So I think the problem of instrumentality is that there is no end to the "but why?" questions - how could there be?

Why do I exist? Because my parents had sex. But why did they have sex? Because they wanted to. But why did they want to? Because they're human beings. But why do human beings exist? Because they're part of the evolutionary chain of life. But why does life exist? Because the Earth had the right conditions for it to exist. But why does the Earth exist? Because the solar system exists. But why does the solar system...the galaxy...the galactic cluster...the universe exist? Because...because...because...full stop. Somewhere along the line something exists simply because it exists.

So any sort of reason, purpose, teleology exists within a system that already exists. But this base system cannot have a purpose itself, because purpose implies that something needs to get done, but self-evidently if there is only one being in existence, nothing needs to get done. It's also the case that something cannot come into being on its own accord, unless it already exists. So it seems that anything that comes into being can have a purpose but that which has no beginning cannot. But it cannot be that a being that comes into being has a purpose for itself, for it did not create itself. So the purpose is imposed on it from something else. Which eventually leads us back to the timeless substance with no purpose in its existence. So ultimately there is no fundamental purpose for anything. The universe cannot have a purpose for its being unless we postulate the existence of another world, which merely kicks the can down the road.

So perhaps instrumentality is a meaningless issue, although I suspect it isn't. If nothing can ultimately have any purpose at all, then what does it mean for us to wonder why things exist? If it's impossible for something to have ultimate purpose, then can it really be bad that it has no ultimate purpose? What would need to be the case in order to satisfy the problem of instrumentality?

Probably the answer is that we humans need reasons for things and the absence of any is discouraging. Just as we need justice even if there isn't any. Or beauty when there isn't any. etc

So perhaps instrumentality is a meaningless issue, although I suspect it isn't. If nothing can ultimately have any purpose at all, then what does it mean for us to wonder why things exist? If it's impossible for something to have ultimate purpose, then can it really be bad that it has no ultimate purpose? What would need to be the case in order to satisfy the problem of instrumentality?

Probably the answer is that we humans need reasons for things and the absence of any is discouraging. Just as we need justice even if there isn't any. Or beauty when there isn't any. etc — darthbarracuda

Well, the problem with instrumentality is not necessarily about not having an ultimate purpose. By this I mean, not having some gestalt "Eureka!" explanatory reason for why things exist in the first place. But rather, as I said earlier "There is this relentlessness to being in that we are forced into cognitive gymnastics of self-other relations to maintain both our material survival and entertainment needs."

So the problem of instrumentality is why we need to need or rather create need in the first place. It is not only that we create need, but that we need to constantly pursue it. There is a vague understanding of the repetitiousness of this in all generations (the "absurd"). Why this repetition of going through goal-seeking and fulfilling structural survival and entertainment needs in a historical-cultural framework? Why do these needs need to be brought forth to a new generation, ad infinitum, until species or universal death is the question more or less. It is not necessarily one of why things exist in the first place, but rather, why we want to put more subjectivized beings in the world who will need to form goals to follow and make more people who will also form their own subjectivized world and need goals to follow, etc.

Once we hit the error logic of this instrumentality of to do to do to do, what do we do with this knowledge? Do we ignore it? Do we castigate it? Do we have a discussion on it? What I am trying to get at is, to at least deal with it as it is a problem unique to humans (as far as we know at this point) and yet, we fall back into the "priorities", "preferences", "tendencies", "hopes", "way of being in the world", and "personality" that we have created from the unformed, using a perhaps, inauthentic "automatic" mode. We assume our habits and goal-seeking is "us" and do not go on to the next layer of meta-analysis and get at what we are trying to get at by being in the first place.

The more fundamental question is why we continue bringing forth more people. — schopenhauer1

Some people choose not to.

And not because they are antinatalist.

It is not necessarily one of why things exist in the first place, but rather, why we want to put more subjectivized beings in the world who will need to form goals to follow and make more people who will also form their own subjectivized world and need goals to follow, etc. — schopenhauer1

It probably varies with the individual (see above about how some people choose not to).

There is probably great variation between those who do choose to do it. Subconscious conditioning for some. Conscious rebellion for others. Pressure to conform for others. Etc.

It seems that the answer will not be found at the level of the individual being.

I suppose what I was trying to get at is that, even if we recognize the repetitiveness of existence (existence being not simply that which exists right now but that which exists in the past and the future as well), how it's a cycle of birth, decay, death...why should this necessarily be a bad thing? I agree that it is problematic but I don't think it's problematic in itself.

Why do these needs need to be brought forth to a new generation, ad infinitum, until species or universal death is the question more or less. — schopenhauer1

Say nobody suffered. Say we all loved life, and death was not feared but calmly accepted without any sadness. What would be wrong with instrumentality?

Your focus on needs makes me believe that it's the struggle that is problematic. If everything was easy-peasy lemon-squeezy there'd be nothing wrong with an absurd life.

Say nobody suffered. Say we all loved life, and death was not feared but calmly accepted without any sadness. What would be wrong with instrumentality?

Your focus on needs makes me believe that it's the struggle that is problematic. If everything was easy-peasy lemon-squeezy there'd be nothing wrong with an absurd life. — darthbarracuda

The struggle is part and parcel with the idea. There is the struggle in achieving goals, and the relentless nature of the need for need, and the struggle in getting those goals. There is also the unique self-reflective ability of thinking upon existence itself (felt in boredom and angst, and intellectualized as the repetitious nature of goal after goal and need for need and striving in general). The fact that we are constantly faced with "having" to do something, the relentless nature of having to do, but for the sake of doing is something unique to our species (as far as we know). It does not go away. Your vision of no struggle would be something I would not even recognize as it would not be life as we know it. The struggle of being faced with "to do" or more accurately "to deal" with life, is structural.

Your vision of no struggle would be something I would not even recognize as it would not be life as we know it. The struggle of being faced with "to do" or more accurately "to deal" with life, is structural. — schopenhauer1

Right, precisely.

Now, tlo elucidate more, I should make a distinction between the primary "dealing with life" (the goal-seeking default of humans, whether they reflect on it or not) and the self-reflection on the repetitious goal-seeking.

This is a philosophy forum afterall, and as such we are all sort of descendants of a form of critical thinking. This critical thinking takes what is thought to be well-adjusted thought which we take for granted and to look at it critically to see if it stands up. What does not stand up, to me at least, and I would imagine many self-reflective, existentially-oriented people, is the repetitive nature of goals and the need to create more people who need to need. Why create people who do in the first place? Why create the burden of dealing in the first place? Why create more "to do" in the first place provides a quandary to the human animal. We can stop and reflect on why we continue more goal-seeking repetition. For those where "why" is a big deal, it does become problematic.

So to summarize, there is the "goal-seeking" primary need for need, which we do not need to self-reflect on, and then there is a more abstract philosophical problem of why more "to do" in the first place.

The more fundamental question is why we continue bringing forth more people. What is it about having a next generation that needs to take place? The thoughtful answers would be something like: self-actualization, scientific discovery, art/music/humanities, creativity, flow experiences, physical pleasures, friends, relationships, achievement in some field or area of study, and aesthetic pleasures. — schopenhauer1

Outside of the obvious biological answer to your question, the most cogent that I have found, though not quite fully assented to, is that we have a duty to maintain civilization, given 1) its superiority to barbarism and 2) the fact that people will continue to procreate whether we like it or not, as you noted. All of the items on your list presuppose even more basic relationships that contribute to the functioning of civilization. The most important of these relationships is, as Burke says, between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born. To live, to exist, is to enter into a contract with these parties, the voluntary opting out of which is only possible through suicide and the involuntary through imprisonment due to crime. This is not a duty for each individual to procreate, but it is a duty for society as a whole not to so completely wither away.

Look at what the Greek historian Polybius says, for example:

In our time all Greece was visited by a dearth of children and generally a decay of population, owing to which the cities were denuded of inhabitants, and a failure of productiveness resulted, though there were no long-continued wars or serious pestilences among us… For this evil grew upon us rapidly, and without attracting attention, by our men becoming perverted to a passion for show and money and the pleasures of an idle life, and accordingly either not marrying at all, or, if they did marry, refusing to rear the children that were born, or at most one or two out of a great number, for the sake of leaving them well off or bringing them up in extravagant luxury.

This ought to sound very familiar. Polybius asserts that the barrenness of Greece effectively led to geopolitical weakness, which in turn led to Roman conquest. The conquest turned out not to be so bad, as the Romans were able to clamp down on violent feuds between smaller factions and replace inept Macedonian rule. The Romans were also emulative and admiring of the Greeks, so they did not produce a mix of antithetical values and cultures. But when Rome itself succumbed to the tendencies Polybius describes above, there was no culturally friendly power waiting in the wings to preserve it. Thus, civilization collapsed, leading to what has been called, not unreasonably, the Dark Ages. Civilization's light was only precariously preserved in monasteries. Now in our own time, the West is repeating the same "evil," but unlike Greece and like Rome, there is no other society to carry on its values and prevent, this time, what would be a global descent into darkness and barbarism were it to collapse. Again, human beings will be born into the world whether we like it or not, but the deliberate procreation of children who are raised to carry the torch of civilization both does not squander the immense positive, constructive labor of previous generations and does not forsake future generations to abject misery. To not assert that we have this duty is, ipso facto and in practice, to prefer barbarism and anarchy.

So to summarize, there is the "goal-seeking" primary need for need, which we do not need to self-reflect on, and then there is a more abstract philosophical problem of why more "to do" in the first place. — schopenhauer1

So we have the goal-seeking need for need, as in, we need more needs because needs entail goals and goals are good, and we have the "philosophical" problem of why we need to have goals to begin with?

I think the only time "why" comes into the picture is when the attainment of a goal fails to compensate for the striving towards it. Otherwise the "why" would easily be answered by: because it feels good, it gives me pleasure, I enjoy doing it, etc. Why do we keep making philosophical posts on this forum? It's pretty repetitive, cyclic, and not much seems to get done - but presumably we find some degree of satisfaction that compensates. It's worth it.

Only when a job becomes annoying and difficult do people start to wonder if they should quit. But maybe they keep going because there's another reason to keep the job, to provide for the family, pay the bills, etc.

But if life takes more than it gives (which is what I see to be the umph behind instrumentality), then what reason is there to keep living, and make more people who will live?

So I think the part where I might be disagreeing with you is that I find enjoyment to be positively good and a justifying reason for doing (some) things. All things considered, if something brings me pleasure then I have a good reason to do it and keep doing it, even if it's repetitive. Maybe if I see how repetitive it is and wonder if there's anything "more" to life will I cease to find pleasure in what I am doing - but that's the problem, really, I cease to find pleasure in it.

So to summarize, there is the "goal-seeking" primary need for need, which we do not need to self-reflect on, and then there is a more abstract philosophical problem of why more "to do" in the first place. — schopenhauer1

But even granting the truth of this claim, which I am not entirely convinced of, the absence of a need to produce need does not, in itself, constitute a reason not to procreate. You've merely identified procreation as an action that isn't strictly obligatory for the individual. You haven't moved beyond the descriptive to the prescriptive.

Pointing out the apparent absurdity and vanity of existence leads one to question why more people ought to be created. But at that point, the assigning of moral blame to those who do so requires enumeration of what qualifies something or someone as morally blameworthy. Absent that, threads like this become mere plaintive tedium.

Now, in my own case, I have realized that attempting to justify anti-natalism on non-consequentialist grounds is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. For me, the motive determines the moral worth of an action, not its consequences. Hence, because the motive of most parents in having children is not to inflict or create more pain and suffering, they have done no wrong. Perhaps you agree but still see no positive reason to have children. That's fine, for again, there isn't any personal obligation to procreate.

Edit: I realize that some philosophers distinguish between motive and intent, but I'm using them interchangeably here.

To live, to exist, is to enter into a contract with these parties, the voluntary opting out of which is only possible through suicide and the involuntary through imprisonment due to crime. This is not a duty for each individual to procreate, but it is a duty for society as a whole not to so completely wither away. — Thorongil

There are a couple problems I see here. First, the contract has to be agreed upon. No one signed a contract that says "I want to be born to keep civilization going, and that upon rejection of this civilizing effort, I have no recourse except suicide, otherwise I would be harming mankind by sticking around and not doing so". No one signed that.

Also, an obligation to keep civilization going seems to also suffer from lack of a justification. Just as I can take "to do to do to do" and make it infinitum, "to civilize, to civilize, to civilize" or rather "keep civilization going to keep civilization going, etc." also suffers from infinite regress. Now, I see where you are sort of going with this- others will always be born, so it is up to us to make sure they have the fruits of civilization. We have obligations to past and future contingent connections, etc. However, this also suffers from no justification. I may be part of this historical-cultural setting that I was thrown into, but what is the reason to keep the fruits of civilization going? It is a snake that eats its tail.. We don't want to starve and live in a barbaric way so we keep civilization going so others can be born and so others can be born and so others can be born.. It is still all instrumental. It does not get out of the cycle.

For this evil grew upon us rapidly, and without attracting attention, by our men becoming perverted to a passion for show and money and the pleasures of an idle life, and accordingly either not marrying at all, or, if they did marry, refusing to rear the children that were born, or at most one or two out of a great number, for the sake of leaving them well off or bringing them up in extravagant luxury.

Well, this to me actually seems to show a pattern. When a society has enough people of a certain socio-economic level, one perhaps with more self-reflection of existence itself, perhaps procreation seems less desirable. The world becomes instrumental upon reflection, why bring more people into it? Less time just surviving perhaps leads to idle time for reflection (Bertrand Russell praised idleness for example). This idleness may even lead to thoughts of existential instrumentality. Why keep it all going? Seems logical.

Again, human beings will be born into the world whether we like it or not, but the deliberate procreation of children who are raised to carry the torch of civilization both does not squander the immense positive, constructive labor of previous generations and does not forsake future generations to abject misery. To not assert that we have this duty is, ipso facto and in practice, to prefer barbarism and anarchy. — Thorongil

So even if this was the implication, so what? Why not take it even further, prefers nothingness.. because after barbarism and anarchy, perhaps complete extinction of the species, right? If there was no human, what would that mean? If there was no consciousness, what would that mean? Why do more individuals born into the world and producing science/technology and all the rest need to be put forth?

But even granting the truth of this claim, which I am not entirely convinced of, the absence of a need to produce need does not, in itself, constitute a reason not to procreate. You've merely identified procreation as an action that isn't strictly obligatory for the individual. You haven't moved beyond the descriptive to the prescriptive.

Pointing out the apparent absurdity and vanity of existence leads one to question why more people ought to be created. But at that point, the assigning of moral blame to those who do so requires enumeration of what qualifies something or someone as morally blameworthy. Absent that, threads like this become mere plaintive tedium.

Now, in my own case, I have realized that attempting to justify anti-natalism on non-consequentialist grounds is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. For me, the motive determines the moral worth of an action, not its consequences. Hence, because the motive of most parents in having children is not to inflict or create more pain and suffering, they have done no wrong. Perhaps you agree but still see no positive reason to have children. That's fine, for again, there isn't any personal obligation to procreate. — Thorongil

Well, this is a descriptive thread about our existential situation. I am not laying blame per se. I am being "plaintive" in cajoling those who do want to procreate to look at the big picture as to why. To take the questioning all the way down, and not to stop at merely "X, Y, or Z" reasons, but keep going with the "why".. Keep deconstructing it to the very mechanism, which I believe to be the basis for human life, instrumentality itself.

The ethical implication comes in when it deals with making more people to deal with life in the first place, for whatever reason.

But if life takes more than it gives (which is what I see to be the umph behind instrumentality), then what reason is there to keep living, and make more people who will live? — darthbarracuda

I agree.

So I think the part where I might be disagreeing with you is that I find enjoyment to be positively good and a justifying reason for doing (some) things. All things considered, if something brings me pleasure then I have a good reason to do it and keep doing it, even if it's repetitive. Maybe if I see how repetitive it is and wonder if there's anything "more" to life will I cease to find pleasure in what I am doing - but that's the problem, really, I cease to find pleasure in it. — darthbarracuda

Some people do not see the vanity in it. The ironic thing is that the more reflection we have on it, the more it becomes in vain, the more repetitive and unnecessary it seems. Why do people need to go through it in the first place is a bit different than, we are already here an we get pleasure out of things.

Some people do not see the vanity in it. The ironic thing is that the more reflection we have on it, the more it becomes in vain, the more repetitive and unnecessary it seems. Why do people need to go through it in the first place is a bit different than, we are already here an we get pleasure out of things. — schopenhauer1

I think there's also an element of disbelief accompanying all this. Like it's actually hard to believe, not because it's far-fetched but simply because how underwhelming and unsatisfactory it is. It's not until the end of our lives that we really get it, after we've gone through life and seen it all happen.

Why does it need to be carried out? Why go through it in the first place? — schopenhauer1

For many people, simply because they have an inborn feeling that they want to. What more reason do you expect or ask for?

A want, choice or preference needn't be justified in terms of something else.

For others, it might, instead, be that they just enjoy the process. :)

Michael Ossipoff

However, a more vague fear is the fear of eternity. Levinas sort of touches upon this, the inability to shut off, to sleep, to not have to bear the burdens of existing and being. — schopenhauer1

Levinas also touches on enjoyment, on jouissance, being primary, before all this thinking. What of this aspect of his views?

I'm interested in the absence of sex/gender in your musings about this topic. It doesn't require a psychoanalyst to wonder whether there isn't something about *mothers*, rather than people in general, that you're implicitly addressing. The abstractions you talk in seem to be the ways an academic could-be-father would think about such a topic. What of the could-be-mother's body and what the body's moods and tempers and temperaments tell a woman?

I'm a fairly old man, beyond fatherhood now, and never fathered children. Even this male body of mine sometimes feels a great surge of parentness, though, towards children, and grief towards the children I might have had. These are profound feelings that seem to be treated as somehow insignificant in your account.

First, the contract has to be agreed upon. No one signed a contract that says "I want to be born to keep civilization going, and that upon rejection of this civilizing effort, I have no recourse except suicide, otherwise I would be harming mankind by sticking around and not doing so". No one signed that. — schopenhauer1

But they have. It is implicitly agreed upon so long as one upholds the law and desires its just emendation, respects the rights of others, and looks to the past so as to determine one's actions in the present and the future. You do all of that on a daily basis. As I said, the only way to opt out of this contract is to commit suicide or a crime that leads to imprisonment, whereby one is voluntarily or involuntarily removed from society.

We don't want to starve and live in a barbaric way so we keep civilization going so others can be born — schopenhauer1

Finish the sentence. We don't want to starve and live in a barbaric way, so we keep civilization going so that others can be born without having to starve or live in a barbaric way.

Thus:

what is the reason to keep the fruits of civilization going? — schopenhauer1

So that others can be born without having to starve or live in a barbaric way.

So even if this was the implication, so what? Why not take it even further, prefers nothingness.. because after barbarism and anarchy, perhaps complete extinction of the species, right? — schopenhauer1

Wrong. We have already agreed that humans reproduce whether in civilization or in barbarism, and it is clearly preferable that they do so in the former. You can't have it both ways. You can't simultaneously bemoan the injustice, evil, and suffering in life while at the same time deliberately condone their infliction in order to bring about the extinction of human beings. You must choose: either you commit to maintaining civilization, in which case you oppose barbarism, or you commit to barbarism, in which case you have no grounds for advocating anti-natalism on the basis of concern for human beings. Your anti-natalism would have to be grounded in a hatred of life and of human beings and in the desire for human extinction or the pleasure you feel in imagining this.

But they have. It is implicitly agreed upon so long as one upholds the law and desires its just emendation, respects the rights of others, and looks to the past so as to determine one's actions in the present and the future. You do all of that on a daily basis. As I said, the only way to opt out of this contract is to commit suicide or a crime that leads to imprisonment, whereby one is voluntarily or involuntarily removed from society. — Thorongil

You are just restating the argument you had originally. As I said earlier: "No one signed a contract that says "I want to be born to keep civilization going, and that upon rejection of this civilizing effort, I have no recourse except suicide, otherwise I would be harming mankind by sticking around and not doing so". No one signed that."

So that others can be born without having to starve or live in a barbaric way. — Thorongil

So again, how does this refute the earlier argument I made: "Now, I see where you are sort of going with this- others will always be born, so it is up to us to make sure they have the fruits of civilization. We have obligations to past and future contingent connections, etc. However, this also suffers from no justification. I may be part of this historical-cultural setting that I was thrown into, but what is the reason to keep the fruits of civilization going? It is a snake that eats its tail.. We don't want to starve and live in a barbaric way so we keep civilization going so others can be born and so others can be born and so others can be born.. It is still all instrumental. It does not get out of the cycle."

Wrong. We have already agreed that humans reproduce whether in civilization or in barbarism, and it is clearly preferable that they do so in the former. You can't have it both ways. You can't simultaneously bemoan the injustice, evil, and suffering in life while at the same time deliberately condone their infliction in order to bring about the extinction of human beings. You must choose: either you commit to maintaining civilization, in which case you oppose barbarism, or you commit to barbarism, in which case you have no grounds for advocating anti-natalism on the basis of concern for human beings. Your anti-natalism would have to be grounded in a hatred of life and of human beings and in the desire for human extinction or the pleasure you feel in imagining this. — Thorongil

This is ultimately a false dichotomy. I prefer for no suffering and no instrumentality. I rather prefer that civilization comes to a point where it realizes the instrumentality of things, not that civilization demises altogether. If I were to agree to your premise, it would be to take humanity to the level of understanding of instrumentality and turning away from it, not to bring it to barbarism. There is no "If not this, then it has to be that", hence the false dichotomy.

For many people, simply because they have an inborn feeling that they want to. What more reason do you expect or ask for?

A want, choice or preference needn't be justified in terms of something else.

For others, it might, instead, be that they just enjoy the process. :) — Michael Ossipoff

So someone else's whole existence, whereby instrumentality (doing just to do), forced goal-seeking, and contingent harm is not justified? That seems a bit short-sighted.

Levinas also touches on enjoyment, on jouissance, being primary, before all this thinking. What of this aspect of his views?

I'm interested in the absence of sex/gender in your musings about this topic. It doesn't require a psychoanalyst to wonder whether there isn't something about *mothers*, rather than people in general, that you're implicitly addressing. The abstractions you talk in seem to be the ways an academic could-be-father would think about such a topic. What of the could-be-mother's body and what the body's moods and tempers and temperaments tell a woman?

I'm a fairly old man, beyond fatherhood now, and never fathered children. Even this male body of mine sometimes feels a great surge of parentness, though, towards children, and grief towards the children I might have had. These are profound feelings that seem to be treated as somehow insignificant in your account. — mcdoodle

There's a few things here. First, why assume that mothers are the only ones who nurture? I use nurture here, because I know Levinas specifically mentions to be nurtured as the originary form of coming into the world for a baby. You already sort of address this with the mentioning fatherhood.. I try to avoid gender/sexual politics in this in general, but it can be discussed. Do women experience some sort of biological "need" to nurture their own offspring? I don't know if human biology works like that. There are guys (and gals) who drool over a fancy car. They treat it with care and respect and maintain it really well. Is that biological? I doubt it. How do you know that you do not just falsely attribute instinct to what is simply a preference that is influenced by society? "I have an existential hole in my life (instrumentality but ill-formed) but creating a new human that I must put much of my life's effort can fill that" can be a better explanation than instinct per se. There is a tendency to overextend evolutionary biology too much in our preferences and decisions. We have general processors, neuroplasticitiy, and linguistic-conceptual frameworks that can make the one-to-one instinctual reasoning of other animals less pertinent.

Also, how does the preference of the mother/parent override the 80+ years of the new person's life that will be created as a result?

As I said earlier: "No one signed a contract that says "I want to be born to keep civilization going, and that upon rejection of this civilizing effort, I have no recourse except suicide, otherwise I would be harming mankind by sticking around and not doing so". No one signed that." — schopenhauer1

And I disputed this claim you have quoted.

So again, how does this refute the earlier argument I made: "Now, I see where you are sort of going with this- others will always be born, so it is up to us to make sure they have the fruits of civilization. We have obligations to past and future contingent connections, etc. However, this also suffers from no justification. I may be part of this historical-cultural setting that I was thrown into, but what is the reason to keep the fruits of civilization going? It is a snake that eats its tail.. We don't want to starve and live in a barbaric way so we keep civilization going so others can be born and so others can be born and so others can be born.. It is still all instrumental. It does not get out of the cycle." — schopenhauer1

What are you talking about? I answered the question you asked in this quote.

I rather prefer that civilization comes to a point where it realizes the instrumentality of things, not that civilization demises altogether. — schopenhauer1

Then you presuppose the maintenance of civilization until it reaches such a point.

I'd said:

For many people, simply because they have an inborn feeling that they want to. What more reason do you expect or ask for?

A want, choice or preference needn't be justified in terms of something else.

For others, it might, instead, be that they just enjoy the process. :) — Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

So someone else's whole existence, whereby instrumentality (doing just to do), forced goal-seeking, and contingent harm is not justified? That seems a bit short-sighted.[/quote]
[/quote]

Sure, especially when you consider that birth-control is available.

But don't underestimate the strength of those needs.

After all, the only reason why we're all here today is because our ancestors had those inclinations.

A subset of the population without those needs would be long-extinct by now.

One more thing:

By my metaphysics, the mere possibility of there being a world in which not everyone uses birth-control is all it takes. By individually not reproducing, you aren't really preventing any births.

I believe someone here mentioned something like that.

Nevertheless I wouldn't want to cause anyone to be born, unless I were with someone who really badly wanted to rear a child.

Michael Ossipoff

What are you talking about? I answered the question you asked in this quote. — Thorongil

I don't think you did. Your little formula (Burkean influenced you say?) does not solve the problem of instrumentality, and in fact perpetuates it as we are now living so others can live, so others can live, so others can live. There's a lot of collateral damage in that, with the individuals thrown into existence to maintain this. However, you're getting to a possible answer when you attach instrumentality to this. However, I would not say there is any hard obligation here, as stated earlier with the none contract that was signed.. No one asked to be born and to contribute to the maintenance of civilization or will otherwise agree that suicide is the only recourse for not contributing. This I am guessing is sort of a Burkean social contract, but (and other Enlightenment social contract theorists) didn't think of "life" as something that was done to someone, they assumed its existence without thinking of the procreation of another person involved.

Then you presuppose the maintenance of civilization until it reaches such a point. — Thorongil

Sure? I just don't see it as my mission. Rather, I prefer the fruits of civilization over not..but that is not even necessarily the case as it could be true that I was born into a "barbaric" society (whatever that is), and still enjoy it, if I knew no other alternative. Rather, from my vantage now, which is quite biased, the Westernized civilization I live in is one I know and am most comfortable in. However, I would never say that everyone is "here to maintain civilization" as an end to itself. Rather, people maintain civilization because it is the easiest way to live and produce entertainment as far as we know.

Though from what I have read, some tribal societies, like the Bushmen, seem to live and entertain themselves quite easily, despite a possible early death. However, I still say instrumentality is foundational to all humans and all cultures. Nothing "needs" to be maintained.

A subset of the population without those needs would be long-extinct by now. — Michael Ossipoff

What is wrong with that though? You are assuming that is necessarily bad. It is simply non-being.

By my metaphysics, the mere possibility of there being a world in which not everyone uses birth-control is all it takes. By individually not reproducing, you aren't really preventing any births. — Michael Ossipoff

Yes I acknowledged this in my first post. You'd have to elaborate on your "metaphysics" though in order for this to have context though.

Nevertheless I wouldn't want to cause anyone to be born, unless I were with someone who really badly wanted to rear a child. — Michael Ossipoff

But that is yet again, not thinking of the future child which you are now going to create that needs to need, when the need did not have to be created in the first place if you never had the future child.

I'd said:

A subset of the population without those needs would be long-extinct by now. — Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

What is wrong with that though? You are assuming that is necessarily bad. It is simply non-being.

I didn't mean that there'd be anything wrong with it. I just meant that there's a very good reason why it isn't surprising that we now have a population in which nearly everyone seems to want to reproduce.

That attribute has been very strongly selected for. The extinction of otherwise-disposed lines of heredity is the reason why pretty much everyone now alive wants to reproduce.

I'd said:

By my metaphysics, the mere possibility of there being a world in which not everyone uses birth-control is all it takes. By individually not reproducing, you aren't really preventing any births. — Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

Yes I acknowledged this in my first post. You'd have to elaborate on your "metaphysics" though in order for this to have context though.

I suggest that, for each person, this life is a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story. There are infinitely many such stories, encompassing every self-consistent life-experience possibility-story.

A life-experience possibility-story is a system of inter-referring if-then facts.

For example, the laws of physics are "if" facts that relate various physical quantity values. The physical laws and the quantity-values are parts of the if-clause of hypothetical if-then facts. These if-then facts have a then-clause that consists of other physical quantity-values.

Mathematical theorems are if-then facts whose if-clauses include (but aren't limited to) a system of axioms.

Each life-experience possibility-story is an inter-referring system of such hypotheticals.

There are infinitely many, and each of our lives is one of those life-experience possibility-stories.

I call that metaphysics "Skepticism", because it doesn't need or use any assumptions, or posit any brute-facts.

Rejection of assumptions is skeptical, justifying that name.

I'd said:

Nevertheless I wouldn't want to cause anyone to be born, unless I were with someone who really badly wanted to rear a child. — Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

But that is yet again, not thinking of the future child which you are now going to create that needs to need, when the need did not have to be created in the first place if you never had the future child.

Yes, but I'd put my wife's needs first, and maybe she'd very strongly want to bear and raise her own child. But yes, I wouldn't advocate it to her.

Michael Ossipoff

My girlfriends haven't had that need.

Michael Ossipoff

There's a lot of collateral damage in that, with the individuals thrown into existence to maintain this. — schopenhauer1

This appears to be your answer to why instrumentality is a problem. The problem with it is that, instead of merely acknowledging the fact that human beings will exist in the future, you resort to hyperbolic and sophistical expressions like "thrown into existence." No one is thrown into existence, for no one exists before they exist, which is both impossible and absurd. The act of procreation does not pluck pre-born souls from the ether and force them into bodies.

No one asked to be born and to contribute to the maintenance of civilization or will otherwise agree that suicide is the only recourse for not contributing — schopenhauer1

Nor did anyone ask not to be anything or not to contribute to the maintenance of civilization. Prior to existing, we couldn't ask to be or not to be anything, because there was no "we." Moreover, once we do exist, there isn't any way to determine whether existence is preferable to non-existence, since no one has or can experience non-existence to make the comparison. So you have no reason to conclude, on the basis that humans behave instrumentally, that it is preferable that they not exist so as not to behave in such a way. For all you and I know, which is, by definition, nothing in this case, non-existence may be worse than existence.

it could be true that I was born into a "barbaric" society (whatever that is), and still enjoy it, if I knew no other alternative — schopenhauer1

A barbaric society is one inferior to a civilized one. If you understand and appreciate the benefits of civilization, then you wouldn't enjoy living in a barbaric society, even if you knew of no alternative, for otherwise you would be other than you are. Not all people living in such societies enjoy living in them, and so you would be one of them.

However, I would never say that everyone is "here to maintain civilization" as an end to itself. — schopenhauer1

Neither would I. You have phrased this as a descriptive claim, but I'm saying civilization ought to be maintained, not that it is maintained because that's our purpose. And it ought to maintained for the reason that we owe it to future generations.

This appears to be your answer to why instrumentality is a problem. The problem with it is that, instead of merely acknowledging the fact that human beings will exist in the future, you resort to hyperbolic and sophistical expressions like "thrown into existence." No one is thrown into existence, for no one exists before they exist, which is both impossible and absurd. The act of procreation does not pluck pre-born souls from the ether and force them into bodies. — Thorongil

Just because there was no "pre-born souls" which you very-well know I don't believe in, does it then mean that people are not "thrown into existence". You are born without having a say, because it is impossible. Someone is born and it happened not of their own cause. It is not hyperbolic, but is simply what happens. There was no human, and then there is. Wherever you cut this "there is", it happens at some point and that is the "thrown" that you think is hyperbolic.

Nor did anyone ask not to be anything or not contribute to the maintenance of civilization. Prior to existing, we couldn't ask to be or not to be anything, because there was no "we." — Thorongil

Yes if a tree falls in the woods, and there's no one there to hear it.. People need to exist for consent to exist. Thus, there cannot be "no wanting to exist" without existence. I was figuring you were going to go in that direction. The problem is, not existing would have not even made this an issue in the first place. Why create any issue at all? Why create those who need to be obligated to others, if what you are saying is something you strongly believe is what we must do. Forcing someone into an obligation to the species or be obliged to commit suicide seems its own bizarre justification.

Moreover, once we do exist, there isn't any way to determine whether existence is preferable to non-existence, since no one has or can experience non-existence to make the comparison. — Thorongil

Not preferable but, simply would be a non-issue. Born = issue. Not born, no issue, nor would it matter that there is no issue either. Just non-being.. Cannot get beyond the words here unfortunately whend discussing non-being (shades of Wittgenstein..etc. etc.). However, from the perspective of being, born one can get to understanding of instrumentality, striving, and for the non-reflective the actual "living in striving" and the ever present contingent harms of the many ways the world impinges on us in unwanted ways.

For all you and I know, which is, by definition, nothing, non-existence may be worse than existence. — Thorongil

Well, this may be an abuse of the word non-existence. No one can really speak about it directly, only about it.. and even that seems absurd.. However, I don't think "worse" even really makes sense when discussing something like non-existence other than a word-game as the counterfactual to existence from the perspective of one already existing.

A barbaric society is one inferior to a civilized one. If you understand and appreciate the benefits of civilization, then you wouldn't enjoy living in a barbaric society, even if you knew of no alternative, for otherwise you would be other than you are. Not all people living in such societies enjoy living in them, and so you would be one of them. — Thorongil

I'm not sure about that.. Again, Bushmen might like their lifestyle and not give a shit about the millions of complex technological advances or whatever other standin for our current civilization. You are overvaluing science, technology, arts, humanities, and the rest as an end in itself and not seeing it too as just another instrumental goal. I am not saying I don't like or prefer these things, just that it is not a justification in and unto itself.

However, to indulge your cultural absolutism.. perhaps we can get to a state where all people can become of one civilization and then realize the absurdity of instrumentality. So in a way, I agree with you that, the way history has played out, Western civilization will perhaps bring us to this conclusion.. Like 2001: A Space Odyssey and the Space Baby representing the new human understanding..of the absurdity of instrumentality. The absurdity of procreation for procreation, to do to do, to be to be.

As an aside, I am not liking the character of this debate because I am being pigeonholed into a debate about an absolute ethics which I don't hold. I don't condemn people who have kids. I don't think there is necessarily an obligation either. I just want people to think more about the implications of procreation, what that will do for the future person, and what instrumentality means about human life in general.

My girlfriends haven't had that need. — Michael Ossipoff

...but, actually, that was only because all but one of them had had her children long before we met.

Michael Ossipoff

Just because there was no "pre-born souls" which you very-well know I don't believe in, does it then mean that people are not "thrown into existence". You are born without having a say, because it is impossible. Someone is born and it happened not of their own cause. It is not hyperbolic, but is simply what happens. There was no human, and then there is. Wherever you cut this "there is", it happens at some point and that is the "thrown" that you think is hyperbolic. — schopenhauer1

"Thrown" has implicit normative connotation. It implies that someone who already exists is forced to do something without their consent. But as I argued and as you acknowledge here, that is not what happens. Parents cause their children to exist, but they do not, and cannot, force them to exist. Thus, the causative act of procreation is amoral and, for that very reason, permissible.

Yes if a tree falls in the woods, and there's no one there to hear it.. People need to exist for consent to exist. Thus, there cannot be "no wanting to exist" without existence. I was figuring you were going to go in that direction. The problem is, not existing would have not even made this an issue in the first place. Why create any issue at all? Why create those who need to be obligated to others, if what you are saying is something you strongly believe is what we must do. Forcing someone into an obligation to the species or be obliged to commit suicide seems its own bizarre justification. — schopenhauer1

Why are you asking me? I don't plan on having children, but I recognize that other people do and that this can be beneficial with respect to the maintenance of civilization. Secondly, you're still resorting to normatively charged, hyperbolic language, e.g. "forced." Once again, no one is forced into said obligation, just as no one is forced to exist. Whether you find this "bizarre" or not is irrelevant to its truth.

Not preferable but, simply would be a non-issue. Born = issue. Not born, no issue, nor would it matter that there is no issue either. Just non-being.. Cannot get beyond the words here unfortunately whend discussing non-being (shades of Wittgenstein..etc. etc.). However, from the perspective of being, born one can get to understanding of instrumentality, striving, and for the non-reflective the actual "living in striving" and the ever present contingent harms of the many ways the world impinges on us in unwanted ways. — schopenhauer1

I don't think you can say in an absolute sense that there is no issue with not being born. How could you possibly know that, unless, again, you had prior acquaintance with nonexistence so as to make the comparison? It could turn out that God exists, in which case, nonexistence is known to be worse than existence from his larger perspective. It could turn out that rebirth and/or reincarnation is true, in which case, even if all human beings ceased procreating, they would still be reborn as other creatures and so continue the cycle of birth and death, or else be reborn as human beings in a future kalpa.

I'm not sure about that.. Again, Bushmen might like their lifestyle and not give a shit about the millions of complex technological advances or whatever other standin for our current civilization. — schopenhauer1

No, they live in a primitive society. Primitive -> barbaric -> civilized. Merriam-Webster: "barbaric: possessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex than primitive culture but less sophisticated than advanced civilization."

As an aside, I am not liking the character of this debate because I am being pigeonholed into a debate about an absolute ethics which I don't hold. I don't condemn people who have kids. I don't think there is necessarily an obligation either. I just want people to think more about the implications of procreation, what that will do for the future person, and what instrumentality means about human life in general. — schopenhauer1

I apologize for in any way souring the conversation, but I was simply interested in knowing where you stand on this issue. You and I go back a long time at this point, schop1. As you know, I used to be an anti-natalist, and I know you were one too, but as I explained earlier, over time I realized I couldn't reach its conclusion based on the ethical premises I accept. I have also come to find the arguments for anti-natalism unpersuasive. At the moment, I'm neither a natalist nor an anti-natalist. Your present position has remained a bit of an enigma, in that you make threads like this one that seem to beat around the bush. If you don't condemn people for having children, that is actually news to me, especially given the many artifacts of anti-natalist arguments you have employed thus far in this thread. When did you reject anti-natalism, and how did you come to such a position?

I've always had the feeling that Schopenhaur1 has about this. I always said, "I never chose to be born."

And of course it's true.

But, now, my criticism of my (now passed-on) parents isn't that they brought me into the world. It's just that they were thoroughly unqualified as parents.

I believe that not just anyone should be allowed to create and raise kids. There should be qualifications and evaluations. And removal should be a lot easier and more frequent than it is now.. Just speaking from experience.

Anyway, as Schopenhaur1 has agreed, this matter is moot, because, by some metaphysicses, including mine, not reproducing in this world doesn't really prevent any births overall, because all that's needed for a birth is the mere possibility of a world in which not everyone practices birth-control.

Anyway, of course life isn't all bad. It has really good potential. And, reluctantly, I have to admit that there's a sense in which my birth was partly because of me. A life-experience possibility-story's Protagonist is someone about whom there can be a life-experience story. That story, with a Protagonist just like me, was already always there, and it's a life-experience possibility-story only because of its Protagonist who would have to be someone inclined to be involved in life, with some inclination toward life.

According to Eastern traditions, there's such a thing as people who, by long diligent practice, in many lives, now have no strong sense of identity, or involvement in life, or stake in life, such as inclinations, needs or wants. ...and no un-discharged consequences remaining from previous consequence-producing actions. There wouldn't be another life-experience possibility-story about such a person.

Obviously, then, there could this life-experience possibility-story about me only because I'm not such a person.

So, people who are born are people who want and like life. Yes, you could say that about fighting-roosters and their the fighting that they're bred to want. But of course the difference is that that breeding is artific[ally done to them by humans.

Michael Ossipoff