No but I’m serious. Look at the question again. Also this utilitarian calculus… “Who” benefits from greater blah blah? — schopenhauer1

If the odds are in favor of a pleasurable existence, the person who decides to play the game of life wins :party: . If the opposite, the player loses :cry: !

We need to know the values of p, h, w% and l% to come to a definitive conclusion monsieur.

Please note, my math's a bit rusty and so cum grano salis please. Sorry if this was a waste of your valuable time. Not intended. Beginner here!

If the odds are in favor of a pleasurable existence, the person who decides to play the game of life wins :party: . If the opposite, the player loses :cry: !

We need to know the values of p, h, w% and l% to come to a definitive conclusion monsieur.

Please note, my math's a bit rusty and so cum grano salis please. Sorry if this was a waste of your valuable time. Not intended. Beginner here! — Agent Smith

So, "Who" loses if they are not born? Paying attention to "Who", the actual referent?

Also, "Who" is the beneficiary of the "greater number of people for greater happiness"? Besides the individuals that have happiness, why does the aggregation matter? It's a third-party equation that doesn't benefit from the pooling of happiness. Happiness is simply obtained by individuals.. No other entity becomes "greater" as a result of more happy people.. Ethics obtains at the level of person, not abstract equation of aggregation.

So do the positives ;)

Absolute numbers would be difficult to ascertain, but I believe that everyday experience is adequate to tell us that for a nom-trivial amount of people that almost certainly forms a significant majority of people, the returns are greater than the loss.

Nobody loses if they don't exist and neither do they win. I do not think that one needs total utilitarianism in order to reject the claim that bestowing happiness can have value. I do believe that instead of filling up an abstract bar, the actual well-being of the individuals matters more, which is why I am more sympathetic to average utilitarianism/a person-affecting view. The former is obviously impersonal, but it seems to be more concerned with the actual happiness/suffering experienced by individuals. Ergo, one should focus on the % of h experienced by each individual (p) rather than the % of p having any amount of h.

Apologies for the late reply. I agree that there is a difference between the moderate supporters of AN and those in the video, but I have also seen people gradually slide towards the darker side after a while. Sadly, there isn't much awareness about it.

I disagree with universal AN, but, as I have explained ad nauseam, I do believe that it can have value in making people realise the necessities to take suffering and procreation more soberly. I hope that you have a good day/night! — DA671

I do agree with your point that antinatalism opens a gateway to promortalism. This is arguably an argument against the spreading of antinatalist views, as opposed to antinatalism in and of itself. I think @schopenhauer1 is right that it is the absolute consequentialists that would have to go through the gateway, and as long as you have overriding principle/s such as sanctity of life and/or consent, you are not affected by the criticism.

Kudos for admitting this:

The clips were actually uploaded by an antinatalist who is firmly against those extremists. — DA671

@universeness play the ball and not the man.

play the ball and not the man. — Down The Rabbit Hole

:clap:

Indeed. I have argued against AN in this and other threads. I do not think that doing so solicits emphasising a certain fringe element. It might serve as a warning, but I care more about the fact that conserving the good experiences that seem to matter more for most people (many of whom go through significant harms) can be a worthwhile goal. Whatever @schopenhauer1 might be, he isn't someone who wants to destroy everything through any means necessary. Like any rational person with epistemic humility, he has set his limits, which is admirable.

universeness play the ball and not the man. — Down The Rabbit Hole

This is not sports, this is not a ball game!
You follow the antinatalists into their nonexistance if you wish, I for one will not go down that rabbit hole.

Like any rational person with epistemic humility, he has set his limits, which is admirable. — DA671

I see this more as his last hope. If he cant maintain at least that then he's a gonner!

As a natalist, I cannot resist suggesting that something is better than nothing!

As a natalist, I cannot resist suggesting that something is better than nothing! — DA671

I would suggest that is down to your ability to be generally logical and pragmatic rather than originating from your support of responsible procreation. If the universe was not something then there would be nothing and we could not comment.

Certainly. Some would say that the void would be absolutely valueless, whilst others would say that it would be impersonally bad due to what could have been. Obviously, that analysis can only be made by those lucky enough to be here! But they would argue it would stand true irrespective of whether or not there is something.

We and the likes of us will always be here to welcome the newborns and do our best to help nurture and protect them while we watch the antinatalists run on their hamster wheels towards their own oblivion having lived lives where they were more useless to their fellow humans that they could have been if they had not surrendered to ridiculous miasma such as antinatalism.
As I said before, we are short of many wonderful creatures such as Pandas, Snow Leopards etc. they would be a much better use of base RNA and DNA compared to wasting it on antinatalists.

How do you get from this (on another thread):

Morality 'is' subjective — Bartricks

That's why it is possible that morality doesn't exist. — Bartricks

To this (on this thread):

If you're going to reject my argument by embracing some form of individual or collective subjectivism about morality, you're welcome as then you'd also be committed to concluding that the Nazis did no wrong. — Bartricks

I should explain why morality is subjective.
To say that something is objective is to say something about its mode of existence. More specifically, it is to say that it exists outside a mind's mental states. So, the 'objective physical world' denotes a place that exists outside anyone's mind.
By contrast, if something is subjective, then it exists inside a mind or minds- that is, it exists as mental states; states of a subject.
Morality is subjective because morality is made of prescriptions and values. But only minds can issue prescriptions or value anything. Thus morality exists as the prescriptions and values of a mind. And thus it is subjective. — Bartricks

Sometimes, the pertinent question is whether or not a wheel can be made bigger and better by adding more components. One cannot do everything, yet there is value in the effort, I think.

Imagine arguing that the species go extinct because life involves suffering.

I agree with Nietzsche: kind of pathetic. Let them to it!

Sometimes, the pertinent question is whether or not a wheel can be made bigger and better by adding more components. — DA671

A bigger hamster wheel for the AN crew could be good for them. More space for the runners and each rotation would take longer and keep them too busy to create boring, tedious threads like this one. The only value that can be garnished from this waste of everyone's time is the fact that the antinatalists have been exposed as vacuous!

Certainly. Some would say that the void would be absolutely valueless, whilst others would say that it would be impersonally bad due to what could have been. — DA671

Btw, I forgot to mention that a void is something not nothing you cannot infer such as 'impersonally bad' if there is nothing. You cant even label 'nothing' because there would be no ability to label.

If people could find genuine value in their own wheels, it might help them understand why it can be beautiful for others. It's not guaranteed, of course, but the possibility does exist.

I agree that it seems likely that a state without an actual person doesn't seem like it has any value/disvalue.

I use void in a metaphorical way to refer to nothing. I suppose some would say that even though nobody can say something in the context of nothing, but it's just better that a world with sentient beings who can experience happiness exists rather than one without them.

it's just better that a world with sentient beings who can experience happiness exists rather than one without them. — DA671

Of course it is, The question would become what is the purpose of the universe without lifeforms that can ask questions? All the antinatalist will respond with is the typical Trumpian response to points that debunk their reasoning. They respond with 'that's not relevant to my OP.' I think they then go back to their corner insert their thumb into their favourite orifice and then just :cry: about all the human suffering that exists whilst probably making zero effort to help alleviate the suffering of anyone. They advocate the ridiculous solution of extinction!!!! :rofl:

One man's solution can be another man's problem. I support the right to find a dignified exit and ceasing thoughtless procreation but not the idea that everyone ought to contribute towards establishing the supremacy of nothingness.

So, "Who" loses if they are not born? Paying attention to "Who", the actual referent? — schopenhauer1

I see now the import of your question, but as I said earlier, the assumption I'm making in my mathematical formulation of the issue is that we exist prior to birth and can decide to either play or not to play (the game of life). In other words there's a person who does lose/win the game depending on the values of the variables involved in the calculations.

In my humble opinion, it's a better way to tackle the subject as nonexistence (pre-birth) is a complex concept and better avoided - more trouble than it's worth.

In other words you, like me and most rational people think that the antinatalist solution is not only wrong, it is utter nonsense and ridiculous and vacuous. I could go on but I know you will prefer to stop at the word wrong and you may even want to reduce it to 'misguided but well-intentioned in its wink towards responsible population control.' Too much window dressing for my tastes I would rather call antinatalism what it truly is, insipid and vile.

Why do you think there is any inconsistency between those quotes?
Morality is subjective.
It isn't individually or collectively subjective. Those are stupid views only held by those who haven't studied ethics and realized how dumb those views are and how fallacious the reasoning that leads people so confidently to embrace them (so, you know, virtually everyone).
But it is subjective because there are 3 kinds of subjectivism, not 2. The third kind - divine command theory - is true.
Now, those are metaethical claims of mine not relevant to this thread, as this thread is about a normative issue.

To each their own, sir! I just hope that the common good is kept in the minds of all.

This thread is about an argument of mine for antinatalism.
It requires that certain evaluative claims be true. It does not require one to subscribe to a particular theory about what the truth makers of evaluative claims are.
So, the claim that innocents do not deserve to come to any harm is an evaluative claim. All my argument requires is that it be true.
Which it obviously is.
It does not require that one take a stand on what kind of fact makes it true. Some think evaluative truths are made true by facts about non natural features and objects; some think they are made true by natural features and objects; and some - including me - think they are made true by divine features. Doesn't matter: what matters is that the claim is true, not what kind of fact makes it true. Why? Because if it is true, then regardless of what made it true, my antinatalist conclusion will follow.

So you now accept that the argument in the OP is sound and thus establishes that procreative acts are wrong, other things being equal.
The ceteris paribus clause is important.
Lots of acts that are morally permissible have the feature in question. That's the point you think is vitally important and that you think I've somehow overlooked. You think that because you think I'm a "moron". But only a moron would think I'm a moron. And I am obviously aware that lots of acts have the same negative feature.
But those acts that share the negative feature yet are not made overall wrong by it have moral positives that are not shared by procreative acts.
For example, just as it is bad if an act creates some undeserved harm, it is good if it prevents some too. Sometimes this will make such acts right overall.
Is that the case with procreative acts though? Nope. They just create large amounts of undeserved harm. They don't prevent larger amounts of undeserved harms.
Sometimes an act with the bad feature will prevent the injustice of someone not getting a benefit they deserve. That's a good feature, sometimes good enough to make the act right overall.
Is that the case with procreative acts? Nope. First a) the deserved benefits they create are less than the person they create deserves and so we have an injustice overall, not justice promotion; and b) if the act is not performed there does not exist a person who is being deprived of the deserved benefits the act would otherwise have created.

And on and on it goes. Procreative actions have an important morally negative feature, as you now recognize. It's not a trivial unimportant feature - they create huge injustices for another person. That's a very morally significant bad feature and only a moral idiot would think otherwise. That same crude moral idiot might think that unless it necessarily makes any act that possesses it wrong, then there's nothing to worry about. But that's as thick as thinking that because unattended flames do not always lead to housefires there's no need to blow out the candle that's on the couch.
Here's a job for you: try and come up with an action that creates a big injustice for another and that you can easily not perform that is nevertheless obviously morally permissible and that isn't plausibly made morally permissible by its possession of good features that procreative acts lack.

To each their own, sir! I just hope that the common good is kept in the minds of all — DA671

:up: I'm away to have a nice night of alcohol, fun, joy, happiness and good banter with friends. There will be a little suffering as well tomorrow morning. Worth it! I am sure my friends will be entertained as well when I tell them about the recent ravings from the antinatalists! Most of them have children so when I told them about the existence of antinatalism, they have stated that they would like to meet one of these antinatalists and see if they were brave enough to call them immoral for having the children they love, face to face.
I told them that In my opinion, they would be far too scared to do that.

"I'm away to have a nice night of alcohol, fun, joy, happiness and good banter with friends. There will be a little suffering as well tomorrow morning. Worth it!"

:ok:

Here's a rather curious paradox.

Educated, well-to-do folks are opting to remain childless or have only small families.

A fortiori the poor should be antinatalists through and through. They are decidely not - the largest families are seen among the economically backward. However, the reason (distributing the suffering) squares with antinatalism (it isn't despite :sad:, it's because of it).