The fact a person deserves something will, standardly, give rise to an obligation to provide it. — Bartricks

Right. So when I said...

For someone to deserve something means (in the context it's used here) there is a duty of moral agents to provide them it. — Isaac

...the correct response was just "yes".

you'd asserted that to deserve something is equivalent to someone being obliged to give you it; — Bartricks

Nope. I said...

For someone to deserve something means (in the context it's used here) there is a duty of moral agents to provide them it. — Isaac

'Means', not 'equivalent to'. If you're going to try and quibble over semantics then you at least need to use the bloody words I used. Quibbling semantics by using words I didn't even use seems a little one-sided.

my argument was that it is immoral - other things being equal - to create a desert of something that cannot be provided — Bartricks

Well then you're lacking any evidence at all that this is indeed a moral intuition since the examples you've given all relate to obligation (such as to avoid harm to others). You've not provided any other example where we consider the creation of deserts, in this way, without the ability to provide them to be immoral.

I see that now what you're doing is questioning the probative value of intuitions. — Bartricks

I'm questioning your equating your personal intuitions with universal ones. Not the use of intuitions tout court. To claim something is immoral, you need to show that others too have the intuition you have (or that they ought to have it). You've done neither.

There is a very significant difference between recognising that all we have to go on are things 'seeming to us to be the case' and assuming, as you do here, that simply by virtue of something's seeming to you to be the case it is, in fact, the case.

Triad of possibilities
1. Happiness
2. Suffering
3. Neither happiness nor suffering aka contentment

A 3 sided die, roll it; life is after all a gamble.

P(x) = Probability of x

P(getting what you want: contentment/happiness) = $\frac{2}{3} \approx$ 66%

P(suffering) = $\frac{1}{3} \approx$ = 33%


:snicker:

So thanks - my argument is so good all you can do in response to it is question whether we know anything at all. Do you realize how incompetent that is as an argumentative strategy? — Bartricks

Yes he does seem to be moving to questioning all of ethics as a relative thing now.

Of course it is. I'm knowingly risking harm to others. Accelerating a ton of metal at 70mph is inherently a risk to those around me. The analogy required only putting people in a position where they might come to harm, but not deliberately intending that they do. — Isaac

This doesn't overcome my objection :roll:.

Presumably, you don't drive your car knowing that every time, harm will ensue. — "schopenhauer1

Yet as you well should know, life will absolutely be guaranteed to contain some harm, and significant amounts of it.

So how likely does it have to be, and why? Is 100% a different moral imperative to 99.99999%? — Isaac

I've said this before but all life after birth WILL have harm. It's entailed in the processes of living a human life. Procreation is a point where you can absolutely prevent all harm. No one ever seems to pick up that point and tries to relativize all harm with a particular harm that happens once born, as if picking out a particular harm is analogous.

But even without this major difference, my objection still stands that you are not driving KNOWING that you will harm someone. Life contains KNOWN harms.. so also a major difference.

If I were a tribesman and I enlist help building the houses for the whole community, it's pretty much guaranteed that someone will come to harm as a result of this activity (it's dangerous work). If I even so much as sharpen a weapon, it's almost guaranteed that someone will one day cut themselves as a result of that sharpening. Examples abound. — Isaac

It's not forced. Presumably the person wanted to help. If they were forced, then it was a wrong. Presumably, forcing other autonomous adults to do something (even if we think it a good deed) is not moral itself. If I think that all my friends should help me with my garden and they don't but I put measures in place to force them to help me with my garden as I think it's the right thing to do.. well, you see where this is going..

We live in social groups and see the welfare of the group as greater than that of any individual - or at least the non-sociopathic among us do anyway. — Isaac

Creating the mess so people have to work together or die doesn't prove anything other than the very point that procreation causes others to have to deal with things..

Your claim absolutely relies on others sharing your moral intuition. But you've failed to provide any argument supporting this. — Isaac

That's just, like, your opinion man. Harrison did a good enough job describing those basic intuitions of non-harm, non-consent, and others (did you even read the whole paper or just my quote from it). Presumably, "most people" don't want to harm people unnecessarily. And none of your objections pointed to that. What you fail to see is that "unnecessarily" implies "can be avoided".

Let's say we agree that everyone is limited in what they know as to the best way to show someone how to do something. But, let us say that you know of two ways to show someone how to do something. You knew that you can show someone the "dangerous way" or the "easy way". You also knew that the "dangerous way" had no discernible benefits down the line.. If you taught someone the "dangerous way" because you simply wanted to see what the other person would do, that would be wrong. I don't see that being some highly individualistic intuition. Even if I was to present someone with danger because I felt they would like the danger, and tried to mitigate harms for them, but had no idea whether it would truly work, the very fact I knew there was a way to not present danger to them, precluded that as the better choice. Remember, there was no NEED for the danger. It was completely unnecessary to occur for that person who will be affected by the danger. That would be indeed using them for our preferences, for no reason.

You seriously still expect me to answer after the bullshit you just pulled ?

If everyone disagreeing with you is 'trolling' then this is not the place for you.

If everyone disagreeing with you is 'trolling' then this is not the place for you. — Isaac

I actually didn't see that you answered him. Because I try to do the right thing, and I now know something I didn't know earlier.. I'm going to take it down. Because I am a person who tries to have integrity :wink:.. Even on an anonymous philosophy forum.

When we point to the behaviour of others as a source, you say their behaviour can't be trusted as a guide to their moral intuitions.

When we point to culture as a source, you say cultures change and moral intuitions evolve.

So the question remains - on what grounds do you claim that others share the moral intuition you have, such as to claim it's 'misapplied'? — Isaac

Both are true.. Cultural practices have been (generally) getting more X, Y, Z (tolerant, less harm-based, etc.), but also people's behaviors surrounding procreation are definitely something of a blind eye based on other intuitions.

What are you on about? The 'west' is not a worldview, it's just the practice of using reason to find out what's true, as opposed to making shit up or believing something because one's ancestors believed it. — Bartricks

Western culture is "just the practice of using reason to find out what's true"??

Shall we look at a rap video with twerking females, as example of "just the practice of using reason to find out what's true"?

And it's not geographical. And arguments don't go from being sound to unsound from region to region. I mean, you can't seriously think that if you get on a plane arguments that were sound when you took off will be unsound depending on where you land?

Duh.

Now, which premise in my deductively valid argument do you dispute?

The implicit one, "People are born innocent".

Children deserve a good life, free from harms but no-one is under any obligation to give it them so procreation is fine. — Isaac

This is Pharisaic. It follows logically, but it goes against the spirit of love for children.

I'm questioning your equating your personal intuitions with universal ones. Not the use of intuitions tout court. To claim something is immoral, you need to show that others too have the intuition you have (or that they ought to have it). You've done neither.

There is a very significant difference between recognising that all we have to go on are things 'seeming to us to be the case' and assuming, as you do here, that simply by virtue of something's seeming to you to be the case it is, in fact, the case. — Isaac

The argument presented in the OP assumes moral intuition, hence ad populum arguments are all there is. Otherwise we just have the ridiculously messianic claim that whatever@Bartricks feels is moral, is, in fact, moral.

(which is, incidentally, where this thread will end up as Bartricks's threads always do - with the delusional claim that whatever he happens to feel is the case is, in fact, the case) — Isaac

But other people do the same kind of thing. Epistemologically, it's not even clear it's possible to do something else. An argument can be sound only in a particular context, given particular axioms, but not outside of that; whereby the choice of context is not a given, not universal.


Then, like you said elsewhere:

But choose between such equally in/effective narratives on the grounds of what? Which one pleases one's ego more?
— baker

Yeah, possibly. I prefer more aesthetic grounds, but I don't know that there's much to choose between decision-making methods. Ones I like are - coherence (with other narratives), aesthetic value (usually inspired by childhood stories, to be honest), a preference for simplicity, a favouring of what I think are more 'natural' approaches... But those are just ways that seem to suit me, I couldn't raise an argument in favour of any of them, except I suppose coherence does make one's life easier to navigate, but then again many people seem to live with extremely clashing beliefs and come to no harm by it so... — Isaac

Did science not eradicate the harm of smallpox to use a simple example. — universeness

And create a million others.

No, it's precisely because I know I can't be that kind of parent that I don't feel qualified to have children
— baker
If you feel you fall short in these aspects yourself does that mean everyone does?

I think that the argument from the prospective parent's lack of existential qualification is stronger than the one usually presented by antinatalists (about various prospective harms awaiting prospective people).

Of course, given that many people have relatively low aspirations in life, the argument from the prospective parent's lack of existential qualification is unintelligible to them. They'll simply dismiss a young person with existential concerns as mentally ill, rather than question their own scope of existential insight.

If not then do you think it's justified that antinatalists would prevent the birth of people such as Albert Einstein as well as people like Ted Bundy?

But they're not actually preventing anyone. Antinatalists are a small, powerless bunch. It's the normal people who believe that procreation is "just fine" and who abort a half of all pregnancies that are actually preventing others, literally.

Do you associate the antinatalist viewpoint with any measure of human cowardice?

Not in the existential sense, but in the worldly sense, yes.

My question was, does innocence/guilt exist outside of the human species or our like? — universeness

I don't understand the question. Innocence or guilt is always someone's. And it always belongs to a person, a mind.

I do challenge your argument. I asked you if the purpose of the universe is linked to the existence of humans. If antinatalism were realised it would damage that purpose, would it not? — universeness

And I answered. Our purpose is to do what's right and avoid what's wrong. And I have argued that it is wrong to procreate. So you are simply begging the question by insisting that purpose is something else. You need to argue for that claim by refuting my argument.

Extinction is permanent so if you don't know, perhaps it is unwise to advocate for antinatalism, if it would not achieve your goal as humans would just be eventually replaced by another conscious/sentient species who face the same dilemmas as we do. — universeness

Again, I addressed this point. Imagine all women decide they do not wish to procreate. Is it ok to rape them? Obviously not. Why? Because that would violate their rights, which is an injustice. So, it is more important to prevent injustices than it is to keep the species in existence.

I have argued that procreation itself creates an injustice.

You make an intriguing distinction here. Are you saying that if human beings can be created by harvesting sperm and eggs and producing humans completely outside of the human body then your antinatalism, would be ok with that? — universeness

Er, no. Of course not. Why would you think I was? It's wrong to lie, isn't it? Default wrong, anyway. Does that mean I have an obligation to stop you lying? Should I kill everyone in order to stop lying occurring? No, that's dumb. If it's wrong to lie, that means I ought not to lie (and you ought not to lie). It does not follow that I ought to prevent you lying or you me.

Now, it is immoral to procreate. That means you ought not procreate and I ought not procreate. It does not mean that I am obliged to stop procreation from occurring.

Western culture is "just the practice of using reason to find out what's true"?? — baker

It's up to you to tell me what on earth you mean by 'western culture' or why it's relevant to anything I have argued.

But philosophy is the practice of using reason to find out what's true, yes? That's what I'm doing in this OP.

And then there's just making stuff up or believing something because there's a tradition of believing it. That's not philosophy. It is what it is. Now, I assume that when someone starts talking about 'other traditions of thought' or 'other cultural traditions' what they mean is "but what about those who do not use reason to figure out what's true and instead just make stuff up or insist that certain views are true because that's just what people believe in this or that neck of the woods". Well, my answer is those folk are not doing philosophy. It's like giving me your recipe for banana cake. It's not relevant to anything I have argued.

The implicit one, "People are born innocent". — baker

That wasn't an implicit premise. It was explicit. Do you dispute it? On what basis?

The fact a person deserves something will, standardly, give rise to an obligation to provide it.
— Bartricks

Right. So when I said...

For someone to deserve something means (in the context it's used here) there is a duty of moral agents to provide them it.
— Isaac

...the correct response was just "yes". — Isaac

Er, no. Christ. Comprehension skills: D. To deserve something does not - NOT - mean the same as 'there's an obligation to give the person it". Clear? They don't mean the same thing. If two statements have the same meaning - that is, have the same propositional content - then you can use them interchangeably. You cannot substitute talk of desert with talk of moral obligations.

Again: to deserve something is quite different from there being an obligation to provide it.

The former can give rise to the latter. That does not mean they're the same. If one thing gives rise to another thing, that doesn't mean that the first thing is the second. It looks stormy outside and so a lot of people are carrying umbrellas. That does not mean that 'it looks stormy' means ' a lot of people are carrying umbrellas', even though the fact it looks stormy is often what's responsible for people carrying umbrellas.

Nope. I said...

For someone to deserve something means (in the context it's used here) there is a duty of moral agents to provide them it.
— Isaac

'Means', not 'equivalent to'. If you're going to try and quibble over semantics then you at least need to use the bloody words I used. Quibbling semantics by using words I didn't even use seems a little one-sided — Isaac

You're the one who is misusing terms and then attributing the resulting views to me!!!

If two statements mean the same thing, then that means they have the same propositional content. Now, to deserve something does NOT mean the same as 'there is aduty of moral agents to provide them it". Those are quite different concepts. That is, the concept of desert is completely different to the concept of a moral obligation.

Write this out a thousand times until it sinks in: to deserve something does not mean the same as 'there is a duy of moral agents to provide it".

Again: a rapist deserves to be raped. That does not mean that we are obliged to rape the rapist.

But sometimes - sometimes - that a person deserves something can give rise to there being an obligation to provide it.

If the two meant the same thing......then there would be a 'necessary' connection. It would impossible for a person to deserve something and there be no obligation to provide it.

Yet often a person can deserve something and no one be under any obligation to provide it.

Well then you're lacking any evidence at all that this is indeed a moral intuition since the examples you've given all relate to obligation (such as to avoid harm to others). You've not provided any other example where we consider the creation of deserts, in this way, without the ability to provide them to be immoral. — Isaac

More sloppiness. A moral intuition is a kind of mental state (it's a mental state with representative contents). I am appealing to moral intuiitions in support of my claims. But the claims are not themselves about moral intuitions.

My claim was that it is immoral - other things being equal - to create injustices. And if one has created someone who deserves something they're not going to receive, then one has created an injustice. Which of those claims do you dispute? Do not challenge the probative force of intuitions - all arguments for anything appeal to intuitions. Just try and challenge a premise. Do that by trying to come up with a counter-example to the premise in question. So, for instasnce, I have claimed that if a person has done nothing, then they do not deserve to come to harm. You challenge that premise by coming up with a case in which a person has done nothing at all yet seems to deserve to come to harm. Good luck coming up with such a case. But that's what it would take to challenge that premise. I have claimed that it is an injustice when a person who does not deserve to come to harm comes to harm. TO challenge that claim you would need to come up with a case where a person clearly does not deserve to come to harm yet comes to harm and it is no injustice (there are cases of this - I have mentioned one, namely freely self-inflicted harm....but they do not seem to undermine my case). And I have claimed that it is wrong, other things being equal, to create injustices. To challenge that claim you would need not just to provide examples where we are obliged to create injustices - for I do not deny that we are sometimes obliged to create injustices - but you would need to show that other things are not equal in the procreation case. Do one of those things.

Shall I help you? I have already provided you with one example of a case where a person does not deserve to come to harm, comes to harm, and the harm is not undeserved - freely self-inflicted harm.

That's not going to undermine my argument, however.

Here's another potential counterexample to something I have claimed: freely going beyond the call of duty. I have claimed that it is wrong, other things being equal, to create a desert of something that can't be provided. But one counterexample to that claim is the case of a person who freely goes beyond the call of duty. That person makes themselves even more deserving of good things than someone who has not gone beyond the call. Yet it is even more unlikely that they will get what they deserve than if they had not gone beyond the call. But clearly it is not wrong to go beyond the call.

See? That's how to challenge me in a sophisticated way. Now, up your game.

Yes, anyone who, in the context of an argument over the morality of a particular type of act, raises the whole 'but how do we know anything?' question has lost the argument.

But other people do the same kind of thing. Epistemologically, it's not even clear it's possible to do something else. — baker

It's fairly straightforward...

"It seems to me that X implies Y"

"Yes, it seems that way to me to"

"It seems to me that Z implies X"

"Yes, it seems that way to me to"

(shared intuition)

"Well, then given that, is it not the case that Z implies Y?"

(argument based on shared intuition - and shared rules of thought).

Interestingly, what we have in @Bartricks threads is in the form

"It seems to me that X implies Y"

"It doesn't seem that way to me"

"Well, you're wrong because... God"

They don't mean the same thing. If two statements have the same meaning - that is, have the same propositional content - then you can use them interchangeably. — Bartricks

I suggest you buy yourself a good dictionary, it might help in conversations with other English speakers.

mean 1 (mēn)
v. meant (mĕnt), mean·ing, means
v.tr.
1.
a. To be used to convey; denote: "'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things'" (Lewis Carroll).
b. To act as a symbol of; signify or represent: In this poem, the budding flower means youth.
2. To intend to convey or indicate: "No one means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery and thought is viscous" (Henry Adams).
3. To have as a purpose or an intention; intend: I meant to go running this morning, but I overslept.
4. To design, intend, or destine for a certain purpose or end: a building that was meant for storage; a student who was meant to be a scientist.
5. To have as a consequence; bring about: Friction means heat.
6. To have the importance or value of: The opinions of the critics meant nothing to him. She meant so much to me.

Or you could just refer to this excellent philosopher I fond some quotes from online where he uses 'means' in situations other than implying the two components are directly interchangeable...

Of course, this means that under those circumstances most of us have lives of no purpose whatsoever, or lives whose purpose is, to say the least, utterly mundane. — Bartricks

we should not posit them. Which then means that we have a self-refuting case. — Bartricks

I think it is plausible that the moral obligation to be a good friend means that the evidence in this case does not provide me - me - with any normative reason to believe in my friend's guilt. — Bartricks

Also...

It looks stormy outside and so a lot of people are carrying umbrellas. That does not mean that 'it looks stormy' means ' a lot of people are carrying umbrellas', even though the fact it looks stormy is often what's responsible for people carrying umbrellas. — Bartricks

"It looks stormy outside, that means a lot of people will be carrying umbrellas" is a perfectly normal sentence in English. See meaning (5) above "Friction means heat".

Your adolescent God-complex doesn't wash here. You'll have a lot more productive conversations if you give it up.

My claim was that it is immoral - other things being equal - to create injustices. And if one has created someone who deserves something they're not going to receive, then one has created an injustice. Which of those claims do you dispute? — Bartricks

The second.

Do that by trying to come up with a counter-example to the premise in question. — Bartricks

We unproblematically have children. Most people consider it perfectly moral, yet most people consider creating an injustice immoral, and most people think children deserve happiness, therefore most people do not consider it creating an injustice to create someone who deserves something they're not going to receive. It clearly is not a shared moral intuition.

TO challenge that claim you would need to come up with a case where a person clearly does not deserve to come to harm yet comes to harm and it is no injustice — Bartricks

Procreation. I have about 10 billion examples.

As I said earlier. If your moral system concludes that almost every human being ever is morally wrong and that the entire human race cannot morally continue to exist, it is far more likely that your moral system is wrong than it is the entire human race for the last 400,000 years is wrong. It takes a monumental, messianic ego to assume you're right in the face of every other human being ever. Hence why your case is so fascinating.

Temere bonum (random acts of kindness).

Zinloos geweld (senseless violence).

Good acts are deserved & undeserved and so are foul deeds. The apotheosis of goodness is when it isn't due (trading favors isn't a bad thing, but quid pro quo isn't exactly the best model of benevolence).

So, even if babies weren't innocent, their happiness/well-being is paramount. A fortiori, Bartricks is bang on target.

And create a million others — baker

Scientists have certainly been involved in biological and chemical warfare but it would be rather dumb to create a virus that can kill as many of your own people as it will the enemy, unless you have a cure. I think what you are suggesting belongs more to unlikely conspiracy theories than reality. Also, people should be a little more accurate in their use of quantities. There is an old 'jokey' response; "for the millionth time! Stop exaggerating!."

They'll simply dismiss a young person with existential concerns as mentally ill, rather than question their own scope of existential insight. — baker

Well, you are engaging in a great deal of generalisation in such typing. I am capable of such myself but I think it's important to recognise when you are using such a big cumbersome brush to try to paint details.

But they're not actually preventing anyone. Antinatalists are a small, powerless bunch. It's the normal people who believe that procreation is "just fine" and who abort a half of all pregnancies that are actually preventing others, literally. — baker

Ok, so from this I would assume you are not an antinatalist. Yes, abortion will 'reduce the chances' of another Einstein or Ted Bundy. I believe however that women must be masters of their own body. The state cannot FORCE a women to maintain a pregnancy.

I think we probably have quite a bit of common ground on the issue of antinatalism.
I consider it a fringe, extreme and valueless viewpoint but I also think you should not bring children into this overpopulated world unless you can tick a large list of requirements first.

I don't understand the question. Innocence or guilt is always someone's. And it always belongs to a person, a mind. — Bartricks

This answer is quite clear. It implies that you agree that innocence/guilt is a concept created from the human condition. I think good/evil is the same. The concept of innocence is very important to the points you make in the OP.
You are using 'violation' of the common concept of innocence to invoke antinatalism as the only solution.
I am suggesting to you that I think this is an unwise invocation when as a species/lifeform, we don't yet understand human consciousness, we don't know why we are or what our main purpose is.
It seems to me that it is to ask questions and we are 'little packets of existence,' whose origin seems to be happenstance. The purpose of our manifestation seems to be OF THE universe to figure out why and what it is. It's almost as if some of the component parts are trying to figure out what the whole is. You suggest the 'suffering' aspect of the human experience negates that effort based on your claim that the human concept of innocence is violated. I think this is 'too small' a concern compared to the universal goal of seeking answers to the big 'how' and 'why' questions.
If antinatalism was realised it would achieve no more than setting the evolutionary clock back to a time without sentient/conscious/intelligent humans who ask questions like 'why does the universe exist,' and what is its purpose. Evolution would simply recreate sentient/conscious/intelligent species which could ask such questions and it will be ever thus! Does your own 'sense of the human condition,' and your own understanding of 'why we ask questions,' dispute this?

Er, no. Of course not. Why would you think I was? It's wrong to lie, isn't it? Default wrong, anyway. Does that mean I have an obligation to stop you lying? Should I kill everyone in order to stop lying occurring? No, that's dumb. If it's wrong to lie, that means I ought not to lie (and you ought not to lie). It does not follow that I ought to prevent you lying or you me. — Bartricks

I can only apply my own ability to interpret the words you type. This has two weaknesses, my ability to correctly interpret your intended meaning and your ability to impart your meaning with sufficient clarity, in the word combinations you choose to type. Neither possibility requires subterfuge or 'lying' by either party. We need to be tolerant of our misinterpretations of each other and simply request further clarification until understanding is gained or frustration results in us, politely and respectfully, discontinuing our exchange.
Your accusation that I am lying is offensive. I can trade blows with you at that level if that is one of the ways you get your 'jollies,' I am well practiced at doing so. I am enjoying my exchange with you so far in this thread. I would rather try to maintain that but if you prefer another slanging match with me to add to ones you have had with others then I can oblige you.

Moral intuitionism is not the same as the ad populum fallacy.
You would have to distill what is the moral facts of the mater and what are non-moral factors.

The moral intuition might be that inflicting unnecessary harm is generally wrong to do to someone else.

However, the application of such intuitions might be disagreed with.. I think Harrison's point remains that the application of procreation is a blindspot to this kind of moral intuition.

And create a million others
— baker

Scientists have certainly been involved in biological and chemical warfare but it would be rather dumb to create a virus that can kill as many of your own people as it will the enemy, unless you have a cure. I think what you are suggesting belongs more to unlikely conspiracy theories than reality. Also, people should be a little more accurate in their use of quantities. There is an old 'jokey' response; "for the millionth time! Stop exaggerating!." — universeness

Keep to the text.

Did science not eradicate the harm of smallpox to use a simple example.
— universeness

And create a million others. — baker

"The harm" is the center of your phrase, and to this one I replied. As in, "Science created a million other harms." For example, all the polution we're facing nowadays is the result of science.

They'll simply dismiss a young person with existential concerns as mentally ill, rather than question their own scope of existential insight.
— baker
Well, you are engaging in a great deal of generalisation in such typing. I am capable of such myself but I think it's important to recognise when you are using such a big cumbersome brush to try to paint details.

Again, keep to the text:

Of course, given that many people have relatively low aspirations in life, the argument from the prospective parent's lack of existential qualification is unintelligible to them. They'll simply dismiss a young person with existential concerns as mentally ill, rather than question their own scope of existential insight. — baker

The dismissal of those with existential concerns is done by those who have relatively low aspirations in life.

I believe however that women must be masters of their own body. The state cannot FORCE a women to maintain a pregnancy.

Women cannot even be the masters of the noun for them!
The state should FORCE people to use the noun "woman" correctly, correctly distinguishing between the singular and the plural form.
It adds insult to injury not to use the noun "woman" correctly in a discussion of a topic that is of great importance to women.

think you should not bring children into this overpopulated world unless you can tick a large list of requirements first.

I think my list is longer than yours.

Western culture is "just the practice of using reason to find out what's true"??
— baker

It's up to you to tell me what on earth you mean by 'western culture' or why it's relevant to anything I have argued. — Bartricks

It's relevant because your argument is deductively valid only in a specific context, ie. that of Western culture (where people don't believe in (serial) reincarnation or rebirth).

But philosophy is the practice of using reason to find out what's true, yes?

That's an ongoing debate.

And then there's just making stuff up or believing something because there's a tradition of believing it. That's not philosophy. It is what it is.

You're part of the tradition that believes there is no (serial) reincarnation or rebirth.
You say you're the one using reason. The Asians say they're the ones using reason.
Hm.

Now, I assume that when someone starts talking about 'other traditions of thought' or 'other cultural traditions' what they mean is "but what about those who do not use reason to figure out what's true and instead just make stuff up or insist that certain views are true because that's just what people believe in this or that neck of the woods". Well, my answer is those folk are not doing philosophy. It's like giving me your recipe for banana cake. It's not relevant to anything I have argued.

If you're so sure of yourself, then why start this thread?

The implicit one, "People are born innocent".
— baker

That wasn't an implicit premise. It was explicit.

No, you didn't formulate it like that.

Do you dispute it? On what basis?

On the basis that it's culturally specific.

But other people do the same kind of thing. Epistemologically, it's not even clear it's possible to do something else.
— baker

It's fairly straightforward... — Isaac

People are typically epistemic autoritarians. From the lowest plebeian to a philosopher with several advanced degrees, epistemic authoritarianism: "Things are the way I see them, and everyone who thinks differently is wrong, bad, evil, mentally deranged, or lying."

Although the "the way I see it" element is questionable. People generally don't seem to think they are looking at things from their perspective, their viewpoint, but are, instead, "seeing things as they really are".

The OP might be a bit more in-your-face, but he's no different than most posters here when it comes to being dead sure of one's position.

Procreation. I have about 10 billion examples.

As I said earlier. If your moral system concludes that almost every human being ever is morally wrong and that the entire human race cannot morally continue to exist, it is far more likely that your moral system is wrong than it is the entire human race for the last 400,000 years is wrong. It takes a monumental, messianic ego to assume you're right in the face of every other human being ever. Hence why your case is so fascinating. — Isaac

Make that potentially about 20 billion examples.

You're ignoring that sexuality and procreation have been by far the most regulated social activities in human society throughout history.

If procreation would truly be "just fine" and as moral as you suggest, then people wouldn't widely practice contraception, abortion, infanticide, wouldn't regulate the status of unwed mothers and their children, there would be no eugenics, no notion of incest, no sex education. Instead, people would just go forth, be fruitful, and multiply, at whatever age, socioeconomic status, with or without consent.

You underestimate how complex human procreation is, and also underestimate how complex people's views of procreation are (contianing mutually exclusive premises).

It takes a monumental, messianic ego to assume you're right in the face of every other human being ever.

Oh, come on, that's not empirically true.

Secondly, it's not the OP's argument that is strange. The OP is actually simply taking a few premises that are non-controversial in our society and follows them through to their logical conclusions.
The problem isn't with the OP, it's with the Western point of view.

Keep to the text — baker

I do, but I will respond to what you type.

"The harm" is the center of your phrase, and to this one I replied. — baker

Clarity is your responsibility also. If your response is based on the emphasis of certain words I have typed then make that clear and perhaps you will receive a return closer to your area of concern.

For example, all the polution we're facing nowadays is the result of science. — baker

Based on what evidence? The technologies created by scientists are open to abuse by the nefarious and by self-interest or just incompetent decisions made by those in power. Profiteers are only interested in profit. Your argument is similar to those who blame fictitious gods for the actions of theists.
I am not suggesting all science and all scientists are morally pure but I would certainly not make the sweeping generalisations you make.

Again, keep to the text: — baker

Again, try to improve your clarity.

The dismissal of those with existential concerns is done by those who have relatively low aspirations in life. — baker

Do you consider such people a large majority of the global population?
We live in very imbalanced rich/poor conditions. It is harsh to judge the aspiration level of any individual who has had poverty imposed upon them since birth and very limited or no opportunity to escape it.

Women cannot even be the masters of the noun for them!
The state should FORCE people to use the noun "woman" correctly, correctly distinguishing between the singular and the plural form.
It adds insult to injury not to use the noun "woman" correctly in a discussion of a topic that is of great importance to women. — baker

I think your point here is not an important one but I will leave it to any female posters to declare their support of your viewpoint. I assume you are not female.
No woman I know has ever raised any concern about such. Singular or plural THEY should be masters of their own body! I suggest you temper your excitement about an e in one of my sentences, that should have been an a. Btw, the word pollution has two l's not one, as you typed in one of your sentences. Are we exchanging ideas here or do you wish to continue making petty valueless points about spelling?

I think my list is longer than yours. — baker

I am sure it is but I have always favoured quality over quantity.

Once again, to deserve something does not mean the same as 'obliged to provide it'.

The fact a person deserves something can, sometimes, generate an obligation to provide it. And sometimes it won't.

Sometimes it will.. Sometimes it won't. Sometimes it will. Sometimes it won't. And sometimes it will.

Thus, the property of 'deserving something' is not the same as the property of 'being obliged to provide it'.

So, when I say that innocent persons do not deserve to come to harm, that it not equivalent to saying that others are obliged to prevent harm from befalling that person. Those are quite different claims, even though the former will often give rise to the latter.

We unproblematically have children. Most people consider it perfectly moral, yet most people consider creating an injustice immoral, and most people think children deserve happiness, therefore most people do not consider it creating an injustice to create someone who deserves something they're not going to receive. It clearly is not a shared moral intuition. — Isaac

You're quite inconsistent, aren't you? One moment you're skeptical about the probative value of intuitions and the next moment you're appealing to them!

We all have to appeal to intuitions. All arguments for anything appeal to them. The validity of an argument is itself something we are aware of intuitively.

But that does not mean that intuitions are infallible and that all we have to do to find out if an act is moral or immoral is conduct a survey. You are confusing intuitionism with conventionalism or conservatism. Some - many - intuitions are worthless. Just as there are visual and other hallucinations, there are also hallucinations and illusions generated by intuition as well.

For example, imagine there's a cult that believes it is wrong to procreate and they promote this idea to their members from birth. So, there are lots of people who have been brought up on this cult and have had it reiterated to them again and again that it is wrong to procreate.

Now, would it be remotely surprising if those brought up in this cult consequently started to intuit that procreation was wrong?

No, of course not. It's what one would predict. It's precisely why people indoctrinate others - it works.

Does that intuition have probative value? If someone is a member of that cult and has the intuition that procreation is immoral, does it count for something? And would it matter how big the cult is? (The answers are 'no' and 'no')

This answer is quite clear. It implies that you agree that innocence/guilt is a concept created from the human condition. — universeness

Er, no. That simply does not follow and it is not my view. But anyway, you're not focusing on the argument.

Do you think a newly created person deserves to come to harm?

Your accusation that I am lying is offensive. — universeness

What are you on about? Where did I accuse you of lying? I said that it is wrong to lie but that it does not follow that we are obliged to stop others lying. So, the point is that an argument for the wrongness of Xing does not imply that we are obliged to stop others from Xing. Thus, an argument for antinatalism is not an argument for stopping others procreating.

True. It is an argument that every human action is potentially harmful and therefore no action should be taken.

The point being if you follow through the thought it is both impractical and ridiculous.

Procreating can cause increased harm as can walking down a road, breathing too loudly, sniffing a flower or not killing someone in a murderous rampage.

There is something a little clandestine in the thought that innocents deserve no harm because this kind of implies that the guilty deserve harm. Then it is a question of who decides who is or is not guilty. From a stance of newly born children then we can view them not as purely innocent creatures but more or less as vessels for future harm riddled with guilt on the immediate horizon.

Anyway, I will continue to work on my argument for antinatalism I suggest you work on an argument against it.

Er, no. That simply does not follow and it is not my view. — Bartricks

So, answer the question I posed to you and stop obfuscating, otherwise, you are not worth my time as you are engaging in mere sophistry. The points you raised in your OP have already been soundly defeated on this thread imo. Your dissenters make far more compelling points compared to your one or two supporters. Your viewpoint is even more fringe and more diminished in importance than it was before you started this thread. The antinatalist voice is nothing more than background white noise.
Every person I have stated the word to had never heard of it and ridiculed its main proposal and the skewed thinking behind it. At least they now know the word so I furthered your cause in that sense but the result was to add to the number of dissenters.

Do you think a newly created person deserves to come to harm? — Bartricks

Do you think not allowing new persons to be created harms the Universe?
The answer to your question is easy. Harming a newly created person has three sources.
1. Self-harm.
2. Harm caused by another human/lifeform.
3. Happenstance.
'Deserve,' is a judgment call, a human judgment call that probably has no relevance outside of humans and lifeforms like them. I will repeat again that which is obviously inconvenient to you.
Your concern is trivial in comparison with the significance of the purpose of consciousness, which I think is to ask questions.

Thus, an argument for antinatalism is not an argument for stopping others procreating. — Bartricks

Ok, I am personally fine with that. Remain background white noise if you wish.
Anytime you try to be more than this, you will simply be returned to white noise status as you have been in this thread imo.

Do you think a newly created person deserves to come to harm? — Bartricks

Just to give a more direct answer to your laboriously hyped question. NO, I don't think innocent people deserve harm but the solution is not something as dumb as don't procreate. The answer is to get better at protecting the innocent despite white noise protestations from misanthropic antinatalists that we cant achieve 100% protection against all potential harms of the innocent. We will continue to try just like we will continue to try to explain the big how and why questions regarding the universe. I am sure you will continue to make your antinatalist white noise. Furthermore, your concern for the 'innocent,' is only relevant for as long as they fully deserve the label innocent. As soon as a child deliberately manipulates their position to gain an advantage over a sibling, for example, as demonstrated in the young of most species, do they still fully deserve your 'innocent' label?