what about the rest of the comment?

Does the fact that acts of human procreation can reasonably be expected to create lots of undeserved suffering and non-deserved pleasure imply that they are overall morally bad?
— Bartricks

If you're only considering the child and parent, yes. But it becomes less clear when you generalize to the consequences of both acts. If you are a good parent, your child can be expected to alleviate a lot of undeserved suffering throughout their lifetime as well as create a lot of pleasure. By not having them, you are thus still causing undeserved suffering, to the people they would have helped. — khaled

My case above assumes that the amount of pleasure and pain created by the average human life are equal, but that they differ only in terms of their deservingness.

In reality I think that things are not equal at all, and that the average human life creates considerably more pain and suffering than pleasure (we just have a myopic tendency to focus only on human pains and pleasures). But once one factors in all the suffering we cause to animals, I think it's clear that we record a negative balance, and quite a big one at that. (Not that I'm blaming us too much for that - most of the blame lies with our parents)

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the average human can be expected to prevent a great deal of undeserved pain. I don't think that's true. Most humans are not justice warriors (and nor, I think, are they obliged to be). I think we create far more undeserved pain than we prevent. I mean, most of us are not dedicating our lives to preventing undeserved pain from occurring. And, as I say, I don't think we are under any obligation to either, as that would be beyond the call of duty.

we just have a myopic tendency to focus only on human pains and pleasures — Bartricks

Using this myopic tendency:

I think we create far more undeserved pain than we prevent. — Bartricks

I think this is demonstrably false. If this were true then humans would be each better off living as hermits. And you would expect that when they live around each other that they’ll all be miserable since they create more undeserved suffering than they prevent. But this is not the case. So it must be that the average human is a positive influence on others.

Like more traditional arguments for antinatalism, this looks circular. The asymmetry detected is in fact entered by hand. A person treats people with kindness and as a result, on her birthday, is thrown a lovely surprise birthday party which she takes pleasure in. But we define this pleasure to be undeserved without reason, making it qualitatively the same as a bully who steals a winning lottery ticket. — Kenosha Kid

It doesn't look circular, and nor is it. But perhaps you do not know what a circular argument is or maybe you are using the term in an unorthodox way.

I have no idea what your example was supposed to illustrate. The person you mention probably deserves the pleasure she receives. Why do you think I would think it "qualitatively the same asa bully who steals a winning lottery ticket"? I can't fathom how you could think anything I said implied such things.

I think this is demonstrably false. If this were true then humans would be each better off living as hermits. And you would expect that when they live around each other that they’ll all be miserable — khaled

Actually, early Buddhism teaches something similar (and it prescribes celibacy as a prerequisite for liberation from suffering).

So it must be that the average human is a positive influence on others. — khaled

Or perhaps this is backwards, and we ascribe positive influence of one person on another because to think otherwise, while inevitably living with one another, would be demoralizing.

I think this is demonstrably false. If this were true then humans would be each better off living as hermits. — khaled

How does that follow? It's not better 'for me' to live as a hermit. It is better for me to live as I am - which is in a manner that causes a great deal of undeserved suffering to other creatures (for I live a comfortable western lifestyle).

But let's say I decide to live as a hermit. Okay, well now my life would contain a great deal of undeserved suffering, for living such a life would be extremely unpleasant.

Of course, it is entirely unreasonable to expect anyone to live such a life, and unreasonable to expect that any offspring one creates will adopt it. Most of us live our lives in ways that cause considerable undeserved suffering to other creatures. Our lives also contain much undeserved suffering - but if we went out of our way to prevent causing undeserved suffering to other creatures, then our lives would contain even more.

Actually, early Buddhism teaches something similar (and it prescribes celibacy as a prerequisite for liberation from suffering). — baker

As far as I understand, it teaches that life is suffering not that people are on average bad for each other. On the contrary, Buddhism also emphasizes the Sangha or “community” as a very important tool for your journey to be free of suffering, definitely not as its cause.

Or perhaps this is backwards, and we ascribe positive influence of one person on another because to think otherwise, while inevitably living with one another, would be demoralizing. — baker

Well first off, it’s not inevitable at all. Maybe in the modern day it’s difficult to live as a hermit, but if humans were always a bad influence on each other on average we would have never formed groups. And secondly if it was inevitable, and it was also true that humans are a bad influence on each other, then you’d expect the average human to be miserable which is also not the case.

which is in a manner that causes a great deal of undeserved suffering to other creatures (for I live a comfortable western lifestyle). — Bartricks

I am ignoring any non human suffering for now. I’d be very concerned if you were causing a great deal of undeserved human suffering...

As I said, ignoring non human suffering, you cannot deny that the average person is a positive influence. And so not having them risks becoming more harmful than having them.

As far as I understand, it teaches that life is suffering — khaled

No, it doesn't.
Life Isn't Just Suffering

not that people are on average bad for each other. On the contrary, Buddhism also emphasizes the Sangha or “community” as a very important tool for your journey to be free of suffering, definitely not as its cause.

Associating with run of the mill people (the average) is conducive to suffering, which is why one is told to avoid false friends and fools, and to instead seek noble friendship.

Well first off, it’s not inevitable at all. Maybe in the modern day it’s difficult to live as a hermit, but if humans were always a bad influence on each other on average we would have never formed groups.

A band of gangsters are a bad influence on eachother, but they still stick together. Living with others is a mixed bag of experiences: some good, some bad.

And secondly if it was inevitable, and it was also true that humans are a bad influence on each other, then you’d expect the average human to be miserable which is also not the case.

You think the average human isn't miserable?? They are enlightened?

As far as I understand, it teaches that life is suffering
— khaled
No, it doesn't.
Life Isn't Just Suffering — baker

I was just quoting the first noble truth. I know it’s not meant to be taken literally.

Associating with run of the mill people (the average) is conducive to suffering — baker

Highly doubtful.

A band of gangsters are a bad influence on eachother, but they still stick together. — baker

That’s not what I meant by “good influence”. I meant “advantageous to live with”.

Living with others is a mixed bag of experiences: some good, some bad. — baker

But if it was bad on average we wouldn’t do it. Unless the alternative is worse. In which case we would do it and be miserable doing it. Which is not the case. Which is also why it is highly doubtful that associating with the average person is conductive to suffering.

You think the average human isn't miserable?? — baker

Yes. And they seem to agree when surveyed about it.

They are enlightened? — baker

Not necessarily. Just not miserable. Heck, happy on average even, as it turns out.

But let's say I decide to live as a hermit. Okay, well now my life would contain a great deal of undeserved suffering, for living such a life would be extremely unpleasant.

Of course, it is entirely unreasonable to expect anyone to live such a life, and unreasonable to expect that any offspring one creates will adopt it. Most of us live our lives in ways that cause considerable undeserved suffering to other creatures. Our lives also contain much undeserved suffering - but if we went out of our way to prevent causing undeserved suffering to other creatures, then our lives would contain even more. — Bartricks

The Jains propose to have a solution for this.
They aspire to live the lifestyle you describe and they seem to be happy with it.

It doesn't look circular, and nor is it. — Bartricks

Well, it is. You force an asymmetry in by hand, then claim to have discovered an asymmetry. That is circular.

This is where you introduce an asymmetry by hand:

Well, although one will also be creating pleasures by procreating, those pleasures - most of them, anyway - do not seem deserved. — Bartricks

And here you uncover an asymmetry from which antinatalism apparently follows:

So, an act of human procreation can therefore be expected to create undeserved suffering and non-deserved pleasure. — Bartricks

But you avoid the more vital point, which is your unjustified jump from justice to morality. If a meteorite lands on my leg while I'm sunbathing, that is undeserved suffering, but there's no moral agent involved. You will no doubt respond that in fact there is: the parents who chose to have me. But again that's the conclusion.

Well none of that made any sense to me at all. Sorry.

Yes, but that's beside the point. Most people aren't going to live such lives, nor are they morally required to, and if they did then - for most people - such lives would contain far more undeserved suffering than pleasure.

I think this is demonstrably false. If this were true then humans would be each better off living as hermits. And you would expect that when they live around each other that they’ll all be miserable since they create more undeserved suffering than they prevent. But this is not the case. So it must be that the average human is a positive influence on others. — khaled

I'm not so sure, this is the full story. We certainly are drawn to socialize, but I think the picture is more accurately captured by Schopenhauer with his "Hedgehog Dilemma":

One cold winter's day, a number of porcupines huddled together quite closely in order through their mutual warmth to prevent themselves from being frozen. But they soon felt the effect of their quills on one another, which made them again move apart. Now when the need for warmth once more brought them together, the drawback of the quills was repeated so that they were tossed between two evils, until they had discovered the proper distance from which they could best tolerate one another. Thus the need for society which springs from the emptiness and monotony of men's lives, drives them together; but their many unpleasant and repulsive qualities and insufferable drawbacks once more drive them apart. The mean distance which they finally discover, and which enables them to endure being together, is politeness and good manners. Whoever does not keep to this, is told in England to 'keep his distance.' By virtue thereof, it is true that the need for mutual warmth will be only imperfectly satisfied, but on the other hand, the prick of the quills will not be felt. Yet whoever has a great deal of internal warmth of his own will prefer to keep away from society in order to avoid giving or receiving trouble or annoyance.[2] — Arthur Schopenhauer

The hedgehog's dilemma, or sometimes the porcupine dilemma, is a metaphor about the challenges of human intimacy. It describes a situation in which a group of hedgehogs seek to move close to one another to share heat during cold weather. They must remain apart, however, as they cannot avoid hurting one another with their sharp spines. Though they all share the intention of a close reciprocal relationship, this may not occur, for reasons they cannot avoid.

Both Arthur Schopenhauer and Sigmund Freud have used this situation to describe what they feel is the state of the individual in relation to others in society. The hedgehog's dilemma suggests that despite goodwill, human intimacy cannot occur without substantial mutual harm, and what results is cautious behavior and weak relationships. With the hedgehog's dilemma, one is recommended to use moderation in affairs with others both because of self-interest, as well as out of consideration for others. The hedgehog's dilemma is used to explain introversion and self-imposed isolation.[ — Hedgehog Dilemma

Although I think it is almost certainly the case that an average human life will cause much more suffering than pleasure overall, I was very clear in saying that I would not assume this and would instead assume that the quantities are equal. That is, I will assume - for the sake of argument alone - that the average human life creates as much pleasure as pain.
I do not ignore qualitative distinctions, they're simply not relevant to the argument I am making and so I didn't mention them (for the point is about our deservingness of the pains and pleasures involved, a point that cuts across qualitative distinctions).
— Bartricks

That would have to be determined by some impossible hedonic calculator. As I recall, Bentham did insist that some pleasures were superior in their cash value than others. I lean toward the romantic: Living a life of deep, Wordsworthian experiences or, as Mill would have it, the philosopher's, exceeds that of the brute mentality.

As to this: "The dismissal of undeservedness or deservedness antecedent to being thrown into an existence is an assumption that needs to be argued". That too is both incorrect and irrelevant. It is incorrect because the burden, surely, is on you, not me. That is, the default is not that we are born positively deserving to suffer, or born positively deserving pleasure; the default is that we are born 'innocent' - that is, we do not positively deserve to suffer, nor do we positively deserve pleasure. If you think we are born deserving to suffer, or born deserving pleasure, then you need to provide us with some justification for that belief. — Bartricks

It would ground suffering in a metaphysical justice if our joys and ills were antecedently accountable. Of course, metaphysical details about such a thing is hogwash, but the posting of an ethical grounding for all the horrors and injustice beyond what can be empirically observed does, say, establish meaning where there would otherwise be none, and the hedonic balance of all things is shot to hell. If we consider that being human in the world has value beyond the world, then the justification for having kids is, in one way or another, altered.
Also, not to forget that an analysis of responsibility, desert, accountability, guilt, all make no sense at all in this world, hence the call for metaphysical thinking.

Come to think of it, it's a mistake to look at the issue in an "either...or..." way. We could take both - thoughts and deeds - into account when we judge the moral status of people. — TheMadFool

I go either/or on this one: If a person is simply pouring all thought and sentiment into doing the right thing, and gets it all wrong, I am entirely impressed, and if it had turned out better, I would not think one scintilla less of this person who just didn't have the wit to work things out, a deficit that is morally arbitrary.

That would have to be determined by some impossible hedonic calculator. As I recall, Bentham did insist that some pleasures were superior in their cash value than others. I lean toward the romantic: Living a life of deep, Wordsworthian experiences or, as Mill would have it, the philosopher's, exceeds that of the brute mentality. — Constance

No it wouldn't. There's nothing 'impossible' about a hedonic calculator incidentally. But like I say, I stipulated that, for the sake of argument, the average human life creates as much pleasure as pain. My focus was on desert and how deservingness can make a radical difference to how much such pleasure or pain counts, morally speaking.

And it wasn't Bentham but Mill who distinguished between higher and lower pleasures. But like I say, that's not the issue. For there can be deserved higher pleasures, undeserved higher pleasures and non-deserved higher pleasures.

You then say that desert makes no sense in this world. Well, I think that's demonstrably false. Certainly the burden of proof is on the desert denier, not me. But note too that if someone can only resist my argument by rejecting moral desert wholesale, then it must be a very strong argument. It's a bit like rejecting my argument by saying "but we can't know anything!"

The metaphor implies that there is absolutely no pleasure that can be derived from interpersonal relationships, and that they are only done out of necessity. You can imagine the hedgehogs in this scenario being miserable, they are stuck between a harm and a worse harm. But for people it is not the case. It is pretty clear that we derive pleasure from relationships and that they are not made purely to avoid the greater harm of isolation. If that were the case, again, you'd find that most people are miserable, like the hedgehogs would be.

You're mistakenly assuming that I am talking exclusively about the pains and pleasures contained in the life of the one who has been subjected to a life — Bartricks

What other pains and pleasures are there other than those in a life of one who has been subjected to life?

Assume, very implausibly... — Bartricks

Why 'implausibly'? You've admitted the being subject to unjust suffering puts someone in a position of deserving happiness. You've said that to that be born is to experience unjust suffering.

To be honest I think your deserve-o-meter must need recalibrating because I put all the figures for everyone who's ever lived and everyone who will ever live into mine and I get a 6.24 for deservedness, which is actually slightly higher than the 6.15 reading I'm getting from my suffer-o-meter on suffering. Maybe just pop all those figures in again and recalculate, you might need to send yours back.

Just tell me again, in case I'm putting the wrong figures in - exactly how much pleasure does one deserve as a result of being subjected to unjust suffering of being born - I've got 3.2 written here on my device's instructions, have they upped it in the upgrades?

I don't see what's problematic in that assertion. You say that suffering is a personal experience. Yes, nothing I've said supposes otherwise. You say it is not a physical property. Again yes, but nothing I've said assumes otherwise.

Pain is essentially experienced. That is, it exists 'as' an experience. ("I'm experiencing some pain, but am I actually in pain?" makes no sense). — Bartricks

Yes. I wasn't intending to put words in your mouth. But I think here is an implicit premise in your argument that creating additional people also creates additional suffering. That is suffering is worse if there are more people.

What's relevant to my case is that a) pain often matters morally (that is, the fact an act will create some pain is often a fact about an act that has great moral significance), and b) that whether pain/pleasure is deserved or undeserved also makes a great difference to whether an act that promotes it is right or wrong. — Bartricks

But you need to get from here to the conclusion that creating people is creating pain, deserved or not.

No it wouldn't. There's nothing 'impossible' about a hedonic calculator incidentally. But like I say, I stipulated that, for the sake of argument, the average human life creates as much pleasure as pain. My focus was on desert and how deservingness can make a radical difference to how much such pleasure or pain counts, morally speaking. — Bartricks

A hedonic calculator would have to reflect the subjective actualities of engaging the world. This is not possible. Of course, there are good guesses, but take Mill's own being a pig satisfied vis a vis the philosopher dissatisfied. He favored the philosopher, but is this right? Put the pig aside: is it really so much better to ponder arguments than to have, say, a good mud fight?

I will not take sides on this. The point is that standards of evaluating pleasure, affect, interest and the nuances of these are embedded in a private world that resists objective measurement. Objectifying people's experiences in the way you are suggesting works to reduce things to general ideas which is, granted, done all the time, but this is rather a pet peeve of mine: the reduction of a person to the generalities of a culture.

Not really to your point, but since you defend the idea of a hedonic calculator....

And it wasn't Bentham but Mill who distinguished between higher and lower pleasures. But like I say, that's not the issue. For there can be deserved higher pleasures, undeserved higher pleasures and non-deserved higher pleasures. — Bartricks

Well, I would agree if the matter were kept away from the more interesting questions of the nature of desert, responsibility, accountability, guilt, innocence. These concepts are questions begged: what does it mean at all for someone to deserve his or her fate? Such a question turns the matter over to existential theory.

You then say that desert makes no sense in this world. Well, I think that's demonstrably false. Certainly the burden of proof is on the desert denier, not me. But note too that if someone can only resist my argument by rejecting moral desert wholesale, then it must be a very strong argument. It's a bit like rejecting my argument by saying "but we can't know anything!" — Bartricks

Not that we can't know anything, but that the foundation of the moral dimension of our existence is absent, while our affairs virtually scream for justification, redemption. Put down Bentham's calculator and behold the world of horrors and delights. These are present, undeniably, but the value, the actuality of being, say, burned alive at the stake, presents a profound deficit in our ability to "account" for it's possibility as an actual event. This takes things far beyond the trivialities of counting hedons.

Yes, but that's beside the point. Most people aren't going to live such lives, nor are they morally required to, and if they did then - for most people - such lives would contain far more undeserved suffering than pleasure. — Bartricks

Why would such lives contain far more undeserved suffering than pleasure? Can you explain?

You are seeking to make an argument in favor of antinatalism. If you want to argue that not having children is a good thing, then you need to explain why is it wrong for people to be unhappy without children (ie. why it would be wrong for them to refuse to live a celibate monastic-style life).

I was just quoting the first noble truth. I know it’s not meant to be taken literally. — khaled

No, the First Noble Truth says "There is suffering", not "Life is suffering".

You think the average human isn't miserable??
— baker
Yes. And they seem to agree when surveyed about it.

They are enlightened?
— baker
Not necessarily. Just not miserable. Heck, happy on average even, as it turns out.

Then do reflect how come these, on average, happy (although unenlightened people) whose company is not conducive to suffering have made the planet the mess that it is.

Then do reflect how come these, on average, happy (although unenlightened people) whose company is not conducive to suffering have made the planet the mess that it is. — baker

No contradiction there

No contradiction there — khaled

Happy people fuck up the planet, and that's okay?

Yup. The planet is indeed fucked up. And people are also happy on average. Bizarre but it is the case

A more skeptical person would suspect that something isn't right here.

Why would it not be right? We consume and kill our planet, and in the process are happy. What’s weird about that? Wreckless consumption is fun.

Note that when I say “most people are happy” I’m referring to the 1st world countries, because that’s where these surveys are taking place, and that’s where basically everyone on this site lives.

What other pains and pleasures are there other than those in a life of one who has been subjected to life? — Isaac

The pains and pleasures caused to others, obviously.

Why 'implausibly'? You've admitted the being subject to unjust suffering puts someone in a position of deserving happiness. You've said that to that be born is to experience unjust suffering. — Isaac

No, I said that's one way in which one might come to deserve pleasure, I did not say that it was inevitable that it would.

But yes, subjecting someone to a life here creates lots of undeserved suffering. Not, note, just the suffering the liver of the life endures, but the suffering imposed on others. Now, most - most - of that is going to be undeserved. Most doesn't mean 'all'.

Some of the undeserved suffering a person who has been subjected to a life here will endure may well make them deserving of subsequent pleasures. That is not being denied.

But I then gave an example to show that even if 'all' of the pleasures in a life come to be deserved in that way, it would probably still be immoral to create that life, because it is generally wrong to do bad that good may come of it. The example I gave was of an innocent person, Tim, whom we imprison. That was an unjust thing to do even if Tim subsequently murders someone in prison and thereby comes to deserve to be there.