The objects we experience appear to exist outside of us and independently of us. Idealism, at least in its subjectivist versions, says this common naive belief is wrong. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No it doesn't. You're attacking a straw man. Berkeley concluded that the objects of experience exist outside of our own minds. And he concluded this precisely because they are represented to have 'outness' (his term...or perhaps it was Malebranche's). Thus, they exist in the mind of another - the master mind.

The externality of the sensible world is respected by idealism, then. And certainly that's my view too.

Not what proponents of relativity are really arguing. Yes, there is no present, because there is no time. There is only space time. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Right, so that's a black mark isn't it - for obviously there is time.

I read the OP. It just seems like a very similar argument could be made where materialism comes out on top under a quite similar yardstick. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Really? What argument is that?

The other issue you may want to consider is why so many other idealists have dropped absolute time. I haven't come across any post-relativity idealists who deny the theory of relativity and who demand an absolute present. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So what? That's not how philosophy works.

Incidentally, if there's no absolute present, there's no present. And those who think time is relative are utterly confused individuals. If you want to explain to me what evidence there is that time is relative, by all means present it and I'll show you how it implies no such thing.

Anyway, you seem not to be remotely concerned with the soundness of the argument in the OP.

if you want to define desert as a turnip and then conclude that my argument doesn't work because your ignorant definition turns it into nonsense, have a ball. Jesus christ, you people!!
To deserve something does not mean others are obliged to give it to you, as I have explained numerous times. Deal with it.

This is a bit of a strange way to try to justify idealism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So?

This is a bit of a strange way to try to justify idealism. I don't know of a single ancient creation mythos that appears to represent any sort of idealist ontology. " — Count Timothy von Icarus

So?

I can see the claim that idealism is more parsimonious than physicslism, or that it has fewer explanatory gaps, but that it's more intuitive/follows more from appearances? Then why are gods in all the creation stories making the world out of mud, fire, etc.? — Count Timothy von Icarus

See OP for details of how the case works.

Then your modus tollens argument is faulty. Christ! — Luke

No, it was to help you see that I was arguing 'not p' rather than 'p'.

If someone is arguing that if p, then q - and then they proceed to explain why the evidence implies not q, then.....they......are......arguing.....that.....not p. Jesus!

Yeah that’s making my point: accepting the appearances wrt presentness leads to idealism. — Luke

That's not what you said. You implied that the idea that appearances are default justified 'is' idealism. No it isn't. It's an epistemological thesis that, if applied diligently, will lead to idealism. Though that is, of course, contested. But I am simply showing that it implies idealism.

Materialism does not accept the appearances, right? — Luke

I don't even know what that means. Materialism conflicts with the appearances. People accept or reject things. Theories don't.

Again: materialism is an 'ontological' thesis - a thesis about what exists. The idea that appearances enjoy default justified status is an 'epistemological' thesis.

An example to help you understand. A detective's method is to follow the evidence. The evidence implicates Tom as the murderer. That doesn't mean that 'following the evidence' and 'Tom is guilty' are the same thesis, even though adopting the former will lead to the latter.

Which one do you think you’ve been arguing for? — Luke

I haven't the faintest idea, but I was arguing that the appearance of presentness will be systematically mistaken if materialism is true. You were taking issue with that by maintaining that just because an event occurs at time t1, that does not mean it is present at t1, even though it blindingly obviously does (and you've yet to explain how it doesn't).

I don't think you know what you're arguing now.

When I say it is present for you, I mean that it appears present for you and that it actually is present for you. Being present has no more than a relative sense. — Janus

Again with the six second comprehension span! That's called 'individual subjectivism' about the present.

It's a form of idealism about the present.

It's a really stupid view, so I'm not surprised you hold it. I imagine you hold it about everything. Morality, aesthetics, truth - anything remotely tricky. It's the go-to view of those who can't reason but are pluckily giving it a go.

But it's not a materialist view of the present.

Again: it's stupid and false. But if it were true, it'd support my conclusion not materialism.

q does NOT = “The default is that…” — Luke

Yes, I know. The time lag argument is not decisive, for it is at least possible that our impressions of presentness are systematically inaccurate.

I expressed the hard form so that it was clear to you that I am not arguing that p, I am arguing that 'not p' and I am doing so by showing how p implies something that we have reason to think is false. Christ!

Is materialism the default? No. What our sensations tell us is the default. That’s the position of idealism. — Luke

No, as I said in the OP, appearances enjoy default justification. That is, if something appears to be the case, then that is default evidence that it 'is' the case.

That's not idealism.

Idealism is the view that the external sensible world is made of sensations.

See the difference?

When doing philosophy - at least, doing it properly - one does not assume a worldview at the outset. For if one does that, the same worldview will turn up in one's conclusions, for all one will be doing is interpreting data through your worldview and rejecting that which does not fit with it. That's not philosphy - that's dogmatism.

One follows the evidence. That is, one follows the appearances.

Now, if one does that where the appearance of presentness is concerned, one will arrive at idealism. For if materialism is true, then our appearances of presentness are all - all - illusions of presentness.

To follow the appearances is to respect them - to take them at face value. If one assumes that a whole range of appearances are systematically mistaken simply becuase one's favourite worldview implies such a thing, then one is a dogmatist. One should not assume they are mistaken, but one should assume that they are accurate. And if one does that, then one will arrive at idealism, becuase it is if idealism is true that they will indeed be accurate.

A simple example (though knowing this place, my providing it will derail the discussion into a discussion about cats). A cat appears to be on my dining room table. That's default evidence there's a cat on my dining room table.

Perhaps there isn't and I'm hallucinating. Ok, but that's not the default. The default is that appearances are accurate. If that's the default then which of these two theories is supported by the appearances:

Theory a: there's a cat on my dining room table
Theory b: there's not a cat on my dining room table?

It's a, yes? Not b. A. A is what the appearances support.

Likewise with presentness. If event A appears to be present, then that's good default evidence that A is present. It is not default evidence that it is not present. It is default evidence that it 'is' present.

If materialism is true, it would not be present, but past. Thus, the evidence does not support materialism. Just as my visual sensation of a cat on my dining room table supports theory a and not b, my sensations of the presentness of any event supports idealism, not materialism.

Yes, that just serves to underline the point. Killing yourself to save others from a similar fate is - sometimes - rational because it is sometimes the right thing to do. But it's the right thing to do 'because' death is so harmful, not because it's nothing or no more significant than a stubbed toe.

I was also careful to say that escaping extreme agony is what it seems to take to make suicide in one's own interest. That is, it's what it takes for one to have 'instrumental' reason to kill oneself. Instrumental reasons are not moral reasons. And sometimes we might find ourselves with moral reason to kill ourselves if, say, doing so will save the lives of countless others or some such. (There are other ways too - one might come to deserve to die through one's atrocious behaviour, for instance).

The point remains that all of this is evidence of just how harmful death is to the one who dies. And thus that's probably why religions condemn it as immoral. It isn't actually immoral, at least not in the main (it's irrational in the main, but not immoral). But it is so harmful to the one who dies that it makes sense to condemn it morally, so as to reduce the chances of someone subjecting themselves to it. For someone who is in, say, the grips of depression or some other mental episode is typically not going to be very good at thinking about what is truly in their own best interests, but they may still be motivated to do what is right.

Extreme unending agony is possible only in a scenario of eternal damnation. In most other scenarios, death of the body is taken to mean the end of suffering. — baker

If death ends your suffering, then it's hard to see how it would be so harmful that only extreme unending agony in this world could make it in one's interest to kill oneself.

The point, however, is that death is clearly extremely harmful. That's in the bank. There's no serious dispute over it. The dispute is over 'why' it is extremely harmful, not whether it is.

Epicurus argued that death is not harmful at all, but virtually everyone rejects his conclusion - as it is so obviously contrary to reason - and debates instead what precisely has gone wrong with his argument.

The important point, where the rationality of suicide is concerned, is that the evidence that death is extremely harmful - one of the most harmful things that can befall one - is overwhelming. Poor reasoning about the harmfulness of death is also commonplace. But that it is extremely harmful is not in serious dispute.

We can note this ourselves, for who among us would recommend suicide to a person apart from under the most extreme circumstances? If death didn't harm a person, then it'd be rational to recommend it all the time. Let's say you've got to have a root canal tomorrow. Well, kill yourself, then you won't have to undergo it. The root canal will be harmful. But death won't be. Yet that's obviously extremely irrational. Why? Because death is a huge harm that eclipses by an order of magnitude the harm of a root canal.

Normative according to whose norms? — baker

Moral norms. Antinatalism is the view that it is immoral, or default immoral (for there may be exceptional cases) to procreate.

I'm not claiming that there is any universal subjective present. — Janus

Look, to be honest I don't think you can hold onto a view for more than 6 seconds.

When you say that x is present for me, what do you mean? Do you mean that it appears present to me, but may or may not actually be present? Or do you mean that it actually is present for me - that my impression that it is present constitutes its being present? Or has your attention span not extended to the end of that sentence?

Toughen up, snowflake. Now, the present is not individually subjective.

Let's say it is, though. That would then amount to a form of idealism about the present.

So your objection is unreasonable for two reasons. First, you have conflated the impression of the present with the present. For if you try and defend individual subjectivism you will commit that mistake. Second, idealism is also known as subjectivism. So, if individual subjectivism is true, then materialism about the present is false. And I am arguing that it is indeed false. So what you've done is say "yeah, but bartfuckstupididiottricks is wrong because he's right".

So whose present is the real present? — Janus

Presentness is not individually subjective. You, like virtually everyone here, keep confusing 'appears to me to be' with 'is'.

There is 'the' present. There isn't your present and my present. There's 'the' present.

And now explain to me how an event can occur at t1 and yet not be present at t1? Explain what 'occurs' means in this context without mentioning it being present or now at t1.

No, if materialism is true, then our impressions of presentness are systematically inaccurate.

So, if p, then q.

The default is that our impressions are not systematically inaccurate.

So: not q.

Therefore not p.

'If' does not assert. If you say 'if' you're not saying 'is the case'.

Er, no I haven't. You mean you can't explain to me how an event can occur at t1 and not be present at t1? What a surprise!

If an event occurs at t1, then it is present at t1. If you think otherwise, explain.

If an event is present at t1 - so, it is 'now' at t1 - then that's when it is occurring. If you think otherwise, explain.

And it's NOT an argument for materialism. If materialism is true, then none of our iimpressions of the presentness of events are accurate. That means they're evidence that materialism is false. Not true. False.

I don't see how you are engaging with the op

Refuse to acknowledge what you were saying?? Er, no. I acknowledged what you were saying and explained how it is incoherent nonsense.
You think that if an event occurs at time t1, then this leaves open when it is present.
No it doesn't. It means it is present at t1. Christ almighty!! A bloody 5 year old can understand that.
If you have to say, utterly nonsensically, that event t1 can occur at t1 yet be present later, then you've been refuted.
And the explanation is that there is no way of making sense of what 'occurs at t1' means if it does not mean 'present at t1'.
You - you - try and explain otherwise. Explain what 'occurs at t1' means without recourse to temporal terms such as now or present. Go on.

I explained in the OP.

Look, if you just take materialism for granted and then interpret data in light of it, then you are not doing philosophy. That's no different from taking christianity for granted and interpreting the data in light of it.

Philosophy is about following reason, not using reason to rationalize your prejudices.

Now, if something appears to be the case, that is default evidence that it IS the case. It's in the OP.

The event appears to be present. That is default evidence that it is present.

If a certain worldview - materialism- implies it is not present, then it follows that the evidence implies materialism is false.

All you are doing is rejecting the evidence on the grounds that it conflicts with materialism.

Your analogy is a good one in terms of proportion. By that I mean it would hold true for life if, say, we knew 95% of it would be agonizing pain. In that case, sure -- no person deserves that. — Xtrix

That's a difference of degree, not kind. Remember: innocent people do not deserve any harm. Any.

But in any case, that's your assertion. If you feel your parents owed you something -- specifically, a life free of any harm whatsoever, that's your business. But it's just that -- an assertion. — Xtrix

No, it's not an 'assertion'. It's a 'conclusion'. The conclusion - not a premise, but a conclusion!!! - is that innocent persons deserve a harm-free happy life. (Note, to make any argument whatever one has to assert some things - it's like criticising me for using language. The only relevant consideration is whether my conclusions follow from premises that are self-evident to reason or far more self-evident than their negations.)

If you're the one responsible for creating such a person, then you owe them that. That's how debts work. If you run up a debt, then you owe the debt. Not me. You.

If you create a person who deserves a harm-free happy life, and you do that of your own free will, then you owe them that. They don't owe anyone anything. They haven't done anything!

No. First, one doesn't "order" anything in life. — Xtrix

Point. Missed.

Life isn't a pizza. That's not a good reply to my analogy. It just means you don't understand what's relevant and what's not.

Sex isn't a phoneline. That's not a good reply to my analogy.

Again, the proper analogy is: expecting a pizza which is impossible. Not one without "poo," but one without dough. But dough is what makes it a pizza. So either you want a pizza (which means dough), or you don't. — Xtrix

No, you clearly don't understand how the analogy works.

Now, I have already said - and I am just going to keep saying it until you acknowledge or understand the point - that possibility does not affect desert.

When you threw James off the bridge, you rendered his death two seconds later inevitable. That doesn't mean that upon throwing him off the bridge he ceased not to deserve to die.

Now, once more, in the pizza example James deserves something - a pizza.

The people in the pizza place can't give James what he deserves, because they only have shit pizzas.

So what ought they have done? Ought they have advertised cheese pizzas and let people order and pay for cheese pizzas - thus generating a deservingness of cheese pizzas - when they know full well that all they can possibly give people are shitted-upon pizzas?

No. Join the dots. Ought you procreate? No.

You know that if you procreate you'll be creating someone who'll deserve a harm-free happy life.

You also know that you can't give them that.

So, you own a pizza place and you know that the cupboard has nothing but shat-upon pizzas in it

Is it right to open up shop when you know full well that what'll be advertised - and so what people will be ordering and thereby coming to deserve - will be cheese only pizzas, when you know full well that it is impossible for you to give them cheese only pizzas, indeed that you'll be giving them shat-upon ones?

No. It's not right. You don't 'have' to open up the pizza place. But if you do, all the above will happen. So, don't open it. It's wrong. It's bad.

You don't have to procreate. If you procreate you know you'll be creating someone who'll deserve a harm-free happy life. You also know that you can't possibly give them that - the cupboard only has lives that have shit on them in it and you know full well that anyone you bring into being will have to live one of those slightly shat upon lives (and you know as well that some will have really really shitty ones...but let's not get distracted by that highly morally relevant consideration because my argument - my one - doesn't require that to be the case....just an itsy bitsy bit of shit will do). So you ought not to procreate, then, yes? You'll be creating a desert of something you can't provide.

Note another thing - the pizza analogy is importantly different from procreation cases. If you don't open the joint, no one will get a pizza. There will be people deprived of pizza - people who may have wanted pizza enough to be willing to scrape the shit (the shit they still didn't deserve) off.

But when it comes to procreation, if you don't procreate you haven't deprived anyone of the slightly shat upon life they would otherwise have led, have you? They don't exist to be deprived.

That's a relevant difference between the cases - but it operates to make it even clearer that procreative acts are wrong. For the fact that by not opening the pizza joint you'll be depriving people of pizzas - albeit slightly shitty ones when they deserve much better - is a fact that speaks in favour of opening. Procreative acts possess no similar feature.

In that specific case, no. I don't think it's a great analogy though. Why? Because we're talking about something much bigger -- we're talking about life. So what if the pizza were the size of the world? Would the fact that there was shit on it negate all of that pizza? — Xtrix

That makes no difference - that's the point. It's like saying that my analogy is not a good one because you would have ordered a pepperoni pizza and not a cheese one.

The analogy is an extremely good one. Why? Because it models the relevant features. James orders a cheese pizza. And that means he now deserves to get one. THe relevant feature here is not the pizza, but the fact that James 'deserves' to receive a cheese pizza.

So, James deserves a cheese pizza. Not a cheese pizza with some shit on it. A cheese pizza.

And an innocent person deserves a harm-free life. Not a life with some harm in it. A harm-free life.

What did James actually receive? A pizza with some shit on it. And so he phones up the restaurant to complain - quite rightly.

What does the person at the restaurant say? Well, they say what you were saying. They say "but its mainly pizza - there's only a bit with shit on". And they say "stop being so pessimistic - most of teh pizza is nice! What you complaining about? You should be grateful. We make you nice pizza. Yes, there's some shit on it, but all our pizzas in cupboard have a bit of shit on. We can't help that. They come with a bit of shit on. So you stop complaining. Stop being miserable. You miserable. No refund. You be grateful to us for giving you pizza"

That's a bonkers reply, yes? That doesn't begin to appreciate the problem. Yes, James has received a pizza. And yes, most of it will be nice and doesn't have shit on. But he 'deserves' an entirely shit free pizza. And he doesn't owe anyone a debt of gratitude - he deserves a shit free pizza. What he deserves is a shit free pizza and those who sent him a shitty one ought to be condemned. And if they have nothing but shitty pizzas then that's no excuse - they shouldn't have opened shop until they got some shit free ones in.

insofar as there are differences, the differences operate to make it even clearer that procraetive acts are wrong.

That's not the question. The argument in the OP does not assume that life is not worth living.
You seem studiously to be ignoring the actual argument made and addressing different ones. No premise of the argument I made assumed that life is not worth living. It's not about how worthwhile it is for someone living a life to continue living it. It is about the morality of the act that created it.

It's like me arguing that raping Jane was wrong and you insisting that I am arguing that the life of the child the rape created is not worth living. The act that created that life was wrong. That does not in any way imply that what the act created ought to be destroyed.

Using slaves to build the pyramids: wrong. You: "so we should destroy the pyramids?" No.

You also seem not to know what pessimism involves. First, it is quality of people, not arguments. I'm not pessimistic and even if I was, that would not affect the soundness of my argument. Second, no premise in my argument assumes that life is miserable or anything else remotely construable as pessimistic.

It assumes that innocent people do not deserve to suffer - that's not a 'pessimistic' assumption, it's a conceptual truth that in no way indicates any pessimism on the part of its asserter.

It assumes that harm that befalls an innocent is undeserved. Again, in no possible way is that a pessimistic assumption.

It assumes that life here will visit some harms on anyone who is brought here. That's not pessimistic. You accept it and everyone accepts it who isn't totally nuts.

Again: the reason you have to construe me as a pessimist is in order to be able to persuade yourself that some kind of psychological flaw explains my antinatalism rather than it being the logical implication of some extraordinarily plausible premises. That's wishful thinking.

So far, then, you have committed the straw man fallacy, the ad hominem fallacy and the wishful thinking fallacy (for those who like naming fallacies).

If you think that because there's even the slightest pain involved in being alive, that this fact negates everything else -- which is what you're arguing, really -- then that is indeed pessimism. — Xtrix

That's NOT pessimism. Again, everything I am saying is entirely consistent with whatever rosy outlook you have. There isn't a shred of pessimism in the view. You just think that if you can characterize my view in that way then you can simply attribute it to my pessimism (I am not a pessimist) rather than to the fact that solid arguments lead to it. Sorry matey, that's wishful thinking on your part. I'm an antinatalist because it's where the arguments lead. If it helps imagine me prancing through a field picking flowers and singling tralalalalalala.

And again, one is not pessimistic if one thinks that the slightest bit of poo on the pizza is grounds complaint and grounds for not delivering it.

If your pizza restaurant only has in its storeroom pizzas with tinsy winsy bits of poo on them, then you don't open. You don't open and insist that anyone who complains about the little bits of poo is a pessimist!!

"Excuse me - this pizza has a tiny bit of shit on it"

"Oh, you're so 'glass half empty'!"

Says you. But think about it for a minute. NO harm? What does that mean? Is that possible? — Xtrix

It doesn't have to be possible. That's not going to affect whether it is undeserved or not.

Note too that none of the harms that will inevitable occur in any life one creates 'have' to occur, for one does not have to create the life in question.

Let's say Jack does not deserve to die. You throw him off a bridge. I point out that he didn't deserve to die. YOu point out that it's now inevitable that he will as he's falling towards the ground at a rate of knots. That's irrelevant - yes 'now' his death is inevitable given that you just threw him off the bridge, but you can't thereby make it the case that his death is not undeserved and taht therefore your act of hurling him off the bridge was not wrong.

An innocent person does deserve a happy life too. And it may be impossible to give someone an entirely happy life that is free from all pain. So what? Again, that's like discovering you've only got poo pizzas. It doesn't make opening up shop and delivering poo pizzas to people who ordered - and so deserve - cheese pizzas the right thing to do, does it?

Yes, I understand. You've said that multiple times. What I'm saying is that this is completely incoherent. Why? Because you cannot have "none" of the harms without negating life completely. If that's truly your criterion for the morality of having a child, then there should be no kids -- ever. — Xtrix

You're misusing the word incoherent. I am not claiming that a happy harm free life is possible. I don't think it is (not in a world like this, anyway). That's why one ought not to procreate!!

I am saying things multiple times because my view keeps being changed into something else - something your criticisms will work against.

If you understood my view the first time I expressed it, then you would know that it was not pessimistic in the least.

Again: the pizza restaurant. You discover that all your pizzas have poo on them. Every single one. Therefore if anyone orders a pizza from you, you're going to have to give them a pooey one.

Now, you're reasoning "Oh, well as it is impossible for me to give anyone a pizza without poo on it, that's what I'll give people, even if they order cheese pizzas and not cheese and poo pizzas"

That's mental reasoning. If people deserve cheese pizzas and all you've got is poo and cheese pizzas, you don't take their orders. You shut up shop. You put 'sorry, out of cheese pizzas' on the door. You don't take the orders and deliver pooey pizzas to everyone.
And when I phone up and say "why the bloody hell does my pizza have a poo on it!!" you don't reply "but it's mainly cheese and only a bit of poo - stop being so pessimistic, the non-poo bits are lovely" because that's absurd and somewhat misses the point!

Well what of happy lives that are NOT harm-free (like, I would argue, my own)? — Xtrix

Again, what you're doing here is pointing out that the pizza is mainly delicious, despite having a poo on it.

You ordered a cheese pizza and so that's what you deserved to get. Not a cheese pizza with a poo on it.

An innocent person deserves a harm-free happy life. Not a happy life with some harm in it.

You are mischaracterizing my view as "pizza with poo on it totally bad" and just ignoring that my point is that if one has ordered a poo-free cheese pizza and one is given a cheese pizza with poo on it, then you have not received what you deserved. That if someone orders a cheese pizza then that's what one ought to give them. And if you can't - if the only pizzas you've got in your restaurant have poo on them - then you don't accept their order.

I don't know what you're saying there. You straw manned me. You addressed an argument I did not make.

There is no pessimistic premise in my argument.

Let's go back to the pizza restaurant. You ordered and paid for a cheese pizza. They delivered a cheese pizza with a poo on it.

You phoned to complain that this is not what you ordered (and thus not what you deserved to have been given).

They say "Why so pessimistic? Most of the pizza does not have poo on it and those bits - the majority - are delicious!"

That'd be crazy, yes? They've missed your point. Your point was not that most of the pizza has poo on it. Nor was it that the bits that do not have poo on it aren't delicious. Your point is that you deserved to be given a pizza that had no poo on it whatever and was entirely delicious.

I'm you in this scenario and you're the person on the other end of the line.

Well I don't fault my parents for having me, either. I guess that's more relevant. In fact I owe them a debt of gratitude for bringing me into this wonderful world, even though the price of admission is also suffering and death. — Xtrix

That's question begging. You don't owe them a thing. They owe you. They owe you a happy harm free life - which is something they can't even come close to providing.

But out of curiosity, do you fault your parents for bringing you into the world? But your argument, you should. — Xtrix

Of course. If I didn't, I would be a hypocrite, but my argument would be no less sound for that.

Yes, I know. So don't have kids -- that's your choice. — Xtrix

Er, I know and I don't. Misses the point: antinatalism is a normative view: a view about what we 'ought' to do. So, by just insisting that it's 'just a matter of choice' you once more beg the question. It isn't like deciding to have coffee rather than tea. It's a choice between doing something immoral and not.

What I'm saying is that some kind of "logic" doesn't dictate this, — Xtrix

Yes it does. I am showing that it does. There are umpteen good arguments for antinatalism, of which the one in the OP is an example. That's why it's a respectable philosophical position that has an increasingly number of defenders.

So far you have said nothing to suggest any premise in my argument is false. You are pointing to other considerations, but not saying anything to challenge any of my argument's premises.

Why do they deserve that which is impossible? — Xtrix

Are you saying that one can't deserve the impossible? If we can show that x is inevitalble, then no matter what x is, you can't be said not to deserve it? Imagine it's inevitable that Jane will be raped. The world is deterministic, say, and so it's inevitable that Jane will be raped. It's impossible for it not to happen. Right - well, she doesn't deserve to be, does she? Or at least, simply discovering that it was inevitable is not of a piece with discovering that she does not deserve not to be raped.

So essentially the argument rests on this perspective: because there is suffering, life is bad. — Xtrix

No.

Imagine you order a pizza and pay upfront.

The pizza that is delivered has a shit on it. You phone up the restaurant to complain that what they delivered is not what you ordered, that it has a shit on it and that you did not order the shit.

The restaurant says "but is it not a lovely pizza? Have you tried part that doesn't have shit on it? It's delicious"

Would you think that's a good response - have they understood your point?

One could argue that every innocent "deserves" to be part of this wonderful world and to experience joy, and to deprive them of that is immoral. — Xtrix

They deserve much, much more than this. That's part of the point. They deserve no harm whatsoever. Not some harm and some benefit. No harm. Ziltch. Nada. No harm. And they deserve much more happiness than the world provides.

Unless of course you don't think it's a wonderful world...which is why I mentioned pessimism. — Xtrix

My claim is not at all pessimistic. Assume I think life here is everybit as wonderful as you do. My claim is that innocent persons deserve none - none - of the harms it contains and much much more of the happiness that it contains.

That's not remotely pessimistic. My claims are about the morality of procreation. Whatever joys you think life here contains, assume I think it contains them as well. That way you won't mistake me for a pessimist.

I was innocent at birth too, and I'm very glad to part of life -- which, yes, hasn't been harm-free. Whether I "deserved" any harm or not is incoherent -- harm is a part of life. Joy is too. Do I "deserve" joy? — Xtrix

Yes, an innocent person is born deserving no harm at all and positively deserving a happy life. So, they are born deserving a harm-free happy life.

Thus, any happiness - any benefit - that accrues to them is default deserved, just as any harm is default undeserved.

So, the harms are undeserved and the benefits are deserved.

The part about you being happy you were born is irrelevant.

That one shouldn't be born because life isn't harm-free. — Xtrix

Why are you expressing it like that? It's not about you - the one who has been born. You don't have an obligation not to have been born - how would you discharge that? Go back to when you didn't exist and stop yourself coming into being?

What I am arguing is that procreative acts - which are not performed by the one who is created by them - subject an innocent person to a shit load of undeserved harm and that generates moral reason not to perform such acts.

You posted this with the title "A New Argument for Antinatalism." I assumed that you want to say more than simply "harm is undeserved." — Xtrix

And my conclusion is an antinatalist one. The conclusion is that procreative acts are wrong - default wrong - because they create massive injustices: they create an innocent person - a person who deserves a happy harm-free life - and do not provide the innocent person with what they deserve. SO, they create injustice: they make the world a more unjust place.

Now, so far you have said precisely nothing to challenge any of that. So what, do you agree with all that? Do you agree that procreative acts are default wrong? Because you need to argue that something I've said above is false, not just straw man me by insisting that I'm some sort of pessimist. It's not a pessimistic argument at all. You do realize it goes through even if our lives here contain much more happiness than pain? Yes?

It's not irrelevant. You're making an argument that innocent people don't deserve harm. Fine. — Xtrix

That's a premise that I take to be self-evident - indeed, it's a conceptual truth.

We're all born innocent. So, according to you, none of us deserve harm. Right? — Xtrix

Not when we're born, no. We can subsequently do things to make ourselves deserve harm - such as procreate and do other wicked things - but we're born innocent and so we're born deserving no harm whatsoever.

So none of us should have been born. Why? Because "harm" is simply a part of life. It's impossible to imagine a life without harm of any kind. — Xtrix

We are default obliged not to create undeserved harm, yes? If doing x will create some undeserved harm, then we have moral reason not to do x, other things being equal.

Procreative acts subject an innocent person to undeserved suffering - shit loads of it. Thus we have moral reason not to perform those acts, other things being equal. That just follows as a matter of logic.

Do you disagree with any of that?

All people (including me, as mentioned above) were born innocent. All people suffer in life to some degree. Suffering is part of life. Pain is part of life. — Xtrix

Relevance? You've CONFIRMED one of my premises. Which one are you challenging?

(1) All people are born innocent.
(2) Innocent people deserve no harm (which perhaps you can define further, but I view as "suffering").
(3) Life inevitably includes harm/suffering.
(4) Thus, bringing innocent lives into the world when you know they will suffer is unjust/morally wrong. — Xtrix

That's invalid. 4 is not the conclusion that follows from 1,2 and 3. What follows is that all the harm mentioned in 3 is undeserved.

That's my conclusion - an interim conclusion. Now, what, in my OP, are you trying to challenge?

I was born innocent too. There have been many harms in my life — like with any life. But I love life and continue to prefer being here to the alternative. I’m glad I got the opportunity. I still had to think about having kids — but not using the fact that they will not live a harm-free life as a criterion. — Xtrix

How does any of that address anything in my OP? Your first line just confirms one of my premises. The rest is entirely irrelevant.

I take the lack of reply to mean that you now accept that the time lag argument - my version of it - goes through?

There is a sensation of presentness such that when it attends other sensations we get the impression that what those other sensations are representing to be the case is the case presently.

If materialism is true that sensation of presentness occurs after the events that the other sensations are representing to be the case. Thus the sensations of presentness is systematically false if materialism is true.

That something appears to be the case is default evidence that it is the case. As such if a theory about reality has as an implication that a whole range of our impressions are systematically false, then that's default evidence the theory is false.

Thus, the falsity of all of our sensations of presentness if materialism is true is default evidence that materialism is false.

Yeah, clap clap clap - argument p is a shite argument for q, Bartricks holds that q is true, therefore Bartricks made the shite argument. I'm a good reasoner me!!!

Logic from Xtrix and universenes:

If p, then q; not p, therefore not q.

What you've done is address a stupid argument that I did not make.

The argument you've addressed is this one:

Xtrix is unhappy and doesn't like his/her life and therefore procreation is in general wrong.

That's an incredibly dumb argument that is not in the OP.

A little help for you - you need to argue that actual normative reasons can kill people or somehow render them infertile.

Duck! Blimey - that was close. You almost got taken out by a normative reason.

Don't picnic there - there's a pride of normative reasons over there. THey eat humans!

He's dead I'm afraid Mrs Jenkins. A ton of normative reasons fell on him.

I would procreate with him, but he's covered in normative reasons.