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

Ok. I'm still not sure how this is relevant. What does our ability to end existence have to do with whether or not it's morally fine to have children

the individual is more important than existence. — Possibility

I agree with that. It's what I'm saying here:

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. — khaled

"Existence" is just another concept that doesn't actually have goals or a will but to whom we like to ascribe those properties. Humans actually have a subjective experience, goals and a will though so we should focus on those first I think.

knowing for certain how much harm you may inadvertently cause with your action. — Possibility

Sure so act within your best knowledge. You can absolutely know for certain that:
some amount of suffering > no amount of suffering
And procreation takes you from the right hand side to the left

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. — Possibility

Oh I agree there are countless problems with applying this premise in real life (as with any sort of intuitive morality) and that these measures are arbitrary and all that. But as I said:
You can absolutely know for certain that:
some amount of suffering > no amount of suffering
And procreation takes you from the right hand side to the left

You can’t say what is ‘enough pain’ for someone else — Possibility

Sure I cannot. But I can surmise that the suffering of a given couple over not having children is less than the suffering the child will experience their entire life. I think that's an evaluation you would agree with no? If a specific couple truely wants children SO BADLY that their suffering due to not having children is likely to be more than all the suffering their children will experience in a lifetime (keeping in mind their children will also face the same suffering due to wanting children and there is no reason to believe it will be less for the children than their parents) then sure they can have children all they want. I think anyone who believes this is narcassistic and delusional though.

and you can’t declare objectively that the temporal aspect of an action ‘doesn’t matter’. — Possibility

None of this is objective. There is no objectivity in ethics. But we both agreed that genetic modification to an egg or sperm is still wrong even if the harmful action takes place before the harmed individual exists so I thought we agreed on this.

Humanity’s objective responsibility towards existence — Possibility

Doesn't exist as far as I define "responsibility" and "existence". First off you can't be "responsible" to a concept. I can't be responsible to the color blue to make sure to paint as many things blue as possible

A reality can be seen as flawed when it begins to destroy itself. — Possibility

I don't understand the use of "reality" there. How does a "reality" destroy itself

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. — schopenhauer1

You can argue about the existence of potential or possible persons, but this is what you’re referring to when you talk about a ‘future’ person (or the concept of a person regardless of time) - particularly in relation to ‘force’. A force cannot act against a future or past existence - only against their potential or possibility. That’s basic physics. A force acting in physics can only act on the values of what exists in time.

A force acting on an actual person existing in time can be against their physical existence or against their will. In the later case there must be a will (a faculty which determines and initiates action) operating in time that has some value for the force to act against.

A force acting on a potential person - someone who is not born yet, although there is currently awareness, connection and collaboration towards achieving that potential - is a moral issue of behaviour in time only against this potential: against the value of this awareness, connection and collaboration that goes into forming the concept of an actual person in the future.

But this is different again from a force acting on a possible person, which is where you are operating here. An act of force on a ‘possible person’ in time can only be against the possibility of a person existing in the future: this is the only existence in time here that has a value to be acted against. So those applying any ‘force’ against this ‘possible person’ would be you and @khaled.

So, yes - it could be deemed ‘wrong’ to use force, but if ‘force’ is an act against the value of what exists in time, then perhaps you’re the ones attempting to use force here.

Well, I don’t believe any ethical demands are valid from an objective standpoint. Ethical demands fail to take into account the perspective of the person to whom you are making these demands. So at best, what you refer to as an ‘ethical demand’ is merely an expression of an ethical perspective. A sound ethical system in my book would enable you to understand why someone would choose to do what they shouldn’t, and to guide them towards doing what they should - without requiring you to do what you shouldn’t. Otherwise, how can it be the truth? — Possibility

It’s exactly because it’s valid from an object standpoint that it can be called a demand. It’s not my subjective understanding of what is happening to person about to make an ethical choice that makes up the demand. I may be wrong so I’m not making any demands, only the ethical system that I subscribe to is making demands. If I support a system that demands Thou shalt not lie (just an example), I’m only saying that if x is a lie, you shouldn’t tell x. I’m not making a judgment about whether x is actually a lie in a particular situation, so I’m not making a concrete demand on you.

A sound ethical system, in my opinion, should do exactly what you are saying, namely take into account the perspective of the actor. I don’t know what makes a person choose to act a certain way, so I have no right to judge or demand anything in a concrete case. All I can say is that IF x, y and z are the case, then the ethical system I subscribe to demands action A to be taken.

This thread is about the distinction between positive and negative ethics and my claim is that negative ethics (the system, not a mere person like myself) can make demands, whereas positive ethics is mostly restricted to make recommendations.

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? — schopenhauer1

Just because I agree that procreation is not a good choice doesn’t mean I would refer to myself as an antinatalist. Antinatalism argues from a moral standpoint, but I don’t see it as a moral issue. The way I see it, how people got into a situation is only relevant to how they should act once there IF how they act has contributed to how they got there. If it’s not something you can change (ie. it happened in the past, before you were aware of its impact) then why waste effort on it that could be better spent collaborating to effect change where you can?

So those applying any ‘force’ against this ‘possible person’ would be you and khaled. — Possibility

I never used the word "force" (or maybe I did but that would be just senseless emotional appeal) and I never used "possible person"

It’s exactly because it’s valid from an object standpoint that it can be called a demand. It’s not my subjective understanding of what is happening to person about to make an ethical choice that makes up the demand. I may be wrong so I’m not making any demands, only the ethical system that I subscribe to is making demands. If I support a system that demands Thou shalt not lie (just an example), I’m only saying that if x is a lie, you shouldn’t tell x. I’m not making a judgment about whether x is actually a lie in a particular situation, so I’m not making a concrete demand on you.

A sound ethical system, in my opinion, should do exactly what you are saying, namely take into account the perspective of the actor. I don’t know what makes a person choose to act a certain way, so I have no right to judge or demand anything in a concrete case. All I can say is that IF x, y and z are the case, then the ethical system I subscribe to demands action A to be taken.

This thread is about the distinction between positive and negative ethics and my claim is that negative ethics (the system, not a mere person like myself) can make demands, whereas positive ethics is mostly restricted to make recommendations. — Congau

So are you saying that when an individual subscribes to an ethical system, they bind themselves to that system and are therefore no longer in a position to question the demands of that system? Does an ethical system exist in and of itself? What is an individual’s relationship to that ethical system?

The way I see it, the act of making a demand such as ‘thou shalt not lie’, writing it down and sharing it with others reduces the information of the much more complex ethical system that inspired the demand to a series of one dimensional marks on a page in history. So the act of trying to understand what that demand means regardless of when it was written, by whom and in what language suggests that there is a more objective standpoint than may be reliably conveyed by the demand. It’s like drawing three straight sides and wondering why no one else understands that it’s a table - the real information isn’t in the lines, but in the complex, multi-dimensional relational structures that inform those lines.

Plus, evidence of conflicting ethical systems suggests that there is a more objective standpoint than this particular ethical system may even be aware of. The perspective of a particular ethical or value system is not an objective standpoint, it only claims to be. That there is something ‘wrong’ with the world is an indication that an ethical system is subjective. As a relational system of subjective value structures, it’s limited - firstly by a certain amount of ignorance, isolation and exclusion in the structure itself, and secondly by the reductive process required to make demands.

My claim is that both positive and negative ethics should work in harmony to reach an objective ethical standpoint. Where they contradict or cancel each other out, the subscribed ethics are necessarily flawed. The idea of ethics is to eventually arrive at a conceptualisation of reality, particularly in relation to behaviour, that works in practice. I don’t see the ethical argument behind antinatalism as working towards this at all.

What does our ability to end existence have to do with whether or not it's morally fine to have children

the individual is more important than existence.
— Possibility

I agree with that. It's what I'm saying here:
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.
— khaled

"Existence" is just another concept that doesn't actually have goals or a will but to whom we like to ascribe those properties. Humans actually have a subjective experience, goals and a will though so we should focus on those first I think. — khaled

An individual is as much a concept as existence. That we only talk about humans as having a ‘will’ and then prioritise that will is a symptom of anthropocentrism in how we conceptualise our experience.

We have focused on our own subjective experience, goals and will for thousands of years, continuing to ignore, isolate and exclude the subjective experience, goals and will of others as it suits us. What our ‘suffering’ (from prediction error) and impending eco-crisis demonstrates is that the individual is NOT more important than existence - that we are an integral part of ‘something’ broader, which we are too self-absorbed to acknowledge because we might be humbled by it - and that might cause us to ‘suffer’ even more.

That ‘the individual is more important than existence’ is a gross misconception that causes more suffering than it can hope to remove by discouraging procreation on moral grounds. That the individual is more important to the individual is obvious. But the individual is just another concept drawn from how we perceive reality.

If we are certain of nothing else, we are certain that something exists. I’m thinking we should focus on that first.

You can absolutely know for certain that:
some amount of suffering > no amount of suffering
And procreation takes you from the right hand side to the left — khaled

There is nothing in this statement that can be absolutely known for certain. The symbol > refers to a logical value relation that is dependent on the value structure to which it refers. ‘Suffering’ is also a subjective concept of value, which is commonly negative in relation to the individual to whom it refers.

So anything you can KNOW from this statement is entirely dependent on the value attributed to each element by each individual. There are three main ways you can go from here: you can attempt to isolate each individual as the master of their own reality; you can attempt a majority consensus of value structures (an ethical system) as the most probable structure of reality; OR you can hypothesise a dimensional structure to reality that exists regardless of individual or ‘majority’ relational structures of value.

I’m working on the third option because I think it’s more scientifically sound, but I understand that the probability option appears more ‘logical’ to many people. The problem is that ‘logic’ is itself a limited value structure in relation to our experience of reality - it cannot fully account for how human beings relate to each other. This is because probability is structured to ignore, isolate or exclude anomalous information.

You can argue about the existence of potential or possible persons, but this is what you’re referring to when you talk about a ‘future’ person (or the concept of a person regardless of time) - particularly in relation to ‘force’. A force cannot act against a future or past existence - only against their potential or possibility. That’s basic physics. A force acting in physics can only act on the values of what exists in time.

A force acting on an actual person existing in time can be against their physical existence or against their will. In the later case there must be a will (a faculty which determines and initiates action) operating in time that has some value for the force to act against. — Possibility

I'm sorry but this doesn't have much bearing here. When someone is born, THAT is the force. Preventing the "force" of the action (which is the time the child comes into existence). At that time X (when the child comes into existence) is when the force takes place. By preventing the "force" one is preventing that X time from happening. It is as simple as that.

But this is different again from a force acting on a possible person, which is where you are operating here. An act of force on a ‘possible person’ in time can only be against the possibility of a person existing in the future: this is the only existence in time here that has a value to be acted against. So those applying any ‘force’ against this ‘possible person’ would be you and khaled. — Possibility

Same answer as above.

So, yes - it could be deemed ‘wrong’ to use force, but if ‘force’ is an act against the value of what exists in time, then perhaps you’re the ones attempting to use force here. — Possibility

This makes no sense based on your own objections. No one actually exists prior to their existence to be forced or harmed. Once born, the force has taken place. That is the asymmetry that has to be reckoned with.

Just because I agree that procreation is not a good choice doesn’t mean I would refer to myself as an antinatalist. Antinatalism argues from a moral standpoint, but I don’t see it as a moral issue. The way I see it, how people got into a situation is only relevant to how they should act once there IF how they act has contributed to how they got there. If it’s not something you can change (ie. it happened in the past, before you were aware of its impact) then why waste effort on it that could be better spent collaborating to effect change where you can? — Possibility

It's not a waste to prevent others from being harmed when it can be prevented- from not letting negative ethics from being violated. We can collaborate regarding the original harm being done :D. All politics, and everything else starts from being born in the first place. This HAS to be addressed for anything else to matter.. By the way, this sentiment is separate from my more formal antinatalism argument. However, you brought up what to do after we, the already-born are here.

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

If we perceive something ‘wrong’ in our experience of reality, then there is something wrong with our perception of it - not with the experience or with reality. The thing about suffering is that we’ve been deluded into thinking that we should be avoiding it, not working through it. When we were children, we suffered from prediction error all the time: we conceptualised the world, experienced pain, loss and humiliation because we got it wrong, and then made adjustments to our concepts. As adults we think we’re past that - we have created a system outside of ourselves - so when our concepts clash with reality, we think the fault lies with reality. And so we continue to suffer from prediction error and complain that the world doesn’t match the predictions of our ‘foolproof’ system.

I’m certainly not suggesting that we passively accept the world as it IS. I’m suggesting that we strive for a better understanding of how the world WORKS BEST TOGETHER, in order to more effectively collaborate in achieving that. The ‘individual’ is irrelevant to an existence without ‘suffering’ - I think we can agree on that. So an individual without suffering cannot exist. You’ve chosen the individual - I’ve chosen existence because it’s the only certainty I have.

I'm sorry but this doesn't have much bearing here. When someone is born, THAT is the force. Preventing the "force" of the action (which is the time the child comes into existence). At that time X (when the child comes into existence) is when the force takes place. By preventing the "force" one is preventing that X time from happening. It is as simple as that. — schopenhauer1

What exactly do you believe constitutes the ‘force’ of a child coming into existence? Is it labour? Is it the whole pregnancy? Is it conception? You seem to be describing this ‘force’ as an event which is in reality a collaboration of events, each with their own ‘force’ of collaborative action. You can’t just declare that ‘force’ means something different here. To prevent the ‘force’ of collaborative action that constitutes a child being born, you would need to address more than the morality of the parents at the time that child is born. By then it’s too late.

What exactly do you believe constitutes the ‘force’ of a child coming into existence? Is it labour? Is it the whole pregnancy? Is it conception? — Possibility

It actually doesn't matter. You can believe it's conception.. you can believe it's the time of identity formation. It has no bearing. A red herring.

You seem to be describing this ‘force’ as an event which is in reality a collaboration of events, each with their own ‘force’ of collaborative action. — Possibility

That can be said of any event. What prevents all parts of the event(s) leading to a full existence is not procreating in the first place from the very start.

To prevent the ‘force’ of collaborative action that constitutes a child being born, you would need to address more than the morality of the parents at the time that child is born. By then it’s too late. — Possibility

Sure. I don't care where you want to set up the prevention. I don't want to make this a debate about abortion. The point is to prevent birth. At which point this should count, is a separate debate.

All politics, and everything else starts from being born in the first place. This HAS to be addressed for anything else to matter.. — schopenhauer1

I agree that our being born should not be declared evidence that ‘procreation is good/necessary’. In order for our being born to matter, our own existence must be deemed our BEST opportunity to effect change in the world - not simply a step towards ‘creating’ someone else with a maybe better chance of achieving. It’s a cop-out, a cowardly attempt to pass the buck, as well as ignorance and hubris to consider that the best possible use of my capacity for awareness, connection and collaboration is to simply continue my genetic existence...

But I disagree that it’s an act of force.

You seem to be describing this ‘force’ as an event which is in reality a collaboration of events, each with their own ‘force’ of collaborative action.
— Possibility

That can be said of any event. What prevents all parts of the event(s) leading to a full existence is not procreating in the first place from the very start. — schopenhauer1

Yes - this is why you cannot declare the ‘force’ of an entire event concept to be ‘immoral’. It DOES matter what constitutes that ‘force’, because your evaluation of a collaborative force as immoral renders all participants culpable. If you want to attack the morality of a single participant, then you need to address their specific, conscious contribution to that ‘force’. Which means that you need to consider their interaction with the event well before it occurred in time.

I agree that our being born should not be declared evidence that ‘procreation is good/necessary’. In order for our being born to matter, our own existence must be deemed our BEST opportunity to effect change in the world - not simply a step towards ‘creating’ someone else with a maybe better chance of achieving. It’s a cop-out, a cowardly attempt to pass the buck, as well as ignorance and hubris to consider that the best possible use of my capacity for awareness, connection and collaboration is to simply continue my genetic existence... — Possibility

Ok, I agree there.

Yes - this is why you cannot declare the ‘force’ of an entire event concept to be ‘immoral’. It DOES matter what constitutes that ‘force’, because your evaluation of a collaborative force as immoral renders all participants culpable. — Possibility

No, no, no. If someone murders someone else, it is not the universe's fault and thus no one is directly culpable. That itself is a cop-out.

If you want to attack the morality of a single participant, then you need to address their specific, conscious contribution to that ‘force’. Which means that you need to consider their interaction with the event well before it occurred in time. — Possibility

Don't create the new person, period. If it's live birth, it's parents. If it is a test tube baby, it's the components of that. It is not hard to point to what was a direct cause of birth of something.

An individual is as much a concept as existence. That we only talk about humans as having a ‘will’ and then prioritise that will is a symptom of anthropocentrism in how we conceptualise our experience. — Possibility

Ok then existence is a concept made up by another concept. A concept squared. The point is "existence" doesn't have a subjective experience as far as we know. Do you think existence feels hurt when someone doesn't have a kid? If not then why should we prioritize existence's "goal" over our own?

continuing to ignore, isolate and exclude the subjective experience, goals and will of others as it suits us. — Possibility

Existence isn't an "other". It's not a human

What our ‘suffering’ (from prediction error) and impending eco-crisis demonstrates is that the individual is NOT more important than existence — Possibility

Let me unpack this a bit. So you're saying our suffering due to not taking care of the environment shows that existence is more important than the individual? How exactly?

All it shows is that had we focused on "serving the goals of existence" more we wouldn't have messed up the planet as much and wouldn't have suffered as much. That's completely different from saying that we SHOULD "serve the goals of existence". You can't derive a should from an is. The statement you provide is an is (we would've been better off if we had focused on sustainable development more in line with "existence's goals") and we cannot conclude from it a should

that we are an integral part of ‘something’ broader, which we are too self-absorbed to acknowledge because we might be humbled by it - and that might cause us to ‘suffer’ even more. — Possibility

I understand that we are an integral part of a wider natural system. Why does that mean we should serve said system?

That ‘the individual is more important than existence’ is a gross misconception that causes more suffering than it can hope to remove — Possibility

Really? It ends up removing all of human suffering that would have occurred from now until our extinction if implemented correctly. I say that's a lot of suffering removed at the relatively small price of a single generation suffering

If we are certain of nothing else, we are certain that something exists. I’m thinking we should focus on that first. — Possibility

Ok. Something exists. So we should reproduce?

That the individual is more important to the individual is obvious. But the individual is just another concept drawn from how we perceive reality. — Possibility

Well I'm the individual so why should I care about anything that is not as important to me as me?

‘Suffering’ is also a subjective concept of value, which is commonly negative in relation to the individual to whom it refers. — Possibility

Incorrect. I define suffering as "any experience you value negatively and wish to avoid". In other words: whatever experience you value negatively. So it's not just "commonly negative" it's always negative. So I don't need to deal with this:

So anything you can KNOW from this statement is entirely dependent on the value attributed to each element by each individual — Possibility

Because the word "suffering" will mean different experiences for different individuals.

No, no, no. If someone murders someone else, it is not the universe's fault and thus no one is directly culpable. That itself is a cop-out. — schopenhauer1

I’m aware of that. If someone murders someone else, you can trace it back to a single, conscious act of force against an actual existence, which renders them culpable. What you’re referring to here is not the same thing - I’m asking you to show me a single, conscious act of ‘force’ against an actual existence which would render the actor culpable, and you’re talking about the ‘immorality’ of a collaborative event.

Don't create the new person, period. If it's live birth, it's parents. If it is a test tube baby, it's the components of that. It is not hard to point to what was a direct cause of birth of something. — schopenhauer1

Again, you’re referring to collaborative efforts, not an act of ‘force’. I’m trying to point out that what you’re calling ‘immoral’ cannot be identified as such because there is no single, conscious act of ‘force’ by an agent in time that can be defined as procreation. It IS hard to point to what act was a direct cause of the birth of something. You can point to key contributors, sure. But you have yet to pinpoint the act of ‘force’ you seem to think exists here.

Ok then existence is a concept made up by another concept. A concept squared. The point is "existence" doesn't have a subjective experience as far as we know. Do you think existence feels hurt when someone doesn't have a kid? If not then why should we prioritize existence's "goal" over our own? — khaled

I’m wondering where you got the idea that I think existence has a goal. I’ve said that I believe existence has an underlying impetus, but that’s not the same thing at all. And I’m only saying we ‘should’ align our conscious actions with that impetus because I believe doing so will ALWAYS reduce suffering - it just might not be your suffering in particular at the time. I will say it again: no one HAS to do anything.

When I use the term ‘existence’, I’m referring to everything that exists, including you and me, your great-great grandfather’s dog, and a dwarf star in a distant solar system, for instance. Yes, it’s conceptual, but it’s an all-inclusive concept. I’m not saying that ‘existence’ wants us to procreate - in fact I would suggest the opposite, and I’ve already laid out my argument there, so I’m not sure why you keep assuming I’m arguing for procreation.

This thread was about a particular ethical perspective that supports the common antinatalist argument, which suggests that procreation is ‘forcing’ others into existence and suffering against their will, and therefore violates the negative ethics of ‘don’t use force/aggression’ and ‘don’t harm’ - which, it is argued, should overrule any positive ethics. I’ve argued that a sound ethical system would not contradict its own principles, and that positive ethics and negative ethics must work in harmony, otherwise it demonstrates that the principles themselves are flawed. I’ve also argued that these principles of force/aggression and harm will ALWAYS break down in application to reality - but everyone seems to just sweep that aside as if it’s insignificant. It’s like everyone’s forgotten that ethics is an area of philosophy, whose ultimate aim is a workable understanding of the universal reality of existence - not a prescription to ‘fix’ reality, to make it more suited to our needs.

Again, you’re referring to collaborative efforts, not an act of ‘force’. I’m trying to point out that what you’re calling ‘immoral’ cannot be identified as such because there is no single, conscious act of ‘force’ by an agent in time that can be defined as procreation. It IS hard to point to what act was a direct cause of the birth of something. You can point to key contributors, sure. But you have yet to pinpoint the act of ‘force’ you seem to think exists here. — Possibility

IT DOESN'T MATTER. Whatever place you put the X time of the person being "born" is the time X of the force. That is a red herring!

In a murder, you can say it was also hard to define "when".. What makes it murder is a couple factors that have to come together- intent, planning, the actual act itself.. etc. Maybe the guy survived actually, but the doctor did something that actually caused the final demise of the person.

You are trying to find this wiggle room around "force". It doesn't have to be "crisp". It can be fuzzy. What you need to create another person is two parents. At which point you deem the "force" is another matter (conception, gestation, primary consciousness, secondary consciousness, birth, identity, etc.).

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

:lol:

In a murder, you can say it was also hard to define "when".. What makes it murder is a couple factors that have to come together- intent, planning, the actual act itself.. etc. Maybe the guy survived actually, but the doctor did something that actually caused the final demise of the person. — schopenhauer1

Exactly - if the actual cause of death was proven to be a specific act committed by the doctor, then what was initially thought to be ‘murder’ could be downgraded to ‘manslaughter’. So it does have to be crisp. Incidentally, the manslaughter charge doesn’t necessarily shift culpability to the doctor, of course.

What you need to create another person is two parents. At which point you deem the "force" is another matter (conception, gestation, primary consciousness, secondary consciousness, birth, identity, etc.). — schopenhauer1

But you still haven’t shown that the parents committed a conscious act of ‘force’. You show the parents, and then you show the ‘suffering individual’ who didn’t HAVE to exist (and I agree with you there), and you expect us to ‘naturally’ conclude that there was an act of ‘force’ committed by the parents in creating that suffering individual? Nope.

I will agree that the parents contributed significantly, and are primarily responsible for that ‘individual’ from the point they become aware of its actual OR potential existence. But you have yet to convince me that they’ve acted with aggression or force against an individual.

Incidentally, the manslaughter charge doesn’t necessarily shift culpability to the doctor, of course. — Possibility

So, I never claimed that most parents are thinking, "I am going to force someone into the world". That is the resultant action. Many people have "good intentions". If someone kidnapped you and brought you to this (what they perceived to be) amazing obstacle course and said you cannot get off it because it will be as good for you as it was for them, are they right in doing this to you because they thought it was good for you? No it isn't. So the force doesn't have to have malintent. I understand well the various reasonings for not thinking of birth as "forcing" someone into anything. But that is the point, to provide a perspective they weren't thinking of earlier. I don't know, slavery might have been thought of as justified at some point too based on conceptions that they didn't consider. (That is being real charitable of course).

But you still haven’t shown that the parents committed a conscious act of ‘force’. You show the parents, and then you show the ‘suffering individual’ who didn’t HAVE to exist (and I agree with you there), and you expect us to ‘naturally’ conclude that there was an act of ‘force’ committed by the parents in creating that suffering individual? Nope.

I will agree that the parents contributed significantly, and are primarily responsible for that ‘individual’ from the point they become aware of its actual OR potential existence. But you have yet to convince me that they’ve acted with aggression or force against an individual. — Possibility

So, I don't think the force matters as to the intent of the force. Someone can force something on someone without knowing it. They may be blissfully ignorant that this is the case. In fact, that might be a reason to keep promoting antinatalism, so people won't be ignorant of it anymore! :).

If someone kidnapped you and brought you to this (what they perceived to be) amazing obstacle course and said you cannot get off it because it will be as good for you as it was for them, are they right in doing this to you because they thought it was good for you? No it isn't. So the force doesn't have to have malintent. I understand well the various reasonings for not thinking of birth as "forcing" someone into anything. But that is the point, to provide a perspective they weren't thinking of earlier. I don't know, slavery might have been thought of as justified at some point too based on conceptions that they didn't consider. (That is being real charitable of course). — schopenhauer1

You keep coming up with analogies that cannot be the same thing. If you chose instead NOT to bring me to this obstacle course, I would still exist, and still have a will that I can exercise independent of you. I could even choose to go on the obstacle course myself, if I thought it might be good. But there is no will to go against prior to existence, and no will that is ‘freed’ by preventing that existence. That’s not a reason to procreate, but it is a reason why you cannot accuse those who do procreate of ‘force’.

So, I don't think the force matters as to the intent of the force. Someone can force something on someone without knowing it. They may be blissfully ignorant that this is the case. In fact, that might be a reason to keep promoting antinatalism, so people won't be ignorant of it anymore! — schopenhauer1

So you’re saying that ‘force’ is in the eye of the beholder? In that case, you can only know that you’ve caused someone to endure something once the action is in the past and one evaluates that action from their own perspective. That’s not force. I’ve already agreed that procreation is an act of ignorance - but it’s not ignorance of a will that doesn’t exist.

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. — khaled

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought your “just cuz” was supposed to indicate an emotional reaction.

Anyway, A+B=B+A is an axiom that’s not derived from a previous premise, that’s true, but it doesn’t mean it can’t be explained and that all you can say is “just cuz”. Put an apple and an orange on a table, the apple to the left and the orange to the right. Now, reshuffle them and place the orange to the left instead. You will see that the same fruits are still on the table, the weight is the same and the colors haven’t changed. That’s an illustration of A+B=B+A. If the student still doesn’t agree or understand, I could do it even more slowly and elaborate until he gets it.

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) — khaled

I’m really curious how you would justify that. If you knew that one blink of your eye would prevent an armageddon, but you refused to blink, that would be an extremely immoral behavior according to my understanding of morality. I could argue for it, but I want to hear your explanation first.

How can you do a favor to NOTHING? — khaled

True, but I was just turning around your argument. The same applies to what you’re saying. How can you harm nothing?

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. — khaled

Well, some people sometimes say: “I wish I had never been born”. If that’s possible, one could also say: “I’m glad I was born”. I think most people would choose the second sentence.

I could argue for it, but I want to hear your explanation first. — Congau

My basic premise is: if he/she didn't cause it, they cannot be punished for not stopping it. Simply because: it's not their fault. Why are you assuming I need to justify MY premise? You're the one proposing that people should be punished for not stopping actions they didn't cause. So if someone was robbing a store and I didn't intervene am I doing something wrong?

True, but I was just turning around your argument. The same applies to what you’re saying. How can you harm nothing? — Congau

You're not harming nothing when you have a child. You're clearly harming the individual born. Sure the ACT of conception itself doesn't harm anyone at the time it is done but that doesn't mean it should be allowed. In the same way that hiding a bear trap in a public park doesn't harm anyone at the time it was set but still shouldn't be allowed (because in both cases the action WILL harm someone)

Well, some people sometimes say: “I wish I had never been born”. If that’s possible, one could also say: “I’m glad I was born”. I think most people would choose the second sentence. — Congau

True. So what?

If the student still doesn’t agree or understand, I could do it even more slowly and elaborate until he gets it. — Congau

And if they still don't? You keep assuming you can convince anyone of anything. That as long as you explain it slowly enough everyone will agree. I don't think that's the case at all.

You keep coming up with analogies that cannot be the same thing. If you chose instead NOT to bring me to this obstacle course, I would still exist, and still have a will that I can exercise independent of you. I could even choose to go on the obstacle course myself, if I thought it might be good. But there is no will to go against prior to existence, and no will that is ‘freed’ by preventing that existence. That’s not a reason to procreate, but it is a reason why you cannot accuse those who do procreate of ‘force’. — Possibility

If the child comes into the universe and upon the millisecond of their arrival, the child was punched in the face, and it is well known that upon birth, one gets punched in the face, is that forcing the child to get punched in the face? Now extend that over the course of a lifetime, and instead of a punch it is all suffering. You don't need a will to go "prior against". You just need to cause something to happen to someone else (that extends into autonomous adulthood) that is not ascertained by the person this is affecting.

So you’re saying that ‘force’ is in the eye of the beholder? In that case, you can only know that you’ve caused someone to endure something once the action is in the past and one evaluates that action from their own perspective. That’s not force. I’ve already agreed that procreation is an act of ignorance - but it’s not ignorance of a will that doesn’t exist. — Possibility

No I am not saying that at all. I'll say it different. It matters not whether there was bad intent regarding procreation. The fact that someone was forced is what matters- good intentions or not. That's why the analogy of the obstacle course is in fact apt. Would it matter if prior to that person's existence, there was no actual person? What if I upped the stakes like Khaled has stated, and said that the child would immediately upon existence experience worse things (let's say the parent thought it was good, but the child didn't)? Is that right? It is not intent. It is the fact that it is the violation of non-aggression PLUS the fact that one is causing ALL conditions of harm on another person. Both big nos to do to someone else.

If the child comes into the universe and upon the millisecond of their arrival, the child was punched in the face, and it is well known that upon birth, one gets punched in the face, is that forcing the child to get punched in the face? Now extend that over the course of a lifetime, and instead of a punch it is all suffering. You don't need a will to go "prior against". You just need to cause something to happen to someone else (that extends into autonomous adulthood) that is not ascertained by the person this is affecting. — schopenhauer1

No, it isn’t forcing the child to get punched in the face. The punch in the face is a separate event in which one can identify an act of force. This act of force occurs in time against the actual, existing child. Using passive language doesn’t change the fact that someone does the punching (not necessarily those who contributed to the child coming into the universe), and associating the punch with the child’s arrival doesn’t make them the same event with the same agent.

What do you mean by ‘prior against’? That doesn’t make any sense.

It matters not whether there was bad intent regarding procreation. The fact that someone was forced is what matters- good intentions or not. That's why the analogy of the obstacle course is in fact apt. Would it matter if prior to that person's existence, there was no actual person? What if I upped the stakes like Khaled has stated, and said that the child would immediately upon existence experience worse things (let's say the parent thought it was good, but the child didn't)? Is that right? It is not intent. It is the fact that it is the violation of non-aggression PLUS the fact that one is causing ALL conditions of harm on another person. Both big nos to do to someone else. — schopenhauer1

But you haven’t shown that someone was forced. And again, you’re using passive language to conceal the agent of any force the child may experience immediately after existence, implying that this force (which appears to act against an existing will in time) is the result of bringing the child into existence in the first place. The child’s existence enables an act of force, sure - but it doesn’t cause the act.

I get that you’re looking for a way to prevent further suffering, and that you’ve logically determined the most effective way is to prevent individual existence in the first place. But in my view, it is that existence is individual which causes suffering, not that the individual exists.

No, it isn’t forcing the child to get punched in the face. The punch in the face is a separate event in which one can identify an act of force. This act of force occurs in time against the actual, existing child. Using passive language doesn’t change the fact that someone does the punching (not necessarily those who contributed to the child coming into the universe), and associating the punch with the child’s arrival doesn’t make them the same event with the same agent.

What do you mean by ‘prior against’? That doesn’t make any sense. — Possibility

C'mon Possibility. This is semantic tit-for-tat that I expect from other posters wanting to go down rabbit-holes. If you create the conditions for someone to have X thing happen (punched in the face), then you were the person who caused it, whether indirectly or not. The "force" is the X event of being born. What caused the conditions for that birth? The parent. "Who" created the conditions for the child to be born in the first place? The parent? If you want to say that "force" has to have someone prior to the X to force, I'll use another word- "BLORCE". The parents "BLORCED" the child. I don't care what the actual term used is, the meaning I am conveying is that the child itself had no decision in the matter. It was someone else who made that decision for the child and caused the X event (being born) to happen for the child. This is a violation of non-aggression because at the moment of birth, an effect/affect has happened to a person caused from someone else, that affects that person's whole life and did not involve the actual participant being affected (the child). I am avoiding the word "consent" because that's just another rabbit-hole that I don't think needs to be mined for red herring pate.

What do you mean by ‘prior against’? That doesn’t make any sense. — Possibility

You don't need the person to exist before the event who has a "will" to violate. All you need is for X event to happen that will affect someone that were caused by someone else and not that person that affects them their whole life. That would be what the parents are doing.. Like I said use "blorce" and not force. As long as you get my meaning.

But you haven’t shown that someone was forced. And again, you’re using passive language to conceal the agent of any force the child may experience immediately after existence, implying that this force (which appears to act against an existing will in time) is the result of bringing the child into existence in the first place. The child’s existence enables an act of force, sure - but it doesn’t cause the act. — Possibility

It doesn't matter! If I enabled you to be somewhere you had no choice in, that is that.

I get that you’re looking for a way to prevent further suffering, and that you’ve logically determined the most effective way is to prevent individual existence in the first place. But in my view, it is that existence is individual which causes suffering, not that the individual exists. — Possibility

You have not proved this. You simply assert collaboration, et al. It is pie in the sky and in fact is part of the problem. It is using people for an agenda, or overlooking people's autonomy. Actually, it is self-justifying. If there is no individual, there is no abuse happening, therefore, don't worry about it. Case closed. I don't think so.