We've talked about both direct causation and the creation of conditions. — Tzeentch

If I have a child, it is possible that child will go through life completely unharmed, yes? A new pill could be invented during pregnancy that eliminates the sensation of harm entirely and that child lives it's life in utter bliss. Are you suggesting that situation is logically impossible?

If I pull the trigger of a gun pointed at you, is it logically impossible for me to miss? Have I directly caused your injury the moment I pull the trigger, or have I merely massively increased the probability that you will be injured?

If I stand up in a boat and start kicking it from side to side, letting water in over the thwarts, it is physically impossible for the boat to remain afloat nonetheless? Must it sink? Or have I merely increased the probability of it sinking by my actions?

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

My argument doesn't rest on whether or not I know. In fact, it's indeed our ignorance of the consequences that should make us think twice before having children.

So there's no such thing as available? No one is ever available? — Isaac

When the builder's subjective wishful thinking matches up with the uninvolved person's abilty and desire to help out as evidenced by his agreement to help, I suppose he was correctly thought to be available.

If you're asking if some objective situation exists in which one can be considered "available" - of course not. It's subjective. If I want to help out but I cannot match the expectations of the builders, was I available? If I'm missing both arms and cannot help, am I creating conditions for the builders' harm? More logical is that the builders have incorrectly assumed I was going to help them in the first place, and thereby caused their own harm.

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

Because in order to understand a principle (non-interference is neutral) we must regard it in an uncomplicated setting. If we can agree that non-interference is neutral in an uncomplicated setting we can see if there are settings in which it is no longer neutral.

Pretty obvious, and the term 'by default' I've probably repeated over a dozen times by now.

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

Procreation is a physical, detectable thing.

Who said anything about interacting? — Isaac

Some interaction must take place for me to become responsible for the harm that befalls someone else, no? Setting the conditions or otherwise.

If you believe we can cause harm without interacting, then I guess your list of moral transgressions has grown even longer.

You can change what is probable without interaction. If I don't bet on roulette, it is now less probable that I will win. — Isaac

Your chance of winning with roulette was the exactly the same before and after.

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

Haha, no. But you'll have to go through some process to prove you can equate the two.

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

Then I guess you've gotten yourself in a bit of a pickle, because it was you who assumed I was available to build you a house.

If I have a child, it is possible that child will go through life completely unharmed, yes? — Isaac

Sure.

My argument doesn't rest on whether or not I know. — Tzeentch

Then why raise the fact that we don't know?

the builders have incorrectly assumed I was going to help them in the first place, and thereby caused their own harm. — Tzeentch

Why the builders? You incorrectly assumed you were going to help too. So why are you only considering them as to blame?

Because in order to understand a principle (non-interference is neutral) we must regard it in an uncomplicated setting. If we can agree that non-interference is neutral in an uncomplicated setting we can see if there are settings in which it is no longer neutral.

Pretty obvious. — Tzeentch

Ah, so non-interference is neutral because it helps your argument if it is. Got it.

Procreation is a physical, detectable thing. — Tzeentch

So. we're talking about the harm you claim results, not the act. No-one's denying people procreate.

Some interaction must take place for me to become responsible for the harm that befalls someone else, no? — Tzeentch

No. Se my next post.

Your chance of winning with roulette was the exactly the same before and after. — Tzeentch

Do not ever go to Vegas. You're seriously, on a public forum, going to claim that your chances of winning at roulette are the same if your don't put a bet on as they are if you do? Priceless! You really don't disappoint

you'll have to go through some process to prove you can equate the two. — Tzeentch

Why? Why is the default position that they're not equated. Would that have been a sensible position when everyone's teeth and hair were falling out correlated with exposure to radiation?

Then I guess you've gotten yourself in a bit of a pickle, because it was you who assumed I was available to build you a house. — Tzeentch

What?

If I have a child, it is possible that child will go through life completely unharmed, yes? — Isaac


Sure. — Tzeentch

Right. So I haven't definitely caused harm by having the child. I've merely increased the probability of harm befalling someone.

Then why raise the fact that we don't know? — Isaac

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

_____

Why the builders? — Isaac

Because it is the builders desire to build a house, and I am an uninvolved bystander, obviously.

Ah, so non-interference is neutral because it helps your argument if it is. Got it. — Isaac

Nonsense. It's neutral because it causes no harm, as I have argued.

And what you've attempted to do is construe a situation in which unrelated factors cause harm and you've attempted to blame the uninvolved for it.

So. we're talking about the harm you claim results, not the act. — Isaac

Right now we're talking about your attack on my principle of non-interference, in which you are attempting to equate procreation - a physical, detectable act, to non-interference - not an act.

If you've given up your attack on my principle and you're back to defending your choice to procreate let me know and we'll get right back to it.

You're seriously, on a public forum, going to claim that your chances of winning at roulette are the same if your don't put a bet on as they are if you do? — Isaac

The idea that the chances of winning at roulette change depending on whether you play is the absurd one. They're exactly the same before and after.

If I don't bet on roulette, it is now less probable that I will win. — Isaac

Situation A: I am not playing roulette. The chance of winning is X.

Situation B: I am still not playing roulette. The chance of winning is still X.

Then I guess you've gotten yourself in a bit of a pickle, because it was you who assumed I was available to build you a house. — Tzeentch

What? — Isaac

Wasn't I responsible for harm because, in your view, I was available for house building and chose not to?

This assumes you can produce some objective measure by which to decide whether I am available or not. You just stated you couldn't, because the word, apparently, doesn't convey logic.

Right. So I haven't definitely caused harm by having the child. I've merely increased the probability of harm befalling someone. — Isaac

What a foolish thing to do.

Because it is the builders desire to build a house, and I am an uninvolved bystander, obviously. — Tzeentch

You are now, you weren't before, you wanted to build a house too, and were involved.

Nonsense. It's neutral because it causes no harm, as I have argued. — Tzeentch

Begging the question. That's the argument we're having, you can use its conclusion as evidence within it.

non-interference - not an act. — Tzeentch

Back to this crap again. Non-inteference is an act, that's why you came up with the phrase in the first place, as opposed to 'not acting' which you were previously using. Keep up.

The idea that the chances of winning at roulette change depending on whether you play is the absurd one. They're exactly the same before and after. — Tzeentch

So if I place a bet on roulette, my chances of winning £100 are, say, 1 in 32.

You're seriously attempting to argue that if I don't even place a bet, I have a 1 in 32 chance of winning £100?

Having agreed (below) that we're talking about probabilities, I don't see how we can make further progress if you don't understand basic probability theory.

What a foolish thing to do. — Tzeentch

So we're agreed then that procreation merely increases the probability of harm?

No. The debate is interminable as long there isn't consensus on the premises of the argument. And besides, the point is moot. We're a species organism and reproduction is a species drive that some individuals can be persuaded (or deluded) in to mitigating via sterilization, abstinence, etc but not the majority of the species unless we are coerced by some infertility contagion or climate change-induced famine or extinction-level World Wars / meteor strikes / supervolcanoes eruptions / torrent of CMEs, etc.

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? — Tzeentch

If happiness & sorrow are wholly subjective then true, we can't/shouldn't decide for/think for others. Howevr, if there's some objectively measurable sense in which we can be certain if a child will be happy/sad with life, we should be able to deduce whether a person would wish never to have been born or thank their lucky stars to be alive and having a blast.

The long and short of it is that it isn't always wrong to make other people's decisions for them; however, when we're allowed to do so has to be worked out carefully. Mistakes are gonna be costly.

The antinatalism vs. natalism debate can be resolved if we can actually calculate the probability of someone being happy/sad with life. The math will speak for itself I believe.

The math may speak for itself but antinatalists are not obliged to listen while they are (fallaciously) moralizing on a moot point. Good luck with that, Señor Quixote. :smirk:

The math may speak for itself but antinatalists are not oblige to listen while they are (fallaciously) moralizing on a moot point. Good luck with that, Señor Quixote. — 180 Proof

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow. If I can show that the probability of a child's life being miserable is 90%, does this info not help the would-be parents to make a decision whether to have this child/not?

Nope – just as satellite images and red-shifting sunsets do not help flat-earthers discern that the Earth is not flat

Nope – just as satellite images and red-shifting sunsets do not help flat-earthers discern that the Earth is not flat — 180 Proof

:ok:

The long and short of it is that it isn't always wrong to make other people's decisions for them; however, when we're allowed to do so has to be worked out carefully. Mistakes are gonna be costly. — Agent Smith

This is basically my position aswell.

The example I like to use is when two people are stranded in the wilderness and they need to cross a river. One person has an irrational fear of water and will not cross the river to get back to civilization, whereas the other person can clearly see there is no risk of drowning whatsoever. Can the fearful person now be dragged across the river against their will, for their own well-being?

I strongly lean towards a yes here, so what factors contribute to that, and are those factors present in the case of procreation?

At least one important factor that I believe is present in this example that isn't present for procreation, is that the danger of drowning can be measured with a great deal of accuracy. One can test the depth of the water and be certain, essentially.

The dangers/harms a child will face in their life cannot be predicted to such a degree at all. We may have some indications, but nothing resembling certainty.

In my opinion that is an important difference.

You are now, you weren't before, you wanted to build a house too, and were involved. — Isaac

If I have at any point made it clear to the builders I was intending to build a house with them, then it's a different story. In a sense I have now taken upon myself a responsibility, because I've voluntarily created a situation in which people come to rely on my actions for their well-being.

Note that this is not a default situation. It requires specific actions from me prior to the ordeal for this to be the case.

Back to this crap again. Non-inteference is an act, that's why you came up with the phrase in the first place, as opposed to 'not acting' which you were previously using. — Isaac

Non-interference is not an act. It's literally not being involved.

The reason I switched to using this term is because even when one is not involved with things, one may still be doing other things that have nothing to do with the thing one is not involved in. Therefore "inaction" was confusing and strictly speaking inaccurate. It has nothing to do with non-interference being an act.

So if I place a bet on roulette, my chances of winning £100 are, say, 1 in 32.

You're seriously attempting to argue that if I don't even place a bet, I have a 1 in 32 chance of winning £100? — Isaac

You argued that you could change what is probable without interacting.

Is placing a bet on roulette not an interaction?

Oops.

So we're agreed then that procreation merely increases the probability of harm? — Isaac

I don't agree on that, though certainly increasing the probability of harm sounds like a foolish thing to do.

Probability conveys ignorance. It means we are unable to determine cause and effect. What it means to say that procreation "merely increases the probability of harm" is that we're ignorant to the causes and effects related to procreation.

Making major decisions for someone else while being ignorant to what one is setting in motion also seems like a foolish thing to do, which is precisely the basis on which I argue procreation is immoral.

Existence over Nonexistence Asymmetry

1. All suffering. Would prefer nonexistence.
2. Suffering > Happiness. Ditto.
---
3. Suffering = Happiness. Would prefer existence
4. Suffering < Happiness. Ditto.
5. All happiness. Ditto.

I feel that most if not everyone would want to exist if scenario 3 were the case. The other options are clear-cut and uncontroversial. This means existence, in and of itself, has value; after all there are no hedonic reasons to choose existence as suffering = happiness (vide 3).

The dangers/harms a child will face in their life cannot be predicted to such a degree at all. We may have some indications, but nothing resembling certainty. — Tzeentch

We don't need to be certain, a high likelihood of a happy/sad life (9 to 1 odds for example) should be good enough to make a decision as to whether to have a child/not. This, as you would've already realized, involves a heavy dose of mathematics. A mathematician like @jgill might be able to give us a rough sketch of what kinda info is required and how they're related mathematically.

If I have at any point made it clear to the builders I was intending to build a house with them, then it's a different story. In a sense I have now taken upon myself a responsibility, because I've voluntarily created a situation in which people come to rely on my actions for their well-being. — Tzeentch

No I wasn't suggesting you told anyone of your intention, why would you get that impression? (Oh yes, so you can dodge the conclusion). If you intended, then you are involved just as much as the other builders. Regardless of whether you let them know.

one may still be doing other things that have nothing to do with the thing one is not involved in. — Tzeentch

So, an act then.

You argued that you could change what is probable without interacting. — Tzeentch

Yep. I intend to put a bet on, what are the chances of me winning? I no longer intend to put a bet on, what are the chances of me winning now?

If you want to introduce this magical realm where intention lives which is not actually a physical state of the brain, then you go ahead, but there's no point in continuing a discussion about made up realms. Back in actual reality, a brain which is in a state of 'intending to do X' is significantly more likely to produce actions yielding X than a brain which is in a state of 'not intending to do X'. Changing your mind about something changes the probability of that something happening, probability being (as you so rightly say) a measure of uncertainty.

Making major decisions for someone else while being ignorant to what one is setting in motion also seems like a foolish thing to do, which is precisely the basis on which I argue procreation is immoral. — Tzeentch

So no decision to not interfere then (no changing one's mind), seeing as that's a major decision which affects someone else?

If you intended, then you are involved just as much as the other builders. — Isaac

No, an intention does not mean involvement. I may consider getting involved and then decide not to, and I wasn't involved before, during or after the decision is made.

So, an act then. — Isaac

Walking is an act. Non-interference is not.

I may be walking while I'm not involved in something. That doesn't make not being involved an act.

Yep. I intend to put a bet on, what are the chances of me winning? — Isaac

Zero. It's your actual playing of the game that will give you a chance of winning, not your intention.

So no decision to not interfere then (no changing one's mind), seeing as that's a major decision which affects someone else? — Isaac

It's not a decision I make for someone else. It's a decision that I make for myself.

We don't need to be certain, a high likelihood of a happy/sad life (9 to 1 odds for example) should be good enough to make a decision as to whether to have a child/not. This, as you would've already realized, involves a heavy dose of mathematics. A mathematician like jgill might be able to give us a rough sketch of what kinda info is required and how they're related mathematically. — Agent Smith

And when the person we pushed out of the proverbial plane goes splat on the ground, what are we to make of that?

Excuse ourselves because we thought the odds were good? Didn't we just kill someone?

@Tzeentch @Isaac
So I was gone for a bit, but rejoining this thread, there are several points to consider regarding this current back-and-forth about the builder:

The decision to procreate is always one of force recruiting. The aggressive paternalism in the OP is the stance that force recruiting is justified. Is it ever okay to force recruit people into your projects? I think never. Generally people have a chance to move, associate differently, etc. The assumption about building the house is that someone else needs to help build that house because someone wants it. That by itself is not a moral obligation. That just leads to slippery slope thinking whereby technically everyone at all times needs to be busy helping others out... It would be an insane utilitarianism the likes of the repugnant conclusion. Just working infinitesimally more for other people's projects will technically help them accomplish it, and perhaps 16 hours of your day can be arranged for helping in these projects because, ya know, people always need helping!

But really, I don't want to get bogged down in these silly arguments of utilitarianism, because I think it misses one of the main points of the wrongness of this kind of imposition that procreation represents. Rather, the background de facto understanding is life presents various choices and limitations limited to the physical and cultural realities of this existence. These things are well known because we live, experience, and learn about them everyday. Yet the big leap is assuming that THESE sets of choices offered in THIS existence is something OTHERS should endure. That is the stance I am objecting to. Along with these particular range of choices that existence offers (and of course more limited by place and time of where and when the person is born), but the harms of existence are also fairly well known, and the assumption that THESE sets of harms are okay for others to endure. And of course, the unforeseen harms that no one is sure of will befall people in the future. All of this is assumptions one makes on others behalf. Unlike other decisions where the person can just move out, associate with different people, get out of a contract, the actual set of choices and conditions themselves cannot be chosen or agreed upon.

Is it ever okay to force recruit people into your projects? I think never. Generally people have a chance to move, associate differently, etc. The assumption about building the house is that someone else needs to help build that house because someone wants it. That by itself is not a moral obligation. That just leads to slippery slope thinking whereby technically everyone at all times needs to be busy helping others out. — schopenhauer1

Exactly so, however it has been Isaac's argument that one is thereby creating conditions for harm, and is thus immoral. (The way this ties back into the original topic is that he is arguing that not having children creates conditions for harm).

As you pointed out, this leads to a slippery slope. If not doing something creates conditions for harm, then we are creating harm continuously through all the actions we are not taking.

The second way of tackling this argument is through attacking the notion that not doing something causes something. Ergo, not helping the drowning man causes him to drown. While this may sound intuitively reasonable, it is an erroneous way of representing cause and effect. The man drowns because he ended up in the water and could not swim. Not because I did not help him. Had I not been there at all, the man would have also drowned.

Based on the aforementioned, the way I sought to definitively solve this issue is by considering "not acting", non-interference, not getting involved, etc. neutral. Not moral, nor immoral. Because:
1). If the opposite is true, one would creates infinite harm because of the infinite actions one did not take, and that is absurd.
2). One is not causing harm.

Rather, the background de facto understanding is life presents various choices and limitations limited to the physical and cultural realities of this existence. These things are well known because we live, experience, and learn about them everyday. Yet the big leap is assuming that THESE sets of choices offered in THIS existence is something OTHERS should endure. That is the stance I am objecting to. Along with these particular range of choices that existence offers (and of course more limited by place and time of where and when the person is born), but the harms of existence are also fairly well known, and the assumption that THESE sets of harms are okay for others to endure. And of course, the unforeseen harms that no one is sure of will befall people in the future. All of this is assumptions one makes on others behalf. Unlike other decisions where the person can just move out, associate with different people, get out of a contract, the actual set of choices and conditions themselves cannot be chosen or agreed upon. — schopenhauer1

I think this is an equally strong argument in favor of antinatalism, since by procreating one is undeniably making major choices on someone else's behalf without knowing what the person will experience and how they will enjoy it.

The common defense is that such decisions on behalf of someone else are acceptable under certain conditions, and the condition which satisfies many of the 'pro-natalists' is that it seems the chance of a good life is higher than that of a miserable one.

That seems like a flimsy argument to me, and I think the example of pushing someone out of a plane with a 90% chance of enjoying the experience and a 10% chance of crashing into the ground illustrates it well. What gives us the idea we have a right to make such a decision for someone else in the first place?

Zero. It's your actual playing of the game that will give you a chance of winning, not your intention. — Tzeentch

As I said, there's nothing more I can say. If you don't understand basic probability we can't talk about probable events (such as future harms).

Is it ever okay to force recruit people into your projects? I think never. — schopenhauer1

I think your neo-liberal hyper-individualism has been quite well expounded. I have no problem with the logic of your conclusion, given the premise that we are all selfish bastards who ought have no obligation at all to look after each other. I think it quite satisfying, in fact, that if one posits such a culture the logical conclusion is that it ought to wipe itself out. That, as far as I'm concerned, is a win.

Forcing a pessimistic worldview onto the inexistent is hardly a reasonable thing to do (I am being facetious and somewhat metaphorical here, just in case somebody thinks otherwise!). After all, non-existent beings have no desire to avoid existence that is somehow being ignored by their creation. Furthermore, if one can say that creation is an act of imposition, then it could also be seen as an act beneficence that bestows the positives of life that one cannot ask for prior to existing. I do not think it is ever justifiable to disregard the potency of the good simply because one has a proclivity for focusing on the negatives.

As I said, there's nothing more I can say. If you don't understand basic probability we can't talk about probable events (such as future harms). — Isaac

Leaning on probability is just an admission of ignorance. One may need probability because one doesn't understand the cause and effect behind a certain phenomenon, so how is one going to base a philosophical argument on something one doesn't understand?

Probability is not something that exists in reality, they're practical assumptions we use as tools. Amongst other things, it's philosphy's job to question these assumptions to see if they hold any merit.

The thing is, my argument doesn't require knowledge of future harms at all. The fact that they're unknown is enough.

Yet the big leap is assuming that THESE sets of choices offered in THIS existence is something OTHERS should endure. That is the stance I am objecting to. — schopenhauer1

Your objection has been noted, schop1, and it's still moot because (1) "inexistent others" is incoherent & (2) most human primates will never voluntarily fight c2 million years of hardwiring to stop procreating. :point: .

The fact that they're unknown is enough. — Tzeentch

So one should avoid all actions which have a non-zero probability of harm? Do you realise what that entails?

So one should avoid all actions which have a non-zero probability of harm? Do you realise what that entails? — Isaac

Probability is just a fundamentally flawed way of approaching these things, but:

One should definitely avoid actions that:
1). Cannot be performed consensually.
2). And are also irreversible.
3). And can also inflict great harm.
4). And one can also not oversee the consequences of.

Seems like a pretty decent set of criteria for any interaction with people. I don't see why procreation should be treated any different, and note that procreation checks all of these boxes.

One should definitely avoid actions that:

1). Cannot be performed consensually. — Tzeentch

I think most actions affect, or have the potential to affect, millions of people. It’s impossible to get the consent of everyone your action may affect, especially if we’re supposed to consider those who do not yet exist (which one has to do in order for this to be relevant to AN).

2). And are also irreversible. — Tzeentch

Everything is irreversible, unless I’m misunderstanding what you mean.

3). And can also inflict great harm. — Tzeentch

Again, many actions have this potential.

4). And one can also not oversee the consequences of. — Tzeentch

I don’t know how anyone can do this unless they’re God and have control over every variable.

The consumption of basic needs like water, trash, and electricity is a good example of what I’m getting at. The waste from this consumption contributes to the very climate crisis many believe we’re in the midst of right now; so it affects people who’ve never consented to your consumption of these utilities (number 1 on your list), your consumption cannot be undone or reversed in any way (number 2 on your list), contributes to the total destruction of this planet we all depend on for life (number 3 on your list), and none of us are personally able to oversee the consequences (number 4 on your list).

And when the person we pushed out of the proverbial plane goes splat on the ground, what are we to make of that?

Excuse ourselves because we thought the odds were good? Didn't we just kill someone? — Tzeentch

Indeed the (mathematical) method I propose is far from perfect, but it's much better than what we have at present - wild shots in the dark!

Exactly so, however it has been Isaac's argument that one is thereby creating conditions for harm, and is thus immoral. (The way this ties back into the original topic is that he is arguing that not having children creates conditions for harm). — Tzeentch

But this to me is insane moral thinking, if examined and not just taken due to current convention. Your project being deemed worthy means another person must pay. One that cannot by its unique nature have agreed upon the conditions.

There’s something else going on here too. Where the already existing people can’t help but try to endure the stress of existence, by putting a new person in the fray, it’s creating yet more harm and harm-overcoming upon someone else in order to try to fix the current problems. The ultimate case of using people. It’s also the ultimate pyramid scheme. Pyramid schemes don’t resolve anything, they simply create more victims that rely on yet more victims to survive. But it’s even worse cause it’s combining the two. I’m having a problem, therefore I will force recruit yet more people into the pyramid scheme operation that creates another person to endure harm itself. It actually solves nothing but to further continue the creating of victims.

So on two fronts we have some bad things here:
1. Making others pay for your problems. It would be like making a relative get punished for what you did.

2. Making future victims to fix a past problem and continuing the harm cycle.