That looks more like negligence. — baker

Would that make it ok?

Why would it?

If you classify acts where there is no malicious intent, but there is knowledge that the act will harm as “negligent”. And negligence is not ok. By that formulation wouldn’t having children count as negligent? Why would it be permissible then?

By that formulation wouldn’t having children count as negligent? — khaled

Yes.

Why would it be permissible then?

With negligence, there is no issue of permissibility; negligence "just happens". We wish it wouldn't happen, but it does.

It is, of course, possible to speculate about the reasons and motivations for negligence, but that brings us into a highly ideologically specific discussion.

With negligence, there is no issue of permissibility; negligence "just happens". We wish it wouldn't happen, but it does. — baker

I highly doubt this is how you see childbirth. Do you wish people stopped having kids? Do you think it’s wrong to have kids?

I'll put it this way: I don't think that having children can solve one's existential problems. It can and often does make them worse; other times, it just perpetuates the status quo.

This is a fun concept to think about in an intellectual sense, but once you get realistic about it, it becomes far less interesting. Being born is also a "forced game" in the exact same manner as work, so where does that line of thought actually take you besides moral nihilism? Our current economic position (in most of the world at this point) allows us more freedom and choice than every other time in human history.

However entering the economic system itself was a forced game. Yes it has to be played to survive but the fact that we are forced to play it at all lest we die an agonizing slow death by starvation or scary prospect of outright suicide makes it a legitimate injustice to be philosophically and personally against. — schopenhauer1

Your lack of imagination here, makes you look like the "unhappy" slave in your ending analogy.

Being born is also a "forced game" in the exact same manner as work, so where does that line of thought actually take you besides moral nihilism? — Sheffwally

Well yes, I am an ardent antinatalist.

Our current economic position (in most of the world at this point) allows us more freedom and choice than every other time in human history. — Sheffwally

A forced game with some more options is still a forced game. You cannot choose not to play the game unless you die of suicide or slowly from starvation from not playing the game.

Your lack of imagination here, makes you look like the "unhappy" slave in your ending analogy. — Sheffwally

I cannot imagine away the thrownness of the given. See here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10842/willy-wonkas-forced-game/p1

Well yes, I am an ardent antinatalist. — schopenhauer1

Ah, this makes it a lot more clear. I have a question for you then. Do you find it likely, in any sense, that your way of framing reality distances you from obtaining "objective truth" about the nature of life? As a philosophy your antiwork argument works very well. However, in a pragmatic sense it is the most detached conception of the world one can actually have. A philosophy born in absolute detachment from the world and it's more artistic elements. A philosophy that assumes far too much about the origin of things. In your willy wonka example, there's no way to be clear about his intentions and that's where it seems like you fall short. The arrangement of society/reality does not necessarily make the intentions behind that arrangement clear and so we have to do some serious digging here. Almost finished, I think what I'm struggling to understand from the two posts that I've seen from you is, what element of life do you apply the most value to in both your anti work argument and your Willy Wonka example?

Well yes, I am an ardent antinatalist. — schopenhauer1

And the only one you're making happy with that is yourself, and even that not very much.

However entering the economic system itself was a forced game. Yes it has to be played to survive but the fact that we are forced to play it at all lest we die an agonizing slow death by starvation or scary prospect of outright suicide makes it a legitimate injustice to be philosophically and personally against. Any forced, inescapable game is a legitimate target for moral scrutiny and criticism. This is quite independent to post facto subjective evaluations of liking the game. Like the happy slave, the laborer has no other choice. — schopenhauer1

This is excellent. I'm surprised I've missed this thread for so long.

Two small points:

1) I'd differentiate "work" from a "job." You seem to be using "work" to mean a job, and it's important to differentiate. Why? Because I find it's simply part of human nature to want to do creative/productive work. Commuting into a building to do a Bullshit Job for a wage, on the other hand, is a specifically modern phenomenon.

2) Starvation, suicide, being stigmatized, homelessness -- all real possibilities. But there's another that's more common for average folks like me: destruction of credit. So while I might not literally starve or be homeless (I have friends/family to rely on), since they've gotten rid of debtor's prisons, and since there are charities, food pantries, and a weak social safety net, the major consequence of rejecting a "job" is the "red flag" placed on your record -- you won't get credit anywhere, whether a mortgage or personal/car loan or credit card. This stays on your record a long time indeed, and bankruptcy doesn't always wipe it all away (student loans, for example) and, even if it did, it too stays on your record for several years.

So it's a forced game indeed, and you're absolutely correct in raising it for criticism.

I think about this every now and then and at times have even contemplated quitting my job to go live in a small village doing farming just enough to survive. But then again, having lived all my life in a city, it does feel quite difficult to leave the addictive lifestyles of the city behind.
But the thought of having to work all my life for the major sole purpose of survival does feel like a massive trap as well.
Think our need to eat to survive has been a major curse for us. If we somehow transform into beings that don't need to eat, think we'll see a major shift in how the human society functions.

Almost finished, I think what I'm struggling to understand from the two posts that I've seen from you is, what element of life do you apply the most value to in both your anti work argument and your Willy Wonka example? — Sheffwally

Don't make people play the challenge/harm/imposition overcoming game unnecessarily.

So it's a forced game indeed, and you're absolutely correct in raising it for criticism. — Xtrix

Thank you. Glad to bring it to light.

But the thought of having to work all my life for the major sole purpose of survival does feel like a massive trap as well.
Think our need to eat to survive has been a major curse for us. If we somehow transform into beings that don't need to eat, think we'll see a major shift in how the human society functions. — Echoes

Being born, it's the human condition to want and to know you want. Deprivation theory. You are deprived and that leads you to need and want what is not present now. Schopenhauer discussed this.