:heart: :pray:

Tackle ignorance in order to gain knowledge. However, all of us start with knowing (or at least thinking that we know) something.

Your eloquence is a sign that the struggle has not been in vain. The light remains resilient.

When it comes to the positives (fulfilment), the more you reduce your losses, the more you gain (because loss requires having the good in the first place and so, by cutting your losses, you regain more good). The negatives and positives exist on the same spectrum. When one moves away from one pole, they also move towards another. Even the most foolish person could know something right.

We need 'em like a chimney sweep needs a shower. — Agent Smith

Too much of a good thing can sometimes lead to terrible consequences. Having a tunnel vision can be quite limiting. Let's not use up all the water we have!

I am sympathetic to transhumanism. I have talked with David Pearce and found him to be fairly realistic in his assessment and expectations (though he was also a bit too pessimistic, I believe). I have no qualms about letting everybody willingly deciding to give up on life and ceasing procreation. Although I would certainly be sad that people cannot find value in the world anymore, I am not going to let some rule about the sanctity of life make me try to prevent people from doing something they rationally wanted to do after considering all other options. People can decide to not be reproducing machines. The main point is that if the goods can outweigh the negatives for many sentient beings (and there are many people who do find inimitable happiness in love and unraveling the mysteries of reality despite suffering significantly), then turning a blind eye to that truth is not going to make it disappear in a puff of smoke.

@schopenhauer1 thinks that the cardinal consideration is whether or not impositions and choosing for someone else are justifiable. However, another equally critical question (aside from the obvious one about the ethical value of an act with reference to an agent that does not exist prior to the act) is whether or not is is ethically important to bestow a good. As far as I am concerned, the answer is a decisive yes.

:up: Let us design something better!

Edit: Albeit briefly and irregularly, the quotation and mentioning systems worked! I am grateful for this miracle!

I should add that I am not trying to be an optimistic extremist here. The sacrifice can indeed be worth it in many cases. The only proviso is that there are also countless goods that are a source of imperishable hope and joy for many sentient beings (who, contra the Nazis, do wish to benefit others). Even if one does not believe that an action is not a harm if it does not diminish one's well-being, I think one can still accept that bestowing a good has intrinsic value, just as imposing harms and choosing for others has intrinsic disvalue. Saying that not creating the positives does not hurt or deprive someone completely misses the bigger picture: everything does not revolve around the negatives. If we do not require an antecedent positive state for us to claim that creation is a harm, then neither do we need someone to be hurt in order for us to say that it is inherently good (which means that it's ethically problematic to not do so unless there are physical limitations/possibility of overwhelming negative consequences in the long run) to lead to the manifestation of joy. To affirm the former and then deny the latter is to engage in semantical legerdemain in an attempt to elude consistency.

I hope that everyone here has a nice day!

Only if there is a greater good. The void does not constitute such a good, in my view.

:up:

Ethics is also about doing good. Happiness cannot be sacrificed on the altar of unremitting pessimism.

And being born is not making a previously happy person cry by frustrating their desire to not exist. Hence, there is no obligation to never procreate. However, if it is a harm to create someone, it can also be a benefit. Once this crucial understanding has been gained, all one has to do is to realise that doing something better is preferable to not doing anything along with acknowledging that one's perspective is not shared by all, which is precisely why boundless pessimism is unacceptable. I am glad there is some understanding.

It does matter. The act is not a harm (in terms of something being worse for someone and consequently being something that should be prevented) unless it negatively impacts an individual. Sans a meaningful comparison between two states of affairs, there can be no obligation to not act in a particular way. Creation does not reduce someone's well-being—the lava pit does. Similarly, the truth is that there is no need to create positives when doing so does not improve one's well-being. However, if preventing harms is important, then so is generating positives.

I was responding to Agent Smith's post and agreeing with the general claim that one ought to be consistent.

Except that rights begin with creation, which is why they are not violated by it. Deciding on behalf of another person is bad for an actual individual, not the air.

The presence/absence of a real person is very much relevant. It lies at the heart of your confusion—along with your inability to appreciate the ultimate value of the good.

An act is an imposition if it violates someone's freedom, which also seems to imply that non-existent beings are in some free state and being brought to some negative one against their will. But if purposely ignoring that evidently false idea is the best option, then creating positives can also be a gift and constantly mentioning deprivations/hurt is nothing more than suggesting an unjustifiable double standard. It's your point which makes little sense.

Actual people do have rights. But that doesn't mean that there is any value in trying to preserve these rights when the person who would have those rights does not exist. However, if there is a right to not suffer, there definitely should be one to be happy (and the truth is that both of them are intimately connected).

It's quite apparent to me that attempting to dimish the potency of the good by employing arbitrary double standards when it comes to the value of creating happiness is a lot more problematic.

With the presence of the former whose prevention is not required by nothingness.

I never said that you are saying that. It's my argument that there is no obligation to create someone/not create someone because neither of those two actions cause a person to gain/lose something.

Your refutations are terribly insufficient and misguided, I am afraid. Common sense isn't always right (after all, the goodness of life is a fairly commensensical view). It is my view that because there is no prior desire to not exist/to exist, the actualisation of neither of those states is worse or better for someone. And if something is not a benefit/loss, there is no obligation to choose/avoid it. You keep suggesting that the only thing that matters is being hurt (which is supposedly why the absence of happiness isn't a problem). In response, I would again say that, unless one wants to have a myopic worldview, one has to also say that preventing harms is not necessary unless their absence benefits an actual person. The gospel of pessimism cannot obfuscate the truth.

Neither is one obliged to preserve a void. The gift would positively affect an actual person.

Already responded.

Absolute bliss. The pit is indeed bad for one who does exist. However, it's absence is not desired and does not benefit the non-existent. When the lack of action does not result in an actual better/worse state of affairs for a person, there is no obligation to do/not do something (unless it impacts existing people). In the absence of a meaningful comparison, all that remains are mere projections of value (moral or otherwise) where there is none. But if creating someone in a lava pit is bad, then creating someone in a palace of joy is also good and questions about deprivations are irrelevant. This isn't an unrestricted harm either.

For the trillionth time, it's true that being in lava pit/palace of joy feels bad/good. But neither of those states are worse/better for someone who does exist because it does not decrease/increase a prior state of well-being. And if you wish to continue talking about the effects, then the positives should also be a part of one's final analysis.

I never did. I do believe that avoiding and reducing unnecessary harms is important. It's you who has wilfully decided to ignore the positives. The gift refers to the positives, not the negatives. It isn't for some people to decide whether or not the value of giving a gift is necessarily less than the disvalue of the creation of harms for all individuals. A so-called imposition that leads to the birth of ineffably valuable experiences appears to be quite an impotent imposition.

And for the infinite time:
1. It can matter to existing people.

2. If the absence of happiness is not bad because it does not matter to those who do not exist, then the absence of suffering is also not good because it does not matter for the inexistent.

3. In the absence of a prior state of well-being and pre-existing interests, creation is not a benefit/harm/imposition/positive. If one still insists on saying that it can be a harm and imposition, then it can also be a positive that comes from an act of beneficence.

People who bestow good and genuinely try to help others are slightly better than Nazis, I think. There weren't many Nazis sacrificing their lives, sleep, money, and even happiness for the sake of keeping the Jews happy. Appealing to the minority and attempting to malign the characters of people in order to attempt to defend the indefensible is unlikely to succeed, I am afraid. Sacrificing the happiness of billions for some abstract rule seems like a puzzling way to look at the world to me. Fortuitously, there is no rule against creating positives.

And nobody benefits from the absence of the harms, which is why the unavoidable fact is that the lack of creation has no value/disvalue for the non-existent. There is no room for untenable double standards here.

Saving someone or choosing to provide a good when one is unable to ask for it is only an imposition in the eyes of someone who has deliberately chosen to blind themselves to one side of the coin.

Not procreating does not have a positive effect on the non-existent freedom of inanimate objects. However, clearly some people think that creation can still be called an "imposition". If that is the case, then one would assume that not creating someone respects their autonomy. But if that's true, then, by the sake token, creating someone also gives a good that otherwise could not have been asked for by the person prior to their existence. The good and the bad exist on the same spectrum, in my opinion. This is why it's difficult to claim that a state of affairs is good without also implying that its absence is bad, or vice versa. Howbeit, even if the lack of procreation is simply a neutral act (and not one that benefits someone or respects their rights) but creation is still an imposition, neutrality cannot be universally preferred over a good outcome. Finally, the impact on existing people will always be something to keep in mind.

The "slippery slope" can become a big threat when it starts to impact a significant amount of people. Unless one believes that anybody who does not share their pessimistic worldview is mad, talking about a single random scientist has no bearing on the negativity that could be experienced by countless innocent individuals. Also, nobody is saying that we should not do everything we can to improve the lives of those who exist, so harping about "using" someone as if the action entails nothing except harms for the individual does not seem right to me.

What would be crazy if we stopped doing any good in the world just because someone was unable to ask for it—either due to epistemic or physical limitations. Thankfully, we do not live in a world wherein the only things that matter are impositions and harms.

Well, one could say that non-existent beings are not missing out on the goods of existence because, unlike the existing person who wishes he could have had a better life, inexistent people have no desire to be born. Therefore, no harm befalls upon the non-existent. But this doesn't prevent sadness being caused to those who do exist.

My central point is that if it isn't bad to create positives because nobody would lose something/be harmed due to their absence, then it also isn't good to prevent harms for non-existent souls who do not have beatific smiles due to the lack of creation and will not gain anything from the end of all procreation. Personally, I do not think that an action can be a harm if not doing so does not have any value for a being. Yet, if it is a harm to be born, it is also good to create the positives. At this point, I think that one should also care about the opportunity for the good instead of making ethics all about annihilating the possibility of the bad.

Lastly, there are indeed people who are saddened by having a life they did not ask for, just as there are many other individuals who are grateful for having a good they could not have solicited. If one wants to just focus in impositions and ignore the value of doing any good, then that is they are free to do so (though the possibility of universal AN causing harm to existing people still remains). However, this is quite a limited understanding of ethics that appears to miss the enigmatic depth of the complexity of the sentient experience.

Ignorance of beneficence hardly erases its worth. There can be negative consequences for those who do exist and care about procreating. Not creating harms does not create a positive situation for anybody (who does not exist) either. But if it is still good to prevent them, it is also injudicious to prevent all positives. Everything does not remove around harms and negatives. This will remain, I believe, the ineluctable and eternal truth no matter how many times claims to the contrary are made. Of course, one can't know everything but the probability of universal AN (and absolute pro-natalism) being right seems low to me. Some people might not change their views, but I remain committed to respecting them and the value of life. After all, the willingness to ultimately stand for what is just is an act of affirmation in and of itself. The glimmer will always be there. Will the veil be removed entirely? That is a question that fundamentally depends upon the individual. Nevertheless, we must (and I remain optimistic that we will) be with each other until the end of the line.

Presuming and choosing for others when they are not capable of getting a good themselves is the ethical thing to do because it provides a benefit that cannot be chosen by somebody before they are born. If one creates someone, they also bestow happiness that would be cherished by sentient beings. If they don't, then I guess they could focus more on helping existing beings as well as satisfy some pessimistic desires. As far as I can tell, this is clearly a win-win situation (as long as we don't tilt too much towards one side!).

:up: When it comes to experiences, quantity has a quality of its own. The existence of harms does not efface the value of all the positives of life. Just as the grateful person saying that they ultimately love their life does not remove all the harms they have experienced, the person who dislikes life in their final analysis may still have numerous positive experiences. The pessimist I was debating the other day is (unfortunately) unlikely to suddenly start loving their life in its entirety simply because they said that my comment made their day. Yet, this does not change the fact that a significant good was experienced, even if it was not sufficient. In the same vein, there could be many negatives without them outweighing the positives. Once again, the solution, in my view, lies in comprehending the diversity of experience and perspectives.

As someone who is sympathetic to vedanta, it would have been difficult for me to have not heard of him! I really enjoyed reading Ethics.

Doing the right thing for the right reasons is certainly quite important. It is the only way one can ensure the long-term triumph of the good

I am sorry, but did you mean to say that poverty does not have to mean ignorance and suffering? Your reply seems to suggest so. If that is the case, I would definitely agree with you. Coming from a relatively poor country, I have been amazed by the degree of satisfaction many of the financially less fortunate people seem to experience. Additionally, they seem to have a wisdom about how to live a good life that many well-off individuals appear to lack. The pursuit of knowledge is undoubtedly a source of great satisfaction. I am glad to know that you have had a nice day. May you have plenty more ahead!

:pray:

Do keep the benefits (and the lack of any prior interest in the void) in mind. Anyway, it's been nice to have had the privilege of discoursing with the veterans of the forum. I hope that you and everybody present here has an excellent day!

And choosing to not bestow a positive that innocent sentient beings deserve. Some people would say that non-existent beings are not harmed by this choice and have no interest in existing. But if creation is an imposition/harm even though nobody is living a free life in a blissful antechamber before birth, then I believe one can also say that giving a good is ethical irrespective of the presence/absence of an agent who is able to ask for that good. Thinking for someone who is not able to save themselves is generally good, even if there is a minuscule chance that they actually did not wish to be saved. One has to act on the basis of reasonable probabilities.

And there is obviously the impact on existing people but that's a different matter.

Is it ever okay to not let unmitigated pessimism hinder one's ability to empathetically bestow a great good to another person when they are not in a position to solicit it? I think that the answer is yes and therein lies all the difference. If non-creation did not jeopardise the well-being of those who are here and there was a guarantee that there is no good that is being prevented for a sentient being who could not ask for it, I could have been more sympathetic to AN (though I still do appreciate its supporters desire to reduce suffering). No matter what my perspective of life is, I am indeed (gladly, for now) "stuck" with the reality that the positives will always matter.

Personally, I think that divorcing the rules from the effects does not make much sense. However, once again, I did not misconstrue your position. I acknowledged, for the sake of the discussion, that the value lies in the choice. I then said that I do not see a good reason for claiming that one should utterly discount the value of doing good and just focus on not harming someone. Here, "effects" was used here with reference to the idea that creation can be a harm/benefit (because there had been an earlier discussion about creating someone in a lava pit/in a blissful state of affairs).

We will indeed continue to disagree because I believe providing positives has enormous moral relevance (though it can be difficult to recognise that due to the interconnected nature of harms/benefits and the fact that existing beings can live decent lives without requiring constant interference for happiness).

When assuming is the only thing one can do and the bestowal of a lifetime's worth of happiness is at stake, then only looking at the limitations and ignoring the opportunities does not seem right to me. Then, there is also the loss of happiness that could be experienced by many people as a result of a lack of creation. Deontology does not wish to annihilate the minority perspective for the sake of a greater good, which is why one cannot ignore the positive perspective that many people have.

The baggage might not always seem like an immense burden when there are countless invaluable diamonds in it them. It's not for me to decide that the negatives would always be more important even if I fail to find adequate value in my own life.

I merely wanted to restate the obvious lest some people mistakenly begin to think that preventing all positives is ethical. Thank you for the discussion, and I hope that you have a great day!

It seems similar to the claim that the only thing one knows is that they know nothing.

I never claimed that you said anything else. My point was that, due to the allegedy harmful nature of creation, the so-called imposition (the choice) has negative (moral) value, which is why it's bad. Similarly, creating the positives is good because it provides a good. If the absence of the choice is simply neutral (as opposed to being good), then choosing happiness still seems like the better option. I was referring to the value/disvalue inherent in those choices. My point was that there are no negative/positive effects (and no impositions/gifts) for the individual that stem from the act of creation or the lack thereof. Later on, I assumed the proposed framework to be true but suggested that it should be expanded because the creation of the positives is also ethically good.

And I will just say that freedom and benefits are also pertinent factors to consider.

I am not trying to misconstrue anything. The question of exoneration, in my opinion, simply does not arise when the decision does not lead to an action that decreases one's well-being. Of course, not everyone agrees with that, which is fine. In this case, I think that common sense would also tell us that it is good to create positives and the ability to find happiness regardless of whether or not inexistent souls are asking for them. Even a Kantian deontological framework would not ask one to simply ignore the enormous amount of good that could come from an action. The innate goodness of the outcome, despite the presence of harms, does seem to suggest that procreation is at least justifiable, provided one has the right intentions and properly cares for the person. Absolute contentment is not a reality (yet) but neither is life epitomised by infinite deprivation. I believe that respecting the diversity of the sentient experience is generally preferable to a one-size-fits-all solution.

I do not see how some people fail to see that letting their pessimism and excessive aversion to/emphasis on risks lead to the prevention of billions of good experiences is perfectly acceptable. Verily, it's a mystery that keeps intensifying.

:up: Thank you.

The absence of that negative at the cost of their existence simply has no value for the person who does not exist, in my view. Fortunately, most people would recognise that such as act is simply not good for any individual's well-being. But if it's bad to create someone in a situation where they would be experience suffering, it can also be good to create someone who would experience ineffaceable happiness. Love and beauty are good even if one is not capable of asking for them.

The goods and bads both matter ethically. Extricating the former from ethical consideration is not possible if one wants to have a comprehensive worldview, in my opinion. There is no "magic" involved in pointing out that the inexistent is not dancing in joy due to their lack of being, which is why they cannot be made worse off by existing. However, this view is not held by all, so I do not insist on arguing for it—primarily because I do not have to. Obviously, one should seek to avoid creating harms. Nevertheless, I simply do not see how it can be ethical to never lead to the genesis of a good. As an existing individual who has no strong proclivity for unknown games at the moment, it wouldn't be good to take a risk that has a higher probability of things going wrong. When the value is already there, there is no point in pulverising it and then trying to repair it. But who knows? If no adequate source of value can be found, playing certain risky games can be worth it. Having said that, I would merely like to point out that trying to do good for existing beings (who might have a strong interest in a state of affairs they are in) is not the same as creating somebody (who does not have a desire to remain in the void) in order to bestow innumerable benefits that matter just as much as the negatives do. The significant impositions also come with resilient wills and indescribably powerful positive experiences that cannot be relegated to the sidelines. It's still good to try to save someone even if there is a small chance that they would become miserable due to this because one knows that the probability of a positive outcome is higher. Pessimistic rhetoric about games does not diminish the potency of happiness.

Indefinitely stretching discussions can become quite vexatious, especially on a weekend! My apologies for callously jumping into the thread. As I have said before on multiple occasions, I do agree that suffering is a serious problem that needs to be tackled. If there were more people who cared about doing that instead of just discussing things such as politics and celebrities, it is quite likely that the need to even have this discussion would not be strong. Nonetheless, I am glad that you are here advocating for giving people the good (and I consider the lack of harms to be a good thing) that they deserve. Have a nice day!

If non-existent beings had some prior interest in avoiding existence that was being disregarded by their creation, then perhaps it would indeed be wrong to procreate. However, the truth is that nobody in the void wants to exist or to prevent it, which is why it is neither an imposition nor a gift. If, howbeit, it is an act of aggressive paternalism to "impose" something one did not ask for, then, by the same token, it is also an act of unimaginable beneficence to provide a benefit that an individual is not able to demand before existing. If no good was sacrificed and there was a clear predilection for non-existence, I would not have had a problem with universal antinatalism. But, as things stand, it simply cannot be ethically justifiable to prevent all happiness (even if the impact is only on those who do exist).

Edit: Also, I hope that you have a good day/night ahead!

Indeed. Which is precisely why deciding for them and suggesting that they should not have a good (even though they mostly likely would have asked for it if they could have) is nothing more than a pessimistic game that leads to the annihilation of all that is valuable. Thankfully, the world is not yet inundated with individuals who think that giving a genuine good that another individual might not be able to ask for themselves even if it was in their interest is somehow unethical.

It isn't unreasonable to point out similar flaws. There is no need to fix something that is not broken.

Taking unnecessary risks and causing harms to existing beings who probably do not need them to live a sufficiently valuable life is not the same as bestowing a good that cannot be solicited (and it's evident that non-existent beings cannot choose to exist).

Acknowledge the bad but recognise the good too! Some wings are quite large. Doing so might give on the necessary resources to start working for a cure to make the rest of the body look just as good. Also, I would like to say (even though it's a bit trite) that true value lies within.

If freedom can be restricted even when there was no prior free state from which one was taken away from, then giving a good that one could not have asked for can be a fairly good way to combat pessimistic paternalism—that too without aggression.

I still do not think that an act that isn't dragging one away from a state they had a prior interest in towards a negative one can be called an imposition. However, if it can be deemed to be one, then I think that many would also be glad that they were able to have a life wherein they could love, appreciate beauty, and discover new things. Being rich does not always bring happiness, just as being poor does not always create misery. Where I live, many content people are often those who lack a lot of material comforts. Perhaps it's a matter of having the right perspective. The good will always remain relevant. I believe that exact mathematical models cannot be created easily when it comes to something as complex and variegated as the sentient experience. Nevertheless, it does seem apparent that most people seem to value their lives and continue to hope for happiness instead of seeking the void. Above all, it is important, I think, to not have an absolutist position here and implement policies that can address people's concerns, such as a liberal right to a graceful exit and the wise use of technology to minimise suffering (David Pearce would probably like that).

Edit: I should add that I do agree that we should carefully consider the probability of a good outcome stemming from our actions. We might not be able to know everything, but one's socio-economic conditions alongside the general state of well-being in one's vicinity can at least serve as useful indicators of what one might escape. There are some people who think that life is always good, which is something I do not agree with.

Also, darkness is the absence of light. Darkness and light exist concurrently but the latter does not need the former for its existence. Nevertheless, sometimes appreciation of a good (which is distinct from its existence) can be aided by contrast.

I hope everyone here has a nice day!

:clap:

Ineffaceable great goods also matter. An excessive aversion to risks at the cost of downplaying the opportunities that many people could (and do) appreciate does not seem reasonable.

Forcing a pessimistic worldview onto the inexistent is hardly a reasonable thing to do (I am being facetious and somewhat metaphorical here, just in case somebody thinks otherwise!). After all, non-existent beings have no desire to avoid existence that is somehow being ignored by their creation. Furthermore, if one can say that creation is an act of imposition, then it could also be seen as an act beneficence that bestows the positives of life that one cannot ask for prior to existing. I do not think it is ever justifiable to disregard the potency of the good simply because one has a proclivity for focusing on the negatives.

:up: