Well said, I have no counter arguments but will add to your comment that using this kind of antinatalism to reduce population would also create economic issues.

Most likely various adversary countries would see it (or already see it) as opportunity to expand population by settling low fertility areas or areas that would introduce such antinatalism.

THIS WAS SITTING IN DRAFTS. IM NOT ENTIRELY STANDING BEHIND A LOT OF THIS

Suffering itself involves emotions, physical states and psychological reactions to those states, so bringing emotion into it isn’t a non-sequitor. — Fire Ologist

This is true, but where we are dealing with non-existent people this is not relevant other than to assign a position to oneself as a result of their emotional reaction to whatever proposition..

But in all of the above scenarios, in your quote, there are already existing victims of the harm. — Fire Ologist

There are clearly not. There are potential victims. This is why the analogy holds, for the most part. And taking this straight to your conclusion of "no playgrounds", yes, that's right, but antinatalists don't confuse the issue:
No humans. Not not playgrounds. Let the people who exist use hte playground, for reasons your point out that would make the "no playgrounds" conclusion stupid as heck. That said, it seems fairly clear that's not hte intention. THe intention is to leave the playground (world)as is, and remove the potential sufferer as it is (on this account) an unavoidable consequence of being one.

But the rest isn’t fairly arguable? — Fire Ologist

Could be. But I found this to be the sore red thumb of the lot, so figure best to tackle this first.

I might not only have to be an antinatalist, I might have to be an anti-hydrationist, because giving a thirsty person a glass of water, is like giving birth to a new person. — Fire Ologist

While i understand the avenue you're taking here, it's not apt.
Procreating is not analogous to maintainence of life. If someone is alive, there's a consequence to doing nothing. Not so around procreation. There is a neutral, or a positive (i.e nothing, or a new person (capable of suffering)).

And no need to consider what other things we cause by not procreating? As long as we don’t inflict suffering we will be doing good in this world, be good for this world - not arguable? — Fire Ologist

No. This isn't relevant in any way. We're starting at zero. If the position is that people must procreate I can only laugh. I don't see another conclusion there, if you want to establish a 'wrong' in not procreating.

Getting a little emotive here, which you criticized me for above. — Fire Ologist

Not at all. I would guess if it's making you uncomfortable, i could repeat those comments :P
The point here, is that most people are "wrong" about hte quality of their life. Do you seriously think that isn't a reasonable inference, ignoring emotionality?

And why are happiness and/or purpose, as you frame the delusion, the only counters to suffering? If you are (as I would put it) deluded into thinking life is, on balance, suffering, then you would reject anyone who viewed any life as on balance, not suffering. Screw purpose. I’m enjoying just trying to argue with you here. — Fire Ologist

Here's some meat. IFF I am deluded in that way, then yes I would. I, currently, have zero reason to think so and plenty of good reason to think the opposite. I can note all the happiness and purpose in my life without having to ignore what I think is a good, logical conclusion about my life. It is, overall, a waste of time.

Antinatalism analogized to, ironically, a life guard, keeping people out of the dangerous waters. That’s backwards. Antinatalism would eliminate the lives to guard, not merely keep lives on the land to live safely. A lifeguard would inflict a riddance of the ocean to those safely on land, not a riddance of living, like antinatalism would. — Fire Ologist

That is not the analogy at all. The analogy would be to God if anything. God removing people because they suffer too much in the face of his arguably more important creation - the Ocean. But this is a little silly. An Antinatalist would call both analogies dumb and just say "Why can't you take the metaphor as the metaphor instead of reading other things into it?"

Living is simply different than suffering and cannot be summarized as only suffering. — Fire Ologist

Antinatalists don't do so. Not quite sure how to respond, in this case.

Bottom line to me, in a raw, physicalist sense, life is prior to suffering — Fire Ologist

I don't disagree. But it hasn't anything to say about antinatalism.

Antinatalism isn’t just a tidy little syllogism categorized as ethics. It’s an act in the world, and an against life, which is procreative. Against suffering on paper, but inflicted upon all human life in action. — Fire Ologist

I really don't know what you could mean here. Life is plenty of things - overwhelmingly: suffering. It is not right to procreate in the face of that fact (on my account). It goes no deeper than that. All of the other fluff obviously exists. It has nothing to do with the arguments, as i see them.

Mother Nature made use of suffering to fashion we species of ethical monkeys, only so that we could end the infliction of Her suffering on us and call it “good ethics.” Seems potentially delusional to have out smarted Mother Nature and her sufffering ways called “life.” With our “ethics” no less. — Fire Ologist

This anthropomorphizing of nature seems delusional to me. I'm unsure how to approach it, given that take. There is no 'intention' behind nature. We're not acting 'against' anything by not having children. We have a choice, and to me, it's a clear one. To you, either not so, or the 'other' choice.

What can the antinatalist do with the new fetus? Can they abort it?

If they can abort it, it must not be a person, because I would think the rule is that it is not ethical to kill another innocent person. That’s worse than inflicting suffering. — Fire Ologist

This is very interesting and you've picked up on a couple of conceptual issues that I think probably sort of float around among antinatalists without any real answers. For me, the antinatalist can abort. Should abort. But this is in line with most other reasonable takes on abortion: Up to a point. I'm not willing to commit to a timeframe, but its obvious at some stage a fetus can 'experience' and prior to that, go for gold.

The antinataliat who doesn’t think a fetus is a person and who supports abortion would have to agree with the following: it is unethical to cause a sperm and an egg to form a fetus because that would be inflicting suffering on another person, but is it ok to kill the fetus after it is formed because a newly conceived fetus isn’t a person.

Doesn’t an antinataliat have to be an anti-abortionist to lay out a consistent treatment of future people we do not want to inflict things upon? — Fire Ologist

Few points here:

1. They would not have to agree. A zygote is not a person. The coming together of a sperm and an egg is not what leads to suffering. Though, most antinatalists probably would recommnd avoiding this.
2. To - some - degree, i get what you're saying. But 'future people' is a bit ambiguous here. A fetus which could survive outside the womb is probably already a person. Prior to that, you're still int he realm of "whether or not" in terms of making a choice, to my mind.

To - some - degree, i get what you're saying. — AmadeusD

Mission accomplished.

This anthropomorphizing of nature seems delusional — AmadeusD

Really? You don’t use metaphors to make the text more interesting? Ok if you think that’s “delusional” of me how about simply:

Arising by the necessity of chemistry on earth, life began. This led to animals, which by the natural necessity of evolution led to animals on land, which by necessity led to humans, which by necessity led to logic and ethics, which by necessity led to antinatalism, which, if practiced well, necessarily leads to the end of all of this living necessity (at least of the ethical kind). The natural evolution of ethics in the world was necessary so that ethics could be ended by these ethical animals.

Basically, all the rest of the living things by necessity procreate, as procreation is part of the very life that has now spit out ethics, and our ethics is to end life itself, unlike every other natural, necessitated living thing. Seems like natural necessity gone astray because of our “ethics”. Or, just

overwhelmingly: suffering. — AmadeusD

seems like it’s based on a preoccupation with suffering too much maybe?

Not quite sure how to respond, in this case. — AmadeusD

But it hasn't anything to say about antinatalism. — AmadeusD

I really don't know what you could mean here. — AmadeusD

Can I use these statements too? In response to the other things you said? :razz:

The analogy would be to God if anything. God removing people because they suffer too much in the face of his arguably more important creation - the Ocean. — AmadeusD

What?

most people are "wrong" about hte quality of their life. — AmadeusD

Wow. Philosopher king hath spoken to the little suffering people. Is anyone ever “wrong” when they judge what is right or wrong about the quality of OTHER PEOPLE’s lives? Maybe wrong anbout some of the “most people”? Isn’t it THEIR lives? It’s none of my business to say your life is suffering, just like it’s none of your business to say my life is anything. Maybe “most antinataliats are wrong about the quality of their lives.” Possible? Killing off all procreation might be a little rash?

The coming together of a sperm and an egg is not what leads to suffering. Though, most antinatalists probably would recommnd avoiding this. — AmadeusD

So by procreation, you have to mean conceiving, growing the fetus, giving birth and feeding/caring for a new person. So it is wrong to “procreate” in this sense because only after some or all of these steps has suffering been inflicted on a person. Not just conception. This way, conceiving a fetus isn’t yet procreating, and we can kill the fetus if we want, without inflicting suffering. But then, a man could have sex and conceive many fetuses and never brake the rule of antinatalism. It is only the woman alone who can complete the steps it takes to inflict the suffering of procreation. The man inflicts a fetus that can be killed on a woman (or maybe inflicts is harsh, but antinatalists know how to read “inflicts” between the lines), but only the woman chooses not to kill it and inflicts suffering on a new person, eventually. Right? To be consistent with the notion procreation inflicts suffering, much harder for men to break the antinatalist rules? If ever?

Arising by the necessity of chemistry on earth, life began. This led to animals, which by the natural necessity of evolution led to animals on land, which by necessity led to humans, which by necessity led to logic and ethics, which by necessity led to antinatalism, which, if practiced well, necessarily leads to the end of all of this living necessity (at least of the ethical kind). The natural evolution of ethics in the world was necessary so that ethics could be ended by these ethical animals.

Basically, all the rest of the living things by necessity procreate, as procreation is part of the very life that has now spit out ethics, and our ethics is to end life itself, unlike every other natural, necessitated living thing. Seems like natural necessity gone astray because of our “ethics”. Or, just — Fire Ologist

Don't know what the other person would say, but your use of "necessity" here is the problem. Necessity is being used in some ethical fashion. We aren't "necessitated" in an ethical way by any natural logos or impulse. Meta-ethically, we at least act as if we have the freedom of deliberation, so I am not sure your point. We have no fidelity to "evolution", "the chemistry on earth" or anything else. That is a weird reification to me.

Maybe wrong anbout some of the “most people”? Isn’t it THEIR lives? It’s none of my business to say your life is suffering, just like it’s none of your business to say my life is anything. — Fire Ologist

Interesting enough, this is partly the basis for deontologically, why it would be wrong to decide for another that they should suffer. It isn't your business to determine that for someone else :D.

But besides this, empirically-speaking there is solid ground to stand on in regards to Pollyannaism. That is to say, we often have very unpleasant experiences in the present that we often smooth away later with our cherry-picked and more subdued memories of the unpleasant experience. This leads to a false estimation of each event in the moment as opposed to the events in hindsight which throws off later reported evaluations of good and bad. Or, even worse, trying to compress all experiences in an evaluation later on, not pulling apart each individual events negative experience as lived.

That is a weird reification to me. — schopenhauer1

Antinatalism is a weird reification of being ethical, of the “good” as in a good choice being choosing not to inflict life with its suffering.

we often have very unpleasant experiences in the present that we often smooth away later with our cherry-picked and more subdued memories of the unpleasant experience. — schopenhauer1

Then we often have pleasant experiences in the present that we rough up later with our cherry-picked and more subdued memories of the pleasant experience. That’s all psychology.

All of this interestingly points out that no one can judge another’s suffering, or that they are suffering at all.

It is false to say life is insufferable. Just way too much whining about the day you stubbed your toe. Way too much discounting of the day you saw someone you love happy and laughing, or laughter itself.

It is false to say we are never right to inflict suffering. Just not a tailored ethic anyone could ever follow. We can follow a rule to not steal. We can not lie or murder. But never inflict any suffering?? We would need to not ask anyone to ever do anything. We couldn’t tell someone we loved them for fear this would burden them and increase their suffering. Teaching someone about antinatalism could inflict tremendous suffering on them - the meaning of life and all their plans dashed because they involved a family and kids. It is NOT true that “Happiness is not obligatory, whereas preventing suffering is.” Neither happiness nor preventing suffering are obligatory. You reify your ability to reduce suffering, and the ethical rule that tells you this is the highest good.

Antinatalism is a weird reification of being ethical, of the “good” as in a good choice being choosing not to inflict life with its suffering. — Fire Ologist

That's not reification. Reification is this:

Reification is when you think of or treat something abstract as a physical thing. Reification is a complex idea for when you treat something immaterial — like happiness, fear, or evil — as a material thing. — Vocabulary.com

In your case, you were treating nature/necessity as something which we need to have fidelity for.

In the case of AN, there is no necessity of nature being appealed to. The ethic itself isn't a reification, simply a weighted value (against causing suffering). You can question that value, but that is not reifying an abstract thing into something more concrete. Nature's evolutionary aspect has no ethical component to it, and to pretend it does, would be a reification. Similarly, if you said "good exists in the world like a chair exists in the world", some might accuse that kind of thinking as a "reification" of good. You are doing this to necessity.

Then we often have pleasant experiences in the present that we rough up later with our cherry-picked and more subdued memories of the pleasant experience. That’s all psychology. — Fire Ologist

Indeed it is psychology. Either way looks pretty poor for evaluation then. Interestingly enough, the negative biased people that have mild depression have been seen as "depressive realists".. That is to say they may have a more accurate view of things. This doesn't seem to be the norm as the average person doesn't have mild depression (aka dysthymia).

It is false to say we are never right to inflict suffering. Just not a tailored ethic anyone could ever follow. We can follow a rule to not steal. We can not lie or murder. But never inflict any suffering?? We would need to not ask anyone to ever do anything. We couldn’t tell someone we loved them for fear this would burden them and increase their suffering. Teaching someone about antinatalism could inflict tremendous suffering on them - the meaning of life and all their plans dashed because they involved a family and kids. It is NOT true that “Happiness is not obligatory, whereas preventing suffering is.” Neither happiness nor preventing suffering are obligatory. You reify your ability to reduce suffering, and the ethical rule that tells you this is the highest good. — Fire Ologist

So again, for the nth time, the unique thing about procreation is it is completely preventative.. It prevents the cause of all suffering. Every other instance has an aspect of not only prevention but mediation. I see your other arguments as not mattering because of the difference between positive and negative ethics. As you yourself stated in the last post, just because YOU have a project you want to see carried out, that doesn't mean others need to be inflicted with suffering as a result of this. And being that no one is forcing antinatalism, no one is forcing you live out the AN ethic, if it pains you so. It is up to you whether you want to decide for another that they should suffer because you think that some X positive project overrides this consideration. That is the whole crux of the argument.. Is allowing the conditions for someone else's suffering with X positive ethical consideration you might have? The AN would always claim that no, it is not. No need to cause suffering, if it was unnecessary.

That's not reification. Reification is this:
Reification is when you think of or treat something abstract as a physical thing. — schopenhauer1

Like reifying an abstract “good not to inflict” in the physical act of procreation.

the unique thing about procreation is it is completely preventative — schopenhauer1

So we are allowed to inflict lots of suffering throughout our lives, but the rule not to inflict suffering is super important when looking to consent to the naturally produced function of procreation. Got it.

It’s completely preventative of ethics too. No more ethics along with no more suffering that the ethical ones couldn’t stomach inflicting on others (except they could stomach the risk of inflicting suffering by every other act they take besides procreation).

Like reifying an abstract “good not to inflict” in the physical act of procreation. — Fire Ologist

That's not reification. You are giving ethical powers to nature. Ethics are usually things that are in the realm of human decisions.

So we are allowed to inflict lots of suffering throughout our lives, but the rule not to inflict suffering is super important when looking to consent to the naturally produced function of procreation. Got it. — Fire Ologist

Are you willfully ignoring what I am saying between preventative and mitigative? Mitigating is only needed once you have to trade a greater harm for a lesser harm because there is no other way out of the harm. It is already happening.

It’s completely preventative of ethics too. No more ethics along with no more suffering that the ethical ones couldn’t stomach inflicting on others (except they could stomach the risk of inflicting suffering by every other act they take besides procreation). — Fire Ologist

Yeah and again, no humans, no ethics needed. No problem.
Also, no one is saying one should try to inflict or to not prevent suffering other than procreation. Not sure where that comes from. I just said procreation is unique in terms of prevention. It doesn't mean anything else.

Yeah and again, no humans, no ethics needed. No problem. — schopenhauer1

But humans came here naturally. So ethics, which tells you how to live good and rightly, came here naturally.

We kill all humans off, and ethics is gone, who’s to say nature won’t evolve a new species of sentient, ethical beings. By ending humans you are leaving the world empty of ethical beings who could have prevented nature from spitting out more sentient suffering. Totally irresponsible of you.

But humans came here naturally. So ethics, which tells you how to live good and rightly, came here naturally. — Fire Ologist

That premise is misguided or misleading in either one of two ways:
1) If humans came here naturally, then anything can be justified as it came about from humans, which came here naturally so anything we do is technically "from nature".. reductio.

and

2) Descriptive ethics is not normative ethics. There is no directive from nature. This is as existentialists say as "bad faith".. Or it is a smokescreen as you can say that "Nature tells us this", and I can say "Nature tells us that". "Nature tells us clearly that we need to procreate because animals procreate". That is literally the definition of the naturalistic fallacy.

1) If humans came here naturally, then anything can be justified as it came about from humans, which came here naturally so anything we do is technically "from nature".. reductio. — schopenhauer1

So do antinatalists believe we humans came here UNnaturally? What did ethics come from then?

Look, I think we are talking past each other.

My wife was just scratching our dog’s neck telling him how good he was with my daughter’s dog who he hates who just spent a few days over the house. Finally went home today and my dog is happier than ever. My dog of course had no idea what my wife was saying just that it sounded soothing as she massaged his neck and ears. All he knew was all of his suffering was gone, he was master of his house once again and feeling at peace staring into my wife’s eyes as she gently petted him. That happy 30 seconds was worth hours of suffering (which of course it took to build), and was just a dog’s life.

Happiness is so much more than suffering; moments are worth a lifetime of suffering. Moments of human happiness are worth millions of years of evolutionary struggle for survival.

We show this in our choices and lives all of the time. We don’t suffer only because of life. We suffer because of what we want, we suffer on purpose when we work towards something we suffer to achieve, we struggle to realize, we wish we knew before but we know now and we are glad we at least know this at all. All for those fleeting moments where now is joyous, where our work is done, when we’ve achieved our goal, as we realize our vision and know enough to say “good”.

We all say “good” everyday. I defy you to get through one day without saying “good”.

Life is suffering? How could you know this if life was not good?

I agree that life includes suffering, but I don’t agree suffering is bad.

Like the antinatalist just asserts as a given that life is suffering and suffering is bad, I simply assert life is a series of joyous moments and these things are good, and good enough, not at all like suffering, and not bad at all.

Don’t you see that at all? If not, can’t you let someone else wish that joy upon everyone, wish that they get to experience a moment of joy that would fill a hundred lives? Uou really think no one could feel this way in this life, this life is so bad?? Can’t you let someone have that? Let them have their joy along with their suffering?

Now back to the syllogism.

If the suffeting in life is what counts most for you, then fine, find your ethics in the prohibition of suffering, and build your ethical behavior out of ceasing procreation.

But if suffering is just one of those things, a stumbling block to a lifetime understanding even the concept of “bliss”, where suffering is just a challenge you’ve beaten so many times by simply living, if you can make a trifle of all the suffering in the world when compared to the good life also brings, then the whole antinatalist argument fails. It is a syllogism in which “life is suffering” is the main premise, linking procreation with unethical failure to prevent suffering, so if you just don’t care about life’s suffering to the point where it’s prevention is the highest good, the whole argument fails.

That’s my starting point - life is good. Suffering is a part of life, but so what? Life was good first and still good now that I suffer while living my life.

Even though without this first premise the antinatalist argument fails, I recognize that I haven’t proven that life is NOT suffering, or given you any reason to abandon your position that life is basically suffering. That’s up to you to prove your premise is valid. You also haven’t proven to me that life is NOT good, or its goodness cannot dwarf its suffering.

But now you know, if you want to convince me of the soundness and validity of the antinatalist argument, you should be convincing me that life sucks. Otherwise the rest of the argument will fail for me.

If you did convince me that life sucked so bad it was worth considering an ethic that held “all suffering that can be prevented in others should be prevented in others”, you would still have to convince me that preventing procreation is preventing suffering. Suffering only has a chance to be suffering after there is a person who suffers. The person in whom you might prevent suffering, therefore had to exist before one can prevent suffering, because suffering doesn’t exist until after the person suffers. So never procreating is not preventing suffering, it is preventing a person. Period. Unless preventing a person is some other good ethic, nothing good is done by preventing a person from existing. They haven’t existed yet; you haven’t prevented suffering yet. You may have a rule “all suffering that can be prevented in others should be prevented” but you can’t apply that rule to any actions that do not involve other existing beings who actually exist and therefore can actually suffer (if not prevented). Potential, future beings do not actually suffer; so if you prevent a potential future being from existing, you prevent no suffering at all, since there is no actual suffering that could possibly be prevented, as there is no actual person who could possibly suffer.

I know you don’t like this argument but it sits in the bigger question: why would anyone even care to be ethical in their treatment of other people, if procreating other people is not a good? Who are we being ethical for? Ourselves? Will we suffer any less as we go on living? All that we’ve done if we stop procreating is we assert our judgment that the existence of people doesn’t matter as much as the ethical rule “all suffering that can be prevented in others should be prevented.” But ethics is for people (which you have said), not people for ethics.

Lastly, even if you could convince me that the suffering outshines the joy as the essential feature of life, and even if you could convince me that by procreating, we are doing anything specific toward any specific person, let alone by not procreating we are preventing anything specific in any specific thing (like a person), you still could t convince me that the rule “all suffering that can be prevented should be prevented.”

I’m not going to go into it again but suffering isn’t what is bad in life to me. Evil and sin are. Unethical choices are. Suffering is a consequence, not a raw material, of life, but not always a consequence, and sometimes non-existent in life (for moments, many moments).

So there is no need to convince me that I am wrong. You can if you want, but then you would have to show me I don’t really mind the suffering enough to justify discarding the joyousness.

I admit I have been focused on the logic to try to convince you that you are wrong. Beat up the premises to snap you out of the conclusions. But it’s up to you to see for yourself.

I can’t make you see the good that is life and how suffering can be minimized and defeated. All I can ask is that you honestly answer this: if someone thought life was good, in fact amazing, would they be immoral to want to share this with as many people as they could, including by hoping for children and doing everything they could to raise children?

Or if someone thought ethics only applies between existing moral/ethical agents, that ethics can’t apply to the dead or the uncreated, then wouldn’t an ethical rule forbidding procreation because of its infliction of suffering be misapplied? Or Maybe even unethical in its ignorance towards actual people as opposed to potential people?

Or if someone thought suffering could be something so important in the shaping of who one actually is in this life, that suffering was sometimes good in itself as something not only to be accepted, but embraced and promoted at times, wouldn’t a rule that ended all suffering by ending all people seem opposite of the good one sees in other people, in other lives, and in life itself?

If you grant me my premises, am I still wrong to think procreation is a great good?

And I think I’ve said my peace. Antinatalism seems unneccesssry if it be based on simply suffering, seems anti-ethics while it puts ethics above ethical people, and simply ignores the joy in life.

And the boredom. Life is boredom - we should all kill each other in a final bloodbath just for sake of some excitement in these otherwise insufferably boring lives. Ridiculous? Not if life is only boredom.

Life is way more than suffering. Maybe only human beings can recognize this. Why kill ourselves off because of a little suffering?

And I think I’ve said my peace. Antinatalism seems unneccesssry if it be based on simply suffering, seems anti-ethics while it puts ethics above ethical people, and simply ignores the joy in life. — Fire Ologist

It is a useful to consider antinatalism if you are planning to have children. The reason being it requires you to look at your inner motives and understand the kind of responsibility you are taking on.

Other than that, it is fairly limited in my view for the reasons you articulated (and many more).

Life is way more than suffering. Maybe only human beings can recognize this. Why kill ourselves off because of a little suffering? — Fire Ologist

Because the AN basically believes that not suffering trumps not existing. It is certainly a factual claim that if you do not exist you do not suffer. It is not a factual claim to state that something is better than something else. It is also not a factual claim that suffering is bad unless you have outlined some specific example of the kind of suffering being offered up for discussion.

The arguments for and against the AN position are dependent upon personal views, experiences and metaphysic (The non-identity of possible people is an example of the kind of metaphysics argument used by ANs).

I think it is fair to say that it is an extreme kind of negative utilitarianism if taken as universal law, as the end goal drives towards something like net zero suffering (so net zero existence).

In a more favourable light it is act utilitarianism hyper-focused on a specific aspect of the human experience.

But isn't it ironic the AN is only able to prevent said suffering, by in fact, making full use and utility of the alleged eventual path (or in their mind, cursed tool) that is existence?

Kind of a corundum in and of itself, no?

Well, you kind of have to understand that position as framed in isolation. ANs are not against existence per se, but there is certainly a disjoint if we project their views as a universal law (which none really seem to do).

It is a moral preference. Of course, if said person believes in moral absolutes then the matter is quite different.

As a means of exploring the responsibility of being a parent I regard the AN position as worthy of serious attention.

ANs are not against existence per se — I like sushi

Let's reframe the mindset here. Not ""against" anything, simply the acknowledgement (belief, rather) that creating human life is more likely to incur negative experience than positive and such should either be avoided altogether or at least such factual information or likelihood (whether true or not) should be made present in the minds of all men or women capable of childbirth?


Can we agree on that as being the anti natailist creed? Or do you have a different definition in mind?

To further say, there is a war (or framed binary belief or "footing") between so called "anti-natalists."

That life, regardless of change or possible omission of what is currently held in the antinatalist mindset as "suffering" or "negative", creation of new life either, is intrinsically a negative, whether that conviction is held based on the likelihood of even, say, a perfect utopia naturally always reverting to a negative state, or some other generally non-evidential belief.

That is to say there are two camps so to speak, whose divisions are defined not of anti-natality at all but greater reason itself: possibility of change and rigidity of current state of affairs. Is this not correct?

Not to my understanding.

Existing = Suffering < Neutral < Pleasure
Not Existing = No Suffering/Neutral/ No Pleasure

Only the latter guarantees No Suffering.

Obviously because ANs exist they are prone to argue against bringing life into the world.

From this there is the argumentation of having the Right to bring people into existence. Then we enter into the non-identity problem and metaphysics.

Of course there is much more nuance to it than this but this is the basic frame work. Its proponents will vary depending on other moral stances (including items like moral absolutism, moral naturalism and logical positivism).

I am not completely sure I follow this? Can you explain better please?

That life, regardless of change or possible omission of what is currently held in the antinatalist mindset as "suffering" or "negative", creation of new life either, is intrinsically a negative, whether that conviction is held based on the likelihood of even, say, a perfect utopia naturally always reverting to a negative state, or some other generally non-evidential belief. — Outlander

I think this more or less aligned with the Right of the living to bring life into existence.

There is no factual basis for this claim though as far as I can see.

Can you explain better please? — I like sushi

Basically what makes the anti-natalist so sure? What specifically do they hold their ground on?

Is it, say as if one were a prisoner, who is given the option to father a child, knowing said child will also in turn become a prisoner and experience more suffering then pleasure? And is this the root of all AN argument: if more pleasure cannot be "guaranteed" prior to the creation of life, such action, which would apparently likely result in more negative than positive is to be avoided.

Is this not the AN dogma or decree? I apologize, for it is me who is now asking for you for information or clarity!

It is certainly a factual claim that if you do not exist you do not suffer. — I like sushi

Hmmm. Seems to me if something doesn’t exist then any reference to this non-existent thing makes the thing some theoretical thing. It’s not a real thing (because it doesn’t exist).

So the new ethics of AN demands we be ethical towards future potential beings who actually don’t particularly exist; and in the meantime we suck at being ethical now (not for the future) towards actual human being who actually exist.

Or, I wonder “if you do not exist, what do you do?” Obviously you do nothing, nor can you do anything because “you” in the first place are a fiction, a possibility at best. Why would a fiction suffer or certainly not suffer, or do anything?

It’s not a language game. Who or what is relieved of suffering but our imaginary friends who we spare from living in the first place?

If I, who now exist, died, it can be said that I do not suffer. I’ll accept that (although there are various ways to dispute that as well, including my own argument against un-procreated beings). But you can say I don’t eat chicken anymore either, or play music, or stub my toe, or have a toe. You can say lots of things about me that are over now. That’s because I existed, and knew suffering and had all of these things about me to lose with my life. There is an “I” from which things that go along with this “I” can be removed, like my suffering, or my toe.

But if there is no one there to exist, no “you” as in a “you never existed”, there is no one saved from suffering. No procreation ends human life, and no human life means no humans suffering (or playing tennis); but you cannot particularize this and say “YOU or HE or even IT never suffered” about a “you” who never existed.

Because you cannot particularize this prevention of suffering in a particular “you” who doesn’t suffer, AN is acting ethical towards no one, no one who ever exists.

I think I see what you are asking.

The AN view is asking what right anyone has to create life if they know it will suffer.

Below this isasymmetry argument. The absence of pain is Good whilst the absence of pleasure is Neutral.

Because you cannot particularize this prevention of suffering in a particular “you” who doesn’t suffer, AN is acting ethical towards no one, no one who ever exists. — Fire Ologist

You can guarantee less suffering by not bringing someone into the world. This is also underlined by the metaphysical problem of non-identity. Much like our responsibility for considering the kind of world we leave behind for future generations (which we speculate about quite often without arguing about their non-existence).

This is also underlined by the metaphysical problem of non-identity. — I like sushi

The problem of identity is a real problem, but if we admit this problem to the equation, then there may be no “me” who could fail to prevent suffering either.

We need to assume an agent, identify many agents, to build an ethic among them.

That’s not the issue, or we can never say anyone exists to suffer or more to the point, never say anyone exists to prevent suffering.

The problem of identity is a real problem, but if we admit this problem to the equation, then there may be no “me” who could fail to prevent suffering either. — Fire Ologist

Well, not really because you exist.

I think we have to insist any AN statement adheres to their moral stance regarding nonidentity of possible future people, as well as their moral claim that no suffering is good and no pleasure is neutral.

It is a utilitarian position in essence, so when questioning the AN this should also be kept in mind and pointed out where we feel necessary.

The AN view is asking what right anyone has to create life if they know it will suffer. — I like sushi

I'm sure you're correct in most instances. Of course we have yet to meet or question an actual practicing anti-natalist (not counting the obvious resident one, joyous and pleasant to know him as he is..., of course, a bit or irony but that's beside the point, for now)

I fee it important to note the overwhelming drive in which spurred my recent response to you, was to assert, rather question, anti-natalist is poorly defined as is. That is to say, there are two (at minimum I argue) driving forms of rationale that define such an idea. With no shyness of immodesty, I believe one could ascertain the driving consistent ideology of anti-natalism is: life is more likely to incur negative outcome than positive, and so, in respect to culmination of man's efforts of reason, that which is likely to produce negative result, is best avoided. However, this may be true. All well and good. But there remains a blockage, a failure of inquiry, I believe. As to whether or not said belief is based on circumstance that is changeable, or remains a hopeless illusion of changeability. That is to say, in simple terms, yes, if something is likely to be negative, it is to be avoided. But whether or not this negativity can be changed, resolved, eliminated, defeated, or perhaps lessened by introduction of a greater dynamic thus making said negativity trivial, is my, question. Basically.

So. I believe there are two types of anti-natalists. Those who are such rationally, and those who are perhaps confused and only in such respective minds of thinking due to circumstance that is in fact, false.

That is to say, those who are truly not anti-natalists but consequentialists, or best said, the current state of being ie. the status quo produces adequate evidence procreation is more harmful than positive, as in, perhaps things could be changed, whether easily or throughout much if not impossible levels of difficulty, to alter such a reality. This is the divide I think is neglected in the majority. Hence me reason for replying.

So. Yes, ":the way things are, that can be changed, but do not seem likely to be changed, creates the factual inarguable reality that, creation of new life is more likely to incur suffering on the innocent then immediate and observable positive outcome and so, procreation is to be avoided"

Versus "No, even if everything were to be perfect, either eventually, or in some intrinsic yet unobservable way, creation of new life is likely, eventually, to be of worse outcome than not"

Essentially. There is a divide that those who fail to acknowledge simply refute the soundness of the anti-natalism argument. Is my suggestion.

I'm sure you're correct in most instances. Of course we have yet to meet or question an actual practicing anti-natalist (not counting the obvious resident one, joyous and pleasant to know him as he is..., of course, a bit or irony but that's beside the point, for now) — Outlander

I'm just watching as you all wildly miss the mark on antinatalism. I do love it when others try to argue it, but I also cringe at the misguided notions when they inevitably misunderstand it. It also seems no one pays attention to my previous arguments, so every time I argue something it is like all the arguments made previously are put on reset and wiped clean, and then people take other arguments that are not correct, and replace those as strawmen instead. I refer everyone to my last several posts and interactions in this thread, starting with the Veil of Ignorance as a starting point, and then once you have caught up to the relevant arguments, rather than misrepresenting them so as to knockdown poor strawmen, I can reenter the chat. Otherwise, please keep arguing misguided points for misguided notions.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/908702

I as referring to the general AN positions not your personal ones.

What I said outlined a couple of the main points AN puts forwards. I said no more than that.