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. — khaled
I can't pretend "as if" a non-existent child (eg. nothing) is better off because I don't know how nothing feels because it can't have feelings. They're not the same comparison. This point seems rather obvious. — Benkei
No, the difference is that I can pretend "as if" a child would exist and attribute qualities and states to it and compare that what I know about lives lived by those around me. — Benkei
No one is doing this. Antinatalists are not trying to improve life for anyone. There is no one to be better off. It's a very common misconception. — khaled
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. — khaled
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. — khaled
But would you will such a world into existence? Rawls' veil of ignorance provides a good analogy here: Imagine you're going to end up in this society as an inhabitant, but your socio-economic position is chosen at random. Would you want to live in a world where people go around doing whatever they want? — Echarmion
But, having children in order to continue a society of free subjects is different. — Echarmion
There is no outside reason for this to exist - the universe doesn't care. — Echarmion
The subjects are an end in an of itself, and having a further presence of subjects furthers free will by creating it's necessary preconditions. — Echarmion
It does not necessarily follow from this that not having children is immoral - freedom isn't quantified, so there being more subjects doesn't equal more freedom. — Echarmion
Antinatalists are using the same "as if the child existed" model as well. As I stated over and over, it all about someone who could exist in the future. That person X (you called him Billy or Sarah as a placeholder), would prevented from suffering. — schopenhauer1
I think he goes on to generalize form this that we mean to HELP Billy or Sarah. We don't. That makes no sense. We are using the same model, we just set the "Acceptable chance of bad outcome" to 0%. — khaled
I can't say I don't appreciate a little armchair psychology, but this makes little sense. — Tzeentch
The anti-natalist viewpoint as I have seen it expressed in this thread is based on A: the idea that voluntariness and consensuality form the basis for moral conduct in regards to others, and B: that childbirth does not fit these criteria.
It has nothing to do with distrust of others, a desire to be left alone, the assertion of ego or self-destruction. — Tzeentch
Nothing comes out of psychonalayzing the guy giving arguments. Respond to the arguments or please don't respond at all. — khaled
This has not been shown to be good in what you have highlighted. You have shown that maximizing PEOPLE'S ability to choose is good (or rather, that limiting it is bad, same thing). You have not shown that producing more people so that those people can go around making choices is good. Those are 2 different things. — khaled
There isn't much point in responding to the same thing over and over again. — Echarmion
I don't claim that there is a moral duty to produce more people, as I already wrote. Just that there is a motivation for having children which is in accordance with free will, and as such moral. — Echarmion
The subjects are an end in an of itself, and having a further presence of subjects furthers free will by creating it's necessary preconditions. It does not necessarily follow from this that not having children is immoral - freedom isn't quantified, so there being more subjects doesn't equal more freedom. — Echarmion
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. — Echarmion
No one is doing this. Antinatalists are not trying to improve life for anyone. There is no one to be better off. It's a very common misconception. — khaled
Let's say I had the power to make you experience something that you may or may not enjoy. Why should or shouldn't I use that power without your consent? — Tzeentch
Exactly. Well-stated and concise. It isn't that hard. I called it the Argument Against Paternalism. At base, the answers here is that the parent thinks that it is best for the child, even if it is causing suffering, which is why I say, it is still wrong to cause unnecessary suffering unto another even if one has good intentions to do so. — Schopenhauer1
So for the next child to be born in this world let's do this. Let's call him Billy. Billy will NOT be born in poverty or have severe disabilities. However despite this, after countless calculations we find that there is a 6% chance Billy becomes more unhappy than happy. Should Billy be born?
You already gave an example of a situation where you shouldn't have a child (poverty and disability). But the only difference between that pretend person (Let's call her Sarah) and Billy is that Sarah has a higher chance of becoming more unhappy than happy due to the circumstances she would be born under. Let's say 60%.
On what basis do you say Sarah should not be born but Billy should be born? — khaled
And yet it continually happens in this thread and I've already pointed it out several times. The last time was here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/480046 — Benkei
Small quibble: I gave "abject poverty" as a reason, which is something different than just poverty. People can be poor and happy, abject poverty and happiness usually don't go together. — Benkei
We can't calculate if someone is going to be happy or not so the question to me is for all intents and purposes moot and so would be my answer. — Benkei
What's important is whether we can intervene in the circumstances leading to suffering. If I can intervene in the causal chain because there's a proximate cause that I can affect, then there's a moral duty on me to do so and avoid another person's suffering. If the proximate cause is certain but unavoidable, only then would I consider intervening earlier in the causal chain as a moral obligation. — Benkei
Which reminds me, I might have missed it but if you don't recognise moral obligations to save drowning people why a moral obligation not to have kids? — Benkei
I was referring to the nature of the empirical evidence used in Antinatalism which distinguishes it from a purely theoretical or logical argument. — Andrew4Handel
But you are right we are all in the building, which is what puzzles antinatalists. We point out past present and future suffering like the holocaust , world wars, slavery, cancer, depression and nuclear proliferation and damage to the environment, none of which is apparently enough to dissuade people from having children. — Andrew4Handel
There are lots more examples if you need them." — Andrew4Handel
What's the point of listing all the negative aspects of life, apart from trying to eliminate or ameliorate them? It's not as if we have an option to not be born. That choice is entirely imaginary. It's almost like imagining that one might not have been born is an escapist fantasy. — Echarmion
Point is: You cannot know whether or not you will be able to intervene in the circumstances leading up to the suffering, and there is a very real chance you won't be able to. In fact, I'm willing to say it is almost impossible that there will no occasion where your child suffers due to circumstances you couldn't have stopped. So shouldn't intervening earlier be a moral obligation? — khaled
You are not obligated to help, you are only obligated not to harm in my view. Helping is good though again, not obligatory. — khaled
This is rather perplexing to me. Your choice not to intervene causes the person to drown and die because if it hadn't been for your choice the person would still be alive. So your choice is a conditio sine que non for the drowning. If you aren't supposed to cause harm, you have to intervene. — Benkei
Nope. As you indicate yourself this is all surrounded by unknowns. All I do know is that these types of suffering aren't caused by living because being alive is not a sufficient condition for suffering, only a necessary condition. This is why when I "calculate" this borders on certainty. I'm not concerned with heartbreak of my daughter because I don't cause it. — Benkei
And yet you did exactly such a calculation to conclude that people in abject poverty will in all likelyhood suffer and so one shouldn't have kids in abject poverty. — khaled
What you cause and what you are responsible for are different. If the bad outcome would have happened without you being there you are not responsible for fixing it. You are only responsible for not causing bad outcomes by being there. So had I can't go around drowning people (If I hadn't been there they would not have drowned). — khaled
I have no clue how this relates to what I said. No one brought up sufficient and necessary conditions. I'm just looking at the conditions under which having children would be unethical rn. You made the claim that if you can reasonably expect your child to suffer too much, it would be unethical to have them. Yet you do not specify what "too much" means. — khaled
What puzzled me is the person I was responding to did not seem to think a parent could cause a child any suffering simply by creating them. If you were going to create a child why not consider the suffering that already exists. Like I said in my initial posts we do this predicting the future all the time.
For example if you were going to a shop and someone said that there was an active shooter on the loose would you want to know this before you started out on your journey? — Andrew4Handel
I am concerned that most people do not seem to make the link between creating a child and the reason there is suffering and inequality etc. The first post I made on the Old Philosophy forums was about this. The only reason we do philosophy is because our parents created us and that is the reason we exist and why we asks all the questions we do and few people question why we were made to exist on the first place. — Andrew4Handel
Creating a new sentience (deliberately) is profound and has profound implications. (Compare this to being the first person to create a sentient robot) If you create the first sentient robot it would make international headlines and you would be considered a genius yet people are creating sentient beings everyday as if it was the product of a fast food chain. — Andrew4Handel
I'm coming from: to me the outcome comes about precisely because you are there and don't do anything — Benkei
How about a doctor, who can treat a life-threatening condition, and he just decides not to treat a patient? That would be a serious breach of his duties and promises but since the patient would die any way, no responsibility based on the above. — Benkei
That would be a serious breach of his duties and promises — Benkei
What thread have you been reading? it's in the OP and has been discussed several times in these pages. And, no I don't specify what "too much" is, because it depends on the circumstances, so I can't. — Benkei
So in that case he does actually have to treat them, because that's his responsibility. — khaled
No one brought it up in our conversation so far. I have read the OP, and still wonder why Billy should be born but Sarah shouldn't. And what do you mean "depends on the circumstances"? It is these circumstances that I'm asking about. What makes procreation ethical in one (billy) and not the other (sarah) — khaled
But you just said you're not responsible if a thing would happen if you weren't there. Why is the doctor responsible for something that would occur even if he wasn't there and yet you're not when someone is drowning? — Benkei
But giving random percentages isn't "circumstances". — Benkei
When I said that I assumed it is not your job to save the drowning person, aka it is not your responsibility. A doctor already has a responsibility to save patients. Or else he wouldn't be a doctor.
You are responsible for what happens if you not being there would have resulted in the better outcome. But you can also be responsible in other ways, like jobs or parenthood, to prevent suffering that would have occured even if you weren't there. — khaled
It's why different murderers get different sentences and why murder is sometimes excused due to circumstances. — Benkei
What if society agrees it's everybody's responsibility to intervene, so it's everybody's "job" to save drowning people? — Benkei
To expound a bit, generally it's a good rule of thumb not to kill people but sometimes it is. Generally, it's a good rule to be nice to people but sometimes it isn't. When it isn't has such a wide variety of reasons that it's no use to try to catch that in a general rule. It's enough to realise that almost every moral rule we can think of, can be provided with circumstances where the opposite is better.
So generally it's perfectly fine to have babies but sometimes it isn't. — Benkei
You have given 0 factors or explanation. — khaled
Wouldn't you say that a view that ultimately seeks to create a universe devoid of subjects that can experience it is self-destructive? It seems hard to ignore this ultimate conclusion of the anti-natalist argument. — Echarmion
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.