It is wrong, then, to create an innocent person when one knows full well that one cannot give this person what they deserve: a happy, harm free life. To procreate is to create a huge injustice. It is to create a debt that you know you can't pay. — Bartricks

Do children protest against the injustice, if it is an injustice, of having been born? It seems so. It occurs to some children to remind their parents that they 'did not ask to be born'. This is usually a complaint. But it is not typically brought out in response to suffering. Children who suffer, like adults, might regret living or even wish to die, but it is not in response to suffering that they typically blame their parents for visiting birth upon them. The complaint 'I didn't ask to be born' is usually advanced in response to criticism for moral failings or a demand to shoulder responsibility. For example: "You are making our lives very difficult with your bad temper and sloppiness around the house." "Well, I didn't ask to be born."

Should we dismiss the complaint as the immature nonsense of the adolescent? Possibly. But the complaint has something in it - otherwise it would not be so commonly used. It seems to be a complaint about lack of consent. "You don't like the way I am? Well, you made me. It wasn't my idea." And to that extent it's a well grounded complaint. We do not consent to our own birth or to almost anything else that happens to us for the first months and years of life. We do not have the capacity to consent. But lack of capacity to consent or to withold consent is generally no excuse for acting without a person's consent. The complaining child is casting the parent somewhat in the role of a kidnapper who has no grounds for objecting to their victim's annoying habits. The victim has reduced responsibility to take account of the kidnapper's interests and feelings simply because they did not choose to be kidnapped. When a parent asks a child to take responsibility for making the family home unhappy then the response amounts to saying "But I have no responsibility. You visited this whole situation on me and now you have to deal with it."

So far so good for the argument.

So lack of capacity to consent or to withold consent is generally no excuse for acting without a person's consent. Bad news for drug rapists. In the case of consent to birth, however, the lack of capacity stems from the non-existence of a person. A person cannot have asked to be conceived because there was no person to ask or to be asked. So the kidnapping or drug-rape analogy cannot apply. The conception of a child is not a case of parents' choosing a pre-existent soul to embody into their offspring. Just as no child has lost out from never having been conceived, so no child was done an injustice by being conceived, because no child existed to experience either the loss of opportunity or the injustice.

How does that stand up as a reply?

In my opinion, it stands up but on rather shaky legs. But this post is long enough.

Our reproductive strategy gives us a clue about what we were up against - we were prey, on our toes 24×7. Imagine what that would've meant for young children, having to constantly scan the surroundings for predators looking for an easy meal which we were. Our biology betrays the truth about ancient human life - like Locke said, "short, brutish, and nasty".

Things have improved, thanks to our brains! Had prehistoric humans had the time to think things through, mass suicide would've meant the end of humanity. Muchas gracias tigers, leopards, lions, wild dogs, and the occasional coyote for keeping us from pondering upon the nastiness of life by constantly harrassing us - we owe our very existence to you! :snicker:

Those early experiences are still part of who we are and still directly influence our primal fears.
The struggle will continue, the antinatalists are utterly impotent. The need to find out how and why we and the universe exists, remains compelling and it remains the main purpose of our species.
We are currently mortal and transhumanism is in its infancy so we still require children to replace those who die. I think we always will produce new children as the universe is such a big place, so even in the very distant future of transhumans, I think will still need newborns.

Transhumanism, refreshingly upbeat! I like it - it acknowledges the problem of suffering (nod to antinatalism) but then goes on to say that we can, get this, abolish suffering (nod to natalism).

Most interesting, oui? — Ms. Marple & Hercule Poirot

Yes, I think we will gain much better control over all examples that we currently call human suffering and we will have much more choice about how (and for how long)we individually choose to live and die.
This is 2022 thats a lot closer to a planck time duration when compared to almost 14 billion years since the big bang. Again to all antinatalist misanthropes I would shout 'give us a f****** chance you cowards!'

:snicker:

We have to play our cards right and we'll get through this antinatalist phase in one piece. That said, life, there's lotta room for improvement and we have, over the past few centuries, managed to better our lot even if at the expense of other life. Guilty pleasures, that's all that's on offer at the moment. If not eliminate, like you said (morphine), minimize suffering (@180 Proof ).

@I like sushi

In the meantime I can hopefully help a little by pointing out several issues raised about the OP.

1) “This is, I believe, a new argument for antinatalism.

To procreate is to create an innocent person. They haven't done anything yet. So they're innocent.”

- Having done nothing neither makes someone ‘innocent’ nor ‘guilty’. It is irrelevant.

I see this the same as saying, "Don't harm people unnecessarily". Unnecessarily implies that there was no good reason to harm that person. Then you can ask what might count as that no good reason. If a person didn't need to ameliorate a greater harm with a lesser harm, and it affects that person, and you cause harm, that harm would be unnecessary for that person being affected. Harming a person for a reason outside the person being affected (especially if there can be no input had by that person being affected) is simply using them.

2) “An innocent person deserves to come to no harm. Thus any harm - any harm whatever - that this person comes to, is undeserved.”

- You have failed to explain this. If your position is that an innocent person deserves no harm but that is what innocent means then you have no argument. You are just stating something and expecting people to follow.

Either way, it is faulty to paint things so black and white. In a scenario where two ‘innocent’ people’s interests conflict harm is inevitable so your definition does not hold up at all. Such inevitable harm comes about through ignorance/misunderstanding. You can still argue on some level that ‘neither deserve harm’ even though two innocent people have just caused harm to each other, but only if you accept that the judgement of what someone ‘deserves’ is a judgement made with an effort to ignore any blame due to ignorance.

But this isn't the case of birth so a red herring. At least you haven't made that connection.

3) “Furthermore, an innocent person positively deserves a happy life.”

- Unsubstantiated claim.

I see this as just reiterating my restatement, "No one needs to be harmed unnecessarily".

4) “So, an innocent person deserves a happy, harm free life.”

- To repeat. Unsubstantiated claim.

Same as above for my answer.

5) “This world clearly does not offer such a life to anyone. We all know this.”

- We know this because life without any degree of ‘harm’ whatsoever is not ‘life’. Life requires learning and learning is always, at some stage, a hardship.

Just because life requires X suffering, doesn't justify imposing that suffering on others unnecessarily. The theme of this whole thing!

6) “It is wrong, then, to create an innocent person when one knows full well that one cannot give this person what they deserve: a happy, harm free life. To procreate is to create a huge injustice. It is to create a debt that you know you can't pay.”

- None of this follow as you are riding on too many unsubstantiated claims and poorly sketched out terms.[/quote[
I think it can be retranslated as "Why would it be okay to feel that YOU can impose a significant amount of harm (that didn't have to be imposed) on ANOTHER because YOU deem it okay to do that?". You can make up all the excuses in the world, but all of them would be violating the principle of not creating unnecessary harm and using people. You can then turn around and say that it is good to cause unnecessary harm, but that would be immoral in almost any other circumstance (to KNOWINGLY cause guaranteed unnecessary and profoundly significant harm).

7) “Even if you can guarantee any innocent you create an overall happy life - and note that you can't guarantee this - it would still be wrong to create such a person, for the person deserves much more than that. They don't just deserve an overall happy life. They deserve an entirely harm-free happy life.”

- I might want to be able to fly like a bird or win the lottery. A ‘harm free’ life would not be a ‘life’ at all. This seems to be a rather naive view. It is a bit like expecting a child raised where their every action is praised blindly and expecting a well rounded individual to emerge from such a methodology of raising children. Many parents have attempted to ‘protect’ their children too much and with pretty horrific outcomes. The very same idea of ‘no harm whatsoever’ (regardless of deserving said harms) inflicted upon someone would result in early death due to said person being incapable of looking after themselves. I do not view a ‘happy life’ as a life under the perpetual guardianship of a tyrant whose sole purpose is to shield said ‘innocent’ from every single possible harm.

But again, you are presuming/assuming for someone else that they have to be harmed because YOU deem it good that they are harmed.. Because, as you admit, life entails harm- and we are not talking JUST trivial harms either.. but very significant and foreseeable harms.. And not only significant foreseeable harms, but ones that couldn't even be predicted if one thought about it.. And these are harms of all sorts of situations, some related to not wanting to do X that life entails of you (existential harms), and others to the usual physical/emotional harms we see people go through over and over. Then there are others we could not foresee that we would never want people to go through, and would have not wanted it had we known it would have happened to that person.

Indeed, if one can't get consent, one cannot presume that it should be fine to:
a) cause significant amounts of harm unnecessarily on someone else's behalf
b) impose on them the parameters of this existence (needing to deal with survival, comfort, etc.) which was not asked for, but cannot be escaped easily

And yet, here we are with a paternalistically aggressive mindset whereby parents presume that they should be able to create these situations for someone else.

Apply the violations entailed in procreation to almost any other situation regarding an autonomous adult, and it would violate other moral intuitions that we have about consent, harm, impositions, and using people. It is indeed, causing UNNECESSARY harm, UNNECESSARY impositions, and therefore using people for X ends OUTSIDE that person being considered/affected.

@Bartricks, to be fair to Sushi, he did answer your OP line by line.

There is also a slingshot argument. Let's grant all the OP. Let's also assume that we ought not to commit injustice. Let's further assume that 'ought' entails 'can'. The nobody should, in the name of justice, conceive children. Consequence: no injustice and no human race. No human race, no need for concern about justice or anything else.

No human race, no need for concern about justice or anything else. — Cuthbert

If one is alone on an island then ethics in regards to other people doesn't matter, yet ethics is still valid. Once another person lands on the island, ethics is now back in play. The absence of people using it, doesn't negate its validity.

We are currently mortal and transhumanism is in its infancy so we still require children to replace those who die. I think we always will produce new children as the universe is such a big place, so even in the very distant future of transhumans, I think will still need newborns. — universeness

So you are literally stating the cause for which you are using people (by harming them unnecessarily).

Just as no child has lost out from never having been conceived, so no child was done an injustice by being conceived, because no child existed to experience either the loss of opportunity or the injustice. — Cuthbert

You are talking as if the possibility of a child is a fiction. The possibility that a real child will be born is "on the table" so to speak. You are simply not allowing that option to play out for someone else. So an injustice was not done (because the possibility exists that it can).

I can, and will, do better than you have :)

Currently busy arranging trip so it is not exactly the most important thing atm but WILL present an argument for antinatalism and go over several misconceptions on both sides that I have seen others repeat.

Either way:

- You validated what I said about the loose use of terms and I do not assume what is or is not meant by ‘harm’ (meaning if he meant ‘unnecessary harm’ then he should have said that AND been particular about what ‘unnecessary harm’ means).
- No red herring. He argued, quite clearly, that ‘innocent’ people do not deserve ‘harm’. If unborn/non-existent people are somehow different in terms of ‘innocence’ then that is something the OP needs to outline and differentiate between not me.
- I would say that life necessitates suffering and that suffering is necessary for any life-form in some capacity. That is what I would call ‘necessary suffering’ rather than throwing a blanket over all suffering as ‘unnecessary’. You yourself pointed out that there is ‘necessary’ and ‘unnecessary’ harm. If you are not entirely opposed to the idea of ‘necessary harm’ - which would be peculiar as if we call something ‘necessary’ then it seems fairly validated - then must surely admit that some ‘harm/suffering’ is actually beneficial.

In conclusion it seems that the ‘harms’ you berate are the ‘harms’ I see as strengthening peoples and individuals so they can live good lives.

The whole consent issue was not mentioned in the OP sadly. That is another area where there are huge misconceptions cast by both sides and all it takes is to listen and agree or disagree. No one consents to being born and no one (or rarely) consents to dying. I did not consent to gravity either … and it is right there in the hyperbole where the nuances of the argument begin to be lost. Gravity is not exactly a phenomenon of nature like birth is, but picking apart what is similar and different in these two phenomenons might help.

My view is basically formed around the use of hypotheticals and general dislike for ‘ethics’ (meaning something announced to the community as ‘good’ or ‘bad’). My dislike is due to the constant self manipulation we torture ourselves with due to peer pressures and general societal ‘norms’.

My argument for antinatalism (whenI complete it) is more or less going to be about how the argument can benefit us collectively and as individuals.

It would be interesting to see how you could write an argument against antinatalism. Will you attempt that?

I can, and will ? — I like sushi

Who's the judge :wink:

- You validated what I said about the loose use of terms and I do not assume what is or is not meant by ‘harm’ (meaning if he meant ‘unnecessary harm’ then he should have said that AND been particular about what ‘unnecessary harm’ means). — I like sushi

I can't speak for Bartricks. Personally, I would not have used language like "innocence" but it seemed to me that it can be reformulated using other terms that don't have such a Christian or legal-retributive connotation to it.

No red herring. He argued, quite clearly, that ‘innocent’ people do not deserve ‘harm’. If unborn/non-existent people are somehow different in terms of ‘innocence’ then that is something the OP needs to outline and differentiate between not me. — I like sushi

What I mean is that in this case of procreation I don't see that scenario you described of two people's conflicts harming each other applying. I'm still thinking if that itself can be considered "innocent" though, because now motives come into play. Why aren't these people able to compromise? Isn't that itself impugning some sort of characteristic flaw that can be considered "not so innocent"? Either way, that one seems on shaky grounds on its own, and not relevant in this particular case of "innocent persons".

- I would say that life necessitates suffering and that suffering is necessary for any life-form in some capacity. That is what I would call ‘necessary suffering’ rather than throwing a blanket over all suffering as ‘unnecessary’. You yourself pointed out that there is ‘necessary’ and ‘unnecessary’ harm. If you are not entirely opposed to the idea of ‘necessary harm’ - which would be peculiar as if we call something ‘necessary’ then it seems fairly validated - then must surely admit that some ‘harm/suffering’ is actually beneficial. — I like sushi

Surely, I would not CREATE harm for someone so they can do something about it.. whatever reasons I have to want to see it according to my preferences.. My preferences take a back seat here. But I do recognize harms that need to take place in order to help someone out or to prevent further suffering for a person. These cases are always of course when someone actually exists, as they are already in the situation and one must weigh greater or lesser harms now, unless you simply don't care and want that person to die or be harmed or are indifferent to them being harmed which in itself can be construed as callous and unethical.

In conclusion it seems that the ‘harms’ you berate are the ‘harms’ I see as strengthening peoples and individuals so they can live good lives. — I like sushi

Yes, indeed this is the main disagreement for most of these arguments. Somehow people have what I characterize as "aggressively paternalistic" beliefs that they should be able to create the conditions for harm to others because they have a preference to see this come about.. Whether good things come about from those impositions doesn't seem to matter, ethically speaking. It is simply a preference with obviously significant collateral damage that people simply waive off as fine to do, when otherwise, they wouldn't do that to someone, even if they thought it was best for them (if it was an autonomous adult).

I did not consent to gravity either … and it is right there in the hyperbole where the nuances of the argument begin to be lost. Gravity is not exactly a phenomenon of nature like birth is, but picking apart what is similar and different in these two phenomenons might help. — I like sushi

Um yes, huge differences in gravity and procreation.. While I do indeed think there are misconceptions, I think we disagree on where. For example, the main difference is that procreation occurs due to a decision made.. one made from one person on behalf of another, and without consent. Even if you were to give a wildly ridiculous answer like, "Well, we can choose to live in space where there's no gravity", it still is a decision one can make and consent to where birth would never have that luxury. Of course, being that living in space is not really viable for most people, and would probably lead to death, it becomes like many other things about life (and actually part of what makes it a negative) a de facto, non-starter for this current state of affairs.

My view is basically formed around the use of hypotheticals and general dislike for ‘ethics’ (meaning something announced to the community as ‘good’ or ‘bad’). My dislike is due to the constant self manipulation we torture ourselves with due to peer pressures and general societal ‘norms’. — I like sushi

I can sympathize with this. We can use other terms for what is going on in this argument for antinatalism. I guess ethics is a placeholder idea for not allowing mere preferences to rule what is best to do. So, if you are a vegetarian but you like meat, you might really prefer it and say "fuck it" and eat meat even if it doesn't align with what you normally think is a valid principle. People do it all the time..

My argument for antinatalism (whenI complete it) is more or less going to be about how the argument can benefit us collectively and as individuals. — I like sushi

This to me, might not be a valid argument (even if for antinatalist principles) from the start. I think ethics really obtains at the level of a person affected. That is to say, causes outside an actual person that are generalities (including "humanity" or "the universe") would be invalid ethical recipients. This to me means some kind of quasi-Kantian idea that people have a dignity which can be violated. That is why I am so against aggressive paternalism in regards to what OTHERS consider "benign harm" on BEHALF of someone else. No one gets to set the standard for someone else that THIS is acceptable, even though its a known harm.

I cannot find the post from sushi that you are quoting from. It does not turn up in my mentions.

For an injustice to exist there needs to be someone who is not getting what they deserve. If you procreate then there is someone whom your act creates an injustice for: the innocent person who deserves something they are not going to get. But if you do not procreate then there is not anyone who is suffering an injustice.

Once another person lands on the island, ethics is now back in play. The absence of people using it, doesn't negate its validity. — schopenhauer1

In this presumed just world, nobody would ever be landing. Justice would be done - no undeserved harm would be inflicted by birth - no-one would be born. There would not even be anybody to pride themselves on having acted with justice. So, yes, it would be just. But completely empty. Mathematics would also be valid but there would be no-one to do it.

So you are literally stating the cause for which you are using people (by harming them unnecessarily). — schopenhauer1

No as in the transhuman future I envisage there will be a lot more options to control what YOU currently consider 'harms.' Even today, you have a skewed view of human suffering and its function. Your viewpoint is shallow and based on your own fears.

Guilty pleasures, that's all that's on offer at the moment. If not eliminate, like you said (morphine), minimize suffering — Agent Smith

I understand why anyone with little in their lives on a day-to-day basis, except suffering, turning to whatever escapism they are able to take part in. I wish I had more power to help all such people.
Other humans becoming organised and insisting on change for the better is the main hope such people have had. This remains the case at present and it has been ever thus.
They will certainly get no help from antinatalists as they tend to merely watch and complain that life is just too scary for them.
Major change for the better is very slow but it has happened many times, life is better for most humans than it has been in the past.
There are so many stories of humans who have experienced extreme suffering and they have been shown intense love and care because of it and that exchange has produced deep meaningful relationships between many carers and those who are cared for. The antinatalists would have you believe that all who suffer, do so alone, in the dark with no help or care from anyone. They also peddle the BS that all of those who suffer would prefer not to have been born. Just false impressions that feeds their messed-up personalities.

In nature, sexual reproduction just happens to be the method that became established for humans. We might have been asexual reproducers like the Komodo Dragon, Burmese Python, Bonnethead sharks etc. If humans reproduced asexually, they would still suffer as they do today, they would just have less choice about procreation. I don't normally suggest hypotheticals but it's an interesting posit imo.
If humans reproduced asexually, where would that leave antinatalists?
If we met a sentient asexual alien species who suffered in the same way as humans do. What would your antinatalist advice be for them?
I suspect your response will be unimaginative like 'I don't answer hypotheticals' or 'that's a matter for them, if such creatures exist.'

You also have not answered the following:
For many humans, not reproducing would cause great mental and physical harm as it is a natural compulsion developed over millions of years and it is a very very strong instinct. Why are you unconcerned about this set of harms your antinatalism would cause?

You may harm the universe, as life was evolved from within it and YOU have no idea why so how do you know that your antinatalist suggestion would not be very harmful indeed to the progress of a possible emergence of a collective universal consciousness. The totality of all individual consciousnesses.
Perhaps, preventing that, would cause more harm than all human suffering ever has or could. How do you know differently?

Where?

The whole consent issue was not mentioned in the OP sadly. — I like sushi

That's because the consent argument is quite different.

This the problem with most of you - you seem incapable of focusing. There's more than one argument for antinatalism. And I just made a new one. So it's not the same as the others. See? Look up 'new'.

It's a 'new' argument for antinatalism. So, obviously - obviously - I will not be mentioning already existing arguments that are well known, such as the consent argument.

So, again, the argument is that procreative acts bring into being a person who deserves much more than they are going to get and positively does not deserve a lot of what they are going to get.

A person is created innocent and thus is created deserving no harm whatsoever. Yet they will receive harm. That harm is unjust. Thus procreative acts create an injustice.

To dispute this claim you need to argue either that people are born deserving to come to harm, or you need to argue that despite creating this great injustice there is something else of overwhelming moral importance that justifies a person in creating it.

You type like a fundamentalist preacher. You ignore all the valid counterpoints made by others and just continue to preach from your antinatalist pulpit. Keep going! you will encourage more procreating than the music of Barry White ever did!

That's because the consent argument is quite different.

This the problem with most of you - you seem incapable of focusing. — Bartricks

If you are right and if any of us are parents then a lack of focus is the least of our faults. Desert and consent are not unrelated. If I choose to drink too much and get a bad hangover, then I get what I deserve. If someone spikes my drink and I get a bad hangover then I get something I don't deserve. Consent and choice make the difference between the deserved and undeserved in that instance. Not necessarily in all instances. "I didn't choose to be born" is the cry of the adolescent. "I didn't choose to be born - so I don't deserve this" they sometimes add. It's an argument made in temper by immature characters. But it's got something.

To dispute this claim you need to argue either that people are born deserving to come to harm, or you need to argue that despite creating this great injustice there is something else of overwhelming moral importance that justifies a person in creating it. — Bartricks

There is a third option. I could grant the conclusion of the argument and then show that it ramifies to nihilism (the 'slingshot' argument above). It's wrong for people to have children and they ought to do what's right; so no children, no human race; no human race, no ethical debate possible.

When we commit an injustice against somebody we may be required to give them some compensation if we cannot undo the harm. Perhaps the best compensation that parents can give, having inflicted life on an undeserving infant, is to give it the care and love that will as far as possible protect it from further unnecessary harm. Either that or an empty world.

music of Barry White — universeness

"Don't go changing, to try and please me......"

"Don't go changing, to try and please me......" — Cuthbert

I think that was just a cover of the Billy Joel song 'just the way you are.'
I was thinking more of Barry singing songs like:


Some of his songs were supposed to have caused a lot of procreation so big Barry was an antidote for any antinatalists BS.

But yeah, Batricks won't go changing unless it pleases him. he is too chiseled to know how to do otherwise.

I got it - but I've been listening to Billy Joel ever since you posted.....

A preacher doesn't make arguments. I make arguments. You just say stuff. It's tedious. Up your game.

That's not a third option. It's an attempt at option 2. You are implying that we have a moral obligation to prevent moral nihilism from obtaining.

You are implying that we have a moral obligation to prevent moral nihilism from obtaining — Bartricks

That would be an additional argument.

The slingshot shows that if we agree that it is wrong to procreate, then we cannot rule out destruction of the race as undesirable or as something that we might have a duty to prevent. A person might happily agree with the OP and also agree that ending the race is not only desirable but a positive duty.

Conversely, if a person finds it difficult to accept that the end of the race would be a good idea, then they may question the soundness of the OP.

That's the second option. The first option is to deny that we are created innocent. The second is to argue that despite the injustice that creating us causes, there is something even more morally significant at stake that justifies us in doing so.
You have not described a third option, but simply ventured a version of the second option.

And it fails. If we all stopped procreating that would not make nihilism true.