Putting money where one's mouth is - if you'd like to be taken seriously - entails passionate political action. Is your anti-natalism a fair-weather posturing directed exclusively toward feckless internet chatter? Or have you thrown your hat in with the movement?

Start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization

Note your forbears and compeers.

Putting money where one's mouth is - if you'd like to be taken seriously - entails passionate political action. Is your anti-natalism a fair-weather posturing directed exclusively toward feckless internet chatter? Or have you thrown your hat in with the movement? — ZzzoneiroCosm

So this is a lot of ad hominem, not engaging the argument itself.

And of course, I am for the non-aggression principle, which means not forcing your views on others (one of the main reasons not to procreate actually). Thus, I would not force people through political action be antinatalist. Rather, I would argue my point and hope to convince. Why wouldn't a philosophy forum be a good place to argue ethical views?

So at the end of the day, you decide to attack me, mischaracterize my argument, and then try lump me in the mischaracterzed view.

Life is an experiment. Part of that experiment is fucking. People will always fuck. Q.E.D.

Stop feeding him for christs sake.

Stop feeding him for christs sake. — DingoJones

Hehe you're right.

Lol, I know. How this doesnt count as preaching and against forum regs is beyond me.

How is what you're doing not trolling? But here I am feeding you, so that's on me for answering. However, it shows i dont just create a post and leave, I try to defend arguments. In other words I am arguing in good faith and respectfully. Also it may be same topic but from different perspectives. It is also in the realm of philosophy, mainly applied ethics, and there has been philosophical literature on it. At the end of the day I dont have to justify my posts to the likes of you and thus be warned, any trolling response, I will simply not answer ending this rabbit hole you seem to want to create which is to throw ad homs and not discuss substance. Say it to me in PM if you really want but doing it here is simply trolling. So now that I fed you, please go away.

How this doesnt count as preaching and against forum regs is beyond me. — DingoJones

It's an argument. It's quite a strong argument against any form of utilitarianism. "Your joy cannot justify my suffering." Schop is extending the complaint of the monster against Frankenstein to that of every unhappy person against their parents. Repetitive is a fair complaint, but not preaching.

It's an argument. It's quite a strong argument against any form of utilitarianism. "Your joy cannot justify my suffering." Schop is extending the complaint of the monster against Frankenstein to that of every unhappy person against their parents. Repetitive is a fair complaint, but not preaching. — unenlightened

That's actually a really good summary.

I disagree, I think that what he is interested in is preaching, not discussing. Ive watched him interact with others, and he doesnt listen or engage, he repeats the exact same talking points over and over and changes the angle of approach just enough so he can throw up a facile claim that he’s actually doing philosophy. Its obvious to me what he is doing.
Here is a test for you to try: do not engage him in any anti natalist posts or threads. Take note of any threads/posts he tries to subvert into an antinatalist thread and do not engage those either. Then, observe how the threads/posts left over for engagement equal 0. Thats how you can tell when its preaching, and this is.

Right, so no one can ever specialize in a topic that they prefer :roll: . Someone who agrees with Plato can't talk about Platonism.. Someone who agrees with panpsychism cannot bring up topics of panpsychism..

I disagree, I think... — DingoJones

Opinion without argument.

Here is a test — DingoJones

I have interacted with him before, several times, and sometimes managed to have an interesting discussion, and sometimes I get bored. But there are many posters I engage for a bit and then get bored with. Actually, I find you preachy and boring more so because you preach a thoughtless conventional scientistic wisdom that is immune from any self criticism. Schop and I are about as opposed as we could be on this and many other topics, but that is valuable in a discussion to anyone who is interested in philosophy rather than following convention.

In common with all your other antinatalist threads (and I'm slightly inclined to agree with @DingoJones about the proselytising) you're simply assuming an individualist assessment of both utility and ethics. People do not consider only the ethical implication of their actions on one person, but on the community as a whole. This is why people consider bad faith to be negative even when the person directly affected didn't notice. It's bad for the community as a whole.

So it is with this latest incarnation of how evil it is to have kids. We're taking a gamble on the relative consequences for the whole community (or at least, I think we should be - I'm not about to argue that most people make moral choices about having children, I'm pretty sure they don't).

We can't presume, in this decision, that the rest of our community will not have children, that seems unlikely. So there will be a next generation. The choice then is - is it better for that community that I have and raise children, or that I don't.

It seems to follow from this that if one considers oneself more likely to raise children more beneficial than average one is obliged to do so. If one is of the opposite opinion, one is obliged to not.

Given the above, the only remaining issue would be if your, as yet, unborn child also carries that duty. If not, then you'd be imposing on their autonomy. But if such a duty of care were not considered categorical, then we need have no care for the future children in any case, so we must presume it is categorical. Given that, we can be certain that our, as yet unborn, children will inherit that duty. It is therefore no additional imposition on them.

So the 'experimenting' issue doesn't arise at an individual level. There may be some merit in it at a community level (we're gambling that continuing the human race is overall a good idea), but such decisions (as far as individuals are concerned) have already been made.

There seems to me to be two main justifications for having children. Either - "I think they'll like this", or "I think they ought to help with this", or I suppose a bit of both. Both are estimates where there's no loss to the individual for not even taking the bet (the antinatalist argument in a nutshell), but both estimates run a risk to the community from not even taking the bet.

So it is with this latest incarnation of how evil it is to have kids. We're taking a gamble on the relative consequences for the whole community (or at least, I think we should be - I'm not about to argue that most people make moral choices about having children, I'm pretty sure they don't). — Isaac

I disagree that ethics is at a social level. The ACTUAL entity affected by any decision isn't a social entity, but the individual within that society. So any decision "socially" made is affecting the individual. If you want to talk about politics or social policy that is one thing, but in terms of ethics, anything that overlooks the individual for an amorphous collective would be missing the target. Thus utilitarian arguments for the "greatest good" would be off the table in the realm of pure ethics.

So there will be a next generation. The choice then is - is it better for that community that I have and raise children, or that I don't. — Isaac

Nope, we have now jumped out of the realm of the locus of ethics, which is the individual, for some third-party considerations. This is actually immoral as it is trying to consider how an individual will be used by society. It is using of people for the greater good.

It seems to follow from this that if one considers oneself more likely to raise children more beneficial than average one is obliged to do so. If one is of the opposite opinion, one is obliged to not. — Isaac

Same critique as above applies here.

Given the above, the only remaining issue would be if your, as yet, unborn child also carries that duty. If not, then you'd be imposing on their autonomy. But if such a duty of care were not considered categorical, then we need have no care for the future children in any case, so we must presume it is categorical. Given that, we can be certain that our, as yet unborn, children will inherit that duty. It is therefore no additional imposition on them. — Isaac

I'm not sure what this is getting at, you might have to explain. However, based on what I see here, it is an inbuilt pyramid scheme. There is this duty to society to have children if one would think society would benefit from it, thus always insuring that some new beings must procreate on behest of society. Again, same critique of overlooking individual for some third-party, non-individualistic consideration. The locus of ethics lies at the individual. There is no agenda anyone has to live out.

So the 'experimenting' issue doesn't arise at an individual level. There may be some merit in it at a community level (we're gambling that continuing the human race is overall a good idea), but such decisions (as far as individuals are concerned) have already been made. — Isaac

But it is at an individual level. Some people might live out or be well-attenuated for a "good life" but others will not. The experiment is happening to individuals.

There seems to me to be two main justifications for having children. Either - "I think they'll like this", or "I think they ought to help with this", or I suppose a bit of both. Both are estimates where there's no loss to the individual for not even taking the bet (the antinatalist argument in a nutshell), but both estimates run a risk to the community from not even taking the bet. — Isaac

What risk to the community? Is it even appropriate to talk about "community" in ethics as opposed to the individual?

The fact that there exists a distribution between happy and unhappy people doesn't lead to the conclusion that procreation is experimentation. It means that a number of parents are right in their assessment of being able to properly raise children and a number of parents are wrong.

This attempt to turn "some procreation is bad" into "all procreation is bad" just falls flat in every regard.

disagree that ethics is at a social level. The ACTUAL entity affected by any decision isn't a social entity, but the individual within that society. So any decision "socially" made is affecting the individual. If you want to talk about politics or social policy that is one thing, but in terms of ethics, anything that overlooks the individual for an amorphous collective would be missing the target. — schopenhauer1

So you have duties to another single individual, but not duties to a number of individuals collectively. That seems like rather an odd ethical position. Which individual should we pick when more than one is going to be effected by our actions?

It is using of people for the greater good. — schopenhauer1

I can't make any sense of this. Either we all simply do as we please (complete respect for autonomy) or we accept duties which constrain our behaviour with respect to the welfare of others. Given the former, there's nothing stopping us having children, given the latter (presuming they are an inherent part of being human) then any children, real or potential, are going to have those duties too. You seem to want to constrain the current generation with ethical considerations, but absolve the next generation of all responsibilities.

This attempt to turn "some procreation is bad" into "all procreation is bad" just falls flat in every regard. — Tzeentch

Good point - 'experimentation' suggests raising happy (as opposed to distressed) children is an unknown quantity. We know plenty about how to raise happy children, we know plenty about how to make happy adults. The fact that we're not doing either is social and political, nothing to do with procreation.

So you have duties to another single individual, but not duties to a number of individuals collectively. That seems like rather an odd ethical position. Which individual should we pick when more than one is going to be effected by our actions? — Isaac

I am not saying that ethics does not apply to many individuals at once. Rather, what I am saying is ethics does not apply to some third-party entity or concept (e.g. humanity, the species, society, the greater good principle, life for life's sake, the pursuit of happiness, etc.).

I can't make any sense of this. Either we all simply do as we please (complete respect for autonomy) or we accept duties which constrain our behaviour with respect to the welfare of others. Given the former, there's nothing stopping us having children, given the latter (presuming they are an inherent part of being human) then any children, real or potential, are going to have those duties too. You seem to want to constrain the current generation with ethical considerations, but absolve the next generation of all responsibilities. — Isaac

I don't know where you get that last part about generations. All generations would be constrained by the negative ethical principles of non-aggression and non-harm. Thus, if it is ethically good to not procreate.. if someone did procreate breaking that ethical good, then the next generation is bound by that rule too. What I was saying earlier is that, procreating to "benefit society" would be using individuals for a third-party entity (society) or a third-party principle (the greater good principle), both of which are not at the level of the locus of ethics (which is the at the level of the individual or individuals). One of my points in the other thread is we cannot violate negative ethics for some positive ethics.

The fact that there exists a distribution between happy and unhappy people doesn't lead to the conclusion that procreation is experimentation. It means that a number of parents are right in their assessment of being able to properly raise children and a number of parents are wrong. — Tzeentch

This I believe to be just a wrong assessment of the information. There is no one-to-one ratio of good intentioned, good child-rearing parents always producing the best outcomes. Humans just don't work in such an if/then fashion. Even if this were the case, there is always collateral damage of those who don't fit this model. You simply cannot get around the collateral damage problem.

This attempt to turn "some procreation is bad" into "all procreation is bad" just falls flat in every regard. — Tzeentch

You have not proven that, and certainly not by posting those few sentences.

Good point - 'experimentation' suggests raising happy (as opposed to distressed) children is an unknown quantity. We know plenty about how to raise happy children, we know plenty about how to make happy adults. The fact that we're not doing either is social and political, nothing to do with procreation. — Isaac

Again, it is hubris to think we know with certainty such outcomes based on X, Y, Z factors of the parents and environment. We simply don't. Even if there is a tendency, and even if we can define and agree upon what "positive outcomes" are, there will certainly be those who don't fit the mold. Thus, there will always be collateral damage. Also, being that I oppose brute utilitarian anyways, I would like to point out that the epistemology is very tricky here. Living in the moment might be neutral or bad, but reporting "good" to someone who asks you to sum up your life for a study or for the camera, or for a reporter is different. Looking at someone's statistics on a one page report of someone's socioeconomic status, also doesn't reveal as much as you might expect about someone's internal states. However, that is a rabbit hole that I don't want to go down at this moment though tangential. That could be its own thread.

Another poor outcome of utilitarian ethics is that, you can argue that as generations go forward, we can learn more what works to minimize the collateral damage. Well, that would be the definition of using people as an experiment then.

I am not saying that ethics does not apply to many individuals at once. Rather, what I am saying is ethics does not apply to some third-party entity or concept (e.g. humanity, the species, society, the greater good principle, life for life's sake, the pursuit of happiness, etc.). — schopenhauer1

What is 'society' other than 'many individuals'?

I don't know where you get that last part about generations. All generations would be constrained by the negative ethical principles of non-aggression and non-harm. — schopenhauer1

I'm pointing out that this new tack of 'experimentation' does not add anything new to your previous approaches. If one agrees with your ethical foundation, then it leads to the position you hold. If one has different ethical foundations, they lead to different positions. Your argument that we should not 'experiment' on future generations does not hold if we hold to certain duties (which would then apply also to future generations). If, rather, we only hold to a radical non-aggression principle, your argument stands, but if we hold to such a position, your other arguments stand too, this latest adds nothing.

Again, it is hubris to think we know with surety such outcomes. We simply don't. Even if there is a tendency, and even if we can define and agree upon what "positive outcomes" are, there will certainly be those who don't fit the mold. Thus, there will always be collateral damage. The experimentation aspect is still there. — schopenhauer1

Why is it hubristic for me to state that we know how to make people happy, but not equally hubristic for you to say you know there will always be those who don't fit. How do you access knowledge of the human condition which is hidden from me?

What is 'society' other than 'many individuals'? — Isaac

Okay, I will amend this to make it align with what I am intending. If you are breaking negative ethics (non-aggression/non-harm) in order to fulfill some positive ethics (I think this is better for you, this is better for society), then something has been violated. Thus, forcing someone to live because people MUST pursue happiness... Forcing someone to be born because society MUST benefit from children of certain parents (which is just odd to me anyways in your argument), would be wrong.

I'm pointing out that this new tack of 'experimentation' does not add anything new to your previous approaches. If one agrees with your ethical foundation, then it leads to the position you hold. If one has different ethical foundations, they lead to different positions. Your argument that we should not 'experiment' on future generations does not hold if we hold to certain duties (which would then apply also to future generations). If, rather, we only hold to a radical non-aggression principle, your argument stands, but if we hold to such a position, your other arguments stand too, this latest adds nothing. — Isaac

It adds only in the fact that people often think about things in the brute utilitarian sense, and this is trying to show that this would be a wrong approach. It is a popular one too so I think it should be addressed. .
People will tend to say "most people..." or "well, at least some people...".

Why is it hubristic for me to state that we know how to make people happy, but not equally hubristic for you to say you know there will always be those who don't fit. How do you access knowledge of the human condition which is hidden from me? — Isaac

None of it is hidden. That would be a straw man as I didn't state that or intend it. If you put your two thoughts together, what I am saying, though there might be what some would say are "happy people", there will always be people that don't fit that. That is not hidden, it is right there. So I'm not saying anything we can both see. However, the hubris is to think that X, Y, Z factors of parents and environment will always lead to good outcomes. Further, any tweaking or trying to reduce the collateral damage with each generation is the definition of experimenting with people.

If you are breaking negative ethics (non-aggression/non-harm) in order to fulfill some positive ethics (I think this is better for you, this is better for society), then something has been violated. — schopenhauer1

Exactly. So this adds nothing to the very simple proposition that "if you believe all of my ethical positions you will also believe my conclusions as to what range of actions they lead to". This has already been established, and repeating it is not yielding anything new.

Forcing someone to be born because society MUST benefit from children of certain parents (which is just odd to me anyways in your argument), would be wrong. — schopenhauer1

Why say "society must benefit"? If society is going to continue to exist (which all the evidence seems to indicate it will) then its not a matter of any ideological positive commitment at all, any more than if a refugee came to your house you would be obliged to feed them. You didn't cause the problem, but you're obliged to make it better.

There will be another generation, that generation will have problems to solve. Those are not ideological commitments, they're just inductive beliefs. I have two choices - have children and raise them to help solve those problems, or not have children and leave those problems to someone else to deal with. I can't see any sound ethical position which supports the latter. It sounds like nothing but selfishness.

there will always be people that don't fit — schopenhauer1

I'm asking how you know this.

There is no one-to-one ratio of good intentioned, good child-rearing parents always producing the best outcomes. — schopenhauer1

Well, there doesn't have to be, unless you believe that parents of happy children are somehow also responsible for unhappy children.

Even if this were the case, there is always collateral damage of those who don't fit this model. You simply cannot get around the collateral damage problem. — schopenhauer1

I suppose this ties in with that last line: I don't see how successful parents can somehow be blamed for the failure of unsuccessful parents, which is what I believe you are implying.

There will be another generation, that generation will have problems to solve. Those are not ideological commitments, they're just inductive beliefs. I have two choices - have children and raise them to help solve those problems, or not have children and leave those problems to someone else to deal with. I can't see any sound ethical position which supports the latter. It sounds like nothing but selfishness. — Isaac

Why should people be used like this? What you are saying is that we must be pressured to violate negative ethics in order fix some X situation. Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, as per my previous conversation, new people born to X, Y, Z factors does not guarantee positive outcomes or only positive outcomes. Collateral damage is still in play.

I'm asking how you know this. — Isaac

Because there ARE people that do not fit the mold. People are not cookie-cutters.

Well, there doesn't have to be, unless you believe that parents of happy children are somehow also responsible for unhappy children. — Tzeentch

In a way they are, but only because the parents procreated the children. You cannot force someone into a game, and then say "Well it's YOUR fault for not liking it".

I suppose this ties in with that last line: I don't see how successful parents can somehow be blamed for the failure of unsuccessful parents, which is what I believe you are implying. — Tzeentch

Not quite. I am implying that "successful" parents don't always create successful children. People are not cookie-cutters. There are no guaranteed outcomes for what people are like or what they do, or what will befall them, or what conditions they might face, or how their day-to-day life turns out, or how they view life.

In a way they are, but only because the parents procreated the children. You cannot force someone into a game, and then say "Well it's YOUR fault for not liking it". — schopenhauer1

I meant it differently. How can parents of happy children be held responsible for another couple's unhappy children? The way you phrase your previous argument you make it sound like parenting is a combined effort by all parents everywhere. I disagree with this. I think it is an individual effort and it should be judged on an individual basis.

There are no guaranteed outcomes for what people are like or what they do, or what will befall them, or what conditions they might face, or how their day-to-day life turns out, or how they view life. — schopenhauer1

And you believe this is what makes procreation immoral, no matter how good the "odds"?

I meant it differently. How can parents of happy children be held responsible for another couple's unhappy children? The way you phrase your previous argument you make it sound like parenting is a combined effort by all parents everywhere. I disagree with this. I think it is an individual effort and it should be judged on an individual basis. — Tzeentch

I'm not sure where you got that because I agree with you.

And you believe this is what makes procreation immoral, no matter how good the "odds"? — Tzeentch

Nope, this is very much just a sliver of the argument. That is why I started a separate thread, because this is the popular one "the odds are good so it's good"! This is what I consider brute utilitarianism. It does not get around the collateral damage objection.

That is why I started a separate thread, because this is the popular one "the odds are good so it's good"! This is what I consider brute utilitarianism. It does not get around the collateral damage objection. — schopenhauer1

So what amount of uncertainty is acceptable? Or is uncertainty always unacceptable?

So what amount of uncertainty is acceptable? Or is uncertainty always unacceptable? — Tzeentch

Well, if you look at the OP you can probably guess my answer, but the answer is no amount if it means that collateral damage will ensue and that by the attempt at getting closer to 100% certainty we are harming people, and essentially experimenting in the hopes of getting closer and closer. However, this shouldn't be surprising as my answer being I laid it all out in the OP itself and have been commenting on all sorts of various rebuttals throughout this thread. I'm wondering if you didn't read it or missing that.