Actually, it's more a simple solution and elegant. Don't create the burdens to overcome in the first place. Keep it simple.

But I was discussing earlier.. It's not about suffering simpliciter. It's about not violating the principle of autonomy nor causing unnecessary impositions onto others. The end result might be no person, but no person cares about no-thing, including your lament.

Also, how would an antinatalist who cares about unnecessary harm advocate what is possibly the most harmful event (nuclear war)?

We must distinguish entailment from effect.

I conjecture that life is inherently/intrinsically immoral i.e. it's unethical to have children ... even in svargaloka. — Agent Smith

Oui monsieur.

Sort of, if you want to think of it that way.. I think our language in "consequential" versus "deontological" can be a bit tricky..

Clearly, "not lying" with fully understanding that the outcome would be a lie, seems to violate the principle of "not lying" so consequences matter in a certain way in deontology.. However, consequences as THE Summum bonum, I think is what distinguishes the two not that consequences should not be a consideration en toto.

And as far as unnecessary suffering being a deontological rule.. Suffering seems intuitively to be a major part of ethical consideration. And justice is often at base, not being used (not having rights violated, etc.). Combining this, one way of not "using" someone, and valuing dignity (in hypothetical or actual terms) would be not to intend to bring about situations of unnecessary suffering for someone else.

We can't use a consequentialist argument. — Agent Smith

The deontological RULE is to not cause unnecessary suffering onto others.

Can you elaborate, I don't recall having read that particular argument you say you've made. — Agent Smith

It is a violation to cause unnecessary suffering onto someone. It would be using them, even for good intentions. Prior to birth, one can prevent unnecessary suffering onto someone absolutely.. Once born, it is impossible to cause unnecessary suffering absolutely, but certainly prior to birth this rule can be followed and someone's dignity/worth/being used (by being born and thus suffering unnecessary) would not be violated.

Is life intrinsically immoral in the Kantian sense? Should everyone make babies (re the categorical imperative)? — Agent Smith

Yes, I've made the case.. See backlog of hundreds of posts relating to not forcing unnecessary suffering absolutely (as is the case prior to someone's possible birth).

In other words the immorality of birthing children has to shift base from consequentialism to the next easy harbor viz. Kantian ethics. — Agent Smith

Fine by me as my argument has been deontological for a long time.

Not really, because ironically, FORCING a population to do something, even if to prevent ANOTHER forcing (that is to say procreating someone into the burdens of life), would be a contradiction of using a similar moral violation of forcing upon someone (in this case a personal decision to procreate) to solve the issue other moral violation (of forcing unnecessary harms onto someone). And also, of course, that isn't the reason at all why China has done that.

What would be a good measure of human suffering then? — Agent Smith

Are you familiar with any of Schopenhauer’s philosophy?

a pretty good measure of well-being if you ask me. — Agent Smith

Not really. It’s a measure of something but not what is the case with human suffering.

They, in this case, are being forced-not-to-play-the-game, oui monsieur? It seems we're at an impasse. The card you've always been playing is not exactly to your advantage. — Agent Smith

There is no “they” prior to existence being forced into anything. The parent is deciding to impose something and that is what is relevant.

@Baden @Jamal@Hanover, just put this in the Life Sucks thread please. Remember, we don’t tolerate speech about philosophical pessimism. Or is that only for arguments defending it?

These don’t deserve independent threads remember?

Who wouldn't want to play — Agent Smith

How is this either empirically or ethically justified?

Even if I were to be taken to paradise, I would prefer to be asked "paradise, yes/no? — Agent Smith

Having X amount of technology doesn’t a paradise make.

A quick question though: Would you rather be offered a cake even when you don't want it or would you prefer not to be asked at all, whether you would like some cake? — Agent Smith

I’d rather the option to decline the cake, and if the cake came with limiting choices to just cake and then causing a plethora of harms…not even ethical to give that cake.

To get right to the point then, there are problems, but a few of them if not all at some point seem remediable. Pessimism then is a defeatist attitude - it fails to take into account the subtleties and nuances of the problem of suffering and also the solutions. — Agent Smith

The problem of burdens in the first place. Forced situations that one would otherwise not have wanted to deal with. We are always put in a deprivation to get out of. That doesn't go away due to economic circumstances. Also, if this is considered "ideal" state of being, then maybe we should reassess how we are measuring the situation at hand.
.
@Shawn why do you bring this topic of philosophical pessimism up every so often in this forum? I am the only one who identifies as one here so it is oddly pointed, even if broadcast to "everyone".

@Baden if you want to be consistent, you should probably throw this in the Antinatalist thread bin where you merged the "Life Sucks" thread. If you are going to be thorough about the more recent policies against philosophical pessimism and antinatalism threads, do it consistently.

How does one adopt the matureness of philosophical pessimism without falling for the emotional side of pessimism with regards to emotional resignation, sadness, and lack? I'm sure you can do it because I have read about cheerful pessimists and joyful absurdists like Cioran or Schopenhauer or Camus... — Shawn

Zapffe's view is that humans are born with an overdeveloped skill (understanding, self-knowledge) which does not fit into nature's design. The human craving for justification on matters such as life and death cannot be satisfied, hence humanity has a need that nature cannot satisfy. The tragedy, following this theory, is that humans spend all their time trying not to be human. The human being, therefore, is a paradox.

In "The Last Messiah", Zapffe described four principal defense mechanisms that humankind uses to avoid facing this paradox:

Isolation is "a fully arbitrary dismissal from consciousness of all disturbing and destructive thought and feeling".[5]
Anchoring is the "fixation of points within, or construction of walls around, the liquid fray of consciousness".[5] The anchoring mechanism provides individuals with a value or an ideal to consistently focus their attention on. Zapffe also applied the anchoring principle to society and stated that "God, the Church, the State, morality, fate, the laws of life, the people, the future"[5] are all examples of collective primary anchoring firmaments.
Distraction is when "one limits attention to the critical bounds by constantly enthralling it with impressions".[5] Distraction focuses all of one's energy on a task or idea to prevent the mind from turning in on itself.
Sublimation is the refocusing of energy away from negative outlets, toward positive ones. The individuals distance themselves and look at their existence from an aesthetic point of view (e.g., writers, poets, painters). Zapffe himself pointed out that his produced works were the product of sublimation.
On the occasion of the 65th birthday of the Norwegian–Canadian philosopher Herman Tønnessen, the book I Choose the Truth. A Dialogue Between Peter Wessel Zapffe and Herman Tønnessen (1983) was published. The two had known each other already for many years. Tønnessen had studied at the University of Oslo together with Arne Næss.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wessel_Zapffe

Kant can be wrong in some things and still be right in others.

Kant can be wrong on Kant.

Why is it immoral to use people? What does Cabrera say, what do you say to this? — baker

Kant would say if it is "merely" treating someone as a means. I would say that the arrangement of the workplace is exploitive by it's very nature because even though it is in theory "contractual", work itself is de facto not an "opt out" option lest death or severe suffering. A friendship, even family after adulthood is not so tied to survival.

Cabrera seems to say that life itself entails a certain amount of being unethical. Mixing this with the de facto arrangement of the workplace.. It is simply entailed that we must be unethically treated at the workplace. We need it to survive, and thus we must encounter it if we are to survive in this particular economic form (though I am not suggesting another form is better necessarily). The workplace doesn't care about us. They care about our capacity for production. We aren't treated as peers, but as units in a hierarchy.

I am not saying it can be another way, only this is what is the case.

Mind you, some workplaces can have better "benefits" or even "cultures" but this is contingently part of the package of the arrangement. The arrangement always means that you are still a unit and treated as a means. The package is not because you are you, it is contingent on how valuable they think you are.. When you are not valuable, they will just fire you because you are no longer a means for their end.

Mind you, you can possibly say that you "quitting" would screw the company over, but that is almost never the case. It's almost always rather the worker who "needs" the company and so puts up being used by them, than it is the other way around. The Lord doesn't just fold up shop if a serf leaves (dies), he just finds more serfs.

What part of "That's the name of that tune," don't you understand. — T Clark

Not sure.. What is the "that" and what is the "tune"?

I think the link (and the other handle-link on the quote) clarifies my criticisms — 180 Proof

I just don’t see what you were or are getting at. Cabrera as far as I can interpret, is saying that life entails violating the minimal ethical stance. If Kant is right about not using people, the workplace always violates this.

As usual, we've reached a dead end in our argument. To close the discussion out, I'm going to try a new catch phrase - That's the name of that tune. — T Clark

Your relations become a skewed version of yourself to “get shit done”. How the negatives of this arrangement are not recognized is beyond me. Do you not see any negatives in how workplace culture manifests?

you don’t agree with which aspect of Cabrera?

If you value what you are doing, you come to value even that more tedious work. — T Clark

But that’s my point, it all depends if you are valuing what you are doing or you are doing it because you need a paycheck. Huge difference. My hunch is most people would drop bookkeeping as a pastime once they don’t get paid for it. Certainly sitting in a space X for a period of time to do task Y, much of all that would be dropped. So I refer you back to my previous posts about the nature of work and how it threatens you with no survival and this makes it different than other relations like friendship or even relations to your own interests like hobbies.

Anyone who does "artistic, creative" work knows that much of that work will be "awful boring activities." Sanding wood, printing and binding documents, cleaning up when you're done, bookkeeping, etc., etc., etc. — T Clark

Also, if you truly want to stop sanding the wood on your spare time, you can. If you want to keep going you can. If you want to keep doing something to gain experience you can or to get better at it. It is fully up to you and not contingent on a disincentive of not surviving.

Life itself of course means you will have to do things you may not want to stay alive, but that's a broader issue that does lead to AN, which if I bring up will get this thread booted to the ghetto of Antinatalism thread, so I dare not say it.. But I will stick to simply the fact that companies are using people and it is contingent whether the workers like the arrangement or not, as was your anecdote. Also my point with the 8 hours of bookkeeping is that it is indeed absurd for certain tasks to be done other than the arrangement of getting paid for it. Use another task if you want if bookkeeping for long amounts of time is a hobby of yours just for the fun of it or because it is meditative for you or because you just like balancing books and such.

Friendships/family relationships and business relationships have different ends, but they are both means to an end. — baker

You are not dehumanizing your friend though to an object. A true friend is someone presumably, who you would care for their well-being and vice versa. Let's look at some other differences:

1) A friend you can leave if the friendship is no longer beneficial. Leaving does not automatically entail that you cannot survive. Businesses know they can threaten your very survival. They can dictate you act according to their demands. If a friend demands of you and is being too demanding, you can leave without such dire hardship.

2) (Perhaps 1a) A friend is someone you are "natural" around. That is to say, you can be truly yourself without any pressures of conforming to a policy. It is the way most humans are when not pressured or molded to get a task done with incentives that will be taken away otherwise.

3) Presumably, you want to be around your friend. In a business, often you are subject to personalities, styles of interaction, and hierarchies, that you would simply not choose otherwise. You are "stuck" until you find another "fiefdom" to migrate to (if that's an option).

4) Presumably, you aren't looked at solely because of some gain they are getting from you. Rather it is enjoying their company as a person. You are not being taken advantage of based on your position. Going back to point 1, you do and act a certain way around employers because if you don't they will disapprove and fire you.

All of these come back to a main point which is that employers understand that employees are in a position of precariousness. That is to say, they need the employer usually way more than the employer needs them. Understanding this, the employer can simply dangle the possibility of termination to motivate the worker to comply with demands of the company. It is NOT a reciprocal transaction as is the case with true friends (not friends of convenience or "friends" that are clearly predatory or abusive relationships).

So yeah, you can make the case that friendships are "transactional" but I don't think in the same "means" that a company is doing. Your argument reminds of arguments that go like this:

Person 1: "You should eat more natural foods as they are healthy for you".

Person 2: "Oh silly goose, ALL foods are natural because they are made of compounds and atoms that are natural to the universe".

That is obviously an absurd point. Whilst true that technically all matter is "natural", that is a distinction that makes no difference. There are differences in the ways you are forced to interact in a business relationship that are not the same as friendships, and they are often because of the nature of how you are used as a means that violates Kant's second principle.

Now, that being said, to be a bit of devil's advocate, I can agree with you that ALL interactions are using people but then this would simply provide more evidence for Cabrera's point that human life ENTAILS being immoral.

Again, on target OP! You've done your homework and it shows. Transactions, that's all there was/is/will be to life. How disheartening it is, oui mon ami? Any light at the end of this tunnel mate? — Agent Smith

I don't think so. Pessimism reveals what is intractably negative about life. One of them is the entailed transactionism, especially of the modern economic system.

Guess not. Better go kill myself whilst you enjoy bookkeeping for no money for 8+ hours a day :roll:.

Not the same. You both hopefully enjoy the company for friends. And you can leave friendship and your material well-being isn’t entailed by the relationship. Not so with business relationships. There is a known threat of leaving for the worker or insubordination…loss of income, loss of a means to survive. You are there to do this thing and you are the tool to do that thing.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a no win situation. You can’t really get out of it. Free ride, homelessness, suicide, die slowly from destitution.

nah just proves cabereas ideas more.

Treating someone as a means to an end is just as perilous in business as it is in any social context, and one can form friendly relationships and treat people morally in business as they can anywhere else. — NOS4A2

But they can’t. You do job or you get fired. You do something for a friend because they are your friend. You do something for an employer because you need to be compensated. You need to live. This is why people just don’t say not today or fuck off whenever they don’t want to.

This certainly isn't true for me. I worked for almost 30 years with good bosses and competent coworkers. We did good work and took care of each other. I liked almost everyone and came to love some. — T Clark

Not saying you can’t make friends at work or people can’t override this transactional nature, but that is a contingency and not the essence of how these arrangements work. The work would go on and make its profit whether you were ok with that particular team/company/set of people that you were a part of that you mention here in this anecdote.

Not to mention the very nature of some work is god awful boring activities you simply do cause you need to survive. Much work not related to artistic creative content would never get done without an impersonal transaction of compensation. You might find it better than other work but even that “better than x work” wouldn’t have been done in the first place if there was no compensation involved in the first place.

Yeah, but how is managing a business and dealing with coworkers a natural way that you would talk with a friend or family or a member of your in group? It’s not. It’s depersonalizing the person because you need them as a means to your ends.

In a tribe where everyone knows everyone, there are no formal laws and law enforcers, but everything happens on a personal level, and that personal level includes our relationships, so if you hurt my child, that child's father will deal with you, and if care for me when I am sick, or save my child from drowning I will owe you. I don't think that is the structure you are talking about. I think you are talking about a formal structure with written laws and law enforcers. These are very different realities despite the effort to use the gods or the one god to make people conform to an informal, cultural structure and use education to transmit information about being a good person. — Athena

So you are unnecessarily taking my argument down rabbit holes. Let's start from the beginning.

Life itself is something where once a person is born, they need to survive in some way (usually by way of cultural learning).

The survival game (in whatever cultural setting, tribal, Western-industrial, pastoralism, farming, whatever), IS the "comply" part. If the person born into the survival-game doesn't like that game, they have no choice but to starve to death, free ride, etc. or kill themselves. It DOESN'T MATTER what the contingent social game the person is born into, imposing ANY game (arrangement of survival) is what is wrong. UNLESSS the game was LITERALLY someone's individualized idea of what a utopia is (one where even being bored doesn't exist), then forcing this arrangement of comply (with the game, any game) or die is wrong to do to someone else. That is what one is doing when procreating another person into the world... forcing them to comply with the game (of survival of ANY variety tribal, industrial, Robinson Crusoe, or otherwise) or die. That again, is wrong.

But working or death is imposed on all living things. You might get what I am saying if your survival depended totally on yourself. — Athena

Of course I get what you are saying, because that is what I am saying. Complying is not JUST one arrangement (the modern Western capitalist economic system). It can be any system related to survival (like a tribal or Robinson Crusoe economy). It doesn't matter what arrangement you are causing (imposing) on the new person born, you are still imposing an arrangement that cannot be gotten out of except through degradation or suicide. This is not right to do to someone.

You tell me. As long as life is non utopian for that individual, the question becomes irrelevant as to whether it is objective or subjective. I am not making an argument of good or bad, but whether someone should create an imposition on others. I refer you then back to my previous response
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/760143

I was wondering schopenhauer1, how subjective is pain & pleasure? — Agent Smith

It doesn't matter as far as I am concerned, towards the imposition (comply or die) argument.

By imposition vis-à-vis life do you mean no one was/is/will be asked whether s/he wishes to be born? — Agent Smith

I mean the following:
A) Imposition- foisting one's will onto another.
B) Imposition- creating a burden for another.

Both of these definitions can apply here. In the case of the utopia example, the absence of B makes the the case a bit murkier, but this existence never has a case where there is not B, it it wouldn't matter. In my argument I had three things here:

1) The range of choices are limited to the physical-cultural arrangements of this existence and circumstances of time and place. This was assumed to be an appropriate set of choices for another.

2) Known harms are assumed to be enough for others to endure.

3) Unknown harms are simply had by a person through collateral damage of being born. The parent knows there are unknowns but they can't say what they are.

2 and 3 are certainly a violation of B.

1 may seem to not be a violation of B, but besides just the fact one is imposing one's own will (A), the fact that the choices are limited to what existence currently has to offer, B is still relevant too in that the choices may not be wanted if otherwise one could choose so. A and B are violated in all three parts of the argument.

:up:

What would be better than what we have? — Athena

A utopia specialized to your tastes and where boredom itself doesn’t exist, cause it’s a utopia. However, utopia means “nowhere”. Meaning, this is not a possible thing. Therefore, don’t cause a non utopian arrangement on behalf of someone else. One far from it in fact. Meaning this arrangement (of working or death) should never be imposed onto someone else.

Again, someone who thinks this is a good arrangement of comply or die is a dbag.

it’s not even ethical to have children because it’s forcing them into complying (aka working) or kill themselves through slow degradation or suicide. You have to expand what is the scope of the human negative experience.

You’re a dbag if you think this an acceptable arrangement to cause for other people (imposition). So it’s not automation, it’s the very job itself that is unethical.
@Bret Bernhoft@Agent Smith@Joshs

There’s always a starting point from which one is trying to overcome. Buddhists and mystics will say this life is an illusion. Yet why is there an overcoming of the illusion in the first place? At that point it’s word games. The overcoming points to a real situation. That situation (the supposed illusion) came about through a cause- reproduction.

This whole thread is a set up job to give smirky posters a chance to shit on anti-natalism one more time. If moderators were fair, they'd move it to the anti-natalism ghetto where they've put all the posts which take a positive view. — T Clark

Right on the money. Agree 100% that this is what this thread is for. Ironically, this parody thread gets a pass and yet productive philosophical conversation around antinatalism, regardless of the varying arguments are all confined to one thread.