So is quite understandable that many people, who suffer and are willing to die, don´t make suicide. — Antinatalist

These cases exist indeed. But many others prefer to go on living even if they suffer cause they still think life is better. Plus when one suffers still he has hope that things will get better and he will overcome it. His hope for happier days is much stronger even from the actual suffering.

There are even cases among the ones you mentioned,that people just find excuses to religion and grief of their loved ones cause at the very bottom they don't want to die at all!

Yeah I know. You didn't have kids. So you belong to "clever". I'm sure you have a research for that too. — dimosthenis9

You're sure I have 'a research' for that? What does that even mean? Do you mean 'evidence' for that?

You fail to understand simply logical things. I told you that these kind of researches can never be valid and you talk about witnesses and green cup shit. — dimosthenis9

Is that you, Peter Ustinov?

You insist that having kids is wrong — dimosthenis9

No, I argue that it is. It imposes a lifetime here on someone else without their consent; it creates considerable undeserved suffering and does not promote deserved pleasure; and those who perform such acts typically have a whole range of morally bad motives for doing so.

It's also spectacularly stupid, which may also contribute to its being immoral if, that is, we have a duty to ourselves not to be too stupid.

You rape logic. — dimosthenis9

That's a category error. But rape is a good example of an act that is wrong because the other does not consent to it. Imagine that no woman wants to have kids. Is it morally permissible to rape them? Surely not. Why? Because they do not consent to it (that's a going to be a major part of the story of its wrongness, anyway). The human race will now end. But so be it. It is more important not to make someone else do something significant - such as have sex, say, or live a lifetime in a place - without their consent than it is to procreate. Which is why it would be immoral to procreate even if they did consent, for the act will still make someone else do something significant without their consent: live a whole lifetime here.

My questions remains. How is this different from saying ‘Reasons not to cross a road’ ?

They are very weak points. I can think of better points. For example, people who have children generally suffer more stress and have less ‘happiness’. People who don’t have children though don’t have the elated highs of being a parent.

On balance if you really think having children is bad/wrong/not good, then I don’t understand why.

It imposes a lifetime here on someone else without their consent; it creates considerable undeserved suffering and does not promote deserved pleasure; and those who perform such acts typically have a whole range of morally bad motives for doing so. — Bartricks

But since you can never have an consent on that why we even talk about it? I can't understand really. We discuss about an impossible scenario. But anyway let me get into your way of thinking.

Are you sure that the "answer" from the "unborn" child would be "no"?? How can you know that? As to follow you down to that road, even if I don't want to.
Cause when you decide not to have kids for that reason. You already assume a " no" answer from the kid!

And you keep talking about suffering and suffering. As if that's only what exists on life. As if life is a earth hell or something. No it isn't. There is plenty of suffering yes, but plenty of happiness also. You can never measure exactly this things. It's impossible.

Which is why it would be immoral to procreate even if they did consent, for the act will still make someone else do something significant without their consent: live a whole lifetime here. — Bartricks

Live a whole lifetime here. And you present it like "welcome to life freak show". You make life seems like an unbearable torture all the time.

So for you, If everyone followed your advice. Humans would stop existing right? You are ok with that I suppose? That's the right thing at the end!? To make our species disappear since "unborn kids" don't give us the "permission" to bring them to life?
That's more than antinatalist. That's anti humanist then!

But since you can never have an consent on that why we even talk about it? I can't understand really. — dimosthenis9

Clearly. So you think if it is impossible to get someone's consent to do x, then it's ok to do it?

Okay: so if Tim wants to rape Jane - so, he wants to have sex with her without her consent - then you think it is okay for him to do it? After all, it is impossible for Jane to consent to be raped, isn't it? If she consents, it is not rape. So, by your logic, as long as you want to rape someone, it is okay for you to rape as rape can't be consented to.

Understand yet? If you can't consent to something, that makes that act default wrong. Not default permissible. Default wrong. Normally very serious wrong at that.

This was a point Kant made. You can't consent to be coerced. Hence coercion is default wrong. YTou can't consent to be deceived. Hence deception is default wrong. All I am doing is noticing that this applies to procreative acts. It really isn't hard to understand, so I don't understand why you don't understand it.

Are you sure that the "answer" from the "unborn" child would be "no"?? How can you know that? As to follow you down to that road, even if I don't want to. — dimosthenis9

So imagine you don't know whether I want to take heroin or not. You're just not sure, though you do know that it is highly addictive. You just inject me with some. That's wrong, yes? Really wrong. And it's really wrong even if - as is likely - I then find myself enjoying it and get addicted. Yes?

Now back to the unborn. Maybe they exist in some other realm, maybe they don't. You don't know and you don't know whether they'd enjoy living here or not (though you do know that they'll almost certainly get addicted to it). Is it ok to just bring them here anyway? No. That'd be wrong - much more wrong, in my view - than injecting me with heroin without my consent.

I don't think that this example is similar to the case here. It's like you already assume that "stealing" (wrong) is the "having kid" case. — dimosthenis9

I didn't refer to having kids at all. This isn't about that, it's more general. It's about:

I really can't understand how you and schopenhauer measure harm and happiness and you decide that harm counts more. — dimosthenis9

When someone steals from a charity he hurts them, by how much? 100 dollars in this case.
When someone doesn't donate to charity he doesn't help them, by how much? 100 dollars in this case.

If you weigh harming and helping in the same way, then you would think the person who doesn't donate is just as bad as the person who steals.

So you lead the conclusion to your preference already. — dimosthenis9

But I'm not an antinatalist.... You know, just because I don't agree with shope on everything doesn't mean I disagree with everything either....

Why then you don't consider as depriving happiness from an unborn kid a bad thing also? — dimosthenis9

Read my responses to shope and you'll find that isn't the case.

In light of that person would not be harmed (which is good) and that person would not have happiness (neutral), that makes sense. However, once alive, there might be a case that after already being born, that preventing happiness, when one can for someone, with minimal cost to oneself, would seem to be some sort of morally worthy act. — schopenhauer1

I see 0 justification for the double standard.

Also I think you meant “providing” happiness?

@schopenhauer1

Did you know,

1. Malnourished women stop having periods? Nature's way of telling us not to have children if we can't afford them i.e. we're unable to fulfill their basic necessities, food being one. Suffering!

2. Lactational amenorrhea occurs when women are nursing infants? Another of nature's ingenious tricks to stop us from giving birth to more children than we have the time/energy for. Suffering!

3. The age at which young girls undergo menarche (getting their first period) has been steadily reducing over time? Menarche simply announces to all male parties that a girl is ready to bear offspring.

Looks like mother nature knows her stuff pretty well I must say. If people don't listen to what you have to say Schopenhauer1, they'll continue to multiply like rabbits, overpopulation then, malnourishment follows, women will stop menstruating, no children. Just what you recommend, no? Either that or people heed your warning and start using contraception, stop/control population growth, before we find out the hard way why we shouldn't have children.

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.... — T Clark

There are factors that could justify the making of significant decisions on someone else's behalf that apply to the raising of children, and not to the having of children.

The first, acting on behalf of another person's well-being. Assuming the parents' primary concern is the happiness of their child, this applied to the raising of children. However, the act of having children does not involve this, since there is no child on behalf of whose well-being one can act.

The second, possessing some wisdom of what constitutes that well-being. In case of raising a child, it can be argued that the parents have gained some wisdom in regards to the nature of their child and what constitutes their happiness and well-being. In the case of having children, no such wisdom exists as the object, the child, does not yet exist.

If the raising of children is not done with 1. The well-being of the child as its primary concern, and 2. The wisdom required to achieve that well-being, then the raising of children is not a moral act either.

He states that a foetus, or even a newly conceived egg cell, is a potential person, and therefore an abortion would be a crime against this potential human being. — Antinatalist

So he drops the qualifier 'potential' in order to present a bad argument. One can't do crimes against potential things.

Or another way. Every living person is a potentially dead person so killing people is ok.

Clearly. So you think if it is impossible to get someone's consent to do x, then it's ok to do it? — Bartricks

It's the same as "not to do it" since you can never be sure about his "answer".For me, It just doesn't matter at all, since he has absolutely no say on that.

Okay: so if Tim wants to rape Jane - so, he wants to have sex with her without her consent - then you think it is okay for him to do it? After all, it is impossible for Jane to consent to be raped, isn't it? If she consents, it is not rape. So, by your logic, as long as you want to rape someone, it is okay for you to rape as rape can't be consented to. — Bartricks

Come on, come on. Please. What kind of concept is that?? No of course it's not my logic that thing. Jane is already alive so she has the option to accept or deny sex with Tim. If she denies then no Tim has absolutely no right to do so!
How you compare the choice of a living person (Jane) with the no-option of an unborn kid??? You find them similar? They are completely different cases.

YTou can't consent to be deceived. Hence deception is default wrong. All I am doing is noticing that this applies to procreative acts. It really isn't hard to understand, so I don't understand why you don't understand it. — Bartricks

You see, that's where we disagree. You can't consent to be born so you say it is wrong.
I say that, since you have absolutely no way to consent or not, then it simply doesn't matter at all! You are a "0" when your parents decide to have you. "0" has no way to choose. So the choice is up to the ones who are already alive. Parents. They decide if they want to make a "0" into something! It doesn't make it wrong at all in eyes.

So imagine you don't know whether I want to take heroin or not. You're just not sure, though you do know that it is highly addictive. You just inject me with some. That's wrong, yes? Really wrong. And it's really wrong even if - as is likely - I then find myself enjoying it and get addicted. Yes? — Bartricks

Your example is the same as the previous. You compare already living creatures with the ability of choice. With non existence "creatures". For me it's like comparing apples with oranges. Sorry I can't accept that.

Maybe they exist in some other realm, maybe they don't — Bartricks

If you support that unborn kids exist "somewhere else" already then it changes the whole discussion. Then your claims might have some validity.
But for me they don't exist anywhere else at all. It's simply "0",nothing.
And you can't ask from a " 0" permission for something. It's purely impossible.

And I repeat to you than when you decide not to have a kid, you already do something without his "consent" also. You decide a" no" answer for it. You say kid didn't give you the permission to have it, so you shouldn't. Well he didn't give you the "permission" not to have it also. Right? How is that different??.

Big mammals in a zoo normally don't get children. What a mystery! They just feel they are put between fences and walls, in an unnatural (artificial) habitat. Which mammal in their right mind will have children? I know I wouldn't.

If you weigh harming and helping in the same way, then you would think the person who doesn't donate is just as bad as the person who steals. — khaled

But we are talking about "potential" harming. It's not that the parents think that the kid will suffer for sure, so they still have them! Some have happy lives and they think "oh let's bring into that party someone else also as to enjoy it like me!". Why that decision to be characterized as wrong. Sorry I can't accept it simply.

Back to our issue again. Even if I accept what you are saying about harm and happiness (which sorry I can't but anyway). Why should we always assume that having a child will bring harm to it?? Or more harm than happiness to it?? Why we even start from that assumption?? I can't understand.

What If a kid has an excellent life, full of happiness and the only harm he faces is his death at the end! Would you count again in that cases, harm and happiness with the same way?? If you were an unborn kid and had the "option" what would you choose? I would choose "yes" I ensure you.

But I'm not an antinatalist.... You know, just because I don't agree with shope on everything doesn't mean I disagree with everything either.... — khaled

It sounds fair.

What If a kid has an excellent life, full of happiness and the only harm he faces is his death at the end! Would you count again in that cases, harm and happiness with the same way?? If you were an unborn kid and had the "option" what would you choose? I would choose "yes" I ensure you. — dimosthenis9

The choice depends on the circumstances I would get thrown in. If these were those in which my fate was brim I would think twice before chosing to give it a try.

So is quite understandable that many people, who suffer and are willing to die, don´t make suicide.
— Antinatalist

These cases exist indeed. But many others prefer to go on living even if they suffer cause they still think life is better. Plus when one suffers still he has hope that things will get better and he will overcome it. His hope for happier days is much stronger even from the actual suffering. — dimosthenis9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollyanna_principle

There are even cases among the ones you mentioned,that people just find excuses to religion and grief of their loved ones cause at the very bottom they don't want to die at all! — dimosthenis9

Maybe for someone, but there is definitely lots of people whom those are not excuses.

↪Antinatalist My questions remains. How is this different from saying ‘Reasons not to cross a road’ ? — I like sushi

The fundamental difference of those acts - crossing a road or having a child - that when you are having a child, you are playing with another person´s life. Whole life.

They are very weak points. I can think of better points. For example, people who have children generally suffer more stress and have less ‘happiness’. People who don’t have children though don’t have the elated highs of being a parent.

On balance if you really think having children is bad/wrong/not good, then I don’t understand why. — I like sushi

Let´s assume that you are right on that happiness -point. So what?
I´m not a fan of Immanuel Kant, but he got something right. If you consider having a child only at parent´s point of view, you are treating the child as a mean - not as an end in itself.

Or another way. Every living person is a potentially dead person so killing people is ok. — Cheshire

Strange logic.

I see 0 justification for the double standard.

Also I think you meant “providing” happiness? — khaled

Honestly, this is a whole other discussion, so maybe that should be another thread? We can't even agree on prevention of harm idea let alone this.

Looks like mother nature knows her stuff pretty well I must say. If people don't listen to what you have to say Schopenhauer1, they'll continue to multiply like rabbits, overpopulation then, malnourishment follows, women will stop menstruating, no children. Just what you recommend, no? Either that or people heed your warning and start using contraception, stop/control population growth, before we find out the hard way why we shouldn't have children. — TheMadFool

Interesting. Not the reasons I am advocating, but too much population is bound to be bad somewhere, even for our oh-so-clever species.

So he drops the qualifier 'potential' in order to present a bad argument. One can't do crimes against potential things. — Cheshire

But this is presenting a bad argument here. You can justify having a future person experience all sorts of terrible things because they don't exist yet. Conditionals like "could" and "likely to" don't go out the window because the potential X is not here at the present.

This would’ve been a point in our last discussion but I got tired and deleted it. Yes, do please go back to those examples. Show me how you can derive that Willy wonka’s forced game is a non trivial imposition, without referring in any way to the victims opinions of their situation. I just don’t see how you “objectively” measure how bad an imposition is with no reference to the person being imposed upon. What’s the “set of features” that go into making an imposition non trivial? A certain duration? A certain number of work hours? — khaled

So I believe this to be best resolved definitionally and axiomatically.
Can we agree on what an imposition is?
Do we agree what non-trivial means?
Do we agree with what unnecessary means?
Do we agree that there is an extra duty of care when it comes to doing something on another person's behalf?
Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong?

We can go from there.

Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? — schopenhauer1

Yes.

Can we agree on what an imposition is? — schopenhauer1

Probably.

Do we agree what non-trivial means? — schopenhauer1

I'm asking you to define it. Without any reference to experiences or their reports. You claim this is possible.

Do we agree with what unnecessary means? — schopenhauer1

You defined it, let's go with that.

Do we agree that there is an extra duty of care when it comes to doing something on another person's behalf? — schopenhauer1

"Extra" as in more than simply "I'd want this done to me so it's fine"? Yes.

Strange logic. — Antinatalist

What? We don't consider the present is exactly the same as the projected future states? How do we pretend cardiac base tissue is a person, by other means?

I'm asking you to define it. Without any reference to experiences or their reports. You claim this is possible. — khaled

All we have to agree on is there is a distinction between non-trivial and trivial harms. We don't even need to go much further than that. I'll allow the fact that this can be subjective, even. All we have to agree on here is that there is a distinction, and that non-trivial harm exists for everyone born.

I'll allow the fact that this can be subjective, even. — schopenhauer1

So if a slave was fine with his conditions then we classify his enslavement as a non-trivial imposition? Wasn't this one of our main points of disagreement?

So if a slave was fine with his conditions then we classify his enslavement as a non-trivial imposition? Wasn't this one of our main points of disagreement? — khaled

Micro/macro fallacy or somesuch similar thing. Answer the question, and don't give an example as if this covers all cases.

There was no question in your comment. If anything, I am the one that asked a question:

What’s the “set of features” that go into making an imposition non trivial? — khaled

And you responded:

. I'll allow the fact that this can be subjective, even. — schopenhauer1

And now you don't want to support that answer. So,

What’s the “set of features” that go into making an imposition non trivial? — khaled

No buddy, I am answering your question. I said it was definitional. Do we agree on the definitions? I am answering your question, but this requires you to answer my question:

All we have to agree on is there is a distinction between non-trivial and trivial harms. We don't even need to go much further than that. I'll allow the fact that this can be subjective, even. All we have to agree on here is that there is a distinction, and that non-trivial harm exists for everyone born. — schopenhauer1

I said it was definitional. — schopenhauer1

So... define it.

I am answering your question, but this requires you to answer my question: — schopenhauer1

A question ends with a question mark. I honestly don't know what you want me to answer here.

All we have to agree on here is that there is a distinction, and that non-trivial harm exists for everyone born. — schopenhauer1

I guess this? Yes, we agree that non trivial harm exists for everyone born.

Ok, now, how do you determine what non trivial harm is without reference to experiences or reports?