I'll take first bite.

My position on this is clear. We must, for the sake of simplicity, assume that we exist prior to our birth on earth as humans (to nullify the asymmetry that gums up the works) Nonexistence pre-birth unnecessarily complicates the calculations, sensu amplo.

This enables the mathematization of the problem by taking life as a game with the entry fee (P) being how much pain one is willing to bear, happiness (H) being the prize, the probabilities of winning and losing being W% and L% respectively. The expected value (E) is how much one will gain/lose if you play the game.

E = W% × H + L% × -P

Play the game (choose to be born) only if E > 0 and I haven't said anything about how large E has to be for the game to be worthwhile. Would you spend $10 on a lottery whose expected value is $10.01?

Can we guesstimate the values of P, H, W, L?

My position on this is clear. We must, for the sake of simplicity, assume that we exist prior to our birth on earth as humans (to nullify the asymmetry that gums up the works) Nonexistence pre-birth unnecessarily complicates the calculations, sensu amplo. — Agent Smith

You can't nullify the asymmetry though as the argument rests on precisely the idea of imposing on others. You are talking utilitarian language game and I am talking deontology language game.

E = W% × H + L% × -P — Agent Smith

Nice equation though.

Can you make an equation whereby it is ever okay to make impositions on others when it wasn't necessary to ameliorate greater with lesser harms? When would that be permissible? The parent is the one doing the equation.. That's the problem.. It can NEVER be the person it is affecting. Why should such significant and profound calculations be done on someone else's behalf when it wasn't necessary to do so?

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). — schopenhauer1

Paternalism refers to restricting the freedom and responsibilities of others for their own good. It is more suitable for anti-natalists, that want to restrict all of the freedoms and responsibilities the unborn would have, for their own good. Pro-natalists are throwing caution to the wind, opening up the freedom and responsibilities, and any harm that comes with it.

Gracias for the complement...I only dabble in math and so that was the best I could do.

Anyway, it looks we're on the same wavelength as regards the asymmetry I referred to. My take is rather simple. The fact that we actually don't exist before we're born complicates the problem for the simple reason that there's no one who gains/loses if prepartum but there is someone who gains/loses postpartum. Clearly, it's comparing apples to oranges then, oui? We couldn't argue that not being born is beneficial - like you asked me in the other thread who benefits? If so how are we going to make the case for antinatalism - it's good for...no one! One counterargument against antinatalism revolves around this point, oui? A nonexistent person doesn't have moral worth e.g. no one would be arrested for murdering Frodo because Frodo is fiction.

When we assume a person exists prepartum, we can reframe antinatalism/natalism as a game of chance which I've done my best to mathematize.

The parent is the one doing the equation.. That's the problem.. It can NEVER be the person it is affecting. Why should such significant and profound calculations be done on someone else's behalf when it wasn't necessary to do so? — schopenhauer1

This really is the core of the problem, and in my opinion it is an open and shut case.

The usual route people take to solve it is by arguing that the life they wishfully envision for their child is a positive thing.

Even assuming this approach would be feasible in the first place*, this skips the fact that no person has the wisdom, knowledge and capacity necessary to put their vision of their happy child into reality. The life of a person is simply too complicated, and the influence of the parents, while significant, too limited to take control of all the outcomes.

It's not just a choice on behalf of another, it is a gamble with that person's life.

*Since their idea of what is positive is subjective and may not correspond with their child's.

Paternalism refers to restricting the freedom and responsibilities of others for their own good. It is more suitable for anti-natalists, that want to restrict all of the freedoms and responsibilities the unborn would have, for their own good. Pro-natalists are throwing caution to the wind, opening up the freedom and responsibilities, and any harm that comes with it. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I'm not so sure though. Because antinatalists are not doing anything to "any one", there are no restrictions taking place (nor freedoms for that matter). As everything with the asymmetry, the damage (collateral, intended or otherwise) goes one way. That is to say, only the person born would be restricted.. And I do mean to use it in a sense of restricting, because at the end of the day, the "choices" in life are actually rather limited based on contingent circumstances and de facto realities of cultural and physical space and time. Reality presents only so many things, and it is those things that are assumed the person born must deal with/endure etc.

I'm here to suffer, I love it, everybody else does too.

If not, things would be very boring, very quickly. Well, Schopenhauer pointed out, not an exact quote, that even if we did manage to create a utopia for a while, we would soon be bored and begin acting improperly.

Yet he lived his life, unlike, say Mainländer. He was a real anti-natalist.

The fact that we actually don't exist before we're born complicates the problem for the simple reason that there's no one who gains/loses — Agent Smith

Then we are already at odds because you are bringing it back to utilitarian calculations and not deontological considerations. Rule-based if you want to translate it.

Clearly, it's comparing apples to oranges then, oui? We couldn't argue that not being born is beneficial — Agent Smith

It's about the state of affairs being good that the outcome was not bad as Benatar explains.

If so how are we going to make the case for antinatalism - it's good for...no one! — Agent Smith

For some reason I have to make it a stark situation for people to see the problem clearly...
A lady is planning to give birth to a kid in a lava pit. She thinks it's a good idea (some crazy religious notion let's say).. The baby is not "born" yet (and let's keep "born" ambiguous as to what stage that is).. You can prevent the lady from giving birth in a lava pit. The baby is not a person yet. Would you prevent the lady from doing so if you could? Let's say that no baby was born because you convinced her to not give birth in a lava pit. That is good, even though there is no baby as a referent that is a benefit of that good. Had that baby been born, what we do definitely know is that would be bad (for an actual baby born into a burning lava pit).

One counterargument against antinatalism revolves around this point, oui? A nonexistent person doesn't have moral worth e.g. no one would be arrested for murdering Frodo because Frodo is fiction. — Agent Smith

And yet again, I will have to keep pointing to future conditionals which are possibilities in the world and future conditionals which can never happen.

Even assuming this approach would be feasible in the first place*, this skips the fact that no person has the wisdom, knowledge and capacity necessary to put their vision of their happy child into reality. The life of a person is simply too complicated, and the influence of the parents, while significant, too limited to take control of all the outcomes. — Tzeentch

A good point.

It's not just a choice on behalf of another, it is a gamble with that person's life. — Tzeentch

That too.

I'm here to suffer, I love it, — Manuel

Your right to say/think/feel that.

everybody else does too. — Manuel

Though your right to say it, to act upon it and presume this is or should be the case is the exact damage I speak of coming from a place of aggressive paternalism.

If not, things would be very boring, very quickly. — Manuel

I don't get to put someone in harms way because I'm bored nor put them in harms way because I think that they should like it (even if they don't). YOU should not be making those assumptions for others.

Schopenhauer pointed out, not an exact quote, that even if we did manage to create a utopia for a while, we would soon be bored and begin acting improperly. — Manuel

Indeed, but that is more proof of the inherent suffering of the world.

Yet he lived his life, unlike, say Mainländer. He was a real anti-natalist. — Manuel

Well, I don't want to be engaged in True Scotsman fallacy. But at any rate, he did not advocate promortalism, and nor is this argument about that.

I wish you harm, I wish you to suffer and die. It is the necessary position of the pro-natalist, of the Creator or the procreator. It is the price of life that we all must pay, and obviously, no one ever gets a choice because it is not a marketplace, and no choice is possible prior to existence.I did not choose to bring into existence an ungrateful miserablist, but I don't get a choice about who I procreate either.
So my wishes are nothing personal; I want suffering and dying to continue in general and indefinitely, because the joy and beauty of life is not separate from suffering and death. The antinatalists will get their wish in time and my wishes will be frustrated, which is only fair. Such is life eh?

I don't get to put someone in harms way because I'm bored nor put them in harms way because I think that they should like it (even if they don't). YOU should not be making those assumptions for others. — schopenhauer1

I am being slightly silly, because I'm in that mood, but, let me be a bit more serious:

We must begin with one assumption, at the very least, or we cannot do anything. Heck, we have to assume math is true, because how can we justify it?

In morals, you assume that others either want life or do not. Most people want life, some do not. You can call these people deluded if you wish, those that want life, but, I don't see the point of "making them see", that life is worthless. Most don't see it, maybe because it isn't true for them.

Well, I don't want to be engaged in True Scotsman fallacy. But at any rate, he did not advocate promortalism, and nor is this argument about that. — schopenhauer1

This is why I avoid talking much about ethics, I think the standards are too high, thus I keep to politics. I like True Scotsman, I accept no substitutes. If I want an Irishman or a Ethiopian, I'll ask for one. ;)

How does someone impose on a future person without having to travel through time?

:up:
Good gedanken experiment. To be fair and with deference to your deeper understanding of the situation, I concur, I would do everything to stop this rather hapless woman from birthing the baby who being born would end up in a friggin' lava pit.

However, I suggest you reexamine your argument to gain further insight into your views on the matter.

Bonam fortunam!

How does someone impose on a future person without having to travel through time? — NOS4A2

Why is an action's you do presently not matter just because the consequence will be in the future? Would you create an unjust situation in order for the conditions for injustice to come about? That makes no sense.. You must put an "actual person" in harms way so that you can have a referent to "not harm".. Error.

I just don’t understand how one can impose on someone in the future. Which past people or situation imposes on you?

t is the price of life that we all must pay, — unenlightened

You make it seem like it's an inevitability to make people pay this price :brow:

no one ever gets a choice because it is not a marketplace, and no choice is possible prior to existence.I did not choose to bring into existence an ungrateful miserablist, but I don't get a choice about who I procreate either. — unenlightened

Right, but why are you assuming you should be making those choices for someone just BECAUSE there is no choice that can be made by a person to begin with? This is the aggressive assumption in question. Why should one person decide what the acceptable parameters of choices and harms should be for another person, ever? Forget convention, ideas of "common sense" or historical practices, just think about the actual notion itself. You think I don't understand these conventional ways of thinking? I get it.. I am questioning it.. And that's the part that bristles certain people the wrong way.. Lay down the prejudices of against the gadfly for now (plenty of time to give me the hemlock), and just look at the case without using indignity for (this idea) not following common precedent.

So my wishes are nothing personal; I want suffering and dying to continue in general and indefinitely, because the joy and beauty of life is not separate from suffering and death. The antinatalists will get their wish in time and my wishes will be frustrated, which is only fair. Such is life eh? — unenlightened

How do you think that antinatalists will get their wishes?

I just don’t understand how one can impose on someone in the future. Which past people or situation imposes on you? — NOS4A2

Huh? Are you asking how simple cause and effect works? Like a past action can have consequences on someone in the future? In this case, a past action can have a consequence on someone in the future (even if they were not around in the past when the action took place that would affect them at a future time). This isn't that hard.

Ok. So, for example, which past persons and which situations imposes on you?

I'm not so sure though. Because antinatalists are not doing anything to "any one", there are no restrictions taking place (nor freedoms for that matter). As everything with the asymmetry, the damage (collateral, intended or otherwise) goes one way. That is to say, only the person born would be restricted.. And I do mean to use it in a sense of restricting, because at the end of the day, the "choices" in life are actually rather limited based on contingent circumstances and de facto realities of cultural and physical space and time. Reality presents only so many things, and it is those things that are assumed the person born must deal with/endure etc. — schopenhauer1

The asymmetry would say lack of freedom is not a bad thing. But freedom is being prevented?

Responsibility is often a bad thing, and the asymmetry would say that this lack of responsibility is good. But responsibility is being prevented?

This prevention is more paternalistic than letting the experiment play out.

Ok. So, for example, which past persons and which situations imposes on you? — NOS4A2

Do you know how procreation works? Do I need a diagram?

The asymmetry would say lack of freedom is not a bad thing. But freedom is being prevented?

Responsibility is often a bad thing, and the asymmetry would say that this lack of responsibility is good. But responsibility is being prevented?

This prevention is more paternalistic than letting the experiment play out. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Remember, this is about a rule.
The rule is:
1. Don't assume that you should create unnecessary impositions on others on conditions like:
a. the parameters of choices in the world one must choose from and encounter
b. the amount of harm that is acceptable
c. the risks of unforeseeable harms someone might encounter

2. By not acting on these assumptions for another person, no negative takes place.
2a By going ahead and acting on the assumption, a negative takes place,
2c Don't let the negative take place.

So I guess my formulation is a bit different because it is more about creating the negative situation or not creating the negative situation.

By not acting on the assumption, no negative takes place (see 2).

You can call that "good" if you want. No positive takes place, but where is the moral impetus for positives not taking place, if there is no one to be deprived?

The fact is no negative took place (2c). Call it whatever you want.

Confusion doesn’t explain how a past action can impose on a future person.

We who are about suffer,
refute you! :death: :flower:

'Possible persons' are imaginary – nonexistent – and, therefore, only subsist (A. Meinong), like every other mere possibility, (D. Lewis) without a moral status .

Antinatalists, IMO, need to either (A) refute that proposition (B) find another (less incoherent) argument to "justify" their position or (C) concede that the idea is wholly subjective and be consistent enough to (i) refrain from procreating and/or (ii) kill themselves asap.

:fire:

See my post about the lava pit.

kill themselves asap. — 180 Proof

Why are you so off the rails hostile? Kill yourself is callous. I don’t even jokingly say that.

:fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: …oh shit you just started a forest fire

'Possible persons' are imaginary – nonexistent – and, therefore, only subsist (A. Meinong), like every other mere possibility, (D. Lewis) without a moral status . — 180 Proof

Antinatalists, IMO, need to either (A) refute that proposition — 180 Proof

That's not very hard to refute.

Let's say I plant a timebomb in the ground in a place where I know a town will flourish two-hundred years from now.

When the bomb goes off and wipes out this town, full of people who did not yet exist at the time of planting the bomb, do I get to say I'm without blame because these possible persons had no moral status at the time of my planting the bomb, thus I had no obligation to take their well-being into account?

This is child's play.

The beauty of bestowing a good that cannot be solicited without letting pessimistic biases affect one can be quite valuable. If an action can be "paternalistic" even though it isn't going against the interests of an existing being, then it can be genuinely kind due to the fact that it gives positives. It would be wrong to push someone because one thinks it is in their interest, since the likelihood of that being true is extremely small (there is a very small chance that they wanted to be pushed, but the possibility is so small that it wouldn't be reasonable to focus on it instead of what is more probable, i.e., the person not being in favour of the action. Similarly, the mere possibility of a negative outcome (and I still doubt that action that doesn't violate/fulfill one's desires can be good/bad/a gift/an imposition) doesn't mean that one should not try to act in a beneficent manner that would allow ineffably powerful positive experiences to exist. In reality, non-existence (probably) doesn't restrict one's freedom (which isn't why it's paternalistic), and creation does not take away one's freedom (which is why it isn't paternalistic either). If procreation can still be considered paternalistic by some, then it can also be seen as an act of beneficence by others. There is no asymmetry here.

Paternalism: "relating to or characterized by the restriction of the freedom and responsibilities of subordinates or dependants in their supposed interest." Thankfully, non-existent beings aren't in some free state of affairs that is being taken away by their creation. However, it could be possible that certain flawed worldviews would mislead innocent people (capable and willing of being good parents) not being able to have a family they would have cherished due to an enormous yet unnecessary moral burden. This isn't probable (for now), but it is nevertheless possible. Impositions, troubles, and paternalism are not the only—or even the primary —things that should matter. Gifts, opportunities, and kindness are also important. Despite everything, the positives will always remain relevant.

What have you to say for the group of people who are genuinely miserable as a result of their parents' choices, and for whom it can be said their parents' choice did go against their interests?

You must agree such a group of people exist, no?