Giving someone a burden they didn't need to experience is not wrong, unless there is no greater good to be gotten from it. There are plenty of examples where this is acceptable. Do you disagree with educating children? Strictly speaking, they don't need to be put through that experience, to be given that burden, but we do it for the greater good. — S
Yeah, it's suggesting that prior to birth, there are people in some state. Even though you keep denying that you're suggesting that. — Terrapin Station
This analogy would be nonsensical to you if you didn't think that prior to birth, there are people in some state. You rationally realize how absurd that idea is, maybe, but emotionally, you keep returning to it. Hence this analogy. — Terrapin Station
Nope, I am not. I am just saying to prevent adversity, not that some actual person is benefiting from it. — schopenhauer1
But you're not. The whole point of the analogy is that you're comparing it to an actual person. — Terrapin Station
The problem is that you keep writing things that suggest that despite the denials,. that's really how you think about it. — Terrapin Station
But you didn't pay attention to the whole argument. The argument is that no one needs to give someone else a burden if they didn't need to be exposed to it in the first place. That is to say, a potential child (a person that could exist if a parental actors decide to go ahead and procreate), does not need to be exposed to adversity (by being born in the first place), if there was no need for that potential person to be exposed to adversity in the first place. Just because there is no actual person who will benefit from not being born, this does not mean that it is then acceptable/right to go ahead and procreate a new person whereby it will de facto experience adversity from being born into a world with adversity. — schopenhauer1
Okay, this situation is obviously a very contrived situation. But you can probably tell where this is going in regards to being an analogy for antinatalism. What is the point of exposing another person to adversity when a new person doesn't have to be exposed to adversity in the first place? Is that a good thing to do for someone else, being they don't exist to care about any benefits that might arise from adversity? Even if benefits arise from adversity, when none exists for a particular person in the first place, is it good to create someone so they can experience adversity in order to gain the benefits from adversity? — schopenhauer1
It's obviously a choice, just like educating children is a choice, and like I said, the justification in both cases can be made on the basis of a greater good, which can be in the form of a life worth living or an improved life. — S
Again, why are we creating scenarios that aren't necessary in the first place, so that someone has to go through the gauntlet of adversity for the reason of "getting stronger". — schopenhauer1
If no one exists, no one exists to need to get stronger. — schopenhauer1
What's the point of creating someone so they have to go through adversity to get stronger? — schopenhauer1
Greater good for whom? — schopenhauer1
The species? So individuals need to be born now to go through adversity to enhance the species? That is its own silly argument. What justification would you have to expose someone to adversity/harm in order to improve the species as a whole? — schopenhauer1
What gives you the right to make someone go through adversity for your agenda for what is "good" for them, if they don't exist in the first place to need that "good" for them? — schopenhauer1
What gives you the right to say that someone should be born to experience adversity, to get stronger, to improve the species? — schopenhauer1
Your point about necessity is really weak. I could spend all day listing actions that aren't necessary but acceptable nevertheless. So that aspect is irrelevant and your emphasis of it misguided. — S
And no one to live a life worth living. :roll: — S
I never said anything about getting stronger. The point is so that they can live a good life, which would be impossible otherwise. — S
The person themselves. — S
If they don't exist, then they can't be bothered or affected by any decision I make. :lol: — S
And if they do exist, then they have a chance of living a good life. — S
Straw man. You can't live a good life if you aren't alive in the first place. And a good life is... well... good. — S
I don't understand what your argument is here. You seem to be saying that from a negative utilitarian perspective, bringing new children into the world is bad? But you've not addressed the opposing arguments within your metaphor. Are you wanting to discuss those opposing arguments from within negative utilitarianism, or are you trying to support negative utilitarianism itself by this metaphor (in which case I don't see the argument, you'll have to spell it out for me). — Isaac
You are having a problem with "wasn't needed in the first place". — schopenhauer1
Necessity part GOES with the if no one is around to need adversity part. In other words, why are we creating situations where someone should go through adversity, since there was no one there to need it in the first place. — schopenhauer1
Why create people who are exposed to harm, when they don't exist to be harmed in the first place? — schopenhauer1
If as people claim, adversity is necessary to make one stronger- a non-existent person never needed adversity as they never existed to need to be stronger in the first place. — schopenhauer1
And who exactly is feeling the negative affects of not living a life worth living? — schopenhauer1
No one who does not exist needs to live a good life, especially with the fact that you are exposing new people to adversity, when THEY DIDN'T EXIST TO NEED IT. — schopenhauer1
A good life is only necessary for those who are already alive. — schopenhauer1
To make someone be born so they can live a "life worth living" you are also exposing a new person to adversity when there wasn't anyone there that needed to go through adversity. — schopenhauer1
Thus, your agenda of making new people so they can "live a life worth living" makes no sense in light of also creating adversity for a new person. — schopenhauer1
That make no sense. Is there some sort of Platonic calculator in the sky that will be unsatisfied if someone doesn't exist to score points in the "greater good calculator machine". Rather by not being born, one is prevented from adversity, and nothing is lost for any actual individual. Nothing is harmed, especially not some "greater good calculator" that you think will not be satisfied by maximizing greater good. — schopenhauer1
What gives you the right to make someone go through adversity for your agenda for what is "good" for them, if they don't exist in the first place to need that "good" for them?
— schopenhauer1
If they don't exist, then they can't be bothered or affected by any decision I make. :lol:
— S
Correct — schopenhauer1
That is a moot point. They only need to try to live a good life if you make them so that they need to follow this agenda. Otherwise, no one needs anything. — schopenhauer1
That makes no sense. Why do people need to be born for the chance of leading a good life in light of the fact that you are also creating someone who will experience adversity where there didn't need to be someone who will experience adversity. — schopenhauer1
Why is it some divine will or law that people need to be born in order to experience a good life anyways? — schopenhauer1
This is on top of the obvious argument that not everyone will achieve this (that is its own good argument). — schopenhauer1
Many agree that life has redeeming qualities, however. — Tzeentch
X is only needed when S (some subject) desires x, or desires something else, y, that can not obtain without x.
So whether creating adversity is needed solely hinges on actual persons' wants. — Terrapin Station
What a funny thing to question! Are you really asking why you need to be born to live a good life? How else can that be achieved? — S
Why put people through the gauntlet of life if there didn't need to be a person at all in the first place? — schopenhauer1
Why is it some divine will or law that people need to be born in order to experience a good life anyways?
— schopenhauer1
What a funny thing to question! Are you really asking why you need to be born to live a good life? How else can that be achieved?
— S
No one needs to be born. A good life doesn't need to be had by anyone. No one loses out by not living out a good life. — schopenhauer1
Certainly it is good though that no actual person was exposed to adversity that needed to be overcome. — schopenhauer1
You put a value on "the good life" needing to be carried out by someone in the first place. — schopenhauer1
Why does this need to be carried out by an actual individual? — schopenhauer1
What is wrong with no actual person obtaining "the good life"? — schopenhauer1
What, besides the parent who is projecting a future person, actually loses out form this? — schopenhauer1
However, preventing adversity where it didn't need to be experienced by any particular person is a good thing. — schopenhauer1
It would be wrong to create someone in order for them to experience the burdens of adversity, because perhaps, there is some goal of a good life, that that person can obtain. — schopenhauer1
Who are you to expose people to harm/adversity in order for your agenda to be carried out (which it may not)- that someone needs to live in order for a "good life" to be obtained by that person? — schopenhauer1
Nothing needs anything. Nothing needs to live a good life, if it doesn't live in the first place. However, not exposing someone to adversity is a good thing — schopenhauer1
No actual person needs adversity prior to his/her birth. — schopenhauer1
Not wrong as such. But actual people living good lives is a net benefit. So a possible world full of people living good lives is better than a possible world devoid of people living good lives. — S
There would be a loss in potential. — S
Not an overall good, only in the much weaker sense. — S
Not wrong in itself, but wrong in your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is. — S
Yes, I understand that you are making these three assertions. What I was asking is whether you are interested in discussing the assertions themselves (for which I would need an argument as to how you arrived at them), or the consequences of accepting these assertions as axioms. Two pages in and it is still not clear which. — Isaac
David Benatar argues that there is a crucial asymmetry between pleasure and pain:
the presence of pain is bad;
the presence of pleasure is good;
the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone;
the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.[38][39]
Scenario A (X exists) Scenario B (X never exists)
(1) Presence of pain (Bad) (3) Absence of pain (Good)
(2) Presence of pleasure (Good) (4) Absence of pleasure (Not bad)
Regarding procreation, the argument follows that coming into existence generates both good and bad experiences, pain and pleasure, whereas not coming into existence entails neither pain nor pleasure. The absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure is not bad. Therefore, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation.
Benatar explains the above asymmetry using four other asymmetries that he considers quite plausible:
We have a moral obligation not to create unhappy people, and we have no moral obligation to create happy people. The reason why there is a moral obligation not to create unhappy people is that we believe the presence of pain is bad for those who are hurt, and the absence of pain is good also when there is no someone who is experiencing this good. By contrast, the reason for which there is no moral obligation to create happy people is that although the feeling of pleasure would be good for them, the absence of pleasure when they do not come into existence will not be bad, because there will be no one who will be deprived of this good.
It is strange to mention the interests of a potential child as a reason why we decide to create it, and it is not strange to mention the interests of a potential child as a reason why we decide not to create it. That the child may be happy is not a morally important reason to create it. By contrast, that the child may be unhappy is an important moral reason to not create it. If the absence of pleasure is bad even if someone does not exist to experience its absence, we would have a significant moral reason to create a child, and to create as many children as possible. If, however, the absence of pain wouldn't be good even if someone would not experience this good, we would not have a significant moral reason not to create a child.
Someday we can regret for the sake of the good of a man whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we created him – a man can be unhappy and the presence of his pain would be a bad thing. But we will never feel regret for the sake of the good of a man whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we did not create him – a man will not be deprived of happiness, because he will never exist, and the absence of happiness will not be bad, because there will be no one who will be deprived of this good.
We feel sadness by the fact that somewhere people come into existence and suffer, and we feel no sadness by the fact that somewhere people did not come into existence and in this place there are happy people. When we know that somewhere people came into existence and suffer, we feel compassion. The fact that on some deserted island or planet people did not come into existence and suffer is good. This is because the absence of pain is good even when there is not someone who is experiencing this good. On the other hand, we do not feel sadness by the fact that on some deserted island or planet people did not come into existence and are not happy. This is because the absence of pleasure is bad only when someone exists to be deprived of this good.[40] — Antinatalism article in Wikipedia
Not much of an argument. Does he say any more about how he arrives at this conclusion? — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.