Separate but related issues. Humans, have self-reflection and greater awareness of actions, thoughts, and can use language. Moral awareness and capacity is had in humans. As far as humans bringing in animals for food, that can be a separate topic. I can understand certain claims for consistency of veganism and antinatalism, as they are often rooted in the same moral sentiments.

My point is that this is one such disagreement. It is a disagreement about facts of the world. We both agree that a certain amount of imposition is too much. Except you, want to convince everyone that birth does objectively fit the bill of too much imposition. How can you do that with any objectivity? — khaled

I never claimed there was any "objectivity". You seem to ignore that. The case is made and people either find it compelling or not. I don't even know if it is a disagreement about facts of the world. It's a disagreement about a conclusion based on those facts. For example, the limitations of work/poverty/free ride/suicide along with the countless unforeseen contingent (but often known of) harms that impinge upon us are facts of the world. The conclusion is where one's perspective comes in. The AN says this is too much imposition and tries to convey this, usually through appealing to people's usual sense of justice or empathy, but as applied to these situations.

I actually do disagree with you that people have thought about it in the perspective of an AN. Rather, they may know the facts, but have not seen it as the imposition that it is. Now, if that is still not compelling after they are made aware of this perspective, so be it. I don't think just by understanding a perspective, everyone is thus convinced. Again, I have said this too. I don't think any ethical claim can magically do that for each person. It can slowly, over time, become more accepted by some, and then become part of a cultural norm, but I see AN akin to veganism in this regard. It is known, it is tolerated (or sometimes violently opposed) as a fringe perspective at this moment in time.

Tragedy of the commons is best seen in a public toilet :(.

Which sounds subjectivist to me. And other times you say “slavery was as wrong back then as it is now”.

Which is it? Are there objective moral laws we can find? And if so what makes you think “having children is wrong” is one? If not, is the whole point of this thread nothing more than an emotional appeal? — khaled

My main argument is this:

My theme here is that moral "sense" often grows over time or incorporates new things over time. It's like the Hegelian dialectic a bit.. It's nascent but through historical and other processes playing out and making its way known. — schopenhauer1

That is to say, it is wrong, but we don't "realize it" until some contingent time in our historical development. It becomes wrong, almost in hindsight, after events play out. It is the capacity for our emotional awareness (some may call this "moral sense") to grow to incorporate more instances of fairness, justice, moral empathy, and sympathy.

And all ethical frameworks are appealing to some emotional alignment in some way in my estimation of it. So this ethical framework appealing to someone's emotions would be no different. Does it eventually accord with people's emotion of some sort.. whether it is a sense of fairness or justice or empathy or along those lines. Otherwise, ethics would simply be an algorithm arbitrarily chosen. Something is chosen for a reason and that reason almost always seems to go back to someone's feeling about it. Often those feelings are reinforced because the culture has taken on the moral sentiment.

If we were to formalize the moral sentiment, it would be to not harm unnecessarily and to not overlook someone's dignity. I have defined and discussed ad nauseum on this. We are talking more meta-ethics though at this point though, so out of the realm of normative. The moral sentiment is where the normative is grounded in. Otherwise, it is arbitrary and can be anything. Pick any X action, and if there is no moral sentiment, it is simply like any other action. But moral sentiment itself is not fixed, but rather gets refined and perhaps even "better" over time to some degree as history plays out. It might not even be better by being necessarily "innovative" as much as more understood in detail, or more people who adhere to it. The ideas are nascent in feelings of empathy and justice though.

OP pretty much.

Seems you misunderstood. Oh, well. — Banno

I only misunderstand this last post. You mentioned how you thought this was a joke. I said I recognized the silliness of going backwards to who should own what but then used it as a jumping off point to point out the interesting case of those who benefit from nations built before the 20th century and those sort of "going through history" into the 21st century. Your ancestors benefited and you (collective we really) "benefit" from taking a long view. @James Riley understood, not sure why you don't.

Do you think there is an "objective way to phrase it"? And if there is how do you know it is yours? — khaled

There is no objective way to phrase it. Morality is mainly about emotional appeal. The logic can be consistent. The "soundness" of ethics is based on something akin to feelings such as empathy or sense of justice. If these feelings don't accord, then people don't see it as moral. Again, slavery, torture, might makes right, tribal warefare, etc. etc. etc.

You're in Japan.. Kamikaze was seen as the greatest honor. Was it moral? What once was seen as perfectly moral might be seen as excessively overlooking life.

Delete..didn’t mean to quote there

I think we are just rehashing the same arguments in different ways. I think for this segment we have pretty much said our responses and answers. My main idea here is that people don't have to immediately have an epiphany for ANs to be right. This goes back to the idea of limits versus options. I don't think people realize the limitations though you say it is realized. I think limitations are lived out and options are touted. I don't know if that makes sense to you. What is lived and what is summarized can be different. I had similar sentiments here:

That I don't think is true. People really don't see what is not phrased in a way to allow them to open up their perspective. I mean, a slave born in a relatively tolerant setting may think that slavery isn't that bad. A person who engages in certain psychological gymnastics might justify a lot of things. And surveys and interviews cannot be relied upon just because at a time of the interview someone says "such and such". Are people's assessments of themselves always accurate? Are personality tests completely accurate just because someone is answering questions about themselves? So then people don't have ideals of what they think they are? Of what they think the interviewer wants to see? Of what society wants? Of what they think is good vs. what they do? Etc. etc. — schopenhauer1

So Willy Wonka's "options" are Willy Wonka's limits of variations on work, homelessness, and if you really don't like it, suicide.

Both sides need the moderates to kick their extremes out and realize it is a zero sum game to do otherwise. The end.

There has always been a disconnect between aspirational idealism, and might-makes-right. If we were to allow the track record of the latter to inform or influence the former, then there would be no former. We would not be allowed to learn from history, or we would only take the lessons from it that current wrong actors are taking from it now: "Hey, the U.S. did it and it worked, so . . ." — James Riley

Yes this accords with what I think is true, which is that morality is actually "discovered" over time. The feelings are nascent but don't completely show up until it plays out and goes too far.

All I'm saying is, the U.S. doesn't have to fund it. Giving $3.8b per year in military aid to a nuclear superpower so it can defend itself against a stateless territory with no air force, army or navy is $3.8b we could use here. It's not unlike the waste in response to 9/11. — James Riley

It's more about strategic partner in an unstable region. More Real Politik than idealism. But again, taking the 3D approach, what is it when countries who have done pretty terrible things, but have already gotten its use and goals met from it mean? All the players are in place conveniently for the finger wagging. I'm guessing the people who were living in Native American societies would like their lifestyle back, no? Did your ancestors consider that they were moving to a land that was not originally the power/country/people that controlled it before they moved? Was it a justified move? I mean, these seem like stupid questions only because of the fog of historical perspective.

Yeah, I'm just looking at it from the 3D perspective. The message seems to be, "You should have done X, Y, Z deeds prior to the 20th century (or at least WW2), otherwise you are SOL. Meanwhile, I'm going to lick my ice cream and enjoy my view from the history that we were able to accomplish. How convenient this all turned out".

See my second post too. But yes agreed.

In other words, "We're cool with the arrangement now.. Germany got their war-thing out of their system..America has manifest destiny, Britain has its social welfare and common wealth, America is basically backing the world's security so others can have their social welfare program.. Australia has its country, all the players in place" So NOW is the time to call foul.. Right NOW, no no, right NOW.

That's "whataboutism." No one stands higher on a pile of bones and souls than does my own U.S., including all the denial and lack of contrition or reparation. But if what was wrong then is wrong now, two wrongs don't make it right. One might say the U.S. lacks moral authority to counsel one party or another in a conflict, but the U.S. has 100% moral authority to refrain from funding one side or the other. — James Riley

I just think it's an interesting thing that Western countries take a high ground after a certain establishment has been met.. I would say around WW2, one of the worst of atrocities.

Guess I'll just shake my head and go elsewhere. — Banno

Though I see your point about this being silly, I do think it brings up a point I brought up earlier:

I hope everyone in British, Spanish, French, and other descended countries know the irony of the criticisms of imperialism. I guess it’s only ok if done before the 20th century? I believe Australia had a policy for “hunting” aborigine into the 20th century. Hey guys.. it's okay.. just "history" if done before the 20th century when YOUR ancestors benefited from it :lol:. You get to make up for it by being a human rights zealot now :roll:. — schopenhauer1

We can add in asymmetric warfare along with imperialism in there too. Hey, keep going about your business. It's only those people that are committing X atrocities. MY history gets me to "realize" the errors others are making.. Meanwhile, keep eating your ice cream and enjoying that view. You deserve it. In other words, have your cake and eat it too.

How about this, don't create the sacrifice in the first place.. Unless having children itself is some sacrifice to the gods of society and tradition.

I was only pointing out that you offered no new perspectives on life that people didn’t know of. — khaled

False. It's precisely because people don't see the perspective that ANs are proposing a new way to look at it. Perhaps it's familiar content, but different emotional appeal, etc.. There is a difference. And yes, just because an AN "thus" proposes it, doesn't mean it will be resonant. That doesn't necessarily make something moral or immoral. My theme here is that moral "sense" often grows over time or incorporates new things over time. It's like the Hegelian dialectic a bit.. It's nascent but through historical and other processes playing out and making its way known.

It says so right there. “I doubt anyone discovered any new limits or types of suffering they didn’t know about before”. And so it’s not a lack of perspective. — khaled

Same response.

On the other hand if you meant that there is some sort of objectivity to your view, that can’t be true because it’s an argument from extent. — khaled

I don't know where you get this idea about objectivity and extent. That itself is not objectively true, but maybe for khaled and for argumentation's sake. Extent just means that ethics has nuance, similar to law courts. So "free speech" isn't yelling "fire!" for no reason in a movie theater. It's speech.. Someone is saying it, but it is in a context. So tapping a lifeguard is technically "violating" the sleep of the lifeguard. You can say it is "controlling" the lifeguard for a split second of sleep. But is that meeting the threshold of "overly controlling pervasive parts of the lifeguard's very being and overlooking the lifeguard's negative experiences egregiously over a long period of time for an X cause"? I don't think tapping the lifeguard meets this. Certainly exposing people to the game/overcoming challenge game for a lifetime does.

So in fact, often an "extent" argument is really a "type" argument but with context or defining features which require context. So, "murder" is not "killing" for example, because of the context.

Right, my point being everyone has heard your phrasing before. That life is a mistake, or that it’s enforced slavery, etc. It’s not a new take. — khaled

And yet it still doesn't mean it's right. Slavery in US took a Civil War and a hundred years of Jim Crow to get to some sort of semblance of civil equality. Yet civil rights activitists were saying things for years. Falling on deaf ears..

I can imagine a small minority of Roman reformers railing against the cruelty of the Colosseum and yet that went on for hundreds of years and the practice of brutal games and torture for entertainment itself probably for thousands.

I never made an argument from majority. The words "Majority" or "Most" don't appear in my comment at all. — khaled

Yet you said:

Right. And I doubt anyone discovered any new limits or types of suffering that they didn’t know of before. And yet they were not antinatalists. Because they don’t think those things go over the threshold. — khaled

And so did the majority back in the day that ripped out hearts, took indigenous land, condoned chattel slavery, condoned child labor, etc. etc. etc. You have been making a tacit and explicit argument from majority.

If by it you just mean that people will change their mind and come to see things as you do: The chances are basically 0. Because whoever thinks that life was a mistake will die with no descendants, leaving only the people who think life isn't a mistake behind. All it takes is 2 people of opposite genders to disagree, and the whole "project" is for nothing. — khaled

Well, if people enslave someone in some country, that doesn't mean its right. Just because people engage in an activity, that doesn't mean its right. This argument even you know has got to lead to absurd conclusions about morality.

Agreed. But I don't think you can tell people much about how horrible life is that they don't already know. So it doesn't seem to me like a lack of perspective. — khaled

That I don't think is true. People really don't see what is not phrased in a way to allow them to open up their perspective. I mean, a slave born in a relatively tolerant setting may think that slavery isn't that bad. A person who engages in certain psychological gymnastics might justify a lot of things. And surveys and interviews cannot be relied upon just because at a time of the interview someone says "such and such". Are people's assessments of themselves always accurate? Are personality tests completely accurate just because someone is answering questions about themselves? So then people don't have ideals of what they think they are? Of what they think the interviewer wants to see? Of what society wants? Of what they think is good vs. what they do? Etc. etc.

I hope everyone in British, Spanish, French, and other descended countries know the irony of the criticisms of imperialism. I guess it’s only ok if done before the 20th century? I believe Australia had a policy for “hunting” aborigine into the 20th century. Hey guys.. it's okay.. just "history" if done before the 20th century when YOUR ancestors benefited from it :lol:. You get to make up for it by being a human rights zealot now :roll:.

Or if they are arguing that life imposes too much then there is no objectivity behind it and the argument is not convincing. It’s like going around trying to convince everyone that people shouldn’t drink coffee because it’s “too bitter”. For you maybe, but that’s no argument. — khaled

@Albero

So I guess this comes down to how the “majority” assesses something for you. Can a majority of people be wrong on the morality of something? Pick an egregious ethical wrong in history like slavery. At one point a majority of people felt neutral to strongly about its rightness. Yet this changed. Was slavery (or pick anything similar) right because the majority thought it so? At some point the logic and emotional appeal of the extent that slavery was overlooking someone else and was an egregious violation of their dignity landed with a majority of people. In that case, the application of basic rights to all peoples was the main ethical justification that was voiced. And emotional appeals such as Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Toms Cabin and slave accounts of their plight were some of the biggest catalysts.

So of course ANs try to appeal to some sort of emotional understanding of the extent of over overlooking. Perhaps with enough examples, thought experiments, etc people will see that this too meets the threshold- reminding people that it is putting people in X situation or experience that is pervasive and controlling. Slavery was wrong then as is now, it’s just people’s capacity or perspective to understand this that changed.

The extremes on both sides would want the banishment of the other completely. Muslims and Hindus had long standing prejudices and many deaths in 1947 as each did a population exchange. The difference here is that the exchange, though violent was a one time event (with lots of long standing tension on a state level since). Kashmir might be a flash point but not an existential threat to the whole nation for each. The problem is there was no one time event here. Palestinians will want 1948 back. Israelis in their efforts for more security probably won't accept anything either, even if moderate. When the goals are not even present or realistic, stalemate will ensue. However, when was the lsst time either side presented a moderate end goal?

Both try to wipe the others history out. In some interviews I've seen, many Pals on the street don't really know the significance of the Western Wall for example..yet they have been living right next door for years. When you don't even know your "enemy" thats frightening.

Society wants you to have personalities not individualities ... Society wants you to conform to others ... Society wants you unnintelligent ... because just unintelligent beings can be easily but subtly enslaved to monotonous and stupid jobs. For example, spend the whole Life being a clerk. That's tremendously insensitive.You are not allowed to be the way you are ... you are allowed to be carbon copys of others ... whose Life is meaningless ... so you can be easily manipulated through your so-called beloved politicians — Anand-Haqq

This is one reason I'm against procreation. Birthing more people, is implicitly birthing people with the limitations of a socioeconomic creature (that is to say we become limited to the "options" of work, homelessness/poverty, free-riding (looked down upon), and death/suicide). Seems tyrannical.. an overlooking of an individual to put them in this game. It's needed once alive, but why does one need to go through it in the first place?

Right. And I doubt anyone discovered any new limits or types of suffering that they didn’t know of before. And yet they were not antinatalists. Because they don’t think those things go over the threshold. — khaled

And thus why I split the metaphysical and epistemological distinction in ethics. So for example, the ancient Aztecs found it perfectly acceptable, and even morally right, to use captured peoples as sacrifices to their god to ensure the sun rises. Some societies found certain forms of cannibalism acceptable. Now, certain forms of eating animal meat and sacrificing of things for a greater good is deemed as acceptable, but when it meets a certain threshold is now seen as no good (limits have been met for no longer moral or at least acceptable). At some point, it may be that people will see the tyranny of putting people into the challenge/overcoming challenge game.. that giving people the "options" (or limits really) of various types of "work", or homelessness/poverty, or simply "go kill yourself", might in fact be not right, not acceptable, not moral.

To call it a bias implies an "objective" way of viewing it. In the case of life there is no such thing. You can't get "out of life" to view life. — khaled

But again, this is why I brought up the extreme of Nazis and white supremacists. These are things that we can more likely agree are "objectively" bad, even if some people hold them to be true beliefs. What I am saying is that where it at first seems like you can never be "wrong" about your own evaluations, perhaps, there is an objectively "right" view here as well that is more accurate, if one were to stop to take the time with these biases. And you say that arguing with the Nazi is just a waste of time, but there have been numerous cases where neo-Nazis have disowned their previous beliefs and hatred and have taken on the better one. But you see, what makes it "better" not to be a Nazi or racist? What makes it "better" to not overlook the numerous cases one is being "harmed" and to further, not start this for another person? Before you respond, let me tie this in with something else, but I will answer some of your other quotes first.

Let me ask you this: What boundaries of life would you find acceptable to have children in? If you respond to nothing else respond to this.

If you can't answer that, then yours is a type argument. In which case it fails because you don't apply it to general day to day life (surprise parties are ok for example, generally) — khaled

Stop with the type arguments. This also applies to surprise parties. You're wasting typing by repeatedly pointing out that "life is an unconsented imposition". So are many things you find ok. We are now arguing about whether it is bad enough. — khaled

Right, so it is a (what you call) extent argument I am making, at this point. That is to say, starting life for someone else is sufficiently meeting a threshold that is crossed to make it a violation and thus wrong. I think this part, I have made the case that the limitations and conditions thus described are part of the reasons. Let me make some of the connecting steps:

1) A surprise party is equivalent to tapping the lifeguard. It is not overlooking the person to such a degree that it becomes a violation of dignity.

2) However, if you were to force a person into giving surprise parties for the rest of his life, that would be a gross violation. Now, we can probably all agree though that's true, that is an absurd scenario. But like the lifeguarding school, I think it is analogous to life really, and not that far off. But instead of the limited option of surprise party for life, it is the challenge/overcoming challenge game for life. Within this game you have an odd assortment of known and unknowns..

3) What is known is the limitations which are the options of sociocultural needs (necessary to meet drives like survival, comfort-seeking, and restlessness).. but these include things like either: Working, homelessness, free-riding, and suicide.

4) What is unknown is the immense amounts of contingent harms such as emotional anguish, physical ailments, disasters, annoyances, and a vast, very long list of other things that a person can experience and be.

Taking the challenges of the limitations (I call this "necessary suffering" as it is systemic to existence as a human mainly) and the contingent harms, we have a sufficiently large enough qualitative and quantitative amount of (for lack of better word) "stuff" that would count for pervasive controlling and overlooking of the negative aspects done to someone else. This would then cause the dignity violation.

Now, from here, you will say, "I deem it not sufficient". And so be it. At this point we can at least agree that individuals must make up their own mind as to whether to argument makes a logical, emotional, or other appeal. I am fine with that, but I will present my case nonetheless.

I could just as validly argue that some people have been pessimistic throughout history before (Like thinking moving pictures will be impossible, or that science will only advance this far or or or) and you're one of those people. So let's not play the "People have been wrong before therefore you're wrong now" game. — khaled

My point was simply that people's pervasive ideas on subjects were wrong and now taken as a matter of course.

For you. Maybe. But so far you've presented so many limitations of life and most people that have read them have continued to think it's not above the threshold. You've been sharing your perspective, and people have been listening and seeing its truth, and still they think life is under the threshold. And they can do this consistently. — khaled

Okay. Again, I present my case. That's all I can do. People's being convinced of it, doesn't necessarily mean anything. Again, going back to abolitionists- they were a minority in American life in the 1800s. And even if one was against slavery, giving black people equal civil rights under the law and voting rights was even less popular. It took a war with 600,000 dead Americans to "resolve" the issue. And did it resolve the issue really? No, Jim Crow in the American South persisted up until the 1960s (at least). So, yeah people can persistently have a point of view, no doubt.

Do you recognize that most people here see all the same limits and don't think they're sufficient? — khaled

Right, see above.. But also tying back to my first response, I think there is a sort of "metaphysical" and "epistemological" issue in regards to ethics/values. (In the end, they are probably both epistemological, but I want to make the distinction somehow). You have called it "type vs. extent". I want to keep my distinction though.

1) Metaphysically, someone can be "wrong" about what value is that is wrong or right. So for example, someone can think slavery is not wrong. But that itself would be wrong.

2) Epistemologically, someone can be "wrong" about how much of something would put it in the category of "wrong". So for example, I force my child into doing chores at home because he needs to know that he needs to contribute as well. Well, that is usually not considered as "meeting the threshold" for slavery. But then let's say, I really want to rest from work today, and I sent my eight year old to go to the factory and start making the widgets that I usually make there. Well, hold up now.. This is starting to look like child slavery (obviously assuming no one catches the eight year old to stop him from working there). So what is making the difference? There is a threshold of some kind, where something that is not wrong, becomes wrong with a sufficient (as you call it) extent.

Now, there are often one or both of mistakes going on here with antinatalism. On the metaphysical side, they are not seeing the violation of dignity itself as wrong. That is to say, they don't even recognize that overlooking a large amount of negatives on someone else's behalf is just "wrong" or they don't think anything about a "typical" life counts as crossing the threshold of "overlooking a large amount of negatives on someone else's behalf". I don't want to keep repeating all the negatives that one is overlooking on someone else's behalf, but I think it is a large enough in quantity and quality that it does cross the threshold.

I have given numerous (not directly in this thread, but look at my corpus as a whole for this) accounts of the negatives which we are often not seeing, or perhaps just not clearly reasoning it out. I have also given some ideas as to why it is such a pervasive thing to overlook the overlooking that is going on, and what is being overlooked.

@khaled I added some more comments towards the bottom of last post if you were responding while I was editing that.

Sure, but to know that anyone who disagrees with you has a bad assessment is the definition of arguing in bad faith. — khaled

An egregious version of this to show the point is that a Nazi or white supremacist who disagreed with me, is making a bad assessment.. but I am willing to entertain that due to well-studied psychological mechanisms, people tend to particularly make bad assessments about the experiences of their own lives. That is possibly because the perspective is very hard to get out of. A strong bias, reinforced by social pressures, makes sense for why this assessment is inaccurate.

Other examples are people with addiction problems, people who identify with their tormentor, people with certain psychological disorders that are more apparently distorting their lives. However, it is harder to understand how any neuro-typical (if that's a thing?) person constantly misevaluates due to strong genetic, environmental, and social pressures.

There can be no argument with you if you automatically think that the interlocutor is wrong (or lacking perspective) for disagreeing with you. — khaled

No, what I am giving is a reason for why many people often view life positively, despite the negatives. I gave examples of slaves, former "not bad" evaluations etc. I am giving the reasons behind some of this misevaluation. Pollyannaism, adjustments, and comparisons are a few very solid psychological reasons for our misevaluations towards an optimism bias.

Look at slavery.. People had the same general notions of fairness and justice, but people constantly put a blind eye to how it applied to other people. In ancient Rome, it was just "the way of things". Some people were slaves, some were not. During the 17-19th century, it was a racial thing. They misapplied their judgements, turned a blind eye. There was a cognitive dissonance there. There was a constant lack of perspective.

So can "this" many people be wrong about "their own lives"? Yes, they can. Now, let's go back to my own argument (related to Pollyanaism pace Benatar).. That is to say, people think that life's conditions have options- ergo, life is appropriately okay to bestow on other people. But I am pointing to what the other side of that coin is, which is that it is really a bounded set of options within the limits of the conditions of life.

One of the limiting conditions of life can be characterized like I did previously:

1.) It's near impossible to escape either work, free-riding off other's work, homelessness, or death (suicide or otherwise). — schopenhauer1

This is just one example of the limitations. Further, this is pretty much equivalent to a game that one must do- the game of life itself.. It has a set of systemic rules to "master" to some extent, and a series of challenges, many of which are not known beforehand to overcome. One can roll all of these aspects into the "challenge/overcoming challenge game".

Is it "right' to bestow on others a challenge/overcoming challenge game with the limitations of life?

Is it "right" to create more animals that can self-reflect to the point of evaluating as negative the very tasks needed to survive, while they are in the very act of surviving?

Is it "right" to create the limitations on people as laid out by Benatar in that previous quote?

You can say "these are acceptable", but then I will point to the fact that people throughout history have made wrong evaluations. A lack of perspective in how life is bad is possibly part of the problem for these bad judgements. Our bias to see the options and not the limitations, is one big part I think. In other words, "You have options!" is thus refuted, because it is "bounded in limits", and the limits have been pointed out X, Y, Z.. As I have been doing in many of my posts.

These limiting factors and negative aspects, indeed contribute to making life pervasively controlling, and it contributes to overlooking various things on behalf of someone else in order to create X situation come about (a child "needs" to be born for X reason). This would be violating the threshold of dignity..The proverbial "forced lifeguarding school". Yes, more options, but move back a bit, and its options within limits, sufficiently so that is indeed similar to the lifeguard situation on second look.

You’re arguing in bad faith when you automatically assume the person you’re talking to is deluded if they don’t agree with you. — khaled

Not at all. It can be the case people have the wrong assessment. People misevaluate things all the time. Slavery, genocide, torture, religious persecution, gladiatorial events, etc etc are egregious examples of mass level objective misevaluations. They did not judge the value as not bad for example.

You're caught up on the idea that something that seems pervasive must make it thus true or insulated from being in the category of bad judgment, possibly due to lack of perspective in this case.

But you want some objectivity of your argument which due to the nature of extent arguments is not achievable. — khaled

I think people simply can't see any other way but coping with it. It's more psychological and complex than simply:

And most people STILL think that life doesn’t meet the threshold. — khaled

They do if you ask them outright. But what about in all the details (X negative situation?). I don't know it just doesn't seem as straightforward as, "just ask the question".

David Benatar provides some ideas about our own misapprehension.. Pollyannaism, adjusting to worse circumstance than our intention or ideal, and comparing bad things with worse things to feel better. These are more defense mechanisms that we learn to use (or perhaps have some bias for initially) yet distort in some sense the absolute position that a) we don't have the range of options we ideally would have wanted, we adjust to worse outcomes (doesn't mean that makes it better), and we compare to less good circumstances (that still doesn't make it less bad). See this quote:

Fulfilled desires, like pleasures (even of the intrinsic kind), are states of achievement rather than default states. For instance, one has to work at satiating oneself, while hunger comes naturally. After one has eaten or taken liquid, bowel and bladder discomfort ensues quite naturally and we have to seek relief. One has to seek out pleasurable sensations, in the absence of which blandness comes naturally. The upshot of this is that we must continually work at keeping suffering (including tedium) at bay, and we can do so only imperfectly. Dissatisfaction does and must pervade life. There are moments, perhaps even periods, of satisfaction, but they occur against a background of dissatisfied striving. Pollyannaism may cause most people to blur out this background, but it remains there. — David Benatar, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence

Also see here under Humans' unreliable assessment of life's quality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar

Again. Those are the same thing. To state all the options is to imply all the limitations and vice versa. — khaled

Not really. I can tell a slave.. Look you have all the work you can do.. I'm giving you the choice to work the field in the morning, noon, or night. You can also repair the equipment, and prepare the meals too. See all your options? See, don't look at it as limitations, but from the point of view of the options. In the world of the slave, perhaps they adjust to this too.

What would you have wanted before you were born? Nonsensical question. — khaled

Then you are misapplying it. I am saying if we were to have a choice of an ideal world for ourselves. And indeed, it's a nonstarter, but we can still want it. We tend not to think in absolute what we want, because we have to accept the reality, as there is no other choice (excepting suicide, which is a choice too I guess).

Correct. I'm pointing out it's one people don't mind generally. — khaled

Not if given greater range of options. But there are limits, as we both agree. Being self-reflective, we don't just "have" we "know we have" and that is a world of difference in what we know isn't here, and what we have to deal with nonetheless.

And you keep conflating the two. You start out with "Birth has properties A, B and C which make it immoral". Then someone replies "Surprise parties have A, B and C and you don't think they're immoral generally". So you change to "Birth has too much A and too much B and too much C". Then someone replies "Most people don't think it's too much". Then you go back to "But it has A, B and C, don't you see!". And around and around we go. — khaled

No I explicitly stated that I am going with the extent argument (as you phrase it), and am saying life indeed meets the threshold of degree.

More likely we are disagreeing about the perspective of the reality of the situation. You are coming at it from a more subjectivist point of view. Thus, for you, if the slave thinks his conditions are suitable, it is suitable. However, if the slave had more perspective and given a chance to see the limitations, perhaps the slave would realize there was an injustice/harm done to him. However, the injustice this time is not in terms of relative position to other humans, but of the case that existence itself has injustices that we deal with being humans having to survive, find comfort, and entertainment within a contingently harmful world (disease, disaster, dealing with other people, harmful situations, negative experiences, etc.), with certain drives, within a socioeconomic and historical framework, etc. etc. All this is taken as a matter of course, but it is not just that we deal with them, but we know that we deal with them. We can self reflect. This even goes back to a topic I had previously that in any survival task, one needed to survive in a certain socioeconomic setting (the usual mode of human survival), one can evaluate it as negative. The very fact we can evaluate and know we feel negative towards tasks we do as we do them, is something to consider. You can train yourself to "be a man", "try to repress the emotion", "overcome your dissatisfaction", etc. but it's there in the first place. In fact, even people's attempts to belittle those who complain, can be said to just be a cultural meme to ensure that this idea doesn't bring people to despair and to discourage others for bringing it up.

Oh no..... I have to work and I may occasionally get injured as an animal that lives in a certain place and time.... what a nightmare! — khaled

You can say it sarcastically and it doesn't change my point. It makes nice performative theater if you're into that though. Yes, economic realities make up a significant and pervasive portion of life. It is a condition.

That... is the same thing. No one is seriously saddened because they’re limited by being an animal in space. No one has thought to themselves “I can’t be in 2 places at once, this is so awful”.

People are aware of the limits. — khaled

You are taking it too literally.. but go ahead if you feel that it helps you win points in the argument. You can think of plenty of limits (hence the "human condition"). I was mainly talking about genetics, personalities, limitations on our individual character, of environment, etc. Anyways, no need to belabor the point. You certainly recognize we have limitations, and so do others. However, when specifically speaking about birth as compared to other forced events, it is the options and not the limitations that people gravitate to such that they don't feel that life itself has the impositions similarly to the other limiting forced events.. Yes there is more of a range, but it's more of a range of bounded in limits that are not necessarily what you, I, or he would have wanted. But because it's all we have, it's like that makes it acceptable. But so the slave makes do, the lifeguard gets comfortable with his lot, etc. Yes people adjust, but that doesn't mean that the original "being put into the conditions" was right or put positive X attribute here.

This relates back to my main point in that the limitations and conditions of life, on a subject that has self-reflection and can evaluate their own existential situation, is pervasively controlled by various necessary conditions that one must deal with. This meets the threshold as discussed earlier.

@NOS4A2@RogueAI@khaled

So I think my position falls more with deontological, but deontological based on an "analog" rule. It's analog in that a certain degree of all pervasive control would have to be meet a threshold to consider it wrong, as dignity was being violated. So @RogueAI you mention that even a heaven would not be moral if the conditions were forced upon a new being. However, if that indeed was absolutely the case for each individual, I don't see the threshold being met. Though, you can make a case that since it is controlling the person's life, it was still a violation.

Here is the problem I see.. People do not see the conditions of normal life as the boundedness that it is. So if I said, "force a lifeguard to teach lifeguarding school" or a "slave to work on my farm" that sounds sufficiently bounded to consider this a gross violation of the person's dignity. However, having a range of options that life seems to offer, seems to be enough to make people think that life itself does not meet the threshold for violating dignity. However, consider the Willy Wonka scenario:

1.) It's near impossible to escape either work, free-riding off other's work, homelessness, or death (suicide or otherwise).

2.) It's near impossible to overcome the contingent harms that impress themselves on each and every person daily.

3.) It is near impossible to overcome the boundedness of being a particular animal living in a place, time, etc.

So our condition is more bounded than people think. They only think of the range within the boundedness and not the limits themselves. This makes them turn a blind eye to the forced situation and not think of it is a gross violation.

So are surprise gifts wrong now? I wouldn't think so. — khaled

So using the dignity threshold idea, if the magnitude of the surprise is controlling another person to a high degree, then yes. Life guard tapped on shoulder vs. life guard taken to a lifetime of teaching lifeguarding lessons, etc.

No, I don't propose that the number of free will discussions be should limited, but I reserve the right to whine about it. — T Clark

Yeah granted. I can see how repeated topics can annoy people, but you said it yourself, just ignore them if you don't like it.. You gotta think, there are really only a handful of perennial questions and philosophy deals with many of them.. just from different perspectives.

It wouldn't take much if he sacrifices a great deal of his time to provide, protect, and raise us to thrive in his world. I would be quite grateful, personally. — NOS4A2

What happens if someone is not happy with the arrangement- everything from work, homelessness, and suicide options?

Also, what makes forcing the participants into the world moral vs. immoral? Is just the fact that people are sometimes positive at certain moments justifiable really? So are slaves, etc. The only difference is the range of options is larger, that I agree. It's still a bounded set of conditions and rules nonetheless.

Edit: What happens when the contingent conditions of harms the built into his "game" affect people more negatively than they originally bargained for, even for the initially "happy" people who were "ok" with it?

Wonka is cruel because unlike the real world he never added things that cause joy, pleasure, laughter, play, and so on. — NOS4A2

Point taken. How much joy, laughter, etc. does it take to ameliorate that Wonka has forced people into this world with the conditions explained in the OP (work, homelessness, etc.)?

I know you’re not addressing me but my answer to this is: definitely yes.

If everyone in Wonka’s world feels it’s worth it, then absolutely keep on enforcing. What’s the worst that can happen? Someone will exist that finds worthwhile to exist? Doesn’t seem like a bad outcome. — khaled

Ok, so let's add in that the game is definitely not something of infinite pleasure. People don't just feel pleasure from these activities or just existing. There is a lot of intermediate to negative values placed on each activity in the game. So the game is not one of paradise proportions but much more mediocre. Wonka just doesn't have the ability to create "the best of all worlds" for each individual experience.

If contestants do not feel forced, what's the problem? People aren't as stupid as is sometimes assumed, they know when they're being used.

And those that don't like this at all have a way out. Not an easy one, clearly, but the option exists. And in the end we all exit the factory anyway. Why not enjoy what we can instead of complaining about it? — Manuel

Guess we have different moral frameworks. I wouldn't presume to put another human in a game (of life or otherwise) that lasts many years and is only exited through painful self-harm. The option for "work", "homelessness", "free-riding" (and resent from thereof), and "suicide" should be cold comfort not shrugging who cares. Just because it's a familiar devil doesn't mean it's not a devil. It's just that the devil has been wearing plain clothes this whole time perhaps.

climate change. — Manuel

Yeah that's not depressing haha.

I agree that in my case, having children would be a mistake. Irrespective of that if you just look at kids, the vast majority of them are fascinated by the world. So it's only "forced" on that small percentage that think life is a mistake. It's a small minority. Otherwise, the issue of being forced to live doesn't arise. — Manuel

So as long as Willy can keep his contestants from feeling forced, the game itself is okay for Willy to perpetuate and continue to force? You know, if you don't educate slaves and you keep them feeling that their situation isn't that bad, they might go along with it too and at least long enough to make more slaves. If they don't "feel" like slaves, hey all the better. Granted, free "choices" is the difference here, but then are those "choices" really free in the non-slave scenario? Is simply having choices enough to make the situation "good"? As a slave, you can feel fascinated with the work you do, your environs, etc. Yes, there is more one can feel fascinated with as a non-slave, but one is still limited in the conditions.

Do these "others" exist before you force them to enter your world? — RogueAI

Good question. No, these players only know this world.. What ever happened before this world, they have no memories of it. To the players, Wonkas world is the only world around.