I am not sure if the abstract notion of procreation itself is really a biological imperative as much as the physical act of sex itself being pleasurable. — schopenhauer1
I mean you know the argument is more sophisticated than simply "harming" someone. — schopenhauer1
Real, existing people, not just the possibility of future people. The former is a concern for morality. The latter is not.
— Kenosha Kid
Who says? — schopenhauer1
False. We can agree there are cases where having children is wrong. Like severe poverty for example. — khaled
As I said, we already find having kids wrong in some scenarios. — khaled
We have a capacity and impulse NOT to have children in extreme poverty. — khaled
Again, antinatalism isn’t some wacky supernatural belief as much as you’d like it to be. — khaled
we've not just randomly grouped some behaviours together and labelled them all 'good', 'right' or 'moral', those groupings very much appear to have common threads - threads resulting mainly from psychology, culture, and religion, with a very strong emphasis on psychology. — Isaac
One of the interesting things for me about this conversation is that I am someone who made an ethical decision not to have children :rofl: — Kenosha Kid
But there's no route from that to "You should never have children". — Kenosha Kid
That is true but not for the unborn child's benefit. Not even for others' benefit, which, given that we do not have children for others, makes it a non-moral concern. — Kenosha Kid
We reduce the number of children we have during scarcity because the personal cost of having more is not outweighed by an increased survival benefit of our genome. It is more akin to choosing not to pay $10 for a cookie even though you really want a cookie. — Kenosha Kid
I never said it was supernatural. — Kenosha Kid
Anyone who has a duty to alleviate that suffering. — Echarmion
Using predictability seems problematic, because I don't see a clear way to draw the line between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" predictions — Echarmion
Rather, the risk is accepted as a necessary part of vehicular traffic. — Echarmion
And this means that a moral approach that focuses on avoiding the risk of harm must always deal with this normative element somehow. An argument that goes "behaviour X risks suffering of Y magnitude and should therefore be avoided" is incomplete. — Echarmion
Lots of actions have a risk of suffering attached. What matters is how good your reasons are. — Echarmion
But we have things like mandatory school attendance, so forcing people to do something for their own benefit isn't exactly unheard of. One can debate under what circumstances, if any, this is ok, but it's not prima facie absurd. — Echarmion
My approach though would be to look at the duties the parents accept if they wish to have children and then see if the likely circumstances are conductive of those duties. — Echarmion
How about having a child knowing they will have a severely debilitating disease. If we can’t even agree that’s wrong then you’re a non-starter for me. — khaled
How so? — khaled
Everyone here except you so far has agreed that having children in extreme poverty is unethical not just impractical. — khaled
So how did it come about? — khaled
But taking the further-fetched scenario for the sake of argument, yes I would agree. It would, if the disease were certain and debilitating, not be accidental if the child then had a debilitating disease. I would inevitably find myself responsible for its suffering after it suffered.
But since this is a fanciful scenario, I wouldn't worry about it. — Kenosha Kid
One can't generally know, so we can't generalise from this. Not knowing the future is part of what makes “shooting people is wrong” so wonky, since it is preoccupied with current moral culpability for potential future events one is not responsible for. After all, we don’t control whether or not the gun jams so we’re not responsible right? — Kenosha Kid
I would be surprised if people genuinely did judge such parents thus in practice, rather than in some theoretical moral playground — Kenosha Kid
It didn't. It is neither natural nor supernatural. It is simply mistaken. — Kenosha Kid
But I was addressing your point that people in poverty in poor countries have fewer children, which is true — Kenosha Kid
do you just unquestioningly follow every whim that pops into your head? If no, then why follow this particular one? — Isaac
Because it works everywhere else and I don't like making exceptions for something because it is "natural". — khaled
invalidates the ad populum argument. — Isaac
I am not making an ad populaum argument. — khaled
The majority seem to think it is — khaled
the public think it is a moral theory — khaled
everyone here except you considers antinatalism a moral theory. — khaled
everyone here (the public) thinks it does. You're the one that has to explain that. — khaled
Whatever your positions is it results in “Antinatalism is a moral theory” computing to false which makes it very much not standard as demonstrated by the number of antinatalism posts on this site under the category “ethics”. — khaled
But the point is that with the caveats your maxim is not at all what people commonly consider 'moral' or 'right'. — Isaac
Agreed — khaled
I reason with someone from some premises we can agree on. Upon reaching a premise or caveat we do not agree on, I stop. — khaled
I am saying that our shared ideas of right and wrong are arbitrary. Again, arbitrary =/= there is no natrualistic reason we believe them. — khaled
But antinatalism does not lead to a flourishing community so how come it is a moral claim by your definition? What makes a "moral claim" exactly for you because you seem to me to be hedging. — khaled
I'm arguing specifically that the maxim used here as an axiom leading to antinatalism is not a moral one. — Isaac
Which one would that be exactly just so we're on the same page. Consent? Asymmetry? Not causing unwarranted harm? Something else? All of those seem like moral claims to me, and I suspect everyone here except you (not that I agree with all of them being valid). — khaled
This is true, but then I think there are close analogies between moral standards and scientific theories, if you take a Kuhnian position as I do. Cultural definitions of
morality change constantly throughout history, and each one , like a scientific theory, has to begin somewhere, typically with a tiny community, or perhaps a single individual ( Einstein first conceived e=mc2 as a private thought experiment). — Joshs
What do you mean "it works". What would it not working look like? — Isaac
You are - frequently...
The majority seem to think it is
— khaled
the public think it is a moral theory
— khaled
everyone here except you considers antinatalism a moral theory.
— khaled
everyone here (the public) thinks it does. You're the one that has to explain that.
— khaled
Whatever your positions is it results in “Antinatalism is a moral theory” computing to false which makes it very much not standard as demonstrated by the number of antinatalism posts on this site under the category “ethics”.
— khaled
...come on! — Isaac
Right. That's literally all I'm arguing here. Your maxim is not a moral one. It's just a thing you want to achieve - an objective - for...seemingly...no reason at all. — Isaac
It really doesn't sound like it. are you not familiar with the meaning of the word 'stop'? — Isaac
No this is not all you're saying. — Isaac
Your claim requires the additional feature that these naturalistic reasons are sufficiently wide to derive absolutely any maxim whatsoever. — Isaac
I'm arguing that "do not risk harm where consent is impossible to obtain no matter what the consequences" is not a moral claim by definition. "Risk no harm to others where you cannot obtain their consent", however, is a moral claim — Isaac
As above "do not risk harm where consent is impossible to obtain no matter what the consequences". Morality is about people. — Isaac
I doubt you'd get a single person to agree that reducing the number of bananas in the world is a moral imperative, or ensuring that there's no electricity, or no number 7 — Isaac
Damn. Ok let me ask you this. Is pointing a gun at innocent people and pulling three trigger for recreation wrong? After all, the gun might jam, so: — khaled
I just don’t understand how you can seriously require 100% knowledge of the future for an action to be wrong. — khaled
Genetic counseling is a thing and you can easily know the likelihood of your child having this or that genetic disease. A lot of times you can be certain. — khaled
I would be surprised if they didn’t. I’d be outraged if I heard someone I knew had a child knowing they have a high chance of having a severely debilitating disease. And I know I’m not the only one who would react that way. — khaled
Sorry but this is just word salad. It didn’t? Antinatalism is not a belief? Wot? — khaled
Still, what is a “natural reason” to adopt a belief. — khaled
But not purely because of impracticality but because of a genuine desire not to cause suffering as well. — khaled
What I can't be morally culpable for is unforeseeable events — Kenosha Kid
Can you give an example of a 100% certain debilitating disease? — Kenosha Kid
This isn't about general belief. There is no natural reason to become a Christian. There are *cultural* reasons. However there are natural reasons to adopt some of Mr. Christ's arguments, insofar as they accord with the specific drives and capacities that nature has selected for us to make us social, and in turn moral. — Kenosha Kid
As for humans, the biological reasons for reduced fertility are sufficient. — Kenosha Kid
Childlessness itself can be a form of suffering and, just as I would perfectly understand why a starving man would steal a loaf of bread, I would perfectly understand why a childless person in poverty would have a child. — Kenosha Kid
but because there are ample circumstances in which the selfish need is overwhelming to the detriment of both reason and sociality. — Kenosha Kid
And your child suffering is an "unforseeable event"? — khaled
Is dumping someone in a jungle full of predators in their sleep wrong? I think we can agree it is, even though we can't predict if they'll be eaten by a lion, a hyena or a leopard, or if they will survive. — khaled
And I am claiming that there is a specific drive coded within us to be able to project into the future and not subject someone to harm. — khaled
See above. It is not. — khaled
But if the starving man produces another starving man by stealing said loaf of bread I think we can agree the starving man (original) is wrong. — khaled
I am not saying that having children is not understandable. I am saying it is immoral. — khaled
I did not say that they do not deserve empathy or that they should be punished for it. We are debating purely on a moral level here, not on the level of what people actually end up doing. — khaled
If my intention was that they be eaten by a predator, then it is not accidental if they are eaten by a predator. — Kenosha Kid
If my intent was to save their life before the plane crashed, then the plane landed safely and that person was eaten by a predator, it is extremely unfortunate but I would not consider myself *morally* culpable. My actions were morally sound (save the life of this person by removing them from *this* harm) even if the outcomes were far from ideal. — Kenosha Kid
See above: it is! ;) — Kenosha Kid
That should be based on scientific evidence. — Kenosha Kid
If such an event occurred in my society, that's who I'd point the finger at, since their behaviour is antisocial through choice, not through desperation. — Kenosha Kid
It is irrational to understand that, in their shoes, you would have likely done the same and at the same time say they were wrong. — Kenosha Kid
What if your intention was to teach them survival. No they are not you dependents nor is there any reason to do so, but your intention is not malicious, you never intended for them to get harmed. Now what? Is it wrong or not? — khaled
But what if your intent was never to harm, but you put them in harm's way anyways. Does that make it acceptable? — khaled
I was referring to the couples that don't have children after learning that they are likely to have a severe genetic illness. Even if they can afford to care for them. How do you explain that behavior? — khaled
But if they're psychopaths, which many are, then they're not culpable per your own words... So now what? Are they no longer doing anything wrong? — khaled
There is no contradiction there so there is nothing irrational about it. I am not a perfect being. I do wrong things. That doesn't make the wrong things not wrong. I don't see why you want to join the ideal that is morality with the reality. If you want to say that arguing about ideals is impractical, people will still have kids, and starving people will still steal, sure, I don't really care though. — khaled
I am talking about it because it's fun to talk about is all. — khaled
For the actor to intend them not to be harmed, they would have to be mentally deficient enough to not consider that the lesson was more lethal than that which the subject might expect to face. — Kenosha Kid
Or does the above cover it? — Kenosha Kid
It seems such a stupid idea, either the person involved is a moral idiot, or they emerge from a stupid culture I'd rather see perish. — Kenosha Kid
But if he pushed a child of a cliff to enjoy the sound of her screams... There we might have common ground on. There is no perceived need — Kenosha Kid
Oh I see. That's not too mysterious. If you can make a rational decision, then you are not that desperate. For instance, if you are starving but think, "No, I shouldn't steal that load in case my victim also starves to death" than you are clearly capable of rational decision making. That's admirable, but it doesn't follow that every starving person is in the same state. — Kenosha Kid
Yours is quite old school, in which if you broke the law you're immoral and that's that. — Kenosha Kid
But it is not any more lethal. — khaled
What if the kidnapper believes that a man's worth is measured by their ability to survive in the wild and therefore if you die there he didn't kill anyone because you are not a man. — khaled
Either way, blameless though, right? — khaled
The line between a need and a want is very very blurry. — khaled
Which is why I'd be terrified if your system was more widely adopted. — khaled
So in the case of food, we show an ability to emphasize and therefore we do not steal other people's food so they don't starve since we don't need it ourselves. — khaled
If that were truly not a factor at all, as you claim, then couples should not care at all about genetic counseling results. But they do. Showing that there is, in fact, a natural instinct behind AN. — khaled
The only outstanding point we may reach a consensus on is whether or not AN has a natural instinct behind it. — khaled
I recognize there is no moral ground on which I can stand on to claim that he should be imprisoned or executed. I still think he should be imprisoned or executed. — khaled
Then what is the difference in risk between that and sending them to the shops? — Kenosha Kid
He's clearly a monster, but too insane to be held morally culpable. — Kenosha Kid
A moral idiot by definition cannot be held morally responsible, it would be paradoxical to do so — Kenosha Kid
but you cannot hold that a person raised in a culture in which it is seen as morally obligatory is immoral for enacting it. — Kenosha Kid
monitoring everyone's biological markers at all time — Kenosha Kid
We have the presumption of innocence and concepts like diminished responsibility and temporary insanity for this reason. — Kenosha Kid
A starving person will often not have their full faculties at their disposal and cannot therefore be held as culpable as if they did. — Kenosha Kid
Nature cannot have selected for a drive to not reproduce. — Kenosha Kid
The above is tantamount to saying that because a starving person has diminished responsibility, we should see everyone stealing food whether they're starving or just peckish. — Kenosha Kid
There is a cause here of some higher "meaning" in playing the game and trying to withstand whatever the game has to offer. This game must be played, don't you see? — schopenhauer1
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". — khaled
I wouldn't hold them accounable if they never gave it any thought. However if they did think about it, and chose to ignore good arguments against it just to maintain their culture, I would hold them accountable. — khaled
Idk what this means but ok. — khaled
But if a terrorist blows up a store because God told him to we don't spare HIM do we? — khaled
What do you do when peckish people insist they are starving? — khaled
The psychopath did not think about the guy he killed, so I won't think about the psychopath. — khaled
We know people have an instinct to take revenge. So when a psychopath kills someone out of not being able to understand that his actions are wrong, why is he excused, while if we can agree to execute said psychopath because we do not have our full faculties at our disposal (due to aforementioned desire for revenge) we cannot be excused? — khaled
If a person has an overriding biological need, e.g. starvation or childlessness, it ought to be biologically evident. — Kenosha Kid
Those two things are are far from the same category of dire need — schopenhauer1
This drive to empathise extends to people who don't yet exist. Which is why I bet you would find someone who genetically modifies their child to be blind despite them having been fine otherwise because "I want a blind child" disgusting. Our capacity to empathise can be projected into the future, for better or worse (I think better), and that is what leads to AN. — khaled
But causing it in the first place is fine? Why? And why is it fine sometimes and not fine in others? — khaled
I don’t see this as very weird though. That we find different risks morally acceptable is normal. We make laws out of the ones we agree on. — khaled
Generally speaking though, if X * Y is greater than the suffering alleviated from the person committing the act then the act is wrong. We can debate how big X and Y are in each case, but more often than not it’s clear which is greater (X*Y or the suffering alleviated from the actor) — khaled
Exactly. And the reasons aren’t good enough for me. If you discard “the benefit of mankind” I don’t see how you can possibly argue that they are. — khaled
Sure. I would say dependents are special. Because it is the job of the parent to make sure they suffer as little as possible, since they’re the ones the brought them here. And so they’re allowed to force them to do things for their benefit. — khaled
But what I was getting at was forcing people to do things that YOU like, without knowing whether or not they will. In the example I assume the person tied up is not your dependent and you do not know if they’ll like the game or not. Sure, they may end up enjoying it, but we don’t just take that risk with people who are not our dependents. Ever. And even with dependents we are very careful. — khaled
And you cannot argue in the case of having children that existing is good for the non-existent potential child (because they don’t exist!). So you are taking a gamble, like with the tying up example. Sure the game is pretty good and has few complaints, but is that a good enough reason to force people to play it? Not unless you want to bring in the survival of mankind as a good in itself I don’t think you can argue it is. — khaled
And what would those be? The duties. — khaled
And I never get why people are always willing to claim that having children is wrong sometimes but never actually go into detail on when. It happens every time around here. — khaled
This drive to empathise extends to people who don't yet exist. — khaled
An abstract potential future human can not be an object of empathy. — Kenosha Kid
But apart from that I can't think of a meaningful answer to your question other than "because my moral philosophy says some things are fine and others are not". — Echarmion
I just think it's important to be aware that this is not a mathematical operation. There is no quantifiable amuont of risk that is automatically unacceptable. — Echarmion
you have already decided - based on some other system - what importance to attach to different kinds of suffering — Echarmion
Everything turns into an optimization problem, leaving no room for the self. — Echarmion
life is about inflicting as little suffering as possible while experiencing as little as possible yourself. — Echarmion
If you don't accept "mankind" in some form as having moral weight, why care at all about the suffering we cause for others — Echarmion
I don't really follow the logic here. Why would dependents have some special moral status where you are allowed to do thing to them in the interest of reducing overall suffering, but you cannot do the same thing for non-dependent people? — Echarmion
If you want to argue that creating people is "forcing" them to exist, you have to treat non-existant potential children as if they exist. This is a "have your cake and eat it" scenario. — Echarmion
I kinda consider it a trap question. There is no way to answer it in a way that cannot be then criticised on the details, and that would lead to discussion of some specific scenario in place of the general question. — 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.