ou yourself had said that reason and desire are different, but then you simultaneous suggest that something most people believe to be bad based upon an uncritical perspective of it gives us a rational reason for thinking it's genuinely bad and that appears to make no sense. — DA671

I don't know what you mean. I have said that we have reason to avoid death under most circumstances. I have said that this is because death is harmful - that is, the best explanation of why we have reason to avoid death is that death harms us.

I am not talking about people and their psychologies - I am talking about what we have reason to do and why.

You have already acknowledged that us preferring something is not the same as us having a reason to do it (in terms of it being the "right" thing). As for me, I do think that I have a reason to avoid death because I prefer living and the good life has to offer. However, I don't necessarily fear me going to sleep and never waking up.

Believing something to be harmful doesn't make it so (except for psychological damage, but that's a different matter). I think that your views are uncertain and hazy, but still, I am glad to know how much people can appreciate their lives ;)

Forgive me, my humour is rather ... stale.

Anyway, as always, I hope you have a nice day!

If you procreate, you're committing manslaughter. You know that what you do will kill a person - the person you bring into this realm. They're going to die. They're going to die because you brought them here. This is the valley of death. People die here. Everyone dies. You're going to die. You know this to be your fate. Surely only an evilly self-absorbed inconsiderate person would make it someone else's too, other things being equal?

Death is a big harm, yes? It isn't nothing - it isn't harmless. If it was harmless, then we would not have reason to avoid it under all but the most extreme circumstances. If it was harmless, killing people wouldn't be a grave wrong. Blowing a leaf into someone's face is not a grave wrong, for it is harmless - well, killing an unloved otherwise unknown tramp would be the moral equivalent to blowing a leaf in someone's face. It isn't though, is it? It seriously wrong to kill an unloved otherwise unknown tramp - because it harms that person considerably.

Perhaps you think that life here is so beneficial to the liver that the benefits outweigh all the harms, including the harm of death.

But that seems implausible. For the harm of death is so great that even if your life is going relatively badly - even if it is a moderately miserable life - you have reason to avoid it. So even a lifetime of moderate misery is better than death - the harm of death is greater than a lifetime of moderate misery. So it's a huge harm. Indeed, even if our lives here lasted 150 years or 200 years or a 1000 years, you would still have reason to avoid death even if your life is moderately miserable. What gives? Why would that be? What does that tell us? Nothing?!? That death is harmless or a portal to a better life? Er, no. It tells us that it most likely permanently changes our condition for the worse - that it takes us to hell. Think about it!

The valley of life as well, my friend. And no, I don't think that creating a valuable life has anything to do with "manslaughter", which is about cutting short a potentially good life. "They" weren't floating in some void of immortality before they were put in the mortal realm. People die because of disease or external harm, not because they were created, since nonexistent beings don't have the good of life in the first place. "They" will also live and have cherished bonds and good experiences. They are going to live because of one's decision. I think that it's quite myopic to ignore the ineffably meaningful experiences of love, beauty, and creativity and solely focus on death. Furthermore, you are fundamentally mistaken about the creation of people being the same as "making" them die, since creating someone does not end their life; it begins it.

Once again, you're now conflating what's ethical with the thing itself. We believe that it's wrong to kill a person for many reasons. It violates their right and leads to immense suffering for their loved ones. It causes them pain, which isn't legal either (unless there's a greater good that would result in more joy for them). And many hold to the deprivation account, which certainly affects their thoughts on this matter. Also, people do prefer their lives, which can give us reason to think that it is good.

Life is also quite good by the same token, since most people seem to deeply prefer it and apparently that's something that can give us "reason" to ascribe a certain value to something.

I do, though I am not claiming this is true for all.

You're the one who needs to conduct some introspection, mate. But I will definitely heed your advice. I don't think that many people would want to live forever. I've seen quite happy old people who are absolutely fine with their death because they've enjoyed all the goods life has to offer. Once again, you're missing the point about reason and desire. People choose to continue living a moderately bad life because it could also be moderately good and they hold certain views about death that they haven't really thought about. Most people deeply value their lives, which can now apparently demonstrate that it is a source of ethereal good that is extremely potent. This is getting a bit circular, so I think there is reason for avoiding stretching this discussion on. As always, have an excellent day!

The valley of life as well, my friend. — DA671

So? Again: you die. Everyone here dies. Nobody here 'had' to be here - we were all brought here by the actions of others. For all you know, you existed before somewhere else. You were brought here, into the valley of death.

And death is a harm. And it is a harm that is worse than life here. That's why our reason - which has our back for the most part - tells us to stay here as long as we can.

Now how is it moral to bring someone into our predicament? We are on our way to hell - that's what reason is telling us in so many words. How is it moral to decide "oh, I know, I'll bring someone else here to join me, so that I can be loved without deserving it, and then they can die and go to hell too"?

Imagine that Alex and Roger want to have a child. But the doctors tell them that any child they have will inherit a genetic disorder that will mean their life will be agony from the get-go. That is, the child will be born in extreme agony and live in extreme agony and then die. It'd be wrong for Alex and Roger to press ahead and have the child, would it not? What if, for a brief period of one day, the child will have a happy, pain free day and then the agony will resume - that's a feature of this bizarre and horrible disorder. Would it now be ok for them to press ahead? Does that one day of happy pain-free life outweigh the thousands of days of agony followed by death? No, clearly not.

Would it make any difference if the child lived for 10,000 years in agony but would enjoy 50 years of happy pain free living?

So creating a person is not the same as ending them because they don't exist in the first place. But for your "for all we know" point, perhaps we were in some sort of hell before being created. Maybe existence is the only relief that innocent souls can ever get. Who knows? :P The valley of life remains enigmatic.

Our desires don't always give us accurate reasons for things. I am glad I didn't believe it's faulty reason when it told me that studying for long would make me sad, since it didn't. Once again, we also have reasons for believing that life has immense value that deserves to be conserved.

I also fail to see how it would be moral to prevent all good. Your reason is clearly hinting at the fact that life can have value of such magnitude that we wish to avoid its cessation to almost an incapacitating degree (which could be counterproductive, which is why we should not do so). We could be coming from hell and be on our way to heaven. Ultimately, the reality is that the existence of the harm does not give us sufficient reason to prevent the possibility of all joy.

I agree that many people procreate thoughtlessly and for purely selfish reasons. This isn't good and has to be discouraged. However, I don't think that it's impossible to create a person because one wants them to have a good life. Not creating joys that deserve to exist when we don't know for sure if nonexistence isn't some sort of hell that only existence can give relief from might not be the best idea ;)

So creating a person is not the same as ending them because they don't exist in the first place. — DA671

So, let's say I plant a bomb in the centre of a city with a fuse that means it will go off in 150 years. That's wrong, yes? That's an act of murder. Yet no one the bomb will kill exists at the moment.

When it comes to pre-existence: we either pre-exist or we do not. Those exhaust the possibilities. If we pre-exist - and we have good reason to think we do, for we appear to be indivisible and indivisible things exist with aseity - then from our epistemic standpoint we are not justified in believing that those who are not here are existing in hell or heaven or something inbetween. So they cancel out. In terms of the justifiability of our acts of procreation, it doesn't matter whether we pre-exist or not. If procreation is wrong, it is wrong regardless of whether we pre-exist or not. To believe that those whom we do not bring here are left languishing in hell is to have an unjustified and self-serving belief.

Now, when it comes to death, other things are not equal - that's the point. We have excellent evidence that death harms us. We have no evidence whatsoever that our pre-existent state was harmful to us. We do have evidence - extremely powerful evidence - that death is harmful, so harmful that it makes life here overall bad. See the argument in the OP and throughout this thread for details.

It's still wrong because it would harm existing people who have other interests, but nonexistent beings don't possess such interests. That still has nothing to do with creating them, so I think you missed my point.

Many people are extremely grateful for existing. So, if our aversion to death gives us reason to think that death leads to something terrible, we also have reasons to believe that existing can be a relief from something problematic. I don't think that procreation is "wrong", but it would become far more important if nonexistence (pre existence) was a terrible state of affairs.

I've seen your details and remain unconvinced. We don't have any "evidence" besides that many people have a desire to avoid death. However, as far as evidence is concerned, we have powerful evidence to think think that existence is deeply valuable, since it's evident (according to your own post) that most people desperately want to avoid its cessation. The non-creation of such a good is clearly absurd ;)

It's still wrong because it would harm existing people. That still has nothing to do with creating them, so I think you missed my point. — DA671

So does the act of procreation. There is someone who does not yet exist that my act of procreation, should I perform it, will kill. Just as there is someone who does not yet exist that the bomb will kill. What's the difference? It's wrong to plant the bomb - because it will kill someone. It's wrong to procreate, for that too will kill someone.

Imagine the bomb is also a beautiful statue. So beautiful is the statue that people come to marvel at it and some of those people are inspired by the statue to breed. And I knew this would happen. And I knew as well that it was the offspring of those folk whom the statue inspired to breed who'd be killed by the bomb when it detonates in 150 years. Is my act now not wrong - not an act of murder?

One act will harm someone who has an interest in living, and the other will create them and form the possibility of any life and joy contained within it. The difference is humungous, and I am surprised you don't see it. Trying to "prevent" a loss when there's no gain in the first place is not rational.

Once again, you're conflating different things. Anything that harms people who already exist and could live longer valuable lives is problematic. However, we don't have evidence that nonexistent beings are in some blissful and immortal state of affairs that's negatively affected when they are created, which is why it makes little sense to claim that the act that creates life has anything to do with ending it.

I am surprised you cannot see that the two cases are morally equivalent.

If you procreate, you're killing someone. The person you bring here is going to die. You know this and you do it anyway. That's culpable manslaughter. Presumably you think that the fact their being here at all was contingent upon your act somehow means you're not killing them.

But that's true of my bomb-statue case too. I plant it knowing it will go off in 150 years - so, no-one it will kill is currently here. And I know as well that the only people it will kill, will be people who would not have been brought here had I not planted the bomb-statue.

Does that mean my act of planting the bomb-statue was not wrong after all? If you were on a jury would you exonerate me on the grounds that nobody the bomb killed would have existed if the bomb hadn't been planted?

Anyway, the two cases appear equivalent in morally relevant respects, and so equally immoral.

I am afraid that this belief of yours is is erroneous. They are not morally equivalent in any sensible way.

Knowing people die is not the same as killing them. You're only asserting that procreation kills people, even though it's the opposite of that, since it's the act that leads to the manifestation of life. And it's indeed relevant that beings don't exist and live before being created, which is why it makes no sense to think that creating them leads to "their" death,, since they don't exist in the first place.

Your bomb scenario is different because you have no good reason to design something that would harm the interests of existing human beings.

You would still be prosecuted because your act could lead to unnecessary harm and loss of joy for people. Fortunately, the act that makes the good possible doesn't have much in common with that.

Knowing people die is not the same as killing them. — DA671

I didn't say it was. Knowing that x will kill someone and then doing it is, however, to kill a person. Yes?

If you know that doing x will result in someone's death, that's not killing someone. That's just knowing something.

If you know that doing x will result in someone's death....and then you do it, then that is called 'killing someone'

If you procreate, you are killing someone.

Perhaps they exist prior to your act, perhaps they don't - it makes no difference.

And again: consider my bomb-statue case. By your lights planting the bomb statue was a morally innocuous act, yes? But it's clearly not - it's an act of murder. As is procreation. It kills people. It brings people here, into the killing zone.

Indeed. Thankfully, procreation kills nobody.

Creating someone whilst knowing that everybody dies due to the possibility of a meaningful life that the person themselves would cherish is not the same as killing them, since that requires cutting short a life and violating interests—both of which are inexistent before creation.

Indeed. Thankfully, being created won't "lead" to death; it leads to life. Things in life certainly do lead to cessation, but that doesn't change the fact that causing someone to exist does not kill (ending a life) anybody.

Indeed. Thankfully, procreation kills nobody. — DA671

No, it does kill people - have you not been paying attention at all? It kills the person it brings here. Jeez. You're like someone who insists their act of stabbing Jane did not kill Jane, the knife did.

Now, procreation kills someone. The question is now whether it is a justified killing. And it isn't. Why? Well, lots of reasons, but one of them - one sufficient to establish the wickedness of the act - is that any goods that living here may bring to the liver of the life are eclipsed by the harmfulness of the death you've fated them to suffer. Again, for details see the argument in the OP and that I have made numerous times since.

No, it does not. You're obstinately refusing to see things from any POV other than your rather limited one. Tragic, but understandable. Once again, creating someone who could have a valuable life has little to do with stabbings. Nobody is being snatched from an eternity of bliss and "brought" to an inferior state that causes their perfect being to end. Paying attention is definitely quite important lest we reach erroneous conclusions and start blaming innocent people ;)

I have seen your numerous arguments and concluded that they are not justifiable. Now that we have established that procreation kills nobody, we can still consider whether or not the goods of love, beauty, and inestimably valuable relationships are worth it or not. I think that they certainly can be (though it's true that they aren't present in all cases, which is a tragedy that needs to be minimised.

No, it does not. — DA671

Yes it does. Baby steps. If you procreate, the person you bring here is going to die. And you know that they are going to die. So you are doing something that will kill another person. This really isn't hard to understand. If you do x, a person will die and will die because you did x. So, x kills a person. x is procreation. Procreating kills a person.

And death is bad, yes? A harm. A big one. So big it makes any life here in which it features - so, all of them - bad overall.

Your beliefs are increasingly starting to seem like vacuous projections, my friend. Once again, knowing that people die has nothing to do with creating a valuable life, because we also know that giving birth to someone does not cause any individual to lose their life. The difference between your "X" and my "X" is that not doing your X (stabbing or shooting) results in an actual person living longer, whereas not doing my X (creating them) does not imbue a soul in the void with the energy of immortality. If you do X, a person will begin to exist. Doing X won't alter anything for a person because there isn't one before X. X does not kill a person. Procreation gives life and this is the ineluctable truth, I am afraid. Taking the baby steps towards this realisation can take a while, if it ever happens, of course.

And life can also be a good—a great good. So significant are the joys that they can influence us even in dire situations to hold on to them and avoid the end. You've chosen to only focus on one side of the coin, so the incorrect destination you've reached isn't surprising. I wish you the best of luck for your future endeavours.

death is a portal to a worse world. — Bartricks

:up: Agreed! Entropy always increases. Entropy is disorder, disorder is chaos, chaos is hell!

What do you think @180 Proof?

It's evil to have children!

Average member of an internet debate about antinatalism:

Your beliefs are increasingly starting to seem like vacuous projections, my friend. — DA671

You mean you're on the ropes.

Once again, knowing that people die has nothing to do with creating a valuable life, because we also know that giving birth to someone does not cause any individual to lose their life. — DA671

Ah, the old repeat things and they'll be true approach. Now, once again, you are killing someone if you do something that brings about their death - and that's what procreation does. Your reply is simply to deny this, not highlight any error in my reasoning or definition of a killing.

And don't point out that bringing a person here gives them all these wonderful benefits. I have already addressed that - they're eclipsed by the harmfulness of death.

Don't just keep nay saying. It's tedious.

As Woody Allen said - I'm not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens. — T Clark

:up:

We fear (in descending order of intensity)
1. Suffering (torture)
2. Dying (the transition phase between life and death)
3. Death (the state of being nonexistent)

I don't want to live on in my work. I want to live on in my apartment. — Woody Allen

The difference between your "X" and my "X" is that not doing your X (stabbing or shooting) results in an actual person living longer, whereas not doing my X (creating them) does not imbue a soul in the void with the energy of immortality. — DA671

Did you even read my example of the bomb-statue? They - the bomb's victims - would not have existed had it not been for me planting the bomb. Presumably you think it not wrong to plant such a bomb?

Some ropes are thinner than others ;)

You've proven my point about projection by accusing me of doing what you have been indulging in throughout this thread without providing adequate justification. Once again, creating a person does not cut short any person's life, which is why it makes no sense to claim that procreation causes their death. You're free to keep believing that if it suits your pessimism (not using this to bolster my argument, so this isn't an ad hominem), but I don't think that this changes the truth.

And no, the perceived harm of death does not negate the possibility of the deeply meaningful experiences of life. It's unfortunate that some people choose to ignore an an entire side of reality. Furthermore, preventing harm (loss of something valuable) at the cost of preventing all good itself isn't a particularly wise idea.

Saying aye to irrational conclusions isn't my forté :p

And you did not read my reply or failed to understand it. The bomb would still harm existing people, and since it isn't necessary for them to be harmed, it would be unethical to do something that results in the loss of their life. But creating a life does not cause one to die because it does not reduce anybody's life. You keep asserting the same thing even though you never truly had a valid argument to defend it. Then again, defending the indefensible isn't a possibility.

You've proven my point about projection by accusing me of doing what you have been indulging in throughout this thread without providing adequate justification. — DA671

I've justified everything I've said! Jesus. You now want to make this about the arguer, not the arguments, yes? Standard ploy.

Now, if you do something that brings about someone's death, that's a killing, yes? We don't have to look into whether the thing you did also brought the person into existence. It is sufficient that what you did caused a death. See bomb example for details.

Here's another one: Jane can only give birth over the edge of an extremely high building. Don't know why - doesn't matter - it's just a peculiar fact about Jane. So, any baby she has will fall to its death. Should she have a baby? Or would she be a murderer if she did?

I have provided you with numerous examples, most of which you have simply ignored. So here's one again: Tom and Jane want to have a kid, but they know that any kid they have will live in agony and then die. They ought not to have the kid, right?

What if it will enjoy one day of pain-free life, the rest agony - is it now ok for them to have the kid?

Another failure here—this one being the mistake to not distinguish between a statement about a lack of explanation and a reply to arguments. Not understanding crucial differences leads to monumental mistakes.

"Also existence" is not a trivial point, because nonexistent beings don't have a life that's being reduced when they are created.

It would be wrong to create the person because of the suffering likely outweighing the good. This is about averting an overwhelmingly negative life (which isn't lived by most people, and I hope that we can reach a point where it would be lived by almost nobody), not about avoiding "killing" someone.

I don't think that existing is always good, but the existence of ethereal joys can certainly give us reason to think that it can be preferable in many cases.

] Issues usually crop up when "manifestly clear" things are observed without taking the bigger picture into account.

Lol. That's a bit sad, I think. Be that as it may, I hope you have an incredible day!

And we love:
1. Happiness (which isn't an illusion).
2. Living.
3. Life

Entropy is inevitable, but the creation of something that can act as source of inimitable joy and resilience isn't necessarily problematic. Stability amidst decay. Perhaps the cycle is eternal. Of course, "we" is somewhat of a generalisation, since not all might prefer the latter two and have certain peculiar ideas about the first. Anyway, I don't think it's always evil to create (it can be good), but I think that it definitely can be, especially in a world struggling with issues such as worsening wealth disparity and global warming. Hope you guys have a nice day!

It's evil to have children! — Agent Smith

"Be fruitful and multiply" increases overall entropy. Deus vult – how can this be "evil"? :mask:

:up: