Considering the unimaginable amount of physical and mental suffering that occurs every day on this planet, day by day, for millions of years and counting, as well perhaps on countless other planets, which would make the Universe essentially a giant torture chamber, the philosophical view of Efilism seems rather logical. Very extreme yes, but logical, worth giving a thought to say the least.

What are your thoughts on it? Curious to see the opposed arguments, ideally THE counter-argument that would shake my current supportive view of it. — RAW

It does sound absolutely crazy and extreme but if you manage to dive deeper into it open minded, putting immediate reactions like disgust etc. aside and under control, and look at it solely through logical lenses, for me at least, you can't help but admit it makes sense, for some more for some less maybe. — RAW

It doesn't make sense and isn't logical though. The conceit is that you think you can put emotions and deep-routed drives aside and look at it dispassionately through a purely logical lens. You can't because there would be nothing left for logic to work on. Logic by itself is empty and has to start with some prior valuations to get to some logical conclusion about values. Reason is slave to the passions.

The thing that pisses people off concerning Efilism and Anti-natalism, and righly so, is that you try to re-package your subjective negative valuation of life into some kind of objective and logically inescapably conclusion about the value of life. You turned a personal opinion, not only into the logically only possible objective valuation, but also into a moral duty and a political project that people should follow... thereby dragging other people down with you in the process.

You'll get a lot more understanding and respect from people if you'd just own up to your opinion, instead of covering it up with these post-hoc philosophical rationalizations in an attempt to feel better at the expense of others. And I dare say, you'll give yourself a better chance to get out of that pernicious mind-set if you'd stop spinning an entire web of justification around it.

The thing that pisses people off concerning Efilism and Anti-natalism, and righly so, is that you try to re-package your subjective negative valuation of life into some kind of objective and logically inescapably conclusion about the value of life. You turned a personal opinion, not only into the logically only possible objective valuation, but also into a moral duty and a political project that people should follow... thereby dragging other people down with you in the process.

You'll get a lot more understanding and respect from people if you'd just own up to your opinion, instead of covering it up with these post-hoc philosophical rationalizations in an attempt to feel better at the expense of others. And I dare say, you'll give yourself a better chance to get out of that pernicious mind-set if you'd stop spinning an entire web of justification around it. — ChatteringMonkey

No not really. Rather, here is a case where someone A does something that affects person B. How is this NOT in the realm of philosophical ethical consideration? You are literally affecting a whole life for someone else. Then the question is, is this act wrong/approrpriate/negligent?

Well, is the act creating harm for someone else? Yes? Was it done to ameliorate a lesser harm for that person or was it completely unnecessary? Yes it was unnecessary? Do you take more care when the actions pertain to someone else? Yes, you do take care more to not unnecessarily create harm for others? Then why would you think it's okay and permissible to enact for someone else? Is creating happy people an obligation? No? Then why would that matter when one can prevent unnecessary harm?

Yes evaluations do have to be in the equation, but it only takes simply agreement on how harms are weighted for someone that could exist but does not yet.

delete

No, because

1. Utilitarian calculus type ethics are crap. It can't be done practically and nobody thinks like that. It's like saying before every stroke one should consciously calculate velocity, spin and the angle of the tennis-ball and then calculate the necessary force and angle of the stroke before one hits a tennis-ball to play good tennis.
2. Even if it would be feasible, people don't agree anyway that harm should be the only value that should be taken into consideration in ethical calculations.

Here's a wild idea, start will real people and what they actually value to reason effectively about ethics.

If you think the amount of suffering is the only thing that matters when it comes to evaluating ethics, and you also think that life is mostly the former, then yea obviously you’ll end up with efilism which is why I find it so boring.

Thing is though, I haven’t met anyone who holds such simple beliefs.

if it's sound it's sound. — RAW

Well, it’s valid. Idk about sound.

I accept logic no matter how unappealing it may be. — RAW

Logic needs premises. You picked weird premises and ended up with weird conclusions. Surprise!

1. Utilitarian calculus type ethics are crap. — ChatteringMonkey

I'm avidly NOT a utilitarian. My ethical premise is based more on deontological grounds.

It's like saying before every stroke one should consciously calculate velocity, spin and the angle of the tennis-ball and then calculate the necessary force and angle of the stroke before one hits a tennis-ball to play good tennis. — ChatteringMonkey

Ridiculous claim of what I'm doing. Is there non-trivial harm in life? Are you unnecessarily creating this harm for another person? Don't do it. I don't have to prove that life brings with it non-trivial harm, and that this harm was not necessary to create in the first place. Next. You can retort that maybe there is a life somewhere that never experienced non-trivial harm.. but I'd suspect you'd think twice about saying that.

2. Even if it would be feasible, people don't agree anyway that harm should be the only value that should be taken into consideration in ethical calculations. — ChatteringMonkey

But in the procreation decision, considerations of no happiness matter not, when you are creating harms for other people at the same time. I agree, harm is weighted more than happiness in this area and if you want to debate that, then we can.

Here's a wild idea, start will real people and what they actually value to reason effectively about ethics. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, cause you are the arbiter of when it's okay to create harms for other people. If it's another person, as long as you get a popular "majority" opinion, everything is good. No considerations whatsoever.. move on, just don't think about it...Nothing to see here, just move on...

My ethical premise is based more on deontological grounds. — schopenhauer1

It's nothing like deontology. Harm is not specific enough a concept for that.

Anyway there little use in continuing this discussion, I don't agree with your premise and I don't agree with your methodology, so not much to build on there...

It's nothing like deontology. Harm is not specific enough a concept for that. — ChatteringMonkey

Dude, it's not causing harm onto another. It boils down to not overlooking the dignity of that person by creating harm unnecessarily for them which is similar to Kant's second formulation of not using people for other ends.. And in the case of procreation, I do think considering anything but the potential to cause negative states for them is overlooking dignity for another agenda (even if you think it's supposed to be benign or good).

Anyway there little use in continuing this discussion, I don't agree with your premise and I don't agree with your methodology, so not much to build on there... — ChatteringMonkey

So just don't debate anything? Why is this area so unique in that you can't debate if you disagree? Weird. Do you do this for everything else too? Politics, etc.?

So just don't debate anything? Why is this area so unique in that you can't debate if you disagree? Weird. Do you do this for everything else too? Politics, etc.? — schopenhauer1

Because it boils down to a basic premise that isn't particularly moved by reason or arguments... either you accept it or you don't. And yes a lot of political and ethical discussions are also like that, they disagree on basic premises, that's why they almost never get resolved... people just end up talking past each other.

What a load of nonsense is this -ism!!!
More waffle from decadents and wimps.

So in this extension of your previous thoughts you kind of admit that what you said earlier is incorrect but still you insist on "it's entirely subjective". — RAW

Its not an admission of anything, I was anticipating your counter argument which you just repeated instead of addressing my pre-emptive point. Then you created a fantasy where I was admitting to something.

Again with the "it's all subjective". Each individual will have nearly the same feelings about all of those things precisely for the reason/s I stated prior. Let me put it again, a subjective feeling by each of us of being torn apart by a pack of apex predators would be the same, we can all agree even in the absence of such experience that it's a profoundly terrible painful experience to go trough. Same goes for the other things in the negative list. The positive list? A subjective feeling by each of us of having an orgasm for example, is the same. My subjective experience of orgasm cannot possibly be "greatly" different than yours. It's one and the same thing.

So, we have consensus regarding both sides yet somehow, somehow, comparisons we do would be entirely subjective and greatly different. That's nonsense.

It really appears to me that you just subconsciously admitted that the asymmetry is true but consciously you refuse to accept it. Because I listed some of the greatest pleasures a life can offer (missed eating a delicious food) and yet you still think the bad side is far overweight. It really does look like an admission. Lets check this. Let us you do the positive list. Can you list about the same number of positive things I listed that aren't "petty and fleeting". Name positive feelings that, to you, are more intense and lasting than what has been listed or if you will, as intense and lasting as the examples on the bad side listed. — RAW

I already addressed these points, your are just repeating yourself.
Also, it is pure fantasy on your part that you have any idea what Im doing subconsciously.
Also, I didnt say “entirely subjective”, you did. I understand that there are commonalities between these experiences, but the experiences are subjective, there are differences in how people experience those bad things and how they let those experiences define whether life is worth living or not.

Lastly, you aren’t really addressing the points made. You are very focused on repeating your original points/argument, essentially just rewording your original stuff. If you are just repeating your original points that means you are not responding to counter points being made. Think about it.

Again, let's see your positive list that would establish the balance to say the least. Please, name 5-6 things that aren't petty and fleeting. — RAW

It would be as trivially easy as you listing bad ones. To what end?
The only reason I referenced your list was to point out how little thought you actually put into the positive ones. This speaks to my main point against you so far which is the skewed way you are looking at this. Focus on negative, ignore or marginalize the positive.
Skewed by your own subjective sense of the issue. Thats fine, whatever floats your boat. Other people do the same thing but vice versa.
Your argument isnt based in logic, its based on your pessimistic sense of the world. Im not saying you aren’t making use of logic, just that you do not have the objective, logical basis you think you do.

So just don't debate anything? Why is this area so unique in that you can't debate if you disagree? Weird. Do you do this for everything else too? Politics, etc.? — schopenhauer1

The guy was saying "let's agree to disagree". Then you proceeded to try to push him back into an argument. When I did that you called me a debate club bot. At least have some shame and don't then go on to do the exact same thing to others.

Because it boils down to a basic premise that isn't particularly moved by reason or arguments... either you accept it or you don't. And yes a lot of political and ethical discussions are also like that, they disagree on basic premises, that's why they almost never get resolved... people just end up talking past each other. — ChatteringMonkey

I'll let you have that.. I think at some point it just comes down to this.

The guy was saying "let's agree to disagree". Then you proceeded to try to push him back into an argument. When I did that you called me a debate club bot. At least have some shame and don't then go on to do the exact same thing to others. — khaled

Because we also debated for much longer before we got to that point and I did agree with him that at some point axioms are just opposed. There is no more debate. He just bypassed a lot of possible middle ground, which I am thinking is wise. I was making sure this wasn't too quick a move though. I think you should also note what he said about being convinced or not by the axioms. At that point where axioms are not convincing, than where can you go other than more appeal to someone's sensibilities. I could never and never claimed to point that THIS is the axiom, only that it makes sense if one agrees with them. My main question to @ChatteringMonkey would then be why wouldn't he be convinced by the premises? I feel there was more there that he agrees with than he thinks, but the discussion has abruptly stopped. Certainly causing unnecessary harms are something we deem as not wanting to put on another.. Certainly not using them.. And I would try to make the case that procreation meets this criteria despite our original assumptions that we are doing a good thing. I also want to point that this is not overcome with how you think you can "raise" the person in question.

He just bypassed a lot of possible middle ground, which I am thinking is wise. I was making sure this wasn't too quick a move though. — schopenhauer1

And when I do that I’m Isaac.

My main question to ChatteringMonkey would then be why wouldn't he be convinced by the premises? I feel there was more there that he agrees with than he thinks, but the discussion has abruptly stopped. — schopenhauer1

Those were my questions to you. But it made me a debate class bot.

I couldn’t care less about how you behave on the forum, just drop the stupid thing you do where you randomly start characterizing me as a dogged arguer with no interest in the conversation, especially when from my perspective you’re doing all the things I do to others.

Nothing is more annoying to me when people start debating and then randomly decide to attack their interlocutor.

And were you going to respond on the other thread?

Those were my questions to you. But it made me a debate class bot.

I couldn’t care less about how you behave on the forum, just drop the stupid thing you do where you randomly start characterizing me as a dogged arguer with no interest in the conversation, especially when from my perspective you’re doing all the things I do to others.

Nothing is more annoying to me when people start debating and then randomly decide to attack their interlocutor.

And were you going to respond on the other thread? — khaled

But you realize our arguments had gone on for pages, right? ChatteringMonkey had a couple posts and was done. I did not randomly decide anything to do anything. At some point the argument must end and on the other side, one just doesn't even start the debate. It's not like ChatteringMonkey and I had multiple previous threads and he just decided this was enough after many discussions on this. He never started it.

And yes, I will try to answer it, but it will take time.

If you think the amount of suffering is the only thing that matters when it comes to evaluating ethics, and you also think that life is mostly the former, then yea obviously you’ll end up with efilism which is why I find it so boring.

Thing is though, I haven’t met anyone who holds such simple beliefs.

if it's sound it's sound.
— RAW

Well, it’s valid. Idk about sound.

I accept logic no matter how unappealing it may be.
— RAW

Logic needs premises. You picked weird premises and ended up with weird conclusions. Surprise! — khaled

Yes, life as a whole on this planet is predominantly suffering. As you are unable to accept this "weird" (the word you've chosen here is revealing ) premise, this simple fact, any further conversation is pointless. You too have fun living inside that beautiful bubble of delusions until it pops. It's something to envy in a way, wish I could turn off like that and ignore the cold cruel reality.

The thing that pisses people off concerning Efilism and Anti-natalism, and righly so, is that you try to re-package your subjective negative valuation of life into some kind of objective and logically inescapably conclusion about the value of life.... — ChatteringMonkey

Oh boy, here we go again. Subjective, subjective, subjective.

"life as a whole on this planet is predominantly suffering." is not a subjective valuation, but an entirely objective. If so far you haven't discovered an ample amount of proof that backs this fact, I suggest getting outside of that secure colorful bubble you live in once in a while to see the reality for what it is.

.....but then they say you’re a psychopath if you don’t press a button that murders everything even if people don’t want to die? How does that make sense? — Albero

Yes, not to press the famous red button that terminates all life on this planet (and others where suffering is vast) in an instant would make you the biggest baddest most awesome psychopath ever.

It would be as trivially easy as you listing bad ones. To what end?
The only reason I referenced your list was to point out how little thought you actually put into the positive ones. This speaks to my main point against you so far which is the skewed way you are looking at this. Focus on negative, ignore or marginalize the positive.
Skewed by your own subjective sense of the issue. Thats fine, whatever floats your boat. Other people do the same thing but vice versa.
Your argument isnt based in logic, its based on your pessimistic sense of the world. Im not saying you aren’t making use of logic, just that you do not have the objective, logical basis you think you do. — DingoJones

Well, all we can do is go in circles, you shout subjective, I shout objective, you shout subjective again, on and on. Same with the other guys here. So, perhaps we should stop, at least I will. I appreciate that particularly you went extensive on the matter, among the first.

"life as a whole on this planet is predominantly suffering." is not a subjective valuation, but an entirely objective. — RAW

It's not a valuation at all, but a fact... what you think this fact should entail is subjective.

It's not like ChatteringMonkey and I had multiple previous threads and he just decided this was enough after many discussions on this. — schopenhauer1

We did discuss this before schopenhauer:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/550418

My main question to ChatteringMonkey would then be why wouldn't he be convinced by the premises? — schopenhauer1

The answer to this question directly follows from what I said in that thread.

'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. Reason's only purpose is to help us to satisfy our desires. Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions. — Hume

In other words, it's not worth arguing about.

As you are unable to accept this "weird" (the word you've chosen here is revealing ) premise, this simple fact, any further conversation is pointless. You too have fun living inside that beautiful bubble of delusions until it pops. It's something to envy in a way, wish I could turn off like that and ignore the cold cruel reality. — RAW

Ah yes. The infamous "You disagree with me therefore you are deluded" defense. One that is known for promoting truth seeking and unbiased investigation. Agreed, it is impossible to argue with someone who believes that the opposition is wrong by virtue of them disagreeing with him. I won't bother asking you what makes you so certain the whole world is deluded and the select few efilists aren't because it doesn't seem like something you actually have support for. Just something you'll proudly and loudly restate.

On the other hand I highlighted another very important premise which maybe be more amenable to discussion:

If you think the amount of suffering is the only thing that matters when it comes to evaluating ethics — khaled

You need this premise. There are plenty of people with your doomer attitude that nonetheless aren't efilists. Where did you get the premise that the amount of suffering is the only thing that matters? Here you can't really appeal to doomer views. It is possible that most people suffer most of the time and are living in delusions. We can even measure this to some extent with surveys and such (though your view would require that the entire world is lying).

However this premise is not factual. It is not about the amount of suffering in the world or anything like that, but rather the significance of said suffering. Whether or not suffering is the only thing that matters in ethical questions is not something you can empirically test for, unlike your other premise. So you can't appeal to people being deluded. You need to argue why suffering should be the only thing important in ethics.

Well, all we can do is go in circles, you shout subjective, I shout objective, you shout subjective again, on and on. Same with the other guys here. So, perhaps we should stop, at least I will. I appreciate that particularly you went extensive on the matter, among the first. — RAW

I didn’t shout, I did my best to explain. It just doesnt seem like the counterpoints are registering to you, maybe Ive not made them well enough.
Anyway, suit yourself.

I know you were jesting but this sounds bizarre to me. This forum had a philosopher guest here who thought a bit like you (life is suffering, only preventing it matters) named David Pearce and even he suggested we create technology to alleviate those who suffering instead of omnicide. Why don’t we do that instead of mindlessly murdering people? At least it seems more realistic, your idea is a pipe dream no offense. Besides, it seems intuitive that the vast majority of people who are suffering or are in deep pain still want to keep living, they just want the pain to go away. Killing them deprives them of that desire.

As @khaled mentioned, this is why if you end up with such bizarre conclusions if you think pleasure is irrelevant. You also never answered my question about consent and how it makes no sense with this system. It seems you think “oh, well the people who are suffering only matter, making them happy is pointless” so under your system we NEVER have any reason to fulfill positive moral duties, only negative ones like “murder people instead of trying to make their existence happier.” It’s like pressing a button to kill all homeless people who nobody will ever mourn when you could’ve just housed them. You keep saying life is suffering and that pleasure doesn’t matter, but you still haven’t given us a good reason as to why this is so.

@RAW
Keep in mind the Benatarian argument pertains only to a situation where there is no person (but could be), not already existing people. In the former situation, he is taking the idea that when starting a life, suffering matters more than creating happiness, as happiness matters not unless a person is affected while prevented good is simply deemed "good". The question inevitably is why, and this is where axioms sort of grind to a halt. Benatar himself appeals to things like deserted planets not having happiness doesn't perturb people, but aliens that suffer would seem to invoke our compassion capacities. You can use a lot of other examples. Avoided harm seems more important in some ultimate/non-relative sense than missed happiness (for someone who isn't around to be deprived).

However, I would say that I don't think this axiom necessarily stands on its own. There are several points that I think need to be considered for this axiom to make sense:
1) Procreation is about other people. It would seem in moral matters, other people's considerations deserve more care as to not create unnecessary harm for that person. It's more permissible to create harm for oneself, but not for others, when one doesn't have to (which is why it is "unnecessary" as I call it).

2) We are discussing an unnecessary harm (for the person being affected). That is to say we are not ameliorating a prior condition that needs to be made better. That is to say, the person isn't already born and in order to now continue in life less pain free, we have to do some lesser harm to them to prevent a greater harm. In this case, the harm was unnecessary to create in the first place.

Ah yes. The infamous "You disagree with me therefore you are deluded" defense. One that is known for promoting truth seeking and unbiased investigation. Agreed, it is impossible to argue with someone who believes that the opposition is wrong by virtue of them disagreeing with him — khaled

You really disagree with that fact, now with me. I didn't invent it, I don't like it, but it's there. How much ones eyes will be opened standing in front of this "monster" and how far one is ready to go in terms of the solution, depends on the individual obviously. You or the majority just isn't willing (some perhaps unable to for other reasons) to face the fact and accept the most ethical solution.

I won't bother asking you what makes you so certain the whole world is deluded and the select few efilists aren't because it doesn't seem like something you actually have support for. — khaled

Another revealing statement, it really is, you have poor reasoning my friend. You don't know why that might be the case? This might be a shocking discovery to you, are you ready? Most people are not driven by logic but emotions. You can see ample proof of this everywhere, including right here, right now, shown by you and others like you. And you are surprised why Efilism in particular is a view of a tiny minority?

Efilism is a disturbing cold nonappealing non the less very logical philosophical view. People naturally distance themselves from the negative. To expect it to be accepted by a large number of people is, delusional khaled. Most people can't accept the simplest most harmless of logics on the surface.

You yourself just literally proved that you are delusional.

Please, no more, I'm leaving the discussion, I do get people like you, it's fine, I know it's hard to accept the scary truth and all, it is what it is.

I know you were jesting but this sounds bizarre to me. This forum had a philosopher guest here who thought a bit like you (life is suffering, only preventing it matters) named David Pearce and even he suggested we create technology to alleviate those who suffering instead of omnicide. Why don’t we do that instead of mindlessly murdering people? At least it seems more realistic, your idea is a pipe dream no offense. — Albero

Well, there is that alternative solution, to somehow remove the suffering from the equation but that's the stuff of science fiction isn't it. As you well pointed, even Effilism is with the omnicide, it certainly won't happen voluntarily, ever.

And Albero, we are discussing the suffering of all sentient life on this planet and elsewhere. Sentient animals included. Don't be ego-centric.

As khaled mentioned, this is why if you end up with such bizarre conclusions if you think pleasure is irrelevant. You also never answered my question about consent and how it makes no sense with this system. It seems you think “oh, well the people who are suffering only matter, making them happy is pointless” so under your system we NEVER have any reason to fulfill positive moral duties, only negative ones like “murder people instead of trying to make their existence happier.” It’s like pressing a button to kill all homeless people who nobody will ever mourn when you could’ve just housed them. You keep saying life is suffering and that pleasure doesn’t matter, but you still haven’t given us a good reason as to why this is so. — Albero

I never ever said that pleasure is irrelevant. The point has always been the asymmetry, way too much negative often far more intense than the positive can ever be. Thus the positive isn't worth the negative.

Again with people, people, people. You are ego-centric so of course you cannot understand the logic behind Efilism. Think of the suffering elsewhere other than your own and of other people and you might be close to getting it.

we are discussing ethics, I don’t know what logic here has to do with it. Again, I bring up David Pearce because even he thinks that we could theoretically engineer suffering out of all existence, not just for humans. So no need to kill all living things. Sure it might sound like sci fi mumbo jumbo, but if you ask me Pearce actually gave some pretty good reasons as to how this could be possible.

“I never ever said that pleasure is irrelevant. The point has always been the asymmetry, way too much negative often far more intense than the positive can ever be. Thus the positive isn't worth the negative.”

Well positive utilitarianism is a thing, surely they have good reason to think the positive is worth the negative when we weigh moral judgements. But if your response is simply going to be that these philosophers are delusional then I see no reason to continue.