Holistic empathy does not diminish the value of the bestowal of positives ;)

Additionally, innocent people also deserve happiness. — DA671

Maybe. I know some people feel that way, but I don't think the feeling is as universal as feeling that innocents do not deserve harm. Some people have a more 'work for your reward' kind of attitude - you only deserve the happiness you worked for. Very Calvinist, not my cup of tea, but a strong belief in some cultures.

Since most people do seem to prefer existence despite the harms, it doesn't seem right to solely focus on preventing harms. — DA671

Yes, that's exactly it. Most people, given the choice, would take existence+harms over non-existence, so existence seems a far more important gift than the mere absence of harm.

Well, we should probably also take things such as the fear of death and optimistic biases into account. However, I don't think that being optimistic is inherently problematic as long as it doesn't ruin one's final analysis. Regarding the fear of cessation (I am not including the aversion to pain here), I think that it only demonstrates that people value life immensely and don't desire its end.

As for the intuition that preventing harms is more important, I think that this exists because most people do not need constant external intervention for happiness. As long as we don't cause significant harms to someone, people can live adequately valuable life. But since non-existent beings aren't in a state of affairs they cherish, I don't think that one should focus on just preventing harms instead of also trying to create positives.

I had a discussion on this topic a while ago here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/640059

I thought you might find it interesting.

Have a wonderful day!

You are not one for subtle distinctions, so this is going to be a waste of time. But if you deserve no harm and come to harm, that's bad.
If you deserve to come to harm and do not come to harm, that's bad.
And - other things being equal - we have reason not to perform acts that will create bads.

None of that is controversial and it entails that we have reason not to perform procreative acts, ceteris paribus, as procreative acts create a person who deserves no harm but will inevitably come to some.

Your reply does not challenge those claims. If you deserve to come to harmand recieve a benefit that is bad.
If you do not deserve to come to harmand recieve a benefit that is good.
If you deserve a benefit and recieve it, that is even better.

If you think it is as solid as air, tell me which premise is false.

if you deserve no harm and come to harm, that's bad. — Bartricks

Yep.

it entails that we have reason not to perform procreative acts, ceteris paribus, as procreative acts create a person who deserves no harm but will inevitably come to some. — Bartricks

Nope. Just because something is bad, does not imply anyone has a duty to avoid creating situations in which it can happen. There's no precedent for that assertion.

You went from deserts (which do often carry accompanying obligations) to merely 'bad' (which don't).

It is merely 'bad' if a person who doesn't deserve harm comes to harm. That doesn't create an obligation on anyone to avoid creating that possibility.

If innocents actually deserved a harm-free life, then you might have a better argument that an obligation accompanies that desert, but you'll get very little agreement with that proposition.

Innocent beings might not deserve harm, but they also deserve benefits. Your premise isn't necessarily false, but I believe that the positives also matter (if one believes that an act that doesn't improve/degrade one's wellbeing can be good/bad).

Did you read the OP?
I know they deserve benefits.
They deserve no harm and they deserve a happy life.
And they won't get that. See? That's called an injustice.
The benefits are deserved. But they deserve much more.
If you saddle someone with a million dollar debt and then pay 100 grand towards it, then 100 grand was deserved. But they deserve 900 grand more!! And you deserve condemnation

I did. Knowing and understanding are different things. The absence of perfection doesn't justify never bestowing a good. If not causing harms is good, then not creating positives is bad. And if creating negatives is bad but not doing so is merely neutral, then creating positives is better than a neutral state of affairs. Not everyone needs 900 grand.

Read. The. OP.
The fact they deserve benefits makes my case even stronger. Jeez louise.

The fact that many people experience benefits (happiness) that they can and do value (I am not saying that this is always the case) despite the harms means that it doesn't make sense to never give birth to innocent sentient beings who would experience the benefits. Good is better than absolutely nothing, even if it's not perfect. The alternative to absolute perfection is some/a significant amount of it, not its absence altogether (unless the harms are greater, which isn't always the case).

Er, what? Why are you saying stuff that doesn't contradict anything I've said.
Read what I said again and don't attribute to me thick inferences that I have not made.

Read the op!!!!!!

I did. :smile:

One could argue that innocent people deserve to experience some positives, so, unless one's life is completely terrible, it would be better to create them. But since we don't require absolute negativity calling many acts of procreation wrong, I believe that there isn't a good reason to accept that perfection is a necessary for justifying creating a life that would possess a sufficient amount of positives.

I'm directly quoting you. You said...

if you deserve no harm and come to harm, that's bad. — Bartricks

You then said...

None of that is controversial and it entails that we have reason not to perform procreative acts, ceteris paribus, as procreative acts create a person who deserves no harm but will inevitably come to some. — Bartricks

It doesn't entail such a thing because you've merely show that the situation is 'bad' (direct quote). We are not commonly obliged to avoid creating situations where something bad might happen. We do so unproblematically all the time. If I set up a rugby club it is almost inevitable that someone will get hurt. Getting hurt if you don't deserve to is bad. No one would say I had a duty to avoid setting up the rugby club in account of it meaning a bad thing was bound to happen.

We commonly accept that bad things sometimes come along as a consequence of situations we create for other reasons. It's not commonly seen as creating an obligation to avoid creating those situations.

I had a discussion on this topic with that comment's author a while ago here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/640059

You can't have done as you have just ignored the argument.

If an innocent person deserves no harm and deserves benefits, then they deserve a harm free beneficial life.

They're not going to get that!!!

It's like chucking someone off a bridge so they can enjoy the benefits of the pleasing view on the way down.

They deserve a harm free happy life. That is not what they are going to get. So it's shitty to do that - to create a person who will deserve far, far more than they can be given.

Furthermore, if you do not create the person you are not depriving someone of benefits that they deserve, are you?

If you create someone, then you create someone who deserves none of the harms you have just condemned them to suffer and far, far more benefits than this world can ever provide them. That's really shitty. Self indulgent shittyness. But if you don't procreate you have not deprived someone of something they deserve. Why? Because they don't exist. Do the math!

Do you know what other things being equal means?

Non-existent beings aren't on a majestic bridge they want to stay on ;)

I didn't ignore the argument. There's a difference between something that should exist (ideally) vs. something still having more than sufficient value.

If one doesn't create someone, they aren't fulfilling their desires to not exist either. If the absence of the benefits is only bad if someone feels deprived, then the absence of the harms is only good if one feels relieved/satisfied due to their absence.

It's not for one person to disregard the (probably mathematically undeniable) fact that most people prefer existence in spite of facing many problems. If not creating harms is good for potential innocent beings, then it's also bad to not bestow positives. It's myopic to only think about one side of the coin.

What are you talking about? What false thing did I say in my last post. Highlight it and then we can talk about it

I already mentioned it. One doesn't require absolute perfection for something to still be good. The mere presence of harms doesn't give us a reason to suggest that it's better to never try to create positives.

Highlight something I said. Not you. Me.

I never highlighted what I said.

The problem can be found in the OP:
"They don't just deserve an overall happy life. They deserve an entirely harm-free happy life."

They certainly deserve happiness and if one is capable of providing them, it would not be ethical to not do so. My point is that, even if absolute bliss doesn't exist, it doesn't lead one to the conclusion that the positives that do exist do not give us a reason to create someone. It's not all or nothing. If one is going to set up an unreasonable criteria, then one may as well say that unless life is only negative, it's better to create someone.

Do you know what other things being equal means? — Bartricks

Yes. Here it means "a bit of the argument I've left out because it undermines my conclusion".

If your conclusion relies on all other things being equal, then it is incomplete as an argument unless you show that all other things are, in fact, equal.

With procreation it is obvious they are not, since the possibility of some bad coming about is clearly not the only consideration and so clearly all other factors are not 'equal'.

Which claim of mine do you disagree with?

That an absolutely harmless state is necessary for creation to be ethical, but it would not make sense to say that nothing but negatives are required for saying that creation was bad.

Which claim of MINE do you disagree with? Not yours. Mine. Quote me.

I already did.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/718667

I cannot use the actual quote feature for some inexplicable reason, but the quotation marks should suffice, I think. Apologies for the inconvenience.

no you didn't. You said something I couldn't understand. Quote a claim of mine - resist the urge to Express it it your own words (it won't mean the same thing, I assure you).
Quote a claim of mine. And then say why you think it is false without changing it to something else.

It was from the OP. I have no interest in distortion, though I admit it's possible (I don't believe it has happened here).