Because I'm not a heartless bastard? Why are you implying that if it wasn't a duty people wouldn't do it?

What is community then? — Brett

A group of people living in a place.

Because I'm not a heartless bastard? — khaled

What does that mean?

Edit: by the way, this is getting way off topic.

I'm moreso surprised by people who must make it a duty to help. Is that to imply that if it wasn't a duty you wouldn't do it? — khaled

They don’t make it a duty. It’s something that’s evolved with and contributed towards the strength and structure of communities.

What is community then?
— Brett

A group of people living in a place. — khaled

It’s a bit more than that.


“In a seminal 1986 study, McMillan and Chavis[8] identify four elements of "sense of community":

membership: feeling of belonging or of sharing a sense of personal relatedness,
influence: mattering, making a difference to a group and of the group mattering to its members
reinforcement: integration and fulfillment of needs,
shared emotional connection.” Wikipedia

No one feels obliged to do it.
— Brett

Again, the question is why. No one has answered this so far. — khaled

I did. I said it’s regarded as a gift.

What does that mean? — Brett

Exactly what it says. Why would I not save a drowning person if I can?

They don’t make it a duty. — Brett

That you do not see an obligation to assist someone who needs help. — Brett

Make up your mind please. Is it or is it not a duty?

I did. I said it’s regarded as a gift. — Brett

That's not an answer. Why is it that charity is a gift but saving drowning people is a duty? I ask "Why is one obligatory and the other not". You answer "Because one is a gift and one is a duty". How is that an answer? That's begging the question.

“In a seminal 1986 study, McMillan and Chavis[8] identify four elements of "sense of community":

membership: feeling of belonging or of sharing a sense of personal relatedness,
influence: mattering, making a difference to a group and of the group mattering to its members
reinforcement: integration and fulfillment of needs,
shared emotional connection.” Wikipedia — Brett

I don't see: "Being morally obligated to save drowning people" there either...

@khaled Would you be able to put your theory in context of antinatalism? I get what you're saying but now it has gone in the weeds and I think it would be good to put it back into context.

For example, how would not being obligated to help the drowning person be applied for AN?

I can see not interfering with someone else of course, so that part makes sense in the context.

I’ll admit I haven’t read the entirety of this conversation, but is this anything different from Peter Singer’s “Drowning Kid” thought experiment? If so, it’s the first time I’ve seen anyone say we have no obligation to save them

I'm not one for universal rules or objective morality but it seems to me that intervening in a life threatening situation such as drowning, where we are capable to do so, is a moral obligation because not doing so contributes to the harm of another. There's a direct relation between your action or inaction and resulting harm and in this example it doesn't cost us anything except some inconvenience. We cannot expect the same from people who can't swim or are too weak. So there's an issue of capability and the weighing of interests between the person who does or doesn't act and the person that is affected by that action. This is why we don't have a moral obligation to enter a burning building either. Where capability is present and the person's interests, affected by the action, outweigh those of the actor, then there is a moral obligation.

So I would say that charity is only a moral obligation for the obscenely rich but in most cases for most people only a moral act for various reasons that are particular to the giver and the recipient.

Right. But "what rules would we want everyone to follow" is not answered by "What does everyone usually do" (in this case save drowning person). — khaled

No, but it's still weird to insist it cannot be an obligation even though you'd not expect anyone to object to doing it.

Yes but I find it easier to believe that people do not agree on a single moral philosophy than that we do agree, but are just morally bankrupt. — khaled

But do you not also consider having children "morally bankrupt", to use your words?

Benkei, do you have an answer to the objections I had earler? Specifically:

The problem I see with your argument is you don't give enough account for what we know about the impositions of life. We can generalize what they are without knowing each particular case. We know these would be impositions. The Big Bang and other non-deliberative things cannot evaluate this and prevent these impositions but we can. I think this is a case of ignoring what doesn't fit your case. We know the impositions that occur, both structurally, and even contingently what is in range of what people often have to deal with. There is even the case that because we don't know all the contingent harms, this is even more evidence that it is best to prevent those unknown harms from occurring. But, even if you think unknown harms are not enough reason, even if you don't believe in necessary harms, even the known contingent harms should be enough evidence to prevent it. — schopenhauer1

To establish that you are not obligated to have kids because of the good it will do. In the same sense that you’re not obligated to help others with problems you didn’t cause. For the people saying “You are denying life”

No, but it's still weird to insist it cannot be an obligation even though you'd not expect anyone to object to doing it — Echarmion

I don’t think it’s weird. Everybody eats. Doesn’t make it moral or immoral.

But do you not also consider having children "morally bankrupt", to use your words? — Echarmion

I think it’s wrong yes, but I don’t see how that has to do with what I’ve said so far. I’m just saying that not everyone thinks they have this moral obligation to help with problems they didn’t cause.

To establish that you are not obligated to have kids because of the good it will do. In the same sense that you’re not obligated to help others with problems you didn’t cause. For the people saying “You are denying life” — khaled

Got it. If I reformulate that, let me know if this is similar:

It may be the case you are obligated to prevent unnecessary harm.
It may be the case you are not obligated to provide benefit for someone else.

It certainly is the case that causing unnecessary harm is wrong, especially if one is doing so to promote a benefit to that same person(s) in doing so.

Would that be another way to put it?

See, I think the case of AN is unique here because it is trying to benefit someone while at the same time providing impositions and harms for that person as well. That is a little different, even than the drowning person. But maybe you can make a case they are all connected.

I tend not to aggregate harms and benefits to any net. I think that is using individuals for some weird aggregated principle. Rather, individuals are the ones bearing the brunt of the harms and benefits. They are living it out as individuals, not as an aggregated mass. Thus, that is the locus of ethics. However, I think you are on the same page as that too, so it really is just a matter of connecting the very unique case of AN where the intention to benefit someone else, is also causing harm/impositions.

I’m just saying that not everyone thinks they have this moral obligation to help with problems they didn’t cause. — khaled

Yes, obviously. Of course people tend to underestimate the problems they do cause.

I don’t think it’s weird. Everybody eats. Doesn’t make it moral or immoral. — khaled

I get it, you're no longer interested in this conversation.

Yes, obviously. Of course people tend to underestimate the problems they do cause. — Echarmion

Boy, that can be said of procreating itself! Sorry... life's well-trodden harms are just such an unknown, because everyone has that much of an individualized experience, we cannot generalize the known harms that almost everyone incurs :roll:.

I think it's interesting that an Anti-Natlist has a very strong individualist, classical-liberal bend. I wonder if you share it. After all, you do also make your argument around the idea of imposition without consent.

It's interesting because one of the things that's most significant about having children is that you take up some of the strongest obligations possible.

It's interesting because one of the things that's most significant about having children is that you take up some of the strongest obligations possible. — Echarmion

It's not about what the parent incurs. Even if it makes someone have to work harder, that doesn't negate the principle of not causing an imposition on someone else, even with the intention to benefit. Having to work harder doesn't make a principle more moral.

Instead of rehashing the same arguments made on this forum a dozen times before, I'd like to look more at the underpinnings of your view. Why is it a principle "not to cause an imposition"? Aren't impositions a right and proper part about being human?

Aren't impositions a right and proper part about being human? — Echarmion

So are pain and heartbreak. Yet we agree you shouldn’t cause those.

i don’t think it’s weird. Everybody eats. Doesn’t make it moral or immoral.
— khaled

I get it, you're no longer interested in this conversation. — Echarmion

I don’t know where you get that. I’m just saying you can’t derive a should from a would.

So are pain and heartbreak. Yet we agree you shouldn’t cause those. — khaled

Without any qualification? If you're in an abusive relationship, surely you should cause heartbreak. It'd be just as easy to come up with situations where you should cause pain.

But this wasn't really where I way going with the argument. I was wondering what's so bad about having obligations, impositions, being in relationships with others, in the abstract.

I don’t know where you get that. I’m just saying you can’t derive a should from a would. — khaled

I wasn't deriving any shoulds. That would look very different. I was talking about your differentiation between "things that I think are virtous and that I would do" and "thinks I should do, in the sense that I am morally obliged to", which I cannot make much sense of.

Instead of rehashing the same arguments made on this forum a dozen times before, I'd like to look more at the underpinnings of your view. Why is it a principle "not to cause an imposition"? Aren't impositions a right and proper part about being human? — Echarmion

Because this is different than other impositions.

One is about inter-wordly affairs (should we impose existence, and the harms and challenges to overcome that come with a usual life)

One is about intra-wordly affairs (we already exist.. do you want to die? Do you want to go it alone? No? Okay, here are societal impositions to survive, gain comfort, and find entertainment).

In the inter-wordly scenario, it is an absolute case. That is to say, it is completely unnecessary to start/initiate the conditions for unnecessary suffering/impositions on someone else.

In the intra-worldly scenario, it is an instrumental case. Survival, comfort, entertainment is necessary, and when the child becomes an adult has no other choice (unless they are okay with death or somehow finding a remote wilderness to hack it alone) to follow the impositions of a given society.

Without any qualification? If you're in an abusive relationship, surely you should cause heartbreak. It'd be just as easy to come up with situations where you should cause pain. — Echarmion

But none where you cause more pain than you alleviate. When I talk of “harm” I mean causing more than you alleviate. So vaccinating a child isn’t harm, even though it hurts and is against their wishes.

But this wasn't really where I way going with the argument. I was wondering what's so bad about having obligations, impositions, being in relationships with others, in the abstract. — Echarmion

It’s not bad in itself. But forcing it on others is wrong. Take forced labor for example.

"things that I think are virtous and that I would do" and "thinks I should do, in the sense that I am morally obliged to", which I cannot make much sense of. — Echarmion

Why not?

I didn't reply and won't because we'll move in circles. The OP says quite clearly there's two types of suffering. Intrinsic and contingent. Intrinsic isn't caused by living, for contingent life is never a sufficient condition on its own and never a proximate cause and almost always even intervened upon by other circumstances. In my view there's no causality any way you cut it 99% of the cases.

The OP says quite clearly there's two types of suffering. Intrinsic and contingent. — Benkei

I agree with this.

Intrinsic isn't caused by living — Benkei

But how come birth isn't the cause?

for contingent life is never a sufficient condition on its own and never a proximate cause and almost always even intervened upon by other circumstances. In my view there's no causality any way you cut it 99% of the cases. — Benkei

This I believe I gave a sufficient response. You make it seem like we don't know the contingent harms that usually befall people. We know very well the impositions and sufferings that will occur and can prevent all of those. I also mentioned that even more reason to prevent harm, is that there are also unknown impositions and sufferings that may befall, and can be prevented those too.. We are a self-aware and deliberative being. We can gather what types of harms can befall someone in the future. We can prevent those harms. Also, unnecessarily imposing challenges to overcome for other people, even if "for their benefit", is wrong. Unlike being born already, where impositions are a necessity to live in a society (unless you want to die or hack it alone in some wilderness), the case of birth is one where one would be imposing unnecessarily these harms in an absolute sense. To deny that harms will ensue seems a disingenuous claim knowing what we know about harms. Knowing, and preventing harms as well as imposing a set of known challenges on someone unnecessary is what counts.

As I think I stated this most clearly in that post, I will leave it again for you to answer if you decide to engage with the actual rebuttal:

We can generalize what they are without knowing each particular case. We know these would be impositions. The Big Bang and other non-deliberative things cannot evaluate this and prevent these impositions but we can. I think this is a case of ignoring what doesn't fit your case. We know the impositions that occur, both structurally, and even contingently what is in range of what people often have to deal with. There is even the case that because we don't know all the contingent harms, this is even more evidence that it is best to prevent those unknown harms from occurring. But, even if you think unknown harms are not enough reason, even if you don't believe in necessary harms, even the known contingent harms should be enough evidence to prevent it. — schopenhauer1

One is about inter-wordly affairs (should we impose existence, and the harms and challenges to overcome that come with a usual life) — schopenhauer1

I wasn't aware we were traveling between worlds in a literal sense.

In the intra-worldly scenario, it is an instrumental case. Survival, comfort, entertainment is necessary, and when the child becomes an adult has no other choice (unless they are okay with death or somehow finding a remote wilderness to hack it alone) to follow the impositions of a given society. — schopenhauer1

See, here is the negative framing again. That the only reason anyone would accept having obligations imposed on them, or having to endure suffering, is if they were forced to in order to survive. This seems to me a very reductive view of human sociality. As I have alluded above, if that were true, noone would be having children in the first place, since having children comes with both obligations and suffering attached, and it certainly is not necessary for survival nowadays.

But it really applies beyond that, to all forms of human community. Engaging with others always comes with impositions and the possibility of suffering. Beyond anti-natalism, your view seems to imply that the best way to live is as an individual detached from all obligations, and therefore all relationships.

But none where you cause more pain than you alleviate. When I talk of “harm” I mean causing more than you alleviate. So vaccinating a child isn’t harm, even though it hurts and is against their wishes. — khaled

In other words, there are qualifications. So it would really come down to your personal assessment of whether life is worth living.

It’s not bad in itself. But forcing it on others is wrong. Take forced labor for example. — khaled

What about being forced to do the dishes every other day?

Why not? — khaled

There doesn't seem to be any practical difference.

I wasn't aware we were traveling between worlds in a literal sense. — Echarmion

Yes, then you would be correct. Different states.

See, here is the negative framing again. That the only reason anyone would accept having obligations imposed on them, or having to endure suffering, is if they were forced to in order to survive. This seems to me a very reductive view of human sociality. As I have alluded above, if that were true, noone would be having children in the first place, since having children comes with both obligations and suffering attached, and it certainly is not necessary for survival nowadays.

But it really applies beyond that, to all forms of human community. Engaging with others always comes with impositions and the possibility of suffering. Beyond anti-natalism, your view seems to imply that the best way to live is as an individual detached from all obligations, and therefore all relationships. — Echarmion

But these are also different cases. These are self-imposed. I have nothing against that. It is creating unnecessary harm and impositions, in an absolute sense for someone else. This is the height of paternalism (and again, not in a literal sense.. which it is too, but meaning that someone knows better for someone.. and worse knows better to the point that suffering and impositions have to be overcome by the person born due to someone else's decision.. even if intentions are good that it is for the child's "benefit"). There are some choices, but certainly not the choice to not have these choices in the first place. That can never be when born.

Yes, then you would be correct. Different states. — schopenhauer1

Like which ones?

But these are also different cases. These are self-imposed. I have nothing against that. It is creating unnecessary harm and impositions, in an absolute sense for someone else. This is the height of paternalism (and again, not in a literal sense.. which it is too, but meaning that someone knows better for someone.. and worse knows better to the point that suffering and impositions have to be overcome by the person born due to someone else's decision.. even if intentions are good that it is for the child's "benefit"). — schopenhauer1

So, to leave the boundaries of accustomed debate a bit: Why does it matter whether it's self-imposed? If it's about avoiding suffering, it's not necessarily obvious why we care about concepts of choice or consent. Why aren't we paternalistic and just make sure no one suffers, regardless of choice?

There are some choices, but certainly not the choice to not have these choices in the first place. That can never be when born. — schopenhauer1

So is having choices good or bad now?

If it's about avoiding suffering, it's not necessarily obvious why we care about concepts of choice or consent. Why aren't we paternalistic and just make sure no one suffers, regardless of choice? — Echarmion

I've already been through this with @schopenhauer1 in a previous thread. He can give no answer as to why avoiding the imposition of inconvenience and trials has been glorified into a goal so worthy as to outweigh the extinction of the human race (or all sentient life).

If I had a plan to avoid all headaches, then decapitating everyone would be a fine way to achieve it, but why anyone would take such a plan seriously to the exclusion of all other considerations is beyond me.

In other words, there are qualifications. So it would really come down to your personal assessment of whether life is worth living. — Echarmion

No it wouldn't though. My personal assessment of whether life is worth living should be applied for myself, not for others. Just because I find life worth living doesn't mean my child will, and so my assessments are unimportant.

What about being forced to do the dishes every other day? — Echarmion

Still wrong to force people to do it. Much less so than slave labor, but still bad.

There doesn't seem to be any practical difference. — Echarmion

There is a practical difference. I don't have to donate to charity if I don't want to for instance, whereas by your standards you have to. You would also have to volunteer, etc as long as you're capable.