Ya ya, if you wanna be all reasonable and measured. — DingoJones

I try hard to be. I think I succeed about 65% of the time.

I’d bet the more trashy the more attention. — DingoJones

Shrug.

What circumstance? If creatures voluntarily leave the world you created, then most likely you are a bad creator. After all, you created a free world, and not just a theater for your own entertainment. Or theater? — SimpleUser

So what makes this world "free"? That people can escape by suicide? What makes forcing people into such a situation moral? I didn't quite get that from your response.

Now that he can’t stop it harmlessly*. If, for instance, the people in the world rely on the products and need a continuous supply of them.

Thing is, it’s a chocolate factory. Idk why Willy became a God all of a sudden. I’m assuming he has some purpose behind forcing all these people and is not doing it for shits and giggles.

Why would Willy consider creating that world in your example? What’s the motivation? — khaled

He wants to see people navigate the ups and downs of the challenges he has set the parameters for and see if people can improve on the parameters for new technologies, etc. He does not know how far it can be taken, he just has the initial conditions. He also likes seeing the people grow up and learn.. He thinks of them as his "children". He feels the joy of a kind of parent to a child..

But it seems like you are saying that he should keep forcing more people into the world to play his game because as more people are forced in, they will rely on the people to maintain the jobs and keep the economy going so that people that already exist in the world have more workers to survive, etc.

There's no real world equivalent for Willy. Like who does the forcing or creating? Not a single person, by a single action... how do you assign agency to something that happens over time compounding actions by many people? — ChatteringMonkey

How is birth not the same?

I don't see what he does as proselytization. He just makes his philosophical point over and over. He's not promoting any ideology, organization, or business. — T Clark

Thanks for making that distinction. This is my response when accused of this: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/521502

I think there's plenty of Willys. I'm sure with your experience debating the matter, you've seen many people argue the 'option' as a defence for natalism. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Indeed. You expose people to your game, suffering occurs, and escape is not easy. That one can escape by self-harm does not make the making of playing the game moral. I do see a lot of free will answers which is interesting. So if people have free will in this world, that makes forcing the players into the world moral? Doesn't seem to add up.

Do you want to convince people that life is a pain-ridden mistake or do you want people to not have babies? — Manuel

Isn't there a major connection to these two ideas?

If people don't share these intuitions, I don't understand why AN continue arguing so frequently on these points. — Manuel

Can't you say that about any philosophical point? Doesn't philosophy have lots of (seemingly) unintuitive points that on further reflection become more understandable?

As per your OP, is Willy Wonka the only option? Are there other jobs or hobbies that are meaningful? If there are other places outside Willy Wonka's factory, that may be worth pursuing. If Willy Wonka is all there is in the world, then people will have to see what works for them.

If it's the only posstible option in the world, the morality of Willy Wonka does not arise. — Manuel

No Willy Wonka has provided plenty of jobs.. it looks something like our world. Aren't I great for forcing my players into my awesome world?

Do these "others" exist before you force them to enter your world? — RogueAI

Good question. No, these players only know this world.. What ever happened before this world, they have no memories of it. To the players, Wonkas world is the only world around.

He wants to see people navigate the ups and downs of the challenges he has set the parameters for and see if people can improve on the parameters for new technologies, etc. He does not know how far it can be taken, he just has the initial conditions. He also likes seeing the people grow up and learn.. He thinks of them as his "children". He feels the joy of a kind of parent to a child.. — schopenhauer1

Then no he shouldn't start it.

But it seems like you are saying that he should keep forcing more people into the world to play his game because as more people are forced in, they will rely on the people to maintain the jobs and keep the economy going so that people that already exist in the world have more workers to survive, etc. — schopenhauer1

Correct. Once started he shouldn't stop it.

Isn't there a major connection to these two ideas? — schopenhauer1

There is according to AN. Most people do not subscribe to AN. So it looks to me as if you wanted people to feel bad for merely existing. Or alternatively, you just try to make people see how bad life is. I don't see how doing this is a benefit, if you succeed in persuading one person, you've just made them miserable.

There are other ways to inform people about the downsides of having children...

Can't you say that about any philosophical point? Doesn't philosophy have lots of (seemingly) unintuitive points that on further reflection become more understandable? — schopenhauer1

I don't see the benefit in persuading people from the perspective of AN. Other philosophical points are meant, or I think should be made, to help other people, not to depress them. You don't need AN to point out serious issues that can be addressed, such as climate change.

No Willy Wonka has provided plenty of jobs.. it looks something like our world. Aren't I great for forcing my players into my awesome world? — schopenhauer1

I agree that in my case, having children would be a mistake. Irrespective of that if you just look at kids, the vast majority of them are fascinated by the world. So it's only "forced" on that small percentage that think life is a mistake. It's a small minority. Otherwise, the issue of being forced to live doesn't arise.

climate change. — Manuel

Yeah that's not depressing haha.

I agree that in my case, having children would be a mistake. Irrespective of that if you just look at kids, the vast majority of them are fascinated by the world. So it's only "forced" on that small percentage that think life is a mistake. It's a small minority. Otherwise, the issue of being forced to live doesn't arise. — Manuel

So as long as Willy can keep his contestants from feeling forced, the game itself is okay for Willy to perpetuate and continue to force? You know, if you don't educate slaves and you keep them feeling that their situation isn't that bad, they might go along with it too and at least long enough to make more slaves. If they don't "feel" like slaves, hey all the better. Granted, free "choices" is the difference here, but then are those "choices" really free in the non-slave scenario? Is simply having choices enough to make the situation "good"? As a slave, you can feel fascinated with the work you do, your environs, etc. Yes, there is more one can feel fascinated with as a non-slave, but one is still limited in the conditions.

Yeah that's not depressing haha. — schopenhauer1

I didn't say it wasn't? But we should try and do something about it, if not for future generations, for all the animals we are killing for no reason other than extraction of resources and consumption. If we all disappeared today, we wouldn't have helped other life at all. That's bad in general.

So as long as Willy can keep his contestants from feeling forced, the game itself is okay for Willy to perpetuate and continue to force? — schopenhauer1

If contestants do not feel forced, what's the problem? People aren't as stupid as is sometimes assumed, they know when they're being used.

And those that don't like this at all have a way out. Not an easy one, clearly, but the option exists. And in the end we all exit the factory anyway. Why not enjoy what we can instead of complaining about it?

Jeez man, I'm generally a very pessimistic person and have pretty bad mood swings.

Yet you make me feel like I have panglossian views about the world.

If contestants do not feel forced, what's the problem? People aren't as stupid as is sometimes assumed, they know when they're being used.

And those that don't like this at all have a way out. Not an easy one, clearly, but the option exists. And in the end we all exit the factory anyway. Why not enjoy what we can instead of complaining about it? — Manuel

Guess we have different moral frameworks. I wouldn't presume to put another human in a game (of life or otherwise) that lasts many years and is only exited through painful self-harm. The option for "work", "homelessness", "free-riding" (and resent from thereof), and "suicide" should be cold comfort not shrugging who cares. Just because it's a familiar devil doesn't mean it's not a devil. It's just that the devil has been wearing plain clothes this whole time perhaps.

Wonka is cruel because unlike the real world he never added things that cause joy, pleasure, laughter, play, and so on.

So as long as Willy can keep his contestants from feeling forced, the game itself is okay for Willy to perpetuate and continue to force? — schopenhauer1

I know you’re not addressing me but my answer to this is: definitely yes.

If everyone in Wonka’s world feels it’s worth it, then absolutely keep on enforcing. What’s the worst that can happen? Someone will exist that finds worthwhile to exist? Doesn’t seem like a bad outcome.

I know you’re not addressing me but my answer to this is: definitely yes.

If everyone in Wonka’s world feels it’s worth it, then absolutely keep on enforcing. What’s the worst that can happen? Someone will exist that finds worthwhile to exist? Doesn’t seem like a bad outcome. — khaled

Ok, so let's add in that the game is definitely not something of infinite pleasure. People don't just feel pleasure from these activities or just existing. There is a lot of intermediate to negative values placed on each activity in the game. So the game is not one of paradise proportions but much more mediocre. Wonka just doesn't have the ability to create "the best of all worlds" for each individual experience.

Wonka is cruel because unlike the real world he never added things that cause joy, pleasure, laughter, play, and so on. — NOS4A2

Point taken. How much joy, laughter, etc. does it take to ameliorate that Wonka has forced people into this world with the conditions explained in the OP (work, homelessness, etc.)?

Point taken. How much joy, laughter, etc. does it take to ameliorate that Wonka has forced people into this world with the conditions explained in the OP (work, homelessness, etc.)?

It wouldn't take much if he sacrifices a great deal of his time to provide, protect, and raise us to thrive in his world. I would be quite grateful, personally.

It wouldn't take much if he sacrifices a great deal of his time to provide, protect, and raise us to thrive in his world. I would be quite grateful, personally. — NOS4A2

What happens if someone is not happy with the arrangement- everything from work, homelessness, and suicide options?

Also, what makes forcing the participants into the world moral vs. immoral? Is just the fact that people are sometimes positive at certain moments justifiable really? So are slaves, etc. The only difference is the range of options is larger, that I agree. It's still a bounded set of conditions and rules nonetheless.

Edit: What happens when the contingent conditions of harms the built into his "game" affect people more negatively than they originally bargained for, even for the initially "happy" people who were "ok" with it?

Thanks for making that distinction. — schopenhauer1

Although I strongly disagree with your position on antinatalism, the subject that really annoys me is free will. A month ago, there were six threads active within a five day period. No, I don't propose that the number of free will discussions be should limited, but I reserve the right to whine about it.

No, I don't propose that the number of free will discussions be should limited, but I reserve the right to whine about it. — T Clark

Yeah granted. I can see how repeated topics can annoy people, but you said it yourself, just ignore them if you don't like it.. You gotta think, there are really only a handful of perennial questions and philosophy deals with many of them.. just from different perspectives.

What happens if someone is not happy with the arrangement- everything from work, homelessness, and suicide options?

Also, what makes forcing the participants into the world moral vs. immoral? Is just the fact that people are sometimes positive at certain moments justifiable really? So are slaves, etc. The only difference is the range of options is larger, that I agree. It's still a bounded set of conditions and rules nonetheless.

I would tell him happiness isn't all its cracked up to be.

If Wonka forcibly removes them from their home and imprisons him in his place it would be immoral. If he creates them, or if they grow from the stuff of his world, he is forcing nothing and morality doesn't factor into it at all.

You already have my answer then. Shouldn’t start, but shouldn’t stop once started. Assuming the needs of the people that exist trumps the harm that can be expected from the infliction.

If he creates them, he is forcing nothing and morality doesn't factor into it at all. — NOS4A2

Not an AN anymore but I keep hearing this. This would imply that having children is never wrong. It would also imply that genetically modifying someone to be blind and deaf is not wrong since you're not forcing anything on anyone, therefore morality doesn't factor in (assuming you don't think a sperm or egg is a person). It would also imply that if a certain couple, upon hearing that their child would have dozens of severe genetic illnesses due to hidden genes that they have, would not be doing anything immoral by having said child.

Do you agree with each of the above 3? If not then why?

I think positions that attempt to say that having children is not a moral issue, and can never be wrong are ridiculous.

Given that that's what you reduce life to - a succession of painful events - then of course you're correct.
If pain is bad, then so is life. But it is a tautology.

And it's an easy line of thinking. If you can prevent people from having babies, then you don't have to worry about those who are alive and suffering now. That's a bit more difficult to address, it seems to me.

There's just one problem, which many here have already pointed out: life is about clearly more than pain alone.

You need to justify the claim the life is mostly about pain.

Ok, so let's add in that the game is definitely not something of infinite pleasure. People don't just feel pleasure from these activities or just existing. There is a lot of intermediate to negative values placed on each activity in the game. So the game is not one of paradise proportions but much more mediocre. Wonka just doesn't have the ability to create "the best of all worlds" for each individual experience. — schopenhauer1

Then it depends on the world I suppose. Is the average experience good or bad?

I've been thinking about it more and I don't think the notion of forcing a situation on someone because you want to is so immoral in the end. Assuming the situation is on average enjoyed by the people that had it. Even if there is a chance they are harmed and even if there is no need to do it (as in, no greater harm is alleviated from them or anyone else).

Maybe an analogy would be: Throwing a surprise party for someone. There is a very small chance they get a heart attack and die. Or maybe they're tired and really don't want a party right now but don't want to disappoint anyone either, so end up in a lose lose position. Does that make it wrong?

The similarities with birth are: In both cases consent is not given, the "gift" would be enjoyed by most (which is why it's called a gift not a curse), there is a chance it causes harm, and the recipient would not miss it at all (the recipient would not suffer for lack of party as he wasn't expecting one, nor does anyone suffer for lack of being born, so there is no argument from prevention of suffering or negative ethics). In other words, it is imposing a situation that is potentially harmful, without consent, even though doing so is not needed.

So are surprise gifts wrong now? I wouldn't think so.

So are surprise gifts wrong now? I wouldn't think so. — khaled

So using the dignity threshold idea, if the magnitude of the surprise is controlling another person to a high degree, then yes. Life guard tapped on shoulder vs. life guard taken to a lifetime of teaching lifeguarding lessons, etc.

Are those that are born to live a life of horrific pain and suffering a reasonable sacrifice for the majority being born?

So using the dignity threshold idea, if the magnitude of the surprise is controlling another person to a high degree, then yes. — schopenhauer1

Sure, that's a variable. I guess we just don't agree about how big an imposition life is or how terrible it is. You think it's more like springing a trap, I think it's a lot better than that.

"Sacrifice" makes it seem like it's necessary for the happiness of the majority and that I wouldn't stop it if I could.

An "acceptable consequence"? Yes. "Sacrifice"? No.

Some people are going to get heart attacks from surprise parties. Doesn't make surprise parties wrong.