"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. — 180 Proof

Um, ok. So all of this gestation comes from nowhere. Nothing caused this? You can do better than that. Creating instances of harm so that people can grow from them is like forcing someone into a game and saying that it is character-building and thus is necessary. Forcing anything, and creating harm for other people so that they can "grow" from it is still wrong. It is wrong in almost every aspect of adult life (if you were to do this to another adult), and thus is wrong for the new person born. Let's be consistent in the non-aggression and non-harm principles. If you were paying attention to my other points, there are exceptions where full autonomy is not yet established so that shouldn't even come up as an objection (children, elderly, unconscious, etc.).

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. — 180 Proof

So none of this applies to antinatalism being that it does not advocate forcing people to comply to this. Thus, this is a huge straw man. The desire might not ultimately be wrong, but the exercise of fulfilling them are. Thus, desire away at procreation.. It is actually having children that creates the conditions for harm.

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. — 180 Proof

But this your "net harm" which you deem as much more altruistic is actually using people for some third-party's agenda (the "greater good" principle) and thus discounts individuals for some broad principle. Shall we put any principle now as "THE" principle? What would that look like? Surely, something authoritarian at best. But the point is that causing harm to individuals is now justified because there is something that "NEEDS" to take place for that person. Why would anything have to take place for anyone, especially if this means harming the person to make them need that something in the first place?

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). — 180 Proof

I don't think you disproved that once born, we INEVITABLY violate ethics to each other.

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: — 180 Proof

So "who" loses by not being born?

A lot, because you keep advocating for a greater good principle and I'm saying this is overlooking individuals for third-parties. — schopenhauer1

Well, the discussion was not about that, but if you really want to criticize my position, please do it without assuming that ethics should be based on the individual and not society as that is just begging the question. Why is "overlooking individuals for 'third-parties'" 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 — schopenhauer1

Violating the principle by forcing everyone not to procreate is not bad as one is preventing harm from the violation of non-aggression by doing so.
I believe that just entails my conclusion above, which is what i was trying to say the whole time. It is a case of one's non-harm principle and non-aggression principle being violated from something else.

I think it comes into play most when it comes to procreation. There are several first principles that must be agreed upon- — schopenhauer1

That's what I'm saying. They aren't agreed upon. Although I believe it is the case that most people DO agree with these principles and still have kids out of pure hypocrisy or just having never thought about it, I wouldn't be surprised if some people didn't agree with these principles at all.

I can make any number of choices based on preferences that are not constrained by the negative ethics. — schopenhauer1

And yet, you argue that...

In the intra-wordly mess of the real world, someone will ALWAYS be harmed by your decisions, and you by there's. — schopenhauer1

That seems a contradiction.

Julio Cabrera has some interesting arguments, and I agree with many of them when considered from his point of view, as I do yours. Cabrera is reacting to what he calls ‘affirmative moralities’ - which is not the same as ‘positive ethics’, by the way. Affirmative moralities lack a negative perspective - they seem to be ignorant or in denial of the necessity of pain, loss, lack and humility, not just to experiencing life, but to existence. By ‘Affirmative morality’ Cabrera refers to a positive ethics that fails to acknowledge its own limitations. But Cabrera’s (and your) ‘objective’ and universal evaluation of these necessities as ‘harm’ is an equally limited perspective.

There is more to meaning than value, and an open approach to understanding the universe must at least attempt to get beyond any notion of value or significance that reduces meaning to its subjective experience. This is particularly important (and particularly difficult) for concepts such as ‘pain’, for example, where we often struggle to imagine a perspective or situation in which this experience is not ‘bad’. From the limited perspective of life, where ‘pain’ is both evaluated as ‘bad’ and recognised as necessary to existence, it’s understandable that existence or life is then seen as ‘bad’ in itself.

But a non-judgemental view of pain from all possible perspectives of existence (not just of life) shows it to be simply an awareness that energy, effort or attention is necessary to adjust to change. That we accept and even invite pain in our life as evidence of effort or resilience in an ever-changing world is not to suggest that pain is ‘good’ instead of ‘bad’, but that it is both - and ultimately neither. In a universe where change is ubiquitous, it’s understandable that pain is a fundamental experience, so it seems ridiculous in this light to call it ‘harm’ - as if existence without instances of pain were possible - or to include all possible instances of pain in a single moral perspective. The negativity of pain stems from its significance to our experience of life, not from its meaning. By understanding the meaning of pain as both positive and negative, we can make more effective use of it as an informative experience.

Cabrera is correct in arguing that most moralities reject the negative in favour of the positive, but even his own morality exists within a limited perspective of life. When we recognise the limitations of this perspective, we can then begin to understand that what is both ‘bad’ and necessary in this perspective could relate to the broader universe in a more meaningful way than we think.

Procreation, regardless of whether we consider it good or bad from whatever perspective, is objectively not necessary. I think that’s the important thing that everyone needs to understand. But the ignorant will continue to believe it is what they are supposed to do, for whatever reason. Most of those reasons are directly related to their value systems, their moral perspective. So you can argue from a moral perspective if you want to, but you’re spending all your time arguing for your moral perspective, which is far more difficult and complex. If that’s your agenda (and I suspect it is), then go for it, and I’ll leave you to it.

But if your agenda is antinatalism, then I would suggest that it’s certainly possible (and more flexible) to argue its merits from an amoral, objective position.

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

How is the person getting "beheaded" in the case of antinatalism? Who is getting harmed? Antinatalism isn't at all like prescribing beheadings to deal with a headache. It's more like not risking giving SOMEONE ELSE a headache in the first place just because YOU would take the risk.

there are two recurring arguments I see against antinatalism on this website (many more than 2 but these are the two I've read on this thread so far). The first is trying to say that not having children harms some magical ghost babies like @TheMadFool was trying to do with his decapitation example. The second is trying to say that giving birth doesn't count as a harm to which I answer: Do you find it morally acceptable for someone to genetically modify their child to make them suffer? Such as for example by giving them extra fragile limbs. If not why not despite the fact that:

"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 — 180 Proof

if the doctor first caused conditions known to make the patient suffer — schopenhauer1

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. — schopenhauer1

Firstly I don't deny that there is suffering in life. Countless millions have lived their lives in abject misery only to perish in horrible ways. However, we can't ignore what is in my opinion the other side of the coin - let's call these the happy ones. Just like antinatalists/pessimists ignore this significant chunk of people who are content and enjoying life there are people on the other side of the line ignoring the true and real suffering. In all fairness then, like good ol' China we need, in recognition of these facts, a ONE country TWO systems policy. In fact this is the existing policy in all the nations of the world. People are advised to plan their family - avoid teenage pregnancies, have small, ergo, manageable families, give adequate space between pregnancies, etc. All of these measures have the dual purpose of ensuring the health, ergo, happiness of the children who are alive and prevent large, unmanageable families that inevitabily fall to an entire array of exquisite varieties of suffering.

In short, neither antinatalists nor pessimists nor those who think having children is a good thing are right in terms of being applicable to the entire population on earth. Their positions, like so many of our other views on life, apply to certain segments of the population. There is no one size fits all here as the two opposing camps are claiming.

The antinatalist/pessimist position is as follows:

1. Life is suffering or suffering outweighs happiness
2. If life is suffering or suffering outweighs happiness then nonexistence is better than life
So,
3. Nonexistence is better than life

I can't deny premise 2 but what about premise 1? The negation of premise 1 is:

4. Life is full of joy

If proposition 4 is true then antinatalists/pessimists would lower their swords and admit there's nothing to fight for. Implicit in this - the willingness of the antinatalist/pessimist to change their minds if we could ensure happiness in life - is the position that existence is NOT the problem. Suffering is. As you can see the situation is analogous to a patient (life) that has to be cured (happiness provided) of a disease (suffering). As for the doctor giving the disease to the patient and then trying to treat, this is exactly the error in judgment antinatalists/pessimists make - thinking life = suffering.


You might be interested to know that I've heard people claim that birth rates are lower among the educated and higher among the uneducated. I don't know if this is due to economic considerations or because education leads to antinatalism.

What say you?

The antinatalist/pessimist position is as follows:

1. Life is suffering or suffering outweighs happiness — TheMadFool

No. Antinatalism doesn't require this to be the case. It just requires that life includes SOME suffering or that it risks including suffering (I don't think either of these can be denied). Negative ethics just means that the rule is to avoid harm. There is some harm in coming into life. Therefore one should avoid bringing more people into life. That's it. Pleasure or joy never comes into the equation.

I think this is the mode of thinking most people employ when it comes to using others' resources. For example, even if I know you like chocolate, I wouldn't use your money to buy you chocolate without your consent. In the same way, even if I knew my future child would MOST LIKELY (notice how there is even less certainty in this case) enjoy life, I wouldn't have him just in case he finds it terrible. This harms no one whereas the alternative risks harming someone. It is true the alternative also risks bringing more joy than harm, but joy doesn't come into the equation when using negative ethics.

2. If life is suffering or suffering outweighs happiness then nonexistence is better than life
So, — TheMadFool

Again, this is not antinatalism this is pro mortalism. If you believed this the next conclusion would be that murder is a good if done painlessly but I haven't seen anyone here advocating surprise euthanasia

No. Antinatalism doesn't require this to be the case. It just requires that life includes SOME suffering — khaled

That's what I mean. The antinatalist can't see the distinction between life and suffering. You say even "some" suffering is good enough to decide. Doesn't that mean no suffering or perhaps ecstatic joy would make the antinatalist decide otherwise. In short it's not life that's the issue, it's the suffering that, as of the moment, is so inevitable that it's difficult to see that life is not the same as suffering.

A simple question:

1. Life + joy
2. Life + suffering
3. Life = suffering

If 1 were true then antinatalists have no argument. Right?

The antinatalist/pessimist thinks 3 is the truth. I'm saying the situation is actually 2 and then the following basic arithmetic is possible.

4. Life + suffering - suffering = Life
5. Life + joy

Once 5 becomes a reality and I think that's possible, antinatalism/pessimism collapses.

Life/existence isn't the problem. Suffering is.

The antinatalist can't see the distinction between life and suffering. — TheMadFool

What in what I said made you think that? My life has been pretty joyful and I don't think life is suffering though you insist I do.

You say even "some" suffering is good enough to decide. — TheMadFool

Some wasn't the best word. "Any" is better.

Doesn't that mean no suffering or perhaps ecstatic joy would make the antinatalist decide otherwise. — TheMadFool

No it wouldn't because in negative ethics you don't care how much joy is created. If you are proposing a life with a guarantee of no suffering whatsoever, then by negative ethics that life is neither good nor evil to start.

If 1 were true then antinatalists have no argument. Right? — TheMadFool

Sure.

The antinatalist/pessimist thinks 3 is the truth. — TheMadFool

No they don't, at least not all of them.

I'm saying the situation is actually 2 — TheMadFool

Agreed. In negative ethics you RECOGNIZE that joy exists, but you absolutely don't care about it when making moral decision. That's the definition of negative ethics

and then the following basic arithmetic is possible. — TheMadFool

Keyword: Possible. Not guaranteed. Why take the risk of harming someone else just becuase it's possible they can deal with it? Do you find that acceptable in any other situation? If it was guaranteed that's pretty much just situation 1.

On a different note, I have noticed you referring to a "non-aggression principle" numerous times on this forum and in this thread.

It seems to me that there are conceivable scenarios in which the application of such a principle seems irrational.

For example, lets say two people are lost in the wilderness and in order to survive they must cross a river. Person A has a fear of water and will not cross the river, which means he will stay behind and surely starve. Is person B right in (physically) forcing person A to cross that river, when it is clearly in A's best interest to do so?

I personally think the answer is "yes", and I am wondering how you would defend this with the "non-aggression principle" in mind.

Can you kindly present your version of antinatalism?

I'm not denying that there is suffering in the world. A good indication of this would be the concept of heaven. I could simply use heaven, the very existence of such a notion, to prove and be in agreement with antinatalism.

However, notice something important - Everyone wants to go to heaven and that means two things:

1. This life isn't satisfactory
2. A life of joy is desirable.

Now consider the opposing concept - hell. Nobody wants to go to hell. This means:

3. It is better to be nonexistent than to be in hell

Now imagine a person being given choices as follows:

1. Hell
2. Earth
3. Heaven
4. Nonexistence

Antinatalism at its best can make us choose nonexistence over hell or earth. Can antinatalism ever make us choose nonexistence over heaven?

The foundation under antinatalism is suffering. There is no suffering in heaven. So, no, antinatalism can never provide a good reason to opt for nonexistence over heaven.

Doesn't this mean that life/existence is NOT the problem here and that existence is sufficiently distinct from suffering? I know that, as of now, the two are inseparable - a head comes with headaches so to speak. Nevertheless, we can treat headaches and hopefully treatment can be extrapolated to suffering in general. In short I think it's possible to make earth a heaven. No suffering, no antinatalism.

Can you kindly present your version of antinatalism? — TheMadFool

It's simple. The main premise is: It is wrong to commit any act that may harm someone else unless the benefits of it massively outweigh the losses to said someone. Now lets look at procreation:

Can it harm someone? Definitely.
Do the benefits to me (having a family) outweigh the potential harm? Absolutely not because it just puts my child in the same scenario where HE considers whether or not to have a family and so on and so on. It's like stealing food from a starving person to alleviate my own starvation. People have kids because because they naturally want families, in other words procreation alleviates the pain and loneliness or living alone but does so at the price of transposing the problem wholesale onto someone else which is a ridiculous solution. Add to that all the suffering my child will have to endure over a lifetime and no, my suffering due to not having a family cannot hope to outweigh that realistically.

2. A life of joy is desirable. — TheMadFool

important distinction to be made here I think. A life of joy is desirable TO THOSE WHO ALREADY LIVE. There are no magical ghost babies desiring joy or avoiding pain. In other words, NOT procreating doesn't mean you're "denying" someone something desirable (an argument I see often, not that you made it)

Now imagine a person being given choices as follows:

1. Hell
2. Earth
3. Heaven
4. Nonexistence — TheMadFool

Again. Imagaine a PERSON being given these choices. There is no such person. Antinatalism isn't about making the "best decision" for some non existent entity. It merely is avoiding risking harming someone. That is literally all there is to it.

The foundation under antinatalism is suffering. There is no suffering in heaven. So, no, antinatalism can never provide a good reason to opt for nonexistence over heaven. — TheMadFool

True that. In that case procreation would not risk harming someone.

Doesn't this mean that life/existence is NOT the problem here and that existence is sufficiently distinct from suffering? — TheMadFool

When did I imply otherwise? I never said life is inherently problematic, if I thought it was I would be a pro mortalist. The problem with bringing people into this life is that they will suffer whereas they wouldn't have to if they weren't here.

In short I think it's possible to make earth a heaven. No suffering, no antinatalism. — TheMadFool

If earth was a heaven I wouldn't be an antinatalist. Now what of all those who will suffer in order to make this heaven? Why go through so much suffering to achieve something just as good (per negative ethics) as non existence (Because a life of 0 suffering and non existence are equivalent to negative ethics)? Why should the present generation suffer for the unproven hope that a future generation won't have to?

Heck as antinatalists go I'm pretty lenient. I don't think procreation is wrong out of principle, I just think the risk of harm outweighs the benefit to the individual for the vast majority of cases. You can argue otherwise, but that would be saying "If I don't have kids I'd be suffering more from just that fact than my kids would suffer their entire lifetime" which I find HIGHLY unlikely.

If earth was a heaven I wouldn't be an antinatalist — khaled

This is all that I want to hear

oh ok

Well, since i agree that negative ethics entails procreation being immoral unless Earth is devoid of any suffering whatsoever, i will ask a question: How do you justify negative ethics? So far, you have just assumed it to be true and showed that procreation is immoral if we assume it. But you have not said why we should prefer it over a positive one yet.

:smile: :up:

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. — schopenhauer1

:halo:

Although I wouldn't say compassion and helping others reduces to a way to cope with life, instead you could see it as "love makes life worth living despite the suffering". It's two different ways to look at the same thing, I had mentioned that a while ago, the same glass can be seen as half-full or half-empty, and in the same way you can view life as something you have to endure while finding ways to cope with it, or you can view it as something to enjoy in spite of the suffering that is in it. Deep down it's the same thing, yet the outlook changes how you live it, either as something you enjoy despite the constraints, or as constraints you endure and you cope with.

I can see how antinatalism can be therapeutic for those who see life as something they endure. But I believe that existence doesn't end with death in this universe, so in my view one way or the other at some point the antinatalist is going to have to start seeing the glass as half-full :yum:

I'm also of the view that we are all part of a single being (us and all life), that giving birth doesn't create a new being out of nothing but that it shows us another part of that being, so in that view we suffer because the whole being also suffers, and then it doesn't create new suffering to give birth, what creates new suffering is how we treat others and ourselves. In order for the whole being to get better we have to care for one another, if we simply all stop procreating then other forms of life will take our place, and if somehow all life in the universe disappears then the whole being would simply create another universe and start again. Maybe the way to reduce suffering is neither suicide nor antinatalism, but love. There are so many things we could do to make the world a much better place, so let's keep working in that direction, let's try everything before giving up, the way I see it we have barely begun.

If some people want to give up that's okay, and if they want to share their views on antinatalism that's okay too, but it would be a sad thing if somehow antinatalists came to rule the world and force everyone to stop procreating against their will no matter the suffering they cause. If existence doesn't end with death in this universe (which I firmly believe) then that would cause more suffering than it would prevent. But the way I see it you don't force your beliefs onto others, so if it's therapeutic for you that's good.

Indeed we're all in this together, but while you see the problem in life itself, I see the problem in what we do with life :flower:

Well, since i agree that negative ethics entails procreation being immoral unless Earth is devoid of any suffering whatsoever, i will ask a question: How do you justify negative ethics? — HereToDisscuss

I don't. It's my personal choice. I just looked at how I act when it comes to any other situation where one can choose to use another's resources in any way. Most people (including myself) are risk averse in those scenarios. For example if I saw a house I think you like going on sale, I wouldn't just steal your credit card and buy it without your consent simply because there is a chance you don't like it or don't want to spend the money right now. I doubt you would either. So I just extended that to procreation out of a desire for consistency.

I don't. It's my personal choice. I just looked at how I act when it comes to any other situation where one can choose to use another's resources in any way. Most people (including myself) are risk averse in those scenarios. For example if I saw a house I think you like going on sale, I wouldn't just steal your credit card and buy it without your consent simply because there is a chance you don't like it or don't want to spend the money right now. I doubt you would either. So I just extended that to procreation out of a desire for consistency. — khaled

@TheMadFool@Tzeentch@HereToDisscuss@Possibility

I'll try to answer you all one at a time, but this post is about as good a summary as it gets regarding what I am trying to say.. I will answer you, but this is essentially what it will boil down to anyways, just with additions in the particularities of the discussion points you raise.

Well, the discussion was not about that, but if you really want to criticize my position, please do it without assuming that ethics should be based on the individual and not society as that is just begging the question. Why is "overlooking individuals for 'third-parties'" bad? — HereToDisscuss

Because "society" doesn't actually experience suffering or happiness or anything, individuals do. It can be many individuals, but once individuals get reified into an abstract concept "the greatest good" "pursuit of happiness", it goes out of the bounds of the locus of the experience.

Violating the principle by forcing everyone not to procreate is not bad as one is preventing harm from the violation of non-aggression by doing so.
I believe that just entails my conclusion above, which is what i was trying to say the whole time. It is a case of one's non-harm principle and non-aggression principle being violated from something else. — HereToDisscuss

Ok, is this a debating point? You'd have to explain.

Julio Cabrera has some interesting arguments, and I agree with many of them when considered from his point of view, as I do yours. Cabrera is reacting to what he calls ‘affirmative moralities’ - which is not the same as ‘positive ethics’, by the way. Affirmative moralities lack a negative perspective - they seem to be ignorant or in denial of the necessity of pain, loss, lack and humility, not just to experiencing life, but to existence. By ‘Affirmative morality’ Cabrera refers to a positive ethics that fails to acknowledge its own limitations. But Cabrera’s (and your) ‘objective’ and universal evaluation of these necessities as ‘harm’ is an equally limited perspective. — Possibility

I'd probably agree here- positive ethics is not quite the same as affirmative ethics, as he uses the term, but there are parallels. One of these being that the negative is overlooked for the positive/affirmative, or rather one is violated for the other.

But a non-judgemental view of pain from all possible perspectives of existence (not just of life) shows it to be simply an awareness that energy, effort or attention is necessary to adjust to change. That we accept and even invite pain in our life as evidence of effort or resilience in an ever-changing world is not to suggest that pain is ‘good’ instead of ‘bad’, but that it is both - and ultimately neither. In a universe where change is ubiquitous, it’s understandable that pain is a fundamental experience, so it seems ridiculous in this light to call it ‘harm’ - as if existence without instances of pain were possible - or to include all possible instances of pain in a single moral perspective. The negativity of pain stems from its significance to our experience of life, not from its meaning. By understanding the meaning of pain as both positive and negative, we can make more effective use of it as an informative experience. — Possibility

I am not sure, but I believe we've had this conversation before. If so, I probably brought up that this is very close to Nietzsche's idea of "beyond good and evil". In other words, there is no good or evil, suffering isn't actually "bad". Rather, suffering provides meaning and we should bask in its radiant glow of significance-making. I think this is just subversion of pain in order to justify it. If the conundrum is that life has pain, if we make pain "good" then we can justify its existence. I just don't buy it being "good" or providing "significance". In a world without pain or suffering (if we want to split the concepts in whatever self-styled manner), even the pain of not having a bit of pain to make life more significant would be there. So I guess this goes down to the metaphysics of pain. But even if we were to say that reality MUST have pain for X reason, we can simply say that we don't need reality then. In other words, no one has to experience it in the first place. And precisely the antinatalist notion that NO ONE actually misses out by not experiencing anything in the first place. There really is not much of a counterargument to it except the notion that people must be born to experience X, Y, Z experiences (perhaps your collaboration, etc.). But that then begs the question why? And then we are back to square one. But I think we both agree. So what are we to do about it?

I think we can both make a compromise that the best option is to not procreate. The next best is to promote positivity when we can. That is not contested by me.

Cabrera is correct in arguing that most moralities reject the negative in favour of the positive, but even his own morality exists within a limited perspective of life. When we recognise the limitations of this perspective, we can then begin to understand that what is both ‘bad’ and necessary in this perspective could relate to the broader universe in a more meaningful way than we think. — Possibility

This is a bit murky and pseudo-spiritual. You'd have to explain. My response to this particular sentiment is that you think the universe has some plan or perspective of its own outside of the human perspective. I'd need proof of that. Even if there was a "higher" perspective... how does it affect humans? Think of this idea.. What if a big giant god-like being was watching us and had a completely different view of morality.. to him, our suffering matters not.. How does that affect us, the sufferers? Of course, this is a terrible view to start.. I really don't want to bring religious hodgepodge into this.. It leads to all sorts of non-real/non-relevant rabbit-holes (in my opinion). We mine as well talk about what we know at hand- the human perspective and what we can agree to be the case.

Procreation, regardless of whether we consider it good or bad from whatever perspective, is objectively not necessary. I think that’s the important thing that everyone needs to understand. But the ignorant will continue to believe it is what they are supposed to do, for whatever reason. Most of those reasons are directly related to their value systems, their moral perspective. So you can argue from a moral perspective if you want to, but you’re spending all your time arguing for your moral perspective, which is far more difficult and complex. If that’s your agenda (and I suspect it is), then go for it, and I’ll leave you to it.

But if your agenda is antinatalism, then I would suggest that it’s certainly possible (and more flexible) to argue its merits from an amoral, objective position. — Possibility

Ok, now I'm interested. What would the "objective position" entail?

I'm also of the view that we are all part of a single being (us and all life), that giving birth doesn't create a new being out of nothing but that it shows us another part of that being, so in that view we suffer because the whole being also suffers, and then it doesn't create new suffering to give birth, what creates new suffering is how we treat others and ourselves. In order for the whole being to get better we have to care for one another, if we simply all stop procreating then other forms of life will take our place, and if somehow all life in the universe disappears then the whole being would simply create another universe and start again. Maybe the way to reduce suffering is neither suicide nor antinatalism, but love. There are so many things we could do to make the world a much better place, so let's keep working in that direction, let's try everything before giving up, the way I see it we have barely begun. — leo

Again, I applaud your positivity and good-spirit, but I would just have to say I disagree with this perspective-especially because of its conclusion (more people will be born and suffer that can be prevented). So in regards to other forms of life taking over, that may be so (who is to know how evolution goes and whether it creates self-reflective beings at our level.. probably not though), but the point is once self-reflection can obtain in the species, then they also have to make the same moral choices of whether to bring people into the world that has suffering or rephrasing it, that creates people bound to suffer.

As far as the love over antinatalism thing, I don't think it is a binary choice necessarily. One can abstain from procreation and promote love. I would get on board with it. Sadly, the everyday messiness of the world often demands that we demand stuff from each other, and "love" the mooshy good feeling can turn into other things. This especially goes when stuff is on the line (products and services need to get produced!!). So, there is some realities that are not amenable to "love".. Managers gotta do what managers gotta do.. People will feel they deserve more, are better, understand more.. are resentful of those who aren't living up to certain ideals, etc. etc. You can probably name a whole bunch of real life scenarios with even just a small group of people where "love" simply breaks down due to the conditions that are mitigating factors, personalities, education, background, beliefs, how people think.. The variations and factors that distort "loving relations" are mind-boggingly complex and multi-faceted. So in the end, though a great notion, I think it just falls flat in terms of how it plays out. However, I am all for people having more compassion and pleasant relations in all aspects of life.

If some people want to give up that's okay, and if they want to share their views on antinatalism that's okay too, but it would be a sad thing if somehow antinatalists came to rule the world and force everyone to stop procreating against their will no matter the suffering they cause. If existence doesn't end with death in this universe (which I firmly believe) then that would cause more suffering than it would prevent. But the way I see it you don't force your beliefs onto others, so if it's therapeutic for you that's good.

Indeed we're all in this together, but while you see the problem in life itself, I see the problem in what we do with life :flower: — leo

I will reiterate that I do not believe antinatalism should be forced onto anyone. Actually, that goes against the non-aggression rule which should be followed. No one should be forced into anything (one reason for antinatalism actually), no matter how much you think it is "good" to do what you are going to force onto that individual or individuals. So agree with you there.

I'd probably agree there positive not quite the same as affirmative ethics as he uses the term, but there are parallels. One of these being that one is overlooked for the other, or rather violated for the other. — schopenhauer1

As I mentioned, the distinction is that positive ethics doesn’t necessarily ignore the negative. A sound positive ethics would be in harmony with a sound negative ethics. If you have to overlook one for the other, then at least one of them is flawed.

I am not sure, but I believe we've had this conversation before. If so, I probably brought up that this is very close to Nietzsche's idea of "beyond good and evil". In other words, there is no good or evil, suffering isn't actually "bad". Rather, suffering provides meaning and we should bask in its radiant glow of significance-making. I think this is just subversion of pain in order to justify it. If the conundrum is that life has pain, if we make pain "good" then we can justify its existence. I just don't buy it being "good" or providing "significance". In a world without pain or suffering (if we want to split the concepts in whatever self-styled manner), even the pain of not having a bit of pain to make life more significant would be there. So I guess this goes down to the metaphysics of pain. But even if we were to say that reality MUST have pain for X, we can simply say that we simply don't need reality then. In other words, no one has to experience it in the first place. And precisely the antinatalist notion that NO ONE actually misses out by not experience anything in the first place, there really is not much of a counterargument to it except the notion that people must be born to experience X, Y, Z experiences (perhaps you collaboration, etc.). But that then begs the question why? And then we are back to square one. — schopenhauer1

You seem to be struggling to get beyond good and evil, though. I’m not trying to justify pain, or to make it ‘good’ - we can’t get beyond value and significance by appealing to value and significance. Pain is real at every possible level, and for anyone or anything that exists it IS a fundamental part of that existence. We don’t have to exist, we don’t have to be aware, or connect or collaborate - nobody needs to be born, nobody needs to procreate. Everything that does exist has, at some level, chosen to do so: to be aware, to connect and to collaborate to a certain extent. There is no MUST to be considered here. You may not have chosen to exist as a conscious being, but this ‘you’ consists of aware, connected and collaborating matter that was determined to develop and achieve for its own benefit, in response to the awareness, connection and collaboration of those who may have consciously or unconsciously contributed to your existence.

There is no world without pain - no existence even in a remote or implausible possibility that does not require attention of some kind to adjust to change (not just temporal or physical change, but also change in value, significance, meaning or other correlation). You can refuse to be aware of any change, but to do so successfully and eradicate any instance of pain at any level of awareness, you would need to not exist at any level. That’s your prerogative. So, while I understand that pain reduced to significance is more bad than good from our limited perspective, I think we need to get beyond the value or significance of pain in order to grasp its objective reality. We don’t have to like it, but there’s no point in trying to create or imagine a world without it. And there’s no point thinking that we’re somehow reducing some potential person’s pain by preventing their physical existence, as if that’s an act of ‘love’ on our part. All we’re doing is shifting them into the ‘you matter’ column and then back to the ‘you don’t matter’ column. If you’re going to do that, it’s not love - it’s exclusion.

This is a bit murky and pseudo-spiritual. You'd have to explain. My response to this particular sentiment is that you think the universe has some plan or perspective of its own outside of the human perspective. I'd need proof of that. Even if there was a "higher" perspective... how does it affect humans? Think of this idea.. What if a big giant god-like being was watching us and had a completely different view of morality.. to him, our suffering matters not.. How does that affect us, the sufferers? Of course, this is a terrible view to start.. I really don't want to bring religious hodgepodge into this.. It leads to all sorts of non-real/non-relevant rabbit-holes (in my opinion). We mine as well talk about what we know at hand- the human perspective and what we can agree to be the case. — schopenhauer1

Because I used the word ‘meaningful’ without reducing it to something significant? I’m not suggesting some ‘higher plan’ or external being - I’m happy to avoid the religious hodgepodge, too. But the idea that we can only know the human perspective is a cop-out. We’ve structured the history of the universe well beyond the human perspective. We managed most of it by imagining a big giant god-like being watching us that had a completely different view of that universe. We know now that essential to our survival is understanding how the rest of the ecosystem evaluates their subjective experiences of our behaviour - to do this we must imagine a broader, critical view of our morality, where our suffering, our perspective of pain, matters no more than the suffering of a great white shark or a mosquito. So let’s not limit ourselves to the human perspective any more, and strive towards a consensus on a more universal or objective view.

Ok, now I'm interested. What would the "objective position" entail? — schopenhauer1

The basic idea is what I’ve been describing here: to explore a view of reality beyond any human perspective of value and significance. To recognise that our morality pertains to an incomplete structure of what is real and how it all relates. Regardless of whether we believe procreation to be a good/bad action towards a potential life, or a good/bad action for parents, or even a good/bad action for society or our species, an objective view of procreation shows it to be completely unnecessary.

Humanity’s objective responsibility towards existence does not lie in our capacity for survival, domination or proliferation, but in our advanced capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration well beyond our species, our planet, and even the limits of our four- and five-dimensional existence. What constrains us are the individual and collective choices we make to ignore, isolate and exclude in a Sisyphean effort to survive, dominate or proliferate - with globally destructive results.

A reality can be seen as flawed when it begins to destroy itself. We need to recognise by the state of our planet that the way we have structured the position of humanity in our global and universal reality is flawed. Evolutionary theory is incomplete - natural selection is a limiting, not a motivating factor. We didn’t evolve TO survive - we evolved AND survived. That paints a different picture - one that positions procreation as profoundly irrelevant to anyone who wishes to make the most of their own existence.

When I’m not concerned with what is good for me, but looking objectively at my individual existence in the unfolding universe, procreation on my part has negligible benefit, and considerably greater costs.

As good a parent as I believe myself to be, anything I have the capacity to achieve with my existence can be done without bringing another life into the world.

All arguments in support of procreation are limited by the human perspective, and are therefore either selfish, anthropocentric or ignorant.

There is no objective argument to support procreation as necessary or beneficial in our current global or universal situation.

It's simple. The main premise is: It is wrong to commit any act that may harm someone else unless the benefits of it massively outweigh the losses to said someone. — khaled

Can it harm someone? Definitely. — khaled

(Sorry for the abrupt departure from the conversation. I want to get back into the ring. I hope you don't mind.)

Ok. Basically by harm you mean the suffering birth into this world will entail. I agree that harm is inevitable with the proviso that:
1. If you look at how medicine and technology has changed our lives you must agree that suffering is decreasing compared with the past where disease and the simple act of living were much more difficult
2. From the above we see a downward trend to suffering in general which bolsters our hopes that in the not so far future, suffering, harm as you put it, will become zero

A life of joy is desirable TO THOSE WHO ALREADY LIVE. There are no magical ghost babies desiring joy or avoiding pain. In other words, NOT procreating doesn't mean you're "denying" someone something desirable (an argument I see often, not that you made it) — khaled

please relate the above to what you said below:

When did I imply otherwise? I never said life is inherently problematic — khaled

You say "I never said life is inherently problematic". This is the distinction that I want antinatalists to see and you see it. Life is NOT the problem. Suffering is. Within this framework lies the refutation to antinatalism viz. if suffering could be eliminated then life would be preferable to nonexistence..

If earth was a heaven I wouldn't be an antinatalist. — khaled

The above statement encapsulates the problem with antinatalism that the "solution" to life's problems is nonexistence. Everyone wants to go to heaven because they want to live happily and not because they become nonexistent.

One thing I am really concerned about is what you said:

A life of joy is desirable TO THOSE WHO ALREADY LIVE — khaled

and

Again. Imagaine a PERSON being given these choices. There is no such person. — khaled

I agree that no one is ever given, and I don't think it's even possible, a choice between life ( existence) and nonexistence. There is an issue of consent and it is problematic. In the most ideal situation existence (life) or nonexistence should be a free choice. In this context life appears foisted upon us and it's a forced participation in whatever that makes life life. However, if one looks at what you said: "I earth was a heaven I wouldn't be an antinatalist" and you are arguing for the antinatalist philosophy, it becomes evidently clear that no one, choice/not, would object to a life/existence in heaven. It's like an offer you can't refuse. Consent inhabits the world of uncertainty of decision. Will he like this? Will she hate this? I should ask first i.e. take consent. However when we're certain of what the choice will be, life in heaven in this case. we don't have to ask for consent do we?

Granted that the facts are that life on earth isn't even a shadow of what heaven could be. The problem is taking this condition of suffering in life to be a necessary fact, unavoidable. Yes, as of the moment it is unavoidable but given how much progress we've made over the ages in the happiness department you can surely see that suffering is not a necessary but a contingent truth about the world - alterable towards a more preferable state. Heaven is possible is all that I mean.

1. If you look at how medicine and technology has changed our lives you must agree that suffering is decreasing compared with the past where disease and the simple act of living were much more difficult
2. From the above we see a downward trend to suffering in general which bolsters our hopes that in the not so far future, suffering, harm as you put it, will become zero — TheMadFool

Both of these are debatable. What's not debatable is that PAIN has decreased. IE the actualy physical sensation that comes with disease for example. However there is surprisingly little evidence to suggest that SUFFERING (the subjective experience itself, or the mental part of pain) has changed much over time and much evidence to suggest that people experience similar amounts of suffering despite the pain. Good evidence would be the fact that poorer populations are generally happier (with exceptions at the extremes of course). That's an example of people enduring more pain, yet experiencing less suffering. I think if suffering was directly proportional to pain, we would have gone extinct loooooong ago.

But ok let's say suffering decreased

life would be preferable to nonexistence. — TheMadFool

I don't think it would. Again, no one "benefits" by coming into being. By benefit I mean strictly go from a worse state to a better state. That doesn't happen to anyone when they're born (beacuse they weren't in a state to bein with). To someone who doesn't exist (that's an oxymoron but you know what I mean) life is no more preferable as continuing non existence.

The above statement encapsulates the problem with antinatalism that the "solution" to life's problems is nonexistence. — TheMadFool

I just want to confirm this doesn't mean "Life is so bad you should just kill yourself" because that's how I read it at first. Non existence is a solution but killing to get to non existence is not a very good solution.

it becomes evidently clear that no one, choice/not, would object to a life/existence in heaven. It's like an offer you can't refuse. — TheMadFool

Agreed.

However when we're certain of what the choice will be, life in heaven in this case. we don't have to ask for consent do we? — TheMadFool

Yes because in this case it is guaranteed you're taking someone to a state they themselves would consider to be better so it's fine. For procreation: There is no one to take to a better state, you just put someone in a state they may or may not like for your own selfish reasons and now they have to deal with the consequences.

Yes, as of the moment it is unavoidable but given how much progress we've made over the ages in the happiness department you can surely see that suffering is not a necessary but a contingent truth about the world — TheMadFool

Yes but I don't think the suffering to get to said heaven is worth it. As I said, it is disputable that we have progressed in any dramatic way when it comes to reducing human suffering although we've made huge progress in reducing pain. Pain has never been the issue though suffering has.

I don't. It's my personal choice. I just looked at how I act when it comes to any other situation where one can choose to use another's resources in any way. Most people (including myself) are risk averse in those scenarios. For example if I saw a house I think you like going on sale, I wouldn't just steal your credit card and buy it without your consent simply because there is a chance you don't like it or don't want to spend the money right now. I doubt you would either. So I just extended that to procreation out of a desire for consistency. — khaled

Well, you could just phone me and say "There is a sale going on over a house you would definitely like and time is running out, i will send you the details and you could tell me whetever you wanr to but it or not." Stealing my credit card would not yield any more benefit to me compared to you just phoning me and is just ineffecient. So, that is not a really good example.

Also, i would say that it is more probable that the person will be in a state of "My life is good enough." rather than being depressed. There is always a risk, but it can be drastically reduced. (And i am myself a proponent of a "local antinatalism", for people who can not raise children).

Both of these are debatable. What's not debatable is that PAIN has decreased. IE the actualy physical sensation that comes with disease for example. However there is surprisingly little evidence to suggest that SUFFERING (the subjective experience itself, or the mental part of pain) has changed much over time and much evidence to suggest that people experience similar amounts of suffering despite the pain. Good evidence would be the fact that poorer populations are generally happier (with exceptions at the extremes of course). That's an example of people enduring more pain, yet experiencing less suffering. I think if suffering was directly proportional to pain, we would have gone extinct loooooong ago.

But ok let's say suffering decreased — khaled

Let's not just "say" things and let's not get ahead of ourselves. As a friend of mine used to say "step by step". With due respect to your concerns I'd like to say this is just a matter of priorities. Physical wellbeing takes precedence over mental wellbeing. I believe the history of medicine stands testimony to this - psychiatry is younger than surgery for example.

I appreciate that you brought up the difference between pain and suffering. It matters especially if we are to be genuine about the issue of causing harm by bringing clueless children into this imperfect world. A good portion of suffering is unseen (nonphysical) and the "evidence" I offered is a bit lopsided. These areas (medicine and technology) were chosen for their tangible, indubitable impact on our wellbeing. As for nonphysical suffering I'm sure it won't take too much of an effort to find people trying to do something about that. Psychological wellbeing is as dear as physical wellbeing to us.

Because "society" doesn't actually experience suffering or happiness or anything, individuals do. It can be many individuals, but once individuals get reified into an abstract concept "the greatest good" "pursuit of happiness", it goes out of the bounds of the locus of the experience. — schopenhauer1

And i will accept this conclusion that is prima facie counter-intuitive. What is wrong with it?

Ok, is this a debating point? You'd have to explain. — schopenhauer1

It was a weaker form of my view that negative ethics entails that we ought to destroy all human life-which was the main topic the whole time. The weakened version was that.
Do you agree with that at least version? If not, which part of my reasoning was wrong?