"From nowhere" like thoughts or moods ... The relationship of sex to pregnancy is statistical not deterministic - not a matter of volition. Not "nowhere" but somewhere other than the couple's (coupling's) choosing. — 180 Proof

This still doesn't matter to the argument- a moot point. The parents can prevent the outcome of conditions of harm caused to another by not procreating. Period.

Strawman. The "already born" who procreate are not a "third party" ... — 180 Proof

I'm not referring to the "already born", but whatever principle or hopes that they want for the child to live out.. the reasoning (besides accidental) for having the child.. It MUST be good for the child because I prefer, ergo it must be good for the child sort of thinking.

Your argument "discounts" prospective parents - procreators - as already suffering individuals ... — 180 Proof

I'll defer to @khaled here as I would simply make the same argument.

If frustrating / blocking the desire harms either father or mother or both by not having children, then antinatalism is self-harming. Again, "conditions of harm" are not harm itself ... just as (e.g.) an acorn isn't a tree or a caterpillar isn't a butterfly or breathing isn't singing. — 180 Proof

All harm comes from being born at all. Are we guaranteeing no harm now? No, we know where the causality link starts here. We don't need to know every causal link to determine which action prevents all harm for another person. To presume one CAN start harm for another person because one prefers it, to me would need to be justified beyond "I have high hopes and I'm good at statistical forecasting".

"The best option" is "best" IFF neither "already born" is harmed by not procreating nor the procreated is harmed by being born - both conditions met - otherwise, it violates the prohibition against doing any harm. — 180 Proof

So I believe in not violating the autonomy of the individual. The parent being sad that they can't produce an outcome that can negatively affect another person is not doing this. Again, I refer to @khaled's arguments as they are the same as mine here.

I see it advertised for $4.99 on Kindle and $12.82 on paperback. Not a bad deal. Is anyone willing to purchase it or get it out from their local library? Let me know. We can do an analysis of each chapter.

... then any foundational belief which ends with "... and so we ought to wipe out the human race" is as good a candidate as any I can think of for revision. — Isaac

The result may be the end of the human race. However, it is not the goal, but the consequence of not putting more people into harm.

So to stay on OP, I think that past philosophers would struggle in this venue but that it would truly separate the wheat from the Chaffe and some would adapt and each time struck down would rise more powerful than ever; just like Obi Wan Kenobi, wiser each time. Except for the original actor, who hated the franchise. Hes a bawhair. — Mark Dennis

Yeah, I just find it interesting that we get to read philosophers' "great works" but then have no chance to put them through the scrutiny. They get a pass because they wrote a tome and it provided significance for people who read. But you rarely hear about them constantly having to defend rebuttals. Yet the average person on a philosophy forum has to do this all the time.

From the outset, we can’t demand that anyone does anything, but we can demand that they abstain from doing. — Congau

Agreed

The ideal amount of suffering that a person should cause is zero – an absolute specific number. There is no ideal amount of well-being to be caused. We can only say “the more the better”. However high a number you make (for example the number of people you have made happy in any way) you can always make it higher, and you will never get closer to any perceived perfection. — Congau

Good points.

Causing zero suffering can conceivably be a duty. You will fall short, but at least you will know when you have transgressed. It wouldn’t make sense to claim that we have a duty to cause as much well-being as possible. You would never come any closer to having fulfilled this duty. — Congau

Yep. Yep.

Ethics by no means stops at negative ethics. A person who does absolutely nothing, is not a good person although he doesn’t cause any suffering. Also, when actively doing something to promote well-being, there will inevitably be missteps on the way that will cause suffering, but it is to be hoped that the suffering will be much less significant than the well-being. — Congau

I would agree with this but with a caveat. That once born, we cannot help but making missteps. The procreational decision is the only one where we can perfectly prevent harm without any collateral damage. Someone might say here that if you are supposed to help alleviate suffering, and then cause suffering, then why not the same for procreation? That's why I mentioned that caveat.

My point is that pain has very little to do with suffering and science and technology have thus far mostly treated pain. There are cancer patients that are perfectly content and millionaires struggling with depression. There is surprisingly little evidence to suggest that human suffering has declined over time though pain definitely has. — khaled

Good points...The human animal is hard to satisfy.. and even thinking of it in terms of "satisfaction" might be wrong if it is structural. Satisfaction means that there can be something that will always satisfy.

Not good enough.. I want them getting pelted from intelligent posters from all angles.. just like we do to each other here :D.

Edit: Also, I am saying I think they may not do a great job of the "fast chess" of this kind of forum. You have to think on your feet if you want to answer timely and not weeks or months at a time.

But on the other hand today it's very easy if you let's say have a totally new idea to contact people with similar ideas. Assume you have a radical insight or new approach to something in philosophy. Now if there is absolutely nobody touching similar issues at all, then likely you are simply put it, crazy. But otherwise with search engines you will find in no time people who have similar ideas to you. And if you are truly ahead of your time, then likely those others that have similar ideas will be glad to hear from you too. — ssu

Yes but let's focus on the scrutiny aspect- are the ivory tower academics getting their fair dose of scrutiny? Let us say that in a public philosophy forum on the internet, there are 20% very well-read, intelligent posters, 30% not well-read but are able to pick apart an argument and 50% rabble. Even with those 50% the well-read or adjacent, the scrutiny of the academic gets is always filtered through various levels of publications and/or inter-office emails perhaps from colleagues. Never, is he putting his theories into full scrutiny by all possible types of people. Nor does he have to think on his feet in these scrutinies. Rather he can answer a long essay with another long essay.. But there could be so much ore to scrutinize that he has not even been made aware of.. Meanwhile people on here are scrutinizing the shit out of everyone else's philosophy. It's a whole other ballgame.. Let me ask you, would academic philosophers want to put themselves into this much scrutiny? Instead of writing a book and letting others defend it THEY would have to defend all points themselves from any direction from any angle.

I still don't understand where you're going with this. If all you have are some unsupported first principles which (on the face of it) are quite odd, and so unlikely to be shared, then what purpose could possibly be served by stating them?

You can't realistically hope to convince others to hold them too - after all, you can forward no rational argument for having them in the first place. You can't expect anyone to be drawn by the consequences - the extinction of the human race. So what is it that compels you to keep writing this stuff? — Isaac

I always claimed that this starts with agreeing with the first principles. That is all philosophy can do... "If you believe X, Y, Z, it should entail 1, 2, 3".. If you don't believe that the only ways are by picking out elements that you disagree with and seeing what it is that you would disagree about that and then seeing if at the end you really disagree with it, or you disagree with some of its consequences. If you do disagree with it, then it can be shown that what you disagree with has implications that you may also not like and maybe reconsider the original. However, at the end of the day, the first principles are where it ends. I do not think there is a perfect Categorical anything Kantian style that may be in some undisturbed land of pure rationality that I can get you to. This goes for any ethical debates... you weigh the merits and see any drawbacks and see if those drawbacks can withstand defense.

They likely fell to similar responses in their time. It's only when the later generations respect the philosopher. I think it's highly coincidental that someone is put on a pedestal and treated as an important philosopher. What isn't so random is that schools of philosophy emerge in an distinct period of time.

How much would we know about Socrates without Plato? How much would we know about Greek philosophy if the Persians would have destroyed all Greek cities and communities and replaced the people in Greece with some other people and hence utterly annihilated Greek culture? Yet a philosophical school interested in math and logic and creating a basis for proto-science is something that likely would have happened sooner or later even without Socrates et al. — ssu

Yes similar point as above.. Doesn't it seem like a lot of times the original writers of these philosophies don't actually have as many opportunities for scrutiny that a public forum would provide? It seems they can write something give some lectures, have a friendly debate amongst colleagues and call it a day. Let the students and the others interpret and debate.. What if a Wittgenstein had to defend his work in a public forum?

That's why philosophy classes are often structured such that you read some passages from primary sources in advance of a lecture about that topic, then write about the topic in advance of a discussion group about it. Reading, lecture, writing, discussion, 'round and 'round, filling out your breadth and depth of philosophical knowledge and establishing a well-grounded but agile footing for your own philosophical thought. — Pfhorrest

An interesting thought from this is I guess, how well tested are these philosophers that have famous works? All these criticisms and a lot of times its just other people trying to interpret and defend the originals' ideas. But what of the original writer? They perhaps never put themselves to the scrutiny that all of us in a forum must do when writing in this kind of public platform. How much are they open for defenses? I see more writing and lectures than I do debates. Even if there are debates, it is between one or two others or a small cadre, not an open forum. Again, I think the analogy is apt for "slow chess" and "fast chess" here.

I would like to see your argument in a logical form, as i can not imagine such an argument which does not beg the question or has premises that i have no reasons to accept. — HereToDisscuss

All logic starts with premises. You would just reject that, and it would be a waste of time.

Yes. Why avoid causing suffering? — Isaac

My feeling with all these antinatalist arguments is that they're putting the cart before the horse. They name some ethical principle which (unless you're religious) can only have been derived from some aspect of human nature. Then they use this one ethic to suggest we should ignore a whole series of other aspects of human nature (the desire to procreate, a feeling of belonging, a sense of community etc).
I just want to know - why pick that one. — Isaac

I've always said that it basically goes down to first principles. If agreed upon, then it is about whether they are applied consistently.

If you want me to defend the first principles themselves, I can give several reasons. The first principles to do no harm and to not force others would be respecting the individual as an autonomous being that might have choices (like not wanting to be forced or harmed). This is also not using the individual for another thing (perhaps a preference you would prefer from that individual). Thus the highest respect for the individual would in negative ethics. Since it is individuals where ethics is ultimately realized, this again would be a respect for the individual. It is based on individualistic notions of ethics- that it is actual individuals that must be considered. Procreation sets the conditions for harm to an individual, it also forces their hand. The decision to not procreate prevents both of these.

So I'm just wondering what the point would be. Why not cause suffering? — Isaac

The point of not causing suffering?

I'm wondering specifically if you have any other ethics or if this radical non-aggression principle is your only aim. — Isaac

You phrase it with such hostility though, so it already puts me on a defensive footing. Non-harm and non-aggression (when possible when dealing with autonomous beings) can be the basis for many actions (that may be construed as ethical). So there are really two principles at play there. Do we have a positive "duty" to alleviate suffering? Sure. I would say that it is a very good principle to follow and should be but not at the behest of violating negative ethics.. alleviating suffering by causing this new suffering sort of thing. Or in the case of experimentation.. not experimenting with some people to see if we can get a better outcome with other people.

So no one has any duty to alleviate suffering? — Isaac

I would formulate it a bit different- duty to not cause harm when possible. If I forced you into a game whereby you would be harmed, because I thought it would be better for future generations, that is problematic. The locus of ethics should be the individual, not a utility calculation.

The anti-natal theme in Christianity is quite strong, in the monastic tradition, the celibacy of priests, the Shakers, Cathars, and the general notion of the fallen state of man and the vale of tears. And it ends in apocalyptic fantasies of rapture, second coming and so on.

My question isn't really about relationships, but about the morality. The Shakers were anti-natalist and their way of life did not survive. So there is a pragmatic moral principle that anti-natalists should have children to spread the word. Rather like the Bodhisattva reincarnating after enlightenment... — unenlightened

I see what you're saying, but you will know my answer. It wouldn't be right to use current generations in a "greatest good" principle, to benefit future generations.

I didn't ask you how you know there are such people. I asked you how you know there 'always will be' such people, which is the claim required in order to support your position. — Isaac

It would be my position not to use people in present generations (cause conditions of harm for them) for future generations to be better off.

And i will accept this conclusion that is prima facie counter-intuitive. What is wrong with it? — HereToDisscuss

One actually encompasses and respects the individual, and not using them. The other is in a locus that is not where the ethical concerns lie. An principle does not feel pain, people do. Wanting people to be happy and doing something for the principle of happiness are two different things. But it really becomes egregious when the third-party entity is not just happiness (as this can be construed as trying to make the largest number of individuals happy and thus possibly bypassing this argument of third-party), but things like "humanity", "civilization", "technology". People need to be born to keep these kind of things going. That would be a very poor argument for putting conditions of harm on others.

But even the greatest good or principle of happiness (positive ethics) can be flawed because it is also using people as autonomous individuals for ends that violate this. Thus agreeing that you will put someone in conditions of harm (procreation) because they might experience happiness later on is still using people (by being forced into harm) in order for some greater good principle (some positive experiences) will be some hoped for outcome for that person. It is overlooking the person's autonomy represented by being someone who can be harmed and who can be forced for some hoped for positive outcome. Why did someone's harm and non-aggression (being forced) need to be violated to see some outcome (agenda) come about?

It was a weaker form of my view that negative ethics entails that we ought to destroy all human life-which was the main topic the whole time. The weakened version was that.
Do you agree with that at least version? If not, which part of my reasoning was wrong? — HereToDisscuss

No because you are violating those who are still here. Somehow your reasoning is stuck in this "greatest good" calculation which this ethical system would not endorse. At least that's how I am reading it. If you feel I've misinterpreted you somewhere, ,let me know.. From what you are saying, we can prevent all future violations by doing a little violation now. That would be exactly the thing I would be advocating against. That's why people often procreate.. by thinking that causing of conditions of harm don't matter as long as X, Y, Z comes from it.

Certainty is a state of mind. It is an indulgence, people like to think that what they know is certain. However, it is not conducive for a philosopher to take such a dogmatic view, hence it is best forgotten. — A Seagull

However, being uncertain at all moments can be harmful to individuals and lead to any action being acceptable. At the same time, if viewed differently, uncertainty might itself be a good basis for a morality of negative ethics. We are uncertain if my "good" is something you or someone else would prefer, therefore I shouldn't force my view on you or force anything on you if I can help it. It can be a justification for the non-harm and non-aggression principles. Do no harm nor aggressive acts towards others when possible, even if you have good intentions.

So what would be my position if my daughter were so miserable as to wish she had never been born? what would be my responsibility if she were a tedious repetitive proselytising anti-natalist? Should I be proud or ashamed? — unenlightened

Haha, you giveth and taketh away.. I would say love them nonetheless and realize that they have a viewpoint on existential conditions of life itself, which is much more than most people who don't reflect on any of it. That is something to be proud of. Some people just blindly follow religion, some people just go through the motions and don't think about it, some people just get manipulated by social cues, some people bother not to think outside the box at all or about anything bigger than the next pleasurable thing. Some people have no philosophical inclination whatsoever. Realize it would probably have nothing to do with how you "raised" them, you probably raised them just fine or the best way you thought how. Nothing to be ashamed of there. You also shouldn't feel bad too. You did what you thought was right at the time. But, I am curious what would a good answer be for you? Should the child feel shame? Is disrespect the only attitude that one can take from the child's/monster's complaint? It might not be anything personal at all to that particular parent, but rather the conditions of life itself. In fact, one of the latest events I saw was an Indian man in his 20s sued his parents for having him (for some small amount of money or something). It was of course thrown out of court. The parents and that man get along just fine and kind of kid with each other, kind of wink/wink.. yeah you shouldn't have been born, but we get along great kind of thing. So I don't think being an antinatalist is mutually exclusive with poor relations with children, that is if the child would even be vocal about it to the parents. See article here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-47154287

I'm also of the view that we are all part of a single being (us and all life), that giving birth doesn't create a new being out of nothing but that it shows us another part of that being, so in that view we suffer because the whole being also suffers, and then it doesn't create new suffering to give birth, what creates new suffering is how we treat others and ourselves. In order for the whole being to get better we have to care for one another, if we simply all stop procreating then other forms of life will take our place, and if somehow all life in the universe disappears then the whole being would simply create another universe and start again. Maybe the way to reduce suffering is neither suicide nor antinatalism, but love. There are so many things we could do to make the world a much better place, so let's keep working in that direction, let's try everything before giving up, the way I see it we have barely begun. — leo

Again, I applaud your positivity and good-spirit, but I would just have to say I disagree with this perspective-especially because of its conclusion (more people will be born and suffer that can be prevented). So in regards to other forms of life taking over, that may be so (who is to know how evolution goes and whether it creates self-reflective beings at our level.. probably not though), but the point is once self-reflection can obtain in the species, then they also have to make the same moral choices of whether to bring people into the world that has suffering or rephrasing it, that creates people bound to suffer.

As far as the love over antinatalism thing, I don't think it is a binary choice necessarily. One can abstain from procreation and promote love. I would get on board with it. Sadly, the everyday messiness of the world often demands that we demand stuff from each other, and "love" the mooshy good feeling can turn into other things. This especially goes when stuff is on the line (products and services need to get produced!!). So, there is some realities that are not amenable to "love".. Managers gotta do what managers gotta do.. People will feel they deserve more, are better, understand more.. are resentful of those who aren't living up to certain ideals, etc. etc. You can probably name a whole bunch of real life scenarios with even just a small group of people where "love" simply breaks down due to the conditions that are mitigating factors, personalities, education, background, beliefs, how people think.. The variations and factors that distort "loving relations" are mind-boggingly complex and multi-faceted. So in the end, though a great notion, I think it just falls flat in terms of how it plays out. However, I am all for people having more compassion and pleasant relations in all aspects of life.

If some people want to give up that's okay, and if they want to share their views on antinatalism that's okay too, but it would be a sad thing if somehow antinatalists came to rule the world and force everyone to stop procreating against their will no matter the suffering they cause. If existence doesn't end with death in this universe (which I firmly believe) then that would cause more suffering than it would prevent. But the way I see it you don't force your beliefs onto others, so if it's therapeutic for you that's good.

Indeed we're all in this together, but while you see the problem in life itself, I see the problem in what we do with life :flower: — leo

I will reiterate that I do not believe antinatalism should be forced onto anyone. Actually, that goes against the non-aggression rule which should be followed. No one should be forced into anything (one reason for antinatalism actually), no matter how much you think it is "good" to do what you are going to force onto that individual or individuals. So agree with you there.

Julio Cabrera has some interesting arguments, and I agree with many of them when considered from his point of view, as I do yours. Cabrera is reacting to what he calls ‘affirmative moralities’ - which is not the same as ‘positive ethics’, by the way. Affirmative moralities lack a negative perspective - they seem to be ignorant or in denial of the necessity of pain, loss, lack and humility, not just to experiencing life, but to existence. By ‘Affirmative morality’ Cabrera refers to a positive ethics that fails to acknowledge its own limitations. But Cabrera’s (and your) ‘objective’ and universal evaluation of these necessities as ‘harm’ is an equally limited perspective. — Possibility

I'd probably agree here- positive ethics is not quite the same as affirmative ethics, as he uses the term, but there are parallels. One of these being that the negative is overlooked for the positive/affirmative, or rather one is violated for the other.

But a non-judgemental view of pain from all possible perspectives of existence (not just of life) shows it to be simply an awareness that energy, effort or attention is necessary to adjust to change. That we accept and even invite pain in our life as evidence of effort or resilience in an ever-changing world is not to suggest that pain is ‘good’ instead of ‘bad’, but that it is both - and ultimately neither. In a universe where change is ubiquitous, it’s understandable that pain is a fundamental experience, so it seems ridiculous in this light to call it ‘harm’ - as if existence without instances of pain were possible - or to include all possible instances of pain in a single moral perspective. The negativity of pain stems from its significance to our experience of life, not from its meaning. By understanding the meaning of pain as both positive and negative, we can make more effective use of it as an informative experience. — Possibility

I am not sure, but I believe we've had this conversation before. If so, I probably brought up that this is very close to Nietzsche's idea of "beyond good and evil". In other words, there is no good or evil, suffering isn't actually "bad". Rather, suffering provides meaning and we should bask in its radiant glow of significance-making. I think this is just subversion of pain in order to justify it. If the conundrum is that life has pain, if we make pain "good" then we can justify its existence. I just don't buy it being "good" or providing "significance". In a world without pain or suffering (if we want to split the concepts in whatever self-styled manner), even the pain of not having a bit of pain to make life more significant would be there. So I guess this goes down to the metaphysics of pain. But even if we were to say that reality MUST have pain for X reason, we can simply say that we don't need reality then. In other words, no one has to experience it in the first place. And precisely the antinatalist notion that NO ONE actually misses out by not experiencing anything in the first place. There really is not much of a counterargument to it except the notion that people must be born to experience X, Y, Z experiences (perhaps your collaboration, etc.). But that then begs the question why? And then we are back to square one. But I think we both agree. So what are we to do about it?

I think we can both make a compromise that the best option is to not procreate. The next best is to promote positivity when we can. That is not contested by me.

Cabrera is correct in arguing that most moralities reject the negative in favour of the positive, but even his own morality exists within a limited perspective of life. When we recognise the limitations of this perspective, we can then begin to understand that what is both ‘bad’ and necessary in this perspective could relate to the broader universe in a more meaningful way than we think. — Possibility

This is a bit murky and pseudo-spiritual. You'd have to explain. My response to this particular sentiment is that you think the universe has some plan or perspective of its own outside of the human perspective. I'd need proof of that. Even if there was a "higher" perspective... how does it affect humans? Think of this idea.. What if a big giant god-like being was watching us and had a completely different view of morality.. to him, our suffering matters not.. How does that affect us, the sufferers? Of course, this is a terrible view to start.. I really don't want to bring religious hodgepodge into this.. It leads to all sorts of non-real/non-relevant rabbit-holes (in my opinion). We mine as well talk about what we know at hand- the human perspective and what we can agree to be the case.

Procreation, regardless of whether we consider it good or bad from whatever perspective, is objectively not necessary. I think that’s the important thing that everyone needs to understand. But the ignorant will continue to believe it is what they are supposed to do, for whatever reason. Most of those reasons are directly related to their value systems, their moral perspective. So you can argue from a moral perspective if you want to, but you’re spending all your time arguing for your moral perspective, which is far more difficult and complex. If that’s your agenda (and I suspect it is), then go for it, and I’ll leave you to it.

But if your agenda is antinatalism, then I would suggest that it’s certainly possible (and more flexible) to argue its merits from an amoral, objective position. — Possibility

Ok, now I'm interested. What would the "objective position" entail?

Well, the discussion was not about that, but if you really want to criticize my position, please do it without assuming that ethics should be based on the individual and not society as that is just begging the question. Why is "overlooking individuals for 'third-parties'" bad? — HereToDisscuss

Because "society" doesn't actually experience suffering or happiness or anything, individuals do. It can be many individuals, but once individuals get reified into an abstract concept "the greatest good" "pursuit of happiness", it goes out of the bounds of the locus of the experience.

Violating the principle by forcing everyone not to procreate is not bad as one is preventing harm from the violation of non-aggression by doing so.
I believe that just entails my conclusion above, which is what i was trying to say the whole time. It is a case of one's non-harm principle and non-aggression principle being violated from something else. — HereToDisscuss

Ok, is this a debating point? You'd have to explain.

I don't. It's my personal choice. I just looked at how I act when it comes to any other situation where one can choose to use another's resources in any way. Most people (including myself) are risk averse in those scenarios. For example if I saw a house I think you like going on sale, I wouldn't just steal your credit card and buy it without your consent simply because there is a chance you don't like it or don't want to spend the money right now. I doubt you would either. So I just extended that to procreation out of a desire for consistency. — khaled

@TheMadFool@Tzeentch@HereToDisscuss@Possibility

I'll try to answer you all one at a time, but this post is about as good a summary as it gets regarding what I am trying to say.. I will answer you, but this is essentially what it will boil down to anyways, just with additions in the particularities of the discussion points you raise.

I believe most homeless people suffer from depression due to the dangerous nature of sexual relationships. I believe many homeless people could find peace by making some sort of peace with their former lovers. Unfortunately homeless people are very often the types to take relationships very seriously which is largely what drives them to for lack of a better phrase "an extreme lifestyle". — christian2017

Interesting idea. This is more geared towards psychology or sociology, but interesting. I'd have to ask for any proof that homeless people are "often the types to take relationships very seriously" as this seems like armchair evidence of such. But perhaps you can elaborate.

If no amount of uncertainty is acceptable, what does this mean for human interaction in general?

It seems to me man can never be absolutely certain of anything. Wouldn't that make all human interaction immoral, in your view? — Tzeentch

So, if we are uncertain about birth, and thus, can prevent any uncertainty, that can easily be remedied- refrain from procreation. Once born, we are bound to violate ethics for each other. That is admitted. But since antinatalism is dealing with the easy route- no actual violation, I see no problem with it. Rather, once born, we make the "devil's bargain" of violating this and that ethics.

"The conditions of harm" are not the harm itself. And there is no "aggression" against an embryo that gestates through foetal and prenatal stages to live birth. Harm and aggression only apply to a sentient human being which a human foetus only becomes once her thalamocortical system is fully connected (enabling pain circuitry and sensorimotor coordination (i.e. functional sentience)) in CNS around 26th week, that is, the last trimester of pregnancy, and then thereafter. Prenatal sentients are always indistinguishably "already born" persons (e.g. premature births); therefore, negating any increase in harm simultaneously reduces hindrances to positive growth and well-being. — 180 Proof

Um, ok. So all of this gestation comes from nowhere. Nothing caused this? You can do better than that. Creating instances of harm so that people can grow from them is like forcing someone into a game and saying that it is character-building and thus is necessary. Forcing anything, and creating harm for other people so that they can "grow" from it is still wrong. It is wrong in almost every aspect of adult life (if you were to do this to another adult), and thus is wrong for the new person born. Let's be consistent in the non-aggression and non-harm principles. If you were paying attention to my other points, there are exceptions where full autonomy is not yet established so that shouldn't even come up as an objection (children, elderly, unconscious, etc.).

Of course, abstinence, contraception or sterilization only prevent conditions of fertilization and pregnancy but do actual harm to the "already born", who desire to procreate, by depriving them - whether by State Coercion (e.g. Nuremberg Race Laws, Margaret Sanger's "Negro Project" (& other U.S. eugenics sterilization policies)) or Ideological Conformity (e.g. millenarian, malthusian, eco-catastrophist, antinatalist, etc) - of procreating. Is this 'desire to procreate' morally wrong? No. That would be accusing them of "thought crime", which like "blasphemy", harms the integrity of persons. There simply aren't any grounds to judge any desires "morally wrong" absent harmful conduct or without aggravating factors in attempts to exercise or fulfil them. — 180 Proof

So none of this applies to antinatalism being that it does not advocate forcing people to comply to this. Thus, this is a huge straw man. The desire might not ultimately be wrong, but the exercise of fulfilling them are. Thus, desire away at procreation.. It is actually having children that creates the conditions for harm.

Your 'metaethical' argument, schop 1, just doesn't hold up under scrutiny which exposes again that it's a false dichotomy; 'negative ethics & positive ethics' entail each other in practice; the choice isn't ever 'either dystopia or utopia' (i.e. mammon or Eden, hell or heaven), but rather to struggle - alone and collectively - with the choice: to do or not to do to anyone what you find hateful, or harmful. The more reasonable interpretation is, I think, (mine) to avoid mitigate or relieve NET harm rather than (yours) to, much less reasonably, (attempt to) prevent / eliminate ALL harm. — 180 Proof

But this your "net harm" which you deem as much more altruistic is actually using people for some third-party's agenda (the "greater good" principle) and thus discounts individuals for some broad principle. Shall we put any principle now as "THE" principle? What would that look like? Surely, something authoritarian at best. But the point is that causing harm to individuals is now justified because there is something that "NEEDS" to take place for that person. Why would anything have to take place for anyone, especially if this means harming the person to make them need that something in the first place?

I don't think so. This just means that (your? Cabrera's?) conception of ethics is (too) ideologically, or rigidly, one-sided to be widely applicable in the "messy" real world. Thus I differ in my metaethical interpretation previously (above). — 180 Proof

I don't think you disproved that once born, we INEVITABLY violate ethics to each other.

Only "no conditions" (i.e. no exceptions, no edge cases, no reflexivity) which your ruleset doesn't account for ... à la Kant's "CI" mistake redux. :roll: — 180 Proof

So "who" loses by not being born?

So what amount of uncertainty is acceptable? Or is uncertainty always unacceptable? — Tzeentch

Well, if you look at the OP you can probably guess my answer, but the answer is no amount if it means that collateral damage will ensue and that by the attempt at getting closer to 100% certainty we are harming people, and essentially experimenting in the hopes of getting closer and closer. However, this shouldn't be surprising as my answer being I laid it all out in the OP itself and have been commenting on all sorts of various rebuttals throughout this thread. I'm wondering if you didn't read it or missing that.

I meant it differently. How can parents of happy children be held responsible for another couple's unhappy children? The way you phrase your previous argument you make it sound like parenting is a combined effort by all parents everywhere. I disagree with this. I think it is an individual effort and it should be judged on an individual basis. — Tzeentch

I'm not sure where you got that because I agree with you.

And you believe this is what makes procreation immoral, no matter how good the "odds"? — Tzeentch

Nope, this is very much just a sliver of the argument. That is why I started a separate thread, because this is the popular one "the odds are good so it's good"! This is what I consider brute utilitarianism. It does not get around the collateral damage objection.

If I were to make this into a table, it might look something like this:

Normal conditions:
Non-aggression followed | Non-aggression violated

Following = good | Following = bad

Non-harm followed | Non-harm violated

Following = good | Following = bad

In the case of one's non-harm principle being violated from someone else:

Non-aggression followed | Non-aggression violated

Following = good | Following = not bad as one is preventing harm from the
violation of non-aggression


With these two sets of conditions for the rule, it is clear that procreation follows under the first rule. That is it is bad because it is violating the non-aggression and non-harm principles. There would be no conditions whereby procreation is justified as, making the move to justify it for positive ethics (e.g. you want them to live out an X agenda of some kind) would in violation of the negative ethical principles and it would be using the individuals (harming them/forcing them) for an agenda (even if for good intentions).

Okay, what does that have to do with anything again? — HereToDisscuss

A lot, because you keep advocating for a greater good principle and I'm saying this is overlooking individuals for third-parties.

Premise A: For every situtation, the principle applies to that situtation if and only if the person affected is fully autonomous (or is autonomous enough) and following that principle will not result in the principle being broken by someone else.
Premise B: Following the non-agression principle in this particular case will result in the principle being broken by humanity. (Because humanity will procreate and thus violate it many times, not to mention will force animals to procreate too)
Therefore, the principle does not apply to this particular case.
If you have a problem with Premise A, then give me your own rule like i said just before the thing you quoted. — HereToDisscuss

I'm still a bit lost here but, here would be my formulation:

For every situation, the principle applies to that situation if and only if the person affected is fully autonomous (or is autonomous enough) and one is not forced into a situation of defending against another's violation of the principle. I disagree with the "broken by someone else" part in your formulation. I am not sure where that was construed from my arguments.

Thus if someone was to steal my stuff or punch me, I can defend myself without actually violating the non-aggression principle. Of course, if I did more than defend and used too much force unnecessarily, or retribution that would be in violation.

Well, there doesn't have to be, unless you believe that parents of happy children are somehow also responsible for unhappy children. — Tzeentch

In a way they are, but only because the parents procreated the children. You cannot force someone into a game, and then say "Well it's YOUR fault for not liking it".

I suppose this ties in with that last line: I don't see how successful parents can somehow be blamed for the failure of unsuccessful parents, which is what I believe you are implying. — Tzeentch

Not quite. I am implying that "successful" parents don't always create successful children. People are not cookie-cutters. There are no guaranteed outcomes for what people are like or what they do, or what will befall them, or what conditions they might face, or how their day-to-day life turns out, or how they view life.

There will be another generation, that generation will have problems to solve. Those are not ideological commitments, they're just inductive beliefs. I have two choices - have children and raise them to help solve those problems, or not have children and leave those problems to someone else to deal with. I can't see any sound ethical position which supports the latter. It sounds like nothing but selfishness. — Isaac

Why should people be used like this? What you are saying is that we must be pressured to violate negative ethics in order fix some X situation. Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, as per my previous conversation, new people born to X, Y, Z factors does not guarantee positive outcomes or only positive outcomes. Collateral damage is still in play.

I'm asking how you know this. — Isaac

Because there ARE people that do not fit the mold. People are not cookie-cutters.

What is 'society' other than 'many individuals'? — Isaac

Okay, I will amend this to make it align with what I am intending. If you are breaking negative ethics (non-aggression/non-harm) in order to fulfill some positive ethics (I think this is better for you, this is better for society), then something has been violated. Thus, forcing someone to live because people MUST pursue happiness... Forcing someone to be born because society MUST benefit from children of certain parents (which is just odd to me anyways in your argument), would be wrong.

I'm pointing out that this new tack of 'experimentation' does not add anything new to your previous approaches. If one agrees with your ethical foundation, then it leads to the position you hold. If one has different ethical foundations, they lead to different positions. Your argument that we should not 'experiment' on future generations does not hold if we hold to certain duties (which would then apply also to future generations). If, rather, we only hold to a radical non-aggression principle, your argument stands, but if we hold to such a position, your other arguments stand too, this latest adds nothing. — Isaac

It adds only in the fact that people often think about things in the brute utilitarian sense, and this is trying to show that this would be a wrong approach. It is a popular one too so I think it should be addressed. .
People will tend to say "most people..." or "well, at least some people...".

Why is it hubristic for me to state that we know how to make people happy, but not equally hubristic for you to say you know there will always be those who don't fit. How do you access knowledge of the human condition which is hidden from me? — Isaac

None of it is hidden. That would be a straw man as I didn't state that or intend it. If you put your two thoughts together, what I am saying, though there might be what some would say are "happy people", there will always be people that don't fit that. That is not hidden, it is right there. So I'm not saying anything we can both see. However, the hubris is to think that X, Y, Z factors of parents and environment will always lead to good outcomes. Further, any tweaking or trying to reduce the collateral damage with each generation is the definition of experimenting with people.

Good point - 'experimentation' suggests raising happy (as opposed to distressed) children is an unknown quantity. We know plenty about how to raise happy children, we know plenty about how to make happy adults. The fact that we're not doing either is social and political, nothing to do with procreation. — Isaac

Again, it is hubris to think we know with certainty such outcomes based on X, Y, Z factors of the parents and environment. We simply don't. Even if there is a tendency, and even if we can define and agree upon what "positive outcomes" are, there will certainly be those who don't fit the mold. Thus, there will always be collateral damage. Also, being that I oppose brute utilitarian anyways, I would like to point out that the epistemology is very tricky here. Living in the moment might be neutral or bad, but reporting "good" to someone who asks you to sum up your life for a study or for the camera, or for a reporter is different. Looking at someone's statistics on a one page report of someone's socioeconomic status, also doesn't reveal as much as you might expect about someone's internal states. However, that is a rabbit hole that I don't want to go down at this moment though tangential. That could be its own thread.

Another poor outcome of utilitarian ethics is that, you can argue that as generations go forward, we can learn more what works to minimize the collateral damage. Well, that would be the definition of using people as an experiment then.

The fact that there exists a distribution between happy and unhappy people doesn't lead to the conclusion that procreation is experimentation. It means that a number of parents are right in their assessment of being able to properly raise children and a number of parents are wrong. — Tzeentch

This I believe to be just a wrong assessment of the information. There is no one-to-one ratio of good intentioned, good child-rearing parents always producing the best outcomes. Humans just don't work in such an if/then fashion. Even if this were the case, there is always collateral damage of those who don't fit this model. You simply cannot get around the collateral damage problem.

This attempt to turn "some procreation is bad" into "all procreation is bad" just falls flat in every regard. — Tzeentch

You have not proven that, and certainly not by posting those few sentences.

So you have duties to another single individual, but not duties to a number of individuals collectively. That seems like rather an odd ethical position. Which individual should we pick when more than one is going to be effected by our actions? — Isaac

I am not saying that ethics does not apply to many individuals at once. Rather, what I am saying is ethics does not apply to some third-party entity or concept (e.g. humanity, the species, society, the greater good principle, life for life's sake, the pursuit of happiness, etc.).

I can't make any sense of this. Either we all simply do as we please (complete respect for autonomy) or we accept duties which constrain our behaviour with respect to the welfare of others. Given the former, there's nothing stopping us having children, given the latter (presuming they are an inherent part of being human) then any children, real or potential, are going to have those duties too. You seem to want to constrain the current generation with ethical considerations, but absolve the next generation of all responsibilities. — Isaac

I don't know where you get that last part about generations. All generations would be constrained by the negative ethical principles of non-aggression and non-harm. Thus, if it is ethically good to not procreate.. if someone did procreate breaking that ethical good, then the next generation is bound by that rule too. What I was saying earlier is that, procreating to "benefit society" would be using individuals for a third-party entity (society) or a third-party principle (the greater good principle), both of which are not at the level of the locus of ethics (which is the at the level of the individual or individuals). One of my points in the other thread is we cannot violate negative ethics for some positive ethics.

But, assuming that you have the power to "prevent" people, by not doing it, you let the 15 billion people come into the world and have their consent violated. Are those individuals not the center of your ethical considerations because they are not born or..? The problem is-in the scenario i presented, it is not only the living people that will be autonomous but rather also the people that are not born yet.
Maybe you should say why you think those are not individuals that matter. — HereToDisscuss

So this would go back to my aversion to ethics based on an amorphous collective or society (like the greatest good principle). Ethics is directed at the individual level, thus at the margins in this case. Also, by destroying already existing people, clearly we are violating non-aggression, that does not need to be stated. Thus destroying current people to prevent the billions of unborn would be violating the non-aggression principle (already a non-starter in this ethical system) and using individuals for an amorphous collective (not individuals). On the flip side, by not having a specific child coming from YOU, you are specifically going prevent an actual individual from being born (and it does not matter at this point which genetic identity it will be). The parent is not violating non-aggression.

But i do not think that is your rule, since we know that people will make babies left, and thus, humanity will break this principle if we continue to follow this principle. Therefore, the principle would not apply to the above scenario.
What exactly is the rule that applies universally? — HereToDisscuss

I'm not understanding how the principle would not apply in this case because "humanity will break this principle".

So it is with this latest incarnation of how evil it is to have kids. We're taking a gamble on the relative consequences for the whole community (or at least, I think we should be - I'm not about to argue that most people make moral choices about having children, I'm pretty sure they don't). — Isaac

I disagree that ethics is at a social level. The ACTUAL entity affected by any decision isn't a social entity, but the individual within that society. So any decision "socially" made is affecting the individual. If you want to talk about politics or social policy that is one thing, but in terms of ethics, anything that overlooks the individual for an amorphous collective would be missing the target. Thus utilitarian arguments for the "greatest good" would be off the table in the realm of pure ethics.

So there will be a next generation. The choice then is - is it better for that community that I have and raise children, or that I don't. — Isaac

Nope, we have now jumped out of the realm of the locus of ethics, which is the individual, for some third-party considerations. This is actually immoral as it is trying to consider how an individual will be used by society. It is using of people for the greater good.

It seems to follow from this that if one considers oneself more likely to raise children more beneficial than average one is obliged to do so. If one is of the opposite opinion, one is obliged to not. — Isaac

Same critique as above applies here.

Given the above, the only remaining issue would be if your, as yet, unborn child also carries that duty. If not, then you'd be imposing on their autonomy. But if such a duty of care were not considered categorical, then we need have no care for the future children in any case, so we must presume it is categorical. Given that, we can be certain that our, as yet unborn, children will inherit that duty. It is therefore no additional imposition on them. — Isaac

I'm not sure what this is getting at, you might have to explain. However, based on what I see here, it is an inbuilt pyramid scheme. There is this duty to society to have children if one would think society would benefit from it, thus always insuring that some new beings must procreate on behest of society. Again, same critique of overlooking individual for some third-party, non-individualistic consideration. The locus of ethics lies at the individual. There is no agenda anyone has to live out.

So the 'experimenting' issue doesn't arise at an individual level. There may be some merit in it at a community level (we're gambling that continuing the human race is overall a good idea), but such decisions (as far as individuals are concerned) have already been made. — Isaac

But it is at an individual level. Some people might live out or be well-attenuated for a "good life" but others will not. The experiment is happening to individuals.

There seems to me to be two main justifications for having children. Either - "I think they'll like this", or "I think they ought to help with this", or I suppose a bit of both. Both are estimates where there's no loss to the individual for not even taking the bet (the antinatalist argument in a nutshell), but both estimates run a risk to the community from not even taking the bet. — Isaac

What risk to the community? Is it even appropriate to talk about "community" in ethics as opposed to the individual?