yes but I think it’s important to realize that most antinatalists aren’t trying to save the unborn, they’re just trying to prevent a future state of affairs they think will be bad.

Yes, which is morally irrelevant if nobody actually benefits and counterfactual in most modern societies.

I think the idea is that the “benefit” is there was no bad state of affairs that occurred, which is part of the asymmetry. IE it’s good a bad thing didn’t happen or was prevented. Personally I don’t buy this

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

Benefitting you. If you believe that producing children is evil, and you refrain from producing children, then you have successfully omitted an evil action.
It's possible to take pride in refraining from evil actions, to have a sense of dignity based on refraining from evil actions.

so you're saying it's like masturbation?

In any case, this assumes the conclusion (begs the question) that having children is bad, which is the entire point of the discussion. No dice, just another fallacy.

f 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. — Albero

Yeah. I think that there's no reason to assume our intuitions will not ever prove contradictory if we imagine scenarios that we've never encountered before. Intuitions are just the culturally mediated models of mental processes, which came about (and were learnt) in an environment in which we did not have to consider compelling lifeguards to teach forever, or having certain knowledge of the contribution of one's offspring. It's unsurprising, to me, we don't have any intuitions which cope with such circumstances, having never encountered them.

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. — schopenhauer1

Repeating it doesn't make it less absurd. Suffering is a very complex state of a human mind. It's only relevant with the alternatives in play. If there's no-one to benefit from the absence of suffering, then there's no point in bringing it about. You're reifying 'suffering' from a complex psychological state to some transcendental target which ought be met no matter what. Why ought it be met?

I really can't see how any of that actually meets the charge of neo-liberalism. It seems completely unrelated. Hyper-individualistic notions like "why should I suffer any inconvenience for the sake of others" are toxic. Your philosophy boils down to the principle that we cannot expect anything, even the slightest inconvenience, from any individual, for the benefit of their community. I've simply no time for that kind of bullshit.

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? — Albero

Yes, morally I think that's a necessary boundary. I don't think any external authority could possibly take on such a role though (if that's where you were headed), it's just a moral question. If you don't feel confident that you're going to provide the best environment you can for a child, then you didn't ought to be having one. That's not to be taken in terms of material comforts or circumstances though. As I said, some social projects take more than one generation to complete so it follows that some children will be born into difficult circumstances to complete the project of ameliorating those circumstances for the benefit of generations ahead of theirs. But I think if parents have no reason to believe their children will help in anyway, then creating a life which you know will experience those circumstances seems to have reckless (if not outright cruel) intent.

This is why I keep circling back to neo-liberalism. I think, despite all the tangled dead-ends @schopenhauer1's torturing of english grammar takes us down, we're actually on a very similar page. We can imagine what life would be like for our children and it would be cruel intent if we imagine it to be needlessly bad but went ahead and set things in motion to bring about that future anyway.

The point is that it is not unreasonable to imagine (in that future) that the child will have to tolerate some suffering for the benefit of their community. That's part of being human.

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

I don't care what you want to call it. It is ensuring that at a future state, something does not suffer. I'm not buying the word-games that you think are making a point and that I'm supposedly failing to understand. As long as the potential for more people exist, there is the prevention of more people existing. That isn't hard. The prevention of that potential from being actual is not hard to understand either. You make a false dilemma by saying that there is no "one" to benefit. You can call it "not moral" or anything else. All that matters here is no future person that could suffer would suffer. Most people who value that, would call that moral.

I really can't see how any of that actually meets the charge of neo-liberalism. It seems completely unrelated. Hyper-individualistic notions like "why should I suffer any inconvenience for the sake of others" are toxic. Your philosophy boils down to the principle that we cannot expect anything, even the slightest inconvenience, from any individual, for the benefit of their community. I've simply no time for that kind of bullshit. — Isaac

Communities are only there to sustain individuals. Thus the community is necessary because individuals in the community benefit. Generational benefits, are hollow because "generations" don't benefit from those benefits but future individuals would, which is an important distinction. All of this I'm sure you agree with, but it is its implications.. If we admit it is not for any third-party ideal but for people, then we might agree that ethics is at the locus of the individual. Why? They are the bearers of experience. We are the species that have to justify why we do anything. Existentialism is all about the fact that there is no given justification. Each individual has to decide to take on this or that notion for why they need to keep doing X task. Do it for family, country, survival, not being hassled, feeling of no other choice, or anything else, it is up to the individual to justify why they must keep going. Often the tasks are de facto built so there are no choices but certain ones that aren't sub-optimal for the given set of circumstances.

The word game here is where you dismiss logic as a word game. The rest of your post just repeats the same that has been previously demonstrated to be false.

Yes, which is morally irrelevant if nobody actually benefits and counterfactual in most modern societies. — Benkei

"Is morally irrelevant if nobody actually benefits"? What does that mean?

I think the idea is that antinatalism is pointless because preventing people from suffering doesn’t benefit anyone. I’m not antinatalist but I think this is wrong, ANs think what’s good is that a bad state of affairs was prevented from happening (another human brought into 5he world) which is part of the asymmetry

so you're saying it's like masturbation? — Benkei

*sigh*
Now where did that come from ...

The word game here is where you dismiss logic as a word game. The rest of your post just repeats the same that has been previously demonstrated to be false. — Benkei

It can't be "demonstrated" to be false if people find the state of suffering as no good. Those people are the ones making the decisions.........

"Is morally irrelevant if nobody actually benefits"? What does that mean? — khaled

He @Benkei thinks that if the no person is born, that "no person born" does not benefit from being prevented from existing. The problems are that he thinks there are no other ways to rephrase that which makes sense. He narrowly defines it thus so it becomes an absurdity like, "Preventing suffering matters only if someone is born to prevent their suffering".. thus he thinks this makes antinatalism never be moral cause no one benefits.

Hyper-individualistic notions like "why should I suffer any inconvenience for the sake of others" are toxic. Your philosophy boils down to the principle that we cannot expect anything, even the slightest inconvenience, from any individual, for the benefit of their community. — Isaac

There are not just a few people who believe that they suffer more than enough for "the community" because they put up with some particular person being alive and that they are doing this person a favor by not killing them. They also score as "normal" on a psych evaluation test. I've known such people.
"Toxic"? Yeah, right.

Do you believe that you are "suffering an inconvenience for the sake of others" when you read posts here that you disagree with?

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

I'd love for you to be in my shoes, to have a neighbor like I do. I really do. I want to see how you'd handle that.

The reductio ad absurdums
Finally, two unexamined points that occured to me.

If living causes suffering we should be killing everything on the planet and murder would be a just act. — Benkei

Killing causes more suffering and is extreme violation against person who will be killed. It is extreme violation against person´s sovereignty and autonomy.

If the anti-natalist plan is succesful, there would be no moral actors around to judge the world to be a better place, leading to another metaphysical nonsense comparison between what we have now and nothing - or at least a world where there are no moral actors to experience anything and have an opinion on the matter. Saying such a world is better than this one is meaningless. — Benkei

If not being born could never be better than a life, we can get some interesting conclusions.
If we forget for the sake of argument the sovereignty and autonomy of a person for a moment, we can also think a scenario, what I call absurd.

If not a moral obligation, then supererogatory act, is to breed more babies to existence to miserable circumstances, war zones etc., and when they are born and suffering, perhaps we could save them from such environment. And those who are in permanent agony and there´s no salvation for them, we could make euthanasia for them (of course we could respect their autonomy, and do so only if we can get consent from them), and we are now decreased lots of suffering!

And after all, we don´t have to decrease the suffering not much at all, because like said non-existence could never been better than most miserable life.

All things wrong with antinatalism:

• Antinatalists (god they're so fucking annoying)

Antinatalists (god they're so fucking annoying) — darthbarracuda

I would agree even back when I was one.

I would want to be a bit more specific here. Not sure what you mean by “antinatalism is pointless”. If you mean by it that “Antinatalism is not good” then, agreed. It isn’t. That’s not what the antinatalists argue.

The antinatalist argues that having children is bad. He doesn’t try to establish that not having children is good (who would it be good for)

He Benkei thinks that if the no person is born, that "no person born" does not benefit from being prevented from existing. — schopenhauer1

I would agree. No one in fact benefits from not having children. And since I think the asymmetry is BS, I would also have it that “not having children” is not a good act (who would it be good for). I thought this even when I was AN.

I’m confused what this has to do with the argument though. Antinatalists try to argue that having kids is wrong. What does saying “Not having kids is not good for anyone” do here? It’s true but... irrelevant.

What does saying “Not having kids is not good for anyone” do here? It’s true but... irrelevant. — khaled

Agreed.

Benkei might say if no person is there to not suffer, antinatalism is wrong on the account as there is no recipient to not suffer.

Still not seeing what any of this has to do with the issue. What's at stake is whether (to rephrase it in your terms) it is reasonable to have an expectation of the individual that they will care about the well-being of other individuals sufficiently to want to suffer minor inconvenience for their benefit.

Your neo-liberal philosophy is that no, that's not a reasonable expectation, some people may not care about the well-being of others enough to want to suffer some minor inconvenience for their benefit and it's not for us to interfere with that. I don't agree that we cannot have expectations of others which inform our actions toward them.

Do you believe that you are "suffering an inconvenience for the sake of others" when you read posts here that you disagree with? — baker

No, not particularly. Why do you ask?

I'd love for you to be in my shoes, to have a neighbor like I do. I really do. I want to see how you'd handle that. — baker

What an odd thing to want.

Do you believe that you are "suffering an inconvenience for the sake of others" when you read posts here that you disagree with?
— baker

No, not particularly. Why do you ask? — Isaac

I want to see what you consider "suffering an inconvenience for the sake of others".

I'd love for you to be in my shoes, to have a neighbor like I do. I really do. I want to see how you'd handle that.
— baker

What an odd thing to want.

Not at all. I want to put your humanist notions to the test, seeing how you'd deal with someone who doesn't care whether you live or die and who has no qualms about endangering your property and your person. And the authorities side with them!

I want to see what you consider "suffering an inconvenience for the sake of others". — baker

Anything from opening a door for the person behind you to throwing yourself on a grenade to save your comrades.

seeing how you'd deal with someone who doesn't care whether you live or die and who has no qualms about endangering your property and your person. And the authorities side with them! — baker

In the past it's generally come down to physical violence. I don't know now I'm older. Thankfully it's not something I have to endure. Perhaps buy a gun?

Perhaps buy a gun? — Isaac

So much for "suffering an inconvenience for the sake of others".