I as referring to the general AN positions not your personal ones.

What I said outlined a couple of the main points AN puts forwards. I said no more than that. — I like sushi

There’s a lot of AN positions so it’s easy to pick and choose strawmen. What “general ones”? Even Benatar, the most well known proponent, is misconstrued terribly.

I was merely pointing out the gist not giving a thorough analysis.

I pointed to the issue of non-identity (about which there are many positions) and about asymmetry (about which there is more to say too in terms of its implications). Pointing out to those asking that looking at one without considering the other is kind of futile.

You can provide links for them if you wish. I have read, and listened, extensively to the AN position.

My position is that it is VERY useful to look at for anyone considering having children - but not because I believe it will, or should, stop them.

I have read, and listened, extensively to the AN position. — I like sushi

Again with the THE. It's not ONE position. The "gist" is not having children. The arguments are numerous and nuanced. To lump it in as "the" position would be misleading.

You can provide links for them if you wish. I have read, and listened, extensively to the AN position. — I like sushi

That's ok. I've written plenty if you want to search.

My position is that it is VERY useful to look at for anyone considering having children - but not because I believe it will, or should, stop them. — I like sushi

What you said there are very different things. Let's say Kant's CI or Aristotle's virtue ethics is correct, that wouldn't necessarily mean people "will" stop people from X, Y, Z or promote people to do X, Y, Z. The soundness on the argument doesn't rely on whether it affects a lot of people. I can try to show tens of millions of people that someone like Trump is a conman liar that doesn't have your interests in mind, and that doesn't mean it will affect them, even if there is plenty of evidence it is the case.

I pointed to the issue of non-identity (about which there are many positions) and about asymmetry (about which there is more to say too in terms of its implications). Pointing out to those asking that looking at one without considering the other is kind of futile. — I like sushi

Right there are many positions, but you lump despite this. Anyways, the "non-identity" issue works AGAINST natalism. That is to say, if we believe in not violating dignity/autonomy etc. The violation only happens when someone is born, not when someone is not born.

If we had a set of beliefs about an event, even as big as "life itself", ranging from really like, disappointed with, frustrated by, not happy with, etc. None of that becomes so much a moral issue insofar as it is someone's own personal reaction. The minute that "I like X, so SOMEONE ELSE SHOULD LIKE X", it becomes a problem, as now someone ELSE will be affected by YOUR evaluation.

But again, this is my argument, not all of AN. So don't misconstrue that even though I am continuing the debate.

Nonidentity is neither for nor against (it is not specific to AN either). It is the question of whether, or how, ethics can be applied to people who do not as yet exist.

The main positions are:

- We have no right to bring life into existence (nonidentity issue involved here in part).
- No harm is better than no pleasure.

I have found nothing much outside of these primary ethical issues worthy of much attention (existential threats, state of society etc.,.) because all of them orbit the two positions I gave the gist of above.

But again, this is my argument, not all of AN. So don't misconstrue that even though I am continuing the debate. — schopenhauer1

I responded to people asking about the AN position is in general. I did that. What your personal position is is your business to explain.

Nonidentity is neither for nor against (it is not specific to AN either). It is the question of whether, or how, ethics can be applied to people who do not as yet exist. — I like sushi

Why do you state it like I don't understand this?

The main positions are:

- We have no right to bring life into existence (nonidentity issue involved here in part).
- No harm is better than no pleasure. — I like sushi

Replace "pleasure" though with happiness or "positives".

I responded to people asking about the AN position is in general. I did that. What your personal position is is your business to explain. — I like sushi

People were responding to my last comments generally, then you swooped in there like you owned the place.. Please.

We've discussed this before. We've discussed this before. Again, swipe clean. Last time you were tag-teaming my argument with some other poster.. I forget which of the handful of anti-antinatalists that like to join..but they'll probably pop in too. Your friend perhaps.

Also, I'd like to add to your 'No harm is better than no pleasure" summation that it's not as simple as that, as nothing is. It is also the fact that one is pursuing a positive ethic by breaking a negative ethic, or justifying breaking the negative ethic (don't harm), by pursuing a positive ethic (promote X, Y, Z outcome.. happiness or whatnot). One would have to get past this notion that one should force a new person into an intended goal by breaking the negative ethic of no-harm, no-autonomy, etc.

Yeah the non-identity thing is then thrown out like a poor defense because "Who is harmed?" "Who is violated?" And of course this is supposed to justify doing any number of things that could potentially harm a future person.. It's obvious that any number of other scenarios that might happen to a "potential child" would be considered wrong, even if a person isn't actually born yet. It's the weakest of the anti-AN defenses, and not even clever.

Added some more

People were responding to my last comments generally, then you swooped in there like you owned the place.. Please. — schopenhauer1

Because you were wrong. I will not interact with you any more. My post was directed at the others who failed to understand the AN position. I tried to guide them towards a better understanding that is all.

Bye

Because you were wrong. I will not interact with you any more. My post was directed at the others who failed to understand the AN position. I tried to guide them towards a better understanding that is all.

Bye — I like sushi

Wrong about what? Wrong about THE AN position..Right.

misguided points for misguided notions. — schopenhauer1

I truly think there are two widely and generally-held ideological "camps" as far as AN.

Perhaps it's an over-simplification or some misaligned understanding (which surely you could correct emphatically and with a smile), those two camps being:

Circumstantial:
Things (be it poverty, the state of the world, wars, overpopulation, prejudices, natural greed* [though that one gets interesting because it hints at an absolute, "unfixable" dynamic that will forever be present which belongs to the second camp]) as they are (and are foreseeable to be in either perpetuity or any reasonable foreseeable future) formulate a moral non-favorability towards procreation,

Intrinsic:
Due to Original Position, even if Earth was transformed into a Utopia, a hypothetical almost "alien world" where suffering is so rare and unheard of it now requires true and intense effort to create (versus the current dynamic where suffering seems to be the default and likely outcome without large [and for some non-accomplishable] levels of planning, effort, and perhaps luck), procreation is still responsible because a person did not choose to be born, and inevitably will face some restriction as a result, such restriction amounting to enslavement (ie. follow the moral laws, be a good neighbor, feed oneself, manage stress in a socially-acceptable way lest one be punished by physical incarceration, etc, etc. that one never "asked" or was even involved in being placed in). Something like that?

--

I take it to mean, in short, one is simply not true AN. True AN is, in a sentence, based on the truth one can never truly guarantee a net positive in performing an action (whether it's procreation, or even something more general such as ordering a dish at an unfamiliar restaurant or a new special at a familiar one, it should not be taken. That is to say, the reasons for avoidance are self-evident. Is this correct? Simply because we, rightfully so, consider creating new life more substantial and important than ordering food, doesn't change the underlying principle or truths of the comparative example, I think can be argued.

Due to Original Position, even if Earth was transformed into a Utopia, a hypothetical almost "alien world" where suffering is so rare and unheard of it now requires true and intense effort to create (versus the current dynamic where suffering seems to be the default and likely outcome without large [and for some non-accomplishable] levels of planning, effort, and perhaps luck), procreation is still responsible because a person did not choose to be born, and inevitably will face some restriction as a result, such restriction amounting to enslavement (ie. follow the moral laws, be a good neighbor, feed oneself, manage stress in a socially-acceptable way lest one be punished by physical incarceration, etc, etc. that one never "asked" or was even involved in being placed in). Something like that? — Outlander

Yes. So, as you just pointed out, life has a limited set of choices. We tend to look at life as the degrees of freedom of choice, rather than the degrees of limitations. That is to say, you can't choose what is not available- a world or circumstance that cannot or does not exist, for example. THESE are the set you can choose from. But what if I don't want these set of choices? You are shit out of luck. Some people might have some mitigation, or even say to just go kill yourself you ungrateful bastard. But you see, there's something callously and unjustly wrong with this kind of response to the forced set of choices, once born. Once a person is born, there is only what life offers, with a brain that can understand there are undesirable things about life. And if you need to mitigate and change your mindset, or whatever else you're going to throw as a palliative, you have already conceded the original violation of forcing a limited set of choices.

Edit: And thus, why I say one should not violate the negative ethics of non-harm, forcing someone into YOUR project, for the positive ethic of X, Y, Z (usually along the lines of promoting happiness, a value of some sort, virtue, and then we can go down the litany of purely selfish personal projects).

If I value X, Y, Z about a project and think it is good, this does not mean I should affect other people to be forced to also be part of the project.

Yes. So, as you just pointed out, life has a limited set of choices. We tend to look at life as the degrees of freedom of choice, rather than the degrees of limitations. — schopenhauer1

So, at the end of the day, it requires respect of life to allow one to be in a position to create, let's say a bomb, to end all intelligent life, on Earth? Since life will exist otherwise. And the AN argument is, this is pure suffering.

Where do we go from here? What about possibility of life on other planets? Should life be respected long enough to ensure our entire universe is destroyed or rather "made incapable" of supporting life in perpetuity? We're not at that state, currently. So surely, the irony or at least unacknowledged (at least at present) reality which requires such a truth to become actualized is ignored?

That is to say, life (the true AN equates with suffering?) will still exist until more life is created that allows greater potential to prevent itself? Do you understand this is what you're saying?

So, at the end of the day, it requires respect of life to allow one to be in a position to create, let's say a bomb, to end all intelligent life, on Earth? Since life will exist otherwise. And the AN argument is, this is pure suffering. — Outlander

Huh? Why make strawmen? You don't "fix" a violation (non-harm, no autonomy) with another violation (non-autonomy at the least, and non-harm in certain forms of hedonism/utilitarianism).

Where do we go from here? What about possibility of life on other planets? Should life be respected long enough to ensure our entire universe is destroyed or rather "made incapable" of supporting life in perpetuity? We're not at that state, currently. So surely, the irony or at least unacknowledged (at least at present) reality which requires such a truth to become actualized is ignored?

That is to say, life (the true AN equates with suffering?) will still exist until more life is created that allows greater potential to prevent itself? Do you understand this is what you're saying? — Outlander

I don't understand what it is YOU'RE rambling on about. Killing people to "save" them is not what AN is saying. It is a ridiculous straw man.

Ironically, the only way death occurs is being born in the first place, so try again.

You are overextending quite a lot there! Haha!

No one is an AN to that degree at all. That is not AN. I lost my 3000+ word essay on this subject unfortunately (not that I think you would have enjoyed reading it anyway!) :D

Made a brief summary here:

Antinatalism is based on a two main areas of contention. That is the philosophical problem of nonidentity and application metaphysical valuations.

NONIDENTITY

Firstly, the nonidentity problem is outlined quite simply in ethical terms as how and if we can claim to pass moral judgements that have consequences on persons who do not, as yet, exist. An instance of this would be akin to how we attend our environment with the thought to hand as to how it can effect future generations.

For instance, a culture that prioritises trees, viewing them as sacred perhaps, may also use them to build housing. This would disrupt future generations if they neglected the native forests by effectively destroying them all to build more houses or for use in other sacred ceremonies.

Here we can see a clear neglect of persons who do not yet exist (nonidentity). In contemporary terms this is often equated to how humans have damaged the natural world, thus leaving future generations with future problems to solve they had no direct hand in causing.

Here one antinatalist (AN) argument ensues. This is that we have no right to bring life into the world that will suffer due to none of its own doing. The new life is not responsible for its own coming into being, yet it does come into being. How can this be considered in light of those making the moral decision to have children? Is this morally irresponsible or not? If so to some degree each way, then to what degree and how can we rightly measure this?

Regardless of any personal analysis of this situation we can understand that given certain beliefs about this scenario we can come to see the reasoning behind someone siding with the AN argument.

Some will see justification in talking about the rights of nonidentity persons while others may find this too difficult, or impossible, to hold. The degree to which this can or cannot be justified is tied up in other initial ethics/moral stances (be this deontological, utilitarian, nihilistic, etc.,.).

THE METAPHYSIC OF ASYMMETRY

This perspective is an interesting one regarding moral axiology. Let us assume that measuring such values of human experience can be made in a meaningful way to begin with. This argument puts forward the proposition the probable chance of ‘harm’ and ‘benefit’ (let us use these terms as positive and negative aspects of human experience).

A) If someone (nonidentity) does not come into existence then there is No Harm and No Benefit.

B) If someone does come into existence then Harm is guaranteed (on some level) and so is Benefit (to some degree).

The argument goes as follows …

For A, No Harm is Good and No Benefit is Not Bad.

For B, Harm is Bad and Benefit is Good.

Looking at instance A), not existing is Better than existing because there is an asymmetry between Harm and Benefit, where lack of harm is strove for and peaks in Good in its negation, lack of Benefit is Not Bad and so neutral. No Harm either way.

Looking at instance B), existing is guaranteed to cause Harms and Benefits are not guaranteed to outweigh Harms, even though in some cases they may.

Conclusion: Not existing guarantees No Harm caused. Existing guarantees Harm caused AND cannot guarantee Benefits outweighing guaranteed Harms.

If then the goal is to reduce Harm then it is effectively a gamble when we create new life. The nonidentity person may have a Good OR Bad life, whereas if such a person never came to be no more Harm will be caused to such a person for obvious reasons.

Now to return to the problem of nonidentity …

MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

The question is now how anyone has the moral right to procreate given a belief in reducing Harm following from the principle outlined in the argument of asymmetry?

No one asked to be born (obviously!), but someone did choose to bring life into the world. It is a solid argument for AN to say no to procreation here if they believe in the reduction of Harm as a priority. It is not faulty thinking following that particular line of reasoning with those particular views.

There are numerous other AN arguments that are basically little more than weighing the scales regarding future benefits and detriments to living being (and nonidentity potentials too) that add different themes to the argument. The common ones are Overpopulation, Dystopian World, Inequality, etc.,. These are more or less decoration to the core elements of the AN position I have laid out.

There is certainly weight to argument. Like every other ethical position though it does not present a convincing absolute moral law, but creates dilemmas for those serious about having children who wish to explore the ethical implications of doing so, for their child, other children, their community and surroundings, and all other manner of issues too.

NOTE: There was a another major point I had in the essay regarding ethics in general and Self-interest Vs Common good. Way more involved for that though so omitted it. Hopefully the above helps you see the weight, and use, of the argument presented by the AN position (whether you follow it or not).