They both have negative effects, and they both have positive ones. There is no way of knowing for sure how having a child will influence the world. The solution has to do with anecdotal scenarios. In a country where birth rates are declining, maybe one should consider the benefits of children. In a country with extreme population density, extreme health risks and high infant mortality rates, maybe not. And I agree, we can't be blamed for such choices unless we have or are capable of having access to information regarding the effect of them.

Ah, the earth has way too much humanity, adding more is like dropping bombs, because each one will add to the already too great consumption of earth resources. However, I believe having families is also very important, so the compromise is having no more than one child to replace each of us. Preferably only highly responsible and committed people reproduce themselves, because to raise a child who is a benefit to humanity and not a problem, requires a lot of effort and a loving desire to make that effort. Humans are not just naturally intelligent and good citizens. They must be nurtured to be of value to the rest of humanity.

As for blame, that is perhaps a silly notion, but a moral is a matter of cause and effect and carelessly reproducing, no matter what the circumstances, will lead to problems. We seriously need to get in touch with reality. There is no God who created humans next to the angels. We are of the animal kingdom and need to learn how to live in balance and harmony with the rest of nature. If we don't we are no blessing to this planet. Whatever is out of balance will be destructive.

Well, it may be better to think of morality in term of decision options instead of actions. This is because I think that there’s a difference between “an active avoidance of an action” and “a passive lack of motivation towards an action”. For example, antinatalists typically engage in an active avoidance of reproduction. This means that they have a strong motivation to avoid engaging in unsafe sex. This can involve using contraception. Some religious people might argue that using contraception is immoral because you shouldn’t have sex without the intention of possible reproduction. I find these claims implausible but I think it illuminates the idea that antinatalists are not just perfectly passive individuals when it comes to anything related to reproduction. They are rather active in a different way. If there is some probability that using contraception is immoral then antinatalists who use it might be doing something evil. In addition, antinatalists that are willing to have an abortion in case they get pregnant are even more likely to get accused of being willing to do something evil. But, what about antinatalists who are celibate? Well, unless you happen to be so sexually undesirable or asexual that you never have an opportunity to be tempted to break the celibacy vow, there are times when you had to do something to avoid having sex. This might have included avoiding people who are sexually interested in you. The means by which you avoid those people might involve saying “No” when they ask you out on a date. Saying “No” is technically an action though. This action has some minuscule chance of being evil because maybe you just potentially prevent a particular child from being born by refusing a date. So, it seems to me that antinatalism requires action and that antinatalists would be better off arguing that having children is a bad decision option because it leads to a bad consequence rather than trying to make it about consent. In addition, it’s worth pointing out that the most inactive individuals on this issue are actually those who have “a passive lack of motivation towards reproduction”. Those people are arguably the most heinous potential procreators. This might involve a person who had no intention to reproduce but also no intention to avoid reproduction. So, they don’t do anything to try to have children or do anything to avoid having children. They might still end up with like 9 children though because they simply enjoy having sex and don’t bother using contraception or getting an abortion. Then, they simply give their child up for adoption. A lot of drug addicts have this sort of inactive orientation towards reproduction. They have sex for money to buy drugs but don’t use contraception. They don’t bother to get an abortion cuz all they are concerned with is how they are going to get their next high. Eventually, the baby is born addicted to drugs. Then, she gets abused in the foster care system for 18 years and then she comes out homeless. Then, she resorts to prostitution and drugs. Then, she ends up pregnant and the cycle repeats itself.

Yeah I’m strongly opposed to that whole no-such-thing-as-inaction deal on principle. If you’re doing nothing, then you’re doing nothing wrong. You’re also not doing anything good, but it’s not wrong to fail to do good. To say otherwise is consequentialism gone haywire.

There is no way of knowing for sure how having a child will influence the world. — Mac

There is something that I have not seen mentioned on any OPs about this issue, ( though I may have missed it) which is about a child’s influence on the world. Unless you had a child you would not know of this experience, though you may be told about it, but then it’s not an experience that can have an affect because you didn’t have a child.

This experience is learning about yourself by watching your child grow. As the child grows you will see aspects of your own life more clearly, it will help you understand why you do things, who you are, how you are so like other people and so unlike, You will gain a greater understanding of your own parents and the relationship you had with your parents and put your own behaviour in perspective. You will experience a shift in solipsistic views of the world, about giving up your time for others, of sharing and compromising, caring, a greater understanding of time and life and death, and whether you have loved and been loved in a way that is specific to a child.

Surely this must have an affect on the world.

That's exactly the debate we were having but what exactly does it mean to "do nothing". If you see a drowning man and you don't save him have you "done nothing"? No, more specifically you just chose to walk one way as opposed to another. Your choice not to save him is just as much an active choice as saving him. To make it clear the guy I was talking to phrased it this way:

If you extend your foot to the right 30 degrees, the drowning man will grab it and be saved (A). If you keep walking as you are he will drown (B)

A: A person gets harmed because of your choice of how to move
B: A person gets saved because of your choice of how to move

Just looking at it this way, in terms of just A and B, A starts to seem immoral.

You might have any number of reasons not to save the drowning man. They might not be great reasons, but they are your reasons and your choice and you’re not killing him just because you didn’t save him. Obviously it is morally preferable that he be saved, but you are not morally liable for that not happening.

Down the contrary road, everyone who hasn’t already given all of their possessions to the most effective charities and dedicated their entire lives to helping those most in need in the most efficient manner possible is morally liable for all of the harm that’s happening that could have been prevented it they did that.

There's a definite possibility that the next child to be born will grow up to cure cancer or solve the world's energy problems but unfortunately for arguments like this, it's equally possible that this child could turn out to be another Hitler, Stalin or Mao. We can't make decisions when all possibilities are equally likely as is the case here.

you’re not killing him just because you didn’t save him. — Pfhorrest

How far down the line can this be taken before it begins to wobble? I know his names been brought up but I can't remember in what context; Manson sending the girls out to specifically murder someone.

I know his names been brought up but I can't remember in what context; Manson sending the girls out to specifically murder someone. — Brett

That's not inaction, that's indirect action. If the people wouldn't have been murdered had Manson spontaneously vanished from existence before issuing his orders to murder them, then he's indirectly responsible for their murder. In contrast, had the guy who could have saved the drowning guy spontaneously vanished from existence before going for the walk on which he had an opportunity to save him, the guy still would have drowned.

Sure. Thanks.

and you’re not killing him just because you didn’t save him. — Pfhorrest

That's precisely the question here. I don't think this is as clear as you think it is. Let me define the word "abandon" as "not save a drowning person". Now I can say "You killed him because you abandoned him". What counts as "inaction" purely depends on what you count as action. So if I were to use "abandon" instead of "save" it makes it sound like an action that is in fact killing someone

Obviously it is morally preferable that he be saved, but you are not morally liable for that not happening. — Pfhorrest

I agree with you but I am not exactly discussing the morality of the situation right now. I am asking whether or not you not saving someone is a cause for their drowning. I think the answer is yes

Down the contrary road, everyone who hasn’t already given all of their possessions to the most effective charities and dedicated their entire lives to helping those most in need in the most efficient manner possible is morally liable for all of the harm that’s happening that could have been prevented it they did that. — Pfhorrest

Yup the guy I was talking with said that. (something to that effect)

There's a definite possibility that the next child to be born will grow up to cure cancer or solve the world's energy problems but unfortunately for arguments like this, it's equally possible that this child could turn out to be another Hitler, Stalin or Mao. We can't make decisions when all possibilities are equally likely as is the case here. — TheMadFool

Yup I made that case. But that doesn't actually accomplish anything. All that has been established now is that whether or not you have a child, you cannot know the effect, so you cannot definitely say that not having a child is the right thing to do. The guy I was talking to made an intersting comment, that a big reason antinatalism sounds convincing at first is because of the choice of verb "procreate". He rephrased it like this: "If you abstain from having children you have a chance to cause a lot of suffering" which is technically true. The case he was making is that you simply cannot know the effect of your choice either to have or not to have children and as a result one doesn't take a privilaged position over the other

The case he was making is that you simply cannot know the effect of your choice either to have or not to have children and as a result one doesn't take a privilaged position over the other — khaled

Your friend's argument is a weak one and, as you've noticed, is incapable of making the case for both antinatalism and natalism. That leaves us no choice but to fall back on the original argument for antinatalism.

In my book antinatalism is founded on three things; 1) the inevitability of suffering of the worst kind - to lose those who we love the most to disease and death, 2) the failure of even the greatest pleasures to compensate for such suffering as described by 1 above, and 3) the lack of consent in being born.

You'll notice a few things in the antinatalist point of view. Firstly, it's based on indubitable facts. Can you deny any of the premises above? No. Ergo, to oppose antinatalism is to deny truths of this, our, world that are so painfully obvious that in doing so we fulfill the conditions of either insanity or inanity.

Secondly, these facts are contingent i.e. there's a possibility that they'll change for the better. For instance, I think Alexander Fleming, discoverer of antibiotics, put a huge dent in pessimistic philosophy, antinatalism being one. The strides made in reducing suffering seems almost miraculous if you ask me. The sky's the limit and a time may come when two of the pillars of antinatalism will fall (premises 1 and 2). Only then can we have strong enough reasons to challenge antinatalism. Nevertheless the problem of consent will still remain; even if we make heaven on earth, some may politely decline their participation if only given an opportunity to do so.

Considering the almost impossible achievements necessary to annul antinatalism, it's best not to have children, after all the chain of being between our ancestors, us, and our descendants is bound to be brimming with, not joy, but suffering and that too without consent.

I agree with you but I am not exactly discussing the morality of the situation right now. I am asking whether or not you not saving someone is a cause for their drowning. I think the answer is yes — khaled

This is why I brought up the "vanished from existence" factor in an earlier post in this thread. If the Drowning Man still would have drowned even if the Abandoning Man had vanished from existence before getting the opportunity to abandon him, then "abandonment" is not an action.

(I can think of counter-examples to this as a general principle -- such as, for instance, if Alice shot Bob and that prevented Chris from being able to shoot Bob, but had Alice vanished from existence prior to being able to shoot Bob, Bob still would have been shot, just by Chris instead, then that doesn't let Alice off the hook for actually shooting Bob in the non-counterfactual scenario -- but I don't have time to sort that out into a properly nuanced general principle right now.)

I agree with you but I am not exactly discussing the morality of the situation right now. I am asking whether or not you not saving someone is a cause for their drowning. I think the answer is yes

Inaction isn't a cause. If I ask you for a cause I would expect to hear a series of actions or events.

If I were to accept what you're saying the upshot of this is that even the best of us are all the cause of countless people's deaths so I guess everyone is basically a murderer or at least guilty of countless manslaughters.

Your friend's argument is a weak one and, as you've noticed, is incapable of making the case for both antinatalism and natalism — TheMadFool

How is it incapable for making the case for natalism? Natalism doesn't mean "You should have kids" it means "You may have kids". If you establish that you can be responsible for comparable amounts of harm whether or not you have kids then you may have kids, aka natalism

Firstly, it's based on indubitable facts — TheMadFool

We sorta agreed beforehand we weren't going to rely on empirical observations like these. He would make the case that life has enough pleasure or value to compensate for the pain in it, aka (2) is false

Inaction isn't a cause. If I ask you for a cause I would expect to hear a series of actions or events. — BitconnectCarlos

Inaction IS an action. Inaction is: Not doing X but doing Y instead, where X is the action in question. So inaction is just doing Y. Inaction is just as much an active action/choice as any other.

If I were to accept what you're saying the upshot of this is that even the best of us are all the cause of countless people's deaths so I guess everyone is basically a murderer or at least guilty of countless manslaughters. — BitconnectCarlos

Yup. He made that case and said: So you should try to reduce suffering as much as possible through your action/inaction, inaction doesn't automatically mean you did nothing wrong because it's just as much an action as anything else

This is why I brought up the "vanished from existence" factor in an earlier post in this thread. If the Drowning Man still would have drowned even if the Abandoning Man had vanished from existence before getting the opportunity to abandon him, then "abandonment" is not an action. — Pfhorrest

I had a similar thought in my OP. I accepted that inaction is just as much an action as anything you can do but then said that in order to be RESPONSIBLE or morally liable for something, you need to do more than just be a causal factor in it occuring. If you hadn't been there and the bad thing would have happened anyways then you're not required to take steps in fixing it.

How is it incapable for making the case for natalism? Natalism doesn't mean "You should have kids" it means "You may have kids". If you establish that you can be responsible for comparable amounts of harm whether or not you have kids then you may have kids, aka natalism — khaled

Natalism is a belief that promotes the reproduction of human life. — Wikipedia

What does "you may have kids" mean? It makes as much sense, in keeping with the spirit of antinatalism, as "you may make the child suffer". For antinatalism the stakes are high: unwanted and undeserved suffering, completely avoidable by not being born. You can't possibly think that a wishy-washy "may" is an adequate response to such strong beliefs.

What does "you may have kids" mean? It makes as much sense, in keeping with the spirit of antinatalism, as "you may make the child suffer". For antinatalism the stakes are high: unwanted and undeserved suffering, completely avoidable by not being born. You can't possibly think that a wishy-washy "may" is an adequate response to such strong beliefs. — TheMadFool

As far as wikipedia, the main opposition to anti-natalism is not natalism, but the idea that there is nothing per se wrong about having children. One need not promote it, not try to inhibit births. For those who do not thinkt that having children is per se immoral, but also see no compulsion for people to have kids and does not try to convince people to have them. And obviously the stakes are high for the antinatalists: the logical conclusion of their position is that it would be best if no lifeforms that can feel pain continue to have new generations. So their goal would be some kind of minimally painful elimination of all life forms, at least fauna. It seems to me that in the name of making us all perfectly moral, they would seek eliminate all sentient life (if only via argument and propaganda here at least). I think that is as fanatical a position as some of the worst extremes of radical abrahamism. They are will to take, it seems to me, an unbelievable risk that their values are not as perfectly correct as they think. The unbelievable part of the risk comes in given what they are rooting for and striving for. It's hubris and perfectionism. Only this value and nothing else.

Inaction IS an action. Inaction is: Not doing X but doing Y instead, where X is the action in question. So inaction is just doing Y. Inaction is just as much an active action/choice as any other.

I get it, but we're talking about causation, i.e. which events led to X. It's just how we understand this concept. If I ask you "what caused the hole in this wall" the most straight-forward answer is "Andy punched it" not "Andy punched it and also Jim, Pam, Michael, Tobey, etc. did not directly interfere or stop him."

Of course, bystanders can still be morally liable. But this is different from causing.

Yup. He made that case and said: So you should try to reduce suffering as much as possible through your action/inaction, inaction doesn't automatically mean you did nothing wrong because it's just as much an action as anything else

Yes, so bystanders can still be morally liable but this is different from causation.

Onto a bigger issue though: I can't stand moral systems which make insane demands from individuals. Why are you on a laptop when that money could have been sent to a child in Africa? Why have savings or investments when that money must be donated otherwise you're a murderer? If everyone followed this the entire economy would fall apart and there would be zero money to donate. Everybody would be impoverished and nobody would have any money to help. It's completely insane and I can't seriously contemplate it. Sorry, you've hit on one of my sore spots here.

As far as wikipedia, the main opposition to anti-natalism is not natalism, but the idea that there is nothing per se wrong about having children — Coben

@khaled

Since the antinatalist is making a moral argument the world divides into what is good and what is bad. The basic assertion of the antinatalist is that it's bad to bring children into this world with conditions as they are. If this is accepted then we're morally obligated to not have children.

To deny antinatalism would require the demonstration that either having children is good or that it's morally neutral. That having children is morally neutral is not true, after all, as per the antinatalist, suffering is inevitable, and, according to natalism the inevitable suffering is adequately compensated with the counterweight of happiness; either way both antinatalism and natalism are claiming that having children has a moral dimension. So, it's false that having children is morally neutral. This then implies that natalism is a claim that having children is morally good and that means we're obligated to do what is good; we must have children according to the natalists.

There is no wiggle room to say, quote, "there is nothing per se wrong about having children" which to make sense would require having children to be morally neutral and that it is not.

Within a moral context you either should or should not have children. Natalism is the former and antinatalism is the latter.

Either all the above or it's true that life has an equal amount of suffering and happiness which then would allow us to say, quote, "there is nothing per se wrong about having children". After all the experience of life would be a perfect balance between tears and laughter. However, precisely because of this view that life, on the whole, maybe a neutral experience the question of consent enters the scene. For an experience that guarantees certain fun or pain we usually don't think of asking for consent; we assume, and rightly so, that a person will either enjoy or not enjoy it. However for an experience that provides no such guarantees it's mandatory to seek consent. So, since consent is not sought and is not given in having children, it is immoral. It simply is impossible to say, quote, "there is nothing per se wrong about having children"

This

I think that is as fanatical a position as some of the worst extremes of radical abrahamism. They are will to take, it seems to me, an unbelievable risk that their values are not as perfectly correct as they think. The unbelievable part of the risk comes in given what they are rooting for and striving for. It's hubris and perfectionism. Only this value and nothing else. — Coben

If there's anything wrong with antinatalism then it's that it throws the baby out with the bathwater. After all, they wouldn't have a case IF suffering could be eliminated and this is, in my opinion, a primary objective for humanity as evidenced by how we measure our progress - high life expectancy, low childhood mortality, less poverty, low disease rates, etc. In this respect the future looks bright for our progeny and antinatalism looks destined to become outdated in about a 100 years or so.

What does "you may have kids" mean? It makes as much sense, in keeping with the spirit of antinatalism, as "you may make the child suffer". For antinatalism the stakes are high: unwanted and undeserved suffering, completely avoidable by not being born. You can't possibly think that a wishy-washy "may" is an adequate response to such strong beliefs. — TheMadFool

I have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean. All I'm saying is: If you cause comparable suffering whether or not you have children then there is nothing stopping you from having them. Does that make sense?

the most straight-forward answer — BitconnectCarlos

And how in the world did you "cacluclate" what the most straight-forward cause is?

Andy punched it and also Jim, Pam, Michael, Tobey, etc. did not directly interfere or stop him." — BitconnectCarlos

This is the technically correct verion though (assuming those are the only people that could have stopped him and there were no other factors)

Onto a bigger issue though: I can't stand moral systems which make insane demands from individuals. Why are you on a laptop when that money could have been sent to a child in Africa? Why have savings or investments when that money must be donated otherwise you're a murderer? If everyone followed this the entire economy would fall apart and there would be zero money to donate. Everybody would be impoverished and nobody would have any money to help. It's completely insane and I can't seriously contemplate it. Sorry, you've hit on one of my sore spots here. — BitconnectCarlos

Agreed. This isn't my idea.

And how in the world did you "cacluclate" what the most straight-forward cause is?

I'm not calculating anything. We use "cause" in a variety of ways in the english language, and I can't think of any of them that directly attribute inaction to a cause because it doesn't make sense. The closest I can think of is the inaction of others tacitly encouraging a perpetrator to commit an offense.

To be clear here, a bystander could still be responsible but when we use "cause" we're talking about a chain of events, not non-events.

I have to ask you though, if I don't save a drowning man am I guilty of second degree murder? If I don't donate to a charity and a child dies from a lack of mosquito nets am I also guilty of murder?

.

Antinatalism, at least most versions I have seen, rely on the assumption that not having children is a net neutral act. As in it cannot harm or benefit anyone. But then someone made the case that there is no such thing as "inaction". By choosing to not have children, I become a causal factor in harming people my child would have helped so one cannot say that by not having children I am actually not doing anything wrong. While this does imply that there are situations where people would be wrong not to have children (which I find ridiculous) it does pose an interesting question in my opinion about what "inaction" exactly is. — khaled

Doesn't anti-natalism focus on the responsibility of a parent to a child? An unborn child is obviously not capable of consensus, so you're responsible for any harm that comes to your child by the act of making said harm possible.

I'm not an anti-natalist myself, but I think the argument doesn't quite work, as it's about your child's responsibility to others, and I'm fairly sure that under anti-natalist tenets this would amount to a "chain of suffering", or a morality of mutual relief: you should suffer so as to reduce someone else's suffering, and in turn you're entitled to someone else's suffering to reduce yours. You could just cut out all the suffering at the root and simply not be born. I don't see the argument working. At best it amounts to a stalement between two unexpressed "life is/isn't worth living" points of view. If life isn't worth living than any pleasure is a temporal stop-gap; if life's worth living than suffering is an opportunity for growth. Two people seeing the same world in very different terms would have a different view on action/inaction, too.

If there's responsibility, it's always responsibility to someone, and if there's no-one, responsibility can't trigger. The argument from inaction doesn't change that, and it sounds like people should suffer so they can ease each other's suffering.

Only a group of philosophers would sit around trying to decide whether their inaction in saving a man was responsible for his death, when everyone else would just dive in.

Philosophy exists only in action.

All I'm saying is: If you cause comparable suffering whether or not you have children then there is nothing stopping you from having them. Does that make sense? — khaled

Notice that one who argues like this is already on the backfoot; to argue thus is, after all, to concede that happiness is irrelevant and that the morality of having/not having children is based solely on the suffering that it'll cause.

Suppose for the moment that such a position as you're taking is the correct one: since there's no difference in the amount of suffering whether we have/don't have children, there's no real reason to not have children. If so then let's extend the same logic to other comparable situations. Imagine a room where there are 20 people and an evil scientist shows you a button labeled "fuck & reproduce" and says, "Whether or not you press that button, ALL the people in the room will be killed. However, if you do press the button, one additional person, your child, will be forced into the room and made to kill all 20 people. After that your child too will be killed." Would you press that button? It's not the case that the suffering is comparable.

I agree with everything you just said, though I don't think bystanders can ever be morally responsible for something. These aren't my ideas.