If someone is born, that person is exposed to structural and contingent harms where there could have been no person born who would be exposed to structural and contingent harms. I am not sure why you would disagree with this. — schopenhauer1

But I don't disagree with this. Never have. Once born, people are exposed to harmed. What I have consistently objected to is the claim that being born itself, that is, coming into existence, is a harm. It's not. It's rather the condition for being harmed. But arguments for anti-natalism depend on this claim, which means that, because it is false, anti-natalism is false.

But arguments for anti-natalism depend on this claim, which means that, because it is false, anti-natalism is false. — Thorongil

Pessimists think that being born itself is a harm. The proof being the examples provided from aesthetic pessimism I described earlier. I guess I should rephrase this.. The act of birth has nothing inherently harmful (except the physiological pain involved I guess), but rather than "birth" I should say "life" or "existence" itself- not the birthing process. No one ever emphasized "birth" as the wrong.

Pessimists think that being born itself is a harm — schopenhauer1

No, pessimists clearly don't all think that. I still consider myself a pessimist, but I don't consider being born a harm, strictly speaking.

The act of birth has nothing inherently harmful (except the physiological pain involved I guess), but rather than "birth" I should say "life" or "existence" itself- not the birthing process. — schopenhauer1

Ah, finally! This admission constitutes real progress in our discussion! :P

Now, this means that you are not an anti-natalist. Or, if you still think procreation is wrong, it means that you have some reason other than that birth is wrong for thinking procreation wrong. It would seem that that reason might be that you think life or existence itself is a harm. If so, then I'd want to see how that fact is used in reaching the conclusion, "procreation is wrong."

No one ever emphasized "birth" as the wrong. — schopenhauer1

Really? The subtitle to Benatar's book reads, "The Harm of Coming into Existence." The Wikipedia entry on anti-natalism says that it is "a philosophical stance that assigns a negative value to birth." Emphasizing birth as a harm is in fact the most typical claim made by anti-natalists. It's their raison-d'etre.

It feels like you're pulling my leg now. If they exist at the time of making lemonade, then they existed before one made lemonade. — Thorongil

No that's not right. The history of a lemon's existence is irrelevant at the time of lemonade-making. It doesn't matter if it existed for a century or two seconds before. All that matters is that it exists at the moment lemonade-making occurs.

Now that you've have time to think, I'll ask you again: do you think people can be harmed or benefited by dying? Do you think it might help someone to be euthanized if they are suffering terribly? Even if they don't exist after the fact?

I've made it clear that my definition of harm does not require there to be an actual person existing prior to the harm. It requires only a counterfactual hypothetical person, "if there had been".

The history of a lemon's existence is irrelevant at the time of lemonade-making. It doesn't matter if it existed for a century or two seconds before. All that matters is that it exists at the moment lemonade-making occurs. — darthbarracuda

:-}

do you think people can be harmed or benefited by dying? Do you think it might help someone to be euthanized if they are suffering terribly? Even if they don't exist after the fact? — darthbarracuda

As for the first question, that depends on context. I agree in principle with the death penalty, for example. So I do think people can benefit from the death of an individual convicted of a serious crime, those people being the criminal's potential victims, were he not punished. I also think that some wars can be justified, in which case the people on the just side of the war would benefit from the enemy being killed. As for harm, I think a suicide's death, for example, can harm the friends and loved ones of the person who took his or her life. Fatal accidents can do so as well.

As for your second question, I'm not quite comfortable with euthanasia, even if the individual is suffering terribly. I don't think we have the right to take innocent life, no matter if that life is suffering (I'm not a consequentialist, in other words).

I've made it clear that my definition of harm does not require there to be an actual person existing prior to the harm. It requires only a counterfactual hypothetical person, "if there had been". — darthbarracuda

And your definition of harm is incoherent for this reason.

:-} — Thorongil

???

As for the first question, that depends on context. I agree in principle with the death penalty, for example. So I do think people can benefit from the death of an individual convicted of a serious crime, those people being the criminal's potential victims, were he not punished. I also think that some wars can be justified, in which case the people on the just side of the war would benefit from the enemy being killed. As for harm, I think a suicide's death, for example, can harm the friends and loved ones of the person who took his or her life. Fatal accidents can do so as well. — Thorongil

I meant specifically the person dying, not those around them. So you're taking the epicurean stance on this.

And your definition of harm is incoherent for this reason. — Thorongil

Yeah...no.

??? — darthbarracuda

Look at the word I bolded.

I meant specifically the person dying, not those around them. — darthbarracuda

Oh. Can the dying person benefit from or be harmed by his own death? Initially, I would say no and probably for the same reasons that I have given about birth. On the other hand, death is clearly different from birth in that an individual does exist prior to its occurrence. In that sense, death cannot but be a harm to that individual, since it results in that individual's bodily extinction, at minimum.

Yeah...no. — darthbarracuda

Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong! hop along! Fal lal the willow!

On the other hand, death is clearly different from birth in that an individual does exist prior to its occurrence. In that sense, death cannot but be a harm to that individual, since it results in that individual's bodily extinction, at minimum. — Thorongil

Right but a person doesn't exist after they died so how can it harm them. This whole "argument" is going in circles, punctuated by emoji's and sarcastic poems.

Right but a person doesn't exist after they died so how can it harm them. — darthbarracuda

You're asking how nonexistence can harm them, and I agree that it can't. Death itself harms the person, not the after death state, of which you refer.

This whole "argument" is going in circles, punctuated by emoji's and sarcastic poems. — darthbarracuda

Think that if you want. I've been quite consistent in my position this whole time. Nothing you've said has caused me to doubt it.

You're asking how nonexistence can harm them, and I agree that it can't. Death itself harms the person, not the after death state, of which you refer. — Thorongil

So why cannot birth harm a person?

Nothing you've said has caused me to doubt it. — Thorongil

...okay? How is that relevant?

This whole "argument" is going in circles, punctuated by emoji's and sarcastic poems. — darthbarracuda

Let me add that this comment itself perpetuates what you see as circularity, because it refuses to address what I'm saying.

Consider again, for a moment, the reason for my emoji. I said that lemons need to exist before making lemonade. You disagreed. But then you contradicted yourself and agreed with me that, to make lemonade, the lemons need to exist "before" doing so (whether by two seconds or a century).

I shouldn't have to spell this out, hence the emoji.

Consider again, for a moment, the reason for my emoji. I said that lemons need to exist before making lemonade. You disagreed. But then you contradicted yourself and agreed with me that, to make lemonade, the lemons need to exist "before" doing so (whether by two seconds or a century). — Thorongil

No, I didn't. Read that again.

It doesn't matter if it existed for a century or two seconds before. — darthbarracuda

So why cannot birth harm a person? — darthbarracuda

Because there is no person to harm, prior to it, like there is in the case of death.

Because there is no person to harm, prior to it, like there is in the case of death. — Thorongil

Yet the epicurean position is precisely that death cannot harm the person themselves because a person does not exist after they die. It seems ad hoc to require someone exist before a harm for something to count as a harm but not require that they exist after a harm for something to count as a harm.

No, I didn't. Read that again. — darthbarracuda

You contradicted yourself, and I've shown why. Telling me to "reread" what you wrote, instead of explaining why my assertion that you have contradicted yourself is wrong, does not, in fact, absolve you from contradiction.

You said:

I said that lemons need to exist before making lemonade. You disagreed. But then you contradicted yourself and agreed with me that, to make lemonade, the lemons need to exist "before" doing so (whether by two seconds or a century). — Thorongil

Implying that I said lemons do not need to exist before to make lemonade, and then said they do. But this is false because I explicitly said:

It doesn't matter if it existed for a century or two seconds before. — darthbarracuda

I did not contradict myself. I have been consistent. Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade, they only need to exist at the moment of lemonade-making.

Yet the epicurean position is precisely that death cannot harm the person themselves because a person does not exist after they die. — darthbarracuda

Then to hell with the Epicurean position! I never said I was an Epicurean.

It seems ad hoc to require someone exist before a harm for something to count as a harm but not require that they exist after a harm for something to count as a harm. — darthbarracuda

You're not listening to what I'm saying. To be harmed requires that a person exist. Birth cannot harm anyone, because no person exists for it to constitute a harm. Death can harm someone, because it always occurs to people who exist. Things that are nonexistent do not die.

To be harmed requires that a person exist. — Thorongil

Right.

Things that are nonexistent do not die. — Thorongil

But they can be born?

I did not contradict myself. I have been consistent. Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade, they only need to exist at the moment of lemonade-making. — darthbarracuda

What the deuce is your problem here. You have made both of the following statements:

1. Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade

2. Lemons do need to exist before making lemonade.

These are mutually incompatible statements. It's not possible for them both to be true at the same time. Only one option is true, which is the second. Therefore, you need to stop making the first claim.

You have made both of the following statements:

1. Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade

2. Lemons do need to exist before making lemonade. — Thorongil

No, I haven't, where are you getting this from?

These are mutually incompatible statements. It's not possible for them both to be true at the same time. Only one option is true, which is the second. Therefore, you need to stop making the first claim. — Thorongil

Honestly can you stop being an ass. That doesn't even follow either. If I really was making those two statements, I would need to stop making either the first or the second claim.

No, I haven't, where are you getting this from? — darthbarracuda

Your own damn words!

It doesn't matter if it existed for a century or two seconds before. — darthbarracuda

Here you acknowledge that lemons do need to exist before making lemonade. The duration of their existence is irrelevant. Whether they existed a million years or a millionth of a second before making lemonade, they still exist before.

This conflicts with the following statement (your original statement):

Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade — darthbarracuda

Here you acknowledge that lemons do need to exist before making lemonade. The duration of their existence is irrelevant. Whether they existed a million years or a millionth of a second before making lemonade, they still exist before. — Thorongil

No, that's not what I meant at all. I said the duration doesn't matter because it doesn't matter at all whether or not lemons exist before lemonade-making.

I said, explicitly and many times now:

Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade, they only need to exist at the moment of lemonade-making. — darthbarracuda

I said the duration doesn't matter because it doesn't matter at all whether or not lemons exist before lemonade-making. — darthbarracuda

Darth, I refuse to accept that you are this daft. The point I just made to you was that, if you acknowledge ANY duration of a lemon's existence BEFORE making lemonade, then you have contradicted the following statement:

Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade — darthbarracuda

Darth, I refuse to accept that you are this daft. The I just made to you was that, if you acknowledge ANY duration of a lemon's existence BEFORE making lemonade, then you have contradicting the following statement: — Thorongil

How does acknowledging a lemon's prior existence contradict my claim that the only thing that matters is that the lemon exists at the moment of lemonade-making?

How does acknowledging a lemon's prior existence contradict my claim that the only thing that matters is that the lemon exists at the moment of lemonade-making? — darthbarracuda

If "at the moment" still presupposes the lemons' prior existence in your mind, it doesn't.

It contradicts this statement:

Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade — darthbarracuda

If "at the moment" still presupposes the lemons' prior existence in your mind, it doesn't. — Thorongil

???

Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade — darthbarracuda

Christ, be charitable. Lemons do not need to exist beforehand in order to make lemonade, if that clears things up. They need only exist at the time of lemonade-making.

Lemons do not need to exist beforehand in order to make lemonade. They need only exist at the time of lemonade-making. — darthbarracuda

Wow. You must be trolling me. I don't know how else to account for such brazen stubbornness.

Wow. You must be trolling me. I don't know how else to account for such brazen stubbornness. — Thorongil

I don't know how else to account for your inability to comprehend a very simple issue. But oh well.

I don't know how else to account for your inability to comprehend a very simple issue. But oh well. — darthbarracuda

You have some lemons, some water, and some sugar. Making lemonade requires mixing lemon juice from the lemons with the water and sugar. This means the lemons must exist prior to the making of lemonade.

So now why don't you tell me how I'm wrong.