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
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
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). — Tzeentch
You just keep repeating that we're "forcing someone without consent" — Echarmion
but don't explain who that "someone" is supposed to be — Echarmion
or how the decision-making process you envision would function. — Echarmion
Because it's at the core of the issue. By your use of the word "we" I'm assuming you are a parent? — Tzeentch
The individual one is considering forcing into existence. — Tzeentch
Forcing others to do things without their consent needs to be avoided. — Tzeentch
What's unwarranted about harm that results from following a "worthy goal"? — Echarmion
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
Like putting people in prison I judge to have violated the law (if I have that power), — Echarmion
boycotting a business I judge to be unethical. — Echarmion
We are not supposed to use others as an object or means to our ends. — Andrew4Handel
Because we live in a community of generally like-minded people who rely intrinsically on each other for our mutual survival. So... — Isaac
(if anything like even a significant minority didn't we'd never have survived this long). — Isaac
If ever this is not the case, again, it is the fault of the society, not the act of having children. — Isaac
We impose all sorts of harms on children for the sake of wider community goals. — Isaac
Anything from social censure to full on imprisonment imposes harms on parties who may consider themselves innocent for the sake of the community. — Isaac
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
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
We are not supposed to expose other people to harm — Andrew4Handel
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
At what odds would it be acceptable to force someone to jump from a plane? — Tzeentch
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
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
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 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
INNOCENT party. — khaled
You haven’t answered the main question. What makes a goal “morally worthy” or not? — khaled
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
Putting someone in imperfect conditions, and them getting harmed as a result is your fault, not just the conditions. — khaled
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
It doesn’t matter whether or not they feel innocent. It matters whether or not they are. — khaled
That you can will it be universalised. — Echarmion
Premises can also be conclusions, those aren't ontological categories. — Echarmion
What's innocence in this context? — Echarmion
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
How could you determine this from your position of moral relativity? — Isaac
So do you have a citation for me for your assertion? — Isaac
Why? — Isaac
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
How could you determine this from your position of moral relativity? — Isaac
Social contracts. Laws and such. — khaled
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
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
Then why mention it in the same post as you seemed to imply that evidence was required for such claims? — Isaac
Why would they be relevant to the moral case? — Isaac
The community. You and them — Isaac
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. — khaled
The community is not bearing the brunt of what it means to live out a life. — schopenhauer1
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
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
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
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
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
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.