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? — schopenhauer1

Three criteria to establish a cause-effect relationship:

• The cause must occur before the effect.
• Whenever the cause occurs, the effect must also occur.
• There must not be another factor that can explain the relationship between the cause and effect.

So, enable is not the same thing as cause. You can cause an effect, but scientifically you can’t conceptualise an event and treat it like a single effect with a single cause. When you arrange the conditions for an event to occur, you are enabling that event, not causing it. It’s a common misconception - a case of anthropocentrism, that we are the sole ‘cause’ of every event in which we are the only conscious contributor to the conditions. It’s a limitation of our legal and moral systems, for obvious reasons, but it isn’t reality. There are many more interactions that contributed to the conditions for that birth than the parents’ conscious actions - and some of those interactions continue to contribute to the existence of that child throughout their life, even if the parents don’t. That these are not conscious contributors should not exclude them as contributors - even though you’re specifically looking for ‘someone’ capable of consciously preventing the event.

I recognise that I appear to be splitting hairs here. But when you charge a parent with ‘violating a principle of non-aggression’ for contributing to a collaborative event, there is something amiss with the conceptualisation. I’m trying to show where the error occurs in relation to reality - not in relation to a moralistic system. So, while I recognise that the parents are considered the ‘moral agents’ within your ethical perspective, the fact that it doesn’t correspond to a broader experience of reality challenges the validity of the ethical perspective itself. When you’re looking at the situation from within that ethical perspective, it’s like trying to make the bed while you’re still under the covers - so I understand your frustration.

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). — schopenhauer1

Yes, the child had no conscious decision in the matter. But no, it was not ‘someone’ else who made a decision for the child. That’s an assumption based on a moralistic perspective of reality. You’re saying that a ‘moral agent’ MUST be held accountable for ‘causing’ an event instead of simply causing an effect that contributes to the event - and it can’t be a ‘god’ or any other collaboration of concepts that has no ‘actual’ individual existence, let alone moral agency. But in reality there is no individual agent who ‘caused’ the event of being born (existence) to happen for the child.

So no, this is NOT a violation of non-aggression because at the moment of birth/existence, an event has happened to a create a person that was a collaborative effort which DID include the pre-conscious action of several actual contributors that continue to constitute the person created, as well as the conscious or unconscious action of the parents and a number of other conditions of which no agent in relation to the birth/existence of that child may be consciously aware - not even the parents.

When viewed from within the moralistic system, the only way to make sense of this reality is to exclude the interaction of non-moral agents. But then it isn’t reality, is it? And what you deem to be ‘wrong’ with the interaction of the world is precisely where you have ignored, isolated and excluded what is real about the interaction of the world.

It doesn't matter! If I enabled you to be somewhere you had no choice in, that is that. — schopenhauer1

Okay, but then what does it have to with the principle of non-aggression? Enabling you to be somewhere, whether you thought you had a choice in being there or not, is not an act of aggression. If I fall asleep on the train and end up five stops past where I wanted to be - is that the train’s fault for enabling me to be there? Or the train driver’s fault?

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? — khaled

I didn’t say they should be punished. I don’t care if they are punished or not. What’s important is to acknowledge that they are doing something morally wrong by not intervening. If you passed a child who was lying face down in a pool and you could save it from drowning just by turning it on the back, you would be a terrible person if you didn’t do it.

This is an instant were positive ethics becomes a command. Normally, it can only recommend good acts since the number of good deeds we could perform is infinite and cannot be specified. But when the possibility of acting comes very close to you and the amount of inconvenience it costs you is very small it becomes an absolute demand. In such cases you can’t say: if I do A, I can’t do B.

You could go to Africa and save a starving child hitherto unknown to you, but if you do that you won’t be able to perform good deeds closer to home. Therefore, it cannot be demanded that you do so. But when it’s a matter of easily saving that child in a pool or blinking to prevent an Armageddon, those simple acts don’t stop you from doing anything else. Your task is clearly defined by the circumstances and it must be considered a moral demand.

(Actually the law also sometimes identifies a duty to act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_(law) )

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. — schopenhauer1

There is a difference between self-justification and collaborating with reality. Self-justification is when we deal with cognitive dissonance by ignoring, isolating and excluding information. I haven’t denied what is happening - I’m just not referring to it as ‘abuse’ or ‘force’. That’s not excluding information, it’s looking at ALL the information contributing to the event without evaluating it in relation to an ethical perspective first.

What you appear to be doing, on the other hand, is excluding any contributors to an event that are not ‘moral agents’ in order to justify your assertion that these moral agents are the ‘cause’ of that event.

Your entire ethical perspective is built on principles that even you admit cause cognitive dissonance when applied to reality. And yet you continue to justify those principles by ignoring, isolating and excluding information that contradicts them. ‘Aggression is wrong, UNLESS the intention behind that aggression is to prevent more aggression - then aggression is not wrong’ is an example of self-justification as a result of cognitive dissonance.

Your problem is with the amount of ‘suffering’ that appears to necessarily come with the existence of the individual. I believe this ‘suffering’ is a result of prediction error - as each ‘individual’ predicts, tests and then adjusts their mental concepts to better correspond with reality. The more we interact with reality, the more prediction error we experience. It’s in our best interests, then, to continually adjust our concepts to suit our interactions with reality, so that our predictions are more refined and accurate as a result. This is easier said than done, of course. Pain, loss, lack and humiliation are all signs of prediction error - avoiding these signs that we need to adjust our concepts is not the answer to reducing suffering - taking the steps to understand where the prediction error occurs and then adjust our concepts is.

There are some concepts that we are having immense difficulty adjusting, though, despite the prediction error we experience. The concept of the ‘individual’, an indivisible conceptualisation of ourselves as isolated from the rest of the universe, is understandably one of the most resistant. But there is nothing in my most objective understanding of reality (if I’m honest) that supports either the idea that I am actually isolated in any way from the reality of my experience, or that I am indivisible - except in how I subjectively, socially, politically, ideologically, logically or morally conceptualise that reality. I can’t prove that to you, unfortunately.

What this broader understanding of reality this leads me to (eventually) is that I don’t matter as an indivisible, isolated existence in the universe: I matter as an aware, connected and collaborating participant in the unfolding universe, in the whole of existence.

The cause must occur before the effect. — Possibility

Parents conceive and birth children- check.

Whenever the cause occurs, the effect must also occur. — Possibility

When something is conceived and birthed, someone becomes born- check.

There must not be another factor that can explain the relationship between the cause and effect. — Possibility

Only conception and birth from the parents or intentional efforts by fertility clinic which still need the desire from at least one parent- check.

So, enable is not the same thing as cause. You can cause an effect, but scientifically you can’t conceptualise an event and treat it like a single effect with a single cause. When you arrange the conditions for an event to occur, you are enabling that event, not causing it. It’s a common misconception - a case of anthropocentrism, that we are the sole ‘cause’ of every event in which we are the only conscious contributor to the conditions. It’s a limitation of our legal and moral systems, for obvious reasons, but it isn’t reality. There are many more interactions that contributed to the conditions for that birth than the parents’ conscious actions - and some of those interactions continue to contribute to the existence of that child throughout their life, even if the parents don’t. That these are not conscious contributors should not exclude them as contributors - even though you’re specifically looking for ‘someone’ capable of consciously preventing the event. — Possibility

At the end of the day, it is the will of the parent that allows the birth to take place. If birth was fully unpreventable, then you may have a point. But practically all birth is.

I recognise that I appear to be splitting hairs here. But when you charge a parent with ‘violating a principle of non-aggression’ for contributing to a collaborative event, there is something amiss with the conceptualisation. I’m trying to show where the error occurs in relation to reality - not in relation to a moralistic system. So, while I recognise that the parents are considered the ‘moral agents’ within your ethical perspective, the fact that it doesn’t correspond to a broader experience of reality challenges the validity of the ethical perspective itself. When you’re looking at the situation from within that ethical perspective, it’s like trying to make the bed while you’re still under the covers - so I understand your frustration. — Possibility

Again, you have not explained your non-agent based system which apparently leaves morality of individual agents as irrelevant. This can be used to justify anything- the murder was the cause of the universe from unknown multiple causations. There is no need to do that. Without the agent, the violation would not have occurred. You want to have this holisitic perspective of reality, but even if that were true from a birdseye view (which we cannot prove), existence is felt and experienced at the individual level. There is no way of getting around it. The main reason this is dangerous, is people will then use it as an excuse to not have any responsibility or accountability to whether they cause harm to others.

Yes, the child had no conscious decision in the matter. But no, it was not ‘someone’ else who made a decision for the child. That’s an assumption based on a moralistic perspective of reality. You’re saying that a ‘moral agent’ MUST be held accountable for ‘causing’ an event instead of simply causing an effect that contributes to the event - and it can’t be a ‘god’ or any other collaboration of concepts that has no ‘actual’ individual existence, let alone moral agency. But in reality there is no individual agent who ‘caused’ the event of being born (existence) to happen for the child. — Possibility

Without the parent doing certain things, there is no child. Thus, this is provably wrong.

So no, this is NOT a violation of non-aggression because at the moment of birth/existence, an event has happened to a create a person that was a collaborative effort which DID include the pre-conscious action of several actual contributors that continue to constitute the person created, as well as the conscious or unconscious action of the parents and a number of other conditions of which no agent in relation to the birth/existence of that child may be consciously aware - not even the parents. — Possibility

What other conditions besides the parents decisions each step of the way? Here's the thing, you are really over-emphasizing the idea that antinatalism is trying to "blame" parents. You are not quite getting where the emphasis is. Antinatalism is trying to inform the parents that be simply preventing birth, they can prevent harm. There isn't supposed to be a post-facto blame of what has already occurred. I see that as a big glitch here in your reasoning. You are not even putting the focus where antinatalism is putting the focus. It's not about blaming things on people or holding them in contempt, etc.

When viewed from within the moralistic system, the only way to make sense of this reality is to exclude the interaction of non-moral agents. But then it isn’t reality, is it? And what you deem to be ‘wrong’ with the interaction of the world is precisely where you have ignored, isolated and excluded what is real about the interaction of the world. — Possibility

This is all elusive. You have to provide examples. Sure, people have accidental births. What else are you trying to get at?

Okay, but then what does it have to with the principle of non-aggression? Enabling you to be somewhere, whether you thought you had a choice in being there or not, is not an act of aggression. If I fall asleep on the train and end up five stops past where I wanted to be - is that the train’s fault for enabling me to be there? Or the train driver’s fault? — Possibility

No, since you were an autonomous person who mistakenly slept on the train, that was in your side of the court. If, however, you had no choice and someone drugged you to sleep on the train and wake up later, yeah that would be force. Thus, if someone does something that affects someone else's life, and the person being affected could not make a choice, that would be force.

‘Aggression is wrong, UNLESS the intention behind that aggression is to prevent more aggression - then aggression is not wrong’ is an example of self-justification as a result of cognitive dissonance. — Possibility

We agreed that it revolves around autonomy of the individual being violated. The negative ethics revolves around that.. Why not just have a child for X reason? Because we don't use individuals like that.

Your problem is with the amount of ‘suffering’ that appears to necessarily come with the existence of the individual. I believe this ‘suffering’ is a result of prediction error - as each ‘individual’ predicts, tests and then adjusts their mental concepts to better correspond with reality. The more we interact with reality, the more prediction error we experience. It’s in our best interests, then, to continually adjust our concepts to suit our interactions with reality, so that our predictions are more refined and accurate as a result. This is easier said than done, of course. Pain, loss, lack and humiliation are all signs of prediction error - avoiding these signs that we need to adjust our concepts is not the answer to reducing suffering - taking the steps to understand where the prediction error occurs and then adjust our concepts is. — Possibility

I'm not saying that one must avoid reducing prediction error. Rather, I am saying that it is not your place to make a prediction error for someone else that affects them profoundly, because you decided you wanted to.

What this broader understanding of reality this leads me to (eventually) is that I don’t matter as an indivisible, isolated existence in the universe: I matter as an aware, connected and collaborating participant in the unfolding universe, in the whole of existence. — Possibility

How does this matter in regards to preventing suffering for others? It sounds like you are trying to say that the "Will of the Universe" is an excuse to cause suffering of others. This would indeed be a way to make it ok to positively do things to others (violating non-aggression and non-harm). This is problematic. In fact, what you postulate is that we are just test-cases so the universe can get things "better". If that is the case, then we are being used by the universe itself and thus nothing matters on the individual level of ethics. That is problematic.

Parents conceive and birth children- check. — schopenhauer1

When something is conceived and birthed, someone becomes born- check. — schopenhauer1

Only conception and birth from the parents or intentional efforts by fertility clinic which still need the desire from at least one parent- check. — schopenhauer1

At the end of the day, it is the will of the parent that allows the birth to take place. If birth was fully unpreventable, then you may have a point. But practically all birth is. — schopenhauer1

You keep lumping conception and birth together as if it’s the same thing. I get that you’re trying to avoid the abortion debate, but it’s more than a little bit ridiculous to talk about cause and effect in such broad strokes here. There are so many instances of cause and effect between intention, conception and birth that impact on the existence of the child. When parents intend to conceive, they don’t necessarily succeed, and if they do conceive, a child is not necessarily born. The conscious intent of a parent to conceive is also not the only explanation for conception.

I’m not denying that the will of the parent allows or enables the birth to take place. I’m saying that the will of the parent isn’t necessary for conception to take place, and so the will of the parent is not the cause of conception. Between conception and birth is another story, so you do need to navigate the possible/potential/actual distinction of existence if you want to get from the intent of the parent to conception and birth as a complete moral action.

Again, you have not explained your non-agent based system which apparently leaves morality of individual agents as irrelevant. This can be used to justify anything- the murder was the cause of the universe from unknown multiple causations. There is no need to do that. Without the agent, the violation would not have occurred. You want to have this holisitic perspective of reality, but even if that were true from a birdseye view (which we cannot prove), existence is felt and experienced at the individual level. There is no way of getting around it. The main reason this is dangerous, is people will then use it as an excuse to not have any responsibility or accountability to whether they cause harm to others. — schopenhauer1

I get that the absence of a moral agent is a frightening thought, and I understand the need to have actions justified. The reality is that holding others morally or even legally responsible/accountable for the harm they contribute to is not as effective as we would like it to be in preventing harm. If someone specifically intended to do something they were capable of doing, then no amount of moral, legal or even physical obstacles could realistically prevent it. They would eventually find a way AND justify it from their perspective - such is human capacity. So you see, your perspective of their morality IS irrelevant in preventing harm. And you’ve even admitted that the moral perspective you’re advocating is impractical and contradictory in reality, so your ethics has nothing to stand on - which is why you’re arguing to prevent individual existence as the only way you can see to effectively prevent harm.

I’m not saying there is nothing we can do to prevent harm any more than you are. You’ve backed yourself into a corner, though. You can’t prevent existence - only individual existence. So your argument that the individual is more important or valuable than existence unravels at this point.

I didn’t say they should be punished. I don’t care if they are punished or not. What’s important is to acknowledge that they are doing something morally wrong by not intervening — Congau

We punish people that we see as doing wrong things. By "shouldn't be punished" I mean "they didn't do something wrong"

But when the possibility of acting comes very close to you and the amount of inconvenience it costs you is very small — Congau

How do you know those conditions have been met by someone? Maybe the guy COULDN'T turn the kid around and save him from drowning because of some disability

Actually the law also sometimes identifies a duty to act — Congau

This is not an argument. The law also specifies that suicide is illegal. Also I skimmed through that Wikipedia page and it clearly says "In tort law, similarly, liability will be imposed for an omission only exceptionally, when it can be established that the defendant was under a duty to act." Where was the "duty to act" for the two cases we mentioned? "Duty to act" usually applies to people getting payed to act, for example, a police officer could be deemed guilty for not attempting to stop a robber or calling for reinforcement

Here's the thing, you are really over-emphasizing the idea that antinatalism is trying to "blame" parents. You are not quite getting where the emphasis is. Antinatalism is trying to inform the parents that be simply preventing birth, they can prevent harm. There isn't supposed to be a post-facto blame of what has already occurred. I see that as a big glitch here in your reasoning. You are not even putting the focus where antinatalism is putting the focus. It's not about blaming things on people or holding them in contempt, etc. — schopenhauer1

That’s fair. I do get that your focus is prevention, but you’re talking about a ‘parent’ in relation to an existing child, not a possible one. You’re trying to argue that enabling the possibility of existence would constitute an act of ‘force’ or ‘harm’ by parents against a non-existent will, and that all subsequent acts against a subsequent will are therefore caused by the parents. There is something very misguided about this in relation to what constitutes any action against a non-existent will. You’re convinced that a will doesn’t have to exist for someone to act against it, but this just doesn’t make any sense, and there is no evidence for it. Genetic modifications are not interacting with a later will, but with an existing potential. And there is no potential for one to interact with prior to enabling the possibility of existence. So unless you can show how we interact with a possible existence other than enabling or preventing the possibility, then I can’t see how this is an accurate assessment of a moral act of the parent towards the possibility of a child.

The way I see it, you’re trying to convince parents to act against the possibility of a child - to do what they can to prevent the potential existence of another individual, because this is the only way you can see to effectively act against the possibility of harm. I’m okay with this, but it has nothing to do with any moral act of a parent against their actual child prior to the existence of that child.

They would eventually find a way AND justify it from their perspective - such is human capacity. So you see, your perspective of their morality IS irrelevant in preventing harm. And you’ve even admitted that the moral perspective you’re advocating is impractical and contradictory in reality, so your ethics has nothing to stand on - which is why you’re arguing to prevent individual existence as the only way you can see to effectively prevent harm.

I’m not saying there is nothing we can do to prevent harm any more than you are. You’ve backed yourself into a corner, though. You can’t prevent existence - only individual existence. So your argument that the individual is more important or valuable than existence unravels at this point. — Possibility

It's all about the margins. You are not in charge of existence as a whole, just what you are able to do as an agent. You are able to prevent harm for another person by simply preventing birth. That is all the argument is for. You are overstepping what the argument is even advocating.

The way I see it, you’re trying to convince parents to act against the possibility of a child - to do what they can to prevent the potential existence of another individual, because this is the only way you can see to effectively act against the possibility of harm. I’m okay with this, but it has nothing to do with any moral act of a parent against their actual child prior to the existence of that child. — Possibility

I am okay with that. Preventing harm to someone is all that matters. Anything else is rhetorical nonsense and is trying to find strawmen and red herrings for the sake of argument. We all know ALL harm can be prevented by simply not procreating. As you noticed, no actual person is "deprived" because there is no actual person who exists to be deprived. So what is your problem? There is none.

We agreed that it revolves around autonomy of the individual being violated. The negative ethics revolves around that.. Why not just have a child for X reason? Because we don't use individuals like that.[/quote]

I certainly didn’t agree that autonomy of the individual was either achievable or important, and certainly not prior to existence. I thought we agreed that striving for individual autonomy is impractical or at least ‘messy’ in reality? The way I see it, ‘individual autonomy’ is an illusion - any perception that focuses on it as a goal is ignorant of reality, and guaranteed to suffer from prediction error in interacting with that reality.

People decide to have a child for all sorts of reasons - but most of them stem from the fearful realisation that individual autonomy is either not a priority or not possible. Anyone still striving for individual autonomy as a priority has no reason to procreate, sure - but that striving becomes a Sisyphean effort. Most people eventually recognise through prediction error that the world doesn’t work like that, and they adjust their conceptual system to better suit reality. Procreation is often a key coping mechanism at this point. But beyond our fear is the realisation that procreation is a feeble, half-assed effort to wrestle some form of relevance from our ‘individual’ participation in existence, and that we are capable of much more effective participation in far more collaborative achievements than simply creating another individual.

We all know ALL harm can be prevented by simply not procreating. — schopenhauer1

THIS is my problem. We don’t know this at all. Harm continues to occur regardless of procreation - I’m not even sure what gives you this idea. You’ll have to explain.

People decide to have a child for all sorts of reasons - but most of them stem from the fearful realisation that individual autonomy is either not a priority or not possible. Anyone still striving for individual autonomy as a priority has no reason to procreate, sure - but that striving becomes a Sisyphean effort. Most people eventually recognise through prediction error that the world doesn’t work like that, and they adjust their conceptual system to better suit reality. Procreation is often a key coping mechanism at this point. But beyond our fear is the realisation that procreation is a feeble, half-assed effort to wrestle some form of relevance from our ‘individual’ participation in existence, and that we are capable of much more effective participation in far more collaborative achievements than simply creating another individual. — Possibility

Okay, you seem to be yourself very conflicted. I don't know what to say to that. I agree with your sentiments that people can collaborate in other ways. Yet you somehow justify procreation through some odd "recognition of reality" that you seem to be railing against at the same time. Again, I don't know what you're trying to prove here other than people procreate and that somehow they are "justified" but for some obtuse reason of "existence" or some such thing.

THIS is my problem. We don’t know this at all. Harm continues to occur regardless of procreation - I’m not even sure what gives you this idea. You’ll have to explain. — Possibility

ALL harm for any future progeny can be prevented. Unless you don't have a concept of a future or a person that CAN be born into that future, I don't see what explanation you need. Again, morality is at the margins- that is to say, what people as agents can actually do. Of course, being that morality is not a big utilitarian "greatest good" game, what you can acutally "do" is not about greatest good, but not using people for some outcome you want to see. That is to say, not using people for YOUR or some other entity's agenda.

Okay, you seem to be yourself very conflicted. I don't know what to say to that. I agree with your sentiments that people can collaborate in other ways. Yet you somehow justify procreation through some odd "recognition of reality" that you seem to be railing against at the same time. Again, I don't know what you're trying to prove here other than people procreate and that somehow they are "justified" but for some obtuse reason of "existence" or some such thing. — schopenhauer1

Where’s the conflict? Just because I understand why people will procreate doesn’t mean I’m justifying procreation. I can evaluate their actions based on my own value system, but I’m not going to expect them to live by my ethical perspective just because I’m convinced it’s a more accurate reflection of reality. I can’t change their actions with my ethical perspective - all I can do is help them to see why their ethical perspective does not correspond to reality. So my concern here is with your ethical perspective, and the unrealistic expectations that you have for the world because of it.

ALL harm for any future progeny can be prevented. Unless you don't have a concept of a future or a person that CAN be born into that future, I don't see what explanation you need. Again, morality is at the margins- that is to say, what people as agents can actually do. Of course, being that morality is not a big utilitarian "greatest good" game, what you can acutally "do" is not about greatest good, but not using people for some outcome you want to see. — schopenhauer1

What you’re talking about is only preventing harm to your own progeny - not preventing ALL harm. That’s hardly the same thing. In fact, it barely rates a mention in terms of preventing ALL harm. What are you hoping to achieve? An end to existence?

It's all about the margins. You are not in charge of existence as a whole, just what you are able to do as an agent. You are able to prevent harm for another person by simply preventing birth. That is all the argument is for. You are overstepping what the argument is even advocating. — schopenhauer1

I’m aware of this. But you are not preventing harm for another person by denying their existence, because that ‘person’ does not exist. So you’re not doing any ‘good’ here. You are not doing anything, so how can you be an agent? You’re denying possibilities because you believe the cost is too high. That’s your prerogative, but rest assured the universe will continue to exist without your involvement. ‘Harm’ and ‘force’ will still be experienced, as a result of the inevitable interaction between ignorant and isolated, ‘individual’ will. We have the capacity to change that, but we have to recognise our capacity as an agent, and then do something with it.

Negative ethics on its own is about denying agency, which kind of defeats the purpose. You cannot do or be ‘good’ by refusing to do or be anything in relation to existence.

What you’re talking about is only preventing harm to your own progeny - not preventing ALL harm. That’s hardly the same thing. In fact, it barely rates a mention in terms of preventing ALL harm. What are you hoping to achieve? An end to existence? — Possibility

So you take my words out of context now. ALL harm onto another person that would be harmed otherwise. Period. The goal is not end of existence. The goal is not causing any harm to another person. This does not happen by not procreating.

I’m aware of this. But you are not preventing harm for another person by denying their existence, because that ‘person’ does not exist. So you’re not doing any ‘good’ here. You are not doing anything, so how can you be an agent? You’re denying possibilities because you believe the cost is too high. That’s your prerogative, but rest assured the universe will continue to exist without your involvement. ‘Harm’ and ‘force’ will still be experienced, as a result of the inevitable interaction between ignorant and isolated, ‘individual’ will. We have the capacity to change that, but we have to recognise our capacity as an agent, and then do something with it.

Negative ethics on its own is about denying agency, which kind of defeats the purpose. You cannot do or be ‘good’ by refusing to do or be anything in relation to existence. — Possibility

No, you are doing "good" because you are not causing harm. Not causing harm is always good. You can be doing good by NOT doing anything. I am not asking people to be salvation for existence itself. In fact, that is a category error. I agree that existence will exist. The ethic isn't about that though. It is about preventing harm when one can. Not procreating perfectly prevents all harm for another person who might otherwise be harmed.

oh I completely forgot about you sorry

I’ve said that I believe existence has an underlying impetus, but that’s not the same thing at all. — Possibility

What's the difference? They sound the same to me

I believe doing so will ALWAYS reduce suffering — Possibility

You can't reduce suffering to below zero yes? Antinatalism proposes a method for reducing suffering to 0. You can't beat that

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 — Possibility

That wasn't my argument

‘don’t harm’ — Possibility

This was

I’ve argued that a sound ethical system would not contradict its own principles — Possibility

Where do my arguments do that?

positive ethics and negative ethics must work in harmony, — Possibility

How? They will contradict each other by definition

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 — Possibility

I didn't, because I didn't use that principle. The only thing I swept aside was the idea that if an action takes place before the person to be harmed exists that it is allowed

So you take my words out of context now. ALL harm onto another person that would be harmed otherwise. Period. The goal is not end of existence. The goal is not causing any harm to another person. This does not happen by not procreating. — schopenhauer1

Thank you for clarifying. But this ‘other person’ you’re talking about never existed, and never will exist. It’s like your very own personal strawman. So you’ve only reduced your own capacity to interact with existence.

You keep trying to refer only to antinatalism, but this thread is about the negative ethics that supports it, so when I extend your argument, I’m applying your principles to all your actions, not just this imaginary one that you pride yourself on. The only way to not cause harm to any other person is to not exist, or at least not interact with existence. Yet you exist and you interact. Whatever the reason, you remain as a walking contradiction to your own principles. And you expect others to believe that your principles reflect the truth? Nope.

No, you are doing "good" because you are not causing harm. Not causing harm is always good. You can be doing good by NOT doing anything. I am not asking people to be salvation for existence itself. In fact, that is a category error. I agree that existence will exist. The ethic isn't about that though. It is about preventing harm when one can. Not procreating perfectly prevents all harm for another person who might otherwise be harmed. — schopenhauer1

That’s not ‘doing good’, that’s fearing your own existence. You’re imagining possibilities for action and then excluding them all because they might be seen as ‘wrong’ by some possible perspective at some point, and you think that makes you ‘good’. I’m not asking you to be ‘salvation’ for existence either, whatever that could be. I’m only expecting you to participate positively while you’re here, instead of focusing on trying to convince others to avoid opportunities to act, just in case someone might not like what you did.

I understand what it’s like to be afraid of putting a foot wrong - to be aware of so many possibilities that we’re paralysed by indecision, but then to be so conscious of how other people feel that the only thing we can be sure of is that someone will be ‘harmed’ by anything we decide to do. And then we ‘feel’ their pain as well as our own. I get that it seems like ‘doing good’ to try and limit our interactions by the principles of non-harm and non-aggression. But you’re allowing everyone else to dictate your life. For someone who values autonomy above all, I wonder how you justify this.

‘Harm’ and ‘force’ are subjective evaluations by those with whom we interact. So these principles are based purely on what everyone else might think about our actions. We’re not really living up to our potential like that - we’re only reflecting our environment, like a glass ball, or a reed in the wind. I’ve been there - it seems like the right thing to do, but it hurts to look out at the world and wonder why no one seems to really care who I am or what I want. For me, I was eventually given the space and opportunity to see who ‘I’ am when I’m not being what everyone else expects me to be. I think each ‘individual’ deserves that. I don’t see this as ‘autonomy’, though - mainly because we need to see it reflected back at us through the eyes of someone we trust. And it took me almost twenty years to even summon the courage to properly look. I think it’s about being aware of our unique journey through the world, and what we can offer freely to those with whom we interact, without obligation and without fear. We each have a unique combination of ability, talent and experience to offer those around us - they just don’t know it yet, and we’re often too busy doing what we think they want or need, to find out for ourselves.

I no longer think we should be so afraid of causing what other people think is ‘harm’ that we do nothing. That’s not living. Pain, for instance, isn’t ‘bad’ in itself. It’s prediction error: notification from the system that it requires more energy, attention or effort than was budgeted for. This doesn’t justify inflicting pain on others, but it does mean that sometimes what we initially evaluate as ‘harm’ is not necessarily as harmful as we think. Pain allows us to grow, change, improve and to understand the world better - not so we can just avoid pain or other prediction error, but in order to interact with the world and help others to predict more accurately. Prediction error is just evidence that we haven’t yet perfected this.

I think you and I are not so different. It seems that you genuinely want to only do what’s best for everyone, and this is your way of evaluating that. But I’ve learned that it’s better to act and be wrong than to not act at all. We should forgive ourselves and others for errors of ignorance, offer our energy, attention and effort to repair connections when we make mistakes, and recognise the pain, humiliation and loss of prediction error as a sign that we’re learning more about how to interact with the world. This is life. Otherwise we’re all just rocks floating in space.

When people act based on positive ethics, they sometimes make mistakes and they can’t control how the world responds. But if they base their actions on negative ethics, then they don’t act at all. That’s not living, it’s not ‘doing good’ and it’s not autonomy - it’s fear.

Yet you exist and you interact. Whatever the reason, you remain as a walking contradiction to your own principles. And you expect others to believe that your principles reflect the truth? Nope. — Possibility

Benatar brings up the idea of starting an existence versus continuing an existence. Continuing existence has a different threshold than starting one. One example is one might be more reluctant of the idea of bringing a child with a major disability into the world than one would about advocating a person already born with a disability to end their life. That is just one example of the differences there.

I no longer think we should be so afraid of causing what other people think is ‘harm’ that we do nothing. That’s not living. Pain, for instance, isn’t ‘bad’ in itself. It’s prediction error: notification from the system that it requires more energy, attention or effort than was budgeted for. This doesn’t justify inflicting pain on others, but it does mean that sometimes what we initially evaluate as ‘harm’ is not necessarily as harmful as we think. Pain allows us to grow, change, improve and to understand the world better - not so we can just avoid pain or other prediction error, but in order to interact with the world and help others to predict more accurately. Prediction error is just evidence that we haven’t yet perfected this. — Possibility

I am not opposed to if someone wants to cause pain to oneself, but I am opposed causing it for others if possible. That is the difference here. And to justify that because there is always some collateral damage, that therefore everything is contaminated, and thus any harm is permitted is nonsensical.

I think you and I are not so different. It seems that you genuinely want to only do what’s best for everyone, and this is your way of evaluating that. But I’ve learned that it’s better to act and be wrong than to not act at all. We should forgive ourselves and others for errors of ignorance, offer our energy, attention and effort to repair connections when we make mistakes, and recognise the pain, humiliation and loss of prediction error as a sign that we’re learning more about how to interact with the world. This is life. Otherwise we’re all just rocks floating in space.

When people act based on positive ethics, they sometimes make mistakes and they can’t control how the world responds. But if they base their actions on negative ethics, then they don’t act at all. That’s not living, it’s not ‘doing good’ and it’s not autonomy - it’s fear. — Possibility

Existence for the already-born is a tricky business. We are used creatures. Our self-reflective capacities are used by our own human instincts to shit, eat, get bored, find a more comfortable setting, and seek pleasure. We are used by social institutions because social institutions are designed to find a way to take those instincts and self-reflective capacities and manipulate them to produce and consume for the benefit of keeping society going (i.e. labor, consumption, trade, maintenance of personal and industrial commodities and goods, education, family, entertainment purveyors, etc.). We are often used by family and relatives. We are often used by our employers in various ways to get the most work- causing stress. We are de facto forced into these social institutions, knowing that as social creatures, such that being a hermit in the woods, a homeless person in the streets, or a monk in a commune are most likely not viable (are sub-optimal) choices, so the de facto social milieu of the socio-economic normative reality is set. We are used in all sorts of ways. We are complicit, as in turn, we tend to use others and these institutions as well for our needs and wants. Then, on top of this using, there is collateral damage. There are physical and mental illnesses, disasters, accidents, miscalculations, bad decision-making, and all sorts of things that make even the bad "regular" outcome of being used and manipulated into an even worse endeavor.

You can claim that this "using" is collaboration or "mutually beneficial relationships" but at the end of the day, they are de facto forced realities that we accept as necessary. Some (apparently you) go as far as giving some quasi-spiritual significance to these supposed "mutually beneficial relationships". I think this is simply turning a blind eye to what is really going on. The first (and most important) political decision was made for you, that was being born in the first place. Someone else thought you should go through life and be a part of this using process (not their perspective to use someone, but their unintended and unreflective action nonetheless). They had some reason (some X agenda) that this should be so if they weren't just outright negligent (accidental birth). Their decision majorly affecting another person, who must deal with it now.

Now that we are alive, "forced" into dealing with the situation thereof, what do we do? One can commit suicide. That is usually a sub-optimal choice for most. We can keep going through the motions- that is an inevitable choice (that is to say, survival through work, consumption, and trade through the normative socio-economic channels that the current situation provides). One could drink the Kool-Aid and accept the givens and then even "praise them" like so many self-help books try to promote. In this "acceptance" view (which I deem to be promoted most by social institutions), one accepts the reality of what the situation is more-or-less (minor political tweaks not withstanding on whatever minor political spectrum you are on), and then move forward as a happy warrior. Thus making friends, climbing the mountain of one's own self-actualization, and abiding the day in the normative socio-economic setting is the about as good as it gets. I say rebellion is the best stance though. Always realize that one was placed here originally. Always remember that one is being used and is using. Now, I agree that community is part of humanity, and thus communally, I think it can be cathartic to rebel together. So antinatalism is not JUST about preventing harm (negative ethics), but can be a "positive" ethics in rallying against our being used. No, we cannot prevent "existence" itself, but we can recognize what is going on as a community and perhaps with this "rebellious stance" and understanding, we can be kinder and more understanding of each other and our situations. Schopenhauer thought the best stance was recognizing each other as "fellow-sufferers". We are in the same boat- and it isn't a collaboration panacea of bliss. It is rather being used by all sorts of factors and enduring and dealing with life. We can communally understand this and rebel. We can recognize what is going on and prevent others from dealing with as well.

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? — Possibility

By an ethical system I simply mean whatever ethics a person supports. It can even be completely individual; that person being the only one in the world to follow a particular system. You bind yourself in the sense that if you act outside it, you are inconsistent.

How do you know those conditions have been met by someone? Maybe the guy COULDN'T turn the kid around and save him from drowning because of some disability — khaled

Of course I assume in this example that he really can save the child, that’s a part of the premise. If you can do a great service to someone with a minimal effort on your part, then it’s deeply immoral not to do it. Make the service smaller and the effort bigger, and at some point it becomes debatable whether the act can be demanded of you. But in an extreme example like this, there can be no doubt that it would be very bad not to act. Or do you disagree?

the ACT of conception itself doesn't harm anyone at the time it is done but that doesn't mean it should be allowed — khaled

To turn it around: The act of conception itself doesn't benefit anyone at the time it is done but that doesn't mean it should not be allowed. No one is either harmed or benefited at the time. There is a chance it will harm someone in the future, but there’s a greater chance it will benefit someone.

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. — khaled

I couldn’t convince a monkey or a chicken or a retarded person, but why do you care about those who lack the intelligence to understand? The point is that an axiom like A+B=B+A can indeed be explained. You don’t just say it’s true “just because”.

Or do you disagree? — Congau

Yes. As I said. I disagree. If someone could have blinked to save the world from nuclear Armageddon I wouldn't think it bad for that person not to blink (if the person didn't cause the Armageddon)

The act of conception itself doesn't benefit anyone — Congau

Agreed. No one said not having children benefits anyone. What is being said is that having children harms someone, so shouldn't be done. Note I'm not saying having children will always produce more net suffering than net pleasure. I'm simply saying that having children WILL produce SOME suffering

There is a chance it will harm someone in the future, but there’s a greater chance it will benefit someone. — Congau

That is insignificant. That's what negative ethics means. Negative ethics doesn't care about the "chance it benefits someone" because benefiting someone is not taken into consideration when looking at the morality of an action. For negative ethics, it would be wrong to give someone 100000 dollars for a pinprick if they don't give you consent to prick them first.

The point is that an axiom like A+B=B+A can indeed be explained. You don’t just say it’s true “just because”. — Congau

Ok let's test that. Please explain why A+B = B+A

why do you care about those who lack the intelligence to understand — Congau

Who has the authority to dictate someone lacks the intelligence to understand? For that person it's you Who's lacking the intelligence to understand. To fools we seem like fools, there is no objective standard here.

I am not opposed to if someone wants to cause pain to oneself, but I am opposed causing it for others if possible. That is the difference here. — schopenhauer1

The trick is understanding the difference between the pain that we cause to ourselves through our own ignorance, isolation or exclusion, and the pain that others inflict on us as a result of their ignorance, isolation or exclusion. It isn’t about finding someone to blame. Let me ask you: If the capacity to choose between paths was available, but we lacked the capacity to be aware of that choice (of either the capacity to choose, the range to choose from or the paths available), then who is responsible for the path taken in absence of awareness?

to justify that because there is always some collateral damage, that therefore everything is contaminated, and thus any harm is permitted is nonsensical. — schopenhauer1

That’s not what I’m saying at all - your conclusion that ‘any harm is permitted’ is not the same one that I’m drawing here. It isn’t about whether harm or pain is permitted. It’s about understanding WHY it is painful or harmful from their perspective, and then considering what that subjective experience means from a broader perspective - ie. when you take into account everyone’s experience, including that of whoever appears to be responsible for the ‘harm’. Being aware of how actions that contribute to ‘harm’ are positioned in relation to everything else that’s going on from others’ POV reduces the chance of ignorantly contributing to ‘harm’ elsewhere when we respond. There are no isolated or autonomous individuals - every action we initiate is an interaction on many different levels, whether we’re aware of them all or not. It’s not an excuse to be ignorant, but a challenge to be more aware.

I’ve said that I believe existence has an underlying impetus, but that’s not the same thing at all.
— Possibility

What's the difference? They sound the same to me — khaled

An underlying impetus is not goal-directed, but neither is it random. Like a Mandelbrot set (only six-dimensional), it has a simple pattern that leads to an ever-increasing complexity without a definite result. The diversity comes from the point at which each ‘section’ of the pattern resists the impetus.

You can't reduce suffering to below zero yes? Antinatalism proposes a method for reducing suffering to 0. You can't beat that — khaled

The method of antinatalism only reduces possible suffering to zero for a non-existent possibility. You can’t do anything with that. It’s a strawman.

I’ve argued that a sound ethical system would not contradict its own principles
— Possibility

Where do my arguments do that? — khaled

Here

‘don’t harm’
— Possibility

This was — khaled

While you exist, you cannot avoid contributing to what others would refer to as ‘harm’. I think we can agree on this. Your ethical system’s principle of ‘don’t harm’ (an ethical principle being the foundation of any action) is fundamentally impractical to anyone who exists if they decide to act in any capacity at all. The very nature of ‘harm’ - that it is a subjective evaluation of action, and not just by the one acted upon - makes it impossible to act in any real circumstance. You cannot be certain that someone will not be harmed by your action, thus there is no possible act that ensures ethical behaviour. And yet ethics is entirely about how to act.

Your ethical perspective is dependent upon being the ONLY ethical perspective.

positive ethics and negative ethics must work in harmony,
— Possibility

How? They will contradict each other by definition — khaled

No they won’t. Negative ethics is about what not to do. Positive ethics is about what to do instead. A positive ethics that doesn’t have a corresponding negative ethics permits everything. Conversely, a negative ethics without a corresponding positive ethics provides no incentive to act (which defeats the purpose of ethics).

As an example, ‘reduce ignorance, isolation and exclusion’ is a negative ethics, whose corresponding positive ethics - ‘increase awareness, connection and collaboration’ - works in harmony with it to enable actions that violate neither.

The only thing I swept aside was the idea that if an action takes place before the person to be harmed exists that it is allowed — khaled

On what grounds? If an action takes place before the person exists, then it is not an action against that person, but against something else.

By an ethical system I simply mean whatever ethics a person supports. It can even be completely individual; that person being the only one in the world to follow a particular system. You bind yourself in the sense that if you act outside it, you are inconsistent. — Congau

So would you say that ‘consistency’ is an ethical principle or something else?

Let me ask you: If the capacity to choose between paths was available, but we lacked the capacity to be aware of that choice (of either the capacity to choose, the range to choose from or the paths available), then who is responsible for the path taken in absence of awareness? — Possibility

People can lack awareness of something. I didn't doubt that. The point was to try to not cause harm. That is all. I am not denying that some people might lack awareness how or who they are harming.

when you take into account everyone’s experience, including that of whoever appears to be responsible for the ‘harm’. Being aware of how actions that contribute to ‘harm’ are positioned in relation to everything else that’s going on from others’ POV reduces the chance of ignorantly contributing to ‘harm’ elsewhere when we respond. There are no isolated or autonomous individuals - every action we initiate is an interaction on many different levels, whether we’re aware of them all or not. It’s not an excuse to be ignorant, but a challenge to be more aware. — Possibility

We will never have perfect awareness of every consequence of our action. Acting in good faith is part of the equation. We are trying not to harm, and gaining more awareness is probably as good as it will get without full knowledge. But if you agree, then again, not having full knowledge doesn't negate the principle itself nor the effort.

Also, I wrote a rather lengthy response to your request for a positive ethics, and was wondering if you had a response to that.

People can lack awareness of something. I didn't doubt that. The point was to try to not cause harm. That is all. I am not denying that some people might lack awareness how or who they are harming. — schopenhauer1

That doesn’t answer the question.