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)? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I think politics can be consequential and doesn't necessarily reduce down to ethics proper. One can ponder ethics in governance, but that is different. Ultimately, it is the dignity of a person one is appealing to in ethics, and which is ignored when imposing unnecessary harms or imposing ones own criteria of what is an acceptable range of choices and harms onto another.

Consequences do matter (it is the impact of the choice of having a child that matters after all), but it is the idea of looking at consequences above and beyond the violating of the dignity of an individual which I have a problem with.

The weakness of your and @schopenhauer1 's line of reasoning is that it requires far more compassion and mercy than people usually have.

The other weakness is that it requires that people be not seen as objects, as things over which one rules. In contrast, people usually see other people as things, as their underlings, as beings to be ruled over (hence they have no qualms about procreating, or having abortions).

So your AN arguments are not fit for this world.

Indeed, you may be right, unfortunately. The fact that very significant impositions are taken for granted as fair and just, possibly shows this mentality. It doesn't thus make the impositions acceptable. It just indicates that it is harder for most to get. Not a problem of soundness but epistemology. A blindspot in ethical reasoning perhaps.

Normative according to whose norms? — baker

Moral norms. Antinatalism is the view that it is immoral, or default immoral (for there may be exceptional cases) to procreate.

The fact a person deserves something can, sometimes, generate an obligation to provide it. And sometimes it won't. — Bartricks

I don't know why you think this is relevant since my opening comment on this was...

For someone to deserve something means (in the context it's used here) there is a duty of moral agents to provide them it. — Isaac

... if I could bold and underline, I would. It may just drive the information into your recalcitrant skull. "In the context it's used here". In other words, not, universally the case.

All that matters for the argument is that having a desert creates an obligation in the context it's used here. I don't really know how I could make that any more simple for you.

Hence my counterargument still stands

For someone to deserve something means (in the context it's used here) there is a duty of moral agents to provide them it. For someone to not deserve something does not impose a similar duty on moral agents to prevent them from having it. It may be that they obtain it by chance, and no moral approbation comes along with that.

So the argument that we have a duty to avoid harm befalling innocents cannot be derived from the intuition that innocents do not deserve harm. They don't deserve harm, but they don't deserve non-harm either. — Isaac

if you want to define desert as a turnip and then conclude that my argument doesn't work because your ignorant definition turns it into nonsense, have a ball. Jesus christ, you people!!
To deserve something does not mean others are obliged to give it to you, as I have explained numerous times. Deal with it.

To deserve something does not mean others are obliged to give it to you, as I have explained numerous times. — Bartricks

So? What has that got to do with the matter at hand? Which is that it is taken, in this actual case, to imply just such an obligation.

It is a flaw in your argument that you assume the lack of desert of harm implies an obligation to actually cause a state of non-harm. It doesn't. When deserts imply obligations (note when they do, not that they always do), they do not typically also imply an obligation to avoid the opposite of that which is deserved.

Thus, to claim an innocent does not deserve harm does not (as you incorrectly conclude) imply that there is a duty on anyone to bring about the opposite (a state of non-harm).

Alternatively, if you want to claim that, in this case,...

To deserve something does not mean others are obliged to give it to you — Bartricks

...then your argument fails as I pointed out before. An innocent may deserve non-harm, but no one is under any obligation to provide it, so procreation is morally acceptable.

So the argument that we have a duty to avoid harm befalling innocents cannot be derived from the intuition that innocents do not deserve harm. They don't deserve harm, but they don't deserve non-harm either. — Isaac

An interesting way to put it. While I agree with it, I would further argue that they don't deserve anything -- beyond what human beings think they deserve (or don't deserve). And the answer to that question (What do human beings deserve?) is so personal that to try to find a general, abstract principle about it -- that is, one that applies in all or even most situations -- is a fool's errand.

If a person believes that a human being deserves the powers of invisibility, or the ability to fly, or telepathy or, as Bartricks does, to live a pain-free existence -- which are all impossible -- then that person should not have kids. God bless them -- may they be happy with that choice.

The interesting question for me is why they have that belief to begin with. Why is the expectation an unobtainable one? It's like asking for a square with three sides. If living a pain-free existence is the only just existence, then sure: existence is unjust. But that's a rigged game, so to speak -- rigged to draw the same conclusion over and over again. Why? Because life includes pain -- it's part of the phenomenon of being alive.

That's why I say it's a fundamentally negative (eschewing the word "pessimistic") view of human life. It says: human life is a mistake and it is unjust because there's pain (including, especially, the pain of "innocents" -- which everyone is admittedly born). Thus, better not to be born than to be born; better not to create life than to create life. That's what leads to beliefs like "innocents deserve no harm of any kind." which then get presented as if it's a logical law of nature or "self-evident truth." It isn't; there are further assumptions upon which it rests.

o deserve something does not mean others are obliged to give it to you — Bartricks

Ok. But who decides what's deserved? That doesn't fall from the sky, I assume. It's not God-given. So who decides? Who decides what is deserved? You?

You want to argue from the Platonic realm of ideas -- that the laws of logic dictate it, etc. But clearly that's not working. If this is something that's as self-evident as you make it seem, it should be able to be shown and proven and as demonstrable as Newton's laws or mathematical theorems. You haven't done so yet.

What you have so far done is made the statement "this is what is deserved," and claimed that you take it as a self-evident truth. Well, OK, that's fine -- if that's what you believe, then you're 100% correct, logically and consistently, in not creating life. Who's stopping you from not having kids? Who's even arguing that you SHOULD have kids (certainly not me!)? Be happy.

But if you're going to try to make normative claims which apply to others -- like me and others on this forum -- and cast moral judgments, or attempt to persuade people not to do something, then you have been, if you pardon me, a very poor advocate. Why? Because from what I've read -- including with myself earlier in this discussion -- you're dismissive, condescending, sarcastic, and adversarial -- often to the point of contempt. That's no way to try to persuade others to stop making moral mistakes. If you have the better argument, show it. Demonstrate it. Don't hide behind Logic 101 accusations of "fallacies" and other rhetorical nomenclature; try to meet people where they are and walk them through it. Otherwise you give the appearance of being intellectually and emotionally immature, or worse: an utter fraud. You can do better than that.

So again I repeat the question above in a rephrased way: Why should *I* believe (or "think" or "conclude") that life should be completely and totally absent from harm? And why is harm the focus?

So again I repeat the question above in a rephrased way: Why should *I* believe (or "think" or "conclude") that life should be completely and totally absent from harm? And why is harm the focus? — Xtrix

You seem to ignore my arguments.

Apologies. I’m trying to engage mostly with the OP. I view your argument as a separate one. Although interesting, I haven’t had the time to give a careful reading.

o deserve something does not mean others are obliged to give it to you
— Bartricks

Ok. But who decides what's deserved? That doesn't fall from the sky, I assume. It's not God-given. So who decides? Who decides what is deserved? You? — Xtrix

These are metaethical issues. If you're going to reject my argument by embracing some form of individual or collective subjectivism about morality, you're welcome as then you'd also be committed to concluding that the Nazis did no wrong.

Antinatalism is a normative theory, not a metaethical theory. So if you are forced to stray into metaethics, you've lost.

Moral properties are God given, but that's no premise in my argument. My argument requires only that one recognize that persons are created innocent and that an innocent person deserves no harm (and that it is wrong - other things being equal - to create injustices). Those claims are not reasonably deniable.

I would further argue that they don't deserve anything -- beyond what human beings think they deserve (or don't deserve). And the answer to that question (What do human beings deserve?) is so personal that to try to find a general, abstract principle about it -- that is, one that applies in all or even most situations -- is a fool's errand. — Xtrix

Interesting. Have you read Anscombe on what we 'ought' to do? I'm somewhat persuaded by a bastardised version of her argument. 'Deserve' is just a word, and like any other word is has a meaning which is carried by its use. So if we say "John deserved a punch in the face" when John has done absolutely nothing wrong, we've not made an error in ethical judgement, we've made an error in language, that's simply not how the word 'deserve' is used, it's not used to describe punching someone in the face when they've done nothing wrong, it's used to describe the sorts of things we all commonly associated with "John deserved X".

This leaves the meaning very fuzzy, very contextual, but still not without meaning entirely. We can still say punching old ladies for no reason is morally wrong because that's the sort of activity the term 'morally wrong' is used to describe, just like the tall branching thing with leaves on it over there is the sort of thing the term 'tree' is used to describe.

So yes, a fabrication of humans, but like any linguistic practice, definitely has its fuzzy boundaries.

The interesting question for me is why they have that belief to begin with. Why is the expectation an unobtainable one? It's like asking for a square with three sides. If living a pain-free existence is the only just existence, then sure: existence is unjust. But that's a rigged game, so to speak -- rigged to draw the same conclusion over and over again. Why? Because life includes pain -- it's part of the phenomenon of being alive. — Xtrix

Yes. That is the most interesting question. It dogs all antinatalist arguments. Why are we reducing harm when there's no one around to benefit from the lack of harm? Harm is something to reduce so that someone can enjoy the lack of it, not something to reduce just because. I was talking in another thread, coincidentally, about the fetishisation of philosophical questions. I think this universal harm-reduction is just such a fetishisation. It's not a feeling anyone actually has, it's a principle it is possible to have and so people, of a certain ilk, will try it on, so to speak, like dressing up in Cowboy costume, just to see how it feels.

But how do we know anything? That's the problem with antinatalist arguments. How does anyone know anything? And language. What does 'desert' mean anyway? Ice cream? People are born ice cream? What's Bartthick on about? What a twit.

how do we know anything? — Bartricks

Something's turning out to be as I expected it to be using some theory and others in my community seeming to have the same experience is a pretty good measure of my knowing that theory. Why do you ask?

and language. What does 'desert' mean anyway? — Bartricks

It means that which is it used for in my language community. Again, not sure why you're asking.

In my community desert means ice cream. So Bartdumb is arguing that if a person is created from scratch, then they are born ice cream. Which is silly. How does it follow from a person being created ice cream that procreation is wrong? Isn't he a dumbo.

Something's turning out to be as I expected it to be using some theory and others in my community seeming to have the same experience is a pretty good measure of my knowing that theory. — Isaac

I expect my wife is not having an affair with the plumber. I just expect that the pipes in our bedroom play up a lot during the day and that he really enjoys plumbing. Therefore, my wife is not having an affair with the plumber. Good. Epistemology Isaac style.

Now, how about you try and understand what I am using the word 'desert' to mean?

In my community desert means ice cream. — Bartricks

Weird. You've never heard people use the word 'desert' in contexts like "that murderer's death was his just desert"?

What an odd community you must have been brought up in. Still, you use the word that way now, so you must have learnt how to use it somehow. From where did you learn how to use the word 'desert' as you use it in the OP?

But in my community it means ice cream. So the murderer's death was his just ice cream? That makes no sense at all.

But in my community it means ice cream. So the murderer's death was his just ice cream? That makes no sense at all. — Bartricks

Then how did you learn how to use the word 'desert' as you use it in the OP?

From a pixie. And he learnt it from a tub of lard. And he learnt it from a waffle iron. And the waffle iron learnt it from me.

So, if a person has done nothing whatsoever, then that person is ice creams no harm. That's premise 1.

Premise 2 is that newly created persons - which is a word that in my community we use to denote used tissue paper - have done nothing whatsoever (for they are bits of tissue paper, not agents).

And then I conclude form those premises that bits of tissue paper ice creams no harm.

Oh, and in my community we use words differently every ten minutes. Which means 3 turnips.

The Struggle for Existence (not my words, trust me). Life is a struggle. A long queue outside the door with a sign that reads LIFE!

:snicker:

The antinatalists here are convinced that if they keep repeating their ridiculous arguments then they will get some easily duped followers. All of their points have been utterly debunked on this thread. Any future rational readers will dismiss them completely. I suggest to those still engaging them on this thread that your work is done. They are dead in the water.

Yes, I think pretty much sums up the state of the arguments. He's resorted to talking about pixies.

Yes, I think ↪Bartricks pretty much sums up that state of the arguments. He's resorted to talking about pixies. — Isaac

:rofl: Along with tubs of lard and waffle irons. When you start to employ cooking images and supernatural fables, you lost the arguments ages ago. All the logical points made by me, you, @Xtrix, @DA671 and many others on this thread will never be acknowledged or accepted by the antinatalists. They get their jollies from the 'shock value,' they think they are causing. The result of antinatalism is clearly shown in the two clips posted by DA671. They represent organised antinatalism in the USA.
As I said you have already fully debunked them here.

A = Antinatalism

S = Life is suffering

P = Life is predominantly suffering.

The Argument from Suffering for Antinatalism

1. (S $\lor$ P) $\to$ A

2. S $\lor$ P

Ergo,

3. A [1, 2 MP]

I'm taking the pixie out of you.
A person who hasn't done anything doesn't deserve to come to harm.
That's not controversial. You think it is. It ain't.
If someone deserves something but doesn't get it, that's bad. It's called an 'injustice'. Them's bad.
Other things being equal, we have moral reason not to perform acts that will create injustices.
Acts of procreation create such injustices. Therefore, other things being equal we have moral reason not to perform them.
It's a solid argument.

Disagree with P. However, it can certainly be true in some cases, which is what we need to avoid as much as possible.

They also deserve positives and the prevention of a one-sided perspective regarding value.

It's as solid as air. Nevertheless, it does highlight, directly or indirectly, the urgent need to alleviate suffering and stop reckless procreation.

A person who hasn't done anything doesn't deserve to come to harm.
That's not controversial. You think it is. — Bartricks

Where have I disagreed with that proposition?

If someone deserves something but doesn't get it, that's bad. It's called an 'injustice'. Them's bad.
Other things being equal, we have moral reason not to perform acts that will create injustices. — Bartricks

Yep.

Acts of procreation create such injustices. — Bartricks

How so?

Acts of procreation create circumstances in which innocents might come to harm. Your first proposition is that innocents do not deserve harm.

You've not shown that someone getting something which they do not deserve is an injustice.

If I don't deserve a car, but get one anyway, no injustice seems to have occurred. I just got lucky.

So if I don't deserve harm, but get harm anyway, by what precedent do you conclude that an injustice has happened rather than just that I've been unlucky?

For your logic to hold, you'd have to either demonstrate that link or hold that innocents deserve the absence of harm. The latter is something with which very few people would agree.

Additionally, innocent people also deserve happiness. Since most people do seem to prefer existence despite the harms, it doesn't seem right to solely focus on preventing harms.