do you happen to be an antinatalist? Because I'm trying to debate both sides of the argument here. How do you respond to this if you are?

If giving birth is immoral how come eating is moral when:

1- Both of them are necessary for survival

2- Both of them have the potential of causing involuntary suffering on another being (it is involuntary in the case of eating because many who work in food production and distribution are there because they can't find another job and dangerous because of the risks associated with the job. Way more people get disfigured in the food and clothing industries than there are disfigured children)

My main problem with antinatalism is that I see no set of reasonable premises (reasonable as in not fine-tuned to reach the conclusion of antinatalism without any intuitive backing) that could reach antinatalism. All I see as conclusions to antinatalism's premises is either promortalism, suicide, or giving birth and living normally as we do today. I don't understand how you can stop at antinatalism without going to those extremes

1- Both of them are necessary for survival — khaled

1. Both of them are not necessary for individual survival.

2.

2- Both of them have the potential of causing involuntary suffering on another being (it is involuntary in the case of eating because many who work in food production and distribution are there because they can't find another job and dangerous because of the risks associated with the job. Way more people get disfigured in the food and clothing industries than there are disfigured children) — khaled

I think you miss the point of AN. The point is that birth itself is the platform for which ALL harm is created. Thus, eliminate the platform for harm. There is no harm in having no children at all, but there is harm in having any child, as that child will suffer.

Yes, I have been on this forum for a while, and a lot of my posts in the past have been AN oriented. I am more of a structuralists AN though. Suffering is structural and contingent, not just contingent. However, I am sympathetic to AN that focus on contingent suffering such as negative utilitarianism. Though, I suppose, even structural suffering can be subsumed in the framework of negative utilitarianism.

It's not like kidnapping at all.

"Enjoys their captivity" isn't a coherent justification for kidnapping. Although, If the kidnapping is done to prevent some greater harm being done to the child, then you might consider it justifiable.

In the case of conception, no immediate harm is being done, but the opportunity for suffering (and pleasure) are created. If all signs point to the likelihood of children leading enjoyable lives, then overall, generally, or in most cases, it is not harmful or immoral to create them.

If someone creates a child and allows them to suffer needlessly, then they have done unethical things (the decision to have a child knowing their incompetence, and the decision to neglect it) If someone creates a child who then suffers immensely due to unforeseeable and unpreventable circumstances, then perhaps from a strict consequentialist perspective they have also done an immoral thing (the choice to create a child given the unforseeable bad outcome), but then from that same consequentialist argument, every parent of healthy and happy children are therefore vindicated along similar lines.

If the only argument is that doing anything which might risk the suffering of others is immoral, then society needs to shut down immediately. We face uncertainty in the world, but luckily we face it in degrees of varying intensity; we can evaluate the risk/reward of actions, and choose appropriately (hence, we allow people to drive sober, but not drunk).

There's no perfect set of rules to follow that will stop anything bad from ever happening and accidents will happen; there will always be risk of suffering. I submit that life can be worthwhile despite the cost of suffering it entails.

↪Terrapin Station
yes that is exactly what that implies. Or rather, it implies that it would be better to fart AWAY from you than I'm your vicinity which makes perfect sense to me. I don't know why it sounds so absurd to you — khaled

Because treating it as if it's a moral issue that indicates the necessity of a moral commandment is an insane overreaction to something that's not that big of a deal. If any arbitrary unpleasantness whatsoever is that traumatic to anyone they have serious issues that they need to deal with via counseling.

I restated P1 as: Taking a course of action that results in more net suffering in the world than there would be without taking that course of action is immoral. — khaled

Cool.

Of course there is something to consider within a moral light. Your choice to give birth results in more suffering in the world than there was previously — khaled

Alright, so we're evaluating actions.

In the case of murder you increase suffering because you are causing harm to someone who is actual.

In the case of birth, though, there is no one who is actual.

Suffering only occurs after birth. I'd say it's something like a transcendental condition for talk about suffering -- without anyone it's not just that there is no suffering, or that suffering is being avoided -- there is nothing whatsoever.

That's a different kind of result than simply avoiding increasing the net suffering of the world. The AN avoids the world in which net suffering is supposed to be avoided, rather than avoiding suffering within that world. The target is different. Perhaps that is the real point of the anti-natalist -- that it is better to not exist than to exist. But then it's time to change the principle originally appealed to because that principle requires a world in which to act within.

Except Harry Potter can never be harmed. However, a potential person can be harmed in real life, if it is born. — schopenhauer1

I don't see a potential person as being the same as an actual person. Harry Potter can never be harmed. And a potential person, if said potential person is always a potential person, can also never be harmed. That is because only actual persons can be harmed.

So if we see potential persons in the same light as we see actual persons then sure. But, then, I think I've basically been saying that the AN position basically does exactly this -- it conflates what is actual with what is not-actual. Or, if not conflates, it at least evaluates what is not-actual as equally worth consideration as what is actual.

For me that's just absurd. If someone never has children, then the children they do not have are not as important as the children that someone else does have. I should feed the actual children, whereas I should not set food aside for the children that are not-actual. By choosing to not have children that is all that potential persons are -- they aren't exactly the same as fictional entities, but there isn't a whole lot of difference with respect to how we should act.

1. Both of them are not necessary for individual survival. — schopenhauer1

So are you implying here that causing harm on others for individual survival is immoral? If so the only possible logical conclusion is suicide.

There is no harm in having no children at all, but there is harm in having any child, as that child will suffer. — schopenhauer1

This is mirrored by my argument. "There is no harm in having no food at all, but there is harm in having any food as it requires that someone make that food" sounds ridiculous right? That's the whole point, there IS harm in having no children that's what no.1 states. And thus having children is done out of necessity to prevent one's own suffering and if you denounce that as immoral you will also have to denounce your own living as immoral as it creates suffering for others and so the only andwer then becomes suicide (in this case I use food instead of life because it's more approachable)

If all signs point to the likelihood of children leading enjoyable lives, then overall, generally, or in most cases, it is not harmful or immoral to create them. — VagabondSpectre

This is flawed reasoning. If all evidence points to the fact that most people would overlook a minor theft that does not make it okay to steal. If all evidence points to the fact that people enjoy drinking milk that does not make it moral to impose drinking milk on everyone which is analogous to birth. Also antinatalists are negative utilitraians in which case your argument from pleasure falls straight on it's face because negative utilitarians don't care about pleasure

If the only argument is that doing anything which might risk the suffering of others is immoral — VagabondSpectre

Yes indeed and the conclusion you drew from that is also accurate and what antinatalists want. You can't prove ad absurdium by using exactly the ideal situation for the person you're debating

I don't think there is any reason to have children. Lots of people do not have children.

It is quite possible not to have children and it is not inevitable to have children. Having a child or more will not prevent your inevitable death.

I think having children compromise any moral stance one takes. It goes against the ideas of do no harm and the ideas of consent and freedom. Someone can have twenty children to defy an antinatalist but they and all there children are going to die anyway.

i cannot think or a morally good or coherent reason for having children. What upsets me and other antinatalists is that the cycle of suffering will continue and responsibility will not be attributed correctly to the cause of this suffering. To me a compelling argument for having a child should explain why it is necessary and valuable and why you can justify imposing life on someone or forcing them into existence.

yes that's exactly what I'm doing.

to something that's not that big of a deal. If any arbitrary unpleasantness whatsoever is that traumatic to anyone they have serious issues that they need to deal with via counseling. — Terrapin Station

Who are you to decide at what point unpleasantness can become traumatic. Also why doesn't it make sense to you to say "it is more moral to fart away from people than in their vicinity".

In the case of murder you increase suffering because you are causing harm to someone who is actual. — Moliere

So if I kill someone painlessly it's okay? Because there is nothing to experience the pain or complain afterwards?

It's really very simple
Give birth: increases net suffering in the world
Don't give birth: don't increase net suffering in the world

Therefore not giving birth is morally and giving birth is immoral.

As schopenhauer1 can assure you, existing is tantamount to suffering, having to try to maintain existence, achieve goals and pretty much everything we do is unnecessary, the antinatalist argues — Πετροκότσυφας

That is indeed exactly what it argues

Yeah, maybe I don't. But it's just bad for them that they bite the bullet cause in that case they produce a whole lot of suffering they could have avoided — Πετροκότσυφας

NO THEY DON'T. That's the whole point. Do the math

Little suffering X infinite subjects X infinite time = infinite suffering
A lot of suffering X relatively small time period= finite suffering
Infinite suffering > finite suffering

Therefore one should stop giving birth or else one prepetuates situation 1 which results in endless pain which is immoral

don't think there is any reason to have children. Lots of people do not have children. — Andrew4Handel

That's false. There is plenty of reason to have children. If no one gives birth for 10 years you will suffer a slow and painful death of starvation due to not having enough people to work. Your argument is pretty much like saying "I don't think there is any reason to produce food. Lots of people don't produce food" and that's obviously absurd

Having a child or more will not prevent your inevitable death. — Andrew4Handel

This amounts to saying: Having food will not prevent your inevitable death therefore you should not have food. This is exactly why antinatalism always goes to promortalism in every debate I've had about it

i cannot think or a morally good or coherent reason for having children — Andrew4Handel

To prevent pain to oneself you are allowed to harm others. That's exactly what you do when you eat because you are causing the suffering of the food producers to reduce your own suffering. So if you truly think that any harm inflicted on others is immoral even if it is done to prevent harm on oneself then the only logical thing to do is to commit suicide

So if I kill someone painlessly it's okay? Because there is nothing to experience the pain or complain afterwards? — khaled

Of course not. We treat those who are actual different than those who are not actual. The whole focus on harm, suffering, and pain here has more to do with the required ethic the OP sets out.

It's really very simple
Give birth: increases net suffering in the world
Don't give birth: don't increase net suffering in the world

Therefore not giving birth is morally and giving birth is immoral.

I don't think giving birth increases the net suffering in the world. It makes the world in the first place, and the AN position negates said world.

That is, after all, the consequence of global anti-natalism. The principle of reducing suffering is taken to a point where the context in which said principle was developed can no longer be applied.

That is, after all, the consequence of global anti-natalism. The principle of reducing suffering is taken to a point where the context in which said principle was developed can no longer be applied. — Moliere

Why not. If you are to look at a world with no humans in it how much human suffering is there? 0. That is the goal

I don't think giving birth increases the net suffering in the world. It makes the world in the first place — Moliere

No it doesn't. A rock is a rock even without kids observing it.

No it doesn't. A rock is a rock even without kids observing it — khaled

I stated the moral world before. Sure, the rock will exist without us. But the subjects which are part of our moral deliberations will not. It's this to which I refer. If the goal is 0 human suffering without humans, then I'd submit that I haven't misrepresented the AN's case -- The AN avoids the (moral, our human) world in which net suffering is supposed to be avoided, rather than avoiding suffering within that (moral, our human) world.

It's the entirety of our existence, rather than suffering -- which requires subjects who can suffer -- that the AN rejects.

Also, I might add @khaled that you haven't done much with being able to differentiate the morally significant difference between fictional entities and potential persons which will not be born.

If there is no moral difference there then, given that these are the consequences of the AN position, there isn't much reason to think that the anti-natalist can speak for anti-natalism without, at the same time, speaking in favor of reducing harm to fictional characters.

That's exactly what the AN is trying to do. The AN wants to reduce suffering as much as possible and so killing people painfully is not the way to do that. Now if you look at the long term however:

Giving birth: infinite time X infinite subjects X little suffering per subject = infinite suffering

Now if you don't give birth it's like: A lot of suffering X short amount of time

What the antinatalist tries to do is to get the point of 0 suffering while causing as little pain as possible.

I don't think you get the point of antinatalism. It's not about protecting "unborn babies" from the woes of life. It's about reducing pain. Pure and simple. If giving birth increases pain it shouldn't be moral and it does (refer to previous comment)

But giving birth increases pain. That's the point. So not giving birth is a relative reduction

so "vaccination does not reduce pain" is a valid sentence for you?

even if I give it that not giving birth foes not prevent pain I can still make the argument that giving birth causes pain and that's all I need to judge it as immoral

as for your last comment. Why is ending all life absurd to you? You can't say the ideal situation of the guy you're debating is absurd or else there is no point in debating in the first place. It's like a Christian saying "you're saying we evolve from monkeys? That's absurd as I've shown". If you want to debate physics and how long or short humanity will last I'll just do this:

Little suffering X many subjects X extremely long time = suffering A
A lot of suffering X relatively small time period= suffering B
A > B

A is definitely still greater than B. Imagine if Adam and eve had killed themselves. How much pain would there have been? Let's say X, the amount of pain they suffered. Now it's been a few thousand years and how much pain has occurred? About 20 billion X or more. Just multiply X by the number of humans that have died. They definitely all suffered in all their lifetimes as much if not more than what Adam and Eve would have if they had killed themselves on the spot

Disclaimer: I am not religious. I simply refer to the first humans or apes or whatever.

Plus, in practice no human evaluation of life takes as its only criterion the amount of suffering without any attention paid to other facets of human existence — Πετροκότσυφας

But that's what a strict negative utilitarian would do and ACCEPTING that is there any good refutations is what I'm asking

You, on the other hand, argued that not giving birth reduces pain — Πετροκότσυφας

What I said was it reduces the total pain of humanity and that it definitely does. I obviously didn't mean it reduces the pain of unborn spirit children. I already argued those don't exist. The mere act of birth harms no one but since it causes more suffering in the future it should he considered immoral is my argument here. If you don't accept future considerations then dropping a piano on someone's head is ok because the act of dropping a piano harms no one, it's only when someone's standing there that they get harmed.

As for your explanation you were wrong when you said that since everything falls under P1 there is a "lack of structure" or whatever (I still don't understand why a lack of meaning is absurd to you but ok) because not all things are equally immoral. It depends on how much pain is caused. For example torturing and murdering a child is pretty up there on the list but tickling someone is not. That's how you get your structure. So essentially everything you do is immoral so you should seek to do the least immoral thing.

But, as I've already said, this line of thinking is ridiculous. — Πετροκότσυφας

You asserted this out of the blue with no explanation. The reasoning that if things keep going as they are, giving birth increases suffering is perfectly valid and I see no reason to randomly say it isn't

I'm starting to think that you choose to ignore this.
35m — Πετροκότσυφας

I truly don't I just don't understand what half of what you're saying has to do with the topic or where you get these out of the blue claims from

Generally when this happens I suggest we both severely cut down the length of our posts and argue as if it was a chat. Few words at a time. Please outline what is so unconvincing about P1 for you. Also try to put as many things as you can in premise conclusion form so we can see what we're not getting

what's wrong with the argument:
P1: Causing pain on other creatures is morally incorrect relative to how much pain is caused
P2: Birth causes sever pain on other creatures
C: Giving birth is immoral enough as to justify prohibiting it

Exactly which premise do you have a problem with

That's false. There is plenty of reason to have children. If no one gives birth for 10 years you will suffer a slow and painful death of starvation due to not having enough people to work. — khaled

There are lots of people that die prematurely or suffer life long illness. Having a child does not prevent you dying of cancer, having long term mental illness or becoming paralyzed.

For example I have suffered most of my life from various things including anxiety and depression and my oldest brother has been paralyzed for 10 years or so and he has had MS for over 20 years and pneumonia at least 6 times.

People do consider suicide and commit suicide.

Eating food if you are a meat eater may cause temporary suffering until you eventually die but it does not cause the perpetual cycle of suffering and death. Hunter gatherers eat animals that have already reproduced.

I think there is a big difference between being forced to survive because someone else created you and creating someone else who is then forced to try and survive.

Who are you to decide at what point unpleasantness can become traumatic — khaled

Is it not possible for someone to have a reaction where you think they need to get help? Let's say you're living with someone--a parent, a spouse, a child, whoever--who routinely gets so upset at little things others do while driving that they often get out of the car at stoplights, etc. and start screaming at the other driver, basically having a tantrum.

Do you just sit and read, listen to music, twiddle your thumbs, etc. while they do that and not say anything to them because it's a sin to crush anyone's groove in your view, regardless of however they're reacting to any arbitrary thing they're reacting to?

unpleasant sensations

first of all I'll point out again that these are not my view. I am playing devils advocate to get good responses. In the case you mentioned I WOULD tell them something but only because that results in reducing the net pain in the world. They get to experience unpleasant sensations due to getting criticized but everyone else gets to experience less unpleasant sensations coming from that family member. The view I'm advocating is: do the action that results in the least amount of pain. Giving birth results in pain so you shouldn't do it