It matters intently because you lost the argument about simply causing people to be. Causing people to be has no moral problem. They'll probably be happy enough and its for the good of the already living community. — Isaac

Causing people to be is the moral problem if it leads to X, Y, Z negatives.. That is the argument at hand but you are the one constantly changing it to be about the definition of "force"..

You want to say that some unjust, immoral 'forcing' has taken place against someone's will. But no such forcing has taken place. The entity that was forced had no will, no moral status, nothing more than forcing a rock to roll downhill. — Isaac

Causing it to be is the "force" I am talking about.. There is no strict use of force.. but it usually means in these cases, "imposing your will".. When the person comes to be.. THAT is caused by someone's action. You can pedantically hang your hat on this point all day, and it has no merit to the claim that causing someone to be (forcing, making a life start that entails suffering, it DOESN"T matter the phrasing), is the point at hand.

Causing people to be is the moral problem if it leads to X, Y, Z negatives.. That is the argument at hand — schopenhauer1

That argument has already been refuted. One balances the negatives with the positives in any endeavour. If it is a moral problem if an action has potential negatives then all action is morally proscribed.

Causing it to be is the "force" I am talking about.. There is no strict use of force.. but it usually means in these cases, "imposing your will". — schopenhauer1

Yes, I agree with all that. If I push a rock downhill I am imposing my will on that rock. I'm forcing it to roll downhill. So what?

it has no merit to the claim that causing someone to be (forcing, making a life start that entails suffering, it DOESN"T matter the phrasing), is the point at hand. — schopenhauer1

Well then what's the moral case against doing that. Forcing a gamete cell to become a person. What's the moral case against doing that?

A gamete cell has neither a will nor any feelings at all, so forcing it to become something is not a moral issue on it's own. And, most importantly. The gamete cell already must satisfy the necessary conditions of its existence, so you're not even changing that.

The person you make will experience suffering, but the already living will experience suffering if you don't make them, so that seems a moot point. so long as you don't deliberately increase their suffering beyond that which you're alleviating.

I think a point that should be discussed more is the quality of life itself, as that is what some of these arguments are hinging on. I believe did concede that if life were perfect and unhappiness and such feelings were non-existent, then there would be no problem with procreating. But there is no such thing, and the introduction of unpleasantries at all makes life undesirable, while argues that the positives can outweigh the goods, and that substantiates life.

On this front, there are many arguments in favor of life as undesirable. The one I'd put forward is that life seems to be at odds with our desires. At it's simplest, we desire happiness, health, etc., but the nature of life is survival, avoiding harm and death and such things. Even in the things we enjoy, we must endure until we reach the satisfaction. Perhaps this is a little personal, but for me, that would be cooking. I'd love to enjoy a good meal, but I'm a tad lazy and don't really enjoy the process of preparing food. It's not pain or suffering per se, but an undesirable situation I must endure.

Of course, I would agree that with the good comes the bad, and the bad helps exemplify the good. However, the point is not whether or not the good outweighs the bad, at least not with this particular argument, but rather that the good has to outweigh the bad in the first place. And not only that, but the bad has to constantly be outweighed, that it's a fact of life that we have to fight for life. Should we bring people into being, forcing them to fight that fight?

Now, this isn't the best argument. I anticipate and could formulate my own argument as to why this fight for life could actually be a good, a valiant thing, but I'll leave it there as a starting point.

The entity that was forced had no will, no moral status, nothing more than forcing a rock to roll downhill. — Isaac

By willfully rolling that rock downhill, one caused an entity to come to be, whose will was disregarded. It's an act of force.

You're attempting to hide in the fuzzy cracks, but we've progressed. You've admitted an embryo has been forced. The next step is admitting that by forcing the embryo, one also willfully forces the person that the embryo develops into.

You've already admitted to pulling the trigger. Now it's time to take responsibility for the bullet, and the person it killed.

the point is not whether or not the good outweighs the bad, at least not with this particular argument, but rather that the good has to outweigh the bad in the first place. And not only that, but the bad has to constantly be outweighed, that it's a fact of life that we have to fight for life. Should we bring people into being, forcing them to fight that fight? — Jerry

They already have to fight that fight. No entity in existence doesn't. Any entity, to exist, must resist entropic decay. And since matter/energy is neither created nor destroyed, it follows that everything in in this state. If we (by an act of procreation) force a gamete, or an embryo, to become a person we're doing nothing at all about the state of necessary conditions. The gamete has to do what is necessary to resist entropic decay, so does the person. Nothing has changed there.

By willfully rolling that rock downhill, one caused an entity to come to be, whose will was disregarded — Tzeentch

Just saying it again doesn't refute the counterargument.

You've admitted an embryo has been forced. The next step is admitting that by forcing the embryo, one also willfully forces the person that the embryo develops into. — Tzeentch

Nonsense. It's just garbage.

One does not force a soldier to become a soldier.

That wasn't LIVING! That was just.... "Not Dying"! There's a difference. — Eep (The Croods)

Algos (suffering) makes life a just-not-dying affair. That, in short, is the crux of the problem of suffering.

The gamete has to do what is necessary to resist entropic decay, so does the person. Nothing has changed there. — Isaac

Except a gamete isn't a living, conscious thing with emotions that can feel pain? It's not until we choose to make it a baby that it does so?

a gamete isn't a living, conscious thing with emotions that can feel pain? — Jerry

That's the point. The thing we impose our will on is a gamete. It doesn't care.

That's the point. The thing we impose our will on is a gamete. It doesn't care. — Isaac

This is R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-US!

What a rhetorical con! I can't believe you have reverted to this argument rather than move forward with whether it is okay to impose conditions on X individual. You are now trying to refute that a parent causes a gamete to become a human by the steps related to procreation. What kind of diagram do I need to draw to show you how this works?

@Tzeentch is absolutely correct in his analogy.. The pulling of the trigger causes the bullet to fire and kill the person. The trigger doesn't fire on its own. The gamete doesn't just "become" a human. You are subtly trying to deny that the gamete becomes a human.. and that things that take time don't count for causation because there is a duration. Gametes + 9 months + birthing into the world = a person born. It is THAT event that is caused by the parents. Generally, for brevity's sake, we just say parents "procreate" the child. We don't need to go into the whole biology to prove the cause.

Now. move the hell on from this red-herring hill and go back to the argument @Jerry, myself, and @Tzeentch are actually making. By not doing so, I think I'm going to have to ignore as you are simply rhetorically stalling.. Get to the argument at hand.. Should parents procreate a person with X conditions?

Oh, and if you mention "FORCE" or anything else that you think can't be used... Then just replace it with caused to occur.. I don't care about the pedantic argument of what word to use. If I recall, I saw you defending Wittgenstein's ideas in his PI. That is to say, there are family resemblances in how words are used in a language game.. In this one, we are simply using "force" as a word for causing someone to exist who wouldn't exist otherwise.. DEAL WITH IT. That is how this particular language game is being used. It makes sense. It doesn't have to precisely correlate to a Platonic "force" but rather resembles how we use it in other ways, even if not exactly the same. BUT here I am indulging your language argument when we have moved away from the question at hand...

You are now trying to refute that a parent causes a gamete to become a human by the steps related to procreation. — schopenhauer1

Never even mentioned cause.

The argument is over on whom or what imposition is forced, not what it results in. I agree with what it results in - a person who has necessary needs.

It's you who keep drawing the argument back to the deontological question of imposition, having lost the arguments about consequence.

The gamete doesn't just "become" a human. — schopenhauer1

I never said it did. Read what I've written. We force the gamete to become a human. Impose our will on it. No-one give s a shit (quite rightly) because gametes don't care.

Get to the argument at hand.. Should parents procreate a person with X conditions? — schopenhauer1

Yes. Absolutely. The benefits to society outweigh the risks of harm. We've had this one already.

Then you say "It's unfair to impose that on someone"

Hence we're back here - arguing about whether you do, in fact, impose that on someone.

Oh, and if you mention "FORCE" or anything else that you think can't be used... Then just replace it with caused to occur — schopenhauer1

OK. I will. So your argument that it is unjust to 'force' someone into the game of life can be completely ignored then. since "It is unjust to have caused to occur a person in the game of life" is not true. There's nothing unjust in general about causing things to occur. It depends entirely on the merits of the thing you caused.

So your argument that it is unjust to 'force' someone into the game of life can be completely ignored then. since "It is unjust to have caused to occur a person in the game of life" is not true. — Isaac

You caused to occur someone to exist who didn’t previously. You proved nothing except you can create lots of sophistic nonsense. While amusing, exhausting.

You equivocate this act of causing with not affecting someone because at some point that person didn’t exist because they were not fully formed, but then they did and so your points are moot.

You caused to occur someone to exist who didn’t previously. — schopenhauer1

Yes, we agree on that.

You equivocate this act of causing with not affecting someone because at some point that person didn’t exist because they were not fully formed, but then they did and so your points are moot. — schopenhauer1

Nope I'm quite in agreement with you about both causing and affecting someone. You cause events in the future which will affect a person in the future. No problem with that analysis.

I also think there's no moral problem with that because we're talking about consequences (things that you cause, effects you have on the future) and as far as consequences are concerned, having children reduces suffering more than it creates it.

You then turn to unjust impositions to try and wriggle out of that obvious assessment. You then start to claim that it's not fair to impose on someone without their consent. Not effects. Not causes. Impositions without consent..

I then point out that no unjust imposition without consent has taken place because that which was imposed on is a gamete and doesn't care.

You then have a hissy fit for a while before reverting to talk of effects and causes, which has already been refuted as above.

I also think there's no moral problem with that because we're talking about consequences (things that you cause, effects you have on the future) and as far as consequences are concerned, having children reduces suffering more than it creates it.

You then turn to unjust impositions to try and wriggle out of that obvious assessment. — Isaac

I would never wriggle out of that, because I wouldn't claim it. I'm not a utilitarian consequentialist. I don't think "the greatest good" is a good argument, and it ignores the locus of ethics (the individual) and treats them like units in a greater whole that is aggregated in nothing but a calculus. So no, I wouldn't concede anything there. Basically, you don't get to impose on someone because you are sad otherwise.

You then start to claim that it's not fair to impose on someone without their consent. Not effects. Not causes. Impositions without consent..

I then point out that no unjust imposition without consent has taken place because that which was imposed on is a gamete and doesn't care. — Isaac

But we've been through this over and over, so the hissy fit. The fact is consent could not be gotten. That's all that matters. CAN you get consent for this affect on the person you are creating? But see, YOU ant to wriggle out (by way of sophistry) by saying that a "person" is not affected. But that is not true. At time "Z" (we'll" say), when a person "exists" (however you define person).. THAT is the entity that has NOW (time 1 started) been affected, thus.. How? By BEING in existence. Affected thus.

I also think there's no moral problem with that because we're talking about consequences (things that you cause, effects you have on the future) and as far as consequences are concerned, having children reduces suffering more than it creates it. — Isaac

How do you quantify suffering?

How do you explain that not everyone thinks the way you do about procreation?

If your position is one of materialism or something similar (as it seems to be), then how do you explain the differences in the outlook that people have on life?

And on what grounds do you justify the relevance of those differences?

How do you explain that not everyone thinks the way you do about procreation? — baker

I can't read people's minds.

My impression based on the arguments that have been put forward suggest to me most are comfortable with keeping a double standard, and feel no necessity to apply their moral principles consistently.

If your position is one of materialism or something similar (as it seems to be), ... — baker

I never thought of my position of having to do with materialism. You'll need to elaborate on that one.

And on what grounds do you justify the relevance of those differences? — baker

I don't find the other arguments logically coherent and consistent. I am not seeking to change people's minds or judge them in some way, I am just putting forward and testing ideas to the best of my ability. I don't see what there is to justify.

My impression based on the arguments that have been put forward suggest to me most are comfortable with keeping a double standard, and feel no necessity to apply their moral principles consistently. — Tzeentch

But how come you're different than those people?

I never thought of my position of having to do with materialism. You'll need to elaborate on that one.

You don't believe in, for example, "souls" and "life after death", do you?

I don't find the other arguments logically coherent and consistent. I am not seeking to change people's minds or judge them in some way, I am just putting forward and testing ideas to the best of my ability. I don't see what there is to justify.

Don't you find it odd that different people have so widely differing ideas about some topics, specifically, procreation?

you don't get to impose on someone because you are sad otherwise. — schopenhauer1

There you go again. No one is imposing on someone. There is no someone.

At time "Z" (we'll" say), when a person "exists" (however you define person).. THAT is the entity that has NOW (time 1 started) been affected, thus.. How? By BEING in existence. Affected thus. — schopenhauer1

Does conscription make soldiers into soldiers?

How do you quantify suffering? — baker

Guess.

But how come you're different than those people? — baker

No idea. I may just be very dumb and fail to see how their logic adds up.

You don't believe in, for example, "souls" and "life after death", do you? — baker

Insofar as is relevant to this discussion, no.

Don't you find it odd that different people have so widely differing ideas about some topics, specifically, procreation? — baker

Why would that be odd? Isn't widely differing ideas pretty much the norm for humanity?

How do you quantify suffering?
— baker

Guess. — Isaac

Come on. We're talking about matters of life and death. Guessing isn't good enough.

Why would that be odd? Isn't widely differing ideas pretty much the norm for humanity? — Tzeentch

No. There is a trend toward uniformity.
And normally, one stance is considered normal, right, and all others less or more wrong, evil, pathological.

Come on. We're talking about matters of life and death. Guessing isn't good enough. — baker

It's all we've got. What's your alternative?

I either guess which course of action/inaction will cause least suffering or I just act randomly. I prefer the guess.

Well, people have had some silly ideas about right and wrong, so I don't see why that should be any concern of mine unless their ideas are supported by arguments that can be scrutinized.

I also don't see how my stance, if it can even be called that, could be genuinely classified as evil.

Twisting of how language works...

Conditions X are a necessity of Y state of affairs.

Someone brought about Y state of affairs for someone else, which entails X.

Someone could NOT bring about Y state of affairs for someone else, which entails X.

Being born (Y) ALWAYS entails X (working in some manner to survive). One doesn't just "come into existence" without someone else making this happen. Some act had to be done previously.. decided upon or allowed to happen, etc. THIS situation is how I am using "forced". It is obvious how it is used. I shouldn't have to explain it like this, but since cases are being made from nothing, I'll do it to appease my pedantic interlocutors (even though they know themselves how I am using it).
— schopenhauer1

Except that some people are happy to be alive (in fact, they're so happy that they wish you'd die).

How do you explain the difference between yourself and them?

Well, people have had some silly ideas about right and wrong, so I don't see why that should be any concern of mine unless their ideas are supported by arguments that can be scrutinized. — Tzeentch

It should be your concern when those people act on those ideas, and you're on the receiving end, and not in a good sense.

I also don't see how my stance, if it can even be called that, could be genuinely classified as evil.

I wonder about that too. Clearly, some people think the antinatalist stance is all kinds of wrong (from psychopathic to evil). Although they generally refuse to present a clear case, in fact, they generally refuse to discuss the matter in any depth.

Still, if your take on the matter is right, then we need to explain how come not everyone thinks that way (and what to do with the differences).

Come on. We're talking about matters of life and death. Guessing isn't good enough.
— baker

It's all we've got. What's your alternative?

I either guess which course of action/inaction will cause least suffering or I just act randomly. I prefer the guess. — Isaac

To begin with, it's not clear how to quantify hardship and suffering (importantly, the two should be distinguished one from the other). Do you measure them in dollars lost, in sighs? So the point seems moot from the onset.

Further, in the same external circumstances, one person suffers a lot, and the other suffers less. For one person, living in poverty is agonizing, for another, it's not. How do you explain that difference?

How do you decide what kind of material comfort is relevant? Did the peasants in 15th century Europe suffer as much a modern day person probably would if they suddenly had to live that kind of peasant lifestyle? Why exactly should a 15th century peasant lifestyle not be regarded as "good enough"?

I either guess which course of action/inaction will cause least suffering or I just act randomly.

It's not clear it's possible to act "randomly", although it's certainly possible to retrospectively classify one's action as "random". As far as I can see, people always act out of some motive, and usually, this is the pursuit of sensual pleasures. At that, they act in line with their current assessment of which sensual pleasure will be greater and thus, which one to pursue. As such, they live in a tightly interlinked net of their pursuits of various sensual pleasures and the results or consequences of those as they take place.

Still, if your take on the matter is right, then we need to explain how come not everyone thinks that way (and what to do with the differences). — baker

Okay, but I fear I will get no further than a psycho-analysis.

And while those may sometimes be interesting and handy, they don't carry much weight as I am not a mind reader.

I'm also going to inevitably step on a lot of toes, but lets try:

- Primacy effect: a type of cognitive bias that favors the position we are told first. And almost everyone is taught the pronatalist position, implicitly and explicitly, from a young age.

- Normalcy bias: a type of cognitive bias that favors what is considered normal. Procreation is considered 'normal'. Humans do it, all living creatures do it, so it must be ok.

- Confirmation bias: many people desire to have children, and thus they might be biased towards an interpretation of reality in which having children is good.

- Retroactive justification: many people have already had children, so they might be biased towards an interpretation of reality in which their choice was justified.


Honorable mention:

- Savior image: one reason I have often seen espoused here is that humanity would cease to exist without procreation. While that is undeniably true, it also suggests that they see the inherent problem with procreation, but choose to procreate anyway as a sort of personal sacrifice to the greater good of humanity. I've always found this one quite humorous, because it suggests the person views themselves as carrying the weight of humanity's survival on their shoulders - a savior figure, if you will. I also don't think there's anyone who genuinely believes this, and that it is more likely a variation on confirmation bias.


Anyway, this is a fun exercise, but it's also a bit cheap. Don't take it too serious.

While I find myself leaning strongly towards the antinatalist side (when compelled by reason, I find I have no choice in that matter), I am still very much part of the active debate and don't consider myself "an antinatalist". I respect everyone who continues to weigh arguments from both sides.

- Primacy effect: a type of cognitive bias that favors the position we are told first. And almost everyone is taught the pronatalist position, implicitly and explicitly, from a young age.

- Normalcy bias: a type of cognitive bias that favors what is considered normal. Procreation is considered 'normal'. Humans do it, all living creatures do it, so it must be ok.

- Confirmation bias: many people desire to have children, and thus they might be biased towards an interpretation of reality in which having children is good.

- Retroactive justification: many people have already had children, so they might be biased towards an interpretation of reality in which their choice was justified. — Tzeentch

Excellent points.. I was going to write something similar, but this is better.