Why would it be the other way? I think this is purely up to subjective judgement, though it is a common fact that most people are much more loss averse than gain seeking and I'm one of them — khaled

I think it comes into play most when it comes to procreation. There are several first principles that must be agreed upon-

a) it is not good to cause harm to others when absolutely unnecessary, (unnecessary meaning someone who is already born and can obviously feel lesser and greater pains might die or get seriously ill if you don't do some minor harm).

b) it is not good to force other people into anything, including agendas you think are good for them (with some exceptions (guidance/care for non-adults, dementia for elderly, or unconscious yet alive people), , there seems to be no way around causing, de novo, pain for others, so that they can pursue some happiness/positive goal. Is there "obligation" to make happy people? Is there an "obligation" to not cause suffering? The second one makes more sense in the realm of ethics. Notice I said "obligation". My argument is that, to cause pain because it allows for happiness, or to overlook pain in the hopes of happiness for someone else is wrong as it is forcing harm and violating non-aggression by forcing harm for a particular agenda.

In the case of birth, why should the non-harm/non-aggression principles take a backseat to "but this will be good for that person to be born"? I mentioned jokingly, does the person once born get a spiritual doggy biscuit for "self-actualizing"? You I believe once gave the argument for not forcing others into a game because YOU believe it will be good for them. This is pretty much saying the same thing.

The path to hell is paved with 'positive ethics'. — ovdtogt

Yes. Good way to put it.

What justifies a positive ethics? When children and people love life. What makes people hate life? Lack of love.

Love is that thing that when you don't feel it it's just a word, it's like it doesn't exist. It's only when you feel it that you see how important it is and that you see the point.

You're constantly conflating love and happiness with well-being and pleasure, they aren't the same. You can be well off and experience lots of pleasures while having a life devoid of love and happiness. You're constantly missing the most important part of the picture.

While you're on a mission to spread antinatalism, I'm on a mission to tell you that if you had received more love you wouldn't see things that way.

You would have preferred not to have been born, so you want everyone to feel that way because you think you have it all figured out, but most people don't feel that way and don't want to feel that way, because they still feel or believe in that thing that you've stopped feeling and believing in.

I'd honestly want to meet you, to help you see what you've forgotten to see, because I can't show it to you using words on a screen, and it pains me to imagine you following that path for the rest of your life. Reading your threads it feels like your life has become completely devoid of joy, and all that's keeping you here is that mission to destroy life, because you think you're doing a good thing, but all the people you're ever going to convince are those who focus on the suffering like you.

Positive and negative ethics can be a seriously useful distinction when exploring moral systems...

Broadly, all humans have values that are important to them, and morality is roughly the process of promoting/protecting those values in rules/judgments/decisions that encode or enshrine them...

But because there are so many options before us (a seemingly infinitely expanding decision tree), it winds up being rather difficult to select just one rule or judgment or decision or plan or course of action that can be ranked above all others as valuable. Specifically, trying to argue that one decision or judgment is morally obligatory must be based on a proof that demonstrates all other possible courses of action are inferior.

But if instead of making a positive action morally obligatory, we argue that a positive action should not be carried out, all we must do to prove it is is show that there is some other action (or the absence of that action) which is more valuable.

Here's an analogy: It's computationally unfathomable to look at a chess board and determine the absolute best move to make (even thought it might exist), but it is extremely easy to look at a chess board and determine which actions should not be taken.

Positive ethics become functionally relevant when there are limited options to choose from (such that relative value is an explorable proof), but even then it should still be couched in the understanding that there's almost certainly a better, more morally valuable, course of action out there; if only we could find it. As such, positive ethics are more about agreement than justification.

What justifies a positive ethics? When children and people love life. What makes people hate life? Lack of love.

Love is that thing that when you don't feel it it's just a word, it's like it doesn't exist. It's only when you feel it that you see how important it is and that you see the point.

You're constantly conflating love and happiness with well-being and pleasure, they aren't the same. You can be well off and experience lots of pleasures while having a life devoid of love and happiness. You're constantly missing the most important part of the picture. — leo

But this idea works regarding any positive ethics. That is to say, put any X positive ethics (happiness, love, self-actualization, pleasure) and the point still remains. That is to say, by procreating, even so that one can love the child, or the child can experience love, one is bypassing the non-harm principle. That is to never unnecessarily put someone in conditions of harm. This even includes don't put someone in harms way for a good cause. Further, it is also bypassing the non-aggression principle. That is never unnecessarily force something onto someone. Birth is literally forcing a situation onto someone for life. Further, this non-aggression would include not forcing someone for one's own agenda. Thus if the parent wants the child to experience X or live a life of X, Y, and Z, the child is forced/harmed due to wanting to press someone into an agenda. Further, collateral harm will inevitably ensue. That is to say, whatever positive ethics X one wants for the child will always be accompanied by unintended undue harm, nonetheless, that cannot be predicted.

While you're on a mission to spread antinatalism, I'm on a mission to tell you that if you had received more love you wouldn't see things that way.

You would have preferred not to have been born, so you want everyone to feel that way because you think you have it all figured out, but most people don't feel that way and don't want to feel that way, because they still feel or believe in that thing that you've stopped feeling and believing in.

I'd honestly want to meet you, to help you see what you've forgotten to see, because I can't show it to you using words on a screen, and it pains me to imagine you following that path for the rest of your life. Reading your threads it feels like your life has become completely devoid of joy, and all that's keeping you here is that mission to destroy life, because you think you're doing a good thing, but all the people you're ever going to convince are those who focus on the suffering like you. — leo

Well, thank you for trying to show me positiveness in life. You seem like a kind-hearted spirit based on your post. In a way I agree with your "mission". That is to say, I see compassion and helping others as a great way to cope with life. I see antinatalism and philosophical pessimism as actually therapeutic, but starting from a different place. Once life is seen in this way, we can be more tolerant, more compassionate, etc. We can see ourselves as in this together, rebelling against it, and communally seeing the problem. So antinatalism can bring people together in a way through the rebellion :D.

Positive and negative ethics can be a seriously useful distinction when exploring moral systems...

Broadly, all humans have values that are important to them, and morality is roughly the process of promoting/protecting those values in rules/judgments/decisions that encode or enshrine them... — VagabondSpectre

I agree with this so far.

As such, positive ethics are more about agreement than justification. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, that makes sense. But from what I see in your post, you are not disagreeing that indeed, negative ethics is easier to justify. Essentially the OP is suggesting that to bypass the negative ethics or rather to VIOLATE the negative ethics in favor of your own personal idea of positive ethics, is unjustifiable if one wants to be consistent in applying those negative ethics. It seems more obligatory to not force or press others into something or cause harm onto people, or use them for any agenda (positive-intended or otherwise), then it does to be obligated to force positive X onto someone (especially if it it means violating the normally followed negative ethics).

:up: ... (esp. the chess analogy)

You'd have to explain this a bit more. I'm not quite getting the scenario. If we prevent birth, and that person who was prevented from birth might have caused suffering to others in large quantities.. is it that sort of thing? I'm not quite getting it. — schopenhauer1

The topic was about whetever negative ethics on it's own entails we ought to kill all life or not. So, my scenario was obviously about that-i do not know why you thought my scenario was about procreation.

As I've said elsewhere: 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. — schopenhauer1

Since there can be exceptions to this principle, can you tell us how we can know when we can violate this thing and why we can violate it at these times-that is, why they are exceptions to the rule?
I believe this approach may work better instead of us just repeating our points.

The topic was about whetever negative ethics on it's own entails we ought to kill all life or not. So, my scenario was obviously about that-i do not know why you thought my scenario was about procreation. — HereToDisscuss

Ok I think I see. You are saying, shouldn't we prevent people who will cause pain to others. My response would still be that once born, considerations of other people's autonomy come into play. This autonomy is based on the fact that it is individuals who are the center of ethical considerations, not amorphous principle calculations (like the greatest good or something like that). Thus, the amorphous utilitarian calculation of destroying people who cause harm, would not be moral, even with good intentions. There is preventing harm and there is non-aggression. Both have to be followed. In the case of birth, both happen to point towards non-procreation. You aren't forcing, you aren't harming by abstaining from procreation.

Since there can be exceptions to this principle, can you tell us how we can know when we can violate this thing and why we can violate it at these times-that is, why they are exceptions to the rule?
I believe this approach may work better instead of us just repeating our points. — HereToDisscuss

Yes, in the instance of procreation one would perfectly be following the principles of non-harm and non-aggression by abstaining from procreation. AFTER someone is born, they are an autonomous person, an individual, someone who has an identity to point at in the world. Once born, circumstances of time and place are immediately something to consider. There is the fact that people need time to develop into autonomous individuals, and there is the fact that sometimes, at the end of life, or in unconscious situations, individuals can lose their autonomy as individuals. If ethics is at the level of individual, we have to define individual. People become more autonomous over time. The time of being an adult would be one's most autonomous. However, prior to this, the parent/guardian can have some say in the upbringing of the individual because the assumption is that the person is not developed enough to be autonomous yet. Thus, it would be immoral to leave a baby/small child to defend for itself when this leads to obvious harm for that person. The non-harm principle would take place here as there is less autonomy of the child. Once that person is an adult, the full non-aggression principle, comes into effect, and thus "forcing" something (even if you think it is good for them) would be violating this principle. We can debate "when" that transition comes to be, but that would take us down a rabbit hole that is probably beyond the scope of what we are trying to get at. It is not about the impreciseness of that transition, but that a transition does take place.

As for elderly/dementia, the same would apply. They were once autonomous adults, however, they cannot make decisions for themselves and thus, it would be harmful to neglect caring for them. The non-aggression principle would not apply here if one were to take control of certain aspects of their lives. The same can be said of those who are alive but are unconscious or in a coma. The non-harm principle would take precedent here due to lack of autonomy. Again, I would like to not move the parameters of the debate to "when" this transition takes place, just noting that it does. The important thing to remember is that this revolves around autonomous people, once someone is already born.

As far as threat to violence, this is about the other person being the aggressor, someone who is about to or is already violating the principle of non-aggression. One should be allowed to defend oneself from another's aggression if the non-aggression principle is being violated and this violation is directed towards that particular person.

As I've said elsewhere: 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.
— schopenhauer1

Since there can be exceptions to this principle, can you tell us how we can know when we can violate this thing and why we can violate it at these times-that is, why they are exceptions to the rule?
I believe this approach may work better instead of us just repeating our points. — HereToDisscuss

I have to agree that this is where your argument breaks down, @schopenhauer1. A principle should be able to stand without exception, otherwise it is neither a foundation, nor is it fundamental as such. It’s like the Ten Commandments...followed immediately by hundreds of qualifying regulations and exceptions...

As a suggestion of positive ethics, I offer the following ethical principle: increase awareness, connection and collaboration. There being no positive without a corresponding negative, one should also strive to reduce ignorance, isolation and exclusion - but that’s pretty much the same thing. I think you’ll find that this principle stands without exception (although it requires more courage than most of us can summon on our own).

In following this ethical principle, procreation often appears to be a good thing, but it’s ultimately an act of ignorance - one that also encourages parents to isolate and exclude in a number of ways. So to reduce procreation, we should be increasing awareness of more far-reaching and less exclusive ways to connect and collaborate in the world.

Negative ethics seems more effective, even when it’s flawed, only because it allows you to perceive yourself as ‘good’ simply by opposing certain behaviour in others. But negative ethics is for evaluating our own behaviour, not the behaviour of others. It isn’t meant to be prescriptive, and employed as such, it can only limit our actions, not encourage them.

Positive ethics gives us a path to follow, a way to go. Negative ethics only tells us which is the wrong way.

I dunno... It's challenging and negativity is easier. So I opt for challenge.

I mean, obviously I have lots more reasons but challenge is a good one. What else is there to do? I mean, religion likes to call all this testing but really I think its challenging and I'd be very open to hearing your thoughts on the value of The Challenges of Life.

However obviously that is not to say negative ethics aren't without challenge as you yourself can attest but it would be interesting to hear what you feel is more challenging; negative or positive ethics? Or are they both different challenges that aren't worth comparing in that way?

I have to agree that this is where your argument breaks down, schopenhauer1. A principle should be able to stand without exception, otherwise it is neither a foundation, nor is it fundamental as such. It’s like the Ten Commandments...followed immediately by hundreds of qualifying regulations and exceptions... — Possibility

So here is where I sort of agree with you.. The principle is the standard, and it indeed DOES break down after birth. This is the intra-worldly affairs @darthbarracuda mentioned, versus the interwordly affairs. Simply speaking, the standard would be PERFECTLY followed before birth, but indeed, the messiness of time/space makes this perfection a broken reality.. like the suffering of existing itself. Similar to Plato's ideals and the shadows. Prior to birth, the perfect state could have been obtained (not existing). After birth, messiness and then justifications for the messiness.

Anyways, I explained the reason for the messiness. That is to say that ethics, in the intra-worldly affairs of being born is about what is happening to the autonomous individual. Ethics is nothing without this. Thus, a third-party principle like, "people must live in order to collaborate" would be incoherent in an ethics that is about the individual, as this is now about some third-party principle being played out by those individuals.

As a suggestion of positive ethics, I offer the following ethical principle: increase awareness, connection and collaboration. There being no positive without a corresponding negative, one should also strive to reduce ignorance, isolation and exclusion - but that’s pretty much the same thing. I think you’ll find that this principle stands without exception (although it requires more courage than most of us can summon on our own). — Possibility

No, the violation at birth of non-aggression and non-harm in order to follow your "collaboration" agenda just doesn't fly. You are making people HAVE to follow your agenda of collaboration. Why does this matter more than things like not causing conditions of harm upon another? You think it sounds good, so someone else MUST live this collaboration scheme out? Not a good excuse.

In following this ethical principle, procreation often appears to be a good thing, but it’s ultimately an act of ignorance - one that also encourages parents to isolate and exclude in a number of ways. So to reduce procreation, we should be increasing awareness of more far-reaching and less exclusive ways to connect and collaborate in the world. — Possibility

I can agree with that part.

Negative ethics seems more effective, even when it’s flawed, only because it allows you to perceive yourself as ‘good’ simply by opposing certain behaviour in others. But negative ethics is for evaluating our own behaviour, not the behaviour of others. It isn’t meant to be prescriptive, and employed as such, it can only limit our actions, not encourage them. — Possibility

Not sure what you mean. It can encourage to not do something you might otherwise do. One of the best examples of this is by not procreating thus not forcing and not causing the condition of harm on others.

Positive ethics gives us a path to follow, a way to go. Negative ethics only tells us which is the wrong way. — Possibility

I think we can use a test of obligation. Is it more obligatory to not harm and force? Is it more obligatory to follow X path? It does not seem obligatory to create X positive ethics. I am not saying we shouldn't follow a positive ethic, but I am saying that to negate the principle of non-harm/non-force in the service of a positive ethic would be the wrong approach, as now is being willed into someone else's agenda at the cost of being harmed and forced to play out X agenda.

Also what do you think of Gene editing? I mean; suffering is psychological right? And a core premise of psychology is that everything psychological is biological.

So how would you respond to the notion that their may be ways to edit our very experience of suffering into something not only tolerable but useful? I mean if your children could be like Claire from heroes or wolverine from X-men with a regeneration factor and had access to a mental switch to turn off pain sensation at will and is immune to most diseases and can freely choose to opt out of life due to fatigue or the human lifespan remains largely untouched how would you feel then?

Y'know assuming we can survive climate change and travel and colonise the rest of our solar system. To be honest to that end I feel gene editing might become vital to surviving different environments. I'm sure future Astronaughts could do with the ability to maintain muscle mass in zero g for starters..

I mean, obviously I have lots more reasons but challenge is a good one. What else is there to do? I mean, religion likes to call all this testing but really I think its challenging and I'd be very open to hearing your thoughts on the value of The Challenges of Life.

However obviously that is not to say negative ethics aren't without challenge as you yourself can attest but it would be interesting to hear what you feel is more challenging; negative or positive ethics? Or are they both different challenges that aren't worth comparing in that way? — Mark Dennis

Well I am not against giving oneself a positive ethics. Rather, what I am saying is it would be wrong to pursue a positive agenda by violating negative ethics. Thus, if your positive ethics is such that you think by doing X act (which harms someone and forces something on them) will be more beneficial for that person later on because that is what your ethic says is good, that would be wrong.

Agreed. I am an advocate of consent by all means. I know where we disagree is on consent to being born but at least there is solace in the fact we do have a middle ground in consent with which to meet.

So how would you respond to the notion that their may be ways to edit our very experience of suffering into something not only tolerable but useful? I mean if your children could be like Claire from heroes or wolverine from X-men with a regeneration factor and had access to a mental switch to turn off pain sensation at will and is immune to most diseases and can freely choose to opt out of life due to fatigue or the human lifespan remains largely untouched how would you feel then?

Y'know assuming we can survive climate change and travel and colonise the rest of our solar system. To be honest to that end I feel gene editing might become vital to surviving different environments. I'm sure future Astronaughts could do with the ability to maintain muscle mass in zero g for starters.. — Mark Dennis

I guess the test would be, when creating this super-human stuff, are you creating harm for various generations leading up to this (even just by procreating them into a non-super-human world prior to the actual advent of such technology)? If so, then this would be an example of following a positive agenda that is violating the negative ethics.

You mean through things like envy and financial access to such methods leading to vast merit based differences and prejudice fueled ever more by increasing wealth inequalities? I mean; the ego of a human dictator is somewhat tolerable because at least they are mortal and bleed... However how do you contain the ego of someone who can have god like abilities the common man could never dream of having? Scary notions indeed.

Have you watched or read Altered Carbon at all? It goes into this deeply I feel and it is something I feel I need to address in my application of positive ethics.

It's probably going to have to be discussed on geopolitical and economic factors. Whether the argument is something like Antinatalism or something like the reverence for life if we are looking at polar opposites.

You mean through things like envy and financial access to such methods leading to vast merit based differences and prejudice fueled ever more by increasing wealth inequalities? I mean; the ego of a human dictator is somewhat tolerable because at least they are mortal and bleed... However how do you contain the ego of someone who can habe god like abilities the common man could never dream of having? Scary notions indeed. — Mark Dennis

Yeah, this dystopian world you present sounds like exactly the case of following X "positive agenda" (become super-human) at the behest of negative ethics.

Edited my last to you a little. If you are familiar with the narrative of altered carbon; pretty much what I just described to you, immortality, cloning, enhanced clones, turbo capitalism, authoritarianism which is too big to fail or fall, rebels led by the most controversial figure of the entire story, AIs, an amazing AI capturing the emotional essence of Edgar Allen Poe as well as inferences to the AIs Soul, an immortal politician who believes himself to be a good man by the best contextual standard, conflicts of duty on personal, familial and human obligation.

You. will. love. it.

It will blow your mind really and I haven't even gotten into many of tje other aspects. This list is almost non exhaustive to be honest in terms of how long I have to spend on it but I cannot sing its praises enough nomatter how you identify in your beliefs or philosophy.

Well, yes, to be non-existent surely beats having to suffer a hellish nightmare of a life. People make choices in that direction in the form of suicide. There may be disagreement as to the soundness of suicidal logic but no one should ignore the extreme anguish which can only be perceived in a subjective way. It's a mistake to dissuade a suicidal person by laying out before him agreeable pictures of the world because s/he's already crossed that point.

In regard to the above and mainly to address the belief that non-existence is better primarily because of the suffering one has to undergo from birth to death, we might consider a case which gets my point across very well - the case of a patient who consults a doctor.

Not even a quack, let alone a qualified doctor, would prescribe beheading as a cure for a headache. The aim is to treat the malady - suffering - AND make life enjoyable or at least livable. I guess I'm saying, in a very important way, antinatalists are unable to distinguish the patient (life) from the disease (suffering) and this leads them to the mistaken conclusion that life (patient) = disease (suffering).

Of course the antinatalist will now mention inevitable irremediable suffering to revive their now dead argument but for such situations people generally agree that people so unfortunate be given the choice to end their lives. However, this in no way gives any support to the antinatalist position that all life, everywhere, always = suffering.

The principle is the standard, and it indeed DOES break down after birth. This is the intra-worldly affairs darthbarracuda mentioned, versus the interwordly affairs. Simply speaking, the standard would be PERFECTLY followed before birth, but indeed, the messiness of time/space makes this perfection a broken reality — schopenhauer1

The principle is not the standard - it’s the foundation. If it breaks down in spacetime, or once life begins, then it’s nothing more than imagination - an unrealistic ideal.

No, the violation at birth of non-aggression and non-harm in order to follow your "collaboration" agenda just doesn't fly. You are making people HAVE to follow your agenda of collaboration. Why does this matter more than things like not causing conditions of harm upon another? You think it sounds good, so someone else MUST live this collaboration scheme out? Not a good excuse. — schopenhauer1

I’m not making anyone do anything. The collaboration that leads to birth is not always consciously determined. When it is, as I mentioned, it’s an act of ignorance. All this ethical principle does is recognise the fundamental impetus of the unfolding universe itself, and ‘go with the flow’ as it were. The majority of what we call ‘undue suffering’ is a result of choosing to resist this flow, which is easy enough to do. SHOULD is not the same as MUST - ethics cannot compel behaviour, as much as we may like it to.

Not sure what you mean. It can encourage to not do something you might otherwise do. One of the best examples of this is by not procreating thus not forcing and not causing the condition of harm on others. — schopenhauer1

Encouraging someone to NOT do something is DIScouraging them to act, without offering any alternative. By your negative ethics, how do I know whether any other action will be seen as aggressive or will cause harm? Don’t cause harm; don’t use aggression; don’t procreate - this cannot be encouraging anyone to act. You’re trying to convince everyone that it’s better to NOT exist than to exist, better NOT to act than to act in the wrong way, and yet you yourself continue to exist and to act by choice. So by what principle would you be making those choices?

To the extent that I am ignorant of, isolated from or excluding the effect my actions may have on others, those actions are more likely to be perceived as forceful or harmful to someone. By instead acting to increase awareness, and choosing to connect and collaborate in some way with every interaction, I minimise harm and aggression without the need for negative ethics, and continue to exist and to act without fear.

Positive and negative ethics that cannot work in harmony must be flawed in some way. You seem to be having trouble finding a positive ethics to go with your negative one. It should be your first clue that your negative ethics breaks down once life begins.

Not even a quack, let alone a qualified doctor, would prescribe beheading as a cure for a headache. The aim is to treat the malady - suffering - AND make life enjoyable or at least livable. I guess I'm saying, in a very important way, antinatalists are unable to distinguish the patient (life) from the disease (suffering) and this leads them to the mistaken conclusion that life (patient) = disease (suffering). — TheMadFool

Bull's-eye! :up:

People make choices in that direction in the form of suicide. — TheMadFool

I don't believe it would be moral to create people such that, their best option is "live out your life you don't want or go kill yourself". Suicide is not the same as not being born.

I guess I'm saying, in a very important way, antinatalists are unable to distinguish the patient (life) from the disease (suffering) and this leads them to the mistaken conclusion that life (patient) = disease (suffering). — TheMadFool

Well, philosophical pessimists (which I would argue is slightly different than the antinatalism), would argue that indeed life/human nature entails structural suffering (at least as it is now), such as deprivation, so there's that. But also, in your scenario, the analogy would only be the same if the doctor first caused conditions known to make the patient suffer, and then tried to fix it. Otherwise the analogy is not apt to the antinatalism argument whereby the parent is creating a life that will suffer, de novo, in the hopes that it won't be that bad or they will find some coping techniques such that the good will outweigh the bad. Either way, this is all bypassing my main argument which is that the negative ethics of not causing conditions of harm and the non-aggression rule was violated in order to follow a positive ethics.

Of course the antinatalist will now mention inevitable irremediable suffering to revive their now dead argument but for such situations people generally agree that people so unfortunate be given the choice to end their lives. However, this in no way gives any support to the antinatalist position that all life, everywhere, always = suffering. — TheMadFool

I don't think the argument ever died ha. But, again, suicide would not be the same as not being born.

So by what principle would you be making those choices? — Possibility

I can make any number of choices based on preferences that are not constrained by the negative ethics.

To the extent that I am ignorant of, isolated from or excluding the effect my actions may have on others, those actions are more likely to be perceived as forceful or harmful to someone. By instead acting to increase awareness, and choosing to connect and collaborate in some way with every interaction, I minimise harm and aggression without the need for negative ethics, and continue to exist and to act without fear. — Possibility

In the intra-wordly mess of the real world, someone will ALWAYS be harmed by your decisions, and you by there's. This is one of the important points that he brings up. It doesn't negate negative ethics though. It just means that unfortunately, once born, negative ethics will always in some way be violated. In a way, another reason for antinatalism. See here his points:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julio_Cabrera_(philosopher).

Ok I think I see. You are saying, shouldn't we prevent people who will cause pain to others. My response would still be that once born, considerations of other people's autonomy come into play. This autonomy is based on the fact that it is individuals who are the center of ethical considerations, not amorphous principle calculations (like the greatest good or something like that). Thus, the amorphous utilitarian calculation of destroying people who cause harm, would not be moral, even with good intentions. There is preventing harm and there is non-aggression. Both have to be followed. — schopenhauer1

But, assuming that you have the power to "prevent" people, by not doing it, you let the 15 billion people come into the world and have their consent violated. Are those individuals not the center of your ethical considerations because they are not born or..? The problem is-in the scenario i presented, it is not only the living people that will be autonomous but rather also the people that are not born yet.
Maybe you should say why you think those are not individuals that matter.

Yes, in the instance of procreation one would perfectly be following the principles of non-harm and non-aggression by abstaining from procreation. AFTER someone is born, they are an autonomous person, an individual, someone who has an identity to point at in the world. Once born, circumstances of time and place are immediately something to consider. There is the fact that people need time to develop into autonomous individuals, and there is the fact that sometimes, at the end of life, or in unconscious situations, individuals can lose their autonomy as individuals. If ethics is at the level of individual, we have to define individual. People become more autonomous over time. The time of being an adult would be one's most autonomous. However, prior to this, the parent/guardian can have some say in the upbringing of the individual because the assumption is that the person is not developed enough to be autonomous yet. Thus, it would be immoral to leave a baby/small child to defend for itself when this leads to obvious harm for that person. The non-harm principle would take place here as there is less autonomy of the child. Once that person is an adult, the full non-aggression principle, comes into effect, and thus "forcing" something (even if you think it is good for them) would be violating this principle. We can debate "when" that transition comes to be, but that would take us down a rabbit hole that is probably beyond the scope of what we are trying to get at. It is not about the impreciseness of that transition, but that a transition does take place... — schopenhauer1

That is good and all (and i did not quote the later part because it would have been too long and did not have to do with what i was going to say ), but you are presenting examples:I was asking for the rule. Anyways, judging from what you have written, i think i got the rule:
"Non-agression principle applies in all cases in which it is not broken first and the person in question is fully autonomous."
Does that apply for cases in which someone will violate the principle themselves? For example, i do not think this applies for a police officer who has just caught a murder plan in the making-it was not violated,but it will be violated. So, i would say that we ought to change the rule to:
"Non-agression principle applies only in cases in which it is not broken first/will be broken if we follow the principle and the person in question is autonomous."
But i do not think that is your rule, since we know that people will make babies left, and thus, humanity will break this principle if we continue to follow this principle. Therefore, the principle would not apply to the above scenario.
What exactly is the rule that applies universally?

But, assuming that you have the power to "prevent" people, by not doing it, you let the 15 billion people come into the world and have their consent violated. Are those individuals not the center of your ethical considerations because they are not born or..? The problem is-in the scenario i presented, it is not only the living people that will be autonomous but rather also the people that are not born yet.
Maybe you should say why you think those are not individuals that matter. — HereToDisscuss

So this would go back to my aversion to ethics based on an amorphous collective or society (like the greatest good principle). Ethics is directed at the individual level, thus at the margins in this case. Also, by destroying already existing people, clearly we are violating non-aggression, that does not need to be stated. Thus destroying current people to prevent the billions of unborn would be violating the non-aggression principle (already a non-starter in this ethical system) and using individuals for an amorphous collective (not individuals). On the flip side, by not having a specific child coming from YOU, you are specifically going prevent an actual individual from being born (and it does not matter at this point which genetic identity it will be). The parent is not violating non-aggression.

But i do not think that is your rule, since we know that people will make babies left, and thus, humanity will break this principle if we continue to follow this principle. Therefore, the principle would not apply to the above scenario.
What exactly is the rule that applies universally? — HereToDisscuss

I'm not understanding how the principle would not apply in this case because "humanity will break this principle".

I'm not understanding how the principle would not apply in this case because "humanity will break this principle". — schopenhauer1

Premise A: For every situtation, the principle applies to that situtation if and only if the person affected is fully autonomous (or is autonomous enough) and following that principle will not result in the principle being broken by someone else.
Premise B: Following the non-agression principle in this particular case will result in the principle being broken by humanity. (Because humanity will procreate and thus violate it many times, not to mention will force animals to procreate too)
Therefore, the principle does not apply to this particular case.
If you have a problem with Premise A, then give me your own rule like i said just before the thing you quoted so that we can discuss it.

Also, i did not reply to your first comment because my contention is that this is not a violation of it or the violation is justified and i would have just said that. The problem is whetever this actually applies or not.

Okay, what does that have to do with anything again? — HereToDisscuss

A lot, because you keep advocating for a greater good principle and I'm saying this is overlooking individuals for third-parties.

Premise A: For every situtation, the principle applies to that situtation if and only if the person affected is fully autonomous (or is autonomous enough) and following that principle will not result in the principle being broken by someone else.
Premise B: Following the non-agression principle in this particular case will result in the principle being broken by humanity. (Because humanity will procreate and thus violate it many times, not to mention will force animals to procreate too)
Therefore, the principle does not apply to this particular case.
If you have a problem with Premise A, then give me your own rule like i said just before the thing you quoted. — HereToDisscuss

I'm still a bit lost here but, here would be my formulation:

For every situation, the principle applies to that situation if and only if the person affected is fully autonomous (or is autonomous enough) and one is not forced into a situation of defending against another's violation of the principle. I disagree with the "broken by someone else" part in your formulation. I am not sure where that was construed from my arguments.

Thus if someone was to steal my stuff or punch me, I can defend myself without actually violating the non-aggression principle. Of course, if I did more than defend and used too much force unnecessarily, or retribution that would be in violation.

If I were to make this into a table, it might look something like this:

Normal conditions:
Non-aggression followed | Non-aggression violated

Following = good | Following = bad

Non-harm followed | Non-harm violated

Following = good | Following = bad

In the case of one's non-harm principle being violated from someone else:

Non-aggression followed | Non-aggression violated

Following = good | Following = not bad as one is preventing harm from the
violation of non-aggression


With these two sets of conditions for the rule, it is clear that procreation follows under the first rule. That is it is bad because it is violating the non-aggression and non-harm principles. There would be no conditions whereby procreation is justified as, making the move to justify it for positive ethics (e.g. you want them to live out an X agenda of some kind) would in violation of the negative ethical principles and it would be using the individuals (harming them/forcing them) for an agenda (even if for good intentions).

[ ... ] my main argument which is that the negative ethics of not causing conditions of harm and the non-aggression rule was violated in order to follow a positive ethics. — schopenhauer1

"The conditions of harm" are not the harm itself. And there is no "aggression" against an embryo that gestates through foetal and prenatal stages to live birth. Harm and aggression only apply to a sentient human being which a human foetus only becomes once her thalamocortical system is fully connected (enabling pain circuitry and sensorimotor coordination (i.e. functional sentience)) in CNS around 26th week, that is, the last trimester of pregnancy, and then thereafter. Prenatal sentients are always indistinguishably "already born" persons (e.g. premature births); therefore, negating any increase in harm simultaneously reduces hindrances to positive growth and well-being.

Of course, abstinence, contraception or sterilization only prevent conditions of fertilization and pregnancy but do actual harm to the "already born", who desire to procreate, by depriving them - whether by State Coercion (e.g. Nuremberg Race Laws, Margaret Sanger's "Negro Project" (& other U.S. eugenics sterilization policies)) or Ideological Conformity (e.g. millenarian, malthusian, eco-catastrophist, antinatalist, etc) - of procreating. Is this 'desire to procreate' morally wrong? No. That would be accusing them of "thought crime", which like "blasphemy", harms the integrity of persons. There simply aren't any grounds to judge any desires "morally wrong" absent harmful conduct or without aggravating factors in attempts to exercise or fulfil them.

Your 'metaethical' argument, schop 1, just doesn't hold up under scrutiny which exposes again that it's a false dichotomy; 'negative ethics & positive ethics' entail each other in practice; the choice isn't ever 'either dystopia or utopia' (i.e. mammon or Eden, hell or heaven), but rather to struggle - alone and collectively - with the choice: to do or not to do to anyone what you find hateful, or harmful. The more reasonable interpretation is, I think, (mine) to avoid mitigate or relieve NET harm rather than (yours) to, much less reasonably, (attempt to) prevent / eliminate ALL harm.

:death: :flower:

Already born on the battlefield, there ain't no living pacificists in foxholes, schop 1 - so just triage the casualities; watch your comrade's back while another watches yours; follow orders when you can and give no fucks when you can't; sleep on the run, and fight humping mother dirt, and shit yourself proudly when the shooting lets-up enough for you to reload or bug-out or catch a rat for breakfast; remember: the only enemy is HQ and the happy dead - slaughtered while soldiering scared or in shitholes where they slept - that mock you; and, grunt, out of pure spite, you stay the fuck alive ... long enough to breed more grunts to replace those you've murdered.

:scream: :razz: :cry:

It just means that unfortunately, once born, negative ethics will always in some way be violated. In a way, another reason for antinatalism ... — schopenhauer1

I don't think so. This just means that (your? Cabrera's?) conception of ethics is (too) ideologically, or rigidly, one-sided to be widely applicable in the "messy" real world. Thus I differ in my metaethical interpretation previously (above).

[ deontological table ] With these two sets of conditions for the rule, it is clear that procreation follows under the first rule. That is it is bad because it is violating the non-aggression and non-harm principles. There would be no conditions whereby procreation is justified ... — schopenhauer1

Only "no conditions" (i.e. no exceptions, no edge cases, no reflexivity) which your ruleset doesn't account for ... à la Kant's "CI" mistake redux. :roll: