Because under consequentialism that's irrelevant. If the riskier situation is the better option consequentially, then that's the one you should go for — S

Where did you get that I was appealing to consequentialism?

how in the world do you expect me to go about proving a claim such as "In every situation when consent is not available the least risky option is chosen". Do you seriously expect me to go over every conceivable situation where consent is not available and you have to make a situation for someone else?

It would be so much easier for you to come up with a counterexample to disprove it wouldn't it?

How long are you planning to dodge giving an example? I got to go now I don't wanna waste any more time on this.

I gave an example as you asked. Now it's your turn. Or can you not come up with one that refutes the claim?

Do you want more examples?
It's wrong to put drugs in people's drinks even if the drugs will likely result in a happier time for them (because it risks harming them or making them addicts)
It's wrong to force anyone to work a certain job even if they come to love it (because it risks them hating it)

The easiest way to refute a claim that "X is always the case" is to try to find a situation where X isn't the case. But you failed miserably at doing so with the "unconscious sibling" example

Find a situation where we find it ok to put someone in a riskier position without their consent. Riskier defined as "risks more harm than their original situation". Or you could actually reply to the last post if you want to continue this discussion though I'm doubting you do.

No, terrible in terms of how inappropriate they are as analogies — S

Obviously that's what I meant. I was pointing out that you clearly think they're inadequate but I don't. And that repeating your opinion doesn't get us anywhere.

I can't be bothered to deal with the rest. — S

Then don't reply if you're going to pick on the fist line of a post in such a ridiculous way and then proceed not to actually discuss anything.

I don't think that statement is trivially true. I think it's false due to a category error. Just repeating our respective claims here doesn't get us anywhere. — Echarmion

What you're doing doesn't get us anywhere either. Refusing this statement but not providing an alternative. I can't convince you of this premise. It's a premise for a reason. If you don't share it then at least you wouldn't be a hypocrite for having children.

I understand you think a deterministic universe kinda makes people exist "in the future", but this kind of thinking doesn't work when we assume we have a choice whether or not to have children. — Echarmion

I'm pretty sure one can say that consciously deciding to get pregnant and have a baby is "determining" the existence of the baby. And I'm saying we shouldn't do that. Also I don't get what determinism has to do with this.

But there is a difference when said action created the other person in the first place — Echarmion

I don't see a reason why that would be the case. Can you think of any othere scenarios when this "special case" comes into play? Or are you just treating birth differently?

I am not sure what general principle you refer to here — Echarmion

That if an action results in harming someone in the future, it doesn't matter whether or not that person existed at the time the action took place. Example: Implanting a bomb in a fetus and setting it to blow up when the baby reaches 18 is just as bad as bombing an 18 year old (the age is besides the point here).

I can't "convince you" of this. There is no logical argument for it. It's a starting premise. Although if you don't believe in it you'd have to say that implanting a bomb in a fetus and killing someone that way is ok or at least less wrong than just killing someone, which I find to be ridiculous

They don't, because the situations are too dissimilar, like in all of your attempts throughout this discussion. — S

You: These analogies are terrible
Me: I agree, they are extremes intended to show a general principle
You: These analogies are terrible

Funny. Even if I were to grant that, a single example in no way demonstrates that the least risky option is always preferred when consent is not available. If that were true, then it would be so in every single case that one could possibly imagine. Good luck trying to demonstrate that! — S

Find me an example where it isn't true then.

Nonexistence is the ideal according to you — S

Incorrect. You aren't understanding.

For someone who doesn't exist non existence is ideal
For someone who exists non existence is absolutely terrible

Capisce?

And no, in the thought experiment, the person didn't wish to die, and the next of kin knows that. — S

Dude... It was a rhetorical question....

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

No. Because to a non existent person, existence is a risky imposition while remaining non existent doesn't harm them in any way. Once their born however, going back to non existence is terrible, as can be determined easily by asking around if people wanna die.

You don't have a right to stop people from conceiving — S

Would "You don't have right to stop people from murdering" sound like a reasonable statement to you? One can try to stop people form imposing on others, even though one can only do that by imposing, as can be seen in how we try to stop murderers from murdering.

I repeat, that's not an implication of my point. — S

It is... Your point is: It's ok to put someone through life because they have the option of leaving. You haven't actually shown that this isn't an implication of that.

I don't really see how this changes the argument. If you aren't alive, you don't exist.

Let me put this another way: if you want to say it's "less risk" you need to be able to quantify the risk. So at least in theory you have to able to say "X imposes risk of magnitude 50, while Y imposes risk of magnitude 30, so Y is less risky than X". The problem is that you cannot make such a comparison. If a person isn't alive, their risk of harm isn't 0, it's [ ], an empty set. There is nothing to compare with. — Echarmion

I think you can say the risk of harm is 0 in that situation. It is trivially true that if a certain person doesn't exist that person is not risked any harm (Because he doesn't exist). Again, I don't see a reason to treat an action that WILL risk harming someone any differently based on the fact that they don't exist at the time said action took place. Examples: I think it's wrong to genetically modify children to suffer even though that doesn't actually harm anyone, I think it's wrong to have children if one is severely in debt and there is a chance they will have to take on that debt, etc

You don't seem to think so but you don't take the opposite stance of saying that that fact matters in a significant way. If you're agnostic about this general principle there is nothing I can do to convince you. It is the principle the entire argument rests upon.

But then again that should mean you're agnostic about whether or not having children is right.

My point in full was not just about you and I, but billions of people, and it's clearly not irrelevant for any reasonable analysis. And none of your analogies are ever close enough to be appropriate. Stabbing someone isn't close enough to giving birth — S

Of course. They are extremes intended to show a general principle.

Any argument which relies on a false analogy is worthless. — S

They don't "rely" on analogies. Analogies just make them easier to understand, extreme as the ones I chose were

No it isn't — S

Would you like to demonstrate?

unsupported assertion that the least risky option is always preferred when consent is not available. — S

I never thought someone would ask for evidence for this but sure. Here is one: You are never allowed to buy something with other people's money even if you think it's good for them as long as you can't ask them first.

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 — S

Death is the least risky option? Really? There is absolutely no chance that unconscious person wouldn't have wished to die? There is very little risk in killing them? Are you listening to yourself?

Death has a massively negative value for those living. Remaining non existant doesn't have a negative value for those who don't exist (if it even makes sense to say that, the point is no one is harmed by not existing but people are harmed by dying). That's why your analogy doesn't work.

because that would avoid all of the risks accompanied with continued living — S

Doesn't matter, in the case of a subconsious person, they had the ability to express a desire to live. Knowing that most people express a desire to live means you don't have a right to kill them even if you think it would be better for them. You'd need their consent to do that (because they view the cessation of their life as a negative). That is the difference between a subconscious person and a non existent one. One has goals and desires that they temporarily are unaware of, the other never had those to begin with.

That's not an implication of my point, — S

The implication is: As long as someone can kill themselves to leave an unpleasant situation, that justifies putting them there. I don't think either of us agree with that.

check the edit

is the problem of people who think that it should be killed because of faulty anti-natalist reasoning. — S

First off, you haven’t shown it to be faulty yet. Secondly, if antinatalist reasoning is actually followed there would be no fetus to kill or not kill.

I'm a living example, for starters. I am glad to have been born. — S

Me too. However that is completely irrelevant. Whether or not you are glad to have been born doesn’t determine whether giving birth is right or wrong. You and me are lucky enough that the risk paid off, that doesn’t mean it was ok to take the risk in the first place. In the same way that if person A stabbed person B and person B turned out to be a masochist and enjoyed it, that doesn’t make stabbing in general okay.

The fact is, in real life the least risky option is always preferred when consent is not available. Name a situation where this isn’t the case.

It isn't even difficult to think of examples — S

Please come up with one not birth related where there someone is said to be justified to do something that risks severely harming someone else when consent is not available and where a less risky alternative is available. Because giving a birth related example and using your own personal experience doesn’t work as I’ve shown.

And moreover, if life isn't worth living anymore, then guess what? You don't have to live — S

As I’ve pointed out before, this line can be used to justify literally any atrocity. The fact that someone can commit suicide to get out of a situation they hate doesn’t justify putting them in that situation the first place or risking putting them there. Name one other act X where people find “We’ll do X to him and if he/she doesn’t like it they can just kill themselves” an acceptable argument for justifying X

Nonexistence is not a "less risky" alternative for the child though — Echarmion

Non-existance is not more or less pleasant than existence — Echarmion

It has nothing to do with pleasantness. Is it or is it not true that existence has a greater risk of harm than non existence? It is true. That is the definition of risky. Also if you’re really concerned about it being a category error replace it with “living” vs “not living”. You know by now I use them interchangeably on accident

I think that the bigger problem is — S

What's this referring to. What problem?

You've misunderstood. I was referring to my refutation of your argument on the basis that consent is inapplicable and irrelevant. — S

Oh. I thought it said "Even though, in itself a refutation,....." My bad

That's not about consent, that's about the consequences of waking someone up. For it to be about consent, there must be an option to obtain consent — S

If it was wrong on the basis of not obtaining consent, then you must be able to say to me that I should have obtained his consent first. But we both know that that's not possible. — S

Alright then. What do you suppose we do in cases such as these where consent isn't available? I say, go with the least risky option, aka the one least likely to harm. If I claimed that having children is not wrong on the basis of consent but on the basis of consequences what would be the refutation to that?

1- Having children risks disasterous consequences for the child
2- Actions that risk disasterous consequences for others are wrong when a less risky alternative is possible in cases where consent is unavailable
3- Having children is wrong because a less risky alternative is possible (not having children) and consent isn't available (due to lack of time machine)

but that's not helpful for the anti-natalist argument. — Echarmion

I didn’t say it was. I was going to go from there and expand the principle but then you insisted i give examples of an ethical system where genetically modifying children is bad. Now I ask you to find me one where it is considered good.

But then again I can’t do that if you’re agnostic about how to treat genetic modification.

so what are you saying? It should be killed? — S

As long as it’s nervous system hasn’t been developed, yes.

But, even though in itself refutation — S

Ad absurdium arguments only make sense if we agree killing said fetus is absurd.

Consent is only relevant where it's a possibility — S

How about: waking people up. The only way you can ask for consent is by doing the act in question. Does that mean you can go around waking up anyone who happens to be asleep?

ahhh, you were talking about antinatalism in general. You’re right, there aren’t many ethical systems in support of antinatalism but I was specifically asking for an ethical system that states genetically modifying children to suffer is ok. Utilitarianism would not be an example of those.

I already pointed out how Utilitarianism would have a problem with that conclusion — Echarmion

I was just about to say utilitarianism. When did you do this? Because I can’t find it. I would have thought causing someone to experience more suffering via genetic modification would’ve definitely been bad per utilitarianism.

No, nonexistent offspring don't become anything — S

Fetuses become humans. I was talking about fetuses in the last reply my bad for not making that clear.

Would you like to reconsider what your argument is about? Is it about real people or imaginary, nonexistent people? — S

It is indeed about real people.

Nonexistent offspring don't grow. Only real, living offspring grow — S

You know what I meant cut the crap. One of them becomes a sentient being and the other doesn’t. Do you think there should be any change in how we treat them based on that fact?

Now come on. I didn't make such a claim. You did. — Echarmion

I think you misread. I didn't claim there is any ethical system that allows genetically modifying children to suffer. When you asked for ethical systems that claim the modification should be wrong I was having trouble thinking of any that find it acceptable. So I asked you to name one that finds it acceptable instead

I am not allowed to reserve judgement until I hear a convincing argument? Isn't the rational thing to say that you don't know until you have heard a convincing argument either way? — Echarmion

When did I say you weren't allowed?

Possibly, but why is it up to me to prove that it's not acceptable? Because you find that conclusion not appealing emotionally? — Echarmion

It isn't. I just thought you'd think genetically modifying children to suffer is wrong because it's simply sadistic. But if you don't think pure sadism is wrong and still need more convincing I can't do that.

Why? Because I don't agree with your first argument I am therefore irrational and impossible to convince? — Echarmion

I didn't say anything about irrational.

A reductio ad absurdum only works if we can agree beforehand that the conclusion would be absurd — Echarmion

I thought we did. But if we don't then not much I can do.

You wouldn't take seriously an argument based on the fact that Bananas don't consent to being eaten — S

I would if it can be shown bananas experience pain to an extent close to us

so we shouldn't take seriously your premise that nonexistent offspring don't consent to being born. — S

You think there is no difference between a banana and a fetus? You think that there shouldn't be any change in how we treat them based on the fact that one will grow to be a human?

because it is an impossibility — S

Why does this stop it from being applicable? If it is impossible to give consent, consent is not given. If consent is not given it can't be assumed. It doesn't matter if it was possible to ask for consent or not.

There are plenty of examples where actions that harm others are right. Self defense is the most obvious one — Echarmion

In the case of self defense it's they get harmed or you do. So you wouldn't be wrong in preferring your own safety. In the case of having children no one is harmed if you don't do it but someone might be harmed if you do

I disagree with your claim that harming future people is wrong in "almost every ethical system". Can you provide some examples (of said ethical systems) — Echarmion

Rather, name an ethical system under which genetically modifying children to suffer is acceptable

No, I don't. — Echarmion

I don't think there is a point in continuing this then. Because we'll never see eye to eye. You refuse the claim that it doesn't matter whether or not someone existed at the time the harmful action took place and yet do not take the opposite side claiming that it does either. Probably because it is ridiculous to claim that genetically modifying children to suffer is acceptable.

You cannot impose life on another person. — Echarmion

I think this was called the non identity problem or something. Just replace "life" with "genetic modification" and your entire paragraph can more or less be used to argue that genetically modifying children to suffer is acceptable. If you really think that there is no argument that can convince you. Although that choice would commit you to a lot of stances I find ridiculous. Such as, for example, thinking that implanting a bomb in a fetus and setting it to blow up at 18 is ok but bombing an 18 year old isn't.

Just cut the crap and be straight with me. — S

Let's start with this one then:

1- Imposing something that risks significant harm on someone without their consent is wrong
2- Childbirth is imposing something that risks significant harm on someone without their consent
3- Childbirth is wrong

I haven't said that it's wrong. I said I don't know — Echarmion

You don’t know whether or not genetically modifying children to suffer is right or wrong?

So, essentially utilitarianism? — Echarmion

No, not necessarily. All I said was that childbirth risks harming someone in the future without their consent. Actions that harm others in the future without their consent are wrong in almost every ethical system. Name one such action that is right.

If you're arguing that consequences, i.e. outcomes by themselves somehow have absolute ethical value, I'd have to hear an argument about how that works. — Echarmion

I’m not. Where did you get that.

My argument is basically this:

1. If an act will impose something significant on another person without their consent, then it is default wrong to perform that act
2. Procreating imposes something significant - life here - on another person without their consent
3. Therefore, procreative acts are default wrong — Bartricks

It's not a perpetual roller coaster, it's a perpetual roller coaster ride if you never reach a point where it isn't worth continuing. Personally, I'd get off at some point. — S

Ah I see. But then again, you’re not looking at the whole experience. Say you get off after 1 hour. Then if I asked you: would you like to get on a roller coaster for 1 hour 1 minute, you would say no. Not worth starting and not worth continuing. The point is, you wouldn’t start something you don’t think is worth continuing for the whole duration

No, you're just putting words in my mouth — S

I’m really not. Ok all I’m claiming is that experiences worth starting are a subset of experiences worth continuing, do you agree?

and you can't enjoy anything if you aren't alive. — S

So then, do you think not having children is a bad thing? Because you’d be “denying” someone enjoyment? If not then what’s the relevance of this fact?

Doesn't matter. — S

How doesn’t it matter? And even if it didn’t can’t you just answer the question? You already answered it later here

Life is worth starting because life is worth living for lots of people — S

Which I think is a totally stupid claim. “Blindness is worth starting because blindness is worth living through for lots of people” do you agree with that claim? If not what makes it different from the one you just made?

That's literally nonsense, as they've already started. — S

Their children’s lives haven’t though.... what do you mean?? Their lives have started and are worth living through, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are worth starting for other people. Other examples: if someone had their eyes gouged out their blindness has started and is worth living through, that doesn’t mean it is worth gouging other people’s eyes out

The question is irrelevant. — S

Even if it was can you answer?

Nothing I've said commits me to the view that modifying children to blind them is ethical, so I don't need to answer for that.

I did say that it can be ethical to have blind children, and I stand by that. — S

Why are you treating two acts with the same intent and consequence differently?

It's easy to think of counterexamples. A perpetual roller coaster ride? No thanks. — S

Would you knowingly hop on a perpetual roller coaster though? Obviously not. Then it’s not worth starting is it?

No one said anything about guarantees — S

You did when you claimed that life being enjoyable makes it (guarantees it is) worth starting. I was pointing out that life being worth living through doesn’t guarantee it being worth starting.

Life is worth living for lots of people — S

Agreed. People who are alive have an interest in continuing living. That doesn’t guarantee the experience is worth starting as I’ve said.

But it does mean exactly that for lots of people. — S

Arguing from popularity is a fallacy first of all. So I’m going to ask YOU this: do you think every experience worth living through is worth starting? If so gouging people’s eyes out would be acceptable behavior. You don’t agree with that so I’m going to assume you don’t think every experience worth continuing is worth starting. Now the burden of proof is on you to show that life is worth starting. Because it being worth living doesn’t logically guarantee that

To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that the lives of blind people aren't worth living — S

No. It would be to suggest those lives are not worth starting. Those are very different things. You keep conflating them.

Let me ask an alternative question then: is genetically modifying children to blind them ethical? And if not why not when you’ve said that having blind children is ethical

I can't explain. That's why I am asking you. After all, your position depends on, or is at least strengthened by, that argument. I just say I don't know. — Echarmion

So it’s wrong but you don’t know why you think it’s wrong? For my position it would be very easy to explain. Because it will harm someone in the future. I believe if an act will harm someone for no justifiable reason then it’s wrong. It doesn’t matter if there’s existed a person at the time the act took place. I don’t ridiculously think think that bombing an 18 year old is somehow more wrong if done directly or by implanting a bomb in the fetus. It doesn’t make any difference. What matters is the consequence

But do we need to care? — Echarmion

Is this the late “but actually morality doesn’t exist” card? You don’t NEED to care. I don’t understand what authority could possibly force you to care. But you’ve shown you care about ethics for the most part by engaging in discussions like these. So it was sort of too late to play the “but actually I don’t care” card because you’ve shown you do

e the rational intuitions that represent procreation to be ethical - well, those, I think, have been induced not by drugs, but by environmental programming. — Bartricks

I could then say that most humans will get the intuition that their tea isn’t conscious due to environmental programming. Threatening to call someone mad is environmental programming no? Not really a logical argument. So I can then use your first premise to refute your second premise using the “all things considered” clause.

But to think that, systematically, one's own count for more just in virtue of being one's own is, I think, prejudiced. I can see no reason to think it would be true — Bartricks

And to think that others’ intuitions count more is just as prejudiced and arbitrary.

How's that arbitrary? — Bartricks

There is no logical reason to assume shared intuitions are to constitute evidence for any hypothesis. Everyone thought the earth was flat for the longest time so was that “evidence”? Absolutely not

Our reason represents minds to be indivisible — Bartricks

Does it? One could easily claim that minds are divisible but don’t retain memory once divided for example. That’s perfectly reasonable. In fact there is nothing “reasonable” or “logical” in claiming minds are indivisible, reason is only concerned with you to treat premises not with which premises to select

But you're rejecting one of my premises on the grounds that it conflicts with your theory. — Bartricks

No I’m not. I’m saying it is just as unsupported as an alternative premise that would lead to very different conclusions. Also, I don’t really have “my theory” when it comes to this yet. I’m just using panpsychism as an example

You need first to show that your theory is described by the conclusion of an argument that has stronger - that is, more self-evidently true - premises than the ones that entail my theory. — Bartricks

I’m saying the first premise to your first 2 arguments isn’t unsupported and the second one to your third is debatable.

But we need to consider the consequences to someone. Ethical considerations need a subject that already exists. — Echarmion

Explain to me why genetically modifying children to suffer is wrong then. Most explanations you come up with you will find will lead to antinatalism.

So here is another example: Let's assume we develop some technology (or magic) that will be extremely beneficial for society for several generations, but then everyone still alive will die horribly. Assume life extension is not plausible when we make the decision, and everyone will be made aware of the eventual consequence.

Should we use that technology in order to make everyone's lifes much more pleasant right now? — Echarmion

No. Because it will harm someone in the future. Unless we can cheat the system and not give birth to that final generation then heck yea

I think the connotations of "living" and "existing" are very different. The former is a general description of things you do, the latter is a category of being. — Echarmion

I agree, my bad. Everything I said still makes sense when you replace “existing” with “living” though so I don’t see an issue

I can both help starving people and have children — leo

This is called not addressing the hypothetical. You haven’t actually answered the question with the restraints imposed.

then the existence of bad experiences doesn't imply it would have been better for the human being to not exist in the first place. — leo

I think it does, but then again I don’t have to go to that extreme I don’t think to make my case.

Through having a child we create the conditions for both positive and negative experiences in the child, through rape/theft/murder we usually create only negative experiences in our victim — leo

Keyword: usually. Can someone then use the chances of positive experiences in crimes to justify them? I don’t think so. That’s because it would be taking a big risk for someone else right? Doesn’t childbirth do the same? Even if the chances of having pleasurable experiences are far higher in the case childbirth, why take a risk for someone else in the first place? Especially since no one actually believes that if that risk pays off that they have done something good. As I’ve said making happy people =/= making people happy. Which you would’ve seen had you actually answered the hypothetical.

Indeed I don't, but then again I don't equate having a child with raping someone. — leo

Me neither. I’m just placing them under the same “class” of behaviors. Risking both pleasure and pain for someone else without consent. It’s just that the risks are more favorable in one than in the other. I say ban the whole class though

If they agree that their existence serves a greater purpose then they would be less negatively affected by the suffering they encounter. If they don't see it that way, we can still make them happy as much as we can, I wouldn't force spiritual beliefs onto them no matter what. — leo

“If they like the game I forced them into great. If they hate it I’ll try to solve the problem I created for no reason the best I can” is not a very convincing argument for natalism to me. Why take the risk in the first place? No one has been able to answer this

No, but again, I don't equate having a child with genetically engineering a baby so it suffers on purpose. — leo

No? Why not? There is nothing that can say no to the genetic engineering is there? It’s not like there is a specter of a healthy baby that can object to changing its genetic code.

Indeed they will become an existing being with opinions, and by then they can decide for themselves if their life is worth living or not, if they want to keep living or not, and then they might tell you "thank you for having me dad/mom, if you had been antinatalists I wouldn't have had these experiences that make life beautiful and worth living". — leo

Indeed they could say that. But they could also say “Fuck you mom and dad why the fuck did you do this to me. I didn’t fucking ask to be born”. I won’t take the risk of causing someone to think that when it can be avoided.

the reasoning is that because life is an experience worth living through, it's worth starting. — S

That’s not reasoning that’s just your intuition. You haven’t actually thought about this. There is a clear distinction between experiences worth starting and ones worth continuing. Every experience worth starting is worth continuing (at least I can’t think of a counter example) but not vice versa. Life being an experience worth continuing doesn’t guarantee it isn’t worth starting or else living with blindness being worth continuing would guarantee it is worth starting. And neither of us thinks that.

Your analogy would be a false analogy in the full context of this discussion, because the experience of being born is nothing like the experience of having your eyes hacked out, — S

I agree. Having your skull folded and bent as you scream in pain is much worse. Childbirth is a painful experience for both mothers and children. So my analogy is apt this far.

and you don't need to have your eyes hacked our in order to start life. — S

I don’t understand what this has to do with anything. It’s almost as if you’ve already declared starting life the goal when that is exactly the topic of debate.

Who said anything about necessity? — S

I think you’re misunderstanding what I meant. I was saying that life being an experience worth living through doesn’t mean it is worth starting.

I understand that the gouging eyes out example isn’t the best. How about: having a child knowing they will be blind. Is that ethical for you?

The other things being equal clause is important, for it is easy to conceive of circumstances under which a rational intuition would not constitute good evidence. — Bartricks

Ok. I get what you're saying. Now what are those conditions in the case of natalism vs antinatalism? There is no "drug" that pushes people to have the reasonable belief (though at this point I think the word reasonable is redundant) that having children is ethical. Some parents become antinatalists later although rarely. So, given that there are no "things" being "unequal" in the case of natalism, the number of natalists would constitute evidence for their beliefs being right no?

The problem, however, is that the principle they do have to affirm still has to give rational intuitions probative force and the fact they have decided only to give their own any probative force is clearly arbitrary and prejudiced. — Bartricks

Is it? I really don't think it is. I've never cared about the number of people that believed in a certain belief, I only cared about what I thought of it. Does that make me prejudiced? So be it, I don't care. I don't think it makes me prejudiced.

for they have given their own rational intuitions privileged status on an arbitrary basis. — Bartricks

And you'd be giving shared rational intuitions privileged status on just an arbitrary a basis

I do not understand your point about divisibility — Bartricks

I am claiming minds are divisible, basically.

if it’s a contrapositive doesn’t it mean that thinking one is identical with thinking the other? He just wrote it in a weird way?

Surely you've heard this before. All the people who think that life is worth living. — S

Yes I have, and I thought it was an unrelated argument. Whether or not the living think life is worth living has nothing to do with whether or not they can add more people. Because there is a difference between an experience worth living through and an experience worth starting. Example: blindness is an experience worth living through but that doesn’t make it ok to go around hacking people’s eyes out does it? Similarly, life is worth living through but that doesn't necessarily justify adding more people to it does it? Even though in both cases the person in question will likely get over the difficulties of blindness/life and come to enjoy it later.

But this really does amount to the same thing as harming ghost babies, doesn't it — Echarmion

No.

If the position in time of whoever is harmed by an action is of no consequence, then we treat them as if they were alive right now — Echarmion

No. We only do that when considering the consequences of a certain action. For example, we don’t think not having kids is harming anyone. Because not having kids has no negative consequence on anyone. However having kids does have negative consequences on someone in the future, it doesn’t matter if they existed at the time the decision was made

Therefore, I think it's wrong to say that the fact that the person doesn't exist is "of no consequence". — Echarmion

Let’s test that.

Which is more wrong?:
A: implanting a bomb in someone at age 1 which will detonate at age 18 without them knowing
B: implanting a bomb in fetus which will detonate when the person born reaches age 18
C: bombing someone aged 18

I don’t think either is more or less wrong than the other do you?

Perhaps you could explain why it is wrong. — Echarmion

Because it risks (pretty much guarantees) harming someone in the future. It doesn’t matter that that person doesn’t exist at the time

I don't think "existing" is an action. It's a relation between a mental concept and some external state. — Echarmion

I think existing is an action. Considering it can be stopped. Maybe “living” would’ve been a better word.

Dying isn’t inherently bad? So murder is ok?
— khaled
Yes because it’s my vitality vs theirs
— khaled
The whole post is oozing hypocrisy. — Shamshir

Jesus fucking Christ. Citing one example then saying the whole post is oozing with hypocrisy? Also the first quote very clearly has the the added line “please actually make a case for something” doesn’t it? Under conventional uses of language, anyone would infer that means that this isn’t actually my position but that I’m inquiring if it yours. But you choose to be willfully blind. Now you’re quoting out of context too. What happened shamshir, you were doing so well last time.

no one left to visit or care for you and you become nothing more than a burden on the social system — Shamshir

So if there is someone to care for me I’m suddenly not a burden on the social system? Well that’s false. The burden just shifts to people closer to me. And how is this an argument for natalism exactly? “Have kids so they can take care of you when you’re old”. Are you seriously pushing this as an argument right now? You cannot think of kids except as tools can you? And you just liked having kids to building a house too....

First, I think it would be very unusual for anyone to actually think this.

What people tend to think instead is, "If I don't have free will, then I'm not morally responsible for my actions." — Terrapin Station

Isn’t that just the contrapositive though? I was surprised to notice that.

First off, the choice is only 100% of suffering if you're an utter wimp who can't defend himself — Shamshir

There you go with the personal insults again. I just don’t understand what you think this is accomplishing. These are the assumptions for this example yes.

your assumption that it is inherently bad. — Shamshir

Dying isn’t inherently bad? So murder is ok? Please actually present a case for something

Secondly, that's what outweighing means - having weight, precisely more weight — Shamshir

Again with the willful blindness. In this scenario, Bartricks life has less or equal weight than his child when considering an action done to both. However the madman here (maybe it’s you lol, I might as well hop on the pointless ad hominem train you’re so fond of) threatened to shoot Bartricks not his child didn’t he? So the child isn’t under danger of being shot, if he was, I’d imagine Bartricks would way he should choose to get shot himself or that there’s is no right answer.

And why do his rights appear to outweigh the child's? — Shamshir

They don’t, but he’s under more threat of harm. Another example would be: I think if someone told you “punch someone and break their nose or I shoot you” and you do it, the person that got punched wouldn’t even mind and you would be right to do it. Because the suffering you stopped from happening (your own) is out of proportion with what you inflicted. In this case the strangers safety has equal or more weight than your own. However he is under much less threat than you are. So harming him is the right call.

Imagine you want to build a house, but you suddenly start thinking - what if my neighbour burns it down, what if lightning burns it down, what if a tornado blows it away, what if a meteorite falls on top of it? — Shamshir

These are indeed all if scenarios. That could happen TO ME. And I personally would take them. Procreation is taking huge risks for someone else who had no interest in taking those risks at the time the decision was made.

You speak as if the individual that gets born doesn’t matter. We’re talking making another life here not a freaking house. A house doesn’t get hurt. I’m paranoid of hurting someone else unnecessarily as I fucking should be. Aren’t you? Don’t you avoid harming someone for no reason? Is it really fair to call that paranoia? (Notice the “for no reason” it’s pretty important)

If you're unwilling to go through and cannot handle the potential trials and tribulations, then quit and stay safe. — Shamshir

Agreed. But I’m hoping you’re not talking about childbirth with this because it doesn’t apply. Because SOMEONE ELSE will be taking the trials and tribulations and you had no right to make them do so

What about if that someone does want to exist? — Shamshir

That is impossible. Someone needs to exist for someone to want to exist. But he freaking exists already in that case.

Denying existence to someone who wishes to exist is bad isn't it? — Shamshir

First off it’s not denying. Second off even if it was it wouldn’t be bad. It’s not bad to deny a beggar money for example. You don’t owe anyone their existence.

So how do you impose anything, when you don't know anything? — Shamshir

You know some things and you assess the costs vs the benefits. Having children has no benefits at best and many costs at worst. That is because as I’ve shown, having children isn’t good in and of itself, no one actually thinks that.

You're deliberating this drivel on behalf of children you won't have, thus children you know nothing about. — Shamshir

Even if that was the case, I wouldn’t be wrong, I don’t owe anyone a life. However I owe not to give someone a shit life they will hate. Procreation risks doing both, so is bad.

You impose your hunger on other lifeforms, consuming them at your leisure to prolong your vitality. — Shamshir

Yes because it’s my vitality vs theirs. But the child doesn’t get harmed if he isn’t born. No one loses anything (except me) by me not having children. I just can’t imagine how you think any of the examples you cite are anything like birth. They’re not in the same ballpark.

And the irony of it all is that you possess the leisure and amenities to espouse all of this drivel, thanks to all of the natalists prior to you who got you here, only to have you shit on their graves.

You're a narcissistic stick in the mud who wants to play hero, having humanity go extinct — Shamshir

You almost have it shamshir. I’m so proud of you. You almost made it without much ad hominem this time. Maybe next time you might actually say something you haven’t said already and has been refuted 100 times which led you to resort to ad hominem due to having nothing to say.

Also I’m pretty sure you’re purely projecting when you say “play hero”. That’s what you’re trying to do bud. “Save the magical ghost babies who are very sad at having not been born because they totally exist”. I’ll just stick to the safe route when it comes to making decisions for other people when consent isn’t available. As I’ve said before, anitnatalism doesn’t “save” anyone, so I’m I can’t be trying to play hero here when I don’t even think what I’m doing (or rather refraining from doing) is good (it’s neutral)