Please see this thread for more elaborate ideas on it:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5981/schopenhauers-deprivationalism

Nothing in that explains why, when an individual has no issues with those things, they're still a moral problem nevertheless.

I keep asking that, and I'm not sure you know how to answer it, because you keep deferring to things that don't really address the question.

Imagine if someone said, "I know you don't mind when you gain or lose a pound, but nevertheless, it's morally bad for you to gain or lose a pound, so I'm going to fix things so that can not happen."

The person would want to know why you think it's morally bad for them to gain or lose a pound and why you're meddling in their affairs "on their behalf" when they don't have a problem with gaining or losing just a pound and they didn't ask you to meddle on their behalf.

When they ask you why you feel it's morally bad regardless of how they feel about it, it wouldn't do any good to keep explaining that you feel it's morally bad, that you characterize it as something negative, etc. They want to know your motivation for the characterization.

When they ask you why you feel it's morally bad regardless of how they feel about it, it wouldn't do any good to keep explaining that you feel it's morally bad, that you characterize it as something negative, etc. They want to know your motivation for the characterization. — Terrapin Station

It's looking at the big picture and seeing a uniform principle. Not everyone will see that. Gravity affects you, but you do not have to understand how it works, for example.

It's looking at the big picture and seeing a uniform principle. — schopenhauer1

Sure. And on the big picture, the uniform principle has it that lacking or desiring things is bad regardless of how anyone feels about it because?

Sure. And on the big picture, the uniform principle has it that lacking or desiring things is bad regardless of how anyone feels about it beacuse? — Terrapin Station

Insatiable and unfulfilled desires are painful by their very nature. That we are lacking something at almost all times, and the fact that fulfilling some of these lacks is only temporarily satisfying is a negative in and of itself.

Insatiable and unfulfilled desires are painful by their very nature. — schopenhauer1

Okay, but then you're denying that people can be hungry, for example, without having an "unpleasant" phenomenal assessment of it. Is that right?

Okay, but then you're denying that people can be hungry, for example, without having an "unpleasant" phenomenal assessment of it. Is that right? — Terrapin Station

So desiring is like a wound that is never clotted by simply fulfilling a desire. Physiological pain (pain being by its nature unpleasant) attend many of these lacks. But it will persist again even after temporary satiation. Can one revel in the unpleasantness of starving? Sure. Perhaps certain masochistic types. So, if the masochists don't get what they desire?

Insatiable and unfulfilled desires are painful by their very nature. That we are lacking something at almost all times, and the fact that fulfilling some of these lacks is only temporarily satisfying is a negative in and of itself. — schopenhauer1

That doesn't outweigh the overall value of the lives of many people. Given that the nonsense ideal of living without that is not a possible alternative, the only other alternative is lifelessness, which is not better than the lives that the people themselves value. They would not opt to never have lived if given the option, and it is immoral to dismiss their own conclusion as you are doing.

So desiring is like a wound that is never clotted by simply fulfilling a desire. — schopenhauer1

Desire is like a wound when it is very painful. Few of us posting here ever experience hunger as a wound. I enjoy desire, I enjoying just being about to satisfy it, I enjoy, the process of satisfying it and I enjoy it's return. Not as a rule, but this certainly happens and if we are talking about food, here, I think most people on this forum have enough control of their food to experience this way.

Again, why does the guy grab something from the fridge? Why isn't he satisfied without doing so? Is it something related to a deficiency in hunger, thirst, comfort, entertainment? — schopenhauer1

And this is confused also. Desire is not a lack, it is a fullness feeling. There are problems when desire cannot be satisfied or met. But then unless this is something like starvation, life can still be experienced as a challenge, a part of the dynamism of life. Often the anti-natalist position seems to me to hide a hatred of life, or rather, actually be this. Here you have been generalizing that life is suffering. So the issue is not that a child hasn't consented, it is that life is bad and no child should experience it.

That doesn't outweigh the overall value of the lives of many people. Given that the nonsense ideal of living without that is not a possible alternative, the only other alternative is lifelessness, which is not better than the lives that the people themselves value. They would not opt to never have lived if given the option, and it is immoral to dismiss their own conclusion as you are doing. — S

None of that would matter prior to birth. No forcing, no deprivation. You can't force someone to play a game you think they will like at some point (and maybe not at others) and then say "See, aren't you glad I forced this on you?!". What is the harm of not being born to the person not being born? NOTHING.

None of that would matter prior to birth. — schopenhauer1

What are you talking about? It matters now. Now is prior to the birth of possible future generations, which is what I was talking about. It matters already, right now, whether or not our planet will be full of human life fifty years from now, one hundred years from now, two hundred years from now, and so on. And if most people now wouldn't opt to never have lived if possible, then it's reasonable to infer that a new generation of people would also not opt to have never been born if possible, so it's not wrong, it's actually good. Good is better than both neutral and bad, as I've told you before. And a planet devoid of life is neutral at best.

And you keep switching up your justifications in a logically inconsistent manner. If there's no person prior to conception, then there's no one to be forced. You yourself just said "no forcing", but then you illogically try to challenge me as though there's a person prior to conception that would somehow be forced into existence.

It matters already, right now, whether or not our planet will be full of human life fifty years from now, one hundred years from now, two hundred years from now, and so on. And if most people now wouldn't opt to never have lived if possible, then it's reasonable to infer that a new generation of people would also not opt to have never been born if possible, so it's not wrong, it's actually good. Good is better than both neutral and bad, as I've told you before. And a planet devoid of life is neutral at best. — S

It only matters to prevent suffering. Having good only matters to those already born. All the people alive who report that they experience something "good" doesn't take away the logic of the asymmetry prior to birth. The one time all harm is prevented is all the matters. Anything else is forcing an agenda so another lives it out. It is no wonder society crams so many types of thinking from high on down.. To perpetuate itself, have compliant workers, you need Nietzschean mentality.

And you keep switching up your justifications in a logically inconsistent manner. If there's no person prior to conception, then there's no one to be forced. You yourself just said "no forcing", but then you illogically try to challenge me as though there's a person prior to conception that would somehow be forced into existence. — S

No, you are mischaracterizing the argument. What I mean is once born, that person is forced. Prior to this, no one is forced.

It only matters to prevent suffering. — schopenhauer1

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your opinion, you know. I already know that that's your opinion, and it won't become any closer to being true or justified the more that you repeat it.

All the people alive who report that they experience something "good" doesn't take away the logic of the asymmetry prior to birth. — schopenhauer1

The asymmetry between the good of there being lots of people living worthwhile lives on the one hand, and the neutrality or badness of a planet devoid of life on the other. Got it.

The one time all harm is prevented is all the matters. — schopenhauer1

Yes, to someone insanely removed from reality, that's all that matters. To everyone else, lots of other things matter. So much so that what you're saying will sound outrageous to them.

Anything else is forcing an agenda so another lives it out. — schopenhauer1

We've been over this and you failed to produce a valid response. You're guilty of what you accuse others of doing. You're guilty of forcing your agenda by only considering the prevention of suffering, rather than the prevention of joy and everything else. So it doesn't work. It's the fallacy of special pleading, also known as applying a double standard.

No, you are mischaracterizing the argument. What I mean is once born, that person is forced. Prior to this, no one is forced. — schopenhauer1

What are you talking about then? You've lost me. Forced to do what? No one is forced to do anything once born. Are you forgetting that life isn't a "game" that people are forced to "play"? People stop "playing" all the time, and no, that isn't a cue for you to go off on one about suicide. I'm only raising it as a refutation of your point about being forced, I'm not suggesting anything beyond that, and I don't want to hear all about your vaguely related thoughts on the matter yet again.

By the way, for anyone who is interested, maybe @Coben and @Terrapin Station, here is a rudimentary understanding of Schopenhauer's concepts from Medium (never heard of it, just a cursory search really):

Beyond the world as we know it
Schopenhauer’s philosophical system was built on the work of Immanuel Kant, the great German philosopher of the Enlightenment. Like Kant, Schopenhauer believed our world had two contrasting aspects to it: total reality can be separated into what we can and can’t experience of it.
Firstly there is the “phenomenal” world (phenomenal meaning “what is experienced”). This is the world as ordered by our sense and as we experience it in space and time and according to the law of cause and effect. In short, the phenomenal world is everything we can feel, hear, perceive etc.
But what if we somehow had access to the world as it really is? What is outside our perception of the world, outside our senses and even outside of space and time and cause and effect? Schopenhauer calls it the “noumenal” aspect of the world (noumenal meaning “what is outside of experience”).
In short there is the universe in-itself and the universe for human beings. This is why Schopenhauer’s named his book The World as Will and Representation.
Schopenhauer believed that since our intellect imposes difference on the universe, the universe outside of our intellect must be an undifferentiated oneness.
The “phenomenal” world is things in space and time: trees, dust, people, sky, water. If we could ever step outside of ourselves (which we of course can’t), the “noumenal” world would be pure undifferentiated energy. All those trees, dust, people, sky and water and so on as a state of pure being.
The Will
This “energy” is what Schopenhauer called the “Will”. The philosopher reasoned that stuff happens, and as such something must be making it happen. By using a process of intuition, he deduced that we are nothing in essence but a set of desires and drives. Drives being as simple as our heartbeat, or the need to reproduce, and desires being our desire to stay alive or have sex.
You can extrapolate this out to animals and plants, and ultimately to inert matter. Everything in the universe is changing. Everything has tendencies, from the inertia of a comet in deep space, to the libido of a rock star.
Since it is outside of time, the Will is eternal, and if it is eternal it is purposeless.
The Will manifests itself in us as desire: desire to live on, desire to eat, drink, have sex and buy the latest iPhone. In the context of living beings Schopenhauer called it the “Will to Life”.
In a world bereft of meaning only desire drives human beings onwards, to procreate, to consume, to conquer and to accumulate. The blind, senseless force of the Will that drives the universe and is also driving through us, it allows us no respite from desire.
We may get a momentary release from dissatisfaction when we acquire something, but soon another desire will get back in the driving seat of our consciousness. As the great writer put it:
“Life therefore oscillates like a pendulum from right to left, suffering from boredom”
We are never truly fulfilled, according to Schopenhauer. “Suffering is the substance of all life” (to a greater or lesser extent, I would add), only death is a true escape.
Besides death, Schopenhauer thought that renouncing earthly things — in effect to renounce desire as much as possible — was the best way to ease the suffering of our unquenchable cravings.
Compassion
An important aspect of renunciation is compassion. Care for people and animals was important to Schopenhauer since there is no ultimate distinction between things. Everything and everybody is part of the noumenal “oneness” of the being. The philosopher agreed with the Buddhist idea that to harm other creatures is to ultimately harm ourselves.

The ethical ideas of Schopenhauer and Buddhism have a lot in common. (Photo by dorota dylka on Unsplash)
The similarities between the ethical ideas that Schopenhauer arrived at independently and Buddhist beliefs are clear. Asceticism is a common virtue among religions, but particularly Buddhism. The philosopher wrote:
“If I wished to take the results of my philosophy as the standard of truth, I should have to concede to Buddhism pre-eminence over the others. In any case, it must be a pleasure to me to see my doctrine in such close agreement with a religion that the majority of men on earth hold as their own.”
The person who acts with kindness is the person who knows the truth deep down: that in the grand scheme of things the distinction between living creatures is an illusion. If we act with compassion, we feel less separate and isolated, we feel connected in a way that dissolves our ego. That’s why we describe kind acts as “selfless”.
Schopenhauer was also outspoken for animal rights, a very rare attitude in the nineteenth century:
“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.”
Beauty and the Arts
Another temporary escape from desire, is the way that we find enjoyment in the arts and beauty. Pleasure in art, for Schopenhauer, engrossed us in the world as representation, while momentarily being oblivious to the world as Will. Art can also give us an intuitive and therefore deeper connection to the world than science or reason could.
Music was the highest form of art for Schopenhauer. Because it’s not “mimetic”, or a copy of anything else as, say, painting is, music depicts the will itself. As such, music is pure expression, a “true universal language” understood everywhere. Listening to music we may appreciate the Will without feeling the pain (desire or boredom) of its workings. The philosopher wrote:
“The composer reveals the innermost nature of the world, and expresses the profoundest wisdom, in a language that his reasoning faculty does not understand.” — The Power of Schopenhauer from www.medium.com

It's there in #5 - Messiah complex leads to martyrdom.

It's there in #5 - Messiah complex leads to martyrdom. — Banno

And having kids isn't a messiah complex? Oh, the "mission" to bring happy people into the world following the agendas of this or that. Procreation is force recruiting. At least antinatalists just try to convince.

I don't wanna play.

Doubtless, your being trolled @schopenhauer1

I think this has been true by more than one troller.. I mean poster today.

I think this has been true by more than one troller.. I mean poster today. — schopenhauer1

As I said earlier, I commend your doggedness; but, it really comes off as some version of fundamentalism or as per your other topic, profound neuroticism. But... I know (or think I know) that this is philosophy and everything else is a trifle.

The asymmetry between the good of there being lots of people living worthwhile lives on the one hand, and the neutrality or badness of a planet devoid of life on the other. Got it. — S

Here is where you are off the mark. Neutrality (no badness here) of a devoid life matters not to no one. No eternal being is crying, no ghost babies are lamenting. Only you projecting.

Yes, to someone insanely removed from reality, that's all that matters. To everyone else, lots of other things matter. So much so that what you're saying will sound outrageous to them. — S

Yes, and this is about right ideas on the matter. Other things matter = agendas for people to follow. I don't doubt people who don't reflect much on it, just accept, identify, and cope with the agendas that are the given.

We've been over this and you failed to produce a valid response. You're guilty of what you accuse others of doing. You're guilty of forcing your agenda by only considering the prevention of suffering, rather than the prevention of joy and everything else. So it doesn't work. It's the fallacy of special pleading, also known as applying a double standard. — S

But we also went over how if no one is actually alive, preventing joy is neither good nor bad.

What are you talking about then? You've lost me. Forced to do what? No one is forced to do anything once born. Are you forgetting that life isn't a "game" that people are forced to "play"? People stop "playing" all the time, and no, that isn't a cue for you to go off on one about suicide. I'm only raising it as a refutation of your point about being forced, I'm not suggesting anything beyond that, and I don't want to hear all about your vaguely related thoughts on the matter yet again. — S

Forced to do all the things life entails when one is a functioning human in an enculturated setting. And yes, you know I will say that forcing someone to play and then saying that your only way out is violently ending your physical being is not right. I would also mention the starting and continuing comparison.

And having kids isn't a messiah complex? Oh, the "mission" to bring happy people into the world following the agendas of this or that. Procreation is force recruiting. At least antinatalists just try to convince. — schopenhauer1

Convince through the deliberate deception involved in mis-selling a product. Yes, your agenda is much more noble and praiseworthy.

Convince through the deliberate deception involved in mis-selling a product. Yes, your agenda is much more noble and praiseworthy. — S

And there isn't deception and agendas being crammed down people to procreate and then get people through life to procreate some more.. No pain, no gain, strength-through-adversity, life is not worth living unless you suffer a little.. all part of what now? Not an agenda? Not propaganda to not rebel against that which keeps one suffering? Please.

Here is where you are off the mark. Neutrality (no badness here) of a devoid life matters not to no one. — schopenhauer1

No, here is where you are way off the mark. A world devoid of life matters to lots and lots of people. Just ask them. And no, I know exactly what you're thinking, but by then it would already be too late, so that obviously doesn't count. But anyway, we don't need to argue over that because it's neutral at best, which still isn't better than good.

Yes — schopenhauer1

I'm glad you agree.

Other things matter = agendas for people to follow. — schopenhauer1

No, it's just a fact that other things matter. Ask people if you don't believe me. And that fact can be used as a justification in terms of probability for the moral permissibility of having a child. They don't have to follow any agenda if they don't want to.

But we also went over how if no one is actually alive, preventing joy is neither good nor bad. — schopenhauer1

We've been over this all a million times, and I stand by my criticism regarding your double standard. In that case, preventing suffering would also be neither good nor bad. And no, that's not an acknowledgment of your asymmetry point, it's a charge that you're committing a fallacy. But sure, if you're going with neutral, I'll just point to the good which beats it.

Forced to do all the things life entails when one is a functioning human in an enculturated setting. And yes, you know I will say that forcing someone to play and then saying that your only way out is violently ending your physical being is not right. I would also mention the starting and continuing comparison. — schopenhauer1

No one is forced to play. Full stop.

There most definitely is deception from you. Otherwise you wouldn't say the incredibly misleading things that you do, in spite of the misleading nature of the statements being brought to your attention, like that it's all about the prevention of suffering. Again, that's like saying that the Disneyland proposition is all about going to Disneyland, and how much fun Disneyland is. Kids love Disneyland. That's like saying that the atomic bomb is like watching fireworks. "Ooooh... Ahhhhhh... Wooooh...". That's like saying that terminal cancer means time off work. "Woo hoo! Go cancer!". That's like saying being punched really hard in the nose will get rid of that itch. "Thanks, mate! That did the trick!". That's like saying that being stabbed to death means that you'll have a good excuse not to see your mother-in-law. That's like saying that it's alright that you broke your favourite pair of glasses (because I'm about to decapitate your head from your body, so you won't really need them).

Get the point yet, or should I keep going?

Another temporary escape from desire, is the way that we find enjoyment in the arts and beauty. Pleasure in art, for Schopenhauer, engrossed us in the world as representation, while momentarily being oblivious to the world as Will. Art can also give us an intuitive and therefore deeper connection to the world than science or reason could.
Music was the highest form of art for Schopenhauer. Because it’s not “mimetic”, or a copy of anything else as, say, painting is, music depicts the will itself. As such, music is pure expression, a “true universal language” understood everywhere. Listening to music we may appreciate the Will without feeling the pain (desire or boredom) of its workings. The philosopher wrote:
“The composer reveals the innermost nature of the world, and expresses the profoundest wisdom, in a language that his reasoning faculty does not understand.” — The Power of Schopenhauer from www.medium.com

Artists would just be people making it seem like life is better, less painful, part of the natalist propaganda. And in truth, to antinatalists, it would be better if no art had ever been made, and if no one had existed. Life includes its own consent, People think of consent like how you would answer to the offer to sign a contract. But it's not like that, life wants to live. From the moment it is there. We humans identify, sometimes, with the thinky little verbal thing, one portion of the organism, and it seems like this little piece of the organism didn't sign any contracts and it can get mad it was not offered a choice. But the whole organism chooses life with great passion all the time. And if it doesn't then it stops living. Like elderly people whose mated die and they die a couple of day later.

Does it matter if the person is conceived, gestated, born, aware, self-aware? — schopenhauer1

What I am thinking about here is that most people operate from the assumption that individual humans are discrete selves, sort of disconnected from everything else, that begin to exist at some point after their conception. It is also assumed that each person remains the same person throughout all the changes of their life. This is what some, including Daniel Kolak, call "closed individualism". This is our culturally-received default view, one rarely questioned, and one that probably has a lot to do with a history of belief in a soul. But I, and quite a few others, don't share that view. I am convinced that there is just one universal self that finds itself occupying all perspectives, one that simply is that which is everything. We just don't tend to be aware of this because of the way information integration works and is limited. So I, for one, don't believe that I, the real deepest self, the ground of my being, began to exist in the 1970s. This personal identity with a body, a name, and so on, is just one of many windows on the world for the one universal Self.

I subscribe to something approximately like the view of Daniel Kolak, with his open individualism, or monopsychism

The reason I ask about Schopenhauer's view is that I am reading him now, both his Fourfold Root and World as Will and Idea, along with a secondary source, and I have gotten the distinct impression that he held a view similar to mine on this matter.

I think this is relevant, because with regard to the question of future births, we then wouldn't be asking about the future well-being of nonexistent persons (no such thing as persons in this sense), but rather the experience of the always-already-existing universal Self. It then isn't much different in principle from considering your own personal future experience.

Supposing I am on the right track, how would this change how we consider arguments like Benatar's? It seems it would mean that it does make sense to say that we are possibly talking about the prevention of future joy for someone now living.

There are other positions on the question of personal identity that would also cause problems for arguments about non-existing or existing persons, empty individualism being one. This is one that Derek Parfit subscribes to, if I am not mistaken.

There most definitely is deception from you. Otherwise you wouldn't say the incredibly misleading things that you do, in spite of the misleading nature of the statements being brought to your attention, like that it's all about the prevention of suffering. Again, that's like saying that the Disneyland proposition is all about going to Disneyland, and how much fun Disneyland is. Kids love Disneyland. That's like saying that the atomic bomb is like watching fireworks. "Ooooh... Ahhhhhh... Wooooh...". That's like saying that terminal cancer means time off work. "Woo hoo! Go cancer!". That's like saying being punched really hard in the nose will get rid of that itch. "Thanks, mate! That did the trick!". That's like saying that being stabbed to death means that you'll have a good excuse not to see your mother-in-law. That's like saying that it's alright that you broke your favourite pair of glasses (because I'm about to decapitate your head from your body, so you won't really need them).

Get the point yet, or should I keep going? — S

Ah, well as long as you know what's "best" for everyone, and being born and generally going along with it, I guess we can all agree, because clearly people stop to reflect about this issue enough to give any consideration to it. No sarcasm at all here.

I think this is relevant, because with regard to the question of future births, we then wouldn't be asking about the future well-being of nonexistent persons (no such thing as persons in this sense), but rather the experience of the always-already-existing universal Self. It then isn't much different in principle from considering your own personal future experience.

Supposing I am on the right track, how would this change how we consider arguments like Benatar's? It seems it would mean that it does make sense to say that we are possibly talking about the prevention of future joy for someone now living. — petrichor

It can be argued that Schopenhauer himself wasn't an antinatalist in the Benatar fashion. Rather, his was more of a lament than an ethical guideline. Being that existence is all Will, and is ceaseless, it can never be squelched in physiological terms, for similar reasons you bring up. There is a sort of panpsychism or monopsychism. Everything would be manifestations of Will. But at the same time, he did have a notion of individual salvation. If the Appearance was the manifestation of Will in its Fourfold Rooted objectification, all it would take is an Enlightened individual to extinguish this Appearance for some sort of calming of the Will. So there seems to be a bit of both in there.

As far as my own take, I can only postulate that individual selves exist along with animal beingness. Thus "coming into being" is a process of conception, gestation, awareness, and self-awareness- all aided through biological and social mechanisms and cues. Preventing a selfhood is preventing the "coming into being", which of course is preventing suffering.

At the least, antinatalism is providing a template to understand why we are continuing existence. Just stop to think about it. WHY are we perpetuating more people? I am not talking the dull, brute way nature fools us into it (sex feels good and this leads to procreation), but in a philosophically-informed way. What are we trying to do here perpetuating more people? People just don't consider this at all. It is even more existentially relevant than why continue living. It is rooted in the very questioning of ANY human existence, not just your own and thus implies much more about life itself.

@Coben @S @Wallows @Banno