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. — Tzeentch

1) Why?
2) Why?
3) Why?
4) Why?

One should definitely avoid actions that:
1) Contradict the lyrics of the Grateful Dead's second album
2) Risk one having to wear a tutu
3) Cannot be performed equally well blindfolded
3) Must be performed on a Wednesday

Turns out this morality lark is quite easy afterall...

Strictly speaking you're right, of course. What I sought to convey was that procreation breaks some rules that many procreators themselves would consider the basics of moral interaction between individuals. It was not an attempt at a conclusive argument.

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! — Agent Smith

I'll give you that. :up:

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. — schopenhauer1

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. — schopenhauer1

I think the objection would be that many here believe us not just to be victims, but also beneficiaries. Would that change the nature of the pyramid scheme?

Of course, who are we to decide others must participate when we don't even know whether they'll be a victim or a beneficiary?

What I sought to convey was that procreation breaks some rules that many procreators themselves would consider the basics of moral interaction between individuals. — Tzeentch

Something @Pinprick just showed you to be false. Most procreators do not consider your rules to be the basics of moral interaction for exactly the reasons given, it is impossible to apply them.

Go ahead and argue that not causing irreversible harm to others without their consent isn't a basic moral belief most people hold. I'd love to hear about it.

Weren't you so fond of "reasonableness" and morality by majority decision? Well here you have it.

Go ahead and argue that not causing irreversible harm to others without their consent isn't a basic moral belief most people hold. — Tzeentch

@Pinprick has already done so, I'd just be repeating what they've already said. People do not hold that as a moral belief because it is impossible to adhere to without either omniscience or killing one's self.

People do not hold that as a moral belief because it is impossible to adhere to — Isaac

That has never stopped anyone. It certainly hasn't stopped you in the past.

Remember how your beliefs lead to one committing infinite moral transgressions?

Right.

An example then.

Most people, if asked, will say that it was morally right to fight the Nazis. Do you think all those Nazi soldiers consented to the irreversible harm of being shot?

Most people think self-defence is morally defensible, do you think the attacker consents to being attacked back?

Most people think emergency surgery to save unconscious patients is morally correct, do the unconscious somehow consent to the massive harms?

Most people think imprisoning or punishing criminals is morally good, do the criminals consent to such harms?

Most people think procreation is fine...

The world is absolutely full of examples of harms being inflicted on people without their consent for the greater good.

:clap:

Ineffaceable great goods also matter. An excessive aversion to risks at the cost of downplaying the opportunities that many people could (and do) appreciate does not seem reasonable.

I'll give you that. :up: — Tzeentch

Danke!

What do you have to say about the following?

If life is hell, even hardcore natalists will support antinatalism.

If life is heaven, even dyed-in-the-wool antinatalists will advocate for natalism.

Life on earth, this universe, is neither hell nor heaven and ergo, both natalism and antinatalism are wrong.

In other words, those who can guarantee at the very least a pain-free (aponia) life for their children should procreate and those of us who can't should remain childless.

There's no way a one-size-fits-all recommendation can be formulated given the disparities in well-being in the global population - some are happy, others not!

In the long-term, if happiness can be...er...redistributed equitably/equally such that in transhumanist terms all suffering has been abolished, antinatalism would die. It would be a glorious end to an illustrious career in the ideaverse. Antinatalists would embrace their extinction; it would mean the problem of suffering has (finally) been solved (for good/once and for all). :snicker:

I think suffering is inherent to life. It even seems to be inherent to happiness (does happiness still have meaning without suffering to contrast it to?).

I genuinely cannot imagine what a life without any pain looks like, and I wonder if it wouldn't make the whole ordeal more meaningless?

I think suffering is inherent to life. It even seems to be inherent to happiness (does happiness still have meaning without suffering to contrast it to?). — Tzeentch

One of the many puzzles I haven't been able to solve. Do we (really) need to know sorrow in order to understand joy and vice versa? In a sense knowing how unpleasant the sensation of pain is, I value painlessness that much more. Similarly, having experienced pain-free times, my dread (of pain) is aggravated.

Those weren’t moral claims in that post but descriptions of what your stance leads to. You were waiting to take that “arbitrary ethics” attack out of your arsenal though.

Your philosophy leads to punishing others for harms others are incurring basically and pushing the victims continually into the future by using them to ameliorate the past.

At the end of the day aggressive paternalism as what counts for others as to the range of choices, known harms, and unforeseen harms that they must endure, is an underlying assumption that can be questioned and examined. How is that ever good to assume for others en totale? It’s creating the obstacles and limitations de novo for others. It’s not ameliorating anything. It simply imposes one persons view of what another person should deal with onto another. In a way, because other animals never have to make these assumptive, imposing choices on behalf of others, I am not really concerned with antinatalism proper as concerning other animals. We have an agenda. We understand the deal and then decide others must endure what we deem as necessary.

I think the objection would be that many here believe us not just to be victims, but also beneficiaries. Would that change the nature of the pyramid scheme? — Tzeentch

No. It would have to be some sort of personalized utopia you know the person was born into to not violate the imposition of one view into another person.

More of the antinatalist goalpost shifting. — Isaac

*sigh*

Like I said more than once, I'm not an antinatalist.
I'm trying to bring some balance into the discussion. I'm critical of both the antinatalists as well as the (pro)natalists. If it seems I'm siding more with the antinatalists, it's because the charges against them are sometimes extremely biased and hostile. Which is strange, given that they come from those who claim to love life or at least deem it worthwhile. How is it that someone who presumably loves life tells others to kill themselves??

How are we to judge what matters morally - intention or outcome? Pick one and then we can have a discussion about how it relates to antinatalism. Keep shifting which depending on the argument and discussion become impossible.

I'm saying that there are ways in which some antinatalist arguments make sense. Such as in terms of the quality of intention.

Do authors have a moral obligation to write only 'characters who cannot suffer'?

Do video game (simulation) programmers have a moral obligation to code only 'programs which cannot suffer'?

Did a creator-deity have a moral obligation to create only 'creatures which could not suffer'?

I think suffering is inherent to life. It even seems to be inherent to happiness (does happiness still have meaning without suffering to contrast it to?).

I genuinely cannot imagine what a life without any pain looks like, and I wonder if it wouldn't make the whole ordeal more meaningless? — Tzeentch

One of the core problems in these discussions is the usual failure to distinguish between hardship and suffering, and instead conflating them.
Poverty is hardship, but it does not necessarily entail suffering. Breaking your leg is hardship, but it does not necessarily entail suffering.

The decision to procreate is always one of force recruiting. — schopenhauer1

But people who procreate don't typically seem to see it that way. What do you make of that?

What gives us the idea we have a right to make such a decision for someone else in the first place? — Tzeentch

Self-confidence, a "lust for life".

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. — Isaac

But on the other hand, there are the tribalist pro-natalists who only look out for their own tribe/family and who feel no obligation at all to look after those outside of their tribe/family. Many people are like this.
This is a natalist culture that wipes out others, outsiders and their families or tribes. You think that's a win?

Are we really coming down to nothing more than that the antinatalists want to be able to morally judge others but don't want others morally judging them?

You get to judge us for our actions, but your inaction is off limits and whatever your reasons are must be assumed good. — Isaac

But many natalists are doing the exact same thing. Just look at the severe judgment with which the antinatalists on this forum are being met.

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. — Agent Smith

Irrelevant. It's not about what the stakes are, it's about what is at stake.

People will generally do something they value highly, even if the chances of success are very small.

And they will refrain from doing something they don't value, even if the chances of something going wrong at it are very small.


What you're describing is the mentality of gamblers, ie. people who don't want to decide on a matter, but use various ways to distance themselves from contemplating the morality of an action.

If you're born and you don't like life, you can always kill yourself — Agent Smith

This is what is so dismal about the pronatalists.

If life is so great, why can't they give a good reason for it? Why the exhortation to kill yourself if you don't like it? Why the implying that you're mentally ill if you have second thoughts about having children?

Insofar as an existing person maladaptively interprets / relates to her environment, she suffers. — 180 Proof

I generally agree, but the problem with your formulation is that it is so general that it can also be applied in ways that would generally be considered immoral.

For example, once certain people decided that the way to end their suffering was to kill all the Jews. And for at least some time, it worked. Per your formula, that _wasn't_ maladaptive.

For example, once certain people decided that the way to end their suffering was to kill all the Jews. And for at least some time, it worked. Per your formula, that _wasn't_ maladaptive. — baker

Of course it was, and still is, maladaptive. They were mistaken and consequently acted on that mistake. Short-term efficacy – scapegoating, genocide – at the expense of long-term sustainability (i.e. forming habits / institutions for 'othering' even their own because (some believe) "that is a way to end their suffering").

If you're born and you don't like life, you can always kill yourself
— Agent Smith

This is what is so dismal about the pronatalists.

If life is so great, why can't they give a good reason for it? Why the exhortation to kill yourself if you don't like it? Why the implying that you're mentally ill if you have second thoughts about having children? — baker

Indeed! Pronatalists can't formulate an argument for their position based on how things are (rampant suffering).

However, to play the devil's advocate, they can ask us to treat humanity as an individual that makes sacrifices now for rewards in the future; a logic very similar to that of athletes - pain now for glory later.

The confusion is understandable. Mea culpa.

pain now for glory later. — Agent Smith

You aren't forced onto a sports team though. How is this not a violation if you were? Even if it was seen as a benefit if you joined the team. Not only is it a violation of the individual by overlooking the very agent who this is affecting, but it is exactly the kind of aggressive paternalistic assumption I am talking about where another gets to decide for an individual what the conditions are for them (whether for a cause or otherwise).

But people who procreate don't typically seem to see it that way. What do you make of that? — baker

I call it aggressive paternalistic thinking. Their values must be lived by another person. I don't know what to say other than it is an attitude. Attitudes can lead to all sorts of things.

It's kind of like this...
Life presents itself as a series of problems that have to be overcome:

Problem: I feel kind of unhealthy..
Solution: Well, the way to fix that is good diet and exercise..

This is seen as "good" by the potential parent that a child will get to experience the maintenance of healthy eating and exercise. But wait, this is just creating the problem of unhealthy conditions that then needs remedy by healthy eating and exercise. Why is this maintenance routine something that should be experienced by another in the first place? All you have is presumptive answers that only make sense for the decision-maker and can never be made by the person it is presuming for.

Problem: You need to survive- usually by some system of exchange of labor for money which buys goods and services.
Solution: Well, the way to resolve this is have to figure out jobs to apply to with a range of limited choices of time, place, circumstance, market conditions, background fit, etc.

This is seen as "good" by the potential parent that a child will get to experience the survival routine of working a job. But wait, this is just creating the problem of surviving that then needs remedy by finding a suitable job (if there are any that combine in such a way by such and such circumstances). Why is this survival routine something that should be experienced by another in the first place? All you have is presumptive answers that only make sense for the decision-maker and can never be made by the person it is presuming for.

Problem: You have a major health issue.
Solution: Well, the way to fix that is by going to a doctor to find out how to deal with it and get better...


And of course, it's the person's fault for not "getting in line", or "not preparing better", or "not getting the habits right", or not "doing this the right way", "let that person down", "let down the team", "you haven't quite got it", "you must learn to deal with this and that and the other", "you forgot this", "you overlooked that", "here's another thing to add".. You see all those negative things happened because YOU didn't play the game right and it's your fault..

I can keep going on and on and do thousands of variations based on locations, situations, etc. But the point is that these problems to overcome and experience the overcoming of, are seen as somehow necessary for someone else to endure. That is a big presumption.

The only thing the other side can do here is make a red herring/straw man of my examples as "not that bad".. But you can "not that bad" anything... And I can use more extreme examples, but purposely choose not to as I don't even think it's necessary, though I will if someone wants to pull that nonsense response. The point is the choices are limited, the harms are known (and some unknown), and that there are immense assumptions being made for imposing them onto other people.

But many natalists are doing the exact same thing. Just look at the severe judgment with which the antinatalists on this forum are being met. — baker

This is a very true observation.