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. — schopenhauer1

Compulsion? I was only talking about free will. Freedom of choice. And about the inadmissibility of condemnation for the choice of a free person.
After all, it is only in religion that they first talk about "free will" and then punish for "wrong choices." And this is no longer freedom.

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.

I think there is a difference between moral behavior towards flesh-and-blood beings and moral behavior between abstract beings. Claiming moral behavior towards flesh-and-blood beings is one thing, measurable and visible, while moral behavior towards abstract beings is another, little more than a feat of imagination.

There is nothing abstract about genetic modifications, sperms and eggs, couples choosing between the life and extirpation of their child. These decisions have demonstrable effects and involve real behavior. So I'm not saying having children is not a moral issue; I'm saying not having children on the basis of protecting an abstract being from being forced into suffering is not a moral issue. It's an imaginary one. When a sense of morality extends no further than the skull, can be accomplished in the comfort of one's home and without any interaction with real beings, I would argue it isn't morality at all.

There was a Ren and Stimpy episode, where Stimpy forced Ren to wear a happiness helmet, which made him very happy. When Ren eventually gets it off, he's not happy with Stimpy. I kind of agree with him. Even if I have an absolute good I still can't force it on someone. That's a violation of their autonomy.

So, in the OP's example, even if Willy Wanka took everyone to literal Heaven, where they'll experience the most blissful state imaginable, he violated their autonomy, which makes it immoral. That's kind of a deontological position, I guess. A utilitarian would not agree.

I'm saying not having children on the basis of protecting an abstract being from being forced into suffering is not a moral issue. It's an imaginary one. When a sense of morality extends no further than the skull, can be accomplished in the comfort of one's home and without any interaction with real beings, I would argue it isn't morality at all.

I was thinking the same thing too, but I thought of it a different way. When people have kids, they're not literally bringing a new person into the world, they're creating a set of conditions that will result in new person X. So then the question becomes, is it moral to create a set of conditions that will actualize a potential person who can't give consent (because they don't exist yet)?

I think some morality applies there because I think it would be evil to create a set of conditions that would bring a person into the world to experience abject suffering (say the parents want to have a kid to torture it). It would be evil to do that even if the attempt failed. But if it's evil to do it, and the attempt failed, and there's no new person, who was harmed?

@NOS4A2@RogueAI@khaled

So I think my position falls more with deontological, but deontological based on an "analog" rule. It's analog in that a certain degree of all pervasive control would have to be meet a threshold to consider it wrong, as dignity was being violated. So @RogueAI you mention that even a heaven would not be moral if the conditions were forced upon a new being. However, if that indeed was absolutely the case for each individual, I don't see the threshold being met. Though, you can make a case that since it is controlling the person's life, it was still a violation.

Here is the problem I see.. People do not see the conditions of normal life as the boundedness that it is. So if I said, "force a lifeguard to teach lifeguarding school" or a "slave to work on my farm" that sounds sufficiently bounded to consider this a gross violation of the person's dignity. However, having a range of options that life seems to offer, seems to be enough to make people think that life itself does not meet the threshold for violating dignity. However, consider the Willy Wonka scenario:

1.) It's near impossible to escape either work, free-riding off other's work, homelessness, or death (suicide or otherwise).

2.) It's near impossible to overcome the contingent harms that impress themselves on each and every person daily.

3.) It is near impossible to overcome the boundedness of being a particular animal living in a place, time, etc.

So our condition is more bounded than people think. They only think of the range within the boundedness and not the limits themselves. This makes them turn a blind eye to the forced situation and not think of it is a gross violation.

There is nothing abstract about genetic modifications, sperms and eggs, couples choosing between the life and extirpation of their child. These decisions have demonstrable effects and involve real behavior. — NOS4A2

Ok, so when a couple is deciding not to have a child because he/she would suffer a lot that’s a moral decision.

When a sense of morality extends no further than the skull, can be accomplished in the comfort of one's home and without any interaction with real beings — NOS4A2

But also this.

I don’t understand. Having a child has demonstrable consequences and involves real behavior. Why is the decision not a moral one? What’s imaginary or weird about choosing not to have a child because of the consequences that would entail?

1.) It's near impossible to escape either work, free-riding off other's work, homelessness, or death (suicide or otherwise).

2.) It's near impossible to overcome the contingent harms that impress themselves on each and every person daily.

3.) It is near impossible to overcome the boundedness of being a particular animal living in a place, time, etc. — schopenhauer1

Oh no..... I have to work and I may occasionally get injured as an animal that lives in a certain place and time.... what a nightmare!

They only think of the range within the boundedness and not the limits themselves. — schopenhauer1

That... is the same thing. No one is seriously saddened because they’re limited by being an animal in space. No one has thought to themselves “I can’t be in 2 places at once, this is so awful”.

People are aware of the limits.

Oh no..... I have to work and I may occasionally get injured as an animal that lives in a certain place and time.... what a nightmare! — khaled

You can say it sarcastically and it doesn't change my point. It makes nice performative theater if you're into that though. Yes, economic realities make up a significant and pervasive portion of life. It is a condition.

That... is the same thing. No one is seriously saddened because they’re limited by being an animal in space. No one has thought to themselves “I can’t be in 2 places at once, this is so awful”.

People are aware of the limits. — khaled

You are taking it too literally.. but go ahead if you feel that it helps you win points in the argument. You can think of plenty of limits (hence the "human condition"). I was mainly talking about genetics, personalities, limitations on our individual character, of environment, etc. Anyways, no need to belabor the point. You certainly recognize we have limitations, and so do others. However, when specifically speaking about birth as compared to other forced events, it is the options and not the limitations that people gravitate to such that they don't feel that life itself has the impositions similarly to the other limiting forced events.. Yes there is more of a range, but it's more of a range of bounded in limits that are not necessarily what you, I, or he would have wanted. But because it's all we have, it's like that makes it acceptable. But so the slave makes do, the lifeguard gets comfortable with his lot, etc. Yes people adjust, but that doesn't mean that the original "being put into the conditions" was right or put positive X attribute here.

This relates back to my main point in that the limitations and conditions of life, on a subject that has self-reflection and can evaluate their own existential situation, is pervasively controlled by various necessary conditions that one must deal with. This meets the threshold as discussed earlier.

it is the options and not the limitations that people gravitate to such that they don't feel that life itself has the impositions similarly to the other limiting forced events. — schopenhauer1

Again. Those are the same thing. To state all the options is to imply all the limitations and vice versa.

what you, I, or he would have wanted. — schopenhauer1

What would you have wanted before you were born? Nonsensical question.

Yes, economic realities make up a significant and pervasive portion of life. It is a condition. — schopenhauer1

Correct. I'm pointing out it's one people don't mind generally.

This meets the threshold as discussed earlier. — schopenhauer1

No it doesn't since this:

This relates back to my main point in that the limitations and conditions of surprise parties, on a subject that has self-reflection and can evaluate their own existential situation, is pervasively controlled by various necessary conditions that one must deal with. — schopenhauer1

Is true of surprise parties as well as life.

You make a "type argument" (as in, this imposition is of this or that type) when really all there is here is an "extent argument" (that this position is too imposing). But you don't want an extent argument because it's not objective.

And you keep conflating the two. You start out with "Birth has properties A, B and C which make it immoral". Then someone replies "Surprise parties have A, B and C and you don't think they're immoral generally". So you change to "Birth has too much A and too much B and too much C". Then someone replies "Most people don't think it's too much". Then you go back to "But it has A, B and C, don't you see!". And around and around we go.

"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. — khaled

It is necessary that people with lives full of unbearable pain and suffering be born, for the majority to be born. This is what I meant by calling them a sacrifice. However I'm not looking to score points, "acceptable consequence" works fine.

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

This isn't going to be a useful intuition pump for me, as I think the happiness surprise parties create for people with the worst lives, may off-set any suffering caused by a very very small amount of people having a heart attack as a result. If this is not correct, and surprise parties cause deeper suffering than they alleviate - I believe they are wrong.

Again. Those are the same thing. To state all the options is to imply all the limitations and vice versa. — khaled

Not really. I can tell a slave.. Look you have all the work you can do.. I'm giving you the choice to work the field in the morning, noon, or night. You can also repair the equipment, and prepare the meals too. See all your options? See, don't look at it as limitations, but from the point of view of the options. In the world of the slave, perhaps they adjust to this too.

What would you have wanted before you were born? Nonsensical question. — khaled

Then you are misapplying it. I am saying if we were to have a choice of an ideal world for ourselves. And indeed, it's a nonstarter, but we can still want it. We tend not to think in absolute what we want, because we have to accept the reality, as there is no other choice (excepting suicide, which is a choice too I guess).

Correct. I'm pointing out it's one people don't mind generally. — khaled

Not if given greater range of options. But there are limits, as we both agree. Being self-reflective, we don't just "have" we "know we have" and that is a world of difference in what we know isn't here, and what we have to deal with nonetheless.

And you keep conflating the two. You start out with "Birth has properties A, B and C which make it immoral". Then someone replies "Surprise parties have A, B and C and you don't think they're immoral generally". So you change to "Birth has too much A and too much B and too much C". Then someone replies "Most people don't think it's too much". Then you go back to "But it has A, B and C, don't you see!". And around and around we go. — khaled

No I explicitly stated that I am going with the extent argument (as you phrase it), and am saying life indeed meets the threshold of degree.

More likely we are disagreeing about the perspective of the reality of the situation. You are coming at it from a more subjectivist point of view. Thus, for you, if the slave thinks his conditions are suitable, it is suitable. However, if the slave had more perspective and given a chance to see the limitations, perhaps the slave would realize there was an injustice/harm done to him. However, the injustice this time is not in terms of relative position to other humans, but of the case that existence itself has injustices that we deal with being humans having to survive, find comfort, and entertainment within a contingently harmful world (disease, disaster, dealing with other people, harmful situations, negative experiences, etc.), with certain drives, within a socioeconomic and historical framework, etc. etc. All this is taken as a matter of course, but it is not just that we deal with them, but we know that we deal with them. We can self reflect. This even goes back to a topic I had previously that in any survival task, one needed to survive in a certain socioeconomic setting (the usual mode of human survival), one can evaluate it as negative. The very fact we can evaluate and know we feel negative towards tasks we do as we do them, is something to consider. You can train yourself to "be a man", "try to repress the emotion", "overcome your dissatisfaction", etc. but it's there in the first place. In fact, even people's attempts to belittle those who complain, can be said to just be a cultural meme to ensure that this idea doesn't bring people to despair and to discourage others for bringing it up.

Thus, for you, if the slave thinks his conditions are suitable, it is suitable. — schopenhauer1

Yup.

However, if the slave had more perspective and given a chance to see the limitations, perhaps the slave would realize there was an injustice/harm done to him — schopenhauer1

I highly doubt a slave doesn’t see the limitations. They’re tied to his ankle. That’s the point here.

Everyone sees the limitations. Everyone knows that:

existence itself has injustices that we deal with being humans having to survive, find comfort, and entertainment within a contingently harmful world (disease, disaster, dealing with other people, harmful situations, negative experiences, etc.), — schopenhauer1

And that:

in any survival task, one needed to survive in a certain socioeconomic setting (the usual mode of human survival), one can evaluate it as negative — schopenhauer1

We know these limitations exist. We are aware of them. And most people STILL think that life doesn’t meet the threshold.

The problem with the extent argument that you’re going with is that it can never be objective. Where you set the bar for “too much imposition” is completely arbitrary. So long as you’re consistent in applying it (so everything above the bar is bad, everything under is good). But then again, how “bad” everything is as an imposition is also subjective. You can consistently hold that forcing someone into slavery for 30 years is worse, or better, than forcing someone to eat a spider. It depends on how bad you think eating spiders is as compared to slavery.

You can’t convince someone that thinks forcing someone to eat a spider is worse than slavery otherwise. Well, they’ll probably be convinced if they were slaves themselves for a while. But in the case of imposing life you can’t do that. You can’t say “oh you just don’t know how bad life is” because the person you’re talking to is also, well, alive.

Point is most people, despite being aware of the limitations, think that life is not too bad an imposition. And they can do this consistently, regardless of their positions on other impositions. Given that, what’s the point of trying to argue otherwise from extent? There is no argument. That can be had. It’s like trying to argue that vanilla is objectively better than chocolate.

But you want some objectivity of your argument which due to the nature of extent arguments is not achievable.

But you want some objectivity of your argument which due to the nature of extent arguments is not achievable. — khaled

I think people simply can't see any other way but coping with it. It's more psychological and complex than simply:

And most people STILL think that life doesn’t meet the threshold. — khaled

They do if you ask them outright. But what about in all the details (X negative situation?). I don't know it just doesn't seem as straightforward as, "just ask the question".

David Benatar provides some ideas about our own misapprehension.. Pollyannaism, adjusting to worse circumstance than our intention or ideal, and comparing bad things with worse things to feel better. These are more defense mechanisms that we learn to use (or perhaps have some bias for initially) yet distort in some sense the absolute position that a) we don't have the range of options we ideally would have wanted, we adjust to worse outcomes (doesn't mean that makes it better), and we compare to less good circumstances (that still doesn't make it less bad). See this quote:

Fulfilled desires, like pleasures (even of the intrinsic kind), are states of achievement rather than default states. For instance, one has to work at satiating oneself, while hunger comes naturally. After one has eaten or taken liquid, bowel and bladder discomfort ensues quite naturally and we have to seek relief. One has to seek out pleasurable sensations, in the absence of which blandness comes naturally. The upshot of this is that we must continually work at keeping suffering (including tedium) at bay, and we can do so only imperfectly. Dissatisfaction does and must pervade life. There are moments, perhaps even periods, of satisfaction, but they occur against a background of dissatisfied striving. Pollyannaism may cause most people to blur out this background, but it remains there. — David Benatar, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence

Also see here under Humans' unreliable assessment of life's quality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar

So your argument is:

1- If you think life is not too big an imposition then it’s because you’re biased and have an unreliable assessment.

2- Therefore life is objectively too big an imposition.

3- So don’t have kids.

That’s called begging the question. You have to entertain the possibility that someone can think life doesn’t meet the threshold without calling them wrong and biased by definition. Reminds of “feminists” going on about how terrible the patriarchy is, and whenever someone challenges their views it’s “oh you’re just a man you wouldn’t know” or “oh you’re just a patriarchy slave you wouldn’t know (in case of women)”

You’re arguing in bad faith when you automatically assume the person you’re talking to is deluded if they don’t agree with you.

You’re arguing in bad faith when you automatically assume the person you’re talking to is deluded if they don’t agree with you. — khaled

Not at all. It can be the case people have the wrong assessment. People misevaluate things all the time. Slavery, genocide, torture, religious persecution, gladiatorial events, etc etc are egregious examples of mass level objective misevaluations. They did not judge the value as not bad for example.

You're caught up on the idea that something that seems pervasive must make it thus true or insulated from being in the category of bad judgment, possibly due to lack of perspective in this case.

It can be the case people have the wrong assessment. — schopenhauer1

Sure, but to know that anyone who disagrees with you has a bad assessment is the definition of arguing in bad faith.

You pretend to:

entertain the possibility that someone can think life doesn’t meet the threshold without being wrong and biased — khaled

But really you don't. Nothing can ever change your mind, and you just know you're right. This is text book argument from bad faith.

Your caught up on the idea that something that seems pervasive must make it thus true or insulated from being in the category of bad judement, possibly due to lack of perspective in this case. — schopenhauer1

No not at all. I'm putting forward the possibility that someone can be aware of all the limitations of life, have the exact same perspective as you, and still conclude that it doesn't meet the threshold. I'm sure there are countless people who have suffered much more than you and seen all the same limitations and still had kids in good conscience.

You disagree with this idea. You think "If only these people had my perspective, if only they knew how bad it can get" they would all think like you. And so by definition, anyone who disagrees with you is simply lacking in perspective. Yet you pretend to entertain their perspectives while knowing us unenlightened peasants simply don't understand the limits of their situation as well as you do.

That's called arguing in bad faith. Again:

Reminds of “feminists” going on about how terrible the patriarchy is, and whenever someone challenges their views it’s “oh you’re just a man you wouldn’t know” or “oh you’re just a patriarchy slave you wouldn’t know (in case of women)” — khaled

There can be no argument with you if you automatically think that the interlocutor is wrong (or lacking perspective) for disagreeing with you.

Sure, but to know that anyone who disagrees with you has a bad assessment is the definition of arguing in bad faith. — khaled

An egregious version of this to show the point is that a Nazi or white supremacist who disagreed with me, is making a bad assessment.. but I am willing to entertain that due to well-studied psychological mechanisms, people tend to particularly make bad assessments about the experiences of their own lives. That is possibly because the perspective is very hard to get out of. A strong bias, reinforced by social pressures, makes sense for why this assessment is inaccurate.

Other examples are people with addiction problems, people who identify with their tormentor, people with certain psychological disorders that are more apparently distorting their lives. However, it is harder to understand how any neuro-typical (if that's a thing?) person constantly misevaluates due to strong genetic, environmental, and social pressures.

There can be no argument with you if you automatically think that the interlocutor is wrong (or lacking perspective) for disagreeing with you. — khaled

No, what I am giving is a reason for why many people often view life positively, despite the negatives. I gave examples of slaves, former "not bad" evaluations etc. I am giving the reasons behind some of this misevaluation. Pollyannaism, adjustments, and comparisons are a few very solid psychological reasons for our misevaluations towards an optimism bias.

Look at slavery.. People had the same general notions of fairness and justice, but people constantly put a blind eye to how it applied to other people. In ancient Rome, it was just "the way of things". Some people were slaves, some were not. During the 17-19th century, it was a racial thing. They misapplied their judgements, turned a blind eye. There was a cognitive dissonance there. There was a constant lack of perspective.

So can "this" many people be wrong about "their own lives"? Yes, they can. Now, let's go back to my own argument (related to Pollyanaism pace Benatar).. That is to say, people think that life's conditions have options- ergo, life is appropriately okay to bestow on other people. But I am pointing to what the other side of that coin is, which is that it is really a bounded set of options within the limits of the conditions of life.

One of the limiting conditions of life can be characterized like I did previously:

1.) It's near impossible to escape either work, free-riding off other's work, homelessness, or death (suicide or otherwise). — schopenhauer1

This is just one example of the limitations. Further, this is pretty much equivalent to a game that one must do- the game of life itself.. It has a set of systemic rules to "master" to some extent, and a series of challenges, many of which are not known beforehand to overcome. One can roll all of these aspects into the "challenge/overcoming challenge game".

Is it "right' to bestow on others a challenge/overcoming challenge game with the limitations of life?

Is it "right" to create more animals that can self-reflect to the point of evaluating as negative the very tasks needed to survive, while they are in the very act of surviving?

Is it "right" to create the limitations on people as laid out by Benatar in that previous quote?

You can say "these are acceptable", but then I will point to the fact that people throughout history have made wrong evaluations. A lack of perspective in how life is bad is possibly part of the problem for these bad judgements. Our bias to see the options and not the limitations, is one big part I think. In other words, "You have options!" is thus refuted, because it is "bounded in limits", and the limits have been pointed out X, Y, Z.. As I have been doing in many of my posts.

These limiting factors and negative aspects, indeed contribute to making life pervasively controlling, and it contributes to overlooking various things on behalf of someone else in order to create X situation come about (a child "needs" to be born for X reason). This would be violating the threshold of dignity..The proverbial "forced lifeguarding school". Yes, more options, but move back a bit, and its options within limits, sufficiently so that is indeed similar to the lifeguard situation on second look.

@khaled I added some more comments towards the bottom of last post if you were responding while I was editing that.

An egregious version of this to show the point is that a Nazi or white supremacist who disagreed with me, is making a bad assessment. — schopenhauer1

Yes, and that would be arguing in bad faith too. The Nazi is wasting his time talking to you, he won't change your mind ever. And likely not you his.

However, it is harder to understand how any neuro-typical (if that's a thing?) person constantly misevaluates due to strong genetic, environmental, and social pressures. — schopenhauer1

I could name for example: A desire to seem unique as a reason ANs are "misevaluating" life. And that would be just as valid as your argument.

Whether or not it's a misevaluation is precisely the problem in question. You think you can objectively show it is. I don't see that. Because again, everyone here sees the same limits as you, and simply doesn't think they're that bad.

But I am pointing to what the other side of that coin is, which is that it is really a bounded set of options within the limits of the conditions of life. — schopenhauer1

Let me ask you this: What boundaries of life would you find acceptable to have children in? If you respond to nothing else respond to this.

If you can't answer that, then yours is a type argument rejecting all unconsented impositions. In which case it fails because you don't apply it to general day to day life (surprise parties are ok for example, generally)

Further, this is pretty much equivalent to a game that one must do- the game of life itself.. It has a set of systemic rules to "master" to some extent, and a series of challenges, many of which are not known beforehand to overcome. One can roll all of these aspects into the "challenge/overcoming challenge game". — schopenhauer1

Stop with the type arguments. This also applies to surprise parties. You're wasting typing by repeatedly pointing out that "life is an unconsented game". So are many things you find ok. We are now arguing about whether it is bad enough.

You can say "these are acceptable", but then I will point to the fact that people throughout history have made wrong evaluations. A lack of perspective in how life is bad is possibly part of the problem for these bad judgements. Our bias to see the options and not the limitations, is one big part I think. In other words, "You have options!" is thus refuted, because it is "bounded in limits", and the limits have been pointed out X, Y, Z.. As I have been doing in many of my posts. — schopenhauer1

None of this makes me wrong btw. People in history have been wrong before. You can't generalize from that that I'm wrong now. I could just as validly argue that some people have been pessimistic throughout history before (Like thinking moving pictures will be impossible, or that science will only advance this far or or or) and you're one of those people. So let's not play the "People have been wrong before therefore you're wrong now" game.

But also, if "You have options!" is always refuted by "You are limited", then yours is just a type argument. This amounts to rejecting all forms of unconsented impositions. Which you clearly don't do. So yours would be an inconsistent position.

This would be violating the threshold of dignity. — schopenhauer1

For you. Maybe. But so far you've presented so many limitations of life and most people that have read them have continued to think it's not above the threshold. You've been sharing your perspective, and people have been listening and seeing its truth, and still they think life is under the threshold. And they can do this consistently.

and its options within limits, sufficiently so that is indeed similar to the lifeguard situation on second look. — schopenhauer1

Do you recognize that most people here see all the same limits and don't think they're sufficient?

Where do you get your objectivity from? What makes you think that if everyone saw the same limitations that you do they would come to the same conclusion? And what makes you think your conclusion is the "right" one that needs to be shared?

Yeah I think it would be preferable if people stopped trying to make everything about love and happiness or whatever and just admit that life is full of anguish and suffering and bullshit, and that you're expected to deal with it even if you fucking hate it; and that while nobody asked to be born, nobody really cares if you wish you hadn't been, because they have their own crap they have to deal with and don't have the time or patience to listen to people whining about their misery. At least they'd be honest.

But why is the pessimistic view of everything automatically assumed to be more “honest” and the optimists are full of shit with their heads stuck in the clouds? There are equally good arguments to be optimistic, or at the very least affirm one’s life. It’s definitely a popular idea but I don’t buy the notion that things like desire and happiness are inherently lacking in nature.

To call it a bias implies an "objective" way of viewing it. In the case of life there is no such thing. You can't get "out of life" to view life. — khaled

But again, this is why I brought up the extreme of Nazis and white supremacists. These are things that we can more likely agree are "objectively" bad, even if some people hold them to be true beliefs. What I am saying is that where it at first seems like you can never be "wrong" about your own evaluations, perhaps, there is an objectively "right" view here as well that is more accurate, if one were to stop to take the time with these biases. And you say that arguing with the Nazi is just a waste of time, but there have been numerous cases where neo-Nazis have disowned their previous beliefs and hatred and have taken on the better one. But you see, what makes it "better" not to be a Nazi or racist? What makes it "better" to not overlook the numerous cases one is being "harmed" and to further, not start this for another person? Before you respond, let me tie this in with something else, but I will answer some of your other quotes first.

Let me ask you this: What boundaries of life would you find acceptable to have children in? If you respond to nothing else respond to this.

If you can't answer that, then yours is a type argument. In which case it fails because you don't apply it to general day to day life (surprise parties are ok for example, generally) — khaled

Stop with the type arguments. This also applies to surprise parties. You're wasting typing by repeatedly pointing out that "life is an unconsented imposition". So are many things you find ok. We are now arguing about whether it is bad enough. — khaled

Right, so it is a (what you call) extent argument I am making, at this point. That is to say, starting life for someone else is sufficiently meeting a threshold that is crossed to make it a violation and thus wrong. I think this part, I have made the case that the limitations and conditions thus described are part of the reasons. Let me make some of the connecting steps:

1) A surprise party is equivalent to tapping the lifeguard. It is not overlooking the person to such a degree that it becomes a violation of dignity.

2) However, if you were to force a person into giving surprise parties for the rest of his life, that would be a gross violation. Now, we can probably all agree though that's true, that is an absurd scenario. But like the lifeguarding school, I think it is analogous to life really, and not that far off. But instead of the limited option of surprise party for life, it is the challenge/overcoming challenge game for life. Within this game you have an odd assortment of known and unknowns..

3) What is known is the limitations which are the options of sociocultural needs (necessary to meet drives like survival, comfort-seeking, and restlessness).. but these include things like either: Working, homelessness, free-riding, and suicide.

4) What is unknown is the immense amounts of contingent harms such as emotional anguish, physical ailments, disasters, annoyances, and a vast, very long list of other things that a person can experience and be.

Taking the challenges of the limitations (I call this "necessary suffering" as it is systemic to existence as a human mainly) and the contingent harms, we have a sufficiently large enough qualitative and quantitative amount of (for lack of better word) "stuff" that would count for pervasive controlling and overlooking of the negative aspects done to someone else. This would then cause the dignity violation.

Now, from here, you will say, "I deem it not sufficient". And so be it. At this point we can at least agree that individuals must make up their own mind as to whether to argument makes a logical, emotional, or other appeal. I am fine with that, but I will present my case nonetheless.

I could just as validly argue that some people have been pessimistic throughout history before (Like thinking moving pictures will be impossible, or that science will only advance this far or or or) and you're one of those people. So let's not play the "People have been wrong before therefore you're wrong now" game. — khaled

My point was simply that people's pervasive ideas on subjects were wrong and now taken as a matter of course.

For you. Maybe. But so far you've presented so many limitations of life and most people that have read them have continued to think it's not above the threshold. You've been sharing your perspective, and people have been listening and seeing its truth, and still they think life is under the threshold. And they can do this consistently. — khaled

Okay. Again, I present my case. That's all I can do. People's being convinced of it, doesn't necessarily mean anything. Again, going back to abolitionists- they were a minority in American life in the 1800s. And even if one was against slavery, giving black people equal civil rights under the law and voting rights was even less popular. It took a war with 600,000 dead Americans to "resolve" the issue. And did it resolve the issue really? No, Jim Crow in the American South persisted up until the 1960s (at least). So, yeah people can persistently have a point of view, no doubt.

Do you recognize that most people here see all the same limits and don't think they're sufficient? — khaled

Right, see above.. But also tying back to my first response, I think there is a sort of "metaphysical" and "epistemological" issue in regards to ethics/values. (In the end, they are probably both epistemological, but I want to make the distinction somehow). You have called it "type vs. extent". I want to keep my distinction though.

1) Metaphysically, someone can be "wrong" about what value is that is wrong or right. So for example, someone can think slavery is not wrong. But that itself would be wrong.

2) Epistemologically, someone can be "wrong" about how much of something would put it in the category of "wrong". So for example, I force my child into doing chores at home because he needs to know that he needs to contribute as well. Well, that is usually not considered as "meeting the threshold" for slavery. But then let's say, I really want to rest from work today, and I sent my eight year old to go to the factory and start making the widgets that I usually make there. Well, hold up now.. This is starting to look like child slavery (obviously assuming no one catches the eight year old to stop him from working there). So what is making the difference? There is a threshold of some kind, where something that is not wrong, becomes wrong with a sufficient (as you call it) extent.

Now, there are often one or both of mistakes going on here with antinatalism. On the metaphysical side, they are not seeing the violation of dignity itself as wrong. That is to say, they don't even recognize that overlooking a large amount of negatives on someone else's behalf is just "wrong" or they don't think anything about a "typical" life counts as crossing the threshold of "overlooking a large amount of negatives on someone else's behalf". I don't want to keep repeating all the negatives that one is overlooking on someone else's behalf, but I think it is a large enough in quantity and quality that it does cross the threshold.

I have given numerous (not directly in this thread, but look at my corpus as a whole for this) accounts of the negatives which we are often not seeing, or perhaps just not clearly reasoning it out. I have also given some ideas as to why it is such a pervasive thing to overlook the overlooking that is going on, and what is being overlooked.

What I am saying is that where it at first seems like you can never be "wrong" about your own evaluations, perhaps, there is an objectively "right" view here as well that is more accurate — schopenhauer1

We can both say this. It needs to be shown.

I think it is analogous to life really, and not that far off. — schopenhauer1

I don’t. That’s the point.

What is unknown is the immense amounts of contingent harms such as emotional anguish, physical ailments, disasters, annoyances, and a vast, very long list of other things that a person can experience and be. — schopenhauer1

How is this unknown? Seems pretty known to me. I know what all of those things are.

Taking the challenges of the limitations (I call this "necessary suffering" as it is systemic to existence as a human mainly) and the contingent harms, we have a sufficiently large enough qualitative and quantitative amount of (for lack of better word) "stuff" that would count for pervasive controlling and overlooking of the negative aspects done to someone else. This would then cause the dignity violation. — schopenhauer1

I don’t think we do. Despite seeing all of those contingent harms and limitations. And I’m not in the minority by thinking this.

Now, from here, you will say, "I deem it not sufficient". And so be it. At this point we can at least agree that individuals must make up their own mind as to whether to argument makes a logical, emotional, or other appeal. I am fine with that — schopenhauer1

Oh. Not much more to discuss then is there?

Okay. Again, I present my case. That's all I can do — schopenhauer1

Yes but you think your case has objectivity it doesn’t have. That’s what I’m showing here. Your idea that the contingent harms and limitations place the enforcement of life above the threshold, is not an “objectively correct” idea. That’s the point. This is the nature of arguments from extent. When you think something is too bad that doesn’t mean others are wrong in thinking it’s not that bad. Even while having all the same info you do.

There is a threshold of some kind, where something that is not wrong, becomes wrong with a sufficient (as you call it) extent. — schopenhauer1

Correct. And where that threshold is is not objective. By definition. That’s the downfall of extent arguments. Someone can think that even forcing their child to do chores is slave labor. Heck, one can consistently think that sending them to a factory to work is fine but making them do the laundry is slave labor, if they happen to truly despise laundry. There will always be enough differences about 2 tasks that you can say one is bad to enforce and another is ok to enforce consistently.

I don't want to keep repeating all the negatives that one is overlooking on someone else's behalf, but I think it is a large enough in quantity and quality that it does cross the threshold. — schopenhauer1

Key words: I think.

You have no objective or privileged point of view when it comes to that.

I have given numerous (not directly in this thread, but look at my corpus as a whole for this) accounts of the negatives which we are often not seeing, or perhaps just not clearly reasoning it out — schopenhauer1

Right. And I doubt anyone discovered any new limits or types of suffering that they didn’t know of before. And yet they were not antinatalists. Because they don’t think those things go over the threshold.

Right. And I doubt anyone discovered any new limits or types of suffering that they didn’t know of before. And yet they were not antinatalists. Because they don’t think those things go over the threshold. — khaled

And thus why I split the metaphysical and epistemological distinction in ethics. So for example, the ancient Aztecs found it perfectly acceptable, and even morally right, to use captured peoples as sacrifices to their god to ensure the sun rises. Some societies found certain forms of cannibalism acceptable. Now, certain forms of eating animal meat and sacrificing of things for a greater good is deemed as acceptable, but when it meets a certain threshold is now seen as no good (limits have been met for no longer moral or at least acceptable). At some point, it may be that people will see the tyranny of putting people into the challenge/overcoming challenge game.. that giving people the "options" (or limits really) of various types of "work", or homelessness/poverty, or simply "go kill yourself", might in fact be not right, not acceptable, not moral.

@khaled I thought your responses for this were pretty convincing, but how would you respond with the interesting objection that enabling the capacity for striving or desire is unethical itself? Someone gave me this intuition pump:

Most people would probably agree that if I made someone addicted to a drug like heroin deliberately and then locked them in a basement room without heroin, leaving them to experience the suffering of withdrawal, squirming in deprivation, that would be unethical, I’m making them suffer by creating an addiction and leaving them to starve, I should have just not done that. Now let’s say hypothetically I had desire serum – not heroin, it’s just liquid that contains any possible random desire one could think of. Some trivial, like the desire to eat spaghetti with tomato sauce, some unrealistic, like the desire to transform into a different animal or travel back into the past, some that would require hurting others in order to fulfill, like the desire to rape and torture for gratification. I take that stuff and inject it into people in their sleep without knowing their life circumstances, gambling with how this will affect them in the future. Perhaps they wake up the next day craving a certain type of meal, perhaps they will crave to live in a different country, perhaps they will crave to become someone they are not or travel into the future, perhaps they will crave to rape a kitten with a sharp object – I don’t know.

Would that be ethical? I think the answer is no.
And that in a sense sums up why procreation is wrong. A conscious lifeform is essentially a desire machine – a pleasure addict. We have to chase pleasure/relief, or we are subjected to the alternative of suffering/harm, having a child is creating a slave to pleasure.

Eat or hunger. Drink or thirst. Socialize or get lonely. Sleep or fatigue. Breathe or suffocate. So on and so forth. Pleasure or suffering. More pleasure of satiation, less suffering of hunger. More suffering of hunger, less pleasure of satiation.

It’s fair to say that before procreating, you also don’t know how this will turn out for the victim.
Perhaps they will largely experience trivial desires, perhaps unrealistic to fulfill ones, perhaps those that require harming someone else, so you are creating an addict to pleasure without guarantee of them always being able to get their fix, and if they don’t get it, they suffer, they are harmed, that’s how sentient life works. No certainty how tormenting the desires will be. No certainty how long lasting the fulfillment of those desires will be. No guarantee the desires can even realistically be fulfilled. No guarantee that the desires won’t require the victim to harm someone else to fulfill. So it’s very similar to the hypothetical of desire liquid, you’re creating an addict with no guarantee that they’ll be able to get their pleasure fix to prevent them from suffering. You force a pleasure addict into an existence where there is no guarantee that they’ll be able to obtain whichever pleasure is needed to prevent painful withdrawal symptoms. Some desires might be easy to fulfill, like the desire to eat a certain meal, some are just basic needs/wants/desires.

It’s already rather high maintenance though and not every pleasure addict/desire machine gets what they need to be properly satiated. So while you aren’t forcibly making someone addicted to heroin and then locking them in your basement room without any heroin, you are risking creating that scenario of experiencing intense deprivation, you create the pleasure addiction with no guarantee of absolute fairness, where the victim is always guaranteed to get whatever they need to avoid suffering. You create someone with a need for movement, they desire to move their limbs, an addiction we usually just take for granted to be satiated at all times, and then they get hit by a car and are paralyzed for the rest of their life. But even if one desire machine/pleasure addict always obtained their pleasure fix just in time, fulfilled every desire just in time before the suffering got out of hand, without harming anyone else in the process, they still wouldn’t miss their life if you never created them, so I still don’t think they justify all the deprived, suffering addicts.

Child A is experiencing a desire for christmas gifts and is happy upon receiving gifts on christmas, child B is also tormented by such a desire and dies of leukemia before christmas, not getting their wish of a perfect christmas fulfilled.

Ibelieve it’s within reason for me to say that if we didn’t risk creating either of these children by stopping reproduction, child A would not be trapped in some kind of pre-birth torture chamber, horribly tormented over their lack of christmas gifts, crying their eyes out over no gifts. So why create child B? Child A would not miss happiness if they didn’t exist, so don’t risk child B.
The would-be happy ones would not miss their happiness if they didn’t exist, their addiction would not exist, so there’d be no unresolved cravings anywhere else if you simply abstain from creating the cravings in the first place, so why risk creating unhappy ones in the process? No matter how great your life supposedly is, it not existing would have not hurt you in the least.

Overall I think your Careful Natalism idea aligns with my intuitions but there are things like this where I'm stumped

It's the same old argument of “It can go wrong so it’s wrong to do”. Surprise parties can also be thought of as messing with people using desire serums. Maybe they wanted to diet, but now that the party has started they feel pressured to eat cake because they don’t want to disappoint anyone. This “not wanting to disappoint” was created purely by the surprise party. And there is no way for the party throwers to have known that it would be satisfied or that it wouldn’t conflict with other desires. That makes it wrong?

It’s once again arguing against every kind of unconsented imposition (because they come with desires that may or may not be fulfilled) while the person saying it probably doesn’t think all unconsented impositions are wrong. Or if they are arguing that life imposes too much then there is no objectivity behind it and the argument is not convincing. It’s like going around trying to convince everyone that people shouldn’t drink coffee because it’s “too bitter”. For you maybe, but that’s no argument.

Or if they are arguing that life imposes too much then there is no objectivity behind it and the argument is not convincing. It’s like going around trying to convince everyone that people shouldn’t drink coffee because it’s “too bitter”. For you maybe, but that’s no argument. — khaled

@Albero

So I guess this comes down to how the “majority” assesses something for you. Can a majority of people be wrong on the morality of something? Pick an egregious ethical wrong in history like slavery. At one point a majority of people felt neutral to strongly about its rightness. Yet this changed. Was slavery (or pick anything similar) right because the majority thought it so? At some point the logic and emotional appeal of the extent that slavery was overlooking someone else and was an egregious violation of their dignity landed with a majority of people. In that case, the application of basic rights to all peoples was the main ethical justification that was voiced. And emotional appeals such as Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Toms Cabin and slave accounts of their plight were some of the biggest catalysts.

So of course ANs try to appeal to some sort of emotional understanding of the extent of over overlooking. Perhaps with enough examples, thought experiments, etc people will see that this too meets the threshold- reminding people that it is putting people in X situation or experience that is pervasive and controlling. Slavery was wrong then as is now, it’s just people’s capacity or perspective to understand this that changed.

Yet this changed. Was slavery (or pick anything similar) right because the majority thought it so? — schopenhauer1

I never made an argument from majority. The words "Majority" or "Most" don't appear in my comment at all.

people will see that this too meets the threshold — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure what you mean by the way you phrased this. If you mean to say that it "objectively" meets the threshold and people are not seeing it then you're wrong. There is no objectivity to extent arguments. Again, one can consistently hold that being enslaved for 30 years is better than eating a cockroach.

If by it you just mean that people will change their mind and come to see things as you do: The chances are basically 0. Because whoever thinks that life was a mistake will die with no descendants, leaving only the people who think life isn't a mistake behind. All it takes is 2 people of opposite genders to disagree, and the whole "project" is for nothing.

Slavery was wrong then as is now, it’s just people’s capacity or perspective to understand this that changed. — schopenhauer1

Agreed. But I don't think you can tell people much about how horrible life is that they don't already know. So it doesn't seem to me like a lack of perspective.

I never made an argument from majority. The words "Majority" or "Most" don't appear in my comment at all. — khaled

Yet you said:

Right. And I doubt anyone discovered any new limits or types of suffering that they didn’t know of before. And yet they were not antinatalists. Because they don’t think those things go over the threshold. — khaled

And so did the majority back in the day that ripped out hearts, took indigenous land, condoned chattel slavery, condoned child labor, etc. etc. etc. You have been making a tacit and explicit argument from majority.

If by it you just mean that people will change their mind and come to see things as you do: The chances are basically 0. Because whoever thinks that life was a mistake will die with no descendants, leaving only the people who think life isn't a mistake behind. All it takes is 2 people of opposite genders to disagree, and the whole "project" is for nothing. — khaled

Well, if people enslave someone in some country, that doesn't mean its right. Just because people engage in an activity, that doesn't mean its right. This argument even you know has got to lead to absurd conclusions about morality.

Agreed. But I don't think you can tell people much about how horrible life is that they don't already know. So it doesn't seem to me like a lack of perspective. — khaled

That I don't think is true. People really don't see what is not phrased in a way to allow them to open up their perspective. I mean, a slave born in a relatively tolerant setting may think that slavery isn't that bad. A person who engages in certain psychological gymnastics might justify a lot of things. And surveys and interviews cannot be relied upon just because at a time of the interview someone says "such and such". Are people's assessments of themselves always accurate? Are personality tests completely accurate just because someone is answering questions about themselves? So then people don't have ideals of what they think they are? Of what they think the interviewer wants to see? Of what society wants? Of what they think is good vs. what they do? Etc. etc.

You have been making a tacit and explicit argument from majority. — schopenhauer1

False. An argument from authority would be “AN is wrong because most people don’t agree with it”

I was only pointing out that you offered no new perspectives on life that people didn’t know of. You didn’t inform anyone of suffering they weren’t aware of. So your claim that it’s due to a lack of perspective is just false. That was the point of this quote:

And I doubt anyone discovered any new limits or types of suffering that they didn’t know of before. And yet they were not antinatalists. Because they don’t think those things go over the threshold. — khaled

It says so right there. “I doubt anyone discovered any new limits or types of suffering they didn’t know about before”. And so it’s not a lack of perspective.

Well, if people enslave someone in some country, that doesn't mean its right. — schopenhauer1

Didn’t say anything like that. All I said was: It won’t work, and why. Because you seemed to be claiming it will.

On the other hand if you meant that there is some sort of objectivity to your view, that can’t be true because it’s an argument from extent.

People really don't see what is not phrased in a way to allow them to open up their perspective. — schopenhauer1

Right, my point being everyone has heard your phrasing before. That life is a mistake, or that it’s enforced slavery, etc. It’s not a new take.