What was?

The quote in the comment.

Which quote?

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

So you disagree with my conclusion that innocent persons deserve harm free beneficial lives?

Do you agree that this argument form is valid:

P.
Q.
Therefore P and Q?

Of course.

I don't disagree with it. I disagree with the idea that not getting that absolute good makes everything else worthless.


However, not being able to give everything doesn't mean it's better to give nothing. Just as the fact that one hasn't lost everything doesn't mean that it's not bad that they lost a lot.

Yes was sufficient.

Do you see how this conforms to that valid argument form:

1. Innocent persons deserve benefits
2. Innocent persons deserve no harm
3. Therefore innocent persons deserve benefits and no harms?

The distinction between deserving and adequacy will always exist.

Answer my question.

Don't just say stuff. Answer the question.

Incessantly taking part in quizzes is tiresome :p

Yeah, I think so

I think you mean "mummy!!!! The nasty reasoning man is doing things with arguments again!!! Arrrgh!!! Run away!!"
Yes?

I don't think that you're nasty. The world still has many people who don't care about reducing suffering as much as they should. I can't speak for my family, but I suppose they would respect your compassion. I think that it's reasonable to conserve the positives.

Answer my question.

I said that I think so in my previous comment. But, once again, deserving something doesn't mean that anything short of perfection is simply unacceptable, particularly when the alternative (non-existence) doesn't provide any benefits.

It quite obviously has the same form.
So, that means you need to deny 1 or 2.
Which one do you deny?

None. I deny the claim that it's wrong to create someone if they don't get 100% of what they deserve.

So you accept that 1 and 2 are true.
You realise that means you need to accept that 3 is true or qualify as thicker than a thick thing on national thick day, yes?

And now you are saying stuff. What is your case?

I never said that I reject 3. I appreciate your interest in thickness. Non-sequiturs are a thing.

My "case" is that although innocent sentient beings do deserve complete happiness, it doesn't mean that creating them is wrong if they get anything less than total bliss. This is an unreasonable criteria for justifying procreation that I see no good reason to accept. Again, someone could also say that innocent people deserve happiness, and since it's only existence that gives them benefits, it's good to create them (unless their lives are permeated with nothing but misery).

What is your case? Give me a non question begging example of an act that creates undeserved harm and where the fact it creates undeserved harm does not function as a moral negative

You don't seem to be paying attention, friend. haven't begged any questions. You are misconstruing my view. Creating undeserved harm is indeed problematic, especially for
an existing being who does not need the harm in order to live a decent life. A harm, howbeit, could be justified for the sake of achieving a greater good, such as pressurising someone to not behave in a way that would cause them and others misery in the long run.

However, if creating undeserved harm is bad, then creating deserved happiness is good. I believe that it's ethically justifiable to bestow that good, even if it's not complete.

That's not an example. Provide an example of an act that creates an undeserved harm and where that fact about the act does not function as a moral negative.

Admit you can't.

Then try and think of an example of an act that deprives a person of a benefit they deserve and where that fact about the act does not function as a moral negative.

Then admit you can't.

And then admit that the fact procreative acts are acts that have both of those features is a fact about them that functions as a moral negative.

Resist the temptation to ignore this argument and say something dumb like ' but benefits is good'. For then we will have to start all over again

I am not obligated to accept unreasonable claims. I didn't say that the action wasn't negative. However, it could be a lot more morally positive than negative if it provides a benefit, such as making someone learn good manners so that they can make others happy and also gain happiness from the respect they would get from others.

Procreation certainly has a negative element. However, if it's good to prevent the negative, it's also problematic to prevent the positives.

I am not admitting that I am not wrong (I think).

Now we need to start again, don't we?

You accept that this is true: innocent persons deserve benefits and no harms.

They not get that.

That bad.

They get some benefits and some harms.

They deserve no harms and lots of benefit.

That bad.

Act that makes bad is bad.

Procreative act bad.

Benefits good, but not enough. Not enough is bad. Bad when person who deserve lots get little. Harms all bad as none deserved. That bad. Bad and bad.

Acts that make bad are bad. We not do bad acts. They no no unless make more goods or demand too much from us.

They also get good.

Procreative act is also good because it creates a good. Since most people seem to have more experiences they value, the goodness of the act can be greater. More good and some bad is better than nothing.

This is now too tedious for words. Have I denied that the benefits are good?
Try and understand the argument. Try and understand why, despite being good, the benefits do not generate any reason to perform the act that creates them. Try.

Neither have I denied that the harms aren't undeserved or bad. However, please do try and understand that, despite being partially bad, creating someone isn't completely unethical (hint: it involves the positives).

A lot of the basis for your current argument with DA671 is deontology versus consequentialism (seemingly here of the utilitarian variety). DA671 is only using consequences and population statistics as a criterion for moral behavior. In this view, a little bit of murder justifies a greater outcome to "someone doing the moral calculation it seems?", etc. and relies heavily on the netted population's view on life at any given moment for whether an act is deemed ethically good or bad (so cannibalism is good as long as 58% of the population thinks so.. same with slavery, etc.).

I would argue that "innocent persons not deserving harm" can translate well enough to what I argue when I say "unnecessary harms".. No harm is justified whereby there was no need to ameliorate a greater harm with a lesser harm (as is the case with birth in which case inflicting inevitable harm would be wholly unnecessary to inflict for that person being affected by the outcome of procreation).

Even deontologically speaking, it doesn't make much sense to disregard the value of bestowing happiness that would have ineffable value for countless sentient beings—and who would not be happy directly due to someone else being harmed and would also seek to help others. Extreme thought experiments can be created everywhere (lying or harm being wrong even if millions die). Yet, it will never diminish the potency of the good. Furthermore, it can be good to follow some rules (generally speaking) lest society descend into chaos.

Unless there is a greater good that can come from it, not giving benefits to innumerable sentient beings cannot be ethically justified.

Benefits good, but not enough. — Bartricks

Again this is a mistake made by confusing desert with outcomes.

You've argued that innocents deserve more benefits than they get. Procreation therefore entails a negative (it creates undeserved harms and fails to provide deserved benefits).

But procreation entailing a negative by failing to provide that which is deserved, doesn't in any way preclude it from entailing positives based on the benefits it does create.

The fact that those benefits are less than is deserved doesn't remove their goodness. Nor does it mean their goodness is outweighed by the badness of the failure to provide deserved benefits.

Consider I deserve a small medal, but I don't get one because I've been whisked away on an all expenses paid holiday to the Bahamas which I didn't do anything to deserve.

The badness of not getting the medal I deserve is far outweighed by the goodness of the holiday.

So all you have is that 1) procreation fails to provide the benefits it ought (bad).

2) Procreation does, however, provide loads of benefits (good).

You've not shown the bad at (1) outweighs the good at (2). You've shown the good at (2) is less than is deserved. That's not the same as it being less than the badness of not getting that which you deserve.