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

What you describe is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive ethics. Its simply a matter of that. 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. The closer we get to the ideal, the better. The most ideal is preventing the non-harm and non-aggression ideal from being violated (antinatalism). After that, less ideal options ensue.

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?

Again, let me reiterate what I said earlier which you did not really address:

I'd also like to distinguish between "de facto" forced and "physically forced". Most people have to find the most reasonable job, with the most reasonable pay, in the most reasonable circumstances, in the most reasonable market conditions, etc. Now, you are correct, no one has to do this. People can try to survive in nature, live on the streets, or become a monk. But these for most would be suboptimal given the choices. But the fact that one has to choose any of these is what is the "de facto" forced. At the end of the day, people pick the best of sub-optimal conditions many of the time.

So if I set up a scenario where I forced you to choose out of sub-optimal conditions, you may be justified to be resentful of this. Sure, you could choose in my game to lay down and die, but really, you are trying to choose the best of the choices. This is an important distinction as well, because people think once born, that people have an infinite amount of choices, or at least more choices than are really available. At the end of the day, mitigating circumstances leads to really a few choices and even those might not be desired in the first place. If you like those choices, why would you want to force others into it because you like them or at least find them acceptable.

In the "game of life" situation, some people don't mind or think that they prefer these sub-optimal choices, so "why wouldn't someone else?". That is problematic.

In an ideal world you would all be figments of my imagination.

Everyone would agree with that, right? No, need to take it further back. — Congau

Let's pretend I don't. What would you do.

(And if they don’t, well, I’d be wasting my time talking to them anyway.) — Congau

Huh but I thought you claimed that people cannot possibly disagree with a first premise, but here you say if they do there is not much you can do about that.

It’s definitely not just my emotions that make me believe in it. — Congau

I notice you keep saying emotions this emotions that but I never mentioned emotions or anything to that effect. "Just cuz" doesn't translate to emotions. You and I believe that A + B = B + A just cuz, there is not further explanation. That doesn't mean we believe it because we would like it to be the case emotionally

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

All I'm trying to point out is that you can't convince everyone of everything. You will reach a point where you two disagree on a very root premise and you won't be able to do anything to convince them.

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

No not in the least. That's what I believe. This is the kind of "root premise disagreement" I am referring to. You thought your premise was self evident but I just don't agree, at all. I think if someone could have blinked and saved the world from nuclear armageddon, but chose not to do so, he is completely not at fault (provided of course he didn't cause the armageddon)

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 it included a risk to harm me, yes you shouldn't do it. If it didn't you can choose to do it or not do it. Makes no difference morally.

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

With the case of birth, can you point me to this individual called "you" you are so intent on helping?

They think they are doing their unborn child a favor, and in most cases they probably are. — Congau

Do you not see the logical fallacy there. How can you do a favor to NOTHING? Actually let's go with your premise for a bit, let's say that it is bad not to help others if it takes negligable effort from you AND that you can somehow harm nothing (unborn children). Shouldn't it then be REALLY bad to only have one or two children? Shouldn't we all have as many children as we can sustain? Heck, shouldn't it be a law? After all, if you only have 1 or 2 children when you can support 8-10 then you're doing something really bad to like 6 people at best. You are literally denying them a lifetime's worth of pleasure. Wow you monster.

Most people would have chosen to be born, or don’t you think so? — Congau

That question makes no sense. If there are "people" then they've already been born, they can't choose to not have been born.

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 happens to the autonomy of the person to whom you act aggressively to prevent the harm? Autonomy for all isn’t possible - even if absolutely everyone agreed to uphold it without exception. So how can this be an effective principle?

Actions in real time don’t have to be messier than ideals - IF those ideals are possible to achieve. Aggression and harm are entirely dependent on the perspective of the person towards whom the act is performed. You cannot predict what might be deemed aggression (force) or harm according to someone else (and your argument that procreation is an act of force is a case in point). So even if it were possible for everyone to take all possible precautions to prevent aggression or harm, there would still be instances of aggression and harm. This tells me not that the world sucks and we should all prefer non-existence, but that your principles are fundamentally flawed. Non-aggression, non-harm and universal autonomy is not an ideal perspective of the universe. It doesn’t even exist as a possibility.

When upholding ethical principles negates the possibility of existence, there’s definitely something wrong - but it’s not with existence.

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

There are always more choices available to us than we may be aware of, and more than we are willing to choose from. The ‘optimal choice’ according to your principles is non-existence - which renders every available choice ‘sub-optimal’ in your view. There’s no point in me addressing the difference between de facto and physical force. The error is not in your argument, but in your principles.

It’s like throwing a tantrum in the middle of a game of solitaire because you’ve been playing it the way you think it should be played, but you realise that you’ll never win this way. 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. And you think it’s problematic that we continue to encourage others to play solitaire...

Or perhaps it’s more like sitting down in a restaurant and getting upset that your parents ‘de facto forced’ you to come here because your favourite meal isn’t on the menu. You’re still sitting at the table and eating, but loudly trying to turn away customers because the restaurant is ‘de facto forcing’ you to choose something other than the meal you really want to eat.

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

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.

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

My point is that the rules as ‘agreed’ cannot be applied strictly because this renders the game unplayable. If you believe there is a game to played, then you need to determine a different set of rules.

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

I find it strange to see you frame it with reference to loss aversion. I get that you shouldn’t take away money that I have in return for something you think will be beneficial to me. I get that you shouldn’t try and force me to give up time that I have in order to earn a living, even if it will give me autonomy in return. You shouldn’t take away...I mean, try and force me to give up...I’m sorry - how does procreation relate to these two examples? What is it that is lost in procreation?

My point is that the rules as ‘agreed’ cannot be applied strictly because this renders the game unplayable. — 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

If you believe there is a game to played, then you need to determine a different set of rules. — Possibility

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

What is it that is lost in procreation? — Possibility

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?

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

‘The game’ is existence, not just procreation. So rendering the game of existence unplayable IS an issue.

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

Determining a different set of rules doesn’t maintain the game - the game is being played, whether you like it or not - you just don’t understand what the rules are. You’ve arrived at what you think are the rules, even though you’ve found that following them renders the game unplayable, and so you’ve decided that the game should not be attempted anymore. But you have no control over the game. Whether you choose to prioritise your individual claim to autonomy over existence is up to you, but it won’t change the brute fact of existence, even if you choose not to play. 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.

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

Again, you’re removing something from someone whose potential is already recognised as a human being, with all that it entails. So what is it that is lost or removed in procreation? If you don’t know, then how is it similar to these analogies you’ve provided?

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

So there are two problematic things from this.

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.

2) 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).

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.

‘The game’ is existence, not just procreation. So rendering the game of existence unplayable IS an issue. — Possibility

I know what "the game" stands for. This doesn't answer the question at all, it just says "it's an issue"

Determining a different set of rules doesn’t maintain the game - the game is being played, whether you like it or not — Possibility

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

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

People only get hurt in games when the players don’t follow the rules - not their own rules. — Possibility

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.

Again, you’re removing something from someone whose potential is already recognised as a human being, with all that it entails — Possibility

"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

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

I’m not denying that rooting ethics in autonomy is the only thing that ensures everyone acts with respect to autonomy. I’m arguing that autonomy is not a workable principle in a universal sense in the first place. Even if you got everyone to play by these rules of yours, the only ideal state is simply not to play the game. But what if your rules and your whole understanding of the game is wrong? What if the game is not played by individuals at all?

You assume that existence is individual - but that’s only a perception. The way I see it, all of existence is an interconnected, collaborative effort that isn’t yet fully aware of itself. So autonomy is a misunderstanding based on ignorance, isolation and exclusion. The ideal of an ‘autonomous’ anything (country, individual, etc) is a gross misconception: one that generates more harm and force than most of us are willing to acknowledge. It is your assumption that ‘autonomy’ is the aim of the game that renders the game unplayable - not the game itself.

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

No, I’m not saying that an individual must play the game at all. Procreation is not made at an individual level - it is always a connected and collaborative effort, and happens with or without conscious individual input. Don’t get me wrong - a conscious decision to procreate is a self-absorbed act of ignorance and irresponsible resource management, but it is NOT an act of force or harm on an individual. There is no ‘individual future person’ to be harmed at this point: there is only a connected and collaborative effort that lacks awareness.

At the point that you are self-aware and see yourself as an individual, you can choose to ignore, isolate and exclude at your leisure. You can get roped into a game within the game, with its own rules, and be convinced that these rules are ‘good’ for you, that being an individual is THE most important part of the game, and come to the conclusion that the game simply cannot be played by an individual according to these ‘good’ rules. But you’ve lost sight of the real game - one where the individual is simply a step towards maximising awareness, connection and collaboration...

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.

and happens with or without conscious individual input. — Possibility

It doesn't have to be. There's not much here except accidental birth for "without conscious" individual input.

There is no ‘individual future person’ to be harmed at this point: there is only a connected and collaborative effort that lacks awareness. — 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.

But you’ve lost sight of the real game - one where the individual is simply a step towards maximising awareness, connection and collaboration... — Possibility

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.

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

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.

I know what "the game" stands for. This doesn't answer the question at all, it just says "it's an issue" — khaled

Existence cannot be nullified by what exists.

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

I agree that we should not procreate. I disagree with the ethical perspective that supports it here. Negative ethics that has no corresponding positive ethics is an incomplete ethical perspective that results in nullifying existence. 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.

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

I get the frustration that those who say they live by the principles of autonomy, non-aggression and non-harm are ignorant of its application to procreation. My argument is that this is one of many reasons why these principles are flawed.

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

Again, I am not against antinatalism as such. I am against the ethical perspective from which it is argued. The primacy of autonomy and individualism is harmful in practise, and no amount of antinatalism can prevent that.

"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

I disagree that these are the only two choices. Anyone can interact with a potential child in a number of ways that we understand to be beneficial or harmful to the existing potential - including genetic modification, drug use, contraception, mother’s nutrition, alcohol and smoking, physical activity, etc. But the only interaction they can have with a possible child is to determine the value or significance of that possibility in relation to the potential or actual universe. 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.

Existence cannot be nullified by what exists. — Possibility

Uhhh yes it can? WATCH ME jumps off building

Drawing the conclusion that no one should exist if they have the option — Possibility

A person (a "one") cannot choose not to have existed. The choice has already been made.

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

Another baseless claim

My argument is that this is one of many reasons why these principles are flawed. — Possibility

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

The primacy of autonomy and individualism is harmful in practise, and no amount of antinatalism can prevent that. — Possibility

I haven't referred to primacy of autonomy or individualism

interact with a potential child — Possibility

makes no sense. There is no such thing as "potential child"

genetic modification, drug use, contraception, mother’s nutrition, alcohol and smoking, physical activity, etc — Possibility

are examples of things you do which will affect someone later down the line but that someone doesn't exist yet.

a possible child — Possibility

Neither is there a thing called "possible child"

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

This doesn't actually harm anyone though as I'm sure you're aware since you put harm in quotation marks

I agree that we should not procreate. — Possibility

Why? I'm curious

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

Refer to my answer to khaled above.

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

How do you think we make choices, and how do we allow others to make choices for us? I’m not referring to an outside force, but to the underlying process of cause and effect. 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.

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

Well, there’s a lot to this perspective that requires a paradigm shift, so I’m only dealing with specific challenges as they come up. I’m open to anyone pointing out evidence to the contrary, of course. I’ve been discussing my perspective with Brett on the ‘what is truth?’ and ‘Simplicity-Complexity’ threads recently, but they’re getting derailed.

Sometimes the jump is necessary - a hypothesis to be tested, if you will. I’ve been refining the theory for some time now against a number of alternative perspectives, so I’m not precious about any of it.

Existence cannot be nullified by what exists.
— Possibility

Uhhh yes it can? WATCH ME *jumps off building* — khaled

Individually, yes - and I’ve already acknowledged that. But existence cannot be nullified in itself. Why do you continue to exist, when you believe that no one should exist, and that demonstrating the truth of it is as simple as jumping off a building?

A person (a "one") cannot choose not to have existed. The choice has already been made. — khaled

No choice has been made. A person exists. You think they shouldn’t, and believe that someone is to blame for this. That’s it.

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

Yeah, I’m not good with logic arguments. I realise that this can be frustrating for you, if that’s what you’re used to. But my failure to structure an argument logically is a demonstration of my skill with the language of logic, not necessarily a demonstration of the validity of the argument. Feel free to structure it for me, and I’ll try to keep up.

The way I see it, you’re arguing for the negation of existence from a position which, in itself, disproves your premise.

Of course, I could agree with your premise that no individual should exist, and then argue that it doesn’t nullify existence, only individual existence. I could go with that.

I haven't referred to primacy of autonomy or individualism — khaled

So you don’t agree with this:

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

If not, then I’m curious how you’d explain your statement: “anything that prioritises [existence] over the individual is just plain wrong”?

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

The reason I put ‘harm’ in quotation marks is because the term refers to a subjective concept. ‘Harm’ is always relative to the perspective of the one being ‘harmed’. I’ve done this here because I see harm being done where you don’t.

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. This is why people get upset with your framing of procreation as ‘immoral’. It argues that a possible individual (which is who you are arguing for) is valuable to its possible self, but cannot have value or significance in relation to anyone else - even though a possible individual can only have value in relation to what exists to even consider its possibility. You use the word ‘future’ as if that reifies the possible individual to the point where it is entitled to sufficient autonomy to evaluate its own possible existence. 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, which is flawed, and disregarding the value that possible child has for anyone else.

I agree that we should not procreate.
— Possibility

Why? I'm curious — khaled

My basic argument is laid out here.

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

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.

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.

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

I'm going to include @Possibility, in this being that I assume he/she agrees with your response..

How does interpretation of "collaboration" bypass my objection of it? What sort of "Logos" do you suppose is underlying the universe such that any decision can agree or disagree with it? Is this a re-hashed Daoism? There is a "Way" of the universe, and all our decisions are informed by it?

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".

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.

How does interpretation of "collaboration" — schopenhauer1

Sorry but I don't feel any affinity with the word Collaboration. Collaborate is what I do with my colleagues.

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

no, I don’t assume that reality is collaborating at all. In most situations, the rest of the universe is only capable of a very limited collaboration. And I think I’ve already said that humans don’t have to do anything. We have such an enormous and varied capacity for collaboration, and yet we’re not obliged to collaborate in any way. We certainly don’t have to procreate - but I think we’ve been over this ground.

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

I’m not suggesting there is a specific path we, or even you specifically, have to follow - if that’s what you mean by ‘the Way’. If you make a decision that makes you suffer, I might suggest that there is something about the situation you’re not aware of, or refusing to acknowledge. Suffering often refers to what is called ‘prediction error’. How we conceptualise the world allows us to make predictions about our interactions. When these conceptualisations don’t correspond to reality, we suffer from prediction error: pain, for instance, refers to an error in budgeting for required energy, attention or effort.

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

Well, everything changes, things don’t have to be a certain way and I agree that we have choices, so I’m not sure where these assumptions are coming from about my perspective. The first step to making a change is understanding our reality for what it IS, not just what it should be. This means accepting the pain or humiliation of our prediction error, and being aware of where our conceptualisation of the world may be mistaken. 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.

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

Evolution works on the principle of trial and error so I suppose that is the most 'intelligent' approach.

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

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.

Evolution works on the principle of trial and error so I suppose that is the most 'intelligent' approach. — ovdtogt

Not sure what context this was in based on what you quoted, but my point earlier is that if life is about trial-and-error, it is NOT good to put more people by way of procreation into a trial-and-error experiment. There's also many parts of life that are not trial-and-error. People's personalities are pretty fixed. Often there is collateral damage of many kinds that are hard to overcome in general, that even trial-and-error cannot fix. Also, just the mere fact that one must overcome challenges is something to examine. Is that something we should be forcing others into?

Individually, yes - and I’ve already acknowledged that. But existence cannot be nullified in itself — Possibility

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

when you believe that no one should exist, — Possibility

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

A person exists. You think they shouldn’t — Possibility

Please point to the line where I said this. This makes it sound like I want to kill them. If a person exists already then they obviously should exist, because ending their life at that point is painful/harmful (most of the time (euthanasia)). But that doesn't justify bringing another person into existence because that is guaranteed to harm that person.

If you exist, the course of least harm is to continue to exist. If you don't exist, the course of least harm is to continue not existing.

Feel free to structure it for me — Possibility

I can't do that. I can't hop into your mind and see what you're trying to say

The way I see it, you’re arguing for the negation of existence from a position which, in itself, disproves your premise. — Possibility

How so? Could you try laying out my premises and conclusions as you see them. Actually I'll do that

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

It's really that simple. Notice how no mention of "we shouldn't exist" has been made. I think just about everyone that talks about antinatalism on this site thinks it's a soft form of "I wanna kill everyone" but it really isn't

“anything that prioritises [existence] over the individual is just plain wrong”? — Possibility

I don't think any concept's "goals" are significant. America doesn't have goals. Humanity doesn't have goals. "Nature" doesn't have goals. All of these are concepts we made up, they don't have a subjective experience. That why anything that works to further the "goals of America" for example at the expense of the individuals is wrong for me. Say, Japan was struggling from a decreasing population (which it is). It would be very problematic if a politician suggests "state enforced reproduction" even though that definitely serves "the goals of Japan" which would include longevity.

the term refers to a subjective concept. ‘Harm’ is always relative to the perspective of the one being ‘harmed’ — Possibility

Ok

I see harm being done where you don’t. — Possibility

By your own rule: Who's the "one" being harmed in this case whose perspective you're using. We're talking about "harm to unborn children" here. So where is this "person with a perspective" you're talking about? (If you meant by "one" the living person or people to whom the child would have been valuable then I get you now)

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

Ah that's what you're talking about. I'm not denying that value, I just don't think it's significant in the least. First of all, there is always the chance that a possible child would be a harm of other people. Secondly: there is no actual harm done in not having a child in terms of the people he might have helped. Let me explain. If Beethoven hadn't been born, no one would have been harmed. No one would have sat around and said "Oh I feel so much anguish that I can't find good music. Curse everyone who don't have as many children as possible! I know one of those unborn children would have been a music genius" that's ridiculous.

Among all the possible children that could have been there is a genius who would find a new physics law that would allow us to have flying cars. Do you feel any suffering due to the fact that that genius hasn't been born? No (at least I hope so). Isn't it true that that genius would have had massive value for countless people? Yes. So the mere fact that a child would have had value for others doesn't mean that not having him is denying the value he would have had OR that not having him harms anyone. So it's ok to not have him. It's bad to have him because that harms him, even if it helps others. Helping others is not mandatory, not harming them is.

It argues that a possible individual — Possibility

I'm not arguing for "possible individuals" those don't exist

but cannot have value or significance in relation to anyone else — Possibility

I never said this first of all but also I just showed why even if they would have value for others that's not a good reason to have them

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 think most children would be happy. I also think one shouldn't have children.

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 whole idea of ‘force’ is incongruous with increasing awareness, connection and collaboration. If you are upholding these as principles, then you cannot knowingly ‘force’ anything on anyone, and you cannot be knowingly ‘forced’ into a situation where you have no choices available. 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’. This doesn’t fit with the idea of individual autonomy, though - which you deem to be of utmost important. 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.

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. When we suffer, it is from ignorance, isolation or exclusion. The only way out of that suffering is to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. 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.

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

It may be possible, but that doesn’t end existence as a whole.

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

And I agree with you that we shouldn’t procreate. What I don’t agree with is that the individual is more important than existence. That is what you walked into between myself and @“schopenhauer1”. I’m sorry if I assumed you supported his ethical perspective. That’s how it appeared.

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

Thank you for laying it out for me. My issue is with the ethical perspective, not with antinatalism, as such.

So I disagree with with your first premise, because there is no way of knowing for certain how much harm you may inadvertently cause with your action. So you could evaluate (by some subjective or arbitrary measure) that your harmful act to alleviate harm is less harmful than what you’re alleviating, but that just invites others who are harmed by your actions to commit harmful acts in an attempt to alleviate their own harm - which by your premise, they are entitled to do.

Your second premise makes no sense to me at all. The value you’re attributing to pain is a subjective measurement. You can’t say what is ‘enough pain’ for someone else, and you can’t declare objectively that the temporal aspect of an action ‘doesn’t matter’.

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

But this is not what I said. I said that you do not have the choice to have no choices. Again, from what I said earlier, and you keep overlooking this: 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.

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

I don't know what you meant here.

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

Self-justifying prophecy when applied to the issue we are discussing.

When we suffer, it is from ignorance, isolation or exclusion. — Possibility

But how are people put into this situation in the first place? You already recognized you are an antinatalist, so I am guessing this is something that takes place after the first option has already been not followed?

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

And thus what I said earlier which you also overlooked in your response:


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".