I'd agree with that, but who argues that? — Terrapin Station

There are people who argue that by not having children, are depriving people of pleasure, and they think that is a bad thing. I agree it is a misconception, but it is the case.

No one argues that the absence of harm for nonexistent people is a good thing, either. (I mean, outside of Benatar and some followers--I'm not saying literally no one on the face of the Earth. I mean, to characterize it as some common sentiment is completely unfounded.) — Terrapin Station

Well, part of the charm for me in antinatalism, is trying to convey a case that isn't immediately apparent to people. Anyways, it usually is accepted that we don't want to impose suffering on others. You can make the move that some suffering is good. I will make the move that all suffering is bad, and the attempt to force it onto a new person would be likened to sadism on behalf of another. We will be stuck in the same circle.

So I don't see how that would make prostitution an unordered desire — Terrapin Station

can you explain to me how prostitution increases love of yourself or of others? I may well be too deeply entrenched in my own point of view to think of one. I just don't see a lot of love involved for either self or others in the exchange of money for sex.

No, a fortiori because I don't buy the notion of unconscious mental content. — Terrapin Station

What concept in our discussion would you say in "unconscious mental content" I don't see, suffering, desire, or love meeting a criteria of some kind of a priori unconscious mental content. I think there a general conscious understandings of what such things as those are.

What concept in our discussion would you say in "unconscious mental content" — Rank Amateur

I was trying to imagine ways that it might make sense to say that someone is "lying to themselves."

can you explain to me how prostitution increases love of yourself or of others? — Rank Amateur

First, love is simply an emotional disposition towards things, right? A very complex and variable emotional disposition (enough so that it's probably not a good idea to tag such a wide range of things with the same term), but it's an emotional disposition nonetheless. So it would just be a matter of having that emotional disposition towards oneself (and others, possibly, including the prostitute) when engaging in prostitution/solicitation.

I was trying to imagine ways that it might make sense to say that someone is "lying to themselves." — Terrapin Station

yea - My posit was they really can't. how is your calling you not being able to think of a way they can a fortiori an argument back against that? I don't see it.

There are people who argue that by not having children, are depriving people of pleasure, — schopenhauer1

I'm asking who, though. (As in I was hoping you could give some actual examples, because this seems very dubious to me.)

Anyways, it usually is accepted that we don't want to impose suffering on others. — schopenhauer1

Okay, but no one is going to accept that they don't want to impose suffering on a nonexistent person. They'd say that the person has to exist for that to even be a consideration.

yea - My posit was they really can't. — Rank Amateur

I was agreeing with you. "A fortiori because I don't buy the notion of unconscious mental phenomena" was an emphasis of that, where I was trying to imagine how someone might even say that it would be possible.

First, love is simply an emotional disposition towards things, right? A very complex and variable emotional disposition (enough so that it's probably not a good idea to tag such a wide range of things with the same term), but it's an emotional disposition nonetheless. So it would just be a matter of having that emotional disposition towards oneself (and others, possibly, including the prostitute) when engaging in prostitution/solicitation. — Terrapin Station

if someone could truly and honestly in their heart believe that I would agree. I can't see how that is possible - but I admit i could have a blind spot there.

Do you really think it is possible for someone to truly love the prostitute and for the prostitute to truly love the john and it not be Richard Gere and Julia Roberts ?? Guess it is possible and in that case no one is suffering.

got it thanks

I think it's possible for someone to "truly love" everyone.

Can't we be talking about loving events, actions, situations, etc., too, though?

I wish. Not sure it is possible for humans to "truly love: everyone, and certainly not all the time. I sure know I can't.

Think we are getting to a point of diminished returns on the discussion - just kind of saw that aspect of desire and suffering a significant part of Ignatian Spirituality, thought would share - as just one more world view.

I'm asking who, though. (As in I was hoping you could give some actual examples, because this seems very dubious to me.) — Terrapin Station

Oh you know Joe, Bob, Suzy, Liz, Brian, and Barry.

Okay, but no one is going to accept that they don't want to impose suffering on a nonexistent person. They'd say that the person has to exist for that to even be a consideration. — Terrapin Station

Yep, I'd agree. Someone will exist who will suffer. It is not happening to an actual person in the present. In fact suffering is occurring to nothing.

Oh you know Joe, Bob, Suzy, Liz, Brian, and Barry. — schopenhauer1

So it's not a common enough thing to argue that we could find a record of it anywhere?

Can you prove that people don't besides yourself? Is your evidence Tom, Dick, and Sally? Well, Joe, Bob, Suzy, and Liz beg to differ. Brian and Barry are just getting drunk. They are worthless.

So it's not a common enough thing to argue that we could find a record of it anywhere? — Terrapin Station

I'm not going to scour internet sources and libraries for your question any more than you probably will. But is there a notion that people think that by not having children those children are denied the "benefit" of living? Yes, I've heard it from this forum. And no, I'm not going to do the digging for you. The whole point is that while it doesn't matter if no one benefits from life (unless that person already exists). It does matter if a person will not experience suffering.

His argument takes the negative utilitarian idea extremely seriously. That is to say, harm is what matters, not pleasure. To restate this in a normative structure- potential parents are not obligated to bring someone who experiences joy/pleasure/positive value into the world. However, potential parents are obligated to prevent inevitable harms from occurring. One of his arguments comes from intuition. We don't usually feel pangs of compassionate sadness for the aliens not born to experience pleasure in a far away barren planet. We would most likely feel compassionate sadness, on the other hand, if we learned that aliens in a far away planet were born and were suffering. Suffering seems to matter more than bringing about pleasure in the realm of ethical decision-making. When prevention of all suffering is a guarantee and no actual person loses out on pleasure, this seems a win/win scenario.

I think my main problem with the argument is that bad/good ascriptions are not necessarily applicable to suffering or pleasure in themselves. Badness or goodness are separable from hedonic states. They should be defined in reference to some goal or [in the general human sense] with respect to whether something leads one closer to 'well being' or whether it leads them away from that. That makes intuitive sense from the utilitarian position [the good is a goal to which we reach, things are good if they result in the good], even in the case of a hedonic utilitarianism [which I assume is Barren and your position] where what's good is anything that minimizes suffering [your goal]. But that's just one utilitarian theory. Badden's argument would fail if you take anything else as 'the good', which many people do [spinoza's good is attaining freedom by managing passions; maslow's self actualization; societal stability; etc]. And even from the hedonic position, I simply disagree with his contention that there's an assymetry. I actually think many people do think the lack of an ability to experience pleasure [hell, even experiencing at all] is a wrong - it's what motivates my friend to get on my ass about not putting myself out of my comfort zone - because apparently I'm missing out. He [and other friends] feel obligated to push and challenge me, I'm sure you've had friends do the same. They are clearly operating under utilitarian assumption - that I'm not experiencing as much pleasure as I could because I'm limiting myself... a potential human would be limited in just the same way. Would you not say they intuitively feel missing out is a wrong in itself? If so then how is intuition alone enough to justify the asymmetry?

hey should be defined in reference to some goal or [in the general human sense] with respect to whether something leads one closer to 'well being' or whether it leads them away from that. — aporiap

This "should" seems a moot point in light of the fact that in the case of whether to procreate someone, that person doesn't need to exist in the first place in order to be lead to "well being". In fact, that is part of the AN's point. There is no need to create someone for an outside agenda that then needs to be followed by the very person which was created for that reason. It's like giving a problem to someone because you like seeing them solve it.

[spinoza's good is attaining freedom by managing passions; maslow's self actualization; societal stability; etc]. — aporiap

All of these schemas you mentioned not needed if people were not born. These are after-the-fact positions. A non-existent entity doesn't need to manage passions or self-actualize if not born. To be born in order to do these things would be using someone for this agenda, which seems odd to me. Like a journey that is inevitable for someone that didn't in fact have to be forced on that journey.

I actually think many people do think the lack of an ability to experience pleasure [hell, even experiencing at all] is a wrong - it's what motivates my friend to get on my ass about not putting myself out of my comfort zone - because apparently I'm missing out. — aporiap

Again, this doesn't make sense in the light that no one inevitable;y has to exist to experience anything in the first place. This is all after-the-fact of already being procreated and then trying to find cultural values to buy into to make do. First the schema needs to be agreed to be right by the individual, and then it is carried forthwith. Of course various individual personalities and temperaments may find these schemas not for them and switch to other ones. Or, the person simply falls into modern default mode- cobbling together the various cultural environs and values immediately at hand (pragmatic hedonism if you will the modern "default mode" of most).

They are clearly operating under utilitarian assumption - that I'm not experiencing as much pleasure as I could because I'm limiting myself... a potential human would be limited in just the same way. Would you not say they intuitively feel missing out is a wrong in itself? If so then how is intuition alone enough to justify the asymmetry? — aporiap

No, a non-existent potential person is not actually missing out. That is our projection on to a non-entity. However, if born, there is guaranteed suffering for that now procreated actual person. The projection of "missing out" is simply a misconception that anguishes an already existing person. The actual suffering that the procreated child will experience is actual and real though. Projected suffering for the already existing can be mitigated by the actual person who is already born.

Also, this projected feeling of "missing out" for the as yet not existing person, can also be taken to absurd lengths. If taken to the logical extreme then we can say the billions and trillions of yet to be born people are missing out. But that is silly. Even more absurd would be that it is people's duty to those billions of non-existent people to keep having more people to reduce those non-existent people's "pain" of not existing and missing out. Obviously that makes no sense.

Ordered desires - taking the God part out, are those desires that stated simply increase love, desiring things that increase love in yourself and in others will not cause suffering. — Rank Amateur

The source of suffering is thought. Everything else discussed above in the thread are symptoms of the underlying mechanism. Thought operates by dividing a single unified reality in to conceptual parts. This process creates the "me" which is experienced as something separate from everything else, a perspective which creates a sense of isolation and thus fear, resulting in a desire to escape this experience. Desire isn't the cause of suffering, but rather a symptom of the isolating experience generated by the divisive nature of thought.

To translate Catholic doctrine in to my own language, ordered desires are a reach for love, and love is an attempt to overcome the experience of division which is at the heart of the human condition. The point of the love teaching is not so much to assist others as it is an invitation to enter in to a process which will help us weaken the illusion of division which is expressed in our experience of "me".

This is why Christianity (and similar teachings) have lasted for thousands of years. It's not that billions of people are so concerned about social order, the largest of questions and such, but because when people experience the giving of love they discover that this experience is in their own self interest, it helps relieve the pain that is being fueled by the illusion of division that thought generates.

Suffering has never been conquered by any ideology or action because it arises from thought, which is not an optional human experience. Thought is not only how we survive in the world, it is literally what we are made of psychologically. The volume of thought can be managed by pretty much anyone, and some experts are able to turn thought off for periods of time, but imho there are no credible reports of anyone being able to totally escape the reality of suffering.

Some level of suffering is the price tag for the power of thought, and so to some degree one just has to accept it, and try to develop a sense of humor about the human condition.

I would propose that the disordered desires above are causing great suffering - to the women, to the people entrapping/enslaving the women and to all the Robert Krafts that pay the woman. — Rank Amateur

I'm sure we'll all agree that slavery is not about love, but that doesn't automatically equal all money for sex transactions being disordered. That's just a business transaction, and like any business transaction it can be conducted ruthlessly or in love.

I would agree that in the real world there is a great deal of ruthlessness involved in the sex trade. At least part of the problem is that Catholic doctrine over many centuries has resulted in this business being illegal, and thus just as is true in the drug business the illegality boosts profits, and attracts criminals.

As pot become legal in more places, fewer people will need to do business with the drug gangsters because they will be able to buy safe pot at sane prices at the local grocery store. Same with the sex business.

Imho, and apologies for this, Catholic doctrine has long tried to demonize sex because 1) virgin celibate Catholic clergy know nothing about sex and 2) sex is another way to reach for God which competes with the service Catholic clergy are selling.

There are a LOT of lonely people in the world. The Church does a good job of serving many of them, and sex workers do a good job of serving many others. It's not an either/or equation, but rather a variety of ways to reach for the same goal. Just as sex workers can be evil or kind, the same is true of Catholic clergy.

- thanks Jake no shock I would disagree with most, if not all of that. But none of my disagreements have any kind of a real philosophic basis -

the one point I would make to you is the nature of ordered or disordered. It is not centered on the item or the action, it is centered on the motivation, on the why, on an honest discernment if the action (sorry for the foray into God) is for the greater glory of God, or the love of others or self). This is a pretty hard and easy evaluation all at the same time. Although we all can rationalize almost anything, I do think it is impossible to lie to yourself. So it is just a look into your self and what your true self says that matters.

Don't think you could possibly convince me of the case. But if you told me that the prostitute in his/her true self did not find it disordered, and if the john in his/her true self did not find it disordered, and if any other party to the act did not find it truly disordered - than I would say it is not disordered. i just can't see how that is possible.

All of these schemas you mentioned not needed if people were not born. These are after-the-fact positions. A non-existent entity doesn't need to manage passions or self-actualize if not born. To be born in order to do these things would be using someone for this agenda, which seems odd to me. Like a journey that is inevitable for someone that didn't in fact have to be forced on that journey.

I provided the alternatives to demonstrate that negative utilitarianism is itself just one of many theories, and that the antinatalist position depends on it. If bad does not necessarily equal suffering, then you cannot simply make the claim that we are obligated to prevent suffering. What makes us obligated here is the fact that suffering is considered bad. The implicit premise is that (1) we prevent something because it is bad (2) suffering is bad. If suffering is not itself intrinsically bad, there's no obligation.

Again, this doesn't make sense in the light that no one inevitably has to exist to experience anything in the first place. This is all after-the-fact of already being procreated and then trying to find cultural values to buy into to make do. First the schema needs to be agreed to be right by the individual, and then it is carried forthwith. Of course various individual personalities and temperaments may find these schemas not for them and switch to other ones. Or, the person simply falls into modern default mode- cobbling together the various cultural environs and values immediately at hand (pragmatic hedonism if you will the modern "default mode" of most).

Firstly, as I've said before, I think you're discounting that negative hedonic utilitarianism [the basis for the whole anti-natalist position] is itself a cultural construct. You'd be committing a naturalistic fallacy if you think just because suffering is uncomfortable it is forthrightly bad, and thus an unborn person is better in that state because it prevents him from suffering.

Secondly my point there was countering the intuition based argument for the asymmetry of suffering/pleasure. It seems the only basis is that we have an intuition that preventing suffering is an obligation while promoting pleasure is not, but I am stating here that there are people with intuitions that promoting pleasure is something that you should promote and that they feel a kind of compassion or sympathy for people who aren't in that state.

Also, this projected feeling of "missing out" for the as yet not existing person, can also be taken to absurd lengths. If taken to the logical extreme then we can say the billions and trillions of yet to be born people are missing out. But that is silly. Even more absurd would be that it is people's duty to those billions of non-existent people to keep having more people to reduce those non-existent people's "pain" of not existing and missing out. Obviously that makes no sense.

I can take the 'obligation to prevent suffering' to absurd lengths as well. Why do anything at all, knowing that moving from my comfortable bed now will inevitably lead to discomfort [suffering]? Why walk down 5th avenue or drive a car when you are both putting yourself in a less relaxed state and making yourself at risk for being hurt in an accident or hit by a meteor? Sure they can lead to pleasures, but this isn't necessary and we are nevertheless obligated to proactively prevent suffering whenever possible, so in fact we really shouldn't even leave the house.

The implicit premise is that (1) we prevent something because it is bad (2) suffering is bad. If suffering is not itself intrinsically bad, there's no obligation. — aporiap

Firstly, as I've said before, I think you're discounting that negative hedonic utilitarianism [the basis for the whole anti-natalist position] is itself a cultural construct. You'd be committing a naturalistic fallacy if you think just because suffering is uncomfortable it is forthrightly bad, and thus an unborn person is better in that state because it prevents him from suffering. — aporiap

Secondly my point there was countering the intuition based argument for the asymmetry of suffering/pleasure. It seems the only basis is that we have an intuition that preventing suffering is an obligation while promoting pleasure is not, but I am stating here that there are people with intuitions that promoting pleasure is something that you should promote and that they feel a kind of compassion or sympathy for people who aren't in that state. — aporiap

Benatar does a good job separating ethical decisions related to starting a life vs. continuing a life. He sees these two decision matrix as requiring different weights for good and bad. For something that does not exist yet, no one is actually deprived. This is an important point. No actual person is around to miss out on anything. It is only in the parents' head. However, if born, an actual person will be born to suffer.

Now, to your point about suffering not being bad. There are certain limits to ethical claims. I can't go any further than saying that to expose someone to harm for some agenda (reason) is wrong to do to a person. No person needs to go through X agenda (that is deemed valuable), such that it incurs harm in the process IF it didn't need to be exposed to the harm, nor obtain the agenda in the first place.
If the person already existed, this might make sense since an actual person exists to be the benefit of some "greater good" had through suffering. But to create something so it goes through this "greater good" process of suffering/adversity for higher good, is akin to creating a problem so that it can be solved. No one needed to go through it in the first place. The obligations and sufferings of life, do not need to be had by anyone. No one is harmed, no one is actually deprived (except in the mind of the already living as a projection).

I can't go much further than trying to convince you that to create a situation where you are exposing someone to all forms of harm in order for them to go through some agenda/adventure/process is using them for the already-living's projection of what should be obtained. Suffering should be all that counts in ethics. Everything else is control, manipulation, and bestowing burdens to be overcome, for the edification of the already-living. Nothing noble happens by going through the process of life and then dying. It is simply a person exposed to harm that did not need to be.

The problem I have with utilitarian ethical formulas is that it assumes human conflict and violence is a function of having the wrong intent. I beleive that even if we could imagine a future where everyone followed the proper ethical intention to the letter, such as avoiding suffering, it would make no significant dent in the amount of conflict in the world
That's because social strife and abuse is not about intent but the gap between ways of sense- making. Our failure to act 'ethically' is the result of our struggles in construing the other's worldview from their perspective. No amount of prorer intent or focus on suffering will solve this problem. Only progress at subsuming another's scheme of understanding as a variant of our own will free us from the need to blame t he other for their 'bad intent', , the current example being the alleged failure to prioritize suffering,(which just perpetuates the problem)..

thanks Jake no shock I would disagree with most, if not all of that. But none of my disagreements have any kind of a real philosophic basis — Rank Amateur

Ok, no problem. I guess to me prostitution is a business transaction, and is thus subject to all the pros and cons of any business transaction. You know, licensed massage therapy (fully legal, no sex) is also a very personal physical service. Is it too automatically disordered, from the Catholic point of view? Anyway, just a perspective to share, not trying to convert you either.

(sorry for the foray into God) — Rank Amateur

For the record, I have no objection to a Catholic discussing God. Everybody else is selling their point of view, I don't see why you should exclude yourself from that.

the one point I would make to you is the nature of ordered or disordered. It is not centered on the item or the action, it is centered on the motivation, on the why, — Rank Amateur

I get ya, that makes sense.

But if you told me that the prostitute in his/her true self did not find it disordered, and if the john in his/her true self did not find it disordered, and if any other party to the act did not find it truly disordered - than I would say it is not disordered. i just can't see how that is possible. — Rank Amateur

Would you say the same thing about a licensed massage therapist and his or her client?

Would you say the same thing about a licensed massage therapist and his or her client? — Jake

Sure, other than I would see it as very possible. I have ran a few marathons, could not have done it without deep tissue massage taking out the knots. The only thing it had in common with sex was a little bit of touch and me screaming

If you wish to explore it, what makes the sex business and the massage business so different in your mind (if I understand you correctly) in terms of ordered and disordered?

Obviously, there's the legal difference, but that doesn't seem to be your concern, best I can tell.

BTW, I once had a massage license, and my wife has been doing it for a living for over 30 years. Don't worry, you won't insult us no matter your perspective, feel free to speak your mind as you wish. Just sayin, it's not a theory subject for us here.

The problem I have with utilitarian ethical formulas is that it assumes human conflict and violence is a function of having the wrong intent. I beleive that even if we could imagine a future where everyone followed the proper ethical intention to the letter, such as avoiding suffering, it would make no significant dent in the amount of conflict in the world
That's because social strife and abuse is not about intent but the gap between ways of sense- making. Our failure to act 'ethically' is the result of our struggles in construing the other's worldview from their perspective. No amount of prorer intent or focus on suffering will solve this problem. Only progress at subsuming another's scheme of understanding as a variant of our own will free us from the need to blame t he other for their 'bad intent', , the current example being the alleged failure to prioritize suffering,(which just perpetuates the problem).. — Joshs

I thought most utilitarian ethical formulas were consequential not primarily intent-driven? Anyways, AN sort of bypasses all of this. If no one is born, there is no one to live in a world of conflicting views that cause strife. Life in general has an aspect of conflict built into it. Daily life can be full of it. No new person, means no actual person who must deal with all of this built in conflict and strife. Why expose more people to this strife then? Well, the answer has to do with what I was saying in my previous post about people putting an X agenda above suffering of the procreated individual. Somehow the goal of going through the life itself overrides consideration of harm. Why does a person need to go through this in the first place though, when they didn't even exist to need to go through this? There has been no good responses to this, and there will be no good responses to this without walking into the conundrum of the X agenda on behalf of the procreated person overriding considerations of suffering.

Headlines now: Medical doctor treats tape worm infection using experimental Buddhist surgery. Worms still there, attachment to body gone. — fdrake

hehe, you must've been waiting to use that one :grin:

Benatar does a good job separating ethical decisions related to starting a life vs. continuing a life. He sees these two decision matrix as requiring different weights for good and bad. For something that does not exist yet, no one is actually deprived. This is an important point. No actual person is around to miss out on anything. It is only in the parents' head. However, if born, an actual person will be born to suffer. — schopenhauer1

Sorry if this is a tangent, but it will be quick. Also, my question is not sarcastic or snarky, nor intending to be derogatory. Just the one glaring question that always seems to jump out at me when I read about anti-natalism. Why don't anti-natalists promote suicide? The paragraph above explains why they don't promote murder, but gives no reason why all these "suffering" people don't just end the suffering they so adamantly seek to save potential others from. If there is no reason to be born in the first place, why exist just to suffer?

Sorry if this is a tangent, but it will be quick. Also, my question is not sarcastic or snarky, nor intending to be derogatory. Just the one glaring question that always seems to jump out at me when I read about anti-natalism. Why don't anti-natalists promote suicide? The paragraph above explains why they don't promote murder, but gives no reason why all these "suffering" people don't just end the suffering they so adamantly seek to save potential others from. If there is no reason to be born in the first place, why exist just to suffer? — ZhouBoTong

Again, that is Benatar's point that there is a difference in decisions related to starting a life and continuing a life. There are different considerations and weights as to the goodness and badness of life. If one is born, one tends to develop a personality that also develops preferences-fulfilled, desires had, good experiences, etc. We are also creatures that mainly fear the unknown and possible pain associated with death. For these reasons- continuing to live is distinctly different from starting someone else's life. Starting a life deals in circumstances where there is no actual person- no actual person that is actually deprived, no actual person that needs or wants. When someone is already born, then it is simply making do. We create goals, we pursue wants and desires, we do that pendulum swing between survival, comfort, and entertainment within a socio-cultural background. The antinatalism position does not entail a promortalism position.