Well at least for me: because it’s irritating seeing someone make (what I thought was) a flawed argument over and over again. Now I just think it’s begging the question. — khaled

That was to Isaac.. Although you seem to do similar things, you actually just debate the topic and not make this a meta-argument about the topic. That's just poor forum etiquette.. Ignore the thread if it's beneath you. I don't know if you can see where I'm coming from, but maybe you can. Isaac seems hopeless though.

It’s also irritating to see someone repeatedly playing the victim when they post on a public forum and their post gets a response that shows the weakness of their position. You said the same thing to me too. Is this how you react with everyone who disagrees with you. “You didn’t have to say that stop being such a meanie!” — khaled

No you two specifically do the same thing! ANd like i said, you at least argue the fuckn case rather than making speeches about the me arguing the case in the first place. Again, I don't know if you see my side but try to.

Why don’t you take it at face value and assume Isaac is being a perfectly friendly commenter who happens to have a different view from you? — khaled

Because he is NOT.. HE is hostile. That is another difference. You are not being hostile, but just debating. I do find it curious when you follow threads and we've already disagreed using the same debate, but I don't think you are being a hostile prick.

If you don’t want your motivations to be talked about, and would rather focus on the argument, don’t talk about the motivations of others and instead focus on their argument. — khaled

But then why do they get to run roughshod all over me like a POS, and I can't comment on the fact that they are doing THAT? I'm not doing this "higher ground" bullshit..

Look, I'll admit when I've stepped over the bounds.. for example bringing up AN in threads that don't seem to be about it (though I can argue that they are).. But I've NEVER went to another thread just to say that they shouldn't write their thread, and that they are essentially a POS for doing so.

What does this even mean? — khaled

That you were looking for my premise (dignity, etc.) an explanation of that, not the conclusion. But maybe not.. You can say whatever you want. THat was how I was interpreting it at least.

The situation is still bad. In this case it is not a moral issue as much as it is a metaphysical one. Humans are then just destined to suffer, and there is nothing to do about it. Indeed, Schopenhauer would have been close the mark on this in that there would only be Representation/Will and Salvation (through asceticism), but there can be no prevention aspect as to what actions we can do to prevent the suffering in the first place.

Just to be clear though, I am not "looking" for someone to blame. It just so happens that procreation is the initiation of the suffering thus a large part of the focus for its wholesale prevention. It is always after-the-fact, because we the "already-born" now have to deal, even if suicide is one of those ways or just following the guidelines of whatever society etc.

@Isaac
And for the record, it's not that you disagree that I think you are ridiculous, it is that you are so against the topic, and me writing about the topic in general, that to comment on the thread is just trolling and trying to annoy me. It's pretty damn apparent. So just stop.

So are you like, @khaled anti-antinatalist liaison or patron or something? Are you curating arguments for him? You always follow him into my threads. I'm sure you can see why I would view you then as a ridiculous poster. Why don't you just ignore my threads if you think the argument not worth your time? But you don't so that's even doubly absurd :lol: . I see a whole bunch of threads on here. I even see a professional philosopher, David Pearce. You can argue you heart's content at other people and things.

Look at someone like @Banno or @Baden They probably don't agree, they may even think along the same lines as you, yet you are the one who continues to write on my threads. Your hostility and emotion are so abundant teaming-over about this that you are "compelled" to write on this? Interesting, then that means that you may not be too different than the antinatalist compelled to write about antinatalism.. Too close to home perhaps.

Anyways, you are wrong here because khaled is looking for a conclusion with a premise. It is the other way around.

. If to you it’s still wrong then I respect your moral intuitions but It just doesn’t seem like a safe alternative is possible to me. Your moral system and Khaled’s system lead to 2 giant bullets I’ll have to bite, and the aggregate amount seems more appropriate. — Albero

No, because I believe you can mitigate to a degree lesser harms for greater harms (waking a life guard to save a drowning child's life), but not to such a degree where you are indeed violating dignity.. It does sound elusive.. what then is this "threshold of dignity"? I think it is at a point where someone is profoundly forced into a situation of negative circumstances, and the person themselves is overlooked for the outcome people want to see from that person. Perhaps it is a gradient rather than binary.. But it is not straight out utilitarianism where the greatest good is had by the greatest number. Dignity-based, as I am describing it, would be individual person-based, not aggregate-based.

if for whatever reason we DID need to force the Lifeguard to teach life guarding lessons (there’s a shortage) would it then be okay? — Albero

I'd like to see that answer too.

And it’s a much larger imposition. — khaled

And this is a major part of my point. Imposing life onto another person, because you think it will in some general sense "help society" is using that person. In the case of deciding on a new person, there is no person that needs to mitigate for anyone. But now, this person will be put into the world and indeed will have to mitigate, creating a whole lifetime's worth of negative/lacking situations for which there has to be ways to overcome etc, when there didn't have to be. At its most fundamental level, you are not recognizing in my argument the distinction between starting a life (and challenges and problems that a person would face), and helping people out who are already dealing with the challenges.. That is a huge factor in all of this.


This alone I would say is enough of an answer, but if you add in gambling with other people's lives, and that people don't always turn out the way you think, etc. It gains more strength.

But going back to the individual person-centered vs. aggregate person-centered... The lifeguard may very well make the most positive impact if he was forced to train other competent lifeguards for the rest of his life.. But by using people to such a degree, you are indeed overlooking that person's dignity as a PERSON. I don't believe waking the lifeguard is overlooking the lifeguard's dignity. But certainly overly imposing on someone.. let's say, by creating new status of someone's state of being and whereby someone must work-to-survive, find their way in a society, overcome challenges etc., is indeed going over that threshold.

Laboring to avoid neglect and starvation is one thing, forced labor and exploitation is quite another. Either my parents forced me to labor or they didn’t. They exploited me or they didn’t. In fact, they took care of me when I couldn’t do so for myself, and equipped me with the knowledge to survive. — NOS4A2

So you selectively choose to ignore earlier questions I had in this thread like here:

I am also bringing up the idea of exploitation in terms of people forced into labor. Why is this not an issue? In any other case where someone is forced into a situation when not necessary, this would be unjust. However, why does generalizing this concept to life itself rather than a particular circumstance get an exemption? What about the generalization makes it "too general"? There really doesn't seem to be a good answer for forcing in a particular instance unnecessary and the more general instance of bringing into life itself. — schopenhauer1

Oh that counts? Right then to not have the child would be to overlook the dignity of the people they would have helped — khaled

Ah I see. So in the end you do only care about suffering inflicted. — khaled

So I should elaborate cause I can see based on what I said, it can be construed as the ONLY thing and that's it, and it's not. Dignity is not simply hedonistic/utilitarian based calculus. It is looking at the person's humanity, trying to understand that they have a POV, that they are a person who must live out the consequences. Morality should be person-centered as it is the person living it out.

So for example, why would it be okay to wake up the lifeguard to save the drowning child, but not force the lifeguard to run a lifeguarding school for the rest of his life? Let's say you did the calculus and indeed the greatest number of people would be saved if he did this. There is something wrong with this. But what? I think by over thinking about the greatest good, you have now overlooked the lifeguard, where before you did not when it was just to wake him up to save the drowning child.

To not wake the lifeguard would be to overlook the dignity of the drowning person. If the lifeguard was not born, he would not have been waken. But he is born, and thus to survive must mitigate with other humans, ameliorating larger harms with smaller ones. If the lifeguard is not upset from being woken up, then he would be ignoring the dignity of the drowning person himself.

Dignity here is something akin to recognizing people's suffering and wanting to help or prevent it if possible, but realizing that the conditions of life can't prevent it all for those already born.

Again, putting people into enslavement is not the answer to helping the enslaved, but abolishing the enslavement. That is where I'm coming from. I'm not sure why you don't get that.

What's goin' on here? — Caldwell

Care to elaborate?

No because you haven’t pointed out a principle that applies differently to the different situations. But I do recognize the different states of affairs and how they’re different. You haven’t explained why the difference matters. — khaled

I've already said it, you don't enslave people to help out slaves. You abolish the condition of enslavement. The indignity happens when putting people into the condition in the first place. Once placed in the position, then it would be not recognizing people's dignity by ignoring their humanity. But don't keep putting people into that position in the first place.

I never bought into your totalizing method where this isn't a consideration, only the totalizing outcome of harm or good or whatever utilitarian thing you are claiming. You are assuming your basis as mine and then trying to make me justify why I'm not abiding by your basis that I don't claim to be the moral basis.

It seems people generally think that the joys of life outweigh its sorrows, and that as such, life is worth living and the socio-economic system is worth perpetuating. — baker

Cool, so if a majority of people like baseball should people be force recruited to play the game? If you say that's different because life has more choices, I'd argue that there really isn't much choice to not work-to-survive, the very topic of this thread. I mentioned the sub-optimal result of free-riding and other things you might bring up too, so don't.

The problem is that you're trying to objectivize the matter, take the persons out of it: as if arguments are good in and of themselves, objectively, regardless of people, and that you have special and superior insight and are the arbiter of the goodness of an argument. — baker

I'm in a philosophy forum, where people make arguments about things like morality. Actually, all of life is a big argument and whether you know it or not, people's arguments are affecting/effecting your life.

Yet people typically don't have a problem with that. Humans are an exploitative species.

You're arguing for a view that is alien to so many people, on so many levels. A view that is estranged from life. — baker

Okay.. slavery not just being the natural course of things also seemed alien for many generations, mainly before the Enlightenment and even then it took until the mid-1800s for it to really start being considered legitimate moral sentiments.

And yet such is life. People do this all the time, in so many ways. Other people can unilaterally force a war on you.

Some say it's naive, childish to wonder about whether something is just or moral. — baker

Really? Why?

It doesn't compute in _your_ mind. It computes in so many other people's minds. — baker

Well, let's take two outcomes from the different computations.

1.) If MY computation is right, no ONE suffers (cause no one is born, of course).
2.) If the procreator-sympathizers are right, SOMEONE suffers.

I’m opposed to forcing labor of any kind on another. But I don’t believe my parents forced me to labor by birthing me. In fact, they labored for me for quite a period, and I was wholly dependant on them. At any rate, I choose to labor for my own survival. — NOS4A2

I'm sure you know this but you can have two things be true. Your parents labored for you, and now that you were born, you must work-to-survive. You choose to labor or you die from neglect and starvation. That is the situation.

Ok, interesting ideas. However, my question is then, is it just to put another human being into the world if that human is forced to work-to-survive? They don't exist to need amelioration. They are not already in existence and need to be in a "better" place.. If existence has known sufferings, annoyances, and negatives, then surely putting someone into the negatives, just so that they can find ways to get out of it, would be wrong in some way, and perhaps is unjust.

It wouldn't be exploitation because survival doesn't necessary involve the forced appropriation of unpaid labor. One must labor for his survival, sure, but it makes little sense to say one must be exploited in order to survive. — NOS4A2

But is it always about "unpaid" labor? How about forced labor in general onto another person because you simply like labor yourself (or don't mind it).

It's not a fallacy. The fallacy is thinking we are exempt because we are a different species. My main point is that people are natural. — James Riley

But is that ever an excuse to choose to be immoral? If someone murders, can they say "It's natural" even if somehow you can prove human aggression is indeed natural?

You can so choose, however, you cannot choose to not benefit from those who chose to do so.

Edited to add: Likewise, you can choose to not be exploited and that will work out for you just like it works out for those who try not to benefit from those who exploit those who produce. There are participants, and there are those who are dead. Nature is not a fallacy. — James Riley

I see.. We are already in the game.. I am not choosing to benefit from exploitation, everyone is already exploited by being born to work in order to survive.

A) Firstly, do your stances stem from the formalized edifices of Hedonic Morality? — Aryamoy Mitra

It stems from the indignity of creating unnecessary harm. There are no mitigating circumstances of someone that is not born. Unlike a situation where someone is already born and may need to do some harm to create better outcomes, there is no one in the first place for harm to need to take place. If someone likes the work to survive game, and the overcoming suffering game, it doesn't mean that other people should be force recruited into the game.

B) Placing a constraint (if not an outright preclusion) on individuals seeking to forge new life, is likely to encroach onto their fundamental liberties. Are you solely promulgating a moralistic perspective, or would you be willing to enact your beliefs in the real world (if accorded the opportunity)? — Aryamoy Mitra

Absolutely only moral perspective. It's simply a stance one takes, like veganism. Laws like this usually have to have the morals be foundational to society to such a degree that people would be willing to lay down their life for it, or it's just taken as a given. None of these are true so wouldn't even attempt to move it to law or something like that. It would be as ridiculous as making veganism law.

C) Lastly (and this is solely cursory), what are your views on Schopenhauer's Will to Live (since I imagine you'll bear a tremendous degree of expertise, on him)? I understand that it (presumably) manifests in the aftermath of one's birth; could procreation, however, fall under the purview of the Will to Live (that is to say, instinctively electing to 'live on', by bequeathing one's genetic character)? — Aryamoy Mitra

One might argue that the Will to Live in Schop's view is inevitable Will just is, and thus Representation will always be in the picture somehow. It is really more Representation and Salvation (through ascetic enlightenment). And thus there must always be a way somehow that the Will is objectified..

But I wonder if one can say that perhaps Representation is a guarantee, but not suffering? Only objectifications like animals and humans suffer, even though the objectified/temptestous Will can be found in other, non-suffering forms of striving perhaps.

I am not necessarily a Schopenhaurian in my metaphysics, though I find it intriguing. Can you read over and possibly comment on this thread I have about Schopenhauer's Will?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10521/two-questions-on-schopenhauers-will-and-the-external-world

Because the arguments you put forward are simply not convincing. — baker

One has nothing to do with the other. Motives and arguments being good. Or you haven't made that case.

It's ill to care about whether someone else even exists or not. So when someone proposes to care so much about others, the simplest answer is that there is something else going on.

A simple argument from misanthrophy, for example, would be far more convincing than yours are. — baker

It's just saying it's unfair to put others in a game because its your preference. You shouldn't be forced into doing something because another person thinks the game is good and others should play it. I like an existence where people work to survive and go through various harms and suffering big and small THUS others should do this too. Doesn't compute.

Fix it? No that wasn’t the proposed motivation. The motivation was: My child will likely be a positive influence, thus not having him is the riskier option. Similar to how not waking up the swimmer is the riskier option, and so you can choose to wake up the swimmer. — khaled

Right so this again, comes down to our difference in how we are measuring moral good. You are using some totalizing thing where people are used to increase the greatest good for the greatest number of people, etc. As an aside (and simply commentary on your view) I'd like to point out that in the real world these circumstances of using a child's abilities to possibly contribute to society are rarely directly correlated with helping a specific situation and defined outcome. The only main one I can think of is for some sort of medical reason, for example, a sibling or family member needs an organ.

However, in my view, if you are putting someone in an inescapable game, in order to mitigate the people that are already in the game, you are indeed violating the dignity of the person you are forcing into the game, even if the intention or outcome was to increase the good of the already existing people.

The lifeguard and anyone else already existing is ALREADY in the inescapable game. It's too late to prevent their being forced into being in negative situations IN THE FIRST PLACE. So enslaving someone so that the slave can benefit the slaves that are already enslaved would not fly in this view.

This disagreement will always come down to you not seeing the difference between starting a life (creating the very conditions of suffering in the first place) with living an already existing life (a game where amelioration of more harmful with less harmful takes place).

Is it violating the dignity of the swimmer? Well you’re imposing on him so yes.
Justice? Idk about that one it’s too vague a word. — khaled

Do you recognize different states of affairs and thus principles apply differently? Why can a child be forced to go to school but an adult cannot? Differing circumstances.. one may be considered moral to do, one would be considered inappropriate, even if it is seen as best for that person. For example, why is it just to wake the lifeguard to save a life but not to force him to teach lifeguarding classes for the rest of his life and vaguely (maybe) create many competent lifeguards who can save others down the line?

Nowhere there was there an actual explanation of the differences in treatment. Just restatements that there should be one. — khaled

I presented my case. You fail to see it, as now you are restating the same thing without trying to parse it out and synthesize it.

Jails? Taxes? How about the simple example of waking up a sleeping swimmer when you see someone drowning and you can’t swim? — khaled

Right. Falls under that too. They already exist and are in the game.

Sure it’s different. Why is that difference significant? That is the question. Because to me it sounds akin to saying “Killing mr A is wrong, but killing mr B is ok because mr B has green eyes”

Creating harmful situations is creating harmful situations. Who cares if it’s from nothing or not? — khaled

You are violating the very dignity of someone as you are trying to fix it.

The already existing person is ALREADY in the game. I'm not sure

a) how you don't see the difference here of someone who is in an inescapable game from a situation where no one is put in an inescapable game.

b) how putting someone in the inescapable game is itself violating the dignity/justice/unnecessary harm principles (whichever is your foundation) whereas once in the game, mitigating circumstances for others playing the game is not violating it.

Depends on the situation of the people who brought me in. — khaled

But that's what I am saying.. It is unjust to unnecessarily do it on someone else's behalf.. and you gave many many examples of this idea. Gambling with someone else.. etc. Besides which that is if we take subjective evaluation of a summation and not break it up for each instance.. Today you tell me you're good.. in a minute you fall in a hole and think life sucks, etc. etc.

Restating the same thing isn’t addressing the point. I’m asking why you think that it’s fine to use people that exist and not fine to use people by making them exist. — khaled

Because it is at the level of the person that this is taking place. It's not like people are just tools that are coming into existence to fix society and keep it going. They have (at least what appears to them) as autonomous thoughts, actions, ideas, etc. You are violating the fact that this person will NOW have to cope with the negatives when BEFORE there was no person that needed to do this.

However, once in existence, it is too late. One MUST COPE and deal with how best to mitigate harm and deal with people as autonomous, people who have dignity. That means living in a society where one must deal with situations regarding other people with compassion. The state that pays for services for other people. The helping of the drowning victim, etc. This is recognizing their dignity because they are people too.

However, if you were to say to me.. "You should create harmful situations for another person, so that they can mitigate harmful situations for someone else" I would say this is absolutely wrong. Creating from NOTHING harmful situations is different than people who already exist and are in the game. One is already here, and must follow the rules of morality. One did not need to exist to follow any of these rules or be impinged upon in the first place though.

Specifically, the whole antinatalist argument reads like a sublimated effort of a man who knocked up a woman and now he wants her to abort, and is looking for ways to convince her to have an abortion. — baker

I mean, amusing as that sounds for a tragic-comedy, it is not based on these circumstances. I think you should write a sitcom on it or something though. Why not take it at face value and just argue or defend or simply comment on the arguments that antinatalists make rather than try to find these underlying and dubious motives?

Special pleading. Why does the harm done to someone suddenly matter way more when they don’t exist yet?

Why is using someone who exists better than using someone by making them exist?

Or is that just a starting premise for you? If so I don’t think many would share it. And it should be pointed out that you have this premise. — khaled

So you yourself have provided this example.. I gave it in another thread..
What if you were recruited into a game, and the only thing you can do is get better at the game, join another team, or kill yourself? Would that be fair?

Well, those who are born are sort of stuck in the game. There are necessary things one must do when recruited in the game, otherwise, indeed one would be immoral/unjust to others (who are already here to have to play the game too). However, it is the initial force recruiting into the circumstances of the game that I have a problem with.

What are you, Jesus? Why on earth would you care so much about others and their suffering? It makes no sense to care so much about others! — baker

We went over possible motives in your other thread no? I mean I gave my own in a direct reply and then you gave pretty good ones on your own. Why are those unacceptable?

We enforce negative conditions on others all the time without their consent. Taxes, schools, etc. So your premise that it’s always wrong to do so isn’t justified. Unless you think taxes and schooling are wrong. — khaled

We've been through this and we know where we stand on the argument..

Starting a whole new life to ameliorate those already here is still unnecessarily causing harm to someone that does not need to take place- they don't exist. "They" (the possible person) don't need to be a part of ANY of the mitigating scheme at all.

Using people that already exist to ameliorate harm is appropriate, however, like the examples you give.

And this is the whole point of antinatalism, isn't it? — baker

No it is not. The unjust and unnecessary causing the conditions for harm to take place and overall prevention of starting unnecessary harm for another is mainly the point.

It's about a person who doesn't want to be a parent, but who feels a need to convince society that refusing to be a parent is a worthy choice and that such a non-parent still deserves full respect as a human being.

Right? — baker

No not at all. This isn't equivalent to "child-free" movements or anything where it's about lifestyle choice or something like that.

Does this not lend itself, to an anti-natalist stance? — Aryamoy Mitra

It certainly does. I am an avowed antinatalist. Most people would say too vocal on here :).

Not all individuals zealously opposed to exploitation, will prefer a cessation of all births, over being exploited in a constrained fashion. — Aryamoy Mitra

But is it not solving the question for the future generation? Certainly it is the easiest one. Just because you might be sad not having a kid doesn't mean another person has to suffer and be exploited for their labor. Look at it this way. If the parent doesn't get to procreate, all that happens is the parent cries a little and has a sad face. It absolutely does not affect a whole other existence of another being. However, if the parent does procreate all the negatives of existence, including having to labor-to-survive will befall another person. When was the last time unnecessarily creating negative conditions for others would be considered just and fair?

Life, with all its unrelenting exploitation, is a catastrophe; even a catastrophe, however - when ameliorated, is preferable to inexistence. Kierkegaard instituted several analogous ideas, if I'm not mistaken. — Aryamoy Mitra

Why is it preferable to inexistence? The child that would be born is not around to tell you so. There is no preference for something that does not exist. It is the parent's preference only.

Personally, I'm apathetic on the matter - on this front, nonetheless, your perspective is characterized by a hedonic appeal (an absence of suffering) - that can't be discerned in its counterarguments. — Aryamoy Mitra

It can be an appeal also to justice. Not forcing others into negative situations unnecessarily by starting the negative situations for them in the first place. Once born, negative situations will ensue to ameliorate situations, etc. In one instance, you can prevent it all together from occurring for someone else. It's not like someone being born is the default.. People have to make that happen.

Yeah, true. The root is Judeo-Christian, but society just largely takes it for granted today and if you ask people why they hold that view a lot of them won't know. Our foundations as a culture are J-C but this is slowly changing and the base is being eroded. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but in some cases it certainly can be. — BitconnectCarlos

I think the Judeo-Christian idea of life being good, and this needs to be procreated, is pretty much the typical stance in any society. Even Buddhist societies with life being suffering don't usually condemn procreation. So I think it is just the typical stance embodied in a myth.

Where is this coming from? Why are you so opposed to harm? Or is it just unnecessary harm? Who are you to decide what is necessary and what is not? Maybe I just randomly beat up a man on the street but that man ends up turning around his life and becomes a better father and man. — BitconnectCarlos

Here's the thing, the outcome in regards to another person if you follow my view, leads to no other person dealing with my preferences. If they followed your view, someone will be dealing with negative consequences.

It just seems to me almost in any other situation, people would view creating unnecessary harm on someone else's behalf is unjust or unfair. But somehow because it is perceived as foundational, it must not be unjust or unfair in this case.

I am also bringing up the idea of exploitation in terms of people forced into labor. Why is this not an issue? In any other case where someone is forced into a situation when not necessary, this would be unjust. However, why does generalizing this concept to life itself rather than a particular circumstance get an exemption? What about the generalization makes it "too general"? There really doesn't seem to be a good answer for forcing in a particular instance unnecessary and the more general instance of bringing into life itself.

Your insistence that all harm ought to be eliminated is nothing more than a personal psychological quirk that you're seeking to universalize. — BitconnectCarlos

What's funny is people who procreate are doing the EXACT SAME THING, except the result of my "quirk" is NO PERSON HARMED. The result of others' is SOME PERSON HARMED.. So though I know you think the argument can be ended by just dismissing it, the glaring asymmetry is still there whether you scoff and ignore it or not. That doesn't hurt the argument either way whether you want to be dismissive or not.

Sorry, but this just isn't worth my time - but I would respond to any points you have in regard to my first stanza about the Judeo-Christian roots of US/western culture. — BitconnectCarlos

What about this would you want to discuss?

However, Nature chose. You don't produce, you die, and in death you will produce for that which consumes you. The fact that we may likewise impose upon each other to produce is, well, natural. I don't see evil in it. And to resist that imposition is also natural.

"Enlightened self-interest" is supposed to check any evil, just as it does in Nature. Apparently, to date anyway, bread and circuses have stayed the hand of lady razor. But she, or Nature, will catch up when self-interest is no longer enlightened enough to protect itself.

We fancy ourselves above Nature. Well then, we must enlighten ourselves, or Nature will do it for us. — James Riley

So this is a sort of argument-from-nature. Some may call this the naturalistic fallacy or appeal to nature fallacy. So your main point seems to be that we can't help but expect others to work-to-produce so that we ourselves can survive. Right, I understand that is what we do, and must do to continue the species. We form organizations, hierarchies, and habits so that people don't get out of line and prevent unproductive outcomes from people. But is this whole process itself exploitative? It is not inevitable. You have at least ONE choice as a person who can freely choose. You can choose to NOT put other people in this situation of having to produce to survive in the first place. Is that not true?

So interesting points.. and I think this might be more appropriate for the other thread on Marx here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10559/does-labor-really-create-all-wealth

However, my question is basically..

Is procreating knowing that the people born will have to labor-to-survive its own exploitation of people, because we are knowingly forcing them into an unavoidable situation?

Perhaps then exploitation must involve alternatives. So if it is forcing people in a situation which is never avoidable, it cannot be considered exploitation. But why? It is technically unavoidable in one sense, of never starting it for someone else. I'll also pose this to @BitconnectCarlos

From Google:
Exploitation- the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.

So what is suffering bad? Why does all suffering need to be eliminated in all of its forms? — BitconnectCarlos

Let's rephrase it then to make it less "just because". So yes, I can say, causing negative states for others, is bad as an axiom.. Let's make it more interesting...

Is it unjust to cause negative states to others when there is no mitigating factors (to make that person better, to get them to a better place.. obviously they don't exist to need a better place).

Also, I will say there is value in what you said here:

Because "being" - including human "being" - being good is a fundamental premise of western/Judeo-Christian society that takes it root in the bible.

“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’” — BitconnectCarlos

I think it's not just Judeo-Christian, but a sort of attitude most people generally hold. I can see how "humanity no longer exists" can make people cry as an aesthetically sad thing to think about. But weighing someone's sadness over this aesthetic and actually making someone exist who will then suffer and be forced to work, that is a different thing.. One is just a sad thought someone has and one actually involves negative states for someone else.

Go cry into a soft pillow, so tired of hearing you do it here. — DingoJones

But if you want to scratch that and question the justice in birthing people who will inevitably have to deal with the annoyance of walking to the bathroom or post-masturbation fatigue then be my guest. — BitconnectCarlos

Ah two greats philosophizing at the highest level.

You see, you are proving my point. You just assume the already-in-place default, and because it is the default, you assume you don't need any justification. Just sarcasm-as-philosophy because it's t0o hard for you to actually find one. But hey, it's okay. I like when people prove my point. It means, I'm actually pretty accurate in my evaluation here.

What have been left off the list below are the following persuasive techniques commonly used to influence others and to cause errors in reasoning: apple polishing, using propaganda techniques, ridiculing, being sarcastic, selecting terms with strong negative or positive associations, using innuendo, and weasling. All of the techniques are worth knowing about if one wants to reason well. — https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/

The default (whatever it is) must be and is beyond comprehension, beyond human power to control. Otherwise, it wouldn't be the default. — baker

I meant the default point of view, not that this is completely unchangeable or impossible.

My point is its all connected, but I get how superficially it might look like its not. The problem of labor can be solved other than with robots and Marx missed the biggest point of all..not putting more workers in the system in the first place. But thats the last I'll put in this thread. Systematic holistic philosophy is only as good as the things it decides to consider. Economic conditions aren't a straightup demand supply, whathaveyou, it is existential. In some ways, he understood economics to be more than mere models, but connected to history and the human condition. For example, his end goal was a new man not fettered by the needs of being exploited by their labor. But im taking an existential step beyond this. I'm asking if being born, we can ever escape not being exploited at all. If he focused on this idea of man being exploited by their labor value, then it is relevant. So I'm just saying in his analysis of what causes this negative outcome, he overlooked some things. Certainly, until the robots are complete, from now to them, how is adding more laborers not itself a kind of exploitative aspect for those people? It is relevant to Marx but was too far afield for it to even be close to the radar..he was too attached to economic answers only. And my suggestion too radical. How ironic.

But anyway, the lesson is that complex production needs complex work arrangements, which necessitates a hierarchy of work-related duties including planning and slotting people into doing their jobs. This was the crux that made people throw away communist rule: they worked just like their counterparts in the free west (free? ha!), and yet they lived in abject poverty compared to the same, and had to listen to the same bullshit at work.

Robotism will do away with all that. — god must be atheist

Let us say the prevention of the next generation solves the problem in one generation. Simply don't produce more people that need to labor, and problem solved. No relying on a utopian future which is undetermined and where the goalposts are always moving further out. No people that need goods and services. It's too late for the current generation, why not spare others the "joy" of laboring in some economic system, capitalist, communist, hunting-gathering, whatever.

Until the robots takeover, are humans being exploited as a unit of labor, if only because the conditions of being born demand it? How is not being born, knowingly as a future laborer to be a unit of utility to an entity not unjust? Marx wasn't radical enough as he focused on the economic system in place and did not drill deeper to realizing that the exploitation starts by being born at all. If only he realized the nascent antinatalism in his ideas of exploitation.

Humans are the only animals that need justifications, not just incentives to do work. We are running out of anchorings and slogans to keep the justifications going. It is now the barest of reasons..you were born and need to survive and be comfortable which work affords you to do to keep you doing generally the same thing the next day.

I see the unfairness of bringing suffering into the world and I am impelled to give my perspective due to this.

There are preconditions of the world that every person MUST contend with (I call this de facto forced conditions). For example, one can choose not to work, but then they are going to either free ride off someone else, hack it and probably die by themselves in the wilderness, go homeless, or any other number of sub-optimal outcomes. They can also commit suicide if they really don't like it. I don't like putting people into these de facto forced conditions so I will speak up about it.

See you can answer your own question.

And why is that? What do they get from it? — baker

What do you get from asking me this question?

Have you ever tried to provide a thesis or proposition before? Why did you do that?

Why do you think people write on this forum in general?

Why do philosophers publish their thoughts and have a dialogue?