Imagine you order a pizza and pay upfront.

The pizza that is delivered has a shit on it. You phone up the restaurant to complain that what they delivered is not what you ordered, that it has a shit on it and that you did not order the shit.

The restaurant says "but is it not a lovely pizza? Have you tried part that doesn't have shit on it? It's delicious"

Would you think that's a good response - have they understood your point?

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? — Bartricks

Well I don't fault my parents for having me, either. I guess that's more relevant. In fact I owe them a debt of gratitude for bringing me into this wonderful world, even though the price of admission is also suffering and death.

It's not about you either, incidentally. But out of curiosity, do you fault your parents for bringing you into the world? But your argument, you should.

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. — Bartricks

Yes, I know. So don't have kids -- that's your choice. What I'm saying is that some kind of "logic" doesn't dictate this, it's a personal matter which largely depends on whether or not you believe life is worth living. This is why I keep mentioning pessimism. But I respect that point of view -- it's consistent. As I said before, many Buddhists hold this view and I hold them in high respect.

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. — Bartricks

Why do they deserve that which is impossible? Do they not deserve joy as well, and to be part of a beautiful and wonderful world despite their being death and some pain? Isn't it equally relevant to say "innocent unborn beings deserve the chance to experience joys"? In that case, not having kids is immoral. Now I'm not arguing that, but it could be argued just as consistently.

Again -- it's a personal choice based on a personal view about the world. If you think that because life is not harm-free we should not consciously choose to reproduce, then you're saying, essentially, that life is a mistake. Why? Because, again, life inevitably involves suffering.

So essentially the argument rests on this perspective: because there is suffering, life is bad.

But what if life is an ultimate good, despite there being suffering?

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? — Bartricks

I'm not arguing it's false. It's a personal choice. Just like saying "There is suffering, so life is refuted" is a choice. It's a perspective. Is it "wrong"? No, I just don't hold it myself. I don't agree -- I don't see it that way.

So yes, it does come down to perspective. It's not a matter of logic. The premise you mention about "deserving" a harm-free life is just another way of expressing the perspective mentioned. Is it true? Sure, if you see only suffering. But I ask about joy and you are silent.

Well I don't fault my parents for having me, either. I guess that's more relevant. In fact I owe them a debt of gratitude for bringing me into this wonderful world, even though the price of admission is also suffering and death. — Xtrix

That's question begging. You don't owe them a thing. They owe you. They owe you a happy harm free life - which is something they can't even come close to providing.

But out of curiosity, do you fault your parents for bringing you into the world? But your argument, you should. — Xtrix

Of course. If I didn't, I would be a hypocrite, but my argument would be no less sound for that.

Yes, I know. So don't have kids -- that's your choice. — Xtrix

Er, I know and I don't. Misses the point: antinatalism is a normative view: a view about what we 'ought' to do. So, by just insisting that it's 'just a matter of choice' you once more beg the question. It isn't like deciding to have coffee rather than tea. It's a choice between doing something immoral and not.

What I'm saying is that some kind of "logic" doesn't dictate this, — Xtrix

Yes it does. I am showing that it does. There are umpteen good arguments for antinatalism, of which the one in the OP is an example. That's why it's a respectable philosophical position that has an increasingly number of defenders.

So far you have said nothing to suggest any premise in my argument is false. You are pointing to other considerations, but not saying anything to challenge any of my argument's premises.

Why do they deserve that which is impossible? — Xtrix

Are you saying that one can't deserve the impossible? If we can show that x is inevitalble, then no matter what x is, you can't be said not to deserve it? Imagine it's inevitable that Jane will be raped. The world is deterministic, say, and so it's inevitable that Jane will be raped. It's impossible for it not to happen. Right - well, she doesn't deserve to be, does she? Or at least, simply discovering that it was inevitable is not of a piece with discovering that she does not deserve not to be raped.

So essentially the argument rests on this perspective: because there is suffering, life is bad. — Xtrix

No.

I don't know what you're saying there. You straw manned me. You addressed an argument I did not make.

There is no pessimistic premise in my argument.

Let's go back to the pizza restaurant. You ordered and paid for a cheese pizza. They delivered a cheese pizza with a poo on it.

You phoned to complain that this is not what you ordered (and thus not what you deserved to have been given).

They say "Why so pessimistic? Most of the pizza does not have poo on it and those bits - the majority - are delicious!"

That'd be crazy, yes? They've missed your point. Your point was not that most of the pizza has poo on it. Nor was it that the bits that do not have poo on it aren't delicious. Your point is that you deserved to be given a pizza that had no poo on it whatever and was entirely delicious.

I'm you in this scenario and you're the person on the other end of the line.

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. — Bartricks

Well what of happy lives that are NOT harm-free (like, I would argue, my own)?

In other words, what if an innocent person -- a baby -- deserves to live a happy life? Sure, I agree with that. But happiness doesn't simply mean "zero pain whatsoever," as you know.

So I would separate the two. There's harm-free, which is impossible, and there's "happy" (and here I take happiness in the Aristotelian sense), which is possible (even if rare).

So I take your "positively deserving a happy life" seriously. I think that's true, sure. But you cannot possibly have a happy life without suffering...thus, a "harm-free happy life" is an oxymoron. As if "harm-free life" in general, incidentally.

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

Is a stomach ache "deserved" or "undeserved"? Is being in love "deserved" or not?

Those terms really don't apply, in my view. But if we are talking that way, then it's a personal choice. Does my (potential) child "deserve" to be born or not? That's the question -- and the answer depends on what you think of life. If you think life is, on the whole, a good -- then yes, have kids. If you think it isn't, then don't.

If you think that because there's even the slightest pain involved in being alive, that this fact negates everything else -- which is what you're arguing, really -- then that is indeed pessimism.

Deciding to have kids rests on many factors and is very personal. But the one you offer about "undeserving harm" is rather unconvincing. If it convinces you, great. But you're in a philosophy forum, and putting forth an argument for "anti-natalism," which has implications not just for you but for others. If a major premise of yours rests solely on your personal interpretation of life, then you shouldn't be altogether shocked if many aren't persuaded.

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. — Bartricks

Says you. But think about it for a minute. NO harm? What does that mean? Is that possible?

No. So, again, in essence you're saying: there should be no kids because life contains suffering.

I think that's a very weak argument -- not wrong, really, but very strange to me. You mean to tell me that if you could see in the future and your kid, say, created a utopia on earth -- or discovered the cure to diseases, or revolutionized philosophy or science or music...but stubbed his toe a few times...that you would say "Sorry, he deserved no pain whatsoever; zero, zilch; thus, I'm not having this kid." Obviously we cannot see into the future...but for the sake of argument, would that actually be your conclusion?

My claim is not at all pessimistic. Assume I think life here is everybit as wonderful as you do. — Bartricks

OK.

My claim is that innocent persons deserve none - none - of the harms it contains and much much more of the happiness that it contains. — Bartricks

Yes, I understand. You've said that multiple times. What I'm saying is that this is completely incoherent. Why? Because you cannot have "none" of the harms without negating life completely. If that's truly your criterion for the morality of having a child, then there should be no kids -- ever. So the statement "much much more of the happiness that it contains" is moot, even if we agreed about it. Life -- whether happy or not -- cannot exist without suffering.

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. — Bartricks

Fine -- but you've already negated life. You assume all the joys exist, but you will not pass those joys on to another life because suffering also exists. How is that anything other than saying "Suffering refutes life"? And how is that anything but pessimism? That's Schopenhauer's stance, as you know -- and many Buddhists.

I don't use "pessimism" pejoratively, by the way. It's simply a worldview.

Well what of happy lives that are NOT harm-free (like, I would argue, my own)? — Xtrix

Again, what you're doing here is pointing out that the pizza is mainly delicious, despite having a poo on it.

You ordered a cheese pizza and so that's what you deserved to get. Not a cheese pizza with a poo on it.

An innocent person deserves a harm-free happy life. Not a happy life with some harm in it.

You are mischaracterizing my view as "pizza with poo on it totally bad" and just ignoring that my point is that if one has ordered a poo-free cheese pizza and one is given a cheese pizza with poo on it, then you have not received what you deserved. That if someone orders a cheese pizza then that's what one ought to give them. And if you can't - if the only pizzas you've got in your restaurant have poo on them - then you don't accept their order.

Yes, I understand. You've said that multiple times. What I'm saying is that this is completely incoherent. Why? Because you cannot have "none" of the harms without negating life completely. If that's truly your criterion for the morality of having a child, then there should be no kids -- ever. — Xtrix

You're misusing the word incoherent. I am not claiming that a happy harm free life is possible. I don't think it is (not in a world like this, anyway). That's why one ought not to procreate!!

I am saying things multiple times because my view keeps being changed into something else - something your criticisms will work against.

If you understood my view the first time I expressed it, then you would know that it was not pessimistic in the least.

Again: the pizza restaurant. You discover that all your pizzas have poo on them. Every single one. Therefore if anyone orders a pizza from you, you're going to have to give them a pooey one.

Now, you're reasoning "Oh, well as it is impossible for me to give anyone a pizza without poo on it, that's what I'll give people, even if they order cheese pizzas and not cheese and poo pizzas"

That's mental reasoning. If people deserve cheese pizzas and all you've got is poo and cheese pizzas, you don't take their orders. You shut up shop. You put 'sorry, out of cheese pizzas' on the door. You don't take the orders and deliver pooey pizzas to everyone.
And when I phone up and say "why the bloody hell does my pizza have a poo on it!!" you don't reply "but it's mainly cheese and only a bit of poo - stop being so pessimistic, the non-poo bits are lovely" because that's absurd and somewhat misses the point!

Because the satisfaction of simply being would be better than taking pointless risks ;) — DA671

You missed the point then! Even when the die is fair (50/50 chances), given the severity of the loss (torturesome life), no one will, given the option, play the game of chance that life is.

Says you. But think about it for a minute. NO harm? What does that mean? Is that possible? — Xtrix

It doesn't have to be possible. That's not going to affect whether it is undeserved or not.

Note too that none of the harms that will inevitable occur in any life one creates 'have' to occur, for one does not have to create the life in question.

Let's say Jack does not deserve to die. You throw him off a bridge. I point out that he didn't deserve to die. YOu point out that it's now inevitable that he will as he's falling towards the ground at a rate of knots. That's irrelevant - yes 'now' his death is inevitable given that you just threw him off the bridge, but you can't thereby make it the case that his death is not undeserved and taht therefore your act of hurling him off the bridge was not wrong.

An innocent person does deserve a happy life too. And it may be impossible to give someone an entirely happy life that is free from all pain. So what? Again, that's like discovering you've only got poo pizzas. It doesn't make opening up shop and delivering poo pizzas to people who ordered - and so deserve - cheese pizzas the right thing to do, does it?

If you think that because there's even the slightest pain involved in being alive, that this fact negates everything else -- which is what you're arguing, really -- then that is indeed pessimism. — Xtrix

That's NOT pessimism. Again, everything I am saying is entirely consistent with whatever rosy outlook you have. There isn't a shred of pessimism in the view. You just think that if you can characterize my view in that way then you can simply attribute it to my pessimism (I am not a pessimist) rather than to the fact that solid arguments lead to it. Sorry matey, that's wishful thinking on your part. I'm an antinatalist because it's where the arguments lead. If it helps imagine me prancing through a field picking flowers and singling tralalalalalala.

And again, one is not pessimistic if one thinks that the slightest bit of poo on the pizza is grounds complaint and grounds for not delivering it.

If your pizza restaurant only has in its storeroom pizzas with tinsy winsy bits of poo on them, then you don't open. You don't open and insist that anyone who complains about the little bits of poo is a pessimist!!

"Excuse me - this pizza has a tiny bit of shit on it"

"Oh, you're so 'glass half empty'!"

Imagine you order a pizza and pay upfront.

The pizza that is delivered has a shit on it. You phone up the restaurant to complain that what they delivered is not what you ordered, that it has a shit on it and that you did not order the shit.

The restaurant says "but is it not a lovely pizza? Have you tried part that doesn't have shit on it? It's delicious"

Would you think that's a good response - have they understood your point? — Bartricks

In that specific case, no. I don't think it's a great analogy though. Why? Because we're talking about something much bigger -- we're talking about life. So what if the pizza were the size of the world? Would the fact that there was shit on it negate all of that pizza?

Your analogy is a good one in terms of proportion. By that I mean it would hold true for life if, say, we knew 95% of it would be agonizing pain. In that case, sure -- no person deserves that. That's a serious question which often arises, in fact. If the baby is known to have a disease where there is prolonged suffering which will inevitably end in death, parents have to make the decision about whether to terminate (out of compassion). In this case, it would be like taking the opposite stance to my thought experiment about seeing the future.

But life isn't all shit. It's not all pizza, either.

Well I don't fault my parents for having me, either. I guess that's more relevant. In fact I owe them a debt of gratitude for bringing me into this wonderful world, even though the price of admission is also suffering and death.
— Xtrix

That's question begging. You don't owe them a thing. They owe you. They owe you a happy harm free life - which is something they can't even come close to providing. — Bartricks

Which no one can provide.

But in any case, that's your assertion. If you feel your parents owed you something -- specifically, a life free of any harm whatsoever, that's your business. But it's just that -- an assertion.

I could just as easily assert that what they "owed" me was life -- a ticket to this world.

But out of curiosity, do you fault your parents for bringing you into the world? But your argument, you should.
— Xtrix

Of course. If I didn't, I would be a hypocrite, but my argument would be no less sound for that. — Bartricks

Why do you fault them? I thought you just said you weren't a pessimist and assumed -- just as I do -- that there were all these joys. So if life is good, as I think, then it's a good thing they brought you into the world -- and you should be grateful to them, not faulting them.

But of course you fault them because you don't think life is good. You think life isn't good. And you think life isn't good because there's suffering -- even the slightest bit of suffering.

I just don't interpret life that way. Perhaps it's more dispositional.

But rather than assume, I'll just ask: Do you believe life is, on the whole, a good?

Misses the point: antinatalism is a normative view: a view about what we 'ought' to do. So, by just insisting that it's 'just a matter of choice' you once more beg the question. — Bartricks

It's not begging the question. I'm not assuming my conclusion in what I said. I'm simply saying that there is no universal normative claim that can be made. Why? Because it ultimately rests on whether you believe life is good and worth living -- or not. Is the glass half empty or full? If you think empty -- for whatever psychological reasons -- then you most certainly should not have kids.

If you're trying to convince others that they should not have kids, then you need a better normative argument than simply "Life is bad because there's pain." So far you've not done so. You've tried to invoke logic, but a major premise is an assertion based on, again, your general attitude and interpretation of the world and what you think the world "owes" you and what life "should" be (namely, free of harm). But since that world is impossible, life is therefore ultimately an evil -- and we should put an end to having kids and perpetuating the meaningless, harmful cycle.

What I'm saying is that some kind of "logic" doesn't dictate this,
— Xtrix

Yes it does. I am showing that it does. There are umpteen good arguments for antinatalism, of which the one in the OP is an example. That's why it's a respectable philosophical position that has an increasingly number of defenders. — Bartricks

But you really haven't shown that. If you had, I would be in agreement. You can assume I'm just an idiot who can't follow you -- fine. But otherwise, you need to argue better. I think it's a fool's mission though, because you've already revealed a premise as entirely dependent on a fundamental judgment of life. And there's nothing I can do about a fundamental judgment of life.

So far you have said nothing to suggest any premise in my argument is false. You are pointing to other considerations, but not saying anything to challenge any of my argument's premises. — Bartricks

You keep repeating this, so I'll keep repeating myself as well: I'm challenging the second premise. This premise: that babies deserve a life free of harm.

That's the premise I'm challenging.

Why do they deserve that which is impossible?
— Xtrix

Are you saying that one can't deserve the impossible? — Bartricks

No, I'm saying: Why do they deserve the impossible? Viz: Why are you claiming that they "deserve" something which is impossible?

So essentially the argument rests on this perspective: because there is suffering, life is bad.
— Xtrix

No. — Bartricks

Yes, indeed. As I've continued to show.

There is no pessimistic premise in my argument. — Bartricks

There is. It's the premise I mentioned above. The premise I'm challenging.

They say "Why so pessimistic? Most of the pizza does not have poo on it and those bits - the majority - are delicious!"

That'd be crazy, yes? They've missed your point. — Bartricks

Yes, they've missed your point. And?

Your point is that you deserved to be given a pizza that had no poo on it whatever and was entirely delicious. — Bartricks

"Deserve" has nothing to do with it. Maybe I did deserve it from someone's point of view -- who cares?

The point is that it's not what I ordered.

So relate that to life. What are you arguing with this analogy? You want to deny that you're arguing that "Life is bad because there's suffering." Yet this analogy is saying "This is not what I ordered -- doesn't matter if the rest of it is good, I didn't order the bad." Which, again, just assumes your premise of "there should be zero suffering." There should be no harm, there should be no poo -- because we didn't order/consent to either.

But what if the person said, "Yeah, I'll take the pizza with shit on it. Better than the alternative -- which is starving to death." Yes, that may not be what you choose -- fair enough. But that's not a moral argument -- whether about having kids or eating the pizza.

I don't consider life to be a pizza with shit on it.

You are mischaracterizing my view as "pizza with poo on it totally bad" and just ignoring that my point is that if one has ordered a poo-free cheese pizza and one is given a cheese pizza with poo on it, then you have not received what you deserved. — Bartricks

Yes, you have no received what you ordered.

That has nothing to do with life. Why? Because you're not born saying "I'm ordering one life with NO harm whatsoever please," as you would with pizza. The shit is part of life. It would be like saying "I'll have one pizza with no dough please." That's part of the pizza. Either you want a pizza -- which includes dough (not shit), or you don't want a pizza. Either you want life (which includes pain/death), or you don't.

You're misusing the word incoherent. — Bartricks

No, it's completely accurate: incomprehensible.

I am not claiming that a happy harm free life is possible. I don't think it is. That's why one ought not to procreate!! — Bartricks

Exactly. Which is pessimism.

One should not procreate because there is harm.

Thus, harm renders life bad -- or, to put another way, UNWORTHY OF CREATING. In other words, the human species should die out -- which is the outcome of antinatalism. Life is a mistake, humans are a mistake.

You keep wanting to claim it's not pessimism, but that's exactly what it is. Which is fine -- but at least be honest about it. Don't hide behind "logic" and "premises" and throw around Rhetoric 101 terms like "begging the question" and "strawman," as if this entire argument doesn't rest on anything other than your own views on what is "deserved" in life and what a "good" or "worthy" life would be (namely, impossible -- i.e., harm-free).

Now, you're reasoning "Oh, well as it is impossible for me to give anyone a pizza without poo on it, that's what I'll give people, even if they order cheese pizzas and not cheese and poo pizzas" — Bartricks

No. First, one doesn't "order" anything in life. If you feel, as an adult making a choice about whether to have kids, that bringing a life into the world where harm is inevitable is enough of a reason not to bring a life into the world, then that's your own business.

Again, the proper analogy is: expecting a pizza which is impossible. Not one without "poo," but one without dough. But dough is what makes it a pizza. So either you want a pizza (which means dough), or you don't.

To be clear: your pizza analogy fails because suffering is part of life. Poo is not part of pizza.

Now, what DEGREE of suffering? Again, that's a serious question -- and one where perhaps your analogy would be suitable. In abnormal circumstances, where there is excessive pain and suffering, the question about whether to bring a life into the world becomes much more relevant.

And when I phone up and say "why the bloody hell does my pizza have a poo on it!!" you don't reply "but it's mainly cheese and only a bit of poo - stop being so pessimistic, the non-poo bits are lovely" — Bartricks

You're not pessimistic because you dislike suffering. You're pessimistic because you allow suffering to negate life.

Antinatalism, as a normative stance, argues that human beings should not have kids. That's nothing more than negating -- literally negating -- life, and exterminating the species. And somehow that's not pessimism?

If you think that because there's even the slightest pain involved in being alive, that this fact negates everything else -- which is what you're arguing, really -- then that is indeed pessimism.
— Xtrix

That's NOT pessimism. — Bartricks

Yes, it is.

If suffering negates life, that is pessimism. It is saying that life is (despite some "good things," as you claim) bad -- and thus, unworthy of continuing -- and it is bad because suffering exists. This is what you're advocating.

Again, everything I am saying is entirely consistent with whatever rosy outlook you have. — Bartricks

Not a rosy outlook -- just not one that claims because any kind of suffering exists whatsoever, that life is ultimately bad, negated, and not worthy of continuing.

rather than to the fact that solid arguments lead to it. — Bartricks

I'm an antinatalist because it's where the arguments lead. — Bartricks

The arguments aren't solid or compelling in the least. It rests solely on the premise "one deserves a life with no harm." There's no evidence supporting this -- it's simply asserted. Fine. Leave pessimism out of it, if you wish. That premise is, at best, unconvincing.

If it's convincing to you, again -- don't have kids. Be well. I won't even speculate on the psychological underpinnings of it. It's just entirely unconvincing to me. To say the argument is "solid" and that's what leads you to the conclusion -- despite "not being a pessimist"...well, if you say so!

I don't think I did. If the chances for a positive outcome and the negative outcome are equal (and both have similar values), then I wouldn't (theoretically) wish to choose avoiding the harm over choosing the good. However, considering that there needs to be an "I" to make the decision, it could be likely that I would be content with living a decent life instead of taking unnecessary risks. When the good is already there, then one should not be so greedy.

The rather disheartening realization that nonexistence is better in some cases is as old as the mountains (vide infra).

An unexamined life is not worth living. — Socrates

In other words, antinatalism can trace its roots right back to the father of philosophy, the Athenian gadfly, no less!

"You're not pessimistic because you dislike suffering. You're pessimistic because you allow suffering to negate life."

:up:

But the examined one is ;)

Intellectual natalism—subtle as always!

So, you mean to say you would still have kids even when you knew they would be tortured all their lives?

That's not what I said. If the probabilities of a good outcome and an equally bad outcome are the same, one wouldn't really have a reason to choose one over the other. However, I suppose I wouldn't want to risk severe harms with my limited resources. Thankfully, the probability isn't perfectly balanced in reality.

But the examined one is ;)

Intellectual natalism—subtle as always! — DA671

How many of us actually examine our lives? It's paradoxical that antinatalism proceeds from examination (of our lives).

Answer the question, mon ami.

Many do, I think. Proper examination leads away from universal antinatalism.

I already answered the question. If the risk is greater than the opportunity, I would not. If the opportunity is greater, I would. I was referring to a hypothetical scenario in which the odds of are perfectly equal.

:ok:

universal — DA671

Yep! That's the key word! It's not meant for everybody but the same goes for natalism, not everybody's cuppa tea.

Of course, it isn't. :ok:

Of course, it isn't. :ok: — DA671

How about we look up some statistics? Are people rational? Look around and, well, smell the roses shit we're neck deep in. One requirement for being able to think rationally is a certain minimum level of comfort/happiness.

In that specific case, no. I don't think it's a great analogy though. Why? Because we're talking about something much bigger -- we're talking about life. So what if the pizza were the size of the world? Would the fact that there was shit on it negate all of that pizza? — Xtrix

So I was thinking about this earlier.. People tend to think if you widen the playing field of choices you give a person, that this somehow justifies imposing a situation on them. So a lot of the disagreement comes into play in terms of how much choice is acceptable for imposition. Many (or most) antinatalists would argue that there is almost no amount of choice given to someone, as long as that set of given choices was imposed upon someone, that they have to make that is acceptable.

Thus, if you were imposed upon to having to like only one thing, only survive in one way, only listen to this or that.. You would maybe agree that this is not something one would think is fair to impose on another. You widen the "field of choices" out even more and there is a greater quantity of choices that your imposition has permitted for that person.. Well, then the pro-natalist might argue that the amount of choices given in a certain kind of life is enough choices that the imposition is now "fair". But the antinatalists are going to object that no, even those choices, (even if there is more quantity and diversity of choices), are not enough to fairly impose onto someone. The choice to not have to make any of those choices is de facto off the table. The choice to no follow any of the premises that "this life" has to offer is off the table. I had some threads a while ago about the idea of complying or dying. That is exactly the thing being imposed upon the person.. complying with what someone else thinks are the acceptable choices or .. well there's not much else one can do..

People are rational to varying degrees. They can certainly be rational in the context of what they do, but introspection is unfortunately rarer than it should be. At least, the world does have intelligent people like you. There are roses and thorns. There are gifts and impositions. Some people think that solely focusing on the latter whilst ignoring the former is acceptable. They think that choices can only be seen as a prison, not as opportunities for invaluable joy that one had no way to ask for before they were given chance to choose. I disagree with that argument. I think that the good matters, but I completely agree that people should not be forced to do things that will ultimately lead to more harm than good.

There are roses and thorns. There are gifts and impositions. I think that the good matters, but I completely agree that people should not be forced to do things that will ultimately lead to more harm than good — DA671

:ok:

What exactly are we talking about here?

1. Suffering, its excessiveness (even from a stoic perspective).

2. Happiness, hard to come by and fleeting.

3. Life.

4. Uncertainty/the veil of ignorance (not knowing what life will be like, happy/sad/bit of both/more of one, less of the other).

What's the best course of action given the above? Natalism/Antinatalism? Not a one-size-fits-all scenario? Customization, tailoring one's beliefs, acting in the way appropriate to one's circumstances?