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 — khaled

From that silly, robotic perspective, why wouldn't you just talk about the "net pain" of interacting with someone who would be traumatized by being around someone who is farting?

you say that there are lots of people that die prematurely or suffer long term illnesses but it is a fact that there are way more people who get disfigured or killed in the food and clothing production industry. I wasn't using those industries as an example for the pain they cause to the animals but to the workers. By eating and buying clothes you are perpetuating a cycle of suffering identical to the one with birth.

You said you think there is a difference between being forced to survive becuase you are here and forcing someone else to survive but that's exactly what I'm disputing. First of all, those two things are the same in some cases. You forget that the PRIME REASON we have a reproduction instinct is EXACTLY so that we would survive. Forcing some else to survive IS how you survive. If you say that's immoral because you're causing pain on someone who would not otherwise have experienced it with no consent from them then I'll reply by saying that that's EXACTLY what you do when you buy food.

When you buy food you indirectly cause potentially massive harm on someone else
When having children you indirectly cause potentially massive harm on someone else

In both cases you do it to survive

Therefore if one is moral the other is moral and if one is immoral the other is immoral

I don't understand what you're asking or how we even got to this point can we start over?

P1: Causing unpleasant sensations on other creatures is morally incorrect relative to how much unpleasant sensation 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

Which premise do I have a problem with? Both, plus the conclusion (which also doesn't follow; it's not a valid argument as stated)

Re premise 1, "unpleasant sensations" isn't sufficient for something to be immoral Suggesting that any unpleasant sensation whatsoever, no matter how minor, is at least a bit immoral (no matter how minor) is an overreaction--the sort of overreaction that among other things has resulted in the political mess that we've seen lately, where we seem to believe that it's a problem if anyone is at all uncomfortable, at all offended, etc. It produces a society of constant victims, and a society that erodes freedom--freedom of speech, freedom of action, etc., as everyone walks on eggshells to try to avoid making anyone else even the slightest bit uncomfortable. This is exacerbated by the fact that any arbitrary person could be uncomfortable with any arbitrary thing, no matter how neurotic or irrational it seems to anyone else--with the upshot that it's impossible to not make some people uncomfortable at times. I don't know how we arrived at the idea that it's a problem--and a problem that needs addressing--if anyone is at all uncomfortable at any time . . . and I don't know how we wound up with so many people apparently agreeing with that idea. That certainly wasn't something that people readily agreed with historically.

Re premise 2, it's stated as if birth itself causes "severe pain" to others, and it's not at all clear that it's an existential rather than a universal generalization--as a universal generalization, it's obviously not true. What would be acceptable as a similar premise is "Living results in occasional, and far less frequently chronic, severe pain for some persons."

Re the conclusion, for one, it hinges on a quantification that couldn't be more vague--"immoral enough." It also hinges on an unstated premise of, "Just in case x causes severe pain (or alternately " Just in case x is immoral to n amount/degree), then it justifiable to prohibit x." You can't just introduce that idea in the conclusion (if you want a valid argument). The conclusion can't follow from the premises if that's only introduced in the conclusion.

Remember, for a valid conclusion, it has to be the case that it's impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

(Of course, this is all ignoring that moral "claims" can't be true or false, but we can ignore that for now.)

That brings to mind another big problem. Indirect culpability is problematic period (for example, I don't at all agree with charging someone with murder if they were only indirectly involved in a murder--if someone hired a hitman, say), but the anti-natalist argument takes indirect culpability to off-the-charts absurd levels.

Maybe the best anti-natalist argument would be that if we refrain from giving birth, we'll prevent people from coming up with completely idiotic crap like anti-natalist arguments. Hopefully that comment makes you uncomfortable. There's value in that.

You seem to have completely forgotten my disclaimer in the beginning especially seeing as you felt the unbearable urge to sully a civil discussion with ad hominem for no reason. But anyways for your response to premise 1: this is not my premise and I don't care if you think it's an overreaction. That's how utilitarian morals always worked. They always considered any kind of pain. As I said in the original post: please use negative utilitarian logic if possible. You refuse to even grapple with the issue and pretend you've solved it.

Now for your response for premise 2: you seem to have completely misunderstood it. Let's say every individual can experience a maximum of 10/10 suffering and let's say there are two people on the planet. The net maximum suffering is then 20 and their actual suffering combined is, let's say 10. If they choose to have 3 children then now the maxium suffering is 50 and the combined suffering is something like 20 or 30. Both numbers go up. That's what is meant by "causes severe suffering". It not only increases the net suffering experienced but also the net suffering experienceable. Not giving birth on the other hand would result in a total of 10 suffering instead of the 20 or 30

As for your opposition to the conclusion, I had to include "immoral enough" because I had already established that morality comes in shades according to NU thinking. As for that claim being vague::

Infinite subjects X Infinite time X Small suffering = Infinite suffering

Therefore from that, giving birth is THE MOST immoral thing you can do and that's what's meant by "immoral enough". I see now that it was probably too much of a stretch to expect people to make the inference (although I did make that argument 3 times already)

Hope that clears some things up

Final note: how is hiring a hit man NOT murder? What about "leaving" a car moving at 200mph towards someone? What about dropping a piano that just happened to kill someone? What about shooting someone? After all it was the bullet not you....

Every sentence in your response has serious problems. Do you want to start back and forth replies that are thousands of words ever-increasing, or?

Re this:

Let's say every individual can experience a maximum of 10/10 suffering and let's say there are two people on the planet. The net maximum suffering is then 20 and their actual suffering combined is, let's say 10. If they choose to have 3 children then now the maxium suffering is 50 and the combined suffering is something like 20 or 30. Both numbers go up. — khaled

Aside from the idea of "10/10 suffering" being simply nonsensical, you seem to not understand the word "net." Net suffering would be the amount of excess suffering once all calculations are made re suffering, pleasurable experiences, etc.

Final note: how is hiring a hit man NOT murder? What about "leaving" a car moving at 200mph towards someone? What about dropping a piano that just happened to kill someone? What about shooting someone? After all it was the bullet not you.. — khaled

Since you probably won't want to do thousands of words back and forth, I'll respond quickly to this, since you're asking me questions.

Re hiring a hit man, the hit man committed the murder (assuming they did, of course), the person who hired them did not. It's the hit man's choice to commit the murder or not. All the solicitor did was hire the hit man.

Re the car, etc., we're talking about direct causality. Those are not situations where there's an intervening choice to be made, as there is in the hit man example, Likewise, if you set up some elaborate Rube Goldberg-like contrapation, as long as we're talking about direct causality, whoever sets the contraption in motion is responsible for whatever it does. However, culpability there is diminished when there's no reason to believe that the initiator would know what the machine would do in the end. So if you were to set up some elaborate Rube Goldberg contrapation that shoots people in Texas when someone turns on a light switch in New Jersey, the person who flipped the light switch isn't responsible unless there's reason for them to believe that flipping the light switch would, via a long chain of direct causality, fire a gun in Texas.

Likewise, with suffering, unless we're talking about something that's clearly a genetic issue, so that the person in question has no choice, most things are going to be due to actions that the sufferer decided to take. For example, if they break their leg in a skiing accident. That's not their parents' fault or responsibility, unless the parents somehow forced them (as in literal, physical force) to ski. Per the logic of saying that it's the parents' fault/responsibility, you'd have to say that every crime ever committed is the fault/responsibility of ancestors (presumably the first ones, whoever that would be, the first homo sapiens).

I don't know how else, aside from agreeing with antinatalism right out, I could indicate to you that I understand the point of antinatalism. But to spell out my rejection here more clearly:

I'm saying P2 is false. The rest is justification for why I think P2 is false -- birth does not increase the net suffering in the world, it creates the world simpliciter. The (moral, human) world is full of suffering -- but this concern with suffering only happens within this world. The AN should modify their principle to reflect this difference, I think, because it's much more clear -- and also makes apparent why AN isn't very appealing to many people, though the AN seems to make an appeal to what is a commonly accepted moral precept.

Also, as is a pretty common way of arguing in moral philosophy, I'm attempting a reductio ad absurdum on AN. I am appealing to consequences because consequences, while not exactly the same as a utilitarian calculus, are generally more appealing to those inclined towards utilitarianism. The consequences of AN, taken globally, is that we are all acting for the concern of people who do not exist. Given that this is patently absurd I can see why an AN wouldn't want to accept this conclusion, but then I'd say the AN needs to spell out what the morally significant difference between fictional persons and people who will not exist is -- and in so doing I suspect that they'd undercut the basis on which the AN makes a claim (namely, that difference between actual persons and not actual persons), though perhaps there's another way about it.



Perhaps you don't find these arguments persuasive. But then I'd just say that you are right to say I don't understand. And so it'd be helpful to know what you are looking for exactly.

The (moral, human) world is full of suffering — Moliere

I don't think that's very clear, though, especially not on net, and especially not re something that anyone should be (morally) concerned with.

Re the latter, if we're going to call "suffering" things like "your butt being slightly sore for a few minutes from the chair you were sitting on/the way you were sitting on the chair," or "needing to burp," or "having that pretty girl in Dunkin Donuts reject your offer to go make out in your car," then yeah, there's lots of suffering, but it's rather insulting to in any way equate that with things like having cancer or having a loved one die at a young age and so on. They're equated by using the same term for all of that stuff and making no clear distinction when forwarding ideas like anti-natalism.

It's suffering of the having cancer/having loved ones die young/etc. sort that it's dubious to say the world is "full of" on net.

And suffering of the "I need to burp" "I don't like the smell of farts" variety is the sort of stuff where no one sane is going to say, "Yeah, we definitely need to do something about that--I say prohibit having kids so we can avoid suffering."

I'd say the negative utilitarian escapes this because it is only harm which is of concern -- so since there isn't anything positive on the ledger, we'll naturally have a world full of net suffering, even if we're only counting things which are important. It's part of why the puzzle is working -- the proposition appealed to is common enough, it's just being taken in isolation.

And not to get too dreary, but I'd say it's also not terribly clear that the world, on net, is very positive on this hypothetical ledger either. And if all we do is quibble over the this hypothetical spreadsheet it at least seems, to me, that we're not really addressing the real concern of our purported negative utilitarian who is wondering if the world is really worth all the pain within it -- or, in the case of our convinced AN, is not just wondering but believes the world should go extinct because there is just too much suffering.

Plus I'd just note that I don't really keep accounting figures on such things in the way that I think of it. Even if the world is full of joy, it is also full of suffering. I don't really see one counter-balancing the other. So from my perspective I'm comfortable with the proposition that the world is full of suffering -- I agree with it. I just don't agree with the rest of the AN's position. But I can at least begin some kind of agreement upon which disagreement can be meaningfully had by agreeing to this point.

If all evidence points to the fact that most people would overlook a minor theft that does not make it okay to steal. — khaled

I fail to see how conceiving a child is akin to theft. If you're merely equating conception with any and every moral transgression, you've got no coherent argument.

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. — khaled

Who said anything about imposing milk on everyone? (honestly, you make the strangest comparisons).

If I do impose milk on someone though, and they enjoy it and are thankful, why have I behaved immorally?

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 — khaled

In other words, your own argument falls flat on its face because it is only accepted by negative utilitarians?

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 — khaled

Anti-natalists want birth to stop occurring, not for society to shut down immediately.

When you drive a car you run the risk of causing suffering to other people. If conception is wrong simply because it risks the suffering of others, then driving is also wrong because it risks the suffering of others.

Why not?

not really addressing the real concern of our purported negative utilitarian who is wondering if the world is really worth all the pain within it -- or, in the case of our convinced AN, is not just wondering but believes the world should go extinct because there is just too much suffering. — Moliere

I like, by the way, how they don't even bother to ask the people who they're worried about--ask them whether they think it's worth it.

You forget that the PRIME REASON we have a reproduction instinct is EXACTLY so that we would survive. Forcing some else to survive IS how you survive — khaled

You don't need children to survive. There are hermits that live and die away from civilization.

When most people had children throughout history they were unaware of gene theory.

You are saying then that if someone brings into a highly exploitative world the child is responsible for that exploitation? That doesn't make sense. In hunter gather society you could see the people and resources you were exploiting. The fact that now there is a massive complex web of exploitation cannot be blamed on every new child.

Antinatalism is the solution to suffering and exploitation. We gradually die out and completely end the cycle of suffering and exploitation.

Do you think everyone should be forced to have children? I think anyone who does not have children qualifies as antinatalist because they are making their unique set of genes extinct.

What sort of exploitation are you talking about? (I'm curious because a lot of exploitation I don't at all think is something negative.)

I fail to see how conceiving a child is akin to theft. If you're merely equating conception with any and every moral transgression, you've got no coherent argument. — VagabondSpectre

Well, and also it is okay to steal insofar as people feel it's okay. Morality isn't something different than what people feel.

If I do impose milk on someone though, and they enjoy it and are thankful, why have I behaved immorally? — VagabondSpectre

Yeah, I agree with that, too.

There is mutual and neutral exploitation. Division of labor can be mutual or neutral exploitation. Likewise friendships, family and social groups.
Also you can exploit the environment in a sustainable way sharing it with other organisms and not monopolizing it.

However what we have is China an undemocratic country that commits numerous human rights abuses manufacturing a lot of the world goods. We have the UK proving the arms that Saudi Arabia uses in the war in Yemen which has led to famine deaths of babies.

Children and adults caught up in current and former war zones in places like The Congo, Angola and Liberia mining for minerals with no wage whilst being held hostage and these minerals are turning up in our mobile phones.

There are jobs that are robotic and unrewarding and underpaid as well, and unfair distribution of resources based on luck of birth etc

I can link you to a wide range of sources of evidence.

However in most cases in the modern economy it is very difficult to know where exactly goods are coming from so it is hard for anyone to assess the level of negative exploitation involved. I think the best way not to endorse inequality and corruption is not reproducing. In some cases children are just destined to become canon fodder metaphorically and literally.

However what we have is China an undemocratic country that commits numerous human rights abuses manufacturing a lot of the world goods. — Andrew4Handel

Re this for example, it doesn't sound like something I'd call "exploitation" . . . and I also don't think there's anything inherently preferable to democracy.

Plenty of things considered human rights abuses I'd probably have a problem with, but I just wouldn't necessarily call it exploitation. Some of the stuff you mentioned I'd consider negative exploitation probably. (Like the African situations you mentioned.)

A job that's "unrewarding" isn't something I'd call exploitation . . . or even neessarily a problem. That would depend on the details.

You are saying then that if someone brings into a highly exploitative world the child is responsible for that exploitation — Andrew4Handel

No? Where did you get THAT from. The child isn't responsible for that exploitation he is exploited. But he is exploited in the same way you exploit people in your daily life so I don't understand why you would allow the exploitation of living people for your purposes (forced labor food/clothes producers for example) while not allowing childbirth

In other words:

Food: Needed to prevent suffering, causes suffering to acquire
Clothing: Needed to prevent suffering, causes suffering to acquire
Children: Needed to prevent suffering, cause suffering when born (or rather experience suffering when born)

If one is immoral all should be immoral. If one is moral all should be moral. I am asking why you are picking and choosing because if you're allowed to do that then I must also be allowed to pick and choose and I just happen to choose to have kids but not Chinese clothing for example (disclaimer: I don't have kids nor am I gonna stop buying Chinese stuff. Just an example)

Do you think everyone should be forced to have children — Andrew4Handel

No and I never said that

I think anyone who does not have children qualifies as antinatalist because they are making their unique set of genes extinct. — Andrew4Handel

No antinatalists are not just people who don't have kids. They're people that see it as morally incorrect to have kids

Net suffering would be the amount of excess suffering once all calculations are made re suffering, pleasurable experiences, etc. — Terrapin Station

For a negative utilitarian all pleasure amounts to nothing and all suffering is excess suffering. Again, I ask for a response using negative utilitarian logic and you just keep critiquing negative utilitraianism. I agree that it's a crazy system but it's not my choice to use it. I am only using it to try to find an anti antinatalist argument that uses it if one exists.

we can infer that only unpleasant sensations (i.e. pain) exist — Πετροκότσυφας

I don't know about "are the only things that exist". More like "are the only things that are considered"

I still disagree about the Hitman thing but I don't want to argue that in this thread

Per the logic of saying that it's the parents' fault/responsibility, you'd have to say that every crime ever committed is the fault/responsibility of ancestors (presumably the first ones, whoever that would be, the first homo sapiens). — Terrapin Station

It's not the parents fault in the same way that, say, offering to sell drugs to someone and them accepting is the dealer's fault for their addiction. It's not. BUT the dealer knows that by selling drugs he is causing more suffering in the world than there would have been had be not been selling drugs so his action is immoral nonetheless. I never said anything about accountability because utilitarianism is a purely consequentialist theory so I don't know why you even mention it

The AN does not need to believe in protecting an "unborn child" because such a thing does not exist. What the AN is trying to do is reduce suffering pure and simple. Which situation leads to mess suffering? 9 billion people all at 1-10/10 suffering or 1 person at 10/10 suffering? Obviously the latter is less. T

The consequences of AN, taken globally, is that we are all acting for the concern of people who do not exist — Moliere

The consequences are that there is less suffering which is the AN's only concert. The AN does not need to appeal to souls to make his argument


The AN is not considering the suffering of people who don't exist. He's considering the suffering of people who WILL exist and that's not absurd at all. That's why we have genetic tests to determine the likely hood of genetic diseases and abortions to prevent suffering before it is manifest. THAT is what the AN tries to do, prevent suffering before it is manifest. You seem to be having a problem with considering the suffering of people who will exist and I don't get why

Obviously the latter is less. T — khaled

Is it? I don't see it as obvious.

The AN is not considering the suffering of people who don't exist. He's considering the suffering of people who WILL exist and that's not absurd at all. — khaled

I like your idea of going piecemeal.

So let me start with this. If the Global anti-natalist's proposal is carried through, how would you classify the people who will exist? Would you agree with me that they are no longer people who will exist, but are actually people who will not exist?

No antinatalists are not just people who don't have kids. They're people that see it as morally incorrect to have kids — khaled

I know. But if someone does not have children they are not concerned about the survival of a part of themselves. they don't feel the need to have children. They survive without having them.

so I don't understand why you would allow the exploitation of living people for your purposes (forced labor food/clothes producers for example) while not allowing childbirth — khaled

I am not allowing it. The only exploitation I can realistically control is not exploiting my own child. You can attempt to limit how exploitative your life style is nonetheless.

The way to minimize harm is to not reproduce. The person who is forced into existence cannot be reasonably blamed for attempting basic survival to evade the harm for starvation and injury etc.

The kind of exploitation now is nothing like what early human societies were like.

I cannot see how any of my actions mitigate or promote creating millions of more humans. Even as an antinatalist we don't usually believe someone having one child is the equivalent to someone having 8 children.

I think it is pointless having children for one main reason which is death.

If there is no afterlife everything you did in life will be forgotten and become irrelevant.

We cannot imagine this because we all currently exist and cannot seriously imagine ceasing to exist altogether. I think with proof of an afterlife my stance would be slightly different.

Also the fear of death and the uncertainty of death and its specter is one of the many reasons I am an antinatalist. If I fear death and deprivation myself I don't want anyone else have to.

But there are numerous arguments people might give for antinatalism from death, disease through famine and war, via consent issues. There is not just one reason to be antinatalist. There is mental illness being bullied and other victimization, sexism, homophobia, religious persecution et al. I find it puzzling that all of these perils would not deter people.

When I was a child I was led to believe life was ultimately just and presided over by God but that was just a way of comforting or justifying things to someone in the presence of chronic problems, I think. The more you study history, the news, crime mental illness, cancer the harder it gets to feel optimistic I think.

If we assume that something is right, then under that assumption, it's right.

I fail to see how conceiving a child is akin to theft — VagabondSpectre

I'm not saying it's akin to theft. Your argument was "if most people don't mind then it's okay" and I'm attacking that.

Who said anything about imposing milk on everyone? (honestly, you make the strangest comparisons). — VagabondSpectre

That's what birth is. Imposing the conditions of life on another being.

If I do impose milk on someone though, and they enjoy it and are thankful, why have I behaved immorally? — VagabondSpectre

That's actually a better example, forget the theft and kidnapping ones. If you force-feed anyone anything for the reason "I think they'll like it" that's wrong EVEN IF they liked it. Because what if they are lactose intolerant and you force feed them cheese for example because "most people like cheese so I think they'll like it". You know that by force-feeding people you risk harming them so even if most people are not harmed, that still doesn't make it okay to force-feed people and risk THEIR well being for your own reasons.

In other words, your own argument falls flat on its face because it is only accepted by negative utilitarians? — VagabondSpectre

I am asking for a negative utilitarian response specifically because antinatalists are negative utilitarians. This isn't really a refutation of my argument. It's like saying to a scientist "so you're argument falls flat on it's face because it's only accepted by scientists?"

Anti-natalists want birth to stop occurring, not for society to shut down immediately.

When you drive a car you run the risk of causing suffering to other people. If conception is wrong simply because it risks the suffering of others, then driving is also wrong because it risks the suffering of others.

Why not? — VagabondSpectre

This is exactly the refutation I came up with myself (I used buy clothing as an example because we know the demand harms people). Maybe you didn't see the disclaimer at the start but I'm not actually an antinatalist just trying to get other good responses.

I'm not saying it's akin to theft. Your argument was "if most people don't mind then it's okay" and I'm attacking that. — khaled

My argument was that if most people are thankful for it, then in most individual cases, it's not immoral. I don't recognize the validity of deontological rules because better and worse courses of action change with changing circumstances (I.E: in some cases, the risk of harm to others is very low, and the potential reward for them or ourselves is very high, which should impact our moral calculus)

That's what birth is. Imposing the conditions of life on another being. — khaled

It just so happens that we have evolved to thrive in the conditions of life, much like how we have evolved to enjoy the taste of milk. Mothers need not survey their baby's opinion before serving them the tit (it's a rather safe decision to force milk upon a baby).

But again, "the conditions of life" are ambiguous. Conception does not entail the infliction of suffering, it entails the infliction of a capacity for suffering (and pleasure). If pleasure is the predominant foreseeable result of the act of conception, is it not less immoral than conception where the predominant foreseeable result is suffering?

That's actually a better example, forget the theft and kidnapping ones. If you force-feed anyone anything for the reason "I think they'll like it" that's wrong EVEN IF they liked it. Because what if... — khaled

For the same reason, driving a car is immoral because what if...?

If you drive, you risk the well-being of others....

Does magnitude of risk vs reward count for nothing?

I am asking for a negative utilitarian response specifically because antinatalists are negative utilitarians. This isn't really a refutation of my argument. It's like saying to a scientist "so you're argument falls flat on it's face because it's only accepted by scientists?" — khaled

Not quite.The beauty of scientific truth is that it cannot be boiled down to a preference or opinion (scientific truth is demonstrable), whereas negative utilitarianism amounts to a subjective opinion about the non-importance of pleasure and the all importance of reducing suffering.

I can understand that you want an answer that will be persuasive to a negative utilitarian, but it's also fair to attack negative utilitarianism itself as means of dissuasion.

I decided not to post the first draft of my original response to this thread, which basically took negative utilitarian anti-natalism to the extreme of making ethically obligatory the immediate and forceful destruction of all life on earth (to prevent the reemergence of life capable of suffering from single cells). Ultimately I decided it would be less persuasive than questioning negative utilitarianism itself because, absurd as it may be, once negative utilitarianism is fully accepted that is its rational conclusion; as you say, it's not absurd in their eyes.

If I can't dissuade someone by credibly accusing them of wanting to destroy all life in the universe because they they know what's best for us, then another approach must be taken...

This is exactly the refutation I came up with myself (I used buy clothing as an example because we know the demand harms people). Maybe you didn't see the disclaimer at the start but I'm not actually an antinatalist just trying to get other good responses. — khaled

Indeed. I am addressing you as if I was addressing an actual anti-natalist, but I'm aware you're simply looking for refutations. Simulating dialogue with an anti-natalist might helpful in ways that a discussion about them is not.