Not to mention that unnecessarily damaging the well-being of beings would still be wrong, even if the action would affect future people. If those people would not be harmed, they would be able to live better lives, which is good.

I think that it's more likely that the action isn't good or bad due to the fact that it doesn't fulfill/go against the desire of any inexistent being to exist or not exist. However, since I am assuming that it can be good/bad, I do believe that the existence of lives wherein there isn't sufficient value is extremely tragic. The responsibility lies on the shoulders of many. Intentionally creating a negative outcome is obviously worse and cannot be given approbation. Procreation cannot be taken lightly. Additionally, I hope that there is a liberal right to a graceful exit so that nobody has to go through excessively negative experiences. At the same time, I just don't think that my pain should efface the happiness of others, particularly when the existence is concurrent, not exactly dependent. The group certainly exists, and we need to do a lot more to reduce its size—preferably by contributing towards the genesis of alternative sources of value.

The beauty of bestowing a good that cannot be solicited without letting pessimistic biases affect one can be quite valuable. If an action can be "paternalistic" even though it isn't going against the interests of an existing being, then it can be genuinely kind due to the fact that it gives positives. It would be wrong to push someone because one thinks it is in their interest, since the likelihood of that being true is extremely small (there is a very small chance that they wanted to be pushed, but the possibility is so small that it wouldn't be reasonable to focus on it instead of what is more probable, i.e., the person not being in favour of the action. Similarly, the mere possibility of a negative outcome (and I still doubt that action that doesn't violate/fulfill one's desires can be good/bad/a gift/an imposition) doesn't mean that one should not try to act in a beneficent manner that would allow ineffably powerful positive experiences to exist. In reality, non-existence (probably) doesn't restrict one's freedom (which isn't why it's paternalistic), and creation does not take away one's freedom (which is why it isn't paternalistic either). If procreation can still be considered paternalistic by some, then it can also be seen as an act of beneficence by others. There is no asymmetry here.

Paternalism: "relating to or characterized by the restriction of the freedom and responsibilities of subordinates or dependants in their supposed interest." Thankfully, non-existent beings aren't in some free state of affairs that is being taken away by their creation. However, it could be possible that certain flawed worldviews would mislead innocent people (capable and willing of being good parents) not being able to have a family they would have cherished due to an enormous yet unnecessary moral burden. This isn't probable (for now), but it is nevertheless possible. Impositions, troubles, and paternalism are not the only—or even the primary —things that should matter. Gifts, opportunities, and kindness are also important. Despite everything, the positives will always remain relevant.

A bit impertinent, but that is a beautiful bird. I showed my parrot that imageand he seemed quite impressed by it.

Sometimes. :up:

Lastly, I think that the millions and the grand can swap places in a subtle way depending upon the individual. Therein, I believe, lies the end of absolutist pro-lifeism/universal AN.

Have a great day, friend!

It's the least one could do!

And witness the majestic sights outside of the hospital!

:clap:

Deprivations are more but not total: Creation isn't ethical. One happy day doesn't erase every other bad experience.

Satisfaction is more but not total: Creation is ethical. Some negative experiences do not outweigh the value of countless moments of satisfaction derived from love, they appreciation of beauty, and the pursuit of knowledge.

A hopeful attempt. :up:

Lived experiences can often reveal a lot, which is why I believe that it isn't baffling that many rich people do not want children (though this slightly differs from one region/culture to another). Wealth, and particularly a constant desire for something more, does not always lead to long-term happiness. It is, however, possibility that the well-off might want value the enjoyment they gain from other sources. Since I do not think that people should be pressurised to procreate, I do not find this to be problematic. I just hope that people can have a more comprehensive perspective and help make the world a better place.

The failure to reject arbitrarily high standards for one thing (the positives) whilst not accepting them when it comes to the other (the negatives) is bound to lead to erroneous conclusions. The alternative to not being able to get everything is to get a majority of it, not to never even have the capacity to receive it.

The impact it could have is undoubtedly an important point.

I don't think that they were trying to be selfish. The argument was that if one didn't procreate, it wouldn't result in the existence of a person who would deserve benefits but be unable to get them. The claim is that it's better to not create someone, even though it's not as if non-existent beings who avoid deprivation gain anything from it—they simply don't exist to have anything. I would say that if this framework is true, then one could also say that it's good to create someone because it would allow them to experience the benefits they deserve (even if the situation would not be perfect). If one does not need to gain from the absence of deprivations (and we know that inexistent souls or inanimate objects aren't experiencing any satisfaction from their lack of existence) in order for us to say that the creation of deprivations is bad, then I believe that we could similarly suggest that the creation of the benefits is good regardless of whether or not their absence leads to a conscious experience of deprivation.

Happiness isn't defined by money (many of the happiest people I've met didn't have a lot) but ignorance does undoubtedly play a role in how we act. Reckless procreation is wrong.

"I'm away to have a nice night of alcohol, fun, joy, happiness and good banter with friends. There will be a little suffering as well tomorrow morning. Worth it!"

:ok:

To each their own, sir! I just hope that the common good is kept in the minds of all.

One man's solution can be another man's problem. I support the right to find a dignified exit and ceasing thoughtless procreation but not the idea that everyone ought to contribute towards establishing the supremacy of nothingness.

If people could find genuine value in their own wheels, it might help them understand why it can be beautiful for others. It's not guaranteed, of course, but the possibility does exist.

I agree that it seems likely that a state without an actual person doesn't seem like it has any value/disvalue.

I use void in a metaphorical way to refer to nothing. I suppose some would say that even though nobody can say something in the context of nothing, but it's just better that a world with sentient beings who can experience happiness exists rather than one without them.

Sometimes, the pertinent question is whether or not a wheel can be made bigger and better by adding more components. One cannot do everything, yet there is value in the effort, I think.

Certainly. Some would say that the void would be absolutely valueless, whilst others would say that it would be impersonally bad due to what could have been. Obviously, that analysis can only be made by those lucky enough to be here! But they would argue it would stand true irrespective of whether or not there is something.

As a natalist, I cannot resist suggesting that something is better than nothing!

Indeed. I have argued against AN in this and other threads. I do not think that doing so solicits emphasising a certain fringe element. It might serve as a warning, but I care more about the fact that conserving the good experiences that seem to matter more for most people (many of whom go through significant harms) can be a worthwhile goal. Whatever @schopenhauer1 might be, he isn't someone who wants to destroy everything through any means necessary. Like any rational person with epistemic humility, he has set his limits, which is admirable.

So do the positives ;)

Absolute numbers would be difficult to ascertain, but I believe that everyday experience is adequate to tell us that for a nom-trivial amount of people that almost certainly forms a significant majority of people, the returns are greater than the loss.

Nobody loses if they don't exist and neither do they win. I do not think that one needs total utilitarianism in order to reject the claim that bestowing happiness can have value. I do believe that instead of filling up an abstract bar, the actual well-being of the individuals matters more, which is why I am more sympathetic to average utilitarianism/a person-affecting view. The former is obviously impersonal, but it seems to be more concerned with the actual happiness/suffering experienced by individuals. Ergo, one should focus on the % of h experienced by each individual (p) rather than the % of p having any amount of h.

"I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.

But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier...But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature....

But I do not believe India to be helpless....I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature....Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.

We do want to drive out the beast in the man, but we do not want on that account to emasculate him. And in the process of finding his own status, the beast in him is bound now and again to put up his ugly appearance.

The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence.

My creed of nonviolence is an extremely active force. It has no room for cowardice or even weakness. There is hope for a violent man to be some day non-violent, but there is none for a coward. I have, therefore, said more than once....that, if we do not know how to defend ourselves, our women and our places of worship by the force of suffering, i.e., nonviolence, we must, if we are men, be at least able to defend all these by fighting."

—Mahatma Gandhi

Source: https://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm

Or merely a magical ability to explain in a coherent and convincing manner that too much pushing isn't in anybody's long-term interest.

Still, it's true that one does need to (for now, anyway) know certain other skills. I hope that I can learn them to a sufficient degree whilst also striving towards the quite lofty goal of achieving humility. All I know is that there's a long road ahead—a road sprinkled with many potholes. Yet, I am grateful for the lamp posts I have found along the way :)

Quite possible. But I will not give up—even on those who may have given up on everything. As long as there are good people in the world, hope for a better future will persist. I only hope that I can learn something valuable from them —or at least as much as my rather limited intellect can handle.

I mean, it's possible that not all do not care, but I still feel that a significant amount of them possess a lot of empathy. Also, many of them don't like Mr. Trump.

The clips were actually uploaded by an antinatalist who is firmly against those extremists. I have had discussions with him and didn't find his imposition-focused arguments convincing (due to the reasons I've mentioned in my previous comments), but he appears to be an intelligent and kind person. I wish to avoid doubting people's intentions as much as I can. Nonetheless, it's undeniable that there are many who go a bit too far—and the cost can be irreparably high.

Thank you for your kind words. I should, however, mention that not all antinatalists say that they hate humanity. Many genuinely seem to care about others and wish to ensure that they don't suffer. All I would say that life isn't just—or even mostly—about the negatives.

Apologies for the late reply. I agree that there is a difference between the moderate supporters of AN and those in the video, but I have also seen people gradually slide towards the darker side after a while. Sadly, there isn't much awareness about it.

I disagree with universal AN, but, as I have explained ad nauseam, I do believe that it can have value in making people realise the necessities to take suffering and procreation more soberly. I hope that you have a good day/night!

I do not wish to give up on others because valuing life cannot be just about oneself or one's group. However, each person will choose their own path. Thank you for your reply.

The value can be greater, though this isn't always going to be the case (just as its complete absence is not an ineluctable truth). May you have a wonderful day! :pray:

The ethical standards of caring about the well-being of creatures that all sentient beings hopefully share, I suppose. It's in people's own interest to care about others, though it can be difficult to convince someone who spurns the call of their conscience.

I certainly hope they don't. Value can be found in life even in difficult times. Additionally, one could feel that they could reduce more harms by being here. Lastly, and unfortunately, we still need to do a lot more to ensure that people who cannot find any satisfaction can find a graceful way out if nothing else can be done. Absolutist pro-lifeism isn't right.

Not if they are addressing separate things.

Edit: Here is an explanation in case you have any doubts. What I meant was that I am aware of what your response will be, but you (or someone else) should not be too happy about this (and it's quite natural to hope that someone would accept your claim if they know it) because the response has been (in my opinion) and will be (most probably) wrong due to its fundamental flaws that stem from its inability to recognise the worth of the positives.

That's why it's not certain that it isn't. It's possible, nonetheless.

There wasn't much of a reason to reply here. However, I am grateful to you for your insights. I know what you will say, but it shall remain erroneous. Have a nice day!

Also, it was never my intention to appear to be "a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post." Forums are meant for discussions, and I try my best to avoid saying anything offensive. I apologise if anything I said did come off as being rude or needlessly provocative.

It is.

It's better than letting pessimistic preferences for the void blind one.

An act that doesn't violate existing interests and reduce one's well-being doesn't appear to be a harm/imposition, but that's not a particularly popular view, so I wouldn't mind one not accepting it. However, if impositions are a reality, then so are the benefits. Ineffably powerful appreciation can only come through birth—joy that innocent sentient beings deserve as much as they deserve the absence of harms to the greatest degree possible. I refuse to accept that making the good collateral damage for the sake of achieving a pessimistic agenda is ethical.

I don't care about fictional characters. The fact that something will happen in the future does not show that its absence is good/bad prior to its existence. If it can be the latter, it can also be the former.

The only thing that needs to be understood is that creating a person only causes them to exist. For the action to be a harm/benefit, it would have to negatively/positively affect someone's well-being. Considering that we have no evidence that inexistent souls are desperate to exist or to avoid existence, it does not seem like creation can be good/bad for the person (though it could definitely impact those who do exist). Also, if one wants to talk about cause and effect so much, perhaps they should also think about the fact that one also causes a plethora positives to exist. Lastly, I think that responsibility should be ascribed in a reasonable manner. Surely, it wouldn't make much sense to blame the big bang for a car accident that happened yesterday simply because the Earth wouldn't exist if it were not for the big bang.

It's humourous (but more sad) that perfectly rational people fall prey to the trap of extreme pessimism.

If that makes you happy, it's fine.