Parents are aware of the harm that may befall their child, so it is intentional. — Tzeentch

There’s the potential for harm to occur in every human interaction. Therefore is all harm caused intentional?

They just assume on the child's behalf that the harm will outweigh the good. — Tzeentch

I think you have that backwards, but we make this same assumption all the time when we interact with each other.

Having made the voluntary decision to create another human being whose well-being will depend entirely on them, the parent has incurred responsibilities and is no longer in a default situation. — Tzeentch

Ok. Then is there really a default situation where no one is depending on us? For example, our parents may depend on us to have children so that they can become grandparents, which will improve their happiness/well-being.

Procreating causes conditions for existing, not suffering (just as planting a sapling causes a tree to grow but does not cause the harm when that tree falls on someone). Insofar as an existing person maladaptively interprets / relates to her environment, she suffers.

True. This is reminscint of the necessary and sufficient conditions discussion we've had, what, 2 years ago?

I also notice a continuous misinterpretation of the nonidentity problem by antinatalists, which is persistent but I have neither time nor inclination to explain at this time since I'm on holidays.

I asked about neither of those occasions. I asked about the occasion of you changing your mind. — Isaac

I don't think it creates conditions.

So if you didn't speak English you could just 'work out' what moral means using reason? — Isaac

You seem to be deliberately trying to misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I won't play that game. This obviously isn't about the English language.

Morality is a set of principles that guide behavior, and I believe such principles can be arrived at through reason, regardless of what language one speaks.

So you intend to help. The conditions are thst it's possible to build a house. You change your mind and walk away. The conditions are now that it's impossible to build a house.

If you changing your mind didn't cause the conditions to change, what did? — Isaac

The conditions didn't change until one had finally made up their mind and turned their intentions into physical actions.

You can't just step over this. You claim thoughts in your head are conditions. You also claim that changing these conditions may incur harm. This means that through a process of inner deliberation I would be causing harm. That is absurd.

Not if it's voluntary. They just decide it doesn't. — Isaac

You're now claiming that responsibility is not voluntary, that some actions bring about a non-optional responsibility. Why? And why only some actions? — Isaac

Because they're actions that create dependency in others. If we voluntarily make others depend on us for their well-being, that brings responsibility that is not optional, morally speaking. Why? Because we voluntarily created a situation in which we cause harm if we aren't to take said responsibility.

It's a mental construction we use to model reality, but such mental constructions do not necessarily exist in reality. — Tzeentch

No inaction is a word we use to describe neutral action opposite to the action in question. — Isaac

You can't point at an act that isn't happening. While we may infer it (You are walking, therefore you are not standing still) it is not happening in reality. It's a mental construction.

You're always performing some action really. You breathe, digest, look about... — Isaac

True. However, I never implied one needs to be completely still for inaction (towards a certain thing), but to avoid confusion I have changed to using the term non-interference.

Plato decided what the word moral means? You didn't know how to use the word until you read Plato? People who haven't read Plato don't know what moral means? This just gets weirder and weirder. — Isaac

Plato and other thinkers alerted me to the fact that my previous conception of morality was unexamined and muddy, not unlike yours.

There’s the potential for harm to occur in every human interaction. Therefore is all harm caused intentional? — Pinprick

Some of it is caused by ignorance, but roughly speaking yes. If one is aware of the risks (so ignorance is not a factor) and takes the risk, then one intentionally causes harm when it happens.

That's why we ought to behave carefully in our interactions with others and seek consensuality always, especially when the potential harm is irreversible.

I think you have that backwards, but we make this same assumption all the time when we interact with each other. — Pinprick

Yes, I did write that backwards. I meant the parents assumed the good will outweigh the harm of course.

Ok. Then is there really a default situation where no one is depending on us? For example, our parents may depend on us to have children so that they can become grandparents, which will improve their happiness/well-being. — Pinprick

Such a situation is certainly thinkable, but the key is not whether someone depends on us, but whether we accepted such a situation voluntarily.

I did not choose to be born, nor did I accept the duty to provide my parents with grandchildren. They might rely on me to fulfill that desire, but I did not create that situation nor did I accept it voluntarily, so I'm not responsible.

Nonexistence $\to$ Nonexistence [path 1]
$\downarrow$
Existence [path 2]

Path 1: No imposition; there's no one to impose on.

Path 2: To be consistent, no imposition; there was no one to impose on, just like in path 1.

However path 2 leads to the creation of a human, call her X. Did this human, X, choose to be born? Obviously, no s/he didn't because she didn't exist to make that choice.

However now X analyzes her situation carefully - she could come to the conclusion that she's happy and is happy with life or she could be down in the dumps 24×7 and this thought crosses her mind: I wish I had never been born! Therein lies the rub.

In my humble opinion, to aid parents in making sound decisions, one must assume persons exist antepartum: Given how things are - the state of the world, finances, etc. - would anyone want to be born (to us)? Thinkin' for someone else is the tricky part; how do you know your child isn't going to be a masochist (pain is fun)?

Summary:

Firstly, we realized that we need to assume people exist prior to their births; otherwise, we wouldn't be addressing the documented sentiment "I wish I had never been born!" which is nothing more than the claim that had I existed prenatally, I would've chosen nonexistence over life.

Secondly, there's no satisfactory way of predicting how your child will respond, positively/negatively, to the world.

Argument from reversal of position

If you're born and you don't like life, you can always kill yourself (not easy, but doable).

If you're never born, that's it; you don't have the choice to be born - that ship has alreasy sailed/left the harbor as it were.

Ergo, natalism is preferable over antinatalism given the uncertainties that inhere to the problem of suffering (in life)?

:up:

If you're born and you don't like life, you can always kill yourself (not easy, but doable). — Agent Smith

This is a very weak argument.

It's like putting a ring through someone's nose when they're asleep, only to tell them "If you don't like it, just rip it out" when they're asking you why you've done it. Was the person justified in his actions because the subject doesn't opt for the pain of tearing it out?

I suppose the argument goes something like "If you don't hate life enough to commit suicide, you must like it", but is there any other situation in which that standard is used? That the acceptability of imposing conditions on someone is measured by whether or not they violently extract themselves from it through suicide?

Poverty (and much greater harms than that) then must be entirely acceptable, since as long as there are poor people not committing suicide, they like it enough.


Further, one may not like life one bit, but still refrain from suicide due to the suffering it would bring others.


Like I said, a very weak argument (and that's assuming there's even a single person that genuinely believes it), used mostly by disgruntled opponents of antinatalism who are looking for something to say.

True, true, suicide isn't a joke, it's painful; it's superfluous too - after all nonexistence is desired, the intermediate life and the subsequent suffering involved in taking one's own life is unnecessary/avoidable. Pointless sorrow in a way.

However, it seems rather odd that someone who advocates for antinatalism would have any objections to suicide. That's like someone championing the anti-smoking cause and getting all worked up about a person who kicks the nicotine addiction. :chin:

I don't think it creates conditions. — Tzeentch

So what does?

You seem to be deliberately trying to misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I won't play that game. This obviously isn't about the English language. — Tzeentch

How can you and I discuss what is moral if you think you can just make up what the word means on a whim?

Morality is a set of principles that guide behavior — Tzeentch

So do the rules of chess. So what distinguishes morality from any other set of principles which guide behaviour?

The conditions didn't change until one had finally made up their mind and turned their intentions into physical actions. — Tzeentch

So did someone else force your physical actions, like a marionette? Because otherwise you're just being pedantic to avoid the point. The point is that you created the conditions in question. If you want to say they were created when you walked away, or the moment you did something other than build the house, then fine. The point is, you created them. By your non-interference (by doing something else instead of helping) you create the conditions in which it is impossible to build a house and all the harms which go along with that.

Why? Because we voluntarily created a situation in which we cause harm if we aren't to take said responsibility. — Tzeentch

But why is that immoral? Can't I just say that I've decided it isn't, using my rational logic?

Plato and other thinkers alerted me to the fact that my previous conception of morality was unexamined and muddy, not unlike yours. — Tzeentch

What is the goal of the examination?

So what does? — Isaac

Physical actions.

So do the rules of chess. So what distinguishes morality from any other set of principles which guide behaviour? — Isaac

Not that much, in fact.

The rules of chess guide behavior for individuals playing chess. Morals guide behavior for individuals in life.

By your non-interference (by doing something else instead of helping) you create the conditions in which it is impossible to build a house and all the harms which go along with that. — Isaac

This is where we seem to disagree.

I don't create conditions in matters that I am not involved in by not getting involved. I'm not a part of the conditions initially, and I don't become part of it when I choose not to get involved.

And when I'm deliberating whether or not to get involved in my mind, those conditions aren't changing, nor am I harming people by deliberating internally. And you still need to somehow argue that is the case.

But why is that immoral? Can't I just say that I've decided it isn't, using my rational logic? — Isaac

It's immoral because we're creating harm by our voluntary action. Individuals do not like being harmed, and interactions with other individuals should be on terms acceptable to both sides (consensuality).

And yes, you can argue otherwise and present the logic that leads you to a different conclusion. Go right ahead, isn't that after all what we're here for?

In the end it's about who can present the most coherent argument.

What is the goal of the examination? — Isaac

Testing the validity of one's ideas, of course. We wouldn't want to base our behavior on faulty ideas.

Physical actions. — Tzeentch

In the scenario I described, whose physical actions caused the change in conditions from the state where a house could be built to the state where one could not?

The rules of chess guide behavior for individuals playing chess. Morals guide behavior for individuals in life. — Tzeentch

Traffic laws also guide behaviour for individuals in life. Is it a moral rule that we ought drive on the left?

The rules of mathematics determine how I behave when calculating. Is it a moral rule that 2+2=4?

What property distinguishes moral rules from other rules?

I don't create conditions in matters that I am not involved in by not getting involved. I'm not a part of the conditions initially, and I don't become part of it when I choose not to get involved. — Tzeentch

Then who does? You keep dodging the question. Who causes the change of circumstances in the situation I described, if not you?

It's immoral because we're creating harm by our voluntary action. Individuals do not like being harmed, and interactions with other individuals should be on terms acceptable to both sides (consensuality). — Tzeentch

Why?

Testing the validity of one's ideas, of course. — Tzeentch

What would inform us of the invalidity of a moral rule. What properties does it need to have, or criteria, such that an examination might cause it to fail it's validity-check?

In the scenario I described, whose physical actions caused the change in conditions from the state where a house could be built to the state where one could not? — Isaac

No one's. No change took place. The condition under which the house could not be built was in place all along, the builders simply didn't have the information to understand.

We never went from five to four builders, because a fifth person was not available.

Traffic laws also guide behaviour for individuals in life. Is it a moral rule that we ought drive on the left? — Isaac

I'm not sure. Does it pertain to living a good life? Does it pertain to not harming others? I could see an argument made for it, or against it. Why is it relevant?

Then who does? You keep dodging the question. Who causes the change of circumstances in the situation I described, if not you? — Isaac

I've answered you more than once. You just don't like the answer.

Speaking of dodging questions, what about those deliberations in one's head that according to you cause conditions and harm? Isn't it about time you address that elephant?

Why? — Isaac

You're asking why I think I shouldn't harm people? Gut feeling, I guess. It seems people are a lot happier when they don't harm each other.

What would inform us of the invalidity of a moral rule. — Isaac

Logical inconsistencies.

Why don't you come to a point?

No one's. No change took place. The condition under which the house could not be built was in place all along, the builders simply didn't have the information to understand.

We never went from five to four builders, because a fifth person was not available. — Tzeentch

So before you changed your mind, when you were planning to help build the house, you were unavailable? How so?

Does it pertain to living a good life? Does it pertain to not harming others? — Tzeentch

Why would those two criteria determine something to be a moral rule, as opposed to any other rule?

what about those deliberations in one's head that according to you cause conditions and harm? Isn't it about time you address that elephant? — Tzeentch

It's not remotely a problem for me. deliberations in one's head are neural activity. I don't have a problem with that having consequences. The problem are for those who think mental activity is magic.

It seems people are a lot happier when they don't harm each other. — Tzeentch

So the aim is to make people happier?

What would inform us of the invalidity of a moral rule. — Isaac


Logical inconsistencies. — Tzeentch

How? I just cannot see what kind of logical inconsistency would render something I thought a moral rule into not one? What logic could one apply? LEM?

So before you changed your mind, when you were planning to help build the house, you were unavailable? How so? — Isaac

I didn't know whether I would be available, clearly.

If I thought I would be available and turn out not to be, then clearly I didn't know if I was available in the first place.

Why would those two criteria determine something to be a moral rule, as opposed to any other rule? — Isaac

I'm done playing games. Wrap up your little yarn and get to a point that pertains to the subject.

It's not remotely a problem for me. — Isaac

According to you, deliberation causes conditions to form, and such conditions can produce harm.

Can you point to the harm done as a result of my deliberation? I think not.

I'm deliberating, changing my mind several times. Am I now causing harm with every deliberation?

Clearly not, and if you believe otherwise than kindly point me to the harm that's done by deliberating.

Whether a condition is formed is decided when I express my conclusion to the builders.

If I tell them I am available, now the condition changes from there being four people available to five.

If I tell them I am not available, the conditions haven't changed. There are still four people available.

The problem are for those who think mental activity is magic. — Isaac

You're talking about yourself? Where is the magical suffering that's caused by my deliberation?


Let's bring this back on topic:


Your final argument was that not having children causes harm.

This is an erroneous representation of cause and effect, since doing nothing causes nothing. It has no physical effects nor does it create conditions.

The drowning man drowns because he fell into the water, not because I did not save him. He would drown whether I am there to not save him, or whether I am not there at all. My presence has no effect.

You attempted to mend this by saying it still causes harm because I was 'available' to avoid it. To which I replied that clearly I wasn't, because otherwise I may have saved the man. I was unavailable, busy being myself.

To this you said that according to some unspecified arbiter of availibility (that conspicuously shares your idea of reasonableness), I could have been available and that my internal deliberation deciding I was not is what caused the harm. To which I now say, show me the harm caused by my deliberation - you cannot. I've changed my mind several times. Did I cause harm several times?

Note you have de facto abandoned your position that not having children causes harm, but that, apparently, we're responsible for the harm caused to others when they have wrongfully mistaken us for being 'available' for fulfilling their desires.

Your idea can be summed up that it is immoral not to involve oneself in business on the basis of what others believe to be your reasonable actions. Not acting to fulfill their desires harms them, because they had "reasonably" assumed you were available.

Yet, the problem with this position is clear and you've already shown it when I asked you to build a house for me and you implied that wasn't reasonable thing to ask.


If you have any questions you would like me to answer, please make clear how they relate to the central question. If there are unrelated questions that are burning on your mind, send them in a private message.

I thought I would be available and turn out not to be, then clearly I didn't know if I was available in the first place. — Tzeentch

So you're not in control of your own decisions, you just 'find out' what they are when you get there?

Can you point to the harm done as a result of my deliberation? I think not. — Tzeentch

The suffering from the lack of a house.

I'm deliberating, changing my mind several times. Am I now causing harm with every deliberation? — Tzeentch

Some, yeah.

Whether a condition is formed is decided when I express my conclusion to the builders. — Tzeentch

So before you say anything, were you available or not?

Where is the magical suffering that's caused by my deliberation? — Tzeentch

I've just said. The lack of house.

This is an erroneous representation of cause and effect, since doing nothing causes nothing. It has no physical effects nor does it create conditions. — Tzeentch

That's begging the question.


If you want to argue against my position, quote me. Don't make up what you think I said and argue against that. If you want to argue against a fantasy opponent do it in private.

So you're not in control of your own decisions, you just 'find out' what they are when you get there? — Isaac

Essentially, yes. What else would you conclude if you believe to be available but ultimately it turns out you're not? Only that you apparently didn't know whether you were available or not.

The suffering from the lack of a house. — Isaac

Deliberating causes a lack of a house? Explain, please.

So in your view, while I'm deliberating the possibility of a house flashes in and out of existence, and thereby causing harm? And you're accusing me of coming to weird conclusions?

An outsider couldn't even detect the nature of the deliberations, let alone suffer harm from them.

So before you say anything, were you available or not? — Isaac

There's no way to tell.

If you want to argue against my position, quote me. — Isaac

Just thought I'd do everyone a favor and delineate how all of this ties back to the subject of the thread.

What else would you conclude if you believe to be available but ultimately it turns out you're not? Only that you apparently didn't know whether you were available or not. — Tzeentch

That you changed your mind?

Deliberating causes a lack of a house? Explain, please. — Tzeentch

Neurons fire, cause some action other than building a house. No house. Is there something about that account that puzzles you?

So in your view, while I'm deliberating the possibility of a house flashes in and out of existence, and thereby causing harm? — Tzeentch

You're unaware of the concept of passing time? Everything that happens, happens concurrently?

An outsider couldn't even detect the nature of the deliberations, let alone suffer harm from them. — Tzeentch

I can't detect radiation either. So it's harmless, yes?

There's no way to tell. — Tzeentch

Brilliant. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at your work.

Boss: "are you available for night shift on Thursday?"

You: "how could I possibly know, we'll just have to wait until Thursday and find out, won't we?"

Just thought I'd do everyone a favor and delineate how all of this ties back to the subject of the thread. — Tzeentch

I assume anyone who's interested would be sensible enough not to trust a summary of an argument by someone looking to dismiss it.

That you changed your mind? — Isaac

That's just another way of saying you didn't know.

Neurons fire, cause some action other than building a house. No house. Is there something about that account that puzzles you? — Isaac

Haha, yes. Where is the causation in this story?

Condition A: No house.

> "Neurons fire"

Condition B: Still no house.

You're unaware of the concept of passing time? Everything that happens, happens concurrently? — Isaac

So what, not only are you entitled to decide for me whether I am potentially available, but I also need to decide now?

Everything you argue is from your perspective, your desires, your subjective ideas of whether or not someone is available or not and what are their acceptable courses of action, and there should somehow arise some objective situation from that.

I can't detect radiation either. — Isaac

You can detect radiation.

Brilliant. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at your work.

Boss: "are you available for night shift on Thursday?"

You: "how could I possibly know, we'll just have to wait until Thursday and fond out, won't we?" — Isaac

For the sake of argument, I have a contract with my boss. I don't have a contract with the child that I will not have.

That's just another way of saying you didn't know. — Tzeentch

So how could prospective parents possibly change their minds about having children when such a decision is already made?

Where is the causation in this story?

Condition A: No house.

> "Neurons fire"

Condition B: Still no house. — Tzeentch

Condition A: world is in a state such that a house can be built.

Neurons fire, cause some action other than building a house.

Condition B: world is in a state such that a house cannot be built.

not only are you entitled to decide for me whether I am potentially available, but I also need to decide now? — Tzeentch

No one's deciding or forcing. It's just a statement about the state of affairs in the world.

You can detect radiation. — Tzeentch

How?

For the sake of argument, I have a contract with my boss. I don't have a contract with the child that I will not have. — Tzeentch

That changes whether you understand what 'available' means?

Condition A: No house.

> "Neurons fire"

Condition B: Still no house. — Tzeentch

:rofl:

That matches a description of me!

The antinatalism-natalism problem will be settled for good once we can calculate the probability of a future child ending up down in the dumps or on cloud nine. You can't argue with math; if your future baby has a 90% chance of lifelong suffering, it would be insane, not to mention cruel, to have him/her and if the odds of happiness are 90%, it would be wrong to not have the child.

So how could prospective parents possibly change their minds about having children when such a decision is already made? — Isaac

I didn't say the decision is already made. I said that we don't know our final decision until we make it.

Condition A: world is in a state such that a house can be built.

Neurons fire, cause some action other than building a house.

Condition B: world is in a state such that a house cannot be built. — Isaac

It's never in a state that the house can be built. I fear you've conflated causation with potentiality.

Let me ask you this, are you responsible for all the harm "caused" by every possible action you could take, but didn't? Are you immoral for not taking those actions? There are a lot of actions you could possibly be taking right now, infinite in fact, and I guess then so is your list of moral transgressions.

How? — Isaac

With a geiger counter.

That changes whether you understand what 'available' means? — Isaac

No, it changes the situation since I've voluntarily accepted responsibilities. This is no longer a default situation. If I promise someone I'm available for work (an act in the actual physical world) I am creating conditions.

But if I never was an employee to begin with, and we had signed no contract, clearly I would not be harming the employer for not showing up to work, let alone be responsible for it!

The antinatalism-natalism problem will be settled for good once we can calculate the probability of a future child ending up down in the dumps or on cloud nine. You can't argue with math; if your future baby has a 90% chance of lifelong suffering, it would be insane, not to mention cruel, to have him/her and if the odds of happiness are 90%, it would be wrong to not have the child. — Agent Smith

I'm not sure if this solves it.

Should I push you out of an airplane if there's a 90% chance of you having a great experience, and a 10% chance of crashing into the Earth?

And regardless of one's answer to that, what gives one the right to decide for another that they should jump out of an airplane in the first place?

I'm not sure if this solves it.

Should I push you out of an airplane if there's a 90% chance of you having a great experience, and a 10% chance of crashing into the Earth? — Tzeentch

Many games we play at casinos and gambling dens have odds of a win less than 90%. The stakes may not be as high as one's very life though.

And regardless of one's answer to that, what gives one the right to decide for another that they should jump out of an airplane in the first place?

The mathematization of the issue with the requisite risk-benefit analysis needs work but rest assured once we have the exact figures, we can make decisions rationally, exactly what we should be doing, oui?

I didn't say the decision is already made. I said that we don't know our final decision until we make it. — Tzeentch

What's you knowing it got to do with causality?

It's never in a state that the house can be built. I fear you've conflated causation with potentiality.

Let me ask you this, are you responsible for all the harm "caused" by every possible action you could take, but didn't? — Tzeentch

It's nothing to do with causing the harm itself. Parents don't cause harm to their children do they? The argument is that they create the conditions in which harm is going to happen (note the future tense).

The equivalent situation would only require that by your decision to not interfere (do something else instead) you create the conditions in which harm is going to happen.

You keep changing this to your non-interference having to directly cause harm.

But parents don't directly cause harm to their children, so it's not comparing apples to apples.


The conditions in which harm is going to happen (future tense - same as procreation) is that the house cannot be built. That is going to cause harm.

That condition, that state of affairs, came about when you decided not to help. The conditions is about a state of affairs regarding future events (just like the procreation on is). So it necessarily involves potentiality. As does procreation. Your objection is about the potentiality of harm, not direct causality. Parents don't directly harm their children.

With a geiger counter. — Tzeentch

So radiation was harmless before the invention of the Geiger counter? Shame we invented it really.

I would not be harming the employer for not showing up to work, let alone be responsible for it! — Tzeentch

No one even mentioned harm. You claimed you didn't know if you were available until the time of the actual event. This is clearly just a misuse of the word 'available'. If your boss asks you if you're available next Thursday you know perfectly well what he means. Apply that understanding to the question I asked. Don't dodge it by pretending available means something else.

What's you knowing it got to do with causality? — Isaac

Your argument is that a change in conditions takes place through my deliberation, when in fact it is unknown whether the conditions will change until I've made up my mind.

The conditions in which harm is going to happen (future tense - same as procreation) is that the house cannot be built. That is going to cause harm.

That condition, that state of affairs, came about when you decided not to help. — Isaac

That condition was already in place when there were only four builders and they were looking for a fifth. I was never a potential builder, and I brought about no state of affairs or conditions. This is just wishful, entitled thinking on the part of the builders, appointing random uninvolved people as potential builders and then blaming them for their own ignorance.

If I set out, assuming every woman in my town to be a potential love interest, and it turns out they're not. Who is creating the harm here? If anyone is creating harm at all it is me.

It's nothing to do with causing the harm itself. — Isaac

Fine. You've conflated creating conditions with potentiality.

And the question is still valid, since your view is that it is possible to create conditions by not taking a certain action, and that by doing so you become responsible for harm. Is that not your position?

So are you responsible for all the conditions that is "created" by actions you did not take? Seems like the outcome is the same - an infinite, list of moral transgressions.

So it necessarily involves potentiality. As does procreation. — Isaac

Procreation is an act. Not acting is not an act.

Your objection is about the potentiality of harm, not direct causality. — Isaac

It's about both, really. Life has many harms inherent to it, and those can be said to be caused directly by the parents.

So radiation was harmless before the invention of the Geiger counter? Shame we invented it really. — Isaac

Before the Geiger counter you could detect it when your hair and teeth started falling out, but whatever you say.

No one even mentioned harm. You claimed you didn't know if you were available until the time of the actual event. This is clearly just a misuse of the word 'available'. If your boss asks you if you're available next Thursday you know perfectly well what he means. Apply that understanding to the question I asked. Don't dodge it by pretending available means something else. — Isaac

I'm not dodging anything.

Strictly speaking I don't know if I'm available when my boss asks. However, my contract created a condition X, that my boss counts on my presence at the agreed upon time. If I now go fishing instead, the condition goes from 'X' to 'not X', and it can be said I've caused conditions, not by virtue of my non-interference, but by virtue of my breach of contract. There's no such contract in a default situation.

The mathematization of the issue with the requisite risk-benefit analysis needs work but rest assured once we have the exact figures, we can make decisions rationally, exactly what we should be doing, oui? — Agent Smith

Let's say we know the exact figures. 9:1 in favor of pushing someone out of the plane. Surely it is not up to the pusher to decide that they like those odds on someone else's behalf, or do you disagree? Would it be fine to push someone in such a situation, and one would carry no blame when they go splat?

Your argument is that a change in conditions takes place through my deliberation, when in fact it is unknown whether the conditions will change until I've made up my mind. — Tzeentch

What's them being unknown got to do with the argument about what they are. The current arrangement of sand on the dark side of the moon is unknown. It still is arranged some way.

That condition was already in place when there were only four builders and they were looking for a fifth. I was never a potential builder — Tzeentch

So what were you when you intended to help build the house, before you changed your mind?

Since each of the other builders could change their mind too, there are really no potential builders. So all houses get built by luck? Random fluctuations? It's no wonder developers need so much money, what an unpredictable business they're in.

appointing random uninvolved people as potential builders — Tzeentch

In the scenario you intended to help. You changed your mind. How is that the builder's 'appointing random uninvolved people'? You were neither random nor uninvolved, you were a member of the community intending to help.

Fine. You've conflated creating conditions with potentiality. — Tzeentch

What's the difference then?

your view is that it is possible to create conditions by not taking a certain action, and that by doing so you become responsible for harm. Is that not your position?

So are you responsible for all the conditions that is "created" by actions you did not take? — Tzeentch

We've been through this, you agreed to use 'non-interference'. Non-interference is an action (it involves doing something else), and so has no problems affecting potentiality.

Procreation is an act. Not acting is not an act. — Tzeentch

See above. Not acting is dead.

It's about both, really. Life has many harms inherent to it, and those can be said to be caused directly by the parents. — Tzeentch

No they can't. You keep reminding us that only direct causality counts.

Before the Geiger counter you could detect it when your hair and teeth started falling out, — Tzeentch

Right. But you said...

An outsider couldn't even detect the nature of the deliberations, let alone suffer harm from them. — Tzeentch

So following your example of what it means to 'detect', then an outsider could perfectly well detect the nature of the deliberations by their effect.

Strictly speaking I don't know if I'm available when my boss asks. — Tzeentch

Then why don't you say "I don't know" when he asks?

my contract created a condition X, that my boss counts on my presence at the agreed upon time. — Tzeentch

Nope, we're talking about overtime. No obligation.

Let's take it away from work. A friend says "I'm moving house on Wednesday, are you available to help?", you seriously telling me that your normal reply to such a question would be "I don't know if I'm available, I suppose we'll have to wait until Wednesday to find out"?

What's them being unknown got to do with the argument about what they are. — Isaac

You're making assumptions about things that are unknown and attributing harm to conditions they supposedly create, that's why it's relevant.

So what were you when you intended to help build the house, before you changed your mind? — Isaac

You were deliberating.

How is that the builder's 'appointing random uninvolved people'? — Isaac

Because from the very beginning my argument, the argument that you attacked, has been about a default situation. That means the person is initially uninvolved in any way.

What's the difference then? — Isaac

The creation of conditions is a physical, detectable thing. Potentialities are things that may or may not happen in the future.

Non-interference is an action (it involves doing something else), and so has no problems affecting potentiality. — Isaac

Non-interference is not an action, regardless of whether one is doing something while one is not interfering with any given situation.

Lets say I walk by a house. Am I now interacting with the house because I'm also walking while not-interfering with it?

I don't think so.

No they can't. You keep reminding us that only direct causality counts. — Isaac

Simply untrue. We've talked about both direct causation and the creation of conditions.

So following your example of what it means to 'detect', then an outsider could perfectly well detect the nature of the deliberations by their effect. — Isaac

Correlation =/= Causation.

Then why don't you say "I don't know" when he asks? — Isaac

A friend says "I'm moving house on Wednesday, are you available to help?", you seriously telling me that your normal reply to such a question would be "I don't know if I'm available, I suppose we'll have to wait until Wednesday to find out"? — Isaac

If I intend to help I may want to reassure my boss or my friend that I will do everything in my power to be present to do so. However, that's simply a way of human customs. It has nothing to do with logic, because it's fundamentally illogical. We cannot know if we're available in the future.

You're making assumptions about things that are unknown and attributing harm to conditions they supposedly create, that's why it's relevant. — Tzeentch

All knowledge is an assumption about the unknown. You don't know that a potential child will come to harm. You assume.

You were deliberating. — Tzeentch

So there's no such thing as available? No one is ever available? What a weird world you live in.

Because from the very beginning my argument, the argument that you attacked, has been about a default situation. That means the person is initially uninvolved in any way. — Tzeentch

What? Why is being uninvolved the default, and what's that got to do with the situation I asked you about?

The creation of conditions is a physical, detectable thing. Potentialities are things that may or may not happen in the future. — Tzeentch

So harm to children is a potentiality then, not a condition. OK.

Am I now interacting with the house because I'm also walking while not-interfering with it?

I don't think so. — Tzeentch

Who said anything about interacting? We're talking about changing what is possible (or probable). You can change what is probable without interaction. If I don't bet on roulette, it is now less probable that I will win. Are you really struggling with this notion? It's pretty basic probability theory.

Correlation =/= Causation. — Tzeentch

So radiation was harmless before we understood the causality, when we had merely correlation?

However, that's simply a way of human customs. It has nothing to do with logic — Tzeentch

The meaning of words is not determined by logic. We don't logically work out what the word 'available' means.