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) — khaled

Sometimes people don't want to be convinced. You must admit that too.

never unanimously agreed on something being wrong/right and it turned out right/wrong. Having children falls here as well. — khaled

I just think a wrong can take place without "most people" knowing it. Can it be that someone has misplaced X going on? Possibly. The boss "can't" be exploiting me, he is my provider... Naive, but just trying to give an example quickly.

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. — khaled

I think the nuance not in there is that the achieved goal is always in that equation, not post-facto as you are saying. Not quite the same analogy.

Not everything is "cut the other guys throat".. not all the time for me at least. — schopenhauer1

I don't think there's been anything like that going on. You're presenting weak arguments, it gets frustrating when you just dodge the counter-arguments by fudging and redirection, that's going to come out in the tome of the responses sometimes, but there's nothing that brutal going on.

An immediate example...

You claimed that there could be some moral wrong which most people think at the time is right, you cited slavery and suppression of women as examples. Khaled pointed out that vast swaths of people did not think these were right at the time so it isn't an example of the 'most people' argument you're making. Instead of saying "Yes, you're right, that line of argument doesn't work does it", you just ignored his point entirely and replied with

I just think a wrong can take place without "most people" knowing it. — schopenhauer1

An unsupported re-assertion of the point you made. That's not a discussion. Just saying the same thing over and again without taking any notice of the arguments the other side are making.

Sometimes people don't want to be convinced. You must admit that too. — schopenhauer1

Sure. But I doubt professional philosophers have much of that bias. Why is it that even out of the people that don’t have kids ANs are still a minority? Why is it that even among professionals who shouldn’t suffer from these biases, AN is still a minority.

I just think a wrong can take place without "most people" knowing it. — schopenhauer1

Give an example then. Or has this never happened? Note that beforehand it was “without anyone knowing it”.

I think the nuance not in there is that the achieved goal is always in that equation — schopenhauer1

Wat? Please elaborate.

Here is my question as it relates to ethics:
Is it permissible to do something on someone else's behalf because one has a notion that "most people" would "want this"?

If not, then antinatalism is much more strongly defended.

If so BECAUSE you hate antinatalism, simply prejudicial thinking.

If so because you legitimately believe acts can be done to someone or on their behalf because "most people" think its okay with disregard for those who don't think so, is ethics then simply based on the current preferences of a particular group? Are ethics voted in by majority rule?

I'd also like to note that the sphere of politics (majority rule) can be (and perhaps should be) separated from normative ethical principles — schopenhauer1

1. Most people would want x
2. Y is a person
Ergo,
3. Y would want x

It's not possible to refute this argument. It's an inductive argument and depending on a percentage value roundabout 90% that corresponds to "most", the argument is cogent!

You claimed that there could be some moral wrong which most people think at the time is right, you cited slavery and suppression of women as examples. Khaled pointed out that vast swaths of people did not think these were right at the time so it isn't an example of the 'most people' argument you're making. Instead of saying "Yes, you're right, that line of argument doesn't work does it", you just ignored his point entirely and replied with

I just think a wrong can take place without "most people" knowing it.
— schopenhauer1

An unsupported re-assertion of the point you made. That's not a discussion. Just saying the same thing over and again without taking any notice of the arguments the other side are making. — Isaac

Just because its not as decisive as majority takes away nothing from the analogy..Many people condoned slavery.. In the US it was enshrined in the Constitution. The point still stands that "Most people" can say whatever they want and that doesn't change the nature of the exploitation or injustice taking place (or other X negative descriptor).

It could be the case that everyone agrees eating higher lifeform animals is wrong, that contributing to the global warming in the current manner is wrong, that x, y, z number of things are wrong but aren't fully realized or taken into account by "most people" (simply experts, outliers, and pet theorists at this point, depending on the cause).

Sure. But I doubt professional philosophers have much of that bias. Why is it that even out of the people that don’t have kids ANs are still a minority? Why is it that even among professionals who shouldn’t suffer from these biases, AN is still a minority. — khaled

Professionals suffer from many biases. But besides that, as explained to Isaac, the extent of the majority doesn't mean much about the rightness or wrongness. Having kids isn't necessitated. A universe can exist where people are convinced this is indeed a wrong. That too doesn't mean anything about its rightness or wrongness, but that's the point of this line of reasoning. That sort of things isn't a factor to determine this evaluation.

Give an example then. Or has this never happened? Note that beforehand it was “without anyone knowing it”. — khaled

I really shouldn't give any example, because it was meant to show that perception of the wrong isn't really the determining factor of the right or wrong. A country of Nazi-followers that let's say won the war and defeated their enemies aren't "right" because they perceive as so and they are the only ones left to perceive and evaluate such things.

Wat? Please elaborate. — khaled

Life itself is a default.. You have no choice but to make a choice- even to do nothing and starve. Not so with other activities where other hopes are clearly being achieved with the explicit entry and participation in mind (winning, friends, achievement of some kind, etc.). Once this becomes a negative, one can opt out. Even the activity in question can be "making do" in a larger sense since again, the option otherwise is to "do nothing" which has its own negative consequences.

It's not possible to refute this argument. It's an inductive argument and depending on a percentage value roundabout 90% that corresponds to "most", the argument is cogent! — TheMadFool

True, I guess this argument has turned into two:
1) Does a majority of people mean it is permissible to do something that a minority views as wrong? Hence, "Should/is ethics be democratic"? (Notice I didn't say politics or law which is related, but not the same as ethical guidelines..For example, it might be "wrong" to eat animals or refuse to move away from oil, but perhaps shouldn't be illegal).

The other topic that is being currently discussed:
2) Can a majority of people be wrong about their view, and thus should not be a consideration for evaluating ethical claims?"
So for example, let's say Nazis won the war, and killed off their enemies.. Does a majority of Nazis who are the only ones left to evaluate right and wrong, mean they are right? Of course not. This is an extreme example of course, but to show the point.

True, I guess this argument has turned into two:
1) Does a majority of people mean it is permissible to do something that a minority views as wrong? Hence, "Should/is ethics be democratic"? (Notice I didn't say politics or law which is related, but not the same as ethical guidelines..For example, it might be "wrong" to eat animals or refuse to move away from oil, but perhaps shouldn't be illegal). — schopenhauer1

The other topic that is being currently discussed:
2) Can a majority of people be wrong about their view, and thus should not be a consideration for evaluating ethical claims?"
So for example, let's say Nazis won the war, and killed off their enemies.. Does a majority of Nazis who are the only ones left to evaluate right and wrong, mean they are right? Of course not. This is an extreme example of course, but to show the point. — schopenhauer1

You're, I believe, conflating truth with want. The argument I formalized is about what most people might want. Truth, on the other hand, isn't about how many people believe it or not. Like you said, truth isn't vote-based although the so-called wisdom of the crowd seems to point in that direction. Truth works under an authoritarian system with logic as supreme leader.

One way we could make some sense of all this is as follows: Say, most Nazi's want all Brits dead. If you're a Nazi, the likelihood is high that you too might want all Brits dead. This is the argument that I formalized. Want.

However, why do most Nazis want all Brits dead? This question can't be answered with a vote i.e. democractically as you put it on pain of committing the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Truth.

The point still stands that "Most people" can say whatever they want and that doesn't change the nature of the exploitation or injustice taking place (or other X negative descriptor). — schopenhauer1

You've shifted the argument again. Two distinct questions;

One is whether the majority view dictates what is right.

Two is whether what is right can be determined by a majority view.

Two very different questions which you are still confusing, despite me laying out for you right at the beginning of the thread.

Let's say a society has a simple rule. "Do not paint your house a colour that the others in your street generally don't like". That rule could be an absolute one, not subject to democratic usurpation, but immutable for all time. It doesn't have any bearing on the fact that, in order to carry it out, one must discover which colours 'others in your street generally don't like'. Not only can this stage be carried out by majority averaging, but arguably it must be, else it would be prone to bias. One must check, by majority average, what colours are acceptable in order to carry out the timeless and absolute rule to only use such colours on one's house. — Isaac

The pro-natalist argument being used is not that it's OK to impose as long as the majority agree it is (ie morality by vote). The argument is that it is OK to impose on someone something they'll probably like (absolute moral, no voting involved). To enact this absolute moral one needs to know whether your target is likely to like what you intend to do to them. This is where majorities and averages come in, it's about having done one's due diligence in checking before taking an action (are they likely to be OK with this?).

One is whether the majority view dictates what is right.

Two is whether what is right can be determined by a majority view. — Isaac

Right..just like I laid out myself here you mean?:

True, I guess this argument has turned into two:
1) Does a majority of people mean it is permissible to do something that a minority views as wrong? Hence, "Should/is ethics be democratic"? (Notice I didn't say politics or law which is related, but not the same as ethical guidelines..For example, it might be "wrong" to eat animals or refuse to move away from oil, but perhaps shouldn't be illegal).

The other topic that is being currently discussed:
2) Can a majority of people be wrong about their view, and thus should not be a consideration for evaluating ethical claims?"
So for example, let's say Nazis won the war, and killed off their enemies.. Does a majority of Nazis who are the only ones left to evaluate right and wrong, mean they are right? Of course not. This is an extreme example of course, but to show the point. — schopenhauer1

The argument is that it is OK to impose on someone something they'll probably like (absolute moral, no voting involved). To enact this absolute moral one needs to know whether your target is likely to like what you intend to do to them. This is where majorities and averages come in, it's about having done one's due diligence in checking before taking an action (are they likely to be OK with this?). — Isaac

And if they are not? Is this averaging then correct? The implication isn't just one thing (like a surprise party).. You are playing averages with a whole life. Commit suicide and go away or some other callous BS is the only ameliorating response to the minority.

Also, what if what the majority is "ok" with is still not good? This covers what we discussed already. A majority of people can be wrong (country full of Nazis example).

A lot of analogies simply cannot apply. This is the only time you are making a choice for someone else and that can never have a recourse other than accepting (even embracing) the outcome lest the very hard act of slow or fast suicide.

One way we could make some sense of all this is as follows: Say, most Nazi's want all Brits dead. If you're a Nazi, the likelihood is high that you too might want all Brits dead. This is the argument that I formalized. Want.

However, why do most Nazis want all Brits dead? This question can't be answered with a vote i.e. democractically as you put it on pain of committing the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Truth. — TheMadFool

Yes, I think this gets at it.

Thank you very much for your reply to my comment, @schopenhauer1.
I am not familiarized with the subjects of "natalism" and "antinatalism". But what you say makes sense to me. Otherwise, I think we can conclude that there are cases where the principle of "most people" is or can be justified and other in which it isn't or can't. And certainly, we have to exclude the case of "always being justifiable and/or wise or ethical"!

And if they are not? Is this averaging then correct? The implication isn't just one thing (like a surprise party).. You are playing averages with a whole life. Commit suicide and go away or some other callous BS is the only ameliorating response to the minority. — schopenhauer1

It depends on the gain, generally. If there's little to gain, then it seems like the threshold of 'they'll probably be OK with this' should be quite high. One shouldn't risk causing upset for nothing even if the risk is small.

But for major gains, the threshold is generally higher (defensive war, for example). Here one might only need a reasonable assumption that people will be OK with what you're about to do to them.

Other factors that might come into play are things like - how easy it is to ask first, how hard it is to find out for sure, how reparable the harm is...etc.

what if what the majority is "ok" with is still not good? This covers what we discussed already. A majority of people can be wrong (country full of Nazis example). — schopenhauer1

No, this misses the point entirely. There's no moral element to the question "are they likely to be OK with this?". The same would apply to you painting my house green. Whether I'm likely to be OK with that depends largely on whether I like green. I'm neither right nor wrong about liking green, but the fact of the matter is crucial to whether you're morally OK to paint my house green without asking first.

Interestingly, when I think for someone else based on what most people want, I'm ignoring the rationale behind the want i.e. the reasons (propositions) that are put forward as grounds for the want.


Argument A
1. Most people want to live
2. X is a person
Ergo,
3. X wants to live

Argument A can't be refuted. It's basically what you referred to as democratic (vote count).

The key premise, 1. Most people want to live, is based on surveys.

***However, the question that arises, why do most people want to live?

An answer: 4. Life is good.

Statement 4. Life is good, can be part of a survey and we could conclude:

5. Most people think life is good.

However, 5. Most people think life is good doesn't support the statement 4. Life is good unless you subscribe to the wisdom of the crowd (I'm not entirely sure if it's even relevant. You decide) and barring this curiosity, we have to justify 4. Life is good by resorting to an argument that proves that 4. Life is good.

I believe it is this latter part of the process (***) you're talking about.

There's no moral element to the question "are they likely to be OK with this?". The same would apply to you painting my house green. Whether I'm likely to be OK with that depends largely on whether I like green. I'm neither right nor wrong about liking green, but the fact of the matter is crucial to whether you're morally OK to paint my house green without asking first. — Isaac

Right nor wrong about the harm done. I explained how one can be harmed without knowing it. Certainly one is harmed in life. Certainly one can be okay with that. The happy worker is still exploited. Yet this is worse because, the happy worker can quit if he sees his exploitation, a human must embrace the forced situation, lest suicide. Hence so many analogies, and perhaps all of them of already born situations just don't compare to making a decision on behest of someone not yet born.

I am not familiarized with the subjects of "natalism" and "antinatalism". But what you say makes sense to me. Otherwise, I think we can conclude that there are cases where the principle of "most people" is or can be justified and other in which it isn't or can't. And certainly, we have to exclude the case of "always being justifiable and/or wise or ethical"! — Alkis Piskas

Indeed. You make a decision on another's behalf because you think a majority of people would want this decision made for them... but I'm saying:
1) Most people could be wrong in the assessment of harm done or imposition done
2) The minority has been screwed over with callous ideas of what they can do if the don't like life
3) A life is not a surprise party or a color on a house.. it is too important to think one should "do" for someone else, when that "do" means the consequence is a whole lifetime of having to stay alive, thrive, and generally "deal with" situations of harms great and small and cope in general.. It's quite paternalistic to think that someone else just "shouldn't mind this arrangement". Life itself is quite an imposition to put on someone else.

However, 5. Most people think life is good doesn't support the statement 4. Life is good unless you subscribe to the wisdom of the crowd (I'm not entirely sure if it's even relevant. You decide) and barring this curiosity, we have to justify 4. Life is good by resorting to an argument that proves that 4. Life is good.

I believe it is this latter part of the process (***) you're talking about. — TheMadFool

Indeed. Can "most people" be mistaken about how good something is? I brought up the idea of an exploited worker who cheerfully overlooks being exploited. He doesn't perceive the exploitation, but he is exploited. I also brought up notions of having generally negative experiences but then saying, "Life is good" or "Glad to be born" if asked the question. There is more than just what people want you to hear going on. Psychological mechanisms can distort ones ability to evaluate something (not wanting to get oneself depressed, always looking on the bright side, Pollyannaism, adapting to lowered ideals, etc). Certainly culturally ingrained ideas can do this as well (superstition, don't look a "gift horse" in the mouth, religion, not looking negative to others, etc.). All this worry and coping and dealing with, and then suck it up because that's life.. but "that's life" is not inevitable!!

But besides that, as explained to Isaac, the extent of the majority doesn't mean much about the rightness or wrongness — schopenhauer1

Even when the majority is among professionals that suffer much less from these biases? Sounds like what an antivaxer or flat earther would say.

A country of Nazi-followers that let's say won the war and defeated their enemies aren't "right" because they perceive as so and they are the only ones left to perceive and evaluate such things — schopenhauer1

But they wouldn’t be the only ones left to perceive such things. Even most Germans didn’t think what was going on was right. The people who thought the Nazis were right, weren’t even all the nazis. It was never the case that Nazism ever approached a majority in any population (except the population of nazis). So, an example please?

I really shouldn't give any example, because it was meant to show that perception of the wrong isn't really the determining factor of the right or wrong. — schopenhauer1

Yes and this is a point of contention. I say that all that exists is the “perception of the wrong” and it is meaningless to talk about “the wrong” outside of that.

You’re making a claim you can’t give an example for. Fine. At least give an argument as to why you think “the wrong” exists outside of the “perception of the wrong”

And besides, if you propose that the perception of what’s right or wrong isn’t a determining factor in finding what’s right or wrong then that cuts both ways. Your perception that having kids is wrong isn’t a determining factor to whether or not it is. How is anyone supposed to argue for anything being right or wrong then?

I think you got too busy trying to get around the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that AN makes no sense that you ended up making it impossible for any ethical position to be correct. First you dismiss majority vote as being indicative of what’s right. Then you dismiss expert opinion. And now you even dismiss subjective evaluations.

There is nothing left. You’ve made the right thing to do unknowable. You’re the one that’s made it “all subjective”

Not so with other activities where other hopes are clearly being achieved with the explicit entry and participation in mind (winning, friends, achievement of some kind, etc.). Once this becomes a negative, one can opt out. — schopenhauer1

This also applies to life (except for explicit entry, which I don’t think should matter much is the rest is there)

If you knew that someone will find X worthwhile is it ok to force them to do it despite protests? What about if you were almost certain?

But hey, no matter how well you argue or even how popular AN becomes there is no reason for anyone to be convinced by your arguments because popularity, expert opinion and even your own evaluation are not indicative of what’s right or wrong.

The happy worker is still exploited. Yet this is worse because, the happy worker can quit if he sees his exploitation, a human must embrace the forced situation, lest suicide. — schopenhauer1

But the happy worker is happy...by definition. If your moral was 'do not exploit anyone', then you'd be concerned about their exploitation, but you were talking about whether it's OK to do something to someone on the grounds that most people like it.

See, you claim to be examining different angles, but you don't stick to that angle, very quickly, each of your numerous threads just descends into "I don't think people ought to have kids" which is just evangelism if you don't have an honest intention to explore the detail of the topic.

This one is about...

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

So exploitation isn't a part of it because 'most people' don't like to be exploited. The question is only whether using that which 'most people' like is a sufficient justification for taking action on someone else's behalf.

You're asking the subsequent question "can we trust each person's judgement about whether they're happy?" So the question for your exploited worker, is whether they're truly happy. The morality of the employer in exploiting them has nothing whatsoever to do with that question. That you think an exploitative employer is a good metaphor for parenting is utterly immaterial to the matter at hand.



What could 'life is Good' possibly mean without people to think it? How could anything just have the property of being 'good' absent of the minds in which that judgement resides?

Indeed. Can "most people" be mistaken about how good something is? I brought up the idea of an exploited worker who cheerfully overlooks being exploited. He doesn't perceive the exploitation, but he is exploited. I also brought up notions of having generally negative experiences but then saying, "Life is good" or "Glad to be born" if asked the question. There is more than just what people want you to hear going on. Psychological mechanisms can distort ones ability to evaluate something (not wanting to get oneself depressed, always looking on the bright side, Pollyannaism, adapting to lowered ideals, etc). Certainly culturally ingrained ideas can do this as well (superstition, don't look a "gift horse" in the mouth, religion, not looking negative to others, etc.). All this worry and coping and dealing with, and then suck it up because that's life.. but "that's life" is not inevitable!! — schopenhauer1

It can be said that many of us are under some kind of illusion that life is good. At best, life isn't as good as we think it is or at worst, life is bad. I believe it's the former and not the latter. Why? We've imagined something far far better viz. heaven and also something unimaginably worse viz. hell.

One's attitude towards life on earth then depends on what one's comparing it with - hell (life on earth is orders of magnitude better), heaven (life on earth is misery on steroids).

It must be mentioned though that for some people earth is hell but to complicate matters for some of us earth is paradise.

Given this situation, it's best not to make sweeping generalizations like natalists and antinatalists. Let each person/family, after analyzing how much happiness they can guarantee their offspring, make their own decisions.

Unfortunately, having children is not just about how well you can provide for them. Other non-hedonic factors are at play e.g. the Catholic church's opposition of contraception.

What could 'life is Good' possibly mean without people to think it? How could anything just have the property of being 'good' absent of the minds in which that judgement resides? — Isaac

Whether life is good or not can't be decided by a vote i.e. in an election-like manner. There are enough cognitive biases to muddle the thinking of even the best thinker among us. That would manifest in our thoughts as for example the view that life is good. We can't have that, right? The proposition "life is good" needs an argument, not a vote.

What's this got to do with natalism? It's very rare that a person has an entirely 'bad' life, and it's certainly not in any way necessary for the well-being of 'the masses'. I don't see how you're connecting the two at all. New people need to be born to sustain the well-being of the masses, they don't need to have a 'bad life'. In fact it's overall worse for the masses if they do as we're broadly speaking an empathetic species. — Isaac

I do sometimes wonder whether it has been worth it — at least the last several thousand years of wars, slavery, famine and various forms of oppression and discrimination. If I were given the choice of starting another human race on a separate planet, but also knew that the next 500 years would play out similar to the last 500 on Earth, I would pass.

Maybe the next 500 years will go better, but it's far from certain. At any rate, we're here now so we try to make the best of it.

The proposition "life is good" needs an argument, not a vote. — TheMadFool

But apparently the proposition "The proposition "life is good" needs an argument" doesn't and can simply be asserted without one.

If I were given the choice of starting another human race on a separate planet, but also knew that the next 500 years would play out similar to the last 500 on Earth, I would pass. — Marchesk

I think I would too.

At any rate, we're here now so we try to make the best of it. — Marchesk

Yep. That's the point I've been making whenever these AN threads crop up.

But apparently the proposition "The proposition "life is good" needs an argument" doesn't and can simply be asserted without one. — Isaac

The proposition "life is good" = "Life is good" is a proposition. "Life is good" can be true/false. Ergo, "Life is good" is a proposition.

All that is fine.
Here's another idea: If we replace "most people" with "the other person", the proposition becomes "What the other person (or group) would want". Because your action is directed to a specific person (or group) and thus it is more direct and fair than considering what others in general would want ...

But they wouldn’t be the only ones left to perceive such things. Even most Germans didn’t think what was going on was right. The people who thought the Nazis were right, weren’t even all the nazis. It was never the case that Nazism ever approached a majority in any population (except the population of nazis). So, an example please? — khaled

You're missing the point.. A majority of people can be wrong.. That was a hypothetical example... Also Nazis didn't win nor kill everyone else off, so to represent the example as being "historical" would be mixing up a thought-experiment with thinking I didn't know history.

You’re making a claim you can’t give an example for. Fine. At least give an argument as to why you think “the wrong” exists outside of the “perception of the wrong”

And besides, if you propose that the perception of what’s right or wrong isn’t a determining factor in finding what’s right or wrong then that cuts both ways. Your perception that having kids is wrong isn’t a determining factor to whether or not it is. How is anyone supposed to argue for anything being right or wrong then?

I think you got too busy trying to get around the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that AN makes no sense that you ended up making it impossible for any ethical position to be correct. First you dismiss majority vote as being indicative of what’s right. Then you dismiss expert opinion. And now you even dismiss subjective evaluations.

There is nothing left. You’ve made the right thing to do unknowable. You’re the one that’s made it “all subjective” — khaled

I'm not sure who the "experts" are in judging life's goodness or other qualities, I reflexively said the truism, that experts can have biases.. I didn't understand though in what context "experts" had to do with anything in this realm other than "experts" in judging what other people should want by having them in the first place but as far as judging right or wrong... a major point to consider is when doing it on behalf of someone else, maybe we shouldn't think we are the "experts".

Can we be imposed upon but not know it?

Can we give post-facto rationalizations for prior negative feelings?

So exploitation isn't a part of it because 'most people' don't like to be exploited. The question is only whether using that which 'most people' like is a sufficient justification for taking action on someone else's behalf. — Isaac

Is it sufficient if what action is being taken is imposing X things on another person, and doing so unnecessarily (not ameliorating greater with lesser harm)?