There are no examples in society where people are forced to do things against their will unless it reduces suffering to them or others. Or at least there shouldn’t be. — khaled
There you say it yourself. You cannot logically say that being born is good for the person being born. — khaled
But by your own principle, if not having children is “preventing someone from experiencing pleasure” and that is bad, then it should be mandatory. So either having children is not preventing anyone from doing anything, or “preventing someone from experiencing pleasure” is not bad. There is no other way out. — khaled
Would you judge a murderer? Probably. So the reason you wouldn’t judge someone’s choice to have kids has to be that you don’t consider it a moral issue. I would ask why. Does it not result in harm? Why would it not be a moral issue? — khaled
What about malicious genetic engineering? Would you judge someone who genetically engineers their child to be blind? Probably. But why is THAT a moral issue but birth itself isn’t? — khaled
False. You literally just argued a paragraph ago that not having children is a denial of pleasure. Which means that having children causes pleasure (as well as harm). Which is it? Make up your mind. — khaled
Because they don’t exist until you make them exist. So it can’t be that you’re doing it for them. — khaled
Yes but “The cons aren’t that bad” is not a pro. So idk why you’re framing it as if it is. — khaled
I think if we know the person in question will find their life worthwhile then it's fine. Problem is we don't. — khaled
So making kids go to school is wrong? What about making them eat vegetables, or going to bed on time, or dress appropriately? What about making people pay taxes, or go to jail/prison, or pay for car/health insurance? — Pinprick
Yeah I can, it’s good because they will experience pleasure. More specifically, it gives them the opportunity to do so. You agree that’s good, right? — Pinprick
I don’t see it as black and white, there’s definitely some gray areas. Not having children does prevent them from experiencing pleasure, but sometimes doing so is justified. — Pinprick
The outcome of murdering someone is certain, but that’s not the case with having children. It is certain that they will experience pleasure/pain (unless they happen to have whatever disease it is that doesn’t allow them to feel pain), but we have no real idea of how much of either they will experience. — Pinprick
Acts that directly cause harm can be considered wrong, but simply being born does not directly cause harm, or pleasure for that matter; it just creates the opportunity — Pinprick
It’s a denial of the opportunity to experience either, which is fine to do as long as there is a good reason to do so — Pinprick
Besides, doesn’t AN claim not having children is for their benefit — Pinprick
’m not meaning to. The pros outweighing the cons is a pro. — Pinprick
I was implying that all of these things were done to reduce the suffering on them or others. I thought that was obvious. We make Kids go to school and eat vegetables because it’s good for them in the long run. We don’t just arbitrarily make kids do stuff for no reason. — khaled
But not good for them. That would make no sense. — khaled
When is preventing people from experiencing pleasure bad and when is it acceptable? — khaled
The outcome of pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is uncertain, as the gun might jam. That doesn’t make it ok to do. It is ridiculous to require certainty to say that something is wrong. Because then nothing is ever wrong — khaled
I’m sure you’d agree that kidnapping someone and putting them in a forest to fend for themselves is wrong. Even though it doesn’t actually cause harm, or pleasure, only creates the opportunity. Why is it wrong then? — khaled
But a second ago you said it was fine to deny but did not provide a reason. Why is it you require a reason here? A second ago it was a “gray area”... Until you clarify exactly when denying pleasure is acceptable and when it isn’t you’re just being disingenuous — khaled
Having children on the other hand is a risk act that is not accompanied by consent nor can be said to improve anyone’s situation which makes it wrong. So far you have not provided an example of an act which does these things that you consider fine except having kids. — khaled
You cannot know that the pros will outweigh the cons. — khaled
I’m not convinced going to school will help him more in the long run than it has harmed him — Pinprick
They’re the ones experiencing the pleasure, so of course it’s good for them... — Pinprick
Also, perhaps intent is relevant after all. I don’t view accidentally harming someone as morally wrong, unless it’s due to some gross lack of judgment or neglect. — Pinprick
I’m pretty sure kidnapping someone causes them distress... — Pinprick
It is bad when there is not a good reason to do so. It is acceptable if the pleasure they are seeking infringes on the liberties of others, or otherwise needlessly risks harming others. — Pinprick
However, if the risk of harm is minimal, but the potential benefit is large, the risk is worth it — Pinprick
and also why having children under most circumstances is ok. — Pinprick
Paying taxes does not improve my situatio — Pinprick
You can reasonably assume that they will by using the available data. — Pinprick
And so we can agree that it’s dubious whether or not they should be forced to go to school by their parents no? — khaled
In order for something to be good for someone that someone must exist first. — khaled
If you want to say that being born is good for someone because they will experience pleasure then by the same token it is bad for someone because they will suffer. You either take both or neither. You can’t say being born is purely good. — khaled
If someone is harmed due to being born that’s hardly accidental. You don’t “accidentally” have kids. There is planning and a 9 month delay. You knew they were going to be harmed in some way. — khaled
In other words, if the act of kidnapping itself doesn’t cause any harm is it fine? I doubt it. So why is it wrong? — khaled
By this metric you should be obligated to have a child whose life will be perfect. — khaled
Also by this principle: Having kids needlessly risks harming others (the kids), therefore it is fine to deny pleasure in this case making the act overall wrong. — khaled
The potential benefit is much smaller than the potential harm. — khaled
You consider having kids as something that can be beneficial/harmful to the kid:
In which case having children is wrong because it unnecessarily risks harming someone. In this case you cannot “counteract” this effect by saying that not having kids denies pleasure because in this case your ARE allowed to deny pleasure (which is why you don’t have to have a child even knowing their life would be perfect). — khaled
That’s not good enough justification. For example, I know that people on average are happier when they exercise regularly. Doesn’t give me a right to force you to exercise at gun point does it? — khaled
It’s questionable in certain circumstances, but we shouldn’t therefore never send kids to school. — Pinprick
That’s why I feel that you must look at the probability of whether or not the person being born will experience enough suffering to not consider their life to be worthwhile. — Pinprick
It depends on the probability of harm vs. pleasure. Is it likely that the person will find fending for themselves in a forest pleasurable? — Pinprick
I don’t really agree that obligations exist except in the abstract. If you so choose to follow a principle, then your obliged to do so, but you’re not obligated to choose to follow a principle in the first place. IOW’s it’s permissible, but not obligatory. — Pinprick
Much like the school example. If it’s more likely that the benefits will outweigh the costs, then it’s permissible. — Pinprick
No, in which case having kids is permissible, because it is more likely that they will experience more pleasure than harm. And I’m not claiming that therefore it’s impermissible to not have children either. Neither is obligatory. — Pinprick
2) There is no rebirth. Then one is non-existent before and after life. One compares existence with non-existence. This comparison is impossible. Mathematically speaking: Is 42 greater or less than 0/0? — SolarWind
Surprisingly, this is my position as well, only stated differently. If we think it’s more likely that they will find life worthwhile, it’s fine. Most cases are unclear, but data surrounding overall levels of happiness, suicide rates, etc. leads us to believe that it is almost always more likely that the person will consider their life valuable, or worth living. Therefore it is almost always permissible. — Pinprick
Right, well partially right, but you also know that they will experience pleasure, so you have to consider that as well. But technically being born doesn’t cause harm/pleasure, it’s just the necessary conditions for harm/pleasure to take place. — Pinprick
I didn’t say that. You should examine it situation by situation. Sending kids to school is not always right and not always wrong. — khaled
My point is, there is never a case where you can 100% say that the person will live a worthwhile life. So why are you taking the risk for them? — khaled
This is different from sending kids to school. If you DON’T send kids to school then you INCREASE the risk they suffer. Sending them to school is usually the least risky option. And when it isn't the least risky option, we have agreed that sending kids to school would be wrong in that instance. However if you don’t have kids you don’t harm anyone. There is no obligation to have kids. There is no need to take the risk. So don’t — khaled
Because there is absolutely no need to take the 2% risk. — khaled
If there was a button I could press that has a 98% chance to give you 1000 dollars and a 2% chance to kill you, should I press that button without asking you first? — khaled
Now, if “do not deny pleasure” is your principle — khaled
Huh? But you’re the one that proposed the principle. Are you saying you don’t actually follow it? That you don’t actually think denying pleasure is bad? — khaled
No. It is not like the school example. Because with school, NOT forcing a child to go to school IS the risky option. Even there you’re minimizing risks. — khaled
Either “do not deny pleasure” is a principle or it isn’t. — khaled
What is the cutoff? — Inyenzi
Not to mention the absurdity of using the amount of people who resort to lethal self-harm as a parameter of a "worthwhile life"... — Inyenzi
I couldn't imagine justifying this with, "well, I guessed it was more likely you'd find it worthwhile, so I did it". — Inyenzi
Why is it a good thing to create the conditions of harm to take place, for another person? — Inyenzi
Say in my power is the ability to instill within you a 6th sense, which has both the capacity to be experienced as painful or pleasurable. I guess that you are 51% likely to judge this added sense as "worthwhile" to have. Do I therefore have the right to bestow this sense upon you, without your permission? — Inyenzi
Doesn’t AN think it’s always wrong to have kids? — Pinprick
So why not take the risk? — Pinprick
But maybe prison is a better example. If someone is sentenced to death, there’s no way that is for their benefit, or that they consented to it. Therefore, it must be for the benefit of others. — Pinprick
knowing that they may not find life worthwhile due to suffering, should also be ok as long as doing so benefits others. — Pinprick
This isn’t really a comparable analogy. There is a difference between potentially taking life and creating it. — Pinprick
I think the rest of what I said was “without good reason.” That last bit should clear up most of these scenarios for you — Pinprick
Generally speaking, the risk of significant harm (dismemberment, lobotomies, disabling injuries, etc.) trumps any potential pleasure. — Pinprick
I personally think these things, but they aren’t facts, and you’re free to disagree. I have no desire to try to force others to agree. You have no obligation towards me whatsoever, nor I to you, but if we both choose individually to follow certain principles in our personal lives, then we owe it to ourselves to follow those principles. But I would never consider you to be obligated towards me due to a principle only I hold. — Pinprick
Ok, consider the example of being sentenced to death then. — Pinprick
If one day you woke up 30000 dollars richer and later found that it happened because I pressed the button 30 times without telling you, I think you would be furious at me. I risked harming you. And this is EVEN IF you would have personally pressed the button 50 times. — khaled
It is possible they’ll be selfish assholes despite your efforts. We have plenty of selfish assholes in the world with parents who had good intentions. — khaled
Even if we think they’ll think the risk is worth it. We ask first. And when we can’t ask we don’t do it — khaled
Seriously though, how do you say this and at the same time say having kids is ok. And don’t go back to the “actually having kids doesn’t harm anyone” BS. We already know there are problems with that, such as not being able to say malicious genetic engineering, or kidnapping people to forests is wrong (since technically neither harms, only creates conditions, but then again, same with shooting people in the face, since the gun might jam) — khaled
The criteria required is basically impossible. I’ve gone over it before with echarimon. You would need to show that having kids is the less risky option. IE: That you need kids SO BAD that you would suffer more from childlessness alone than your kids are likely to suffer their entire lives. This becomes impossible if your kids are to have their own kids. That’s also on you (though you’re a lot less responsible) — khaled
Because it’s not you paying the consequences. You have no right to endanger others. — khaled
No it’s for the PROTECTION of others. Not their benefit. Humans like to get revenge but that’s not the primary reason we put people in jail. The primary reason is that we need to protect others. We judge the people in jail as dangerous, which is why we put them there. Letting them walk around is the risky option. We don’t put them there for the population to have fun indulging in a feeling of righteousness. — khaled
You can’t prove that your next child will benefit others. — khaled
Point is, we don’t take risks with others. Even if we think they’ll think the risk is worth it. We ask first. And when we can’t ask we don’t do it — khaled
It doesn’t. You said the good reason was that it infringes on liberties. — khaled
It is bad when there is not a good reason to do so. It is acceptable if the pleasure they are seeking infringes on the liberties of others, or otherwise needlessly risks harming others. — Pinprick
Seriously though, how do you say this and at the same time say having kids is ok. — khaled
How do you differentiate? — khaled
Obviously we’re not considering harm done to them, as that is irrelevant. They didn’t consider the harm they did to others, so we don’t consider the harm we do to them as part of the equation at all. They lose the right to be treated as a human in a sense — khaled
The parents will be benefitted. If they actually want a child, then having one will benefit them. — Pinprick
f we need bread, and there’s only one loaf left, we buy it regardless of the fact that the possibility exists that doing so means someone else is doing without. — Pinprick
We routinely risk endangering others if we perceive the benefits to outweigh the costs. — Pinprick
To give a real life example, currently where I live a natural gas pipeline is being constructed underground. This has the potential to explode, and pipelines have in fact exploded before. Were that to happen, the damage could be catastrophic, as this thing runs beneath our roads, near private property, etc. No consent was required, yet this project is occurring nonetheless. — Pinprick
Why then can we not do the same with childbirth? — Pinprick
Performing CPR on an unconscious person risks breaking their ribs. We do so anyway. — Pinprick
The underlying assumption here, I think, is that life has intrinsic value. — Pinprick
Most people get scrapes and bruises, and maybe broken bones, but these relatively small sufferings do not make most people feel like life is not worthwhile. — Pinprick
If we could only experience the pain of stubbing our toe, and every other experience was either neutral or positive, would you still conclude AN? — Pinprick
But if you feel that way, then you’re agreeing that sometimes it’s ok to harm others for the sake of other people? — Pinprick
2) There is no rebirth. Then one is non-existent before and after life. One compares existence with non-existence. This comparison is impossible. Mathematically speaking: Is 42 greater or less than 0/0? — SolarWind
No, not exactly what's going on. One way to answer this is the Benatarian Asymmetry argument.
Essentially his idea is that if there is no actual person, not experiencing good is neither good nor bad (as there is no "one" to be deprived). It is neutral. — schopenhauer1
We aren't speaking about an objective good here, but rather a trade-off. — Inyenzi
In this "neutral" lies the problem. If death is self-non-existence, how are we to imagine it? Seeing nothing and hearing nothing? But the perception of blackness and silence is also a perception. One has to imagine this perception away too.
It is not the same as a dreamless sleep, because one can speak of that after awakening. Personally, I find the indefinable self-non-existence frightening and not neutral. — SolarWind
Not to mention the absurdity of using the amount of people who resort to lethal self-harm as a parameter of a "worthwhile life"... — Inyenzi
Point being the experience of suffering isn't erased or negated - it was still endured. — Inyenzi
And who am I to impose this "trade-off" on another person? I couldn't imagine justifying this with, "well, I guessed it was more likely you'd find it worthwhile, so I did it". — Inyenzi
Say in my power is the ability to instill within you a 6th sense, which has both the capacity to be experienced as painful or pleasurable. I guess that you are 51% likely to judge this added sense as "worthwhile" to have. Do I therefore have the right to bestow this sense upon you, without your permission? How wouldn't this be immoral? What's the difference between me instilling an extra sense upon you, and instilling the (traditional) 5 senses upon a fetus? — Inyenzi
Are we? What is being "traded" exactly? This is at the core of the disagreement here, that one side views life as an option, like a game or some other activity, while the other side is saying that this isn't so, as nonexistence is not actually an alternative. — Echarmion
So did you read the two reformulations that I wrote below this? I purposely added that in anticipation of this kind of objection. Benatar takes a view that prevention of harm is always good, even if there are no subjective entities to know this. The reformulations below this reformulate this for people who do not have this point of view of the absolute "goodness" of "no harm". — schopenhauer1
Of course I read it. Nevertheless, everything depends on the evaluation of self-non-existence.
If self-non-existence is like hell, then you save someone from that hell by bringing him into life.
A personal question, how do you imagine death, are you afraid of it? — SolarWind
There is no metaphysical entity that exists prior to its birth. — schopenhauer1
This is obviously a comparison of existence with non-existence. In this comparison, non-existence does not win over existence, but the comparison is invalid.
What is wrong with my argument? — SolarWind
Someone is either affected negatively, or no one is affected negatively. The fact that someone is affected negatively is what we are pointing to. Antinatalists are saying, don't do that. It matters not that the alternative is "no person exists". — schopenhauer1
Otherwise, you have the absurd idea that in order for us to realize harm is bad, someone needs to be born, so we can then say, "See harm is bad!". — schopenhauer1
There is no easy way to bridge that conceptual chasm. — Echarmion
It is about the parent making the decision that affects someone negatively. Don't do it. — schopenhauer1
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.