It is undeniable that the first premise has considerable support from our rational intuitions and premise 2 is obviously true. — Bartricks
No. We only do that when considering the consequences of a certain action. For example, we don’t think not having kids is harming anyone. Because not having kids has no negative consequence on anyone. However having kids does have negative consequences on someone in the future, it doesn’t matter if they existed at the time the decision was made — khaled
I don’t think either is more or less wrong than the other do you? — khaled
Because it risks (pretty much guarantees) harming someone in the future. It doesn’t matter that that person doesn’t exist at the time — khaled
I think existing is an action. Considering it can be stopped. Maybe “living” would’ve been a better word. — khaled
You have 3 starving people And 2 solutions. Which do you employ
A: feed them
B: materialize 100 satiated and happy people so that you create more pleasure/happiness than in A
I’m pretty sure you’d say A is the better option right? Because B doesn’t actually help anyone. Doesn’t that show that creating happy people has no value in and of itself. Or at least negligible value. — khaled
That implies that not keeping a child happy is bad, not that keeping the child happy is good. — khaled
Does that justify rape, theft, murder, etc? — khaled
Do you happen to see the rapist’s desire a good reason for rape? I don’t think so. — khaled
Your child might not. So why are you taking the risk for them? For “the world”? Would you be fine if a religious zealot raided your home for “God”? If you’re not fine with that, why risk putting a child in a position where similar to you they’re told that their suffering is for “the world”? Do you think they’ll be fine with that? — khaled
Does that make it ok to genetically engineer babies to suffer on purpose? They can’t say no can they? — khaled
Also the point is that they WILL become an existing being with opinions and their opinions of the world may be highly negative. So simply don’t take the risk for them when you can avoid it. — khaled
They are not so certain - they are a paranoid assumption based in a hopeless state of mind.However, the two consequences of birth I described, hurt someone or get hurt by someone, are so certain that we may base a definitive decision on them and the decision should be not to have children. — TheMadFool
If I may add, maybe those people are starving as punishment for some crime.If I see starving people around me I would think about helping them before having children, because I wouldn't want my children to grow up in a society that lets people starve. — leo
To reject my argument we must resort to a utilitarian calculus dependent on an improbability of the consequences I described or balancing suffering with happiness. However these are all, as you know, probabilities and we can never be sure of them to the degree required to allow us to make a decision. — TheMadFool
Whether or not the living think life is worth living has nothing to do with whether or not they can add more people. — khaled
Because there is a difference between an experience worth living through and an experience worth starting. Example: blindness is an experience worth living through but that doesn’t make it ok to go around hacking people’s eyes out does it? — khaled
Similarly, life is worth living through but that doesn't necessarily justify adding more people to it does it? — khaled
Even though in both cases the person in question will likely get over the difficulties of blindness/life and come to enjoy it later. — khaled
They are not so certain - they are a paranoid assumption based in a hopeless state of mind.
This very assumption is what leads to feral children - it poses no benefits, only detriment.
Maybe it makes sense in theory, but it doesn't hold up in practice. — Shamshir
the reasoning is that because life is an experience worth living through, it's worth starting. — S
Your analogy would be a false analogy in the full context of this discussion, because the experience of being born is nothing like the experience of having your eyes hacked out, — S
and you don't need to have your eyes hacked our in order to start life. — S
Who said anything about necessity? — S
I can both help starving people and have children — leo
then the existence of bad experiences doesn't imply it would have been better for the human being to not exist in the first place. — leo
Through having a child we create the conditions for both positive and negative experiences in the child, through rape/theft/murder we usually create only negative experiences in our victim — leo
Indeed I don't, but then again I don't equate having a child with raping someone. — leo
If they agree that their existence serves a greater purpose then they would be less negatively affected by the suffering they encounter. If they don't see it that way, we can still make them happy as much as we can, I wouldn't force spiritual beliefs onto them no matter what. — leo
No, but again, I don't equate having a child with genetically engineering a baby so it suffers on purpose. — leo
Indeed they will become an existing being with opinions, and by then they can decide for themselves if their life is worth living or not, if they want to keep living or not, and then they might tell you "thank you for having me dad/mom, if you had been antinatalists I wouldn't have had these experiences that make life beautiful and worth living". — leo
But we need to consider the consequences to someone. Ethical considerations need a subject that already exists. — Echarmion
So here is another example: Let's assume we develop some technology (or magic) that will be extremely beneficial for society for several generations, but then everyone still alive will die horribly. Assume life extension is not plausible when we make the decision, and everyone will be made aware of the eventual consequence.
Should we use that technology in order to make everyone's lifes much more pleasant right now? — Echarmion
I think the connotations of "living" and "existing" are very different. The former is a general description of things you do, the latter is a category of being. — Echarmion
Explain to me why genetically modifying children to suffer is wrong then. Whatever explanation you come up with you will find will lead to antinatalism. — khaled
No. Because it will harm someone in the future. Unless we can cheat the system and not give birth to that final generation then heck yea — khaled
No! In very simple terms either your child will hurt or get hurt. You don't want your child to hurt someone. You don't want your child to suffer. Ergo it's unethical to have children. — TheMadFool
That’s not reasoning that’s just your intuition. — khaled
Every experience worth starting is worth continuing (at least I can’t think of a counter example) but not vice versa. — khaled
guarantee — khaled
I agree. Having your skull folded and bent as you scream in pain is much worse. Childbirth is a painful experience for both mothers and children. So my analogy is apt this far. — khaled
I don’t understand what this has to do with anything. It’s almost as if you’ve already declared starting life the goal when that is exactly the topic of debate. — khaled
I think you’re misunderstanding what I meant. I was saying that life being an experience worth living through doesn’t mean it is worth starting. — khaled
I understand that the gouging eyes out example isn’t the best. — khaled
How about: having a child knowing they will be blind. Is that ethical for you? — khaled
It's not an impossible answer, it's an omission on your part.Have you never been hurt and have you never hurt anyone?
"No" is an impossible answer. — TheMadFool
I can't explain. That's why I am asking you. After all, your position depends on, or is at least strengthened by, that argument. I just say I don't know. — Echarmion
But do we need to care? — Echarmion
It's easy to think of counterexamples. A perpetual roller coaster ride? No thanks. — S
No one said anything about guarantees — S
Life is worth living for lots of people — S
But it does mean exactly that for lots of people. — S
To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that the lives of blind people aren't worth living — S
Would you knowingly hop on a perpetual roller coaster though? Obviously not. Then it’s not worth starting is it? — khaled
You did when you claimed that life being enjoyable makes it (guarantees it is) worth starting. — khaled
I was pointing out that life being worth living through doesn’t guarantee it being worth starting. — khaled
Agreed. People who are alive have an interest in continuing living. That doesn’t guarantee the experience is worth starting as I’ve said. — khaled
Arguing from popularity is a fallacy first of all. — khaled
So I’m going to ask YOU this: do you think every experience worth living through is worth starting? — khaled
Now the burden of proof is on you to show that life is worth starting. Because it being worth living doesn’t logically guarantee that. — khaled
No. — khaled
It would be to suggest those lives are not worth starting. — khaled
Let me ask an alternative question then: is genetically modifying children to blind them ethical? — khaled
And if not why not when you’ve said that having blind children is ethical. — khaled
So it’s wrong but you don’t know why you think it’s wrong? — khaled
For my position it would be very easy to explain. Because it will harm someone in the future. I believe if an act will harm someone for no justifiable reason then it’s wrong. It doesn’t matter if there’s existed a person at the time the act took place. I don’t ridiculously think think that bombing an 18 year old is somehow more wrong if done directly or by implanting a bomb in the fetus. It doesn’t make any difference. What matters is the consequence — khaled
Is this the late “but actually morality doesn’t exist” card? — khaled
Entitlement is part of ethics. It means having a right. — S
Let's look more closely at this particular claim that we have a right to reproduce, and at the whole concept of entitlements or rights, the belief in which I think might be worth examining. — petrichor
What if we're not realists on rights? — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.