Yeah, but then we're right back to square one. Affecting is a very broad term, which is why the claim that creating someone "affects" them is plausible. This is no longer the case when we use more concrete terms like imposing or causing conditions of harm. The whole causation argument has been done to death, as has the imposition one. — Echarmion

I'm not sure what you are saying here. I am qualifying affecting because you seemed to be saying affecting was too broad. You already know what kind of affecting I mean, but I still wanted to answer your question about consent by qualifying it. At that particular post you weren't arguing the non-person argument anymore (as I already answered that with how the displacement in time of the decision and affect on the person the decision is about doesn't mater) but rather why "affect" would be a violation. I'm defining that there is harm and impositions on another person, and in this argument about consent (rather than just suffering itself which is a related but different argument), that negative affect without consent is the violation. Again.. way too many words for something you probably knew.

These are, like all paradoxes, caused by modes of thinking, which can be rejected. But the anti-natalist solution seems to be to instead find the one who is responsible for the paradox, and ask them to fix it. Blaming your parents for something they did not do - indeed cannot do. — Echarmion

It is simply asking not to create this deprivation or deprivation-states.

I know from my own experience of human embodiment that there are significant burdens involved. — Inyenzi

So?

why create another human body with perpetual needs that must endlessly be strove against, and only for this person to die in the end regardless? — Inyenzi

Because life is good, the striving is fun sometimes, there are a lot of great things to enjoy in life. Most people seem to agree, even in today's difficult times. If we make the massive improvements to society which are certainly possible we'd have an even better time.

the joys of eating are predicated upon having a stomach — Inyenzi

So? What difference does it make what the joys are predicated on?

the source of this food is rooted in harm (eg, someone must labour to produce the food, bring it to market, in many cases horrific animal harm and cruelty being involved). — Inyenzi

None of which are necessary.

To justify creating a body with a stomach, by pointing out how good it is to feed it, strikes me as absurd. — Inyenzi

Why? Justifying things by how good they are seems pretty standard to me.

Better to just not create the deficiency in the first place, to not create a body with a need for food. — Inyenzi

Why would that be better? You'd miss out on the pleasure of eating that way. By what measure does missing out on pleasure come out as 'better', than having that pleasure?

Again.. way too many words for something you probably knew. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, likewise. The arguments have been done to death. The problems with your arguments are very obvious to me, but you either cannot or do not want to see them.

It is simply asking not to create this deprivation or deprivation-states. — schopenhauer1

But that's such a weird request. Deprivation is a human mental category. It's not a physical description but a value judgement. It's not your parents that think of all life as deprivation. It's you.

there are a lot of great things to enjoy in life. Most people seem to agree — Isaac

I agree, there are enjoyable things in life. But most isn't all, and all is what I would require as a standard before I'd even consider inflicting human embodiment upon another person. I wont respond to your other points because it will just lead to a quibbling debate, but in my opinion the pronatalist/antinatalist position starts and ends with a question of what kind of man/woman one aspires to be. Do I inflict a burden where it need not exist, or don't I? Do I have the self-discipline to deny my biological programming, or don't I? Do I aspire to do what is moral, or to simply indulge my base instincts to breed like every other mammal? What kind of person do I want to be, and what kind of self-discipline is required to achieve it? I imagine the vast majority of antinatalist/pronatalist debates on this forum are in reality debates between those with children and those without.

At a certain point the debate just breaks down. The antinatalist simply requires a higher standard for the creation of life that another human body must deal with - the pronatalist doesn't. It's an impasse.

Yeah, likewise. The arguments have been done to death. The problems with your arguments are very obvious to me, but you either cannot or do not want to see them. — Echarmion

And of course, I would say likewise to your counterarguments. Just because you characterize my arguments that way, doesn't make it so. But you can keep going with them.

But that's such a weird request. Deprivation is a human mental category. It's not a physical description but a value judgement. It's not your parents that think of all life as deprivation. It's you. — Echarmion

It doesn't matter what we think, it is the mode of existing as a human being embodied in the world. You don't have to make a judgement as you are being deprived. You are just deprived.

Why is it everyone couches disagreement as the other side not 'understanding'? — Isaac

What you said wasn't disagreement, you were refuting a misunderstanding of the argument. I am not arguing that there is a person who is benefited by antinatalism, or that there is someone who is harmed by birth (although suffering does result from it). And yet everyone here just keeps refuting the same 2 arguments, even though I'm not (and no one is really) making them.

So definitions aside, I don't see what difference there is. It might well be your responsibility to ensure I'm suited — Isaac

In what world? If I was your parent and you had some important interview or something maybe :rofl: But other than that, I don't see why I would have a responsibility to keep a stranger suited. Didn't cross my mind.

Is absolutely evidently insufficient. Driving is a risky undertaking. You risk harming others in doing so, that much is unarguable. — Isaac

Correct. And NOT driving is also very bad because then I can't work. So my job is to get good enough at driving that the harm done to me due to not being able to work starts to be comparable (hopefully less) than the "expected value" of harm I can cause. Again, I am part of this calculation, and me being unable to work is a problem.

If I am a bad driver to the point that I run people over 3 times a week getting to my job, I shouldn't be driving. Because then the harm I alleviate is not comparable to the harm I cause.

And as Benkei has pointed out, the odds of causing net harm to a future person are pretty low. — Isaac

The difference is, in the case of a future person, the amount of "harm" I alleviate from myself by having a child is insignificant to the amount I cause by having one. Whereas in driving they become comparable when I'm a good driver.

I've also stated that other people may decide differently. — Benkei

So it's not so much that there is anything wrong with antinatalism then is there?

You claim that the "chance of bad outcome" needs to be near 100% for having children to start to be considered wrong.
— khaled

Yup. That's my personal moral intuition — Benkei

And you claim at the same time that putting the bar at >0% is wrong. On what basis?

I never said that. I said the question doesn't pertain to reality and as such the question is moot — Benkei

Why is it moot in the second case but not the first? We're just talking about where to put the bar.

all is what I would require as a standard before I'd even consider inflicting human embodiment upon another person. — Inyenzi

You can't inflict human embodiment on a person. If the thing you're imagining is not already embodied, it's not a person.

the pronatalist/antinatalist position starts and ends with a question of what kind of man/woman one aspires to be. — Inyenzi

Agreed.

Do I inflict a burden where it need not exist, or don't I? — Inyenzi

How do you determine if a burden 'needs' to exist?

Do I have the self-discipline to deny my biological programming, or don't I? — Inyenzi

Do your desires go around with little labels attached? How are you identifying the ones resulting from 'biological programming'?

Do I aspire to do what is moral, or to simply indulge my base instincts to breed like every other mammal? — Inyenzi

Why assume it's one or the other?

I imagine the vast majority of antinatalist/pronatalist debates on this forum are in reality debates between those with children and those without. — Inyenzi

That seems likely, given the topic. So?

The antinatalist simply requires a higher standard for the creation of life that another human body must deal with — Inyenzi

No. The antinatalist requires a different standard. It is not 'higher'. The argument is that it's incoherent, not that it's excessively high.

Do I aspire to do what is moral, or to simply indulge my base instincts to breed like every other mammal? What kind of person do I want to be, and what kind of self-discipline is required to achieve it? — Inyenzi

At least we're admitting that this is about self-image. But one might wonder whether the wish to not have to deal with life at all is really a sign of superior self-discipline.

It doesn't matter what we think, it is the mode of existing as a human being embodied in the world. You don't have to make a judgement as you are being deprived. You are just deprived. — schopenhauer1

I think this is avoiding the question. Clearly "deprived" isn't the name of a fundamental force in the universe. Whether one sees all existence as deprivation, or sees individual cases of deprivation that can be solved is a question of perspective.

I think this is avoiding the question. Clearly "deprived" isn't the name of a fundamental force in the universe. Whether one sees all existence as deprivation, or sees individual cases of deprivation that can be solved is a question of perspective. — Echarmion

The Schopenhaurean perspective is that deprivation is akin to the base of an existing animal and human as a phenomenal manifestation individuated in time/space/causility all a flip-side of Will, which is the real noumena beneath the surface.

But I don't necessarily have to subscribe to that kind of metaphysics to get the point. Being alive entails essentially being de facto forced into deprivations of the survival, comfort, entertainment varieties.

I just don't get the idea that we want to make other people deal with any kind of thing. The natalists response is to, again, "deal with it" or "go kill yourself". I just don't find that acceptable.

What you said wasn't disagreement, you were refuting a misunderstanding of the argument. I am not arguing that there is a person who is benefited by antinatalism, or that there is someone who is harmed by birth (although suffering does result from it). And yet everyone here just keeps refuting the same 2 arguments, even though I'm not (and no one is really) making them. — khaled

The analogy wasn't necessarily aimed at you.

In what world? If I was your parent and you had some important interview or something maybe :rofl: But other than that, I don't see why I would have a responsibility to keep a stranger suited. Didn't cross my mind. — khaled

For fuck's sake, it was an analogy and hopefully you knew perfectly well it was an analogy when you wrote it, otherwise it was mindnumbingly stupid thing to write. To make the analogy correct, we'd have to add that there are situations where it is your responsibility to buy me a suit.

If you're really finding the concept of an analogy difficult to cope with then we can put it in absolute terms. There is some benefit A which carries a risk B to person C. If I'm under no duty to provide benefit A then it might not be appropriate to take risk B if I cannot get the consent of person C to do so. IF, however, I'm under some responsibility to provide benefit A and still can't get the consent of person C, I might well take risk B because failing to provide A would be no less of a risk - be an equally morally relevant outcome.

And NOT driving is also very bad because then I can't work. So my job is to get good enough at driving that the harm done to me due to not being able to work starts to be comparable (hopefully less) than the "expected value" of harm I can cause. — khaled

Great. So it seems we agree then. The risk that a person might end up displeased with their life is worth taking because not taking it also causes harms. We weigh the two and come to a conclusion about whether to take the risk or not. It seems we're on the same page after all.

The difference is, in the case of a future person, the amount of "harm" I alleviate from myself by having a child is insignificant to the amount I cause by having one. — khaled

Why are you suddenly only taking into account the harm you alleviate from yourself as the only positive in the balance?

I just don't get the idea that we want to make other people deal with any kind of thing. — schopenhauer1

It's not rocket science, it just takes the tiniest bit of theory of mind (something most three years olds can muster), but I'll teach you it here and now so that you can get on with your life.

--Not everyone has the same opinion about stuff as you do--

Edit - (in case that wasn't abundantly clear) the fact that you personally find these things difficult to cope with does not in any way mean anyone else finds them difficult to cope with.

But I don't necessarily have to subscribe to that kind of metaphysics to get the point. Being alive entails essentially being de facto forced into deprivations of the survival, comfort, entertainment varieties. — schopenhauer1

You do have to subscribe to ascribe to a particular metaphysics to arrive at the conclusion that there is someone to blame for this in it's entirety. The alternative view is that rather than having one big dragon to fight, we instead all have to make the right decisions everyday, with everything.

I just don't get the idea that we want to make other people deal with any kind of thing. The natalists response is to, again, "deal with it" or "go kill yourself". I just don't find that acceptable. — schopenhauer1

Because you want an option where you exist, but don't have to deal with it? Isn't that what heaven is?

The analogy wasn't necessarily aimed at you. — Isaac

I mean.... it was written in response to me. Kind of confusing.

For fuck's sake, it was an analogy and hopefully you knew perfectly well it was an analogy when you wrote it, otherwise it was mindnumbingly stupid thing to write. To make the analogy correct, we'd have to add that there are situations where it is your responsibility to buy me a suit. — Isaac

It is, but I'm just saying that nothing in it implied that I have the responsibility of keeping you suited. But yes there are cases where that could be true.

There is some benefit A which carries a risk B to person C. If I'm under no duty to provide benefit A then it is not appropriate to take risk B if I cannot get the consent of person C to do so. IF, however, I'm under some responsibility to provide benefit A and still can't get the consent of person C, I might well take risk B because failing to provide A would be no less of a risk - be an equally morally relevant outcome. — Isaac

:ok:

The risk that a person might end up displeased with their life is worth taking because not taking it also causes harms. — Isaac

Didn't say that. But in general, we do have to look at both outcomes yes, and this case is no exception.

Why are you suddenly only taking into account the harm you alleviate from yourself as the only positive in the balance? — Isaac

What else is there? And don't tell me "harm you alleviate from others" because I could also easily argue that your child will cause a fair share of harm. And I'm not sure if "others" should come into the calculation at all, so far it's just been you vs the affected party. I'll have to think about that one.

I mean.... it was written in response to me. Kind of confusing. — khaled

No. It had no notification attached to it, quite deliberately.

It is, but I'm just saying that nothing in it implied that I have the responsibility of keeping you suited. But yes there are cases where that could be true. — khaled

Right. So it doesn't work as a counter-argument then does it. If there are situations in which the reductio wouldn't work because the factors are different then it becomes about whether the situation in question has those factors.

don't tell me "harm you alleviate from others" because I could also easily argue that your child will cause a fair share of harm. — khaled

So? You could well make that argument. But then we'd only be exactly where I've been claiming we should be since the start.

1. There are benefits to having children (enjoyed both by the future child and the community into which they're born) and there are harms (suffered both by the child and the community they're born into).

2. Despite the incoherence of the framing given sometimes, we can theoretically consider how the future child might respond to these benefits and harms, we can even imagine how they might feel about the logical impossibility of not having had the opportunity to choose. What we can't do is ask them what their actual view in either case is - we can only guess what it might, in future, be.

3. Since, out of the 7 billion people on the planet at the moment (and the tens of billions who've been born) the proportion who complain that they'd rather not have been born (even if such a claim is incoherent) is absolutely tiny, it's not an unreasonable assumption, then, that this future child will feel equally comfortable with this situation.

3a. We can also add to this that in some moral frameworks, it's not unreasonable to assign a duty to members of a community, and as such we would assume this duty of our imaginary child when predicting their opinion.

4. A world with no-one in it is not a good world because 'good' is an assessment made by people - without them nothing is good. Moral goals make no sense in the absence of people to enjoy the benefits of them.

5. Since it is a perfectly reasonable moral tool to evaluate the failure to meet a duty no less than the causing of a harm, it is incumbent that we weigh the loss of benefits (some of which it might be our duty to provide) against the potential to cause harm to an imagined future child and their community.

6. Since (3) would indicate the chances of severe harm are pretty slim, and (4) would indicate that avoiding those harms via extinction would be self-defeating, the benefits would have to be pretty small indeed to not weigh quite heavily against them. Most people see the benefits of life as weighing quite heavily - we do a lot to preserve it - so the argument seems clear.

No. It had no notification attached to it, quite deliberately. — Isaac

Weird, I got one. I've been getting notified by quotes sometimes.

We can also add to this that in some moral frameworks, it's not unreasonable to assign a duty to members of a community, and as such we would assume this duty of our imaginary child when predicting their opinion. — Isaac

Idk what their duty would have to do with their opinion of life. Don't see what you're trying to say with 3a

A world with no-one in it is not a good world — Isaac

I'm not after "good worlds" whatever those are.

and (4) would indicate that avoiding those harms via extinction would be self-defeating — Isaac

Again, I don't care about "good worlds". So what exactly is self-defeating here? The conclusion that we will end up with an empty world doesn't matter to me, I'm only going to consider action by action.

It is a fact of the matter that having children produces more suffering than not. For easy comparison:

Sum of all harm in a world in which adam and eve didn't have kids: Suffering(Adam) + Suffering(Eve)
Sum of all harm in a world in which adam and eve had kids: Inarguably a lot more than that.

Your 5-6 points just sound like handwaving to me. First off you bring in benefits, when this whole time I've exclusively talked about harms (deliberately) and second you try to sneak in the "extinction bad" argument without saying it outright.

It really is quite simple if you apply the framework we agreed on.

Situation 1: Do not have kids: I experience X suffering. You would probably want to add "and the community also misses out" but again, you'll need to prove that your child will not be harmful in the first place to make that argument.

Situation 2: Have kids: I alleviate X suffering from myself and add much more to the kids (in addition to each of them having to deal with their own X now, unless they also have kids, ad infinium)

There will almost never be a situation where X (harm in situation 1) is MORE than the harm in situation 2 (which can be approximated as: numberOfKids * X + each kid's individual suffering. Can't see that ever being less than just X), but that is what would be required by the framework. The only exceptions may include:

1- I know my next child will do something amazing like cure cancer (Again, I don't think even this one works because I have explicitly always made it about harm to you vs harm to the affected party, never "harm to the community". I don't think that should be a factor but I'm going with it for now)

2- I have some condition where X is so large that it is actually comparable to the suffering of an entire lifetime AND this condition is not genetic (or else I'm just pushing it onto someone else)

Those are the only 2 exceptions I can think of.

No. It had no notification attached to it, quite deliberately. — Isaac


Weird, I got one. I've been getting notified by quotes sometimes. — khaled

Notifications on this site are a bit peculiar.

Idk what their duty would have to do with their opinion of life. Don't see what you're trying to say with 3a — khaled

Nothing. I worded it all wrong. I meant to say that we could take that into account when weighing their opinion (ie, we don't just take into account how much they like it, but whether they're fulfilling a duty).

I'm not after "good worlds" whatever those are. — khaled

So if your morality isn't aimed at making the world a better place, then what is it aimed at? What's the point of behaving morally, for you?

It is a fact of the matter that having children produces more suffering than not. — khaled

Agreed.

So why would you want to reduce suffering...above all else...seemingly to the complete exclusion of all other considerations?

We've seen that you don't (in practice) fail to consider other factors when making decisions, so why, with the decision over children, do you keep coming back to this naive oversimplification of moral judgement where the only thing we have to consider is suffering?

Same question here. Why bother? Why reduce suffering?

What's the point of behaving morally, for you? — Isaac

Behaving morally.

So why would you want to reduce suffering...above all else...seemingly to the complete exclusion of all other considerations? — Isaac

Not all other considerations. But all considerations outside of the considerations we outlined. The ones you summed up really well:

There is some benefit A which carries a risk B to person C. If I'm under no duty to provide benefit A then it is not appropriate to take risk B if I cannot get the consent of person C to do so. IF, however, I'm under some responsibility to provide benefit A and still can't get the consent of person C, I might well take risk B because failing to provide A would be no less of a risk - be an equally morally relevant outcome — Isaac

Having kids is like buying the suit with your money when I don't have a responsibility to keep you suited. Just with way higher stakes. There is no factor here that I’ve outlined as important that I’m not considering as far as I see. The fact that you tried to sneak in the “extinction bad” thing again without outright saying it (because you know I don’t see it as a worthy goal, but something that has to come out of the morality naturally) suggests that you know this too.

we instead all have to make the right decisions everyday, with everything. — Echarmion

Those are the de facto conditions. That is the game. I don't like to start games for other people. That is paternalistic. Again, deal with situations or die. Smug assumptions and conclusions to do on behalf of other people if you ask me.

Related, I had another thread that discussed how bad decisions themselves are part of the contingent harms of the games.. Start a game for someone and then say "do better at it".. more smug... Smug, smug, smug, smug...

Because you want an option where you exist, but don't have to deal with it? Isn't that what heaven is? — Echarmion

IT doesn't matter if the world that is better doesn't actually exist, it's just not this world.

I think the conclusion is wrong though. Because other people are unhappy, I should be too, thereby increasing unhappiness? Seems to be the wrong way to go about it. Moreover poverty is in decline across the world(...) — Benkei

I find the context of the reported happiness problematic.

You mentioned the alleged odds of a child being happy using one country but that is not representative of all countries. Nevertheless I found articles like this on The Netherlands:

https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2018/45/one-in-12-young-people-have-poor-mental-health

You say poverty is decreasing but there is still masses of poverty and homeless children. Even if are going in a positive trajectory that doesn't mitigate the dire problems people face now.

I am not saying people ought to be unhappy but I don't understand how they could be happy and very happy if they saw and heard stories of modern tragedies. There is the phenomena of "depressive realism" which shows that people with depressive symptoms make more accurate judgements.

But also I do not think reports of happiness justify creating a child. Happiness is not a measure of morality. You have to look at the context and nature of the happiness.

I don't think one person should have to suffer to keep the species going. If you believe that why don't you swap lives with someone living on a trash heap in Nigeria?

I think the parent child dynamic is problematic.

The child exists solely because of her parents desires and so this is a very unequal one sided relationship.

This is not like adopting a poor child and lavishing them with gifts and affection. You are making someone exist because of your desires and not for their benefit.

I have compared this to a Stockholm syndrome scenario. The child becomes grateful to the parent without realising the nature of the relationship and the imposition.

I have compared this to a Stockholm syndrome scenario. The child becomes grateful to the parent without realising the nature of the relationship and the imposition. — Andrew4Handel

What you seem to be saying here that the parent-child relationship is somehow bad. That it should not be so. But what's the basis for that?

Those are the de facto conditions. That is the game. I don't like to start games for other people. — schopenhauer1

The whole game thing is an analogy though. Life isn't a game, because games are a part of life. Life just is, no-one decided that this is how human life feels to us.

Smug assumptions and conclusions to do on behalf of other people if you ask me. — schopenhauer1

I don't know what's smug about it. No-one here is claiming that everyone should be happy about their particular lot. But perhaps it seems smug because it throws a wrench into the fantasy of the "perfect" life.

IT doesn't matter if the world that is better doesn't actually exist, it's just not this world. — schopenhauer1

I just have this theory that anti-natalism is a secularised version of heaven. You see all the pain and suffering in the world and look for a metaphysical way out. Some way to fight all the evils at once, without actually having to figure out a solution for anything in particular.

Those are the de facto conditions. That is the game. I don't like to start games for other people.
— schopenhauer1

The whole game thing is an analogy though. Life isn't a game, because games are a part of life. Life just is, no-one decided that this is how human life feels to us. — Echarmion

So this goes back to my analogy of kidnapping someone into a game.. read the post about that. Don't feel like copying it. And for the thousandth time, I get the non-person problem.. so there is no one to be "kidnapped". But, someone is being started in life.. and the analogy is that the "game" is one of life or death. You either live the structural and contingent conditions or you die.

I don't know what's smug about it. No-one here is claiming that everyone should be happy about their particular lot. But perhaps it seems smug because it throws a wrench into the fantasy of the "perfect" life. — Echarmion

It's smug to assume people should play the game.. that is to say start the game for other people to play.

I just have this theory that anti-natalism is a secularised version of heaven. You see all the pain and suffering in the world and look for a metaphysical way out. Some way to fight all the evils at once, without actually having to figure out a solution for anything in particular. — Echarmion

Why do people have to be put in a circumstance where they have to figure out a solution for anything in particular? For someone who poo poos my analogy about a game, you are sure reiterating it. This is again, under the genre of smug natalist responses.. "Deal with shit or die". Yep yep yep. smug smug smug.. I get it. You can reinforce it with more smug responses and I'll entertain it. Keep your greatest hits coming.

What's the point of behaving morally, for you? — Isaac


Behaving morally. — khaled

That's not really an answer to the question. You've made a clear distinction between desires and moral behaviour so moral behaviour can't simply be one of the things you desire otherwise the distinction breaks down. We only act motivated by desires. You're advocating restraining ourselves in some desire (saying it's immoral to have children). Are you suggesting that what classes as 'moral' is random, arbitrary?

Having kids is like buying the suit with your money when I don't have a responsibility to keep you suited. Just with way higher stakes. There is no factor here that I’ve outlined as important that I’m not considering as far as I see. The fact that you tried to sneak in the “extinction bad” thing again without outright saying it (because you know I don’t see it as a worthy goal, but something that has to come out of the morality naturally) suggests that you know this too. — khaled

This conversation is just getting too weird for me so I think I'll just leave it there. You're basically just saying that you desire noting above the reduction of suffering to zero and there's no reason at all why. Well, fair enough, but there's no point in continuing a conversation with someone so manifestly odd, I don't think we have any common ground on which to base an argument.

more smug... Smug, smug, smug, smug... — schopenhauer1

Yep yep yep. smug smug smug.. I get it. You can reinforce it with more smug responses and I'll entertain it. — schopenhauer1

Good to hear you avoiding all those ad hominen arguments you dislike so much...

To those out there, I am characterizing the position that other people need to live life so they can find solutions as a smug argument yes. The word I really mean here is paternalistic. Smug is sort of self-righteous condescension. That would be more like the tone of responses from certain posters here looking to start fights.

But, someone is being started in life.. and the analogy is that the "game" is one of life or death. You either live the structural and contingent conditions or you die. — schopenhauer1

But that's wrong. Because it assumes that when you start the game, you already have something to loose. Hence the "or die" part has significance. This isn't the case though. The supposed "game" is literally all there is. It isn't a game where you either play or die. It's a game where you play, dying is part of playing.

It's smug to assume people should play the game.. that is to say start the game for other people to play. — schopenhauer1

What's smug about that?

Irritatingly pleased with oneself, offensively self-complacent, self-satisfied.

?

I am characterizing the position that other people need to live life so they can find solutions as a smug argument yes. The word I really mean here is paternalistic. Smug is sort of self-righteous condescension. That would be more like the tone of responses from certain posters here looking to start fights. — schopenhauer1

'Arguments' and 'responses' are not smug. People are. It's an ad hominen which just goes the heart of the issue. You're pissed off about your life and looking for someone to blame. This isn't philosophy, it's bad therapy.

Why do people have to be put in a circumstance where they have to figure out a solution for anything in particular? — schopenhauer1

If you believed in God, I'd say ask them. In the absence of that, not sure why you're asking.

For someone who poo poos my analogy about a game, you are sure reiterating it. — schopenhauer1

Uh, I am?

You can reinforce it with more smug responses and I'll entertain it. Keep your greatest hits coming. — schopenhauer1

You sound a bit like a teenager, complaining that they have to prepare the dinner before eating it. So smug to point out facts!

'Arguments' and 'responses' are not smug. People are. — Isaac

That's for damn sure. You prove that all the time.