If I said, in answer to your question "positive ethics should have primacy over negative ethics because I prefer positive ethics" would that be an acceptable answer for you? If not, what would be wrong with it? — Isaac

It would be essentially a tautology. That it is an obvious preference for many is recognized. Why is it preferred though? To what end are we getting out of people born for X positive ethics, for example? TheMadFool gave an example of people pursuing higher levels of Maslow's hierarchy. This is somehow preferable than no experience, but why? I jokingly answered, "in order to get a spiritual dog biscuit at the end of the run for Maslow's self-actualization"? To bask in the glow of self-actualizationhood?

Importance to whom and to what end? — Isaac

To humans, and I'm asking for what end.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs comes to mind. — TheMadFool

I'm ignoring the true complexity of the issue here. The definition of bare necessities changes and as we acquire the items in the lower rung of Maslow's hierarchy of needs they fade away and a new set of bare necessities take their place. I believe this is how it works. — TheMadFool

Right, suffering is more than bare necessities. It encompasses any negative feeling. Undue suffering is surely its own category but need not be the only one. If we define it like that, why does self-actualizing or any other higher levels in Maslow's hierarchy HAVE to be the goal over and above mitigating negative experiences? This ties into the idea that we are on a mission to self-actualize. Why is this mission to self-actualize, or to accomplish things, or to connect with people have to take place above and beyond prevention of bad experiences? Also, being that in reality self-actualization and positive psychology, etc. vascilates with negative ones, it should really be rephrased as to why does the pursuit of the positive experiences become more important than simply preventing negative ones or suffering.

To re-frame this in antinatalist terms. Why does the chance to pursue higher levels of Maslow's hierarchy matter more than preventing all negative experiences? Why experience over non-experience? Do we get a spiritual dog biscuit when we go through the experiences? Is it because we are on a mission to make more people who must self-actualize?

You've just changed the words. What would constitue my having 'justified' it? — Isaac

That is precisely what I'm asking everyone.

How are you determining that the primacy of positive ethics isn't itself an ethical first principle? Do ethical first principles have labels attached identifying them as such? — Isaac

I don't know, tell me how it is. That's what I'm wondering. A person only has to label it such and explain why more important than other ethical theories (in this case negative ethics). Which is what I'd be asking here about positive ethics.

Matters to whom and by what measure? — Isaac

Humans. Ethical first principles.

What would constitue an answer to this question? — Isaac

One where you would justify prevention of harm being less important than X positive ethic.

We can also bring this ethic to the fact that we are forced to live.
Live = good. And from this perspective, euthanasia for example is considered a less of morality.
Socrates said to live, all life in general is like being sick. — armonie

Why does live=good? Why does the principle of preventing harm when you are able (even by simply refraining from procreation, as birth is the source of experiences of suffering) have to give way to positive ethics? What justifies positive ethics over and above a negative one? Simply asserting life=good doesn't seem like much of an argument at this point, though I can see you perhaps starting one with a certain premise that life just "is" necessary. However, this still needs some reasoning and substantiation behind it.

Nothing should be forced, we agree on that. But in my view the concept of ‘force’ is a misunderstanding regarding what determines and initiates action in the first place. All action is determined and initiated by awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion - even the creation of a being. Nothing here is forced - the being exists as a result of the awareness, connection and collaboration of interacting elements, but is also limited to some extent by their ignorance, isolation and exclusion. You can’t force life - everything requires collaboration, and a life can certainly - and often does - refuse to be created or refuse to continue living, despite our best efforts. — Possibility

I think this is a bit of a poor excuse. Imagine using this as a defense against any other aggression. Also, I just don't buy into "all action is determined and initiated by awareness..". Rather, the action is determined by individuals with goals, wants, desires, etc. You are taking onus of the individual and turning into some rarefied, unsubstantiated ether where the parents are no longer the ones actually creating the new human.

Don’t get me wrong - I agree with you that procreation should never be thought of as an obligation, a right or even a privilege, and I think the vast majority of focus, energy and effort put into procreation is wasteful, ignorant and misguided, perpetuated by an insufficient theory of evolution which claims that our purpose is to survive, dominate and procreate, when none of these are necessary AT ALL. — Possibility

Agreed.

Procreation is too often a cop-out: I’ve given up on trying to achieve anything, so I’ll make another human being to do it for me. I agree that this can be seen as ‘forcing life’ - but in my view it’s more accurately ignorance of one’s capacity to achieve. Still, we don’t always create a being so that they can collaborate - often we create one so that we can collaborate. Parenting, when taken seriously, is an opportunity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration both now and beyond one’s lifetime. It’s a noble pursuit, but we should be aware that its positive effect in the universe as a whole is negligible - and coupled with procreation the overall negative effect is potentially much greater, especially given our current level of resource consumption per capita. — Possibility

I agree with the negative effect. But to create someone else because one needs to collaborate is not a justification, even if it is perhaps the case of why people procreate. Why collaboration is more important than causing no harm, or forcing something on someone else is not address except as the idea that it "magically" runs the universe and we can't stop it. However, we can. Just don't procreate. Use your loneliness and do other things with it.

We should be aware that there are many other more effective ways we can connect and collaborate that are less resource-hungry and less dismissive of our own capacity as a human being than creating another being. Plus, we should be aware that there are too many beings already created who desperately need whatever we have to offer any ‘potential being’, to even consider adding to the glut. In that respect, procreation is environmentally, socially and perhaps even morally irresponsible. Contraception, adoption and foster care, for instance, should be considered as much environmental initiatives as social ones. — Possibility

Agreed, but again, these are for different reasons. Even if we didn't have environmental and overpopulation problems, etc. I would advocate antinatalism. It's about not forcing suffering and consistently following the non-aggression principle on others, period.

They recognise the ultimate value of a single human life lies not in surviving, dominating or procreating - not in increasing one’s apparent force upon the world - but in increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with every interaction. Even Jesus could tell you that. — Possibility

This sounds good, but this can be totalitarianism masked as do-goodness. We all have to work, some even in jobs that "make a difference". You can call this collaboration, but so what. It just means we have to be at a certain place, work with other people, produce more stuff, and repeat. Oh, and then we have to buy into the narrative that we are "self-actualizing" by all this "great work of great contribution" we are doing. So the conclusion is, have more people so they can "feel good" about "collaborating". It's just a totalitarianism of the "feel good collaborating sort". Its still an agenda foisted upon the unwitting people who are forced to be a part of it... Even if we lived in the fluffiest of work environments, and we were all environmental justice warriors treating the planet better than we do, that doesn't change the circumstances that I am talking about. Besides the fact that this is not reality, a forced agenda is a forced agenda. Also, no matter what, suffering will take place. Suffering and negative experiences always finds a way.

But it requires us to stop focusing on avoiding harm or suffering, especially in our own life. In this respect, I think the focus of your argument is off. Antinatalism is NOT a movement to reduce suffering, as much as you try to package it that way. This, I think, is a reason for opposition to your viewpoint. You’re accusing people of force or aggression they didn’t intend, and then expecting them to listen to your reasons why. It simply doesn’t make sense on the surface to associate my decision to bring a child into the world with violating your personal principle of non-aggression. — Possibility

It is a force.. You cannot mask the idea that physically bearing another human into existence is a physical "something" that is happening. The person is being brought from state A to state B by another person's decision. How is that not "force"? They may not have realized it, but it is. The whole point is to perhaps show how what at first looks like it doesn't fall under the non-aggression principle in fact does. I understand that most people don't see it that way, but the point is to show the this other viewpoint that they may be overlooking.

In my view it isn’t aggression, but ignorance that needs to be tackled here. We lack awareness of the negative effect: not on a single ‘potential being’ in terms of force or harm, but on the environment or unfolding universe as a whole; and we also fundamentally misunderstand why, as a being, I determined to live in the first place, and what harm I accept in order to do so. — Possibility

You were not determined to live. This is similar to the whole "reincarnation" idea. We "chose" to be here in some spiritual or determined sense prior to birth. That is just a wrong idea regarding cause and effect. We can get into that if you want, but you know what my argument will be by now I'm sure.

Ok can you please clarify where exactly the force in this instance occurs? You will have to be more specific in defining 'forcing something physically' and where the limits around the concept of 'physical force' lie. — Yanni

Sure.. A life was produced where there was none.

Otherwise any action we do could be defined as 'forcing physically'.
Painting a picture can be "forcing something physically" etc. — Yanni

Right, but not to someone else. Unless you forcefully broke into someone's abode and started painting or took their supplies and started painting.

An intuitive definition of 'force' is to 'act against a will', in fact when you gave the examples of theft and extortion earlier in the thread, both examples implied this definition. — Yanni

It's forcing something on somebody. Period. All your pleading all seems like lame ways to get out of this definition

So, whose will do you act against when you have a baby? — Yanni

No one's. At X time the person exists, the force has occurred. I don't care which time X you define it (conception, physical birth, identity, etc.).

Maybe you really did exist in some way before your birth, and you’ll keep existing in some way after your death. — leo

All I have is the information I have now. As far as we know, there is nothing more than what we know through our experiences and senses.

To me, my birth was not an act of aggression. When I was born I didn’t cry, I looked around with curiosity. — leo

My point was other forced acts are considered an aggression, but not this one. Outcomes would not matter, but if we are going to talk about outcomes, there is also collateral damage with this forced action (not just positive experiences). In any other realm of life, if someone forced upon another an action (especially one with mixed outcomes), it would be suspect at best, and deemed wrong at most. The principle of non-aggression was violated.

The extent to which this is ‘wrong’ is dependent upon whether I believe that the external objects and money I possess are a physical extension of my person. Australian Aboriginal culture, for instance, does not consider objects to be a physical extension of one’s person. They don’t value property ownership as such in the same way that we do - or fences, for that matter. As a result, a large number of young children over the years have been punished for trespassing, or incarcerated for ‘stealing’ what was not being used, and from their point of view, was simply there for the taking. It’s difficult to instil into these children that it’s wrong to steal without undermining some of the more admirable qualities of their culture and upbringing. — Possibility

Then they have different first principles regarding property. However, I bet you certain aspects of non-aggression are followed in that culture, and I would simply use that. For example, they probably thought it aggressive when European colonists almost wiped out their whole people and way of life.

If someone thinks that they can change my point of view or beliefs by pointing a gun at me and forcing me to sign something, then they are very much mistaken. They have no idea what it takes to change a belief. — Possibility

Of course, same here. However, it was an aggressive act to try to force your hand, and to compel you in the moment to save your life.

Not all physical harm is ‘wrong’. What we refer to as damage, injury, pain or adverse effect includes all instances of growth, change, birth and death. It is the intent (or lack thereof) behind the action that determines whether it’s ‘wrong’. — Possibility

Non-aggression is non-aggression. Just because you THINK something is good for SOMEONE ELSE, doesn't mean you get to force your view onto someone else, period. That is following the principle consistently. Good intentions on one side, does not mean it is wanted or needed for the party it is directed towards. In this case, birth affects a whole lifetime. That is not a minor thing you are affecting/effecting.

Aggression is forcefulness of feeling or action. Non-aggression is not a first principle in my book. Not a sociopath, though, as far as I can tell. For me, the first principles are awareness instead of ignorance, connection over isolation and collaboration rather than exclusion. What is ‘wrong’ about stealing is ignorance; what is ‘wrong’ about forcing political beliefs is exclusion; what is ‘wrong’ about physically harming someone is a lack of connection.

As for what is ‘wrong’ about procreation, the way I see it, it isn’t aggression or forcing something onto another. Like harm, it’s the intent (or lack thereof) behind the action that determines whether it’s ‘wrong’. — Possibility

Again, this isn't a minor event, you are forcing a life onto someone. You seem to posit an agenda of collaboration, et al over non-aggression. People need to be born to collaborate. But this doesn't make sense. If no one was born in the first place, no one would need to collaborate. So perhaps if we were to compromise, we can say once born, it is best practice to collaborate, but it shouldn't be forced. It certainly shouldn't be force recruited by creating a being so that they can collaborate. Rather, it would be more a post-facto reality of having been born and living with other people.

Also when you say “forcing a baby against their will”
How do we know what constitutes a “will”? We are assuming that the unborn child had a “will” before being born and assuming their will was ‘not to be born’?
Are you not? — Yanni

I didn't say "forcing a baby against their will". There is no baby to force a will prior to birth. Rather, forcing anything physically is an aggressive act, thus violating the principle of non-aggression. It doesn't matter what the later outcome is. You can violate a principle and have it turn out well, that doesn't justify the initial violation.

I just want to add some thoughts about whether a woman's love for children is natural or a preference.

Is the desire for love natural or a preference?

Can you chose to love someone, which would make it a preference?

Is falling in love with someone specific natural or a preference? — Brett

Yes, I wonder this too. This is another case of number 3? Isn't it really just social cues retrospectively attributed to being "natural"? I guess it can be proven we tend to like symmetry, and then form personal preferences for what is found "attractive". We also tend to care a lot about people we form relationships with and get along with. How these relationships form is complex but usually out of loneliness as a driving force. From there the social cues probably takeover as to the significance of the relationships and the goals. Boredom, loneliness, and the preference for physical gratification lead to forming romantic relationships that often lead to deeper bonded relationships of care and concern.

But is that "natural"? I don't know. It see natural as very much "if/then" statements. Thus, an ape in estrus would mate during that time. The females may look for cues of dominance, leadership and other behaviors in the male. I guess that is natural. But perhaps there is even some learning going on there. The daughter ape learns from other females what to look for. I am no ape expert though and I really don't feel like looking up articles on it right now (but you can!).

But in humans the reason we form romantic bonds (besides the physical pleasure) is much more existential. Loneliness and boredom are sort of a human "condition" but is it "natural"? That seems like a category error of sorts to explain a whole host of mental phenomena. Humans have a whole host of options, and things like "religion" and "relationships" and the broad category of "entertainment" are somewhat accessible ways to allay this existential angst and boredom. However, to call this drive to counter this existential angst "natural" is a bit odd. So there is perhaps a category that falls under neither "natural" or "cultural" but just a sort of epiphenomina that happens with intelligent creatures where we don't know what to do with ourselves.

You’re assuming, without evidence, that the state apparatus was used for personal gain in both cases. Except Biden is the only one with the conflict of interest. — NOS4A2

So all that backchannelling with Guiliani to dig dirt up was not for personal gain? Interesting, I didn't know Trump was such a crusader against corruption, and to specifically target a specific case in Ukraine that just so happens to be a person running against him.

Well, he wasn’t. He even gets to brag about his alleged offences while campaigning for office. — NOS4A2

Both would be wrong, but one of the differences that makes this that much more corrupt is Trump is using a foreign entity to dig dirt on a political rival while he is in office. This to me, is that much worse.

Would you suggest Biden be impeached for one, withholding aid, and two, alleged bribery? — NOS4A2

I don't know all the background, but if he did the exact thing Trump is accused of doing, yes.

The big test is if a candidate from the other side did the exact same things, would you want them to be held accountable? Would you give them this much leeway? Would you hold them to the same standard?

Can you elaborate on that a bit more? — Brett

I will simply re-post my whole discussion on the idea of natural from another post I had because it will do a better job than rephrasing it here. See below:

I want a red car, four slice toaster, a number of books, and a maple tree in the front yard. These would most likely be categorized as personal preferences. I want food, water, shelter, and companionship. These would most likely be categorized as "natural" human preferences. But are they? What distinguishes personal preferences from natural/instinctual ones?

I say this because I think the lines are often misdrawn for cases like procreation. Hunger seems to be more on the natural/instinctual side of the spectrum. Whether to read this or that book seems to be on the personal side of the spectrum. Procreation is often put in the natural/instinctual side of the spectrum, but I argue that it should really be on the personal side.

First off, we'd have to distinguish what makes a preference natural. One might argue three ways here:

1) A preference is natural if without it, one is in physical discomfort that eventually leads to death. Hunger, temperature regulation, and thirst would fall into this category. Companionship would not or at least, the link of lack of relationships to death would be much farther removed than the first three.

2) A preference is natural if it brings some sort of physical pleasure that is amenable through what the bodies can produce without "adding" something man-made to it. So sexual pleasure, good tasting food, a warm bath, might bring some sort of chemically-induced good feelings. One can refine this further and say man-made things can count too (like drugs) because it works on pathways that are "natural". Thus opioids work on naturally working pleasure-centers (or pain-blocking centers).

3) A preference is natural if without it, the function of the species is nullified. Thus for example, humans operate using language and social cues. Without being in fully functioning social relationships, the human species would cease to function how the human species operates. In effect, its fundamental nature would change or go extinct. The desire to produce more humans, some might say, might fall into this category, as without it, the functioning of society (and human society specifically) disappears. Thus, psychological and social functions like companionship, achievement, curiosity, and other "higher" social/psychological motivations may fall into this as well.

I believe that 1 is the strongest candidate for what "counts" as natural. The consequences are most apparent as not following the dictates of the preference lead to literal death and catastrophic discomfort and pain.

I believe that 2 is not as strong. The consequences lead to a less stark consequence. Not following certain physical pleasures. However, it is stronger than 3 as a candidate for what is "natural" as the physical pleasures that arise from it cannot really be altered without substantial work. Physical pleasure is physical pleasure, left to itself, with very few exceptions.

I believe that 3 is the weakest. It is very easy to manipulate 3 from a "natural" preference to a socialized norm. What we "think" as social necessities might be simply social conditioning. We "want" this or that preference because humans have a social "need" for it gets very blurry and is rife with personal preferences (shaped from social cues) that masquerade as natural ones. I don't even think this category should be considered as it is too fraught with these types of errors.

Then there are things that don't fall under "natural" preferences at all. These are personal ones. What clothes to where, what kind of bread to get, etc. I think, contrary to what most people tend to believe, procreation falls under personal preference. People conflate several things including physical pleasure, and the centrality of procreation to evolutionary theory, for why procreation is natural. However, that is all it is, a conflation. Physical pleasure indeed may be "natural" (as per category 2), but the consequence (procreation) is not. There are a huge amount of social, psychological, and personal decisions around procreation that are not simply physical pleasure. Procreation certainly doesn't fall under 1 (without it an individual will die a discomforting and tortuous death). Rather, people put it under the vague 3 category of some necessary social functioning. As I tried to argue earlier, 3 is too vague and rife with personal preferences masquerading as "natural" to count as even its own category.

So what is left? What is left is procreation is simply a personal preference like any other personal preference. I want coffee, eggs, and to read the newspaper. I want this cereal and not that one. The preference to procreate is simply one other personal preference, albeit one that impacts a person's life significantly. It still does not meet the criteria of 1 and 2 which may indeed count as natural (though even 2 can be argued against). Being that it does not meet the criteria of 1 and 2, it is thus a personal preference.

My idea about the instinct to reproduce is based on what I observe in the world. All forms of life, conscious and unconscious, reproduce themselves, male animals fight and injure each other to claim a male, animals, male and female, are born with physical characteristics to attract the opposite sex. — Brett

Yeah but yours came from a personal preference.. other animals simply "do" acts without deliberation or personal preference. It is more like a computer program "If I get this input, I will do this output".

Personally I agree that there's something evil or questionable in foisting existence on others. It does violate certain intuitive principles. — Eee

Right on.

To put it simply, you are wasting my time.

I'll ignore you at least for a while. — Coben

So it sounds like answering you would then also be a waste, but I'll answer anyways because I can't let mischaracterized arguments stand.

I am arguing that breaking that pattern bears the onus. My values, which I don't consider objective, include disliking all those things on the list. I would assume when encountering someone who thinks those are ok and can point to a long tradition would consider me to have the onus, especially if they have the power to carry them out in their country or culture. I don't consider them right, but it would be something I would, and do, struggle against. — Coben

The bolded part doesn't make sense to me.. "what" would be something you would do.. not try to end the act that you consider wrong in the long tradition? Anyways, think about the abolitionists- those who wanted to end slavery in the American South prior to the Civil War. They weren't forcing anything, but they strongly advocated. Nothing wrong with that. Vegans do the same thing. Unlike the aggression of forcing life on others, antinatalists don't force their views on others, so this argument is a red herring. It is simply an argument one can take on or not.

The issue is, is it natural. And the answer is obvious. You avoided dealing with the fact that your argument that one can choose not to means it is not natural does not hold, since there are many natural things that we can choose to do or not. Even individual animals may not choose to do the same things other individuals of their species do. This does not suddenly mean the others are not being natural. — Coben

So we disagree with defintions of natural here. You probably didn't read my thread link where I discuss my ideas on this. What I said:
1) A preference is natural if without it, one is in physical discomfort that eventually leads to death. Hunger, temperature regulation, and thirst would fall into this category. Companionship would not or at least, the link of lack of relationships to death would be much farther removed than the first three.

2) A preference is natural if it brings some sort of physical pleasure that is amenable through what the bodies can produce without "adding" something man-made to it. So sexual pleasure, good tasting food, a warm bath, might bring some sort of chemically-induced good feelings. One can refine this further and say man-made things can count too (like drugs) because it works on pathways that are "natural". Thus opioids work on naturally working pleasure-centers (or pain-blocking centers).

Decisions like "What am I going to do today?" and "Should I do X"? Anything with a deliberative aspect to it where one decides what one wants is a personal preference, not "natural" as in "instinctual".

Hello. I mentioned sex to demonstrate that just because some people choose not to have sex, it does not make it unnatural. If you agree then your argument that procreation is not natural because we can choose not to do it does not hold. You are shifting the context. You argued that if we can choose not to, it is not natural. Your link only backs up my arguing, as do the other examples of things that we do that are natural that some members of our species abstrain from and all could abstain from. — Coben

And this goes right to my last definitions of natural. It is the pleasure from sex that is natural, not the decision to have it or not- that is a personal preference. However, the pleasure principle, the idea that pleasure is overwhemingly on the side of preferring it. I see none of this in the actual decision of procreation. Same goes for running or eating meat... It can only be argued that the overwhelming physical pleasure of meat or "runner's high" would count I guess, but only as much as it is reduced to a physical pleasure and even then, it is not as strong as something like breathing as it the physical pleasure itself is very far removed from being in horrible pain and death because one does not choose it. The actual enjoyment of the physical pleasure is a naturally induced process that is immediate (the nerves do what they do to create the pleasure).

I don't think framing it as aggression works. We all make decisions every day that affect other people without their consent. Perhaps these can be framed as aggression, but generally I think it is misleading. In any case I don't follow some 'never aggress' principle. — Coben

But I think you do. We are not talking collateral damage (although that is another good reason against birth) but do you believe forcing others to follow your beliefs is acceptable because you think it is good for them to do so? Most likely in all areas of life, you will say no.

They may be your first principles, but they are not mind. I certainly try to avoid hurting people, unless other values arise. I do not give either of those a veto power, and I doubt you do either. I doubt you will stop arguing for anti-natalism if you find that some people find the discussion unpleasant. I doubt your personal life involves avoiding all possible ways your actions might lead to people suffering. But in any case, you assume that your values are correct and see others as having to accept your principles by default. I don't accept either as a veto value. Your onus to show I should and that they are somehow objectively good. — Coben

As I mentioned, once born, collateral damage is inevitable. I accept that life has collateral harm ONCE BORN, but creating that harm from nothing is unnecessary and wrong. Also, it is not JUST about harm but a force aspect. Someone is not forced to read my thread, and if they do and are traumatized that goes back to my collateral damage point (it happens only once born). However, prior to birth, no one is forcing anything on anyone yet, after birth someone is forcing their agenda/view on a new person who will then have collateral damage (like for you, reading an antinatalist philosophy forum thread). I am certainly not forcing you to read this though beyond the initial post.

So to reiterate, your false categorization of procreation under "natural" and your misleading ideas about how I framed sexual pleasure led you to some mischaracterizations and thus red herrings regarding my argument.

It seems to me that the purpose of all life is to survive long enough to procreate, that the only purpose/desire/will of life is to reproduce itself: that’s the nature of life. Which is possibly why we regard it as tragic when someone young dies.

The principles of non-aggression have very little place in this, don’t you think? We reproduce for the same reasons as all other life forms. The consequences are of no interest, only that a replica has been produced.

The horror for us is in being conscious of our circumstances. — Brett

I'll throw out the question again though, how is it that procreation is an instinct? I can see the pleasure from sex as a sort of "instinct" in that sexual pleasure feels good with no real interpretation or analysis there. However, a concept as complex as procreation is linguistically-based, and personality-motivated in terms of preference. Thus what makes this concept of starting a new life and raising it any different than any other conceptual preference like buying X item, or making X life decision? Often these are just preferences we have in our decisions, not automatic reactions to stimuli like a reflex or an instinct. Perhaps we reproduce mainly due to social drives, not inborn "instinctual" ones. Perhaps we are mixing these causes up because it is so pervasive it seems like it is inborn.

Yes, it is seems absurd to argue that my existence is separated from whatever situation that my parents underwent to "have" me.
But that is how it feels for me to be me. I landed on your shore. Or maybe my own.
I don't object to the idea that procreation is not a right per se. But the idea that is something we can point to as a thing bothers me. It makes it sound like we understand more than what I have seen demonstrated. — Valentinus

I don't understand your objection. What do we understand more than what you have seen?

What a crashing let down for those who don’t find it or suspect it’s a sham. — Brett

Right on.

I have grown children, both pretty average in their outcomes, but a lot of the time I wonder ‘what was the point?’ A sentiment also held by my wife occasionally. — Brett

I wonder if more people think this than admit it. Can I ask what your motivations were, if you can remember when having them? Was there an overriding pressure? Pride that you made something from yourself? Was it really some "instinct"? What does an "instinct" to want a child even look like? How would it be differentiated from any other preference? How can you prove wanting a child is any more an instinct than wanting that book or game or tickets to that concert or house?

Of course, what might lie behind the insane human behaviour is not the hopeless and ethereal promise of happiness but just being born. — Brett

For the parent or person who is going to be born? It matters not to the person who might be born (as they are not born yet).

On my view, there is no higher state of 'happiness' anyway, than the way in which the antinatalist conceives of the unborn. To be unbound from all causes and conditions, where "exists", and "does not exist" doesn't even apply. How could any temporary experience of happiness or pleasure in this world even compare to this? All positive experiences in this world are filtered through the lens of our temporal embodiment as a deprivational human animal - subject to stress, pain, need. suffering, aging and inevitable death. If impregnating a woman somehow thrusts conditions on what was previously unbound by causes and conditions, then it is the ultimate crime. Compared to the timeless peace of the unborn/unconditioned - the experiences of this world are nothing but stress and suffering. — Inyenzi

Very well-stated. The deprivational human animal and the conditions thrust upon what was unbound by causes and conditions is a great way to put the existential problem. In other words, it is not even just about brute utilitarian considerations, but the structural deprivational suffering of what it even means to be born. This structural type of suffering is often too nuanced for people to even consider, which is part of what @ZhouBoTong is talking about for people not taking the time to reason. However, it can be said, as in politics, it seems like otherwise rational people often take perplexingly non-rational arguments when it comes to unquestioned beliefs like being pro-procreation.

Good points.

AGain, I didn't argue it was. But since it is natural the onus is on the other side to say, wait, now we know more stuff than we used to, we should stop. IOW there is no reason to stop being natural and following our urges unless it can be demonstrated it is wrong. This is different from me saying it is good because it is natural. Killing over mates is fairly natural, but I don't think that it's good or even neutral. But if there is something - swallowing, socializing, running, playing, singing, play fighting, whatever - that we have done and desire to do, it seems to me the onus is on those saying we should stop doing this. We should interfere with the pattern we already have. We have this pattern. If you want to stop it, I think you bear the onus. — Coben

Again, forcing people into life, even with some positive outcomes is still forcing. How does this get to bypass the non-aggression principle?

We should interfere with the pattern we already have. We have this pattern. If you want to stop it, I think you bear the onus. — Coben

How about slavery, conquering other peoples, public executions, torture, etc. that happened for millenia? These people would tell you the same thing. The wrong actions are a pattern. Doesn't mean they are right.

And the fact that there are norms and pressures does not demonstrate that it is not natural to want children. — Coben

Being a parent is a preference, a want. I don't need to prove this any more than I need to prove wanting a new car is a want. We would have to define what is natural and not natural. If you don't do X you will die is natural. Wants and preferences are a mixture of cultural cues and personal preferences. Procreation falls under this. Breathing does not. Without breathing you will die and be in horrible pain and discomfort. Breathing can be stopped and will lead to death. Procreating does not. Someone not getting a new car might be upset, but they will not die.

This does not mean that eating meat is unnatural. I could choose to be celibate, this does not mean sex is unnatural. I could easily come up with many other examples in many other categories. — Coben

I had a whole thread on this.. things that cause physical pleasure can be considered "natural".. but procreation still doesn't fall under this, only sex. Please see this link to see what I deem to fall under "natural" and reasoning for this: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6896/what-distinguishes-natural-human-preferences-from-simply-personal-ones

Obviously not everyone shares that value as the only one or even the top priority.

So, you bear the onus to prove that we all should make that the veto value. If someone suffers and it could be prevented or not caused, we must do that. — Coben

I can only say causing suffering and forcing others are first principles. If you want to bypass them in procreation, the onus is on you to show how this is an inconsistency in only procreation but not in all other matters. I believe you cannot other than popular notions, etc. I already stated earlier that we've held popular notions about other things such as slavery and this is not excuse for why something is justified.

Right, but the onus is on those saying it is bad to show it is bad. I don't see that onus met. — Coben

This is a non-sequitor. How is procreation being "natural" good because it is natural? That is the fallacy at hand here. In that regard, I don't see the onus met.

It is present in all species of mammals we know of. Yes, there are exceptions. Some people don't want kids. But it is certainly natural to procreate and have children. Are you really arguing that it isn't? — Coben

Yes I am. I am arguing that in the human species it is social cues and pressures- that of the family, tribe, larger society that instill a preference. It is not an inborn preference per se. Of course the effect of sex is naturally the possibility of procreating a child, but that is not talking about a natural instinct, but a natural consequence.

That doesn't mean that my urges to not drown are no longer natural. — Coben

I think this is non-analogous. Breathing and not feeling immediate pain would indeed be more natural instinct and reflex. Procreation is much more nuanced. It is a decision that can be deliberated upon, not like the immediate need to go to the bathroom or breath some oxygen.

It seems to me that the logical end of your position would be the end of all sentient life.

I don't see how you can make the decision that that is moral and strive towards that outcome, given that you might be incorrect that this is a better universe simply to make sure that you haven't caused suffering in someone who has not consented to it - even though every cell will grab and choose life. You want to make decisions without consent for all future life. Yes, you will not have caused suffering - though perhaps you will cause suffering in those who come to view themselves as immoral when they are not. — Coben

There's a lot of fallacies that I see in there. If I am incorrect, literally no actual person suffers.

Every cell is not me nor humans with deliberative powers of reasoning and choice deciding.

Causing someone to feel bad and causing a whole lifetime for someone else I don't see as comparable. If someone feels bad because they can't force someone to do what they want, that is not necessarily bad. A lot of people would like to force their views and agendas on others. It doesn't mean they should.

If so then it appears that the required combo of life+happiness is achievable. Why deny it? — TheMadFool

The principle of non-aggression. Forcing something, even a good, is no good. However, there is weight ADDED to the argument when we look at the fact that suffering and collateral damage (unintended bad) is also forced onto a person, not just good in procreation. This makes your case at least, not as cut-and-dry. Denying "good" is not bad. Preventing suffering is good though.

Also I think happiness, the lack thereof, is actually the trump card of antinatalists. I must say though that, given the state of the world - it's dark history, the problematic present and, if this continues, a bleak future - antinatalism "is" a sound philosophy. However there is a lot that can be said of people, their strengths in the face of an indifferent universe, that may change that "is" to a "was". — TheMadFool

Granted. But this would be for situational antinatalism.

What should the goal include then? It would have to include either self-interest or the interest of the whole. If it is the first, then that is egoism. If it is the latter, then it is the interest of the society, which means we should make the society better and sarifice ourselves for a greater good. (Since the interest of the society comes first).
One of these have to come first in an ethical consideration.
Or, if i am wrong, what should be a goal of morality? — HereToDisscuss

The goals of morality would pertain to individuals. Ethical principles towards individuals means treating them not as a means to an ends (like for some goal of society). Thus things like not forcing people, using them, or harming autonomous individuals would be more aligned with the goals. Doing something on behalf of X third-party would not.

As for the actual game, then it is okay because the person does not get annoyed etc. that the person brought them to life and the suffering/pain ratio is, for the purposes of this discussion,1. That means it is permissible. — HereToDisscuss

If I kidnapped someone and made them go through an obstacle course and the person said they were happy about this after-the-fact, it is possible to have a positive outcome come from a violation of a moral principle. The moral principle is non-aggression. The positive outcome is simply a contingent fact that came about through the violation of a moral principle. It is as if through corruption, extortion, and lies, a positive outcome occurred and justifying all the negative actions that lead to the positive outcome simply because of the contingent positive outcome.

And what would someone call a group of individuals? Society, maybe?
Or are you just saying that the idea is not feasible? I would not think so, since, for the purposes of being consistent, i was talking about a society where the individuals experience happiness and it balances out as a result. Short term loss (if it is actually loss, that is), long term gain where the ethics are for individuals and the individuals are happy people.
Also, please note that i am talking like this since i am too ambitious in my reasoning-i also want to be able to claim that, even if a person suffers, it is okay as long as there is no better alternative that involves bringing about a human being.

I can weaken my position and just argue that;1) The initutive aspect of the principle does not apply to this and 2) The outcome is at least indeterminate 3) If a thing leads to better outcome, the pain is okay (this is connected to 1, because i argue that the reason we have such a principle is because it often does not lead to better outcome and so it is best not to try).

By the way, now that i think about it: Does the reasoning behind the principle actually apply to this situtation in the first place? The principle applies to people who, when forced to do a spesific thing, will feel that their freedom is contrained which will probably mean that they will not get the benefit (if there is a benefit, that is) since they feel forced to do this or to people who assume the benefits will be very good when it is definitely not (dictatorial regimes, for example, assumed that what they they forced was good for the people when it was clearly not the case). The former definitely does not apply unless we are talking about pessimistic people, and the latter does not apply either as it can only be defended by indirectly assuming antinatalism. (Using premises that only antinatalists would accept) So, in order for this to actually apply to procreation, one would have to show antinatalism to be true. So, the argument is circular if it's purpose was to conclude that antinatalism is true. — HereToDisscuss

Again here, you assume an obligation to bring human beings, ones that may suffer but have happiness. There is no obligation here for that justified. If we are to judge by suffering and happiness, preventing suffering would be the only one obligatory. Forcing another to suffer in order to bring a projected happiness would be immorally creating suffering that could have been prevented. That no one suffered is good (non-birth scenario). That no one experienced happiness is neither goo nor bad (in the case of no actual person being alive to be deprived in the first place).

Also, the dissatisfaction of would-be parents only affect themselves. It is only when applied to forcing other people that the morality would matter. So you can have people that would love to force their views, force their positions, force their way of life on other people. They are sad not to. We should not just allow them to violate the principle of non-aggression because they are sad for not being able to force their position on another.

I was just reading about existentialism. Where does "existence precedes essence" fit into this whole idea of antinatalism? It does appear, at least by my inability to justify why existence has intrinsic value, that plain living - no perks no frills - is just not enough for us. We desire to be happy too. Happiness if an attainable to the desired degree within an acceptable timeframe is definitely a point in favor life and against antinatalist philosophy. However, many fail in the pursuit of happiness but notice that we simply can't use the word "all". Given this impossibility of universalizing antinatalist arguments to say that life is not worth living appears uncomfortably like tyranny of the majority. It's like a group of sad divorcees insisting that a happily married person should also leave his/her partner. — TheMadFool

So you can force someone into existence because- happiness? That is what I'm talking about as this all pervasive "trump" card. Get away with not following non-aggression principle because happiness. In almost any other aspect of dealing with an autonomous adult, forcing someone would be considered wrong.

Well, all there has to be is some kind of a goal that includes society, so "Should it be the goal?" does not work here. If you want me to, i can change the first premise. — HereToDisscuss

Why does some goal have to include society. This is your big assumption.

What i meant by "viable" was "actually possible."
In your case, forcing anyone to do it is wrong because it is either not feasible (i.e. they will probably not do this and you will end up annoying them) or the negatige outcome associated with forcing people is worse (i.e. annoying them so much means that their day will be ruined and the "character building" aspect will not compensate for it). — HereToDisscuss

No that's not my reasoning. It wouldn't matter if the person was overjoyed that you forced them into this character-building exercise. The principle of non-aggression was violated, period. Forcing people, even into something they might like, is still wrong. Outcomes attached to the forcing do not matter in whether a principle was violated. It may matter more perhaps in a court of law or something like that if there was a standard to rule violation of laws.. but we are not talking law, but ethical principles and applying them consistently. But, if we were to add the suffering bit in there, yes, life entails more than "on balance good", the "unintended consequences" and "collateral damage" of harm is still there, so there would be that added to the force. To force someone into harm because they may have good experiences as well on balance, doesn't seem to fly if we consistently believe in non-aggression towards individuals. Procreation again, is no exception here.

So doing things for the sake of humanity is not good in itself? Isn't that egoism? — HereToDisscuss

No, it is simply a consequence of valuing individuals over a cause, theory, agenda. Humanity is impersonal. Individuals are the actual people whose lives are affected. Ethics should reside in the individual- whether society forms that person or not, it is at the level of individual that is affected by actions, not "society". Why an impersonal abstraction should hold individuals hostage, or why individuals should be beholden to an abstraction like society? Rather, individuals should be used at all, for any reason, period. Forcing someone into something for the sake of X in this understanding, makes no sense.

Nope. All you have to accept is that there is a society X that is able to be achieved, such that it is a society that would balance out the possible suffering people experienced in order to make it (if the people actually experienced suffering more, that is). It does not have to be perfect. — HereToDisscuss

Again, why are individual harms used for some type of social balance, happiness, or any agenda? It makes no sense. Ethics are not for abstractions but persons, individuals, identities.

I do not get this. To me, you essentially sound circular when you argue that positive outcomes do not matter. — HereToDisscuss

Positive outcomes don't matter in the case of non-existence. Not existing nothings, don't care that there are not positive outcomes. The fact is no negative outcomes have taken place, which IS good. To force someone into existence, to experience good is still force. By not having the person, you are not harming them either so that cannot be used as an argument. Whether good that could otherwise be had was not had, is irrelevant in light of non-aggression and that no actual person is harmed by not being born.

The emotional language aside, technically, all consequentalists treat an individual as "a pawn in some consequentalist calculus". — HereToDisscuss

I don't believe all do. Even if all do do this, then they would simply be wrong for treating individual humans as a means like that.

Probably because your analysis of the situtation is flawed. Like i said before, the negatives will almost always be more than the positives in that situtation. It is not feasible and annoying them is not worth it.
There is no need to invoke a principle here. — HereToDisscuss

Again, it is analogous because negatives come with the positives of life. But besides this, force is still occurring here. Add to this that there is no obligation to force good on people, especially in light of the fact that preventing birth causes no harm to any actual person, and in fact prevents negatives.

Try Googling it then. It is also called the "Irenean Theodicy" and it is based on that very idea. — HereToDisscuss

So as I thought, harm is needed to "develop" and "grow". This to me is immoral. Creating harmful situations so people can grow from it and get to something "better" is just as bad as being used for any other abstracted principle.

If society agreed that suffering was good and all, then suffering would still be bad. I am not a moral subjectivist. — HereToDisscuss

That's good.

You can not make suffering a positive or a neutral thing. It is only justifiable if there is a positive outcome that comes with it and that is what i am arguing in the first place-that there is a positive outcome that comes with it. — HereToDisscuss

That I disagree with. Forcing someone, believing it will lead to good outcomes still violates the non-aggression rule. Creating suffering from the force, even if there are positives adds weight to this idea. No one is hurt by not being born, no one is obligated to "grow" or "get beyond the pain to a better place". In fact, there is no justification to put someone into such a character-building game in the first place by force other than the belief and preferences of the parent that this is good for someone else.

I think these are major, self defining issues for many people. And whether they self-defined at age 7 is irrelevant to them. Letting down the family is not an option for many people. And if they have had a vision of an "ideal" family life for the last 20 years, achieving it will feel good and not living up to it will be depressing. — ZhouBoTong

Agreed. Essentially the theme of non-reflection when choosing, yet this subject deserves the most analysis.

I don't mind replacing "emotion" with "preferences", but I would want to add "given", or "automatic", or "beyond reason" to preferences. My point is that the rational/logical portion of the brain does not even engage. Does it seem safe to say that the vast majority of everyone who seriously considers whether or not they should have kids ends up choosing to NOT have them? Because those that do have kids, never even think about it (they may analyze when is a good time, but not the question of EVER having kids). If I had happened to meet someone I really liked and got married in my early 20s, It is possible that I would have had kids a couple years later. It wasn't until my mid to late 20s that I actually considered the question of having kids or not. Then it took about 5-7 years to arrive at a solid, "oh hell no". — ZhouBoTong

Yes, your theme here seems to be that for many people pick this preference from youth and don't question it. If they gave time to consider the question, perhaps the logic of non-procreation would be more clear to them.

I think you have more faith in people's reasoning/analytic skills than I do :smile: — ZhouBoTong

Haha. I don't know if I have more faith in people's reasoning/analytic skills, but it does not mean I'll give up arguing and trying to appeal to their reasoning :). But you are right in that oft-times the preference is "baked in" to the person's psyche from all the cues provided from family and society as a youth.

You are right...but unfortunately MOST people makes MOST of their "choices" based on emotion, not reason. Do we really expect MOST people to be reasonable about the whole situation? Or have they "known" since they were 6 years old that someday they would grow up and have kids and they are basing their adult "decision" on that same "knowledge"? — ZhouBoTong

Agreed. However, I might not put it as emotion as much as preferences that are strongly favored by social cues. But yes, people often simply hold a notion but don't question it, carry it out, and not much else is reflected upon in the process. But again, I think in this case it is due to social cues influencing preferences. Not letting down or hurting family, the culture surrounding procreation, the ideal of family life, etc.

Are animals aggressively forcing their view on their offspring?
At what point in evolution did having children become an aggression against not yet existing creatures? — Coben

When we could deliberate and make choices. Obviously you would have to have ideas like "force" or concepts at all for things like ethics to be viable.

Having children is natural to animals. The anti-natalist, it seems to me, bears the onus for demonstrating why a natural process should not occur. This does not mean I think if it happens in nature it is good. I just see natalist arguments as intending to stop all further generations from existing and all sentient creatures from procreating. I haven't seen anything remotely like a strong enough argument for this. One can project a natalist argument on everyone and then attack that, as you do here, but I don't see it as carrying much weight in relation to the AN project. — Coben

Not quite sure your argument here. You seem to make a point, and then realize that one can object to it because it falls under the naturalistic fallacy. So there can be two points..

1) It is naturalistic fallacy to think that if something is natural, it is good.

2) Procreation maybe a natural consequence of sex, but the preference for procreating new people is not necessarily natural. It could be just as much a deliberative choice as buying a car, or choosing to get this dinner instead of that dinner. What makes this deliberation any different? I think we often conflate the outcomes of procreation (continuation of species by default), for the actual choices that lead to the continuation of the species (following a preference, not an instinct per se). The lion cannot help mating at mating season. The human doesn't have a mating system, and a human can choose to do any number of things. There is no "if then" absolute instinct to procreate like other animals. Rather, we understand a whole range of outcomes that come from procreation.

Collateral damage is not persuasive enough, and you need to clarify how it is "excess baggage" and how that means it is bad in this particular situtation. — HereToDisscuss

I'm not sure how "collateral damage" doesn't make sense. It means unintended bad consequences that go along with the "good stuff" intended.

Also, how is it a "fuzzy intent"? I would say that achieving such a society (or a society that is close to that) is the "ultimate goal" of morality. There is a reason why morality exists in the first place. — HereToDisscuss

Fuzzy meaning "warm and fuzzy". It sounds good so it must be good, sort of thinking. Wait what is the goal of society and how is that goal justified as THE goal? Why would individuals be used for society's goals or any future generation's goals? That seems wrong- to use people as fodder (with imperfect happiness) for some utopian future happiness (that is not guaranteed at all or in the realm of achievable perhaps). Either way, this is a poor excuse for procreation- that it is some unwritten goal to work towards X. That is nowhere near being justified.

Healthy skepticism is okay, but being overly skeptic about a particular thing then not being skeptic at all about an alternative view that is less justifiable is not. — HereToDisscuss

What am I not being skeptical at all about? In my view, if no one is born, there is no one to worry over or nothing to worry about- literally. I am skeptical about "fuzzy" "warm-hearted" intent that brings with it negative baggage though, yes. One has no consequences for any actual person, and one definitely does. This already puts the balance in the side of never having been.

A) How is it the worst scenario? The "zombie survival" scenario alone is worse. Maybe talk about how i have to hold that it would be okay for one members of a sex to rape the other in a "survival" scenario where only about 100 people live and they live in an island and the members of a sex does not consent. (Or, for an easier example, it would be okay to rape someone if just 2 people live and one does not consent and would suffer very heavily as a result of the rape. But they would probably be dead irregardless of that as 2 people is not enough since they're under the minimum viable population needed to survive.) In order to be consistent, i will have to hold that too. — HereToDisscuss

I honestly can't interpret what this means as you have written it here. You'd have to explain this more clearly.

B) Notice how you spesifically said "with the intent of good outcomes for that person." If the reasoning is clear and it is viable to actually enforce it, then it is okay. In fact, this is a "life or death" situtation for a species and i would contend that the risks associated with not enforcing it is worse. — HereToDisscuss

Viable to enforce what? Intent was clear that one had good intentions? That is not a reason to force one's agenda on someone else. You may like a game and think it builds character to anyone that plays it. But to force people to play it because you think they will thank you later on is wrong.

Also, why is an individual beholden to a species? To force people's hand into existence (and deal with this consequence) for the sake of humanity, or the species, is to use someone for an agenda. That is wrong to use people as such. If I have an agenda, should I force you into it simply because I want you to? If no, why should this hold for instances of furthering the species? If the species goes extinct, what is the wrong here? The universe will cry? The ghost of HereToDiscuss lamenting on what could have been?

Maybe it is because this is not an "agenda", but something that is the "core principle" of probably anyone's morality (not actually, but it is rather that we want to achieve a perfect society or, in a weaker form, that we ought to work towards it).
Are you doubting that we ought to work towards a perfect society? — HereToDisscuss

Yes I am very much doubting that any basis for morality is working towards a perfect society. It would be just as insane if someone said that the basis for morality is working towards communism, religious fundamentalism, or techno-utopianism. It is insane grandiosity to actually think that we should put more people on Earth to advance this type of agenda (and indeed it would be an agenda). I have a vision of a way society should be, therefore everyone should follow it? Of course not. Same goes for procreation. Again, the same pattern emerges- procreation is NO EXCEPTION to the non-aggression rule.

I will say "yes", if you really want me to. — HereToDisscuss

So now you are fully admitting to a morality where the individual is simply a pawn in some utilitarian calculus. Granted, individuals grow up in a system and are formed by that system, but they are also used by the very system that forms them. Why perpetuate the system just because it forms people? Why are individuals beholden to this?

If accepted, this only entails that morality is essentially meaningless as, if the universe is devoid of any morally principles, there is no difference to the universe itself.
That is only relevant to metaethics. Otherwise,you have to show why we should adopt your spesific position. — HereToDisscuss

I'm not sure where you're getting at here. The universe doesn't "need" moral principles, humans (or intelligent beings with deliberation) do. Once deliberative beings exist, moral principles exist. No humans, no morality, no matter. So if humans do exist, then first principles like non-aggression come into play. I see no problem here with a universe devoid of people who would then hold ethical principles.

I love how you say "unnecessary at best" when lives of a species is at stake here. It is the single most necessary thing we need in order to have such positive outcomes in the first place (or any good thing, really). The principle is violated for a good cause. — HereToDisscuss

Again, what is it with the focus on positive outcomes? What is the need for this when no one existing would matter not for this need for positive outcomes? Non-aggression entails non-procreation which means that forcing someone int he name of positive outcomes matters not if we want to be consistent with not forcing others.

Pain is okay if it leads to a positive outcome. — HereToDisscuss

This is your idea on it. But forcing it on others? I say no, this is a violation of the non-aggression principle. Where is it justified that one ought to create negatives for someone so they can have some positives too? If I prefer a game and think most people should play it, am I right in forcing others to play it? I would say no.

The whole idea of "soul-making theodicy", for example, is it is okay for there to be evil because it helps humans develop. In a relevant sense, they experience suffering but the outcome is better. — HereToDisscuss

I have no idea what "soul-making theodicy" is, but it sounds like an excuse to cause harm. There is no reason to cause harm in the hopes of some positive outcome. This Nietzschean notion that people need to be born in order to suffer a bit (i.e. no pain, no gain) is just post-facto justification to cause the suffering in the first place. If we have a society where we all agree that to make others suffer is good, then we can pat ourselves on the back that creating suffering isn't bad. If we try to turn the tables and make suffering a positive, then we can invert negative experience and pretend that it is justified to create for others, like in cases of procreation. But let's be consistent. If this was applied in almost any other realm on an autonomous adult, this would not fly. You couldn't justify force harming them (violating the principle of non-aggression) in order to save them, which is essentially what this idea's logical conclusion is.

Premise: If a thing is needed in order to have a non-temporary society in which people do not experience that much of a suffering and experience positive outcomes more and if the action is not unnecessarily painful (i.e. the action generates the best outcome compared to the others) then the action that we do in order to achieve that thing is good. ((A^B>C))
Premise: Having people in the first place is needed in order to have a non-temporary society in which people do not experience that much of a suffering and experience the positive outcomes more.
Therefore, if the action in question generates the best outcome compared to the others that we do in order to achieve that same thing, then it is good.
Premise: Maintaining some rate of procreation generates the best outcome compared to the others that we do in order to achieve that thing.
Ergo, maintaining some rate of procreation is good. (i.e. at least some people should procreate). — HereToDisscuss

So there are several objections that I can see raised.

1) Collateral damage. Your experience is not another person's experience, even genetically related. In fact, you can have siblings and cousins that have radically different ways of being, personalities, and experiences. The projected outcome for a child that the parent intended MAY not be the case for that child. You can provide me the "But often times it is" or the "Most people say they find life good" but it is questionable whether even if a majority of people outweigh the collateral damage of the suffering of others. Given the Benatar asymmetry (from David Benatar's book, Better Never to Have Been), this reasoning is more compelling. The reasoning is that since the good that is not experienced by the person not born is not good nor bad, since no ACTUAL person is deprived of it, and that it IS good that an actual person is not actually suffering, on the whole, this asymmetry always balances the equation towards better never to have been.

2) Going back to the premise of this thread regarding happiness. The point is happiness (you use the term "good") is a sort of cudgel to banish any objections raised against not forcing others. Force is force. Intending to force a good outcome on someone is still aggression. Why does it get a pass? Combined with the idea of collateral damage, and excess baggage (more than the intended good does actually get forced onto someone), is doubly damaging. An aggressive act, which does more than the intended good (i.e. negative outcomes) is pervaded onto someone in the hopes the collateral damage isn't so bad. We are assuming starting a life for someone is good for them, if you project that the outcomes are indeed going to be likely. This does not override the force that is taking place because you have a warm and fuzzy intent in there (Happiness, Good, Love). If you want to be consistent in following non-aggression, even creating new people should fall under this.. As you stated at the beginning, "An action taken on your view without consent that affects another" is still bad, even made with the intent of good outcomes for that person. Unlike unconscious, elderly, children who have already had the force put on them, and we are mitigating the worst scenario..birth unnecessarily forces a situation onto someone. In other words, once born, certain things need to take place to prevent death or pain for that person, but certainly the force of having the person was not justified in the first place.

3) It is arguable that we live each moment differently than how we report about life when asked "Is life good?". Past events of pain may be downplayed and future events of good may be overestimated. This is a well-known psychological effect called the Pollyanna Principle. We actually experience more pain in our lives in the moment than we often want to remember to ourselves or report to others, including researchers and statisticians.

4) Why should a person be beholden to a principle (happiness, the good, society), in the first place? If you're looking for more abstract principles.. using someone for your own or society's agenda is a good place to start. An agenda to further society and to create "good experiences in the world" is counterintuitively using people's lives as a way to follow this agenda. What is it about this agenda that it needs to be forced onto a new person? What justifies this other than people like the idea so they will do it on behalf of someone else? Even if we use terms like "more positive outcome" what is it about this that this NEEDS to take place? I will ask again, are parents on a messianic mission to bring positive outcomes? If the universe is devoid of positive outcomes, then what? The mission has failed? We already acknowledge life is not JUST positive outcomes, its a mixed bag, but bringing suffering into the world in order to have positive outcomes seems unnecessary at best, and aggressive for sure as it still perpetrates to another person, forcing their hand if you will, and obviously affecting them for a lifetime (as it is the start of life itself). So there are two things here- a) Positive outcomes don't need to take place at all, even if the outcomes are "better" as the alternative of nothing is not actually affecting any actual person negatively or harmfully and b) Despite positive outcomes once born, there are always negative outcomes that are brought with it, thus the person is forced into negative outcomes by this decision. Thus the non-aggression principle should still stand, even in the decision of procreation.

Depends. If the question is about applied ethics, it may be that which form of normative ethics you have — HereToDisscuss

No, the applied eventually goes down to "Why this normative ethics" as you are asking and it can't go much further besides meta-ethics- intuition, some sort of asymmetry or contradiction, empirical studies, etc. But this can't really provide much else. At the end of the day there are principles of normativity in ethics that people hold.

Violating that principle, i would contend, is wrong because of an actual core principle (maybe it brings the total happiness down, maybe there is some deontological reason that lays out that it is wrong) — HereToDisscuss

I think that is the core principle. Forcing other people to do something is wrong. It is not based on anything more meta than that. Full stop. I'm sorry to violate your principle of having a further principle that has to be grounded in deontology or something else like that. If you go back far enough a principle will be the one you decide is the first one. Why this is not one but something further has to be would be itself an aesthetic choice of sorts or something you value or find pleasing to you. For example, in your examples you can say.. "But why does total happiness going down have to be the foundational principle?".

And, like any other "principles", there are exceptions to this principle since the reasoning behind the principle does not apply to those exceptions. — HereToDisscuss

And how would it not to procreation?

Or that this is an exception to the rule. To justify this, i am repeating myself, one would have to show that the reasoning behind that principle does not apply to this particular case. And, in order to do that, we need to know the actual reasoning behind that principle. That is why i am asking you why it is wrong to force others to do things.

If you take it to be something that we should not violate under any circumstances (which i doubt), then you would have to prove your case since most people do not believe that. Forcing people to do things, in some cases, is good. — HereToDisscuss

So I don't see a reason for an exception to the non-aggression principle here. I don't see the principle of people pursuing happiness as an excuse for that exception to the normally followed rule. If it is so, it would be argument via tradition or popularity. Except for cases which I acknowledged- children needing guidance from parents, self-defense, or the threat-of-force, there are no excuses other than people have an agenda, and they want someone else to follow that agenda and that agenda is more important than the non-aggression principle. Why should it be in this case and not others? Because the will of the parent is strong? Because social pressures can bypass principles of non-aggression?

I guess if you want me to give you a further abstracted principle it is that agendas should not be more important than actual people who will be beholden to those agendas. Suffering should also be thrown in there for good measure..meaning, the agenda to have a person who will suffer, even for fuzzy reasons like Happiness and Society, are not good enough reasons to cause suffering. But you can also accuse that principle of not being foundational enough and thus my argument stands that you have to draw the line of first principles somewhere.

I will concede you the point that procreation falls under that principle.
I will ask you again, one more time: Why is forcing people to do things wrong? Why should we adapt that principle?
You have not given an answer so far. — HereToDisscuss

Like any ethical debate, it comes down to first principles. If you don't believe forcing others to do things is wrong, then this argument would not matter to you. However, if the scenario is thus:

You think that if you paid fairly for your property and have possession on it and the party who gave it to you agreed to the exchange or giving of the property, and that property was stolen or taken without permission is wrong...

You think that someone who believes X, Y, Z political beliefs at gunpoint forces you to recant your position, sign a waiver that you will only follow his/her point of view is wrong..

You think that someone physically harming someone else is wrong...

These are all examples of agreeing with the non-aggression principle (implicitly). If one believes that consistency is important in ethical matters, then procreation too falls under this principle like the others. If procreation truly is forcing something onto another, this principle has been violated, and would thus be a problem. So, most people do implicitly believe this principle but turn a blind eye when or don't even think it relevant when it comes to procreation. This is a consistency problem.

So to reiterate, it comes to first principles. If you don't think aggression is an ethical issue, this won't matter. However, for those who do think so (most non-sociopaths it would seem), then yes this would be an issue and more a matter of consistency than questioning the actual principle itself.

Because sometimes others know what is best for you. — Tzeentch

And this is the heart of the hubris here. Who is to say who knows best? And why does procreation from a loving parent get to be THE decision of what is best? Things done out of love or out of a hope for happiness or out of making society function get to bypass non-aggression? Why?

Let me back up because I know what's coming next.. Children need adults to decide for them thus "forcing them". This is different, however. The force here is for a whole life, including the adult. The child as child, is something that is a particular time/place it does not hold over the whole life. The birth decision reaches into an autonomous adult and obviously affects/effects the person in literally every way.

Sometimes people need a little nudge to grow. — Tzeentch

But this is your principle. Why should this be forced on anyone?