You've just side-stepped the point of objection. Either you have a view of morality which most people would consider sociopathic, or you accept, as most do, that failing to help reduce suffering when is it well within your power to do so is bad, even if that means forcing another to help (if forcing another is the only action you can take - you yourself are unable to help for some reason).

If you disagree with this, then that's fine, but your position is no better than the neo-con liberalism which seems to be polluting our societies at the moment ("not my problem!").

If you agree, then having a child, and raising them as best as you can to be both happy themselves and helpful in reducing the suffering of others is no different to fetching a stronger man to help lift an old lady who's fallen. We, quite fairly, use others to reduce harms to the extant we're able because if we're to have an ethic at all, then we presume it applies to others also (otherwise it's pointless).

As I said, the only way round this for the antinatalist is either a neo-con 'not my problem' ethic (which I'd hardly class as ethics at all), or a method of ensuring with 100% certainty that they will be no next generation in need of help, ie the immediate annihilation of the human race.

that failing to help reduce suffering when is it well within your power to do so is bad, even if that means forcing another to help (if forcing another is the only action you can take - you yourself are unable to help for some reason). — Isaac

I just don't know what you are trying to get at.. So you are claiming that people should procreate in the hopes that their progeny will reduce suffering? You realize this is an absurd, unnecessary pyramid scheme right? By creating more people, you are creating more sources of suffering, thereby needing more people to prevent suffering. But besides being absurd on its premise, it is also unethical to use people as suffering-reducers. As with any "grand scheme" (e.g. keeping civilization or the species going), using individual people for some third-party agenda, however noble you think it is, is still using people. This is actually one of the reasons I explained earlier that I don't agree with aggregate total happiness principles and maximizing happiness only in aggregate, which are not person-centered but focus on some outcome.

Once born, reducing harm becomes a necessity of living in a society with people who are brought into existence already. However, to cause all cases of harm (bringing someone into existence) in the first place is unjustified. That is causing the very harm that needs reduction in the first place. It is creating the very circumstances that people have to deal with in the first place. No one needs anything prior to birth, obviously. No one needs harm reduced prior to birth obviously. No one needs prior to birth, period. And so while it is justified once born to reduce suffering, as it is "too late" to prevent all cases of harm for a person, it is certainly not justified to bring about the very situation for "all harms to take place" just because there is the potential for the harm to get mitigated at some point. There is no reason to cause the situation for harm to take place in the first place, and certainly not for a third-party agenda (thus using people for this agenda).

And hence, as a person-centered approach, preventing suffering will prevent suffering to any future individual who might be born. And again, preventing birth, prevents deprivation. Interestingly, this means there will be no actual person deprived of any good/benefit either.

you are claiming that people should procreate in the hopes that their progeny will reduce suffering? — schopenhauer1

Yes.

You realize this is an absurd, unnecessary pyramid scheme right? By creating more people, you are creating more sources of suffering, thereby needing more people to prevent suffering. — schopenhauer1

Yes. That's why I said the antinatalist's only coherent counter is the immediate annihilation of the human race. Anything less and the next stage ofvthis 'absurd pyramid' is going to happen anyway, whether you like it or not.

it is also unethical to use people as suffering-reducers. — schopenhauer1

Is it? So one cannot call for help, because one cannot use another person to reduce suffering? How grossly individualistic. If one is morally bound to reduce suffering, then one reasonably assumes that others are too. That being the case, those others are already suffering-reducers. You cannot coherently talk about a certain ethical code (do no harm, do nit force others) as if it were categirical and then treat ither miral codes (reduce suffering) as if they were nothing more than a persinal choice which we shouldn't assume apply to others. All one is doing by giving birth is facilitating a duty of the next generation to help reduce suffering.

That is causing the very harm that needs reduction in the first place. — schopenhauer1

No it isn't. The harm in need of reduction is caused by other people having children. The reduction in question is caused by you having children. Two different events. All that is required to make the decision sound is that you have reason to believe you're a better than average parent.

There is no reason to cause the situation for harm to take place in the first place — schopenhauer1

Have a look back at the proposition I actually opposed. Unless you are advocating the immediate annihilation of the human race then the situation in which harm takes place is happening anyway, that is not within your control.

Is it? So one cannot call for help, because one cannot use another person to reduce suffering? — Isaac

Why do you like to straw man my argument? You know very well that it is from the perspective of not causing suffering to begin with for a future person right? You combine that with person-centered ethics, and you see what I mean. A future person who can have all harm prevented should not be then created and harmed, such that already existing people can MAYBE have people that reduce their suffering. I already stated that the situation is different for people already born. Please stop conflating scenarios to suit your rebuttal.

As I stated earlier:

Once born, reducing harm becomes a necessity of living in a society with people who are brought into existence already. However, to cause all cases of harm (bringing someone into existence) in the first place is unjustified. That is causing the very harm that needs reduction in the first place. It is creating the very circumstances that people have to deal with in the first place. No one needs anything prior to birth, obviously. No one needs harm reduced prior to birth obviously. No one needs prior to birth, period. And so while it is justified once born to reduce suffering, as it is "too late" to prevent all cases of harm for a person, it is certainly not justified to bring about the very situation for "all harms to take place" just because there is the potential for the harm to get mitigated at some point. There is no reason to cause the situation for harm to take place in the first place, and certainly not for a third-party agenda (thus using people for this agenda). — schopenhauer1

All one is doing by giving birth is facilitating a duty of the next generation to help reduce suffering. — Isaac

And of course that is my main problem, you are conflating the case of birth with already being born. Thus, read what I said above.

No it isn't. The harm in need of reduction is caused by other people having children. The reduction in question is caused by you having children. Two different events. All that is required to make the decision sound is that you have reason to believe you're a better than average parent. — Isaac

And you see that this is not really person-centered ethics, and therefore unethical. It is unethical to create ALL harm for a person that will be born (all the challenges, dealings and CONTINGENT harms of unknown quantities) for a child, especially for any agenda that the birth of that child is supposed to fulfill. Again, by aggregating harm into some odd ratio of less harm here more harm there, etc. doesn't negate the fact that you did created an individual that will be harmed, when this did not have to happen.

Your bizarre understanding of suffering/harm as an entity which is aggregated and not happening to actual people is unethical in my opinion. I am all for people already existing reducing suffering in other people, but not wholesale creation of the very circumstances for which this whole harm-reducing scheme needs to be there in the first place. All of that can be prevented for a future person if their birth was prevented in the first place (remember, person-centered, not third-party outcome centered). People's inevitable suffering should not be used for any cause, whether you think it's noble or not.

Have a look back at the proposition I actually opposed. Unless you are advocating the immediate annihilation of the human race then the situation in which harm takes place is happening anyway, that is not within your control. — Isaac

And again, look back to my argument. It is person-centered. One less child is one less experiencer of suffering. It is not about quantity but creating agents who suffer, when it comes to procreation. Once born, there is now no chance to completely prevent all suffering, only amelioration. Do not cause harm, do not force. If someone is harmed. I agree, it is best to develop a moral sense to help reduce people's suffering if you see immediate suffering, but certainly with that one must not FORCE or CAUSE all circumstances of suffering in another, just so they can ameliorate suffering. People are not tools to be used for your cause.

Nah I don't think this follows. Just because someone is doing something bad does not mean I have any moral duty to get involved to stop them. I didn't ask to be here, and I hate cleaning up messes other people make. I have enough to worry about in my own life, so I mind my own business and let others do their thing. — darthbarracuda

Allowing bad acts to occur when you could have prevented it is morally judged as what in your opinion? Good, bad, or neutral? It seems to me that the point of morality is to either create “good” or reduce “bad,” or both whenever reasonably possible. It is good to do good actions, and bad to do bad ones. At the very least it is good to prevent bad actions from occurring. Since that act is good, and it is good to do good things, you should do it whenever reasonably possible.

But surely I am justified in trying to convince people that doing something is wrong, if I believe it is wrong? — darthbarracuda

Sure, but you have to admit that doing so is attempting to use them as a means to your end. You’re trying to get them to change their behavior so that it suits you and what you think is right or good.

Again, my point is the idea of forcing pain on someone else for one's own benefit of alleviating pain is not a good one. — schopenhauer1

I’m not arguing with this, I’m interested to see what you think about harming X in order to reduce Y’s harm. Or, Harming X in order to prevent future harm for X.

Slightly changing your above quote illustrates my point:

The idea of forcing pain on someone else (by convincing them, or somehow preventing them from procreating) for one’s own (or someone else’s) benefit (the unborn child’s) of alleviating (or preventing) pain is not a good one.

Do you agree with that statement? Why, or why not?

Apart from this, I’m claiming that attempting in any way to alter someone else’s behavior for your benefit is treating them as a means to an end. Promoting antinatalism does this, and thereby violates your claim that it is wrong to treat people in such a way. Therefore, promoting antinatalism is immoral. As a hint, the out here is to concede that the statement “it is wrong to treat people as a means to an end” is not absolute; it’s relative.