But where the probabilities of how it affects the aggregate is practically immeasurable (the butterfly affect), the actualities of birth negatively affecting the individual that will be born is 100%. — schopenhauer1

And I don't really find "You couldn't know that having children will result in them helping people more than average" convincing but it was my first line of defense. Most people have a positive impact overall I'd say. — khaled

And the reason I don't buy it is what Isaac basically just said.

The argument would be that it is not ethical to force someone into such a position. Like forcing someone to play a game. — khaled

The comparison is not correct because the someone in question does not exist before conception. Parents give life to their children, their force no one, they give life to one. And if that one rejects the gift, then that's his or her choice.

This said, I understand the position of someone who would rather not bring a child in today's world, why with climate change and all that. "Let's not add to climate change by having children who might in any case end up living a life much worse than ours. There are too many people on earth already." That's an argument I can hear.

But to think that to give life is always inherently morally wrong, in any time and at any place, to me that's courting the kind of (admittedly flippant) response I gave you: if you hate life so much, you're welcome to quit. Will make room for the rest of us.

And the reason I don't buy it is what Isaac basically just said. — khaled

Yeah, but this again, is not my main contention. If you are not convinced that the efficacy of using probabilities is not a good argument against aggregate utilitarianism, that doesn't bother me much because even if we were certain of knowing the probabilities of aggregate utilitarianism, I think it is wrong to use individuals for some cause beyond the individual (which is my main contention).

As far as how it fits into things like political actions.. I think politics supervenes on ethics, but is not the same thing. Politics is a way of survival whereby we put people in charge of the group to make these decisions on an aggregate level. However, I would hope while functioning in the role of politician that they keep to some personal ethical guidelines. So that same individual functioning in the role of political decision-maker also when interacting with people on an ethical level, does not use people, treat them as means to an end, etc.

The comparison is not correct because the someone in question does not exist before conception. Parents give life to their children, their force no one, they give life to one. And if that one rejects the gift, then that's his or her choice. — Olivier5

The problem is you CAN'T reject the gift. Phrasing suicide as "rejecting the gift of life" is disgusting. It's a bit more than that. Rejecting implies that before the imposition was made you were able to will that it is not made. That is not what happens. The imposition is made. And there is no obvious, or easy quit button. If "quitting life" was as easy as pressing escape and hitting "quit" I would never have been AN. The problem is it is a grueling task to quit.

But to think that to give life is always inherently morally wrong, in any time and at any place, to me that's courting the kind of (admittedly flippant) response I gave you: if you hate life so much, you're welcome to quit. Will make room for the rest of us. — Olivier5

One can love life and still be AN. I know. Shocking!

But to think that to give life is always inherently morally wrong, in any time and at any place, to me that's courting the kind of (admittedly flippant) response I gave you: if you hate life so much, you're welcome to quit. Will make room for the rest of us. — Olivier5

This is the exact callous thinking that makes procreation wrong. Forced into de facto circumstances of survival..etc. But if you don't like the game-system, go kill yourself. What great alternatives you have now imposed on someone!

As @khaled brought up, procreation can be a kind of kidnapping into a game. You force them to play, and then you try to justify it.

When the alternative is completely harmless (supposedly). — khaled

That's a big assumption you're making here. You've seen that movie?

What great alternatives you have now imposed on someone! — schopenhauer1

Life is often better than the alternative. That's my point and it is indeed a very simple point.

Which is why it is followed by a (supposedly)

But hey, ANY justification is better than "Oh we'll do it and if they don't like it they can just kill themselves so it's fine"

Life is often better than the alternative. That's my point and it is indeed a very simple point. — Olivier5

Key word: Often. What justifies taking the risk? When the alternative is harmless? (supposedly)

The imposition is made. — khaled

Not that I can see. That's an incorrect conception of conception.

Life is often better than the alternative. That's my point and it is indeed a very simple point. — Olivier5

You are not getting the point, sir. The fact that someone was put into the situation of "play the game or kill yourself" is the point. You have to take one step back and see the whole picture from a procreation decision-making point of view, not just "once already born" point of view.

And great point.

I think it is wrong to use individuals for some cause beyond the individual (which is my main contention). — schopenhauer1

So how do you justify imprisoning a murderer? That would be unethical by your standards. As would taxing anyone, as would providing unitary aid of any sort. Sounds monstrous.

To those concerned about political actions.. see what I said about the difference between the role of politics and ethics.

The fact that someone was put into the situation of "play the game or kill yourself" is the point. — schopenhauer1

The fact is that nobody was technically 'put' in such position, because to exist is to be in that position, and no one even existed before they were in that position. It's not like you can summon the soul of your future child and ask him whether he wants to exist or not...

The fact is that nobody was technically 'put' in such position, because to exist is to be in that position, and no one even existed before they were in that position. — Olivier5

Ok. Even though I don't even argue for the side anymore this is still BS to use as any meaningful critique.

Is genetically engineering someone to be blind wrong? If not why? Nobody is technically harmed by the act. So why is it wrong?

This not-replying-to-me-but-really-replying-to-me just looks childish. Grow up.

It's not about political actions. We could restrict it to an individual taking down a would-be suicide bomber. No politics involved. By your measure it's unethical to interfere with the bomber's personal agenda purely for some aggregate goal like saving everyone else's life.

The fact is that nobody was technically 'put' in such position, because to exist is to be in that position, and no one even existed before they were in that position. It's not like you can summon the soul of your future child and ask him whether he wants to exist or not... — Olivier5

Oh I'm not going through this again. You have to do the hard work of reading what we wrote on this already, so not giving a full response to it. What I am trying to say is that once born, you de facto have to follow the dictates of what it means to survive as a human. You do not like this? Go kill yourself, right? However, this in itself is a bad situation you are putting someone in. If you do not like the game you kill yourself, but exactly as you say, there is no way for the person to preview all the things about the game and decide on if they want to play. So do not make the decision for them that affects them so, and puts them in this "Do the game or die situation", as far as the parent making the decision for someone.

This not-replying-to-me-but-really replying-to-me just looks childish. Grow up. — Isaac

Dude you lost your chance to argue with me, as you have completely disrespected me and attacked me personally. In these debates, you can debate the argument, but you have argued in complete viciousness against me, that I can't pretend like debating you would be fair to myself. So no.

Is genetically engineering someone to be blind wrong? If not why? Nobody is technically harmed by the act. So why is it wrong? — khaled

Because it is destroying a major part of why life is worth living, of the beauty of life, for strictly no reason.

this in itself is a bad situation you are putting someone in. — schopenhauer1

Why is that such a bad situation, may I ask?

Because it is destroying a major part of why life is worth living, of the beauty of life, for strictly no reason. — Olivier5

No it isn't. Nothing is destroyed here. The child never experienced the beauty of life for taking it away to be in any way destructive, heck nothing is being taken away here at all. To destroy something, it had to have existed first. Saying this is "destruction" is exactly like saying that having a child is an "imposition".

Why is that such a bad situation, may I ask? — Olivier5

Perhaps you can try to answer that first based on what I said. If you get it wrong, I will correct you, but I believe I have stated it already.

I will get it wrong no doubt.

No it isn't. Nothing is destroyed here. — khaled

In order to make a human embryo grow blind, you have to destroy something. At a minimum you have to take a huge number of genes and delete them from someone's gamete, knowing full well that the result will be a blind child, who would see perfectly well if you hadn't edited out hundreds of genes from his genome...

I think it is wrong to use individuals for some cause beyond the individual (which is my main contention). — schopenhauer1

This is just a really weird thing to say as a justification for not allowing individuals to exist.

Like your argument is that we must respect the individual, and you express that respect by making sure no individual ever gets the chance to be.

Yes, but living doesn't only entail suffering, but rather it enables it — in humans, anyhow. — Cobra

The question then is how "enabling suffering" is equivalent to causing suffering in moral terms.

When this occurs, and we introduce ethics, it is not a matter of cause/effect, but of enable/disable. — Cobra

This implies you have a moral system which is distinct from the traditional utilitarian perspective I associate with AN. Can you expand on how your system works?

But suffering is not "unique" nor dependent on the person and how one experiences or remembers it, because what causes harm and suffering is not determined by the person, nor is deciding such a thing dependent on their understanding of it. — Cobra

This seems a questionable assertion. How is suffering not dependent on the person experiencing it? Is there some empirical or otherwise objective way to measure suffering?

I think the fact that you can utilize "all other animals get diseases as well," demonstrates this point. — Cobra

When we say that animals suffer, we don't usually refer to anything objective though. We're merely projecting our own self awareness on the animal and concluding that we would experience suffering in their place. But that is a fiction.

I reject this. The opposite is true. If I make my decisions solely based on "negative outcomes", then all my decisions are dictated by other people. And this, if applied universally, turns everyone into a zombie only ever reacting to other people's emotions. — Echarmion

Just imagine you are not debating me, your bitter opponent apparently- can you see ways, even if you cannot under "Echarmion" just somehow, looking beyond what you think to be the case, see how possibly "already existing" and having to compromise to survive in a community is not the same as starting a completely new person, where we indeed do not have to compromise? This is not special pleading either. That would be if the situations were truly the same. They are not. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but to at least see where I'm coming from with the difference. I'm not even asking you to reiterate your claim, as I've seen it several ways.

I think it is wrong to use individuals for some cause beyond the individual (which is my main contention).
— schopenhauer1

This is just a really weird thing to say as a justification for not allowing individuals to exist.

Like your argument is that we must respect the individual, and you express that respect by making sure no individual ever gets the chance to be. — Echarmion

I can see how this does seem weird at first. However, if the axiom holds true to "Not cause unnecessary conditions of harm that affects other people than this isn't so weird. People don't need to exist for any X reason. But one should not start the conditions for harm on others. Doing anything outside of this would be violating the axiom.

Again, going back to compromise. Once born, survival, etc. becomes part of the game. We do have to make compromises to survive. It's not ideal. Starting a new person is something where no compromise on another's behalf has to be made. Remember, this is coming from a person-affecting view. It is absolutely unnecessary for the person this will be affecting to cause this condition for them to be harmed. If you want to take it a step further, they then in turn will not be born to violate axiom of harm in the less absolute state of affairs of someone who exists and has to live in the world. So to sum it up surely, once alive, it is best not to violate harm knowingly, but it will happen. This ideal simply will not be lived up to once alive. It is almost in conflict with how survival is carried out. Here is a case, however, where a very simply non-action leads to no harm for someone else.

And I know where you are going to take this..

How can an ethic be right if it can never live up to an ideal except in one instance? But I will let you predictably ask it.

How convenient. This way you get to just avoid having to deal with any lines of argument you can't answer.

How convenient. This way you get to just avoid having to deal with any lines of argument you can't answer. — Isaac

I tried to ask you to stop with the vitriol and you refused. That's your deal.

Just imagine you are not debating me, your bitter opponent apparently- can you see ways, even if you cannot under "Echarmion" just somehow, looking beyond what you think to be the case, see how possibly "already existing" and having to compromise to survive in a community is not the same as starting a completely new person, where we indeed do not have to compromise? This is not special pleading either. That would be if the situations were truly the same. They are not. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but to at least see where I'm coming from with the difference. I'm not even asking you to reiterate your claim, as I've seen it several ways. — schopenhauer1

I will say that I do think you want the right thing, in your own way. You want to protect people from harm and protect their dignity. That I can get behind in the abstract, and you don't seem at all disagreeable in terms of what you think we should do concerning the problems of the already existing.

So I don't think of you as an enemy, but I do think of you as an evangelist. This one issue is obviously very important, and arguably too important to make for good discussion, to you.

As to your question of whether I can see it, I have to say I really struggle. Perhaps in glimpses. But it's difficult for me to wrap my head around the framing. It's not so much that I can't see that, while you're alive, you're bound up in lots of relations which of course mean you have to compromise. But I don't see not existing as an alternative to compromising. Not existing is simply absence. It's not an alternative to anything, because it is not anything. And the decision to not have children happens in the sphere of existence, so it's itself part of the compromises. How could it be any other way?

I can see how this does seem weird at first. However, if the axiom holds true to "Not cause unnecessary conditions of harm that affects other people than this isn't so weird. People don't need to exist for any X reason. But one should not start the conditions for harm on others. Doing anything outside of this would be violating the axiom.

Again, going back to compromise. Once born, survival, etc. becomes part of the game. We do have to make compromises to survive. It's not ideal. — schopenhauer1

But "not ideal" is still better than nothing, is it not? I mean at least people that exist have some choices. They get to experience sone happiness and exercise some freedom. It's not like we're yanking them out of paradise to incarnate them on earth. They get something. Maybe what they get is nasty, brutish and short, but it cannot be said that this makes it worse than nothing.

Starting a new person is something where no compromise on another's behalf has to be made. Remember, this is coming from a person-affecting view. It is absolutely unnecessary for the person this will be affecting to cause this condition for them to be harmed. If you want to take it a step further, they then in turn will not be born to violate axiom of harm in the less absolute state of affairs of someone who exists and has to live in the world. So to sum it up surely, once alive, it is best not to violate harm knowingly, but it will happen. This ideal simply will not be lived up to once alive. It is almost in conflict with how survival is carried out. Here is a case, however, where a very simply non-action leads to no harm for someone else. — schopenhauer1

But at least while alive, we can strive for the ideal. At least when alive, the ideal exists as an ideal. Without that, not only is the ideal unfulfilled, it's gone. Nothing there to have ideals in the first place. Isn't it better to strive constantly for the ideal, rather than fulfill it in some tiny way, only to destroy it utterly?

I actually don't think it's a problem to strive for unattainable ideals. I actually think it's one thing that possibly makes life worth living - to have this goal always to guide you. It's perhaps what people look for when they look for "spirituality". What I don't see is why giving the next person the chance to strive for the ideal is not worth something to you.

I tried to ask you to stop with the vitriol and you refused. That's your deal. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, except that was always the case. Has been since the beginning if the thread. Yet when you think you have a counter to any point I raise you're happy to put in one of your 'to whom it may concern...' type of posts. When you can't answer the point raised you ignore it a cry faux calls of 'bad sportsmanship. It's transparent.

The point, lest it get lost, was that your supposed 'ethics' requires that if we see a man walking into a school with a gun we must not interfere with his chosen purpose because the harm we're predicting will befall non-specified persons, a mere aggregate benefit to us stopping him, not worth striving for, ethical at all.