Is what one deems to be good a justification for making major decisions on behalf of another?
If so, why? — Tzeentch
You seem to argue that I should have refrained from giving life to another from a place of even more ignorance than me. — unenlightened
This fundamental ignorance you speak of, isn't that a serious reason to refrain from making major decisions on behalf of another? — Tzeentch
One must either have a child or not; that is the decision one must make if the choice is available, or else let nature take its course. — unenlightened
How many more times would you like me to answer that question? — unenlightened
Well, it is a rather odd position. — Tzeentch
I don't think you do recognize that at all, as you did it in the preceding sentence! — Bartricks
But just to be clear: you started it when you said that the thought of me having kids made you shudder. That's a personal slight, not a rational consideration. — Bartricks
What possible reason could there be for creating another person? — Andrew4Handel
I agree, my argument about your resentment was invalid, which, as you note, I acknowledged. That doesn't mean what I said was wrong. — T Clark
One characteristic of rational people is that they respond to the argument that's actually made rather than one they imagine. — T Clark
It is widely recognized that it is wrong, other things being equal, to do things to others without their prior consent. We ask people if they'd like a coffee, we don't ram one down their throat.
There are lots of exceptions. But the exceptions aren't arbitrary. They seem invariably to be cases where a person is unable to consent and furthermore not doing the thing in question would most likely result in them coming to serious harm. That is, it doesn't seem sufficient that the act will benefit the person. If the person can't consent to what you're proposing to do, then the default is you are not morally permitted to do it unless that's the only way to prevent this person from coming to a serious harm.
Acts of procreation clearly involve doing something to someone else without their prior consent, for none of us have asked to be born.
Is it an exceptional case, though? No, for although we can't consent to be born, not bringing us into being here can't reasonably be considered to be something that would likely result in us coming to serious harm. For either we do not exist prior to birth, in which case our non-existence poses no risk of harm to us. Or we do exist prior to birth, but given our total ignorance of what pre-birth life is like, we are not entitled to assume that it is any worse than life here. Either way, procreative acts come out as acts that we are not morally entitled to perform.
That's just one of a whole battery of arguments that can be made for the antinatalist conclusion.
What have you got? — Bartricks
As you will note, I didn't make any case against your argument at all because that, according to the OP, is not the subject of this thread. — T Clark
You also do not seem to understand the OP. In the OP the question is whether there are any reasons to have kids. Normative reasons. I am saying that there is positive reason not to have them. Moral reason. Instrumental too, but I am focussing on moral reasons. (Moral reasons are among the normative reasons that there are). — Bartricks
What possible reason could there be for creating another person? — Andrew4Handel
Honor, honesty, struggle, sacrifice, ideals and the like do not fit in neatly to such a pleasure/pain schema, but it's not talked about much in these arguments, at least none that I have seen.
I think these things also merit mention, because they are also important in the life debate. — Manuel
The question of whether my values should or can be attributed to a non-existent entity doesn't arise. It only arises after a person is born. — Manuel
Whether these other considerations are enough to justify a person having children varies. For those who do have children, or want to have them, the issue of potential pain can be answered with potential pleasure. — Manuel
But there's a way out and it's a viable option for everybody. Whether people can overcome the biological imperative for wanting to stay alive, is person dependent. — Manuel
Just because there is no person suffering NOW, doesn't mean that the current action can't lead to a future person who suffers, which clearly it would in this case. — schopenhauer1
Does it matter if no "one" experiences a life that has a balance of pleasure or pain? "Who" exactly is suffering from this loss? — schopenhauer1
Ah, so you "bestow" an inescapable game on another person, one where the only way out is killing yourself. That seems pretty cruel.. Force into game that can only escape via extreme self-harm, one which is not easy to do for inbuilt fears of pain and the unknown. However, just because people don't commit suicide at the drop of a hat, doesn't mean that this is fair either. It just shows more that humans have a hard time inflicting self-harm and getting over death anxiety. — schopenhauer1
Correct. But this focuses on the pain side, there are other considerations. Unless you think pain is the only metric that matters in human life. It's a very important metric, though not the only one. — Manuel
That's not the only way out. You can choose to struggle and look at the good aspects, that's always a possibility. But suicide is an option for anybody who thinks life is unbearable. And a good option to have too. Your perspective would strengthen substantially if we could not kill ourselves, that is, the only option for death is old age or injury/disease. — Manuel
Other people have different judgments. — Manuel
I think preventing pain is more important than bestowing pleasure, certainly. There is no obligation for providing pleasure, but certainly if one is ABLE to prevent pain, one should — schopenhauer1
OR you can not put someone in the game in the first place. However, this game is the "challenge/overcoming challenge" game which is more than presumptuous to assume OTHER PEOPLE must play. — schopenhauer1
However, if you choose not to put someone in existence, someone else is not living out the collateral damage. Also, going back to the game. Even if someone else likes the game, is it right to assume that force recruiting them is okay because YOU deem the game so good, that everyone else should play it? — schopenhauer1
is it right to assume that force recruiting them is okay because YOU deem the game so good, that everyone else should play it? — schopenhauer1
The question is a complaint, not an argument. — unenlightened
I disagree that it is not an argument. — schopenhauer1
You are wrong to disagree. It is a simple matter of grammar, that a question is not a proposition, and has no function in an argument as either a premise or conclusion. Rather it is a rhetorical device that attempts to put pressure on the interlocutor to make statements that can be attacked without stating an argument that can itself be attacked. A question can be wonderful opening to an open discussion, but as an argument, it is a trick and a cheat. — unenlightened
Ironically, you did not make an argument for why my particular argument is not an argument. Poor form if you want to show what you are accusing. — schopenhauer1
a question is not a proposition, and has no function in an argument as either a premise or conclusion. — unenlightened
I don't need to make an argument, I am stating a fact about what makes an argument. Do you dispute the fact? Go consult an elementary logic text. Or just ignore the facts and me too. Or whatever. — unenlightened
But I am saying to apply your critique of why my argument is not an argument not just a general critique of how a question isn't an argument or something like that. — schopenhauer1
The question is a complaint, not an argument.
— unenlightened
I disagree that it is not an argument — 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.