Perhaps. Yet, even if it's true, the future/potential positives are also worth thinking about—they always will be.

Can vs is—therein lies the real distinction. But those who care about one aspect of the former (suffering), cannot ignore the other (happiness).

:pray:

Forgiveness should be sought for inflicting harms. However, it can also be sought for removing/preventing all positives.

"An innocent person also deserves happiness and fulfillment, which the world offers, would you deny them this?"

That's a good point.

I am not worthy or capable of having any adherents. Still, I think I would have to slightly disagree with my friend universeness on a couple of things:

1. Banning people or ideas isn't a solution and makes it seem like one doesn't have an adequate response to the position being put forward—and I firmly believe that there is a more than plausible response.

2. I don't think that your view is "vile". If the world had more people who cared more about reducing harms instead of being apathetic or inflicting it, perhaps we wouldn't even have to discuss this stuff. Progress can only occur if people are willing to work together.

Also, I hope that you have a nice day!

There could be other things to consider, such as the impact an action could have on existing people. But yes, if preventing the positives isn't bad because there isn't anybody in the void who needs them, then neither is there a need to prevent harms whose absence wouldn't satisfy anybody.

Psychological pain can be quite severe.

People have needs, but people also experience satisfaction that has significant value.

The gulf between "will" and "do" can be quite wide ;)

However, if they will experience harms that must be prevented, they can also experience positives. I don't wish to start a train of repetition, so I shall stop here. I hope that you and the others here have been doing well.

I've seen other people make similar arguments.

If an innocent person deserves to avoid suffering, they also deserve to experience happiness. Causing unnecessary harms to existing innocent sentient beings is indeed problematic (unless you can show that your actions were required for a greater good). However, considering that non-existent beings aren't in a state of affairs they prefer, if creating harms is bad, then bestowing positives can also be good.

I am grateful to you for your excessively kind words. However, as I have said before, I have a lot to learn. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that universal antinatalism is not a tenable position.

Differences regarding applicability and justifiability persist (though there could be a change). If there is a criteria for prior acceptance with regard to consent, then prior rejection should also be required for the act of creation to be considered immoral (assuming that the concept even applies).

Thanks for your willingness to raise awareness regarding the need to alleviate harms. Hope you have a great day/night ahead!

Similar to how hypothetical dissent could be possible, provided that clear signs of interests in an alternative state of affairs are present ;)

Of course it isn't—but it can be an acceptable substitute provided one would agree for a thing even if they would be in a situation they couldn't get it themselves, which is something that could be applied to having a life that one values.

:up:

If hypothetical dissent is deemed to be possible (which is what makes the very concept of consent applicable vis-à-vis creation), then I believe that hypothetical consent can also make sense. Personally, I don't think that either are relevant as far as creation is concerned due to an absence of interest in any state of affairs, but a view should at least be consistent.

Fair enough. As far as I am concerned, even if satisfaction and dissatisfaction are positive and negative, the negatives do not have pre-eminence. One is also bestowing the opportunity for experiencing the good of fulfillment that cannot be asked for prior to existence. Additionally, I don't think that something can be "forced" upon someone if the act doesn't go against the interests of an actual being, but that's a separate matter. Eliminating the possibility of all joys for the sake of fulfilling a pessimistic agenda that might cause actual harm to those who exist doesn't seem sensible to me.
May you have a nice day!

I don't think he is being egotistical. He's trying to explain what appears to be obvious to him. Despite of our differences, I am glad that such discussions are happening. Hopefully, we will eventually be able to create a society that we could all genuinely cherish. Sorry for jumping in, by the way.

Living together and cooperating in order to make the world a more joyous place for all is also a good option ;)

The negatives or dissatisfaction can also come from a loss of fulfillment (like the consumption of the water in one's body leading to thirst), so I don't think that the negatives are more fundamental or more important. Schopenhauer was wrong because the lack of absolute perfection has no bearing on the fact that life can still have more than adequate value for countless sentient beings despite of the harms they have faced. Something could be positive yet still deplete due to usage (for another positive) without losing its significance entirely. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction vary for each individual and can often be multi-faceted. It's undeniable that life has many harms that we should try to reduce/eliminate (and reckless procreation is one such negative), but it can also have inimitable value for many people. Individuals facing seemingly insuperable problems, like the man in the iron lung, continue to find a value that transcends the very real issues they do face. I have also experienced a relatively small version of this when, in spite of suffering from various illnesses, the company of a loved one could end up overshadowing the pain and misery I felt. Of course, this is unfortunately not the case for all, which is why do believe that there should be a liberal right to a dignified exit.

Your points are quite good. We should definitely strive to minimise unnecessary harms (and pointless needs for superficial pleasures). To me, this is a good way to strengthen the positive that never dies and help provide momentum to the process of preserving and increasing fulfillment.

May you have a fantabulous day/night ahead!

An "imposition" cannot exist if there isn't a person whose already existent interests are being violate. In addition, one could also point out the fact that nobody can solicit a life they could value before they exist either. It seems like pessimism's ultimate "insight" remains an inherently restricted worldview.

As for hypothetical consent, I think that the whole concept is inapplicable, so the discussion is irrelevant. Yet, if an act can somehow be immoral by virtue of a lack of consent despite of the absence of alternative interests, then appealing to hypothetical consent for something valuable that one cannot ask for at a particular point of time doesn't seem wrong to me. Anyway, this was a good discussion.

Hello, I sent a message to you regarding something I think you had mentioned somewhere. I shall appreciate a response. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.

There's boredom, but there's also fulfillment (especially when one learns to restrict unnecessary desires). If harm is inherent in being, then so is benefit and cooperation. I don't think that affirmation is always justifiable, but neither do I think that universal negation is a good idea. Nonetheless, people do need to stop blindly reproducing and actually start addressing problems such as climate change and extreme inequality. Hope everybody here has a wonderful day!

I appreciate your kind words. It was just a thought-provoking discussion, and in general, Schopenhauer 1 knows a lot about life and philosophy as a whole than me. I don't think I straw manned him or pretended anything, because my responses about nonexistence not causing a relief were in response to the claim that the lack of benefits isn't problematic due to the fact that nobody is deprived of them. If the discussion should be about states of affairs that contain damage and ones that don't, ir should also be about states of affairs that contain benefits and the ones that don't. In this case, talking about nobody being "deprived" of happiness before existing doesn't seem apropos to me. Overall, this was quite an informative discussion. May you have a nice day!

My point was that if it can be good to prevent harms, it can also be problematic to not create any joy. The response of absent joys not leading to a deprivation was what led to this. I have addressed all the relevant points to the best of my abilities.
As for states of affairs, I already said that I don't agree with the idea that benefits should not be created for the sake of preventing damage.

And you can also look at my comments (or the world in general) to see why, though it's not necessarily good to create harm, it's certainly ethical to create joys. I've read through the replied, and I am not convinced by the claim that the truly meaningful experiences of life and the effulgent smiles of billion of sentient beings don't give us adequate reasons for creating a person. Thanks for the discussion and have a good day!

Which, in turn, was only a response to the idea that it's necessary to prevent harms but not important to create goods. Again, it's quite important to have a consistent view. What also matters is creating a state of affairs wherein a good X will take place, not that it's absence would lead to a deprivation.

I've seen that before. I don't think that the potency of the joys can be ignored either. Many of the happiest people I've met were often those who didn't have a lot. A lot of beings can find great happiness in their lives even in the presence of harms. Resilience cannot be underestimated. However, it's true that suffering is a serious problem, which is why thoughtless procreation must be opposed.

I already said that I don't think that it's unethical to change the initial conditions to a positive one even if it has some harms. Many people also find their lives to be precious yet also resilient.

If anybody is interested, here's my response to that comment:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/643434

It wasn't a mischaracterisation. It was merely a response to the claim that the absence of happiness does not matter because nobody is feeling deprived of it. Moving on.

For me, when one takes into account the innumerable positive experiences that countless people experience throughout their lives that act as a source of inimitable value even in the face of harms, I believe that the creating the benefits can be ethical. Therefore, in my view, the correct answer is, usually, yes. I hope that we can live in a world where this becomes even more likely.

You've given me many empty assertions and double standards, which is something I had predicted before.

I only want a consistent view regarding state of affairs.

In one state, there is benefit. In the other state, there are no benefits.

If the goods are high enough to allow the person to live a truly happy life, it's indeed justifiable to create the person. As long as you don't attempt to derail the conversation by talking about nobody being deprived due to an absence of suffering and falsely accusing me of straw manning you whenever I point out the fact that nobody is benefitted from the lack of harms either, there's not much left to say. Red herrings regarding straw mans are impertinent here.

As always, have a wonderful day!

It's evident that you wish to put on an intellectual blindfold when to comes to your position. I haven't done much except for arguing for a consistent view that you have been unreasonably dismissive of. I don't see any justification for the claim that preventing the harms is the only thing that matters (especially if their absence doesn't help an actual person). If this is the case, then the lack of happiness is also problematic, whether or not someone is feeling deprived due to its absence.

I said a lot more, but it can be convenient to look away from things that challenge our cherished beliefs, such as the value of happiness and the nature of forcing something in the absence of an actual violation. If an action leads to a greater good for the person by virtue of the benefits, I do think that the action can be justified. Obviously, we disagree on this. Nevertheless, thanks for taking the time have this discussion.

I don't care about your arbitrary claims anymore. For the last time, if the absence of joy doesn't matter due to an absence of an actual deprivation, the lack of damage cannot be considered good, since neither does it lead to a tangible relief/benefit. For the last time, it's simply good to bestow benefits (assuming it's wrong to create harms) onto people. Nonexistent beings and their inexistent deprivations aren't relevant here.

It's easy to say anything if one has unjustifiable and biased standards that are applied in an ad hoc manner. Merely proclaiming that unhad goods don't matter but unhad suffering matters sans an actual good does not show anything. You should be the one who should try to keep up, since you're the one who is insinuating that the lack of harms is good even though it isn't actually good for a person. And if creating harm can be bad even if not doing so isn't necessarily good for a person, then forming joys can be good even if their absence isn't problematic. If all that matters is the lack of suffering but not an actual good coming from that suffering, then I think one could also say that all that matters is the lack of joys, not an actual deprivation resulting from their absence.

Neither does the absence of damage, because nobody is relieved from their absence. If absence of happiness only matters when there is a conscious feeling of deprivation, the lack of suffering also only matters when there is an actual relief. But clearly this doesn't stop some people from saying that it's still preferable to not create damage. However, by the same token, it can also be good to create goods whether or not a person is capable of feeling deprived of them.

Your points are also moot because you have deliberately chosen to ignore the fact that damages are not the only thing to consider here. Creating genuine benefits that one never had a prior interest in avoiding and which could lead to amazing experiences that one could not have solicited otherwise will always be ethical. Irrelevant examples, such as one's involving harming existing people for the sake of benefits that are quite unlikely to surpass the goods are not useful. Paternalistically judging that nobody should be able to enjoy a park when they cannot ask for going there themselves merely due to one's own perspective is also problematic.

Pointless repetition.

I also don't care about nonexistent beings experiencing deprivation. Sticking with consistency and caring about the benefits that the parents can create would be quite useful. Again, pointing out the flaws and forming a consistent view isn't the same as straw manning.

It was a clarification regarding the value of good, not a reference to nonexistent beings, so imaginary traps can be safely discarded. If unhad goods isn't bad, then neither is the absence of harms good.

Yes, finally one can stop talking about nonexistent beings not being deprived of happiness (as if that proves a point) and conveniently changing the topic when it comes to the value of the absence of suffering. This is also about the parents creating benefits for others. Hopefully, not all statements will be disregarded.

Yes, I disagree with you on this. If preventing the harms is necessary, then so is creating the joys.

Weasel to messiah—quite a metamorphosis! The point is that even if it's somewhat good (due to lack of harms), it cannot be entirely good (since all benefits would also be absent). And yeah, I am pretty much nobody. I think I know somewhat about some areas, but I do have to learn a lot. In the meanwhile, I'll try to stay away from prophets of doom ;)

I am also ending this here. Unhad goods do lead to harm for existing people (such as loss of health leading to pain). As for those who don't exist, if unhad goods don't matter due to the fact that nobody is experiencing a deprivation in the void, the absence of harms is not preferable either, since there aren't any souls in nihility who are fulfilled/relieved from an absence of suffering. Benefits had is good for a person and we should strive to help and support each other as much as possible. As ever, have an excellent day/night!

Great joy can certainly be found amidst suffering. Many people have a superficial idea of pleasure that is limited to a few pleasant experiences. I certainly think that life can have immense value :)

Preventing suffering at the cost of all joy can never be moral in the ultimate sense. Whether or not it can be a damage/benefit if it doesn't fulfill/frustrate any interests is a separate matter.

The damage is bad, but the benefits are good. My position is that it can be ethical to create the person due to the presence of goods (they are also morally relevant), and you solely emphasise the prevention of harms. Ultimately, we have different intuitions as far as this topic is concerned.

Have a brilliant day!

Call me whatever you want to, my friend :) I don't have any prejudices against weasels :p

It's certainly important. However, it's also important that genuine benefits are taking place. That is the moral part. The parents should do that. That is moral.

As always, ignore the facts on the ground whenever truth confronts one. Tragic yet unsurprising.

There is no benefit in one case and there is benefit in another. If the lack of damage is good even though it does not provide relief/satisfaction to an actual person, the absence of happiness can also be bad even if it's absence doesn't cause conscious "collateral damage". Talking past this or mysteriously talking about parents instead of beings (and not doing so when it comes to the deprivation of happiness) whenever it comes to this won't affect the truth.

Another important part of this whole "thing" is that benefits are taking place. That is the moral part.

It's not a straw man, but I am sure you'll keep ignoring my points in order to avoid the truth.

Nobody being deprived of happiness was about people who were yet to exist. The realisation would obviously occur for existing person. Equivocation is futile. Creating harms is unnecessary, but creating benefits is not.

If it can be good to not create harms for "someone" even though nobody is relieved from their absence (a parallel to the nobody is deprived of joy claim), it's also problematic to not create any joy on the basis of one's pessimistic desires. Eliminating the opportunity of all joy and possibly harming countless existing people can never be ethical.

You're the one who keeps missing the point that something cannot be a damage (in the sense of it being worse for a person) if their interests/desires aren't violated by an action. Creating a state of affairs would only be bad if it made things tangibly worse for a person by decreasing their well-being. It's true that nonexistent beings aren't being brought from a preferable state of affairs to a undesirable one (and vice versa). Therefore, creating a person won't be a benefit/harm for the person.

However, I have not assumed that view here, so it isn't pertinent to my position.

If preventing the harm was necessary even though we don't have evidence for souls in nonexistence desiring it, the creation of the blessing is certainly necessary. The harms matter, but so do the positives. Creating the greater good can be justified.

Ah yes, creating a life permeated with invaluable bliss is only not an "issue" instead of being a genuine good. Quite sensible and intuitive (especially for someone who rejects the idea of creation not being a harm in and of itself).

Counter-intuitive ideas aren't necessarily dumb (semantical legerdemain doesn't change the fact that the act itself doesn't go against the interests of a person), but I didn't assume that position here. It could still be comparatively worse. And even if it is an imposition in some cases, it can also be a genuine blessing. I shall not forsake consistency when I don't have a reason to do so.

Phew, finally one can realise that not working in the garden isn't better/preferable for a person either, since one can logically see that they are neither being deprived nor being relieved/fulfilled from an absence of harm. And yes, nobody is being "forced" into that garden of yours if one would think about this issue thoroughly, but that's a separate matter.

Since it's not the case that an alternative greater good could exist from an absence of that harm, it can be ethical to bestow that good as long as it leads to a mostly valuable life for a person. The same would apply to a life that could have some real goods but ultimately turn out to be bad.

Being the harbinger of joy can be inestimably valuable ;)

Thankfully, one isn't being forced to do something against their interests when they are created ;)

It's equally paternalistic to proclaim from the tower of doom that bestowing genuine happiness that cannot be solicited doesn't matter because that's what one's own perspective tells them. It's also presumptuous to think "someone needs to avoid this suffering but not gain this positive". Ignoring the good for X reason (harms) isn't justifiable. Not everybody feels that they are being "forced" to do something they don't cherish. If someone would probably want to work in a garden but is not able to ask for going there on their own, it doesn't make sense to not give them the chance to do so because of one's own evaluation that might not be shared by the other person (telling them that their joy was unnecessary and that their harms are what really matter can also be quite paternalistic). Also, I have already said that it's wrong to harm another person unless it leads to a greater good for that person, so this forced to work example isn't germane to the discussion at hand.

Intrinsic bad/damage also doesn't mean much, by the same token. If the argument is that it's wrong to impose/cause an action that is against one's interests (suffering), I believe that it can be good to bestow/cause a good that's in their interest. If we are intuitively averse to one, the preference for the other also matters.

Yeah, I don't like that "kill yourself" argument either.