It could still be comparatively worse. And even if it is an imposition in some cases, it can also be a genuine blessing. I shall not forsake consistency when I don't have a reason to do so. — DA671

Just because a "blessing" can be created, doesn't mean doing the harm was justified, if it was unnecessary to start.

If preventing the harm was necessary even though we don't have evidence for souls in nonexistence desiring it, the creation of the blessing is certainly necessary. The harms matter, but so do the positives. Creating the greater good can be justified.

Phew, finally one can realise that not working in the garden isn't better/preferable for a person either, since one can logically see that they are neither being deprived nor being relieved/fulfilled from an absence of harm. And yes, nobody is being "forced" into that garden of yours if one would think about this issue thoroughly, but that's a separate matter. — DA671

Don't be stupid. No one "needs" to realize it. Remember, this is about the parents, not "non existent people". The parent is not creating collateral damage for someone else unnecessarily. Didn't we agree on this like many posts ago? Or are we slipping into weasily strawmen again because this line of reasoning (of yorus) is unreasonable to sustain?

Since it's not the case that an alternative greater good could exist from an absence of that harm, it can be ethical to bestow that good as long as it leads to a mostly valuable life for a person. The same would apply to a life that could have some real goods but ultimately turn out to be bad. — DA671

I am tempted to make the "how would you know either way, and air on the side of caution if you don't" argument, but that would go down another path (though valid too). Staying with the deontological argument that is valid.. It is about the decision to not create for someone else harms. The joy not "had" by a person, while may be sad face to the parent who projects about missed joy, is still being more ethical here despite their sad face projection, because they didn't create harm.

@unenlightened unfortunately makes the wrong assumption that you need to exist so that you have "something" for which you are not harming. He isn't understanding that it's simply the state of affairs of not creating collateral damage that needs to take place for it to be a moral decision. "The parent did NOT create collateral damage unnecessarily". That's all that needs to be met to make the moral decision.

If preventing the harm was necessary even though we don't have evidence for souls in nonexistence desiring it, the creation of the blessing is certainly necessary. The harms matter, but so do the positives. Creating the greater good can be justified. — DA671

See my above comment because this is just more strawman.

It's not a straw man, but I am sure you'll keep ignoring my points in order to avoid the truth.

Nobody being deprived of happiness was about people who were yet to exist. The realisation would obviously occur for existing person. Equivocation is futile. Creating harms is unnecessary, but creating benefits is not.

If it can be good to not create harms for "someone" even though nobody is relieved from their absence (a parallel to the nobody is deprived of joy claim), it's also problematic to not create any joy on the basis of one's pessimistic desires. Eliminating the opportunity of all joy and possibly harming countless existing people can never be ethical.

You're the one who keeps missing the point that something cannot be a damage (in the sense of it being worse for a person) if their interests/desires aren't violated by an action. Creating a state of affairs would only be bad if it made things tangibly worse for a person by decreasing their well-being. It's true that nonexistent beings aren't being brought from a preferable state of affairs to a undesirable one (and vice versa). Therefore, creating a person won't be a benefit/harm for the person.

However, I have not assumed that view here, so it isn't pertinent to my position.

If it can be good to not create harms for "someone" even though nobody is relieved from their absence (a parallel to the nobody is deprived of joy claim), it's also problematic to not create any joy on the basis of one's pessimistic desires. — DA671

Ah, so we are back to you not agreeing to the facts on the ground.. Okay here we go back to the fuckn drawing board.

It's not "problematic" because in one case collateral damage IS taking place. That is a fact.
In the other case, collateral damage IS NOT taking place.

The most important part of this whole thing is collateral damage IS taking place. THAT is the immoral part. We want to NOT do THAT because THAT is immoral.

As always, ignore the facts on the ground whenever truth confronts one. Tragic yet unsurprising.

There is no benefit in one case and there is benefit in another. If the lack of damage is good even though it does not provide relief/satisfaction to an actual person, the absence of happiness can also be bad even if it's absence doesn't cause conscious "collateral damage". Talking past this or mysteriously talking about parents instead of beings (and not doing so when it comes to the deprivation of happiness) whenever it comes to this won't affect the truth.

Another important part of this whole "thing" is that benefits are taking place. That is the moral part.

There is no benefit in one case and there is benefit in another. If the lack of damage is good even though it does not provide relief/satisfaction to an actual person, the absence of happiness can also be bad even if it's absence doesn't cause conscious "collateral damage". — DA671

No no.. I'm going to call you weasel if you keep weasling like this.. Look at what I said again instead of what you would like to see:

The most important part of this is to understand by procreation, collateral damage IS taking place. That is the immoral part. The parent should NOT do that. That is immoral.

Call me whatever you want to, my friend :) I don't have any prejudices against weasels :p

It's certainly important. However, it's also important that genuine benefits are taking place. That is the moral part. The parents should do that. That is moral.

It's certainly important. However, it's also important that genuine benefits are taking place. That is the moral part. The parents should do that. That is moral. — DA671

Creating suffering for the sake of happiness is, and doing so unnecessarily.. That is moral? So at least you are not weasling here.. You get my point, right. It is the state of affairs where collateral damage is taking place that is where the moral issue comes into play right? The fact that no one exists if one doesn't actual decide to procreate matters not.. You can call that decision "good" or "not good or bad".. but the point is the collateral damage is the "bad" here.. That is the morally relevant state of affairs we are deciding to select or not select for someone else.

Why can't circumstances change depending on the situation? This is a ridiculous characterization of how my argument is stated. You have a chance to not create harm onto a future person. I am saying this non-action is the most ethical course. Don't create the harm. — schopenhauer1

I just don't think you understand your own argument. Children to be don't exist, true. Parents can bring these into being; it is a choice. True also. It is an imposition on the possible child of suffering. True. But this future possibility regarding the well being of others (however they may be conceived) is something that applies to all actions we take. Parenting is a future-looking affair, just as buying shoes or making charitable contributions; I mean, in all we do our affairs are like this. Parenting is thus one occasion of forwardlookingness and so the matter turns toward not simply parenting, but to the very structure of experience itself, which is inherently forward-looking.

In other words, conceive of all that you could possibly do. Each that you conceive will be something of consequence and there are no exceptions to this, whether is is deciding about bringing children in t he world or pay8ng your taxes, there will be a "cost" in negative utility. If your argument is right, then we have no right at all to bring into the world any suffering., for suffering is inherently bad and all choices would be inherently bad due to this negative utility.

Your take on parenting is arbitrary, for the logic of it penetrates all that we do.

Why do you, the parent, have to be the harbinger for other people's experiences? You are almost making the point I am trying to make to DA671 — schopenhauer1

That's just how it works, old man; the egg is necessary to the chicken, and the chicken is necessary to the egg. Hence the unanswerable question. It is not necessary to me to have children but it is necessary to my children that I had them; and their suffering is necessary to their lives as your suffering is necessary to yours.

You see, when you talk about what an individual has to do - what they find necessary, then you begin to talk sense; you don't have to have children; if you do have children they will suffer. These are bald facts; but there is no life without suffering, so there is no unnecessary suffering {apart from all the unnecessary suffering that we ought to avoid, by not putting ground glass in the bread and not shooting folks in the knee-cap etc.}

Being the harbinger of joy can be inestimably valuable — DA671

I reject the calculus of joy - suffering = value of life. A life of suffering is valuable. Fall in love, and be heartbroken; go climbing and break a leg and die of exposure; have children and agonise over their every grazed knee. Live much and suffer and die, and if there is joy sometimes, that is a bonus.

But this future possibility regarding the well being of others (however they may be conceived) is something that applies to all actions we take. — Constance

I'm going to stop you right here, because it actually doesn't. There are some things due to the special nature of procreation vs. already existing people that make the decision different.

I'm going to stop you right here, because it actually doesn't. There are some things due to the special nature of procreation vs. already existing people that make the decision different. — schopenhauer1

I'm listening

Preventing suffering at the cost of all joy can never be moral in the ultimate sense. Whether or not it can be a damage/benefit if it doesn't fulfill/frustrate any interests is a separate matter.

The damage is bad, but the benefits are good. My position is that it can be ethical to create the person due to the presence of goods (they are also morally relevant), and you solely emphasise the prevention of harms. Ultimately, we have different intuitions as far as this topic is concerned.

Have a brilliant day!

That's just how it works, old man; the egg is necessary to the chicken, and the chicken is necessary to the egg. Hence the unanswerable question. It is not necessary to me to have children but it is necessary to my children that I had them; and their suffering is necessary to their lives as your suffering is necessary to yours. — unenlightened

Why is the suffering "necessary" to take place in the first place? As the parent, you decided that their suffering is "necessary". This isn't a weird paternalism of amusement?

These are bald facts; but there is no life without suffering, so there is no unnecessary suffering {apart from all the unnecessary suffering that we ought to avoid, by not putting ground glass in the bread and not shooting folks in the knee-cap etc.} — unenlightened

Ah, so you are misunderstanding my point about unnecessary suffering. Unnecessary in the fact that, unlike most of life where you do indeed have to worry about not doing X to prevent Y, and weighing various outcomes of harm.. This is a case where you (the parent) can not create ANY harm for another person..

Great joy can certainly be found amidst suffering. Many people have a superficial idea of pleasure that is limited to a few pleasant experiences. I certainly think that life can have immense value :)

See here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/657460

This is a case where you (the parent) can not create ANY harm for another person.. — schopenhauer1

Who?

Preventing suffering at the cost of all joy can never be moral in the ultimate sense. — DA671

What does "ultimate sense" here mean.. You sound like a god damn messiah trying to spread the word.. You aren't, there isn't.

The damage is bad, but the benefits are good. My position is that it can be ethical to create the person due to the presence of goods, and you emphasise the harms. Ultimately, we have different intuitions as far as this topic is concerned. — DA671

I am saying at the end of the day, unhad goods mean nothing for no one. Rather, harms had is bad for someone and not do that to someone. Good day.

Who? — unenlightened

You, the parent, aren't creating (unnecessarily) someone else who is harmed.

Weasel to messiah—quite a metamorphosis! The point is that even if it's somewhat good (due to lack of harms), it cannot be entirely good (since all benefits would also be absent). And yeah, I am pretty much nobody. I think I know somewhat about some areas, but I do have to learn a lot. In the meanwhile, I'll try to stay away from prophets of doom ;)

I am also ending this here. Unhad goods do lead to harm for existing people (such as loss of health leading to pain). As for those who don't exist, if unhad goods don't matter due to the fact that nobody is experiencing a deprivation in the void, the absence of harms is not preferable either, since there aren't any souls in nihility who are fulfilled/relieved from an absence of suffering. Benefits had is good for a person and we should strive to help and support each other as much as possible. As ever, have an excellent day/night!

You wrote, "Ah, so you are misunderstanding my point about unnecessary suffering. Unnecessary in the fact that, unlike most of life where you do indeed have to worry about not doing X to prevent Y, and weighing various outcomes of harm.. This is a case where you (the parent) can not create ANY harm for another person.".

You assume that the unborn child does not exist, therefore, there can be no harm for the other person because the other person does not exist yet. One cannot have moral regard for nothing. Is This it?

You, the parent, aren't creating (unnecessarily) someone else who is harmed. — schopenhauer1

Yes. I have heard your argument. I don't have to procreate, and if I don't procreate I nobody will come into being to be harmed. If I do procreate, necessarily a being will come into being who will suffer.

I think we agree as to the facts. It's the morality that we differ on. you equate harm with evil, and I utterly reject it.

Weasel to messiah—quite a metamorphosis. The point is that even if it's somewhat good (due to lack of harms), it cannot be entirely good (since all benefits would also be absent). — DA671

This is like "how many angels fit at the head of a pin". I don't care about the "benefits of unhad alleviation" just that the parent isn't choosing to cause harm where they could have. Stick with the states of affairs and not the strawmen invisible empty set.

Unhad goods do lead to harm for existing people (such as loss of health leading to pain). — DA671

Unhad goods had by no one, I said.. Not just unhad goods in and of themselves.. I am careful not to fall into the non-identity traps you (and everyone else here apparently) likes to set.

As for those who don't exist, if unhad goods don't matter due to the fact that nobody is experiencing a deprivation in the void, the absence of harms is not preferable either, since there aren't any souls in nihility who are fulfilled/relieved from an absence of suffering. — DA671

Good thing I am not talking about the alleviation of bad then, right? Same reason why I wouldn't care about unhad goods.. It's about the parent not creating harm for others.. So glad we are not repeating that constant reworking of my statements.

Benefits had is good for a person and we should strive to help and support each other as much as possible. As ever, have an excellent day/night! — DA671

And this the only thing you said here which is a legitimate normative statement.. That you think parents have an obligation to create benefits, despite the collateral damage that is created. I of course disagree that creating benefits, if it means creating collateral damage, is never good to do unnecessarily.

I think we agree as to the facts. It's the morality that we differ on. you equate harm with evil, and I utterly reject it. — unenlightened

Reject harm as evil, or reject that we are at all harmed?
Also, I am glad we agree on the facts.. @DA671 keeps going in circles to make it so that we can't agree on them.

The former.

Pointless repetition.

I also don't care about nonexistent beings experiencing deprivation. Sticking with consistency and caring about the benefits that the parents can create would be quite useful. Again, pointing out the flaws and forming a consistent view isn't the same as straw manning.

It was a clarification regarding the value of good, not a reference to nonexistent beings, so imaginary traps can be safely discarded. If unhad goods isn't bad, then neither is the absence of harms good.

Yes, finally one can stop talking about nonexistent beings not being deprived of happiness (as if that proves a point) and conveniently changing the topic when it comes to the value of the absence of suffering. This is also about the parents creating benefits for others. Hopefully, not all statements will be disregarded.

Yes, I disagree with you on this. If preventing the harms is necessary, then so is creating the joys.

It was a clarification regarding the value of good, not a reference to nonexistent beings, so imaginary traps can be safely discarded. If unhad goods isn't bad, then neither is the absence of harms good. — DA671

Unhad goods matters not if no one exists to be deprived.
Alleviation of bad matters not either.. because there was no one to be alleviated.

All that matters is the parent doesn't choose "create collateral damage" onto someone else here. So all your points are moot cause I am not even trying to argue those.

Do you think there is such thing as a mild form of sadism?

If I kidnap you to work my garden and you eventually find some goods and bads with it, and I watch in amusement as you experience these things.. Am I being not just a little sadistic in my paternal amusement?