Contrary to Benatar's Asymmetry, I believe it is the net experience that matters. To take it to the extremes to prove my point, I would take some minor negative experiences for a life otherwise full of pleasure, but I would (obviously) not take some minor positive experiences for a life otherwise full of pain.

The trouble is procreation is a gamble, and I believe there is a fair chance of creating someone with a net negative experience, and a chance (however small) of creating someone with with a life of general suffering. I don't believe it is right to take this gamble, so I agree with your conclusion, if not your path to getting there.

I am not really seeing the point you are making about not bringing people into the world because who is going to stop them. Surely you are not wanting prohibitions. Surely we don't want further loss of civil liberties than is happening already. Also, I think your thinking is rather negative.

The arguments you have been conveying in this thread are very convoluted and consist of black and white thinking, starting with the question of whether pain was inherently good or bad, and, after a few responses you are declaring that children should not be brought into the world.

Saying that, the whole question of suffering is an area for discussion but I think you need to formulate clearer and more sound arguments.

I am also wondering if your views are based on personal experience of suffering. If they are, I do empathise with you. At times I find life really painful but I do think life can be worth living because we can create and find ways of overcoming physical and emotional pain in most instances.

I know that you say that Shopenhauer1 is saying that life is not worth starting rather than living but the logic of this is not rational. Any belief that life is not worth starting must rest on the assumption that it is not living, surely?

Also, a belief that life is not worth starting is a far too simple philosophical statement to address the problem of pain, which is a part of life for all living beings.

If we know pain and suffering exist, why then would it be justified to bring more people into a world with known and unknown amounts of pain and suffering? — schopenhauer1

Because existing is good! Again, pain is just a sign to your body that you need to change something, that you're being damage. Pain is letting you know, "Hey, existing and being healthy is good! Something is hindering this, do something about it!"

Pain tells you, "Take care of yourself, you're worth it."

Again, the only pain that is truly bad is the pain you can't fix. Most of us don't have that. Pain and suffering come and go, and there are other ways to cope with it when we cannot address the underlying cause of the pain itself.

I just don't understand why experiencing pain would be an argument against existing. Could you propose why?

What do you think? I do not think pain/suffering is redemptive. — schopenhauer1

What I think isn't important. Your opinion matters.

Contrary to Benatar's Asymmetry, I believe it is the net experience that matters. To take it to the extremes to prove my point, I would take some minor negative experiences for a life otherwise full of pleasure, but I would (obviously) not take some minor positive experiences for a life otherwise full of pain. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I think his point is that missed "benefits" are not "bad" unless an actual person is deprived of them. However, he sees missed "negatives" as indeed ALWAYS a good thing, even if no person is around to know that there are missed negatives. I think that asymmetry is the crux of his particular argument. He gives some intuitive arguments like people not caring if a distant planet is vacant of happy people, but probably feeling bad for a distant planet where people are experiencing bad things.

Thus, there is just something about preventing bad which outweighs in some regard missed happiness. This obviously has the most bearing in the scenario of procreation, where one can prevent all badness which is more important than missed happiness (which wouldn't matter anyways since people won't exist to care).

At times I find life really painful but I do think life can be worth living because we can create and find ways of overcoming physical and emotional pain in most instances. — Jack Cummins

But this is the exact justification for procreation that I am arguing against. Perhaps it is unjustified to create new people in a reality that has any suffering short of a utopia. Can we at least entertain the idea that this excuse that suffering is needed so people can have the joy of overcoming it, might be a defense mechanism, like a post-facto excuse for allowing more people to be exposed to harm?

Also, I didn't even mention the grey, neutral states that are not really good or bad. I dealt with this in another thread, but I stated that there are a lot of things throughout the day that can be replaced by sleep, and we really wouldn't care, or we might even welcome sleep over the tedium. Again, we might overcome the tedium but then we are back with the "joy" of overcoming a negative state which again seems like a defense or post-facto excuse for having to endure them in the first place.

Again, the only pain that is truly bad is the pain you can't fix. Most of us don't have that. Pain and suffering come and go, and there are other ways to cope with it when we cannot address the underlying cause of the pain itself.

I just don't understand why experiencing pain would be an argument against existing. Could you propose why? — Philosophim

If we are deciding that we should continue another person (a next generation), and one of the considerations is suffering. Why on Earth would you think that exposing people to pain is good? What you seem to be saying is that physical pain evolved for some evolutionary purpose. So what? Just because something might have arose from a utilitarian or natural cause, doesn't mean that it must be good. That is a naturalistic fallacy. Hurricanes in themselves are interesting events. Hurricanes that cause mass devastation, not so much. Pain in itself, well, okay.. that has a context, and usually when you ask a person in pain they are not (during the painful event) going to give you a soliloquy about isn't it funny how pain arose from evolutionary reasons to tell us something is wrong?

Of course you are entitled to any viewpoint which you wish to have but I do have one true memory which might be useful for you to reflect upon.

I used to woman who did not wish to have children because she thought that the world was to horrible to bring children into. However, she was married and while her husband respected her opinion her husband was wishing for children. The woman gave in and had a daughter and a son. At some point, the daughter who was about 10 or 11 somehow found out how her mother had not wished to have children. The daughter was deeply distressed by the mother's view that the world was too bad a place to bring children into.

I have not seen the woman for a few years and the child would be a teenager now, so I don't know how the dialogue continued. I think it is an interesting real life scenario pointing to the way in which the people of the future can judge for themselves whether they should have been born at all.

180 Proof

If we know the world has known and unknown amounts of suffering, what is the justification of bringing people into this? — schopenhauer1

Tell me/us why 'procreation' ought to be "justified".

The Asymmetry does appear to be his main argument against procreation. Though he makes a point in his book and his interviews to say that even if the Asymmetry is not accepted, the other arguments (the poor quality of most lives being hidden by an optimism bias, the sacrifice of the minority that will suffer so that others can exist) would nevertheless support antinatalism. He pre-empted that even Negative Utilitarians would struggle to accept the Asymmetry.

It can be easy, in any philosophical topic, to be bogged down in word semantics. Whether or not it is 'bad' that no life exists on a foreign planet, I maintain that if every life that could be created would experience net positive, it would be the morally correct thing to bring them into existence.

Tell me/us why 'procreation' ought to be "justified". — 180 Proof

C'mon. So any action is justified?

Is that (A) "I don't know why" or (B) "I think it's self-evident why"?

You seem to be ignoring the question I asked you. Why does the fact that someone will experience pain alone negate all the other things in life like happiness, success, learning, etc in life? It seems very odd to me that you're focused on only a slice of human existence, and ignoring all the rest.

Your argument is in agreement with truths as they stand but these are contingent truths, something you've failed to address in your post. Is it absolutely necessary that life and suffering have to go together? — TheMadFool

I don't see a reason why it would be no.

But what if life is free from suffering? Would you still feel or think it would be not worth starting? — TheMadFool

No then it would definitely be worth starting. But the point is, if you agree with the antinatalist position you will never get to the point where life becomes free of suffering unless we do so literally within this lifetime.

You seem to be ignoring the question I asked you. Why does the fact that someone will experience pain alone negate all the other things in life like happiness, success, learning, etc in life? — Philosophim

It doesn't negate it so much as make it a risky action. Have kids: Risk of harm and risk of pleasure (risky), Don't have kids: No risk of either (safe)

And in every day to day situation whenever we want to do something risky like that onto someone else consent is required. Consent cannot be found in this case so it is considered to be not given. Would you be happy if I used your credit card to buy you new clothes that you hated but that I thought you would like?

Any belief that life is not worth starting must rest on the assumption that it is not living, surely? — Jack Cummins

I don't think so. Once humans are born we have an innate drive to keep living. Going against that drive is painful. However before we are born there is no such drive, so there is no justification to begin a life. Think of it like: Once you've paid for a movie ticket, the movie is worth watching even if it is mediocre but that doesn't mean the ticket was worth it in the first place. Or like: If you lose a finger in an accident that doesn't suddenly make life not worth living, but that doesn't make it okay to go around cutting people's fingers.

Also, a belief that life is not worth starting is a far too simple philosophical statement to address the problem of pain, which is a part of life for all living beings. — Jack Cummins

"simple" doesn't equate to "wrong". What is unsatisfactory about it? Antinatalism doesn't even try to address the problem of pain. It is simply the recognition of procreation as a source of harm and so not partaking in it.

I do not agree with your basic logic. You say that once a person is living that there is a drive to keep on living and this makes sense, with reference to the life instinct or drive, identified by Freud. You go on to say that this drive is not present before life is started and this is a flawed argument because it is simply stating that people do not have drives because they do not exist. It is as pointless as saying that triangles don't have 3 sides until they are put on paper. It is meaningless statement ultimately.

With regard to my dismissal of antinatalism, I would say firstly that I do not have an ultimate agenda in favour of procreation. I am not even partaking in procreation but that is about relationship choices more than anything else. Once, I was even in a conversation with someone who thought I was selfish because I was not in a procreating which was extremely ridiculous too.

However, I am not of the view that it is wrong for children to be born. That is because the antinatalist view as far as I understand it is an inadequate solution to the problem of suffering. While human beings are likely to suffer to some extent they may have pleasure and happiness too. Surely, it is better for us to make the world the best place we can for future generations rather than saying that these generations should not exist.

But of course I am not in any way saying that you need to procreate. That is your basic choice. I am simply pointing out that I think that antinatalism is not the necessary solution to the problem of suffering.

In the first place Shopenhauer1's thread was about whether pain was good or not. The argument that children should not be brought into existence is based on the premise that pain should can only ever have negative consequences. That in itself is black and white thinking because while suffering is not necessarily good suffering is the source of innovation.

How many of the greatest artists, poets and musicians would have created their greatest works if they had not touched down to the depths of pain and suffering? Scientific progress is spurred on to provide happiness rather than pain. So, what I would argue is that while pain and suffering are not good in themselves they are an inevitable part of life in providing motivation. In that sense, suffering is neither all bad or good but a core part of evolution in the past and future.

it is simply stating that people do not have drives because they do not exist. It is as pointless as saying that triangles don't have 3 sides until they are put on paper. It is meaningless statement ultimately. — Jack Cummins

Pointless, Meaningless, maybe. False? No.

Surely, it is better for us to make the world the best place we can for future generations rather than saying that these generations should not exist. — Jack Cummins

If it was "surely" we wouldn't be arguing. Now if you are saying that it's better to make the world a better place then yea I agree. But I do not agree that it is necessarily better than no one being there at all.

While human beings are likely to suffer to some extent they may have pleasure and happiness too. — Jack Cummins

Again, that just makes the act "risky". And in day to day life when it comes to other people we always make sure to get consent before we commit risky acts otherwise we'd be doing something wrong. Given that, and that consent is impossible in this case (since the affected party will not exist until after being affected) then one shouldn't have kids.

That in itself is black and white thinking because while suffering is not necessarily good suffering is the source of innovation. — Jack Cummins

So does that make it okay to force others to suffer so that they can "innovate"? I don't think so. I never get why people bring this up in relation to antinatalism. Sure pain and suffering make us better but no one in their right mind would say that it is morally okay to force someone to suffer because you're "bettering them"

How many of the greatest artists, poets and musicians would have created their greatest works if they had not touched down to the depths of pain and suffering? — Jack Cummins

Actually I had an exact question that I asked a friend about this once. I asked "If your kid would be the next mozart but would live a terrible life and be serverly derpessed would you have them". Naturally they replied "no".

How many of the greatest artists, poets and musicians would have created their greatest works if they had not touched down to the depths of pain and suffering? Scientific progress is spurred on to provide happiness rather than pain. So, what I would argue is that while pain and suffering are not good in themselves they are an inevitable part of life in providing motivation. In that sense, suffering is neither all bad or good but a core part of evolution in the past and future. — Jack Cummins

Why all this effort to fix a problem (suffering) that can simply be fixed by not having kids? A utopian solution is preferrable I agree, but I don't think generations should suffer so eventually humanity no longer suffers. Which is the same reply I gave themadlad

Tell me/us why 'procreation' ought to be "justified". — 180 Proof

Because it was the initial cause of every single harm possible.

Nonsense. Acorns don't cause e.g. forest fires or logging.

Basically, it seems that you are saying that you think it is better if the human race does not exist.
If you really believe this you entitled to your views but while you(or I) will bring children into the world the majority will.

One question I would just wonder about, do you really wish that you had never come into existence at all?

Also, you do say that ideally utopia would be better? Perhaps this ideal is worth thinking about as a imaginative possibility. I know that it is difficult to create utopia. Even if it is not possible to create a world free from suffering highest dreams and ethical ideals are a starting point for more desirable futures for future generations.

I just noticed a typing error in my comment it should have read that you(or I ) will NOT bring children into the world. I just thought I had better clarity that was what I meant.

Acorns don't cause e.g. forest fires or logging. — 180 Proof

Yes they do by my definition. If there was no forest there would be no forest fire. Causes = Is a necessary condition for. Is the definition I'm going with.

do you really wish that you had never come into existence at all? — Jack Cummins

What makes you think that? I am an example (and a thankfully common one) of someone taking a gamble with someone else's life by brining them into existence and that gamble turning out well. I am very happy so no I don't wish I never came into existence. But that doesn't justify further gambling.

Also, you do say that ideally utopia would be better? Perhaps this ideal is worth thinking about as a imaginative possibility. I know that it is difficult to create utopia. Even if it is not possible to create a world free from suffering highest dreams and ethical ideals are a starting point for more desirable futures for future generations. — Jack Cummins

It is a possibility. But I'd rather have no suffering tomorrow than a chance at no suffering at some unspecified time in the future.

So, you have procreated and I have not but you are the one recommending procreation. I find life difficult struggle with depression daily and you say that do not suffer. Yet you are one fearful of suffering at some point in the future, so think that it would be be better if humans weren't born.

It shows how upside down and back to front we both are. Or, perhaps fear of suffering is worse than the reality, itself.

Causes = Is a necessary condition for. Is the definition I'm going with. — khaled

More nonsense. 'A causes B' iff BOTH necessary AND sufficient conditions are met. For example, 'leading a jackass to water' may be a necessary condition but alone is insufficent for causing this jackass 'to think'.

It can be easy, in any philosophical topic, to be bogged down in word semantics. Whether or not it is 'bad' that no life exists on a foreign planet, I maintain that if every life that could be created would experience net positive, it would be the morally correct thing to bring them into existence. — Down The Rabbit Hole

A) Besides some rough estimate at the end of one's life, I don't think one can really tell their own estimate if their life on whole was a net benefit at the point of being interviewed. (You mentioned optimism bias for example).

B) More importantly, I don't think positives and negatives are weighted the same when compared with their absence. An absent pain is indeed always good. An absent pleasure doesn't matter. It isn't really a moral obligation or consideration, especially on its own without someone there to be deprived. In a way a universe without suffering, tedium, drudgery, agony, etc. is the most moral universe. Just because this may also be a universe without self-aware beings, so be it. I think sometimes people imagine themselves trapped in nothingness or something. That's not even nothingness, just a projection of someone onto the concept of nothing, as one cannot square that circle as a living being, and fears of the unknown color our bias here.

C) Just because something like 51% of life vs. 49% of life is considered (to one's biased self) as positive, doesn't then mean that the suffering is thus magically justified. Pain just isn't symmetrical to benefits. While pleasure/happiness is good to have and desirable, the pain one must endure is even more so undesirable. The pain is the problematic part of the equation. It taints the whole thing. Thus if happiness is to only really be had from its contrast with pain, all the more suspect it is as a vehicle that is deemed good and justified to promote on behalf of other people. As I've said before, anything short of utopia may be wrong conditions to create for another human. Contra Nietzsche's maniacal howls, no this universe with its pain is not utopia. Again, maniacal embracing of what already exists isn't philosophy, its simply making do, at its utmost logical conclusion.

Is that (A) "I don't know why" or (B) "I think it's self-evident why"? — 180 Proof

Causing conditions for which people will experience suffering, is a weighty matter, a moral one. At the least it is a core existential question that one must grapple with. Is bringing another life into the world something one ought to do? To simply say, why question any matter that affects another person, to me seems to be arguing out of bad faith, because I am sure in many other realms you are willing to entertain arguments for justification (for example, theft, intentionally causing harm to others, etc.).

(B) I guess. Well, it's not. Whatever happens to a tree is not "caused" by planting the seed from which it grew.