:heart:

Sad folks experience happiness and happy folks experience sadness—it isn't always black and white.

I wasn't referring to the pain experienced by existing people. The point was that the disvalue of hell is intensified by the perceived value of heaven. One need to imagine anybody except themselves in this scenario.

I believe that true happiness comes from helping others, not from unrestricted consumerism and competition.

The idea of being in hell can hurt more when one thinks about the good of heaven ;)

I hope that more people can start being good to each other because they genuine care about the common good.

Nothing motivates like the desire to preventing damage to our body and our state of satisfaction.

Creating someone also creates kind and ethical people like you who care about others and want to make the world a better place. Bestowing benefits cannot be disregarded in favour of a single-minded focus on impositions. Clearly, the world has a lot of problems. Yet, there is also a lot of good that deserves to exist.

I don't agree. Extreme harms are not experienced by most people. Additionally, there are also people, such as the monks who calmly sit whilst being on fire, who find the state of satisfaction to be greater than the negative. This, coupled with the fact that most people seem to have more experiences they ultimately like than dislike, makes me think that one cannot ignore the potency of the positives. If one is worried about hell (I don't believe that people would spend an eternity in hell), then one also has to be careful to not be amnesiac about the infinite joy of heaven.

I think that it's highly unlikely that a good person like you would go to hell :)

:up:

I disagree. The fact that the "worst" isn't as likely along with the existence of ineffably beautiful experiences gives one a strong reason to not accept absolute antinatalism. But total natalism is also problematic.

I would say that one should act according to their circumstances. Just because life can have immense value doesn't mean it is always present. One has to avoid being blinded by blind optimism. In general, I believe that creation can be justified due to the fact that the majority of individuals appear to find value in their lives. However, this is an extremely general assessment that cannot be applied in all situations.

People are rational to varying degrees. They can certainly be rational in the context of what they do, but introspection is unfortunately rarer than it should be. At least, the world does have intelligent people like you. There are roses and thorns. There are gifts and impositions. Some people think that solely focusing on the latter whilst ignoring the former is acceptable. They think that choices can only be seen as a prison, not as opportunities for invaluable joy that one had no way to ask for before they were given chance to choose. I disagree with that argument. I think that the good matters, but I completely agree that people should not be forced to do things that will ultimately lead to more harm than good.

Of course, it isn't. :ok:

I already answered the question. If the risk is greater than the opportunity, I would not. If the opportunity is greater, I would. I was referring to a hypothetical scenario in which the odds of are perfectly equal.

Many do, I think. Proper examination leads away from universal antinatalism.

That's not what I said. If the probabilities of a good outcome and an equally bad outcome are the same, one wouldn't really have a reason to choose one over the other. However, I suppose I wouldn't want to risk severe harms with my limited resources. Thankfully, the probability isn't perfectly balanced in reality.

But the examined one is ;)

Intellectual natalism—subtle as always!

"You're not pessimistic because you dislike suffering. You're pessimistic because you allow suffering to negate life."

:up:

I don't think I did. If the chances for a positive outcome and the negative outcome are equal (and both have similar values), then I wouldn't (theoretically) wish to choose avoiding the harm over choosing the good. However, considering that there needs to be an "I" to make the decision, it could be likely that I would be content with living a decent life instead of taking unnecessary risks. When the good is already there, then one should not be so greedy.

I added another link. It contains clips from the founder.

Because the satisfaction of simply being would be better than taking pointless risks ;)

Ergo, not antinatalism!

1. https://youtu.be/ebaFnWA5-PY

2. https://youtu.be/KdS6ZTSPkFg

Warning: It's not pleasant. Also, most moderate AN supporters don't agree with philosophy. In fact, the person who made the compilation and the other video actually is an antinatalist. Nevertheless, considering that one of these people runs an organisation called Antinatalism International and a famous podcast called the Exploring Antinatalism podcast, I think it would be worth pondering what one could do in the name of AN.

Yes.

We might believe a lot of things because they appear to be intuitive. However, they might not be necessarily. I don't see how an act that doesn't decrease a person's well-being and doesn't go against their interests can be an imposition. But, assuming it can be, then creating a life wherein one would likely experience many positives they would cherish forever is good and a better option than not doing anything. The risks matter, but so do the opportunities.

Positive actions are better than inaction.

Your argument is a pessimistic one, since it essentially says that the opportunities for the positives don't matter sufficiently to justify creating them.

If we truly don't know (which isn't true, since we know that most people do appreciate their lives and the conditions one is born in also affects the sort of life they would have), then choosing to simply focus on preventing potential risks whilst ignoring the good that could exist doesn't make sense to me. I suppose we have different intuitions here. From my point of view, it isn't immoral.

Parents can play a substantial role in giving their children good life skills and the ability to face challenges. Not everyone desires or needs total control in order to live a life they mostly value.

I am disputing that it can be disputed ;) Although, I suppose I could also add that someone is clearly being given a gift they could enjoy but were not in a position to ask for—which makes it all the more special. What's also probable is that an act that doesn't go against the desires of an existing being cannot be an imposition.

It's also not for someone else to decide that not creating any positive is ethically justifiable. It's neutral at best (when it comes to non-existent beings). However, it can cause sadness to those who do exist.

Any amount of suffering is deeply tragic. Still, the happiness of the child in the slum, the joy that many people experience in spite of suffering is not worthless and cannot be forgotten. The question is: can a pessimistic projection justify the prevention of countless bestowal of positives? I believe that the answer isn't affirmative.

My suffering cannot negate your happiness. The fact that there is suffering is a reason we need to act immediately to reduce it. However, doing so at the cost of causing misery to existing people/preventing all happiness cannot be accepted. The good cannot be sacrificed on the altar of unbridled pessimism.

Nobody is being forced to exist against their will. I think that this is an indisputable fact. Anybody who believes to the contrary should not have issues with someone who says that clearly someone is being given a good they couldn't have asked for.

Since we don't have any reason to think that the baby had a desire to avoid existence, trying to prevent the bestowal of all good seems like a result of pessimistic projection that's driven by a limited understanding of the good.

One does know that most people do seem to cherish their lives despite the harms they face. If one doesn't know that the negatives won't necessarily outweigh the positives, then preventing all of them cannot be given approbation.

Beyond the matrix: the sequel we never got :p

Sounds pretty interesting, to be honest!

I think that the idea that nothingness cannot be preferable/undesirable for inexistent beings is simply too counterintuitive for many people. But if they believe that the action of creation can be bad, then consistency would demand that they acknowledge that creating happiness is good even if non-existent beings cannot ask for it before being born.

There isn't a being who is being forced to exist when they had a desire to not to do. But if creation can be an imposition, it can also be a gift that gives positives that one had no way to solicit before they existed.

If a gift is seen as an imposition, it isn't a real gift. One cannot say on the basis of their own subjective experience that preventing the negative aspects should matter more when it comes to another person rather than ensuring that they get the positive ones.

Creating positives is good (if creating suffering is bad). Pushing someone has almost no probability of being good for them.

Since I don't think that non-existence is better or worse than existence, I would agree that inaction wouldn't necessarily be bad. However, if it can be bad to create harms (and it's neutral to not do so), then one should prefer creating goods (instead of maintaining a neutral state of affairs). If it's good to prevent harms, then it is bad to prevent happiness.

As I've said ad nauseam, trying to do too much good isn't always possible and can even cause more suffering if it is forced. One has to take the greater good into account. Some good is better than nothing.

Illusions can be strong. However, if there are consequences, they aren't just negative.

Agressive pessimism that prevents the bestowal of cherished experiences is hardly any better. It paternalistically declares that all the positives that do exist would have better off not existing if this meant that the negatives would also have been averted.

It's manifestly not an imposition (at least not always) when it doesn't go against the non-existent interests of anybody to avoid existence. If it can be seen as one, it can also be seen as a gift. Inflicting unnecessary harms would always be wrong.

I disagree with that. One cannot simply prevent all positives due to the mere possibility of negatives (unless they can show that this would conserve/increase happiness somewhere else). If not "imposing" is good, then not bestowing happiness is quite problematic.

One cannot guarantee that there wouldn't be any positive in the future either. Blind pessimism cannot nullify the value of the positives.

Inaction that leads to the end of all happiness is not justifiable, in my view. If anything, it tragically falls prey to the same ignorance it is desperately trying to avoid.

Causing unnecessary harms to existing people who are already satisfied to an adequate degree and don't require constant risky intervention for happiness is indeed wrong. Fortunately, non-existent beings have no desire to avoid existence, which is why there is no good reason to focus on merely preventing harms.

Have a pleasant day!

The greater the good, the worse it's loss feels (such as the shock that followed the tragedy in an otherwise peaceful Japan). Yet, even in this tragedy, there is a demonstration of the love people have for others. Of course, this doesn't make suffering good. It's just to remember the other side. One thing is for sure: people need to wake up and do something about the issues plaguing us. I have faith that we will.

I don't think that an act that doesn't go against the interests of an existing person can be an imposition. But if it can be an imposition, then it can also be seen as a genuine gift. A pessimistic imposition cannot devalue the positives.

A few big drops cannot annihilate billions of other ones, even if they are smaller (and here, we are going to simply ignore Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, Albert Einstein, etc.). If one knows that their action would cause more harm than good, then it would obviously be wrong to go ahead and act in that manner anyway. However, since we don't know for sure, one has to act on the basis of reasonable probabilities. A one-sided assessment that doesn't recognise the power of the positives doesn't seem right. Of course, toxic positivity is also problematic.

The armour can be broken silently. If the "consequences" do not improve/worsen a person's well-being, they cannot be better or worse for someone. Nevertheless, I am willing to accept that they can be bad. But if they can be bad, they can also be good.

The central question was answered but I think that you missed my reply. It's also possible that I wasn't clear enough, in which case I sincerely apologise. As I already said, one has to act on the basis of reasonable probabilities. From what we know, most existing people have an interest in not being pushed without their consent from a plane. There might be a small chance that this person would be terrible sad if they weren't pushed, but since this is highly unlikely, it would be better to not push the person. When it comes to non-existent people, however, one has to keep in mind that they don't have a prior desire to avoid existence that we would be failing to satisfy by creating them. What we do know is that, in spite of everything, the majority of people do seem to prefer existence.

It's only vain if the goal is: "survival of the species for eternity." I disagree with this need for absolute perfection. Just as we don't need suffering to be permanent for it to be better off being prevented, we don't need total happiness for it to possess immense value as long as it can exist. Unrealistic expectations cause unnecessary suffering.

I hope that you have a good day!

Something isn't vain just because it eventually ends. Life can have immense value for those who exist while it lasts.

Extreme thought experiments can be found everywhere. Negative utilitarians who focus on suffering have to show why it wouldn't be better to take the happiness of many in order to alleviate the greater suffering of a few. I think that a balanced perspective is better. As I said before, trying to do too much good can be impractical and counterproductive.

As far as preserving happiness is concerned, I don't think that it would be ethical to allow innumerable people to suffer just for the sake of the happiness of a single person. However, due to the fact that most people do seem to cherish their lives (and optimism isn't inherently bad as long as it doesn't affect our overall analysis), I believe that it wouldn't be good to cease/prevent all the positives. My pain doesnt negate the value of the positives experienced by your or someone else (even though it might sometimes be difficult for me to accept this idea at an emotional level).

I and many other individuals believe that life is worth continuing. The pursuit of knowledge, love, and beauty are all sources of imperishable hope and joy. However, I don't think that anybody should be forced to procreate. If suffering provides us a basis to end everything, then happiness (which often persists despite of harms) gives us a strong reason to not so.

I agree that unthinking procreation is a big problem. Although, unthinking pessimism could also be an issue (not saying that this is an issue for you).

I agree that there is terrible suffering in the world —suffering we cannot afford to ignore. Yet, there are also those who discover great satisfaction in their lives despite suffering a lot. There are monks who calmly sit whilst being on fire, kids in slums who are happy simply by virtue of being with their families, and people gaining happiness from helping others. Not bestowing this good doesn't seem ethically defensible.

I suppose that the difference lies in living in a world wherein there is both happiness and suffering, and a world in which the positives exist mainly due to the negatives. Fortunately, I don't think that we live in the latter world. Many people gain happiness by helping others, and it isn't unreasonable to suggest that extreme harms have reduced.

"We are still here and we are millions and we will get it right in the end."

:up: :pray:

Too much of anything, even good things, can lead to terrible consequences.

It's certainly a monumental decision. Whilst I agree that it can be a disastrous one, it can also be one that results in joys that many would consider to be miraculously powerful and beautiful. If suffering matters, then so do the positives.

I don't believe that there are souls floating around in the void who have an interest in not existing that we are ignoring by creating them and deciding on "their" behalf. However, if it's bad to create harms that one didn't ask for, it's also good to bestow positives that one couldn't have asked for prior to their existence.

That analogy doesn't exactly work with procreation. Most people would probably have a strong interest in not being pushed against their will which we would be disregarding by pushing them. Taking unnecessary risks isn't good for existing beings, since they are probably already satisfied to an adequate degree. Therefore, harms are only required if they can bring about a greater good. But because non-existent beings aren't in some state of affairs they prefer, avoiding risks isn't more important than creating opportunities for positives. Saving someone is good even if there's a small chance they would dislike it. If this analogy doesn't work, then I believe that neither does the one about needlessly pushing someone.

Many things could make it different. I would imagine that most sentient beings can live decent lives without having an unbearable desire to push someone. However, creating new life can contribute to the manifestation of inestimable happiness in the lives of countless individuals. Since there doesn't seem to be a good alternative to this that everybody likes, the absence of this good could cause significant misery. Furthermore, I don't see any ethical problem with creating positives on the basis of reasonable probabilities. If this isn't our risk to take, then neither is it our opportunity to prevent.

Having said that, I do believe that procreation cannot be taken lightly. The world clearly has a lot of issues that we need to focus on fixing before mindlessly procreating. I am reasonably optimistic that we will overcome our problems (provided we don't let unmitigated competition, pessimism, and greed blind us). I hope that you have a wonderful day ahead!

I had the CCC in mind when I said that! Irrespective of when things will end, there is a lot of good in the world that is, in my opinion, worth conserving.

Agreed!

(Sorry @DA671)

No worries, sir. The journey shall go on.

To be fair, from Schopenhauer1's point of view, he has had to put up with my optimistic irrationality for far too long as well! I would say that he handled himself pretty well, all things considered.

No matter how small it seems, I think that there is always a will. Unfortunately, it can sometimes be impossible at a practical level to discover the right path even when we know the destination exists. But, be that as it may, this diversity is perhaps also something that acts as a source of beauty in the world.

Nastiness, sadly, exists in a lot of places. I've also seen people dismissing the suffering of others and calling them irrationally depressed simply for sharing their views. Without understanding and cooperation, betterment will remain elusive. Thank you for your reply!

I think that I would be inclined to agree with you. I would only add that an action (or the lack thereof) could still have a positive/negative effect on those who do exist. My cardinal point, howbeit, was that if there is a moral concern, it cannot be one-sided.

I was agreeing with you that non-existent beings cannot be benefitted or harmed (presuming that is what you meant). However, if one thinks that it is good to prevent suffering for inexistent people, then it is also problematic to prevent all happiness.

I am sorry for being a bit unclear.