I do agree about not arguing 2 threads.. but it seemed that something should have been learned on the last one and applied perhaps.. But you seem to think that our past arguments have no bearing on the current one.. Also DB did ask me my opinion so I was auditing this thread on request.. You happened to be in there responding as usual to AN stuff.. So there ya go.

No, it's just that we don't all see the world in simplistic 'worth living' or 'not worth living' arbitrary categories, nor do we all see a clear way in which to determine these ideas except by more extreme examples. — Tom Storm

But I just explained how it isn't "Worth living" but "worth starting" (on another person's) behalf.

Same thing.

I don't think it is possible to determine what a life worth living actually means except in the extreme. — Tom Storm

The main point was that if you can't know the good or bad of the future child, then don't create those conditions of bad for the child, if it's a possibility and not known. Not a hard premise. You are trivializing a perfectly understandable point.

No, it's just that we don't all see the world in simplistic 'worth living' or 'not worth living' arbitrary categories, nor do we all see a clear way in which to determine these ideas except by more extreme examples. — Tom Storm

But it should apply, I think.
At least for me, a life worth living is based on what I want to do in my life and I think that every person has to have something that they desire. If that desire is fulfilled then it is a life worth living and if it isn't then it is not a life worth living.

The only argument to this that I can think of is that some people may not know what they desire, you know, like in stories when a guy takes revenge to "fill the hole" inside him but after he takes revenge, he feels empty.
So, for that guy, before he has killed his target, a life in which he kill has target is worth it but after he killing the enemy if he is asked whether his life was worth it, then he would think that it is not.

I'm not talking about knowingly creating a life for any end. I'm talking about the idea that a life might be worth living even if it were, however improbably, devoid of pleasure for the one living it.

I'm talking about the idea that a life might be worth living even if it were, however improbably, devoid of pleasure for the one living it. — Janus

That seems non-intuitive. Care to explain?

You are trivializing a perfectly understandable point. — schopenhauer1

Actually, you may be trivializing things by turning life into a shallow assessment of 'not worth starting' or 'worth starting' - which from my perspective can't readily be made.

But you're already entering this discussion from foundational perspective of antinatalism, so life not worth starting is underwritten in your worldview. No wonder you accept the points made so readily. I am approaching this thread in good faith and I see it differently. We don't have to agree. That's perfectly fine. I am not unsympathetic to the overarching position, just not via this syllogism.

At least for me, a life worth living is based on what I want to do in my life and I think that every person has to have something that they desire. If that desire is fulfilled then it is a life worth living and if it isn't then it is not a life worth living. — I love Chom-choms

I understand your point but I'm not in agreement. I take the view life is what happens when you're busy making other plans. The conceit of expecting life to provide what you desire (an archaic word)) is not something I share. It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive.

I take the view life is what happens when you're busy making other plans. — Tom Storm

I never really understood what this meant. Please explain.

If I had to guess then it would be that those other plans may be something a person desires, and that what happens as he is trying to get that is life. If that is the case then it similar to my argument that a person might not know what he desires.
If it was me that learned that what I desire, I won't get throughout my life then I would most definitely not want to be born and I am sure that you would disagree.
That is OK, but please explain your reasoning for, "why do bother to live?"
I would rather not be born because I know that what I want, or maybe what I think I want, I will never get but I don't kill myself because of that suspicion that what I think I desire may not be what I actually desire and that someday I will know what I desire. That is what I currently think, I feel like I haven't expressed my feelings clearly, this whole think fells like it is full of loopholes but I assure you this is what I feel and think.

So, please answer my question, "What do you live for?"

If that life affords some pleasure for others. Think of the great artist whose life is constant suffering for example.

I never really understood what this meant. Please explain. — I love Chom-choms

It means life just happens and that's the point, while plans are kind of futile.

So, please answer my question, "What do you live for?" — I love Chom-choms

Not sure what you mean - I live and enjoy the rough and the smooth.

If that life affords some pleasure for others. Think of the great artist whose life is constant suffering for example. — Janus

We don't need to evoke 'great artists' - think of the long suffering parents who work hard in menial jobs getting ill health, postponing all their own pleasures, perhaps dying young so that their children can study and become useful transformative members of a culture - doctors, pharmacists, researchers, teachers, whatever. Pretty common. Self sacrifice has traditionally been seen as worth living for.

We don't need to evoke 'great artists' - think of the long suffering parents who work hard in menial jobs getting ill health, postponing all their own pleasures, perhaps dying young so that their children can study and become useful transformative members of a culture - doctors, pharmacists, researchers, teachers, whatever. Pretty common. Self sacrifice has traditionally been seen as worth living for. — Tom Storm

:up: You're right of course; the suffering artist is just an extreme example.

More examples of misguided utilitarianism. Sacrificing yourself so you can sacrifice your child on the alter of society, wasn’t morally considering the child as a person. Rather it was considering the child as worth. The fact still remains that a person should never be foisted into unnecessary harm because anything otherwise is using them and overlooking their dignity for some goal (whether that goal be socially popular/ respectable to hold or not). No good is missed by any nonexistent person. No obligation is present. Certainly better to never foist unnecessary harm on another. This is where moral consideration is in this case of procreation.

I agree with the general idea of the premise, but I would put it somewhat differently.

One does not possess the knowledge nor power to ensure one's child's good life, because of the many factors that are beyond the parents' control.

Therefore procreation cannot be a moral act.

One does not possess the knowledge nor power to make one's intentions come about, however just those intentions may be. It is down to fate and chance.

We seem to be in some sort of a time paradox here. Some persons in this thread wish or apparently have proven with fact that they shouldn't have been born, yet only, solely, and exclusively by having been born are able to proclaim the truth about such evil. It's like the Terminator, but more suicidal.

Another line of reasoning:

1. It is necessary but not sufficient to have a justified true belief that one has a good life in order to have a good life, i.e. the justified true belief that one has a good life is a necessary aspect of actually having a good life, for a good life that is unrecognized as a good life is absurd.
2. There is no complete conception of what a good life is, but only partial representations of what may be considered a good life, and such a complete conception will probably never be known, i.e. a complete conception of what a good life is will forever remain a mystery.
3. Therefore, it is not possible to have a justified true belief that one has a good life.
4. Therefore, it is not possible to have a good life.
5. One should not procreate if one's children will not have good lives.
6. Therefore, one should not procreate.

2. There is no complete conception of what a good life is, but only partial representations of what may be considered a good life, and such a complete conception will probably never be known, i.e. a complete — darthbarracuda

Playing from devil's advocate perspective.. Can't someone just say that whatever a person thinks is a good life, is a good life for that person? They will say the evidence for their justification is their own sense of self-satisfaction with life. Thus they think their child will also have this sense, and thus be vindicated that having children is permissible if someone can have a sense that they can attain the good life.

Can't someone just say that whatever a person thinks is a good life, is a good life for that person? They will say the evidence for their justification is their own sense of self-satisfaction with life. — schopenhauer1

I guess they could utter that, but I would expect there to be various contradictions and absurdities in the proposition itself, if it were to be analyzed. Just like if I say that whatever I think is true, is true (even though it might not actually be true).

Gotcha. There is a sort of justification regress then? So someone can say, "Happiness is an immutable subjective feeling" and someone can always say, "How do you know this is what happiness is?" and because of this uncertainty, other than their subjective notion or feeling, we can never really know if a person born is happy or not as there is no standard one can even compare that is justified.

You could apply that skeptical regress to just about anything. That because I don't know absolutely 100% without-a-doubt that something is the case should not stop me from acting on a belief that it is, as long as I have a pretty good reason to believe that it is the case. But when there is a long history of disagreement over something - with lots of different viewpoints that often contradict each other, so that it is not at all apparent as to what it is we are even disagreeing about, or that it is even within our means to know anything about this thing that is being argued about - that is when the uncertainty becomes relevant.

I don't think there has ever been a single coherent idea of what a good life is. There are partial representations of a good life - pleasure, virtue, accomplishment, etc - but there has never been and there never will be a complete idea of what a good life is. My view here is that, because we cannot ever know what the good life is, we cannot ever have it.

. A good life is worth living; conversely, a bad life is not worth living. — darthbarracuda

I would think those of religious faith and those who accept the tenants of secular humanism would be aligned here in holding that human achievement is of the highest order. Whether that view arises because you view humanity as a divine extension or you hold it just as a matter of fundamental principle, it must therefore follow that there is no such thing as life not worth living.

The sacred can never be worthless.

But when there is a long history of disagreement over something - with lots of different viewpoints that often contradict each other, so that it is not at all apparent as to what it is we are even disagreeing about, or that it is even within our means to know anything about this thing that is being argued about - that is when the uncertainty becomes relevant.

I don't think there has ever been a single coherent idea of what a good life is. There are partial representations of a good life - pleasure, virtue, accomplishment, etc - but there has never been and there never will be a complete idea of what a good life is. My view here is that, because we cannot ever know what the good life is, we cannot ever have it. — darthbarracuda

Won't most people equate the "good life" with them "liking life"? Thus if they "like life" they are living the "good life". I guess the question becomes, "Does the threshold for having children need to be that they have some certain definition of the 'good life' or simply that they subjectively think the are living a "good life"?

What does it matter if most people would equate the good life with liking life, if we have good reasons to think that the good life is more than just subjective enjoyment? We all know Nozick's experience machine, Brave New World...just because people think they have a good life doesn't mean they actually do.

it must therefore follow that there is no such thing as life not worth living. — Hanover

I think this would entail absurd conclusions. Firstly some degree of subjective satisfaction with ones' life does seem to be essential to having a good life worth living, I can't imagine being tortured for your whole life would really be worth going through. There would need to be some sort of redemption.

just because people think they have a good life doesn't mean they actually do. — darthbarracuda

Yes I agree.. I am running into this question about what constitutes "objective harm" so the flipside.. You are trying to figure out (and not getting an answer) "objective happiness/good life".

Just curious, do you think "objective harm" also runs into this problem, since everyone's notion is different in slight ways?

So being devil's advocate again.. what would make the person's life not a good life even if their experiences were from a machine? What makes anything except subjective point of view matter? Thus, "Life is good" from the experience machine just means for that person, "Life is good". Again being REAL devil's advocate here.

I think this would entail absurd conclusions — darthbarracuda

The absurd conclusions arise from a failure to posit meaning into existence. Nihlism is inherently absurd.

So, the OP uses a pair of nonsensical terms as a measure of the justifiability of life to show that life is not worth living because... the terms that he used as the measure are nonsensical. Makes sense.

Nonsensical in what way?

Embrace the suck! — James Riley

This may be a wee bit off topic, but I agree. Who in their right mind, male or female, would want to date someone who doesn't?!