What's also probable is that an act that doesn't go against the desires of an existing being cannot be an imposition. — DA671

No.

If for whatever reason it could be accertained beforehand that a pregnancy would result in a child with deficiences (because of incest for example), the choice to get pregnant anyway is clearly an imposition. An imposition of those deficiences onto the child. Whether the child is not yet in existence is irrelevant. We know it will come into existence by our actions, and we know the consequences it will have.

It's also not for someone else to decide that not creating any positive is ethically justifiable. It's neutral at best. — DA671

Indeed. Inaction is always neutral, except under the conditions I specified.

The question is: can a pessimistic projection justify the prevention of countless bestowal of positives? — DA671

The good cannot be sacrificed on the altar of unbridled pessimism. — DA671

If you read my argument carefully you will see I am not making a pessimistic argument at all.

I'm making the argument that we're fundamentally ignorant to the results of our actions, those actions will have monumental consequences for another living being, and thus our actions are irresponsible - immoral.

Not only that, but the parents are also largely powerless over the well-being of their child! So however benevolent their intentions and however good their capabilities as parents, much of it is out of their control.

One cannot make justifiable decisions on someone else's behalf when one is ignorant of the outcomes and largely powerless over the course of events.

Yes.

We might believe a lot of things because they appear to be intuitive. However, they might not be necessarily. I don't see how an act that doesn't decrease a person's well-being and doesn't go against their interests can be an imposition. But, assuming it can be, then creating a life wherein one would likely experience many positives they would cherish forever is good and a better option than not doing anything. The risks matter, but so do the opportunities.

Positive actions are better than inaction.

Your argument is a pessimistic one, since it essentially says that the opportunities for the positives don't matter sufficiently to justify creating them.

If we truly don't know (which isn't true, since we know that most people do appreciate their lives and the conditions one is born in also affects the sort of life they would have), then choosing to simply focus on preventing potential risks whilst ignoring the good that could exist doesn't make sense to me. I suppose we have different intuitions here. From my point of view, it isn't immoral.

Parents can play a substantial role in giving their children good life skills and the ability to face challenges. Not everyone desires or needs total control in order to live a life they mostly value.

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. — Tzeentch

You are probably right that I am smashing a small nut with a large sledgehammer. Perhaps I am being over cautious or perhaps I am just future-proofing on behalf of all responsible natalists.

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 — Tzeentch

No not threatening, I just find antinatalism a vile idea, in the same way I find most extremely fringe views quite disturbing. There are some antinatalists who do not seek consent. I have not encountered them but @DA671 has. If I am wrong about that then I am sure he will correct me. That would be my main concern however. Those who peddle antinatalism may well create a variety that does not require consent and then we could have nonsense like 'harm for the purpose of ending all suffering.'
Do you not have any concern for this possibility?

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. — Tzeentch

Are you deciding for me that I have no rational stake in the survival of the human race?
If I say I think the human race has a vital role to play in the universe and its survival is essential to the purpose of the universe, do you simply handwave that away, not matter how much I protest?

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? — Tzeentch

We seem to be talking past each other here. I was not suggesting that everyone is living a wonderful life or people who say they are having a terrible life are secretly having a wonderful one. I was suggesting that those who are not having a wonderful life does not provide sufficient reason to support antinatalism.
I support human euthanasia if they are in a state of terminal suffering and you have their consent.

I did not say existence is immoral. I said the birthing of children is immoral. — Tzeentch

You are hairsplitting. The latter causes the former or are you saying that the immorality of the parents end once the child is born?

Deciding not to push a parachutist out of a plane is not comparable with ignoring the instinctive imperative to have children. As I have said many times. Many people would be greatly harmed if they could not have children. Some would feel utterly incomplete without children and would not see any point to the future without them. Do you wish to suggest to such people that they are immoral to want children? I would suggest your health would be in danger if you try to, face to face.

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 — Tzeentch

Yes, humans can agree/disagree on such.

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 — Tzeentch

No, we are not forcing people to live we are allowing new life to be born and the species to continue as an instinctive imperative that took 13.8 billion years to develop.

1. https://youtu.be/ebaFnWA5-PY

2. https://youtu.be/KdS6ZTSPkFg

Warning: It's not pleasant. Also, most moderate AN supporters don't agree with philosophy. In fact, the person who made the compilation and the other video actually is an antinatalist. Nevertheless, considering that one of these people runs an organisation called Antinatalism International and a famous podcast called the Exploring Antinatalism podcast, I think it would be worth pondering what one could do in the name of AN.

@Tzeentch

Hi, sorry for buttin' in like this, but have a dekko at the list below - destinations (for souls) in order of preference:

1. Jannat (Paradise)
2. Duniya (Earth)
3. Jahanam (Hell)

We're right smack in the middle - there's room for improvement (1, ergo antinatalism) but things could be worse (3, ergo natalism). Earth's not great, but it's not that bad either!

Anyway, you're right about us not knowing what lies in the future of children, yours, mine, anyone's. We can't offer any guarantees regarding their well-being.

Now imagine if someone were to tell me that visiting a country x could be loads of fun OR you could end up hanged, drawn and quartered, the chances being, to be fair, 50/50. Would you plan a family holiday in country x? You wouldn't! Hence antinatalism

Because the satisfaction of simply being would be better than taking pointless risks ;)

Ergo, not antinatalism!

Looks like my concerns are not unreasonable. I wouldn't like her as a neighbour!
Let's see if the antinatalists around this thread will watch and comment on the vid you link to. I hope they do better than 'well, you always get crazies!'

I added another link. It contains clips from the founder.

I watched about 6 mins of it then had enough. This is always the problem, extreme viewpoints like antinatalism, attracts some seriously disturbed individuals. These creatures are not like any of the people I have clashed with on this thread I assume but they should watch it and understand the cautionary message it suggests. Hopefully the American authorities are keeping tabs on them otherwise I am sure they will appear on CNN in the future having committed some heinous act that they attempt to justify using some variety of the relatively harmless antinatalist reasoning typed on this thread.

Are you deciding for me that I have no rational stake in the survival of the human race? — universeness

Yes. You objectively have no rational stake in the survival of the human race.

It will survive with you, or without you, and none of us will be around to see it perish, if it does, but as time goes on it's exceedingly likely that it will.

If I say I think the human race has a vital role to play in the universe and its survival is essential to the purpose of the universe, do you simply handwave that away, not matter how much I protest? — universeness

I would say that's a wonderful idea, yet one that doesn't escape the cold logic that I just laid out.

It's no different from being emotionally invested in your favorite sports team. No matter how hard you shout and cheer, your impact on the outcome is negligible. Though arguably cheering for one's favorite sports team has more impact than cheering for the human race.

I did not say existence is immoral. I said the birthing of children is immoral. — Tzeentch

You are hairsplitting. — universeness

No, these two things are fundamentally different.

Existing is obviously not immoral.

Thrusting people into existence is immoral, but once people are in existence they're there and it's an entirely different situation.

The latter causes the former or are you saying that the immorality of the parents end once the child is born? — universeness

For the most part, yes. After the child is born it's a new situation. The parents have made a moral error, and now it's their responsibility to make the best of it.

Deciding not to push a parachutist out of a plane is not comparable with ignoring the instinctive imperative to have children. — universeness

I've never heard the term 'instinctive imperative' before, but I don't believe instincts form a good guide for moral behavior, nor do they justify behavior.

We scrutinize individual behaviors through the lens of reason. That's how we evaluate the morality of certain behavior, with things like law.

If humans want to appeal to instincts to excuse their reckless behavior they're essentially saying "I'm an animal" - then they'll be treated as such. That's not to say we can be cruel to them, but I wouldn't have philosophical conversations with my dog either.

Needless to say, such arguments sound like an intellectual concession of defeat and I don't find them very compelling.

As I have said many times. Many people would be greatly harmed if they could not have children. Some would feel utterly incomplete without children and would not see any point to the future without them. Do you wish to suggest to such people that they are immoral to want children? I would suggest your health would be in danger if you try to, face to face. — universeness

Children shouldn't be used to fill a void. That's a burden no child should have to bear.

I'm not here to judge people, and I won't. All I'll say is that by my argument having children under such conditions would be an immoral choice. What they do with this is up to them.

And if that makes people violent, I would read that as simple fear that I am right.

No, we are not forcing people to live we are allowing new life to be born [...] — universeness

Potatoe, potatoe.

[...] and the species to continue as an instinctive imperative that took 13.8 billion years to develop. — universeness

The 'species' is simply a conglomerate of individuals, and I believe the value of humanity, if indeed it can be said to have any value, lies in the moral behavior of each individual.

If mankind cannot develop or continue to exist morally, I don't see why it should at all. But I'm not interested in such things. I try to live my life morally, and nothing more. That's why I test my ideas in the crucible of free discourse. Not to convince anyone or to judge anyone.

Yes. You objectively have no rational stake in the survival of the human race.

It will survive with you, or without you — Tzeentch

But it won't survive without everyone!

It's no different from being emotionally invested in your favorite sports team. No matter how hard you shout and cheer, your impact on the outcome is negligible. — Tzeentch

Again absolutely untrue a crowd often inspires their team to beat the other team.

Thrusting people into existence is immoral, but once people are in existence they're there and it's an entirely different situation. — Tzeentch

Ok, then you can wag your finger disapprovingly if you wish and then welcome all the babies as they arrive.

Children shouldn't be used to fill a void. That's a burden no child should have to bear. — Tzeentch

They are not filling a void they are becoming a sentient lifeform and fulfilling a natural evolutionary imperative in their parents and you handwave away the pain it would cause them if they were childless based on what YOU think is morally sound. You hold a tiny minority opinion and in my opinion a disturbing one.

If mankind cannot develop or continue to exist morally, I don't see why it should at all. But I'm not interested in such things. I try to live life morally, and nothing more. That's why I test my ideas in the crucible of free discourse. Not to convince anyone or to judge anyone. — Tzeentch

Watch the clips that @DA671 posted above and comment, they are not long clips.

But it won't survive without everyone! — universeness

You are not everyone, nor do you have any influence on everyone.

Again absolutely untrue a crowd often inspires their team to beat the other team. — universeness

Doubtful. Why do so many fanatical sports fans get so mad when their team loses? Because they are powerless. They're invested in something they have no power over.

It's bad for you. Better to invest that energy in things you have real power over, like being a good person in every day life.

They are not filling a void they are becoming a sentient lifeform and fulfilling a natural evolutionary imperative in their parents... — universeness

Those were your words, not mine.

... you handwave the pain it would cause them if they were childless based on what YOU think is morally sound. — universeness

I don't handwave anyone's pain. But pain is no excuse to act immorally, and that's why I cannot accept what you gave as a justification.

Watch the clips that DA671 posted above and comment, they are not long clips. — universeness

No thanks. Ten seconds in and it doesn't seem worth the time or the brain cells. If there's something specific you want me to engage with you'll have to write it here.

End of our exchange then! I am glad I am not infected by antinatalism and I am immune.
No doubt some of the crazies who jump on its coattails will cause some horror somewhere sometimes in the future but they will get no further.

They deserve an entirely harm-free happy life. — Bartricks

I was born innocent too. There have been many harms in my life — like with any life. But I love life and continue to prefer being here to the alternative. I’m glad I got the opportunity. I still had to think about having kids — but not using the fact that they will not live a harm-free life as a criterion.

What’s so terrible about suffering and harm and pain? It’s part of life, and without it there’d be pure boredom.

I’m glad I was born, and glad I’ve been lucky enough to experience some pain and suffering — but also joy and pleasure.

Your position betrays a pessimistic view of life. I’m not sure if using pessimism to justify not having children is all that new, incidentally.

:clap: :up:

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. — Down The Rabbit Hole

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

Well it wouldn't be destroying the city, it would be not building the city in the first place.

Even if you think it's okay to build the city, surely you can understand people thinking it shouldn't be built?

I watched about 6 mins of it then had enough. This is always the problem, extreme viewpoints like antinatalism, attracts some seriously disturbed individuals. These creatures are not like any of the people I have clashed with on this thread I assume but they should watch it and understand the cautionary message it suggests. Hopefully the American authorities are keeping tabs on them otherwise I am sure they will appear on CNN in the future having committed some heinous act that they attempt to justify using some variety of the relatively harmless antinatalist reasoning typed on this thread. — universeness

The woman in the video is arguing for efilism to dominate antinatalism and be the "last act standing". This is the difference between not building the city and destroying the city.

I do accept the slippery slope point about antinatalist belief, however this does not answer the question of whether it is moral to build such a city. I know both @schopenhauer1 and @Bartricks have said that they are in favour of not building but are opposed to destroying.

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. — universeness

Comrade @Bartricks indeed.

Yes you can expect to get more sense from the socialist, so it's actually worth arguing. My lefty politics are what I'm passionate about, but I do sympathise with anti-natalism.

What you've done is address a stupid argument that I did not make.

The argument you've addressed is this one:

Xtrix is unhappy and doesn't like his/her life and therefore procreation is in general wrong.

That's an incredibly dumb argument that is not in the OP.

Arguments for doing harm to others because joy is an outcome, do not negate the harm done to others. Eating an animal is harmful to the animal and for vegetarians, may be wrong no matter how much joy billions of people get from it. That's just one example. So many ad populum fallacies. You go back in time long enough, a lot of practices can be characterized like this. Colosseum sure entertained a lot of people. Bread and circus.. And the circus was often times deadly gladiatorial events, lions eating people and the like. I know you wouldn't find that appealing now. But people did like it.. People sacrificed their enemies and children to the gods for a good life.. Maybe not "joy" as much as they thought this would grant a better (or the good life). It was popular in those populations. Any practice can become outdated. If it's something that can be deliberated, it is mutable.

Yeah, clap clap clap - argument p is a shite argument for q, Bartricks holds that q is true, therefore Bartricks made the shite argument. I'm a good reasoner me!!!

Logic from Xtrix and universenes:

If p, then q; not p, therefore not q.

I didn't make that argument, nor did I say you made that argument. I'll quote myself:

What’s so terrible about suffering and harm and pain? — Xtrix

This is addressing your argument.

All people (including me, as mentioned above) were born innocent. All people suffer in life to some degree. Suffering is part of life. Pain is part of life.

So the argument goes:

(1) All people are born innocent.
(2) Innocent people deserve no harm (which perhaps you can define further, but I view as "suffering").
(3) Life inevitably includes harm/suffering.
(4) Thus, bringing innocent lives into the world when you know they will suffer is unjust/morally wrong.

If you mean something different when you say "harm," fine -- but that needs clarification.

What I'm saying is that this entire argument rests on a pessimistic view of life. Suffering doesn't refute life.

I was born innocent too. There have been many harms in my life — like with any life. But I love life and continue to prefer being here to the alternative. I’m glad I got the opportunity. I still had to think about having kids — but not using the fact that they will not live a harm-free life as a criterion. — Xtrix

How does any of that address anything in my OP? Your first line just confirms one of my premises. The rest is entirely irrelevant.

have said that they are in favour of not building but are opposed to destroying. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Antinatalism would not be true to its own morals.. I guess technically, it is agnostic to being based on consequentialism, but that is why I would not entertain that kind of super consequentialist thinking. I don't see the ground of morality based on such views. If you are a political lefty/socialist, does Stalin represent your highest ideals? Surely not. THAT'S not what you envision. If you are a Christian, does the Crusades or David Koresh or some nutball terrorist represent your highest ideals? My guess is no. There are extremes to any positions/beliefs/outlooks/worldviews etc.

All people (including me, as mentioned above) were born innocent. All people suffer in life to some degree. Suffering is part of life. Pain is part of life. — Xtrix

Relevance? You've CONFIRMED one of my premises. Which one are you challenging?

(1) All people are born innocent.
(2) Innocent people deserve no harm (which perhaps you can define further, but I view as "suffering").
(3) Life inevitably includes harm/suffering.
(4) Thus, bringing innocent lives into the world when you know they will suffer is unjust/morally wrong. — Xtrix

That's invalid. 4 is not the conclusion that follows from 1,2 and 3. What follows is that all the harm mentioned in 3 is undeserved.

That's my conclusion - an interim conclusion. Now, what, in my OP, are you trying to challenge?

I was born innocent too. There have been many harms in my life — like with any life. But I love life and continue to prefer being here to the alternative. I’m glad I got the opportunity. I still had to think about having kids — but not using the fact that they will not live a harm-free life as a criterion.
— Xtrix

How does any of that address anything in my OP? Your first line just confirms one of my premises. The rest is entirely irrelevant. — Bartricks

It's not irrelevant. You're making an argument that innocent people don't deserve harm. Fine.

We're all born innocent. So, according to you, none of us deserve harm. Right?

So none of us should have been born. Why? Because "harm" is simply a part of life. It's impossible to imagine a life without harm of any kind.

So it was a mistake on our parents part, just as it would be a mistake on our part to have kids. It's an immoral act.

Where have I misunderstood?

It's not irrelevant. You're making an argument that innocent people don't deserve harm. Fine. — Xtrix

That's a premise that I take to be self-evident - indeed, it's a conceptual truth.

We're all born innocent. So, according to you, none of us deserve harm. Right? — Xtrix

Not when we're born, no. We can subsequently do things to make ourselves deserve harm - such as procreate and do other wicked things - but we're born innocent and so we're born deserving no harm whatsoever.

So none of us should have been born. Why? Because "harm" is simply a part of life. It's impossible to imagine a life without harm of any kind. — Xtrix

We are default obliged not to create undeserved harm, yes? If doing x will create some undeserved harm, then we have moral reason not to do x, other things being equal.

Procreative acts subject an innocent person to undeserved suffering - shit loads of it. Thus we have moral reason not to perform those acts, other things being equal. That just follows as a matter of logic.

Do you disagree with any of that?

Relevance? You've CONFIRMED one of my premises. Which one are you challenging? — Bartricks

That one shouldn't be born because life isn't harm-free.

What follows is that all the harm mentioned in 3 is undeserved. — Bartricks

You posted this with the title "A New Argument for Antinatalism." I assumed that you want to say more than simply "harm is undeserved."

But OK, have it your way. What I'm challenging, then, is (2). This is why I made it personal -- which you claim is irrelevant. I was innocent at birth too, and I'm very glad to part of life -- which, yes, hasn't been harm-free. Whether I "deserved" any harm or not is incoherent -- harm is a part of life. Joy is too. Do I "deserve" joy?

Again -- what's so awful about "harm"? What do you mean by "harm"? Abuse? Torture?

That one shouldn't be born because life isn't harm-free. — Xtrix

Why are you expressing it like that? It's not about you - the one who has been born. You don't have an obligation not to have been born - how would you discharge that? Go back to when you didn't exist and stop yourself coming into being?

What I am arguing is that procreative acts - which are not performed by the one who is created by them - subject an innocent person to a shit load of undeserved harm and that generates moral reason not to perform such acts.

You posted this with the title "A New Argument for Antinatalism." I assumed that you want to say more than simply "harm is undeserved." — Xtrix

And my conclusion is an antinatalist one. The conclusion is that procreative acts are wrong - default wrong - because they create massive injustices: they create an innocent person - a person who deserves a happy harm-free life - and do not provide the innocent person with what they deserve. SO, they create injustice: they make the world a more unjust place.

Now, so far you have said precisely nothing to challenge any of that. So what, do you agree with all that? Do you agree that procreative acts are default wrong? Because you need to argue that something I've said above is false, not just straw man me by insisting that I'm some sort of pessimist. It's not a pessimistic argument at all. You do realize it goes through even if our lives here contain much more happiness than pain? Yes?

We're all born innocent. So, according to you, none of us deserve harm. Right?
— Xtrix

Not when we're born, no. — Bartricks

OK, sure. But most babies are born crying out of the womb. It's not the most pleasant process. So right away there's harm -- in fact a traumatic experience. But that's the price of admission to this wonderful world.

One could argue that every innocent "deserves" to be part of this wonderful world and to experience joy, and to deprive them of that is immoral.

Unless of course you don't think it's a wonderful world...which is why I mentioned pessimism.

We are default obliged not to create undeserved harm, yes? If doing x will create some undeserved harm, then we have moral reason not to do x, other things being equal. — Bartricks

And what of joy? Why so much emphasis on harm?

Again, what do you mean by harm? Pain? Suffering of any kind? Something more specific?

Procreative acts subject an innocent person to undeserved suffering - shit loads of it. Thus we have moral reason not to perform those acts, other things being equal. That just follows as a matter of logic.

Do you disagree with any of that? — Bartricks

Indeed I do. What part? The part about suffering.

Nothing is "deserved" or "not deserved," those terms are ambiguous. Do kids "deserve" to be born or not is the better question.

The question is whether life is worth living even though there is suffering. If the answer is yes, then it's perfectly fine to have kids if one chooses to. If the answer is no, then the human species should become extinct -- yes? Which I'm not saying is illogical -- it's logical if you accept the premise, as the Buddhists do, that life is suffering and suffering should be eliminated.

I was innocent at birth too, and I'm very glad to part of life -- which, yes, hasn't been harm-free. Whether I "deserved" any harm or not is incoherent -- harm is a part of life. Joy is too. Do I "deserve" joy? — Xtrix

Yes, an innocent person is born deserving no harm at all and positively deserving a happy life. So, they are born deserving a harm-free happy life.

Thus, any happiness - any benefit - that accrues to them is default deserved, just as any harm is default undeserved.

So, the harms are undeserved and the benefits are deserved.

The part about you being happy you were born is irrelevant.

One could argue that every innocent "deserves" to be part of this wonderful world and to experience joy, and to deprive them of that is immoral. — Xtrix

They deserve much, much more than this. That's part of the point. They deserve no harm whatsoever. Not some harm and some benefit. No harm. Ziltch. Nada. No harm. And they deserve much more happiness than the world provides.

Unless of course you don't think it's a wonderful world...which is why I mentioned pessimism. — Xtrix

My claim is not at all pessimistic. Assume I think life here is everybit as wonderful as you do. My claim is that innocent persons deserve none - none - of the harms it contains and much much more of the happiness that it contains.

That's not remotely pessimistic. My claims are about the morality of procreation. Whatever joys you think life here contains, assume I think it contains them as well. That way you won't mistake me for a pessimist.