It's about how we assess what "too much" imposition is. — schopenhauer1

Right, that’s what I’m saying. But you claim that the person who thinks life is not too much of an imposition is wrong. What is your justification?

Sometimes, a slave for example, might not know how bad they have it objectively — schopenhauer1

I don’t think “how bad they have it objectively” makes sense. How bad one has it is always a subjective assessment.

Do you think that suicide is easy for people? — schopenhauer1

I think it shouldn’t be too difficult for someone that wishes that they had never been born if they could just go to the store and get euthanasia drugs. After all, if someone really hates their life then would you expect them to fear death that much. I personally don’t think that I fear death but I’m absolutely terrified of dying in a brutal fashion. Euthanasia can solve that problem though.

I guess if someone believes in an afterlife then they might fear the afterlife but I would imagine the vast majority of people that wish that they haven’t been born don’t believe in that. If they do believe in that, then I imagine that they probably would also believe in there being life before birth and that would also seemingly nullify antinatalism.

And do you think the difficulty of doing something like that is a reason why life is then a good thing for that person? — schopenhauer1

Nah, I’m not making the judgement that most people have lives worth living. I just don’t see why that question would particularly matter if people say they are glad to be born. After all, if someone wants to eat a shit sandwich, then why try to encourage people to stop feeding shit sandwiches to them? I think that as long as there is reasonable accommodation for those who don’t want to continue eating the shit sandwich, there is not much of an issue here. I believe that easy access to euthanasia would be a reasonable accommodation but unfortunately it doesn’t exist because our society imposes life on us on a much deeper level than simply rejecting antinatalism.

I don’t think “how bad they have it objectively” makes sense. How bad one has it is always a subjective assessment. — khaled

@Isaac (khaled and Isaac same person, slightly different writing style? haha.. collusion?) anyways..
@Bitter Crank
@TheHedoMinimalist

There are a lot of facets to explore in terms of subjective versus objective in the ethical realm.. Here's some examples:

Scenario 1: You have a prick boss. The boss is good at seeing who to exploit. He sees there is a worker who is willing to do pretty much any task given to him with a smile and a yessir. Maybe the person really just likes to work a lot. Maybe he's a people pleaser. Maybe he just looks at everything always with rose-tinted glasses. Maybe he just feels this will get him ahead. The other workers are given the average amount of work. The boss is astute enough to know that he cannot exploit them as much as the people-pleaser worker with the can-do attitude. So the boss keeps piling more and more work on the poor schmuck. The poor schmuck doesn't see any problem with it, let's say.

Is the boss wrong in what he is doing? Is he being exploitative of someone's comparative willingness to work? Is this just? Is this too much of an imposition? I would say yes to all of this, EVEN THOUGH the willing-worker doesn't see it as a problem.

Scenario 2: Let us say, we can give a tally of a typical day when negative experiences occur for a person. Spill your coffee -1, traffic jam -4, smartass remark of coworker -3, forgot to do X, -2.. You do some positives too- laugh at a joke +1, read your favorite topic, +3, etc. etc. When you add it all up, you're actually at a net negative. In other societies.. this might be as sad as looking for trash in a trash heap, etc, so go as dark and deep in the human experience as you want..

However, the local psychology department is doing a survey and has selected you to answer one question. This question, without any nuance, is meant to give a summation of ALL aspects of your life with one question. "Were you glad to be born?" The answer is "Yes". The interviewer walks away and is satisfied that this is a perfectly accurate self-assessment.. but is it?

There are the immediate phenomenological aspects to life that is the "lived experience" and then there are abstractions of this lived experience, in some remove from daily goings-on. It could be demonstrably shown that humans overestimate their positive experiences when put in the non-usual mode of evaluating their WHOLE life with one sentence. There are many biases going on including:

1) Cultural bias.. Even if someone was to REALLY think about life in depth, without reflexively giving an answer, that person might look to what social norms generally accepts as an appropriate answer. So a person on the fence who is thoughtful might never give the true answer, because then they are the weird "Negative Nancy" or "Debbie Downer" (or put in X pejorative here).

2) Cognitive bias... People have cognitive biases to distort what their experiences are when recalling them. They become cherry-picked, confused, etc. So sure we can say that in their evaluation they sounded like they were content with the situation, but then not be living the situation they are describing (see Scenario 2).

khaled and Isaac same person, slightly different writing style? haha — schopenhauer1

No Khaled is a lot more tolerant than I am.

Is the boss wrong in what he is doing? Is he being exploitative of someone's comparative willingness to work? Is this just? Is this too much of an imposition? I would say yes to all of this, EVEN THOUGH the willing-worker doesn't see it as a problem. — schopenhauer1

You haven't said on what grounds. The simple explanation seems to be contrary to your hyper-individualist stance. You say we can't judge happiness on behalf others (and take action assuming our answer), but here you're saying we can judge unhappiness on behalf of others and take action accordingly. Why can we assume we're better judges of suffering but not better judges of happiness?

The interviewer walks away and is satisfied that this is a perfectly accurate self-assessment.. but is it?

There are the immediate phenomenological aspects to life that is the "lived experience" and then there are abstractions of this lived experience, in some remove from daily goings-on. It could be demonstrably shown that humans overestimate their positive experiences when put in the non-usual mode of evaluating their WHOLE life with one sentence. — schopenhauer1

But why should the 'in-the-moment' assessments take precident, there's nothing which objectively makes these assessments more 'real'. They're subject no less to expectation biases, perhaps the thought out judgement at the end of the day is a better assessment for taking the whole day in context. All you have is two slightly contradictory assessments. You've no grounds to treat one as more 'real' than another.

So a person on the fence who is thoughtful might never give the true answer, because then they are the weird "Negative Nancy" or "Debbie Downer" (or put in X pejorative here). — schopenhauer1

This is true, I think. Positive outlooks are more socially acceptable than negative ones. I can see how this could impact overall judgements of a person's quality of life, but there's a long way from "people overstate their quality of life when asked" to "most people would rather not have been born". The social pressure wouldn't apply in therapy, for example, where it's a documented effect that people overstate their negative moods to better justify to themselves why they're seeking help.

People have cognitive biases to distort what their experiences are when recalling them. They become cherry-picked, confused, etc. So sure we can say that in their evaluation they sounded like they were content with the situation, but then not be living the situation they are describing (see Scenario 2). — schopenhauer1

Also true, but this one is subject to the problem above. Happiness is just a state of mind, it's not an objective property of causal events. If we're happier with out post hoc filtered recollection than we were with the original events, then we're happier. Full stop. There's no 'real' happiness, it's all constructed. There's literally no neurological equivalent of being 'happy', it's entirely something we construct from recollection, there is no other form.

Is the boss wrong in what he is doing? Is he being exploitative of someone's comparative willingness to work? Is this just? Is this too much of an imposition? — schopenhauer1

I would say no to all questions here and I think a lot of other people would as well. I don’t think we have any reason to care about some seemingly abstract and hypothetical harms done to others if they aren’t even expressing a grievance and they aren’t even willing to do anything to stand up for themselves. The employee in your hypothetical seemingly could tell the boss to give him less work but he chooses not to. In addition, he isn’t even forced to work for this terrible boss and with his go-getter attitude he could easily find a better job. So, why care about this person’s well being? If his well being is bad, then isn’t it completely his fault for not doing anything about it?(if there’s lots of things that he can do to alleviate his harm with not too much effort). I think that we have the greatest expectation to be able to help ourselves and pursue our own interests. If someone isn’t even willing to put thought and effort into their own welfare then it’s hard for me to understand why others should take their welfare considerations seriously either.

I also think that the expression of grievance should probably play a pretty big role in morality because it allows us to know what people have problems and how they want those problems resolved and that allows us to efficiently allocate the energy that we are willing to put into moral matters in domains where it will have maximum appreciation from others. Having that appreciation from others also really helps motivate people to care about others as it usually makes people feel good about what they are doing and ignoring grievances makes us feel guilty and that causes us to suffer.

You haven't said on what grounds. The simple explanation seems to be contrary to your hyper-individualist stance. You say we can't judge happiness on behalf others (and take action assuming our answer), but here you're saying we can judge unhappiness on behalf of others and take action accordingly. Why can we assume we're better judges of suffering but not better judges of happiness? — Isaac

Well, the point of this wasn't to show someone's reaction on behalf of others, per se, though that can be a possible avenue to explore. What it is illustrating is that the ethical onus fell on the owner, not the worker's reaction to being exploited. The implication being that, if someone is imposing on another, it can still be wrong despite the person being exploited perhaps not minding. I wanted to use a different example than the usual one I use about slavery, but it is similar. A slave who may not know they are being imposed upon unjustly, may not seem to care. This doesn't mean the slaveowner is thus absolved of doing the imposing or should keep persisting. This goes back to what @khaled (you) said earlier about the absolute subjective nature of ethics, as I interpreted him/you:

I don’t think “how bad they have it objectively” makes sense. How bad one has it is always a subjective assessment. — khaled

But why should the 'in-the-moment' assessments take precident, there's nothing which objectively makes these assessments more 'real'. They're subject no less to expectation biases, perhaps the thought out judgement at the end of the day is a better assessment for taking the whole day in context. All you have is two slightly contradictory assessments. You've no grounds to treat one as more 'real' than another. — Isaac

Well, precisely. This is again to throw doubt on simply saying "it's all subjective". I don't think that is the full story. Subjective at what point in time? Is a summative statement the one that should be used or the in-the-moment?

This leads then to the factors that seem to indicate we shouldn't quite take the summative statement (Scenario 1 and 2)...

Positive outlooks are more socially acceptable than negative ones. I can see how this could impact overall judgements of a person's quality of life, but there's a long way from "people overstate their quality of life when asked" to "most people would rather not have been born". — Isaac

I really don't think so in the context of an interview. I am not just talking about to very close friends or someone like a therapist which actually may be a better indicator. I think in a formal context of acquaintances, co-workers, strangers, etc. the tendency would be towards what the social expectation is. This plays out in social media a lot. Sure, there are always those willing to post their full views and innermost feelings for everyone to see, but for a lot of people, it is important to present photos of a happy, well-adjusted life with vacations, sunsets, smiling families, etc. Posting your daily log of how your day sucked will soon start getting you strange looks and too much negative attention. But this doesn't have to be a modern social media context. I think cultural groups are basically self-reinforcing with their social pressures. Even if this was a tribal society, I am sure there is even that much more pressures to not stray from the usual modes of thought without getting some negative attention.

Also true, but this one is subject to the problem above. Happiness is just a state of mind, it's not an objective property of causal events. If we're happier with out post hoc filtered recollection than we were with the original events, then we're happier. Full stop. — Isaac

But that is the point. No, you can't say that is happier, because that is a post-hoc "answer". But is the "answer" the events themselves that were experienced before the few seconds/minutes it took to summarize your whole life for someone?

There's no 'real' happiness, it's all constructed. There's literally no neurological equivalent of being 'happy', it's entirely something we construct from recollection, there is no other form. — Isaac

So one of my main points here was to throw doubt on the completely taking subjective view. Your point here, again, is reinforcing my point -this brief summation may simply not be "the" answer, because it was constructed based on various factors which may bias it. Certainly Pollyannaism is a thing, we seem to agree there. There are so many things we simply have to suppress, forget about, diminish in order to go on with life. If the brain/mind held on to things as when they happened, we couldn't function, so the brain does things with memories and projections to future and calibrates it with present working memory, etc.. It's all complicated and way more involved than a post on TPF, but I am getting at the fact that it isn't as straightforward as to if our subjective answer at a moment-in-time is "the" answer for how we feel on day-to-day real time.

I would say no to all questions here and I think a lot of other people would as well. I don’t think we have any reason to care about some seemingly abstract and hypothetical harms done to others if they aren’t even expressing a grievance and they aren’t even willing to do anything to stand up for themselves. The employee in your hypothetical seemingly could tell the boss to give him less work but he chooses not to. In addition, he isn’t even forced to work for this terrible boss and with his go-getter attitude he could easily find a better job. So, why care about this person’s well being? If his well being is bad, then isn’t it completely his fault for not doing anything about it?(if there’s lots of things that he can do to alleviate his harm with not too much effort). I think that we have the greatest expectation to be able to help ourselves and pursue our own interests. If someone isn’t even willing to put thought and effort into their own welfare then it’s hard for me to understand why others should take their welfare considerations seriously either. — TheHedoMinimalist

My reply is the same as to Isaac's above. I will copy and paste it:

Well, the point of this wasn't to show someone's reaction on behalf of others, per se, though that can be a possible avenue to explore. What it is illustrating is that the ethical onus fell on the owner, not the worker's reaction to being exploited. The implication being that, if someone is imposing on another, it can still be wrong despite the person being exploited perhaps not minding. I wanted to use a different example than the usual one I use about slavery, but it is similar. A slave who may not know they are being imposed upon unjustly, may not seem to care. This doesn't mean the slaveowner is thus absolved of doing the imposing or should keep persisting. This goes back to what @khaled (you) said earlier about the absolute subjective nature of ethics, as I interpreted him/you:
I don’t think “how bad they have it objectively” makes sense. How bad one has it is always a subjective assessment.
— khaled

It seems wrong to take advantage of someone (they don't have the awareness to realise they are being taken advantage of). If we tested that with a reductio, say the worker being taken advantage of had special needs.

The implication being that, if someone is imposing on another, it can still be wrong despite the person being exploited perhaps not minding. I wanted to use a different example than the usual one I use about slavery, but it is similar. A slave who may not know they are being imposed upon unjustly, may not seem to care. This doesn't mean the slaveowner is thus absolved of doing the imposing or should keep persisting. This goes back to what khaled (you) said earlier about the absolute subjective nature of ethics, as I interpreted him/you:

I don’t think “how bad they have it objectively” makes sense. How bad one has it is always a subjective assessment. — schopenhauer1

Yes. I agree that how bad one has it is not always a subjective judgement. In terms of 'judgement' other people judge on our behalf too. My point is that they can judge happiness as well as suffering. If you can judge the slave to be suffering despite them appearing happy, I can judge that you, for example, would be happy if you just...{whatever therapy one might advise}. You'd want to say to that "no, you don't know me, what right have you got to say that", but the grounds are the same - external judgement by a third party based on what we know about people on average. So just as you can claim more people are unhappy than say so, I can claim more people are happy then know it.

Subjective at what point in time? Is a summative statement the one that should be used or the in-the-moment?

This leads then to the factors that seem to indicate we shouldn't quite take the summative statement (Scenario 1 and 2)... — schopenhauer1

But it doesn't 'lead to' those factors at all. They are just some factors we might consider, there's no grounds on which to choose the summary over the in-the-moment judgements or vice versa.

I think cultural groups are basically self-reinforcing with their social pressures. — schopenhauer1

As I said, I agree. But you've still not made your case for the extent of this phenomena, only for it's existence. It may be only a minor positive spin on some otherwise mixed events. It's mere existence doesn't mean most people would rather have never been born.

No, you can't say that is happier, because that is a post-hoc "answer". — schopenhauer1

All there is is the post hoc answer. That's what I'm telling you. There's no such thing as 'happiness' or 'sadness' that isn't a post hoc assessment - it's a psychological unicorn, doesn't exist.

Is the boss wrong in what he is doing? Is he being exploitative of someone's comparative willingness to work? Is this just? Is this too much of an imposition? — schopenhauer1

You already know my position on this but: No to all but the second (yes he’s being exploitative, which isn’t a problem when the person getting exploited doesn’t see an issue with it)

When you add it all up, you're actually at a net negative. — schopenhauer1

What’s the significance of this?

To me what matters is whether or not someone has an issue with the sum being negative. Most people with negative sums seem not to have an issue with it.

First off, the idea of assigning numbers to pleasure and pain and summing them up is ridiculous, but even if it were possible, and even if the sum was negative, you haven’t given the reason why we should care. Why should this (nonsensical and impossible) objective measurement be taken more seriously than whether or not the person themselves minds the imposition.

“You were in a traffic jam, and you spilled your coffee too! You would’ve been better off not born”

It seems clear to me that the sum of pleasure and pain isn’t all we consider. Raising children is more often than not extremely painful in comparison to how much pleasure it brings. Yet everyone does it and doesn’t seem to mind the negative balance (note, I said raising not having. This applies even more so to adoptive parents)

1) Cultural bias.. Even if someone was to REALLY think about life in depth, without reflexively giving an answer, that person might look to what social norms generally accepts as an appropriate answer. So a person on the fence who is thoughtful might never give the true answer, because then they are the weird "Negative Nancy" or "Debbie Downer" (or put in X pejorative here).

2) Cognitive bias... People have cognitive biases to distort what their experiences are when recalling them. They become cherry-picked, confused, etc. So sure we can say that in their evaluation they sounded like they were content with the situation, but then not be living the situation they are describing (see Scenario 2). — schopenhauer1

Same as above. Why should any of this be more important than whether or not the person minds the imposition.

(khaled and Isaac same person, slightly different writing style? haha.. collusion?) — schopenhauer1

Ah yes. I had a 100+ comment back and forth with myself, at the beginning merely pretending to be an antinatalist (and I have to say I did a very good job since my machinations lay undetected by you despite the fact that the 3 of us have been in every single AN thread) then “changed my mind” through the conversation with myself, all the while making sure to stay up 24/7 to make it seem like me and Isaac are clearly in different time zones all to troll Mr. Schopenhauer here.

Well, precisely. This is again to throw doubt on simply saying "it's all subjective". — schopenhauer1

No one said “it’s all subjective” about ethics. But yes it is absolutely all subjective when it comes to your assessment of your situation. That seems clear enough. To some, being stuck in a room with a tarantula is terrifying but I hear Australians think of them as food. Which one here is objectively correct?

Your point here, again, is reinforcing my point -this brief summation may simply not be "the" answer, because it was constructed based on various factors which may bias it. — schopenhauer1

What would a “correct” answer of “how happy are you” be? And how do you get it? Actually, just show me.

I woke up today, the day after the vaccine and my shoulder is in pain. I had breakfast then opened this site randomly because I haven’t checked it in a while. I started reading your replies which weren’t really directed at me, and got annoyed at the fact you think I’m Isaac. Because I get annoyed when people start a conversation then refuse to actually tackle the opposition, instead making up some excuse as to why it is not worth tackling (in this case, that I’m supposedly Isaac). That’s been everything of note in my day so far. Please tell me how happy I am objectively, using the standard -100 to 100 numerical scale, given the above information, and demonstrate your workings.

[10 marks]

Yes, good point.

You already know my position on this but: No to all but the second (yes he’s being exploitative, which isn’t a problem when the person getting exploited doesn’t see an issue with it) — khaled

Yes, so we are going to differ on this then. As @Down The Rabbit Hole explained, it seems wrong to be doing the imposing in the first place by the employer. The main point being here that there can be something wrong done, even if no one perceives the wrong.

It seems clear to me that the sum of pleasure and pain isn’t all we consider. Raising children is more often than not extremely painful in comparison to how much pleasure it brings. Yet everyone does it and doesn’t seem to mind the negative balance (note, I said raising not having. This applies even more so to adoptive parents) — khaled

More cognitive distortions. Once you have a kid, you generally can't take it back or be in a state where you didn't have a kid. So there's no other (responsible) choice ha.

Same as above. Why should any of this be more important than whether or not the person minds the imposition. — khaled

That's the thing, they minded it at the moment.

Please tell me how happy I am objectively, using the standard -100 to 100 numerical scale, given the above information, and demonstrate your workings. — khaled

Well right, analog versus digital. When the question is asked, it's digital, but much of life is lived in the moment in analog (give me this binary answer right now!). Even the mood of the time being asked might affect things. Also, the question, "Did you want to be born" might be gotten at in different ways that isn't as straightforward, as this has all sorts of implications of suicide, depression, etc. that no one would want to project. However, investigate the holistic case of what is going on throughout the feelings, moods, and experiences throughout a day, a week, a month, a year, etc.

Is it permissible to do something on someone else's behalf because one has a notion that "most people" would "want this"? — schopenhauer1

First, I will assume that by "permissible" (too general) you mean "moral".

Now, independently of whether you mean "on someone else's behalf" literally or just "to someone else", acting on the principle or justification that "most people would want this" indicates that you don't have or cannot use your own ethical/moral principles. Acting on the basis of "what others would do in my place" indicates lack of ethical/moral integrity and irresponsibility. You should be able to act according to what you believe is right or wrong, good or bad, and accept the consequences of your actions.

Most people accept the killing of animals and the eating of animal flesh. Now, if you are a vegetarian (for moral, religious or health reasons), are you acting on the basis of what "most people" want, do or think? Certainly not. It would not be ethical/moral from your part, would it? That is, you would violate your ethical/moral principles and break your Integrirty.

Well, the point of this wasn't to show someone's reaction on behalf of others, per se, though that can be a possible avenue to explore. What it is illustrating is that the ethical onus fell on the owner, not the worker's reaction to being exploited. The implication being that, if someone is imposing on another, it can still be wrong despite the person being exploited perhaps not minding. I wanted to use a different example than the usual one I use about slavery, but it is similar. A slave who may not know they are being imposed upon unjustly, may not seem to care. This doesn't mean the slaveowner is thus absolved of doing the imposing or should keep persisting. — schopenhauer1

I think we normally think differently about the case of the slave owner and the slave because it is often imagined by the listener of that hypothetical that the slave is uneducated and has been indoctrinated into believing that his slavery is good. The slave owner is also presumed to know that he is exploiting the slave. But, I think this interpretation of this hypothetical would make it dis-analogous to procreation because a procreator is no more aware of his alleged wrongdoings than the adult offspring is of his alleged exploitation. In addition, every procreator is also an offspring. That seems to mean that the alleged exploiter has also been exploited by another procreator but feels that he is neither exploited nor exploiting. So, it would be like a slave owner that is also a slave to someone else.

But, then I think we have a problem with the argument here. My question is if someone doesn’t have an expectation to be aware that they are being exploited then how can they have an expectation to be aware that they are exploiting someone else? Or by analogy, if someone doesn’t have an expectation to know about their alleged cognitive biases and how that gives them a false perception that their life is good overall, then how can they be expected to know that procreation is wrong? I tend to think that if 2 individuals have an equal ability to figure out that exploitation is taking place, then the person who is being exploited should have the greatest expectation for several reasons:

1. Psychologically, people usually have less bias regarding the question of whether or not they are being exploited. I think it’s because it’s really hard to get someone to hold beliefs and to avoid doing things that are greatly contrary to their perceived self interest. For example, how many antinatalists do you know that had actual serious plans to get married and have children prior to accepting antinatalism? How many antinatalists do you know that decided to divorce their natalist spouse which they married before they realized that antinatalism is true? I would be surprised if you can even name one person who is like that. I think almost every antinatalist would avoid procreation even if they weren’t antinatalists. So, I think antinatalism is almost pointless from a persuasive standpoint.

I think it’s actually more effective for an antinatalist to argue that having children is bad for the parent in some manner. I think this can actually be highly persuasive and I have actually heard a decent amount of drama stories on reddit where someone married a spouse that wanted to have children only to spontaneously change their mind after acknowledging how hard and unpleasant it can be and this unfortunately has to lead to divorce. I think this shows that people are more willing to make great sacrifices for their own overall welfare.

On a final note, I think it makes more sense to hold a person responsible when we can make an easier case that they should have known better. For example, you probably wouldn’t want to hold a mentally challenged person responsible for not knowing that procreation is wrong and subsequently procreating. Even though having an unconscious tendency to reject beliefs because it doesn’t align with your interests isn’t quite like intellectual disability, it’s still something that can be used to argue that maybe an individual is in a better position to be able to know that there life isn’t good overall.

2. It seems to me that a person is more likely to be wrong about whether or not someone else’s life is worth starting than they are to be wrong about whether or not their own life is worth starting. I think this might become more intuitive to you if we imagine someone who thinks his life is worth starting but also thinks your life was worth starting and all your problems with life would be solved if you just started going to church or taking anti-depressants. Who is this person more likely to be right about in his evaluation? Well, surely himself rather than you as his evaluation of your life is quite silly. Even if he’s likely to be wrong about the quality of his own life, it’s at least more controversial that he is wrong here as it’s unclear to what extent humans are really biased towards the quality of their own life. On the other hand, he has to resort to some really silly reasoning to try to argue that your life was worth starting. By analogy, if someone says that their life is bad overall then that’s probably much harder to dispute than the claim that most people’s lives are bad overall. Because of this, maybe it makes more sense to give the onus to every individual to decide whether or not their life was worth starting and if it happens to be the case that assisted suicide does actually provide reasonable accommodation for people that wish that they hadn’t been born then it seems that there would be no onus on the procreator.

It seems wrong to take advantage of someone (they don't have the awareness to realise they are being taken advantage of). If we tested that with a reductio, say the worker being taken advantage of had special needs. — Down The Rabbit Hole

But, what if the boss has special needs also and he’s also unaware that he is exploiting the worker?

But, what if the boss has special needs also and he’s also unaware that he is exploiting the worker? — TheHedoMinimalist

I don't see any mechanism for that changing the wrongness of his actions. It would obviously change the boss's culpability though.

More cognitive distortions. Once you have a kid, you generally can't take it back or be in a state where you didn't have a kid. — schopenhauer1

Same applies to working out. It produces a lot of pain (If you’re doing it right) but people still do it. Even when they could easily be in a state where they’re not doing it.

The main point being here that there can be something wrong done, even if no one perceives the wrong. — schopenhauer1

So you want to say that right and wrong is divorced from what people think is right and wrong? That everyone can think something is right and it objectively being wrong somehow? I think that’s ridiculous.

You also seem to base this on some utilitarian standard. As in, if an action produces a negative utility, it’s wrong to do. And since we can think that something is right but it actually is wrong, it follows that we can think that something produces a positive utility but it actually produces a negative utility. Making people not good judges of their own happiness, and discrediting their answers to happy they are (cognitive distortions and all that), instead favoring some vague unspecified “objective and unbiased” measure of happiness you think can be achieved.

That's the thing, they minded it at the moment. — schopenhauer1

What do you mean? Who is “they” and when is “the moment”?

Do you mean to restate the fact that people often remember events more fondly than they really were? Ok, what’s the significance of this? How is this an argument for AN?

I remember we had this exchange before about the remembering self and experiencing self. I think the remembering self is what matters, even if it distorts. And so far you’ve given no reason as to why I should change my mind about this.

Well right, analog versus digital. When the question is asked, it's digital, but much of life is lived in the moment in analog (give me this binary answer right now!). Even the mood of the time being asked might affect things. Also, the question, "Did you want to be born" might be gotten at in different ways that isn't as straightforward, as this has all sorts of implications of suicide, depression, etc. that no one would want to project. — schopenhauer1

I’m not seeing an answer to the question anywhere here. You claim that there is some objective way to assess how happy someone is, by assigning numbers to different events and adding them up. So demonstrate it.

However, investigate the holistic case of what is going on throughout the feelings, moods, and experiences throughout a day, a week, a month, a year, etc. — schopenhauer1

Right and when I do this I find I’m generally very happy. You think this is some bias or other and that my answer should not be taken seriously in ethical considerations because of this bias. Instead, there is some objective, unbiased view of how happy I am, and it can be expressed numerically and that’s what we should use instead.

So, find that objective answer. Apparently I’m not a good indicator of how happy I “actually” am, so please indicate to me how happy I “actually” was that morning objectively in an unbiased way. Numerically, if you could.

I want to focus on one scenario on a time, and also address you both (three, including Isaac-Khaled complex actually), but don't have time to go over each line...

Scenario 1: The imposer doesn't realize they are imposing, neither does the imposed (the controversial part). Again, there was a time when people used to think X was not wrong.. X is now considered wrong. What makes this any different?

We think because if there is a multiplicity of choices for X, that must mean, that something is just. However, the option to not even need to make the choice for X is not on the table, so how is that just?
Coke, Pepsi, Juice, Water, etc. I don't want any of them in the first place.. not an option.

So this goes back to what is just.. You will say that "as long as "most people" don't see not having the option for no option as bad, it's all good". I'm questioning this default assumption.

Scenario 2: Cognitive distortions of binary vs. analog. Khaled said to try to objectively prove himself wrong about his evaluation.. But I am not putting in a spin of "objective" and "subjective" per se. Rather, it's analog and binary. The evaluations are still subjective.. So even the analog is subjective. So when you have something super painful, or even just mild irritations throughout the day, you would subjectively evaluate that. What I am saying is the results may be different than the binary answer of "yes/no" you get when asked a question summing up your whole life.

The imposer doesn't realize they are imposing, neither does the imposed (the controversial part). Again, there was a time when people used to think X was not wrong.. X is now considered wrong. What makes this any different? — schopenhauer1

Give an example of such an X. Slavery? The slaves didn’t think it was right. Gender inequality? Women didn’t think it was right. Racial discrimination? Black people didn’t think it was right. Etc.

No there was no point at which we unanimously agreed that X is right and discovered later that it was wrong or vice versa.

And this argument is as valid as “There were times we had wrong physical theories before, therefore quantum physics is bogus”

We think because if there is a multiplicity of choices for X — schopenhauer1

At first X was some action that we think is either wrong or not wrong. Now it’s a person? I’m confused.

You will say that "as long as "most people" don't see not having the option for no option as bad, it's all good" — schopenhauer1

No one will say that. They will and have said only that it is an important factor.

Rather, it's analog and binary. The evaluations are still subjective.. So even the analog is subjective. So when you have something super painful, or even just mild irritations throughout the day, you would subjectively evaluate that. What I am saying is the results may be different — schopenhauer1

On the one hand you have the momentary evaluations of events. On the other you have the evaluation of whether or not life was worth it overall. What would it mean for these two evaluations to be “the same result”? As you say, one is analog and one is binary. How can they be the same? It makes no sense.

Honestly the entire comment reads like something Bartricks would write.

You write this like I owe you something. I write my thoughts not to convince you believe it or not.

You write this like I owe you something. I write my thoughts not to convince you believe it or not. — schopenhauer1

This is not your blog. You do owe @khaled something, and others who've contributed to your thread. You owe them at least an honest attempt at following through the arguments they make, otherwise we're just the 'comments section' below your Wordpress. Those aren't the terms under which people make the effort to respond.

You write this like I owe you something. I write my thoughts not to convince you believe it or not. — schopenhauer1

No I write this to challenge your views. Clearly however, you don't want that. Which makes me question why you start threads in the first place. Do you want a thread where all the replies are "I agree"? What's the point of that?

And where exactly did it seem to you like I think you owe me something? I haven't changed my writing style or anything like that. Maybe I took on a more aggressive tone, but as I said, it's because I get annoyed when people start threads then start making up clearly ridiculous BS like "You're Isaac" to not have to deal with opposing views. If you can't handle opposition, don't post to a public site. Write your OP in a diary or something.

If it's not to convince, and if it's not to look for opposing views, then why write an OP at all?

No I write this to challenge your views. Clearly however, you don't want that. Which makes me question why you start threads in the first place. Do you want a thread where all the replies are "I agree"? What's the point of that? — khaled

I just don't need even more aggravation in my life and you can be very aggravating. You're on a righteous cause to "challenge schopenhauer1's view :roll:. Good for you.

If it's not to convince, and if it's not to look for opposing views, then why write an OP at all? — khaled

Because I FEEL LIKE IT. But more importantly, they are ideas I think I are worth thinking about. And if you don't like it fine. But you often write something like, "Well, this doesn't convince me." As if when I'm writing I'm hoping in gleeful restraint that khaled would approve. You make it oddly to the man without actually doing so, a great skill. In other words, you can write in a more conducive to dialogue way, but it's slash and burn like your friend Isaac. Anyways, I don't have much time to reply in much detail.

This is not your blog. You do owe khaled something, and others who've contributed to your thread. You owe them at least an honest attempt at following through the arguments they make, otherwise we're just the 'comments section' below your Wordpress. Those aren't the terms under which people make the effort to respond. — Isaac

First off, I do that pretty well I think MORE than other people who are more well-liked (known) on this forum. So many people write something and barely respond or just disappear. Many other posters will give one word quips or sarcastic remarks to thought-out posts.. I at least give the minimal time and day to most thoughtful posters (as long as I have the actual time). So no I am not doing that. What I am trying to do is make a space for disagreement to not be as hostile as it becomes. I know that is not how you operate as you have told me. It's like arrogance is working hand-in-hand with self-righteousness working hand-in-hand with all the other negative qualities of philosophy debators.. I'd like it not to be that way all the time. Doesn't mean anyone will oblige, but I will vocalize how I'd like the tone to be, despite what others value as their debating style.

Give an example of such an X. Slavery? The slaves didn’t think it was right. Gender inequality? Women didn’t think it was right. Racial discrimination? Black people didn’t think it was right. Etc.

No there was no point at which we unanimously agreed that X is right and discovered later that it was wrong or vice versa. — khaled

And ANs don't think it's right as being shown in real time.

At first X was some action that we think is either wrong or not wrong. Now it’s a person? I’m confused. — khaled

I often have to write this with time constraints.. Sorry for confusion.. Put in Y or something.

On the one hand you have the momentary evaluations of events. On the other you have the evaluation of whether or not life was worth it overall. What would it mean for these two evaluations to be “the same result”? As you say, one is analog and one is binary. How can they be the same? It makes no sense. — khaled

I mean one evaluation might indicate life was not so great, the other a positive affirmation.

Can you give me a reply to my comment at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/574924?
I am interested in your opinion.
Thank you

So no I am not doing that. — schopenhauer1

Following through the arguments is a subset of writing a response. Its something that you at least respond, but that's not sufficient tot count as responding to arguments.

What I am trying to do is make a space for disagreement to not be as hostile as it becomes. — schopenhauer1

Despite my lamentable lack of patience, I don't think hostility is the problem here; consider...

"All cows are brown"
"It's very interesting that you think so, but here's a photo of a black and white one"
"That's a lovely photo, you have a very good sense of composition, but still all cows are brown"
"Here's a livestock book which lists black and white as being one of the colours of cows"
"What admirable dedication to research you have, but all cows are brown"
...

You get the picture. The problem persists even through the most pleasant rhetoric. You listing what you think and others listing what they think is an opinion poll, not a discussion. It's not that there's no space for polite disagreement, it's that polite disagreement is uninteresting - why would anyone care what you think? An argument we can dissect, it's an entertaining parlour game, but an opinion...? What use is that?

I just don't need even more aggravation in my life and you can be very aggravating. — schopenhauer1

See I’d respect that as a way of bowing out. Not “Haha the Isaac Khaled complex, they’re colluding” bullshit. It’s annoying for me to write a detailed response only for you to keep brushing it to the side or to make jabs at it. If you don’t want to discuss with me, say so. Don’t make up bullshit excuses.

But more importantly, they are ideas I think I are worth thinking about. — schopenhauer1

Yet you just said above you don’t want to talk about them, at least not with me.

But you often write something like, "Well, this doesn't convince me." — schopenhauer1

No I write something like “this isn’t convincing” as in “it’s not justified” or “it’s fallacious”. It’s not about convincing me specifically. There is a reason AN arguments convince very few (including me once)

In other words, you can write in a more conducive to dialogue way, but it's slash and burn like your friend Isaac. — schopenhauer1

I didn’t think I was being slash and burn. At least not in the beginning. I was trying to rush through what we talked about before so maybe we can get to something new so maybe that’s why I sounded like that. But I apologize nonetheless. Though I stopped caring about my tone so much after you started brushing off my replies.

And ANs don't think it's right as being shown in real time. — schopenhauer1

Yes, agreed. I thought you didn’t wanna discuss this anymore? Anyways, all I was saying is that we have never unanimously agreed on something being wrong/right and it turned out right/wrong. Having children falls here as well.

I mean one evaluation might indicate life was not so great, the other a positive affirmation. — schopenhauer1

If you had an athletic adoptive child, and they wanted to compete professionally in ice hockey or something. You then go and ask ice hockey players to rate their experience from 0 to 10 and you find a lot of 0s to 3s during training hours (which comprise a large chunk of what they do). And a lot of 0s when they lose or get insured. The overall average of their lives turns out to be a measly 3.2. Based on this you tell your child they shouldn’t participate. They say “I know all of that already, I still want to participate”. Is it unambiguously wrong to let them participate?

Just a long way of asking whether the average of the moment by moment evaluation should trump the overall evaluation. And why you think it should.

An argument we can dissect, it's an entertaining parlour game, but an opinion...? What use is that? — Isaac

Granted and I welcome arguments, just more congenial versions of it. Not everything is "cut the other guys throat".. not all the time for me at least. There's a time and a place I guess, but that shouldn't be default "always".

indicates lack of ethical/moral integrity and irresponsibility. You should be able to act according to what you believe is right or wrong, good or bad, and accept the consequences of your actions. — Alkis Piskas

Yes I think I agree with this. So in the realm of antinatalism (AN), what I am referring to here is the decision to procreate another person here is a situation that:

1) You exist, but the other person does not exist.
2) We know there is a guarantee of at least some harm to that child you might procreate.
3) We know that by having the child we are imposing regimens of living like finding work (or being homeless, dying of starvation, or any other number of ways of dying)
4) We know the only way out of the situation of "life" is suicide or some sort of amelioration process (that was needed because the person was put in that situation by being born).

With all this known, what is the justification that one should impose on another "life" and to enable the conditions for guaranteed harm on that person?

Well what people often say is MOST PEOPLE would have wanted to be born, so it can't be wrong!

But then this whole thread started arguing whether that is a good argument.

My claims were that:
a) Often "most people" evaluate their lives in a distorted fashion when simply asked "did you want to be born" versus the much more nuanced (and probably negative) experiences throughout a period of time.
b) I gave an example of a boss who exploits a worker who is okay with the arrangement.. Even if the person being exploited (like most people born) didn't realize the injustice of the condition, there is still an injustice..

@Isaac @khaled and @TheHedoMinimalist had disagreements with this, and the back-and-forth is continuing. If you want to add to this one way or the other, let me know.