Before they're born--but do you mean after conception?

A lot of things that you and khaled are saying now sound like you're fine with conception, but you're advocating necessarily having an abortion after one has conceived. — Terrapin Station

You can take that as pre-birth or pre-conception. I don't want to debate abortion. That just goes down another rabbit hole. As a preview though, Benatar has an interesting idea about the antinatalist implication for pro-abortion. I'll just leave you with Benatar's position from his book Better Never to Have Been as outlined from Oxford Scholarship website:

The conclusions of the previous chapters are applied to the abortion question. Four kinds of interests are distinguished: functional, biotic, conscious, and reflective interests. It is argued that beings are morally considerable only when they have at least conscious interests. Because consciousness only arises in human foetuses quite late in gestation (around 28-weeks), people do not come into existence (in the morally relevant sense) until at least that time. Thus, given the harm of coming into existence, it is wrong not to abort a foetus in the earliest stages of gestation. The ‘pro-death’ argument is then defended against two famous arguments that abortion is wrong — Richard Hare's ‘golden rule’ argument and Don Marquis' ‘future-like-ours’ argument. — oxfordscholarship.com, Better Never to Have Been

That should be the goal yes. — khaled

Okay, but I don't at all agree with that.

Please give an example where there is a course of action available that produces less suffering for others as well as for oneself and where it is ethical to take anything but that course of action — khaled

You're suggesting a quantification that I don't think is plausible, but at any rate, an example is saying something that offends someone else. I think it's ethical to not avoid offending others, and I think it's often preferable to offend. Offense is a problem with the offendee, something they need to learn to get past. It's not a problem with the offender.

However it is wrong to do something that risks causing someone significantly more risk of harm than the harm it alleviates elsewhere — khaled

Again, I do not agree with this.

You can take that as pre-birth or pre-conception. — schopenhauer1

Pre-conception, you're not doing anything to anyone by conceiving.

Pre-conception, you're not doing anything to anyone by conceiving. — Terrapin Station

Right, I meant physical birth.

So then it's not a stance about conception. It would be an argument about bringing fetuses to term/giving birth.

It would best not to conceive in the first place but sure.

Offense is a problem with the offendee, something they need to learn to get past. It's not a problem with the offender. — Terrapin Station

In that case I could say you’re making them get past said thing so there is a net benefit across time even if it hurts them right now. This doesn’t count as the example I’m asking for because it has long term benefits which you can argue alleviate more suffering overall than they inflict right now. I’m asking for an example where you can do something that doesn’t hurt anyone, but you choose to do something that does hurt someone and has no net benefit across time.

Again, I do not agree with this. — Terrapin Station

It seems to me you don’t agree because you’re not considering benefits across time. Please give an example of an action that causes severe suffering for someone for no good reason, as in it doesn’t benefit you, or anyone else nearly as much as it caused that person suffering and has no benefits for that person across time

You're suggesting a quantification that I don't think is plausible — Terrapin Station

I think it’s plausible in many cases. Especially in cases where you inflict the same problem you’re having onto someone else to alleviate it. Ex: stealing food from someone and causing them to starve to alleviate your own starvation. Or having kids that will also want to have kids just to alleviate your own desire to have kids. I’m these cases the harm inflicted is around equal to the harm alleviated which makes it morally ambiguous (some would say ethical some wouldn’t). But in the case of children you also offer a lifetimes worth of suffering along WITH the suffering of not having children which you transposed which is why I don’t think it’s ever moral

Would anyone who is a Natalist here say the following action is ethical:

I really like a certain video game but I have no one to play it with. Therefore I will force you, someone I don’t know to play that video game with me for 80 years by tying you to the chair in front of it. If you do badly you experience a certain shock and if you do well your pleasure centers will be stimulated. The only way you can get out of this situation is if you try to rip through the ties which are designed to kill you if you try.

Obviously this is all justified because I like the game. And I am completely not responsible if it turns out you’re hopelessly terrible at the game and as a result suffer from these shocks for all 80 years. Also I’ll be teaching you the ropes of how to play the game so now you should be grateful to me.

Before someone is born, what on earth would possess someone to non-consensually cause all risk of harm to another person? What does someone need to go through in the first place in order for this to be justified? Nothing..just selfish want of that future person to be born to go through XYZ agenda (which may or may not happen the way you intended it to anyways). — schopenhauer1

I think a lot (all?) of these antinatalists threads are missing the voice and opinions of women - those that actually become pregnant, and then breastfeed 'potential people' - and then traditionally do most of the child-rearing. I assume all posters in these threads are male.

I can tell you my partners thoughts for wanting to "non-consensually cause all risk of harm to another person", are essentially along the lines of, "I love you, lets have a baby", "I want to have your baby/child", "lets make a family together". She does not think in terms of potential people, consent, harm, agendas (for the child to go through). But I think it's more complex than just a selfish desire to have a baby, considering the pain/burden of pregnancy/childbirth, and then all the work that is looking after a baby and raising it into a child and then adult. If anything it's more selfless than selfish. Not sure what to make of this.

I can tell you my partners thoughts for wanting to "non-consensually cause all risk of harm to another person", are essentially along the lines of, "I love you, lets have a baby", "I want to have your baby/child", "lets make a family together". She does not think in terms of potential people, consent, harm, agendas (for the child to go through). But I think it's more complex than just a selfish desire to have a baby, considering the pain/burden of pregnancy/childbirth, and then all the work that is looking after a baby and raising it into a child and then adult. If anything it's more selfless than selfish. Not sure what to make of this. — Inyenzi

You've said it yourself in the beginning, that it's basically for a selfish (& ignorant, short-term, simple-minded) reasons that most people (including women/female) 'decided' (if having sex could be considered as even a 'serious, thoughtful' decision at all) to have a baby/kid/children.

What you've said at the end, about "all the work that is looking after a baby and raising it into a child and then adult", it's basically just the consequences. There is nothing 'selfless' about it. As a parents, people basically are just eventually forced to do all those things. Not because of some noble selflessness. That's just another beautiful delusions/illusions people would like to believe.

If anything it's more selfless than selfish — Inyenzi

It's not selfless to fix a problem you created. You created the problem of suffering for the child. Fixing it is the least you can do. If I accidentally burned down your house then helped buy you a new one that's not "selfless" that's the minimum that should be expected.

But I think it's more complex than just a selfish desire to have a baby — Inyenzi

That doesn't make it any less wrong.

In that case I could say you’re making them get past said thing so there is a net benefit across time even if it hurts them right now. This doesn’t count as the example I’m asking for because it has long term benefits which you can argue alleviate more suffering overall than they inflict right now. I’m asking for an example where you can do something that doesn’t hurt anyone, but you choose to do something that does hurt someone and has no net benefit across time. — khaled

This seems to forget that whether anything is a benefit or not is subjective. Anyone could interpret any arbitrary thing--or everything as a benefit or any arbitrary thing--or everything as a detriment. There's no right answer there. It's just a matter of how an individual feels about it. So there's a net benefit (to a particular person) just in case someone evaluates it that way. There's a net detriment (to a particular other person) just in case someone else evaluates it that way.

This seems to forget that whether anything is a benefit or not is subjective. Anyone could interpret any arbitrary thing--or everything as a benefit or any arbitrary thing--or everything as a detriment. There's no right answer there. It's just a matter of how an individual feels about it. So there's a net benefit (to a particular person) just in case someone evaluates it that way. There's a net detriment (to a particular other person) just in case someone else evaluates it that way. — Terrapin Station

But in game theory, there is such thing as maximin decisions. The maximin decision would be the one that accounts for the worst case scenario (similar to John Rawls' idea of Veil of Ignorance in politics). You do not know what the child will face or think. The least cost to anyone with no knowledge, would be to simply never have the child in the first place.

However, this would just be an argument for those who focus on consequences. I think it is simply wrong to promote the conditions for all suffering, where it can be prevented, which clearly you disagree with. When ideas such that, suffering must take place (whether for growth, "flourishing", the drum march of civilization, progress, more people to "do" XYZ, someone to take care of, or another agenda of the parent), when in fact, no one needs to be the recipient of this in the first place, we cannot go much further. Unfortunately for your argument, you have to bite the bullet that causing unnecessary harm is good, using people for agendas is good, and most importantly, you would have to ignore the glaring asymmetry that no person is alive before they are born to need goods of life in the first place.

This seems to forget that whether anything is a benefit or not is subjective — Terrapin Station

Agreed. Which is why you shouldn’t offend people unless you have good reason to believe it will help them later and good reason to believe they will appreciate said help later as well (as in subjectively judge your action to be good).

Also why are you bringing this up now? This could’ve been your first post on this thread. This is a whole new rabbit hole.

Agreed. Which is why you shouldn’t offend people unless you have good reason to believe it will help them later — khaled

?? No idea how you see this as an implication.

However, this would just be an argument for those who focus on consequences. I think it is simply wrong to promote the conditions for all suffering, where it can be prevented, which clearly you disagree with. When ideas such that, suffering must take place (whether for growth, "flourishing", the drum march of civilization, progress, more people to "do" XYZ, someone to take care of, or another agenda of the parent), when in fact, no one needs to be the recipient of this in the first place, we cannot go much further. Unfortunately for your argument, you have to bite the bullet that causing unnecessary harm is good, using people for agendas is good, and most importantly, you would have to ignore the glaring asymmetry that no person is alive before they are born to need goods of life in the first place. — schopenhauer1

Basically, there's a lot of stuff that people consider suffering that I think is ridiculous/laughable to have a problem with.

The problem was that:

whether anything is a benefit or not is subjective — Terrapin Station

In other words "who decides what a benefit is?" and my answer is "The person on which the action in question is being considered"

So I'm saying an action is moral if you have good reason to believe that it will be seen as a subjective benefit to the person you're about to do it to.

Why would I necessarily defer to someone else's opinion?

As I just noted above, there's a lot of stuff that people consider suffering that I think is ridiculous/laughable to have a problem with.

Basically, there's a lot of stuff that people consider suffering that I think is ridiculous/laughable to have a problem with. — Terrapin Station

Again who are you or anyone to decide what that is for anyone else. Smug assuredness isn't much of a justification.

Again who are you or anyone to decide what that is for anyone else — schopenhauer1

Who is anyone to decide? The whole nut of this stuff being subjective is that there aren't right answers, and we all decide whatever we want to, or whatever we're compelled to (due to our dispositions--I wouldn't say that we just decide this sort of stuff on a whim).

Who is anyone to decide? The whole nut of this stuff being subjective is that there aren't right answers, and we all decide whatever we want to, or whatever we're compelled to. — Terrapin Station

No not at all. You can decide whatever you want or compelled to do for yourself, not for or to others.

You can decide whatever you want or compelled to do for yourself, not for or to others. — schopenhauer1

Because?

We went over this :roll: and I pretty much answered you here

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/314833

We went over this :roll: and I pretty much answered you here — schopenhauer1

So you can't decide whether something is ridiculous/laughable (as "suffering" for example) because of game theory? (seriously?)

Because it's not my job to judge that for someone else whose entire life regards the decision at hand and whose views, conditions, and contingent life-circumstances are not my own. Making suffering and challenges for another person, wholesale when there was no need to in the first place is no good. That's the point. It's not about my smug evaluations foisted on someone else.

Because it's not my job — schopenhauer1

That's just saying the same thing in a wordier way. What makes it your job or not?

"No good" is not a fact. It's your opinion.

That's just saying the same thing in a wordier way. What makes it your job or not? — Terrapin Station

I already presented the fork in the road, the impasse. I will keep answering in the same way as it is exactly my response to this question

However, this would just be an argument for those who focus on consequences. I think it is simply wrong to promote the conditions for all suffering, where it can be prevented, which clearly you disagree with. When ideas such that, suffering must take place (whether for growth, "flourishing", the drum march of civilization, progress, more people to "do" XYZ, someone to take care of, or another agenda of the parent), when in fact, no one needs to be the recipient of this in the first place, we cannot go much further. Unfortunately for your argument, you have to bite the bullet that causing unnecessary harm is good, using people for agendas is good, and most importantly, you would have to ignore the glaring asymmetry that no person is alive before they are born to need goods of life in the first place. — schopenhauer1

It's not about my smug evaluations foisted on someone else. — schopenhauer1

Yes it is. That is exactly what you are doing. You have made a subjective evaluation about suffering, and are arguing against and morally condemning other people (parents/would be parents) based on that evaluation (foist number one), in addition to making a decision on behalf of somebody else (anyone born!) based on your own evaluation about suffering. (Foist number 2).

Yes it is. That is exactly what you are doing. You have made a subjective evaluation about suffering, and are arguing against and morally condemning other people (parents/would be parents) based on that evaluation (foist number one), in addition to making a decision on behalf of somebody else (anyone born!) based on your own evaluation about suffering. (Foist number 2). — DingoJones

So, I don't think you are seeing the logic of the asymmetry. Before someone is born, there is no actual person to be deprived of good. That is a fact. Once someone is born, there will be a person who suffers some harm. That is also a fact. Following this logic, not having children deprives literally no person, but harm would be prevented. No actual person is in a locked room in non-existence saying, "I want out!". That would be a projection of the already-existent parent.

This argument can be seen in Benatar's literature. See below:

Benatar argues there is crucial asymmetry between the good and the bad things, such as pleasure and pain, which means it would be better for humans not to have been born:

the presence of pain is bad;
the presence of pleasure is good;
the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone;
the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.[6][7] — Wikipedia, David Benatar article

That in no way addresses what I said.