↪Antinatalist Your sentence doesn't make sense to me in that I'm confused what you're trying to say. In your last post people are either suffering or they are not. People are doing something. If there are no people, it no longer makes sense to talk about suffering because that is something people do. In other words, "suffering" is a state, which presupposes the existence of living people. — Benkei

Okay, let´s try again.

In my point of view, it´s relevant to say it is better that there is a world without people suffering, than a world with people suffering in it. Or even that there is no world, no people, no suffering - and I concern this better than the world with people suffering in it.

Okay, you may say that is senseless to use word "better" the way I used it.
This can go along to Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle, and so on.

How you speak - or denote - of nothing?
I think that natural language makes us to make many errors and lead even to philosophical problems. We may need formal logic here, but I´m not expert on it.

But I stand my ground - and I think, I have accurate reasons for that.

Nothing absurd about if you stop replacing meaningful terms with meaningless ones. There's no presupposition between X and second X, so of course, THAT results in an absurdity. But only because it's an obvious straw man. — Benkei

Oh yes, let's return to where you never proved living causes suffering (not a sufficient cause) and just kept repeating "but you have to live to suffer", which coincidentally reinforces my previous point that suffering presupposes living. Just like any property of a person really. God, this is so fucking tedious it isn't funny anymore. Just some idiots with a belief and forgetting about basic logic. — Benkei

You keep replacing "conditions of" with "causes". Your choice to misquote all the time.

I can take this several ways:
1) In a universe with potential harm, but that harm was not realized by anyone, that can be said to be good.

2) Even if it is person-dependent, that someone will not be harmed is good.

And yeah throw in "exposed to conditions for known and unknown forms of harm to be caused" so that you don't throw a hissy fit with the word-games.

Also if you make it about the parental assessment of what is good.. then that is fine but the dignity rule is violated once you make that assessment for another person.

[

Even if it is person-dependent, that someone will not be harmed is good. — schopenhauer1

You still don't get it do you? Who isn't harmed?

You keep replacing "conditions of" with "causes". Your choice to misquote all the time. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, same difference. Look up necessary and sufficient causes and then look up necessary and sufficient conditions. But sure, let's talk about "conditions", in which case I'm really not causing suffering by procreating, because we stopped talking about morality in its entirety. If I'm merely causing one of the conditions, which isn't a sufficient condition, then I'm not causing suffering either.

If I put a pan on the stove I'm not causing the water to boil. That still requires water, gas and fire.

For some (many?) people, life is like being caught in a trap. — baker

No, because a trap, by definition, restricts free movement, removes choices for activity which would otherwise be available. That's the whole reason why it's bad, the people in a 'trap' want to do something else (or might want to, if they can't be asked for some reason)

Life itself, however, is the very necessary pre-requisite for free movement. There's no 'other option' people within life might prefer to do because life contains all experiences.

What people who feel bad in life want is a better life, not no life.

And it's possible to provide with that better life, but the push to do so is significantly watered down by this nonsense about non-existence being a preferable option.

Once born, however, a human being is highly unlikely to have the sufficient skills to commit suicide before the age of five — Antinatalist

Nonsense, it's incredibly easy, just run out into traffic. Under fives do not have the desire to take their own lives (thank goodness), and if you think parents would just stop them, then you need to explain the thousands of road traffic accidents involving under fives every year.

When this wish arises and the individual aims to fulfil it, surrounding people strive to prevent the suicide almost without exceptions if they only can. — Antinatalist

Again, I didn't say anything about there being no barriers to circumnavigate. We put people in situation it is inconvenient to get out of all the time without considering it immoral, you need to explain why this particular situation (the 'game of life' as you want to put it) is an exception.

not even suicide guarantees that the individual will achieve the state or non-state where s/he “was” before the decision of having a child was made. (Be it complete non-existence, for example.) — Antinatalist

Just going to repeat here what @Benkei has already said. This sentence is incoherent.

I am not a utilitarian, at least in that aggregate sense, so wouldn't matter for my argument. — schopenhauer1

Why bother with the asymmetry then? If there ever was a utilitarian argument... :chin:

In my point of view, it´s relevant to say it is better that there is a world without people suffering, than a world with people suffering in it. Or even that there is no world, no people, no suffering - and I concern this better than the world with people suffering in it. — Antinatalist

Yes, this fallacious intuition is shared by many. Unfortunately there's nothing logical about it. Better for whom?

the state of affairs of X will do (being trapped in a harmful game). — schopenhauer1

See my response to @Antinatalist. Life is not analogous to being trapped in a game. Being trapped entails that there are other options you'd prefer but cannot obtain (the trap prevents them. If a trap left all options open to you that you might desire, it's not a trap, by definition. There are no states one could prefer other than states within life because when not alive one cannot prefer anything. People who do not like their current state of affairs want that state of affairs to change to some other state of affairs. Existence is a prerequisite for experiencing any states of affairs.

The indignity is overlooking the person who will exist for some other cause, but in some egregious way. But what is this egregious way? — schopenhauer1

Yes. If we could just stick to exploring this I'm sure the conversation would be more productive. Your kidnapping the lifeguard example.

It is possible to imagine what life would be like for a future person and reasonable to take steps to avoid their suffering. I think we all agree on that. It's the basis of any long-term social strategy, making the world a better place for future generations.

It is also possible to use people to achieve ends which are not solely (or even partly) for their direct benefit without acting immorally. We do so all the time - taxes, waking the sleeping lifeguard, imprisonment of criminals... again, I don't think there's any disagreement here.

There is, however, a threshold of using someone for the greater good which we seem to cringe at. Forcing the lifeguard to attend lifeguarding school for decades even if it would save thousands of lives. Here the waters are a little more murky because to explore this instinct we have to create scenarios which don't seem to exist in real life. Maybe we would feel OK about the lifeguard school if it was normal, maybe not. Personally, I'm inclined to think not, I favour a view that personal autonomy has a value in itself to be weighed against other values like the greater good.

We all also seem to agree that some people can have weird intuitions about what's right and wrong (psychopaths, sociopaths, saints), but that's not all that philosophically interesting, though psychologically fascinating.

So for those people who feel there's a balance of autonomy against the greater good to be made (and I'd count myself in that group), the only question is whether conception qualifies as such a balance and if so, in which direction does it weigh out.

I'm arguing that it doesn't in either case.

It doesn't count as an autonomy vs greater good balancing exercise in the first place because the root intuition about not ignoring someone's autonomy is that they might rather experience some other option. It is not possible for a pre-existing possibility to consider experiencing another option, nor are there any other options it is possible to experience. So I don't think autonomy needs to be weighed against the normal balance of harms we might consider when imagining future generations.

Even if we were to circumvent the first objection, I don't see how giving life could possibly weigh out negatively when considering the harms wrought on a person for the greater good. The harms within life are mostly outweighed by the benefits anyway, so creating someone you know will find themselves in that situation, for the benefit of society at large, doesn't weigh out badly. The greater good is large, the net harms small.

The sticking point, and the point at which I'm afraid I have, and will, lose my civility, is this neo-liberal bullshit about individual harms being the only matter in moral decisions. I'm afraid I just find that kind of view toxic and can't just discuss it as if it were a reasonable option. We're social creatures, we don't just think for ourselves. Even a six month old child shows degrees of empathy and concern for others, it's deeply ingrained in our core being. It matters. I mean, how many great stories have been about people caring about their own suffering and screw everyone else?

I actually agree that given climate chaos, the scourge of neoliberal capitalism, and the rise of authoritarian governments that having kids is a decision on behalf of someone else that will be unreasonable in the near future. But this still doesn't get us Hard Antinatalism, only "don't have kids under predatory capitalism and severe climate breakdown" which seems to be popular given how lots of people aren't having kids. — Albero

The problem with this is that it is almost an inevitability that some people will have kids. There will be a next generation which will have to live in those conditions. As such it is only necessary for you to think of yourself as an above average parent and your children will be more likely to help that next generation that they will to worsen it. Given that, even in these difficult times, most people still prefer to live than not, the harms you imagine your future child will have to suffer in order to bring about this benefit are relatively small (relative to the benefit, that is).

Some projects which benefit society take more than one generation to complete. Benefiting society is something which most people think is good and worth a little sacrifice to achieve, most people also enjoy life more than they hate it. Put those two things together and (assuming you're a reasonable parent) having a child is not an unreasonable risk. They'll probably grow up liking life more than hating it and glad to contribute toward the multi-generational project of making society better. If they really don't, then with only minor inconvenience, they can opt out (but see my comments about suicide to understand what I really mean by this - I'm talking hypothetically because I don't believe most suicides are a rational choice to 'opt out' at all).

It's really not that unfair a position to imagine the person you'll create will find themselves in.

the guiding principle of life is reason, not sensations. Provided that we are talking about animali rationali. And happiness is not an end but a means, rather imperfect.

Idk what any of that means or what it’s in response to. “Guiding principle”? When did anyone mention that?

["] Antinatalists explain their position guided by feelings not by reason.

In my point of view, it´s relevant to say it is better that there is a world without people suffering, than a world with people suffering in it. Or even that there is no world, no people, no suffering - and I concern this better than the world with people suffering in it.
— Antinatalist

Yes, this fallacious intuition is shared by many. Unfortunately there's nothing logical about it. Better for whom? — Benkei

So, what about euthanasia?
Isn´t the same situation there? It is not enjoyed by anyone, at least not the object of euthanasia. Because after euthanasia she/he doesn´t exist anymore.
I have mentioned this before, but I don´t think you have answered for this.

How about you answer my question first? It should also clarify why euthanasia is different.

↪Antinatalist How about you answer my question first? It should also clarify why euthanasia is different. — Benkei

Sometimes I hear comments like this on other subjects:
"It´s not much of a loss for him,  because he didn´t know of better."

This kind of statement assumes, that there is anyway something better for him, but it´s not much for a loss for him, because he didn´t know of this betterness.

After all, this statement presuppose that there is better state for the person, does he know it or not. It is only additional annoyance, if he know that he could be in better state but doesn´t.


On "betterness":

I don´t think that is kind of a problem that you present.
I think it´s more about limitations of the natural language.

I have always found it fascinating how our intuitions for these exercises can change drastically even when hypothetical scenarios might seem analogous. For example, if one's mantra is "always reduce suffering" it seems intuitively correct to give birth to someone who will lead a lousy life but you know for certain they will cure 10 different types of cancer. Alternatively, it seems completely wrong to force someone to be a lifeguard for 40 years even though they'll save thousands of lives. You and Khaled's idea of "Careful Natalism" sounds pretty appealing in my view, but Schop1 brought up some interesting intuition pumps I'd like to see it deal with.

In other words, "suffering" is a state, which presupposes the existence of living people. — Benkei

This has always been your beef. That no one will suffer is good is unacceptable to you, leading to absurdities like, people have to live so that "they" don't suffer. You try to dismiss things like potentialities, conditionals, and counterfactuals like they don't exist, but they do.

See my response to Antinatalist. Life is not analogous to being trapped in a game. Being trapped entails that there are other options you'd prefer but cannot obtain (the trap prevents them. If a trap left all options open to you that you might desire, it's not a trap, by definition. There are no states one could prefer other than states within life because when not alive one cannot prefer anything. People who do not like their current state of affairs want that state of affairs to change to some other state of affairs. Existence is a prerequisite for experiencing any states of affairs. — Isaac

Right this is the Benkei absurdity of "You have to live so you can not like suffering". But it's preventing another person from suffering in the first place and being in the game in the first place. And once born you can definitely wish or prefer a type of existence that this life is not, so I'm not sure about that objection either.

The sticking point, and the point at which I'm afraid I have, and will, lose my civility, is this neo-liberal bullshit about individual harms being the only matter in moral decisions. I'm afraid I just find that kind of view toxic and can't just discuss it as if it were a reasonable option. We're social creatures, we don't just think for ourselves. Even a six month old child shows degrees of empathy and concern for others, it's deeply ingrained in our core being. It matters. I mean, how many great stories have been about people caring about their own suffering and screw everyone else? — Isaac

One of my posts a little while back is the odd difference in our species to be able to evaluate any task we do as negative. This is especially odd when it is a task related to survival. But that is possibly one of the harms is that we bring in people who can at each point evaluate negatively that they "rather not be doing this". Other animals just "deal". We know that we deal. That puts us in a unique situation that can never just have us happily humming along following the "project" of this or that socioeconomic agenda. There's always a need for justification and recalibration for why we do anything. That becomes an individual's existential project. The community can only provide sort of "memes" to try to anchor oneself, but they can never actually force an individual in their own head to use those justifications and find them legitimate and satisfying at any given moment, length of time, etc..

Until you can explain how nothing cannot suffer, we're done. What you call absurdity is logical rigor, but because it doesn't answer your intuitions you dismiss it.

Yes, you have to exist to not suffer or suffer, because it's something people do.

Until you can explain how nothing cannot suffer, we're done. What you call absurdity is logical rigor, but because it doesn't answer your intuitions you dismiss it.

Yes, you have to exist to not suffer or suffer, because it's something people do. — Benkei

You are PREVENTING a future person from suffering. It's about the decision for another person.

No, you stupid cunt, there's no such thing as a non-existent future person.

No, you stupid cunt, there's no such thing as a non-existent future person. — Benkei

And so then I'll just keep saying:

You try to dismiss things like potentialities, conditionals, and counterfactuals like they don't exist, but they do. — schopenhauer1

straw man as usual. Nothing has no properties, so no potentiality either but I'm perfectly capable of entertaining if this then that's.

straw man as usual. Nothing has no properties, so no potentiality either but I'm perfectly capable of entertaining if this then that's. — Benkei

Absurd that you think that you cannot consider the person who would be born if you do such and such

I can consider him you numb skull, as I've repeatedly done and even provide examples for in the OP, I'm saying you cannot speak sensibly about such person when such a person doesn't exist. So when the decision not procreate is made, there's no future person who you saved from any harm. This is simply incoherent.

So when the decision not procreate is made, there's no future person who you saved from any harm. This is simply incoherent — Benkei

There is a state of affairs that did not take place. It could have. You chose not to bring it about.

benefitting who? If that decision doesn't benefit anyone, it's not a moral choice.

I don’t see why there’s no such thing as a non existent future person. Sure they actually don’t exist, but we do stuff for people who don’t exist all the time. IE save the planet for future generations and all that. Not really sure what the issue here is

The problem with this is that it is almost an inevitability that some people will have kids. There will be a next generation which will have to live in those conditions. As such it is only necessary for you to think of yourself as an above average parent and your children will be more likely to help that next generation that they will to worsen it. Given that, even in these difficult times, most people still prefer to live than not, the harms you imagine your future child will have to suffer in order to bring about this benefit are relatively small (relative to the benefit, that is).

I agree with this, but how do we draw the line at who is able to parent? Can they only parent if they have good reason to believe their children will only be harm reducers?

There's a rather obvious difference between people that will exist and the clear contradiction of a non-existent future person. Personhood, after all, presupposes existence.