Yes if the options were to bear a child with 10 broken limbs or not, I would think it prudent to choose the latter for the reasons you mentioned. — NOS4A2

And there is your proof that the philosophical potential person is to be treated exactly the same as the actual potential person. Because, as I said, the consequences are the same. Do you still think they should be treated differently? If so why.

But we’re not really talking about parents genetically doomed to have genetically deformed children, are we, but all births regardless of the child’s condition or not — NOS4A2

You don't need to be genetically doomed for your child to have a shit life. So don't take the risk for them.

And if that child grows up to not only enjoy its life but do the world a metamorphosmic good?

And if that child grows up to not only enjoy its life but do the world a metamorphosmic good? — Shamshir

Then you've done nothing good but something neutral at best. Making happy people =/= Making people happy.
To demonstrate:

Say you have 3 starving people and 2 solutions you can employ:

A: Feed them
B: materialize 100 satiated and perfectly happy people so that overall you create much more pleasure than in A

I think everyone here would pick A right? Because B doesn't actually help anyone. If it were true that materializing happy people is good on its own you would pick B.

So it can be seen that making happy people is not good in of itself. It's like creating a problem for someone else then solving it. The exercise is pointless morally speaking.

As for the metamorophosic good, it is much more likely, statistically speaking that they do a slight bad to having a neutral value. You'd need to show me the child in question is destined for greatness and that he will enjoy the journey there for me to think having him is ok. And you can never even show the latter so how do you expect to show the former?


In fact I'll ask you this: if I could show your next 10 children would be as you described there would you have a moral obligation to have them?

And there is your proof that the philosophical potential person is to be treated exactly the same as the actual potential person. Because, as I said, the consequences are the same. Do you still think they should be treated differently? If so why.

I think they should be treated differently because one is the actual material of procreation, will lead to procreation, and will lead to dire consequences if messed with. You could rub two philosophical persons together forever and never achieve procreation. I don’t think the two can be conflated.

You don't need to be genetically doomed for your child to have a shit life. So don't take the risk for them.

So the ethics here are, it is right conduct to avoid pregnancy for the sake of protecting a child who may or may not exist at some point in the future. Is that fair?

I think they should be treated differently because one is the actual material of procreation, will lead to procreation, and will lead to dire consequences if messed with — NOS4A2

But... You treated them the same... I asked you if it was ok to genetically modify someone to suffer and you said no. You called that a "real potential person". I then asked if it was ok to have a child you know will suffer and you said no. You called that a "philosophical potential person" because he hadn't been procreated yet. Yet you answered no in both cases. Also I'm not sure what this "rubbing together" quote is supposed to mean. I was addressing this:

I’ve already distinguished between an actual potential human—the necessary ingredients involved in procreation—and the thought of a potential child. We can’t apply the same ethics to the actual processes of procreation as we would to the fuzzy “potential human” we keep evoking — NOS4A2

And this

I get the argument, but I think we’re conflating a real potential human-I suppose fertilization—and a philosophical potential human. I just sense some unjust reification going on here. — NOS4A2

By showing that you DID treat both types of potential person the same. Which you did

I don’t think the two can be conflated. — NOS4A2

But you conflated themmmmm. You answered no in both cases did you not? One in which a real potential person was going to be harmed and one in which a philosophical one was going to be harmed. So far you have shown 0 difference between treating the two types while claiming they shouldn't be treated the same

So the ethics here are, it is right conduct to avoid pregnancy for the sake of protecting a child who may or may not exist at some point in the future. Is that fair? — NOS4A2

Did you mean "who may or may not suffer"? In that case yes. Why would it not be fair? Why should people be allowed to take risks with others' lives when the alternative of doing nothing doesn't risk harming anyone

Would it be fair if I said I wasn't allowed to force you to work my job that I really like despite having no input from you on whether you'll like it? Of course.

You haven't caught the fish, yet you're already warming the pan

Do you think the conflation posited justifies denying a happy person? Perhaps the parents' contribution is negligible, but it's the only way they can make it happy - even if it is letting it be innately happy.

Succumbing to the fear of a threat, you would, if you haven't, doom yourself to failure. Simply, it's no good.

Do you think the conflation posited justifies denying a happy person? — Shamshir

Yes. Do you think it doesn't? If so aren't you being immoral right now by talking to me instead of having more kids? Look at all this happiness you're denying. Also look at all those possible non existent kids everywhere. Doesn't it just break your heart, this amount of denied happiness?

Succumbing to the fear of a threat, you would, if you haven't, doom yourself to failure — Shamshir

No. I'm not dooming myself to anything here. I'm making sure I don't doom someone else into unhappiness in an effort to make them happy which no one asked for and as I demonstrated no one actually thinks is good in and of itself. I am pretty sure if there was a distribution of "risk taking" I would be pretty high up there but that's beside the point. That doesn't justify me taking the risk for someone else does it?

Also could you answer the question?

if I could show your next 10 children would be as you described there would you have a moral obligation to have them?

But... You treated them the same... I asked you if it was ok to genetically modify someone to suffer and you said no. You called that a "real potential person". I then asked if it was ok to have a child you know will suffer and you said no. You called that a "philosophical potential person" because he hadn't been procreated yet. Yet you answered no in both cases. Also I'm not sure what this "rubbing together" quote is supposed to mean. I was addressing this:

The answers to your questions were the same, sure, but I did not treat them the same because they are entirely different scenarios. One was a matter of principle the other a matter of prudence.

How is antinatalism more than moral posturing, given that there isn’t any right conduct towards actual living beings?

One was a matter of principle the other a matter of prudence — NOS4A2

It would help if you told me which was which and why one is this and the other that. Also, I don't really care all that much as long as you treat them the same. And since you do treat them the same, I ask again. Why is having children ok?

Are you saying it was a matter of principle for the genetic modification and a matter of prudence for the couple case? So you don't actually think the couple would be wrong for having that child? Because that would not be treating them the same. Also mind telling me what this "principle" is that makes a certain genetic modification immoral yet makes having a child with the same genetic modification in question naturally moral? The consequences are the same aren’t they?

How is antinatalism more than moral posturing, given that there isn’t any right conduct towards actual living beings? — NOS4A2

See, when it takes a page for the other person to pull the "but morality doesn't actually exist" card after they've been debating it for 2 hours that's when you know your arguments make sense

Sure there may be no objective moral rules between people, no ethical system, not even antinatalism can escape that. But so far you have shown that you have subjective moral principles that SHOULD make birth immoral for you yet you're making a special case for it. If you want to do that I can't stop you.

Murder and rape are natural..... this is just a naturalistic fallacy. Having a child obviously forces a child to exist, it IS forcing. You didn’t choose to exist did you? Now that would be impressive — khaled

It is not forcing. I'm not taking the child out of unborn child limbo against his will and pushing him out into the mean bad world. Children don't exercise choice until after their formation reaches a certain maturity, which can only happen until they intrinsically understand the concept of choice, which happens after a set of values are in place.

And your child might have something different in mind than preserving the human race. I’ll just leave it at that. — khaled

Yes but preserving the human race and doing something to improve the world you live in is more important, a higher calling if you will, that the individual himself. You are right, an existence reduced to an individual concerned with nothing but his suffering is a sad thing, but this "naturalistic fallacy" of real life just happens to be the universe we live in, we are not individual islands residing in oblivion and concerned with nothing other than our pain/pleasure. To a great extent our needs include to be part of, to contribute in some way. Much more important than "it makes me feel good to help" is that your world/environment is becoming a better place because of it.

You call me selfish because I force my belief on someone who is not born yet.
I call you selfish because out of fear that one individual might experience suffering you are willing to ignore the need to improve mankind.

Improving mankind involves a risk, and it is an endeavor that benefits the many, often at the expense of an individual.

If the improvement of humanity means nothing to you, then I can understand why life would be meaningless.

It is not forcing. I'm not taking the child out of unborn child limbo against his will and pushing him out into the mean bad world. — staticphoton

Fair point. Maybe it's not "forcing" but the fact that you have no consent to do it doesn't change. That's the real problem

Yes but preserving the human race and doing something to improve the world you live in is more important, a higher calling if you will, — staticphoton

Great. So go get em. Do it. But don't force others to do it.

To a great extent our needs include to be part of, to contribute in some way. Much more important than "it makes me feel good to help" is that your world/environment is becoming a better place because of it. — staticphoton

Don't you mean in your mind? You can't guarantee your child will be you

You call me selfish because I force my belief on someone who is not born yet.
I call you selfish because out of fear that one individual might experience suffering you are willing to ignore the need to improve mankind. — staticphoton

Explain to me how that is selfish. If I had such a desire, I would be sacrificing my own desire to not risk harming someone else. How is that selfish exactly?

Improving mankind involves a risk, and it is an endeavor that benefits the many sometimes at the expense of an individual. — staticphoton

Yes. But that individual has to choose to do it. Forcing someone to do something for the good of the many is not good. Especially when this "good of the many" is not actually the good of the many but your own values. You've shown me no evidence that the majority of people think as you do.

If the improvement of humanity means nothing to you, then I can understand why life would be meaningless. — staticphoton

It doesn't. But that's not the point. Even if it meant something to me I wouldn't force it on others. Why aren't you getting the simple point that it's not about what you believe to be good. Unless you are willing to force others to work for your values which I don't think you actually are.

I, for example, place value on conquering oneself and becoming more powerful. similar to Nietzsche's "will to power". I value that a lot, but I would never have a child so they can seek the "will to power" or become "ubermensch" just because that's MY goal. Because such an imposition benefits no one but my own sense of narcissism

Fair point. Maybe it's not "forcing" but the fact that you have no consent to do it doesn't change. That's the real problem — khaled

You are creating the problem. There is no such a thing as consent coming form being incapable of understanding what consent is. Consent develops after a certain level of formation is achieved.

Consent develops after a certain level of formation is achieved. — staticphoton

Does that make it ok to say, torture children because they can't say no? When consent isn't available you do the least harmful alternative no?

Does that make it ok to say, torture children because they can't say no? When consent isn't available you do the least harmful alternative no? — khaled

They can't say no because they are not capable to understand the circumstances, not because you are robbing them of the choice.

It does. But that's not the point. Even if it meant something to me I wouldn't force it on others. Why aren't you getting the simple point that it's not about what you believe to be good. Unless you are willing to force others to work for your values which I don't think you actually are. — khaled

You are doing what you believe is good. You are preventing the child from existing because you believe it is best for him that way.

You are doing what you believe is good. You are preventing the child from existing because you believe it is best for him that way. — staticphoton

No. I am not benefiting anyone by not giving birth to them. I'm just making sure no one is harmed. Not having children is not "good" it's neutral. It's just that having children is bad. Because it's imposing your own ideals of life on them when you don't have their consent.

They can't say no because they are not capable to understand the circumstances, not because you are robbing them of the choice. — staticphoton

I... Don't understand why the REASON they can't say no is relevant. You said

You are creating the problem. There is no such a thing as consent coming form being incapable of understanding what consent is. Consent develops after a certain level of formation is achieved. — staticphoton

So that means that consent is not an issue for young children. So then I asked whether or not it's ok to torture them. Please actually answer the question.

So that means that consent is not an issue for young children. So then I asked whether or not it's ok to torture them. Please actually answer the question. — khaled

Torturing your child means directly and willfully harming them with intent. The answer is no, it is not ok.

Torturing your child means directly and willfully harming them with intent. The answer is no, it is not ok. — staticphoton

Alright. How about putting them in a situation where they MIGHT get harmed. Say, leaving them in the middle of traffic. Is that ok?

You're gonna answer no (hopefully) so then you can see that just because someone or something isn't capable of consent that doesn't justify putting them in a scenario where they might get harmed does it?

Alright. How about putting them in a situation where they MIGHT get harmed. Say, leaving them in the middle of traffic. — khaled

That is directly and willfully harming them with intent. The answer is no.

If your intent is to have children with the purpose of torturing them, then yes, it might be best for you not to have children.

No. I am not benefiting anyone by not giving birth to them. I'm just making sure no one is harmed. Not having children is not "good" it's neutral. It's just that having children is bad. Because it's imposing your own ideals of life on them when you don't have their consent. — khaled

Again, reducing human life to a paper thin logic and ignoring the merits of human existence.

It's just that having children is bad. Because it's imposing your own ideals of life on them when you don't have their consent. — khaled

But other than food and shelter, that is what a born child needs, a nurturing parent that loves them and teaches them. They want nothing more, and neither does the parent.

Ok going to work now, giving you plenty of time to formulate your comeback.

Again, reducing human life to a paper thin logic and ignoring the merits of human existence. — staticphoton

Again. Not getting the point that your child might not agree with you a about human existence having merit

And you're not getting the point that a newborn is incapable of choice because he doesn't yet understand what choice is. He will after you teach him. — staticphoton

When he grows up he might not agree with you.... I'm not claiming 3 year old Billie is gonna write a philosophical thesis on the meaninglessness of life

Not getting the point that your child might not agree with you a about human existence having merit — khaled

And you're not getting the point that a newborn is incapable of choice because he doesn't yet understand what choice is. He will after you teach him.

But other than food and shelter, that is what a born child needs, a nurturing parent that loves them and teaches them. They want nothing more, and neither does the parent. — staticphoton

Ok great. Not every parent succeeds at providing that even if they can. And not every child grows to be happy. So why take the risk? Give me a reason that does not depend on your valuation of human existence as your child might not share it


At this point we're just repeating the same arguments over and over. It's getting nowhere.

Just answer this: I asked this a while ago and you still haven't come up with a response

find me a scenario in which individual A is justified to force individual B to do something A doesn’t know B agrees with or not without having B’s consent and where B is put in a much riskier situation as a result — khaled

Because these are the scenarios of birth. If you can find one actual example we can start from there

Ok great. Not every parent succeeds at providing that even if they can. And not every child grows to be happy. So why take the risk? Give me a reason that does not depend on your valuation of human existence as your child might not share it — khaled

The child will learn a set of values either from his parents or the environment he is raised in, before then he is not capable of deciding whether his life is worth living or not. Once he has a developed a set of values he will. You can come to him at that point and ask him whether he wishes he was never born.

find me a scenario in which individual A is justified to force individual B to do something A doesn’t know B agrees with or not without having B’s consent and where B is put in a much riskier situation as a result — khaled

As long as you perceive the unborn child as being forced into this world you are attributing free will to him.
You're correct, we're getting nowhere.

alright then.

find me a scenario in which individual A is justified to cause individual B to do something A doesn’t know B agrees with or not without having B’s consent and where B is put in a much riskier situation as a result — khaled

I removed the big bad word. Does this match the description of birth now?