Emotions don't constitute reason. Sure, just because one doesn't exist to ask for a good life, it's somehow not good to create someone in a blissful heaven wherein they could experience immense joy. Moving on.

At this point, I think that you have decided that you want close your mind off entirely whenever things become uncomfortable for you. You're the one who keeps talking about nobody being "deprived" of happiness when they don't exist, and this is not about the parents. It's about the parents not creating any happiness. This should not be this hard to grasp.

Yes, it is not ethical. Fortunately, happiness is not unnecessary.

You are a selective deontologist who arbitrarily ignores the value of happiness by resorting to the claim that nobody is "deprived" of it when they don't exist, yet when one points out that if the absence of happiness isn't bad for a person because there isn't any deprivation, the lack of harms cannot be good for that person (and I hope that you don't start talking about "parents" again, because this point about nobody being deprived is about the people) since it does not relieve/fulfill them either.

It's nice then that there isn't anybody in the void who is being put in an obstacle course against their different desires. Of course, some people think that life is nothing more than an obstacle course, but I disagree with that. If one could provide a fun puzzle that could occasionally get tricky at times, I don't think that they should decide that nobody should have it when it's likely that most people would mostly enjoy it immensely despite of the presence of some difficulties.

Emotions don't constitute reason. Sure, just because one doesn't exist to ask for a good life, it's somehow not good to create someone in a blissful heaven wherein they could experience immense joy. Moving on. — DA671

I never claimed that.. I have said previously (look back!) that if it was always the case people were procreated into paradise, there wouldn't be a moral issue. But that is not the case. This very debate disqualifies that state of affairs :D.

At this point, I think that you have decided that you want close your mind off entirely whenever things become uncomfortable for you. You're the one who keeps talking about nobody being "deprived" of happiness when they don't exist, and this is not about the parents. It's about the parents not creating any happiness. This should not be this hard to grasp. — DA671

Oh boy, no no dude. You have FINALLY made it about the parents.. Congratulations.. Welcome to where you needed to be many posts ago...

So that is the question then.. Are the parents obligated to create "happiness" if they are creating "unnecessary collateral damage". Of course I think it is always wrong to create unnecessary collateral damage for someone else, as this will be the state of affairs if they exist. It is not wrong to not create happiness as this brings about no negative/bad state of affairs for anyone.

"Wouldn't be a moral issue" isn't the same as a genuine good. ;)
Moving on.

I have always made it about the things that matter, even though there have been many attempts to divert the topic and employ unjustifiable standards in one case.

It could lead to a bad outcome for existing people, but I shall ignore that here.

I don't think that one is creating harm "for" someone. But it's quite important to create a genuine benefit for someone when it cannot be solicited by that individual themselves. If we have an obligation to prevent damage, I do think that we need to conserve/create good (though that also depends on practical limitations). If a bad state of affairs is required for happiness to be necessary, then I believe that it's also important to have a good state of affairs (which is what I meant by relief earlier) for the lack of harms/damage to be essential. In the end, our intuitions continue to diverge because one of us only cares about one side of the coin, which ultimately fuels their one sided "deontology" of preventing damage but not being concerned about what could be rationally considered a genuine blessing.

I would say that I do think that mindless procreation is not a good idea in a world that already has so many issues to deal with. We surely need to ensure that people take this action seriously. Thanks for raising awareness regarding this important issue.

As always, have a fantastic day!

It's not necessary to not create it either. You are either creating a benefit (along with some harms) or you are not. I've already disputed the claim that it's "for someone" (there is nobody in the void whose interests are being respected/violated by their creation). But even if it is, I don't think that it's moral to not create a real good for a person on their behalf when they cannot ask for that good themselves. If it's necessary/a need to prevent the damage, it's also a necessity/a need to create a great good even if it has harms. Attempts to impose an "asymmetry" here have not been successfully defended.

So that is the question then.. Are the parents obligated to create "happiness" if they are creating "unnecessary collateral damage". Of course I think it is always wrong to create unnecessary collateral damage for someone else, as this will be the state of affairs if they exist. It is not wrong to not create happiness as this brings about no negative/bad state of affairs for anyone. — schopenhauer1

It's a dreadful argument. Always wrong to create unnecessary collateral damage? Living and breathing is creating unnecessary collateral damage. Time itself is unnecessary collateral damage, for time is constructed in the Hypothetical. My next banana contributes to an exploitation of third world people. Writing these very lines could give you a heart attack. The future itself does not exist, and each creative act is a hypothetical leap. You can't simply talk about parents bringing children into a dangerous world. That is arbitrarily, for this is only one occasion of hypothetically anticipating affairs.

Unnecessary to whom?
— unenlightened

Unnecessary to create it in the first place. — schopenhauer1

A non response. Unnecessary to create it in the first place to whom? Life is necessary as the precondition for saying "the first place". Therefore life is the first place. Life is necessary to life. Life is necessary to claiming that life is not necessary.

Life is contingent. Harm is necessary to life. Life is necessary to say that life is contingent.

I don't think that one is creating harm "for" someone. But it's quite important to create a genuine benefit for someone when it cannot be solicited by that individual themselves. — DA671

Answer this right here: Is this a moral OBLIGATION? Not just supererogatory.

If we have an obligation to prevent damage, I do think that we need to conserve/create good (though that also depends on practical limitations). — DA671

You state it that one is entailed in the other. That is just not the case. Harm is morally relevant. Creating joy, may not be and is probably supererogatory, especially when there is no actual person's interest that one is trying to alleviate by creating the joy. Mind you, this has nothing to do with "alleviating non-existing pain". either just that one is obligated NOT to CREATE that pain in the first place. That's all.

In the end, our intuitions continue to diverge because one of us only cares about one side of the coin, which ultimately fuels their one sided "deontology" of preventing damage but not being concerned about what could be rationally considered a genuine blessing. — DA671

Why is creating joy in the first place obligated? You've never answered this other than "blessing" and non-compelling adjectives.

It's a dreadful argument. Always wrong to create unnecessary collateral damage? Living and breathing is creating unnecessary collateral damage. Time itself is unnecessary collateral damage, for time is constructed in the Hypothetical. My next banana contributes to an exploitation of third world people. Writing these very lines could give you a heart attack. The future itself does not exist, and each creative act is a hypothetical leap. You can't simply talk about parents bringing children into a dangerous world. That is arbitrarily, for this is only one occasion of hypothetically anticipating affairs. — Constance

Ah, so you haven't been paying attention to what I mean by unnecessary suffering.. I should just say to do the work and look back to what I said but I will explain it...

If one is already born, one cannot but help but create suffering (this I deem as necessary suffering). For example, creating a lesser harm to prevent a greater harm.. However, in the case of procreation, none of it is "necessary" to perpetrate onto another. You are not preventing a "person" from a greater harm, as they don't exist, you are simply creating unnecessary harm from the start.

For existing people who already have decent lives? Probably not. As for procreation, I do think it is. But as I said before, this would be true if all else was equal, but it's clear that there are personal limitations and long-term consequences of an action that have to be taken into account. Therefore, for all practical purposes, it isn't absolutely necessary, especially in a world dealing with issues such as worsening wealth disparity and climate change.

No, creating/preserving joy matters just as removing harms does. There is nobody whose interest is fulfilled by their lack of creation either. But if it's still necessary to prevent harms sans an actual good, it cannot be acceptable to prevent all joy. Creating immensely valuable experiences is important, that's all.

If preventing harms (something that is intrinsically negative and against one's interests) can be good, then creating happiness (something that is positive and is in one's interests) can also be obligatory, particularly if that good cannot be asked by the person themselves.

Unnecessary to create it in the first place to whom? Life is necessary as the precondition for saying "the first place". Therefore life is the first place. Life is necessary to life. Life is necessary to claiming that life is not necessary.

Life is contingent. Harm is necessary to life. Life is necessary to say that life is contingent. — unenlightened

That is totally fuckn ridiculous. So, if someone is going to be born into horrendous conditions, because the kid is not "existent" yet, none of this matters? Give me a break :roll:. In your attempt to be clever with the non-identity argument you put yourself in a corner. You are better than that.

It's true that nonexistence cannot have any value. There's no satisfaction/frustration of interests of a person when they are created. This view can be reasonable, but one must be willing to bite some bullets (which could be tempered by the fact that creating harms can also affect existing people). Nevertheless, many true ideas can be "absurd", yet they might be better than unsubstantiated claims about asymmetries and impositions.

No, creating/preserving joy matters just as removing harms does. There is nobody whose interest is fulfilled by their lack of creation either. But if it's still necessary to prevent harms sans an actual good, it cannot be acceptable to prevent all joy. — DA671

Haha, are you just doing this to be funny? It's about the parent. The obligation to not create unnecessary collateral damage if you can prevent it. You haven't answered the question. Why is it an obligation to create joy? I don't see an argument except some adjectives.

The parent who decides to create a person, whose harms/benefits were being discussed. It's truly amusing. The need to create ethereal joys does matter. I don't see why it isn't except for some pessimistic biases. Once again, if it's good to prevent experiences that are against one's interests, it can also be good to create experiences that would be in their interest. No nouns or adjectives can change this ineluctable reality.

The parent who decides to create a person, whose harms/benefits were being discussed. It's truly amusing. The need to create ethereal joys does matter. I don't see why it isn't except for some pessimistic biases. — DA671

You know what collateral damage is right? I'm not just saying "harm" in our discussion, and for a reason.

I use the term to mean the same thing: negative experiences that would affect a person. And goods/benefits/whatever one wants to call them are also pertinent, and I have been advocating for consistency for a good reason, viz., the lack of a valid justification for not doing so.

Collateral damage means that, despite creating joy, X suffering is entailed. Thus, we are never talking a paradise situation, or simply "Oh, I am creating joy". Rather, it is always joy entailed with suffering. Is it ever good to do this, and do it without any mitigating need (to alleviate a greater harm for that person)? No, it is not. One is going ahead anyways and creating the harm onto that person. It is irrelevant that the intention was joy.

If one is already born, one cannot but help but create suffering (this I deem as necessary suffering). For example, creating a lesser harm to prevent a greater harm.. However, in the case of procreation, none of it is "necessary" to perpetrate onto another. You are not preventing a "person" from a greater harm, as they don't exist, you are simply creating unnecessary harm from the start. — schopenhauer1

Look, it's a given that when you have children, they will not have a life free of suffering. This is not heaven. But your argument analytic in that is moves from the concept of suffering to its analysis of that which is inherently to be avoided in actions. This is true, this does follow and you will never get anything else out of the concept of suffering as such, other than the injunction not to do it.

But if you treat the concept of suffering as a maxim for taking action, you will thereby be obliged to kill yourself now in the most merciful way. You will conclude that any suffering whatsoever defeats any possible justification for allowing the existence of something.

In other words, negative experiences.

I never said that there's just joy. However, it's also true that many people can find their lives to be unfathomably meaningful even in the face of harms. If it can be bad to create a person even if not creating the person doesn't lead to greater good for the person (by fulfilling their need to not exist) either, I don't see any good reason to not create the opportunity for experiencing innumerable positives. One is going ahead and creating a benefit (that they would have probably preferred despite the harms) that could not have been asked for by the person themselves. It is ethical to procreate (but not always).

Look, it's a given that when you have children, they will not have a life free of suffering. — Constance

Why go any further? I'm serious.

But if you treat the concept of suffering as a maxim for taking action, you will thereby be obliged to kill yourself now in the most merciful way. You will conclude that any suffering whatsoever defeats any possible justification for allowing the existence of something. — Constance

Why can't circumstances change depending on the situation? This is a ridiculous characterization of how my argument is stated. You have a chance to not create harm onto a future person. I am saying this non-action is the most ethical course. Don't create the harm.

I have also stated that once born, we must mitigate and allow for "necessary harms". Ironically, this is the lesser of the two.. In one case, you can purely prevent all harms. In the other, you must mitigate between lesser and greater harms for various interests involved. To do X, I must do harmful Y.. This sucks, but is the case. And suicide is definitely a major harm, or up until the suicide itself.

Yeah, some people mistakenly think that being an antinatalist means that you should end your life/harm other people. While I have met some who did espouse such views, most proponents disagree with that. I am not sure if this has happened to you yet, but I want to apologise from other people's behalf if they ever said something to you regarding harming yourself. It's not fun stuff.

I never said that there's just joy. However, it's also true that many people can find their lives to be unfathomably meaningful even in the face of harms. If it can be bad to create a person even if not creating the person doesn't lead to greater good for the person (by fulfilling their need to not exist) either, I don't see any good reason to not create the opportunity for experiencing innumerable positives. One is going ahead and creating a benefit (that they would have probably preferred despite the harms) that could not have been asked for by the person themselves. It is ethical to procreate (but not always). — DA671

Because there is no obligation to create "opportunity", "good", "joy". There is only obligation to prevent unnecessary harm when one can.

No, it's equally important to create joys and opportunities (though this might be expressed differently when it comes to existing people due to the fact that most individuals can live generally satisfactory lives without requiring constant intervention from others as long as they aren't harmed) whenever one can do so without incurring great cost or causing more harm than good. I suppose we have different intuitions regarding this.

No, it's equally important to create joys and opportunities. — DA671

But it is never just that!! It is entailed with forcing suffering upon someone. This is smugly paternalistic if harm is ignored for X reason (joy). It is presumptuous and paternalistic to think that, "Someone needs this!". But why? If I force you to work my garden, and you go through various moods and experiences of hating and loving it.. and then turn to me and say, "Why are you forcing me to work this garden?" And I say "Because SOMEONE NEEDS to experience this".. I am just a paternalistic douche who likes to see other people do X for my amusement.

What about joy needs to be had? Intrinsic good doesn't mean anything to me. Joy is good, is just a sort of tautology. What is the argument that joy needs to be created at the cost of harm?

Yeah, some people mistakenly think that being an antinatalist means that you should end your life/harm other people. While I have met some who did espouse such views, most proponents disagree with that. I am not sure if this has happened to you yet, but I want to apologise from other people's behalf if they ever said something to you regarding harming yourself. It's not fun stuff. — DA671

Yeah the "go kill yourself" argument against antinatlism is tiresome and should just be ignored at this point.

Give me a break — schopenhauer1

No. I refuse you a break.

if someone is going to be born into horrendous conditions, because the kid is not "existent" yet, none of this matters? — schopenhauer1

There is no 'if' about it. Every child suffers, and every child dies. This is an inescapable part of what being alive is. Harm is necessary to life, not unnecessary to life.

In your attempt to be clever with the non-identity argument you put yourself in a corner. — schopenhauer1

I have not made a non-identity argument. My argument is that life is good because without life there would be no antinatalism.

No. I refuse you a break. — unenlightened

Ah I see you needed to hang your hat on that one...

There is no 'if' about it. Every child suffers, and every child dies. This is an inescapable part of what being alive is. Harm is necessary to life, not unnecessary to life. — unenlightened

Harm is necessary but someone else being born from YOUR decision is not. You know this, yet you phrase it like no decisions are made.. They are all made by default. No a parent MAKES a decision.

I have not made a non-identity argument. My argument is that life is good because without life there would be no antinatalism. — unenlightened

Haha, I see what you did there. Why do you, the parent, have to be the harbinger for other people's experiences? You are almost making the point I am trying to make to @DA671

Thankfully, one isn't being forced to do something against their interests when they are created ;)

It's equally paternalistic to proclaim from the tower of doom that bestowing genuine happiness that cannot be solicited doesn't matter because that's what one's own perspective tells them. It's also presumptuous to think "someone needs to avoid this suffering but not gain this positive". Ignoring the good for X reason (harms) isn't justifiable. Not everybody feels that they are being "forced" to do something they don't cherish. If someone would probably want to work in a garden but is not able to ask for going there on their own, it doesn't make sense to not give them the chance to do so because of one's own evaluation that might not be shared by the other person (telling them that their joy was unnecessary and that their harms are what really matter can also be quite paternalistic). Also, I have already said that it's wrong to harm another person unless it leads to a greater good for that person, so this forced to work example isn't germane to the discussion at hand.

Intrinsic bad/damage also doesn't mean much, by the same token. If the argument is that it's wrong to impose/cause an action that is against one's interests (suffering), I believe that it can be good to bestow/cause a good that's in their interest. If we are intuitively averse to one, the preference for the other also matters.

Yeah, I don't like that "kill yourself" argument either.

Being the harbinger of joy can be inestimably valuable ;)

Thankfully, one isn't being forced to do something against their interests when they are created ;) — DA671

Stop it.. Born into a volcano is okay because everything prior to the volcano that person didn't exist :roll:. Dumbass notion. Only in the case of NOT having a child would the "forcing" not happen. Because as you point out, no ONE is forced. At X time of existence, there is someone. "They" didn't just come about in that place and time by fiat. The things that led up to that.. that is the force. Look at that!

If someone would probably want to work in a garden but is not able to ask for going there on their own, it doesn't make sense to not give them the chance to do so because of one's own evaluation that might not be shared by the other person (telling them that their joy was unnecessary and that their harms are what really matter can also be quite paternalistic). — DA671

Phew, luckily there was no one who is deprived of the garden experience beforehand. No one who was "forced" into the garden. HERE is where you can make your case about non-identity NOT the one where someone actually is born.

Intrinsic bad/damage also doesn't mean much, by the same token. If the argument is that it's wrong to impose/cause an action that is against one's interests (suffering), I believe that it can be good to bestow/cause a good that's in their interest. If we are intuitively averse to one, the preference for the other also matters. — DA671

But it isn't bestowing on their interests without causing harm, so you are in a conundrum of causing suffering to cause a good.

Ah yes, creating a life permeated with invaluable bliss is only not an "issue" instead of being a genuine good. Quite sensible and intuitive (especially for someone who rejects the idea of creation not being a harm in and of itself).

Counter-intuitive ideas aren't necessarily dumb (semantical legerdemain doesn't change the fact that the act itself doesn't go against the interests of a person), but I didn't assume that position here. It could still be comparatively worse. And even if it is an imposition in some cases, it can also be a genuine blessing. I shall not forsake consistency when I don't have a reason to do so.

Phew, finally one can realise that not working in the garden isn't better/preferable for a person either, since one can logically see that they are neither being deprived nor being relieved/fulfilled from an absence of harm. And yes, nobody is being "forced" into that garden of yours if one would think about this issue thoroughly, but that's a separate matter.

Since it's not the case that an alternative greater good could exist from an absence of that harm, it can be ethical to bestow that good as long as it leads to a mostly valuable life for a person. The same would apply to a life that could have some real goods but ultimately turn out to be bad.