I was just making sure.

If no amount of uncertainty is acceptable, what does this mean for human interaction in general?

It seems to me man can never be absolutely certain of anything. Wouldn't that make all human interaction immoral, in your view?

I believe to have a quality relationship with anyone, some individuals will have to find practical ways to make that relationship last as long as possible and at the very least each party ends the relationship on positive terms. I don't believe our sexual relationships carry on after we die. I believe most homeless people suffer from depression due to the dangerous nature of sexual relationships. I believe many homeless people could find peace by making some sort of peace with their former lovers. Unfortunately homeless people are very often the types to take relationships very seriously which is largely what drives them to for lack of a better phrase "an extreme lifestyle".

If no amount of uncertainty is acceptable, what does this mean for human interaction in general?

It seems to me man can never be absolutely certain of anything. Wouldn't that make all human interaction immoral, in your view? — Tzeentch

So, if we are uncertain about birth, and thus, can prevent any uncertainty, that can easily be remedied- refrain from procreation. Once born, we are bound to violate ethics for each other. That is admitted. But since antinatalism is dealing with the easy route- no actual violation, I see no problem with it. Rather, once born, we make the "devil's bargain" of violating this and that ethics.

I believe most homeless people suffer from depression due to the dangerous nature of sexual relationships. I believe many homeless people could find peace by making some sort of peace with their former lovers. Unfortunately homeless people are very often the types to take relationships very seriously which is largely what drives them to for lack of a better phrase "an extreme lifestyle". — christian2017

Interesting idea. This is more geared towards psychology or sociology, but interesting. I'd have to ask for any proof that homeless people are "often the types to take relationships very seriously" as this seems like armchair evidence of such. But perhaps you can elaborate.

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. — unenlightened

:clap:

I'd have to ask for any proof that homeless people are "often the types to take relationships very seriously" as this seems like armchair evidence of such

I was homeless for a time. Of course homeless people are the types to take relationships seriously. Or what would be a better way to put it is trust is very important because trust has ramifications for safety.

I spent time surfing sofas of friends but I've had to sleep in a total strangers house a number of times and identifying who to trust is extremely important. All your relationships are important because at times your life depends on them. Especially in the winter! When in doubt though; trust a tent and trust that nature is a fickle parent.

Fortunately the easiest surveys to carry out are homeless surveys. My solitary evidence and relatively short length of time as part of this demographic isn't enough so I suggest you make a large box of sandwiches, fill a few flasks with some cheap Mocha and spend some time surveying your local homeless or make your way to a hostel/shelter/long term b&b/motel.

Ask them how important relationships are, do they value their chosen family and what is the first thing they would do if they had a clean slate with everyone?

Life is an experiment. — ZzzoneiroCosm

With what objective and controlled by who?
If it is an experiment who gave permission for individuals to be used in that experiment?

With what objective and controlled by who?
If it is an experiment who gave permission for individuals to be used in that experiment? — Brett

Controlled by matter, with death as the objective. The atoms gave permission when they conspired to create the sex drive.

I’m not sure that I can accept that there is an experiment going on, I’m unsure about this. But if there is no experiment then I would be questioning schopenhauer’s concern, but I find myself leaning his way. On the basis that I regard the universe as chaos then I would think of our lives as the result of chance, random connections. As a result our actions produce children. I don’t really know the core reason for having children, I have no proof of anything. I do know we can chose not to have them, and i do know that as a result of having them individuals are born into a world, in a condition, that no one would chose. I think schopenauer1 does makes a legitimate ethical point. It’s difficult to get your head around it, but that doesn’t mean it’s nonsense.

To be consistent, all interaction that has any risk of violating ethics has to be immoral. That would include a large part of all human activity. And following through, those activities should be ceased immediately.

It seems rather absurd to me. The idea that no amount of negativity can ever be justified is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't think it accounts for the fact that a lot of people are happy to be alive.

The idea that on an individual level the raising of a child can be likened to rolling a dice I find equally questionable and it smells of opportunistic use of chance and statistics. Chance really is nothing more than a tool to explain things which are difficult to predict. When you liken everything that involves chance to an experiment, the term "experiment" loses its meaning.

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. — schopenhauer1

Exactly. As stands now (and always did stand) as a complete summary of your posts

"if you believe all of my ethical positions you will also believe my conclusions as to what range of actions they lead to". — Isaac

Your argument here is only valid if you agree that your particular non-aggression ethic is a reasonable constraint on behaviour but the need to act to avoid significant harm is not a reasonable constraint on behaviour. I don't share that belief.

Because there ARE people that do not fit the mold. People are not cookie-cutters. — schopenhauer1

I didn't ask you how you know there are such people. I asked you how you know there 'always will be' such people, which is the claim required in order to support your position.

There have been times that couples preferred a male child and viewed a female child as a burden. There are cultures that still feel that way, and there are men in all all cultures who prefer to have a boy over a girl for reasons that are purely egotistic. There have been states where female children were killed or allowed to die. Some children, boys, are expected to carry on what the father had started: a business, a farm, or just ideas about living: honour, masculinity, patriarchy, etc.

It’s difficult to be really conscious in our own society, whatever it might be, about where this begins to creep into decisions about having children and raising them, and what purpose they serve, where it might be happening unrecognised because it’s so subtle.

So it’s difficult to determine whether there is an experiment going on or not, and if not an experiment than at least it’s determining the outcome of a child’s experience in life because of decisions made by others who do not have the child’s interests at heart.
A state that does not value females and chooses males over females is making a conscious decision on the structure of that society. They’re shaping society according to a set of ideas they hold, and more than likely serve their own interests.

Is all this an experiment? I’m not sure, but it is a situation where the actions have been, are being, justified on the grounds that society could not grow and thrive without it. That does seem to have some sort of totalitarian framework about it.

If we reach the point where we can chose to give birth to males or females, through abortion or genetic manipulation, what then is that?

I wonder if folks can agree with a more limited moral point as a start.

If one procreates, one is responsible for one's children. Now we could complicate this with responsibilities to society and society's responsibilities to children and parents, but it seems uncontroversial that nevertheless one is responsible for one's children's welfare.

My daughter is on the other side of the world, and that responsibility is pretty marginal now. Still, if she were taken ill and needed to be flown home, we'd sell the family jewels, and kill the fatted calf.

So what would be my position if my daughter were so miserable as to wish she had never been born? what would be my responsibility if she were a tedious repetitive proselytising anti-natalist? Should I be proud or ashamed?

what would be my responsibility if she were a tedious repetitive proselytising anti-natalist? Should I be proud or ashamed? — unenlightened

Responsibility and proud or ashamed, they’re not really the same are they? Feeling responsible for them doesn’t include pride or shame, does it? I don’t think I would feel pride or shame, but concern.

But only if she was miserable.

Edit: but to be fair, if she wished she had not been born then she could hardly be happy. Is this not similar to my post about the parents of a child in hospital with an untreatable or barely treatable illness?

its an armchair observation. Sex and the heart are in fact closely linked. Drugs and the heart are closely linked.

So what would be my position if my daughter were so miserable as to wish she had never been born? what would be my responsibility if she were a tedious repetitive proselytising anti-natalist? Should I be proud or ashamed? — unenlightened

Haha, you giveth and taketh away.. I would say love them nonetheless and realize that they have a viewpoint on existential conditions of life itself, which is much more than most people who don't reflect on any of it. That is something to be proud of. Some people just blindly follow religion, some people just go through the motions and don't think about it, some people just get manipulated by social cues, some people bother not to think outside the box at all or about anything bigger than the next pleasurable thing. Some people have no philosophical inclination whatsoever. Realize it would probably have nothing to do with how you "raised" them, you probably raised them just fine or the best way you thought how. Nothing to be ashamed of there. You also shouldn't feel bad too. You did what you thought was right at the time. But, I am curious what would a good answer be for you? Should the child feel shame? Is disrespect the only attitude that one can take from the child's/monster's complaint? It might not be anything personal at all to that particular parent, but rather the conditions of life itself. In fact, one of the latest events I saw was an Indian man in his 20s sued his parents for having him (for some small amount of money or something). It was of course thrown out of court. The parents and that man get along just fine and kind of kid with each other, kind of wink/wink.. yeah you shouldn't have been born, but we get along great kind of thing. So I don't think being an antinatalist is mutually exclusive with poor relations with children, that is if the child would even be vocal about it to the parents. See article here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-47154287

Some people just blindly follow religion, — schopenhauer1

The anti-natal theme in Christianity is quite strong, in the monastic tradition, the celibacy of priests, the Shakers, Cathars, and the general notion of the fallen state of man and the vale of tears. And it ends in apocalyptic fantasies of rapture, second coming and so on.

My question isn't really about relationships, but about the morality. The Shakers were anti-natalist and their way of life did not survive. So there is a pragmatic moral principle that anti-natalists should have children to spread the word. Rather like the Bodhisattva reincarnating after enlightenment...

I didn't ask you how you know there are such people. I asked you how you know there 'always will be' such people, which is the claim required in order to support your position. — Isaac

It would be my position not to use people in present generations (cause conditions of harm for them) for future generations to be better off.

It would be my position not to use people in present generations (cause conditions of harm for them) for future generations to be better off. — schopenhauer1

So no one has any duty to alleviate suffering?

The anti-natal theme in Christianity is quite strong, in the monastic tradition, the celibacy of priests, the Shakers, Cathars, and the general notion of the fallen state of man and the vale of tears. And it ends in apocalyptic fantasies of rapture, second coming and so on.

My question isn't really about relationships, but about the morality. The Shakers were anti-natalist and their way of life did not survive. So there is a pragmatic moral principle that anti-natalists should have children to spread the word. Rather like the Bodhisattva reincarnating after enlightenment... — unenlightened

I see what you're saying, but you will know my answer. It wouldn't be right to use current generations in a "greatest good" principle, to benefit future generations.

So no one has any duty to alleviate suffering? — Isaac

I would formulate it a bit different- duty to not cause harm when possible. If I forced you into a game whereby you would be harmed, because I thought it would be better for future generations, that is problematic. The locus of ethics should be the individual, not a utility calculation.

I just asked if you felt an individual has a duty to alleviate suffering. I'm aware that you also think individuals should not force others to do stuff without their prior consent. I already stated my strong disagreement with the universal application of that. I'm wondering specifically if you have any other ethics or if this radical non-aggression principle is your only aim.

I'm wondering specifically if you have any other ethics or if this radical non-aggression principle is your only aim. — Isaac

You phrase it with such hostility though, so it already puts me on a defensive footing. Non-harm and non-aggression (when possible when dealing with autonomous beings) can be the basis for many actions (that may be construed as ethical). So there are really two principles at play there. Do we have a positive "duty" to alleviate suffering? Sure. I would say that it is a very good principle to follow and should be but not at the behest of violating negative ethics.. alleviating suffering by causing this new suffering sort of thing. Or in the case of experimentation.. not experimenting with some people to see if we can get a better outcome with other people.

So I'm just wondering what the point would be. Why not cause suffering?

So I'm just wondering what the point would be. Why not cause suffering? — Isaac

The point of not causing suffering?

Yes. Why avoid causing suffering?

It's an argument. It's quite a strong argument against any form of utilitarianism. "Your joy cannot justify my suffering." — unenlightened

That's a particular kind of consequentialism. It's not an argument against consequentialism. In fact his arguments, like most consequentialist arguments, starts with deontological axioms - here, something like one shall not cause others suffering without their consent - and then uses this axiom and looks at consequences. Which is what pretty much any consequentialist does: Even the cliche greatest good for the greatest number will posit an axiom of what is good, then build from it.

Here he is arguing that we cannot offset unconsented to suffering with pleasure. Which some consequentialist positions do do, but one need not.

It's axiomatic in his system.
For good or for ill.

It's axiomatic in his system.
For good or for ill. — Coben

I'm getting that. What seems odd about his approach, which is what I'm trying to draw out, is that he wants to question the ethical axioms of others, in terms of more simple foundations, but then present his own axiom as a fait accompli.

My feeling with all these antinatalist arguments is that they're putting the cart before the horse. They name some ethical principle which (unless you're religious) can only have been derived from some aspect of human nature. Then they use this one ethic to suggest we should ignore a whole series of other aspects of human nature (the desire to procreate, a feeling of belonging, a sense of community etc).
I just want to know - why pick that one.