I will concede you the point that procreation falls under that principle.
I will ask you again, one more time: Why is forcing people to do things wrong? Why should we adapt that principle?
You have not given an answer so far. — HereToDisscuss

Like any ethical debate, it comes down to first principles. If you don't believe forcing others to do things is wrong, then this argument would not matter to you. However, if the scenario is thus:

You think that if you paid fairly for your property and have possession on it and the party who gave it to you agreed to the exchange or giving of the property, and that property was stolen or taken without permission is wrong...

You think that someone who believes X, Y, Z political beliefs at gunpoint forces you to recant your position, sign a waiver that you will only follow his/her point of view is wrong..

You think that someone physically harming someone else is wrong...

These are all examples of agreeing with the non-aggression principle (implicitly). If one believes that consistency is important in ethical matters, then procreation too falls under this principle like the others. If procreation truly is forcing something onto another, this principle has been violated, and would thus be a problem. So, most people do implicitly believe this principle but turn a blind eye when or don't even think it relevant when it comes to procreation. This is a consistency problem.

So to reiterate, it comes to first principles. If you don't think aggression is an ethical issue, this won't matter. However, for those who do think so (most non-sociopaths it would seem), then yes this would be an issue and more a matter of consistency than questioning the actual principle itself.

Like any ethical debate, it comes down to first principles. — schopenhauer1

Depends. If the question is about applied ethics, it may be that which form of normative ethics you have

If you don't believe forcing others to do things is wrong, then this argument would not matter to you. — schopenhauer1

You merely said that it was obvious. Howewer, that is not really the point. Violating that principle, i would contend, is wrong because of an actual core principle (maybe it brings the total happiness down, maybe there is some deontological reason that lays out that it is wrong) and it is not merely something we should take to be true. "You should not violate other's rights." is not an axiom.
And, like any other "principles", there are exceptions to this principle since the reasoning behind the principle does not apply to those exceptions.

However, for those who do think so (most non-sociopaths it would seem), then yes this would be an issue and more a matter of consistency than questioning the actual principle itself. — schopenhauer1

Or that this is an exception to the rule. To justify this, i am repeating myself, one would have to show that the reasoning behind that principle does not apply to this particular case. And, in order to do that, we need to know the actual reasoning behind that principle. That is why i am asking you why it is wrong to force others to do things.

If you take it to be something that we should not violate under any circumstances (which i doubt), then you would have to prove your case since most people do not believe that. Forcing people to do things, in some cases, is good.

Who is to say? Good question.

Like I have hinted at before, I am not in favor of everybody having children. Love or hope is not enough. One needs to be suited for parenthood. Obviously this is difficult to put into objective terms, but that doesn't mean it is impossible or doesn't exist. I think we should strive to create a standard, but that is probably controversial.

I also think that the idea that non-aggression should apply to everything deserves scrutiny. In some cases an individual doesn't know what is best for him or her, and needs a push. However, giving that push means one takes great responsibility and whether such a push is successful can only be confirmed by the subject.

Depends. If the question is about applied ethics, it may be that which form of normative ethics you have — HereToDisscuss

No, the applied eventually goes down to "Why this normative ethics" as you are asking and it can't go much further besides meta-ethics- intuition, some sort of asymmetry or contradiction, empirical studies, etc. But this can't really provide much else. At the end of the day there are principles of normativity in ethics that people hold.

Violating that principle, i would contend, is wrong because of an actual core principle (maybe it brings the total happiness down, maybe there is some deontological reason that lays out that it is wrong) — HereToDisscuss

I think that is the core principle. Forcing other people to do something is wrong. It is not based on anything more meta than that. Full stop. I'm sorry to violate your principle of having a further principle that has to be grounded in deontology or something else like that. If you go back far enough a principle will be the one you decide is the first one. Why this is not one but something further has to be would be itself an aesthetic choice of sorts or something you value or find pleasing to you. For example, in your examples you can say.. "But why does total happiness going down have to be the foundational principle?".

And, like any other "principles", there are exceptions to this principle since the reasoning behind the principle does not apply to those exceptions. — HereToDisscuss

And how would it not to procreation?

Or that this is an exception to the rule. To justify this, i am repeating myself, one would have to show that the reasoning behind that principle does not apply to this particular case. And, in order to do that, we need to know the actual reasoning behind that principle. That is why i am asking you why it is wrong to force others to do things.

If you take it to be something that we should not violate under any circumstances (which i doubt), then you would have to prove your case since most people do not believe that. Forcing people to do things, in some cases, is good. — HereToDisscuss

So I don't see a reason for an exception to the non-aggression principle here. I don't see the principle of people pursuing happiness as an excuse for that exception to the normally followed rule. If it is so, it would be argument via tradition or popularity. Except for cases which I acknowledged- children needing guidance from parents, self-defense, or the threat-of-force, there are no excuses other than people have an agenda, and they want someone else to follow that agenda and that agenda is more important than the non-aggression principle. Why should it be in this case and not others? Because the will of the parent is strong? Because social pressures can bypass principles of non-aggression?

I guess if you want me to give you a further abstracted principle it is that agendas should not be more important than actual people who will be beholden to those agendas. Suffering should also be thrown in there for good measure..meaning, the agenda to have a person who will suffer, even for fuzzy reasons like Happiness and Society, are not good enough reasons to cause suffering. But you can also accuse that principle of not being foundational enough and thus my argument stands that you have to draw the line of first principles somewhere.

Since we have reached kind of a deadlock in regards to the justification for this principle, i will just drop the issue and focus on why procreation may be an exception and will just hope that it will not be an issue.

Taking "Forcing your view on someone else" to be "Making an action based on your own view that significantly affects someone else and without their consent". The reason it is wrong is because either you might actually be in the wrong (especially in morally gray areas) or the positive outcome you get by making the action is negated by the negative effects on the person. Since i do not adhere to the idea that a person suffers more than it experiences positive outcomes (albeit, even if it was the case, it would have still been able to be justified since one could imagine that we will eventually reach a society in which people do not experience suffering that much, but rather enjoy the positive outcomes in life), i will only have to say that i am not in a morally gray area here and the reasoning is clear and cut:
Premise: If a thing is needed in order to have a non-temporary society in which people do not experience that much of a suffering and experience positive outcomes more and if the action is not unnecessarily painful (i.e. the action generates the best outcome compared to the others) then the action that we do in order to achieve that thing is good. ((A^B>C))
Premise: Having people in the first place is needed in order to have a non-temporary society in which people do not experience that much of a suffering and experience the positive outcomes more.
Therefore, if the action in question generates the best outcome compared to the others that we do in order to achieve that same thing, then it is good.
Premise: Maintaining some rate of procreation generates the best outcome compared to the others that we do in order to achieve that thing.
Ergo, maintaining some rate of procreation is good. (i.e. at least some people should procreate).

Premise: If a thing is needed in order to have a non-temporary society in which people do not experience that much of a suffering and experience positive outcomes more and if the action is not unnecessarily painful (i.e. the action generates the best outcome compared to the others) then the action that we do in order to achieve that thing is good. ((A^B>C))
Premise: Having people in the first place is needed in order to have a non-temporary society in which people do not experience that much of a suffering and experience the positive outcomes more.
Therefore, if the action in question generates the best outcome compared to the others that we do in order to achieve that same thing, then it is good.
Premise: Maintaining some rate of procreation generates the best outcome compared to the others that we do in order to achieve that thing.
Ergo, maintaining some rate of procreation is good. (i.e. at least some people should procreate). — HereToDisscuss

So there are several objections that I can see raised.

1) Collateral damage. Your experience is not another person's experience, even genetically related. In fact, you can have siblings and cousins that have radically different ways of being, personalities, and experiences. The projected outcome for a child that the parent intended MAY not be the case for that child. You can provide me the "But often times it is" or the "Most people say they find life good" but it is questionable whether even if a majority of people outweigh the collateral damage of the suffering of others. Given the Benatar asymmetry (from David Benatar's book, Better Never to Have Been), this reasoning is more compelling. The reasoning is that since the good that is not experienced by the person not born is not good nor bad, since no ACTUAL person is deprived of it, and that it IS good that an actual person is not actually suffering, on the whole, this asymmetry always balances the equation towards better never to have been.

2) Going back to the premise of this thread regarding happiness. The point is happiness (you use the term "good") is a sort of cudgel to banish any objections raised against not forcing others. Force is force. Intending to force a good outcome on someone is still aggression. Why does it get a pass? Combined with the idea of collateral damage, and excess baggage (more than the intended good does actually get forced onto someone), is doubly damaging. An aggressive act, which does more than the intended good (i.e. negative outcomes) is pervaded onto someone in the hopes the collateral damage isn't so bad. We are assuming starting a life for someone is good for them, if you project that the outcomes are indeed going to be likely. This does not override the force that is taking place because you have a warm and fuzzy intent in there (Happiness, Good, Love). If you want to be consistent in following non-aggression, even creating new people should fall under this.. As you stated at the beginning, "An action taken on your view without consent that affects another" is still bad, even made with the intent of good outcomes for that person. Unlike unconscious, elderly, children who have already had the force put on them, and we are mitigating the worst scenario..birth unnecessarily forces a situation onto someone. In other words, once born, certain things need to take place to prevent death or pain for that person, but certainly the force of having the person was not justified in the first place.

3) It is arguable that we live each moment differently than how we report about life when asked "Is life good?". Past events of pain may be downplayed and future events of good may be overestimated. This is a well-known psychological effect called the Pollyanna Principle. We actually experience more pain in our lives in the moment than we often want to remember to ourselves or report to others, including researchers and statisticians.

4) Why should a person be beholden to a principle (happiness, the good, society), in the first place? If you're looking for more abstract principles.. using someone for your own or society's agenda is a good place to start. An agenda to further society and to create "good experiences in the world" is counterintuitively using people's lives as a way to follow this agenda. What is it about this agenda that it needs to be forced onto a new person? What justifies this other than people like the idea so they will do it on behalf of someone else? Even if we use terms like "more positive outcome" what is it about this that this NEEDS to take place? I will ask again, are parents on a messianic mission to bring positive outcomes? If the universe is devoid of positive outcomes, then what? The mission has failed? We already acknowledge life is not JUST positive outcomes, its a mixed bag, but bringing suffering into the world in order to have positive outcomes seems unnecessary at best, and aggressive for sure as it still perpetrates to another person, forcing their hand if you will, and obviously affecting them for a lifetime (as it is the start of life itself). So there are two things here- a) Positive outcomes don't need to take place at all, even if the outcomes are "better" as the alternative of nothing is not actually affecting any actual person negatively or harmfully and b) Despite positive outcomes once born, there are always negative outcomes that are brought with it, thus the person is forced into negative outcomes by this decision. Thus the non-aggression principle should still stand, even in the decision of procreation.

) Collateral damage. Your experience is not another person's experience, even genetically related. In fact, you can have siblings and cousins that have radically different ways of being, personalities, and experiences. The projected outcome for a child that the parent intended MAY not be the case for that child. You can provide me the "But often times it is" or the "Most people say they find life good" but it is questionable whether even if a majority of people outweigh the collateral damage of the suffering of others. — schopenhauer1

You are assuming that there is something hidden in the premise that i am implying-that this society is such a society that i describe. Such an assumption is not needed and i did assume it, but i might have assumed that such a society is possible. If one can achieve such a society.

Consider zombie survival movies (or games or books) for an easy example. The people born there are born to a life of suffering, but our initution is that it is justified because we will eventually have a society in which such suffering will not be that much. My reasoning applies there too and is certainly not affected by it.

Given the Benatar asymmetry (from David Benatar's book, Better Never to Have Been), this reasoning is more compelling. The reasoning is that since the good that is not experienced by the person not born is not good nor bad, since no ACTUAL person is deprived of it, and that it IS good that an actual person is not actually suffering, on the whole, this asymmetry always balances the equation towards better never to have been. — schopenhauer1

Why are you assuming that:
A) We should only consider the effects of this decision on this particular person
B) We should only consider the suffering of the person in question?

For one, even if true, it does not affect my argument in any way. (Since the suffering can still be justified). And you have not said why we should believe that the person suffers more than it experiences happiness. Yes, it might actually be the case, but we do not really have a way to assess this and ,because of that, there is no reason for me to accept either that that is actually the case or that it is the case that, on average, suffering is not that much compared to the happiness.

By the way, i accidentally pressed "Post Comment", so i will have to continue this in another post. If a moderator etc. could merge this post with the other one, i would be glad.

Indeed, I think procreation violates a principle of non-aggression. Oddly, borrowing from the political discourse of the libertarian right (non-aggression principle), by procreating a person, you are aggressively forcing your view (LITERALLY!) on someone else. — schopenhauer1

Are animals aggressively forcing their view on their offspring?
At what point in evolution did having children become an aggression against not yet existing creatures?

Having children is natural to animals. The anti-natalist, it seems to me, bears the onus for demonstrating why a natural process should not occur. This does not mean I think if it happens in nature it is good. I just see natalist arguments as intending to stop all further generations from existing and all sentient creatures from procreating. I haven't seen anything remotely like a strong enough argument for this. One can project a natalist argument on everyone and then attack that, as you do here, but I don't see it as carrying much weight in relation to the AN project.

2) Going back to the premise of this thread regarding happiness. The point is happiness (you use the term "good") is a sort of cudgel to banish any objections raised against not forcing others. Force is force. Intending to force a good outcome on someone is still aggression. Why does it get a pass? Combined with the idea of collateral damage, and excess baggage (more than the intended good does actually get forced onto someone), is doubly damaging. An aggressive act, which does more than the intended good (i.e. negative outcomes) is pervaded onto someone in the hopes the collateral damage isn't so bad. We are assuming starting a life for someone is good for them, if you project that the outcomes are indeed going to be likely. This does not override the force that is taking place because you have a warm and fuzzy intent in there (Happiness, Good, Love). — schopenhauer1

Collateral damage is not persuasive enough, and you need to clarify how it is "excess baggage" and how that means it is bad in this particular situtation.
Also, how is it a "fuzzy intent"? I would say that achieving such a society (or a society that is close to that) is the "ultimate goal" of morality. There is a reason why morality exists in the first place.
Healthy skepticism is okay, but being overly skeptic about a particular thing then not being skeptic at all about an alternative view that is less justifiable is not.

If you want to be consistent in following non-aggression, even creating new people should fall under this.. As you stated at the beginning, "An action taken on your view without consent that affects another" is still bad, even made with the intent of good outcomes for that person.Unlike unconscious, elderly, children who have already had the force put on them, and we are mitigating the worst scenario..birth unnecessarily forces a situation onto someone. In other words, once born, certain things need to take place to prevent death or pain for that person, but certainly the force of having the person was not justified in the first place. — schopenhauer1

A) How is it the worst scenario? The "zombie survival" scenario alone is worse. Maybe talk about how i have to hold that it would be okay for one members of a sex to rape the other in a "survival" scenario where only about 100 people live and they live in an island and the members of a sex does not consent. (Or, for an easier example, it would be okay to rape someone if just 2 people live and one does not consent and would suffer very heavily as a result of the rape. But they would probably be dead irregardless of that as 2 people is not enough since they're under the minimum viable population needed to survive.) In order to be consistent, i will have to hold that too.

B) Notice how you spesifically said "with the intent of good outcomes for that person." If the reasoning is clear and it is viable to actually enforce it, then it is okay. In fact, this is a "life or death" situtation for a species and i would contend that the risks associated with not enforcing it is worse.

As for 3, it is not relevant and i have indirectly replied to you in the post before. So, i will not quote it.

4) Why should a person be beholden to a principle (happiness, the good, society), in the first place? If you're looking for more abstract principles.. using someone for your own or society's agenda is a good place to start. An agenda to further society and to create "good experiences in the world" is counterintuitively using people's lives as a way to follow this agenda. What is it about this agenda that it needs to be forced onto a new person? What justifies this other than people like the idea so they will do it on behalf of someone else? Even if we use terms like "more positive outcome" what is it about this that this NEEDS to take place? — schopenhauer1

Maybe it is because this is not an "agenda", but something that is the "core principle" of probably anyone's morality (not actually, but it is rather that we want to achieve a perfect society or, in a weaker form, that we ought to work towards it).
Are you doubting that we ought to work towards a perfect society?

I will ask again, are parents on a messianic mission to bring positive outcomes? — schopenhauer1

I will say "yes", if you really want me to.

If the universe is devoid of positive outcomes, then what? The mission has failed? — schopenhauer1

If accepted, this only entails that morality is essentially meaningless as, if the universe is devoid of any morally principles, there is no difference to the universe itself.
That is only relevant to metaethics. Otherwise,you have to show why we should adopt your spesific position.

We already acknowledge life is not JUST positive outcomes, its a mixed bag, but bringing suffering into the world in order to have positive outcomes seems unnecessary at best, and aggressive for sure as it still perpetrates to another person, forcing their hand if you will, and obviously affecting them for a lifetime (as it is the start of life itself). — schopenhauer1

I love how you say "unnecessary at best" when lives of a species is at stake here. It is the single most necessary thing we need in order to have such positive outcomes in the first place (or any good thing, really). The principle is violated for a good cause.

So there are two things here- a) Positive outcomes don't need to take place at all, even if the outcomes are "better" as the alternative of nothing is not actually affecting any actual person negatively or harmfully — schopenhauer1

And i do not adhere to the claim that a person that has never experienced pain or happiness (the net is zero, going by hedonism here) is better than a person who has experienced pain but experienced happiness more. Pain is okay if it leads to a positive outcome. The whole idea of "soul-making theodicy", for example, is it is okay for there to be evil because it helps humans develop. In a relevant sense, they experience suffering but the outcome is better.

) Despite positive outcomes once born, there are always negative outcomes that are brought with it, thus the person is forced into negative outcomes by this decision. Thus the non-aggression principle should still stand, even in the decision of procreation. — schopenhauer1

This is the same as before, just slightly rephrased. You are just emphasizing the negative outcome that the person will experience as a result and, indirectly, making an appeal to our emotions here.


Also, apart from your contention to my first premise (which is a relevant contention), how are these objections even relevant?

And, one last thing, why did you emphasise my second premise when you have not responded to it and the premise is undisputable (if we are talking about a human society, that is)? Society is "The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community." For a thing to be a society, it needs to have people in it. This is an
analytic statement. You can not have a human society without humans.

Collateral damage is not persuasive enough, and you need to clarify how it is "excess baggage" and how that means it is bad in this particular situtation. — HereToDisscuss

I'm not sure how "collateral damage" doesn't make sense. It means unintended bad consequences that go along with the "good stuff" intended.

Also, how is it a "fuzzy intent"? I would say that achieving such a society (or a society that is close to that) is the "ultimate goal" of morality. There is a reason why morality exists in the first place. — HereToDisscuss

Fuzzy meaning "warm and fuzzy". It sounds good so it must be good, sort of thinking. Wait what is the goal of society and how is that goal justified as THE goal? Why would individuals be used for society's goals or any future generation's goals? That seems wrong- to use people as fodder (with imperfect happiness) for some utopian future happiness (that is not guaranteed at all or in the realm of achievable perhaps). Either way, this is a poor excuse for procreation- that it is some unwritten goal to work towards X. That is nowhere near being justified.

Healthy skepticism is okay, but being overly skeptic about a particular thing then not being skeptic at all about an alternative view that is less justifiable is not. — HereToDisscuss

What am I not being skeptical at all about? In my view, if no one is born, there is no one to worry over or nothing to worry about- literally. I am skeptical about "fuzzy" "warm-hearted" intent that brings with it negative baggage though, yes. One has no consequences for any actual person, and one definitely does. This already puts the balance in the side of never having been.

A) How is it the worst scenario? The "zombie survival" scenario alone is worse. Maybe talk about how i have to hold that it would be okay for one members of a sex to rape the other in a "survival" scenario where only about 100 people live and they live in an island and the members of a sex does not consent. (Or, for an easier example, it would be okay to rape someone if just 2 people live and one does not consent and would suffer very heavily as a result of the rape. But they would probably be dead irregardless of that as 2 people is not enough since they're under the minimum viable population needed to survive.) In order to be consistent, i will have to hold that too. — HereToDisscuss

I honestly can't interpret what this means as you have written it here. You'd have to explain this more clearly.

B) Notice how you spesifically said "with the intent of good outcomes for that person." If the reasoning is clear and it is viable to actually enforce it, then it is okay. In fact, this is a "life or death" situtation for a species and i would contend that the risks associated with not enforcing it is worse. — HereToDisscuss

Viable to enforce what? Intent was clear that one had good intentions? That is not a reason to force one's agenda on someone else. You may like a game and think it builds character to anyone that plays it. But to force people to play it because you think they will thank you later on is wrong.

Also, why is an individual beholden to a species? To force people's hand into existence (and deal with this consequence) for the sake of humanity, or the species, is to use someone for an agenda. That is wrong to use people as such. If I have an agenda, should I force you into it simply because I want you to? If no, why should this hold for instances of furthering the species? If the species goes extinct, what is the wrong here? The universe will cry? The ghost of HereToDiscuss lamenting on what could have been?

Maybe it is because this is not an "agenda", but something that is the "core principle" of probably anyone's morality (not actually, but it is rather that we want to achieve a perfect society or, in a weaker form, that we ought to work towards it).
Are you doubting that we ought to work towards a perfect society? — HereToDisscuss

Yes I am very much doubting that any basis for morality is working towards a perfect society. It would be just as insane if someone said that the basis for morality is working towards communism, religious fundamentalism, or techno-utopianism. It is insane grandiosity to actually think that we should put more people on Earth to advance this type of agenda (and indeed it would be an agenda). I have a vision of a way society should be, therefore everyone should follow it? Of course not. Same goes for procreation. Again, the same pattern emerges- procreation is NO EXCEPTION to the non-aggression rule.

I will say "yes", if you really want me to. — HereToDisscuss

So now you are fully admitting to a morality where the individual is simply a pawn in some utilitarian calculus. Granted, individuals grow up in a system and are formed by that system, but they are also used by the very system that forms them. Why perpetuate the system just because it forms people? Why are individuals beholden to this?

If accepted, this only entails that morality is essentially meaningless as, if the universe is devoid of any morally principles, there is no difference to the universe itself.
That is only relevant to metaethics. Otherwise,you have to show why we should adopt your spesific position. — HereToDisscuss

I'm not sure where you're getting at here. The universe doesn't "need" moral principles, humans (or intelligent beings with deliberation) do. Once deliberative beings exist, moral principles exist. No humans, no morality, no matter. So if humans do exist, then first principles like non-aggression come into play. I see no problem here with a universe devoid of people who would then hold ethical principles.

I love how you say "unnecessary at best" when lives of a species is at stake here. It is the single most necessary thing we need in order to have such positive outcomes in the first place (or any good thing, really). The principle is violated for a good cause. — HereToDisscuss

Again, what is it with the focus on positive outcomes? What is the need for this when no one existing would matter not for this need for positive outcomes? Non-aggression entails non-procreation which means that forcing someone int he name of positive outcomes matters not if we want to be consistent with not forcing others.

Pain is okay if it leads to a positive outcome. — HereToDisscuss

This is your idea on it. But forcing it on others? I say no, this is a violation of the non-aggression principle. Where is it justified that one ought to create negatives for someone so they can have some positives too? If I prefer a game and think most people should play it, am I right in forcing others to play it? I would say no.

The whole idea of "soul-making theodicy", for example, is it is okay for there to be evil because it helps humans develop. In a relevant sense, they experience suffering but the outcome is better. — HereToDisscuss

I have no idea what "soul-making theodicy" is, but it sounds like an excuse to cause harm. There is no reason to cause harm in the hopes of some positive outcome. This Nietzschean notion that people need to be born in order to suffer a bit (i.e. no pain, no gain) is just post-facto justification to cause the suffering in the first place. If we have a society where we all agree that to make others suffer is good, then we can pat ourselves on the back that creating suffering isn't bad. If we try to turn the tables and make suffering a positive, then we can invert negative experience and pretend that it is justified to create for others, like in cases of procreation. But let's be consistent. If this was applied in almost any other realm on an autonomous adult, this would not fly. You couldn't justify force harming them (violating the principle of non-aggression) in order to save them, which is essentially what this idea's logical conclusion is.

Are animals aggressively forcing their view on their offspring?
At what point in evolution did having children become an aggression against not yet existing creatures? — Coben

When we could deliberate and make choices. Obviously you would have to have ideas like "force" or concepts at all for things like ethics to be viable.

Having children is natural to animals. The anti-natalist, it seems to me, bears the onus for demonstrating why a natural process should not occur. This does not mean I think if it happens in nature it is good. I just see natalist arguments as intending to stop all further generations from existing and all sentient creatures from procreating. I haven't seen anything remotely like a strong enough argument for this. One can project a natalist argument on everyone and then attack that, as you do here, but I don't see it as carrying much weight in relation to the AN project. — Coben

Not quite sure your argument here. You seem to make a point, and then realize that one can object to it because it falls under the naturalistic fallacy. So there can be two points..

1) It is naturalistic fallacy to think that if something is natural, it is good.

2) Procreation maybe a natural consequence of sex, but the preference for procreating new people is not necessarily natural. It could be just as much a deliberative choice as buying a car, or choosing to get this dinner instead of that dinner. What makes this deliberation any different? I think we often conflate the outcomes of procreation (continuation of species by default), for the actual choices that lead to the continuation of the species (following a preference, not an instinct per se). The lion cannot help mating at mating season. The human doesn't have a mating system, and a human can choose to do any number of things. There is no "if then" absolute instinct to procreate like other animals. Rather, we understand a whole range of outcomes that come from procreation.

but the preference for procreating new people is not necessarily natural. It could be just as much a deliberative choice as buying a car, or choosing to get this dinner instead of that dinner. — schopenhauer1

You are right...but unfortunately MOST people makes MOST of their "choices" based on emotion, not reason. Do we really expect MOST people to be reasonable about the whole situation? Or have they "known" since they were 6 years old that someday they would grow up and have kids and they are basing their adult "decision" on that same "knowledge"?

You are right...but unfortunately MOST people makes MOST of their "choices" based on emotion, not reason. Do we really expect MOST people to be reasonable about the whole situation? Or have they "known" since they were 6 years old that someday they would grow up and have kids and they are basing their adult "decision" on that same "knowledge"? — ZhouBoTong

Agreed. However, I might not put it as emotion as much as preferences that are strongly favored by social cues. But yes, people often simply hold a notion but don't question it, carry it out, and not much else is reflected upon in the process. But again, I think in this case it is due to social cues influencing preferences. Not letting down or hurting family, the culture surrounding procreation, the ideal of family life, etc.

Not letting down or hurting family, the culture surrounding procreation, the ideal of family life, etc. — schopenhauer1

I think these are major, self defining issues for many people. And whether they self-defined at age 7 is irrelevant to them. Letting down the family is not an option for many people. And if they have had a vision of an "ideal" family life for the last 20 years, achieving it will feel good and not living up to it will be depressing.

I don't mind replacing "emotion" with "preferences", but I would want to add "given", or "automatic", or "beyond reason" to preferences. My point is that the rational/logical portion of the brain does not even engage. Does it seem safe to say that the vast majority of everyone who seriously considers whether or not they should have kids ends up choosing to NOT have them? Because those that do have kids, never even think about it (they may analyze when is a good time, but not the question of EVER having kids). If I had happened to meet someone I really liked and got married in my early 20s, It is possible that I would have had kids a couple years later. It wasn't until my mid to late 20s that I actually considered the question of having kids or not. Then it took about 5-7 years to arrive at a solid, "oh hell no".

I think you have more faith in people's reasoning/analytic skills than I do :smile:

I'm not sure how "collateral damage" doesn't make sense. It means unintended bad consequences that go along with the "good stuff" intended. — schopenhauer1

I said "not persuiasive enough". I can just not accept your version of it since i do not accept your premise about pain.

Fuzzy meaning "warm and fuzzy". It sounds good so it must be good, sort of thinking. Wait what is the goal of society and how is that goal justified as THE goal? Why would individuals be used for society's goals or any future generation's goals? That seems wrong- to use people as fodder (with imperfect happiness) for some utopian future happiness (that is not guaranteed at all or in the realm of achievable perhaps). Either way, this is a poor excuse for procreation- that it is some unwritten goal to work towards X. That is nowhere near being justified. — schopenhauer1

Well, all there has to be is some kind of a goal that includes society, so "Should it be the goal?" does not work here. If you want me to, i can change the first premise.

Also, i would say that it is okay to "use people as fodder" against this "idea of mine filled with madness" (not what you said, but i am giving you the emotional incentive here). Especially when this spesific instance is not "using people as a fodder" since it is unknown whetever a person experiences suffering more than happiness (going by hedonism here, i can change it if you want). You are making it sound like we live in a society filled with despair so that we think it's immoral to do this.

What am I not being skeptical at all about? In my view, if no one is born, there is no one to worry over or nothing to worry about- literally. I am skeptical about "fuzzy" "warm-hearted" intent that brings with it negative baggage though, yes. One has no consequences for any actual person, and one definitely does. This already puts the balance in the side of never having been. — schopenhauer1

If you think of it like a "fuzzy" intent and that the spesific version of the principle we actually use actually applies to this case, then yes.
But you are not being skeptical about your own principle. For what reason should a person accept it as opposed to something else? It is an absurd version of a commonly accepted rule.

Viable to enforce what? Intent was clear that one had good intentions? That is not a reason to force one's agenda on someone else. You may like a game and think it builds character to anyone that plays it. But to force people to play it because you think they will thank you later on is wrong. — schopenhauer1

What i meant by "viable" was "actually possible."
In your case, forcing anyone to do it is wrong because it is either not feasible (i.e. they will probably not do this and you will end up annoying them) or the negatige outcome associated with forcing people is worse (i.e. annoying them so much means that their day will be ruined and the "character building" aspect will not compensate for it).
Also, i never mentioned someone thanking me later on.

Also, why is an individual beholden to a species? To force people's hand into existence (and deal with this consequence) for the sake of humanity, or the species, is to use someone for an agenda. That is wrong to use people as such. If I have an agenda, should I force you into it simply because I want you to? If no, why should this hold for instances of furthering the species? If the species goes extinct, what is the wrong here? The universe will cry? The ghost of HereToDiscuss lamenting on what could have been? — schopenhauer1

So doing things for the sake of humanity is not good in itself? Isn't that egoism?

Yes I am very much doubting that any basis for morality is working towards a perfect society. It would be just as insane if someone said that the basis for morality is working towards communism, religious fundamentalism, or techno-utopianism. It is insane grandiosity to actually think that we should put more people on Earth to advance this type of agenda (and indeed it would be an agenda). I have a vision of a way society should be, therefore everyone should follow it? Of course not. Same goes for procreation. Again, the same pattern emerges- procreation is NO EXCEPTION to the non-aggression rule. — schopenhauer1

Nope. All you have to accept is that there is a society X that is able to be achieved, such that it is a society that would balance out the possible suffering people experienced in order to make it (if the people actually experienced suffering more, that is). It does not have to be perfect.
And utopias do not really count since they are not able to be achieved, so they do not work.

Again, what is it with the focus on positive outcomes? What is the need for this when no one existing would matter not for this need for positive outcomes? Non-aggression entails non-procreation which means that forcing someone int he name of positive outcomes matters not if we want to be consistent with not forcing others. — schopenhauer1

I do not get this. To me, you essentially sound circular when you argue that positive outcomes do not matter.

So now you are fully admitting to a morality where the individual is simply a pawn in some utilitarian calculus. — schopenhauer1

The emotional language aside, technically, all consequentalists treat an individual as "a pawn in some consequentalist calculus".

This is your idea on it. But forcing it on others? I say no, this is a violation of the non-aggression principle. Where is it justified that one ought to create negatives for someone so they can have some positives too? If I prefer a game and think most people should play it, am I right in forcing others to play it? I would say no. — schopenhauer1

Probably because your analysis of the situtation is flawed. Like i said before, the negatives will almost always be more than the positives in that situtation. It is not feasible and annoying them is not worth it.
There is no need to invoke a principle here.

I have no idea what "soul-making theodicy" is, but it sounds like an excuse to cause harm. There is no reason to cause harm in the hopes of some positive outcome. — schopenhauer1

Try Googling it then. It is also called the "Irenean Theodicy" and it is based on that very idea.

If we have a society where we all agree that to make others suffer is good, then we can pat ourselves on the back that creating suffering isn't bad. If we try to turn the tables and make suffering a positive, then we can invert negative experience and pretend that it is justified to create for others, like in cases of procreation. But let's be consistent. If this was applied in almost any other realm on an autonomous adult, this would not fly. You couldn't justify force harming them (violating the principle of non-aggression) in order to save them, which is essentially what this idea's logical consclusion is. — schopenhauer1

If society agreed that suffering was good and all, then suffering would still be bad. I am not a moral subjectivist.
You can not make suffering a positive or a neutral thing. It is only justifiable if there is a positive outcome that comes with it and that is what i am arguing in the first place-that there is a positive outcome that comes with it.

I think these are major, self defining issues for many people. And whether they self-defined at age 7 is irrelevant to them. Letting down the family is not an option for many people. And if they have had a vision of an "ideal" family life for the last 20 years, achieving it will feel good and not living up to it will be depressing. — ZhouBoTong

Agreed. Essentially the theme of non-reflection when choosing, yet this subject deserves the most analysis.

I don't mind replacing "emotion" with "preferences", but I would want to add "given", or "automatic", or "beyond reason" to preferences. My point is that the rational/logical portion of the brain does not even engage. Does it seem safe to say that the vast majority of everyone who seriously considers whether or not they should have kids ends up choosing to NOT have them? Because those that do have kids, never even think about it (they may analyze when is a good time, but not the question of EVER having kids). If I had happened to meet someone I really liked and got married in my early 20s, It is possible that I would have had kids a couple years later. It wasn't until my mid to late 20s that I actually considered the question of having kids or not. Then it took about 5-7 years to arrive at a solid, "oh hell no". — ZhouBoTong

Yes, your theme here seems to be that for many people pick this preference from youth and don't question it. If they gave time to consider the question, perhaps the logic of non-procreation would be more clear to them.

I think you have more faith in people's reasoning/analytic skills than I do :smile: — ZhouBoTong

Haha. I don't know if I have more faith in people's reasoning/analytic skills, but it does not mean I'll give up arguing and trying to appeal to their reasoning :). But you are right in that oft-times the preference is "baked in" to the person's psyche from all the cues provided from family and society as a youth.

What makes happiness an automatic justification for procreation of another person? Is it really the ultimate "trump" card for why it is justified to put new people into existence and have to experience life? — schopenhauer1

I have a very macabre interpretation of life. I wasn't born during that time but if human vanity isn't a myth I'm sure there was much fanfare and celebration when the language of life DNA was discovered. Watson and Crick won the Nobel if memory serves.

I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory but allow me to say every schoolboy knows that the only part of us that really has some form of eternal existence is our DNA. Despite the notion of personhood being so highly regarded no "person", no matter how great or low in our esteem, survives death. What is perhaps relevant to your argument is that happiness has a purpose if you can call it that.

"What is this purpose?" you might ask. It is to keep us alive long enough to, well, have sex and pass on our DNA. Think of it. Without happiness as a motivation all of us without doubt would reach for the nearest gun and blow our brains out. So there. I said it. Happiness is merely a very useful tool for DNA for it to replicate onto another human being which will also serve the same purpose and so on and so forth in an endless chain until another world-destroying asteroid happens to swing into the collision zone.

I was just reading about existentialism. Where does "existence precedes essence" fit into this whole idea of antinatalism? It does appear, at least by my inability to justify why existence has intrinsic value, that plain living - no perks no frills - is just not enough for us. We desire to be happy too. Happiness if an attainable to the desired degree within an acceptable timeframe is definitely a point in favor life and against antinatalist philosophy. However, many fail in the pursuit of happiness but notice that we simply can't use the word "all". Given this impossibility of universalizing antinatalist arguments to say that life is not worth living appears uncomfortably like tyranny of the majority. It's like a group of sad divorcees insisting that a happily married person should also leave his/her partner.

Well, all there has to be is some kind of a goal that includes society, so "Should it be the goal?" does not work here. If you want me to, i can change the first premise. — HereToDisscuss

Why does some goal have to include society. This is your big assumption.

What i meant by "viable" was "actually possible."
In your case, forcing anyone to do it is wrong because it is either not feasible (i.e. they will probably not do this and you will end up annoying them) or the negatige outcome associated with forcing people is worse (i.e. annoying them so much means that their day will be ruined and the "character building" aspect will not compensate for it). — HereToDisscuss

No that's not my reasoning. It wouldn't matter if the person was overjoyed that you forced them into this character-building exercise. The principle of non-aggression was violated, period. Forcing people, even into something they might like, is still wrong. Outcomes attached to the forcing do not matter in whether a principle was violated. It may matter more perhaps in a court of law or something like that if there was a standard to rule violation of laws.. but we are not talking law, but ethical principles and applying them consistently. But, if we were to add the suffering bit in there, yes, life entails more than "on balance good", the "unintended consequences" and "collateral damage" of harm is still there, so there would be that added to the force. To force someone into harm because they may have good experiences as well on balance, doesn't seem to fly if we consistently believe in non-aggression towards individuals. Procreation again, is no exception here.

So doing things for the sake of humanity is not good in itself? Isn't that egoism? — HereToDisscuss

No, it is simply a consequence of valuing individuals over a cause, theory, agenda. Humanity is impersonal. Individuals are the actual people whose lives are affected. Ethics should reside in the individual- whether society forms that person or not, it is at the level of individual that is affected by actions, not "society". Why an impersonal abstraction should hold individuals hostage, or why individuals should be beholden to an abstraction like society? Rather, individuals should be used at all, for any reason, period. Forcing someone into something for the sake of X in this understanding, makes no sense.

Nope. All you have to accept is that there is a society X that is able to be achieved, such that it is a society that would balance out the possible suffering people experienced in order to make it (if the people actually experienced suffering more, that is). It does not have to be perfect. — HereToDisscuss

Again, why are individual harms used for some type of social balance, happiness, or any agenda? It makes no sense. Ethics are not for abstractions but persons, individuals, identities.

I do not get this. To me, you essentially sound circular when you argue that positive outcomes do not matter. — HereToDisscuss

Positive outcomes don't matter in the case of non-existence. Not existing nothings, don't care that there are not positive outcomes. The fact is no negative outcomes have taken place, which IS good. To force someone into existence, to experience good is still force. By not having the person, you are not harming them either so that cannot be used as an argument. Whether good that could otherwise be had was not had, is irrelevant in light of non-aggression and that no actual person is harmed by not being born.

The emotional language aside, technically, all consequentalists treat an individual as "a pawn in some consequentalist calculus". — HereToDisscuss

I don't believe all do. Even if all do do this, then they would simply be wrong for treating individual humans as a means like that.

Probably because your analysis of the situtation is flawed. Like i said before, the negatives will almost always be more than the positives in that situtation. It is not feasible and annoying them is not worth it.
There is no need to invoke a principle here. — HereToDisscuss

Again, it is analogous because negatives come with the positives of life. But besides this, force is still occurring here. Add to this that there is no obligation to force good on people, especially in light of the fact that preventing birth causes no harm to any actual person, and in fact prevents negatives.

Try Googling it then. It is also called the "Irenean Theodicy" and it is based on that very idea. — HereToDisscuss

So as I thought, harm is needed to "develop" and "grow". This to me is immoral. Creating harmful situations so people can grow from it and get to something "better" is just as bad as being used for any other abstracted principle.

If society agreed that suffering was good and all, then suffering would still be bad. I am not a moral subjectivist. — HereToDisscuss

That's good.

You can not make suffering a positive or a neutral thing. It is only justifiable if there is a positive outcome that comes with it and that is what i am arguing in the first place-that there is a positive outcome that comes with it. — HereToDisscuss

That I disagree with. Forcing someone, believing it will lead to good outcomes still violates the non-aggression rule. Creating suffering from the force, even if there are positives adds weight to this idea. No one is hurt by not being born, no one is obligated to "grow" or "get beyond the pain to a better place". In fact, there is no justification to put someone into such a character-building game in the first place by force other than the belief and preferences of the parent that this is good for someone else.

I was just reading about existentialism. Where does "existence precedes essence" fit into this whole idea of antinatalism? It does appear, at least by my inability to justify why existence has intrinsic value, that plain living - no perks no frills - is just not enough for us. We desire to be happy too. Happiness if an attainable to the desired degree within an acceptable timeframe is definitely a point in favor life and against antinatalist philosophy. However, many fail in the pursuit of happiness but notice that we simply can't use the word "all". Given this impossibility of universalizing antinatalist arguments to say that life is not worth living appears uncomfortably like tyranny of the majority. It's like a group of sad divorcees insisting that a happily married person should also leave his/her partner. — TheMadFool

So you can force someone into existence because- happiness? That is what I'm talking about as this all pervasive "trump" card. Get away with not following non-aggression principle because happiness. In almost any other aspect of dealing with an autonomous adult, forcing someone would be considered wrong.

I have again, somehow accidentally posted a comment without finishing it. I would be glad if someone moderating this would delete this.

So you can force someone into existence because- happiness? That is what I'm talking about as this all pervasive "trump" card. Get away with not following non-aggression principle because happiness. In almost any other aspect of dealing with an autonomous adult, forcing someone would be considered wrong. — schopenhauer1

As I said we require, as a necessity, happiness to make life worth living. If one is reasonably certain that happiness in some form can be provided to a person then I see no reason to prevent his/her birth. I base this view on plausible claims that people find happiness in being mentally, physically, socially and economically healthy; all within attainable limits. If so then it appears that the required combo of life+happiness is achievable. Why deny it?

After all antinatalism has as a basic premise that life is suffering, like Buddhists. That reminds me. Buddhists believe that although life is suffering it is also the only opportunity for nirvana. So the argument goes that we suffer endlessly in the cycle of birth and death in samasara and yet it's the lives you live that are your only opportunity to break free. What say you on this?

Also I think happiness, the lack thereof, is actually the trump card of antinatalists. I must say though that, given the state of the world - it's dark history, the problematic present and, if this continues, a bleak future - antinatalism "is" a sound philosophy. However there is a lot that can be said of people, their strengths in the face of an indifferent universe, that may change that "is" to a "was".

Since some of the things you and i said in different parts of the same posts are the same, i will only respond to different points (or ones that at least look different).

Why does some goal have to include society. This is your big assumption. — schopenhauer1

What should the goal include then? It would have to include either self-interest or the interest of the whole. If it is the first, then that is egoism. If it is the latter, then it is the interest of the society, which means we should make the society better and sarifice ourselves for a greater good. (Since the interest of the society comes first).
One of these have to come first in an ethical consideration.
Or, if i am wrong, what should be a goal of morality?

No that's not my reasoning. It wouldn't matter if the person was overjoyed that you forced them into this character-building exercise. The principle of non-aggression was violated, period. — schopenhauer1

I thought that the reason you talked about this in the first place was not to just repeat what you have said, but show that my moral reasoning entails an obviously wrong consclusion-that forcing that person to play the game is wrong. My moral reasoning does not fail here.
As for the actual game, then it is okay because the person does not get annoyed etc. that the person brought them to life and the suffering/pain ratio is, for the purposes of this discussion,1. That means it is permissible.
The initutive aspect of your principle comes from the fact that we feel our freedom is constrained when we are forced to do things-oftentimes, the forcing does not actually lead to a positive outcome and nothing good comes out of that as a result. When it actually does though, it is seen as if the forcing was justified for that particular case.

Again, why are individual harms used for some type of social balance, happiness, or any agenda? It makes no sense. Ethics are not for abstractions but persons, individuals, identities. — schopenhauer1

And what would someone call a group of individuals? Society, maybe?
Or are you just saying that the idea is not feasible? I would not think so, since, for the purposes of being consistent, i was talking about a society where the individuals experience happiness and it balances out as a result. Short term loss (if it is actually loss, that is), long term gain where the ethics are for individuals and the individuals are happy people.
Also, please note that i am talking like this since i am too ambitious in my reasoning-i also want to be able to claim that, even if a person suffers, it is okay as long as there is no better alternative that involves bringing about a human being.

I can weaken my position and just argue that;1) The initutive aspect of the principle does not apply to this and 2) The outcome is at least indeterminate 3) If a thing leads to better outcome, the pain is okay (this is connected to 1, because i argue that the reason we have such a principle is because it often does not lead to better outcome and so it is best not to try).

By the way, now that i think about it: Does the reasoning behind the principle actually apply to this situtation in the first place? The principle applies to people who, when forced to do a spesific thing, will feel that their freedom is contrained which will probably mean that they will not get the benefit (if there is a benefit, that is) since they feel forced to do this or to people who assume the benefits will be very good when it is definitely not (dictatorial regimes, for example, assumed that what they they forced was good for the people when it was clearly not the case). The former definitely does not apply unless we are talking about pessimistic people, and the latter does not apply either as it can only be defended by indirectly assuming antinatalism. (Using premises that only antinatalists would accept) So, in order for this to actually apply to procreation, one would have to show antinatalism to be true. So, the argument is circular if it's purpose was to conclude that antinatalism is true.

What should the goal include then? It would have to include either self-interest or the interest of the whole. If it is the first, then that is egoism. If it is the latter, then it is the interest of the society, which means we should make the society better and sarifice ourselves for a greater good. (Since the interest of the society comes first).
One of these have to come first in an ethical consideration.
Or, if i am wrong, what should be a goal of morality? — HereToDisscuss

The goals of morality would pertain to individuals. Ethical principles towards individuals means treating them not as a means to an ends (like for some goal of society). Thus things like not forcing people, using them, or harming autonomous individuals would be more aligned with the goals. Doing something on behalf of X third-party would not.

As for the actual game, then it is okay because the person does not get annoyed etc. that the person brought them to life and the suffering/pain ratio is, for the purposes of this discussion,1. That means it is permissible. — HereToDisscuss

If I kidnapped someone and made them go through an obstacle course and the person said they were happy about this after-the-fact, it is possible to have a positive outcome come from a violation of a moral principle. The moral principle is non-aggression. The positive outcome is simply a contingent fact that came about through the violation of a moral principle. It is as if through corruption, extortion, and lies, a positive outcome occurred and justifying all the negative actions that lead to the positive outcome simply because of the contingent positive outcome.

And what would someone call a group of individuals? Society, maybe?
Or are you just saying that the idea is not feasible? I would not think so, since, for the purposes of being consistent, i was talking about a society where the individuals experience happiness and it balances out as a result. Short term loss (if it is actually loss, that is), long term gain where the ethics are for individuals and the individuals are happy people.
Also, please note that i am talking like this since i am too ambitious in my reasoning-i also want to be able to claim that, even if a person suffers, it is okay as long as there is no better alternative that involves bringing about a human being.

I can weaken my position and just argue that;1) The initutive aspect of the principle does not apply to this and 2) The outcome is at least indeterminate 3) If a thing leads to better outcome, the pain is okay (this is connected to 1, because i argue that the reason we have such a principle is because it often does not lead to better outcome and so it is best not to try).

By the way, now that i think about it: Does the reasoning behind the principle actually apply to this situtation in the first place? The principle applies to people who, when forced to do a spesific thing, will feel that their freedom is contrained which will probably mean that they will not get the benefit (if there is a benefit, that is) since they feel forced to do this or to people who assume the benefits will be very good when it is definitely not (dictatorial regimes, for example, assumed that what they they forced was good for the people when it was clearly not the case). The former definitely does not apply unless we are talking about pessimistic people, and the latter does not apply either as it can only be defended by indirectly assuming antinatalism. (Using premises that only antinatalists would accept) So, in order for this to actually apply to procreation, one would have to show antinatalism to be true. So, the argument is circular if it's purpose was to conclude that antinatalism is true. — HereToDisscuss

Again here, you assume an obligation to bring human beings, ones that may suffer but have happiness. There is no obligation here for that justified. If we are to judge by suffering and happiness, preventing suffering would be the only one obligatory. Forcing another to suffer in order to bring a projected happiness would be immorally creating suffering that could have been prevented. That no one suffered is good (non-birth scenario). That no one experienced happiness is neither goo nor bad (in the case of no actual person being alive to be deprived in the first place).

Also, the dissatisfaction of would-be parents only affect themselves. It is only when applied to forcing other people that the morality would matter. So you can have people that would love to force their views, force their positions, force their way of life on other people. They are sad not to. We should not just allow them to violate the principle of non-aggression because they are sad for not being able to force their position on another.

Not quite sure your argument here. You seem to make a point, and then realize that one can object to it because it falls under the naturalistic fallacy. So there can be two points..

1) It is naturalistic fallacy to think that if something is natural, it is good. — schopenhauer1

Right, but the onus is on those saying it is bad to show it is bad. I don't see that onus met.

2) Procreation maybe a natural consequence of sex, but the preference for procreating new people is not necessarily natural — schopenhauer1

It is present in all species of mammals we know of. Yes, there are exceptions. Some people don't want kids. But it is certainly natural to procreate and have children. Are you really arguing that it isn't?

The human doesn't have a mating system, and a human can choose to do any number of things. There is no "if then" absolute instinct to procreate like other animals. Rather, we understand a whole range of outcomes that come from procreation. — schopenhauer1

It seems like you are conflating natural with 'something one is forced to do.' Yes, we don't have to have children, but that doesn't mean it isn't natural. I can choose to override my natural urge not to drown. That doesn't mean that my urges to not drown are no longer natural.

It seems to me that the logical end of your position would be the end of all sentient life.

I don't see how you can make the decision that that is moral and strive towards that outcome, given that you might be incorrect that this is a better universe simply to make sure that you haven't caused suffering in someone who has not consented to it - even though every cell will grab and choose life. You want to make decisions without consent for all future life. Yes, you will not have caused suffering - though perhaps you will cause suffering in those who come to view themselves as immoral when they are not.

Okay. I think i finally got you: You are advocating that positive things have no intrinsic value-like negative consequentalism. If one adopts this view, it logically leads to global antinatalism.
Premise 1: One ought to aim for the morally best thing.
Premise 2:The morally best thing is a universe without any suffering. (Since positive things have no intrinsic value)
Therefore, one ought to aim for a universe without any suffering.
Premise 3:If one ought to aim for something, then one ought to aim for it by the method with the least suffering.
Therefore, one ought to aim for a universe without any suffering by the method with the least suffering.
Premise 4: The method with the least suffering for achieving a universe without any suffering is not procreating.
Therefore, one ought to not procreate.
Is that what you are saying? If so, would not such a position mean that we ought to nuke the Earth so that nothing suffers anymore (i am geniunely curious)? The only suffering involved then would be the suffering of the people that did not die during the seconds in which they are dying, which is minimal compared to billions of people and animals that suffer everyday.

If so then it appears that the required combo of life+happiness is achievable. Why deny it? — TheMadFool

The principle of non-aggression. Forcing something, even a good, is no good. However, there is weight ADDED to the argument when we look at the fact that suffering and collateral damage (unintended bad) is also forced onto a person, not just good in procreation. This makes your case at least, not as cut-and-dry. Denying "good" is not bad. Preventing suffering is good though.

Also I think happiness, the lack thereof, is actually the trump card of antinatalists. I must say though that, given the state of the world - it's dark history, the problematic present and, if this continues, a bleak future - antinatalism "is" a sound philosophy. However there is a lot that can be said of people, their strengths in the face of an indifferent universe, that may change that "is" to a "was". — TheMadFool

Granted. But this would be for situational antinatalism.

Right, but the onus is on those saying it is bad to show it is bad. I don't see that onus met. — Coben

This is a non-sequitor. How is procreation being "natural" good because it is natural? That is the fallacy at hand here. In that regard, I don't see the onus met.

It is present in all species of mammals we know of. Yes, there are exceptions. Some people don't want kids. But it is certainly natural to procreate and have children. Are you really arguing that it isn't? — Coben

Yes I am. I am arguing that in the human species it is social cues and pressures- that of the family, tribe, larger society that instill a preference. It is not an inborn preference per se. Of course the effect of sex is naturally the possibility of procreating a child, but that is not talking about a natural instinct, but a natural consequence.

That doesn't mean that my urges to not drown are no longer natural. — Coben

I think this is non-analogous. Breathing and not feeling immediate pain would indeed be more natural instinct and reflex. Procreation is much more nuanced. It is a decision that can be deliberated upon, not like the immediate need to go to the bathroom or breath some oxygen.

It seems to me that the logical end of your position would be the end of all sentient life.

I don't see how you can make the decision that that is moral and strive towards that outcome, given that you might be incorrect that this is a better universe simply to make sure that you haven't caused suffering in someone who has not consented to it - even though every cell will grab and choose life. You want to make decisions without consent for all future life. Yes, you will not have caused suffering - though perhaps you will cause suffering in those who come to view themselves as immoral when they are not. — Coben

There's a lot of fallacies that I see in there. If I am incorrect, literally no actual person suffers.

Every cell is not me nor humans with deliberative powers of reasoning and choice deciding.

Causing someone to feel bad and causing a whole lifetime for someone else I don't see as comparable. If someone feels bad because they can't force someone to do what they want, that is not necessarily bad. A lot of people would like to force their views and agendas on others. It doesn't mean they should.

This is a non-sequitor. How is procreation being "natural" good because it is natural? That is the fallacy at hand here. In that regard, I don't see the onus met. — schopenhauer1

AGain, I didn't argue it was. But since it is natural the onus is on the other side to say, wait, now we know more stuff than we used to, we should stop. IOW there is no reason to stop being natural and following our urges unless it can be demonstrated it is wrong. This is different from me saying it is good because it is natural. Killing over mates is fairly natural, but I don't think that it's good or even neutral. But if there is something - swallowing, socializing, running, playing, singing, play fighting, whatever - that we have done and desire to do, it seems to me the onus is on those saying we should stop doing this. We should interfere with the pattern we already have. We have this pattern. If you want to stop it, I think you bear the onus.

Yes I am. I am arguing that in the human species it is social cues and pressures- that of the family, tribe, larger society that instill a preference. It is not an inborn preference per se. Of course the effect of sex is naturally the possibility of procreating a child, but that is not talking about a natural instinct, but a natural consequence. — schopenhauer1

Well, there certainly are cultural pressures and norms. But i think it would be odd that out of all the social mammals and every other creature on the planet procreating is not natural since we can choose not to. I think that's a category error. And the fact that there are norms and pressures does not demonstrate that it is not natural to want children. It might raise the issue, but it is not evidence that it is not natural. You would need to do some kind of control group testing - or find some actual evidence that without cultural norms we would not have children. Personally I consider this unlikely. This is partly given that I would think our genes would select for the desire to procreate and seems to have in all surviving species. This is partl because women I know have talked about a physical desire to be pregnant. And then desires from parents related to having a family, having that role, seem more that simply culturally detemined. I see a bit of swingroom in that last one, but next to nothing in the first. And little in the second. There might be fewer children, but that the human race would stop procreating...I'd need to see some serious evidence of that. Further you are now saying that human culture is not part of nature. I think that also bears an onus. And yes, I realize that we often contrast nature and culture, but here we are talking about what members of a species do and we procreate and always have, obviously, going back before cultures arose.

I think this is non-analogous. Breathing and not feeling immediate pain would indeed be more natural instinct and reflex. Procreation is much more nuanced. It is a decision that can be deliberated upon, not like the immediate need to go to the bathroom or breath some oxygen. — schopenhauer1

I can deliberate on suicide and choose it. And I think I even said one can choose to overcome the urge to breathe, in fact override the resistance to not inhaling water. We can choose to fast, after deliberation, even for weeks. This does not make eating unnatural. Or that eating daily is unnatural. We can choose to always walk, thinking that running is stressful. This does not make running unnatural. I could choose to be a vegetarian or a vegan. This does not mean that eating meat is unnatural. I could choose to be celibate, this does not mean sex is unnatural. I could easily come up with many other examples in many other categories.

There's a lot of fallacies that I see in there. If I am incorrect, literally no actual person suffers. — schopenhauer1

Well, you have to point out the fallacies. And yes, no one would suffer.

You have as the one criterion 'suffering'. That's your value.

Obviously not everyone shares that value as the only one or even the top priority.

So, you bear the onus to prove that we all should make that the veto value. If someone suffers and it could be prevented or not caused, we must do that.

IOW you have created, more or less, a deontological commandment. So you need to demonstrate 1) objective values like this exist and 2) this is the one that must have veto power over all other values, if any.

You can take the line, which I think you and some of your peers have, that we must be contradicting ourselves, but that's going to be a tough line to take if we don't believe in objective values.

Causing someone to feel bad and causing a whole lifetime for someone else I don't see as comparable. If someone feels bad because they can't force someone to do what they want, that is not necessarily bad. — schopenhauer1

Not necessarily. So it might be. And this means you might be doing something bad here. Further trying to end all sentient life, in order to prevent suffering that was not consented to, it seems to me bears quite and onus. Yes, no one suffers. But then no one does anything else.

You have stopped all that. You need to show that those of us who value parts of that or all of that that our values are wrong.

A lot of people would like to force their views and agendas on others. It doesn't mean they should. — schopenhauer1

I am not saying anyone should give birth.

AGain, I didn't argue it was. But since it is natural the onus is on the other side to say, wait, now we know more stuff than we used to, we should stop. IOW there is no reason to stop being natural and following our urges unless it can be demonstrated it is wrong. This is different from me saying it is good because it is natural. Killing over mates is fairly natural, but I don't think that it's good or even neutral. But if there is something - swallowing, socializing, running, playing, singing, play fighting, whatever - that we have done and desire to do, it seems to me the onus is on those saying we should stop doing this. We should interfere with the pattern we already have. We have this pattern. If you want to stop it, I think you bear the onus. — Coben

Again, forcing people into life, even with some positive outcomes is still forcing. How does this get to bypass the non-aggression principle?

We should interfere with the pattern we already have. We have this pattern. If you want to stop it, I think you bear the onus. — Coben

How about slavery, conquering other peoples, public executions, torture, etc. that happened for millenia? These people would tell you the same thing. The wrong actions are a pattern. Doesn't mean they are right.

And the fact that there are norms and pressures does not demonstrate that it is not natural to want children. — Coben

Being a parent is a preference, a want. I don't need to prove this any more than I need to prove wanting a new car is a want. We would have to define what is natural and not natural. If you don't do X you will die is natural. Wants and preferences are a mixture of cultural cues and personal preferences. Procreation falls under this. Breathing does not. Without breathing you will die and be in horrible pain and discomfort. Breathing can be stopped and will lead to death. Procreating does not. Someone not getting a new car might be upset, but they will not die.

This does not mean that eating meat is unnatural. I could choose to be celibate, this does not mean sex is unnatural. I could easily come up with many other examples in many other categories. — Coben

I had a whole thread on this.. things that cause physical pleasure can be considered "natural".. but procreation still doesn't fall under this, only sex. Please see this link to see what I deem to fall under "natural" and reasoning for this: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6896/what-distinguishes-natural-human-preferences-from-simply-personal-ones

Obviously not everyone shares that value as the only one or even the top priority.

So, you bear the onus to prove that we all should make that the veto value. If someone suffers and it could be prevented or not caused, we must do that. — Coben

I can only say causing suffering and forcing others are first principles. If you want to bypass them in procreation, the onus is on you to show how this is an inconsistency in only procreation but not in all other matters. I believe you cannot other than popular notions, etc. I already stated earlier that we've held popular notions about other things such as slavery and this is not excuse for why something is justified.