It's against the idea that such a position is somehow a logical conclusion from commonly held premises — Isaac
knowing full-well that at some point the argument relies upon an intuition which is not commonly held. — Isaac
The only reason I can think of for such a practice is the hope of 'recruiting' people who've not noticed this hidden premise — Isaac
or griping about the world without actually having to bear any responsibilty for doing anything about it. — Isaac
Are you seriously attributing to me, standing at the site of a car crash, the ability to correctly calculate the conditional probability of a crash victim's future happiness drawing on my knowledge of established base rates of happiness among people with traumatic injuries that resulted in disability? And this is what I do to overcome the requirement that I seek his consent before saving his life?
If he's conscious but bleeding out, do I still ask for his consent to save him, or do the calculations anyway? Should I discount because he's likely in shock and just apply pressure to his open wound, even if tells me to let him die? No, wait, I need to calculate the conditional probability that he would later endorse his own withholding of consent while in shock, again considering my knowledge of the base rate of changes of heart among people who were saved having asked not to be. — Srap Tasmaner
Gotta say, it's starting to look I'd best just stay out of it. — Srap Tasmaner
But I did violate their rights back when they didn't exist yet, so shame on me. Oh and their mom, she did too. We'll apologize, but I'm pretty sure they're cool with it. — Srap Tasmaner
Of course, as soon as they were born I took all the rest of their autonomy away. Their mom too, we both did. And we still haven't given all of it back. Thing is though, the kids did get parents in exchange, and I think they're mostly happy with the deal. — Srap Tasmaner
Do you think this might be a pretty common situation? You know, I violate a non-existent person's rights by bringing them into the world, and I continue to violate their rights for years, but in return I accept considerable responsibility for their well-being, at least up until the point where they're ready and willing to take if not all then most of that responsibility themselves? — Srap Tasmaner
That could be a reasonable set-up couldn't it? — Srap Tasmaner
How would YOU go about deciding in all these situations actually? Ignore everything I have argued, how many variables would YOU try to process? — khaled
If they weren't happy with the deal whose fault is it? And should we pretend that this risk is non existent or that it is not worth considering?
(( ... ))
What do you do if your kids hate their existence? — khaled
What gives you the right to take that risk in the first place? To say "I'll take a risk at harming others because it'll probably turn out okay" is not enough of a justifaction for me. — khaled
My cockamamie ideas are not under discussion here. — Srap Tasmaner
I think my oldest son almost hated his existence for a little while in the Spring. He's a musician and had begun thinking that live music might never be a thing again. Pretty depressing stuff for a young man to deal with. He's in fine form these days.
Generally speaking, I don't know. One or two of the kids tend a little toward melancholia, but it's just personality not pathology. So far as I can tell, there's neither mental illness nor despair among my children, though the ones that are old enough have had their moments. Mostly they are wild, creative, gutsy, fascinating little and not so little people. — Srap Tasmaner
Having and then raising children is not spinning a roulette wheel or something, just one action and then you get the result: loves life, hates life, mostly hates life, mostly neutral, ... Like it's on a scale from 1 to 7. That's not my experience of life or of raising children, or the experience of anyone I know. There is no result, so no risk of the result being one thing or another. We're just alive. — Srap Tasmaner
Parents don't just guess how things will turn out, they work at it, they take responsibility. — Srap Tasmaner
If you told my kids that I harmed them by bringing them into the world without their consent — Srap Tasmaner
The "result" is whether or not your children would rather have not been born. — khaled
There is a non zero chance they would have still hated every minute of their lives despite your best effort be it due to genetic/mental illness or some accident, etc, etc. — khaled
Is this just a thought experiment or are you talking about something real like major depression? — Srap Tasmaner
That there is a non-zero chance your child will experience major depression therefore no one should ever have children? — Srap Tasmaner
Are we asking them at the end, "So, what'd you think? Worth it?" — Srap Tasmaner
Or they commit suicide, in whichcase the answer to the question is a very clear "no" — khaled
Is this just a thought experiment or are you talking about something real like major depression?
— Srap Tasmaner
Can be seen as either. — khaled
the stresses of life are something people need help to cope with. The fact that there is propositional content associated with these conditions is not a moral fact to be taken into account; it's a side-effect. — Srap Tasmaner
We wouldn't presume to decide on behalf of someone suffering that they should die; we respect their decision. Then what are we to say about the hypothetical person? We can't respect their views and their decisions, for they have none. — Srap Tasmaner
So we go around that and make it an epistemic problem for us. I can't know whether my hypothetical child wants to become real, whatever that could mean. I can't know whether, once living, they will always want to go on living. I can't know whether they will at some point wish they had never been born. And then we switch it all around and construct a duty out of things that I cannot know not because they are private but because they are not facts at all. — Srap Tasmaner
But then those non-facts are treated as somehow determinate, as if having a child is drawing a world-line from the proverbial urn of marbles. My child's life will be a red or a blue, it's just a matter of probability, and we can confidently assign probabilities to the different results, probabilities of a very vague sort like "> 0". What justification is ever offered for this absurd formalization? — Srap Tasmaner
This kind of argument only make sense if we are talking about possibilities that affect no one. You can't equate this with something like "The pink unicorns should be prevented from existing because they might kill the green leprechauns".. Yeah since none of those things actually exist or ever will.. then that is indeed nonsensical to talk about as if it is real.. But an act that WILL create an ACTUAL person if it is followed, DOES have considerations for a future being, so your rebuttal is null. — schopenhauer1
This is equivalent to saying that you know someone who will encounter immediate torture upon birth shouldn't be considered, because they are not born yet.. No, in this view, you'd wait for the person to be tortured for you to say, "NOW, we can consider that person". Doesn't make sense. — schopenhauer1
But this is exactly my problem. An actual person could have any sort of life, but for your argument you need to talk about it this way: — Srap Tasmaner
Is "immediate torture upon birth" one of the marbles in the jar you imagine me drawing from? You're not talking about an actual person, but about a very definite though hypothetical person. — Srap Tasmaner
This continual flipping between empirical claims about human life and bizarre thought experiments leaves me wondering if you might have an airtight argument that happens not to apply to real life, like one of those old models in economics with perfect competition and utility-maximizing agents who have perfect knowledge, etc. etc. — Srap Tasmaner
Maybe we should just leave it there. The formalism of the argument, which is crucial, just doesn't resonate with me, but you've given me some things to think about. — Srap Tasmaner
There is a mirror asymmetry, that no one benefits from anti-natalism. A person who is not born can no more benefit than they can be harmed. If no one is ever born again, eventually there is no one to benefit from your ethics.
An ethical proposal that by design benefits no one strikes me as paradoxical. — Srap Tasmaner
because of mental illness or extreme mental duress — Srap Tasmaner
From your side, the existence of conditions in which people take their own lives is unjustifiable, so it still counts. — Srap Tasmaner
Major depression is a disease to be treated and managed; the stresses of life are something people need help to cope with — Srap Tasmaner
And so it goes with the hypothetical person at the center of it all. — Srap Tasmaner
I can't know whether my hypothetical child wants to become real, whatever that could mean. — Srap Tasmaner
My child's life will be a red or a blue, it's just a matter of probability, and we can confidently assign probabilities to the different results, probabilities of a very vague sort like "> 0". What justification is ever offered for this absurd formalization? — Srap Tasmaner
Is it moral for someone for a couple that finds out that they both have hidden genes that will result in their child having a severe mental/genetic illness to have children? — khaled
Why or Why not or Is there an arbitrary point at which you would consider that illness "bad enough" for them having children to be wrong? — khaled
I hope this conversation keeps going — Albero
Not me. It's been exhausting and I'm ready to let it settle for a while. — Srap Tasmaner
I don’t know why I keep commenting on these threads — khaled
Antinatalism respects the individual person that will be created. That is what is being considered. It is not an abstracted third-party. Even if one doesn't mean it, one is then using the individual for some abstract reason. It is no longer about the person who will actually be affected by the decision, but for a cause. Antinatalism respects the fact that the person who will be born will inevitably experience suffering, and therefore, with NO negative consequences for that individual (by abstaining to have them), has prevented any negative conditions that will befall that individual. — schopenhauer1
Most of philosophical debate, especially on something like a philosophy forum convincing people about the validity and soundness of an argument with reasoning and having a general dialectic about a line of reasoning. It is also about explaining ideas. — schopenhauer1
Oh and because it might lead to paths that are counterintuitive to what you find to be respectable doesn't make it not so because YOU think it isn't and it is odious, or whatever bullshit you're peddling as a defense to the "nefarious" antinatalists. — schopenhauer1
knowing full-well that at some point the argument relies upon an intuition which is not commonly held. — Isaac
Again, why don't you specify what you mean? You are saying nothing unless you do so. And since when is an uncommon intuition false? — khaled
Or simply that the antinatalist does not think his premise is hidden at all or that his argument is flawed and just wants to talk about it on an online free philosphy forum? — khaled
Since when does not having kids imply you don't want to bear any responsiblity for the world? — khaled
No one is benefited. But that is better than having many harmed. — khaled
forcing others into a state where coping is required just to exist is a different matter entirely. What other situations is it considered acceptable to deprive someone forcefully so they can cope (aside from raising children but even that is just done to help them cope in the future)? — khaled
Doing an act in the present that will result in harm to someone in the future is wrong even if that person doesn't exist in the present. — khaled
You can't know whether or not your child will experience a disproportionate amount of pain after they're born. So don't take the risk since you're not going to be the one paying the consequences. — khaled
Is it moral for a couple that finds out that they both have hidden genes that will result in their child having a severe mental/genetic illness to have children? — khaled
What is absent is any reason at all why we should think this way — Isaac
That it is morally acceptable to end the human race — Isaac
That absence of harm continues to be a moral good even in the absence of any humans to experience that absence. — Isaac
That we ought obtain consent from others whenever our actions might affect them in any negative way even if they don't yet exist. — Isaac
That absence of harm is a moral good, but absence of pleasure is not a moral bad — Isaac
That the rights of the individual trump the pursuit of other social objectives. — Isaac
The main proof of which (among others) is that most people consider it morally acceptable to have children. — Isaac
This is not the first such discussion and all that I've been involved with have ended in the same way. — Isaac
I see a lot of threads from the same people about anti-natalism. I see few about economic inequality, environmental issues, prejudice, human kindness... — Isaac
most people find this approach repugnant for other reasons - namely that it implies disabled people are living worthless lives on account of their disability — Isaac
What I've yet to hear is any support or justification for holding any of those five moral positions. — Isaac
I thought we were done... — khaled
You can ask "But why should we think that" ad infinium for any position ever. — khaled
All antinatalism has to do is be internally consistent for it to stand on par with other moral theories. — khaled
I think benetar's asymmetry (what you refer to here) is complete bs. Which shows, again, that you're arguing with a caricature not me. — khaled
You have yet to even bother to ask what my argument for antinatalism is because I doubt you care. Because you seem to just want to have a yelling match over the internet rather than an actual conversation — khaled
That we ought obtain consent from others whenever our actions might affect them in any negative way even if they don't yet exist. — Isaac
Do you think it is wrong to genetically engineer a child to be disabled? Probably yes. Why is that? What about engineering them to be geniuses?
I have yet to see someone answer "No, it is not wrong" to that question. — khaled
This is another form of the asymmetry which, again, you assume I use. Antinatalism has been around way before benetar. — khaled
if all said citizens were antinatalists then there would be no "social objectives" past a single generation. Heck if everyone on earth suddenly became an antinatalist "Ending the human race consentually" would become the social objective. — khaled
That everyone must have children even if they don't want to so that social objectives are accomplished, even if the parents don't want to pursue these apparently objective objectives? — khaled
Most people don't think about the morality of it at all. — khaled
If you see someone arguing over and over about whether or not Jesus was resurrected would you care to intervene? — khaled
Even if me and shope are lifeless irresponssible morons that doesn't make the argument any more or less valid. — khaled
There is a difference between whether or not a life is worth continuing and whether or not it's worth starting. "Giving birth to people can harm them so don't do it" In no way implies "Your life is worthless because you're disabled". I am getting sort of tired of replying to willful misinterpretations like these so if I see one more I probably won't reply. — khaled
Let's call whatever moral premises you believe in A. Why should we believe A. OH WAIT, don't answer, I don't actually care, let's call whatever you were about to say B. Why should we believe in B. OH WAIT, don't answer, I don't actually care, let's ca....
This is not an objection to antinatalism this is an objection to every belief ever. — khaled
It would be akin to starting a thread on the fact that I prefer chocolate to ice cream. — Isaac
These threads are started by antinatalists telling the rest of us that we're mistaken about some issue. — Isaac
Have you ever heard a teenager complain "I never asked to be born!" when asked by their parents to carry out some chore? Schop has unfortunately found a medium for dragging this pubescent whine into four and a half thousand posts. — Isaac
You started this discussion by asking me about my objection to schopenhauer1's positions. — Isaac
Just an interjection here. First off antinatalism doesn't say that.... — khaled
Do you seriously think I could not look back over your posts and find examples of exactly the same issues? No. So lets drop the 'who wants to have the most serious conversation' crap. If you've got an actual concern about something I've said, raise it, with a quoted example, and I'll do my best to correct the issue. Otherwise characterising all opposition as just 'looking for a fight' is a weak defence. — Isaac
The premise as it is used in antinatalism requires that there can be no exceptions, that thus rule is not applied pragmatically, but universally and above all others. — Isaac
Should such a bizarre and unlikely situation ever arise then it would create such an obligation. Luckily for us our moral intuitions are not a randomly occurring set of rules drawn from a book, but a muddled and fuzzy set loosely connected to our culture and biology so we needn't really plan for such odd eventualities. — Isaac
You're prepared to sit there and judge the majority of the human race as having given no moral thought to the decision to start a family. On what grounds? — Isaac
Read the OP. It is not a investigative discussion about some philosophical issue. It is a direct, and at times pretty blunt, declaration that we (natalists) — Isaac
Had the OP been of the form "I hold X unusual premise to be true which you might not have heard of, what do you guys think?" I would have far less objection. — Isaac
Antinatalists aren't just people who've decided not to have children. They're people who accuse others of having unjustifiably harmed their own children. only that it is an implication of labelling the having of children as causing unwarranted harm to them. — Isaac
It is very difficult to see how you would get around the fact that avoiding a life (because it would not be worth the harm) and suggesting a life already lived is not worth the harm, seem to most people exactly the same proposition. Especially if you're suggesting you can do so without Benetar's asymmetry. — Isaac
"The disabled life is not worth creating" and " The disabled life is not worth having" are different how? — Isaac
might make all fundamental beliefs equally valid. Maybe. But you keep acting as if I voluntarily launched an attack on antinatalism. The thread (and others like it) are launching an attack on natalism, I'm only defending the position. — Isaac
I've seen crazier things on this site tbh — khaled
I never intended to convince you of anything only to show that the position is not some nonsensical bs as you were making it out to be. That there is a set of beliefs which consistently lead to it which aren't completely ridiculous but all have real consequences if absent. — khaled
That there is a set of beliefs which consistently lead to it which aren't completely ridiculous but all have real consequences if absent. — khaled
Can you think of any other exceptions other than having children? — khaled
you seriously think that people have an obligation to have children to keep their society afloat? — khaled
People just feel obligated biologically and socially to have children and that's all the reason they seem to need. — khaled
The reason life is worth it when you're already here is because it is very painful to get out so continuing to live is the best option. The reason it is not worth it when you are considering bringing someone else in is because that someone else doesn't experience any sort of deprivation due to not having it. I don't see what's unclear. — khaled
The title of the thread is "Is our "common sense" notion of justified suffering/pain wrong?" - not "Here's another way of looking at our notion of justified suffering" - it sets, right at the outset, the idea that our position might be actually wrong. — Isaac
So the common sense notion of suffering I am going to posit as this: — schopenhauer1
I just see this split in justified and unjustified pain/suffering as not seeing the bigger picture. — schopenhauer1
As I've said, it's not what you intent, it's what's implied — Isaac
I agree it's not directly about antinatalism at first, but that's the main reason why I responded in such an exasperated fashion, because we all knew it was going to end up that way. Virtually all of the other similar threads have done so, it's part of this whole insidious approach which I find obnoxious. The issue is sidled up to quite deliberately (I suspect) because we've had the actual antinatalism discussions a dozen times before and it didn't end well. There's a bunch of posters who do this on various pet subjects (nuclear weapons comes to mind) and it annoys me. I was on a long train journey at the time, so I picked up on it to pass the time. I might have chosen another, but didn't. As to whether I was right, I don't think the ensuing discussion with Srap was initiated by my comment, but before the first page was even done it had become about antinatalism. — Isaac
You seem to have avoided the issue of how antinatalism atttacks natalists simply by positing a moral harm. It's not like two different positions on the trolley dilemma which no-one will ever find themsleves directly in. Claiming that creating conditions for harm without consent is always and in all cases morally unjustified makes everyone abusers of their own children. Having just established that this is not an inescapable conclusion but rather just a preferred set of axioms surely you can see how repeatedly announcing this opinion might come across as antagonistic? — Isaac
The position' as it comes across is that antinatalism results from moral intuitions we all agree on, that it's a surprising but inescapable conclusion from widely shared premises. Otherwise it's entirely unremarkable and just odd. — Isaac
Yes. But my personal view is not the point. The point was that there's no logical method of deriving antinatalism. It's not the conclusion of a Modus Tollens or something, it's just a moral feeling (or set thereof). I raised this in opposition to the frequent assertions that there was some 'conclusion' which I just didn't like so I was denying the logic. Nothing like that is happening here. — Isaac
1. That it is morally acceptable to end the human race
2. That the rights of the individual trump the pursuit of other social objectives.
3. That absence of harm is a moral good, but absence of pleasure is not a moral bad
4. That absence of harm continues to be a moral good even in the absence of any humans to experience that absence.
5. That we ought obtain consent from others whenever our actions might affect them in any negative way even if they don't yet exist. — Isaac
For example, if you stated that you thought harm was acceptable to place upon other people unnecessarily — schopenhauer1
Nothing is unclear, it's offensive. The idea that the only thing making disabled people's lives worth living is the difficulty of suicide is deeply offensive. — Isaac
How are we determining what is and is not 'completely ridiculous' in this sense? — Isaac
You seem to have avoided the issue of how antinatalism atttacks natalists simply by positing a moral harm. — Isaac
I agree it's not directly about antinatalism at first, but that's the main reason why I responded in such an exasperated fashion, because we all knew it was going to end up that way. — Isaac
'The position' being 'it is possible to have some set of axioms which lead to antinatalism'? — Isaac
Yes, if I want to fell a tree I don't typically have to ask for the consent of every potential future person who might shade under it's boughs. — Isaac
The point was that there's no logical method of deriving antinatalism. It's not the conclusion of a Modus Tollens or something, it's just a moral feeling (or set thereof) — Isaac
What more is a moral judgement than a feeling of social or biological obligation? — Isaac
this thread is intended as more just a general pessimism theme, yet you took this for an immediate defense of AN proper — schopenhauer1
It's like if I threw you in a game and you didn't ask to play it, can't escape, and aren't particularly good at it. In fact, you have a defect that can prevent you from playing well in many ways. Then I say, "Well, it's justified that you are suffering based on your poor ability to play this game". Yeah, no. — schopenhauer1
You aren't attacking the topics at hand as much as characterizing a poster. In fact, you yourself are hijacking the topic by not actually posting much about it, but rather taking this as a chance to vent your feelings about my posts in general. — schopenhauer1
So now, anytime a fuckn' person posits a moral normative theory, they are ATTACKING some group of people? — schopenhauer1
The only thing you have posted of value here was this:
1. That it is morally acceptable to end the human race
2. That the rights of the individual trump the pursuit of other social objectives.
3. That absence of harm is a moral good, but absence of pleasure is not a moral bad
4. That absence of harm continues to be a moral good even in the absence of any humans to experience that absence.
5. That we ought obtain consent from others whenever our actions might affect them in any negative way even if they don't yet exist. — Isaac
If you JUST posted that.. we could have had some lucrative discussions. — schopenhauer1
Nothing is unclear, it's offensive. The idea that the only thing making disabled people's lives worth living is the difficulty of suicide is deeply offensive. — Isaac
It's not specific to disabled people. That's the case for everyone. Life is worth living because living it to the fullest is the best alternative once it has begun. — khaled
How are we determining what is and is not 'completely ridiculous' in this sense? — Isaac
That there are consequences that are not very intuitive if you don't believe in one of the premises. For example: If you believe that social goals should take precedence over personal freedom then enforcing a two child rule sort of like china did would be ethical. It would somehow be ethical to force parents to raise kids when they don't want to. — khaled
it is only an attack if both parties agree that there is some measure of objectiviety so only one theory can possibley "fit". But since neither of us seems to agree that there is an objective morality, I can posit that it is wrong to have kids because x and y and if you disagree with x and y that is no longer an attack then is it? — khaled
Yes, if I want to fell a tree I don't typically have to ask for the consent of every potential future person who might shade under it's boughs. — Isaac
But they have no right or special claim on the tree so although that is harmful, you are not responsible for it. And I doubt people would be harmed by the non existence of a tree they never saw. If the tree was in their backyard though....
But yes we do actually have to consider the consequences of indiscriminantly cutting down trees or else we get global warming. — khaled
What more is a moral judgement than a feeling of social or biological obligation? — Isaac
When I eat I don't do so because it is morally right or wrong. And from what I have seen that's most people's position on having kids. — khaled
Before the first page is even out it had become about antinatalism, — Isaac
And so his suffering is justified? I guess the price of being a human born in existence right? Shame indeed. — schopenhauer1
For example, this thread is intended as more just a general pessimism theme — schopenhauer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.