I guess lava baby was properly cared for because you don’t believe anything is done to it. Yep. THAT’S not lunacy.

I guess lava baby was properly cared for because you don’t believe anything is done to it. — schopenhauer1

What?

Nothing was done to the baby born into a lava pit in your sophistically twisted conception.

Nothing was done to the baby born into a lava pit in your sophistically twisted conception. — schopenhauer1

I have no idea what you're blathering about. The baby born into a lava pit was burnt alive in lava. I'd say that's something done to it. The parent, knowing full well it was in the birth canal, dropped into a pit of lava.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument which is about the object on which a person's will is imposed. The closest I can imagine to your example would be if one were of the view that human beings did not have any will, or moral rights until they left the birth canal. If that were the case then yes, I would argue that the parent's will to birth a baby over a lava pit was imposed, not on a person, but on a {whatever we might call the baby in the birth canal}.

The result of such a decision would be a considerable amount of pain with no benefit, it would be a pretty evil thing to do.

I have no idea what you're blathering about. The baby born into a lava pit was burnt alive in lava. I'd say that's something done to it. The parent, knowing full well it was in the birth canal, dropped into a pit of lava. — Isaac

This has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument which is about the object on which a person's will is imposed. — Isaac

:chin:

The closest I can imagine to your example would be if one were of the view that human beings did not have any will, or moral rights until they left the birth canal. If that were the case then yes, I would argue that the parent's will to birth a baby over a lava pit was imposed, not on a person, but on a {whatever we might call the baby in the birth canal}. — Isaac

Ok.....

The result of such a decision would be a considerable amount of pain with no benefit, it would be a pretty evil thing to do. — Isaac

Yep. So it looks like you are agreeing that the parent's will to the birth of a baby (over a lava pit.. but could be any X condition) was imposed. I don't see how the lava pit changes anything in the structure of the statement.

Cutting a tree down does not force a log to become a log, I don't impose my will on the log, I impose my will on the tree, I force a tree to become a log.

Conscription does not force a soldier to become a soldier, I don't impose my will on the soldier, I impose my will on the civilian, I force a civilian to become a soldier.

Imprisonment does not force a prisoner to become a prisoner, I don't impose my will on the prisoner, I impose my will on the free man, I force a free man to become a prisoner.

And so on... I do not force nor impose my will on a person in making a person out of a gamete.

...

Then there's the question of whether its a good thing. Is it a good thing to turn trees into logs? It is a good thing to turn civilians into soldiers. Is it fair to make free men prisoners?

So. Is it a good thing to make a gamete a person? This can be addressed, but it can't be addressed using arguments about imposing on people or forcing people. Neither of those two things have happened.

The annoying thing about your argument is that in most cases I think the answer to that question is "no". There's a really important argument against having children. It's being buried because you want to blame someone else for your lack of effort.

No man, you can't go back because it goes against your tedious point. You admitted your position here:

I would argue that the parent's will to birth a baby over a lava pit was imposed, not on a person, but on a {whatever we might call the baby in the birth canal}. — Isaac

So. Is it a good thing to make a gamete a person? This can be addressed, but it can't be addressed using arguments about imposing on people or forcing people. Neither of those two things have happened. — Isaac

Right, the parent is imposing their will and that leads to a person born. We can call it different things for the debate, but it actually doesn't change the material thing at hand behind the debate.. I would like to move forward on whether it is indeed good for the parent to create someone (they are imposing their will such that a person is born where one would not be because they decided to do this).

The annoying thing about your argument is that in most cases I think the answer to that question is "no". There's a really important argument against having children. It's being buried because you want to blame someone else for your lack of effort. — Isaac

There are important arguments against having children. Creating someone who will be burdened unnecessarily is one major one. Utilitarian (negative or otherwise) arguments are just icing that provide more evidence to this logical cake.

I would like to move forward on whether it is indeed good for the parent to create someone (they are imposing their will such that a person is born where one would not be because they decided to do this). — schopenhauer1

We already have. We've argued this point before. You dodged having to concede either that it was good, or that your philosophy was essentially selfish and not ethical at all, by starting to talk about imposing one's will on someone. Hence the importance of the argument that one is not imposing one's will on someone, one is merely imposing one's will (on a mindless object) in such a way as it will eventually become a someone.

If one is reasonably sure (after having done their due diligence) that the situation they're planning to bring about will be a better one for the world in general (their community specifically) then it's a perfectly good thing to do (in ethical terms).

If one imagines their community '+ child' and imagines their community without and can reasonably say the community is better off with the child (that community now including the imagined child, of course), then their behaviour is ethical. It is good that they try to bring about that situation.

... That's it.

There's no question of whether it's right to 'impose one's will without consent' - one imposed one's will on a mindless object, so there's no ethical component there.

There's no question of special consideration for the so called 'one who is affected by that imposition' - the whole community are affected by it. The resulting child is not magically affected more than the elderly couple who now won't starve in their dotage.

There's no question of someone being now 'burdened with existence'. Every entity is burdened with existence. At most you could say that a consequence of procreation is the awareness of that burden (which the gamete wouldn't have had if one hadn't forcibly changed it's level of consciousness) - but since the overwhelming majority of people simply don't mind, this burden seems small in the weighing.

...

And no, it's nothing to do with 'moral calculus'. One could just as easily frame this in denotological terms. "One ought to do what one can to improve the lot of one's community" seems a maxim one would wish generalised.

Hence the importance of the argument that one is not imposing one's will on someone, one is merely imposing one's will (on a mindless object) in such a way as it will eventually become a someone. — Isaac

Distinction that makes no difference and why it’s sophistry. A person shooting the gun is the factor that kills the person. But you know that. Why you keep on the point, is obviously suspect. Or you think there’s a really good point, there’s somehow profoundly missed. It’s not. You’re just being willfully pedantic for arguments sake.

If one is reasonably sure (after having done their due diligence) that the situation they're planning to bring about will be a better one for the world in general (their community specifically) then it's a perfectly good thing to do (in ethical terms). — Isaac

If you think it’s best to force me (cause it to come about such that :roll:) I work for a company the rest of my life unless I kill myself, no amount of research or outcome would justify that.

If one imagines their community '+ child' and imagines their community without and can reasonably say the community is better off with the child (that community now including the imagined child, of course), then their behaviour is ethical. It is good that they try to bring about that situation.

... That's it. — Isaac

That’s it? Anyone can justify doing anything that affects another’s life significantly in the name of community. A slippery slope! Also no amount of research predicts the unknown harms that result. Things change literally day to day, moment to moment. You’re not a god that “knows” exactly how much harm will take place. More importantly, who are you to judge of what is acceptable for someone else to endure? Why should they even have to endure it? Life’s slate of choices and many harms doesn’t have to be lived because you, the existing person with the ability to procreate deems or so.

There's no question of whether it's right to 'impose one's will without consent' - one imposed one's will on a mindless object, so there's no ethical component there. — Isaac

Yikes, this is a terrible attempt at causative ethics. “No I didn’t do it, I merely pulled the trigger”.

There's no question of special consideration for the so called 'one who is affected by that imposition' - the whole community are affected by it. The resulting child is not magically affected more than the elderly couple who now won't starve in their dotage. — Isaac

You wouldn’t kidnap someone to take care of the elderly, or would you? There is no difference that one person already exists. AGAIN, lava pit baby. mother thought lava put was a ritual that would save the community. It doesn’t matter, even if she was RIGHT!!

There's no question of someone being now 'burdened with existence'. Every entity is burdened with existence. At most you could say that a consequence of procreation is the awareness of that burden (which the gamete wouldn't have had if one hadn't forcibly changed it's level of consciousness) - but since the overwhelming majority of people simply don't mind, this burden seems small in the weighing. — Isaac

You don’t get to do significant things to people because other people say they don’t mind it. Peoples attitudes change over time. It’s the tail wagging the dog. Rather, what is right to do is not about public attitudes. If everyone suddenly became super religious, and 10% of people dissented, it doesn’t mean freedom of worship is now not a thing anymore. And yes, every entity is burdened with existence, but it is only sentient life that knows, feels, is aware, of it and can suffer. So to make a sentience is to make something that suffers. Ethically, being the judge that significant harm is acceptable to create for someone because you think you have “reasons” is problematic.

If you think it’s best to force me (cause it to come about such that :roll:) I work for a company the rest of my life unless I kill myself, no amount of research or outcome would justify that. — schopenhauer1

I don't.

Anyone can justify doing anything that affects another’s life significantly in the name of community. A slippery slope! — schopenhauer1

How so?

no amount of research predicts the unknown harms that result. Things change literally day to day, moment to moment. You’re not a god that “knows” exactly how much harm will take place. — schopenhauer1

I see. So the lava baby's mother should perhaps just carry on. After all, who can tell what will happen in the future? It's such a mystery. Maybe the lava will do the baby good.

More importantly, who are you to judge of what is acceptable for someone else to endure? — schopenhauer1

Unless you plan on becoming a hermit, you are constantly deciding what others have to endure.

Why should they even have to endure it? — schopenhauer1

Someone has to. To give a simple example, either the elderly have to endure starvation because there's no younger generation to look after them, or the younger generation have to endure some suffering associated with being alive to feed the elderly. The non-suffering option is to make life for the youngsters really good.

this is a terrible attempt at causative ethics. — schopenhauer1

Nothing causative about it. It's assigning the object of an imposition, not the consequence of one.

You wouldn’t kidnap someone to take care of the elderly, or would you? — schopenhauer1

I would if I had to, yes. why on earth would you let hundreds of people starve just to preserve one person's autonomy?

You don’t get to do significant things to people because other people say they don’t mind it. — schopenhauer1

You do.

Ethically, being the judge that significant harm is acceptable to create for someone because you think you have “reasons” is problematic. — schopenhauer1

Not in the least bit problematic. As I said before, if you want a set of rules which essentially say we must never ever impose anything on individuals for the benefit of the community, then you don't have an ethical rule, you just have a neo-liberal political agenda. Put down the Rand and back away.

I don't. — Isaac

Yet, somehow procreation gets a pass. And THIS might be the central point that we should be arguing. Is life REALLY that variegated enough to count as acceptable? In fact, is any amount of variety of choices enough? I would say, short of an infinite amount of choices that somehow conforms to an ever adjusted utopia (for the person experiencing it), no amount is enough.. But even if we were to give some leeway in a mostly utopia, this existence certainly isn't it.

That is to say, you likely disagree with forcing someone to work at your company for the rest of your life because you think this is too limiting in someone's ability to choose what to do with their life. But my main point in the OP on the first argument (about choices) is that there are de facto choices in life itself that can never be overcome. Survival, and survival in a relative-context (socio-cultural-economic-political context), is one major de facto "choice" made for us by simply living (as you acknowledged earlier). I call these kind of de facto choices, necessary choices/conditions.

The problem also pointed out in the OP is the following: Who really knows what are acceptable necessary conditions to start for someone else? My answer, no one. No one has that omnicience. Rather, it is taken as a "right" that the parent gets to decide that the conditions of this life are what other people should be living out and experiencing. But these range of choices that we agree are necessary, are simply, by fiat of the parent's decision, simply taken as their divine right to make for another person.
The poor logic goes something like: "I deem X conditions as a good enough slate of conditions/choices, therefore ANOTHER person should too". Nothing else in this world seems to be justified in this way. It would be a horrible person who went about their day, significantly affecting others in what choices others have to make, simply because they deem it right to do. Mind you, even if a person said to themselves, "I represent the MAJORITY of humanity's wishes and will thus so limit others in their conditions because I have a "mandate" from the "majority".. This would be woefully wrong and unjust justification for such action. It is at root, what I call, "aggressive paternalism" and using whatever post-facto justifications afterwards to make it seem okay to do. So, the illusion that there are more "choices" in life, doesn't negate that THESE choices (the de facto ones of living itself) are indeed (aggressively so) deemed "appropriate" to start for another person.

How so? — Isaac

Because a majority of people think X, a basic right is taken away... People think dear Trump to be the best leader, therefore Trump can do no wrong.. We see it happening right now.. Take top secret documents from White House, perhaps he should get a pass if enough people think he represents them, and so whatever he does can't be wrong.. Even if 95% of Americans loved the guy, he should still be kept under the same rule of law. But just as easily it can go in the negative form... The majority think that slavery is acceptable, therefore slavery is acceptable. The majority of people think that one religion is the true religion, therefore other beliefs cannot be believed.. The majority of people think.. any of it....

I see. So the lava baby's mother should perhaps just carry on. After all, who can tell what will happen in the future? It's such a mystery. Maybe the lava will do the baby good. — Isaac

In that situation, it is certainly a known harm.. Not much mystery. But in life in general, there are other known harms.. but THESE are deemed as acceptable (but why do they get to decide that these are acceptable for someone else?).. However, there are also unknown harms.. things parents didn't anticipate (nor could).. and THESE alone disqualify the decision as just to do on someone else's behalf. Again, @Tzeentch's analogy of the parachute opening 90% of the time should apply here. Gambling with people's lives is not something people should do lightly, or at all.

Nothing causative about it. It's assigning the object of an imposition, not the consequence of one. — Isaac

Sophistic nonsense. I don't want to go into this again about causation, but when deciding an ethical decision, it is the person involved and their actions that matter, not simply the action in isolation.. It's the person who decided to pull a trigger pointing it at someone, not the fact that the bullet is the actual thing that hit someone. This is too obvious even for you to be throwing out this kind of red herring. In other words, it's irrelevant that it wasn't the "person" but the "bullet" that killed the person.. The "person" was the one who decided to shoot the person dead! At some point X, there is a person in the world. THAT person was created by something (namely, parents). That something was a decision (to conceive and carry out to term). A person existed where there was no person. Whether that person was a sentient/alive "person" before X time, doesn't mater that at X time they do exist. You can also argue how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.. you can argue anything and think it relevant, but this particular thing you have is not relevant, and if you know it, it's bad faith arguing as it's red herring at this point.

I would if I had to, yes. why on earth would you let hundreds of people starve just to preserve one person's autonomy? — Isaac

Because it's unethical to use people, even for what seems like a good cause. What if the elderly people protested and said, "No, no please stop doing that! I rather starve than have you use people for some cause!". Would you still do it? But this puts you in double binds because here we have a "majority" saying X (seemingly your only way of judging things), yet in YOUR estimation this IS the best ethical thing (i.e. greatest good). Interesting...

You do. — Isaac

Then this is clearly where our differences lie most plainly.

Not in the least bit problematic. As I said before, if you want a set of rules which essentially say we must never ever impose anything on individuals for the benefit of the community, then you don't have an ethical rule, you just have a neo-liberal political agenda. Put down the Rand and back away. — Isaac

This is just straw man characterization. At the end of the day it is about what we want to see from others and whether wanting to see stuff from others means forcing the situation onto others.

You're speaking for those billions of people who are religious too? For those it doesn't seem life in and of itself is good.

It's hard to generalize when speaking of so many people. I do not doubt that many of them suffer. But they don't solely suffer, there are other things in life too, like joy and love and laughter.

The point is that most people (not all) prefer to go on living, till' it's time to go - as everyone eventually will.

It's hard to generalize when speaking of so many people. I do not doubt that many of them suffer. But they don't solely suffer, there are other things in life too, like joy and love and laughter. — Manuel

My point is that there is a good reason the religions exist right?

The point is that most people (not all) prefer to go on living, till' it's time to go - as everyone eventually will. — Manuel

Just another version of "why don't you commit suicide?"

Many reasons surely.

Incidentally, the post you replied to is 8 months old. I have no interest in discussing anti-natalism, maybe others will. I find it quite tedious and boring.

If you want to discuss Mainländer's metaphysics and epistemology, then we can do that, as that's quite fascinating.

Incidentally, the post you replied to is 8 months old. I have no interest in discussing anti-natalism, maybe others will. I find it quite tedious and boring. — Manuel

Okay. I mean you posted on a forum, you should expect people to respond.

If you want to discuss Mainländer's metaphysics and epistemology, then we can do that, as that's quite fascinating. — Manuel

Daft stuff altogether.

Many reasons surely. — Manuel

Suffering I think.

And I have replied.

Again, 8 months is kind of a long time for a discussion that was meant for a different poster and a different context in mind.

There are no new arguments to be given for or against AN. It boils down to you thinking life sucks and me thinking it does not.

Ok. Fine.

There are no new arguments to be given for or against AN. It boils down to you thinking life sucks and me thinking it does not. — Manuel

This kind of trivializing isn't even getting at the actual argument at hand. It's not about views of life, but at what is morally justified in terms of action towards others.

In other words, these kind of antinatalist questions come down to what counts as moral, and are much deeper than, "you like blue and I like green".

For example, you said:

The point is that most people (not all) prefer to go on living, till' it's time to go - as everyone eventually will. — Manuel

I can phrase the argument as: "Do you believe it is morally justifiable to cause unnecessary (absolutely avoidable) harm to others and determine the conditions of their existence, based on the limited socio-cultural ways that humans must endure by default in this universe, which individuals have no control over upon birth?"

You can say, "Yes, I believe unnecessarily causing people to experience X, Y, Z limited choices, and unnecessarily harming others, and using them is perfectly fine".

These are the kinds of the deeper issues at hand. It's not just a matter of opinion, but informs our view of justice in the world, and justified action more generally. I would say such a view of procreation is callous, not totally thought out to its moral infractions, and using people. Going ahead and making a significant decision that life is what another person should experience, causing them unnecessary (avoidable) harm and imposing burdens (impositions), EVEN with the intention or hope that they would also have good experiences, isn't justifiable. Continuing to justify causing harm to others is a slippery slope towards accepting injustice, which can have far-reaching political consequences since it affects how others are impacted by individual decisions.

It is also about informing people as to what an imposition is, why imposing unnecessarily upon others is wrong, and why creating impositions for others is equally wrong, when it is avoidable and unnecessary to do unto another.

Since all other decisions relate to intra-worldly affairs, they inherently involve moral ambiguity, and require balancing different ethical considerations. In contrast, choosing not to procreate is an inter-worldly decision that can be made without any moral hedging or ambiguity and perfectly aligns with the principles of non-harm and respect for others. A state of affairs will occur that person will NOT be harmed, NOT be forced into this universe's limited choices, etc. Overlooking harm and downplaying it so that one can see X (even if it is "good experiences"), is still violating the dignity and respect of that person who will thus be harmed as a result of this imposition.

You see that this goes back to the argument of "inexistent being" being harmed. You've discussed this several times, probably too much. But a lot of this hinges precisely on that.

We know the formulaic response - because repetitious.

Two options: either be somewhat smirk and say, I don't care about potential suffering so long as you also count potential happiness, which makes me very immoral in your eyes or I can say that I think your views of suffering are quite distorted to the extent that it actually clouds other everything else life can provide.

I wouldn't be so superior sounding when passing such judgements.

Finally, also an issue that surely has come up - that people who have AN views tend to be depressed in some manner. This is claimed to be irrelevant to the central AN argument.

But if AN didn't have this kind of depression, I seriously doubt it would've ever arisen.

And I say all this while having some AN sympathies actually. But beating a bull to death, then stabbing its corpse, dousing it on fire, throwing a nuclear bomb on it and shooting it off to the sun, isn't really productive. There is no word that goes beyond "overkill" that I know of - but I don't see what success you've had.

Something has gone wrong here.

I think your views of suffering are quite distorted to the extent that it actually clouds other everything else life can provide. — Manuel

You’re playing with peoples lives, not the AN. The burden of proof is on you and cannot simply be “you think it’s fine” and that it “ain’t that bad” is it? You see where that kind of self entitled deeming to do harm leads, if applied in any other case right? Me unnecessarily forcing an avoidable imposition on you because I deemed it right in some calculation I made- how is that ever right?

Finally, also an issue that surely has come up - that people who have AN views tend to be depressed in some manner. This is claimed to be irrelevant to the central AN argument.

But if AN didn't have this kind of depression, I seriously doubt it would've ever arisen. — Manuel

Red herring and ad hom, you’re right, it is.

There is no word that goes beyond "overkill" that I know of - but I don't see what success you've had.

Something has gone wrong here. — Manuel

What does success to you look like in this forum?
The most “success” I’ve seen is posters display how many times they can sound like an ahole by way of smug trolling. And indeed if that is success it is in spades here.

Red herring and ad hom, you’re right, it is. — schopenhauer1

No @Manuel has it right here. You've spoken at length about wanting to find a 'community of catharsis' These posts are exactly about you and your feeling, not any deeper moral point. Indeed when the moral argument is countered you invariably dismiss that counter with something along the lines of "you've had your say, I want to hear from others", a 'casting around' for agreement, and disparaging all others as 'trolls'.

You've plumbed the depths of the moral argument, it's apparent to anyone even taking a passing interest in these threads that they all reach the same point. A disagreement about the moral significance of the fact that the person-to-be is not yet born. You claim that it's not significant and as such making decisions for them leads to a slippery slope (or a contradiction). The rest of the world think the difference is significant and as such taking a decision for them (because they can't) is a perfectly moral thing to do and faces no such contradiction with their moral behaviour toward persons who already exist.

That there is a difference between persons who are yet to exist and persons who already exist is undeniable. So all we're left with is how we handle that difference morally. Since there are no other examples in life, you can't appeal to consistency, and since there are no objective moral laws, you can't appeal to authority.

Were you to be interested in the arguments one might expect that to be and end to it. But these threads just seem to come back again and again. Fishing for people who agree with you is not the same thing as showing an interest in the arguments. It's an emotional, not an academic activity.

I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking catharsis (I don't think it's healthy, but then I'm not your therapist, so that's no concern of mine), but it is unpleasant to dismiss as 'trolls' anyone taking, at face value, an appeal to mutuality dressed up as a moral investigation.

No Manuel has it right here. — Isaac

Oh boy, I guess another person saying that makes it true!

Indeed when the moral argument is countered you invariably dismiss that counter with something along the lines of "you've had your say, I want to hear from others", a 'casting around' for agreement, and disparaging all others as 'trolls'. — Isaac

Who countered what?

The rest of the world think the difference is significant and as such taking a decision for them (because they can't) is a perfectly moral thing to do and faces no such contradiction with their moral behaviour toward persons who already exist. — Isaac

The rest of the world are individual decisions of people. Many wrong. Lot of wrong choices made by lots of people everyday.

Since there are no other examples in life, you can't appeal to consistency, and since there are no objective moral laws, you can't appeal to authority. — Isaac

No, you know I can bring up the usual examples of egregious acts that you could prevent that everyone would agree with but make glaring exceptions for procreation.

Were you to be interested in the arguments one might expect that to be and end to it. But these threads just seem to come back again and again. Fishing for people who agree with you is not the same thing as showing an interest in the arguments. It's an emotional, not an academic activity. — Isaac

I don’t fish for any agreement. It’s a nice change but clearly I keep replying to people as yourself. Almost every one of my posts about this is with someone who disagrees. Look at post history if you care to see the evidence.

I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking catharsis (I don't think it's healthy, but then I'm not your therapist, so that's no concern of mine), but it is unpleasant to dismiss as 'trolls' anyone taking, at face value, an appeal to mutuality dressed up as a moral investigation. — Isaac

Yea yeah. Again, it’s not the AN making decisions on others behalf and messing with other peoples lives. The burden of proof is on the one doing the affecting. And “me thinks it good despite causing suffering” and “person doesn’t exist yet so I can do anything that will cause negative thing to someone in the future” are extremely weak tea.

Nah - it's called a "red herring" and a ad hom merely because the topic does not what to be discussed - it is actually relevant. Why? Because if people did not feel this way, the argument given would not arise.

I have read several of your posts on the topic, you don't need to keep putting "imposition" and "forced" in bold - I get that point very well. But it's simply not convincing.

Because if people did not feel this way, the argument given would not arise. — Manuel

You can be a happy go lucky antinatalist. And there are! Doesn’t change the argument anymore than depressed people against poor leadership. Depressed people against theft or happy people who support right to die.

I have read several of your posts on the topic, you don't need to keep putting "imposition" and "forced" in bold - I get that point very well. But it's simply not convincing. — Manuel

Some people will never be convinced regarding many things, pro choice, etc. That an individual isn’t particularly convinced doesn’t affect the aptness, just displays the view of a particular person. If I truly cared for that particular person to be convinced, I’d ask them if perhaps convention itself has gotten in the way of moral reasoning or perhaps why causing harm unnecessarily is justified, or how causing harm in the hopes of causing good is not using someone to see some outcome and why this is acceptable. Id question that persons moral framework. I’d mention how this is the only time someone can perfectly not cause unnecessary harm, and not hedge.

Then you go on to give the standard reply that pain is an obvious evil and that no one deserves it, yet people aren't owed pleasure, etc., etc.

I doubt that real life can be reduced to such axiomatic schemes. The point, which has been stressed ad nauseum, is that most people do not view life in terms of pain alone. You can say these people are deluding themselves or something along those lines. Yet the fact remains that most people don't buy this argument, no matter how much you stress the forced aspect.

I have sympathy for your view - I do think that there is too much pain and destruction and misery and depression, partly (only partly) for these reasons I don't have children. The difference being that I also recognize that there are good things in life, things which make it worth living, even if there is pain - all these things are imposed on us by life.

The mere fact of being able to listen (and appreciate!) music, watch a beautiful sunset, fall in love, be able to experience the universe is a privilege known to only one species in the universe.

And yes, there is pain and suffering too, but it shall pass, as shall we.

But this doesn't enter into your calculus - or if does, it is not given the proper attention such topics deserve, as evidenced by the fact that you return to people not forcing others to have creatures who can have such privileges (or curse in your case.)

So I don't buy your argument. What else is there to say? Are you going to impose on me more arguments?

I doubt that real life can be reduced to such axiomatic schemes. The point, which has been stressed ad nauseum, is that most people do not view life in terms of pain alone. You can say these people are deluding themselves or something along those lines. Yet the fact remains that most people don't buy this argument, no matter how much you stress the forced aspect. — Manuel

What does it matter? Some racists will remain racists. At one point, let's say, 51% of people were overtly racist. And so? Providing some popular concept of morality as the justification for action, isn't cutting it either. So where does that leave your argument other than the fact that "most people" think X, when it is wrong?

I have sympathy for your view - I do think that there is too much pain and destruction and misery and depression, partly (only partly) for these reasons I don't have children. The difference being that I also recognize that there are good things in life, things which make it worth living, even if there is pain - all these things are imposed on us by life. — Manuel

Then you are subtly changing the argument from worth starting to worth continuing. As you recognized in my argument, no one is obligated to ensure someone exists for happy things, but certainly preventing avoidable harms is. What would make creating harms to bring someone benefits ON THEIR BEHALF (imposed) be ever justified in your view? No amelioration was needed. This is PURELY creating unnecessary harms without any mitigating reasons other than you want to see X outcome.

And yes, there is pain and suffering too, but it shall pass, as shall we. — Manuel

This is actually a lack of empathy for people who have severe X issue (mental, physical, whatever). And contingency is a bitch. You think you are immune from it until it happens to you. But that is secondary to my main argument which is that aggressive paternalistic impositions under ANY circumstance is not justified, even moderately pained (or pain free) lives. "This too shall pass" is trite, trivializing of suffering, and short-sighted in considering these situations.

So I don't buy your argument. What else is there to say? Are you going to impose on me more arguments? — Manuel

I guess don't reply to me.. But this just states my main point again, in life you CAN'T avoid doing harm whereby in the case of not having a child, indeed a violation did not take place, completely with no ameliorating.

Providing some popular concept of morality as the justification for action, isn't cutting it either. So where does that leave your argument other than the fact that "most people" think X, when it is wrong? — schopenhauer1

This is such a bizarre counter. You're saying here that virtually the entire human race thinking something is right still doesn't make it right, but in the same breath you're trying to suggest the mere fact that you think something is wrong might actually make it wrong.

If the entire human race can't make something right or wrong just by thinking it is so, then what superpower do you have that makes you think that you alone thinking it wrong might be a compelling argument?

This is such a bizarre counter. You're saying here that virtually the entire human race thinking something is right still doesn't make it right, but in the same breath you're trying to suggest the mere fact that you think something is wrong might actually make it wrong. — Isaac

For a long time, most of humanity thought that the sun revolved around the Earth. It's lack of perspective.

It's also a blindspot, I would imagine for most. It is so conventional as to seem not up for ethical debate. But if you were to deign yourself to be a type of person who believes in certain principles, this too would fall under those principles (non-harm, autonomy, etc.).

I liken it to vegetarianism. It may be right, but it takes a long time for people to catch on to things. Slavery was around and condoned as part of life for thousands of years before the last couple hundred years. Some conventions are easier to slough away than others. Clearly, slavery was an easier one to universally condemn (but even that took wars, legislation, and the like).

Again, blindspot, convention, preferences conflicting with values can all play a part. But simply people having a preference that is very conventionally popular, doesn't mean ipso facto, it must be therefore ethical.