Giving someone a burden they didn't need to experience is not wrong, unless there is no greater good to be gotten from it. There are plenty of examples where this is acceptable. Do you disagree with educating children? Strictly speaking, they don't need to be put through that experience, to be given that burden, but we do it for the greater good. — S

But you didn't pay attention to the whole argument. The argument is that no one needs to give someone else a burden if they didn't need to be exposed to it in the first place. That is to say, a potential child (a person that could exist if a parental actors decide to go ahead and procreate), does not need to be exposed to adversity (by being born in the first place), if there was no need for that potential person to be exposed to adversity in the first place. Just because there is no actual person who will benefit from not being born, this does not mean that it is then acceptable/right to go ahead and procreate a new person whereby it will de facto experience adversity from being born into a world with adversity.

Yeah, it's suggesting that prior to birth, there are people in some state. Even though you keep denying that you're suggesting that. — Terrapin Station

Nope, I am not. I am just saying to prevent adversity, not that some actual person is benefiting from it. Preventing adversity for someone else is all that is needed to be acceptable/right.

This analogy would be nonsensical to you if you didn't think that prior to birth, there are people in some state. You rationally realize how absurd that idea is, maybe, but emotionally, you keep returning to it. Hence this analogy. — Terrapin Station

It is not absurd at all. No actual person needs to be in the equation for it to be wrong to create adversity for someone else. The action of creating a new person will expose an actual person to adversity, hence it is wrong and therefore, it is good to prevent an actual person from being exposed to adversity. You are making a strawman or a red herring, either wittingly or unwittingly. It sounds good to Terrapin Station but has no impact on the argument at hand.

Nope, I am not. I am just saying to prevent adversity, not that some actual person is benefiting from it. — schopenhauer1

But you're not. The whole point of the analogy is that you're comparing it to an actual person.

You don't need to keep denying that you're saying that there's a person prior to birth whom we're doing something to. I know you'll deny that you're saying that.

The problem is that you keep writing things that suggest that despite the denials,. that's really how you think about it.

But you're not. The whole point of the analogy is that you're comparing it to an actual person. — Terrapin Station

This is incorrect sir.

The problem is that you keep writing things that suggest that despite the denials,. that's really how you think about it. — Terrapin Station

No, that is your little spin. Where did I say that? All I am saying is it is wrong to create conditions of adversity to someone else, when it wasn't needed in the first place.

You are having a problem with "wasn't needed in the first place". You think there needs to be a person who didn't need it in the first place. But look at where that leads... That would be a performative contradiction. In order for the statement to be true for you, someone would have to be born in order to be an actual person who will already be exposed to the very adversity that is not good that they were exposed to in the first place. But that needn't be the case that they have to exist. All that need to be the case is that adversity is wrong to give to someone, even if there was no actual person (with some identity) who will benefit from not being exposed to adversity.

I don't understand what your argument is here. You seem to be saying that from a negative utilitarian perspective, bringing new children into the world is bad? But you've not addressed the opposing arguments within your metaphor. Are you wanting to discuss those opposing arguments from within negative utilitarianism, or are you trying to support negative utilitarianism itself by this metaphor (in which case I don't see the argument, you'll have to spell it out for me).

But you didn't pay attention to the whole argument. The argument is that no one needs to give someone else a burden if they didn't need to be exposed to it in the first place. That is to say, a potential child (a person that could exist if a parental actors decide to go ahead and procreate), does not need to be exposed to adversity (by being born in the first place), if there was no need for that potential person to be exposed to adversity in the first place. Just because there is no actual person who will benefit from not being born, this does not mean that it is then acceptable/right to go ahead and procreate a new person whereby it will de facto experience adversity from being born into a world with adversity. — schopenhauer1

I did pay attention. It's a silly argument. Of course there's no need for it. You think I'm unaware that, generally speaking, no one is forced to procreate? It's obviously a choice, just like educating children is a choice, and like I said, the justification in both cases can be made on the basis of a greater good, which can be in the form of a life worth living or an improved life.

Okay, this situation is obviously a very contrived situation. But you can probably tell where this is going in regards to being an analogy for antinatalism. What is the point of exposing another person to adversity when a new person doesn't have to be exposed to adversity in the first place? Is that a good thing to do for someone else, being they don't exist to care about any benefits that might arise from adversity? Even if benefits arise from adversity, when none exists for a particular person in the first place, is it good to create someone so they can experience adversity in order to gain the benefits from adversity? — schopenhauer1

The whole point of antinatalism is "Life is terrible". I think "Life was terrible" and also "Life will be better".

Perhaps I'm being too optimistic or may be you're being too pessimistic.

It's obviously a choice, just like educating children is a choice, and like I said, the justification in both cases can be made on the basis of a greater good, which can be in the form of a life worth living or an improved life. — S

Again, why are we creating scenarios that aren't necessary in the first place, so that someone has to go through the gauntlet of adversity for the reason of "getting stronger". If no one exists, no one exists to need to get stronger. What's the point of creating someone so they have to go through adversity to get stronger? Why are we using indivdiuals for your notion of a "greater good". Greater good for whom? The species? So individuals need to be born now to go through adversity to enhance the species? That is its own silly argument. What justification would you have to expose someone to adversity/harm in order to improve the species as a whole? What gives you the right to make someone go through adversity for your agenda for what is "good" for them, if they don't exist in the first place to need that "good" for them? What gives you the right to say that someone should be born to experience adversity, to get stronger, to improve the species?

Again, why are we creating scenarios that aren't necessary in the first place, so that someone has to go through the gauntlet of adversity for the reason of "getting stronger". — schopenhauer1

Your point about necessity is really weak. I could spend all day listing actions that aren't necessary but acceptable nevertheless. So that aspect is irrelevant and your emphasis of it misguided.

Skipping past that, all that's left is basically your, "I don't think it's ever worth it", versus my, "I think it often is". And the latter is more credible because, unlike the former, it is attested to by a majority of people.

If no one exists, no one exists to need to get stronger. — schopenhauer1

And no one to live a life worth living. :roll:

What's the point of creating someone so they have to go through adversity to get stronger? — schopenhauer1

I never said anything about getting stronger. The point is so that they can live a good life, which would be impossible otherwise.

All of this is obvious so far, and you've been given the answers to these kinds of questions hundreds of times, so going over this yet again seems pretty pointless.

Greater good for whom? — schopenhauer1

The person themselves.

The species? So individuals need to be born now to go through adversity to enhance the species? That is its own silly argument. What justification would you have to expose someone to adversity/harm in order to improve the species as a whole? — schopenhauer1

That's not my argument, just like that stuff about getting stronger being the point of it all.

What gives you the right to make someone go through adversity for your agenda for what is "good" for them, if they don't exist in the first place to need that "good" for them? — schopenhauer1

If they don't exist, then they can't be bothered or affected by any decision I make. :lol:

And if they do exist, then they have a chance of living a good life.

What gives you the right to say that someone should be born to experience adversity, to get stronger, to improve the species? — schopenhauer1

Straw man. You can't live a good life if you aren't alive in the first place. And a good life is... well... good.

Your point about necessity is really weak. I could spend all day listing actions that aren't necessary but acceptable nevertheless. So that aspect is irrelevant and your emphasis of it misguided. — S

Necessity part GOES with the if no one is around to need adversity part. In other words,why are we creating situations where someone should go through adversity, since there was no one there to need it in the first place. That is not weak. That is valid point to consider. Why create people who are exposed to harm, when they don't exist to be harmed in the first place? If as people claim, adversity is necessary to make one stronger- a non-existent person never needed adversity as they never existed to need to be stronger in the first place.

And no one to live a life worth living. :roll: — S

And who exactly is feeling the negative affects of not living a life worth living?

I never said anything about getting stronger. The point is so that they can live a good life, which would be impossible otherwise. — S

No one who does not exist needs to live a good life, especially with the fact that you are exposing new people to adversity, when THEY DIDN'T EXIST TO NEED IT. A good life is only necessary for those who are already alive. To make someone be born so they can live a "life worth living" you are also exposing a new person to adversity when there wasn't anyone there that needed to go through adversity. Thus, your agenda of making new people so they can "live a life worth living" makes no sense in light of also creating adversity for a new person.

The person themselves. — S

That make no sense. Is there some sort of Platonic calculator in the sky that will be unsatisfied if someone doesn't exist to score points in the "greater good calculator machine". Rather by not being born, one is prevented from adversity, and nothing is lost for any actual individual. Nothing is harmed, especially not some "greater good calculator" that you think will not be satisfied by maximizing greater good.

If they don't exist, then they can't be bothered or affected by any decision I make. :lol: — S

Correct

And if they do exist, then they have a chance of living a good life. — S

That is a moot point. They only need to try to live a good life if you make them so that they need to follow this agenda. Otherwise, no one needs anything.

Straw man. You can't live a good life if you aren't alive in the first place. And a good life is... well... good. — S

That makes no sense. Why do people need to be born for the chance of leading a good life in light of the fact that you are also creating someone who will experience adversity where there didn't need to be someone who will experience adversity. Why is it some divine will or law that people need to be born in order to experience a good life anyways? This is on top of the obvious argument that not everyone will achieve this (that is its own good argument).

I don't understand what your argument is here. You seem to be saying that from a negative utilitarian perspective, bringing new children into the world is bad? But you've not addressed the opposing arguments within your metaphor. Are you wanting to discuss those opposing arguments from within negative utilitarianism, or are you trying to support negative utilitarianism itself by this metaphor (in which case I don't see the argument, you'll have to spell it out for me). — Isaac

Nothing needs anything. Nothing needs to live a good life, if it doesn't live in the first place. However, not exposing someone to adversity is a good thing, especially if there no one needed the adversity-strengthening experience in the first place. Adveristy can be good if it makes you stronger...a person need to practice such and such to be better at it, let's say. But if there is no person that exists to need adversity (to be stronger, better, or whatever "positive" comes from this), then it is wrong to create situations just so a person can go through adversity to become stronger. Thus, it is best not to procreate, as this is creating new people who will feel adversity that wasn't necessary to feel in the first place.

For the most part, to me as an American, if he can get by eating rice and meditating... he has found a good life and in our pursuit of happiness he is doing his job.

Now, if he is causing harm (which he isn't) then he needs to experience a wake up call and experience some nasty consequences. Learning can be uncomfortable so that's just going to happen. That adversity is good.

For those pushing him to "get with the program" are immoral because they feel they know him better than he does. Adversity isn't always positive. If I were him, I'd hopefully stand up against oppression.

EDIT: You are saying it is better to not be born and face no hardships, while it's dumb to be made into this world and face unnecessary hardships? Well, it depends on a lot of circumstances. A mother has to weigh the chances of survival, it would be irresponsible to just pump out babies without any conscious. At the same time, I'll go with DMX on this he says, "To live is to suffer, but to survive? That defines the meaning in the suffering."

If one believes life amounts to nothing but struggle and adversity, and it is without redeeming qualities, then it makes little sense to want to proceate.

Many agree that life has redeeming qualities, however.

You are having a problem with "wasn't needed in the first place". — schopenhauer1

Let's do one thing at a time. Need always hinge on wants. X is only needed when S (some subject) desires x, or desires something else, y, that can not obtain without x.

So whether creating adversity is needed solely hinges on actual persons' wants.

Necessity part GOES with the if no one is around to need adversity part. In other words, why are we creating situations where someone should go through adversity, since there was no one there to need it in the first place. — schopenhauer1

Because that's the only way to live a good life. You can't live a good life if you don't exist.

Why create people who are exposed to harm, when they don't exist to be harmed in the first place? — schopenhauer1

You aren't on the side of people, yet you act as though you speak in defence of people. Most people affirm that they prefer their lives over never having been born. So let's get it straight that you don't care about people, you care about extinction.

If as people claim, adversity is necessary to make one stronger- a non-existent person never needed adversity as they never existed to need to be stronger in the first place. — schopenhauer1

Who cares about nonexistent people and their nonexistent needs? Not I.

And who exactly is feeling the negative affects of not living a life worth living? — schopenhauer1

No one, of course. But since most people affirm that they prefer their lives over never having lived, the odds are in favour of it being a good decision that the baby will grow up thankful instead of resentful.

No one who does not exist needs to live a good life, especially with the fact that you are exposing new people to adversity, when THEY DIDN'T EXIST TO NEED IT. — schopenhauer1

It's funny that you think that that matters when it doesn't. Nonexistent people have nonexistent problems, which isn't something anyone needs to be troubled over, and existent people have a chance of living a good life, which obviously matters - or at least it should do. There's no need to apologise for enabling someone to live a good life. My mum doesn't owe me an apology, and I wouldn't accept one from her on that basis.

A good life is only necessary for those who are already alive. — schopenhauer1

That's a truism.

To make someone be born so they can live a "life worth living" you are also exposing a new person to adversity when there wasn't anyone there that needed to go through adversity. — schopenhauer1

Justified as a net benefit.

Thus, your agenda of making new people so they can "live a life worth living" makes no sense in light of also creating adversity for a new person. — schopenhauer1

It makes perfect sense because it's worth it in light of the net benefit.

That make no sense. Is there some sort of Platonic calculator in the sky that will be unsatisfied if someone doesn't exist to score points in the "greater good calculator machine". Rather by not being born, one is prevented from adversity, and nothing is lost for any actual individual. Nothing is harmed, especially not some "greater good calculator" that you think will not be satisfied by maximizing greater good. — schopenhauer1

It makes perfect sense to say that me being alive and living a good life is a greater good than the alternatives of living a bad life or not having lived at all.

What gives you the right to make someone go through adversity for your agenda for what is "good" for them, if they don't exist in the first place to need that "good" for them?
— schopenhauer1

If they don't exist, then they can't be bothered or affected by any decision I make. :lol:
— S

Correct — schopenhauer1

Then don't bring up the nonexistent as if they're comparatively better off for being need free. That's a nonsense.

That is a moot point. They only need to try to live a good life if you make them so that they need to follow this agenda. Otherwise, no one needs anything. — schopenhauer1

So a needless life is better, and all that needs to be done to achieve this needless life is to never come into existence? Yeah, that makes so much more sense! And you can't say that nonlife is better for anyone, because there wouldn't be anyone alive to reap the rewards.

That makes no sense. Why do people need to be born for the chance of leading a good life in light of the fact that you are also creating someone who will experience adversity where there didn't need to be someone who will experience adversity. — schopenhauer1

It's obvious that being born is a perquisite of living a good life, and it's obvious that a good life is one where there's a net benefit in spite of the adversity that you keep rabbiting on about.

Why is it some divine will or law that people need to be born in order to experience a good life anyways? — schopenhauer1

What a funny thing to question! Are you really asking why you need to be born in order to live a good life? I would love to know how else you think that that's possible.

This is on top of the obvious argument that not everyone will achieve this (that is its own good argument). — schopenhauer1

It's a crap argument because it doesn't apply to most people, as most people attest.

Many agree that life has redeeming qualities, however. — Tzeentch

People should live life because it has "redeeming qualities". Is this enough reason to procreate people who will face adversity, if they otherwise never needed to exist in the first place to face adversity? Why should people be born only to be redeemed by various qualities of life? Why put people through the gauntlet of life if there didn't need to be a person at all in the first place?

X is only needed when S (some subject) desires x, or desires something else, y, that can not obtain without x.

So whether creating adversity is needed solely hinges on actual persons' wants. — Terrapin Station

No actual person needs adversity prior to his/her birth. Why make an actual person in the first place who needs to experience adversity?

What a funny thing to question! Are you really asking why you need to be born to live a good life? How else can that be achieved? — S

No one needs to be born. A good life doesn't need to be had by anyone. No one loses out by not living out a good life. Certainly it is good though that no actual person was exposed to adversity that needed to be overcome. You put a value on "the good life" needing to be carried out by someone in the first place. Why does this need to be carried out by an actual individual? What is wrong with no actual person obtaining "the good life"? What, besides the parent who is projecting a future person, actually loses out form this? However, preventing adversity where it didn't need to be experienced by any particular person is a good thing. It would be wrong to create someone in order for them to experience the burdens of adversity, because perhaps, there is some goal of a good life, that that person can obtain. Who are you to expose people to harm/adversity in order for your agenda to be carried out (which it may not)- that someone needs to live in order for a "good life" to be obtained by that person?

Why put people through the gauntlet of life if there didn't need to be a person at all in the first place? — schopenhauer1

Because life is a wonderful experience, despite the fact that there is also struggle and adversity. These things teach us how life works. They give us insights into the nature of ourselves and into the nature of reality. When we choose to ignore the lessons life is trying to teach us, struggle, adversity and pain will turn into suffering.

The idea that life is nothing but suffering is rather melodramatic. There would be no suffering without things that we are fond of that could be taken away from us. Death makes us suffer, because we are fond of life. Unanswered love makes us suffer, because we are fond of another person. Etc.

In other words, the reason we experience suffering is because there are so many good things about life, which we are afraid to lose. Every time we experience adversity or suffering, life is trying to teach us not to grow too fond of matters which are ultimately fleeting.

Why is it some divine will or law that people need to be born in order to experience a good life anyways?
— schopenhauer1

What a funny thing to question! Are you really asking why you need to be born to live a good life? How else can that be achieved?
— S

No one needs to be born. A good life doesn't need to be had by anyone. No one loses out by not living out a good life. — schopenhauer1

That wasn't what you originally questioned, and these are just more truisms. At the risk of stating a truism myself, I feel it prudent to remind you that stating the obvious and preaching to the choir is not productive in discussions such as this.

Certainly it is good though that no actual person was exposed to adversity that needed to be overcome. — schopenhauer1

That is far from certain when taken as a whole with all of the implications that it carries, one of which is that no actual person had the chance to reap all of the rewards that are attained through life - joy, laughter, friendship, happiness, love, exploration, wonder, and so on and so forth. But you will always purposely withhold or underplay this aspect so long as you have your agenda to push, because it renders your position less persuasive. It can only ever be good in the much weaker sense that, for example, it is good that when I broke my neck, I got some time off of work. Hurrah! Let's all break our necks!

If it was certain, then why do you think that this is a discussion topic, and why do you think that so many people disagree with you? It's not that we're all just incapable of seeing this "certainty" for what it is, it's that it is a controversial and largely unconvincing stance to take.

You put a value on "the good life" needing to be carried out by someone in the first place. — schopenhauer1

It doesn't need to be carried out. I'm just saying that it has pros and cons, and sometimes - oftentimes even - the pros outweigh the cons. (That's your cue to harp on about how bad life supposedly is. Yawn.)

Why does this need to be carried out by an actual individual? — schopenhauer1

It doesn't. If you actually look carefully at what I've said, you'll see that that is not something that I've claimed or implied. On the contrary, I actually said that this necessity aspect is irrelevant and the focus on it misguided. Remember?

What is wrong with no actual person obtaining "the good life"? — schopenhauer1

Not wrong as such. But actual people living good lives is a net benefit. So a possible world full of people living good lives is better than a possible world devoid of people living good lives.

What, besides the parent who is projecting a future person, actually loses out form this? — schopenhauer1

There would be a loss in potential.

However, preventing adversity where it didn't need to be experienced by any particular person is a good thing. — schopenhauer1

Not an overall good, only in the much weaker sense.

It would be wrong to create someone in order for them to experience the burdens of adversity, because perhaps, there is some goal of a good life, that that person can obtain. — schopenhauer1

Not wrong in itself, but wrong in your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is.

Who are you to expose people to harm/adversity in order for your agenda to be carried out (which it may not)- that someone needs to live in order for a "good life" to be obtained by that person? — schopenhauer1

No one needs to live a good life, but obviously you need to live in order for that to be possible.

Who am I to not to rail against making it possible for people to live good enough lives - lives worth living - in a world where so many people affirm that they live good enough lives - lives worth living - and do not wish that they were never born?

Really? That hardly makes me a villain. If anyone's a villain here it's you. Maybe you should try listening more to what people actually think and feel about all of this and take that on board.

Nothing needs anything. Nothing needs to live a good life, if it doesn't live in the first place. However, not exposing someone to adversity is a good thing — schopenhauer1

Yes, I understand that you are making these three assertions. What I was asking is whether you are interested in discussing the assertions themselves (for which I would need an argument as to how you arrived at them), or the consequences of accepting these assertions as axioms. Two pages in and it is still not clear which.

No actual person needs adversity prior to his/her birth. — schopenhauer1

Actual people might need to create offspring, might need to create adversity, etc. It just depends on their wants.

Not wrong as such. But actual people living good lives is a net benefit. So a possible world full of people living good lives is better than a possible world devoid of people living good lives. — S

But what is the negative outcome of no one living a good life? You haven't really answered that except with an elusive "it's a net benefit". Non-existent people don't cry over spilt milk. But it is true actual people will experience adversity if born. Thus Benatar''s asymmetry applies. Not experiencing good, does not matter if there is no actual person being deprived. However, it is always good that someone was not exposed to adversity or harm needlessly (or for a parents' agenda-- like your notion of someone has to live out a good life for some elusive idea of having a "net benefit" obtain in existence. Odd, but since it is not the usual way of looking at things, you automatically dismiss it.

There would be a loss in potential. — S

And this matters why and for whom? No actual being to be deprived would care. It almost seems like in your universe, there is a hidden god that cries over potentials missed. Not experiencing good is neither good nor bad, if there is no actual person to be deprived. It is always good to prevent harm, especially if no one needed to be born to experience it in the first place. By the way, this is essentially just an elaboration from the book, "Better Never to Have Been" by David Benatar.

Not an overall good, only in the much weaker sense. — S

Why does a total matter here? If we are summing up bits of good from everyone in some grand total (in what, a calculator in the sky?) then one can conclude that billions of lives only barely worth living would be the best outcome, but that would make no sense. This idea called the "Repugnant Conclusion" by Derek Parfit, is the kind of outcome you get with utilitarian notions of simply summing up net positive and negative the way you seem to explain it. Rather, it should be looked at on the level of harm to the individual, not how an individual somehow adds to the grand total of some universal utilitarian calculation.

Not wrong in itself, but wrong in your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is. — S

Granted, my opinion comes from the idea of the asymmetry. No person will be harmed, and it is not good or bad if someone is not born to experience good.

Yes, I understand that you are making these three assertions. What I was asking is whether you are interested in discussing the assertions themselves (for which I would need an argument as to how you arrived at them), or the consequences of accepting these assertions as axioms. Two pages in and it is still not clear which. — Isaac

The best source is David Benatar's "The Harm of Coming into Existence" and his idea of an asymmetry between benefit and harm when it comes to the question of birth. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

From the article:

David Benatar argues that there is a crucial asymmetry between pleasure and pain:

the presence of pain is bad;
the presence of pleasure is good;
the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone;
the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.[38][39]
Scenario A (X exists) Scenario B (X never exists)
(1) Presence of pain (Bad) (3) Absence of pain (Good)
(2) Presence of pleasure (Good) (4) Absence of pleasure (Not bad)
Regarding procreation, the argument follows that coming into existence generates both good and bad experiences, pain and pleasure, whereas not coming into existence entails neither pain nor pleasure. The absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure is not bad. Therefore, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation.

Benatar explains the above asymmetry using four other asymmetries that he considers quite plausible:

We have a moral obligation not to create unhappy people, and we have no moral obligation to create happy people. The reason why there is a moral obligation not to create unhappy people is that we believe the presence of pain is bad for those who are hurt, and the absence of pain is good also when there is no someone who is experiencing this good. By contrast, the reason for which there is no moral obligation to create happy people is that although the feeling of pleasure would be good for them, the absence of pleasure when they do not come into existence will not be bad, because there will be no one who will be deprived of this good.
It is strange to mention the interests of a potential child as a reason why we decide to create it, and it is not strange to mention the interests of a potential child as a reason why we decide not to create it. That the child may be happy is not a morally important reason to create it. By contrast, that the child may be unhappy is an important moral reason to not create it. If the absence of pleasure is bad even if someone does not exist to experience its absence, we would have a significant moral reason to create a child, and to create as many children as possible. If, however, the absence of pain wouldn't be good even if someone would not experience this good, we would not have a significant moral reason not to create a child.
Someday we can regret for the sake of the good of a man whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we created him – a man can be unhappy and the presence of his pain would be a bad thing. But we will never feel regret for the sake of the good of a man whose existence was conditional on our decision, that we did not create him – a man will not be deprived of happiness, because he will never exist, and the absence of happiness will not be bad, because there will be no one who will be deprived of this good.
We feel sadness by the fact that somewhere people come into existence and suffer, and we feel no sadness by the fact that somewhere people did not come into existence and in this place there are happy people. When we know that somewhere people came into existence and suffer, we feel compassion. The fact that on some deserted island or planet people did not come into existence and suffer is good. This is because the absence of pain is good even when there is not someone who is experiencing this good. On the other hand, we do not feel sadness by the fact that on some deserted island or planet people did not come into existence and are not happy. This is because the absence of pleasure is bad only when someone exists to be deprived of this good.[40] — Antinatalism article in Wikipedia

the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone; — Antinatalism article in Wikipedia

Not much of an argument. Does he say any more about how he arrives at this conclusion?

Not much of an argument. Does he say any more about how he arrives at this conclusion? — Isaac

Yes he wrote a whole book on it. Ironically your argument for it not being much of an argument is not much of an argument.

It must be possible to say how something can be good even if it's not good to anyone in a length shorter than a couple hundred pages.

Heck the vast majority of arguments in philosophy are just a few lines, really.

A few lines of stupid, normally (I'm not picking on antinatalism there--most arguments in philosophy wind up seeming pretty stupid--for example, Anselm's ontological argument, the p-zombie argument, etc.), but still usually just a few lines.

The reason I say it's a whole book is that all I'm going to end up doing is copy pasting long passages which I've already done enough of.

I don't know if I've ever seen you paste something that I'd consider part of an argument for how it's possible for something to be good despite not being good to anyone though.

I'd only consider something that directly addresses that idea to be an argument for that.

Look at the Global Antinatalism thread.