I'm reading over your post and I don't really see anything else?

A misery you can feel happy about.

Then you're not trying hard enough. That's not my problem. I already told you that I am unwilling to spoon-feed you.

Also reminds me of that quote by Russell about how people that are unhappy, like people that sleep badly, are always proud of the fact. Misery is noble, happiness is for the ignorant, deluded, or dishonest.

Well of course you can feel happy about your philosophy.

It's more about living a more responsible life though.

In what sense is that responsible?

Because you are consistently aware of the precarious nature of the human condition and act responsibly to compensate.

Lol... because you realize the metaphysical truth, and then responsibility ensues...

I've actually not heard anything that I didn't know from any of you guys yet. The problem is just that it is insisted that one must feel awful about it, and obsess over it or they're not really getting it. Why it is anyone's duty to just feel shitty about the world all the time? What does that accomplish? If one is inspired to act in philanthropic ways on account of it (besides twisted "lets all just go extinct now"), or it aids in any way whatsoever to anything that couldn't be accomplished without feeling shitty all of the time because of your duty to think about death in every moment, then I've yet to hear about that.

The problem is just that it is insisted that one must feel awful about it, and obsess over it or they're not really getting it. — Wosret

Not at all, although such a position may induce a sense of melancholy.

There is no duty, at least in my view, to prevent suffering when such an action would significantly take away from your own life. There is a duty to not cause suffering, though.

Why it is anyone's duty to just feel shitty about the world all the time? What does that accomplish? — Wosret

It is not your duty to do anything; but it would be nice if you didn't procreate. What that would accomplish is not brining another generation of misery into existence because of whatever whims make you decide to do so. In other words, it's a matter of basic compassion -- if you think that's boring or lame or doesn't make you feel radical or whatever, fine, but there are real consequences to reproducing, and it'd be nice if you didn't.

I've always gots to feel radical brah. I have six siblings, and four nephews... plenty of my genepool is floating around, but I'm obviously the best, and it would really be a crime against nature and humanity if I refused to gift the world my progeny.

It is not your duty to do anything; but it would be nice if you didn't procreate. What that would accomplish is not brining another generation of misery into existence because of whatever whims make you decide to do so. In other words, it's a matter of basic compassion -- if you think that's boring or lame or doesn't make you feel radical or whatever, fine, but there are real consequences to reproducing, and it'd be nice if you didn't. — The Great Whatever

It seems from this that you believe in a kind of moral nihilism or moral sentimentalism. However, holding such a position seems to be mean that you can't actually condemn someone for having a child without being disingenuous or just being an ass in general. Without viewing suffering as something that at least should not be given (as a moral ought), there is no justification for debating this entire subject, and the debate is moot. You can't say that there is no duty to do something, and then turn around and say it'd be nice if nobody procreated, and expect everyone to accept this. For someone could say that it'd be nice if you had children, in which case you would argue against them and presumably bring up arguments related to the duty of not giving harm upon another individual without their consent. Essentially it's a non-starter.

Sure, someone can say that, but there being a moral objectivity, or absolutism doesn't force anyone to do anything either. They can still say no, it isn't as if moral commandments are magic, and literally force you to obey, you'll just feel more justified, right, and secure in your opinions, and able to dismiss dissent more easily if you believe that. I don't see how it has much to do with forcing compliance.

We prove our moral sentiments with our lives and characters, and how we effect, inspire, or disgust others. We ourselves are the proofs.

The only thing that convinces people is life beating them. There's no point in moralizing at all.

Under that logic, those who procreate have not been beaten by life.

Moral nihilism =/= moral anti-realism.

Heh, you haven't met many parents I guess! A lot of sadsacks out there.

Then apparently being beaten by life did not convince them. Or did they just not get beaten enough...

I am sorry you feel this way about your parents, and I am sorry that it seems that you have had a rougher life than most of us (even though all of us in the end have a rough life).

Moral nihilism =/= moral anti-realism. — darthbarracuda

I'm not really either. I'm not saying that there are no moral truths, I'm saying that I am the truth.

My life has been okay. By most standards pretty easy, probably.

And yeah, one problem is that each generation forgets the thrashing.

You haven't met my parents. Freud said that the reason that we have god parents is to remind us that our own parents are not divine.

"Each organism raises its head over a field of corpses, smiles into the sun, and declares life good." - Ernest Becker.

My difficulty is...Who are you - who is anyone - to say to other people, 'It would be better if you didn't procreate?' Most people do procreate. Who are you - who is anyone - to say they know better than most other people about something so fundamental? It seems sorely lacking in humility and wisdom. One lives one's life according to one's own lights. To believe one has been granted some special insight that most other people lack - and that it makes ethical sense to tell them so - that's not how I see things.

There is a duty to not cause suffering, though. — darthbarracuda

...and joy and anything at all. You should mention that too. You keep leaving it out for some reason, but doing so doesn't convey the full ramifications of your position. You endorse ending life altogether, and everything that life entails; not just suffering.

...not brining another generation of misery... — The Great Whatever

...and joy and all the other things.

You guys keep appealing to emotion and cherry picking negative aspects.

I contend that there is no duty to bring pleasure into the world.

So do I, but that wasn't my point. My point was that you also effectively contend that there is a duty not to cause joy and all other positive experiences. By the method you endorse, you cannot do one without the other; you cannot throw out the bath water without throwing out the baby. So it's superficial to focus on the bath water at the expense of the baby. I don't think that it's down to forgetfulness that you neglect to mention the baby; I think that you're doing so on purpose, because it makes your argument seem more appealing.

I do not contend that there is a duty to not cause positive experiences. Positive experiences are supererogatory, and the lack thereof is simply a by-product of my position.

You guys keep appealing to emotion and cherry picking negative aspects. — Sapientia

Life is mostly misery, there is little joy, for some people none. To focus on joy is cherry picking.

Pleasure also plays its part in propagating misery, of course, and is in the end a servant to it.

Also, there is no baby to be thrown out.

Unborn people do not exist.

Unborn people do not exist.

Unborn people do not exist.

Unborn people do not exist. — The Great Whatever

They can enjoy a particular kind of existence, as fictional characters. Or barring discussions on the existence of fictional entities, or modal realism, they can still be quantified as negative existentials that are nonetheless causally efficacious.

I'm obviously jumping into this discussion very late, and perhaps someone brought this up before, but why should we look at suffering as something defective with the state of things? There are other ethical frames, such as Nietzsche's, that see suffering as a necessity for any meaningful form of human transcendence. Pleasure or pain might take particular values only in an instrumental sense.