you can highlight a portion of a comment and press “quote” to quote it. Also if you click the three dots at the bottom of each comment and click the arrow you should be able to reply. It’s easier than just putting things in quotation marks and it sends a notification.

“I predict your moral premise cannot be enforced therefore you shouldn't have it". I thought your moral premise was about preventing suffering? Don’t you think you need to take into account who you CAUSE to suffer by trying to prevent it?

Also note that "embracing and improving life" doesn't contradict antinatalism.”

How do you propose to embrace and improve life by stopping procreation if that leads to a disastrous decline in quality of life?

“ So if I find purpose in your suffering I get to cause you to suffer?” No, if I find purpose in MY suffering , and know a great many other people in my life who share my view on the value of one’s OWN suffering, I will suspect there is a very good chance, although no guarantee, that you will also embrace your suffering in this way and be glad that you were born. Or you could become an anti-natalist.

Don’t you think you need to take into account who you CAUSE to suffer by trying to prevent it? — Joshs

Sure. Who suffers by not having kids? You could argue that the parents do, but that suffering is definitely less than the suffering the kids would have had to endure. So if literally everyone decided not to have kids tomorrow, then there would be a lot less suffering.

However it is most definitely the case that not everyone will decide not to have kids tomorrow, so trying to enforce the rule will backfire and cause more suffering.

How do you propose to embrace and improve life by stopping procreation if that leads to a disastrous decline in quality of life? — Joshs

Is it a decline? Let's say a person suffers X due to not having children and Y is all the suffering they experience otherwise

If they have children and then those children don't have children:
Total suffering: X * number of children + Y * (number of children + 1)

If they don't have children:
Total suffering: X + Y

If they have children and those children have children (ad infinium):
Total suffering: Infinity

There is literally no way 1 or 3 are less than 2. I am assuming that X and Y are similar for the parent and children.

Also if your only objection to Antinatlism is: "If we try it it won't work and will instead increase suffering"

First off, that's not an objection to the principle, that is an objection to enforcing the principle, and secondly would you be fine if I proposed a population decline model where we have just enough kids to ensure the quality of life remains the same until extinction?

No, if I find purpose in MY suffering , and know a great many other people in my life who share my view on the value of one’s OWN suffering, I will suspect there is a very good chance, although no guarantee, that you will also embrace your suffering in this way and be glad that you were born. Or you could become an anti-natalist. — Joshs

......

Kindly explain to me what becoming an antinatalist has to do with embracing my own suffering and finding meaning in my life. This is the most false false dichotomy I have seen in a while. I am glad I was born (the sentence makes no sense, what I really mean to say is "I find my life worthwhile") AND I am an antinatalist. Mindblowing.

Preventing suffering takes precedence over the creation of pleasure, especially when not creating 'good lives' does not harm the unborn — Inyenzi

Why though?

Antinatalists seek to prevent all human suffering — Inyenzi

This seems to be an absurd goal. What's the point of preventing suffering by preventing existence? Suffering isn't objective metaphysical evil.

But I'm sure we can agree there is a difference caused between the pain that you experience when you stub your toe and when I punch you in the face. The difference being that I am directly reponsible for one. The goal of antinatalism is to cause as little of the latter as possible while ensuring you yourself survive. With having kids you are responsible for every pain and pleasure they go through. Because none of it would have happened without you. And you didn't need it to survive. — khaled

Sure there is a difference. But there is also a difference between causing something in the sense of the sine-qua-non ("it wouldn't have happened without you") and responsibility. Causality is far, far wider than responsibility.

There is a common example to illustrate this taught in law school: A car drives by a school, within the speed limit, as a child runs into the street from behind a parked car. The car hits the child. Later investigation reveals that the driver could not have avoided the accident and did not make any mistakes in the situation. However, it is also revealed that just outside the town, the driver was speeding. Had the driver driven more slowly before, he would not have reached the site of the school at the critical moment and the accident would have been avoided.

The drivers behaviour (speeding outside of town) was clearly causal for the child's injuries. The child would not have been injured otherwise. At the same time, it seems obvious that speeding beforehand does not make the driver responsible for the accident.

But there is also a difference between causing something in the sense of the sine-qua-non ("it wouldn't have happened without you") and responsibility. Causality is far, far wider than responsibility. — Echarmion

Agreed. And we can get into the nitty gritty. But I doubt whatever configuration you choose will end up having the statement "You are responsible for your child's suffering and pleasure" be false. Or are you going to argue that parents are not responsible for their children?

If we can agree that they are, and we can also agree that there is a risk the child suffers disproportionately in their life despite the parent's best effort, what justifies that the parent taking the risk? We can agree that usually we would need some sort of justification when doing something that can risk harming others no?

Moreover I think we can agree that there are situations where it IS wrong to have children. Severe poverty for one. So it's not like I'm proposing anything new here. What makes having a child in severe poverty wrong?

Agreed. And we can get into the nitty gritty. But I doubt whatever configuration you choose will end up having the statement "You are responsible for your child's suffering and pleasure" be false. Or are you going to argue that parents are not responsible for their children? — khaled

I think the statement is clearly false. Parents are responsible for the upbringing of their children. Noone is responsible for someone else's suffering and pleasure in toto. Such a responsibility would have to come with absolute authority over the other person, which should never be the case.

If we can agree that they are, and we can also agree that there is a risk the child suffers disproportionately in their life despite the parent's best effort, what justifies that the parent taking the risk? We can agree that usually we would need some sort of justification when doing something that can risk harming others no? — khaled

Everything we do risks harming others. So there are plenty of justifications available. For example, one might argue providing the future with capable humans justified the associated risks.

For example, one might argue providing the future with capable humans justified the associated risks. — Echarmion

Sure. I don't think so though. And I find that justification disgusting.

Noone is responsible for someone else's suffering and pleasure in toto. Such a responsibility would have to come with absolute authority over the other person, which should never be the case — Echarmion

Not in total, sure. If a kid runs into a wall like an idiot despite their parents warning them that running around like that will hurt, that's partly on the kid. However I think that parents are partially responsible for all their child's suffering.

My "test" for responsibility is: "Had X not been around would Y have still suffered". If yes then it's not X's responsibility to help Y. However in the case of children (being Y) the answer is always no (X being the parent), for every instance of suffering. That I find problematic.

Sure. I don't think so though. And I find that justification disgusting. — khaled

I think that disgust has a lot to do with the disagreement we have. Can you elaborate on what you find disgusting?

Not in total, sure. If a kid runs into a wall like an idiot despite their parents warning them that running around like that will hurt, that's partly on the kid. However I think that parents are partially responsible for all their child's suffering.

My "test" for responsibility is: "Had X not been around would Y have still suffered". If yes then it's not X's responsibility to help Y. However in the case of children (being Y) the answer is always no (X being the parent), for every instance of suffering. That I find problematic. — khaled

Your test also fails the car example though, doesn't it? Had the car not been around, there would not have been an accident.

You can argue that having children is different, that the dangers are more predictable, more imminent etc. I think ultimately we won't get past the different "risk assessments" for lack of a better word. You place a lot of emphasis on the suffering, and not a lot of emphasis on the value that human life has. I see it differently. I think it's mostly down to my perspective on suffering, which I consider simply the necessary flipside of happyness. One never exists without the other, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.

Can you elaborate on what you find disgusting? — Echarmion

The idea that "mankind" and other such concepts should be favored over a single human's actual concrete suffering. Things like "For the country" "For mankind", etc always rubbed me the wrong way. If you can't point me to a person getting harmed, then I couldn't care less about "the country being harmed" or "going against mankind's interests".

Your test also fails the car example though, doesn't it? Had the car not been around, there would not have been an accident. — Echarmion

It does. I should go into more detail. The test is more like "Had X not been around would Y have still suffered and if not could X have predicted this?". If the answer is yes then it's not X's responsibility to help. If the answer is no-no then again, not X's responsibility. You have to judge people actions based on the info they had at the time. There are other rules but I don't want to overcomplicate things for now.

Had the driver known that he was going to run over a kid by speeding out of town, then he is responsible. However, he did not know that. Furthermore, it is just as likely that that child would have ran behind the parked car 10 minutes later, meaning if the driver did NOT speed up out of town he would have ran him over.

In other words: At no point did the driver commit an act he could reasonably predict would harm someone, as speeding out of town and NOT speeding out of town have a basically equal chance of causing an accident as far as the driver can predict.

the necessary flipside of happyness. One never exists without the other, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. — Echarmion

Agreed. But from where comes the justification to create happiness at the risk of suffering for others? No matter how much I like a videogame for example, I can't go around taping people to chairs and forcing them to play it. And I definitely can't justify it by giving all these people a button they can press to instantly kill themselves then saying "I'm not even forcing them to do anything, if they don't like it they can just kill themselves. The pleasure and suffering are two sides of the same coin". I find it apphaling how often I hear that as a legitimate argument by otherwise rational people. Heck with life, you don't even get the "quit button" and have to make your own.

You still haven't answered my question though.

we can agree that there are situations where it IS wrong to have children. Severe poverty for one. So it's not like I'm proposing anything new here. What makes having a child in severe poverty wrong? — khaled

maybe I’m just not understanding your use of “moral objectivism” but what do you mean when you say that most antinatalists here aren’t moral objectivists? This to me seems a little bit strange if true

what do you mean when you say that most antinatalists here aren’t moral objectivists? This to me seems a little bit strange if true — Albero

I said most antinatalists on this site are not moral objectivists. In general I suspect most are moral objectivists. Heck, I don't think I've run into a moral objectivist on this site now that I think about it. Which makes sense because moral objectivists don't debate morality, they already know all the answers after all.

ok gotcha. Though I am curious as to how anti-natalism would work under an anti-realist position

Same way any other moral theory would work under a moral anti-realist position. By recognizing that it relies on ultimately unjustified premises. But so do all the alternatives so that's not saying much.

:up:

I haven’t really interacted with many users, so what do you think are common moral views here? Ironically my initial thought was that a lot of people here were moral objectivists given the fact that these antinatalism threads seem to extend for 30+ pages

Kindly explain to me what becoming an antinatalist has to do with embracing my own suffering and finding meaning in my life. This is the most false false dichotomy I have seen in a while. I am glad I was born (the sentence makes no sense, what I really mean to say is "I find my life worthwhile") AND I am an antinatalist. Mindblowing. — khaled

I believe anti-natalism is an ethical position, and like all ethical positions , there is no God’s eye view, no ability to channel som eternal divinely dictated moral truth. Thus, forming a moral precept is an empirical endeavor. Which means we have nothing but our own experience directly, and indirectly our interpretation of the experience of others, to guide us. It seems to me that the disagreements that will form between various forms of anti-natalism and various natalisms will be the result of different personal experiences. You claim to find your life worthwhile and yet you are an anti-natalist. Illl have to take you on you word about that. I strongly suspect that most anti-natalists are more like Schopenhauer1 in extrapolating from their own painful lives in order to form their anti-nataliat stance.

How we experience our own suffering plays a central
role in our position on this issue. The thing about suffering is that it only exists as a relational dynamic in a changing environment. In order to feel suffering, one must have had something taken away from one, which pre-supposed a state of non-suffering that the suffering takes away from.
Since human life is constant change , suffering appears and disappears constantly. At one moment life is t worth living, and then the next we find a way to re-adapt to our circumstances and life becomes worth living again.
The same is true of deciding to conceive. At certain. times in our lives , the prospect of bringing children into the world may seem cruel to the child for any number of reasons, and at another point , it appears justified. So most of us are naive anti-natalists sometimes and natalists other times. But then there are some people whose suffering seems unrelieved. For instance , those with chronic severe depression may have has few happy times in their lives. Unlike others, they fail to adapt to circumstances, fail to thrive. Severe depression is never just about physical struggle. poverty, etc. It is fundamental a disconnect of social belonging , a sense of alienation with respect to other people or groups. Others appear to me as callous and cruel and unfeeling. Is the depressive’s view of human suffering then to be considered as distorted , abnormal, pathological? Or are they the realists in the world?

I would prefer to say that their circumstances (perhaps even more that biochemistry) are not conducive to effective adaptation. In this case the role of adaptivity and suffering must be looked at in a larger sociological context. Adaptation isnt simply an individual
process, it takes place within a larger human ecosystem.

So in many periods in human history, entire groups fail to thrive as the larger adaptive systems of culture shift and change, leaving them in states of despair and dysfunction as a result of a shift of dominance to other segments of culture.( native Americans, Aborigines). So from this perspective, anti-natalism is an illustration of evolutionary adaption at work. Those who are failing to adapt stop having children, while other groups who are succeeding become fertile and multiply.

For instance , rural America is a veritable ‘breeding ground’ for anti-natalism as despair and depression , addiction and suicide run rampant. Meanwhile , huge urban areas become centers of greater and greater concentration of wealth and thriving among certain groups, causing them to be unabashed supporters of natalism. So throughout history, one will find anti-natalist movements popping up where a segment of society fails to thrive as a result of a shift of the larger ecosystem’s center of gravity.

Perhaps the current anti-natalist
movement can be seen as a symptom of the violent economic and social transition taking place throughout the world. My guess is populations will
progressivevly shrink as larger segments of culture become obsolete thanks to automation.

At any rate. I think it’s a mistake to believe that a changeable and complex notion like suffering can be ossified into a single moral category. To me , the lesson is not that life necessarily tends toward improvement toward happiness rather than perpetuation of suffering, but that it is each at different times and places. Even within anti-nataliat movements, there are likely to be many changes in attitude about the interpretation of human suffering as individuals go through different experience in their lives.
Even you, at some point in the future. might find changes in your personal circumstances lead to a shift i. your calculus concerning the risk-reward benefits of procreation.

I can even imagine how some individuals
drawn together by common purpose into anti-natalist groups, particularly those struggling with depression, isolation and aliemation, might for
the first time find meaningful social bonds with other suffering souls, leading to romantic pairing, and perhaps a mini baby boom or two.


I know that I will likely change my attitude toward the worthwhileness of life many times.

Thus, forming a moral precept is an empirical endeavor. — Joshs

Non sequitor but ok.

It seems to me that the disagreements that will form between various forms of anti-natalism and various natalisms will be the result of different personal experiences. — Joshs

Agreed. (Duh what else could it be?)

are more like Schopenhauer1 in extrapolating from their own painful lives in order to form their anti-nataliat stance. — Joshs

I don't remember when Schope talked about his personal life here but I might have just missed it. Sadly though you are right about that. Most "antinatalists" are just depressed edgy teens who can't actually argue for the position coherently.

How we experience our own suffering plays a central
role in our position on this issue. — Joshs

Disagree. How we experience our own suffering has nothing to do with how others experience theirs, so nothing to do with whether or not we get permission to subject them to suffering. No matter how much meaning I find in donating to charity for example, it is still wrong for me to go around forcing people to donate. In the same way, no matter how much meaning I find in my life it is still wrong to have child knowing they might not find any in theirs despite my best efforts. That is the argument that you have yet to attempt to address.

The claim for antinatalism is NOT that life is terrible and miserable so we shouldn't have kids. It's that life COULD BE terrible and miserable despite our best efforts so we shouldn't have kids. The principle here is NOT that since there are risks that things go wrong that we should not take risks at all (that's impossible), it is that since there are risks that things go wrong, we should not take the risk for someone else. Unless they tell us to.

The same is true of deciding to conceive. At certain. times in our lives , the prospect of bringing children into the world may seem cruel to the child for any number of reasons, and at another point , it appears justified. — Joshs

How exactly? What justifies it? Where is this arbitrary point at which we say "no this is too risky"? And why is it that you get to decide it when you're not the one taking the risk?

Those who are failing to adapt stop having children, while other groups who are succeeding become fertile and multiply. — Joshs

In general yes. I'm waiting for an actual rebuttal to the position though instead of a poor lecture on how "the antinatalist movement" came about and an even poorer explanation of what depression is.

This was a very disappointing read. I kept expecting you to actually argue against the position, but instead all you said was basically "Most antinatalists are depressed, you might change your mind in the future, and our ethical positions are a result of our experiences". Agreed. Now, are you actually going to argue against the position or not?

You commented that I offered

an even poorer explanation of what depression is. — khaled

I wrote:”

Severe depression is never just about physical struggle. poverty, etc. It is fundamentally a disconnect of social belonging , a sense of alienation with respect to other people or groups. Others appear to me as callous and cruel and unfeeling. — Joshs

Matthew Ratcliffe , in his book, Experiences of Depression, wrote:

In depression, “The person feels alienated from others, unable to relate to them, and she also feels lacking in some way.”

Others appear to behave in ways that cannot be sincere, as they are no longer experienced as offering the kinds of possibility that would be associated with honest expressions of support and concern. In the absence of those possibilities, their well-meaning utterances can only appear disingenuous.

“People in general seem more hostile and uncaring when I am depressed and more likely to make fun of me or criticize me.”

“One therefore retreats from the social world, even though some sense of what it would be to connect with others remains, along with a profound feeling of isolation.”

Let me know if you believe Ratcliffe, one of
the leading researchers on affect, should be considered an authority on depression.

Where is this arbitrary point at which we say "no this is too risky"? And why is it that you get to decide it when you're not the one taking the risk? — khaled

Decision is what this discussion is all about, making a decision to conceive or not to conceive for the sake of preventing suffering in another. But that decision depends on an earlier decision concerning the meaning of terms like suffering, pleasure, value and morality.

I'm waiting for an actual rebuttal to the position — khaled

If you want a refutation of the logic behind your formula
of the risk versus reward calculus, you won’t get one. Your logic may be flawless. But then again isn’t that what logic is supposed to do? Isnt a logical proposition a kind of truism , presupposing what it sets out to demonstrate in the way it defines the terms in its premises?

I kept expecting you to actually argue against the position, but instead all you said was basically "Most antinatalists are depressed, you might change your mind in the future, and our ethical positions are a result of our experiences". Agreed. Now, are you actually going to argue against the position or not? — khaled

Actually, implicit in what I said above was a philosophical argument countering anti-natalism, which I could have made more explicit ( although I suspect a number of contributors to this forum recognized it). Let me make it more explicit now. I am a moral
relativist. More specifically, I take a post-Wittgensteinian position on the origin of language in local pragmatic contexts of use. I don’t believe anyone coming from this perspective could be an anti-natalist. Not because the logic of the premise “ Preventing suffering takes precedence over the creation of pleasure, especially when not creating 'good lives' does not harm the unborn” isn’t ‘sound’, but because I dispute the assumption that the sense of the terms ‘suffering’, ‘pleasure’, ‘good lives’ ‘harm’, etc can be kept stable enough , long enough for reliable interpersonal agreement. That doesn’t make your logic wrong, it makes it meaningless.

So my disagreement is not about anti-natalism per se but the understanding of use of language that it presumes. To continue such a discussion would require a new OP, I think.

Let me know if you believe Ratcliffe, one of
the leading researchers on affect, should be considered an authority on depression. — Joshs

I didn't disagree with your explanation, it's just that 2 sentences don't cover depression.

Decision is what this discussion is all about, making a decision to conceive or not to conceive for the sake of preventing suffering in another. But that decision depends on an earlier decision concerning the meaning of terms like suffering, pleasure, value and morality. — Joshs

Agreed. I'm pointing out though that it is very clear we have very different pleasure-pain risk formulas when concerning others. For ourselves, we have no moral qualms about taking any risks whatsover, however for others we generally need a justification to take ANY unjustified risk and I've given examples of this (forcing people to donate to charity was one). That justification is what would be required in the case of procreation but is not present, or so the argument goes. So:

If you want a refutation of the logic behind your formula
of the risk versus reward calculus, you won’t get one. — Joshs

Ok at least we have that down. If the logic works then your disagreement must be with the premises but which ones? Maybe you can give a reason having children should be justified. Or in other words challenge the premise that that justification is not present. Or otherwise challenge the premise that we need a justification to take risks with others (I think this is the way less reasonable route though some have tried). Take your pick.

but because I dispute the assumption that the sense of the terms ‘suffering’, ‘pleasure’, ‘good lives’ ‘harm’, etc can be kept stable enough , long enough for reliable interpersonal agreement — Joshs

Let me challenge that idea.

Is malicious genetic engineering wrong? And by that I mean genetically engineering an otherwise healthy child to be blind and deaf for example. I think we can agree it is. If so why? How do you explain it without using these "unstable" concepts?

Heck, why is having a child in severe poverty wrong? Without using the "unstable" concepts of course.

You make it sound like there is some set definition of the word. — khaled

What? You're seriously arguing there's no definition of the word? How on earth do we communicate using it then?

Are you familiar with the Private Language Argument. I mentioned it a while back but you didn't respond. I don't want to teach you to suck eggs, but If you've not come across it before, I'd seriously recommend reading about it. It will save you falling into the hole you're digging yourself with this line of argument.

What? You're seriously arguing there's no definition of the word? — Isaac

Clearly not. But I've given you my defintion already. You then ask me "where I got it from". I don't know how to answer that question. Where did you get yours from? Just so I would know what you find to be an acceptable answer.

I thought we agreed words have a range of acceptable meanings. I think a moral premise defined as "What you should do" is a perfectly reasonable definition.

I've given you my defintion already. You then ask me "where I got it from". I don't know how to answer that question. Where did you get yours from? — khaled

As I said, look into the private language argument. 'Your meaning' and 'My meaning' don't make any sense. There's no private meanings to words, only public ones.

There's no private meanings to words, only public ones. — Isaac

Sigh. We agree these public meanings have a range of error and that they can be used incorrectly. And I think that my definition of a moral premise perfectly fall within that range. At least one other guy here thinks so:

I believe anti-natalism is an ethical position — Joshs

Heck, I would say most people think so. You and KenoshaKid (I think) are the only two trying to say that antinatalism isn't a moral theory. If you're going to refer to the "public meaning" it seems that the majority seem to disagree with you so which "public" exactly are you talking about?

Heck, I would say most people think so. You and KenoshaKid (I think) are the only two trying to say that antinatalism isn't a moral theory. — khaled

I said it has no basis in a naturalistic moral framework. You can make an ethic of what you like: It is wrong to eat sherbet on a Wednesday; Three-legged people must not own budgies; It is wrong to act in a way that would allow for the possibility of someone being harmed whether to a great or small extent. These have in common the fact that there's no natural reason to accept them.

You can make an ethic of what you like — Kenosha Kid

Agreed. @Isaac so it's literally just you trying to say that antinatalism is not a moral theory. You're the one disagreeing with the public meaning (misusing the word) here, not me. So I ask: Where did you get your definition from?

These have in common the fact that there's no natural reason to accept them. — Kenosha Kid

What do you mean "no natrual reason to accept them"? So antinatalists are getting misguided by some supernatural means? No, there are clearly natural reasons to accept them. I think I'd remember if Satan messed with my head.

Agreed. Isaac so it's literally just you trying to say that antinatalism is not a moral theory. — khaled

I think Isaac's view was similar to mine.

No, there are clearly natural reasons to accept them. — khaled

Fine. Give me the natural reason to adopt the ethic:

It is wrong to eat sherbet on a Wednesday — Kenosha Kid

I think Isaac's view was similar to mine. — Kenosha Kid

I don't think so. He clearly and unambiguously said that the antinatalist claim is not a moral claim as far as I understand.

Fine. Give me the natural reason to adopt the ethic: — Kenosha Kid

I can't do that for ANY ethic. Because I can't account for all the neurological, biological, social and personal factors that lead to the adoption of a belief. But I know for a fact that my antinatalist belief is not supernatural in the least. It was not a whisper from Cthulhu.

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "natural reason". What is the "natural reason" to adopt good ol utilitarianism for example.

It is wrong to eat sherbet on a Wednesday — Kenosha Kid

There are religions with similarly ridiculous ethics. Even in christianity there was something against wearing two different fibers or something if I remember correctly. What's the natural reason behind that?

I don't know who parents think is responsible for suffering.

The only way human suffering can occur is by creating more humans.

There is a lot of suffering.

I don't think so. He clearly and unambiguously said that the antinatalist claim is not a moral claim as far as I understand. — khaled

I'll try not to speak for Isaac but we are quite simpatico on this.

Let us take the question: Ought I to wear black shoelaces or brown shoelaces to the market? I would say this is 100% not a moral consideration. However an elder of the Latter Day Church of Black Shoelaces might strongly differ with me on this.

On the other hand, if you put forward a moral theory in support of the position of the Latter Day Church of Black Shoelaces, I can't rightly argue that it is not a moral theory: you are making a claim that it is moral to do a particular thing. It's just that your theory is daft.

Morality is really an intellectual endeavour. Fundamentally, and naturalistically, what we're talking about is biology, specifically the biological traits our ancestors evolved in order to better survive in groups: empathy, altruism, egalitarianism, and some means of overriding these in certain circumstances (called counter-empathetic responses). Naturalistically speaking, this biology underpins but does not fully account for what is real that we refer to when we speak of morality.

In this sense, the shoelace question is not a moral consideration: it has nothing to do with our social biology. However, "One ought to wear black shoelaces to the market", as espoused by the elder, is a moral claim in the sense that it is a claim about what our morality should be, even if it has nothing to do with what our morality is.

(Obviously your average religious person will completely disagree with me about what morality actually is, since they have a different and more rigorous and imaginary moral authority than the social biology you and I have inherited from our ancestors. But they are, of course, mistaken. :) )