(B) I guess. Well, it's not. Whatever happens to a tree is not "caused" by planting the seed from which it grew. — 180 Proof

Didn't address the problem with your question of why justification is needed in the first place on this issue particularly (as compared to any other issue affecting others).

But the decision is to have a life. Life has known and unknown kinds and quantities of pain. That should be a factor when considering affecting another person's life.

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) — khaled

Again, you have failed to answer the question. Why does the risk of pain outweigh all the other benefits of life? If you don't answer this time, I'm just going to assume you don't have one.

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. — schopenhauer1

I don't know, procreation is a natural behavior of biological organisms. People fuck and wanna have a family, it's not too complicated. When (if) morality plays a part in the decision to have a child, it's usually just in terms of when, e.g. when is the right time to have a child.

Is it wrong for a pigeon to shit on my car? Is it wrong for a shark to prey upon another fish? These organisms are behaving in accordance to their nature.

Procreation is an act of blameless wrong-doing, i.e. foolishness. Is it wrong for a fool to act foolishly, if it is in their nature to do so? There is nothing in procreation to justify, it's just what people do. We might think it is stupid, or that it would be better if they refrained, but demanding people give a rational justification for something that is natural and instinctive is equally foolish.

Is it wrong for a pigeon to shit on my car? Is it wrong for a shark to prey upon another fish? These organisms are behaving in accordance to their nature.

Procreation is an act of blameless wrong-doing, i.e. foolishness. Is it wrong for a fool to act foolishly, if it is in their nature to do so? There is nothing in procreation to justify, it's just what people do. We might think it is stupid, or that it would be better if they refrained, but demanding people give a rational justification for something that is natural and instinctive is equally foolish. — darthbarracuda

Is it wrong for a pigeon to shit on my car? Is it wrong for a shark to prey upon another fish? These organisms are behaving in accordance to their nature.

Procreation is an act of blameless wrong-doing, i.e. foolishness. Is it wrong for a fool to act foolishly, if it is in their nature to do so? There is nothing in procreation to justify, it's just what people do. We might think it is stupid, or that it would be better if they refrained, but demanding people give a rational justification for something that is natural and instinctive is equally foolish. — darthbarracuda

There's a lot to unpack here, but the crux of this is that procreation is instinctive. Is procreation itself actually instinctive or a consequence, rather? Humans have preferences which they often like to fulfill, but there is no inevitability or mating season or anything like that. Even sex itself, might not be considered "instinctual". Rather pleasure is enjoyable and people tend to act on what is enjoyable if permitted, I would say.

Why does the risk of pain outweigh all the other benefits of life? — Philosophim

It doesn't, and I never said that it did. But that is irrelevant. We require consent for risky actions when we do them unto others.

For example: Going to a theme park has a risk of pleasure and a risk of pain. So depending on the person it may or may not be worth it to go. If person A thinks it's worth going that doesn't justify person A forcing person B to go without consent. The reason behind that is NOT that the risk of going "objectively" outweighs the risk of not going, but simply because person B MAY think that the it does. Maybe person B has a fear of heights or something or hates crowded spaces. That is why person A cannot assume person B will like the theme park simply because A personally liked it. Which is why person A must ask person B first if he wants to go. If person B is not available to be asked, that still doesn't justify person A forcing him to go.

More nonsense. — 180 Proof

A definition can not be nonsense. I can define whatever word however I want.

For example, 'leading a jackass to water' may be a necessary condition but alone is insufficent for causing this jackass 'to drink'. — 180 Proof

But if the water was poisoned, and the person that led the jackass to water KNEW it was poisoned, and furthermore didn't try to stop the jackass from drinking the poisoned water, and the jackass died, we say that the person leading the jackass killed the jackass. In other words that the jackass's death was caused by the person leading him there, even though that was not a sufficient condition. That is how I see the word regularly used within ethics. "Your honor, my client pulling the trigger was not a sufficient condition for the victim's death therefore my client is innocent" is not a very good defence.

This is what nonsense looks like:

A definition can not be nonsense. I can define whatever word however I want. — khaled

:shade:

To wit:

When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less. — Humpty Dumpty

you will never get to the point where life becomes free of suffering — khaled

Why?

Why? — TheMadFool

Because of the first half of the sentence. I pulled a MadFool on ya :joke:

Seriously though it's because if you believe in the antinatalist position we're not gonna be here 80 years from now and I don't think we can make a utopia in 80 years. It's not because suffering is inextricable from life or anything.

:up:

It doesn't, and I never said that it did. But that is irrelevant. We require consent for risky actions when we do them unto others.

For example: Going to a theme park has a risk of pleasure and a risk of pain. So depending on the person it may or may not be worth it to go. If person A thinks it's worth going that doesn't justify person A forcing person B to go without consent. The reason behind that is NOT that the risk of going "objectively" outweighs the risk of not going, but simply because person B MAY think that the it does. Maybe person B has a fear of heights or something or hates crowded spaces. That is why person A cannot assume person B will like the theme park simply because A personally liked it. Which is why person A must ask person B first if he wants to go. If person B is not available to be asked, that still doesn't justify person A forcing him to go.

I don’t get this argument. There is no person B because no such being has been born. And it seems to me that a necessary condition of requiring consent for risky actions when we do them unto others is that the other must first exist. Pretending that we require the consent of some non-existent, imaginary person seems nonsensical.

The fact that the subject of anti-natalist concern does not exist gives me reason to believe the anti-natalist has no ethical argument, and instead seeks some round-about praise for his masturbatory activities.

Pretending that we require the consent of some non-existent, imaginary person seems nonsensical. — NOS4A2

Youre being ridiculous. We went over this before. If this line of reasoning is followed, then if someone who would be born, we knew was 100% going to be tortured, we wouldnt consider that future person at all because they werent born yet. So essentially the person has to be born and tortured for this consideration to be relevant. Ridiculous.

Youre being ridiculous. We went over this before. If this line of reasoning is followed, then if someone who would be born, we knew was 100% going to be tortured, we wouldnt consider that future person at all because they werent born yet. So essentially the person has to be born and tortured for this consideration to be relevant. Ridiculous.

Note that all you have to work with is your fantasies—you require the consent of an unborn being, or you’re quite sure an unborn being will be tortured, and so on. But the reality is less noble than the fantasy because it is no different than saying I’m being ethical by using birth control or jerking off into my sock.

And it seems to me that a necessary condition of requiring consent for risky actions when we do them unto others is that the other must first exist. — NOS4A2

It doesn't seem to me that way. It seems to me the requirement must be that the person exists at the time the risky action will affect them. The problem with birth is that the person exists, by definition, at the same time as the risky action will affect them (birth) in this case so it makes it difficult to understand what to do.

Why would it be wrong to genetically engineer children to be crippled for example? In the same way, at the time the action is taken no one exists to be harmed. So that makes it right? What about implanting a fetus with a bomb that blows up once the child reaches 15? Again, no one existed to be harmed at the time the bomb was planted.

seeks some round-about praise for his masturbatory activities. — NOS4A2

I think I've explained this concept to you at least 10 times by now on the other thread but again. An antinatalist doesn't see not having kids as good. He only sees having kids as bad. In the same way a sane person wouldn't consider "not shooting people" good but would consider shooting people bad. And antinatalism isn't even against sex.

This makes me think of a Marilyn Manson song called mOBSCENE