I wasn't sure. I agree with you but I'm arguing that there isn't any morsl concern warranted by inexistent persons. — 180 Proof

The potential for an awesome life has been extinguished, nipped in the bud?

Antinatalism is, at the end of the day, about the potential/possibility for/of a disastrous life.

The unexamined life is not worth living. — Socrates

It's quite clear that we lack the info necessary to come to a definitive conclusion in re natalism/antinatalism - it requires us to accurately foretell the future and that simply can't be done as chance plays a huge role in people's lives.

We know enough. The so-called 'moral justification' for antinatalism fails because it's implicit premise of 'moral concern for inexistent persons' is incoherent. <— +

:ok:

However, look at the potential for pain/unpleasantness/sorrow. If my 14 year old daughter wished to go out alone in a cougar/grizzly-infested woods, I'd object with every fiber of my being. You would too, oui monsieur?

Antinatalism argues along those lines - there's the potential for (great) harm if someone is brought into existence and it would be immoral to then, still, bring that someone into existence. The person is born just to suffer! Such a person would prefer never to have been born! Hence, antinatalism.

Too, it's not that we don't reason this way - the expressions "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", "nip something in the bud", etc. offer ample proof.

Your "14 year old daughter" is an existent person who warrants (your) moral concern. Inexistent persons (e.g. Samwise Gamgee, the not-yet-conceived / unborn) do not warrant moral concern. Your example is a category error, Smith.

Your "14 year old daughter" is an existent person who warrants (your) moral concern. Inexistent persons (e.g. Samwise Gamgee, the not-yet-conceived / unborn) do not warrant moral concern. Your example is a category error, Smith. — 180 Proof

:ok:

I am grateful to you for your excessively kind words. However, as I have said before, I have a lot to learn. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that universal antinatalism is not a tenable position. — DA671

We all have a lot to learn but some are not willing to learn because they are ossified in their viewpoint, even if that viewpoint is unpalatable to any human capable of rational thought. YOU ARE 100% CORRECT, universal antinatalism is not a tenable position it is one of the most ridiculous, nasty, harmful suggestions I have ever heard posited by a thinking human.

You can at least teach your adherent over there a lesson in how to debate without flying off the (fuckn) handle. — schopenhauer1

It's not my fault you are rather sensitive. Never get into a debate face to face, with a group of average men in a pub about antinatalism. They would probably have you in tears in no time. REAL LIFE is not about walking around on your tippytoes scared to crack an eggshell! I find your antinatalist reasoning ridiculous and I find you are ossified on the subject and you won't listen to the correct points made by your dissenters here on this thread. @DA671 made an almost heroic attempt to maintain his tolerance of your arrogance when debating antinatalism with you on other threads but all you offered back was disrespect but when I give you a taste of your own medicine you start to moan about it! :lol:

No matter how small it seems, I think that there is always a will. Unfortunately, it can sometimes be impossible at a practical level to discover the right path even when we know the destination exists. But, be that as it may, this diversity is perhaps also something that acts as a source of beauty in the world.

Nastiness, sadly, exists in a lot of places. I've also seen people dismissing the suffering of others and calling them irrationally depressed simply for sharing their views. Without understanding and cooperation, betterment will remain elusive. Thank you for your reply!

It's quite clear that we lack the info necessary to come to a definitive conclusion in re natalism/antinatalism — Agent Smith

I disagree because in the final analysis, for me, the single case of the person who honestly states on their deathbed that they have had a wonderful life and they would be happy to 'do it all again.' Outweighs the person or perhaps even persons who honestly state on their deathbed that they have had a terrible life and they are glad it's over. I am not sure if my opinion would become a numbers game with a cut-off point if reliable evidence was presented that the ratio of happy lives against horrible lives was 1:1000000 or such like then the ground beneath my position might well quake severely. I honestly think that would just drive home to me more that I must do more to alleviate suffering! I still would not advocate for such a ridiculous, vile (Sorry @DA671) solution as antinatalism.
I think folks like DA671 and many other posters here would be very stoic supporters and contributors in trying to alleviate the suffering of others. Antinatalists would end the 13.8 billion years of happenstance it took to create life and would claim that this is a morally sound position to have. I cannot overstate how ridiculous I think that logic is! Yet schopenhauer1 still wants me to be gentle with him. DA671 has tried that and continue's to and I DO admire that but I see little or no return for his efforts.

To be fair, from Schopenhauer1's point of view, he has had to put up with my optimistic irrationality for far too long as well! I would say that he handled himself pretty well, all things considered.

(Sorry @DA671)

No worries, sir. The journey shall go on.

We may vary in our approach to dealing with an emotive topic such as antinatalism but I think we are at least both humanists who will do everything they can do to help alleviate suffering. I remain hopeful that when faced with a situation of humans suffering, when your personal involvement could help, then most people would help, including @schopenhauer1 and @Bartricks

Agreed!

I disagree because in the final analysis, for me, the single case of the person who honestly states on their deathbed that they have had a wonderful life and they would be happy to 'do it all again.' Outweighs the person or perhaps even persons who honestly state on their deathbed that they have had a terrible life and they are glad it's over. I am not sure if my opinion would become a numbers game with a cut-off point if reliable evidence was presented that the ratio of happy lives against horrible lives was 1:1000000 or such like then the ground beneath my position might well quake severely. — universeness

This doesn't feel right to me.

What about if a city's constant state of serenity and splendor requires that a single unfortunate child be kept in perpetual filth, darkness, and misery.

Even further to finding this acceptable, your position suggests that even if there were more suffering children than inhabitants of the city, you could find that acceptable too?

I should have made my position clearer.
The city scenario you gave and the ratio you gave of sufferers to inhabitants would be two situations I would be compelled to fight against and alleviate. The point I was making is that neither situation you described are reasons to invoke antinatalism and end all future life in both scenarios.
It's dimwitted to end all suffering by refusing existence to all life.

Like I said, let's not think/speak for someone who could well be smarter than us. People ain't dumb, at least not as dumb as presupposed by our exchange. I only offer a point of view for couples out there. Life isn't a bed of roses. The opposite perspective is for the natalist to provide.

I was not typing about individual judgments about how smart someone is. You keep typing about responsible procreation and sensible population control and that life can be tough. I have agreed with all such observations and warnings but you dilute the true intentions of antinatalism. It is not about population control or making smart wise decisions about when you should reproduce. The claim is that it is immoral to EVER reproduce, regardless of your circumstances. The antinatalist cure for all suffering is the nonexistence of any life. Don't minimise that ridiculous viewpoint by trying to dilute its malevolence.

I disagree because in the final analysis, for me, the single case of the person who honestly states on their deathbed that they have had a wonderful life and they would be happy to 'do it all again.' Outweighs the person or perhaps even persons who honestly state on their deathbed that they have had a terrible life and they are glad it's over. — universeness

How does this argument not then turn into a moral imperative to create as many new persons as possible?


Honestly, I think the way this thread is going is the wrong way to approach antinatalism.

The issue raised is unmistakenly a moral one, and moral problems must be dealt with on the level of moral agents, ergo individual choices. Any attempts at generalizing or externalizing moral issues fall flat.

In the case of two persons deciding they wish to have a child, it is between them and their future child.

The simple question is, where do they get the right to make such a monumental and potentially disastrous decision on behalf of someone else?

Intuition speaks clearly here - should I push someone out of an airplane when I know there's a ten percent chance their parachute doesn't open, a ninety percentage chance that it does open and a fifty percent chance that they enjoy the experience?

The answer is clearly no. You should not push someone out of an airplane. Why not? Because such is not your risk to take. What makes child-having different?

Let's use antinatalism, it's existence, as some kind indicator/sign/marker that all is not right with the world. Just like how a sad face at a party should warn the host & other revellers that something's not quite right.

How does this argument not then turn into a moral imperative to create as many new persons as possible? — Tzeentch

Because we can be smarter than that. We can have sensible population control methods and develop better, fairer socio/political systems and better technologies to create the basic resources needed to offer every human a fully provisioned life from cradle to grave as an unassailable right. The suffering that antinatalists complain about would be reduced. Technical advances in transhumanism also offers a path to enhancing the robustness of humans and the longevity of their lifespans, offering more choice.

What makes child-having different? — Tzeentch

The difference is that following the antinatalist suggestion means extinction for our species.
Human suffering is an issue that humans have to deal with just like having to deal with not knowing why we are here and what our ultimate purpose is. We also have to deal with the knowledge that we will die but we are NOT ALONE, We can comfort, love, encourage, share, laugh, learn, change, grow, experience, ask questions, cry, complain, ask for help, give help etc etc.
What a wonderful life! If antinatalism made any sense then the 'smart' ancients would never have left their caves. Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis or the Neandertals would most likely have become the dominant species on this planet rather than the homo sapiens. Perhaps they would also have debated the folly of antinatalism as well, I personally think the majority of them would reject the dimwitted proposal as well.

I prefer to use it as a measure of how misanthropic some humans can become.
Let's lay some responsibility for pessimism onto the pessimist. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE that this does not mean we can ignore the person at the party with the sad face. I have encountered such many many times and I will be one of those who try to cheer them up but sometimes your offers of help are soundly rejected. It's all very complicated. We can only keep trying to make things better for everyone.
@DA671 said it simply as,

No worries, sir. The journey shall go on. — DA671

and it will be ever thus until we do go extinct or the universe ends, whichever comes first.
After that, the Penrose bounce and CCC may prove true and then 'here we (or something like us) go again! Yeehaa!'

I had the CCC in mind when I said that! Irrespective of when things will end, there is a lot of good in the world that is, in my opinion, worth conserving.

:clap: I think it's a lot more than a lot. I often complain with the words '10,000 years of tears,' and these are valid words when it comes to what we could have achieved by now if we had united and killed the first nefarious b****** that declared himself King. BUT we have learned much about the nefarious since then no matter what robes of authority they wear or even if they appear to be your best friend!
We are still here and we are millions and we will get it right in the end.
We have been slaughtered for centuries but we are still here because those who reproduce allow good principles to endure. Antinatalism would utterly waste all the good progress that has been made alongside those 10000 years of tears!

Too much of anything, even good things, can lead to terrible consequences.

It's certainly a monumental decision. Whilst I agree that it can be a disastrous one, it can also be one that results in joys that many would consider to be miraculously powerful and beautiful. If suffering matters, then so do the positives.

I don't believe that there are souls floating around in the void who have an interest in not existing that we are ignoring by creating them and deciding on "their" behalf. However, if it's bad to create harms that one didn't ask for, it's also good to bestow positives that one couldn't have asked for prior to their existence.

That analogy doesn't exactly work with procreation. Most people would probably have a strong interest in not being pushed against their will which we would be disregarding by pushing them. Taking unnecessary risks isn't good for existing beings, since they are probably already satisfied to an adequate degree. Therefore, harms are only required if they can bring about a greater good. But because non-existent beings aren't in some state of affairs they prefer, avoiding risks isn't more important than creating opportunities for positives. Saving someone is good even if there's a small chance they would dislike it. If this analogy doesn't work, then I believe that neither does the one about needlessly pushing someone.

Many things could make it different. I would imagine that most sentient beings can live decent lives without having an unbearable desire to push someone. However, creating new life can contribute to the manifestation of inestimable happiness in the lives of countless individuals. Since there doesn't seem to be a good alternative to this that everybody likes, the absence of this good could cause significant misery. Furthermore, I don't see any ethical problem with creating positives on the basis of reasonable probabilities. If this isn't our risk to take, then neither is it our opportunity to prevent.

Having said that, I do believe that procreation cannot be taken lightly. The world clearly has a lot of issues that we need to focus on fixing before mindlessly procreating. I am reasonably optimistic that we will overcome our problems (provided we don't let unmitigated competition, pessimism, and greed blind us). I hope that you have a wonderful day ahead!

"We are still here and we are millions and we will get it right in the end."

:up: :pray:

How does this argument not then turn into a moral imperative to create as many new persons as possible? — Tzeentch

Because we can be smarter than that. — universeness

Mental gymnastics?

If you're not interested in the moral argument then that is fine, but obviously any moral argument put forward should be sound.

If one believes as long as the ratio of happy to unhappy lives isn't getting close to 1:1000,000, then I guess you have a lot of work to do. Or did I miss the part where a million people's suffering is worth a single person's happiness, but your own convenience is not?

The difference is that following the antinatalist suggestion means extinction for our species. — universeness

And if people were to do that by their own voluntary will, why would that be a problem? Should they be morally compelled to prolong the species*, and if so, on what basis?

Not that there's any real danger of the entirety of mankind suddenly seeing the light. If there's anything humanity has never had a shortage of it's unthinking procreators.

Human suffering is an issue that humans have to deal with, ... — universeness

We don't 'have' to continue that cycle, so we don't 'have' to suffer, unless one believes the human endeavor is one that needs to be prolonged at any cost. But suffering isn't at the base of my argument.

We also have to deal with the knowledge that we will die but we are NOT ALONE, We can comfort, love, encourage, share, laugh, learn, change, grow, experience, ask questions, cry, complain, ask for help, give help etc etc.
What a wonderful life! — universeness

I'm glad you feel that way. There's also a lot of misery though. There are many individuals who don't feel comforted, loved, encouraged, etc. They are alone, and sadly, they are many. Withering away, some even broken by the very parents that made the choice to have them in the first place.

On what basis do you believe these people are living "a wonderful life" - and do you believe they would agree with you? Did their parents have a right to saddle them with this fate?


My central question remains unanswered:

The simple question is, where do they get the right to make such a monumental and potentially disastrous decision on behalf of someone else? — Tzeentch

* Something which is an effort in vain to begin with. Just like death is inevitable, so is the eventual extinction of the human species. If you're of the opinion that all moral boundaries should be thrown overboard in order to prolong it I would disagree wholeheartedly.

I suppose that the difference lies in living in a world wherein there is both happiness and suffering, and a world in which the positives exist mainly due to the negatives. Fortunately, I don't think that we live in the latter world. Many people gain happiness by helping others, and it isn't unreasonable to suggest that extreme harms have reduced.

Something isn't vain just because it eventually ends. Life can have immense value for those who exist while it lasts.

Extreme thought experiments can be found everywhere. Negative utilitarians who focus on suffering have to show why it wouldn't be better to take the happiness of many in order to alleviate the greater suffering of a few. I think that a balanced perspective is better. As I said before, trying to do too much good can be impractical and counterproductive.

As far as preserving happiness is concerned, I don't think that it would be ethical to allow innumerable people to suffer just for the sake of the happiness of a single person. However, due to the fact that most people do seem to cherish their lives (and optimism isn't inherently bad as long as it doesn't affect our overall analysis), I believe that it wouldn't be good to cease/prevent all the positives. My pain doesnt negate the value of the positives experienced by your or someone else (even though it might sometimes be difficult for me to accept this idea at an emotional level).

I and many other individuals believe that life is worth continuing. The pursuit of knowledge, love, and beauty are all sources of imperishable hope and joy. However, I don't think that anybody should be forced to procreate. If suffering provides us a basis to end everything, then happiness (which often persists despite of harms) gives us a strong reason to not so.

I agree that unthinking procreation is a big problem. Although, unthinking pessimism could also be an issue (not saying that this is an issue for you).

I agree that there is terrible suffering in the world —suffering we cannot afford to ignore. Yet, there are also those who discover great satisfaction in their lives despite suffering a lot. There are monks who calmly sit whilst being on fire, kids in slums who are happy simply by virtue of being with their families, and people gaining happiness from helping others. Not bestowing this good doesn't seem ethically defensible.

:ok:

If you ignore :point: :sad: then, all you have are guilty pleasures - the proverbial fly in the ointment, oui monsieur? The flags in the US & India of all places are flying at half-mast to mourn Shinzo Abe's death.