It’s a delusion to say that ‘this is what reality is supposed to be but it sucks that it isn’t’. That’s not a workable philosophy. Don’t get me wrong - that used to be me, so I understand the appeal. But the world is only ‘messy’ because we have an inaccurate perspective of ‘neat’. When we can see the world through a more accurate conceptualisation - one that is inclusive of all actions and processes and motivations (even the ones we don’t agree with) - then it actually looks pretty tidy. I always thought that was the ultimate aim of philosophy. — Possibility
Everyone would agree with that, right? No, need to take it further back. — Congau
(And if they don’t, well, I’d be wasting my time talking to them anyway.) — Congau
It’s definitely not just my emotions that make me believe in it. — Congau
I could come up with an answer to that too, which would be pretty much along the same lines as the previous answer, and I’m sure you could produce a strawman objection to that too, but what’s the point? I have never heard anyone claim something like that. For any realistic conversation I have now produced a first premise that people would agree with. — Congau
What if I could do something that would cost me a negligible effort but be extremely beneficial for you, wouldn’t it be bad if I didn’t do it? — Congau
Suppose I couldn’t ask you if you agreed, but I was pretty sure you would, do you really think I shouldn’t do it? — Congau
If I have no one to ask but my own judgment, what else can I do than what I think is best for you? — Congau
They think they are doing their unborn child a favor, and in most cases they probably are. — Congau
Most people would have chosen to be born, or don’t you think so? — Congau
Actions in real time are messier than ideals. If one respects autonomy of the individual, then you would not violate non-aggression and harm of another individual. However, in real life that is bound to happen. Sometimes the violation of harm of another, requires the aggression to prevent the harm. But that is because autonomy is being violated, so it still centers around autonomy and its violation. — schopenhauer1
What I want to reiterate is "de facto" force onto someone. For example, sure people can choose not to work. They can choose to starve themselves, they can choose to be homeless, the can choose to hack it out into the wilderness, suicide. But these often lead to sub-optimal options. The de facto reality is the least sub-optimal, which for most is simply the situation the majority of society offers. This is a de facto reality. But what if none of these sub-optimal options are wanted, even the ones offered by social majority? — schopenhauer1
Despite others trying to explain to you that it’s not how you play solitaire, you’re arguing that we shouldn’t make others play solitaire at all because you can’t win playing it the way you think it should be played. — Possibility
I can't speak for schopenhauer1 but at least for me the situation is more like: A majority of players agreed on a set of rules that would forbit making other players play the game if applied strictly but refuse to recognize that those rules apply to the case of procreation — khaled
People are loss averse in all their dealings with others' stuff. Ex: If you found my credit card you wouldn't buy anything with it unless you had my consent. People are also loss averse when it comes to others' autonomy. Ex: You can't FORCE me to work a job. Even if I am completely broke. I see procreation as forcing someone you don't know to work a job because YOU like it, and making the cost of quitting extremely high as well. Not many would disagree with the job scenario being immoral but most disagree that the analogy fits procreation in a myriad of different ways. I'm curious to see why you think the analogy isn't apt. — khaled
My point is that the rules as ‘agreed’ cannot be applied strictly because this renders the game unplayable. — Possibility
If you believe there is a game to played, then you need to determine a different set of rules. — Possibility
What is it that is lost in procreation? — Possibility
Why would rendering the game unplayable be an issue? We already think it is moral to render the game unplayable in some cirucmstances, such as if a couple knows that their children are likely to have a terrible disease. In that case most say it is immoral to procreate — khaled
I don't think any set of rules built specifically to maintain the game is respectable or acceptable. "The game" Doesn't have a will or subjective experience. It cannot get hurt. People can. So anything that prioritizes the game over an individual is just plain wrong to me. Unless preserving the game is done WITH THE GOAL of helping the individuals — khaled
Ok so you're going to take that direction. My answer: I don't know. Now can you answer this: Is genetically engineering someone to suffer (say, by making them blind, deaf, and missing a leg) morally acceptable, and if not why? — khaled
The game will be played - you can try to work out what the real rules are, or you can stick with the ones you have that don’t work. People only get hurt in games when the players don’t follow the rules - not their own rules. — Possibility
‘The game’ is existence, not just procreation. So rendering the game of existence unplayable IS an issue. — Possibility
Determining a different set of rules doesn’t maintain the game - the game is being played, whether you like it or not — Possibility
You’ve arrived at what you think are the rules — Possibility
People only get hurt in games when the players don’t follow the rules - not their own rules. — Possibility
Again, you’re removing something from someone whose potential is already recognised as a human being, with all that it entails — Possibility
1) No one has perfect knowledge of the game. Sure, you can try to educate people as much as possible, but there is inevitably trial-and-error in existence. The nuances are never cut-and-dry. Also, rules for one person doesn't necessarily apply to another person or apply to a specific situation. Or people just make mistakes, etc. But what this amounts to is people are being used in a bunch of trial-and-error situations. Knowing this, what is the justification to put people into a big trial-and-error experiment like that? Rather, if the autonomy of the future individual is respected, there is an ideal state of no-harm and no-force. That is not being born for that person. — schopenhauer1
Also, rooting ethics in autonomy is the only thing that actually respects a person as an individual and not just using them for someone else's agenda. — schopenhauer1
You are simply justifying a self-fulfilling prophecy. You are making it out like people MUST play the game. No, procreation is made at the individual level. Arguably, its one of the simplest things one can do. Simply do NOT procreate. Thus the whole game can be bypassed for a future person by not having them. My point was that people don't have the option to not play the game in the first place once born. It is pretty high-and-mighty of you or anyone else to assume that people should play the game in the first place, and then scold them for not following the rules that you thought are "good" for them. You know, because YOU deem it is "good" for them... Which, wait, didn't matter prior to their birth.. So here we are back at the fact that we are disrespecting people's autonomy to force them into an agenda (trial-and-error, and learn the rules). — schopenhauer1
and happens with or without conscious individual input. — Possibility
There is no ‘individual future person’ to be harmed at this point: there is only a connected and collaborative effort that lacks awareness. — Possibility
But you’ve lost sight of the real game - one where the individual is simply a step towards maximising awareness, connection and collaboration... — Possibility
I don’t expect you to be convinced - my perspective of the ‘real’ game is a minority view that directly questions foundational assumptions of social reality. But it gives me a workable knowledge of the game, at least. That’s a start. — Possibility
I know what "the game" stands for. This doesn't answer the question at all, it just says "it's an issue" — khaled
Uh huh. This doesn't mean the game SHOULD be played though which is what this post is about (ethics). Your second paragraph just sounds to me like "people are gonna have kids no matter what so whatever you say here doesn't matter." I agree, but that doesn't make procreation moral — khaled
You’ve arrived at what you think are the rules
— Possibility
And what other people think are the rules in the vast majority of cases but do not apply it to procreation out of hypocrisy — khaled
Interesting you make this point. Tell me, who does an antinatalist hurt? No one. Even if antinatalism is logically flawed it wouldn't hurt anyone. On the other hand who does procreation hurt? Everyone. This "rule" that makes a special case for procreation as opposed to other cases of handling others' resources is the reason we have to make rules to reduce the suffering of individuals in the first place. — khaled
"Potential" isn't a person. So you're not removing anything from anyone. So there are 2 choices here either:
1- You recognize that harm done is wrong even if the action that causes the harm is done before the person harmed exists
2- You find another way to explain why the genetic modification mentioned is wrong, because it's definitely not removing anything from anyone which you consider to be the definition for "harm." That was your critique of my scenarios right? That no individual is harmed? That's the case here too — khaled
Existence cannot be nullified by what exists. — Possibility
Drawing the conclusion that no one should exist if they have the option — Possibility
Drawing the conclusion that no one should exist if they have the option is not a workable philosophy - it’s a sign that we’re misinformed about how the world works. — Possibility
My argument is that this is one of many reasons why these principles are flawed. — Possibility
The primacy of autonomy and individualism is harmful in practise, and no amount of antinatalism can prevent that. — Possibility
interact with a potential child — Possibility
genetic modification, drug use, contraception, mother’s nutrition, alcohol and smoking, physical activity, etc — Possibility
a possible child — Possibility
So the only ‘harm’ one can do to a possible child is to deny (ignore or exclude) its value or significance in relation to those who exist, either potentially or actually. — Possibility
I agree that we should not procreate. — Possibility
This makes no sense. If you do action X, Y consequence is a future person, who will then be harmed. It is as if you lost the connection of cause and effect. A person does not have to exist for the the rule to be followed, because by not following the rule, someone will exist, and it will be violated. Also, look again at@khaled point about the genetic tinkering, etc. The action is clearly about something that will negatively affect a future person. — schopenhauer1
Again, you are just repeating that there is some agenda beyond the autonomous individual. People create other people, not "awareness, connection, and collaboration" or any other outside force. In fact, it is self-justifying, saying that people cannot make choices when that isn't true. — schopenhauer1
Yes, you never really provided a justification for your perspective of the "real" game. It seems like a idealization of evolutionary principles and emergence. Just because the universe has awareness, connection, and collaboration doesn't mean that is an agenda of the universe. That jump there is the part you are not providing evidence for as far as I see. — schopenhauer1
Existence cannot be nullified by what exists.
— Possibility
Uhhh yes it can? WATCH ME *jumps off building* — khaled
A person (a "one") cannot choose not to have existed. The choice has already been made. — khaled
I don't think it's a valid argument then. You haven't shown why reaching the conclusion that we shouldn't exist automatically means that a premise is wrong — khaled
I haven't referred to primacy of autonomy or individualism — khaled
If one respects autonomy of the individual, then you would not violate non-aggression and harm of another individual. — schopenhauer1
rooting ethics in autonomy is the only thing that actually respects a person as an individual and not just using them for someone else's agenda. — schopenhauer1
There is no such thing as "potential child" — khaled
Neither is there a thing called "possible child" — khaled
This doesn't actually harm anyone though as I'm sure you're aware since you put harm in quotation marks — khaled
I agree that we should not procreate.
— Possibility
Why? I'm curious — khaled
People can and should make conscious choices, but autonomy is an illusion - every choice we make is either aware, connected and collaborating with reality, or it is ignorant, isolated and excluding. — Possibility
You assume reality is "collaborating". — schopenhauer1
He means 'agree/conform' with reality. If your choices do not conform with reality they will not lead to the results you may desire. — ovdtogt
How does interpretation of "collaboration" — schopenhauer1
Again, this is an unjustified claim and is self-justifying. It is almost a naturalistic fallacy, if it were true. You assume reality is "collaborating". Even if this was the case (which you haven't really shown), why do humans have to choose to "collaborate" with it to continue life? They don't. The simple way to prove it is this: "I thus choose to not have a child". Look at that! I just went against the "collaboration" of the universe. Simple. — schopenhauer1
My problem with this, besides the major lack of real evidence of an underlying Way is that it can simply be manipulated into anything. So, if I make a decision that makes me suffer, you can say, "Ah, schopenhauer1 was not conforming with the Way!". Or alternatively, you can say, "Ah, don't worry schopenhauer1, in the end it is all a part of the Way!". As you see both versions of this can be used, and it would not matter whether there was a Way or not, just something someone uses as a justification for why your action was "wrong" or why it wasn't "wrong". — schopenhauer1
Also, back to my earlier problem with it, it is self-justifying, and very conservative. If you say, "Work might be tedious, but the struggle against work causes even more suffering", or something like that, then nothing changes. One just accepts everything as having to be that way. But it doesn't. We have choices and that is not an illusion. One choice we can make is preventing others from suffering. Thta is the choice of antinatalism. This is one amongst many ways of rebellion. To say, "Don't rebel at all" is to self-justify what is currently the way things are. — schopenhauer1
So, if I make a decision that makes me suffer, you can say, "Ah, schopenhauer1 was not conforming with the Way!". Or alternatively, you can say, "Ah, don't worry schopenhauer1, in the end it is all a part of the Way!" — schopenhauer1
The next step is to be aware of potential for change, and have the courage and patience to connect and collaborate with that potential, effecting change without force or harm. — Possibility
Evolution works on the principle of trial and error so I suppose that is the most 'intelligent' approach. — ovdtogt
Individually, yes - and I’ve already acknowledged that. But existence cannot be nullified in itself — Possibility
when you believe that no one should exist, — Possibility
A person exists. You think they shouldn’t — Possibility
Feel free to structure it for me — Possibility
The way I see it, you’re arguing for the negation of existence from a position which, in itself, disproves your premise. — Possibility
“anything that prioritises [existence] over the individual is just plain wrong”? — Possibility
the term refers to a subjective concept. ‘Harm’ is always relative to the perspective of the one being ‘harmed’ — Possibility
I see harm being done where you don’t. — Possibility
What I’m referring to here is what happens when, as an antinatalist, you deny the value that a possible child would have for someone else — Possibility
It argues that a possible individual — Possibility
but cannot have value or significance in relation to anyone else — Possibility
But instead you are assuming for someone else’s possible child - you’re anticipating its decision based on your own negative evaluation of their existence — Possibility
I can agree with that. The problem is being put in a situation where you are forced to change things in the first place. Yes, I accept that is the reality, but there is a way of not creating it for others- procreation. So I think we agree in some respects. If you like the game of change and finding a way to improve prediction errors fine, but don't force it on others. Like I said, forcing others into a trial-and-error scenario because you like it, or you feel like it, is wrong to do to someone. Certainly it is wrong to do someone in the name of collaboration, or civilization, or to experience X thing that YOU deem is important. — schopenhauer1
The original line was: WATCH ME *presses big red button*. Maybe I should've kept it that way. It is entirely possible though highly unlikely for humanity as a whole to end its own existence — khaled
I don't believe this. What I believe is we shouldn't procreate. That's an entirely different belief. That no one will exist is a side effect not a goal — khaled
1- An action that will harm someone at some point is wrong unless it alleviates more harm than it causes (significantly more if it's alleviated from oneself)
2- Having a child harms someone at some point and doesn't alleviate enough pain from the parents to justify the act (even though the action happens before the person harmed exists, that doesn't matter)
3- Having a child is wrong — khaled
You might not like the choices available, or you might not be aware of them all yet, but the reality is that you always have choices, so nothing is ‘forced’. — Possibility
I can’t help that - you would need to recognise for yourself that individual autonomy is impossible to achieve in any situation, let alone without force or harm, and have the courage to then abandon it as a principle and adjust your conceptualisation. I certainly can’t ‘force’ anyone to do that. — Possibility
It’s not that I deem collaboration to be important. It’s that I see increasing awareness, connection and collaboration to be the underlying impetus of existence. — Possibility
When we suffer, it is from ignorance, isolation or exclusion. — Possibility
The feeling of freedom, independence and power that the illusion of ‘individual autonomy’ promises (but does not deliver) can only be achieved by increasing awareness, connection and collaboration. It’s not about what is right or wrong. This is reality, as I understand it. We can ignore it, sure - but I have found that we will inevitably suffer or increase suffering in others from that ignorance, every time. — Possibility
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.