No, it has to be a direct action that you took.

If a bomb goes off in a concert hall, the guy who let you in to the concert hall didn't do anything to you.

Having a child is a direct action that you took

Having a child is not the action that harmed you.

What about giving someone HIV and them dying of another disease due to immuno deficiency is that morally wrong for you? After all, you didn't give them the disease that killed them DIRECTLY but you enabled it

Again, If a bomb goes off in a concert hall, the guy who let you in to the concert hall didn't do anything to you.

What about the HIV example then? It was the other disease not the HIV that ultimately killed the guy so you're innocent right? Situations like this are what make me think that enabling harm is just as bad as directly causing it. And having children is enabling all the harm in the world by definition

If you intentionally/knowingly gave them HIV and we can causally show that HIV made you acquire the other disease (which would be very difficult to show causally).

Also for the concert hall example, you CHOSE to go to the concert hall. If the guy forced you into the concert hall and it blew up it IS his fault partially

If you intentionally/knowingly gave them HIV and we can causally show that HIV made you acquire the other disease (which would be very difficult to show causally). — Terrapin Station

Assume you can. So what's the difference between this and having children? Having children enables certain kinds of pain but doesn't cause them directly. Giving someone HIV intentionally enables certain kinds of pain but doesn't cause them directly. What's the difference?

Also for the concert hall example, you CHOSE to go to the concert hall. If the guy forced you into the concert hall and it blew up it IS his fault — khaled

As within 15 minutes you completely forget that someone normally capable of granting or withholding consent is REQUIRED for consent to be an issue.

As within 15 minutes you completely forget that someone normally capable of granting or withholding consent is REQUIRED for consent to be an issue. — Terrapin Station

I... Don't understand what you're saying at all. Are you saying consent is not required from concert goers and workers can force them in whenver they like?

And what about the HIV example?

Having children enables certain kinds of pain but doesn't cause them directly. — khaled

Where did I say anything that suggested I'd have a moral problem with "enabling" anything ? Someone capable of granting or withholding consent is required, and even then, we need to be able to show a causal chain, which I said would be very difficult to do in the HIV example.

I... Don't understand what you're saying at all — khaled

Holy moley. Okay, when I get back. I'm late for what i need to do.

Where did I say anything that suggested I'd have a moral problem with "enabling" anything ? Some capable of granting or withholding consent is required, and even then, we need to be able to show a causal chain, which I said would be very difficult to do in the HIV example. — Terrapin Station

So giving someone HIV and them dying of a seperate disease is completely acceptable for you? Assume it was done without the consent or knowledge of the HIV recipient. After all, it wasn't the HIV that killed him. Also assume that person was in peak physical condition and had died to a disease he had beaten multiple times before.

Holy moley. Okay, when I get back. I'm late for what i need to do. — Terrapin Station

It's 10:34 PM here I gotta sleep. See you some other time hopefully

No because planning your kid's inheritance is IMPROVING someone's state of affairs and you don't have to do it. First off, I am lucky my parent's investment in my money panned out. I have a pretty good life. So assuming I forgive them the initial discretion of having me in the first place, no I would not say this situation is the same as having children. Why? Because my parents do not HAVE to give me inheritance. That is a way to IMPROVE my life status. They don't HAVE to give me inheritance in the same way you don't HAVE to donate to charity. So if they suddenly become unable I wouldn't hold it against them just like if I was a beggar and someone didn't give me money I wouldn't automatically hate them.

What happened here was: A potentially better state of affairs was denied from me.
What happens in birth is: A definitely worse state of affairs was risked for me without my consent.
They are not the same situation — khaled

Ok, but the thing is, in this analogy your anti-natalist position is identifying with the potential $1m, not with the kid who lost their inheritance.

It simply tells you not to go on and invest SOMEONE ELSE'S money in the same business without their permission. You yourself called it audacious. So don't repeat it. — khaled

It’s the potential that I keep wondering about in your analogy. One assumes you have alternate plans for this money - this is where the real offence is here. But you’re saying: ‘Don’t take my money to invest on my behalf - I plan to flush it down the toilet instead, and you’ve robbed me of that opportunity, which would be a definitely better state of affairs’.

I’m not looking for justification for bringing children into the world - we chose to do so because we felt we had something to give the world that was so much more valuable than our DNA. We understood the risks and we’ve worked hard to minimise them, as well as to ensure their existence is most likely to have a positive net effect on the world. That’s part of our responsibility as parents, and I didn’t want kids unless I felt I was capable of that.

I also know that most parents don’t take that responsibility seriously. I think some people do believe that bringing a child into the world is their right simply because they have the capacity (plus everyone else gets to do it), and the extent of their responsibility is to fulfil society’s expectations, making sure the kid is fed and watered occasionally and kept out of immediate danger until they’re capable of exercising their own right to populate the world unnecessarily. In my opinion, this is what needs to be addressed.

I... Don't understand what you're saying at all. — khaled

So, you wrote:

"Also for the concert hall example, you CHOSE to go to the concert hall. If the guy forced you into the concert hall and it blew up it IS his fault"

You wrote that in the context of an analogy with having kids.

It doesn't work to point out that the person chose to go to the concert hall, because being born isn't a consent issue. Why not? Because for consent to be an issue, it requires someone normally capable of granting or withholding consent. That requirement is not met when we're talking about conception/birth, so consent isn't an issue there.

So giving someone HIV and them dying of a seperate disease is completely acceptable for you? — khaled

Re that, I already explained my view on it, in some detail, a couple times above.

What matters is:

(a) whether there was intent to give the person HIV,

or alternately

(b) whether there was negligence in giving the person HIV (because the person either knew or would be reasonably expected to have known that they had HIV--a specific health issue, where there's a significant chance of transmitting the specific health issue in question)

and

(c) they do wind up having health problems where that's causally-peggable to HIV

and

(d) we're talking about doing something to a person normally capable of granting or withholding consent.

Either (a) or (b) need to be met, and then in conjunction with either, both (c) and (d) must also be the case.

A child can reject life legitimately because it is their life and they know how they feel about it. That is when they feel imposed upon by their parents.

I think someone that overall enjoying life might struggle to understand this sense of imposition. There are experiences you have which you would not want anyone else to go through.

The same actual person will also experience good--quite possibly much more good than suffering. — Bitter Crank

Suffering and pleasure are often in different people and one person's pleasure does not cancel out another person pain.

This is like a utilitarian ad absurdum. You could have a million people being tortured but then if you create a Billion Blissfully happy people that apparently balances out the cosmos.

I think even without if one is not an antinatalist there is a case for reducing the number of people to reduce the amount of suffering.

that apparently balances out the cosmos — Andrew4Handel

I've never been able to get petty cash to balance, so even thinking about balancing the cosmos is well above my competence level.

even if one is not an antinatalist there is a case for reducing the number of people to reduce the amount of suffering — Andrew4Handel

On this I agree wholeheartedly. The growing number of people in the world are exceeding the globe's carrying capacity. Reducing the population by means beyond normal attrition will also entail great suffering. Population reduction is not something we need to plan for or execute. Natural processes will intervene at some point and carry out the reduction for us, on us.

We could work harder to reduce birth rates, however. Greater prosperity tends to lower birth rates, but it will not lead to zero population growth soon enough. Birth control must be pursued much more aggressively. More aggressive birth control--not for extinction of suffering--though fewer people means fewer people suffering--but for survival of the species.

It doesn't work to point out that the person chose to go to the concert hall, because being born isn't a consent issue. Why not? Because for consent to be an issue, it requires someone normally capable of granting or withholding consent. That requirement is not met when we're talking about conception/birth, so consent isn't an issue there. — Terrapin Station

Even if I was to distill this argument down to collateral damage- by having someone who did not want to go through life in the first place, you created a lifetime of collateral damage. This is not a minor type of collateral damage we are talking here, but a whole lifetime of existence. If no one is born, no actual person is deprived of anything, either. There is no person in a locked room going, "Let me in!".

Even if I was to distill this argument down to collateral damage- by having someone who did not want to go through life in the first place, you created a lifetime of collateral damage. This is not a minor type of collateral damage we are talking here, but a whole lifetime of existence. If no one is born, no actual person is deprived of anything, either. There is no person in a locked room going, "Let me in!". — schopenhauer1

What does that have to do with whether being conceived or born is a consent issue?

The problem of consent arises after someone is born because they did not consent to anything.

After you have created someone you cannot claim they consented to any aspect of their existence.

Your position seems unbelievable because we can discuss consent in the abstract. For example almost no one would consent to have there hand thrust in boiling water. Someone does not need to exist before you assess the probability of someone consenting to X. Preexisting humans give a good indication of what people may or may not consent to.

However even if someone does consent to X that doesn't make X good. And we don't know what kind of life someone is going to have to assess whether they would consent to it. So people are claiming life is great people are happy to exist so it is reasonable to gamble with someones welfare. However life is only great for lucky people it is not a guarantee and there are lots of counter examples.

There is not just one argument or reason to be opposed to reproduction. If it was just one argument it probably would not be too compelling.

So among reasons given together are:

Harm (this involves wide range of issues from mental illness to the issues below and illness)
Consent
Exploitation and inequality
Pointlessness and meaninglessness
War, famine, genocide and slavery
Work stresses and other survival issues
Death
Facts (statistical probabilities about life outcomes and historical facts)
Negligent parenting
Religious and moral claims
Preference

What does that have to do with whether being conceived or born is a consent issue? — Terrapin Station

Because your little supposed paradox cuts both ways. No one exists to be deprived of anything either. That is David Benatar's main point in his Harm of Coming into Existence. However, if someone is born that did not want to go through life, that is a lifetime of collateral damage, with no loss to any actual person. His sub-points were also very astute empirical observations (outside the a priori logic), that people are harmed more than they a) think and b) report. However, the empirical observations are a separate argument. I'd like to focus on the main premise, that is no one is deprived.

Because your little supposed paradox cuts both ways. No one exists to be deprived of anything either. — schopenhauer1

Where did I mention anything like that?

You're going through a talking points script that doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying.

Where did I mention anything like that?

You're going through a talking points script that doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying. — Terrapin Station

It absolutely does though. Your little paradox about no one existing for consent cuts both ways. You say, "People do not exist in the first place, prior to birth, to consent".

Ok, well I can also say, "People do not exist, prior to birth, to be deprived of the "goods" of life". So not having a child will not deprive any actual person of anything. There is no person to be deprived, or to feel deprivation of any sort.

However, if you DO have a child, and that child does not like life, that is a lifetime of collateral damage for that child.

The problem of consent arises after someone is born because they did not consent to anything. — Andrew4Handel

Consent is an issue when:

(a) we're talking about a particular action that one is an actor in--either via performing actions on another or having actions performed upon by another

And

(b) we're dealing with an entity normally capable of granting or withholding consent for particular actions.

So what particular actions are you referring to?

Ok, well I can also say, "People do not exist, prior to birth, to be deprived of the "goods" of life". — schopenhauer1

Right. And what does that idea have to do with anything I've typed? I'm asking you twice now. I didn't say anything at all resembling potential kids being deprived of anything. Read my posts instead of checking off your prepared talking points.

Right. And what does that idea have to do with anything I've typed? I'm asking you twice now. I didn't say anything at all resembling potential kids being deprived of anything. Read my posts instead of checking off your prepared talking points. — Terrapin Station

Either you are being purposely evasive of what I have brought up as a consequence of your own argument, or you are really not understanding how much this has to do with it. Either way, I'm not sure how to help you more than the very simple way I just explained it.

If it's the case you truly don't understand, then I can only say that you are stuck on the consent thing, instead of the implication of what it means for someone not to exist prior to birth, which is the real core of the argument. Prior to birth no one exists. You say, "Thus consent matters not". Ok, but then "deprivation of goods for non-existent person, matters not" as well. Thus, not having a child leads to no loss to any actual person, but being born would be a great negative, or what I like to call "collateral damage" to someone who doesn't like life.