I would say that one should act according to their circumstances. Just because life can have immense value doesn't mean it is always present. One has to avoid being blinded by blind optimism. In general, I believe that creation can be justified due to the fact that the majority of individuals appear to find value in their lives. However, this is an extremely general assessment that cannot be applied in all situations.

When face to face with uncertainty and the future of children are precisely that, we must/usually assume the worst (outcome). Hence, antinatalism. This is a rule-of-thumb we employ every day in our lives.

Ok. Muchas gracias.

I disagree. The fact that the "worst" isn't as likely along with the existence of ineffably beautiful experiences gives one a strong reason to not accept absolute antinatalism. But total natalism is also problematic.

:up:

I disagree. The fact that the "worst" isn't as likely along with the existence of ineffably beautiful experiences gives one a strong reason to not accept absolute antinatalism. — DA671

Suffering has more weightage than happiness - i.e. even if it's unlikely that I could go to hell, it's still a cause of much anxiety. I can't take any chances is what I mean.

I don't agree. Extreme harms are not experienced by most people. Additionally, there are also people, such as the monks who calmly sit whilst being on fire, who find the state of satisfaction to be greater than the negative. This, coupled with the fact that most people seem to have more experiences they ultimately like than dislike, makes me think that one cannot ignore the potency of the positives. If one is worried about hell (I don't believe that people would spend an eternity in hell), then one also has to be careful to not be amnesiac about the infinite joy of heaven.

I think that it's highly unlikely that a good person like you would go to hell :)

People are good more because they don't wanna end up in hell and less because they wanna be in heaven. Nothing motivates like hurt! :grin:

The idea of being in hell can hurt more when one thinks about the good of heaven ;)

I hope that more people can start being good to each other because they genuine care about the common good.

Nothing motivates like the desire to preventing damage to our body and our state of satisfaction.

The idea of being in hell can hurt more when one thinks about the good of heaven ;) — DA671

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. — Agent Smith

So, happy folks are there to, inter alia, rub salt on sad folks' wounds, to intensify the suffering, to double the pain as it were. Are happy folks then really happy? :chin:

Again this is worth repeating— and was ignored:

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. — Xtrix

Sad folks experience happiness and happy folks experience sadness—it isn't always black and white.

I wasn't referring to the pain experienced by existing people. The point was that the disvalue of hell is intensified by the perceived value of heaven. One need to imagine anybody except themselves in this scenario.

I believe that true happiness comes from helping others, not from unrestricted consumerism and competition.

Précisément! We're on the same page!

:heart:

Most Buddhists don't accept universal AN. The ones I've talked to have said that this is because Buddhism also teaches that suffering can be ended by not being attached to things. Also, they think that rebirth would ensure that nothing we do ends everything. Nirvana, then, will ultimately depend upon the individual.

That's not the question. The argument in the OP does not assume that life is not worth living.
You seem studiously to be ignoring the actual argument made and addressing different ones. No premise of the argument I made assumed that life is not worth living. It's not about how worthwhile it is for someone living a life to continue living it. It is about the morality of the act that created it.

It's like me arguing that raping Jane was wrong and you insisting that I am arguing that the life of the child the rape created is not worth living. The act that created that life was wrong. That does not in any way imply that what the act created ought to be destroyed.

Using slaves to build the pyramids: wrong. You: "so we should destroy the pyramids?" No.

You also seem not to know what pessimism involves. First, it is quality of people, not arguments. I'm not pessimistic and even if I was, that would not affect the soundness of my argument. Second, no premise in my argument assumes that life is miserable or anything else remotely construable as pessimistic.

It assumes that innocent people do not deserve to suffer - that's not a 'pessimistic' assumption, it's a conceptual truth that in no way indicates any pessimism on the part of its asserter.

It assumes that harm that befalls an innocent is undeserved. Again, in no possible way is that a pessimistic assumption.

It assumes that life here will visit some harms on anyone who is brought here. That's not pessimistic. You accept it and everyone accepts it who isn't totally nuts.

Again: the reason you have to construe me as a pessimist is in order to be able to persuade yourself that some kind of psychological flaw explains my antinatalism rather than it being the logical implication of some extraordinarily plausible premises. That's wishful thinking.

So far, then, you have committed the straw man fallacy, the ad hominem fallacy and the wishful thinking fallacy (for those who like naming fallacies).

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

That makes no difference - that's the point. It's like saying that my analogy is not a good one because you would have ordered a pepperoni pizza and not a cheese one.

The analogy is an extremely good one. Why? Because it models the relevant features. James orders a cheese pizza. And that means he now deserves to get one. THe relevant feature here is not the pizza, but the fact that James 'deserves' to receive a cheese pizza.

So, James deserves a cheese pizza. Not a cheese pizza with some shit on it. A cheese pizza.

And an innocent person deserves a harm-free life. Not a life with some harm in it. A harm-free life.

What did James actually receive? A pizza with some shit on it. And so he phones up the restaurant to complain - quite rightly.

What does the person at the restaurant say? Well, they say what you were saying. They say "but its mainly pizza - there's only a bit with shit on". And they say "stop being so pessimistic - most of teh pizza is nice! What you complaining about? You should be grateful. We make you nice pizza. Yes, there's some shit on it, but all our pizzas in cupboard have a bit of shit on. We can't help that. They come with a bit of shit on. So you stop complaining. Stop being miserable. You miserable. No refund. You be grateful to us for giving you pizza"

That's a bonkers reply, yes? That doesn't begin to appreciate the problem. Yes, James has received a pizza. And yes, most of it will be nice and doesn't have shit on. But he 'deserves' an entirely shit free pizza. And he doesn't owe anyone a debt of gratitude - he deserves a shit free pizza. What he deserves is a shit free pizza and those who sent him a shitty one ought to be condemned. And if they have nothing but shitty pizzas then that's no excuse - they shouldn't have opened shop until they got some shit free ones in.

insofar as there are differences, the differences operate to make it even clearer that procraetive acts are wrong.

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. — Xtrix

That's a difference of degree, not kind. Remember: innocent people do not deserve any harm. Any.

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. — Xtrix

No, it's not an 'assertion'. It's a 'conclusion'. The conclusion - not a premise, but a conclusion!!! - is that innocent persons deserve a harm-free happy life. (Note, to make any argument whatever one has to assert some things - it's like criticising me for using language. The only relevant consideration is whether my conclusions follow from premises that are self-evident to reason or far more self-evident than their negations.)

If you're the one responsible for creating such a person, then you owe them that. That's how debts work. If you run up a debt, then you owe the debt. Not me. You.

If you create a person who deserves a harm-free happy life, and you do that of your own free will, then you owe them that. They don't owe anyone anything. They haven't done anything!

No. First, one doesn't "order" anything in life. — Xtrix

Point. Missed.

Life isn't a pizza. That's not a good reply to my analogy. It just means you don't understand what's relevant and what's not.

Sex isn't a phoneline. That's not a good reply to my analogy.

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. — Xtrix

No, you clearly don't understand how the analogy works.

Now, I have already said - and I am just going to keep saying it until you acknowledge or understand the point - that possibility does not affect desert.

When you threw James off the bridge, you rendered his death two seconds later inevitable. That doesn't mean that upon throwing him off the bridge he ceased not to deserve to die.

Now, once more, in the pizza example James deserves something - a pizza.

The people in the pizza place can't give James what he deserves, because they only have shit pizzas.

So what ought they have done? Ought they have advertised cheese pizzas and let people order and pay for cheese pizzas - thus generating a deservingness of cheese pizzas - when they know full well that all they can possibly give people are shitted-upon pizzas?

No. Join the dots. Ought you procreate? No.

You know that if you procreate you'll be creating someone who'll deserve a harm-free happy life.

You also know that you can't give them that.

So, you own a pizza place and you know that the cupboard has nothing but shat-upon pizzas in it

Is it right to open up shop when you know full well that what'll be advertised - and so what people will be ordering and thereby coming to deserve - will be cheese only pizzas, when you know full well that it is impossible for you to give them cheese only pizzas, indeed that you'll be giving them shat-upon ones?

No. It's not right. You don't 'have' to open up the pizza place. But if you do, all the above will happen. So, don't open it. It's wrong. It's bad.

You don't have to procreate. If you procreate you know you'll be creating someone who'll deserve a harm-free happy life. You also know that you can't possibly give them that - the cupboard only has lives that have shit on them in it and you know full well that anyone you bring into being will have to live one of those slightly shat upon lives (and you know as well that some will have really really shitty ones...but let's not get distracted by that highly morally relevant consideration because my argument - my one - doesn't require that to be the case....just an itsy bitsy bit of shit will do). So you ought not to procreate, then, yes? You'll be creating a desert of something you can't provide.

Note another thing - the pizza analogy is importantly different from procreation cases. If you don't open the joint, no one will get a pizza. There will be people deprived of pizza - people who may have wanted pizza enough to be willing to scrape the shit (the shit they still didn't deserve) off.

But when it comes to procreation, if you don't procreate you haven't deprived anyone of the slightly shat upon life they would otherwise have led, have you? They don't exist to be deprived.

That's a relevant difference between the cases - but it operates to make it even clearer that procreative acts are wrong. For the fact that by not opening the pizza joint you'll be depriving people of pizzas - albeit slightly shitty ones when they deserve much better - is a fact that speaks in favour of opening. Procreative acts possess no similar feature.

Antinatalism gives me AI vibes! It's the kinda solution to problems (herein suffering) an AI would come up with.

It also reminds me of Stalin (vide infra).

Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem. — Joseph Stalin

A quarrel, if allowed to, soon escalates into a death match! Once you kill your opponent, you feel like Andrew Wiles, they brilliant chap who proved Fermat's Last Theorem, who solved a 400 year-old mathematical problem! :snicker:

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. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I think I have made my arguments against antinatalism crystal clear by now, so I have explained why I would help build and maintain cities. The two vids posted by DA671 should give you pause for thought when it comes to your interest/slight support of antinatalism. To me it's completely incompatible with socialism/humanism as both of those doctrines are pointless if no humans exist.

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 — Bartricks

:clap: :clap: :clap: I always appreciate your attempt to entertain others with your bizarre musings.

When face to face with uncertainty and the future of children are precisely that, we must/usually assume the worst (outcome). Hence, antinatalism. This is a rule-of-thumb we employ every day in our lives. — Agent Smith

Yes it is. Certainly the larger argument might be something like, "We are not obligated to create happy people (if that person isn't there to be deprived), but it seems we are obliged to not create unhappy people (who may indeed actually exist)".

However, it's not even that claim I was discussing, but more about the nature of imposing life on another and when it's justified. Pro-natalists think that life can be imposed as long as X criteria of choices is involved and X criteria of harm is involved. In other words, they recognize that there is an "acceptable" amount of harm that someone else will suffer.

For the antinatalist, both of these claims are misguided. By its very nature, presuming for another that "these range of choices are good" is wrong. I call this moralistic misguided thinking "aggressive paternalism". It presumes one knows what is meaningful, best, or good for another, when in fact they may be ignorant themselves (if these are somehow "objectively" true), or simply, wrong (if they are relatively true and that person being affected just doesn't agree).

Also for antinatalists, presuming that it is permissible to allow the conditions for X criteria of harm is also presumptuous for another. Again, it is aggressively paternalistic to assume that X types of harm are acceptable for other people to suffer. These are flawed and misguided notions that someone else should arbitrarily, by their own reckoning, be the arbiter of what is acceptable in the range of choices or the range of harms that others should encounter. The sad thing is, there is no alternative for those who would disagree.. Only suicide and cajoling that, "This life isn't that bad!" and all the cultural pressures of thousands of years of optimism bias.

Also don't forget, there is unforeseeable harm as well as expected harm for the future person that would be born. The parents might have thought that only X amount of harm would take place, but there are other (perhaps more serious) harms that can befall a person that they didn't even expect and is regrettable. I'll call this a "known unknown". We know that there is unforeseeable harms for future people, so even though we don't know the specifics, we can understand a vague idea of it, and we know that it is a frequent occurrence.

If we construct a hypothetical scale for suffering then there's a point beyond which the sign flips and suffering goes from pro-life (for existence) to pro-death (against existence). Cancer pain seems to be one such point. It's a feature not a bug in my humble opinion but why it hasn't been installed so to speak in all living organisms is a mystery to me. If you torture a dog for example, the thought of suicide never crosses its minds.

Thanatos rules over animals (natalism). Algos over humans (antinatalism).

Something doesn't add up here!

This feels important: Apoptosis (cellular suicide). Hypothesis: Those who're suicidal are carrying a (microbial/meme) contagion of sorts and the only way to stop the spread is hara kiri. :chin:

The argument in the OP does not assume that life is not worth living. — Bartricks

Yes it does. If it’s worth living — meaning it is, on the whole, a good — then it’s (in general) worth having kids. Despite the fact that it doesn’t happen to fit your definition of what’s “deserved.”

If life isn’t worth living — in this case because there is suffering, and no baby deserves any suffering whatsoever — then we shouldn’t have kids.

There's really no way around it, as a matter of logic. Otherwise you have to basically say, "No, life is wonderful and I'm just as happy as you are and want to go on living -- totally worthwhile as an adult; but not as a baby, which I was too at one point."

So life is good and worthwhile and a blessing, if you're grown up (like us), but it's still a mistake to have kids -- and it was still a mistake for our parents to have us?

It's contradictory, I'm afraid.

Either it's a mistake to have kids -- in which case, if that's your view, YOU are mistake. You should not have been born. Or it's not a mistake.

You seem studiously to be ignoring the actual argument made and addressing different ones. No premise of the argument I made assumed that life is not worth living. — Bartricks

I have addressed that premise multiple times and, thus, the argument.

And yes, it does assume life isn’t worth living. You’re simply not seeing it because it’s a few assumptions removed from the point about “deserving no harm.” I’ll keep trying, but ultimately there’s little I can do if you’re not willing to acknowledge it.

It doesn’t “refute” the argument, incidentally. I think this is partly what you’re thinking. But I don’t view pessimism as a refutation. If you don’t like the word pessimism— fine. We can use another term or phrase.

But if life is worth living — then it’s worth living in spite of the “unfairness” or “undeservedness” of suffering.

Otherwise you’re contradicting yourself.

But you already said you believe your own life was a mistake— and you fault your parents for it. But it’s still wonderful and worth living? How does this get reconciled?

Because if it’s worth it for YOU — despite being born innocent and having to endure suffering — then why is it NOT worth it for a future human being?

It's not about how worthwhile it is for someone living a life to continue living it. — Bartricks

Why is it worthwhile to continue living it when there’s undeserved suffering involved?

Using slaves to build the pyramids: wrong. You: "so we should destroy the pyramids?" — Bartricks

Not at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

It assumes that innocent people do not deserve to suffer - that's not a 'pessimistic' assumption, it's a conceptual truth that in no way indicates any pessimism on the part of its asserter. — Bartricks

It’s not about “deserving” anything. That word is a value judgment. It’s saying “suffering is bad for anyone born.” Ok, fine. But life is both suffering and happiness, pain and pleasure — they’re two sides of the same coin. So by saying they don’t deserve any pain, then they don’t deserve any life — because it’s impossible to live pain-free or suffering-free. It's not as if suffering is something that can be removed -- as if it's an evil imposed on what would be perfection. It's not a flaw, it's simply an aspect -- a part. And a part you ultimately believe should prevent us from choosing to have kids.

So again, this is the premise I’ve been arguing against from the beginning. It rests on nothing but your assertion and value judgment. Why you choose to say this instead of “no one innocent deserves life” is unknown, but that’s what you’re saying: no one should be born because life contains suffering and suffering is undeserved. No one should have pizza because it contains dough, and I don't like dough.

What if I were to argue instead: we should have kids because every kid deserves to experience joy? True, I’m ignoring suffering with this statement — but it’s as equally valid as yours, which ignores joy.

Again— what’s so terrible about suffering?

Since it’s part of life, they DO “deserve” to experience suffering -- because life is amazing!

It assumes that innocent people do not deserve to suffer - that's not a 'pessimistic' assumption, it's a conceptual truth that in no way indicates any pessimism on the part of its asserter.

It assumes that harm that befalls an innocent is undeserved. Again, in no possible way is that a pessimistic assumption.

It assumes that life here will visit some harms on anyone who is brought here. That's not pessimistic. You accept it and everyone accepts it who isn't totally nuts.

Again: the reason you have to construe me as a pessimist is in order to be able to persuade yourself that some kind of psychological flaw explains my antinatalism rather than it being the logical implication of some extraordinarily plausible premises. That's wishful thinking. — Bartricks

Alright then -- forget pessimism. I retract that. It's clear to me your argument is predicated on it, but you don't agree. Fine. Makes no difference -- I was hoping you'd just acknowledge it, because I don't believe it has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of the argument, any more than saying "the glass is half empty" is somehow refuted because it emphasizes emptiness instead of fullness. But so be it.

Let's try to parse your argument out without references to pessimism, based exactly on what you said above.

First, let's be clear with our words so we're not talking past one another. I am using "harm" as synonymous with words like "suffering" and "pain" -- which are simply part of life. You seem to be fine with that, as you haven't indicated it's inaccurate.

Second, the word "deserve" is unclear. It implies being entitled, owed, or worth-of something. But according to who? When someone gets a stomach ache, does it make sense to say they "deserve" a stomach ache? If we talk like that, we're assuming a human being making a judgment about whether or not that person "deserves" this or not -- maybe they ate an entire cake and we feel they "deserve" what they get, etc. But those are human value judgments; moral judgments; judgments that involve notions of "good" and "bad," and particularly of justice, in the sense of what is deemed fair or unfair. When it comes to facts of the world, it's not always useful to talk in terms like these. The tree got struck by lightning -- did the tree deserve it? I throw a rock into a pond -- does the water deserve to be disturbed? No one can step outside of life, so how you judge what's deserved or undeserved, fair or unfair, is dependent on your own perspective. That's essentially a truism.

So see if you agree with this: it is unjust for an innocent to suffer. This is just a different way of saying what you're saying above, in my view -- can we agree on that?

Lastly, "innocent" is a bit strange. Innocent of what, and who decides innocence?

With semantics out of the way, let me rephrase your premises a bit:

(1) "harm that befalls an innocent is undeserved" = It is unjust for an innocent to suffer.

(2) "life here will visit some harms on anyone who is brought here" = Suffering is an inescapable part of life.

That's all you've said so far. I'm not assuming the conclusion yet, I'm not attributing anything to pessimism. To be crystal clear: what I'm challenging is premise (1).

OK?

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. — Xtrix

That's not the question. — Bartricks

Humor me and answer it anyway. What do you think? Is life worth living or not?

If so, why? And why deprive others of this worthy experience? Why make an exception of yourself?

The analogy is an extremely good one. Why? Because it models the relevant features. James orders a cheese pizza. And that means he now deserves to get one. THe relevant feature here is not the pizza, but the fact that James 'deserves' to receive a cheese pizza. — Bartricks

OK. But how is this relevant to life? No one says "I'll have one life, please" -- and then, because there's suffering in it, is indignant. They don't say: "This isn't what I asked for! I asked for life!"

You see why the analogy fails?

Shit is not part of pizza. If shit WERE a part of pizza (like dough is), you have no right to be upset that shit is on your pizza any more than you would that pizza is made of dough. That's simply part of the pizza.

It's true that in the real world, shit is NOT part of pizza. So you'd be right to be upset -- it's not what you ordered.

Let's bring it to life. By this analogy you're trying to characterize my argument as: "Just ignore the shit and look at everything else on the pizza." That's not what I'm arguing -- whether about pizza or about life. Life contains suffering and pain. I'm not saying "ignore the suffering and focus only on the joy," I'm saying life *IS* pain and it *IS* joy. You cannot have one without the other, they're both part of the term and phenomenon of "life" itself. Pain cannot be removed without removing life.

Back to the pizza. Shit is not part of pizza. Suffering is, however, part of life. If you ask for life, you're asking for suffering. If you ask for pizza, you're asking for dough. If you don't want suffering and you don't want dough, then you don't want life and you don't want pizza -- which is perfectly fine. You could ask, "Why?" and the answer would be: because I don't want suffering or I don't want dough.

The analogy fails because you're equating "shit" with harm in this analogy. To expect a pizza without shit on it is perfectly reasonable; to expect life without shit (harm) in it is like expecting a triangle with 2 sides -- insane.

What does the person at the restaurant say? Well, they say what you were saying. They say "but its mainly pizza - there's only a bit with shit on" — Bartricks

That's not what I'm arguing at all.

So, James deserves a cheese pizza. Not a cheese pizza with some shit on it. A cheese pizza. — Bartricks

True.

And an innocent person deserves a harm-free life. Not a life with some harm in it. A harm-free life. — Bartricks

No, because there is no such thing as a harm-free life. That's impossible, as you've agreed. That's like asking for pizza without dough. If the pizza shows up with dough, that's to be expected. Likewise, a life with suffering is to be expected -- it's simply part of it. Like death -- a part of life.

We can imagine a life without harm or suffering, sure. Concepts of heaven, for example -- or some other kind of perfection, ideal, paradise. But those are based on human conceptions of perfection and goodness, and they will vary.

It's like "deserving" a triangle with 2 sides. Well, that's impossible. A triangle has three sides. If you ask for a triangle, and you're upset that it shows up with 3 sides -- that just means you misunderstood what a triangle is.

Triangles comes with three sides. Life comes with suffering. Pizza comes with dough.

You either want these things or you don't.

The rest is superfluous and I'll skip it.

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.
— Xtrix

No, it's not an 'assertion'. It's a 'conclusion'. — Bartricks

It's a belief, whether you call it an assertion or conclusion. That life should be harm-free is a belief. I see no evidence to support that belief one way or another, and you've offered none.

That doesn't make it "wrong" or inconsistent. It just makes it unconvincing...at least to me.

I don't believe life should be harm-free. I don't view that as a good, or something more desirable than life as it is.

I view life as it is as a good; and life as it is includes suffering. Thus, suffering is ultimately good too.

I would distinguish between necessary and unnecessary suffering, perhaps. But that's a different discussion.

The only relevant consideration is whether my conclusions follow from premises that are self-evident — Bartricks

Which they clearly aren't. If they were, I'd be agreeing with you.

If you create a person who deserves a harm-free happy life, and you do that of your own free will, then you owe them that. — Bartricks

They don't deserve a harm-free life. Harm-free lives are impossible. If that's what they deserve, then it's impossible to give it to them -- and so you get to your conclusion is one step.

Rather, they either (1) deserve life, as it is, or they (2) don't deserve life, as it is.

There's no third option. That's a fantasy. So given how things actually are, we're back to square one.

Now, I could assert: every person born deserves angel wings and the power of invisibility. That's impossible too, but we can fantasize about it. But I wouldn't use the fact that life falls short of that fantasy as a reason not to have kids. I could, I guess, but I think that'd be ridiculous.

I think it's equally unconvincing to argue you shouldn't have kids because life falls short of some harm-free fantasy.

--

Now, once more, in the pizza example James deserves something - a pizza.

The people in the pizza place can't give James what he deserves, because they only have shit pizzas.

So what ought they have done? Ought they have advertised cheese pizzas and let people order and pay for cheese pizzas - thus generating a deservingness of cheese pizzas - when they know full well that all they can possibly give people are shitted-upon pizzas?

No. Join the dots. Ought you procreate? No. — Bartricks

See above on why this analogy fails.

You know that if you procreate you'll be creating someone who'll deserve a harm-free happy life. — Bartricks

No, I don't "know" that. I don't believe that. I don't accept that. That's what I've been telling you for a while now.

They don't deserve a harm-free life. That's a made-up premise, or assertion, or conclusion. It's a belief -- and one that I'm well aware you hold. I do not hold that belief.

You don't have to procreate. If you procreate you know you'll be creating someone who'll deserve a harm-free happy life. You also know that you can't possibly give them that - the cupboard only has lives that have shit on them in it and you know full well that anyone you bring into being will have to live one of those slightly shat upon lives (and you know as well that some will have really really shitty ones...but let's not get distracted by that highly morally relevant consideration because my argument - my one - doesn't require that to be the case....just an itsy bitsy bit of shit will do). So you ought not to procreate, then, yes? You'll be creating a desert of something you can't provide. — Bartricks

This is a good illustration of why the analogy fails, as I outlined in the previous post above. You're equating the "shit" with "harm," as I highlighted. And that's where it breaks down. Why? Again: because harm is part of life. Or, to shift to your analogy to make it accurate: shit (harm) is part of the pizza (life). To expect life without harm is like expecting pizza without dough or a triangle without three sides. It's impossible. One doesn't say "I didn't order this three-sided thing -- I ordered a triangle!" Mutatis mutandis, life and harm.

So the question, once again, comes down to:

Should you create life or not create life?

Is life good or is it bad?

Is it worth being born, or not worth being born?

I answer all of the above in the affirmative. It is worth it, yes; it is good. Despite suffering, despite death, despite pain, loss, and heartache. I'd do it all again if I could, and I'm grateful for the chance -- grateful to my parents, grateful to the universe. If I were Christian or Muslim, I'd be grateful perhaps to God or Allah. But hey, that's me.

Does that mean I'll actually have kids? No. But there are other reasons involved in that, much more personal, subjective, value-laden, situational, and complicated -- reasons that far exceed the attempted generalized abstractions of this thread. And, I beg your pardon, also far more interesting.

I view life as it is as a good; and life as it is includes suffering. Thus, suffering is ultimately good too.

I would distinguish between necessary and unnecessary suffering, perhaps. But that's a different discussion. — Xtrix

And that is the major difference in moral reasoning here.
I have said previously that unnecessary suffering is that which you impose on another person which did not ameliorate a greater harm for a lesser harm for that person.

Also this brings up my idea on where the line is drawn for what is permissible in terms of impositions allowed on others.. I would suggest reading my last comment on that as it directly relates to this notion as to what is permissible to do on behalf of others:

However, it's not even that claim I was discussing, but more about the nature of imposing life on another and when it's justified. Pro-natalists think that life can be imposed as long as X criteria of choices is involved and X criteria of harm is involved. In other words, they recognize that there is an "acceptable" amount of harm that someone else will suffer.

For the antinatalist, both of these claims are misguided. By its very nature, presuming for another that "these range of choices are good" is wrong. I call this moralistic misguided thinking "aggressive paternalism". It presumes one knows what is meaningful, best, or good for another, when in fact they may be ignorant themselves (if these are somehow "objectively" true), or simply, wrong (if they are relatively true and that person being affected just doesn't agree).

Also for antinatalists, presuming that it is permissible to allow the conditions for X criteria of harm is also presumptuous for another. Again, it is aggressively paternalistic to assume that X types of harm are acceptable for other people to suffer. These are flawed and misguided notions that someone else should arbitrarily, by their own reckoning, be the arbiter of what is acceptable in the range of choices or the range of harms that others should encounter. The sad thing is, there is no alternative for those who would disagree.. Only suicide and cajoling that, "This life isn't that bad!" and all the cultural pressures of thousands of years of optimism bias.

Also don't forget, there is unforeseeable harm as well as expected harm for the future person that would be born. The parents might have thought that only X amount of harm would take place, but there are other (perhaps more serious) harms that can befall a person that they didn't even expect and is regrettable. I'll call this a "known unknown". We know that there is unforeseeable harms for future people, so even though we don't know the specifics, we can understand a vague idea of it, and we know that it is a frequent occurrence. — schopenhauer1

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. — 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. — schopenhauer1

It seems to me that the strongest argument for AN is consequentialist (would you build a city that is reliant on the unbearable suffering of a small child) (There will be hundreds of millions of sacrificial lambs in what we are building). The consent argument, asymmetry argument, etc, don't have the same feel to me.

Interesting that you say "super consequentialist thinking". What proportion of your views (if any) are consequentialist? Do you think it's consistent for one to have a general consequentialist outlook while also having overriding principles (such as sanctity of life, consent etc)?

I'm asking you what you make of the fact that people are able to procreate (some people, at least; the ability to procreate is not a given).
What moral implications does this fact have, according to you? — baker

None. People are able to do immoral things. — Bartricks

Think about it. What does it say about the universe that people can do immoral things? What is more, they can do things that some people consider "immoral", and they are nevertheless happy and suffer no ill effects. For example, people can kill, rape, and pillage, and live happily everafter. Doesn't this strike you as noteworthy?

Like I say, you don't seem to be appreciating that this is a normative issue.

Normative according to whose norms?