So now it is you that seems to be re-defining terms. You can't have it both ways.

I don't see a distinction. — Wosret

Between what?

The consequences of birth are of the utmost importance. — Sapientia

I'm not a consequentialist, mon ami.

And not accepting any reason for having children as morally justifiable is tantamount to anti-natalism — Sapientia

The root word "natal" refers to birth. When the prefix "anti" is applied to it and used as a noun, it can only mean "opposition to birth." I'm not opposed to birth, so I'm not an anti-natalist. But not being opposed to birth is not to be in favor of it. That would be a non-sequitur. The natalist has all his work still ahead of him to convince me of any positive reason for why birth is necessary or good.

Recall that I did actually make a distinction between strong and weak anti-natalism, but felt the weak form, which would apply to me, did violence to the very clear and basic etymology of the term just explained to you yet again.

I'm not a consequentialist, mon ami. — Thorongil

Ah yes, I remember now. You deny that, too. Even though some of your comments suggest otherwise. Well, purporting not to be a consequentialist doesn't make the consequences any less important; it just indicates your unwillingness to acknowledge their importance.

The root word "natal" refers to birth. When the prefix "anti" is applied to it and used as a noun, it can only mean "opposition to birth." I'm not opposed to birth, so I'm not an anti-natalist. But not being opposed to birth is not to be in favor of it. That would be a non-sequitur. The natalist has all his work still ahead of him to convince me of any positive reason for why birth is necessary or good.

Recall that I did actually make a distinction between strong and weak anti-natalism, but felt the weak form, which would apply to me, did violence to the very clear and basic etymology of the term just explained to you yet again. — Thorongil

I used the word "tantamount" for a reason. It means "equivalent in seriousness to; practically the same as".

Your position is far from being in favor of birth, and is much closer to being opposed to it. You are in fact opposed to birth in a sense. If someone informed you that they were planning on having a baby, then you would probably be opposed to that plan on the grounds that it likely isn't justified or good or necessary. After all, you have clearly thought a lot about this issue and have discussed it at length, yet you remain unconvinced that there is any reason good enough to justify having a baby. It wouldn't make sense for someone in your position - which is not a position of neutrality - not to be opposed. You're not absolutely opposed or opposed in principle, but you're opposed nevertheless.

Between what? — Thorongil

Demonizing and having "serious moral qualms" with something. Those are practically identical, although of course you would object to the former, as the phrase is indicative of my attitude that the "serious moral qualms" are unjustified.

You misunderstand completely. I never demonized sexual activity in this thread, so you've no justification for thinking that I have. What I hold outside of what I have said in this thread is irrelevant to the points made herein. Address them or hold your peace. Or start a new thread.

it just indicates your unwillingness to acknowledge their importance. — Sapientia

On the contrary, if consequentialism is untrue, then consequences are not important in judging the morality of actions.

I used the word "tantamount" for a reason. It means "equivalent in seriousness to; practically the same as". — Sapientia

Yes, and it is this alleged equivalence that you haven't shown.

That's a bloody big "if".

No more large than your apparent assumption that consequentialism is true, I'm afraid.

I was under the impression that you were relating "anatalism", and your moral qualms with natalism with abstinence, and celibacy... and others were assuring you that they were not related. Demonizer...

Your allegation that I haven't done so has not been shown. On the contrary, this discussion is testament that I have shown that they're practically the same in some important respects.

No demonization of sexual activity has occurred. I can do so if you like, but it wouldn't affect or have to do with my original claims.

Your allegation that I haven't done so has not been shown. — Sapientia

What? Try this on again:

The root word "natal" refers to birth. When the prefix "anti" is applied to it and used as a noun, it can only mean "opposition to birth." I'm not opposed to birth, so I'm not an anti-natalist. But not being opposed to birth is not to be in favor of it. That would be a non-sequitur. The natalist has all his work still ahead of him to convince me of any positive reason for why birth is necessary or good.

Recall that I did actually make a distinction between strong and weak anti-natalism, but felt the weak form, which would apply to me, did violence to the very clear and basic etymology of the term just explained to you yet again. — Thorongil

Now please explain how I am wrong, otherwise you've no right to throw my accusations against you back at me like some parrot.

Edit: I see you edited your post. Very well. I will reply, but tomorrow, as I'm getting tired.

No demonization of sexual activity has occurred. I can do so if you like, but it wouldn't affect or have to do with my original claims. — Thorongil

Oh it occurred, but apparently you didn't like. You hold moral qualms against sexual activity, but just claim that you have compartmentalized them from the point you are making in this thread... because you can remain unbiased by them, presumably... only others have pointed out to you that you've been drawing an illogical connection between sexuality activity, and the lack there of, natalism, and the justness/justifiability of one's position. The connection between the two, although not logical, is clear to me. Q.E.D.

Well, I had a thought while in the bathroom and felt like posting now after all. Here it is.

Your position is far from being in favor of birth — Sapientia

Yes, as I clearly stated. Well done.

If someone informed you that they were planning on having a baby, then you would probably be opposed to that plan on the grounds that it likely isn't justified or good or necessary. — Sapientia

No, not quite. It's not up to me to decide who gets to have a baby or not, so I cannot oppose that which is not within my power to oppose. Hence, I am neither practically opposed nor theoretically opposed (which you already cede) to birth.

unconvinced that there is any reason good enough to justify having a baby — Sapientia

Quite so, but this is not to be opposed to birth.

It wouldn't make sense for someone in your position - which is not a position of neutrality - not to be opposed — Sapientia

It wouldn't make sense how?

You're not absolutely opposed or opposed in principle, but you're opposed nevertheless. — Sapientia

So you say, but I seem to have missed the punch line. Again, why am I opposed to birth? All I've gathered from your post is that you think I secretly am, and so on this basis declare that I am. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm telling you that I'm not opposed and it is your job to show me why I am.

You hold moral qualms against sexual activity — Wosret

So I do. But they're not set in stone and not relevant to the points I made in this thread, you confused SOB (if we must use infantile acronyms).

*Gasp!* How do you know my mother?

You can't fool me, villain. Your username gives it away.

I'm no villain... do I look like a monster or alien? I can't be reduced to a greasy spot, I'm redeemably human!

I never said babies have a will, nor do I see why that's required/relevant. Still not sure what your point is.

The root word "natal" refers to birth. When the prefix "anti" is applied to it and used as a noun, it can only mean "opposition to birth." I'm not opposed to birth, so I'm not an anti-natalist. But not being opposed to birth is not to be in favor of it. That would be a non-sequitur. The natalist has all his work still ahead of him to convince me of any positive reason for why birth is necessary or good. — Thorongil

If something is not good, it is either morally neutral or morally bad. If you are to take the position that birth is morally neutral, then this means that birth is entirely unnecessary but is not at all morally problematic.

Since you said that you are not opposed to birth, it is assumed that you mean that birth is of neutral moral value.

If this is the case, then I think you have a large project ahead of you to prove this claim, as there is significant and difficult arguments that attempt to show that birth is actually of negative moral value.

I'm aware of those arguments, but I find that they all collapse into and have as their root some form of consequentialism. I only want to say for the moment that, on my moral presuppositions, which are not consequentialist, my position on birth follows.

Now please explain how I am wrong, otherwise you've no right to throw my accusations against you back at me like some parrot.

Edit: I see you edited your post. Very well. I will reply, but tomorrow, as I'm getting tired. — Thorongil

And, you know, that big, long discussion that we had prior to that. Pretty sure I said a thing or two on that subject. That wasn't just an empty deflection.

Yes, as I clearly stated. Well done. — Thorongil

No, you didn't. What you actually did in that post was imply that you're not in favour of birth, whereas my point was that not only are you not in favour of birth, you're far from it. You're further away than someone who is an anatalist largely from ignorance. You've considered and rejected as unjustified every reason for giving birth that you've thus far been able to conceive or have been presented with. It's like the distinction between implicit and explicit atheism, as coined by George H. Smith.

No, not quite. It's not up to me to decide who gets to have a baby or not, so I cannot oppose that which is not within my power to oppose. Hence, I am neither practically opposed nor theoretically opposed (which you already cede) to birth. — Thorongil

That's cobblers. The decision doesn't need to be up to you or within your power in order for you to be opposed to the plan. If that were the case in general, then it wouldn't make sense, for example, for any member of the general public to be opposed to a governmental plan. And I only ceded that you're not opposed to birth qua birth, or birth in principle, which I also said was superficial.

It wouldn't make sense how? — Thorongil

How would an outward stance of indifference make sense when that is not a reflection of your views? You don't think that having a baby is justified or that there's any reason good enough to do so. So, if I genuinely tell you that I plan to go out and impregnate a woman, and ask for your frank opinion or advice, it wouldn't make much sense for you to casually reply "Whatever, dude, it's up to you. I don't mind one way or the other" .

You want me to spoon-feed you? I decline.

The decision doesn't need to be up to you or within your power in order for you to be opposed to the plan. — Sapientia

But then the only way to be opposed to it would be in a theoretical sense. How, exactly, am I "practically" opposed to it?

for any member of the general public to be opposed to a governmental plan — Sapientia

... Which would have to be theoretical opposition. Practical opposition would entail becoming a lawmaker, or voting for one, who would work to repeal or amend it.

if I genuinely tell you that I plan to go out and impregnate a woman, and ask for your frank opinion or advice, it wouldn't make much sense for you to casually reply "Whatever, dude, it's up to you. I don't mind one way or the other" . — Sapientia

Why, though? Why wouldn't it make sense? Once again, the punch line is missing.

But then the only way to be opposed to it would be in a theoretical sense. How, exactly, am I "practically" opposed to it? — Thorongil

I don't think that that follows. And you yourself have claimed that you're practically opposed to it, have you not? But anyway, you'd be practically opposed to it if you practiced what you preach, so to speak. Also, rejecting any and all reasons (thus far) for having a baby is exactly what an anti-natalist would do.

... Which would have to be theoretical opposition. Practical opposition would entail becoming a lawmaker, or voting for one, who would work to repeal or amend it. — Thorongil

No, it wouldn't have to be. Practical opposition would mean taking action intended against it. Becomingly politically active. Having insufficient power doesn't stop people from trying, and that is very fortunate in many cases. That has sped up progress.

In this case, I just think that to avoid performative contradiction, you ought to do a bit more than shrug your shoulders.

Why, though? Why wouldn't it make sense? Once again, the punch line is missing. — Thorongil

To get to the other side! Ba dum tsh

How else can I get the point across? I don't think that you'd be justified to stab me in the eye. For virtually any reason that I can think of, I don't think that any would be good enough and that you'd be justified in doing so. So, if you told me that you were planning on doing so, is it not obvious to you that I would find that objectionable and wish to oppose your plan? That would be a sensible response, and one that almost every other person would make in that situation.

I'm aware of those arguments, but I find that they all collapse into and have as their root some form of consequentialism. I only want to say for the moment that, on my moral presuppositions, which are not consequentialist, my position on birth follows. — Thorongil

I am of the opinion that non-consequentialist normative positions, like deontology or virtue ethics, are quasi-consequentialist in nature. Furthermore, it is a psychological fact that the world and its contents we perceive can be split into three categories of useful, dangerous, or neutral regardless of the intrinsic nature or lack thereof.

And even if you take a non-consequentialist position, such as deontology, you can still have an antinatalistic deontological theory based upon a normative rule that one shall not harm another without their consent, which is an intuitive and simple law. Or you can say that one must not take risks associated with an agent without the agent's consent. The non-identity problem does not make potential agents not morally important, either.

But anyway, you'd be practically opposed to it if you practiced what you preach, so to speak. — Sapientia

Alright, in this sense, which was the sense I originally used, I can agree. Celibacy is to be practically opposed to giving birth, though not necessarily theoretically.

Also, rejecting any and all reasons (thus far) for having a baby is exactly what an anti-natalist would do. — Sapientia

But that doesn't make me an anti-natalist, though. I share this in common with them, true, but I crucially lack the theoretical (moral) opposition to birth.

In this case, I just think that to avoid performative contradiction, you ought to do a bit more than shrugging your shoulders. — Sapientia

By doing what? Answering in the negative if some person randomly asks me if he should have kids? How about this: I might do this, but it would not be in a moral sense. If one ought not to do something, this could imply immorality or irrationality. I conceive of having children as irrational or foolish rather than immoral. Does this make me an anti-natalist? I still think not, since it is universally construed as a moral position or stance.

I'm not saying consequences are unimportant, but I am saying they are unimportant in making moral judgments.

But how do we make moral judgement without considering the consequences?

By considering the intentions.

But that doesn't make me an anti-natalist, though. I share this in common with them, true, but I crucially lack the theoretical (moral) opposition to birth. — Thorongil

I don't think that you do, though. You oppose it in that way, but in a weaker sense than a strong anti-natalist. You consider the reasons, judge them to be morally unjust, and reject them on that basis. Rejection is a form of opposition, by the way. The "implicit anatalist" doesn't oppose it at all, but you do - at least internally if what you've said is genuine, and practically so if you were more consistent.

By doing what? Answering in the negative if some person randomly asks me if he should have kids? How about this: I might do this, but it would not be in a moral sense. If one ought not to do something, this could imply immorality or irrationality. I conceive of having children as irrational or foolish rather than immoral. Does this make me an anti-natalist? I still think not, since it is universally construed as a moral position or stance. — Thorongil

What matters is whether you conceive of having children as being an act of moral significance, rather than specifically that it's immoral, and you've given me good reason to believe that you do, and that you reject it on that basis (perhaps in addition to others). You've used ethical terminology to describe your position, and have set out views which I take to be ethical in nature.

Intentions are indeed important, but one also has to take into account ignorant neglect.

And even if you take a non-consequentialist position, such as deontology, you can still have an antinatalistic deontological theory based upon a normative rule that one shall not harm another without their consent, which is an intuitive and simple law. Or you can say that one must not take risks associated with an agent without the agent's consent. The non-identity problem does not make potential agents not morally important, either. — darthbarracuda

Considering potential agents morally important leads to absurdity, and special pleading. Every time you whack it you kill a billion potential people without their consent. If you are saving them from the suffering of living then why can't you kill actual people for the same reason? If it's because it would cause them pain to do so, then there are ways to do it painlessly. If you can just assume a priori that potential people would rather be dead than alive, then why can't you assume this with actual people?

As you can see, such a position leads to inconsistency, and special pleading.