Here's another version of my argument which takes into account the fact the existence of abject misery - poverty, chronic illnesses, death, and the rest of the stuff about life that make it an unbearabale ordeal/agony.

As I said, antinatalists, given that they've developed a philosophy (antinatalism), have to counted among the fortunate - even if antinatalists experience suffering they still have an overall comfortable existence as evidenced by how they were able to "think in peace" and work on their belief.

Antinatalists, when they speak of how, to borrow a line from Buddhism, "life is suffering" are not talking about themselves for, as I said, they aren't suffering. What they're actually doing is drawing our attention to the section of the human population who live in appalling conditions, those whose lives are a constant struggle, those who don't know what fun means, and so on. Let's call such people les misérables

Here's the million dollar question aimed at antintalists: can't the les misérables work their way up the social ladder and themselves become antinatalists? Surely they can, les misérables are humans, endowed with the same capabilities, as antinatalists. If so, the antinatlist position is untenable; after all les misérables can achieve the same level of happiness that allows antinatalists to cogitate about them. — TheMadFool

I don´t believe at all, that all antinatalists don´t have suffered.

And let´s suppose, that even if you are right on this, "life is suffering" is not the only argument antinatalists have.

I don´t believe at all, that all antinatalists don´t have suffered.

And let´s suppose, that even if you are right on this, "life is suffering" is not the only argument antinatalists have. — Antinatalist

Quite shocking news I must say. It was a zen moment for me. We've been so preoccupied with suffering - that's how powerful it is - that we couldn't see past it. I wonder what other reasons are there for pushing the antinatalist agenda? Can we, for instance, convince a denizen of paradise (supposedly bliss taken to perfection) to not want to live or, at the very least, refuse to have children?

I don´t believe at all, that all antinatalists don´t have suffered.

And let´s suppose, that even if you are right on this, "life is suffering" is not the only argument antinatalists have.
— Antinatalist

Quite shocking news I must say. It was a zen moment for me. We've been so preoccupied with suffering - that's how powerful it is - that we couldn't see past it. I wonder what other reasons are there for pushing the antinatalist agenda? Can we, for instance, convince a denizen of paradise (supposedly bliss taken to perfection) to not want to live or, at the very least, refuse to have children? — TheMadFool

There at least couple of arguments, which relate on suffering: The first one argues that "life is suffering" is not true in general, but life contains too much of it.

And the other one. This is more complex.
It´s about rights and obligations. I will say we don´t have obligation for anyone to have a child, and same time we have no right to have a child.

In murder the murderer extremely violates the rights of victim of murder very bad, her/his autonomy and sovereignty. Even so, when the murder is painless and does not contain any negative emotions of the victim.
I think these things - autonomy and sovereignty - are violated also when persons are going to have a child. I have to also admit, that in this case the violation is more questionable.

And I´m not saying that murdering people and having a child are ethically at same level. Not at all. But both of those acts have some similar features.

There at least couple of arguments, which relate on suffering: The first one argues that "life is suffering" is not true in general, but life contains too much of it.

And the other one. This is more complex.
It´s about rights and obligations. I will say we don´t have obligation for anyone to have a child, and same time we have no right to have a child.

In murder the murderer extremely violates the rights of victim of murder very bad, her/his autonomy and sovereignty. Even so, when the murder is painless and does not contain any negative emotions of the victim.
I think these thinks - autonomy and sovereignty - are violated also when persons are going to have a child. I have to also admit, that in this case the violation is more questionable.

And I´m not saying that murdering people and having a child are ethically at same level. Not at all. But both of those acts have some similar features — Antinatalist

Hey Antinatalist,
I've read Schopenhauer's "Studies in Pessimism" and "the Conspiracy Against the Human Race" by Thomas Ligotti. Beautiful and intelligent works of literature that reveal the complex puppetry of our existence and the constant carrot on a stick which seems to deceive us... however, i think this kind of evaluation of reproduction as a moral act is a bit absurd.
For one, the idea that a child is begotten or created (such that it emerges out of nothing into being) is an old myth. Children are, relative to one reproductive partner, an expression of the other partner. If a man has a child with a woman, we may say he "sculpted" the child from her (as out of a preexisting template)... the woman who bears the child, from her perspective, has also "sculpted" the child from the father in the same way. Neither one has "created" the child. And even if we tried to say the man and the woman together created the child, we find that, even from this perspective, they "sculpted" the child from matter itself which they must have consumed and then used in the act of fertilization and embryonic development. ..."creation" or "conception" is not something that can be physically defined in nature... there are only stages of process, of which we cannot ascribe beginning or end except by arbitrary, subjective description. As odd as it may seem, the desire that manifests in a child (or in any thing) is inseparable from the same active forces responsible for it's manifestation... desire (the mechanism) may affect some organism to do something, to feel pain in some instance or to desire some stimuli that another organism might have an opposite reaction to, but the "desire" in itself is inseparable and identical as a force between them... it is just an objective fact of physical reality...

Pain and desire is not bad in itself by any evaluation…

Also, pain is discovered to be the same force as pleasure, just as in a magnetic pole, repulsion is the same force to the pole as attraction... the negative is the same force as the positive... You cannot eliminate one without elimination of the other. You cannot have one in the absense of the other.

Now then, if it is maintained that pain (as it is always conjoined to the experience of pleasure) is not bad in itself, why do we still care about reducing it?

Here is a semantic distinction which is very important… we should always seek to reduce pain and pleasure to such a degree that both experiences are sustainable together. We cannot say we wish to end pain or pleasure in ourselves or others, because that is like saying we would like to destroy reactivity. It is impossible for us to conceive in the first place… we also can't say we would prefer not to create pain or pleasure, because it is just as impossible to create the dynamic between pain and pleasure as it is to destroy it… it seems that we can only increase or decrease the experience of pain or pleasure to its opposite… we should like to avoid pain, so it's natural that we should reduce it as it is comfortable for us to do so, but we don't want to eliminate it entirely, as that would imply that we also wish to eliminate pleasure, or that we wish to eliminate wishing, which is absurd… we can't want what we can't in the first place conceive.

There is an instinctual responsibility of parents to their children (empathy and a nurturing capacity is usually a part of our psychology)… There is a social responsibility of parents for their children which we require for the sake of society's sustainability (such that we demand, regardless of a parents desire to look after children, that they must do so). Likewise we insist that embryos with terrible deformities should be aborted because they cannot sustain their own existence and would be a burden on society. But, there is no objective, universal responsibility of parents for offspring any more than there is any objective right or wrong, or any more than it could be possible for a parent(s) to create the child in the first place… the parent(s) did not conceive the child like a God creating a human with some intention for the human in itself… the child occurs as a byproduct of sex and the parents have been "programmed" to care for it and raise it so that sex can keep happening…

If humans had hundreds of kids at a time, they would be less likely to be nurturing at all… like crabs that have hundreds of babies and snack on some of them, because it doesn't affect natural selection at all for the crab… It is a natural selection of behavior just as much as of the organization which behaves…

As much as we may think otherwise, we really don't care what the consequences of our desires are in the manipulation of physical reality so long as that ability to experience desire is not prohibited by that manipulation (so long as we don't expect a stomach ache from the expression of our desire in eating one more cupcake, for example).

The only way one could imagine "too much" pain (suffering) is as it would prevent pleasure entirely... but, as pain and pleasure can only exist in conjunction with each other, pain (stress) can never so far outweigh pleasure (relief) as to render it impossible for the thing that experiences them.
At most pain (or pleasure) could so outweigh its opposite as to change the organization quite drastically, even from living to non living...even in some instances resulting in the conscious decision of a thinking organism to self destruct and force a drastic organizational change from living to non living... but never "too much" except by some arbitrary evaluation of what constitutes "too much".

Hey Antinatalist,
I've read Schopenhauer's "Studies in Pessimism" and "the Conspiracy Against the Human Race" by Thomas Ligotti. Beautiful and intelligent works of literature that reveal the complex puppetry of our existence and the constant carrot on a stick which seems to deceive us... however, i think this kind of evaluation of reproduction as a moral act is a bit absurd.
For one, the idea that a child is begotten or created (such that it emerges out of nothing into being) is an old myth. Children are, relative to one reproductive partner, an expression of the other partner. If a man has a child with a woman, we may say he "sculpted" the child from her (as out of a preexisting template)... the woman who bears the child, from her perspective, has also "sculpted" the child from the father in the same way. Neither one has "created" the child. And even if we tried to say the man and the woman together created the child, we find that, even from this perspective, they "sculpted" the child from matter itself which they must have consumed and then used in the act of fertilization and embryonic development. ..."creation" or "conception" is not something that can be physically defined in nature... there are only stages of process, of which we cannot ascribe beginning or end except by arbitrary, subjective description. As odd as it may seem, the desire that manifests in a child (or in any thing) is inseparable from the same active forces responsible for it's manifestation... desire (the mechanism) may affect some organism to do something, to feel pain in some instance or to desire some stimuli that another organism might have an opposite reaction to, but the "desire" in itself is inseparable and identical as a force between them... it is just an objective fact of physical reality... — Marigold23

Hey for you, also

In the other thread I said (this is old - but still valid - fragment of my philosophical essay from 2004.
I didn´t knew the word "antinatalism" then). The woman and the man, who are trying to have a child are both in responsibility, that is not evadable.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/525133

… the child occurs as a byproduct of sex and the parents have been "programmed" to care for it and raise it so that sex can keep happening… — Marigold23

This is often the case, at least.

The only way one could imagine "too much" pain (suffering) is as it would prevent pleasure entirely... but, as pain and pleasure can only exist in conjunction with each other, pain (stress) can never so far outweigh pleasure (relief) as to render it impossible for the thing that experiences them. — Marigold23

I totally disagree.

Footnotes: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_and_Fog_(1956_film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Browning#Ordinary_Men

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/321263.Humanity


And, people living in horrible environments, like prisoner in Dachau in 1943, most of them wanted to live. I don´t disagree. But I think, for most of them (at least), it would been better that they had never been born. Say people like Benkei whatever they say on "betterness".

The only way one could imagine "too much" pain (suffering) is as it would prevent pleasure entirely... but, as pain and pleasure can only exist in conjunction with each other, pain (stress) can never so far outweigh pleasure (relief) as to render it impossible for the thing that experiences them.
— Marigold23


I totally disagree. — Antinatalist

I'd like to rephrase what I said here
Anyone may say some amount of pain is "Too much pain" if by that they mean it has passed a boundary of pain which they would be comfortable with... In fact, no pain is generally comfortable so a person may say all pain is, by subjective definition, "too much pain", if they're just referring to their feelings regarding it.

Therefore, I assume by "too much pain" we must be referring to a point at which pain or discontent for an organism passes an objective limit where it fundamentally destroys the functional capacity of the organism to experience it... Death, in other words... if an organism is not destroyed by pain or discontent, then it is not "too much pain".(except by a subjective evaluation).

Pain after all is meant to be functional, and one may see how it can fail in this function and be described as "too much" or even "too little"...same with pleasure, if we are referring to some function which they carry out. That function seems most likely to be life preservation and reproduction of the organism, like most biological functions.

And of course, If pain results in death directly, then it may prevent pleasure from being experienced as well as pain... but, as an organism survives, it must be able to experience both pain and relief from pain... they go together in living things...

I actually agreed with antinatalism for some time, so I feel a bit like I'm talking with my past self. I find antinatalism to be an intelligent conclusion in a lot of respects... I like its devotion to the adamant regret of all pain and discontent in itself.
People want pain to be relieved and pleasure to increase... but I believe they cannot want "not to be" or for pain and pleasure to be eliminated. To say "I would prefer never to have been" is the same as saying "I would prefer not to be." To believe that it would be better "never to have been" is a prerequisite to antinatalism. There is a fallacy in that statement: For one, as I said, a person can only truly desire what s/he can conceive (what has been experienced)...while a person may imagine death (as an idea of non being and non feeling like unconscious sleep), and act upon that imagining, say, to commit suicide, they cannot truly conceive of non existence, and so we must conclude they acted not with any negative association to their actual existence, but to some object or stimulation in their existence...to this extent, I must conclude that all suicide is, to some extent, unintended or accidental with regard to the relationship between the intention of the suicidal in reducing pain/discontent and the actual outcome of suicide which is pain and pleasure both being eliminated (rather than reduced) in the death of that person's ability to associate (or to think and feel)... A person cannot truly desire a state which is beyond conception. This is not to say that a suicidal person cannot understand the truth of this... in the same way that an alcoholic doesn't act logically due to the stress upon the mind in a chemical imbalance from addiction, there are all sorts of mental stimulation which hinder logical action... extreme pain and discontent are among them. There is no requirement that people must act logically, but there is a requirement that we cannot act based on inconceivable concepts... and an illogical act (like suicide) could however be a reasonable or understandable act if the discontent is more than a person can bear... but they cannot possibly associate negatively to their existence itself...we do not experience existence itself...we experience noticeable or "experience-able" things... a thing (or state) couldn't possibly experience itself because experience requires detachment from stimuli prior to any noticeable contact with it. We cannot, as we exist, be detached from existence in itself in order to experience it, and so positive or negative association with it is absurd, just as it is absurd to associate positively or negatively with non existence...

For another thing, a desire is expressive of a current state and past states leading up to it... to regret being itself would necessitate regret of that regret... (an association to your association). In other words, if you could truly conceive of your existence or non existence in the first place, (which you can't) and you were to associate negatively to your existence, you would also be associating negatively with that negative association. This is an absurdity, because we don't regret the fact of our regret...
try it... do you regret your regret?... if that were so, then wouldn’t you stop regretting?
And if you don’t regret your regret, then you can’t possibly regret your existence which is a prerequisite to your decision to regret.


As far as the responsibility of parents for their children, I would also generally agree with you that parents are (most of time) intentionally, causally responsible, in tandem to nature itself.

Any moral responsibility though is not universal but relative and subjective, though I would also agree subjectively that there is a moral responsibility of the parents in caring for their children.

The only way one could imagine "too much" pain (suffering) is as it would prevent pleasure entirely... but, as pain and pleasure can only exist in conjunction with each other, pain (stress) can never so far outweigh pleasure (relief) as to render it impossible for the thing that experiences them.
— Marigold23


I totally disagree.
— Antinatalist


I'd like to rephrase what I said here
Anyone may say some amount of pain is "Too much pain" if by that they mean it has passed a boundary of pain which they would be comfortable with... In fact, no pain is generally comfortable so a person may say all pain is, by subjective definition, "too much pain", if they're just referring to their feelings regarding it.

Therefore, I assume by "too much pain" we must be referring to a point at which pain or discontent for an organism passes an objective limit where it fundamentally destroys the functional capacity of the organism to experience it... Death, in other words... if an organism is not destroyed by pain or discontent, then it is not "too much pain".(except by a subjective evaluation).

Pain after all is meant to be functional, and one may see how it can fail in this function and be described as "too much" or even "too little"...same with pleasure, if we are referring to some function which they carry out. That function seems most likely to be life preservation and reproduction of the organism, like most biological functions.

And of course, If pain results in death directly, then it may prevent pleasure from being experienced as well as pain... but, as an organism survives, it must be able to experience both pain and relief from pain... they go together in living things... — Marigold23

Pain could be good for to reach the higher ends or to prevent more suffering. But who needs those, if there is not life in the first place.

In biologically the purpose of life of an organism is just transfer its genes forward. That is how evolution works, but that doesn´t make it good.

I certainly argue, that people in the World War 2, suffered too much. They felt too much pain.
Like I said, I understand the view that at least some of the pain is necessary for so called higher ends and to prevent more suffering. But in general, pain is too much when comparing the pain to its option, no life at all.

I actually agreed with antinatalism for some time, so I feel a bit like I'm talking with my past self. I find antinatalism to be an intelligent conclusion in a lot of respects... I like its devotion to the adamant regret of all pain and discontent in itself.
People want pain to be relieved and pleasure to increase... but I believe they cannot want "not to be" or for pain and pleasure to be eliminated. To say "I would prefer never to have been" is the same as saying "I would prefer not to be." To believe that it would be better "never to have been" is a prerequisite to antinatalism. There is a fallacy in that statement: For one, as I said, a person can only truly desire what s/he can conceive (what has been experienced)...while a person may imagine death (as an idea of non being and non feeling like unconscious sleep), and act upon that imagining, say, to commit suicide, they cannot truly conceive of non existence, and so we must conclude they acted not with any negative association to their actual existence, but to some object or stimulation in their existence...to this extent, I must conclude that all suicide is, to some extent, unintended or accidental with regard to the relationship between the intention of the suicidal in reducing pain/discontent and the actual outcome of suicide which is pain and pleasure both being eliminated (rather than reduced) in the death of that person's ability to associate (or to think and feel)... A person cannot truly desire a state which is beyond conception. This is not to say that a suicidal person cannot understand the truth of this... in the same way that an alcoholic doesn't act logically due to the stress upon the mind in a chemical imbalance from addiction, there are all sorts of mental stimulation which hinder logical action... extreme pain and discontent are among them. There is no requirement that people must act logically, but there is a requirement that we cannot act based on inconceivable concepts... and an illogical act (like suicide) could however be a reasonable or understandable act if the discontent is more than a person can bear... but they cannot possibly associate negatively to their existence itself...we do not experience existence itself...we experience noticeable or "experience-able" things... a thing (or state) couldn't possibly experience itself because experience requires detachment from stimuli prior to any noticeable contact with it. We cannot, as we exist, be detached from existence in itself in order to experience it, and so positive or negative association with it is absurd, just as it is absurd to associate positively or negatively with non existence... — Marigold23

That is just psychological guessing. And even if you are right, what I certainly don´t believe,
if antinatalism is a fallacy, it is only that at psychologically level - and I don´t believe in even that. Suicide could be best option for someone, and saying that I´m not advocating suicide for anyone.

For another thing, a desire is expressive of a current state and past states leading up to it... to regret being itself would necessitate regret of that regret... (an association to your association). In other words, if you could truly conceive of your existence or non existence in the first place, (which you can't) and you were to associate negatively to your existence, you would also be associating negatively with that negative association. This is an absurdity, because we don't regret the fact of our regret...
try it... do you regret your regret?... if that were so, then wouldn’t you stop regretting?
And if you don’t regret your regret, then you can’t possibly regret your existence which is a prerequisite to your decision to regret. — Marigold23

I´ve always said, there is no parasites if there is no organism.
There is no paradox in your example. Of course there have to be somebody who exist, that this somebody could curse its existence. And if there is nobody who exists, there is no need for curse or suicide.

As far as the responsibility of parents for their children, I would also generally agree with you that parents are (most of time) intentionally, causally responsible, in tandem to nature itself.

Any moral responsibility though is not universal but relative and subjective, though I would also agree subjectively that there is a moral responsibility of the parents in caring for their children. — Marigold23

Ok.

"The act of dying is one of the acts of life." (Marcus Aurelius)

I´d read this couple of minutes ago. I have been thinking similarly about twenty years. Of course this could be trivial, but I have then met many people who haven´t thought this trivial thing.

I understand this is a very old post, but I had a question about this (if you still hold the view)

This is precisely the premise that I am challenging. No, it is not absolutely unnecessary. Even framed in terms of harms done, both choices (have a child and don't have a child) will do harm. So one can say they are having a child to avoid an even worse harm on others. You would say that that is "harming the child for a higher purpose than them". Then I would say that NOT having a child is similarly "Harming the people the child would have helped for a higher purpose than them"

Maybe I’m getting you wrong, but your argument basically boils down to the claim that if we keep procreating somewhere down the line we’ll reach a point where the utility created for the already existing by harming someone into existence will eventually outweigh all the harm it took to reach that point.

Is the principle at play here something like: it is okay to harm indefinite numbers of people if there’s a chance somewhere down the line that one of them will end up reducing a greater amount of harm? Doesn’t lead to some disturbing conclusions? Like suppose I could stab one person every minute knowing there was some chance that in doing so I could create some groundbreaking medicine.

Even if it might be enough to outweigh all the harm I’m doing in a raw kind of calculus sense it still seems weird. Like all the dead stabbed bodies won’t really care that their deaths helped some future generation live longer. Since they’ll be dead and all. Yes there’s a chance that the 10 millionth child to be born from now could cure cancer. But there’s also a chance that the 10 millionth kid born from now will grow up to perform genocide. Doesn’t depending on the potential for future goods while ignoring the potential for future bads seem blatantly unsubstantiated?

In your system, can we then justify stabbing people every minute so long as it comes with a similar chance of creating a net positive utility later?

One cannot "violate" the autonomy of someone who never expressed an interest in an alternative state of affairs that was somehow ignored when they were created. Also, people cannot ask for a good life either. If the absence of happiness is not bad because nobody needs it, then I do not think that the lack of suffering can be considered good either, since nobody benefits from that absence. Many people can find their lives to have a significant amount of value even in the face of harms, and I think that their perspectives also matter. However, it might not be a good idea to mindlessly procreate without addressing problems such as rising wealth disparity. In addition, people should not be pressurised to have children. Ultimately, I do not think that there is a convincing argument for antinatalism. Hopefully, we can create a better world for all through the implementation of ideas such as a liberal right to a graceful exit.

Yeah, I do not think that one should say that potential goods would outweigh the current harms (in the sense that they are the dominant factor in the present moment), since doing so almost seems to imply that most lives right now do not have sufficiently valuable lives and that possess harms that need to be outweighed by future goods. Also, I do not think that one needs to constantly harm someone for happiness (many people gain joy from helping others), even though they might permit some of it even as they try to alleviate it due to the presence of other positives. Obviously, we need to do a lot more, but I think that there are countless individuals who genuinely cherish their existence. In light of this, perhaps it would be better to say that life would be more worth creating in that utopia than it is now. However, I do not think that creating a person is always an all-things-considered harm for a person, so the question of potential utility outweighing the current "harm" would not be relevant.

@Albero The presumption of parents of being messiahs of happiness spreading the good experience has to stop. NOT spreading happiness by creating new people isn’t unethical. Otherwise, me you or anyone who currently isn’t or never will procreate would be unethical. Clearly that’s not true. However spreading harm unnecessarily is a different story.

Also, presuming that the burdens of life are a fine thing to burden a new person with is paternalistically selfish and callous to do on behalf of another. You, the parent want to see an outcome so you drop existence on another persons front door and say your forced move is then deemed as good. You think your priority of being X or wanting to see X means others must be forced to bear whatever consequences and then that you should be thanked for it. Just selfish, manipulative thinking. You’re neither doing gods work, nor are you doing society, your future child, existence, the universe, or anything else a favor by procreating, only yourself.

Individual lives also shouldn’t be experiments in probabilistic outcomes. This isn’t a statistics game, but real people. Oops, they had a bad life, just a glitch, is again, callous and selfish. This is not to say I buy into the notion that there are necessarily “bad lives” vs “good lives” each being easily determined by some dumbass hedonic calculus or exit survey :lol:. Everyone is harmed by existence. Everyone will experience burdens and the struggles of living, and is indeed burdened with the challenge of overcoming x, y, z in the first place. This itself is enough.

Some people might think that their notions of "burdens" trump all other perspectives and considerations. However, there are many people who find ineffable joys in their lives that they could not have asked for had they not been created. If that point isn't relevant, then neither is the claim that one is "forcing" something onto someone who does not exist. When their are no houses, equivocating by comparing an actual violation of interests to one involving "dropping" things at doors that don't hide a house or a person can seem to be emblematic of confusion or even, dare I say, manipulation (semantical, of course!).

Ignoring all joy, all the harm that could befall existing people due to a total lack of reproduction, and indirectly devaluing meaningful lives by essentially telling them that their creation was a tragic mistake that should not have happened due to the existence of risks is inherently paternalistic and fulfills nothing other than a pessimistic desire to ignore all that is good. One's personal evaluation of "X" (which could be totally legitimate and understandable) doesn't give them the right to suggest that X is supposedly irredeemably bad for all, especially those who aren't here to express their opinions on it (this is as sensible as the claims about "forcing" or "imposing" life) or that a particular component of X is all that we should care about. I think that this is narrow-minded at best and downright dangerous at worst.

It's also increasingly becoming "clear" to me that antinatalism is false. I don't think that nonexistence has any value, so not creating people isn't inherently problematic for me (which is also the reason I do not actively advocate for natalism in a world that already has many issues to deal with). However, if it's ethical to not create a harm, it's also unethical to not create a good. In the case of existing people, this fact would be affected by various factors including the fact that those who exist do not seem to require excessive external interference for gaining happiness as long as they aren't harmed. However, it's quite evident that nonexistent beings are not in a preferable state of affairs. In view of this, if all else is equal, I do think that it would be problematic to not create a benefit if it's good to not create a harm. But since we don't live in such a world, I think it would be quite difficult for our intuitions to align with that logical conclusion. Actions that ultimately lead to more harm than good are not a desideratum.

"Oh, you have a good life in spite of suffering, and you also want to do everything you can do to help others? Well, that's irrelevant because the harms matter more so your procreation was not a gift but an immoral gamble" is not a particularly wise thing to say, in my view. Happiness is also more than mere probability or selective deontological games (defenestrate positive intentions regarding giving a good life but take into account allegedly selfish intentions pertaining to the birth of "mini-mes or more working hands) that care about a nonexistent "imposition" (whilst also attempting to impose an unjustified pessimistic view onto others) but not about an act of true beneficence which cannot be solicited and is one that leads to the genesis of the opportunity for indescribable value for billions of sentient beings in this mysterious universe of ours.

I do think that we need to stop worshipping parents blindly. There's nothing praiseworthy about creating people because you want more working hands. We definitely need to think about these issues in a more careful manner.

I hope people can think about these problems in a careful manner and reach a truly comprehensive conclusion. Having the will to do good and represent the interests of all can be a worthwhile and fulfilling endeavour. ;)

However, if it's ethical to not create a harm, it's also unethical to not create a good. — DA671

Not the case.

If you procreated someone into the mouth of a volcano to be burned alive.. that is objectively bad in just about every measure. If the case was, born into a volcano or not born into volcano, the moral choice is not to be born into the volcano.

If you did not procreate someone into some happy moment, that is not objectively bad. You deprived no "one". A state of affairs where one's action prevented happiness (and no one was around to see it), then it is not immoral. A state of affairs where one's action prevented pain (regardless of if someone was around to see it), it is moral.

@Albero you started this.. Your input please. Don't throw meat to the lions and sit back with glee whilst the lions fight over the meat. Participate, please.. I do usually agree with you, and like your posts, but I hate being the lone voice and debate the same anti-antinatalists over and over.. Why pick the fight with khaled again, anyways? Let sleeping dogs (threads) lie... Just like humans should do when it comes to not creating more humans.. Let sleeping (non-existence), the default, just be.

I've missed your thought experiments. Remember the Willy Wonka one? :grin:

Lol, ok I’ll bite. To preface the reason I’ve been hesitant is that I’m not even an anti natalist or a Schopenhauerian pessimist. In fact, I really admire Nietzsche and thinkers like him (who you have a bone to pick with but that’s a different conversation) so I don’t think Im the best authority here. Sure I could’ve let the dogs lie, but I had a conversation with some friends about this topic and someone brought up an argument pretty much identical to the one here, and someone responded with what I wrote. I wanted to see a further response that’s all-I really didn’t know you’d respond tbh or want to respond.

I will say this tho:
I’ll pretend I’m a moral realist for a sec, and I’m gonna have to admit that it’s just not true that not creating goods is unethical. This is probably one of many issues with utilitarianism: “Oh you’re living your life, why aren’t you being a good effective altruist and donating to charity all the time?” It’s just not intuitive. It would mean that every time I’m not doing anything good I’m technically being immoral. How far does this extend? Even pro-natalist philosophers agree universally there is no obligation to create happy people; merely that it’s permissible.

I agree that it's not necessary to do good all the time, since I don't think that it's necessary for one to have a good life. My point was only about the lack of harms being good regarding people who don't exist, but even here, it would not be practical to claim that one has to constantly do good. Practical limitations and the long-term consequences of an action have to ge kept in mind. In short, even though I theoretically differ from mainstream philosophers, my views, for all practical purposes, lead to intuitive conclusions due to the nature of our current existence. Trying to do an excess of a good thing can create more harm than good, which would be counterproductive. I am doubtful of the efficacy of unmitigated altruism, especially when there are pragmatic concerns as well as a probability of harm from unqualified "obligations".

The value of good might be counter-intuitive, but it's probably still less so than an absolutist opposition to all procreation for the sake of a lesser or nonexistent good.

Edit: Also, I am glad to know you're not an antinatalist or a Schopenhauerian pessimist (it would be important to remember that not all pessimists might support AN). :)

Not so. I think that it's objectively problematic to suggest that a child in the slums who finds unfathomable joy when hugging his mother—who shares his happiness once seeing his effulgent smile—does not matter merely because one is incapable of asking for that good themselves. Lack of "deprivations" should not be mistaken for the presence of a genuine good, which doesn't exist when isn't born. But if it's still good to prevent harms, it will always be problematic to prevent all joys. If it's "objectively bad" to create a harm even though its absence doesn't benefit any actual person, then it's also objectively problematic to not create someone who could experience a good life (or a great one too), irrespective of whether or not there is a "deprivation". Nobody has a desire for prevention that's fulfilled by their nonexistence, and we don't have evidence for the idea that inexistent beings are being provided relief from the absence of suffering.. But if the absence of the harms is still a moral obligation, then the lack of good cannot be moral, though to what degree we must act to conserve and create it depends on our own capabilities as well as the consequences of all actions.

I cannot see how the lack of someone experiencing harm is good even though there aren't any souls in the void who are in preferable state of affairs that would be disturbed from their creation, yet the lack of all experiences of love, beauty, and creativity don't matter simply because one could not have asked for those goods themselves. I am afraid I won't be able to accept arbitrary double standards.

Sleep is not better than an enjoyable day spent with one's loved ones (especially if an unsolicited lack of waking up that leads to absolutely no gain is somehow desirable). ;) Valueless/neutral states of affairs cannot be preferred over good ones. This ineluctable fact cannot be changed, in my view. The "default" state might be the default as far as the elimination of the negatives is concerned, but it's the opposite of a default (for most people) when it comes to the preservation of the positives.

After having had to debate multiple antinatalists across YouTube and other websites (wherein some threads have lasted for more than a 100 comments), it's definitely starting to feel like a lonely battle (and a repetitive one). :p

For what it's worth, I also agree with much of what you say, particularly the need to not take procreation lighly in the times we live in. Thanks for being there and for sharing your sagacious thoughts.

Have a wonderful day!