Your beliefs are increasingly starting to seem like vacuous projections, my friend. Once again, knowing that people die has nothing to do with creating a valuable life, because we also know that giving birth to someone does not cause any individual to lose their life. The difference between your "X" and my "X" is that not doing your X (stabbing or shooting) results in an actual person living longer, whereas not doing my X (creating them) does not imbue a soul in the void with the energy of immortality. If you do X, a person will begin to exist. Doing X won't alter anything for a person because there isn't one before X. X does not kill a person. Procreation gives life and this is the ineluctable truth, I am afraid. Taking the baby steps towards this realisation can take a while, if it ever happens, of course.

And life can also be a good—a great good. So significant are the joys that they can influence us even in dire situations to hold on to them and avoid the end. You've chosen to only focus on one side of the coin, so the incorrect destination you've reached isn't surprising. I wish you the best of luck for your future endeavours.

No, it does not. You're obstinately refusing to see things from any POV other than your rather limited one. Tragic, but understandable. Once again, creating someone who could have a valuable life has little to do with stabbings. Nobody is being snatched from an eternity of bliss and "brought" to an inferior state that causes their perfect being to end. Paying attention is definitely quite important lest we reach erroneous conclusions and start blaming innocent people ;)

I have seen your numerous arguments and concluded that they are not justifiable. Now that we have established that procreation kills nobody, we can still consider whether or not the goods of love, beauty, and inestimably valuable relationships are worth it or not. I think that they certainly can be (though it's true that they aren't present in all cases, which is a tragedy that needs to be minimised.

Indeed. Thankfully, procreation kills nobody.

Creating someone whilst knowing that everybody dies due to the possibility of a meaningful life that the person themselves would cherish is not the same as killing them, since that requires cutting short a life and violating interests—both of which are inexistent before creation.

Indeed. Thankfully, being created won't "lead" to death; it leads to life. Things in life certainly do lead to cessation, but that doesn't change the fact that causing someone to exist does not kill (ending a life) anybody.

I am afraid that this belief of yours is is erroneous. They are not morally equivalent in any sensible way.

Knowing people die is not the same as killing them. You're only asserting that procreation kills people, even though it's the opposite of that, since it's the act that leads to the manifestation of life. And it's indeed relevant that beings don't exist and live before being created, which is why it makes no sense to think that creating them leads to "their" death,, since they don't exist in the first place.

Your bomb scenario is different because you have no good reason to design something that would harm the interests of existing human beings.

You would still be prosecuted because your act could lead to unnecessary harm and loss of joy for people. Fortunately, the act that makes the good possible doesn't have much in common with that.

One act will harm someone who has an interest in living, and the other will create them and form the possibility of any life and joy contained within it. The difference is humungous, and I am surprised you don't see it. Trying to "prevent" a loss when there's no gain in the first place is not rational.

Once again, you're conflating different things. Anything that harms people who already exist and could live longer valuable lives is problematic. However, we don't have evidence that nonexistent beings are in some blissful and immortal state of affairs that's negatively affected when they are created, which is why it makes little sense to claim that the act that creates life has anything to do with ending it.

It's still wrong because it would harm existing people who have other interests, but nonexistent beings don't possess such interests. That still has nothing to do with creating them, so I think you missed my point.

Many people are extremely grateful for existing. So, if our aversion to death gives us reason to think that death leads to something terrible, we also have reasons to believe that existing can be a relief from something problematic. I don't think that procreation is "wrong", but it would become far more important if nonexistence (pre existence) was a terrible state of affairs.

I've seen your details and remain unconvinced. We don't have any "evidence" besides that many people have a desire to avoid death. However, as far as evidence is concerned, we have powerful evidence to think think that existence is deeply valuable, since it's evident (according to your own post) that most people desperately want to avoid its cessation. The non-creation of such a good is clearly absurd ;)

So creating a person is not the same as ending them because they don't exist in the first place. But for your "for all we know" point, perhaps we were in some sort of hell before being created. Maybe existence is the only relief that innocent souls can ever get. Who knows? :P The valley of life remains enigmatic.

Our desires don't always give us accurate reasons for things. I am glad I didn't believe it's faulty reason when it told me that studying for long would make me sad, since it didn't. Once again, we also have reasons for believing that life has immense value that deserves to be conserved.

I also fail to see how it would be moral to prevent all good. Your reason is clearly hinting at the fact that life can have value of such magnitude that we wish to avoid its cessation to almost an incapacitating degree (which could be counterproductive, which is why we should not do so). We could be coming from hell and be on our way to heaven. Ultimately, the reality is that the existence of the harm does not give us sufficient reason to prevent the possibility of all joy.

I agree that many people procreate thoughtlessly and for purely selfish reasons. This isn't good and has to be discouraged. However, I don't think that it's impossible to create a person because one wants them to have a good life. Not creating joys that deserve to exist when we don't know for sure if nonexistence isn't some sort of hell that only existence can give relief from might not be the best idea ;)

The valley of life as well, my friend. And no, I don't think that creating a valuable life has anything to do with "manslaughter", which is about cutting short a potentially good life. "They" weren't floating in some void of immortality before they were put in the mortal realm. People die because of disease or external harm, not because they were created, since nonexistent beings don't have the good of life in the first place. "They" will also live and have cherished bonds and good experiences. They are going to live because of one's decision. I think that it's quite myopic to ignore the ineffably meaningful experiences of love, beauty, and creativity and solely focus on death. Furthermore, you are fundamentally mistaken about the creation of people being the same as "making" them die, since creating someone does not end their life; it begins it.

Once again, you're now conflating what's ethical with the thing itself. We believe that it's wrong to kill a person for many reasons. It violates their right and leads to immense suffering for their loved ones. It causes them pain, which isn't legal either (unless there's a greater good that would result in more joy for them). And many hold to the deprivation account, which certainly affects their thoughts on this matter. Also, people do prefer their lives, which can give us reason to think that it is good.

Life is also quite good by the same token, since most people seem to deeply prefer it and apparently that's something that can give us "reason" to ascribe a certain value to something.

I do, though I am not claiming this is true for all.

You're the one who needs to conduct some introspection, mate. But I will definitely heed your advice. I don't think that many people would want to live forever. I've seen quite happy old people who are absolutely fine with their death because they've enjoyed all the goods life has to offer. Once again, you're missing the point about reason and desire. People choose to continue living a moderately bad life because it could also be moderately good and they hold certain views about death that they haven't really thought about. Most people deeply value their lives, which can now apparently demonstrate that it is a source of ethereal good that is extremely potent. This is getting a bit circular, so I think there is reason for avoiding stretching this discussion on. As always, have an excellent day!

You have already acknowledged that us preferring something is not the same as us having a reason to do it (in terms of it being the "right" thing). As for me, I do think that I have a reason to avoid death because I prefer living and the good life has to offer. However, I don't necessarily fear me going to sleep and never waking up.

Believing something to be harmful doesn't make it so (except for psychological damage, but that's a different matter). I think that your views are uncertain and hazy, but still, I am glad to know how much people can appreciate their lives ;)

Forgive me, my humour is rather ... stale.

Anyway, as always, I hope you have a nice day!

:up:

I am not talking about psychology. You yourself had said that reason and desire are different, but then you simultaneous suggest that something most people believe to be bad based upon an uncritical perspective of it gives us a rational reason for thinking it's genuinely bad and that appears to make no sense.

They're quite relevant, my friend ;) I already distinguished between the two. I merely said that the alleged "reason" is far too diverse in character to make uniform claims.

Once again, thanks for the discussion, and I hope you have a great day/night ahead!

I don't agree with the deprivation account, but I also don't necessarily believe in your view. Many people are averse to death, but this doesn't mean the same thing as us having a rational reason to avoid it.

In terms of people's averseness to death, I do think there are parallels. Someone who holds to a deprivation account might feel worse about death than one who does not. In my reply, I distinguished between desires and reason (something being the "right" thing to do). I believe that you missed this point.

Of course people do wish to avoid death. However, their reason for believing that are varied and also differ in intensity (even on a day-to-day basis, though the change there might not be easily perceptible, I think). You already said that us preferring something is not the same as us having a reason to avoid it (differentiating between what is desired and what is true), but then you claim that everybody saying that they wish to avoid death is evidence that it is something terrible (where you do end up conflating personal views with what one needs). You also disregard the fact that most people also say that they cherish their lives, even "so-so" lives. Part of the reason they wish to not die is because they want to continue living and experience the positive aspects of life that they value, and it would be terrible if someone with an extreme emphasis on death prevented the opportunity of all joy ;) Things aren't black and white.

Once again, fear is not the same as something being true. Many people might have feared that thunder was some punishment from the gods, but the majority deeply believing that does not make that a reality or give us a "reason" to pray to the thunder god the moment we get out of our homes. Of course, it's true that we want to avoid death. But if not existing has no value, then fearing is not rational (and neither is loving it). And if the deprivation account is true, then it would still be preferable to live a good life than incessantly worrying about one's demise.

Many people "think" they have a reason to avoid it. This is why their framework (the view they hold about the nature of death) matters. Many people who fear it believe that they would be left in some sort of dark void of misery after existing, but they also often avoid investigating these issues. I've experienced this a lot because I support the right to a graceful exit. People usually start off in a fearful way, but after a long discussion, many genuinely start to view death as something mostly irrelevant in their life (apart from the pain, but that's more about dying). The business owner chooses the lesser evil. Some billionaire might indeed enjoy wasting his money. The burden of proof was on you to prove that mere beliefs give us a rational reason for avoiding something, and I don't think you were able to defend your case successfully. But as you said, life is not a business. In life, things aren't about just avoiding something bad; things are also about gaining something valuable.

If "p" means the intuition that death is bad and q is the conclusion that death is bad, then you have failed to show the soundness of your argument. The problem is that it simply does not follow that if we think that we want to avoid death (which is not the same as believing death itself to be bad) that death actually becomes bad. All our beliefs and intuitions deserve to be scrutinised to ensure that we have a rational reason to trust them. Many intuitions that our ancestors might have shared, such as natural disasters being an evil force, have now been discarded by most of us once we realised that we did not have enough information to believe them. Therefore, "p" does not have to lead to q, which is why your argument is not sound.

No, we should infer that many people "think" that they have a reason to avoid death at all costs. There's a subtle but crucial difference there. But there are many things to infer besides just a single-minded focus on death. As I have already pointed out, most people wish to avoid death because they are afraid it would take away the things they value (and this is based upon the discussions I've had with countless people). Many also conflate death with a painful way of dying, and this is something that's often missed. A more accurate description would be that the fear of death sometimes eclipses our other desires. But yet again, it would be pertinent to point out that fear is not always rational, and even if it is, it only forms a component of life which also includes appreciating and seeking the ineffably meaningful moments that exist and hold such value that it fuels an extreme desire to prevent their (perceived) loss. The desire for the good, in turn, shows that innumerable individuals find their lives to be quite significant, even in difficult times. And so if the fear of death gives us a "reason" to think it's bad, the inimitable proclivity towards living and experiencing the positives also demonstrates that we have a reason for continuing life, which could be extremely potent. And I don't think that preventing the "harm" (I don't think that it is necessarily a harm, even if many think so) at the cost of all positives is justifiable, which is why antinatalism remains indefensible.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your insightful views. I hope you have a fantastic day ahead!

I disagree with the idea that procreation is a con. But yeah, I think that unbridled reliance on certain instincts can lead to irrational conclusions.

Agreed. We may have reasons for avoiding death (which include aversion to pain and a fear of losing potential good), but life cannot be seen in a myopic way. We also have reasons to appreciate joys and partake in ethereal experiences that serve as a source of great joy. It might be true that these reasons aren't present for all, but this doesn't mean that they don't matter for billions of sentient beings. We don't just have a reason to "avoid death"—we also have reasons to view life as a magnificent desideratum that, despite the harms, deserves to be celebrated to the greatest extent possible whilst also mitigating harms. Universal antinatalism remains unjustifiable.

I actually don't believe in the deprivation account; I merely said that we disvalue death because it can cut short potentially good experiences. Personally, I don't think that it has any positive/negative value (aside from the process). I did not ignore anything you had said, but I apologise if I did so accidentally.

Whether or not we have a "reason" (in the sense of something being preferable for us) to avoid death depends on the framework one has. If they believe that nonexistence isn't valuable/disvaluable, they don't necessarily have a reason to fear death itself, but they could still prefer to avoid unnecessary harm as well as appreciate the good that life has (and also be a source of joy for others). If one believes in the deprivation account, then they would have to see if the harms in their life would outweigh the good. If the answer is yes, then perhaps they would indeed have a reason to prefer nonexistence over a valueless one. But, by the same token, an ultimately positive existence, even one that's "so-so" in many ways, could give one more reason to prefer existence over the void. Here, it would be important to distinguish between desires (which are ephemeral and dynamic-there are many people who switch between wanting to exist and wanting to not do so) and a "reason" for doing something (which would be the "right" thing to do that would be in our interest and lead to greater fulfillment, even if we currently don't feel like that). Unless one cannot find any sufficient source of value in their life, I don't think that dying/death can be preferable. But while death isn't desirable, the goods of life can certainly be, and I don't think that the mere existence of cessation implies that the positives aren't deeply potent. I already gave reason for taking the good into account:

1. The badness of dying (which isn't the exact same as being dead) is about experience. It could involve pain and also discomfort resulting from fear. Fortunately, it is still a small part of most people's lives (which numerous people find to be immensely meaningful) and it also doesn't seem to affect people to a degree that they cannot enjoy the goods. I would say that this is the right perspective because the fear is mostly counter-productive.

2. The badness of death itself might only be about the loss of potential life. But nobody prefers life in isolation without considering the positives/negatives. In view of this, it could be said that an inability to live long is bad due to the absence of goods that could have existed. But the alternative to perfect goodness is some good, not nothingness ;)
And the prevention of a "loss" cannot be "good" if there's no gain in the first place.

We could still have reasons to delay it if a certain kind of life is necessary for heaven. But aside from that, we do have a desire to avoid death. It might have a lot to do with an instinct to propagate and to avoid terrible pain, but it's also about a need to prevent a perceived loss of future good. Some would, however, argue that this fear isn't necessary because nothingnes cannot benefit/harm a person (unless there's some specific form of heaven/hell)

Having a desire to cherish goods and avoid harm doesn't have much to do with hell. The reality is that "so-so" lives might also have small satisfactions that matter more to a person than a potentially painful death. There's also a lot of fear associated with it from our environment and culture.

Once again, I don't think that non-existence would have any value. But as as as the deprivation account is concerned, I think that a "so-so" life which is still good (overall) would be better than nonexistence. But if someone truly has a negative life and wish for it to end, then a momentary need to avoid death migh not be too important to consider, since they could rationally see that their potential future existence would mostly be bad, which would be prevented by their death. Death might still be a smaller harm if they continue to have a desire to avoid it, but it could also (and I hope that people don't have to be in such a situation) be good for them if it proves to be a source of relief for someone in pain (and the relief outweighs the negative feeling generated by the aversion). I don't think that death "alters" anything. It does cause pain, but this doesn't mean that the good experiences a person has had throughout their life don't matter. It could lead to fear, but I think that it can be mitigated by accepting its reality and cherishing the precious goods while they do exist. Nonexistent beings cannot be in an altered state of affairs, and I don't think we can be sure that the void isn't some terrible state that can only be relieved by existence either.

I also think that you've made some hasty generalisations that aren't justifiable. "So-so" lives is a vague term that matters differently for different people. I've met many people with such lives who don't feel that they have a strong need to avoid death (aside from fear of pain or cultural/societal influence). And of course, there are others who don't have the best lives, but still cherish existence in general over nonexistence. This comes down to personal values of the individual, not some nonexistent "altered" state that death supposedly brings us in. And, as I have already mentioned multiple times, I don't think that the moment of death has to negate all the positive experiences a person has in their life. Sometimes, the true reason for seeking to avoid the door is not (just) the door itself, but the majestic room just behind us. Whether or not we want to acknowledge that and recognise the diversity of the sentient experience is a different matter.

Once again, I am not saying that the deprivation account is necessarily true. All I am suggesting is that there are many biological/philosophical factors involved regarding death, and it isn't clear that its mere existence negates the strength of a good aspects of life.

In light of this, I don't think that the existence of death is an argument in favour of antinatalism. Thanks for this post, and I hope you have a wonderful day!

Some hell, some heaven.

Some sense, some lack thereof.

Anyway, I hope that everybody here has a nice day/night! :)

Even if death does not end our consciousness, it does not mean that it would be better for one to not exist. For all we know, it could also be the case that consciousness always exists and is much worse than existence, which would be the only source of recourse one would have. I do not think we seek to avoid death purely because of its harm; we also do so because of the potency an ineffably meaningful life can have, even if we do not currently possess sufficient joy (which is something that can and often does change). Much of the harm of death (for the person) comes from the loss of the potential good one could experience. However, this does not mean that the good one has experienced has no worth. Furthermore, the lack of death cannot have any value for one who has no life in the first place. If the prevented harm is "good" in an abstract sense, I think that the lack of all value is also problematic.

We shall indeed have to stop because you seem to be incapable of looking beyond your biased and limited framework. Your "distinctions" are manifestly arbitrary, even if they make some sense (and I don't think that prevented harm that isn't good for anybody has worth for that person, but I granted that it does for the sake of the discussion), considering that they attempt to ignore one side of the coin of reality. One could also point out that the prevention of violation/harm isn't helping an actual person, but even ignoring that, the pertinent point has always been that the creation of happiness (which would be experienced by an actual person) is ethical, irrespective of nobody experiencing "lack of happiness" (just as the prevention of harm is supposedly preferable even though it does not benefit an actual person). This discussion has become circular, so I don't see much point in this. I will certainly try to smile, and I hope that others can do the same once they renounce their erroneous views.

There's no asymmetry here except in one's imagination, my friend. Once again, the only logically consistent step would be to remember that nobody needs the lack of harms in the void either. If it's still good to prevent damage that wouldn't satisfy anybody, I don't think that there is a need for someone to have a need in order for the creation of joys to be ethical.

You've also merely asserted that preventing harm is all that matters (as far as procreation is concerned). I've only mentioned the flaws in your position which selectively focus on the elimination of an intrinsically undesirable experience (suffering) at the cost of one that people necessarily seek (happiness). I also don't buy that the prevention of "violations" justifies ending the bestowal of all ineffably meaningful experiences. It's no wonder that things appear to not work if one is adamantly refusing to fix the cogs of reason. Nobody "needs" the prevention of harms either, but since that does not stop you from worrying about ensuring that they do not exist, I just do not see any sufficiently good reason to think that a "need" is necessary for the goods to be preferable.

No one exists to need/be made worse off by being created either. I haven't said anything other than making a valid mirror case, though it's clear that you haven't overcome the problems of your worldview.

It is. It is certainly good to prevent harm (which can also increase happiness, which definitely matters). You don't need someone to beg for happiness for the creation of future joys to be a desideratum. Causing that particular state of affairs can be ethical. And no, you don't need someone to be there for the existence of happiness (that, despite the presence of needs, serves as a source of unimaginable value for a person) to be good (assuming it's necessary to prevent harm that no actual person has an interest in). Deprivation doesn't always negate fulfillment.

In one case, one is causing happiness for an actual person. In the other, one is preventing harms for nobody.

The universe also doesn't need prevented harms/violations. Once again, I don't think that double standards are justifiable. You can keep asserting that the creation of happiness doesn't matter, but that doesn't hold much water, because there is simply no logical way of suggesting that a prevention of harms that benefits nobody is somehow necessary, yet the creation of happiness isn't. The lack of happiness can certainly be bad for existing beings. Not having happiness helps nobody, quite literally. Causing happiness, however, does. One can definitely point to harms, but it would be extremely myopic to ignore the joy that would have value once it exists. Preventing "violations" cannot come at the cost of the prevention of all that's valuable. Interminable attempts to deny this remain, in my opinion, futile.

Schopenhauer was right about some things, but wrong about others. Anyway:

1. It's ethical to help an existing person and avoid/mitigate unnecessary harms that wouldn't be in the ultimate interest of the person.

2. Preventing harms at the cost of all happiness is irrational. Nobody in the void is in a state of affairs that would somehow be degraded by their creation. Avoiding the existence of needs via the elimination of the possibility of all joy cannot be a defensible position.

They are indeed different. It's good to prevent unnecessary harms for those who exist and don't need incessant intervention, but this isn't the case with nonexistent beings. If it can be good to prevent potential harm (that "they" don't possess an actual interest in avoiding), then it can certainly be good to become the benefactor who contributes towards the formation of great positives.

The benefits and the gratefulness people feel for life does matter.

The Schopenhauerian view is wrong here. I can also point out that nobody is rejoicing in the void, but there certainly are people who are happy when they exist. Denying this is merely an unjustified assertion. Deeply meaningful lives can also be "demonstrated".

I do disagree with an idea of that attempts to address the problem of harm by removing the possibility of all precious, resilient (I also don't think that all harm is "non-temporary"), potent, and (assuming the non-creation of suffering is an obligation) necessary goods. Such a "solution", in my view, is worse than the malady.

And I already explained why the "difference" isn't as significant as some might think, but moving on. The formation of happiness does have an ethical component, even if one doesn't personally value it sufficiently. Of course, existing beings don't often require incessant intervention (aside from not causing harm) for them to live sufficiently cherished lives, but this doesn't apply to those who don't exist. The creation of happiness does not require one to be deprived of it for it to be preferable and ethical.

Same replies to those criticisms.

Thanks for that link! I'll try to share this with some people I know.

That's totally understandable :) I hope that your vision will materialise into an amazing reality someday.

I endorse much of what you have written. Good people do tend to get angry when they see the immense potency of value being wasted away. I think that your frustration with those who do not understand the need (and power) of concerted effort towards the improvement of society is justified. I think the only pertinent thing to keep in mind would be that there are hidden yet dazzling diamonds in the sand.

Yeah, I think that cooperation at the highest level is vital (that is why I had earlier alluded to the fact that micro-level action seems to be more significant right now, which is good, but not perfect). Recent announcements, such as India announcing its goal to achieve net-zero carbon emissions, are appreciable, yet there is scope for improvement. I also agree that mixed economies are probably the best bet since imbalanced approaches do not seem to provide comprehensive solutions. Magma energy looks like an immensely interesting idea! I will surely look into this :)

Sometimes, a mist can obscure our ability to see the light. However, I am optimistic that it exists-and it is getting stronger. I have met others like you who, instead of falling prey to unbridled pessimism, wish to contribute towards making the world a happier place for all via the careful use of technology and investment in green energy. It's particularly heartening to see many young people supporting these ideas, sometimes in defiance of the views of their elders. The change will come as long as we remember the worth of combined effort. Everybody hopes some for growth and preservation, and others for destruction. However, hope remains in all of us, and I believe therein lies the strength of true and realistic hope. Best of luck to you for your future endeavours!

Cooperation instead of competition, generally. At least on the micro-level, I do see it a lot where I live. Small business owners coming together to fight for their rights and locals demonstrating together for a pothole near a house isn't uncommon. Of course, more needs to be done.

I was referring to their claim about them looking beyond themselves. From my perspective, my agreement was with the general sentiment of the comment (which, of course, could be interpreted differently) that there is good in the world in spite of the problems we face. I have seen people who do so, and I hope I can learn something from them. People are selfish, but there are also individuals like you who care about others and the ever-pervasive issue of myopic selfishness. I used to think that working together was a platitude, but I do not think so anymore, because it does have the capacity to bring change (such as the farmers' protest in India) and instil joy in the souls of countless people. I express my profuse apologies if anything I said came off as rude/offensive. As I have said elsewhere, I do have a lot to learn, and that starts when the single-minded focus on "I" ends.

Beauty is usually enigmatic ;) Whatever it would be, I do not think it would stray too far away from the fundamental goodness of cooperation and love for wisdom that has defined the positive aspect of life since time immemorial.

I do not disagree with you entirely! I think that your point about many people focusing on their selfish and limited interests undoubtedly deserves attention. As I have said in my replies to Schopenhauer1, we certainly have to work together to address many of our contemporary issues. It would not be possible to do so without a change in one's mindset. No man is an island. A balanced approach is crucial.
I only wanted to concur with the idea that there are good people in the world who do positive deeds, sometimes without the expectation of any fame or material wealth (which might be why they are not always known). Therefore, I think that hope for a better future continues to persist. I am sorry if my reply seemed to ignore what you had said; I did not intend to do so. Have a delectable day!

I agree. Despite the odds we currently face, I do think that there are many good people out there who do want to make the world a better place. I have seen men who have devoted their entire lives to worthwhile causes like charity. Some of them have even chosen to keep a low profile because they seek nothing except the good of all sentient beings. No matter how dark the night seems, the dawn will eventually come.

That's why I don't think it can be a burden/violation either since nobody in the void has an interest in not existing that's somehow not taken into account when they are begotten. If it still is one due to the creation of harms, I think that the fair position would be to admit that the birth of all joy is indeed a potent act of beneficence, even if nobody is capable of asking for it themselves before existing. Be that as it may, I do think that the creation of the positives that innumerable people would love is certainly ethical. If nobody needs to benefit for thr absence of harm to be good, then I don't think that one needs to be deprived for the lack of happiness to be bad, and I don't think that not creating the conditions for any joy is ethical. Joy is isn't about violation; it is about the bestowal of an incredibly cherished experience that does hold significance for many, even if some choose to ignore its relevance. There isn't any good in not creating a person either. You're the one who seems to be ignoring my point because you wish to obstinately stick to an illogical and inexistent "asymmetry".

In one scenario, one does form joy and harm. In the other, they don't. Yet, if it's preferable to not create the harms, it's also unethical to prevent all the good, because as I have pointed out multiple times, nobody needs to be deprived for the creation of a benefit (everything isn't about harms and fouls) to be ethical. No positive or act of beneficence isn't desirable. I don't think that the harm nullifies the happiness that also exists.

No, I don't agree with that. If the non-creation of the harms is necessary even though nobody is benefitted from its absence, I simply don't think that there's any valid justification for suggesting that the prevention of all joy and value is anything other than a fundamentally unethical act that willfully looks away from that which does matter.

It is, but you continue to ignore answers that don't fit your rigid framework.

If it's "ethical" to prevent harms whose absence doesn't benefit an actual person, I believe that it's also unethical to prevent all joys.

Again, I fail to see the intrinsic disvalue of harm that somehow negates all the positive value that life could have. Of course, I don't think that it is always good, which is why I do think that mindless procreation needs to stop.

One act leads to a benefit, the other, to nothing. That's the unavoidable and irrefutable truth that I don't think can be ignored by incessantly focusing on the harms. Creating a good that cannot be solicited before existing, allowing for the condition of all joy to exist, and ensuring the formation of ineffably meaningful experiences will always remain ethical. A pessimistic agenda that doesn't take one side of the coin into consideration does not constitute a valid argument for preventing all happiness.

Since nonexistent beings don't benefit from the prevention of life, an idea that seeks to prevent all joy also doesn't amount to much more than a desire to satiate a pessimistic need. I don't think that intentionally creating a good life that a person could love and be grateful for in many ways is problematic, even if some people unfortunately don't see things that way.

It has immense standing ;) Prevented prefences can lead to immense suffering for many innocent people, so I don't think it's trivial, particularly because many future lives could certainly be valued by those who exist. Not getting the iPhone isn't exactly a "good" thing". However, it's certainly preferable to exploitation (though I don't think that people and Iphones have an equivalent value for those who exist). Thankfully, giving birth to all happiness isn't about (just) harm, which is why it can be ethical.
Some things can have more than a single element. Not giving a chocolate because one personally dislikes it is a satisfied preference. Refusing to give to someone (at little cost to yourself) who could relish it and gain a lot of joy from it is unethical. At another level, not opening a door is a satisfied prefence; keeping a door to inestimable value for many people is unethical. I am not sure why the "whom" is relevant again, since my case has always been for consistency. If it's "good" (which isn't "good" for an actual person, other than certain desires for the absence of harms at the cost of happiness) to prevent harms, it's also good to create happiness that will be appreciated by numerous individuals. I've already said that an action that is likely to lead to more harm and a violation of the interests of an existing person isn't ethical, but neither of this is applicable to nonexistent beings, since existing doesn't have to be worse for them and there isn't a universal desire to not exist. However, it can certainly be good to help someone who might not be able to ask for it themselves, and I do think that the bestowal of joy can be quite significant for people. You obviously don't perceive life to be a gift, and that's why I haven't said that it is always one. I do hope that people could see things differently. Nevertheless, one cannot impose that view onto others. The reality is that kid isn't a "perfect" curse either, since one could argue that such a thing wouldn't allow for joys or an inevitable end to exist. If perfect negativity isn't necessary for some lives to be bad, then I don't think that absolute joys are required for one to be grateful for the precious and effulgent experiences they've had. None of this, however, implies that suffering doesn't matter, because it very much does. I do believe that it's cardinal to ensure that issues such as worsening wealth disparity and global warming are addressed before we start thinking about creating new beings. A liberal right to a dignified exit might also prove to be a step in the right direction. Anyway, I hope you have a great weekend!

Yes, we certainly disagree on this, because the bestowal of deeply valuable experiences does matter (even though I don't exactly agree with the idea of "violations" here, but I digress.)

I didn't say that burdens are preferable or good in isolation, so that's a misunderstanding. However, bestowing the gift of happiness that one cannot ask for before existing can definitely be ethical, especially because nobody benefits from a lack of existence. There are many problems that we do need to fix, but there are also solutions and benefits that can be a source of joy for many people.

I: It cannot be ethical to prevent all good.
Someone else: Single-mindedly focusing on one aspect of reality is a good idea (I don't think it is).
Therein, I think, lies the real difference.

If the absence of harms is "necessary" even though nobody desires it or benefits from its absence before existing, then the presence of happiness is indeed important.
I don't think that harms are necessary, but preventing the harms at the cost of good isn't a moral idea.

Aside from the fact that people might indeed suffer due to an absence of future family members, I don't think that it's ethical to prevent all value unless it leads to a greater good.

And I already said that your "explanation" isn't comprehensive. A burden is already not a gift, which is why I don't claim that all lives are a gift. However, there aren't any terrible "strings" for those who find life to be a precious, significant, and, ultimately, a more than adequately treasured experience wherein they can experience inimitable love, joy, and beauty that they would cherish substantially. And even though it's a tragic reality that bad lives do exist, I don't think that someone needs to be directly harmed for being happy. Additionally, many people do try their best to help others be happy through things such as charity. Good intentions of "harm must be prevented at all costs" cannot be a sufficient argument for negating all the positives.

To not create any joy that, despite problems, would have ineffable significance for countless individuals isn't acceptable. It might be good for existing people to avoid unnecessary harms that reduce happiness, but this doesn't mean that no good experience should be created in the first place.

Pain (and pleasure) definitely feel real.

Yeah, I agree. That's why I said that they can only be put off for "a while". And yes, the satisfaction of those needs can certainly be deeply pleasant.

The युग are eternal in their formation. But they all never forgo hope and the need to follow a balanced approach.

I agree! Let's hope that things do get better.

Billionaires might not always be happy, and my experiences with many "rich" people have shown me that the so-called "poor" people have a wealth of joy that is the envy of the elites. Since people cannot say with absolute certainty that the person's life would be bad, I don't think that an absolute level of well-being is necessary for a sufficiently valuable life. I do think that this varies depending upon the individual.

I don't think that people need to create beings right now. If anything, I agree with much of what you say about the need to address the issues we face (such as climate change) before we start thinking about creating people. Concrete steps are obviously important, which is why I don't support mindless procreation.

One of the signs of कलियुग would be the tendency to fall prey to absolutist views, which wouldn't be a wise idea. Plus, there's https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya_Yuga.

Talks about "falsehoods" can reveal intuitions about reality. Fool's paradise and ignorant's hell: they can be equally illusory. Diamonds are hidden, but not absent. Then again, they aren't always necessary for the ubiquitous gems that can be found in seemingly unlikely places, provided one is willing to look. ;)

Music are certainly be too loud, just as it can be pleasant.

I think I stayed in room 501 once, but thankfully we didn't have any noisy neighbours then :p

I think that they can be both negative (in the sense that they are needs that require to be fulfilled) and positive (since they can lead to satisfaction). They are quite important, but I have seen people who have managed to ignore the "lower" needs for the sake of a higher goal, such as a soldier forgoing food for a while to focus on training. Of course, a balanced approach is still necessary.

Maybe, maybe not. It's always nice to see new sources of value once one has cherished the old ;) But it's definitely an interesting idea. That new profile pic certainly looks nice, though the last one was also quite impressive.

True

Could you share your blog's link? The connection between the internet and democracy seems like a really interesting one, and I would love to check out your blog to learn more about this stuff.

Thanks for sharing that incredibly helpful list!