If you're born, then I think the only way forward is that way. If you're arguing for antinatalism, 99.99% of people don't have or not have children based on philosophical argument, so it doesn't matter. — csalisbury

True, but as I stated, "Nothingness never hurt anyone". Why "disturb" this by creating a new being of experience?

Also related, you must admit that life is a bit like being on a fast moving treadmill that will fling you off into the wall if you stop running. That is to say, once born, you are then forced into the transactions and labor to at the least, keep yourself alive. You cannot get off that treadmill. There is just do it or die. This is a bit unreasonable to do to someone else. Yet we know this is the way things are, but put more people on this treadmill. Offhand justifications are something to the effect of "Oh well, they shouldn't mind. They'll just have to navigate it best they can". But what is with this inevitability? The inevitability is put in the equation as if there was no other choice.

(I also have an idea similar to Javra's maybe, that people aren't brought from nothing into the world, its more like a redistribution of consciousness, so antibatalism wouldn't work anyway, but I can't really argue that, at least not anytime soon.) — csalisbury

I see where you are coming from, and Schopenhauer might have had a similar idea actually. But I'm still going to say that it isn't the whole of consciousness but the margins of decisions. That particular possible person was not born. That another person was born from another set of people does not negate this fact. If someone does a bad act, does that negate the fact that another person did not engage in a bad act?

Does this then signify that you are only semi-antinatalist? Meaning: to each their own. Isn't this the way its always been and always will be?

I guess I then fail to understand why you want others to cease the continuation of life rather than allow them/us the freedom to do what we deem rational, what we see fit. There's something in the way here. — javra

Well, I do believe in the freedom of people to do what they believe on this matter. However, what I'm saying is similar to what I said to csalisbury. That is to say, one person procreating does not negate the fact that another did not. A person doing a bad act does not negate that others did the good act. See my post to csalisbury.

You bring up some good points about our ability to forget past pain. David Benatar talked about this phenomenon in his book Better Never to Have Been. He called it Pollyannaism- the ability to see past harmful events in a less harmful light. He thought this was a bad thing though because we are constantly misestimating how much pain we have experienced. So it is like constant amnesia in our objectivity in assessing what is really going on.

I'd like to bring up another point, and that is the fast moving treadmill metaphor I used with csalisbury. That is to say, life is like a fast moving treadmill that we cannot get off of without getting flung into the wall. Life forces us to make transactions and labor, but it seems as if people say, "Well it's just inevitable. We have to just try to navigate it the best we can". But where is this have to get into the equation, as if there was no choice? We certainly can't take a break from the laboring and the keeping oneself alive altogether. It is something we can't get out of. A bad obstacle course or maze that we have to navigate, and cannot be escaped.

The point is that invoking nothingness, in the traditional sense, as an alternative to being is unknowingly embracing a certain kind of being. It's not that we can't get what we want when we desire the nothing, but that longing for the nihil is just as much an active engagement with meaningfulness as desiring anything else, because the nothing always manifests itself as a certain kind of substantive within meaningful contexts. — Joshs

Yes, that is actually similar to my answer when people ask me, "What's the point worrying about future people, when you are already born?". The answer is that the catharsis had in identifying with the not-born, provides the meaningful context, the existential therapy for which there is some relief for the already-born.

Is it actually coherent that before our births we did not exist in any sense? As if from a 'state' of parinirvana, a mind-stream has been formed (with it's inherent sufferings that have to be dealt with) for just a single blip of a lifetime, only to have its causes disassemble and the mind-steam ceases eternally. Like some sort of cosmic blip of suffering, in between timeless noncondition. — Inyenzi

Actually, that's not too far off :D.

If 'I' did not exist prior to this life, and yet from that unconditioned 'state' a lifetime, or a first person conscious experience has arisen, why therefore when I 'return' to that same 'state' (it is hard to talk about this without committing logical fallacies), would I forever remain unconditioned? When we know from that I am sitting here typing this post, conditioned states have arisen from unconditioned/non-existent/nothingness. If I die, why would I stay dead?

It is as if the antinatalist is saying, "life is dukkha - stop pulling beings from nirvana!" "Stop bringing forth experience from nonexistence!" Is this coherent? I'm not sure. — Inyenzi

Human life comes from deliberate acts. If people deliberately, prevented birth, people would not be born. This is more about possibilities. One person born, does not negate the fact that ten others could have been born but were not. That one person's consciousness does not bear the burdens of the ten people that were not born.

He called it Pollyannaism — schopenhauer1

There's another condition named after Pollyanna's sister--the Cassandra Syndrome -- hand wringing, doom-saying.

God, I don't know which one is worse: Pollyanna who make lemon meringue pie when pelted with lemons or Cassandra who predicts the lemon meringue pie is loaded with botulism and we'll all die.

God, I don't know which one is worse: — Bitter Crank

Their mother, for inflicting life upon both :)

I'm considering paying you if you'll post about another topic for awhile.

"Well it's just inevitable. We have to just try to navigate it the best we can". But where is this have to get into the equation, as if there was no choice? We certainly can't take a break from the laboring and the keeping oneself alive altogether. It is something we can't get out of. A bad obstacle course or maze that we have to navigate, and cannot be escaped. — schopenhauer1

But people do not have children based on philosophical arguments or reasoning, and so it might be somewhat misguided to try and prevent births through philosophical argument. Although some may retrospectively apply grand philosophical reasons to why they have children ("the good outweighs the bad"), reproduction comes from the domain of biology, not philosophy. More births would be prevented teaching contraceptive methods in high schools say, than through philosophical debate but as you it's about the catharsis, and not the actual result. Could you elaborate more on this catharsis/therapy idea?

For most people, "navigating it the best we can", includes finding a partner, getting married, starting a family. Existing as part of a community. Because navigating the gauntlet of life alone means facing near insurmountable obstacles - we find it easier and more meaningful to navigate these obstacles together. And so partnerships are created, babies are born, and more therefore are born, tasked with maintaining biological/social/existential homeostasis. The child is just as a much a result of life's sufferings, as a requisite condition for their apprehension at all.

Is it actually coherent that before our births we did not exist in any sense? As if from a 'state' of parinirvana, a mind-stream has been formed (with it's inherent sufferings that have to be dealt with) for just a single blip of a lifetime, only to have its causes disassemble and the mind-steam ceases eternally. Like some sort of cosmic blip of suffering, in between timeless noncondition.
— Inyenzi

Actually, that's not too far off :D. — schopenhauer1

Surely conditions can only arise from previous conditions? As in, babies emerge and assemble from what already exists. We are not pulled from nothingness into our mothers wombs. Although we can imagine an empty void of nothingness preexisting our birth (the same void where the potential children lie?) it doesn't mean that what we are imagining is coherent, or at all how we came to be. I think this rests on a dubious philosophy of mind where the mind is thought of as a private distinct entity, separate from the world and the conditions that brought it about. Maybe nirvana isn't assured at death at all.

If we are allowed to put this idea in the context of the universe as a whole and why we are here and what should we do, and what happens after death, so here is what my thoughts are.

First of all, the fight between nothing, something and more is always there and will be there forever. Something is better than nothing but more is better than something. The more we struggle with this notion and idea, the more we will lose the touch with reality and of what is actually required and what is extra. Of course we cannot quantify extra as the thought of future is fixed in our minds, but if we have the thought of me being able to live in the future as i am now, then there you go problem is solved. For those who have studied religion will understand that God has promised you a life and you will get it till your time is not up. Meaning that you will have something while you are here in this world. Now once you have that ideology then to me you can work and live happily. Now God has not said that you shouldn't work hard and earn more of course its good but how much more???

To me we all of us should always think out loud and quantify our own lives in a way that is acceptable to us and not to others. If we try to justify our lives with someone that is way up there and higher with the percentage that you presented here then in no way we can be satisfied with our lives. It is one of the reasons that we are struggling with our lives. We cannot settle and it can be simple as that. To me this justification should always be done with someone who have less than you, that way you can teach your own desires that you actually have more. As we all know that a rich will need more and a poor will need to get something but once he has something then he will ask for more. With this teaching you can live happily and you can also help others on your way.

We also cannot quantify nothing. Even after death there is life and that will require something. Now what are those, can be good deeds, good service for the community, good children so they can help others and so on...If we set a purpose for our lives on this world then to me the burden of thoughts can be lesser than those who are living on daily bases. Yes we all need money and etc., to live and be alive but more than that we should understand of why should we live.

I'm considering paying you if you'll post about another topic for awhile. — Terrapin Station

Bribing Schopenhauer1 to post about something else would surely count as one of the spiritual works of mercy -- "comfort the afflicted". In Schopenhauer1's case, it would amount to getting the stuck out of their rut. So, how much $ do you think it would take, and how long would "a while" be?

Maybe Schopenhauer1 himself could answer this question? How much for how long? Look, it wouldn't be forever. We don't have that much money. Hell, it might not even be for a week--we all being impoverished philosophers. Perhaps during the interregnum you could find new material. You do present the case for antinatalism so well, but perhaps there is another angle that hasn't been pursued yet.

I'd like to go back to the treadmill idea. When bringing a child into this world, they are going to be on the perpetual treadmill or get flung into the wall. There is no escape from the treadmill of survival. Why put someone through that?

Could you elaborate more on this catharsis/therapy idea? — Inyenzi

We cannot be unborn, but we can prevent others from being born. We can rebel against the cruelty of the treadmill that is life, by simply not putting more people in the treadmill. Simply the act of rebellion against a cruel system can be its own cathartic act- like fighting against tyranny where one sees it.

For most people, "navigating it the best we can", includes finding a partner, getting married, starting a family. Existing as part of a community. Because navigating the gauntlet of life alone means facing near insurmountable obstacles - we find it easier and more meaningful to navigate these obstacles together. And so partnerships are created, babies are born, and more therefore are born, tasked with maintaining biological/social/existential homeostasis. The child is just as a much a result of life's sufferings, as a requisite condition for their apprehension at all. — Inyenzi

Perhaps so, but look what that is saying. Children are born as a result of our own sufferings, to have the torch passed. Why should we keep letting the next generation be the salve for facing our own near insurmountable obstacles? Is it really logical to pass more near obstacles and challenges to a new generation because we need a way to cope with our own? The sacrifice for a higher cause then, would not let one's own aloneness and obstacles to become the catalyst for causing yet more people to face obstacles.

Perhaps sex is biological- pleasure feels good. But we have a lot of biological drives we can respond to through self-awareness, learning, and changing norms to fit a new understanding.

life is a bit like being on a fast moving treadmill that will fling you off into the wall if you stop running. That is to say, once born, you are then forced into the transactions and labor to at the least, keep yourself alive. You cannot get off that treadmill. There is just do it or die. This is a bit unreasonable to do to someone else. Yet we know this is the way things are, but put more people on this treadmill. — schopenhauer1

Some people love that treadmill, they are glad to be alive, their hardships make their joys even stronger. And then they have the amazing experience of sex with someone they love, then the amazing experience of being pregnant and preparing to welcome their baby to the world, then the amazing experience of having that baby and taking care of it and having fun with it and enjoying moments with it and helping it grow so it can become a great and happy and beautiful man or woman, and then they look back at their life and they are glad to have lived it.

And then there are the people who suffer every day and who wonder why the hell they are here and what's the point of living, who wonder why they would put anyone through the same torture they live every day.

Some people have an enjoyable life, some people have a horrible life. Some people have it easy, some others have to try hard or cope hard to make their life enjoyable. It's a bit of a lottery. Looking at my own past experiences, if things had played out differently I could have had a happy life now, had the circumstances been different.

We suffer when we want something and we believe we can't get it, or when we believe that it's not worth enduring what we have to do to get it. I have my own idea of what I need to be happy, when I believed I could get it I was fighting for it and life was ok, but now that I have stopped believing I can get it I suffer constantly. Either I manage to stop wanting that thing, or I manage to start believing again that I can get it, or at some point I will stop finding it worth it to keep on living.

Happiness depends on a lot of subjective and objective factors, and we don't have control over all of them, so there is some luck involved. We're not the lucky ones, but the lucky ones won't stop creating new beings so that they too can experience their joys.

Where I agree is that the people who don't enjoy their life probably shouldn't have a baby hoping that it will bring them meaning and joy; if they haven't managed to make their life enjoyable then it's likely their baby won't find the solution either, unless there is a lot of luck involved.

Some people love that treadmill, they are glad to be alive, their hardships make their joys even stronger. And then they have the amazing experience of sex with someone they love, then the amazing experience of being pregnant and preparing to welcome their baby to the world, then the amazing experience of having that baby and taking care of it and having fun with it and enjoying moments with it and helping it grow so it can become a great and happy and beautiful man or woman, and then they look back at their life and they are glad to have lived it. — leo

Forcing someone into an obstacle course or a challenge is objectively bad, even if the participant eventually identifies with the challenges forced upon him. Forcing someone on a non-stop treadmill, forced to work, deal with adversity, and unmitigated suffering, or die a slow death by starvation or a fast death by suicide, does not seem right, morally speaking.

The problem people think they see with antinatalism it is so radically different than the notions that are often accepted. Life must be good to give to another person. But, just because an idea is radically different than what is accepted, doesn't make it wrong. Sometimes, it is exactly what is needed to shake people out of their stupor with what is really going on.

Forcing someone into an obstacle course or a challenge is objectively bad, even if the participant eventually identifies with the challenges forced upon him. Forcing someone on a non-stop treadmill, forced to work, deal with adversity, and unmitigated suffering, or die a slow death by starvation or a fast death by suicide, does not seem right, morally speaking. — schopenhauer1

But the problem with this view is that it is your own subjective view based on how you experience life, and not one shared by everyone. The same thing can be interpreted in different ways. The same glass can be seen as half-empty or as half-full. The same obstacle can be seen as a source of suffering or as a challenge to overcome to reach something better. These people don't see life as a non-stop treadmill full of suffering, they see it as a source of joy.

There are people who are rich, who don't have to work and yet who suffer constantly, while there are people who work outdoors for 12 hours a day just to have enough to feed their family and yet who feel content about life. As I said we don't have complete control on how we feel about life, but still it would be wrong to see life as objectively bad when many people genuinely enjoy it and find in it more joy than pain, and for whom the joy more than makes up for the pain.

I agree with antinatalism if it is likely that the children will suffer enough that they would rather be dead than alive, but many people would rather be alive than dead, and I think there is no way you can convince them that life is horrible if they enjoy it and don't want to die. You can convince the people who suffer a lot, with enough persuasion you might make some more people depressed and convince them too, but you can't convince the people who genuinely enjoy life that whay they experience is not worth it.

But the problem with this view is that it is your own subjective view based on how you experience life, and not one shared by everyone. The same thing can be interpreted in different ways. The same glass can be seen as half-empty or as half-full. The same obstacle can be seen as a source of suffering or as a challenge to overcome to reach something better. These people don't see life as a non-stop treadmill full of suffering, they see it as a source of joy. — leo

I noticed you didn't quite address my argument but moved it to one that I wasn't quite making. What I said was that forcing an obstacle course or relentless treadmill onto someone is always, objectively a bad thing, whether one eventually identifies with it or not. Creating situations of challenge, stress, and harm for someone else, even if they eventually find joy from the adversity or despite it, is wrong to do to someone else. It is not a no harm, no foul situation, as you might object. This is especially true in the case of procreation as there was no one in the first place that was around to need to be challenged, or find the joy in adversity. This was a point I was trying to make with @Bitter Crank too.

I noticed you didn't quite address my argument but moved it to one that I wasn't quite making. What I said was that forcing an obstacle course or relentless treadmill onto someone is always, objectively a bad thing, whether one eventually identifies with it or not. Creating situations of challenge, stress, and harm for someone else, even if they eventually find joy from the adversity or despite it, is wrong to do to someone else. It is not a no harm, no foul situation, as you might object. — schopenhauer1

I understood what you said, and I attempted to explain why I disagree with it.

Your premise is that life is objectively an obstacle course or a relentless treadmill, and I disagree.

I remember being a happy kid. At the time life was in no way to me an obstacle course or a relentless treadmill, it was a source of joy, of discovery, of fun, it was in no way a struggle or an adversity. Of course I had little to worry about at the time, since my parents provided for me, I didn't have to worry about getting food or paying the rent. But the point is even though there were some constraints imposed on me, I didn't see them as constraints, it was a little price to pay for how great life was besides. I was happy to be alive, life was not a burden it was a blessing. My parents forcing it onto me was not a bad thing, it was a good thing.

Your life at the moment is a burden, so you see life as a burden, but what I try to explain is that some other people see it as a blessing.

Just like in the example of the glass half-empty or half-full. Of course if you're really thirsty you're more prone to see the glass as half-empty. If you know you're going to spend a lot of time without water you're more prone to see the glass as half-empty. Or if you want to accumulate as much resources as possible, you're more likely to see the glass as half-empty. But if you're not that thirsty, not that anxious about the future or not that greedy, you're more likely to see the glass as half-full.

And again I don't blame people if they find their life to be a burden. At the moment my life is a burden too. We don't have complete control over our circumstances or how we feel. But if things ever turn around for you, you might see life again in a positive light, and then you might realize that it wasn't life that was objectively a burden, it was the things that burdened you that made you see it as a burden.

Life is not objectively an obstacle course or a relentless treadmill, it appears to be so when we are struggling. As humans we're quick to generalize, when we struggle for a long time we think it can't be any other way, when we're depressed we think we won't ever get any better. And then one day it gets better, and we realize that what we saw as objective was a temporary state of mind.

I remember being a happy kid. At the time life was in no way to me an obstacle course or a relentless treadmill, it was a source of joy, of discovery, of fun, it was in no way a struggle or an adversity. Of course I had little to worry about at the time, since my parents provided for me, I didn't have to worry about getting food or paying the rent. But the point is even though there were some constraints imposed on me, I didn't see them as constraints, it was a little price to pay for how great life was besides. I was happy to be alive, life was not a burden it was a blessing. My parents forcing it onto me was not a bad thing, it was a good thing. — leo

This is a bit of a digression to my main argument which is that it is objectively bad to give a metaphorical obstacle course or relentless treadmill to a new person, but this might be a good candidate for the Pollyanna principle. In hindsight, things seem to be better than what they were. As a child, things were more dramatic, kids are more selfish, events and people seems unfair much of the time, we do not fully understand what is going on, and a lot of other stuff. You can tell me that this wasn't the case for you, and that you and many others are exceptions, but I do know that assessing life as an adult of what it was actually like to live a life with a developing brain, is more than a bit biased. It is easy to relegate a whole bunch of years and experiences as overall "good" later on as an adult. Hence, the Pollyanna principle of seeing things as better in retrospect or when generalizing experience in aggregate may be in play here. Another problem is you can simply say any set of experiences is "good" simply to shut my argument down, whether that was the case at the time or not. I have no way of really telling. A minor example is a shitty work day. You get back home and drink a few beers and perhaps you forget it, until you return. If someone asked you during those few beers you might say, "Things are well". It's so nuanced, generalized statements are indeed not a great indicate whether something is good.

Anyways,

Life is not objectively an obstacle course or a relentless treadmill, it appears to be so when we are struggling. As humans we're quick to generalize, when we struggle for a long time we think it can't be any other way, when we're depressed we think we won't ever get any better. And then one day it gets better, and we realize that what we saw as objective was a temporary state of mind. — leo

I would disagree that it is not objectively an obstacle course or relentless treadmill. You keep overlooking that my statement does not depend on the person's attitude towards the obstacle course or treadmill. Making a new person have to do X, Y, and Z actions which require them to navigate various challenges to live and entertain themselves, and generally find comfort in society is considered for me an obstacle course/treadmill that cannot be escaped. Someone is always given these challenges when born. The main premise is that it is objectively bad to give these challenges to a new person, whatever attitude they have at any given time about the challenges themselves. There is no justification to cause someone else to have to endure challenges of X, Y, or Z.

It is easy to relegate a whole bunch of years and experiences as overall "good" later on as an adult. — schopenhauer1

It is not that I assess now that it was "good" back then, it is that I remember assessing it as "good" back then. I remember waking up eager to have fun and experience the world, and going to bed feeling safe and calm and loved.

Another problem is you can simply say any set of experiences is "good" simply to shut my argument down, whether that was the case at the time or not. I have no way of really telling. — schopenhauer1

My purpose here is not to shut your argument down, it is to express as honestly as possible how I feel. Whether it happens to contradict your argument is another story. You have no way of really telling how honest I am, like you have no way of really telling how other people see life, but still you selectively take for granted what supports the view that life is objectively bad, and dismiss as lies or delusions what supports the view that it isn't.

A minor example is a shitty work day. You get back home and drink a few beers and perhaps you forget it, until you return. If someone asked you during those few beers you might say, "Things are well". It's so nuanced, generalized statements are indeed not a great indicate whether something is good. — schopenhauer1

Sure, people often say they are ok even when they aren't. And a good experience might temporarily make one forget about a previous bad one, but only until you go to bed and you start stressing about going to work again the next day. Just like a bad experience can temporarily make one forget about a previous good one.

But I'm not pretending to be ok here. I have said clearly that at the moment my life is a burden. I am not embellishing things. The problem with the bias you are having here is that if I tell you I have thought about killing myself you will use it as a proof that life is objectively bad, while if I tell you I haven't thought about it you will dismiss as it being an instance of the Pollyanna principle or me being dishonest and trying to shut down your argument and convince myself that life is not that bad.

So here you are not attempting to find out whether life is really objectively bad, you are already convinced of it, you believe it fiercely, and you're trying to convince others while dismissing what goes against that belief.

I would disagree that it is not objectively an obstacle course or relentless treadmill. You keep overlooking that my statement does not depend on the person's attitude towards the obstacle course or treadmill. — schopenhauer1

I haven't overlooked it, I have addressed it, but you are overlooking how I address it. I explicitly said that seeing something as an obstacle course or a relentless treadmill is a subjective interpretation in itself. Just like you could say the glass is objectively half-empty and that doesn't depend on the person's attitude towards it, and I would tell you that the same glass can be seen as half-full, but you keep saying that it is objectively half-empty.

The point is, when you're having fun, when you're enjoying yourself, you're not seeing an obstacle course or a relentless treadmill, you're seeing a game, or an adventure, or a sport. When you're struggling you see an obstacle course or a relentless treadmill, so you say it is objectively an obstacle course or relentless treadmill, there is no subjectivity in that it is objective! But I keep saying that when you're not struggling, what you are seeing is not an obstacle course or relentless treadmill, it is something else.

A relentless treadmill is something you would struggle on (like pretty much everyone), and you struggle with life, so you associate life with a relentless treadmill, and people who struggle with life will agree with you, and those who don't struggle with life will disagree, but you would say people who agree with you see the objective truth and those who disagree are delusional. Right now I struggle with life but I still disagree with you because I haven't always been like this. If I had struggled my whole life I would probably agree and wouldn't be able to entertain a point of view I had not experienced.

Making a new person have to do X, Y, and Z actions which require them to navigate various challenges to live and entertain themselves, and generally find comfort in society is considered for me an obstacle course/treadmill that cannot be escaped. — schopenhauer1

Let's say you play a game and you like it. The game has certain rules, there are certain things you have to do, but you still like it. Then it's not an obstacle course to you. I'm sure there must be some game out there that you enjoy playing, or you must have a memory of some game you enjoyed playing, so you can see the analogy.

However if you struggle on the game, if you are forced to play it but you don't like it, and you struggle constantly, then to you it's an obstacle course, a relentless treadmill, not a fun game.

All the people who hate the game will agree that it's not a game, it's an obstacle course, it's a bad thing. But the people who love the game won't see it as an obstacle course but as a fun game. I don't know how else I could explain it.

Which is why I disagree that life is objectively an obstacle course or relentless treadmill. To me, this is a subjective interpretation that depends on how life makes you feel.

Let's say you play a game and you like it. The game has certain rules, there are certain things you have to do, but you still like it. Then it's not an obstacle course to you. I'm sure there must be some game out there that you enjoy playing, or you must have a memory of some game you enjoyed playing, so you can see the analogy.

However if you struggle on the game, if you are forced to play it but you don't like it, and you struggle constantly, then to you it's an obstacle course, a relentless treadmill, not a fun game.

All the people who hate the game will agree that it's not a game, it's an obstacle course, it's a bad thing. But the people who love the game won't see it as an obstacle course but as a fun game. I don't know how else I could explain it.

Which is why I disagree that life is objectively an obstacle course or relentless treadmill. To me, this is a subjective interpretation that depends on how life makes you feel. — leo

So since this is the crux of my argument, I am going to focus on this, though we can go back to the subjective stuff later.

The claim is controversial perhaps, but sound. That is to say, if I force you to play a game that you cannot escape- the forcing another person to play the game is bad in itself regardless of the person's attitude towards that inescapable game. That is my main point. It is not whether some people see the game as good or bad- at least, not this particular formulation of the argument.

I can put it as a question: Is it moral to force another person into a nearly inescapable game/event/challenge/adventure/maze/treadmill, regardless if someone finds it to be good/bad/mixture of the two at any given time?

The claim is controversial perhaps, but sound. That is to say, if I force you to play a game that you cannot escape- the forcing another person to play the game is bad in itself regardless of the person's attitude towards that inescapable game. That is my main point. It is not whether some people see the game as good or bad- at least, not this particular formulation of the argument.

I can put it as a question: Is it moral to force another person into a nearly inescapable game/event/challenge/adventure/maze/treadmill, regardless if someone finds it to be good/bad/mixture of the two at any given time? — schopenhauer1

Ok. If you're forcing that game/event/challenge/adventure/maze/treadmill on someone and they love it, then in my view it was a good thing. If they hate it then it was a bad thing.

The problem is, we can't know beforehand whether they are going to love it or hate it, we can only guess. Another related problem is we don't know for sure how other people experience their life, we can only guess based on their reports and how they behave.

However I think we might agree that if most people found life to be unbearable, there would be many more suicides.

If people find the game to be horrible, they probably should avoid bringing in a new player until they have managed to enjoy the game, otherwise they won't know how to make the new player enjoy it.

But if we truly enjoy the game, and we are willing to do everything we can so the new player can enjoy it too, then I don't see it as morally bad to bring that new player. We can't ever predict with 100% certainty how something is going to turn out, but we can do the best we can, if we didn't take chances we wouldn't do anything.

Also I think the bigger problem is there are people who truly enjoy the game but at the expense of others who enjoy it much less because of them, and I see it as more morally bad to continue doing that, than bringing a new being into the world with the best of intentions.

And then we also need to think about the world as a whole. If everyone is enjoying the game and bringing in new players, but when there are too many players the game becomes less enjoyable for everyone, then enjoying the game is not a sufficient reason to bring a new player, we have to think a bit about the consequences. But then when we think too much it becomes less enjoyable, so it's a bit of an intractable problem. I think the best we can do is just do the best we can, and then whatever happens happens.

Ok. If you're forcing that game/event/challenge/adventure/maze/treadmill on someone and they love it, then in my view it was a good thing. If they hate it then it was a bad thing. — leo

I'll give you two answers- the absolute, the sorta absolute, and the relative.
The absolute: Once born, the game of life/ the neverending treadmill forces a new person to deal with staying alive via social mechanisms (usually), deal with the human condition in general, and deal with the ups and downs of contingent harms that befall each and every one of us. Forcing someone to deal with life, whether good outcome or not, is not right. If I put you in an uncertain situation that you then have to deal with in order to stay alive and thrive, that is no good no matter if it is always a good outcome or not.

Sorta Absolute: And this is why the name of this thread is Nothing vs. Experience. We know that life has at the least, some harm. To force a game that always has some outcome of harm for another person, is always wrong, no matter to what degree. On one side there is no new person born to a potential couple. No one is harmed, no actual person is deprived. In colloquial terms- "nothing never hurt no one". On the other side, definite harm of the human condition/ contingent harms of life will befall someone to some degree. Nothing wins every time in the face of any harm that is forced upon another person (attitude towards it does not matter, only that harm was enacted upon someone).

Relative: Since we can never predict the attitude someone will have about this game, nothing will always beat something. No actual person is "held hostage" by not being born, or even "denied" anything. But certainly another person's experience of harm was prevented.

The absolute: Once born, the game of life/ the neverending treadmill forces a new person to deal with staying alive via social mechanisms (usually), deal with the human condition in general, and deal with the ups and downs of contingent harms that befall each and every one of us. Forcing someone to deal with life, whether good outcome or not, is not right. If I put you in an uncertain situation that you then have to deal with in order to stay alive and thrive, that is no good no matter if it is always a good outcome or not. — schopenhauer1

It seems the root of the argument has to do with the fact that the person is forced, which is a bad thing. But I disagree that we have to objectively view it as the person being forced. We can see it as the person being created, brought into being. Again, as an analogy, in a game you have to follow certain rules, you can choose to view it as being forced to follow these rules, but if you enjoy the game you don't see in any way that you are being forced. So I disagree that we have to necessarily view it as an act of coercion to bring someone to life.

You can choose to view childbirth as a source of inevitable suffering for both the mother and the baby. And yet many women call that day the most beautiful day of their life. My mother told me that when I was born I didn't even cry, I was just looking around with curiosity.

Again, we view life in a negative light when we are struggling through it, but when we enjoy it we don't see it as being forced or as having to deal with things. You are generalizing the negative view to the whole of life, rather than keeping it contained to the bad parts.

A more accurate view would be that there are periods of time where we don't feel forced to deal with anything, where we love life, and other periods of time where we may feel forced. Is it a bad thing to go through that? I would say it is a bad thing when there is more bad than good, when there is no end in sight to the bad, while it is a good thing when there is more good than bad. Which again makes it subjective rather than objective.

Sorta Absolute: And this is why the name of this thread is Nothing vs. Experience. We know that life has at the least, some harm. To force a game that always has some outcome of harm for another person, is always wrong, no matter to what degree. On one side there is no new person born to a potential couple. No one is harmed, no actual person is deprived. In colloquial terms- "nothing never hurt no one". On the other side, definite harm of the human condition/ contingent harms of life will befall someone to some degree. Nothing wins every time in the face of any harm that is forced upon another person (attitude towards it does not matter, only that harm was enacted upon someone). — schopenhauer1

Again I don't agree with the "forcing" part as being an objective description, because it focuses on the negative rather than being neutral. I can agree that life has at least some harm, but again you are focusing on the negative. To you, if there is 99% of good and 1% of bad, it's not worth to experience it because the 99% of good aren't enough to make up for the 1% of bad, but this is again a subjective view and not an objective one. It depends how much importance you give to the bad. If there is a lot of bad in your life then you see the bad as not worth it, while if there is a lot of good in your life you don't see the bad part in such a negative light that it's better not experiencing the good to avoid experiencing the bad.

Basically, you're counting the bad as a negative, but you're not counting the good as a positive, so you're led to the view that bad+good < nothingness, presumably because the bad you experience is much worse than the good you experience is good, but this is a subjective view. Some people view their life as bad+good > nothingness.

Relative: Since we can never predict the attitude someone will have about this game, nothing will always beat something. No actual person is "held hostage" by not being born, or even "denied" anything. But certainly another person's experience of harm was prevented. — schopenhauer1

This can be answered again in a similar way. For some people, something beats nothing. By not being born, the person is denied from experiencing the something that is better than the nothing, and the person's experience of good was prevented, which is a bad thing.

I am trying to make you see that your view is subjective, some people have a similar view as you and some people have a different view. They don't have a different view because they are wrong, and you don't have a different view from them because you are wrong, you and them just feel differently. There is no right or wrong here, they are not more right than you are, I am just sad that you can't see the good in life, that the bad has taken so much importance for you that you can't see the good anymore.

It seems the root of the argument has to do with the fact that the person is forced, which is a bad thing. But I disagree that we have to objectively view it as the person being forced. We can see it as the person being created, brought into being. Again, as an analogy, in a game you have to follow certain rules, you can choose to view it as being forced to follow these rules, but if you enjoy the game you don't see in any way that you are being forced. So I disagree that we have to necessarily view it as an act of coercion to bring someone to life. — leo

No, this is changing the language. A person is in fact forced into existence by mere fact of being procreated. The child/adult is then given a choice- suicide through slow starvation, or suicide through a quicker means (and many times that might even be a failed attempt and an even more painful life) OR deal with the challenges presented and intended for the child/adult.

The problem is people will quickly dismiss the challenges of life as manageable and thus not a problem. Again, that is not the argument. The argument is giving anyone CHALLENGES to overcome- whether wanted or not, is never moral. Period. It is morally wrong to force something that did not need to overcome or endure something to do it. If you add in the additional idea that no person needs to be exposed to harm, then the idea is just that more strengthened.

I am trying to make you see that your view is subjective, some people have a similar view as you and some people have a different view. They don't have a different view because they are wrong, and you don't have a different view from them because you are wrong, you and them just feel differently. There is no right or wrong here, they are not more right than you are, I am just sad that you can't see the good in life, that the bad has taken so much importance for you that you can't see the good anymore. — leo

But I am trying to make you see that there is an objective axiom here- it is wrong to give someone challenges. I hate to use this analogy, but shooting someone who wanted to die anyways, doesn't negate the fact that you shot the person.