You’re muddled too by the looks of it. I am not the one stating that ‘logically’ having children is ‘wrong’/‘bad’. — I like sushi

This means nothing at face value. "Not the one.." implies you are castigating me for a position we are debating. Odd.

I don’t think anyone is in the position to do so and I deem such acts as inherently ‘wrong’/‘bad’ (which is my opinion). — I like sushi

You are not addressing the my point which is that ethics can never (as a form) be shown empirically, so it is all opinion with justifications. That doesn't change much other than simply defining ethics.. So move on from the (unnecessary) point that AN is an "opinion". Next.

If you agree that that ethics isn’t purely about logic fine by me. I have no issue. If you start killing people I’ll not be o your side. If you state that having children is ‘bad’/‘wrong’ I won’t agree with just as much force. — I like sushi

You just made a leap so ridiculous, I shouldn't even have to address it. I don't say "logic" isn't used. I said that:

Nothing will naturally lead to any conclusion on an ethical matter, so you are already expecting the wrong thing from the very form (ethics). — schopenhauer1

That's all I said. Logic can be employed, but as to whether that logic or conclusion is what is truly "ethical" is not a matter of course of simply applying the logic, as we are clearly demonstrating with our disagreement right now.

You have no ground to talk about what is ‘cruel’ because suffering is clearly necessary in life. — I like sushi

Yet life itself isn't necessary to create on someone else's behalf. Next.

I assume it is coming from someone who lacks life experience. — I like sushi

Wrong and rhetorical ad hom filler. Next.

Please consider that life isn’t binary. It isn’t a judgement against a or b, or joy or suffering. They are NOT isolated from each other. An argument against any ‘suffering’ is an argument against any ‘joy’. True enough we are more keyed into avoiding suffering than not, but we weren’t born with wings yet we’ve managed to overcome that obstacle. — I like sushi

That is exactly the Benatarian asymmetry. Indeed, in the decision to create a life, creating joy/happiness seems to not matter as much at all when one can prevent unnecessary, non-trivial suffering. What is good is that someone did not suffer. There is no person not existing who will feel deprived of not experiencing the good, since they indeed do not exist.

I just say that it is a decision totally in parents hands. — dimosthenis9

This so obvious to be trivially true. The contention isn't this but whether because something doesn't exist yet, this means you can do anything you want because they don't exist yet. That is exactly what you were implying, don't try to move it to some non-controversial point that the decision is in the parents' hands. Well yeah, of course. Now what?

So there is nothing immoral in having kids (except in the disease cases we already discussed). Why you see a contradiction here? — dimosthenis9

Um, so now you are not understanding what we just discussed or applying it. We agreed that someone who will be born can suffer non-trivial harms. So we agreed a decision now affects a future person, and can be negative. So why is it permissible to foist non-trivial, unnecessary (doesn't need to happen) harms/suffering on a future person's behalf? You still haven't addressed this but only retreated to a non-controversial points that it is the parents' decision. The fact that it is indeed a decision for someone else should mean more care is taken here, so our are only strengthening my point.

When you know the outcome for sure then yes it is wrong to have kids.
But that can't be applied in every situation! With the fear of the potential harm that might happen (or might not) to be deprived of having kids. — dimosthenis9

But that's the thing.. we don't need to even know the particular specific outcome. Can we agree that all life has non-trivial harms?

As I like sushi mentioned we can't fear of the potential suffering in every step we make, so at the end not making it at all!! — dimosthenis9

As I said before, there is a distinction between continuing to exist and starting an existence in how a decision is applied. Once we are born, we cannot but help but not worry about every little suffering. Prior to someone's birth, we can absolutely not foist unnecessary, non-trivial harms. It is not ameliorating a greater with a lesser harm for that future person, as it would be if they were already born.

The word choices like ‘playing’ tell me something about you. This isn’t a logical discussion. You have an opinion that, as far as I can see, has little to no weight to it. — I like sushi

Yet, this is an opinion too. All ethical matters are not empirical, if that's what you are getting at. Nothing will naturally lead to any conclusion on an ethical matter, so you are already expecting the wrong thing from the very form (ethics). This only works if for you all ethics is opinion and never binding. But I doubt you do in cases like murder and such.

The comparison I made was to get the point across that we cannot fear causing ‘suffering’ every step in our lives. Every step in your life will cause ‘suffering’ some where. By this logic killing all humans will end their ‘suffering’ yet you’re not for murder … guess you’d have another name for it instead, maybe ‘avoiding collateral damage’? — I like sushi

No, that's not what most ANs are claiming, Most ANs understand that once born, life is already going to be compromises of greater harms with lesser harms. Even giving someone a gift might cause some stress somewhere down the line. But ANs usually do make the distinction between creating a life and continuing a life. And in the circumstance of the decision to create a life, here we have a scenario where there was no one to exist to ameliorate or compromise a greater harm with a lesser harm. Here, it is purely creating conditions for SOMEONE ELSE of non-trivial harms.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to experience the joys of parenthood anymore than there is with not wanting to. I think anyone trying to take a moral high ground on what is ‘better’ is something close to what I would term ‘evil’. — I like sushi

This is just some assertion, and not justified. You are vaguely saying that not being able to always be able to enact your preferences is evil. Think of the implications of this. You are trying to twist ANs into something they are not. Rather, ANs are bringing up a point that is often overlooked. Because it is not the usual argument doesn't make it evil. You can say "peculiar" but that is only because it is often counter to the prevailing norms.

Life without suffering isn’t worth living. You learn that as you mature. I guess some people get carried away with the search for some ‘answer’ or ‘solution’ to life. Again, as you mature you may see past this (I hope so). — I like sushi

But I would never purposely put someone into suffering and then justify it with "Life without suffering isn't worth living". That itself seems cruel at the least.

You mean like having a disease and be 100% sure that my kid will be born with the same horrible disease also? Did I get it right or you mean something else? — dimosthenis9

Sure, this works.

If I get it right. So for sure no. You shouldn't have kids. Cause you ALREADY know the outcome! You know for sure that your kid will have a terrible disease. So you already know it and despite that you condemn it into suffering(or a life with much more suffering than happiness at least) . Nope that isn't right at all! But are we only talking about such cases here with antinatalism? — dimosthenis9

Ah wait, so this negates your claim here, which mentioned nothing of suffering:

I think I answered you again on that. Cause that "someone else" you mention is a "0".Simply doesn't exist! So that someone has absolutely no say! It is simple living creatures decision. — dimosthenis9

And thus, as you see procreation does affect someone in the future. If you can agree that all life has some non-trivial harm, then I don't see how it cannot (does not) follow here:

Just because life might have non-suffering aspects doesn't change this fact you are going to put that future person into some form of non-trivial suffering. No one should foist unnecessary, non-trivial suffering on someone else's behalf, just because it's convenient for their preferences, lifestyle, or raised utility. — schopenhauer1

I think I answered you again on that. Cause that "someone else" you mention is a "0".Simply doesn't exist! So that someone has absolutely no say! It is simple living creatures decision. — dimosthenis9

No, I don't think you really believe the implications of this. Think about it. Okay, so there's no actual child that exists yet... What if you KNEW that the future child would be born into horrible circumstances, like 100% right after birth. Does this fact not affect anything? Your answer will tell me a lot.

Unborn kid = 0 option ability =impossible to consent or not into something =we can't ask it simply! No choice option at all here! — dimosthenis9

But your argument leads to slippery slopes to all sorts of bad conclusions. Answer me this.. Does all life have non-trivial suffering for humans (at least at some point)? If that future person wasn't already born in the first place to need to ameliorate a greater harm with a lesser harm (like let's say a vaccine or schooling), why should someone be able to make a decision on someone else's behalf that puts that future person into conditions of non-trivial suffering? Just because life might have non-suffering aspects doesn't change this fact you are going to put that future person into some form of non-trivial suffering. No one should foist unnecessary, non-trivial suffering on someone else's behalf, just because it's convenient for their preferences, lifestyle, or raised utility.

Also their sovereignty as human beings obligates other people not to use them as a mean for something, and same philosophy is also one reason for my antinatalistic views. — Antinatalist

Yes, my AN is along similar deontological ends. In the end, it's about not using people. Do not foist unnecessary, non-trivial harms/burdens/impositions to someone else.

Some say the Mongolian invasion contributed to the downfall of the Golden Age of Islam, especially the sack of Baghdad in 1258 and the destruction of the library. It was also an internal movement to turn away from it it earlier by people like Al-Ghazali.

"I think, ultimately, what matters is not which religion is theoretically "better", but which of them shows more respect for freedom, democracy, and human rights." Yes, but that is what we gained through philosophy and conditions that lead to women having liberty, it is not because of religious differences. And can we keep in mind, at one time Isam was far more advanced than Christian Europe, and can we focus on why that was so? I think it is a mistake to think Christianity is better for democracy than Islam. If it had been for the renaissance and philosophy, we would not be a democracy and we would have protected freedom of speech and would not have liberty. Our failure to understand that and what it means to defend democracy in the classroom has us in deep trouble right. — Athena

True about Renaissance and philosophy. Philosophy was locked up in dogma until that point, for the most part.

If I break your argument down, you seem to be saying that:
Future people's suffering is less important than current people's hopefulness..
Wouldn't it be best to not impose future suffering on that person? I am not an aggregate utilitarian here. I don't think that we are obligated to reduce hopelessness in some general way, but that in the case of the birth decision, not to perpetuate the imposition on yet another person.

At the same time you are admitting the hopefulness is kind of a flimsy veneer to fix depression, and is self-delusion to keep sanity. I don't think feeding the self-delusion is justified simply because it helps keep people sane.

But at the same time you are asking for me to give a substitute. Perhaps communities of catharsis? Why perpetuate the suffering for self-delusional purposes?

Your complaint is more of the practicality of AN. I can agree with you there. It's hard to convince those who don't think about the ideas much.

Well, it's not the only option ... You might also think that you were predestined to write this reply and what exactly to write! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

Yeah but for our daily interactions, and my daily identity as a person makes decisions as if it wasn't. There is no way to tell which decision was predestined.. When I made the decision, there presented to me a choice. That level of experience of making the choice is what matters.

Ok, so my position was that the enslavement of the slave was wrong, whether the slave was happy or not.

For the 3rd time. Yes. Will you or will you not answer the question? — khaled

Ok cool, so this debate does not affect your agreement to the main premise because we agreed all life has non-trivial harm, correct? So you cannot take the tangent to debate the main premise if it's already agreed that it exists, correct? In other words, now we are debating the epistemology of non-trivial harms, not its existence in people that are born, correct?

So, I assume you won't answer? I would think that how you determine "non trivial" is very crucial considering literally everyone on planet earth would agree to "foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong". — khaled

I am helping you out here by delineating the arguments...
You agreed that every human experiences non-trivial harm. That we agreed upon. So this debate is tangential to that fact, right?

I literally explained that this was a tangent from the outset. What's got you so worked up? — khaled

Nothing. I actually think now, I'm less worked up. The major premise is more important to me than this argument which I am not as invested in.. Remember, I have made a LOT of threads.. Just because I am debating the latest one, doesn't mean it's my most important one (to my case at least).

Yes.... I am aware it is tangential. Or do you wanna go over the same grounds over and over? — khaled

No, I think it is important though to dileneate the major from the tangential and to have some resolve somewhere. I believe there at least has to be some goal or benchmarks of where we are at to be productive and not just one long scrawl of arguments that go infinitum..Again, unless you're that debate-class bot :lol:.

Which I agreed with forever ago. But that's not what I asked you in any way shape or form. — khaled

Oy vey. Look, the major premise is what we agreed upon. That is my major justification (at least one of them as they have been developed through our particular dialectic). What is causing you to continue at this point? This is the main justification (at least in our dialectic context) for antinatalism. Why can't you agree to agree!

And you said you'll answer my question but you need me to answer first. I have answered. Now. If a slave was fine with his conditions then we classify his enslavement as a non-trivial imposition?

Because you clearly don't think it's purely subjective. — khaled

I think now you are indeed arguing for argument's sake. We agree antinatalism at least, can be justified on the grounds I stated. Can we agree on that first? This is tangential to that major claim, and doesn't need to be argued to support it.

How so? — khaled

Because that's the major claim I am advocating (as I think you know at this point). Are now just arguing for argument's sake? Are you a bot that gives stock bad fallacies and debate-club "traps" :brow: continuously, without end?

I already answered yes though. — khaled

Then I think we should be done arguing.

Do you mean to say that "non trivial harm exists in life" = "Procreation is wrong"?

Because that doesn't follow at all. — khaled

Where did you get that idea? That is something you just implied, not what I stated. I am simply asking, after we have agreed on the definitions:

Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? — schopenhauer1

I guess this? Yes, we agree that non trivial harm exists for everyone born. — khaled

Good. Then my argument is follows from there.

Ok, now, how do you determine what non trivial harm is without reference to experiences or reports? — khaled

I admitted it can even be subjective, instead of some objective list of wrongs. As long as you think non-trivial harm exists for all humans, the argument stands:

Can we agree on what an imposition is?
Do we agree what non-trivial means?
Do we agree with what unnecessary means?
Do we agree that there is an extra duty of care when it comes to doing something on another person's behalf?
Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? — schopenhauer1

The question then was:

Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? — schopenhauer1

No buddy, I am answering your question. I said it was definitional. Do we agree on the definitions? I am answering your question, but this requires you to answer my question:

All we have to agree on is there is a distinction between non-trivial and trivial harms. We don't even need to go much further than that. I'll allow the fact that this can be subjective, even. All we have to agree on here is that there is a distinction, and that non-trivial harm exists for everyone born. — schopenhauer1

So if a slave was fine with his conditions then we classify his enslavement as a non-trivial imposition? Wasn't this one of our main points of disagreement? — khaled

Micro/macro fallacy or somesuch similar thing. Answer the question, and don't give an example as if this covers all cases.

I'm asking you to define it. Without any reference to experiences or their reports. You claim this is possible. — khaled

All we have to agree on is there is a distinction between non-trivial and trivial harms. We don't even need to go much further than that. I'll allow the fact that this can be subjective, even. All we have to agree on here is that there is a distinction, and that non-trivial harm exists for everyone born.

This would’ve been a point in our last discussion but I got tired and deleted it. Yes, do please go back to those examples. Show me how you can derive that Willy wonka’s forced game is a non trivial imposition, without referring in any way to the victims opinions of their situation. I just don’t see how you “objectively” measure how bad an imposition is with no reference to the person being imposed upon. What’s the “set of features” that go into making an imposition non trivial? A certain duration? A certain number of work hours? — khaled

So I believe this to be best resolved definitionally and axiomatically.
Can we agree on what an imposition is?
Do we agree what non-trivial means?
Do we agree with what unnecessary means?
Do we agree that there is an extra duty of care when it comes to doing something on another person's behalf?
Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong?

We can go from there.

So he drops the qualifier 'potential' in order to present a bad argument. One can't do crimes against potential things. — Cheshire

But this is presenting a bad argument here. You can justify having a future person experience all sorts of terrible things because they don't exist yet. Conditionals like "could" and "likely to" don't go out the window because the potential X is not here at the present.

OK, I read that reply of yours. Not much illuminating, but it's OK.
The bottom line / question is ... "Do you have a free will or not?" — Alkis Piskas

Here's the real question. Does it matter, if the only default is to think I do? Everything else goes from there.

Looks like mother nature knows her stuff pretty well I must say. If people don't listen to what you have to say Schopenhauer1, they'll continue to multiply like rabbits, overpopulation then, malnourishment follows, women will stop menstruating, no children. Just what you recommend, no? Either that or people heed your warning and start using contraception, stop/control population growth, before we find out the hard way why we shouldn't have children. — TheMadFool

Interesting. Not the reasons I am advocating, but too much population is bound to be bad somewhere, even for our oh-so-clever species.

I see 0 justification for the double standard.

Also I think you meant “providing” happiness? — khaled

Honestly, this is a whole other discussion, so maybe that should be another thread? We can't even agree on prevention of harm idea let alone this.

Maybe instinct isn't the best term of use, but I don't think preference is the right one either. I suspect children typically represent hope. When all other reasons are lost, it's the children we're told we have to look out for. The hope for a better tomorrow, this is a life-long project for people. To take that away from them would be tantamount to the destruction of their entire reason for being, probably many would find it cruel. — darthbarracuda

I think this makes sense. Children do typically represent hope. Without the prospect of hope, people tend towards angst and despair. A typical normally socialized person, would not like to experience these feelings head-on. I also think, as I was saying to someone earlier, people in general don't think about thinks in a philosophically "robust" way. It gives them some sort of purpose and way to fill their life. It's a manifestation of a love with someone else, etc. Taking away the prospect of children, takes this avenue of feeling purpose.

I agree with you that never being born is preferable to being born, because life is truly rotten. But because it is so rotten, I think it is understandable why people would cling to something - anything - to make it less rotten, even if it means bringing someone else into the mess. If you figured out how to get by without having kids, that's cool, good for you, but not everyone wants to live without hope. What do you propose we substitute, if not children? — darthbarracuda

I think that thinking long and hard on the harms of life should start chipping away at this idea.

We keep tumbling into the next generation, children are born because their parents were born because their parents were born because their parents were born...the best any person can do, if they can find it in themselves, is to not have children and accept that there is no hope. That is a very bleak worldview and so it is not surprising that most people will reject it, and I don't think we can blame them. — darthbarracuda

It is an interesting conundrum. The idea that it won't be so bad for the next generation, but it's just Sisyphus on repeat, and we are perpetuating it. I think again, just showing people not to overlook things is the key. People have to get more creative.

Point is: You yourself don’t believe in the asymmetry “It’s wrong to do something that risks harming someone no matter how much pleasure that could bring as enacting pleasure is not a duty” — khaled

Well, a lot of this has to do with a distinction that Benatar makes, and I think appropriately, between starting a life and continuing a life. This is why a lot of analogies don't compare apples to apples. But, this also involves our difference between deontology and utilitarianism. When starting a life.. What matters here always, if we are not using them, is the person whose life we are starting. In this framework, the asymmetry of not starting harm and not starting happiness becomes much more highlighted. In light of that person would not be harmed (which is good) and that person would not have happiness (neutral), that makes sense. However, once alive, there might be a case that after already being born, that preventing happiness, when one can for someone, with minimal cost to oneself, would seem to be some sort of morally worthy act. However, I am not sure if it is obligatory as the harm is. And even in the harm realm (after being born), ameliorations abound. We are always compromising and having to do minimal harms (sometimes trivial sometimes non-trivial), because just to survive, often we must do this. Sometimes just minimal mitigations are all you can do after the birth decision. The birth decision however, is different in that no mitigation needs take place. One can fully prevent the unnecessary, non-trivial harm.

Now I get why you and me disagree then. I think you just mentioned the "root" here.
For me that's ONLY how humans has made life seem. And how they think about it.
My cosmo theory is very different than yours. Life is a joke! Even a bad joke is nothing more than a joke!
And now your nickname makes more sense to me. No offense here, just telling you what I exactly thought when I read that. — dimosthenis9

To take an extreme case.. someone in utter pain isn't going to necessarily be able to wave such things away.. One has to eat.. etc. Joke assume easy-to-deal-with and light. Surely, someone must find ways to live in the word, lest they die (they must "deal with" inescapably lest they die by starvation). Surely, contingent, harmful events might happen to someone as well. Structural and contingent harms happen..That's no joke.

But why?? Why seems like that?! And as you keep writing "seems!"." Seems" means "not sure" also. Anyway we keep repeating the same things here. — dimosthenis9

Because we are talking about other people, imposing non-trivial burdens on others is overlooking the other person's dignity. This isn't the case with happiness-bringing.

I don't see a problem. And I don't see a map that can't be ignored. In consideration of All, choice can still remain while not running afoul of it. Literally anything is possible, and not, at the same time. Not knowing, having the slate wiped clean, is the beauty of it. — James Riley

I don't think this answers the objections I raised about the distinction between the daily life and meta determinism problem. You will still act in such a way that people can choose.

Anyway I repeat to you that the "unjust" argument is solved for me with the suicide option. And if Antinatalists want also just for parents well they have it too!Also the parent that "shouldn't have the kid" gets "punished" having to suffer the loss of his kid for the rest of his life. — dimosthenis9

Other people not being happy because they cannot enact unwanted harms/burdens on another, shouldn't matter. An extreme case would be someone who gets pleasure if they get to harm someone. Why should that be permissible? I am not saying parents are trying to do this, but life brings with it non-trivial harm, so that ends up being the case, because life is known to be the condition for which harms take place (obviously).

Let's agree with disagree on that. I really can't understand why you make that distinction. I understand your arguments but really I can't accept them. Why you find that asymmetry and the way you "measure" it, I can't agree on that. So better to stop arguing about that,i think,and move on. — dimosthenis9

I thought my reply to Khaled is relevant here too:
So basically, then you ask, "What makes suffering so bad compared to the non-existent good"? That is where axiologies basically stop. You either agree imposing harm on another is wrong (if it's unnecessary and non-trivial) or not- hat harmful burdens and suffering is not good, and thus not good to enact on another. Happiness may be "good", but not enacting it seems to not matter. No harm seems to be more important than no happy.

Pick a consistent basis. Either you’re looking at it from the perspective of “How would this affect an existent person” or from the perspective of “How would this affect a non existent” (it wouldn’t). So either both neutral, or: no suffering = good and no pleasure = bad. — khaled

I think this actually ends up being a conversation around the use of language. Do you believe conditionals exist? Something can happen, but does not, for example?

So in this case, there has to be a possibility for bad to happen. If there is no possibility for bad, then it is as you say neutral. If there is a possibility, that in some way, "bad" can happen, and does not, that is good. Certainly, even you have argued that you cannot take "bad states of affairs not happening" off the table just because someone isn't born to realize this. I remember you giving all sorts of gruesome examples to show this isn't true.

This also becomes a discussion around perspective. To be "meta meta".. we can say that if no person exists, no values can be assessed in the first place. But then we get all sorts of cruel outcomes and justifications. We can do anything that affects a future person because they don't exist yet. Once someone knows what "bad" and "good" are, yes, then evaluations of "bad" and "good" come into play.

So there is a way that we are crossing perspectives here...
Highest perspective: Someone needs to exist in the first place for evaluations THEMSELVES to matter. (This is where you are).

Lower perspective: Assuming, people exist who can evaluate good or bad in the FIRST PLACE..
An actual person (that is being affected) does not need to exist in order for prevention of harm to be good. An actual person (that is being affected) does need to exist for prevention of good to be bad.

So basically, then you ask, "What makes suffering so bad compared to the non-existent good"? That is where axiologies basically stop. You either agree imposing harm on another is wrong (if it's unnecessary and non-trivial) or not. That harmful burdens and suffering is not good, and thus not good to enact on another. Happiness may be "good", but not enacting it seems to not matter in a moral sense in the same way not enacting harm is. No harm seems to be more important than no happy.

And yes, I agree you may agree even then that unnecessary burdens, and non-trivial harms are bad to impose on another, but it depends on the degree at which it is not permissible. You think the burdens and impositions are not non-trivial "enough" to be considered impermissible. Alternatively, our definitions of "trivial" may be different. I will go back to things like Willy Wonka's limited choices, and the Exploited Worker, and that is not even discussing agreed-upon, contingent (non-structural yet likely) harms such as physical ailments, accidents, disasters, and the rest.

My point is that is totally useless, imo at least, to discuss issues that can never happen. You simply can't decide for life. It is given to you. The decision isn't made by us. At least I find it fair that you were given the option to end it. For me it balances the non asking life. — dimosthenis9

You are misinterpreting what I'm saying, then. You can discuss issues of deciding for others. So, a parent "could" make a decision for another person, but decides this is not right to do so, since the decision to "never be born" would never be an option once the parent actually goes through and has a child. By not having a child, this unjust situation of "no option" isn't even relevant. One situation brings an injustice (born with no "no option" excepting the very difficult prospect of slow suicide through passive starvation/depredation or faster means of suicide) and one situation simply doesn't (not having the child).Similarly, one situation brings about a lifetime of having to "deal with" (impositions, burdens) and one doesn't.

Good that was prevented is bad. You can't claim that preventing harm is good but preventing good then who cares?Either you will say that prevented harm also who cares.. Or preventing good is bad. You can't have it all. — dimosthenis9

Harm that is prevented seems asymmetrical to good that is prevented. If a harm is avoided (that could have happened), is this not a good thing? If good was prevented, it would only be bad if someone was there to exist to be deprived of it.. An actual person existing doesn't seem to affect the goodness of a possible harm that was prevented though. That seems always good, no matter what. It's good as a state of affairs, whereas the state of affairs of "no good happening" seems to only matter in the relative sense of a person needing to be deprived of it to begin with.

I never thought you would shame prospective parents or that you think they are horrible people. On the other hand, you do question their intent. Your argument about using children for one's own personal gratification shows that. — T Clark

No, not that either. My remark about utility-producers is more towards philosophical arguments like the one Khaled seems to propose which is that the child would bring more positive utility, so is permissible. I think most parents don't think like that. Rather, they think along the lines of the role of being a parent, cultural expectation, for family who wants to see legacy or grandchildren, giving purpose, and something to do, someone to care for, etc etc. Thus, to them, I can see why they think it is justified. It doesn't look at the arguments I am proposing. To be fair, arguments like mine Benatar, or anyone that questions the wrongness of procreation are not usually entertained by most people. I mean, most people don't think about things in a detailed, philosophically robust way anyways, when it comes to a lot of decisions, as far as I see. It's only when one is purposefully trying to think that way, that maybe these types of thoughts start entering the picture. Even then, actually acting on conclusions one comes up with abstractly, may not necessarily happen.

That could be the same for 1 too. Don't you think? — dimosthenis9

Same response. Do you think conditionals exist? "Could" something happen that did not? Harm was prevented which was good. Good was prevented, but how is that bad or good if there's no one there to care? There seems to be an asymmetry where prevented bad that could have happened is good. Prevented good, not so much a bad thing (or good).

But why 1 is more important than 2? — dimosthenis9

Same response.

In general I get your point but for me that question can never be valid since it has no practical use. It can never happen so what to discuss about?? — dimosthenis9

Perhaps not all of society, but just because a majority of people do something (or don't do it) does that make it right?

Life is given to all of us without asking. But the "fair" thing for that is that you can also choose to end it whenever you want. It would be totally unfair only if you couldn't. — dimosthenis9

That's a fallacy.. What if you never wanted to have the option be to live life or do the generally painful, scary thing of killing yourself? That is the whole point of my last thread about not having an option for no option.

This is your judgement of prospective parents motivations. Based on my own experience, both as a parent and observer of other parents, it's not correct for most of us. If you were to make the statement that having children solely for one's own personal gratification is immoral, I'd be more open to agreement, or at least negotiations. — T Clark

Haha, I do like your use of "negotiations" there :). But another thing people seem to think is that I am trying to personalize this. I don't go around shaming pregnant people or anything. In other words, I don't think parents are trying to be malicious. I think it's wrong to procreate, but I don't think it's out of bad intent or think them horrible people. Rather I see it as just not fully understanding the extent of the unnecessary, non-trivial burdens put upon another person.

That’s what you meant by unnecessary? That’s ridiculous though. You remember the life guard example right? In that example, by this definition, waking up the life guard would be “unnecessary suffering” and so would be wrong. Since the suffering alleviated is not the lifeguard’s. — khaled

Then see "non-trivial". Next.

That’s really where the core of the disagreement lies. — khaled

I guess when we are arguing, yes.

This also applies to (1) in exactly, precisely, the same way. — khaled

Not sure what you mean. No one exists yet to need amelioration.

This is not a good thing, as there is no one it is good for.

It’s as good as imposing traffic laws on a planet with no inhabitants. — khaled

You are actually making my argument. No person, means no goods of life. That no one is harmed is good though.. The only way around this, is that you deny conditional states like "could have happened". You could bite that bullet if you want.