I'm not advocating anything. I'm sharing thoughts and asking questions.

No one has to live. You don't like the planet, leave. Seriously. — Jackson

Is that really all you have in favor of your argument?

I wonder what would happen if we apply such a standard for morality more widely: as long as people don't violently extract themselves from a situation by suicide, whatever I did to them must be ok.

And if your position is that life isn't supposed to make you happy, then it begs the question why one feels the need to put more people into existence in the first place. — Tzeentch

Apart from approximately 50% of accidental unplanned births, you should also consider the possibility that we don't have much choice in reproducing. Nature has shaped our bodies and our minds to procreate, or we wouldn't even be here talking. Even when we think we have decided to procreate, it's most probably due to natural physical and psychological drives that make it happen anyway. Nature is ready to eliminate you from the game if you really don't want to play, or not fit to play (physically or psychologically). You're "free" to choose your individual path, others are willing to go through the pain of evolution, others are not. I'm no snowflake.

Is that really all you have in favor of your argument? — Tzeentch

Yes.

I wonder what would happen if we apply such a standard for morality more widely: as long as people don't violently extract themselves from a situation by suicide, whatever I did to them must be ok. — Tzeentch

I am afraid, then, I do not know what you are arguing for.

Apart from approximately 50% of accidental unplanned births, you should also consider the possibility that we don't have much choice in reproducing. Nature has shaped our bodies and our minds to procreate, or we wouldn't even be here talking. Even when we think we have decided to procreate, it's most probably due to natural physical and psychological drives that make it happen anyway. — punos

If one doesn't believe people have agency, then there's little point in arguing morality.

You're "free" to choose your individual path, others are willing to go through the pain of evolution, ... — punos

Individuals don't go through evolution. In fact, they don't even have a stake in it!

Doing things for the sake of evolution is absurd.

No wonder then that when people do things on the basis of absurd motivations nothing good and indeed much suffering comes of it.

, I do not know what you are arguing for. — Jackson

Neither do I.

Those are your argument's logical implications.

I didn't find them very compelling either.

I didn't find them very compelling either. — Tzeentch

Ok.

Individuals don't go through evolution. In fact, they don't even have a stake in it!

Doing things for the sake of evolution is absurd.

No wonder then that when people do things on the basis of absurd motivations nothing good and indeed much suffering comes of it. — Tzeentch

Individuals are the products of evolution, and the producers of evolution (within their line). A persons level of consciousness can be estimated by what kind of things they can care or have concern for, in other words what kind of things can stress you out. Some people only care about what they will eat next (biological), other people are concerned about other people too (social), and then other people have a bigger scope of concern like species or planetary concerns, up to cosmic concerns. The bigger your scope of concern the bigger more expanded your consciousness is. If there is some differential between two people on this then absurd becomes a relative term. I personally have an active concern for the state of human evolution, my vision goes beyond the bubble of the self. I accept that you see it differently.. ultimately it's not your fault.

I personally have an active concern for the state of human evolution, my vision goes beyond the bubble of the self. I accept that you see it differently.. ultimately it's not your fault. — punos

The purpose of the universe is not to make humans happy. Many people do not like that.

Evolution is not something the individual has any influence over, nor is it something the individual will experience the fruits of in their lifetime.

Expanding one's scope to some abstract thing one holds no influence over, has little understanding of and will never get to see the results of seems like a major cop-out.

If one wants to expand their bubble beyond the self, something which I can only encourage, then I would suggest to focus on things one does have influence over, and will see the results of, not in the least part because one will get to take responsibility for their successes and failures.

Welcome to the Philosophy Forum, by the way.

The purpose of the universe is not to make humans happy. Many people do not like that. — Jackson

I never said that.

I never said that. — punos

I said it. Why the text has my name on it.

I said it. Why the text has my name on it. — Jackson

Sorry, misread i guess.. may have been distracted doing a couple other things. I recant.

Evolution is not something the individual has any influence over, nor is it something the individual will experience the fruits of in their lifetime. — Tzeentch

The individual without really knowing is influencing evolution like i succinctly explained in the last reply. The matter of not experiencing the fruits is a selfish position i prefer to not have. I don't have anything against selfishness, it's just another style of living. If it doesn't work evolution will get rid of it, if it does, it will enhance it, or perhaps reach some sort of homeostatic equilibrium.

Expanding one's scope to some abstract thing one holds no influence over, has little understanding of and will never get to see the results of seems like a major cop-out. — Tzeentch

What is morality if not abstract? What i'm saying is much less abstract than what you are saying. What happens in those levels is obviously not a concern for you. It's not necessary for you to be concerned about anything actually.

If one wants to expand their bubble beyond the self, something which I can only encourage, then I would suggest to focus on things one does have influence over, and will see the results of, not in the least part because one will get to take responsibility for their successes and failures. — Tzeentch

I agree, but i would take it a bit further by including that what i do now in my circle of influence, will have a ripple effect into the future that can affect my and everyone else's future generations. If i chop down all the trees in the forests or pollute the air and water today, then tomorrow my children will suffer for what i did. I wont see them suffering but i'll definitely have a great time while i'm here. Is it morally wrong to steal? Is it stealing from future generations if you take everything for yourself now?

Welcome to the Philosophy Forum, by the way. — Tzeentch

Thank you for having me. :smile:

It was badly written because I was half asleep. Still, if you do not see why it is important to show why the innocent should not be harmed it shouldn’t take you much imagination to understand that in a world full of innocent people harm will still occur.

This world clearly does not offer such a life to anyone. We all know this. — Bartricks

No we don't know this. At all.

Case study.
Someone gets born and no harm at all comes into his life till the age of 14 let's say. He is grateful for life, enjoying it the most, his parents excellent people etc etc.
All he does is just playing and enjoying life the most. Even thinking "Damn life is wonderful. I own so much to my parents who allow me to have that life experience and what life looks like". Well while thinking all these riding his bike...BAM! Car Accident. End of story. Dead immediately without even releasing what happened! Rip.

So in that case what kind of harm occurred to that 14 year old person? Is this a rare case throughout human history? Don't think so at all. But even if it is rare indeed, that still doesn't change anything at all to the point.
So are these cases "allowed" to procreate according to you Antinatalists?

If only antinatalists would practice what they preach and stop reproducing themselves ... :meh:

Mephistopheles would just find another ‘innocent’ group to dupe.

No we don't know this. At all. — dimosthenis9

Yes we do. So, you're seriously claiming that it's reasonable to believe that a person here will lead an entirely harm-free life? That's insane. Note too that death is a harm, so your example is terrible. First, it is grotesquely implausible to suppose that someone will live without suffering any harm whatsoever until 14. It's metaphysically possible, but not a remotely reasonable thing to beleive. It's metaphysically possible, for instance, that I will win every lottery that draws tonight. But it's not at all reasonable to believe it. Only a total idiot would take such a possibility seriously. It's possible that if you take a loaded gun and fire it at a baby that it'll jam. But it's not remotely reasonable to assume that will happen.

And then there's death, which you seem to think doesn't constitute a harm even though it is probably the biggest harm of all. Innocent people deserve to die, do they?

You have failed.

Again, you're not making any sense. Address the argument in the OP. You're just saying stuff.

Have you considered the fact that about half or 50% of pregnancies are accidental? No one is making any decision to have children in those cases. What should be done about that? — punos

What's that got to do with my argument? Which premise are you trying to dispute with it?

Note, there's a general point about when a person is morally responsible for their action - do they have to know that what they are doing is wrong, etc? But that applies to any immoral act whatsoever.

That most parents procreated without directly intending to just shows that most parents are incredibly dumb and culpably reckless irresponsible self-indulgent people. How wonderful that those are the ones who create more of themselves.

When someone outlines a deductively valid argument for an interesting conclusion, what you need to do is address the premises, not just say general stuff that may or may not be relevant.

So, say which premise you are disputing and then explain how what you're saying raises a reasonable doubt about the premise in question.

So when someone points out that your use of terms is narrow to the point of being overtly obtuse your response it “I don’t understand”?

You misuse/abuse the term ‘innocent’. To state that innocents do not deserve harm (any harm) is not an argument and it also lacks any depth of meaning.

People do not deserve to live either. So what? See how I use the term ‘deserve’ there?

To be innocent 'just is' to be undeserving of harm. As I keep saying. It's not an argument, but a premise in an argument.

If you think that the claim is incorrect, say and provide evidence that it is. That is, provide an example of a person who is beyond dispute innocent, yet deserves to come to harm. Good luck.

provide an example of a person who is beyond dispute innocent, yet deserves to come to harm. — Bartricks

You're confusing legal innocence with the natural condition of humans. The natural condition is such the beings - not only human beings - can be subject to harms, such as illness, accident, predation, and so on. There have been countless persons killed or injured through accident or predation or disease throughout history. But that is not a form of punishment, so the question of whether such misadventures are 'deserved' or not is an empty one. Harm is not necessarily a matter of retribution or punishment for wrong-doing, it's something that can happen for a variety of reasons.

Your argument really is more like, why should anyone be born in the first place, given that life often sucks.

I think this might be a case of ‘let’s stop wasting our time’ :D

If we all stopped wasting time here the whole place would grind to a halt. :lol:

You're confusing legal innocence with the natural condition of humans. T — Wayfarer

No I'm not. I'm talking about MORAL desert. Christ. Do pay attention.

Your argument really is more like, why should anyone be born in the first place, given that life often sucks. — Wayfarer

Er, what? No it isn't. Read. The. OP.

So people can't get past the word "deserve" because it sounds like something to do with retribution. In other words, in this conception, deserving or not deserving requires a past action. Since a newborn doesn't have full control of their actions, there is no rewards or punishments to be deserved or not deserved. Rather, you can restate it without the retribution aspect (which seems to imply someone who can make decisions deserving or undeserving of punishment or rewards), you can simply say that new people born are harmed unnecessarily. One can prevent needless harm to that individual if one refrains from procreation. I'm open to the deserts argument though.

So, you're not a Christian, but you believe there's a natural moral law. What is the justification for that? Why do you think it's a matter of what is or isn't deserved, as distinct from something that simply happens through no agency?

So people can't get past the word "deserve" because it sounds like something to do with retribution. — schopenhauer1

It sounds like something to do with agency. Or with justice.

See my amendment to the argument above.