As I said before, I think you've misunderstood moral relativism. A moral claim is a claim about how others should act, not a claim about one's personal prefernces. — Isaac — khaled

A moral claim is a matter of cause and effect.

No one helped the Little Red Hen make her bread so she didn't share it.
The Little Red Engine made it over the hill because he didn't give up.
The Fox didn't get the grapes because he did give up and comforted himself by deciding they were probably sour anyway.

That is a little different from judging what others should or should not do. It is not the individual that is judged but the action and consequence.

That's a question you should ask shope not me. — khaled

Fair point.

But if we're still talking about that then I wasted about 1.5 hours misreading you, sorry about that. — khaled

No problem, I'm sorry for any sloppiness in my writing which may have mislead you.

Where have I suggested the antinatalist doesn't believe this? — Isaac


Here:

No. I know antinatalists have this weird idea that you can't do anything for a person who doesn't yet exist, but tell that to the parent who's saving up children's toys for their as yet un-conceived grandchildren — Isaac


Which is why I said this is a criminal misinterpretation of the argument. — khaled

The premise we were talking about was whether one can consider harms which may befall an as yet non-existent person. I believe one can, and it's my understanding that antinatalists do too. The premise I described above as 'wierd' was that we cannot consider benefits which might accrue to an as yet non-existent person. A different principle, and one which I've been told many times is a crux of antinatalist thinking. If that's mistaken then I'm lost as to why a simple weighing of pros and cons on behalf of their future selves (as they cannot do so themselves) is not entirely reasonable.

If I really really like a game and I know you would probably really like it too, it is still wrong for me to tape you to a seat and force you to play it for 5 hours. — khaled

Yes, but only because it's possible to ask my consent. If, for some reason it weren't possible to ask me, and yet strapping people into games (or not) were a normal part of life, then yes, I would hope that you'd choose to strap me into the game, if you've good reason to think I'll enjoy it better than the alternatives. Why would I want to miss out on a good game just out of spite for not being asked when it wasn't even possible to ask me anyway? Being asked is my number one choice, second would be someone making a good balanced choice for me, not someone defaulting to 'no risk of harm whatsoever', for some reason. It's not how I make decisions about my life when I can do so, so why would I want it to be how decisions are made for me when I can't?

Just saying this to clarify my position, consider the questions rhetorical. I haven't forgotten you're not trying to push an agenda.

It wouldn't be a stupid mistake if everyone believed it because that includes you and if you believe it it is obviously not stupid from you POV :wink: — khaled

Fair point. My comprehension failure.

I have no excuse for this one. I just straight up misread. Sorry for all the trouble. — khaled

No trouble. It happens.

I guess we're done for real this time as I don't really have an opposition against the two points you're arguing. — khaled

Cool. It was interesting to hear what you had to say.

second would be someone making a good balanced choice for me — Isaac

That's the main difference between us then. If, for example, I was unavailable and a friend of mine thought I was looking for a suit and he found a very good sale on a good suit, I would still not think he should buy it with my credit card before asking me even if the sale will run out by then. What if I already went to the interview I had but he just didn't know yet.

And I think you'd also think the same way if the object to buy was, for example, a house.

Similarly then, I think life is just about the most serious thing you can get someone without their consent (meaning that if they don't want it, it does the most damage out of anything else) so, similar to a house, I don't get it to people without their consent. I don't think life is easy enough to justify that.


I'm just highlighting differences here, not trying to launch another discussion.

I don't see how this makes a difference.

Genuine questions arise when we face situations never contemplated before in the long history of our living together in communities — Srap Tasmaner

And I would say procreation is one of them. It is hardly contemplated. And there are countless examples of things we do for generations that we then later decide were wrong so it's not like this would be the first (racism, eye for an eye, slavery, etc)

The premises in such exercises simply do not have the sort of standing that you think of the premises in a logical argument as having — Srap Tasmaner

I kept repeating myself that moral premises are not set in stone and can be changed depending on you intuitions or even whims.

When a thought experiment is proposed ("What if it was your daughter?") the idea is to activate our intuitions, give them something more concrete to work with. — Srap Tasmaner

So why would you not have a child if you and your spouse knew you had hidden genes for severe genetic disease? I already posed a thought experiment.

If it doesn't feel right, or if several of us, or millions of us, reach different conclusions, all we can do is try some other starting points we think generally right and talk to each other. — Srap Tasmaner

Antinatalism DOES feel right to antinatalists. Antinatalists don't (all) choose to hold a conclusion they themselves think is weird just so they can debate about it on the internet with strangers. And as far as I know this is what I've been doing or at least tried to.

It's just that when I gave you a thought experiment you refused to hold a position on it and then proceeded to keep critiquing my position anyways without having an opposing view really. You clearly showed that you have the intuition that procreation is wrong sometimes but refused to dive in and try to figure out what makes it wrong and what doesn't while being more than comfortable with saying that my analysis is false and confused.

Is having children a new phenomenon among human beings, something our double inheritance has left us ill-equipped to deal with? — Srap Tasmaner

If you are implying that whatever humans have been doing for a long time must be morally right since the older generations must have already considered it, you are demonstrably wrong.

and it's clear how genuine moral questions arise. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think you needed so many words to basically say: "One of the jobs of morality is to preserve the human race" which you know I disagree with but you just call that "confused". That isn't very convincing.

This is my argument all stripped down:

Morality is social. Always has been. The whole point of morality is to make social groups sustainable.

An idea that, if carried out by the members of a social group, would lead to the disappearance of that group, cannot count as moral for the members of that group.

Don't know what it is, but whatever it is, it is not a moral idea; it's just not the right sort of thing.

An idea that, if carried out by the members of a social group, would lead to the disappearance of that group, cannot count as moral for the members of that group. — Srap Tasmaner

If every member of a group comes to believe that the group that they are a part of should not exist, and they collectively decide to disband the group, then the group will no longer exist. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, it is very common.

By group, did you mean specifically a species? i.e. whatever contributes to the preservation of the species is moral, and whatever threatens this is immoral?

I say: evolution produces animals that are capable of thinking about and acting in accordance with morality. Evolution did not create morality. Just as evolution did not create light, but rather eyes that can sense light.

Antinatalism is in accordance with a set of perceived moral laws that transcend the survival of the species. From the perspective of natural selection, it is a malignant adaptation. That does not make it incorrect.

Insofar as a club or a voluntary association relies on morality to be possible, that's indirect: to be a member of the club, you have to be a member of a community, of a society. And the point of morality is to make those social groups possible. Clubs just piggyback on that.

As for species -- humans spread across the planet behave to some degree as if they are members of the same community. There's obviously some fine points to that, but we recognize all other humans as moral agents or as falling into a special category, children for instance.

Even if that were not the case, and humanity were segregated into distinct social groups, each of those groups would certainly have moral practices that make the group possible, and each of them would reject anti-natalism as a possible moral principle.

Similarly then, I think life is just about the most serious thing you can get someone without their consent (meaning that if they don't want it, it does the most damage out of anything else) so, similar to a house, I don't get it to people without their consent. I don't think life is easy enough to justify that. — khaled

So, just to clarify, for you my second caveat to "Get the consent of others before doing something potentially harmful to them", the one about taking part on wider social objectives, that's just completely irrelevant?

You have moral intuitions about sacrificing your preferences for the sake of others I assume, so is it just that any such duty must be secondary to one's personal preferences?

What I'm getting at is, for me, the other reason why I'd not feel the need to ask consent of a person before buying them a house (on their credit card) would be if, for some reason, the community really needed them to buy a house. I'd feel perfectly within my moral bounds just going ahead and making that purchase on those grounds. That's how communities function, they have a goal which is more important than any individual.

A community needs members to carry out it's functions (and those functions are important to the existing members). We each play our part in those (as we each benefit from them being done), we know that one day we'll die, yet the part we play is still going to need playing, so we have children, to carry on that role.

Of course all this is post hoc storytelling to explain feelings which are originated either before birth or in our first few years of life and about which we can do very little except try to make sense of them. But the quality of the story matters, it doesn't trivialise it to say it's storytelling, stories are the glue that holds us together (I mean 'us' here as both community and as an individual - you'd be nothing but a contradictory set of incoherent impulses without a 'self' story to hang it all together).

The point I'm making is actually no different to Srap's (I think). Morality is a story we tell ourselves to explain the feelings our biology and early childhood experiences have left us with. It can't be 'worked out', but it is vitally important, and that story is about the community, not the individual. The morality story wouldn't even make sense at an individual level.

I say: evolution produces animals that are capable of thinking about and acting in accordance with morality. Evolution did not create morality. Just as evolution did not create light, but rather eyes that can sense light. — darthbarracuda

Then what did create morality? It's not obviously like light (which is made of the sorts of fundamental particles which evidently emerged from the big bang, affect other fundamental particles in predictable, measurable ways etc...)

We have very good reason to believe the fundamental particle's existence. In fact it would be almost impossible to construct a prediction-robust theory without it's inclusion in some form.

We have absolutely no such compulsion to posit the existence of some transcendental force (object?) 'morality'. Nor is it in the least bit difficult to create a prediction-robust theory without it. So I'm curious as to why you would create such a convoluted and unnecessary edifice? How is it helping us understand the world?

Antinatalism is in accordance with a set of perceived moral laws that transcend the survival of the species. — darthbarracuda

How do you judge what is and isn't in accordance with this universal set of laws? Let's say I said one of the laws was indeed 'keep the human race alive at all costs'. How would you show that it wasn't there in the codex?

Morality is social. Always has been — Srap Tasmaner

I am aware that this is your argument and I disagree with it. I think sustaining the society is a byproduct that has to come out of individual action. Just because it doesn't come out doesn't mean that the premises are wrong or should be abandoned.

I'm not sure about this but I heard somewhere that when Kant was asked: "If a man was stranded with a woman and they were the last remnants of earth after a cataclysmic event, but the woman was a known criminal, should they try to rebuild the human race or should the woman be executed?" And he replied "Executed". So I guess Kant wasn't talking about morality either then?

Similarly if you use the categorical imperitive, lying to hostile aliens about the location of earth is wrong but telling them the exact coordinates which will result in them wiping us out is correct.

That's just one example of a well known moral system that results in our extinction. And I'm pretty sure people would call the subject of the categorical imperative "morality" not "something else". Which is why I say that that the subject of morality is not exactly to sustain society but that that is a result that has to come out of it.

But you have the "correct definition" of morality so I guess Kant was just confused too.

What I'm hinting at is that maybe your "correct definition about what morality is about" is no more than a personal preference and that there is no such definition written in stone.

So, just to clarify, for you my second caveat to "Get the consent of others before doing something potentially harmful to them", the one about taking part on wider social objectives, that's just completely irrelevant? — Isaac

Not just irrelevant, I find it repulsive. I don't care how much a society wants to achieve a certain goal it shouldn't force its members to do it. That seems backwards. It is the members that decide the goal, and if some of them don't agree with the majority what gives the majority the right to force them to pursue it?

You have moral intuitions about sacrificing your preferences for the sake of others I assume, so is it just that any such duty must be secondary to one's personal preferences? — Isaac

I don't see how that follows from me thinking that social goals are not a good enough reason to force people to do things they don't want to do.

I'd feel perfectly within my moral bounds just going ahead and making that purchase on those grounds. That's how communities function, they have a goal which is more important than any individual. — Isaac

Again, I find that repulsive.

yet the part we play is still going to need playing — Isaac

There is no rule written in stone that the part needs to be played.

The point I'm making is actually no different to Srap's (I think). Morality is a story we tell ourselves to explain the feelings our biology and early childhood experiences have left us with. It can't be 'worked out', but it is vitally important, and that story is about the community, not the individual. The morality story wouldn't even make sense at an individual level. — Isaac

Well, I have seen family members with severe disabilities and I have been to children's hospitals in my home country (third world) a couple of times so the "feelings of my biology" are "Having kids is wrong when it can go so badly".

You have moral intuitions about sacrificing your preferences for the sake of others I assume, so is it just that any such duty must be secondary to one's personal preferences? — Isaac


I don't see how that follows from me thinking that social goals are not a good enough reason to force people to do things they don't want to do. — khaled

So, seeing how strongly you feel about communities having moral coercion over individuals, I don't understand how you explain or figure duty. If your community provides you with boons, do you have no duty in return?

If you do, then it seems to follow inexorably that the community can exert a moral coercion contrary to the wants of an individual.

Otherwise what prevents an individual from benefitting from a community's protection, safety-net, shared resources, etc., and then when the time comes to give something back saying "you've no right to tell me what to do"?

Otherwise what prevents an individual from benefitting from a community's protection, safety-net, shared resources, etc., and then when the time comes to give something back saying "you've no right to tell me what to do"? — Isaac

The fact that someone can't exploit his community. If you don't have a job you will end up homeless and "safety nets" are hardly safe usually. In my opinion, a country should only provide a safety net for those it deems to at least intend to eventually earn or pay back what they were given.

What I find repulsive is forcing someone to do something for a "boon" they didn't ask for or don't want. So for example, forcing pro lifers to pay tax for abortions. Instead, pro choice people should be paying that and allowed to have partially state paid abortions in turn (which the pro lifers don't get). Note: I am pro choice.

I think the prices of these "boons" should never be paid by those who never asked for said boons and in return they shouldn't enjoy said boons. Now, this is probably highly exploitable and realistically impossible but ideally that's what I would wish for.


But to be honest I've never actually thought about how a society should be formed, I always preferred to keep that to the politicians so what I just said may sound completely crazy.

I'm still not quite clear how your system would work. As a child I benefited from a considerable amount of societal boons, right from birth. Should society have asked me as a newborn whether I was OK with this deal? No, obviously not. So how should I handle the duty that accrues, in your system? Similarly, I benefit from the fertility put into my soil several generations ago, how should I absolve my repayment of that debt? How, under your system would anyone undertake any project whose benefits will only accrue to future generations?

Societies exist, and their mere existence benefits their members. It seems you've developed a moral system which just can't exist. The child above shouldn't ever have been put in that position because they should never have been born. But in this case it's not so much your moral system leading to antinatalism as antinatalism being required in order to make your system coherent.

But you have the "correct definition" of morality so I guess Kant was just confused too. — khaled

Well spotted -- but I wouldn't say he was confused, just wrongheaded. He had the example of Hume right in front of him, but was unable to follow it because of his religious convictions. So he tries to reconstruct the sort of thing he believed God hands down to us but without mentioning Him. I know almost nothing about Kant, but yes, in the trade my view would be considered "anti-Kantian". I've got some big hitters on my side too though: besides Hume (and Smith), there's Aristotle and Confucius. My guys also find it quite natural to talk about politics and to see continuities there. Don't people read "Freedom and Resentment" anymore? You can also see my way of thinking on display there.

It's neither here not there, but I'm going to tend to think the sort of code Kant had in mind is largely my kind of thing, just attributed to divine authority. Have a peak at the ten commandments:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image...
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain...
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy...
5. Honor thy father and thy mother...
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s. — God

1-4 are a reminder of Who's boss, but what are the rest of them about? To me they look like the sort of maxims you might come up with if you wanted a community of people, not all of whom are closely related, to last more than a couple months.

I think sustaining the society is a byproduct that has to come out of individual action. — khaled

Your idea is that people act out of their convictions about what is right, not with the intention of maintaining stable communities, even if that's a typical side effect.

Well yeah. My position is that the "conviction" that kin-harming is wrong almost certainly comes wired in, but it doesn't come wired in as a belief. It shows up in our behavior (and in the behavior of ever so many animals), and it shows up in our feelings: we feel mistreated when wronged and uplifted when we help someone, we are disgusted by callous and selfish behavior but moved by heroic altruism, and so on. We bring up our children to find these feelings and accompanying ideas appropriate not just within our immediate family, but in all their dealings with members of our community, whether that's just our neighborhood or all of humanity. More or less. That's just what it is to live a moral life.

The rules, as above, aren't really the substance of the thing at all, and you end up in a mess if you take them for absolute and universal. Even God only made those up to teach His children how to behave properly.

Well yeah. My position is that the "conviction" that kin-harming is wrong almost certainly comes wired in, but it doesn't come wired in as a belief. It shows up in our behavior (and in the behavior of ever so many animals), and it shows up in our feelings — Srap Tasmaner

And then from those feelings we come up with beliefs that explain them and inform us on what to do in novel situations. And antinatalism is one such possible belief.

I've got some big hitters on my side too though — Srap Tasmaner

It's not about who's got the biggest hitters. I was just citing an example to show that my way of thinking isn't this alien, confused thing you've never heard of before

As a child I benefited from a considerable amount of societal boons, right from birth. — Isaac

And you knew that eventually you'd have to hold a job and make your own living as a contributing member. And I'm willing to wager you didn't protest because the terms are very very good. Way better than living in some jungle at least.

So how should I handle the duty that accrues, in your system? — Isaac

By being a contributing member when you grow up, as the "deal" specified.

Similarly, I benefit from the fertility put into my soil several generations ago, how should I absolve my repayment of that debt? — Isaac

I doubt whoever fertilized the land expected anything out of YOU specifically so no deal there. That's just a gift.

How, under your system would anyone undertake any project whose benefits will only accrue to future generations? — Isaac

I don't see how this relates. You just do the project what's so weird about that?

The child above shouldn't ever have been put in that position because they should never have been born. But in this case it's not so much your moral system leading to antinatalism as antinatalism being required in order to make your system coherent. — Isaac

And I don't get this bit at all. Remember this line of argument started from "I find it repulsive for societies to force their members do fullfil "societal goals"". This argument isn't even needed for antinatalism it's a whole different debate. Unless of course you're proposing that a given society should enforce a rule where everyone must have children, THEN we'd have to compare how strong the premise that "societies can force their members to fulfill societal goals" compared to "giving birth is a form of harm".

Only in that case does my position on how far societies should have an impact on personal life matter. But I bet forcing everyone to have x children is a bit of a stretch even for you. In Japan for example, the population is natrually declining, so do you think a: "Every male must have 2 offspring" law should be implemented?

I was just citing an example to show that my way of thinking isn't this alien, confused thing you've never heard of before — khaled

Not alien, no, and not unheard of, but I still think the Kantian approach is wrongheaded.

And then from those feelings we come up with beliefs that explain them and inform us on what to do in novel situations. And antinatalism is one such possible belief. — khaled

But to me this is clearly a mistake -- it's just a case of the tail wagging the dog.

If the whole point of the underlying system is lost by abstracting principles from it and then spinning out new deductions from those principles, either your inferences are faulty or your principle-abstraction process has gone wrong. I think you can see the same thing at work in utilitarianism, but I've not studied it much.

Maybe someday somebody will come up with just the right set of principles that perfectly captures the moral sense we all have without any theory at all, but so far there's no evidence this is going to happen. I'm against the whole project.

But even if you're all for it, you have to have a way of judging how well you have reconstructed our moral sense as a system of principles and anti-natalism will fail any such test spectacularly.

If you must develop moral theories, because like Kant you want a Newtonian science of morals, hold yourself to the same standards of model building that scientists use.

Not alien, no, and not unheard of, but I still think the Kantian approach is wrongheaded. — Srap Tasmaner

But to me this is clearly a mistake — Srap Tasmaner

I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. That's all I wanted to hear. The "to me" bit. I get irritated when people claim to somehow have a hotline to truth so I keep critiquing until I hear a "to me".

If the whole point of the underlying system is lost by abstracting principles from it and then spinning out new deductions from those principles, either your inferences are faulty or your principle-abstraction process has gone wrong. — Srap Tasmaner

Well what if someone starts with the intuition that having children is not intuitively moral but needs to be further examined and upon listening to and posing some thought experiments finds it intuitively wrong? Then would that adhere to your definition of "moral theory"?

Thing is though, most people haven't even attempted this and often prefer to just dismiss the position out of hand without actually even considering procreation a moral question. Even though there are easy to find thought experiments that show that it is moral (Like the one I already posed)

you have to have a way of judging how well you have reconstructed our moral sense as a system of principles — Srap Tasmaner

Examining how well a robot programmed with those principles would be able to mimic what we call "moral conduct".

hold yourself to the same standards of model building that scientists use. — Srap Tasmaner

The above is exactly that. The scientific process is:

1- Do tests (see what people do in ethical dilemmas)
2- Pose a hypothesis (a set of principles)
3- Test the hypothesis (see if following the principles still matches moral conduct in novel situations)
4- Repeat upon failure

As a child I benefited from a considerable amount of societal boons, right from birth. — Isaac


And you knew that eventually you'd have to hold a job and make your own living as a contributing member. And I'm willing to wager you didn't protest because the terms are very very good. — khaled

Yeah, that's kind of the point. Do I not owe society anything for all that?

I doubt whoever fertilized the land expected anything out of YOU specifically so no deal there. — khaled

Exactly. He did it for humanity in general (his future community more specifically). People do things for the good of the community. If they were to formalise this feeling I'd wager it would be something like seeing the perpetuation and well-being of the community as a good in it's own right. I doubt anyone putting a lot of effort into improving the community's resources for future generations is doing so with the expectation that those people will take whatever they want from that common good and give nothing back.

And I don't get this bit at all. Remember this line of argument started from "I find it repulsive for societies to force their members do fullfil "societal goals"". This argument isn't even needed for antinatalism it's a whole different debate. — khaled

I only mentioned the birth thing because I'm trying to understand your position and I know that's an important part of it. The relevant portion of what I'm saying here is that without the idea of avoiding conception your moral system doesn't make sense. Once born you will inevitably be looked after by 'society' and benefit from its boons, without your consent. The people who give this support do so because they see their community as a moral good in its own right, but they wouldn't be so keen to contribute to that good if those who benefitted most from it incurred no duty to similarly nurture it.

I'm fairly certain that your neo-liberal 'morality' would lead fairly rapidly to a vicious and unpleasant world of ruthlessly competing individuals, but I guess as no one would want to live in such a world this somewhat serves your purposes.

Well I can say that your paradox had the sort of result I always hope for: gave me an opportunity to think through my ethical intuitions and understand them better; for instance, at the beginning of this thread I didn't know I was an anti-Kantian. Now I have many avenues to explore further, and I have a pretty good sense of what approaches to ethics are consonant with the rest of my views. I'm pumped.

Any takeaways for you? Anything you've learned from participating in this thread?

@Isaac@Srap Tasmaner@khaled

Based on the last series of posts the main thing I see here is a debate between humanity vs. individual. Some thoughts on this:

1) I find it interesting that often the individual is indeed the locus of blame/responsibility/accountability when it comes to making bad decisions, working a job, obeying laws (like paying that speeding ticket let's say), but this same individual that will be born (such as myself and you and him and her and any one) cannot (in decisions surrounding procreation) be considered (apparently to some) for the suffering, burdens, general "dealing with life" that will incur to them, except as lumped in as a vague part of continuing the goals of "humanity" in general. Well, shit, then I guess it's humanity that should be going to work, obeying the laws, and paying that speeding ticket, not me, you, him, her or any individual! But of course, we are not the Borg and are not coalesced into one entity of "humanity". Rather this goal of continuing this abstract cause (humanity) is instantiated in individuals who are the locus for whom this burden will be carried out. It is the individual which should be considered in this crucial of decisions that will affect that person, not an abstract cause, where the locus or carrying out of the burden is actually carried out.

2) As I (and I believe khaled) have reiterated over and over, moral theories at some point rely on one's intuitions and premises. Thus at some point, there is no going past the initial premises. To not recognize that we have stated thus and laid that out from the beginning is willful ignoring of what was said (to score rhetorical points perhaps?). As khaled rightly pointed out, this is the case with famous (standard discussed) moral theories like Kant's ethics, and also applies to utilitarianism, virtue theory, etc. At some point there is a logical premise. We can debate meta-ethics to go a step beyond, but if we are doing so, then that would be on a different topic and should delineate that this is happening. The point is not to castigate ONE moral theory for doing what most (normative and applied level) ethical theories do.

Whose fault is everything really? — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, see my last post that kind of addresses this. I find it interesting that the individual is considered for blame, accountability, going to work to keep themselves alive/comfortable/entertained (via consumption), punishment for not obeying the laws, and then are to be overlooked for rather a "social" reason locus whereby procreation should be considered.

Any takeaways for you? Anything you've learned from participating in this thread? — Srap Tasmaner

Mainly that I've put too much time into this. And a couple more ways to not be an antinatalist.

Do I not owe society anything for all that? — Isaac

As I said, you owe it to become a productive member. Or to at least try to.

The people who give this support do so because they see their community as a moral good in its own right, but they wouldn't be so keen to contribute to that good if those who benefitted most from it incurred no duty to similarly nurture it. — Isaac

Agreed. But "nurturing it" doesn't have to take the form of having kids. As proven by the fact that people don't scoff at those who choose to not start a family nor suddenly think that those people are taking from the community's resources without giving back. As I keep saying, being a productive member is good enough payment.

An even better example is that we still give these societal boons to people who can't have children. Which shows that "having children" is not required payment.

Once born you will inevitably be looked after by 'society' and benefit from its boons, without your consent. — Isaac

You don't need consent to benefit someone if you know that it will be a benefit. And I'm pretty sure that for every human ever, the societal "boons" are much better than leaving said person in a forest somewhere. If they weren't a sizable portion of our population would still be hunter gatherers.

I'm fairly certain that your neo-liberal 'morality' would lead fairly rapidly to a vicious and unpleasant world of ruthlessly competing individuals — Isaac

I don't see how.

I find it interesting that often the individual is indeed the locus of blame/responsibility/accountability when it comes to making bad decisions, working a job, obeying laws (like paying that speeding ticket let's say), but this same individual that will be born (such as myself and you and him and her and any one) cannot (in decisions surrounding procreation) be considered (apparently to some) for the suffering, burdens, general "dealing with life" that will incur to them, except as lumped in as a vague part of continuing the goals of "humanity" in general. — schopenhauer1

Under what circumstances are they 'not considered' for these sufferings. Why do you think people are so worked up about climate change, biodiversity loss, soil degradation, pollution...literally every social and environmental movement of that last hundred years has been out of concern to reduce the suffering of future generations.

It is the individual which should be considered in this crucial of decisions that will affect that person, not an abstract cause, where the locus or carrying out of the burden is actually carried out. — schopenhauer1

Nonsense. This implies that the benefits accrue to something other than the individuals. If you break up 'society; into it's individual component parts for the purposes of assessing burdens, then you can do so too for the purposes of assessing benefits. The social goal of maintaining a society in an amenable manner benefits the members of that society in the same way as it burdens them with the responsibility of doing so. The only difference between your view and mine is that you have this distasteful notion that we should keep some kind of 'accounts' of who put what in and make sure they get the same out.

As I (and I believe khaled) have reiterated over and over, moral theories at some point rely on one's intuitions and premises. Thus at some point, there is no going past the initial premises. To not recognize that we have stated thus and laid that out from the beginning is willful ignoring of what was said — schopenhauer1

No-one has said that this is not the case. The argument has been entirely (I even wrote the damn thing out in a single paragraph a few posts ago) that the premises are unusual, and that the conclusions are repugnant to many. This is quite significantly not the same as merely pointing out that your conclusion relies on your premises.

The point is not to castigate ONE moral theory for doing what most (normative and applied level) ethical theories do. — schopenhauer1

Antinatalism does not do what most ethical theories do. Most ethical theories attempt to formalise that which we find ethical, and to thus help resolve dilemmas which we find difficult to otherwise see the right course of action in a way we find satisfying. They do not attempt to use some sketchy logic based on selectively filtered premises to reach a conclusion no-one finds in the least bit satisfying.

Do I not owe society anything for all that? — Isaac


As I said, you owe it to become a productive member. Or to at least try to. — khaled

So if that debt can accrue to me for benefits given without my consent to the deal, then why cannot the same debt be assumed for an imaginary non-existant person in the same way we imagine harms and benefits they might have when deciding whether to bring them into existence?

The people who give this support do so because they see their community as a moral good in its own right, but they wouldn't be so keen to contribute to that good if those who benefitted most from it incurred no duty to similarly nurture it. — Isaac


Agreed. But "nurturing it" doesn't have to take the form of having kids. As proven by the fact that people don't scoff at those who choose to not start a family nor suddenly think that those people are taking from the community's resources without giving back. As I keep saying, being a productive member is good enough payment.

An even better example is that we still give these societal boons to people who can't have children. Which shows that "having children" is not required payment. — khaled

I'm not trying to show here that having children is required payment, I don't quite know where you got that impression from. This line of argument proceeds directly from your comment...

What I find repulsive is forcing someone to do something for a "boon" they didn't ask for or don't want. — khaled

and...

I think the prices of these "boons" should never be paid by those who never asked for said boons and in return they shouldn't enjoy said boons. — khaled

If "being a productive member is good enough payment." for the boons that previous generations gave then that is almost literally the definition of doing something for a boon they didn't ask for. The issue I'm enquiring about here is to do with how people are motivated to do things which help future generations in your system where there's no duty at all on the beneficiaries of those actions toward the common good that has been thus built.

Once born you will inevitably be looked after by 'society' and benefit from its boons, without your consent. — Isaac


You don't need consent to benefit someone if you know that it will be a benefit. — khaled

We don't 'know' they'll benefit. We just have good cause to believe they will. If that's still all that's required then it's OK to bring someone into being without their consent on the same grounds - that we've good cause to believe they'll overall benefit from that action.

I'm fairly certain that your neo-liberal 'morality' would lead fairly rapidly to a vicious and unpleasant world of ruthlessly competing individuals — Isaac


I don't see how. — khaled

Have you been to America?

So if that debt can accrue to me for benefits given without my consent to the deal — Isaac

They don't accrue if you don't consent to the deal. But I have yet to see someone not consent to living in a society.

If "being a productive member is good enough payment." for the boons that previous generations gave then that is almost literally the definition of doing something for a boon they didn't ask for. — Isaac

Again, I've never seen someone reject the "deal" that is society. But if someone says "I don't want to live in a society where I must work to survive after I become an adult" they're welcome to leave. I always thought there should be some service that does that, allow people to just leave and dump them in some random jungle somewhere since they hate society so much.

We don't 'know' they'll benefit. We just have good cause to believe they will. If that's still all that's required then it's OK to bring someone into being without their consent on the same grounds - that we've good cause to believe they'll overall benefit from that action. — Isaac

No one can possibly be harmed by me making land fertile. Whereas someone can be harmed by brining them into existence. In the former case consent is not required as it is not a risky act, and even if you argue it was then consent is still not required because the future generations don't have any more of a claim on the land to be fertilized than I do so I can fertilize it all I want. In the latter case someone can get harmed so consent is required and is unavailable.

Have you been to America? — Isaac

I don't understand how what I said leads to America. Which part of "You don't have to pay for things you don't want" leads to a "toxic and hypercompetitive society"

how people are motivated to do things which help future generations in your system where there's no duty at all on the beneficiaries of those actions toward the common good that has been thus built. — Isaac

They're not motivated in my system. As there would be no future generation.

We don't 'know' they'll benefit. We just have good cause to believe they will. If that's still all that's required then it's OK to bring someone into being without their consent on the same grounds — Isaac

So you DO argue that somehow someone fertilizing land can harm someone else in the future. Well even if we accept that the situation is still different. People have a right not to be harmed, they don't have a right to having every acre of land look how they want it to.

Under what circumstances are they 'not considered' for these sufferings. Why do you think people are so worked up about climate change, biodiversity loss, soil degradation, pollution...literally every social and environmental movement of that last hundred years has been out of concern to reduce the suffering of future generations. — Isaac

That's exactly the problem and the difference between our thinking. The benefits, while better than nothing to an individual who is born are NOT a moral consideration for something that does not exist yet. By moral here, I mean, no one is obliged to make happy people exist. Rather, affecting someone else by causing them to have the conditions for suffering, burdens, "dealing with", et al. is of moral consideration. If no one existed to be benefited, NO ONE is harmed. Humanity may not exist as a consequence, but humanity not existing is not about any ONE where the locus of ethics does take place. Humanity does not suffer- you, I, him, and her do/does. You can play the indignity card all you want, and this will not change. Actual suffering and benefits takes place for individuals.. even if it is in the context of a whole society with institutions, historical contingency, technology, ideas, and the like. Again, institutions et al. do not suffer. They don't carry out 0-100 years of life of actually living it out. To then go a step beyond and to say that individuals NEED to be born so that these institutions et al. can be carried forth is also immoral because individuals are thus used by society to keep it going- disregarding or foregoing the individual that is being affected (which did not have to be unnecessarily) for the cause of something outside that individual.

You can claim that this is just how it is, and because it exists, it must be good, but that is simply not the case. As @darthbarracuda pointed out, even if that is indeed how humans operate due to evolutionary circumstances (humans survive through cultural memes and institutions), that doesn't make it "good" for people. What is the case, is not always what is right. Yeah, lions tear the living flesh off zebras, while the zebra writhes in agony, zebras stomp out rival zebra babies.. In this case, since there is no deliberation, morals aren't involved, but I would not call it "good" for the zebra being eaten at that time, and the baby being stomped on by the other zebra. That's classic appeal to nature or the naturalistic fallacy.

No-one has said that this is not the case. The argument has been entirely (I even wrote the damn thing out in a single paragraph a few posts ago) that the premises are unusual, and that the conclusions are repugnant to many. This is quite significantly not the same as merely pointing out that your conclusion relies on your premises. — Isaac

And again @khaled brought up that Kant had some what some might characterize as "unusual" conclusions. Kantian ethics is a major ethical theory discussed, and the practical implications are written about in thousands of pages of journals. This just seems like a case of you being biased.

Antinatalism does not do what most ethical theories do. Most ethical theories attempt to formalise that which we find ethical, and to thus help resolve dilemmas which we find difficult to otherwise see the right course of action in a way we find satisfying. They do not attempt to use some sketchy logic based on selectively filtered premises to reach a conclusion no-one finds in the least bit satisfying. — Isaac

Again, the same thing can be said of Kantian ethics. As far as "we find satisfying" that is quite dubious as I can give plenty of examples of things that "we find satisfying" that might not be "ethical". So the way you characterize ethics leads you to only conclusions that YOU Isaac find satisfying. Argument from indignity is not an argument, it is a preference is wielded to try to exasperate the interlocutor. It's like you think you are this pragmatic Cicero clutching your robe appealing to the "decent sensibilities" of your crowd rather than actually engaging in the topic. Its posturing. Ditch it, and engage in the reasoning. I will not argue with you further if you use the "appeal to indignity" fallacy. I will ignore it, as its not even worth typing words over. I will engage more with you if you want to go the individual vs. society route, as that is actually relating to the topic and not about your personal indignation and clutching of robes/pearl, appeals to crowd over decency schtick.