Why are you so off the rails hostile? — schopenhauer1

No hostility, just the logic of antinatalism's life-denial.

I think that it's more likely that the action isn't good or bad due to the fact that it doesn't fulfill/go against the desire of any inexistent being to exist or not exist. However, since I am assuming that it can be good/bad, I do believe that the existence of lives wherein there isn't sufficient value is extremely tragic. The responsibility lies on the shoulders of many. Intentionally creating a negative outcome is obviously worse and cannot be given approbation. Procreation cannot be taken lightly. Additionally, I hope that there is a liberal right to a graceful exit so that nobody has to go through excessively negative experiences. At the same time, I just don't think that my pain should efface the happiness of others, particularly when the existence is concurrent, not exactly dependent. The group certainly exists, and we need to do a lot more to reduce its size—preferably by contributing towards the genesis of alternative sources of value.

You've been dead for a century and a half by the time the bomb goes off, so you don't get to say anything including this "child's play" example. :roll:

Synodus Horrenda (Pope Formosus). :chin:

Not to mention that unnecessarily damaging the well-being of beings would still be wrong, even if the action would affect future people. If those people would not be harmed, they would be able to live better lives, which is good.

Given how confidently this argument is parroted on every antinatalism thread, I was expecting you to have something to say in its defense. This is just a cop-out.

No wonder, because what you're suggesting is absurd - that people have no moral obligation to take into account the consequences of their actions.

I do believe that the existence of lives wherein there isn't sufficient value is extremely tragic. The responsibility lies on the shoulders of many. — DA671

I think the responsibility lies on the shoulders of the parents who brought this tragedy about.

The question is, however well-meaning parents may be, how much power can they truly be said to have on the well-being of their child?

They have some influence, but as I have argued before, no parent has the knowledge and wisdom to foresee their child's life very far into the future, nor do they have control over the countless factors that influence their child's life.

I conclude that since parents do not have the knowledge and wisdom, nor the power to bring about their envisioned end-state of a happy child, even at best their action is a gamble.

No wonder, because what you're suggesting is absurd - that people have no moral obligation to take into account the consequences of their actions. — Tzeentch

Typical strawman. :ok:

Typical cop-out. :snicker:

I do not see how acknowledge in a complex reality is a "cop out". Actions that don't affect one's well-being cannot be better/worse for them. Still, I know that it is a controversial view, so I am willing to accept that creation can indeed be good/bad. As I have said elsewhere, if this view is true, then creating a mostly negative life would be immoral, especially when it's done intentionally.

I do not believe that parents do not have significant power over the direction their children take. They are the ones who can (and should) give their kids a decent life. They are the ones who should show them the importance of good values. However, absolute power is not necessary for one to live an adequately happy life. If a gamble is bad due to the risks it entails, it can also be good due to the opportunities it creates. And we do know that inexistent souls do not have an intrinsic preference for avoiding the gamble, so one has to act in a way that minimises harms without eliminating the possibility of the good.

what you're suggesting is absurd - that people have no moral obligation to take into account the consequences of their actions. — Tzeentch

I agree. I cannot for the life of me think why arguments against anti-natalism always seem to descend into this particular lunacy. It is obvious that one ought consider the as-yet-unborn child's welfare prior to their birth. It's why prospective parents buy nappies, because they don't want the newborn to be without them (and so uncomfortable). It seems so obvious, I'm genuinely baffled by the popularity of the counter-argument.

You're an D-K time-waster. Run along and "child's play" somewhere else, kid.

:smirk:

My position, if true, would also mean that creating the positives would not be necessary in and of itself—something I do not like. However, I do not base my arguments on that position. Instead, I believe that one should be consistent with the framework they use. I see no reason why future negative consequences should be in our minds but not the positive ones.

Still, I know that it is a controversial view, so I am willing to accept that creation can indeed be good/bad. As I have said elsewhere, if this view is true, then creating a mostly negative life would be immoral, especially when it's done intentionally. — DA671

How much influence can a parent be said to have on the consequence of their actions in regards to the well-being of their child?

Even the best-equipped and well-meaning parents can, tragically, bring about a terrible life for their child.

Do you agree that this is a possibility every parent should take into account? And if so, on what basis should it be dismissed in favor of having children, if not mere chance?

I believe I grasped the gist of the OP's antinatalism.

Pronatalists are of the opinion that a person (the child) will share the same values as his/her parents and agree to their assessment of what kind, and how much, of that kind of suffering s/he will consider acceptable. This assumption is unjustified. People suicide for various reasons that differ from one another in kind & degree!

Unfortunately, the knife cuts both ways. The antinatalist too is unwarranted to, in their turn, assume that children will have the same thoughts about life & suffering as theirs. This is also, sadly for the antinatalist, wrong.

In short, the subjective nature of joy/sorrow precludes both antintalism & natalism.

What next?

Left to the reader as an exercise.

The key thing is the well-being of the person, not the degree of control exercised by two people. Other people are also responsible for the happiness of individuals.

The amount of influence one has might depend on the level of involvement of the parent. The more they are there to help their children and give them the right skills/values, the more probable it gets that they would live a better life or at least not find it impossible to face difficult situations.

Even seemingly terrible parents can create children who would have good lives. However, it wouldn't seem reasonable to suggest that we should ignore their intentions altogether. In addition, one should not be compelled to have perfect control over one's life. This could only be applicable if the person in question was unable to take care of itself for eternity or the parents were somehow responsible for placing the person in a worse, less free state than it previously was in—which obviously doesn't apply to non-existent beings. And if one is responsible for all the harms that happen in a person's life, they also deserve praise for all the good that happens.

Certainly, one should not forget about the negative consequences that could occur. Although, I would still say that the actions of other individuals are also pertinent, since ascribing responsibility should be done in a reasonable way that takes into account all the diverse factors in a person's life. Still, if creation has value, it can obviously be negative, whether or not the parents intended it to be. I do not think that the possibility of a negative outcome should be dismissed. Rather, one should act depending upon their circumstances whilst keeping in the mind the reality of happiness along with the risk of suffering.

:up:

I see no reason why future negative consequences should be in our minds but not the positive ones. — DA671

I agree to an extent, but one has to have careful limits if one is to do that and I think those limits create an asymmetry. Looking at just utility we end up with the utility monster problem (is a million moderately happy people better than a few extremely happy people). You'd have to look at is from a virtue perspective - ought I create some happiness, ought I create some harm (or risk)? I think the answer to both depends on the scale of either. One ought not create the risk of massive unwarranted harm. One ought to create happiness where one can, but one seems less obliged to do the latter than avoid the former.

Interestingly enough, negative utilitarians who only wish to reduce suffering might be forced to say that allowing a million people to suffer is good as long as it removes the greater suffering of a single being. Therefore, NU isn't as perfect as some of its proponents might think.

Coming to your point, I certainly agree with you that one should have a nuanced approach that addresses the complexity of the real world.

The key thing is the well-being of the person, not the degree of control exercised by two people. — DA671

The well-being of the person is unknown prior to the unfoldment of their life.

Getting the ball rolling is ultimately the parents' choice and no one else's, and if they must conclude that many things will be out of their control, then on what basis will they justify their choice?

I see "good odds" as the only attempt at a justification here, but I'm trying to see if there are other possibilities.

Interestingly enough, negative utilitarians who only wish to reduce suffering might be forced to say that allowing a million people to suffer is good as long as it removes the greater suffering of a single being. Therefore, NU isn't as perfect as some of its proponents might think. — DA671

Yes. NU is as bizarre a ethic as any. Why would we eliminate harm with no-one around to enjoy their harm-free life? One might as well have an ethic around eliminating cheese.

I see "good odds" as the only attempt at a justification here, but I'm trying to see if there are other possibilities. — Tzeentch

Good odds is the requirement, not the justification. One cannot reasonably justify having a child on the basis of good odds that they'll be happy alone. We should no more be wanting to maximise the number of happy people in existence (by procreation) than we should be wanting to minimise the number of unhappy ones (by culling). We ought be concerning ourselves with the welfare of our community. That's what ethics is for, otherwise it's just baseless.

One can see that most people do seem to prefer their lives. Additionally, one doesn't know that the outcome would always (or even mostly) be negative.

The ball is also controlled by many other agents. One would not say the Earth is the cause of an accident that happened yesterday. Even if it has theoretical value, this analysis would ignore the role of other elements. I think one should only be expected to have absolute control if it is reasonably possible for them to possess it, the person in question would necessarily experience terrible harms without the control, and there is nobody else involved in whatever that happens. The fact that everything cannot be controlled does nothing to dimish the ineluctable truth that a lot of people go on to have experiences that they would cherish forever. As I have said elsewhere, one cannot simply look at the risks and ignore the opportunities.

Good odds, intentions, and a multitude of other factors, etc., can certainly be things to consider. Most importantly, I think, one should not disregard the potency of the positives whilst acknowledging the truth of the harms. The solution is unlikely to be black-and-white.

We ought be concerning ourselves with the welfare of our community. — Isaac

One ought not create the risk of massive unwarranted harm. One ought to create happiness where one can. — Isaac

I agree with this line of thought.

And if one's goal is to do good onto others, one should be humble and seek to do so in ways that are within one's control.

I agree with this line of thought. — Tzeentch

By it, the simplest justification for having a child is that it will do more to improve the welfare of one's community (including the future child) than not doing so would.

if one's goal is to do good onto others, one should be humble and seek to do so in ways that are within one's control. — Tzeentch

I don't follow. On what grounds is inaction morally superior to action?

To expand. It seems to me that a person standing by without acting whilst another is clearly in pain is callously immoral, whereas a person arranging a huge benefit concert for starving Africans, but in doing so causing a minor trip hazard which breaks someone's foot, is clearly a good person (despite the unforeseen harm).

Insisting that one only act in ways that are totally in one's control seems a bizarre restriction.

I agree that trying to maximise the number of happy people like one is trying to achieve a high score in a video game seems a bit absurd. This is why I am more sympathetic to average/person-affecting views (though they have their own issues). Welfare of the community is undoubtedly a cardinal concern.

The ball is also controlled by many other agents. — DA671

Which is precisely the issue. It is largely out of the control of the parents who make the decision, which seems to me a shaky basis upon which to make decisions that can have serious negative consequences for another.

As I have said elsewhere, one cannot simply look at the risks and ignore the opportunities. — DA671

Ok, but the outcomes are unknown. All we can do is guess as to what the outcomes will be, and some of those outcomes may be good and some bad.

Does this not amount to a gamble?

By it, the simplest justification for having a child is that it will do more to improve the welfare of one's community (including the future child) than not doing so would. — Isaac

That isn't known when the decision is made. One may very well be making a decision that greatly damages their community and their future child.

So I guess one approach would be to say something like "but the chance of improvement is larger than the chance of damage", or is there some other way to continue in the face of these unknown consequences?

I don't follow. On what grounds is inaction morally superior to action? — Isaac

I didn't say one should choose inaction, I said one should choose action in ways that are within one's knowledge and power to oversee and control.

I fail to see why having an unreasonably high level of control should always have greater worth than bestowing indescribably good experiences. The inability to have that control does not lead to inevitable and irreversible misery for all, and neither is it the case that the creators are the only morally relevant agents.

Some would say that inaction that prevents pointless harms is better (even if it's in a neutral sense). Howbeit, in that case, one could also point out that neutrality is worse than a positive state.

That's only if one is focusing more on the risks and is ignoring the opportunities that could also exist. Once again, I don't think that one should require an unreasonably high degree of control for something that can also have immense value, does not deprive one of a superior state they wanted to stay in, and involves the actions of multiple people, including the individual themselves. One could say that one allows the possibility of negative consequences, but they also allow (and contribute towards) positive consequences that one has decent reasons (environmental, personal abilities, finances, etc.) to expect.

Possibly. Yet, as I said before, I believe that if a "gamble" is bad due to the risks, it can also be good due to the opportunities. We could say that deciding for someone else isn't good, but I think that another perspective could be that one can give a good that one simply cannot ask for prior to existing. All in all, I think that a balanced approach is generally preferable here.

That isn't known when the decision is made. One may very well be making a decision that greatly damages their community and their future child. — Tzeentch

True. It's a consideration one ought to take into account.

I guess one approach would be to say something like "but the chance of improvement is larger than the chance of damage", or is there some other way to continue in the face of these unknown consequences? — Tzeentch

My preferred solution to the unknown consequences problem is to consider ethics about virtue, not consequence. Virtue only requires that we do our best. Once one has positively answered the question "have I reasonable grounds to think this action will increase the welfare of my community" then one can act virtuously in carrying out that action because the ethic is about the virtue, not the consequence (one might be wrong). Consequentialist ethics is a nightmare because we have no cut-off point. Maybe it will be good in ten years, but bad in a hundred, but then good again in a thousand... where do we stop?

I think most people though, could answer that question positively. Without a future generation almost all communities would suffer great harms, and almost every human alive benefits more from the company of other humans than they do from solace (very few of us are hermits).

:up: The harms to existing beings is also a good point worth thinking about.