I think it is a common mistake to think you can add up pleasure and pain in between groups of people.

Because pleasure and pain are private individual experiences. And experiences are had by one individual not collectively.

If someone is in pain they may take a pain killer. It won't help them if twenty other people take pain killers.

All we have is our own experiences and we are not part of a continuum so invoking majorities is dubious. And having children won't continue your own life.

I need only point out that this goes against your own earlier comment about having no qualms about putting a chemical in the water that would cause mass infertility. — Sapientia

No it doesn't because infertility prevents new people being born who didn't ask to be born, who didn't express a desire to be born and will be imposed on. Infertility only prevents someone else being created.

Reproduction is an act involving three people and only two of them have consented.

My infertility comment was made to express how serious I am on this issue.

It doesn't make sense to me how someone could complain because I groped their arm on the bus or played music really loud near them but then is not allowed to complain about being forced to go through 80+ years of life including unavoidable work and enforced education.

I would much prefer to hear a neighbours loud music or be groped on the arm then spend 15 years in education with other peoples darling monsters.

We also need to discuss specific cases here like conscription in World One where millions of men were sent to their deaths in the dismal trenches, people are coerced into doing a lot of things that are not in their own interests based some screwed up ideologies. That is the norm.

people are coerced into doing a lot of things that are not in their own interests based some screwed up ideologies. That is the norm. — Andrew4Handel

This is the part I really don't get. Why aren't you crusading for responsible parenting, the alleviation of suffering, the end of war, more nurturing forms of education, more meaningful and rewarding employment? Do you believe there's nothing we can do about unnecessary suffering, and that's why we should just pack it in?

Consent is a huge moral and legal issue... — Andrew4Handel

There is no justification for imposing something on someone else based on your own preferences. — Andrew4Handel

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

You asked for it, here it is: a logical refutation. You've clearly contradicted yourself. I've caught you red handed.

I generally make logical arguments, and they're generally excellent - or so I'm told.

I'd said:

But yes, after you posted, I clarified that I agree that any caring person who lives on this planet wouldn't want to reproduce

— Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

That's not true. Lots of caring people on this planet want to reproduce, and lots do.

Yes, when I said that, I didn't really feel right about saying it. It was an exaggeration, and wasn't what I really meant to say.

There's (understandably, due to natural-selection) a strong procreative instinct. And of course yes that's true of caring people too. I'm sure that nearly all procreation is well-intended, and that new people are brought into the world with loving intent.

Instincts caused by natural-selection aren't necessarily desirable or beneficial to others just because they're natural.

I'd said:

So, better that I just say, "Living on a barbaric planet, it's better to not reproduce.", and leave it at that.

— Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

But it isn't accurate to say that we live on a barbaric planet. That kind of thing is relative.

Yes, it's a relative term, so it's something of a matter of opinion--the matter of where we draw the line to call a planet barbaric. I suggest that our planet qualifies with flying colors, because, routinely, so many people (not to mention other animals) are being wrongfully harmed. If that isn't barbarism, what is?

Anyway, we don't live in a world that is so barbaric that it's better not to reproduce.

Well, just speaking for myself, I wouldn't want to bring, into a snake-pit social world like this, someone whom I care about (...and don't people start caring about their offspring even before they're born?).

And, in fact, in a world where people are fighting and dying over resources, and dying because they're doing without, i wouldn't want to add to the number of people in that fight.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Yes, it's a relative term, so it's something of a matter of opinion--the matter of where we draw the line to call a planet barbaric. I suggest that our planet qualifies with flying colors, because, routinely, so many people (not to mention other animals) are being wrongfully harmed. If that isn't barbarism, what is? — Michael Ossipoff

I don't think that that's enough to conclude that we live on a barbaric planet, rather than a planet which contains barbarism, as the barbaric aspects go hand in hand with the civilised aspects. In my day to day life, I encounter people behaving in a more civilised manner than in a more barbaric manner. Throughout the day, if I look around, I observe people maintaining a certain level of respect towards each other, or towards dogs, cats, and birds.

Well, just speaking for myself, I wouldn't want to bring, into a snake-pit social world like this, someone whom I care about (...and don't people start caring about their offspring even before they're born?).

And, in fact, in a world where people are fighting and dying over resources, and dying because they're doing without, I wouldn't want to add to the number of people in that fight. — Michael Ossipoff

If only others would make that important qualification!

That there's a risk of harm is not in itself a good reason not to do something, so there'd have to be a greater reason. We both compared it to gambling, and we both accept that gambling can pay off. Many, many people live lives that they would affirm are worth living, and would also affirm that it is better to have lived and lost than never to have lived at all, to borrow a phrase.

Some things are, in a sense at least, more important than even a lack of vital resources in parts of the world. You only live once, and opportunities do not last indefinitely. I am not encouraging you to have children - I don't want to have children myself - I'm just saying that you should have a good reason, and I think that it should be more of a personal reason than a reason which puts the world over and above one's own interests, since the world will keep on keeping on regardless of whether you do or do not have children, and either way, it would likely be miniscule and inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, if the grand scheme of things is what you care about.

Who needs consent?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4650152/Turkish-boys-circumcised-no-anaesthetic.html

The hallmark of subjectivity is disagreement among people e.g. people like different genres of movie, music, etc. — TheMadFool

You understand that on my view, subjectivity doesn't at all imply disagreement, right?

Pain is defined by being an unpleasant sensation. — Andrew4Handel

Actually it is not, and there are people who like pain although they are a minority.

By that reasoning infamous serial killers would be, shockingly, moral! This you won't concede. — TheMadFool

What if I do? I think they are immoral but that's my opinion, I won't accept that as a fact. Some of those serial killers think they're moral. Societies have opinions on morals but they're not objectively true.

You understand that on my view, subjectivity doesn't at all imply disagreement, right? — Terrapin Station

I don't see how that's possible. Subjectivity is subjectivity IFF there's variety in mental states and, after that, disagreement follows. X likes romance, Y likes comedy, Z likes sci-fi. The preference is subjective and there disagreement.

What I think you're suggesting is that we can all vote for a particular thought/action being moral/immoral. Subjective and no disagreement. However, note that it's not easy to convince people of right/wrong without a good argument and arguments depend on objectivity. There's no such thing as a subjective rationality. They contradict each other.

Yeah, who needs consent?

http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/health-info/forced-sterilization/

↪Andrew4Handel Yeah, who needs consent?

http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/health-info/forced-sterilization/ — Sapientia

Creating a life that can go on for 80+ years of suffering is the greatest imposition.
Preventing people getting pregnant is stopping them victimising others.

I don't see where I said we should ask for consent to everything.

Should I ask a serial killer for his consent before imprisoning him to stop a killing spree?

The point I am making is that we did not consent to be here so nothing is consenting. I compare it strongly to kidnapping. Kidnapping someone then giving them choices is absurd because there whole time spent with you is against their consent. You can't be moral in that scenario.

You are as much a victim as anyone else because you were forced into existence here. You may feel independent and liberated but you were just forced here.

Actually it is not, and there are people who like pain although they are a minority. — BlueBanana

1. highly unpleasant physical sensation caused by illness or injury.
"she's in great pain"
synonyms: suffering, agony, affliction, torture, torment, discomfort, soreness More
2.
mental suffering or distress.
"the pain of loss"
synonyms: sorrow, grief, heartache, heartbreak, sadness, unhappiness, distress, desolation, misery, wretchedness, despair, desperation, mental suffering, emotional suffering, trauma; More

Masochism is a reinterpretation of pain. I doubt anyone likes every pain all the time but rather selective incidence in certain context. Mental distress can lead to self harm as a distraction but this is rather creating the lesser of two evils,

Creating a life that can go on for 80+ years of suffering is the greatest imposition.
Preventing people getting pregnant is stopping them victimising others. — Andrew4Handel

Suffering, imposition, victimising... loaded language. :-d

I don't see where I said we should ask for consent to everything. — Andrew4Handel

Missing the point. :-d

You didn't. That wasn't the point. The point speaks for itself.

Should I ask a serial killer for his consent before imprisoning him to stop a killing spree? — Andrew4Handel

False analogy. :-d

The point I am making is that we did not consent to be here so nothing is consenting. — Andrew4Handel

Non sequitur. :-d

Okay, I am well and truly bored of this. Good day.

I don't see how that's possible. Subjectivity is subjectivity IFF there's variety in mental states and, after that, disagreement follows. X likes romance, Y likes comedy, Z likes sci-fi. The preference is subjective and there disagreement.

What I think you're suggesting is that we can all vote for a particular thought/action being moral/immoral. Subjective and no disagreement. However, note that it's not easy to convince people of right/wrong without a good argument and arguments depend on objectivity. There's no such thing as a subjective rationality. They contradict each other. — TheMadFool

So you don't really understand my view then. It's difficult to have a conversation under those conditions.

I’d said:

Yes, it's a relative term, so it's something of a matter of opinion--the matter of where we draw the line to call a planet barbaric. I suggest that our planet qualifies with flying colors, because, routinely, so many people (not to mention other animals) are being wrongfully harmed. If that isn't barbarism, what is? — Michael Ossipoff

You wrote:

I don't think that that's enough to conclude that we live on a barbaric planet, rather than a planet which contains barbarism…

But it isn’t just some violent people here and there, or the occasional isolated Charlie Manson. Without my going into details or naming names, you know what I mean when I say that the barbarism and brutality are systemic, systematic, official, and routine on this planet, and a high percentage of the planet’s inhabitants are its victims.

The fact that only some (large) percentage of the population are its victims isn’t enough to make it not be a planetary attribute, something that negatively characterizes the planetary societal situation.

, as the barbaric aspects go hand in hand with the civilised aspects.

But doesn’t that make it worse, that it’s the civilization’s rulers who are routinely perpetrating the barbarism worldwide?

In my day to day life, I encounter people behaving in a more civilised manner than in a more barbaric manner. Throughout the day, if I look around, I observe people maintaining a certain level of respect towards each other, or towards dogs, cats, and birds.

Most people don’t act badly in their interactions with their nearby neighbors. They say that even Hitler was kind to his dog.

But when the barbarism is so systemic and systematic, mustn’t the social merit of a planet be judged by the plight of the large groups, the large numbers of people, who are the victims of the systematic barbarism perpetrated by the civilization on a worldwide scale?

A famous person once said, “What you do to the least of them, you do to me.”

I’d said

Well, just speaking for myself, I wouldn't want to bring, into a snake-pit social world like this, someone whom I care about (...and don't people start caring about their offspring even before they're born?).

And, in fact, in a world where people are fighting and dying over resources, and dying because they're doing without, I wouldn't want to add to the number of people in that fight. — Michael Ossipoff

That there's a risk of harm is not in itself a good reason not to do something

Of course. That’s why we’re here. Yes, that’s what I was telling the OP.

I just meant that I wouldn’t want to personally have a role as even part of the mechanism of putting someone in this particular world, even if such births are inevitable, or even right for some reason, anyway.

, so there'd have to be a greater reason. We both compared it to gambling, and we both accept that gambling can pay off. Many, many people live lives that they would affirm are worth living, and would also affirm that it is better to have lived and lost than never to have lived at all, to borrow a phrase.

All of that’s true, which is why my criticism of procreation doesn’t apply to people living in a better societal-world. I emphasized that I was talking about a planetary aberration, not a general conclusion about life itself.

I suggest that being someone about whom there could be a life possibility-story means being someone with some predisposition to life, wanting or needing life, in some way—even if, for whatever reason, that life has to be in this Land of the Lost that is our planet.

In fact, maybe in some instances, someone’s predisposition is for life in the Land of the Lost. I mean, we’re all here, aren’t we.

But that doesn’t mean that I’d want to be the reason why a loved-one of mine has to negotiate life in the Land of the Lost.

If someone needs life, even on this planet, they’ll be born, maybe here. I just don’t want to be part of how it happened. And, on an immediate personal level, I don’t want a loved-one of mine to suffer after being brought into this world by me.

Some things are, in a sense at least, more important than even a lack of vital resources in parts of the world. You only live once, and opportunities do not last indefinitely.

Opportunities here can be gone before we know what’s going on.

I am not encouraging you to have children - I don't want to have children myself - I'm just saying that you should have a good reason, and I think that it should be more of a personal reason than a reason which puts the world over and above one's own interests, since the world will keep on keeping on regardless of whether you do or do not have children, and either way, it would likely be miniscule and inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, if the grand scheme of things is what you care about.

Quite so. I don’t have any influence over the fact that births, including births here, are inevitable. I just don’t personally want to be even part of the agency by which someone is born in this world.

Michael Ossipoff

Ok, let's talk within the assumption that generally pain is a negative thing. Then why is avoiding negative things and harming others objectively bad thing? Even doing something because one has motive to is rational only subjectively.

Reproduction is an act involving three people and only two of them have consented. — Andrew4Handel

Not unless it's a threesome and even then this sentence is logically circumspect.

Ok, let's talk within the assumption that generally pain is a negative thing. Then why is avoiding negative things and harming others objectively bad thing? Even doing something because one has motive to is rational only subjectively. — BlueBanana

It is not that pain is negative or bad, but that it is defined by its unpleasantness.

Lack of consent and pain are real things not opinions.

A morality will be incoherent if you don't distinguish between harm and the good or consent and lack of consent and because life is created without consent and entails harm then you cannot have a coherent morality demanding that people require consent and should not harm.

So the only option is moral nihilism which essentially undermines everyone and does not favour any action. Once you try and create a morality based on consent and harm you have already undermined that by reproducing.

If someone is dying of cancer then moral sentiment won't keep them alive. Moral sentiment is cheap and subservient to facts.

It is not that pain is negative or bad, but that it is defined by its unpleasantness. — Andrew4Handel

And unpleasantness as a word itself implies you consider that to be negative.

Lack of consent and pain are real things not opinions. — Andrew4Handel

Of course, but their negativity (or rather its negativity, but this is off-topic) is an opinion.

So the only option is moral nihilism — Andrew4Handel

No, because nihilism is different from pure and absolute subjectivism. Besides, nihilism (and maybe subjectivism that only rejects moral theories, not morals) is the only stance on morals that is fully supported by logic and facts and you don't have any argument that disproves it as a valid theory, just that I'm making moral decisions which you can't prove.

Lack of consent and pain are real things not opinions. — Andrew4Handel

This doesn't make any sense to me. It seems like either you'd consider lack of consent, pain, AND opinions real things, or you'd not consider any of them real.

Put it this way: consent or lack of it, pain and opinions are all mental phenomena.

So either you consider mental phenomena real or you do not.

A morality will be incoherent if you don't distinguish between harm and the good or consent and lack of consent and because life is created without consent and entails harm then you cannot have a coherent morality demanding that people require consent and should not harm.

So the only option is moral nihilism which essentially undermines everyone and does not favour any action. Once you try and create a morality based on consent and harm you have already undermined that by reproducing. — Andrew4Handel

Morality doesn't have to be focused on harm, suffering, etc. Those need not be hinges or criteria for any moral stances. Many people <waves hand> find those terms far too vague to be of use in fueling moral stances.

And one need not be a moral objectivist to espouse moral stances. One can recognize that moral stances emanate from individuals and embrace that contra the category error of believing that they occur extramentally.

Lack of consent and pain are real things not opinions.
— Andrew4Handel

Of course, but their negativity (or rather its negativity, but this is off-topic) is an opinion. — BlueBanana

As I said pain is defined by is unpleasantness. I didn't say it was defined by it's negativity.

If you go to the doctors or dentist they often say "Does that hurt?" or "where does it hurt?"
People rarely if ever go to the doctor saying "I have a lovely pain in my knee I would like you to treat it"

You seem to be saying that private experiences (which is all we have) are values when they are not.

So either you consider mental phenomena real or you do not. — Terrapin Station

Mental phenomena are all we have access to. Phenomena outside of the mind are described in shifting models by physics.

Consent is not an opinion but an observation that X appeared not to consent to Y.

Even if you are most staunchly "Pro-life" there is no coherent to way to say someone created themselves and or consented to be created. We discussed the pre soul scenario but even there it is hard to imagine how someone could be argued to have communicated a desire to a parent.

Yet a huge amount hinges on this lack of consent, for how we shape society and apportion blame, including the luck of birth.

Someone born into poverty or relative poverty is disadvantaged and a child of a millionaire etc has privileges but they may be disadvantaged in other ways by inheritance. Children are not to blame for their parents,their genes, their race and gender etc but these heavily impact them.

A child with caring and financially supportive, encouraging parents has done nothing to deserve that. The only person that can be held accountable for creating someones traits and circumstances is a parent.

As I said pain is defined by is unpleasantness. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, and unpleasantness's negativity is subjective.

Yes, and unpleasantness's negativity is subjective. — BlueBanana

That doesnt make sense. How could we have words like pain and unpleasant if there was no inherent negativity?

And when you see a starving child or someone else clearly in pain or suffering in what way is that subjective? Part of empathy and theory of mind is accurately imaging the experiences or intent underlying people's body language and statements.

Objective to us humans doesn't mean the same as objective.

Your reply seemed to completely blow by what I was interested in. You're considering lack of consent, pain and opinions to be very different things apparently, in terms of whether they're real or not. Why?