Note: Not having a child may cause millions to suffer. There is nothing logical in stating having a child may cause greater suffering in the world when the opposite is equally as true. I may even have a child with the sole purpose of raising it to perform horrendous crimes, but then they actually make more human lives much better. Passing judgement is silly. If you want to have kids then have kids. I believe some people are better suited as parents than others … but so what? Freedom is necessarily messy as it is beautiful.

Also their sovereignty as human beings obligates other people not to use them as a mean for something, and same philosophy is also one reason for my antinatalistic views.
— Antinatalist

Yes, my AN is along similar deontological ends. In the end, it's about not using people. Do not foist unnecessary, non-trivial harms/burdens/impositions to someone else. — schopenhauer1

Yes.

The word choices like ‘playing’ tell me something about you. This isn’t a logical discussion. You have an opinion that, as far as I can see, has little to no weight to it. — I like sushi

Yet, this is an opinion too. All ethical matters are not empirical, if that's what you are getting at. Nothing will naturally lead to any conclusion on an ethical matter, so you are already expecting the wrong thing from the very form (ethics). This only works if for you all ethics is opinion and never binding. But I doubt you do in cases like murder and such.

The comparison I made was to get the point across that we cannot fear causing ‘suffering’ every step in our lives. Every step in your life will cause ‘suffering’ some where. By this logic killing all humans will end their ‘suffering’ yet you’re not for murder … guess you’d have another name for it instead, maybe ‘avoiding collateral damage’? — I like sushi

No, that's not what most ANs are claiming, Most ANs understand that once born, life is already going to be compromises of greater harms with lesser harms. Even giving someone a gift might cause some stress somewhere down the line. But ANs usually do make the distinction between creating a life and continuing a life. And in the circumstance of the decision to create a life, here we have a scenario where there was no one to exist to ameliorate or compromise a greater harm with a lesser harm. Here, it is purely creating conditions for SOMEONE ELSE of non-trivial harms.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to experience the joys of parenthood anymore than there is with not wanting to. I think anyone trying to take a moral high ground on what is ‘better’ is something close to what I would term ‘evil’. — I like sushi

This is just some assertion, and not justified. You are vaguely saying that not being able to always be able to enact your preferences is evil. Think of the implications of this. You are trying to twist ANs into something they are not. Rather, ANs are bringing up a point that is often overlooked. Because it is not the usual argument doesn't make it evil. You can say "peculiar" but that is only because it is often counter to the prevailing norms.

Life without suffering isn’t worth living. You learn that as you mature. I guess some people get carried away with the search for some ‘answer’ or ‘solution’ to life. Again, as you mature you may see past this (I hope so). — I like sushi

But I would never purposely put someone into suffering and then justify it with "Life without suffering isn't worth living". That itself seems cruel at the least.

You’re using us for some means here. What is it? To compare your ideas to others, to force them on others or maybe to avoid human relationships? Who knows … maybe you don’t know either as most likely we all go through our lives shrouded in self-deceit just to make it to the next day. The burden of being a human I’d say … not as bad as it sounds ;)

And thus, as you see procreation does affect someone in the future. If you can agree that all life has some non-trivial harm, then I don't see how it cannot (does not) follow here: — schopenhauer1

How this negates my previous claim? Did I ever mention that parents decision won't affect their future creatures kids? I just say that it is a decision totally in parents hands. And that unborn kid has simple no say on that! So there is nothing immoral in having kids (except in the disease cases we already discussed). Why you see a contradiction here?

When you know the outcome for sure then yes it is wrong to have kids.
But that can't be applied in every situation! With the fear of the potential harm that might happen (or might not) to be deprived of having kids.
As I like sushi mentioned we can't fear of the potential suffering in every step we make, so at the end not making it at all!!

So, just to be clear, if people exist prior to birth, then it is wrong to procreate because of the lack of consent. Whereas if they don't, then the lack of consent doesn't matter?

I just say that it is a decision totally in parents hands. — dimosthenis9

This so obvious to be trivially true. The contention isn't this but whether because something doesn't exist yet, this means you can do anything you want because they don't exist yet. That is exactly what you were implying, don't try to move it to some non-controversial point that the decision is in the parents' hands. Well yeah, of course. Now what?

So there is nothing immoral in having kids (except in the disease cases we already discussed). Why you see a contradiction here? — dimosthenis9

Um, so now you are not understanding what we just discussed or applying it. We agreed that someone who will be born can suffer non-trivial harms. So we agreed a decision now affects a future person, and can be negative. So why is it permissible to foist non-trivial, unnecessary (doesn't need to happen) harms/suffering on a future person's behalf? You still haven't addressed this but only retreated to a non-controversial points that it is the parents' decision. The fact that it is indeed a decision for someone else should mean more care is taken here, so our are only strengthening my point.

When you know the outcome for sure then yes it is wrong to have kids.
But that can't be applied in every situation! With the fear of the potential harm that might happen (or might not) to be deprived of having kids. — dimosthenis9

But that's the thing.. we don't need to even know the particular specific outcome. Can we agree that all life has non-trivial harms?

As I like sushi mentioned we can't fear of the potential suffering in every step we make, so at the end not making it at all!! — dimosthenis9

As I said before, there is a distinction between continuing to exist and starting an existence in how a decision is applied. Once we are born, we cannot but help but not worry about every little suffering. Prior to someone's birth, we can absolutely not foist unnecessary, non-trivial harms. It is not ameliorating a greater with a lesser harm for that future person, as it would be if they were already born.

If existed before told you I would have to seriously reconsider It.I might end up to the same conclusion again but for sure I would reconsider also the "circumstances" these unborn kids "exist in" and what they are.
But since I don't believe they exist "somewhere else" before yes it doesn't matter at all.

You’re muddled too by the looks of it. I am not the one stating that ‘logically’ having children is ‘wrong’/‘bad’. I don’t think anyone is in the position to do so and I deem such acts as inherently ‘wrong’/‘bad’ (which is my opinion).

If you agree that that ethics isn’t purely about logic fine by me. I have no issue. If you start killing people I’ll not be o your side. If you state that having children is ‘bad’/‘wrong’ I won’t agree with just as much force.

You have no ground to talk about what is ‘cruel’ because suffering is clearly necessary in life. Sounds like some people expect fluffy pink clouds and chocolate without the pollution and diabetes. I assume it is coming from someone who lacks life experience.

Please consider that life isn’t binary. It isn’t a judgement against a or b, or joy or suffering. They are NOT isolated from each other. An argument against any ‘suffering’ is an argument against any ‘joy’. True enough we are more keyed into avoiding suffering than not, but we weren’t born with wings yet we’ve managed to overcome that obstacle.

Even if you were right, your point of view is some kind of utilitarianism
— Antinatalist

I don't think it is at all. I don't even support utilitarianism. It is just a simple matter of choice for me as I told you. Nothing else.

Yes, I want human race to disappear. By voluntary choice. Not very realistic that this will happen in near future, but I think that way.
— Antinatalist

Ok at least now you admit it. I don't agree at all and I find it irrational. But as I told you I respect every opinion so I respect yours also.

My ethics is to respect people who already exist, their lives have a great value - even when they have bad ones
— Antinatalist

Sorry but it's not the case here either.
You care about the "rights" and "potential suffering" of an "unborn creature" a "0".But you don't give a fuck for the actual suffering of the ones that are already alive! — dimosthenis9

That is just an absurd statement.

If someone wants to have kids. And he truly wants that with all his heart. That will make him so happy and not having will make him miserable for the rest of his life. Well in that case with your theory you "condemn" a living creature's life into ACTUAL suffering and misery by urging him not to be happy and have kids for the sake of the POTENTIAL suffering of a non existing creature! You value potential suffering of a "0" more that the actual suffering of an already living person. So no, please don't say that. — dimosthenis9

Like I said before in one earlier post for someone else, if you look the act of having a child only at parent's perspective, you use the unborn potential person as a mean - not an end itself. And that is wrong. Of course the non-existing potential person does not suffer, but if she/he will born to this world she/he most likely will suffer. When having a child it is not only about parents, but first of all it's a decision at someone else's life.


About utilitarianism, your arguments/reasoning seem strongly as utilitarian.

Again, you miss the point. It is implausible that it makes a difference.

This boils down to the trolley problem I set out years back. The issue is exploring the horrendous sides of our nature. I have no issue with that. That is why I am here … I’m ‘using’ you all (no apologies). Maybe what I say will cause ‘suffering’ yet I gain from it (no apologies).

You’re muddled too by the looks of it. I am not the one stating that ‘logically’ having children is ‘wrong’/‘bad’. — I like sushi

This means nothing at face value. "Not the one.." implies you are castigating me for a position we are debating. Odd.

I don’t think anyone is in the position to do so and I deem such acts as inherently ‘wrong’/‘bad’ (which is my opinion). — I like sushi

You are not addressing the my point which is that ethics can never (as a form) be shown empirically, so it is all opinion with justifications. That doesn't change much other than simply defining ethics.. So move on from the (unnecessary) point that AN is an "opinion". Next.

If you agree that that ethics isn’t purely about logic fine by me. I have no issue. If you start killing people I’ll not be o your side. If you state that having children is ‘bad’/‘wrong’ I won’t agree with just as much force. — I like sushi

You just made a leap so ridiculous, I shouldn't even have to address it. I don't say "logic" isn't used. I said that:

Nothing will naturally lead to any conclusion on an ethical matter, so you are already expecting the wrong thing from the very form (ethics). — schopenhauer1

That's all I said. Logic can be employed, but as to whether that logic or conclusion is what is truly "ethical" is not a matter of course of simply applying the logic, as we are clearly demonstrating with our disagreement right now.

You have no ground to talk about what is ‘cruel’ because suffering is clearly necessary in life. — I like sushi

Yet life itself isn't necessary to create on someone else's behalf. Next.

I assume it is coming from someone who lacks life experience. — I like sushi

Wrong and rhetorical ad hom filler. Next.

Please consider that life isn’t binary. It isn’t a judgement against a or b, or joy or suffering. They are NOT isolated from each other. An argument against any ‘suffering’ is an argument against any ‘joy’. True enough we are more keyed into avoiding suffering than not, but we weren’t born with wings yet we’ve managed to overcome that obstacle. — I like sushi

That is exactly the Benatarian asymmetry. Indeed, in the decision to create a life, creating joy/happiness seems to not matter as much at all when one can prevent unnecessary, non-trivial suffering. What is good is that someone did not suffer. There is no person not existing who will feel deprived of not experiencing the good, since they indeed do not exist.

@Antinatalist I think you’re the one not listening. I think I can speak roughly for the person above by saying we’re not looking at it purely from the parents perspective. The thing is neither are we looking at it purely from the (possible) child’s perspective.

Again, back to the ‘possibility’ of harm being portrayed as a greater ‘wrong’/‘bad’. This sounds a lot like having ‘safe spaces’ and all that kind of dangerous nonsense.

No one ‘asks’ to be born because that is impossible. The choice, if it exists, is on the parents.

Maybe one day an antinatalist saviour will be born and convince us all to stop having children. Then I guess the parents of that child would feel a bit hard done by :)

@schopenhauer1 You’re seeing/reading what you want to. I am not saying, and have not said, that it’s purely logic or not. In fact I am not even bothering with you. I think I recall it was pointless in the past.

All I can say is you appear to think I’m saying one thing when I am not.

No ‘Next’ so bye bye. I’ll talk to Antinatalist if they respond. I know many here are … not worthy of my time (my judgement). I’m always willing to open the door again briefly though ;)

Maybe we can talk in a year or two. Have fun :) or ‘suffer’ ;)

The contention isn't this but whether because something doesn't exist yet, this means you can do anything you want because they don't exist yet. That is exactly what you were implying, don't try to move it to some non-controversial point that the decision is in the parents' hands. — schopenhauer1

Wait wait. I don't try to change anything here. Once again : Since something doesn't exist wrote so many times, that then it has absolutely no choice! So not being able to take his answer whether it wants to be born or not doesn't make immoral at all the parents decision to have it! It is totally on parents hands! Since it isn't alive has simply no say on that. What exactly I changed from my original view? Can't follow you here.

So why is it permissible to foist non-trivial, unnecessary (doesn't need to happen) harms/suffering on a future person's behalf? You still haven't addressed this but only retreated to a non-controversial points that it is the parents' decision. — schopenhauer1

So again we will have the same conversation we had 2-3 pages before??I wrote you there all my argument about suffering and happiness. And how I can't accept the way you measure them, and how we think so different that life is a field of suffering etc etc. So you want us to repeat all that again?? Cause it's a potential harm that you can't be sure and the happiness that will bring might be 10times more for example! I just write it again as you not to think that I avoid your question.

Can we agree that all life has non-trivial harms? — schopenhauer1

You keep insisting on that cause you wanna make a certain outcome out of this! That harm in some lives might be only death (when they end) and nothing else! So you still want these lives not to exist! No your trivial harm argument can never cover all cases. As much hard as you try it simply can't!

The fact that it is indeed a decision for someone else should mean more care is taken here, so our are only strengthening my point. — schopenhauer1

So what?? Your view is that in all circumstances that decision should be "no"! And I don't agree at all! It depends on the each circumstance individual and you can never make a" rule " that you always have to decide no in having kids. Sounds totally irrational to me!

You try to gain points here for your arguments jumping to irrelevant conclusions. You don't seem the type of person, as I read other posts you make in general, who would do that on purpose.
But that's how it seems to me here. No your point doesn't get any stronger at all from what I claim. It's totally different.

That is just an absurd statement. — Antinatalist

No it isn't. It's a statement that you simply can't deny.

About utilitarianism, your arguments/reasoning seem strongly as utilitarian. — Antinatalist

I ensure you I m not at all. Whether you believe it or not.

if you look the act of having a child only at parent's perspective, you use the unborn potential person as a mean - not an end itself. — Antinatalist

The thing is that you look it only at the "unborn kid's" perspective! And don't care at all about parent's perspective.

I think I can speak roughly for the person above by saying we’re not looking at it purely from the parents perspective. The thing is neither are we looking at it purely from the (possible) child’s perspective. — I like sushi

Exactly.

Wait wait. I don't try to change anything here. Once again : Since something doesn't exist wrote so many times, that then it has absolutely no choice! So not being able to take his answer whether it wants to be born or not doesn't make immoral at all the parents decision to have it! It is totally on parents hands! Since it isn't alive has simply no say on that. What exactly I changed from my original view? Can't follow you here. — dimosthenis9

Because the debate isn't whether it is the parents choice or not. It is always the parents' choice, of course. The debate is what the parents should do in light of the fact that they would be creating unnecessary, non-trivial suffering. Hence why I asked if you think all life has non-trivial suffering.

Unnecessary here means that there is no greater harm that is being ameliorated with a lesser harm (like compulsory education, vaccines, and other decisions on someone's behalf because they already exist).

Non-trivial here means harms that are over the threshold of things like getting a papercut from someone giving you a $100 or something like that. It is harm or burdens so minimal as to practically not matter.

I wrote you there all my argument about suffering and happiness. And how I can't accept the way you measure them, and how we think so different that life is a field of suffering etc etc. So you want us to repeat all that again?? Cause it's a potential harm that you can't be sure and the happiness that will bring might be 10times more for example! I just write it again as you not to think that I avoid your question. — dimosthenis9

So this is an important point and why I'm debating! What does it matter if a person who doesn't exist doesn't experience happiness?! Are you not seeing this? What does seem to matter is that someone will not suffer non-trivial and unnecessary harms. This is the basic asymmetry between happiness and harm for something that does not (but could) exist.

You keep insisting on that cause you wanna make a certain outcome out of this! That harm in some lives might be only death (when they end) and nothing else! — dimosthenis9

If you think that there is no certainty that people will have non-trivial harm, indeed we can stop debating because I think you are being ridiculous. No one leads a charmed life, and if that is a possibility, and we are speaking of likelihoods, how likely is a charmed life .0001 or something like that. You would be intellectually dishonest if you were to hang your argument on the idea that almost all people born will most likely live a charmed life.

So what?? Your view is that in all circumstances that decision should be "no"! And I don't agree at all! It depends on the each circumstance individual and you can never make a" rule " that you always have to decide no in having kids. Sounds totally irrational to me! — dimosthenis9

It's applying an ethical rule to not foist unnecessary, non-trivial harms on people. Prima facie "shock" from it, doesn't affect its import or logic. This is rhetorical fluff and doesn't address any actual point.

You try to gain points here for your arguments jumping to irrelevant conclusions. You don't seem the type of person, as I read other posts you make in general, who would do that on purpose. — dimosthenis9

You just assert this but don't show how I'm doing this. The only thing close to you trying to justify this is that you think that there is a real possibility for a charmed life (a life without non-trivial harm).

↪Antinatalist You’re strange.

The word choices like ‘playing’ tell me something about you. This isn’t a logical discussion. You have an opinion that, as far as I can see, has little to no weight to it.

The comparison I made was to get the point across that we cannot fear causing ‘suffering’ every step in our lives. Every step in your life will cause ‘suffering’ some where. — I like sushi

Of course suffering belongs to life, and some suffering may prevent some bigger suffering.
My point is, that when there is no one who has to born, there is no one who has to suffer.

By this logic killing all humans will end their ‘suffering’ yet you’re not for murder … guess you’d have another name for it instead, maybe ‘avoiding collateral damage’? — I like sushi

Maybe you didn´t get it, I used concept "collateral damage" as an ironic way to underline the fact many people don´t care about horrible situations, what come for someone else.
Killing other people is crime against them as sovereign creatures. They have right for their own life.
I find your point of view strange.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to experience the joys of parenthood anymore than there is with not wanting to. I think anyone trying to take a moral high ground on what is ‘better’ is something close to what I would term ‘evil’. — I like sushi

Having a child is a decision for someone else's whole life.
About "better" and "evil", you yourself think your view is better than mine. Is that kind of conclusion - antinatalism is bad - then evil?
I find this very absurd. At the heart of ethical theories, is question what is "good", what is "bad", what is"better" and what is "worse".

Life without suffering isn’t worth living. You learn that as you mature. I guess some people get carried away with the search for some ‘answer’ or ‘solution’ to life. Again, as you mature you may see past this (I hope so). — I like sushi

Like I said some suffering is good to prevent some bigger suffering, some suffering could also evolve virtues of a human, but I really hope that you realize that all suffering simply ain´t so good.

I like humanity. I want it to keep going because I believe human life has value, because I make judgements. I’m not particularly compassionate towards nihilists or buddhists (same difference to me). — I like sushi

I also believe that human life has value. First of all, I value the human being who lives in this world. Who is thrown in to this world, never been asked if he/she wanted to.
I am an existentialist and antinatalist, and that makes me an antinihilist.

I try to not use people purely as a mean. Having a child - at least, when its main purpose is to bring happiness for parents lifes - is an example of treating a person purely as a mean.
Killing already born person is another example of that.

Self-deceit is easy, you are right about that.

So this is an important point and why I'm debating! What does it matter if a person who doesn't exist doesn't experience happiness?! Are you not seeing this? What does seem to matter is that someone will not suffer non-trivial and unnecessary harms. This is the basic asymmetry between happiness and harm for something that does not (but could) exist. — schopenhauer1

But come on my friend, we did had that conversation at previous pages. The "no happiness experience" values nothing to you compared to potential harm. And with antinatalism it's like you always take for granted that "the unborn kid's" answer would be always a "no" for life! I really can't accept that.

If you think that there is no certainty that people will have non-trivial harm, indeed we can stop debating because I think you are being ridiculous. No one leads a charmed life, and if that is a possibility, and we are speaking of likelihoods, how likely is a charmed life .0001 or something like that. You would be intellectually dishonest if you were to hang your argument on the idea that almost all people born will most likely live a charmed life. — schopenhauer1

So far I respected you. Even if your arguments sometimes sounded ridiculous to me,i didn't say anything. So don't make me change my mind about you. You talked with many people at this thread so I guess it's normal not to remember what we talked about. Go and check (if you care of course) and you will see that we went through all these issues again!

At the bottom line, the main thing is that you Antinatalists wanna make a rule that :
No kids should be born at whatever circumstance!
Mine is that you can NEVER apply such a rule in all cases! It's impossible and irrational! I don't even support as you noticed that people should have always kids!
I just say that every case is different and you can never make a rule about it!

If your view sounds more fair and rational than mine. It's fine. I don't have anything to add.

The only thing close to you trying to justify this is that you think that there is a real possibility for a charmed life (a life without non-trivial harm). — schopenhauer1

Again and for last time : I think very very possible a life with muchhhh happiness and little harm(not 0 harm) !
But even with the 0.001 possibility that someone's life harm is only death, your theory doesn't include it at all! A tiny possibility is still always a possibility! But I don't hang my arguments on it as you see.

You measure harm and suffering always heavier! And you see life as an "endless suffering field" as you mentioned.
Told you then that this seems to be the "root" of our disagreement. Cause I don't see life at all the way you do!
Again I repeated it for last time as not to think that I avoid your questions.

Antinatalist I think you’re the one not listening. I think I can speak roughly for the person above by saying we’re not looking at it purely from the parents perspective. The thing is neither are we looking at it purely from the (possible) child’s perspective. — I like sushi

My point is that parents perspective is irrelevant in this case, because the possibly upcoming child is who is the one, whose life the decision is made about.

Again, back to the ‘possibility’ of harm being portrayed as a greater ‘wrong’/‘bad’. This sounds a lot like having ‘safe spaces’ and all that kind of dangerous nonsense.

No one ‘asks’ to be born because that is impossible. The choice, if it exists, is on the parents. — I like sushi

That´s how people usually think, that it's parents´ choice. But that doesn't make it right.

That is just an absurd statement.
— Antinatalist

No it isn't. It's a statement that you simply can't deny. — dimosthenis9

I care about peoples´ suffering. I wrote you one post, where I touched the problems of mankind. Wars, genocide, famine, sexual abuse, other violence etc.

But my point of view is that even when we somehow can calculate that bringing child into this world will bring more happiness to child´s parents and other people than it cause suffering to the child and other people, it is still wrong because it is a decision for someone else´s life.

About utilitarianism, your arguments/reasoning seem strongly as utilitarian.
— Antinatalist

I ensure you I m not at all. Whether you believe it or not. — dimosthenis9

Okay, I am not going to argue on that, not on this post at least.

if you look the act of having a child only at parent's perspective, you use the unborn potential person as a mean - not an end itself.
— Antinatalist

The thing is that you look it only at the "unborn kid's" perspective! And don't care at all about parent's perspective. — dimosthenis9

Look at a few lines above.

it is still wrong because it is a decision for someone else´s life — Antinatalist

Made by an already living creature towards a "0",non existing one. And which you can never be sure (even if you had the chance) that" kid's answer" would be always a "no".

Anyway as I told you I almost played all my cards here and feel like I just repeating same things. And in general spamming is one of the main things that bothers me in TPF. So I don't want to feel that I do the same.
As I told you I respect your opinion even if I totally disagree and I depart peacefully.

it is still wrong because it is a decision for someone else´s life
— Antinatalist

Made by an already living creature towards a "0",non existing one. And which you can never be sure (even if you had the chance) that" kid's answer" would be always a "no". — dimosthenis9

No, we can not know the potential kid´s answer. Therefore, because the consent is missing - and the stakes are so high, another human´s whole life - we must not reproduce.

Anyway as I told you I almost played all my cards here and feel like I just repeating same things. And in general spamming is one of the main things that bothers me in TPF. So I don't want to feel that I do the same.
As I told you I respect your opinion even if I totally disagree and I depart peacefully. — dimosthenis9

So, our views totally differ, but I respect your right to your own opinion and your freedom of speech.

My point is, that when there is no one who has to born, there is no one who has to suffer. — Antinatalist

This is where I’m curious. This is stating the obvious. Why are you focused on the ‘suffering’ though? Why do you think this justifies stating it is ‘bad’/‘wrong’ to have children. This really doesn’t make sense to me.

It is the parents choice. It is neither ‘right’ nor ‘wrong’. I can certainly imagine individual situations where circumstances may shift someone’s perspective though.

I understand that at times life seems terrible.

A parent who actually thinks about these things and decides to have a child is taking a risk to some degree. Most/any parents will tell you that they want to better themselves for their child. The child also reaps this benefit. It is more of a win win situation than a use use situation.

It is ‘right’ - in terms of ‘selfish’? I don’t think that measures up tbh. In terms of anthropology and modern society children were certainly ‘used’ to look after parents and such in old age. Child mortality was high too. Do we have the right to bring children into the world … sure, as much as we have the right to walk, pee and eat.

If life is valued/celebrated (as it is by myself and yourself) then I don’t see how arguing that we have an obligation to nurture life as any worse of an argument. I don’t believe either is ‘better’ - so to speak - because I’m some kind of absurdist I guess.

I guess all this boils down to is you must think more people suffer a substantial amount more in their lives than those who don’t AND that such suffering is intrinsically ‘bad’. I admit that last part sounds weird because ‘suffering’ isn’t generally thought of as ‘good’, but I mean something more like the use of suffering to fortify yourself for future misfortunes.

A would imagine if we could do a worldwide survey and ask every single human if they wished they’d never been born we’d find those who said ‘yes’ would likely live in a more ‘privileged’ demographic. Who knows though? I would expect most would prefer to have had a life than none at all.

Why is life valuable is kind of a ouroboros. Absurdism it generally where I go.

That´s how people usually think, that it's parents´ choice. But that doesn't make it right. — Antinatalist

As stated above. Circumstance will lean people more one way than the other. It isn’t right or wrong, any more than being hungry is right or wrong, it is just the state of affairs of humans living a life. We have moved beyond more, how should I put it, more ‘animalistic’ tendencies … or rather we’ve imbued ourselves with certain psychological restraints. I think, for the most part, we’ve learnt to make life better.

I would like to emphasise that a life without suffering (as stated by someone previously) is more cruel than a life with suffering because life requires hardships and strains, humans basically need to strive forward like Sisyphus in order to inhabit what we loosely refer to as ‘meaning’.

Your new comment above about stakes being so high for a new life. This doesn’t add up if you agree that life is valuable and that suffering is a necessary part of life (from my perspective this doesn’t add up at least).

What stakes are high? The chance of suffering? Suffering is inevitable. Life (you agree?) is valuable. Is the value of life to you determined purely by the amount of suffering involved?

My throw away comment about buddhism and nihilism is an obscure view of mine. Fro what I can tell they are two extremes of the same beast. The nihilist perspective expected more from life and then ended up staring down into the abyss. The ‘buddhist’ (loose term) expected nothing of life and stare out of the abyss. Both essentially view the world through the lens of suffering and pain.

Striving is good. Striving requires ‘suffering’. Life requires suffering. Bringing life into the world is for gods/whatever, we merely exist and strive hoping for more tomorrow. Unfounded hope? Possibly … I’d rather not gamble when the stakes are so high (ie. the ‘value’ I habour in life).

Anyway, thanks for persisting. Not sure if you can offer up much more but hope you surprise me. I’m a pessimist so I’m always happy with what comes my way because I’ve learnt to expect far worse :D

Striving is good. Striving requires ‘suffering’. Life requires suffering. Bringing life into the world is for gods/whatever, we merely exist and strive hoping for more tomorrow. Unfounded hope? Possibly … I’d rather not gamble when the stakes are so high (ie. the ‘value’ I habour in life). — I like sushi

Apparently you don't want to continue the debate with me, but I think this is misguided. If there is inherent suffering, and you have the power to prevent it, you always should when there is no collateral damage at stake (e.g. like not vaccinating someone because it would lead to worse outcomes). Let's say that I am a masochist and I really like pain... Way more than others... Should I be allowed to inflict pain because it's good for them? Of course not. If I want to put myself through pain that's one thing, but to decide that I am the one who decides this for others, is callously overlooking other people's dignity at best and highly cruel at worst. I don't think it even matters if pain is a stochastic phenomenon and some people will have more pain in life than others. I think as a rule, inflicting unnecessary, non-trivial pain on others is all that's needed to be a global antinatalist (no one should procreate, period).

But come on my friend, we did had that conversation at previous pages. The "no happiness experience" values nothing to you compared to potential harm. And with antinatalism it's like you always take for granted that "the unborn kid's" answer would be always a "no" for life! I really can't accept that. — dimosthenis9

There is no need for someone's supposed "answer" to this question. Rather, not existing deprives no ONE of happiness. Someone was not harmed, THIS is what matters morally. Why am I obligated to bring happy experiences into the world? That would seem odd. Rather, the negative is usually what is morally relevant. I don't necessarily have to give someone my extra candy bar, though it would be nice, but I certainly would be obligated to not cause unnecessary harm like punching them in the gut as I walk by or shoving a candy bar down their throat cause, hey, I think people should like candy bars, and ya know, generally they do!

So don't make me change my mind about you. — dimosthenis9

Honestly, why should I care?

No kids should be born at whatever circumstance!
Mine is that you can NEVER apply such a rule in all cases! It's impossible and irrational! — dimosthenis9

Just saying it, doesn't make it so!

I just say that every case is different and you can never make a rule about it! — dimosthenis9

Besides the obvious (creating collateral damage for those who didn't want to be born), again, why would you think it's okay to inflict unnecessary, non-trivial harm on another person? And I can say the same to you, clearly you didn't read my threads where there were very long discussions of how self-reports saying "I like life" would not change the fact that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary, non-trivial harm on other people.. You STILL have not recognized that no one has a charmed life and lives 90+ years of non-trivial harm. Everyone is harmed by existing. That is enough to make AN case true if one agrees with the idea of not inflicting unnecessary non-trivial harm on others' behalf.

If your view sounds more fair and rational than mine. It's fine. I don't have anything to add. — dimosthenis9

Fair enough.

Again and for last time : I think very very possible a life with muchhhh happiness and little harm(not 0 harm) !
But even with the 0.001 possibility that someone's life harm is only death, your theory doesn't include it at all! A tiny possibility is still always a possibility! But I don't hang my arguments on it as you see. — dimosthenis9

You did previously claim people live charmed lives (their whole life they avoid non-trivial harm) and you seem to continue this, when empirically and anecdotally, I have never seen or heard such a thing.

You measure harm and suffering always heavier! And you see life as an "endless suffering field" as you mentioned.
Told you then that this seems to be the "root" of our disagreement. Cause I don't see life at all the way you do!
Again I repeated it for last time as not to think that I avoid your questions. — dimosthenis9

Yes and I explained how harms are morally relevant while bringing-happiness is really not. No one is obligated to make people happy, only not cause others unnecessary, non-trivial harm.

There is no need for someone's supposed "answer" to this question. — schopenhauer1

So now you say that there is no need for content in your case. But you need a "yes" as to bring someone in life?? So you want it all your way! Cool!
So it's OK to take a "no" answer granted but not OK to take a "yes" for granted. Nice whatever suits your arguments better.

Honestly, why should I care? — schopenhauer1

Don't.

why would you think it's okay to inflict unnecessary, non-trivial harm on another person? — schopenhauer1

Cause that harm that you keep mention might be way less than happy moments. Who told you that the unborn kid wouldn't want to come to life as to even experience that?? You just suppose that it wouldn't cause that's what fit your arguments better. Well no it's not the case at all though.

You STILL have not recognized that no one has a charmed life and lives 90+ years of non-trivial harm. Everyone is harmed by existing. — schopenhauer1

To recognize that?! That existing harms everyone!?!Are you serious really??
No way! I would never recognize such a lame statement. Cause you believe life is an endless suffering that doesn't mean that everyone thinks the same!

And at the very end how the fuck you know that in all humanity existence there was not even one person who had that kind of charming life?!?!
The most possible thing is that there have been more than one!! It is statistical impossible not even one to existed!
And I told you that I don't even support my arguments in that extreme cases(which STILL exist though)!!

That is enough to make AN case true if one agrees with the idea of not inflicting unnecessary non-trivial harm on others' behalf. — schopenhauer1

It's only enough in your mind.

when empirically and anecdotally, I have never seen or heard such a thing. — schopenhauer1

It's statistically impossible as not even one case(for sure not only one) to exist throughout humanity's history.
And guess what! Even that rare cases make your theory totally invalid!
Not only that of course, but one more reason that make your position irrational.

Yes and I explained how harms are morally relevant while bringing-happiness is really not. — schopenhauer1

You explained and I didn't agree at all. So let's drop it.