I joined just to say you're a massive tool, bud. ^^^

Who?

You.

But I just said he's probably trolling, which was confirmed in the Shoutbox. Sue me for not seeing it as fast as you would like. I honestly never expected him to react that way to being proven wrong.

This means the lemons must exist prior to the making of lemonade. — Thorongil

This is wrong. Lemons only need to exist at the moment of lemonade-making.

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." — Thorongil

Admission of what? Birth is the CAUSE of existence for an individual, thus the CAUSE of suffering in the individual who is BORN as being born CAUSES existence and thus suffering.

Procreation is the direct cause of life which correlates with structural suffering. Thus procreation caused the structural suffering that will occur in an individual. How does that not follow for you?

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. — Thorongil

Negative value to being born (which causes the structural suffering that correlates with existence?)

Admission of what? — schopenhauer1

Let's look at it again, then. My claim is that birth itself is not a harm. You then said:

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

I thought you were agreeing with me here. But looking at this quote again in light of your present confusion, it appears as though you were using the word "birth" in a different way than I was. I said a while ago in this conversation that I was going to take "birth" to mean "coming into existence," not the exiting of a baby from a mother's womb, precisely because I wanted to avoid the kind of difficulty we have now run into. I thought everybody was on board with that, but apparently not. I apologize for not being clear if I wasn't.

My position is, to wit, that birth, in the sense of coming into existence, is not a harm. Procreation is the cause of of birth, I agree. But identifying the cause of an action is not necessarily to identify the moral blameworthiness of that action. Anti-natalism takes procreation to be a morally blameworthy act. I don't, and the reason I don't is because the effect it causes, namely birth, is not a harm. Why don't I think it's a harm? It's that because, in order to inflict harm, a person must exist to be the recipient of it. But no one is the recipient of birth (for we agreed that pre-born souls do not exist), so no one is the recipient of harm in being born. Please tell me if you follow this.

But no one is the recipient of birth (for we agreed that pre-born souls do not exist), so no one is the recipient of harm in being born. Please tell me if you follow this. — Thorongil

No one is the recipient of birth? Who cares.. Someone EXISTS who did NOT EXIST beforehand. Existing is harmful. Who brought about the existence of this person ergo the harm? Do you agree that people exist? Let's hope we can at least start there.. Do people "start" to exist at X time? Let's hope we agree there. At the X time of starting to exist, starts the harm. There need not be people before X time. You cannot try to word-game your way into trying to say that because there was no identity of a particular person prior to birth, no one was actually harmed, because harm "began" at the instant of X- there need not be someone prior to that to be harmed. Just the fact that X happened (and then X1, X2, etc. etc.) and that something prior to this brought this about, means something caused X to happen.

No one is the recipient of birth? Who cares — schopenhauer1

Oi vey....

Do you agree that people exist? — schopenhauer1

I do.

Do people "start" to exist at X time? — schopenhauer1

I'm tempted to challenge this, but I'll provisionally say yes.

At the X time of starting to exist, starts the harm. — schopenhauer1

X could only refer to the moment of conception, in which case we're talking about a fertilized egg. I don't think fertilized eggs can be harmed, so I disagree with you here.

X could only refer to the moment of conception, in which case we're talking about a fertilized egg. I don't think fertilized eggs can be harmed, so I disagree with you here. — Thorongil

But yet you said earlier, no one is the recipient of harm. When that "one" comes into existence (let's say 6 months is when some sort of conscious awareness begins), that X moment is the beginning of harm. Procreation is not just the conception but the whole process of bringing a new person into the world which includes the gestation process. Why would you be so caught up in when X begins and not simply note that at some point, X suffering will begin and this was caused by something or someone who brought directly brought this situation about where it otherwise would not. It does not matter whether it is a process overtime that brings about X moment or an instantaneous event.

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. — schopenhauer1

I think the problem is that along with increased intelligence and civilization came this perceived need to always be achieving, thriving, and improving. This perceived need drives much of the mental suffering that takes place. If we teach our children that it is okay to just survive and contribute the best they can, instead of imposing such unnaturally high ideals on them, perhaps much of the suffering would end. Then it wouldn't be such a question of morality when bringing a child into the world; it would just be the natural thing to do, in line with our instinct to survive and procreate, like any other animal.

I think the problem is that along with increased intelligence and civilization came this perceived need to always be achieving, thriving, and improving. This perceived need drives much of the mental suffering that takes place. — CasKev

Good points, but when you have a workplace with various levels of engagement, talent, abilities, and effort, that might be hard to justify and hence the wheel continues. Though, these are contingent realities and not structural like the instrumentality and repetitiousness of "being", so may be solvable in a local way.

Then it wouldn't be such a question of morality when bringing a child into the world; it would just be the natural thing to do, in line with our instinct to survive and procreate, like any other animal. — CasKev

This is more at the heart of structural suffering- why are we surviving and procreating? What is it about the repetition of eat, work, crap, maintain lifestyle through MASSIVE socioeconomic infrastructure (and the myriad of things people must do to maintain it), and entertainment that we must keep doing and procreating for a new person? Why must they go through it too? As I said earlier: 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.

I also stated: 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. However, the thoughtful person may also know that these experiences have some vague repetitiousness to it. It seems old hat that just repeats for each person in each generation. Why does it need to be carried out? Why go through it in the first place? In our linguistically-wired brains, we take the chaos of pure sensory information and through many cognitive mechanisms, create concepts and provide an impetus for our actions. In other words, we create goals. These goals, whether short-term, long-term, vague, or well-planned are executed as we have no choice. They well up from the unformed and provide some sort of ballast to the chaotic, undefined world. We must make one goal, then another, then another, even if just to get something to eat. What is really a value-less, goal-less world, is subjectivized into one where the individual human now has "priorities", "preferences", "tendencies", "hopes", "way of being in the world", and "personality". The structural needs of survival, the existential needs of entertainment, and the contingent setting of cultural surroundings that provide the content for surviving and entertaining, what is it that we want from this? Why do we need more people to exist who need goals to work towards, over and over, relentlessly until we die?

Why do we need more people to exist who need goals to work towards, over and over, relentlessly until we die? — schopenhauer1

The need for offspring is biological. That's why we're so attracted to certain members of the opposite sex, why sex feels so damn good, why seeing your newborn offspring brings such joy, and why the loss of a child is probably one of the worst things a person can experience. It is only our high level of intelligence that turns procreation into a question of whether or not we should do it. And it is this same intelligence that has resulted in all of the unnecessary suffering - whether physical/emotional/sexual abuse inflicted on others, or self-inflicted mental suffering.

As for goals - they can be fine and dandy, as long as you don't attach too much importance or judgment to the end result. Once you've satisfied your basic survival needs, establishing lofty goals can be a way to spice up life - to thrive instead of just survive. That being said, I think there is some benefit to routine, repetition, and consistency. It is comforting to feel like there is some level of control over your life, and that your survival is not constantly under threat.

But yet you said earlier, no one is the recipient of harm. When that "one" comes into existence (let's say 6 months is when some sort of conscious awareness begins), that X moment is the beginning of harm. — schopenhauer1

The "no one" referred to the nonexistence of any person prior to conception. We can trace your existence all the way back to the point at which an egg was fertilized in your mother. Before that, "you" didn't exist.

The "no one" referred to the nonexistence of any person prior to conception. We can trace your existence all the way back to the point at which an egg was fertilized in your mother. Before that, "you" didn't exist. — Thorongil

Even if I grant you that "You" began at the instant of conception, as I stated, it is the whole process of gestation and birth that contributes to the person. The harm does not maybe start with conception, but it does start at what ever X time after conception.

Even if I grant you that "You" began at the instant of conception, as I stated, it is the whole process of gestation and birth that contributes to the person. The harm does not maybe start with conception, but it does start at what ever X time after conception. — schopenhauer1

Yes! But if you grant, as you have here, that you exist at the moment of conception, then "coming into existence" isn't a harm, because there is no one to harm prior to conception. You also previously granted that literal birth (exiting a mother's womb) isn't a harm. So whence anti-natalism? It has no leg to stand on now.

Yes! But if you grant, as you have here, that you exist at the moment of conception, then "coming into existence" isn't a harm, because there is no one to harm prior to conception. You also previously granted that literal birth (exiting a mother's womb) isn't a harm. So whence anti-natalism? It has no leg to stand on now. — Thorongil

The person was brought about by someone conceiving and then birthing a child. Do you really believe it is the act of conception and birthing that antinatalists are talking about? Of course not, they are talking about "coming into existence" which usually correlates to becoming a fully functioning human (even if reliant on others). Most Pessimists (capital P) would say that the world has structural harm, and thus bringing someone into existence is bringing someone into this world means creating the circumstance for a fully functioning human who by this fact experiences the structural harm inherent in the system.

You are caught up on the semantics of the "anti-natalist". Being born implies more than the birthing or conception. So no actual person was being harmed until X time, then that person who started at x was harmed (X being some X time of becoming a fully functioning human- whether that be awareness, being in the world as a separate entity completely from the mother's womb, etc.). Existing in the world came about through events that were not self-caused. Something caused this to happen.

Of course not, they are talking about "coming into existence" which usually correlates to becoming a fully functioning human — schopenhauer1

This doesn't make any sense to me. You exist from the moment of conception until death. I am talking to an adult human being. If we wind back the clock, before you were an adult, you were an adolescent, and before that, a child, and before that, an infant, and before that, a fetus, and before that, an embryo, and before that, a zygote, which places us at conception. At no point during this sequence did you not exist. Thus, you began to exist at conception and have continued to exist ever since then.

This is true, unless you are trying to say that your person did not exist until a certain point after conception. Is that what you're trying to say below?

Being born implies more than the birthing or conception. So no actual person was being harmed until X time, then that person who started at x was harmed (X being some X time of becoming a fully functioning human- whether that be awareness, being in the world as a separate entity completely from the mother's womb, etc.). Existing in the world came about through events that were not self-caused. Something caused this to happen. — schopenhauer1

It seems here that the answer to my question is, "yes." If so, then I disagree with this hitherto unstated premise in your argument. I don't think personhood arises at some magical date after conception. I take personhood to exist concomitantly with the distinct generic code that results from fertilization.

Most Pessimists (capital P) would say that the world has structural harm, and thus bringing someone into existence is bringing someone into this world means creating the circumstance for a fully functioning human who by this fact experiences the structural harm inherent in the system. — schopenhauer1

Implicit in this line of reasoning is negative utilitarianism. Thus, when all the dust has settled, you're actually presenting the most well known and popular argument for anti-natalism, despite your seeming protestations to the contrary.

It seems here that the answer to my question is, "yes." If so, then I disagree with this hitherto unstated premise in your argument. I don't think personhood arises at some magical date after conception. I take personhood to exist concomitantly with the distinct generic code that results from fertilization. — Thorongil

That's just going to be a line in the sand then.

Implicit in this line of reasoning is negative utilitarianism. Thus, when all the dust has settled, you're actually presenting the most well known and popular argument for anti-natalism, despite your seeming protestations to the contrary. — Thorongil

But this is agent-centered and not about reducing suffering writ large. If I used my formula from previously in this thread:

1. It would be wrong to treat humans as a means and not as an ends in themselves, if it brings about all structural and contingent suffering for another person's life.
2. Procreation treats humans as a means and not as an ends in themselves as it brings about all structural and contingent suffering for another person's life.
3. Therefore procreation is wrong.

This means that another person's life cannot be used if it brings about all their structural and contingent suffering that they will ever experience. Perhaps you can say that it is negative utilitarian in that it is preventing suffering, but there is definitely a strong deontological bent because it does not allow the individual to be used for a principle or external reason. You can then call it agent-centered deontological negative utilitarianism, and I would not have a problem with it.

But this is agent-centered and not about reducing suffering writ large — schopenhauer1

But how can it not be? Look at your first premise:

1. It would be wrong to treat humans as a means and not as an ends in themselves, if it brings about all structural and contingent suffering for another person's life. — schopenhauer1

Here you speak of humans, plural. Your clause at the end speaks of structural suffering, which refers to suffering that all humans must experience simply by virtue of being alive. Thus, you are talking about reducing suffering writ large.

You can then call it agent-centered deontological negative utilitarianism, and I would not have a problem with it. — schopenhauer1

Fine by me. As long as you understand that it depends on both a deontological claim that I believe admits of exceptions and on a certain conception of personhood with which I disagree. I'm glad we were able to at least narrow down where our disagreement lies, but it seems I wasn't all that off the mark in my suspicion that you were still arguing for anti-natalism on fairly convention grounds.

Here you speak of humans, plural. Your clause at the end speaks of structural suffering, which refers to suffering that all humans must experience simply by virtue of being alive. Thus, you are talking about reducing suffering writ large. — Thorongil

Not really. I am talking about the suffering that that individual will suffer, not as suffering as this tangible mass that accumulates or decreases with every birth. It is not about reducing suffering even, just preventing it to begin with.

Fine by me. As long as you understand that it depends on both a deontological claim that I believe admits of exceptions and on a certain conception of personhood with which I disagree. I'm glad we were able to at least narrow down where our disagreement lies, but it seems I wasn't all that off the mark in my suspicion that you were still arguing for anti-natalism on fairly convention grounds. — Thorongil

Well, it is the ethical part of a larger Pessimism. As I said, what leads to this conclusion? The ethical system has to have an emotional import, in my opinion.. otherwise it is hollow. The aesthetic part is the understanding of what it means "structural" suffering. Also the aesthetic part involves the people already here, not just focusing on future people as the aesthetic contemplation of the structural suffering is a kind of therapy.