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. — Bartricks

I don't accept subjectivism, nor that the Nazi's did no wrong.

They're ethical issues and metaethical issues, sure. If you don't want to defend your argument, that's OK. But you started this thread, and put forward an argument. Then you continued, over and over again, to complain about how no one was challenging your premises. I'm doing exactly that: engaging with the argument by challenging one of your premises.

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

:smile: It would do you well to put down these sophomoric ideas about "debate," rules of debate, syllogisms, fallacies, and whatever else you've picked up from your reading or classes.

You made a statement. I didn't make the statement -- you did. So the onus is on you, if you care to persuade anyone (which I assume you do -- otherwise why bother posting in a public place?), to defend and support your statement. You don't "win" anything by default, simply by declaring a category error.

Here is the statement: "Innocents deserve a harm-free life."

That is what is being challenged, and that is what you need to flush out and support. If you can't do that, just say so. If you simply fall back on "It's self-evident, and doesn't need justification," then do so -- and we can end the conversation there. Because in that case I can say the opposite, declare it is also self-evident, and go on my merry way without having to waste any more time.

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. — Bartricks

And yet that's EXACTLY what I'm denying, and why your argument fails to convince me. So what are you going to do about it? Simply declare me "unreasonable"? Insult me? Give up? Again, that's fine. I will simply remain completely unconvinced and go on knowing that your argument rests on nothing but personal whim about what life "should" be.

Or you can support it further. Can't be explained further? That's fine too. In that case we've reached an impasse, and I can with equal support make the claim that life, although it involves harm, is good -- and therefore creating life is good.

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

Definitely.

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. — Isaac

Yes, and beyond that take it as part of their identity. Many people -- myself included at times -- want to take a generally good principle and universalize it, when every specific situation is almost always more complicated. I see this mistake in a broad range of activities, from monetary policy to poker playing.

The problem is that it's not even an argument, because it's not interested in persuading anyone and doesn't support itself in any way other than "this is a self-evident, undeniable truth" and then making up a story.

Which, by the way, is exactly what religious minded people often do. "God commands us to do x" or "God says x about y," and go on to construct a complicated narrative with corresponding proscriptions for everyone else. Yet at the heart of the matter is simply "I believe in God."

So it is for at least this line of antinatalism.

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. — Bartricks

I think it is, yes. You declaring "it ain't" isn't an argument.

Since most people do seem to prefer existence despite the harms, it doesn't seem right to solely focus on preventing harms. — DA671

Exactly. Why not make the opposite argument, only with joy/happiness?

It's because the entire argument rests on a fantasy about life being good only if there's no harm. Which is impossible so, in other words, life is bad.

If you think it is as solid as air, tell me which premise is false. — Bartricks

Why do you keep asking people this when, once someone does tell you which is false, you simply declare it to be self-evidently true?

The line of your debate:

You: "Don't say x, y, or z -- only tell me which premise is false!"

Interlocutor: "Premise k is false."

"No, premise k is true."

"How?"

"It's self-evidently true."

"I don't see any reason to believe it."

"That's because you're an idiot."

They deserve no harm and they deserve a happy life.
And they won't get that. — Bartricks

People live happy lives all the time, despite there being harm. So this statement is ridiculous.

True, they won't get "no harm" -- because harm is part of life. But it's equally absurd to claim life ought to be harm-free...which you do, without further explanation, support, evidence, or logic.

They deserve a harm free happy life. That is not what they are going to get. So it's shitty to do that - to create a person who will deserve far, far more than they can be given. — Bartricks

According to you and your peculiar notion of what is "deserved" in life -- namely, the impossible.

Even if you said something like "everyone born deserves to have enough food to eat," that would be at least coherent. Arguing for a "harm-free life" is like asking for a triangle with 2 sides. You never wanted a triangle to begin with. Likewise, you simply don't want life -- because a "harm-free life" is complete fantasy. Your own personal fantasy -- fine. But why come here and try to convince others not to have kids because of your own bizarre interpretation of life?

Indeed, that is what I tried to explain. After all, if one needs absolute perfection in order to say that creation can be good, then why can't one say that creation is bad only if there is nothing but misery. Arbitrary double standards do not constitute good arguments.

Why are we reducing harm when there's no one around to benefit from the lack of harm? — Isaac

Because it makes us feel good. It's the pleasure of a clear conscience: "I didn't cause harm to anyone." For some people, it's one of the highest pleasures there is.


See also ahimsa for a more explicit take on the matter:

Ahimsa (Sanskrit: अहिंसा, IAST: ahiṃsā, lit. 'nonviolence'[1]) /.../ is an ancient Indian principle of nonviolence which applies to all living beings. It is a key virtue in the Dhārmic religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa

But why come here and try to convince others not to have kids because of your own bizarre interpretation of life? — Xtrix

Why fight the antinatalists so much?

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. — schopenhauer1

It comes down to you vs. them. And they are clearly happier than you are.

I see you've been reluctant to frame this as a matter of "my opinion vs. their opinion". You seem to be trying to argue from objective/absolute morality (which you represent and (some) others don't).
This discussion seems to have to do with antinatalism, but equally with more general issues of discussion, epistemology, and normative ethics.

Normative according to whose norms?
— baker

Moral norms. — Bartricks

The question was about _whose_ norms, not what norms.

On the grounds of what should one person's moral norms be more relevant than another person's moral norms?

I’m not “fighting” anyone. If someone presents an argument, I’m interested in understanding it. This one happens to be unconvincing — and probably not worth questioning much more, given the responses.

But there I go taking for granted— wrongly, I’m sure — that you’re truly interested in an answer and not simply posturing, as nearly every interaction with you has demonstrated.

Habits die hard. Do go on about how authoritarian I am, etc.

The problem is that it's not even an argument, because it's not interested in persuading anyone and doesn't support itself in any way other than "this is a self-evident, undeniable truth" and then making up a story. — Xtrix

I can only agree. The antinatalists on this thread try to preach like fundamentalists or evanhellical theists.
Their approach is pure Trumpism, in my opinion.
Like Trumpism, they Ignore all truths and valid points made by all dissenters and just keep repeating 'The innocent don't deserve harm,' as if that is a valid argument.
It does not matter that antinatalism is very very harmful or 'deserve' is a judgment call or innocence and morality are less important than the existence of life, etc.
They just ignore all truth and repeat their ridiculous claims.
They haven't even addressed the two clips posted by @DA671 because their Trumpist approach is to play down such ACTUAL examples of organised antinatalism.
The good thing about this thread is that they have been fully exposed as the misanthropes they are.
I am happy that they have no children to infect with their point of view.

The line of your debate:

You: "Don't say x, y, or z -- only tell me which premise is false!"

Interlocutor: "Premise k is false."

"No, premise k is true."

"How?"

"It's self-evidently true."

"I don't see any reason to believe it."

"That's because you're an idiot." — Xtrix

Absafragginlootly SPOT ON!!!! Pure Trumpism!

If all life was ended in the universe then we would simply be back to an earlier time in the past 13.8 billion years. Life then happened, we dont know why but I for one think we are the universes' best attempt at trying to figure out what and why it is. Antinatalism would do great harm to the purpose of life.
Part of the wonder of life is asking questions about life. No questions could be asked if we were not here to ask them. This is a great harm in my opinion.
Extreme human suffering and harm can be reduced and controlled through human effort, it is utterly ridiculous and even lazy-minded to suggest that the solution to human suffering is human extinction.

Disagree with P. However, it can certainly be true in some cases, which is what we need to avoid as much as possible. — DA671

Yeah!

Ok, it's obvious now that antinatalism is false - the reason for this is its scope - it advocates for universal cessation of births which is impossible to justify since some of us, the lucky/smart ones, live reasonably happy lives.

However, intriguingly, this doesn't make natalism automatically true for there are people who're living in the direst of circumstances, such circumstances that to birth children amounts to a torture sentence for 'em, the kids.

Both natalism & antinatalism are wrong for the same reason - concluding a universal (all) from particulars (some).

It is self-evident to virtually everyone that if a person has done nothing, then they do not deserve to come to any harm.

That's not remotely controversial.

And it's not remotely controversial that if an act will create some undeserved harm, then that's a bad feature of an act - a feature that can be expected to create reason not to perform it, other things being equal.

It's not remotely controversial that procreative acts create a person who has done nothing.

It is the denial of any of these claims that would be controversial and apparently contrary to reason and thus that would require defence.

So the argument is valid and apparently sound. That's the very definition of a good argument.

If you are driven to having to question the very nature of morality itself or to question how anyone knows anything - the whole 'who's to say' point - then you've lost. Those are last resort 'nuclear' options for those who can't directly challenge any premise. They don't engage with the argument, for they can be made against any argument whatever that leads to a normative conclusion you happen not to hold.

Now that - that's - dogmatism. What I'm doing is arguing for a conclusion you dislike. That ain't dogmatism. Dogmatism is not about the view, it's about the manner in which it is held. Something a lot of you folk don't seem to understand. It's not what you believe, but how you believe it.

The line of your debate:

You: "Don't say x, y, or z -- only tell me which premise is false!"

Interlocutor: "Premise k is false."

"No, premise k is true."

"How?"

"It's self-evidently true."

"I don't see any reason to believe it."

"That's because you're an idiot." — Xtrix

Liar. Which premise do you think is false then, eh?

Your reason tells you that if someone has done nothing they deserve to come to harm????

It is self-evident to virtually everyone that if a person has done nothing, then they do not deserve to come to any harm. — Bartricks

It’s self evident that if a person has done nothing, they deserve the chance to live.

I guess that settles it. Self evidence.

That's not remotely controversial. — Bartricks

Yet several people — including myself — have rejected it for many reasons. :chin:

Which premise do you think is false then, eh? — Bartricks

:lol: Is this a nervous tic?

Your reason tells you that if someone has done nothing they deserve to come to harm???? — Bartricks

Deserves got nothing to do with it— to quote Clint Eastwood.

They don’t “deserve” anything. Things happen in life — some things we call pain others pleasure. Both are part of life. To argue one deserves to live a harm-free life is exactly the same as saying one deserves non-life — which is exactly what you’re advocating anyway. You try to take a long way around in an attempt to justify it using what’s supposed to pass for “logic,” when in reality it’s a concocted premise designed to reach the conclusion you want: don’t have kids.

So all this talk about “deserve” and “harm free” rests on nothing but fantasy. Which you’re welcome to hold — I have no issue with that.

For others, life is very good indeed—despite your value judgments about what’s “deserved” or what’s good or bad. Your feelings do not a universal moral principle make.

If you deserve a harm free life, you’re free to kill yourself. That’s a personal choice.

The more I think about it, the more this entire thread looks like a giant expression of resentment towards one’s parents because life didn’t turn out how one wanted it.

Kill yourself and/or don’t have kids. Stop forcing your therapy onto others.

A thought experiment for you: imagine Tony has lived a perfectly decent life of his own free will. So, he doesn't deserve to suffer, yes? And now he's on fire. Presumably your view is that his suffering really is undeserved. — Bartricks

Neither deserved nor undeserved. When it comes to misfortune it's a category error to think in those terms. It is only in the context that punishment has been inflicted on the grounds that it is deserved that it makes sense to speak of it being undeserved.

It’s self evident that if a person has done nothing, they deserve the chance to live. — Xtrix

Er, when it comes to procreative acts the person does not yet exist. A non-existent person can't deserve anything. So: fail. Try again.

Deserves got nothing to do with it— to quote Clint Eastwood. — Xtrix

Er, it's a premise in the argument. Christ.

They don’t “deserve” anything. Things happen in life — Xtrix

Yeah, shit happens. Good point. I'm certainly being out classed.

The more I think about it, the more this entire thread looks like a giant expression of resentment towards one’s parents because life didn’t turn out how one wanted it. — Xtrix

Yeah, that's because you can't address the argument so you need to tell yourself that the arguer has a problem. Whatever helps.

Look, if you want to insist that a person who has done nothing is not undeserving of harm, that's fine. YOu haven't refuted the argument, you've just demonstrated what grossly implausible claims one is committed to making in order to avoid the conclusion.

You can resist the conclusion of my argument by insisting that newly born babies are not undeserving of harm.

That's fine. Now you've got a really stupid position that in any other context than this one everyone else would recognize to be stupid.

You can resist the conclusion of my argument by insisting that if an act will create an injustice, this doesn't - other things being equal - count against it.

Again, that's fine, because it's obviously false. In other contexts everyone recognizes that if an act creates an injustice that's a black mark against it. But if you want to insist that it is no kind of mark at all, then that's fine: you've lost, because now you're committed to a really stupid view.

One could resist my argument by insisting that it is solely in the context of procreation that these features cease to operate as moral negatives.

That's fine: for that's an obviously dogmatically stupid view.

One could try and 'defend' that view by arguing that we - most people - have a faculty of reason that tells them that procreation is morally okay. And that's then default evidence that it is.

Which is correct: it is. That's really the only way to respond to my argument that wouldn't amount to rational suicide: that is, that would not commit one to a view that has nothing whatever to be said for it.

But while that response gets out of the starting block - it doesn't amount to saying "I refute you thus!" and blowing your brains out - the problem is that there's really no reason to think those particular apparent representations of reason are accurate, given that virtually everyone has been brought up in the cult of the family and told repeatedly that procreation is a good thing to do.

Kill yourself and/or don’t have kids. Stop forcing your therapy onto others. — Xtrix

Right, so that's a conclusion from your um, ethical reasoning :roll:? Part of the harm actually of putting someone into existence so actually adds to the AN point. Antinatalists are at least not imposing their belief. They simply try to make arguments to convince. Natalists, by default always impose. As I said earlier about impositions:

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. — schopenhauer1

:ok:

Trying to tell everyone that they should not procreate due to an alleged pre-eminence of harms is a pessimistic imposition. It's just that it's intellectual rather than physical. Natalism bestows benefits that antinatalism never can (except for perhaps helping some people who already exist).

Trying to create too many people can cause damage in the long run. This doesn't mean one should not do it at all whilst keeping practical considerations into account.

Any rational person who honestly analyses the complexity of the sentient experience should realise, I think, that saying that it's never acceptable to care about the value of the positives as long as there are any harms is as ill-advised as it gets.

People frequently decide for others in order to give them a good they deserve, such as saving someone even if there's a small chance that they might not like it. We don't see this as a problem because we recognise that the aforementioned case, whilst unfortunate, should not make us forget about the majority of cases in which people would appreciate being able to have a good they couldn't have asked for. If someone says that this isn't analogous to procreation because nobody needs to be saved, then one could also point out that neither can an act that doesn't violate existing interests be considered an "imposition". Universal antinatalism, in what some could call insidious paternalism, prevents the bestowal of positives that innocent sentient beings deserve (and if it's good to not impose even if nobody benefits from it, then there isn't a good reason to think that it's not bad to not create a positives irrespective of whether or not inexistent beings need it) and could mislead innocent people into thinking that they should avoid procreation because it's an ethical obligation, even if they become miserable due to this. It hasn't been shown that the prevention of the positives is acceptable in objective terms.

It is extremely saddening that people do have to go through severe harms and be forced to endure an existence they cannot find any value in. I hope that ideas such as transhumanism and the right to a graceful exit can help reduce both of these harms significantly. But, having said that, it simply doesn't make sense to ignore one side of reality altogether. It's incredibly myopic to essentially say that all the happy people that exist essentially didn't deserve to exist due to mere presence of the negatives. And if not creating someone respects their autonomy, it also diminishes it to a greater degree by not giving a good that cannot be solicited prior to one's existence. One's subjective perspective that conveniently misses the value of optimism and the presence of the negativity bias cannot be considered a valid justification for preventing all happiness. "Oh, you enjoy life despite suffering (perhaps more than me)? That's irrelevant, since you should not be here due to the fact that creation also entails some risks," is hardly a pleasant sentiment.

Unforeseeable benefits also matter. The person might think that a the individual would just get through life, but it's quite possible that they would have inestimably valuable experiences that would stem from their unique perspective, such as the joy that can come from the pursuit of knowledge and the happiness that is experienced by those who really care about meaningful relationships. This "known unknown" isn't as infrequent as some might think.

A lot of the basis for your current argument with DA671 is deontology versus consequentialism (seemingly here of the utilitarian variety). DA671 is only using consequences and population statistics as a criterion for moral behavior. In this view, a little bit of murder justifies a greater outcome to "someone doing the moral calculation it seems?", etc. and relies heavily on the netted population's view on life at any given moment for whether an act is deemed ethically good or bad (so cannibalism is good as long as 58% of the population thinks so.. same with slavery, etc.). — schopenhauer1

Yes, crude utilitarianism can be refuted in many ways, one of which involves appealing to desert (a utilitarian doesn't recognize that innocents do not deserve harm and thus will not count the fact an innocent is suffering any differently to the fact a guilty person is suffering). It probably isn't worth debating with someone who thinks like that, as they're an ethical idiot and not a source of ethical insight (or a dogmatist more committed to a theory than to following evidence).

It's not directly relevant to my desert based argument - which assumes the reality of desert, something utilitarians are committed to denying - but even utilitarianism seems to imply antinatalism.

First, by any objective standard, humans create far more misery than happiness overall. So, if our one moral task is to maximise happiness and minimize suffering, then stopping breeding would seem to be enjoined (of course, so would suicide - but that's utilitarianism for you!).

Second, if one arbitrarily excludes animal interests from mattering - and as utilitarians are typically very stupid and crude, one imagines that many of them will see no problem with making such arbitrary exclusisons - then it looks as if the theory will imply the opposite: that we ought to start breeding voraciously as 40 billion lives that are barely worth living will achieve in aggregate more happiness than, say, 1 billion much happier lives. And it's the totals that count for these berks.