But that is incredibly unlikely. — khaled
Would Adam and Eve suffering from childlessness compare to the suffering of all mankind thus far? — khaled
I am doing so in both situations. Try comparing potential harms in the case of birth. There is no way having children is the less harmful alternative. — khaled
It is NOT always okay to risk harming others by building a pipeline that was my point. It matters what that pipeline accomplishes. If it alleviates more harm than it is likely to cause then it's fine. If it doesn't (say, because it connects to nowhere and some rich guy is building it for literally no reason) then it's wrong. — khaled
We know the child suffers 20%. Let's assume THEY don't have kids. After they grow up, we can assume 5% of that 20 comes from them not having children. Then we take into account their spouse, another 5%, and the parents of the couple (in this case you are part of them), another 20%. So it comes out to: 20% + 5% + 20% for a total of 45% total for having a child that then doesn't have a child. — khaled
Let's assume they DO have a child. Then the percentage is still bad. 15% from the person themselves (since I counted childlessness as 5% and that won't be the case here) and 20% from their child. 35% right there. Not even considering whether or not this child will have kids or not (both will increase the percentage) — khaled
And this is WITH counting childlessness as 25% of a person's suffering throughout their life which I find inaccurate in the first place. — khaled
Because I think the alternative is even worse for them* — khaled
Yea. — khaled
But your principle would imply that if I think I know your price I MUST press the button for you. I don't think either of us thinks so. — khaled
A bit extreme eh? What if the parent says "I kinda don't wanna have a kid". By your principle that would not be enough to outweigh the "benefits to the child" (still think this doesn't make sense but ok). So in that case they should be FORCED to have the child. That's the consequence of requiring that people don't deny pleasure. — khaled
If a couple wants to have a child, and they believe doing so will cause less harm than not doing so, then I have no right to object. — Pinprick
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? — Echarmion
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. — Echarmion
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. — Echarmion
sure. Which was the counter argument that got me. — khaled
We don't have to make that decision on someone else's behalf that will affect them, and as you mentioned, cause conditions for harm and violate their dignity by putting some goal above and beyond that of simply preventing suffering. — schopenhauer1
here is a chance to cause absolutely no unnecessary harm. — schopenhauer1
I would not think so much on the aggregate level, but on the person you are affecting with your decision. — schopenhauer1
makes us become slaves to the best outcome, no matter what. — schopenhauer1
An abstract group of people might benefit from this person being born, but you now using this person's harm for this cause. — schopenhauer1
by putting more people into harm's way (birthing them) you are just perpetuating the situation in the long term which is not fixing it. — schopenhauer1
We don't have to put a new person into this choice. We don't have to put a new person into the game. We don't have to make that decision on someone else's behalf that will affect them, and as you mentioned, cause conditions for harm and violate their dignity by putting some goal above and beyond that of simply preventing suffering. — schopenhauer1
I actually think that unless existence is an absolute paradise, it is not appropriate to bring someone into it. — schopenhauer1
All that matters is no unnecessary harm befalls someone, when you can prevent it. Here is a chance to do that absolutely, no compromises. — schopenhauer1
Also, I would say that in the realm of ethics, using someone for some greater good, is a violation. Giving to charity is a good thing. Duping someone to give you money so you can give to charity is not, cause you are using someone, even if it is supposed to help a greater amount of people, or some abstract cause. So rather, I would not think so much on the aggregate level, but on the person you are affecting with your decision. That person is the one whose whole life will be affected by this decision. All instances of harm will befall that person. An abstract group of people might benefit from this person being born, but you now using this person's harm for this cause. Rather, we should help those people in need without using someone else, similar to taking someone's money to give to charity situation. — schopenhauer1
Duping someone to give you money so you can give to charity is not — schopenhauer1
Sure, we don't have to but that's not saying anything about whether we should. You're just short-circuiting ethics by making you preferred outcome also the basic ideal. And so you arrive at ridiculous claims like "Me having any goal apart from preventing suffering violates the dignity of future persons".
Claiming that your, and only your, moral position is the one with only positives and no drawbacks is a good sign that you're no longer actually saying anything apart from "I am right because I am". — Echarmion
But an "absolute paradise" is just a meaningless phrase. Not only can it not practically exist, it doesn't even have theoretical properties. It cannot be defined. You're comparing existence to something incoherent.
You even realize this yourself, but somehow this has no implications for your position. You just gloss over it and change the topic. That should be a further red flag to you that your position is no longer rational. — Echarmion
Do you literally believe this? That all that matters is that no unnecessary harm befalls someone? Did you arrive at this conclusion by some process of reasoning of is that just what you personally consider to be the meaning of life? — Echarmion
First, why would causing unnecessary harm, absolutely (and I defined that versus relative once born), not a good thing? — schopenhauer1
For example, if you can expect that the person will be equipped to deal with all the common harms and will themselves act morally most of the time.
This seems entirely consistent with everyone's interests, and so would be "good" in my estimation — Echarmion
The question then is how "enabling suffering" is equivalent to causing suffering in moral terms. — Echarmion
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? — Echarmion
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. — Echarmion
Before I rebut this, do you have any comments on this part:
Also, I would say that in the realm of ethics, using someone for some greater good, is a violation. Giving to charity is a good thing. Duping someone to give you money so you can give to charity is not, cause you are using someone, even if it is supposed to help a greater amount of people, or some abstract cause. So rather, I would not think so much on the aggregate level, but on the person you are affecting with your decision. That person is the one whose whole life will be affected by this decision. All instances of harm will befall that person. An abstract group of people might benefit from this person being born, but you now using this person's harm for this cause. Rather, we should help those people in need without using someone else, similar to taking someone's money to give to charity situation. — schopenhauer1
a) We can't know if they will be equipped (that's more the approach of khaled, but I agree.. there is that 10% or whatever figure it is). Also, it is hard to really know how to judge this. At some points someone might be okay, others not, and then there is total evaluation which is separate than the individual experiences. Which version is it? I don't think we can say, and there are certainly times one someone would ideally rather not have had those experiences. — schopenhauer1
b) Even if I equipped someone, putting them in the game in the first place is wrong. — schopenhauer1
Arguments from anti-natalists you simply don't like aside, anti-natalism at minimum does not say 'not giving birth' prevents suffering or that 'living is suffering', it says that, to my mind anyway, that once you cross the threshhold into a personhood you are then eligible to be an inevitable sufferer because you are constrained by your human - biological, physiological, psychological, etc flaws (and other elements). — Cobra
But this is off topic. — Cobra
The fact of the matter is "happiness" does not inform public health or public safety; cancer patients can be happy but this is irrelevant to the fact that a cancer patient will inevitably languish (and suffer), without medical treatment. — Cobra
Really? It seemed to me that you wanted to use the fact that, in life, you are constantly striving merely to survive as an argument for AN. I’ve heard it before and was not convinced by it. Being in a state of constant striving is not clearly a bad thing if you enjoy said striving. — khaled
you become a moral agent, meaning constrained by homeostasis - as a conscious agent that must maintain ones well-being and health, harm - pain - suffering is then enabled because consciousness is enabled. Obviously, you must be reach a certain gestational point - or be born - to be eligible as an inevitable sufferer.
— cobra
Arguments from anti-natalists you simply don't like aside, anti-natalism at minimum does not say 'not giving birth' prevents suffering or that 'living is suffering', it says that, to my mind anyway, that once you cross the threshhold into a personhood you are then eligible to be an inevitable sufferer because you are constrained by your human - biological, physiological, psychological, cognitive, etc flaws (and other elements). — cobra
Fair enough. Point still stands though. Being in a state of constant striving is not necessarily a bad thing if you enjoy said striving.
If you are a human agent, you belong to human ecology and are constrained by human flaws i.e., biology, physiology, psychology, cognition, etc. These are facts not determined or dependent on 'personal human happiness.' or 'personal feelings' .. so I don't get why you keep bringing it up. It is a fact that we are constantly driven (biologically), ecologically (morally), and so forth to optimize because if we do not languish occurs. — Cobra
How this relates to antinatalism involves you reading my post, contextualizing and understanding what is being said. — Cobra
Like the mathematics example, reality does not care what a bunch of non-mathematician optimists say 4+4 is or how they feel about it, because there exists an objective basis — Cobra
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.