You talk about meaning, I'm talking about good. — Isaac

I don't see how you can't replace the word and the logic not be the same. Just replace meaning with good then.

What is 'good' is not fine being subjective because you sffdct me and I affect you, we share common resources, we share space, we collaborate to achieve stuff we couldn't achieve alone. We must come up with an agreement as to what constitutes the common good. — Isaac

I'll allow you that if you want to make that distinction with those two words.. but though on the surface that looks like it is relevant, it actually isn't because you are talking about cases where a person exists to already need to share resources, space, and "achieve stuff". Hence why I really try to emphasize the unnecessary nature of creating these things for another person to encounter (the very imposition in question).

Once we have such an agreement, the maintenance of it is all morality is. Anything else is pointless. You could say "you mustn't do X", " you must do Y", but why? Who sets these bizarre rules and why ought we obey them? — Isaac

Procreation is a case that doesn't fit this conception and yet it is something that will (or at least could) affect another person so squarely fits in morality. It is not exempt because it doesn't fit with other cases. The rule itself must make room for this decision as well.

If you don't want to build a better community, if you don't care for their welfare, then that's fine, you do you, but you've got no business with morality, the subject matter of which is the welfare of our community. Anything less is just a set of arbitrary rules for no purpose. — Isaac

But here we are getting closer to the matter at hand. Your assumption seems to be that people NEED to be born TO build a better community.. Well, hold on, who says? Why do you get to make that decision?

So your concern for the autonomy of the as yet unborn is noble, important, but completely pointless unless in the service of the larger goal of community welfare. Otherwise, why? Why bother with autonomy? Why bother with rights? Why bother with dignity? What's the purpose? — Isaac

Because it affects people in significant ways to have to do X. It is about when is it right to ever impose your view of reality onto another in such a profound way.. That your view of acceptable choices, harms, and unforeseen harms is what another person must encounter.

I don't see any contradiction here, or any objective for that matter. — Tzeentch

Virtually all humans thrive on the company of others. The greatest harms we suffer are ostracisation and loneliness, far greater than any physical harm. Beyond that we cannot survive alone, we require the support of a community. If you do nothing to interact with other they will definitely come to this harm. You may not have directly caused it, but this is also true of procreation (I don't directly harm my children, I merely create a situation in which they may be harmed).

You cannot avoid interaction with others full stop. But even if you somehow became the world's first true hermit, you'd cause harm by depriving those who thrive on human interaction the pleasure (and utility) of your company.

The inaction did not cause the person to start drowning; it caused him to keep drowning. Obviously, if one isn't even in the area and is unaware/incapable of stopping the harm, then I don't think that they should be held responsible for what happened. Nevertheless, I do not think that it changes the fact that one of the effects of the inaction was that the person could not live. Other causes could include the person not being able to escape their boat, their inability to contact someone, and a more direct cause, like a sudden flood.

I may not be the direct cause of the harms. Yet, my inactions do cause the harms to continue (along with the source of the harm, naturally). However, I think that one has to take intentions, practical limitations, and the long-term consequences of something into account. Holding people responsible for everything could make us forget about all the good that also happens, or occlude our ability/will to help others. Therefore, a nuanced perspective seems to be desirable.

you are talking about cases where a person exists to already need to share resources, space, and "achieve stuff". Hence why I really try to emphasize the unnecessary nature of creating these things for another person to encounter (the very imposition in question). — schopenhauer1

People do already exist with these needs. The current community. All of whom will suffer if there's no succeeding generation.

it is something that will (or at least could) affect another person so squarely fits in morality. It is not exempt because it doesn't fit with other cases. The rule itself must make room for this decision as well. — schopenhauer1

I agree. Procreation should not be exempt from any moral rule.

Your assumption seems to be that people NEED to be born TO build a better community.. Well, hold on, who says? Why do you get to make that decision? — schopenhauer1

See above. What is 'good' for a community cannot be a subjective decision because we all affect each other, so I have expectation of you and you of me on the grounds of our mutual need for each other. It is not only reasonable to expect others to adhere to the general consensus on what is good, it is completely necessary for a community to function.

But beyond this someone has to make a decision because inaction will definitely cause harm. we can't ask the unborn child, so we have to decide. Not deciding is just a cop out. It doesn't avoid harm, it just avoids direct responsibility. You create a situation where people will be harmed, but you personally get to wash your hands of it and say "wasn't me, not my problem".

As I said, if you don't care about whether a community functions, then that's fine, but it's nothing to do with morality then. You're just making up arbitrary rules.

Because it affects people in significant ways to have to do X. — schopenhauer1

So? Why care about affecting others?

People do already exist with these needs. The current community. All of whom will suffer if there's no succeeding generation. — Isaac

See above. What is 'good' for a community cannot be a subjective decision because we all affect each other, so I have expectation of you and you of me on the grounds of our mutual need for each other. It is not only reasonable to expect others to adhere to the general consensus on what is good, it is completely necessary for a community to function. — Isaac

While I agree perhaps about certain things about the community (perhaps not fully though because it seems like your rule makes a slippery slope consequential conclusion about how "useful" people are), in this case you are creating someone else's needs de novo. That is the violation. The community is not some amorphous entity either, but comprised of people with feelings, attitudes, ways of beings, and their own internal thoughts.. It is THAT which the ethics obtains to.. The projects to stay alive for them.. To then put the projects above the persons in question is to put the wrong thing as the locus of ethics. Projects on their own are for the humans. And not all humans might like the projects... nor is there anywhere that it says that the projects must be carried forward simply because OTHERS have a notion it must (and so they get to impose it on other people).

So? Why care about affecting others? — Isaac

Because people are not to be used, even if it is for a "greater cause of the community". People are where ethics lies, not communities. If I have a project that I like, I don't get to impose it on others because the project cannot move forward and then claim anything that doesn't further my project is not moral, therefore I can do X things to other people, whether it is good/whether they want it or not. I also don't get to create harmful situations for them because it furthers my project. Again, it's aggressive paternalism. It uses people. It assumes what YOU think is good is good (for them).

community is not some amorphous entity either, but comprised of people with feelings, attitudes, ways of beings, and their own internal thoughts.. It is THAT which the ethics obtains to. — schopenhauer1

Nonsense. People's own private objectives are not ethics, it's just subjective. If I want a big car it's not ethics to get me one.

nor is there anywhere that it says that the projects must be carried forward simply because OTHERS have a notion it must (and so they get to impose it on other people). — schopenhauer1

That's exactly what morality is, a general agreement among a community as to what is best. Absent of agreement it's just personal preferences, not ethics. Total consensus is impossible, so you either have a general agreement to which people are expected to adhere regardless of their own view, or you have nothing but personal preferences - which is not ethics.

Because people are not to be used, even if it is for a "greater cause of the community". — schopenhauer1

Why not? More arbitrary rules.

If I have a project that I like, I don't get to impose it on others because the project cannot move forward and then claim anything that doesn't further my project is not moral, therefore I can do X things to other people, whether it is good/whether they want it or not. I also don't get to create harmful situations for them because it furthers my project. Again, it's aggressive paternalism. It uses people. It assumes what YOU think is good is good (for them). — schopenhauer1

Then you've no ethics. If the community don't get to have any expectation of anyone they don't personally agree with then all you have is everyone just does whatever they want. That's not ethics.

I'm with you in that it would be presumptuous of anyone to think for someone else given that people differ so much in all the relevant respects (the subjectivity of hedonism comes into play). To illustrate, I might be happy living on minimum wages, with no health insurance, in a one-room apartment while you maybe miserable in a 40-room mansion with a full complement of staff to run the place.

However, for this very same reason, I can't defend antinatalism and nor can anyone justify natalism. To do either, we need objectivity (we are arguing, oui?) but that as we just discovered isn't there (vide previous paragraph).

What this means is that we can't predict how children will respond to the world - they could be all smiles or all tears, nobody can say.

It is at this juncture that I left the readers/posters/forum members.

What should we do now?

That, my friend, is the right question. — Dr. Lanning

People's own private objectives are not ethics, it's just subjective. If I want a big car it's not ethics to get me one. — Isaac

I wasn't saying that. I wasn't advocating for some preference-maximizing or something like that. I was saying that WHO is the person that enjoys, doesn't enjoy, feels the affects of X, Y, Z? It is the individual. There is no collective WE that feels anything, even if a collection of people are necessary to coordinate to move the project forward. Coordinated entities, are not the locus of ethics, a person is.

That's exactly what morality is, a general agreement among a community — Isaac

I'm just going to have to disagree with you there as to your conception of ethics.

Absent of agreement it's just personal preferences, not ethics. — Isaac

No, the assumption is that the community wants what the community wants, and you must comply with it (or die). That itself is the aggressive idea I am trying to refute as anything to do with being ethically valid.
Why should such aggressive assumptions that impact a person so significantly hold? What makes you the judge and jury for someone else's set of choices and harms? Anyone can do anything to anyone in the name of community then.. No you don't understand... COMMUNITY!! But then even if let's say it wasn't just me but a ragtag team of colonists in the 1600s that claim that that one person is a witch to be burned at the stake... COMMUNITY!! it must be moral? Of course not.. Or a community of any X things. It doesn't matter. No particular project should be used to impose on another because you value that project yourself.

Why not? More arbitrary rules. — Isaac

I was defending against your idea of community lording it over the individual and saying that in this particular situation, the individual is the ethical locus, not some community consensus as to what is acceptable to someone in the first place. And again, go back to what you said that the rule must fit for the circumstance of procreation which is different from imposing to ameliorate greater harms with lesser harms (because that only happens if people need that...). It is a matter of kind and not just degree here. You are assuming the projects one must encounter for someone else, including all the harms they will encounter, not just mitigating already existing harms for which people can't help but encounter.

Then you've no ethics. If the community don't get to have any expectation of anyone they don't personally agree with then all you have is everyone just does whatever they want. that's not ethics. — Isaac

I think I addressed this further up in the post about the so-called needs of a community census on whether something is validly moral.

I'm with you in that it would be presumptuous of anyone to think for someone else given that people differ so much in all the relevant respects (the subjectivity of hedonism comes into play). To illustrate, I might be happy living on minimum wages, with no health insurance, in a one-room apartment while you maybe miserable in a 40-room mansion with a full complement of staff to run the place. — Agent Smith

Yes, this is more to the point I was trying to make.

However, for this very same reason, I can't defend antinatalism and nor can anyone justify natalism. To do either, we need objectivity (we are arguing, oui?) but that as we just discovered isn't there (vide previous paragraph). — Agent Smith

But one doesn't affect a person, and the other does. So even if one is aware of the problem, but doesn't know if it is objectively true, why go with the riskiest, most harm-creating one? And then the idea of aggressive impositions starts coming into play even more... Why this assumption that others must do or like or comply with what you deem as good/meaningful and in such a significant and irreversible way?

why go with the riskiest, most harm-creating one? — schopenhauer1

As I've tried to explain to you, this statement you just made $\uparrow$ is nonsensical for the simple reason that objectivity is impossible in re happiness/sadness. To drive home the point, a person could be in hell & :smile: and another person could be in heaven & :sad:

When subjectivity is involved, all bets are off!!! You can't predict and once that's impossible, our argument falls apart.

When subjectivity is involved, all bets are off!!! — Agent Smith

Right, but this doesn't refute the point, if the things are different for everyone, why go with the riskiest move? And then this also goes back to the asymmetry. WHO loses out on "no goods had"? Look back to my last post about the asymmetry.

individual is the ethical locus — schopenhauer1

So, each person does exactly what they wish. Doing exactly what you want is not ethics, not by any definition at all.

The only alternative is that someone has the right of expectation that another will adhere to some behaviour even if they don't want to.

But then you can't avoid the question of who gets to set what that behaviour is.

You have three choices...

1. Everyone does whatever they want.

2. People are expected to behave in certain ways even if they don't want to. The community comes to a decision somehow as to what that behaviour is.

3. People are expected to behave in certain ways even if they don't want to. You, God, or some other arbitrary person, decide what that behaviour is.

Right, but this doesn't refute the point, if the things are different for everyone, why go with the riskiest move? And then this also goes back to the asymmetry. WHO loses out on "no goods had"? Look back to my last post about the asymmetry. — schopenhauer1

There is no "riskiest move" mon ami! De gustibus non est disputandum. Lemme clarify: Since how I feel (sad/happy) about the world is subjective (we're on the same page), I can't make objective claims about it and since I can't do that, I can't argue.

As for who gains/loses if born/unborn, let's examine Benatar's asymmetry.

1. Born + Will be happy (Good)
2. Born + Will be unhappy (Bad)
3. Unborn + Would've been happy (Not bad)
4. Unborn + Would've been unhappy (Good)

To my reckoning, Benatar is guilty of an inconsistency - look at 3 & 4. In the case of 3, nonexistence diminishes the value of possible happiness (Not bad only), but in 4, the value of unhappiness remains unaffected by nonexistence (Good). Benatar is trying to eat his cake and have it too.

I can't defend antinatalism and nor can anyone justify natalism. — Agent Smith

"Natalism" needs to be justified? Since when?

To my reckoning, Benatar is guilty of an inconsistency - look at 3 & 4. In the case of 3, nonexistence diminishes the value of possible happiness (Not bad only), but in 4, the value of unhappiness remains unaffected by nonexistence (Good). Benatar is trying to eat his cake and have it too. — Agent Smith

No it's not an inconsistency, he is working off of moral intuitions about non-had goods and non-had bads. I rather don't like it formulated in that fashion you wrote. Rather, the way I would put it but gets to the same idea:

1. When someone doesn't exist to experience good, damage has occurred to no one.
2. When someone does exist to experience bad, damage has occurred to someone.

Not bringing about 1 harms literally no one in its absence.
Bringing about 2 will harm someone.

The collateral damage only obtains for 2 and never for 1.

Not bringing about 1 harms literally no one in its absence. — schopenhauer1

We've just been through this. The rest of the existing community are harmed by the absence. The claim is categorically false.

So, each person does exactly what they wish. Doing exactly what you want is not ethics, not by any definition at all.

The only alternative is that someone has the right of expectation that another will adhere to some behaviour even if they don't want to.

But then you can't avoid the question of who gets to set what that behaviour is.

You have three choices...

1. Everyone does whatever they want.

2. People are expected to behave in certain ways even if they don't want to. The community comes to a decision somehow as to what that behaviour is.

3. People are expected to behave in certain ways even if they don't want to. You, God, or some other arbitrary person, decide what that behaviour is. — Isaac

No, I don't know how that conclusion is reached that each person does exactly as they wish. That isn't a necessary conclusion. Clearly there are rules, the ones about not using people or violating their dignity by forcing upon them significant conditions.

1- That doesn't follow.

2- And then you run into things like the colonists burning witches- something you didn't address. Rather, there must be some rule above and beyond the community's standards. That's why ideas of rights came into play, to protect the individual. But beyond this, no one can act upon someone and then say that they are acting on behalf of the community or some goal that just "needs doing" and thus doing something to another unnecessarily is justified for these reasons.

3- This may be true if I am reading it correctly. Arbitrary is not accurate though. Rather it is the idea of people are not pawns to be moved around and to be used for some other entity whether that be a cause, another person's preferences, or what have you.

Clearly there are rules, the ones about not using people or violating their dignity by forcing upon them significant conditions. — schopenhauer1

So who gets to decide what the rules are?

So who gets to decide what the rules are? — Isaac

That's the interesting part...
If no person is born, no person is imposed upon. There is no person not obtaining anything. If they are born, there is an imposition going on. Someone IS deciding in one, and in the other, no one is making that assumption for another, literally.

Someone IS deciding in one, and in the other, no one is making that assumption for another, literally. — schopenhauer1

Yes they are. They're making an assumption that all the people who would benefit from the prospective person should suffer. They're deciding on behalf of others.

Yes they are. They're making an assumption that all the b people who would benefit from the prospective person should suffer. — Isaac

Why is a person's dignity being violated something that must be based on some community standard? Again, the witch being burned. Why is that allowed? The community feels this person is bad. She must suffer?

Why is a person's dignity being violated something that must be based on some community standard? — schopenhauer1

Because the alternative is that everyone just does whatever they want. Again, if you prefer that system, that's your deal, but it just not what morality is.

Because the alternative is that everyone just does whatever they want. Again, if you prefer that system, that's your deal, but it just not what morality is. — Isaac

See, this is the false dichotomy I don't accept. Morality itself just becomes the capricious whims of a community's time, place, and circumstance. There seems something above and beyond community standards going on for things like when (or if) it is okay to harm an individual. Something that is irrespective of time and place of a community.

There seems something above and beyond community standards going on for things like when (or if) it is okay to harm an individual. Something that is irrespective of time and place of a community. — schopenhauer1

God?

The point is we already disagree, you and I.

So we've only two choices. We arbitrate (come to a binding agreement, someone imposes on someone else), or you do as you see fit and I do as I see fit (we do as we please).

Based on what it means to have an ethics that obtains for reasoning, feeling, people who have their own internal reasons and preferences. It comes from that understanding expanded to everyone respecting this upon everyone.. Similar to Kant's foundation give or take.

As has been stated many many times. Humans are social creatures. As @Isaac keeps pointing out, WE CREATE COMMUNITIES! It's what we do. Species that work together have a much better chance of survival compared to species who don't. The happiness/contentment/fulfillment level experienced by each individual human within a community is influenced by the actions of everyone in that community and natural happenstance outwith the control of the community and many many other influences such as individual personality/motivations/priorities. A complicated system called the human experience.
Yet even despite that complexity and the possibility of individual harms, more people still want to have children compared to the number that does not, based on the continuous population growth of our species. Looks like most humans choose to keep living after they have been born so who are the antinatalists to try to suggest they hold the moral high ground by suggesting that all parents are immoral?

The point is we already disagree, you and I.

So we've only two choices. We arbitrate (come to a binding agreement), or you do as you see fit and I do as I see fit (we do as we please). — Isaac

Agreed.

I liken it to vegetarian/veganism. Propose, make a case, don't impose. I also separate discussions of ethics from law. Government/law and ethics is not the same but may overlap with personal ethics.

Some issues are more important than others as are some choices. Universal AN as @DA671 labels it would END OUR SPECIES! so it does not compare with choosing whether or not an individual eats meat.

Propose, make a case, don't impose. I also separate discussions of ethics from law. Government/law and ethics is not the same but may overlap with personal ethics. — schopenhauer1

Everyone doing as they please (ultimately) is just not ethics.

ethic
noun [ C, usually plural ]
uk
/ˈeθɪk/ us
Social responsibility.
a system of accepted rules about behaviour, based on what is considered right and wrong: