Have you not heard of hypotheticals? There is nothing bizarre about predicting the future based on the past. — Andrew4Handel
Hello science! — Andrew4Handel
We are not talking about whether a non existent person should be able to consent but that the future person who comes to exist will be able to withhold consent and have desires and that these desires can be in opposition to your act of creating them. — Andrew4Handel
If someone is unconscious they can't consent. So you can violate their consent without them having to be able to vocalise it. Unless you want to claim we can do what we like to unconscious people. The same way you assume a sleeping person isn't consenting to sex you can assume things about future humans. — Andrew4Handel
If a child had the choice to be born to millionaire or to be born in a slum facing hunger do you think any child would choose the slum over the wealthy existence? — Andrew4Handel
If someone is unconscious they cannot consent to sex. Therefore it is wrong to have sex with them in this state.
If someone cannot consent to be created then you should not create them. You cannot be acting in their benefit or based on them expressing any desire to exist. — Andrew4Handel
On the matter of 1, some posters have said that it's irrelevant because consent was impossible and what is impossible can't be of moral significance — TheMadFool
Indeed, why cause the burden of life to exist in the first place for a new person when there did not have to be a burden in the first place? — schopenhauer1
Ontologically it's rather just a category error. — Terrapin Station
The whole argument rests on two pillars:
1. Consent was not taken
2. Life is suffering
On the matter of 1, some posters have said that it's irrelevant because consent was impossible and what is impossible can't be of moral significance. It's impossible to remove gravity from our lives and to include it in moral, or any other, evaluation would be unreasonable, to say the least. In short, the distinction ''can't'' vs ''didn't'' matters. Children can't consent, not didn't consent. That, some say, relieves the parents of moral responsibility in birthing children and, simulaltaneously, surrenders a child's autonomy to the parents. Is this true?
Empirical data suggests that this is true. Many situations exist where people can't consent e.g. when as a child, in a coma, in absentia, when mentally challenged, etc. At these times, someone - a loved one, friend, colleague, parent - makes the decision for the person, hopefully, keeping best interests in mind. As you can see, impossibility does matter - we're morally permitted to make decisions for others when it's a can't rather than a didn't consent.
2 is controversial and actually defies empirical evidence. Most people aren't depressed, suicide is not as common as would be expected, people aren't avoiding having children, etc.
One could say that this is simply because people haven't given enough thought on the matter i.e. they fail to see the truth, the truth that life is suffering. If everyone were to just give a moment to consider the matter, everyone would see that life's just not worth it.
However, one could argue back along the same lines. Take Buddhism for example. It's central tenet is exactly what is your premise - life is suffering. But, according to the Buddha, this suffering has an irrational origin - unmoderated attachment, expecting more than is possible, clinging to the superficial, a failure to recognize and accept nature. So, right back at you, in fact, suffering is not because you haven't contemplated the issue, rather, it's because you haven't.
In addition, the experience of life is improving - we're healthier, safer, happier than we were a thousand years ago. This trend is likely to continue and a few thousand years from now, life will be even better. This seriously undermines your argument. Life is a dynamic force, it progresses, and your argument ignores this crucial fact. Your argument was good in the past, is less applicable now, and will become utterly bad in the future. — TheMadFool
Nonexistence does imply a freedom from suffering. — TheMadFool
To illustrate, don't we advise a friend against a movie, music, game, experience? We say a movie is so bad it's not worth watching — TheMadFool
Recommendations make no sense unless we know the person we're making the recommendations to. Different people have different tastes, like different things, etc — Terrapin Station
Without consent any relationship would automatically become an imposition and that is an attack on personal freedom, which is morally reprehensible.
Since, children didn't consent to being born, it implies that parents have committed a moral wrong. The consquences in the OP - the unaviodable suffering and pain that accompanies life - don't even matter. Absence of consent, in and of itself, is sufficient to qualify the act of procreation as immoral. — TheMadFool
You're right but this logic fails because it can be used against you. Not knowing the tastes of a person denies you the right to think for him/her - neither to not have children, and more importantly, nor to have children. — TheMadFool
For me, the next step is to try and bring some objectivity into the game and that I've done in my previous post - the truth of "life is suffering" is slowly becoming suspect. This isn't a matter of taste. Maybe it was, but now it's acquring an objective quality that's tending towards falsehood. — TheMadFool
Again untrue. Firstly my "if-then" is simply an examination of a purely logical possibility. It is neither lightweight, superficial, ill-considered nor trivial. And I was not being flippant, either. On the other hand you, apparently bereft of any argument against what I had said, flippantly offer up something which is not even a proper "if-then" (you don't even say what will or could be the case if pigs do fly). — John
What would you think if I said that chairs don't speak loud enough? Or that apples were not surprised at the recent general election result? Or that people didn't protest against the big bang at the time? Or, here's another one, that dogs can't vote? Be honest. And remember that there's an implied ethical context. — Sapientia
Chairs can never speak, apples will never express surprise. — Andrew4Handel
But humans will have consent issues and will have an opinion on their creation and their own desires. — Andrew4Handel
My statement in this thread is that it is impossible to consent to be born so it can never be that we are here by consent undermining consent. I am not expressing a desire that the unborn consent just stating the fact that life is at base non consensual. (Thanks The madfool) — Andrew4Handel
Apples do not desire to be surprised... — Andrew4Handel
And non-people can never consent. Only people can. That dogs can't vote is not a massive ethical issue. It's not an ethical issue at all. — Sapientia
When people are people, they have people problems. But your reverse thinking doesn't work. Yes, we can think about what will or might be, and act upon such thoughts, but it isn't reasonable to commit a reification fallacy, as you seem to be doing. — Sapientia
When you state that people can't consent to being born, there's either a controversial ethical implication or it's trivial. Take your pick. It's lose-lose. (Thanks critical thinking ability). — Sapientia
Do you want an apple? — Andrew4Handel
What about all the lives that aren't born? What about all the potential lives floating around within our groins that may provide consent to be born but never are. There are far more lives that are never born than those that are. — Harry Hindu
What about all the lives that aren't born? What about all the potential lives floating around within our groins that may provide consent to be born but never are. There are far more lives that are never born than those that are. — Harry Hindu
I don't think suicide is a consensual act because if you do something to yourself you don't need to ask for consent. So I don't think committing suicide is a way of withdrawing consent from life. — Andrew4Handel
You don't need to know that actual identity of the person who will be born, just that someone . . . — schopenhauer1
It's not that you don't know the identity--it's just someone.
It's not anyone prior to conception. There's nothing there to consent or to NOT consent.
It would make just as much sense to say, "All of these potential people that we're not creating might be really upset that we didn't create them, so we'd better try to have as many kids as possible." — Terrapin Station
If any of this were true, then we'd have to revamp our ethics and convict our parents, not the others who actually cause us suffering, for our suffering. We'd be putting our parents in prison rather than those that actually caused us suffering. — Harry Hindu
The fact is that I don't blame my parents as the source of my suffering. I blame those that cause my suffering. If that is how you feel then grow a set and go blame your parents for all the suffering you ever experienced and tell them you're going to sue them for the suffering you experience in life. In other words, be consistent in your philosophical worldview and put your money where your mouth is. — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.