted by "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" for example and the example of the roman colosseum is a famous argument against classical utilitarianism through absurdity.

What both of you did want to talk about -- not with each other but with the rest of us -- is that there is someone else who is responsible for that harm — Srap Tasmaner

That claim wouldn't have been made if the topic of the thread hadn't drifted to antinatalism. And I never made that claim. I never said that if your child bangs his head against a wall despite you warning him of the consequences that you were responsible for that.

The example here was about disabled children, not children in general. You were implying that disability was a harm which it would be immoral to cause with foreknowledge. — Isaac

So is life. That's what antinatalism means.

this is offensive to disabled people because many feel that their disability is a harm because of society's failure to accommodate them, not the circumstances of their birth — Isaac

And everyone has occassionally felt that half the harm they're going through is due to society's failure to accomodate them. Antinatalism does not treat giving birth to a disabled person any differently from giving birth to an abled person.

What I was actually looking for in asking this question was the grounds on which you'd claim the premises of antinatalism were not 'completely ridiculous', — Isaac

Letting go of them invidividually causes problems. Example: We shouldn't do something to harm people in the future even if the affected party doesn't exist in the present. NOT believing this will mean malicious genetic engineering is fine. Etc. Each premise leads to some unintuitive conclusions when not believed.

Otherwise what distinguishes antinatalism from just 'not wanting to have children'? — Isaac

That you can not want to have children but not think it's wrong to have them.

As I said before, I think you've misunderstood moral relativism. A moral claim is a claim about how others should act, not a claim about one's personal prefernces. — Isaac

And the "relativism" bit means that there is no moral claim that applies to everyone. So why do you care what I think you should or shouldn't do if I don't try to enforce it (which I won't because I recognize that my view isn't objective)

But if there's no compelling argument (other than just "well that's what my unusual premises lead to") — Isaac

Again, how can you have a MORE compelling argument than this? It is impossible to have an argument that says anything meaningful if the premises are all indisputable. Whatever moral theory you believe in I know that the most compelling argument for it is "That's what my premises lead to". That's by definition the mort compelling argument for anything. That's as compelling as it gets.

then I can't see any good reason why someone would repeatedly say something so unpleasant. — Isaac

Again for the 100th time. Shope didn't make this abount antinatalism you did. Using your analogy that's like if someone tells you "Hey did you know the salad they serve here is excellent" and you replied with "So you think I'm fat and ugly huh?"

You've missed the point. You asked about examples of situations where consent is not asked of non-existent persons for actions which may harm them. Finding no shelter from the rain where there might have been shelter definitely harms a future person. I did not ask their consent before removing that shelter. The specifics don't matter. the point is absolutely everything I do has the potential to harm future people by the absence of some resource which I've used that they might have benefited from. I do not ask their consent. Every structural alteration I make to the world might harm a future person who so much as trips over it. I don not ask their consent before doing so. — Isaac

No offence, but I'm tired of repeating myself. I don't think I'll respond anymore because you seem to me like you're going around in circles and I don't even know what you're trying to achieve anymore. Once again, not all harm done is your responsibilty. This argument would work if the persons in question had some right to the resource that you're taking. Since they didn't you don't need consent. I'll say it again, not all harm done is your responsibility.

So what is the difference then, you haven't answered the question, only shown that social or biological obligations are not sufficient. — Isaac

For something to be a moral judgement it has to be reasoned about. For most people I've met the "reasoning" doesn't go beyond "Can I afford it" and "Do I want another child".

Nothing is unclear, it's offensive. The idea that the only thing making disabled people's lives worth living is the difficulty of suicide is deeply offensive. — Isaac

It's not specific to disabled people. That's the case for everyone. Life is worth living because living it to the fullest is the best alternative once it has begun.

How are we determining what is and is not 'completely ridiculous' in this sense? — Isaac

That there are consequences that are not very intuitive if you don't believe in one of the premises. For example: If you believe that social goals should take precedence over personal freedom then enforcing a two child rule sort of like china did would be ethical. It would somehow be ethical to force parents to raise kids when they don't want to.

You seem to have avoided the issue of how antinatalism atttacks natalists simply by positing a moral harm. — Isaac

I haven't avoided it. Again, it is only an attack if both parties agree that there is some measure of objectiviety so only one theory can possibley "fit". But since neither of us seems to agree that there is an objective morality, I can posit that it is wrong to have kids because x and y and if you disagree with x and y that is no longer an attack then is it?

I agree it's not directly about antinatalism at first, but that's the main reason why I responded in such an exasperated fashion, because we all knew it was going to end up that way. — Isaac

In all the previous threads that I've seen shope doesn't mention antinatalism until someone brings it up. They end up that way because people take them as an attack.

'The position' being 'it is possible to have some set of axioms which lead to antinatalism'? — Isaac

This is all I really care about. That people understand that the argument is internally consistent.

Yes, if I want to fell a tree I don't typically have to ask for the consent of every potential future person who might shade under it's boughs. — Isaac

But they have no right or special claim on the tree so although that is harmful, you are not responsible for it. And I doubt people would be harmed by the non existence of a tree they never saw. If the tree was in their backyard though....

But yes we do actually have to consider the consequences of indiscriminantly cutting down trees or else we get global warming.

The point was that there's no logical method of deriving antinatalism. It's not the conclusion of a Modus Tollens or something, it's just a moral feeling (or set thereof) — Isaac

Agreed

What more is a moral judgement than a feeling of social or biological obligation? — Isaac

When I eat I don't do so because it is morally right or wrong. And from what I have seen that's most people's position on having kids.

If there is no wave, there is no color red. — Pinprick

As I said, you can imagine red. So what you're saying is that color itself is an electromagnetic wave? So if we were to imagine color using memory does that make memroy an electromagnetic wave? What is memory then?

Does memory EMIT an electromagnetic wave (since according to you the color red IS an electromagnetic wave) in your brain that is somehow processed as "red" without going through your eyes? Are you proposing that when I think of red, if you open up my skull you will literally see red, that there will literally be a light with the wavelength of red bouncing around in my head? After all, the experience of the color red and the wavelength of red color is the same therefore people should be able to see that wave from the outside right? You're probably not proposing any of these things but then how exactly does imagination work in your view? How come there can be the experience of the color red without the wavelength red even though they're supposed to be "the same thing"?

If red literally IS the electromagnetic wave then how come the same electromagnetic wave can enter people's eyes and they will report drastically different colors if they're color blind? In that case the wave and the resulting experience of color are different. So they're clearly not the same thing.

A lot of knots are made when someone conflates a mental phenomena with the physical phenoena that causes it.