Suffering can't be avoided so one can't be criticised for not even trying. — apokrisis

Systems of laws arise out of the need to organise successful human communities and not the other way around. If you think there is a problem, changing the system is what you should strive for.

But systems of laws recognise rights and responsibilities. They are based on a pragmatic balance between individual wants and communal needs. Burdens will be imposed. All that is asked is that they are reasonable. — apokrisis

It might be this assumed stance that I most vehemently reject as being moral. It is circular reasoning. Why should burdens be imposed? You will use your systems theory to justify it. However, being that we are counterfactual-acting creatures, we could always choose not to burden someone, so the system itself can produce people that can choose the counterfactual than what you claim the "system" wants to have happen. Yet, hypothetically, all people could choose to not procreate. What you are tacitly suggesting is that there is some instinct or logos, or necessary aspect to procreation. But with deliberative creatures, there is no necessity to procreation. Thus, saying that "Burdens WILL be imposed" is just wrong. Burdens NEED NOT BE imposed.

Probably, 'deontological' was the wrong word. I believe, however, that ethics itself is intrinsically social. Ethical agency doens't seem to me to make sense without a community. In other words, if, say, 'I act in order to bring the good to myself and to others', then I cannot 'ignore' the presently existent human beings and the human community in general. If one accepts that seeking the 'good' is also a social 'enterprise', then trying to preserve society seems, after all, a 'good' act. If one believes that, clearly there is a contrast with AN. — boundless

No, "society" doesn't suffer, individuals with POVs do. I make a distinction between mitigation ethics and preventative ethics. Once born, we are in mitigation ethics mode where indeed, we may have to trade greater harms for lesser harms. Uniquely for the procreational decision, we can be in preventative ethics, where absolutely/purely we can make a decision to prevent ALL harm to a future person whereby no drawback (lesser harm) is had for that person. No ONE is deprived. And ANs generally all agree that (unlike your definition of ethics), positive ethics (other people's projects.. like continuing humanity, wanting to take care of a new person, etc.), should not override individuals' negative ethics (rights not to be harmed, non-consented).

Edit: Notice also the pyramid scheme aspect to this. By society existing, it becomes self-perpetuating as you can throw another person in the fray, burden them, cause them to eventually deal with life/suffering, and you can always justify it by saying, "If we don't sacrifice the rights of individuals not to suffer, our society will collapse!". And this to me, is just a justification for doing harm, not an actual answer to the problem that exists.

I agree we are broken. I agree suffering is unavoidable and ubiquitous. And I agree compasssion is essential to ethics, a good, a virtue to be cultivated. And I agree it is “good” not to inflict suffering without consent. But I don’t see anything reasonable about eliminating the infliction of suffering by eliminating the ethics and compassion (along with the human species) that show us suffering is something to be compassionate about in the first place. It makes ethics itself potentially unethical, or non-sensical. It is either suicidal or nihilistic, not simply “good” anymore as “good” is no longer good.

When we end human procreation, we end the existence of compassion in the same universe that led us to be “ethical” and not procreate in the first place.

It’s like this: we all get together write a rule down and all sign it with full consent and the rule is “all of those who make rules must not procreate.” There need be no “good” in the rule or “reason” why the rule is written, because all “good” and “reason” will cease to provide account of anything at all where all those who make rules do not procreate. — Fire Ologist

Again, this doesn't make sense to me, as we discussed in earlier discussions. Ethics only exist because humans exist. Once there are no more humans, ethics need not exist. We don't exist SO THAT ethics can persist, but rather ethics exists because humans exist.

You seem to be saying, "It looks like X isn't going to be high enough to justify (3), therefore we can't give them a choice." This is a bit like the father at the theme park who reasons, "My daughter wants to go on this ride, and if she goes on it she will probably enjoy it, so I can't let her go on it." This is reminiscent of the "paternalism" that schopenhauer1 claims to oppose. — Leontiskos

No, I'm not convinced that the majority of people end up preferring they had been born. On top of the people that already wish they had never been born you have those suffering at the end of life wishing they had never been born.

Considering my view that most people are likely to live net bad lives, it would be more like the daughter wanting to go on the ride (after eating lots of candyfloss), and if you let her go on it will make her sick.
It would actually be worse than this, you would be putting her on the ride and making her sick before she even had a preference on it.
@schopenhauer1 was the master of these thought experiments. Forcing people onto rides, Willy Wonka World etc :smile:

Thank you much appreciated..oldie but goodie:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10842/willy-wonkas-forced-game/p1

Here's a thought experiment..

Let's say I am Willy Wonka..
I have created this world and will force others to enter it... My only rule is people have the options of either working at various occupations which I have lovingly created many varieties of, free-riding (which can only be done by a few and has to be done selectively lest one get caught, it is also considered no good in this world), or living day-to-day homelessly. The last option is a suicide pill if people don't like the arrangement. Is Willy Wonka moral? I mean he is giving many options for work, and even allowing you to test your luck at homelessness and free riding. Also, hey if you don't want to be in his arrangement, you can always kill yourself! See how beneficial and good I am to all my contestants?

There are lots of ways to feel strife and anxiety in my world.. There is generalized boredom, there are pressures from coworkers, there is pressure of joblessness, there are pressures of disease, disasters, mental illness, annoyances, malicious acts, accidents, and so much more that I have built into the world..

I have also created many people who will encourage everyone to also find my world loving so as to not have too many dropouts. — schopenhauer1

I realized I went from 3rd person to first person in that OP :lol:

So ethics is just a matter of opinion. Moral Scepticism. Which begs the question what kind of moral sceptic are you? If you are not then your position is contrary as you believe ethics is a human thing not an universal thing.

It is circular reasoning. — schopenhauer1

It is the dialectical reasoning of the systems science view. The complexity of a system arises from the fruitful balancing of its contrary impulses. Rights and responsibilities are one such way of capturing the essence of modern social structure.

I only used your emotive jargon - burdens - to make the connection to your own reductionist position. You can see that burdens are really just the global responsibilities that can justify a person also having their particular local rights.

Speaking more generically, a system is a hierarchical balance of the dichotomy that is constraints and freedoms.

So at every level of natural order, we have the same general idea of a balancing of top-down long-run constraints and bottom-up constructive or creative freedoms.

What you call burdens are in fact the constraints that shape up a society as a collection of individuals with their freedoms. The freedoms that are meaningful and pragmatic as they are how the society can continually renew its own globally persisting being.

But you don’t seem to have an understanding of nature as a developmental or self-organising system. This is why your logic is so broken.

No, "society" doesn't suffer, individuals with POVs do. I make a distinction between mitigation ethics and preventative ethics. Once born, we are in mitigation ethics mode where indeed, we may have to trade greater harms for lesser harms. Uniquely for the procreational decision, we can be in preventative ethics, where absolutely/purely we can make a decision to prevent ALL harm to a future person whereby no drawback (lesser harm) is had for that person. No ONE is deprived. And ANs generally all agree that (unlike your definition of ethics), positive ethics (other people's projects.. like continuing humanity, wanting to take care of a new person, etc.), should not override individuals' negative ethics (rights not to be harmed, non-consented). — schopenhauer1

I agree that 'society' doesn't suffer but individuals do. And I also agree that we should avoid to cause unnecessary suffering, especially when there is no possibility of consent. 'Not intentionally causing unnecessary harm' seems to be a 'regulative ideal' that we should follow.

And yet, I think that as an ethical duty, if you want, we also have a moral obligation to act for the benefit of others. In fact, I think we should act with the benefit of everyone in sight, although of course we cannot directly benefit to everyone due to our finitude - hence I see this as a 'regulative ideal'. The fact that ethics seems to work only when a community of ethical agents is present seems to me that this second regulative ideal is necessary.

It seems to me that these two 'ideals' give us an ethical dilemma, if we accept both as ethical regulative ideals. Of course, if we give the prominence to the first one, it seems that, unless one holds to some kind of religious/metaphysical beliefs, antinatalism would be right. I'm not convinced, however, that the second 'ideal' is 'lesser' than the first. So, it seems to me that antinatalism isn't the 'best' ethical position for both the 'single individual' and 'all individuals'. I would like to find a way to avoid giving 'prominence' to one ideal over the other. But I admit that at least until now, I never found a solution.

We don't exist SO THAT ethics can persist, but rather ethics exists because humans exist. — schopenhauer1

I agree - we don’t exist for ethics.

But AN is the ethical system that places the ethics above the humans.

For the ANist, the ethical principal is a higher good than the agent, because the ANist is willing to destroy the possibility of all future ethical agents for sake of upholding its ethical principal.

But if ethics tells me ethics should not exist, why would I think I should be ethical?

I exist, then ethics exists. If the ethics exists because of me, but this ethics tells me I should not exist, then the ethics should not exist either. So what is “wrong” about inflicting suffering without consent again? I was wrong to exist then so is my ethics wrong to exist. So why do a fabricate this whole ethical dilemma? Why not let the Forrest fire burn, the earthquake crumble, the storm drown, and the human procreate? Why not, if our ethics is nothing and for nothing?

The AN position upholds ethics above the ethical agent, in order to eliminate the agent and so eliminate the ethics.

That is what makes no sense to me.

There is nothing good about being ethical in a world that should not have ethics in it because it should not have humans in it.

But AN is the ethical system that places the ethics above the humans. — Fire Ologist

I'm not sure how you get this. Placing ethics before humans would be the opposite. For example, some forms of utilitarianism would have it that you should violate people's basic rights if it helps the greater community. One example might be, having a set of people secretly tested for scientific experiments without consent (this did happen to a group of Tuskegee Airmen in the American South, for example) .. But there are many many examples of this kind of thinking.

For the ANist, the ethical principal is a higher good than the agent, because the ANist is willing to destroy the possibility of all future ethical agents for sake of upholding its ethical principal. — Fire Ologist

So this fails to be an example of "placing ethics above the human", as "the possibility of all future ethical agents" is not an actual human, but a reified concept (the possibility of a human). Quite the opposite, whereas creating suffering because we prefer to keep "Humanity and civilization going" would be using real people for an ethical principle (i.e. some positive project such as "humanity and civilization"), AN is actually ABOUT preventing suffering and non-consent of an ethical agent who will so be affected by that.

I exist, then ethics exists. If the ethics exists because of me, but this ethics tells me I should not exist, then the ethics should not exist either. So what is “wrong” about inflicting suffering without consent again? I was wrong to exist then so is my ethics wrong to exist. So why do a fabricate this whole ethical dilemma? Why not let the Forrest fire burn, the earthquake crumble, the storm drown, and the human procreate? Why not, if our ethics is nothing and for nothing? — Fire Ologist

Your conclusion does not follow at all from the premise. The ethics isn't "You should not exist". Rather, the ethic is, "Do not cause unnecessary harm". All else you are saying is thus misguided and confused. Once you exist, it is incumbent to not cause unnecessary harm. The purest form of this is in the procreational decision which can prevent ALL harm with no cost to an actual person, and thus, to follow this ethic, at least in its purest action, would be to not procreate.

The AN position upholds ethics above the ethical agent, in order to eliminate the agent and so eliminate the ethics. — Fire Ologist

Your first part is wrong as I've explained above. The ethics is not "above the agent". Rather, the ethics is incumbent on humans that already exist to follow in regards to future ethical agents (by preventing a future person's birth). The principle is all about how we are NOT to treat a (possible) ethical agent from the perspective of one who already exists.

There is nothing good about being ethical in a world that should not have ethics in it because it should not have humans in it. — Fire Ologist

This actually makes no sense. If humans exist, ethics towards other agents exist. If humans don't exist, this ethic is no longer needed. No humans = no ethics. If there are humans, then the ethic (of not procreating) remains.

the possibility of all future ethical agents" is not an actual human, but a reified concept — schopenhauer1

And the concept of "no consent" and the concept of "inflicted suffering on another" and the concepts of "good" and "ethics" are reified concepts. Not actual humans. No difference.

Rather, the ethics is incumbent on humans that already exist to follow in regards to future ethical agents. — schopenhauer1

You can't discard my reference to "the possibility of future ethical agents" as a mere reified concept, and then say ethics is incumbent on current people "in regards to future ethical agents."

This is the problem with the logic. You need certain things be in place as premises and principals, in order to demonstrate a world where none of these premises or principals need exist.

prefer to keep "Humanity and civilization going" — schopenhauer1

You need human civilization to exist for any human preference to exist at all. The ANist is using a preference to base a conclusion that preferences should not exist. If preferences should not exist, why prefer not to inflict harm? Unless you uphold the principal over the person.

Rather, the ethic is, "Do not cause unnecessary harm". — schopenhauer1

There is more to ethics than principles. Ethical principles are calls to action, prescriptions for behavior impacting other ethical agents - they are guides for physical, actual behavior in a society. AN ethical behavior based on principals (do not cause harm; procreation causes harm without consent) is for the sake and goal of eliminating all ethical action by eliminating all ethical actors. On principle, the ANist doesn't want any creatures that would have or construct principals to exist at all. On principle, principles should not drive action. That makes no sense.

So I ask, why would we use ethical principles (don't inflict harm) to make the world better if that better world doesn't need or have any ethical principals in it (because no ethical agents)? Why would I think it is good to follow any ethical principal that had the goal of building a society that had no need or place for ethics?

Rather, the ethics is incumbent on humans that already exist to follow in regards to future ethical agents. — schopenhauer1

What drives the notion "ethics is incumbent"? Why would you say that? We choose our ethics just as we choose our actions according to our ethics. If choosing and choosing ethically are so good they are "incumbent", why would we destroy the presence of these goods by building a world that had no ethical agents in it? Choosing must therefore be bad.

If humans exist, ethics towards other agents exist. If humans don't exist, this ethic is no longer needed. No humans = no ethics. If there are humans, then the ethic (of not procreating) remains. — schopenhauer1

If humans exist, ethics is possible, but need not exist - we are the only creatures who construct ethics, but before we construct it, ethics does not exist. AN is constructing ethics to construct a world without humans, as if the ethics of "not inflicting harm" was more important than the human that constructed this ethic. And all with the outcome of world where no creature could reconstruct this ethic and recognize how good all of those humans who did not procreate were back when they were living, ethical agents.

And the concept of "no consent" and the concept of "inflicted suffering on another" and the concepts of "good" and "ethics" are reified concepts. Not actual humans. No difference. — Fire Ologist

No, you are misconstruing my argument. The "no consent" and "inflicting suffering", if violated, WILL affect the person involved. "No humanity/civilization" would be inflicting suffering/non-consent doing something FOR a reified concept.

You can't discard my reference to "the possibility of future ethical agents" as a mere reified concept, and then say ethics is incumbent on current people "in regards to future ethical agents."

This is the problem with the logic. You need certain things be in place as premises and principals, in order to demonstrate a world where none of these premises or principals need exist. — Fire Ologist

All that's needed is actual people with a perspective that exist to know that a future person would be so affected if they violated these principles.

You need human civilization to exist for any human preference to exist at all. The ANist is using a preference to base a conclusion that preferences should not exist. If preferences should not exist, why prefer not to inflict harm? Unless you uphold the principal over the person. — Fire Ologist

Again, this seems like muddled thinking. The "preference" is based on following a principle of non-harm/non-consent. That principle exists because humans exist. Once humans no longer exist, no need for preferences. I am not sure why this is so hard.

There is more to ethics than principles. Ethical principles are calls to action, prescriptions for behavior impacting other ethical agents - they are guides for physical, actual behavior in a society. AN ethical behavior based on principals (do not cause harm; procreation causes harm without consent) is for the sake and goal of eliminating all ethical action by eliminating all ethical actors. On principle, the ANist doesn't want any creatures that would have or construct principals to exist at all. On principle, principles should not drive action. That makes no sense.

So I ask, why would we use ethical principles (don't inflict harm) to make the world better if that better world doesn't need or have any ethical principals in it (because no ethical agents)? Why would I think it is good to follow any ethical principal that had the goal of building a society that had no need or place for ethics? — Fire Ologist

This question makes no ethical matter. In a way, you are undermining your own accusations of me. It seems you have a hidden agenda in your ethical principles (i.e. that they need to have some sort of "goal" that is above and beyond not inflicting suffering/not violating consent to an individual). No one is talking about "building a society" here. That is not this ethic, which is negative (nothing about building). In fact, as I've explained previously, no positive ethic in this case, where there is no tradeoff to an existing person, would matter when it violates a negative ethic. Your right to "build X, Y, Z" shouldn't override unnecessarily harming/violating consent, especially as there is no person who "loses out" on you doing so (i.e. preventative vs. mitigation ethics).

What drives the notion "ethics is incumbent"? Why would you say that? We choose our ethics just as we choose our actions according to our ethics. If choosing and choosing ethically are so good they are "incumbent", why would we destroy the presence of these goods by building a world that had no ethical agents in it? Choosing must therefore be bad. — Fire Ologist

The "presence of these goods".. This sounds like people are instruments for "goods" to take place, precisely the thinking that I think is UNETHICAL... people should not be used (caused to be harm) so that your vision of a positive project is carried out ("these goods of life"). At some point, it is up to the individual to "choose" what they think is ethical. I am presenting the case that unnecessarily harming people (causing to suffer for no reason), is unethical- it doesn't matter if you had a positive vision in mind in doing so (when there is no need to have actually caused the harm in the first place).

AN is constructing ethics to construct a world without humans, as if the ethics of "not inflicting harm" was more important than the human that constructed this ethic. And all with the outcome of world where no creature could reconstruct this ethic and recognize how good all of those humans who did not procreate were back when they were living, ethical agents. — Fire Ologist

Why does this matter that there would be no one to "recognize" that good was done or to "reconstruct this ethic" (whatever that means)?

That principle exists because humans exist. Once humans no longer exist, no need for preferences. I am not sure why this is so hard. — schopenhauer1

But what is wrong with inflicting suffering? Why is it wrong to torture babies to death and make more babies to torture them?

You need an ethics to argue torturing babies is wrong. It’s not obvious. Otherwise, like an orca teaching its young, torturing babies to death is just another motion in space, like any other, neither good nor bad.

WE say it is bad to inflict suffering without consent. WE create this rule, this ethic. Now that it’s created, WE can choose to act on it. And the ANist can determine that to not-procreate is to act on this new rule we created. And what is the good of this act?? What is the good of the rule? In the end, what is the reason there were humans once but are no longer any humans? The reason would be because of the ethics we created. Not any other reason.

So the ethics itself, the principle itself, for the ANist, is the higher goal than some condition or state in the ethical human being.

We create a problem (inflicting suffering without consent) to create a solution (not procreating) for sake of….
…upholding the principle, NOT for sake of any person. All things people are, to the ANist, something that SHOULD NOT persist, should not have come to be.

So AN upholds ethics to defeat ethics. It is literally for the sake of nothing.

In that case, it is legitimate to ask Why be ethical at all?

Instead of killing off the human race, we could all choose to kill off ethics. We could fight our instinct towards compassion (fight the pangs that arise when suffering is inflicted on another) instead of fighting our instinct to procreate?

Why must our response to compassion be the creation of ethics? If the answer involves humans (an individual, a community, possible future humans…) than antinatalist ethics make no sense as its goal is “no more humans is a good.”

But what is wrong with inflicting suffering? Why is it wrong to torture babies to death and make more babies to torture them?

You need an ethics to argue torturing babies is wrong. It’s not obvious. Otherwise, like an orca teaching its young, torturing babies to death is just another motion in space, like any other, neither good nor bad. — Fire Ologist

I base the deontology as rooted in the idea that people have inherent dignity and should not be used as a means to an ends. I agree, if you don't agree with this basis for morality, that either people do not have inherent dignity and thus they should not be used, then none of this would matter. Some people think instrumentally, for example. I think that basis is wrong, precisely because it denies the individual worth of the individual. I also think that this entails that preventing things like suffering and non-consent are more important than whatever machinations you had in mind for a person that would violate those basic principles. Thus I say, your positive ethics doesn't override someone's negative ethics, if it need not be the case (you can prevent versus putting someone in mitigation mode where they must have some suffering but now trade greater for lesser, etc.).

And what is the good of this act?? What is the good of the rule? In the end, what is the reason there were humans once but are no longer any humans? The reason would be because of the ethics we created. Not any other reason. — Fire Ologist

Notice you said "any other reason". Well yeah, there would be a "reason" nonetheless. Some "reasons" are ethical and some are not. That's the debate here. It just so happens, the ethical ones ends in no human being procreated. Again, I see no problem with that. Your argument seems to be something akin to credulity but with no force behind it. You are essentially saying, "But look at this outcome! But look!"

So the ethics itself, the principle itself, for the ANist, is the higher goal than some condition or state in the ethical human being. — Fire Ologist

If you mean by this that ANs generally don't prioritize positive projects over negative ethics, then yes. For example, a positive project from a philosopher might say they want to see, "The flourishing of a virtuous person" (which may or may not be the outcome, but even that point is irrelevant here, though can be the basis for weaker arguments like the "gambling with other lives" arguments, which are also valid). A less philosophically inclined person might just say they want "A person they can raise and do family stuff with". It's all positive projects though, whatever it is.

We create a problem (inflicting suffering without consent) to create a solution (not procreating) for sake of….
…upholding the principle, NOT for sake of any person. All things people are, to the ANist, something that SHOULD NOT persist, should not have come to be.

So AN upholds ethics to defeat ethics. It is literally for the sake of nothing. — Fire Ologist

You are phrasing it so that it comes out this way. Rather, a violation of a person will take place, you are preventing that violation of a person. It doesn't matter if someone is not benefiting from this, rather a PERSON will not suffer and be non-consented. It is for the sake of the person not suffering and being non-consented, that WILL BE SO AFFECTED.

1 There is a null state (no person), and
2 there is a state with some bad
3 and some good.


2 is the only one that has moral relevance here.
That there is a null state is not morally wrong...
That some good happens (3) is not morally relevant.

All that matters is 2 does not occur, as THAT is the morally relevant/bad/wrong state of affairs.

In that case, it is legitimate to ask Why be ethical at all? — Fire Ologist

Sure, don't make someone else unnecessarily suffer if you can.

Instead of killing off the human race, we could all choose to kill off ethics. We could fight our instinct towards compassion (fight the pangs that arise when suffering is inflicted on another) instead of fighting our instinct to procreate? — Fire Ologist

You could. We can do a bunch of things.

Why must our response to compassion be the creation of ethics? If the answer involves humans (an individual, a community, possible future humans…) than antinatalist ethics make no sense as its goal is “no more humans is a good.” — Fire Ologist

See, you are caught up in the "no more humans". It is precisely this thinking that I question. Why is this project important to you other than incredulity or appeal to tradition? And you are going to say a whole bunch of statements about civilization, the wonder of a sunset, love, and all this, and all the "goods" of life, but if you go back to 1, 2, and 3. Why are we forcing suffering unto others so that X, Y, Z happens? Why does X, Y, Z matter? That people need to experience "goods of life", seems oddly messianic, and aggressively paternalistic. What makes you believe that these projects of "good life" or "positive experience" mean you get the right to make people suffer? Indeed, this would be using people's suffering for your messianic/paternalistic notion of what "MUST happen FOR them" or simply "What MUST HAPPEN" in general. If suffering isn't the paramount thing, then there is something that is not ethics going on here.. Perhaps ego? Perhaps forcing one's vision of "the good" on others? Perhaps, misplaced messianism (YOU know what's good, and YOU must be the one to carry that out). But as I've stated more eloquently here:

This has a lot of unjustified assumptions.. such as, why should virtuous men matter? If you say that because the know how to live a "good life", AN always knows that starting a life for someone else means you have a project for them to follow. But here belies an actual UNVIRTUOUS thing- the forcing of someone else into the burdens of life to live out the project of X (the virtuous man!.. cue marble statue staring into the horizon clutching robe!!). It reeks of an aggressive paternalism and assumption (for someone else), that their negative rights should be violated (and that is indeed part of the debate, is it a violation), because you think "someone living out a virtuous life" is okay to go head and be aggressively paternalistic to allow for a deontological violation to take place.

The Lord of the Rings, obviously, an author and work who would be against my philosophy or antinatalism, however, does have themes that I am getting at. The Ring itself can represent the controlling nature of humans- the ability to want to control people, destiny, the world. Wanting to see X thing from another person, even if it means burdening them is perhaps one of these unconscious factors that we hold. The Ring seems to be a good idea.. it seems to have the answers, but in fact, it is simply the human desire to control things, to see their projects carried out by way of using other people, even their sufferings to make this happen. '

You will claim "NO! LOTR was talking about unrestrained control- like Sauron wanting to enslave everyone!". But there is indeed where the debate lies. "Does procreation represent an aggressive paternalism.. does this too go too far in how we want to control people, even violate ethical principles, to see our project carried out?". And I get the impulse to defend it.. It's the very basis for which our whole society has operated. But perhaps it isn't as unassailable as you might think. And for millennium, as long as there has been societies that had the abilities to reason beyond the tribal unit, there have been lifestyles of ascetics who eschewed the worldly projects. I am not necessarily advocating that, however, but just showing that this difference in notions of established familial traditions exist.

Far be it from me to begrudge anyone laughter. But as I indicated with the Lord of the Rings analogy above, there is a bit of a weird aggressive paternalism in the notion that you need to teach someone, and see your project carried out... I have wants and desires, but do I have the right to unnecessarily and non-consentingly burden you with them? Well, no I don't have that right. But somehow a blind eye is seen in the case of procreation because of the romantic notions of learning and virtue of the philosophies you describe here. Don't get me wrong, go have fun.. don't be a dour asshole to your children, but my point is perhaps we may even question the impetus for control and wanting to see projects carried out from others, rather than assume that this is what is right. The doting grandfather laughing at his grandchildren in merriment as they work through the small problems of life gradually being raised to become productive members of society, etc. But what of this? I question this project, its motives, and what we are wanting from other people.