Added more about the Persian influence.

I don't doubt the connections of Hellenism you describe. That is well-known. At least since Alexander the Great's takeover of the region, there were gymnasiums, art, literature, that was permeating that region. The whole Maccabean Revolt was because a faction of Hellenistic priests were going to completely turn the Jerusalem Temple into basically a Greek-styled temple. Even the Maccabean family that defeated the ultra-Hellenists still took on Greek names, were friends with Greek and Roman officials, went to Greek amphitheaters, gyms and the like. Sepphoris was a very cosmopolitan Greco-Roman town very close the ancient Nazareth. So though I agree that Greek trappings influenced the people and religion in numerous ways that they probably weren't even fully aware of, we have to distill what of Jesus had Greek-influenced beliefs versus what was later interpolated upon Jesus and his first followers from Greek-influenced writers. We'd have to look at what things like the Dead Sea Scrolls, apocalyptic literature, the Talmud, parts of the Gospels (both canonical and non-canonical), and what Josephus say for any hope for primary sources. It seems that mainstream Judaism was based around the festival days of the Temple, and depending on proximity, participating in synagogue membership on the Sabbath and certain meeting days in the week (synagogues themselves being probably Greek-influenced). Pharisees and Scribes had bigger influences most likely in synagogue centers. Most Jews in this region were probably illiterate at this time. If they were scholars, they would most likely have been from the priestly, scribal, or pharisaic communities. It would have been less-likely (but not necessarily impossible) for a Jew in the Galilean region to have been a scholar in Greek philosophy other than through diffusion of ideas that was taking place in all areas of culture (so not specifically a student of Greek but unintentionally). Likely other groups were being diffused with Greek sayings and parables, and this diffusion may have been seen in both Jesus and his predecessors (such as Hillel). It is more probable that Jesus was a sort of Hillelite Pharisee with influences from Essenic traditions through John the Baptist.

Also, you are possibly glossing over even stronger outside influences than the Greek culture, and that is the often overlooked influence of the Persians on Second Temple Judaism. Cyrus was even called a "messiah" which is how strong the admiration for parts of the Persian leadership of the time. Ezra and Nehemiah and the returning king (without the prior authority) of Zerubbabel, were all officials in the Persian court prior to their return to Yahad (Judah/Judean Persian province). Certainly the influence of Zoroastrian had a tremendous influence on ideas such as good/evil, light/darkness, angelic beings, and the idea of a cosmic ending to the world.

But this didn't apply to all Jews. Otherwise, the existence of figures like Paul would have been impossible. — Apollodorus

No, but there's a reason for that... He was from the Diaspora and not Judea proper. It makes total sense regarding his syncretism- especially with mystery cults. I also mentioned Philo in Alexandria, another place for Hellenistic Judaism.

especially Greek-educated ones like Paul, or even uneducated ones who were unfamiliar with official objections to Christian teachings, would have found it easier to accept the new religion. — Apollodorus

Correct, and Paul was probably targeting (at first) Hellenistic Jews in the Diaspora.. Jesus brother, James, who was more familiar with Jesus the man, and his actual teachings seemed to have deeper disagreements than what Acts portrayed (more similar to Paul's continual griping in Galatians)... Anyways, the original Jesus movement seems a different character than Paul's overlay interpretation (his "vision" on his way to Damascus, if you will).

If the majority of converts were non-Jews, it doesn't follow that all of them were non-Jews. — Apollodorus

No, again, there were Hellenistic-leaning Jews around the diaspora and there were "good-fearers" (non-Jews who were interested in Judaism and who were onlookers at synagogues around the empire, but didn't fully convert or marry into the religion). These were probably Paul's first targets.

@Dermot Griffin
Great analysis. I was going to say something similar here but you said it first. Judea proper was most likely not a bastion of Hellenistic philosophy- at least not in the Jewish living areas (perhaps coastal cities and parts of Nabatea were exceptions). If you want to look at Hellenistic-influenced Judaism, you should look no further than Philo of Alexandria who married the Torah with Platonic thought, and ideas of the "logos". Paul I guess would be another early synthesizer, possibly influenced by Philo, but as you stated, he added in elements of the dying-resurrecting pagan ritual. If he was from Tarsus, he had one of the biggest mystery-cult centers to draw from- Mithras, with its sacrificial bull.

Pessimism is just the naturally logical extrapolation of expecting bad things to come from good things. — god must be atheist

A conclusion that makes sense is that it is better not to procreate more badness into the world then. A progress that devolves into pessimism, can take the form that life simply isn’t worth it, and ethically problematic to spread to another person.

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. — DA671

So we are going to have to stop the conversation if you can't get passed the distinction. Violation of harm is happening to an actual person. Preventing happiness is happening to no actual person. If you cannot see that difference, than we are pretty much done with this debate. Put your smiley face on it and run.

Not having happiness helps nobody, quite literally. Causing happiness, however, does. — DA671

WHO needs the help?? NOBODY. Again, you gotta get passed this. It is not symmetrical man.

reventing "violations" cannot come at the cost of the prevention of all that's valuable. Interminable attempts to deny this remain, in my opinion, futile. — DA671

I just don't buy that you need to cause harm because happiness exists. You haven't made that case, only asserted that happiness exists and somehow is necessary to cause harm to bring about for others, but you haven't gone deep enough to make a case for it. You've just tried to (unsuccessfully) use my arguments for your case, which isn't working.

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. — DA671

No one exists to need a gift. You haven't overcome this point.

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. — DA671

No, one is certainly NOT a conclusion of the other. It is good to prevent harm. You don't need someone to exist to not cause future harm for a person. You are not causing that state of affairs. You do need someone to exist to "deprive" of good though. You would first have to cause them to come about for them to need happiness and then be deprived of it.

Again, in one case you are causing suffering for someone. In the other, you are preventing happiness to no actual person.

The universe doesn't need a bestower of value. If it does, you haven't justified it in argument other than, "But good!!". So? Goods not had by anyone, why is that even an ethical matter? It's simply an axiological one whereby a value is not experienced. That value being not experienced hasn't been connected with anything moral. Not causing happiness hurts no one, quite literally. Causing harm, hurts someone, quite literally. I can point to the ethical violation in causing actual harm. You cannot by pointing to the unhad happiness. Yours is likened to an empty set. You can keep railing here, but that's the case.

And about the Schopenharian case, it indeed has a lot of import here; that can be a whole thread unto itself. However, to use a Schopenhauer argument, let's look at the following.. as this is something I think you might bring up anyways:

Case 1: You know a friend would like X. You have the means to get friend X. You decide not to get X for that friend.

You and I might agree that this is misguided/wrong-headed. It is at the least, uncharitable in some way, if not reaching the level of full violation. It is not going the "extra mile" to be nice to a friend (which actually may still not quite be "unethical" in my view, but for argument's sake we can say it is).

Case 2: No friend exists, but you then create a friend from scratch (you are a god!) and that friend now wants a gift. Before you created that friend, there was no person with interests, wants, or feelings of being deprived to "need" or "desire" a gift. You have created the set of problems for which you now must provide the solution.

Those two are very different circumstances/situations/states of affairs.

Be that as it may, I do think that the creation of the positives that innumerable people would love is certainly ethical. — DA671

Not if you are creating collateral damage "strings attached".

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. — DA671

Yes but that is just a plain assertion. I can demonstrably point to the fact that no one is "put out" by not being born. I can demonstrably point to the fact that someone is put out once born, on a Schopenhaurian or discrete/typical view of what suffering/harm means.

So from here we again disagree on whether it is okay to try to bring about joy when that joy is always intendant with various non-trivial, non-escapable, non-temporary, unnecessary harms.

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". — DA671

I already explained the difference between a frustrated preference and an unethical act, so I won't go over this again. And since this is about the ethics of causing harm, there is an asymmetry as there is no ethical component to not creating joy when there is no one who exists. The not causing harm does not need to have someone exist for it to be followed. There is the difference.

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. — DA671

Same criticisms as above.

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! — DA671

No one is asking or not asking for anything prior to birth. We agree on that. It is about whether YOU want to create conditions of harms for another, even if there are joys. Is this ethical? You say it is. I say this is a violation. No one needs to benefit from not feeling the prevention of harm. All that matters is YOU did not create harm unto someone else. There is no harm nor foul in not creating joy for someone else, so there IS NO violation. Why are you constantly not realizing this and thinking it is symmetrical. You just look ignorant of what I am saying when you keep thinking you are trying to be "consistent" when it isn't a consistent/symmetrical case.

In one scenario YOU did not create joy nor harm.. No harm, no foul.
In one scenario YOU created joy and harm. The joy does not negate that you created that harm with it.

It is the fact you created harm, that is the relevant ethical thing here.. None of the others matter. While joy is good, not creating it is doing harm to no one.

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. — DA671

This is not an answer or way around the problem I presented.

You: Burdening others, even if not necessary, is allowable and preferable all other things considered, because people can experience joy.
Me: Burdening others, because it is not necessary, is always a violation to initiate for someone else, especially because no person becomes deprived without this action. It is also creating a problem, that then needs a solution (multiple solutions as there are multiple harms incurring to that person). — schopenhauer1

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. — DA671

What about it makes it unethical? What makes something unethical?
How is unhad "good" unethical in this particular scenario?

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. — DA671

Again, how is it unethical to "prevent" harms at the cost of good? I am still waiting for this other than "intrinsic value"..

Violating things such that you cannot ever get consent but going ahead with it anyways, causing unnecessary harm unto others, and using people so you can see an outcome at some point, those seem like basis for ethics. Having no one exists seems to violate no person. You just can't get around that asymmetry. One act leads to collateral damage, the other does not. It's that simple at the face of it.

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. — DA671

This is just your egotistical desire. This isn't about ethics. It may have to do with some individual's axiology of value, but ok.. So? Your value not being lived out by another person, is not a crime. It is simply a frustrated preference. I don't see frustrated preferences as ethical valuations, but axiological problems. There's a huge difference. Not getting an iphone is a frustrated preference. Not getting an iphone because of slave labor conditions is an ethical thing. Upping the ante-- not seeing a beautiful work of art is a frustrated preference. Not seeing a beautiful work of art because the money to see the art is going to a bad cause or promotes a bad cause is an ethical thing.

owever, 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. — DA671

Besides having no standing for the "preventing goods is bad" (for whom? and why other than your frustrated preference?), Even people who have good experiences must experience the bads. This ethic is really independent of post-facto evaluations. It is the decision to create it in the first place that matters. Kidnapping you to a ballgame or gambling with your money because the probably might be good you would want me to, is still a violation. But even more important, a gift cannot be a gift if it has the bads. It just isn't a gift at that point. You have not sufficiently defeated that point. It is something else, but it is not a gift.

I was referring to their absence. Even if the lack of a bad is neutral (and not good), the creation of the joys is preferable to a valueless state of affairs. As I said before, if it can be unethical to form the damages, it can also be ineffably good to create happiness.

That's a mischaracterisation, since I meant that they do not matter only if the lack of the harms doesn't have any worth. But no, they do matter if the absence of the harms matters. — DA671

So this is the kind of thinking I am against.
You: A state of affairs must exist whereby joys exist.
Me: A state of affairs of whereby the violation of burdening/creating conditions for harm for others unnecessarily shall not occur

You: Burdening others, even if not necessary, is allowable and preferable all other things considered, because people can experience joy.
Me: Burdening others, because it is not necessary, is always a violation to initiate for someone else, especially because no person becomes deprived without this action. It is also creating a problem, that then needs a solution (multiple solutions as there are multiple harms incurring to that person).

So then we distill out good and bad, joy and harm.
Is joy necessary? No it is not. No one needs joy unless they exist already to need it.
Is harm necessary? No it is not. No one needs to be harmed, unless they exist to be harmed.

So then we distill some more..
Is it okay to create bad circumstances when it is not trying to ameliorate a greater harm? Here is where the real difference comes into focus.

I have explained that giving a "gift" to someone should not entail "with strings attached". Those strings being inescapable, unnecessary, non-temporary, non-trivial harm. If that comes with the the gift of the good things of life, that automatically precludes it from right-minded action towards another person. All the possible goods in the world, and all the good intentions of the gift-giver don't take away this fact. It is putting others through possible bads in the hopes of goods, is still creating problems/burdens for others, and in a sense, using them, to see an outcome ("a good life"? or simply "good must be had!").

To create problems so people can overcome them is wrong. It may be necessary for survival, but we are not talking about necessities once born, but creating it in the first place.

Ok, so pro well being above capitalist structure as the ends.

How about everyone owning and working for everyone?

@StreetlightX or @Bitter Crank any response to NOS idea that it is the workers “exploiting” the capitalist. I’m sure you all love that idea :lol:.

But it isn’t “really” voluntary as the capital is accumulated by one person and then doled out to the suckers..Um I mean workers. So your point is that since most people don’t have the means/luck/contingency to accumulate wealth to make others exchange their labor for..that is just? Contingency is almighty?

There's no "square one", because my case has always been for a logically consistent view that doesn't devalue the positives. — DA671

Get off your pony..

There's also no person who's being forcibly taken away from a blissful and free void into a worse state of affairs. Yet, if it's still a burden/harm for the negative to exist, the good can also be perceived as a gift/benefit. — DA671

Here you are again, doing a switcharoo.. It's from the POV of the person causing the burden prior to someone's actual birth.

Negatives not had by anybody also don't matter, by the same token. — DA671

Correct.

However, preventing the possibility of actual goods for the sake of preventing harms does matter, and I do not think that averting the opportunity of innumerable loved experiences is ethical/good/just/proper to do. — DA671

No it does not matter. You were right the first time.

Anyways, as far as economic systems go, Justice is the prevailing ideal for me. All others, like charity, community, wealth equality, are better left to ethics and matters of personal conscience. — NOS4A2

I think many people would say it's all connected.. Economics IS people.. not its own entity.. Unless you believe so which would be a fun one to read...

As far as I can tell there are only two types of general “means” to acquire the wealth required to satisfy needs, namely, (1) through one’s own labor or the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, and (2) through the appropriation of the labor of others. One is just, the other unjust. — NOS4A2

Marxists would say that capitalists, by mere fact that they own the means of production are exploiting the labor of others as they hold the means, and the others simply rent out their labor. Do some people deserve to own the means by which we all need to survive being roughly the same human animal that just wants to live reasonably comfortably in the world without too much want of basic needs?

There's no "initial asymmetry" to begin with, so repeatedly mentioning the fact that the absence of the good isn't ethical if the prevention of the bad is ethical would be frivolous. — DA671

Ah yes, so when I slowed this down and you accepted the terms, you didn't accept them.. So let's go back to square one...

In the case of a person, one is bestowing a good that cannot be solicited by the person themselves. — DA671

There is no "themselves".. There is no ONE. Asymmetry, see?

If one chooses to view an act of beneficence (if it's a "burden" to create harm) as "meddling", then that's their choice. But this wouldn't change the fact that the positives are quite important. — DA671

Positives not had by anyone, are important to no one. Positives had at the expense of burdening someone is indeed what this is all about. Whether this is good/just/ethical/proper to do so.

An antinatalist seems to have other motives though. They think their children will become part of the problem, while animals think their children will be a victim of it. — Raymond

Actually that is a debate in antinatalist communities.. You are describing what is called "misanthropic" and "philanthropic" versions of antinatalism.

Like I said, it's great to build social systems in the capitalist regime to allow people to live, but we also need stronger community building to show workers that safety nets can exist outside the state. Every socialist knows simply focusing on raising material conditions in capitalism will lead to those benefits getting chipped away. Then we're back where we started. That's essentially what happened in the late 70s and 80s, and what is still happening now (neoliberalization). The Scandinavian model is already starting to crack as more services are privatized. You have to remove the cancer at the root, not just put band aids over it that get slowly ripped off — Albero

Hey, I commend you for fully answering my OP, so thank you. That was a full response. So it does sound like well-being can never be the only goal.. The OP did however stipulate that all people would be living comfortable.. So I guess, is there a metaphysical problem with the idea of private ownership, above and beyond the idea that it contributes to some people not living comfortably? What does exploitation look like in an economy with fully comfortable people? Do they know they are "technically" being exploited at that point? I guess for this focus, let's just look at the Scandinavians and not the fact that they must use labor from the global south.. I get that.. But let's say that somehow it was the case that everyone were living like Scandinavians...that is to say relatively comfortably.

Obviously and as I am rational, I withhold my consent to AN, for my lifetime. As long as anyone, with the same view as me, lives, AN can never be realised, in its ultimate goal, unless our species is wiped out for other reasons, because consent is required. This encourages others of your ilk, perhaps a more extreme flavor to consider removing the need for consent. Do you have a duty to stop such people? — universeness

Of course.. You realize there are nutballs in every conceivable philosophical-ideological-political group/camp/movement right?

This is not a new idea, its a very boring, very old idea that was part of early greek musings and was posited within the words 'better not to have been born in the first place.' It was rejected by the majority of rational thinkers then (The proof being that we are still here with an ever-increasing population since the times of Ancient Greece) and it will continue to be utterly rejected by the majority of rational thinkers now. — universeness

I'll consent to the idea that philosophical pessimism has been around forever.. and variations of antinatalism.. But antinatalism as a recognized thing is relatively new.. However, your answer for why it's wrong.. "People still procreate" is either the "argumentum ad populum" fallacy or the "naturalistic" fallacy. Take your pick.

Ok, if that's the level of your Antinatalism then you are harmless. The result will be that you will have no kids. I have no kids and will not have any because I am now too old to do the nurture part as effectively as I think it needs to be done. So we are a gentle assist to the current global over-population problem. — universeness

:up:

I would just like confirmation from you that any time an Antinatalist group or individual raises its head and declares that consent is no longer required, that you will be helping me and folks like DA671,
stop them from achieving their goal — universeness

Sure. It would be going against the very principles of antinatalism itself to even do this.. I don't believe in this weird abstract utilitarian way of thinking where people are just to be seen as how they can aggregate this or that outcome.

"Capitalism" isn't like gravity or Newton's laws of motion. It was invented by people, and people wrote law to shape and manage the operation of capitalistic activity. The people who did this (over generations) started with the idea of ownership as a fundamental right and a justification for doing other things. Ownership was taken to be "natural". Ownership is its own justification. I can own land, buildings, machines, gold, jewels, ideas, and so on. I can even (in some past systems) own people. They were property just like cattle. I can hire you, Schop, to make widgets, and it will be me, Schop, and not you, who owns the widgets you make.

So get back to work, Schop: you are 20 widgets behind, and it's costing me money. What do you think this is, a fucking country club or something? I don't care that you are hungry, tired, bored, sore, lonely. You agreed to make widgets, and by god, I want them made! — Bitter Crank

Agreed agreed. Here is a hefty question.. What makes you think that this isn't a problem solved more by antinatalism than it does by communism? I am not trying to do a bait-and-switch to derail the topic..In fact you eluded to this idea in a post previously..

Antinatalism would basically say: In any system, there will be a widget-maker that reports to someone. Prevent this situation in the first place for someone else to deal with..

Communism will simply say: In our system, there will be a widget-maker that reports to someone.. but that someone is Joe Public Collective, rather than J.P Morgan or whoever.. Is there any substantial difference at this point?

I guess your retort would be that the main difference is not that there will be no widget-makers.. That is an unfortunate constant in life (so point to antinatalism), but that the wealth accumulated by JP Morgan types will be spread around so at least the widget maker might have enough to live comfortably, even though they can't overstep their comfort to the point of luxury (so point communism?). Does that sound about right?

Well yes, I don’t like starving to death so I work. Having a place to work and receive payment for my work is therefor a benefit. Living off the land is at the time too difficult. — NOS4A2

Why just those two choices as default?

Yes I see, you think that by switching it to pessimism that this solves your problems. But it doesn't because of the initial asymmetry.. That is exactly the point. They cannot be switched out as you are doing without an error of sorts.

In the case of no person, I am meddling in no person's life. There is nothing that is getting burdened.
In the case of a person born, you are meddling in a person's life. There is someone now, that is burdened.

Thus all the things you mentioned by reversing things there are not pertinent. There is no paternalism, for example in my state of affairs.. No ONE is being paternally treated. Once someone is born (your scenario), now, paternalism takes affect. There is no one in the void in being not born, but once born, there is someone who can be burdened with.

Oh. I see the owners in place. But I don't see everyone living in houses and being entertained. If I missed that change then I'm very happy about it. I'm particularly glad those children don't have to scavenge off rubbish tips any more and the garment workers are all in with the cars and the entertainment goods. Great news. Thank you. But are you sure? — Cuthbert

Sure about what? This is a question to see if what is important is the means of getting economic well-being or the ends that people value more. If everyone gets what they want but there is still powerful business owners in this system of well-being.. what would be people's gripe, essentially. Is public ownership of means of production an end to itself? @StreetlightX that is another way I am putting it I guess.

The problem is that without power, people won't get what they need or, if they do, it can be taken away. — T Clark

So you are on the side that owning the means of production is the only way to get this equality.. rather than being independent aspects of leftist goals.

Sometimes I envy them, sure, but envy is a great motivator. To me it’s very kind that they would start an enterprise at which I can work and be rendered payment for my services. The right by which someone usually comes to own the means of production is through purchase or gift or labor, though there are nefarious means. — NOS4A2

A lot of times its nefarious.. Haha, you would have LOVED my thread topic here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12347/a-ceo-deserves-his-rewards-if-workers-can-survive-off-his-salary

But, is it kind or just the fact that you don't like the idea of starving to death? We are all in the same boat.. it's just that some people own that boat and some people rent from those people to use it :lol:.

There is always that problem of individuals believing they know how to run their own lives better than some central committee. — NOS4A2

Problem is origination of capital. Not everyone starts equally. Not everyone has the chances to put the resources together. The Marxist would ask, by what right does one human own the means of production over another if we all have the same goal of survival? In other words besides words like freedom, do you like the idea that some people own how we survive and some people have to sell their labor to them?

@Bitter Crank I answered I hope acceptably.

The hope of socialists, communists... whatever, is to eliminate the portion of hard work that goes to producing a profit for people who don't do a whole lot of work at all. — Bitter Crank

Just wondering.. can you have a hardworking owner/executive class though? Is it just "hard work" that justifies ownership? That is what this implies.. that profit can be had if they work hard.. Perhaps some do, so they are the good ones? I do understand that Marxist thought is such that, owners (regardless of working habits) by definition of their relation to the worker as gaining more than their labor value is worth.

Natalism: it's okay to procreate if most people are happy with their lives.

Capitalism: it's okay to exploit workers if most people are well-off and middle-class.

Am I reading in to things here? — _db

I am not putting a value one way or the other right now. I wanted to get other people's values who were left leaning. Is it the idea that communism is the only way that all people will be able to have a livable wage or is it that communism is just one avenue and if capitalism can provide it, then the exploitation factor is not as big a deal.. In other words, is it that the exploitation creates the inequality, or is it a separate monster? If it wasn't about haves and have nots, but about haves and have mores, would that change things for what people cared about?

To show my cards.. I am against the exploitation ala Marxist ideas of this, but wondering how other people answer it when it is not longer a "have and have not" thing but just about gradations of livable conditions. Are people "hardcore" enough to still call for an overthrow, not because of material conditions, but because the idea that one group owning the means of production is unjust.. It is very relevant with all these debates.. Because people muddle the idea of communism to create equity versus communism to create a more just power sharing.

I don't care if you call it "middle class," or something else. No society can call itself good if it doesn't provide access to a decent way of life to everyone. A decent way of life includes enough to eat; a safe and clean place to live; health care; a decent, humane job; education; the opportunity to have and raise children; and basic human freedoms. If that's what you're talking about then, yes, that would satisfy me. — T Clark

Ok cool. So needs met is more important than power differentials (only a few owners own the means of production)?

Many would argue that there are many other 'deliberative' non-human creatures on Earth.
From orangutans to dolphins. Okay, perhaps not as cognisant as humans but should antinatalism apply to them due to 'suffering' or do they have to be fully able, to be asked for and confirm consent in some way? — universeness

Yes, that.

Well I hope you are not one of the first representatives from the human race to encounter aliens from another planet. How long would it be before you said:

'Welcome to Earth.....but what a shame you were ever born! Have you suffered today?' — universeness

Ironically.. perhaps aliens don't "exist" because they already figured out antinatalism a long time ago :wink:

So, you are in a sense, 'over-rulling' evolution. The around14 billion years it took to reach the stage where the universe was able to produce lifeforms such as humans was a complete waste of 'time'? due to the 'suffering' aspect of existence. Is that your logical position? — universeness

I have no duty to a natural mechanism like evolution, only to people, and not creating their unnecessary suffering.

I know you recognise that this is a very small minority view (or at least a minority view). Would you also call it an extreme view? — universeness

I think it seems extreme, but so do a lot of new ideas.

But your posit is that birth is the beginning of suffering and you give that priority over all other human states and actually think that the state DEAD is better. Would this be an accurate statement? — universeness

That's harder to say.. You can still believe life was not worth starting but also believe that once begun, since humans have connections to their own endeavors, interests, etc. it may be worse off to be dead. It doesn't mean that one equals the other.. Birth and death are changes of states of existence, but the decision to procreate another and a decision to kill yourself are not equivalent decisions. It can be said, that to put someone into suffering is bad, and to put someone in a bind that death is part of their equation of living, is also a part of this.

If the harms would negatively matter for people once they exist which necessitates preventing them, I believe that it can also be good to create happiness that would be cherished once people exist. — DA671

So you would create harm for this reason?

If that's the case, then I am also not taking about nonexistent beings beings deprived of goods. The cardinal consideration is that benefit is not being created in one state of affairs, and that's not an upside. — DA671

But then, who cares, literally? All that matters is you didn't create unnecessary harm. No one literally cares there is no upside (except the projections of you).

It does, because happiness (a desirable experience) that matters more for innumerable people despite harms (undesirable sensations) does justify, in my opinion, the formation of life. — DA671

Ah, yes, the "people" speak to DA671 and DA671 speaks to the world! Paterinalistic arrogance. At least in my philosophy I presume to do nothing for no one.. Presuming brings with it baggage for others.. I would never want to do that to people.
"You Matthew Harrison Brady.. you pass on God's orders to the rest of the world!... Well meet the prophet from Nebraska!" :lol: God speaks to Brady.. and Brady tells the world!! Brady, Brady, Brady Oh mighty!"

It's much more paternalistic, harmful, and hubristic to suggest that one should not create ineffably valuable experiences due to the risk of damage (since I do not think that a harm always negates the worth a person sees in their life). — DA671

Eh this has no force. No one is doing anything to anyone, as we have discussed. On the procreation side, something is being done.. On the not procreation side, It is messing with no one.. so no.

simply don't think that creating precious and hugely significant joys (many of which exist in spite of harms) is wrong due to the possibility of harms. — DA671

Yes presume on.. you deem it necessary, therefore others should suffer because it is "good for them".

A worldview that results in a total devaluation of a crucial aspect of reality deserves opprobrium, in my view. One's arbitrary notions are certainly not a valid excuse for a worldview that irrationally and patronisingly decides that the creation of truly majestic joys isn't necessarily valuable for those who would exist and appreciate them. — DA671

All your own projections that burden others at the end of the day.

specially in situations when they know that the likelihood of the child having a good life is low. — DA671

I just think being the "evaluator" of another's life's burdens is again, paternalistic, arrogant, and a sortof god-complex.. Don't burden others, PERIOD. Please don't give pedantic and sentimentalist laughter of children, the poetic sense of the artist, and the fights of fancy of a mountainclimber, the majesty of science, the wonders of technology bullshit. You are burdening others, messing with them.. YOU are doing that (you being the procreator).

This is why I support the availability of a liberal right to die along with careful use of technology in order to remove/reduce suffering as much as possible. All the harms are extremely tragic, and I do not think that my words alone are sufficient to change that fact. Yet, there is also another side of the coin. There are those who truly perceive their lives to be a gift. For them, the so-called "little" things act as a source of indubitable value. Things such as the love of a family member, or the achievement of a dream such as being able to become the first educated person in a family (a phenomenon that's still common in the country I come from) can inundate people with a happiness that's truly immeasurable. I just don't think that one should loom at those experiences and decide that it's acceptable for those goods to never exist again, even if those people themselves continue to cherish their lives. I don't think that genuine empathy entails ignoring the positives. Paternalism can manifest in multiple ways, my friend. Still, I completely agree with you that our current system of oppressing people in the name of "mental illness" instead of providing actual solutions like a right to a graceful exit and reducing inequality is condemnable. I hope that this situation will change as time goes on. — DA671

Didn't even read this and I predicted it above :lol: Spare the sentimentality. It excuses nothing. Burdening people is burdening people, despite what you might want them to possibly experience otherweise from the burdens you are burdening them with.

Paternalism can manifest in multiple ways, my friend. Still, I completely agree with you that our current system of oppressing people in the name of "mental illness" instead of providing actual solutions like a right to a graceful exit and reducing inequality is condemnable. I hope that this situation will change as time goes on. — DA671

I mean, this idea that if you don't like the situation, go kill yourself isn't callous? Just don't put people in that situation. Period. When is that ever good to do? Break some eggs to make an omelet thinking? No one suffers not being born. I don't hear the whispering cries of the nothing nobodies in the nothing noths region of nothingdom.

No, such people deserve happiness and care. I don't think that irredeemable harms are logically inextricable for happiness, though it's true that there are negatives that do exist. I think that creating happiness and then sincerely caring about a person who would love their life is trivial; it possesses priceless worth. Thank you for this enlightening discussion, and I hope that you have a good week ahead! — DA671

I get that you think happiness is worth making people suffer (collateral damage). Fuck em all right? Cause happiness.

If you could press a button now, and all human life would cease to exist, without causing any suffering to anyone, including you. Instant removal from the Universe. Would you press?

If we go back to the time of the dinosaurs and consider the longevity of time they had on the Earth, compared to humans. Was there any suffering during those times, when there were no humans around?

Is it only human suffering you are concerned about?

Do you think there is life on other planets? I'd prefer a yes or no to a don't know but I know we don't always get what we prefer. — universeness

No I would not press a button. Ethics is at the individual level. People's consent must be obtained.. If not for an individual, then ethics means nothing but aggregate averaged out utility.. It is at the individual level of POV that experience is carried out and it is there where ethics must be considered.

I am primarily concerned of human suffering simply because we are deliberative beings that can make choices, but I do care about animal welfare, yes.

Sure I'll say there might be.. And if there is.. if they can deliberate like we can, they can make the same AN choices, if there is "suffering" which certainly there is for them as us.

Do you believe a human being can learn from suffering and improve their life due to the experience of suffering? — universeness

Humans can learn from suffering. However, to create suffering so people can learn is wrong I think.

I think my case is adequately strong. On one side, there are goods, on the other side, there aren't any. — DA671

Goods that are not deprived to anyone matter how, exactly? It's just switching the POV as if there is someone, but there is not. Again, no collateral damage to anyone here, so I don't see the problem.

Nobody is positively affected by the lack of harm in nonexistence either. And no, I am not focusing on nonexistent beings, only pointing out the obvious before moving on. — DA671

Correct, but that is not what I stated. I did not say.. "There exists someone for whom lack of harm is being experienced". Rather I simply stated, that "Collateral damage, as a state of affairs, is not being created". That is to say, there is no downside going on.

The fact is that nobody is benefitting in one state of affairs either, but they do experience happiness when they do exist, so it has significance from their POV, and there's no need for a deprivation for that to be important. — DA671

Right, but doesn't answer my question of

You say, happiness is a pass to initiate the process. I am saying that there is nothing that justifies creating unnecessary collateral damage as a state of affairs in the world for someone else. — schopenhauer1

You obviously disagree, and mistakenly so, in my view, but I believe that if it is preferable to prevent potential harm, it is also justifiable to create valuable experiences that would be gained by people when they exist. — DA671

This, I can agree with.

You say that the positives do not justify procreation, but I disagree, because I do think that the intricately ethereal and indescribable goods do justify creating people. — DA671

So initiating unnecessary harm is fine with you as long as happiness exists. But why is creating collateral damage ever good, when it does not have to happen?
There is no person that needs saving...
There is no person "missing out"

Giving someone a "chance" to be happy, but knowing this creates harm, is still presuming that it is okay to create harm for someone else wholesale, and inescapable, and that this is justified because positive aspects also exist. How is this not paternalistic, arrogant, and dangerous? Why is messing with other people's existential status something that is presumed "good to do" onto someone else? "This is good for you..." and "you'll thank me later" might be subtle, but they are excuses we use to cause unnecessary harm. At the end of the day, if you think causing unnecessary harm to others is justified because you know "happiness must be had by someone" then I cannot persuade you otherwise other than, it is wrong to use people by causing them burdens for your notion of what is good for them, the world, the universe, (which actually doesn't make sense either) etc.

So when someone doesn't like aspects of life, what will you do? Say, "Ship up or ship out?" "Go kill yourself", "That's life", "That's just the way it is"? Great, real empathy there. You have created the very situation for which you are gaslighting them. "Fuck you.. enjoy what is here, or go kill yourself! I created you so you can "enjoy" what I deem must be enjoyed.. Family values... You laughed as a child, why are you resenting X right now?? How dare you question your birth?? Question the system, question this or that, but never question existence!!?? It's a"gift" yet you feel negative X right now.. Ha ha ha ha.. paternalistic, arrogant.. gas lighting....

You can't create a situation whereby the negatives come about, and then tell the person to "fuck off" if they question the very negatives that were brought about.

Complex situations are rarely fixed by one-sided "solutions". I don't think the harms are good; I merely disagree with the assertion that preventing necessary (assuming that averting harm is also necessary), precious, significant, and evanescent yet eternally valuable positives is an acceptable idea. — DA671

I haven't done anything except for pointing out the inherent flaw with idea that there needs to be a deprivation for the creation of a positive life to be necessary, but it's somehow logical to suggest that the lack of harm is good sans an actual benefit, because the truth is it simply doesn't seem to be the case. There's no need to drag this on infinitely, because it's also quite easy to understand that one resolves to create a benefit in one case that one could consider akin to a gift they couldn't solicit themselves. In one instance, the state of affairs changes to one having good, and in the other, there is no value. Once again, the lack of a "POV" before existing is precisely why I don't think that existence can be inherently better/worse for a person. But even if it is and all that matters is the perspective and experiences of the actual person, the logical position seems to be to understand that the creation of a benefit matters just lile the prevention of damage. You cannot apply double standards and then accuse others of making a "sleight of hand" when being questioned for a lack of consistency, for doing so is probably a much accurate representation of a sleight of hand. — DA671

Let's look at why the case is so strong for not creating collateral damage though.
On one side of the ledger, collateral damage is created.
On the other side of the ledger, no collateral damage is created.

One cannot say here, some person is be affected negatively for not being born. Because as I think you are trying to acknowledge, there is no child's POV that is negatively affected.

The collateral damage is purely experienced once a child is created. Once this state of affairs of "born" has happened, harms become entailed with life as it normally goes.

So in one case there is no state of affairs of collateral damage. On the other side there is. You now cannot go back and say, "But there are no state of affairs of no happiness".. Because that is not collateral damage to a child's POV. In other words, there literally is no losing side to not creating someone. There will always be a collateral (losing) aspect to creating someone. This is based on states of affairs.

So the question becomes.. If the default state is no collateral damage, what justifies creating a state of affairs where by collateral damage is incurred, but doesn't have to incur onto someone else?

You say, happiness is a pass to initiate the process. I am saying that there is nothing that justifies creating unnecessary collateral damage as a state of affairs in the world for someone else.

They have the lion's share of the wealth without doing anything to earn it, In fact, it is inconceivable that they could do anything to earn it -- the amount of wealth they own is to great to find justification. — Bitter Crank

We've been through this before.. You keep going after the VERY large CEOs and Board of Director types and NOT the small business owner that started out let's say by himself and grew from there...They would say that they are not parasites but job creators.. Started with one, then several, then dozens, then hundreds....

Raising the quality of life for the working class still has to be sustainable. So housing in which families are secure (won't be evicted)? Yes. Have access to a healthy diet of quality food? Yes. Have access to quality public transit? Yes. Have security in their employment (won't be laid off for arbitrary reasons or to enhance profit)? Yes. Have access to quality education? Yes. Have access to quality medical care? Yes. Work no more than necessary to maintain the collective quality of life (as opposed to profitability)? Yes. — Bitter Crank

Material well being is the end, ownership of the means of production is the means. — Bitter Crank

Right but my point is, in your theory, do the ends necessarily come about from the means of getting rid of the owner classes? Is this like a political law of nature or something like that? ONLY this leads to that?

Self-evident things don't solicit excessive explanations. There's no need to "get in a tizzy" over trivial matters. — DA671

This still means nothing.. Self-evident things are rarely self-evident and you are on a philosophy forum, so not quite playing to the crowd by saying "Right because it's self-evident.. no debate".

The only simple and consistent point was: if it's bad to create the damage/negatives, it's also good to create benefits. This isn't a particularly complex point. — DA671

Little sleight of hand there.. Not just damage, but collateral damage. This entails the benefits.. Is it good to create benefits when you are causing suffering as well, when it is: unnecessary, inescapable, non-trivial, and non-temporary?

That is the argument. If one needs to be "deprived" for the lack of happiness to be bad, I don't think it's sensible to deny that there should be a satisfied state of affairs that would prevail from absenct harms, which is clearly not the case. Once again, you simply don't want to look beyond your single-minded viewpoint. — DA671

Well you keep repeating it from the POV of the non-existing person. Why do you do this? It's simply a person making the decision... Create collateral damage (change the current state that will be someone else's problem to deal with).. or don't create collateral damage (don't change the state and no one will have a problem to deal with or be deprived of not having happiness). You cannot change this POV to the POV that you keep doing, and then make the sleight of hand and then again say you understand the argument.

The latter overwhelmingly determine the former. To treat them as independent variables is idealism. — StreetlightX

But some of those economists at the edges might say something along the lines of:
Capitalism can possibly manage to create more equitable circumstances through various social democratic interventions (the Scandinavian model let's say). Thus, government can intervene so that the inequalities are smoothed over to a reasonable extent.. Thus the means of overthrowing the owner class is deemed unnecessary through classic social democratic policy.

@StreetlightX
I guess my question then is whether which is more important:
Material well-being or ownership of means of production? Sometimes, I think there is a lot of muddling of the two in communist or perhaps more general leftist theory.

A finding in psychology reveals that the most satisfying way to earn a living is by getting paid per project you complete (not by wages or salary where you have to meet the number of hours worked and be present at the location fixed by your employer). — L'éléphant

It would be hopeful if the economy moved in this direction. Of course, this only matters for those kind of white collar jobs.. automation for the rest? Much further down the line of course.

How about the very fact that there is a class of people who somehow had the means to scrounge the resources together to create the means of creating stuff of value.. and then there is the rest who didn't do that, but work for that guy.. There's always the owners and the not owners who work for them.

But as an antinatalist, I don't see a solution to this problem. Once born, being not a paradise.. resources get doled out by those who can pay the people who know about the technology to be able to create the stuff... and then workers can work for the owners to survive. Most being not clever enough to create the technology themselves or figure out how to own the means by which to make stuff to sell.