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. — staticphoton

This is just not causally taking into account what is going on. The child is born via the parent. If the parent is not abusive, the parent tries to habituate child along with society (schools, social and economic institutions, other adults, other kids, etc.). The child still has a personality, experiences, and thoughts of its own. There is no 1:1 correlation here between parent's values and childs, besides which the parents values to themselves versus modelled behavior is different, also indicating that the child will have personal thoughts that have nothing to do with what is being modelled. This is all straightforward obvious stuff.

But this is all BESIDES the point. The point is, the harmful situation IS brought about by the parent procreating the person- it does not matter whether that person has self-consciousness at birth, or at some other time. The factor that brought about this person into "existence" or "life" or the "universe" was the parent. The self-consciousness comes from that. So this specious argument in no way negates the claim that procreation is the cause of this person being born, and the conditions for which suffering/being harm will take place for that person. The point is, the deed was already done, long before self-consciousness and cannot be reversed (suicide is not the reverse of never being born). Thus, this line of reasoning is bunk.

@khaled I think you might agree here.

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

Not yet.

"A is justified to cause individual B to do something A doesn’t know B agrees with"
Is a false premise because it assumes B is capable of deciding whether he agrees or disagrees, and A ignoring the result of that decision. It also assumes B has the capability of issuing consent.

"where B is put in a much riskier situation as a result"
A "much riskier situation" implies that situation 2 is much more riskier than situation 1, which makes no sense in the context of this argument because situation 1 does not exist.

Is a false premise because it assumes B is capable of deciding whether he agrees or disagrees — staticphoton

B becomes capable of deciding later no? Yet he still has to do the thing A told him to do, namely live

situation 1 does not exist. — staticphoton

Existence is riskier than non existence correct? In other words, more pleasure and more pain are at stake when it comes to existing than when not existing correct?

The child still has a personality, experiences, and thoughts of its own. There is no 1:1 correlation here between parent's values and childs, besides which the parents values to themselves versus modelled behavior is different, also indicating that the child will have personal thoughts that have nothing to do with being modelled — schopenhauer1

That's why I said the values are learned from the parents or the environment. I should have also included the pre-existing genetic makeup, which is actually a direct contribution of the parents.

The self-consciousness comes from that. So this species argument in no way negates the claim that procreation is the cause of this person being born, and suffering/being harmed in the world. — schopenhauer1

The whole thing is about making the possibility of harm the pivotal point of the argument, which is an incredible simplistic way of evaluating the meaning of life.

You're saying that after life evolving for 2 billion years and finally acquiring the power of reason, that reason is used to conclude the whole process was morally bad and should be ended.

I'm saying that's just silly.

Existence is riskier than non existence correct? In other words, more pleasure and more pain are at stake when it comes to existing than when not existing correct — khaled

Unfortunately for your argument "not existing" is not a "thing" you can compare against.

B becomes capable of deciding later no? Yet he still has to do the thing A told him to do, namely live — khaled

B becomes his own man and has the choice to live life how he sees fit. Only under extreme circumstances of suffering he may later decide he wishes he was not born, and even then there are painless ways for him to fulfill his choice, after he has had a chance to make that choice on his own.

That's why I said the values are learned from the parents or the environment. I should have also included the pre-existing genetic makeup, which is actually a direct contribution of the parents. — staticphoton

And my point is there is no absolute 1:1 ratio that this is the case. In fact, this is painfully reductive. As you would admit, the human experience and amount of contingency in it, allows for way more than genetic, parental, and environmental enculturation to predict. Any of which case, ALL would be wrong to signal "life is always good", as there is MARKED evidence for the Polyanna principle (people overlooking things that truly are harming them in the present when projecting on harmful events in the future). Anyways, the point is no, that is empirically wrong that genetics, parents, and environment will guarantee people who say they are happy, NOR does it prevent contingent harmful situations to befall that person. Oh, AND did I mention when interviewed, people tend to say what people want to hear (life is good) rather than be perceived as "debbie downers", even if their whole day was something like "fuck my life!" or in fact, the majority of their days were "fuck my life!"?

The whole thing is about making the possibility of harm the pivotal point of the argument, which is an incredible simplistic way of evaluating the meaning of life. — staticphoton

What is really simplistic is this idea that parents + genetics + environment guarantees people that have no thoughts or experiences of their own, only what is "programmed". Laughable and reductionist.

You're saying that after life evolving for 2 billion years and finally acquiring the power of reason, that reason is used to conclude the whole process was morally bad and should be ended.

I'm saying that's just silly. — staticphoton

So evolution is "unthinking".. Don't worry we are not hurting "its" feelings. As khaled was saying, I/we have no obligation to an impersonal concept (like humanity), but we do have obligations to individual people (like future people that are brought into the world). And in the case of procreation, ALL harm can be prevented and no person is actually around to experience deprivation of good..win/win.

You realize, by having the child DESPITE the the harmful outcome (guaranteed in some way), you are using the child for an agenda (whether that be humanity, progress, civilization, your own desire to parent, etc.). Using people's harm for your agendas is also not good.

ALSO, life indeed presents itself with adversity. In fact, we usually say growth comes from adversity. Whether YOU like this or not, throwing people into adversity (even if in order for them to grow from it), when it was UNNECESSARY is not good either.

Whether YOU like this or not, throwing people into adversity (even if in order for them to grow from it), when it was UNNECESSARY is not good either — schopenhauer1

Yeah, that's where we don't agree.

Any of which case, ALL would be wrong to signal "life is always good" — schopenhauer1

A life worth living has nothing to do with "life is good"

A life worth living has nothing to do with "life is good" — staticphoton

Way to ignore almost every other thing surrounding that statement. But, since you focused solely on this particular part, I'd like to explain that forcing others into a model that you agree with or even someone else identifies with later on (because, ya know, someone MUST go through the growth through adversity thing, and of course they will always identify with it is worth it) is wrong.

I'd like to explain that forcing allowing others into a model that you agree with or even someone else identifies with later on is wrong — schopenhauer1

No its not wrong.

No its not wrong. — staticphoton

As khaled was stating...Let's say I like my job- I'm just going to "allow" you to have to do it for a life time (obviously the job being a metaphor for the conditions of life itself). You eventually say, "eh, I guess it is not that bad a job". I still say this is wrong. Consequences be damned, it was wrong to force (um, I mean "allow") it.

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.

No, I’m not arguing morality doesn’t exist, just that since antinatalism has no one to apply their principles of to, that it is a moral posture, a sort of virtue signalling.

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

If I were to have 100 children each deformed worse and worse, yet each would live a happy life...
It would be immoral of me to deny one of them their happiness; in the same way a thief denies.

I'll cut it short: If you deny the child, you deny any potential good from and to.
You will stagnate in fear of potential damage.
To be moral and free here, would entail to risk.
Certain failure versus potential failure.

Let's say I like my job- I'm just going to "allow" you to have to do it for a life time (obviously the job being a metaphor for the conditions of life itself). You eventually say, "eh, I guess it is not that bad a job". I still say this is wrong. Consequences be damned, it was wrong to force (um, I mean "allow") it. — schopenhauer1

Not sure what "liking" has to do with it. Sperm an eggs have a prime directive or objective: to produce a life. You are able to use your intellect to decide when the conditions are favorable to allow this to happen. That's how the system works. It doesn't work by pretending you are forcing an individual out of a neutral state to introduce him into a harmful state. This previous state does not exist, it is meaningless. A neutral state does not exist either, it is also meaningless.

Let me ask you this, if you were in a state of oblivion and someone explained to you the risk of harm, and gave you the choice to be born and have a life, would you choose to do it?

Wrong answer, either way. Because you don't have the frame of reference or even the consciousness to evaluate the proposition, in fact you don't even exist. You would actually have to be born and live some extent of this life thing to be able to determine whether it was worth living or whether it was better to remain in the oblivion of not existing.

If you don't exist, no action such as "forcing" can be executed against you.

It would be immoral of me to deny one of them their happiness — Shamshir

You actually truly believe that? So again I ask

You have 3 starving people and 2 solutions
A: feed them
B: materialize 100 satiated people such that you create more pleasure than in A

Would you seriously pick B?

Also let me ask you another question: do you think someone is ever morally obliged to have children?

I'll cut it short: If you deny the child, you deny any potential good from and to. — Shamshir

Agreed

You will stagnate in fear of potential damage. — Shamshir

That is wise when dealing with other people you don’t know. The default is to do the action that doesn’t risk harm. Would you appreciate it if someone destroyed your house in an attempt to add a room to it when you didn’t ask him to do so.

To be moral and free here, would entail to risk — Shamshir

This doesn’t follow from anything you have written. Not taking risks for other people is the default position in every other scenario. I’ve never heard someone claim before that one has to take risks with other people when they didn’t ask him to for him to be moral

Certain failure versus potential failure. — Shamshir

Who is harmed by me not having children? Where is this failure?

just that since antinatalism has no one to apply their principles of to — NOS4A2

Do you mean to say that since no one benefits from antinatalism that it is somehow virtue signaling? Is not modifying children to suffer virtue signaling then as well?

You are able to use your intellect to decide when the conditions are favorable to allow this to happen. — staticphoton

And I’m here to ask everyone to take this advice and find that the favorable conditions are: never


Also I just wanted to re ask another question you never answered: do you think it is right for person A to cause person B to do something B might not like because A likes it?

Would you appreciate it if someone destroyed your house in an attempt to add a room to it when you didn’t ask him to do so — khaled

That is part of the fallacy. If you don't exist, you would not be able to evaluate the act.

And I’m here to ask everyone to take this advice and find that the favorable conditions are: never — khaled

Shitty advice.

Do you mean to say that since no one benefits from antinatalism that it is somehow virtue signaling? Is not modifying children to suffer virtue signaling then as well?

Yes it claims to be an ethical principle regarding the treatment of beings that do not exist, something that is always claimed to help others but cannot be shown in reality.

ok cool so you’d be perfectly fine with genetically engineering someone to be born with 10 broken limbs and suffer tremendously because of it? After all: they can’t say no.

Seriously though just think about it. Is consent ever assumed when it is not available? Because that’s what you’re doing. You’re assuming consent because it’s not available. Which beats the whole point of consent

Other than that can you actually answer the question?

do you think it is right for person A to cause person B to do something B might not like because A likes it? — khaled

something that is always claimed to help others — NOS4A2

I thought we went over this already at the very start. Antinatalism never claims to help anyone. The antinatalist doesn't think he’s doing a good thing. That’s why I truly don’t get how it can possibly be virtue signaling when it doesn’t even claim itself a virtue. It claims the alternative a vice. And for good reason

Let me ask you this, if you were in a state of oblivion and someone explained to you the risk of harm, and gave you the choice to be born and have a life, would you choose to do it?

Wrong answer, either way. Because you don't have the frame of reference or even the consciousness to evaluate the proposition, in fact you don't even exist. You would actually have to be born and live some extent of this life thing to be able to determine whether it was worth living or whether it was better to remain in the oblivion of not existing.

If you don't exist, no action such as "forcing" can be executed against you. — staticphoton

This is called the "non-identity" issue in philosophy and it really doesn't apply here in the case of antinatalism. A future person will be born if a set of conditions is met, we both agree on that. Procreation is what brings life about. As you admit, there CANNOT be a situation where someone can do anything about the situation of being born. That is what is mean by "forced" here. The default is always "being born".

Now, I am going to couple this idea with the decision to procreate. At the procreational decision, you can prevent ALL future harm by simply refraining from procreation. There is NO deprivation experienced from any actual person either. OR you can procreate, and create the conditions for definite harm.

Please see the David Benatar asymmetry here before we go any further: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar

My apologies. I guess All this talk of reducing the suffering of potential humans confused me.

it’s ok. Antinatalism was very counter intuitive for me as well. Until I spent 6 months arguing with a guy on reddit and he convinced me. Also read benetars book if you want very accurate arguments. It’s like 250 pages or something relatively short


The question antinatalism asks is simple: why risk harming someone for your own selfish gain? Because there is literally no other reason to explain it. Find one other scenario where there are 2 courses of action A and B. A has a chance to severely harm or severely benefit someone. B is neutral. Where someone would pick A for someone else and think it’s ok to do so. You can pick A for yourself all you want but for others please pick B. I don’t want random strangers to start using my bank account to buy things they like in an attempt to please me which is the type of behavior that would be allowed if you extend the reasoning of natalism to the end

I'd like to explain that forcing allowing others into a model that you agree with or even someone else identifies with later on is wrong
— schopenhauer1

No its not wrong. — staticphoton

So you wouldn’t mind if some psycho believed very vehemently in the greater purpose of cleaning sewage and so forced you to clean sewage with him for 60 years? After all, it’s not wrong for him to force you, he sees value in the activity after all. Fuck asking for your opinion

At the procreational decision, you can prevent ALL future harm by simply refraining from procreation.

But you’d also prevent many other things besides harm. I wouldn't want to prevent the birth of Nicola Tesla because he was sure to suffer through cholera.

But you’d also prevent many other things besides harm. I wouldn't want to prevent the birth of Nicola Tesla because he was sure to suffer through cholera. — NOS4A2

First off I think that’s incredibly selfish. And second off, what happens once those good things are prevented? Who is harmed?

Look at it this way:
Worst case scenario for antinatalism: someone who would be extremely happy is not born
Total amount of harm done: 0
Total amount of harm saved: a bit (not too much because they’re extremely happy)

Worst case scenario for natalism: someone who would be extremely sad is not born
Total amount of harm done: extreme
Total amount of harm saved: 0

Best case scenario for antinatalism: someone who would be extremely sad is not born
Total amount of harm done: 0
Total amount of harm saved: extreme

Best case scenario for natalism: someone who would be extremely happy is born
Total amount of harm done: a bit
Total amount of harm saved: 0

By “harm saved” I mean “harm that would have happened if the alternative was chosen”

You can look at EITHER harm done or harm saved and you’ll find antinatalism wins out on both
I just came up with this so maybe there’s a lot wrong with it idk

First off I think that’s incredibly selfish. And second off, what happens once those good things are prevented? Who is harmed?

Well, like you said, no one is harmed, but it denies the world and posterity a human being who may alter the course of history for the better.

Do you believe Beethoven’s parents should not have had Ludwig because he suffered through deafness? Yes no harm no foul, but then again, no Moonlight sonata.

So you wouldn’t mind if some psycho believed very vehemently in the greater purpose of cleaning sewage and so forced you to clean sewage with him for 60 years? After all, it’s not wrong for him to force you, he sees value in the activity after all. Fuck asking for your opinion — khaled

I would have to know something better than cleaning sewage to be able to decide whether cleaning sewage sucked. Values are not absolute, things are good or bad in comparison with something else.

Antinatalism wins if the prime concern is harm of any kind is above all else, and if nothing else matters.

I'm not seeking to convert you out of antinatalism, but the absolute conviction that you have found the ultimate truth, and that everyone else is a fool for not following suit, is nothing but a basic form of extreme fundamentalism.