if one knowingly creates conditions by which individuals will befall harm in the future, one is morally responsible when that harm eventually befalls them — Tzeentch

Right.

As I said https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/720016, but you unfortunately ignored, both your position on inaction and your position on antinatalism create conditions by which individuals will befall harm in the future.

When you have your own dilemma pointed out you too, it seems, reach for avoidance.

As I said https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/720016, but you unfortunately ignored, ... — Isaac

When you have your own dilemma pointed out you too, it seems, reach for avoidance. — Isaac

I just thought it was time to let some others share their ideas, since I had been talking way too much already and felt I was hijacking the thread.

I may get back to your comment later.

You get points for imagination and evasive tactics! — Agent Smith

Thanks. I usually attack head on. But it is obvious that TPF is oversaturated with evasive tactics, so I feel the need to work on my evasive tactics so that I...can...fit...in!. :halo:

I't's not a possibly real dilemma, so why would there be any need to "deal with it"?

:up:

Thanks. I usually attack head on. But it is obvious that TPF is oversaturated with evasive tactics, so I feel the need to work on my evasive tactics so that I...can...fit...in!. :halo: — Merkwurdichliebe

You're great! :up:

One has a kindergarten constructed. One knows the kindergarten isn't constructed well and will collapse at some point in the future.

Can one evade responsibility through the same route as is attempted here by various posters, by making an appeal to the fact these kindergarteners weren't yet alive during the time of construction, and thus had no well-being to take into account?

The answer, which you're trying so hard to dodge, is obvious.

As for inaction: as I've argued before on this thread, inaction/non-interference does not cause harm.

The drowning man does not drown because I did not help him, but because he ended up in the water and could not swim.


The same could be said for "depriving individuals of one's company" - one's choice of not getting involved isn't the cause, it's the person's desire for things outside himself that is the cause of his deprivation. One can hardly be held responsible for the unrealistic wants of others, or unjustified claims to other people's company and/or action.

I'd love for people to treat me like a king wherever I go, yet the fact that I desire as much does not make their indifference towards me a cause of harm.

The drowning man does not drown because I did not help him, but because he ended up in the water and could not swim. — Tzeentch

Right. But the bomb causes the school to explode in your other analogy. You didn't cause it. You merely created a situation in which is was more likely to happen. It's exactly the same with procreation. By having children I don't actually cause the harm they might experience do I? I merely allow for it by bringing them into being. You can't have it both ways - direct causality on one side, but 'creating conditions' on the other.

The same could be said for "depriving individuals of one's company" - one's choice of not getting involved isn't the cause, it's the person's desire for things outside himself that is the cause of his deprivation. — Tzeentch

Right. So we're declaring some harms to be the result of desires which conflict with reality and others not. So I can simply declare that by procreating, I've caused no harm at all. Any 'harm' my children might experience in life is simply the result of their unrealistic expectations, not my fault. Again, you can't have it both ways.

Clearly, the only way out of this bottle (re Wittgenstein) is to assume that nonexistent people do have moral status i.e. they can be harmed/helped.

The other option is to say that people do exist before they're born (on earth as a human).

These two options come with their own metaphysical baggage though, but at least we achieve some semblance of symmetry which is vital to the issue.

If not then the problem of natalism-antinatalism gets bogged down by the metaphysics of nonexistence. Why complicate the issue (unnecessarily)?

Right. But the bomb causes the school to explode in your other analogy. You didn't cause it. — Isaac

I disagree. Clearly if one makes and sets the bomb to explode, they are the cause, or at least a significant part of it. It is an act.

By having children I don't actually cause the harm they might experience do I? — Isaac

Creating children is likewise an act, which contributes to their harm.

In the case of the drowning man, one created no conditions that contributing to his drowning.

Any 'harm' my children might experience in life is simply the result of their unrealistic expectations, not my fault. — Isaac

Again, having children is an act, and when one acts, one must take into account the harm one causes.

There's a fundamental difference between creating conditions (acting) and choosing not to create them (non-interference).

I suppose you tried to circumvent this by saying we're entitled to other individuals' action, which I disagree with.

Creating children is likewise an act, which contributes to their harm. — Tzeentch

How? I don't harm my kids.

Again, having children is an act, and when one acts, one must take into the harm one causes. — Tzeentch

So's moving away from rather than toward a person. So's playing a computer game instead of helping them.

There's a fundamental difference between creating conditions, acting, and choosing not to create them, non-interference. — Tzeentch

If a house needs building, it takes five people to build it, you're one of only five people in the community. If, instead of helping to build the house, you decide to go for a walk, how are you not, by your action (going for a walk at the time the house needs building) 'creating the conditions' whereby that house will not be built and all the associated harms.

Condition 1 - there are four people available. The house doesn't get built. People suffer.

Condition 2 - there are five people available. The house gets built. No one suffers

By going for a walk instead of helping you are, without a shadow of a doubt, creating condition 1. The condition in which harms come about.

Clearly, the only way out of this bottle (re Wittgenstein) is to assume that nonexistent people do have moral status i.e. they can be harmed/helped. — Agent Smith

I'm sure people will have some objections to my school-example, but intuitively it seems so.

:clap: One can hope that people will not turn a blind eye to the significance of providing benefits and choosing something better over something that is neutral/bad. At the same time, pressurising people to always love life or procreate is unacceptable. Having a holistic worldview is generally wise.

How? I don't harm my kids. — Isaac

You created the conditions by which harm may befall them, just like the school builder in my example constructed a school that may collapse.

So's moving away from rather than toward a person. So's playing a computer game instead of helping them. — Isaac

I don't know why the "rather than / instead" parts should be considered in order for something to be considered an act or not. The fact that one can interfere does not change the nature of not interfering.

Example: your choice not to interfere with world hunger does not make you the cause of it, nor is it an "act" that is "causing" harm.

If a house needs building, it takes five people to build it, you're one of only five people in the community. If, instead of helping to build the house, you decide to go for a walk, how are you not, by your action (going for a walk at the time the house needs building) 'creating the conditions' whereby that house will not be built and all the associated harms. — Isaac

I think this is an erroneous way of representing causality.

My absence did not cause the house to not be built.

The question here rather is whether my choice for non-interference can be justified.

To which I say, by default people are not entitled to each other's action.

My absence did not cause the house to not be built. — Tzeentch

My procreation did not cause the harm to my children. You keep moving the goalposts.

Procreation - it's all about incidentally creating conditions.

Community welfare - it suddenly becomes about direct causality.

Which is it. Direct causality, or incidentally creating conditions?

by default people are not entitled to each other's action — Tzeentch

No one said anything about entitled. We were talking about creating conditions. You undoubtedly create condition 1 by going away.

The issue is that you are trying to equate non-interference to acting.

Creating conditions and direct causality are both relevant, but in the case of non-interference, I am not creating any conditions that are relevant to the incident, in this example the building of the house.

in the case of non-interference, I am not creating any conditions that are relevant to the incident, in this example the building of the house. — Tzeentch

Just declaring it to be the case doesn't make it so.

How are you not creating the conditions where there are only four people available, by going for a walk?

Five people (one you) are standing in a circle. You leave. How have you not now created the condition where there are only four people in the circle?

How are you not creating the conditions where there are only four people available, by going for a walk? — Isaac

Clearly there had been four people available all along.

Clearly there had been four people available all along. — Tzeentch

I said "only four".

Clearly there had been only four people available all along.

Jokes aside, this label of "availability" is a subjective one.

Clearly there had been only four people available all along. — Tzeentch

No you're just talking nonsense. A circle with five people in it does not have only four people in it.

I'm sure people will have some objections to my school-example, but intuitively it seems so. — Tzeentch

Situation analysis:

Fictional entities don't have moral status. You can't make Sherlock Holmes glad/sad and so ethics is moot, morality is N/A, a category error that is.

This above idea has been adapted to the unborn - they're being likened to fictional characters in a book/play/movie.

However, 180 Proof got it right, the unborn are possible persons i.e. if permitted they become actual people and this is the difference that makes the difference - fictional people are devoid of potential to become an actual person.

If so, ethics/morality becomes applicable to the unborn.

One has a kindergarten constructed. One knows the kindergarten isn't constructed well and will collapse at some point in the future. — Tzeentch

That would just be profoundly unethical, regardless of the fact that you don't know whether when it collapses anyone will be injured. It is unethical because it shows you have no moral sense in regard to the quality of what you have been contracted to provide.

That would just be profoundly unethical, regardless of the fact that you don't know whether when it collapses anyone will be injured. It is unethical because it shows you have no moral sense in regard to the quality of what you have been contracted to provide. — Janus

Surely this man will not be condemned just for his shoddy work ethic, but also for the harm he has caused the children.

Or does he get to justify himself by saying none of the children were alive upon construction of the building, and therefore they had no well-being to take into account?

However, 180 Proof got it right, the unborn are possible persons i.e. if permitted they become actual people and this is the difference that makes the difference - fictional people are devoid of potential to become an actual person.

If so, ethics/morality becomes applicable to the unborn. — Agent Smith

That seems to me like sound reasoning.

Jokes aside, this label of "availability" is a subjective one. — Tzeentch

Ditch it then. Just a circle with five people in it (one you). You walk away. You have brought about a condition where there's a circle with only four people in it. No availability involved.

A circle (community/village) with only four people in it causes harms in a way that a circle with five people in it doesn't (house building cannot take place and so people suffer from exposure).

You have brought about a situation where harms are going to occur. Just the same as procreation.

You could say "I was never going to help with the houses anyway, I was just going to watch everyone die of exposure without lifting a finger". That would indeed change the logic.

And thereby we'd end up where every single discussion of antinatalism always ends up...

If you have weird premises, you'll end up with weird conclusions.

If you seriously think that sitting by watching others die of exposure but refusing to lift a finger to help is 'moral' then you're obviously going to end up with some seriously fucked up conclusions arising from that principle.

You could say "I was never going to help with the houses anyway, I was just going to watch everyone die of exposure without lifting a finger". — Isaac

I suppose this is close to what I would say.

The thing is, you presuppose the individual to be a part of something. A circle, a group of people available to build a house, etc.

Sometimes such a presupposition can be correct, but it is not so by default. People aren't part of something just because another holds that opinion. And when that opinion turns out to be false, the person who wasn't involved in the first place hasn't suddenly started to cause harm.

If you seriously think that sitting by watching others die of exposure but refusing to lift a finger to help is 'moral' then you're obviously going to end up with some seriously fucked up conclusions arising from that principle. — Isaac

I don't think it is moral. However assuming one hasn't caused the people to freeze and isn't involved with them in some other way, it is neutral. One may very well choose to help out, however if one has reasons not to do so, non-interference is acceptable.

No moral system that holds non-interference as unacceptable will make sense, because there are people proverbially drowning everywhere at every moment, and if non-interference is not acceptable, well you get where that is going.

So non-interference must be acceptable, at least in a default situation.

:up:

As the OP said, "great arguments"! It seems apparent to me that not acting in a particular situation can be one of the causes of a state of affairs continuing in a certain way, since doing something could have stopped/changed the situation. Of course, there can be multiple sources and ignoring intentions and practical limitations whilst ascribing responsibility for something is not right, in my view.

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? — Tzeentch

That they

need to kill themselves asap. — 180 Proof

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? — Tzeentch

Having children is an act of faith, an act of confidence: The prospective parents have faith, are confident that the universe will prove to be a welcoming place for themselves and their children.

Refusing to have children can sometimes be seen as an act of capitulation, defeat, a loss of faith, a giving up on the whole project of existence.

In order to feel alive, many people feel they need to pass on life to others. This can be done by propagating plants, breeding animals, or, to make the lifeform as close to oneself as possible, produce children.

The actual problem is how to balance out the dog-eat-dog mentality with a life-is-good mentality.

Striking the right balance between pernicious optimism and unbridled pessimism is quite important!