This is not about law, so not sure why we need to make those comparisons. — schopenhauer1

It was an analogy, to explain the principle.

It's not the universe handing down what is right. — schopenhauer1

Does the universe do that, in your opinion?

Do not create unnecessary harm for another without cause (ameliorating a worse situation). Same for the axiom of unnecessary impositions and violations of consent. — schopenhauer1

What's so hard to understand about the fact that I just don't agree with this principle? You keep repeating it like some sort of magic incantation, but I already stated outright that I disagree.

The responsibility to have prevented this unnecessary harm, in this case lies with the person who creates the conditions for all other harms (and impositions) to occur for the future person who will be born from the decision. — schopenhauer1

That's the disagreement again. I don't think it does. There is no general responsibility for all possible harm. Rather, there are specific responsibilities towards the people you interact with.

Note, this doesn't mean that the parent is the cause of all specific harms, simply that the parent is the cause of not preventing (and more accurately, enabling) the conditions for these unnecessary harms. There is a difference you are conflating. — schopenhauer1

I'm not. I just disagree that the parent has that responsibility.

And when I say "My child will suffer" I am saying "My child will do this comparison you are speaking of and wish for a different state of affairs". That's it. No metaphysical mumbo jumbo. — khaled

But then doesn't preventing harm here turn into preventing the conditions that allow harm to be assessed?

It was an analogy, to explain the principle. — Echarmion

I guess if it is just "Look something else that is similar" rather than "Look, because it's the law this must be the best way to look at it.." The implication could have been the second.

Does the universe do that, in your opinion? — Echarmion

Nope, just hope you weren't inadvertently implying that about law.

What's so hard to understand about the fact that I just don't agree with this principle? You keep repeating it like some sort of magic incantation, but I already stated outright that I disagree. — Echarmion

Just making sure you know there is no moving target. What we are discussing is what we are discussin and not some other extraneous factors.

That's the disagreement again. I don't think it does. There is no general responsibility for all possible harm. Rather, there are specific responsibilities towards the people you interact with. — Echarmion

Yes and now you are repeating your claims like an incantation. I already acknowledged this and gave you an answer for the difference.

I'm not. I just disagree that the parent has that responsibility. — Echarmion

Why? Your answer will be truly telling if you understand the difference I explained.

But then doesn't preventing harm here turn into preventing the conditions that allow harm to be assessed? — Echarmion

@khaled will probably answer this in his own way, but I believe I have answered this above:

Also note, that the condition of being born, in order to "know" one is being harmed and imposed upon, doesn't compute in this argument. It is simply about not creating conditions of harm and impositions for someone else. Period. The person who would have been affected, does not need to be born to know that this was prevented. It is simply about that situation not occurring for someone else. It is about not creating a future condition. You certainly do not need someone to exist currently for this condition not to be created in the first place. The thing is, it really is not a hard ethic. It's certainly not the only one, but it's not a difficult one to put into practice. Just don't do something that is easy to prevent. — schopenhauer1

But then doesn't preventing harm here turn into preventing the conditions that allow harm to be assessed? — Echarmion

It is both. Still, better to prevent harm than not to. In absence of a justification to do otherwise. What’s difficult about this.

The "conditions that allow harm to be assessed" are precisely that someone is harmed for you. Which I find so weird. This quote amounts to "But then doesn't preventing harm here turn into preventing harm here?"

"Harm assessment" happens when you wish for a different state of affairs because of what just happened to you. In other words, ANY prevention of harm would amount to "preventing the conditions that allow for harm to be assessed" by this definition. Let me give an example:

A considers punching B, then chooses not to. IFF A had punched B, B would have thought "damn this sucks, I wish this didn't happen". But A did not punch B. Therefore A eliminated the conditions that allow harm to be assessed. Since B will no longer go into "harm assessment phase". Since B did not get harmed. This is because, again, the way you define the"conditions" is precisely that someone is harmed.

There is no general responsibility for all possible harm. Rather, there are specific responsibilities towards the people you interact with. — Echarmion

What do you mean here exactly? Because I like to point out that there is no such thing as “guaranteed harm”. There is only ever “possible harm”. Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is not guaranteed harm, as the gun might jam. It’s still all “possible harm”. So if you mean to say that you need harm to be guaranteed for the act to be wrong then that’s ridiculous.

Where is the hard line between "general" and "specific" responsibilities? Also what happened to "special suffering" whatever that was?

I already acknowledged this and gave you an answer for the difference. — schopenhauer1

I don't know what you're referring to here, can you quote it?

Why? Your answer will be truly telling if you understand the difference I explained. — schopenhauer1

I have already explained that I think suffering is only relevant insofar as it affects people's ability to practice their freedom. It follows naturally from this that there wouldn't be a general responsibility to prevent all suffering altogether.

What point do you want me to expand on?

It is both. Still, better to prevent harm than not to. In absence of a justification to do otherwise. What’s difficult about this.

The "conditions that allow harm to be assessed" are precisely that someone is harmed for you. Which I find so weird. This quote amounts to "But then doesn't preventing harm here turn into preventing harm here?"

"Harm assessment" happens when you wish for a different state of affairs because of what just happened to you. In other words, ANY prevention of harm would amount to "preventing the conditions that allow for harm to be assessed" by this definition. Let me give an example: — khaled

I see your point. And I agree that in order to make assessments before the fact, we necessarily need to compare hypothetical examples.

That said, there is a difference between imagining a scenario where B is punched and compare it to one where the punch doesn't not happen, and comparing it to a scenario where B doesn't happen.

In the first case, we're comparing two instances of the same thing - Bs feelings about the state of affairs. In the second, we're comparing Bs feeling to nothingness. You can't very well arrive at the conclusion that B would rather never have existed, because that's inherently contradictory.

Where is the hard line between "general" and "specific" responsibilities? Also what happened to "special suffering" whatever that was? — khaled

The two discussions we're having assume different premises. So if I talk about suffering here and responsibility there that's the reason.

As to the "hard line", it's between saying something like "one has to always minimize suffering" and saying something like "you're responsible for protection this person from suffering caused by getting lost because you're their tour guide".

In the second, we're comparing Bs feeling to nothingness. — Echarmion

False. We are finding that in one option B will have negative feelings. In the other he won’t. So we pick the one where he won’t. We are not saying that “if B is not born B will feel neutral”. Or anything to that effect.

You can't very well arrive at the conclusion that B would rather never have existed, because that's inherently contradictory. — Echarmion

“Rather never have existed” makes no sense. B was never in a position to choose. He couldn’t have rathered never existed, or rathered existed at that. That is not what is being used as justification for not having B. What is being used is that having B caused unjustified harm, whereas not having B doesn’t. It is irrelevant HOW it doesn’t cause unjustified harm, only that it doesn’t whereas the alternative does.

As to the "hard line", it's between saying something like "one has to always minimize suffering" and saying something like "you're responsible for protection this person from suffering caused by getting lost because you're their tour guide". — Echarmion

If you only care about suffering that requires: A- a specific person who exists now and B- a specific harm then you will run into a lot of trouble.

This has malicious genetic engineering come out as fine. Since there is no person who exists now that you could harm. Nor is there a specific harm. Blindness in itself isn’t harmful, it just makes it more likely you’ll run into harm.

So how do you have MGE come out to be wrong in light of these requirements?

False. We are finding that in one option B will have negative feelings. In the other he won’t. So we pick the one where he won’t. We are not saying that “if B is not born B will feel neutral”. Or anything to that effect. — khaled

I literally just explained to you, and you agreed. So I am confused why you're now turning around and telling me that, no, we don't need a comparison of different states of affairs that B experiences.

“Rather never have existed” makes no sense. B was never in a position to choose. He couldn’t have rathered never existed, or rathered existed at that. — khaled

My point exactly.

That is not what is being used as justification for not having B. What is being used is that having B caused unjustified harm, whereas not having B doesn’t. It is irrelevant HOW it doesn’t cause unjustified harm, only that it doesn’t whereas the alternative does. — khaled

And we're back to repeating the same sentences over and over again. Maybe if you say it another 100 times, it'll suddenly be convincing.

If you only care about suffering that requires: A- a specific person who exists now and B- a specific harm then you will run into a lot of trouble.

This has malicious genetic engineering come out as fine. Since there is no person who exists now that you could harm. Nor is there a specific harm. Blindness in itself isn’t harmful, it just makes it more likely you’ll run into harm.

So how do you have MGE come out to be wrong in light of these requirements? — khaled

We've been over this, and I already gave you my arguments for how it can nevertheless be wrong. Shall I look them up and re-quote them for you?

We've been over this, and I already gave you my arguments for how it can nevertheless be wrong. — Echarmion

You weren’t using this highly limiting definition for the word “harm”.

And we're back to repeating the same sentences over and over again. Maybe if you say it another 100 times, it'll suddenly be convincing. — Echarmion

Do you want to argue that having B does not cause harm? Because I think we agree that it does. What about that not having B does not cause harm? I think we agree there as well. So what is there that is not convincing?

I literally just explained to you, and you agreed. So I am confused why you're now turning around and telling me that, no, we don't need a comparison of different states of affairs that B experiences. — Echarmion

It depends on what you mean by “we are comparing B’s feeling to nothingness”. I was making sure you don’t mean this:

“if B is not born B will feel neutral” — khaled

But yes, we do NOT need a comparison of different states of affairs that B experiences. That is NOT what is being done here. Because in one case there is no B to experience anything. So what is happening is clearly not a comparison of two different states of affairs that B experiences. It is simply the recognition that a state of affairs includes harm. So don’t bring it about.

I don't know what you're referring to here, can you quote it? — Echarmion

Here:

The responsibility to have prevented this unnecessary harm, in this case lies with the person who creates the conditions for all other harms (and impositions) to occur for the future person who will be born from the decision.

Note, this doesn't mean that the parent is the cause of all specific harms, simply that the parent is the cause of not preventing (and more accurately, enabling) the conditions for these unnecessary harms. There is a difference you are conflating

Edit: Also note, that the condition of being born, in order to "know" one is being harmed and imposed upon, doesn't compute in this argument. It is simply about not creating conditions of harm and impositions for someone else. Period. The person who would have been affected, does not need to be born to know that this was prevented. It is simply about that situation not occurring for someone else. It is about not creating a future condition. You certainly do not need someone to exist currently for this condition not to be created in the first place. The thing is, it really is not a hard ethic. It's certainly not the only one, but it's not a difficult one to put into practice. Just don't do something that is easy to prevent. — schopenhauer1

I have already explained that I think suffering is only relevant insofar as it affects people's ability to practice their freedom. It follows naturally from this that there wouldn't be a general responsibility to prevent all suffering altogether.

What point do you want me to expand on? — Echarmion

But then, procreating someone will lead to this scenario, even as you have defined it thus: "Affects people's ability to practice their freedom".. And again.. I'm ready for your (eventual) response to the tune of "Not many people experience suffering". I mean I can define anything so it evades a certain principle. Suffering is generally a negative experience of pain, distress, hardship, etc. that one does not desire. But again, I can still stick to your peculiar definition and antinatalism applies.. Prevent this (your definition) from happening.

It is simply about not creating conditions of harm and impositions for someone else. Period. — schopenhauer1

Why though? I mean what's the point? Why would I conceive my relationship towards other people as primarily negative, in the sense that any interaction basically requires justification because of the potential of some future condition of harm? Who benefits?

But then, procreating someone will lead to this scenario, even as you have defined it thus: "Affects people's ability to practice their freedom".. — schopenhauer1

The solution you're suggesting amounts to protecting freedom by preventing any freedom, which is obviously self-defeating.

You weren’t using this highly limiting definition for the word “harm”. — khaled

I was using my own definition of harm, but the problem doesn't even come up because I constructed the entire argument by reference to people other than the one potentially being created.

Do you want to argue that having B does not cause harm? Because I think we agree that it does. — khaled

Sure, it's part of a causal chain that includes harm at some point.

What about that not having B does not cause harm? I think we agree there as well. — khaled

No, I don't agree, as I have explained. If harm is "doing something to someone they do not want to do", then the absence of harm is "doing something that is not going against anyone's will". The amount of people doesn't seem to matter here.

And concerning suffering, which you seem to use interchangeably with harm: if suffering is "something you don't want is done to you", then not suffering is "nothing you don't want is done to you", which is the same as "you want the things that are done to you". If you don't exist, none of these sentences makes any sense, so not existing isn't the absence of suffering, it's the absence of existing. Given you definitions, the two aren't interchangeable.

The argument that nonexistence is equivalent to the absence of suffering would require treating suffering as something that can be assessed irrespective of any human perspective. In other words suffering would have to be an objective property of the universe, like mass or electric charge.

And when you write the following:

It is simply the recognition that a state of affairs includes harm. So don’t bring it about. — khaled

you do really seem to treat harm as an objective fact as opposed to a human judgement.

you do really seem to treat harm as an objective fact as opposed to a human judgement. — Echarmion

What I do is: I treat it as an objective fact that there is a chance my child will subjectively judge a majority of his life to be bad. Because that is an objective fact. And based on that fact some justification should be required to do the thing that could lead to this negative subjective evaluation in the future. That justification is missing. So having kids is wrong. Where exactly do you have a problem?

Sure, it's part of a causal chain that includes harm at some point. — Echarmion

And does this not entail some responsibility? It's not like you couldn't have predicted your child would be harmed, no you knew it would happen. And continued with the course of action that would lead to it anyways. Why? Normally we'd need some justification when doing something harmful to others.

What about that not having B does not cause harm? I think we agree there as well.
— khaled

No, I don't agree, as I have explained. If harm is "doing something to someone they do not want to do", then the absence of harm is "doing something that is not going against anyone's will". The amount of people doesn't seem to matter here. — Echarmion

What? If "Not having B does not cause harm" is false then "Not having B causes harm" is necessarily true. Who, exactly, is harmed due to someone not having a child?

I'm saying precisely that "Not having children" is "Not going against anyone's will". Do you agree? If you disagree tell me whose will it is going against.

And concerning suffering, which you seem to use interchangeably with harm: if suffering is "something you don't want is done to you", then not suffering is "nothing you don't want is done to you" — Echarmion

Or nothing is done to you. Period. When nothing is done to you "something you don't want done to you" is certainly not done to you. So you are not suffering. In that case I agree that it makes no sense to really say "you are not suffering" since there is no "you". But whatever is happening here, it is certainly preferable to causing harm knowingly.

This is what I find so weird about this specific nitpick. We agree that "having children causes harm" is true. I think we agree that causing harm would normally require some justification for the act. But your critique is with the statement "Not having children does not cause suffering". It is based on the fact that there is no one that suffering is "alleviated from" in this case.

Ok, assuming this is valid..... Who cares? You have not by saying this removed the need for justification when considering doing something that will result in harm. This is such a pointless critique, because whether or not it is valid doesn't even matter. Even if it is valid, it is not enough for having children to come out right. Because you haven't dealt with the main issue. Having children causes harm. We need some sort of justification to do this. The claim is that that justification is not present. Saying "But not having children is not alleviating harm from anyone" is not justification, and I agree with it. So what's the point of saying that at all?

Why though? I mean what's the point? Why would I conceive my relationship towards other people as primarily negative, in the sense that any interaction basically requires justification because of the potential of some future condition of harm? Who benefits? — Echarmion

Because you cannot predict what behaviors cause harm, it is a fact, once born you will cause unintentional harm. However, would you willingly try to cause unnecessary harm (assuming you knew what you were doing was indeed harmful rather than something else like "just punishment" or corrective action)? I think not. However, procreation is a situation where it is absolutely 100% known you can prevent future conditions for all other harm. This indeed is a case where it is perfectly known that all suffering can be prevented.

The solution you're suggesting amounts to protecting freedom by preventing any freedom, which is obviously self-defeating. — Echarmion

Why would some abstract cause like carrying out freedom be more important than affecting someone negatively? Nazis had a slogan of "Work sets you free" for example. The notion that some positive duty abstract thing is more important than the negative duty for not creating someone else's conditions for negative experience/outcomes seems wrong.. I can say because it uses people or that it violates their dignity once born because it puts some reason above the person's pain affects them.. but you will just keep asking for why that is wrong.. so I will just leave it at that.

And does this not entail some responsibility? It's not like you couldn't have predicted your child would be harmed, no you knew it would happen. And continued with the course of action that would lead to it anyways. Why? Normally we'd need some justification when doing something harmful to others. — khaled

Exactly. @Echarmion seems to try to overlook the fact that it is perfectly known that all harm can be prevented in the decision not to affect a future person by procreating them. So he is going to worm around this idea by saying that parents must create people to create conditions of "freedom" (??) so that this can be carried out.. You see, the parent would be preventing these conditions of freedom and thus it is justified, as freedom (of choice?) needs to exist for some reason in the first place and is more important than the negative duty to not cause unnecessary harm somehow.

So what's the point of saying that at all? — khaled

Because he's fishing for a "gotcha" on the non-existence front. It's like one of the few tactics trying to be used: Can't compare to non-existence, denying nested causation, antinatalism isn't even considered under morality.

as freedom (of choice?) needs to exist for some reason in the first place and is more important than the negative duty to not cause unnecessary harm somehow. — schopenhauer1

This. He has yet to give an example where “maximizing freedom” trumps not causing harm either. Which makes me doubt if he actually believes this or is just using it as an exception in this one case arbitrarily.

Where exactly do you have a problem? — khaled

This part:

And based on that fact some justification should be required to do the thing that could lead to this negative subjective evaluation in the future. — khaled

It strikes me as completely absurd. There is a risk some action might cause a negative subjective evaluation in someone, and so it needs justification? Why on earth would that be the case? A little thought experiment: let's say we have a population of 10.000 people who keep 100 sex slaves around. The 10.000 people really like their sex slaves. So much so that they're extremely upset if we take them away. Do we tally up the negative subjective evaluations of the 100 sex slaves Vs the 10.000 people? Or can we just say prima facie that the 10.000 slave owners can go fuck themselves regardless of how intensely they want to own sex slaves?

And does this not entail some responsibility? It's not like you couldn't have predicted your child would be harmed, no you knew it would happen. And continued with the course of action that would lead to it anyways. Why? Normally we'd need some justification when doing something harmful to others. — khaled

"Doing something harmful" isn't the same as creating the conditions for harm. In the same way that stealing something isn't the same as creating the conditions for stealing. This weird kind of logic would mean you're responsible if the person whose life you save ends up a serial killer. Clearly that's a possibility. Not to mention that causal chains are indefinite, so whatever you do, you're basically guaranteed to cause something horrible eventually.

So you necessarily need to add caveats like there needs to be a certain probability, which are ultimately arbitrary.

What? If "Not having B does not cause harm" is false then "Not having B causes harm" is necessarily true. Who, exactly, is harmed due to someone not having a child? — khaled

I have no idea what logical operation you're performing here. I clearly didn't say "not having B causes harm" and given your other replies you do realize I am not saying the statement is false, but rather that the statement is meaningless.

I'm saying precisely that "Not having children" is "Not going against anyone's will". Do you agree? — khaled

I do, but this is only a necessary prerequisite for your argument, it's not sufficient to reach your conclusion.

But whatever is happening here, it is certainly preferable to causing harm knowingly. — khaled

But if you agree that not existing isn't the same as not suffering, how can you then be certain that it's nevertheless preferable to suffering?

Certainly most people wouldn't say that they'd rather not exist than exist and suffer. So where do you take this idea from?

Ok, assuming this is valid..... Who cares? You have not by saying this removed the need for justification when considering doing something that will result in harm. This is such a pointless critique, because whether or not it is valid doesn't even matter. Even if it is valid, it is not enough for having children to come out right. Because you haven't dealt with the main issue. Having children causes harm. We need some sort of justification to do this. The claim is that that justification is not present. Saying "But not having children is not alleviating harm from anyone" is not justification, and I agree with it. So what's the point of saying that at all? — khaled

This entire paragraph reads like gibberish if I try to plug in the definition you have earlier supplied for "harm", so I can't really see how this is anything other than you again repeating the claim "you need justification".

Because you cannot predict what behaviors cause harm, it is a fact, once born you will cause unintentional harm. — schopenhauer1

Which would seem a further argument against your position, since it makes it even harder to justify ever taking any action. Why single out childbirth?

However, would you willingly try to cause unnecessary harm (assuming you knew what you were doing was indeed harmful rather than something else like "just punishment" or corrective action)? — schopenhauer1

This is essentially asking "are you evil"?

However, procreation is a situation where it is absolutely 100% known you can prevent future conditions for all other harm. This indeed is a case where it is perfectly known that all suffering can be prevented. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, at the price of total destruction of everything else that has any value whatsoever. A weird trade to make.

Why would some abstract cause like carrying out freedom be more important than affecting someone negatively? — schopenhauer1

Because freedom is the thing that makes us human. It is the thing that gives our lives meaning as individual subjects. That we experience ourselves as actors is the basis for our self-awareness, from which everything else follows. Insofar as we give it up, we turn into just a part of nature, a thing.

Nazis had a slogan of "Work sets you free" for example. The notion that some positive duty abstract thing is more important than the negative duty for not creating someone else's conditions for negative experience/outcomes seems wrong.. — schopenhauer1

The Nazis did not posit duty to an abstract thing though. Their duty was to the "Volk" and the "race", which in their view were not at all abstractions, but real objective entities fighting for survival with other such entities.

And of course the slogan was cynical. It was nothing but a cruel joke.

I can say because it uses people or that it violates their dignity once born because it puts some reason above the person's pain affects them.. but you will just keep asking for why that is wrong.. so I will just leave it at that. — schopenhauer1

Out dignity is our dignity as subjects, as ends in and of themselves, not subject to nature of outside forces. So it's subjecting ourselves to some seemingly objective measure of suffering that is against our dignity.

You see, the parent would be preventing these conditions of freedom and thus it is justified, as freedom (of choice?) needs to exist for some reason in the first place and is more important than the negative duty to not cause unnecessary harm somehow. — schopenhauer1

There is no "justification", as there is no need to "justify" an action that is according to a maxim can be universalised. So long as people remain ends in themselves, rather than being subjugated to an outside force or another will, there is nothing that needs justifying.

This. He has yet to give an example where “maximizing freedom” trumps not causing harm either. Which makes me doubt if he actually believes this or is just using it as an exception in this one case arbitrarily. — khaled

I gave you a bunch of examples. But you simply always redefined harm to cover all kinds of abstract concepts which have nothing at all to do with the supposed prevention of negative emotions.

If someone kills their partner in a one-time emotional meltdown, do we still punish them? We do, but this cannot be justified by the prevention of harm, so you'd somehow have to class "justice" as the prevention of harm.

Are we allowed to cause people emotional pain by rejecting their love, regardless of our reasoning? We are, but this also cannot be justified as prevention of harm, so now we need to class "freedom of choice" as the prevention of harm.

Do we allow people to ride motorcycles for fun? We do. But clearly this creates the conditions for harm. How do we justify it? Freedom? The economy? Motorcycles are cool?

The list goes on.

Which would seem a further argument against your position, since it makes it even harder to justify ever taking any action. Why single out childbirth? — Echarmion

Because it's a foregone conclusion you are always going to unintentionally cause some harm once born. Try your best, but the outcomes simply won't pan out. Once born into existence, compromises are necessary, and those compromises do indeed lead to harm. So, if anything, I see this as more reason why childbirth leads to inevitable suffering and thus more of a reason prevent it. You can prevent all conditions for harm instead of yet another person who will compromise and will be affected by others having to compromise to live.

However, would you willingly try to cause unnecessary harm (assuming you knew what you were doing was indeed harmful rather than something else like "just punishment" or corrective action)?
— schopenhauer1

This is essentially asking "are you evil"? — Echarmion

Well, I'm not going that far, but you can prevent unnecessary harm if you prevent birth.

However, procreation is a situation where it is absolutely 100% known you can prevent future conditions for all other harm. This indeed is a case where it is perfectly known that all suffering can be prevented.
— schopenhauer1

Yeah, at the price of total destruction of everything else that has any value whatsoever. A weird trade to make. — Echarmion

Weird (to you) but doesn't mean wrong. Nothing needs to exist simply because you like the notion, especially so if it means causing unnecessary negative experiences/outcomes for someone else. That person's eventual harm should not be some sacrifice you make (on their behalf) so you can have X thing carried out.

And of course the slogan was cynical. It was nothing but a cruel joke. — Echarmion

The point was that your idea seems cynical as well, "No pain, no gain".. which is essentially what it amounts to when you put anything other than consideration of someone else's harm/suffering/negative outcomes in a decision that affects them. So you will put some fluff around it, still the same, something like, "Pain is necessary because I want X thing to be played out by someone else". You can insert anything in X you want from something as banal as "more plastic being made" to "happiness being experienced". It's all put above and beyond causing unnecessary conditions for someone else to be harmed and imposed upon (situations of "dealing with", etc. which I have explained in previous posts).

I can say because it uses people or that it violates their dignity once born because it puts some reason above the person's pain affects them.. but you will just keep asking for why that is wrong.. so I will just leave it at that.
— schopenhauer1

Out dignity is our dignity as subjects, as ends in and of themselves, not subject to nature of outside forces. So it's subjecting ourselves to some seemingly objective measure of suffering that is against our dignity. — Echarmion

It doesn't matter because we know suffering/harm befalls everyone at some point- even right at the moment of birth much of the time. But yes I know you will try to make everything harmful seem necessary, not so bad, etc. A form of gaslighting but keep em coming.

You see, the parent would be preventing these conditions of freedom and thus it is justified, as freedom (of choice?) needs to exist for some reason in the first place and is more important than the negative duty to not cause unnecessary harm somehow.
— schopenhauer1

There is no "justification", as there is no need to "justify" an action that is according to a maxim can be universalised. So long as people remain ends in themselves, rather than being subjugated to an outside force or another will, there is nothing that needs justifying. — Echarmion

Ironically, since procreation is something that is subjected from an outside force, your maxim might be used against yourself. The only move you can make here is to do the usual, "But no one exists prior", yet this doesn't negate that an outside force will affect someone. It's like saying if someone decided to immediately punch the new person in the face once born, that this is okay, as it was pre-planned (before there was a person with a "will") :roll:. Clearly not.

Anyways, not sure why this odd cause of yours (Kant's) needs to take place if the outcome is harm. It is yet just another maxim put above and beyond causing unnecessary conditions of harm for someone else. That's the main objection there.

This weird kind of logic would mean you're responsible if the person whose life you save ends up a serial killer. — Echarmion

If you knew the person whose life you save will end up a serial killer, then yes it's absolutely your responsibility. I already told you how I deal with this: By taking into consideration what you can predict. You could not have predicted that the person whose life you save will end up a serial killer. If you could have then you shouldn't have saved them.

Not to mention that causal chains are indefinite, so whatever you do, you're basically guaranteed to cause something horrible eventually. — Echarmion

But better not to do so knowingly, surely?

So you necessarily need to add caveats like there needs to be a certain probability, which are ultimately arbitrary. — Echarmion

Or the caveat that it depends on what you know. In other words: Try your best to not cause harm. Doesn't sound crazy does it?

But if you agree that not existing isn't the same as not suffering, how can you then be certain that it's nevertheless preferable to suffering? — Echarmion

You agreed that there are certain situations where one shouldn't have kids if they will likely suffer too much. So does it matter how I can be certain? We agree here. Non-existence is preferable to suffering.

Certainly most people wouldn't say that they'd rather not exist than exist and suffer. So where do you take this idea from? — Echarmion

What does this have to do with anything. You were the one that just said "I prefer not to have been born" makes no sense. Neither does "I prefer to exist and suffer". Because at no point were they in a position to choose.

If someone kills their partner in a one-time emotional meltdown, do we still punish them? — Echarmion

You don't know it's one time. And that we do punish them by law doesn't necessarily make it right (I agree it's right in this case though)

Are we allowed to cause people emotional pain by rejecting their love, regardless of our reasoning? We are, but this also cannot be justified as prevention of harm, — Echarmion

If you don't want to be in a relationship and you are obligated to be in one that would fall under "Having things done to you that you wouldn't want done to you" I think, no? So it is prevention of harm. From yourself.

Do we allow people to ride motorcycles for fun? We do. But clearly this creates the conditions for harm. — Echarmion

Depends on how good they are at them. If they're good enough that they will not really risk harming others then it's fine. If they are riding for the first time for fun in a public area, that's wrong, clearly. Point is, there is a breaking point at which you cannot seriously say that they are causing harm by riding. A point at which frustrating their desire to ride a motorcycle arbitrarily can be predicted to cause as much harm as actually riding the motorcycle. Until that point, yes it is wrong to ride the motorcycle. That point is around where they get a license

This part:

And based on that fact some justification should be required to do the thing that could lead to this negative subjective evaluation in the future.
— khaled

It strikes me as completely absurd. — Echarmion

Huh? Does it now?

However, would you willingly try to cause unnecessary harm (assuming you knew what you were doing was indeed harmful rather than something else like "just punishment" or corrective action)?
— schopenhauer1

This is essentially asking "are you evil"? — Echarmion

So why did you call doing harm without justification "evil"?

Call it what you will. In my book that's called "breaking". Because until caveats are introduced your system is insufficient. — khaled

This makes no sense at all. If I've just explained how circumstances and caveats are essential to understanding morality, it's nonsense to maintain that their presence can be described as 'breaking' it. Your maxim has caveats too. Is it 'broken'?

But I haven't seen a combination of factors that actually succeeds in doing this that don't break elsewhere. — khaled

They don't 'break' elsewhere. They just don't apply. Why should a single factor be applicable to all cases?

I only say the "but you wouldn't..." when critiquing the premises you present me. So you say something like "Denying pleasure is wrong" and I reply with "But you wouldn't just give me 100 bucks if I asked you even though that would be denying pleasure". — khaled

But it's not a critique. To say factor A needs to be taken into consideration in case X but it's not so relevant in case Y is not a 'critique'. It's just a representation of the fact that morality is not a 'spot-the-pattern' book written for three year olds, it's a bit more complicated than that.

But you add 3 different caveats every time I give a point at which they don't work. Like a hydra, you cut one head off and 3 more pop out. At this point you have like 15 different completely unrelated factors that go into what makes something right and neither of us can be bothered to clean them up. — khaled

If fifteen factors to consider is really too complicated for you then I can see exactly how you've ended up with the arguments you have - it explains a lot.

And when the network is indecisive what do we do? — khaled

'We' don't do anything. 'we' are the network. It's your brain I'm talking about here, the centre and sum of who you are, it's not some tool that something else ('we') make use of. It is us. I'm demonstrating that regardless of your armchair protestations, what actually happens when you make moral decisions is that a whole slew of mechanisms are initiated taking into account dozens, possibly even hundreds of factors at a blistering rate of calculations per second in the worlds most integrated supercomputer. That's what actually happens, and it happens in your brain, schop's brain, my brain regardless of whatever pubescent philosophy you want to claim you follow. If you genuinely believe you're the exception then I seriously suggest you offer yourself up to the various research units studying the phenomena.

We try to find the most important factors. — khaled

No we don't. There's no evidence to support the theory that we perform some global weighing exercise. That would require regions of the brain to be involved in orders in which they're just not involved.

Maybe a few pithy maxims IS all it comes down to for a certain individual. And the other factors in the network are just never prevalent enough to overcome those few important maxims. It's not that they're being ignored it's that they're insufficient to change anything. — khaled

Again, if you really believe this is how your brain works you'd be an asset to the research establishments, because it's not what has been seen in literally every other brain studies, but rather a very complex rendering of factor where (using signal blocking technology and, earlier, lesion studies) we can show that the removal of any one system changes the result.

A point at which frustrating their desire to ride a motorcycle arbitrarily can be predicted to cause as much harm as actually riding the motorcycle. Until that point, yes it is wrong to ride the motorcycle. That point is around where they get a license — khaled

This is a fundamental issue which stands apart from the other points about complexity.

Your ethic is about reducing harm, you even argue that most other ethical positions can be reduced to this maxim (like your motorbike example). So most ethical people, in your view, are reducing harm.

When faced with complex situation, you revert to the net reduction in harm - surgery, laws, parenting etc.

When faced with uncertainty, you revert to "the best you can predict with the knowledge you have".

So how is it that in conceiving a child (who, by your own notion of ethics will spend a good deal of their time reducing harm), I can somehow be certain that the net effect would not be to actually reduce harm?

Obviously if everyone agreed to not have children, then the net effect would be an overall reduction in harm eventually (once everyone living died), but it only takes one accidental birth and you could argue that your own child could then justifiably reduce the net harms in the world, and so could others and then we're back to square one again.

Continuing to have children (who work to reduce harm) is the only way to ensure the net harm in the world is reduced short of actual 100% immediate genocide.

"My child will do this comparison you are speaking of and wish for a different state of affairs" — khaled

If and when life becomes a curse, there's a very simple and radical solution to it: death.

If and when life becomes a curse, there's a very simple and radical solution to it: death. — Olivier5

“It’s fine to hurt them cuz if they don’t like it they can just kill themselves”

Do I need to say more? What does this NOT justify?

So how is it that in conceiving a child (who, by your own notion of ethics will spend a good deal of their time reducing harm), I can somehow be certain that the net effect would not be to actually reduce harm? — Isaac

Check my reply to pinrick for this. It’s mathematical. Assuming you don’t assume your child will cure cancer or do any such amazing feat. Which is just as unreasonable to assume as it is to assume they will do some large harmful feat like become a criminal.

but it only takes one accidental birth and you could argue that your own child could then justifiably reduce the net harms in the world — Isaac

How so? Again, check my reply to pinrick. It is very difficult to say that having a child will reduce net harm.

Continuing to have children (who work to reduce harm) is the only way to ensure the net harm in the world is reduced short of actual 100% immediate genocide. — Isaac

Problem is, it is just as unreasonable to assume that they will work to reduce harm as it is to assume that they will work to increase it. Which is why I don’t consider the child’s effect on others. Too many unknowns to accurately predict either way.

It’s mathematical. Assuming you don’t assume your child will cure cancer or do any such amazing feat. Which is just as unreasonable to assume as it is to assume they will do some large harmful feat like become a criminal. — khaled

Then your grasp of mathematics is as flawed as your grasp of ethics. It is only necessary that your child is above average for it to be the case that their net action is to reduce harm. Unless you have some harm-o-meter data you're not sharing with us?

Even for those below average, action to improve the likely net ethical activity of their child will have just as positive an effect on net harm as not having the child.

How so? Again, check my reply to pinrick. It is very difficult to say that having a child will reduce net harm. — khaled

Se above. You're just misunderstanding what 'net' means.

it is just as unreasonable to assume that they will work to reduce harm as it is to assume that they will work to increase it. Which is why I don’t consider the child’s effect on others. Too many unknowns to accurately predict in any way. — khaled

You're just being disingenuous now. Previously when uncertainty was raised as a critique, you rallied to "we can be sure of the overall picture". Why are you now avoiding that? We can be sure - from the general life satisfaction measured in every survey on the matter - that people's general harm-reduction activity must be substantial, certainly net positive. We can be almost certain that an average child will do a substantial amount of work reducing harms.

Again, there's thus duplicity. When we talk about harms birth brings about, the most trivial of harms are invoked. When I talk about new generations reducing harm suddenly they've got to cure cancer before it counts. If any of life's trivial burdens counts as a harm, then just smiling at someone to make then feel better counts as reducing that harm.

This makes no sense at all. If I've just explained how circumstances and caveats are essential to understanding morality, it's nonsense to maintain that their presence can be described as 'breaking' it. — Isaac

Huh? "Breaking" is when your supposed maxim, caveats and all, results in something you find ridiculous. For example "Do not deny pleasure" results in you being obligated to give me 100 bucks if I ever ask. So you amend it by adding caveat X. "Do not deny pleasure unless X" may or may not break elsewhere. Add as many caveats and maxims as you want. Point is to arrive at a system that is surgical enough to make MGE wrong, birth ok, and not break elsewhere. I haven't seen anyone do that so far.

Your maxim has caveats too. Is it 'broken'? — Isaac

No because with the caveats it produces no inconsistencies.

To say factor A needs to be taken into consideration in case X but it's not so relevant in case Y is not a 'critique'. — Isaac

But to say that you have no way to distinguish between X and Y is a critique. So you have to introduce some factor B that is present in X and not in Y, that together with A makes X wrong and Y ok or what have you.

That's what actually happens, and it happens in your brain, schop's brain, my brain regardless of whatever pubescent philosophy you want to claim you follow. — Isaac

Sure. Yet in my brain it always seems to come down to a few important factors that make almost all else irrelevant.

Again, just because it is computationally expensive does not mean the answer has to be complicated. It is computationally expensive to determine which action results in the least harm as well.

If fifteen factors to consider is really too complicated for you then I can see exactly how you've ended up with the arguments you have - it explains a lot. — Isaac

It's 15 unrelated factors with no indication about which can be applied when and why that is too complicated. Because at that point you're just doing intuitive morality, with no real system.

For example "Do not deny pleasure" results in you being obligated to give me 100 bucks if I ever ask. So you amend it by adding caveat X. "Do not deny pleasure unless X" may or may not break elsewhere. Add as many caveats and maxims as you want. Point is to arrive at a system that is surgical enough to make MGE wrong, birth ok, and not break elsewhere. I haven't seen anyone do that so far. — khaled

Of course you haven't, if three caveats in you throw your hands up and say "oh it's all too complicated for me".

No because with the caveats it produces no inconsistencies. — khaled

Neither does mine.

But to say that you have no way to distinguish between X and Y is a critique. So you have to introduce some factor B that is present in X and not in Y, that together with A makes X wrong and Y ok or what have you. — khaled

Yep. And when I do you complain about the multiplication of factors. I can't win.

in my brain it always seems to come down to a few important factors that make almost all else irrelevant. — khaled

No, it doesn't. Unless you are an exception to every other brain studied.

Again, just because it is computationally expensive does not mean the answer has to be complicated. — khaled

It basically does. It's a fairly strict rule of evolution.

It is computationally expensive to determine which action results in the least harm as well. — khaled

Possibly, but why are all those other brain regions involved?

It's 15 unrelated factors with no indication about which can be applied when and why that is too complicated. — khaled

As I said, explains a lot. How many factors do you think are involved in, say, economics?

at that point you're just doing intuitive morality, with no real system. — khaled

There's no difference. All systems are either descriptive or pointless. It's your brain that's coming up with these systems, motivated by the same processes it's trying to describe. You can't get outside of it and make it want something else. Where would you get the motivation to do so from?

It is only necessary that your child is above average for it to be the case that their net action is to reduce harm. — Isaac

When have I said otherwise? Did you actually read my reply to pinrick?

Previously when uncertainty was raised as a critique, you rallied to "we can be sure of the overall picture". Why are you now avoiding that? — Isaac

Because we can't be sure of the overall picture of the child's impact on others. Learn to read please. This is tiring.

I am saying that the child's impact on others cannot be predicted as net positive or net negative throughout his life. Though we have enough data to conclude that in all likelihood a child will have a net positive life, we do not have enough data to conclude that in all likelihood he will not be an asshat.

We can be sure - from the general life satisfaction measured in every survey on the matter - that people's general harm-reduction activity must be substantial, certainly net positive. — Isaac

How does a survey about how happy people are lead to the conclusion that my child will not be an asshole? Assholes can be happy. This is a non-sequitur. It does not follow from a general satisfaction measure that people's general harm-reduction activity is net positive.

If any of life's trivial burdens counts as a harm, then just smiling at someone to make then feel better counts as reducing that harm. — Isaac

Agreed. But I do not see the data to conclude that your child will have a net positive effect on others. This is not to suggest that they will have a net negative effect. Just that there is not enough evidence to conclude that, in total, your child will alleviate more suffering than is caused by having them. So let's just focus on the system including the child, and yourself. In that system, having a child is certainly the more harmful option.

When have I said otherwise? Did you actually read my reply to pinrick? — khaled

It's not the admission that they only need to be above average, it's the failure to grasp the fact that approximately half of all people will have children above average. That justifies half of all births, for a start.

Because we can't be sure of the overall picture of the child's impact on others. — khaled

We can. I just explained that. Most people are satisfied with their lives. So overall people's harm-reduction activities must be sufficient to render an overall satisfaction. So we can be sure that overall a child's net effect on others is going to be to reduce the harms that those other would otherwise feel. Unless you're claiming that most people would be happier alone?

Though we have enough data to conclude that in all likelihood a child will have a net positive life, we do not have enough data to conclude that in all likelihood he will not be an asshat. — khaled

Of course we do, what a ridiculous thing to say. Most people are not asshats (whatever one of those is, but I'm presuming it's a bad thing) that alone is sufficient to demonstrate that your own child is more likely not to be one than to be one.

How does a survey about how happy people are lead to the conclusion that my child will not be an asshole? Assholes can be happy. This is a non-sequitur. It does not follow from a general satisfaction measure that people's general harm-reduction activity is net positive. — khaled

Are most people happier alone? No. So it follows from this fact alone that most people's happiness is generated by others. Without society we'd die. Something you neo-liberals seem ideologically blind to. So yes, the fact that most people are happy is exactly and precisely an indication that most people are working hard to reduce the harms that would befall others without that work.

Of course you haven't, if three caveats in you throw your hands up and say "oh it's all too complicated for me". — Isaac

You threw your hands up first with "I'm not just going to do this everytime"

If you want to do this: State your system. Clearly. All the factors. Just dump a wall of text. Then we'll see if it doesn't break. It probably doesn't, but on the account of having something like "The survival of the human race is paramount".

Neither does mine. — Isaac

You haven't presented yours. So I'll wait to see it.

. And when I do you complain about the multiplication of factors. — Isaac

As I said, you do first.

It basically does. It's a fairly strict rule of evolution. — Isaac

False. The answer to mathematical problems can be incredibly simple. Yet the calculation can be grueling.

No, it doesn't. Unless you are an exception to every other brain studied. — Isaac

Jesus. Even my own system is computationally expensive. Determining which act does the least harm is expensive. I am proposing that when my brain is doing any moral calculation, that is effectively what it is doing. Factors such as "the good of mankind" don't appeal to me. They are processed just the same, but are never enough to overturn the most important factors.

Possibly, but why are all those other brain regions involved? — Isaac

They are still involved. But they never manage to overturn the main factors.

And, again, computationally expensive =/= cannot be reduced to a simpler answer. Just because all those brain regions are involved does not mean you cannot come up with a system that yields the same answer as your natural brain processing, that is a lot simpler. In the same way that the function ((x + x^(3/2)*x^(3/2)/x^3)^(3/2))^2 is very computationally expensive but can be reduced to: (x+1)^3

You can't get outside of it and make it want something else. Where would you get the motivation to do so from? — Isaac

When did I do that? I am not going outside my brain when I intuitively find that employing intuitive morality, without any analysis or attempt at systematizing your view, is moronic and dangerous. It's why we make laws. Because with intuitive morality, there is no real rhyme or reason to do anything, you just do what you feel like.

This is gonna be my last reply for now. Don't have any more time for you.

Most people are satisfied with their lives. So overall people's harm-reduction activities must be sufficient to render an overall satisfaction. — Isaac

Non-sequitur. You make it sound like the only factor at play in people's happiness is the actions of those around them. That is ridiculous. If it were true, it would be impossible to find someone who is happy in spite the negative actions of others.

Are most people happier alone? No. So it follows from this fact alone that most people's happiness is generated by others. — Isaac

Most? I don't really buy that but sure. Let's assume your child is likely to have a net positive impact, on himself and others. It still is not enough to make it right. Because "alleviation of harm" and "happiness" are different. Let's just compare alternatives:

Have child:
Likely will not be overall harmful to himself or others

Do not have child:
Definitely will not be overall harmful to himself or others.

This is because you can't really argue that I have harmed someone by not having a child even if my child would have helped them. Even though my child helping them would have made them happy. In the same way that if, say, you had my Paypal account, and you chose not to send me 100 dollars daily, you're not really harming me are you? In any traditional sense of the word. Even though I would certainly be happy to receive 100 dollars daily, since I have no entitlement or need for those 100 dollars, I would not be harmed not to get them.

So in this case you should not have a child. Because that is definitely not harmful. Whereas the alternative is only likely not to be harmful. And there is no need to take the risk. This is why I say "alleviation of harm" and not just "benefit"

This is because you can't really argue that I have harmed someone by not having a child even if my child would have helped them. — khaled

Net harm reduction is the measure you use elsewhere. Net harm reduction. The net harm reduced by having a child is something which is at least arguable. Certainly requires actual empirical data and is not this ridiculously simplistic equation you would have everyone use.

But yes, best we don't continue this, you're just either not debating honestly or not capable of following the arguments.