Well, we can reopen that conversation if you insist, but I really want you to understand the general post I made above first.

You can't care that much about frustrating the will of another being, otherwise you'd set aside the trivial exception of the time in which there is not yet a being, and instead consider a little further down the line when there will be a being, and a being with a will that'll inevitably be frustrated from time to time. — Sapientia

It's not trivial. You can't harm the non-existent. Therefore, no wrongdoing has occurred.

Believing that there is no good reason to have children is practically anti-natalism, if not technically. — Sapientia

No, it's not. Did you really read my post above? The most common definition of anti-natalism is that it is the position that assigns a negative value to birth. So having children is morally wrong according to it. Not being convinced of any reasons for X is not to claim that X is morally wrong. If you don't understand the difference here, then it's futile for me to keep responding.

Did you mean everyone or anyone? — Sapientia

I'm not seeing any semantic difference between the two.

It's not trivial. You can't harm the non-existent. Therefore, no wrongdoing has occurred. — Thorongil

Merely repeating that which I've already acknowledged is pointless, and your denial is without explanation. How is it not trivial in light of what will be the case as a result?(Which, in accordance with your own implicit premises, entails harm (and therefore wrongdoing) to that which exists - namely a being). It's incredibly shortsighted not to take that into consideration.

I'm not seeing any semantic difference between the two. — Thorongil

I'm not surprised.

Merely repeating that which I've already acknowledged is pointless, and your denial is without explanation. How is it not trivial in light of the fact that the contrary will be the case, according to your own reasoning, as a result? It's incredibly shortsighted not to take that into consideration. — Sapientia

Look, I'm not a consequentialist, despite what appears to be your attempts here to make me one. I don't judge the moral worth of an action based on the consequences of the action. I've given you my criterion for judging the moral worth of an action, and based on it, I cannot judge procreation to be wrong. There's nothing more for me to say.

I'm not surprised. — Sapientia

So enlighten me.

Look, I'm not a consequentialist, despite what appears to be your attempts here to make me one. I don't judge the moral worth of an action based on the consequences of the action. I've given you my criterion for judging the moral worth of an action, and based on it, I cannot judge procreation to be wrong. There's nothing more for me to say. — Thorongil

Why not? Seems like a cop out. Is there nothing wrong, in your view, with poisoning someone, if doing so does no immediate harm?

So enlighten me. — Thorongil

If everyone (as opposed to anyone) were to have a child, and especially if they were to have more than one, then that might, for example, raise concerns about overpopulation. And because of that, it might be considered irrational. But I don't think that that was what you were getting at. I think that you meant to claim that the principle applies universally, rather than address the hypothetical scenario of everyone having children. If so, then you meant "anyone", and not "everyone" in that sentence.

I would also claim that it's irrational for anyone to have at least one child; not just myself.

That's what I thought you meant.

Why not? Seems like a cop out. Is there nothing wrong, in your view, with poisoning someone, if doing so does no immediate harm? — Sapientia

Poisoning is undoubtedly wrong, once again because it deliberately frustrates the will of another being.

That's what I thought you meant. — Sapientia

Yes.

Poisoning is undoubtedly wrong, once again because it deliberately frustrates the will of another being. — Thorongil

You're missing the point, it seems. My example was specifically about cases of poisoning which do not frustrate the will of another being - not immediately, but later on, as a consequence. You must also commit to the claim that that sort of poisoning is also not wrong, otherwise you're being inconsistent and special pleading in the case of procreation. Intentional procreation also knowingly and inevitably leads to the frustration of the will of another being. Who has a child without being aware of that fact? No one literally believes that life is perfect and without frustration.

So, once again, you're in a lose/lose situation: you're forced into a dilemma in which you must either forgo logical consistency or forgo plausibility. (Actually, I think that you've already foregone plausibility, but the poisoning analogy emphasises this).

My example was specifically about cases of poisoning which do not frustrate the will of another being — Sapientia

This is oxymoronical. You can only poison people who exist, whether the effects are immediate or not. You can't poison or harm in any way that which does not exist. Note also that the harm I'm talking about here is metaphysical, as I said in a previous post: it affects the will of a person. You can deny someone's will without harming them physically. In the case of poisoning someone, it doesn't matter when the effects take place, for if poisoning is inconsonant with the person's will to live, then wrongdoing has occurred.

This is oxymoronical. You can only poison people who exist, whether the effects are immediate or not. You can't poison or harm in any way that which does not exist. Note also that the harm I'm talking about here is metaphysical, as I said in a previous post: it affects the will of a person. You can deny someone's will without harming them physically. In the case of poisoning someone, it doesn't matter when the effects take place, for if poisoning is inconsonant with the person's will to live, then wrongdoing has occurred. — Thorongil

I suspected that that would be your response: denying that there can be cases in which poisoning does not (immediately) frustrate the will of another being. It is not oxymoronical in the sense in which I meant it, and in which it would normally be interpreted, but you might not be using the word "will" in this way. And my point was obviously not that that which doesn't exist can be poisoned or harmed, so I don't know why you're wasting time pointing that out. I'm talking about one being poisoning another being without the latter's knowledge. Think of two (living) adults. Rather, I was attempting to show that you'd have to maintain that that sort of poisoning isn't wrong.

The verb "will" usually denotes a conscious intention or desire, and so in the poisoning example, if one is not conscious of anything which will negatively effect one's will to continue living, then it hasn't been frustrated, and it would not be frustrated as an immediate result of the act of poisoning (of which one is not yet aware), but possibly later on, when the effects of the poison kick in and do harm - likely both mental and physical.

It's not clear to me what you mean. How does this "will to live" differ from continued living? The act of poisoning - at least in cases of severe poisoning - clearly puts at risk the likelihood of continued living, even if one is unaware. I'm not sure where "will" factors in though. Do you mean that there is some sort of force or telos to live? Because that strikes me as a fanciful notion, unless it is reduced to, and backed up by, science and/or psychology.

And, by the way, you are in fact a consequentialist, because you're basing your judgements on whether or not this will to live is effected as a consequence. I just don't get why you don't extend this reasoning to include acts which will effect one's will to live, but do not presently effect one's will to live (on account of there not yet being someone who has a will to be effected, in the case of procreational acts) - unless, that is, you have an agenda. You've been evasive when I've questioned this. I questioned how the short-term consequence isn't trivial in light of the long-term consequence, and you evaded my question. I questioned why you don't take long-term consequences into consideration, and you ignored my question.

but you might not be using the word "will" in this way. — Sapientia

I'm probably not. But see, I can tell from this post of yours that you are intent on arguing with me for its own sake. My intention, by contrast, was merely to explain a new label I apply to myself, one which involves various presuppositions. I suppose I could try to challenge the straw men you create for my presuppositions above, but I also must confess that I have no interest in doing so because of the very deep and long rabbit holes it will take us down. Since one of your presuppositions seems to be positivism, it would likely be futile anyway.

But see, I can tell from this post of yours that you are intent on arguing with me for its own sake. — Thorongil

There's a lot of that going around these days.

I'm probably not. — Thorongil

You're probably not? What kind of answer is that? You either are or you aren't. How can you not be sure? Don't you know what you're talking about? And if you aren't using it that way, then did you not think that it'd be helpful to clarify the way in which you are using it?

But see, I can tell from this post of yours that you are intent on arguing with me for its own sake. — Thorongil

You can tell no such thing. Do not presume to know my intent.

I suppose I could try to challenge the straw men you create for my presuppositions above, but I also must confess that I have no interest in doing so because of the very deep and long rabbit holes it will take us down. — Thorongil

Another disappointing cop out. In the absence of a clear position from yourself, I addressed in parts of my post what I thought could be your position. If they don't in fact represent your position, then I would expect you to clarify what is and isn't representative of your position, or at least clarify your position without specifically going over these alleged straw men.

Since one of your presuppositions seems to be positivism[...]. — Thorongil

It is not.

You're probably not? What kind of answer is that? — Sapientia

It means just what it says; that I am likely operating under a different understanding of the term than you are.

And if you aren't using it that way, then did you not think that it'd be helpful to clarify the way in which you are using it? — Sapientia

No, and for the reason I already gave.

You can tell no such thing. Do not presume to know my intent. — Sapientia

Ooh, what a tough guy. So you're not just trying to argue with me for the hell of it? Do you have a genuine interest and curiosity about me and what I believe? I find that hard to believe, especially in light of the fact that I don't much care what you believe. We're just two schmucks on an Internet forum. The truth about any given topic discussed is probably not ever going to be reached and so I post mainly to while away the time. Perhaps your intentions are much grander and purer, but I doubt it.

n the absence of a clear position from yourself, I addressed in parts of my post what I thought could be your position. — Sapientia

For what purpose? I don't think it's necessary for me to explain the entire philosophical system to which I subscribe just to show you why I apply one specific label to myself.

It is not. — Sapientia

No? You wrote: "that strikes me as a fanciful notion, unless it is reduced to, and backed up by, science and/or psychology." Sounds like a form of positivism to me.

I have concluded that you're not worth the bother. Not unless you change your attitude, at least. It's bad form to question my intent - not to mention irrelevant. It's a type of ad hominem that I won't put up with. If you genuinely wanted to discuss your position and my criticism of it, then I don't believe that you would've acted as you have done. And if you don't want to do so, then it'd be a waste of both of our time to continue this discussion. Your evasion of much of my criticism and refusal to clarify your position has made me suspicious.

A wise decision.

I've been thinking about this whole antinatalism thing recently.

First, I don't know if it is really necessary to be actively opposed to birth (or, really, any position for that matter), unless of course one has the passion and dedication to do so.

Second, as I've argued elsewhere, there is no need to be a moral vigilante regarding birth because we live in a society that values liberty, and thus we must understand that there are limits in what a person can do. Furthermore, it is entirely unclear that, with most philosophical positions, that this debate is over.

On Futurama society crumbled at the advent of sex robots, because impressing the opposite sex was the reason anyone did anything, and without a need for that, people didn't see a good enough reason to bother. I wonder if that was completely off the mark. I think that contrary to what people often assert, that porn makes people more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior, or be rapists, that it makes people more likely to not even bother with attempting to have real relationships. People that find social interaction difficult and stressful can get their inter-personal, and sexual fixes on the net, and need not deal with real human beings -- and of course everything I do is just, right, and the best thing anyone can do, so I must justify it as the best, or most moral option.

I'm by no means a social butterfly, and find people incredibly stressful too. I always wanted to have a good romantic relationship though, and someday have a family. I thought I was in love with someone last year, or convinced myself that I was for awhile -- things didn't work out, but it was still some great memories. I dated immediately afterwords, in kind of a rebound phase, but just wasn't feeling it, so haven't since, but I'll try to put myself back out there this summer.

Life is hard, and often miserable, so why demonize one of its few pleasures?

Life is hard, and often miserable, so why demonize one of its few pleasures? — Wosret

The issue is not sex per se or the pleasure that comes from it, but reproduction. It would be naive not to be wary of the connection between the two, but with the wonders of modern science, we're capable of having children without fucking (all the pain of childbirth with none of the pleasure, I suppose).

And the focus on reproduction is obvious: without it, there is no life, which even a natalist in his weaker (clearer?) moments will point out is miserable, as you just did.

Yes, I unabashedly point out that life is drama and misery, and that is precisely what makes it so great, interesting, and worth living. The depression in the western world as opposed to the third world is a product of comfort, routine, and security. People read and watch fiction which is all about drama and conflict, and the "living happily ever after" is at the end, and never a story worth telling. If we come back to those characters, it will be because paradise gets interrupted, and some new interesting conflict and drama has befallen them.

All we want to hear about on the news is violence, grit, and drama, maybe capped off with a cute puppy. Paradise, without conflict drama and misery would be insufferably boring, and then it would be time for mass extinction. While there's still interesting conflicts afoot, it's worth sticking around.

Although I agree that in some cases the first world natives are too posh and delicate, it would seem that drama and pain, particularly drama, makes life worth living so long as you are not participating in the drama or misery.

We love and are entertained by music, television shows/movies, video games, literature, and even advertisements/propaganda that deifies the hero. We love conflict and drama, so long as we are not actually participating in it. We love watching war movies, but actually being in the scenario of the war movie would suck major. Some of us enjoy playing video games that worship the hero and paint violence, conflict, misery, and drama in an interesting light; it basically acts as a distraction to keep us from twiddling our thumbs out of boredom. But throw any one of us in such a scenario, and I can guarantee that only the psychopaths are the ones that will not want to immediately leave.

Basically, we require a heroic narrative, a story of success, triumph, and glory to continue to live.

Nah, it's wish fulfillment. We identify with, and live vicariously through the hero, they're us. The problem is that war isn't glorious like it is in the movies, and comic book villains, don't exist in real life. Real life drama is messier, the hero (us) doesn't always win, and our enemies are just human beings not much different than us. Real life is complex, doesn't have an over-arching plot, and there often are no satisfactory resolutions. Being cognizant of this, too cosmopolitan, to careful, and sympathetic -- too doubtful of resolution narratives and the righteousness of our causes, and evilness of our oppositions takes the steam out of the real thing. No righteous warriors with good enemies are ever bored, or unhappy.

We do desperately want to be involved, and play it out in fiction and fantasy, but simply lack the resolve, naivety, ignorance, and self-assuredness to play it out for reals. We don't want to be wrong, be the villain, fail, and risk ourselves in that way.

That's why you should latch onto your causes, fight bitterly their oppositions, never listen to anyone over forty -- and you'll never be bored again.

To a point, living on the edge is fun. Being an Absurd (wo)man can be exciting and rebellious.

But sooner or later, and often more than expected, you get knocked down and disappointed, if not seriously hurt. It takes all the fun out of the game.

It doesn't have to be fun, it just has to be interesting. Disappointment is a by product of expectations. Have lower expectations, be more easily pleased.

It can be difficult to lower one's expectations to the point where they aren't expectations at all and still be pleased by a result. I agree the being prepared for disappointment will make the disappointment less annoying, but it does not give someone pleasure or satisfaction. I just gives them a feeling of disillusionment.

And making something interesting does not take away the pain of some situations.

Pain is preferable to boredom. An experiment was done were people were locked away for 15 minutes without distractions, with only the option to shock themselves, and half of people did it. That was only within fifteen minutes.

It can be difficult to lower one's expectations indeed, particularly when they can't even conceive of the idea, and view it as tantamount to just expecting their over-blow expectations to never be fulfilled. The point is that lower expectations are easier to achieve, as in, your life will then be full of success.

A lot of pain is not preferable to boredom, I would assume.

If you have to actually temper your hopes and expectations for something less than adequate, it makes this whole thing seem quite pathetic.

I personally have never experienced that level of pain. Calk it up to personal thresholds, I guess.

It's called being reasonable. If you want to call being an unreasonable loser less pathetic than a reasonable winner, that's up to you.

Calk it up to personal thresholds, I guess. — Wosret

That, or just luck.

What I'd consider a lot of pain, and what you'd consider a lot of pain are like Wittgenstein's beetles -- they're private, and something we can't share with one another. You can think I'm spoiled, and I can think you're weak, but I'd rather take that back, and just say that my disposition differs.

Agreed.