No, I meant the usuals on here.

Yes, but the argument is that if someone says it is worthwhile, negative X is ok to start on their behalf, even if it was unnecessary (didn't need to ameliorate a greater harm for that person). @khaled says this for example.

Yes, but the argument is that if someone says it is worthwhile, negative X is ok to start on their behalf, even if it was unnecessary (didn't need to ameliorate a greater harm for that person). khaled says this for example. — schopenhauer1

I never said this. I denied it was negative. And you weren’t able to show why it is. “Human condition” you insist despite virtually everyone disagreeing.

wait, what is “it” here? I said starting negative X..meaning here all negatives in a lifetime. You are denying negatives exist now??

wait, what is “it” here? — schopenhauer1

Life. I thought you were characterizing life purely as negative.

You are denying negatives exist now?? — schopenhauer1

Obviously not. Maybe take a charitable interpretation if you want to have a discussion.

Honestly I’d like to see other ANs debate here. Don’t at least you want to see arguments from others or are you fine hearing the same perspective? I’m flattered if just me. @Albero you like to see others debate. Can you add anything? Are you willing to contribute past a couple posts on the matter?

Life. I thought you were characterizing life purely as negative. — khaled

Not purely, negative X is all negative experiences.

I didn't mean to start another debate, just clearing up that I never said "Jeff said cock and ball torture is worthwhile so it's ethical to do it to Henry" (but generalized) which I thought you claimed I said. Regardless, it's not "if someone says it's worthwhile" it's "if it's an extremely high probability they will like it or at least not mind it"

Honestly I’d like to see other ANs debate here. — schopenhauer1

I don't mind. But so far you seem to be the only one arguing for it. If someone @s me I'll reply (probably).

Not purely, negative X is all negative experiences. — schopenhauer1

Then yes, it's ok to start all negative X because statistically they will think it's worthwhile. That's because starting all negative X also comes with starting all positive X (which is what makes negative X worthwhile in the first place) which you conveniently omitted.

What you did is like phrasing sending kids to school as "Subjecting minors to risks of sexual abuse" and concluding on that basis that sending kids to school is wrong. You can't just focus on what harms an act brings and then conclude whether or not it's right or else everything will end up wrong.

If it has already been demonstrated that it can be worthwhile to continue a life but that it cannot be worthwhile to start a life, then it is simply false, or rather unintelligible (like a square circle), that someone's life can be worth starting if they feel it is worth it.

I claim that we can and do have a well-founded expectation that a person whose life we start will wish for their life to continue and they will, insofar as they are capable and interested, consider their life 'worthwhile', 'worth continuing', 'worth the trouble', worth, in short, more than almost anything they can imagine. ('I am willing to die for ___' is the highest expression of value we know, reserved for our loved ones, our core commitments, and so on.) Parents as a rule commit to their children's lives not becoming 'not worth it' and are held accountable by others for doing so.

Do you claim that this expectation is not well-founded? That it is not well-founded enough? That it is irrelevant?

I'm going to direct that to @khaled since he's the one who is claiming this.

Someone’s life is worth starting if they will feel it is worth continuing. Obviously you can’t feel if your life is worth starting or not, you can’t feel at that point.

Do you claim that this expectation is not well-founded? That it is not well-founded enough? That it is irrelevant? — Srap Tasmaner

Yes.

Would you care to elaborate?

but how would you even know if someone will think it's worth it? Yes you can make an educated guess just like everything, but what do we do if they end up hating it?

but how would you even know if someone will think it's worth it? — Albero

you can make an educated guess — Albero

what do we do if they end up hating it? — Albero

Try our best to make it better.

Imagine I had a magical pin that gives someone a million dollars on condition that they’re pricked without consent. Would it be wrong to prick people? Well the vast majority would probably appreciate it, so yes for most people. Now what happens if we’re wrong about someone and they hate it? Does the fact that someone could hate it make it wrong to impose? Well in this example, probably not right? Because the chance is so small.

In other words: If an imposition is wrong by dint of there being a chance someone will hate it, all impositions are wrong. Period. But no one here has said that I think. So the standard must be more than simply “someone could hate it”

This though is not nuanced and dynamic enough. Is life really a pinprick? There are multi various ways in which people have negative experiences. The question really becomes, at what point does it matter if people report it’s worthwhile that you are not doing something right by the allowing of the negatives? And what if someone changes their minds at a particular time? Circumstances change. Ask someone in s good mood and a bad mood (or good experiences vs. going through bad experiences) and you get varying responses. In other words, is it justified in all situations to base ethics on post facto reports? @_db was mentioning the pre birth post birth distinction of worthwhile. Why should starting negatives (lifetime, inescapable) be good ever? It’s not instrumental here, it’s starting bads for someone else in an absolute sense (unnecessary). Since we get the doubly good outcome, that no one loses out (either), it would seem to be weighted to prevent the negatives, no matter what. @Albero do you agree? Have a different take or objection?

Yes actually. I feel a big part of like your antinatalism debate here hinges upon consequentialism vs deontology, but I feel like virtue ethics has been totally neglected here. When you ask is it justified to base all ethics on post-facto reports, pretty every consequentialist is going to say yes, but so far nobody here has provided an opinion based on virtues.

@Albero you like to see others debate. Can you add anything? Are you willing to contribute past a couple posts on the matter?

Sorry if I don't have much to say. I just prefer to lurk if that's okay with you, unless this forum has a contribution rule I'm violating. If anything comes to mind I'll add it. I'll say this though (and I think I said this before) I honestly think it's easier to try to convince people of schopenhaurian pessimism rather than rely on these kind of technical arguments. If people accept that, there's no reason why antinatalism wouldn't follow. It would be like deciding if you want to take a boat with holes or a brand new boat out to sea.

No harm there lurking..It would just be nice to hear other views that aren’t just outright hostile or trolling.
As far as virtue ethics, how would you formulate that?

I don't think I agree with it on everything, but I've always found pessimism in the philosophical sense to be an interesting tradition. Might I ask how you came to those conclusions? I don't want to psychoanalyze or troll, I'm just generally interested. You don't have to answer if it's too personal either. It's not like Schopenhauer is very popular, even for his own time

This though is not nuanced and dynamic enough. Is life really a pinprick? — schopenhauer1

No the point isn’t to say “getting pricked by a pin is fine so having kids is fine”. The point is to show that “someone could hate it” is not sufficient reason to make an imposition wrong. For that would make every imposition wrong.

The question really becomes, at what point does it matter if people report it’s worthwhile that you are not doing something right by the allowing of the negatives? — schopenhauer1

At every point. I don’t believe there is a scenario where someone can find something worthwhile and it be wrong to impose on them. It’s fine to have a happy slave.

And what if someone changes their minds at a particular time? — schopenhauer1

In other words, is it justified in all situations to base ethics on post facto reports? — schopenhauer1

Yes. And if they change their mind that would also be a post facto report.

Why should starting negatives (lifetime, inescapable) be good ever? — schopenhauer1

You think it’s good sometimes (being born in a utopia will last a lifetime and be inescapable) so let’s not question things we agree on.

It’s not instrumental here, it’s starting bads for someone else in an absolute sense (unnecessary). Since we get the doubly good outcome, that no one loses out (either), it would seem to be weighted to prevent the negatives, no matter what. — schopenhauer1

Again insufficient. What you’re saying here is that it’s wrong to start harms especially when someone will miss out. Using just that qualification, having a surprise party would be wrong. Yes I am aware it is very different from life. The point is, the above standard is insufficient to tell right and wrong. You need to add more conditions.

Once you have a set of conditions that make the statement “Acts that *insert conditions here* are wrong” true such that it isolates only what you actually think is wrong then you’d have a consistent case. You’d still need to convince people why they should abide by those conditions, but so far I haven’t seen what that full set of conditions is. The only time I’ve seen it it was something like “a lifetime of negative experiences” which doesn’t seem to apply to life, you need to show that life actually falls under that category.

@schopenhauer1

Still curious to see your reply to my last post.

I just noticed your name is rather fitting right now haha.

No the point isn’t to say “getting pricked by a pin is fine so having kids is fine”. The point is to show that “someone could hate it” is not sufficient reason to make an imposition wrong. For that would make every imposition wrong. — khaled

But if there's no person beforehand to need an imposition, is that even right to impose with all the baggage we know is it can entail? In other words, it goes right back to "Don't cause unnecessary negatives".

At every point. I don’t believe there is a scenario where someone can find something worthwhile and it be wrong to impose on them. It’s fine to have a happy slave. — khaled

Then here is where our axioms are just at odds. I don't believe it's right to start negatives for someone else unnecessarily when the consequences are inescapable, it's lifelong, and there's not much other choice but to go with it or dire consequences.

Yes. And if they change their mind that would also be a post facto report. — khaled

Right, so I don't think they are a basis for this particular circumstance if starting negatives for someone else is unnecessary and that indeed is your ethic.

You think it’s good sometimes (being born in a utopia will last a lifetime and be inescapable) so let’s not question things we agree on. — khaled

But we don't because I didn't agree to your definition of utopia for reasons I stated in earlier posts. Utopia would simply not have negatives, but I also explained how it's almost impossible to conceptualize. It would be like being everything or nothing I guess.

Again insufficient. What you’re saying here is that it’s wrong to start harms especially when someone will miss out. Using just that qualification, having a surprise party would be wrong. Yes I am aware it is very different from life. The point is, the above standard is insufficient to tell right and wrong. You need to add more conditions. — khaled

But you admit that the analogy doesn't fit, so why would I agree that this somehow negates what I'm saying? If your gift was a lifetime of challenges to overcome lest dire consequences, then let's talk.

Once you have a set of conditions that make the statement “Acts that *insert conditions here* are wrong” true such that it isolates only what you actually think is wrong then you’d have a consistent case. You’d still need to convince people why they should abide by those conditions, but so far I haven’t seen what that full set of conditions is. The only time I’ve seen it it was something like “a lifetime of negative experiences” which doesn’t seem to apply to life, you need to show that life actually falls under that category. — khaled

A lifetime of all negative experiences that you experience, is what I mean by that. Do you deny that negative experiences exist in life (unless something like a life that lasts a very short amount of time maybe)?

Well, it’s not really about who/what is being used, it’s about how you justify your actions.

But, if you insist, then whomever you’re trying to convince not to have children is being used to further your agenda. Your success in doing so creates the potential for harm. — Pinprick

But they're not used. If I gave them no choice and forced them, then I am using them. Contra @khaled even, if I forced them into my agenda and they series of inescapable negatives, and it was unnecessary for me to do that, and even if they said it was worthwhile, that would indeed still be using them, or at least overlooking their dignity. But I am not. I am not a crass consequentialist, so your argument doesn't apply to me as I see it presented.

I don't think I agree with it on everything, but I've always found pessimism in the philosophical sense to be an interesting tradition. Might I ask how you came to those conclusions? I don't want to psychoanalyze or troll, I'm just generally interested. You don't have to answer if it's too personal either. It's not like Schopenhauer is very popular, even for his own time — Albero

Life has suffering. There is systemic and contingent forms. This seems to lead to some conclusions.

:rofl:

You might have missed my last post here, but to paraphrase I’m not interested so much in whether or not someone is being used, but rather that someone is being harmed.

You’re willing to go to what most consider extreme measures to prevent harming a future person, even if it means harming a living person to do so. And that’s meant to be just a statement of fact. I’m not judging whether or not that’s morally permissible.

The contradiction I see is that in this instance you’re fine with causing harm because you see it as justified, necessary perhaps, but not willing to harm someone in order to bring about enlightenment (which is presumed to decrease/prevent suffering as well). Why is it ok to harm one, but not the other? The outcome is the at least comparable. Admittedly the enlightened person will not be able to completely eliminate suffering, but then we’re splitting hairs on how much suffering needs to be prevented to make it ok to cause harm to prevent it. Either the ends justify the means, or they don’t, right? If you’re going to make exceptions, then you need to explain why the particular case of AN warrants that, when other, very similar as I see it, cases do not.

You’re willing to go to what most consider extreme measures to prevent harming a future person, even if it means harming a living person to do so. And that’s meant to be just a statement of fact. I’m not judging whether or not that’s morally permissible. — Pinprick

I am not harming anyone nor doing anything extreme. I am not forcing anyone to do anything. Where are these extreme measures?

The contradiction I see is that in this instance you’re fine with causing harm because you see it as justified, necessary perhaps, but not willing to harm someone in order to bring about enlightenment (which is presumed to decrease/prevent suffering as well). — Pinprick

I didn't say bring about enlightenment, simply prevent harm.

Why is it ok to harm one, but not the other? The outcome is the at least comparable. Admittedly the enlightened person will not be able to completely eliminate suffering, but then we’re splitting hairs on how much suffering needs to be prevented to make it ok to cause harm to prevent it. Either the ends justify the means, or they don’t, right? If you’re going to make exceptions, then you need to explain why the particular case of AN warrants that, when other, very similar as I see it, cases do not. — Pinprick

This all assumes I'm some kind of crass utilitarian. I am not. My ethics is based on the dignity of the person being harmed. In one case you already exist.. It's too late. In the other, you are creating wholesale, harm onto someone else, unnecessarily. Just because you exist, doesn't mean you should do whatever you want to make you feel better or because you think it balances some utilitarian balance of pain (which I think is not equal even in that accounting of things).

But if there's no person beforehand to need an imposition, is that even right to impose with all the baggage we know is it can entail? — schopenhauer1

Yes. And you think so too for the Utopia example and surprise parties. Neither are needed impositions. The disagreement here is about the size of the “baggage”

I don't believe it's right to start negatives for someone else unnecessarily when the consequences are inescapable, it's lifelong, and there's not much other choice but to go with it or dire consequences. — schopenhauer1

Even if they would want you to? Ok. Now why should we think so? You want to convince others if this so how would you go about doing that?

But we don't because I didn't agree to your definition of utopia for reasons I stated in earlier posts. Utopia would simply not have negatives, but I also explained how it's almost impossible to conceptualize. It would be like being everything or nothing I guess. — schopenhauer1

But you’re going back to the standard definition of utopia, not the example I gave. Let’s call it world X then. It’s a world where you can remove all suffering at the snap of a finger. But you will suffer all the same if you refuse to snap your finger. And there is no way of escaping easily (euthanasia). Would it be fine to have kids in world X? There is no person beforehand to need the imposition, and there is a small amount of baggage (having to snap your fingers often). So shouldn’t it be wrong?

But you admit that the analogy doesn't fit, so why would I agree that this somehow negates what I'm saying? — schopenhauer1

It DOES fit what you’re saying. It’s an example where the condition for something being wrong is satisfied yet you don’t think the thing is wrong. Showing that the conditions you set out for making something wrong are insufficient.

A lifetime of all negative experiences that you experience, is what I mean by that. Do you deny that negative experiences exist in life (unless something like a life that lasts a very short amount of time maybe)? — schopenhauer1

No. I deny that life can be characterized as a series of negative experiences as you imply.