So pain is bad because pain is bad (foundationally). Makes sense, though I did offer an explanation of pain where is pain is not foundationally bad (when it is serving its natural function). — Joel Evans

No, you seem to go back to "natural" implying no creator that created these conditions that pain exists in the first place.

Based on this, it seems that saying pain is bad foundationally faces problems from the natural-function argument. — Joel Evans

Pain is bad, even if it has a function to tell you that something is wrong. It can be both.

Why is a universe without the capacity for pain fundamentally better than one with the capacity for pain? — Joel Evans

To me, its foundational that pain, suffering, negative states are bad and causing conditions which inevitably will lead to them, is wrong if it can be avoided. To purposely create conditions for these negative conditions, when other alternatives can have been created etc..

And yet my question still stands of why he would need to create a universe without the capacity for pain. What is wrong with pain when it serves its natural function? — Joel Evans

You are either not getting or are purpusefully dodging the question. This discussion is about God who created the natural world, correct? You make it seem as if a universe with pain is a necessity. This would contradict a God who is free to create any world. This world we live in now has pain that may "serve its natural function", but the point is there could have been a universe that does not have pain, and in fact has no need for pain to serve "its natural function".

You could very well be right that it would be better to live in a world without pain, but you haven't shown me why. — Joel Evans

Well, you are right that we cannot go any further if you think that causing conditions of pain for others is not immoral. If you believe that if there could have been an alternative scenario where you didn't provide the condition for pain to others, but you chose to cause the conditions for pain rather than the non-pain alternative, that this is acceptable good or not bad, we have nothing more to argue as we have different foundations for what we deem as moral.

They are not overcoming pain, rather it is serving its natural function in their bodies. If I smell something disgusting, that is unpleasant, but it's serving a natural function in our body. If pain is serving a natural function, why is it immoral to create a universe with the capacity for pain? — Joel Evans

This makes no sense. This discussion is about a God right? One that created this universe, no? My question was regarding the counterfactual possibility that God could have created a universe where its nature was not to have the capacity for pain. So my questions still stand:

So we have to go through pain to overcome it? Why must anything be subject to pain in this scheme? That seems immoral to create a universe with the capacity for pain, whether to see them overcome it or any other reason. — schopenhauer1

Because that pain serves a good purpose and isn't inherently bad. — Joel Evans

So we have to go through pain to overcome it? Why must anything be subject to pain in this scheme? That seems immoral to create a universe with the capacity for pain, whether to see them overcome it or any other reason.

That still doesn't show that the conditions for pain are bad. I think that the natural use of pain (as a way of keeping an organism balanced and healthy) makes pain not an inherently bad thing. — Joel Evans

Again, if God is free to create any universe he wants, why create one with the capacity for pain or any negative experience?

There is a difference between causing pain and giving one the capacity for pain. — Joel Evans

I never said that. Pay attention. I said the conditions for pain.. which you are replacing with capacity. Same thing.

God (according to theism) gave us noses but that doesn't mean he directly causes us to smell things. — Joel Evans

Whence noses then?

But God didn't create the conditions of pain. He merely gave us the capacity to feel pain. — Joel Evans

That's the same thing :lol:.

That's besides the point though. — Joel Evans

NO its very much the point.

You and I have been talking past each other. I don't think the presence of pain is a bad thing, and you do. I think that the good of having a fully-formed nervous system (pain, pleasure, and all feelings included) is better than having no fully-formed nervous system and no pain. — Joel Evans

Why? We are talking past each other. If God can make any type of universe he wants. He could have created a universe with no pain.

I don't think that pain on its own is a negative experience in a way that affects the good-making qualities of God. Having a fully functioning nervous system that gives us the capacity for both pleasure and pain seems like a good thing to me, even if that means we (or animals) can feel pain. — Joel Evans

This is all a tautology infused with naturalistic fallacy, and has no defense that, indeed it does affect the "good-making" qualities of God. We have nervous systems, therefore it is good, is about equivalent to what you are saying.

Rather, you have not defended that we have pain- whatever avenue this is attributed to (neruons, etc.). and that supposedly, if nature is created by God, that indeed, he participated in the conditions for pain to be possible.

Now, if you think causing the conditions for which pain takes place is a good thing, we have no further argument as I believe that to be unjustified causation of a bad experience for another and you believe this is perfectly moral. However, if you think that it is wrong to create conditions of pain for others, then there is a problem for your omnibenevolent belief.

I am not entirely sure why he would need to create a world without pain. In a perfect world, organisms are designed to do certain things (eat certain foods, live in certain climates). Pain could just be a natural way for those organisms to "walk the line" (to maintain balance in other words). I don't see that as a thing that conflicts with any of God's omni-characteristics — Joel Evans

Because if you do believe that God is free to do what he wants, he could have made a world without negative experiences for his little subjects. He didn't.

It is a natural indicator of something going wrong within or to an organism. In this way, pain itself is not necessarily a bad thing and so is compatible with the existence of a good God. In other words, if God created a world where animals experience pain, he could exist, and he could be good. Because of this compatibility, premise one is faulty, and the argument is unsound. — Joel Evans

But supposedly God created the conditions of a world where there is pain for this animal, so God is not a passive bystander here. If he is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent then there could have been a world where something like pain was not necessary for an indicator that "something was wrong". In fact, there could be a universe where nothing is wrong. If however, there by logic, can never be such a universe, well then one of those omnis is wrong at least as God is constrained by some other necessity, which kind of knocks his powers down a peg. So therefore, if this ridiculous mythos of a God is true, then he wanted a universe where there was pain. This then leads to the fact that God might have some sadistic tendencies. Then if you add in that we are supposed to "learn" from our trials and tribulations on the planet, God is some sort of petty game-designer that wants to see participants go through suffering in order to overcome it. It sounds like this God is just a projection of us. He is looking all too human. Yet it is said, we are made in his image. I think this is pointing in a hall of mirrors.. It all points back to us.

I have been meaning to read up on gene editing, but it seems clear that this has better potential to eliminate suffering than promoting antinatalism. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Right, well that might not be true, first (sci fi) and meanwhile not creating new people who will then be used in this scheme is an imperative if you dont want to use people.

Yes, optimism and pessimism are inheritable. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That seems too blanketed. One can be a pessimist born of (more) optimist parents (obviously, optimistic enough to at least have children). But I can believe that part of the dispositions for being of pessimistic temperament is genetic.

Very good question indeed.
But I am afraid that if someone cannot perceive it by himself, he has no choice but seeing it as fiction and what I said about it and evil would sound to him as non-sense. — KerimF

Sounds Neoplatonic in some way or Augustinian. Evil is defined as the absence of good. Good here is similar to 'true love' I guess. But even this still has to be explained.

Certainly what matters is people's social relations, and how one fits in the context of a human society. All this other speculation is secondary. If you are living off nothing but dirt, speculation on "true love" or holes filled in the crystal lattice structure of an electron band, don't mean a thing. One's thoughts are roughly compared to how many needs are already being met in the realm of survival and comfort. Then one can have time for speculations on abstract things. Ascetics try to do all at once. Survival, comfort, and contemplation are tied into all of life. A truly true ascetic would be somehow desireless and starve to death with no care in the world. Impossible, sure. Every mythos needs a heroic journey of the participant. The grand nirvana of the Buddha or Bodhisattva, the Saint, the Mystic, the adherent, etc.

Of course, for the ascetic to be desireless, they have to have lived the construct of a desiring human. They had to have been built up by social construction in order to deconstruct through ascetic practice and contemplation. Even turning away from the desiring itself is conceptual. But Buddhist philosophy tries to get to the non-conceptual and get "beyond" concept. Zen, is especially fond of this idea. However, is it possible to get non-conceptual? Not sure. That is an interesting concept.

I find it interesting when patterns of relations, people interacting in aggregate can itself be an "entity" which then can do things like "use" people. But there it is. Institutions are set up, norms are perpetuated, and these need feeding. YOU are helping in "feeding it", carrying the patterns and institutions out. So thus, the aggregate entity of society, is indeed "using" you.

Actually, when and where 'true' love is supposed to exist but fails to do, we may say evil replaces it.
Similarly, scientists define the notion of 'hole' in electricity. It replaces an electron during its move (electric current). — KerimF

What is 'true' love? How does 'true' love logically entail evil replacing it an immediate consequence? Is evil that which is not 'true' love? That's a broad definition of evil at the least.

Ah! But it's not so simple. The less of a bad example one is, the more of a good example one becomes. One gives up a position in Bad Inc. only to fill one in Good Inc. To make the long story short, one hasn't been able to break free from being perceived as nothing more than an object of utility, some utility. — TheMadFool

I mean, if you are born, you are being used most likely by society, as much as you are using society. You consume and you "produce" for some organization which gives you money so you can buy stuff that others had a hand in producing. I don't see this as a positive thing, mind you. We are always being used if we exist in some social context. Our cells use up energy until they die and then contribute to the energy of the soil where possibly other biological organisms grow. Or at least energy is distributed in some other way upon death, if not adding nutrients to soil.

Here, it is clear that the evil is the institution of slavery and God doesn’t favor this evil; however, the text listed above also implies the idea that instead of forcing or coercing someone to do something, it is more of God’s will to give guidance and gradually lead someone to the good path, because making people voluntarily realize their sins and return to goodness is the more meaningful way which can truly defeat the evil and guide people to the goodness. Thus, ultimately, I don’t think God has the desire to eliminate all evil directly; instead, I think that despite he doesn’t favor evil, he somehow intentionally puts evil in the world and considers it as a method to strengthen people’s faith and guide them to ultimate goodness. — Isabel Hu

So then God puts people in a game where one must be harmed and go through trials and tribulations to prove their "goodness".
A) This seems petty-like the mindset of a petty human basketball coach or sports enthusiast. I guess the ole Bible says humans are made in God's image. It sounds like God is made in human's image here. God the grand inventor of the sport of overcoming evil and being good. Boring at the least.

B) God would be kind of a prick to put people through evil just so they can "realize" how to overcome it. Again, another case of God invented from human constructs of reality.

In a way, procreation is very akin to this. Have children, watch them go through the trials and tribulations of life, and overcoming various obstacles. Seems like a game that doesn't need to be foisted in the first place. But don't speak ill to your master, he is jealous, angry, and apparently his day job is cursing the ungrateful who don't respect or pray to him. Because again, this is apparently how an "almighty" being operates. I guess a petty jealous, angry cursing god is more interesting than an indifferent, deadbeat one.

that sounds strange to me. Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe this isn’t suited for this forum, but are optimistic or pessimistic dispositions genetically inherited? — Albero

That's a good question, cause if that is accurate, its a very Lamarckian error in his understanding of inheritance.

just curious, but have you ever heard of non-academic philosopher David Pearce? Like you he is an anti-Natalist, but also a negative utilitarian. However, he’s not in favour of any world exploder arguments because he believes that transhumanism will solve what he calls “the Darwinian predicament”; and with future technologies we can bio-engineer suffering out of our existence. Personally I think this belongs in the realm of science fiction, but these ideas are nonetheless interesting — Albero

Yes I've heard of him. Can you explain his actual NU argument though? As far as I know, he is mainly saying that we should strive for a transhuman end point where there is no suffering. However, to get to this point, it seems like he would allow more people to be born to do so. This again sounds like aggregate utilitarianism whereby people are used for a greater cause. Perhaps I am wrong, about allowing more people born for this cause. It does sound like science fiction either way, and doesn't justify creating more people, even if it is for the sake of reducing future suffering.

If I was to pretend I was an anti-natalist, this more deontological approach seems a lot more consistent to follow. The negative utilitarian one I mentioned completely disregards the preferences of existing beings in favour of reducing them to mere vessels of utility juice (not sure if that came out right, lol) which I don’t really like. I respect David Benatar himself for saying he wouldn’t press the universe exploder ether — Albero

Yep. I really don't like most utilitarian arguments in the realm of ethics that "aggregate" things and have no regard for the individual person. Thus, any "greatest good for greatest amount" or "Least harm for greatest amount" will lead to silly conclusions and as I said, discount the individual. This itself is unethical, as it uses people for a strict principle.

However, in the realm of government and politics, I don't have as much problem with utilitarianism, and I don't think there is a way around it when you are dealing with large populations.

Yeah seems that way to me as well and indeed crazies are everywhere.

I would like to say that I think a strong antinatalism takes into account the dignity of what could be the potential person, and not treating them as an mere means to an end. Thus, preventing future suffering is one way of honoring this. No ONE is deprived, yet the consideration of not creating unnecessary harm is perfectly kept. The child is not used for some vision of what the child should do or become. He is not living for a third-party reason. Often what is thought to be "for the sake of the child" is really just visions of what the child may or may not do in a social setting. This would be using the child as a "player" in a game. People think this is moral, but I think it should be questioned.

If I was to force something like work for you to deal with, and say "sure you can try to get out of it if you want" but by doing so you will surely die a slow death, that really isn't much of a choice. I foisted circumstances that are basically inescapable and thus have ignored any regards for you, the player of this game, just looking at you as someone who will "surely" want to play.

Edited to provide context.

The YouTuber Inmendham (the creator of efilism) has argued once that he would murder a woman if he ended up getting her pregnant to prevent further suffering, and has also stated it’s a moral good to kill the outdoor cats that roam near his property. Not only that, but in the various debates he’s had on YouTube he never argues in good faith, and usually ends up leaving the debate in a fiery, screaming rage littered with abusive remarks. His actions are anything BUT ethical, and he makes antinatalists out to be a super villain death cult. Luckily Inmendham is very obscure and rarely gets attention these days, but I don’t think it’s a good thing for antinatalists to accept his conclusions — Albero

Based on what you said, agreed. Certainly Antinatalism is about alleviating suffering as much as possible. It should be a passive and (not sure if right term) "gentle" philosophy. I am totally against negative utilitarianism to its logical conclusion, such as the "Big Red Button" scenarios. If you are unfamiliar, that is something like, if you can end everything painlessly with one red button, would you do it? Of course no, because there is individual human agency. Ethics is nothing if it doesn't start at the level of individual agent for whom which it is their very suffering you are trying to prevent. It is not some monstrously anti-human/life credo. Thus, anyone that characterizes antinatalism as thus is doing it a deep disservice. However, that being said, I don't think @Zn0n was that way, he simply referenced an idea associated with the YouTuber you mentioned. To be fair, any philosophy can be twisted to make it on the villainous side- this is no different. Nationalism in regard to pride in country can be okay in small doses. Taken to the extreme, it leads to xenophobia and bigotry. It goes the same with anything.

Pretending that we require the consent of some non-existent, imaginary person seems nonsensical. — NOS4A2

Youre being ridiculous. We went over this before. If this line of reasoning is followed, then if someone who would be born, we knew was 100% going to be tortured, we wouldnt consider that future person at all because they werent born yet. So essentially the person has to be born and tortured for this consideration to be relevant. Ridiculous.

Is it wrong for a pigeon to shit on my car? Is it wrong for a shark to prey upon another fish? These organisms are behaving in accordance to their nature.

Procreation is an act of blameless wrong-doing, i.e. foolishness. Is it wrong for a fool to act foolishly, if it is in their nature to do so? There is nothing in procreation to justify, it's just what people do. We might think it is stupid, or that it would be better if they refrained, but demanding people give a rational justification for something that is natural and instinctive is equally foolish. — darthbarracuda

Is it wrong for a pigeon to shit on my car? Is it wrong for a shark to prey upon another fish? These organisms are behaving in accordance to their nature.

Procreation is an act of blameless wrong-doing, i.e. foolishness. Is it wrong for a fool to act foolishly, if it is in their nature to do so? There is nothing in procreation to justify, it's just what people do. We might think it is stupid, or that it would be better if they refrained, but demanding people give a rational justification for something that is natural and instinctive is equally foolish. — darthbarracuda

There's a lot to unpack here, but the crux of this is that procreation is instinctive. Is procreation itself actually instinctive or a consequence, rather? Humans have preferences which they often like to fulfill, but there is no inevitability or mating season or anything like that. Even sex itself, might not be considered "instinctual". Rather pleasure is enjoyable and people tend to act on what is enjoyable if permitted, I would say.

Amor fati - and stop whinging vacuously about it. — 180 Proof

See here:

If you can't beat em, join em even harder, with more enthusiasm is just not knowing where else to go, and also a not-so-subtle "man-up!" philosophy.. Typical 19th century macho bullshit. How much stache does Nietzsche need.. Drinking his own kool-aid. Keep climbing those alps Nietzsche-pants. — schopenhauer1

No we're not. I know perfectly well what you meant. You said:

I understand Camus' "must be happy" as Sisyphus (every human's proxy) deriving dignity from rebelling - striving - against, or opposing, or refusing to be defeated by, or not conforming - reducing oneself - to, "fate" (i.e. "the gods"). — 180 Proof

I take it to mean that the striving in itself has a higher meaning.

If Camus means "rebellion against the gods" in terms of being against the fate- let's say via pessimism/antinatalism, that's one thing. His thing however, like Nietzsche, is to accept fate, and accept the conditions. Thus rebelling for him, means liking the bads and goods. That I can't get on board with.

(B) I guess. Well, it's not. Whatever happens to a tree is not "caused" by planting the seed from which it grew. — 180 Proof

Didn't address the problem with your question of why justification is needed in the first place on this issue particularly (as compared to any other issue affecting others).

But the decision is to have a life. Life has known and unknown kinds and quantities of pain. That should be a factor when considering affecting another person's life.

Is that (A) "I don't know why" or (B) "I think it's self-evident why"? — 180 Proof

Causing conditions for which people will experience suffering, is a weighty matter, a moral one. At the least it is a core existential question that one must grapple with. Is bringing another life into the world something one ought to do? To simply say, why question any matter that affects another person, to me seems to be arguing out of bad faith, because I am sure in many other realms you are willing to entertain arguments for justification (for example, theft, intentionally causing harm to others, etc.).

If you can't beat em, join em even harder, with more enthusiasm is just not knowing where else to go, and also a not-so-subtle "man-up!" philosophy.. Typical 19th century macho bullshit. How much stache does Nietzsche need.. Drinking his own kool-aid. Keep climbing those alps Nietzsche-pants.

Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus?... Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal? — Friedrich Nietzsche

As I just said in another thread: Contra Nietzsche's maniacal howls, no this universe with its pain is not utopia. Again, maniacal embracing of what already exists isn't philosophy, its simply making do, at its utmost logical conclusion.

It can be easy, in any philosophical topic, to be bogged down in word semantics. Whether or not it is 'bad' that no life exists on a foreign planet, I maintain that if every life that could be created would experience net positive, it would be the morally correct thing to bring them into existence. — Down The Rabbit Hole

A) Besides some rough estimate at the end of one's life, I don't think one can really tell their own estimate if their life on whole was a net benefit at the point of being interviewed. (You mentioned optimism bias for example).

B) More importantly, I don't think positives and negatives are weighted the same when compared with their absence. An absent pain is indeed always good. An absent pleasure doesn't matter. It isn't really a moral obligation or consideration, especially on its own without someone there to be deprived. In a way a universe without suffering, tedium, drudgery, agony, etc. is the most moral universe. Just because this may also be a universe without self-aware beings, so be it. I think sometimes people imagine themselves trapped in nothingness or something. That's not even nothingness, just a projection of someone onto the concept of nothing, as one cannot square that circle as a living being, and fears of the unknown color our bias here.

C) Just because something like 51% of life vs. 49% of life is considered (to one's biased self) as positive, doesn't then mean that the suffering is thus magically justified. Pain just isn't symmetrical to benefits. While pleasure/happiness is good to have and desirable, the pain one must endure is even more so undesirable. The pain is the problematic part of the equation. It taints the whole thing. Thus if happiness is to only really be had from its contrast with pain, all the more suspect it is as a vehicle that is deemed good and justified to promote on behalf of other people. As I've said before, anything short of utopia may be wrong conditions to create for another human. Contra Nietzsche's maniacal howls, no this universe with its pain is not utopia. Again, maniacal embracing of what already exists isn't philosophy, its simply making do, at its utmost logical conclusion.

Tell me/us why 'procreation' ought to be "justified". — 180 Proof

C'mon. So any action is justified?

Again, the only pain that is truly bad is the pain you can't fix. Most of us don't have that. Pain and suffering come and go, and there are other ways to cope with it when we cannot address the underlying cause of the pain itself.

I just don't understand why experiencing pain would be an argument against existing. Could you propose why? — Philosophim

If we are deciding that we should continue another person (a next generation), and one of the considerations is suffering. Why on Earth would you think that exposing people to pain is good? What you seem to be saying is that physical pain evolved for some evolutionary purpose. So what? Just because something might have arose from a utilitarian or natural cause, doesn't mean that it must be good. That is a naturalistic fallacy. Hurricanes in themselves are interesting events. Hurricanes that cause mass devastation, not so much. Pain in itself, well, okay.. that has a context, and usually when you ask a person in pain they are not (during the painful event) going to give you a soliloquy about isn't it funny how pain arose from evolutionary reasons to tell us something is wrong?

At times I find life really painful but I do think life can be worth living because we can create and find ways of overcoming physical and emotional pain in most instances. — Jack Cummins

But this is the exact justification for procreation that I am arguing against. Perhaps it is unjustified to create new people in a reality that has any suffering short of a utopia. Can we at least entertain the idea that this excuse that suffering is needed so people can have the joy of overcoming it, might be a defense mechanism, like a post-facto excuse for allowing more people to be exposed to harm?

Also, I didn't even mention the grey, neutral states that are not really good or bad. I dealt with this in another thread, but I stated that there are a lot of things throughout the day that can be replaced by sleep, and we really wouldn't care, or we might even welcome sleep over the tedium. Again, we might overcome the tedium but then we are back with the "joy" of overcoming a negative state which again seems like a defense or post-facto excuse for having to endure them in the first place.

Contrary to Benatar's Asymmetry, I believe it is the net experience that matters. To take it to the extremes to prove my point, I would take some minor negative experiences for a life otherwise full of pleasure, but I would (obviously) not take some minor positive experiences for a life otherwise full of pain. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I think his point is that missed "benefits" are not "bad" unless an actual person is deprived of them. However, he sees missed "negatives" as indeed ALWAYS a good thing, even if no person is around to know that there are missed negatives. I think that asymmetry is the crux of his particular argument. He gives some intuitive arguments like people not caring if a distant planet is vacant of happy people, but probably feeling bad for a distant planet where people are experiencing bad things.

Thus, there is just something about preventing bad which outweighs in some regard missed happiness. This obviously has the most bearing in the scenario of procreation, where one can prevent all badness which is more important than missed happiness (which wouldn't matter anyways since people won't exist to care).

Pain that you can fix is good. Pain that you cannot is torture and unnecessary suffering. — Philosophim

If we know pain and suffering exist, why then would it be justified to bring more people into a world with known and unknown amounts of pain and suffering?

So, you think the best solution is to avoid bringing new human beings into the world. I have never brought another human into the world personally but surely the problem of pain is not so great that it means that humans should not be born. Surely, life for future humans may have great possible potential rather than being all negative.

At times during the Covid_19 situation I have even wondered if part of the reason leaders have allowed the virus to get out of control was a means of reducing the population, in a world of diminishing resources. — Jack Cummins

Is it justified to bring someone into a world where there is suffering? Suffering can be defined subjectively or objectively here, it wouldn't matter.

In other words, if reality is not a utopia, is it worth bringing someone into it? How? Just saying there may be more good than bad is kind of avoiding the question. What can justify bringing someone into a world with any suffering in it? Let's say a world like ours.

No. It's good because it makes you pull your hand out of the meat grinder before you lose your whole arm. — frank

@180 Proof

If we know the world has known and unknown amounts of suffering, what is the justification of bringing people into this? I suspect people use post-facto justifications like "We need the downs to know the ups!" and that "Pain brings some sort of redemptive quality or makes people better." So it is about justifications around pain that people do regarding procreation. They want to co-opt it and circle the square, but I think it is not justified.

If a reality has pain and suffering in known and unknown quantities, then there is no justification to put more people in this situation. Pain is not redemptive. It does not make life better. It is a post-facto way of justifying putting people in conditions where they will inevitably suffer. See Khaled's argument here as well: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/460245 . So I am not discussing the evolutionary origins of immediate physical pain as you are discussing, but how people justify pain and suffering when creating new people. How does one justify bringing people into a reality that has pain and suffering?