The question doesn't make any sense to me either. May as well ask if it is morally right that the sky appears to be blue. — I like sushi

We are not responsible for the sky being blue. It is just the way it is. But we are responsible for procreating - and we could stop or at least wonder why we do it; we can actually consider reasons for and against. I mean, do men get up on super-duper tall ladders in the wee hours of the morning and paint the sky blue every day? Maybe they would go on strike if we didn't pay them?

At its core it boils down to a self-contradiction or just an attitude that says because one, or more, persons suffer that it isn't a fair trade off. Life isn't 'fair' and it is silly to view existence as being 'fair' or 'unfair' - not that I have seen any AN admit this is basically where they are coming from — I like sushi

I agree that it is absurd to say that life is fair or unfair as if there is some part of oneself or one's experiences that is distinct from one's own life - or the self that experiences one's own life - that could somehow be compatible with a different existence; if your life was more fair it would be a different life and you would be different too. But as far as certain lives being genuinely horrible and painful, the idea of unfairness makes some sense - you aren't existing on the terms you would like to, which is true for a great many people, even if they are happy to be alive.

We are not responsible for the sky being blue. — ToothyMaw

My point was they are equally as pointless not that they are exclusively comparable in certain ways. I could just as well as said "The world to be spaghetti dreamed forks, or the dark to lighten the sound of foam. Which is it?"

Granted some non-questions appear to more easily pretend to fit a certain context than others.

If I was to take your point more seriously I can just as easily throw the same kind of thinking right back at AN thoughts. We have the instinct for procreation (evidence being we're part of a species that exists) and we also have a moral sense of responsibility in how we live (not in how we don't live). So the 'responsibility' is no more valid a point than 'procreating'. We have a sense of responsibility tied to our procreative abilities. I cannot see how it can be argued that these are separate to the point that one is on a pedestal but not the other.

But as far as certain lives being genuinely horrible and painful, the idea of unfairness makes some sense - you aren't existing on the terms you would like to, which is true for a great many people, even if they are happy to be alive. — ToothyMaw

It's true for me too. I've lived through some horrors. I don't regard that as any kind of justification for someone erasing my life once I hit that point of suffering ... if some understood what it was I felt they might likely think it 'better that I die, than suffer what I was suffering'. No thank you!

This had nothing to do with having children though. A non-existent person is non-existent not a 'potential person'. Such word play may convince others and I understand that there are gray areas. I don't see the world as black and white though ... more of a gray mushy, marbled mess of interwoven shades .

If I was to take your point more seriously I can just as easily throw the same kind of thinking right back at AN thoughts. We have the instinct for procreation (evidence being we're part of a species that exists) and we also have a moral sense of responsibility in how we live (not in how we don't live). So the 'responsibility' is no more valid a point than 'procreating'. We have a sense of responsibility tied to our procreative abilities. I cannot see how it can be argued that these are separate to the point that one is on a pedestal but not the other. — I like sushi

Just because those two things exist simultaneously and without conflict much of the time doesn't mean that they do not conflict sometimes and that they are coequal. I am arguing that if reason is to guide our decisions and not instinct, which I think should usually be the case, then we should consider reasons for procreating - even in the absence of knowledge that the person conceived will or will not appreciate having been given life or suffer immensely.

As for responsibility being tied to instinct: I would say that instinct matters insofar as it creates a desire to procreate, but the reasoning behind whether or not someone should procreate is distinct; people rarely, if ever, admit that they are procreating merely out of instinct. They have all kinds of justifications: religious, ethical, practical, etc.

So while neither is on a pedestal, I don't think either one has to be for us to be prudent in giving life.

This had nothing to do with having children though. A non-existent person is non-existent not a 'potential person'. Such word play may convince others and I understand that there are gray areas. I don't see the world as black and white though ... more of a gray mushy, marbled mess of interwoven shades . — I like sushi

All the more reason to believe that it isn't wrong to not take a great risk in bringing someone into the world. Or, if we do, to be careful about it.

It's true for me too. I've lived through some horrors. I don't regard that as any kind of justification for someone erasing my life once I hit that point of suffering ... if some understood what it was I felt they might likely think it 'better that I die, than suffer what I was suffering'. No thank you! — I like sushi

Of course.

edit: that was not sarcastic

All the more reason to believe that it isn't wrong to not take a great risk in bringing someone into the world. Or, if we do, to be careful about it. — ToothyMaw

I don't see any 'wrong' or 'right' about it. The very question of it being right or wrong to have children is meaningless to me. I've tried to understand the AN point of view but there seems to be a disjoint in their thinking as some claim that they 'value life' yet, for all intents and purposes, wish human life to cease (quite literally).

Neither do they seem to understand that life without suffering is NOT life. Suffering isn't something inherently 'negative' it is just how we tend to view it overall.

Life is absurd. I'm okay with that and if it wasn't absurd I think I would likely have ended my life some time ago. The 'absurdity' makes it interesting.

I don't see any 'wrong' or 'right' about it. The very question of it being right or wrong to have children is meaningless to me. I've tried to understand the AN point of view but there seems to be a disjoint in their thinking as some claim that they 'value life' yet, for all intents and purposes, wish human life to cease (quite literally). — I like sushi

I think they do value life insofar as they value people living on their own terms, something I got at earlier. People cannot always live on these terms - or even anywhere close to them a lot of the time, however.

Neither do they seem to understand that life without suffering is NOT life. Suffering isn't something inherently 'negative' it is just how we tend to view it overall. — I like sushi

It seems to me intense suffering and a strong will to live do not cancel each other out, and neither does the inevitable pain and sought-after happiness one will experience. Thus, the "overall" is not an equation to be balanced, but rather the sum of your often disparate experiences as you understand them, and, as such, if you believe that your perceived suffering is unnecessary, it is desirable to cut it out; no good is lost and the "overall" is still coherent. No one will cease living if they suffer less.

I get what you are saying though. Suffering is inevitable, but if gratuitous amounts of it can be prevented it should be.

Life is absurd. I'm okay with that and if it wasn't absurd I think I would likely have ended my life some time ago. The 'absurdity' makes it interesting. — I like sushi

Indeed.

I get what you are saying though. Suffering is inevitable, but if gratuitous amounts of it can be prevented it should be. — ToothyMaw

I’m not saying that. I’m saying ‘suffering’ is actually what gives life value. No suffering is a zombie life without emotion. Some people want lives of candy and lollipops because they naively think that is ‘better’ for them. Nope.

I am not an anti-natalist, but if I were, then I would uphold all of the implications of my beliefs. — ToothyMaw

That's what they all say at first, until they see said implications.

No to mention the harmful consequences of giving a crappy gift or sending a kid to school are significantly less than the wide range of horrible illnesses/conditions/disorders than can be inherited or developed throughout one's life — ToothyMaw

Oh, so now it's not about unconsented impositions. Now only unconsented impositions that have consequences that are "too bad" are considered wrong to impose. So sending kids to school is fine because, hey, how bad can it get right?

When you do that you add more work to yourself because now you need to show that life counts as "too bad" and why it does.

And besides, you can't just take the absolute worst consequence of something and say "see this is how bad it can get! So it's wrong to impose!" You'll get that all impositions are wrong by that logic. "Sending kids to school? Monstrous! What if they get molested by teachers!!!!! See how bad it can get! Sending kids to school is wrong now!". "Giving someone a gift you are near certain they'll like? Monstrous! What if they hate it so much they get a heart attack at the mere sight of it and die! Giving gifts is wrong now." etc. Taking the absolute worst consequence and using that to say the imposition is wrong is a terrible argument.

Not to mention, if we were all anti-natalists, there would be no children to send to school. — ToothyMaw

Irrelevant to the argument.

Patronizing me clearly brings you a lot of pleasure ...

:starstruck:

But we are responsible for procreating - and we could stop or at least wonder why we do it; we can actually consider reasons for and against. — ToothyMaw

So the 'responsibility' is no more valid a point than 'procreating'. We have a sense of responsibility tied to our procreative abilities. I cannot see how it can be argued that these are separate to the point that one is on a pedestal but not the other. — I like sushi

As long as the people involved don't decide on which narrative to go with, there is confusion.

If we go with the "selfish gene" narrative, then we cannot consequently talk about responsibility or anything else that is conceived of as being subject to a person's will.

If we go with the personality narrative, then we cannot consequently talk about the genes, selfish or otherwise.

Those two narratives are mutually exclusive.

I’m saying ‘suffering’ is actually what gives life value. No suffering is a zombie life without emotion. — I like sushi

Interesting!

@Wayfarer, what do you make of this?

Jung wrote of 'voluntary suffering'. I take that expression to mean the recognition of the inevitability of suffering in life and the willingness to bear it. Hence the qualities of being 'long suffering', of fortitude and forbearance, which I think are admirable. I don't agree that suffering 'gives life value', though, even if suffering seems inevitable. It's more that a life without suffering is inconceivable, we can't imagine it, so that might be a way of rationalising it or making the best out of the situation.

I was thinking of it in terms of being 'satiated'. A glass of water offers more pleasure the more thirsty one is or a meal the pleasure the hungrier one is.

Along these lines a life devoid of suffering is not a life at all as far as I can see. There is a price for everything (even living in the lap of luxury). Some don't know how good they've got it and it is them who suffer because of this (albeit blindly) because they don't know what it is to suffer - something prevalent in nihilism I'd say.

Again: Define "suffering".

So far, it seems that you're focusing on life's hardships and equating those with suffering.

That wouldn't help nor is it needed here.

The general AN position is against 'suffering' which we all understand (no need to redefine the word). They must simply view 'suffering' (and I've seen this) as an item to be eliminated and have no regard for any balance. They are happy to refer to 'pleasure' as the opposite of 'suffering' but only when it suits their argumentation. When pushed the goal posts are moved to 'responsibility' (conveniently ignoring that to understand pleasure we must necessarily understand pain/suffering).

If they do except this (some just won't) then they view the negative as outweighing the positive. Depression and suicide are not reasonable arguments either as a great number of people live through these periods and are more than content that they didn't kill themselves.

I haven't seen a convincing argument that holds up the 'responsibility' point. It repeatedly boils down to 'what right do you have?' ... it is a non-question much like asking what right do I have to do anything.

From a recent discussion with someone on this forum I don't see a full understanding presented of what it means to say 'I'm an anti-natalist' OR I could just be assuming that to be an anti-natalist they must argue with certain underlying principles (otherwise it is contrary).

It reminds of the kind of attitude that surrounds people who deny free will and therefore think that anything they do or say is absent of any personal responsibility. Having children is not a denial of responsibility it is bringing responsibility to one's chest and understanding what we are.

Either way it's nice to see people thinking about stuff like this even if some of makes almost no sense to me and what I say makes almost no sense to them :)

All I would argue is that reasons should always be considered when procreating, and that people do consider reasons for procreating more than you think. — ToothyMaw

People consider all sorts of things --- whether they can afford to take care of the child, whether they feel prepared to handle the responsibility, whether they want that responsibility, whether they think they are capable of being a good parent, a loving parent. It is a great moral undertaking, raising children.

But hardly anyone considers the possibility that not being alive is better than being alive. Does that mean they assume being alive is better?

Maybe? Or maybe "better" and "worse" don't make sense here.

My little story attempts to go around the question by noting that living things exhibit a preference to continue living. (Plants defend themselves against parasites --- do they do so because they think it's better to go on living?) That gives acts like saving a life or creating one a certain moral sheen: we act in accord with a norm that is prejudiced in favor of life, and we do so knowing that we act in accordance with that norm. The question of whether living is better than not living need not arise.

But we, not being plants, can form the question:

All that said, asking the question (no matter how absurd) is a possible step towards understanding it to be absurd and that not all sentences with '?' at the end warrant a '?'. — I like sushi

Does that mean we can answer it?

Does that mean we can answer it? — Srap Tasmaner

It means that the spanner fitfully wakes under the duress of upper, downy hairs' delight ... a perfectly reasonable sentence grammatically but semantically useless.

What is the shape of a circle?

Where do we put the Moon when it rains?

Do balls roll down hills?

How do people carry eggs between their legs when they don't lay eggs?

Do I have two eyes in my head?

All grammatically correct but utterly useless if taken seriously.

Do we have the right to procreate? (see directly above)

Oh yes, I know you and I suspect there's not a real question here. I was hoping to get others to wonder whether "better" and "worse" make sense here.

In fairness to @ToothyMaw's approach, I suppose it's better to ask if "better" and "worse" can be made sensible here. But then we're back to the whether whatever sense can be made with this question --- people think they're doing something when they talk about it --- actually engages with the sense that people think of as their moral lives. If they don't hook up, it's still just a little logical puzzle.

It's more that a life without suffering is inconceivable, we can't imagine it, so that might be a way of rationalising it or making the best out of the situation. — Wayfarer

Exactly :up: so much of advice is simply embracing the suck because what alternative is there? Ha

If they don't hook up, it's still just a little logical puzzle. — Srap Tasmaner

I see AN similar to veganism. Not everyone would see the morality of it. Or one can say of the "realization" one has of class consciousness in Marxist theory. Sometimes the "realization" of something's moral import is itself something one must "realize" and is not as clear cut in the cultural milieu (for obvious biased reasons) as murder or theft. But even these more "obvious" categories have been philosophized as to what "degree" what was the "intent" etc. All things that must be parsed out and not assumed but to be grappled with, even if you didn't consider those aspects prior to someone bringing up its implications. The point being with all of this is what counts as moral is not immediately realized, nor does it have to be to still be considered moral.

If your criteria is, "Morality must be immediately apparent to its import, then this is patently wrong.

But even these more "obvious" categories have been philosophized as to what "degree" what was the "intent" etc. — schopenhauer1

"Have been" is inarguable, but I see no reason to think philosophy is the origin of the taboo against kin-slaying, for example.

The point being with all of this is what counts as moral is not immediately realized, nor does it have to be to still be considered moral. — schopenhauer1

I take your point, and I could see how someone would find the comparison to, say, veganism compelling.

I remember Freud describing how an overdeveloped superego could make a person miserable, insisting on standards of thought and behavior they could not possibly meet, but at the same be a source of pride, because look what high standards they have!

If AN is a matter of human beings developing a standard of morality that human beings can only meet by not existing, that's at least paradoxical.

Rather than steal your thunder and debate AN here, I've been trying to figure out what makes people even less likely to accept AN than, say, veganism. The arguments are interesting, but they're far from the whole story. You see the rest of the story as a process of realization, or consciousness raising, and that's plausible. You could say I'm just looking at the other side, at our resistance to that process.

I find that resistance reasonable, but I want to get the facts right first.

(I could be helping your cause by figuring out what you really need to argue against, rather than just making the same arguments all the time without convincing anyone.)

"Have been" is inarguable, but I see no reason to think philosophy is the origin of the taboo against kin-slaying, for example. — Srap Tasmaner

No, but there's a difference between simply tradition and philosophizing about an action, can we agree on that? Even the judgement that tradition is what morality is is a philosophical judgement.. Now you have crossed from arbitrary what is given to what has been introspected, rationalized, and put into a dialectic of analysis.

I take your point, and I could see how someone would find the comparison to, say, veganism compelling. — Srap Tasmaner

:up:

I remember Freud describing how an overdeveloped superego could make a person miserable, insisting on standards of thought and behavior they could not possibly meet, but at the same be a source of pride, because look what high standards they have! — Srap Tasmaner

Interesting.

If AN is a matter of human beings developing a standard of morality that human beings can only meet by not existing, that's at least paradoxical. — Srap Tasmaner

I can see that. However, it really is just a standard of non-action taking place. DON'T do this. The back-and-forth goes usually something like:

N: "But I want to because if not, I will be sad."
AN: Being sad is not a criteria for if something is right.
N: (Inevitably shifts to a bizarre kind of utilitarianism).. But you see, my sadness will be somehow overall worse off than a whole lifetime of negative experiences for the person being born..
AN: A) even from a utilitarian point of view, this is probably not true that your sadness equates to all the negative experiences of a lifetime of another person.
B) A person not born will have no negative consequences, where that person certainly will have negative consequences once born.. No happiness for that person, literally matters not to no one. The due care is on the side of NOT causing negative experiences, and not not causing happiness (which matters not to no one in this situation).
C) From a deontological perspective you are forcing a negative set of situations and a game of challenges to be overcome (lest dire consequences) onto someone else. You made this decision for someone else, and deemed it right. Not having a child does not deprive any ONE from anything. The ledger is always on the side of NOT causing negative experiences for someone else.

Whether or not you agree with any of this, you should at least see that it can be a subject philosophical conversation. The point ANs often make is that it should at least be in the discourse and not dismissed offhandedly because you just don't like the implications.

You see the rest of the story as a process of realization, or consciousness raising, and that's plausible. You could say I'm just looking at the other side, at our resistance to that process. — Srap Tasmaner

I commend this effort. I too am interested in this. But just keep in mind, that there is resistance doesn't mean "Thus it's right that we resist". That is where you must make a connection if you want an argument other than, "This is what we tend to do, thus this is right".. I mean you could make that argument, but then we can bring up a lot of things we tend to do that we probably should not (get angry, put people down, overlook someone else, step on people's heads, etc. etc.). Probably daily we do some violation that if we looked back, we should have handled differently, but we did so out of our own self-interest at the time.

I find that resistance reasonable, but I want to get the facts right first.

(I could be helping your cause by figuring out what you really need to argue against, rather than just making the same arguments all the time without convincing anyone.) — Srap Tasmaner

I wholeheartedly commend the effort and look forward to any conclusions. Here is one major one I think for the resistance- cultural self-reinforcement.. a feedback loop.

Cultural meme: Procreation is good. Religious, tribal, social.. This reinforces...
Personal preference: I want to procreate.. I also don't want to "miss out" (what people mistake for "biological clock is really just not missing out) which also reinforces:
Parental/family/social pressure to have children.. "Why haven't you procreated yet...Don't you want X lifestyle?"
AN claim proposed: Disgusted at the idea that is reinforced, taken as personal preference.. Dismisses idea out of hand that procreation could be anything but good (with some exceptions perhaps that are circumstantial).

This is most depressing but existential reasons..
People pin their purpose on the immersion of taking care of someone else..What do they do at X stage of life.."Oh no is there more??". That kind of thing.

What AN ultimately does is question the project of life itself, and this is scary itself. But it's not much more than Buddhism, just taken to a practical level.. Life has X negative qualities.. Why keep procreating more people that experience this?.. Now it becomes a political question of "Well, I justify negative experiences because X".. Now you are the judge, jury, executioner of why someone else needs negative experiences.. Odd from an AN perspective.

Another existential one is the depressing nature of AN. I do not deny that AN can be depressing to think about. I depress myself with it sometimes if I am writing about it in a happy mood. This doesn't take away the import or rightness of the conclusion.. "This conclusion makes me depressed.. Wah wah.. it must be wrong". Same as the conclusion must be wrong because you are sad from earlier example.

Added more to last post.

Added even more to last post.

I don't agree that suffering 'gives life value', though, even if suffering seems inevitable. — Wayfarer

:up: To the degree we thrive (i.e. flourish – optimize agency), not only in spite of but because of suffering (i.e. by pro-actively reducing suffering), I think we give our individual and/or collective lives value.

I was thinking of it in terms of being 'satiated'. A glass of water offers more pleasure the more thirsty one is or a meal the pleasure the hungrier one is. — I like sushi

Right! That I agree with.

Small point of interest: since antinatalism is sort of the Hippocratic Oath on stilts, I looked it up: alongside the original injunction to "do no harm" are injunctions against performing abortions and against administering poison "even if asked", which, depending on who's asking, means not aiding in suicide or euthanasia. That's slightly interesting.