As long as you think non-trivial harm exists for all humans, the argument stands: — schopenhauer1

What argument?

Do you mean to say that "non trivial harm exists in life" = "Procreation is wrong"?

Because that doesn't follow at all.

Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? — schopenhauer1

Yes. Also, life has such non trivial unnecessary harms. Also, that doesn't lead to it being wrong to impose. Think about it.

I said it was definitional. — schopenhauer1

So... define it.

I am answering your question, but this requires you to answer my question: — schopenhauer1

A question ends with a question mark. I honestly don't know what you want me to answer here.

All we have to agree on here is that there is a distinction, and that non-trivial harm exists for everyone born. — schopenhauer1

I guess this? Yes, we agree that non trivial harm exists for everyone born.

Ok, now, how do you determine what non trivial harm is without reference to experiences or reports?

There was no question in your comment. If anything, I am the one that asked a question:

What’s the “set of features” that go into making an imposition non trivial? — khaled

And you responded:

. I'll allow the fact that this can be subjective, even. — schopenhauer1

And now you don't want to support that answer. So,

What’s the “set of features” that go into making an imposition non trivial? — khaled

I'll allow the fact that this can be subjective, even. — schopenhauer1

So if a slave was fine with his conditions then we classify his enslavement as a non-trivial imposition? Wasn't this one of our main points of disagreement?

Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? — schopenhauer1

Yes.

Can we agree on what an imposition is? — schopenhauer1

Probably.

Do we agree what non-trivial means? — schopenhauer1

I'm asking you to define it. Without any reference to experiences or their reports. You claim this is possible.

Do we agree with what unnecessary means? — schopenhauer1

You defined it, let's go with that.

Do we agree that there is an extra duty of care when it comes to doing something on another person's behalf? — schopenhauer1

"Extra" as in more than simply "I'd want this done to me so it's fine"? Yes.

In light of that person would not be harmed (which is good) and that person would not have happiness (neutral), that makes sense. However, once alive, there might be a case that after already being born, that preventing happiness, when one can for someone, with minimal cost to oneself, would seem to be some sort of morally worthy act. — schopenhauer1

I see 0 justification for the double standard.

Also I think you meant “providing” happiness?

I don't think that this example is similar to the case here. It's like you already assume that "stealing" (wrong) is the "having kid" case. — dimosthenis9

I didn't refer to having kids at all. This isn't about that, it's more general. It's about:

I really can't understand how you and schopenhauer measure harm and happiness and you decide that harm counts more. — dimosthenis9

When someone steals from a charity he hurts them, by how much? 100 dollars in this case.
When someone doesn't donate to charity he doesn't help them, by how much? 100 dollars in this case.

If you weigh harming and helping in the same way, then you would think the person who doesn't donate is just as bad as the person who steals.

So you lead the conclusion to your preference already. — dimosthenis9

But I'm not an antinatalist.... You know, just because I don't agree with shope on everything doesn't mean I disagree with everything either....

Why then you don't consider as depriving happiness from an unborn kid a bad thing also? — dimosthenis9

Read my responses to shope and you'll find that isn't the case.

Of course not it isn't right. — dimosthenis9

Ok, at least you don’t have a ridiculous position. Though it seems to me there is a contradiction between here:

Where exactly is the problem? Why his choice is wrong and yours is right??
My point is the same as I wrote before: it is NOT a matter of right or wrong. — dimosthenis9

And here:

Of course not it isn't right. When you know that your kid will face serious illness, it's not right at all to have it. — dimosthenis9

How is it not right sometimes and also not a matter of right and wrong?

We will never agree on that. Let's face it. It's OK. Not saying that I m surely right and you are wrong. We just think different on that. — dimosthenis9

Just food for thought. I don’t agree with shope either:

Is someone who can afford to give 100 dollars to charity but chooses not to as bad as someone who steals 100 dollars?

Because that seems like it’d follow if you believe that bringing about happiness is as important as not harming. I’m not quite made up on the issue but I do think they’re comparable.

Lower perspective: Assuming, people exist who can evaluate good or bad in the FIRST PLACE..
An actual person (that is being affected) does not need to exist in order for prevention of harm to be good. An actual person (that is being affected) does need to exist for prevention of good to be bad. — schopenhauer1

Yup. Nice summary.

You either agree imposing harm on another is wrong (if it's unnecessary and non-trivial) or not. — schopenhauer1

Agreed that imposing too much harm is wrong.

That harmful burdens and suffering is not good, and thus not good to enact on another. Happiness may be "good", but not enacting it seems to not matter in a moral sense in the same way not enacting harm is. — schopenhauer1

But, and I hate to bring this up again, this would be insufficient. You think surprise parties are ok. So you do sometimes think that the amount of good created can trump the harm inflicted making an act neutral. I’d say maybe there are situations that make it obligatory even, but I haven’t tested that idea extensively.

Point is: You yourself don’t believe in the asymmetry “It’s wrong to do something that risks harming someone no matter how much pleasure that could bring as enacting pleasure is not a duty”

I will go back to things like Willy Wonka's limited choices, and the Exploited Worker, and that is not even discussing agreed-upon, contingent (non-structural yet likely) harms such as physical ailments, accidents, disasters, and the rest. — schopenhauer1

This would’ve been a point in our last discussion but I got tired and deleted it. Yes, do please go back to those examples. Show me how you can derive that Willy wonka’s forced game is a non trivial imposition, without referring in any way to the victims opinions of their situation. I just don’t see how you “objectively” measure how bad an imposition is with no reference to the person being imposed upon. What’s the “set of features” that go into making an imposition non trivial? A certain duration? A certain number of work hours?

I guess when we are arguing, yes. — schopenhauer1

Not just us. Again, everyone agrees you shouldn’t impose non trivial suffering on others. They just disagree on how much of an imposition life is.

You are actually making my argument. No person, means no goods of life. That no one is harmed is good though.. — schopenhauer1

No. I’m not.

Not sure what you mean. — schopenhauer1

What I said. You make it sound like (1) is a good thing while (2) isn’t a bad thing by virtue of there being no one that (2) is bad for. Well, again, there is no one that (1) is good for.

Pick a consistent basis. Either you’re looking at it from the perspective of “How would this affect an existent person” or from the perspective of “How would this affect a non existent” (it wouldn’t). So either both neutral, or: no suffering = good and no pleasure = bad.

Rather I see it as just not fully understanding the extent of the unnecessary, non-trivial burdens put upon another person. — schopenhauer1

And I see your position as exaggerating those.

Anyways goodnight. I’ll respond in the morning if it seems like there will be new grounds.

unnecessary (not for amelioration of a greater for lesser suffering for that person) — schopenhauer1

That’s what you meant by unnecessary? That’s ridiculous though. You remember the life guard example right? In that example, by this definition, waking up the life guard would be “unnecessary suffering” and so would be wrong. Since the suffering alleviated is not the lifeguard’s.

Clearly you think imposing on one for the good of another is fine sometimes.

non-trivial — schopenhauer1

That’s really where the core of the disagreement lies. Everyone agrees that imposing too much is wrong (true by definition). The disagreement is whether or not life is too much.

But to whom does that matter? Certainly, not the non-existent being, as that makes no sense. — schopenhauer1

This also applies to (1) in exactly, precisely, the same way.

1) A person is not born, and a person is not imposed upon — schopenhauer1

This is not a good thing, as there is no one it is good for.

It’s as good as imposing traffic laws on a planet with no inhabitants.

That question would be valid only if there was a way to "ask" the unborn kid if it want that or not. Since that it's purely impossible the choice to be made is on parent's hands. — dimosthenis9

Not an AN anymore, but this is ridiculous. Since when is it that when we can’t ask for consent, we assume it is given? That’s the exact opposite of what consent is supposed to be for.

Where exactly is the problem? Why his choice is wrong and yours is right?? — dimosthenis9

Because it’s a choice that can hurt someone and so deserves some consideration.

My point is the same as I wrote before: it is NOT a matter of right or wrong. — dimosthenis9

Let’s assume that a couple has hidden genes that would result in their child having a terrible illness. We’re talking, missing eyes, broken limbs, broken organs, etc. Do you think it’s fine for that couple to have that kid?

The idea that having kids is always fine at all times is silly, even to non antinatalists.

We’d still do ethics in much the same way. You’d be punished for harms you directly cause and not punished for others, with people frequently disagreeing on what “directly caused” means. Being able to do otherwise doesn't seem necessary for moral culpability.

Say someone implanted a device into Sam that makes it so that the next time Sam gets angry at someone, but then decides to forgive them, the device activates forcing Sam into a fit of rage and killing them. Sam bumps into someone on the street and gets so angry he kills them without the device activating. Is Sam deserving of punishment? I’d say yes. Even though he couldn’t have done otherwise. Because he intended to do harm and did what he intended to do. That seems to be what really matters for ethics.

otherwise you have no non question begging evidence that physical events can only have physical causes. — Bartricks

So your objection is premise 1.

So you need first to establish that the mind is physical — Bartricks

If it affects the physical it had to be physical. Because that’s how people define “physical”. Not by mass, not by velocity, but by being able to cause a physical change. If it causes a physical effect it falls in the domain of physics. That’s why it’s called physics.

Electromagnetic waves don’t have mass and are physical for example.

That’s if you think the mind is some sort of substance.

Why? Because minds and their contents exist with the utmost certainty and it would be irrational to reduce the more certain to the less. — Bartricks

I’m not reducing minds to brains. I’m reducing mental states to brain states.

Anger is a state your brain is in, not a state your mind is in. Mind doesn’t need to be a substance for its uses to make sense. “He stormed out because he was angry” makes sense when “angry” is treated as a physical state. Anger doesn’t need to be a magical non physical event pushing anything.

It’s when you treat “angry” as a state of another thing, “mind” then you run into the issue of how all of these scientists seemed to have completely missed this magical thing that affects the physical world so strongly. If there existed a thing called a “mind” that had causal impact then surely we would’ve detected it by now no? It wouldn’t be a first for us to infer the existence of things without mass (electromagnetic waves for example) based purely on their effects.

But it seems there is no need for an extra thing called a mind, as our bodies seem to follow the same rules as the rest of the universe without any anomalous physical observations that can be attributed to a mind doing something. So either minds don’t exist, or they’re some combination of physical things we discovered (an electromagnetic wave, etc).

This seems like it’ll just be another round of a whole lot of vitriol, since we’re treading the same ground again. If I don’t see anything original in the reply I’m not responding.

Perhaps there's a good argument out there that has "therefore, my mind is my brain" as its conclusion - but if there is, I haven't heard it yet. — Bartricks

Usually people say “mental states are brain states” not “my mind is my brain”.

Here’s an attempt at the former:

1- Every physical effect has sufficient physical cause (can be derived from conservation laws)
2- Mental states are not physical
3- Therefore of the two, only brain states can bring about physical effects
4- Mental states bring about physical effects
5- Therefore, Mental states are brain states

Del

If there were how do you expect us to know about them?

So you think there is something wrong with letting people commit suicide while they’re young, and at the same time you think that them not being able to do so is unjust? How can you have both?

That person who tried harder that anyone did so because he believed is the promise of greater pleasure that would come if he won, that it would all be worth it. Just like a suicidal person who believes that if he keeps on living then all his pain would end, then it would all have been worth it. — I love Chom-choms

So people who quit tournaments are morally wrong now?

Once born, however, a human being is highly unlikely to have the sufficient skills to commit suicide before the age of five – often, in fact, not before turning ten or even fifteen. When this wish arises and the individual aims to fulfill it, surrounding people strive to prevent the suicide almost without exceptions if they only can. Furthermore, a vast number of highly retarded people exist who, due to their condition, will never really be able to commit suicide. One must in any case consider the possibility of having to live a perhaps highly agonizing period of life before suicide, due to a choice – that of creating life – for which the individual him/herself is not responsible — Antinatalist

Your objection seems to be that not everyone can commit suicide, but everyone can return the gift. I don't find that convincing, but does it mean that if painless assisted suicide was a right, you wouldn't be AN?

Haven't died, can't confirm.

So you also support that poor people shouldn't have kids? Poor people should be deprived of that joy in their lives? — dimosthenis9

Yes.

Kids from poor families can't live happily? — dimosthenis9

No, it's just too rare to call having kids in that scenario anything less than irresponsibility.

Only rich family's kids? — dimosthenis9

There is a whole lot between "rich" and "poor". That question that should matter is "can they afford it". By poor I mean they can't afford it.

Kids need love way much more than money. — dimosthenis9

They also need money. So don't have kids without that.

If a poor guy loves his kids he will do whatever to raise them happily. Even with little money. — dimosthenis9

But he can't do that. You can't magically love people so much they stop being hungry.

I don't think that this is your intention but poor people shouldn't have kids sounds kind of racist to me. — dimosthenis9

It doesn't target any specific race, so it isn't.

Anyways, this doesn't seem like it's going anywhere, bye.

Gift could be harmful, but comparing gift to having a child is, although natural, but also very extreme thing to do. — Antinatalist

Having a child is not a trivial everyday task. — Antinatalist

I'm pointing out that just because something is an unconsented imposition clearly doesn't automatically make it wrong. So you need more premises to make the case that this specific unconsented imposition (having kids) is wrong. I am not comparing having kids to giving gifts, I'm pointing out that they share the same properties and you think one is fine while the other isn't. That needs explaining.

There is something odd of the fact that you find this whole line of argument ridiculous and yet you engage. — schopenhauer1

Huh, funny, I was just about to say the same to you.

You understand it takes two to debate right?

And it was only recently with your saying “having surprise parties is wrong” that I began to find it ridiculous. But you also introduced old arguments which are what I spend most of the list addressing.

Or at least did you not acknowledge that I posited this and then explained about degrees and limits to practically 0? — schopenhauer1

There is a difference between 0 and “practically 0”.

Practically 0 is what you say when you want to make a ridiculous position sound less ridiculous. “Yes gifts are wrong, but so slightly that we’re better off ignoring I just said this”.

That's your whole strategy to say, "If this isn't wrong, life isn't wrong". — schopenhauer1

False. And I pointed out on 3 separate occasions that this is not what I’m doing. It's more like "If you think this isn't wrong you have no consistent basis by which you can tell someone life is wrong". Now you do, since you thinking gifting people things is wrong....

What do you think we’re debating? Whether or not AN is right? Again, that’s not what I’m arguing. What I am arguing is that your version of AN is personal and can’t be generalized. — khaled

Irrelevant. If the majority found X wrong thing to be good, doesn't make it so. Some people are ameliorated by things that harm others. — schopenhauer1

So, you recognize the fact that next generations will exist, and even in light of that fact do not consider that having children could be ameliorating?

You consider surprise gifts wrong, and to make it less ridiculous you introduce a degree of wrong at which it "tends to 0 like in calculus" so it's fine to do, not realizing that this doesn't help you at all since now you have to explain why surprise gifts are "wrong but not wrong enough" while life is "wrong and wrong enough". Again:

What I am arguing is that your version of AN is personal and can’t be generalized. — khaled

In addition to having these ridiculous premises that I very much doubt you believe yourself, you also don't even understand what I'm arguing for despite me pointing it out to you multiple times previously. So continuing this is pointless. Bye.

No I don't want to. I want to have my own kids and raise them with no misery at all. Why should I help others kid and deprive myself from the joy of having my own kids just because I m poor — dimosthenis9

All about me me me me me. No consideration for the child.

I’d think not having kids you can’t afford is common sense nowadays. Apparently not.

Finally, nobody will know is it better for human being born into this world or not. However, we know that if child born into this world, her/his life could be painful, perhaps she/he will suffer really hard. — Antinatalist

Do you think of this when deciding what gift to buy a friend for an occasion then settling on nothing since the gift could be harmful?

I find it dubious that any action that can risk harming someone automatically becomes wrong if you don’t have their consent.

Even situation like this, I don´t think it´s obligation to reproduce. — Antinatalist

You seem to have somewhat of a false dichotomy going on. Either one must have children or one must not have children.

Same goes to you buddy. Why are you debating me so much? You feel your life's mission is to put me in my place on this forum for some reason? — schopenhauer1

Because I FEEL LIKE IT!!!!!!!!

Also to prevent AN threads from turning into the echo chambers they usually turn to. Start whatever thread you want, but stop complaining when the same people respond to the same arguments in the same way.

When something is just "the way it is" for a long time, it isn't really questioned as there was never a precedent for it. — schopenhauer1

You think slaves were culturally indoctrinated to believe what’s happening to them was fair?

Create a situation where no one gets harmed and then compare it to one where there is immense harm. — schopenhauer1

Is it no one gets harmed or is it:

here is a case of so limited a prospect of harm as to be negligible in terms of "harmful imposition". — schopenhauer1

Because it makes a pretty big difference. Also, when did this comparison take place? Kindly point me to where I compared imposing life to giving 5 bucks.

For example, right here you ignored all the examples of wrongs that are so negligible as to not matter, like the limits of calculus. — schopenhauer1

I didn’t ignore them. I ignored you for thinking them. You unironically think that surprise parties and surprise gifts are wrong. To make it sound less ridiculous, you say “oh but they’re not that wrong”.

You think gifting someone 5 bucks is wrong. I don’t see the point of continuing the conversation at that point.

And I also ignored them because you don’t see the obvious next problem: You think that some things, while wrong by to do, are acceptable (surprise parties). What makes life not one of those things? And we’re back at step 4

But again, procreation is one place where no ameliorations have to take place. No using anyone has to take place either. You simply prevent unnecessary harm, period. No ONE loses. — schopenhauer1

False. The people who exist are ameliorated usually. Unless everyone decides tomorrow not to have kids, which won’t happen. Assuming the “torch will be passed” (which we agree it will) it is not clear that having children is so unnecessary.

Don't need painkillers if there was no pain to begin with. — schopenhauer1

But there is and there will continue to be. Making this a pointless hypothetical.

Maybe, but then you had fighter pilots committing kamikaze. — schopenhauer1

You know they couldn't land right? They get punished or killed for cowardice. Again, conflating not being able to voice opposition with agreement to the current system.

So why should anyone debate anything that they care about? — schopenhauer1

They shouldn't debate it every week would be my answer. I just don't understand what you hope to gain by starting the same topic over and over.

Yes, a lot of women didn't really rally around it for a long time. — schopenhauer1

I would think that a large part of that was not by choice.

I am saying that. Surprise parties are >0 wrong (but just barely). — schopenhauer1

This one. I've already said it. — schopenhauer1

Yea, just now.

Because you keep bringing them up — schopenhauer1

I didn't bring up the lifeguard thing because it was supposed to be showing something else. It was supposed to be showing that it is ok to impose on someone if it saves someone else a lot of suffering, even if you weren't responsible for said suffering (you didn't throw the guy in the water). One could argue for having children being ethical from that angle. That by imposing they reduce suffering much more than by not doing so.

The unnecessarily part there negates any ideas about cases of ameliorating greater harms with lesser harms as we already went through that. — schopenhauer1

Well, good thing no one would do that! You make it seem like having children can never ameliorate harms. As above, having children can itself be seen as amelioration of harms.

Do you think that the person who gave birth to the inventor of painkillers did something wrong assuming he knew that would be the outcome?

I have been and did say I'd "bite the bullet" for your little analogy. — schopenhauer1

You said you "could" bite the bullet. But only now did so.

It is an extent. But what if I were to bite the bullet and say surprise parties are wrong
— schopenhauer1

I’d stop talking to you because it seems ridiculous. — khaled

And as I said previously, no one is obligated to bring happiness to people, so that part of life isn't what's in question. I see happiness-bringing as supererogatory. — schopenhauer1

You also think that if I surprised you with 5 bucks as a gift that I just did something wrong so I don't particularly care what you think anymore.

People don't know when to stop when everyone's points are made and the dialogue can't go any further. — schopenhauer1

There are multiple reasons a dialogue can't go forward. Either, a party refuses to move it forward, or the parties have found a fundamental disagreement in values. You keep making it seem like the latter is what is occurring here. But if that is the case, why do you keep starting threads advertising your view when you know that the opposing view is just as valid?

I think there's a right answer based on the logic and evidence, but that not everyone is going to see it that way, and I accept that. — schopenhauer1

Same.

At one point Japan's majority thought it great to expand into China for things like resources and perhaps even racial reasons. — schopenhauer1

It is well known that public sentiment wasn't exactly all for the war in Japan since it put a ridiculous toll on the working class. The "need" to expand was mostly only seen in the military. But hey, I just live here, I'm not from here so I don't know the history very well. At least, that's what the Japanese seem to think happened.

So my meta-ethical theory is more Hegelian.. Ethics is discovered over time, but has been true all along. — schopenhauer1

Which.... would lead to the majority being correct most of the time as time passes.

It took real effort and convincing- compelling arguments, to ensure things like "rights", "human rights", "women's rights", "minority rights", etc. — schopenhauer1

Do you think at the time women's rights weren't a thing that most women were convinced that a lack of rights was fair? Same with minorities. You seem to equate a group of people not being able to voice their opposition, to that same group agreeing with the current system.

That is to say, stealing is wrong no matter what. However, stealing a pencil from Walmart, while wrong would not be on the same level as stealing let's say your neighbor's car, or lifesaving medicine from a pharmacy because you can sell it on the black market. There are degrees of wrong. — schopenhauer1

Nothing I said prevents this.

So I can very well say that surprise parties are wrong, but to such a minimal extent that its negligible. — schopenhauer1

But you don't. If you did I wouldn't have engaged in the first place.

Your line of argument seems to try to push me against the wall to not notice any degrees at all. Why should I overlook degrees of wrong? — schopenhauer1

No. But it does require you to say "Surprise parties and surprise gifts are wrong". Then you'd be out of the "wall"

The degrees are so incommensurable that to not save the child would be the much greater wrong. — schopenhauer1

Most would see that the harm done in having children is much much less than the harm done by trying (and most most likely failing) to bring humanity to extinction. But that's an argument we already went over forever ago. And your response was something like "There is some degree of dignity that cannot be violated" or something like that. It will go very similarly to this. I'll ask you "Why is someone that thinks that life doesn't violate the "dignity threshold" wrong?" And we'll go around in circles again. I don't mind, but I don't understand why you're rehashing arguments from months ago when you seem so keen on ending the conversation.

Two wrongs can make a right if the wrong of one is to mitigate the worse wrong. So yes, Kant can be right in a way. .Lying to the perpetrator could be wrong, but it is necessary to overcome the greater wrong in contributing to your friend's death by telling him where he is. — schopenhauer1

Right. So surprise parties and gifts are wrong?

There is no obligation to create happy people, but there is an obligation to prevent harm (when it is possible). This axiom prevents all sorts of utilitarian exchanges.. Such as making a person who will be harmed to prevent so X future event. — schopenhauer1

Also makes surprise parties wrong. But as of yet, you haven't said they are.

So going back to what I said earlier, ALL I CAN DO, is show how indeed life DOES contain more suffering than they may at first realize. That's all I can do.. convince — schopenhauer1

That's what I've been asking you to do for ages now. How much do you think OB raises the quality of life reports in surveys? And why that specific number? You refuse to answer this.

We have to admit this.. Once born, there is a conundrum that one cannot be unborn. One can only commit suicide if one wants "out". But this is not the same thing. By being born, we exist to be harmed but if we didn't exist there is no us to know anything one way or another. — schopenhauer1

Now replace "born" with "admitted to a surprise party" and "commit suicide" with "leave"

This is going to keep going around in circles until you either:

1- Say "Surprise parties and surprise gifts are wrong" to be consistent.

2- Show that people are completely incorrect in their evaluations of life quality while maintaining that they're not wrong about evaluations of surprise parties (if you want to keep those morally ok).

I've been asking you to do one or the other for ages now.

But as far as telling people "Y'all shouldn't have kids", that is a poor and uncharitable interpretation of what I'm doing. — schopenhauer1

Maybe. But that’s what it sounded like to me.

Even hardcore anti-abortionists knows that the otherside thinks their point of view is just as valid. — schopenhauer1

Yea but they don’t think the other side is valid (hence hardcore). And so they don’t agree to disagree. You keep saying “let’s agree to disagree” which implies you think the other side is just as valid.

But again, different values leads to different ethical arguments. — schopenhauer1

These are all debatable and highly contentious for some people. — schopenhauer1

So you think they’re debatable but that there is no right answer?

But I am just saying that it is still just a viewpoint, similar to how I have a viewpoint. It can be debated as well. — schopenhauer1

Same question as above.

I mean to say that you take people's subjective view of what is right and wrong. — schopenhauer1

No I think what’s right and wrong is objective. I also think most of the time the majority view happens to coincide with that objectively correct thing or at worst, is indecisive. More so as time passes.

That is because it is a discrete event that people generally like.. Life isn't a "discrete event people generally like". — schopenhauer1

How do you define a discrete event as opposed to a:

container with various kinds of events/experiences — schopenhauer1

However, even if we were to keep your example, because the stakes are so low (dislike of surprise parties aren't a big deal to the person), the imposition becomes negligible as to not be equivalent to (literally), a lifetime of negative experiences of all degrees and kinds. — schopenhauer1

I never claimed they were equivalent. Not even close. The whole point of the analogy is to stop type arguments like the following:

I'm saying that the harm doesn't matter to those who never experienced the surprise party (and didn't know about it), it matters to those who had to go through it and didn't like it — schopenhauer1

Which… by your logic would make it wrong no?

Do the party:
Risk of suffering - bad
Chance of pleasure - doesn’t seem to matter to you, or matters very little.

Don’t do the party: No risks

You can replace “Do the party” with “Have kids”, and that would be your argument.

This would make it wrong by your logic. But you don’t think it’s wrong. So your logic (asymmetry argument) must not make sense, since it’s saying something you think is false, is true. Type arguments tend to be rigid like that producing all sorts of ridiculous side effects.

Does almost all life have some impositions? — schopenhauer1

Yes but as above: You don’t always mind impositions. You don’t mind surprise parties.

There is a loop going on here:

You: Actions of type X (impositions, things to which the asymmetry applies, etc) are wrong. (1)

Me: But surprise parties are of type X and you think they’re fine. (2)

You: Well surprise parties aren’t X enough. They’re not even comparable! (3)

Me: Define “X enough” such that you can make your position objective. Why is someone that thinks that life is not X enough either wrong? (4)

You: Well life is clearly X and actions of type X are wrong! (5)

Repeat.

It is unnecessarily creating conditions of harm and impositions for others that is what matters here. It is not ameliorating anything, but unnecessarily creating it. — schopenhauer1

That’s step one. Response: Parties :cool:

Again, not saying they’re close in terms of suffering inflicted. Just saying they share all of these properties and you think they’re fine. So these properties aren’t sufficient to tell which impositions are right or wrong. (Step 2)

Yes, the surprise party becomes somewhat negligible when compared to the impositions of other harms of a whole lifetime. — schopenhauer1

So you’re saying the imposition of a surprise party is not big enough to make it wrong. (Step 3)

Why is someone that thinks the imposition of life is not enough to make procreation wrong, wrong? (Step 4)

Let’s see if we can make it to step 6 and not just go back to step 1

The point is when people think there is something problematic, they may speak up and explain why think think it's problematic. — schopenhauer1

And others may speak up to say why it's not problematic.

By the way where do you address your circular logic of arguing that I should not try to convince people, when you are trying to convince me not to try to convince people yourself? — schopenhauer1

There is a pretty critical difference here. I'm not going around telling people "Y'all should have kids". You're going around telling them they shouldn't. So it's not simply enough that your values are "different". You can't agree to disagree here. When you put forward a position, you must justify why your values are "better" than the alternative, that's what convincing is. You haven't done so, instead it always ends on "let's agree to disagree".

To say "let's agree to disagree, our values are different and unprovable" seems to me to mean that you have failed to find a reason someone should take your values instead of the alternative. If so, starting new threads every time makes no sense. And will be met with the same response.

I'm not against convincing. I'm against trying to convince when the convincer knows that the opposing view is just as valid as his own without mentioning so. Because they're telling people they're right while knowing there is a perfectly reasonable alternative. It's intentional lying.

Not really. It is a difference of values how people prioritize things like what the government should fund, whether it's okay for it to be in their "backyard" (NIMBY), whether what they say and what they do is aligned, whether shelter matters more than other priorities, etc. Any number of issues can be about any number of viewpoints and usually people bring their values to this. — schopenhauer1

I'll give you that one

Yes, of course you have purposely done so, because that would lead you to actually have an argument yourself which would make it easier for others to attack and you hate making claims yourself it seems — schopenhauer1

Oh so you failed to find a quote eh? A second ago I thought it was my main point. Huh, weird.

And I have made that argument on separate threads and we discussed it at length before so it makes no sense to say I haven't. But no the reason I don't make it isn't fear that someone would attack it, rather, it's that you don't find it convincing. I don't think you have a justified position even without making this argument. I'd be happy to discuss it later, but you seem to not have time for long posts. In fact, if you could somehow access comments before they were edited you would find that I had a pretty long paragraph critiquing the way you judge situation without taking into account the recipient's experiences or reports, but I deleted it out of fear you would dismiss everything again because it's too long.

But anyways, you are still being radically subjective in the fact that it has to be perceived as such by a majority. — schopenhauer1

That seems like the exact opposite of radical subjectivity..... I'm being humanist, not subjective. And I don't get what the point of the rest of the paragraph is sorry to say.

You have picked something that is imposed upon on others, but pretty much falls apart in all the other way in which life itself has negative experiences over someone's literal lifetime. — schopenhauer1

So as usual the ways in which it fails are: Length and Percentage of negative experiences. And the latter you have yet to prove is sufficiently different to make it wrong despite being asked to do so around 8 times now.

If there's no downside to no good of the surprise party, and those who would be harmed from the surprise party are not being harmed.. There ya go. — schopenhauer1

I.... Don't understand what this means. So you're saying surprise parties are wrong or right?

I am saying that summing up a (let's say) 4 hour event might be easier than summing up 90 years worth of experiences. — schopenhauer1

Well you certainly are saying it. Doesn't make it correct. Generally speaking when you make up psychological principles you need to be able to back them up. But ok. I already accepted that OB only applies to long experiences for the sake of argument. Still doesn't lead to "life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden". You need to show this.

Even if I am wrong on this.. It doesn't change that one is summing up 90 years of experiences into a binary statement of "Is life good or bad?". — schopenhauer1

Well that's also false isn't it? I already told you most surveys measure quality of life on a spectrum (1 to 10) and the vast majority say something (way) above 5. What makes that report untrustworthy? It's no longer binary. How much do you think OB raised the average score?

If you could somehow show that OB raises the score by like 5 or 6 then you may have a case. But you can't show this despite it being crucial to your view about the quality of life, which is crucial for your Antinatalism. And if you can't show this, if you have no good argument for your position, why are you trying to convince people of it?

It is still a life time of pervasive inescapable negative experiences and that is not okay to impose on someone — schopenhauer1

But.... it isn't. It literally has the same quality as a party the entire time. So you think that duration somehow makes the experience more wrong to inflict?

You seem to be valuing suffering much more than pleasure. So although the quality of the experience hasn't changed one bit, one case has a higher quantity of suffering making it wrong. Is that it?

Two people thinking different things is not a paradox.

There's a lot of things that are not "provable".. Are conservatives or liberals "right"? — schopenhauer1

Well it depends on the issue.

Why should politicians care to convince people? — schopenhauer1

Precisely because they think they’re right. You don’t see a politician saying “Ah well you see, this is just my opinion, but I think abortions may be wrong”

So, someone who thinks a homeless shelter should be built and funded with government money values this, and thinks this is generally good. Maybe the opposition says that it leads to other, unintended consequences, and this is actually not "good". — schopenhauer1

This implies that if people can agree on exactly what the consequences of building said shelter will be, they can agree whether it’s right or wrong yes? The only difference between the people is not holding different values here it is disagreement on what would happen. “Helping the homeless”, everyone agrees is good. “Promoting a culture where you get everything for no effort” everyone agrees is bad. The disagreement is how much of each is going to happen.

Your seeming insistence that wrong is only taking place when the person wronged perceives it as such. This seems an absolute rule for you. — schopenhauer1

Right but even if I argued this in this thread (which I’ve avoided doing on purpose), it still wouldn’t lead to “everything is subjective”. Shooting people for fun will be perceived as wrongdoing by any victim. That makes “shooting people for fun is wrong” objectively true.

Things like this prove the above.. You have been saying "no"? Your whole line of argument is "You can't say that there is wrong if others think there isn't". — schopenhauer1

Then quote when I used that argument in this thread.

But wait, here is an instance where you actually can avoid burdening someone with unwanted harms. — schopenhauer1

Surprise parties also. Can we just skip this? Before you make an argument relating to birth could you ask yourself “does this also apply to surprise parties?” And only state the argument when it doesn’t?

And yeah you don't like the asymmetry but look at it again.. There is no downside to anyone when it comes to the goods of life. — schopenhauer1

There is no downside to the recipient when it comes to the goods of the surprise party either.

I mean yeah, there's unavoidable harms we do to others all the time — schopenhauer1

Surprise parties aren’t unavoidable. And you think they’re fine.

He is the one who is the main proponent of the theory so I think it is wise to quote a professional who spends their career studying how this bias affects perceptions. — schopenhauer1

So should I start quoting all the professionals that disagree with him (all of them)? And you still haven’t shown how the Benetar quote is supposed to prove anything I asked you to prove.

Which article would convince you? Nature? Psychology Journal? Cognitive Science Weekly? — schopenhauer1

Any of the above. Prove that OB applies only to long events AND that OB completely ruins an accurate assessment of quality of an event.

Right a minor event that is only slight isn't a big deal but is problematic. A major event (oh let's say a whole life time of negative experiences) is indeed problematic. — schopenhauer1

This has 0 bearing on the argument no? The question was:

Isn’t it possible that an event can have inconveniences, and still be ok to inflict due to it overall being positive? — khaled

When does duration of the event come into it?

You think it’s fundamentally ok for an event that is mostly positive to be inflicted correct? Let’s say a surprise party is 80% positive 20% negative (however you want to measure that since you seem to ignore people's reports and experiences….) and you find it acceptable to inflict. If we knew a particular child would enjoy a similar 80% positive 20% negative life experience, would it be wrong to have them?

I think it is a wrong, and ethically problematic. — schopenhauer1

That’s the difference innit?

despite my annoyance at anyone who would throw me one I wouldn’t say they’re doing something ethically wrong. — khaled

So where’s the paradox?

He was making 100+ posts per day about 4 of which were new topics. No way most aren’t shit. He also had a severe case of Bartricks syndrome.

I don’t think his posts were much worse than some people I can think of, but he made them too often.

Anyways the guy seemed to think that bans are rare collectibles and badges of honor, so I’m sure he wouldn’t mind.

There is no way to "prove" this. What you think is proof, isn't for someone else. — schopenhauer1

Well it becomes a problem when you try to convince others of something for which one of the main premises is not provable isn’t it?

If the majority of people are anti-vaxers, are they right? — schopenhauer1

No. Because being antivax isn’t an ethical position, it’s the stupid idea that vaccines are harmful which has been empirically falsified.

I guess everything is subjective right? — schopenhauer1

Don’t know where you’re getting that from.

If a majority of people are exploited by a big boss smoking a cigar laughing his ass off in a backroom, is it right? — schopenhauer1

Well if they don’t mind it I would say yes. But for the sake of argument I’ve been saying no so far.

I will ask again, does almost all life contain unwanted burdens, yes or no? — schopenhauer1

Yes.

Now let me ask you this: If something that could contain unwanted burdens is pushed on someone is it automatically exploitative?

Because that would make everything you do to someone else exploitative.

And are you seriously quoting David benetar in response to me asking you why OB only applies to long events? Talk about unbiased sources!

1- Nowhere does he show that OB is operative enough to invalidate reports in the first place. He takes a few incredibly weak arguments and says “these don’t show that OB is less operative than I said it was”. But he never showed that it was operative much in the first place.

2- Nowhere does he show that OB is only active for longer events. Which is crucial to your view and which I gave up on asking you to prove because you clearly can’t. I thought at first that you couldn’t be bothered, but since you went out of your way to quote something anyways this shows me that all the “proof” that you have was just what Benetar said. If you had scientific proof of OB working only for longer events you would’ve quoted that as well while you’re at it.

Does almost all life encounter burdens and inconveniences, yes or no? — schopenhauer1

Yes.

Do we disagree that something can be wrong, and people don't realize it, yes or no? — schopenhauer1

For the sake of argument. Yes. Also I think you meant “do we agree”

Now, how do these two answers lead to “life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden”

Isn’t it possible that an event can have inconveniences, and still be ok to inflict due to it overall being positive? (Hint: Surprise parties)

You said earlier YOU don't like surprise parties — schopenhauer1

Yes but despite my annoyance at anyone who would throw me one I wouldn’t say they’re doing something ethically wrong. Because I know they had good reason for believing it would work (unless they knew me and were just being malicious)

like the ones life "itself" imposes. — schopenhauer1

Which you still haven’t shown actually meet the threshold. See, I wouldn’t mind you saying “I see life as too much of an imposition so I won’t have kids”. That’s reasonable. It’s saying “life is objectively bad or straight awful, and anyone who says otherwise is just wrong” that is the bold claim requiring support. It is not sufficient what you think of life but you need to show why you are more an expert on everyone else’s lives than they are without having met them.

The debate is of course how much and to what extent its taking place — schopenhauer1

At least we can agree on something.

You think it is absolutely up to the person's report how much inconvenience there — schopenhauer1

No I don’t. But I don’t have to. I think OB exists, sure, but I think it plays such a marginal role that it doesn’t affect the reports much.

Other than that kind of evidence, I can only invite you to look up the phenomena and read up on OB. — schopenhauer1

You’re making an error again. I’m past the point of questioning your unproven assertion that OB applies only to sufficiently long events since I see you really can’t be asked so there’s no point in asking. But you still have to show that OB plays a critical role and shifts the report significantly. And besides literally most happiness surveys aren’t binary, they ask you on a scale of 1-10. I’m willing to say that OB may sometimes increase the result by 1 occasionally.

The error is confusing “negative experiences tend to be remembered more fondly” with “every experience you remember fondly was probably the result of OB”. The first is a statement of OB, and the second clearly doesn’t follow from it. Yet you pretend it does.

But the difference is I am not entreating you to do this on this thread's dime. — schopenhauer1

Right, but you’re the one putting up the thread, you’re the one trying to change people’s minds about something. So I’d expect you to have support for what you’re saying.

I can only invite you to look up the phenomena and read up on OB. I also recommend Benatar's writings on it. Not too hard to search — schopenhauer1

incredulity — schopenhauer1

See the problem is when I do search it, I find nothing that states that OB applies to long experiences only. So I kindly ask you to support your view, and you seem incapable of doing so, not just unwilling. But I’ve already accepted it for the sake of argument to try to move forward. You still can’t get “life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden” out of OB. You’re committing a logical error as I show above.

It is an extent. But what if I were to bite the bullet and say surprise parties are wrong — schopenhauer1

I’d stop talking to you because it seems ridiculous. Especially since I know you think they’re fine and if you bite the bullet you’d only be doing so to “win” the debate by pretending to believe something you don’t.

I guess you are a strong "NO" to anything being contrary to someone's report — schopenhauer1

No I just think the reports are mostly accurate despite of some biases.

EVERYTHING is ONLY up to the person, and ONLY on self-reports on evaluations of the events. — schopenhauer1

Nope.

I am taking a view of the event itself. As long as imposition has happened, that should be considered, despite evaluations. There is not much we can do at this point because there is not much to prove one way or the other. — schopenhauer1

Yes there is. You have supposedly derived that life is “at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden” without any reference to these super faulty (something you haven’t shown) evaluations. Can you tell me how you did that? I’ve been asking for ages now.

If someone (maybe yourself) is burdened with the surprise party — schopenhauer1

What do you mean “burdened by the surprise party”? As in I’m an organizer? If I didn’t organize a surprise party in the first place I’d be “burdened”? What?

Sorry I legitimately don’t get this.

it is THEY who lose out. — schopenhauer1

Who?

The question has a type error.

Neural network systems are RUN on computers. AI are programs, not devices. This is like asking “What makes it so difficult for an ordinary phone to text when a texting app does it so much easier”

deleted

I am saying, it is simply wrong to impose on another, despite if someone minds it or not post-facto. — schopenhauer1

By this logic surprise parties are definitely wrong. You’re being inconsistent.

You are saying that it only matters if someone minds that they are being imposed upon. — schopenhauer1

Yes. Because you said it first….

I am not sure I would classify it as an imposition if people like it — schopenhauer1

Can you at least keep track of your own position?

You are pissed at me for having a certain viewpoint. — schopenhauer1

No I’m pissed that you refuse to address: “You think life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden, how did you come to that conclusion” despite being asked to do so 4? 5? Times now. I’ve lost count. Instead of addressing you bring it back to things we’ve discussed forever ago.

They are sort of axiomatic differences that are hard to "prove" other than explaining a perspective and seeing if that is compelling enough to the other person. — schopenhauer1

Yes you can. I’m doing so by pointing out yours isn’t even self consistent. You don’t think imposition is always wrong no matter how the recipient views it. First off, you don’t even count it as an imposition if they like it. Secondly, it would make surprise parties wrong, which is inconsistent with what you think. Now that doesn’t make my view correct, but that was never what I was arguing

You are not respecting that this particular line of debate is for me, not interesting anymore — schopenhauer1

Then stop responding. It’s not like I have a gun pointed to your head.

And you’re not respecting that it’s annoying for me to respond to someone who spontaneously loses interest in any line that may challenge their point of view despite claiming they welcome opposing views. Anything I say as a valid counter you ignore out of “I’m just not interested man” but I still respond to everything you write. It’s annoying when you don’t return the courtesy, and doubly so when you ignore specifically the lines that are problematic for you, and triply annoying when you bring back lines we’ve exhausted before.

Your point was either that people don't under report or that the report is just as accurate as the occurrence.

This just goes around and around now — schopenhauer1

Really? The sequence didn’t seem cyclical to me in any ways. That is largely my point yes. One that validly critiques your position because it requires that everyone be under reporting. And you have no evidence of this.

Can't you accept that sometimes that's just the nature of arguments? There is no "winner" in these kind of arguments. — schopenhauer1

Sometimes there is, though that’s not what I’m after here. I’m just after you addressing what I say. And eventually we’ll reach a point where have to agree to disagree probably. But it’s annoying when you keep trying to bring this point about prematurely, instead of actually addressing critiques.

No person exists prior to existence, no? Another disanalogy. — schopenhauer1

Another insignificant one. The only role non existing does in your argument is establish that no one is missing out. Well when a surprise party is cancelled, the recipient isn’t missing out either.

who "is" indeed missing out. — schopenhauer1

False. You can’t be missing out on a party when not knowing it was going to happen. Were you missing out on the 5 bucks I was totally about to give you a year ago but changed my mind and only told you about how? Were you suffering thinking “Damn, khaled hasn’t given me 5 bucks, this is painful despite the fact they I have no reason to believe he will give me 5 bucks”. Were you missing out on 5 bucks?

No one has the injustice of "not living" applied to "them" — schopenhauer1

And no one has the injustice of “no party” applied to them.

Notice how I continue to address the awful asymmetry argument even though we’ve discussed it at length before and even though I’m tired of it.