Are you asking what would happen if everybody in the working class (who call themselves middle class) actually had more money? Well, they would experience less stress, that's for sure. They might be happier. Not a lot happier. You aren't proposing a revolution here, you are just rearranging the deck chairs. — Bitter Crank

Yes, that's exactly what I am trying to figure out. What if capitalism somehow worked itself out such that the working class, the 130,000,000 you are discussing made the same amount as the middle class 20 million lawyers, doctors, etc. Would that satisfy the goals? In other words, everyone is comfortable enough.. Would that be essentially the end goal, or does it involve taking down the power differentials altogether whereby the owner class must be removed.. .What would be the impetus though to do that other than abstract power reasons? The immediate concerns would be met of material well-being.

I don't think the point is to take the Golden Rule in such a concrete manner. 'Do unto others' can mean we respect the other's preferences even if we don't share them, just as we how they well respect ours. Live and let live. No one has ever started a bar fight or war over being shown excessive courtesy... or not being stolen from or assaulted or murdered. — Tom Storm

I actually agree with that assessment. But I am giving an example where someone presumes the other person wants something because they themselves want it.. Taking the ultra-affirmative version creates an ethic that is not "live and let live" but "live and assume everyone should want what I want". Thus if I took an action that forced your hand because I am doing what I would have wanted, that is unethical.

Kant's old rationalisation itself relies on recognising the other. That's were we start. — Banno

Yeah but then I sort of gave the counter.. people's ideas of what they might like can differ.. Thus I would say that lest one is unethical by being unduly negligent, the foundation would seem weighted such that it is best to not create harm unnecessarily upon others. When given the choice of creating harm in order to create happiness, not creating harm wins out.

As good a place to start as any. Any starting point needs to be seen as wrong at some point though. — I like sushi

The counter to that is that people have different opinions on what is good or bad. Your assumption of good onto someone else could be drastically wrong. Then we have a more important foundation.. be cautious to what you do to others, as it may not be what they want, and if they mistakenly did that to you, you might not want it either. Don't presume. Don't start create situations for others that create collateral damage for them, if you can help it.

We rather not have things done to us.. This can be summarized in a principle: Don't do things to others you wouldn't want done to you.. This "don't want it done to us" can be generally deemed as "harm", or "suffering". Don't do it to others is a good place to start. Don't start it for others is also part of that.

Just wondering, would you be satisfied if everyone were middle class but the only hitch were that there were really really rich people that ran the companies that the middle class were working for?
In other words, as far as power and wealth differentials, there is a wide gulf, but in terms of everyday living (as long as the living is relatively moderate), you are satisfied? Basically what is happening now, but with just "working/poor classes" making enough to be middle class?

I'm just curious for various philosophical implications.

I don't have to be concerned about fundamentally problematic views, but it's always better for others to realise that as well instead of indulging in projection. ;) — DA671

What does that even mean?

Nothing will be gained from this, but I suppose I'll move on. And I looked up the arguments myself, not from a friend. — DA671

But why? From your perspective, who gives a hooey what fringe antinatalists, that passively advocate not procreating, say? I mean I get it if it's just to bide the time, but what an odd project to be against, of all things. I get why people who care about antinatalism care and post. They actually have a passion for it. It is a minority view. But what I don't get is the ardent anti-antinatalists who have no real stake in the game or passion for the subject in any way other than getting mad arguing about it. It's just odd to me. It makes sense on this forum I guess for pure rhetorical football, but again, an odd one to play ball with in the first place. Aren't there some "hard questions of consciousness", "utilitarian vs. deontology" and "is philosophy just language games?" threads that would matter more? Hell, even just a "meaning of life" thread has more cache. Also, its really hard (annoying) to follow along with your answers when you don't actually quote what you are referring to. I have to keep scrolling back to what I said earlier.

If damage is an inherent harm that needs to be prevented, happiness is also a good that does not deserve to be prevented. — DA671

So I am going to ignore this because we discussed about collateral damage and states of affairs. That's why I started slowly and tried to move forward. You haven't gotten passed the understanding, so we can't keep arguing until you recognize it.

Straw man argument again, since I have already argued for a consistent case that is about creating the benefit for those who would exist. — DA671

But you are arguing your own argument and not mine, so no.

However, the reality is that there aren't any souls in some blissful antechamber who are desperate to avoid existence. — DA671

Please feck off if you are going to keep harping this argument. That is NOT the collateral damage argument I made. Can you actually articulate my argument or are you going to keep repeating yours? It's now getting to the point of rude how you keep doing the same error.

It cannot be preferable for nonexistent beings, by the same token, to not exist, since that's also a category error. — DA671

NOW I'M SPEAKING IN CAPS BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GETTING IT. THIS IS NOT ABOUT NONEXISTENT BEINGS. IT IS ABOUT THE PERSON MAKING A DECISION TO CHANGE THE STATE OF AFFAIRS FROM NO COLLATERAL DAMAGE EXISTING TO COLLATERAL DAMAGE EXISTING.

No benefit here means that nobody is fulfilled from any absent harm. — DA671

No one NEEDS TO BE FULFILLED!! That's not the argument.

The flip side is a state of affairs where a person does experience goods. The lack of absent benefits doesn't matter for those who never had them in the first place, but if the positives don't matter, then the lack of damage also has no relevance for those who aren't feeling satisfaction due to its absence. — DA671

Wow, I am not sure if this is purposeful obfuscation now, to purposely be a repetitive jack in the box. It is not about the nonexisting nothing. It is about the fact that no collateral damage was created vs. creating collateral damage. The argument does not hinge (despite your repetitive assertions) on the idea of no one benefiting from it. Rather, do you create collateral damage or not create collateral damage for someone else? PERIOD.

Because consistency matters, even if it's difficult to accept. It's not rational to focus on removing undesirable experiences at the cost of preventing the preferable ones. — DA671

It's not rational.. every time I hear that, I tune out. That can mean anything and everythign.. Usually it just means.. "You don't agree with my view.. so you're not rational.. wah wah". Making happiness ex nihilo just does not have the same ethical obligation of creating unnecessary suffering, non-trivial, lifetime's worth, inescapable on someone else's behalf.

The universe also doesn't care about any absent harm. — DA671

It's not the universe.. it's the people who can make a decision to create the collateral damage. And again. And again. And again..

I am sorry if my replies came off as "arrogant", yet it seems to me, and I could be wrong here, that its a trait that pervades any view that totally disregards one aspect of reality. I am interested in many things, but I am afraid that I have been impelled to disagree with the internet prophets of unreasonable pessimism ;) — DA671

Yeah but I am not changing someone else's state of existence by not having any body... That is not the case when you procreate.. Like death, it is changing an existential state of affairs (that ends up being someone else's problem). You see, me not procreating right now does no harm to no actual person. It is the default state- that of NOT creating collateral damage where there was none to begin with. Not so with procreation.

Oh how I love it when anti-antinatalists get in a tizzy.. Don't worry bra, your side is still going strong ;). I have way more to gain, and you have almost nothing at stake except maybe some argument you heard from a friend. Anyways...

Yeah, the unreasonable "asymmetry" often comes into play, though it doesn't win. ;) As I said before, I do jot think that it makes sense to say that the lack of harm is good without also acknowledging that the absence of the positives is bad. It's tragic, but understandable, that you have chosen to ignore the obvious. — DA671

Ah yes, the whole "Accuse the other of what I'm doing" defense. Always helpful.

Fallacy of fallacies. And I didn't straw man you, since I wasn't talking about people being "used", but an inherent good (that one cannot ask for) not being bestowed due to one's overwhelming pessimistic inclinations. A benefit that an innocent being cannot ask for is being created when one exists, and it isn't if they aren't born. Thus, the so-called asymmetry remains unreasonable. Again, in one case no joy occurs (irrespective of any intentions to prevent harm), in the other case, there is no benefit either (nobody to gain from the lack of damage). It is all about whether one can understand the simple truth that it can never be moral to prevent all happiness for the sake of preventing harms. — DA671

An "inherent good".. what the hell is that? And, here is the kicker.. "who" is losing out in the current state of affairs of no collateral damage? The ghost of no-person existing? There is no innocent being.. category error again. There is simply a state of affairs. In this case no collateral damage. The other side is there will be collateral damage. No collateral damage here means no state of affairs of a person being harmed from being deprived of anything. The flip side is a state of affairs with a person harmed. What does it matter if no "one" benefits if they aren't deprived of those benefits in the current state of affairs?

It is all about whether one can understand the simple truth that it can never be moral to prevent all happiness for the sake of preventing harms. — DA671

Why?

Yes, I can also see that you believe in an unethical view that justifies preventing all good in order to prevent some harms that one is single-minded focused on whilst ignoring other pertinent factors. — DA671

What does it matter if good did not occur in the universe? Are you on some mission? From whom, for whom? You are not doing stuff to yourself but other people and you are the messiah that MUST determine that they be put through existence, because the messiah deems it must happen? Not arrogant you say? A prophet from the internets..

Whatever noble intentions you might have, the ineluctable truth is that you are unnecessarily preventing joys due to your perspective. Cold-hearted and apathetic this is (since if creating harms is "using" someone, then it's also absurd to not create possible joy that one cannot ask for themselves before existing). One cannot be truly empathetic whilst also ignoring the power and reality of happiness. — DA671

So here we have the basic asymmetry at play.. All the things you have been straw manning me are now being used by yourself. No "one" is being used by not being born. Someone is being used once born. it can never be the other way. Thus the asymmetry. Again, in one case- collateral damage (harm is taking place despite what one intends). In the other case- no collateral damage (there is no person to be deprived of happiness). It is all about whether one should go ahead and create collateral damage.

Yes, I see that you believe collateral damage is justified because..happiness.

The right argument. Preventing harm for a person doesn't have any value either if the creation of goods doesn't matter. And there are also those who have turned around their lives in spite of suffering a lot, so I will not be accepting an incomplete image that suits your agenda. — DA671

No man, you are arguing an uphill battle despite you thinking that you have the "Most people" defense on your side. You are defending creating suffering for others. Whatever justifications you want to appeal to aside, you are doing this nonetheless. Callous and using, this is. If you are a person who doesn't want to create suffering, there you go. In one instance there is no collateral damage. In the other, you have created collateral damage. Happiness is not obligatory to make, not creating suffering is. You don't need a person to exist to be prevented of suffering for this to be true. Only YOU the agent causing the suffering needs to exist to prevent suffering, which will occur if you make that move to do so, and won't occur if you make the move to not.

I am afraid that I would have to disagree with the conclusion that the possibility of harm (which I do favour preventing and reducing as much as possible) — DA671

But apparently you don't, because you would agree with the AN conclusion :D.

I do not feel that I can justify the idea that the life of that child from the slum who finds immense joy in just living with his family does not deserve to exist (assuming that preventing the harms is good). — DA671

Wrong argument.. "deserve to exists" is about him already existing. And you can't sum up that person's life as "Immense joy in just living with his family" without giving the complete story. It isn't THE END at the end of it.. all happiness. So no, I will not let you characterize it that way for a pat little argument.

The crux of the difference is the ability to recognise that solving a problem cannot come at the cost of nullifying all good. — DA671

Why? The "problem" is suffering/harm/negative experiences.. and it certainly can be solved. I don't presume to cause someone suffering because happiness is involved for them. What an arrogant pissy response attitude towards others.. Hiding under the mask of "Well, I'll cause them harm because happiness!".. You know, smile while you kill sort of thing but much more subtle.. I can see it though.

It's much more paternalistic to suggest that one's own perspective justifies the cessation of all positive experiences — DA671

Just not the argument. I am not saying to kill what exists, but not start harm, so moving on.

it can also be bad to prevent the negatives. — DA671

Ah, here we go. The callous, Nietzschean, inevitable cliched riff about "Struggle creates meaning" and why should we prevent that for someone? Callous sadism dressed as Nietzschean ubermenchian finery... moving on.

And no, intentionally creating a life that could experience immense goods does not use them as mere means to an end, since the person themselves have no interest that is being disregarded from their creation. — DA671

No I won't let that slide. You are using someone because you disregard their harm for X reason. Moving on.

If it did, it would probably include using them as mere means to the end of eliminating suffering, — DA671

Since they don't exist, don't even try to make that argument.. this is about you violating a principle not the non existent thing being used.. as we both know it doesn't exist to be used.. The only scenario where it's being used is the one you advocate, that is, being born!

I do think that creating the person with the right intentions and caring for them properly does treat them as ends in themselves. — DA671

No, that is a means to the caregiver's ends.. Next.

However, one is not "creating the conditions of harm" for an existing person who is already happy. I have already said that it's wrong to do so for existing beings unless it leads to a greater happiness for them. — DA671

Oh I am not a crass utilitarian so I wouldn't even pay attention to this when ethically reasoning. Maybe politics or something. I don't use people's conditions for suffering for my own happiness. That would be wrong, and misguided.

But nonexistent beings don't have perceive the void has a desideratum that would somehow be cruelly distanced by their mere creation. — DA671

Stop making it about the void. I am not talking about the void. I am talking about NOT MAKING SUFFERING, PERIOD. Not making the void feel better.. That's your straw manning argument.

The cardinal consideration remains the value/disvalue they might experience, and I am sorry, but your (or mine!) personal viewpoint simply does not justify not creating the conditions for all happiness just because you (or I) fail to find sufficient significance in life. — DA671

So now are you really taking the position that we are obligated to create "happiness"? That is an actual ethical obligation, or just your preference?

I do hope that more people could see things in a different light. Preventing harms at the cost of all happiness is a "cure" much worse the problem it allegedly "solves". — DA671

Well, it is ethical at least. No person is being used. No person is here to be a solution for something. Again, using people, now as a solution.. Let's create conditions with cancer so we can have people to cure it.. self-fulling perpetuating nonsensical thinking.

Since there is no such thing as eternal bliss prior to creation that's negatively affected by the genesis of ineffable happiness, one should not hold views that lead to unfathomable losses that outweigh any gain. — DA671

Huh?

I don't think that things need to be perfect for happiness to be sufficiently valuable. It's not the case that everything is terrible either, and I remain reasonably optimistic that we can further reduce our problems. Nevertheless, the positive aspects will always matter and they will continue to be seen as a genuine blessing/gift by many sentient beings, in spite of the damage. — DA671

Yes mix. What makes starting unnecessary harm that is non-trivial, lasts a lifetime's worth, and inescapable ever good to start? I'm sorry but because happiness can also happen too is not a good enough reason to knowingly cause the conditions just described regarding suffering. At the very least it is being naive. It is also callous once one takes the suffering into consideration. And there is the crux of most of our differences.

There is also an element of arrogant paternalism. Start a family for X reason (try to spin it as happiness, or more likely to create some sort of meaning lacking in the parent's lives not having children). It is certainly using someone for an ends, if the fact that the person's suffering is being bypassed. Happiness doesn't compensate for the bypass, I'm sorry. You don't get to create conditions of harm so that you can also create conditions of happiness. Creating happiness isn't a "get out of jail free card". Since there's no such thing as "free lunch", don't create the situation whereby the person has to pay for that lunch.

But through passive means.

Question to you personally:
I understand why antinatalists are so passionate about their cause. I am confused more about people such as yourself who are vociferously anti-antinatalism. How is it you came to be so passionately against antinatalism?

A) It is a passive philosophy. It is simply advocating refraining from procreation. It is not advocating violent means or ends or anything like that.

B) It is not widely known. Except people in philosophy circles or niche internet forums, it is pretty much absent from any wider cultural dialogue.. It is basically fringe, if seen at all.. (though maybe, hopefully that is starting to change?). So it provides no threat to the current order of things.. Millions of humans are still being born.

If it's something you saw that I wrote that made you want to debate, is there something compelling you to debate it? I just am curious because most people's responses are negative, with a couple throw away responses, or just ignore it. Every once in a while I get someone who is very keen to debate this thoroughly though, so just trying to get a better understanding of the motivation of that side of things. Is it my particular arguments or just arguments you've heard prior to me, but you have been wanting to get this point across ever since you heard them?

it is more than sensible to create happiness on the behalf of another who couldn't ask for it. Once again, this is nothing except a logically consistent view, in my opinion. — DA671

No, it is not sensible to cause happiness IF it comes with strings of collateral damage. That is the part you are missing.

There's nobody who is being "used" when they are created. Creating a valuable life doesn't have to directly harm another person, and as far the person themselves are concerned, I would argue that it is simply fallacious to use the term "use" (as if the person doesn't have an actual interest in happiness but has one in some alternative state of affairs) for a person who is being created. The "pet" claim about creating damage doesn't negate the value of creating happiness that the person themselves would likely value. Many people do find it to be in their interest for someone to bestow a greater good to them, and as I said before, if creating harms can be bad, creating happiness can also be good. — DA671

But WITH collateral damage. There is no free happiness going on here. There is no actual gift.

Not irrelevant because happiness matters once one exists, just as the harms do when one begins to exist. If the prevention of the latter is "relevant" for you even though it doesn't benefit an actual person (except for your own interests, perhaps), then the prevention of all good is quite relevant. — DA671

So I the a priori clam is that collateral damage is taking place in one and not in the other. The a posteriori stuff is a different matter that simply bolsters it.

I don't think there's much point in arguing with the "God of non-procreation". The universe has no need for the absence of all life, and if there is no good that comes from the creation of happiness, there is also none that comes from the prevention of suffering. As for existing beings (and assuming non-creation is neutral), it can certainly be good to create meaningful (it does not lose value merely because you don't appreciate it, but I hope this can change), if it is bad to create the harms sans an actual loss for someone who does not even exist. — DA671

So please parse out the a priori point: Collateral damage, no collateral damage and from the perspective of a parent existing.

The a posteriori points are to bolster it: What the implications are of collateral damage for the future child.

It does in many more ways than you realise ;)
As I have said countless times before, the harm might be unnecessary, but the happiness isn't (assuming that you believe that the prevention of harms is necessary). When you use words like "using", you are still implying that one is somehow being manipulated (potentially against their interests) in order to achieve one's "sinister" designs. However, bestowing the chance to experience happiness can certainly be good if one claims that creating damage is bad. There is no need for "use" because the case is analogous to acting on behalf of someone who cannot ask for a good themselves (of course, this assumes that one would consider the deliberate creation of negative lives to be an act of "using" them even though they don't exist). Your examples are poor and reflect a lack of understanding. One could certainly appreciate someone taking an act on their behalf that leads to a greater good. However, it would be pertinent to remember that making money isn't bad if it doesn't even exist in the first place, since the probability of generating income which is profitable can justify the act of creation, just as the losses might be bad. Giving additional work which doesn't make a person happier might not be good, but there isn't any state of ethereal bliss in the void that is being disturbed/worsened by the creation of a person. At least you could recognise that some people might indeed enjoy the work, and for them, it's a source of happiness. There could be a plethora of reaons, from dedication to one's family to genuine enjoyment in the process of typing (I do have a predilection towards it!). Unfortunately, our current work culture is not the best, which is why I do think that we should focus on resolving many of the issues we face at the moment before indulging in mindless procreation.

All irrelevant. You just made collateral damage in one case and no collateral damage in the other case. Remember, the perspective is from our view.. already living at the point of the a priori argument.

I don't think that happiness is less significant than suffering. One might not need to constantly interfere in the case of existing beings who are capable of living adequately meaningful lives as long as they avoid serious harms, but this doesn't apply to people who aren't in a state of affairs they have an interest in. Preventing all happiness for the sake of fulfilling a pessimistic agenda, all the while refusing to bestow a deep good just because one personally doesn't appreciate it seems to be a fundementally unethical position to hold.

It just doesn't have any weight to me. "Preventing happiness for a pessimistic agenda" has no moral worth to anyone. It lacks any moral obligatory force to it. Simply put again, in on instance collateral damage, in the other not. To create collateral damage or not to create it. Think of the term "collateral" as it encapsulates the notion that one is meaning to create happiness, but by doing so, knowingly creates the collateral damage (the strings) that go with it.

Neither is the "gift" an ordinary one when it unleashes its potency, which can happen even in the face of seemingly insuperable odds. Obviously, there are tragic situations that one does need to mitigate (at which point it wouldn't be sensible to call it a "gift", and that's why I don't consider life to be a gift in all cases). When the gift is the source of all value that did not exist prior to its existence, and it's likely that many innocent beings would find it to be verily invaluable and precious despite the harms, I think it has immense worth that deserves to be preserved. For the last time, the happiness is also not "trivial".

Yeah I don't have sympathy for the "Most people" "God of procreation" paternalistic argument. It is just that. Post facto also doesn't matter as I've explained.

I thought that intentions mattered in Kantian frameworks, which is why I had brought it up. However, it's fine if one doesn't care. The cardinal consideration is that powerful joys can exist if a person is created, and as long as that's true for countless sentient beings, it is good enough.

Intention matters to an extent, but intention along with knowing the intention brings with it other things is a sort of overlooking.. This is why I don't deem procreation as evil or monstrous, just misguided.

Happiness is intrinsically valuable and it is never unnecessary to not create it, unless it leads to greater loss of value, which I don't think it does. — DA671

Even on the face of it, this could be wrong. You can have lives that have much more suffering. I am not even making his utilitarian argument. Mine is more deontological.

1. If not starting happiness (an intrinsically undesirable experience) is necessary, then starting happiness (an intrinsically preferable experience) can also be good. — DA671

No, one is not entailed in the other. If creating someone's suffering is bad, this does not entail that not creating someone's happiness is bad too. In one case the parent is starting collateral damage, and in the other, simply nothing is happening good or/bad. Not starting happiness creates no bad situation, but starting happiness does (collaterally start bad). That is one of my major points.

There is a state where nobody is happy, and nobody is saved from suffering. — DA671

Not relevant though, which is why I don't phrase it. It is like something "Nothing noths".

. It's definitely good to do so on behalf of someone who cannot ask for the good themselves. — DA671

Absolutely nonsense in the literal (none sense way). Nothing noths nothing noths.. repeat over and over.

The happiness can also be deeply valuable and is experienced by many people; it is not insignificant. — DA671

This bespeaks to the fact that there is a violation of "using someone" by knowingly causing suffering for an X reason (in this case the parent's "pet" reason of "granting happiness".

5. It is quite precious and is cherished by many people. — DA671

Right so you are now just ignoring my objection that post-facto "thumbs up and down" have no relevance to violating the principle of dignity and using people. I push you in a ditch and that helps you out later on and so you approve doesn't mean it was right for me to push you in the ditch. The "Most people" defense has no case against this, sorry. I also think it is highly arrogant and paternalistic to think that you should do something so profound to an individual because you think you are the harbinger of what "Most people" want. You are the judge, jury, executioner of someone else's fate because you think you have a "Most people" mandate. Arrogant. Arrogant. Arrogant. Remember, this isn't like vaccines or something. This isn't using lesser harms to prevent greater harms, you are wholesale creating someone's conditions for suffering because you deem it to be X, Y, Z and "Most people" would want X, Y, Z. There is a difference using the "Most people" defense in this case and when someone already exists and you (have to) ameliorate lesser for greater harms.

I never claimed that life is perfect. However, it isn't an absolute hell without any hope either. — DA671

Doesn't matter. The harm of life is quite objectively frustrating (in the antifrustrationist preference sense), deprivational in nature, and stochastically contains tons of contingently based harms.

However, they also speak of sukkha (happiness) which can be found by minimising unnecessary desires, and I already agree with that idea. Chasing superficial pleasures often leads to harms. I'll return to the main topic now. There certainly is a need to survive, but I don't think that everybody constantly despises it. I, just like many other people, like the process of striving for a greater good, even though I admit that contentment is generally preferable. Again, I am not saying that there aren't hardships, because there clearly are. Nevertheless, I disagree with the idea that their existence always negates the value of the good parts of life. There is happiness, and there is immense resilience in many cases (I remember the genuine happiness in the eyes of the people who came from what many of us would call terrible conditions). It's often a twofold blessing. — DA671

Irrelevant because this is all after the birth decision. Make do and make peace with yourself, existence, others however you want, that doesn't affect this argument.

When one adds the fact that happiness is being created from a state of no value, I think it would be misguided and unethical to claim that they don't have significance or deserve to be prevented. — DA671

Since there is no such thing as nothing nothing, this doesn't matter. If nothing is noth-ing in its nothingness, who cares? What makes you some "god of procreation" that needs to change the condition because you deem it so, meanwhile creating a state of collateral damage, which did not need to take place? Please justify other than the meaningless words of (intrinsic goods, thus so) that happiness needs to exist in the universe? If no-thing experiences no-thing, so what? All there is is already existing people projecting their hurt that they didn't create anything.

One could also say that it makes sense to care about preventing harms when one exists, but not before it. But I am not taking such a view at this point of time, so I'll move on. — DA671

Yeah because I'm not making that argument. Rather, in one case no collateral damage, in the other case definite collateral damage. So moving on..

I don't think that this violates Kant's imperative. Nobody has an interest in not existing that would somehow be violated or disregarded by being created. In Kantian ethics, what might be more pertinent would be to ensure that one truly cares for the person and doesn't create them merely because they wish to have more working hands. However, I do think that one actually respects and exalts the dignity of a person by giving them the opportunity to experience goods they would be deeply grateful for and had no way to solicit prior to existing. On the other hand, I don't think that preventing all goods for the sake of a perspective that doesn't sufficiently focus on the goods would be an ethical intention/act.

Yeah that's not how that works. Rather, you are still causing harm onto someone unnecessarily. When you use words like "opportunity" you are indeed now using someone, however positively associated that word is connoted. "Hey, I'm going to invest your money for you because I think this might be a great opportunity"... Or a boss who gives his employees more work and says, "This is a great opportunity.." but it's just more work, not an opportunity.. it is something the boss prefers happens and he is spinning it. Doesn't matter if the worker somehow finds joy in that work.. I mean not quite the same because worker is paid.. but it if it goes overtime with no pay for example, well the boss can say it was an "opportunity" all he wants...

I would also say that happiness-causing really has no ethical weight attached to it. It is superogatory. It is good to do if one can, but one is not obligated. One might be a better "person" in some character way for it. There might be a better outcome. But one isn't ethically bound to doing it. Negative ethics, such as not harming people unnecessary seems to hold a different weight. That is to say, causing unnecessary harm, and causing it because YOU want it, is creating unnecessary suffering states of affairs and using people (to get X agenda accomplished). This just seems wrong prima facie as a baseline ethical foundation.

I would not say that life is always a "gift"; it could certainly turn bad, which is why I support transhumanism and the RTD so that harms can be reduced. However, I think that the value of a gift comes from the overall good it provides, not from just potential harms.
i) The "no-strings" attached might be relevant if greater value/happiness was achievable without causing the harm caused by the negative aspects of the gift. However, it is evident that nonexistent beings don't exist in a state they have an interest in that would be affected by the "inferior" gift. In many instances, it could be a source of inimitable value that, despite its downsides, can still be quite meaningful.

Nah. A gift with strings attached is not a gift, no matter how well it might work out, and the strings are not trivial or temporary, so no.

ii) One doesn't have absolute certainty about anything. Everything does involve a certain degree of risks, such as giving a self-help book to someone that ends up making them miserable. Most people do genuinely seem to wish that the person they create would have a good life, and if the taking the risk can be bad, grabbing the opportunity for happiness can also be good. I think that an agenda to prevent all happiness cannot be considered ethical. Weaving the fabric of all happiness can be immensely good. I don't think that most people intend to create harms. If anything, the existence of numerous NGOs and people committed to social causes like charity does show that people do wish to reduce harm. Being happy doesn't have to come at the cost of harms, especially when it comes to different individuals (not to mention that one can also help others in small ways, such as by making a kind remark). For many people, the blessing outweighs the "burden" by a large margin, and intentionally forming that great joy cannot be unethical in any consistent ethical framework.

Overall, I believe that any time one is unnecessarily preventing significant happiness that nobody could ask for or appreciate prior to existing, they cannot claim that they have accomplished an ultimate good by preventing potential harms.

That's why I don't even bring up intention. As long as it is known that collateral damage will result, is good enough.

This assumes that not creating the damage is either ethically good/neutral. If it's good to prevent damage whose prevention would not satisfy the interests of an actual person, then it is also bad to prevent happiness, regardles of whether or not someone exists to be deprived of it. If it is solely neutral, then I don't see how it can be justifiable to say that bestowing the good of happiness on another person's behalf is not ethical, especially considering the fact that there is no happiness and no satisfaction arising from "no collateral damage". — DA671

Right but after acknowledging how I am phrasing it, you go back to the straw man argument. That is to say, this is about the parent making a decision with moral implications, not the non-existent nothing. So let's see where we are:

1) There is a state of affairs where no one is suffering, and no one is deprived of happiness.
2) The parent must make a decision whereby the original state of affairs of ~suffering (no suffering) should be changed to one where suffering is present.

So what would impel one to change an initial state from ~ suffering to suffering?

I believe this a priori to be wrong, right there. What gives someone a right to change the initials state to one where suffering is present? It can be argued that, in an ideal world, this change of state from nothing to suffering is always bad and avoided as it is never just to create unnecessary suffering in the world, period. It does not matter the reason as the suffering was unnecessary to start in the first place.

These correlate to these two reasons:
1) Starting the conditions for all suffering unnecessarily
2) On behalf of someone else

Now let's look at the situation a posteriori:
3) The suffering is not trivial
4) The suffering is inescapable.

If we are to look at the nature of this suffering, we can see that the suffering that happens in life is persistent, could be stochastic, and varies from minor to great pains. Some of it can even be described as systematic in a Schopenhaurian sense of perpetual lack of satisfaction. One doesn't need this more Eastern interpretation though, so scratch it if you like.

If we look at life as not a paradise, it is certainly not escapable either. One isn't an angelic being (from the POV of a human) testing the waters of this existence to quickly retreat when one wanted to. Rather, it is lived out until death. Life entails all sorts of unasked for but necessary conditions one must deal with to live. We are also an animal that can dislike what we are doing AS we are doing it, EVEN though we know it is necessary for survival. Other animals just "do", but we can evaluate what we do (especially tasks of survival) and deem it negative. We have self-reflection on top of a primary consciousness in the present. This gives us our survival skills of cultural and linguistic survival, yet puts us in a place of self-knowledge whereby we know there are aspects we don't like but cannot escape, lest suicide slow (starvation) or fast (immediate). Both of these are not ideal. We must either "comply" with the situation once we are born or die by suicide. This is just to foist on someone? It is a double bind.

Thus for those four powerful reasons on top of the mere fact of the a priori truth that ~suffering is being changed to suffering, it would be wrong, unjust, misguided.

Now, for your objection regarding happiness..

1. Starting the conditions for all happiness is necessarily (presuming that NOT starting the conditions for harms is necessary) good.

2. On behalf of someone else who cannot ask for the good.

3. The happiness is also not trivial.

4. The happiness is precious and ineffably valuable, and most people do seem to value their lives.

Happiness does matter, and I don't think that your replies change that cardinal consideration. I am not claiming that life is intrinsically valuable (just as I don't believe that life is inherently disvaluable). I only think that if it can be good to not create harms, it can also be good to create valuable experiences. Nevertheless, I don't believe that anyone should be pressurised or forced to endure a valueless existence. — DA671

Is changing a state from ~happiness to happiness neutral or morally right, if there is collateral damage of changing a state from ~suffering to suffering?

Again, if we look at the fact that the suffering is non-trivial and inescapable, we can see that this would not meet any threshold whereby starting someone else's suffering (that has no merit outside simply happiness is a result as well).

Argument from intuition:
It seems morally intuitive that causing harm when it is not necessary is always a wrong. The key word is unnecessary. Once born, the intra-wordly (pace Cabrera) affairs of comparative loss/benefits might ensue, but in the case of procreation there is no need to ameliorate harms, and therefore all creation of harm is unnecessary.

Argument from Kant's Categorical Imperative:
In Kant's second formulation, it is noted that we should treat people as their own ends and not a means. In the case of starting happiness, the fact that one is disregarding someone else's suffering, would be a major violation of this principle. It would be overlooking the dignity of someone by foregoing the fact that you are starting suffering for someone because YOU think it is "worth it" to them to suffer. Notice that this reasoning does not need the post-facto thumbs up or down of the person who is affected. Rather, the decision itself is already a violation simply by overlooking dignity as represented by the suffering that the parent is disregarding in the decision to have a child for X reason (the X simply being a means or means to a preference held by the parent).

Argument from strings-attached gifts:
A gift is truly a gift in good faith if it was a) given with the intent that the person would have wanted and enjoyed the gift and b) comes with no strings attached. Rather, life is not simply happiness on a platter, but comes with the strings attached of suffering and harm. Further, this harm is non-trivial, and inescapable. This can no longer be deemed a gift. It is an agenda to start a set of experiences and circumstances on someone else's behalf. (See Argument from Kant's CI). This is indeed using someone then as one is burdening someone so that they can also receive the rewards of the precious "gift". Further, some people prefer others to suffer (to some extent) so they can "feel the rewards" of struggle. This I would say is just outright using people for an agenda.

Overall, any time someone is unnecessarily starting someone else's suffering it is a violation of dignity of that person and is using them.

You did the same when you said "No happiness is being deprived", since this clearly meant that no "person" exists to realise this bad.. — DA671

But this isn't the same. You can take that out if you like, I just wanted to make clear that this isn't talking about some future happiness missed, but a current state of affairs.

To continue: If this is a state of affairs, who is judging this state of affairs? You are correct in that it is not the person not born yet. This is solely a decision by the "already-existing" (in this case a person who is choosing whether to procreate). That being said, now we can start looking at values, ethical intuitions and whatnot.

If there is a state of affairs whereby no on is suffering (and no collateral damage of "no happiness" either to any actual person), then how is it justified to start suffering on someone else's behalf?

Here is where you might retort.. Plenty of situations! Almost all of them have to do with creating a smaller harm to prevent a greater harm.. making children attend school, get vaccinated, tough love, etc. etc.

While I agree, it would be moral to allow smaller harm for greater harm, this only happens once someone is already put into existence. Assuming that allowing greater suffering if it could be prevented is bad, this would indeed go along with ethical reasoning.

However, in this case, someone is starting (wholesale) the conditions whereby ALL suffering will take place for another person. This suffering, as we see from the initial state of affairs (conditions), is not taking place currently. However, the parent would presume that they should change the state whereby now someone will suffer.

Now you can ask, what is the nature of this suffering? Is it trivial or very temporary? No, it is not. Life presents a litany of pains great and small. Is it escapable? No, you have to stick with the restrictions and contingent sufferings of life's game or you exit it by suicide. So at the end here we are:
1) Starting the conditions for all suffering unnecessarily
2) On behalf of someone else
3) The suffering is not trivial
4) The suffering is inescapable.

If you acknowledge that those four things are in fact true, then you would ask, why you would do that to someone? The most obvious response will be, "Because happiness!". Another popular one is because "Life itself is just intrinsically valuable and needs to be experienced by SOMEONE". I will get to that counter later, but I would like to start with the initial premise.

No, I clearly said "full statement", which means that I believe that the points I added should also be a part of the sort of framework you had proposed. This is a complete misunderstanding, I am afraid. — DA671

Yes, you would want that because it makes your argument easier. But I am not adding it.. You don't know where I'm necessarily going with this yet (which is clear), but it's best not to add anything unnecessarily beforehand, otherwise you are making strawmen to knockdown.

I am not bound to use your terminologies, but rest assured, I was not referring to anything other than the facts on the ground. — DA671

No you were not though. When you stated that "no benefit" and "no relief" were taking place, you were trying to put an extra value in there whereby you essentially append.. "And there is no person to realize this GOOD". I didn't even say whether no happiness and no harm was good or bad yet.. I just stated that it is not taking place, period at this point.

I was making my own statement, so this has nothing to do with your words. Once again, an unsubstantiated claim. — DA671

No, you were trying to say that I was doing the opposite of those statements with my own statements.
All I said was:
No collateral damage of harm is taking place.
No happiness is being deprived (to an actual person).

I made no reference to anyone benefiting or not benefiting from it. That is why I said this is facts on the ground and not value statements attached to them.

This isn't just about no damage taking place. You seemed to imply that the absence happiness does not matter because it doesn't "damage" anybody. I only pushed for consistency by pointing out that, by the same token, the lack of collateral damage also does not bestow any good upon someone who does not exist. So, if the lack of happiness cannot be bad due to a lack of experiential harm, I don't think that a lack of damage could be considered preferable since there is no experiential benefit arising in that state of affairs. — DA671

Since I am not saying this, I'll disregard it. So moving on.

Full description:
No benefit from a lack of harm is taking place.
No relief is being felt from any "prevented suffering" (for an actual person). — DA671

Yep, that seems to be what you keep twisting my statements to, I agree.

Yeah, the case for the falsity of antinatalism is certainly closed — DA671

Saying this doesn't make it true.. but let's move forward shall we?

The lack of happiness is benefitting nobody. This is a fact. — DA671

Yep, I'd agree with that. But that is not how I phrased it, so you are trying to change my statement. I simply said, no collateral damage is taking place.

The lack of "collateral damage" cannot be considered preferable or good, since its absence does not incur any benefits onto an actual person. — DA671

Again, twisting it! I simply stated the fact that no collateral damage is taking place. Stick with what I'm saying and not where you want it to be.

There's definitely a lot of losing in the second state of affairs. If the absence of the harms is good even if it doesn't help an actual person, the lack of happiness is also bad, irrespective of whether or not someone is there to express their desire to have it. This is the simple and necessarily consistent case, and I think that it is a better representation of reality than the flawed one provided by antinatalism. — DA671

So then this becomes irrelevant as it's again more changing the argument.

Let's look at this one more time...

Description of a state of affairs:
No collateral damage of harm is taking place.
No happiness is being deprived (to an actual person).

Do we agree with this?

Yes look at the conversation I was having with @dclements for context.

There is something of orginal sin about this lack of knowledge sin. — Bylaw

Yes, nice reflective post there. I think this stemmed from a larger issue though, that was touched upon somewhat by a post earlier in this thread:

Being self-sufficient seems like it is an important quality of a mature human being. It seems to me that there is something fundamentally repulsive (pathetic) about not being able to take care of yourself when you ought to be able to. Not understanding the technology we use and being unable to live without it makes realizing this quality of self-sufficiency impossible. — _db

But that's only part of it. If we combine this idea of helplessness and power, the problem starts to come into focus. Because of the magnitude of knowledge that is needed to support our daily living, the power rests solely in the dictates, goals, etc. of the business overlords that horde and produce that technology. There is something enfeebling about being the passive recipients of the power that a car company, airliner, electrical company, electronics company, household device manufacturer, ANY of it contains that the individual does not. It bespeaks a bit to the idea of means of production and the information that one has access to. The fact that only a few can source the materials to create the goods and the many are just passively using those finished materials creates an imbalance.

Following your advice, refraining from procreation, would end all human existence in 150 years. If no one gets telomerized, that is, which is highly unlikely and shifts the problem to immortality. There will be no more suffering, no more happiness, and nature will be released from a damaging influence. — Raymond

Indeed that might be a consequence.

Question: What if we're (secret/closet) masochists? — Agent Smith

Can you clarify this question? Who are masochists and why? Then I can determine if I agree or not.

I would say that it has no value. However, I can agree for the sake of the argument that it certainly is, which is why a state of affairs where happiness does not happen might also be an actually relevant one. But I digress, so I do agree that the actual states of affairs are important. — DA671

Ok, so states of affairs are important.
AND
There is no collateral damage in one and there is collateral damage in the other.

However, in regards to happiness..
There is no happiness in one and there is happiness in the other.

Now comes the tricky part...
No collateral damage is hurting no one. That is a fact.
No happiness is occurring to no one. That is a fact.

Those are the facts "on the ground". The moral question the antinatalist poses then is:

How can it ever be bad that someone does not incur collateral damage (of harm), when the collateral damage of "no happiness", is incurred by literally "no one"?

The fact is, the state of affairs of harm is not taking place. No one suffers.
The fact is, the state of affairs of no happiness is taking place. No one suffers the lack of happiness either.

There is no losing side to the second state of affairs. These are the facts on the ground, and that's just with minimal value statements added. When adding this as well, I think it's pretty much an open shut case for antinatalism.

Talking about damage that does not exist is also a "projection" of sorts, but I suppose I agree. — DA671

Actually that is a major disagreement. A state of affairs where something does not happen, is still an actual state of affairs.

Ok, I'll take that as you agree there is no collateral damage in one and collateral damage in the other.

So for the sake of this argument, can we agree to limit the argument to be about states of affairs and not about projections of future people? That I believe is where we are talking past each other in this particular argument.

Would you agree that there are also goods that are taking place, and in the other case, there aren't? If not, then there is no point in endless repetition. — DA671

Sure do.

No, we really do need to agree that in one instance collateral damage is taking place, and in another, it is not. We are not talking about any other contingencies because first we have to agree that this exists if we are to debate anything else, otherwise we are still stuck here and debating this argument again and again.

Right, that is your argument, I understand. But before we get to why I think that doesn't matter, can we agree on the first?

Yes, I agree that there is no intrinsically valuable benefit and what you call "collateral damage". But I would again say that if the latter is positively significant, the former is negatively so. — DA671

We are just talking about my major point, which is in one case 1) A state of affairs of collateral damage is taking place. In another 2) A state of affairs of collateral damage is not taking place.. The background assumption being that it COULD have.

I am not sure. After all, there might be invisible souls suffering due to a lack of existence ;) — DA671

I am guessing because of the wink, you do indeed agree. Right?

1. If the absence of harm is good because there is "no collateral damage", the lack of happiness is also bad because there is no benefit. And nobody is satisfied from the absence of damage, so if the lack of goods is not problematic, then the absence of harms cannot be good. — DA671

I am just going to focus on this point, because it is so central. It is a fact, not a value opinion that no collateral damage is taking place. Do we agree there?

I don't know if you agree with all of this but I think my argument is a pretty sound one where it is more about how one knows how do things like run a business/corporation, logistics/operations, and either have lots of money and/or have access to it through banks or people to fund them then it has anything to do with one's ability to know how something works and invent a product in the first place. After all the world is full of corporations who rely on products that where invented by other people or companies, but in the end they merely created a similar product and were more successful in selling and making a profit from it. Since one's ability to invent things isn't really a ticket to becoming wealthy, I can't see it being a reason to argue as it being the major sticking point that you are suggesting it to be. — dclements

I could have quoted any of this, but this part summarized it well. Yeah, I think you make a good point. You have to have money to make money. This on top of sourcing connections.. You have to know the the people that start the manufacturing process. You need to know the people to source the capital resources to create the end product. This takes money and supply connections. That's how the capital overlords become the overlords in the first place. Usually they do indeed have a prototype or an idea, but that is usually for a first product line that quickly gets improved or scratched and remade with more expert input.. Now the overlord has the time to get the financing, sourcing, and accounting the materials. Then they simply become about big picture ideas: marketing strategies, acquisitions, stockholder information, etc.

I still think there is a point to be made that we are often the passive recipients of technology. Either way, I think there is tremendous amount of inertia to change this system you and I have written about.

Once again, the point is that if the absence of harm can be considered better, then the lack of happiness is bad. — DA671

Right, but you have missed the point for why I am saying this is wrong.
1) Absence of harm is better because there is no collateral damage. No one is deprived of harm either. Therefore
2) Absence of happiness is not better or worse for anyone.

In one case, some ONE experiences the presence of badness. In the other case some ONE does not, nor does some ONE experience the LACK of happiness? See how that goes?

This is only about consistency, but I did also mention in my previous reply that I am willing to consider non-creation to be neutral. However, it still would not be obligatory, and creating the positives will always matter. The "imbalance" lies in your arguments, not mine. — DA671

Why would it always matter? No because you still don't get the 1 and 2 above so we cannot really move forward until you do. Perhaps ask clarifying questions to see if there is a flaw or if you are not understanding but don't move forward until you address 1 and 2.

the lack of all life cannot be considered a moral obligation due to the fact that the genesis of the positives is necessarily good. I am repeating myself, yet again, that if the creation of "collateral damage" is bad, the creation of innumerable goods is good. — DA671

Yes, but I didn't deny goods are good. I only explained how in one scenario there collateral damage, and in the other there is no collateral damage taking place AND no one to be deprived of the "innumerable goods". This about facts on the ground. In one case, there is suffering, in the other there is not AND there is no one to be deprived of the goods. In other words there is no collateral damage to happiness for any ONE like there is collateral damage in regards to badness. That is the asymmetry I am pointing to. Take a minute to really understand that thought before you answer.

You are the one who seems to be missing the point since you refuse to see things from outside your lens. If nobody is born, nobody is harmed. This is either neutral or good. If it is good that the harms do not exist, I do not see any reason to think that the lack of happiness is not bad. If it is neutral and the only relevant consideration are the lives of those who exist, then the creation of happiness can certainly be good, just as the presence of harms might be bad. If someone is born, one can experience a happy life due to a decision someone else was capable enough to take for them. — DA671

Yes more evidence of you missing the point.. You are again talking about "good" for non-existent. I am talking about facts on the ground. One more time now... In one instance there is collateral damage, and in the other there is. You as the parent then makes the determination.. "Is it good to create collateral damage".. If you think it is, then I am saying this could be misguided or unethical.. Should one create collateral damage on another person's behalf because one has a certain notion of value and happiness? Is a "gift" a "gift" if it comes with inescapable and perpetual harms and suffering? I say no to that. If you think that collateral damage on someone else's behalf is a good thing because you think that your decision represents the aggregate opinions of the human race on happiness.. I would then say that this is irrelevant. You are causing collateral damage unnecessarily for someone else, and this fact alone precludes it from an ethically "right" or ethically "just" action. It is essentially using the child for your notion of value or your other reasonings for having children. Someone else's pain is your excuse for X. That is a violation of dignity.. similar to Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative.. though people try to get around it by his use of "merely"..

I care more about the actual implications of a view, not what one might think about it. Personally, I don't think that it makes sense to call an act a harm (collateral "damage") if it does not lead to a worse state of affairs for a person. The comparison might be an abstract one (though I tend to disagree with that), but it still exists and gives us a reason to deem one state of affairs to be more ethical over another. One could plausibly say that it's "better" for a person to not live and suffer than it would be to exist. But if that is the case, I think that it is also instrumentally worse for them to not experience the positives of life, irrespective of whether or not there is any concious feeling of deprivation. In my view, an ethical obligation exists (in terms of harms/benefits) only when it's clear that doing or not doing the act always leads to an outcome that's preferable or undesirable for the person. If neither has any value, then the lack of action can only be ethically neutral, not obligatory. Neutrality is better than a bad outcome (the negatives), but it is also worse than a good one (happiness), and, considering that many people do cherish their lives, I think that it can be justifiable to create a person. — DA671

This goes into debates of post-facto "life is good" evaluations.. People have instincts of self-preservation and usually aren't just suicidal at the drop of a hat. This doesn't negate the fact that a decision was made on their behalf that caused suffering for someone. That is what is going on.. Paternalistic ideas that "Life is good for the sufferer because most say they like it".. doesn't just negate the unnecessary causing of suffering.

You once again employ double standards when you start talking about deprivations with reference to the lack of happiness. If creating suffering leads to "collateral harms", giving birth also contribute to the formation of invaluable positives that do have worth. — DA671

Value matters nothing to no one.. If someone isn't born to experience happiness it is only a loss to the parent's projection of a person, not any person. Yes, there is no one to experience the "lack of harm" either but my whole point is exactly that.. no COLLATERAL DAMAGE is taking place in that instance. If you are ok with the fact that collateral damage is good to cause for someone in such a profound way because of X reasons (happiness).. that is the misguided ethical thinking I am saying is not right.

Although I consider "start for someone else" to be slightly misleading, since it can seem to imply as if someone already existed who was brought into a harmful state where harms began, the simple truth is that there also is the formation of happiness in one case, and there isn't any value in the other. I believe that it can be good to choose the former. — DA671

Um, start for someone else.. yeah means a life was "started" where there wasn't one prior.

No, preventing happiness can certainly be bad if preventing harm can be good. — DA671

This is just an untrue statement. In one case there is collateral damage (someone who exists to be harmed). In the other case, there is NO collateral damage (no actual person exists to be deprived). This is an imbalance. I'm not sure you do get this point.

The lack of the positives leads to the negatives and vice versa. — DA671

No, it quite literally doesn't. No ONE exists to be deprived of any "lack of positives". No collateral damage of "deprivation". However, by being born collateral damage of harm is done. I'm saying this, yet again...

If the absence of all does not matter, then one could also say that the lack of harm does not matter unless it benefits an actual person. — DA671

No no.. Again, you keep missing the point.. Follow the argument I am making and not the one you want it to be...

If no one is born, no collateral takes place. No actual person is harmed (by harm or being deprived of happiness). You as the person deciding this for someone else can know this, yes?

If someone is born, collateral takes place. An actual person is harmed. You as the person deciding this for someone else can know this, yes?

But if we consider the lack of suffering to be ethically preferable, the absence of all good cannot be deemed desirable. — DA671

That first part in no way entails the second part.

Creating life also creates happiness (real good that is ethically relevant). — DA671

And my point is it also creates the collateral damage of harm. So again, do you think it's ethical to create that or not? It is an absolute known fact that most lives have harm involved.. and it's known that it is unknown to how much, the child's disposition, etc.

My "scenario" is concerned with consistency, and so it only cares about existing people. It isn't my worldview that suggests that applies unjustified double standards such as the absence of suffering being good without any actual benefit but the lack of happiness not being problematic by the same token. — DA671

Rhetorical nonsense based on an argument I am not making so skip.

Sentimental needs for preventing all life cannot be a valid excuse for preventing all value. — DA671

Why though? You seem to think value is some sort of independent entity that can be harmed by not existing..It only matters RELATIVE to a person who is either experiencing value or not experiencing it. If no one exists, no one cares or is deprived of it. And DON'T start saying that this is the same with the flip side of suffering.. look at the argument one..more..time...

If you don't have a person, there is no collateral damage (no person to be deprived of happiness nor experience harm).

If you have a person, there will be collateral damage.

That is your choice.

The point is that not creating a person also does not commit any good other than fulfilling the needs of those who do not want life to exist due to a flawed idea of what constitutes a solution (since if the lack of happiness is not bad, then neither is the lack of harm preferable), and this does not justify ceasing the possibility of ineffable goods that did not deserve to be prevented., even if the people putting forward these proposals have good intentons. — DA671

Goods are not entities unto themselves.. ineffable or otherwise. They are relative experiences to being born at all. The prevention of goods, is not ethically a problem, as there is no one to be deprived in the first place. You are the one putting a ghost in the equation of a secret entity (value/good) that needs to be continued. Value/good is not an agent, a person, a thing that is a recipient of moral weight. It is simply a contingent factor on actual agents.

Simply put, you will have suffering start for someone else in one instance, and it will not start in the other instance.

Thomas Jefferson was very clear that only if our republic was defended in the classroom, would it be defended. He devoted his life to everyone having that education. We no longer know what the education was unless we make the effort to know that. It is easy enough to know. Just look up classical or liberal education. Or education for the enlightenment. — Athena

You are assuming many classrooms can even HAVE this debate. Most are just trying to get by with the worst behavior problems (mainly in inner cities).. Education is wasted on the youth (mostly). I don't know how many people have told me that they hated history as a kid and it was only as an adult did they actually come to appreciate the understanding it brings to study it. Same with almost everything else..

But you are very right.. The US education system seems to essentially sift out the STEM students.. and tries to nurture them.. They will be the next engineering/science/doctor class used by the corporate overlords to dole out more technology. I have no doubt there was a concerted effort to promote this idea during the Cold War as a policy level decision.

That beings said.. federal decisions on education are usually at the level of funding, not so much curriculum It's up to the states and school boards to actually adopt any national recommendation. However, if they reject the recommendations, it's at their peril of losing funding probably.

We are always going to be at odds because you don't see the imbalance of this idea:

"Preventing" happiness is not a harm, unless there is an actual person who will be harmed.

YET

Creating happiness brings with it collateral damage (harm to an actual person).

Preventing harm brings no collateral damage (no deprived happiness for an actual person).

In your scenario, there seems to be a some "thing" that is deprived. But there is not.

You keep wanting it to be commensurate (no THING is prevented from suffering). But I am not quite saying that. I am saying in one case collateral damage takes place, and the other it does not. That is a fact, and not a metaphysical projection. The only collateral damage of preventing "happiness" would be the sadness of the parent projecting what "could have been", and I just don't count that in the equation when the decision is about a future person who will actually bear the brunt of the decision (for collateral damage) and did not need to in the first place other than sentimental feelings of lost happiness.