where one is person A in world WA and person Z in world WZ. — SolarWind

Already assumes your conclusion. You assume a "one" that can either reside in A or Z. Then you say that "one" is soul. You haven't proven anything, you begged the question.

I meant once the kid was born. — Kenosha Kid

Then you're just wrong. He did not, in fact, blind his kid when his kid was born. So it must have been something else that triggered the gut reaction. What is it?

I bet if I say anything along the lines of "Giving birth to someone is harming them after they're born" it'll be dismissed on the basis of being factually incorrect. So I will do the same with your statement. If you want to keep your statment "The parent blinded the child after the child was born by genetically engineering them to be blind" then "Giving birth to someone is harming them after they are born" will make sense by the same token. You can't have one without the other.

You either consider the negative consequences of actions done before someone's birth as "harm" or you don't. If you do both statments make sense. If you don't neither does and you have to explain why you got that gut reaction. Because billy's parent did not blind billy after billy was born. So you can't have meant that.

But empathising with things that don't exist and have no representation is a bizarre idea. Why let facts have anything to do with it in that case? "And why did you assault the victim?" "Because he killed Jenny-Wenny Classy-Lassy." "Who the fuck is that?" "Oh, someone I made up once " — Kenosha Kid

Difference is Jenny-Wenny Classy-Lassy will never exist but Blind-Billy will. I'm talking about empathising with things that will exist. Because that is what you just did with blind billy.

rather wicked on the grounds that he deliberately blinded his own kid. — Kenosha Kid

He didn't though. Don't you see? There is no kid! He didn't blind anybody! This is what I said a while ago by the way. I said that our empathy can extend to "future people" and you claimed it can't, yet here you are clearly extending empathy to "future people".

You have to consider "future people" if you want the sentence "he blinded his own kid" to make sense. And you don't consider them. When I say "giving birth to someone is risking harming them" you say there is no person to harm so it's ok. But when I say "He genetically engineered his child to be blind" suddenly there is a kid that was blinded. How come?

So you have to either start considering harm done to "future people" as real harm that one is responsible for, in whichcase you have to come up with a new way to justify having kids. OR you have to come up with a new explanation for why you have that gut reaction. In whichcase you'd be coming up with a new "natural instinct" that can lead to AN. I already proposed to you that AN comes out of empathy for "future people" and you claimed that such a thing was impossible, so what exactly did you just do here? What's the instinct at play if not empathy that produces this gut reaction?

Again, believing that it's true and therefore the evidence must exist is not empiricism, that's Trumpism. — Kenosha Kid

You just confirmed it:

my gut reaction is that it is wicked — Kenosha Kid

There is no kid right now. Yet your gut reaction was that it is wicked. As if you were able to consider the future child as some sort of entity. Else there is nothing to blind. OR there is some other natural instinct at work here. In whichcase AN is natural.

Are you aware of the difference between evidence supporting something and evidence proving or disproving something? — Kenosha Kid

You provided neither. You made a claim that:

the data doesn't support the conclusion — Kenosha Kid

I assumed by that you meant that someone actually went and did a study and found no such gut reactions occuring. If all you meant to say was "there is no data to support the conclusion" sure. I don't have any. But "the data doesn't support the conclusion" is misleading when you have no data.

Though I do know that both of us seem to agree that there exists such a gut reaction as we both have it. So I would say it's reasonable to assume that the same will be found in others.

but it isn't an instinct: it's a rational decision based on abstract information, not an automatic reaction to instantaneous environmental stimuli. — Kenosha Kid

So when I cringe when hearing about the guy who genetically engineered his child to be blind that’s not an automatic reaction? I had to carefully deliberate to find something wrong with his behavior? Nah, that’s not what happened.

The biological underpinnings of sociality are not based on guesswork. They are based on empirical physiological and neurological data about people reacting to various stimuli — Kenosha Kid

Sure. I would say if you looked for it, you could very easily establish the existence of a physiological and neurological reaction that people have when it comes to potential future people. We cringe when we hear about one being blinded for instance.

the data doesn't support the conclusion — Kenosha Kid

Cite me the data proving the non-existence of a reaction when talking about future people.

the premise is clearly incompatible with natural selection. — Kenosha Kid

Not really. It makes sense for us to be able to consider future people so that we can know when and when not to have a child. And to take into account the actual likely state of the child doesn't seem to be an extinction-causing move.

And besides, “incomparable with natural selection” is not an end all be all. It is plausible that we’d have instincts that hinder our own survival. Natural selection is not a done deal, we’re always evolving, and it’s possible we have instincts that don’t actually help but hinder that will eventually “evolve out”.

There is no moral good for the child. — Kenosha Kid

Sigh. I wasn’t arguing there was.

This is acceptable to me, and knowing that your potential child has a high risk of such a disease is a good reason: since the cause, degree and nature of the risk is understood. — Kenosha Kid

Why is it a good reason? There is no moral good for the child. You’re not doing anything good by having the abortion. So it must be that you think the future child’s suffering is a bad thing. Which is the instinct I’m referring to.

we cannot possibly have a natural instinct for it since the possibility of acting on that instinct is only decades old. — Kenosha Kid

Not really. There are people who choose not to have kids in war torn countries for example and not purely out of scarcity, but also because they don’t deem the standards of living good enough for a child. And this is true of all times. It’s almost as if they actually consider the future child’s well-being and decide based on it that right now is not the time to have a child because the child would suffer too much, and not just because of scarcity.

You'll have to forgive me for not remembering the specifics. — Echarmion

In the case of heartbreak you are not forced to endure the pain, you accepted the risk by going into the relationship. In the case of children, they never chose to go into life, so you must minimize their suffering as their parent which calls for sometimes making them suffer now for less suffering later.

We do allow people to engage in very dangerous sports for example, even though the overall suffering of the world might be much reduced if everyone refrained from doing it. — Echarmion

And when did I say we shouldn’t do that? The only case when we shouldn’t is with dependents. If your child suggests taking up parkour with a bunch of shady kids 15 blocks away from home you have a responsibility to stop him as a parent. Your responsibility is, more precisely, to minimize his suffering. Which probably means you’d try to fit in his interest in the least dangerous way.

What is absolutely wrong though is forcing people who are not even your dependents to play dangerous games. I’m sure we can agree on that. But as I said, everyone is free to risk their own suffering as much as they want, just don’t risk anyone else suffering unless they’re your dependents and you’re doing it for their own good.

Just historically speaking, this is manifestly false. You can maybe claim this about some especially well working justice systems, like in the nordic countries. You certainly can't make the claim for the US, or any early 20th-century european country. — Echarmion

Sure. Rather I should have said “The latter should come from the former”

But it is suggestive of the idea that the whole of interconnected humans is more than just the sum of it's parts — Echarmion

False. It does not suggest that at all.

and that in some way, it ought to continue. — Echarmion

And this is another non sequitor. “More than the sum of its parts” doesn’t lead to “should continue”. Again, you’re just shoving that part in there. “Should continue” is its own premise.

And I just continue that thought to conclude that, since responsibilities are sociall mediated, rather than attaching to mere physical fact, causation is a common starting point for responsibility, but it's not a necessary or even a sufficient one. — Echarmion

Agreed, causation is not necessary for responsibility, as you can get it in other ways (socially mediated). But it is almost sufficient in my view with the conditions I outlined in the car example.

How would someone ever know? — Echarmion

Which is what makes it pseudo impossible. Very hard claim to reasonably prove.

It's wrong because it's malicious — Echarmion

Well no it isn’t. Malicious definition by google: Intending to do harm. There is no one being harmed here. I called it malicious because I (reasonably) recognize that we should consider these “potential people”. But that’s just naming. And you think they shouldn’t be considered at all, since they’re not harmed.

What if the intention of the parent was just purely preferential? He just likes blind people for some reason. Just a fancy. Now is it ok? Surely not. But why?

Yes, but this kind of reductio only works so long as we're on common ground, which we're not for the most part in this discussion. You consider things absurd that I don't, and vice versa. — Echarmion

I’m hoping we can find some common ground. We both agree that genetically engineering people to be blind is wrong for example. Though you haven’t explained why, and your principles seem to lead to a contradiction. Since they would lead to it being ok, but you think it’s wrong.

Internal consistency is not the same as disagreeing with a premise. It would be a sign of lack of internal consistency if you would agree with my premises but still disagreed with the result. You won't find a system that has premises that you agree on and is internally consistent, because if this were the case, we'd have the same opinion. — Echarmion

If I agree with the premises, and the logic, I must agree with the result. Maybe you have a way to get “having children is acceptable”, logically, without relying on premises I disagree with, that I haven’t heard yet. I’m not omniscient, I don’t know every argument there is. If you did find such a way, I’d probably not be an AN anymore. But so far I haven’t found that way.

Some people dislike it because it's 'playing God', some because it might lead to a form of genetic cleansing. — Kenosha Kid

And no one is actually concerned with the consequences for the child themselves? Sure....

By that logic we should be just as disgusted by someone who genetically engineers their child to get rid of their genetic illnesses and to make them geniuses with perfect athletic genes as the guy who genetically engineered his child to be blind. But we're clearly not. So, again, I believe we have a natural instinct to project onto the future and actually care about potential future people. How else do you explain the difference in reaction?

You just look at a situation and apply the categorical imperative to your best ability. — Echarmion

Whoa whoa whoa. Where did the categorical imperative come from. Didn't take you for a Kantian.

But see? You were able to specifiy a bit more than "Oh you just decide on a case by case basis". Now we know that you think lying is always wrong for example (categorical imperative).

Causing heartbreak is more acceptable than slapping someone across the cheek, even if the latter is a much shorter amount of much less severe pain. — Echarmion

And we tend to largely agree on which "types" are more prominent than others too.

If you agree there is a value judgement involved here, you'd have to ask yourself why we shouldn't treat the suffering entailed by living the same as the suffering entailed by heartbreak. Unfortunate, but not morally wrong to inflict outside of very narrow circumstances. — Echarmion

Because one is justified and one isn't. And I already went into what justified means.

In other words the self is exactly the reason why morality is not simply about avoiding suffering. — Echarmion

I don't see how they contradict. Why can't you have your self and ALSO think that one ought to inflict as little unjustified harm as possible?

We put people in jail not based on some calculation of the suffering this will avoid, but based on more abstract notion of respect for the law. — Echarmion

I'd say the latter comes from the former. If putting people in jail caused more harm than not putting people in jail, we wouldn't have a law that puts people in jail. And I'd say "respect for the law" is precisely the kind of dangerous concept as "mankind". It is a shorthand, not a thing to be treated as its own entity.

Or else you get situations where you're "respecting the law" by putting people in jails that radically increases chances of repeat offences and doesn't actually reform behavior at all. Forgetting that the whole point of jail was to reform and to protect the population, people choose to instead "respect the law" and mistreat inmates resulting in repeat offences and no one benefiting. and A lose-lose situation, and why I hate appeals to "respecting" or "preserving" fictions over people.

you must consider there to be some shared quality that all humans have — Echarmion

Sure. But that's not "mankind". And saying that all humans share a certain quality does not lead to the conclusion that mankind should survive. Putting value in "mankind" itself is required to say that.

Where does that responsibility come from though? Biological children are not the only kind of dependent there is. So it can't be merely that the suffering was caused by the biological parents. — Echarmion

For the case of biological parents it's pretty clear. I would say you can also take on responsibilites for yourself. So for example, a life guard has a responsibility to save drowning people even though those people would drown if left alone and the lifeguard wasn't around. But a pedestrian doesn't. The difference is that the lifeguard has taken on a responsibility the pedestrian didn't. And I think these responsibilities are socially mediated. If you want the benefits the society gives you (in the case of the life-guard, money) then you have to respect the responsibilites it places upon you.

having children is always wrong. — Echarmion

Not really for me but the situation required to say that having children is wrong is basically impossible. It would be when someone would suffer so much from being childless that their suffering is comparable to the suffering of their children across their entire lifetimes.

I don't think it must include that at all. The word "them" refers to nothing here. Noone is "put into a situation" by existing. Existing is the situation. — Echarmion

Sigh, I'm so tired of this argument. Ok let's take this to its logical conclusion. There is no "them" to put in any situations. Therefore if a parent genetically engineers their child to be blind even though they would have been fine otherwise that parent did nothing wrong. Since they didn't harm anyone. Since there was no "them". You and I both disagree with this. I don't want to keep going around trying to find the metaphysical setup that you will find acceptable so I'll ask you to resolve the conflict.

Malicious genetic engineering is wrong, yet there is no one being harmed. How? Why is it wrong then?

The same isn't true for the reverse. If having children is wrong on Tuesdays, that doesn't affect my position at all. — Echarmion

But if you think that having children should not be affected by the day of the week and at the same time you find that having children on tuesday is wrong, then something is wrong with your system. And I am sure we can agree that whether or not having children is wrong should not depend on the day of the week. Therefore it must be some other principle gone whack.

Because it's irrelevant whether or not any specific justification of having children holds up to scrutiny. You'd have to establish that no justification is possible. This cannot be done by going through examples, because the number of examples is indefinite. — Echarmion

False. I can justify having children by saying "The preservation of mankind is the ultimate goal". Boom, done. Problem is, I don't agree with that premise. All I'm trying to find out is whether or not you have an internally consistent system. As in, by applying your principles we don't end up with ridiculous things like "Murder is ok" or "Theft is good".

You have tried repeatedly to find faults in my system by saying things like "What about surgery" etc. So far I think I've shown it's internally consistent. What I'm trying to find out is whether or not yours is internally consistent WITHOUT relying on premises that I disagree with such as "The preservation of mankind is the ultimate goal". Because I have failed at finding such a system so far.

But apart from that I can't think of a meaningful answer to your question other than "because my moral philosophy says some things are fine and others are not". — Echarmion

Well maybe "When X happens it's ok but otherwise it's not". Any sort of condition at all. Instead of "just decide on a case by case basis".

I just think it's important to be aware that this is not a mathematical operation. There is no quantifiable amuont of risk that is automatically unacceptable. — Echarmion

That's exaclty what my quote was saying. We find different amounts unacceptable. But there is large agreement on them.

you have already decided - based on some other system - what importance to attach to different kinds of suffering — Echarmion

This. And we decide slightly differently but largely similarly.

Everything turns into an optimization problem, leaving no room for the self. — Echarmion

I don't see what the self has to do with anything.

life is about inflicting as little suffering as possible while experiencing as little as possible yourself. — Echarmion

No, you're free to experience as much suffering as you want to. So it just becomes "You should inflict as little suffering as possible". I don't really think that's a new or unreasonable view. Heck I'd say you'd agree with it if it wasn't put in this context.

If you don't accept "mankind" in some form as having moral weight, why care at all about the suffering we cause for others — Echarmion

Because humans suffer but "mankind" doesn't. Often when we say something bad happened to "mankind" we mean that something bad happened to certain people. But sometimes not. Sometimes we forget that "mankind" is just a concept that can't suffer. Like in the case of birth. If everyone decides tomorrow to have as few children as possible so as to lead to the extinction of mankind slowly while maintaining quality of life, then "mankind" certainly suffers, but people don't. It is in these scenarios where I find appeals to "mankind's suffering" disgusting. When no person is actually suffering and the concept is treated as a person.

The concept was designed as a shorthand, but when it becomes its own thing you get situations where people do things for "mankind" or "for the country" even though not a single member of mankind or the country actually wants the things. And those are bad situations.

I don't really follow the logic here. Why would dependents have some special moral status where you are allowed to do thing to them in the interest of reducing overall suffering, but you cannot do the same thing for non-dependent people? — Echarmion

Because for dependents you are partially responsible for all their suffering. So it is your responsibility to mitigate it as much as possible. For non-dependents you are not responsible for their suffering so it is not your responsibility to mitigate it.

If you want to argue that creating people is "forcing" them to exist, you have to treat non-existant potential children as if they exist. This is a "have your cake and eat it" scenario. — Echarmion

False. "Forcing" maybe not the right word, but whatever word you want to use it must include: Putting them in a situation where they might suffer that is very difficult to get out for selfish reasons without asking. I find "forcing" fits the bill the best. If you don't like the word then just replace it with "Putting them in a situation where they might suffer that is very difficult to get out for selfish reasons without asking"

I kinda consider it a trap question. There is no way to answer it in a way that cannot be then criticised on the details, and that would lead to discussion of some specific scenario in place of the general question. — Echarmion

If the discussion of the specific scenario leads to a counterintuitive conclusion that may be a sign that the answer might have to be changed. So if your answer makes it so that having children is wrong on tuesdays, then maybe the answer has to be changed. But I don't see what's weird about participating in that discussion because it is exactly how we test any moral premise ever. We test it till it breaks then we find a better one. Idk why no one is willing to do that from your side.

An abstract potential future human can not be an object of empathy. — Kenosha Kid

Then why do we find someone who genetically engineers their child to be blind repulsive? What's the drive there? Or are you saying we don't?

Cool but I'm more interested in your response to this

This drive to empathise extends to people who don't yet exist. Which is why I bet you would find someone who genetically modifies their child to be blind despite them having been fine otherwise because "I want a blind child" disgusting. Our capacity to empathise can be projected into the future, for better or worse (I think better), and that is what leads to AN. — khaled

There is a cause here of some higher "meaning" in playing the game and trying to withstand whatever the game has to offer. This game must be played, don't you see? — schopenhauer1

:up:

As I said to echarimon:

The idea that "mankind" and other such concepts should be favored over a single human's actual concrete suffering. Things like "For the country" "For mankind", etc always rubbed me the wrong way. If you can't point me to a person getting harmed, then I couldn't care less about "the country being harmed" or "going against mankind's interests". — khaled

That seems to be what it comes down to as usual. I give it a month before we get another thread and do the same song and dance again though. At least the dance is fun, sometimes...

Then what is the difference in risk between that and sending them to the shops? — Kenosha Kid

That you need to send them to the shops to buy food because you're busy. If you're not busy you should do it yourself. Sending kids to random places for no reason is wrong and irresponsible.

Crucially, they need the thing you're sending them to buy. If they don't then sending them to buy it is wrong. You can ask them as a favor but you can't force them to. Unlike in the hunting example where you can't really argue people need to be able to survive.

He's clearly a monster, but too insane to be held morally culpable. — Kenosha Kid

That's the non starter bit for me. I would say he is a monster, and so we will hold him morally culpable.

A moral idiot by definition cannot be held morally responsible, it would be paradoxical to do so — Kenosha Kid

I don't see the paradox.

but you cannot hold that a person raised in a culture in which it is seen as morally obligatory is immoral for enacting it. — Kenosha Kid

Watch me :cool:

I wouldn't hold them accounable if they never gave it any thought. However if they did think about it, and chose to ignore good arguments against it just to maintain their culture, I would hold them accountable.

monitoring everyone's biological markers at all time — Kenosha Kid

Idk what this means but ok. What's the biological marker for "Satan forced me to do it"

We have the presumption of innocence and concepts like diminished responsibility and temporary insanity for this reason. — Kenosha Kid

But if a terrorist blows up a store because God told him to we don't spare HIM do we? Just saying that we do not forgive everything, even though by your model, we should forgive that terrorist because of his culture.

A starving person will often not have their full faculties at their disposal and cannot therefore be held as culpable as if they did. — Kenosha Kid

But you can never know that. What if they did have their full faculties and CHOSE to be evil? I know I used to do that occasionally as a kid. Even now sometimes in small doses, like flaming teammates in online games despite knowing that they're not actually trolling.

Nature cannot have selected for a drive to not reproduce. — Kenosha Kid

It is not a drive not to reproduce. We have a drive to reproduce. And a drive to empathise, or to not do harm or whatever you wanna call it. I am arguing that that drive to empathise is what is behind AN. The couple that chooses not to have a disabled kid despite being able to afford it are not doing so because of a drive not to reproduce but because of a drive to empathise. And they are not doing so out of practical scarcity as you claim.

This drive to empathise extends to people who don't yet exist. Which is why I bet you would find someone who genetically modifies their child to be blind despite them having been fine otherwise because "I want a blind child" disgusting. Our capacity to empathise can be projected into the future, for better or worse (I think better), and that is what leads to AN.

The above is tantamount to saying that because a starving person has diminished responsibility, we should see everyone stealing food whether they're starving or just peckish. — Kenosha Kid

What do you do when peckish people insist they are starving? Maybe in that case it's not too hard to disprove. But what do you do when the lawyer uses that insistence to claim madness?

I don't think we're diametrically opposed or anything. I think we are just on different points in a spectrum of moral culpability. I think people have their capacities intact most of the time, and when they don't I think people that treat others unfairly relinquish their right to be treated fairly. That's perhaps where we disagree.

The psychopath did not think about the guy he killed, so I won't think about the psychopath. And the psychopath has no moral ground to stand on to claim I should do otherwise. Same with the starving man. I think forgiveness is a virtue, not a necessity. One I try to have as much as often but I don't think I can forgive a psychopath who kills someone close to me. I don't know if I really want to. There must be SOME reason nature selected for the "revenge instinct" right? Maybe it's just an artifact in the modern world. Sounds like a new OP.

In a sense though, your view seems somewhat self-defeating now that I think about it. We know people have an instinct to take revenge. So when a psychopath kills someone out of not being able to understand that his actions are wrong, why is he excused, while if we can agree to execute said psychopath because we do not have our full faculties at our disposal (due to aforementioned desire for revenge) we cannot be excused? If you take this desire for revenge into account, then it seems that your view is practically no different from mine. I am not morally culpable in wanting the psychopath dead (holding him morally culpable) because I do not have my full faculties at the time.

For the actor to intend them not to be harmed, they would have to be mentally deficient enough to not consider that the lesson was more lethal than that which the subject might expect to face. — Kenosha Kid

But it is not any more lethal. What if the kidnapper believes that a man's worth is measured by their ability to survive in the wild and therefore if you die there he didn't kill anyone because you are not a man. Or some other such insane notion. Is he now blameless?

Or does the above cover it? — Kenosha Kid

It does.

It seems such a stupid idea, either the person involved is a moral idiot, or they emerge from a stupid culture I'd rather see perish. — Kenosha Kid

Either way, blameless though, right? Damn I don't know what to do with that. I think you might just be a non-starter for me. I don't think you can ever say anyone did anything wrong with your system.

But if he pushed a child of a cliff to enjoy the sound of her screams... There we might have common ground on. There is no perceived need — Kenosha Kid

The line between a need and a want is very very blurry. It is not clear he did not have a need. A good enough lawyer can drum one up. Which is why I'd be terrified if your system was more widely adopted.

Oh I see. That's not too mysterious. If you can make a rational decision, then you are not that desperate. For instance, if you are starving but think, "No, I shouldn't steal that load in case my victim also starves to death" than you are clearly capable of rational decision making. That's admirable, but it doesn't follow that every starving person is in the same state. — Kenosha Kid

So in the case of food, we show an ability to emphasize and therefore we do not steal other people's food so they don't starve since we don't need it ourselves. But when I propose that similar reasoning is being employed in the case of birth, you insist that no, we do not have any drives there. That makes no sense. If we truly couldn't care less about the state of the child after they were born. If that were truly not a factor at all, as you claim, then couples should not care at all about genetic counseling results. But they do. Showing that there is, in fact, a natural instinct behind AN.

Yours is quite old school, in which if you broke the law you're immoral and that's that. — Kenosha Kid

Not exactly the law but I get what you're saying.

Anyways I don't think this is going anywhere anymore and will likely fizzle out. I don't think I can talk about AN with a guy that thinks ritualistic sacrifice is blameless and having chidlren with severe handicaps is ok. The only outstanding point we may reach a consensus on is whether or not AN has a natural instinct behind it. I made my case here.

For my view: I recognize the psychopath may have not known any better when he killed the guy trying to report him. I recognize there is no moral ground on which I can stand on to claim that he should be imprisoned or executed. I still think he should be imprisoned or executed. You attempt to "meet people at their level" both in the principles involved and in the reaction to those principles. As in, in the absence of shared moral premises, no one can be blamed, and no one should be punished. I don't think so. I am fully aware that the psychopath would see this as an injustice and I don't care. Tribal? Barbaric? Unjust? Maybe.

Anyways I'm going to bed now.

@Isaac Observe how I stopped upon finding premises we don't agree on.

If my intention was that they be eaten by a predator, then it is not accidental if they are eaten by a predator. — Kenosha Kid

What if your intention was to teach them survival. No they are not you dependents nor is there any reason to do so, but your intention is not malicious, you never intended for them to get harmed. Now what? Is it wrong or not?

If my intent was to save their life before the plane crashed, then the plane landed safely and that person was eaten by a predator, it is extremely unfortunate but I would not consider myself *morally* culpable. My actions were morally sound (save the life of this person by removing them from *this* harm) even if the outcomes were far from ideal. — Kenosha Kid

Sure no one is disagreeing there. You took them from a position where they were definitely dead to a position where they might still be dead. That's good. But what if your intent was never to harm, but you put them in harm's way anyways (as in in a position that is worse that the one they were in). Does that make it acceptable?

See above: it is! ;) — Kenosha Kid

That should be based on scientific evidence. — Kenosha Kid

I was referring to the couples that don't have children after learning that they are likely to have a severe genetic illness. Even if they can afford to care for them. How do you explain that behavior?

If such an event occurred in my society, that's who I'd point the finger at, since their behaviour is antisocial through choice, not through desperation. — Kenosha Kid

But if they're psychopaths, which many are, then they're not culpable per your own words... So now what? Are they no longer doing anything wrong?

It is irrational to understand that, in their shoes, you would have likely done the same and at the same time say they were wrong. — Kenosha Kid

There is no contradiction there so there is nothing irrational about it. I am not a perfect being. I do wrong things. That doesn't make the wrong things not wrong. I don't see why you want to join the ideal that is morality with the reality. If you want to say that arguing about ideals is impractical, people will still have kids, and starving people will still steal, sure, I don't really care though. I am talking about it because it's fun to talk about is all.

What I can't be morally culpable for is unforeseeable events — Kenosha Kid

And your child suffering is an "unforseeable event"? Seems pretty forseeable to me. Sure you can't forsee exactly what form of suffering awaits but you know in all likelihood some form does. And that's never stopped things from being wrong.

Is dumping someone in a jungle full of predators in their sleep wrong? I think we can agree it is, even though we can't predict if they'll be eaten by a lion, a hyena or a leopard, or if they will survive. Simply subjecting someone to a risk requires some justificaiton normally. What would be that justification in the case of children?

Can you give an example of a 100% certain debilitating disease? — Kenosha Kid

If both parents have a hereditary genetic disease their child will have a hereditary genetic disease. You would have to rely on a mutation for that not to happen so fine, it's not 100%, but maybe 99%

This isn't about general belief. There is no natural reason to become a Christian. There are *cultural* reasons. However there are natural reasons to adopt some of Mr. Christ's arguments, insofar as they accord with the specific drives and capacities that nature has selected for us to make us social, and in turn moral. — Kenosha Kid

So a "natural reason" would be if I adopt a belief because I have a specific drive that nature selected for me to make me social and in turn moral.

And I am claiming that there is a specific drive coded within us to be able to project into the future and not subject someone to harm. For example, couples that don't have children upon being informed that they have hidden genes which could result in debilitating illnesses. How do you explain that behavior? It is not scarcity that is making them not have the child there. So I think it is reasonable to claim that we have this instinct. Giving a natrual reason to adopt AN.

As for humans, the biological reasons for reduced fertility are sufficient. — Kenosha Kid

See above. It is not.

Childlessness itself can be a form of suffering and, just as I would perfectly understand why a starving man would steal a loaf of bread, I would perfectly understand why a childless person in poverty would have a child. — Kenosha Kid

But if the starving man produces another starving man by stealing said loaf of bread I think we can agree the starving man (original) is wrong. Understandble? Yes. I might (probably, actually) even have done the same thing. But still wrong.

I am not saying that having children is not understandable. I am saying it is immoral.

but because there are ample circumstances in which the selfish need is overwhelming to the detriment of both reason and sociality. — Kenosha Kid

Sure. We call those cases moral failures. I did not say that they do not deserve empathy or that they should be punished for it. We are debating purely on a moral level here, not on the level of what people actually end up doing. For all my talk of ethics I do wrong things sometimes. However, when I do something wrong but understandable, it is still wrong.

Maybe it's more like you enjoy just focusing on something without having to worry about future plans or past events. That's been the case in my experience.

What do you mean "it works". What would it not working look like? — Isaac

Not matching my moral intuitions. So if it leads to shooting people being right for example.

You are - frequently...

The majority seem to think it is
— khaled

the public think it is a moral theory
— khaled

everyone here except you considers antinatalism a moral theory.
— khaled

everyone here (the public) thinks it does. You're the one that has to explain that.
— khaled

Whatever your positions is it results in “Antinatalism is a moral theory” computing to false which makes it very much not standard as demonstrated by the number of antinatalism posts on this site under the category “ethics”.
— khaled

...come on! — Isaac

Each and every single one of those is talking about whether or not antinatalism is a moral theory. I have never made an ad populum argument FOR antinatlaism, only for it being a moral theory. I have never said something along the lines of "everyone agrees that having kids is wrong" because that is just false. And when I have made similar claims it was only in response to people who define what is moral by what is widely accepted. Every quote there is me telling you that the "public meaning" of moral theory clearly includes antinatalism and that it is on you to explain why you're using the word differently.

Right. That's literally all I'm arguing here. Your maxim is not a moral one. It's just a thing you want to achieve - an objective - for...seemingly...no reason at all. — Isaac

An objective that I want to achieve for its own sake is a moral maxim. That is what I find the public meaning of "moral maxim" to be and what most people here also seem to find it to be. No one so far has agreed with you that AN is not a moral theory. And at least one (KenoshaKid) has stated unambiguously that you can make an ethic about anything which agrees with my definition. You may disagree with my definition of the public meaning, but you cannot pretend that the public meaning does not include AN as a moral theory, because it does.

What I know for a fact is that "A moral maxim is one which creates a harmonious community" is NOT the public meaning of moral maxim because it is literally just you insisting that it is. Demonstrably, everyone here agrees that AN is a moral theory, showing that the public meaning of moral theory does NOT require its application to create a harmonious community so your definition is wrong.

It really doesn't sound like it. are you not familiar with the meaning of the word 'stop'? — Isaac

Every single time I have talked with you we reached a point where you resort to "The survival of the human race is a good in itself" or another maxim that I disagree with and I stop there. The reason I am not stopping now is because you are making a completely ridiculous claim that "antinatalism" does not fall under "moral theory" by virtue of people supposedly not referring to antinatalism as a moral theory, but that is demonstrably false, yet you hold onto the claim for no reason.

No this is not all you're saying. — Isaac

False.

Your claim requires the additional feature that these naturalistic reasons are sufficiently wide to derive absolutely any maxim whatsoever. — Isaac

The naturalistic reasons ARE sufficiently wide to derive absolutely any maxim whatsoever. Someone crazy enough might think that it is wrong to wear socks on christmas. However such a belief will likely not be adopted on a societal level because it is useless.

I'm arguing that "do not risk harm where consent is impossible to obtain no matter what the consequences" is not a moral claim by definition. "Risk no harm to others where you cannot obtain their consent", however, is a moral claim — Isaac

What makes the first not a moral claim and the latter a moral claim? Because you are the only one making a distinction here. Which suggests you're misuing the word "moral claim". And I've shown how your "definition" is inadequate, because no one else is using it.

As above "do not risk harm where consent is impossible to obtain no matter what the consequences". Morality is about people. — Isaac

And not risking harm is not about people? What would "do not risk harm" in the absence of people even mean? Don't be ridiculous. Or are you suggesting that if the act that does harm is taken before the person harmed exists that that somehow makes the act ok?

I doubt you'd get a single person to agree that reducing the number of bananas in the world is a moral imperative, or ensuring that there's no electricity, or no number 7 — Isaac

Agreed. But I also doubt that you can get a single person to agree that "We are morally obligated to reduce the number of bananas" is NOT a valid moral claim, though a ridiculous one. Yet you are attempting to redifine what "moral claim" means by referring to the public use of the word even though you are literally the only one going against the public use which I find funny.

There is a distinction between whether or not something is a moral claim and whether or not you agree with it. "We are morally obligated to reduce the number of bananas" is a moral claim. But not one I think anyone will agree with. "You shouldn't have kids" is a moral claim (as much as you'd like it not to be, everyone here agrees it is), but one most don't agree with. That's what I'm saying.

But taking the further-fetched scenario for the sake of argument, yes I would agree. It would, if the disease were certain and debilitating, not be accidental if the child then had a debilitating disease. I would inevitably find myself responsible for its suffering after it suffered.

But since this is a fanciful scenario, I wouldn't worry about it. — Kenosha Kid

Damn. Ok let me ask you this. Is pointing a gun at innocent people and pulling three trigger for recreation wrong? After all, the gun might jam, so:

One can't generally know, so we can't generalise from this. Not knowing the future is part of what makes “shooting people is wrong” so wonky, since it is preoccupied with current moral culpability for potential future events one is not responsible for. After all, we don’t control whether or not the gun jams so we’re not responsible right? — Kenosha Kid

I just don’t understand how you can seriously require 100% knowledge of the future for an action to be wrong. It is a demonstrably ridiculous requirement. Nothing can ever be wrong with it.

Also this is not a fanciful scenario. Genetic counseling is a thing and you can easily know the likelihood of your child having this or that genetic disease. A lot of times you can be certain.

I would be surprised if people genuinely did judge such parents thus in practice, rather than in some theoretical moral playground — Kenosha Kid

I would be surprised if they didn’t. I’d be outraged if I heard someone I knew had a child knowing they have a high chance of having a severely debilitating disease. And I know I’m not the only one who would react that way.

It didn't. It is neither natural nor supernatural. It is simply mistaken. — Kenosha Kid

Sorry but this is just word salad. It didn’t? Antinatalism is not a belief? Wot?

Still, what is a “natural reason” to adopt a belief. I am still waiting on an answer to that question. What would be the natural reason to adopt utilitarianism as an example?

But I was addressing your point that people in poverty in poor countries have fewer children, which is true — Kenosha Kid

Correct. But not purely because of impracticality but because of a genuine desire not to cause suffering as well. That’s what I’m getting at. There is a moral instinct behind AN. Maybe one you don’t share from reading your comments but one that is definitely not unpopular seeing as how everyone here except you agrees that having children in poverty or with a severe illness is wrong.

Sorry to hear about your parents though good thing you’re pissing them off

Anyone who has a duty to alleviate that suffering. — Echarmion

But causing it in the first place is fine? Why? And why is it fine sometimes and not fine in others?

Using predictability seems problematic, because I don't see a clear way to draw the line between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" predictions — Echarmion

Sure. And that’s where lawyers come in.

Rather, the risk is accepted as a necessary part of vehicular traffic. — Echarmion

Exactly. Which is why we send people to jail if they drive without a license. We deem that at their skill level the risk of an accident is not an acceptable trade off for them going to work on time.

And this means that a moral approach that focuses on avoiding the risk of harm must always deal with this normative element somehow. An argument that goes "behaviour X risks suffering of Y magnitude and should therefore be avoided" is incomplete. — Echarmion

I don’t see this as very weird though. That we find different risks morally acceptable is normal. We make laws out of the ones we agree on. Generally speaking though, if X * Y is greater than the suffering alleviated from the person committing the act then the act is wrong. We can debate how big X and Y are in each case, but more often than not it’s clear which is greater (X*Y or the suffering alleviated from the actor)

Lots of actions have a risk of suffering attached. What matters is how good your reasons are. — Echarmion

Exactly. And the reasons aren’t good enough for me. If you discard “the benefit of mankind” I don’t see how you can possibly argue that they are.

But we have things like mandatory school attendance, so forcing people to do something for their own benefit isn't exactly unheard of. One can debate under what circumstances, if any, this is ok, but it's not prima facie absurd. — Echarmion

Sure. I would say dependents are special. Because it is the job of the parent to make sure they suffer as little as possible, since they’re the ones the brought them here. And so they’re allowed to force them to do things for their benefit.

But what I was getting at was forcing people to do things that YOU like, without knowing whether or not they will. In the example I assume the person tied up is not your dependent and you do not know if they’ll like the game or not. Sure, they may end up enjoying it, but we don’t just take that risk with people who are not our dependents. Ever. And even with dependents we are very careful.

And you cannot argue in the case of having children that existing is good for the non-existent potential child (because they don’t exist!). So you are taking a gamble, like with the tying up example. Sure the game is pretty good and has few complaints, but is that a good enough reason to force people to play it? Not unless you want to bring in the survival of mankind as a good in itself I don’t think you can argue it is.

But what you absolutely cannot say in both cases is “This is not an imposition because they can just kill themselves if they don’t like it”.

My approach though would be to look at the duties the parents accept if they wish to have children and then see if the likely circumstances are conductive of those duties. — Echarmion

And what would those be? The duties.

And I never get why people are always willing to claim that having children is wrong sometimes but never actually go into detail on when. It happens every time around here.

How about having a child knowing they will have a severely debilitating disease. If we can’t even agree that’s wrong then you’re a non-starter for me. I would ask you what on earth could justify causing that much suffering.

One of the interesting things for me about this conversation is that I am someone who made an ethical decision not to have children :rofl: — Kenosha Kid

How so?

But there's no route from that to "You should never have children". — Kenosha Kid

Sure because there are many ways to explain that scenario being unethical that do not require you to generalize to having children being unethical. Like: Treating children as tools is wrong. Which still leaves room for having kids being ethical.

That is true but not for the unborn child's benefit. Not even for others' benefit, which, given that we do not have children for others, makes it a non-moral concern. — Kenosha Kid

Sure.

We reduce the number of children we have during scarcity because the personal cost of having more is not outweighed by an increased survival benefit of our genome. It is more akin to choosing not to pay $10 for a cookie even though you really want a cookie. — Kenosha Kid

But false. This is clearly not the only reason. Everyone here except you so far has agreed that having children in extreme poverty is unethical not just impractical. The reason people don’t have kids they can’t afford is not simply impracticality but also a sense of responsibility not to subject someone to “too much suffering”. Now the question becomes how much is “too much”? So it is clearly the case that we have a naturalistic reason to believe in antinatalism (again, I don’t know what a supernaturalistic reason would be) since we find having children in extreme poverty morally wrong. There is a moral instinct behind it.

I never said it was supernatural. — Kenosha Kid

But you said it is “not natural”. So how did it come about?

do you just unquestioningly follow every whim that pops into your head? If no, then why follow this particular one? — Isaac

Because it works everywhere else and I don't like making exceptions for something because it is "natural".

invalidates the ad populum argument. — Isaac

I am not making an ad populaum argument.

On the one hand you want to say "harm is bad - everyone agrees with that" — Isaac

I never said this. I said "harm is bad - we can agree on that". As in you and me. And we can reason from there. So I am not, in fact, lending popular weight to my argument at all. That would be stupid seeing as how unpopular antinatalism is.

But the point is that with the caveats your maxim is not at all what people commonly consider 'moral' or 'right'. — Isaac

Agreed which is why I don't go around spreading it. I reason with someone from some premises we can agree on. Upon reaching a premise or caveat we do not agree on, I stop. Because I am not interested in changing people's moral view over the internet, just what those views are.

in the same paragraph you try to pretend we've no shared ideas of right and wrong and it's all just arbitrary. — Isaac

Wrong. I am saying that our shared ideas of right and wrong are arbitrary. Again, arbitrary =/= there is no natrualistic reason we believe them.

I'm not arguing that all of antinatalism is not a moral claim. — Isaac

Sounded like you were. But antinatalism does not lead to a flourishing community so how come it is a moral claim by your definition? What makes a "moral claim" exactly for you because you seem to me to be hedging.

I'm arguing specifically that the maxim used here as an axiom leading to antinatalism is not a moral one. — Isaac

Which one would that be exactly just so we're on the same page. Consent? Asymmetry? Not causing unwarranted harm? Something else? All of those seem like moral claims to me, and I suspect everyone here except you (not that I agree with all of them being valid).

Notwithstanding that, you've still not answered the charge of there being no reason to follow the maxim. — Isaac

Agreed. I keep saying this. Moral premises are arbitrary. The only reason you see this as a "charge" is because you believe I'm trying to sell the belief no matter how many times I tell you I'm not and I don't understand why. All I'm trying to establish is that there is nothing wrong with the belief. That it is internally consistent. And that is the best you're gonna get (this is more meta-ethical and likely needs its own OP).

But it absolutely evidently does not. Surgery being the obvious example where causing harm does not make things worse than not causing harm. Which is why you have to go through all these additional caveats and addendums to make your position fit your pre-determined conclusion. — Isaac

There is a difference between harm and unjustified harm. I don't wanna get into it again unless you want me to. And you've summarized the position well already so you know what I mean. I don't see a reason to do the same song and dance again. We've gone over surgery before I think.

Yeah...bullshit. That sort of thing might carry elsewhere, but not here. "I'm just mentioning that I find your behaviour disgusting out of idle interest, I don't mean to influence you in any way by such a choice of words...". Sorry, but that's just disingenuous. — Isaac

I assure you it is not. But you're free to believe what you want. Echarimon for example didn't seem to take it personally:

Sure. I don't think so though. And I find that justification disgusting.
— khaled

I think that disgust has a lot to do with the disagreement we have. Can you elaborate on what you find disgusting? — Echarmion

A philosophy forum seems PRECISELY the place where once can say things like that genuinely. If someone says "I find vanilla ice cream disgusting" do you think they trying to convince you of the merits of chocolate ice cream? No, so why are you doing that here.

'Faux', as in an affectation. — Isaac

If you're just gonna keep saying I'm being disingenuous go ahead but I see no reason to continue the discussion if that's your argument. You seem already set to believe I am trying to spread an ideology no matter what I say or do.

You completely dodged all of what I said about antinatalism being a moral claim though. Is it or is it not? The majority seem to think it is, you think it is not. Furthermore, you think the public meaning of morality does not allow it to be, (even though the public think it is a moral theory). Why? Or did you give up on that demonstrably false claim?

The argument there wasn't about the label, it was about the objective — Isaac

The objective is not to reduce harm. The objective is to not cause unwarranted harm. The reason you do not cause harm is because causing harm makes things worse than not causing harm.

Simply claiming something is a moral theory does not make it one. — Isaac

Agreed. But everyone claiming that something is a moral theory does make it one. And that is what is happening. Everyone agrees that antinatalism is a moral theory. Some disagree with it, but even they recognize it is a moral theory. But it is only you that thinks it is not a moral theory in the first place. So you are misusing the word, by your standard.

you keep avoiding the private language angle here. I can go through the argument if you're not familiar with it. — Isaac

I think I am and I don't think I'm avoiding anything. I have not proposed private language. It is just the case that the public meaning of "moral theory" clearly includes antinatalism. You think it doesn't, even though everyone here (the public) thinks it does. You're the one that has to explain that.

It does not eliminate maxims which are not considered 'moral' by anyone. — Isaac

They are clearly considered "moral" by the group proposing them as moral, and maybe others. And it happens to be the case that everyone here except you considers antinatalism a moral theory.

You regularly invoke such emotive judgement s as 'disgusting' to lend weight to your position. — Isaac

Wrong. I always say "I find that disgusting". I make sure to always include the "I find that", specifically so that people don't say what you're saying here. If you are emotionally affected by my opinion that's on you not me. And since when is emotive judgement a basis for a moral argument anyways?

Regardless of your protestations to the contrary, you are both expecting a common sense of right and wrong which you are appealing to to carry your arguments. — Isaac

I'm not. I repeatedly said that I know people here have different moral premises. That is why I don't go around pushing the belief. That would be a waste of time.

It's only when your position is shown to be contrary to them that you resort to some faux claim of the arbitrariness of moral axioms. — Isaac

Wrong. I always resort to the claim that moral axioms are arbitrary. Find me a quote where I did not.

Again arbitrary =/= there are no natural causes for them. It means there is no objective metric by which we can judge one to be better than the other. However some are clearly more suited for creating thriving communities, and so those become popular by evolution.

based not on moral considerations but on personal entitlement — Kenosha Kid

It could be. Even then it would be a moral theory though.

But it has nothing to do with how we treat others in our society, and therefore nothing it presents as a problem is a moral consideration. — Kenosha Kid

False. We can agree there are cases where having children is wrong. Like severe poverty for example. Antinatalism is an expansion of that. Having kids is entirely free of moral considerations? Stop being ridiculous.

First, creating a person that might one day be harmed is not the same as harming that person. — Kenosha Kid

Agreed. Both can be wrong though. As I said, we already find having kids wrong in some scenarios.

Second, if a person does not currently exist, one cannot behave immorally toward them. — Kenosha Kid

Why is it wrong to have children in extreme poverty then? Note, I’m not disagreeing with this claim, I’m just asking how you would explain with it why having children in poverty is wrong. Because I don’t want to waste time trying to find the metaphysical setup you find acceptable

My definition of what morality really is is based on what capacities and impulses we have as a species to behave socially — Kenosha Kid

We have a capacity and impulse NOT to have children in extreme poverty. And furthermore we find having children in those scenarios wrong. Now it’s just a matter of determining what the acceptable conditions are for having children.

Again, antinatalism isn’t some wacky supernatural belief as much as you’d like it to be. There are real, natural, moral instincts behind it. But you don’t want to even give it a real chance so you chalk it all up to entitlement. You sound like you’re just arguing in bad faith.


And you haven’t even explained what you mean by “natural reason” yet. Still waiting on that. What would be the natural reason to adopt utilitarianism?

Reduction of harm makes absolutely no sense whatsoever unless there is someone to benefit from that reduction. — Isaac

Agreed. Which is why antinatalists don’t see not having children as a good thing (most don’t). They see having children as a bad thing. The latter does not imply the former.

my position is pretty much the standard one in ethics. — Isaac

Whatever your positions is it results in “Antinatalism is a moral theory” computing to false which makes it very much not standard as demonstrated by the number of antinatalism posts on this site under the category “ethics”.

So something else must be added; for example, that the code can be understood to involve a certain kind of impartiality, or that it can be understood as having the function of making it possible for people to live together in groups.

And I already proposed that the extra thing is that the instruction has not ulterior practical motive. You may disagree with that, that’s fine, but “makes it possible for people to live together” is demonstrably not standard as, again, you’re the only guy here trying to say that AN is not an ethical position. I’m still curious what this “public” from which you get your consensus on the definition is, because it’s definitely not the members of this site.

The bases by which a moral proposition can be well- or ill-grounded are not just those "we have going on at the moment". — Kenosha Kid

Agreed but that’s not what I’m saying. All I’m saying is that moral propositions remain moral propositions no matter how well or ill grounded they are. That’s it.

So antinatalism is a perfectly coherent false moral claim. But it is not a claim about what morality is. — Kenosha Kid

I don’t get the purpose of the second sentence there, seems to be included in the first the way you use it. But all I wanted to get at was “antinatalism is a coherent moral claim”. I’m not going to try to convince you of it.

In this sense, the shoelace question is not a moral consideration: it has nothing to do with our social biology. However, "One ought to wear black shoelaces to the market", as espoused by the elder, is a moral claim in the sense that it is a claim about what our morality should be, even if it has nothing to do with what our morality is. — Kenosha Kid

I think you're conflating "morality" in general and the specific morality we have going on at the moment in particular. Point is you can't walk up to that elder and say "You are not making a moral claim". He is. It is just a very stupid one (he would beg to differ but I wouldn't care). Which is why I don't see where the whole social biology thing plays in.

The society and biology determine which moral positions become most prevalent. However they do not determine what is or what is not a moral claim. As you said:

You can make an ethic of what you like — Kenosha Kid

Moral claims that don't match the majority do not lose their status as moral claims.

I think Isaac's view was similar to mine. — Kenosha Kid

I don't think so. He clearly and unambiguously said that the antinatalist claim is not a moral claim as far as I understand.

Fine. Give me the natural reason to adopt the ethic: — Kenosha Kid

I can't do that for ANY ethic. Because I can't account for all the neurological, biological, social and personal factors that lead to the adoption of a belief. But I know for a fact that my antinatalist belief is not supernatural in the least. It was not a whisper from Cthulhu.

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "natural reason". What is the "natural reason" to adopt good ol utilitarianism for example.

It is wrong to eat sherbet on a Wednesday — Kenosha Kid

There are religions with similarly ridiculous ethics. Even in christianity there was something against wearing two different fibers or something if I remember correctly. What's the natural reason behind that?

You can make an ethic of what you like — Kenosha Kid

Agreed. @Isaac so it's literally just you trying to say that antinatalism is not a moral theory. You're the one disagreeing with the public meaning (misusing the word) here, not me. So I ask: Where did you get your definition from?

These have in common the fact that there's no natural reason to accept them. — Kenosha Kid

What do you mean "no natrual reason to accept them"? So antinatalists are getting misguided by some supernatural means? No, there are clearly natural reasons to accept them. I think I'd remember if Satan messed with my head.

There's no private meanings to words, only public ones. — Isaac

Sigh. We agree these public meanings have a range of error and that they can be used incorrectly. And I think that my definition of a moral premise perfectly fall within that range. At least one other guy here thinks so:

I believe anti-natalism is an ethical position — Joshs

Heck, I would say most people think so. You and KenoshaKid (I think) are the only two trying to say that antinatalism isn't a moral theory. If you're going to refer to the "public meaning" it seems that the majority seem to disagree with you so which "public" exactly are you talking about?

What? You're seriously arguing there's no definition of the word? — Isaac

Clearly not. But I've given you my defintion already. You then ask me "where I got it from". I don't know how to answer that question. Where did you get yours from? Just so I would know what you find to be an acceptable answer.

I thought we agreed words have a range of acceptable meanings. I think a moral premise defined as "What you should do" is a perfectly reasonable definition.

Let me know if you believe Ratcliffe, one of
the leading researchers on affect, should be considered an authority on depression. — Joshs

I didn't disagree with your explanation, it's just that 2 sentences don't cover depression.

Decision is what this discussion is all about, making a decision to conceive or not to conceive for the sake of preventing suffering in another. But that decision depends on an earlier decision concerning the meaning of terms like suffering, pleasure, value and morality. — Joshs

Agreed. I'm pointing out though that it is very clear we have very different pleasure-pain risk formulas when concerning others. For ourselves, we have no moral qualms about taking any risks whatsover, however for others we generally need a justification to take ANY unjustified risk and I've given examples of this (forcing people to donate to charity was one). That justification is what would be required in the case of procreation but is not present, or so the argument goes. So:

If you want a refutation of the logic behind your formula
of the risk versus reward calculus, you won’t get one. — Joshs

Ok at least we have that down. If the logic works then your disagreement must be with the premises but which ones? Maybe you can give a reason having children should be justified. Or in other words challenge the premise that that justification is not present. Or otherwise challenge the premise that we need a justification to take risks with others (I think this is the way less reasonable route though some have tried). Take your pick.

but because I dispute the assumption that the sense of the terms ‘suffering’, ‘pleasure’, ‘good lives’ ‘harm’, etc can be kept stable enough , long enough for reliable interpersonal agreement — Joshs

Let me challenge that idea.

Is malicious genetic engineering wrong? And by that I mean genetically engineering an otherwise healthy child to be blind and deaf for example. I think we can agree it is. If so why? How do you explain it without using these "unstable" concepts?

Heck, why is having a child in severe poverty wrong? Without using the "unstable" concepts of course.

Thus, forming a moral precept is an empirical endeavor. — Joshs

Non sequitor but ok.

It seems to me that the disagreements that will form between various forms of anti-natalism and various natalisms will be the result of different personal experiences. — Joshs

Agreed. (Duh what else could it be?)

are more like Schopenhauer1 in extrapolating from their own painful lives in order to form their anti-nataliat stance. — Joshs

I don't remember when Schope talked about his personal life here but I might have just missed it. Sadly though you are right about that. Most "antinatalists" are just depressed edgy teens who can't actually argue for the position coherently.

How we experience our own suffering plays a central
role in our position on this issue. — Joshs

Disagree. How we experience our own suffering has nothing to do with how others experience theirs, so nothing to do with whether or not we get permission to subject them to suffering. No matter how much meaning I find in donating to charity for example, it is still wrong for me to go around forcing people to donate. In the same way, no matter how much meaning I find in my life it is still wrong to have child knowing they might not find any in theirs despite my best efforts. That is the argument that you have yet to attempt to address.

The claim for antinatalism is NOT that life is terrible and miserable so we shouldn't have kids. It's that life COULD BE terrible and miserable despite our best efforts so we shouldn't have kids. The principle here is NOT that since there are risks that things go wrong that we should not take risks at all (that's impossible), it is that since there are risks that things go wrong, we should not take the risk for someone else. Unless they tell us to.

The same is true of deciding to conceive. At certain. times in our lives , the prospect of bringing children into the world may seem cruel to the child for any number of reasons, and at another point , it appears justified. — Joshs

How exactly? What justifies it? Where is this arbitrary point at which we say "no this is too risky"? And why is it that you get to decide it when you're not the one taking the risk?

Those who are failing to adapt stop having children, while other groups who are succeeding become fertile and multiply. — Joshs

In general yes. I'm waiting for an actual rebuttal to the position though instead of a poor lecture on how "the antinatalist movement" came about and an even poorer explanation of what depression is.

This was a very disappointing read. I kept expecting you to actually argue against the position, but instead all you said was basically "Most antinatalists are depressed, you might change your mind in the future, and our ethical positions are a result of our experiences". Agreed. Now, are you actually going to argue against the position or not?

Same way any other moral theory would work under a moral anti-realist position. By recognizing that it relies on ultimately unjustified premises. But so do all the alternatives so that's not saying much.

what do you mean when you say that most antinatalists here aren’t moral objectivists? This to me seems a little bit strange if true — Albero

I said most antinatalists on this site are not moral objectivists. In general I suspect most are moral objectivists. Heck, I don't think I've run into a moral objectivist on this site now that I think about it. Which makes sense because moral objectivists don't debate morality, they already know all the answers after all.

Can you elaborate on what you find disgusting? — Echarmion

The idea that "mankind" and other such concepts should be favored over a single human's actual concrete suffering. Things like "For the country" "For mankind", etc always rubbed me the wrong way. If you can't point me to a person getting harmed, then I couldn't care less about "the country being harmed" or "going against mankind's interests".

Your test also fails the car example though, doesn't it? Had the car not been around, there would not have been an accident. — Echarmion

It does. I should go into more detail. The test is more like "Had X not been around would Y have still suffered and if not could X have predicted this?". If the answer is yes then it's not X's responsibility to help. If the answer is no-no then again, not X's responsibility. You have to judge people actions based on the info they had at the time. There are other rules but I don't want to overcomplicate things for now.

Had the driver known that he was going to run over a kid by speeding out of town, then he is responsible. However, he did not know that. Furthermore, it is just as likely that that child would have ran behind the parked car 10 minutes later, meaning if the driver did NOT speed up out of town he would have ran him over.

In other words: At no point did the driver commit an act he could reasonably predict would harm someone, as speeding out of town and NOT speeding out of town have a basically equal chance of causing an accident as far as the driver can predict.

the necessary flipside of happyness. One never exists without the other, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. — Echarmion

Agreed. But from where comes the justification to create happiness at the risk of suffering for others? No matter how much I like a videogame for example, I can't go around taping people to chairs and forcing them to play it. And I definitely can't justify it by giving all these people a button they can press to instantly kill themselves then saying "I'm not even forcing them to do anything, if they don't like it they can just kill themselves. The pleasure and suffering are two sides of the same coin". I find it apphaling how often I hear that as a legitimate argument by otherwise rational people. Heck with life, you don't even get the "quit button" and have to make your own.

You still haven't answered my question though.

we can agree that there are situations where it IS wrong to have children. Severe poverty for one. So it's not like I'm proposing anything new here. What makes having a child in severe poverty wrong? — khaled

For example, one might argue providing the future with capable humans justified the associated risks. — Echarmion

Sure. I don't think so though. And I find that justification disgusting.

Noone is responsible for someone else's suffering and pleasure in toto. Such a responsibility would have to come with absolute authority over the other person, which should never be the case — Echarmion

Not in total, sure. If a kid runs into a wall like an idiot despite their parents warning them that running around like that will hurt, that's partly on the kid. However I think that parents are partially responsible for all their child's suffering.

My "test" for responsibility is: "Had X not been around would Y have still suffered". If yes then it's not X's responsibility to help Y. However in the case of children (being Y) the answer is always no (X being the parent), for every instance of suffering. That I find problematic.

But there is also a difference between causing something in the sense of the sine-qua-non ("it wouldn't have happened without you") and responsibility. Causality is far, far wider than responsibility. — Echarmion

Agreed. And we can get into the nitty gritty. But I doubt whatever configuration you choose will end up having the statement "You are responsible for your child's suffering and pleasure" be false. Or are you going to argue that parents are not responsible for their children?

If we can agree that they are, and we can also agree that there is a risk the child suffers disproportionately in their life despite the parent's best effort, what justifies that the parent taking the risk? We can agree that usually we would need some sort of justification when doing something that can risk harming others no?

Moreover I think we can agree that there are situations where it IS wrong to have children. Severe poverty for one. So it's not like I'm proposing anything new here. What makes having a child in severe poverty wrong?

Don’t you think you need to take into account who you CAUSE to suffer by trying to prevent it? — Joshs

Sure. Who suffers by not having kids? You could argue that the parents do, but that suffering is definitely less than the suffering the kids would have had to endure. So if literally everyone decided not to have kids tomorrow, then there would be a lot less suffering.

However it is most definitely the case that not everyone will decide not to have kids tomorrow, so trying to enforce the rule will backfire and cause more suffering.

How do you propose to embrace and improve life by stopping procreation if that leads to a disastrous decline in quality of life? — Joshs

Is it a decline? Let's say a person suffers X due to not having children and Y is all the suffering they experience otherwise

If they have children and then those children don't have children:
Total suffering: X * number of children + Y * (number of children + 1)

If they don't have children:
Total suffering: X + Y

If they have children and those children have children (ad infinium):
Total suffering: Infinity

There is literally no way 1 or 3 are less than 2. I am assuming that X and Y are similar for the parent and children.

Also if your only objection to Antinatlism is: "If we try it it won't work and will instead increase suffering"

First off, that's not an objection to the principle, that is an objection to enforcing the principle, and secondly would you be fine if I proposed a population decline model where we have just enough kids to ensure the quality of life remains the same until extinction?

No, if I find purpose in MY suffering , and know a great many other people in my life who share my view on the value of one’s OWN suffering, I will suspect there is a very good chance, although no guarantee, that you will also embrace your suffering in this way and be glad that you were born. Or you could become an anti-natalist. — Joshs

......

Kindly explain to me what becoming an antinatalist has to do with embracing my own suffering and finding meaning in my life. This is the most false false dichotomy I have seen in a while. I am glad I was born (the sentence makes no sense, what I really mean to say is "I find my life worthwhile") AND I am an antinatalist. Mindblowing.