All things knowable are in constant flux because what makes up all things knowable are in constant flux... — synthesis

But we are able, at least sometimes, to predict change, and the effect the changes will cause. Weather is a good example. It’s constantly changing, but we are sometimes able to predict accurately whether or not it will snow, for example.

If you mean Absolute Truth, then I would say these do exist but are not intellectually accessible. — synthesis

How are you so sure of this?

Intellectually, you can have near-truths (like it is immoral to kill another) but most truths are reasonably personal and change constantly. — synthesis

Is this itself a truth? What is personal about knowing getting kicked causes pain, or that when a ball is dropped it falls? Opinions are personal, but facts aren’t.

At what point can you be sure you got it right and are not just making a mistake? — khaled

I guess when your explanation can predict outcomes reliably.

I think people use emotion most where reason fails them. I’ve noticed that quite often the beliefs one is most emotionally attached to are the ones that are the least rational.

The funny thing is, Jack, even if you are able to eloquently provide the latest and greatest explanations of this, that, and the other thing, how long does it take before an even "better" version becomes popularized. It's a treadmill from which there is no exit. — synthesis

I’ve always thought this line of thinking to be exaggerated. Do you not think there are any eternal truths? Is there absolutely nothing which we have gotten right?

A few thoughts...

One’s sexuality is often considered to be a major part of their identity, much more so than astigmatism, for example. People with astigmatism have never been persecuted or ridiculed due to this...condition. Therefore, it’s very different to be considered defective due to astigmatism versus homosexuality.

I wonder had the OP used a different word than “defect” (i.e. disorder, maladaptive, etc.) if the thread would have been deleted?

Regardless, I find excessive complaining about a deletion to be distasteful. Questioning is one thing, but arguing is not only pointless, it reeks of entitlement and arrogance. At the end of the day, we are all guests in another person’s home. We should respect their rules, or kindly show ourselves the way out. We have no right to request them to change or bend their rules on our account.

Found this just now....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/bigthink.com/amp/man-doesnt-want-happiness-says-nietzsche-2604504037

Not sure of the writer’s merits, but seems accurate from what I skimmed.

The question here: whether it is necessary to suffer for Christ to be a Christian — tim wood

Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but if you’re asking whether or not suffering is required to be a Christian, I’m inclined to think so. Christianity teaches a sort of asceticism, which naturally leads to suffering; additional suffering if you think about. Extra suffering that serves no other purpose than to go to heaven. Christians are therefore expected to willingly endure this. Therefore, when Christians are seen suffering needlessly, it is celebrated. It’s a sign that they are devout.

so what, exactly, is the suffering for, and for what purpose if it is necessary? — tim wood

The purpose would be to avoid the evils of the flesh, and reap the rewards in the afterlife. I feel the concept of repentance ties in with this somehow as well. I guess intentionally harming yourself proves that you’re really sorry for whatever it is you did.

Just some thoughts...

I just don't believe a charmed life can ever be the case based on that no life has ever been so charmed as far as I know.. — schopenhauer1

I agree, but because death itself is a harm. So even if someone was born and experienced no harm, when their life ended they would.

In my last response to @khaled (not sure if he missed my post, or just hasn’t responded yet), I brought up a point that I think could pose a problem. Should someone be resuscitated knowing that they will end up suffering if brought back to life? And for the sake of argument, we’ll say that you are not able to obtain consent, have no idea how they became deceased, or whether they want to live.

Also, a couple other questions.

If there was a button that could sterilize everyone, would you push it? AN’s have to consider this a net positive, right? It eliminates all future suffering.

What is your position on suicide? If killing yourself prevents more suffering than it will cause, should you do so?

No one should have to suffer to keep the species going. — Andrew4Handel

And no one should have to suffer in order to stop the species from growing.

Why of course, it’s not your decision to make. I trust that the AN are not trying to stop other people from conceiving children, and that they are just personally opposed to it for themselves. — Olivier5

I believe they’ve said as much, but I’m not sure I buy it. If it were just a personal choice to not have children, why all threads? Are they not there to try to convince others that their personal choice is somehow morally superior?

But that is incredibly unlikely. — khaled

It’s also incredibly unlikely that someone born will end up not finding life worthwhile. However, it is at least somewhat likely that someone who desires to have kids, but does not do so, will become depressed, which can in itself lead to suicide. Which is more likely is debatable, but risk of serious harm is involved regardless.

Would Adam and Eve suffering from childlessness compare to the suffering of all mankind thus far? — khaled

How are Adam and Eve (whom I hope you refer to metaphorically) responsible in any way for harm they did not directly cause? Adam and Eve’s choice to have children in no way influenced anyone else’s decision to do so. You can’t reasonably compare sufferings after someone is already dead. IOW’s someone’s birth can only affect those people that are currently alive, and vice versa.

I am doing so in both situations. Try comparing potential harms in the case of birth. There is no way having children is the less harmful alternative. — khaled

If not having one child causes at least one suicide, then having a child is less harmful. And that is a genuine risk, perhaps not that likely, but that’s beside the point.

It is NOT always okay to risk harming others by building a pipeline that was my point. It matters what that pipeline accomplishes. If it alleviates more harm than it is likely to cause then it's fine. If it doesn't (say, because it connects to nowhere and some rich guy is building it for literally no reason) then it's wrong. — khaled

Didn’t your objection to pushing the $1000 button show that you’re NOT ok with risking harm, even if the risk is small and the potential reward is great?

Here you seem to be ok with risking harm if the probability is small and/or the reward is greater.

We know the child suffers 20%. Let's assume THEY don't have kids. After they grow up, we can assume 5% of that 20 comes from them not having children. Then we take into account their spouse, another 5%, and the parents of the couple (in this case you are part of them), another 20%. So it comes out to: 20% + 5% + 20% for a total of 45% total for having a child that then doesn't have a child. — khaled

To begin with, having a child created 20% suffering for one person, and 5% suffering for 4 people for not having a child. This totals out to 20% for having a child, and 30% for not. If the child does not have a child, then he, his spouse, and both of their parents suffering would increase an additional 5% (I wasn’t considering this to be included in the original 20%). This equals an additional 30% for everyone involved, which comes out to 60% total when the original 30% is added in. If we assume stable percentages, then every choice to not have a child creates an extra 30%, this is also assuming everyone involved does desire to have a child.

Let's assume they DO have a child. Then the percentage is still bad. 15% from the person themselves (since I counted childlessness as 5% and that won't be the case here) and 20% from their child. 35% right there. Not even considering whether or not this child will have kids or not (both will increase the percentage) — khaled

The 15% (20% the way I calculated it) isn’t caused by having a child. So the only additional suffering caused by having a child is the 20% the child will suffer. I’m using 20% as a sort of baseline that everyone will start at regardless of their choice to have children or not.

And this is WITH counting childlessness as 25% of a person's suffering throughout their life which I find inaccurate in the first place. — khaled

That’s not how I was meaning to count it. Childlessness should only increase suffering by 5% for everyone involved. The 20% is just meant to be a baseline.

Because I think the alternative is even worse for them* — khaled

Which means that you think the act will benefit them. Why resuscitate someone knowing that doing so will cause them to just experience future suffering? They’re already dead, so it isn’t like doing nothing will cause them any harm. Sure, they may prefer to be alive, we’re they able to actually have a preference, but the same can be said about the unborn. Is being dead somehow worse than not existing? If being dead is worse than being alive, then not existing is worse than being born.

Yea. — khaled

I’m not actually into arguing that life has intrinsic value. I don’t see a way to evaluate life objectively. But assuming that it is, wouldn’t it be better to create life?

But your principle would imply that if I think I know your price I MUST press the button for you. I don't think either of us thinks so. — khaled

The principle isn’t to provide pleasure, so there is no “must.” You just have no right to stop me from pushing it if I want to.

A bit extreme eh? What if the parent says "I kinda don't wanna have a kid". By your principle that would not be enough to outweigh the "benefits to the child" (still think this doesn't make sense but ok). So in that case they should be FORCED to have the child. That's the consequence of requiring that people don't deny pleasure. — khaled

No. The principle is passive. It isn’t about forcing anyone to do anything, it’s about not interfering. That’s it. If a couple wants to have a child, and they believe doing so will cause less harm than not doing so, then I have no right to object. They’re free to pursue pleasure. The only caveat would be if I thought their analysis was wrong, and that having a child would cause more harm. I’m not obligated to force people to experience pleasure, or pursue it. The act of forcing someone to do something itself causes harm, so should be avoided except in those rare circumstances that doing so actually reduces harm (I.e. school, prison, and childbirth in certain situations).

You can't even say that much for certain. Many parents regret having children, because they weren't actually prepared. — khaled

If they’re not prepared, I doubt they want them. But I’d wager that most of us have pretty good idea whether or not having children would benefit us.

Because in this case if we don't buy it we ourselves get harmed comparably to how much we can expect the other person (who now can't buy the bread) to be harmed. I don't understand what's so difficult about this. — khaled

But you can’t be certain about this. The next family may very well be starving to death. Remember, this is strictly about risk. You’re unwilling to risk harming someone without their consent, even if the risk of significant harm is small, when it comes to childbirth. Yet you seem willing to do so in this situation. What’s the difference? And the argument you give here could just as easily translate to childbirth. Parents who want to have children risk significant harm to themselves by not having children (as evidenced by the suffering endured by people who want children, but are unable to have them), yet you would encourage them to take that risk. I don’t see how you can be sure that whatever unknown harm may befall the child will be less than the harm the hopeful parents (as well as hopeful grandparents, siblings, etc.) will experience.

Is it more harmful to not build the pipeline than it is to build the pipeline? — khaled

I truly don’t know. If the thing blows up and kills people, then yes it is. I doubt not having a pipeline would result in any loss of life. Either way though, the amount of harm doesn’t seem to matter to you regarding AN, it’s that there is any risk at all, regardless of how small. But in this situation, you prefer to compare potential harms. Why is that? Why is it ok to risk harming others while building a pipeline without their consent, but not ok to risk harming another person by having a child? It can’t be because of the likelihood of harm occurring (as your button example demonstrates), and it can’t be because of the potential good it can cause (as you’re unwilling to take that risk with childbirth), and it can’t be because of the amount of harm not doing so could cause (we’ve lived this long without a pipeline, so building one is more for convenience than anything else).

It is basically always the more harmful option, because you're comparing a lifetime of suffering to the suffering of childlessness. — khaled

This question is about how you measure harm. If you only want to look at the harm the child will experience, and the parents will experience, you may have a case (but then again, maybe not). However, not having a child will cause more people to suffer. At the very least there are two parents, even more if you consider grandparents, siblings, etc. that may be negatively affected by the parents not having a child.

Putting exact numbers on things is ridiculous, but to illustrate the point, let’s say if I have a child it’s likely that he/she will suffer 20% of his/her life. Let’s say that by not having a child, I, my wife, and our parents will each suffer 5% more than we would if we had a child. Cumulatively, this amounts to an increase of suffering of 30%. Which is the better option in your opinion, and why?

Because not doing so risks killing them. Which is a much greater harm than a broken rib for most people. I don't understand what's so difficult about this. — khaled

So it’s ok to do because you think it will benefit them?

Most people don't want to die. — khaled

Presumably because they find life valuable, right?

Would you mind if I press the button that has a 2% chance of killing you or breaking a bone for a 98% chance of giving you 1000 dollars without asking? Most people walk away 1000 dollars richer.... Heck, most people who have gone through the experience say that it was worth it! — khaled

Personally, I think my life is worth more than $1000, but everyone has their price. I’m willing to risk dying in a car wreck every day I go to work, with much less to gain btw.

If it is possible that someone will find life not worthwhile because they stubbed their toe once, yes. — khaled

I guess we’re just different in this regard then....

On the other hand you are suggesting that benefits should also be factored in. That would mean that you are obligated to have children in many scenarios. If you can show that it is likely that they will be beneficial to have overall, then it becomes a duty to have them. But you don't agree with this. Which is weird. Furthermore you say that the risk of significant harm outweighs any considerations of pleasure. I don't see how you balance this. You have two different "variables" whereas I have one. — khaled

What you’re missing is that the benefits are for everyone involved. So if there’s a situation where someone would benefit from being born, but the parents would not, then that would need to be considered. Hence no obligations. So, if these two parents are considering having a child, and one parent states that they will kill their self if they have a child, then they shouldn’t have the child, regardless of how beneficial doing so may be for the child. This is due to the risk of significant harm.

:up:

I’d heard “Born in the USA” several times before I realized it was more of a critique of the US instead of the patriotic anthem it comes across as, which I always thought was pretty cool.

The criteria required is basically impossible. I’ve gone over it before with echarimon. You would need to show that having kids is the less risky option. IE: That you need kids SO BAD that you would suffer more from childlessness alone than your kids are likely to suffer their entire lives. This becomes impossible if your kids are to have their own kids. That’s also on you (though you’re a lot less responsible) — khaled

That seems impossible to calculate if you’re going to consider all the pleasure your child could cause others. I don’t think there’s any reliable way to tell if your child will become inspirational to others. But, I suppose that means the argument for that possibility being likely could be made.

Because it’s not you paying the consequences. You have no right to endanger others. — khaled

We do not live like this, considering the possibility that each act could cause harm to someone else. If we need bread, and there’s only one loaf left, we buy it regardless of the fact that the possibility exists that doing so means someone else is doing without. We routinely risk endangering others if we perceive the benefits to outweigh the costs.

To give a real life example, currently where I live a natural gas pipeline is being constructed underground. This has the potential to explode, and pipelines have in fact exploded before. Were that to happen, the damage could be catastrophic, as this thing runs beneath our roads, near private property, etc. No consent was required, yet this project is occurring nonetheless.

No it’s for the PROTECTION of others. Not their benefit. Humans like to get revenge but that’s not the primary reason we put people in jail. The primary reason is that we need to protect others. We judge the people in jail as dangerous, which is why we put them there. Letting them walk around is the risky option. We don’t put them there for the population to have fun indulging in a feeling of righteousness. — khaled

You don’t think being protected is beneficial? Either way, we justify ALMOST CERTAINLY harming someone against their will (the prisoner) for the sake of others. Why then can we not do the same with childbirth?

You can’t prove that your next child will benefit others. — khaled

The parents will be benefitted. If they actually want a child, then having one will benefit them.

Point is, we don’t take risks with others. Even if we think they’ll think the risk is worth it. We ask first. And when we can’t ask we don’t do it — khaled

Performing CPR on an unconscious person risks breaking their ribs. We do so anyway. Victims that are discovered unconscious often get surgical procedures that have risks. The underlying assumption here, I think, is that life has intrinsic value. My guess is that most people agree with that assumption. If that is the case, then that in itself could justify natalism, because it is better to create value than not to.

It doesn’t. You said the good reason was that it infringes on liberties. — khaled

It is bad when there is not a good reason to do so. It is acceptable if the pleasure they are seeking infringes on the liberties of others, or otherwise needlessly risks harming others. — Pinprick

Seriously though, how do you say this and at the same time say having kids is ok. — khaled

Because having kids very rarely risks significant harm. Very few people get dismembered, lobotomized, etc. Most people get scrapes and bruises, and maybe broken bones, but these relatively small sufferings do not make most people feel like life is not worthwhile.

How do you differentiate? — khaled

The likelihood of the harm occurring, and the severity of it. If we could only experience the pain of stubbing our toe, and every other experience was either neutral or positive, would you still conclude AN?

Obviously we’re not considering harm done to them, as that is irrelevant. They didn’t consider the harm they did to others, so we don’t consider the harm we do to them as part of the equation at all. They lose the right to be treated as a human in a sense — khaled

I don’t see their harm as irrelevant. We should be above the “eye for an eye” justifications of revenge. But if you feel that way, then you’re agreeing that sometimes it’s ok to harm others for the sake of other people? If so, what is the caveat in your principle?

What is the cutoff? — Inyenzi

I don’t have a specific answer or number in mind, but if it isn’t obviously clear which is more likely, you should err on the side of caution.

Not to mention the absurdity of using the amount of people who resort to lethal self-harm as a parameter of a "worthwhile life"... — Inyenzi

I’m open to using any data that’s relevant and available. Suicide’s just an example, and a clear indication that a small number of people do most certainly consider life not to be worthwhile.

I couldn't imagine justifying this with, "well, I guessed it was more likely you'd find it worthwhile, so I did it". — Inyenzi

Why not? Is it ok to risk feeding my child peanuts (or anything else for that matter) without knowing if they are allergic to them? If not, then are you suggesting it’s better to submit them to the harm caused by getting a complete allergy test done?

Why is it a good thing to create the conditions of harm to take place, for another person? — Inyenzi

To be succinct, because it’s most likely worth it.

Say in my power is the ability to instill within you a 6th sense, which has both the capacity to be experienced as painful or pleasurable. I guess that you are 51% likely to judge this added sense as "worthwhile" to have. Do I therefore have the right to bestow this sense upon you, without your permission? — Inyenzi

Aside from your percentage being what I would consider “too close to call,” sure. If I’m in somewhat intense pain 50% of the time, and there’s a surgery that can reduce that number to say 10%, but comes with a 2% chance of increasing the percentage to 75%, would you advise me to get the surgery? What if you find me unconscious and covered in bee stings, and you have an epi-pen that will most likely rescue me, but I could be allergic to it, which would cause me to die. Do you stick me with it anyway? Even without being able to obtain my consent?

They are only doing it because the opportunity has provided itself to them. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That’s a really bad argument. This is like saying rapists only rape because they see attractive victims.

It wasn't suicide by mod but a stupid mistake (you can read up in the Bannings thread). It was a combination of an apology, the assurances after the ban it wouldn't happen again and his otherwise good posting history that led to an unban. Suicidees by mod tend to not want to get back to the forum. ;-) — Benkei

:up:

I didn’t say that. You should examine it situation by situation. Sending kids to school is not always right and not always wrong. — khaled

Doesn’t AN think it’s always wrong to have kids?

My point is, there is never a case where you can 100% say that the person will live a worthwhile life. So why are you taking the risk for them? — khaled

Because it isn’t that big of a risk under “normal” circumstances. So why not take the risk? All this is predicated on the person actually wanting to have children, so that is the initial default position. There could be a million reasons why someone might want children, some reasonable, some not so much. But the only way this discussion even gets started is by positing this as the default position.

This is different from sending kids to school. If you DON’T send kids to school then you INCREASE the risk they suffer. Sending them to school is usually the least risky option. And when it isn't the least risky option, we have agreed that sending kids to school would be wrong in that instance. However if you don’t have kids you don’t harm anyone. There is no obligation to have kids. There is no need to take the risk. So don’t — khaled

Ok, you’re right about this. But maybe prison is a better example. If someone is sentenced to death, there’s no way that is for their benefit, or that they consented to it. Therefore, it must be for the benefit of others. So, in this particular circumstance we find it acceptable to force someone to do something against their will, that will assuredly cause them harm, strictly for the benefit of others. So then forcing children to be born without their consent (which is different than being against their will), knowing that they may not find life worthwhile due to suffering, should also be ok as long as doing so benefits others.

Because there is absolutely no need to take the 2% risk. — khaled

If taking the risk will benefit yourself or others there is.

If there was a button I could press that has a 98% chance to give you 1000 dollars and a 2% chance to kill you, should I press that button without asking you first? — khaled

This isn’t really a comparable analogy. There is a difference between potentially taking life and creating it.

Now, if “do not deny pleasure” is your principle — khaled

I think the rest of what I said was “without good reason.” That last bit should clear up most of these scenarios for you. Generally speaking, the risk of significant harm (dismemberment, lobotomies, disabling injuries, etc.) trumps any potential pleasure. Although, surgery is a sort of gray area at least, or maybe even a counter example.

Huh? But you’re the one that proposed the principle. Are you saying you don’t actually follow it? That you don’t actually think denying pleasure is bad? — khaled

No, I’m saying obligations are stupid. Obligations amount to being compelled to act a certain way, which unnecessarily limits our freedom. I personally think these things, but they aren’t facts, and you’re free to disagree. I have no desire to try to force others to agree. You have no obligation towards me whatsoever, nor I to you, but if we both choose individually to follow certain principles in our personal lives, then we owe it to ourselves to follow those principles. But I would never consider you to be obligated towards me due to a principle only I hold.

No. It is not like the school example. Because with school, NOT forcing a child to go to school IS the risky option. Even there you’re minimizing risks. — khaled

Ok, consider the example of being sentenced to death then.

Either “do not deny pleasure” is a principle or it isn’t. — khaled

It isn’t an absolute principle. If there’s a good reason to deny pleasure, then it should be denied. This is why things like murder are illegal.

And so we can agree that it’s dubious whether or not they should be forced to go to school by their parents no? — khaled

It’s questionable in certain circumstances, but we shouldn’t therefore never send kids to school. I see having children the same way. There are cases where it is probably ok, probably not ok, and cases that are too hard to determine.

In order for something to be good for someone that someone must exist first. — khaled

They will exist prior to experiencing pleasure. Aside from obvious exceptions, if doing X allows someone to experience pleasure (or is likely to allow them to experience pleasure), then doing X is permissible.

If you want to say that being born is good for someone because they will experience pleasure then by the same token it is bad for someone because they will suffer. You either take both or neither. You can’t say being born is purely good. — khaled

I’m fine with saying this. That’s why I feel that you must look at the probability of whether or not the person being born will experience enough suffering to not consider their life to be worthwhile. That’s also why I said way earlier that it ultimately boils down to making a choice of which principle you wish to uphold, because you can’t do both.

If someone is harmed due to being born that’s hardly accidental. You don’t “accidentally” have kids. There is planning and a 9 month delay. You knew they were going to be harmed in some way. — khaled

Right, well partially right, but you also know that they will experience pleasure, so you have to consider that as well. But technically being born doesn’t cause harm/pleasure, it’s just the necessary conditions for harm/pleasure to take place. Similar to how it isn’t immoral to create weapons, only to use them maliciously.

In other words, if the act of kidnapping itself doesn’t cause any harm is it fine? I doubt it. So why is it wrong? — khaled

It depends on the probability of harm vs. pleasure. Is it likely that the person will find fending for themselves in a forest pleasurable?

By this metric you should be obligated to have a child whose life will be perfect. — khaled

I don’t really agree that obligations exist except in the abstract. If you so choose to follow a principle, then your obliged to do so, but you’re not obligated to choose to follow a principle in the first place. IOW’s it’s permissible, but not obligatory.

Also by this principle: Having kids needlessly risks harming others (the kids), therefore it is fine to deny pleasure in this case making the act overall wrong. — khaled

I don’t consider the risk to be needless if its probability of occurring and causing life to be deemed not worthwhile is negligible. Much like the school example. If it’s more likely that the benefits will outweigh the costs, then it’s permissible.

The potential benefit is much smaller than the potential harm. — khaled

I don’t think so. It seems much more likely that a person will judge their life to be worthwhile than not. Or do you mean that the potential worst suffering is greater than the potential greatest pleasure?

You consider having kids as something that can be beneficial/harmful to the kid:

In which case having children is wrong because it unnecessarily risks harming someone. In this case you cannot “counteract” this effect by saying that not having kids denies pleasure because in this case your ARE allowed to deny pleasure (which is why you don’t have to have a child even knowing their life would be perfect). — khaled

No, in which case having kids is permissible, because it is more likely that they will experience more pleasure than harm. And I’m not claiming that therefore it’s impermissible to not have children either. Neither is obligatory.

That’s not good enough justification. For example, I know that people on average are happier when they exercise regularly. Doesn’t give me a right to force you to exercise at gun point does it? — khaled

No, because people on average aren’t happy when they’re being forced at gun point to do something against their will.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it had something to do with playing the victim. “They’re trying to silence me!” Being a victim seems to be social currency nowadays. Also, if they’re banned they can believe that had they had the opportunity to respond to others posts they could have “won” the argument. It gives them a sort of “plausible deniability.”

Anyway, there is one member here who was banned for doing something that very well seemed similar, but was allowed to return to the forum (which I completely feel was the right decision). If suicide by mod was in fact his intent, maybe he could provide some insight. I’m sure you’re aware of who I’m referring to, but maybe that’s a conversation that is better suited for PM, as he may not appreciate being called out publicly and asked to explain his personal actions.

If I happen to be a masochist and I think it’s likely that you will enjoy being tortured does that give me a right to torture you? — khaled

No, because you have no justifiable reason to believe that I too am a masochist.

I was implying that all of these things were done to reduce the suffering on them or others. I thought that was obvious. We make Kids go to school and eat vegetables because it’s good for them in the long run. We don’t just arbitrarily make kids do stuff for no reason. — khaled

But you don’t know that. I’m actually a social worker, and currently have a client that was sexually assaulted at school; elementary school I might add. I’m not convinced going to school will help him more in the long run than it has harmed him. I know this is an isolated incident, and atypical, but that’s beside the point. You seem to try to argue against taking the risk that a great amount of suffering will be experienced by being born. However, there is potential suffering involved in other things we make people do because we think it’s beneficial, or because the risk is deemed to be negligible. I can make these same calculations with childbirth.

But not good for them. That would make no sense. — khaled

They’re the ones experiencing the pleasure, so of course it’s good for them...

When is preventing people from experiencing pleasure bad and when is it acceptable? — khaled

It is bad when there is not a good reason to do so. It is acceptable if the pleasure they are seeking infringes on the liberties of others, or otherwise needlessly risks harming others.

The outcome of pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is uncertain, as the gun might jam. That doesn’t make it ok to do. It is ridiculous to require certainty to say that something is wrong. Because then nothing is ever wrong — khaled

Ok. Not 100% certainty, but I think we both agree that the likelihood of seriously injuring someone by attempting to shoot them is incredibly higher than the likelihood of the gun jamming. Also, perhaps intent is relevant after all. I don’t view accidentally harming someone as morally wrong, unless it’s due to some gross lack of judgment or neglect. Harming someone on purpose is wrong, except for rare occasions like giving someone a vaccine.

I’m sure you’d agree that kidnapping someone and putting them in a forest to fend for themselves is wrong. Even though it doesn’t actually cause harm, or pleasure, only creates the opportunity. Why is it wrong then? — khaled

I’m pretty sure kidnapping someone causes them distress...

But a second ago you said it was fine to deny but did not provide a reason. Why is it you require a reason here? A second ago it was a “gray area”... Until you clarify exactly when denying pleasure is acceptable and when it isn’t you’re just being disingenuous — khaled

Denying pleasure is acceptable only if there is a good reason to do so, like denying someone the pleasure of killing someone because it unnecessarily harms the person being killed. It’s not ok to harm others, or to risk harming others, just so you can obtain pleasure. However, if the risk of harm is minimal, but the potential benefit is large, the risk is worth it. This is why making kids go to school is ok, and also why having children under most circumstances is ok.

Having children on the other hand is a risk act that is not accompanied by consent nor can be said to improve anyone’s situation which makes it wrong. So far you have not provided an example of an act which does these things that you consider fine except having kids. — khaled

Paying taxes does not improve my situation, and I’ve never been asked to consent to do so. Paying taxes also risks my ability to survive due to not being able to afford the necessities of life.

You cannot know that the pros will outweigh the cons. — khaled

You can reasonably assume that they will by using the available data.

So you’re saying that people who enjoy, or feel compelled, or whatever, abusing animals would not do so if we didn’t buy meat? My inclination is that even if these factory farms were shut down, the abusers would simply find other animals, or perhaps even people, to abuse. Unless you’re proposing that somehow abusing animals is economically advantageous, I don’t see how owning a factory farm would cause someone to do so. If that’s the case, explain how that works and we can talk about it, because I have no idea whether that’s accurate or not.

I think if we know the person in question will find their life worthwhile then it's fine. Problem is we don't. — khaled

Surprisingly, this is my position as well, only stated differently. If we think it’s more likely that they will find life worthwhile, it’s fine. Most cases are unclear, but data surrounding overall levels of happiness, suicide rates, etc. leads us to believe that it is almost always more likely that the person will consider their life valuable, or worth living. Therefore it is almost always permissible.

There are no examples in society where people are forced to do things against their will unless it reduces suffering to them or others. Or at least there shouldn’t be. — khaled

So making kids go to school is wrong? What about making them eat vegetables, or going to bed on time, or dress appropriately? What about making people pay taxes, or go to jail/prison, or pay for car/health insurance?

There you say it yourself. You cannot logically say that being born is good for the person being born. — khaled

Yeah I can, it’s good because they will experience pleasure. More specifically, it gives them the opportunity to do so. You agree that’s good, right?

But by your own principle, if not having children is “preventing someone from experiencing pleasure” and that is bad, then it should be mandatory. So either having children is not preventing anyone from doing anything, or “preventing someone from experiencing pleasure” is not bad. There is no other way out. — khaled

I don’t see it as black and white, there’s definitely some gray areas. Not having children does prevent them from experiencing pleasure, but sometimes doing so is justified.

Would you judge a murderer? Probably. So the reason you wouldn’t judge someone’s choice to have kids has to be that you don’t consider it a moral issue. I would ask why. Does it not result in harm? Why would it not be a moral issue? — khaled

It has to do with certainty. The outcome of murdering someone is certain, but that’s not the case with having children. It is certain that they will experience pleasure/pain (unless they happen to have whatever disease it is that doesn’t allow them to feel pain), but we have no real idea of how much of either they will experience. If you want to dig deeper, we don’t even know what pain feels like for other people. Do others have the exact same experience of pain when they get a paper cut as I do? We have no idea, so I find it hard to justify holding someone morally accountable for something with such a wide range of results.

Acts that directly cause harm can be considered wrong, but simply being born does not directly cause harm, or pleasure for that matter; it just creates the opportunity. Again, it is in no way your mother’s fault if you suffer, unless she is directly responsible for that suffering. That’s like saying we shouldn’t plant trees because they could potentially fall on someone and cause them to suffer 100 years from now.

What about malicious genetic engineering? Would you judge someone who genetically engineers their child to be blind? Probably. But why is THAT a moral issue but birth itself isn’t? — khaled

Probably, but again the certainty of the outcome makes a difference. I also think intent matters to some degree, but that may be irrelevant to the discussion.

False. You literally just argued a paragraph ago that not having children is a denial of pleasure. Which means that having children causes pleasure (as well as harm). Which is it? Make up your mind. — khaled

It’s a denial of the opportunity to experience either, which is fine to do as long as there is a good reason to do so. Some people should not have children, and some people probably would rather have not been born, but that doesn’t mean you should treat every case the same. This is also why I don’t think it’s appropriate to judge other’s decisions about having children. Some children go on to lead wonderful lives, and strengthen the relationship between their parents/families. At times we can make educated guesses about whether or not that will be the case, but more often our predictions are inaccurate.

Because they don’t exist until you make them exist. So it can’t be that you’re doing it for them. — khaled

It can be if existing benefits them. Besides, doesn’t AN claim not having children is for their benefit so that they won’t experience suffering? But they don’t exist, so how can nonexistence be beneficial for them?

Yes but “The cons aren’t that bad” is not a pro. So idk why you’re framing it as if it is. — khaled

I’m not meaning to. The pros outweighing the cons is a pro. Just like if the cons outweighed the pros, that would be a con.

My point is that the animals are only suffering the abuse because people are paying for them to be factory farmed. Shouldn't we stop doing this? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I don’t really see the connection. When I buy meat, that’s the only thing I’m paying for; food. My desire to eat meat in no way necessitates animal abuse. That occurs because some people are abusive, or controlling, or whatever particular issue the abuser has. That has nothing to do with me. I’m not asking farmers to abuse animals, or preferring meat from abused animals, so how am I culpable in any way? Why should I give up my craving for cheap meat because some farmer is sadistic?

Sure. And this doesn’t violate your principle. Because your principle isn’t “denying pleasure is bad”. That would lead to the PC scenario. Your principle is “Stopping people from seeking pleasure is bad”. Even if we were to propose potential happy beings, not having children is NOT in fact stopping even these beings from seeking pleasure, it is simply not providing it for them — khaled

I don’t see the difference. Providing pleasure would be doing something that actually gives them pleasure. Birthing a child in itself doesn’t give them pleasure, it just gives them the opportunity to experience pleasure. So giving birth isn’t providing pleasure, but not doing so eliminates the possibility to experience it. Giving birth is like letting people in to an amusement park. Simply being allowed in isn’t pleasurable, but experiencing the rides, etc. is. My argument is what justification do we have for not allowing people to enter the amusement park? Is it potentially dangerous/harmful? Yes, but it seems more likely that it will be pleasurable, so it’s ultimately worth the risk. By “denying pleasure” you are also “stopping people from seeking it.”

I assume you will argue that the difference is that with amusement parks there is consent, as people aren’t forced to enter, and you’re right. But, there are examples in society where people are forced to do things against their will, even when there is the potential for harm. Mandatorily sending kids to school is a good example. Some, perhaps even most, do not want to go to school, but we judge that doing so benefits them, so we send them anyway. And there is definitely the potential for harm, with bullying and things of that nature, but collectively we deem the potential benefits to outweigh the costs.

Which is very weird if you consider not having children bad because it “stops someone from experiencing pleasure”. This shows that having children is not, in fact, stopping anyone from doing anything. — khaled

I don’t consider not having children as bad. I object to propagating your personal choices, which boil down to mere opinion, as if they should be some sort of absolute rule (which is precisely what AN does, unless I’ve misunderstood something). I would never judge someone else’s decision to have, or not have, children as bad. But I also wouldn’t act as if whatever personal choice I make should be universalized. My issue lies more with the idea that it’s ok to tell others not to have children, or to have children. The actual act of giving birth is amoral, because it causes no harm/pleasure. It establishes the potential for both to occur, but that is it. Whatever unnecessary harm that may occur during a lifetime are isolated incidents that can themselves be judged right/wrong, but you can’t blame life itself. Ted Bundy’s mother can’t be blamed for the harm he caused to others, even though her giving birth to him created the potential for his atrocious acts to occur. The suffering I endure when I stub my toe is also not my mother’s fault.

Agreed. Except having children makes THEM also have to deal with the problem as PART of all the suffering they’ll endure. So it’s a totally inacceptable solution. — khaled

I figured as much...

No. Because they don’t exist. So this cannot possibly be for them. Making someone exist for the sake of that person is incoherent. Closest you’ll get is “So I can see my child happy” which is not actually for the child but for you. — khaled

I don’t think this necessarily follows. I can wish good on someone for their own sake. Like wishing that my loved ones continue to have a happy life after I’m dead. I won’t be there to share their happiness, but I wish them the best nonetheless. Why can’t it be the same for a child? My offspring being happy is a good thing, therefore I have children so that this good can occur.

No. Because again, the suffering you experience is incomparably small to that which you are planning to inflict to alleviate it. There is a much better solution to this feeling known as adoption. Or volunteering in child care. Or not being self loathing and stupid enough that you let societal expectations determine how you feel about yourself to this extent. Or or or or.... All of these inflict a lot less suffering and still solve the problem. — khaled

I can accept this. I’m basically just throwing shit to see what sticks, but this made me think of another question. Could it be argued that reproducing is a biological need, similar to sex or companionship?

“It’s bad but it’s not that bad” isn’t actually a reason to do something at all. — khaled

It isn’t meant to be a reason, it’s a justification. When you are considering doing something, isn’t it good practice to weigh the pros and cons? If I think I want to have a child, I should consider things like my financial situation, age, health, etc.; but I should also consider the “what if’s” that could happen to my child.

The two cannot be disentangled for the purpose of morality, but if we're talking about selecting a moral course of action, then right and wrong must already apply to the selection process. — Echarmion

I think I’m fine with that, but this doesn’t imply that if you intend to do harm, but aren’t successful, that you’ve still done something wrong, because that would mean that intentions, even in isolation, are wrong in and of themselves.

I didn’t. This doesn’t violate your principle though. I have to not stop you from seeking pleasure. Sure. But that does NOT mean I have to provide anybody pleasure. Not having children isn’t stopping anyone from seeking pleasure. So this principle has no bearing on the discussion — khaled

Well, it depends on the scenario. AN treats the unborn as potential sufferers, so you could argue that they are also potential happy beings. By not allowing them to be born, you are denying their potential happiness, just like you are denying their potential suffering.

Also, if you want to have a child, then doing so will likely bring you pleasure. But if you are not permitted to have a child, then your happiness is also being denied. This is really only applicable if someone is trying to convince or coerce someone else that they shouldn’t have children.

Point is that “risky acts” (risk causing both pleasure and pain) require consent or justification normally and neither is given in the case of birth. — khaled

Do any of these count as justifications?

I want to have a child so they can experience love, happiness, etc.

....So that life will continue.

....So that I’m not made to feel like a failure.

....Because the vast majority of people find life worth living, so the risk that my child will not is very small.

So if you want a PS5 I have a moral duty to buy you a new PS5 as a complete stranger? — khaled

Lol, no, you’re not required to provide my pleasure, you just have no right to stop me from buying a PS5. So trying to do so is what would be wrong.

But even if we were to say people have a duty not to deny others pleasure, AN would not violate this (incredibly weird) duty. — khaled

What makes this any weirder than preventing unnecessary harm? This is why laws that unnecessarily violate our “pursuit of happiness” are considered unjust.

If you have a child you cause harm, as the result will be the existence of a child and that child will be harmed. Notice how there is actually a person being harmed in this case. However, if you do not have a child, there will be no child to deny anything. So no violations. — khaled

I do see that, but you can’t claim one the one hand that not having a child prevents harm, and on the other that it doesn’t prevent pleasure as well. Having a child doesn’t just cause harm, it also causes pleasure, but AN seems to want to ignore this side of the equation.

Intentions are what determines your actions though. — Echarmion

So which is it that’s wrong, our actions, or their causes?

It seems to me that the guiding principle of antinatalism is that it is wrong to cause unnecessary harm. I think that’s a principle everyone more or less agrees on, and taken in isolation antinatalism logically follows, at least in some instances (those where not having children does not cause unnecessary harm itself to those who desire to have children, grandchildren, etc.).

But, the principle itself is only half the story as I see it. It is also wrong to unnecessarily deny pleasure (or happiness or whichever feel good term you prefer) to others. Procreating seems to violate the antinatalist’s principle, yet antinatalism seems to violate the natalist’s principle, since it’s also equally likely that a child born will experience some unknown amount of pleasure or happiness. I don’t see a way to determine which principle should be upheld over the other, as I think the asymmetry argument fails to do so. Therefore, it seems to simply be a matter of personal preference as to which principle you choose to uphold.

I don't know for sure, but it's extremely likely considering that they have nerves and a brain, and they scream and cry, and show signs of trauma. — Down The Rabbit Hole

We may be talking about two different things. Intentionally abusing animals is wrong, and is very often what is shown in documentaries, but I don’t think abuse is necessarily entailed by factory farming. In no way is it necessary for farmers to beat, starve, or otherwise harm animals. So, I’m not trying to argue that cattle don’t feel pain, or experience suffering when they are abused. I was thinking more along the lines of things like animals being kept in cramped spaces. But determining whether or not this affects their overall happiness seems like a grey area. We often keep pets in much smaller spaces than their natural habitats (I.e. goldfish, hamsters, rabbits, etc.), but there doesn’t seem to be much of a negative effect on their quality of life, at least as far as we can tell. The same would apply to zoos. If you could expand on what conditions specifically you’re against, then I could probably give you a better reply.

I'd argue that, insofar as "right" and "wrong" have a unique purpose, that purpose is to tell us how we should act. — Echarmion

Right, but intentions aren’t acts, so how can the be called right/wrong?

I know, I know, this is a silly kid’s song, but lyrically it it touches on some “deep” topics; the naturalistic fallacy, morality, corporate greed, environmentalism, etc.



How ba-a-a-ad can I be? I'm just doing what comes naturally.
How ba-a-a-ad can I be? I'm just following my destiny.
How ba-a-a-ad can I be? I'm just doing what comes naturally.
How ba-a-a-ad can I be? How bad can I possibly be?

Well there's a principle of nature (principle of nature)
That almost every creature knows.
Called survival of the fittest (survival of the fittest)
And check it this is how it goes.
The animal that eats gotta scratch and fight and claw and bite and punch.
And the animal that doesn't,
Well the animal that doesn't winds up someone else's lu-lu-lu-lu-lunch
(Munch, munch, munch, munch, munch)
I'm just sayin'.

How ba-a-a-ad can I be? I'm just doing what comes naturally.
How ba-a-a-ad can I be? I'm just following my destiny.
How ba-a-a-ad can I be? I'm just doing what comes naturally
How ba-a-a-ad can I be? How bad can I possibly be?

There's a principle in business (principle in business)
That everybody knows is sound.
It says the people with the money (people with the money)
Make this ever-loving world go 'round
So I'm biggering my company, I'm biggering my factory,
I'm biggering my corporate size.
Everybody out there, take care of yours and me?
I'll take care. of.
Mine, mine, mine, mine, mine.
(Shake that bottom line)
Let me hear you say 'smogulous smoke'
(Smogulous smoke)
Schloppity schlop
(Schloppity schlop)
Complain all you want, it's never ever, ever, ever gonna stop.
Come on how bad can I possibly be?

How ba-a-a-ad can I be? I'm just building the economy.
How ba-a-a-ad can I be? Just look at me pettin' this puppy.
How ba-a-a-ad can I be? A portion of proceeds goes to charity.
How ba-a-a-ad can I be? How bad can I possibly be? Let's see.

All the customers are buying.
(How ba-a-a-ad can I be?) And the money's multiplying.
(How ba-a-a-ad can I be?) And the PR people are lying.
(How ba-a-a-ad can I be?) And the lawyers are denying.
(How ba-a-a-ad can I be?) Who cares if a few trees are dying?
(How ba-a-a-ad can I be?) This is all so gratifying.
How bad.
How bad can this possibly be!?

No, memory is to retain information, that's completely different from passing on information. — Metaphysician Undercover

Maybe, but I’ve heard it said that we don’t write things down to remember them, we do so to forget them. If information is forgotten, then rediscovering it is basically the same thing as learning new information. Or, what if I tell someone else to remind me to do X? Is that communication?

And if you think there's a chance it might work, it seems to me that it would be wrong. — Echarmion

But what is there to make it wrong? There’s essentially no outcome, and no one is harmed, so why call it wrong?

Ah. "I cannot swim so will not swim but intend to swim." To me that's erroneous. An intention to me is an intent to act. I think that's typical. — Kenosha Kid

So you mean if you’re incapable of performing the act, for whatever reason, then you cannot intend to do it? I’m just not quite understanding how you differentiate between desiring to do something, and intending to, unless you’re just saying intention is a specific type of desire to act; one where the agent is actually capable of doing so.

If so, that seems odd to me, because I can start off simply desiring to, let’s say, swim, which is something I currently cannot do. Then, once I learn how to swim, the same internal feeling of desiring to swim becomes an intention, simply because I now know how to.