That's not true at all. Billions of actual people would be deprived of the goods (of which there are many) associated with having and raising families. — Theorem

That's on them. I liken it to being deprived of the good of making someone go through an obstacle course that they didn't ask for because it's fun to watch them have to figure it out. This is causing harm without consent.. Maybe the other person will even grow from the adversity of the obstacle course, but it isn't right. In the same token, making someone go through the adversities of life (when they didn't need to go through this in the first place) because it is enjoyable to watch them overcome adversity, isn't right.

But more to the point, I asked whether it was fair for us to make the decision on behalf of others. The no harm/no foul principle does not address the question of whether one group of people living at a specific time and place and under specific circumstances has the moral authority to decide whether life is worth living tout court. That seems like a dangerously slippery slope. — Theorem

I don't see how this gets around the asymmetry. No actual person is crying over missed opportunities, if not born. The potential for the person to exist is only potential. No one is crying over the billions of people that could be born at every minute either. I don't see the dangerous slippery slope. I don't believe in forcing anyone to agree to not force other people into existence (see the irony there). It is all about presenting an argument and having people being able to reason over the issue.

You cannot claim someone consented to being created or signed some kind of contract with life. — Andrew4Handel

Sure, I can say a lot of things that appear to make sense on the surface. Language is rather fascinating in that way.

The above is true but nobody disputes it. The problem is you think it's profound where it is only trivially true. For starters, it's a false analogy to compare nothing with an unconscious person. An unconscious person has a will but is incapable of expressing it, nothing doesn't have a will. It's not just incapable, it's that it doesn't have any.

And yes, I can imagine another person existing that doesn't exist yet. But I can imagine unicorns and dragons to exist too. That doesn't mean they become moral actors because of it and something I need to take into consideration when making ethical choices.

So, we do agree the decision to have children is an ethical one.

I think creating a new person gives you different responsibilities for, not just to your child, but society compared to the childless. — Andrew4Handel

By the way, I agree with this sort of thing and other comments you've made about the responsibilities of parents.

But I don't really understand what you're saying here:

People often use the phrase "our children" as if we have collective responsibility or are all endorsing the same thing. I see having a child as an endorsement of everything, everything you are exposing them to. — Andrew4Handel

The problem is you think it's profound where it is only trivially true. For starters, it's a false analogy to compare nothing with an unconscious person. An unconscious person has a will but is incapable of expressing it, nothing doesn't have a will. It's not just incapable, it's that it doesn't have any. — Benkei

I don't see how you think the fact people did not consent to be born or assent to life and society is trivial?

This is not a trivial dynamic between parent and child or individual and society. People have a legitimate complaint if they do not like the life or the society they have been given. They are not partaking freely in life but under substantial coercion.

For example I had to got to church up to five times a week as a child and read the bible and pray every day. I was bullied in school but had no choice but to go to school. Because of my status as a child I did not have the power or resources to prevent this. Then people want to hold the individual responsible for his or her own fate after a process of disempowering and indoctrination.

........

The point about an unconscious person is that they can't consent and If you do not know the person you do not know what their wishes are. But this does not give you permission to do something to them. You can't justify taking someones car when they are asleep on the basis of the impossibility of them consenting in their sleep.
When no consent is available that never leads to the conclusion that you can make something happen to someone. Imagine a future persons consent is not like imagining a unicorn because a future person will have wishes and desires and will exist.

When you don't mistreat an unconscious person you are doing this because you are imagining their future wishes .

But I don't really understand what you're saying here:

People often use the phrase "our children" as if we have collective responsibility or are all endorsing the same thing. I see having a child as an endorsement of everything, everything you are exposing them to.
— Andrew4Handel — Benkei

If you live in a world of inequality that is the world you are exposing your child to.

So it does not make sense to me to say you oppose inequality yet expose a child to it and your child will then be either one of the privileged or underprivileged.

If I live in a house with a leaking roof I would want to get that fixed before creating a child so as not to expose them to it.I think if everyone tried to bring their child into a decent lifestyle the world would be more decent.

And yes, I can imagine another person existing that doesn't exist yet. But I can imagine unicorns and dragons to exist too. That doesn't mean they become moral actors because of it and something I need to take into consideration when making ethical choices. — Benkei

C'mon we've been through this. Unicorns can never exist. A potential person can. We make political, ethical, and daily decisions all the time based on future people. That's a strawman to compare future people to unicorns.

As I said, I'm never trying to be disagreeable. So I won't be shooting for that at all.

C'mon we've been through this. Unicorns can never exist. A potential person can. We make political, ethical, and daily decisions all the time based on future people. That's a strawman to compare future people to unicorns. — schopenhauer1

Based on future people that will exist. Those aren't potential people. That's an important difference. A potential person doesn't exist, eg. it's nothing. That makes the comparison entirely apt.

I don't see how you think the fact people did not consent to be born or assent to life and society is trivial? — Andrew4Handel

It's not that it's trivial it's that it's a category error. I've explained this to you before. It doesn't stop being a category error just because you ignored that or you didn't understand it or whatever.

duplicate

Based on future people that will exist. Those aren't potential people. That's an important difference. A potential person doesn't exist, eg. it's nothing. That makes the comparison entirely apt. — Benkei

Not really. A unicorn can never exist in the future. A potential person is a placeholder for someone that can exist in the future. I have the components for a chair and the ability to make it.. but I may not make one. I decide not to make one. There is a potential chair, that has not be made into an actual chair. This is not complicated.

I cannot remember what your objection was. I don't see how creating someone does not create consent problems.

After a person is created they are capable of withholding consent and having an opinion on their existence. You are unlikely to create someone who does not value consent so then you are infringing on them.

I think most parents have it easy because most people don't realise the lack of consent issues so they are not going to crticise their parents or they don't accept consent arguments.

For example there are lots of things I would not have accepted as a child if I was informed. I would have refused to go to school for one. But I believed someone had authority over me to force me to go to school. Also I would not have gone to church and ignored my parents on a lot of issues.

Almost everyone knows someone they think is, or would make, an unfit parent. I cannot imagine anyone endorsing that a paedophile would make a suitable parent or a junkie.
Religious folk and others have opposed gays parenting.

The fact that we can judge someone to be an unfit parent before they have children means that the child does not have to exist to make welfare assessments about potential children.

People just need to extend this criticism to themselves and not assume they are good parenting material.

I cannot remember what your objection was. I don't see how creating someone does not create consent problems. — Andrew4Handel

Consent is a category error because there's no one to either grant or withhold consent. We need there to be a person capable of granting or withholding consent before consent is an issue.

We need there to be a person capable of granting or withholding consent before consent is an issue. — Terrapin Station

This is not true. You can discuss issues of consent in general and in an abstract way and from the experiences of prior people.

If someone sticks there hand in a fire and says "That really hurt" you don't need to stick your hand in the fire before deciding not to do so.
The issue of consent already exists because people already exist and you can't plead ignorance of the issue and its ramifications.

If you intend to create a new person than it is inevitable that consent issues will arise.

An unconscious person cannot give consent and that does not grant us permission to do what we like with them. The fact there is a stage where consent is not possible is not a get out clause.

This is not true. You can discuss issues of consent in general and in an abstract way and from the experiences of prior people. — Andrew4Handel

The issue is whether the person being born is granting consent or not, correct?

The issue is whether the person being born is granting consent or not, correct? — Terrapin Station

This issue is that life is not consensual. If someone cannot consent to being born then they are here in a non consensual manner.

If someone cannot consent to being born then they are here in a non consensual manner. — Andrew4Handel

They can't withhold consent can they?

Neither can an unconscious person.

Neither can an unconscious person. — Andrew4Handel

For an unconscious person, their preferences prior to being unconscious are what matter (for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_healthcare_directive). Do people who don't exist yet have that?

For an unconscious person, their preferences prior to being unconscious are what matter. — Terrapin Station

How do you know what there preferences were before?

Why don't possible preferences get considered?

Do you need to consider past preferences to decide that an unconscious person would not like to be set on fire? I have not stated all my preferences to everyone nor do I carry a list of all my preferences around with me in case of an accident. I find it implausible if you say you cannot imagine a future persons preferences or consent issues.

I do not think I am in a suitable position to be a parent. However I could claim my child does not exist so I am entitled become a parent because I cannot know until the child exist who they will feel about my parenting. However I think that it is wrong to gamble with someone else's life when there are good reasons not to.

How do you know what there preferences were before? — Andrew4Handel

Because they've expressed them. Sometimes formally: again, here's an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_healthcare_directive

Do you need to consider past preferences to decide that an unconscious person would not like to be set on fire? — Andrew4Handel

If you want to know whether they want to be set on fire, yes. If you don't know, then it's best not to act. But why that matters is because we're talking about a person who has preferences. You can not do this when the person does not exist.

If you want to know whether they want to be set on fire, yes. If you don't know, then it's best not to act. But why that matters is because we're talking about a person who has preferences. You can not do this when the person does not exist. — Terrapin Station

You can talk about the general rule that no human past present or future would like to be set on fire. It is ludicrous to claim you cannot talk hypothetically about these things when we can and are.

Because they've expressed them. Sometimes formally: again, here's an example: — Terrapin Station

That is rarely the case as I pointed out that people don't know my wishes and I don't go round advertising them all the time. Their wishes could easily have change anyway.

For example say someone is young and asks to be resuscitated in a living will in case of an accident. However they have an accident and become paralyzed and are very unhappy and wish they had not being.

There are several suicides where it is shown the person had changed their mind and tried to get help. So I don't think you can be confident about the desires of an unconscious person.

The problem is no one can consent to being brought into life. It is completely non consensual and I do not see how you can justify putting someone in that position where they did not consent to their life or having you as a parent and are not supposed to complain. I do not see where the entitlement to do that comes from. Your assumption must be that no one regrets being born which is clearly not the case.

If someone said

"Which would you prefer? Growing up in a nice house in the suburbs as a good looking healthy child or growing up with a chronic illness in a slum.?"

I would certainly prefer the former.

The idea that the child you are going to create has no preferences is ludicrous in my opinion. It is very easy to imagine what the a majority of people would dislike when they come to exist and social services already use this metric and the eugenics movement sterilized people based on perceived negative outcomes.

You can talk about the general rule that no human past present or future would like to be set on fire. — Andrew4Handel

You can just make up shit, you mean?

There is no "general rule" about preferences that is universal.

In addition, there are no preferences period, when it comes to nonexistent people.

There is no "general rule" about preferences that is universal. — Terrapin Station

So some people like being set on fire?

It's certainly possible that someone does.

Here's how you know: you ask the person in question.

Here's how you know: you ask the person in question. — Terrapin Station

It is too late after you have created a person to ask whether or not they wanted to experience life.

Your positions seems bogus to me if you claim not be able to imagine preferences especially in cases which are likely to have no exceptions.

If someone says "I hate life and kills themselves" How can you justify having created them? You decided that that child would want to be born. By having a child you must be assuming they want to born or are just been extremely selfish and self centered.

How many people enjoyed being slaves or dying in genocide?

It's certainly possible that someone does. — Terrapin Station

No it really isn't based on how the body responds to being burnt alive. It is unbearable.

No it really isn't based on how the body responds to being burnt alive. It is unbearable. — Andrew4Handel

First off, someone having a preference to x doesn't imply that they've experienced x yet.