It's not valid because, thinking along these lines, nothing mental can be objective, even philosophy. It also renders your arguments self-defeating. — TheMadFool

Or in other words, nothing mental can be non-mental, which is hardly a problem.

And re prescriptions, there are no true, factual, etc. prescriptions (well, at least not without attaching them to subjective desires). That's part of the point, really.

Here's the thing: Relationships not based on consent are, essentially, a last resort. — TheMadFool

No. It's misleading to call it a last resort if the other options were never really options at all. I didn't decide on getting a cat only after I'd exhausted attempts to gain her consent. That would have been a foolish waste of time. I wouldn't try to get consent from a baby, either, because I'm not an idiot.

That is to say, on the ladder of morality it occupies the lowest rung. Doesn't this speak something? Such non-consensual pacts are hovering on the border between what is moral and what is immoral. — TheMadFool

No, it's not sensible to treat all cases as if they were alike. You appealed to the law earlier, and that can be used against you. There's a reason why rape and slavery are crimes, but, all things being equal, keeping pets and making decisions on behalf of toddlers are not. If your argument doesn't work, and people point out why, then you shouldn't simply press ahead regardless.

I think the point of consent is to recognise someone else has desires. Therefore you act towards them as they would desire.

And if you have pet or child you often try to act in their best interest.If you are decent, you treat them in a way you feel they would like to be treated.

The problem for the unborn is you have no idea what their preferences will be so you can't create a person for their own benefit.

I don't think consent is necessarily a moral issue. I am a moral nihilist and I don't think labelling an action good or bad says much. But consent has an actual non value side which is the basic statement that someone didn't consent to be born and you can never make realistic (accountability) judgements if you believe otherwise.

Accountability doesn't have to be moral just a statement of causality such as "you caused this to happen" I think causality in personal affairs is seriously neglected. Accountability is more like a game and fiction and ideology.

We didn't cause ourselves to exist but our parents did.

but if they intend to have a child they consent to take what is given. — John

I don't see how intending to do something is an act of consent.

You could say what you said in a trivial way about every action such as if I kidnap a child I am consenting to take it. (Consenting with myself). If make a coffee I am consenting to make it.


What we are talking about here is a lack of consent. Someone could regret all their actions whilst having agreed within them self to do it.

I can see no scenario where someone from a prelife realm could force them self on a parent. (especially now with the prevalence of contraceptives and abortion.)

For a soul to be responsible for their embodiment they would have to equal or greater power than the parents in ensuring their embodiment (birth). There is currently no evidence for your scenario but lots of evidence of parents creating children through various means unconnected to disembodied souls.

I don't see how intending to do something is an act of consent. — Andrew4Handel

Of course it is. If you decide to do something your are permitting it to happen to you. Giving your permission for something to happen is consent; it need not involve agreeing with another person. If you wanted to be pedantic, you could say that it is assent, not consent. But then would your argument change if I said OK then pre-existing souls might have assented to be born, or if souls do not pre-exist then the idea of them either assenting to or dissenting from being born is incoherent?

I can see no scenario where someone from a prelife realm could force them self on a parent. (especially now with the prevalence of contraceptives and abortion.) — Andrew4Handel

I have corrected you on this several times; I never said or implied that at all. If you keep misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting what I say, then I won't respond .

Of course it is. If you decide to do something your are permitting it to happen to you — John

It's not happening to you, you are making it happen.

If there is a bush on fire you could pour water on it to put the fire out.

Or you could ignore it. Or you could add fuel to the fire.

I don't see an excuse for adding fuel to the fire.

The fact that no one chose to come here (exist) does not mean that you can justify continuing creating people. You didn't start the fire but you can try and put it out.

There has been so much human suffering that to view life as justifiable gift is implausible.

If you decide to take a job, for example, then whatever happens to in that job is only partially under your control. You are just repeating the same feeble objections.

Let's take another tack: If you thought life was, overall, worth living, would you still think it is immoral to procreate? Do you acknowledge that your thought that life is not worth living is nothing more than just that: your thought, your subjective opinion? Do you acknowledge that the majority of people probably would disagree with you; that they would say something like that 'while I acknowledge that life necessarily entails some suffering, overall on balance I think it is well worth living?

Well, actually there are further possibilities: that souls pre-exist bodily life and are forced to be born. But if that is the case then we exist in a diabolical universe; an inherently evil universe. — John

What about the simple and so far only supported scenario that people choose to create children (when they don't need to and this creates more human suffering?)

You seem to be trying to treat parents as exceptionally helpless. The reverse was the case for me. because after being born I had a very restrictive, controlled childhood.

I wouldn't encourage people to see having children as inevitable. That can either lead to them asserting total authority or failing to prevent pregnancy. You can't drive whilst drunk (legally) but you can get pregnant when drunk (or get someone pregnant).

We don't say that drunken people should not by prosecuted for a car accident because they were "non compos mentis". Even when someone gets too drunk to act coherently we try and deter and restrict behaviour. Yet outside on China's one child policy creating children is one of the most unrestricted activities.

Having children also creates more human pleasure, more human creativity and growth. I think you need to acknowledge that your view that life is predominately suffering is an irrational one, probably based on your own negative experiences and perception of your own suffering. You need to realize that you are just one person; other people's lives are different from yours, and you have no rational warrant to pronounce on their value or lack of it.

If you decide to take a job, for example, then whatever happens to in that job is only partially under your control. — John

You can walk out of a job. In most cases when you consent to something you can withdraw consent quite quickly.

Do you acknowledge that your thought that life is not worth living is nothing more than just that: your thought, your subjective opinion? — John

It's my experience.

As I think I said before I don't believe anyone would consent to growing up in abject poverty, or getting burnt alive or being bullied and so on.

Lack of consent is a source of unhappiness in itself. But this world has enough problems to make consent a major issue. It is pointless talking about a world we don't live in because that hypothetical can't be imposed on this world.

Based on your question you seem to be implying that if there was a perfect world we wouldn't need consent therefore we don't need consent now. But that is like saying because someone doesn't mind having lots of money putting in their bank without consent they shouldn't mind being beaten without consent.

You need to realize that you are just one person; other people's lives are different from yours, and you have no rational warrant to pronounce on their value or lack of it. — John

The same can be said to you.

I think people who suffer and people who have to suffer have more credibility in casting value on life.

If there is one person drowning in lake and twenty people enjoying a picnic on the shore who do you pay attention to?

I don't expect other people to suffer so life can go on or be stoical about suffering so as not to upset other peoples idyll.

If I discovered a chemical that when put in the water would cause mass infertility I would have no qualms about doing so.

The same can be said to you. — Andrew4Handel

I don't presume to speak for others; whereas you do, that is the difference. What you say about putting a chemical in water to cause infertility just shows me that you are another thoughtless idiot that wishes to dogmatically impose their views on everyone else. If you were to do what you suggest it would be an unspeakable criminal act.

I think I've said about all I have to say to you

I don't presume to speak for others; whereas you do, that is the difference. What you say about putting a chemical in water to cause infertility just shows me that you are another thoughtless idiot that wishes to dogmatically impose their views on everyone else. If you were to do what you suggest it would be an unspeakable criminal act. — John

You are endorsing the perpetual continuation of human suffering for no good reason. That is a bigger criminal act.

Preventing more suffering is an act of self dense.

You endorse bringing new people into a world with a history of war and genocide, ISIS, people starve every day, a million + suicides a year. Who is the reasonable one?

Of course the OP has a point, and that should be admitted even if we don't agree with him completely.

For one thing, of course life isn't all suffering. It's a combination of alternate good things and bad things. It's like a gamble, except that nearly everyone wins sometimes, often paying a price in suffering and hardship.

So, what you're imposing on your offspring isn't unadulterated misery. Let's be clear about that. It's a gamble, an exciting and risky game. A dangerous adventure. That isn't an unmitigated bad thing.

Sure, it's true that you weren't asked if you wanted to be conceived.

But your hypothetical life possibility-story, one of infinitely-many such possiblility-stories, has you as its protagonist. Presumably a life possibility-story wouldn't have a protagonist who isn't predisposed to life, for some reason. Some need, inclination or other predisposition.

So it can be said that you were born into this life because of your predispositions for life. You're life-Protagonist material. You're someone about whom there can be a life possibility-story.

What if everyone on this planet participated in a boycott on procreation? Would that have kept you from being born? Of course not. Hypothetically there could be a world in which children are born, and you'd have been born there anyway.

So no, it isn't entirely the doing of your parents. You're blaming them unfairly.

If the worst thing that they've done to you is to conceive and bear you, you can consider yourself very fortunate.

There are a lot of parents who have no business being parents, who are quite unqualified to be parents, and they have no right to have children. ...but are regrettably allowed to.

If you want to complain about something, complain about that.

I suggest that not just anyone should be allowed to create children, or to raise them. Ok, sure, who's to decide who's qualified? Yes, but even f there's no one who can be trusted to make that evaluation, the prevention of unqualified parents is still a good idea in principle.

Michael Ossipoff

Or, looking at it evolutionarily, natural-selection makes it so that people who are born have an inclination toward life. Part of what made you was natural selection's influence that made you inclined toward life.

And that was encoded in the genes from which yours were going to be chosen,, even before your own genes were finally determined by your conception.

...in addition to the fact that your conception and birth were inevitable, due to predisposition, as I described.

Michael Ossipoff

Or, looking at it evolutionarily, natural-selection makes it so that people who are born have an inclination toward life. Part of what made you was natural selection's influence that made you inclined toward life.

And that was encoded in the genes from which yours were going to be chosen,, even before your own genes were finally determined by your conception. — Michael Ossipoff

But that's the naturalistic fallacy. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Potentially all future suffering can be prevented if no one procreated. The "supposed" anguish of potential parents in not really an issue being it's just the already-person's problem and not a whole new life with challenges, burdens, thwarted desires, frustrations, harms, structural absurdity-of-life, striving-but-for-nothing, etc. Rather than post-hoc justifying the suffering of a whole new person (or persons), and then justifying it with phrases like "hey, they'll like life and will get through the bad because life itself is somehow inherently good" they can just not have that life in the first place and give any post-hoc justifications.

Your position is just a tiny step away from chaos. If there are no rules, mayhem is inevitable. Besides that...

I still find a problem with the distinction mental vs extramental. Let me try and pin it down.

The sense of morality is based on reason. For example, rape is wrong because it causes pain and deprives the victim of basic human dignity. I don't see how that, the application of logic and reason, is not objective? Logic, by definition, is about following rules of correct thinking, which is the hallmark of objectivity. Your own arguments, based on logic, evidence to the fact that application of reason implies objectivity.

If morality is completely subjective, why do our moral compasses point in one direction on some issues? I say ''some'' because there are cases such as polygamy which are not actually moral problems. Including them within the domain of morality only serves to obscure the objectivity in separating the good from the bad

No. It's misleading to call it a last resort if the other options were never really options at all. — Sapientia

Exactly, you have no choice - that's the definition of ''last resort''. Consider the hypothetical that you have the choice to consult the other party's willingness to participate in a pact. It would be wrong then to think for the other party. But...you would do it, as a last resort. That's an admirable act, sometimes, to risk being wrong but, it's a sin.

The problem for the unborn is you have no idea what their preferences will be so you can't create a person for their own benefit. — Andrew4Handel

That's not true. We have some idea of what they'd likely be based on what we know about the average person. The average person isn't an anti-natalist. The average person would affirm life over death.

If there is a bush on fire you could pour water on it to put the fire out.

Or you could ignore it. Or you could add fuel to the fire.

I don't see an excuse for adding fuel to the fire.

The fact that no one chose to come here (exist) does not mean that you can justify continuing creating people. You didn't start the fire but you can try and put it out. — Andrew4Handel

Another ludicrous analogy.

Having children also creates more human pleasure, more human creativity and growth. I think you need to acknowledge that your view that life is predominately suffering is an irrational one, probably based on your own negative experiences and perception of your own suffering. You need to realize that you are just one person; other people's lives are different from yours, and you have no rational warrant to pronounce on their value or lack of it. — John

Agreed.

Lack of consent is a source of unhappiness in itself. — Andrew4Handel

Not true without qualification. In some cases it is, in some cases it isn't. Rather, it can be.

If there is one person drowning in lake and twenty people enjoying a picnic on the shore who do you pay attention to?

[...]

If I discovered a chemical that when put in the water would cause mass infertility I would have no qualms about doing so. — Andrew4Handel

Then you're crazy, like the person who'd have no qualms about joining those people enjoying the picnic instead of trying to help the drowning person.

For one thing, of course life isn't all suffering. It's a combination of alternate good things and bad things. It's like a gamble, except that nearly everyone wins sometimes, often paying a price in suffering and hardship.

So, what you're imposing on your offspring isn't unadulterated misery. Let's be clear about that. It's a gamble, an exciting and risky game. A dangerous adventure. That isn't an unmitigated bad thing. — Michael Ossipoff

Exactly. That's more or less what I've been saying.

You're as crazy as the person who'd have no qualms about joining those people enjoying the picnic instead of trying to help the drowning person. — Sapientia

Yeah, far crazier I'd say, since he says he would deliberately put an end to the human species if he could. Shit like that reeaally pisses me off.
:-}

Exactly, you have no choice - that's the definition of ''last resort''. — TheMadFool

No, I'd define it differently, in a way which makes more sense, like as being in a situation where you feel you have no choice, because other options have been seriously considered or tried but ultimately given up on.

Consider the hypothetical that you have the choice to consult the other party's willingness to participate in a pact. It would be wrong then to think for the other party. But...you would do it, as a last resort. That's an admirable act, sometimes, to risk being wrong but, it's a sin. — TheMadFool

A hypothetical which is not analogous to what we're talking about, and therefore has no bearing on it, since an unborn baby doesn't have a willingness for or against being born, and consulting the baby isn't a choice.

Another ludicrous analogy. — Sapientia

This is Richard Dawkins take on life apparently.

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

He has an agenda and is cherry picking, like you.

Ok. What would be your first choice between consent and no consent re a relationship with another person?

Ask anyone, barring the psychopath, and they'd invariably like to base their relationships on consent. The other option, no consent, is a last resort because, if anything, it borders on immorality.

I think the well-established practice of making decisions for someone else, unable for some reason to cast his own vote, is sending you off track. It's brain washing. Repeat something long enough and people will think it's ok; even men of God like Moses, Jesus, Muhammad were unable to see the wrongs of slavery.

I agree parents think keeping the best interest of their children, born and unborn, in mind. It's also true that an unborn simply can't give consent. So, the practice of thinking for your children is essentially a contingency measure. It's not moral but we can't help. A necessary evil, so to speak.

He has an agenda and is cherry picking, like you — Sapientia

There's enough suffering on earth to see why people might not consent to come here.

I doubt that insects and a range of other creatures feel pain but nevertheless Dawkins is not an antinatalist and he presents a grim picture of life (which he appears to revel in).

I take umbrage with him and others like him because seemingly in defence of atheism he presents life as terrible, to attack belief in God/s (see Stephen Fry for similar). But then says we should feel lucky to be alive.

Both the religious and key atheists have presented a grim view of life. Religious people say you can transcend life which would be nice if there was evidence for that. But when you realise the religion isn't true the comfort is gone and you are left with the nasty religious behaviour and irrationality.

I had to try and make meaning in my life after leaving religion through trauma. Initially it felt briefly liberating (although I was also depressed). But since I have followed debates between theists and atheists I have found the narrative horrible and some atheists are really pushing for life to be pointless and meaningless and taken a deflationary view of life. Yet both sides are having children whilst no real hope is being offered.

I think both religion and forms of atheism can be very nihilistic. Most human ideologies seem to neglect the individual. Antinatalists have the most sensitivity towards the value of the individual and they don't just seem them as a statistic or construct or tool etc.