Why? — Heister Eggcart

Actually, that's a good question. If I were living in Aleppo right now, it certainly would make sense to at least delay having children. And if I felt as though we are living in misery in a terrible world with no hope for improvement, then it would make sense. But I don't think that is what schopenhaeur1 is talking about. He seems to be talking about not having children because it will be inconvenient for them to live. [Yes, that's ham-handed hyperbole. Rhetoric can be fun.]

It's a view which has similarities to the doctrine of Original Sin. We humans exist because our ancestors procreated through the ages. There was no Adam and Eve, but sometime in the course of our evolution a pair or pairs of sinners reproduced and that reproduction caused the many harms we existing people now experience. — Ciceronianus the White

In a way yes. Procreation brings on the harms, again and again and again.

I have no problem with you not having children. It's none of my business what your reason is. But to justify it on the basis of the welfare of the unborn child, if that's what you're really doing, is bizarre. — T Clark

When the child is born it is forced. I am unconvinced that "Forced" cannot be used in this case.. Once a person is born, the "Forcing" begins, as the cause of what would be the child was something another person did. A chair is not in existence, but then a chair is made.. It was caused. Since its not a being (animal) then,it would not make sense to use "forced" here but you get the analogy.

I'm not an anti-natalist anymore in part because the argument from consent, which you present here, doesn't work. It's incoherent, as Agustino said, and pointing out the obvious fact that no one is being harmed in procreation is not a rhetorical trick. Do the parents cause their child to exist? Yes, but causation does not equal compulsion. One can only compel, coerce, or force, and therefore harm, the existent, not the non-existent. — Thorongil

When the child is born it is forced. I am unconvinced that "Forced" cannot be used in this case.. Once a person is born, the "Forcing" begins, as the cause of what would be the child was something another person did. A chair is not in existence, but then a chair is made.. It was caused. Since its not a being (animal) then,it would not make sense to use "forced" here but you get the analogy.

When the child is born it is forced. I am unconvinced that "Forced" cannot be used in this case.. Once a person is born, the "Forcing" begins, as the cause of what would be the child was something another person did. A chair is not in existence, but then a chair is made.. — schopenhauer1

As I said previously, if there is any forcing going on, children are being forced to be what they are. You are allowed to use whatever words you like, but that seems like a really inapt one to me.

When the child is born it is forced. — schopenhauer1

To do what?

A chair is not in existence, but then a chair is made.. It was caused. — schopenhauer1

But, again, causation does not equal compulsion....

When the child is born it is forced. I am unconvinced that "Forced" cannot be used in this case.. Once a person is born, the "Forcing" begins, as the cause of what would be the child was something another person did. A chair is not in existence, but then a chair is made.. It was caused. Since its not a being (animal) then,it would not make sense to use "forced" here but you get the analogy. — schopenhauer1

Maybe you already answered this question and I didn't see it. Do you wish you'd never been born?

Because I believe forcing someone to be in a (practically) inescapable position to do something or not that is ongoing is harmful. — schopenhauer1

What's the inescapable position? :s Life isn't an inescapable position. Things in life can be inescapable positions, but certainly not life, which is the stage which makes all inescapable positions possible in the first place.

Breathing, is usually automatic. Perhaps you should have used eating. Eating is optional — schopenhauer1

So what if it's automatic? It's still a necessity. For some people doing the laundry is automatic. Apparently not for you. That's what your real problem is, that you invest so much energy dealing with such basic chores of life.

When the child is born it is forced. I am unconvinced that "Forced" cannot be used in this case.. Once a person is born, the "Forcing" begins, as the cause of what would be the child was something another person did. A chair is not in existence, but then a chair is made.. It was caused. Since its not a being (animal) then,it would not make sense to use "forced" here but you get the analogy. — schopenhauer1

Again the chair doesn't exist before it's actually made (the form of the chair exists, and the matter from which the chair will be made, but not the chair). The chair is a combination of matter and form to speak in Aristotelian terms. A child in this case would also be a combination of matter (the body) and form (the soul), and a child begins to exist at a certain point in time. Prior to that point in time, the child did not exist. So yes, the child was caused to exist by an external force, so what? More correctly, the matter and form of the child were conjoined in one substance by an external force (notice how both form, and matter existed before by the way). Being caused to exist cannot be a harm, because all harms happen AFTER the moment of birth, not before. No harm can happen before birth. To suggest otherwise is silly.

However, exposing new people to unwanted, unpleasant work in order to survive and function properly (though necessary once born) is not good for the interest of a future possible person who will have to endure it. — schopenhauer1

So a person apparently has interests before they're even born... good one.

Effectively, what you're saying when you say the child is caused to exist, is that existing things (form and matter) are so conjoined so as to give rise to a new substance (which is the child). But notice that this isn't ex nihilo. It's not as if the non-existant child is affected and made to exist, but rather that existing things are so affected to constitute the child. So your causation example forms no exception to the general principle I've outlined before.

No harm can happen before birth. To suggest otherwise is silly. — Agustino

I disagree. I think no harm can happen before conception. Plenty of harm can happen before one is born.

I disagree. I think no harm can happen before conception. Plenty of harm can happen before one is born. — Thorongil

You disagree, but I agree with you. It depends where you place the moment of birth. If you place the moment of birth at conception (and I would probably agree with that, or at least I would place it close to conception) then yes of course a lot of harm can happen while the live baby (who is hence already born, otherwise he couldn't be alive) is in his mother's womb.

In my discussions birth does not refer to the moment the baby is separated from his or her mother's womb, but the moment it is alive. I would place that moment at conception, or at least very soon afterwards.

That's fine, although I think that's straining the definition of birth. There ought to be a better word to describe coming into existence, especially as I find that anti-natalists equivocate on the word "birth" all the time. The argument from consent appears to be about coming into existence, but when faced with our objection, the anti-natalist often pivots to talking about literal birth. Thus, it's actually an indirect argument for abortion, not for the immorality of procreation.

Thus, it's actually an indirect argument for abortion, not for the immorality of procreation. — Thorongil

Yes, I thought exactly this, so thank you for clarifying this directly. I realised as I was writing it, but felt too lazy to bother changing the terminology granted that schop1 was using this terminology himself. But I did notice that my argument could then be taken and used as a pro-abortion argument, by claiming that no one is harmed until they're born (taking birth to be leaving the mother's womb) and I totally disagree with that. So thank you once again, well spotted! :) (Y)

I think your position would be stronger if you abandoned the claim (which I think you make) that procreation (causing conception to take place) itself is wrong or causes harm. Nobody can be harmed until they're subject to harm; nobody can cause harm to somebody who can't be harmed. After we exist, we're potentially subject to harm of all kinds. Before we exist, we're not and can't be.

What takes place after we exist isn't something which takes place before we do. The harm we may experience after we exist has identifiable causes for the most part. People, animals, nature may cause harm to us once we live. We may ascribe fault to them for doing so. We're not harmed by coming into existence, but are subject to harm when we do.

So, I think one can intelligibly maintain that we shouldn't have children because they'll become subject to harm if we do. It's not a position I accept, but it's comprehensible at least.

So, I think one can intelligibly maintain that we shouldn't have children because they'll become subject to harm if we do. It's not a position I accept, but it's comprehensible at least. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, I agree with this, but I do not believe I was NOT saying this. AFTER the child is born it is forced into obligations. Obligations are harmful and inevitable. Procreation creates this condition. Ergo, procreating children is wrong as it leads to exposing a new person to inevitable and harmful ongoing, inescapable obligations.

Yes, I agree with this, but I do not believe I was NOT saying this. AFTER the child is born it is forced into obligations. Obligations are harmful and inevitable. Procreation creates this condition. Ergo, procreating children is wrong as it leads to exposing a new person to inevitable and harmful ongoing, inescapable obligations. — schopenhauer1

Nope, that again doesn't follow. Procreation isn't necessarily immoral, but it can be. Should you procreate when you're in a war-torn country, where you probably will have a hard time to assure the survival of your child or provide for them? Probably not.

But what if you're a rich billionaire whose son or daughter will never have any economic obligations whatsoever, should you then procreate? Even you, according to your silly argument, would be forced to concede this.

Sure, procreation can be immoral in some cases, but that's not because it is immoral in-itself. The immorality comes after birth, when, for example, you fail to protect your child.

The harm we may experience after we exist has identifiable causes for the most part. People, animals, nature may cause harm to us once we live. We may ascribe fault to them for doing so. We're not harmed by coming into existence, but are subject to harm when we do. — Ciceronianus the White

Agreed.

So, I think one can intelligibly maintain that we shouldn't have children because they'll become subject to harm if we do. — Ciceronianus the White

Again, you need actual concrete reasons of what harms your child will become subject to. If you're not having a child because there's a war going on and it's unlikely you'll be able to take care of them that's completely different from not having a child because there's some harm - which you cannot specify - that will occur to him in his life.

The basis of the anti-natalist position requires birth (conception) itself to be a harm. If birth itself isn't a harm, then bringing people into the world cannot be harmful, end of story. Your failure to provide for your child or protect them may be harmful, but that's an action which is different from bringing them into the world, and hence has little to do with the antinatalist position in the first place.

It depends where you place the moment of birth. If you place the moment of birth at conception (and I would probably agree with that, or at least I would place it close to conception) then yes of course a lot of harm can happen while the live baby (who is hence already born, otherwise he couldn't be alive) is in his mother's womb. — Agustino

Your use of "birth" is not idiomatic. "Birth" describes the moment when a fetus leaves the womb. Conception doesn't mean "birth". There are other words describing the significance of conception such as ensoulment, personhood, etc. that can be applied to the unborn fetus (or baby).

Procreation isn't necessarily immoral, but it can be. — Agustino

But based on my premise, it is valid.

But based on my premise, it is valid. — schopenhauer1

No, it's absolutely not. If you have a child in a war torn region, giving birth to them isn't wrong, but failure to protect them when they need it, that will be wrong.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/80314

Sorry, I didn't see that clarification. Pardon.

No worries :)

I am not saying we should not follow obligations as the economic system requires to not fall apart, but rather that it should not be something to force others into. — schopenhauer1

I agree. No forcing anyone to do anything. Also, adult behavior needs to be reviewed to best understand the spirit of such a view. We're not behaving well - inventing WMD, polluting the environment, waging wars, perpetuating systems as mentioned in the OP, etc etc. And still we bring children into this world. The reasons for doing that are literally vanishing into thin air while reasons for not are multiplying everyday.

We were children once. I don't know what happened?

No, it's absolutely not. If you have a child in a war torn region, giving birth to them isn't wrong, but failure to protect them when they need it, that will be wrong. — Agustino

So rich people have no economic obligations? They have their own obligations not to mention being on top of the very economic system where the economic obligations take place.

So rich people have no economic obligations? They have their own obligations not to mention being on top of the very economic system where the economic obligations take place. — schopenhauer1

If you do absolutely nothing and just plug 1 billion in the bank, how long do you think it will last? :s More than your own lifespan? Probably. Why don't rich people do that? Because it's not fulfilling.

I agree. No forcing anyone to do anything. Also, adult behavior needs to be reviewed to best understand the spirit of such a view. We're not behaving well - inventing WMD, polluting the environment, waging wars, perpetuating systems as mentioned in the OP, etc etc. And still we bring children into this world. The reasons for doing that are literally vanishing into thin air while reasons for not are multiplying everyday. — TheMadFool

There are many harms that befall humans. No procreation means no exposure to harm.

Procreation in and of itself isn't sufficient to cause harm.

If you do absolutely nothing and just plug 1 billion in the bank, how long do you think it will last? :s More than your own lifespan? Probably. Why don't rich people do that? Because it's not fulfilling. — Agustino

While it's true for 1% of people they, do not have to worry about economic obligations in the same way others do, there are other harms- some of them are structural.

While it's true for 1% of people they, do not have to worry about economic obligations in the same way others do, there are other harms- some of them are structural. — schopenhauer1

Sure, you need another argument, that's for sure.

Sure, you need another argument, that's for sure. — Agustino

The argument about economic obligations still stands for 99% of people. Suffering exists for 100%.