Do you mean when somebody - there is not somebody, but how can you express this correctly in natural language - does not born, it will not harm anybody? — Antinatalist

That's why I said there will be no one. There will be a state of affairs where no person exists, where there could have been the counterfactual case that indeed a person could have existed. This is what is meant by preventing birth or not procreating (with the assumption that there was a possibility for a counterfactual).

I think, Benatar is partly wrong. Theoretically, could be so that life is better than non-life. I personally don´t think it´s true in general, but I like to argue also against my own arguments.
So, if it so that life is better for someone/some people/everyone than not being at all, is true like Benatar have said there is no harm of losing something or suffering for something good, which cannot be realized. Because there is no one who could suffer from those things. — Antinatalist

Right, so you kind of answered your own objection and seem to be in agreement with Benatar's main asymmetry (in regards to prevention of goods). I think the main axiom here is that prevented harms is more important than missed goods (when nobody exists to be deprived). That is the basic axiom which the rest of the asymmetry seems to follow. And it does make sense. No person to miss out on the goods of life is neutral. A person missing out on harms, is good.

Let´s assume that life is always better than not life at all, and somehow we can know this fact. Let´s assume that what we call non-life is something where is no experiences at all, there is no one who could experience anything at all.

I don´t think, even in this situation, that no one has duty to reproduce. I don´t think that not having a child is harm doing for anyone (then again, I have to agree with Benatar on this, although I think he is partly wrong on asymmetry argument). Even situation like this, I don´t think it´s obligation to reproduce. — Antinatalist

I don't quite follow what you are trying to say here. I think with Benatar's asymmetry you simply have to keep in mind that preventing harm is more important than happiness-bringing. I guess that is the basic asymmetry.

↪Antinatalist
Finally, nobody will know is it better for human being born into this world or not. However, we know that if child born into this world, her/his life could be painful, perhaps she/he will suffer really hard.
— Antinatalist

Do you think of this when deciding what gift to buy a friend for an occasion then settling on nothing since the gift could be harmful? — khaled

Gift could be harmful, but comparing gift to having a child is, although natural, but also very extreme thing to do. For potential person´s point of view.

I find it dubious that any action that can risk harming someone automatically becomes wrong if you don’t have their consent. — khaled

Having a child is not a trivial everyday task.

Even situation like this, I don´t think it´s obligation to reproduce. — Antinatalist

You seem to have somewhat of a false dichotomy going on. Either one must have children or one must not have children. — khaled

I made very extreme scenario, where having a child is always good thing for the child. In such unrealistic world having a child is right thing to so, but not obligation.

That was theoretical scenario. In real world having a child is wrong.

Gift could be harmful, but comparing gift to having a child is, although natural, but also very extreme thing to do. — Antinatalist

Having a child is not a trivial everyday task. — Antinatalist

I'm pointing out that just because something is an unconsented imposition clearly doesn't automatically make it wrong. So you need more premises to make the case that this specific unconsented imposition (having kids) is wrong. I am not comparing having kids to giving gifts, I'm pointing out that they share the same properties and you think one is fine while the other isn't. That needs explaining.

I think the main axiom here is that prevented harms is more important than missed goods (when nobody exists to be deprived). That is the basic axiom which the rest of the asymmetry seems to follow. And it does make sense. No person to miss out on the goods of life is neutral. A person missing out on harms, is good. — schopenhauer1

I certainly agree with this, also.

Even situation like this, I don´t think it´s obligation to reproduce. — Antinatalist

I don't quite follow what you are trying to say here. I think with Benatar's asymmetry you simply have to keep in mind that preventing harm is more important than happiness-bringing. I guess that is the basic asymmetry. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I think that way also. Preventing harm is more important than happiness-bringing.

Having a child is an egoist thing. Not having is also,but for different reasons.
So you also support that poor people shouldn't have kids?
Poor people should be deprived of that joy in their lives? Kids from poor families can't live happily? Only rich family's kids? Kids need love way much more than money. If a poor guy loves his kids he will do whatever to raise them happily. Even with little money. Why you connect happiness with money?

I don't think that this is your intention but poor people shouldn't have kids sounds kind of racist to me.

So you also support that poor people shouldn't have kids? Poor people should be deprived of that joy in their lives? — dimosthenis9

Yes.

Kids from poor families can't live happily? — dimosthenis9

No, it's just too rare to call having kids in that scenario anything less than irresponsibility.

Only rich family's kids? — dimosthenis9

There is a whole lot between "rich" and "poor". That question that should matter is "can they afford it". By poor I mean they can't afford it.

Kids need love way much more than money. — dimosthenis9

They also need money. So don't have kids without that.

If a poor guy loves his kids he will do whatever to raise them happily. Even with little money. — dimosthenis9

But he can't do that. You can't magically love people so much they stop being hungry.

I don't think that this is your intention but poor people shouldn't have kids sounds kind of racist to me. — dimosthenis9

It doesn't target any specific race, so it isn't.

Anyways, this doesn't seem like it's going anywhere, bye.

No, it's just too rare to call having kids in that scenario anything less than irresponsibility. — khaled

Tell that to all scientists and people with happy lives that got raised by poor families. Throughout history might be billions probably . Don't seem so rare. Blame their "irresponsible" parents for that.

You can't magically love people so much they stop being hungry — khaled

Better to live with much love and little food than with little love and much food.

It doesn't target any specific race, so it isn't. — khaled

Being Racist is not only about races obviously. It targets on the group of poor people. So yes it is.

Anyways, this doesn't seem like it's going anywhere, bye. — khaled

With that attitude for sure no. We agree on that. Bye.

Gift could be harmful, but comparing gift to having a child is, although natural, but also very extreme thing to do.
— Antinatalist

Having a child is not a trivial everyday task.
— Antinatalist

I'm pointing out that just because something is an unconsented imposition clearly doesn't automatically make it wrong. So you need more premises to make the case that this specific unconsented imposition (having kids) is wrong. I am not comparing having kids to giving gifts, I'm pointing out that they share the same properties and you think one is fine while the other isn't. That needs explaining. — khaled

One point of view is that you can be unpolite, and give the gift back; or you can decide to never use it. Or throw it away. You can not return your life for anyone.
Of course some will say, that if your life is miserable, you can always make suicide.

I think I have written this text below earlier to this forum (the following text is from my original article, which is a little bit longer than the one I posted here).


On suicide

The possibility of suicide of course exists. Once born, however, a human being is highly unlikely to have the sufficient skills to commit suicide before the age of five – often, in fact, not before turning ten or even fifteen. When this wish arises and the individual aims to fulfill it, surrounding people strive to prevent the suicide almost without exceptions if they only can. Furthermore, a vast number of highly retarded people exist who, due to their condition, will never really be able to commit suicide. One must in any case consider the possibility of having to live a perhaps highly agonizing period of life before suicide, due to a choice – that of creating life – for which the individual him/herself is not responsible. And most importantly, not even suicide guarantees that the individual will achieve the state or non-state where s/he “was” before the decision of having a child was made. (Be it complete non-existence, for example).

I am an antinatalist, not pro-mortalist. And it´s different kind of case is life worth continuing than is life worth of starting.

One point of view is that you can be unpolite, and give the gift back; or you can decide to never use it. Or throw it away. You can not return your life for anyone.
Of course some will say, that if your life is miserable, you can always make suicide. — Antinatalist

That is an excellent point.

Once born, however, a human being is highly unlikely to have the sufficient skills to commit suicide before the age of five – often, in fact, not before turning ten or even fifteen. When this wish arises and the individual aims to fulfill it, surrounding people strive to prevent the suicide almost without exceptions if they only can. Furthermore, a vast number of highly retarded people exist who, due to their condition, will never really be able to commit suicide. One must in any case consider the possibility of having to live a perhaps highly agonizing period of life before suicide, due to a choice – that of creating life – for which the individual him/herself is not responsible — Antinatalist

Your objection seems to be that not everyone can commit suicide, but everyone can return the gift. I don't find that convincing, but does it mean that if painless assisted suicide was a right, you wouldn't be AN?

↪Antinatalist
Once born, however, a human being is highly unlikely to have the sufficient skills to commit suicide before the age of five – often, in fact, not before turning ten or even fifteen. When this wish arises and the individual aims to fulfill it, surrounding people strive to prevent the suicide almost without exceptions if they only can. Furthermore, a vast number of highly retarded people exist who, due to their condition, will never really be able to commit suicide. One must in any case consider the possibility of having to live a perhaps highly agonizing period of life before suicide, due to a choice – that of creating life – for which the individual him/herself is not responsible
— Antinatalist

Your objection seems to be that not everyone can commit suicide, but everyone can return the gift. I don't find that convincing, but does it mean that if painless assisted suicide was a right, you wouldn't be AN? — khaled

I think I have written this text earlier to this forum (the following text is from my original article, which is a little bit longer than the one I posted here). — Antinatalist

Not actually, because I found assisted suicide for children and under-aged unethical. Even so, although they can live in horrible environments and undergo terrible things. Best for situation like this, is help them other way if that is possible. I think euthanasia is ethical, when person is old enough to understand the nature and consequences of the act.

It is paradoxical, however, that many people think that taking own life - suicide - is wrong, but when making a decision for other people´s life when having a child, they see not problem at all.

So you think there is something wrong with letting people commit suicide while they’re young, and at the same time you think that them not being able to do so is unjust? How can you have both?

↪Antinatalist So you think there is something wrong with letting people commit suicide while they’re young, and at the same time you think that them not being able to do so is unjust? How can you have both? — khaled

I think assisted suicide for under-aged people is wrong.
It is different thing if they commit suicide on their own.
I know you can see discrepancy on my point of view "I think euthanasia is ethical, when person is old enough to understand the nature and consequences of the act".

Letting people do suicide is different than to assist her/him on that.
But, however, I have to admit there is at least slight discrepancy in my point of view and my practical action.
If someone under-aged is willing to do suicide, I probably will try to speak her/him not to do it.
I don´t think suicide is wrong at any age, but under-aged probably are not old enough understand the act and its consequences. So, I think under-aged suicider does not do anything wrong, but who will assist her/him at suicide is unethical in her/his act.

My views may change if I will read enough war history.
Florian Huber is a German historian, who have written book named Child, promise me that you will shoot yourself. The downfall of the common people 1945.
I haven´t read this book, but I can imagine horrible situations where people see so miserable things happening now and in the near future, that they hope that their own children will kill themselves.

Well I certainly think it is wrong to procreate, at least in normal circumstances (stupid too, but I will put that to one side).

To procreate is to impose a whole lifetime in this world on another person without that person's prior consent. Normally it is wrong - seriously wrong - to make a major imposition on another person without their prior consent. We recognize this in other contexts. And it doesn't get much more major than imposing a lifetime here on another person. So that's one reason - a Kantian reason - to think that procreation is default wrong.

It is also reasonable to believe that any person one makes live here is innocent - born innocent, that is - and thus a large portion of the suffering they will invariably undergo while living their life will be undeserved. And that's the worse grade of suffering - undeserved suffering. We normally have powerful moral reason to prevent undeserved suffering from occurring. By contrast, the pleasures they experience in life are likely to be largely not deserved as well, for the same reason (the innocent do not deserve to suffer, but nor do they deserve pleasure, even though it may be good for them to receive it). Pleasure that is not deserved is pleasure we typically do not have any moral reason to create. And certainly, it is not normally permissible to create undeserved suffering in order to create some pleasure that is not deserved. So, procreation creates lots and lots of undeserved suffering (especially when one factors in all the undeserved suffering the person one creates will visit on other creatures) and (less) undeserved pleasure. Well, normally an act that will create undeserved suffering and undeserved pleasure is an act we ought not to perform for precisely that reason.

Those who procreate are also typically motivated by immoral desires. For instance, they want to have followers who will worship them unconditionally. So they're pathetic megalomaniacs who want to be the undeserved apple of another's eye. In other contexts we recognize the sick nature of these attitudes.

Parents also don't know what's going to fall out, do they? Could have any character. Could be a saint, could - more likely - be a git. And yet they're going to become addicted to it and devote large portions of their life to caring for it and thinking about it. And that's regardless of what 'it' is. How's that sensible? Is taking heroin sensible? No, because once you start you can't stop. And it's expensive and it will take up your life. So, you know, don't. Well, that's what having a kid will do too.

Being a parent also seems to compound the stupidity. I mean, why are parents 'proud' of their offspring? They invariably are. But why? Is having a child a great achievement? No, someone just squirted some goo into you (is it hard to persuade people to do that??) and then something grew in you and then your body expelled it. Go you!! Well done! Or you persuaded someone to allow you to squirt goo into them and that resulted in a grub growing in other other person's body and then their body expelled it. Go you!! Give yourself a big pat on the back! And then you both fed and clothed it - ooo, aren't you good! You didn't just let it starve or freeze to death. You're a saint! And then it grew up and did things. And you're proud?!? Ashamed is what they should be.

Parents - most of them - are also horribly irresponsible. For if one voluntarily has a child, then one owes that person a lifetime of support. One owes them a comfortable a life. And yet unless you're fabulously rich, you almost certainly can't provide that. So the rest of us have to pick up the tab (that should change, of course - parents should be made to pay the true cost of their irresponsible and self-indulgent procreative decisions). Far from recognizing this, parents - most of them - think they've done a fabulous thing just feeding and supporting and housing the person during that person's most vulnerable period. Er, that's absolutely demanded - that's not praiseworthy, not remotely. You 'ought' to do those things and a whole load more - more than can realistically be done.

Right, rant over.

To procreate is to impose a whole lifetime in this world on another person without that person's prior consent. Normally it is wrong - seriously wrong - to make a major imposition on another person without their prior consent. We recognize this in other contexts. And it doesn't get much more major than imposing a lifetime here on another person. So that's one reason - a Kantian reason - to think that procreation is default wrong. — Bartricks

Yes, normally that kind of acts will be considered morally wrong.

I hadn't been participating in this discussion. I generally avoid anti-natalist threads. But it was a slow day and decided to take a look. I think anti-natalists like to project their own misery onto the rest of us without any sign of self-awareness. I find it hard to take them seriously.

Your post is really clear and counters the anti-natalist argument well in a very down-to-earth way.

↪I like sushi

I hadn't been participating in this discussion. I generally avoid anti-natalist threads. But it was a slow day and decided to take a look. I think anti-natalists like to project their own misery onto the rest of us without any sign of self-awareness. I find it hard to take them seriously. — T Clark

I answered to I like sushi.

I doubt, that an antinatalistic view comes from person´s own misery, in general. Of course there could be some people who are miserable and are manifesting their own misery by antinatalistic views.
I, personally, lived quite good, not so miserable life about thirty years ago. I thought at those times about many moral and ethical issues and found that having a child is an unethical thing to do. Antinatalism as a term was not familiar for me.

I think anti-natalists like to project their own misery onto the rest of us without any sign of self-awareness. — T Clark

What an ignorant and irrelevant thing to say. First the ignorance: do a bit of research. Are the childfree happier than parents? There are lots of studies out there. I wonder....

Or, if you can't be bothered to do the research, do a bit of common sense reflection. What do the childfree have more of? Money and time. What do they have less of? Responsibility. So, more money and time. Fewer responsibilities. More money. More time. Fewer responsibilities. Hmm. It's a puzzler, isn't it - does having more money and more time and fewer responsibilities make one happier or more miserable? It's a bit like "is hitting your hand with a hammer likely to make you more happy or less happy?" I just don't know!

Then there's the irrelevance. Whether antinatalism is true or not has nothing to do with the happiness or misery of antinatalists themselves.

Anyway, if the arguments of antinatalists do no more than express their own misery - which can't possibly be true in my case, as I am not at all miserable - then presumably they should be easy to refute, as they were not born of rational reflection, but emotional disturbance. So why not try and refute them?

What an ignorant and irrelevant thing to say. — Bartricks

Then there's the irrelevance. Whether antinatalism is true or not h as nothing to do with the happiness or misery of antinatalists themselves. — Bartricks

I'll be honest, you're right that my comment about how miserable anti-natalists are is irrelevant. It says something about the anti-natalists and not about the argument. I should be ashamed.

It's a puzzler, isn't it - does having more money and more time and fewer responsibilities make one happier or more miserable? It's a bit like "is hitting your hand with a hammer likely to make you more happy or less happy?" I just don't know! — Bartricks

Although I have acknowledged that it is not philosophically appropriate for me to point out faults, failings, and weaknesses of anti-natalists, this text calls out for response. Your statement seems to suggest that responsibilities make people miserable. So what you're advocating is that no one should have children unless we can guarantee that they will never have to face responsibilities.

if the arguments of antinatalists do no more than express their own misery - which can't possibly be true in my case, as I am not at all miserable — Bartricks

In general, you're rude, insulting, mean-spirited, close-minded, and self-aggrandizing. You treat people, at least those on the forum, like shit. That doesn't seem like something a happy person would do.

What do the childfree have more of? Money and time. What do they have less of? Responsibility. So, more money and time. Fewer responsibilities. More money. More time. Fewer responsibilities. Hmm. It's a puzzler, isn't it - does having more money and more time and fewer responsibilities make one happier or more miserable? It's a bit like "is hitting your hand with a hammer likely to make you more happy or less happy?" I just don't know! — Bartricks

These could never be logical evidence of happier people. For example, you forget to mention the joy that kids bring to someone's life.Joy that people with no kids are deprived of. And you present "responsibility" as a misery factor, which isn't necessary at all.
As you can't also support of course that Antinatalists are miserable.

For me it cannot be a happiness measurement if someone has kids or not. It logically fails. Since happiness depends on many other factors and first and most important from the person himself and what he wants in his life.

Having kids or not it is a matter of choice simply. There is no right or wrong in these things. I never understood why someone to be considered unethical if he wants kids or either miserable if he doesn't.

Always seemed to me like just another issue(as many others) that people create problems and conflicts out of nowhere. Just as to split into "groups" and "fight".

Is it wrong to have children? Too many, yes.

Just do some research. The childfree are happier.

You seem to be misusing the word 'logical'.

Having children is wrong. It's not wrong because it makes parents unhappy. That's not my argument. I am just pointing out that the childfree are happier as a group. Which is what one would expect, given we have more money, more time, and fewer responsibilities. We are also cleverer.

For instance, this is a philosophy forum. How many of the greats had kids? Not many.

I do not understand your point. You say having kids is a choice. Yes, so? I am arguing that it is a choice one ought not to make. And there are a bundle of reasons for thinking this.

So, do you think it is ok to impose something very considerable on another person without their consent?

Why? Why would it be wrong to have 100 if one could?

I think anti-natalists like to project their own misery onto the rest of us without any sign of self-awareness. — T Clark

I guess you consider your assumption that antinatalists are miserable most definitely not projection, and not a sign of a lack of self-awareness.

I consider myself a happy person, yet I find the antinatalist argument quite convincing. It doesn't mean I like the implications, but the nature of things as it is apparent to me is not affected by me liking or disliking it.

Just do some research. The childfree are happier.

You seem to be misusing the word 'logical'. — Bartricks

There could be no valid research as to measure that.Even if you could ask all people on earth and the majority told you they are happier, how can you be sure that they would tell the truth?. So stop that research thing.

It is simply impossible to defend that view. Some are happy with kids, others without.
It is totally a matter of choice and it depends inclusively on each person's way of living.
Where exactly is the misuse on logic here??

We are also cleverer. — Bartricks

Really?? No further comment...

For instance, this is a philosophy forum. How many of the greats had kids? Not many. — Bartricks

Once again. So what? That is a proof of having a kid is wrong?? No way.

I do not understand your point. You say having kids is a choice. Yes, so? I am arguing that it is a choice one ought not to make. And there are a bundle of reasons for thinking this. — Bartricks

As there are bundle of reasons as to have kids. So? You didn't have kids. Perfectly fine. Another wanted to have kids cause that would made him happy. Where exactly is the problem? Why his choice is wrong and yours is right??
My point is the same as I wrote before: it is NOT a matter of right or wrong.

So, do you think it is ok to impose something very considerable on another person without their consent? — Bartricks

That question would be valid only if there was a way to "ask" the unborn kid if it want that or not. Since that it's purely impossible the choice to be made is on parent's hands. Simply as that.

I consider myself a happy person, yet I find the antinatalist argument quite convincing. It doesn't mean I like the implications, but the nature of things as it is apparent to me is not affected by me liking or disliking it. — Tzeentch

First, as I acknowledged before, saying that people are anti-natalists because they project their unhappiness on others is not a legitimate philosophical argument. My comments were gratuitous and irrelevant to the argument. On the other hand, I think the anti-natalist position is profoundly anti-human. It's also poorly supported, no matter how convincing you find it. And by "poorly supported" I mean "silly."

It's also poorly supported, no matter how convincing you find it. And by "poorly supported" I mean "silly." — T Clark

I don't see how that is a good characterization. Why is it "silly"? See all my recent threads.

That question would be valid only if there was a way to "ask" the unborn kid if it want that or not. Since that it's purely impossible the choice to be made is on parent's hands. Simply as that. — dimosthenis9

I don't necessarily agree with all of Bartriks' line of arguments there, but on this one I can see the validity. If there cannot be consent, you have two outcomes:
1) A person is not born, and a person is not imposed upon (and relatedly, does not suffer, experience all the harms over a lifetime).

2) A person is not born, and a person does not experience good things life. But to whom does that matter? Certainly, not the non-existent being, as that makes no sense.

So there is some asymmetry here between 1 and 2 where 1 seems waited as more important to consider than 2.

I don't see how that is a good characterization. Why is it "silly"? See all my recent threads. — schopenhauer1

I have read all or some of many of your threads. Discussion after discussion, post after post, paragraph after paragraph, word after word. Long posts that finally boil down to just one argument.

[1] It is immoral to make decisions for another person without their agreement.
[2] Before they are born, children are non-existent persons.
[3] It is impossible to obtain agreement from a non-existent person.
[4] Therefore, it is immoral to cause children to be born.

• Response to 1 - We make decisions for other people, especially children, all the time without their approval. We take them to the doctor; make them take medicine; make them have operations; make them go to school; punish them for bad behavior....
  
  
• Response to 2 - Non-existent persons are not persons.
  
  
• Response to 3 - Even if non-existent children were persons, the power of consent for children resides in their parents.

That question would be valid only if there was a way to "ask" the unborn kid if it want that or not. Since that it's purely impossible the choice to be made is on parent's hands. — dimosthenis9

Not an AN anymore, but this is ridiculous. Since when is it that when we can’t ask for consent, we assume it is given? That’s the exact opposite of what consent is supposed to be for.

Where exactly is the problem? Why his choice is wrong and yours is right?? — dimosthenis9

Because it’s a choice that can hurt someone and so deserves some consideration.

My point is the same as I wrote before: it is NOT a matter of right or wrong. — dimosthenis9

Let’s assume that a couple has hidden genes that would result in their child having a terrible illness. We’re talking, missing eyes, broken limbs, broken organs, etc. Do you think it’s fine for that couple to have that kid?

The idea that having kids is always fine at all times is silly, even to non antinatalists.