I'd like to see @Isaac's response to that.

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 ... — Alkis Piskas

Yes indeed. But then a parent doesn't have the benefit of knowing the specific person's experiences or evaluations in the world, so ergo the "most people" defense.

I'd like to see Isaac's response to that — schopenhauer1

Given my circumstances, antinatalism resonates with me deeply.

But then a parent doesn't have the benefit of knowing the specific person's experiences or evaluations in the world, so ergo the "most people" defense — schopenhauer1

Yes, this is true and acceptable.

Or we never stop to think that another persons (village) experience is just as important to them and even vital for the continuation of said person (village). So we go teach them what we know and what we think is important for their survival ... nyah-saying what they learned in their home (village). And they get a PHD in Physics go back home and stand around with their hands in their pockets because they no longer remember which season it is for which plant. All because we know what is best for them. In my case to make them a White person of Western European descent.

... per capita
so we take a subsistent agarian and turn them into a wage earning urban dweller working in a sweat shop and say what? who has the better quality of life?

I'm not sure who the "experts" are in judging life's goodness or other qualities, — schopenhauer1

I’m not sure either. Who I was referring to is experts in ethics.

You're missing the point.. A majority of people can be wrong.. — schopenhauer1

So, give an example of a time period where the majority of people thought something was right but it turns out to be wrong (ethically)

Or does having children just occasionally happen to be the example with this phenomenon never occurring at any other time. Seems kind of suspicious.

mixing up a thought-experiment with thinking I didn't know history. — schopenhauer1

I’m not asking for a thought experiment I’m asking for a concrete example. You claim it’s possible for everyone or for the majority to be wrong in the realm of ethics. When has this ever happened?

And you didn’t respond to the main point:

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. — khaled

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)? — schopenhauer1

I thought we went over this already in previous threads. You and I said yes. Examples being surprise parties/gifts. Those impose a risk of harm and don’t alleviate anything.

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)? — schopenhauer1

I think it depends on two main factors. One is, as you say, the reason you're doing it (ameliorating a greater harm/risk might outweigh the imposition as in the emergency surgery example), the other is the likelihood that they will like it outweighs the harm (usually small in these cases - as in the surprise party example).

But neither apply to having children becasue not-having-been-born is not a choice an individual can make. Choices, preferences, states of happiness...these are all things that existent beings have, non-existent ones don't, so the analogy doesn't apply.

All that applies in terms of harms is that you can foresee a situation wherein a person might be harmed, you can justify bringing about that situation if the benefits outweigh the harms, or, if that situation is the default one for humanity, it makes more sense to say that to stop it one would have to demonstrate that the harms outweigh the benefits.

'Choice' isn't a relevant metric because it doesn't make any sense in terms of the decisions to have never been.

I'd like to see Isaac's response to that. — schopenhauer1

Really? I thought is was so nonsensical as to be beneath reply (and I reply to some garbage sometimes!).

My argument is that TMF simply assumed that the proposition "life is good" can be determined true or false by argument. Nothing at all in the reply addresses that question. Simply stating that it is a proposition doesn't get us anywhere.

"Whisky is nice" is also a proposition - does that mean it's truth can be determined by argument?

So, give an example of a time period where the majority of people thought something was right but it turns out to be wrong (ethically) — khaled

So you are turning this into historical analysis. Do I need to provide figures of when majority of Americans thought slavery to be at least tolerable, if not preferable? Cause that was the case from the 1600s- early 1800s. We can add in torture for blasphemy or wrong religion, torture in execution, literal eye for an eye, and a bunch of other ethics that were seen as permissible or desirable. It's a truism that historically, more violence, intolerance, etc. was tolerated.

Or does having children just occasionally happen to be the example with this phenomenon never occurring at any other time. Seems kind of suspicious. — khaled

Although I do think there are plenty of historical examples, I can make an argument that indeed birth is an exception amongst decisions, especially because of the nature of a person already existing doing something on behalf of something that could exist in the future. I think this is where you try to force me into giving examples, where I don't necessarily think it needs one, but hey, I try to accomadate your demands to "convince you" (a standin for "most people" you claim, ironically).

I thought we went over this already in previous threads. You and I said yes. Examples being surprise parties/gifts. Those impose a risk of harm and don’t alleviate anything. — khaled

That was directed to Isaac, but you are replying. Suspicious in light of the whole Khaled-Isaac complex.. Not making it a case that you aren't Isaac :lol:.

I can make a case similar to above that surprise parties are not analogous to not being born. Presumably, it would be a bad idea if you knew the person made it known they hate surprise parties or they can easily get a heart attack.. You do know the person presumably. However, if we go to the extent argument- the surprise is temporary, a set period of time, and is it an imposition really? That definition can be debated for the kind argument but it can also work for the extent argument that it is finite, temporary and very little in the imposition scale.