Not being able to get consent for an important decision that is made on someone else's behalf would greatly impact how I would weigh predictions and make a decision, if I choose to make a decision at all. — Tzeentch

How does it impact it, exactly? How do you change the weights around?

And if you make no decision, that also has consequences, right?

If I come to the conclusion the decision is too important to be made without consent, then I have no issue with choosing non-action. — Tzeentch

Why non-action? There are still consequences attached to this.

And if you make no decision, that also has consequences, right? — Echarmion

Why non-action? There are still consequences attached to this. — Echarmion

Sure.

The reason is simple; even if one intends to do good by birthing a child, the ends (odds for a happy life) do not justify the means (forcing someone without consent).

Sure.

The reason is simple; even if one intends to do good by birthing a child, the ends (odds for a happy life) do not justify the means (forcing someone without consent). — Tzeentch

You're not actually engaging with any of my questions. You just keep repeating that we're "forcing someone without consent", but don't explain who that "someone" is supposed to be, or how the decision-making process you envision would function.

You just keep repeating that we're "forcing someone without consent" — Echarmion

Because it's at the core of the issue. By your use of the word "we" I'm assuming you are a parent?

but don't explain who that "someone" is supposed to be — Echarmion

The individual one is considering forcing into existence.

or how the decision-making process you envision would function. — Echarmion

Forcing others to do things without their consent needs to be avoided.

Because it's at the core of the issue. By your use of the word "we" I'm assuming you are a parent? — Tzeentch

I am just using "we" as a term for any potential parent.

The individual one is considering forcing into existence. — Tzeentch

Can you describe to me how an individual is forced into existence? Where are they before the process starts, what forces act on them etc.

Forcing others to do things without their consent needs to be avoided. — Tzeentch

Every "other" I ever met existed at the time, and therefore had, by your logic, already been forced. So it seems like it's unavoidable, even necessary.

That is unless you can point to some other who was ever not forced?

I think the issue of non-existence in these debates is not problematic like it is made out to be.

For example people claim things like that we should "save the planet" so it is inhabitable for future generations. It wouldn't make sense to ruin the environment just because you thought the currently non-existent generations should have no input into your actions. It would be implausible to claim you could not predict the effects of your behaviour on currently non existent situations and people.

All the time we refer to non existent things which feature in our mental life as ideas and possibilities.
It seems completely necessary to function so that we imagine and predict the future is we head into it.

It seems very arrogant to me to assume you should be able to create someone else and they should desire you as a parent. Most people don't feel entitled to snatch a baby if they see it left unintended but parents subconsciously have this entitlement. They want a baby so they create one and come to possess it.

It is one of an array of things which are normally thought to be unethical in moral systems. We are not supposed to use others as an object or means to our ends. We are not supposed to do things that effect others without their consent. We are not supposed to expose other people to harm

Antinatalism is less of an argument and more an empirically based claim about the harms of and nature of life. It is like telling someone not to enter a building because it is on fire.

What's unwarranted about harm that results from following a "worthy goal"? — Echarmion

I would expect the person being harmed to also share the goal at least. Or else I can just say go around killing people because I find my own enjoyment a “worthy goal” and I’d be innocent then.

I justify it by making the assumption that other humans are like me, are capable of reasons, and thus if I use my reason sufficiently well I will reach the same conclusions they would. — Echarmion

You do not reach the conclusion that the next generation of humans is something worth striving for by employing reason. That’s a premise, not a reasoned conclusion. One your child may not share.

Like putting people in prison I judge to have violated the law (if I have that power), — Echarmion

INNOCENT party.

boycotting a business I judge to be unethical. — Echarmion

INNOCENT party. Also, you don’t owe businesses your money so you don’t have to give it to them. Boycotting is perfectly within your rights.


You haven’t answered the main question. What makes a goal “morally worthy” or not?

We are not supposed to use others as an object or means to our ends. — Andrew4Handel

I presume you’re meaning a woman giving birth to a baby. But I’m not sure if we’re fully aware of all the reasons behind a woman having a baby.

Because we live in a community of generally like-minded people who rely intrinsically on each other for our mutual survival. So... — Isaac

I would say this is justification not to risk harming people for your own desires. That tends to break down the community if everyone does it.

(if anything like even a significant minority didn't we'd never have survived this long). — Isaac

Highly doubt this. What’s your evidence?

If ever this is not the case, again, it is the fault of the society, not the act of having children. — Isaac

It is both. The fault of society for causing harm, and the fault of the parents for making it possible. Blaming it only on one is like blaming society for your child getting corona, even though you were the one that told him to go shopping for you (not the best example, I know). Putting someone in imperfect conditions, and them getting harmed as a result is your fault, not just the conditions.

We impose all sorts of harms on children for the sake of wider community goals. — Isaac

Not really. We impose them for the children’s own sakes. What you’ve described is brainwashing. I think it’s unethical for example, to push religious beliefs on children too strongly. Even though often those beliefs would benefit the community greatly if everyone shared them.

Anything from social censure to full on imprisonment imposes harms on parties who may consider themselves innocent for the sake of the community. — Isaac

It doesn’t matter whether or not they feel innocent. It matters whether or not they are. And we take very good care not to imprison or socially censure innocent people, even if it would be for the benefit of the community to do so. We don’t imprison people who claim to be anarchists for example, until they do something illegal, even though getting rid of subversive beliefs is in the interests of the community.

I think you ascribe way too much of what we do in the name of the community. We tend to value the individual more than the community in most cases.

All the time we refer to non existent things which feature in our mental life as ideas and possibilities.
It seems completely necessary to function so that we imagine and predict the future is we head into it. — Andrew4Handel

The problem isn't predicting the future. The problem is acting as if future humans already float around as disembodied souls, which we then snatch to force into some body.

It seems very arrogant to me to assume you should be able to create someone else and they should desire you as a parent. Most people don't feel entitled to snatch a baby if they see it left unintended but parents subconsciously have this entitlement. They want a baby so they create one and come to possess it. — Andrew4Handel

It seems odd and uncharitable to assume people have children because they want to possess them.

We are not supposed to expose other people to harm — Andrew4Handel

I don't think this works as a principle. "Harm ethics" seems to run into the problem of how to quantify harm, and to define it in a non-circular way.

Antinatalism is less of an argument and more an empirically based claim about the harms of and nature of life. It is like telling someone not to enter a building because it is on fire. — Andrew4Handel

The odd thing though is that literally everyone is in the building, and noone can be outside of it. So one wonders who the anti-natalist are advocating for.

At what odds would it be acceptable to force someone to jump from a plane? — Tzeentch

I think that would depend on the person doing the pushing - presuming we're in a situation where consent cannot, under any circumstances, be obtained. A relatively high gain, low risk. For example a soldier at war who's too nervous to make the jump where every person is needed to defend the area against something demonstrably bad (say Nazism), and I'd personally checked his parachute was OK. Something like that.

Why is it an 'issue'. — Isaac


One would be forcing an individual to experience life, without being able to ensure whether they want to. An anti-natalist would say this is sufficient reason to refrain from doing so. — Tzeentch

That's not the 'issue' we're talking about. You're not following the conversation. You said...

How do we take into account a child's will and ability to consent when both of those things only come to exist after the decision we're supposed to be taking them into account in? — Isaac


You cannot — Tzeentch

That's the issue in question. I'm asking you why it is an issue. We cannot possibly take a will into account which does not yet exists, so we don't. I'm asking why that's a moral problem. We can't morally be required to do something which it is impossible to do. Your answer doesn't address this, it just repeats the same refrain we're trying to analyse. Just repeating it doesn't help.

I would expect the person being harmed to also share the goal at least. Or else I can just say go around killing people because I find my own enjoyment a “worthy goal” and I’d be innocent then. — khaled

You'd have to be correct, too.

You do not reach the conclusion that the next generation of humans is something worth striving for by employing reason. That’s a premise, not a reasoned conclusion. One your child may not share. — khaled

Premises can also be conclusions, those aren't ontological categories.

INNOCENT party. — khaled

What's innocence in this context?

You haven’t answered the main question. What makes a goal “morally worthy” or not? — khaled

That you can will it be universalised.

I would say this is justification not to risk harming people for your own desires. That tends to break down the community if everyone does it. — khaled

Highly doubt this. What’s your evidence? — khaled

We can both play that game.

For my part...

I suggest "Towards a Broader View of Hunter-Gatherer Sharing" Edited by Noa Lavi & David E. Friesem. I've found a few chapters are online if you Google it.

This paper goes through the current theories with regards to the evolution of food sharing.

This one broadens out to social networks in general.

But for a better grasp of the issues I recommend "Foundations of Human Sociality" by Joseph Henrich.

So do you have a citation for me for your assertion?

Putting someone in imperfect conditions, and them getting harmed as a result is your fault, not just the conditions. — khaled

That would depend on the net gains you foresee. If you can see net gains, then you have no choice but to pursue them in the environment you have available.

We impose all sorts of harms on children for the sake of wider community goals. — Isaac


Not really. We impose them for the children’s own sakes. What you’ve described is brainwashing. I think it’s unethical for example, to push religious beliefs on children too strongly. Even though often those beliefs would benefit the community greatly if everyone shared them. — khaled

Why?

It doesn’t matter whether or not they feel innocent. It matters whether or not they are. — khaled

How could you determine this from your position of moral relativity?

That you can will it be universalised. — Echarmion

What do you mean “will it be universalized”? I can conceive of a world where personal pleasure is a worthy moral goal and people go around doing whatever they want.

Premises can also be conclusions, those aren't ontological categories. — Echarmion

I know. But you didn’t present any reasoning behind your premise that having the next generation is a worthy goal. So until then it’s an unreasoned premise.

What's innocence in this context? — Echarmion

An innocent party would be one that didn’t inflict any harm on you. A murderer did clearly, so is not innocent.

That would depend on the net gains you foresee. If you can see net gains, then you have no choice but to pursue them in the environment you have available. — Isaac

Net gains for who? You or them?

How could you determine this from your position of moral relativity? — Isaac

Social contracts. Laws and such.

So do you have a citation for me for your assertion? — Isaac

That if everyone in a community harms for their own desire that the community would break down? No.

Your citations seem irrelevant to me from a skim. But maybe they’re not, I’ll check later. I’ll take it as a given for now.

Why? — Isaac

People should come to their own conclusions rather than be forced to accept what would be good for the community to accept. Why? That’s just a premise of mine. No further explanation.

That would depend on the net gains you foresee. If you can see net gains, then you have no choice but to pursue them in the environment you have available. — Isaac


Net gains for who? You or them? — khaled

The community. You and them. It's telling of this neo-liberal infection that you don't even consider that possibility.

How could you determine this from your position of moral relativity? — Isaac


Social contracts. Laws and such. — khaled

Why would they be relevant to the moral case?

So do you have a citation for me for your assertion? — Isaac


That if everyone in a community harms for their own desire that the community would break down? No. — khaled

Then why mention it in the same post as you seemed to imply that evidence was required for such claims?

Why? — Isaac


People should come to their own conclusions rather than be forced to accept what would be good for the community to accept. Why? That’s just a premise of mine. No further explanation. — khaled

Fair enough then.

People should come to their own conclusions rather than be forced to accept what would be good for the community to accept. Why? That’s just a premise of mine. No further explanation. — khaled

What sort of community do you envisage existing according to this premise?

Then why mention it in the same post as you seemed to imply that evidence was required for such claims? — Isaac

Because you said that if a sizeable minority of the population doesn’t see the whole community project as worthwhile we wouldn’t have survived. That seems way less obvious with how common it is for everyone to bash their own governments and communities, and how prevalent depression is. And I’m not seeing how studies about food sharing solve the issue.

Why would they be relevant to the moral case? — Isaac

Why would it not? Premises.

The community. You and them — Isaac

But in the case of having children there is no “them” or did you forget? That was your whole point. If no one is harmed by being brought into the world then no one is benefited either. So it’s you and the community in that case, but definitely not them. That I find problematic.

What sort of community do you envisage existing according to this premise? — Brett

One much like the current one. We don’t really all have a “unifying ideology” today. And yet we have communities.

The post of yours about people coming to their own conclusions seems to me to suggest that those decisions would be more pure than those forced on people by community norms. Does that mean that it would create or contribute to a better community?

@khaled@Tzeentch@Echarmion@Benkei
Ok, it's been a couple pages since I answered so I'm just going address the trends I see in "What's wrong with natalism".

1) The essential nonsense that we cannot consider the future person being born because there is no person currently existing. I've seen uses of "potential parent" in the mix. Yet, "potential child" is also a consideration of course. Someone will exist, and it is that person who will exist that we are preventing either the suffering or non-consent, or the "not being used for means to an end" result.

Essentially what this comes down to is the themes I have seen here regarding community vs. the individual. The community may be ordinarily needed for the individual to survive, but it is not the community that lives out life.

2) Rather "community" is an abstract concept of interactions between individuals composed of institutions, historical knowledge, location, etc. However, it would be using an individual for an abstract cause that isn't any actual person to then determine that people need to be born to feed the community's needs.

3) The locus of ethics is the individual, not the community. The community is not bearing the brunt of what it means to live out a life. It is simply a notion in the head of the actual people living out life. It is the individuals which are what are being prevented from suffering.

4) There seems to be an underlying Paternalism in the natalist's thought. Other people must be affected greatly because I deem it good. This is the height of hubris to think other people should affected greatly in a negative way by what you deem is good for them. In doing so of course, many other negative things have been imposed/violated. Suffering, consent, using people as a means for your/community's ends. There are a number of reasons this paternalism argument is simply license to use do these negative things on behalf of other people.

I still like @khaled's analogy of being kidnapped for a game regarding this paternalism. If I was to kidnap you into a game where this structurally meant to be many challenges to overcome, and there is also sufficient room for contingent harms to also affect the player, and the only way to escape is death, so you are de facto forced into playing the game or commit suicide, being harmed along the way, is the a good thing to do?

The only defense people are going to give for this is going back to the nonsensical argument that in the birth scenario there is no "one" to be kidnapped. Yet antinatalist arguments keep repeating that there will be someone born, and this "kidnapped" in the future. By being born this becomes the case, even if at the moment one decides, there is no actual person yet.

If you wanted a “better” reason why I value the individual over the community:

The community is not bearing the brunt of what it means to live out a life. It is simply a notion in the head of the actual people living out life. It is the individuals which are what are being prevented from suffering. — schopenhauer1

The essential nonsense that we cannot consider the future person being born because there is no person currently existing. — schopenhauer1

But malicious genetic engineering is wrong because it causes harm. Also being born itself doesn’t. Idk how they pull off the mental gymnastics there.

But malicious genetic engineering is wrong because it causes harm. Also being born itself doesn’t. Idk how they pull off the mental gymnastics there. — khaled

Yes, exactly. It gets pushed to either, "Well they don't exist when making the decision, so that's fine" or "It's for the community" or something like that. Or again, it's that paternalism, "I know what's best for others to endure".

The community is not bearing the brunt of what it means to live out a life. — schopenhauer1

That’s a very interesting point. Which suggests that collective decisions, I.e. the community, are made for some abstract reason for some abstract idea. So how can anything be justified “for the community”?

Great comment. I quite frankly don't know what there is left to say.

In the Darwinian sense we are here because of the benefits our mutations gave us as a leg up. Those that gave no advantage, or found no conditions to benefit from, got no furtherer, falling away with the death of the doomed individual. The biological features contributed to the survival of those who had them.

Obviously giving birth is the key to a species surviving. Those that could not carry a child full term or were susceptible to conditions that harmed the newborn failed to pass on their genes. Evolution favoured healthy births. Why it was necessary I don’t know, but it seems that all life seems compelled to reproduce.

Those things that are beneficial remain. Theoretically only that which is beneficial succeeds, they’re things that are “good” for human life.

You mentioned that you’re not concerned with animals in relation to the OP. Which I take to mean that not being sentient beings they do not suffer in the sense we do. Suffering as human is a specific sort of suffering, so bad for some that they chose suicide over life.

Presumably there was a period in human history where we did not suffer in this way, being a little better than animals, but still operating on our instincts.

At some point that changed. And at some point the reason for reproducing changed. It may be that children being the result of sex brought an adult couple closer and strengthened the bond, or contributed towards ideas of community.

At some point people were born into conscious suffering because it served a purpose or a number of purposes. The fact that people suffered was explained away through religion or cultural myths and stories.

I can’t help thinking that this being born into suffering is a mistake carried-over from the past and 1: creates suffering for the individual and 2: as a consequence creates communities and societies that no longer function properly because of the traumatised members. Consequently we are now forced to live in a dysfunctional society that can never work because we are traumatised creatures.

Someone will exist, and it is that person who will exist that we are preventing either the suffering or non-consent, or the "not being used for means to an end" result. — schopenhauer1

But this is clearly impossible. You cannot prevent either suffering, or non-consent, for anyone. Everyone has these imposed, by necessity.

You do not wish for a world of happy and free people. You wish for silence.

Essentially what this comes down to is the themes I have seen here regarding community vs. the individual. The community may be ordinarily needed for the individual to survive, but it is not the community that lives out life. — schopenhauer1

It does seem that the anti-natalist position is, at some basic level, connected to some deep distrust of community, of any kind of relationship to others.

To be in relationships with others always comes with obligations, and this is seen as a fundamental opprobrium. Any kind of common good is paternalistic in nature, hubris, even. Noone can know what is good for anyone else, and so we must all live as isolated eremites, to avoid causing impositions on one another as much as possible until, thankfully, we have all finally died.

Perhaps non-existence is the ultimate form of "being left alone", and this is what's ultimately wished for here. Self-destruction as the ultimate assertion of the ego.

1) The essential nonsense that we cannot consider the future person being born because there is no person currently existing. I've seen uses of "potential parent" in the mix. Yet, "potential child" is also a consideration of course. Someone will exist, and it is that person who will exist that we are preventing either the suffering or non-consent, or the "not being used for means to an end" result. — schopenhauer1

I stopped reading because it's apparent you don't read what I write. Once again, read the OP. I specifically raise the issue of future persons. The problem is some posters keep insisting on issues of consent. That results in metaphysical mumbo jumbo because nothing doesn't have a will.

Fuck this is tiresome.

Something that always didn't seem right to me in the OP;

And if they would be born into a situation of abject poverty, where the good does not outweigh their suffering or because of a biological defect that cannot be treated, we understand that "poverty" or that "defect" would cause unacceptable suffering and we should not have a child under those circumstances. What we are comparing then is a possibility of existence with other examples of possible lives lived and we find that possibility unacceptable. — Benkei

You recognize that people shoulnd't have children in some circumstances. This conclusion is arrived at by comparing the (non existent) "potential person" with lives that have actually been lived.

But what I don't buy is this:

But this is fundamentally different from saying this "non-existent" child is better off never having been born because when we talk that way, it is neither a child nor a person nor capable of having any properties, because it is nothing. — Benkei

They seem like the same kind of comparison to me. In the first case, you look into the future and predict that the child will likely suffer too much (be more unhappy than happy), and based on that conclude that you shouldn't have a child in poverty. In the latter, you look into the future and predict that the child could suffer too much (be more unhappy than happy) and based on that conclude that you shouldn't have a child, period. The only difference is the probability.

I don't see why poverty had to be introduced. Isn't the goal merely to determine whether or not the child will be likely to be more unhappy than happy? The former case (poverty) is much more likely to cause a negative outcome (more unhappy than happy) and so you find that having a child in that case is wrong. But that doesn't justify taking a risk in the first place at all. Where do you draw the line? What justifies putting it anywhere above 0% chance of a bad outcome?