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. — DA671

Well, in that case a one-sided portrayal of all that is positive also will not suffice.

Not only is there a lot of suffering in the world, there are also a lot of immoral people, all of which were birthed and raised because their parents felt they had the right to do so.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and all the people that followed them, were all two people's gift to humanity. What right did those parents have? Because they were ignorant to the consequences of their actions? Ignorance cannot function as a justifcation, though perhaps it can lessen their blame.

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. — DA671

This is a flimsy shield.

One ought to take into account the consequences for one's actions, and if the consequence of one's action is the birth of another individual, one should take into account that individual's behalf before one acts.

We do this on moral grounds all the time, especially in regards to childbirth.


The central question wasn't answered:

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

Perhaps by what you've said, I should assume you would in fact not consider it immoral to push someone out of an airplane under the conditions I listed? It would certainly be a first that someone is willing to take that position!

Something isn't vain just because it eventually ends. — DA671

Something is in vain if it's goal (the 'survival of the human species') is fundamentally unachievable.

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. — DA671

Why should the fact that many people enjoy their lives give them a right to impose it on others?

I don't think that an act that doesn't go against the interests of an existing person can be an imposition. But if it can be an imposition, then it can also be seen as a genuine gift. A pessimistic imposition cannot devalue the positives.

A few big drops cannot annihilate billions of other ones, even if they are smaller (and here, we are going to simply ignore Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, Albert Einstein, etc.). If one knows that their action would cause more harm than good, then it would obviously be wrong to go ahead and act in that manner anyway. However, since we don't know for sure, one has to act on the basis of reasonable probabilities. A one-sided assessment that doesn't recognise the power of the positives doesn't seem right. Of course, toxic positivity is also problematic.

The armour can be broken silently. If the "consequences" do not improve/worsen a person's well-being, they cannot be better or worse for someone. Nevertheless, I am willing to accept that they can be bad. But if they can be bad, they can also be good.

The central question was answered but I think that you missed my reply. It's also possible that I wasn't clear enough, in which case I sincerely apologise. As I already said, one has to act on the basis of reasonable probabilities. From what we know, most existing people have an interest in not being pushed without their consent from a plane. There might be a small chance that this person would be terrible sad if they weren't pushed, but since this is highly unlikely, it would be better to not push the person. When it comes to non-existent people, however, one has to keep in mind that they don't have a prior desire to avoid existence that we would be failing to satisfy by creating them. What we do know is that, in spite of everything, the majority of people do seem to prefer existence.

It's only vain if the goal is: "survival of the species for eternity." I disagree with this need for absolute perfection. Just as we don't need suffering to be permanent for it to be better off being prevented, we don't need total happiness for it to possess immense value as long as it can exist. Unrealistic expectations cause unnecessary suffering.

I hope that you have a good day!

The greater the good, the worse it's loss feels (such as the shock that followed the tragedy in an otherwise peaceful Japan). Yet, even in this tragedy, there is a demonstration of the love people have for others. Of course, this doesn't make suffering good. It's just to remember the other side. One thing is for sure: people need to wake up and do something about the issues plaguing us. I have faith that we will.

I don't think that an act that doesn't go against the interests of an existing person can be an imposition. — DA671

Being born clearly is an imposition by the parents on the child.

If such a monumental imposition is morally permissible, then on what basis can be said that other impositions aren't permissable?

A few big drops cannot annihilate billions of other ones, even if they are smaller (and here, we are going to simply ignore Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, Albert Einstein, etc.). If one knows that their action would cause more harm than good, then it would obviously be wrong to go ahead and act in that manner anyway. However, since we don't know for sure, one has to act on the basis of reasonable probabilities. — DA671

I disagree, and here's why:

We cannot hide behind probability. It would mean nothing other than playing dice with other people's well-being. Probability simply hides ignorance. An attempt to appeal to probability is simply a concession that not only is one imposing, one is imposing in ignorance.

And that's exactly so! Because no parent has the ability to foresee the consequences their actions will have on the child or on other people.

You state that one has to act. I disagree. Not acting ignorantly on the behalf of others is much better.

Along the lines of, before one seeks to do good unto others, ensure one isn't doing harm, because no one is forcing you to get involved in the first place. A solid guide to moral behavior in virtually any other circumstance, and only contested here because we're predisposed to like the idea of having children.

Bona fortuna! :up:

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. — universeness

Is it really that bad for someone to say that they wish the city did not exist in the first place?

Some antinatalists are our socialist brothers. @Bartricks is in support of a Universal Basic Income.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity). — Novacula Occami

:snicker: An ol' gem of wisdom! Who listens though, eh?

It's manifestly not an imposition (at least not always) when it doesn't go against the non-existent interests of anybody to avoid existence. If it can be seen as one, it can also be seen as a gift. Inflicting unnecessary harms would always be wrong.

I disagree with that. One cannot simply prevent all positives due to the mere possibility of negatives (unless they can show that this would conserve/increase happiness somewhere else). If not "imposing" is good, then not bestowing happiness is quite problematic.

One cannot guarantee that there wouldn't be any positive in the future either. Blind pessimism cannot nullify the value of the positives.

Inaction that leads to the end of all happiness is not justifiable, in my view. If anything, it tragically falls prey to the same ignorance it is desperately trying to avoid.

Causing unnecessary harms to existing people who are already satisfied to an adequate degree and don't require constant risky intervention for happiness is indeed wrong. Fortunately, non-existent beings have no desire to avoid existence, which is why there is no good reason to focus on merely preventing harms.

Have a pleasant day!

You are not worth discussing anything. You make poor arguments and have nothing of substance. You are a belligerent asshole that just poisons the well. Just make your pint. No need for the ravings in a civil debate. This is a philosophy forum if you can’t handle foreign ideas, pick a different hobby. You’re on ignore. Go blather to others. My patience is about done dealing with you.

I don't see the relevance of the distinction. — 180 Proof

Why not? Why wouldn’t you be able to not create an occurrence in the future that you know could happen to someone. Do you not believe in future states?

One ought to take into account the consequences for one's actions, and if the consequence of one's action is the birth of another individual, one should take into account that individual's behalf before one acts. — Tzeentch

Excellent point and also kind of speaks to my point to @180 Proof.

Why should the fact that many people enjoy their lives give them a right to impose it on others? — Tzeentch

Another point that I’ve been trying to make myself over and over. I call this idea of presumptive imposition on others “aggressive paternalism” and it’s a sort of attitude that one can and should make presumptive decisions for others as to how much harm is acceptable not to mention that they can’t predict unforeseeable harms.

It's not an imposition. — DA671

An imposition means to force something on another.

By being born something (life) is being forced (the physical act of birth, to which a child cannot resist nor consent) on another (the child).

Which part of this do you not agree with?

If it can be seen as one, it can also be seen as a gift. — DA671

What we call it does not change the nature of the act.

A gift can be an imposition too, and before one gives someone a 'gift', isn't one morally obliged to ensure this gift does not hurt the recipient?

If one pushes someone out of a plane but their parachute doesn't open, could one justify themselves on the basis of what you've put forward? I think not. Giving gifts can be immoral too, regardless of its benevolent intention.

If not "imposing" is good, then not bestowing happiness is quite problematic. — DA671

Apart from those responsibilities that one has taken upon themselves by their voluntary action, I think inaction is always morally permissable. That is to say, if one's inaction prevents good from happening, then that is not immoral. As such, in the face of overwhelming uncertainty it may be better not to act.

A view within which 'not doing good' is immoral would require everyone to spend their every waking moment doing all the good they possibly can. What sinful creatures we would be, indeed.

Illusions can be strong. However, if there are consequences, they aren't just negative.

Agressive pessimism that prevents the bestowal of cherished experiences is hardly any better. It paternalistically declares that all the positives that do exist would have better off not existing if this meant that the negatives would also have been averted.

Why not? — schopenhauer1

It's not relevant.

Do you like believe in future states?

"Future states" of what?

A person who would suffer if you did X.

There isn't a being who is being forced to exist when they had a desire to not to do. But if creation can be an imposition, it can also be a gift that gives positives that one had no way to solicit before they existed.

If a gift is seen as an imposition, it isn't a real gift. One cannot say on the basis of their own subjective experience that preventing the negative aspects should matter more when it comes to another person rather than ensuring that they get the positive ones.

Creating positives is good (if creating suffering is bad). Pushing someone has almost no probability of being good for them.

Since I don't think that non-existence is better or worse than existence, I would agree that inaction wouldn't necessarily be bad. However, if it can be bad to create harms (and it's neutral to not do so), then one should prefer creating goods (instead of maintaining a neutral state of affairs). If it's good to prevent harms, then it is bad to prevent happiness.

As I've said ad nauseam, trying to do too much good isn't always possible and can even cause more suffering if it is forced. One has to take the greater good into account. Some good is better than nothing.

I think we're outside the matrix. :snicker:

An existing person? Then yes, that existing person can have future states.

An existing person? Then yes, that existing person can have future states. — 180 Proof

No that’s not how our language works. Unlike Frodo baggins who can never exist, a child can if certain actions are taken. That future possibility is being not actualized due to the suffering that would occur.

I think that the idea that nothingness cannot be preferable/undesirable for inexistent beings is simply too counterintuitive for many people. But if they believe that the action of creation can be bad, then consistency would demand that they acknowledge that creating happiness is good even if non-existent beings cannot ask for it before being born.

Beyond the matrix: the sequel we never got :p

Sounds pretty interesting, to be honest!

There isn't a being who is being forced to exist when they had a desire to not to do. — DA671

Clearly there is a being who is being forced. At the point of birth I don't think you can dispute that anymore.

And while we know little about a baby's desires since they're not yet capable of expressing them, they're clearly conscious and have little wills of their own. So again, there's an imposition based on a fundamental ignorance here that I don't think you can avoid.

But if creation can be an imposition, it can also be a gift that gives positives that one had no way to solicit before they existed. — DA671

Certainly. But how does one know beforehand? And if one conceeds that one doens't know beforehand, how does one justify going ahead with it anyway, knowing the dire consequences one's actions may have, however benevolent the intentions?

Beyond the matrix: the sequel we never got :p — DA671

:wink:

Nobody is being forced to exist against their will. I think that this is an indisputable fact. Anybody who believes to the contrary should not have issues with someone who says that clearly someone is being given a good they couldn't have asked for.

Since we don't have any reason to think that the baby had a desire to avoid existence, trying to prevent the bestowal of all good seems like a result of pessimistic projection that's driven by a limited understanding of the good.

One does know that most people do seem to cherish their lives despite the harms they face. If one doesn't know that the negatives won't necessarily outweigh the positives, then preventing all of them cannot be given approbation.

Nobody is being forced to exist against their will. — DA671

Someone is clearly being forced. Whether it's against their will is unknowable. So I don't know how you can say that is "indisputable". I'm disputing it, certainly.

Anybody who believes to the contrary should not have issues with someone who says that clearly someone is being given a good they couldn't have asked for. — DA671

It's not up to you decide what is "clearly" good for someone else, and then simply impose it on them.

To a non-trivial amount of people life is not a welcome gift. Ergo, their parachute didn't open. And they were pushed, without their consent, into an abyss of suffering. It's clearly immoral.

The question is, given the fact that we do not know the status of the parachute before the imposition, is it ever morally justifiable to make that imposition.

One does know that most people do seem to cherish their lives despite the harms they face. If one doesn't know that the negatives won't necessarily outweigh the positives, then preventing all of them cannot be given approbation. — DA671

That some people, luckily, enjoy the experience is not sufficient reason to justify the whole ordeal. That would be like accepting those people who come to suffer and not enjoy life as sacrifical lambs. I don't see how that can be morally justifiable.

I am disputing that it can be disputed ;) Although, I suppose I could also add that someone is clearly being given a gift they could enjoy but were not in a position to ask for—which makes it all the more special. What's also probable is that an act that doesn't go against the desires of an existing being cannot be an imposition.

It's also not for someone else to decide that not creating any positive is ethically justifiable. It's neutral at best (when it comes to non-existent beings). However, it can cause sadness to those who do exist.

Any amount of suffering is deeply tragic. Still, the happiness of the child in the slum, the joy that many people experience in spite of suffering is not worthless and cannot be forgotten. The question is: can a pessimistic projection justify the prevention of countless bestowal of positives? I believe that the answer isn't affirmative.

My suffering cannot negate your happiness. The fact that there is suffering is a reason we need to act immediately to reduce it. However, doing so at the cost of causing misery to existing people/preventing all happiness cannot be accepted. The good cannot be sacrificed on the altar of unbridled pessimism.

Mental gymnastics? — Tzeentch

Associating my mental prowess with the physical prowess of a gymnast is fine. If you are suggesting that I am contorting truths then I think you are wrong and you are the one who is twisting around.

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? — Tzeentch

If you read what I typed you would see that I suggested such a ratio would be of great concern IF TRUE but I typed that even if it was true, the solution is not antinatalism, it is the 'lot of work to do' that we would all be responsible for.

And if people were to do that by their own voluntary will, why would that be a problem? — Tzeentch

Oh I have no problem with that, I merely ridicule the suggestion that such consent will ever be given by all humans that exist. Antinatalism is therefore a dimwitted forlorn proposal and a completely pointless suggestion.

Not that there's any real danger of the entirety of mankind suddenly seeing the light. — Tzeentch

You are correct, there is no danger of the human race voting for their own extinction as they are capable of rational thinking.

unless one believes the human endeavor is one that needs to be prolonged at any cost. — Tzeentch

Yes, I would broadly agree with that as it took 13.8 billion years of happenstance to produce us, so let's try to figure out why before we decide to vote for extinction. Let's not surrender because we were too scared to live or exist.

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. — Tzeentch

Do what you can to help!

On what basis do you believe these people are living "a wonderful life" — Tzeentch

I have met many people who have told me so. I am such a person so I am living a happy life, as are others on his forum as are many/most members of my immediate family as are most of my friends. There are many many life celebrants out there! Regardless of their personal struggles and suffrage.
The human experience has not left me a broken misanthrope. I love life and would find life pointless if comparators did not exist. I must know what pain is to appreciate pleasure.
It is the responsibility of humans to prevent extremities of suffering, unjustified suffering, immoral suffering but none of these are well defined by those who peddle antinatalism.

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 — Tzeentch

I disagree and would say further that if humans don't reproduce then their purpose in the universe will never be known as they will go extinct and no more questions can be asked or answered and that means the universe will have no purpose which in my opinion, is an unforgivable harm.
Where do you get the right to suggest that the existence of life is immoral due to the possibility of suffering or whatever else you think is a logical reason to support the antinatalist viewpoint.
The universe does not have any known moral imperatives. Humans invented moral imperatives.

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 — Tzeentch

Transhumanism may make death less inevitable in the future. Let's wait another few million years at least or perhaps at least 100 million years and then see what the human race is like. That's not very long when you consider the cosmic calendar.

My patience is about done dealing with you. — schopenhauer1

Aw didums! :lol: :rofl:

And if people were to do that by their own voluntary will, why would that be a problem? — Tzeentch

Oh I have no problem with that, I merely ridicule the suggestion that such consent will ever be given by all humans that exist. Antinatalism is therefore a dimwitted forlorn proposal and a completely pointless suggestion. — universeness

That apparently even by your own estimation we're only talking about a relatively small number of people making voluntary decisions, does little to explain your defensiveness.

I'm only interested in the question whether it is moral to birth individuals into this world. What people do with the answer is up to them and not my business.

You are correct, there is no danger of the human race voting for their own extinction as they are capable of rational thinking. — universeness

Humans that proclaim to be heavily invested in the "survival of the human race" - something they hold no rational stake in, nor influence over - cannot be said to be rational.

Yes, I would broadly agree with that as it took 13.8 billion years of happenstance to produce us, so let's try to figure out why before we decide to vote for extinction. — universeness

I'm not voting for anything, nor am I telling anyone what to do - I'm just laying out an argument. Apparently you find that very threatening.

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. — Tzeentch

Do what you can to help! — universeness

Ok! But being a good person has nothing to do with whether child birth is moral or not!

On what basis do you believe these people are living "a wonderful life" — Tzeentch

I have met many people who have told me so. — universeness

I was speaking specifically of people who are suffering harshly, whether it's physical, mental, emotional.

People who by their own account would rather die than live.

On what basis are you claiming they are living a wonderful life?

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

I disagree... — universeness

That's not an answer to the question. That's dodging the question.

Where do you get the right to suggest that the existence of life is immoral due to the possibility of suffering or whatever else you think is a logical reason to support the antinatalist viewpoint. — universeness

You must present my position fairly. I did not say existence is immoral. I said the birthing of children is immoral.

And I do so on the basis of the fact that it is immoral to impose such monumental and potentially grave conditions on someone without knowing whether they consent.

In the case of an unborn child, gaining consent is impossible, so birthing the child is akin to taking a gamble with someone else's life (aka pushing someone out of an airplane knowing their parachute has a ten percent chance of failing). Something for which I can find no moral justification.

The universe does not have any known moral imperatives. — universeness

Yet all of us seem to agree that certain things are wrong. Things that involve doing things to other people without their consent. Rape, murder, that sort of thing.

It's just a matter of applying these principles consistently and we come to the conclusion that forcing people to live is wrong not because we want it to be wrong, but because the consistent application of logic dictates it.

Is it really that bad for someone to say that they wish the city did not exist in the first place?

Some antinatalists are our socialist brothers. Bartricks is in support of a Universal Basic Income. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Why destroy everyone in the city if you could save them, even if it takes a long long time to achieve it. It's like the Sodom and Gomorrah biblical fables. Those dimwitted angels and the dimwitted god that sent them caused the death of everyone in both cities, when all they had to do was appear, demonstrate their power, educate those who did not understand the folly of their ways and they could have improved the lives of everyone in both cities and perhaps their progeny would have been very nice people.

If Barticks is a socialist who supports UBI then I would call him a brother in that sense. I would still argue with him until the universe ends that his support of antinatalism is misguided.
I have probably argued with more socialist brothers on many many issues that I have argued with capitalists or theists. Socialists/humanists must argue with each other as they care about getting things correct. Capitalists just care about themselves and those they care about. They all agree on one main policy. 'Lets make as much money as we can out of the majority by any means possible!' and theists just scapegoat their god and take no responsibility for anything.